FINAL VERSION

(1)

Cross-cultural differences in perceiving product packaging

FINAL VERSION

Name: Job Plas

Student I.D.: S2041723

Program: MSc International Business & Management

Course: Master’s Thesis IB&M

Supervisor: Marjolijn Onrust Co-supervisor: Bartjan Pennink

(2)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is research differences in perceptions of product packaging between Chinese and Dutch subjects.

Design/methodology – An online survey was designed and distributed under 102 subjects, 51 Chinese and 51 Dutch.

Findings – The results showed that there is little evidence to support the notion that Chinese and Dutch subjects perceive product packaging significantly different. Only regarding the aesthetic principle of contextual focus significant evidence different between Dutch and Chinese was found.

Research limitations – Due to the ambiguous nature aesthetics in terms of quantification, merely three aesthetic principles could be translated onto the packaging design: proportion, contextual focus and symmetry.

Managerial implications – The findings suggest that global managers can standardize their product packaging across both the Dutch and Chinese market in terms of the aesthetic principles of proportion, contextual focus and symmetry. Originality – This study is the first that tests the influence of proportion, contextual focus, and symmetry on product packaging cross culturally.

Keywords – Consumer Behavior, International Business, Aesthetics, Design, Product Packaging.

(3)

1. Introduction

“Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art”

(Ralph Emerson, 1860)

It can be a challenge for global businesses to adapt their product packaging to the local taste of the host-country consumers. By successfully designing locally aesthetically appealing product packaging, global firms can influence the consumer’s perception of the actual product. When the implications of culturally differing perceptions to product design are understood, firms are able to better position themselves in their target markets.

The vast majority of aesthetic-related research reached a consensus about the positive psychological processes involved with aesthetically designed object, such as perception, attitude, emotions and cognition (Reimann et al., 2010; Kumar & Garg, 2010; Nisbett & Masuda, 2003). Also, Madden et al. (2000) found that by manipulating aesthetic principles in packaging designs, the cognitive appraisals of consumers can be influenced. This finding suggests that manipulating packaging design can partly influence the perceptions.

The existing literature explains to some extend the effects of the perception of aesthetic objects on humans, but lacks to place this in a global context. The majority of all aesthetic-related studies have been researched in one country, and from a Western perspective and using Western subjects. By researching aesthetics in such an ethnocentric perspective, much of the critical information for global firms remains absent.

(6)

cultural differences on all five dimensions have been found between these countries in Hofstede’s (1984) studies. Moreover, previous studies (Nisbett & Masuda, 2003) found that there are key differences between East Asians and Europeans regarding basic psychological process such as cognition and perception. Because of these fundamental cultural differences in perception, the Netherlands and China are two particularly interesting cultures to research.

For this study, three high-involvement product packaging are selected to present to the subjects: wine packaging, fragrance packaging and watch packaging. The high involvement products are particularly interesting to research, because these products require emotional decision-making instead rational decision-making (Ratchford, 1987). Hence, variables such as package design are more important. Considering the fundamental psychological differences between Dutch and Chinese, it is expected that high-involvement products expose the differences in perceptions of packaging design more clearly.

(7)

packaging, and the purchase intentions and willingness to pay. This contributes to some extend to the consumer behaviour literature. However, future research should further expand these implications. Fourth, this study provides an insight in how people from a different cultural context react differently to aesthetic principles of packaging design. This is captured in the following research question:

How do Chinese and Dutch differ in their perception of aesthetic principles in high-involvement product packaging?

In the subsequent section a short overview of the existing literature of aesthetics, culture and perception will be provided. Then, these concepts will be connected in the conceptual framework. Subsequently, based on the literature, three hypotheses will be presented and tested. Thereafter, the results and the implications of these results will be discussed. Finally, the limitations of this study, future directions for further researcher and managerial implications are provided.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Literature review of Aesthetics

Following the study of Veryzer (1993), the term ‘aesthetics’ is referring to a branch of philosophy, where its roots are dating back to 400 B.C., but was formally introduced by Baumgarten in the late 1700’s. Some of the world’s brightest minds have written about beauty, taste, art and the perception of these concepts. Dating back to as far as Plato and other early philosophers, aesthetics have been used to capture the perception of beauty (Pappas, 2008). In the study of Hekkert (2008) an extensive discussion was introduced of how ‘aesthetics’ should be defined. They chose the definition of Goldman (2001, as cited in Hekkert, 2008, p.260) where aesthetics are described as “The pleasure attained from sensory perception” (p.260). This definition is also adopted for this study, since it is expected that because of the pleasure attained, decision-making processes can be positively influenced.

(8)

topic in the area of psychology. Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin (2004) describe aesthetics as “particularly interesting to psychologists” (p. 505) because of the cognitive and emotional processes that are evoked by aesthetically designed objects. Aesthetics became increasingly popular in the area of marketing since the early 1990s. It is believed that because of an increase in the understanding of experiential and symbolic aspects of consumption, the popularity of aesthetics increased (Charters, 2006, p.235). However, considering the amount of citations, it was the beginning of the 1980’s with the publishing of the articles of Holbrook (1980; 1981; 1982; 1987) and Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) that aesthetics gained popularity by its application in the field of marketing.

Studies that apply aesthetics to international business and marketing found that aesthetically appealing products lead to (1) a more pleasant product experience (Takamura, 2007), (2) significantly increase consumer reaction time at the point-of-sale (Reimann, Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, & Weber, 2010), (3) that consumers are willing to pay a premium for well-designed products (ibid), (4) luxury goods need to meet the desire of emotional and aesthetic experience in order to be successful positioned (Godey, Lagier, & Pederzoli, 2009), (5) aesthetic appealing ratios affect product perception (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006) (6) and that aesthetic principles connect with the subconscious appraisals associated with emotions (Kumar & Garg, 2010). Although existing research differs greatly in their suitability for international business and management purposes, the main conclusion is that humans tend to favour aesthetically appealing product packaging.

(9)

cultural context when researching aesthetic perception. This study aims to address this absence of a global perspective on aesthetics and product packaging in the existing literature. Hence, by applying a truly geocentric and/or global perspective on aesthetics and product packaging perception, this study has the potential to make a worthy contribution to the literature.

2.1.1 Literature review of aesthetic principles

An aesthetic perception can be triggered by both aesthetic elements (lines, colours, texture, size) and aesthetic principles. According to Veryzer (1993), aesthetic elements are the parts that make up the object. The aesthetic principles are the “general rules of perception that involve the relationships between the parts of a visual display” (p.225). To illustrate the difference, if one would be discussing a painting, then the colour (schemes) used, the lines and shapes on the painting are the aesthetic elements of the design. On the other hand, the interplay between the design elements is called the aesthetic principles. For example, unity is one of these

principles, which suggests that when all elements are in harmony with each other, the design is unified, hence, perceived more attractive. As argued by Kumar & Garg (2010), in contrast to the aesthetic elements, aesthetic principles trigger subconscious psychological processes. In other words, objects that are designed according to principles such as proportion and symmetry would trigger a subconscious response. The studies that tested the influence of aesthetic principles found that these

subconscious responses were mostly positive. A well-known illustration of aesthetic principles can be found in the study of Lewicki (1986, as cited in: Veryzer, 1993). He tested the aesthetic responses of the subjects to ‘beautiful’ faces, and found that although the subjects were unable to articulate the most basic proportions of these faces, they were very sensitive to minor violations of these proportions. Again, pointing at the importance of underlying subconscious psychological processes influencing perception. Therefore, it is expected that by tweaking the aesthetic principles of product packaging can have similar influences on the perception.

(10)

2.2 Literature review of culture

When considering the influence of aesthetic principles in a geocentric perspective on the perception of product packaging, culture plays a very important role. Nisbett et al. (2003) argue that because of differing cultural backgrounds, basic psychological processes such as cognition differ. Therefore, it is assumed that culture has a major influence on the perception of product packaging.

This study attempts to research the differences in aesthetic perceptions between Chinese and Dutch subjects. The comparison of these two countries is especially interesting because they differ greatly on multiple dimensions. First, China’s economy is booming and the subsequent generation will know China as the economic world power. This makes China a particularly interesting country to include in the research. Because of the contemporary importance of China’s economy, makes it a very interesting country to research, especially from the perspective of international business. For example, the expected differences in aesthetic perceptions between Dutch and Chinese could prove to be a valuable insight in the design of the marketing campaigns and understanding cross-cultural consumer behaviour for European MNCs doing business in China, or vice versa. Thus, indirectly contributing to the profitability of the firms, because when the consumer is better understood, the segmentation, targeting and positioning strategies can be improved.

Second, the Netherlands is selected because it is perceived as one of the most individualistic countries (see also subsequent subchapter). Much of the literature describes cultural differences according to the classification of individualism versus collectivism (e.g. Nisbett et al. (2003)); therefore, any differences in the perception of product packaging should be better visible.

2.2.1 Hofstede’s classification of cultures

(11)

dimension. Therefore, the comparison between Chinese and Dutch is particularly interesting. Because these countries differ greatly on multiple dimensions, the differences in perceptions are expected to be better visible.

In more detail, the IDV and MAS the differences are the largest. This means that China is classified as a collectivist culture, and the Netherlands as an individualistic culture. In other words, in China the well-being of the group and family are considered to be more important than the individual. In the Netherlands, this is the other way around. This notion was confirmed and expanded by Nisbett et al. (2003), where they argue that for people in collectivistic societies, the context is more important. Hence, Chinese thought is holistic, which indicate that Chinese focus on the relationships and interplay between objects. In contrast, Dutch would be merely focused on the category and exact properties of the object. This specific cultural difference causes differing perceptions, makes the comparison of Dutch and Chinese especially interesting.

Next, China is a more masculine culture, and the Netherlands a more feminine culture. This means that in China values associated with masculinity like achievement, heroism and assertiveness are favoured. It is believed that this masculine society is characterized by a more competitive character. In the Netherlands the society values more feminine characteristics like cooperation, modesty and caring for the weak. According to Kilic (2011), this these cultural differences also influence aesthetic preference. They argue that masculine societies tend to favour angular shapes, and feminine societies favour roundness (p. 588).

2.2.2 Implications of culture

This study attempts to test the above presented theory in the perspective of

international business. The studies of Nisbett have made a worthy contribution to the psychology literature, for areas such as international marketing, international business

(12)

and consumer behaviour, the implications of differing cultural perceptions have yet to be determined. This study is aiming to address this gap in the literature. In addition, because these two cultures differ greatly, it is expected that if cultural contexts indeed influence the perception of aesthetic designed objects, any differences in perceptions will be better visible in this study. If the results would suggest this, this information can be used for further research to address the central debate whether cognition and perception are universal similar, or whether perceptions and conceptions of

understanding the world differ. Moreover, key authors in the field of aesthetics have called out the need of researching the influence of culture on aesthetics (Veryzer Jr., 1993, p.227; Redies, 2007, p.113; Jansson-Boyd, 2011, pp. 288-289; Hoyer & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012, pp. 177-178; Madden, Hewett, & Roth, 2000, pp.103-104; Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006, p.105). The fact that these academics called for more research provides the required academic foundation.

2.3 Perception

The perception of consumers is especially important in the context of international business. According to Cherry (2010), ‘perception’ derives from the psychology literature, and is the sensory experience of the world around us, which entails the recognition of any object and our reactions to the environment. Because of the physical stimulation of the senses, perceptions trigger signals to nervous system. This, in turn influences behaviour.

When applied to product packaging, Dijksterhuis, Smith, van Baaren, & Wigboldus (2005) argue that subconscious consumer decision-making and attitudes are both activated by the perception they have of a product. The attitudes formed by the consumer’s perception, will govern future behaviour (Fazio et al., 1986, as cited in Dijksterhuis et al. 2005). Hence, because of the influence of perception on behaviour and decision-making, perception is of critical importance to understand by MNCs. Based on this notion, one can safely assume that willingness to pay and purchase intentions can be (indirectly) influenced by perception.

(13)

Reimann et al., 2010) attitudes (Kumar & Garg, 2010); and cognition (Nisbett & Masuda, 2003). Moreover, it is also influences perception (Charters, 2006). Which is of particular interest in the perspective of international business. Building on this perception of products, Veryzer (1993), argues that the perception of any object involves design elements (e.g. colour, line, plane, material etc.) and design principles (e.g. balance, unity, proportion, ratios, simplicity). Which are similar to the earlier presented aesthetic elements and principles. The author illustrates this difference, by positing that consumers might perceive that the product they buy is of high quality because of the expensive packaging. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the consumer can actually judge the quality of this product by focusing on the packaging.

When perception is applied to Dutch and Chinese, Nisbett et al. (2003) argue that Westerners are inclined to perceive matter as the composition of objects and atoms, whereas the Chinese perceive matter as being continuous. Also, the historical role of arts is perceived to be a solid example of the influence of context on aesthetic preference. Hence, there appears to be a difference of innate psychological processes such as perception between Westerners and Chinese, which make this study of particular interest.

3. Conceptual Framework.

(14)

The thorough understanding of aesthetics and its implications in the context of MNCs and global marketing- and product design managers is of great importance. Managers, who are responsible for new marketing campaigns, have to understand their target audience. When they can understand the underlying psychological processes and responses of those target audiences on a global scale, the implications can be great. This allows firms to manipulate their packaging and products, much closer to the desired perception of the consumer. In addition, firms can project their own brand much closer to its intended purpose. The gap between how a firm wants to be

positioned and how it is perceived can be narrowed. It is expected that this study can be regarded as a starting point in understanding cultural differing perceptions of product packaging. (Madden, et al., 2000)

Second, when the latter is understood, it is expected that the consumers can be reached better, products can be placed better in the market, and thus the profitability of MNCs can be increased. Kumar & Garg (2010, p.491) argued, “these [aesthetic] principles can subconsciously evoke cognitive appraisal processes in ways that drive positive emotional response.” Following this line of reasoning, posits the relevance of really understanding these aesthetic principles and consumer’s perceptions.

Finally, addressing aesthetics in a global and commercial context will be a first. Previous studies that tested the implications of product design on consumer

perceptions were executed from an ethnocentric perspective. Although there are some serious limitations to this research, this topic is truly original in the academic field of international business. Aesthetic Principles: -‐ Proportion -‐ Contextual Focus -‐ Symmetry

Perception of high involvement product packaging

Culture

(15)

4. Hypothesis Development

4.1 Aesthetic principles

Although the literature seems to have reached a consensus about the existence of the aesthetic principles, there is no generally accepted and fixed number of principles. Karvonen (2000) argues that the studies that write about aesthetic principles, these are “made up ad hoc, without any justification from existing theories of the aesthetic theories that have been available for years.” (p.2). Following Karvonen, there is just no fixed set of aesthetic principles accepted in the academic field of aesthetics. Therefore, in order to design a study with credible findings, proportion, contextual

focus and symmetry are chosen as the aesthetic principles to be researched. These

principles have the strongest foundation in the existing literature when considering the cross-cultural differences in perceptions of product packaging between the

Netherlands and China. First, according to Pittard et al. (2007), there is evidence that because of the cultural differences, perceptions of proportions differ between China and Western societies. They tested this in the context of logo design, of which it can be assumed to also have implications for product packaging. Second, Kilic, Miller, & Vollmers, (2011) argue that individual (e.g. the Netherlands) and collectivistic (e.g. China) societies differ in their perception of symmetrically designed objects. Members of ‘individual’ cultures favour asymmetrically designed objects, because they tend to favour objects that express individuality and creativity. In collectivistic societies, symmetry is favoured more, because they represent the harmonious values associated with collectivistic societies. Finally, Nisbett et al. (2003), argue that because of underlying cultural differences, cognitive and other psychological processes differ between Chinese and people from Western cultures. Therefore they argue that their perceptions of contextual focus differ.

4.2 Proportion

Aestheticians have long been interested in the influence of proportions on the perception of beauty. According to the advocates of the golden ratio, people

inherently prefer shapes and forms that are designed according to the golden section. The ratio can be found in some of the world’s best-known works of arts and

(16)

of Fibonacci and Pythagoras (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006). Finally, there are many examples of the golden ratio in nature. According to Green (1995), the golden section can be found in a wide variety of flowers (pentagonal symmetry) and sea creatures (logarithmic spiral).

According to aesthetics-related literature, especially the Golden Ratio (or Golden Section, phi or 𝜑), where the ratio is approximately 1.618, is believed to “hold the key to the secret of beauty” (Green, 1995, p.937). In short, if one would draw a line which is divided into two unequal parts (a & b), where the longer part (a) divided by the shorter part (b) is equal to the whole line (a+b) divided by the longer part (a). Or when represented mathematically:

𝑎 𝑏=

𝑎 + 𝑏

𝑎 = 1.618. . = 𝜑

When represented graphically and applied to a square:

Figure 3. Graphical representation of the Golden Ratio

(17)

Raghubir & Greenleaf (2006) point out there is not one preferred ratio, but that the context is more important. Because of this contextual importance, they suggest that the consumers’ preferences might be influenced by culture (p. 105), which is also the central topic of Nisbett et al. (2003).

In a more applied research to the cross-cultural influences on proportion preferences, Berlyne (1970, as cited in: Godkewitsch, 1974) studied the differences between Japanese and Western subjects. First, he found that Japanese tend to favour ratios that are more equal ratio (i.e. closer to the unity ratio) than Western subjects. Second, he found that Western subjects prefer ratios closer to the golden ratio. Therefore, he concludes that ratio preferences are influenced by cultural traditions. Although not diminishing the cultural differences between Japan and China, there are overlapping cultural traits. For example, considering Hall’s (1997) high-context versus low-context culture classification, Japan and China are both classified as high-low-context cultures. Also, considering Hofstede’s dimensions (2005), Japan and China score relatively similar on masculinity, power distance and long-term orientation.

Although these findings do provide the academic foundation to study the differences between Dutch and Chinese subjects, the latter has not been researched in the context of product packaging. Godkewitsch (1974) only presented shapes without any

commercial context to the subjects. This study aims at attempting to address this. By presenting the differing ratios to both the Chinese and Dutch subjects in the context of product packaging, the results will have more implicative power for global firms. H1a: If the product packaging is designed according to the golden ratio, then Dutch participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Chinese participants. H1b: If the product packaging is designed according to the unity ratio, then Chinese participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Dutch participants.

4.3 Contextual focus

(18)

Asians. When referring to ‘context’ in this sense, it is referred to the broad and conceptual field and the noticing of the relationship between objects (Nisbett et al., 2003). In the specific context of product packaging, the aim is at the difference between ‘high focus on context’ versus ‘low focus on context’. However, for methodological reasons, the ‘low focus on context’ is referred to as the ‘focal point’, in order to translate this aesthetic principle to the product packaging. For the manipulation of the focal point stimulus, Nisbett et al., (2003) study of contextual influence is followed. The focal point is referred to as the shape embedded in a larger context that attracts the attention. If the importance of context is diminished, the attention is drawn to the focal point. According to DeWitte, Larmann, & Shields, (2011) the focal point is mostly a method used to attract attention to the entire object. The focal point itself is an element of the object that attracts the attention and focus. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, for example, by placement of the object, by contrast, by colour use, by isolating the object, and by combining different shapes. In contrast, one can also focus on context. This means, that the object does not have a single focal point attracting the attention, but that the entire context of the object is considered to be more important. Nisbett et al. (2003) and Masuda et al. (2008) claim that one of the key differences in aesthetic perception is the attention to context. As a final notion, Nisbett et al. (2003) add to the latter, that the historical development of Greek psychology has been mostly analytically. Which insinuates that the actual focus of the attention has been on a salient object: “the properties of the object were assessed and object was assigned to a category with the intention of finding the rules that governed its behavior” (p. 11163). Chinese thought, in contrast, was holistic. This means that the field of the salient object, as well as the relationships and interplay of these relationships were noticed. The category and the exact properties of the object are of little interest.

(19)

larger context, of which the Chinese is an integral and interdependent part. In contrast, Westerners are more independent on their surroundings, and have less complicated and quantity of social relations. In addition, Westerners value individuality and autonomy as important indicators. This independence, as argued by Nisbett (2003), allowed, in this their study, Greeks to focus more on themselves, which allowed them to attain their personal goals. Because they could put their actions in the perspective of their personal goals, it encouraged the Greeks to perceive social and physical objects as distinct and separate. It is believed by Nisbett that the context of the culture (individualism vs. collectivism) also translates to the perception of objects. More specifically related to aesthetic perception, they have argued in their study that the cultural context is indeed influencing the aesthetic perception. As the main underlying reason they argue that the psychological processes in processing and classifying visual objects differ in collectivistic and individualistic countries.

Nisbett & Masuda (2003) found that East Asians prefer complex objects, because of the importance of the collectivistic aspects of the culture and society. Because of this, East Asians are more prone to perceive the relationships and changing composition in the unity of objects. Therefore, Nisbett & Masuda (2003) posit that because East Asians live in a complex relational structure with mostly predefined roles and

expectations, the attention provided to the context is critical to effective functioning. Therefore, it is posited that:

H2a: If the product packaging is designed to acquire focus onto the focal point, then Dutch participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Chinese

participants.

H2b: If the product packaging is designed to maintain contextual focus, then Chinese participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Dutch participants. 4.4 Symmetry

(20)

this, Davis et al. (1991) found that symmetrical shapes are usually preferred over asymmetrical shapes. According to Khalid et al. (2007), subjects consistently preferred the achieved bilateral symmetry of the presented shapes. Moreover, the balancing of objects in a certain context enhances recognisability, as well as

increasing the perception of its meaningfulness (Henderson et al. 2003). Kilic (2010) argues that icons that are balanced and symmetrical are liked more then asymmetrical icons. Gestalt theory also argues that symmetry is an important design principle, and it is argued that simple and symmetric designs are perceived easier, therefore liked more (Henderson et al., 2003). Moreover, Hekkert & Leder (2008) argues that symmetry is “omnipotent in products” (p.262) because it is often perceived as beautiful and easily recognizable. However, Berlyne, who developed the most

influential theory of experimental aesthetics over the last decades (Martindale, Moore, & Borkum, 1990), found that people also favour complexity, and they pay more visual attention to complex objects than to simple objects. It is assumed here that complex objects are usually asymmetrical.

When considering the influence of culture on preferred balance or symmetry

dimensions, there is little research that addressed this. Henderson et al. (2003) posits that the preference of symmetry is universal (Henderson et al., 2003). Contrasting this view, Schmitt & Simonson (1997, as cited in Pittard et al., 2007) found that

collectivistic societies preferred symmetrically designed objects, and individualistic societies have a tendency to prefer “iconoclastic expressions of creativity” (p.459). This notion is based on Hofstede’s research (1984, as cited in Pittard et al., 2007), where he argues that the level of individualism is a key variable when attempting to design aesthetic product packaging. Individual societies tend to value object

(21)

H3a: If the product packaging is asymmetrically designed, then Dutch participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Chinese participants.

H3b: If the product packaging is symmetrically designed, then Chinese participants will perceive this packaging more positively than Dutch participants.

5. Methods

5.1 Subjects

The data was collected through the design of an online survey, and has been

distributed through email to people willing to fill the survey out. The Dutch sample used to conduct this study consists of 51 subjects (33 male) aged 20-52. The Chinese sample also consists of 51 subjects (15 male) aged 21-47. The entire sample of 102 subjects has no missing data, because the subjects were obliged to provide answers to all the questions. The collected data has been studied to whether some extreme values, or outliers had to be excluded. According to the rule of thumb that when surveys include more than 80 respondents, outliers are to be excluded when their z-value exceeds 3.0 (Osborne, 2004). This generally accepted rule of thumb did not expose any outliers (highest standardized score was z=-2.64) in the dataset.

5.2 Survey design and stimuli

The products that were presented to the subjects are so-called ‘high-involvement products’. This classification of products derives from the Foote, Cone and Belding (FCB) grid (Ratchford, 1987). The products that were designed and surveyed to the subjects should preferably be located in the top-right quadrant as portrayed in figure 4.

(22)

making processes, which are used to classify products such as life insurances, contact lenses and car batteries. By rating high on the both ‘involvement’ and ‘feel’, product characteristics such as packaging are valued to be more important (Ratchford, 1987). Hence, it is expected that the effect on perception by using high-involvement products will be amplified. As is argued in the latter chapters, aesthetics can influence the perception of products. Therefore, the following product packages will be presented to the subjects: fragrance, watch and wine. According to Ratchford (1987), these products are all located in the top-right quadrant.

These three product categories have been selected and will be shown to the subjects. For every category, six different product packaging designs are introduced, all varying along the one of the three aesthetic principles (proportion, symmetry and contextual focus), as outlined in the previous chapter. Therefore, 18 product packaging are introduced to the subjects as stimuli (which can be found in Appendix A, B, C), where the subjects are required to provide their ‘perception, purchase intentions and willingness to pay. On top of this, all six product packages of the product category are presented simultaneously in one figure. The subject is required to divide 100 points amongst these six packages. Most points should be rewarded to the packaging they are most willing to purchase. Finally, to get a thorough overview of the subjects in the dataset, variables such as age, gender and nationality are included. These are used to test whether these socio-demographic variables have any critical influence on perception.

5.2.1 Independent variables

The theories as presented in the latter chapter, have to be translated to variables that can be manipulated according to the presented variables: unity ratio, golden ratio, focal object, context, symmetrical, asymmetrical. In close cooperation with Studio Plakband, Groningen, the Netherlands, an established graphic design firm, it was decided to select three design variables that could be altered on the product packaging:

1. The shape of the logo. 2. Font design.

(23)

As an illustration, in figure 5 the watch packaging designed according to the golden ratio is included. Here the three variables can easily be recognized. First, the logo (the rectangle) is designed according to the golden ratio, where the vertical line is 1.618 and the horizontal line is 1. Second, the font design is designed according to the golden ratio using the Pearsonified Golden Ratio Typography Calculator (Pearson, 2011). Finally, both the font and the logo are located on the vertical axis (total 1.618) on point 1.

Figure 5 Watch packaging designed according to the golden ratio. 5.2.1.1 Operationalization of the ratios

The ratios will be operationalized according to the presented packaging variables. Therefore, the logo, font, and placement of the objects will be designed according to the golden ratio and the unity ratio.

Golden Ratio variables

The shapes of the three logos (rectangle, wine bottle and a star, see appendix A) are designed according to the Golden Ratio (1:1.618). Secondly, the font used is designed according to the Golden Ratio or the unity ratio for the following variables: line-height, font size, width and characters per line. In order to limit the chance of error of these specific font-related dimensions, Pearsonified Golden Ratio Typography

Calculator was used (Pearson, 2011). This calculator is defines the spacing between the characters and width of the font according to the golden ratio. Finally, the vertical placement of the logo and text is on point 1 of the vertical line that is in total 1.618 long for the golden ratio (also see Figure 5).

(24)

In contrast to the golden ratio designs, the design variables of the product packaging are designed according to the 1:1 ratio. On all the product packaging, the logos match this ratio, as well as the font and/or the enclosing text box. The placement of the design objects is deliberately not in the centre of the packaging, since this would interfere with the aesthetic principle of symmetry.

5.2.1.2 Operationalization of context

In order to measure differing perceptions of the influence of context, the presented product packaging the presented design variables have to be tweaked in order to test for the influence of context. As has been illustrated in the literature, context can differ by on high focus on context, or on the focal object.

Focal object variables

This variable is mostly manipulated by isolating the logo centred horizontally to ensure that other objects are not distorting the focal object. Vertically the logo is at a random position, because otherwise it could conflict with testing for symmetry.

Context variable

Regarding the high context product packaging, scattering of objects as well as random placement is used to neglect the focal object, thus ensuring a focus the context. The logo, other objects such as derivatives of the logo, and the placement of these objects is as such that the context of the entire packaging design prevails.

5.2.2.3 Operationalization of symmetry

In order to test for the influence of (a)symmetrical objects on the product packaging, the placement and design of the logo are manipulated.

Symmetrical variables

Regarding the placement of the logo and text for the symmetrical product packaging, both are centred on the exact middle of the packaging, to ensure horizontal symmetry for the width of the packaging.

(25)

For the asymmetrical packaging, both the placement of the objects as well as the logo is deliberately distorted on the symmetry aspect.

5.2.2 Dependent variable

As the dependent variable, this study seeks to collect and analyse the empirical evidence regarding the differences and similarities between the perception of the aesthetic principles in packaging designs of Chinese and Dutch. When considering the consumer’s aesthetic perception in the perspective of international business and product packaging, Shang, Ming, & Chien (2000) argue that perception can be difficult to measure due to its abstract nature. They argue that many complex and interrelated psychological processes, which together form the perception of the consumer of a product, influence perception. Following their study, they used Osgood’s (1957) semantic differential scale method, in order to be able to make reliable inferences about perception. By making a careful selection of applicable bipolar adjectives, inferences about this perception can be made.

Based on the research of Osgood (as cited in: Cooper & Schindler, 2006, p.343), a total of 76 pairs of semantic differential (SD) scales were identified and classified. Based on the study of the dimensions of aesthetic perception, Biaggio & Supplee (1983) improved Osgood’s Evaluation factors, which resulted in 12 semantic differential ratings used to determine the aesthetic perception. Of these 12, high

pleasure-no pleasure; ugly-beautiful; appealing-unappealing and interesting-uninteresting will be used. These terms are highly affiliated with perception to the

(26)

Following Cooper & Schindler (2006, pp. 337-345), the bipolar adjectives will be tested on a semantic differential scale, using a 7-point Likert-scale. The same adjectives will be presented for every product packaging in order to be able to analyse the differences between the perceptions of the aesthetic principles. The subjects will have to provide their attitudes on a numerical scale toward the bipolar adjectives, which reflect their perception

Next, the variables ‘purchase intentions’ and ‘willingness to pay’ are included in this research. This study places the influence of aesthetic design principles on product packaging perception in the context of international businesses. Therefore, these variables are included to ensure that the influence of both the perception and the aesthetic principles on the decision-making is tested.

In the study of Nancy & Singh (2004), five bipolar adjectives were identified for determining the purchase intentions: 1) Never-definitely; 2) Definitely not intend to buy-definitely intend; 3) Very low-high purchase interest 4) Definitely not buy it-definitely buy it; 5) Probably not-probably buy it. According to the authors, these adjectives were determined after a thorough literature review, and are assessed according to the psychometric validity in two studies. They claim these are generally accepted to determine the purchase intentions.

(27)

measured by including the average price for the high-involvement product, and then asking the subjects whether they want to pay more. The same scale as for purchase intentions is used to ensure consistency.

5.3 Control Variables

Finally, it is important to control for the ‘aesthetic experience’ of the subjects. To illustrate this, Kellett (1939) found that art students were more sensitive to aesthetically designed objects than subjects with no background in arts. Because some of the subjects might either have an interest in arts, or have some degree in arts, this might influence the results. These subjects would pay automatically more attention to the detail of the product packaging design, hence, rate perceive the product packaging more negative. As explained before, the product packaging designs have to remain very basic, in order to limit overlap with other aesthetic principles and to only test for the differences of the selected aesthetic principles. In order to determine the interest in arts, the question “Do you have an interest in arts?” is included. In addition, individuals differ according to their tolerance for ambiguity. Following McLain’s study (1993, p.183), it is suggested that the level of tolerance for ambiguity is influencing prejudicial attitudes, rational decision-making and, perceptual psychology. Because of the suggested influence on the perception of individuals, it is important to also control for this variable in the research since it might have an important influence on the results. McLain found 22 measures to determine the ambiguity tolerance, of which only “I dislike ambiguous situations”, had the highest explanatory power. Therefore, this question will be included to determine to what extend ambiguity tolerance can influence the perception.

6. Results

6.1 Descriptive Statistics

(28)

Age Mean N Std. Deviation

Dutch 25.65 51 3.908

Chinese 29.64 50 7.213

Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviation of sample

The key descriptive statistics are presented in figure 6 and 7, where the means of the average perceptions of the aesthetic principles of the Dutch and Chinese subjects are visualized. In the presented survey, the subjects were asked to provide their

‘perceptions’ towards the packaging according to a 7-point semantic differential scale. This perception consists of the averaged attitudes provided to four variables: beauty, appeal, interest and pleasure. Hence, the average is also presented according to this scale in the graphs.

Figure 6 Mean perceptions of Aesthetic Principles

After the subjects provided their answers to the semantic differential scales per product, they were also asked to rank their favourite product. They were giving 100 points that they could divide over the six different product packaging per product category. The results are presented in figure 7.

(29)

Figure 7 Ranking of aesthetic principles

The above-presented charts are the (simplified) key findings of this study. When considering the influence of the products categories on the perception of the subjects, no significant differences were found, as can be found in table 2. Overall, the

fragrance packages were ranked highest for both Chinese and Dutch subjects.

Nationality Fragrance Wine Watch

Dutch Mean 114.5294 106.2353 104.9216 N 51 51 51 Std. Deviation 19.87496 25.08433 21.48194 Chinese Mean 112.9216 108.4314 107.8824 N 51 51 51 Std. Deviation 24.98307 21.38622 25.18464

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of perceptions of the product categories

6.2 Inferential Statistics

In order to make successful inferences about the perception of the subjects of the aesthetic principles of the total 18 presented product packaging, the four bipolar adjectives (beautiful – ugly; interesting – uninteresting; appealing – unappealing; high pleasure – no pleasure) as presented in the latter chapter are merged into one variable. As can be inferred from table 3, these variables are strongly and significantly

correlated at the 0.01 significance level.

(30)

Correlations of perception

Pleasure Beauty Interest Appeal

Pleasure Pearson Correlation 1 .820** .852** .852**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0

N 102 102 102 102

Beauty Pearson Correlation .820** 1 .870** .875**

N 102 102 102 102

Interest Pearson Correlation .852** .870** 1 .951**

N 102 102 102 102

Appeal Pearson Correlation .852** .875** .951** 1

N 102 102 102 102

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3. Correlations of perception variables

It was chosen to reduce the variables as presented in table 3 to one, new and artificial variable, the principal component. In order to do so, first the Kaiser criterion is applied to the four bipolar adjectives to determine the amount of components. With this approach, four components are identified, but only the component that has an eigenvalue higher than 1.0 can be retained, as is portrayed in table 4.

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 3.611 90.287 90.287 1.553 38.815 38.815

2 0.187 4.674 94.961 1.224 30.59 69.405

3 0.153 3.824 98.786 1.173 29.336 98.742

4 0.049 1.214 100 0.05 1.258 100

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

(31)

This eigenvalue of 3.611 (see Table 4) is considered to be very strong (Hatcher, 1994). In addition, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) requires Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity to be less than the significance level (p<0.001), which is the case. Subsequently, the PCA provides enough statistical evidence to merge the four bipolar adjectives into a new principal component. As one can infer from table 4, the

principal component explains over 90% of the variance between the four variables. Finally, when justifying this reducing of variables, Chronbach’s alpha (0.964) justifies the internal consistency of grouping these variables together. As a rule of thumb, if the Chronbach’s alpha is > 0.70, the reliability coefficient is considered to be acceptable in the majority of social studies according to the University of California (UCLA). Usually, one would include the Rotated Component Matrix with Varimax with Kaiser Normalization extraction method, however, since there is only one component with an eigenvalue >1, it is impossible and would not expose more information (see Appendix D for the matrix). Finally, considering that earlier studies showed that the four bipolar adjectives were closely related to perception (Cela-Conde et al., 2004; Shang et al., 2000; Jindo, Hirasago, & Nagamachi, 1995), these results confirm this. Hence, the statistical evidence suggests this new variable can be adopted and be treated as ‘perception’, and will be used as one of the key variables for further testing.

6.2.1 Inferences about aesthetic perception

The data is tested using the Independent Samples T-Test where ‘Nationality’ is the independent variable and the averaged aesthetic perceptions of the aesthetic principles are the dependent variables. This t-test is preferred over the more standard ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance) test, since inferences have to be made about two

populations. The ANOVA merely allows testing the two populations about the difference. Hence, the t-test is considered to be the better alternative since it also makes inferences about whether the population mean exceeds the other. (Keller, 2008)

(32)

significance levels of the F-test fall within the significance level (α=0.10). The t-test failed to reveal any significant statistical difference between the mean of Dutch and Chinese respondents at a significance level α=0.05. In detail, the means of golden ratio (t(100)=-9.26, p=0.356); unity ratio (t(100)=-0.32, p=0.749); context

(t(100)=1.394, p=0.166); focal object 0.212, p=0.833); asymmetry (t(100)=-0.482, p=0.631) and symmetry (t(100)=-0.1297, p=0.198), and are all not

significantly different between Chinese and Dutch respondents of the sample. Therefore, hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3a and 3b all have to be rejected.

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality

of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-‐tailed)

Mean Differen

ce Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Asymmetry Equal variances assumed 0.599 0.441 -‐0.482 100 0.631 -‐0.0915 0.18983 -‐0.46812 0.28511 Symmetry Equal variances assumed 0.331 0.566 -‐1.297 100 0.198 0.22549 -‐ 0.17387 -‐0.57044 0.11946 Context Equal variances assumed 0.003 0.954 1.394 100 0.166 0.30229 0.21688 -‐0.128 0.73258 Focal Object Equal variances assumed 0.037 0.849 -‐0.212 100 0.833 0.04085 -‐ 0.19274 -‐0.42324 0.34154 Golden Ratio Equal variances assumed 0.416 0.521 -‐0.926 100 0.356 -‐0.1781 0.19226 -‐0.55954 0.20333 Unity Ratio Equal variances assumed 0 0.99 -‐0.32 100 0.749 0.06699 -‐ 0.20912 -‐0.48188 0.34789

Table 5 Independent Samples T-‐Test

(33)

Asymmetry Symmetry Context Focal Object Golden Ratio Unity Ratio Mann-Whitney U 1.166.500 1.213.000 895.000 1.122.500 1.091.500 1.231.000 Wilcoxon W 2.492.500 2.539.000 2.221.000 2.448.500 2.417.500 2.557.000 Z -.897 -.586 -2.715 -1.194 -1.400 -.466 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .370 .558 .007 .232 .161 .642

Exact Sig. (2-tailed) .372 .561 .006 .234 .163 .644

Table 6 Mann-‐Whitney U Test

In addition, a weak statistical difference was found for the influence of the golden ratio. According to the results (U (102)=1091.5, Z=-1.4, n.s.), Dutch do differ, and in this case, perceive packaging designed according to the golden ratio more positive than Chinese. However, this notion should be carefully interpreted, while the difference was under no circumstance significant.

6.2.2 Inference about purchase intention (PI) and willingness to pay (WTP)

Dutch and Chinese subjects were also asked how what their purchase intentions of the product were. In appendix C is the independent sample t-test of the influence of the aesthetic principles on purchase intentions presented, but there are no significant differences in the means between Dutch and Chinese subjects. When considering the influence of the perception of the aesthetic principles on purchase intention, a simple linear regression was executed: asymmetry (R2=0.613); symmetry (R2=0.597); context (R2=0.621); focal object (R2=0.563); golden ratio (R2=0.616); unity ratio (R2=0.662) all have some explanatory power (56%-67%) on the PI of the subjects. It can be concluded that changes in the perception of the specific aesthetic principle also influences the purchase intention of the subject.

(34)

golden ratio (R2=0.432); unity ratio (R2=0.531). Although the explanatory power (43%-53%) is weaker than the PI, it can still be concluded that the aesthetic principles have influence on the WTP.

7 Discussion

As the results point out, there is no significant statistical evidence that would suggest that Dutch subjects prefer packaging designed according to the golden ratio to Chinese. However, it should be noted that when the subjects were asked to choose their favourite packaging amongst all six presented product packaging, the results did aim weakly at a different perception towards the golden ratio. Although the relation is weak, and not statistically significant, the results do suggest that Dutch have a stronger preference for product packaging designed according to the golden ratio than Chinese. This corresponds with findings of Berlyne (1970, as cited in: Godkewitsch, 1974), who argues that Westerners tend to perceive the golden ratio more positively than East Asians. This might suggest that the influence of the golden ratio is more culturally influenced than other researchers believe. To illustrate this, Green (1995) argues that humans inherently favour objects designed according to the golden ratio, therefore, is universally the same. A reason why the findings of this and Berlyne’s study differ with Green’s argument, could be that much of the aesthetics literature is written from an ethnocentric perspective. That is, the vast majority of studies

conducted regarding perception and aesthetics, are all performed from a Western perspective. Therefore, the perspective on the perception of product packaging aesthetics can be regarded as somewhat biased and might not be representable of true influence of aesthetically principles on perception and cognition as is currently believed my many researchers (e.g. Kumar & Garg, 2010; Veryzer Jr., 1993). This would suggest that the perception of aesthetic principles of product packaging is more influenced by, for example, the context of the culture (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006; Nisbett et al., 2003).

(35)

it is suggested that because of the symmetrical character of this principle is

universally preferred. This notion refers back to the universality debate (Veryzer Jr., 1993), which might be of influence on a certain set of aesthetic principles. In addition, following the notion of Raghubir & Greenleaf (2006), it is not a specific ratio that has uniquely attractive traits, but the context of the product is more

important when considering ratios. The context in which the product packaging was presented to the subjects (i.e. online survey, grey backgrounds, no context around the product) can be part of the explanation why no significant statistical difference was found.

Third, the results of testing for the influence of product packaging designed with a focus on contextual influences provided limited interesting insights. As presented in the latter chapter, a significant statistical difference was found between Chinese and Dutch. It was confirmed that Chinese perceive the product packaging strong on context more positive than Dutch, when the product packaging was presented

amongst all product packaging. This can imply that, in line with Nisbett et al., (2003), the context of the cultures might play an important role in perception and cognitive processes. As is argued in their studies, Chinese favour complexity more, because of the complex web of social relationships in their culture. Hence, Hall’s (1997)

classification of the Chinese culture as a high-context culture. This study contributes to this specific stream of literature, in that the role of context is not only a key trait of the culture, but also has implications in the perception of product packaging.

(36)

pay little attention to the contextual influences. It is suggested that because the context is less important to Westerners, the attention required to context is less important. It was posited by Nisbett that this notion also translates to the perception of, for example, arts. Therefore, it is reluctantly argued in this study, that because of the less constraining social environment and ties, Westerners prefer more

simplistically designed product packaging. One method to accomplish this is by focusing on the focal object when designing a product packaging. By eliminating contextual influences on the package itself, the attention is drawn to the focal object. And this seems, although weakly, preferred by Dutch over Chinese.

Fifth, for the product packaging that has been designed according to the design principles of symmetry and asymmetry, no statistical evidence was found that would suggest a preference from Chinese or Dutch for either symmetrically or

asymmetrically designed objects. A plausible explanation for the similar perceptions could be that the influence of cultural context is not influencing the perception of the aesthetic principle symmetry. Although against the expectations of this study, authors such as Khalid et al. (2007), and Hekkert et al.(2008) have been pointing out the universal preference for symmetrically designed objects over asymmetrically

designed objects. It is argued that symmetrical objects are stronger on recognisability Henderson et al. (2003), increase perception of the meaningfulness (ibid), are

perceived easier and are of critical importance in product design (Hekkert et al., 2008). Therefore, it would be possible that symmetry is perceived similarly throughout cultures.

Finally, this study also tested the influence of the design principles on consumer behaviour. More specifically, the subjects had to indicate their purchase intentions and willingness to pay for the product. According to the results, no significant relationship was found between the more positively a packaging was perceived, in relation to purchase intentions and willingness to pay. Although there is no significant statistical evidence to back this up, the change in purchase intentions of the subjects was explained by the aesthetic design principles (or vice versa) for approximately 56%-67%. In addition, the willingness to pay was also influenced by 43%-53% by the aesthetic principles. It is statistically impossible to infer here that the aesthetic

(37)

regression analysis merely points out the influence, not the causality. However, it is safe to carefully assume that there is some kind of relationship between how

positively a product packaging design is perceived, and the purchase intentions and willingness to pay. Hence, this somewhat confirms the importance of packaging design in consumer decision-making.

8 Conclusions

(38)

the perception of product packaging. Naturally, before this notion can be generalized, a significant amount of research of aesthetic perception in a cross-cultural context needs to be conducted. Also, a new and generalizable framework of aesthetic principles has to be researched and developed.

9. Limitations

As with all scientific research, there is no perfect way of conducting research. Therefore, this study also has some methodological and theoretical limitations that might have an influence on the result.

First, due to the ambiguous nature of aesthetics in terms of quantification, some methodological difficulties had to be met. In the survey, packaging designs were created according to the different aesthetic principles. Although each packaging had a clear focus on the respective principle, these aesthetic principles are not mutually exclusive. Hence, the results of this study are probably influenced by other influences than merely the aesthetic principle it is focused on.

Second, the survey of this study has been conducted online. Naturally, there are better methods to collect the data. When considering the topic of this study, it would be advisable to repeat this survey and to use neuroimaging and brain-activity analyses. This data will be more reliable, hence, the results more credible.

10. Further Research & Managerial Implications

10.1 Further Research

Although much of the statistic evidence is absent in order to create a new paradigm, it does provide some support for re-examining the current stream of literature.

(39)

implications of culture on (aesthetic) perception. This study took a first step towards a more geocentric perspective on aesthetics. Therefore, other researchers are called to expand this stream of literature.

Secondly, most studies that tested the influence of aesthetic principles, selected these principles ad hoc. In order to increase the overall academic quality and consistency of aesthetics, it is suggested that by using strong methodological practices (using

physical data) the exact influence of each theorized aesthetic principle (e.g. proportions, contextual influence, symmetry, unity, harmony, balance etc.) is researched.

10.2 Managerial Implications

(40)

List of references

Barbu, C. (2010). Cultural adaptation of products. University of Craiova. Craiova: University of Craiova.

Behrens, R. R. (1998). Art, Design and Gestalt theory. Leonardo , 31 (4), 299-303.

Biaggio, M., & Supplee, K. A. (1983). Dimensions of Aesthetic Perception. The

Journal of Psychology , 114, 29-35.

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing , 59, 16-29.

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement. Journal of

Consumer Research , 29, 551-565.

Campbell, I. (1941). Factors which work toward unit or coherence in visual design.

Journal of Experimental Psychology , 28 (2), 145-162.

Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Maestu, F., Ortiz, T., Munar, E., Fernandez, A., et al. (2004). Activation of the prefrontal cortex in the human visual aesthetic perception.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 101 (16), 6321-6325.

Chang, D., Dooley, L., & Tuovinen, J. (2002). Selected Papers from the 7th World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE’01), Copenhagen, Computers in Education 2001 . In D. Chang, L. Dooley, & J. E. Tuovinen, Gestalt Theory in Visual

Screen Design — A New Look at an old subject (pp. 5-12). Melbourne, Australia: The

Open University.

Charters, S. (2006). Aesthetic Products and Aesthetic Consumption: A Review .

Consumption, Markets and Culture , 9 (3), 235-255.

(41)

Chattaraman, V., Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2010). The malleable bicultural consumer: effects of cultural contexts on aesthetic judgments. Journal of Consumer

Behavior (9), 18-31.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods (Ninth ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Davis, S. T., & Jahnke, J. C. (1991). Unity and the golden section: Rules for aesthetic choice? The American Journal of Psychology , 104 (2), 257-277.

Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color combinations: An empirical analysis of similarity-based color relationships. Journal

of Consumer Psychology , 20, 476-484.

DeWitte, D. J., Larmann, R. M., & Shields, M. K. (2011). Emphasis & Focal Point. In D. J. DeWitte, R. M. Larmann, & M. K. Shields, Gateway to Art: Understanding the

Visual Arts (pp. 136-141). Thames & Hudson.

Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 15 (3), 193-202.

Faiola, A., Ho, C.-C., Tarrant, M. D., & MacDorman, K. F. (2011). The Aesthetic Dimensions of U.S. and South Korean Responses to Web Home Pages: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 27 (2), 131-150.

Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 21, 401-415.

Gestalt Psychology. (2011, Aug 16). Definition. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from Gestalt Psychology: http://www.gestaltpsychology.org/definition/

Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1993). Horses for courses: Organizational forms for multinational corporations. Sloan Management Review , 34 (2), 23-35.

(42)

Godey, B., Lagier, J., & Pederzoli, D. (2009). A measurement scale of "aesthetic style" applied to luxury goods stores. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management , 37 (6), 527-537.

Godkewitsch, M. (1974). The 'Golden Section': An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Measure of Preference. The American Journal of Psychology , 87 (1/2), 269-277.

Goldman, A. (2006). There are no aesthetic principles. In M. Kieran, Contemporary

Debates In Aesthetics And The Philosophy Of Art (pp. 299-319). Blackwell

Publishing .

Green, C. D. (1995). All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937-968.

Hall, E. T. (1997). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.

Hampshire, M., & Stephenson, K. (2007). Packaging: Design Successful Packaging

for Specific Customer Groups. Mies, Switzerland: Rotovision.

Hatcher, L. (1994). Principal Component Analysis. In L. Hatcher, A Step-By-Step

Approach to Using the Sas System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling (pp. 1-56).

Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product Aesthetics. In H. Schifferstein, & P. Hekkert, Product Experience (pp. 259,289).

Henderson, P. W., Cote, J. A., Leong, S. M., & Schmitt, B. (2003). Building strong brands in Asia: selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength.

Intern. J. of Research in Marketing , 20, 297-313.

Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, W. D. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments . Journal of Consumer

Psychology , 20, 419-430.

Hofstede, G. (2005). National Culture. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from Geert Hofstede: http://geert-hofstede.com/index.php

FINAL VERSION

FINAL VERSION

Abstract

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2.

Literature Review

3. Conceptual Framework.

4.

Hypothesis Development

5.

Methods

6.

Results

7 Discussion

8 Conclusions

9.

Limitations

10. Further Research & Managerial Implications

List of references