Content uploaded by Luca Cian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luca Cian on Dec 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
Sensory
Aspects
of
Package
Design夽
Aradhna
Krishna a,∗,1,
Luca
Cian b,1,
Nilüfer
Z.
Aydıno˘
glu c,1
aStephen
M
Ross
School
of
Business,
University
of
Michigan,
701
Tappan
St.,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48109-1234,
USA
bDarden
School
of
Business,
University
of
Virginia,
100
Darden
Blvd.,
Charlottesville,
VA
22903,
USA
cCollege
of
Administrative
Sciences
and
Economics,
Ko¸c
University,
Rumelifeneri
Yolu,
Sarıyer, ˙
Istanbul
34450,
Turkey
Available
online
9
January
2017
Abstract
Packaging
is
a
critical
aspect
of
the
marketing
offer,
with
many
implications
for
the
multi-sensory
customer
experience.
It
can
affect
attention,
comprehension
of
value,
perception
of
product
functionality,
and
also
consumption,
with
important
consequences
for
consumer
experience
and
response.
Thus,
while
it
was
once
viewed
as
being
useful
only
for
product
preservation
and
logistics,
package
design
has
evolved
into
a
key
marketing
tool.
We
introduce
the
layered-packaging
taxonomy
that
highlights
new
ways
to
think
about
product
packaging.
This
taxonomy
has
two
dimensions:
the
physicality
dimension,
which
is
composed
of
the
outer–intermediate–inner
packaging
layers,
and
the
functionality
dimension,
which
is
composed
of
the
purchase–consumption
packaging
layers.
We
then
build
on
this
taxonomy
to
present
an
integrative
conceptualization
of
the
sensory
aspects
of
package
design
as
they
affect
key
stages
of
customer
experience.
©
2016
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
on
behalf
of
New
York
University.
Keywords:
Sensory
marketing;
Packaging;
Design;
Customer
experience;
Consumption
Introduction
In
the
last
decade,
there
has
been
a
paradigm
shift
toward
developing
more
sensorially
engaging
and
interactive
products
and
services.
New
research
highlights
the
importance
of
“sen-
sory
marketing
and
embodied
cognition”—the
idea
that
we
perceive
the
world
through
our
senses
and
that
our
bodily
sen-
sations
affect
the
decisions
we
make
without
our
conscious
awareness
(Krishna
and
Schwarz
2014).
Krishna
(2010)
defines
sensory
marketing
as
“marketing
that
engages
the
consumers’
senses
and
affects
their
perception,
judgment,
and
behavior”
(p.
333).
Strategically,
sensory
marketing
provides
a
multi-sensory
experience
to
consumers
with
the
intention
of
creating
additional
value.
The
sensory
aspects
of
products
and
their
presentation
to
consumers
(smell,
sound,
touch,
taste,
or
look),
individually
or
through
their
interplay,
shape
the
holistic
customer
experience
and
the
interaction
between
companies
and
consumers.
夽The
authors
acknowledge
the
valuable
input
of
the
editors
and
the
reviewers.
∗Corresponding
author.
Fax:
+1
734
936
8716.
E-mail
addresses:
aradhna@umich.edu
(A.
Krishna),
CianL@darden.virginia.edu
(L.
Cian),
naydinoglu@ku.edu.tr
(N.Z.
Aydıno˘
glu).
1Author
names
are
in
reverse
alphabetic
order
and
authors
contributed
equally
to
the
research.
“In
the
past,
communications
with
customers
were
essen-
tially
monologues—companies
just
talked
at
consumers.
Then,
they
evolved
into
dialogues,
with
customers
providing
feedback.
Now
they
are
becoming
multidimensional
conversations,
with
products
finding
their
own
voices
and
consumers
responding
viscerally
and
subconsciously
to
them”
(interview
with
Krishna
in
Harvard
Business
Review,
2015,
p.
29).
Such
conversations
should
guide
product
innovation
and
marketing.
Companies
should
devise
their
marketing
offers
in
an
all-encompassing
manner,
using
the
senses
to
define
product
experiences
and
brand
identities
that
consumers
will
care
about
and
remember.
This
paper
aims
to
heighten
awareness
of
the
need
for
researchers
to
focus
more
on
the
sensory
aspects
of
packag-
ing.
Most
of
the
previous
sensory
research
in
marketing
has
focused
on
the
environment
(such
as
store
settings
or
atmo-
spherics;
e.g.,
Mattila
and
Wirtz
2008;
Spence
et
al.
2014)
or
the
product
itself
(such
as
how
food
tastes,
looks,
and
smells;
e.g.,
Hoegg
and
Alba
2007;
Peck
and
Childers
2008).
Less
atten-
tion
has
been
paid
to
packaging,
a
situation
that
this
paper
may
help
to
ameliorate.
Packaging
is
one
critical
aspect
of
the
mar-
keting
offer,
with
its
many
implications
for
the
overall
customer
experience.
In
this
paper,
we
gather
together
research
related
to
the
sensory
aspects
of
package
design
as
they
affect
key
facets
of
the
customer
experience.
We
also
introduce
an
over-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.002
0022-4359/©
2016
Published
by
Elsevier
Inc.
on
behalf
of
New
York
University.
44
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
all
conceptualization
of
multi-sensory
customer
experience
and
discuss
its
significance.
Products
are
presented
to
consumers
wrapped
in
their
unique
packaging:
the
package
becomes
the
outfit
of
the
product
and
conveys
its
look
and
feel
throughout
the
customer–brand
interaction.
We
identify
key
stages
of
the
multi-sensory
customer–product
interaction:
attention,
expec-
tation
formation,
engagement,
and
consumption.
While
our
review
incorporates
insights
from
existing
research
and
prac-
tice,
we
also
include
new
theoretical
questions
to
stimulate
future
research
and
propose
new
ways
of
thinking
about
product
packaging.
As
we
begin,
we
want
to
introduce
a
new
taxonomy
aid
to
describe
the
multi-sensory
customer–product
interaction
pre-
sented
above—what
we
call
the
layered-packaging
taxonomy.
We
propose
that
packaging
has
two
major
dimensions—the
physicality
dimension
and
the
functionality
dimension.
The
physicality
dimension
focuses
on
how
the
package
appears
to
the
consumers
and
is
composed
of
the
outer–intermediate–inner
packaging
layers.
The
functionality
dimension
relates
to
what
purpose
the
packaging
serves
and
is
composed
of
the
purchase–consumption
packaging
layers.
Importantly,
the
physicality
dimension
stresses
that
packag-
ing
does
not
merely
refer
to
the
outer
packaging—such
as
the
hard
paper
packaging
that
envelopes
the
plastic
bottle
that
the
50
tablets
of
ibuprofen
come
in,
or
the
plastic
packaging
of
a
bag
of
KitKats
that
contain
many
small
KitKats,
or
the
paper
packaging
that
a
bar
of
soap
comes
in.
Packaging
also
refers
to
intermediate
packaging,
such
as
the
plastic
medicine
bottle
of
ibuprofen
that
resides
within
the
hard
paper
outer
packaging,
and
the
wrappers
for
the
individual
KitKat
bars.
Furthermore,
packaging
refers
to
the
inner
packaging
or
product
packaging,
such
as
the
shape,
color,
form,
and
texture
of
the
ibuprofen
tablet,
the
KitKat
bar,
or
the
bar
of
soap
(see
Fig.
1).
While
all
man-
ufactured
products
have
inner
packaging
or
product
packaging,
only
some
have
intermediate
and
outer
packaging.
We
further
introduce
two
other
terms:
purchase
packaging,
which
mostly
affects
consumers
at
the
time
of
purchase
(typi-
cally,
the
outer
packaging),
and
consumption
packaging,
which
mostly
affects
consumers
at
the
time
of
consumption
(typically,
the
inner
packaging;
and
also
intermediate
packaging
if
it
exists
for
the
product).
With
a
bar
of
soap,
the
outer
and
intermediate
packaging
are
not
present
at
the
time
of
consumption;
only
the
inner
packaging
is—the
product
form
of
the
soap
itself.
How-
ever,
with
ibuprofen,
both
the
intermediate
and
inner
packaging
are
present
at
the
time
of
consumption
(see
Fig.
2).
Next,
we
introduce
our
overall
conceptualization
of
con-
sumers’
sensory
experience
with
a
product,
as
well
as
the
significance
of
that
experience.
The
rest
of
the
paper
identifies
and
discusses
the
facets
of
the
customer
experience
as
affected
by
sensory
aspects
of
packaging.
The
discussion
also
highlights
implications
for
different
types
and
roles
of
packaging
as
sug-
gested
by
our
layer-packaging
taxonomy.
We
conclude
with
implications
and
possible
extensions
of
our
review.
Sensory
Experience
with
a
Product
Customer–brand
interactions
are
characterized
by
a
mul-
titude
of
contact
points
subject
to
sensation
and
perception
processes.
The
field
of
sensory
marketing
has
evolved
in
an
attempt
to
better
understand
how
customers’
perceptions,
emo-
tions,
preferences,
and
consumption
are
affected
by
sensory
and
unconscious
processes,
with
the
intention
of
appealing
to
them
more
effectively
(Krishna
2010).
Products
are
“sensual”
in
nature
(that
is,
they
relate
to
sensation
or
the
senses;
Krishna
Fig.
1.
Examples
of
the
layered-packaging
taxonomy:
physicality
dimension.
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
45
Fig.
2.
Examples
of
the
layered-packaging
taxonomy:
physicality
and
function-
ality
dimensions.
2010).
Therefore,
connecting
with
customers
through
sensory
cues
helps
marketers
manage
and
enrich
the
total
customer
experience.
Most
of
these
customer–brand
interactions
operate
implic-
itly
(i.e.,
without
the
consumer’s
awareness).
Thus,
when
asked,
consumers
often
believe
that
sensory
inputs
had
no
impact
on
them.
Controlled
studies
of
consumer
behavior,
however,
in
the
laboratory
and
the
marketplace,
say
otherwise
(Cheskin
1972).
Given
the
amount
of
marketing
stimuli
to
which
consumers
are
exposed
daily,
unconscious
triggers,
such
as
those
that
appeal
to
the
basic
senses,
may
help
marketers
appeal
to
consumers
more
efficiently
(Krishna
2012).
The
total
customer
experience
is
a
sum
of
the
customer’s
shopping
experience
(interaction
with
the
retail
environment,
the
salespeople,
and
other
customers;
Hui
and
Bateson
1991),
product
experience
(interaction
with
the
product;
Hoch
2002),
communication
experience
(interaction
between
the
firm,
the
customer,
and
other
customers;
Krishna,
Cian,
and
Sokolova
2016),
brand
experience
(interaction
with
brand-related
stim-
uli,
e.g.,
colors,
shapes,
and
fonts;
Brakus,
Schmitt,
and
Zhang
2008),
and,
finally,
the
consumption
experience
(Aydinoglu
and
Sayin
2016;
Brakus,
Schmitt,
and
Zarantello
2009).
The
design
and
presentation
of
packaging—either
consumption
packaging
or
purchase
packaging—is
often
a
key
component
in
all
such
experiences.
Purchase
packaging
is
a
key
contact
point
between
the
customer
and
the
firm
and
has
implications
for
attention
gen-
eration
and
brand
image;
consumption
packaging
then
creates
product
engagement
and
affects
consumption.
We
discuss
below
the
critical
sensory
aspects
of
package
design
as
they
affect
the
multifaceted
and
integrated
processes
customers
go
through
as
part
of
their
total
experience.
Cus-
tomers’
purchase
experience
starts
by
being
drawn
in
toward
the
product
through
conscious
(or
even
unconscious)
attention.
As
such,
we
discuss
the
various
ways
packaging
can
create
and
enhance
visual
salience
of
the
product
to
attract
consumer
atten-
tion
and
generate
interest.
The
attentive
consumer
then
searches
for
information
of
the
product’s
value.
We
present
a
review
of
how
the
different
verbal
and
visual
cues
that
may
be
used
as
part
of
package
design
can
convey
such
information.
As
the
consumer
moves
toward
final
purchase
and,
consequently,
the
consumption
experience,
generating
personal
engagement
is
critical.
The
section
on
customer
engagement
focuses
on
both
the
conscious
as
well
as
the
automatic
processes
through
which
packaging
elements
might
improve
connection
with
customers.
Specifically,
we
review
extant
research
on
mental
imagery,
influ-
ence
of
colors
and
shapes,
and
olfactory
and
haptic
properties
of
packaging.
Next,
we
discuss
the
direct
influences
of
packaging
on
consumption
experience
through
its
effect
on
consumers’
size
perceptions
(before,
during,
and
after
consumption).
We
also
review
the
various
biases
that
consumers
are
vulnerable
to
as
part
of
their
consumption
monitoring
processes.
We
finish
with
a
general
discussion
of
the
integrated
nature
of
these
com-
ponents
as
part
of
the
multi-sensory
customer
experience,
and
suggest
lines
of
future
research.
Stages
of
the
Multi-sensory
Customer
Experience
1
Attracting
Attention
and
Initiating
the
Customer
Experience
Most
of
the
time,
a
company’s
product
is
placed
between
sev-
eral
other
similar
(competitors’)
products
either
in
retail
stores
or
as
part
of
marketing
communications.
Consequently,
packaging
must
first
attract
the
customer’s
attention
(also
called
bottom-
up
attention;
Milosavljevic
and
Cerf
2008).
Below,
we
discuss
the
importance
of
visual
salience
in
attracting
attention
and
the
ways
in
which
salience
can
be
increased
through
effective
design
of
purchase
packaging.
Accordingly,
our
discussion
here
relates
mainly
to
elements
of
outer
physical
packaging
layer
and
the
purchase
functionality
packaging
layer.
Importance
of
Visual
Salience
Extensive
visual
neuroscience
research
has
shown
that
visual
attributes
that
affect
the
salience
of
stimuli
can
likewise
impact
where
and
how
long
individuals
fixate
on
complex
displays,
such
as
vending
machines
or
supermarket
shelves
(Milosavljevic
et
al.
2012).
Thus,
consumers
fixate
longer
on
more
visually
salient
items
relative
to
less
salient
items.
Second,
recent
neuroeconomic
studies
have
shown
that
the
amount
of
value
individuals
give
to
stimuli
when
making
their
46
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
Fig.
3.
Creating
visual
salience
by
differentiation
(shape
and
size).
choice
depends
on
how
much
attention
they
give
to
those
stim-
uli
during
the
decision-making
process
(Armel,
Beaumel,
and
Rangel
2008;
Krajbich,
Armel,
and
Rangel
2010).
In
particular,
the
longer
individuals
focus
on
an
item,
the
more
likely
they
are
to
choose
that
item
and
to
give
it
a
higher
liking
rating.
Together,
these
findings
suggest
that,
regardless
of
their
pref-
erences,
individuals
are
more
likely
to
choose
more
visually
salient
options
because
of
how
the
brain
processes
visual
infor-
mation.
In
addition,
Milosavljevic
et
al.
(2012)
show
that
at
rapid
decision
speeds,
visual
salience
has
a
greater
impact
on
choice
than
preferences.
The
bias
increases
with
cognitive
load,
especially
when
individuals
do
not
strongly
prefer
any
of
the
options.
If
products
attract
visual
attention,
consumers
are
more
likely
to
touch
them
as
well;
and,
if
they
touch
them,
they
are
even
more
likely
to
purchase
them
(Peck
and
Childers
2006;
Peck
and
Shu
2009).
Using
a
field
study,
Peck
and
Childers
(2006)
show
that
increasing
the
salience
of
touch
(e.g.,
a
sign
suggesting
shoppers
“feel
the
freshness”
of
a
product)
increases
impulse
purchasing.
Peck
and
Shu
(2009)
further
demonstrate
that
perceived
owner-
ship
is
increased
when
the
object
is
touched.
Additional
research
shows
that
when
consumers
own
(or
perceive
to
own)
objects,
they
place
greater
value
on
the
objects
(Kahneman,
Knetsch,
and
Thaler
1990;
Peck,
Barger,
and
Webb
2013).
Increasing
Visual
Salience
Considering
the
discussed
significance
of
visual
salience,
the
natural
following
question
is,
then,
how
to
create
more
visu-
ally
salient
packaging?
In
general,
when
one
or
more
of
an
image’s
low-level
features
(brightness,
color,
size,
shape,
tex-
ture,
or
smell)
is
considerably
different
from
the
background
(Vazquez
et
al.
2010),
the
detail
appears
salient.
In
terms
of
light,
the
more
saturated
(Cian
2012)
or
brighter
(Milosavljevic
et
al.
2012)
a
color
is
in
comparison
to
its
surroundings,
the
more
it
is
visually
salient.
With
respect
to
colors,
the
red–green
axis,
according
to
Frey
et
al.
(2011),
is
the
most
salient
color
contrast,
whereas
the
blue–yellow
color
contrast
is
less
so.
Note
that
this
research
is
related
to
natural
scenes,
and
needs
to
be
corroborated
for
purchase
scenar-
ios
with
further
research.
But,
in
general,
visual
salience
depends
on
context—how
certain
features
compare
to
their
surroundings.
Indeed,
how
we
perceive
color
has
evolved
over
millennia
to
help
us
distinguish
edible
fruits
and
young
leaves
from
their
natural
background
(Frey,
Honey,
and
König
2008).
Thus,
for
example,
color-highlighted
objects
on
packaging
are
more
salient.
In
a
similar
fashion,
packaging
that
presents
a
size
or
shape
different
from
its
surroundings
will
create
higher
visual
salience
(see
Fig.
3
for
some
examples).
Moreover,
customers
will
react
favorably
to
elements
that
defy
expectations
because
they
will
look
for
the
cause
of
the
deviation.
This
search
for
the
cause
results
in
additional
(positive)
attributions
to
the
product,
which
in
turn
leads
to
a
more
favorable
consumer
response
(Miller
and
Kahn
2005).
A
change
in
packaging,
however,
may
cause
a
problem
when
the
novelty
creates
unreasonable
expectations.
Let
us
take
Crys-
tal
Pepsi’s
failure
as
an
example.
Crystal
Pepsi
was
a
soft
drink
made
by
PepsiCo
from
1992
to
1993
as
a
caffeine-free
version
of
the
traditional
Pepsi
Cola.
The
idea
was
to
emphasize,
with
a
drastic
change
in
color
(from
black
to
clear),
the
absence
of
caf-
feine,
complemented
by
new
packaging
to
highlight
the
change.
It
had
a
see-through
packaging
to
show
the
clear
(transparent)
cola
(see
Fig.
4a).
The
commercials
were
also
stressing
the
color
change
using
claims
such
as:
“You’ve
never
seen
a
taste
like
this”
(see
Fig.
4b).
When
Crystal
Pepsi
was
released,
the
response
was
surprisingly
dismal
despite
a
huge
marketing
effort.
PepsiCo
had
to
discontinue
the
product
one
year
after
its
launch.
This
failure
may
have
been
attributable
to
the
expectations
the
clear
look
of
the
soda
created:
consumers
may
have
anticipated
a
differ-
ent
taste
from
regular
Pepsi
and
were
therefore
disappointed
when
the
product
tasted
almost
the
same
(Labrecque,
Patrick,
and
Milne
2013).
2
Providing
Information
and
Setting
Expectations
After
capturing
customers’
attention,
purchase
packaging
should
provide
the
potential
buyers
all
the
information
that
they
are
consciously
or
unconsciously
looking
for.
In
this
section,
we
present
a
review
of
how
different
verbal
and
visual
cues
may
be
used
as
part
of
package
design
to
convey
such
information
and
shape
expectations.
Accordingly,
our
discussion
here
relates
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
47
Fig.
4.
Crystal
Pepsi.
mainly
to
elements
of
outer
and
intermediate
physical
packaging
layers,
and
the
purchase
functionality
packaging
layer.
Verbal
Cues
Probably
the
most
intuitive
and
simplest
way
packaging
can
set
expectations
is
the
way
it
describes
its
contents.
Specif-
ically
for
food
products,
consumers
cannot
reliably
or
easily
deduce
the
characteristics
or
benefits
they
consider
most
impor-
tant
(e.g.,
pleasantness,
healthfulness,
or
sensory
perceptions)
before
they
have
experienced
them,
and
even
the
experience
might
provide
ambiguous
information.
Without
a
reliable
under-
standing
of
what
their
food
experience
will
be
like,
consumers
tend
to
be
overly
dependent
on
design
cues
and
packaging-based
marketing
claims.
An
extensive
research
stream
focuses
on
this
topic
(for
reviews,
see
Chandon
2013).
According
to
Elder
and
Krishna
(2010),
food
descriptions
intended
to
appeal
to
multiple
senses
generate
improved
taste
perceptions
than
single-sense
descrip-
tions.
Because
multiple
senses
(smell,
sight,
sound,
and
touch)
collectively
generate
taste,
descriptions
mentioning
these
senses
will
be
more
influential
than
descriptions
mentioning
only
taste.
For
example,
in
one
experiment,
Elder
and
Krishna
used
a
single-
sense
(vs.
multiple-sense)
description
that
read
as
follows:
“Our
potato
chips
deliver
the
taste
you
crave.
From
the
first
bite
you’ll
savor
the
rich
barbecue
flavor
(smell)
and
enjoy
the
delicious
salty
taste
(crunchy
texture)—our
potato
chips
are
the
perfect
choice
for
your
snacking”
(p.
752).
After
tasting
the
chips,
par-
ticipants
who
read
the
multiple-sense
description
listed
more
positive
sensory
thoughts
and
evaluated
the
chips
as
tastier.
These
observations
on
communication
effectiveness
based
on
advertising
claims
should
apply
directly
to
the
communicative
properties
of
package
design.
Information
about
the
healthiness
of
the
food
also
influences
the
food
perception
(see
Chandon
and
Wansink
2012).
For
exam-
ple,
Chernev
and
Gal
(2010)
found
that
participants
perceived
a
hamburger
as
having
761
calories,
but
they
thought
the
same
hamburger,
when
shown
with
a
broccoli
salad,
had
only
665
calories.
This
effect
results
from
people
thinking
in
terms
of
average
healthiness
instead
of
caloric
count.
Note
that
not
all
responses
to
packaging-related
marketing
communications
are
the
same.
Irmak,
Vallen,
and
Robinson
(2011)
showed
that
when
food
is
given
a
relatively
unhealthy
name
(e.g.,
pasta),
partici-
pants
focused
on
dieting
perceive
the
item
as
unhealthier
and
less
tasty
than
non-dieters.
When
the
same
food
is
given
a
relatively
healthy
name
(e.g.,
salad),
however,
the
participants’
focus
on
dieting
has
no
effect
on
product
evaluations.
Visual
Cues
and
Graphical
Positioning
Aside
from
labels
and
product
descriptions,
packaging
is
usu-
ally
composed
of
visual
cues.
Folkes
and
Matta
(2004)
note
that
consumers
tend
to
shop
with
their
eyes
and,
according
to
Dickson
and
Sawyer
(1990),
may
ignore
package
labeling.
Underwood
and
Klein
(2002)
show
that
the
presence
of
a
product
image
positively
affects
consumers’
attitudes
toward
the
package
and
their
beliefs
about
sensory
brand
attributes.
Likewise,
a
prod-
uct
image
can
boost
consumer
self-evaluations
(Aydinoglu
and
Cian
2014),
and
may
increase
the
likelihood
that
consumers
will
use
the
image
as
an
extrinsic
cue
(Olson
and
Jacoby
1972)
and
a
product-quality
indicator
(Richardson,
Dick,
and
Jain
1994).
The
presence
of
a
product
picture
can
lead
consumers
to
bet-
ter
imagine
a
product’s
taste,
feel,
smell,
look,
and
sound
(Cian
2012;
Paivio
1986;
Underwood
and
Klein
2001).
A
product’s
picture,
therefore,
can
set
consumers’
expectations
and
be
an
“advance
organizer”
for
the
other
potentially
available
packag-
ing
information
(Kahn
and
Deng
2010).
Recently,
researchers
have
started
to
study
specific
ways
through
which
graphic
design
of
packaging
elements
can
directly
influence
specific
perceived
product
features.
A
stream
of
research
is
based
on
conceptual
metaphors
and
embodied
cognition
(for
reviews,
see
Krishna
2012;
Krishna
and
Schwarz
2014).
For
example,
applying
the
conceptual
metaphor
frame-
work
and
the
idea
of
scaffolding
to
rationality
and
emotion,
Cian,
Krishna,
and
Schwarz
(2015)
noted
that
from
childhood,
humans
tend
to
associate
two
“concrete”
body
parts—the
head
and
the
heart—with
the
more
“abstract”
concepts
of
rationality
and
emo-
tion,
respectively.
Thus,
over
time,
we
develop
a
conceptual
link
of
rationality
with
something
visually
located
“up”
or
“higher”
and
emotion
with
something
visually
located
“down”
or
“lower.”
Applying
this
concept
to
packaging
design,
the
authors
show
that
information
related
to
the
tastiness
(or
other
emotional
elements)
of
a
product
are
perceived
more
fluently
when
visually
placed
at
the
bottom
of
the
packaging
(vs.
at
the
top).
Conversely,
48
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
information
related
to
the
rational
elements
of
a
product
(e.g.,
its
healthiness)
are
more
fluently
perceived
when
placed
in
the
higher
part
of
the
packaging
(vs.
the
lower).
The
more
fluently
the
images
are
perceived
(where
there
is
a
match
between
visual
placement
and
rationality/emotionality),
the
more
positive
are
then
the
attitudes
toward
the
product.
The
marketing
literature
offers
additional
examples
of
how
a
match
between
physical
position
and
type
of
product
infor-
mation
increases
product
evaluations,
and
how
a
mismatch
decreases
product
evaluations
(for
a
review,
see
Cian
2016,
2017).
For
example,
Sundar
and
Noseworthy
(2014)
build
on
previous
psychology
research
that
shows
a
metaphorical
link
between
power
and
the
vertical
dimension
(i.e.,
power
is
asso-
ciated
culturally
with
something
placed
up
or
higher
visually).
The
authors
show
that
consumers
have
a
stronger
preference
toward
powerful
brands
when
the
packaging
features
the
brand
logo
in
a
high
rather
than
a
low
position.
On
the
other
hand,
con-
sumers
have
a
stronger
preference
toward
less
powerful
brands
when
the
packaging
features
the
brand
logo
in
a
low
rather
than
a
high
position.
The
authors
suggest
the
mechanism
underly-
ing
this
preference
shift
to
be
a
fluency
effect
resulting
from
an
intuitive
link
consumers
make
between
the
concept
of
power
and
verticality.
Deng
and
Kahn
(2009)
found
that
consumers
perceive
prod-
uct
images
at
the
bottom
(top)
and
right
(left)
of
a
package
as
being
heavier
(lighter).
The
bottom–heavy
association
is
attributable
to
humans’
tendency
to
apply
the
laws
of
gravity
to
visual
space.
The
authors
explain
the
right–heavy
perception
in
two
steps.
First,
we
tend
to
“read”
pictures
from
left
to
right.
Second,
the
left
side
is
the
natural
anchor
point
or
visual
ful-
crum,
because
the
eyes
enter
the
field
of
vision
from
the
left.
Thus,
an
object’s
weight
is
perceived
as
heavier
the
farther
it
is
from
the
left
side
(or
the
fulcrum).
The
authors
further
show
that
the
match
between
picture
position
and
product
heaviness
has
an
impact
on
participants’
preferences
toward
the
product.
Chae
and
Hoegg
(2013)
focus
on
the
horizontal
dimension,
and
show
that
if
consumers
are
from
cultures
that
read
from
left
to
right,
they
generally
see
the
past
as
being
to
the
left,
and
the
future
as
being
to
the
right.
Thus,
if
the
placement
of
the
product
image
is
congruent
with
how
consumers
conceive
time
(i.e.,
left
=
past-related
items,
right
=
future-related
items),
consumers
will
feel
more
favorably
toward
the
product.
A
wise
usage
of
packaging
shape
can
also
aid
to
subtly
convey
information
and
generate
expectations.
For
example,
Velasco
et
al.
(2014)
studied
how
to
combine
rounded
versus
angular
shapes,
names,
typefaces,
and
sounds
to
convey
information
about
a
product’s
taste
(sweetness/sourness).
They
found
that
rounded
shapes
(or
names,
typefaces,
and
low-pitched
sounds)
best
convey
“sweet”
tastes,
whereas
angular
shapes
(or
names,
typefaces,
and
high-pitched
sounds)
best
convey
“sour”
tastes.
Similarly,
Becker
et
al.
(2011)
showed
that
angular,
versus
rounded,
packaging
for
yogurt
led
consumers
to
experience
the
product
as
having
a
sharper
and
more
bitter
taste.
Addi-
tionally,
the
authors
claim
haptic–color
congruence
(a
rounded
shape
combined
with
a
low
saturated
color,
or
an
angular
shape
combined
with
a
highly
saturated
color)
leads
to
more
favorable
attitudes
toward
a
product,
relative
to
shape–color
incongru-
ency.
Ares
and
Deliza
(2010)
found
that
both
color
and
shape
significantly
influence
consumers’
expected
liking
and
willing-
ness
to
purchase.
Specifically,
they
noted
the
color
and
shape
of
the
packaging
should
be
congruent
with
the
expected
texture,
taste,
and
calorie
intake
of
the
food
in
order
to
generate
posi-
tive
experiences
among
consumers.
Albertazzi
et
al.
(2013)
also
investigated
the
link
between
shape
and
color.
In
this
research,
for
each
geometric
shape
studied,
participants
were
asked
to
indicate
the
color
they
perceived
as
the
most
closely
related
to
it,
with
their
choices
coming
from
the
Natural
Color
System
Hue
Circle.
Results
showed
that
participants’
color
choices
for
each
shape
were
not
random;
that
is,
participants
systematically
established
a
link
between
shapes
and
colors
when
an
exper-
imenter
asked
them
to
choose
the
color
that,
in
their
opinion,
was
the
most
naturally
related
to
a
series
of
given
shapes.
The
authors
found
the
strongest
relationships
between
the
circle
and
the
square
with
reds,
and
the
triangle
with
yellows.
Correspon-
dence
analysis
suggested
two
main
aspects
determined
these
relationships,
specifically,
the
“warmth”
and
degree
of
the
“nat-
ural
lightness”
of
hues.
Take n
together,
these
papers
show
how
position,
colors,
and
shapes
of
visual
cues
are
subtly
intercon-
nected
and
that
their
holistic
combination
may
affect
consumer
expectations.
3
Generating
Customer
Engagement
Effective
package
design
not
only
creates
expectations
and
provides
information,
but,
as
we
discuss
in
this
section,
also
engages
and
thrills
the
consumer.
First,
we
focus
on
how
pack-
aging
visuals
can
lead
to
an
automatic
engagement,
through
a
spontaneous
generation
of
imagery
in
viewers’
minds
using
appropriate
stimulus
orientation
(“mental
simulation;”
Elder
and
Krishna
2012)
and
perceived
movement
(“dynamic
imagery;”
Cian,
Krishna,
and
Elder
2014,
2015).
Second,
we
zoom
in
on
colors
and
their
ability
to
subconsciously
trigger
a
partic-
ular
feeling
(Labrecque,
Patrick,
and
Milne
2013).
Finally,
we
discuss
how
to
use
haptic
(Peck
and
Wiggins
2006),
olfactory
(Krishna,
Morrin,
and
Sayin
2014),
and
auditory
(Spence
2016)
stimuli
as
part
of
packaging
decisions
to
engage
the
customer.
Accordingly,
our
discussion
here
relates
mainly
to
elements
of
outer
and
intermediate
physical
packaging
layers,
and
both
the
purchase
and
the
consumption
functionality
packaging
layers.
Automatic
Engagement
Subtle
elements,
such
as
the
orientation
of
a
figure
(e.g.,
to
the
right
or
to
the
left),
can
affect
how
the
viewer
(automatically)
simulates
the
interaction
with
the
product.
Elder
and
Krishna
(2012)
show
that
a
handedness–product-orientation
match
(e.g.,
when
a
right-handed
person
views
an
image
of
a
bowl
of
soup
with
a
spoon
on
the
right)
versus
a
mismatch
(e.g.,
when
a
right-
handed
person
sees
an
image
of
a
bowl
of
soup
with
a
spoon
on
the
left)
increases
the
mental
simulation
of
product
inter-
action.
In
other
words,
a
handedness–object-orientation
match
facilitates
one’s
mental
simulation
of
interacting
with
the
object,
thereby
increasing
purchase
intentions.
However,
when
the
product
seems
unappealing,
a
handedness–product-orientation
match
enhances
the
simulation
of
a
negative
experience,
thereby
A.
Krishna
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Retailing
93
(1,
2017)
43–54
49
decreasing
purchase
intentions
(see
Elder
and
Krishna
2012,
Fig.
3,
p.
997
for
an
example).
In
addition
to
product
orientation,
another
visual
character-
istic
able
to
evoke
an
automatic
imagery
response
is
perceived
movement.
Cian,
Krishna,
and
Elder
(2014,
2015)
focused
their
research
on
the
ability
of
a
static
visual
to
convey
movement
without
actually
moving
(what
they
called
dynamic
imagery).
Dynamic
imagery
is
particularly
interesting
in
packaging
design,
a
context
in
which
the
use
of
actual
motion
is
still
technically
and
economically
unfeasible.
The
authors
showed
that
using
dynamic
imagery
for
product
logos
on
packaging
allows
for
images
within
the
mind
to
continue
in
motion,
creating
a
higher
engagement
for
the
viewer.
For
example,
in
one
of
their
stud-
ies,
Cian,
Krishna,
and
Elder
(2014)
created
two
different
logos
for
a
fictitious
brand
that
differed
only
in
the
dynamic
imagery
they
evoked
(lower
vs.
higher
dynamism).
In
this
study,
the
authors
measured
engagement
(testing
for
gaze
duration
and
number
of
fixations)
using
an
eye
tracker
and
found
that
the
more
dynamic
visual
led
participants
to
look
at
the
logo
longer
and
also
increased
the
stimulus’
magnetism
by
increasing
how
often
it
attracted
the
observer’s
visual
attention
(number
of
fixations).
Color
Engagement
If
mental
simulation
and
dynamic
imagery
increase
the
viewer’s
engagement
at
a
cognitive
level,
colors
can
be
used
to
engage
customers
more
on
an
emotional
level.
Considerable
evi-
dence
suggests
colors
elicit
feelings
(for
a
review,
see
Labrecque,
Patrick,
and
Milne
2013).
Importantly,
Valdez
and
Mehrabian
(1994)
found
hue
variations
led
to
systematic
differences
in
feel-
ings.
The
authors
show
that
shorter-wavelength
hues
(e.g.,
blue)
induce
greater
feelings
of
relaxation
than
longer-wavelength
hues
(e.g.,
red).
Additionally,
longer-wavelength
hues
induce
higher
feelings
of
excitement
than
shorter-wavelength
hues
(Antick
and
Schandler
1993;
Bagchi
and
Cheema
2013).
Building
on
this
research,
Gorn
et
al.
(1997)
discovered
that
higher-saturation
visuals
induce
feelings
of
excitement,
and
that
higher
color
lightness
induces
feelings
of
relaxation.
In
terms
of
lightness
(i.e.,
color
value),
Hagtvedt
(2014)
noted
that
consumers
view
a
product
as
being
more
durable,
but
less
convenient,
if
the
color
of
its
packaging
is
dark
versus
light.
Both
effects
are
attributable
to
darker
products
being
perceived
as
heavier.
Continuing
on
color
value,
some
research
has
focused
on
the
use
of
black
and
white
(see
Greenleaf
2010;
Kareklas,
Brunel,
and
Coulter
2014;
Lee
et
al.
2014;
Semin
and
Palma
2014).
For
example,
Greenleaf
(2010)
noted
that
black
and
white
can
be
used
to
automatically
evoke
a
sense
of
nostalgia.
On
a
cognitive
level,
Lee
et
al.
(2014)
noted
that
black
and
white
promote
a
high-level
construal
(i.e.,
focus
on
the
abstract,
essen-
tial,
and
defining
features
of
a
stimulus),
while
color
triggers
a
low-level
construal
(i.e.,
focus
on
the
concrete,
idiosyncratic,
and
superficial
features
of
a
stimulus).
Thus,
a
black-and-white
visual
on
packaging
would
enhance
the
perceived
importance
of
the
more
essential
versus
more
accessory
product
features.
Visual
cues
are
probably
the
most
studied
aspect
of
packag-
ing
engagement.
However,
the
research
in
this
topic
is
highly
fragmented
and
context
specific,
and
a
comprehensive
frame-
work
is
still
needed.
Olfactory
Engagement
In
addition
to
the
visual
element,
packaging
can
engage
customers
using
olfactory
cues.
Krishna,
Morrin,
and
Sayin
(2014)
showed
that
printed
food
visuals
that
include
a
scent
increased
individuals’
physiological
(i.e.,
salivation),
evaluative
(i.e.,
desire
to
eat),
and
consumptive
(i.e.,
amount
consumed)
responses.
Thus,
a
scratch-and-sniff
strip—as
long
as
it
repro-
duces
the
actual
smell
of
the
food—can
benefit
ads.
More
interestingly,
Krishna,
Morrin,
and
Sayin
(2014)
showed
how
visuals
can
lead
people
to
“imagine
smells”
(“smellizing”)
and
how
the
effects
of
olfactory
imagery
can
be
similar
to
those
of
the
actual
smell.
Consumers
who
viewed
a
picture
of
chocolate
chip
cookie
and
were
asked
to
imagine
how
it
smelled
salivated
much
more
than
consumers
who
viewed
the
picture
without
being
asked
to
imagine
the
cookie’s
smell.
In
conclusion,
merely
asking
individuals
to
imagine
the
smell
of
the
advertised
food
can
lead
to
them
desiring
the
food
more
(when
a
picture
of
the
food
is
included
in
the
ad).
These
results
from
research
on
adver-
tising
effectiveness
offer
directly
applicable
insights
for
the
use
of
pictures
and
(imagined)
smells
in
packaging
design.
Haptic
Engagement
Research
also
suggests
that
packaging
can
engage
customers
with
its
haptic
components.
Piqueras-Fiszman
and
Spence’s
(2012)
participants
tasted
cookies
from
containers
with
varied
surface
textures
(rough/granular
vs.
smooth).
Results
showed
that
participants
rated
the
food
samples
from
the
rough
con-
tainer
as
being
significantly
crunchier
and
harder
than
those
from
the
smooth
container.
Similarly,
Krishna
and
Morrin
(2008)
showed
that
the
flimsiness
of
a
drink
container
can
negatively
influence
consumers’
ratings
of
its
contents.
The
authors
noted,
however,
that
such
an
effect
has
less
influence
on
people
who
find
inherent
enjoyment
in
touch
(compared
to
people
who
do
not).
This
moderation
is
attributable
to
the
fact
that
people
who
are
more
sensitive
to
touch
develop,
over
time,
an
expertise
in
understanding
when
haptic
cues
are
or
are
not
diagnostic.
Peck
and
Wiggins
(2006)
investigated
the
persuasive
influ-
ence
of
touch
on
objects
that
are
extraneous
to
the
core
consumption
experience.
They
found
that
participants
perceived
a
marketing
message
that
incorporates
a
touch
element
as
being
more
persuasive
than
a
marketing
message
that
does
not,
espe-
cially
when
the
touch
stimulates
positive
sensory
feedback.
For
example,
in
one
study,
the
authors
designed
a
member-
ship
brochure
for
a
Midwestern
children’s
museum.
Half
of
the
brochures
included
a
soft
touch
element
(with
no
useful
product-
related
information),
the
other
half
did
not.
The
authors
found
that
museum
visitors
exposed
to
the
touch
element
viewed
the
brochure
more
favorably
and
were
more
likely
to
purchase
a
museum
membership
than
visitors
who
were
not
exposed
to
the
touch
element.
However,
this
effect
occurred
only
for
peo-
ple
who
inherently
find
enjoyment
in
touch
(measured
using
the
“Need
for
Touch
Scale,”
Peck
and
Childers
2003).
From
a
managerial
point
of
view,
this
research
suggests
that
packaging
producers
should
focus
more
on
experimenting
with
different
texture
experiences.
A
new
and
peculiar
texture
should
attract
more
attention,
invite
more
people
to
touch
the
object,
and,
if
pleasant,
generate
a
higher
haptic
engagement.
However,
even
if