Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700410553602
Downloaded on: 29 October 2018, At: 07:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25338 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1997),"The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about
business ethics?", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 Iss 6 pp. 421-432 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/07363769710185999">https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769710185999</a>
(2016),"The role of packaging within marketing and value creation", British Food Journal, Vol. 118
Iss 10 pp. 2491-2511 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2015-0390">https://doi.org/10.1108/
BFJ-10-2015-0390</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:546149 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Packaging and
Packaging and purchase purchase
decisions decisions
An exploratory study on the impact of
involvement level and time pressure 607
Pinya Silayoi
Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry,
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
Mark Speece
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology and Graduate School,
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
(1) to examine the consumer experience with purchasing packaged food products;
and
(2) to understand consumer views on how packaging plays a role in their purchase
decisions.
The focus groups were conducted in Bangkok, Thailand, and thus, the views represent
consumers in an important middle-income country market where the agribusiness
industry is quite strong, and conditions are very competitive.
The package’s overall features can underline the uniqueness and originality of the
product. In addition, quality judgments are largely influenced by product
characteristics reflected by packaging. If it communicates high quality, consumers
assume that the product is of high quality. If the package symbolizes low quality,
consumers transfer this low quality perception to the product itself. The package
communicates favorable or unfavorable implied meaning about the product.
Underwood et al. (2001) suggest that consumers are more likely to spontaneously
imagine aspects of how a product looks, tastes, feels, smells, or sounds while they are
viewing a product picture on the package.
Consumer decision-making can be defined as a mental orientation characterizing a
consumer’s approach to making choice (Lysonski et al., 1996). This approach deals
with cognitive and affective orientations in the process of decision-making. Four main
packaging elements potentially affect consumer purchase decisions, which can be
separated into two categories: visual and informational elements. The visual elements
consist of graphics and size/shape of packaging, and relate more to the affective side of
decision-making. Informational elements relate to information provided and
technologies used in the package, and are more likely to address the cognitive side
of decisions.
Most FMCG are low involvement products. In low involvement, “consumers do not
search extensively for information about the brands, evaluate their characteristics, and
make a weighty decision on which brand to buy” (Kotler et al., 1996, p. 225). One reason
for this is low risk (Chaudhuri, 2000; Mitchell, 1999), i.e. these products are simply not
very important. The lack of substantial evaluation often results in the inability to
distinguish much difference among leading brands (McWilliam, 1997). A common
result is relatively weak “habit” brand loyalty. Thus, when consumers find a brand
which meets their standards, they tend to stay “satisfied” with it, especially, if they are
constantly reminded of the brand. But they are not very committed, and substitute
easily when it is not available.
Such habit loyalty is fairly common in the West, e.g. IGD (2002a) notes that about
one-third of women shoppers, and slightly fewer men, buy food products through habit.
It is also quite common in Thailand and more broadly in Asia (Speece, 1998, 2003).
Survey data from Thailand indicate that packaging plays a strong role in reminding
consumers about the brand (Silayoi et al., 2003), i.e. it helps to reinforce habit loyalty.
Some observers, though, note that not all consumers view grocery shopping as a Packaging and
low involvement activity. Beharrell and Denison (1995) show a range of involvement purchase
among European consumers. Those with higher involvement tend to be more strongly
brand loyal, including willingness to postpone purchase or go to another store if the decisions
brand is not available. In Thailand, about 20-40 percent of consumers for most FMCG
show this level of loyalty, and will postpone or search rather than simply switch to a
substitute (Speece, 1998, 2003). 611
Clearly, consumer use of packaging elements is quite an important issue for low
involvement products – generally, informational elements require more mental effort
to process than do visual elements, which evoke more of an emotional response. Some
consumers are not willing to put forth this small effort, and food products which is of
truly low involvement for them. Others may consider the product more carefully, so
that involvement level might shift the package elements which are most critical. We
look at these various elements in more detail in the remainder of this section, to
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
Visual elements
Graphics and color
Graphics includes layout, color combinations, typography, and product photography,
all of which create an image. For low involvement, there is a strong impact from
marketing communications, including image building, on consumer decision-making.
Evaluation of attributes is of less importance in low involvement decisions, so
graphics and color become critical (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). For many
consumers in low involvement, the package is the product, particularly because
impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact. As the product
attribute which most directly communicates to the target consumer (Nancarrow et al.,
1998), the design characteristics of the package need to stand out in a display of many
other offerings.
Many consumers today shop under higher levels of perceived time pressure, and
tend to purchase fewer products than intended (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
Products often appear to be chosen without prior planning, representing a form of
impulse buying (Hausman, 2000). A package that attracts consumers at the point of
sale will help them make decisions quickly in-store. As the customer’s eye tracks
across a display of packages, different new packages can be noticed against the
competitors. However, eye movement does not necessarily mean attention. When
scanning packages in the supermarket, the differential perception and the positioning
of the graphics elements on a package may make the difference between identifying
and missing an item (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
In psychology research, brain laterality results in an asymmetry in the perception of
elements in package designs (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). The recall of package elements
is likely to be influenced by their lateral position on the package, as well as by factors
such as font style, size, and color. Recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on
the right hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli when it is on the
left hand side. This may imply that, in order to maximize consumer recall, pictorial
elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left hand side of
the package.
BFJ Consumers also learn color associations, which lead them to prefer certain colors for
106,8 various product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). Using color as a cue on
packaging can be a potentially strong association, especially when it is unique to a
particular brand. However, people in different cultures are exposed to different color
associations and develop color preferences based on their own culture’s associations.
Simply taking the colors of a particular logo, package, or product design from one
612 market to another should only be done under a thorough understanding of how colors
and color combinations are perceived in each location (Madden et al., 2000).
elongated packages to be larger, even when they frequently purchase these packages
and can experience true volume. This implies that disconfirmation of package size after
consumption may not lead consumers to revise their volume judgments in the long
term, especially if the discrepancy is not very large (Raghubir and Krishna, 1999).
Different sizes also appeal to consumers with somewhat different involvement. For
example, low price for some low involvement products, such as generics, is made
possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and promotional
expenses. Generics are usually packaged in larger sizes, which communicates to
consumers who are specifically looking for good deals. Such consumers find the low
price of the generics, in the right size of packaging, offers excellent value for money
(Prendergast and Marr, 1997). In addition, this could imply that when product quality
is hard to determine, as with generics, the packaging size effect is stronger.
Informational elements
Product information
The behavior of consumers toward products characterized by high involvement is less
influenced by image issues and visual response (Kupiec and Revell, 2001); in such cases
consumers need more information. Written information on the package can assist
consumers in making their decisions carefully as they consider product characteristics.
However, packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too much
information or misleading and inaccurate information. Manufacturers often use very
small fonts and very dense writing styles to pack extensive information onto the label,
which lead to poor readability and sometimes confusion.
Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) suggest that one way consumers reduce
confusion from information overload is to narrow down their choice sets. Reducing
choice alternatives and evaluative attributes decreases the probability that they will be
confused by excessive choice and information overload. This strategy could apply to
more experienced consumers, because heavy users potentially look at fewer brand
alternatives. In other words, experience makes consumers selectively perceptive and
restricts the scope of their search (Hausman, 2000). This is effectively a form of brand
loyalty, brought about because consumers do not necessarily want to continue reading
labels every time they buy a particular product.
Many consumers appreciate food labeling, but are not satisfied with standard
formats. For example, UK survey data indicates that nearly two-thirds of consumers
now read food labels, but one-third want to see clearer labeling (IGD, 2003c). Other Packaging and
research in the UK also shows that many consumers find the format prescribed in law purchase
for both voluntary and compulsory labeling difficult to use (FSA, 2003). In another
recent survey, 90 percent of people agreed that nutritional information panels should decisions
be laid out in the same way for all food products so that they are easy to understand
quickly (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999).
While not all consumers use it, the trend seems to be toward increasing attention to 613
such label information. Partly concerns about food safety and nutritional health drive
this trend (Coulson, 2000; IGD, 2003d; Smith and Riethmuller, 2000), but it is also
driven by the gradually increasing consumer sophistication. During Thailand’s recent
recession, for example, consumers were loathed to sacrifice living standards, but they
did have to watch budgets more carefully. They began evaluating products more
carefully to make sure they were worth the prices charged (Speece, 2003). Whatever be
the reasons, more highly involved consumers evaluate message information, relying on
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
message argument quality to form their attitudes and purchase intentions (Vakratsas
and Ambler, 1999).
On the other hand, packaged food products remain low in involvement for many
consumers. In general, consumer acquisition of low involvement products is often done
without carefully examining brand and product information. The lack of commitment
and attention implies that information on the package carries relatively less value with
consumers who view packaged food as low involvement products.
Packaging technology
Technology developed for packaging comes directly from the current trends in
products and consumer behaviors. Powerful retailers also seek greater responsiveness
and flexibility from manufacturers, including packaging, to satisfy consumers who are
more demanding and sophisticated (Adebanjo, 2000). Customers are often prepared to
pay slightly more for enhanced product value, indicating desire for more quality.
However, product and packaging development also constrained in creating products
that fully meet the consumer and channel criteria. Such constraints might be
categorized as ingredient, processing, and cost restraints.
Innovation must respond and develop new products that are more efficiently
produced, packaged for a longer shelf life, environmentally friendly, nutritionally
responsive to each of the emerging segments of society, and meet maximum food
safety requirements (McIlveen, 1994). Technology embodied in the package plays a big
role in this, making it somewhat of a special form of informational element. In addition
to its technical role, packaging technology also conveys information which is often
linked to the consumer’s lifestyle. Therefore, in order to survive in high growth,
competitive markets, technology becomes very important for developing packaging,
materials, and processes.
It is clear from the review of literature that the importance of packaging
development is high, as packaging plays a major role in consumer decisions of fast
moving packaged food products. Earlier research, however, is not very extensive, and
has not looked very carefully at differences in how packaging elements are used for
decisions based on levels of involvement and time pressure. In the next section we
discuss focus group research to examine these issues among middle class consumers in
Bangkok.
BFJ Methodology
106,8 Focus groups were used for this study in order to gain in-depth insights into consumer
shopping behaviors for packaged food products. Qualitative approaches provide richer
detail for exploring viewpoints in early stages of research, allowing the researcher to
gain a better initial understanding of issues (Healy and Perry, 2000). Focus group
interviews are particularly a good process for generating hypotheses and interpreting
614 consumer thinking. Focus group methodologies do not aim for precise measurement,
but rather at gaining in-depth knowledge about certain topic areas. A focus group is
especially useful for learning about participants’ conceptualizations of particular
phenomena and the language they use to describe them (Blackburn and Stokes, 2000;
Jinks and Daniels, 1999).
Two focus groups of six housewives and six working women were conducted in
Bangkok. Focus groups may not be fully representative of target populations, but it
was important to ensure that the results could illustrate possible variations within the
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
city and provide some level of generalisability. Invited participants were stratified
according to household income, marital status, number of children and family
members, and age. One group concentrated on 35-42 year old housewives with 2-3
children, and one on 27-36 year old married working women without children. For both
groups, household income of a minimum of 40,000 Baht/month and a maximum of
80,000 Baht were adopted (slightly less than US$ 1,000-2,000/month), to represent solid
middle class income levels.
The study aimed to get the participants who are responsible for household
shopping. In most countries, women are still mainly responsible for household
shopping and remain the main decision makers for frequently purchased packaged
food products. Thailand fits this pattern, and screening questions indicated that
participants made the purchase decisions for packaged food products.
The discussions were guided by a moderator (one of the authors) whose role was to
develop the exploration of the topics. This researcher was previously unknown to any
participant, so that the groups had no pre-conceived ideas about the research and
researcher influence on responses would be minimal. In the interviews, it is important
to get people to feel comfortable with expressing honest and open answers (Cowley,
2000). The interviewees were promised that individual identities would not be revealed
in any way while reporting the data. The interviews were recorded and the researcher
took notes of all the interactions. The sessions were guided by a list of topics which
acted as the framework for discussion.
Findings
Both sets of participants identified packaging elements as the main factors in their
assessment and decisions on household purchases. The packaging elements identified
most often were graphics and color, shape and size, and product information. These
dimensions were seen as important by most participants. In the following discussion,
we examine these elements and the impact of involvement level and time pressure in
more detail.
product is of high quality, unless they have other negative information. Some
participants, for example, said.
Without experience, I buy food by considering the appearance of the package reflecting
premium quality.
Nice package design can influence my decision as it sometimes reflects good quality products.
Some packages are made of high quality material with neat design. I cannot deny that the
product would be premium also. That is why I bought them to try.
Even though it is hard to define quality, I believe that a well-designed package helps me in
being more confident about the product.
The visual element is foremost when they discuss brand choices this way. However,
participants suggested that directly consumed products need to be carefully selected,
especially many food and skincare products. Many such products require somewhat
higher involvement, and other household products, such as shower gel, shampoo,
washing liquid and detergent, were defined at a lower level of involvement. Higher
involvement results in more attention to product characteristics, and sometimes,
stronger brand loyalty:
I consider food products with more care as they directly affect my health. This means I need
to carefully select such products.
Nutrition facts on the package are very important for me to judge the product quality.
I find food and skincare products are very specific. If the particular brand is not available in
the store, I decide to postpone my purchase. Or sometimes I try to buy from other stores.
Conversely, several quotes illustrate the lower importance of some other food product
categories, which seem to be perceived much more as commodities:
It is not critical to choose specific brands of grocery products such as rice or sugar.
If my brand is not there to choose, I usually buy some other brands which have similar
functions . . . such as, if I cannot find the oil I usually buy, I will try another brand.
I am willing to try a new product such as pepper, salt, and herbs. Because it is not important
for me to stick with one brand as long as it would not work differently.
BFJ Some food products clearly arouse higher involvement levels, but some consumers are
106,8 more involved than others. Other food products are still perceived as commodities, so
that attention to and evaluation of specific brands is not critical. Involvement arises as
a result of ongoing interest in the product class and its association with the individual’s
values, self-concept, and feelings of well-being. Some participants suggested that
characteristics of the products and brands themselves may steadily act to arouse their
616 involvement.
These views seem consistent with the West (Beharrell and Denison, 1995). Brand
loyalty and habit shopping are common there also, although the proportion of
consumers who are strongly brand loyal may be lower than in Asia. Palumbo and
Herbig (2000) note a UK survey in which 61 percent of affluent adult shoppers tended
to agree that they liked to find one brand to stay with. One respondent in another UK
survey evaluated products hardly at all, showing an extreme reliance on (store) brand:
“I never look at the labels, if something is good enough for Asda to sell then it is good
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
enough for me.” (IGD, 2002a, p. 21). However, another common approach is indicated
by another survey in which the majority of consumers wanted to see specific
nutritional information on the label (IGD, 2003c).
Time pressure
Time pressure frequently affects shopping decisions. Participants agreed that when
shopping under relatively high time constraints, they spend less time making any
given purchase. They described shopping under time pressure as making quick
decisions without careful evaluation. This made them purchase fewer products than
intended and led to unplanned purchases. It was more difficult to make decisions,
especially when considering multiple brands or product attributes. They made most
decisions quickly at the point of sale:
I needed to pick something quickly while I was shopping with my kids.
I feel pressured to complete my shopping quickly. And it happened that I always bought
something I didn’t intend to.
Grocery shopping is one of my responsibilities. Whenever I am in rush, it is hard for me to
make a decision. Most of the time, I made mistakes with those colorful products on the shelf.
This final quote indicates that visual elements play a big role in decisions under time
pressure, which reduces ability to evaluate carefully, i.e. it lowers involvement.
Consumers throughout the modern world report such patterns. For example, IGD
(2003d) reports that many consumers do not have time to read food labels. Often they
want label format standardized and in larger font, and some even suggest color coding
to make information more visual and easier to process quickly. Other surveys indicate
that younger consumers feel even more time pressure (IGD, 2001), and men are even
more time oriented than women food shoppers (IGD, 2002a). Time pressure, then,
counters the trend toward somewhat higher involvement toward food products, and
shifts the emphasis away from label information back toward visual package elements.
On my first purchase and without a favorite brand, I made my decision on snacks or juices by
the design of the label. If I like it, I’ll certainly buy it.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
For low involvement products, these decisions were usually made on pure liking.
Some participants suggested that the appearance of packaging reflected the
characteristic of the buyers. Therefore, they intended to buy products with the
distinctive package design based on their images. Distinctive graphics become part
of the brand identifier, and consumers use the graphics to cut through shelf clutter
to find their brands:
When I am looking for snack foods, color of the package helps me to find the product easier
. . . such as I remembered that the color of my kid’s favorite biscuit bag was red. So I kept
looking for the red bag on the shelf.
Many consumers commented that similar graphics layout by other brands can mislead
them in identifying their brands. Most participants had experienced the mistake of
purchasing a product look-alike when they were in hurry. For copycat brands, this
might seem useful, but one common emotional response on discovering the mistake
was disappointment, and frequently some desire to be more careful next time. For
example:
Similar graphic design on the package made me confused every time I was rushed.
I was disappointed on buying wrong products because of those similar packages.
Even under somewhat higher involvement, visual elements influence choice of the food
product. When consumers think about more careful evaluation of alternatives, the
graphics frequently represent the product to them:
I use the pictures on the pack to compare and differentiate among the brands . . . This may be
based on my liking.
This might be under time pressure or it could be a way to reduce the time needed for
decision. But even when they actually read labels carefully, participants tended to first
notice many products by the package color, which often reminded them about familiar
brands. When they were looking for a particular product on the shelf, packages with
the same range of color would attract their attention better than others. Group
members suggested that graphics and pictorial elements on the packaging strongly
affected their attention, and agreed that one important role of the graphics is to gain
consideration for the brand:
BFJ Nice graphics on the packs are always standing out from the shelf. Most of the time, I pick
them up, at least, to see more details.
106,8
Certainly, time pressure shifts emphasis in consumer thinking to the graphics. Package
pictures increase attention and trial for some brands with low familiarity:
When I was in rush, nice pictures and bright color on the pack make it seem to be more
618 attractive than others . . . I just unintentionally bought a box of biscuits only because of its
beautiful design.
Under limited time, a beautiful package strongly influenced my decision when I could not see
my usually bought one.
Thus, graphics influence decisions under either time situation, and whether higher or
low involvement. When consumers feel no need to carefully consider product
characteristics, graphics drives their choice. Some consumers feel that they are
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
Information
As noted, many consumers feel that it is important to consider information on the
package in order to compare quality and value. The trend toward healthier eating has
highlighted the importance of food labeling, which allows consumers the opportunity
to cautiously consider alternatives and make informed food choices (as in the West)
(Coulson, 2000). Consumers consider many packaged food products as higher
involvement, requiring more evaluation. They tend to read the message on the label
more often to ensure quality, even though graphics and shape may affect their
attention at the beginning.
Thus, in contrast to consumers who rely on visual information, many participants
were more likely to judge higher involvement products at least partly by information
provided on the package. Some rely on label information quite heavily for the final
decision:
BFJ To define the quality of products, especially food, I read everything they said on the package
to be sure that the product contains exactly what I wanted.
106,8
Only reading product information could finally help me on quality judgment.
I totally rely on what it is said on the label, when I have to make a decision.
While they generally want more information for many products, the groups also
620 suggested that information on food labels needs to be accurately communicated. They
revealed many negative experiences with food labels which were not clear. Sometimes
this confusion leads people to ignore the information, sometimes it leads to rejection in
favor of packages on which information is more effectively communicated. Some
representative statements illustrating these views include:
The nutritional information is incredibly confusing. I don’t understand it entirely.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
women often purchased microwave food, which they found convenient and reliable.
They indicated that the food manufacturers who produced the products were well
known and provided acceptable quality. Many interviewees also felt that it was
becoming important to pay attention to packaging materials, which have an impact on
convenience as well as the product itself. They are aware of materials which are
compatible with their food preparation. For example:
The signal of plastic type (i.e. microwaveable or freezable) and information for use stated on
the pack help me to make my choice (italics from discussion context, not part of quote).
If I do not have enough time to prepare my meal, I tend to buy a Quick Meal pack. But I
always make sure that the package is microwaveable.
Most participants believed that the packaging materials were important even beyond
such examples as convenience cooking or storage. For example, some interviewees
came up with the interesting issue of package technology and storage life:
There are packages that could prolong food life. Some foods were used in the bottle, but now
they have been modified into the stand-up pouches and some plastic sachets. And it can keep
the product much longer.
Some housewives indicated that snack food packages needed to be made with nontoxic
materials, as well as to be soft and harmless when kids tried to open them themselves.
They also agreed that if they were able to tear the package open easily, it would be
more convenient. For example, some participants said that:
I experienced a bag of snack food which cut my finger when I tried to open it.
When I buy snack foods or sweets, I prefer a plastic bag which is easy to open.
In addition, the respondents suggested that one of the main functions of the package
was to dispense a proper amount of product when it was used. They found many
current food packages convenient to use, especially some special designs of sweets and
mints packages:
I love the way they do with those small boxes of candies. It could be opened easily and gives
me the right amount.
The manufacturers keep creating new techniques for the sweet boxes and it is a good
development.
BFJ On the other hand, some packages, such as bottles for beverage products, were found
to be awkward:
106,8
Every time I poured the milk, too much would come out. This made me so frustrated.
The desire for greater convenience is no surprise, and is common worldwide among
urban middle class consumers. Consumer research in the UK, for example, regularly
622 shows similar thinking (IGD, 2001, 2002b). Among other things, consumers want
packaging technology that reduces food preparation time. Simpler technology
(in consumer perception, not necessarily in package development or production) is
also important, as are technology issues such as safety, food preservation, and ease
of use.
It is clear that both visual and informational package elements can influence consumer
choice. This is a very important food products marketing issue, but research on such
packaging issues is not very extensive. Further, it is likely that the way either visual or
informational elements affect choice depends on product involvement levels and time
pressure. We propose a number of research propositions which should be investigated
in much more detail, because they can have a major impact on success or failure of
brands in markets for packaged food products.
P1. Visual elements of the package (graphics and size/shape) influence choice of
the product.
P1a. More appealing graphics will be more likely to be chosen.
P1b. Visually larger packages will be more likely to be chosen.
P2. Informational elements of the package (product information and technology)
influence choice of the product.
P2a. Packages with more product information are more likely to be chosen.
P2b. Packages with newer technology are more likely to be chosen.
Product involvement
Involvement level exerts considerable influence over consumer decision processes
(Beharrell and Denison, 1995; McWilliam, 1997; Quester and Smart, 1998). Involvement
and the consumption situation significantly influence the importance of paying careful
attention to product attributes. Affective responses influence product attitudes more
positively in low involvement than in high involvement situations (Vakratsas and
Ambler, 1999). Thus, visual elements of packaging are likely to influence consumers
more for low involvement. On the other hand, if product performance is viewed as
risky, then the consumer is likely to pay more attention to the product (Grossman and
Wisenblit, 1999; Dholakia, 2001). This suggests that the cognitive information on
packaging is more effective when consumers need to explicitly evaluate and compare
products.
Much of the conceptual development of these issues has not been applied
specifically to packaging. These areas need additional research:
P3. Involvement level has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2. Packaging and
P3a. The influence of visual package elements on choice is stronger when purchase
consumers have low levels of involvement with the product, and weaker when decisions
they have high levels.
P3b. The influence of informational package elements on choice is stronger when
consumers have high levels of involvement with the product, and weaker 623
when they have low levels.
P4. Relative impacts: P3 implies that visual elements of packaging will have more
impact on the purchase decision than will the informational elements when
consumers have low levels of involvement with the product. Conversely, the
informational elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase
decision than will the visual elements when consumers have high levels of
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
Time pressure
Empirical findings indicate that consumers under time pressure tend to make their
decision when the package comes with distinctive appearance and contains simple,
accurate information. Size of package is probably also indirectly related to time
pressure. A unique package shape may arise consumer curiosity more quickly and lead
to their purchase decision. Gofton (1995) suggests that as the number of single people
increases, and the number of families and multi-person households falls, behavioral
change takes place leading to less available time for more people. In other words, time
pressure is likely to become an ever more important factor which package designers
need to address. The limited data currently available suggests that:
P5. Time pressure has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2.
P5a. The influence of visual elements on choice is stronger when consumers have
less time in which to make the product choice, and weaker when they do not
have time pressure.
P5b. The influence of informational elements on choice is stronger when
consumers have more time to make the product choice. When they have time
pressure, they tend to perceive less information from the package, and the
influence of informational elements will be weaker.
P6. Relative impacts: P5 implies that when consumers face time pressure, the
visual elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase
decision than will the informational elements. Conversely, when
consumers do not have time pressure, the informational elements of
packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the
visual elements.
However, technology is somewhat of a special case relative to the other types of
informational elements, because packaging technology is often linked to
convenience food products, and convenience has become increasingly important
for food products (Warde, 1999). Consumers who are worried about time saving
BFJ will pay more attention to claims of new technology, because of technology’s
106,8 association with convenience:
P7. New packaging technology or new technology claimed on packaging has a
more positive effect on the purchase decision under time pressure than
without time pressure.
624 All these propositions are shown in Figure 1.
Conclusion
The results of this focus group study did support the propositions listed above. In
general, visual elements of the package influence choice of the product to a great
extent, and graphics and color are frequently the major influence. Attractive packaging
generates consumer attention by breaking through the competitive clutter. Picture
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
vividness has the most positive impact for products with lower levels of involvement.
However, informational elements are becoming increasingly important and influence
choice. The participants tended to judge food product performance by reading the label
if they were considering products more carefully. Appropriately delivered information
on packaging generates strong impact on the consumers’ purchase decision. This
information reduces the uncertainty and creates product credibility.
Clearly, packaging is an important marketing tool for food products, but the four
elements of packaging stimulate purchase decisions differently. Consumer evaluation
of packaging elements changes as the perceived risk of the consumption situation
increases, and marketers need to know the importance of the various attributes to best
communicate through the package. Visual elements, graphics and size/shape,
Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
packaging elements and
product choice
positively influence choice more in the low involvement situation, while informational Packaging and
elements tend to play a key role in higher involvement decision-making. Time pressure purchase
similarly changes how consumers evaluate products at the point of sale, partly by
reducing ability to give attention to informational elements. Again, marketers must decisions
communicate effectively through the package.
Knowledge about the issues summarized in our research propositions is very
necessary for developing effective packaging which can maximize in-store consumer 625
choice. This and the other limited research about consumer response to packaging
gives package designers some guidance. However, much more detailed understanding
is necessary, and careful examination of the issues much more broadly among
consumers is also important. It is clear that package plays a very large role in product
choice, and it is also clear that poor packaging can push consumers away from
buying the product. Certainly, better understanding of these issues in the packaging
design process will become a key element in the competitiveness of packaged food
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
products.
References
Adebanjo, D. (2000), “Identifying problems in forecasting consumer demand in the fast
moving consumer goods sector”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 223-30.
Asawanipont, N. (2003), “More Thais starting SMEs”, The Nation, 1 November.
Beharrell, B. and Denison, T.J. (1995), “Involvement in a routine food shopping context”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 24-9.
Blackburn, R. and Stokes, D. (2000), “Breaking down the barriers: using focus group to research
small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 44-67.
Chaudhuri, A. (2000), “A macro analysis of the relationship of product involvement and
information search: the role of risk”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Coulson, N.S. (2000), “An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food
labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 9, pp. 661-8.
Cowley, J.C.P. (2000), “Strategic qualitative focus group research – define and articulate our
skills or we will be replaced by others”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 17-39.
Dholakia, M.U. (2001), “A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer
risk perception”, European Journal of marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1340-60.
Food Standards Agency (FSA) (2003), “Clear labeling task force: recommendations on ideal label
formats”, available at: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/researchandreports/4921
(accessed November 2003).
Gofton, L. (1995), “Dollar rich and time poor? Some problems in interpreting changing food
habits”, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10, pp. 11-16.
Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999), “What we know about consumers’ colour choices”,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 78-88.
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-19.
BFJ Healy, M. and Perry, C. (2000), “Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm”, Qualitative Market Research: An
106,8 International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 118-26.
Herrington, J.D. and Capella, L.M. (1995), “Shopping reactions to perceived time pressure”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 13-20.
Imram, N. (1999), “The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food
626 product”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 5, pp. 224-8.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2001), Winning the Mature Vote.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002a), The Single Male Shopper: Are They Men
Behaving Badly?
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002b), Continued Demand for Convenience, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003a), Competition Intensifies in Thailand, available at:
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
1. Alberto Regattieri, Giulia Santarelli, Francesco Piana. Packaging Logistics 273-303. [Crossref]
2. Giulia Songa, Hendrik Slabbinck, Iris Vermeir, Vincenzo Russo. 2019. How do implicit/explicit attitudes
and emotional reactions to sustainable logo relate? A neurophysiological study. Food Quality and Preference
71, 485-496. [Crossref]
3. Manon Favier, Franck Celhay, Gaëlle Pantin-Sohier. 2019. Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity
and brand perception: an application to Champagne. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 46, 11.
[Crossref]
4. Weng Marc Lim. 2018. Demystifying neuromarketing. Journal of Business Research 91, 205-220. [Crossref]
5. Enrica Modica, Giulia Cartocci, Dario Rossi, Ana C. Martinez Levy, Patrizia Cherubino, Anton Giulio
Maglione, Gianluca Di Flumeri, Marco Mancini, Marco Montanari, Davide Perrotta, Paolo Di Feo, Alessia
Vozzi, Vincenzo Ronca, Pietro Aricò, Fabio Babiloni. 2018. Neurophysiological Responses to Different
Product Experiences. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2018, 1-10. [Crossref]
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
6. Natalia Vila-López, Inés Küster-Boluda. 2018. Designing food packaging for the Spanish market: Do
motivations differ between involved and non-involved adolescents?. Food Research International 111,
642-649. [Crossref]
7. Sunhee Choi, Sangno Lee, Wesley Friske. 2018. The Effects of Featured Advertising and Package Labeling
on Sustainability of Cause-Related Marketing (CRM) Products. Sustainability 10:9, 3011. [Crossref]
8. Dennis Reynolds, Imran Rahman, Shaniel Bernard, Amy Holbrook. 2018. What effect does wine bottle
closure type have on perceptions of wine attributes?. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75,
171-178. [Crossref]
9. SalemMohammed Z., Mohammed Z. Salem. 2018. Effects of perfume packaging on Basque female
consumers purchase decision in Spain. Management Decision 56:8, 1748-1768. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
10. HarknessCaroline, Caroline Harkness, ArealFrancisco, Francisco Areal. 2018. Consumer willingness to
pay for low acrylamide content. British Food Journal 120:8, 1888-1900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Alessandro Bonanno, Francesco Bimbo, Marco Costanigro, Alfons Oude Lansink, Rosaria Viscecchia.
2018. Credence attributes and the quest for a higher price – a hedonic stochastic frontier approach.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 28. . [Crossref]
12. BahrainizadManijeh, Manijeh Bahrainizad, RajabiAzadeh, Azadeh Rajabi. 2018. Consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging and impulse buying. Journal of Islamic Marketing 9:2, 262-282. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
13. MaherJill K., Jill K. Maher, CrawleyDaria, Daria Crawley, PotterJodi, Jodi Potter. 2018. Real fruit
substitution: the case of at-risk American families. British Food Journal 120:4, 815-826. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
14. Jesús García-Madariaga, Maria-Francisca Blasco López, Ingrit Moya Burgos, Nuria Recuero Virto. 2018.
Do isolated packaging variables influence consumers' attention and preferences?. Physiology & Behavior
. [Crossref]
15. VerguraDonata Tania, Donata Tania Vergura, LuceriBeatrice, Beatrice Luceri. 2018. Product packaging
and consumers’ emotional response. Does spatial representation influence product evaluation and choice?.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 35:2, 218-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. MundelJuan, Juan Mundel, HuddlestonPatricia, Patricia Huddleston, BeheBridget, Bridget Behe,
SageLynnell, Lynnell Sage, LatonaCaroline, Caroline Latona. 2018. An eye tracking study of minimally
branded products: hedonism and branding as predictors of purchase intentions. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 27:2, 146-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Maria Micheline Teixeira Lopes, Maria do Carmo Passos Rodrigues, Ana Maria Souza de Araújo. 2018.
Influence of Expectation Measure on the Sensory Acceptance of Petit Suisse Product. Journal of Food
Science 83:3, 798-803. [Crossref]
18. Angela Fraser. The influence of package design on consumer purchase intent 225-249. [Crossref]
19. Mai Ngoc Khuong, Nguyen Thi Huyen Tran. 2018. The Impacts of Product Packaging Elements on
Brand Image and Purchase Intention — An Empirical Study of Phuc Long's Packaged Tea Products.
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 9:1, 8-13. [Crossref]
20. Ahmad Mumani, Richard Stone. 2018. State of the art of user packaging interaction (UPI). Packaging
Technology and Science 28. . [Crossref]
21. Jakkreeporn Sannork, Aree Wiboonpongse, Tzong-Ru Lee. Assessing Consumers’ Perceptions of
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
Packaging Attributes and Packaging Label of Community’s ‘Green’ Chili (Pepper) Products in Thailand
397-407. [Crossref]
22. Swati Pal, Shivani Holkar, Abhishek Yevalkar, Amrita Bhattacharjee. Juice Packaging Design: Effects
of Transparency on Consumers? Perception Leading Toward Purchase Preference for Packaged Juice
177-184. [Crossref]
23. Klaus Duerrschmid, Lukas Danner. Eye Tracking in Consumer Research 279-318. [Crossref]
24. Olfa Ammar, Safa Garbout, Imen Trabelsi Trigui. Co-design and Chronic Regulatory Focus: A Cross-
cultural Study and Suggestions for Future e-Marketing Practices 28-47. [Crossref]
25. Kesra Nermend, Jarosław Duda. Methodology for Choosing the Location for In-Game Advertising
Billboards 89-97. [Crossref]
26. VareseErica, Erica Varese, CanePaola, Paola Cane. 2017. From space food research and innovation to
immediate advantages for Earth eating habits. British Food Journal 119:11, 2448-2461. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
27. S Setareh Sanjari, Steffen Jahn, Yasemin Boztug. 2017. Dual-process theory and consumer response to
front-of-package nutrition label formats. Nutrition Reviews 75:11, 871-882. [Crossref]
28. M. Syaekhoni, Ganjar Alfian, Young Kwon. 2017. Customer Purchasing Behavior Analysis as Alternatives
for Supporting In-Store Green Marketing Decision-Making. Sustainability 9:11, 2008. [Crossref]
29. Luwen Yu, Stephen Westland, Zhenhong Li, Qianqian Pan, Meong Jin Shin, Seahwa Won. 2017. The
role of individual colour preferences in consumer purchase decisions. Color Research & Application 30. .
[Crossref]
30. A. R. Dossou Smith, K. N. Aoudji Augustin, Adégbidi Anselme. 2017. Processing of local agricultural
products to meet urban demand: Lessons from soybean cheese consumption analysis in Southern Benin.
African Journal of Marketing Management 9:8, 133-143. [Crossref]
31. van RiemsdijkLenka, Lenka van Riemsdijk, IngenbleekPaul T.M., Paul T.M. Ingenbleek,
HouthuijsMarleen, Marleen Houthuijs, van TrijpHans C.M., Hans C.M. van Trijp. 2017. Strategies for
positioning animal welfare as personally relevant. British Food Journal 119:9, 2062-2075. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
32. HamlinRobert P., Robert P. Hamlin, GinMichael, Michael Gin, NyhofFiona, Fiona Nyhof, BogueJoe,
Joe Bogue. 2017. Package graphic design development. British Food Journal 119:9, 1953-1968. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
33. Alena Soboleva, Suzan Burton, Girijasankar Mallik, Aila Khan. 2017. ‘Retweet for a Chance to…’:
an analysis of what triggers consumers to engage in seeded eWOM on Twitter. Journal of Marketing
Management 33:13-14, 1120-1148. [Crossref]
34. Morten Heide, Svein Ottar Olsen. 2017. Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of
fresh cod. Food Quality and Preference 60, 9-18. [Crossref]
35. Natalia Vila-López, Ines Küster-Boluda, Francisco Sarabia-Sánchez. 2017. Designing a packaging to
promote healthy and low-fat foods: Adolescents versus young-adults. Food Research International 99,
815-820. [Crossref]
36. Markus Joutsela, Terhi Latvala, Virpi Roto. 2017. Influence of Packaging Interaction Experience on
Willingness to Pay. Packaging Technology and Science 30:8, 505-523. [Crossref]
37. Irene Tijssen, Elizabeth H. Zandstra, Cees de Graaf, Gerry Jager. 2017. Why a ‘light’ product package
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
should not be light blue: Effects of package colour on perceived healthiness and attractiveness of sugar-
and fat-reduced products. Food Quality and Preference 59, 46-58. [Crossref]
38. SreeramAnusha, Anusha Sreeram, KesharwaniAnkit, Ankit Kesharwani, DesaiSneha, Sneha Desai. 2017.
Factors affecting satisfaction and loyalty in online grocery shopping: an integrated model. Journal of Indian
Business Research 9:2, 107-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. M. Brugarolas, L. Martínez-Carrasco. 3. The sense of sight 61-92. [Crossref]
40. Sachin Coothoopermal, Hemant Chittoo. 2017. The impact of consumer decision-making styles on
consumer confusion in Mauritius: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41:3,
312-324. [Crossref]
41. Rosemarie Neuninger, Damien Mather, Tara Duncan. 2017. Consumer's scepticism of wine awards: A
study of consumers’ use of wine awards. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 35, 98-105. [Crossref]
42. Supimmas Thienhirun, Sulin Chung. 2017. Consumer Attitudes and Preferences toward Cross-Cultural
Ready-To-Eat (RTE) Food. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1-24. [Crossref]
43. Liisa Peura-Kapanen, Piia Jallinoja, Minna Kaarakainen. 2017. Acceptability of Convenience Food Among
Older People. SAGE Open 7:1, 215824401769873. [Crossref]
44. Toney Sebastian, Pradeep Yammiyavar, Stevan Jones. Modeling Design Strategies for Package Graphics:
A Study of Hair Care Products Among Young Indian Users 727-737. [Crossref]
45. Olfa Ammar, Imen Trabelsi Trigui. Capturing Leading Factors Contributing to Consumer Engagement
in Online Packaging Co-design Platform: A Focus Group Study and a Research Model Proposal 64-82.
[Crossref]
46. Yann Truong, Richard R. Klink, Geoff Simmons, Amir Grinstein, Mark Palmer. 2017. Branding strategies
for high-technology products: The effects of consumer and product innovativeness. Journal of Business
Research 70, 85-91. [Crossref]
47. Toney Sebastian, Pradeep Yammiyavar, Stevan Jones. Domestic and Global Designs in Hair Care: A Study
of Aesthetic Preferences of Indian Users 799-809. [Crossref]
48. Anna Maria BIEDERMANN, Aranzazu FERNÁNDEZ-VÁZQUEZ, María ELIPE. Definition of
geometry and graphics applications on existing cosmetic packaging 1083-1091. [Crossref]
49. WangEdward S.-T., Edward S.-T. Wang, YuJia-Rong, Jia-Rong Yu. 2016. Effect of product attribute
beliefs of ready-to-drink coffee beverages on consumer-perceived value and repurchase intention. British
Food Journal 118:12, 2963-2980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Robert Mai, Claudia Symmank, Berenike Seeberg-Elverfeldt. 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. [Crossref]
51. Francesco Bimbo, Alessandro Bonanno, Rosaria Viscecchia. 2016. Do health claims add value? The role of
functionality, effectiveness and brand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43:5, 761-780. [Crossref]
52. MontandonAndrew Charles, Andrew Charles Montandon, ColliChristopher, Christopher Colli. 2016.
Effective nutrition labels for fast food consumers. British Food Journal 118:10, 2534-2549. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
53. Soyoung Seo, Hee-Kyung Ahn, Jaeseok Jeong, Junghoon Moon. 2016. Consumers’ Attitude toward
Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging. Sustainability 8:10, 1073. [Crossref]
54. Natalia Vila-López, Ines Kuster-Boluda. 2016. Adolescents’ food packaging perceptions. Does gender
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
matter when weight control and health motivations are considered?. Food Quality and Preference 52,
179-187. [Crossref]
55. Andrew C. Montandon, Andrzej Ogonowski, Elsamari Botha. 2016. Product Involvement and the Relative
Importance of Health Endorsements. Journal of Food Products Marketing 8, 1-19. [Crossref]
56. Helena Lindh, Helen Williams, Annika Olsson, Fredrik Wikström. 2016. Elucidating the Indirect
Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and
Features. Packaging Technology and Science 29:4-5, 225-246. [Crossref]
57. Rupert Andrew Hurley, Rachel Randall, Liam O'Hara, Charles Tonkin, Julie C. Rice. 2016. Color
harmonies in packaging. Color Research & Application n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
58. Nadia van der Colff, Daleen van der Merwe, Magdalena Bosman, Alet Erasmus, Susanna Ellis. 2016.
Consumers’ prepurchase satisfaction with the attributes and information of food labels. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 40:2, 220-228. [Crossref]
59. Nicholas Ford, Paul Trott, Christopher Simms. 2016. Exploring the impact of packaging interactions on
quality of life among older consumers. Journal of Marketing Management 32:3-4, 275-312. [Crossref]
60. Robert P Hamlin. 2016. The consumer testing of food package graphic design. British Food Journal 118:2,
379-395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Francesco Bimbo, Alessandro Bonanno, Xuan Liu, Rosaria Viscecchia. 2016. Hedonic analysis of the price
of UHT-treated milk in Italy. Journal of Dairy Science 99:2, 1095-1102. [Crossref]
62. Melissa A. Baker, Jungyoung Tiffany Shin, Young Wook Kim. 2016. An Exploration and Investigation
of Edible Insect Consumption: The Impacts of Image and Description on Risk Perceptions and Purchase
Intent. Psychology & Marketing 33:2, 94-112. [Crossref]
63. Toni Ryynänen, Markus Joutsela, Visa Heinonen. 2016. “My Grandfather kept one of these tins on top of
the bookshelf ”. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19:1, 4-26. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
64. Mohsen Rasouli Valajoozi, Nosrat Ollah Zangi. 2016. A review on visual criteria of pure milk packaging
for parents and their children (case study: Tehran, Iran). British Food Journal 118:1, 83-99. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
65. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk, Anna Iwanicka. 2016. The effect of age, gender and level of education on the
consumer’s expectations towards dairy product packaging. British Food Journal 118:1, 100-118. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
66. Mu-Chien Chou, Weng-Kit Chong. Every Day for an Active Self-promotion: The Dialogue Between the
Shower Gel Packaging on the Shelf of a Point of Sale and the Consumer 739-751. [Crossref]
67. Vanessa Apaolaza, Patrick Hartmann, Cristina M. López, Carmen Echebarria, Jose M. Barrutia. The Halo
Effect in Fragrance Perception: The Relevance of the “Natural Ingredients” Claim 793-799. [Crossref]
68. S. Thomas, M. Chambault. Explicit Methods to Capture Consumers’ Responses to Packaging 139-159.
[Crossref]
69. Lise Magnier, Jan Schoormans. 2015. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of
visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 44, 53-62.
[Crossref]
70. Daniela Spanjaard, Lynne Freeman, Louise Young. 2015. Reflections on journeys within the supermarket.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 23:4, 303-310. [Crossref]
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
71. Justin Beneke, Ozayr Mathews, Travys Munthree, Kavesan Pillay. 2015. The role of package colour in
influencing purchase intent of bottled water. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 17:2,
165-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. A. Eldesouky, A.F. Pulido, F.J. Mesias. 2015. The Role of Packaging and Presentation Format in
Consumers’ Preferences for Food: An Application of Projective Techniques. Journal of Sensory Studies
30:5, 360-369. [Crossref]
73. Daniele Lama, Gabriele Pizzi. 2015. L'effetto del packaging sulle percezioni di qualità del prodotto nel
mercato vinicolo. MERCATI E COMPETITIVITÀ :3, 61-82. [Crossref]
74. Mahsa-Sadat Taghavi, Alireza Seyedsalehi. 2015. The effect of packaging and brand on children’s and
parents’ purchasing decisions and the moderating role of pester power. British Food Journal 117:8,
2017-2038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Danna Ethan, Corey H. Basch, Lalitha Samuel, Christine Quinn, Stephanie Dunne. 2015. An
Examination of Product Packaging Marketing Strategies Used to Promote Pediatric Multivitamins.
Journal of Community Health 40:3, 564-568. [Crossref]
76. Lewis Xinwei Liao, Armando Maria Corsi, Polymeros Chrysochou, Larry Lockshin. 2015. Emotional
responses towards food packaging: A joint application of self-report and physiological measures of
emotion. Food Quality and Preference 42, 48-55. [Crossref]
77. Christopher M. Wharton, Renee Shaw Hughner, Lexi MacMillan, Claudia Dumitrescu. 2015.
Community Supported Agriculture Programs: A Novel Venue for Theory-Based Health Behavior Change
Interventions. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 54:3, 280-301. [Crossref]
78. Mar Gómez, David Martín-Consuegra, Arturo Molina. 2015. The importance of packaging in purchase
and usage behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:3, 203-211. [Crossref]
79. Toni Ryynänen, Elina Rusko. 2015. Professionals' View of Consumers' Packaging Interactions - A
Narrative Analysis. Packaging Technology and Science 28:4, 341-355. [Crossref]
80. Fredrik Fernqvist, Annika Olsson, Sara Spendrup. 2015. What’s in it for me? Food packaging and
consumer responses, a focus group study. British Food Journal 117:3, 1122-1135. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
81. Amy-Jane Troy, Joe Bogue. 2015. Simulation modelling. British Food Journal 117:2, 943-962. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
82. Justin Beneke, Alex Brito, Kerry-Anne Garvey. 2015. Propensity to buy private label merchandise.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43:1, 43-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Tunyarut Jinkarn, Prisana Suwannaporn. 2015. Trade-off analysis of packaging attributes for foods and
drinks. British Food Journal 117:1, 139-156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk, Anna Iwanicka. 2015. Polish final purchasers’ expectations towards the features
of dairy product packaging in the context of buying decisions. British Food Journal 117:1, 178-194.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Suraj Kushe Shekhar, P.T. Raveendran. 2015. Promises of silent salesman to the FMCG industry: an
investigation using linear discriminant analysis approach. Management & Marketing 10:4. . [Crossref]
86. Aznur Aisyah, Zainah Abdullah, Mimiko Nezu. 2015. Japanese Food Product Purchase Intention:
Comparing Students with and without Japanese Language Learning Experience. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 172, 596-602. [Crossref]
87. Rubén Rebollar, Iván Lidón, Javier Martín, Miriam Puebla. 2015. The identification of viewing patterns
of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Quality and Preference 39, 251-258.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
[Crossref]
88. Solomon A. Makanjuola, Victor N. Enujiugha. 2015. How consumers estimate the size and appeal of
flexible packaging. Food Quality and Preference 39, 236-240. [Crossref]
89. Paola Letona, Violeta Chacon, Christina Roberto, Joaquin Barnoya. 2014. A qualitative study of children’s
snack food packaging perceptions and preferences. BMC Public Health 14:1. . [Crossref]
90. Dan Zhang. 2014. A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Children's Preferences of Package Design: The U.S.
and China. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 26:5, 391-404. [Crossref]
91. May O. Lwin, Maureen Morrin, Stanley W. H. Tang, Jin Yong Low, Thu Nguyen, Wei Xun Lee. 2014.
See the Seal? Understanding Restrained Eaters’ Responses to Nutritional Messages on Food Packaging.
Health Communication 29:8, 745-761. [Crossref]
92. Vanessa Apaolaza, Patrick Hartmann, Cristina López, Jose M. Barrutia, Carmen Echebarria. 2014. Natural
ingredients claim’s halo effect on hedonic sensory experiences of perfumes. Food Quality and Preference
36, 81-86. [Crossref]
93. Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen. 2014. Strategic Use of Colour in Brand Packaging. Packaging Technology
and Science 27:8, 663-676. [Crossref]
94. Prashant Kumar. 2014. Greening retail: an Indian experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 42:7, 613-625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Mehmet Seckin Aday, Ugur Yener. 2014. Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers
regarding packaging attributes and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:4, 385-393.
[Crossref]
96. Ali Eldesouky, Francisco Mesias. 2014. An insight into the influence of packaging and presentation format
on consumer purchasing attitudes towards cheese: a qualitative study. Spanish Journal of Agricultural
Research 12:2, 305. [Crossref]
97. Serena Szathvary, Samuele Trestini. 2014. A Hedonic Analysis of Nutrition and Health Claims on Fruit
Beverage Products. Journal of Agricultural Economics 65:2, 505-517. [Crossref]
98. Natalia Vila-López, Inés Küster-Boluda. 2014. Packing decision for low fat aliments: a review. Nutrition
& Food Science 44:3, 212-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Manilall Dhurup, Chengedzai Mafini, Tshepiso Dumasi. 2014. The impact of packaging, price and brand
awareness on brand loyalty: Evidence from the paint retailing industry. Acta Commercii 14:1. . [Crossref]
100. Magdalena JC Bosman, Daleen Van der Merwe, Susanna M Ellis, Johann C Jerling, Jane Badham. 2014.
South African adult metropolitan consumers' opinions and use of health information on food labels.
British Food Journal 116:1, 30-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Dyah Lestari Widaningrum. 2014. The Importance of Take-Out Food Packaging Attributes: Conjoint
Analysis and Quality Function Deployment Approach. EPJ Web of Conferences 68, 00036. [Crossref]
102. Daleen van der Merwe, Stephné Viljoen, Hanli de Beer, Magdalena Bosman, Elizabeth Kempen. 2013.
Consumers' experiences of cold chain food packaging: A qualitative study among women in South Africa.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:6, 650-657. [Crossref]
103. Duarte Paulo, Raposo Mário, Ferraz Marlene. 2013. Drivers of snack foods impulse buying behaviour
among young consumers. British Food Journal 115:9, 1233-1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
104. S.T. Wang Edward. 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality,
value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:10, 805-816.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)
[Crossref]
121. 김김김. 2012. An Instrument for Measuring Take-out Food Safety Perception. Culinary Science & Hospitality
Research 18:2, 82-90. [Crossref]
122. 김김김. 2012. An Instrument for Measuring Take-out Food Safety Perception. Culinary Science & Hospitality
Research 18:2, 82-90. [Crossref]
123. Mohd Ikhmal Fadzil, Maznah Wan Omar, Mohd Hafifi Murad. The power of color on packaging 761-764.
[Crossref]
124. Mohd Hafiz Faizal Mohamad Kamil, Azizah Jaafar. Usability of package and label designs using eye
tracking 316-321. [Crossref]
125. Sarah Campos, Juliana Doxey, David Hammond. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a
systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14:08, 1496-1506. [Crossref]
126. Karin Venter, Daleen van der Merwe, Hanli de Beer, Elizabeth Kempen, Magdalena Bosman. 2011.
Consumers' perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:3, 273-281. [Crossref]
127. Darren Hoad. 2011. Scientific Method and the Regulation of Health and Nutritional Claims by the
European Food Safety Authority. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31:2, 123-133. [Crossref]
128. Elizabeth Kempen, Magdalena Bosman, Carien Bouwer, Riana Klein, Daleen van der Merwe. 2011.
An exploration of the influence of food labels on South African consumers' purchasing behaviour.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:1, 69-78. [Crossref]
129. Sylvie Laforet. 2011. Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 10:1, 18-30. [Crossref]
130. Christopher Simms, Paul Trott. 2010. Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying
new product opportunities. Marketing Theory 10:4, 397-415. [Crossref]
131. Cengiz Caner, Melvin A. Pascall. 2010. Consumer complaints and accidents related to food packaging.
Packaging Technology and Science 23:7, 413-422. [Crossref]
132. Norbisimi Nordin, Susan Selke. 2010. Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and
Science 23:6, 317-326. [Crossref]
133. Robert P. Hamlin. 2010. Cue-Based Decision Making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved
food consumer. Appetite 55:1, 89-98. [Crossref]
134. M. Estiri, T. Hasangholi, H. Yazdani, H.J. Nejad, H. Rayej. 2010. Food Products Consumer Behaviors:
The Role of Packaging Elements. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:7, 535-543. [Crossref]
135. Murat Tanık. 2010. Improving “order handling” process by using QFD and FMEA methodologies: a case
study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27:4, 404-423. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
136. Prisana Suwannaporn, Mark W. Speece. 2010. Assessing new product development success factors in the
Thai food industry. British Food Journal 112:4, 364-386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
137. Ike‐Elechi Ogba, Rebecca Johnson. 2010. How packaging affects the product preferences of children and
the buyer behaviour of their parents in the food industry. Young Consumers 11:1, 77-89. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
138. Sunelle Jacobs, Daleen van der Merwe, Ené Lombard, Nadia Kruger. 2010. Exploring consumers'
preferences with regard to department and specialist food stores. International Journal of Consumer Studies
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:12 29 October 2018 (PT)