See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241491971

Consumer reaction to new package design

Article  in  Journal of Product & Brand Management · April 2012

DOI: 10.1108/10610421211215553

CITATIONS READS

35 5,166

2 authors:

Gary R. Holmes Audhesh K Paswan

Drury University University of North Texas
11 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   3,266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Iyer and Davari View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary R. Holmes on 29 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Emerald Article: Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes, Audhesh Paswan

Article information:
To cite this document: Gary R. Holmes, Audhesh Paswan, (2012),"Consumer reaction to new package design", Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 21 Iss: 2 pp. 109 - 116
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211215553
Downloaded on: 02-04-2012
References: This document contains references to 27 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes
Breech School of Business Administration, Drury University, Springfield, Missouri, USA, and
Audhesh Paswan
Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore the reaction of consumers to a new package design through differing levels of experience. It examines how
consumers’ expectation of product quality change as the consumer’s experience with the package moves from indirect to direct.
Design/methodology/approach – Respondents evaluated a new package design at indirect, moderately direct, and direct levels of experience.
Factor analysis was also conducted to determine what dimensions consumers use for evaluation.
Findings – This study revealed three major findings. First, consumers evaluate a new package on the two dimensions of “ease of use” and “ease of
handling”. Second, the type of experience with the package has a significant effect on the consumers’ attitude toward the package and the quality
assessment of the product inside. Third, consumers’ expectations of product quality and package ease of use have a positive association with purchase
intention for all types of product-related experience.
Originality/value – This paper provides insight into how consumers respond to products when the packaging has changed to a new design.

Keywords Packaging, Design, Consumer experience, Evaluation, Product design, Consumer psychology

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Package design is one of the most important aspects of
product strategy. It is estimated that about 70 percent of all
supermarket purchase decisions of prepackaged goods are
made at the point of purchase (Schoormans and Robben,
1997; Rettie and Brewer, 2000). As a result, the package itself
is the only marketing communication the consumer may
receive while evaluating the product (Schoormans and
Robben, 1997).
The importance of product design is crucial to the success
of a product by ensuring the product gains consumer notice,
communicates information, provides sensory stimulation, and
provide lasting effects of the product to the consumer (Bloch,
1995). A unique package design is one way a new product can
stand out from familiar packages offered by the competition
(Berkowitz, 1987). Product or package form can also create
the initial impression which generates inferences regarding
product attributes (Berkowitz, 1987).
The literature in this area emphasizes the importance of
package design as part of the total product but little attention
has been paid to the impact of the consumer’s experience with
the package on the evaluation of the product itself.
Researchers have suggested that valuable insights can be
gained from exploring a consumer’s evaluation after a direct
experience with the package instead of merely looking at a
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
21/2 (2012) 109– 116
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421211215553]
picture of a sample of the package itself (Mooy and Robben,
2002; Hoch and Deighton, 1989).
The purpose of this study is to explore the reaction of
consumers to a new package design through differing levels of
experience. Specifically, how does the consumer’s expectation
of product quality change as the consumer’s experience with
the package moves from indirect to direct? Finally, if
consumers feel they can make a proper evaluation of
product quality through an examination of the package,
then how much impact does this have on purchase intention.
This paper is organized as follows: The conceptual
framework for this research will be presented in the first
section. The constructs and hypothesis will be defined and
clarified in the conceptual framework section. The
methodology section will follow the description of the
model. The results from the study will then be presented
followed by discussion and implications of the findings.
Lastly, limitations and future research implications will be
presented.
Conceptual framework
Experience
Hoch and Deighton (1989) show that consumers learn
through a four stage process of experience. First, the
consumer speculates or forms a hypothesis or about the
product. Second, the consumer is exposed to, or has an
experience with the product including the package if available.
Third, the consumer after having experience with the product
will encode the information or perceive how they feel about
the product. Fourth, the consumer will integrate this
information and update his or her behavior. It is the
experience with the product that facilitates learning for the
consumer (Hoch and Deighton, 1989).
While some researchers have explored consumer experience
in a dichotomous setting by only comparing indirect to direct
experience (Gardial et al., 1994), Mooy and Robben (2002)
consider experience with the product as a spectrum from

109
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
indirect to direct. Experience could be thought of as the
amount of interaction the consumer is allowed to have with
the product and or package. For example, looking at a
product photo in an advertisement falls toward the indirect
experience part of the spectrum while hands-on usage
experience is the most direct part of the experience
spectrum (Mooy and Robben, 2002).
The aforementioned direct and indirect experience differs
from the concept of familiarity as defined by Alba and
Hutchinson (1987). They define familiarity as “the number of
product-related experiences that have been accumulated by
the consumer” (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). As with a new
package design, the consumer may or may not be familiar
with the package but can have a direct experience with the
package by using the product immediately after purchase.
Hence, this study will explore the type of product-related
experience not necessarily the number of product-related
experiences.
Expected product quality
Expectations of food product quality can be divided into three
distinct dimensions or components of search, experience, and
credence (Grunert et al., 2000; Nelson, 1974; Darby and
Karni, 1973). The search dimension involves quality
expectation that can be formed by the consumer at the time
of purchase, like the appearance of the package. Experience
dimension are those components of quality than can be
determined by the consumer before and after purchase and
through actual handling or use of the package and product.
The credence dimensions are those components that the
average consumer can never ascertain the level of quality
without the help of outside information. An example of
credence dimension would be the perception that tomato
sauce is healthy or helps prevent cancer.
In the normal pace of supermarket shopping, the consumer
must work through these dimensions rather quickly relying on
both a limited amount of direct and indirect experience
(Schoormans and Robben, 1997). When the consumer
encounters a new package on the supermarket shelf they are
typically forced to make a quality evaluation of the product
through experience with the package without actually seeing
the product (Grunert et al., 2000). If the consumer can move
towards a more direct experience through handling the
package they are more likely to make an inference from the
perceived quality of the package to the food product itself
(Steenkamp, 1990).
Some literature suggests the more direct experiences the
consumer has with a product through as many senses as
possible the more likely they feel they can make some kind of
informed judgment about the quality of the product (McCabe
and Nowlis, 2003). Consumers, however, are accustomed to
evaluating and examining products in the supermarket only
through the senses of touch and sight of the package (Mooy
and Robben, 2002):
H1. The more direct the experience with the package the
higher the level of expected product quality.
Attitude toward package
When the consumer develops an attitude toward the package
the packaging attributes such as the shape, feel, and the
overall package in general are most important as the
consumer makes an expected quality evaluation of the
110
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
product in the store at the moment of inspection or
purchase (Ragaert et al., 2004). The concept of attitude
toward package can be described as the consumers’ feeling of
favorability to the new package, perceived usefulness of the
new package, as well as a likelihood of purchase (Ratneshwar
and Chaiken, 1991).
The product literature is unclear what happens to the
consumer’s attitude toward the package when their experience
with the package changes from indirect to direct. McDaniel
and Baker (1977) found that if consumers perceive a new
package as superior then consumer attitudes toward the
package did not change with a direct experience.
Many studies suggest, however, that as the consumer
experience changes from an indirect to direct experience with
a new package their attitude toward the container or product
may increase (Folkes and Matta, 2004; Schoormans and
Robbens, 1997; Gardial et al., 1994). Schoormans and
Robbens (1997) found that consumers are more likely to
initiate a more direct experience with a new package that is
perceived as being different than other packages. This process
helped consumers to develop a higher attitude toward the
package:
H2. The more direct the experience with the package the
higher the attitude toward package.
Purchase intention
Murphy (1997) emphasized the importance of package design
and how it influences consumer decision-making process. He
identifies a two-step decision process that consumer move
through as they shop for convenience-packaged goods. First,
the consumer must make the decision to examine the product
further when they see it on the supermarket shelf. Package
design plays a primary role in the initial decision for product
examination. Second, after the consumer examines the
product in a more direct way by handling it, packaging
being the “silent salesman” continues to encourage selection
and leads to a higher purchase intention (Murphy, 1997).
It is surmised that purchase intention can be influenced by
many variables such as perceived quality and price (Zeithaml,
1988). The combination of perceived quality and price has a
direct impact on perceived value, and this value is what the
consumer uses to develop a purchase intention. The price of
lower-priced packaged goods, however, receives less attention
from consumers than higher-priced shopping goods because
the consumer appears to be unwilling to conduct an extensive
search for comparable products (Zeithaml, 1988). Therefore,
attitude toward package and expected product quality play an
important role in the consumer’s intent to purchase a low-
priced packaged convenience good in the supermarket
(Schoormans and Robben, 1997). This study does not
attempt to diminish the importance of price as a component
of purchase intention, but the focus of this study is to
determine the impact of a new package design on purchase
intention exclusive of price.
These findings suggest that as consumers progress from
indirect experience (seeing the product on the shelf) to a more
direct experience, (handling or using the package) their
attitude toward package and their quality expectation of the
product should have a greater effect on purchase intention:
H3a. For indirect (visual) experience with the package, there
is a positive association between level of expected
product quality and the level of purchase intention.
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
H3b. For indirect (visual) experience with the package, there
is a positive association between level of attitude
toward package and the level of purchase intention.
H4a. For moderately direct (handling) experience with the
package, there is a positive association between level of
expected product quality and the level of purchase
intention.
H4b. For moderately direct (handling) experience with the
package, there is a positive association between level of
attitude toward package and the level of purchase
intention.
H5a. For a direct (usage) experience with the package, there
is a positive association between level of expected
product quality and the level of purchase intention.
H5b. For a direct (usage) experience with the package, there
is a positive association between the level of attitude
toward package and the level of purchase intention.
Method
A package manufacturer in north Texas developed a new
alternative package for three types of tomato products:
1 Italian tomato sauce;
2 diced tomatoes; and
3 crushed tomatoes.
The package design used in this study was different than that
of currently existing US package designs which consist of tin
cans and glass jars. Tomato sauce is typically available in both
jars and cans while the crushed and diced tomatoes are
typically available in tin cans. The new alternative package
used in this study is a cardboard box sandwiched in between
several layers of polyethylene and the interior of the package is
lined by a protective foil layer. Details of the new package
design are not readily known to US consumers except for
their possible familiarity with the package design being
currently used in the fruit drink market. This package design
was recently used for ready-to-eat chili food products, but
other than this prior exposure US consumers are unfamiliar
with the package design in the context of tomato food
products used as ingredients for cooking. They are also
unfamiliar, except for the chili noted above, with this type of
package as a long-term unrefrigerated storage container for
products other than sweetened drinks.
A total of 461 surveys were distributed to parents who
participate in mothers-day-out programs, parents whose
children attend day care centers, graduate students, and
university faculty selected from the Midwestern and
Southwestern United States. There were 354 surveys
returned with a final yield of 347 usable surveys. Of those
respondents that completed usable surveys, 116 were given a
sample package of the tomato product and asked to fill out a
pre-test survey by only looking at and handling the sample.
After filling out the pre-test survey the respondents were then
instructed to take the sample package home, open the
package, and use the product in a prepared dish of their
choosing. After the respondents had used the package and the
product they filled out a post-test survey. To compare with the
respondents who took pre-test and post-test surveys, 231
individuals completed usable pre-test surveys accompanied by
a picture of the package.
Items were developed to measure attitude toward package
and expected product quality constructs by using prior
111
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
research available from the package manufacturing firm, and
a scale developed by Ratneshwar and Chaiken (1991) with a
reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90. The items developed from
the package manufacturing firm data and the Ratneshwar and
Chaiken (1991) scale were presented to 20 individuals to
determine if these pre-existing items adequately captured
their attitude toward package and expected product quality.
After conducting in depth interviews with these individuals,
most pre-existing items were retained and some items were
added from the suggestion of the interviewees. Finally,
purchase intention was measured using the items developed
by Dodds et al. (1991) with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of
0.96.
Items measuring attitude toward package, expected product
quality, and purchase intention were measured on a five-point
Likert-type scale anchored between “strongly disagree” (1)
and “strongly agree” (5). Categorical items captured
respondents’ gender, age, household income, and marital
status. The frequency of product (tomato products) purchase
and the frequency with which the respondents cook their
meals at home were also captured by the questionnaire.
Results
Gender composition was 42 percent male and 58 percent
female. The median age range of respondents was 31 to 40
years of age. The median household income for the sample
was $40,001-$60,000. The median frequency of purchase of
tomato products was once per month and the respondents
cooked at home an average of five to six times per week.
Principal component factor analysis revealed two
dimensions for attitude toward package, one dimension for
expected food quality, and one dimension for purchase
intention. The first dimension of attitude toward package was
labeled as package – ease of use (PEU) and the Cronbach
alpha for this dimension was 0.829. The second dimension
was labeled as package – ease of handling (PEH) with a
Cronbach alpha of 0.598. Cronbach alphas for expected food
quality and purchase intention were 0.921 and 0.937
respectively (see Table I). These Cronbach alphas suggest
an adequate degree of convergent validity. Analysis of inter-
item matrix and the inter-factor correlation matrix (see
Table II) supports convergence and also suggests acceptable
discriminant validities of the developed factors (Churchill,
1979).
Inspection of the inter-factor matrix reveals positive
correlations among all factors of expected food quality, PEU
dimension of attitude toward package, PEH dimension of
attitude toward package, and purchase intention. All inter-
factor correlations are significant at the 0.01 level. The range
of correlations were in the moderate level with expected food
quality and package usage factors having the lowest
correlation of 0.374 and expected food quality and purchase
intention having the highest correlation of 0.536.
Composite scores were generated for the factors of expected
food quality, PEU, PEH, and purchase intention by taking the
mean of the items used in each factor. One way ANOVA’s
were used to test the hypotheses (H1 and H2) dealing with the
differences among levels indirect and direct experience for
attitude toward package and expected product quality (see
Table III and Figure 1). Linear regression analysis (see Table
IV) was employed to test the association with the attitude
towards package and expected product quality dimensions
 Consumer reaction to new package design Journal of Product & Brand Management
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116

Table I Factor analysis indirect (visual), moderately direct (handling), and direct
(usage) experience with the package. The analysis revealed
Factor 1 2 3 4 there was not a significant difference in the PEU dimension
1. Expectation of quality from visual, handling, and usage experiences. There were
Food appetizing 0.832 significant differences of the PEH dimension during indirect
Overall like food 0.824 (visual) experience (mean ¼ 3:615) with the package and the
Pleasant aroma 0.813 other levels of moderately direct (mean ¼ 3:897; p , 0:001)
Cooks well 0.812
and direct (mean ¼ 4:004; p , 0:001) experience. However,
there was not a significant difference in means of PEH
Food tasty 0.780
between moderately direct (handling) and direct (usage)
Enhances cooking 0.776
experience.
Food fresh 0.772
Expected product (food) quality showed significant
2. Package – ease of use differences between all three levels of indirect
Easy to open 0.896 (mean ¼ 3:174; p , 0:001), moderately direct
Easy to use 0.871 (mean ¼ 3:519; p , 0:001), and direct (mean ¼ 3:970;
Remove food 0.686 p , 0:001) experience. As a result, H1 is fully supported
and H2 is partially supported for one dimension (PEH) of
3. Package – ease of handling attitude toward product.
Easy to store 0.815 Regression analysis revealed that indirect experience of
Easy to handle 0.727 PEU dimension (t ¼ 4:532; p , 0:001) had a significant and
Prevent breakage 0.457 positive association with the respondents’ purchase intention.
4. Purchase intention PEH dimension did not have a significant contribution for
Willingness to purchase 0.932 visual experience. Respondents who had an indirect (visual)
Probability to purchase 0.930 experience with the package revealed that expected (food)
Likely to purchase 0.903
product quality (t ¼ 7:458; p , 0:001) had a significant and
positive association with respondents’ purchase intention.
Made available in market 0.898
Thus, H3a was supported but H3b was only partially
Percentage of variance explained by
supported since only one dimension (PEU) of attitude
factor 45.800 14.147 7.843 62.416
toward package was significant.
Factor mean 3.459 3.643 3.783 3.219
Analysis at the moderately direct level experience of
Factor standard deviation 0.789 0.861 0.699 0.990 handling the package revealed that PEU (t ¼ 2:296;
Cronbach alpha 0.923 0.829 0.598 0.937
Note: The anchor was Strongly agree (5) to Strongly disagree (1) Figure 1 Comparison of indirect, moderately direct and direct
experience

Table II Inter-factor correlation matrix

1 2 3 4
Expected quality 1
Package usage 0.374 1
Package handling 0.535 0.499 1
Purchase intention 0.536 0.443 0.409 1
Note: All correlations are significant at the 0.99 confidence level

and their effect on respondent’s purchase intention (H3

through H5).
The means of two dimensions of the respondents’ attitude
toward package was captured across the different levels of

Table III Comparison of indirect (visual), moderately direct (handling), and direct (usage) experience
Dependent variable Visual Handling Usage t-stat p-value
Expected product quality Mean 3.174 3.523 3.970 6.872 ,0.001
SD 0.779 0.767 0.527
Package – ease of use Mean 3.560 3.678 3.771 1.564 0.088
SD 0.859 0.871 0.850
Package – ease of handling Mean 3.615 3.893 4.004 3.816 ,0.001
SD 0.758 0.633 0.551

112
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
Table IV Multiple regressions with purchase intention as dependent variable for indirect (Model 1), moderately direct (Model 2), and direct (Model 3)
dxperience
Model 1: Indirect
(visual) experiencea
B Std error Std beta t Sig. B Std error Std beta t
(Constant) 2 0.182 0.313 2 0.582 0.561 1.019
Expected quality 0.611 0.082 0.453 7.458 , 0.001 0.332
Package usage 0.329 0.073 0.271 4.532 , 0.001 0.216
Package handling 0.018 0.087 0.013 0.203 0.840 0.107
Notes: a R 0.612, R2 0.374, Adj R2 0.366, Std. Error 0.834; b R 0.510, R2 0.260, Adj R2 0.240, Std. Error .72033; c R 0.586, R2 0.344, Adj R2 0.326, Std. Error
.76461; Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for all models was below 2.0
p ¼ 0:024) has a positive and significant association with
purchase intention. PEH dimension at the handling
(moderately direct) level of experience are still insignificant.
Expected product quality held a significant and positive
association with purchase intention for the handling
(t ¼ 3:060; p , 0:001) experience. Thus, H4a was
supported but H4b was partially supported since only one
dimension (PEU) of attitude toward package was significant.
The direct experience level produced the same results as the
previous levels of experience by showing that PEU (t ¼ 2:695;
p ¼ 0:008) has a positive and significant association with
purchase intention while PEH continued to have an
insignificant association with the respondents’ purchase
intention. Expected product quality held a significant and
positive association with purchase intention for usage
(t ¼ 3:248; p ¼ 0:002) experience. As with the previous
hypotheses, H5a was supported but H5b was partially
supported because only the PEU dimension was significant.
Discussion and implications
The findings in this study generally support the hypotheses
that when consumers evaluate a new package the more direct
the experience the more likely it is that the consumer can
develop a proper evaluation of the package and the quality of
the product in the package. This study implies when firms
introduce products in new packages they will want to develop
promotional strategies to allow consumers to have the highest
inspection level that is financially feasible within the campaign
budget. Several findings are important for researchers and
marketing managers.
First, consumers evaluate a new package on the two
dimensions:
1 package – ease of use (PEU); and
2 package – ease of handling (PEH).
The factor analysis revealed that consumers appear to find
PEU as the primary dimension and PEH as the secondary
dimension as they develop attitude toward the package. As
firms introduce new and novel packages they may want to
emphasize package usage when trying to provide consumers
with the perception of superior performance quality.
Second, the type of experience with the package has a
significant effect on increasing the consumers’ attitude toward
package and the quality evaluation of the product inside.
While the respondents did not show a significant difference in
attitude toward product usage from moderately direct to
direct experience, there was a significant difference from
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
Model 2: Moderately direct Model 3: Direct
(handling) experienceb (usage) experiencec
Sig. B Std error Std beta t Sig.
0.434 2.347 0.021 2 0.848 0.623 21.361 0.176
0.109 0.309 3.060 0.003 0.516 0.159 0.290 3.248 0.002
0.094 0.228 2.296 0.024 0.283 0.105 0.259 2.695 0.008
0.145 0.082 0.737 0.462 0.303 0.175 0.179 1.735 0.086
indirect experience only. This finding implies that consumers
are less likely to develop a favorable attitude toward a new
package and develop a positive expected quality evaluation of
the product by only looking at the package in picture form
such as a magazine or newspaper advertisement.
Marketing managers may not have to use expensive free
samples for promotion of a new package design because
consumers’ attitudes toward the package usage and handling
do not change between the higher levels of moderately direct
(handling the package) and direct (actual usage of the
package) experience. Therefore, an in-store display where
consumers can handle the package through a moderately
direct experience may be enough for them to develop the
proper attitudes toward the package for a familiar product or
brand.
Third, the respondents of this study revealed that the
consumers’ expectation of product quality and the dimension
of PEU have a positive association with purchase intention
regardless of the type of experience available to the consumer.
Surprisingly, the second dimension of PEH capabilities did
not significantly affect the respondents’ level of purchase
intention under any type of experience. Inspection of the
regression analysis reveals that as the respondents’ experience
with the package moved from indirect to direct, the
significance level of the PEH approaches significance. At the
most direct level of usage experience the PEH dimension
would be acceptable at the 90 percent confidence level
(p ¼ 0:086) implying that dimension could still be important
in relating to purchase intention. Thus, respondents could use
both dimensions of attitude toward package when making a
purchase decision, but the results of this study show that
when it comes to purchase, consumers appear to primarily
use the PEU dimension.
In sum, consumers need more direct levels of new package
experience to develop favorable perceptions of the product
inside and the use and handling of the package itself.
Consumers’ purchase intentions are influenced by consumers’
quality expectation and attitude of new package usage
regardless of the type of experience. However, quality
expectations and both dimensions of attitude toward the
new package are significantly influenced by the type of
package experience.
Limitations and directions for future research
While this research was conducted using a carefully designed
model using theoretical and realistic constructs with
significant findings, there are some limitations. One
113
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
limitation is the lack of an involvement moderator. There has
been considerable research exploring the impact the level of
involvement has on consumers (Petty et al., 1984). When
consumers are confronted with a new package design their
level of involvement will play a part in how they evaluate the
package. Mantel and Kardes (1999) found that special
packaging considerations or even new package design had the
most impact on low involvement consumers. Hence, high
involvement consumers tend to place less importance on the
packaging and placed more emphasis on the product
regardless of the package (Mantel and Kardes, 1999). Low
involvement consumers felt they could compare differences in
product attributes, such as the package design, easier than
those that were highly involved with the product (Zhang and
Markman, 2001). The low involvement consumer arrived at a
quicker and more concise quality evaluation of the product
than their high involvement counterparts (Zhang and
Markman, 2001). Introduction of an involvement moderator
or dividing the sample into high and low involvement
respondents could provide additional information about how
consumers evaluate new packages.
Another opportunity for future research is the impact of
brand awareness and/or the consumers’ attitudes toward
brand have on the attitude toward package and the
expectation of product quality. This research purposely
avoided brand impact at the request of the new package
manufacturer because they wanted information on the
package alone since branding will be handled separately in
the marketplace by private labelers. The lack of branding was
beneficial to this study by allowing the respondents to only
focus on packaging aspects without the prejudice that a brand
name can create. Still, familiar or preferred brands may
change consumers’ expected quality and attitude toward
package (Bitner, 1992) and this important aspect should be
explored in future studies.
Another closely related issue with inspection of the package
is consumers’ evaluation of the artwork design on the
package. This study did not look into artwork design issues
that may impact how consumers perceive the package, make
an expectation of product quality, and hence develop a
positive or negative purchase intention (Rettie and Brewer,
2000; Lawson, 1983).
The contribution of the study shows consumers’
expectation of quality developed from inspection of the
package increases through each level of indirect (visual),
moderately direct (handling), and direct (usage) experience.
Consumers’ attitude toward a new package design increases
from indirect to moderately direct or direct level of
experience. In sum, research into new package design is an
exciting area that still affords researchers with many different
avenues of future research.
References
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of
consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,
March, pp. 411-54.
Berkowitz, M. (1987), “Product shape as a design innovation
strategy”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 4,
December, pp. 274-83.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
114
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Seeking the ideal form: product design
and consumer response”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59,
July, pp. 16-29.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and
the optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 67-88.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991),
“The effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyer’s product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 28, August, pp. 307-19.
Folkes, V. and Matta, S. (2004), “The effect of package shape
on consumers’ judgement of product volume: attention as a
mental contaminant”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31,
September, pp. 390-401.
Gardial, S.F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann,
D.W. and Burns, M.J. (1994), “Comparing consumer’s
recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation
experiences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, March,
pp. 548-60.
Grunert, K.G., Beck-Larson, T. and Bredahl, L. (2000),
“Three issues in consumer quality perception and
acceptance of dairy products”, International Dairy Journal,
No. 10, pp. 575-84.
Hoch, S.J. and Deighton, J. (1989), “Managing what
consumers learn from experience”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 53, April, pp. 1-20.
Lawson, B. (1983), How Designers Think, Eastview Editions,
Westfield, NJ.
McCabe, D.B. and Nowlis, S.M. (2003), “The effect of
examining actual products or product descriptions on
consumer preference”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 431-9.
McDaniel, C. and Baker, R.C. (1977), “Convenience food
packaging and the perception of product quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 10, March, pp. 57-8.
Mantel, S.P. and Kardes, F.R. (1999), “The role of direction
comparison, attribute-base processing, and attitude-base
processing in consumer preference”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 25, March, pp. 335-52.
Mooy, S.C. and Robben, H.S.J. (2002), “Managing
consumers’ product evaluations through direct product
experience”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 432-46.
Murphy, I.P. (1997), “Study: packaging important in trial
purchase”, Marketing News, 3 February, p. 14.
Nelson, P. (1974), “Advertising as information”, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 78, pp. 311-29.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1984),
“Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness:
the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10, September, pp. 135-46.
Ragaert, P., Verbeke, W., Devlieghere, F. and Debevere, J.
(2004), “Consumer perception and choice of minimally
processed vegetables and packaged fruits”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 259-70.
Ratneshwar, S. and Chaiken, S. (1991), “Comprehension’s
role in persuasion: the case of its moderating effect on the
persuasive impact of source cues”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18, June, pp. 52-62.
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000), “The verbal and visual
components of package design”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-69.
Schoormans, J.P.L. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997), “The effect
of new package design on product attention, categorization,
and evaluation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18,
pp. 271-87.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1990), “Conceptual model of the quality
perception process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21,
pp. 309-33.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price
quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zhang, S. and Markman, A.B. (2001), “Processing product
unique features: alignability and involvement in preference
construction”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 13-27.
Further reading
Houston, D.A. and Sherman, S.J. (1995), “Cancellation and
focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice
process”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31,
July, pp. 357-78.
About the authors
Gary R. Holmes is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the
Breech School of Business Administration at Drury
University. He has a PhD (Marketing) from the University
of North Texas, an MBA from Drury University, and a BS
from Missouri State University. He has nine years’ experience
in bank services marketing. His research has appeared in
journals such as International Journal of Advertising, Journal of
Hospital Marketing and Public Relations, and Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising. Gary R. Holmes is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
gholmes@drury.edu
Audhesh Paswan is Professor in the Department of
Marketing and Logistics, COBA, UNT. He has a PhD
(Marketing) from the University of Mississippi, an MBA from
IIM, Ahmedabad, India, and a BTech in Aeronautics from
IIT, Madras, India. His research has appeared in journals
such as Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Journal of
Business Research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, and Journal of Marketing Education.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
Since almost three-quarters of supermarket purchase
decisions are made at the point of sale, product packaging
has an important function to play. The package used markets
a product to the consumer and uniqueness of design helps
115
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
differentiate new items from familiar offerings. As well as
attracting the consumer, packaging conveys information and
enables sensory experience to occur.
Research has shown that experience with a product or its
packaging considerably impacts on consumer evaluation of
that product. Experience can be indirect or direct, which
some scholars position as opposing ends of a continuum. An
example of indirect experience could be observing
photographs contained in an advertisement, while “hands-
on usage” represents experience of the most direct kind.
Experience is also regarded as one of three dimensions of
expected product quality. The first of these is the search
dimension, which relates to consumer anticipation of quality
at the purchase time. This expectation is formed in part
through how the product packaging appears. Handling and
usage of the product and/or packaging before and after
purchase constitutes the experience dimension. Outside
information is normally required for the credence
dimension, which might relate to a product’s health
benefits, for example.
Supermarket shopping demands that consumers depend on
limited direct and indirect experience to swiftly navigate these
dimensions. Different studies have also pointed out the need
to evaluate the quality of a product and that this is often done
through experiencing its packaging. Quality inference is
likelier to be made when the packaging is handled. In the view
of some academics, individuals become more confident in
their ability to make informed assessment of product quality
when they enjoy direct experiences through different senses.
Consumer attitude towards product packaging is shaped by
various attributes including size and how it feels. When the
package is considered useful and overall attitude is positive,
purchase becomes more likely. Extant literature remains
inconclusive as to whether changes from indirect to direct
experience impact on attitude. However, some evidence
suggests that consumers are more inclined to seek direct
experiences with packaging they regard as different to other
packages.
Many variables typically affect purchase intention.
Perceived quality and price are especially significant as they
combine to shape perception of value. It has been argued that
price is less important for cheaper packaged goods than more
expensive products. The reason forwarded for this is that
consumers are less willing to search extensively for possible
alternatives where lower-priced products are concerned. It is
consequently mooted that purchase intention towards cheaper
convenience supermarket goods will be greatly influenced by
consumer attitude towards packaging and its impact on
expected product quality. That the effect of these factors will
increase as consumer experience shifts from indirect to more
direct is regarded as probable.
Holmes and Paswan explore these issues in a study
involving parents, graduate students and university faculty
from Midwestern and Southwestern United States. The study
focused on new alternative packaging manufactured for three
kinds of tomato products, normally packaged in glass jars and/
or cans and used as cooking ingredients. This new cardboard,
polyethylene and foil design is not familiar within this product
category.
Of the 347 respondents, 231 completed a pre-test survey
which involved looking at a picture of the package. The
remaining subjects physically inspected the package before
taking it home and using the ingredients to prepare a meal.
 Consumer reaction to new package design
Gary R. Holmes and Audhesh Paswan
The sample consisted of 42 percent males and 58 percent
females and median household income was between $40,001
and $60,000. On average, respondents purchased the tomato
products once each month and cooked meals at home five to
six times every week.
Experience was categorized as indirect, moderately direct or
direct, respectively indicated by visual, handling and usage
behaviors. Hypotheses were examined and revealed that:
. superior quality. But the influence of ease of handling is
Expected product quality increases as experience with the
package becomes more direct.
.
Attitude towards package is more favorable when it is
perceived as easy to handle.
.
Association between level of expected product quality and
degree of purchase intention was significant and positive
for indirect experience.
.
For indirect experience, the relationship between level of
attitude towards the package and amount of purchase
intention was only positive when the package was
considered easy to use.
.
The relationship between level of expected product quality
and degree of purchase intention was significant and
positive in the moderately direct experience condition.
.
For indirect experience, only when the package was
perceived as easy to use did a positive association occur
between level of attitude towards the package and amount
of purchase intention.
.
With direct experience, association between level of
expected product quality and degree of purchase
intention was significant and positive.
.
When packaging was considered easy to use, a positive
relationship was evident between degree of attitude
towards the package and level of purchase intention for
direct experience.
Overall, the prospect of consumers more accurately assessing
the package and its contents increases as experience becomes
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
116
View publication stats
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 2 · 2012 · 109 –116
more direct. Firms launching products in new packages might
therefore use marketing strategies which permit the “highest
inspection level” that their budget allows.
The authors also recommend that companies place greater
emphasis on the ease of package use given that results indicate
this dimension to be more primary than the ease of handling
dimension. Such a focus can enhance consumer perception of
greater with direct experience of the package. This suggests
that both dimensions might have some impact on purchase
decisions.
Type of experience is also considered significant,
particularly the difference between indirect and the two
direct forms. Marketers should note that simply observing a
picture of the package is unlikely to trigger a favorable attitude
or positive expectations of product quality. That insignificant
differences were found between moderately direct and direct
experience also has implications. In the opinion of Holmes
and Paswan, consumers may develop favorable responses on
the strength of handling packages displayed in store.
Companies are thus saved the expense of having to provide
free samples that enable direct experience.
An investigation into the effect of consumer involvement
with the product is one area future studies might explore.
Another suggestion is to examine brand awareness and
attitude towards a brand. These factors could influence how
individuals perceive packaging, their quality expectations and
likelihood of purchase. The authors also believe that
consumer response might be similarly affected by artwork
used on the packaging.
(A précis of the article “Consumer reaction to new package
design”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)