THE EFFECT OF HANDWRITTEN TYPEFACES
ON CUSTOMERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY A
PRICE PREMIUM
by
Ivan Palko
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Pre-Master in Business Administration - Marketing
June, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
2.1 Product humanization ... 5
2.2 Product humanization and product packaging ... 6
2.2.1 Product packaging ... 6
2.2.2 Product packaging humanization ... 6
2.3 Handwritten typefaces as a tool of product humanization ... 7
2.4 Willingness to pay premium prices ... 8
2.5 Perceived quality ... 8
2.6 Emotional attachment ... 9
3 METHODOLOGY ... 10
3.1 Participants ... 10
3.2 Design and stimuli ... 10
3.3 Procedure and measures ... 11
4 RESULTS ... 13
4.1 The type of font featured on product packaging and customers’ willingness to pay price premium ... 13
4.2 Mediation analysis ... 13
5 CONCLUSION ... 15
5.1 Discussion ... 15
5.2 Limitations ... 17
5.3 Future research directions ... 18
REFERENCES ... 19
2 ABSTRACT
The main aim of this study is to explore the process by which product humanization affects customers’ willingness to pay (WTP) a price premium. In particular, this study focuses on products humanized by the use of handwritten typefaces on their packaging. It was proposed that the relationship between product humanization and customers’ WTP a price premium is mediated by two factors: perceived quality and emotional attachment. The data was collected via an online questionnaire and this research involved a one-factor between-subjects design. The data analysis involved an ANOVA analysis, a simple regression analysis, and a mediation analysis. The results of the examination did not supply enough evidence to conclude that product humanization neither affects individuals’ WTP a price premium, nor confirms the role of the two proposed mediators. Merely the effect of emotional attachment on WTP a premium price was substantiated, therefore, emotional attachment can be considered a predictor of customers’ WTP a higher price. Nevertheless, the results imply that the relationship might be affected by the form of product humanization. The use of handwritten fonts on product packaging is not effective in this regard and is not sufficient to affect customers’ price perceptions. This outcome indicates that other aspects of the products and/or their packaging need to be utilized to increase customers’ WTP a price premium. What is more, these aspects have to be capable of creating an emotional bond between individuals and products in order to be effective.
Key words: product humanization, product packaging, font/typeface,
perceived quality, emotional attachment, willingness to pay a price premium
Research theme: the use of handwritten typefaces on product packaging as a tool for product humanization and its effect on customers’ willingness to pay a price premium
3
1 INTRODUCTION
Anthropomorphism represents the attribution of human characteristics to nonhuman entities (Golossenko, Pillai, and Aroean, 2020; Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). Product anthropomorphism, also referred to as product humanization, is common in today’s marketplace (Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). The main aim of the humanization process is to create human-like products or brands so that customers will form relationships with them the same way they do with humans (Aggarwal, 2004). As a result, individuals perceive these products more favorably, become more loyal to certain brands and/or are less likely to replace a product they see as human (Landwehr, McGill, and Herrmann, 2011; Chandler, Reinhard, and Schwarz, 2011). Due to these circumstances, consumers can be expected to be willing to pay a higher, premium, price for a product they perceive as human. That is to say, individuals would be keen to spend more money on such product than they would on a similar, non-humanized, alternative.
Nevertheless, consumers must firstly be able to recognize human features of a product and associate those characteristics with it in order to start perceiving it as human. Kim and McGill (2011) outlined that this process can be divided into two main parts. The first one represents human characteristics that are being assigned to products after a positive customer experience. The second form represents the actual attribution of humanlike characteristics or features to products or brands which results in individuals perceiving them as actual human beings (Kim and McGill, 2011). This study will focus on the latter as it has greater implications for marketers.
4 Product packaging can affect customers through two types of cues, namely verbal and visual. Verbal cues include the brand name, manufacturer, price and country of origin (Miyazaki et al., 2005). On the other hand, visual cues include the shape, material, and font used on the packaging (Kauppinen-Raisanen, Owusu, and Bamfo, 2012). While both verbal and visual cues can be used to humanize a product, visual cues are processed more naturally and can be easily altered (Mueller, Lockshin, and Louviere, 2010; Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012). Research has shown that visual cues affect consumer behavior by attracting their attention, evoking an aesthetic response, and also by communicating product quality (Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012). What is more, these cues can give a product human form or create an impression of human presence. The latter can be easily achieved by the use of handwritten fonts on product packaging (Schroll, Schnurr, and Grewal, 2018). Handwriting is highly personal and directly related to an individual’s personality, thus people are expected to be more responsive to handwritten messages as they reflect the effort of real people (Chen et al., 2008; Ren, Xia, and Du, 2018). Handwritten typefaces are also perceived as more friendly and individual than machine-written fonts (Mackiewicz, 2005; Chen et al., 2008).
While the effects of various packaging elements on consumers’ behavior have been investigated by many researchers, the impact of handwritten fonts used on product packaging remains largely unexplored. Previous studies were able to determine that humanized products
are perceived more favorably and thus customers are more likely to purchase them, however, little is known about how product humanization affects customers’ price sensitivity and the process by which it occurs. While some researchers (Park, Eisingerich, and Park, 2013) argue that the relationship between product humanization and their willingness to pay is mediated by the emotional attachment to humanized products, others (Rauschnabel and Ahuvia, 2014) outline the role of perceived quality in that relationship. In their view, product humanization appeals to customers’ quality perceptions rather than their emotions. Hence, this study aims to investigate this relationship in order to clarify the process by which product humanization (i.e. handwritten typefaces on product packaging) affects individuals’ willingness to pay premium prices.
5 Moreover, the font used on packaging appears to be mainly relevant for goods where packaging is an integral part of the product and is not being disposed of shortly after the purchase. Such products might include groceries, household and cleaning products, cosmetics (Schroll et al., 2018; Izadi and Patrick, 2019), and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals (Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012).
By being able to understand the relationship between handwritten typefaces and customer’s willingness to pay premium prices, businesses should be able to improve their offline marketing communications, especially with regard to the previously mentioned types of products. Firstly, they will be able to determine whether handwritten typefaces are a suitable way of product humanization or whether other forms of product anthropomorphism need to be explored. Secondly, it will enable them to further improve the product communication by establishing whether greater emphasis should be placed on emotions, quality aspects, or both. Taking everything into account, the improved marketing communication should positively affect customers’ price perceptions and thus give marketers more freedom in setting their pricing strategies.
This paper is structured as follows: firstly, underlying theories and previous research is discussed. Secondly, the methods of data collection and analysis are explained which is followed by the analysis of the results. The paper is concluded with a discussion of the results which includes both, practical and theoretical implications of the study. Last but not least, limitations of the current study are listed along with directions for future research.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Product humanization
6 develop relationships with them by employing social norms typically used in social interactions (Wan and Aggarwal, 2015). This allows customers to build relationships with products in the same way they form relationships with other people. Consequently, humanized products are also perceived more favorably (Aggarwal, 2004; Park et al., 2010; Schroll et al., 2018).
2.2 Product humanization and product packaging
2.2.1 Product packaging
Kotler and Keller (2006: 393) defined product packaging as “all the activities of designing and producing the container for a product.” In the recent years, packaging has become an effective marketing communication vehicle that affects the product selection process (Hellstrom and Nilsson, 2011; Wigley and Chiang, 2009; Hall, Binney, and O’Mahony, 2004). It plays an important role in product communication as it can motivate customers to purchase the product (Funk and Ndubisi, 2006). Product packaging appeals to customers during their decision-making processes as the features reflected in it largely influence the product quality judgements (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). According to Underwood (2003: 62), apart from quality, product packaging can also communicate “convenience, environmental consciousness, ethnicity, family, health consciousness, national and/or regional authenticity, nostalgia, prestige, or value.” Consumers do not usually extensively analyze the product prior to the purchase, therefore, the packaging becomes a critical factor in their purchase decisions (Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
2.2.2 Product packaging humanization
Product packaging, as an extrinsic product attribute, has become an integral part of the product due to its considerable role in brand communication (Triantos, Plakoyiannaki, Outra, and Petridis, 2015). Extrinsic attributes can be altered without changing the product and research has shown that they play an important role in purchase decisions related to consumer goods (Miyazaki et al., 2005; Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012). These attributes do not have any direct impact on product performance, yet consumers use them to assess products and make subsequent purchase decisions (Miyazaki et al., 2005; Aqueveque, 2006). Various packaging elements can be used to assign human characteristics to products (Twedt, 1968).
7 or manufacturer reflect the brand’s reputation and thus individuals often use them to evaluate the products (Purohit and Srivastava, 2001). Moreover, products from developed countries tend to be preferred to those produced in less developed countries as consumers associate developed countries with higher quality of the produce (Jossiasen, Lukas, and Whitewell, 2008). Apart from price, verbal cues cannot be easily manipulated and thus are more difficult to utilize in the product humanization process.
Visual cues include the shape, material, and font used on the packaging (Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012). Unlike verbal cues, visual cues can be simply altered in order to humanize a product. While theprocessing of verbal cues requires mental effort, visual cues are treated unconsciously and unintentionally (Mueller et al., 2010). Visual cues attract consumer attention, evoke an aesthetic response, and can also communicate product quality (Kauppinen-Raisanen et al., 2012). Most importantly, these factors can give a product human form or create a perception of human presence. The use of specific shapes or materials can make the product appear as human, however, the use of specific fonts creates an impression of human presence (Schroll et al., 2018).
2.3 Handwritten typefaces as a tool of product humanization
8 2.4 Willingness to pay premium prices
Consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) represents “the maximum amount of resources they are willing to give up in exchange for the product being sold” (Plassman, O’Doherty, and Rangel, 2007: 9984). Price premium can be defined as customers’ WTP a higher price for a particular product than for comparable alternative products (Netemeyer et al., 2004). WTP can also be defined as a “form of product evaluation which is related to product perception” (Lewis, Grebitus, and Nayga Jr., 2016: 754). Park et al. (2013) established that product humanization increases consumers’ WTP. Thus, the present study assumes that customers are expected to be keen on paying higher prices, i.e. price premiums, for humanized products. In this case, humanized products are seen as those with handwritten fonts on their packaging. For this reason, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1. The use of handwritten typefaces on product packaging has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price for these products.
Nevertheless, the process by which handwritten typefaces influence consumers’ WTP premium prices still remains unclear. While Park et al. (2013) linked the emotional attachment directly to WTP, Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014) outlined the role of perceived quality in this relationship.
2.5 Perceived quality
Perceived quality can be defined as “the overall subjective judgment of quality relative to the expectation of quality“ (Tsui, 2012: 1193). In other words, it is a result of consumers’ comparisons of their expectations with the actual product (Snoj, Korda, and Mumel, 2004). Product packaging is one of the aspects that form the overall product quality perception (Steenkamp, 1990; Bredahl, 2004). Therefore, the typeface featured on product packaging can be expected to affect consumers’ quality perceptions as it can have an effect on their product expectations. Bao, Bao, and Sheng (2011) have also outlined that perceived quality affects perceived value judgements.
9 increases their WTP a higher price for the product. In order to examine these assumptions, the following hypotheses were established:
Hypothesis 2a. The use of handwritten typefaces on product packaging has a positive effect on perceived product quality.
Hypothesis 2b. Increased perceived product quality has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price for these products.
2.6 Emotional attachment
Schroll et al. (2018) utilized handwritten typefaces as a form of product humanization and concluded that a higher number of respondents chose to buy a product with handwritten lettering on its packaging than a product with machine-written font. Similarly, Ren et al. (2018) established that handwritten messages evoke stronger feelings of warmth that influence customers’ purchase intentions. They further reasoned that individuals were more responsive to handwritten messages as they showed the effort of real people (Ren et al., 2018). In the same way, Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014) concluded that anthropomorphism creates a strong emotional attachment to products or brands. Likewise, Delgado-Ballester et al. (2017) identified a positive relationship between product humanization and emotional attachment.
Park et al. (2013) established that, due to the emotional attachment, customers are expected to be keen on paying higher prices, i.e. price premiums, for humanized products. Based on these arguments, the current study proposes that the use of handwritten fonts on product packaging increases the emotional attachment to those products which then positively affects consumer’s WTP a price premium. The following hypotheses were developed in order to examine this claim:
Hypothesis 3a. The use of handwritten typefaces on product packaging creates a higher level of emotional attachment to products.
Hypothesis 3b. Increased emotional attachment to products has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price for these products.
10 whether the relationship between product humanization and WTP can also be influenced by perceived quality. Additionally, perceived quality has not yet been evaluated in relation to products humanized by the use of handwritten fonts. Therefore, this research aims to further explore the relationship between product humanization and WTP a price premium for humanized products. It intends to bring more clarity into the process by which product humanization affects individuals’ WTP. Figure 1 below illustrates the conceptual model that was developed for this study.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants
In total, one hundred and forty individuals (N = 140) participated in this study. Ninety-eight participants were female (70%), forty-one participants were male (29.3%), and one of the participants (0.7%) preferred not to disclose their gender. The average age of the sample was 26 years (Mage = 26, SDage = 5.4) and participants were aged between 19 and 49 years
(rangeage = 19-49 years). All research subjects were recruited online which resulted in over
thirty nationalities taking part in the study.
3.2 Design and stimuli
11 evaluated the soap in terms of quality, emotional attachment, and their willingness to pay for the product. The first group of participants was comprised of 69 individuals (Nhandwritten = 69)
and was shown the soap with a seemingly handwritten font on its packaging. The second group of participants involved 71 individuals (Nmachine-written = 71) and was presented with the
same soap, however with machine-written font featured on its packaging. The soap as a stimulus was introduced in the study of Schroll et al. (2018). The authors have conducted a pre-test that determined which fonts were the most appropriate to use for the handwritten as well as the machine-written condition. For this reason the soap designed by Schroll et al. (2018) was deemed appropriate for this study.
3.3 Procedure and measures
The online questionnaire commenced with basic demographic questions where participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, and nationality. The remaining part of the survey focused on the product evaluations which were based on the picture of the product – i.e. a picture of the soap was included in each question where it was applicable. Research subjects were presented with thirteen statements in a random order and asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with them on a 5-point Likert scale. The Likert scale was chosen as it is seen as the most appropriate for questions where respondents are asked to express their agreement or disagreement. Furthermore, Likert scales are also suitable for online questionnaires (Malhotra, 2019). According to Jamieson (2004), five is the usual number of categories included in Likert scales which was also supported by Malhotra (2019) who claimed that a 5-point scale gives participants sufficient choice. Therefore, a 5-point Likert scale was applied in this study.
12 The remaining seven statements embody the emotional attachment scale and were adapted from Pedeliento, Andreini, Bergamaschi, and Salo (2016); Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014); Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996); and Schifferstein and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim (2008). Four of these statements were aimed at determining participants’ general tendency to form emotional bonds with products. The first two of those four statements were directly related to emotional attachment while the second pair of statements was aimed to determine it indirectly by exploring participants’ attitudes towards switching to new products. Unfortunately, the second pair of the statements had to be removed from the analysis later. The remaining three statements were related to the product in question and presented with a picture of the soap. These allowed the research subjects to express whether they felt like using the soap, would enjoy using it, and if using the soap would make them feel good. Unlike the perceived quality scale, this scale has initially proven to have questionable internal consistency (α = 0.619) and hence could not be considered reliable. The scale had to be revised and two of the general statements were excluded. These two statements were previously used in a study focused on customer innovativeness and hence might have not been appropriate for the context of the current research. The new scale has then shown to have acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.756) and can accordingly be considered reliable. The five remaining statements concerning participants’ emotional attachment were also combined for the analysis to create a single measure of emotional attachment.
Along with the thirteen statements, a question asking participants to indicate what price they would be willing to pay for the product was shown. This question aimed to measure their willingness to pay (WTP) and included a simple slider which enabled the research subjects to indicate at what price would they be willing to purchase the soap.
The data collected via the online survey was transferred to SPSS for the analysis. Firstly, an univariate ANOVA analysis was conducted to establish whether a difference in price indicated for the product featuring a handwritten typeface and a machine-written font exists. A simple regression analysis was used to support the initial examination and to determine whether the type of font was a predictor of individuals’ WTP a premium price. These analyses would allow the researcher to identify a direct effect between the type of font and WTP a premium price.
13 role of perceived quality and emotional attachment in this relationship. In other words, the mediation analysis was used to ascertain whether the font used on product packaging influences individuals’ product quality perceptions and/or their emotional attachment to the product, and subsequently their WTP a price premium. What is more, the mediation analysis would also support the results of the simple regression by examining whether a direct relationship between the independent (the font) and dependent variable (WTP a price premium) exists.
4 RESULTS
4.1 The type of font featured on product packaging and customers’ willingness to pay price premium
An univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed in order to determine whether the price indicated by the research subjects differs between the product featuring a handwritten font and the product featuring a machine-written font. Although this analysis indicated that participants would be willing to pay a slightly higher price for the product with a handwritten typeface on its packaging compared to the product featuring a machine-written font (Mhandwritten = 4.04, Mmachine-written = 3.92), these outcomes were not statistically significant
(F(3, 136) = .184; p > .05). Thus, there is not enough evidence to support Hypothesis 1 and to infer that a handwritten font has a positive effect on individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) a price premium.
Consequently, a simple regression was employed to affirm the outcomes of the ANOVA analysis. The regression analysis confirmed the outcomes of the initial examination and substantiated that the font used on product packaging is not a predictor of customers’ WTP a higher price for the product (β = .121, t(138) = .429, p > .05). Likewise, the type of font does not explain the variance in product price (R2 = .001, F(1, 138) = .184, p > .05). This is in line with the previous analysis and proves the lack of support for Hypothesis 1.
4.2 Mediation analysis
14 a premium price via perceived quality. In this case, the handwritten font featured on product packaging was expected to create a perception of higher quality which then resulted in individuals’ WTP a higher price for the product. Secondly, it anticipated that the use of a seemingly handwritten (vs. machine-written) font on a product’s packaging results in individuals’ greater feeling of emotional attachment to the product which results in their WTP a higher price for such product. In order to test these theoretical assumptions a serial mediation analysis was performed (Hayes, 2018, model 4, n = 5000).
With regard to the second hypothesis, the analysis has shown that the effect of a handwritten font on perceived quality was not statistically significant (b = 1.0527, SE = .6479; p > .05). For this reason, there is not enough evidence to support Hypothesis 2a. Interestingly, the effect of perceived quality on WTP a premium price for the product with handwritten font featured on its packaging appeared to have a negative propensity, however, was also insignificant (b = -.0078, SE = .0467; p > .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was not supported. This analysis has revealed that there is not enough evidence to infer that a handwritten font used on product packaging positively affects individuals’ quality perceptions and consequently increases their WTP a premium price for products.
With respect to the third hypothesis, the effect of handwritten font used on product packaging on emotional attachment was not significant (b = .4604, SE = .6524; p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not sustained. The effect of emotional attachment to a product and individuals’ WTP a higher price for the respective product has shown to be positive and significant (b = .1344, SE = .0464, p < .05). Hence, Hypothesis 3b was supported. Although this analysis did not provide enough evidence to conclude that the use of handwritten typefaces on product packaging does positively affect individuals’ emotional attachment to the product, it supplied sufficient evidence to infer that emotional attachment does positively influence individuals’ WTP a premium price.
15 Similarly, the indirect effect, which represents a possible mediation in the relationship between the IV and the DV, was statistically insignificant (CIperceived quality = -.1307, .0956;
CIemotional attachment = -.1197, .2591). This indicates that there is not enough evidence to assume
that the use of handwritten fonts on product packaging has an effect on individuals’ WTP a price premium as well as that the relationship between these two variables is affected by any of the two proposed mediators.
In summary, the results of the statistical analysis do not provide enough evidence to support the assumptions that a relationship between the font featured on product packaging and individuals’ WTP a premium price for the product exists. Furthermore, the analysis did not supply enough evidence to infer that such a relationship could be explained via perceived product quality and/or emotional attachment.
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion
This research aimed at exploring the relationship between product humanization and customers’ willingness to pay (WTP) premium prices for humanized products. Handwritten typefaces featured on the product packaging were used as the tool for product humanization, hence this study also intended to examine whether the use of handwritten fonts is an effective way of product anthropomorphism. Nevertheless, the outcomes of this study did not provide enough evidence to identify a relationship between product humanization and WTP a price premium and the mechanism by which it occurs. Therefore, we were also unable to establish whether handwritten typefaces are truly an effective way of product humanization.
16 outlined the potential of handwriting in product humanization. It was expected to affect customer behavior, including their price sensitivity. However, this study did not gather enough evidence to support the findings of the previous studies. On the contrary, it did not identify any significant relationship between handwritten typefaces used on product packaging and customers’ WTP premium prices. This indicates that other packaging elements might be more relevant with regard to product anthropomorphism. Although the font featured on packaging is a visual cue which is processed unconsciously, it might not necessarily affect individuals’ product evaluations, the price perceptions in particular. That is to say, the font alone might not be sufficient to embody the product’s human-like features and affect customers’ price perceptions.
This study proposed that the relationship between product humanization and WTP a price premium is mediated by two factors, perceived quality and emotional attachment. The role of perceived quality in this relationship was outlined by Rauschnabel and Ahuvia (2014). In their view, product humanization was expected to affect individuals’ quality perceptions. Other authors (Holbrook and Corfman, 1985; Bao et al., 2011) have emphasized the impact of perceived quality on individuals’ value perceptions. Thus, handwritten font used on product packaging was expected to affect customers’ quality perceptions, and consequently their WTP a higher price for products featuring this form of product humanization. However, this claim was not supported by the evidence found in this research. Based on the outcomes of the current study, handwritten fonts were not identified to have an impact on quality or price perceptions. In other words, the evidence from this study suggests that the use of handwritten fonts on product packaging does not affect customer’s quality evaluations. Even though perceived quality would generally be expected to affect individuals’ price perceptions, surprisingly, this effect was not identified in this study.
17 show that handwritten typefaces had an effect on participants’ emotional attachment, they confirmed that emotional attachment had indeed an effect on respondents’ WTP a premium price for the product in question. This outcome suggests that when customers are able to form an emotional bond with a product, they can also be expected to be willing to pay a higher price for that particular product. Nonetheless, handwritten typefaces featured on product packaging were not shown to be sufficient to create this bond. As previously mentioned, other packaging elements might be more appropriate for conveying the product’s human-like characteristics. Other, unidentified, factors might have also caused the creation of the emotional bond.
While this study initially aimed to bring more clarity into the relationship between product humanization and customers’ WTP premium prices, its outcomes rather indicate that this relationship might be contingent upon the form of product humanization. This insight was not presented in the previous studies and hence can be deemed as the main theoretical contribution of the current research. In the case of handwritten typefaces, the aforementioned relationship was not identified which shows that this form of product anthropomorphism might not be sufficient to affect individuals’ price perceptions, nor their quality judgements or emotions. This is an important insight for business that choose to humanize their products with the intention to improve profits. This finding stresses that the way in which their products are humanized might greatly impact the success of their strategy. The role of emotional attachment in relation to price perceptions was, however, confirmed by the results. Emotional attachment can hence be seen as an important predictor of customers’ willingness to pay premium prices. This insight is particularly useful for practitioners. It demonstrates that firms’ profitability can be enhanced when their customers form an emotional bond to their products. This brings many opportunities in product or product packaging design, as well as in product communications. The outcomes also imply that product humanization might not be the sole factor responsible for individuals creating emotional attachments to products.
5.2 Limitations
18 conducting a pre-test, the researcher could be able to choose a more appropriate font, especially for the handwritten condition. Secondly, this study was limited to a single product, a bar of soap. Having participants evaluate multiple diverse products could bring more comprehensive results. Last but not least, the measures used in order to determine participants’ product quality perceptions and emotional attachment were based on a combination of scales from a number of different studies. This might have affected their validity and the outcomes, therefore, using different, more comprehensive, scales to determine perceived quality and emotional attachment could bring more accurate results.
5.3 Future research directions
As discussed above, the relationship between product humanization and customers’ WTP premium prices appears to be dependent on the form of product humanization. Hence, this would be a fruitful area for future work where researchers should strive to establish which forms of product humanization have the greatest impact on individuals’ price perceptions. Emotional attachment was shown to have an effect on individuals’ WTP premium prices. Further work should be done in order to explore the most effective ways of creating emotional attachment to products. The future studies should also extend beyond the idea of product humanization and try to identify and explore different ways in which individuals become attached to non-human entities. It is also recommended to replicate this study with different types of products used as stimuli and with different measurement scales. Additional measures should also be added in order to explore other factors that might affect the relationship between the focal variables.
19 REFERENCES
Aggarwal, P. 2004. The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of consumer research, 31(1): 87-101.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. 2012. When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of
consumer research, 39(2): 307-323.
Aqueveque, C. 2006. Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: the influence of consumption situation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5): 237-247.
Bao, Y., Bao, Y., & Sheng, S. 2011. Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation. Journal of Business
Research, 64(2): 220-226.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. 1996. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International journal of Research in
marketing, 13(2): 121-137.
Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. 2006. The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6(1): 63-83.
Bredahl, L. 2004. Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food
quality and preference, 15(1): 65-75.
Chandler, J., Reinhard, D., & Schwarz, N. 2011. When You Can’t Judge a Book By Its Cover: Metacognitive Inferences About Embodied Cues in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research, 39: 228-229 eds. Ahluwalia, R., Chartrand, T.L., Ratner, R.K., & Duluth,
M.N. : Association for Consumer Research.
Chen, A., Weng, X., Yuan, J., Lei, X., Qiu, J., Yao, D., & Li, H. 2008. The temporal features of self-referential processing evoked by Chinese handwriting. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 20(5): 816-827.
Chi, T., & Kilduff, P. P. 2011. Understanding consumer perceived value of casual sportswear: An empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5): 422-429.
Childers, T. L., & Jass, J. 2002. All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of
20
Delgado-Ballester, E., Palazón, M., & Pelaez-Muñoz, J. 2017. This anthropomorphised brand is so loveable: The role of self-brand integration. Spanish Journal of
Marketing-ESIC, 21(2): 89-101.
Funk, D., & Ndubisi, N. O. 2006. Colour and product choice: a study of gender roles. Management research news, 29(1/2): 41-52.
Golossenko, A., Pillai, K. G., & Aroean, L. 2020. Seeing brands as humans: Development and validation of a brand anthropomorphism scale. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, In Press.
Hall, J., Binney, W., & O‘Mahony, G. G. 2004. Age related motivational segmentation of wine consumption in a hospitality setting. International Journal of Wine
Marketing, 16(3): 29-44.
Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis
second edition: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Ebook The Guilford
Press.
Hellstrom, D., & Nilsson, F. 2011. Logistics‐driven packaging innovation: a case study at IKEA. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(9): 638-657.
Holbrook, M. B., & Corfman, K. P. 1985. Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. Perceived quality, 31(2): 31-57.
Izadi, A., & Patrick, V. M. 2019. The power of the pen: Handwritten fonts promote haptic engagement. Psychology & Marketing, In Press.
Jaafar, S. N., Lalp, P. E., & Naba, M. M. 2012. Consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and purchase intention towards private label food products in Malaysia. Asian Journal of
Business and Management Sciences, 2(8): 73-90.
Jamieson, S. 2004. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical education, 38(12): 1217-1218.
Josiassen, A., Lukas, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. 2008. Country-of-origin contingencies. International Marketing Review, 25(4): 423-440.
21
Kauppinen‐Raisanen, H., Owusu, R. A., & Bamfo, B. A. 2012. Brand salience of OTC pharmaceuticals through package appearance. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 6(3): 230-249.
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. 2011. Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1): 94-107.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. 2006. Marketing Management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. 2011. It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of
marketing, 75(3): 132-146.
Lewis, K. E., Grebitus, C., & Nayga Jr, R. M. 2016. The impact of brand and attention on consumers’ willingness to pay: evidence from an eye tracking experiment. Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 64(4):
753-777.
MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. 2017. Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3): 355-374.
Mackiewicz, J. 2005. How to use five letterforms to gauge a typeface's personality: A research-driven method. Journal of technical writing and communication, 35(3): 291-315.
Malhotra, N. K. 2019. Marketing research: an applied orientation. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. 2005. The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of consumer
research, 32(1): 146-153.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., & Louviere, J. J. 2010. What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing
22
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., & Wirth, F. 2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of business research, 57(2): 209-224.
Ngo, M. K., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. 2012. On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: Insights from online and laboratory-based testing. Food Quality and
Preference, 24(2): 260-268.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. 2013. From brand aversion or indifference to brand attachment: Authors' response to commentaries to Park, Eisingerich, and Park's brand attachment–aversion model. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2): 269-274.
Pedeliento, G., Andreini, D., Bergamaschi, M., & Salo, J. 2016. Brand and product attachment in an industrial context: The effects on brand loyalty. Industrial Marketing
Management, 53: 194-206.
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., & Rangel, A. 2007. Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. Journal of neuroscience, 27(37): 9984-9988.
Purohit, D., & Srivastava, J. 2001. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3): 123-134.
Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. 2014. You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5): 372-395.
Ren, X., Xia, L., & Du, J. 2018. Delivering warmth by hand: Customer responses to different formats of written communication. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(2): 223-234.
Sanyal, S. N., & Datta, S. K. 2011. The effect of country of origin on brand equity: an empirical study on generic drugs. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(2): 130-140.
Schifferstein, H. N., & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. 2008. Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications. International journal of design, 2(3): 1-13.
23
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. 2004. Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British food journal, 106(8): 607-628.
Snoj, B., Korda, A. P., & Mumel, D. 2004. The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 13(3): 156-167.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. 1990. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of
Business research, 21(4): 309-333.
Stinnett, R. C., Hardy, E. E., & Waters, R. D. 2013. Who are we? The impacts of anthropomorphism and the humanization of nonprofits on brand personality. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1): 31-48.
Triantos, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., Outra, E., & Petridis, N. 2016. Anthropomorphic packaging: is there life on “Mars”?. European Journal of Marketing, 50(1/2): 260-275.
Tsui, H. C. 2012. Advertising, quality, and willingness-to-pay: Experimental examination of signaling theory. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(6): 1193-1203.
Twedt, D. W. 1968. How much value can be added through packaging?. Journal of
Marketing, 32(1): 58-61.
Underwood, R. L. 2003. The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of marketing theory and
practice, 11(1): 62-76.
Wan, J., & Aggarwal, P. 2015. Befriending Mr. Clean: The role of anthropomorphism in consumer-brand relationships. Strong brands, strong relationships, 119-134.
24 APPENDIX
Study stimuli (adapted from Schroll et al., 2018)
Product featuring a handwritten font on its packaging
