UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
Master thesis
The influence of packaging attributes on customer purchase
intention through a developed attitude toward the package:
an example of cereals packaging design
Maria Fedoranyc
S3478491
b7080742
Supervisors: Dr Ana Javornik and Dr Bartjan J. W. Pennink
Degree programme: DD AIBM&M
ABSTRACT
The aim of this Master thesis is to investigate whether packaging visual attributes and their combination, particularly colour and graphic elements, influence a consumer’s purchase intention through a developed attitude toward the package. The author assumes that some aspects of packaging attributes are more attractive than others, which determines consumer’s attitude toward the package and consequently the willingness to purchase the product. The study was focused on packaging of cereals products as cereals have not received a sufficient research attention yet. This experiment-driven study was conducted by assigning participants into particular condition based on 2x2 factorial design. The data were collected from a sample of 147 respondents using a self-administrated questionnaire consisting of two parts. The results of this study provide useful insights into which packaging attributes create a consumer’s positive or negative attitude toward the package influencing the purchase intention. Furthermore, it stresses the importance for managers to carefully design packaging in order to receive a positive evaluation of the package attractiveness, to encourage customers willingness to purchase the product, and thus to enhance sales.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Master thesis was carried out during summer and fall 2018 at University of Groningen, the Netherlands and Newcastle University, the United Kingdom. I declare that it is an independent work and that all sources used in this study are clearly and correctly stated in the References part.
First, I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Ana Javornik and Dr Bartjan J. W. Pennink for their invaluable support, helpful advice and willingness to guide me during the whole process of writing this Master thesis. Second, I would like to thank all respondents participating in this study for their time and willingness to complete the survey in order to provide me with the necessary data. Last but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family, boyfriend and best friends for their never-ending support and encouragement during my whole studies.
3rd December 2018
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ... 12
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PACKAGE ... 13
PACKAGING ATTRIBUTES ... 14
Packaging graphic elements ... 14
Packaging colour ... 15
METHODOLOGY ... 18
EMPIRICAL METHOD ... 18
SAMPLE SIZE AND DESIGN ... 19
PROCEDURE ... 20
DATA ANALYSIS... 21
The first part of the model: H1-H3 testing (ANOVA)... 21
The second part of the model: H4 testing (Regression analysis) ... 23
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 25
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS ... 28
CONCLUSION ... 30
REFERENCES ... 32
APPENDIX ... 38
SUMMARY OF THE MEASUREMENT ITEMS ... 38
SURVEY FORM ... 39
Condition A - Straight lines graphic elements / Highly saturated colours ... 40
Condition B - Curve lines graphic elements / Highly saturated colours ... 43
Condition C - Straight lines graphic elements / Low saturated colours ... 45
List of Tables
Table 1 – 2x2 between subjects factorial design (own creation) ... 19 Table 2 – Profile of respondents (own creation) ... 20 Table 3 – Univariate Results for Packaging graphics, Packaging colours and Gender on Attitude toward the Package (own creation based on SPSS results) ... 22 Table 4 – Results of Regression Analysis between Attitude toward the Package and Purchase intention (own creation based on SPSS results) ... 24 Table 5 – Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results (own creation) ... 27 Table A1 – Reliability for measurement items (own creation based on SPSS results) ... 38
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Conceptual research model (own creation) ... 18 Figure 2 – Significant effect of curve graphical elements on attitude toward the package and
no significant interaction effect between elements (own creation) ... 23
Figure 3 – Representation of the model (Attitude toward the package / Purchase intention) by
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, it is not easy for companies to succeed. One of the main reasons is a highly competitive environment in which it is very challenging to remain competitive and survive in the long term. In terms of functionality products differ just slightly from each other, if so. Therefore, companies are forced to differentiate themselves by design, visual appearance and/or the way how they communicate the products - both instore and advertising in media (Rundh, 2013). The other challenge is an access to excessive amount of information which impacts consumer decision behaviour (Barta et al., 2009). Consumers can easily search for the product information online and quickly compare companies’ offer. Furthermore, more and more consumers are sceptical about advertising and try to avoid it, thus trustworthiness towards corporate communication has decreased (Teixeira, 2014). In that case, a carefully chosen marketing and communication strategy is essential.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The early research regarding packaging was oriented primarily on general packaging features and the roles that packaging carries out in logistics and marketing (e.g. Schwartz, 1971, Predengast and Pitt, 1996). Other researchers have focused on the way how packaging communicates a brand identity (e.g. Underwood and Klein 2002; Underwood, 2003), or how packaging size affects the usage (e.g. Wansink, 1996). The visual impacts of packaging were investigated for instance by Underwood et. al (2001), Underwood (2003), and Ampuero and Vila (2006). With increased environmental awareness and extensive consumption of materials, the research attention has also been paid to environmental issues linked to packaging (e.g. Bone and Corey, 2000; Rundh, 2005). Furthermore, several researchers have emphasized the packaging capability to contribute to a competitive advantage (e.g. Rundh, 2009; Nancarrow et al., 1998). However, despite packaging importance and recent increased managerial awareness of packaging benefits, it has received significantly lower attention from researchers compare to other marketingtoolssuch as for example advertising.
According to Ampuero and Vila (2006) packaging is “the container that is in direct contact
with product itself, which holds, protects, preserves and identifies the product as well as facilitates handling and commercialisation”. Vidales Giovannetti (1995) categorizes packaging
into three types. Primary packaging is in the direct contact with the product (e.g., a plastic bag containing cereals). Secondary packaging incorporates primary package(s) and its goal is to protect as well as to communicate the product quality (e.g., a cardboard box that contains the plastic bag with cereals). Lastly, tertiary packaging includes previous two types of packages and serve to distribute and protect the product throughout the supply chain (e.g. a large cardboard box containing several cereal cardboard boxes).
Packaging represents a first point of contact for consumer with the product. It can be viewed as an integral part of a product which serve multiple functions. Rundh (2005) summarizes the most important functions of packaging in a supply chain as follows:
• Protection - packaging must protect products through the whole supply chain so that customers receive them in the same form as they left the factory.
• Preservation - packaging must preserve products from damage and contamination to longer shelf life.
• Promotion of customer choice - packaging enables brand/product identification and distinguishes it from competition.
• Selling - packaging act as a silent salesman i.e. it persuades customers to choose the product and consequently to purchase it.
• Information and instruction - packaging communicates messages to customers.
• Providing customer with convenience - packaging design should correspond with customer lifestyle and preferences i.e. it needs to be time efficient and easy to manipulate with.
• Containing price - packaging in various sizes allows customers to purchase the convenient amount of the product.
• Promotion of hygiene and safety - packaging must ensure that product is safe and hygienic to use.
• Innovation - high demand for new packaging designs results in innovative initiatives. Majority of these functions are consistent with the Packaging Federation’s classification (2004) - packaging must preserve, protect, deliver and dispense products, provide convenience and contribute to sales.
Abdalkrim and AL-Hrezat, 2013). It was found that customers associate simplified packaging to contain cheaper products (e.g. private labels) often of lower quality (Venter et al., 2011). On the other hand, if packaging design communicates high quality, consumers assume that product itself is of high quality (Underwood et al, 2001, Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
There is inconsistency in the literature in terms of how packaging is related to the product. Berman and Evans (1992) view packaging as a product characteristic, however, Jacoby and Olson (1972) and Underwood (2003) position packaging as an extrinsic element of the product i.e. a product-related attribute which does not account for a part of the physical product itself. Underwood (2003) additionally considers price and brand name as other important product extrinsic attributes. Keller (1998), on the other hand, treats packaging as a non-product related attribute and argues that it is in fact one of five brand elements (i.e. packaging, brand name, logo and symbol, slogans, and characters) which compose a brand identity. Despite this discrepancy, researchers agree on packaging being related to the strategic decisions of marketing mix and stress the importance for companies to understand and use packaging as a tool for enhancing sales and differentiation. For instance, Rundh (2005) argues that it is seminal for mangers to understand impacts of packaging in order to use it as a strategic tool since it may contribute to a company’s competitive advantage. Customers’ changing preferences and demands make and inspire manufactures to develop new packings solutions. The research shows that frequent requirements concern different packages sizes for smaller households or increased convenience of packages for take-aways and food preparation e.g. heating. Innovative packaging designs can result in a change of product perception, gaining attention of new customers, and consequently in establishment of a new market position. Rundh (2005) concludes that even a small change in the packaging could enhance sales in comparison with promotion activities and advertising. Thus, recommendation for managers is to strive to understand packaging impacts and treat it as an important marketing tools since it is the key component that may provide the competitive advantage.
represented by packaging shape, size and materials. Ampuero and Vila’s (2006) research focused on graphic attributes shows that consumers associate particular packaging dimensions with product positioning strategies (seven in total). For instance, “accessible products with a reasonable price positioning” are associated with light packaging colours, serif and sand serif typography, no graphic form, and with images of illustrations and people. To conclude, they argue that packaging indeed impacts consumer responses to a product. A combination of packaging attributes influences customer perceptions that the product is positioned to a specific target group. Thus, in order to achieve desired effects, the right mix of packaging elements is needed. In other words, companies must understand consumer perceptions in order to design an effective and appealing packaging to achieve a desired position in the consumers’ mind and to encourage purchase.
Similarly, according to Silayoi and Speece (2004) packaging is a critical factor in decision-making and four main packaging elements, categorized into visual and informational, influence consumer purchase decisions. They suggest that while visual attributes such as graphics, size and shape of the packaging relate to affective side of decision-making, informational attributes comprised of product information and technology embodied in the package relate more to cognitive side of decision-making. Results of Silayoi and Speece’s (2004) research indicate that these four attributes of packaging stimulate purchase decisions differently - visual attributes positively influence product choice in the low involvement situation i.e. “situations where
consumers do not search extensively for information about the brands, evaluate their characteristics, and make a weighty decision on which brand to buy” (Kotler et al., 1996). On
Majority of studies that analyse impacts of packaging attributes are focused on customer purchase behaviour at the moment of purchase, and only little research has been oriented on post-purchase behaviour. Consumer intention to purchase depends on the extent to which consumers expect the product to meet their needs and desires when they consume it (Kupiec and Revell, 2001). Nevertheless, if customers have not though about the product before they enter the store, their purchase intention is predominantly dependent on the communication at the point of purchase (Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Kotler and Keller (2006) divide customer decision-making process into five stages: (1) problem identification, (2) search for information, (3) evaluation of alternatives, (4) decision to purchase, and (5) post-purchase behaviour. Enneking et al. (2007) stress the importance of paying attention to the post-purchase stage of customer behaviour since customers usually do not evaluate the same attributes as in the previous four stages. Similarly, Lofgren et al. (2008) came up with conclusion that purchase decision stage impacts the extent to which consumers value certain attributes. Particularly, packaging colour and size are important at the moment of purchase, however, information how to use the product is more relevant during the actual use. Gomez et al. (2015) investigate the role of packaging design at the moment of purchase and after usage. Their results show that informative (information, symbols, codes), technical (colour, design, hygiene) and functional (ease to open, close and serve) elements of packaging influence consumer satisfaction with packaging at both stages, which afterwards impacts loyalty i.e. repeating purchase.
success or failure of a product (Schoell, 1985). Furthermore, managers need to make sure that packaging is consistent with advertising, distribution as well as product pricing.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Despite the increased awareness of packaging importance, the research investigating effects of packaging on customer purchase decision has not received as extensive attention as for example other marketing tools such as advertising. Furthermore, the results of current studies vary a lot and are mainly focused on the U.S. and Asian consumers. The aim of this research is to investigate how packaging attributes impacts consumer’s attitude toward the package and whether such attitude influences a customer to purchase cereals products. This study suggests a second-order model (see Figure 1), where a customer attitude toward the package is the result of packaging design attributes (graphic elements and colour), which then influences the purchase intention. Furthermore, the author assumes that some aspects of packaging attributes are more attractive than others, indicating differences in attitudes toward the package.
To summarize, the value of this research resides in the following: 1) investigating packaging design of cereals products which have been so far neglected in the packaging area of research, 2) investigating whether certain packaging attributes are more positively evaluated than others, 3) investigating if there is a relationship between a consumer’s attitude toward the package and a purchase intention. The results of this research would help managers to understand importance of carefully designed packaging in order to attract customers attention, develop a positive attitude, motivate customers to purchase the product and that way to enhance sales.
The research questions are formulated as follows:
(1) How packaging graphic elements influence consumers’ attitude toward the package?
(1a) Do consumers develop a more positive attitude toward the package containing curve lines graphic elements or straight lines?
(2) How packaging colours influence consumers’ attitude toward the package?
(2a) Do consumers develop a more positive attitude toward the package containing highly saturated colours or low saturated colours?
(3) Does certain combination of packaging colours and graphic elements impact the attitude toward the package differently?
This study is built on the premise that packaging attributes influence customers’ purchase intention through developed attitudes toward the package. For the purpose of this research, two visual elements of packaging - colour and graphic elements - are chosen to focus on since the results of previous studies vary significantly on these dimensions of packaging design. Furthermore, as data are collected through questionnaire, it is important that pictures of packages used in questionnaire clearly display all investigated elements so that customer can carefully evaluate the elements and answer questions without confusion. For that reasons other packaging attributes such as material, size, nutrition information and others were not chosen for this research since they can be hardly recognized from the pictures.
Attitude toward the package
The topic of attitudes has received significant attention in marketing and particularly advertising literature as attitudes are used to predict consumer behaviour (Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Among the most prominent constructs in this area are the attitude toward the ad (AAD)
and the purchase intention. Attitude can be viewed as “the amount of affect for or against some
object”, and is evaluative in its nature (Thurstone, 1931). According to Spears and Singh (2004)
an attitude is a relative enduring evaluation that is likely to energize and direct behaviour. Intention, is on the other hand, “the person’s motivation in the sense of his or her conscious
plan to exert to carry out a behaviour” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).
The construct of attitude toward the package in this study (also used by Underwood and Klein, 2002) is based on the well-developed and dominant theoretical framework of attitude toward the ad (AAD) which has received a significant research attention indicating a strong explanatory
The attitude towards the ad is defined as “a predisposition to respond in a favourable or
unfavourable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion (Lutz, 1985). Accordingly, in this research, the attitude towards the package
represents how favourable is a person’s evaluation of the cereals package in terms of attractiveness of graphic elements and colours.
Packaging attributes
Packaging graphic elements
The overall packaging graphics include pictures (e.g. photographs or illustrations), colours, typography, image layout, graphic elements such as lines, geometric figures etc. However, majority of studies on packaging graphics design focus mostly on the role of pictures. Displaying pictures on package can effectively differentiate products and attract consumer attention (Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Since majority of consumers perceive to shop under time pressure, the appealing graphics on packaging can help them to make decisions quickly in the store (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Pictures communicate product benefits and provide effective content identification (Underwood et al., 2001). Compared to verbal information they are extremely vivid stimuli considered to be easier to process especially in a situation of low involvement (Underwood et al., 2001; Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999) where many customers view the package as the product (Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Furthermore, pictures on packages have ability to enhance incidental learning since people learn faster and more effectively when information is presented in the form of pictures instead of words (MacInnis and Price, 1987).
Moreover, it has been found that placement of pictures on the package is of high importance due to brain laterality causing asymmetry in the perceptions of packaging design attributes (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). Apparently, non-verbal stimuli such as pictures or graphic elements are better recalled when they are placed on the left-hand side of the package, whereas verbal stimuli i.e. product information on the right-hand side. However, the research by Silayoi and Speece (2007) conducted in Thailand provides opposite results indicating that there are differences between Asian and Western customers’ recall of packaging graphics and information, thus such differences should marketers take into account.
packaging that contains a picture of the actual product is associated by consumers with upper class products and safety guaranteed products. Regarding the role of packaging as a brand communication vehicle, it was also discovered that a picture improves customer brand beliefs and results in strong positive effects on attitude toward the package (Underwood, 2002).
Nevertheless, so far, there is no sufficient psychology research investigating which particular type of pictures e.g. photographs, illustrations, images of people, images of animals etc. would be more preferred. However, a few studies have been focused on preferences for shape of graphics elements. For instance, according to Bar and Neta (2006), and Westerman et al. (2012) people prefer rounded design elements more than angular ones since they found it more aesthetically appealing. According to Berlyne (1976) an angular shape is often associated with traits of energy, strengths and toughness, while a rounded shape is associated with friendliness, approachability and harmony. Findings of Westeman et al (2012) also suggest that rounded elements increase customer likelihood to purchase the product. Similarly, in terms of lines drawings, Silvia and Barona (2009) discovered that curved lines are more preferred to straight lines which are often associated with more negative states (such as anger or agitation) compared to the curve lines. Several theorists also assume that preferences for shape are either innate or acquired in the early stage of life (e.g., Lewalski, 1988) and that human beings inherently prefer objects with symmetry and elements in harmony (Papanek, 1984). Based on the literature review, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The attitude toward the package is more positive for packaging containing curve lines
graphic elements than straight lines. Packaging colour
1986), different colours are often associated with different product quality attribute such as favours (e.g. in crisps category colour red refers to paprika or natural/salt taste, yellow to cheese etc.) and also with levels of satisfaction (Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Therefore, customers prefer certain colors for a particular product category (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999).
Nevertheless, colour associations and symbolism are undoubtedly impacted by consumers’ culture with meanings varying from culture to culture. It is said that there is no universal meaning for a particular colour (Babolhavaeji et al., 2015). Madden et al. (1999) stress importance that, among others, the same colour of packaging used across different cultures should be only considered after thorough investigation of colour associations in each location. Thus, it is essential for marketers to be aware of colour meanings when designing the package in order to provide effective and successful communication and evoke the right understanding. According to Hine (1995), people experience colour at three levels: the cultural level (refers to well-established colour conventions developed over time in various cultures and regions), the physiological level (refers to universal responses to colour associations with certain physiological processes), and the associational level (refers to colour associations with a particular product category caused by marketing efforts over time). Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence (2011) argue that if companies choose the right colour (or colour combination) with appropriate meaning suiting the product, it can result in effective product recognition, matching of customer expectations, and increase in satisfaction and sales.
desaturated/soft colours (Eysenck, 1941; Camgoz et al., 2002; Best, 2012). Based on the literature review, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The attitude toward the package is more positive for packaging containing highly saturated
colours than low saturated colours.
Moreover, the combination of packaging attributes i.e. packaging graphics and colours can influence attitude toward the package differently than each attribute separately. Such assumption is based on the findings of Ampuero and Vila (2006) according to which customers build their opinions about the packaging based on the packaging elements combination. Furthermore, according to Silayoi and Speece (2007) consumers perceive packaging as the whole considering all its elements. Thus, this leads to an assumption that interaction effect can emerge between packaging graphics and colours, which is reflected in the following hypothesis:
H3: The combination of highly saturated colours and curve graphic elements result in a more
positive attitude toward the package than combination of highly saturated colours and straight graphic elements.
When people are exposed to a certain object, they evaluate how favourable and unfavourable it is, i.e. they develop an attitude that creates a frame of mind of liking/disliking the object (Kotler, 2000). Since attitudes are generally used to predict certain behaviour, this study assumes that consumers’ attitude toward the package in terms of its attractiveness influences intention/willingness to purchase the product. The relationship between attitude and purchase intention is hypothesized, meaning that a consumer is likely to purchase the product if he/she has a positive attitude toward the package, and less likely to purchase the product in case of a negative attitude. According to Kotler (2000) attitude as well as motivation, perception, learning and beliefs account for psychological factors influencing buyer behaviour (besides personal, cultural and social factors). The purchase intention is a significant construct widely adopted by marketing managers to forecast future sales and demand for the product, thus it is considered to be highly relevant for business (Morwitz, 2014). The hypothesis is proposed as follows.
H4: There is a direct positive relationship between a consumer’s attitude toward the package
and the purchase intention.
Figure 1 – Conceptual research model (own creation)
METHODOLOGY
Empirical method
In this study, the empirical method to collect data for online experiment was a quantitative survey of customers. The survey was chosen as it is “one of the most often used techniques of
collecting information from or about people to describe, compare, explain, or predict their knowledge, attitudes, or behaviours” (Fink, 2003). The data were collected at one point in time
(i.e. a cross-sectional survey) via a self-administrated questionnaire (i.e. the author did not meet respondents face-to-face) (Punch, 2003). The questionnaire was sent to participants via social media or by email with attached instructions and description of the study. As it is very important that questions are clear and well-designed in order to receive quality data, the pilot test was used first to check the length, comprehension, difficulty to responding etc. Especially the length can be problematic since it may have discouraging effect, and thus influence the response rate. Despite the challenges that a self-administrated questionnaire may cause (e.g. low response rate, inaccurate data etc.), it is a choice for many researchers due to providing significant advantages. Compared to other research instruments such as interviews, focus groups, observation etc., the self-administrated questionnaire accounts for low costs of data collection, ease of distribution, great quantity and utility of data gained, short time of development and distribution as well as short completion time (Phillips et al., 2013). According to Punch (2003) a questionnaire should not be longer than 20 minutes indicating that each question needs to be brief and concern only one idea.
of statements about attitude and purchase intention measured using seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 representing strongly disagree to 7 representing strongly agree). The items and scale for measuring attitude toward the package was adapted from “attitude toward the ad -attractiveness” used by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015), which “measures the degree to which a
person believes a particular advertisement is visually appealing”. The items for purchase
intention were adopted from Spears and Singh (2004), and Grewal, Monroe and Krishnan (1998). For descriptive statistics and reliability of attitude and purchase intention items see Appendix.
Sample size and Design
In order to test hypotheses, 150 respondents participated in an online survey created in Qualtrics. Few respondents needed to be excluded from the dataset before carrying out analysis due to data incompleteness. Therefore, the overall sample size comprised of 147 respondents (94 female, 53 male).
In this study, a 2 (packaging colours: high saturation vs. low saturation) x 2 (packaging graphic elements: straight lines vs. curve lines) between-subjects factorial design (see Table 1) was used for testing the first part of the research model (H1-H3) i.e. attitude toward the package. The factorial design is widely used in experiments to study effects of two (or more) factors and enables to investigate all possible combinations of the factor levels (Montgomery, 2017). In this study the factors account for packaging colours and graphic elements. The 2x2 factorial design requires to examine three effects - two main effects associated with each of the factors (H1 and H2) independently of the joint interaction and from each other, and one interaction effect i.e. interaction of two independent variables and how they jointly relate to the dependent variable (H3). For testing the second part of the model (H4) participants were asked to express their purchase intention within a particular factors condition.
Table 1 – 2x2 between subjects factorial design (own creation)
Packaging graphic elements
Straight lines Curve lines
Packaging colour
High saturation A B
Procedure
Participants were welcomed by an introduction text explaining the purpose of the study and describing a layout of the survey. After agreeing to participate they were asked first to indicate details about themselves such as gender, age, the size of the household, frequency of eating cereals and to identify the single most attractive packaging element of cereals (for detailed information see Table 2). After completing this section, the Qualtrics randomly and evenly assigned one of four conditions from 2x2 factorial design table to each participant. Thus, each respondent evaluated one particular combination of packaging elements and consequently expressed his/her purchase intention. For instance, if participants were assigned for condition “A” they were asked to evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing highly saturated colours and straight lines graphic elements. The very last question was focused on purchase intention referring to H4. The assignment for a particular condition, which is typical for experiment-driven studies, enabled to lower time needed for survey completion (less than 5 minutes) which may have positively impacted the completion rate of 98% (147/150).
Table 2 – Profile of respondents (own creation)
Item Description Frequency %
Gender Male 53 36.05 Female 94 63.95 Age Under 18 0 0 18 - 25 110 74.83 26 - 35 29 19.73 36 - 45 4 2.72 46+ 4 2.72
Household size 1 person 31 21.09
2 people 50 34.01
3 people 24 16.33
4 people 25 17.01
5+ people 17 11.56
Frequency of eating cereals per week
0x 47 31.97
1x -2x 63 42.86
3x - 4x 25 17.01
The single most attractive element of cereals package Packaging colours 24 16.33 Packaging graphics 74 50.34 Packaging shape 6 4.08 Packaging size 28 19.05 Packaging material 15 10.20 Data analysis
The data analysis was divided into two parts based on the research model. First, in order to test hypotheses 1-3 a 2 (packaging colours: high saturation vs. low saturation) x 2 (packaging graphic elements: straight lines vs. curve lines) factorial ANOVA was conducted to analyse effects of selected packaging elements on attitude toward the package. Second, the regression analysis was applied to test hypothesis 4 i.e. whether there is a positive relationship between attitude toward the package and purchase intention. Data were analysed in SPSS software version 24. The data preparation for analysis was consulted with and checked by Methodology support centre at University of Groningen.
The first part of the model: H1-H3 testing (ANOVA)
Three items measuring attitude toward the package - attractiveness were aggregated into one scale with Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.823 indicating a sufficient reliability (α>0.70). Afterwards, the univariate analysis was run in SPSS in order to obtain the results. Factorial ANOVA (also called “two-way ANOVA”) was used for testing H1-H3 as it is an appropriate statistical method associated with the factorial design to test two main effects and one interaction effect of two factors i.e. two independent variables (Field, 2009).
another factor’s items in terms of influencing consumer’s attitude toward the package by combinations of packaging colours and graphics. Last but not least, gender was used as a control variable as it could be expected that differences between man and women exist in preferences for certain colour and graphic elements. Nevertheless, it turned out to be insignificant (p=0.095, p>0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that women’s and men’s attitudes toward the package are more or less the same. For detailed information see Table 3 and Figure 2 below.
Table 3 – Univariate Results for Packaging graphics, Packaging colours and Gender on
Attitude toward the Package (own creation based on SPSS results)
Independent variables df F value p-value Mean SD
Packaging graphics Straight lines Curve lines 1 5.266 0.023 4.29 4.72 1.125 1.134 Packaging colours Highly saturated Low saturated 1 2.494 0.117 4.36 4.65 1.283 0.980 Colours x Graphics
Highly saturated & Straight Highly saturated & Curve Low saturated & Straight Low saturated & Curve
Figure 2 – Significant effect of curve graphical elements on attitude toward the package and
no significant interaction effect between elements (own creation) The second part of the model: H4 testing (Regression analysis)
Prior to testing the hypothesis 4 by conducting a regression analysis, five items measuring a consumer’s purchase intention were brought together into one scale indicating a sufficient Cronbach’s Alpha 0.937. It was hypothesized that there is a direct positive relationship between the attitude toward the package and the purchase intention. Linear regression analysis was an appropriate statistical method for testing such relationship as this study uses only one predictor (i.e. attitude) of outcome variable (i.e. purchase intention).
The regression analysis showed that there is a statistically significant relationship between two variables i.e. between attitude toward the package and purchase intention as p=0.000 (F=26.976, p<0.05). Thus, the regression model statistically significantly predicts the outcome variable. Changes in the predictor’s value (=attitude) are related to changes in the outcome variable (=purchase intention). Nevertheless, even though the purchase intention can be predicted by attitude, according to further results the attitude toward the package accounts only for 15.7% of the variation in the purchase intention (R2=0.157). This means that remaining
84.3% of the variation in purchase intention cannot be explained by attitude toward the package alone indicating that there must be other factors i.e. predictors that also impacts consumers to purchase the cereals product, which this study did not investigate. It is also visible in a Figure
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Highly saturated Low saturated
Figure 3 – Representation of the model (Attitude toward the package / Purchase intention) by
scatter plot with a regression line (own creation)
In the model only one predictor was used (Attitude toward the Package). Thus, the standardized β value (β=0.396) equals the R value and indicates a weak to moderate relationship with purchase intention at statistically significant level (p=0.000). Summary of variables can be found in Table 4 below.
Table 4 – Results of Regression Analysis between Attitude toward the Package and Purchase
intention (own creation based on SPSS results)
Regression analysis variable Standardized β t-value p-value
Attitude toward the package 0.396 5.194 0.000
Other measures Value
F-value 26.976 R 0.396 R Squared 0.157 Adjusted R Squared 0.151 R² = 0.1569 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Pu rc ha se in ten tio n
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Overall, two out of four hypotheses developed in this study were supported (see Table 5). The results indicate that packaging visual attributes i.e. graphics and colours do not influence consumer’s attitude toward the package in the same way.
In terms of packaging graphics, the findings support the prediction that consumers would develop more positive attitude toward packaging containing curve lines graphic elements than toward straight lines which is consistent with the literature review (e.g., Bar and Neta, 2006; Westerman et al., 2012; Silvia and Barona, 2009). One possible explanation might be that angular shapes are likely to be associated with negative features such as anger, threat or danger as sharp edges evoke causing harm (Bar and Neta, 2007). The second possible explanation may reside in consumers’ familiarity with the existent cereals packaging in the market. Consumers may perceive curve graphic elements to be more likely displayed on cereals packaging than straight elements. They may recall images typical for cereals packaging design characterized with soft edges such as bowl/spoon containing milk and cereals, flakes, oats, berries, nuts etc. Thus, both such associations could reflect packaging attractiveness evaluation i.e. attitude toward the package.
The third hypothesis has not been supported as there is no significant interaction effect between packaging colour and graphical elements. For both types of colour saturation (highly and low saturated) the level of attitude toward the package is higher for curve graphic elements than for straight elements. Similarly, for both curve and straight graphic elements the attitude is higher toward packaging containing low saturated colours than toward highly saturated colours. Such findings indicate that people evaluate packaging colours and graphics independently. The interaction effect was anticipated for two reasons. First, it can be argued that a graphical element would be more visible on a low saturated underlying colour if the colour of the element was dark and, in such situation, the negative connotations of straight lines or pleasant effect of curves respectively would be emphasized. However, this study did not consider the colour of the graphic elements at all and presented pictures of packaging used in survey were of one colour only. The second possible reason for an interaction effect was the assumption that people generally prefer one of the values of each element above another and when they are presented a package containing both favoured elements, their attitude toward the package would benefit from a synergic effect. This pattern was present in the study, but there were also negative synergies identified. It means that there was not only one combination of elements with significantly higher attitude, but also one with significantly lower. This leads to confirmation of a main effect instead of the interaction effect.
of false or distorted information which is always the risk associated with anonymous data collection.
Table 5 – Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results (own creation)
Hypothesis Result
H1 The attitude toward the package is more positive for packaging containing curve lines graphic elements than straight lines.
Supported
H2 The attitude toward the package is more positive for packaging containing highly saturated colours than low saturated colours.
Not Supported H3 The combination of highly saturated colours and curve graphic elements
result in a more positive attitude toward the package than combination of highly saturated colours and straight graphic elements.
Not Supported
H4 There is a direct positive relationship between a consumer’s attitude toward the package and the purchase intention.
Supported
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
This research has highlighted some factors that can be valuable to practitioners to consider when developing a packaging design. The findings of this study are deemed relevant as approximately 70% of all respondents eat cereals at least once a week. Moreover, more than 2/3 of respondents selected one of the two packaging elements targeted in this study (colour, graphics) to be the most important packaging elements for them. Thus, their evaluation of attractiveness of packaging visual attributes is valuable as they are the actual users of the product and know own preferences. Therefore, it may be beneficial for managers to use the findings when developing packaging design for cereals but also for similar food products e.g. granola or porridge as they are under the same umbrella of fast/easy breakfast products and likely to be consumed for breakfast as well. Furthermore, as cereals are a food product generally aimed for both female and male, the results of this study support the fact that visual design of cereal product does not have to be distinguished as no sufficient gender differences in attitude toward the particular package were found.
means that this effect does not play a crucial part in the pilot sample selection and results interpretation (e.g. the results of usage of a new graphic element on low saturated colour packaging can be expected to be similar for packaging of highly saturated colours). Still some other factors which are beyond the scope of this study must be considered such as colour of graphical elements and its interaction with packaging colour.
In the current cereals packaging practice most of the product packages have some curve graphic elements displayed while straight lines and sharp angles are rare. Results of this study support a current approach as the curve graphic elements obtained significantly higher consumers’ attitude. As a result, it would be recommended to stick to current practice and not to experiment with straight, sharp elements as the theory suggests that they might be associated with negative states.
Last but not least, this study provides support for the relationship between attitude toward the package and purchase intention. Since 80% of purchase decisions are made in store and packaging has become a silent salesperson that provides the last opportunity to persuade customers to purchase the product, the appealing design is highly important. By manipulating different visual attributes on the package, managers can both increase or decrease the package attractiveness and thus impact consumers’ attitude which consequently influences their purchase intention. Therefore, it is essential to design packaging thoroughly since in addition to an explicit function of protection, packaging is a marketing tool which has ability to indeed sell the product. Furthermore, a carefully designed packaging with high attractiveness might reduce need and costs of expensive advertising campaigns, POS materials etc.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS
literature review part, several packaging attributes exist. This study omitted packaging size, shape, material, information (e.g. product information, country of origin etc.) and other attributes. Thus, the construct of attitude toward the package used in this study cannot be viewed as the overall attitude since participants were presented with and asked to evaluate only particular visual elements, which indicates another limitation. For instance, the findings of Silayoi and Speece (2007) demonstrated that “consumers view the package as a coherent whole,
stressing one aspect or another, but not completely ignoring any element”. The absence of other
attributes that jointly form the whole packaging might have confused respondents as packaging pictures displayed in the survey could have been perceived too unrealistic. Third, the aspect of brand was not covered in this study indicating a significant limitation. Brands are essential and critical for business. They are responsible for company’s recognition, awareness and reputation resulting in trust, loyalty and thus development of relationships with customers (Barta et al., 2009). Customers select products and make a purchase decision to a large extent based on the brands they know and like (Ibid.). Therefore, it can be assumed that if packaging pictures in the survey had contained brand name and logo (e.g. Nestlé - Nesquik, Cheerios etc., Kellogg’s - Frosties, Apple Jacks etc.) respondents would have evaluated the attractiveness of the package differently (even if colours are graphics would remain the same) as they would be influenced by the brand itself. Fourth, it is hard to imagine buying products based on the simple pictures in the survey as the whole context of shopping experience is missing. For instance, Peck and Childers (2006) argue that “the ability to touch merchandise influences product attitudes such
that when consumers cannot touch merchandise, they exhibit decreased confidence and increased frustration with the buying scenario”. Thus, respondents could have felt discouraged
Based on the limitations outlined above, several suggestions for the future research are made: 1) future research should include other product categories to make findings more widely applicable and comparable; 2) other packaging attributes as well as the aspect of brand should be covered to make consumers’ evaluation of the packaging more realistic; 3) a specialized computer software which simulates a real environment of the store should be considered instead of survey to make packaging evaluation and purchase decision closer to reality; 4) the construct of attitude should be extended for two main reasons: a) in order to get a stronger model with higher explaining variance in purchase intention the future research should cover more factors and conduct a multiple regression analysis, b) in order to understand better the psychological context of buyer behaviour other factors such as motivation, beliefs, learning and perception should be included to get the complete picture of psychological influences.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Abdalkrim, G. M., and AL-Hrezat, R. S. (2013), “The Role of Packaging in Consumer’s Perception of Product Quality at the Point of Purchase”. European Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 5, No. 4.
Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of product packaging”. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23, 100–112.
Babolhavaeji, M., Vakilian, M. A., and Slambolchi, A. (2015), “Color Preferences Based on Gender as a New Approach In Marketing”. Advanced Social Humanities and Management, 2 (1), 35-44.
Bar, M., and Neta M. (2006), “Humans prefer curved visual objects”. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.
Barta, V., Patik, L., and Postler, M. (2009), “Retail Marketing”. Management Press, Prague.
Batra, R., and Ray, M. L. (1986), “Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising”.
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12. No. 2, 234-249.
Berlyne, D. E. (1976), “Psychological aesthetics”. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 43-55.
Best, J. and Textile Institute (Manchester, England) (2012), “Colour design: theories and application”. Cambridge: Woodhead Pub Ltd (Woodhead publishing series in textiles, no. 128).
Bone, P.F., and Corey, R. J. (2000), “Packaging Ethics: Perceptual Differences Among Packaging Professionals, Brand Managers, and Ethically-Interested Consumers”. Journal of
Business Ethics, April, 199-213.
Camgoz, N., Yener, C., and Guvenc, D. (2002), “Effects of hue, saturations, and brightness on preference”. Colour Research and Application, 27 (3), 199-207.
Creusen, M. E. H., and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005), “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22, No.1, 63-81.
Dittmar, M. (2001), “Changing colour preferences with ageing: a comparative study on younger and older native Germans aged 19-90 years”. Gerontology, 47 (4), 219–226.
Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken S. (1993), “The Psychology of Attitudes”. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.
Enneking, U., Neumann, C., and Henneberg, S. (2007), “How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision”. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 133–138. Evans, J. and Berman, B. (1992), “Marketing”. Macmillan Publishing Co, New York, NY. Eysenck, H. J. (1941), “A Critical and Experimental Study of Colour Preferences”. The
Field, A. (2009), “Discovering Statistics Using SPSS”. Third Edition. Sage Publications Ltd. Fink, A. (2003), “The survey handbook”. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giovannetti V. (1995), “El mundo del envase. Manual para el disen˜o y produccio´n de envases y embalajes”. Gustavo Gili, Mexico City, p. 90.
Gomez, M. M., Martin, D. C., and Molina A. (2015), “The importance of packaging in purchase and usage”. Behaviour International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 203–211.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., and Krishnan R. (1998), “The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyers' Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intention”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, 46-59.
Grossman, R. P., and Wisenblit, J. Z., (1999), "What we know about consumers’ color choices".
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 (3), 78-88.
Hassan, S. H., Leng, L. W., and Peng, W. W. (2012), “The influence of food product packaging attributes in purchase intention: a study among consumers in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of
Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 5, 14-28.
Hallock, J. (2003), “Preferences - Favourite Color”. Available at:
http://www.joehallock.com/edu/COM498/preferences.html. [Accessed 22 September 2018]. Hine, T. (1995), “The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers”. Little Brown, New York.
Hurlbert, A. C., and Ling, Y. (2007), “Biological components of sex differences in color preference”. Current Biology, Vol. 17 (16), R623-R625.
Hulten, B. (2012), “Sensory cues and shoppers' touching behaviour: the case of IKEA”.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40, 273-289.
Keller, K.L. (1998), “Strategic Brand Management”. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kim, J. and Lakshmanan A. (2015), “How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions”.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 (6), 94-111.
Kotler, P., Ang, S. H., Leong, S.M., and Tan, C.T. (1996), “Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective”. Prentice-Hall, Singapore.
Kotler, P. (2010), “Marketing Management, Millenium Edition”. Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), “Marketing Management”. Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996), “Principles of Marketing”. Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc., Singapore.
Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001), “Measuring Consumer Quality Judgements“. British Food
Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1, 7-22.
Kuvykaite, R., Dovaliene, A., & Navickiene, L. (2009)., “Impact of package elements on consumer’s purchase decision”. Economics and management, 14, 441-447.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 34, 481-493.
Lewalski, Z.M. (1988), “Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers”. Carson City, NV: Design & Development Engineering Press.
Lofgren, M., Witell, L. and Gustafsson, A. (2008), “Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: an eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design”. Journal of
Marketing Management, 23, 917–928.
Lutz, R. J. (1985), “Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework”. Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research
and Application, L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, 45-63.
Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., and Belch, G. E. (1983),"Attitude toward the Ad As a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Consequences". Advances in Consumer
Research, Volume 10, 532-539.
Maclnnis, D. J. and Price, L.L. (1987), "The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions". Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 473- 491.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., and Belch, G. E. (1986), “The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations”. Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 130-143.
Madden, T.J., Hewett, K., and Roth, M.S. (1999), “Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences”. Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 4, 90-107.
Meyers, H.M. & Lubliner, M.J. (1998), The Marketer’s Guide to Successful Package Design. Chicago, NTC Business Books.
Mitchell, A. A. and Olson J. C. (1981), “Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effect on Brand Attitude?”. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-32.
Montgomery D. C. (2017), Design and Analysis of Experiments. Ninth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morwitz, V. (2014), "Consumers' Purchase Intentions and their Behavior". Foundations and
Trends in Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 3, 181-230.
Olson, J.C., and Jacoby J. (1972), "Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process,"
Association for Consumer Research, 167-169.
Palmer, S. E., and Schloss, K. B. (2010), “An ecological valence theory of human color preference”. PNAS, May, Vol. 107, No. 19, 8877-8882.
Papanek, V. (1984), “Design for the Real World”. New York: Van Nostrand.
Peters-Teixeira, A., and Badri, N. (2005), “Consumers’ perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices”. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 29, 6, 508-514.
Peters, M. (1994), “Good packaging get through to fickle buyers“. Marketing, 20 January, p.8 Phillips, P. P., Phillips, J. J. and Aaron, B. C. (2013), “Survey Basics”. Alexandria, Va.: ASTD Press (ASTD training basics series)
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2011), “Do the material properties of cutlery affect the perception of the food you eat? An exploratory study”. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 258-262.
Pilditch, J. (1972), “The Silent Salesman”. Business Books Ltd, London.
Pinson, C. (1986), “An implicit product theory approach to consumer inferential judgments about product“. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3, 19-38.
Phillips, P. P., Phillips, J. J. and Aaron, B. C. (2013), “Survey basics”. Alexandria, Va.: ASTD Press (ASTD training basics series).
POPAI (2014), “Mass Merchant Shopper Engagement Study”. Available at
http://memberconnect.shopassociation.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ash x?DocumentFileKey=af210ce1-cdb1-d6fb-7306-8970cb321e60. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Prendergast, G. & Pitt, L. (1996), “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade‐offs?". International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 Issue: 6, 60-67.
Punch, K. (2003), “Survey Research: The Basics”. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000), “The verbal and visual components of package design”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, 56-70.
Rundh B. (2009) "Linking packaging to marketing: how packaging is influencing the marketing strategy", British Food Journal, Vol. 115, No. 11, 1547-1563.
Rundh B. (2009) "Packaging design: creating competitive advantage with product packaging".
British Food Journal, Vol. 111, No. 9, 988-1002.
Sara, R. (1990), “Packaging as a Retail Marketing Tool“. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20, No. 8, 29-30.
Schoell, W. F. (1985), "Marketing: Contemporary Concepts and Practices", 2nd edition, Allyn and Bacon, USA.
Schwartz, D. (1971), "Evaluating Packages". Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 29-32. Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2004), “Packaging and purchase decisions: an exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure”. British Food Journal, 106, 607–628. Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2007), “The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach”. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 1495–1517.
Silvia, P. J., and Barona, C. M. (2009), “Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference”. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25–42.
Singh, S. (2006), "Impact of color on marketing". Management Decision, Vol. 44, Issue: 6, 783-789.
Solomon, M.R. (2007), “Consumer Behaviour”. 7th edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Spears, N., and Singh, S. N. (2004), “Measuring Attitude Toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions”. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26 (2), 53-66.
Swientek, B. (2001), “Uncanny developments”. Beverage Industry, 92 (12), 39-39.
Teixeira, T. S. (2014), “The Rising Cost of Consumer Attention: Why You Should Care, and What You Can Do about It”. Harvard Business School.
The Packaging Federation (2004), “Packaging’s Place in Society. Resource Efficiency of Packaging in the Supply Chain for Fast Moving Consumer Goods”. The Packaging Federation, available www.packingfedn.co.uk/. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Thurstone, L. L. (1931), “The Measurement of Attitudes”. Journal of Adnormal and Social
Psychology, 26, 249-69.
Underwood, R. L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of Product Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience”. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11:1, 62-76.
Underwood, R.L. & Klein, N.M. (2002), “Packaging as brand communication: effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand”. Journal of Marketing, 10, 58–68.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. & Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery”. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10, 403–442.
Venter K., van del Merwel D., de Beerl H., Kempen E., Bosman M. (2011), “Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa”.
Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E. & Bosman, M. (2011), “Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchetstroom, South Africa”.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 273–281.
Walle, A.H. (1997), “Global behaviour, unique responses: consumption within cultural frameworks”. Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 10, 700-708.
Wansink, B. (1996), "Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?". Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 1-14.
Welles, G. (1986), “We’re in the habit of impulsive buying”, USA Today, 21 May, p. 1. Westerman S. J., Gardner P. H., Sutherland E. J., White T., Jordan K., Watts D., and Wells S. (2012), “Product Design: Preference for Rounded versus Angular Design Elements”.
APPENDIX
Summary of the measurement items
Table A1 – Reliability for measurement items (own creation based on SPSS results)
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha Items Mean SD
Attitude toward the package
0.823
I like the way cereals packaging looks.
4.54 1.320
The cereals packaging is attractive. 4.58 1.319 The cereals packaging is aesthetically
appealing.
4.39 1.363
Purchase
intention 0.937
I would intend to buy the product. 3.88 1.452 I have high purchase interest. 3.30 1.411 I would probably buy the product. 3.65 1.538 My willingness to buy the product is
high.
3.27 1.478
The probability that I would consider buying the product is high.
Survey form
All groups - Welcoming & Respondent profile Dear respondent,
You are invited to participate in this survey concerning packaging design for my Master thesis. You do not need any prior knowledge about this topic in order to fill out this survey.
The survey consists of two parts. First, you will be asked to answer few questions about yourself. Afterwards, you will be asked to evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing particular graphic elements, and then to express your willingness to purchase the product.
The survey is anonymous, and your participation is entirely voluntary. Your data will be kept strictly confidential and the information will only be used for the purpose of this research. Completion of this survey takes approximately 5-7 minutes.
If you have any questions about the survey please contact me any time under my email: m.fedoranyc@student.rug.nl
Thank you very much for your time and support! Your answers to this survey are very valuable.
Please start with the survey by clicking on the button below.
Please indicate your gender. o Male
o Female
Please indicate your age.
o Under 18 (participation forbidden) o 18 - 25
Please indicate the size of your household. o 1 person o 2 people o 3 people o 4 people o 5+ people
How many times do you eat cereals per week? o 0x
o 1x -2x o 3x - 4x o 5x+
What do you often find the single most attractive element of cereals package? o Packaging colours
o Packaging graphics o Packaging shape o Packaging size o Packaging material
Condition A - Straight lines graphic elements / Highly saturated colours
Instruction:
Please indicate your opinion about the statements using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I like the way cereals packaging containing straight lines graphic elements looks.
The cereals packaging containing straight lines graphic elements is attractive.
The cereals packaging containing straight lines graphic elements is aesthetically appealing.
- - - Page Break - - -
Instruction:
By observing packaging pictures below please evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing bright colours.
Please indicate your opinion about the statements using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I like the way cereals packaging containing bright colours looks.
The cereals packaging containing bright colours is attractive.
The cereals packaging containing bright colours is aesthetically appealing.
Instruction:
By observing packaging pictures below please evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing combination of straight lines graphic elements and bright colours.
Please indicate your opinion about the statements using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I like the way cereals packaging looks.
The cereals packaging is attractive.
The cereals packaging is aesthetically appealing.
Now, based on your previous evaluation of packaging containing combination of straight lines graphic elements and bright colours, please describe your willingness to purchase the cereals product of such packaging using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I would intend to buy the product.
I have high purchase interest.
I would probably buy the product.
My willingness to buy the product is high.
Condition B - Curve lines graphic elements / Highly saturated colours
Instruction:
By observing packaging pictures below please evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing curve lines graphic elements.
Please indicate your opinion about the statements using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I like the way cereals packaging containing curve lines graphic elements looks.
The cereals packaging containing curve lines graphic elements is attractive.
The cereals packaging containing curve lines graphic elements is aesthetically appealing.
- - - Page Break - - -
Instruction:
Please indicate your opinion about the statements using scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
I like the way cereals packaging containing bright colours looks.
The cereals packaging containing bright colours is attractive.
The cereals packaging containing bright colours is aesthetically appealing.
- - - Page Break - - -
Instruction:
By observing packaging pictures below please evaluate attractiveness of cereals packaging containing combination of curve lines graphic elements and bright colours.
