Accepted Manuscript

Healthy package, Healthy product? Effects of Packaging Design as a Function

of Purchase Setting

Thomas J.L. van Rompay, Florien Deterink, Anna Fenko

PII: S0950-3293(16)30115-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.001
Reference: FQAP 3155

To appear in: Food Quality and Preference

Received Date: 28 December 2015

Revised Date: 3 June 2016
Accepted Date: 9 June 2016

Please cite this article as: van Rompay, T.J.L., Deterink, F., Fenko, A., Healthy package, Healthy product? Effects
of Packaging Design as a Function of Purchase Setting, Food Quality and Preference (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1

Running head: HEALTHY PACKAGE, HEALTHY PRODUCT

Healthy package, Healthy product?

Effects of Packaging Design as a Function of Purchase Setting

Thomas J.L. van Rompay, Florien Deterink, and Anna Fenko

University of Twente

Thomas van Rompay, Department of Communication Science, University of Twente;

Florien Deterink, Department of Communication Science, University of Twente; Anna Fenko,
Department of Communication Science, University of Twente

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas van

Rompay. Department of Communication Science, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE
Enschede, The Netherlands.
 2

Abstract

Inspired by research testifying to the influence of visual packaging appearance and meaning

portrayal on food evaluation, here it is argued that effects of packaging design vary

depending on purchase context. Realistic packaging variants for a fictitious yoghurt brand

varying in health connotation were designed. Data were collected during two field studies in

the entrance halls of a discount supermarket visited by price sensitive buyers and a green

supermarket frequented by organic buyers respectively. Results from a taste session in

which shoppers tasted an identical yoghurt variant from either one of the two package

variants revealed that packaging design influenced taste evaluation in the discount

supermarket only, with a more healthy packaging appearance positively affecting

perceptions of food healthiness. A follow-up study further stressed the importance of

considering store environment and related shopper concerns in (packaging) design practice.

Keywords: Packaging design, healthiness, food evaluation, environmental context,

shopper motivation
 3

Healthy package, Healthy product?

Effects of Packaging Design as a Function of Purchase Setting

A growing body of literature testifies to the far-reaching impact that product

packaging can have on consumer expectations and actual product experiences. For

instance, orientation (layout) of packaging elements (e.g., Van Rompay, Fransen, &

Borgelink, 2014; Velasco, Woods, & Spence, 2015), shape angularity (Becker, Van

Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Schifferstein, 2009; Velasco, Salgado-Montejo,

Marmolejo-Ramos, & Spence, 2014; Westerman et al., 2012, 2013), and color usage

(Deliza & MacFie, 2001; Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2011; Schifferstein, Fenko, Desmet,

Labbe, & Martin, 2013) are amongst the packaging features that have been shown to

impact consumer perceptions. At the same time, however, effects of packaging design on

food experience have been shown to vary with intrapersonal factors (e.g., design

sensitivity; Becker et al., 2011; Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003), indicating that depending

on target group characteristics, the ‘persuasiveness’ of a package is bound to vary.

Another factor which might qualify the impact of product packaging on food

expectations and subsequent food experiences concerns the environment in which the

package is placed. Although not focused on product packaging, previous research has

shown that product-extrinsic cues (such as lighting conditions and the number of other

people present at the point of consumption) may impact perceptions and food

experience (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015; Wansink, 2006). Likewise within

retailing and environmental psychology, an increasing body of research (see Spence,

Pucinelli, Grewal, & Roggeveen, 2014 for a review) testifies to the impact of extrinsic,

environmental factors such as color (e.g., Bellizzi & Hite, 1992), ambient lighting (e.g.,

Oberfeld, Hecht, Allendorf, & Wickelmaier, 2009; Spence, Velasco, & Knoeferle, 2014),

and scent (e.g., Chebat & Michon, 2003) on consumer experiences and merchandise

perceptions.
 4

However, research addressing the influence of the purchase environment on

packaging evaluation and subsequent food experiences is non-existent. With respect to

product packaging, the store environment in which the package is placed may very well

be an important aspect to reckon with, as it is here that both store image and shoppers

with specific concerns come together. For instance, a general distinction may be drawn

between discount supermarkets visited by price sensitive shoppers and more upscale,

‘green’ supermarkets (e.g., Whole Foods) where organic shoppers gather who are

attuned to product quality and food healthiness. Apart from being the setting where

most purchase decisions take place, and where consumers may first encounter new

brands and products ‘in’ their packaging, it is also here that shoppers may try out new

drinks and foods.

In light of the current focus on health in relation to food choice and consumption

(Wansink & Chandon, 2014), a particularly interesting question relates to how

packaging appearance can instill perceptions related to healthiness, and whether these

transfer to taste. Surprisingly, very little research has addressed influences of visual

packaging appearance on health perception. And although research has addressed the

impact of nutrition labels and health claims on food choice (e.g., Ascheman-Witzel,

Maroscheck, & Hamm, 2013) and taste (Bialkova, Sasse, & Fenko, 2016; Lee, Shimizu,

Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013; Lotz, Christandl, & Fetchenhauer, 2013; Sörqvist et al., 2016),

studies addressing how more implicit visual packaging cues steer the extent to which

shoppers evaluate a taste sample as healthy are non-existent.

In the current research, we will report on two field studies and one follow-up

survey study. Field studies involved the same packaging variants presented to shoppers

in a discount supermarket and a green supermarket respectively. Specifically, in both

studies participants were exposed to either a ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ packaging

appearance for a new (fictitious) yoghurt brand, and subsequently participated in a

 5

taste test. In a follow-up survey study, participants were randomly assigned to one of

the two supermarket conditions and were exposed to either the healthy or unhealthy

packaging variant. Before elaborating on the details of these studies, first we will discuss

the key notions involved.

Packaging appearance and purchase setting

In recent years, a considerable body of research has shown that relatively subtle

packaging cues such as color and shape may impact product evaluations and subsequent

food experiences. For instance, Becker et al. (2011) showed that an angular (as opposed

to rounded) yoghurt package shape not only affected the impression of the package, but

that this impression also transferred to the actual taste, such that the yoghurt was

perceived as having a more intense, strong taste when associated with the angular (as

opposed to the rounded) package. Apart from visual factors, haptic sensations related to

touch and exploration of cups or plateware from which foods are consumed may also

alter food experience (Biggs, Juravle, & Spence, 2016; Schifferstein, 2009). These

findings testify to the importance of packaging design elements, and show that

impressions from one sense modality (e.g., visually perceiving something as intense or

strong) may transfer to another (e.g., evaluating taste as intense or strong), a

phenomenon referred to as cross-modal correspondence (Schifferstein & Spence, 2008).

Surprisingly, experimental studies addressing effects of implicit visual design

factors (as compared to explicit textual cues such as claims and nutrition labels) on

evaluations of product healthiness are sparse although aspects such as color and shape

are frequently referred to and experimented with as witnessed by redesigns and new

product introductions. With respect to color for instance, companies such as McDonalds

and Coca Cola (i.e., Coca-Cola life) replaced their ‘red’ with ‘green’, suggestive of a more

natural and healthy image. Such practice is in line with research addressing color

associations triggered by warm (e.g., red, yellow) versus cool (e.g., green, blue) hues.
 6

Whereas the former trigger associations with excitement (high arousal), the latter

connote calm and relaxation (low arousal; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1995; Van Rompay,

Tanja-Dijkstra, Verhoeven, & Van Es, 2012), and may be more readily perceived as

natural and healthy. Hence in current research, this color dimension was applied to

design a ‘healthy’ (low-arousal colors) versus ‘unhealthy’ (high-arousal colors)

packaging appearance.

Similarly to how a package may steer subsequent food experiences, the same

may hold for the larger ‘container’ which is the purchase environment in which a

package figures. In line with this notion, research in retailing shows that aspects such as

scent, sound, and color may influence shopper experiences (Spence, Pucinelli, Grewal,

& Roggeveen, 2014; Turley & Milliman, 2000). For instance, a classic study by North,

Hargreaves, and McKendrick (1997) showed that shoppers were more likely to

purchase products compatible with the music being played. Specifically, they purchased

more French wines when French music was played and more German wines when

German songs were played. Findings from priming studies likewise suggest that people

behave in line with meanings activated by the (store) environment. For instance,

Holland, Hendriks, and Aarts (2005) showed that the mere exposure to the scent of all-

purpose cleaner caused participants to keep their direct environment clean during an

eating task. These findings show that the environmental setting may connote a certain

ambience through factors such as scent, sound, and color, which sets the stage for

subsequent evaluations and behaviors.

In line with research testifying to the importance of a match between

environment and behavior, Piqueras-Fiszman and Jaeger (2015) recently showed that

emotion associations are more positive when the eating occasion is appropriate (e.g.,

eating ice-cream outdoors with friends on a sunny day compared to eating ice-cream

with a small group of relative strangers indoors). Likewise, a recent study by García-
 7

Segovia, Harrington, and Seo (2015) showed that people experience food intake as more

positive when consumed in an appropriate and realistic context. These findings suggest

that a match between the product and the environment heightens product evaluation. In

sum, it could be expected that shoppers in a ‘green’ retail setting more readily evaluate

foods as ‘healthy’ in appearance and taste (especially when packaging design connotes

healthiness and thus is congruent with the ‘green’ environment), compared to shoppers

in a ‘discount’ environment where focus is on price rather than food healthiness.

On the other hand, it might also be the case that shoppers in a ‘green’

environment are more sceptical and aware of persuasive attempts of food companies to

instill an image of healthiness. For instance, Ascheman-Witzel et al. (2013) showed that

nutrition and health claims are more effective for occasional ‘organic’ food buyers

compared to more outspoken ‘organic’ buyers, who are more sceptical about health-

related information on products. Thus, from this perspective, shoppers in a green

environment might be less susceptible to product packaging cues.

In order to test these alternative hypotheses, two field studies were conducted

in which shoppers from two supermarkets varying in ‘green’ image (i.e., ALDI versus

EKOPLAZA) took part in a taste sampling test of a (fictitious) yoghurt brand displayed in

either a healthy or unhealthy packaging appearance.

Study 1

Objective

Study 1 aims to explore the influence of a healthy versus unhealthy packaging

appearance at a discount supermarket in the Netherlands. To this end, a unifactorial

(packaging appearance: healthy versus unhealthy) between-subject design was used.

Stimuli and design

 8

In order to arrive at the stimuli for both studies, twelve persons were shown

color samples varying in color hue, including both high (red/yellow) and low

(green/blue) arousal colors. Additionally (to further enhance realism of the packaging

designs), they were presented with material texture samples and asked to indicate

which they considered most appropriate for a healthy dairy product. Based on their

responses (confirming the relatedness between health impressions and the color

arousal dimension), two packaging designs were created using Adobe Photoshop (See

Figure 1). To ensure the effectiveness of the design manipulation, 16 participants rated

both variants on perceived healthiness. An analysis of variance confirmed that the (low

color arousal) heathy packaging variant was indeed perceived as more ‘healthy’ (M =

4.88, SD = 1.46) compared to the (high color arousal) ‘unhealthy’ variant (M = 3.00, SD =

1.31; F (1, 14) = 7.33, p = .02).

Participants

Fifty-three shoppers at the ALDI supermarket participated (38 female, 15 male;

mean age: 50.58 years). Upon checking out, they were approached and requested to take

part in a taste sampling trial for a dairy brand. Upon consent, they were randomly

assigned to one of the two packaging variant conditions.

Measures

Prior to tasting the yoghurt sample, participants filled out a (manipulation

check) measure for packaging appearance comprising the items “This package suggests

that this is a healthy product”, “This package suggests that this is a responsible product”,

and “This package suggests usage of natural ingredients” (alpha = .68).

After tasting, two measures for product evaluation were filled out. The health

evaluation measure comprised the items pure, fresh, natural, healthy, wholesome and

honest (alpha = .86). Participants indicated to what extent these taste items applied to
 9

the yoghurt. Finally, participants filled out a single item measure for hedonic taste

evaluation (“This yoghurt is tasty”). All responses were recorded on 7-point rating

scales (scale anchors: not al all-completely so).

Results

Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted with packaging

appearance as independent variable and, respectively, packaging healthiness perception

and the two taste evaluation measures (health evaluation and hedonic evaluation) as

dependent variables.

Starting with shoppers’ impressions of packaging healthiness, the analysis

revealed a significant effect of packaging appearance (F (1, 51) = 12.57, p = .001)

confirming that shoppers perceived the ‘healthy’ package as healthier (M = 5.67, SD =

.64) in comparison to the ‘unhealthy’ package (M = 4.95, SD = .83).

As for taste impressions, the effect of packaging appearance on evaluation of

product healthiness was significant showing that the healthy packaging appearance

induced a healthier product evaluation (M = 3.91, SD = .48) compared to the unhealthy

packaging appearance (M = 3.28, SD = .53; F (1, 51) = 20.80, p < .001).

Finally, the effect of packaging appearance on hedonic evaluation was not

significant (F < 1, ns), thus yoghurt tastiness ratings did not vary as a function of

packaging appearance (M = 5.89, SD = 1.12 versus M = 5.65, SD = .75 for ‘healthy’ versus

‘unhealthy’ packaging appearance respectively).

These findings show that impressions triggered by visual perception of

packaging appearance translate to taste evaluation. However, this transference effect

only occurred for the (specific) health-related evaluation, it did not extend to the more

general hedonic taste evaluation measure.

 10

Study 2

Objective

Study 2 aims to test whether the influence of packaging appearance on product

evaluation also surfaces at a ‘green’ supermarket frequented by organic buyers. To this

end, identical stimuli and measures (perception of packaging appearance: alpha = .77;

health evaluation: alpha = .90) were employed at the Dutch EKOPLAZA supermarket.

Fifty shoppers (34 female, 16 male; mean age: 50.32 years) participated.

Results

As in study 1, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted with

packaging appearance as independent variable and, respectively, packaging healthiness

perception and the two taste evaluation measures (health evaluation and hedonic

evaluation) as dependent variables.

This time, the main effect of packaging appearance was not significant (F (1, 48)

= 3.15, p = .08) although inspection of means suggests that organic buyers perceived the

‘healthy’ package as healthier (M = 4.79, SD = 1.11) in comparison to the ‘unhealthy’

package (M = 4.19, SD = 1.27). Similarly, the effect of packaging appearance on product

healthiness evaluation was non-significant (F < 1, ns), showing that shoppers’ health

evaluations of the yoghurt were not affected by packaging design (M = 3.43, SD = .62

versus M = 3.38, SD = .73 for ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ packaging appearance

respectively).

As in study 1, the effect of packaging appearance on hedonic product evaluation

was non-significant (F < 1, ns), hence yoghurt tastiness ratings were unaffected by
 11

packaging appearance (M = 4.96, SD = 1.17 versus M = 5.04, SD = 1.49 for ‘healthy’

versus ‘unhealthy’ packaging appearance respectively).

Results from study 2 show that packaging appearance does not influence taste

evaluation. Furthermore, overall results show that shoppers at the EKOPLAZA were

more critical in so far both packaging appearance and yoghurt taste received lower

ratings compared to ratings at the discount supermarket (ALDI) (see Table 1).

In sum, the results presented might be taken to suggest that shoppers in the

‘green’ environment were much more attuned to product healthiness and therefore

unsusceptible to subtle, visual packaging elements bearing no direct relation to

packaging contents and healthiness thereof. An alternative explanation would place

emphasis on the purchase setting. Perhaps shoppers in a green environment expect less

differences between products in terms of health connotation, precisely because store

positioning and ambiance stress healthiness and related constructs to begin with.

In order to provide a first indication of the relative merits of these (by no means

mutually exclusive) interpretations, a small follow-up survey study, using a 2 (store

environment: discount versus green supermarket) X 2 (packaging appearance: healthy

versus unhealthy appearance) between-subjects design was conducted in which we

assessed impressions from the same target group of students (58 participants; 32 male

and 26 female; mean age 23.0 years) approached at our university campus. They were

randomly assigned to one of the two supermarket conditions (i.e., ALDI or EKOPLAZA;

visually presented through a series of pictures) and to one of the two yoghurt packages

(four pictures in total: a view from the outside, a global view of the inside, a close-up of

the aisle, and the target packaging variant). Next, they filled out the same (health-related

and hedonic) taste measures but this time framed as taste expectations (e.g., “I expect

this yoghurt to benefit health”). Finally, they filled out a manipulation check testing

whether the supermarkets were indeed perceived as varying in health connotation.

 12

Starting with the manipulation check, results showed that the difference in

‘green’ connotation between both supermarkets was perceived as such (F (1, 56) =

85.48, p < .001). Importantly, a significant interaction emerged between packaging

appearance and store environment (F (1, 56) = 5.74, p = .02), showing that (in line with

results from our field studies) the difference between the healthy (M = 4.52, SD = .86)

and the unhealthy (M = 4.81, SD = .72) packaging variant was not significant in the

EKOPLAZA condition (F < 1, ns), but that it was significant in the ALDI condition (M =

4.75, SD = .76 versus M = 3.97, SD = 1.01; F (1, 56) = 6.34, p = .015; see Figure 3). Thus, in

the ALDI condition, the healthy (as opposed to the unhealthy) packaging design led

participants to anticipate a healthier product. The main effects of both store

environment (F (1, 56) = 1.84, p = .18) and packaging appearance (F (1, 56) = 1.21, p =

.28) were not significant. Furthermore, in contrast to our field studies, taste ratings were

not lower overall in the EKOPLAZA condition (see Figure 3). Finally, and again in line

with the results from our field studies, the main and interaction effects for the hedonic

taste measure were not significant (All F’s < 1, ns).

General discussion

Inspired by trends towards health issues, concern for consequences of unhealthy

food consumption (Wansink & Chandon, 2014), and proliferation of ‘green’

supermarkets worldwide, the research reported aimed to study health evaluations as a

function of packaging appearance and store type. Whereas findings from study 1

confirm the importance of packaging design for influencing (health-related) taste

evaluation, study 2 clearly showed that such effects are highly context-dependent.

In our framework leading up to the hypotheses central to this research, two

distinct alternative hypotheses were postulated. From an environmental perspective,

and research demonstrating ‘positive’ effects issuing forth from a fit between
 13

environmental context and consumption, we argued that consumption from a healthy

package in a ‘fitting’ green environment might enhance perceived healthiness compared

to consumption from that same package in a discount supermarket. From a shopper-

lifestyle orientation point of view, however, it was reasoned that shoppers in green

supermarkets are more aware and critical of healthiness perceptions induced by

product packaging, and hence might be less easily ‘persuaded’ by packaging design.

The results presented argue against the former by showing that packaging

appearance did not influence taste evaluations (and expectations) in the green

supermarket. Hence, the green environment did not enhance health-related associations

connoted by packaging appearance. In order to further pinpoint this intriguing finding

and to see whether it relates to shopper characteristics (i.e., lifestyle orientation) or

purchase context (i.e., store environment), an additional follow-up study was conducted

involving participants from the same target group (i.e., a student population) randomly

assigned to our experimental conditions. Although restricted to taste expectations

(rather than actual taste experience), the results were in line with the findings from our

field studies: packaging appearance influenced health evaluation in the discount

environment only. In other words, our overall findings cannot be attributed to shopper

lifestyle orientation (only), but relate to the purchase environment.

Arguably, in a green environment, products are considered similar in terms of

healthiness, whereas in a discount environment, variations between products in terms

of healthiness are much larger, leaving more room for perceptions to be influenced by

packaging design. At the same time, our findings do not rule out the role of lifestyle

orientation as overall ratings in the field studies were considerably lower at the ‘green’

supermarket, whereas this pattern was not observed in our follow-up survey study.

Hence, our findings suggest that shoppers visiting a green supermarket are more

sceptical overall. Lending further support to the importance of consumer scepticism, a

 14

recent study showed that the effect of health labels on taste experience is mediated by

consumer scepticism toward the respective labels (Fenko, Kersten, & Bialkova, 2016).

Furthermore, consumer scepticism with respect to health labels has been shown to

depend on, amongst others, health motivation and nutrition knowledge (Sirieix,

Delanchy, Remaud, Zepeda, & Gurviez, 2013; Szykman, Bloom, & Levy, 1997; Žeželj,

Miloševic, Stojanović, & Ognjanov, 2012). Clearly such knowledge is much higher

amongst shoppers visiting organic supermarkets. In sum, we feel safe to conclude that

both shopper and store characteristics should be addressed in follow-up research in

addition to packaging design.

With respect to the latter, the findings presented confirm the suitability of the

color-wavelength dimension for the packaging design process and for influencing taste.

Previous research already showed color to be an effective means for influencing a

variety of taste dimensions such as sweetness and intensity (e.g., Smets & Overbeeke,

1995; Spence, 2015; Spence, Levitan, Shankar, & Zampini, 2010; Zampini, Sanabria,

Philips, & Spence, 2007). The studies reported here show that the color arousal

dimension relates to healthiness impressions. With respect to contrasting cheapness or

discount impressions, previous research showed that increasing color saturation lowers

price expectations (and might thus also lower health-related perceptions), presumably

as it is readily associated with sales promotions frequently presented on highly

saturated displays to grab shoppers’ attention (cf. Becker et al., 2011). Apart from

discussing color in terms of formal properties such as wavelength and saturation,

shoppers also readily perceive colors in terms of learned or conventional meanings. For

instance, research suggests that a red color can function as a subtle (implicit) stop

signal, which for that reason may reduce incidental food and drink intake (Genschow,

Reutner, & Wänke, 2012).

 15

Additionally, packaging design factors such as layout, use of white space, and

typeface may contribute to healthiness perceptions. For instance, research by Van

Rompay et al. (2014) and Velasco, Woods, and Spence (2015) testifies to the importance

of placement and orientation of design elements on packaging design. Van Rompay et al.

(2014) showed that graphic elements (e.g., arrows or swirls) pointing upwards led

participants to experience the smell of packaging contents (i.e., laundry detergents) as

fresher compared to the same washing powder contained within a package presenting

graphic elements pointing downwards. Arguably, natural, healthy products may benefit

from an upward orientation, as healthy foods are more readily associated with a

lightweight character (i.e., being low on calories and easy to digest).

With respect to store type characteristics, it would be interesting to further

pinpoint the role of assortment variety, store image and ambience. Thus are taste

evaluations indeed more easily influenced in large store environments where variations

among products in terms of healthiness are large? And what about store image and

ambience? For instance, do environmental decorations such as displays, point of

purchase materials connoting a green image, and ambient lighting stressing

‘naturalness’ impact perceptions and taste evaluations? Additionally, such studies could

indicate to what extent congruence between packaging design and environmental

design (e.g., in terms of color usage or imagery) is a variable to reckon with. Finally,

future research could further pinpoint the role of lifestyle orientation in relation to

packaging design (note that findings from our survey study do no warrant conclusions

here as lifestyle orientation was not included in the questionnaire).

Awaiting future research addressing these and other issues, in the meantime our

findings attest to the importance of packaging design for food perception and taste

evaluation, However, at the same time, they warn against overgeneralizing findings from
 16

one (environmental) context to another, and stress the necessity to carefully consider

store characteristics and (related) shopper concerns.

 17

References

Aschemann-Witzel, J. A., Maroscheck, N., & Hamm, U. (2013). Are organic consumers

preferring or avoiding foods with nutrition and health claims? Food Quality and

Preference, 30(1), 68-76.

Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough

package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions

and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17-23.

Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase

likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 347–363.

Bialkova, S., Sasse, L., & Fenko, A. (2016). The role of nutrition labels and advertising

claims in altering consumers’ evaluation and choice. Appetite, 96, 38-46.

Biggs, L., Juravle, G., & Spence, C. (2016). Haptic exploration of plateware alters the

perceived texture and taste of food. Food Quality & Preference, 50, 129-134.

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. H., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of

visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer

Research, 29(4), 551–565.

Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. (2001). Product packaging and branding. In L. J. Frewer, E. Risvik,

& H. N. J. Schifferstein (Eds.), Food, people and society: A European perspective

of consumers’ food choices (pp. 55–72). Berlin: Springer.

Fenko, A., Kersten, L., & Bialkova, S. (2016). Overcoming consumer scepticism toward

food labels: The role of multisensory experience. Food Quality and Preference,

48, 81–92.
 18

García-Segovia, P., Harrington, R. J., & Seo, H. (2015). Influences of table setting and

eating location on food acceptance and intake. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 1-

7.

Genschow, O., Reutner, L., & Wänke, M. (2012). The color red reduces snack food and

soft drink intake. Appetite, 58(2), 699-702.

Holland, R. W., Hendriks, M., & Aarts, H. A. G. (2005). Smells like clean spirit:

Nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior. Psychological Science,

16(9), 689-693.

Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do

organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33–39.

Lotz, S., Christandl, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). What is fair is good: Evidence of

consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 139–144.

North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1997). In-store music affects product

choice. Nature, 390, 132.

Oberfeld, D., Hecht, H., Allendorf, U., & Wickelmaier, F. (2009). Ambient lighting modifies

the flavor of wine. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24(6), 797–832.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2014). The effect of product-context

appropriateness on emotion associations in evoked eating occasions. Food

Quality and Preference, 40, 49-60.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences in product

packaging. Assessing color–flavor correspondences for potato chips (crisps).

Appetite, 57(3), 753–757.

 19

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-

extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and

theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165-179.

Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). The drinking experience: Cup or content? Food Quality and

Preference, 20(3), 268–276.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., Fenko, A., Desmet, P. M. A., Labbe, D., & Martin, N. (2013). Influence

of package design on the dynamics of multisensory and emotional food

experience. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 18–25.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J.

Schifferstein & P. P. M. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 133–161).

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013). Consumers’

perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot

investigation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 143-151.

Smets, G. J. F., & Overbeeke, C. J. (1995). Expressing tastes in packages. Design Studies,

16(3), 349–365.

Sörqvist, P., Marsh, J. E., Holmgren, M., Hulme, R., Haga, A., & Seager, P. B. (2016). Effects

of labeling a product eco-friendly and genetically modified: A cross-cultural

comparison for estimates of taste, willingness to pay and health consequences.

Food Quality and Preference, 50, 65–70.

Spence, C. (2015). On the psychological impact of food colour. Flavour, 4:21.

Spence, C., Levitan, C., Shankar, M. U., & Zampini, M. (2010). Does food color influence

taste and flavor perception in humans? Chemosensory Perception, 3, 68-84.

 20

Spence, C., Puccinelli, N. M., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2014). Store atmospherics: A

multisensory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 472-488.

Spence, C., Velasco, C., & Knoeferle, K. (2014). A large sample study on the influence of

the multisensory environment on the wine drinking experience. Flavour, 3:8.

Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Levy, A. S. (1997). A proposed model of the use of package

claims and nutrition labels. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 228-241.

Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A

review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193–

211.

Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 123(4), 394–409.

Van Rompay, T. J. L., Fransen, M. L., & Borgelink, B. G. (2014). Light as a feather: Effects

of packaging imagery on sensory product impressions and brand evaluation.

Marketing Letters, 25(4), 397-407.

Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014). Predictive

packaging design: Tasting shapes, typographies, names, and sounds. Food

Quality & Preference, 34, 88-95.

Van Rompay, T. J. L., Tanja-Dijkstra, K., Verhoeven, J. W. M., & Van Es, A. (2012). On store

design and consumer motivation: Spatial control and arousal in the retail

context. Environment & Behavior, 44(6), 800-820.

Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2015). Evaluating the orientation of design

elements in product packaging using an online orientation task. Food Quality and

Preference, 46, 151-159.

 21

Wansink, B. (2006). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam-

Dell.

Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2014). Slim by design: Redirecting the accidental drivers of

mindless overeating. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 413-431.

Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., & Wells,

S. (2012). Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design

elements. Psychology & Marketing, 29(8), 595-605.

Westerman, S. J., Sutherland, E. J., Gardner, P. H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey, C.,

Mehigan, S., Solway, A., & Zervos, Z. (2013). The design of consumer packaging:

Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms

on consumers' assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 8-17.

Zampini, M., Sanabria, D., Philips, N., & Spence, C. (2007). The multisensory perception of

flavor: Assessing the influence of color cues on flavor discrimination responses.

Food Quality and Preference, 18(7), 975–984.

Žeželj, I., Miloševic, J., Stojanović, Z., & Ognjanov, G. (2012). The motivational and

informational basis of attitudes toward foods with health claims. Appetite, 59(3),

960-967.
 22

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations of packaging variants on (perceived) packaging

healthiness, health evaluation (taste - health) and hedonic evaluation (taste -

hedonic)

Discount environment
(Study 1)
Packaging appearance Packaging healthiness Taste (health) Taste (hedonic)
Healthy 5.67 (SD = 0.64)a 3.91 (SD = 0.48)a 5.89 (SD = 1.12)a
Unhealthy 4.95 (SD = 0.83)b 3.28 (SD = 0.53)b 5.65 (SD = 0.75)a

Green environment
(Study 2)
Packaging appearance Packaging healthiness Taste (health) Taste (hedonic)
Healthy 4.79 (SD = 1.11)a 3.43 (SD = 0.62)a 4.96 (SD = 1.17)a
Unhealthy 4.19 (SD = 1.27)a 3.38 (SD = 0.73)a 5.04 (SD = 1.49)a

Note: significant differences are denoted by non-common subscripts

 23

Figure 1. Packaging variants (left: healthy packaging appearance; right: unhealthy

packaging appearance.)
 24

Figure 2. Set-up of taste sample sessions

 25

Health evaluation

Figure 3. Product health evaluation as a function of packaging appearance and store type
 26

Highlights

A ‘healthy’ package appearance can inspire a ‘healthy’ product experience.

The effect of package appearance on taste evaluation is highly context-

dependent.

Packaging appearance is less influential with respect to taste evaluation in

‘green’ supermarkets compared to discount supermarkets.

Shoppers frequenting green supermarkets display more skepticism with respect

to health evaluation, irrespective of packaging design.