The effect of package shape on consumers' judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant

A series of experiments examined how a container’s shape can bias judgments of product quantity. Packages that have shapes that are perceived as attracting more attention are also perceived to contain a greater volume of a product than same‐sized packages that attract less attention. The disparity in attention leads to “mental contamination” of the volume judgment. The bias holds for different sets of containers, for containers placed in different contexts, and for containers with contents varying in desirability. Habituation to an unusual container that attracts attention can reduce the effect, as can viewing containers with a disliked content.

[1]  Ingrid M. Martin,et al.  When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage , 1993 .

[2]  W. Banks,et al.  Discriminations among perceptual and symbolic stimuli , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[3]  Catherine A. Cole,et al.  Age differences in consumers' search for information: Public policy implications. , 1993 .

[4]  Robert E. Krider,et al.  Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons , 2001 .

[5]  Priya Raghubir,et al.  Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? , 1999 .

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

[7]  J. Wohlwill.  Children's responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: exploration time vs. preference. , 1975, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[8]  D. E. Berlyne,et al.  Novelty and attention: Controls for retinal adaptation and for stimulus-response specificity , 1971 .

[9]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[10]  K. Ann Renninger,et al.  Effect Of Interest On Attentional Shift, Recognition, And Recall In Young Children , 1985 .

[11]  T. Mussweiler.  Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. , 2003, Psychological review.

[12]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[13]  Adam Finn,et al.  Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective , 1988 .

[14]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[15]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information , 1984 .

[16]  J. E. Russo,et al.  An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables , 1994 .

[17]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  D. Wedell.  Contrast Effects in Paired Comparisons: Evidence for Both Stimulus-Based and Response-Based Processes , 1995 .

[20]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Knowledge Representation , 1998 .

[21]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  Category accessibility and impression formation , 1977 .

[22]  Richard L. Celsi,et al.  The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes , 1988 .

[23]  Kevin J. Hawley,et al.  Attention capture by novel stimuli. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Peter R. Dickson,et al.  The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers , 1990 .

[25]  R. Pieters,et al.  Visual attention during brand choice : The impact of time pressure and task motivation , 1999 .