Cartooning Consumption: The Power of Mascots in the Plant-Based Consumer Sustainable Behavior

Abstract

In the context of growing interest in sustainable plant-based alternatives and sustainable eating, this study focused on the impact of visual elements of packaging design—specifically the presence of mascots—on consumer sustainable decision-making when choosing plant-based food products. The quantitative research, conducted through an online questionnaire, consists of four parts: the evaluation of the visual attractiveness of authentic brands of plant-based products; the identification of key factors influencing consumers’ choices when purchasing plant-based foods; the selection between graphic packaging designs featuring different types of mascots; and the assessment of the perceived importance of mascots in dietary habits. The collected data allows an analysis of how much mascots influence consumer sustainable preferences and willingness to try plant-based products. The findings suggest that mascots may be an effective tool in shaping positive perceptions of plant-based food and strengthening brand trust within sustainable concepts. The results offer practical implications for marketing strategies of producers of plant-based alternatives and highlight the potential of visual communication to promote sustainable consumption. This study contributes to understanding how packaging design affects consumer sustainable behavior in the plant-based food sector, with a focus on mascots as a previously underexplored visual element.

1. Introduction

The sustainability transition has become a significant issue in global food systems. In particular, the shift from animal to plant-based diets is increasingly advocated to reduce environmental impact, improve human health, and address ethical issues related to food production [1,2].

While research has thoroughly investigated the nutritional, ecological, and ethical aspects of plant-based diets [3,4], less attention has been paid to how marketing tools, particularly the visual elements of packaging, influence consumer decision-making in this area. Packaging is often the first point of contact between product and consumer, acting as a silent salesperson to convey brand identity, product quality, and emotional stimuli [5]. Among these visual elements, mascots—personified characters used to represent brands—are widely applied in product marketing but remain under-researched in the context of sustainable food choices.

Despite the widespread use of mascots in general marketing practice, there is a lack of empirical research on their specific influence within the sustainable food context. Prior studies have not sufficiently addressed how mascots interact with sustainability-related attitudes or how their impact varies across different consumer types. As visual cues play a crucial role in shaping food preferences, particularly for emerging product categories such as plant-based alternatives, understanding this underexplored area is essential for both academic insight and practical application.

The rationale for examining mascots as a potential influence on consumer behavior is grounded in dual-process theories of decision-making, such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. These theories suggest that peripheral visual cues, such as mascots, play a decisive role in shaping consumer attitudes when motivation or the ability to process detailed information is low. This is particularly relevant in fast-paced shopping environments or for impulse purchases. Moreover, plant-based food products represent a growing yet still novel market category, often associated with values such as health, environmental responsibility, and ethical consumption. However, their success also depends on emotional resonance and visual attractiveness. Investigating how mascots, despite their playful nature, function within this value-sensitive context helps bridge the gap between emotional design and sustainability-focused marketing.

This study addresses this gap by examining how mascots on food packaging influence visual preferences and the overall attractiveness of plant-based products among consumers in Slovakia. Using a structured online questionnaire and statistical analysis of responses from over 1000 participants, the research explores the relationship between mascot design and consumer segmentation, as well as the interaction between visual cues and sustainability-related attitudes. The findings suggest that mascots can have a positive influence on consumer perceptions if they are designed and positioned effectively. These results offer practical insights for marketers and food manufacturers seeking to promote sustainable dietary change through design and communication strategies.

The growing interest in sustainable consumption has increased attention to plant-based food products, which are often perceived as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional animal-based foods [1,6]. Various factors can influence consumers’ decisions when selecting plant-based products, demonstrating the complexity behind consumer behavior in this area [7]. Among the fundamental factors influencing the selection of plant-based alternatives are consumers’ knowledge about the product, the perceived quality, affordability, taste preferences, the visual appeal of packaging, and the influence of social norms [1]. In addition to these factors, health-related motivations and ethical considerations, such as concerns for animal welfare or environmental protection, may also influence consumers’ choices [8]. However, the influence of these factors is not homogeneous and varies across different consumer groups, depending on their various characteristics [9]. These other influences of factors and consumer characteristics must be considered when selecting appropriate strategies to promote the sustainable consumption of plant-based products [10]. Ultimately, marketing strategies shape consumer behavior and significantly support broader sustainability objectives [11].

Visual communication plays a pivotal role in food marketing, with packaging design emerging as one of the most influential factors shaping consumer choices [12]. Since sight is the most dominant human sense, visual stimuli influence consumer behavior and decision-making [13,14]. The visual design of packaging conveys essential information about the product and can influence consumers’ emotions, creating positive feelings and enhancing their overall perception of the product [15]. The visual aspects of product design encompass elements such as the shape and color of the product, as well as materials, the brand’s visual identity, product advertisements, online shopping interfaces, and the forms of product presentation in retail environments [16]. One of the most essential visual elements is the product’s shape, which must be both practical and aesthetically pleasing, as different aspects of product shape have been shown to significantly influence consumers’ purchase intentions [17]. Another prominent visual element is color, which serves as a dominant design cue for packaging, conveying important product information, evoking emotional responses, and considerably influencing consumers’ initial perceptions and purchasing decisions [18,19].

Recent empirical findings confirm that consumers process visual packaging cues in different ways. Design elements such as color, graphics, and logos influence purchase intentions in varying ways depending on how individuals perceive and evaluate the brand [20]. Demographic variables, such as age, also significantly influence consumer responses to visual stimuli, including packaging color, shape, and layout [21]. These differences underscore the importance of audience segmentation when evaluating the impact of packaging visuals, including the use of mascots.

In sustainable consumption, the visual design of sustainable packaging should be aesthetically attractive to remain competitive with conventional products and encourage consumers to adopt more sustainable consumption behaviors [16]. In addition to informing and attracting consumers, visual design can foster a more profound and lasting shift in consumer attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability [22]. Considering current trends and growing societal expectations, sustainability should be a fundamental goal of any company seeking to achieve long-term success and enhance its competitive position [23,24].

Another visual element of product design is the mascot, which can serve not only to enhance brand recognition and consumer engagement but also to support perceptions of brand sustainability [25]. The mascot can be defined as a significant visual element, originally derived from a French word meaning good luck charm, that serves to humanize modern businesses by fostering emotional connections between consumers and brands and representing the specific identity of a group, brand, company, or institution through a fictional character, person, animal, object, or other symbolic figure [26,27,28]. As a key design element in modern society, mascots are increasingly capturing the public’s attention, with excellent mascot designs leaving a lasting impression thanks to their distinctive forms and animated images, ultimately becoming unforgettable symbols of brand identity and corporate image [29]. When developing a mascot, companies should consider that its design can significantly impact how the public perceives the brand, how consumers interact with it, and how much they are willing to promote it further [30].

Depending on their dietary habits and values, consumer groups may respond differently to marketing strategies promoting healthier and more sustainable food choices, including the use of mascots [31]. By providing brands with a distinctive and relatable character, mascots allow companies to communicate a wide range of values and emotional messages to consumers [32]; among these, sustainability can be effectively promoted as part of the brand’s identity and long-term vision. Their use has been shown to significantly influence consumer behavior, particularly among children, demonstrating the powerful role mascots can play in shaping food preferences and encouraging environmentally responsible behavior [33]. In this context, promoting healthier and more sustainable food consumption, such as increasing the intake of plant-based foods, is considered essential for addressing current environmental and public health challenges, further emphasizing the critical role of consumer education and awareness in driving dietary shifts [34]. Moreover, by embodying human qualities, mascots can significantly increase the effectiveness of sustainability-related messages and encourage consumers to adopt more sustainable behavior [35].

Certain groups may lead more sustainable lifestyles than others, particularly due to their dietary habits, such as the frequency of consuming plant-based products or the extent to which they avoid animal-based foods [3]. Based on their nutritional patterns, consumers can generally be categorized into four main groups: omnivores, who consume both animal- and plant-based foods without restriction; flexitarians, who primarily follow a plant-based diet but occasionally eat animal products; vegetarians, who exclude meat but may consume other animal-derived products such as dairy and eggs; and vegans, who avoid all animal-derived foods entirely [36,37,38]. Regardless of the specific diet individuals follow, choosing plant-based meals or reducing meat consumption contributes to sustainability and remains a voluntary and impactful decision each consumer can make [39].

One of the most common and affordable plant-based products is plant-based milk, available in various options such as almond, soy, coconut, or oat milk [40]. We chose oat milk as our research product because it is suitable for all four consumer groups—vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, and omnivores—and several brands already use mascots to market it. The product a consumer chooses in-store depends on a variety of factors, including rational factors (e.g., price, quality, composition), visual factors (e.g., packaging design, presence of a mascot), and factors related to sustainability [41,42].

Despite the growing relevance of plant-based products and sustainability-driven choices, the role of mascots as strategic visual tools remains largely overlooked. This study addresses that gap by examining how mascots influence consumer perceptions, segment-specific preferences, and decision-making. It positions visual branding—particularly mascot design—as a powerful yet underutilized driver of sustainable consumption behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

The primary aim of this study is to investigate how mascots influence consumer behavior when purchasing plant-based food alternatives. The research focused on consumers’ visual perceptions, decision-making criteria, and attitudes toward various mascot types in product packaging. Understanding consumer preferences is crucial for developing effective marketing strategies, particularly in emerging product categories like plant-based alternatives.

2.1. Statistical Analysis

Given the lack of existing data directly addressing the research objectives, the authors decided to conduct primary research. This research employed a quantitative design, using a structured online questionnaire explicitly developed for this purpose and created and distributed via Google Forms (accessed in October 2024). The questionnaire included sections focused on consumers’ dietary habits, decision-making criteria, visual preferences, and attitudes toward plant-based packaging and mascots, as well as fundamental sociodemographic indicators. The questionnaire was shared through social media and email to reach a broad audience across Slovakia. This distribution method allowed for a diverse sample in terms of age, gender, and dietary preferences. Data was collected between October 2024 and March 2025. All responses were collected anonymously, and informed consent was obtained prior to the commencement of the survey.

A total of 1050 respondents participated in the study. All participants were residents of Slovakia, ranging in age from 18 to 72 years. The sample consisted of 53.52% women and 46.48% men. In terms of age, respondents were categorized into four generational groups: Generation Z (18.10%), Generation Y (32.86%), Generation X (30.10%), and Baby Boomers (18.95%). The lower proportion of Generation Z participants is due to the study’s inclusion criteria, which allowed only individuals aged 18 and above to participate. The gender and generational distribution of the sample were evaluated using the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, which confirmed the sample’s representativeness compared to national demographic data [43].

The data collected were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 365) with the XLSTAT statistical add-on (version 2024.1). This software setup enabled the execution of basic descriptive statistics and a range of advanced multivariate analyses. The following statistical methods and tests were employed: the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the Friedman test, factor analysis, cluster analysis, correspondence analysis, and discriminant analysis. These methods were applied to evaluate criteria such as brand visual appeal, product selection factors, packaging preferences, and the perceived importance of mascots. Each statistical test was selected to align with the data structure and the research objectives. Together, they provided a comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior, allowing us to answer each formulated research question.

2.2. Research Questions (RQ)

The study explored the following research questions, which are consistent with the four main areas of research:

RQ1: 

How do consumers perceive selected oat milk brands, and how do mascots shape this perception?

RQ2: 

Can consumers be segmented based on their relative importance of rational, visual, and sustainability-related factors when choosing plant-based products?

RQ3: 

How do different consumer typologies influence visual product design preferences, including the presence of mascots?

RQ4: 

To what extent do eating habits influence how consumers perceive mascots as a factor in product choice?

2.3. Hypotheses

Based on the formulated research questions and grounded in existing theoretical frameworks and empirical studies on consumer behavior, marketing communication, and visual perception, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H1: 

Mascots influence how consumers perceive selected oat milk brands.

H2: 

Consumers can be segmented based on their relative importance of rational, visual, and sustainability factors in choosing plant-based products.

H3: 

Different consumer typologies show different preferences in visual product design, including mascots.

H4: 

Consumers’ dietary habits influence how they perceive mascots as a factor in product choice.

To test Hypothesis 1, participants were asked to evaluate four selected oat milk brands by assigning a unique score from 1 to 4, where 4 indicated the most visually attractive brand. The Friedman test was applied to examine whether there were significant differences in consumer evaluations. This was followed by a principal component analysis (PCA) to uncover latent dimensions in brand perception related to visual elements and mascot presence. When formulating Hypothesis 1, we relied on previous studies that have shown characters influence consumer perceptions and sustainable attitudes [44] and that mascots are widely used to attract attention in food marketing [12,45,46].

In the case of Hypothesis 2, the focus was on identifying consumer segments based on their prioritization of different product selection factors. Respondents rated seven variables on a five-point scale, grouped into rational (price, quality, reviews), visual (design, mascot), and sustainability-related (ingredients, environmental impact) categories. These ratings were input for a K-means clustering analysis to define distinct consumer profiles. This approach to segmentation is based on previous research suggesting that various factors—such as taste, product familiarity, quality, affordability, packaging, and social influence—differentially influence consumer decisions in the plant-based food market [1,47,48].

To explore Hypothesis 3, the study examined how the identified consumer segments responded to different packaging concepts for plant-based ice cream. Each respondent viewed three packaging designs—one without a mascot, one with a large mascot, and one with a small mascot—and selected the option they would most likely purchase. A correspondence analysis was used to detect patterns in visual preferences across segments. This hypothesis builds on prior research showing that consumer values—such as health consciousness, environmental concern, or price sensitivity—strongly influence how individuals respond to visual marketing cues [49,50].

Finally, Hypothesis 4 investigated whether dietary preferences influenced the importance consumers assigned to mascots when choosing a product. Participants were categorized as omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians, or vegans, and their ratings of the “mascot on packaging” factor were compared using discriminant analysis. Wilks’ lambda was used to assess the significance of differences among the dietary groups. Although direct studies on nutritional preferences and perceptions of mascots are limited, existing research shows that various factors influence consumer decisions in the market for plant-based products [48,51,52]. Therefore, this study investigates whether dietary preferences influence how mascots are perceived during the product selection process.

All data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 365) with the XLSTAT statistical add-on (version 2024.1). Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. To examine differences and relationships within the data, the following statistical tests were employed: the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the Friedman test, principal component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, cluster analysis, correspondence analysis, and discriminant analysis. Each method was selected based on the specific hypothesis and data structure. The significance level for all statistical tests was set at α = 0.05.

To visualize fictional product packaging with various mascot styles, the generative AI tool DALL·E 3 (developed by OpenAI) was used. The AI-generated images were incorporated into the questionnaire as visual stimuli in the third section, where respondents selected their preferred packaging designs. No other use of GenAI was involved in study design, data analysis, or interpretation.

3. Results

In this section, we present the findings of the quantitative research conducted to explore the role of mascots in influencing consumer behavior toward plant-based food products. The results are organized according to the four research questions and reflect the outcomes of statistical analyses performed on data from 1050 respondents in Slovakia. Before presenting the detailed results, we assess the sample’s representativeness to ensure the validity and generalizability of the findings.

To ensure that the sample adequately reflects the demographic structure of the Slovak population, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed for gender and generational distribution. The results confirmed no statistically significant deviations between the sample and national population data (p > 0.05), indicating a representative sample suitable for generalizing the findings. Detailed results are shown in

Table 1. Results of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test for gender distribution.

Chi-square (observed value)	2.576
Chi-square (critical value)	3.841
DF (degrees of freedom)	1
p-value	0.108
Alpha	0.05

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

(gender) and

Table 2. Results of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test for generational distribution.

Chi-square (observed value)	5.571
Chi-square (critical value)	7.815
DF (degrees of freedom)	3
p-value	0.134
Alpha	0.05

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

(generations).

3.1. Perception of Oat Milk Brands and the Role of Mascots

The first research question aimed to explore how consumers perceive selected oat milk brands in terms of visual attractiveness and how the presence of mascots influences this perception. The four evaluated oat milk brands—Alpro, Minor Figures, Oatbedient, and Oatly—were presented to respondents with authentic product images to ensure authenticity and realism in their visual judgment (Figure 1).

The Friedman test for related samples was used to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in how respondents evaluated the four oat milk brands. The results showed a highly significant difference between the brands, confirming that at least one was perceived differently (

Table 3. Results of the Friedman test for differences in brand evaluation.

Q (observed value)	422.099
Q (critical value)	7.815
DF (degrees of freedom)	3
p-value (one-tailed)	<0.0001
Alpha	0.05

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

). This finding provided a rationale for further analysis using principal component analysis (PCA) to uncover the underlying structure of these brand evaluations.

As shown in

Table 4. Eigenvalues and explained variance from principal component analysis (PCA).

	F1	F2	F3
Eigenvalue	1.470	1.314	1.216
Variability (%)	36.746	32.845	30.409
Cumulative %	36.746	69.591	100.000

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

, the principal component analysis (PCA) extracted three meaningful factors that explained the variance in how consumers perceived the brands. These factors contributed almost equally to the overall differentiation, suggesting that no single dimension dominates the perception process.

The pattern matrix (

Table 5. Factor loadings and commonalities from the pattern matrix.

	F1	F2	F3	Initial Communality	Final Communality	Specific Variance
Alpro	−0.774	0.015	0.633	1.000	1.000	0.000
Minor Figures	−0.131	0.782	−0.609	1.000	1.000	0.000
Oatbedient	−0.093	−0.837	−0.540	1.000	1.000	0.000
Oatly	0.919	0.039	0.392	1.000	1.000	0.000

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

) allows us to interpret what each factor represents:

• F1 captures differences in color richness and visual complexity. For instance, Alpro—with its warm colors, rich illustrations, and decorative graphics—lies at the opposite end of the spectrum from Oatly, whose black-and-white minimalist packaging gives it a stark appearance. Minor Figures and Oatbedient fall somewhere in between, using more muted color palettes.
• F2 reflects the style of mascot illustration. Minor Figures, with its artistic and abstract mascot, contrasts with Oatbedient, whose mascot is more simplistic and childlike. Alpro and Oatly, which do not use mascots, show values near zero, indicating that this dimension does not directly apply to them but still helps distinguish the other two brands.
• F3 differentiates between brands with and without mascots. Alpro and Oatly, which do not use mascots, have positive scores on this factor, while Minor Figures and Oatbedient have negative scores, indicating the presence of mascots.

Figure 2 visually represents these relationships, plotting brand positions in the two-dimensional factor space defined by F1 and F2. The visual map confirms the brand segmentation suggested by the factor loadings and highlights how design elements and the presence of the mascot contribute to consumer perception.

The results suggest that consumers differentiate among oat milk brands based on color, visual style, and the presence and character of mascots. This confirms the potential of mascots as a meaningful element in brand communication within the plant-based product segment. Accordingly, the results support Hypothesis 1, proving that mascots influence consumers’ perception of selected oat milk brands.

3.2. Consumer Segments Based on the Importance of Rational, Visual, and Sustainability Factors

The second research question focused on identifying whether consumers can be segmented according to their relative importance of rational, visual, and sustainability-related factors when choosing plant-based products. Respondents rated seven attributes using a five-point Likert scale—price, quality, recommendations/reviews, mascot, packaging design, nutritional values/ingredients, and ecological aspects. These variables were grouped into three dimensions: rational (price, quality, reviews), visual (design, mascot), and sustainable (ingredients, ecological impact).

A K-means cluster analysis was performed using the seven input variables to uncover distinct consumer profiles. The study revealed four consumer segments characterized by different prioritization patterns across the three main dimensions. The centroid values for each variable within the four clusters are presented in

Table 6. Cluster centroids are based on essential ratings of rational, visual, and sustainability factors.

Cluster.	Price	Quality	Recommendations/Reviews	Mascot	Packaging Design	Nutritional Values and Ingredients	Ecological Aspects	Sum of Weights	Within-Cluster variance
1	4.202	4.967	4.410	2.978	5.000	4.770	5.000	366.00	9.588
2	4.765	4.725	4.255	1.863	5.000	3.412	1.000	204.00	10.924
3	4.810	4.429	4.221	1.156	1.000	3.424	1.000	231.00	9.655
4	4.036	4.904	3.892	1.418	1.000	4.598	5.000	249.00	9.487

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

. To validate the quality of the cluster solution, additional metrics were applied. The average Silhouette score reached 0.361, indicating an acceptable level of internal cohesion and inter-cluster separation. Individual cluster scores ranged from 0.3 to 0.4, suggesting consistent segmentation quality across all four groups. Furthermore, the inertia decomposition showed that 47.93% of the total inertia was attributed to between-cluster variance, while 52.07% reflected within-cluster variance. These results suggest that the identified clusters are moderately distinct and substantively meaningful, supporting the overall segmentation structure.

Four distinct consumer segments were identified based on the results of the cluster analysis. Each cluster reflects unique purchasing preferences and is structured according to three core dimensions: rational, visual, and sustainability-related. This segmentation highlights the diversity in consumer decision-making and provides a valuable foundation for more targeted marketing strategies in the plant-based food sector. Identifying clear and differentiated consumer profiles based on these dimensions offers empirical support for Hypothesis 2, confirming that consumers can be meaningfully segmented according to the relative importance they attach to these factors.

Cluster 1—Balanced Idealists: Cluster 1 represents a group of consumers who assign high importance to all evaluated factors, making them the most balanced and positively oriented segment. They rated product quality (4.97), nutritional values (4.77), and ecological aspects (5.00) very highly, indicating strong awareness of both health and sustainability. At the same time, they also value rational criteria such as price (4.20) and recommendations (4.41). The visual dimension is also relevant for them, with packaging design rated at 5.00 and mascots at 2.98—the highest mascot rating among all clusters. This segment is also the largest in terms of respondent count (366), highlighting its relevance in the plant-based food market. These consumers are all-around evaluators who prioritize quality, health, the environment, and appearance.

Cluster 2—Aesthetic Buyers: Cluster 2 includes consumers who prioritize the aesthetic aspects of the product, especially packaging design (5.00) and, to a lesser extent, mascots (1.86). While they also value price (4.77) and quality (4.73), their low concern for nutritional values (3.41) and particularly ecological aspects (1.00) suggest that sustainability plays a minimal role in their decision-making. These consumers are likely driven by emotional and visual impressions, with rational factors playing a secondary role and sustainability being largely neglected. This group buys with their eyes, attracted by visual design and brand aesthetics, with little concern for sustainability.

Cluster 3—Price-First Pragmatists: This segment comprises practical, budget-oriented consumers who prioritize price (4.81) above all other factors. They show the lowest interest in visual and sustainability-related aspects, with packaging and mascot ratings of 1.00 and 1.16, respectively. Similarly, their ratings for nutritional values (3.42) and ecological factors (1.00) are low. While product quality (4.43) remains essential, their choices appear driven by functionality and affordability rather than branding or environmental messaging. They are pragmatic shoppers who seek value for money and ignore visual or ethical branding cues.

Cluster 4—Sustainability Advocates: Cluster 4 includes health- and sustainability-conscious consumers who place a strong emphasis on nutritional values (4.60), ecological aspects (5.00), and product quality (4.90). Price (4.04) is less critical for them, and they assign low importance to visual factors such as packaging (1.00) and mascots (1.41). These consumers tend to make decisions based on values—they care about the product’s origin, composition, and environmental impact. For this group, sustainability is a broad concept encompassing ecology, health, and food quality. They are responsible consumers guided by ethics, health, and the environmental footprint of their choices.

Additionally, the relative size of each cluster offers valuable insights into its practical relevance. Cluster 1 (Balanced Idealists) represented the largest group (n = 366), indicating that a substantial portion of consumers simultaneously values rational, visual, and sustainability-related criteria. The remaining three clusters were similar in size, with Cluster 2 (Aesthetic Buyers) comprising 204 respondents, Cluster 3 (Price-First Pragmatists) 231 respondents, and Cluster 4 (Sustainability Advocates) 249 respondents. These comparable proportions suggest that each group represents a meaningful share of the market and deserves differentiated communication strategies. This segmentation logic provides a robust quantitative foundation for targeted marketing in the plant-based food sector.

The segmentation results demonstrate that consumers differ significantly in how they prioritize rational, visual, and sustainability factors when choosing plant-based products. The existence of clearly defined profiles—from balanced idealists to price-first pragmatists—confirms that marketing strategies should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, these findings underscore the need for more tailored communication and product design strategies that cater to the diverse motivations and preferences of specific consumer segments.

3.3. Influence of Consumer Typologies on Visual Design Preferences and Mascot Use

This part of the analysis aims to examine how the previously identified consumer segments differ in their visual packaging preferences, particularly in terms of mascots’ use. Each respondent was shown three packaging concepts for a fictional plant-based ice cream—one without a mascot, one featuring a large mascot, and one with a small mascot (Figure 3). By comparing preferences across consumer clusters, the analysis aims to determine whether typological differences affect visual decision-making. A correspondence analysis was used to detect patterns in how the segments responded to the visual elements presented.

To ensure experimental consistency, all three packaging designs used in the study were generated using AI tools under identical stylistic parameters. This approach allowed us to isolate the effect of mascot presence and size while minimizing confounding influences such as brand familiarity, existing market associations, or prior consumer bias. By avoiding real product packaging, we aim to ensure that participants’ choices were driven purely by visual design features—particularly the presence or absence of a mascot—rather than by pre-existing brand perceptions or loyalty.

A correspondence analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between consumer segments and their packaging preferences. The results are presented in Figure 4 as a two-dimensional symmetric plot, where all objects are displayed based on their similarity in choice or behavior. In the graph, consumer segments are represented by blue points, and packaging types (no mascot, small mascot, and large mascot) are represented by red points.

The two dimensions (F1 and F2) explain 100% of the variance, allowing a complete interpretation of the data within the two-dimensional space. The horizontal axis (F1) is the dominant factor, accounting for 95.63% of the explained variance, and is therefore central to interpretation. The vertical axis (F2) contributes only 4.37%, thus serving as a supplementary dimension that adds nuance to the visualization.

The correspondence analysis plot (Figure 4) reveals distinct relationships between the previously defined consumer segments and their preferences for packaging design. By examining the spatial proximity between clusters and packaging types in the two-dimensional space, we can infer which visual options resonate most with each consumer profile. These associations are consistent with the psychological and value-based characteristics described in the cluster analysis, further validating the typologies identified earlier.

Cluster 1—Balanced Idealists: Cluster 1 is positioned near the design, featuring a large mascot, which indicates a strong connection to packaging with bold visual elements. This aligns with their overall profile as highly engaged and perceptive consumers who value product quality, health, sustainability, packaging, and branding. Notably, they rated the mascot as a purchasing factor higher than any other segment, suggesting that visual storytelling elements resonate strongly with them. Their consistently high evaluations across all criteria reflect a maximalist mindset, and their openness extends to a clear preference for rich, character-driven design.

Cluster 2—Aesthetic Buyers: Cluster 2 appears slightly to the right of center, between the small and large mascot designs, confirming their sensitivity to visual aesthetics. While they appreciate attractive design and respond fairly positively to mascots, they prefer moderation over excess, favoring elegant and balanced visuals rather than loud or simplistic packaging. Their distance from the no-mascot option further supports their disinterest in plain or visually unengaging designs.

Cluster 3—Price-First Pragmatists: Cluster 3 is located near the no-mascot packaging, clearly showing their preference for simple and understated design. Visual elements, such as mascots or decorative packaging, are often seen as irrelevant and unnecessary marketing by them. They focus on practicality and affordability, making them the least visually driven segment. For these consumers, the function and price of the product outweigh its appearance.

Cluster 4—Sustainability Advocates: Cluster 4 is found near the center of the plot, suggesting no strong visual preference. This neutrality reflects their value system—visual appearance is minimal in purchasing decisions, while nutrition, ecological impact, and quality are their top priorities. These consumers look beyond the packaging, focusing instead on what the product represents in terms of sustainability and personal well-being.

The correspondence analysis confirmed that visual packaging preferences are closely linked to consumer typologies. Segments that value aesthetics or engage deeply with multiple product aspects tend to favor designs that include mascots—particularly when used as prominent, creative elements. These findings empirically support Hypothesis 3, indicating that different consumer typologies exhibit distinct preferences in visual product design, including the use of mascots.

The results show that consumer typologies have a significant influence on visual packaging preferences, including responses to mascot usage. Segments with higher engagement in product evaluation, such as Balanced Idealists and Aesthetic Buyers, tend to favor more expressive visual elements. In contrast, pragmatic or sustainability-driven consumers show low interest in visual features. These differences reinforce the importance of understanding consumer diversity when designing packaging for plant-based products and confirm that mascot effectiveness depends on the specific values and motivations of the target segment.

3.4. The Role of Dietary Habits in Perceiving Mascots as a Purchase Factor

This part of the analysis focused on whether consumers’ importance of mascots on packaging varies depending on their dietary preferences. Respondents were categorized into four nutritional groups: omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans. A discriminant analysis was conducted to evaluate group differences, and Wilks’ lambda was used as the test statistic.

As shown in

Table 7. Wilks’ lambda test (Rao’s approximation).

Lambda	0.976
F (Observed value)	8.727
F (Critical value)	2.613
DF1 (degrees of freedom 1)	3
DF2 (degrees of freedom 2)	1046
p-value (Two-tailed)	<0.0001
Alpha	0.05

Source: authors’ research and calculations, output XLSTAT.

, the result was statistically significant. However, the lambda value being very close to 1 suggests that only a negligible portion of the variance in the perceived importance of mascots can be explained by dietary type. In other words, although the difference is statistically detectable, its practical significance is minimal.

This interpretation is further supported by the centroids of each dietary group along the central discriminant axis (F1) in the plot (Figure 5). The groups’ positions are closely clustered, indicating no substantial divergence in attitudes toward mascots across dietary types. Although slight numerical differences exist, they are minimal, and the lambda value remains close to 1, indicating that these differences are not practically relevant. Therefore, we cannot conclude that dietary style has a meaningful influence on how mascots are perceived as a factor in product choice. Consequently, the data do not support Hypothesis 4. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis, which suggests that dietary preferences do not significantly affect how mascots are perceived when choosing a product.

The findings suggest that while minor statistical differences may exist, dietary preferences do not meaningfully shape how consumers evaluate mascots as a decision-making factor. The role of mascots appears relatively consistent across diverse eating habits, indicating that this visual element holds broad appeal and communicates independently of diet-related segmentation.

4. Discussion

This discussion reflects on the results of the present study, which examined the influence of mascots on packaging on consumer preferences for plant-based food products. The analysis focused on general perceptions and the variability of responses across consumer profiles and dietary patterns. By interpreting the findings in the context of existing literature and marketing theory, we aim to clarify the role of mascots as a potential communication tool within sustainable food strategies.

The findings from the first part of the study confirm that mascots can significantly shape how consumers perceive the visual aspects of plant-based products. The principal component analysis revealed that consumers’ evaluations of oat milk brands were structured according to three distinct visual dimensions—color richness, illustration style, and the presence or absence of a mascot. These dimensions demonstrate that mascots are not merely decorative but represent a meaningful part of the packaging’s visual identity. This aligns with existing literature on visual communication, which emphasizes the persuasive power of visual elements in capturing attention, conveying brand personality, and shaping consumer expectations [12,45,46]. In particular, the third factor—clearly distinguishing between brands with mascots and those without—highlights the potential of mascots to serve as a symbolic cue that influences consumer perception beyond purely rational criteria.

The cluster analysis results revealed that consumer preferences for product packaging, including mascots, vary significantly across segments. While some consumers strongly value visual elements such as design and mascots, others focus more on rational or sustainability-related aspects. This supports previous research suggesting that consumer response to marketing stimuli is not homogeneous but somewhat shaped by individual characteristics and underlying value systems [53,54]. Visual cues are more effective when they align with consumers’ decision-making styles and expectations [55,56]. These findings underscore the importance of developing targeted communication strategies for marketing plant-based products. Rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, brands should consider differentiated packaging designs that align with the distinct motivations of different consumer segments.

Each consumer segment should be targeted with customized strategies that emphasize the attributes most important to them. For example, Group 2 (aesthetic buyers) should be focused on visual appeal and mascot design, Group 3 (price-first pragmatists) on affordability, and Group 4 (sustainability advocates) on eco-friendly messaging. At the same time, marketing communications can also encourage behavioral change amongst consumers in each segment. For example, aesthetic buyers may gradually adopt more sustainable preferences and move closer to the mindset of sustainability advocates if sustainability messages are conveyed through visually appealing and emotionally resonant packaging, particularly if mascots are used to symbolize responsible consumption or social values. Such a shift would require long-term tracking of changes in attitudes, ideally through follow-up surveys or behavioral experiments to assess whether consumers respond to tailored stimuli over time. A combination of measuring attitudes toward sustainability, visual preferences, and willingness to pay before and after exposure could help determine whether interventions such as changing packaging design or value-based marketing messages are effective in shifting individuals toward more sustainable segments.

The third research question examined how consumer segments responded to visual design alternatives, particularly those involving mascots. The correspondence analysis showed apparent differences in visual preferences among clusters. For example, the “Balanced Idealists” group gravitated toward packaging with large mascots. At the same time, more price-conscious consumers strongly favored packaging without mascots, suggesting that they associate minimal design with practicality and affordability. In contrast, sustainability-driven consumers showed no clear preference for any particular packaging style, indicating that visual elements, such as mascots, play a minor role in their decision-making. This suggests that the perceived value of mascots is not universal but depends on the consumer’s underlying motivations and priorities. These findings align with previous literature indicating that values such as health consciousness, environmental concern, or price sensitivity strongly influence consumers’ evaluation of marketing cues [49,50]. Sustainability-oriented consumers are more likely to focus on the substance of a product rather than its surface-level branding, including mascots, which they may perceive as irrelevant or distracting [12,50]. This reinforces the idea that visual strategies, such as mascot design, should be tailored to the expectations of specific audience segments rather than applied broadly.

The final research question examined whether consumers’ dietary habits influence their perception of the importance of mascots in purchasing decisions. While the statistical results were significant, the exceptionally high value of Wilks’ lambda and the proximity of group centroids suggest that the practical effect of dietary style is negligible. This suggests that omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans tend to perceive the role of mascots similarly, regardless of their broader dietary preferences or lifestyle choices. These findings suggest that mascots operate as a universal visual cue that transcends dietary segmentation and appeals to diverse consumer groups. Prior studies have shown that visual design elements often work independently of demographic or psychographic traits, particularly when they evoke familiar, playful, or emotionally engaging themes [57]. This highlights their potential as a broad-reaching marketing tool, though one that may require complementary elements to achieve persuasive impact.

However, the observed discrepancy between statistical significance (p < 0.0001) and the minimal practical effect size (Wilks’ lambda = 0.976) deserves further attention. We interpret this inconsistency as a consequence of mascots functioning as broadly appealing visual cues that are not perceived as ideologically or nutritionally charged. While dietary groups differ in food values, they may respond similarly to mascots if they are visually attractive, friendly, or emotionally engaging. Additionally, respondents might not view mascots as a relevant expression of their dietary convictions—meaning even vegans or vegetarians may find a mascot likable as long as it does not convey a value-based contradiction. This helps explain why mascots appear to transcend more profound ideological differences and maintain relatively stable perceptions across dietary segments.

From a practical perspective, this study’s findings suggest that mascots can serve as practical visual tools for enhancing brand recognition and consumer engagement, particularly among specific market segments. Brands targeting design-sensitive consumers may benefit from incorporating mascots into their packaging, as these groups demonstrated the highest responsiveness to visual elements. Moreover, well-designed mascots can enhance the perception of brand trustworthiness, which is particularly relevant for emerging plant-based brands seeking to differentiate themselves in a competitive and sustainability-oriented market.

Interestingly, even sustainability- and health-oriented consumers, who generally assigned relatively low importance to mascots, did not avoid packaging with mascots. On the contrary, the correspondence analysis revealed that this segment was closer to both mascot-based packaging designs than to the design without a mascot, which was the farthest from its centroid. This suggests that mascots do not conflict with the values of these consumers and can be used effectively if the packaging communicates credibility and ethical transparency. Therefore, companies should consider tailoring packaging strategies to different audience segments—using mascots as engaging visual assets while ensuring that the product’s core values remain central to the brand message.

5. Conclusions

The present study examined the impact of mascots on consumer preferences for plant-based food packaging. Survey data from 1050 Slovak consumers revealed that mascots significantly enhance visual appeal, emotional engagement, and product choice—especially among younger, visually oriented segments. Importantly, even health- and sustainability-driven consumers did not view mascot-based designs as gimmicky or less credible, indicating that a well-crafted mascot can be deployed without jeopardizing functional or ethical product claims.

For marketing managers, the findings position the mascot as a low-cost, high-leverage differentiation tool in an increasingly competitive market for plant-based foods. Mascots boost purchase intention and brand preference by increasing visual attention and perceived trust. Managers should (i) match the mascot’s tone and anthropomorphic style to the targeted segment (e.g., playful for “Aesthetic Buyers”, reassuring for “Balanced Idealists”), (ii) test both “on/off” presence and subtle stylistic variations in A/B experiments, and (iii) monitor standard metrics such as package dwell time, click-through rate in e-commerce thumbnails, and repeat-purchase rate to quantify ROI.

For policymakers, mascots offer a behavioral nudge that complements eco-labels and public information campaigns aimed at reducing meat consumption. Because the positive effect holds across diverse consumer segments, endorsing or co-creating pro-sustainability mascots (e.g., via public-private partnerships or school programs) could help mainstream environmentally beneficial choices without resorting to restrictive measures.

For researchers, the study fills a gap in the sustainable food marketing literature by providing a large sample of Central European evidence on the psychological mechanisms—visual attention, emotional engagement, and trust—through which packaging mascots operate. The proposed theoretical model and segment-specific effects invite experimental tests of the causal chain (RQ1-RQ4) and cross-cultural replications. Future studies might (i) contrast mascot efficacy across product categories, (ii) track long-term impacts on loyalty and sustainable consumption behavior, and (iii) explore adverse boundary conditions such as “greenwashing” skepticism.

Among the main limitations of this study is its geographical scope, as the research was conducted solely in Slovakia. Although the cultural context may influence consumer responses, we believe the core mechanisms identified—attention capture, anthropomorphic bonding, and credibility transfer—are theoretically generalizable and applicable to other regions. Another limitation concerns the use of fictional, AI-generated product packaging instead of real-world brands. While this approach allowed us to control for confounding factors and isolate the effect of mascots, it may reduce ecological validity and limit the realism of consumer responses. Future studies could test similar hypotheses using actual product designs to confirm the applicability of our findings in real-market environments. Despite these limitations, our findings offer valuable insights for marketers, policymakers, and researchers. Mascots can be viewed not merely as decorative elements but as strategic tools that foster trust, differentiate brands, and support the broader transition toward sustainable consumption.

Mascots can build trust by creating emotional bonds and conveying human-like sincerity. When mascots exhibit relatable traits or evoke emotional responses, consumers are more likely to associate the brand with credibility and familiarity. When mascots exhibit relatable traits or evoke emotional responses, consumers are more likely to associate the brand with credibility and familiarity. This perceived human likeness can enhance brand likability and reduce psychological distance, particularly in the context of newer or alternative products such as plant-based alternatives. Moreover, mascots that embody values such as nature, health, or community can symbolically reinforce a sustainable brand positioning. If aligned with a brand’s environmental messaging, mascots serve not only as visual anchors but also as narrative vehicles that connect sustainable consumption with everyday decision-making. In this way, mascots can both attract attention and embed ethical or ecological values into brand perception, making them powerful tools for fostering both trust and long-term behavioral change.