Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour

Abstract

Images of food constitute salient visual stimuli in the mind of the consumer. They are capable of promoting both feelings of hunger and the desire for food. It should not, then, come as any surprise that many product packages present the food contained within as a salient aspect of their visual design. Conventionally, this has been achieved primarily by the use of attractive visual imagery showing the product on the outside of the packaging. Nowadays, however, developments in packaging are increasingly enabling designers to add transparent elements, thus allowing consumers to directly see the product before purchase. Yet relatively little is known about the effectiveness of product imagery as compared with transparent packaging. In this review, we address the various ways in which seeing (images of) food influences the consumer. The implications for packaging designs which include: (a) images of food, and (b) transparent elements, are investigated. Guidelines are also provided for designers and brands on the ways in which to take advantage of these effects of being able to see the food.

Full text

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
1
1
Thinking Inside the Box: How Seeing Products on, or Through, the
2
Packaging Influences Consumer Perceptions and Purchase Behaviour
3
4
5
Gregory Simmonds A
6
& Charles Spence A, *
7
8
A Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology,
9
University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK
10
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: charles.spence@psy.ox.ac.uk.
11
PLEASE NOTE
This is a pre-proof, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE following peer review. The post-proof version
of record may have minor alterations.
The DOI of the version of record is: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.11.010

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
2
12
Abstract
13
14
Images of food constitute salient visual stimuli in the mind of the consumer. They are
15
capable of promoting both feelings of hunger and the desire for food. It should not,
16
then, come as any surprise that many product packages present the food contained
17
within as a salient aspect of their visual design. Conventionally, this has been
18
achieved primarily by the use of attractive visual imagery showing the product on the
19
outside of the packaging. Nowadays, however, developments in packaging are
20
increasingly enabling designers to add transparent elements, thus allowing
21
consumers to directly see the product before purchase. Yet relatively little is known
22
about the effectiveness of product imagery as compared with transparent packaging.
23
In this review, we address the various ways in which seeing (images of) food
24
influence the consumer. The implications for packaging designs which include: (a)
25
images of food, and (b) transparent elements, are investigated. Guidelines are also
26
provided for designers and brands on the ways in which to take advantage of these
27
effects of being able to see the food.
28
29
Keywords: Packaging; Packaging design; Transparent packaging; Food aesthetics;
30
Consumption.
31
32

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
3
1. Introduction
33
Packaging is far more than merely a convenient means of getting a product to the
34
store/consumer without damage (see Hine, 1995; Spence, 2016, for reviews). Over
35
the past couple of decades, it has increasingly been realised that product packaging
36
constitutes a powerful marketing tool in its own right (e.g., Rundh, 2005), and as
37
such requires the same attention and techniques used in other areas of marketing to
38
maximise commercial success (see Ahmed, Ahmed, & Salman, 2005). As such, the
39
effects of packaging should be of great importance for designers, marketers, and
40
brand managers alike. It has been estimated that: over three-quarters of food/drink
41
purchase decisions are made at the point of sale (Connolly & Davison, 1996; POPAI,
42
2014; see also WPP, n.d.); 90% of consumers make a purchase after only
43
examining the front of pack; and 85% of consumers make a purchase without having
44
picked up an alternative product (Urbany, Dickson, & Kalapurakal, 1996). Making
45
purchase decisions is no simple matter either – the average consumer will typically
46
buy only 0.7% of the available products in-store over the course of a year (Catalina,
47
2014), despite having a range of over 30,000 products from which to choose (e.g.,
48
Sainsbury, n.d.). As a result, consumers must find, evaluate, and compare the
49
products that they want from the vast range of products available in-store. There is
50
rarely the opportunity to sample products in-store, and so consumers must make
51
these judgments concerning the likely taste of the food based on the packaging and
52
branding. According to Glanz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg, and Snyder (1998),
53
consumers primarily buy foods and drinks based on their expected taste and flavour
54
(see also Food Processing, 2013), thus it is important for designers and marketers
55
to: (1) grab the consumer’s attention; and (2) create positive associations and
56

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
4
expectations in their minds (such as the expectation of a great taste/flavour
57
experience) in order to ensure the long-term commercial success of a product.
58
Packaging can help achieve these goals both at the point of sale and the point of
59
consumption (see Hawkes, 2010; Hine, 1995; Spence, 2016, for reviews). However,
60
there are many options and parameters of packaging design to consider when it
61
comes to ensuring that the packaging transmits the most effective messaging,
62
captures the attention of the consumer in-store, and achieves its full potential as a
63
tool with which to enhance product experience. A number of studies have been
64
conducted over the last few decades in order to identify how the various elements of
65
product packaging contribute to these effects. Such studies have investigated
66
elements of packaging including the main colour of the packaging (e.g., Danger,
67
1987; Gimba, 1998; Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2011), packaging shape
68
(Lindstrom, 2005; Meyers, 1991; Velasco, Salgado-Montejo, Marmolejo-Ramos, &
69
Spence, 2014), weight (Kampfer, Leischnig, Ivens, & Spence, submitted; Piqueras-
70
Fiszman & Spence, 2012), shape curvature (Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, &
71
Galetzka, 2011; Salgado-Montejo, Leon, Elliot, Salgado, & Spence, 2015), and
72
typeface (Velasco, Woods, Hyndman, & Spence, 2015), to name but a few (see
73
Spence, 2016, for a review). Furthermore, a growing body of research suggests that
74
the sight of food is capable of triggering a diverse range of neurological and
75
physiological responses, which include increased hunger, more favourable taste
76
evaluations, and the priming of reward networks (see Spence, Okajima, Cheok, Petit
77
& Michel, in press, for a review). However, to date, comparatively little research has
78
been conducted to investigate the confluence of these two streams of research. That
79
is, the effect of seeing a product on subsequent product evaluations.
80

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
5
Packaging can enable the consumer to see the product contained within in one of
81
two ways. Either through images of the product printed on the packaging, or through
82
transparency as an element of the packaging. The prevalence of the latter approach
83
would appear to be on the rise, and a trend that is set to continue (Mintel, 2014).
84
Estimates from the US suggest that transparency is present in between 20% to 77%
85
of all packaging, depending on product category (20% of chips, 20% of cookies, 23%
86
of crackers, 77% of nuts; Deng & Srinivasan, 2013). See Figure 1 for examples of
87
packaging that feature product imagery or transparency.
88
[Insert Figure 1 here]
89
This review investigates the evidence concerning how food imagery, either delivered
90
through food images on pack, or else via the use of transparent windows, can
91
influence the consumer. This review also provides guidelines as to how this effect
92
can be levied to the benefit of packaging designers and brand managers.
93
94
2. The effects of seeing food
95
According to the extant literature, images of food tend to constitute salient visual
96
stimuli (see Spence et al., in press, for a review). As such, it would seem natural that
97
this could offer food companies a relatively cheap and easy means of attracting the
98
attention of the customer in-store.
99
Testing this hypothesis, Nijs, Muris, Euser, and Franken (2010) combined eye-
100
tracking with a visual probe task in order to identify whether images of food (e.g., of
101
chocolate, a donut) would capture attention more effectively than neutral images
102
(e.g., a stapler, or paperclips). These images were matched in terms of their shape,
103

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
6
colour, background colour, and position. Attention was robustly captured by food
104
images in all participants
1
. These results were supported by a P300 peak after the
105
presentation of food stimuli. This particular Event-Related Potential (ERP) is thought
106
to be related to the orienting of selective attention (Cuthbert, Schupp, Bradley,
107
Birbaumer, & Lang, 2000). Thus, as these images were task-irrelevant to the visual
108
probe task, it would seem that images of food do indeed involuntarily capture
109
people’s attention.
110
di Pellegrino, Magarelli, and Mengarelli (2011) used a similar paradigm (again using
111
a visual probe task) in order to investigate whether such attentional capture caused
112
by images of food was contingent on relative food preferences. The results
113
demonstrated the same pattern of attentional bias towards food cues before eating.
114
However, if the participant was tested on the visual probe task after having eaten a
115
food that had previously been seen in a separate cueing task, then the effect of
116
attentional capture of this same stimulus was markedly reduced. Yet for foods seen
117
previously but not eaten, attentional capture remained at the same level. Such
118
results highlight the fact that attentional capture by food imagery may be modulated
119
by the phenomenon of ‘sensory-specific satiety’ (see Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence,
120
2014). This phenomenon suggests that satiety is specific to different sensory food
121
characteristics such that one may still be motivated to eat some food type (e.g.,
122
sweet foods) even after being sated on another (e.g., savoury foods). A similar
123
mechanism of heightened cognitive bias towards food cues has also been identified
124
in participants who were hungry (Piech, Pastorino, & Zald, 2010); those who are in a
125
1
Note that these results were found regardless of whether the participant was overweight/obese, or normal-
weight; and whether they were hungry (following a 17-hr fast), or satiated.

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
7
bad mood (Hepworth, Mogg, Brignell, & Bradley, 2010); and those who are
126
overweight (Werthmann et al., 2011).
127
A potential explanation for this attentional capture comes from a recent paradigm
128
shift that has taken place in attentional theory. Traditionally, attentional control was
129
thought of as being governed dichotomously. That is, on the one hand by exogenous
130
selection, which is caused involuntarily by feature properties present in the
131
environment, such as distinctive colours, shapes and movements. On the other, by
132
endogenous, or voluntary selection, guided by an observer’s goals (see Theeuwes,
133
2010, for a review). However, a revised framework has introduced a third factor:
134
namely, selection- and reward-history (see Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012).
135
Previously-rewarded or selected targets can elicit attentional capture, even after long
136
periods of extinction, or when not goal-relevant (e.g., Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis,
137
2011; Anderson & Yantis, 2013; Camara, Manohar, & Husain, 2013; Chelazzi,
138
Perlato, Santandrea, & Della Libera, 2013). Food seems to be an inherently
139
rewarding stimulus, especially when they taste pleasant. This association between
140
food and reward can be explained through positive reinforcement, such as from
141
eating/smelling/etc. pleasant foods; as well as through negative reinforcement, from
142
the avoidance of feelings of hunger (see Berridge, 1996; Rogers & Hardman, 2015).
143
Indeed, a cognitive bias towards food cues has been identified (Brignell, Griffiths,
144
Bradley, & Mogg, 2009), as well as preferential visual processing for images of foods
145
that have a higher-fat and higher-carbohydrate content (Harrar, Toepel, Murray, &
146
Spence, 2011). As such, it is perhaps not so surprising that food stimuli should be so
147
effective in terms of commanding our attention.
148

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
8
Viewing food seems to have effects other than simply just attentional capture.
149
Wansink, Painter, and Lee (2006) found that presenting sweets in clear as compared
150
to opaque jars resulted in significantly higher consumption. When a jar was close
151
and transparent, participants ate an average of 7.7 sweets per day, as compared to
152
4.6 when it was opaque. And when it was placed 2 meters away, the same effect
153
was also found: an average daily consumption of 5.6 when visible, and 3.1 when
154
opaque. This effect was so strong that the participants themselves noted that the
155
sweets were both significantly harder to resist and more attention-capturing when in
156
a transparent jar. As reported in Wansink (2004), a similar effect was found when
157
participants were provided with sandwich quarters: if they were in a transparent
158
wrap, participants consumed more, as compared to a non-transparent wrap
159
condition. Furthermore, Bodenlos and Wormuth (2013) identified that food does not
160
have to be accessible to cause this effect. Participants consumed more calories after
161
watching a food-based programme, as compared to a nature program, thus
162
supporting recent claims that the rich and rapidly growing world of ‘gastroporn’ may
163
be driving us to increased levels of food consumption (see Spence et al., in press,
164
for a review). Passamonti et al. (2009) found that such sensitivity to food was also
165
especially potent when viewing appetising as compared to bland food images, and
166
concluded that “external food cues, such as the sight of appetizing food can evoke a
167
desire to eat, even in the absence of hunger” (Passamonti et al., 2009, p. 43).
168
A number of neurological substrates have also been identified. In a comprehensive
169
meta-analysis by van der Laan, de Ridder, Viergever, and Smeets (2011), fMRI data
170
from participants viewing food vs. non-food images found multiple foci of activation
171
in, for example: the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, an area associated with judging the
172
expected pleasantness of food; the lateral occipital complex, associated with
173

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
9
heightened attention and visual processing of emotional stimuli (such as food); the
174
middle insular cortex, an area thought to be involved in food cravings or imagining
175
the taste of foods; and the amygdala, which is well documented in its involvement
176
with reward processing (see Figure 2). Research by Volkow et al. (2002) found
177
heightened dopamine levels in the dorsal striatum, and suggested that this region is
178
likely involved in generating food motivation when viewing food images. These
179
neurological activations provide further evidence that viewing images of food can
180
lead to preferential attentional processing, as well as presumably influencing
181
evaluations of the product and its packaging. Thus, using food imagery as a
182
graphical component on packaging could be a powerful tool in the designer’s
183
arsenal.
184
[Insert Figure 2 here]
185
Aside from increased consumption, other effects of seeing foods have also been
186
identified, such as increased craving for food, increased hunger, and changes in
187
salivation (see Spence, 2011; Wansink, 2004, for reviews). Indeed, Rogers and Hill
188
(1989) identified that overconsumption due to the presentation of appetising food
189
was preceded by increased ratings of hunger and salivation. Increased hunger and
190
food cravings have, in turn, have been found to promote purchase intentions
191
(Pachauri, 2001; Wilcock, Pun, Khanona, & Aung, 2004), thus suggesting there
192
could be a clear pathway from seeing images of a food product to being more likely
193
to purchase it. As such, using food visuals would seem like a potentially powerful
194
means of attracting the consumer’s attention and influencing their subsequent
195
purchase behaviour.
196

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
10
Understanding this effect with respect to packaging design is crucial, such that
197
designers and marketers can provide consumers with what they want, thus satisfying
198
consumers as well as potentially increasing sales volume, as well as for public health
199
policy-makers to make decisions regarding the circumstances under which seeing
200
foods on packaging would be appropriate (see Hawkes, 2010, for a commentary on
201
the rationale for regulating packaging designs for products aimed at children).
202
Consumers are increasingly demanding to see what they are buying either on, or
203
preferably through, the packaging, with 54% of consumers agreeing it’s important to
204
be able to see a product through the packaging itself (Mintel, 2014). This appears set
205
to be a trend that will continue to grow in the years to come (see also Mintel News,
206
2014).
207
208
3. Food imagery on product packaging
209
Although the field of research concerning the use of food imagery on product
210
packaging is still relatively modest in size, there are nevertheless already some
211
important lessons to be learned. First, that on-pack product images can provide an
212
effective means of communicating with the consumer. For example, in Schifferstein,
213
Fenko, Desmet, Labbe and Martin’s (2013) study, food imagery on-pack was seen to
214
help inform consumers concerning key product information. Members of a
215
representative consumer panel were recruited to investigate the sensory
216
experiences of a product at various stages, ranging from evaluation through to
217
consumption. Packages used during experimentation either had large visuals of the
218
product on the packaging, or else had no graphic at all. The results revealed that a
219
majority of the consumers (85.1%) relied on looking at the packaging in order to
220

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
11
determine what to expect from the product at the point of purchase, and almost a
221
third (28.7%) would use the image to infer what the product would taste like.
222
Underwood and Klein (2002) found that packages incorporating an image of the
223
product transmitted information about the brand – not just the product – and were
224
capable of giving rise to, or manipulating, brand beliefs. In this study, consumers
225
who placed the most importance on these brand beliefs formed more favourable
226
evaluations overall if the packaging incorporated an image of the product. As such,
227
the evidence that has been published to date suggests on-pack product imagery is
228
an important way for consumers to gain an understanding of a product from its
229
packaging, and a potential way in which to give clarity to product and brand
230
positioning.
231
Venter and colleagues (2011) suggest that this product information obtained from
232
imagery also enables more direct comparison of products, as well as attracts the
233
consumer’s attention. In an exploratory study, consumers’ perceptions of food
234
packaging were investigated through 25 semi-structured interviews. Ambiguous
235
packaging was on-hand to prompt discussion. Content analysis was conducted on
236
coded responses. The results revealed that consumers were attracted to images of
237
the product on pack. This was found to act as a key source of information for many
238
consumers, allowing them to identify product features through a trustworthy source
239
and compare different products in the category. Some participants identified that the
240
same effect could also be achieved, if not augmented, by the use of transparent
241
packaging, but that this would only be relevant for visually-appealing products.
242
Moreover, this insight is consistent with findings from the Mintel (2014) Food
243
Packaging Trends report, where it was found that consumers – especially older
244

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
12
consumers – find transparent packaging helpful in terms of gauging the freshness of
245
products, enabling health-conscious and quality-seeking shoppers to find exactly
246
what they want (see also Mintel News, 2014).
247
Food imagery may also be capable of enhancing later perceptions of the food, as
248
well as increasing the propensity for the consumer to purchase the product. In order
249
to test this notion, Mizutani and colleagues (2010) manipulated product imagery on
250
packaging in order to try and understand whether a product image could influence
251
flavour evaluation in the case of orange juice. Images were attached to cups, used
252
as a proxy for packaging, with the image attached varying along two dimensions:
253
congruency (whether all of the images in the set were of oranges, or random neutral
254
stimuli), and valence (whether all images were pleasant or unpleasant, e.g., fresh or
255
rotten). Those juices which were presented with pleasant images were judged as
256
tasting fresher and more palatable, and those presented with congruent images were
257
judged as having better aromas. Such results suggest that product images on-pack
258
provide a simple but effective means to favourably influence later product
259
evaluations.
260
In addition to this enhancement of product evaluations, product imagery has also
261
been shown to increase purchase intentions. For example, Gofman, Moskowitz,
262
Fyrbjork, Moskowitz, and Mets (2009) found that the presence of a product-related
263
graphic (in this case, an image of either grapes or a wine bottle) on the front-facing
264
facet of boxed wine helped to increase purchase intentions significantly, as
265
compared to when no product graphic was displayed. Furthermore, the colour of the
266
product image seemed to influence the magnitude to which purchase intentions were
267
increased. A purple wine bottle graphic convinced a greater number of respondents
268

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
13
to state that they ‘would buy’ the boxed wine, as compared to a green bottle graphic
269
which was otherwise identical. Similarly, Piqueras-Fiszman, Velasco, Salgado-
270
Montejo, and Spence (2013) identified that replacing textual information regarding
271
the ingredients with visual information on the front of packaging was also capable of
272
influencing purchase intentions. Their results revealed that the flavour-relevant
273
imagery accounted for 59% of the relative importance of willingness-to-try ratings, as
274
opposed to the textual information. This translated into an average 1.32-point
275
increase on a 9-point purchase intent scale when the image was present, hinting at
276
just how impactful graphics on front-facing facets of packaging can be on the
277
intentions of the consumer.
278
However, while there may be compelling reasons to advocate the use of product
279
imagery on packaging, care must be taken not to negatively impact the packaging
280
aesthetics. Prior research suggests that aesthetically pleasing packaging designs
281
can increase desire to own the product (Norman, 2004), encourage willingness to
282
pay a higher price (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003), and increase preference over
283
well-known brands (Reimann, Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, & Weber, 2010).
284
Perhaps this should come as little surprise, as the halo-effect has long been known
285
to cause otherwise-unjustified positive inferences about people or things that are
286
deemed attractive (e.g., Bloch, 1995; Pritchard & Morgan, 1996; Reichert & McRee
287
Walker, 2005). Furthermore, changing packaging designs for well-established
288
brands has the potential to remove elements of the design that consumers rely on to
289
identify the product. As Lee, Gao, and Brown (2010) reported, Tropicana (a global
290
juice brand) saw a drop of 20% in the sales of their orange juice in the US after
291
redesigning the juice carton. An image of an orange was replaced with an image of a
292
glass of orange juice, in an effort to show consumers the appetising ‘inside’ of the
293

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
14
orange (i.e., the juice), not the relatively less appetising ‘outside’ of the orange (i.e.,
294
the peel). This simple change reportedly resulted in consumers not being able to find
295
the product, as the previous design had become integral to the identification of the
296
brand, and represented an estimated $27.3 million loss in revenue due to reduced
297
sales. As such, thorough market research is strongly recommended for any potential
298
redesign of packaging, in order to identify what the impact will be on consumer
299
evaluations and purchase behaviour, and thus to ensure market success and
300
mitigate loss.
301
A further constraint on the use of product imagery would be to make sure that such
302
imagery is not perceived as dishonest. Underwood and Ozanne (1998) highlighted
303
how effective packaging must ultimately communicate effectively to consumers. In
304
six interviews in which participants were guided through a store, opinions were
305
recorded concerning the packaging of around 50 products that the participant
306
selected themselves. One key theme that emerged was that participants often felt
307
tricked or duped by packaging, such as by images that were perceived as being
308
intentionally misleading (e.g., images that had been overly digitally enhanced, or had
309
‘healthy’ visual cues when this could not be justified by looking at the product’s
310
nutritional content). The researchers theorised that it is in the interest of the brand
311
manager to follow four norms for the development of packaging design: the norms of
312
truthfulness, sincerity, comprehensibility, and legitimacy. Respondents actively
313
avoided those products that defied these norms, resulting in their feeling deceived.
314
Thus, while product imagery does seem to convey many potentially positive benefits,
315
care must be taken to avoid over-emphasising the product visuals, and so, being
316
potentially dishonest. Conversely, using transparent windows as part of product
317

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
15
packaging has been suggested to help dispel any such perceptions of deception,
318
instead helping to make the brand seem ‘honest’ (Burrows, 2013).
319
320
4. Transparent packaging
321
Rather than showing an image of the product, it is becoming increasingly viable to
322
show the consumer exactly what’s inside the packaging by using transparent
323
elements in packaging. The field of research investigating how transparent
324
packaging influences consumer evaluations and behaviour is, though, still in its
325
infancy. However, it is important to understand the impact of such packaging on
326
consumers in order to determine whether it is an effective or worthwhile design
327
decision, especially given its increasing prevalence, as mentioned previously.
328
Previous findings regarding the features of packaging design which have the
329
capacity to influence consumer evaluations and purchase decisions allow predictions
330
to be made about those features of transparent elements which may elicit similar
331
effects. For example, a general preference amongst consumers for rounded shapes
332
(as compared to angular shapes) has been noted (see Bar & Neta, 2006), which
333
leads to higher purchase intentions for packages that display rounded shapes (see
334
Gómez-Puerto, Munar, & Nadal, 2016, for a review). In addition, rounded shapes on
335
packaging have also been found across several studies to promote evaluations of
336
sweetness for the product inside, with angular shapes promoting evaluations of
337
bitterness and sourness (for reviews of these taste-shape correspondences, see
338
Spence, 2011; Spence & Deroy, 2013; Spence, 2012; Velasco, Woods, Deroy, &
339
Spence, 2015; and Velasco, Woods, Petit, Cheok, & Spence, 2016). Certain benefits
340
are afforded if the taste expectations promoted by the angularity of shapes in the
341

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
16
packaging design matches that of other expectations, or the consumer’s later
342
experience of the product. Specifically, such a correspondence has been found to
343
result in consumers experiencing less confusion regarding the product (Piqueras-
344
Fiszman & Spence, 2011), associating the product with more positive emotions
345
(Salgado-Montejo, Velasco, Olier, Alvarado, & Spence, 2014), being able to locate it
346
faster (Velasco et al., 2015; see also Sunaga, Park, & Spence, 2016), and rating the
347
taste of the product as more liked and more intense (Barnett & Spence, in press;
348
Okamoto et al., 2009; for a review, see Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). As
349
such, one might expect that the angularity of the shape of a transparent window to
350
have an impact on consumer evaluations and purchase decisions in a similar
351
fashion. Note that it is not the intention of this review to list the effect of every design
352
element on the consumer. However, other dimensions of transparent windows (or
353
transparent packaging more generally) that might feasibly be thought to influence the
354
consumer, based on prior findings, might include: the position of the transparent
355
window (e.g., Deng & Kahn, 2009; Westerman et al., 2013), the orientation of the
356
transparent window (e.g., Shen, Wan, Mu & Spence, 2015; Velasco, Woods &
357
Spence, 2015), the colour of the transparent window (e.g., Piqueras- Fiszman &
358
Spence, 2011; Spence, Levitan, Shankar, & Zampini, 2010), the colour contrast
359
between packaging and the product (discussed later), the size of the transparent
360
window (e.g., van Rompay, Hekkert, & Muller, 2005), and the aesthetic/visual
361
balance with other design elements (e.g., Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003; Norman,
362
2004; Reimann, Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, & Weber, 2010).
363
The remainder of this section will focus on reviewing those studies that have
364
assessed these elements with respect to transparent packaging. Investigating how
365
transparent window tint and shape may impact consumer evaluations, Engels (2015)
366

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
17
revealed that the coloured tint of the window itself (when presented as a part of
367
cardboard packaging) is not of great importance to product perceptions. However,
368
coloured windows were found to lead to more positive ratings for perceptions of taste
369
and post-taste purchase intent if the window colour contrasts well with the colour of
370
the product. Interviews with experts (presented alongside the same research)
371
revealed that the latter agreed that tinted windows would be obstructive to the goal of
372
letting the consumer see what’s inside, and so would avoid using them, perhaps
373
except for more creative/limited edition designs. Furthermore, the results suggested
374
angular (vs. rounded) windows can result in more positive ratings of pack
375
attractiveness, the perceived and actual taste perceptions of the product (both pre-
376
and post-taste), as well as, importantly, purchase intent. However, it should be noted
377
that the greater benefits conferred by angular windows here contrasts with prior
378
research, suggesting a general preference for rounded shapes (Bar & Neta, 2006;
379
Westerman et al., 2012). While untested, it can be speculated that angular windows
380
may only confer such benefits for penne-shaped pasta, due to some attribute such
381
as its shape, size, or taste. Indeed, previous findings regarding shape-taste
382
correspondences (as already discussed at the start of this section) might well predict
383
that the most effective window shape may vary by product category. As such, the
384
careful choice of window shape could be used to tap into such shape-taste
385
correspondences, and potentially influence consumer product evaluations. This is
386
definitely an area that is deserving of future investigation.
387
Transparent packaging has also been identified as having an impact on the amount
388
of food consumed from the package. Deng and Srinivasan (2013) reported that
389
participants consume significantly more by weight (as much as 69% more) from
390
transparent packaging as compared to opaque, plain packaging, but only in the case
391

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
18
of visually-attractive foods (e.g., Froot Loops, which are a variety of bright, attractive
392
colours; vs. Cheerios, which are a homogenous beige). However, this also seems to
393
be specific to smaller food items: the consumption of individual M&Ms compared to
394
larger M&M cookies elicited very different results in transparent packaging. That is,
395
the participants consumed 58% more M&Ms when they were presented in
396
transparent as compared to opaque packaging, but ate 28% less M&M cookie(s)
397
under the same conditions. A further caveat is that consumption seems to become
398
reduced for healthier foods when presented in transparent packaging: that is,
399
participants ate 78% fewer carrot sticks when presented in transparent as compared
400
to opaque packaging.
401
Deng and Srinivasan (2013) also posit a theoretical model to explain why
402
transparent packaging increases consumption under certain circumstances. They
403
suggest that being able to see the food increases its salience (the salience effect),
404
but at the cost of being able to see how much has already been consumed (the
405
monitoring effect). Whichever effect is greater dictates the likelihood of consumption
406
(and thus purchase intent), where the salience effect will increase consumption, and
407
the monitoring effect will decrease it. Empirical testing confirmed this hypothesis, and
408
thus suggests smaller food items should be presented in transparent packaging, and
409
larger or healthier foods in opaque packaging, in order to drive desire to consume,
410
and thus purchase intentions, up.
411
Billeter, Zhu, and Inman (2012) assessed the effect of transparency in packaging
412
with respect to consumer purchase decisions. This was achieved by comparing
413
product evaluations for both opaque and transparent packaging designs. The results
414
revealed that transparent packaging led to: inferences that the product was more
415

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
19
trustworthy (even after controlling for freshness and quality judgements); greater
416
consumer preference; and greater purchase intent. Further, a visually unattractive
417
(‘puke’ green) product gave rise to reduced trust in the product if presented in
418
transparent packaging. Note, however, that several of these findings were based on
419
inedible products, such as liquid detergent, so cannot be directly extrapolated to
420
edible goods. Nevertheless, such results do suggest tentatively that transparent
421
packaging is only truly effective when the food presentation is visually appealing.
422
Furthermore, Chandran, Batra, and Lawrence (2009) also compared transparent and
423
opaque packages, with the aim of investigating how perceptions of quality and
424
product trust impacted purchase intentions for both familiar and unfamiliar brands. In
425
an exploratory study, for an unfamiliar brand of mouthwash, participants evaluated
426
the product being of significantly better quality if it was in transparent packaging, and
427
would pay significantly more for it. However, for a familiar brand (i.e., Listerine
2
), the
428
product was thought to be of significantly worse quality when in a transparent bottle,
429
but with no significant difference for purchase intentions compared to the opaque
430
pack. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions suggested this effect was due to
431
consumer scepticism over the contents of an unknown brand, which transparent
432
packaging helped to alleviate. However, for known brands, there was no distrust of
433
the product contents regardless of the packaging. Two further studies determined
434
product trust was indeed a mediating variable in the process of making inferences of
435
product quality from packaging. Specifically, when packaging was consistent with
436
recorded consumer expectations for the packaging (i.e., that toilet bleach should be
437
presented in opaque packaging), product trust was high, leading to perceptions that
438
2
Interestingly, the vast majority of Listerine’s products have been sold in transparent packaging since the
inception of the brand. Currently, only the premium ‘whitening mouthwash’ range is sold in opaque packaging,
which might provide one explanation as to why opaque packaging for Listerine may be seen as related to higher
quality products.

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
20
the product was of higher quality. However, when such expectations were violated
439
(i.e., that cough syrup should be presented in transparent packaging), trust was
440
lower, as were perceptions of quality. While it should again be noted that none of
441
these products are to be ingested, nor designed to optimise product taste, some
442
important learnings can still be gained. First, that transparent packaging is capable of
443
manipulating perceptions of product quality and product trust through being able to
444
directly see the product (in agreement with the results from Billeter, Zhu, & Inman,
445
2012; see also Sogn-Grundvag & Ostli, 2009), which influences purchase intentions.
446
Second, that the degree of product trust mediates perceptions of product quality,
447
such that when product trust is high, perceptions of quality will likely also be high.
448
Finally, that transparent packaging might be most effective when consumers are
449
unfamiliar with the brand. That is, consumers could use the opportunity to see the
450
product to judge its quality, and then use this judgement to inform their purchase
451
decision.
452
The link between the use of transparent packaging and perceived healthfulness of a
453
product has also been investigated, but with somewhat contradictory results. In an
454
exploratory study outlined in Sioutis (2011), participants were recruited online and
455
had to rank different packaging designs for either a cereal or an orange juice product
456
in order of perceived healthfulness. The designs varied across four variables, each
457
having two levels. These were: colour (green vs. red), shape (square vs. rounded
458
packaging), graphic (product image vs. image of a landscape), and visibility
459
(transparent window vs. no window). Conjoint analysis
3
was used to interpret the
460
results, finding that transparent packaging was judged to be more healthful
461
3
Conjoint analysis is a widely-used technique in market research, and uses preference scores for different
possible designs of a product. The results ultimately provide an estimation of how much value consumers
implicitly ascribe to each attribute manipulated.

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
21
compared to non-transparent designs. Furthermore, visibility was found to be the
462
most important factor for perceptions of healthfulness within the cereal designs
463
(contributing 39.8% of the total importance for all attributes), and the second most
464
important for the orange juice designs (23.2% of total importance). Yet while these
465
initial findings suggest transparency could be a promising way to highlight the
466
healthfulness of a product, subsequent research has found orthogonal results. Riley,
467
da Silva and Behr (2015) also investigated whether the use of transparent packaging
468
(amongst other design elements) could affect perceived healthfulness of a product.
469
Similarly to Sioutis (2011), a conjoint analysis was used, investigating the level of
470
information (showing a product description vs. not showing a description), imagery (a
471
flavour-relevant drawing or image vs. a transparent window), the presence of an
472
organic logo (present vs. not), and packaging colour (green vs. orange). Three
473
different product categories (coffee, carrot soup and carrot baby food) were judged
474
on packaging design preference in terms of healthfulness. The results suggested
475
transparent windows were slightly less preferred to show healthfulness for all product
476
categories tested, with an image instead being the preference. In addition, these
477
‘visual’ aspects were found to be of relative importance, second only to the level of
478
information present on the packaging. That is, having detailed product information
479
on-pack was found to account for a most of the relative importance for preference
480
judgements (40.1% for baby food, 48.8% for soup, and 40.1% for coffee), with
481
imagery/transparency following as the second most important attribute (20.4% for
482
baby food, 19.1% for soup, and 22.0% for coffee). Thus, while transparency may be
483
preferred when it comes to showing healthfulness in some categories, it appears
484
imagery would certainly be more beneficial in others. Perhaps one explanation for
485
these results is that those products that were perceived as less healthful within
486

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
22
transparent packaging had less aesthetically pleasing products to showcase. For
487
example, the carrot soup product used was a dark brown colour, which may have not
488
matched expectations of bright and vibrant colours for a fresh and healthy product. In
489
addition, the coffee beans shown through a window looked much lighter than one
490
might expect coffee beans to, which again may have reduced the impression of
491
wholesome and healthy produce. Indeed, making judgements for the healthfulness
492
of coffee beans may have not been an intuitive task for participants, since coffee
493
itself typically contains very few calories assuming nothing is added to the drink
494
afterwards and that no other ingredient has been added to the beans during
495
production (as would seem uncommon). Since participants performed a forced
496
choice task (and one where the resulting scores did not signify any specific quantity
497
between ranks, only the ranks themselves), these results might feasibly have been
498
inflated if the designs were actually judged to have performed very similarly, but
499
participants were unable to reflect this in their responses. It is clear that further
500
investigation is required before the impact of transparent packaging on judgements
501
of product healthfulness is fully understood.
502
It is also important to note that the use of transparency in packaging has been found
503
to have negative impact on product perceptions under certain circumstances. For
504
instance, Vilnai-Yavetz and Koren (2013) report an experimental study that
505
investigated the mechanisms responsible for a ready meal brand seeing a 30%
506
decline in sales after incorporating transparent elements in their packaging design
507
for a boiled vegetable product. After surveying consumers in a supermarket, the
508
results were consistent with the sales data, in that participants were significantly less
509
likely to purchase the new transparent packaging design compared to the original
510
opaque packaging. Furthermore, the transparent variant received significantly worse
511

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
23
scores for perceived aesthetics and product quality, but was rated as having
512
significantly higher perceived instrumentality (i.e., how functional or ‘easy to use’ it
513
was). A mediation analysis showed both perceived aesthetics and perceived product
514
quality mediated the relationship between packaging type and purchase intentions,
515
with perceived product quality having a very strong impact on purchase intentions (β
516
= 0.62), and perceived aesthetics having slightly less influence (β = 0.25). Note that
517
this effect of transparent packaging resulting in lower purchase intentions may be
518
attributable to how the transparency was incorporated, where the whole of the plastic
519
lid of the product was made transparent, allowing full view of the boiled vegetable
520
ready meal inside. Thus, consumers perceiving the product to be visually
521
unappealing (which the significantly worse perceived aesthetics scores might
522
suggest) might be a likely explanation for the reduced purchase intentions, and gives
523
further evidence to previous research that suggests transparent packaging only has
524
beneficial effects for visually attractive products. In addition, a similar case study has
525
also been reported by the Wall Street Journal (see Nassauer, 2014), where a brand
526
of lunch meats replaced a red lid with a fully transparent alternative. Sales volume
527
dropped for the product with the new packaging design, reportedly due to consumers
528
not being able to find the product at the fixture without the characteristic red lid.
529
When the packaging was reverted to the original design, sales began to rise to
530
previous levels. This example hints at just how impactful simple changes to
531
packaging design can be, and that transparency has the potential to harm purchase
532
intentions in some situations.
533
So what can we conclude about the inclusion of transparency as an aspect of
534
packaging design? First, that it’s capable of driving increased consumption of the
535
product, supporting the evidence of the effects of food image presentation discussed
536

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
24
earlier. Second, that it can lead to an increase in purchase intent, in the perception of
537
brand transparency, and it can modify expected and actual taste evaluations. These
538
effects are thought to be moderated by the desirability, or visual attractiveness, of
539
the product itself (as suggested by results of Deng & Srinivasan, 2013; and Vilnai-
540
Yavetz & Koren, 2013). Third, that transparent packaging is likely to be especially
541
impactful for brands consumers are unfamiliar with, as it gives them the ability to
542
assess the quality of the product within more easily. Fourth, that transparent
543
packaging can also lead to more negative product evaluations (such as perceived
544
healthfulness, aesthetics, and quality) and purchase intentions depending on the
545
brand, the product category, and how visually appealing the product is. As such,
546
transparency in packaging seems a promising tool to be able to increase product
547
evaluations and purchase intentions under certain circumstances, but new
548
packaging designs should still be subjected to extensive consumer testing before
549
being implemented to ensure the results are indeed beneficial.
550
Some of these benefits of transparency in product packaging might also be
551
explained by higher-level, or more abstract, accounts. For example, adding
552
transparency may have symbolic value, aside from the visual effects of being able to
553
see a product, which leads to inferences and evaluations regarding the product. In
554
language, the notion of ‘transparency’ is synonymous with ‘openness’,
555
‘trustworthiness’, and ‘comprehensibility’. Furthermore, transparency may promote
556
representations of ‘being able to see (understand)’ something. The field of cognitive
557
semiotics might argue that, by an observer recognising an element of packaging as
558
transparent, corresponding semantic or metaphorical representations (such as those
559
listed above) might also become activated, and transfer the same meaning of these
560
representations to the product itself (see Brandt & Brandt, 2005; Burrows, 2013;
561

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
25
Zlatev, 2012). Alternatively, through a brand actively choosing to show consumers
562
what is within the package, they potentially give the impression that they have
563
‘nothing to hide’, thus leading to a similar effect of increased perceived
564
trustworthiness. Indeed, the previously discussed findings from Billeter, Zhu, and
565
Inman (2012) are consistent with such theories, given that participants inferred that
566
the products (and their respective brands) shown in transparent packaging were
567
more trustworthy. Having said this, showing the consumer the product upfront may
568
reduce any anticipation or ‘intrigue’ consumers might otherwise feel when opaque
569
packaging is used. For instance, Patrick, Atefi and Hagtvedt (in press) recently
570
reported that opaque packaging may allow the product to be ‘unveiled’, the act of
571
which was found to increase perceived product value. In the same article, they also
572
reported that transparent packaging removed this effect, and resulted in a
573
significantly lower perceived value. While such results and hypotheses may shed
574
some insight into the mechanics between transparent packaging and consumer
575
evaluations, a wider range of higher-level accounts have not yet been empirically
576
tested in the research that has been published to date. This, then, certainly seems
577
like a niche that future research should fill to broaden our understanding of the
578
impacts of packaging design on the consumer.
579
Further investigation is certainly needed in order to fully validate these findings, and
580
doing so is essential to our understanding of whether transparent windows are more
581
efficacious as compared to their more traditional graphical counterparts. In addition,
582
much of the research in the field thus far has used very plain packaging (either plain
583
cardboard boxes or brown paper bags), or otherwise relatively basic mock-ups of
584
product packaging designs. Thus, the application of these findings to current
585
packaging design for actual products may not be expected to yield similar results,
586

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
26
and highlights a need for experiments using more ecologically-valid stimuli. So, while
587
it would certainly seem that transparent packaging confers a wide array of potential
588
benefits, more research is needed before we can fully understand the phenomenon
589
and thus make more informed recommendations.
590
591
5. Further implications of transparent packaging
592
In addition to the empirical evidence highlighting the benefits of transparent
593
packaging, there remains some more pragmatic considerations and implications of
594
the use of transparency or windows as part of the design of packaging.
595
One such consideration might be that the product, or the arrangement of the product
596
as seen through a transparent window, may not be as visually appealing as intended
597
once it reaches the store shelf. As an example of this, covering a window in
598
cardboard packaging with a thin or non-rigid plastic window may be likely to reduce
599
the overall structural integrity of the packaging, thus potentially leading to an
600
increase in the number of products damaged in-transit, or more complicated shipping
601
requirements. Naturally, using a thicker, more robust plastic pane would help to
602
resolve this issue, but at an expected additional cost. Further, products may become
603
dislodged or disordered inside their packaging during haulage, potentially making
604
them less visually attractive. If the consumer can see this, they might be less likely to
605
purchase a visually unappealing product (as discussed previously), or one that is
606
damaged. Even in the case of products such as cereals or crisps, any settling of the
607
food(s) within the package may serve to make the product look denser or less
608
appealing than intended, especially if some of the product disintegrates during
609
transit. To combat this, the products would need to be tightly packed in order to
610

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
27
ensure little gets dislodged in the event that the package does get shaken or
611
disturbed. As far as the settling of the product is concerned, windows would be best
612
placed away from the very lowest portion of the packaging, where the accumulation
613
of dust, broken bits, or settling may be visible for some products. Conversely, placing
614
a window in the upper portion of a pack may not show any of the product at all if it
615
has settled below this level. As Stuart Leslie, founder of ‘4sight’, a New York design
616
firm, said recently in a Wall Street Journal article (Nassauer, 2014): “You don't want
617
to hit people over the head with, 'Look, there are 2 inches of space on the top of this
618
container'”. As such, the position of the window is critical and needs to be carefully
619
considered, as several experts also suggested during the interviews in Engels
620
(2015). Lastly, if the product has a mix of different elements, such as cereals with
621
currants or nuts, the consumer may expect to be able to clearly see these through
622
any transparency in the packaging – if not, they may feel deceived, and their
623
perception of the product may suffer. Indeed, reformulations to recipes with visibility
624
in mind may be necessary to ensure that the product looks appealing, will remain
625
intact, and clearly showcases all of the ingredients that the product claims elsewhere
626
to contain (see Oster, 2014).
627
Another important consideration for the inclusion of transparent elements into
628
packaging would likely be cost. From a rudimentary search online of ready-to-use
629
packaging with and without windows, packaging with windows seems to be
630
consistently slightly more expensive (some 10-30% for pre-assembled paper bags,
631
from the author’s own research) than their windowless counterparts. Equally, adding
632
a hermetic seal to ensure food safety can further increase the cost, although some
633
categories, such as chilled pizzas or cereals, can avoid this by packaging the
634
product in a plastic wrap to achieve a seal, and not covering any window with plastic
635

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
28
to mitigate costs. This being said, with recent advances in the field of die-cutting and
636
the services now proffered by packaging solutions companies, transparency as part
637
of packaging now offers equivalent levels of food safety. Furthermore, transparent
638
elements can reportedly be built in for marginal extra cost if producing packaging is
639
produced on a large scale. According to one source, the cost of adding transparency
640
can mostly be offset from any cost of embossing or foil decoration that would be
641
used to attract attention in place of the transparency (Greasley, 2012). Note also that
642
some categories may not be suited to the incorporation of transparent packaging for
643
reasons of spoilage. Examples of such product categories include those which would
644
oxidise in contact with sunlight, such as cream-based liqueurs, or those where raw
645
ingredients might discolour, such as for potato tubers (see Martin & Sheppard,
646
1983). However, perhaps transparent packaging will, in the future, be able to give us
647
advanced warning of spoiled food. For example, researchers at the Fraunhofer
648
EMFT have developed a transparent film that changes colour if the meat inside has
649
gone off (Fraunhofer Mikroelektronik, 2011).
650
Further implications for the use of transparency in packaging design include the
651
additional design opportunities that using windows, specifically, could bring. For
652
example, there are opportunities to design windows to take advantage of the benefits
653
of relevant shape symbolism (e.g., Ngo et al., 2013; Spence, 2012; Spence & Ngo,
654
2012; Spence, Ngo, Percival, & Smith, 2013). As suggested by the research
655
reported by Fairhurst, Pritchard, Ospina, and Deroy (2015), sweeter-tasting products
656
will be better suited to have packaging designs featuring rounded windows, and
657
sour- or bitter-tasting products with a more angular one (as discussed already). As a
658
further example, a leaf-shaped window may well instil in the mind of the consumer
659
the notion that the product is natural or fresh. As an extension of this, using any
660

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
29
transparency at all has the capacity to signal a premium offering, innovativeness and
661
modernity in a product and brand (especially if transparent packaging is not a
662
‘category-norm’; see Burrows, 2013); as well as the notions of freshness (see also
663
Nikolaidou, 2011), honesty, and quality assurance already discussed in Billeter, Zhu,
664
and Inman (2012). Additionally, the benefits of transparency could also be
665
augmented by using product visuals alongside, although careful steps would need to
666
be taken to avoid a design that appears too visually-cluttered. There are, however,
667
also risks of using such packaging when trying to convey the legacy of a brand, thus
668
consumer testing of new packaging design concepts would still be advisable. For
669
instance, one manufacturer was reticent to use too much transparency, to avoid
670
undermining the heritage which the packaging originally conveyed, and for which the
671
product was known (Murray, 2016). Conversely, a ‘best of both worlds’ approach
672
might also be effective in some situations: for example, in by using a very narrow
673
transparent area, or a semi-transparent element, to elicit perceptions of mystery or
674
intrigue by ‘not giving it all away’ at the point of sale. See Figure 3 for some recent
675
examples of creative designs that have used transparency.
676
[Insert Figure 3 here]
677
One further aspect that is also worth noting is that the impact of a transparent
678
window is likely to be moderated by the main colour of the packaging around it. The
679
field of visual attention has long held colour to be a key component of attentional
680
capture, being especially capable of attracting our attention if the contrast between
681
foreground-background is greater (e.g., Treisman & Souther, 1985; Folk, Remington,
682
& Wright, 1994; Theeuwes, 1994; see Wolfe & Horowitz, 2004, for a review). Indeed,
683
high contrast between packaging colours has been found to attract the attention of
684

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
30
consumers to a product (Bix, Seo, & Sundar, 2013; though see also Sunaga, Park, &
685
Spence, 2016) as well as to important elements in advertising (Schindler, 1986) In
686
addition, the perceived attractiveness of vegetables has recently been found to differ
687
depending on the background colour the vegetable is presented on, with quite
688
different background colours proving optimal for the vegetables tested (see
689
Schifferstein, Howell, & Pont, 2016) . Given that visual attention is attracted to
690
regions of high contrast, perhaps this could play a pertinent role with respect to
691
transparent windows. For example, orange-coloured baked beans, visible through an
692
otherwise-teal container (as is the case with Heinz products) would likely make the
693
product stand out more and attract attention. Examples of other brands that could
694
use transparency to leverage high contrast between packaging- and product-colour
695
might include Cadbury’s (purple packaging, with brown-coloured chocolate) and
696
Barilla (dark blue packaging, with light-yellow pasta). However, where the product
697
and the packaging have low contrast, such as pasta in beige packaging, say, the
698
effect may be lessened. If transparency is used, a strong contrast between product
699
and brand colours would likely be beneficial. However, while likely an important
700
consideration, this has yet to be addressed by research so no clear guidance can be
701
offered at this point (though see Lyman, 1989).
702
There can also be functional benefits to transparent elements of packaging: using a
703
narrow strip of transparency can help the consumer to monitor how much of the
704
product has already been consumed. Furthermore, transparent elements allow an
705
easier means of assessing whether or not the food has spoiled, thus potentially
706
reducing the amount of food wasted by disposing of it simply when the printed expiry
707
date is met, not when it is actually inedible. Such benefits may not be so impactful at
708
the point of sale, but could certainly bring added value to the consumer at home.
709

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
31
One must also be aware of a recent demand from consumers to be able to recycle
710
product packaging, which may deter them from purchasing some plastic packages
711
(e.g., Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008).
712
Note that transparent windows and plastic packaging can now be readily obtained
713
from recycled plastics (such as rPET), which could help mitigate such problems of
714
recycling (see Mintel, 2016, for a review). Additionally, providing clear and
715
comprehensive recycling instructions may help alleviate any concerns consumers
716
have regarding recycling and packaging waste (Langley, Turner, & Yoxall, 2011).
717
718
6. Guidelines
719
Based on the empirical evidence reviewed here, we would offer the following
720
guidelines:
721
 Use product imagery as an effective means of capturing the customer’s
722
attention, enhancing their perception of the product, and increasing purchase
723
intent.
724
 Product imagery, if used, should avoid being disingenuous or overly digitally-
725
enhanced, as consumers will be unlikely to purchase again if the design
726
ultimately gives rise to a negative disconfirmation of expectation(s).
727
 Use transparent packaging, only if the product is not visually unappealing, in
728
order to promote consumption, perceived quality and brand trust and higher
729
purchase intentions, especially as the consumer demand for transparent
730
packaging is currently on the rise.
731

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
32
 Thorough market research should be used in order to test any new packaging
732
designs, in order to fully understand the likely impact on consumer
733
evaluations and purchase behaviour.
734
Previous findings can also be taken to suggest that: (1) angular windows would likely
735
be preferred by consumers compared to rounded windows; (2) coloured tints for
736
transparency are unlikely to have a negative impact on consumer evaluations or
737
behavioural intentions; (3) transparent packaging is likely most effective for brands
738
which a consumer is unfamiliar with, in order to allow them to gauge the quality of
739
the product prior to an initial purchase; and (4) that perceived product healthfulness
740
can be strongly influenced by the presence of transparent packaging, but whether
741
this is beneficial or detrimental to the product likely depends on the product category
742
in question and how appealing the product itself looks. However, these findings have
743
yet to be tested robustly through the use of several experiments and product
744
categories, and caution would be advised in treating these as guidelines.
745
7. Conclusions
746
In summary, the research clearly suggests that enabling the consumer to see the
747
product, either through, or on, the packaging has a marked effect on consumer
748
behaviour. As such, the correct use of product imagery and/or transparency as part
749
of packaging design plays a critical role in influencing the success of products in the
750
marketplace. However, the existing literature regarding transparent packaging
751
currently remains scant, with many areas in need of further investigation. Some of
752
the questions that have yet to be answered properly include the following: How does
753
the size and position of transparent windows on product packaging mediate any
754
effect on consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour? Does the use of
755

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
33
transparency raise the accepted price (or willingness-to-purchase) of the product?
756
(And does that benefit outweigh the additional cost?) Would any benefit be conferred
757
by using both transparent packaging alongside product visuals? Does the colour
758
contrast between the contents of the packaging (as seen through a window) and the
759
rest of the packaging influence/modulate these effects? These are just some of the
760
research questions that will need to be answered carefully in order to benefit
761
designers, marketers, and those with an interest in public health alike.
762
Fortunately, the means of answering such questions are becoming increasingly
763
accessible. As Woods, Velasco, Levitan, Wan and Spence (2015) highlighted
764
recently, the use of online research testing methods is becoming an increasingly
765
valid and viable methodology for perceptual research, and even preferable
766
compared to laboratory research in many respects. In addition, understandings of
767
multisensory perception (especially between vision and taste) are growing fast, and
768
will help identify further avenues for understanding consumer psychology (see
769
Velasco, Woods, & Spence, 2015; Velasco et al., 2014; for a couple recent
770
examples). Indeed, as more and more brands incorporate multisensory aspects into
771
their packaging design (Johnson, 2007; Spence, 2016; Spence & Wang, 2015), the
772
capacity and demand for such research will likely increase dramatically, and this
773
demand needs to be both acknowledged and met by the academic literature.
774

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
34
775
Acknowledgements
776
777
CS would like to thank the AHRC grant entitled ‘Rethinking the senses’
778
(AH/L007053/1) for supporting this research.
779
780
Author’s contributions
781
782
GS and CS both contributed to the writing of this paper. Both authors read and
783
approved the final version of the manuscript.
784
785
Funding sources
786
787
This research was supported by an AHRC grant entitled ‘Rethinking the senses’
788
(AH/L007053/1) to CS.
789
790

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
35
791
References
792
793
Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N., & Salman, A. (2005). Critical issues in packaged food
794
business. British Food Journal, 107(10): 760–780.
795
Anderson, B. A., Laurent, P. A., & Yantis, S. (2011). Value-driven attentional capture.
796
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108(25), 10367–
797
10371. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104047108
798
Anderson, B. A., & Yantis, S. (2013). Persistence of value-driven attentional capture.
799
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1),
800
6–9. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030860
801
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up
802
attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
803
16(8), 437–443. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
804
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological
805
Science, 17(8), 645–648. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x
806
Barnett, A., & Spence, C. (2016). Assessing the effect of changing a bottled beer
807
label on taste ratings. Nutrition and Food Technology, 2:4.
808
Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011).
809
Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste
810
impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17–23.
811
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007
812
Berridge, K. C. (1996). Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking.
813
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 20(1), 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/0149-
814
7634(95)00033-B
815

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
36
Billeter, D., Zhu, M., & Inman, J. J. (2012). Transparent packaging and consumer
816
purchase decisions. In J. Sevilla (Ed.), When it’s what’s outside that matters:
817
Recent findings on product and packaging design. Paper presented at
818
Association for Consumer Research 2012 Conference, Vancouver, Canada (pp.
819
308–312).
820
Bix, L., Seo, W., & Sundar, R. P. (2013). The effect of colour contrast on consumers’
821
attentive behaviours and perception of fresh produce. Packaging Technology and
822
Science, 26(2), 96–104. http://doi.org/10.1002/pts.1972
823
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.
824
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. http://doi.org/10.2307/1252116
825
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the
826
centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of
827
Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565. http://doi.org/10.1086/346250
828
Bodenlos, J. S., & Wormuth, B. M. (2013). Watching a food-related television show
829
and caloric intake. A laboratory study. Appetite, 61, 8–12.
830
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.10.027
831
Boon, B., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., & Jansen, A. (1998). Food for thought: Cognitive
832
regulation of food intake. British Journal of Health Psychology, 3(1), 27–40.
833
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.1998.tb00553.x
834
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic
835
approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 216–249.
836
https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.12bra
837
Brignell, C., Griffiths, T., Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (2009). Attentional and approach
838
biases for pictorial food cues. Influence of external eating. Appetite, 52(2), 299–
839
306. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.10.007
840

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
37
Burrows, J. (2013). Visually communicating ‘honesty’: A semiotic analysis of Dorset
841
Cereals’ packaging. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Communications Studies,
842
University of Leeds.
843
Camara, E., Manohar, S., & Husain, M. (2013). Past rewards capture spatial
844
attention and action choices. Experimental Brain Research, 230(3), 291–300.
845
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3654-6
846
Catalina (2014). Engaging the selective shopper. Retrieved from
847
http://www.catalinamarketing.com/ws_download/engaging-selective-
848
shopper/#download
849
Chandran, S., Batra, R. K., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is seeing believing? Consumer
850
responses to opacity of product packaging. Advances in Consumer Research,
851
36, 970 (eds. A. L. McGill & S. Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
852
Research). http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/14463/volumes/v36/NA-36.
853
Chelazzi, L., Perlato, A., Santandrea, E., & Della Libera, C. (2013). Rewards teach
854
visual selective attention. Vision Research, 85, 58–72.
855
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.12.005
856
Connolly, A., & Davison, L. (1996). How does design affect decision at point of sale?
857
Journal of Brand Management, 4(2), 100–107. http://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1996.33
858
Cuthbert, B. N., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N., & Lang, P. J. (2000).
859
Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic
860
arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 95–111.
861
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00044-7
862
Danger, E. P. (1987). Selecting colour for packaging. Aldershot, Hants: Gower
863
Technical Press.
864

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
38
Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location
865
effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of
866
Marketing Research, 46(6), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.6.725
867
Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase (or
868
decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104–117.
869
http://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0610
870
di Pellegrino, G., Magarelli, S., & Mengarelli, F. (2011). Food pleasantness affects
871
visual selective attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
872
64(3), 560–571. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.504031
873
Engels, M. W. (2015). Looking through the colour and the shape of food packaging:
874
The use of crossmodal correspondences in the design of food packaging
875
windows. Retrieved from
876
https://uhdspace.uhasselt.be/dspace/handle/1942/19221.
877
Fairhurst, M. T., Pritchard, D., Ospina, D., & Deroy, O. (2015). Bouba-Kiki in the
878
plate: Combining crossmodal correspondences to change flavour experience.
879
Flavour, 4(1):1–5. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0032-2
880
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional
881
control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and
882
color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
883
20(2), 317–329. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.317
884
Food Processing (2013). Taste remains consumers' top preference for new foods
885
and beverages. Retrieved from
886
http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2013/market-view-taste/
887

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
39
Fraunhofer Mikroelektronik (2011). Red card for rotten meat. Retrieved from
888
http://www.mikroelektronik.fraunhofer.de/en/press-and-media/microelectronics-
889
news/news/detail/News/red-card-for-rotten-meat-592.html
890
Gimba, J. G. (1998). Color in marketing: Shades of meaning. Marketing News, 32(6),
891
16.
892
Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., & Snyder, D. (1998). Why Americans
893
eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns
894
as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
895
98(10), 1118–1126. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00260-0
896
Gofman, A., Moskowitz, H. R., Fyrbjork, J., Moskowitz, D., & Mets, T. (2009).
897
Extending rule developing experimentation to perception of food packages with
898
eye tracking. The Open Food Science Journal, 3, 66–78.
899
Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2016). Preference for curvature: A
900
historical and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9:712.
901
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00712
902
Greasley, S. (2012). 9 tips to help reduce the cost of packaging. Retrieved from
903
http://howtobuypackaging.com/9-tips-to-help-reduce-the-cost-of-packaging/.
904
Harrar, V., Toepel, U., Murray, M., & Spence, C. (2011). Food’s visually-perceived
905
fat content affects discrimination speed in an orthogonal spatial task.
906
Experimental Brain Research, 214, 351–356.
907
Hawkes, C. (2010). Food packaging: The medium is the message. Public Health
908
Nutrition, 13(2), 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009993168
909
Hepworth, R., Mogg, K., Brignell, C., & Bradley, B. P. (2010). Negative mood
910
increases selective attention to food cues and subjective appetite. Appetite,
911
54(1), 134–142. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.09.019
912

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
40
Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of
913
boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York, NY: Little
914
Brown.
915
Johnson, A. (2007). Tactile branding leads us by our fingertips - CTV News, Shows
916
and Sports - Canadian
917
Television.http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20070803/tactile
918
_branding_070803/20070804/?hub=MSNHome&subhub=PrintStory
919
Juravle, G., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., & Spence, C. (2015). The hand
920
grasps the centre, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Frontiers in
921
Psychology: Perception Science, 6:633.
922
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00633
923
Kampfer, K., Leischnig, A., Ivens, B. S., & Spence, C. (submitted). Touch-taste-
924
transference: Assessing the effect of the weight of product packaging on flavor
925
perception and taste evaluation. PLoS ONE.
926
Langley, J., Turner, N., & Yoxall, A. (2011). Attributes of packaging and influences
927
on waste. Packaging Technology and Science, 24(3), 161–175.
928
http://doi.org/10.1002/pts.924
929
Lee, J-Y., Gao, Z., & Brown, M. G. (2010). A study of the impact of package changes
930
on orange juice demand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 487–
931
491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.08.003
932
Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: How to build brands through touch, taste, smell,
933
sight and sound. London, UK: Kogan Page.
934
Lyman, B. (1989). A psychology of food, more than a matter of taste. New York, NY:
935
Avi, van Nostrand Reinhold.
936

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
41
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997).
937
Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior.
938
The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189–204.
939
http://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595430
940
Martin, S. K., & Sheppard, R. L. (1983). Effect of different packaging materials and
941
light exposure time on chlorophyll concentration in 2 cultivars of potato. New
942
Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 11, 63–67.
943
Meyers, H. M. (1981). Determining communication objectives for package design. In
944
W. Stern (Ed.), Handbook of package design research (pp. 22-38). New York,
945
NY: Wiley Interscience.
946
Mintel (2014). Global packaging trends – US – July 2014. Retrieved from
947
http://store.mintel.com/food-packaging-trends-us-july-2014.
948
Mintel (2016). Global packaging trends 2016. Retrieved from
949
http://www.mintel.com/global-packaging-trends.
950
Mintel News (2014, August 26). Thought bubble: Clear packaging sees the light [web
951
log post]. Retrieved from http://www.mintel.com/blog/food-market-news/thought-
952
bubble-clear-packaging-sees-the-light.
953
Mizutani, N., Okamoto, M., Yamaguchi, Y., Kusakabe, Y., Dan, I., & Yamanaka, T.
954
(2010). Package images modulate flavor perception for orange juice. Food
955
Quality and Preference, 21(7), 867–872.
956
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.010
957
Murray, F. (2016). Clear window of opportunity for modern brands. Retrieved from
958
http://www.thedrinksreport.com/news/2016/16442-clear-window-of-opportunity-
959
for-modern-brands.html.
960

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
42
Nassauer, S. (2014). See-through food packaging boosts sales. The Wall Street
961
Journal. August 13th. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/see-through-
962
food-packaging-boosts-sales-1407884666.
963
Ngo, M. K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A., Boehm, E., O’Neill, D., & Spence, C. (2013).
964
Assessing crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape
965
and sound symbolism. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 361–369.
966
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.004
967
Nijs, I. M. T., Muris, P., Euser, A. S., & Franken, I. H. A. (2010). Differences in
968
attention to food and food intake between overweight/obese and normal-weight
969
females under conditions of hunger and satiety. Appetite, 54(2), 243–254.
970
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.004
971
Nikolaidou, I. (2011). Communicating naturalness through packaging design. In P.
972
M. A. Desmet & H. N. J. Schifferstein (Eds.), From floating wheelchairs to mobile
973
car parks (pp. 74-79). The Hague: Eleven International.
974
Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things.
975
New York, NY: Basic Books.
976
Okamoto, M., Wada, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Kimura, A., Dan, H., Masuda, T., … Dan, I.
977
(2009). Influences of food-name labels on perceived tastes. Chemical Senses,
978
34(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjn075
979
Oster, E. (2014). Does see-through packaging really boost sales? Maybe but some
980
things are best left unseen. Adweek, August 14th.
981
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/does-see-through-packaging-
982
really-boost-sales-159496.
983
Pachauri, M. (2001). Consumer behaviour: A literature review. The Marketing
984
Review, 2(3), 319–355. http://doi.org/10.1362/1469347012569896
985

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
43
Passamonti, L., Rowe, J. B., Schwarzbauer, C., Ewbank, M. P., von dem Hagen, E.,
986
& Calder, A. J. (2009). Personality predicts the brain’s response to viewing
987
appetizing foods: The neural basis of a risk factor for overeating. The Journal of
988
Neuroscience, 29(1), 43–51. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4966-08.2009
989
Patrick, V. M., Atefi, Y., & Hagtvedt, H. (in press). The allure of the hidden: How
990
product unveiling confers value. International Journal of Research in Marketing.
991
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.009
992
Piech, R. M., Pastorino, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2010). All I saw was the cake. Hunger
993
effects on attentional capture by visual food cues. Appetite, 54(3), 579–582.
994
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.003
995
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences in product
996
packaging: Assessing color-flavor correspondences for potato chips (crisps).
997
Appetite, 57, 753–757.
998
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012). The weight of the bottle as a possible
999
extrinsic cue with which to estimate the price (and quality) of the wine? Observed
1000
correlations. Food Quality & Preference, 25, 41–45.
1001
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2014). Colour, pleasantness, and consumption
1002
behaviour within a meal. Appetite, 75, 165–172.
1003
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on
1004
product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence
1005
and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165–179.
1006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.013
1007
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., & Spence, C. (2013). Using
1008
combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging
1009

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
44
solutions: A case study involving jam jars. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1),
1010
328–338. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.006
1011
POPAI (2014). Mass merchant shopper engagement study. Retrieved from:
1012
http://university.popai.com/Research%20Library/popai-mass-merchant-shopper-
1013
engagement-study.pdf
1014
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (1996). Sex still sells to Generation X: Promotional
1015
practice and the youth package holiday market. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
1016
3(1), 68–80. http://doi.org/10.1177/135676679600300106
1017
Reichert, T., & McRee Walker, K. (2005). Sex and magazine promotion. Journal of
1018
Promotion Management, 11(2-3), 131–141.
1019
http://doi.org/10.1300/J057v11n02_09
1020
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010).
1021
Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation.
1022
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431–441.
1023
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.009
1024
Riley, D., Martins da Silva, P., & Behr, S. (2015). The impact of packaging design on
1025
health product perceptions (pp. 81–89). Presented at the Marketing and Business
1026
Development (MBD) International Conference 2015, Bucharest, Romania.
1027
Retrieved from http://www.mbd.ase.ro/?p=103
1028
Rogers, P. J., & Hardman, C. A. (2015). Food reward: What it is and how to measure
1029
it. Appetite, 90, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.032
1030
Rogers, P. J., & Hill, A. J. (1989). Breakdown of dietary restraint following mere
1031
exposure to food stimuli: Interrelationships between restraint, hunger, salivation,
1032
and food intake. Addictive Behaviors, 14(4), 387–397.
1033
http://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(89)90026-9
1034

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
45
Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer
1035
product choices – Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer
1036
Studies, 32(5), 516–525. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x
1037
Rundh, B. (2005). The multi‐faceted dimension of packaging: Marketing logistic or
1038
marketing tool? British Food Journal, 107(9), 670–684.
1039
http://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510615053
1040
Sainsbury (n.d.). How many products does Sainsbury’s supermarkets sell? Retrieved
1041
from http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/extras/faqs/media/how-many-products-does-
1042
sainsburys-supermarkets-sell/.
1043
Salgado-Montejo, A., Leon, I. T., Elliot, A. J., Salgado, C. J., & Spence, C. (2015).
1044
Smiles over frowns: When curved lines influence product preference. Psychology
1045
& Marketing, 32(7), 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20817
1046
Salgado-Montejo, A., Velasco, C., Olier, J. S., Alvarado, J., & Spence, C. (2014).
1047
Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces
1048
and their relation to emotional words. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7-8),
1049
635–649. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.29
1050
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Fenko, A., Desmet, P. M. A., Labbe, D., & Martin, N. (2013).
1051
Influence of package design on the dynamics of multisensory and emotional food
1052
experience. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 18–25.
1053
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.003
1054
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Howell, B. F., & Pont, S. (2016). Colored backgrounds affect
1055
the attractiveness of fresh produce, but not it’s perceived color. Food Quality
1056
and Preference. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.011
1057
Schindler, P. S. (1986). Color and contrast in magazine advertising. Psychology and
1058
Marketing, 3(2), 69–78. http://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220030203
1059

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
46
Shen, X., Wan, X., Mu, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Searching for triangles: An
1060
extension to food & packaging. Food Quality & Preference, 44, 26–35.
1061
Sogn-Grundvag, G., & Ostli, J. (2009). Consumer evaluation of unbranded and
1062
unlabelled food products: The case of bacalhau. European Journal of Marketing,
1063
43(1/2), 213–228.
1064
Spence, C. (2011). Mouth-watering: The influence of environmental and cognitive
1065
factors on salivation and gustatory/flavour perception. Journal of Texture Studies,
1066
42, 157–171.
1067
Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands:
1068
Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of
1069
Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 37–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.004
1070
Spence, C. (2016). Multisensory packaging design: Colour, shape, texture, sound,
1071
and smell. In M. Chen & P. Burgess (Eds.), Integrating the packaging and
1072
product experience: A route to consumer satisfaction (pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK:
1073
Elsevier.
1074
Spence, C., & Deroy, O. (2013). Tasting shapes: A review of four hypotheses.
1075
Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 10, 207–238.
1076
Spence, C., Levitan, C. A., Shankar, M. U., & Zampini, M. (2010). Does food color
1077
influence taste and flavor perception in humans? Chemosensory Perception,
1078
3(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-010-9067-z
1079
Spence, C., & Ngo, M. (2012). Assessing the shape symbolism of the taste, flavour,
1080
and texture of foods and beverages. Flavour, 1:12. http://doi.org/10.1186/2044-
1081
7248-1-12
1082

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
47
Spence, C., Ngo, M. K., Percival, B., & Smith, B. (2013). Crossmodal
1083
correspondences: Assessing shape symbolism for cheese. Food Quality and
1084
Preference, 28(1), 206–212. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.002
1085
Spence, C., Okajima, K., Cheok, A. D., Petit, O., & Michel, C. (in press). Eating with
1086
our eyes: From visual hunger to digital satiation. Brain & Cognition.
1087
Spence, C., & Wang, Q. (J.) (2015). Sensory expectations elicited by the sounds of
1088
opening the packaging and pouring a beverage. Flavour, 4:35.
1089
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0044-y
1090
Sunaga, T., Park, J., & Spence, C. (2016). Effects of lightness-location consumers’
1091
purchase decision-making. Psychology & Marketing, 33(11), 934–950.
1092
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20929
1093
Theeuwes, J. (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search
1094
for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
1095
Perception and Performance, 20(4), 799–806. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-
1096
1523.20.4.799
1097
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection. Acta
1098
Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006
1099
Treisman, A., & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive
1100
processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
1101
114(3), 285–310. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.285
1102
Underwood, R. L., & Klein, N. M. (2002). Packaging as brand communication:
1103
Effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand.
1104
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 58–68.
1105
http://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501926
1106

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
48
Underwood, R. L., & Ozanne, J. L. (1998). Is your package an effective
1107
communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative
1108
competence of packaging. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(4), 207–220.
1109
http://doi.org/10.1080/135272698345762
1110
Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Kalapurakal, R. (1996). Price search in the retail
1111
grocery market. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 91–104.
1112
http://doi.org/10.2307/1251933
1113
van der Laan, L. N., de Ridder, D. T. D., Viergever, M. A., & Smeets, P. M. (2011).
1114
The first taste is always with the eyes: A meta-analysis on the neural correlates of
1115
processing visual food cues. NeuroImage, 55(1), 296–303.
1116
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.055
1117
van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product
1118
experience. Design Studies, 26(4), 359–377.
1119
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.001
1120
Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014).
1121
Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typographies, names, and sounds.
1122
Food Quality & Preference, 34, 88–95.
1123
Velasco, C., Wan, X., Salgado-Montejo, A., Woods, A., Oñate, G. A., Mu, B., &
1124
Spence, C. (2014). The context of colour–flavour associations in crisps
1125
packaging: A cross-cultural study comparing Chinese, Colombian, and British
1126
consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 38(1), 49–57.
1127
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.011
1128
Velasco, C., Wan, X., Knoeferle, K., Zhou, X., Salgado-Montejo, A., & Spence, C.
1129
(2015). Searching for flavor labels in food products: The influence of color-flavor
1130

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
49
congruence and association strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:301.
1131
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00301
1132
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2015). Hedonic mediation of the
1133
crossmodal correspondence between taste and shape. Food Quality and
1134
Preference, 41(1), 151–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.010
1135
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Hyndman, S., & Spence, C. (2015). The taste of typeface.
1136
i-Perception, 6(4):1–10. http://doi.org/10.1177/2041669515593040
1137
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2015). Evaluating the orientation of design
1138
elements in product packaging using an online orientation task. Food Quality and
1139
Preference, 46(1), 151–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.07.018
1140
Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., & Bosman, M. (2011).
1141
Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: An exploratory investigation in
1142
Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3),
1143
273–281. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00936.
1144
Vilnai-Yavetz, I., & Koren, R. (2013). Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions
1145
as a function of packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. The
1146
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(4), 394–
1147
417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2013.792743
1148
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., Logan, J., Jayne, M., Franceschi, D., …
1149
Pappas, N. (2002). ‘Nonhedonic’ food motivation in humans involves dopamine in
1150
the dorsal striatum and methylphenidate amplifies this effect. Synapse, 44(3),
1151
175–180. http://doi.org/10.1002/syn.10075
1152
Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake and
1153
consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24(1),
1154
455–479. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132140
1155

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
50
Wansink, B., Painter, J. E., & Lee, Y.-K. (2006). The office candy dish: Proximity’s
1156
influence on estimated and actual consumption. International Journal of Obesity,
1157
30(5), 871–875. http://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803217
1158
Werthmann, J., Roefs, A., Nederkoorn, C., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Jansen, A.
1159
(2011). Can(not) take my eyes off it: Attention bias for food in overweight
1160
participants. Health Psychology, 30(5), 561–569. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024291
1161
Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D.,
1162
& Wells, S. (2012). Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular
1163
design elements. Psychology and Marketing, 29(8), 595–605.
1164
http://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20546
1165
Westerman, S. J., Sutherland, E. J., Gardner, P. H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey,
1166
C., … Zervos, Z. (2013). The design of consumer packaging: Effects of
1167
manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on
1168
consumers’ assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 8–17.
1169
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.007
1170
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual
1171
attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 495–501.
1172
http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411
1173
Woods, A. T., Velasco, C., Levitan, C. A., Wan, X., & Spence, C. (2015). Conducting
1174
perception research over the internet: a tutorial review. PeerJ, 3:e1058.
1175
http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1058
1176
WPP (n.d.). Shopper decisions made in-store by OgilvyAction. Retrieved from
1177
http://www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/consumerinsights/shopper-decisions-made-
1178
instore/.
1179

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
51
Zlatev, J. (2012). Cognitive semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary
1180
study of meaning. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(1), 2–24.
1181
1182
Figure Legends
1183
1184
Figure 1 (a): Examples of front-facing product imagery as part of packaging design
1185
in four Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) food categories; (b): Examples of
1186
transparency as part of packaging design in four FMCG food categories.
1187
1188
Figure 2: Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis results, showing brain
1189
regions with significant maxima (p < .05, FDR-corrected for multiple comparisons,
1190
cluster size > 100 mm3). Circled regions show a presence of these foci in at least a
1191
third of all studies analysed. Red regions highlight the difference in activation
1192
between different image presentation conditions. Combined, these slices show the
1193
regions most activated when presented with images of foods. Slices A-D highlight
1194
the difference in activation between food vs. non-food image presentations.
1195
Specifically, the labels show: (A) a cluster from the left posterior fusiform gyrus to the
1196
middle occipital gyrus; (B) the right posterior fusiform gyrus; (C) the inferior frontal
1197
gyrus of the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex; and (D) the left middle insula. Slices E-F
1198
highlight the difference between hungry vs. satiated state. (E) shows a cluster from
1199
the right parahippocampal gyrus to the right amygdala; and (F) shows a cluster in the
1200
inferior frontal gyrus of the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Finally, (G) shows a cluster
1201
between the hypothalamus and the caudate, from image presentations of high
1202
energy vs. low energy foods. Reprinted with thanks from van der Laan, de Ridder,
1203
Viergever, and Smeets (2011), Figure 2.
1204

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
52
1205
Figure 3: Examples of innovative transparent packaging design across several
1206
FMCG food categories.
1207

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
53
Figure 1(a).
1208
1209
1210
Figure 1(b).
1211
1212
1213

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
54
Figure 2.
1214
1215
1216

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX
55
Figure 3.
1217
1218