Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers assessments
S.J. Westerman , E.J. Sutherland, P.H. Gardner, N. Baig, C. Critchley, C. Hickey, S. Mehigan, A. Solway, Z. Zervos
Psychology of Design Group, Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
On-package graphics have the potential to inuence consumers product-related attitudes and behaviours. In the reported study graphics designs on the labels of two products (water and vodka) were manipulated with respect to shape angularity, orientation, and leftright alignment. Participants evaluations indicated a preference for rounded shapes that could not be accounted for by differences in design typicality; and preference for upward shape orientation. An interaction between these response variables for ratings of purchase likelihood suggested that congruence between graphical and product form (droplet shape) may be advantageous. Effects of alignment were not consistent with existing theories, with right-aligned graphics being preferred. An explanation that distinguishes processing efciency and hemispheric efciency is proposed. Finally, as predicted, a halo effect was apparent, such that effects of aesthetic manipulations extended to ratings of product attributes that were not experienced. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 6 January 2012 Received in revised form 22 May 2012 Accepted 27 May 2012 Available online 13 June 2012 Keywords: Packaging design Consumer assessments

1. Introduction Product packaging presents an important opportunity for manufacturers and retailers to communicate with the consumer, both at the point of sale (Rettie & Brewer, 2000; Silayoi & Speece, 2007; Simms & Trott, 2010) and through experience of a product over time (Underwood, 2003). Packaging design provides product category information, positioning a product within a category (Ampuero & Vila, 2006), attracting attention to a product (Schoormans & Robben, 1997; Creusen & Schoormans, 2005), and communicating information regarding brand identity and brand values (see Bloch, 1995; Schoormans, Eenhuizen-van den Berge, van de Laar, & van den Berg-Weitzel, 2010; Snelders & Schoormans, 2004; Underwood, 2003; van den Berg-Weitzel & Van de Laar, 2003). Given that aesthetic preferences relating to packaging design inuence consumers product attitudes and purchase decisions (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005), and that aesthetic judgements can be probabilistically related to simple design features, such as shape and colour (Hekkert & Leder, 2008; Lindell & Mueller, 2011; but see also Orth & Malkewitz, 2008), it would follow that an understanding of these associations bears on the issue of actionability of design (see e.g., Snelders & Schoormans, 2004); i.e., the extent to which it is possible to create designs that, on balance of probabil-

ity, will elicit particular consumer responses. Therefore, here we examine the possibility that associations can be identied between specic design features and consumers product preferences. Of importance, in this regard, is the distinction between structural and graphical aspects of packaging (Schoormans et al., 2010; Underwood, 2003). Graphical designs provide a useful applied research focus in that they are a relatively malleable design feature, that does not have the practical constraints that apply to packaging structure, e.g., with regard to the process of manufacture (see e.g., Carbon, 2010), storage, and/or transportation. In the reported experiment we examine the effects of graphics shape angularity (angular versus rounded), orientation (upwards versus downwards) and alignment (left versus right) on consumers assessments of two products (water and vodka). In the following sections we explain the theoretical bases for each these manipulations, in turn, and make experimental predictions. 1.1. Shape of graphics Bar and Neta (2006, 2007) suggest there is a general tendency towards preference for rounded as opposed to angular contoured objects. In their studies, participants were required to make likedislike judgments in response to images of a wide range of semantically neutral objects. Given that presentation of angular contours resulted in increased activation of the amygdala, Bar and Neta (2007) concluded that preference was based on a fear response. More recently, Leder, Tinio, and Bar (2011) replicated this average

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.j.westerman@leeds.ac.uk (S.J. Westerman). 0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.007

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

preference with images of objects of positive and neutral, but not negative, intrinsic emotional valence. When considering implications for the design of consumer products, consistent with these ndings, Leder and Carbon (2005) report a preference for rounded car interiors; Carbon (2010) reports a preference for rounded car exteriors; and Westerman et al. (in press) found that participants tended to prefer rounded contours for the packaging of a chocolate product and for water and bleach bottles. Of particular relevance for current purposes, in this latter study preferences extended to the shapes of on-packaging graphics. However, the situation is more complex than these outcomes suggest as there are exceptions to this pattern and caveats that apply. For example, Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, and Galetzka (2011) found that participants evaluated angular shaped yoghurt pots more positively than a rounded alternative. This may serve to illustrate, when considering the design of consumer products, the importance of contextual factors as determinants of preference (see e.g., Bloch, 1995). Here we briey consider factors relating to the current marketplace, changing fashions, and the consumer. Effects of market context are consistent with the fact that evaluations in Becker et al.s study combined participants ratings of the items: (i) superior product; (ii) eye catching; and, (iii) high quality. So, in addition to preference, the extent to which a product is differentiated from its competitors may have been reected (see also e.g., Schoormans & Robben, 1997). An example of the importance of temporal context is provided by Carbon (2010) who presents evidence relating to car designs suggesting that trends in shape preference (angular versus rounded) vary over time. Design shape preferences may also be predictably related to consumer context. For example, Zhang, Feick, and Price (2006) examined effects of inducing independent versus interdependent self-construal (they relate this to individualistic versus collectivist cultural perspectives) and public versus private consumption. Independent attitudes were associated with greater preference for angular, as opposed to rounded, picture frames and company logos (studies 2 and 3, respectively) although this effect was substantially attenuated when participants thought their responses would be subject to public scrutiny. H1. The experiment reported here examined further the generality of shape preference and included a manipulation of angularity in the context of the graphical designs applied to food packaging (water and vodka bottles). Participants were presented with designs (bottle labels) that included either rounded or angular triangular shaped graphical designs (see Fig. 1). Consistent with an underlying general preference for rounded shapes (Bar & Neta, 2006), it was predicted that participants would prefer rounded rather than angular versions. 1.2. Orientation of graphical shapes It has been suggested that the orientation of shapes can be an important factor determining preference. Two theoretical positions can be identied in support. First, Berlyne (1960) proposed that designs that appear top-heavy or in a relatively more precarious state of balance will be less preferred (see p. 244). An alternative theoretical perspective is provided by a series of studies conducted by Aronoff and colleagues (Aronoff, Barclay, & Stevenson, 1988; Aronoff, Woike, & Hayam, 1992; Larson, Aronoff, & Stearns, 2007; Larson, Aronoff, Sarinopoulous, & Zhu, 2009) that was concerned with the facial and bodily communication of emotion. They argued for the adaptive importance of rapid threat detection based on simple visual forms. As part of their investigations they asked participants to assess simple line drawings that varied in angularity and orientation (upward- versus downward-pointing). They found that downward-pointing angular, diagonal lines resembling a V seemed to be particularly representative of facial displays of threat

Fig. 1. Examples of stimuli. The graphics for Bottle A are rounded, downward oriented, and left-aligned. The graphics for Bottle B are angular, upward oriented, and right aligned. Note: the content of the labels was not intended to imply association with or identify any specic product, only to convey that the designs were basic (simple) in form.

(Aronoff et al., 1992; Aronoff et al., 1988) and, using a speeded search paradigm, that downward Vs and downward pointing triangles tended to capture attention and were detected more quickly than upward Vs/triangles or circles (Larson et al., 2007). Their results are consistent with those of Bar and Neta (2006, 2007) insofar as angularity of shape was associated with negative emotion and also in that increased amygdala response was found to be associated with the perception of downward pointing triangles (Larson et al., 2009). H2. In the reported study the orientation of on-package graphics (upwards- versus downward-pointing) was manipulated in factorial combination with shape (rounded versus angular). It was predicted that designs that combine angular graphics and downward orientation would be particularly disliked.

1.3. Product type An important issue for investigations of this type is the extent to which consumers preferences for specic design features interact with product type. This could arise as a result of associations between the packaging design and the characteristics of the product contained within. Of relevance to this, Demirbilek and Sener (2003; see also Creusen & Schoormans, 2005) highlight the inuence that symbolic meaning, as conveyed by product design, has on the consumers affective response, and Underwood (2003) considers the potential for shared symbolic meaning in the relationship between packaging and product. A relevant recent strand of research concerns consumers perceptions of cross-modality congruence/incongruence with regard to combinations of packaging design features (e.g., shape, colour) and product features (e.g., taste) (see Spence, 2012, for review). Product designs having cross-modal correspondence are thought to be preferred (Schifferstein and Spence, 2008), although further research is required (Spence, 2012). When considering effects of design shapes from this perspective, in the study of Becker et al. (2011), mentioned above, preferred angular containers were regarded as more potent and,

10

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

for participants identied as being high in sensitivity to design (see Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003) this was associated with the product having stronger taste. Similarly, Ngo, Piqueras-Fiszman, and Spence (2012) reported that angular shapes (used in the context of packaging label designs) tended to be associated with sparkling water, whereas rounded shapes were associated with still water. This may be attributed to congruent effects of taste sensations (see Spence, 2012). As a nal example, in a study of business logo design, Fang and Mowen (2005, extended abstract) report that rounded logos were preferred if the intended product was a vase, but angular logos were preferred in the case of buildings (i.e., product-shape congruence). In the reported experiment we tested effects of manipulations of graphical designs on two products: vodka and water. Although these products share the same physical form (see above), there were a number of advantages associated with their selection, including: (i) experimental control of container shape (the same bottle design was used for both); (ii) experimental control of product form (both were liquids); (iii) product colour was not a confounding variable (see Ngo et al., 2012); (iv) packaging design may be particularly important for low involvement nondurable products (Underwood, 2003); and, (v) product function/experience is markedly different. H3. On the basis that an anticipated sharper taste will be associated with sharper shapes and that cross-modality congruence is preferred, it was predicted that angular shapes would be more preferred (less disliked) on the vodka bottle. (This is predicated on the comparison being with still, rather than sparkling, water although this was not specied cf. Ngo et al., 2012.) In addition, it is also possible that these products (water and vodka) differ in perceived threat and that this will be a key construct (see H2). If this is so, we could expect that designs that convey threat (particularly downward-oriented triangles) will be more incongruent with the water product and will therefore produce the largest between-product differences. 1.4. Leftright alignment of text and graphics When considering the design of product labels, graphics are typically combined with text. Given evidence of differences in cognitive processing and preference depending on leftright location of text-graphics within the visual eld, this is another potentially inuential design factor. A processing efciency hypothesis has been advanced in this regard. The bases for this being that: (i) stimuli from each side of the visual eld are processed by the contra-lateral brain hemisphere; and, (ii) the left hemisphere is biased towards verbal processing and the right hemisphere is biased towards visuo-spatial processing at least in dextrals (see e.g., Hansen, 1981; Hellige, 1990, 1993). Differences in processing efciency can be extended to differences in preference by referring to effects on processing uency (see Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004, for a detailed account of processing uency and aesthetic perception). In the context of packaging designs, Rettie and Brewer (2000) report evidence that is consistent with this. Recall of briey presented (500 ms) material (verbal and visual) was better when text was presented on the right and graphics on the left of the package. Similarly, when examining the design of print advertising, Janiszewski (1990) found greater preference for brand names that were on the right of verbal material and left of visual material. Predicated on the verbal/visual material rather than the brand name being the focus of attention, this would also be consistent with the processing efciency hypothesis. It is important to note there are a number of methodological considerations with regard to studies of visual hemi-eld effects (see Sergent & Hellige, 1986). For example, particularly with regard

to applied settings, determining the extent to which information has been delivered to, and was processed by a single intended hemisphere is problematic. In unconstrained viewing conditions (with regard to stimulus duration and gaze direction) the assumption is that effects are produced because viewing is predominantly in a given direction (see e.g., Beaumont, 1985). Other, more general, issues of concern include the extent to which the hemispheres interact when processing information (Hansen, 1981) and differences in the nature of the information provided by peripheral and foveal vision (Beaumont, 1985). H4. Text and graphical components were included on the product labels used in this study. It was predicted that designs that had the graphics component to the right of the text component would be preferred, as this alignment would encourage hemisphere appropriate processing.

1.5. Halo effect The presence of a halo effect has been discussed in the context of consumers appraisals of product designs (Hassenzahl, 2004; Leuthesser, Kohli, & Harich, 1995). This may be manifest in a tendency for assessments of different product attributes and product-related attitudes to be positively correlated. Aesthetic judgements may be particularly potent in this regard, given that our rst perceptions of objects, people, products, music, and so on, will typically be of the properties on which aesthetic judgements are based. Conrmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) will then tend to colour subsequent assessments, to make them consonant with our rst impressions. A number of studies have demonstrated the potency of rst impressions in the context of design (e.g., Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006), and evidence in support of a halo effect has also been provided for assessments of practicality/usability (Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar, 2000) and taste (Becker et al., 2011). Of course, in an experimental context a halo effect may arise because participants feel a conscious need to be able to rationalise their assessments but it could also be more generic and reect less conscious processing and be concerned with the avoidance of unpleasant affective states that result from cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). To the extent that the latter applies, halo effects, based on assessments of aesthetics, can be expected to lead to important consumer-related outcomes, such as inuencing purchase likelihood. H5. It was predicted that a halo effect would lead to manipulations of product design inuencing a range of assessed variables, including those for which participants did not have direct experience (e.g., whether the products would be considered to be nice tasting or refreshing).

2. Method 2.1. Participants One hundred and sixteen participants were recruited from the students of the University of Leeds (49 females). The average age of the sample was 22.12 years (sd = 4.23). Participants were screened to make sure they bought and consumed alcohol (to ensure the vodka condition was ecologically valid). Participants cultural background was not recorded however, census data indicate that with regard to ethnicity the student population of the university is predominantly classied as white-British/EU and of either no religion or Christian. Participants were randomly allocated to the water or vodka conditions (see below). Sixty participants completed the vodka condition.

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

11

2.2. Design Participants rated packaging designs on nine items (described below). These were the dependent variables. Given the number of product design alternatives that each participant had to assess (8), the fact that the differences between them were relatively subtle, and that there was no nancial incentive for participation, the number of items (9) was kept to a minimum to avoid rater fatigue and unthinking responses. (Each participant provided 72 ratings.) A mixed 2 (product type: vodka versus water) 2 (graphics shape: angular versus rounded) 2 (graphics orientation: upwards versus downwards) 2 (graphics alignment: left versus right) design was used to examine the effects of experimental manipulations of label designs with product type being a between-subjects variable and each manipulation of graphics being a within-subjects variable. In addition, a regression analysis was used to examine the extent to which purchase likelihood was predicted by other design assessments. 2.3. Materials A generic bottle design one that was considered plausible as a container for either water or vodka was selected for this experiment. This had the advantages of: (i) controlling bottle shape across product conditions; and, (ii) minimising possible brand associations. A label was applied displaying a textual product description (Vodka or Water), the word Basics (this was thought to be congruent with, and provide some explanation for the simple nature of the label design), and a graphic design comprising ve shapes, identical in form but of varying sizes. Shapes were essentially triangular in form allowing orientation to be manipulated but they varied in degree of angularity according to the experimental condition. The bottle was lled with water (in both product conditions). In total there were sixteen label alternatives consistent with a factorial combination of the four independent variables. Digital images were taken of each of the product designs for presentation to participants (see Fig. 1 for examples). The images used were monochrome to control for possible product associations with colour (see e.g., Ngo et al., 2012). The on-screen dimensions of the bottle were approximately 35 125 mm, with the label being 25 35 mm (the brand name occupied approximately 20 mm and the graphics approximately 10 mm width). Viewing distance was approximately 55 cm. This meant that the label subtended a horizontal viewing angle of approximately 3.6. The use of digital images, as opposed to real bottles, allowed greater control over presentation (e.g., viewing angle) and facilitated sequencing of presentations. Participants were asked to rate each design on each of the following items using a 5-point Likert scale with Denitely not and Denitely as the anchors: 1. I would purchase this product. This item was included on the basis that purchase intention is an important applied outcome. 2. This design is attention grabbing. This item was included because the functional value of packaging design extends beyond engendering consumer preference. Getting a product noticed can also be an important attribute and dissociations have been noted between attention and preference (Schoormans & Robben, 1997; Valenzuela & Raghubir, 2009). Of course, this item assumes that the relevant experience is accessible via introspection. We return to this issue in the discussion. 3. This design is typical for this product. This item provided a manipulation check and was included because typicality can be an important determinant of preference (see e.g., Winkielman, Halberstadt, Fazendeiro, & Catty, 2006).

1 Rounded Angular

Fig. 2. The interaction between contour and orientation for purchase likelihood.

1 Vodka Water

Fig. 3. The interaction between product type and orientation for attention grabbing.

4. This design is visually appealing. This item relates to participants assessments of visual aesthetics. 5. This design would be practical. This item was included to enable consideration of possible halo effects (Tractinsky et al., 2000), but also may reect participants assessments of information processing demands. 6. I think this product would be nice tasting. This item was included to test the halo effect (see e.g., Becker et al., 2011). 7. I think this product would taste refreshing. This item facilitates assessment of halo effects. However, it was also thought to differentiate the products (higher rating for the water product) and so was included as a useful manipulation check. 8. I nd this design pleasing. This item relates to the core affective state of the individual (Russell, 2003) and was included to index a positive affective state (c.f. Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

12

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

Table 2 Regression of ratings of purchase intention onto ratings for other items. Beta Attention Typical Appealing Practical Nice tasting Refreshing Pleasing Annoying 0.089 0.159 0.173 0.174 0.005 0.061 0.196 0.168 t 2.513 5.415 4.259 5.771 0.132 1.652 4.693 6.621 P 0.012 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s n.s <.001 <.001

R2 = 0.47, F(8, 919) = 101.019, p < .001.

1 Vodka Water

Fig. 4. Interaction between product type and contour for ratings of typicality.

9. I nd this design annoying. This item was included to reect a negative affective state. 2.4. Procedure Participants were tested individually, with eight product designs (those for either water or vodka) being computer-presented in a random sequence. They were asked to assess each design on the nine items listed above that were presented in a consistent sequence (as listed above). Responses were self-paced. After completing the ratings for each design participants were offered the opportunity to take a short break (on-screen message) to reduce any effects of fatigue/boredom. Data were gathered in accordance with the ethics guidelines of the British Psychological Society. 3. Results Inter-item correlations (see Table 1) and a regression analysis (see Table 2) were calculated to enable consideration of the independence of the questionnaire items. These analyses were conducted by treating each participants ratings for a design as a case (n = 928). The regression analysis involved regressing participants ratings of purchase likelihood onto all other assessments. Design manipulations were not included (but are analysed separately, see below). Generally inter-item correlations were fairly moderate (and none greater than 0.76), suggesting that the items were indices

of different aspects of participants assessments of the product designs. Regression diagnostics for multicollinearity indicated that VIFs were all 63, (mean = 2.14), and tolerances were all P0.33. This suggests that multicollinearity was not problematic (see Field, 2005). This was also supported by the results of the regression equations, for which all items, with the exception of taste and refreshing contributed unique variance to the prediction of purchase likelihood. Nevertheless, where strong correlations were apparent consideration was given to aggregating item scores to provide an index of a single underlying construct. Item 1 (purchase likelihood) and item 2 (attention grabbing) were fairly strongly correlated. However, in previous research these have been found to be differentially related to design constructs (Schoormans & Robben, 1997). Moreover, in the regression equation attention grabbing was not a strong predictor of purchase likelihood. Item 4 (I think this design is appealing) and item 8 (I think this design is pleasing) were fairly strongly correlated. However, these were considered somewhat theoretically distinct on the basis that the former relates more directly to notions of engagement and interest (OBrien & Toms, 2010) whereas the later provides a marker for a dimension of core affective state (Russell, 2003). Item 6 (I think this product would be nice tasting) and item 7 (I think this product would be refreshing) were strongly correlated. However, item 7 was included with specic reference to the water product to provide a manipulation check so these were not aggregated. Therefore, for each item, data were analysed using a 2 (shape) 2 (orientation) 2 (alignment) 2 (product type) ANOVA. The following sections present these sequentially. For the sake of brevity, only signicant results are presented (p < .05). 3.1. Item 1: I would purchase this product There was a signicant main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 50.99, p < .001, such that participants reported being more likely to purchase products with the rounded graphic design (mean = 3.11, s.d. = 0.96) than the angular design (mean = 2.52, s.d. = 0.94). There was also a signicant effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 15.47, p < .001, such that participants were more likely to purchase the

Table 1 Item correlation matrix. Purchase Purchase Attention Typical Appealing Practical Nice tasting Refreshing Pleasing Annoying Note: All ps 6 0.001. 0.47 0.40 0.54 0.44 0.37 0.36 0.57 0.34 Attention Typical Appealing Practical Nice tasting Refreshing Pleasing

0.20 0.69 0.21 0.49 0.40 0.67 0.18

0.24 0.56 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.11

0.28 0.53 0.48 0.76 0.23

0.21 0.23 0.34 0.17

0.75 0.54 0.11

0.49 0.11

0.31

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

13

upward graphics (mean = 2.94, s.d. = 0.90) than the downward graphics (mean = 2.69, s.d. = 0.90). Finally, there was a signicant interaction between contour and orientation, F(1,114) = 4.51, p < .05, such that effects of orientation were relatively small when the angular graphic was used, but larger when the rounded graphics was used (see Fig. 2). 3.2. Item 2: This design is attention grabbing There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 34.55, p < .001, such that the curved design was rated as more attention grabbing (mean = 2.54, s.d. = 1.04) than the angular design (mean = 2.06, s.d. = 0.68). There was also a main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 12.41, p = 0.001, such that upward oriented shapes were regarded as more attention grabbing (mean = 2.41, s.d. = 0.88) than downward oriented shapes (mean = 2.20, s.d. = 0.77). There was a significant interaction between orientation and product, F(1,114) = 4.32, p < .05, such that the effect of orientation was larger for the vodka than for the water (see Fig. 3). Finally, there was a signicant 4-way interaction between contour, orientation, alignment, and product, F(1,114) = 5.65, p < .05. However, this was not readily interpretable. 3.3. Item 3: This design is typical for this product There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 13.05, p < .001, such that the rounded designs were regarded as more typical (mean = 3.10, s.d. = 0.96) than the angular designs (mean = 2.86, s.d. = 0.90). There was also an interaction between contour and product, F(1,114) = 4.81, p < .05, such that effects of contour were much more pronounced for water than for vodka (see Fig. 4). Finally, there was a main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 4.64, p < .05, such that the upward oriented designs were considered more typical (mean = 3.03, s.d. = 0.88) than the downward oriented designs (mean = 2.92, s.d. = 0.93). 3.4. Item 4: This design is appealing There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 41,10, p < .001, such that rounded graphics were rated as more appealing (mean = 2.64, s.d. = 1.04) than angular graphics (mean = 2.03, s.d. = 0.69) (see Fig. 5). There was a main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 18.35, p < .001, such that upward oriented graphics were

rated as more appealing (mean = 2.48, s.d. = 0.87) than downward oriented graphics (2.20, s.d. = 0.71). There also was a main effect of alignment, F(1,114) = 5.75, P < .05, such that graphics on the right were rated as more appealing (mean = 2.41, s.d. = 0.75) than graphics on the left (mean = 2.27, s.d. = 0.80). Finally, there was a significant interaction between contour, alignment and product, F(1,114) = 4.52, p < .05, such that the advantage of right versus left graphics alignment was greater for the rounded water product, but greater for the angular vodka product (see Fig. 5). 3.5. Item 5: This design would be practical There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 17.59, p < .001, such that designs with rounded graphics (mean = 3.28, s.d. = 0.83) were considered more practical than designs with angular graphics (mean = 3.00, s.d. = 0.91). There was also a main effect of alignment, F(1,114) = 3.97, p < .05, such that designs with the graphics on the right were considered more practical (mean = 3.20, s.d. = 0.80) than designs with the graphics on the left (mean = 3.08, s.d. = 0.90). 3.6. Item 6: I think this product would be nice tasting There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 26.53, p < .001, such that participants thought products with the rounded contour graphics would be nicer tasting (mean = 2.63, s.d. = 1.03) than products with the angular graphics (mean = 2.23, s.d. = 0.83). There was also a main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 5.65, p < .05, such that participants thought that products with upward oriented graphics would taste nicer (mean = 2.50, s.d. = 0.92) than products with downward oriented graphics (mean = 2.37, s.d. = 0.85). Finally, there was a main effect of product type, F(1,114) = 35.60, p < .001, such that participants thought the water would be nicer tasting (mean = 2.85, s.d. = 0.63) than the vodka (mean = 2.04, s.d. = 0.82). 3.7. Item 7: I think this product would taste refreshing There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 45.14, p < .001, such that participants thought products with the round contour graphics (mean = 2.70, s.d. = 1.05) would be more refreshing than products with the angular contour graphics (mean = 2.24, s.d. = 0.88). There was also a main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 5.42, p < .05, such that participants thought that products with the upward oriented graphics would taste more refreshing (mean = 2.54, s.d. = 0.98) than products with the downward oriented graphics (mean = 2.40, s.d. = 0.92). Finally, there was a main effect of product type, F(1,114) = 42.56, p < .001, such that participants thought that the water (mean = 2.95, s.d. = 0.75) would be more refreshing than the vodka (mean = 2.02, s.d. = 0.79). 3.8. Item 8: I nd this design pleasing

1 Vodka Water

Fig. 5. Interaction between product type, contour and alignment for appeal.

There was a signicant main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 37.99, p < .001, such that participants thought that the rounded graphics was a more pleasing design (mean = 2.69, s.d. = 0.98) than the angular graphics (mean = 2.13, s.d. = 0.65). There was also a significant main effect of orientation, F(1,114) = 10.01, p < .01, such that participants thought that the upward oriented graphics were more pleasing (mean = 2.51, s.d. = 0.81) than the downward oriented graphics (mean = 2.30, s.d. = 0.70). Finally, there was a main effect of alignment, F(1,114) = 5.08, p < .05, such that participants thought the designs with the graphics on the right were more pleasing (mean = 2.47, s.d. = 0.73) than the designs with the graphics on the left (mean = 2.35, s.d. = 0.71).

14

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

3.9. Item 9: I nd this design annoying There was a main effect of contour, F(1,114) = 9.56, p < .01, such that participants found the angular contoured designs more annoying (mean = 2.72, s.d. = 0.92) than the round contoured designs (mean = 2.45, s.d. = 0.95). There was also a main effect of alignment, F(1,114) = 4.64, p < .05, such that participants found the designs with the graphics on the left more annoying (mean = 2.66, s.d. = 0.91) than designs with graphics on the right (mean = 2.52, s.d. = 0.85). 3.10. Separate analyses of the Vodka condition As effects of typicality were similar to those for preference measures it could be argued that typicality was a causal factor. However, the interaction between angularity and product type indicated that there was little effect (non signicant) of angularity on typicality for the vodka condition. Therefore, by analysing the vodka condition separately we can examine effects of the angularity manipulation in circumstances where typicality was not inuential. The pattern of results from these reduced analyses was similar to that for the full analyses, reported above. For the sake of brevity we only report outcomes that differed in whether they were, or were not, signicant. As indicated by the interactive effect, mentioned above, there was no signicant main effect of angularity on ratings of typicality, F(1,59) = 1.02. Also, the effect of angularity on ratings of annoyance were also not signicant, F(1,59) = 1.58. All other previously significant effects of angularity remained signicant. 4. Discussion

appears consistent with Berlynes (1960) theory that designs that appear to be in a better state of equilibrium will be preferred. There was no support for the hypothesis that, because of association with communication of threat, the combination of angularity and downward orientation would be least preferred (Aronoff et al., 1988, 1992; Larson et al., 2007). The only signicant interaction between contour and orientation was for ratings of purchase likelihood. The nature of this was such that there was an advantage of upward orientation in the rounded condition but little effect of orientation in the angular condition. Of course, it might be argued that the combination of rounded and upward-oriented graphic properties was seen as communicating the least threat and was preferred for this reason. However, an alternative post hoc explanation is that this was produced by other inuential associative processing effects. For example, it may be that upward-oriented rounded triangular shapes that were used in this study resemble a drop of liquid and that this association with the characteristics of the product produces increased preference (cf. Fang & Mowen, 2005; Spence, 2012; Underwood, 2003). However, we should be cautious when making inferences based on this interaction, given that it was not apparent for other measures of preference. Further research would be needed to examine this possibility more directly. It is of note that there was no effect of orientation on ratings of typicality. This suggests that preference for upward orientation is not determined by familiarity or ease of categorisation (cf., Winkielman et al., 2006). However, if the post hoc explanation of the result for purchase likelihood is correct, this would also seem to imply that a droplet shape is not typically used on current products of this type (although perhaps it should be!). 4.3. H3: Effects of product type

The reported experiment examined the effects of manipulating graphical designs in the context of consumers appraisals of the design of product packaging. A factorial combination of shape (rounded versus angular), orientation (upward versus downward), alignment (graphics left versus graphics right), and product type (water versus vodka) was tested for each of nine design assessments. Correlation and regression analyses were also conducted to examine the interrelationships between items of assessment. 4.1. H1: Effects of shape As predicted, results indicated a mean preference for rounded graphics (greater purchase likelihood, more appealing, more pleasing and less annoying). This is consistent with a number of previous studies relating to the design of consumer products (Carbon, 2010; Leder & Carbon, 2005; Westerman et al., in press) and also with the more general results of Bar and Neta (2006, 2007). However, interpreting this outcome was complicated by similar effects of shape on ratings of typicality. A possible explanation would be that preference was determined by typicality (Winkielman et al., 2006). Further analyses of the data enabled these constructs to be disentangled. An interaction between shape and product type indicated that the effects of shape on ratings of typicality were only present for the water product (see Fig. 4). Therefore by isolating data from the vodka product condition it was possible to examine the effects of graphics shape in the absence of effects of typicality. With the exception of the result for the item annoying the significant preference for the rounded designs remained suggesting that a preference for rounded shapes was independent of assessments of typicality. 4.2. H2: Effects of orientation Upward oriented graphics were generally preferred (greater purchase intention, more appealing, and more pleasing). This

When considering effects of the manipulation of product type, participants rated water as better tasting and more refreshing than vodka. This is of note because it indicates that the manipulation of product inuenced participants assessments of the designs (it was not ignored). However, the results provided limited, if any, support for the experimental hypothesis that designs that employ shapes and orientations that convey sharper taste (angular designs) or threat (particularly downward-pointing triangles) would be more incongruent with the water product and would therefore produce stronger negative reactions in this experimental condition. There was an interaction between orientation and product type for ratings of attention grabbing (see Fig. 3). Downward-oriented graphics were less attention grabbing for vodka than for water, but there was little effect of product type on ratings for upward-oriented graphics. This might suggest that downward-oriented graphics are more strongly associated with vodka products. However, the results suggest that typicality was not the basis for this. For ratings of typicality there was an interaction between product type and angularity (as mentioned above), such that angular designs were rated as less typical for water than for vodka, but there was little difference between products for rounded designs (see Fig. 4). Finally there was a three-way interaction between angularity, alignment, and product type for ratings of appeal. There seem to be no strong theoretical grounds for relating this to taste or threat perception. Overall, this suggests that effects of shape and orientation are general to these products. 4.4. H4: Effects of alignment When considering the effects of manipulating the leftright alignment of graphics and text, results indicated that participants preferred label designs for which the graphics were placed to the right-hand side of the text (these designs were rated as more appealing, more practical, more pleasing, and less annoying). This

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817

15

is contrary to prediction based on the efciency hypothesis. Of course, it can be argued that the unconstrained viewing conditions used in this experiment (no restrictions on stimulus presentation duration or direction of gaze) were not conducive to effects of hemispheric asymmetry (Sergent & Hellige, 1986). It is possible to describe settings in which consumers have only brief or peripheral views of products (see e.g., Rettie & Brewer, 2000). However, we argue that the unconstrained viewing conditions in this experiment would be typical of many consumer-product interactions. Moreover, unconstrained viewing conditions have been used in studies of aesthetics and laterality (e.g., Beaumont, 1985; Levy, 1976). Also relevant to this discussion is evidence that laterality effects can be disrupted by repeated presentation (Hardyk, 1986). In the reported experiment the textual content of the label was constant across all presentations for a single participant. Again, this may not be unrealistic in the context of the processing of brand names which will be subject to repeated presentation and will often be highly familiar. Consistent with this, Gontijo, Rayman, Zhang, and Zaidel (2002) report that processing of brand names was less lateralised than processing of common nouns. Although these factors might explain why a preference for leftaligned graphics was not found, they do not address the nding of preference for right-aligned graphics. In this regard previous research evidence pertaining to picture perception deserves consideration. Consistencies of preference have been identied for specic pictures presented in either normal or mirror image formats. Different explanations for this have been advanced. Based on the efciency hypothesis, Levy (1976); Beaumont (1985) have suggested that images are preferred when the greatest weight or most interesting content is to the righton the assumption that this leads to the presentation of visuo-spatial material to the left hemi-eld. The congurations of the labels in the reported experiment were not consistent with this. It seems reasonable to assume that the graphical element was the more interesting, as this was the only component that varied from trial to trial. However, when the graphics were positioned to the right then text would be presented to the right hemi-eld. As before, this is contrary to a processing efciency explanation. Directionality of the image has also been proposed as encouraging laterality effects. In this experiment it seems likely that the text component would ensure that the directionality was consistently left-to-right. Moreover, a preference for right-aligned graphics is not consistent with interactive effects of directionality and interest reported by Christman and Pinger (1997). In summary, it seems that laterality effects struggle to account for these data. However, an explanation is suggested by the nding that the design with right-aligned graphics was rated as having higher practicality. In this regard it is important to note the possibility that differences in processing efciency that result from the leftright alignment of label graphics do not necessarily result from the effects of hemispheric asymmetry. These data may indicate that preference for right-aligned graphics reects facilitated processing for other reasons, perhaps because the brand name (contents in this instance) is more accessible (i.e., on the left in left to right reading cultures). It seems that further research into the global processing demands associated with different layouts of product labels would be valuable. 4.5. H5: The halo effect As predicted, preference for graphics also extended to assessments of product attributes that were not experienced. Consistent with the general pattern of ratings, ratings for the items referring to taste and refreshing were higher in the rounded and upward-oriented conditions (this also applied when responses to the vodka bottle were analysed in isolation). This suggests a halo

effect (Hassenzahl, 2004; Leuthesser et al., 1995). This is also supported by the results of the regression analysis, in which taste and refreshing were the only items not to contribute unique variance to the prediction of purchase likelihood. This suggests assessments of these items were driven by other directly experienced items. Of course, halo effects may have been encouraged by the absence of information on which participants were asked to make assessments of taste (Leuthesser et al., 1995), but this is not unrealistic. Consumers may frequently make a similar type of judgement when trying to decide on a product that has not previously been tried. This pattern of results can be contrasted with that for ratings of practicality. Although there were main effects of contour and alignment for practicality, there was no signicant effect of the manipulation of orientation. Moreover, this item made a highly signicant unique contribution to the regression equation. This suggests that practicality was experienced and was evaluated independently on its own merits. This would be consistent with the item reecting ease of perception (as suggested above). When considering psychometric issues relating to the halo effect, Leuthesser et al. (1995) suggest that an average inter-item correlation greater than 0.6 or 0.7 would be an indication that participants may not be treating questionnaire items sufciently independently and that statistical correction could be applied. In this study the average inter-item correlation was substantially below this (r = 0.37, when using absolute values). We consider this encouraging, insofar as it suggests participants were providing thoughtful assessments of the different product designs. Moreover, the correlations between the item annoying and other items were consistently negative, as expected. However, the results for attention grabbing are surprising in this regard. They indicate that typical products were also attention grabbing. This is contrary to results of Westerman et al. (in press) and Schoormans and Robben (1997). This could arise because, consistent with a halo effect, participants ratings of this item were inuenced by other rationales (e.g., patterns of preference), perhaps because none of the designs were considered particularly attention grabbing and/or because assessment of the extent to which a stimulus grabs attention is only partially open to introspection. Relevant to this, it should be noted that the correlation is relatively weak and there were dissociations between these variables in terms of the interactive effects of other manipulated variables (see above). Further studies that incorporate behavioural measures of the capacity of stimuli to grab attention would be required to clarify this. A nal possible explanation that must be considered is that this result is produced because the rounded graphics covered a slightly greater area than the angular graphics. When producing rounded graphics there is a choice between, (i) maintaining the coordinates of the three extremes of the triangular shape; or, (ii) controlling the area covered by the shape. In this study we opted for the former. This means that the rounded graphic shapes were slightly larger than the angular versions. However, an explanation based on area differences does not seem plausible given that there were effects of the orientation manipulation (for which shape area was constant) on the attention grabbing item. 4.6. Conclusions These data support previous results indicating a preference for rounded designs. This effect was independent of assessments of product design typicality. In support of Berlyne (1960) theory of preference for designs that have apparent equilibrium, participants also indicated a preference for upward-oriented graphics. However, the results were not consistent with the hypothesis that dislike would be evoked by the specic combination of shape

16

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817 Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The inuence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 1723. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conict, Arousal, and Curiosity. NY: McGraw-Hill. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 1629. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. H., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551565. Carbon, C.-C. (2010). The cycle of preference. Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 233244. Christman, S., & Pinger, K. (1997). Lateral biases in aesthetic preferences: Pictorial dimensions and neural mechanisms. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 2(2), 155175. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 6381. Demirbilek, O., & Sener, B. (2003). Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), 13461360. Fang, X., & Mowen, J. C. (2005). Exploring factors inuencing logo effectiveness: An experimental inquiry. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 161. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd Edition). London: Sage. Gontijo, P. F. D., Rayman, J., Zhang, S., & Zaidel, E. (2002). How brand names are special: Brands, words, and hemispheres. Brain and Language, 82, 327343. Hansen, F. (1981). Hemispheral lateralization: Implications for understanding consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 2336. Hardyk, C. (1986). Cerebral asymmetries and experimental parameters: Real differences and imaginary variations? Brain and Cognition, 5, 223239. Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. HumanComputer Interaction, 19, 319349. Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product Experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hellige, J. B. (1990). Hemispheric asymmetry. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 5580. Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric Asymmetry: Whats Right and Whats Left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Janiszewski, C. (1990). The inuence of print advertisement organization on affect toward a brand name. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 5365. Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., Sarinopoulous, I. C., & Zhu, D. C. (2009). Recognising threat: A simple geometric shape activates neural circuitry for threat detection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(8), 15231535. Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., & Stearns, J. J. (2007). The shape of threat: Simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained capture of attention. Emotion, 7(3), 526534. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 603618. Leder, H., Tinio, P. P. L., & Bar, M. (2011). Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception, 40, 649655. Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. S., & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity: The halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 5766. Levy, J. (1976). Lateral dominance and aesthetic preference. Neuropsychologica, 14(4), 431445. Lindell, A. K., & Mueller, J. (2011). Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 453475. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good rst impression! Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115126. Ngo, M. K., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012). On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: Insights from online and laboratory-based testing. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 260268. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Conrmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175220. OBrien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 5069. Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 6481. Oyama, T., Agostini, T., Kamada, A., Marcovic, S., Osaka, E., Sakura, S., et al. (2008). Similarities in form symbolism among various languages and geographical regions. Psychologia, 51, 170184. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing uency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceivers processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364382. Rettie, R., & Brewer, C. (2000). The verbal and visual components of package design. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(1), 5670. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145172. Schoormans, J., Eenhuizen-van den Berge, M., van de Laar & van den Berg-Weitzel, L. (2010). Designing packages that communicate product attributes and brand values: An exploratory method. Design Journal, 13(1), 3147. Schoormans, J. P. L., & Robben, H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorisation and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 271287. Sergent, J., & Hellige, J. B. (1986). Role of input factors in visual eld asymmetries. Brain and Cognition, 5, 174199.

angularity and downward orientation communicating threat (Aronoff et al., 1988, 1992). Instead, the graphic properties of upward and rounded were the highest rated combination for purchase likelihood. It was suggested that this may be attributable to packaging-product congruence (e.g., association with the shape of a droplet). This seems consistent with recent work on effects of cross-modality correspondence (Spence, 2012). Contrary to prediction, right-aligned graphics were preferred. Differences in ratings of practicality suggest this may relate to ease of processing. In this regard, an important distinction can be drawn between ease of processing and hemispheric efciency. Although visual hemi-eld effects have been demonstrated in previous studies, further research is needed to clarify other factors relating to label organisation that inuence general processing demands when viewing labels containing text and graphics in unconstrained conditions (with regard to viewing duration and gaze direction). Finally, as predicted, halo effects were apparent with participants judgment of non-experiential constructs (product taste) being inuenced by aesthetic manipulations. This illustrates the importance that should be attached to developing aesthetically appealing packaging designs. Of course, these empirical outcomes must be considered in context. It is important to recognise that consumers responses to packaging designs reect the inuence of a complex array of variables that extend beyond those studied here (cf. Bloch, 1995). In this study we have examined the effect of manipulations of graphics shape, orientation, and alignment for two product types (vodka and water). Consumers responses to packaging may be inuenced by a range of further design variations, including the type, number, size, and combination of graphical design shapes, variations in colour and colour combinations, and variations in container shape and size. To the extent that cross-modal congruence effects apply, arising from associations between the design and the product, preferences will also be dependent on product type. Consumers responses to packaging designs may also be inuenced by factors relating to the market context, such as brand identity and category membership (Ampuero & Vila, 2006; Schoormans & Robben, 1997; Van den Berg-Weitzel & Van de Laar, 2003). Designs also exist within a time context, and it remains to be seen whether these effects will change over time, in line with prevailing design trends (see Carbon, 2010). Finally, it is important to recognise that there may be predictable individual differences in consumers responses to packaging designs (see e.g., Bloch et al., 2003). The sample recruited for this study was restricted in terms of both age and culture. Systematic differences in product preferences may arise as a result of cultural differences (see Hekkert & Leder, 2008, for a review of relevant evidence). However, when considering responses to abstract shapes, it is interesting to note that Oyama et al. (2008) report relatively small cultural differences in the semantic associations with abstract two-dimensional forms; and consistency of response would also be anticipated if preferences are the product of adaptive perceptions of danger or threat (Bar & Neta, 2007; Larson et al., 2009). References
Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 102114. Aronoff, J., Barclay, A. M., & Stevenson, L. A. (1988). The recognition of threatening facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 647655. Aronoff, J., Woike, B. A., & Hayam, L. M. (1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Congurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 10501066. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645648. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologica, 45, 21912200. Beaumont, J. G. (1985). Lateral organization and aesthetic preference. The importance of peripheral visual asymmetries. Neuropsychologia, 23(1), 103113.

S.J. Westerman et al. / Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013) 817 Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1112), 14951517. Simms, C., & Trott, P. (2010). Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities. Marketing Theory, 10(4), 397415. Snelders, D., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2004). An exploratory study of the relation between concrete and abstract product attributes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 803820. Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalising on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 3754. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127145. Underwood, R. L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 5869.

17

Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2009). Position-based beliefs: The center-stage effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 185196. Van den Berg-Weitzel, L., & Van de Laar, G. (2003). The power of structural design. Admap, 443, 19. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 10631070. Westerman, S.J., Gardner, P.H., Sutherland, E.J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., Wells, S. Product design: Preference for angular versus rounded design elements. Psychology and Marketing, in press. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799806. Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 794805.