Consumers’ reactions to rectangles have implications for package and product design. In two lab studies and an analysis of field data, the authors find that the ratio of the sides of a rectangular product or package can influence purchase intentions and preferences and is related to marketplace demand. In more exploratory inquiries, the authors also find that the impact of this ratio on consumers depends on the relative seriousness of the context in which the product is used. Furthermore, ratio can also affect product perceptions, and consumers appear to prefer a range of contiguous ratios for different contexts rather than a particular ratio.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertiLeon Batista (1988), Renaissance Architectural Theoretician: On the Art of Building, in Ten Books, Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1485, De re Aedificatoria Florence: Nicolaus Laurentii.)
2.
BaronReuben M., and KennyDavid A. (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual and Statistical Considerations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–82.
3.
BenjafieldJohn (1976), “The ‘Golden Rectangle': Some New Data,”American Journal of Psychology, 89 (December), 737–43.
4.
BenjafieldJohn (1985), “A Review of Recent Research on the Golden Section,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3 (2), 117–34.
5.
BenjafieldJohn, and McFarlaneKeith (1997), “Preference for Proportions as a Function of Context,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15 (2), 143–51.
6.
BlochPeter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,”Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16–29.
7.
BlochPeter H., BrunelFrederic F., and ArnoldTodd J. (2003), “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 551–65.
8.
BoselieFrans (1984), “The Aesthetic Attractivity of the Golden Section,”Psychological Research, 45 (March), 367–75.
9.
ChandonPierre, WansinkBrian, and LaurentGilles (2000), “A Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness,”Journal of Marketing, 64 (October), 65–81.
10.
DeHeerJohan, and NobbeEsther (2000), “Is There a ‘Golden’ Ad? The Effect of the Spatial Layout of Ad Shape and Ad Elements on Preference,” working paper, Department of Economic Psychology, Tilburg University.
11.
FechnerGustav Theodor (1871), Zur Experimentalen Aesthetik.Leipzig, Germany: Hirzl.
12.
FechnerGustav Theodor (1876), Vorschule der Aesthetik.Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf und Hartel.
13.
FechnerGustav Theodor (1997), “Various Attempts to Establish a Basic Form of Beauty: Experimental, Aesthetics, Golden Section, and Square,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15 (2), 115–30. (A translation by Monika Niemann, Julia Quehl, Holger Höge, and Carl von Ossietzky of “Verschiedene Versuche, eine Grundform der Schönheit Aufzustellen. Experimentale Ästhetik, Goldner Schnitt und Quadrat,” Vorschule der Äesthetik, Ch. 14. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtl.)
14.
FitzsimonsGavan, HutchinsonJ. Wesley, WilliamsPatti, AlbaJoseph W., ChartrandTanya, HuberJoel, KardesFrank, MenonGeeta, RaghubirPriya, RussoJ. Edward, ShivBaba, and TavassoliNader (2002), “Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer Choice,”Marketing Letters, 13 (August), 269–79.
15.
FolkesValerie S., and MattaShashi (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.
16.
GhykaMatila (1977), The Geometry of Art and Life.New York: Dover Publications.
17.
GodkewitschM. (1974), “The ‘Golden Section': An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Measure of Preference,”American Journal of Psychology, 87 (1-2), 269–77.
18.
GreenChristopher D. (1995), “All That Glitters: A Review of Psychological Research on the Aesthetics of the Golden Section,”Perception, 24 (8), 937–68.
19.
HekkertPaul C., LiekeE. Peper, and van WieringenPiet C.W., (1994), “The Effect of Verbal Instruction and Artistic Background on the Aesthetic Judgment of Rectangles,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12 (2), 185–203.
20.
Herz-FischlerRoger (1987), The Mathematical History of the Golden Number.New York: Dover Publications.
21.
HögeHolger (1995), “Fechner's Experimental Aesthetics and the Golden Section Hypothesis Today,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13 (2), 131–48.
22.
HögeHolger (1997), “The Golden Section Hypothesis: Its Last Funeral,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15 (2), 233–55.
23.
HolbrookMorris B. (1986), “Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (December), 337–47.
24.
HuntleyH. E. (1970), The Divine Proportion: A Study in Mathematical Beauty.New York: Dover Publications.
25.
KoneniVladimir J. (1997), “The Vase on the Mantelpiece: The Golden Section in Context,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15 (2), 177–207.
26.
KriderRobert E., RaghubirPriya, and KrishnaAradhna (2001), “Pizzas: π or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons,”Marketing Science, 20 (4), 405–425.
LawlorRobert (1982), Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and Practice.London: Thames & Hudson.
29.
LivioMario (2002), The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number.New York: Broadway Books/Random House.
30.
McManusI. C. (1980), “The Aesthetics of Simple Figures,”British Journal of Psychology, 71 (November), 505–524.
31.
McManusI. C., and WeatherbyP. (1997), “The Golden Section and the Aesthetics of Form and Composition: A Cognitive Model,”Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15 (2), 209–232.
32.
MillerCyndee (1994), “The Shape of Things: Beverages Sport New Packaging to Stand Out from Crowd,”Marketing News, 28 (17), 1–2.
33.
OhtaHirohiko (1999), “Preferences in Quadrangles Reconsidered,”Perception, 28 (4), 505–517.
34.
PiehlJochen (1976), “The Golden Section: An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Demand Characteristics,”Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43 (1), 47–50.
35.
PiehlJochen (1978), “The Golden Section: The ‘True’ Ratio?”Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46 (1), 831–34.
36.
PlugC. (1976), “The Psychophysics of Form: Scaling the Perceived Shape of Plane Figures,”South African Journal of Psychology, 6, 9–17.
37.
PlugC. (1980), “The Golden Section Hypothesis,”American Journal of Psychology, 93 (3), 467–87.
38.
PrinceGreg W. (1994), “The Contour: A Packaging Vision Seen Through Coke-Bottle Lenses,”Beverage World, (May 31), 1, 6.
39.
RaghubirPriya, and KrishnaA. (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26.
ThorndikeEdward Lee (1917), “Individual Differences in Judgements of the Beauty of Simple Forms,”Psychological Review, 24, 147–53.
44.
WansinkBrian, and van IttersumKoert (2003), “Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption Volume,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 455–63.
45.
YangSha, and RaghubirPriya (2005), “Can Bottles Speak Volumes? The Effect of Package Shape on How Much to Buy,”Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 269–81.
