This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 04 August 2015, At: 05:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Food Products Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpm20

Perception of Naturalness of Food

Packaging and Its Role in Consumer
Product Evaluation
a
Anne-Sophie Binninger
a
Marketing Department, NEOMA Business School, Reims, France
Published online: 09 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Anne-Sophie Binninger (2015): Perception of Naturalness of Food Packaging
and Its Role in Consumer Product Evaluation, Journal of Food Products Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/10454446.2014.885868

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.885868

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015
 Journal of Food Products Marketing, 00:1–17, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1045-4446 print/1540-4102 online
DOI: 10.1080/10454446.2014.885868

Perception of Naturalness of Food Packaging

and Its Role in Consumer Product Evaluation

ANNE-SOPHIE BINNINGER
Marketing Department, NEOMA Business School, Reims, France

The aim of this article is to understand the concept of food “natu-

Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

ralness,” as it is perceived by the consumer via the packaging. The

research is based on a qualitative study from which three types of
experimental packaging were constructed (emotional, functional,
and mixed) and a quantitative study carried out on 163 French
consumers. The research identified two dimensions of food natu-
ralness and related them to credibility, attractiveness, quality, and
purchase intention, with differences according to the three types of
packaging tested. The highlighting of their role in the perception of
the naturalness of a food product should help managers to avoid
overexposure of the concept.

KEYWORDS naturalness, healthy product, ecological product,

packaging, labeled products, consumer behavior

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the concept of naturalness has been the subject of renewed inter-
est by businesses and researchers. The birth of this concept can be rooted
in social movements that advocate more sustainable and healthy consump-
tion. It is also related to the increasing demand for organic food and green
products. In both Europe and the United States, this term still has positive
connotations, suggesting that natural things are “better” or simply “right”
(Rozin, 2005; Rozin et al., 2004). The term naturalness may be defined
in general as “the quality or state of being natural.” It can describe “that
which respects the condition or fact of being in accordance with nature” or
that which “possesses the distinctive features of a naturally occurring object,

Address correspondence to Anne-Sophie Binninger, Marketing Department—NEOMA

Business School (Reims campus), 59 rue Pierre Taittinger, BP 302, 51061 Reims CEDEX—
France. E-mail: anne-sophie.binninger@neoma-bs.fr

1
 2 A.-S. Binninger

landscape . . . the appearance of being unchanged or unspoilt by human

intervention” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011). Rozin (2005) described nat-
uralness as a more natural state that is therefore better for health and more
respectful of the environment. The term naturalness places natural in oppo-
sition to processed (Rozin, 2005; Rozin et al., 2004) and is generally linked
to nutrition (Fischler, 2010) and to ingredients (Evans et al., 2010).
The concept is both simple and difficult to grasp, notably because
there is no standard definition of a natural product. In the literature, two
main themes have summarized food naturalness: (1) the link with the
environment, (2) the effects of this link on a balanced diet and health.
On a semiotic level, naturalness suggests a connection between the
expression and the contents of the product that is considered natural. It is
established by using a number of signs around the brand (Klinkenberg,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

1996). The signs present on the packaging are visible and influential vec-
tors of communication (Fitzgerald Bone & Russo, 2009; Garretson & Burton,
2000; Sara, 1990). They must transmit the perceived naturalness of a product.
The aim of this article is to explore the concept of food naturalness
through packaging. First of all, we will examine whether the packaging
enables the consumer to identify the distinctive features of naturalness. Then
we will analyze the perceived differences between the examples of packag-
ing that are representative of the concept of naturalness and their influence
on product evaluation. Finally, we will discuss the managerial implications.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

The Concept of Naturalness Through Packaging
A great deal of work in marketing shows that when choosing a product,
consumers take into consideration two aspects: its usefulness and its sym-
bolic significance (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992; McCracken, 1986). Marketers
use packaging to build and communicate brand symbolism and image
(Rosenfeld, 1987). Packaging also influences product evaluation via the infor-
mation it supplies (Brown, 1958; McDaniel & Baker, 1977). The influence on
consumers of the visual aesthetics of packaging is a fertile area of research.
Studies look at technical aspects such as shapes and dimensions (Raghubir
& Greenleaf, 2006), colors (Plasschaert & Floet, 1995; Rundh, 2005), the
absence of color and transparency (Chandran et al., 2009), and the use of
images (Underwood et al., 2001). Packaging communicates the brand’s per-
sonality using structural and visual elements including the logo, typography,
images, and product description (Nancarrow & Wright, 1998; Prendergast
& Pitt, 1996). A product’s appearance, and especially its packaging, can
have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, and it can draw atten-
tion to and ease the categorization of the product (Creusen & Schoormans,
2005). So we can suppose that through packaging, the naturalness of a
product gives global symbolic and aesthetic value that will be perceived
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 3

by the consumer. The two dimensions of food naturalness identified in

the literature—(1) respect for the environment and (2) healthy—can help
to categorize products according to distinct benefits. Thus, the concept of
naturalness can be communicated, seen, and understood by the consumer
via the product packaging as follows:
H1: The naturalness of a product is perceived by the consumer through
the packaging and consists of two distinct dimensions: (1) eco-
friendly/environmental (2) healthy/good for health.

The Influence of Emotional and Functional Elements of Packaging

The purpose of the packaging can be divided into three groups (Nancarrow
& Wright, 1998; Prendergast & Pitt, 1996; Rundh, 2005): commercial func-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

tions (identification, communication, positioning, and distinction); physical

functions (container, protection, practicality, conservation of the contents,
and ease of transport); and social functions (reduces pollution, encourages
recycling, etc.). So the packaging is the vector of and represents material and
technical elements (functional elements) together with nonmaterial symbolic
elements (emotional elements).
The concept of consumer perceived naturalness studied by Rozin (2005)
and Rozin et al. (2004) is characterized by two aspects: one is instru-
mental, linked to health, the senses, and the environment; the other is
emotional, referring to an idealized or imaginary representation—natural
implicitly means better, more moral, more aesthetic, or simply more gen-
uine. Thus, it seems logical to link the concept of naturalness with “green,”
eco-friendly, and organic consumption. Work on “green” products has shown
that here, too, marketing and communication use both emotional and func-
tional dimensions (Hartmann et al., 2005), particularly with nature images
and qualitative information such as environmental impact of such prod-
ucts. More practical considerations stipulate that natural is expressed through
the color green, which evokes nature and provokes an emotional reaction,
or through the ingredients; natural ingredients help reassure the consumer
(Evans et al., 2010). Finally, the information given about the product seems to
be important and must be clear and unambiguous (Silayoi & Speece, 2007),
mentioning health benefits (Darian & Tucci, 2011) or ecological benefits, in
order to reassure consumers in their decision.
Several signs present on products can characterize the functional ele-
ments related to naturalness: organic and eco-friendly labels, quality labels,
origin indications, and health or ecological claims. In recent years, the use
of quality labels has become more commonplace. In its most up-to-date def-
inition, a label is a trustworthy sign giving information about not only the
intrinsic qualities of a product or a service but also the economic and work-
ing conditions under which it was manufactured (Golan et al., 2000) and
respect for health (Mathios & Ippolito, 1998). The label is a signal in the
 4 A.-S. Binninger

economic sense of the term, insofar as it is a credible and informative action

and gives objective, visible information at the moment of purchase (Rao &
Ruekert, 1999).
There are various factors contributing to the ability of a label to influ-
ence consumer attitudes: its ability to give clear, meaningful information;
the individual’s knowledge about the information given on the label, belief
in the message it communicates, and, more generally, the legitimacy of the
certifying organization (Thogersen, 2000). In these conditions, a label rein-
forces belief in the performance of the brand and increases consumer trust
(Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006). We know that a consumer generally evalu-
ates a product on the basis of its attributes, which can be tangible, intangible,
internal, or external, and that the packaging can play an important role in this
evaluation. The functional and emotional aspects of packaging are already
considered an important way to communicate ideas of environment and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

nature (Bech-Larsen, 1996). They must also be used together in a comple-

mentary way to reinforce the credibility of a “green” product (Hartmann
et al., 2005). We can reasonably make a parallel between these functional
and emotional elements of a packaging and the instrumental and emotional
benefits that consumers expect to obtain from naturalness (Rozin, 2005).
We can therefore assume that the concept of naturalness can be understood
by the consumer via the product packaging on the condition that some
key features are respected: (1) design that uses traditional emotional levers
(colors, shapes, slogans, and graphics) capable of transmitting the concept
(Nancarrow & Wright, 1998; Underwood, 2003), and (2) the presence of tan-
gible functional signals (labels, logos, or claims) that are clear, understood,
known, or meaningful to the individual (Costa et al., 2009; Fitzgerald Bone
& Russo, 2009; Teisl et al., 2008). Hypothesis 2 stipulates that a product that
hopes to position itself effectively as natural and wants to be perceived as
such must use both emotional and functional elements, in accordance with
the rules that have already been established:

H2: Packaging that combines both functional and emotional elements

will be perceived more natural than packaging that uses only
emotional and functional elements.

Previous studies have shown that when consumers cannot try a prod-
uct before buying it, attractiveness plays a key role in their decision making
by providing aesthetic information (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). A great
deal of work also demonstrates the relationship between packaging design
and the value given to the product (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008), increas-
ing, for example, perceived quality and perceived benefits (Orth & De
Marchi, 2007; Park et al., 1986). We know that the appearance of a prod-
uct influences consumer product choice in several ways, and that the design
determines consumers’ first impression of the product (Bloch, 1995; Creusen
& Schoormans, 2005). Moreover, people engaged in affect-based processing
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 5

will consider that more attractive products have higher quality and perfor-
mance (Batra, 2009). As a rule, emotional attributes are likely to influence
the attractiveness of the product on the part of the consumer.
In light of our previous observations, we will look more directly at how
elements related to the environment and health can act on consumer attitude
and behavior. We know that packaging perceived as more respectful of the
environment has positive repercussions on the consumer’s attitude or pref-
erence (Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008; Venter et al., 2011). One of the conditions
of efficiency is that consumers must be given tangible information enabling
them to really evaluate the degree of sustainability of the packaging.
Research into naturalness demonstrates that perception of the natural
qualities of a product is influenced by tangible elements on the packag-
ing, expressed in an educational fashion and giving details regarding the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

manufacturing methods (Rozin, 2005). And it is established that these qual-

ities influence consumer preference for a product (Roosen et al., 2007).
By informing the consumer about the manufacturing process and by giv-
ing tangible and credible proof, the label, sign, or claim is thus an element
that is capable of encouraging better evaluation of a product (Rozin, 2005).
Information about ingredients and, in particular, the presence of food
additives or chemical products has the same effect in influencing percep-
tions of naturalness and a favorable attitude to the product (Evans et al.,
2010). Functional elements can thus be considered as major vectors of the
evaluation of products that are positioned in terms of naturalness.
Hartmann et al. (2005) studied the positioning of an ecological brand
and suggests that using combined functional and emotional elements results
in more favorable attitudes toward the brand. He also highlights the fact that
functional elements have a more direct influence on the ecological image of
a brand, and that emotional elements produce more symbolic associations
in relation with nature. He notes that the benefits of emotional elements
are reinforced and supported by tangible functional information when both
kinds of element are used together. It seems to be accepted then that both
emotional and functional elements influence the consumer’s attitude and
behavior toward a product. However, few studies have looked at their com-
parative influence—in particular, concerning packaging. Following on from
Hartmann and Rozin, we will attempt to look more closely at the influence
of different treatments of naturalness (functional, emotional, or mixed) on
consumer product evaluation.
Hypothesis 3 explores these relationships on all dimensions of product
evaluation as follows:

H3: The effect of the three proposed kinds of naturalness packaging

on product evaluation (functional, emotional, and mixed pack-
aging) is different, especially on perceived quality, credibility,
attractiveness, and purchase intent:
 6 A.-S. Binninger

Product Assessment
Dimensions of Naturalness - Attractiveness
1/Eco-friendly / environmental - Credibility
2/Healthy / Good for health - Quality
- Purchase intent

Type of Packaging:

Functional-Emotional- Mixed
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

FIGURE 1 Research framework.

H3a: Mixed packaging has a stronger effect on all dimensions of product

evaluation than emotional and functional packaging.
H3b: Functional packaging has a stronger effect on quality, credibility,
and purchase intent than emotional packaging.
H3c: Emotional packaging has a stronger effect on attractiveness than
functional packaging.

The research framework is seen in Figure 1.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Stimulus Design
For this research study, we opted to design three kinds of packaging using
these two angles—functional and emotional—incorporating several features
identified in the literature as representing naturalness. We sought to cre-
ate three types of packaging in order to represent an entirely functional
packaging, and entirely emotional packaging, and, finally, a packaging that
represented a blend of both functional and emotional features. To facil-
itate construction of the packaging, we carried out an initial phase to
collect products featuring one or more elements evoking naturalness. About
50 French food products featuring different brands and different food cat-
egories (fresh products, sweet and savory groceries, and charcuterie) were
collected. We carried out a transversal comparative analysis to distinguish
the codes generally used by different brands to facilitate the construction
of our packaging and to make it more credible. The variables considered
are taken from the literature: colors, presence of the product, images, logos,
quality labels, regional identifiers, slogans, and so forth. We also studied two
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 7

features in particular: the brand and how it was presented on the packaging,
and the structure of the packaging itself together with the positioning of the
functional signals. From our content analysis of the brands on the market,
we were able to create three fictitious packaging options using a brand no
longer on the market,1 because when consumers have no particular opinion
about a brand they evaluate its attributes more objectively (Kardes, 2002).
We chose to use rice, which has the advantage of being an everyday product
targeting both sexes, all ages, and all socio-professional categories.
In the stimulus design process, we based our choice of functional ele-
ments on three types of signs that communicate the idea of naturalness best:
well-known public quality labels (European organic label and French organic
label) supported by technical claims (grown without the use of fertilizers,
organically produced), and logos or semi-quality labels (organic, target of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

zero carbon) that can be combined with technical claims (100% recyclable).
For the emotional elements, we focused on visual and graphical elements:
the use of different shades of green, the presence of a general, “poetic” claim
that expresses the idea that it was harvested manually in a natural setting,
the use of pictures (emotional packaging only), the use of different semi-
otic tools (the product being visible through a window in the packaging, a
photo of a canvas sack making us think of artisanal production methods).
To check that the three packaging options were perceived as representa-
tive of the concept of naturalness and perceived as representing functional,
emotional, and blended packaging distinctly, we conducted a face-to-face
test with 18 consumers. The sample consisted of university students: 48%
women and 52% men aged between 20 and 27 years old. In addition to our
three packaging options, we also included 17 other types of packagings of
regional and private-label brands. Following Rozin (2005), consumers were
asked to answer the question “How natural is product X?” and to rate each of
the products using the following naturalness scale adapted: 0 = not natural
at all, 1 = slightly natural, 2 = moderately natural, 3 = very natural, 4 =
extremely natural. All the respondents placed the three fictitious packages in
the group considered the most natural (group 3). It should be noted that no
packaging was placed in group 4 (extremely natural). This is not surprising
given that all the products were either sold in supermarkets or processed.

Measures
The measurements for product evaluation dimensions (attractiveness, qual-
ity, credibility, and purchase intent) are classical, and they were evaluated

1 The brand chosen is a former French brand (Perliz) that was taken off the market about 3 years
ago. We therefore assume that the brand is little known. In 2006, its market share in terms of turnover
was 0.5% in France in the dry foodstuffs market. The first part of the questionnaire enabled us to identify
consumers who have a specific knowledge of this brand, and these were finally eliminated.
 8 A.-S. Binninger

TABLE 1 The Dimensions of Naturalness

Variables
Naturalness after CA Items Items Deleted

Dimension 1: This is an eco-friendly product This product respects the

Environment environment
α: 0.89 This product is one of those that
really respect the environment
You can immediately see that this
product is ecological
This product is more ecological than
most
Dimension 2: Health The nutrition qualities of this product You can immediately see that
are good for the health this product is healthy
α: 0.861 This product is globally good for the This product will enable me to
health eat healthily
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

This product is healthy and natural

using a Likert scale from 1 to 7. Credibility was adapted from the scale devel-
oped by Sinclair & Irani (2005) with four items, quality and purchase intent
from Dodds et al. (1991) with three three items each, and attractiveness
constructed in line with Ohanian (1990) with three items. The dimension
of naturalness was created with items extracted from the qualitative phase
on the basis of the transcripts of the consumers’ comments when they put
the cards representing product packaging into groups. The items thus gen-
erated were pretested. Several items evoking general natural qualities were
collected, but, following Rozin (2005), we retained only those items that
evoked either the environment or ecology and health or well-being (see
Table 1).

Sample and Tests

Manipulation checks were made during an online pretest of a convenience
sample of 32 different individuals to check perceived differences between
the examples of packaging in terms of their degree of functionality, mea-
sured by one item on a Likert 5-point scale, for me this packaging is very
functional to not functional at all. The idea of functionality was explained
briefly at the beginning of the test (presence of informational and technical
elements concerning the product). The differences between the mean scores
are significant (F = 39.035; p = 0.000) and show that the most functional
pack is indeed no. 1, followed by no. 3 (mixed) and no. 2 (emotional).
For the main study, a convenience sample was used for this online survey,
including students and their relatives, co-workers, and friends. Respondents
were invited by students in marketing classes at Reims Management School
to participate in the study via an e-mail message that included a link to the
online survey. Students sent the invitation to their e-mail contact lists. The
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 9

sample is made up of 163 people of French nationality. Women are slightly

overrepresented (65.4%), as are the 18–28 age group (83%). The respondents
were submitted at random to one of the three conditions. After observing the
product, they were invited to answer a questionnaire about their evaluation
of the product and then, in the final question, to compare the three condi-
tions, presented simultaneously. Internal validity of the “product evaluation”
variables was measured by principal component analysis using the varimax
rotation method with Kaiser normalization. The reliability of each concept
was confirmed by the traditional Cronbach’s alpha (Peterson, 1995), calcu-
lated using the results of factorial analyses. They fall below the standards
recommended by Nunally (1978), between 0.7 and 0.9.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

RESULTS
Dimensions of Naturalness Through Packaging
To clarify the concept of naturalness and the relative importance of each of
the dimensions identified in the literature (“respect for the environment” nat-
uralness and “good for health” naturalness), we carried out an exploratory
factorial analysis on the 10 items taken from the verbatims of the qualita-
tive phase. Using a varimax rotation, the scale comprises two dimensions, as
presented in Table 1, and analyzes seven items. In all, three items whose
coefficient was below 0.500 were deleted. Naturalness has two distinct
dimensions that explain 79.8% of the total variation. The first is made up
of the items related to environmental qualities (four items) with 69.12% of
the total variation explained; and the second of three items related to health
with 10.67% of the total variation explained. Cronbach’s alphas were then
computed, and all fall below the recommended standards (see Table 1).
Taken overall, results relevant to H1 indicate that the perceived natural-
ness of a product appears through the packaging and consists of two distinct
dimensions: (1) respect of the environment and (2) healthiness. Dimension
1 is also the most important.

Effects of Functional and Emotional Elements on the Perception

of Naturalness
In H2, it is predicted that to be perceived as more natural, packaging
must include complementary functional and emotional elements. Hypothesis
2 was first analyzed using a 1-way analysis variance (ANOVA). Results in
Table 2 show that there are indeed significant differences between the three
packs concerning overall naturalness (F = 29.563, p < 0.01). In particular,
the pack that obtains the highest scores is the mixed packaging (3), followed
by the functional packaging (1) and then the emotional packaging (2). While
 10 A.-S. Binninger

TABLE 2 Mean Score for Dimensions of Naturalness

Mean Scores

Functional Emotional Mixed

Dimensions of Naturalness packaging packaging packaging t F sig

General Naturalness 0.35238c 2.6259b,d 3.8425a 1.562 29,563 0.000

− Environmental dimension 3.5714c 2.4735b,d 3.8632a 0.866 38.870 0.000
− Health dimension 3.1932b 2.7558b 3.6707a 0.513 11.487 0.000
Notes. Scores marked a are significantly higher than scores marked b, and scores marked c are higher
than d. The closer the score to 7, the more strongly the packaging evoked each dimension.

the perceived naturalness of pack 3 appears higher, its results compared with
pack 1 are not statistically significant (p = 0.168). However, the perceived
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

naturalness of the mixed packaging is significantly higher than that of emo-

tional packaging (p = 0.000). These results are the same for the functional
packaging against emotional packaging (p = 0.000).
To analyze these results in more depth, we will now study the rela-
tionships between the three packs and the two dimensions of naturalness.
We note that pack 3 represents healthy naturalness better than the two other
packs (3 vs. 1, p = 0.039, 3 vs. 2, p = 0.000). Pack 1 is not perceived to be
better than pack 2 (p = 0.068), even though it includes functional elements
supporting the health theme. For environmental naturalness, the results are
not so clearcut. Although packs 1 and 3 represent environmental naturalness
significantly better than pack 2 (p = 0.000, p = 0.000), there is no difference
between packs 1 and 3 (p = 0.266) in this dimension. Functional packaging
is thus perceived as well as mixed packaging in terms of environmental nat-
uralness. In other words, the presence of functional and emotional elements
improve the perception of a product’s healthy naturalness, but our results
do not show a significant improvement in either the general perception of
naturalness or of its environmental dimension. Hypothesis H2 is therefore
not completely validated.

Effect of the Three Naturalness Packaging on Product Evaluation

H3 predicted a different effect on product evaluation between the three
proposed kinds of naturalness packaging (functional, emotional, and mixed
packaging) on perceived quality, credibility, attractiveness, and purchase
intent. First of all, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to mea-
sure the strength of the association between the three naturalness variables
and the product evaluation variables (attractiveness, quality, credibility, pur-
chase intent). Then different ANOVAs were performed to test the differences
between the three packs. In our case, ANOVA most reasonably reflects
a model describing the relationship between a set of independent and
dependant variables (Kirk, 1982). The results are seen in Tables 3 and 4.
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 11

TABLE 3 Matrix of Correlations

Dimensions Tested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Credibility 1
Quality .813∗∗ 1
Purchase Intent .580∗∗ 648∗∗ 1
Attractiveness .565∗∗ .635∗∗ .852∗∗ 1
Naturalness 1 (environment/nature) .821∗∗ .856∗∗ .568∗∗ .572∗∗ 1
Naturalness 2 (health) .638∗∗ .701∗∗ .540∗∗ .548∗∗ .713∗∗ 1
Overall Naturalness .813∗∗ .858∗∗ .591∗∗ .598∗∗ .974∗∗ .841∗∗ 1
∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 4 Mean Scores for Product Evaluation Variables

Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

Mean Scores

Product Evaluation Functional Emotional Mixed

Variables packaging packaging packaging t test F Sig

Credibility 3.1190c 2.2778b,d 3.2317a 0.696 26.801 0.000

Quality 3.4242c 2.4963b,d 3.6581a 1.636 29.978 0.000
Attractivness 2.8062 2.3852b 3.1220a 0.967 7.994 0.001
Purchase intent 3.1364c 2.5185b,d 3.4553a 0.420 11.100 0.000
Notes. Scores marked a are significantly higher than scores marked b, and scores marked c are higher
than d. The closer the score to 7, the more strongly the packaging evoked each dimension.

In general, we confirm that the naturalness variables all correlate signif-

icantly with credibility, quality, attractiveness, and purchase intent (Table 3).
The more the packaging is perceived as representative of naturalness, the
higher are the product’s levels of credibility, quality, attractiveness, and
purchase intention.
Thus the results indicate that there are significant differences between
the three packs tested for every aspect; credibility (F = 26.801, p = 0.000),
quality (F = 29.978, p = 0.000), attractiveness (F = 7.994, p = 0.001), and
purchase intent (F = 11.100, p = 0.000). More precisely, compared with
emotional packaging, all these aspects appear to be perceived best with
mixed packaging. The results are the same for the functional pack compared
with the emotional one, except for attractiveness (p = 0.064). In addition, we
found no differences between mixed and functional packaging concerning
these variables of product evaluation. H3a predicted that mixed packaging
would have a stronger effect than emotional and functional packaging. H3a
is supported only for emotional packaging, not for functional packaging. H3b
predicted that functional packaging would have a stronger effect than emo-
tional packaging on quality credibility, purchase intent. H3b is supported.
H3c predicted that emotional packaging would have a stronger effect than
functional packaging on product attractivness. H3c is supported.
 12 A.-S. Binninger

Then we explored the relationship between the two dimensions of nat-

uralness and the product evaluation variables. For packs 1 and 2, the two
dimensions of naturalness correlate positively with all the product evaluation
variables. However, with pack 3, certain differences appear. “Health natural-
ness” correlates significantly with purchase intent (r = 0.356, p < 0,05),
attractiveness (r = 0.361, p < 0,05), credibility (r = 0.479, p < 0,05), and
quality (r = 0.609, p < 0.01), whereas “environmental naturalness” corre-
lates significantly only with credibility (r = 0.681, p < 0.01) and quality (r =
0.661, p < 0.01).
During the second part of the questionnaire, the interviewees were
shown all three packs and asked to arrange them in order of the degree
of perceived credibility, attractiveness, purchase intent, and quality. The dif-
ferences are significant only for “credibility” (p < 0.05 for the group that saw
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

pack 1 and then all three packs, p < 0.05 for pack 2, p < 0.01 for pack 3).
This shows the importance of functional aspects of whatever kind (packs
1 and 3) to support the credibility of a product. It should also be noted that
individuals who have already seen the functional packaging (1) opt more for
the mixed packaging with both emotional and functional elements. In the
other groups, however, packs 1 and 3 obtain fairly similar results. These
results show precisely that perceived naturalness reinforces the credibility of
a product if the packaging shows functional elements, either alone or com-
bined. They also allow us to suppose that in a competitive environment,
when consumers are faced with several products, they will be inclined to
choose mixed rather than functional packaging.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this research was to understand better the concept of food
naturalness through different packaging and its influence on product eval-
uation. First of all, we show that the perceived naturalness of a product
correlates positively with its attractiveness, quality, credibility, and purchase
intent, which makes naturalness a characteristic in terms of product evalua-
tion. When we compare the packets in pairs, we note significant differences
in all the variables between types 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. The functional
(1) and mixed (3) packaging is perceived better than the emotional type
(2). However the differences between packs 1 and 3 are not significant.
So packaging 3 is not more credible or more attractive and does not give an
impression of more quality. Nor does it benefit from more purchase intent
than no. 1. Although these results can be explained for the variables quality
and credibility, since each pack includes functional elements, they are sur-
prising for the variables attractiveness and purchase intent. Thus, although
pack 3 has more emotional elements than pack 1, it is not more attractive.
The results also suggest that a purely functional approach, based on quality
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 13

labels and technical, numerical claims corresponding to each of the two

dimensions (environment and health), without any particular emotional rein-
forcement, is well perceived and adds to the good perception of the product
in terms of credibility, quality, and purchase intent. However, the attractive-
ness of the product is undeniably linked to an emotional processing of the
packaging. Nonetheless, in cases where consumers have the choice between
several products, they will consider mixed packaging more credible.
The packets are all perceived as being representative of naturalness, but
in different ways. The packaging that appears most natural is the mixed pack-
aging (3), followed by the functional packaging (1) and then the emotional
packaging (2). However, our results do not enable us to identify whether the
difference between numbers 1 and 3 is really significant. The product is per-
ceived as being more natural when functional and emotional elements are
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

mixed or when functional elements are dominant. When used alone, func-
tional elements are more influential than emotional elements, and emotional
packaging is less effective overall.
These results need to be studied further, but they already give an idea
of possible different ways to deal with the two dimensions of naturalness
and consumer behavior; health naturalness influences subjective evaluation
and purchase more directly (attractiveness, intent), whereas environmental
naturalness has more influence on objective product evaluation (credibility,
quality). Stressing the health benefits of naturalness increases the attractive-
ness of the product and purchase intent more directly than stressing the
environmental benefits. These results are in line with previous work on
organic products and health concerns (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005).
These results should help brand managers who want to position their
food products on naturalness to understand better how to use the different
features of packaging. In particular, it appears quite clear that brands can-
not simply use an emotional approach with vague unproven slogans. This
remark is certainly linked to growing maturity in consumers, who are well
aware of the discourse and offers of different brands in particular when
they are also in front of more functional offers. A second implication is that
functional packaging may be enough to support the good evaluation of a
product, in particular for brands that specialize specifically in natural prod-
ucts. But it also appears that a balanced treatment between functional and
emotional elements remains effective.
Second, the two dimensions of naturalness that we identify seem to be
in line with previous research showing differences between consumers of
organic and ecological products (Chryssohoidos & Krystallis, 2005; Zanoli
& Naspetti, 2001). A brand can therefore adopt a more environmental or a
more “healthy” approach, to satisfy each of the consumer segments. But the
“health” dimension seems to be the most effective in terms of purchase
intent and attractiveness. We can extrapolate that naturalness is a factor
that reassures the consumer with regard to perceived risk; it influences the
 14 A.-S. Binninger

product’s perceived credibility, attractiveness, and quality, and it encourages

the consumer to buy. To prevent the concept from being overused and triv-
ialized, a more organized approach with the approval of public or private
organizations could be a possible solution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author gratefully acknowledges Liza Bergara, NEOMA Business School

(Reims campus) Master’s student and currently European Product Manager
at BIC, for her help in the construction of packaging.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

REFERENCES

Batra, R. K. (2009). When good looks kill: An examination of consumer response to

visually attractive product design. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 252.
Bech-Larsen, T. (1996). Danish consumers’ attitudes to the functional and envi-
ronmental characteristics of food packaging. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19,
339–363.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139–160.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
Brown, R. L. (1958). Wrapper influence on the perception of freshness in bread.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 257–260.
Costa, S., Ibanez, L., Loureiro, M. L., & Marette, S. (2009). Quality promotion through
eco-labeling: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Agricultural & Food
Industrial Organization, 7(2), 1–7.
Chandran, S., Batra, R. K., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is seeing believing? Consumer
responses to opacity of product packaging. Advances in Consumer Research,
North American Conference Proceedings, 36, 970–971.
Chryssohoidis, G. M., & Krystallis, A. (2005). Organic consumers’ personal values
research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing
a value-based segmentation task. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 585–599.
Corey, R. J., & Bone, P. F. (1992). Ethical packaging: A call for research. Journal of
Marketing Management, 2, 44–54.
Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product
appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
22, 63–81.
Darian, J. C., & Tucci, L. (2011). Perceived health benefits and food purchasing
decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 421–428.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be.
Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 15

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). The effects of price, brand,
and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 28, 307–319.
Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Consumers’ ratings of the
natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite, 54, 557–563.
Fischler, C. (2010, February). Evolution of the healthy food market, its frontiers and
its future. Conférence Nutreating: Food, Consumer and Health Claims. Paris,
France: AgroParisTech.
Fitzgerald Bone, P., & Russo France, K. (2009). Qualified health claims on package
labels. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28, 253–258.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition
claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related
risks, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19, 213–227.
Golan, E., Kuchler, F., & Mitchell, L. (2000). Economics of food labelling, eco-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

nomic research service. Food and Rural Economics Division, US Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook, 793, 1–41.
Hartmann, P., Ibáñez, V. A., & Forcada Sainz, F. J. (2005). Green branding effects
on attitude: Functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, 23, 9–29.
Kardes, F. R. (2002). Consumer behaviour and managerial decision making. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Bermont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Klinkenberg, J. M. (1996). Précis de sémiotique générale. Brussels, Belgium: De
Boeck.
Mathios, A. D., & Ippolito, P. M. (1998). Food companies spread nutrition information
through advertising and labels. Food Review, 21(2), 38–44.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the struc-
ture and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13, 71–84.
McDaniel, C., & Baker, R. C. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception
of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57–58.
Nancarrow, C., & Wright, L. T. (1998). Gaining competitive advantage from pack-
aging and labelling in marketing communications. British Food Journal, 100,
110–118.
Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity
endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Orth, U. R., & De Marchi, R. (2007). Endurance of advertising-evoked brand image
beliefs in the face of product trial. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 13,
31–44.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand
impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64–81.
Park, C., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.
 16 A.-S. Binninger

Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor—Let the buyer beware!
Environmental labelling and the limitations of green consumerism. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 15, 15–29.
Peterson, R. (1995). Une meta-analyse du coefficient alpha de Cronbach. Recherche
et Applications en Marketing [Research and Applications in Marketing], 10(2),
75–88.
Plasschaert, J., & Floet, M. W. (1995). The meaning of colour on packaging—A
methodology for qualitative research using semiotic principles and computer
image manipulation. In ESOMAR Marketing Research Congress (pp. 217–232).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ESOMAR.
Prendergast, G., & Pitt, L. (1996). Packaging, marketing, logistics and the envi-
ronment: Are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 26(6), 60–72.
Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Signalling unobservable product quality
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015

through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 258–268.

Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of
the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70, 95–107.
Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product
choices: Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32,
516–525.
Roosen, J., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S., & Verger, P. (2007). The effect of prod-
uct health information on liking and choice. Food Quality and Preference, 18,
759–770.
Rosenfeld, J. (1987). Packaging wraps up sales. Marketing Communications, 12,
43–48, 79.
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K.
(2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations,
and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154.
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content.
Psychological Science, 16, 652–658.
Rundh, B. (2005). The multi-faceted dimension of packaging. Marketing logistic or
marketing tool? British Food Journal, 107, 670–684.
Sara, R. (1990). Packaging as a retail marketing tool. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 20(8), 29–30.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint
analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 1495–1517.
Sinclair, J., & Irani, T. (2005). Advocacy advertising for biotechnology. Journal of
Advertising, 34(3), 59–73.
Teisl, M. F., Rubin, J., & Noblet, C. L. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions
between eco-labels and consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29,
140–159.
Thogersen, J. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in
purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 23, 285–313.
 Naturalness of Food Packaging 17

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, 62–76.
Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M., & Burke, R. R. (2001). Packaging communi-
cation: Attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 10, 403–422.
Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., & Bosman, M. (2011).
Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: An exploratory investigation in
Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35,
273–281.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2001). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic
food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 8, 643–653.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:22 04 August 2015