Can you see it? Effect of transparency on product trustworthiness and perceived value, moderated by organic food and neurotic personality.
Can you see it? Effect of transparency on product trustworthiness and perceived value, moderated by organic food and neurotic personality.
Master Thesis Marko Tuševljak Author S3376052 Msc. Marketing Management m.tusevljak@student.rug.nl Antaresstraat 25-28 9742 LA Groningen Dr. Yannick Joye 1st Supervisor y.joye@rug.nl Nettelbosje 2 9747 AE Groningen Netherlands
Dr. Mehrad Moeini Jazani 2nd Supervisor
m.moeini.jazani@rug.nl Nettelbosje 2
I. Abstract
In marketing of fast moving consumer goods product packaging always played a differen-tiating role towards competitors. But there has been a gap in research towards elements of pack-aging and its influence on consumer trust and perceived value. Literature mostly focused on real or perceived taste, quality and intention of purchase, so far omitting trust, which is key to the relationship between consumer and brand. This thesis provides a deeper focus on the element of consumer trust and perceived value, in effort to shed light on effects of transparent packaging elements in regard to consumer behaviour. A between subjects survey with six conditions was conducted to provide support for hypotheses. Thesis results are expected to provide brand manag-ers with new insight on consumer behaviour and provide deeper undmanag-erstanding of packaging ef-fects and opportunities to leverage it toward higher brand trust and perceived value.
II. Acknowledgements
III. Table of Contents
I. Abstract iii
II. Acknowledgements iv
III. Table of Contents v
IV. Table of Figures and Tables vi
1. Introduction 8
2. Theoretical Framework 9
2.1.Literature Review 10
2.1.1. FMCG packaging and consumer behaviour. 10
2.1.2. Influence of transparency stimuli on consumers. 11 2.1.3. The response effect of consumer trustworthiness. 14
2.1.4.The response effect of perceived value. 15
2.1.5. Moderating stimuli effect of organic food. 17
2.1.6. Moderating organism of buyer characteristic - neuroticism. 18
2.2. Conceptual Model & Hypotheses 19
3. Research Design 20
3.1.Methodology & Data Collection 20
3.2.Pre-Test 1: Choosing the Food Item for Main Survey 20
3.3.Pre-Test 2: Mock Up Quality for Main Survey 21
3.4. Main Survey 23
3.4.1.Participants & subject design. 23
3.4.2.Measurement. 24
4. Results 26
4.1.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food Type on Trustworthiness 26 4.2.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food Type on Perceived Value 27 4.3.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Neuroticism on Trustworthiness 28 4.4.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Neuroticism on Perceived Value 29
4.5.Exploratory Research 30
5. Discussion 31
5.2. Theoretical Implications 32
5.3. Managerial Implications 32
6. Conclusion 33
7. References 24
IV. Table of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 SOR Model Framework 9
Table 1 Historic overview of trust research 13
Table 2 Historical overview of research in perceived value. 14
Figure 2 Conceptual Model 18
Table 3 Pre-Test 2 Results 20
Figure 3 Adapted mock-ups 21
Table 4 Respondents demographics. 22
Table 5 Method to calculate personality traits. 23
Table 6 Modified Brand Trust scale 23
Figure 4 Food Type & Trustworthiness Clustered Bar Chart 24 Table 7 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Trustworthiness 25
Table 8 Two-way ANOVA of Food Type on Trustworthiness 25
Figure 5 Food Type & Perceived Value Clustered Bar Chart 25 Table 9 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Perceived Value 26 Figure 6 Food Type & Perceived Value Clustered Bar Chart 26 Table 10 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food Type on Perceived Value 26 Table 11 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Trustworthiness 27 Table 12 Two-way ANOVA of Neuroticism on Trustworthiness 27 Figure 7 Neuroticism & Perceived Value Clustered Bar Chart 28 Table 13 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Perceived Value 28 Table 14 Two-way ANOVA of Neuroticism on Perceived Value 29
Table 15 Three-way ANOVA on Trustworthiness 29
Table 16 Three-way ANOVA on Perceived Value 30
1. Introduction
Technological and cultural changes are rapidly disrupting every industry on the market. As such Fast-Moving Consumer Goods are not an exception. Consumers are increasingly expecting transparency of information, either in terms of ingredients used, benefits gained or just transparency in how the product that they are trying to purchase looks. Such demands signal a lowered trust to-wards the world we live in and provides stark contrast to the oversharing approach to socialising that has been popularised by social media for the past decade. Current political and socio-economics state of affairs are adding pressure to brands to clearly communicate their product and brand identity in an authentic, get-what-you-see mentality, in order to re-capture consumer trust.
As a result, there is a rise on establishing unique claims such as organic, vegan, gluten free (and others) in order to facilitate trust. Claims build on emerging food trends, but sometimes become so popular they transcend into their own product category (usually defined by product type: cereal, chips, chocolate) in retail stores. Retrospectively, the gluten-free hype in 2010 opened the door to the trend of assortment characteristics on how it is produced, or what ingredient it is lacking etc. to be-come its own category in retail stores. Today we face the rise of organic food as its own product category.
Knowledge on effects of transparency in food packaging is low, but increasingly used as a form of disruptive packaging. Trustworthiness aspect of such design choices needs to be studied. As such the focus lies on the following research question: Does transparency as a packaging design ele-ment increase consumer trust and perceived value for food products? The context of organic food will be introduced to moderate the effect of transparency between normal and organic food, due to increasing relevance of the category. Additionally, a moderator for neurotic personality will be ana-lysed as a personality type that is most receptive to reassurance through transparent packaging. • How do packaging transparency levels impact trustworthiness of a product?
• Is impact of transparency higher with organic than non-organic products? • Is effect of transparency physical or metaphorical?
• Does packaging transparency signal luxury?
Moreover, thesis will provide unique contribution in terms of deepening the knowledge of transparency use in packaging as well as its relation to consumer trust and organic products specifi-cally. Project is socially relevant as it strives to improve reasoning behind packaging design element choices in order to increase consumer satisfaction and trust. As consumers we spend on average 2,5 hours per day engaging with food products via shopping, preparing and consumption- excluding the unplanned interaction via advertising and out of home eating ("Average time spent on grocery shop-ping” (2016),“Number of hours spent cooking” (2015),“Time spent eating” (2017)) As such the prac-tical implication would be the potential to improve satisfaction and trustworthiness of products re-sulting in better consumer experiences and more effective product releases. Scientific relevancy lies in continuing the research of transparency in packaging and filling the gap in terms of transparency levels and consumer trustworthiness. Therefore, opening new research streams for more nuanced studies on transparency in the future.
2. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter current packaging landscape in food industry is outlined in regard to consumer buying behaviour. Specific packaging elements of transparency are further discussed as source of consumer trust and perceived value perception. Finally, organic food and neuroticism are analysed in their moderating function.
process in which consumers convert the transparency and organic food stimuli into meaningful infor-mation that signals trustworthy response, which might also lead to higher perceived value, positive judgment and consecutive decision making.
Figure 1 SOR Model Framework
2.1.Literature Review
2.1.1. FMCG packaging and consumer behaviour.
In the FMCG industry consumers mostly interact with products and make purchase choices in stores. These products rely heavily on packaging to entice prospective consumers. Packaging is defined as all activity related to producing and designing the container or wrapping of a product. (Rettie, R. and Brewer, C, 2000). Ever-increasing market rivalry in the food industry has fuelled the need for innovation in packaging, resulting in choice of disruptive packaging elements as transpar-ency and use of unexpected materials. On the other hand, there has been little research done on inno-vation in packaging and its effect on the consumer. (Wang, 2015)
Essentials of Marketing distinguishes four marketing functions of packaging: containing, pro-tecting, aiding in use and promoting. (Charles W. Lamb et al., 2011). Packaging as such is an im-portant feature that has a multi-sensory effect on the consumer experience and should be a crucial part of promotional activities. It can draw attention, significantly affect information communication and comprehension, perceived intake and more with significant consequences for the consumer ex-perience. (Krishna, Cian & Aydınoğlu, 2017) Wansink (1996), discovered that consumers are influ-enced by packaging even after the purchase stage. For instance, larger packages stimulated users to consume more and therefore indirectly attribute to potential health issues and obesity.
Consumer purchasing behaviour is influenced by various packaging elements such as colour, design, showcased information, materials used, brand image, novelty and more. For example, colours
can influence the mood of product (black symbolises power). (Keller, 2009) Consumers are further-more influenced by how the packaging portrays extrinsic information as source of origin, brand, and other labelled information. Decision making when shopping is fast, and therefore distinctive packag-ing, showing relevant and accurate information, is a strong influencer in purchasing behaviour. (Si-layoi, and Speece, 2004) Diving deeper, consumers establish connections between packaging mate-rial and essential product attributes, affecting the perceived quality of products. (Smith and Taylor, 2004). There are however some inconsistencies in regard to how packaging material is influencing consumers, as Shah et al., (2013) claim that packaging material catches the attention of consumer provoking them to touch it and thus inspiring them to purchase.
Introducing innovation in food packaging creates (additional) value for the consumer and is as such important factor in the purchasing process. (Hasani & Zeqiri, 2015) Recent innovation in food packaging includes use of transparency as disruptive element. Previously pictures of meals containing salient visual stimulation were the standard packaging go-to design style. They're effective at pro-moting both feelings of desire and the appetite for meals. It should not, then, come as no surprise that lots of product packages present meals contained inside as a prominent facet of the visual layout. These days, however, improvements in packaging are allowing designers to include translucent com-ponents, thus enabling consumers to immediately observe the product before purchase. (Simmonds & Spence, 2017). Focus on transparency is further discussed in the next section.
2.1.2. Influence of transparency stimuli on consumers.
In this chapter we will take a look at the known effects of transparency on consumer behav-iour. Existing research will establish grounds for hypotheses and new potential effects of transparency will be discussed.
inferred from their findings is that consumers are impacted by seeing the actual product, which could result in higher perceived value of the product compared to opaque versions.
Deng & Srinivasan (2013) also compare the effect between opaque and fully transparent pack-aging, with findings pointing out that people eat more out of transparent packaging than opaque. However, authors fail to conclude if that is due to increased trust of the product, higher salience or any other reason. Nevertheless, we can assume that increase in transparency increases product liking and salience. Furthermore, for consumer, there seems to be a clear difference between opaque and transparent packaging. As such we can assume that their need for transparency is not metaphorical, but physical as there is a differentiated consumption effect between the two packages in favour of more transparent one. Such findings were also confirmed by Wansink (1996) stating that transparent packaging enticed users to consume more as opposed to opaque version of sandwich plastic box. Additional support for this could be claimed due to novelty of transparent packaging, which grabs attention compared to other types of packaging. As such main factor for seeing while looking is at-tention. Inattentional blindness is defined as failure to bring attention to unpredictable but salient stimuli, while being engaged to another task, such as shopping. (Beanland & Pammer, 2010) In this particular situation inattentional blindness is used to convey a situation where it does not occur and is as such used to prove actual seeing (physical) of the transparent product, not just seeing (metaphor-ical). Furthermore, attentional blindness is defined by perceptual load or difficulty of the main task, spatial distance and presence of distractors. In a shopping environment the main task of shopping is usually not high in cognitive load as it consists mostly of system 1 behaviour. Consumer is in close proximity to product so there is no issue of spatial distance. (White, Davies & Aimola Davies, 2018) There is however a relatively high level of distractors in form of assortment on shelves next to product of consumers attention. Nevertheless, those products represent a comparison grounds for the trans-parent product to stand out and therefore could aid in focusing of the attention. As such there are no grounds for inattentional blindness, which results in actual seeing through the transparent elements of the product. The difference between metaphorical and physical transparency can be measured in contrast of trustworthiness between opaque and transparent packaging
positively to packaging, they also found products to be tastier, innovative and overall more enjoyable. Their findings imply that consumers had higher satisfaction with a product when transparent packag-ing was utilised. However, research is limited by lack of definpackag-ing the underlypackag-ing reason for the posi-tive effect of transparency. One can assume that by showing the product consumers feel safer and are able to eliminate any predisposed expectations before purchase of product. Potentially consumer could have higher trust towards transparent variations. Hurley et al. (2012) reinforce those findings in a non-food product category of barbecue tools, confirming their hypothesis that transparent prod-ucts are more preferred compared to non-transparent prodprod-ucts. Additional experiment was success-fully conducted determining that transparency has significant effect on the consumer pre-pre-pur-chase preference, at least when it comes to juice category. However, both researches do not explain the reasoning for favouring the more transparent product, solely confirming existence of the effect. ("Advances in Ergonomics in Design", 2017) As such there is a gap of underlying consumer reason-ing for such preference. More-so, an experiment conducted by Keizer (2017) measurreason-ing product eval-uation, quality perception and purchase intention of transparent packaging showed contrasting results to previously mentioned studies. In their research there was also no significance of transparency in terms of purchase intention.
Meanwhile, alternative research found difference between execution of packaging transpar-ency, finding preference for longitudinal transparency when compared to smaller transparent win-dows scattered across packaging. ("Advances in Ergonomics in Design", 2017). As such a relatively dominant preference for transparency has been established, but reasoning behind it is more of an assumption of managers that consumers like to see what they are purchasing. Is the underlying rea-soning rooted in trust, taste perception or something else entirely? While purchase intention has been researched there have been no findings on perceived value of transparent packaging compared to non-transparent.
2.1.3. The response effect of consumer trustworthiness.
relationship, improved share of wallet and willingness to endorse the product. (Halliburton & Poe-naru, 2010).
Table 1 Historic overview of trust research Year Researcher Findings
2007 Elliott and Yannopoulo
The finding demonstrates that when risk and price elevate, consumer will search for safe purchase related to functional brand based on trust and de-pendability; meanwhile, in symbolic brand case, consumers have high trust on a brand that influences purchased decision.
2008 Chang and Chen
Trust positively and significantly influence purchased decision. As trust is mediated by risk, trust will provide negative and significant effect.
Chang and Chen are able to prove that the relationship between trust and risk is non-repetitive but significant.
2010 Jimenez and
Martin Trust in international marketing is shaped by organisation reputation that is associated through country of origin and mediated by familiarity.
2010 Benedicktus
et al. Trust’s dimensions are reliability and benevolence, for which those dimen-sions will provide stronger influence on purchase behaviour for a product’s brand which is familiar.
2010 McCole et
al. The contribution of this research shows that trust is a variable that is able to influence purchase behaviour.
2012 Chiu et al. Trust directly influences purchase behaviour. When habit factor moderates the correlation between trust and purchase, this factor will influence to dom-inance of trust on purchase.
2012 Bente et al. Trust is an important factor that can reduce social environment complexity where abundant possible outcomes are hard to define; yet, in this research, trust is not a factor that influences purchase behaviour.
2015 Teng & Wang
Trust, as a predecessor to attitude, substantially mediates the connec-tions between showing information, perceived understanding, and or-ganic food purchase motivation.
products. In regard to consumers, brand trust is a psychological variable based on assumption that include credibility, integrity and benevolence that consumer attached to the product and brand. (Gurviez & Korchia, 2002) Major part of credibility comes from delivering what is promised and can be attributed to packaging and on-pack visualisations. As such a link between trust and transparency can be established as the latter reassures the consumer what is in the packaging and thus adjusts the expectations.
2.1.4.The response effect of perceived value.
In this segment perceived value will be assessed from perspective of a consumer. Analysis of perceived value of packaging allows insight into importance of transparency for marketing, beyond just general liking.
Conceptually, perceived value from consumer point of view is often insufficiently defined. (Sánchez- Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Generally, perceived value is categorised as creation process (value through company and customer) and outcome determination (consumer evaluation). (Gummerus, 2011). For the purpose of this thesis the focus will be on outcome determination.
Outcome determination is often seen as cognitive trade-off (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Zeithaml, 1988), given that consumers balance the benefits of product purchase and sacrifices that need to be made (either monetary or emotional). (Gummerus, 2011). Alternatively, Zeithaml (1988) argues with means end theory, that consumer perceive value first from a simple level, for example with product attribute, continuing with a more complex practical benefit or even with emotional pay off.
As such different value dimensions have been suggested by Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994) as hedonic and utilitarian or as hedonic and functional by Batra, Ahtola (1990). Thus, it is established that consumer are rational decision makers, while also being emotional creatures fuelled by desire and feelings. (Batra and Ahtola, 1990)
Table 2 Historical overview of research in perceived value. Year Researcher Findings
1982 Hirschman and Holbrook
1985 Dodds and
Monroe Value is a cognitive trade-off based on price.
1985 Porter Companies can create and control value; a competitive analysis view is proposed.
1986 Park et al Experiential, functional and symbolic needs should be the basis for con-sumer brand value.
1987 Monroe and
Chapman Value is a cognitive trade-off with price. 1988 Cravens et al. Value is a cognitive trade-off with price. 1988 Zeithaml Introduces means-end theory.
1990 Batra and
Ahtola Hedonic and functional value dimensions are proposed.
1991 Barney Companies can create and control value; a resource- based view is pro-posed.
1994 Babin et al Two value dimensions are proposed, namely, utilitarian and hedonic. 1995,
1996
Hunt and Morgan
Value control and creation can come from companies, a resource ad-vantage theory is introduced.
2001 Sweeney and Soutar
Introduces four value dimensions: emotional, social, price/value for money, and performance/quality.
2003 Woodall Customer value framework is conceptualised and proposes that sacrifice can be non-monetary.
2006 Holbrook Introduces four value dimensions: economic, hedonic, social and altruistic. 2007 Sánchez-Fer-nández and Iniesta-Bonillo
2009 Berthon et al. Three value dimensions are introduced: experiential, symbolic and func-tional.
2009 Sánchez-Fer-nández et al.
Establishment of six value dimensions: efficiency, quality, social value, play, aesthetics, and altruistic.
2010 Heinonen et
al. Consumers create value, customer dominant approach is introduced.
2013
S.T. Wang
Edward Packaging strongly influences perceived value.
Findings show that perceived value is influenced by perceived product quality (Snoj et al., 2004; Aurier and de Lanauze, 2011). Connecting with previous chapters on transparency and trust it can be assumed that higher product visibility would enhance perception of product quality and there-fore also perceived value. S.T. Wang (2013) found results revealing consumer attitudes towards pack-aging strongly influenced perceived value. With thesis a more specific testing will be conducted to-wards the element of packaging transparency on perceived value.
2.1.5. Moderating stimuli effect of organic food.
As organic food category is based on the need for reassuring the quality of the product and transparent packaging provides more information on the actual product we can assume that the trans-parent design element will have higher impact with consumer who are already looking for additional reassurance.
On the other hand, results reveal that images of foods that are unprocessed signify naturalness to affect product evaluation, but just with consumers that are health conscious and are on the lookout for it. Moreover, for all those consumers, food shots showing unprocessed food are linked to purer product tastiness and, subsequently, to higher purchase motivation. Unexpectedly, a visual showcas-ing processed food contributes to purer flavour evaluations for majority of general consumers. (Ma-chiels & Karnal, 2016). While these findings are not directly related to transparency they allow for logical connection that transparency of (un)processed food might not have the same effect on different personalities and as such moderator of personality should be included.
2.1.6. Moderating organism of buyer characteristic - neuroticism.
Personality is defined by American Psychology Association as “individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving”. ("Personality", 2017) Furthermore “Big Five” personality traits have been defined that roughly encompass most of personality related factors and have been distinguished as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeable-ness and neuroticism. Of those neurotic personalities exhibit strong sense of fear, worry and anxiety among others. (Perugini & Raad, 2002) As such they present important shopper perspective that has not been researched yet in depth in terms of reassurance and increase in trustworthiness. Consumers with reduced levels of neuroticism have utilitarian purchasing reasons, meaning it's very important to them to become a wise shopper. On the flip side, they don't go through the negative impact (i.e. anger, anxiety, despair, shame) of all consumption-based scenarios and are proven to be composed, material, and even placid. (Aidla, Kõiv & Reinumägi, 2016) Furthermore neuroticism promotes emotional and external eating, resulting in preference for sweet and savoury food.
2.2. Conceptual Model & Hypotheses
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model describing relationship between independent varia-ble Transparency and dependent variavaria-bles Trustworthiness and Perceived value moderated by food type and consumer personality. The underlying assumption is that increase in transparency levels of packaging will positively affect trustworthiness of a product. Additional moderated effect will come in form of organic or non-organic food choice and personality of the consumer. Based on existing findings it is assumed that organic choice will positively influence the effect of transparency, while non-organic choice will not be significant towards trustworthiness perception. On the other hand, it is assumed that organic choice will boost perceived value of transparent packaging. Furthermore, neuroticism will moderate the relationship between Transparency and Trustworthiness in a way that High (versus low) neuroticism will result in more negative rating of product trustworthiness. In terms of luxury perception there is no expectation of personality significance. Finally effect of transparency itself will be compared between level 1 and level 2: (opaque vs. transparent) to distinguish if the overall effect is physical or metaphorical.
H1: Effect of transparency is more physical than metaphorical
H2: Increased level of transparency results in increased perceived value. H3: Increased level of transparency results in increased consumer trust
H4: Impact of transparent design elements is higher with organic than non-organic foods.
H5: Neurotic personality moderates significant positive effect of transparency on product trustwor-thiness.
Figure 2 Conceptual Model
3. Research Design
This chapter focuses on methodology of the study. As such setting of the research and partic-ipants are outlined. Followed by discussion on design, measurement and methods of analysis. 3.1.Methodology & Data Collection
In order to test the hypothesis and experiment was conducted. Place of experiment was Gro-ningen with bachelor and master students of RUG. Participants were exposed to mock-ups of either organic or non-organic food with 3 levels of transparency (solid, opaque and transparent), keeping everything else constant. Dependent variables were trustworthiness and willingness to pay.
Data was collected through online surveys with Pre-test 1 and 2 being collected solely through university social media groups and Main Survey (Chapter 3.5) complemented with additional partic-ipants from the Amazon Mechanical Turks platform, allowing for more diverse respondents.
3.2.Pre-Test 1: Choosing the Food Item for Main Survey
A Pre-Test was run to determine a food item, for the main survey, that was considered equally hedonic and utilitarian in order to eliminate bias based on type of consumption. Items used were soup, cereal, peanuts, bread, chocolate bar. Participants were presented with items and had to choose between hedonic or utilitarian function on a slider (0-100), where zero is 100% utilitarian and 100 is 100% hedonic.
Sample of participants consisted of 25 in total. All participants were students of Rijksuniver-siteit Groningen, Netherlands. 40% of them were bachelor (3 male, 7 female) and 60% master (6 male, 9 female) students.
Figure 3 Pre-Test 1 Results
Liking mean shows how much a is product liked by respondent, while product type means shows how the product is perceived (on scale from utilitarian to hedonic, 0-100).
3.3.Pre-Test 2: Mock Up Quality for Main Survey
A second Pre-Test was run to determine the quality of mock-ups and recognisability of sepa-rate packaging elements. Sample of participants consisted of 25 in total. All participants were students of Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands. 32% of them were bachelor (3 male, 5 female) and 68% master (5 male, 12 female) students. Mention here what you measure
Table 3 Pre-Test 2 Results
Question Positive response rate
Did you notice the packaging of the product above had transparent
packaging elements? 96%
Did you notice that the product above was organic? 52%
Did you notice that product above was using fully transparent packag-ing?
100% Was it clear to you throughout the survey what product was being
por-trayed? 100%
Due to low positive response to “Did you notice that the product above was organic?” At 52%, the mock-ups were adapted to emphasise the organic element in a more visible manner.
53 52 69 48 83 42 41 29 55 81 0. 25. 50. 75. 100.
Figure 3 Adapted mock-ups
transparent
opaque
solid
3.4. Main Survey
3.4.1.Participants & subject design.
Sample of participants consisted of 162 in total. Table 4 showcases the diversity of gender, age, edu-cation and dietary preference of respondents.
Table 4 Respondents demographics.
Gender Age Education Dietary preference
48,77% (79) female 44,44% (72) 25-34 63.58% (103) bachelor’s degree
82,19% (133) meat inclusive 52,23% (83) male 40,74% (66) 18-24 18,52% (30) high school
graduates
13,58% (22) vegetarian 11,73% (19) 35-44 6,67% (27) master's degree 3,7% (6) vegan
2,47% (4) 45-54 (2) PhD, professional degree 0,62% (1) pescatarian 0,62% (1) 55-64
As such a sufficient amount of responses have been collected to warrant a reliable statistical output. (Malhotra, 2010). Involvement in the study was agreed upon and conducted in English. Study itself was a 3 (transparency level - solid, opaque, transparent) by 2 (food type - organic, non-organic food) between subjects factorial design. Participants were assigned to one of the six possible condi-tions. After adjusting for invalid and missing data 162 observations were used for assessment.
3.4.2.Measurement.
3.4.2.1.Personality.
non-neurotic responses were used as control. Participants were not made aware of the results at any point of the survey. Reliability of the scale to measure personality was good (alpha = .79).
Table 5 Method to calculate personality traits. Personality Calculation Extraversion 20+I1-I6+I11-I16+I21-I26+I31-I36+I41-I46 Agreeableness 14-I2+I7-I12+I17-I22+I27-I32+I37+I42+I47 Conscientiousness 14+I3-I8+I13-I18+I23-I28+I33-I38+I43+I48 Neuroticism 38-I4+I9-I14+I19-I24-I29-I34-I39-I44-I49 Openness 8+I5-I10+I15-I20+I25-I30+I35+I40+I45+I50 3.4.2.2.Trustworthiness.
Trustworthiness was measured with a 7- point Likert scale (1- very untrustworthy to 7 - very trustworthy). (Likert, 1932) Product trust was measured on four different areas of a single scale as seen in Table 5: credibility for technical consumer expectations, integrity for honesty of the product in the broadest sense, benevolence for durability of the product-consumer relationship and commit-ment for long term trust and external showcase of said relationship. (Gurviez & Korchia, 2002). Re-liability of the scale to measure personality was good (alpha = .93)
Table 6 Modified Brand Trust scale Trust Attribute Scale Item
Credibility This product makes me feel safe I trust the quality of this product
Purchasing this brand's product is a guarantee Integrity This product is sincere with the consumers
This product is honest with the consumers This product expresses interest in its consumers
Benevolence I think this product is regularly updated to include latest food trends I think this product is always looking to improve its response to consumer needs
I would praise this product
I think I will appreciate this product for a long time
Liking was introduced as control variable for trust. It was measured on same Likert scale as trust. Items for liking included: I like the product looks, I would like to taste it, I would like to purchase it, Product looks interesting, Product looks tasty and I would like to purchase it. Reliability of the scale to measure liking was good (alpha = .93).
3.4.2.3.Perceived value.
Meanwhile in measuring perceived value participants had to decide what was the lowest price they would pay for the product (minimum) and highest (maximum). Average market price for the product was provided as a reference point. This method of testing is a blend of psychological price methods and direct contingent valuation method, minimising bias by providing the reference of av-erage market price in the product category. (Le Gall-Ely, 2009) Additional control was introduced asking participants to rate their family income on a slider 0-100, with 0 being poorer than average, 50- average, 10- wealthy in relation to their own country economy. Reliability of the scale to measure perceived value was good (alpha = .79).
4. Results
4.1.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food Type on Trustworthiness A two-way ANOVA was conducted to
exam-ine the effects of packaging transparency and food type on consumer trustworthiness. Residual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. Outliers were assessed by inspection of a box-plot, normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk's normality test for each cell of the design and homogeneity of variances was assessed by Levene's test. There were no outliers, residuals were normally distributed (p > .05) and there was homogeneity of variances (p = .177).
Figure 4 Food Type & Trustworthiness
Clustered Bar Chart
Figure 4 Food Type & Trustworthiness
The interaction effect between transparency and food type on trustworthiness was not statis-tically significant, F (2, 156) = .138, p = .871. Therefore, an analysis of the main effect for packaging transparency was performed, which indicated that the main effect was statistically not significant, F (2, 156) = .785, p= .458.
Table 7 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Trustworthiness
Package Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Ppaque 4.626 .139 4.352 4.901 Transparent 4.641 .139 4.367 4.915 Solid 4.421 .139 4.147 4.695
Clus ter ed Bar Char t
On the other hand, an analysis of the main effect for food type was performed, which indicated that the main effect was also statistically not significant, F (1, 156) = .915, p= .340.
Table 8 Two-way ANOVA of Food Type on Trustworthiness
Food Type Mean Std.
Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Organic 4.639 .113 4.415 4.863 Non-organic 4.486 .113 4.262 4.710
Figure 5 Food Type & Perceived Value Clustered Bar Chart 4.2.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food
Type on Perceived Value
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to exam-ine the effects of packaging transparency and food type on perceived value. Residual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. Outliers were assessed by inspection of a box-plot, nor-mality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk's nornor-mality test for each cell of the design and homogeneity of var-iances was assessed by Levene's test. There were no outliers, residuals were normally distributed (p > .05) and there was homogeneity of variances (p = .021).
Figure 5 Food Type & Perceived Value
The interaction effect between transparency and food type on perceived value was not statis-tically significant, F (2, 156) = 1.963, p = .144. Therefore, an analysis of the main effect for packaging transparency was performed, which indicated that the main effect was statistically not significant, F (2, 156) = 1.029, p= .360.
Table 9 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Perceived Value Figure 6 Food Type & Per ceived Value Clus ter ed Bar Char t
Package Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Opaque 2.021 .132 1.761 2.281 Transparent 1.824 .132 1.564 2.084 Solid 2.079 .132 1.819 2.339
On the other hand, an analysis of the main effect for food type was performed, which indicated that the main effect was also statistically not significant, F (1, 156) = .308, p= .580.
Table 10 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Food Type on Perceived Value
Food Type Mean Std.
Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Organic 1.933 .108 1.720 2.145 Non-organic 2.017 0.108 1.804 2.229
4.3.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Neuroticism on Trustworthiness
by Levene's test. There were no outliers, residuals were normally distributed (p > .05) and there was homoge-neity of variances (p = .030).
The interaction effect between transparency and neuroticism on trustworthiness was not statisti-cally significant, F (2, 156) = .112, p = .894. Therefore, an analysis of the main effect for packaging transpar-ency was performed, which indicated that the main ef-fect was statistically not significant, F (2, 156) = .603,
p= .548.
Figure 6 Neuroticism & Trustworthiness Clustered
Bar Chart
Table 11 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Trustworthiness
Package Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Opaque 4.729 .196 4.343 5.115 Transparent 4.753 .240 4.280 5.227 Solid 4.428 .240 3.954 4.901
Figure 7 Neur oticis m & Per ceived Value Clus ter ed Bar Char t
On the other hand, an analysis of the main effect for neuroticism was performed, which indicated that the main effect was also statistically not significant, F (1, 156) = .558, p= .456.
Table 12 Two-way ANOVA of Neuroticism on Trustworthiness
Neuroticism Mean Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval Lower
Bound Upper Bound
0.00 4.539 .85 4.371 4.707
1.00 4.734 .247 4.247 5.221
Figure 6 Neuroticism & Trustworthiness
4.4.Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Neuroticism on Perceived Value A two-way ANOVA was conducted to
exam-ine the effects of packaging transparency and neuroti-cism on perceived value. The dichotomous variable of neuroticism was calculated through the Big Five per-sonality test, where the perper-sonality with highest item score (see Table 5 for calculations) was then recog-nised as dominant personality, marked with 1 for neu-rotic personality and 0 for all other conditions. Resid-ual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. Outliers were assessed by inspection of a box-plot, normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk's normality test for each cell of the de-sign and homogeneity of variances was assessed by Levene's test. There were no outliers, residuals were normally distributed (p > .05) and there was homoge-neity of variances (p = .556).
Figure 7 Neuroticism & Perceived Value
Clus-tered Bar Chart
The interaction effect between transparency and neuroticism on perceived value was not sta-tistically significant, F (2, 156) = .918, p = .402. Therefore, an analysis of the main effect for pack-aging transparency was performed, which indicated that the main effect was statistically not signifi-cant, F (2, 156) = 1.142, p= .322.
Table 13 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency on Perceived Value
Package Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Opaque 1.955 .187 1.586 2.323 Transparent 1.881 .229 1.429 2.333 Solid 2.329 .229 1.877 2.780
Figure 8 Neur oticis m & Per ceived Value Clus ter ed Bar Char t
On the other hand, an analysis of the main effect for neuroticism was performed, which indicated that the main effect was also statistically not significant, F (1,156) = .570, p= .451.
Figure 7 Neuroticism & Perceived Value
Table 14 Two-way ANOVA of Neuroticism on Perceived Value
Neuroticism Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 0.00 1.961 .81 1.800 2.121 1.00 2.149 .235 1.684 2.613 4.5.Exploratory Research
As research showed lack of significance additional correlation analysis has been done on col-lected data. Foremost, there was a strong positive correlation between consumer trustworthiness and product liking, r=.600.
Neurotic personality type was analysed as part of conceptual model, with insignificant results. Therefore, a Three-Way ANOVA was conducted with added variable of gender to further explore personality characteristics and their influence on dependent variables of trustworthiness. There was homogeneity of variances for trustworthiness for all group combinations of gender, neurotic person-ality and food type, as assessed by Levene's test for equperson-ality of variances, p = .151. There was not a statistically significant three-way interaction between gender, neuroticism and package, F (2, 150) = .812, p = .420.
Table 15 Three-way ANOVA on Trustworthiness
Gender Package Openness Mean SE 95% CI
Similarly, a 3-Way ANOVA was conducted for perceived value. There was homogeneity of variances for trustworthiness for all group combinations of gender, neurotic personality and food type, as assessed by Levene's test for equality of variances, p = .250. There was no statistically sig-nificant three-way interaction between gender, neuroticism and package, F (2, 150) = .481, p = .619. Table 16 Three-way ANOVA of Transparency, Neuroticism and Gender on Perceived Value
Gender Package Openness Mean SE 95% CI
LB UB Male Opaque 0.00 1.920 .262 1.402 2.438 1.00 2.271 .371 1.539 3.004 Transparent 0.00 1.641 .238 1.171 2.111 1.00 1.912 .283 1.352 2.471 Solid 0.00 1.930 .238 1.460 2.400 1.00 2.298 .283 1.738 2.857 Female Opaque 0.00 1.809 .205 1.405 2.214 1.00 2.472 .310 1.859 3.085 Transparent 0.00 1.867 .225 1.422 2.311 1.00 2.033 .401 1.242 2.825 Solid 0.00 2.105 .214 1.682 2.528 1.00 1.925 .491 0.956 2.894
Due to the Big Five personality test procedure, analysis of additional personality types was possible. 2-way ANOVA of openness on trustworthiness was found to be only not non-significant result. As with neuroticism, openness also qualifies as a dichotomous variable. Residual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. Outliers were assessed by inspection of a box-plot, normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk's normality test for each cell of the design and homogeneity of variances was assessed by Levene's test. There were no outliers, residuals were normally distributed (p > .05) and there was homogeneity of variances (p = .510).
Table 17 Two-way ANOVA of Transparency and Openness on Trustworthiness Package Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Opaque 4.626 .139 4.352 4.901 Transparent 4.641 .139 4.367 4.922 Solid 4.421 .139 4.147 4.695 Openness Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 0.00 4.411 .142 4.131 4.692 1.00 4.829 .96 4.739 4.919 5. Discussion
The objective of this research was to investigate how different levels of transparency influence consumer trustworthiness and perceived value of products. With that in mind hypotheses were set H1: Effect of transparency is more physical than metaphorical. H2: increased level of transparency results in increased perceived value. H3: Increased level of transparency results in increased con-sumer trust H4: Impact of transparent design elements is higher with organic than non-organic foods. H5: Neurotic personality moderates significant positive effect of transparency on product trustwor-thiness.
Against above predictions, results showed that different transparency levels of packaging (ei-ther solid, opaque or fully transparent) have no significant effect on increasing of consumer trustwor-thiness or perceived value of the product. Furthermore, it was found that there are no moderating effects of organic food on either consumer trustworthiness or perceived value, compared to non-or-ganic food. Lastly the moderating effect of neurotic personality has found to have no significance on dependent variables of trustworthiness and perceived value. In summation, hypothesis 1,2,3,4 and 5 were not supported.
5.1. Limitations and Future Research
each other. While respondents were only exposed to one of six conditions it was crucial for them to asses these details. Moreover, sample size of respondents should be increased. Additional limitations could stem from the quality of mock-ups, regardless of them performing well in pretesting. Some limitations could potentially result from the style of packaging designed. While the brand used was non-existent and packaging was created from scratch, there is potential for it to appear as more luxu-rious due to design choices and not because of the transparency. Recommendation for further research is to conduct study as an experiment with physical mock-ups, giving the participants a better chance at analysing and observing the product. Additionally, labelling of organic food should be made even more apparent.
In regard to moderating effect of personality, a pre-selection of participants should be done to guarantee a higher level of neurotic personalities in the groups. Additionally, the study could be ex-panded to cover all Big Five personality types, as evidenced by exploratory research that neuroticism is not the only personality type to have potential for moderation towards trustworthiness.
Furthermore, the moderating effect of perceived value could be tested in a shelf simulation, giving participants more realistic context in basing their perceived value perceptions. While the study did address different levels of transparency as such there remain a lot of unanswered variables. For one, the study could be expanded across different product categories and compare the differences between neutral, utilitarian and hedonic goods.
5.2. Theoretical Implications
Results of analysis show results that are perceived as nonsignificant. While previous research has not focused on exact issues it can be connected to some of them. In particular findings contrasted with research of Simmonds, Woods, Spence (2018) where participants found increase in transparency return favourable results to taste, likability, innovativeness, willingness to purchase quality. Similar positive effects of transparency were reported by “Advances in Ergonomics Design” (2017) and Hur-ley et al. (2012) on juice and barbecue tools respectively. However nonsignificant results of this anal-ysis are more in line with findings of Keizer (2017) whose research also showed no significance of transparent packaging. Results of packaging transparency analysis continue to be mixed and as such require further study.
5.3. Managerial Implications
these findings give brand managers more freedom and security in choosing packaging transparency on other parameters than trust building or perceived value. If these findings were significant they would provide deeper understanding of packaging transparency and how to evoke sense of trust, thus giving managers the tools to facilitate trust and perceived value of the product and empowers the relationship between brand and consumer.
6. Conclusion
7. References
Advances in Ergonomics in Design. (2017). Advances In Intelligent Systems And Computing, 588, 177-186. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60582-1
Aidla, A., Kõiv, L., & Reinumägi, D. (2016). Improving Personal Sales Performance by Consider-ing Customer Personality Traits. GSTF Journal On Business Review, 4(4).
Babin, B., Darden, W., & Griffin, M. (2018). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. (2002). The Influence of Multiple Store Envi-ronment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions. Journal Of
Mar-keting, 66(2), 120-141. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.66.2.120.18470
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal Of Management,
17(1), 99-120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (2018). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Beanland, V., & Pammer, K. (2010). Looking without seeing or seeing without looking? Eye
move-ments in sustained inattentional blindness. Vision Research, 50(10), 977-988. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.02.024
Benedicktus, R., Brady, M., Darke, P., & Voorhees, C. (2010). Conveying Trustworthiness to Online Consumers: Reactions to Consensus, Physical Store Presence, Brand Familiarity, and Generalized Suspicion. Journal Of Retailing, 86(4), 322-335. doi: 10.1016/j.jre-tai.2010.04.002
Bente, G., Baptist, O., & Leuschner, H. (2012). To buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior. International Journal Of Human-Computer
Studies, 70(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.08.005
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. (2009). Aesthetics and Ephemerality: Observing and Preserving the Luxury Brand. California Management Review, 52(1), 45-66. doi:
10.1525/cmr.2009.52.1.45
Buxbaum, O. (2016). Key Insights into Basic Mechanisms of Mental Activity (1st ed.). Graz: Springer.
Chiu, C., Wang, E., Fang, Y., & Huang, H. (2012). Understanding customers' repeat purchase inten-tions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk.
Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85-114. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00407.x
Cravens, D., Holland, C., Lamb, C., & Moncrief, W. (1988). Marketing's role in product and ser-vice quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 17(4), 285-304. doi: 10.1016/0019-8501(88)90032-6
Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When Do Transparent Packages Increase (or Decrease) Food Consumption?. Journal Of Marketing, 77(4), 104-117. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0610
Denmark: average time spent on grocery shopping 2015. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.sta-tista.com/statistics/714971/survey-on-average-time-spent-on-grocery-shopping-in-denmark/ Dodds, W., Monroe, K., & Grewal, D. (1985). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on
Buyers' Product Evaluations. Journal Of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307. doi: 10.2307/3172866
Elliot, C., & Yannopoulo. (2007). Differential Ability Scales. Canadian Journal Of School
Psychol-ogy, 22(1), 128-132. doi: 10.1177/0829573507302967
Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 317-333. doi: 10.1177/1470593106066794
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory,
11(3), 279-301. doi: 10.1177/1470593111408177
Gummerus, J. (2011). E-services as resources in customer value creation. Managing Service
Qual-ity: An International Journal, 20(5), 425-439. doi: 10.1108/09604521011073722
Gurviez, P., & Korchia, M. (2002). Proposition d'une echelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la confiance dans la marque. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing, 17(3), 41-61. doi: 10.1177/076737010201700304
Halliburton, C., & Poenaru, A. (2010). The Role of Trust in Consumer Relationships [Ebook] (1st ed.). Madrid: ESCP Europe Business School. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj
O0LmjganbAh- VCVhQKHehPD8IQFggsMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.pb.com%2Fwhite-pa- pers%2Fthe-role-of-trust-in-consumer-relationships--escp.download&usg=AOv-Vaw2TI1LVNbwUv19SBZOluQNc
Hasani, V., & Zeqiri, J. (2015). Using Factor Analysis Tool to Analyze the Important Packaging El-ements that Impact Consumer Buying Behavior. International Journal Of Academic
Re-search In Business And Social Sciences, 5(6). doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v5-i6/1677
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K., Edvardsson, B., Sundström, E., & Andersson, P. (2010). A customer-dominant logic of service. Journal Of Service Management, 21(4), 531-548. doi: 10.1108/09564231011066088
Helkkula, A. (2011). Characterising the concept of service experience. Journal Of Service
Manage-ment, 22(3), 367-389. doi: 10.1108/09564231111136872
Holbrook, M. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspec-tion: An illustrative photographic essay. Journal Of Business Research, 59(6), 714-725. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.008
Hoyer, W., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2011). The role of aesthetic taste in consumer behavior.
Jour-nal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 40(1), 167-180. doi:
10.1007/s11747-011-0269-y
Hsin Chang, H., & Wen Chen, S. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention. Online Information Review, 32(6), 818-841. doi: 10.1108/14684520810923953 Hunt, S. (1997). Resource-advantage theory and the wealth of nations: Developing the
socio-eco-nomic research tradition. The Journal Of Socio-Ecosocio-eco-nomics, 26(4), 335-357. doi: 10.1016/s1053-5357(97)90001-9
Hunt, S., & Morgan, R. (2018). The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition. Journal Of
Marketing, 59(2).
Hurley, R., Galvarino, J., Thackston, E., Ouzts, A., & Pham, A. (2012). The Effect of Modifying Structure to Display Product Versus Graphical Representation on Packaging. Packaging
Technology And Science, 26(8), 453-460. doi: 10.1002/pts.1996
Hwang, J. (2016). Organic food as self-presentation: The role of psychological motivation in older consumers' purchase intention of organic food. Journal Of Retailing And Consumer
Ser-vices, 28, 281-287. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.01.007
Jiménez, N., & San Martín, S. (2010). The role of country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and animosity in promoting consumer trust. The moderating role of familiarity. International Business
Re-view, 19(1), 34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.10.001
Keizer, J. (2016). Visual influence of transparent product packages (1st ed.). Enschede: University of Twente.
Keller, K. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment.
Journal Of Marketing Communications, 15(2-3), 139-155. doi:
10.1080/13527260902757530
Krishna, A., Cian, L., & Aydınoğlu, N. (2017). Sensory Aspects of Package Design. Journal Of
Re-tailing, 93(1), 43-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.002
Lamb, C., Hair, J., & McDaniel, C. (2012). Essentials of marketing. Australia: South-Western Cen-gage Learning.
Le Gall-Ely, M. (2009). Definition, Measurement and Determinants of the Consumer's Willingness to Pay: A Critical Synthesis and Avenues for Further Research. Recherche Et Applications
En Marketing (English Edition), 24(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1177/205157070902400205
Machiels, C., & Karnal, N. (2016). See how tasty it is? Effects of symbolic cues on product evalua-tion and taste. Food Quality And Preference, 52, 195-202. doi:
10.1016/j.food-qual.2016.04.014
Malhotra, N. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ [u.a.]: Prentice Hall.
McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Williams, J. (2010). Trust considerations on attitudes towards online purchasing: The moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. Journal Of Business
Research, 63(9-10), 1018-1024. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.025
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). The Basic Emotional Impact of Environments. Perceptual And
Motor Skills, 38(1), 283-301. doi: 10.2466/pms.1974.38.1.283
Monroe, K., & Chapman, J. (1987). Framing Effects on Buyers Subjective Product Evaluations.
Ad-vances In Consumer Research, 14(1).
Number of hours spent cooking per week among consumers worldwide as of June 2014, by country. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/420719/time-spent-cooking-per-week-among-consumers-by-country/
Packaging design: Establishing the right value perception. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.metrixlab.com/portfolio/packaging-design-value-perception/
Park, C., Jaworski, B., & Maclnnis, D. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management.
Jour-nal Of Marketing, 50(4), 135. doi: 10.2307/1251291
Personality. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/ Perugini, M., & Raad, B. (2002). Big five assessment. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage. New York: Free.
Rettie, R., & Brewer, C. (2000). The verbal and visual components of package design. Journal Of
Product & Brand Management, 9(1), 56-70. doi: 10.1108/10610420010316339
Rittenhofer, I., & Povlsen, K. (2015). Organics, trust, and credibility: a management and media re-search perspective. Ecology And Society, 20(1). doi: 10.5751/es-07169-200106
S.T. Wang, E. (2013). The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International Journal Of Retail & Distribution Management,
41(10), 805-816. doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-12-2012-0113
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427-451. doi: 10.1177/1470593107083165 Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M., & Holbrook, M. (2009). The Conceptualization and
Measurement of Consumer Value in Services. International Journal Of Market Research,
Shah, S., Ahmad, A., & Ahmad, N. (2013). Role of Packaging in Consumer Buying Behavior.
In-ternational Review Of Basic And Applied Sciences, 1(2). Retrieved from
http://irbas.acade-myirmbr.com/papers/1371797287.pdf
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions. British Food Journal, 106(8), 607-628. doi: 10.1108/00070700410553602
Simmonds, G., & Spence, C. (2017). Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Quality And
Preference, 62, 340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.11.010
Simmonds, G., Woods, A., & Spence, C. (2018). ‘Show me the goods’: Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product imagery on product evaluation. Food Quality And
Pref-erence, 63, 18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.015
Smith, P., & Taylor, J. (2010). Marketing communications (1st ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal Of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4359(01)00041-0
Teng, C., & Wang, Y. (2015). Decisional factors driving organic food consumption. British Food
Journal, 117(3), 1066-1081. doi: 10.1108/bfj-12-2013-0361
Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal Of
Re-search In Personality, 50, 61-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006
Thorsøe, M. (2015). Maintaining Trust and Credibility in a Continuously Evolving Organic Food System. Journal Of Agricultural And Environmental Ethics, 28(4), 767-787. doi:
10.1007/s10806-015-9559-6
Time spent eating and drinking by men and women in OECD countries 2016. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/521972/time-spent-eating-drinking-countries/ Tonkin, E., Meyer, S., Coveney, J., Webb, T., & Wilson, A. (2016). The process of making trust
related judgements through interaction with food labelling. Food Policy, 63, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.007
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal Of
Mar-keting, 68(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S., Maglio, P., & Akaka, M. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145-152. doi:
10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
Wang, E. (2015). Different Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Benefits of Retail Food Packaging on Perceived Product Quality and Purchase Intention. Journal Of Food Products Marketing,
Wansink, B. (1996). Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?. Journal Of Marketing, 60(3), 1. doi: 10.2307/1251838
White, R., Davies, M., & Aimola Davies, A. (2018). Inattentional blindness on the full-attention trial: Are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater?. Consciousness And Cognition, 59, 64-77. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.10.002
Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising 'Value for the Customer': An Attributional, Structural, and Dispositional Analysis. Academy Of Marketing Science Review, 7(12).
Wyrwa, J., & Barska, A. (2017). Innovations in the food packaging market: active packaging.
Euro-pean Food Research And Technology, 243(10), 1681-1692. doi:
10.1007/s00217-017-2878-2
