How Packaging Characteristics Change the Perception of Product Net Weight

Abstract

Packaging is an interface that conveys different messages about contained products through packaging characteristics. The weight of a product is one of these messages which has implications on consumers at the points of purchase and usage. This paper investigates the effect of packaging characteristics on the perceived weight of products. Specifically, products contained in rigid/non-rigid and single/multi-pack packages are tested. Tomato sauce and milk products are tested with five packages each with 39 subjects. The results revealed that multi-packs are perceived to have the same or heavier net-weight. Rigid packages are perceived to have either same or heavier content than non-rigid packages. Milk and tomato sauce with non-rigid multi-packs (NM) were perceived to have similar net weight with rigid single-packs (RS), while non-rigid single-packs(NS) were perceived to contain less product than non-rigid multi-packs (NM) and rigid single-packs (NM = RS>NS). Proper determinations of packaging characteristics can attain desired consumers purchasing and usage behavior.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloch

P. H.

(1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252116

Buckingham

Cant

J. S.

Goodale

M. A.

(2009). Living in a material world: how visual cues to material properties affect the way that we lift objects and perceive their weight. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102(6), 3111–8. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00515.2009

Buckingham

Ranger

N. S.

Goodale

M. a.

(2011). The material-weight illusion induced by expectations alone. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0007-4

Charpentier

(1891). Analyse experimentale: De quelques elements de la sensation de poids [Experimental study of some aspects of weight perception].

Deng

Kahn

B. E.

(2009). Is Your Product on the Right Side? The “Location Effect” on Perceived Product Heaviness and Package Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.6.725

Dickson

P. R.

Sawyer

A. G.

(1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251815

Folkes

Matta

(2004). The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1086/422117

Folkes

V. S.

Martin

I. M.

Gupta

(1993). When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 467. https://doi.org/10.1086/209362

Garber

L. L.

Hyatt

E. M.

Boya

Ü. Ö.

(2008). Does Visual Package Clutter Obscure the Communicability of Food Package Shape? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045444080198630620

10.

Garber

L. L.

Hyatt

E. M.

Boya

Ü. Ö.

(2009). The Effect of Package Shape on Apparent Volume: An Exploratory Study with Implications for Package Design. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170302

11.

Hurley

R. A.

Galvarino

Thackston

Ouzts

Pham

(2013). The Effect of Modifying Structure to Display Product Versus Graphical Representation on Packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 26(8), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.1996

12.

Kesler

(1986). Successful packages turn medium into message. Advertising Age, S-2.

13.

Mumani

Stone

R.T.

“State of the Art of User-Packaging Interaction (UPI)”. Packaging Technology and Science journal, (accepted), 2017.

14.

Mumani

Stone

R.T

Wang

“The Effect of Scanning Technology And UPC Placement on Supermarket Self-Checkout”. Packaging Technology and Science journal (accepted), 2017.

15.

Peters

M. A. K.

Balzer

Shams

(2015). Smaller = denser, and the brain knows it: Natural statistics of object density shape weight expectations. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119794

16.

Prince

G. W.

(1994). The contour A packaging vision seen through Coke-bottle lenses. Beverage World Periscope Edition.

17.

Raghubir

Greenleaf

E. a.

(2006). Ratios in Proportion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be? Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.2.95

18.

Raghubir

Krishna

(1999). Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 313. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152079

19.

Seashore

C. E.

(1899). Some psychological statistics II. The material weight illusion. University of Iowa Studies in Psychology, 2, 36-46.

20.

Stone

R.T.

Schnieders

Wei

“The Impact of Inspectors Cognitive Style on Performance in Various Visual Inspection Display Tasks” Human Factors and Ergonomics Societies 60th Annual Conference, Washington DC. September 19-23, 2016.

21.

Wansink

(1996). Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume? Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251838

22.

Wind

A. E.

Takken

Helders

P. J. M.

Engelbert

R. H. H.

(2010). Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults? European Journal of Pediatrics, 169(3), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-009-1010-4

23.

Yang

Raghubir

(2005). Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on how much to buy. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.11.003