The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers’ assessments

Abstract On-package graphics have the potential to influence consumers’ product-related attitudes and behaviours. In the reported study graphics designs on the labels of two products (water and vodka) were manipulated with respect to shape angularity, orientation, and left–right alignment. Participants’ evaluations indicated a preference for rounded shapes that could not be accounted for by differences in design typicality; and preference for upward shape orientation. An interaction between these response variables for ratings of purchase likelihood suggested that congruence between graphical and product form (droplet shape) may be advantageous. Effects of alignment were not consistent with existing theories, with right-aligned graphics being preferred. An explanation that distinguishes processing efficiency and hemispheric efficiency is proposed. Finally, as predicted, a halo effect was apparent, such that effects of aesthetic manipulations extended to ratings of product attributes that were not experienced. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

[1]  Natalia Vila,et al.  Consumer perceptions of product packaging , 2006 .

[2]  Katrin R. Harich,et al.  Brand equity: the halo effect measure , 1995 .

[3]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect Toward a Brand Name , 1990 .

[4]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[5]  Mariëlle E. H. Creusen,et al.  The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice , 2005 .

[6]  Pinya Silayoi,et al.  The Importance of Packaging Attributes: A Conjoint Analysis Approach , 2007 .

[7]  J. Aronoff,et al.  The recognition of threatening facial stimuli. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Lydia J. Price,et al.  The Impact of Self-Construal on Aesthetic Preference for Angular Versus Rounded Shapes , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[9]  Steve J. Westerman,et al.  Product Design: Preference for Rounded versus Angular Design Elements , 2012 .

[10]  Robert L. Underwood.  The Communicative Power of Product Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience , 2003 .

[11]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[12]  J. Beaumont.  Lateral organization and aesthetic preference: The importance of peripheral visual asymmetries , 1985, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  Tadasu Oyama,et al.  Similarities in form symbolism among various languages and geographical regions , 2008 .

[14]  C. Spence.  Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism , 2012 .

[15]  Robert L. Underwood,et al.  Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand , 2002 .

[16]  Priya Raghubir,et al.  Position-based beliefs: The center-stage effect , 2009 .

[17]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[18]  Jan P.L. Schoormans,et al.  The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation , 1997 .

[19]  John C. Mowen,et al.  Exploring Factors Influencing Logo Effectiveness: an Experimental Inquiry , 2005 .

[20]  Lester M. Hyman,et al.  Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. , 1992 .

[21]  Peter H. Bloch.  Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response: , 1995 .

[22]  Christine L Larson,et al.  The shape of threat: simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained capture of attention. , 2007, Emotion.

[23]  J. Russell.  Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. , 2003, Psychological review.

[24]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design , 2005 .

[25]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Role of input factors in visual-field asymmetries , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[26]  Julia Mueller,et al.  Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation , 2011 .

[27]  J. Levy.  Lateral dominance and aesthetic preference , 1976, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  E. Toms,et al.  The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  S. Christman,et al.  Lateral biases in aesthetic preferences: pictorial dimensions and neural mechanisms. , 1997, Laterality.

[30]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[31]  P. Winkielman,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind , 2022 .

[32]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[34]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[35]  Todd J. Arnold,et al.  Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement , 2003 .

[36]  Eran Zaidel,et al.  How brand names are special: brands, words, and hemispheres , 2002, Brain and Language.

[37]  Dirk Snelders,et al.  An exploratory study of the relation between concrete and abstract product attributes , 2004 .

[38]  C. Carbon.  The cycle of preference: long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[39]  Lianne van den Berg-Weitzel,et al.  Designing Packages that Communicate Product Attributes and Brand Values: An Exploratory Method , 2010 .

[40]  N. Tractinsky,et al.  What is beautiful is usable , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[41]  Thomas Johannes Lucas van Rompay,et al.  Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations , 2011 .

[42]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Emotional Valence Modulates the Preference for Curved Objects , 2011, Perception.

[43]  Flemming Hansen,et al.  Hemispheral Lateralization: Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior , 1981 .

[44]  David C. Zhu,et al.  Recognizing Threat: A Simple Geometric Shape Activates Neural Circuitry for Threat Detection , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  J. Hellige.  Hemispheric Asymmetry: What's Right and What's Left , 1993 .

[46]  Charles Spence,et al.  On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: Insights from online and laboratory-based testing , 2012 .

[47]  Curtis Hardyck,et al.  Cerebral asymmetries and experimental parameters: Real differences and imaginary variations? , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[48]  D. Berlyne.  Conflict, arousal, and curiosity , 2014 .

[49]  Ruth Rettie,et al.  The verbal and visual components of package design , 2000 .

[50]  P. Trott,et al.  Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities , 2010 .

[51]  M. Bar,et al.  Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[52]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[53]  Oya Demirbilek,et al.  Product design, semantics and emotional response , 2003, Ergonomics.

[54]  Ulrich R. Orth,et al.  Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions , 2008 .