The Effect of Ingredient Item Depiction on the Packaging Frontal View on Pre- and Post-Consumption Product Evaluations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Literature Background on Consumer Product Evaluations from Pictorial Design Elements in Food Labelling
1.2. Explaining Theories
1.2.1. Perceived Mismatch and Perceived Deception
1.2.2. Purchase Intention Following Perceived Deception
1.3. Individual Differences in Cognitive Processing Style
1.4. Hypotheses
2. Study 1
2.1. Participants
2.2. Image Stimuli
2.3. Design
2.4. Procedure
2.5. Data Analysis
Moderation Effect
2.6. Results
2.6.1. The Effect of Pictorial and Textual Packaging Elements on Expected Flavor Ratio
2.6.2. The Effect of Pictorial and Textual Packaging Elements on Perceived Flavor Ratio
2.6.3. The Effect of (in)Congruency Amongst Pictorial and Textual Packaging Elements on (mis)Match Perceptions
Pre-Consumption Evaluation
Post-Consumption Evaluation
2.6.4. Influence of Mismatch Perception on Perceived Deception
2.6.5. Influence of Perceived Deception on Willingness to Purchase
2.6.6. Processing Style Influence as a Moderating Factor
Interim Discussion
3. Study 2
3.1. Participants
3.2. Results
3.2.1. The Effect of Pictorial and Textual Packaging Elements on Expected Flavor Ratio
3.2.2. The Effect of (in)Congruency Amongst Pictorial and Textual Packaging Elements on (mis)Match Perceptions
3.2.3. Influence of Mismatch Perception on Perceived Deception
3.2.4. Influence of Perceived Deception on Willingness to Purchase
3.2.5. Processing Style Influence as a Moderating Factor
Interim Discussion
4. Study 3
4.1. Participants
4.2. Procedure
4.3. Data Preparation and Sample Description
4.4. Results
4.4.1. The Effect of Pictorial Packaging Elements on Expected and Perceived Flavor Ratio
4.4.2. The Moderating Effect of Image/Ingredient List Usage on Expected and Perceived Flavor Ratio
4.4.3. Mismatch Perception
4.4.4. Influence of Perceived Mismatch on Perceived Deception and Willingness to Purchase
5. General Discussion
5.1. Main Findings
5.1.1. Expected and Perceived Flavor Ratios
5.1.2. Mismatch Perception
5.1.3. Perceived Deception and Willingness to Purchase
5.2. Moderating Role of Cognitive Processing Style and Image-Label Usage
5.3. Contributions and Managerial Implications
5.4. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bloch, P.H. Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crilly, N.; Moultrie, J.; Clarkson, P.J. Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des. Stud. 2004, 25, 547–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mai, R.; Symmank, C.; Seeberg-Elverfeldt, B. Light and Pale Colors in Food Packaging: When Does This Package Cue Signal Superior Healthiness or Inferior Tastiness? J. Retail. 2016, 92, 426–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmonds, G.; Spence, C. Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, L.; Van Rompay, T.J.L.; Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Galetzka, M. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardello, A.V. Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In Measurement of Food Preferences; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 253–297. [Google Scholar]
- Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Kole, A.P.W.; Mojet, J. Asymmetry in the Disconfirmation of Expectations for Natural Yogurt. Appetite 1999, 32, 307–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Macfie, H.J.H. The effect of advertising format and means-end information on consumer expectations for apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, B.J. The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotello, C.M. Integrating Text and Pictorial Information: Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2001, 7, 219–226. [Google Scholar]
- van Rompay, T.J.L.; Pruyn, A.T.H. When Visual Product Features Speak the Same Language: Effects of Shape-Typeface Congruence on Brand Perception and Price Expectations. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauppinen-Räisänen, H.; Owusu, R.A.; Abeeku Bamfo, B. Brand salience of OTC pharmaceuticals through package appearance. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 2012, 6, 230–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Louviere, J.J. What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Mark. Lett. 2010, 21, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Underwood, R.L.; Klein, N.M. Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2001, 10, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honea, H.; Horsky, S. The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Mark. Lett. 2012, 23, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 1495–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Scholderer, J.; Rogeaux, M. Determinants of consumer understanding of health claims. Appetite 2011, 56, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machiels, C.J.; Karnal, N. See how tasty it is? Effects of symbolic cues on product evaluation and taste. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okamoto, M.; Wada, Y.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Kimura, A.; Dan, H.; Masuda, T.; Dan, I. Influences of Food-Name Labels on Perceived Tastes. Chem. Senses 2009, 34, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeomans, M.R.; Chambers, L.; Blumenthal, H.; Blake, A. The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lähteenmäki, L.; Lampila, P.; Grunert, K.; Boztug, Y.; Ueland, Ø.; Åström, A.; Martinsdóttir, E. Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other product attributes. Food Policy 2010, 35, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liem, D.G.; Aydin, N.T.; Zandstra, E.H. Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sütterlin, B.; Siegrist, M. Simply adding the word “fruit’’ makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food. Appetite 2015, 95, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clement, J. Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. J. Mark. Manag. 2007, 23, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebollar, R.; Gil, I.; Lidón, I.; Martín, J.; Fernández, M.J.; Rivera, S. How material, visual and verbal cues on packaging influence consumer expectations and willingness to buy: The case of crisps (potato chips) in Spain. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kobayashi, M.L.; Benassi, T. Impact of Packaging Characteristics on Consumer Purchase Intention: Instant Coffee in Refill Packs and Glass Jars. J. Sens. Stud. 2015, 30, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madzharov, A.V.; Block, L.G. Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 20, 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neyens, E.; Aerts, G.; Smits, T. The impact of image-size manipulation and sugar content on children’s cereal consumption. Appetite 2015, 95, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deliza, R.; Macfie, H.; Hedderley, D. Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. J. Sens. Stud. 2003, 18, 465–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakai, N.; Morikawa, S. The pictures of fruits affect flavor perception of fruit juices. Chem. Senses 2007, 32, 114–118. [Google Scholar]
- Mizutani, N.; Okamoto, M.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Kusakabe, Y.; Dan, I.; Yamanaka, T. Package images modulate flavor perception for orange juice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, J.C.; Jacoby, J. Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research; Venkatesan, M., Ed.; Association for Consumer Research: Chicago, IL, USA, 1972; pp. 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, A.R.; Monroe, K.B. The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review. J. Mark. Res. 1989, 26, 351–357. [Google Scholar]
- Steenis, N.D.; van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.A.; Ligthart, T.N.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenkamp, J.B.E. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. J. Bus. Res. 1990, 21, 309–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottomley, P.A.; Doyle, J.R. The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Mark. Theory 2006, 6, 63–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erdem, T.; Swait, J. Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon. J. Consum. Psychol. 1998, 7, 131–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdem, T.; Swait, J. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishna, A.; Elder, R.S.; Caldara, C. Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carlsmith, J.M.; Aronson, E. Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectances. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychnol. 1963, 66, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovland, C.I.; Janis, I.L.; Kelley, H.H. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Spence, C. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.R. A spreading activation theory of memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1983, 22, 261–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardello, A.V. Measuring consumer expectations to improve food product development. In Consumer-Led Food Product Development; Macfie, H.J.H., Ed.; Woodhead: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 223–261. [Google Scholar]
- Davidenko, O.; Delarue, J.; Marsset-Baglieri, A.; Fromentin, G.; Tomé, D.; Nadkarni, N.; Darcel, N. Assimilation and Contrast are on the same scale of food anticipated-experienced pleasure divergence. Appetite 2015, 90, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aditya, R. The psychology of deception in marketing: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 735–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, D.M. Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach. J. Mark. 1975, 39, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.A.; Labroo, A.A. The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 2004, 41, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hekkert, P. Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 48, 157–172. [Google Scholar]
- Mittal, V.; Kamakura, W.A. Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.O. Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Underwood, R.L.; Ozanne, J.L. Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging. J. Mark. Commun. 1998, 4, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betsch, C.; Kunz, J.J. Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2008, 21, 532–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaiken, S. Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 752–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawronski, B.; Bodenhausen, G.V. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 135, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Egan, P. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Strack, F.; Deutsch, R. Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 220–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ares, G.; Mawad, F.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A. Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darke, P.R.; Ritchie, R.J.B. The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust. J. Mark. Res. 2007, 44, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grewal, D.; Monroe, K.B.; Krishnan, R. The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 46–59. [Google Scholar]
- Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
- Pacini, R.; Epstein, S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 972–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P. Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. J. Interact. Mark. 2009, 23, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witteman, C.; van den Bercken, J.; Claes, L.; Godoy, A. Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2009, 25, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunnell, J.J.; Ceci, S.J. When emotionality trumps reason: A study of individual processing style and juror bias. Behav. Sci. Law 2010, 28, 850–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Reno, R.R. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Deck, C.; Jahedi, S. The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2015, 78, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benn, Y.; Webb, T.L.; Chang, B.P.; Reidy, J. What information do consumers consider, and how do they look for it, when shopping for groceries online? Appetite 2015, 89, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hieke, S.; Taylor, C.R. A critical review of the literature on nutritional labeling. J. Consum. Aff. 2012, 46, 120–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 1956, 63, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, L.M.S.; Cassady, D.L. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite 2015, 92, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
- Bolen, W.H. Advertising, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Alesandrini, K.L. Strategies that influence memory for advertising communications. Inf. Process. Res. Advert. 1982, 65–82. [Google Scholar]
- Pieters, R.; Warlop, L. Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1999, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xie, G.X.; Boush, D.M. How susceptible are consumers to deceptive advertising claims? A retrospective look at the experimental research literature. Mark. Rev. 2011, 11, 293–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M.; Fernández-Celemín, L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite 2010, 55, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomas, F.; Capelli, S. The effect of the number of ingredient images on package evaluation and product choice. Rech. Appl. Mark. (Engl. Ed.) 2018, 33, 6–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, D.J.; Orquin, J.L.; Visschers, V.H. Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement. Food Policy 2012, 37, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, T.T.L.; Junghans, A.F.; Dijksterhuis, G.B.; Kroese, F.; Johansson, P.; Hall, L.; De Ridder, D.T.D. Consumers’ choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite 2016, 106, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Condition | Pictorial Information | Textual Information | Tasting Involved | (In)Congruity |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | P:A < M | T:A < M | No | Congruent |
2 | P:A < M | T:A > M | No | Incongruent |
3 | P:A > M | T:A < M | No | Incongruent |
4 | P:A > M | T:A > M | No | Congruent |
5 | P:A < M | T:A < M | Yes | Congruent |
6 | P:A < M | T:A > M | Yes | Incongruent |
7 | P:A > M | T:A < M | Yes | Incongruent |
8 | P:A > M | T:A > M | Yes | Congruent |
Pre-Consumption Conditions | Post-Consumption Conditions | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Randomization Checks | 1 Mean (SD) | 2 Mean (SD) | 3 Mean (SD) | 4 Mean (SD) | p-Value PreC | 5 Mean (SD) | 6 Mean (SD) | 7 Mean (SD) | 8 Mean (SD) | p-Value PostC | Global p-Value |
N = 52 | N = 53 | N = 55 | N = 54 | N = 214 | N = 55 | N = 56 | N = 55 | N = 56 | N = 222 | N = 436 | |
Age | 20.86 (2.07) | 20.66 (2.14) | 21.25 (2.44) | 20.43 (2.29) | 0.265 | 21.05 (2.23) | 21.04 (2.64) | 20.96 (2.17) | 20.5 (2.38) | 0.550 | 0.520 |
General frequency | 2.69 (0.67) | 3.02 (0.87) | 2.90 (0.88) | 3.09 (0.94) | 0.081 | 3.16 (0.98) | 3.00 (0.79) | 2.78 (0.76) | 2.84 (0.80) | 0.075 | 0.056 |
Liking 100% fruit juice | 5.29 (1.65) | 5.28 (1.83) | 5.15 (1.63) | 4.69 (1.89) | 0.240 | 4.87 (1.81) | 5.21 (1.70) | 5.38 (1.56) | 5.55 (1.61) | 0.175 | 0.184 |
Liking apple and mango juice | 5.42 (1.72) | 5.55 (1.61) | 5.38 (1.78) | 5.07 (1.74) | 0.530 | 5.35 (1.36) | 5.82 (1.52) | 5.85 (1.39) | 5.5 (1.39) | 0.168 | 0.184 |
Attractiveness | 5.46 (1.28) | 5.43 (1.32) | 5.09 (1.32) | 5.09 (1.1) | 0.091 | 5.45 (1.57) | 5.61 (1.31) | 5.24 (1.47) | 5.66 (0.94) | 0.346 | 0.193 |
DV | Non-Tasting Conditions | Tasting Conditions | Factors in the Model for Each DV | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P:A < M T:A < M N = 52 | P:A < M T:A > M N = 53 | P:A > M T:A < M N = 55 | P:A > M T:A > M N = 54 | P:A < M T:A < M N = 55 | P:A < M T:A > M N = 56 | P:A > M T:A < M N = 55 | P:A > M T:A > M N = 56 | P F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | T F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | TA F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | P × T F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | P × Ta F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | Ta × T F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | P × Ta × T F-Value (p-Value) ω2 | |
Expected Flavor Ratio * | −46.9 a (33.6) | 10.6 b (42.9) | −46.6 c (34.5) | 20.2 d (42.9) | - | - | - | - | 1.82 (0.178) n.s. | 280.05 (<0.001) 0.394 | - | 1.58 (0.209) n.s. | - | - | - |
Perceived Flavor Ratio | - | - | - | - | −0.7 (47.9) | 0.7 (44.8) | −10.2 (50.7) | 16.6 (46.0) | 0.26 (0.610) n.s. | 4.89 (0.028) 0.017 | - | 3.98 (0.047) 0.013 | - | - | - |
Perceived Deception | 2.5 (1.4) | 2.7 (1.6) | 3.3 (1.6) | 2.6 (1.4) | 2.9 (1.5) | 2.6 (1.4) | 2.7 (1.4) | 2.7 (1.5) | 1.14 (0.286) n.s. | 1.78 (0.182) n.s. | 0.25 (0.617) n.s. | 1.41 (0.236) n.s. | 2.13 (0.145) n.s. | 0.17 (0.682) n.s. | 3.59 (0.059) n.s. |
Purchase Intention | 4.5 (1.3) | 4.5 (1.1) | 3.9 (1.4) | 4.4 (1.2) | 5.0 (1.3) | 4.9 (1.1) | 5.1 (1.1) | 4.9 (1.3) | 1.38 (0.241) n.s. | 0.23 (0.634) n.s. | 28.71 (<0.001) 0.06 | 0.17 (0.677) n.s. | 2.99 (0.106) n.s. | 2.62 (0.106) n.s. | 1.15 (0.285) n.s. |
Conditions | Perceived Mismatch | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||
Pre-consumption N = 214 | Congruent | 17 (16.0%) | 89 (84.0%) | 106 (100%) |
Incongruent | 30 (27.8%) | 78 (72.2%) | 108 (100%) | |
Post-consumption N = 222 | Congruent | 33 (29.7%) | 78 (70.3%) | 111 (100%) |
Incongruent | 37 (33.3%) | 74 (66.7%) | 111 (100%) |
Conditions | Perceived Mismatch | ||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Total | |
Congruent PT:<M | 9 (17.3%) | 43 (82.7%) | 52 (100%) |
Congruent PT:A > M | 8 (14.7%) | 46 (85.2%) | 54 (100%) |
Incongruent P:A < M T:A > M | 7 (13.2%) | 46 (86.8%) | 53 (100%) |
Incongruent P:A > M T:A < M | 23 (41.8%) | 32 (58.2%) | 55 (100%) |
Perceived Mismatch | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Processor groups | Conditions | Pre-Consumption | Post-Consumption | ||||
Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | ||
Primary E processors N = 93 | Congruent | 11 (22.0%) | 39 (78.0%) | 50 (100%) | 12 (25.0%) | 36 (75.0%) | 48 (100%) |
Incongruent | 13 (30.2%) | 50 (69.8%) | 43 (100%) | 16 (32.7%) | 33 (67.3%) | 49 (100%) | |
Primary R processors N = 121 | Congruent | 6 (10.7%) | 43 (89.3%) | 56 (100%) | 21 (33.3%) | 42 (66.7%) | 63 (100%) |
Incongruent | 17 (26.2%) | 56 (73.8%) | 65 (100%) | 42 (33.9%) | 83 (66.1%) | 125 (100%) |
Randomisation Checks | P and T:A < M Mean (SD) N = 54 | P:A < M T:A > M Mean (SD) N = 54 | P:A > M T:A < M Mean (SD) N = 54 | P and T:A > M Mean (SD) N = 54 | F-Value N = 216 | p-Value N = 216 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Males/females | 20/34 | 10/44 | 14/40 | 13/41 | 5.03 * | 0.173 |
E-processor/R-processor | 17/37 | 25/29 | 24/30 | 25/29 | 3.45 * | 0.327 |
Age | 22.2 (2.4) | 22.6 (4.0) | 24.0 (7.4) | 22.5 (4.3) | 1.51 | 0.214 |
General frequency | 2.8 (0.9) | 2.8 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.89) | 2.9 (1.0) | 0.85 | 0.417 |
Liking 100% fruit juice | 4.9 (2.1) | 4.9 (1.9) | 4.7 (1.7) | 5.2 (2.0) | 0.63 | 0.598 |
Liking apple and mango juice | 5.5 (1.7) | 5.0 (2.0) | 5.2 (1.9) | 5.2 (2.0) | 0.51 | 0.676 |
Attractiveness | 5.2 (1.3) | 4.8 (1.7) | 4.8 (1.5) | 4.6 (1.6) | 1.25 | 0.291 |
Dependent Variable | P:A < M T:A < M N = 54 | P:A < M T:A > M N = 54 | P:A > M T:A < M N = 54 | P:A > M T:A > M N = 54 | P F (p-Value) ω2 | T F (p-Value) ω2 | P × T F (p-Value) ω2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expected Flavor Ratio * | −35.5 (33.7) | −8.9 (44.1) | −29.6 (38.8) | 11.4 (44.9) | 5.58 (0.019) 0.018 | 37.40 (<0.001) 0.141 | 1.68 (0.197) n.s. |
Perceived Deception | 3.0 (1.6) | 3.4 (1.3) | 3.1 (1.4) | 2.8 (1.4) | 1.53 (0.218) n.s. | 0.02 (0.887) n.s. | 3.26 (0.072) n.s. |
Purchase Intention | 3.8 (1.5) | 3.9 (1.4) | 3.9 (1.5) | 3.7 (1.2) | 0.21 (0.650) n.s. | 0.04 (0.846) n.s. | 0.34 (0.560) n.s. |
Conditions | Perceived Mismatch | ||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Total | |
Congruent | 25 (23.1%) | 83 (76.9%) | 108 (100%) |
Incongruent | 26 (24.1%) | 82 (75.9%) | 108 (100%) |
Processor Groups | Conditions | Perceived Mismatch | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Total | ||
Primary E processors N = 93 | Congruent | 8 (19.0%) | 34 (81.0%) | 42 (100%) |
Incongruent | 11 (22.4%) | 38 (77.6%) | 49 (100%) | |
Primary R processors N = 121 | Congruent | 17 (25.8%) | 49 (74.2%) | 66 (100%) |
Incongruent | 15 (25.4%) | 44 (74.6%) | 59 (100%) |
Focus Classification | N | Image Content Indicator | Image Trustworthy | Image Decorative | Ingredient List- IMPORTANT | Ingredient List-VIEW |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Image | 88 | 6.0 (1.9) | 6.1 (1.9) | 4.5 (2.6) | 5.2 (2.5) | 5.1 (2.6) |
Ingredient List | 15 | 5.7 (2.2) | 5.8 (2.3) | 5.0 (2.5) | 5.8 (1.9) | 6.0 (1.6) |
Equal | 5 | 5.8 (2.7) | 7.2 (0.4) | 7.0 (1.0) | 5.2 (1.6) | 5.4 (2.1) |
Perceived Mismatch | |||
---|---|---|---|
Conditions (N) | Yes | No | Total |
P:A < M (54) | 14 (25.9%) | 40 (74.1%) | 54 (100%) |
P:A > M (54) | 16 (29.6%) | 38 (70.4%) | 54 (100%) |
Total (108) | 30 (27.8%) | 78 (72.2%) | 108 (100%) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Timmerman, N.; Piqueras-Fiszman, B. The Effect of Ingredient Item Depiction on the Packaging Frontal View on Pre- and Post-Consumption Product Evaluations. Foods 2019, 8, 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080354
Timmerman N, Piqueras-Fiszman B. The Effect of Ingredient Item Depiction on the Packaging Frontal View on Pre- and Post-Consumption Product Evaluations. Foods. 2019; 8(8):354. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080354
Chicago/Turabian StyleTimmerman, Nicole, and Betina Piqueras-Fiszman. 2019. "The Effect of Ingredient Item Depiction on the Packaging Frontal View on Pre- and Post-Consumption Product Evaluations" Foods 8, no. 8: 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080354