Green color in packaging: A signal for healthy food choices
“To what extent does green color influence consumers’ perception of healthy food choices under time pressure?”
Master Thesis
MSc Marketing Management
[13-01-2019]
By
Margarita Papoutsi Student Number 3559599
Antaresstraat 25-35 9742 LA Groningen Tel.: +306986615584 Email:m.papoutsi@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Prof. dr. ir. K. van Ittersum Second supervisor: Prof. Sumaya Albalooshi
PREFACE
This paper has been written in order to complete the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. My passion about packaging combined with my interest about general health led me to choose this topic. The journey was long with ups and downs. However, the excitement I had as well as the curiosity for the results helped me in order to finish with happiness this journey and present you this study.
I would like to thank first and foremost my parents and my brother, since without them I wouldn’t be able to have this experience and make my dreams come true.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor professor Koert van Ittersum for his continuous support and feedback.
Margarita Papoutsi January 13,
Groningen
Table of Contents
Preface 2
Abstract 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical Framework 7
2.1. Obesity and food choices 7
2.2. Marketing as a contributor to obesity 8
2.3. Definition of packaging and its function 9
2.4. The meaning of color in marketing 10
2.5. The green color in packaging 12
2.6. Time pressure and healthy food choices 13
2.7. Green color and the perceptions of healthy food choices under time pressure
14
2.8. Conceptual Model 16
3. Methodology 16
3.1. General idea of the experiment 16
3.2. Collection of data 17
4. Results 18
4.1. Descriptive statistics 18
4.2. Preparing for analysis 18
4.3. Testing hypotheses 19
5. Discussion, conclusion and future research 23
5.1. Discussion 23
5.2. Conclusion 24
5.3. Limitations and Future research 25
5.4. Academic and managerial contribution 26
References 28
Appendices 37
Appendix A 37
Appendix B 45
Appendix C 53
ABSTRACT
In our days, obesity is one of the most harmful and wide-spread diseases all over the world. People’s food choices can either increase rapidly obesity rates or even decrease them. A balanced and healthy diet is one of the most important factors improving health. Moreover, the way food is promoted by marketing techniques can play a significant role in overconsumption (Jackson et al., 2014; Schultz & Kitchen, 2009;
Nestle & Nesheim, 2012). Since the healthfulness of products is not communicated effectively through labelling and especially when people are under time pressure, it is important to find different ways in order to succeed this. The aim of this study is to investigate whether green color in packaging can work as a sign of healthiness for products and lead people to healthier choices as well as if people make less healthy choices when they make a decision under time pressure. The study examined three different shades of green; dark green, light green and white. The experiment was conducted through an online survey, in which 90 participants belonged to the condition “with time pressure” and had to respond in only 7 seconds and the rest 97 participants in the condition “without time pressure”. After choosing which one of the three packages of milk perceived to be healthier, they asked to evaluate each of them in a Likert scale. The results shown that the product with the light green packaging is perceived as the healthiest among the others, followed by dark green and white respectively. Moreover, participants tended to base their choice strongly on color and especially on light green, when they didn’t have enough time to read the products’
labels. These results could be helpful for marketers, since by using the right color can make a product appear healthier. However, more research is needed and perhaps with different kind of products in order to form a better conclusion.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last few decades, an increase in obesity rates has been observed. High-income countries seem to be the starting point of obesity between the 1970s and 1980s. Later on, middle-income and low-income countries seem to face the same problem, appearing both in adults and children. In 2008, 1.46 billion adults were overweight while 502 million adults suffered from obesity. Moreover, approximately 170 million children were assorted as obesity victims or overweight (Swinburn et al., 2011). One reason that leads people into overconsumption is the way food is promoted by marketing techniques (Jackson et al., 2014; Schultz & Kitchen, 2009; Nestle &
Nesheim, 2012). Labels, prices, brand names, promotion activities or even the way packaging is designed can lead consumers to evaluate and categorize food as
“healthy” or “unhealthy” (Chandon & Wansink, 2007) . One of the most persuasive techniques at the point of purchasing is packaging (Orth & Gal, 2014; Rettie &
Brewer, 2000). Hine (1997) suggested that packaging has replaced the role of the salesperson by means of communicating with customers during their shopping journey.
Package design includes many elements such as shape, size, color, and logo. All these elements work as differentiation tools in markets full of identical products (Chandon, 2013). The visual design of a package can affect consumers’ choices and perceptions, since the consumer’s first impression of a product may be a determinant for opting it (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). Moreover, all the elements of packaging can contribute in order to attract customers’ attention, relate it with the product, differentiate it from the competitors as well as create value in people’s mind.
According to Silayoi and Speece (2007), most customers are influenced by the visual characteristics of a product and only a few of them pay attention to labels or product details. Color is one of the most important visual elements of packaging, which influence customers’ preferences (Clement, 2007). Additionally, it can also cause rejection for a product if it is not used properly (Aslam, 2006). For this reason, marketers should be careful when they choose a color for packages in order to achieve a successful strategy. It can be argued that colors play a semantic role in changing customers’ preferences and influencing their purchasing decisions. For example,
yellow and red color can be associated with caution and danger (Stevens & Ruxton, 2012). Additionally, achromatic black denote negative feelings while white the opposite (Lakens et al., 2012). Blue and green color usually causes positive feelings, since they are linked with vegetation, blue sky, and nature (Kaya & Epps 2004, Mehta
& Zhu 2009). More specifically, green can cause feelings like calmness and success (Clarke & Costall 2008, Moller et al., 2009).
Furthermore, it has been proven that packaging color is correlated with perceived food healthiness (Lei Huang & Ji Lu, 2016). Warm colors such as red and orange can be used to depict less healthy choices while blue and green the opposite. For instance, green packaging can be associated with the quality of a product and the nutrition value, signing whether the product is healthy or not. However, even if there are implications concerning the correlation between green color in packaging and perceived healthiness, few types of research investigated the direct effect of green color in healthy food choices. More specifically, in a research made by M. Rohr et al.
(2015), green and red color was tested in order to investigate the association with healthy or unhealthy products. The research showed that colors, and specifically red, sign avoidance to unhealthy food choices but clear results towards healthy food choices weren’t found.
Furthermore, it must be taken into account that in many occasions, consumers have limited time while purchasing (Reutskaja et al., 2011). In our days, people try to reduce time spent on supermarkets, which has an impact in their purchase decision, since they don’t focus on products’ details and further information (IGD, 2002b;
Warde, 1999). Hence, this attitude may lead consumers to purchase less healthy products and increase obesity rates. In order to investigate this issue, the following research question was formulated:
“In what extent does green color influence consumers’ perception of healthy food choices under time pressure?”
The purpose of this study is to test the importance of green color in packaging and how can this affect healthy food choices under the moderating role of time pressure.
Moreover, it aims to fill the gap in the literature concerning the meaning of green packages in healthy food perceptions.
2. THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Obesity and food choices
In the last few decades, a rise in obesity epidemic has been observed. Approximately 2-3 of adults in the United States are overweight as well as the obesity rates among children are growing (Kessler, 2009). People of high socioeconomic status in low- income and middle-income appear to be the first victims of obesity dominance.
However, in rural areas, where the country’s gross domestic product increases, people with low socioeconomic status appear to suffer from the same epidemic as well (Monteiro et.al, 2004).
Obesity is delimited when the body-mass index (weight divided by the square of the height) becomes more than 30. Additionally, it results from a combination of genetic sensitivity, increased consumption of high-energy foods as well as limited physical activity (Kopelman, 2000). The consequences deriving from obesity rise appear to be hazardous for people’s life. Diseases such as cardiovascular, diabetes type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, cancer, and many other chronic diseases, are connected with it (Kessler, 2009). As far as the overweight and obesity rates are enhancing, the degree of mortality and morbidity continuously increases (Butland et al., 2007). Even if the reports coming from countries like Sweden, Switzerland, France and Australia show that childhood obesity becoming flattened or even decreased, the overall epidemic remains still high (Rokholm et al., 2000).
One of the most important factors leading to obesity is wealth. Economic ease can lead people becoming overweight, even if the degree of wealth is not sufficiently high (International Association for the Study of Obesity, International Obesity Taskforce).
It has been observed thus, that in high-income countries the consumption of products is becoming bigger (Egger& Swinburn, 2010). Due to the development of technology and the economic prosperity, more products full of calories become available to consumers in lower prices and leading to overconsumption (Cutler et al., 2003;
Finkelstein et al., 2005). In modern society, eating doesn’t mean only covering people’s physiological needs like hunger, but mostly satisfying hedonic needs (Kessler, 2009). Hedonism can be referred to as “the pleasure and gratification for
oneself” (Bardi&Schwartz, 2013). People with hedonic values choosing their food without extensive consideration (Jun et al., 2014). For this reason, this kind of people will narrowly rethink their decisions, (Krystallis et al., 2012) since they prefer eating for pleasure; hence they will barely make healthy choices.
2.2 Marketing as a contributor to obesity
Additionally, another contributor to the global obesity epidemic is the way food is marketed nowadays (Kessler 2009; Nestle and Nesheim 2012; Swinburn et al. 2011).
Although previous research has focused on the effect of food marketing on advertising and specifically on TV commercials, it has been proven that recent advertising strategies focus on Internet and social media, as well as on product placement and at the point of purchase (Chandon et al. 2009; Winer 2009) . Many consumers are not able to describe the benefits they get from food like agreeableness, sensory perceptions or healthiness before experience them and even if they do that the information is still not clear. Furthermore, people have the tendency to overrate their judgments regarding product evaluations; hence they don’t realize how pliable and vague these could be (Hoch 2002). For this reason, consumers’ intentions towards food decisions are based on packaging marketing claims and design cues, especially for products which are unfamiliar to them.
When marketing activities focus on one food characteristic claiming that it is healthy, then the creation of “health halos” occurs. By means of “health halos”, we describe a general perception directed by inference making, when a product assumed to be healthy among range of characteristics such as sodium, fat and calories. For example, consumers have the tendency to use the products’ information in order to make inferences about healthfulness (Peloza et al., 2015). “Health halos” can bias people’s perceptions about food healthiness and lead them to overconsumption. People tend to categorize food either as healthy or unhealthy. One of the most important drivers of this categorization is the “nature” of the food. For example, Rozin, Ashmore, and Markwith (1996) found that when a diet doesn’t consist of bad ingredients like salt, then it is perceived to be healthier. Moreover, the general description and the name of food assumed to be basic contributors to perceptions of healthiness, even if they are not always responding to reality (Oakes 2006). For example, Raghunathan, Naylor,
and Hoyer (2006) found that crackers perceived to be healthier when they described to include “good fat” instead of “bad fat”, mostly to people who believed that unhealthy food tastes better.
In general, it has been proven that health halos can affect perceptions regarding calories as well as bias food evaluations and consumption (Robinson et al., 2007).
However, the positive association between health halos and consumption combined with the right packaging-based marketing techniques could work as a key in tackling the obesity epidemic. An appropriate color in packaging or the existence of logos and labels can work as an indicator of healthiness, warning or informing consumers about products. Since food packages are one the most persuasive factors at the point of purchase (Orth & Gal, 2014; Rettie & Brewer, 2000) and the influence they have on consumers’ perceptions are tremendous, they can be used in order to help people making healthier choices. But how can packaging lead to healthy food choices?
Insights of this question can be derived in the following parts.
2.3 Definition of packaging and its function
According to Wyrwa and Barska (2017), packaging is defined as “a physical structure suitable for a product, which is designed to protect it from damage and deterioration, enable its dividing into portions and transport (utility functions) as well as to provide information on the product and present it aesthetically (promotional functions)”.
Packaging is one of the most important marketing techniques which is used in order to affect consumers’ opinion about products. The most important functions of it include containing and protecting products, promoting and facilitating storage as well as the practicality of products (Lamb et al., 2011). Moreover, many authors emphasize its importance as a marketing tool. According to Gómez et al. (2015), packaging can be defined as the fifth “P” of the marketing mix. Due to its attributes such as color, design, and message, it can work as a tool of communication providing brand identity, attracting consumers’ attention and differentiating the product in a market full of similar products. For example, Coca-Cola silhouette constitutes part of a brand’s identity making it stand out in the market (Gomez et al., 2015).
At the point of purchase, packaging works as a communication tool between firms and consumers. According to Hine (1997), the product’s package is referred to as the
“silent salesman”, which helps consumers forming decisions and persuades them to buying the product. In other words, it can be argued that packaging plays an important role in consumers’ decision-making process since it tries to affect their perceptions at the moment of truth (Silayoi & Speece, 2007). It is, therefore, marketers’ and firms’
responsibility to design packages that transfer aesthetic, functional, symbolic and informational advantages to consumers. The importance of design strategies, which attract consumers’ attention, is really important and especially for the entrance of new brand products and extensions since they can signal changes in product lines (Garber, 1995).
According to Ampuero and Vila (2006), packaging consists of structural components such as shape, size and the materials that were used to create the package. On the other side, we have the graphical components which include the color of the package, the images and the graphical shapes that decorate it. Package design is responsible for forming consumers’ first and last impression (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). The use of colors in packages can make a product appearing more or less healthy and therefore influence consumers’ perceptions regarding healthiness. Moreover, there is an association between color perceptions and nutritional value. If the appropriate color is used, then consumers can perceive the product as more nutritious and lead to healthier choices. The main focus of this research is based on the graphic components of packaging and especially on the color green. The purpose of the study is to test if there is a relationship between green color and perceived healthiness of products.
2.4 The meaning of color in marketing
The meaning of color has been used for years in many different disciplines like psychology, physics, art, and marketing. One of the most interesting perspectives is the meaning of color in consumer behavior. Color is the visual creation coming from the physical reflection of light. It can be determined by how easily a human eye can catch the wavelengths of light. In other words, each color is associated with a specific spectrum of light (Mai et al., 2016). According to Gorn et al. (1997), there many are different typologies that characterize how a color looks like such as hue, lightness,
chroma, and saturation. Previous researches have shown that consumers use to create associations with certain colors since color appears everywhere in their purchasing journey (Balsam and Gallistel, 2007; Labrecque et al., 2013). For example, consumers have associated red signals with discount labels inside a store or something that grabs their attention (Puccinelli et al., 2013). Moreover, product’s color can be part of this kind of associations (Garber et al., 2000; Herbig and Milewicz, 1996).
For many years, color is used by marketers in many different marketing tools such as advertisements (Gorn et al., 1997; Lohse & Rosen, 2001; Meyers-Levy & Peracchio, 1995) , product design (Deng, Hui, & Hutchinson, 2010; Moreau & Herd, 2009), logos (Bottomley & Doyle, 2006) and in packaging design (Garber, Burke, & Jones, 2000). The reason behind this technique is the fact that color can catch people’s attention (Schindler, 1986), helps consumers create perceptions about products as well as offers the ability for differentiation from other competitive brands. For this reason, color is one of the most significant parameters for a brand to keep its equity, brand recognition, and image (Lightfoot & Gerstman, 1998). According to Schmitt and Pan (1994) color is one of the most determining visual characteristics of packaging, since it can determine how desirable a product can be for consumers (Madden et al., 2000).
Researches have shown that the visual characteristics of a product can attract consumers’ attention, help them in shaping perceptions about products, which in the end plays a significant role in forming purchasing decisions (Venter et al., 2011).
Colors and graphics appear to be one of the most determinant factors affecting purchasing decisions. Accordingly, extrinsic cues such as color, influence buying decisions and especially consumers who don’t spend much time and effort to evaluate the informational details and characteristics (Grossman & Winesblit, 1999). Since consumers’ first impression is influenced by packaging characteristics such as color and graphics, marketers and designers should be very careful with the designing procedure. An eye-catching color can grab consumers’ attention and play a decisive role in purchasing decisions. According to Silayoi and Speece (2007), graphics and colors can make a product appear attractive leading customers to decide about the brand choice.
Many kinds of research have connected colors with arousals and Goldstein’s proposal regarding wavelength. For example, colors characterized as longer-wavelength like
red presumed to be more arousing, in contrast to shorter-wavelength like green which appears as more calming (Stone & English, 1998). Additionally, green color, which characterized as cool color, seems to be more preferable than warm colors (Silver &
McCulley, 1988). According to Babin et al. (2003), there is an association between cool colors and better evaluations of products, as well as augmented buying intentions. As Bruno et al. (2013) said color has significant psychological meaning that is connected with the context of food. On one hand, the green color may work as an appetitive signal because there is an association with fecundity and growth (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012). On the other hand, Elliot et al. (2007) support that green color has an approach-oriented meaning in contrast to red that evokes avoidance (Rohr et al., 2015).
2.5 The green color in packaging
Green color is associated with nature, life, and health and assumed to be the second most popular color (Deliya & Parmar, 2012). U.S Department of Agriculture has established green color in labels as an indicator of organic food (Schuldt, 2013).
Furthermore, in recent days, designers use green color in front-of-package labels making products appear healthier. As a result, the chance for a strong association between green and healthy products is increasing and may affect healthy food decisions. With the rise of the obesity epidemic, consumers tend to become healthier conscious (Jeffery et al., 1991). The healthiness of food becomes one of the most important factors that affect the way people choose products (Carrillo et al., 2011).
For example, blue and green colors in packaging can be associated with healthiness (Adams & Osgood, 1973; Madden et al., 2000) even if it is assumed that this association derives from the fact that those colors are the most preferable. For this reason, the aim of this research is to investigate how important is green color in packaging and if it can work as an indicator of healthy food choices.
In the last few decades, the food industry uses green color in packaging in order to signify healthiness for light products (Gimba, 1998). For example, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have introduced green color instead of red in order to create a healthier and more natural image (Rompay et al., 2016). In a research made by McNatt (1998) , the results shown that consumers have the tendency to perceive any kind of products
as healthier if the package of it has green color. Since colors have the ability to affect consumers’ purchase decisions (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Genschow et al., 2012;
Koenigstorfer et al., 2014) and due to the fact that green color is linked to a positive meaning (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012 ), we assume that green color in packaging can influence consumers’ perceptions about healthy food choices and affect their consumption behavior. In order to test that, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H1: Green color in packaging and perceived healthiness is positively related.
2.6 Time pressure and healthy food choices
With the passage of time, life becomes busier. In modern society, consumers try to reduce the time spent on their purchasing trips, as well as in the preparation of food.
According to Singh (2006), it takes approximately ninety seconds for a consumer to make a decision from his first experience with the product. Moreover, many consumers who purchase under time pressure appear to buy fewer products than those planned (Herrington & Capella, 1995). Purchasing products without prior consideration can be characterized as a kind of impulse buying (Hausman, 2000). In a research made by Silayoi and Speece (2004), the results showed that participants who were shopping under time pressure, spent less time making decisions. Additionally, the purchase decisions were made quickly and without careful evaluation of the products. The fact that time was limited made them having difficulties in taking decisions and especially when they had to choose among different brands.
In the last few decades, it has been observed that people are making choices without conscious awareness and in more automatic method (Cohen & Babey, 2012). These unconscious decisions can lead people into a high level of caloric consumption and in non-nutritional diets. Classical economic theory supports that people rely on different criteria when they have to make decisions (Cohen & Babey, 2012). On one hand, heuristic cues can influence people’s purchasing decisions, including cues such as the appearance of products, packages, logos, brands, and prices. Decisions relying on heuristic cues can be made quickly and in a simple procedure (Cohen & Babey, 2012). On the other hand, automaticity is another process by which people making
choices. Accordingly, automaticity occurs unconsciously and effortlessly (Bargh, 1994). Previous researches have shown that automaticity and habits come across with dual processing theory. Dual process theory supports that when it comes to information procedure two systems are formulated, cognitive and non-cognitive. In cognitive-decision making, people spend much effort and are careful when they have to make decisions, thus they choose the best option. However, in non-cognitive processing decisions are taken quickly and automatically, as well as are affected by heuristics cues (Dijksterhuis et al., 2005; Bargh, 2005).
Time pressure can affect people’s purchasing decisions. It is noticed that many times consumers don’t have the time to evaluate labels in packages (IGD, 2003D). Even if the percentages of people who concern about their health and pay more attention to information details depicted on packages are notable (Coulson, 2000; IGD, 2003c ), still there are those who try to avoid spending time and make more effortless purchasing decisions. This tendency can affect people’s decision processes since time pressure decreases the chance to consider package elements like labels (IGD, 2002b;
Warde, 1999). Furthermore, time pressure assumed to be a barrier of eating healthier choices in a research made among Australian women (Welch et al., 2009). The preference for fast food options was increased when these women were in a time constraint, in contrast to healthier options.
Basing on these findings, we assume that since consumers usually shop under time pressure, they don’t have time to read the nutritional information on packages and evaluate the products’ benefits; hence consumers are leading to less healthy choices.
In order to test that, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H2: Time pressure and preference for a healthy alternative are negatively related.
2.7 Green color and the perceptions of healthy food choices under time pressure The package of a product can create expectations for consumers. In other words, it can be said that a product can affect people’s perceptions of the attributes and benefits of a product (Dantas et al., 2004). Packaging considered being one of the most important stimuli that can affect people’s perceptions since it takes only a few seconds to make an impression on consumers. For this reason, marketers and
designers should be careful when they create a package since packaging has to attract consumers’ attention and persuade them by providing convincing messages (Dantas et al., 2004). Additionally, visual stimuli on packaging can affect consumer’s purchasing decisions (Venter et al., 2011). More specifically, color in packaging has a significant influence on consumers who are purchasing under time pressure, since consumers’
decisions rely on visual cues (Dantas et al., 2004). According to Bargh (2006), priming occurs when a stimulus like color can affect people by activating associations and leading them to a specific behavior. In our case, affective priming will occur if green color in packaging will activate perceptions regarding healthiness and if this association finally would lead to healthy food choices.
Furthermore, when consumers feel time-constrained while purchasing inside a store, they need to have simpler and effortless information (Gofton, 1995). An eye-catching color can work as stimulus-based information. As mentioned before, modern consumers purchase under limited time and don’t have time to evaluate products as well as read the labels. According to Silayoi and Speece (2004), consumers suggested colors to indicate informational details, since it takes less time and effort in order to process the information. Colors can make a package appearing more attractive; hence leading to higher buying preferences. Many studies have shown that green color can be associated with nature, healthiness, and calmness (Mohebbi, 2014). Moreover, marketers and designers, in an attempt to promote healthy food choices, are using colors like green or blue in order to make products appear “light” or healthy. Hence, we can assume that if a consumer visits a store under time pressure in order to purchase products and see green packages, will automatically connect it with a healthier option and then proceed into purchasing. In order to test this assumption, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H3: The relationship between green color in packaging and healthy food choices is stronger when the time pressure is high.
2.8 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 General idea of the experiment
In order to collect relevant data to answer the research questions, an online survey will be conducted which will serve two conditions as shown in the Appendices (Appendix A, Appendix B). A selected number of at least 120 people has been chosen to fill this survey, in order each condition have at least 60 respondents. Due to the fact that reliable results are needed, the real purpose of the research will not become clear to participants, since we want answers based on their actual perceptions and not desirable responses. Therefore, in the beginning of the survey it will be explained that we want to investigate how package design affects food decisions generally and not specifically about healthy choices.
In the first condition, three different in color packages of milk with their nutritional information will be shown in the survey, after which respondents will have to choose in only five seconds which one perceive as healthier. Additionally, respondents will be asked to rate the packages on several statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). The main topics of these statements will be the perceived healthiness, product attitude (intention to buy, general perceptions,
stimuli credibility), general health interest and feelings concerning time pressure. In the second condition, participants will be asked to choose among the three different in color packages but this group of people won’t have limited time to answer. After this procedure, respondents have to answer in the same questions as in the first group, except from questions regarding time pressure. By letting participants rate several statements we want to ensure that they will stay unaware of the real aim of the research.
Moreover, general questions will be asked like age, sex, potential allergies and possibility of color blindness. This type of questions could explain effects that will be found. It is important to distinguish the time framework in which participants from the first group will choose one of the three packages, since time pressure could possibly be a moderator in the relationship between the packaging color and perceived healthiness of the product. For this reason, we will set up a frame of 7 seconds in which participants will be forced to answer quickly, possibly without paying attention to nutritional information under each product.
The packages displayed in the survey will not use existing brand in order to avoid confounding variables. The color in packaging will appear in three shades, which is dark green, light green and white. In order to achieve this, the saturation is going to be altered. All these different shades of green will be depicted on the same package in order to avoid bias derived from differences in shape. The package of the healthy choice (milk) will be created with the use of Google images in order to appear as identical as possible with the most common dairy products in supermarkets.
3.2 Collection of data
There will not be any restriction for participants to fill in the survey. However, the respondents who will respond positively to color blindness will be excluded from the analysis in order to protect the validity of the results. Participants will be approached via the use of social media and e-mail. The survey will be completed in Qualtrics where participants should answer it separately from each other.
4. RESULTS
In this chapter the results of the analysis are displayed. With the help of the statistical program SPSS I tested the three hypotheses. At the beginning, the dataset was prepared followed by the descriptive statistics and frequencies. All the outputs of the analysis can be found in the Appendix C.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The dataset consists of 239 respondents by which the 199 completed the survey. From 199 respondents, 101 belong to the first group with “time pressure” and the rest of them to the second group “without time pressure”. However, those respondents from the first group who exceeded 7 seconds were excluded from the dataset. Moreover, participants were asked to fill if they are color blind. Those participants who answered
“yes” were excluded from the experiment in order to protect the validity of the results.
Considering these limitations, the final sample consists of 90 participants in the group
“with time pressure” and 97 participants in the group “without time pressure”. The sample of participants is representative enough in order to have clear results. The age of participants fluctuates from 17 to 62 years old. In addition, the sample consists of 86 (46%) men and 101 (54%) women by whom 5 of them stated that suffer from lactose intolerance. Furthermore, the dataset was checked for possible extreme outliers that could influence the other data.
4.2 Preparing for analysis
In order to investigate the 3 main research questions, a various dataset’s preparation took place. More specifically, there are 10 statements in the questionnaire, measuring health perception for each bottle color (30 statements at total). In these statements, the 5 of them, are negatively warded (Chemical, Full of calories, Unhealthy, Fat, Unnatural), so they have been inverted, in order to acquire a collective meaning for the health’s perception scale. Based on the above, 3 Scores were created, one for each bottle color, in which as the mean increases, so does the health perception of each participant, as for the respective color.
These Scores are reliable, highly absorbing the information of the 10-statements scale, since the Cronbach’s Alpha values for each color-group (Table 1), are very high (0.879, 0.901 and 0.870 for the dark green, light green and white bottles respectively).
Table 1: Reliability Statistics
Color Group Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Dark Green .879 10
Light Green .901 10
White .870 10
4.3 Testing hypotheses
In order to decide the test that will be used for the hypotheses, 3 normality tests have been made with 2 different methods (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) for each of the 3 Scores created. As shown (Table 2), we can assume at 95% trust level that the first 2 Scores follow the normal distribution, since the normality hypotheses are not rejected from any test (all p-values are above 0.05), though the third Score does not (the p-values from both tests are below 0.05).
Table 2: Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Dark_Green_Score .061 187 .090 .988 187 .130
Light_Green_Score .055 187 .200* .987 187 .074
White_Score .085 187 .002 .985 187 .042
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Beside the results of the 3rd Score and considering the normality of the other 2, along with the benefits of using a parametric test, the Repeated Measures ANOVA test was used and its results are given below.
More specifically, in Table 4 (see Appendix C), we can see that the sphericity assumption is violated (p-value=0.000), leading us to use the Greenhouse-Geisser test from Table 5 (see Appendix C), in order to conclude about the existence of statistically significant differences between the 3 health-perception mean Scores. The hypothesis of common behavior of the participants as for the 3 colors is rejected in 99% trust level (p-value=0.000) and the way in which this differentiation occurs, is shown in Table 6 (see Appendix C). As shown, every color’s health perception Score, significantly differs from each other (all pairwise p-values are below 0.05), fact that becomes clear from Table 3 and Graph 1, in which the final results are shown. Light green bottle gathered the highest health’s perception Score (4.771), followed by the dark green bottle (4.505), since last appear to be the white bottle (4.026). Hence, we can assume that the first hypothesis has been proven, indicating that indeed green color and more specifically light green is perceived as more healthy in contrast to white.
Table 3: Health’s Perception mean Scores for each color group
Mean Std. Deviation N
Dark_Green_Score 4.5048 .93362 187
Light_Green_Score 4.7706 .95655 187
White_Score 4.0257 .97301 187
Graph 1: Mean Health Perception Scores, of each bottle color
In order to investigate the other two hypotheses, the x square test was used. This test counts the participants in every sub group created by 2 specific variables (bottle color and time pressure) and tests if there are statistically significant differences to these counts as for each one of the respective variables’ values.
In order to support the second hypothesis, which indicates that when people are under time pressure they make less healthy choices, we can see the percentages of the 3 chosen colors (Table 7). In our experiment, the white bottle was chosen to be the healthiest in contrast to other two bottles as you can see from the nutritional information under each bottle (see Appendix A). Participants had to choose which one they perceived as healthiest in only 7 seconds. However, as we can see from the Table 7, only 16,7% of the participants chose the white bottle, while 55,6 % chose the light green and 27,8% the dark green which where the less healthy alternatives. Indeed, we can understand that people didn’t have enough time to read the nutritional information so they chose a less healthy product. According to these results, the second hypothesis can be confirmed.
Table 7: Percentages of bottle color under time pressure
Dark green Light green White Total With time
pressure
Count 25 50 15 90
% within Time pressure
27,8% 55,6% 16,7% 100,0%
Lastly, in order to investigate the third hypothesis, which says that the relationship between green color in packaging and healthy choices is stronger when time pressure is high, we used the same percentages derived from x square test. In Table 8, we can see that without time pressure, the 3 colors were chosen in percentages 33% (dark green), 54.6% (light green) and 12.4% (white), since under time pressure, the respective percentages were 27.8%, 55.6% and 16.6%. It is obvious that the differentiations are very weak which is confirmed by the p-value of the test shown in Table 9, which indicates no statistically significant results. We can see that the differentiations of the percentages for the two conditions are really small which
indicates that participants who were under time constrained made almost the same choices with participants who were not. Even if there is an indication that participants in both conditions perceive green color as a healthy color, this is not enough in order to support the third hypothesis. Further research is needed in order to investigate if green color can help consumers make healthier choices when they are under time pressure.
Table 8: Bottle Color * Time pressure Crosstabulation
Product
Total Dark_green Light_green White
Time_pressure Without_time_pressure Count 32 53 12 97
% within Time_pressure 33.0% 54.6% 12.4% 100.0%
With_time_pressure Count 25 50 15 90
% within Time_pressure 27.8% 55.6% 16.7% 100.0%
Total Count 57 103 27 187
% within Time_pressure 30.5% 55.1% 14.4% 100.0%
Table 9: Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.020a 2 .601
Likelihood Ratio 1.021 2 .600
Linear-by-Linear Association .991 1 .319 N of Valid Cases 187
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.99.
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
5.1 Discussion
In the last chapter of this master thesis we are going to formulate the conclusions regarding the three hypotheses, discuss about the outcomes of the analyses as well as provide some recommendations about future research.
After implementing the experiment, we are able to draw some conclusions regarding the hypotheses. The first hypothesis “Green color in packaging and perceived healthiness is positively related” proved to be consistent with the research findings.
More specifically, 3 shades of green have been tested in order to understand if green color is perceived as a healthy color. The findings shown that light green create the strongest associations with perceived healthiness, followed by dark green and white.
As a result, the outcomes of this thesis support previous research indicating that green color has a positive influence on the perceived healthiness. Indeed, people perceive a product to be healthy when the color of packaging is green. Moreover, it is important to mention that light green influenced more consumers’ perceptions regarding healthiness in contrast to dark green. Therefore, we can conclude that the first hypothesis is accepted.
As far as the second hypothesis “Time pressure and preference for a healthy alternative are negatively related” is concerned, the findings are consistent with previous research. It has been proved that indeed when people are under time pressure, they don’t have enough time to read the nutritional information of a product, which leads them choosing less healthy choices. In this experiment, the healthiest product was the one with the white packaging. However, people had the tendency to choose the other two packages without noticing that they were less healthy. It is obvious that when time pressure is high, the chance to consider package elements such as labels decreases. On the other hand, the chance to make a choice based on heuristic cues such as color in packages increases. Almost 50% of the participants based their choice on the color of packaging, thinking that green package is the healthiest product. Therefore, we conclude that the second hypothesis is accepted.
For the third hypothesis “The relationship between green color in packaging and healthy food choices is stronger when the time pressure is high” no significant effects were found in order to support it. Time pressure did not prove to have a significant effect since in both conditions, the percentages of the chosen packages was almost the same. Participants perceived green color with the same way in both conditions. Even if there is an indication that green color is perceived as healthier, the results are not enough in order to support this research question.
Concluding, this study shows that green color in packaging has a significant effect on perceived healthiness. In addition, light green perceived to be healthier than dark green and white. As an explanation could be the fact that light green is a bright color and can easily grab people’s attention, especially when they don’t have enough time to make a choice. Using light green color in packaging can influence people’s perceptions and lead them in choosing a healthy alternative. However, more research is needed in order to prove that green color can boost the relationship between time pressure and healthy choices. It is possible that with a different kind of experiment, such as a field experiment in a supermarket, the results could be clearer due to the fact that consumers would participate in a more realistic way.
5.2 Conclusion
This research was conducted in order to investigate whether packaging and more specifically package color, has an effect on perceived healthiness and especially when people are under time constraint. The study shows that, as expected, green color and more specifically light green, is perceived as the healthiest package color in contrast to dark green and white color. An explanation for that is the fact that green color is associated with nature and health. According to Madden et al. (2000), green colors in packaging can be associated with healthiness. Additionally, the perceived healthiness is one of the most important factors for making a choice (Carrillo et al., 2011). Hence, we could say that green color in packaging can help people making healthier choices since it works as an indicator of healthiness.
Moreover, in the study was tested whether participants were able to make healthy choices when they were under time pressure. The results proved to be consistent with previous research, which indicate that when people are under time constrained they
make quick decisions without evaluating the products. According to Warde (1999), when time pressure increases, the chance to consider package elements such as labels decreases. Indeed, participants were not able to notice that the healthiest product was the white package since they didn’t have time to read the nutritional information.
Hence participants based their choice on their instinct when they had to make a choice.
According to Cohen and Babey (2012), people tend to make choices with a more automatic method when they are under time pressure. Furthermore, consumers’
decisions rely on visual cues such as packaging (Dantas et al., 2004). In this study, participants who were under time pressure, made a choice based on visual cues, such as the light green color in packaging. Since light green perceived to be the healthiest color, participants made associations between color and the healthiness of the product.
Those activated associations lead them to choose the light green package, since they perceived it to be the healthiest product.
Another explanation to this is the fact that an eye-catching color can work as stimulus-based information. In our case, light green proved to be most eye-catching color compared to dark green and white, since is the most bright color and stands out among the other options.
5.3 Limitations and Future research
This study was conducted in an online survey with designed packages. According to Elliot et al. (2007), color can have different effects in different situations as well as in feelings and behaviors. For this reason, a suggestion for future research is to hold the same experiment but in real-life situations, such as a field experiment in a supermarket where people will have to make decisions under real time pressure for actual packages. Therefore, it is interesting to see whether the different shades of green will affect with the same way consumers’ decisions.
Moreover, the study was carried out only with packages of milk. Therefore, another suggestion is to test these effects by using different kind of products such as drinks, chocolates, chips etc. Furthermore, in this study, the packages of milk were designed
in such a way in order to be realistic enough but without including any brand names.
According to Underwood et al. (2001), consumers base more their decisions on visual cues, such as packaging features, when they are not familiar with the brands.
Therefore, it is interesting to test whether these results are the same in products of well-known brands.
5.4 Academic and managerial contribution
The main scope of this thesis was to investigate whether green color in packaging can help people make healthier choices and especially when they are under time pressure.
Since this research is the first one to investigate the effect of green color on healthy choices under time pressure, the results contribute to academic research by proving some signs that there is an effect of green color in the relationship between time pressure and healthy choices. Moreover, the study shown that people perceive a product with light green package to be healthier than these with dark green or white package. Furthermore, the fact that half of the participants chose the light green package when they were under time pressure indicates that maybe light green is more an eye-catching and effective color than dark green. Nevertheless, further research is needed in order to understand better how consumers react when they are under time pressure in real-life situations.
Furthermore, this research has also managerial contribution. Nowadays, it is important for brands to differentiate themselves from other competitive brands.
Symbolic meanings are continuously created with the help of packaging through its features, such as color, shape and logos. Those visual characteristics can attract consumers’ attention and help them in shaping perceptions about products (Venter et al., 2011). Therefore, it is important for marketers and food producers to understand the symbolling meaning of packaging’s features in order to use them properly.
When a brand wants to make its products appeal healthy, it can uses green color in packaging and especially light green. Based on this study, a product with a light green package will create a perception about healthiness leading the consumer to purchase the product. In recent days, people concern more about their health and their daily consumption. Marketers and companies can be benefited from using green color in
packaging since it works as a sign of healthiness and can easily grab consumers’
attention. Therefore, if a product has to be promoted as a healthy option, green color in packaging could work as a solution leading to a “win-win” situation for both brands and consumers.
REFERENCE LIST
1. Adams, F. M., & Osgood, C. E. (1973). A cross-cultural study of the affective meanings of color. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 4(2), 135-156.
2. Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging.
Journal of consumer marketing, 23(2), 100-112.
3. Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are you selling the right colour? A cross-cultural review of colour as a marketing cue. Journal of marketing communications, 12(1), 15-30.
4. Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and shopping intentions: The intervening effect of price fairness and perceived affect.
Journal of business research, 56(7), 541-551.
5. Balsam, P. D., & Gallistel, C. R. (2009). Temporal maps and informativeness in associative learning. Trends in neurosciences, 32(2), 73-78.
6. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220.
7. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. Handbook of social cognition, 1, 1- 40.
8. Bargh, J. A. (2005). Bypassing the will: Toward demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. The new unconscious, 12, 37-58.
9. Bargh, J. A. (2006). What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior.
European journal of social psychology, 36(2), 147-168.
10. Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
11. 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.
12. Bruno, N., Martani, M., Corsini, C., & Oleari, C. (2013). The effect of the color red on consuming food does not depend on achromatic (Michelson) contrast and extends to rubbing cream on the skin. Appetite, 71, 307-313.
13. Butland, B., Jebb, S., Kopelman, P., McPherson, K., Thomas, S., Mardell, J.,
& Parry, V. (2007). Tackling obesities: future choices-project report (Vol. 10, p. 17). London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.
14. Carrillo, E., Varela, P., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. (2011). Main factors underlying consumers’ food choice: A first step for the understanding of attitudes toward “healthy eating”. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26(2), 85-95.
15. Chandon, P. (2013). How package design and packaged-based marketing claims lead to overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(1), 7-31.
16. Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. Journal of marketing, 73(6), 1-17.
17. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 301-314.
18. Clarke, T., & Costall, A. (2008). The emotional connotations of color: A qualitative investigation. Color Research & Application: Endorsed by Inter‐
Society Color Council, The Colour Group (Great Britain), Canadian Society for Color, Color Science Association of Japan, Dutch Society for the Study of Color, The Swedish Colour Centre Foundation, Colour Society of Australia, Centre Français de la Couleur, 33(5), 406-410.
19. Clement, J. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: an eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of marketing management, 23(9-10), 917-928.
20. Cohen, D. A., & Babey, S. H. (2012). Contextual influences on eating behaviours: heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obesity Reviews, 13(9), 766-779.
21. Coulson, N. S. (2000). An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food labels. British Food Journal, 102(9), 661-668.
22. Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of product innovation management, 22(1), 63-81.
23. Cutler, D. M., Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). Why have Americans become more obese?. Journal of Economic perspectives, 17(3), 93-118.
24. Dantas, M. I., Minim, V. P., Deliza, R., & Puschmann, R. (2004). The effect of packaging on the perception of minimally processed products. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 16(2), 71-83.
25. Deliya, M. M. M., & Parmar, M. B. J. (2012). Role of Packaging on Consumer Buying Behavior –Patan District. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(10).
26. Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color combinations: An empirical analysis of similarity‐based color relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 476-484.
27. Dijksterhuis A, Smith P, van Baaren R, Wigboldus D. The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2005; 15:193–202.
28. Egger G, Swinburn B. Planet obesity: how we’re eating ourselves and the planet to death. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2010.
29. Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J.
(2007). Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 136(1), 154.
30. Finkelstein, E. A., Ruhm, C. J., & Kosa, K. M. (2005). Economic causes and consequences of obesity. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 26, 239-257.
31. Garber, L. L. (1995). The package appearance in choice. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. XXII, 22, 653-660.
32. Garber, L. L., Jr., Burke, R. R., & Jones, J. M. (2000). The role of package color in consumer purchase consideration and choice. Marketing Science Working Paper, 104, 1–46.
33. Garber, L. L., Jr., Hyatt, E. M., & Starr Jr, R. G. (2000). The effects of food color on perceived flavor. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 59-72.
34. Genschow, O., Reutner, L., & Wänke, M. (2012). The color red reduces snack food and soft drink intake. Appetite, 58(2), 699-702.
35. Gimba, J. G. (1998). Color in marketing: Shades of meaning. Marketing News, 32(6), 6-6.
36. Gofton, L. (1995). Dollar rich and time poor? Some problems in interpreting changing food habits. British Food Journal, 97(10), 11-16.
37. Gómez, M., Martín‐Consuegra, D., & Molina, A. (2015). The importance of packaging in purchase and usage behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 203-211.
38. Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color as an executional cue in advertising: They're in the shade. Management science, 43(10), 1387-1400.
39. Grossman, P. R., & Wisenblit, J. Z. (1999). What we know about consumers’
color choices. Journal of marketing practice: Applied marketing science, 5(3), 78-88.
40. Hausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior. Journal of consumer marketing, 17(5), 403-426.
41. Herbig, P. (1996). Market signalling: a review. Management Decision, 34(1), 35-45.
42. Herrington, D. J., & Capella, L. M. (1995). Shopper reactions to perceived time pressure. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 23(12), 13-20.
43. Hine, T. (1997). The total package: the secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans and other persuasive containers. Back Bay Books.
44. Hoch, S. J. (2002). Product experience is seductive. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 448-454.
45. Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2016). The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention.
Journal of food products marketing, 22(2), 191-218.
46. Jackson, M., Harrison, P., Swinburn, B., & Lawrence, M. (2014). Unhealthy food, integrated marketing communication and power: a critical analysis.
Critical public health, 24(4), 489-505.
47. Jeffery, R. W., Adlis, S. A., & Forster, J. L. (1991). Prevalence of dieting among working men and women: The healthy worker project. Health Psychology, 10(4), 274.
48. Jun, J., Kang, J., & Arendt, S. W. (2014). The effects of health value on healthful food selection intention at restaurants: Considering the role of
attitudes toward taste and healthfulness of healthful foods. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 85-91.
49. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2002b, Continued Demand for Convenience, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
50. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003c, The Key to a Healthier Diet is Clearer Food Labeling and Healthier Food Choices Say Consumers, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
51. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003d, Communication is Key to Improving Shoppers' Perception of Retailer Brands, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003)
52. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2002b, Continued Demand for Convenience, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
53. International Association for the Study of Obesity, International Obesity Taskforce. Global childhood overweight.
http://www.iaso.org/site_media/uploads/Global_Childhood_Overweight_April _2011.pdf (accessed June 23, 2011).
54. Kaya N, Epps, H. (2004).Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college students. College Student J, 38(3), 396.
55. Kessler, D. A. (2010). The end of overeating: Taking control of the insatiable American appetite. Rodale.
56. Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. (2014). Healthful food decision making in response to traffic light color-coded nutrition labeling.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 65-77.
57. Kopelman, P. G. (2000). Obesity as a medical problem. Nature, 404(6778), 635.
58. Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Chryssohoidis, G. (2012). The usefulness of Schwartz's ‘Values Theory’in understanding consumer behaviour towards differentiated products. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(11-12), 1438- 1463.
59. Labrecque, L. I., Patrick, V. M., & Milne, G. R. (2013). The marketers’
prismatic palette: A review of color research and future directions.
Psychology & Marketing, 30(2), 187-202.
60. Lakens, D., Semin, G. R., & Foroni, F. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through shared relational structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 584.
61. Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2011). Essentials of marketing.
Cengage Learning.
62. Lichtenfeld, S., Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., & Pekrun, R. (2012). Fertile green:
Green facilitates creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 784-797.
63. Lightfoot, C., & Gerstman, R. (1998). Brand packaging. In Brands (pp. 46- 55). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
64. Lohse, G. L., & Rosen, D. L. (2001). Signaling quality and credibility in yellow pages advertising: The influence of color and graphics on choice.
Journal of advertising, 30(2), 73-83.
65. Madden, T. J., Hewett, K., & Roth, M. S. (2000). Managing images in different cultures: A cross-national study of color meanings and preferences. Journal of international marketing, 8(4), 90-107.
66. Mai, R., Symmank, C., & Seeberg-Elverfeldt, B. (2016). Light and pale colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness?. Journal of Retailing, 92(4), 426-444.
67. McNatt, R., 1998. Hey, it’s green – It must be healthy. Business Week, July 13:
6.
68. Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. J. (2009). Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science, 323(5918), 1226-1229.
69. Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1995). Understanding the effects of color: How the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 121-138.
70. Mohebbi, B. (2014). The art of packaging: An investigation into the role of color in packaging, marketing, and branding. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 3(2).
71. Moller, A. C., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Basic hue-meaning associations. Emotion, 9(6), 898.
72. Monteiro, C. A., Moura, E. C., Conde, W. L., & Popkin, B. M. (2004).
Socioeconomic status and obesity in adult populations of developing countries: a review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 940-946.
