Next Article in Journal
The Hospitality Stress Matrix: Exploring Job Stressors and Their Effects on Psychological Well-Being
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Environment, Social, and Governance Performance in Shaping Corporate Current and Future Value: The Case of Global Tech Leaders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/su151713115
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness

by
Tseng-Ping Chiu
,
Derrick Jessey Yang
* and
Min-Yuan Ma
Department of Industrial Design, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 701, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(17), 13115; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713115
Submission received: 31 July 2023 / Revised: 17 August 2023 / Accepted: 28 August 2023 / Published: 31 August 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic started toward the end of 2019 and social distancing requirements imposed worldwide led to the rapid growth of online shopping, adversely impacted the global efforts for environmental protection. This study examines packaging and logos as stimuli to explore visual attention and attraction, arousal, and environmental awareness using eye tracking and a survey questionnaire. The results suggest that reusable packaging can enhance both attention and attraction. As a result, through the comprehensive data of the eye tracker, it was found that the reusable packaging and monotone logo can attract consumers’ attention faster than the original packaging. Post-event independent sample t-tests should prove that reusable packaging can positively impact consumers.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic began toward the end of 2019 and the ensuing restrictions, such as social distancing, led to the rapid growth of the delivery industry and online shopping, thereby significantly impacting consumption behavior. Consequently, many industries and companies have invested significant resources in online marketing. In addition to changes in social trends, consumption patterns have shifted from physical to online shopping, further highlighting the significance of visual stimulation. Visualization is a significant tool to attract attention, especially for digital (online) displays. Therefore, whether the type and design of the packaging will affect the attitude and attention of consumers from the screen’s perspective needs to be studied.
Of late, reusable packaging, which indicates environmental awareness, has become a significant social trend. Many start-up companies, responding to the lifestyle changes caused by the pandemic, have redesigned and launched their services—for example, providing reusable containers—and cooperate with multiple business chains to simultaneously respond to the current living situation as well as meet the requirements of environmental protection. Additionally, countries worldwide are committed to reducing single-use plastic (SUP) packaging use to construct a circular economy [1]. However, most previous studies have focused on food or delivering packages [2,3,4,5] neglecting the daily supplies.
Recently, with the rise of minimalism, the packaging and logos of many brands have been simplified, dramatically changing from the earlier physical packaging marketing. Packaging design is an important but needs to be better understood as a visual merchandising tool [6]. Favier et al. [7] mentioned that package design complexity can impact the purchase intention and decision-making of consumers who prefer the simple over the complex. Therefore, many brands have simplified their brand logos to improve brand logo recognition. Many big companies, such as Google, Apple, Nike, Starbucks, Burger King, and Pepsi have simplified their brand logos in form and color. The color of the package label significantly impacts preference; for example, a black logo is more attractive than a colored one [8]. However, the effect of a monotone logo on consumers’ cognition of consumption attitudes remains to be identified.
Given the significance of packaging and logos, the type of form element that can attract consumers has become a crucial research topic. Attention and attraction signify the first stage of the attitude toward further consumption behavior and visual communication to understand the product or service [9], which is a cognitive stimulation [10] and has a crucial effect on further purchase attitude [11]. Most direct scientific tests use an eye-tracking system [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the reusable package and monotone logo can generate more attention and attraction than the regular formation to enhance environmental awareness and brand image and affect preferences and willingness to use. Therefore, this study discusses the impact of packaging and logos on consumer behavior from consumers’ psychological and physical perspectives.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Pandemic-Induced Changes in Consumption

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the human society and reshaped consumers’ spending habits [19]. The delivery industry has grown in response to social distancing requirements, and traditional business models and activities have become more digital-based [20]. In addition to digital technology support, the contactless delivery business has dominated the retail and logistics industry in the post-pandemic era [21]. Some studies have questioned whether consumer behavior patterns will return to physical purchase patterns after the epidemic [22,23]. However, although most countries have lifted COVID-19 restrictions, consumers seem satisfied with the online experience [24]. However, the use of SUP in containers and packaging, mainly to prevent infection, has led to a massive generation of garbage [25,26]. Consequently, disease prevention and environmental protection have become a protracted tug of war, upending the efforts to reduce plastic use [27,28]. Today, disease prevention is relatively more important, but in the bargain, the pace of environmental protection and focus on sustainability have significantly reduced [29,30,31].

2.2. Visual Communication

Previous research has shown that visual communication plays a major role in designing packaging and logos to attract consumers [7,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Visual communication is universal and can transcend language boundaries because of greater inclusivity and unity [41]. It provides lucid and attractive information that facilitates cognitive and emotional comprehension [41,42]. Silayoi and Speece [34] proposed that visual packaging is a significant factor affecting consumption decisions for low-involvement goods, which constitute a product category that is routinely purchased [32]. The struggle for finite attention makes it more important for marketers to understand what grabs and keeps consumers’ attention [43].

2.3. Environmental Awareness through Packaging

As consumers worldwide become more aware of environmental issues, product packaging increasingly emphasizes sustainability [44]. Plastic is one of the biggest sources of pollution, and unlike other materials, it is indecomposable. According to Greenpeace, an independent campaigning organization, only 2.4 million tons out of the 51 million tons of plastic waste generated in U.S. households in 2021 was recycled; it also claimed that most plastic waste is not recyclable [45]. Several countries have imposed regulations prohibiting SUP. However, such measures can only temporarily address the problem and may even impede consumer perception of eco-circulation in the long term [25]. A better mitigation or resolution option is the Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC)—an efficient concept to retrieve a product or reuse it or its parts to restore its value [46] and reduce the need for raw materials [25]. As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually recedes and life returns to the pre-pandemic routine, this unresolved problem needs to be addressed. It necessitates multi-party coordination involving multiple stakeholders, including the government, people, and corporations [47], especially since packaging is a major source of non-biodegradable waste that harms the environment [48,49,50,51]. Although previous research has focused on package reduction and recycling, it has largely ignored packaging reuse [52], which can limit the material used, reduce waste, conserve resources, and have a positive environmental impact [53]. Therefore, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) [54] proposed four reuse models and generalized behaviors expected of consumers in two dimensions: refill and return. Many companies have designed strategies to implement reusable RPS (Reusable Packaging Systems) for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) around the principle mentioned above and have found that consumers are more willing to use packaging that is not deformable and is easy to clean [52].
The form of the package can also guide or deliver the meaning of the product to consumers [55]. Clement et al. [56] hypothesized that products with characteristic shapes and high contrast are more likely to attract consumers’ initial visual attention. However, they found that fewer features are more capable of attracting consumers at first glance. Once a consumer forms cognition about a product or packaging after a positive perception has been generated, it transforms into an attitude and affects his/her decision-making [35,57]. Wang et al. [58] also proposed the “Simple = Authentic” theory, indicating that a simplified package does not significantly affect recognition of a familiar brand. However, it remains to be proven whether visual observation alone can arouse consumers’ environmental awareness and promote purchase intention. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. 
Reusable packaging can attract more attention of consumers than original packaging.
H2. 
Packaging’s visual perception can enhance the cognition of brand image.
H3. 
Packaging’s visual perception can arouse cognition of environmental awareness.
H4. 
Reusable packaging can enhance consumers’ preferences and purchase intentions regarding their willingness to reuse.

2.4. Logo Simplification

A logo is a graphic design for consumers to identify a company or its products, regardless of whether it contains its name [59]. It is one of the most powerful brand elements [60] because it can deliver brand image, attract attention, increase brand awareness, differentiate, and elicit emotional responses [59,61,62,63,64,65,66]. A logo is an identification and signature of a company, service, or product [67] and arouses consumers’ expectations [59,68]. It not only has higher stimulation and recognizability compared to text [69] but also promotes the brand’s value and philosophy [70]. With the progress of information teleportation, interaction, and communication showing diversity, the visual aspect of marketing has become the preferred medium of product and social communication [71].
Research shows that a novel logo has a positive impact on the social distancing situation [72]. The logo significantly impacts the brand image [73,74] and enhances the purchase intention of consumers [75]. Chen et al. [76] stated that simplification is the main element in designing logos. A brand can improve its recognition and achieve stronger impressions through simplified images [77]; the lower visual complexity is judged more favorably and increases consumers’ willingness to purchase [78,79]. Furthermore, the logo’s attractiveness is enhanced by a simple form and smooth style—a trend confirmed by recent packaging designs [80,81,82]. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5. 
Monotone logos draw more attention of consumers than original logos.
H6. 
Monotone logos’ visual perception can enhance the cognition of brand image.
H7. 
Monotone logos’ visual perception can arouse cognition of environmental awareness.
H8. 
Monotone logos can enhance consumers’ preferences and purchase intentions regarding the willingness to reuse.

2.5. Visual Perception of the Eye-Tracking System

Eye tracking is a well-established quantitative research method in the cognitive field [83]. It involves tracking eye movements and keeping visual records for data analysis and interpretation [84]. Researchers can understand consumer behavior through eye tracking [85], often by applying visual attention and focus point location movement [86]. Eye-tracking research encompasses multiple fields. Carter and Luke [86] used the multi-field-applied eye-tracking technique of research; the related fields include reading [87,88], psychology [89,90], economics [91], learning [92,93,94,95], memory [96,97], decision making [56,90,98], user experience design and usability research [99,100], communication [101], marketing [102,103,104,105,106,107], advertising [16,108], and retailing [109,110]. This study, based on the collation of Carter and Luke [86], analyzes the research conducted on the modern application of eye-movement technology in the field of consumer cognition.

3. Methodology

We designed two control variables (original package versus reusable package and original logo versus monotone logo) for the eye-tracking experiment to understand the effects of dynamic visual attention. Thus, 12 reusable packaging cooperating with the start-up company “Loop”, a platform designed for the reuse of SUP containers and partnership with major brands and retailers, were selected as experiment objects. Loop was announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2019 to eliminate the idea of waste and help manufacturers incorporate unique recycled content into their packaging. Loop uses the materials based on product attributes; however, most materials are stainless steel and glass with antibacterial solids and long-term reusability characteristics.

3.1. Participants

The examination involved 18 participants aged 21–30 who lived independently and possessed consumption ability. Nine males and nine females were recruited for the experiment and evenly distributed to each experimental group to avoid gender cognitive differences.

3.2. Material

The experiment objects were divided into three testing groups, each containing 12 products with different package types and logos. Each product had three types: the original product often seen on the market; packaging from Loop, including reusable containers and logos (monotone); and packaging from Loop with the previous logo (multi-color). The original packing will be the control group to compare the monotone logo and reusable package group. Only one type of product was displayed in each experimental group to avoid intersecting cognitive influences and the emergence of comparative psychology. The experiment object’s explanation and schematic diagram are presented in Table 1.

3.3. Procedure

The experiment was conducted using the Tobii Pro Nano eye-tracking system, which is a screen-based eye tracker that captures gaze data at 60 Hz. The principle of the eye tracker is illustrated in Figure 1. The experimental field was isolated by partitioning and divided into two zones: the observation and testing areas, which did not have line-of-sight contact with each other (Figure 2). First, the participants sat in front of a 27” monitor and performed pupil tracking and position correction. Thereafter, the examination provided the object image freely for 15 s to collect the vision data. Next, eight questions were shown next to the image to be answered orally; answers were recorded by the exam operator. The questions aimed to understand the intuitive perception of the product, including the feeling of visual environmental protection, purchase willingness, and visual preference. The entire examination process lasted approximately 15–20 min. After the on-computer test, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand how the participants felt about the new type of reusable packaging.

3.4. Measurement

The measurement was divided into two parts: eye tracking and a questionnaire survey. The eye-tracking data show the time participants took to watch the stimulant in milliseconds (ms) in the different indexes; this study applied the five eye-tracking indexes of Area of Interest (AIO), Total Fixation Duration (TFD), Time to First Fixation (TTFF), and First Fixation Duration (FFD), and Effective Focus (EF). Furthermore, a t-test was conducted for quantitative analysis. Eye tracking mainly reflects people’s mental processes at any given moment [86] and shows the most intuitive response. This study examined four major eye movement parameters. According to Farnsworth [111], the definitions of each noun are as follows: AIO represents specifically selected stimulation regions to extract the metrics data; TFD represents the amount of time that respondents have spent looking at a particular AOI; TTFF represents the amount of time that a respondent takes to look at a specific AOI from stimulus onset; FFD represents the time of first fixation at a specific region; and EF represents the proportion of adequate attention generated while browsing an AOI. The higher the value, the more focused the respondents were while browsing the content.
After collecting the eye movement data above, conduct an independent sample t-test analysis according to its characteristics and observe the differences in the attention time of consumers to the experimental samples for comparison. Furthermore, a questionnaire was designed to allow participants to answer after the first stage of the experiment, which involved watching the object for 15 s. The questions about the psychological aspect included topics such as preference, brand image improvement, environmental favorability, and degree of willingness. A 7-point Likert scale, the 0 representing the most disagree and 7 representing very much agree, was used to respond to these questions. Finally, an independent sample t-test was used for quantitative analysis to detect the difference between the control and experimental group.

4. Result

The study was divided into two aspects, physiological and psychological, to explore the consumption consciousness that affected the packaging and logos on a product. The eye-tracking experiment included 18 participants, and each participant looked at 12 products without repetition, including four products in each of the three groups based on categories. There were six people in each group; 24 sets of data were collected from each group, combined with the ABC group, for a total of 72 sets of eye-movement data.

4.1. Physiological Response (Eye-Tracking)

4.1.1. Attraction and Attention on Reusable Package vs. Original Package

First, the experiment compared the attention difference between the reusable and original packages by applying the TFD data from the eye-tracking system and conducting an independent sample t-test; Table 2 presents the results. There was no significant difference in the TFD between the reusable package (M = 11.225, SD = 2.22) and original package (M = 11.222, SD = 1.90) conditions; t (142) = −0.009, p > 0.05, which indicates that packaging does not explicitly affect visual attraction. However, there was a slight difference in the mean TFD—that of the reusable package was slightly higher than that of the original package.
Second, the experiment compared the attractiveness of the reusable and original packages. Farnsworth (2022) [111] stated that a higher FFD with a shorter TTFF can identify the object with a higher attraction to the participant. Therefore, the experiment was conducted on both datasets to understand the difference between the packages. Figure 3 shows that the reusable package took a shorter time (0.253 < 0.263 ms) than the original package, which implies that participants reached the fixation standard more quickly and spent more time contemplating the object (0.202 > 0.193 s). Therefore, a reusable package draws more attention from consumers compared to an original package.

4.1.2. Attraction and Attention on Monotone Logo vs. Original Logo

Subsequently, the experiment compared the attraction difference between the original and monotone logos by applying the TFD data from the eye-tracking system and conducting an independent sample t-test; Table 3 presents the results. No significant difference was observed between the TFD of the monotone logo (M = 3.927, SD = 2.181) and the original logo (M = 4.036, SD = 2.391) conditions; t (142) = 0.28, p > 0.05, which indicates that logo style does not explicitly affect visual attraction. However, there was a slight difference in the mean of the TFD—that of the monotone logo was slightly higher than that of the original logo.
Furthermore, the monotone logo had a shorter TTFF (0.715 < 0.849) and a longer FFD (0.366 > 0.319) than the original logo (Figure 4). It explains why, when the participants look at the product, a monotone logo draws more attention than the original logo.

4.1.3. Proportion of Adequate Attention

EF represents the proportion of adequate attention generated in browsing an AOI, which reflects interest in different types of content. A higher value indicates a higher content concentration. Figure 5 shows that the reusable package had a higher EF percentage compared to the original package (81.4% > 79.7%), and the original logo had a higher EF percentage compared to the monotone logo (89.5% > 88.2%). The reusable package is a new type of formation. Although reusable packages have recently appeared in the market, their clean and concise appearance has drawn more attention than the original package. However, it appears that colored logos can also impact concentration in a brief appearance.

4.2. Psychological Response (Questionnaire)

4.2.1. The Package Impact of the Consumption Attitude on Psychological Aspects

The results show that reusable packaging positively affects consumers’ psychological aspects, as shown in Table 4. First, there was a significant difference in product preference for the original package (M = 3.83, SD = 1.463) and reusable package (M = 4.74, SD = 1.678) conditions; t (142) = −3.440, p < 0.05, which indicates that the reusable package had a positive effect on preference. Second, there was a significant difference in the degree of willingness to use the original package (M = 3.90, SD = 1.680) and reusable package (M = 4.65, SD = 1.671) conditions; t (142) = −2.686, p < 0.05, which indicates that consumers were more willing to use the reusable package compared to the original package. Third, there was a significant difference in brand image improvement for the original package (M = 4.25, SD = 1.554) and reusable package (M = 4.99, SD = 1.295) conditions; t (142) = −3.088, p < 0.05, which indicates that the reusable package can better enhance the brand image compared to the original package. Finally, there was a significant difference in environmental favorability for the original package (M = 3.76, SD = 1.827) and reusable package (M = 4.49, SD = 1.846) conditions; t (142) = −2.359, p < 0.05, which indicates that reusable packaging makes consumers believe that it can contribute to environmental protection.

4.2.2. The Logo Impact of the Consumption Attitude on the Psychological Aspects

Furthermore, the results of the logo impact showed no significant differences in terms of the psychological aspect; Table 5 presents the results. First, there was no significant difference in product preference for the original logo (M = 4.74, SD = 1.678) and the monotone logo (M = 4.96, SD = 1.437) conditions; t (142) = 0.876, p > 0.05, which indicates that the logo does not affect consumer preference. Second, there was no significant difference in the degree of willingness to use the original logo (M = 4.65, SD = 1.671) and monotone logo (M = 4.85, SD = 1.421) conditions; t (142) = 0.752, p > 0.05, which indicates that the degree of willingness to use the product does not have a significant effect on the logo difference. Third, there was no significant difference in brand image improvement for the original logo (M = 4.99, SD = 1.295) and monotone logo (M = 5.21, SD = 1.310) conditions; t (142) = 1.024, p > 0.05, which indicates that the logo would not significantly enhance the brand’s image to the consumer with the monotone logo. Finally, there was no significant difference in environmental favorability for the original logo (M = 4.49, SD = 1.846) and the monotone logo (M = 4.53, SD = 1.510) conditions; t (142) = 0.148, p > 0.05, which indicates that consumers would not feel significantly different about environmental awareness through the logo difference.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Physiological Visual Perspective Impact

From the physiological perspective, the results showed no significant difference in the eye-tracking system, indicating that the fixation duration of the participants on the object was similar. However, the average fixation duration slightly differed between the two conditions. The new reusable package and monotone logo had a higher mean time spent on the object. It explains why the new content style draws higher attraction and attention. Interestingly, the EF had a higher concentration on the reusable package, but the original logo had a higher concentration compared to the monotone logo. It suggests that color highlights the content from a concise background. Bresciani and Ponte [8] experimented with the logo and stated that a black logo has higher attractiveness compared to a colored one. This study found that adding the condition of the package might produce different results on the color of the logo from the physiological perspective.

5.2. Psychological Influence on Consumption

The psychological aspects reflect how consumers feel about different situations of variation. A significant difference was observed between the original and reusable packages. From the business perspective, a company must consider the environmental awareness factor, which impacts the brand image. As consumption has gradually shifted online, brand image has become a standard purchase consideration. This study found that overall brand image and environmental awareness affect the willingness to use, indicating the significance of brand image and environmental awareness. A reusable package can enhance the brand image and environmental awareness compared to the original package and the willingness to use and preference. In the post-experiment interview, the participants stated that they would select a reusable package because it was aesthetic, environment-friendly, and convenient. In Taiwan, recycling is highly encouraged, and recycling classification is necessary while dumping garbage. Therefore, many people purchase products with reusable packages and use the refill pack to avoid recycling classification.
There is no significant difference between the monotone and original logos, indicating that neither type affects the cognition of those factors, even though the average score of the monotone logo is slightly higher than that of the original logo. The logo represents a company’s spirit, and the color may impact visual perfection; however, the degree of influence was insignificant. For example, the logo on the document or paper is sometimes printed in a single color, and the consumers need to notice which brand it is instead of being attracted by the logo. The logo represents a company or industry; this study uses a well-known company so that participants already have an impression or brand image in mind.

5.3. Conclusions

Visual communication is the first stage of the product–consumer connection. Therefore, this study explored whether reusable packaging as a visual display can generate higher physiological and psychological stimulation, further enhancing environmental awareness and brand image. The results show that packaging has a more significant visual impact on consumers than logos, and it is consistent with the conclusion of Clement et al. [56] that fewer features are more capable of attracting consumers at first glance. The monotone logo has a subtle effect of assisting consumers in shifting their attention to the package type, indirectly stimulating and enhancing the influence of visual perception on environmental protection awareness and brand image or other consumption behaviors. Theoretically, this study verifies that from the psychological level, reusable packaging will affect consumers’ consumption psychology, and through the practice of physiological eye movement, it proves consumers’ visual cognitive differences.
In conclusion, reusable packaging is a key factor affecting consumers’ cognition of their consumption behavior. From the physiological visual catching, the attraction and attention guide to the psychological arousal further enhances the environmental awareness and purchase intention. This study suggests that companies should use reusable packaging and cooperate with services such as Loop. This study can support environmental protection and enhance a brand’s image and consumers’ willingness to use. This study can provide significant references to companies, governments, and the recycling industry regarding environmental protection and achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

This study applied the reusable containers from Loop to explore the first vision perspective from the monitor image as online shopping. We identified the impact of the outer packaging on consumers; however, further research on container material and content type is required. The post-interview results indicated that materials and categories impact consumers’ purchasing decisions. Due to the manufacturing and cost would affect the material that companies use, it is challenging to do all aspects of concerns. We believe that multiple factors would affect consumers’ decision-making of purchasing. Therefore, the bottle’s material will also affect the design of the service process. The series of studies would be moving forward to the service design to explore how experience affects the purchase decision.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.-P.C. and D.J.Y.; investigation, T.-P.C. and D.J.Y.; methodology, T.-P.C. and D.J.Y.; resources, T.-P.C.; data curation, D.J.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, D.J.Y.; writing—review and editing, T.-P.C.; supervision, T.-P.C. and M.-Y.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the finding of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Garaus, M.; Garaus, C.; Wolfsteiner, E.; Jermendy, C. Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Song, G.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Xu, M. Packaging waste from food delivery in China’s mega cities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 103, 226–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, G.; Agostinho, F.; Duan, H.; Song, G.; Wang, X.; Giannetti, B.F.; Santagata, R.; Casazza, M.; Lega, M. Environmental impacts characterization of packaging waste generated by urban food delivery services. A big-data analysis in Jing-Jin-Ji region (China). Waste Manag. 2020, 117, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Oliveira, W.Q.; de Azeredo, H.M.C.; Neri-Numa, I.A.; Pastore, G.M. Food packaging wastes amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 1195–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jang, Y.; Kim, K.N.; Woo, J. Post-consumer plastic packaging waste from online food delivery services in South Korea. Waste Manag. 2023, 156, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Husić-Mehmedović, M.; Omeragić, I.; Batagelj, Z.; Kolar, T. Seeing is not necessarily liking: Advancing research on package design with eye-tracking. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 80, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Favier, M.; Celhay, F.; Pantin-Sohier, G. Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity and brand perception: An application to Champagne. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 46, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bresciani, S.; Del Ponte, P. New brand logo design: Customers’ preference for brand name and icon. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hassan, S.; Nadzim, S.Z.A.; Shiratuddin, N. Strategic Use of Social Media for Small Business Based on the AIDA Model. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cortinas, M.; Cabeza, R.; Chocarro, R.; Villanueva, A. Attention to online channels across the path to purchase: An eye-tracking study. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 36, 100864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Simmonds, L.; Bellman, S.; Kennedy, R.; Nenycz-Thiel, M.; Bogomolova, S. Moderating effects of prior brand usage on visual attention to video advertising and recall: An eye-tracking investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 111, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shagass, C.; Roemer, R.A.; Amadeo, M. Eye-Tracking Performance and Engagement of Attention. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1976, 33, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Blair, M.R.; Watson, M.R.; Walshe, R.C.; Maj, F. Extremely selective attention: Eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2009, 35, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Armstrong, T.; Olatunji, B.O. Eye tracking of attention in the affective disorders: A meta-analytic review and synthesis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2012, 32, 704–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bucher, H.-J.; Schumacher, P. The relevance of attention for selecting news content. An eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communication 2006, 31, 347–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, J.; Ahn, J.-H. Attention to Banner Ads and Their Effectiveness: An Eye-Tracking Approach. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2012, 17, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lisk, S.; Vaswani, A.; Linetzky, M.; Bar-Haim, Y.; Lau, J.Y. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Eye-Tracking of Attention to Threat in Child and Adolescent Anxiety. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2020, 59, 88–99.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, J.; Antonenko, P.; Dawson, K. Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Comput. Educ. 2019, 146, 103779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rodríguez-Priego, N.; Porcu, L.; Peña, M.B.P.; Almendros, E.C. Perceived customer care and privacy protection behavior: The mediating role of trust in self-disclosure. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. German, J.D.; Redi, A.A.N.P.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Persada, S.F.; Ong, A.K.S.; Young, M.N.; Nadlifatin, R. Choosing a package carrier during COVID-19 pandemic: An integration of pro-environmental planned behavior (PEPB) theory and service quality (SERVQUAL). J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jiang, Y.; Lai, P.-L.; Yang, C.-C.; Wang, X. Exploring the factors that drive consumers to use contactless delivery services in the context of the continued COVID-19 pandemic. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guthrie, C.; Fosso-Wamba, S.; Arnaud, J.B. Online consumer resilience during a pandemic: An exploratory study of e-commerce behavior before, during and after a COVID-19 lockdown. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Szász, L.; Bálint, C.; Csíki, O.; Nagy, B.Z.; Rácz, B.-G.; Csala, D.; Harris, L.C. The impact of COVID-19 on the evolution of online retail: The pandemic as a window of opportunity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 69, 103089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shaw, N.; Eschenbrenner, B.; Baier, D. Online shopping continuance after COVID-19: A comparison of Canada, Germany and the United States. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 69, 103100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 750, 141514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cowan, E.; Booth, A.M.; Misund, A.; Klun, K.; Rotter, A.; Tiller, R. Single-Use Plastic Bans: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Best Practices for Reducing Plastic Pollution. Environments 2021, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bengali, S. The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Unleashing a Tidal Wave of Plastic Waste. The Los Angeles Times. Available online: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-13/coronavirus-pandemic-plastic-waste-recycling (accessed on 13 June 2020).
  28. Shams, M.; Alam, I.; Mahbub, S. Plastic pollution during COVID-19: Plastic waste directives and its long-term impact on the environment. Environ. Adv. 2021, 5, 100119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rausch, T.M.; Baier, D.; Wening, S. Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and apparel product attributes. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Sustainability and development after COVID-19. World Dev. 2020, 135, 105082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 Redefines the Concept of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, E.S. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2013, 41, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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]
  34. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. Packaging and purchase decisions: An Exploratory Study on The Impact of Involvement Level and Time Pressure. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 607–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Venter, K.; van der Merwe, D.; de Beer, H.; Kempen, E.; Bosman, M.J.C. Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: An exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 35, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Honea, H.; Horsky, S. The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Mark. Lett. 2011, 23, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ma, J.; Li, F. Does ‘chicken soup for the soul’ on the product packaging work? The mediating role of perceived warmth and self-brand connection. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 70, 103160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. García-Madariaga, J.; López, M.-F.B.; Burgos, I.M.; Virto, N.R. Do isolated packaging variables influence consumers’ attention and preferences? Physiol. Behav. 2019, 200, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. de Faultrier, B.; Towers, N. An exploratory packaging study of the composite fashion footwear buying framework. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kelly, M. Analysing the complex relationship between logo and brand. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2017, 13, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Günay, M. Design in Visual Communication. Art Des. Rev. 2021, 9, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Malamed, C. Visual Language for Designers: Principles for Creating Graphics That People Understand; Rockport: Beverly, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. Myers, S.D.; Deitz, G.D.; Huhmann, B.A.; Jha, S.; Tatara, J.H. An eye-tracking study of attention to brand-identifying content and recall of taboo advertising. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 111, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dopico-Parada, A.; López-Miguens, M.J.; Álvarez-González, P. Building value with packaging: Development and validation of a measurement scale. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brooks, T. New Greenpeace Report: Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street—Year after Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases. GreenPeace. Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/ (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  46. Guide, V.D.R.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. The Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research. Oper. Res. 2009, 57, 10–18. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614727 (accessed on 28 June 2023). [CrossRef]
  47. Ding, L.; Guo, Z.; Xue, Y. Dump or recycle? Consumer’s environmental awareness and express package disposal based on an evolutionary game model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 25, 6963–6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Lane, J.L.; Grant, T.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B. Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mishra, P.; Jain, T.; Motiani, M. Have Green, Pay More: An Empirical Investigation of Consumer’s Attitude Towards Green Packaging in an Emerging Economy. In Essays on Sustainability and Management; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 125–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kabir, E.; Kaur, R.; Lee, J.; Kim, K.-H.; Kwon, E.E. Prospects of biopolymer technology as an alternative option for non-degradable plastics and sustainable management of plastic wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mahmoud, M.A.; Tsetse, E.K.K.; Tulasi, E.E.; Muddey, D.K. Green Packaging, Environmental Awareness, Willingness to Pay and Consumers’ Purchase Decisions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Miao, X.; Magnier, L.; Mugge, R. Switching to reuse? An exploration of consumers’ perceptions and behaviour towards reusable packaging systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 193, 106972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ertz, M.; Huang, R.; Jo, M.-S.; Karakas, F.; Sarigöllü, E. From single-use to multi-use: Study of consumers’ behavior toward consumption of reusable containers. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Reuse: Rethinking Packaging. 2019. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Reuse.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  55. Spence, C.; Van Doorn, G. Visual communication via the design of food and beverage packaging. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2022, 7, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Clement, J.; Kristensen, T.; Grønhaug, K. Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ampuero, O.; Vila, N. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. J. Consum. Mark. 2006, 23, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Gong, X.; Wang, J. Simple = Authentic: The effect of visually simple package design on perceived brand authenticity and brand choice. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 166, 114078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henderson, P.W.; Cote, J.A. Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Keller, K.L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  61. Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kapferer, J.-N. Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  63. Melewar, T.C.; Hussey, G.; Srivoravilai, N. Corporate visual identity: The re-branding of France Télécom. J. Brand Manag. 2005, 12, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pittard, N.; Ewing, M.; Jevons, C. Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. Int. Mark. Rev. 2007, 24, 457–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Müller, B.; Kocher, B.; Crettaz, A. The effects of visual rejuvenation through brand logos. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 66, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Peng, M.; Liang, M.; Huang, H.; Fan, J.; Yu, L.; Liao, J. The effect of different animated brand logos on consumer response—An event-related potential and self-reported study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 143, 107701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Adîr, V.; Adîr, G.; Pascu, N.E. How to Design a Logo. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 122, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bettels, J.; Wiedmann, K.-P. Brand logo symmetry and product design: The spillover effects on consumer inferences. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 97, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Edell, J.A.; Staelin, R. The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements. J. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schechter, A.H. Measuring the Value of Corporate and Brand Logos. Des. Manag. J. (Former Ser.) 2010, 4, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, Y. Analysis of Visual Communication Packaging Design Based on Interactive Experience. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1852, 022074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Madadi, R.; Torres, I.M.; Fazli-Salehi, R.; Zúñiga, M. The effects of campaign-based logo changes on consumers’ attitude and behavior: A case of social distancing messages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cian, L.; Krishna, A.; Elder, R.S. This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images. J. Mark. Res. 2014, 51, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kaur, H.; Kaur, K. Connecting the dots between brand logo and brand image. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Adm. 2019, 11, 68–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shi, J.; Jiang, Z. Chinese cultural element in brand logo and purchase intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2022, 41, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, C.Y.; Cheung, V.; Li, D.; Cassidy, T. Effective Simplification for Logo Design. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), Volume 9: User-Centred Design, Design of Socio-Technical Systems, Milan, Italy, 27–30 July 2015; pp. 365–374. [Google Scholar]
  77. McCloud, S. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art; Harper Perennia: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  78. Orth, U.R.; Crouch, R.C. Is Beauty in the Aisles of the Retailer? Package Processing in Visually Complex Contexts. J. Retail. 2014, 90, 524–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Northey, G.; Chan, E.Y. Political conservatism and preference for (a)symmetric brand logos. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bossel, V.; Geyskens, K.; Goukens, C. Facing a trend of brand logo simplicity: The impact of brand logo design on consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Reber, R.; Winkielman, P.; Schwarz, N. Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments. Psychol. Sci. 1998, 9, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tuch, A.N.; Presslaber, E.E.; Stöcklin, M.; Opwis, K.; Bargas-Avila, J.A. The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2012, 70, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hvelplund, K.T. Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data. In MonTI Special Issue—Minding Translation; Special Issue 1; Universitat d’Alacant: Alicante, Spain; Universitat Jaume I: Castelló, Spain; Universitat de València: Valencia, Spain, 2014; pp. 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huddleston, P.; Coveyou, M.T.; Behe, B.K. Visual cues during shoppers’ journeys: An exploratory paper. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 73, 103330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Białowąs, S.; Szyszka, A. Eye-tracking in Marketing Research. In Managing Economic Innovations—Methods and Instruments; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznan, Poland, 2019; pp. 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Carter, B.T.; Luke, S.G. Best practices in eye tracking research. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2020, 155, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rayner, K. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2009, 62, 1457–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Schroeder, S.; Hyönä, J.; Liversedge, S.P. Developmental eye-tracking research in reading: Introduction to the special issue. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2015, 27, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mele, M.L.; Federici, S. Gaze and eye-tracking solutions for psychological research. Cogn. Process. 2012, 13, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rahal, R.-M.; Fiedler, S. Understanding cognitive and affective mechanisms in social psychology through eye-tracking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 85, 103842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lahey, J.N.; Oxley, D. The Power of Eye Tracking in Economics Experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Alemdag, E.; Cagiltay, K. A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Conklin, K.; Pellicer-Sánchez, A. Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research. Second. Lang. Res. 2016, 32, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hyönä, J. The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lai, M.-L.; Tsai, M.-J.; Yang, F.-Y.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Liu, T.-C.; Lee, S.W.-Y.; Lee, M.-H.; Chiou, G.-L.; Liang, J.-C.; Tsai, C.-C. A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013, 10, 90–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hannula, D.E.; Althoff, R.R.; Warren, D.E.; Riggs, L.; Cohen, N.J.; Ryan, J.D. Worth a glance: Using eye movements to investigate the cognitive neuroscience of memory. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2010, 4, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Herten, N.; Otto, T.; Wolf, O.T. The role of eye fixation in memory enhancement under stress—An eye tracking study. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2017, 140, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Orquin, J.L.; Loose, S.M. Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychol. 2013, 144, 190–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bergstrom, J.R.; Schall, A. Eye Tracking in User Experience Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  100. Goldberg, J.H.; Wichansky, A.M. Chapter 23—Eye Tracking in Usability Evaluation: A Practitioner’s Guide. In The Mind’s Eye: On Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research; Hyönä, J., Radach, R., Deubel, H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 493–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. King, A.J.; Bol, N.; Cummins, R.G.; John, K.K. Improving Visual Behavior Research in Communication Science: An Overview, Review, and Reporting Recommendations for Using Eye-Tracking Methods. Commun. Methods Meas. 2019, 13, 149–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wedel, M.; Pieters, R. Eye Tracking for Visual Marketing. Found. Trends Mark. 2006, 1, 231–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chandon, P.; Hutchinson, J.W.; Bradlow, E.; Young, S.H. Measuring the Value of Point-of-Purchase Marketing with Commercial Eye-Tracking Data; INSEAD Business School Research Paper; No. 2007/22/MKT/ACGRD; SSRN—Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Khushaba, R.N.; Wise, C.; Kodagoda, S.; Louviere, J.; Kahn, B.E.; Townsend, C. Consumer neuroscience: Assessing the brain response to marketing stimuli using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye tracking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 3803–3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Menon, R.V.; Sigurdsson, V.; Larsen, N.M.; Fagerstrøm, A.; Foxall, G.R. Consumer attention to price in social commerce: Eye tracking patterns in retail clothing. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5008–5013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lacoste-Badie, S.; Gagnan, A.B.; Droulers, O. Front of pack symmetry influences visual attention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 102000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yu, J.; Droulers, O.; Lacoste-Badie, S. Why display motion on packaging? The effect of implied motion on consumer behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Scott, N.; Green, C.; Fairley, S. Investigation of the use of eye tracking to examine tourism advertising effectiveness. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Huddleston, P.T.; Behe, B.K.; Driesener, C.; Minahan, S. Inside-outside: Using eye-tracking to investigate search-choice processes in the retail environment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Otterbring, T.; Wästlund, E.; Gustafsson, A. Eye-tracking customers’ visual attention in the wild: Dynamic gaze behavior moderates the effect of store familiarity on navigational fluency. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Farnsworth, B. 10 Most Used Eye Tracking Metrics and Terms. IMotions. Available online: https://imotions.com/blog/learning/10-terms-metrics-eye-tracking/#a-id-time-a-5-time-spent-dwell-time (accessed on 28 June 2022).
Sustainability 15 13115 g001
Figure 1. Eye-tracking technical principle.
Figure 1. Eye-tracking technical principle.
Sustainability 15 13115 g001
Sustainability 15 13115 g002
Figure 2. Example of the experimental scene.
Figure 2. Example of the experimental scene.
Sustainability 15 13115 g002
Sustainability 15 13115 g003
Figure 3. Attraction comparison on package.
Figure 3. Attraction comparison on package.
Sustainability 15 13115 g003
Sustainability 15 13115 g004
Figure 4. Attraction comparison on logos.
Figure 4. Attraction comparison on logos.
Sustainability 15 13115 g004
Sustainability 15 13115 g005
Figure 5. Effective focus on package and logo.
Figure 5. Effective focus on package and logo.
Sustainability 15 13115 g005
Table 1. Example of experiment object group.
Table 1. Example of experiment object group.
Original PackagingReusable Package + Monotone LogoReusable Package + Multi-Color Logo
Sustainability 15 13115 i001Sustainability 15 13115 i002Sustainability 15 13115 i003
Schematic diagram of observation groups
Sustainability 15 13115 i004
Table 2. The independent sample t-test of TFD on package.
Table 2. The independent sample t-test of TFD on package.
n.MSDdftp
Original packages7211.2221.895142−0.0090.993
Reusable packages7211.2252.222
note: n. represents the number of product instead of participants.
Table 3. The independent sample t-test of TFD on logo.
Table 3. The independent sample t-test of TFD on logo.
n.MSDdftp
Original logo 724.0362.3911420.280.774
Monotone logo 723.9272.181
Table 4. The independent sample t-test of psychological feelings on package.
Table 4. The independent sample t-test of psychological feelings on package.
FactorObjectn.MeanSDdftp
Brand Image Original Package 72 4.25 1.554 142 −3.088 0.002
Reusable package 72 4.99 1.295
Environmental Original Package 72 3.76 1.827 142 −2.359 0.020
Reusable package 72 4.49 1.846
Preference Original Package 72 3.83 1.463 142 −3.440 0.001
Reusable package 72 4.74 1.678
Willing to Use Original Package 72 3.90 1.680 142 −2.686 0.008
Reusable package 72 4.65 1.671
Table 5. The independent sample t-test of psychological feelings on logo.
Table 5. The independent sample t-test of psychological feelings on logo.
FactorObjectn.MeanSDdftp
Brand Image original logo 72 4.99 1.295 142 1.024 0.308
monotone logo 72 5.21 1.310
Environmental original logo 72 4.49 1.846 142 0.148 0.882
monotone logo 72 4.53 1.510
Preference original logo 72 4.74 1.678 142 0.876 0.774
monotone logo 72 4.96 1.347
Willing to Use original logo 72 4.65 1.671 142 0.752 0.453
monotone logo 72 4.85 1.421
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chiu, T.-P.; Yang, D.J.; Ma, M.-Y. The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713115

AMA Style

Chiu T-P, Yang DJ, Ma M-Y. The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness. Sustainability. 2023; 15(17):13115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713115

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chiu, Tseng-Ping, Derrick Jessey Yang, and Min-Yuan Ma. 2023. "The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness" Sustainability 15, no. 17: 13115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713115

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop