Received: 27 February 2017 Revised: 19 March 2018 Accepted: 1 May 2018

DOI: 10.1002/cb.1732

ACADEMIC PAPER

Implicit communication of food product healthfulness through

package design: A content analysis
Alexandra Festila1 | Polymeros Chrysochou1,2

1
MAPP Centre, Department of Management,
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Abstract
2
Ehrenberg ‐ Bass Institute for Marketing How do food companies use package design to communicate healthfulness? The
Science, School of Marketing, University of
present study addresses this question by investigating the most typical implicit
South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia package design elements used by food companies for their health‐positioned food
Correspondence products. Using a content analysis on the packaging design of 12 food product
Alexandra Festila, Aarhus BSS, Department of
Management, Fuglesangs Allé 4, DK ‐ 8210
categories across two countries (Denmark and the United States), our findings indi-
Aarhus V, Denmark. cate that (a) implicit package design elements (colors, imagery, material, and shape)
Email: festila@mgmt.au.dk
differ between health‐positioned and regular products, and (b) these differences are
product category specific rather than universal. Our results contribute to knowledge
on how package design is used as a health communication tool.

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N explicit package design elements influence perceived product healthful-

Increased competition in the “healthier” and “better for you” food mar-
ket is forcing food managers to find more effective ways to convey
healthfulness in their brands (Chrysochou, 2010; Kemp & Bui, 2011),
with package design being one of those. Package design can be used
strategically to communicate certain product attributes (Bublitz,
Peracchio, & Block, 2010) and brand values (Orth & Malkewitz,
2008) and to elicit consumer response (Bloch, 1995). As opposed to
other forms of marketing communications (e.g., advertising), con-
sumers are exposed to package design from the moment they choose
the product in the store all the way to consumption (Chandon, 2013;
Rettie & Brewer, 2000). Therefore, a proper selection of package
design elements could better convey a product's healthfulness and
contribute to brand success (Chrysochou, 2010).
A straightforward choice for marketers is to use package design ele-
ments that explicitly communicate healthfulness, such as nutrition labels,
health claims, and nutritional claims. Earlier literature investigates the
impact that such explicit package design elements have on caloric estima-
tion (Chandon & Wansink, 2007), health‐related inferences (Ford, Hastak,
Mitra, & Ringold, 1996; Garretson & Burton, 2000; Kozup, Creyer, &
Burton, 2003; Lähteenmäki, 2013; Roe, Levy, & Derby, 1999), consump-
tion guilt (Mohr, Lichtenstein, & Janiszewski, 2012), food choice
(Aschemann‐Witzel, Maroscheck, & Hamm, 2013; Mohr et al., 2012;
Van Kleef, van Trijp, & Luning, 2005), and consumption (Belei, Geyskens,
Goukens, Ramanathan, & Lemmink, 2012; Chandon & Wansink, 2007;
Mohr et al., 2012). The consensus that stems from these studies is that
ness, as well as food choice and consumption.
Whereas explicit package design elements are essential in communi-
cating product healthfulness to consumers, implicit ones can further
impact consumers' health inferences about products. For example, litera-
ture shows that package design elements, such as colors (Schuldt, 2013),
imagery (Underwood & Klein, 2002), shape (Festila & Chrysochou, 2016;
Koo & Suk, 2016; Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006), and size (Ordabayeva &
Chandon, 2013) can guide inferences about specific food attributes (such
as taste, healthfulness, and quality), and further influence choice and con-
sumption. Implicit package design elements become particularly effective
under low‐involvement situations, such as during food choice (Park, Iyer,
& Smith, 1989). In these situations, consumers do not allocate sufficient
cognitive resources to read the available written information, and there-
fore simplify their decisions by using certain visual heuristics (e.g., colors
or images on the package). Such heuristics might attract initial consumer
attention and become diagnostic sources of information, creating expec-
tations for the content of the package (Silayoi & Speece, 2007). As such,
implicit package design elements are likely to have a great impact on
product‐related inferences, as well as food‐related behaviors (e.g.,
Chrysochou & Grunert, 2014; Karnal, Machiels, Orth, & Mai, 2016; Koo
& Suk, 2016).
When it comes to how package design is used to communicate
healthfulness, not much is known besides some anecdotal evidence.
Managerial decisions on package design can be rather arbitrary—either
based on intuition and experience or by speculating on current trends
in the “healthy foods” market. In time, however, a pattern might

J Consumer Behav. 2018;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cb © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
emerge such that certain package design elements will become typical
of the health positioning within a food product category, whereas
others will remain universal descriptors of the category or specific to
the individual brands.
The present research explores whether such a systematic use of
implicit package design elements is observed in the marketplace. Our
objective is to investigate whether certain patterns can be identified
in relation to the use of implicit package design elements for food
products that are positioned as healthy and whether these differ from
implicit package design elements used for regular food products. We
address this objective by performing a content analysis of package
designs across two countries (Denmark and the United States) and
12 food product categories.
2 | T HE O R E T I CA L B A CK GR O U N D
2.1 | Classification of package design elements
In its most common sense, food package design encompasses all the
ways food products are wrapped and presented to consumers in retail
stores (Chandon, 2013). Apart from its functional purpose, package
design also serves communication purposes, especially at point of pur-
chase. The advantage of package design over other marketing instru-
ments is that it reaches consumers the moment they are scanning
the shelves of the store and make a purchase decision. As such, a
properly designed package draws attention to the product, creates
associations that differentiate it from competitors, evokes positive
feelings, and has the power to influence choice and consumption
(Chandon, 2013; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008).
Package design consists of a set of elements. A look into the rel-
evant literature indicates various approaches to classifying package
design elements. Silayoi and Speece (2007) classify them as either
informational (product information and labels) or visual (graphics,
color, imagery, shape, and size). Underwood (2003) classifies them as
either graphic (color, typography, and image) or structural (shape, size,
and material). The first classification groups structural and graphic ele-
ments in the same block (visual), while the later fails to take informa-
tional elements into account. Considering the above and given the
context on health communication, we categorize package design
elements as informational, graphic, or structural. Our reasoning is that
FIGURE 1 Classification of package design elements
these groups of package design elements vary in how explicitly they
convey healthfulness to consumers (see Figure 1).
Informational elements are those that position the food product as
healthy (e.g., low fat) and represent the most explicit way to commu-
nicate healthfulness to consumers. These elements either manifest
through written language (i.e., specific claims) or through a well‐
established system of symbols (i.e., front of pack labels). Graphic
elements are those printed on the package, offering visual identity to
the food product (e.g., colors, imagery, and typeface). These elements
manifest through pictorial and stylistic representations and therefore
rely on specific metaphors and learned associations to convey mean-
ing (Karnal et al., 2016; Mai, Symmank, & Seeberg‐Elverfeldt, 2016;
Rahinel & Nelson, 2016; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014). This implicit
form of communication also entails that marketers have less control
over how the message is decoded by consumers. Finally, structural ele-
ments are those that give form and texture to the product (e.g., shape,
size, and material) and mainly serve a functional role. Similarly to
graphic elements, structural elements provide visual input that can
generate higher level inferences about the product, but also perceptu-
ally driven judgments (e.g., volume perception; Raghubir & Krishna,
1999). Another distinguishing feature of the structural elements is that
they operate in a three‐dimensional environment. This means that
consumers, besides their visual sense, can also use their haptic and
motor senses to generate input—by touching or handling the package
(Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016). This additional feature makes the study
of structural elements more complex (Krishna & Morrin, 2008).
The majority of the literature has focused on the role of informa-
tional elements in conveying healthfulness and in affecting consumer
health‐related behaviors. On the other hand, less attention has been
given to the role of graphic and structural elements. Our focus in this
paper is on the latter two groups. In the following section, we elabo-
rate on their role on consumer response in a food‐related context,
based on each we propose our research questions.
2.2 | Graphic elements
Graphic elements have an underlying meaning, conveying the message
to consumers indirectly. In this paper, we focus in particular on the
role of color and imagery.
Color is one of the most important graphic elements, as it has
been shown to influence consumer response in various contexts
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
(Labrecque, Patrick, & Milne, 2013). Earlier research postulates that
colors guide consumer judgments about food product attributes, such
as taste, caloric content, and overall healthfulness (Becker, van
Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Karnal et al., 2016; Schuldt,
2013). To illustrate, Schuldt (2013) show that a candy bar with a green
calorie label is perceived as healthier compared to a candy bar with a
red calorie label, even though both labels had the same calorie con-
tent. Becker et al. (2011) find that highly saturated packaging colors
lead consumers to anticipate a more intense product taste. Karnal
et al. (2016) further demonstrate that color heaviness influences
consumers' healthfulness perception. This means that consumers
perceive food products to be healthier when lighter (as opposed to
heavier) colors are used on the package.
Considering the pervasive impact of colors on consumer response,
and in particular on product healthfulness, we aim to identify what are
the predominant color hues used in food package design—both at a
general level and comparing health products and regular products.
We further aim to explore whether certain color tones are more fre-
quently used (across and within health and regular product categories).
By color tone, we understand the degree to which the color is more
dark and intense (as opposed to more light and faded). Therefore,
our first research question is as follows:
RQ1: What are the predominant color hues and tones used in food
package design, and do they differ between health products and
regular products, both across and within food categories?
Imagery plays an essential role in how consumers evaluate food
products. In fact, imagery influences consumers' inferences about specific
product attributes, such as healthfulness and tastiness (Underwood &
Klein, 2002), and even ouweighs the impact of informational elements
on such inferences (Chrysochou & Grunert, 2014). Madzharov and Block
(2010) demonstrate that the number of product units displayed on a
package biases consumers' perceptions of product quantity and influ-
ences their consumption. Specifically, when more units of product are
displayed on the package, consumers believe that the pack contains a
higher product quantity and therefore consume more of it (despite actual
serving size suggestions). Another interesting finding is that consumers
are misguided by how processed the product depicted on the package
is (Machiels & Karnal, 2016). More specifically, images depicting unpro-
cessed foods imply product naturalness. Similarly, Smith, Barratt, and
Sørensen (2015) report that the taste of food products is perceived as
more natural when images of the specific product are present on the
package. This effect is enhanced when the image is a photograph, as
opposed to a drawing. Furthermore, food products depicted in motion
(as opposed to static) generate better evaluations in terms of freshness
and appeal of the food products (Gvili et al., 2015).
Given the importance of imagery in generating food‐related infer-
ences, we aim to explore what is the most frequent type of imagery
used in food package design both on aggregate, as well as when com-
paring health versus regular food products. Specifically,
RQ2: What is the predominant type of imagery used in food package
design, and does it differ between health products and regular prod-
ucts both across and within categories?
3
2.3 | Structural elements
Structural elements are also shown to influence consumer response.
They can carry certain symbolic associations that enable consumers
to draw inferences about the products. They further influence con-
sumption amount, albeit through more perceptual and visually driven
mechanisms. In this paper, we focus on shape, material, and
transparency.
Shape is one of the most well documented structural elements of
package design (Becker et al., 2011; Folkes & Matta, 2004). Shape
offers products identity (Underwood, 2003) and influences consumers'
perceptions and preferences for a product (Raghubir & Greenleaf,
2006). Shape influences volume and quantity perceptions, which fur-
ther influence consumption amount. For example, Sevilla and Kahn
(2014) demonstrate that incompletely shaped products are perceived
to be smaller. When it comes to health inferences, recent studies
show that shape biases calorie estimation and perceived healthfulness.
For example, products in wider or convex packages are perceived to
have more calories and be perceived as less healthy than products in
elongated or concave packages (Festila & Chrysochou, 2016; Koo &
Suk, 2016). Furthermore, angular shapes are not only associated with
more intense flavors (Becker et al., 2011) but also perceived as
healthier (Fenko, Lotterman, & Galetzka, 2016). Considering the
subtle, but powerful, impact shape has on both specific food product
inferences and consumption, our aim is to identify the most frequent
shapes used in food package design. Therefore,
RQ3: What are the predominant shapes used in food package design,
and do they differ between health products and regular products both
across and within categories?
Material is another structural element used to signal the nature of a
food product. For example, when the packaging texture is rougher, con-
sumers believe the product to be crunchier and harder (Piqueras‐
Fiszman & Spence, 2012). Consumers also perceive packaging material
to have an important impact on the environment (Bech‐Larsen, 1996).
Such environment‐related perceptions about packaging material are
often used to make inferences about other product benefits. As such,
products that are wrapped in more sustainable materials are perceived
to be more natural and of higher quality and can even make food prod-
ucts appear healthier to consumers (Magnier, Schoormans, & Mugge,
2016; Steenis, van Herpen, van der Lans, Ligthart, & van Trijp, 2017).
Therefore, our fourth research question reads
RQ4: What are the predominant materials used in food package
design, and do they differ between health products and regular prod-
ucts both across and within categories?
Another characteristic of materials that has been shown to influ-
ence consumer response to packaged food and their consumption
amount is package transparency. Deng and Srinivasan (2013) postu-
late that transparent packages impact food salience and consumption
monitoring, which can result in either an increased or decreased con-
sumption amount, depending on food characteristics. This means that
for small and visually attractive foods, consumers eat more from a
4 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
transparent package than from an opaque package, whereas for large
foods, a transparent package decreases consumption. Furthermore,
products in transparent packages are perceived to be of higher quality,
more attractive, fresher, and also healthier than products in opaque
packages (Simmonds & Spence, 2016; Simmonds, Woods, & Spence
2018). Therefore, our fifth research question relates to how frequently
transparency is used in food package design:
RQ5: What is the predominant level of transparency (transparent vs
opaque) used in food package design, and does it differ between
health products and regular products both across and within
categories?
In what comes next, the results of our empirical investigation are
reported and discussed, exploring potential patterns in the package
design of health products in two different countries: Denmark and
the United States.
3 | METHOD
The aim of our research is to empirically explore what are the differ-
ences in the use of implicit package design elements (graphic and
structural) between health and regular food products. Throughout
our study, we define health and regular food product categories as
those either carrying or not carrying the dominant health‐positioning
claim (HPC) within a food product category. HPCs are approved health
or nutritional claims that reveal an intention to position a product as
healthy within a specific food product category. We address this aim
by employing a content analysis of food packages. Content analysis
is a research method that has been traditionally used to analyze the
characteristics and content of written, spoken, or pictorial communica-
tion (e.g., TV programs, books, magazines, and advertisements; Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005). It has also been employed in the study of package
design communication (Elliott, 2008).
3.1 | Data collection
The data were drawn from Mintel Global New Products Database
(www.gnpd.com), a database that provides information about new
product launches and covers a broad area of product categories. The
information provided is both textual (i.e., certain characteristics of
the products are already coded in the database) and visual (pictures
of the product packages).
3.2 | Sample characteristics
The sampling frame was defined according to two criteria for both
Denmark and the United States: time interval of food product
launches and food product categories. In regard to the first criterion,
we wanted to ensure that a large enough sample was extracted for
each country. In regard to the second criterion, we wanted to ensure
that the selected product categories have a high proportion of prod-
ucts that carry a dominant HPC and that they vary in the degree of vir-
tuousness/viceness (Chernev & Gal, 2010). The category dominant
HPC refers to the health‐related claim that is carried more frequently
in each product category.
In Denmark, the extracted sample consisted of food products
launched between 2012 and 2015 covering six product categories
(yogurt, bread products, sweet and savory biscuits, breakfast cereals,
and juice). In total, we identified 562 products in the database, of
which 148 (26.3%) carried the category dominant HPC. In the United
States, the sample consisted of food products launched between 2013
and 2015, covering six product categories (corn‐based snacks, potato
snacks, savory biscuits and crackers, bread products, hot cereals, and
juice). In total, we identified 2,545 products in the database, of which
954 (37.5%) carried the category dominant HPC (see Table 1).
3.3 | Coding procedure
Each package extracted from the database represented the coding unit
of analysis. A code sheet was developed to record informational, graph-
ical, and structural elements of package design. Some of these elements
were already recorded in the database (HPC, material), whereas others
had to be coded based on the pictures provided (colors, imagery, and
shape). The detailed coding sheet used can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2 presents the package design elements we included in our study
together with the description provided and the coding answers.
The content analysis of each package was conducted by two
judges for Denmark and six for the United States. To ensure objectiv-
ity, all judges were briefed and trained in order to increase familiarity
with the coding scheme (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991). The judges were
provided access to the images of food products and to an online form
that they had to fill out for each product separately, using the coding
sheet as a guide.
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | Data analysis
The analysis was conducted by calculating frequencies and propor-
tions for the whole sample of products, as well as for each product
category, and separately for each country. Differences between prod-
ucts with the dominant HPC (+HPC) and without the dominant HPC
(−HPC) were further estimated. We present our main results in the
following subsection (for an overview of the results, see Table 3 for
Denmark and Table 4 for the United States).
4.2 | Package design differences between +HPC and
–HPC food products
4.2.1 | Graphic elements
In relation to “color”, no significant differences were observed between
+HPC products and −HPC products in Denmark. In regard to color tone,
significant differences were found between +HPC and −HPC food
products. +HPC products had a more predominant use of light/faded
color tones (64.2%) when compared to −HPC products (43.5%),
whereas −HPC products had a predominant use of dark/intense color
tones (37.7%) when compared to +HPC products (16.9%). In the United
States, as opposed to Denmark, we observed significant differences in
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU 5

TABLE 1 Sample characteristics

With HPCa Total

Country Category HPC a
N (%) N
Denmark Yogurt Low/no/reduced fat 23 29.9 77
Bread products Wholegrain 48 43.6 110
Sweet and savory biscuits Wholegrain 18 18.8 96
Breakfast cereals Wholegrain 28 46.7 60
Carbonated beverages Low/no/reduced sugar 11 22.4 49
Juice Low/no/reduced sugar 20 11.8 170
Total 148 26.3 562
The United States Corn‐based snacks Low/no/reduced transfat 191 44.5 429
Potato snacks Low/no/reduced transfat 136 35.8 380
Savory biscuits & crackers Wholegrain 91 25.3 361
Bread products Low/no/reduced transfat 231 31.0 745
Breakfast hot cereals Wholegrain 125 60.7 206
Juice Low/no/reduced sugar 180 42.5 424
Total 954 37.5 2545
a
HPC stands for health‐positioning claim.

TABLE 2 Coding sheet

Package design elements Definition
Informational elements
Health‐positioning claim If the product carries the dominant health related claim within the product
category (Yes; No)
Graphic elements
Color What the more‐prominent colors on the package are (white; yellow; orange;
red; pink; purple; blue; green; brown; black; gray; other)?
Color tone What the predominant shade of the colors on the package is ‐ more than
2/3 of the pack (dark and/or intense; light and/or faded; half and half)?
Imagery presence If there is an image on the package of the product (Yes; No)
Product imagery If the image on the package depicts the product, either final or ingredients
of the final product (Yes; No)
Nature imagery If the image on the package depicts an element of nature that is not
part of the final product (Yes; No)
Health imagery If the image on the package communicates healthfulness (Yes; No)
Structural elements
Transparency If the package is transparent (Yes; No)
Shape roundness The shape of the package (angular; rounded)
Shape convexity The shape of the package (convex; concave; straight)
Material What the package material is made of (board; paper; plastic)

the use of colors between +HPC and −HPC products. +HPC products
had more white, green, yellow, and brown on the package than −HPC
products (49.0%, 32.7%, 29.0%, and 21.6% vs. 44.9%, 25.9%, 25.4%,
and 13.3%), whereas −HPC products had more black on the package
than +HPC products (14.9% vs. 8.4%). Furthermore, dark and intense
colors are more likely to be used for −HPC products than for +HPC
products (45.6% vs. 40.7%), whereas balanced colors are more likely
to be used for +HPC products than for −HPC products (34.2% vs.
25.8%). In relation to “imagery,” the only significant difference
between +HPC products and −HPC products in Denmark was in the
use of nature imagery. Specifically, images of nature were more
frequently used for +HPC products than for −HPC products (19.5%
vs. 11.2%). In the United States, more packages with an image
present were found among +HPC products than among −HPC
products (87.3% vs. 79.8%). Furthermore, +HPC products had more
health‐related imagery on the package than −HPC products (56.2%
vs. 41.7%).
4.2.2 | Structural elements
In Denmark, we found significant differences in regard to “shape angu-
larity” between +HPC and −HPC products. +HPC products had more
packages with an angular shape (as opposed to round) than −HPC
products (77% vs. 62.1%). In the United States, we can observe a sim-
ilar pattern. +HPC products had angular packages more often than
−HPC products (68.4% vs. 60.5%). Concerning “transparency,” no sig-
nificant differences between +HPC products and −HPC products were
found in Denmark. On the other hand, in the United States −HPC
products had significantly more transparent packages than +HPC
products (44.6% vs. 37.8%). Finally, in relation to package “material”
use in Denmark, +HPC products consisted of more plastic and paper
material than −HPC products (64.95% and 8.8% vs. 54.1% and
2.2%), whereas −HPC products consisted of more glass material than
+HPC products (8.9% vs. 0.7%). In the United States, +HPC products
consisted of more paper, board, glass, and metal than −HPC products
6 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU

TABLE 3 Distribution of package design elements—Aggregated TABLE 4 Distribution of package design elements—Aggregated
results in Denmark results in the United States

Total (%) +HPCa (%) −HPCa (%) χ2 p Total (%) +HPCa (%) −HPCa (%) χ2 p

Graphic elements Graphic elements

Color Color
White 57.5 60.8 56.3 0.92 0.339 White 46.4 49.0 44.9 3.9 0.049
Blue 26.4 26.1 26.2 0.00 0.950 Green 28.4 32.7 25.9 13.7 0.000
Green 21.0 20.9 21.0 0.00 0.986 Red 27.4 27.5 27.4 0.0 0.962
Red 20.6 18.9 21.3 0.36 0.547 Yellow 26.7 29.0 25.4 4.1 0.043
Yellow 15.7 14.2 16.2 0.33 0.567 Blue 25.4 23.5 26.5 2.9 0.091
Black 15.1 18.2 14.0 1.52 0.217 Orange 20.9 20.9 20.9 0.0 0.984
Orange 13.0 13.5 12.8 0.05 0.825 Brown 16.4 21.6 13.3 29.6 0.000
Brown 9.1 10.8 8.5 0.73 0.392 Black 12.5 8.4 14.9 23.3 0.000
Pink 7.8 10.8 6.8 2.47 0.116 Purple 8.4 7.8 8.8 0.9 0.354
Purple 4.8 5.4 4.6 0.16 0.690 Pink 3.2 4.0 2.8 2.8 0.093
Color tone Color shade
Dark/Intense 32.2 16.9 37.7 21.58 0.000 Dark/Intense 43.8 40.7 45.6 5.9 0.015
Light/Faded 48.9 64.2 43.5 18.72 0.000 Light/faded 27.2 25.2 28.4 3.1 0.077
Balanced 18.9 18.9 18.8 0.00 0.983 Balanced 28.9 34.2 25.8 20.3 0.000
Imagery Imagery
Imagery presence 89.9 88.4 88.8 0.23 0.629 Imagery presence 82.6 87.3 79.8 23.7 0.000
Product imagery 79.8 80.5 79.5 0.05 0.817 Product imagery 88.9 89.7 88.4 0.9 0.355
Nature imagery 13.4 19.5 11.2 5.85 0.016 Nature imagery 24.0 25.9 22.8 2.8 0.097
Health imagery 49.9 51.1 49.5 0.11 0.741 Health imagery 47.5 56.2 41.7 42.0 0.000
Structural elements Structural elements
Shape Angular 63.5 68.4 60.5 16.1 0.000
Angular 66.0 77.0 62.1 10.86 0.001 Rounded 36.5 31.6 39.5 16.1 0.000
Rounded 34.0 23.0 37.9 10.86 0.001 Convex 5.0 5.9 4.4 2.7 0.102
Convex 6.6 4.7 7.2 1.12 0.289 Concave 2.9 2.6 3.1 0.5 0.496
Concave 9.3 6.8 10.1 1.49 0.222 Straight 92.1 91.5 92.5 0.8 0.371
Straight 84.2 88.5 82.6 2.85 0.091 Transparency
Transparency Visible product 42.0 37.8 44.6 11.1 0.001
Visible product 41.1 36.5 42.8 1.77 0.184 Material
Material Plastic 82.5 75.8 86.5 47.7 0.000
Plastic 56.9 64.9 54.1 5.15 0.023 Paper 4.7 8.6 2.4 51.0 0.000
Paper 3.9 8.8 2.2 12.66 0.000 Board 7.9 9.3 7.1 4.0 0.045
Board 22.2 18.2 23.7 1.86 0.173 Glass 1.3 2.1 0.8 8.6 0.003
Glass 6.8 0.7 8.9 11.80 0.000 Metal 0.6 0.9 0.3 4.3 0.038
Metal 5.7 4.7 6.0 0.35 0.555 a
HPC stands for health‐positioning claim.
a
HPC stands for health‐positioning claim; +HPC: products carrying the
HPC; −HPC: product not carrying the HPC.

color, nature imagery, and health imagery in a higher proportion com-

(8.6%, 9.3%, 2.1%, and 0.9% vs. 2.4%, 7.1%, 0.8%, and 0.3%). On the
other hand, −HPC products consisted of more plastic material when
compared with +HPC products (86.5% vs. 75.8%).
4.2.3 | Category‐related differences
The results above are based on the aggregated data in each country.
However, product category‐driven differences were also found in
the use of package design elements for +HPC versus −HPC products.
Taking Denmark, a series of differences were observed within each
product category. In the case of yogurt, −HPC products use green
pared to −HPC products (33.3%, 29.6%, and 37% vs. 8.7%, 8.7%, and
8.7%). In the case of bread products, pink color, light/faded colors,
nature imagery, health imagery, and plastic materials are used more
for +HPC products than for −HPC products (12.5%, 68.8%, 23.1%,
25.6%, and 100% vs. 0%, 33.9%, 1.7%, 5.2%, and 91.9%), whereas
dark/intense colors are used more for −HPC products than for +HPC
products (68.8% vs. 33.9%). In the case of breakfast cereals, white
color, light/faded colors, nature imagery, health imagery, paper
material, and transparent packages are used in a higher proportion
for +HPC products than for −HPC products (67.9%, 82.1%, 44.4%,
96.3%, 42.9%, and 71.1% vs. 37.5%, 25%, 10.3%, 62.1%, 18.8%, and
28.1%), whereas dark/intense colors are used in a higher proportion
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
for −HPC products than for +HPC products (56.3% vs. 3.6%). For
savory biscuits, there is no statistically significant difference between
+HPC and −HPC products. In the case of carbonated beverages,
green color, orange color, and health imagery are used in a higher
proportion for +HPC products than for −HPC products (54.5%,
45.5%, and 88.9% vs. 10.5%, 5.3%, and 43.8%). In the case of juice,
red color, board material, and angular shaped packages are used more
for the +HPC products than for −HPC products (35%, 80%, and 75%
vs. 13.3%, 50.7%, and 525), whereas transparent and rounded
packages are used more for −HPC products than for +HPC products
(40% and 48% vs. 15% and 25%). As in Denmark, category‐related
differences between health products and regular products were also
found in the case of the United States. For bread products, balanced
colors, metal material, and angular packages are used more for +HPC
products than for −HPC products (27.3%, 1.3%, and 45.9% vs. 16.7%,
0%, and 35.4%), whereas blue color, black color, light/faded colors,
and plastic material are used in a higher proportion for −HPC
products than for +HPC products (21.8%, 15%, 30.4%, and 95.1%
vs. 13.95%, 7.4%, 18.6%, and 90%). In the case of hot cereals, brown
color, balanced colors, health imagery, paper material, and angular
packages are used more for +HPC products than for −HPC products
(53.6%, 80.8%, 97.5%, 47.2%, and 68.8% vs. 39.5%, 67.9%, 67.2%,
24.7%, and 48.1%), whereas black color, light/faded colors, nature
imagery, rounded packages, and convex packages are used more for
−HPC products than for +HPC products (18.5%, 21%, 39.1%,
51.9%, and 8.6% vs. 4.8%, 6.4%, 25.2%, 31.2%, and 2.4%). For potato
snacks, green color, nature imagery, health imagery, plastic material,
and angular packages are used more for +HPC products than for
−HPC products (32.4%, 15.5%, 55.8%, 93.4%, and 97.1% vs. 16.8%,
7.4%, 39.4%, 85.7%, and 83.2%), whereas blue color, pink color,
board material, and rounded packages are used more for −HPC prod-
ucts than for +HPC products (28.7%, 2.9%, 13.1%, and 16.8% vs.
19.1%, 0%, 2.9%, and 2.9%). Taking corn‐based snacks, white color,
brown color, light/faded colors, and transparent packages are used
more for +HPC products than for −HPC products (38.2%, 11.5%,
42.4%, and 25.7% vs. 28.2%, 4.6%, 21.8%, and 14.3%), whereas
dark/intense colors, product imagery, and board material are used
more for −HPC products than for +HPC products (54.6%, 93.7%,
and 2.1% vs. 38.2%, 82.2%, and 0%). For juice, pink color, product
imagery, nature imagery, board materials, and angular packages are
used more for +HPC products than for −HPC products (13.9%,
88.3%, 69.3%, 23.9%, and 29.4% vs. 7.8%, 80.9%, 60%, 9%, and
18.4%). White colors, orange colors, black colors, balanced colors,
plastic material, transparent packages, and rounded packages are
used more for −HPC products than for +HPC products (77.9%,
39.3%, 12.3%,45.9%, 83.6%, 70.9%, and 81.6% vs. 66.1%, 28.9%,
3.3%, 31.7%, 61.1%, 56.7%, and 70.6%). For savory biscuits and
crackers, yellow colors, brown colors, balanced colors, and product
imagery are used more for +HPC products than for −HPC products
(50.5%, 31.9%, 28.6%, and 95.2% vs. 29.1%, 9%, 17.5%, and
87.3%). Light/faded colors and transparent packages are used more
for −HPC products than for +HPC products (42.5% and 29.1% vs.
28.6% and 13.2%). See Appendices B and C and for an overview of
the results within each food product category for Denmark and
Appendices D and E for the United States.
7
5 | CO NC LUSIO N
The present research provides empirical evidence on the use of
implicit information (graphic and structural elements) in the design of
health positioned product packaging. Overall, the results from our
study reveal that certain differences exist in the use of package design
elements between health and regular products; yet some of these
differences are country and product category specific.
5.1 | Use of graphic elements
5.1.1 | Color
For the package design of health products, we can observe a more fre-
quent use of light and faded color tones in Denmark and balanced
color tones in the United States. Additionally, the package design of
regular products in both countries contains darker and more intense
color tones. In the United States, we also find more specific
differences in the use of color hues for health and regular products.
Specifically, natural and light color hues such as white, green, yellow,
and brown are more frequently used for health products, whereas
black appears more frequently on the packages of regular products.
This might actually be an effective strategy, as previous research
has shown that the use of lighter colors on the package makes a
food product appear healthier (Karnal et al., 2016), whereas more
saturated colors lead consumers to anticipate a more intense taste
(Becker et al., 2011).
5.1.2 | Imagery
Nature imagery seems to be used more for health products in
Denmark, but not in the United States. Previous studies suggest that
products carrying natural claims are perceived to be less caloric (Lee,
Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013) and even that images depicting
nature could prompt consumers to infer that the product is healthier
(Chrysochou & Grunert, 2014; Gvili et al., 2015; Machiels & Karnal,
2016), whereas images of products presented at a less natural stage
(e.g., blended or processed) make the product appear less healthy
and higher in calories (Szocs & Lefebvre, 2016). On the other hand,
overall health‐related imagery seems to be used more for health
products in the United States, but not in Denmark. The use of health
imagery can also influence consumers' health perceptions (Chrysochou
& Grunert, 2014).
5.2 | Use of structural elements
5.2.1 | Shape
Regarding shape, a more predominant use of angular shapes for health
products and rounded shapes for regular products is also evident in
the marketplace in both countries. While this might actually be an
artifact of the specific product categories and their preservation and
storage needs, research shows that the use of shape angularity can
also make a food product appear healthier to consumers (Fenko
et al., 2016). On the other hand, we observe no difference in the
use of package concavity, an element that can also influence health
perceptions (Festila & Chrysochou, 2016).
8 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
5.2.2 | Material
Paradoxically, both plastic and paper materials are used in a higher
proportion for health products in Denmark. In the United States, we
also note a more frequent use of paper for health products but, unlike
in Denmark, less use of plastic for health products. A more frequent
use of paper materials might be a managerial attempt to reposition
their products to appeal to health and environmentally conscious con-
sumers. The question that emerges is whether using paper to convey
environmental and health attributes is enough or whether it needs
to be supplemented by claims that are more explicit. This might be
an effective strategy for companies since environmental cues are
often shown to create health halos (Peloza, Ye, & Montford, 2015;
Steenis et al., 2017). However, the above only represents indirect
evidence as research has not yet expressly investigated whether
paper is effective in communicating healthfulness and related attri-
butes to consumers. On the other hand, the use of plastic for health
products might be in contradiction to the claimed health of the prod-
uct, because, as discussed above, consumers often infer health from
environment‐related cues (Lee et al., 2013; Peloza et al., 2015).
5.2.3 | Transparency
In the United States, but not in Denmark, we also observe more use of
transparent packaging for regular products, something that might
affect perceived food freshness and healthiness (Simmonds & Spence,
2016; Simmonds et al., 2018), but also consumption amount (Deng &
Srinivasan, 2013).
Overall, a prototypical package design for health products in
Denmark would be one incorporating light and faded color tones,
nature imagery, either plastic or paper materials, and angular shapes;
whereas in the United States would be one including warm and natu-
ral colors such as white, green, yellow, and brown in balanced color
tones, health imagery, paper material, and angular shapes. Based on
the results presented above, we can observe that while some patterns
manifest across countries (i.e., more use of paper materials and angular
shapes for health products in both Denmark and the United States),
some of the differences seem to be indeed country specific (e.g., more
use of light and faded color tones and nature imagery in Denmark and
more use of balanced color tones and overall health imagery in the
United States for health products).
In addition, if we take a more in‐depth look into the specific food
product categories, we can observe that not all the aggregated
patterns manifest similarly across categories. Rather, each category
seems to have certain particularities that do not necessarily reflect at
an aggregate level. This means that, in some cases, the patterns within
the product category are actually reverse to the patterns observed at
an aggregate level (e.g., in the case of yogurt category in Denmark,
nature imagery is used more for regular products, whereas at an
aggregate level nature imagery is more predominant for health prod-
ucts). In other cases, the patterns did not manifest at all within the cat-
egory, although this might be also related to a diminished sample size
(e.g., no difference in the use of implicit package design elements was
found between health and regular savory biscuits in Denmark). Yet in
other cases, new differences appeared that were not observed in the
aggregate sample, as is the case of more use of health imagery for
health products within the bread, breakfast cereals, and carbonated
beverages product categories in Denmark. Such deviations from the
aggregate sample are to be expected, since product category typicality
(i.e., a set of characteristics that are representative of a certain
product category) is an important predictor of consumer product
preferences and choice. Products that are more typical are recalled,
classified, and processed faster than less typical ones; and they usually
possess top‐of‐mind awareness within the category (Ting‐Hsiang &
George, 2011). This means that, besides communicating specific
attributes that constitute points of differentiation (e.g., healthfulness),
products also need to be perceived as belonging to the specific
product category.
5.3 | Contribution to research and practice
Our findings suggest that certain patterns in the use of package design
implicit elements can be observed in the health products food market.
Implicit elements convey meaning based on specific associations that
consumers learn over time through exposure to a specific social and
cultural context (Labrecque et al., 2013; Scott & Vargas, 2007). For
example, light colors used on the package can signal product healthful-
ness (Karnal et al., 2016; Mai et al., 2016). Through the consistent use
of specific visual design elements for health products, practitioners
might actually reinforce and perpetuate health associations. For exam-
ple, if a light blue packaging is constantly paired with low‐fat milk, this
co‐occurrence will strengthen the association between the two stim-
uli. As such, the activation and recall of “low fat milk” will likely
increase when consumers are exposed to the light blue milk packaging.
Our findings further indicate that studies manipulating explicit health
elements (e.g., health claims) in mock‐up or real product packages
should account for unknown interactions resulting from other packag-
ing elements that we find to be highly associated with health designs
(e.g., light colors with light claims). If these interactions are ignored,
the internal validity of such studies might be compromised. Apart from
guiding specific inferences, design elements can also act as cues for
perceptual judgments. A growing body of research demonstrates
how different design elements alter consumers' volume and size per-
ceptions, which subsequently influences consumption behavior (Deng
& Srinivasan, 2013; Folkes & Matta, 2004; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999;
Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012). Our investigation contributes to this
research by indicating which cues are actually those that are prevalent
in the package design of health products.
Our findings further outline possible implications for managers
and public policy makers alike. To enhance a product's health image,
practitioners should inquire into the most‐prominent package design
elements used to position a product as healthy within the specific
category and in a specific cultural context. It should not be neglected,
however, that there might also be certain universal elements that
apply across categories and countries, which are usually based on
more‐general knowledge or associations. For example, based on the
results in our research, but also on evidence from consumer research
studies (Chrysochou & Grunert, 2014; Fenko et al., 2016; Gvili et al.,
2015; Karnal et al., 2016; Machiels & Karnal, 2016; Peloza et al.,
2015), elements such as lighter, balanced and warmer colors, nature
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
and health imagery, natural package materials (e.g., paper), and angular
packaging shape are more frequently used for health products and
can, at the same time, make food products appear healthier. However,
some additional considerations should be made. First, these elements
should not be used in isolation, but in addition to health claims and
labels. Second, if these elements convey healthfulness in isolation
(i.e., consumers produce unconscious responses), then apart from their
positive effects (i.e., helping consumers make unconscious health
choices), they could also have a negative effect. For example, if con-
sumers make unconscious choices, an unhealthy food product using
health‐associated package design elements could mislead them. In this
light, certain graphic and structural elements could be carefully consid-
ered as implicit indicators of food healthfulness through package
design. This calls for possible policy measures that will protect con-
sumers from misleading implicit information.
5.4 | Limitations and directions for future research
Although content analysis as a methodological tool is useful in identi-
fying certain patterns of marketing communications, it does not pro-
vide evidence of the underlying reasons of the communicator nor of
consumers' actual response to the communication. Content analysis
does, however, offer ground for speculating certain trends; and
through the present study, we guide such speculations. We thus
encourage future research to investigate the influence of implicit
package elements that we identify as dominant in health products,
on consumer response. Furthermore, the present research takes an
atomistic perspective (i.e., it treats each package design element
separately), not without acknowledging that the interaction among
the various elements (van Rompay & Pruyn, 2011), and the holistic
impression of the package design (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008) are factors
that ultimately influence consumer response. We thus suggest that
these effects should not be addressed in isolation—the interplay
between them should also be accounted for, as previous research also
suggests (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008; van Rompay & Pruyn, 2011). For
example, how do implicit elements interact with explicit elements
and how do implicit elements interact with other implicit elements?
Furthermore, which are the individual and contextual factors (e.g.,
product category and market conditions) that shape how consumers
respond to this information?
Additionally, although our results give a glimpse into some of the
implicit elements used to communicate healthfulness through package
design, our list of coded elements may not be exhaustive. Future
research should identify and explore additional implicit package design
elements, and perhaps, a more enlightening research undertaking
would address the way these elements are actually combined in prac-
tice. Another limitation stems from the coding procedure—while the
coders had training and trial sessions, there still might exist a certain
level of subjectivity inherent to human judgement. Regarding our ana-
lytical approach, the analysis of the data in the content analysis only
accounted for the number of products, whereas the market share of
different brands may also play a role in what consumers are actually
exposed to. For example, a brand like Coca‐Cola has more visibility
in the market than its competitors. Future studies could potentially
address this issue.
9
ORCID
Alexandra Festila http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8725-4561
Polymeros Chrysochou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7905-5658
RE FE RE NC ES
Aschemann‐Witzel, J., 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.
Bech‐Larsen, T. (1996). Danish consumers' attitudes to the functional and
environmental characteristics of food packaging. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 19(3), 339–363.
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 Prefer-
ence, 22(1), 17–23.
Belei, N., Geyskens, K., Goukens, C., Ramanathan, S., & Lemmink, J. (2012).
The best of both worlds? Effects of attribute‐induced goal conflict on
consumption of healthful indulgences. Journal of Marketing Research,
49(6), 900–909.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form. product design and consumer
response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
Bublitz, M. G., Peracchio, L. A., & Block, L. G. (2010). Why did i eat that?
Perspectives on food decision making and dietary restraint. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 239–258.
Chandon, P. (2013). How package design and packaged‐based marketing
claims lead to overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy,
35(1), 7–31.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast‐
food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher
side‐dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3),
301–314.
Chernev, A., & Gal, D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments:
Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal
of Marketing Research, 47(4), 738–747.
Chrysochou, P. (2010). Food health branding: The role of marketing mix
elements and public discourse in conveying a healthy brand image.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1–2), 69–85.
Chrysochou, P., & Grunert, K. G. (2014). The effect of health‐related ad
information and health motivation on product evaluations. Journal of
Business Research, 67(6), 1209–1217.
Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase
(or decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104–117.
Elliott, C. (2008). Marketing fun foods: A profile and analysis of supermar-
ket food messages targeted at children. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse
de Politiques, 34(2), 259–273.
Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., & Galetzka, M. (2016). What's in a name? The
effects of sound symbolism and package shape on consumer responses
to food products. Food Quality and Preference, 51(Supplement C),
100–108.
Festila, A., & Chrysochou, P. (2016). In good shape: The influence of
container curvature on consumers' perceptions and consumption.
Advances in Consumer Research, 44, 439–440.
Folkes, V., & Matta, S. (2004). The effect of package shape on consumers'
judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390–401.
Ford, G. T., Hastak, M., Mitra, A., & Ringold, D. J. (1996). Can consumers
interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claim? A
laboratory investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1),
16–27.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values,
nutrition claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions
of disease‐related risks, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
19(2), 213–227.
10
Gvili, Y., Tal, A., Amar, M., Hallak, Y., Wansink, B., Giblin, M., & Bommelaer,
C. (2015). Fresh from the tree: Implied motion improves food evalua-
tion. Food Quality and Preference, 46, 160–165.
Hsieh, H.‐F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative con-
tent analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Karnal, N., Machiels, C. J. A., Orth, U. R., & Mai, R. (2016). Healthy by
design, but only when in focus: Communicating non‐verbal health cues
through symbolic meaning in packaging. Food Quality and Preference,
52, 106–119.
Kemp, E., & Bui, M. (2011). Healthy brands: Establishing brand credibility,
commitment and connection among consumers. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 28(6), 429–437.
Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content‐analysis research: An exam-
ination of applications with directives for improving research reliability
and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 243–250.
Koo, J., & Suk, K. (2016). The effect of package shape on calorie estima-
tion. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(4), 856–867.
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food
choices. The influence of health claims and nutrition information on
consumers' evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant
menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19–34.
Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? the perceptual
transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(6), 807–818.
Labrecque, L. I., Patrick, V. M., & Milne, G. R. (2013). The marketers' pris-
matic palette: A review of color research and future directions.
Psychology and Marketing, 30(2), 187–202.
Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and
Preference, 27(2), 196–201.
Lee, W.‐c. 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.
Machiels, C. J. A., & Karnal, N. (2016). See how tasty it is? effects of sym-
bolic cues on product evaluation and taste. Food Quality and Preference,
52, 195–202.
Madzharov, A. V., & Block, L. G. (2010). Effects of product unit image on
consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4),
398–409.
Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., & Mugge, R. (2016). Judging a product by its
cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food prod-
ucts. Food Quality and Preference, 53(Supplement C), 132–142.
Mai, R., Symmank, C., & Seeberg‐Elverfeldt, B. (2016). Light and pale
colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior
healthiness or inferior tastiness? Journal of Retailing, In press, 92,
426–444.
Mohr, G. S., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Janiszewski, C. (2012). The effect of mar-
keter‐suggested serving size on consumer responses: The unintended
consequences of consumer attention to calorie information. Journal of
Marketing, 76(1), 59–75.
Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2013). Predicting and managing
consumers' package size impressions. Journal of Marketing, 77(5),
123–137.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer
brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64–81.
Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational
factors on in‐store grocery shopping behavior: The role of store envi-
ronment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(4), 422–433.
Peloza, J., Ye, C., & Montford, W. J. (2015). When companies do good,
are their products good for you? How corporate social responsibility
creates a health halo. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1), 19–31.
Piqueras‐Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012). The influence of the feel of
product packaging on the perception of the oral‐somatosensory tex-
ture of food. Food Quality and Preference, 26(1), 67–73.
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU
Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. A. (2006). Ratios in proportion. What should
the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 95–107.
Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception:
Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36,
313–326.
Rahinel, R., & Nelson, N. M. (2016). When brand logos describe the
environment: Design instability and the utility of safety‐oriented prod-
ucts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 478–496.
Rettie, R., & Brewer, C. (2000). The verbal and visual components of
package design. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(1),
56–70.
Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on
consumer search and product evaluation outcomes. Results from FDA
experimental data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89–105.
Schuldt, J. P. (2013). Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color
affects perceptions of healthfulness. Health Communication, 28(8),
814–821.
Scott, L. M., & Vargas, P. (2007). Writing with pictures: Toward a unifying
theory of consumer response to images. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(3), 341–356.
Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The completeness heuristic: Product shape
completeness influences size perceptions, preference, and consump-
tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57–68.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes. A
conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11–12),
1495–1517.
Simmonds, G., & Spence, C. (2016). Thinking inside the box: How seeing
products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer percep-
tions and purchase behavior. Food Quality and Preference.
Simmonds, G., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2018). ‘Show me the goods’:
Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product
imagery on product evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 63,
18–27.
Smith, V., Barratt, D., & Sørensen, H. S. (2015). Do natural pictures mean
natural tastes? Assessing visual semantics experimentally. Cognitive
Semiotics, 8(1), 53–86.
Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., & van Trijp,
H. C. M. (2017). Consumer response to packaging design: The role of
packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and
product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162(Supplement C),
286–298.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the logo high or low? Using
conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Market-
ing, 78(5), 138–151.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to
succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 44–67.
Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S. (2016). The blender effect: Physical state of food
influences healthiness perceptions and consumption decisions. Food
Quality and Preference, 54(Supplement C), 152–159.
Ting‐Hsiang, T., & George, B. (2011). Explaining the product‐specificity of
country‐of‐origin effects. International Marketing Review, 28(6),
581–600.
Underwood, R. L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging.
Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 11, 62–76.
Underwood, R. L., & Klein, N. M. (2002). Packaging as brand communica-
tion. Effects of product pictures on consumer responses to the
package and brand. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10,
58–68.
Van Ittersum, K., & Wansink, B. (2012). Plate size and color suggestibility:
The Delboeuf illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39(2), 215–228.
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU 11

Van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Functional foods:
Health claim‐food product compatibility and the impact of health claim
framing on consumer evaluation. Appetite, 44(3), 299–308.
van Rompay, T. J. L., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2011). When visual product fea-
tures speak the same language. Effects of shape‐typeface congruence
on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 28(4), 599–610.
Polymeros Chrysochou (polyc@mgmt.au.dk) is an Associate Pro-
fessor in Marketing, Department of Management, Aarhus Univer-
sity, Denmark, and Adjunct Senior Lecturer at the School of
Marketing, University of South Australia. His research focuses on
areas of branding and communications in the food sector.

Alexandra Festila (festila@mgmt.au.dk) is an Assistant Professor in How to cite this article: Festila A, Chrysochou P. Implicit
Marketing, Department of Management, Aarhus University, Den- communication of food product healthfulness through package
mark. Her research interests lie in the area of consumer behavior, design: A content analysis. J Consumer Behav. 2018;1–16.
with a focus on visual communication and implicit cognition. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1732

APPENDIX A

Coding sheet

Question code Question text Response type Explanation

0. CODER Coder identification number Text entry Coders should enter the numeric code they have
been assigned to identify themselves
1. PROD_ID Product ID Text entry Coders should enter the ID number of the specific
product that they code, as it appears in the database.
BLOCK 1: INFORMATIONAL ELEMENTS
2. HCL_PRES Does the product carry the Check the box—only one Coders should
dominant answer possible out •check the “Yes” box if the dominant health‐related
health‐related claim of two options: claim in the product category is carried by the product
within the product •Yes •check the “No” box if the dominant health‐claim in
category? •No the product category is not carried by the product
Note: The dominant health‐related claim in a product
category = the claim that is carried more frequently
in a certain product category, based on the extracted
sample; supplementary material will be used for this
question—a table with the number of variants within a
product category carrying the dominant health‐related
claim
BLOCK 2: GRAPHIC ELEMENTS
3. PACK_COL Which are the more prominent Check the box—more than Coders should check one or more boxes of the most
colors on the package (note: one response possible prominent
in general up to three, but if colors of the package. A prominent color is one that is
not obvious, you highly
can choose more than three)? visible on the package, taking a substantial amount of
space
on the package.
In general, coders should check up to three boxes, but if it is
not obvious, they can also check more than three boxes.
4. COL_SHADE The colors on the package are Check the box—only one answer Coders should
predominantly (more than possible out of three options: •check the “dark and/or intense” box if the colors on the
2/3 of the pack): •dark and/or intense package
•light and/or faded are more powerful, heavy colors (intense red, black, dark
•half and half blue,
dark brown, very bright yellow/orange, etc.)
•check the “Light and/or faded” box if the colors on the
package
are more subtle, light colors (white/whitish, light blue
[sky],
washed/pastel nuances, etc.)
•check the “half and half” box if the mix of dark and light
colors
is proportional on the package.
5. IMAGE Is there an image on the Check the box—only one answer Coders should
package of this product? possible out of two options: •check the “Yes” box if there is an image on the package
•Yes •check the “No” box if there is no image on the package
•No

(Continues)
12 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU

(Continued)

Question code Question text Response type Explanation

1
6. PROD_IMG Is there an image of the Check the box—only one answer Coders should
product on the package? possible out of two options: •check the “Yes” box if there is an image of the product on
•Yes the package
•No •check the “No” box if there is no image of the product on
the
package
An image of the product = an image that shows the final
product or ingredients used for the final product.
1
7. NAT_IMG Is there an image of nature Check the box—only one answer Coders should
on the package? possible out of two options: •check the “Yes” box if there is an image of nature
•Yes on the package
•No •check the “No” box if there is no image of nature
on the package
An image of nature = an image that depicts an object
that is not man‐made (e.g., landscape, any kind
of plant that is not in the composition of the
final product, animal that does not classify
as a character).
1
8. HEALTH_IMG Would you say that Check the box—only one answer Coders should
the image on the package possible out of two options: •check the “Yes” box if the image communicates
communicates healthfulness •Yes healthfulness to a certain extent—for example,
to a certain extent? •No the image could be depicting a training activity
(a person running/exercising), wellness (a healthy person
enjoying life/nature)—any image that triggers the
slightest association with health.
•check the “No” box if the image does not communicate
healthfulness at all.
BLOCK 3: STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
9. TRANSPAR Can you see the product Check the box—only one answer Coders should
through the package? possible out of two options: •check the “Yes” box if the product inside the package
•Yes is visible through the packagecheck the “No” box if
•No the product inside is not visible through the package
10. SHAPE1 What is the shape of Check the box—only one Coders should
the package? answer possible out of •check the “angular” box if package has predominantly
two options: sharp, pointy corners/edgescheck the “rounded” box
•angular if the package is predominantly round or has
•rounded rounded/soft corners/edges
11. SHAPE2 Is the shape of the Check the box—only one Coders should
package, in its answer possible •check the “convex” box if the package is curved outside
natural position? out of three options: on the sides
•convex •check the “concave” box if the package is curved inside
•concave on the sidescheck the “straight” box if the package
•straight is not curved on the sides

Note. The question is displayed if the answer to “Is there an image on the package of this product?” is Yes.

APPENDIX B
Distribution of package design elements within product categories in Denmark (yogurt, bread products, and breakfast cereals)

Yogurt Bread products Breakfast cereals

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Graphic elements
Color
White 88.3 91.3 87.0 0.3 57.3 58.3 56.5 0.0 51.7 67.9 37.5 5.5*
Green 26.0 8.7 33.3 5.1* 20.0 20.8 19.4 0.0 11.7 3.6 18.8 3.3
Red 22.1 21.7 22.2 0.0 19.1 12.5 24.2 2.4 23.3 17.9 28.1 0.9
Yellow 9.1 13.0 7.4 0.6 10.2 12.5 9.7 0.2 15.0 7.1 21.9 2.5
Blue 37.7 52.2 31.5 2.9 32.7 35.4 30.6 0.3 26.7 21.4 31.3 0.7
Orange 13.0 13.0 13.0 0.0 12.7 6.3 17.7 3.2 6.7 10.7 3.1 1.4
Brown 5.2 4.3 5.6 0.0 16.4 20.8 12.9 1.2 13.3 3.6 21.9 4.3*
Black 10.4 13.0 9.3 0.3 29.1 31.3 27.4 0.2 1.7 0 3.1 0.9
Purple 3.9 4.3 3.7 0.0 1.8 4.2 0.0 2.6 6.7 7.1 6.3 0.0
Pink 5.2 8.7 3.7 0.8 5.5 12.5 0.0 8.2** 8.3 14.3 3.1 2.4
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU 13

(Continued)

Yogurt Bread products Breakfast cereals

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Color shade
Dark/intense 13.0 4.3 16.7 2.2 33.6 18.8 45.2 8.5** 31.7 3.6 56.3 19.2***
Light/faded 54.5 56.5 53.7 0.1 49.1 68.8 33.9 13.2*** 51.7 82.1 25.0 19.5***
Balanced 32.5 39.1 29.6 0.7 17.3 12.5 21.0 1.4 16.7 14.3 18.8 0.2
Imagery
Imagery pres. 100 100 100 0.0 88.2 81.3 93.5 3.9* 93.3 96.4 90.6 0.8
Prod. imagery 31.2 43.5 25.9 2.3 74.2 69.2 77.6 0.9 98.2 100 96.6 0.9
Nature imagery 23.4 8.7 29.6 4.0* 10.3 23.1 1.7 11.5*** 16.8 44.4 10.3 8.3**
Health imagery 28.6 8.7 37.0 6.4** 13.4 25.6 5.2 8.4** 78.6 96.3 62.1 9.7**
Structural elements
Material
Plastic 63.6 65.2 63.0 0.0 95.5 100 91.9 4.1* 53.3 42.9 62.5 2.3
Board 32.5 34.8 31.5 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.8 1.7 3.6 0.0 1.2
Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.8 30.0 42.9 18.8 4.1*
Glass 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Metal 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 3.3 3.6 3.1 0.0
Transparency
Visible product 9.1 4.3 11.1 0.9 75.5 77.1 74.2 0.1 18.3 71.1 28.1 4.4*
Shape
Angular 39.0 43.5 37.0 0.3 98.2 100 96.8 1.6 90 89.3 90.6 0.0
Rounded 61.0 56.5 63.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 3.2 1.6 10 10.7 9.4 0.0
Convex 15.6 13.0 16.7 0.2 3.6 0.0 6.5 3.2 6.7 7.1 6.3 0.0
Concave 9.1 13.0 7.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Straight 75.3 73.9 75.9 0.0 96.4 100 93.5 3.2 93.3 92.9 93.8 0.0

Note. HPC stands for health‐positioning claim; +HPC: products carrying the HPC; −HPC: product not carrying the HPC.
*Significant at <0.05 level.
**Significant at <0.01 level.
***Significant at <0.001 level.

APPENDIX C

Distribution of package design elements within product categories in Denmark (savory biscuits, carbonated beverages, and juice)

Savory biscuits Carbonated beverages Juice

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Graphic elements
Color
White 59.4 61.1 59.0 0.0 24.5 18.2 26.3 0.3 54.1 45.0 55.3 0.8
Green 14.6 27.8 11.5 3.1 20.4 54.5 10.5 10.2*** 26.5 35.0 25.3 0.8
Red 31.3 22.2 33.3 0.8 14.3 9.1 15.8 0.3 15.9 35.0 13.3 6.2*
Yellow 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 30.6 27.3 31.6 0.1 17.1 20.0 16.7 0.1
Blue 34.5 16.7 38.5 3.1 28.6 0.0 36.8 5.7* 11.2 5.0 12.0 0.9
Orange 10.4 16.7 9.0 0.9 14.3 45.5 5.3 11.3*** 16.5 15.0 16.7 0.0
Brown 12.5 22.2 10.3 1.9 4.1 0.0 5.3 0.6 4.1 0.0 4.7 1.0
Black 20.8 22.2 20.5 0.0 12.2 9.1 13.2 0.1 10.6 20.0 9.3 2.1
Purple 5.2 5.6 5.1 0.0 2.0 9.1 0.0 3.5 7.1 5.0 7.3 0.2
Pink 3.1 5.6 2.6 0.4 8.2 0 10.5 1.3 12.9 15.0 12.7 0.1
14 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU

(Continued)

Savory biscuits Carbonated beverages Juice

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Color shade
Dark/intense 38.5 22.2 42.3 2.5 44.9 27.3 50.0 1.8 32.9 35.0 32.7 0.9
Light/faded 40.6 50.0 38.5 0.8 34.7 54.5 28.9 2.5 54.1 55.0 54.0 0.0
Balanced 20.8 27.8 19.2 0.7 20.4 18.2 21.1 0.0 12.9 10.0 13.3 0.2
Imagery
Imagery pres. 90.6 88.9 91.0 0.0 51.0 81.8 42.1 5.4* 92.4 95 92 0.2
Prod. imagery 87.4 93.8 85.9 0.7 84.0 100.0 75.0 2.7 95.5 100 94.9 1.0
Nature imagery 6.9 12.5 5.6 0.96 12.0 0.0 18.8 1.9 9.6 5.3 10.1 0.5
Health imagery 11.5 18.8 9.9 1.0 60.0 88.9 43.8 4.9* 92.4 100 91.3 1.8
Structural elements
Material
Plastic 59.4 55.6 60.3 0.1 57.1 63.6 55.3 0.2 28.8 20.0 30.0 0.9
Board 6.3 11.1 5.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 54.1 80.0 50.7 6.1*
Paper 3.1 5.6 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Glass 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 26.5 9.1 31.6 2.2 14.7 0.0 16.7 3.9*
Metal 18.8 16.7 19.2 0.6 16.3 27.3 13.2 1.2 1.8 0.0 2.0 0.4
Transparency
Visible product 27.1 16.7 29.5 1.2 83.7 72.7 86.8 1.2 37.1 15.0 40.0 4.7*
Shape
Angular 89.6 88.9 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 54.7 75.0 52.0 3.8*
Rounded 10.4 10.3 11.1 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A 45.3 25.0 48.0 3.8*
Convex 5.2 5.6 5.1 0.0 8.2 0.0 10.5 1.3 4.7 5.0 4.7 0.0
Concave 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 58.1 63.6 52.6 0.4 10.6 0.0 12.0 2.7
Straight 94.8 94.4 94.9 0.0 36.7 36.4 36.8 0.0 84.7 95.0 83.3 1.9

Note. HPC stands for health‐positioning claim; +HPC: products carrying the HPC; −HPC: product not carrying the HPC.
*Significant at <0.05 level.
**Significant at <0.01 level.
***Significant at <0.001 level.

APPENDIX D

Distribution of package design elements within product categories in the United States (bread products, hot cereals, and potato snacks)

Bread products Hot cereals Potato snacks

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Graphic elements
Color
White 40.8 44.2 39.3 1.6 69.4 68.8 70.4 0.1 36.6 39.7 34.8 0.9
Green 20.3 19.9 20.4 0.2 30.1 32.8 25.9 1.1 22.4 32.4 16.8 12.2***
Red 24.8 26.8 23.9 0.7 33.5 34.4 32.1 0.1 19.2 15.4 21.3 1.9
Yellow 25.6 26.8 25.1 0.2 24.3 20.8 29.6 2.1 17.1 19.1 16.0 0.6
Blue 19.3 13.9 21.8 6.4** 35.9 38.4 32.1 0.8 25.3 19.1 28.7 4.2*
Orange 17.0 16.9 17.1 0.0 20.4 19.2 22.2 0.3 13.9 16.2 12.7 0.9
Brown 17.2 19.0 16.3 0.8 48.1 53.6 39.5 3.9* 10.3 13.2 8.6 2.0
Black 12.6 7.4 15.0 8.4** 10.2 4.8 18.5 10.1*** 15.5 14.7 16 0.1
Purple 7.0 7.8 6.6 0.3 4.9 5.6 3.7 0.4 7.1 5.9 7.8 0.5
Pink 0.9 1.7 0.6 2.3 1.5 0.8 2.5 1.0 1.8 0.0 2.9 3.9*
FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU 15

(Continued)

Bread products Hot cereals Potato snacks

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Color shade
Dark/intense 52.9 54.1 52.3 0.2 12.1 12.8 11.1 0.1 54.7 50.0 57.4 1.9
Light/faded 26.7 18.6 30.4 11.2*** 12.1 6.4 21.0 9.8** 20.0 19.1 20.5 0.1
Balanced 20.0 27.3 16.7 11.1*** 75.7 80.8 67.9 4.4* 25.3 30.9 22.1 3.5
Imagery
Imagery pres. 59.8 66.2 56.9 5.7* 88.8 95.2 79.0 13.0*** 94.7 94.9 94.7 0.05
Prod. imagery 85.1 89.5 82.8 3.6 97.3 95.8 100 2.8 89.5 92.2 95.7 1.9
Nature imagery 21.6 18.3 23.4 1.5 30.1 25.2 39.1 3.8* 9.7 15.5 7.4 5.1*
Health imagery 34.7 35.9 34.0 0.2 86.9 97.5 67.2 33.5*** 42.9 55.8 39.4 9.1**
Structural elements
Material
Plastic 93.6 90.0 95.1 6.9** 25.7 21.6 32.1 2.8 88.4 93.4 85.7 5.1*
Board 2.0 1.3 2.3 0.9 31.1 26.4 38.3 3.2 9.5 2.9 13.1 10.5***
Paper 1.6 2.6 1.2 2.1 38.2 47.2 24.7 10.5*** 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.2
Glass 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Metal 0.4 1.3 0.0 6.7** 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Transparency
Visible product 81.5 82.3 81.2 0.1 7.3 6.4 8.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shape
Angular 38.7 45.9 35.4 7.3** 60.7 68.8 48.1 8.8** 88.2 97.1 83.2 16.1***
Rounded 60.9 54.1 64.0 6.6** 39.3 31.2 51.9 8.8** 11.8 2.9 16.8 16.1***
Convex 4.4 6.5 3.5 3.4 4.9 2.4 8.6 4.1* 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A
Concave 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Straight 95.2 93.5 95.9 2.0 95.1 97.6 91.4 4.1* 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Note. HPC stands for health‐positioning claim; +HPC: products carrying the HPC; −HPC: product not carrying the HPC.
*Significant at <0.05 level.
**Significant at <0.01 level.
***Significant at <0.001 level.

APPENDIX E

Distribution of package design elements within product categories in the United States (corn‐based snacks, juice, and savory biscuits and crackers)

Corn‐based snacks Juice Savory biscuits and crackers

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2

Graphic elements
Color
White 32.6 38.2 28.2 4.9* 72.9 66.1 77.9 7.2** 40.4 36.3 42.2 1.0
Green 18.4 20.9 16.4 1.5 62.7 63.9 61.9 0.2 22.2 28.6 20.1 2.8
Red 27.5 26.7 28.2 0.1 33.5 33.3 33.6 0.0 30.5 27.5 31.7 0.6
Yellow 30.8 31.4 30.3 0.1 27.8 31.7 25.0 2.3 34.3 50.5 29.1 13.8***
Blue 28.9 27.7 29.8 0.2 22.4 23.9 21.3 0.4 31.0 24.2 33.6 2.8
Orange 23.1 23.0 23.1 0.0 34.9 28.9 39.3 4.9* 17.2 19.8 16.4 0.5
Brown 7.7 11.5 4.6 7.1** 15.6 14.4 16.4 0.3 14.7 31.9 9 28.3***
Black 15.4 13.1 17.2 1.4 8.5 3.3 12.3 10.7*** 11.4 6.6 13.1 2.8
Purple 7.2 5.2 8.8 2.0 15.1 13.3 16.4 0.8 8.3 7.7 8.6 0.1
Pink 3.7 3.7 3.8 0.0 10.4 13.9 7.8 4.1* 1.4 1.1 1.5 0.1
16 FESTILA AND CHRYSOCHOU

(Continued)

Corn‐based snacks Juice Savory biscuits and crackers

Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ 2
Total (%) +HPC (%) −HPC (%) χ2
Color shade
Dark/intense 47.3 38.2 54.6 11.4*** 32.3 37.2 28.7 3.4 40.4 42.9 39.9 0.2
Light/faded 31.0 42.4 21.8 20.9*** 27.8 31.1 25.4 1.7 38.8 28.6 42.5 5.6*
Balanced 21.7 19.4 23.5 1.1 29.9 31.7 45.9 8.8** 20.2 28.6 17.5 5.1*
Imagery
Imagery pres. 90.9 88.5 92.9 2.5 96.5 99.4 94.3 8.2** 86.4 92.3 85.1 3.1
Prod. imagery 88.7 82.2 93.7 12.5*** 84.1 88.3 80.9 4.1* 77.3 95.2 87.3 4.1*
Nature imagery 6.7 5.9 7.2 0.3 64.1 69.3 60.0 3.8* 7.8 4.8 10.5 2.5
Health imagery 23.3 25.4 21.7 0.7 97.8 98.3 97.4 0.4 8 7.1 10.1 0.6
Structural elements
Material
Plastic 90.2 89.5 90.8 0.2 74.1 61.1 83.6 27.3*** 86.7 87.9 86.2 0.2
Board 1.2 0.0 2.1 4.1* 15.3 23.9 9.0 17.7*** 4.7 6.6 4.1 0.9
Paper 5.1 6.8 3.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.4 3.3 0.7 3.2
Glass 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 7.5 11.1 4.9 5.7* 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 2.4 2.8 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Transparency
Visible product 19.3 25.7 14.3 8.8** 64.9 56.7 70.9 9.2** 24.9 13.2 29.1 9.2**
Shape
Angular 97.0 97.4 96.6 0.2 23.1 29.4 18.4 7.1** 97.2 98.9 97.4 0.7
Rounded 3.0 2.6 3.4 0.2 76.9 70.6 81.6 7.1** 2.2 1.1 2.6 0.7
Convex 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.0 17.5 19.4 16.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.7
Concave 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 17.5 13.9 20.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Straight 98.4 98.4 98.3 0.0 65.1 66.7 63.9 0.3 98.9 100.0 99.3 0.7

Note. HPC stands for health‐positioning claim; +HPC: products carrying the HPC; −HPC: product not carrying the HPC.
*Significant at <0.05 level.
**Significant at <0.01 level.
***Significant at <0.00.