Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a

Mental Contaminant
Author(s): Valerie Folkes and Shashi Matta
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 2 (September 2004), pp. 390-401
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422117 .
Accessed: 04/01/2015 06:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’
Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a
Mental Contaminant
VALERIE FOLKES
SHASHI MATTA*

A series of experiments examined how a container’s shape can bias judgments

of product quantity. Packages that have shapes that are perceived as attracting
more attention are also perceived to contain a greater volume of a product than
same-sized packages that attract less attention. The disparity in attention leads to
“mental contamination” of the volume judgment. The bias holds for different sets
of containers, for containers placed in different contexts, and for containers with
contents varying in desirability. Habituation to an unusual container that attracts
attention can reduce the effect, as can viewing containers with a disliked content.

P ackages come in all shapes and sizes, complicating the

ability of consumers to make accurate judgments about
the amount of a product. Some package sizes vary because
of the nature of the product (e.g., produce, meat), but for
others the basis for the variation is not obvious (e.g., con-
sider the myriad sizes and shapes of shampoos). Consumers
can easily overcome the challenge of visually assessing vol-
umes contained within a variety of shapes because most
product labels provide amount information. When a con-
sumer wishes to compare product volumes, an obvious so-
lution is to simply read the label and compare standard units
(e.g., compare fluid ounces).
However, previous research has documented that shoppers
often do not expend the seemingly minimal effort to read
product label and price information (Cole and Balasubra-
manian 1993; Dickson and Sawyer 1990). The purpose of
our research is to explore biases in visual judgments of
package volume. Surprisingly, the basic question of how
consumers assess product volume has just begun to be ex-
amined. Our research extends that literature by identifying
an external and often irrelevant factor to a container’s size
that can mentally contaminate a consumer’s volume judg-
ment. When consumers pay greater attention to one con-
tainer than to another container with the same volume, that
differential attention contaminates their volume judgment,
*Valerie Folkes is professor of marketing, Marshall School of Busi-
ness, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1421
(folkes@marshall.usc.edu). Shashi Matta is a doctoral candidate in
marketing at the University of Southern California (matta@marshall
.usc.edu). The authors appreciate the insightful comments of C. W.
Park and Allison Johnson on an earlier draft of this manuscript and
are grateful for the help of George Eapen in conducting this research.
390
leading to bias in volume estimation. Hence, the notion
suggested by previous research that consumers make volume
judgments by mentally comparing one physical dimension
of a container against that of another container may be true
for only some situations.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
As with previous marketing research on volume judg-
ments, our interest lies in visual perception of package size.
In general, visual input dominates other modalities in per-
ception (Posner, Nissen, and Klein 1976). Although con-
sumers shop with their eyes, they apparently exert little
effort to search for volume information on package labels
(e.g., Cole and Balasubramanian 1993). The dependence on
visual assessment of volume has led researchers to examine
judgments for the kinds of containers people encounter
while purchasing and consuming products.
Since survival depends on the ability to discriminate
among stimuli, it is not surprising that visual judgments of
size are often made easily and automatically. For example,
consumers seem to have no difficulty discriminating be-
tween a quart-size milk carton and a half-gallon milk carton.
As a general rule, discriminating between objects becomes
more difficult as the magnitude of the difference decreases
(e.g., Banks, Mermelstein, and Yu 1982). The difficulty is
illustrated in research examining two-dimensional figures
with the same area. When consumers compare the size of
two shapes (e.g., a rectangle and a circle of the same area),
they make systematic errors. Krider, Raghubhir, and Krishna
(2001) suggest that consumers judge the area of a shape by
comparing across the most salient linear dimension, weigh-

䉷 2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 31 ● September 2004

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2004/3102-0014$10.00

This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS
ing the initial dimension more heavily than the second di-
mension. Differential weight leads to bias favoring which-
ever shape is largest on the initial dimension.
Obviously, considering an additional dimension increases
the difficulty of judging a shape’s volume compared to its
area. Further increasing the difficulty of consumers’ volume
judgments is that many package shapes are irregular, with
varying widths. For example, the classic Coke bottle’s hour-
glass shape complicates the assessment of even its mean
width. Given that consumers have developed a variety of
shortcuts to conserve mental effort in decision making, they
are likely to simplify these volume judgments.
The Height Heuristic in Judging Package Volume
Raghubir and Krishna (1999) found that consumers use
the height of the container or its elongation to simplify
volume judgments. A container’s height predicted volume
judgments better than or about as well as models that in-
cluded width or depth measurements. When containers are
tall or elongated, they are perceived as having more of a
product than containers that are shorter or squat in shape.
Both Krider et al. (2001) and Raghubir and Krishna
(1999) maintain that consumers simplify the size judgment
task by using a single dimension at a time (although Ra-
ghubir and Krishna’s study 1 results suggest that consumers
use only one dimension, height, rather than each of the
three). Yet, focusing on a single dimension seems incon-
sistent with research that suggests that people pay attention
to objects at a holistic level rather than to a particular di-
mension. Visual attention is directed to objects as a whole
rather than to areas of interest in a visual field (see gestalt
theories of attention vs. spatial theories of attention, e.g.,
Baylis and Driver 1993; Bloch 1995).
Attention Attraction and Size Judgments for
Irregular Shapes
Our research focuses on irregular container shapes (e.g.,
tapered beverage bottles as opposed to more regularly
shaped canned goods) because previous research does not
seem to provide an adequate explanation for how consumers
simplify those volume judgments when packages are similar
in size. We propose that consumers holistically compare an
irregularly shaped container to another container. If the con-
tainers are similar in size, the one that attracts attention more
is judged to be larger.
This bias is due to the covariation of the attention directed
to a stimulus with its size. Through experience with a variety
of stimuli, people probably have learned that they can ho-
listically and easily gauge which of two shapes is larger
when the magnitude of the difference is great. A perceptual
sensation that covaries with that size assessment is differ-
ential attention—large shapes generally attract attention
more than small shapes. For example, the larger the ad, the
more likely it is to be seen (Finn 1988; Gronhaug, Kvita-
stein, and Gronmo 1991). Large containers probably also
attract more attention than small containers, as a general
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
391
rule. To confirm that size influences perceived attention for
similarly shaped packages, we conducted a small-scale
study. Each of 16 female students viewed two cans with
different volumes and with the labels masked by white paper.
When asked, “Which of these two containers attracts your
attention more?” all 16 students reported that the 16 oz. can
attracted their attention more than the 12 oz. can.
The covariance of attention and size may cause the overall
attention-attracting properties of a container’s shape to bias
or mentally “contaminate” volume judgments. External and
irrelevant factors frequently intrude upon and contaminate
judgments of objects, yet they are unrecognized because
people often are unable to identify the basis for a judgment
(Wilson and Brekke 1994). An individual might be partic-
ularly unlikely to recognize the intrusion of a perceptual
factor on a perceptual judgment. When judging size, people
are accustomed to relying on their senses to make quick
judgments without introspecting about why an object ap-
pears larger than another. For example, people accept that
a half-gallon milk carton appears larger than a quart without
analyzing why it does so. Further, attention can intrude upon
size judgments because attention can be directed to objects
automatically, without a consumer having to consciously
deliberate over it. An individual might not even notice that
he or she is comparing across packages in their attention-
attracting abilities because comparative evaluations are so
ingrained as to be spontaneous (for a review, see Mussweiler
2003). Hence, a consumer might simply conclude that one
package “seems bigger” without quite knowing why.
In sum, when consumers compare the volume of two
similarly sized packages, that judgment may be contami-
nated by a factor that typically covaries with size differ-
ences—that one container attracts more attention than the
other. If one of the two containers attracts more attention,
consumers may misattribute the greater attention they sub-
jectively experience as being paid to that package to a size
difference. This intrusion may occur unconsciously so that
consumers do not recognize its influence.
H1: A package shape that attracts more attention from
a consumer is judged as containing a greater vol-
ume of a product compared to a same-sized pack-
age shape that attracts less attention.
Overview of the Research
We conducted a series of experiments examining biases
in consumers’ judgments of the volume of products con-
tained in packages that were available in the marketplace.
Study 1 tests hypothesis 1 by asking consumers to judge
the volume of containers differing in their attention-attract-
ing properties. This field experiment provides some evidence
of the ecological validity of our findings, while also facil-
itating comparisons with a previous volume estimation study
that used similar stimuli. Study 2 manipulated exposure to
the containers to provide support for attention as the me-
diator of the effect, as well as indicating the magnitude of
392
the error. Study 3 explored cognitive responses to containers,
investigating the relationship between thoughts about con-
tainer shape and volume. Study 4 aimed to identify a mod-
erator of the effect—liking for the product.
Most of the experiments used a paired comparisons meth-
odology, a well-established procedure in psychology (Wed-
ell 1995) and one that has been used in past consumer re-
search on volume judgments (Raghubir and Krishna 1999).
Consumers compared a pair of packages—a control package
and a package that attracted more attention. In most of our
studies the container that attracted less attention was either
of similar height or taller and contained the same volume
of the product. Although the paired comparisons method-
ology involves presenting participants with two packages
simultaneously, attention should be directed to one object
at a time. People find it difficult to attend to two objects
simultaneously (Baylis and Driver 1993; Duncan 1984). As
with other cognitive resources, people have limited attention
to allocate to objects in their surroundings. One object at-
tracts attention at the expense of another.
Further, comparisons between two alternatives seem to
be common when consumers choose products. Eye-tracking
research shows that shoppers screen a grocery product class
quickly, spending relatively more time directing their atten-
tion to two or three alternatives (though the total mean search
time is less than half a minute) (Russo and Leclerc 1994).
Hence, the paired comparisons procedure is an appropriate
method.
STUDY 1
We conducted a field experiment in which we asked par-
ticipants to make volume judgments when one package
shape attracted more attention than another. To investigate
the generality of the effect, volume judgments were made
for three pairs of containers. Some of these same containers
were used in subsequent studies, so study 1 serves an im-
portant purpose in establishing that people perceive the par-
ticular experimental stimuli used as differing in the extent
to which they attract attention and in their perceived volume.
A grocery store setting was selected to provide confidence
that hypothesis 1 holds in a shopping situation in which
consumers might make volume judgments.
Method
The experiment was a 3 # 2 # 2 between-subjects de-
sign, varying stimulus pair, context and the direction of the
size comparison (greater volume vs. lesser volume). The
stimuli were three different pairs of packages. The two con-
texts were different locations in the supermarkets that pro-
vided a background against which the stimuli were placed.
The third independent variable controlled for the way the
question was posed by asking either which one of the pair
had a greater volume or which had a lesser volume.
Respondents made paired-comparison judgments within
the same type of product for two products—lemonade and
apple juice. Each pair of bottles held the same volume of
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
the same type of beverage but one bottle had more attention-
attracting properties than the control bottle. For two of the
pairs, the less attention-attracting bottle was also taller.
Within each pair, one container attracted attention more be-
cause it had a more unusual shape for the product class than
the control container. In a context of more familiar objects,
novel stimuli capture attention rapidly and automatically
(Johnston et al. 1990). The way that the more unusual con-
tainer was novel varied across pairs for the purpose of testing
the generality of the effect. For the 10 oz. apple juice pair,
the shorter bottle should have attracted attention because it
was different from other packages in its squat, apple-like
shape. For the 16 oz. lemonade pair, the shorter, more squat
lemonade bottle had an unusual rippled or jagged contour
instead of the smooth contour of the taller, more elongated
control bottle. For the 20 oz. lemonade pair, the container
height was similar but one bottle was more unusual than
the other. The more unusual bottle was more curvaceous
and was not radially symmetrical whereas the other, the
control bottle, was not as curvaceous and was radially sym-
metrical. To create a greater hurdle for observing the con-
tamination effect, the more unusual 20 oz. bottle was glass
but the usual bottle was plastic. Raghubir and Krishna (1999,
study 1) found that glass containers were judged to have a
smaller volume than were plastic containers.
To facilitate comparisons with previous research, the
package characteristics described in table 1 correspond to
many of those used by Raghubir and Krishna to describe
their study 1 containers. All comparisons were made for
cylindrical containers holding beverages, partially to create
a higher hurdle for dismissing the height effect. Raghubir
and Krishna (1999) described their height effect inter-
changeably as an elongation effect (the ratio of height to
maximum diameter/width) so two of our control containers
were both taller and more elongated.
Pretest of Attention Attraction. To confirm that the
three container pairs differentially attracted attention, a pre-
test was conducted in which we asked participants which
container attracted their attention more. Thirty-three people
(10 university employees and 23 students) were paid for
their participation. Participants viewed each of the three
container pairs with the ordering of the pairs randomized.
After viewing a pair of bottles (with brand labels removed
and counterbalanced positioning), participants were given a
questionnaire asking them, “Which of these two containers
attracts more attention?” and “Which of these containers has
more volume?”
As intended, for each of the three pairs the majority of
participants reported that the unusual containers attracted
their attention more than their counterparts (78.79% for the
20 oz. bottles, 78.79% for the 16 oz. bottles, and 69.70%
for the 10 oz. bottles; see table 2). Consistent with hypothesis
1, the majority of participants (84.84%, 81.82%, and
72.73%, respectively) reported that the unusual containers
had a greater volume. The differences are significant within
each pair for each of the three measures (see table 2).
Participants were asked how much they liked lemonade/
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS 393

TABLE 1

DESCRIPTION OF STIMULI: PRETEST AND STUDY 1

Content of container
Characteristics of container 20 oz. lemonade 16 oz. lemonade 10 oz. apple juice

Commonality of shape Usual Unusuala Usual Unusual Usualb Unusual

Container materialc Plastic Glass Plastic Plastic Glass Glass
Height of the container (cm) 23.0 23.0 22.0 17.0 18.5 11.0
Level of liquid in the container (cm) 18.5 19.7 17.8 15.2 15.2 8.3
Maximum diameter (cm) 7.2 7.7 6.0 7.3 6.0 8.2
Minimum diameter (cm) 2.8 3.8 2.6 4.0 2.6 3.8
Height to maximum diameter ratio 3.2 3.0 3.7 2.3 3.1 1.4
Height to minimum diameter ratio 8.4 6.0 8.5 4.3 7.2 2.9
Shape (max. diameter ⫺ min. diameter) 19.8 14.8 11.4 10.8 12.0 19.0
Lateral surface area (cm2) 357.1 414.4 417.4 303.2 248.7 243.9
Total surface area (cm2) 403.7 471.8 473.6 357.2 282.4 371.0
Volume of the container (cm3) 601 607 485 478 305 305
a
The unusual bottle was radially asymmetric, being somewhat triangular in shape in its middle section but round at the top and bottom sections. The usual bottle
was radially symmetric. Radial asymmetry accounts for the unusual container’s equivalent volume and greater fill level but greater diameter compared to the usual
container.
b
This bottle was a brand—Martinelli’s apple juice in a glass bottle—used as a stimulus in Raghubir and Krishna’s (1999) study 1. Although the volume of our
Martinelli bottle was similar to their Martinelli bottle (305 ml vs. 315 ml, respectively), the dimensions of our bottle differs from theirs.
c
Raghubir and Krishna (1999, study 1) found greater volume estimates for plastic containers than for glass containers, independent of the height effect. Increases
in height and their shape measure (maximum diameter — minimum diameter) independently predicted volume estimates to a similar extent. An alternative regression
model showed that elongation (height/maximum diameter) predicted volume estimates.

apple juice and their attitude toward lemonade/apple juice

(1 p like very much, 9 p not at all; 1 p positive, 9 p
negative). Those items were combined to form a product-
liking measure (r p .94). Means were below the midpoint,
suggesting that participants liked both products, but partic- TABLE 2
ipants liked lemonade more than apple juice (M p 3.9 vs. PERCENT CHOOSING CONTAINER FOR EACH PAIR OF
M p 4.7, respectively), t(32) p ⫺4.56, p ! .001. (The ef- STIMULI: RESULTS OF PRETEST AND STUDY 1
fects of liking for the product are examined in study 4.)
Container size
Procedure. The participants in the main study were 240
adult grocery shoppers (132 females and 108 males) who Dependent measure 20 oz. 16 oz. 10 oz.
were recruited from two urban supermarkets. The experi-
menter waited for an unaccompanied, adult grocery shopper Pretest, more attention (%):
Unusual container 78.79 81.82 69.70
to approach where he was standing in an empty grocery Usual container 21.21 18.18 30.30
aisle. When the shopper was nearby, he pointed to the pair N 33 33 33
of bottles and asked the shopper, “Which of these two bottles x2 (1) 10.94* 13.36* 5.12*
has a greater/lesser volume of the lemonade/apple juice? Pretest, more volume (%):
Unusual container 84.85 78.79 72.72
Which of these two bottles has more/less of the lemonade/ Usual container 6.06 9.09 15.15
apple juice?” The experimenter noted the person’s response Both are same volume 9.09 12.12 12.12
and gender. Shoppers responded to the question in about 3 N 33 33 33
to 10 seconds. The shoppers were randomly assigned to one x2 (2) 39.46* 35.09* 23.09*
of the twelve conditions, making a paired-comparison judg- Cramer’s Va .82 .93 .93
Study 1, more volume:
ment for one of the three pairs of bottles. Unusual 95.0 97.5 87.5
Usual 2.5 2.5 7.5
Both are same 2.5 0 5.0
Results and Discussion N 40 40 40
x2 68.45* 36.10* 52.85*
Shoppers judged the containers that captured more atten- Study 1, less volume (%):
tion to be larger, even when the usual container was also Unusual 12.5 12.5 15.0
taller (see table 2). Two of the more unusual bottles were Usual 75.0 82.5 82.5
also more complex stimuli in that their contours were more Both are same 12.5 5.0 2.5
N 40 40 40
varied, raising the possibility that complexity rather than or x2 31.25* 43.85* 44.45*
in addition to novelty enhanced attention (Berlyne 1960; a
Cramer’s V-statistic is calculated for a 2 (attention) # 3 (size judgment)
Wohlwill 1975). However, the short apple juice bottle’s di- contingency table for the pretest data.
mensions suggest less complexity than the taller bottle, yet *p ! .05.

This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
394
the majority of participants judged it both larger and more
attention-attracting. That finding suggests that shape com-
plexity is not essential for judgments to be biased.
Effects of Container Shape versus Specific Dimen-
sions. An alternative explanation for the results is that
participants inferred that the unusual products contained
more because of their greater diameter. For our unusual
bottles to be shorter than the same-sized usual bottles, the
unusual bottles had to be wider. Because our results showed
that respondents judged shorter containers to have greater
volume, the results could also be interpreted as showing that
consumers perceive wider containers to be larger.
That explanation is unlikely based on theoretical and em-
pirical reasons. First, the complexity of many three-dimen-
sional packages, such as those examined here, makes con-
sumers more likely to direct their attention holistically rather
than to an individual container dimension when making vol-
ume judgments. Even if the shoppers failed to attend ho-
listically, there is no evidence to suggest that they would
focus on width. Empirical research indicates that height ac-
counts for volume estimates about as well or better than
models that include width measurements (Raghubir and
Krishna 1999).
If one disregards Raghubir and Krishna’s results and en-
tertains the notion that diameter influenced our participants’
volume judgments, the evidence for the diameter effect is
unimpressive. The usual bottles did have a smaller minimum
diameter than the unusual bottles. However, the notion that
people identified one bottle as bigger on the basis of the
size of its smallest diameter seems incompatible with the
task. It is more plausible to think that the maximum diameter
was used as a heuristic for volume judgments. Yet, even
that seems unlikely. The difference in maximum diameter
for the pairs was smallest for the 20 oz. bottle (.5 cm), but
the greatest percent of participants (84.85%) chose the un-
usual bottle in that pair as the largest. It is doubtful that
such a small difference in size would have such a great
impact when assessed visually.
Although neither of the two individual diameter measures
seem to account for the effect of unusual shapes on volume
judgments, it is important to rule out the effect of another
diameter measure used by Raghubir and Krishna (1999) to
make the case that our results are truly novel. They found
that a measure they termed “shape” (maximum diameter ⫺
minimum diameter) predicted increases in their participants’
size judgments independent of container height. However,
table 1 shows that their shape measure does not explain our
results. The difference between the maximum and minimum
diameter is much larger for the usual container than for the
unusual container in the 20 oz. pair, is similar for the 16
oz. pair, and is much smaller for the usual container than
the for unusual container in the 10 oz. pair. Hence, the effect
of our attention-attracting containers on volume judgment
does not appear to have been identified previously.
Accuracy as an Alternative Explanation. Although the
results support hypothesis 1, the tendency to perceive the
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
unusual product as larger might be explained by a slightly
different process than that which we proposed. Perhaps in-
attention to the usual container led to an inaccurate assessment
of its size. The shoppers might have made the judgments
hurriedly to avoid delaying their own shopping and ignored
the less visually interesting, usual container. However, even
if shoppers made the judgments quickly, the pretest results
make it unlikely that insufficient time devoted to scrutiny
explains the effect. Pretest respondents were comfortably
seated and could view the containers at their leisure before
estimating the amounts. Yet, they judged the unusual con-
tainers to be larger. Nevertheless, study 2 aimed to replicate
the results in a laboratory setting that lacked the distraction
of a shopping task and provided plenty of time for respondents
to view the containers.
STUDY 2
Study 2 focused on attention as the underlying reason for
why volume judgments of novel containers are biased. This
experiment manipulated the extent to which an unusual con-
tainer attracted attention by increasing the length of exposure
to it. People habituate to novel stimuli so that the unfamiliar
becomes familiar over time and the attention paid to the
stimuli decreases (Berlyne 1971). Extended exposure to the
unusual container should reduce the perception that it is
larger by reducing the subjective sense that the unusual con-
tainer more successfully competes for the viewer’s attention
to the usual container. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
H2: Habituation to a novel package shape decreases
the tendency to estimate a greater volume of the
product compared to that of a same-sized, more
usual package shape.
Method
Participants were 64 female graduate students and uni-
versity staff, who were paid $5.00. The study was a 2 #
2 between-subjects experiment manipulating exposure (ha-
bituation vs. no habituation) and shape of the container that
is shown first (unusual vs. usual shape). The containers were
the 16 oz. lemonade bottles from study 1.
In the habituation condition, each participant was exposed
to either the unusual or the usual container while being
briefed about an unrelated study that involved listening to
an audio recording. The women completed that study in
about 15 min. Then the experimenter explained that the next
task entailed comparisons of volume. The participant was
told that the container that was on the table held 16 oz. of
lemonade. The experimenter then placed the second con-
tainer next to the first one (placement position varied) and
asked the participant to estimate the volume of the second
container.
Women in the nonhabituation exposure conditions were
not exposed to any container prior to the unrelated study.
Instead, on completing the unrelated study, the participant
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS
was shown both the containers simultaneously. Half the
women were told that the usual container had 16 oz. of
lemonade and were asked to write their estimate of the un-
usual container’s lemonade. The other half were told that
the unusual container had 16 oz. of lemonade and were asked
to write their estimate of the usual container’s lemonade.
The numerical anchor was given because pretesting indi-
cated participants were poor at estimating amounts in stan-
dard units without one.
As a manipulation check, the women were asked to in-
dicate the extent to which each container attracted their at-
tention on a nine-point scale (“not at all” vs. “very much”).
Their attention to the unusual container should be greater
in the no-habituation condition than in the habituation con-
dition because habituation would decrease the container’s
perceived novelty. The mean attention directed to the usual
container should not differ depending on exposure time be-
cause the usual container was not novel.
Results
The volume estimates and the manipulation check for at-
tention were analyzed using ANOVA and planned contrasts.
Manipulation Check. As intended, habituation de-
creased mean ratings of attention paid to the unusual con-
tainer but not to the usual container (see table 3). Analysis
of variance of the attention attracted by the unusual container
revealed a significant main effect for habituation and for
shape, which was qualified by a shape by habituation in-
teraction (F(1, 63) p 16.58, p ! .001; F(1, 63) p 20.85,
p ! .001; and F(1, 63) p 18.66, p ! .001, respectively). Ta-
ble 3 shows that the women who habituated to the unusual
container believed that it attracted significantly less attention
when compared to those who habituated to the usual con-
tainer (M p 5.19 vs. M p 7.44, F(1, 63) p 39.47, p !
.001). Additionally, participants who habituated to the un-
usual container believed that it attracted significantly less
attention when compared to those in the nonhabituation con-
ditions (M p 5.19 vs. M p 7.34, F(1, 63) p 35.21, p !
EFFECT OF HABITUATION ON ATTENTION AND VOLUME ESTIMATES: RESULTS OF STUDY 2
Habituation
Usual container is
Dependent measure anchor
Attention to the usual 4.19
(.91)
Attention to the unusual 7.44
(.96)
Estimated volume in fluid ounces 18.06a
(1.34)
% correctly estimating 12.5
N 16
NOTE.—Standard deviations are in parentheses.
a
Participants were told that the volume of the usual container was 16 oz., and they were asked to estimate the volume of the unusual container.
b
Participants were told that the volume of the unusual container was 16 oz., and they were asked to estimate the volume of the usual container.
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
395
.001). No significant differences were found across condi-
tions for the extent to which the usual container attracted
attention (see table 3). Habituation should have had little
impact on attention to the usual container because it lacked
novelty.
Volume Estimates. The volume estimates were always
made with the knowledge that one container held 16 oz.
Analyses revealed a significant main effect of container
shape, which was qualified by a significant interaction of
container shape and habituation (F(1, 63) p 237.05, p !
.001; F(1, 63) p 10.51, p ! .005, respectively). Consistent
with study 1, participants in the nonhabituation conditions
estimated the unusual container’s volume to be significantly
greater than that of the usual container (M p 18.50 oz. vs.
M p 12.75 oz., respectively; F(1, 63) p 173.68, p ! .001).
As predicted by hypothesis 2, habituation to the unusual
container increased the volume estimate of the usual con-
tainer as compared to no-habituation to the unusual container
(M p 14.31 oz. vs. M p 12.75 oz.); F(1, 63) p 12.82,
p ! .001). Hence, habituation to the unusual container has
the effect of reducing the perceived difference between the
two containers. The mean difference between the 16 oz.
unusual container and the usual container was only 1.64 oz.
when participants habituated to the unusual container but
was 3.25 oz. when participants did not habituate to it. This
finding is consistent with the notion that lengthy exposure
(habituation) decreases the unusual container’s novelty and
so reduces the relative attention directed to the unusual con-
tainer when it is compared to the usual container. Yet, even
lengthy exposure does not eliminate the bias. Few respon-
dents accurately estimated that the containers were equal
(table 3).
The usual container already attracted less attention and
so extended exposure to the usual container should not
change the perception that it is smaller than the unusual
container. Hence, when told that the usual container holds
16 oz., the unusual container’s volume should be perceived
as larger regardless of exposure time. Consistent with that
logic, the mean estimate of the unusual container’s volume
TABLE 3
No habituation
Unusual container is Usual container is Unusual container is
anchor anchor anchor
4.88 4.25 4.38
(.89) (1.18) (1.20)
5.19 7.38 7.31
(.83) (1.09) (1.14)
14.31b 18.50a 12.75b
(1.20) (1.37) (1.00)
12.5 6.25 0
16 16 16
396
in the habituation condition was similar to that in the no
habituation condition (see table 3).
Discussion
Study 2 replicates the study 1 findings that consumers over-
estimate the volume of an unusually shaped container when
compared to a more usual shape (when both are presented
simultaneously). When told that the usual bottle held 16 oz.,
consumers overestimated the unusual container’s content by
15.63%. When told that the unusual bottle held 16 oz., con-
sumers underestimated the usual container by 20.31%. How-
ever, habituation to the unusual container reduced the per-
ceived difference in volume between same-sized containers.
Extended exposure to the unusual container should have re-
duced its novelty and so its ability to attract attention when
its size is compared to the usual container. In fact, habituation
to the unusual container did reduce the perceived difference
in volume, consistent with hypothesis 2.
The results suggest that errors occurred even though par-
ticipants were not distracted by a shopping task, as might
have been true for the study 1 shoppers. It seems unlikely
that the lengthy exposure to the container in the habituation
condition would have increased overall accuracy because
respondents did not know that they should allocate the extra
time to assessing size. Further, once they were asked for
estimates, no pressure was exerted on participants to make
those judgments quickly. In all conditions, respondents were
allowed to gaze at the containers for as long as they wished.
Hence, an extra 15 min. of exposure to a container while
the individual is engaged in an unrelated task seems unlikely
to increase accuracy.
Study 2 results might lead one to question whether ac-
curate volume estimates are possible. We examined this is-
sue in a small-scale study that used procedures similar to
study 2’s no-habituation condition, but we informed re-
spondents of the bias. A common means to correct for the
unwanted influence of extraneous factors is to inform people
of the direction of the mental process that taints their judg-
ments (Wilson and Brekke 1994). We characterize the at-
tention-volume bias as contamination because it seems un-
likely that consumers would desire differential attention
directed toward objects to bias their size judgments. People
aware of the bias should want to correct for it.
The experimenter informed 36 undergraduate students
that “people, when asked to judge which of two containers
has more volume, pick the one that attracts their attention
more.” The students were shown the pair of 16 oz. containers
used in earlier studies. Half of the students were told that
the usual bottle contained 16 oz., and were asked to estimate
the volume of the unusual bottle, whereas the other half
were told that the unusual bottle contained 16 oz. and were
asked to estimate the volume of the usual bottle. Mean es-
timates of the amounts were not significantly different:
M p 15.83 oz. for the usual bottle, with 88.89% accurately
estimating 16 oz. versus M p 16.17 oz. for the unusual
bottle, with 83.33% being accurate. Those results suggest
that the students could exercise control over the contami-
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
nation of their judgments, correctly perceiving that the con-
tainers were the same size even though they were not told
which container attracted more attention. Most informed
consumers were accurate, as contrasted with study 2 habit-
uation respondents who merely increased their looking time.
At best, the latter underestimated the amount by a mean of
10.56% (with 12.5% being accurate).
STUDY 3
Study 3 investigated cognitive responses to containers
differing in their tendency to attract attention. Mental con-
tamination occurs because people often form evaluations
without analyzing the mental processes that lead to the eval-
uation (Wilson and Brekke 1994). Due to limited access to
one’s mental processes, consumers are unlikely to describe
differential attention as the mechanism explaining their vol-
ume estimates when asked to explain their volume judg-
ments. However, if differential attention mentally contam-
inates volume judgments at even a low level of awareness,
some evidence of that process might surface in analyses of
cognitive responses. Thoughts about an unusually shaped
container should be strongly related to thoughts about size.
Further, those thoughts about shape should be more acces-
sible for an unusual than a usual shape.
Related information is connected by associative pathways
so that, if one concept is activated, related concepts are also
activated (for a review of spreading activation models of
memory, see Markman 1999). The mental contamination
explanation suggests that unusual shapes and larger sizes
are connected because they both attract attention. Alterna-
tively, thoughts about container shape may be associated
conceptually with thoughts about container size simply be-
cause both are physical properties of products. If so,
thoughts about shape should accompany thoughts about size
regardless of whether the shape attracts attention. Conse-
quently, the activation of that concept (shape) would influ-
ence judgments of size (see Higgins, Rholes, and Jones
1977; Higgins 1996). In sum, mental contamination suggests
the following:
H3: More consumers think about the shape and the
size of unusual containers than think about the
shape and size of usual containers. Further, shape
and size are more top-of-mind thoughts about un-
usual than usual containers.
Method
Of the 64 respondents, 49 were undergraduate students
who participated for extra credit and 15 were graduate stu-
dents who voluntarily participated. They provided thought
listings in response to the 16 oz. lemonade containers used
in studies 1 and 2. The experiment was a between-subjects
design with half the respondents shown the tall container
and the other half shown the shorter, unusual container.
Study 3 did not present both containers simultaneously be-
cause that would increase the difficulty of identifying the
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS 397

TABLE 4

THOUGHTS IN RESPONSE TO CONTAINER SHAPE: RESULTS OF STUDY 3

Percent mentioning Mean order of listing

Attribute Usual container Unusual container x2 Usual container Unusual container F df

Price 100.00 87.50 .27 2.88 3.68 3.34 1, 58

Expiration date 96.88 87.50 .15 3.39 4.29 1.80 1, 57
Brand 90.63 90.63 0 2.48 2.79 .45 1, 56
Natural 100.00 81.25 .62 3.91 4.57 .89 1, 56
Ingredients 100.00 78.13 .86 4.19 6.00 8.37* 1, 55
Nutrition 84.38 87.50 .02 5.67 6.00 .27 1, 53
Color 68.75 75.00 .09 5.14 6.71 4.92* 1, 44
Size 43.75 87.50 4.7* 7.29 3.25 48.99* 1, 40
Shape 28.13 75.00 6.82* 9.44 5.71 27.45* 1, 31
*p ! .05.

stimulus eliciting respondents’ thoughts. The disadvantage
is that exposure to a single container rather than the pair
should make it more difficult to detect differences in
thoughts about shape and size. Differences in attention di-
rected to each stimulus should make differences in the
shapes more salient. However, because the shorter container
was more unusual for the product category than the other,
its shape should attract attention even in the absence of the
comparison product. Consumers should be able to use an
internal standard to compare shapes with other containers
in the marketplace.
After being shown a lemonade bottle, the students were
asked to read the following, “If you encounter this prod-
uct in the grocery store and you were interested in buying
a bottle of lemonade, what factors would come to your
mind when considering this product? Please list these
factors as they come to your mind.” Respondents listed
from five to 15 factors. Two judges who were unaware
of the hypotheses and the previous studies independently
coded the thought listings. They differed on five (1%) of
the total of 487 thoughts classified, with disagreements
resolved by a third judge. The attributes were coded into
one of the following nine categories: price, expiration
date, brand naturalness (e.g., natural juice, artificial,
freshly squeezed, made from concentrate), nutritional in-
formation (e.g., percentage of vitamins, calories, fat),
color of the lemonade, container shape (e.g., unusual
shape, easy to carry, appealing, wide, long), and container
size (e.g., volume, amount of lemonade contained). Only
6.57% of the thoughts did not fit into one of these cat-
egories. Each attribute was assigned a rank depending on
where it appeared on the student’s list (e.g., the first item
was given a value of one, the second item was given a
value of two). If a student listed more than one attribute
that was coded as the same category, the value assigned
to the first appearance of the attribute was taken into
account and the other was ignored.
Results and Discussion
The thought listings were analyzed by identifying the per-
cent of respondents mentioning the attribute and by comparing
the mean highest rank of the attribute for each container (see
table 4). Considering that the containers lacked price, brand,
and content information, it is not surprising that those attrib-
utes surfaced in respondents’ thoughts. The only attributes
that differed across containers on both the percent of respon-
dents mentioning the attribute and the rank of the attribute
listing were container size and container shape. The unusual
container elicited more thoughts about size and shape and
elicited them earlier than did the usual container.
Further, more respondents reported that they thought
about both attributes in response to the unusual container
compared to the usual container. Whereas only 9.3% of the
respondents mentioned both size and shape when they
viewed the less attention-attracting container, 62.5% of the
respondents mentioned both size and shape when they
viewed the more attention-attracting container (x 2 (1) p
12.57, p ! .001). The results indicate that the unusually
shaped container not only makes these two factors of con-
tainer size and shape more accessible when the product is
being evaluated but also makes these two factors more
closely related in the consumer’s mind. The difference be-
tween conditions indicates that the two attributes are not
always linked, which suggests that mental contamination
occurs in response to shapes that attract attention.
Limitations of Thought Listings. As a method, thought
listings have the advantage of detecting processes at low
levels of awareness. A disadvantage is that respondents did
not elaborate much about the thoughts they had about size
and shape. Further, other attributes were mentioned prior to
size and shape. One might question whether attention-at-
tracting shapes influence product judgments except when
respondents are asked about size.
Shape Effects in the Absence of Priming of Volume
Judgments. To provide additional evidence that shape in-
fluences volume perceptions, we conducted a study in which
size was not specifically primed as the respondent’s judg-
ment task. This study used similar procedures to that in study
1, but it asked 25 graduate students to select which of the
two containers used in study 3 was the better buy. The
containers were described as holding similar tasting lem-

This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
398
onade and being available for the same price in the grocery
store. The experimenter then asked, “Which of these two
bottles of lemonade is a better buy?” The majority (88%)
selected the unusual bottle as the better buy, a finding that
is significantly different from chance (x 2 (1) p 14.44, p !
.001). Hence, attention-attracting shapes affect size judg-
ments even when consumers are not asked specifically to
compare volume.
STUDY 4
Study 4 explored the effect of the container’s content as
a possible moderator of volume judgments. When consum-
ers initially encounter packages that contain desirable prod-
ucts, the incentive to allocate cognitive resources to the
judgment task should be greater than when consumers ini-
tially encounter packages that contain undesirable products.
A desirable product might be selected for purchase in the
future and so has more personal relevance, whereas an un-
desirable product would not be sought out. People devote
less cognitive resources and attention to tasks that lack per-
sonal relevance (Celsi and Olson 1988; Renninger and Woz-
niak 1985). Further, eye-movement research indicates that
consumers fixate longer on a preferred brand when they are
shown an array of brands from the same category (Pieters
and Warlop 1999).
When people rule out consuming the product because it
is disliked, the overall attention paid to the volume judgment
task should be less than when the product is liked. This
should make the absolute difference in attention allocated
to the unusual bottle more difficult to detect. The differences
in amount of attention may be subtle, reducing the perceived
difference in volume. In short, the effect of attention-at-
tracting shapes should be greater when consumers like the
product than when they dislike the product.
H4: Volume estimates of a more attention-attracting
container and a less attention-attracting container
are more discrepant when consumers like the con-
tent than when they dislike the content.
Alternatively, a halo effect may account for the volume
bias. Perhaps the study 1 findings reflect greater liking for
the unusual containers and respondents’ inferences that those
liked containers held more desirable contents than did the
more usual containers. We addressed this concern by point-
ing out to the study 4 participants that the contents of both
bottles were similar. Study 4 also manipulated product de-
sirability to directly test the halo effect explanation. If a halo
effect influences size judgments, then consumers will be-
lieve that bottles containing a desirable product are larger
than bottles containing an undesirable product, regardless
of container shape.
H5: Consumers’ volume estimates are greater for con-
tainers with desirable products than for containers
with undesirable products.
In short, package content might influence volume judg-
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
ments resulting in a shape by product desirability interaction
(predicted as a moderator by hypothesis 4) or a desirability
main effect (predicted as an alternative explanation by hy-
pothesis 5). One might also argue that a different type of
shape by desirability interaction would be observed due to
differences in motivation to be accurate. Perhaps consumers
correctly judge the volume of a bottle containing a desirable
product since they allocate more cognitive resources to that
task. If so, differences in volume estimates should be greater
when the product is undesirable than when desirable. How-
ever, that pattern seems unlikely because Raghubir and
Krishna (1999, study 2) found no effect on judgments when
they increased participants’ motivation to estimate volume
accurately.
Method
The design of study 4 was a 2 # 2, manipulating
container shape and product desirability as between-sub-
jects variables. Sixty undergraduate students, who were
paid $5.00 to participate in a taste test, initially completed
a questionnaire. The same two questions used in study 1
to measure liking for the product category were combined
to form a category-liking measure for lemonade (r p
.86). After completing those items, each student was
given a 4 oz. cup of lemonade. Half tasted a popular
brand of lemonade (desirable product condition) and the
other half tasted sour lemonade (undesirable product con-
dition). Next, the experimenter showed the participant a
container (the unusual container for half the participants
and the more usual container for the other half) filled
with lemonade. They were told that this was a brand of
lemonade already in the market with a flavor similar to
the lemonade that they had just tasted. To provide par-
ticipants with a numerical anchor, they were told that it
held 16 oz. Participants were then shown a second bottle
(the stimulus object) that purportedly contained the lem-
onade they had just tasted. That bottle was described as
one that the manufacturer was considering in which to
sell the product. This second container was always a dif-
ferent shape from the first but held the same amount of
lemonade. If the anchor was the unusually shaped con-
tainer then the second container (the stimulus object) was
the taller, usual shaped container, and vice versa.
The questionnaire requested an estimate of the volume of
the stimulus object in fluid ounces. Participants were told
that they could use the competitive product, which contained
16 oz., as a reference point. Students’ liking for the specific
lemonade they tasted was measured with two items (r p
.96) that were similar to the items for liking toward the
category of lemonade in general collected at the beginning
of the experiment. The next question asked which of the
two containers they found more attractive. About half
(46.67%) considered the usual shaped container more at-
tractive, and the remainder (53.33%) considered the unusual
shaped container more attractive.
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS
Results
The results were analyzed using 2 # 2 ANOVAs with
shape (usual vs. unusual) as one factor and desirability of the
drink (desirable vs. undesirable) as the other factor. Ratings
of the lemonade itself were examined to confirm that the
desirable drink was liked more than the undesirable drink, as
well as to confirm that lemonade was a positively valued
product. As intended, the mean liking for lemonade in general
indicates a positive attitude toward the product (M p 2.64
on a nine-point scale). Also as intended, liking for the tasted
lemonade differed depending on which formula they tasted
(M p 3.35 for the desirable product and M p 7.15 for the
undesirable product). A 2 # 2 analysis of variance of liking
for the tasted lemonade showed only a significant main effect
of desirability (F(1, 59) p 216.60, p ! .001). Participants
liked the desirable lemonade similarly to their liking of lem-
onade in general but liked the undesirable lemonade much
less (mean difference is .60 for the delicious condition vs.
4.62 for the sour condition). A 2 # 2 analysis of variance
of the difference between each participant’s liking for the
product and liking for the tasted product shows only a main
effect of desirability of the tasted product (F(1, 59) p
75.53, p ! .001).
The volume estimates were always made in relation to
knowledge that one bottle contained 16 oz. If the unusual
bottle was judged, then the usual bottle was described as
16 oz., and vice versa. Hypothesis 4 was tested using a 2
# 2 ANOVA of the volume estimates. The ANOVA re-
vealed a significant main effect for container shape and a
significant product desirability by shape interaction
(F(1, 29) p 229.04, p ! .001, and F(1, 29) p 21.74, p !
.001, respectively). The shape effect replicates the previous
findings that the attention-attracting unusual container is per-
ceived as larger than the less attention-attracting, usual con-
tainer. Participants estimated a greater volume for the un-
usual container when the usual container was the anchor,
and they estimated a lesser volume for the usual container
when the unusual container was the anchor.
The interaction indicates that the effect is moderated by
product desirability. The discrepancy between containers is
perceived as greater when both containers held a desirable
product (M p 20.20 oz. in the unusual vs. M p 12.13 oz.
in the usual when both contained the desirable product;
M p 18.07 in the unusual versus 13.80 in the usual when
both contained the undesirable product). When participants
were told that the unusual bottle contained 16 oz. of a de-
sirable product, participants estimated that the taller bottle
contained 12.13 oz. (24.17% less). When participants were
told that the taller bottle contained 16 oz. of the desirable
product, participants estimated that the unusual bottle con-
tained 20.20 oz. (26.25% more). The means are significantly
different, (M p 12.13 vs. M p 20.20; F(1, 59) p 195.96,
p ! .001). The discrepancy between the usual and the un-
usual container was smaller but significantly different when
both held undesirable lemonade (M p 13.80 vs. M p
18.07; F(1, 59) p 54.82, p ! .001). Respondents estimated
the usual bottle contained 13.75% less than the 16 oz. un-
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
399
usual bottle and the unusual bottle contained 12.92% more
than the 16 oz. usual bottle.
Finally, contrasts show that the overestimation of the un-
usual bottle containing desirable lemonade was greater com-
pared to the overestimation of the unusual bottle containing
undesirable lemonade (M p 20.20 vs. M p 18.07;
F(1, 59) p 13.71, p ! .001). Underestimation of the usual
bottle containing desirable lemonade was greater compared
to the underestimation of the usual bottle containing unde-
sirable lemonade (M p 12.13 vs. M p 13.80; F(1, 59) p
8.37, p ! .005). In sum, the discrepancy between the differ-
ently shaped bottles was greater when participants thought
the two bottles contained a desirable product than when they
thought the two bottles contained an undesirable product.
Discussion
The results support hypotheses 1 and 4 and find no support
for hypothesis 5. The bottle that attracted more attention
was perceived as larger regardless of the content. However,
the difference between the two bottles was perceived as
greater when it contained a desirable product. That finding
is consistent with the notion that the discrepancy in attention
paid to the unusual container compared to the common con-
tainer is more obvious to consumers when they allocate
ample cognitive resources to the judgment task. If consum-
ers pay minimal attention to the task, the difference between
the attention allocated to the unusual container and that al-
located to the usual container should be more subtle and so
harder for the viewer to detect. However, the absence of
process measures makes our interpretation somewhat
speculative.
Estimates of the usual container’s volume contradict the
notion that a halo effect leads consumers to judge the size
of desirable objects to be greater than the size of undesirable
objects (hypothesis 5 not supported). The volume estimates
are opposite from those predicted in the usual bottle con-
dition. Participants thought that the usual bottle contained
more of the undesirable lemonade than of the desirable lem-
onade (M p 13.80 oz. vs. M p 12.13 oz.). Perceptions of
the bottles’ attractiveness help rule out a halo effect for the
container as opposed to the container’s content. Biases might
have arisen because the unusual bottle was perceived as
more attractive and so was assumed to possess additional
positive attributes, such as greater volume. However, at-
tractiveness did not differ significantly for the containers in
study 4, ruling out aesthetics as an explanation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of the experiments 1, 2, and 4 suggest that
containers that attract more attention are perceived as larger
in volume than same-sized containers that attract less atten-
tion, even when the latter is taller (hypothesis 1). Study 1
showed that the effect occurred in a shopping environment
(the grocery store). The effect decreased when the con-
tainer’s attention-attracting properties were diminished
through habituation (study 2, hypothesis 2). Further, the dis-
400
crepancy in volume judgments increased when the bottles
held a desirable product compared to when the bottles con-
tained an undesirable product (study 4, hypothesis 4). The
volume bias is likely to influence purchase decisions because
people believe that the container that attracts attention is a
better buy than a container that is the same size but attracts
less attention (see the study reported in study 3’s discussion).
The overall results are consistent with the notion that
volume judgments are contaminated by the attention that an
unusual container attracts. Consumers may confuse their
greater attention to one bottle over the other as due to its
larger size. Study 3 found that size and shape are associated
in people’s minds, particularly for the unusual container
(hypothesis 3). Nevertheless, consumers may not be aware
that they apply an attentional heuristic to volume judgments.
Mental contamination of judgments can occur below levels
of awareness (Nisbett and Wilson 1977; Wilson and Brekke
1994). We characterize the attention-volume bias as mental
contamination because consumers seem unlikely to want to
believe that unusual shapes increase their size judgments.
If it were a voluntary inferential rule, consumers would
consciously learn to judge the volume larger when one shape
attracts more attention, similar to other inferential rules that
could be justified as rational (e.g., that the price of a product
reflects its quality). Yet, when we informed respondents of
the direction of the way that attention could taint their judg-
ments, the vast majority of respondents provided accurate
volume estimates, correcting errors that emerged in our other
studies. It is unclear whether the effect depends on people
perceiving a difference in attention directed to two stimuli
or whether a difference in attention intrudes upon judgments
without the perception of a disparity.
There is no reason to assume that shape is the only at-
tention-attracting property of products that can lead to a size
bias. We have limited the scope of this article to product
shape to provide a link with the only previous consumer
research on volume judgments. Our results provide no sup-
port for the height heuristic for judging volume proposed
by Raghubir and Krishna (1999). However, it is possible
that the height heuristic is used when containers do not differ
in their attention-attracting abilities. As to the salience hy-
pothesis, the logic behind the salient linear dimension size
heuristic (Krider et al. 2001) addresses the simpler area
judgments and does not seem to apply to the irregular three-
dimensional shapes we examined. Moreover, Krider et al.
have not incorporated into their theorizing how consumers
take into account dimensional variation (e.g., irregular or
nonuniform shapes that lack a uniform width or height). In
sum, although previous research may explain how consum-
ers arrive at size judgments for simple, regular shapes, our
research suggests that other processes are involved in judg-
ments of more complex figures.
Whereas our studies ruled out several potential effects of
shape on volume, it is possible that those effects might be
observed in other circumstances. For example, study 4 in-
dicates that container attractiveness does not account for the
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
volume effect. However, a halo effect might influence vol-
ume perceptions when package aesthetics are varied.
Future research should explore the complex relationship
among quantity assessments, attitudes toward the product,
and exposure to the product. Liking for the product and its
container may influence attention directed toward the con-
tainer over time, potentially decreasing mental contamina-
tion. Consumers may habituate to containers of favored
brands. Yet, they may also develop a habit of purchasing
liked products and be less likely to compare the container
to which they are loyal to other brands. Further complicating
the relationship between evaluation and attention is the well-
established mere exposure effect—people like neutral or
mildly pleasant but unfamiliar stimuli more as they gain
familiarity with them. Whereas familiarity may decrease per-
ceptions of novelty, it might increase liking for a container.
Volume judgments are intricately related to the amount
consumed, with consumers learning about quantities from
their product usage and motivated to judge sizes from prod-
ucts they wish to consume. Biases occur in the amount one
allocates for usage depending on judgments of the amount
in a container (Folkes, Martin, and Gupta 1993). Clarifying
these relationships will provide interesting avenues for fu-
ture research.
Whereas our research focuses on a perceptual contaminant
of a perceptual judgment, the conditions under which con-
sumers rely on semantic size cues (e.g., a label identifying
the container as a family size) rather than or in addition to
perceptual cues deserve further scrutiny. Consumers may
consciously use such semantic cues, as contrasted with the
contamination process we propose for the attentional bias.
The effects of other cues consumers commonly encounter
when making volume judgments also should be pursued
(e.g., the price discounts associated with size differences
and unit price information), as well as other dependent mea-
sures. Finally, identifying the boundary conditions of the
contamination effect may provide insight into the underlying
processes. Contamination due to differential attention may
decrease as the discrepancy between a pair of containers
increases. For example, consumers should be able to judge
a 16 oz. container as greater than a 8 oz. container, even if
the smaller package is more novel. Hence, contamination
may occur only when volume differences are not immedi-
ately apparent. Yet, considering that numerical estimates of
sizes differed by as much as a fourth in our studies, the
potential magnitude of the volume bias suggests that it de-
serves more attention from researchers.
[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Gita Johar served
as associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Banks, William P., Robin Mermelstein, and Howard Yu (1982),
“Discriminating among Perceptual and Symbolic Stimuli,”
Memory and Cognition, 10 (3), 265–78.
Baylis, Gordon C. and Jon Driver (1993), “Visual Attention and
Objects: Evidence for Hierarchical Coding of Location,” Jour-
PACKAGE SHAPE AND VOLUME CONTENTS
nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 19 (3), 431–70.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
——— (1971), “Novelty and Attention: Controls for Retinal Ad-
aptation and for Stimulus-Response Specificity,” Psychon-
omic Science, 25 (6), 349–51.
Bloch, Peter (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and
Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16–29.
Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), “The Role of In-
volvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210–24.
Cole, Catherine and Siva K. Balasubramanian (1993), “Age Dif-
ferences in Consumers’ Search for Information: Public Policy
Implications,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June),
157–69.
Dickson, Peter and Alan G. Sawyer (1990), “The Price Knowledge
and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing,
54 (July), 42–53.
Duncan, John (1984), “Selective Attention and the Organization
of Visual Information,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 113 (4), 501–17.
Finn, Adam (1988), “Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An
Information Processing Perspective,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 25 (May), 168–77.
Folkes, Valerie S., Ingrid M. Martin, and Kamal Gupta (1993),
“When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 467–77.
Gronhaug, Kjell, Olav Kvitastein, and Gronmo (1991), “Factors
Moderating Advertising Effectiveness as Reflected in 333
Tested Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31
(5), 42–50.
Higgins, E. Tory (1996), “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility,
Applicability, and Salience,” in Social Psychology: Handbook
of Basic Principles, ed. E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Krug-
lanski, New York: Guilford, 133–68.
Higgins, E. Tory, William S. Rholes, and Carl R. Jones (1977),
“Category Accessibility and Impression Formation,” Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (2), 141–54.
Johnston, William A., Kevin J. Hawley, Steven H. Plewe, John
M. Elliott, and M. Jann DeWitt (1990), “Attention Capture
This content downloaded from 137.195.150.201 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 06:51:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
401
by Novel Stimuli,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral, 119 (4), 397–411.
Krider, Robert, Priya Raghubir, and Aradhna Krishna (2001), “Piz-
zas: Pi or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Compari-
sons,” Marketing Science, 20 (4), 405–25.
Markman, Arthur B. (1999), Knowledge Representation, Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Mussweiler, Thomas (2003), “Comparison Processes in Social Judg-
ment: Mechanisms and Consequences,” Psychological Review,
110 (July), 472–89.
Nisbett, Richard E. and Timothy Wilson (1977), “Telling More
than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,”
Psychological Review, 84 (3), 231–58.
Pieters, Rik and Luk Warlop (1999), “Visual Attention during
Brand Choice: The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Mo-
tivation” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16
(February), 1–16.
Posner, Michael, Mary J. Nissen, and Raymond Klein (1976), “Vi-
sual Dominance: An Information-Processing Account of Its
Origins,” Psychological Review, 83 (2), 157–71.
Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions
in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26.
Renninger, K. Ann and Robert Wozniak (1985), “Effects of Interest
on Attentional Shift, Recognition, and Recall in Young Chil-
dren,” Developmental Psychology, 21 (4), 624–32.
Russo, J. Edward and France Leclerc (1994), “An Eye-Fixation
Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 274–90.
Wedell, Douglas H. (1995), “Contrast Effects in Paired Compar-
isons: Evidence for Both Stimulus-Based and Response-
Based Processes,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hu-
man Perception and Performance, 21 (5), 1158–73.
Wilson, Timothy and Nancy Brekke (1994), “Mental Contamination
and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and
Evaluation,” Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 117–42.
Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1975), “Children’s Responses to Meaningful
Pictures Varying in Diversity: Exploration Time vs. Prefer-
ence,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20 (3),
341–51.