Beda The power of uniqueness

Beda

The power of uniqueness

A study about the influence of shampoopackaging on consumers' product evaluation

Master's thesis by Lotte Vos

1

The power of uniqueness

A study about the influence of shampoo packaging onconsumers' product evaluation

Master's thesis

Author: Lotte Vos (s2415321)

Supervisor: Dr. T. J. L. van Rompay

Second supervisor: Dr. M. Galetzka

University of Twente, The Netherlands

Faculty of Behavioral Management and Social Sciences

Master in Communication Science

Digital Marketing Communication and Design

Enschede, June 2021

2

Abstract

Inordertodrawtheattentionofconsumersandtodifferentiatebeautyproducts,marketersmust

understandhowcosmeticpackagingdesignaffectsconsumers'attitudesandbehaviortowardsaproduct.

Previousstudiessuggestthatauniquepackagingdesigncanleadtoamorepositiveeffectonconsumers

product evaluation. Therefore, this paper examined the influence of packaging design on consumers’

productevaluationtowardsshampoopackaging.Thisquantitativestudyemployeda2(packagingshape:

uniqueversusstandard)x2(packagingtexture:uniqueversusstandard)x2(needforuniqueness: low

versus high) between-subjects design. This study measured product evaluation with the following

dependentvariables:product liking,perceivedquality,willingnesstopay,purchase intention,perceived

productuniqueness,andperceivedbranduniqueness.Resultsrevealedthatpackagingshapeandpackaging

textureofshampooinfluenceproductevaluationofconsumerstoacertainextent.Inaddition,thisstudy

stated that there are two contrasting needs in consumer behavior; need for typicality and need for

uniqueness.Thisstudyprovidesvaluableinsightsinpackagingdesignformarketersanddesigners.

Keywords:unique;atypical;packagingdesign;packagingshape;packagingtexture;consumerevaluation;

productliking;perceivedquality;willingnesstopay;purchaseintention;consumers’needforuniqueness;

branduniqueness;productuniqueness.

3

Tableofcontents

Abstract...............................................................................................................................................................................2

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................5

2. TheoreticalFramework......................................................................................................................................7

2.1Atypicalproductdesign..........................................................................................................................................................7

2.2Effectofatypicalpackagingshape.....................................................................................................................................8

2.3Effectofatypicalpackagingtexture.................................................................................................................................10

2.4Consumers’needforuniqueness......................................................................................................................................12

2.5Researchmodel........................................................................................................................................................................13

3. Method....................................................................................................................................................................15

3.1Researchdesign........................................................................................................................................................................15

3.2Pretest..........................................................................................................................................................................................15

3.3Resultspretest..........................................................................................................................................................................17

3.4Participantsandprocedure.................................................................................................................................................18

3.5Measures.....................................................................................................................................................................................19

4. Results.....................................................................................................................................................................22

4.1Multivariateanalysisofvariance......................................................................................................................................22

4.2Productliking............................................................................................................................................................................22

4.3Perceivedquality.....................................................................................................................................................................23

4.4Willingnesstopay...................................................................................................................................................................24

4.5Purchaseintention..................................................................................................................................................................24

4.6Perceivedproductuniqueness..........................................................................................................................................25

4.7Perceivedbranduniqueness..............................................................................................................................................25

4

4.8Overviewofhypotheses.......................................................................................................................................................25

5. Discussion..............................................................................................................................................................27

5.1Limitationsandfutureresearch........................................................................................................................................29

5.2Conclusionandpracticalimplications............................................................................................................................31

References........................................................................................................................................................................32

Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................................35

Appendix1:Pretestquestions...................................................................................................................................................35

Appendix2:Questionnairemainstudy.................................................................................................................................36

5

1. Introduction

Thebeautyindustryisamajorindustryanditsvalueisestimatedatbillionsofdollars.Analysts

expectthatthebeautyindustrywillgrowevenmoreinthefuture(Biron,2019).Sincethisisacrowded

industry,itisimportantformarketersanddesignerstounderstandhowtodesigntheidealpackagingand

tounderstandhowtodifferentiateacosmeticproduct(Bloch,1995)whentherearethousandsofbranded

productsthataretryingtogettheattentionoftheconsumer(Kestenbaum,2019;Selame&Koukos,2002).

Previousstudiessuggestthatamoreatypicalpackagingdesigncanleadtoamorepositiveeffect

on consumer’sproduct evaluations suchashigherperceptionsofquality, product liking, andpositively

affectingthepurchaseintention,astheylooklikemoreeffort,technology,andattentionwereputintothe

design(Henderson&Cote,1998;Orth,Campana,&Malkewitz,2010).

Another key element in packaging design is the structure or texture of the packaging. New

technologiesandtechnologicaldevelopmentsareimportantfactorsinthedevelopmentofnewpackaging

and contribute to creating a new attractive packaging surface (Rundh, 2009). Besides that, itmay also

motivatetheconsumertopickuptheproductandattheendhopefullyplacingtheproductintheirbasket

(Gallace & Spence, 2014). Providing product packaging with a multisensory experience will create

additionalvaluetoconsumers.Itcanresultinapositiveproductandbrandexperiencethatconsumerswill

beinterestedinandwillremember(Krishnaetal.,2017).

Previous research shows that atypical packaging design is very important in how consumers

evaluateaproduct,especiallyinfoodandbeverageevaluation(VanOoijenetal.,2016).However,thereisa

lackofresearchontheinfluenceofatypicalpackagingdesignoncosmeticproducts.Besides,itisnotquite

clearifatypicalpackagingtexturehaseitherpositiveornegativeeffectsonconsumers’productevaluation.

In order to attract the attention of consumers and to differentiate beauty products, marketers must

understandhowatypicaloruniquecosmeticpackagingdesignaffectsconsumers'attitudesandbehavior

towardstheproduct(Crilly,Moultrie,&Clarkson,2004).Derivingfromtheobjectivementionedabove,the

mainquestionthisresearchseekstoansweris:

“Towhatextentdoshapeandtextureofshampoopackaginginfluenceconsumers’productevaluation?”

In order to answer this research question, a quantitative study is performed, for which an

experiment is conducted. In this study the shape of shampoo packaging and the texture of shampoo

6

packagingaremanipulatedtoseehowconsumersevaluatethisproduct.Thisfeaturesa2(packagingshape:

uniqueversusstandard)x2(packagingtexture:uniqueversusstandard)x2(needforuniqueness: low

versushigh)between-subjectsdesign.

Inthenextsectionofthispaperamorein-depthoverviewandexplorationofrelevantliteratureis

giventhatformthebasisforthehypotheses.Following,themethodsectionwillbedescribedonhowthe

studywasconducted,andfinallytheresultsofthestudywillbepresentedanddiscussed.

7

2. TheoreticalFramework

2.1Atypicalproductdesign

Overthelastdecade,thewayconsumersperceiveeverydayproductshasgrown,especiallyinthe

fieldsofmarketingandproductdesign(Gatti,Bordegoni,&Spence,2014).Previousstudieshaveindicated

thatpackagingdesigncanprovokeaestheticappreciation inconsumers,whichhasapositive impacton

consumerbehavior(Bloch,1995;Landwehretal.,2013).Inthebeautyindustry,packagingservesother

severalimportantfunctionsbesidesitspurposeofhousingthecosmeticproduct.Thisincludesforinstance

helpingconsumersthroughshape,color,graphics,anddesigntoidentifyaspecificproductorbrand(Aidnik,

2013).

Therearemanytheoriesthatfocusonconsumer’spreferenceforproductdesign.Thefirsttheory

isthePreferences-For-Prototypestheorywhichstatesthatconsumershaveastrongerpreferenceforthe

mosttypicalexamplesofacategory,becausetheyhavebeenrepeatedlyexposedtotheseexamplesandit

is thus familiar for consumers (Whitfield & Slatter, 1979). In contrast of this theory, Loewy (1951)

introduced a new concept known as the MAYA-principle. The concept stands for Most Advanced Yet

Acceptableandstatesthat“productorpackagingdesignshouldpushcurrent,typicaldesignintoamore

uniqueandnewdesignatagradualpace”(p.277).Forinstance,Loewy(1951)investigatedthatmanybig

companiesdesignproductsinlinewiththeMAYA-principleandconcludedthatnewproductdesignshould

includeanewtypeofdesign.Thisdesignshouldberecognizabletoavoidnegativeconsumerreactions,but

yetisatypeofdesignthatpushestheboundariesoftypicalproductdesign(Loewy,1951).

Second,whenapackagingdesignisfavorableinappearance,itwillreceivegreaterattentionfrom

consumers.Thisprocessisreferredtoastheself-perceptionprocess,whichexplainsthatconsumershave

agreaterpreferenceforproductsthatgainmoreoftheirattention(Bem,1972).Inotherwords,sincethere

ismore newness in atypical packaging, consumers reactwithmore emotional and aesthetic responses

comparedtoamoretypicalpackagingdesign(Radford&Bloch,2011).Schnurr(2017) investigatedthe

influence of atypical product design (i.e., triangular-shaped speaker) on consumers’ product andbrand

perceptions.Thisresearchshowsthatatypicalityinproductdesignaffectconsumerbrandperceptionand

thatthepossiblewaysofcreatinganatypicaloruniqueproductdesignareforexample,adjustingtheshape,

color,orsizeofthepackaging(Schnurr,2017).Therefore,inthisresearch,itwaschosentoadjusttheshape

ofshampoopackagingandthetextureoftheshampoopackagingtocreateauniqueproductdesign.

8

2.2Effectofatypicalpackagingshape

Whenconsumersseeapackagingforthefirsttimeontheself,theyareusuallyforcedtomakean

evaluationoftheproductandbasetheirpurchasedecisionontheproduct’svisualappearance(Bloch,1995;

Holmes & Paswan, 2012). Companies need to recognize the importance of packaging in a consumer’s

decisiontoattractandencourageconsumers(Kesler,1986).Companiescandifferentiatetheirproductor

brandfromtheircompetitors’productsthroughchangingtheshapeoftheproductpackaging(Sherwood,

1999).Forexample,SchoormansandRobben(1997)statedthatpackagingshapeisanessentialfactorin

consumerevaluation,andthatshapecancreateanadvantageincomparisonwithcompetitors.Besidesthat,

theyclaimthatthemoretheshapegetsatypicalandthusdifferentthanstandard,thestrongerattentionis

evoked(Schoormans&Robben,1997).Alsootherstudieshavedemonstratedthatwhentheshapeofthe

packaginggetsmoreatypical,itwillleadtoapositiveeffectonconsumersproductevaluation.Forinstance,

Vladićetal. (2016) investigatedthe influenceofpackagingshapedesignonconsumer’sperception.The

researchersmanipulatedabasicsix-sidedboxshapetoatypicalshapessuchasskewing,twisting,squeezing,

andtaperingshapes.Inaddition,theresearchersalsoexaminedjudgedattributes.Thejudgedattributes

werecreativity,functionality,attractiveness,aesthetic,andperceivedvalue.Theresultsofthisstudyshow

thatconsumershaveapositiveperceptiontowardsmoreunusualandatypicalshapesanddesigns(Vladić

etal.,2016).

Continuingonatypicality inshape,atheorythat focusesonconsumer’spreferencesforproduct

designandliesinthefieldofcognitivepsychologyistheTheoryofModerateAtypicalityEffects.Thetheory

assumesthat“stimulipresentingamoderatedegreeofatypicalityshouldbepreferredtostimulithatare

highly typical and those that arehighly atypical” (Blijlevens et al., 2012, p. 46). Blijlevens et al. (2012)

investigatedthisbyadjustingtheshapeof3Ddigitalproducts.Morespecifically,theshapesoftoastersand

washingmachinesweremademoreroundedandteapotsandhand-juicesweremademoreangularand

were thus atypical for its product categories. Findings show, also in line with the theory of Moderate

Atypicality Effects that the productswere consideredmore aesthetically pleasing than the typical ones

(Blijlevensetal.,2012).Alonginthesameline,inthestudyofHekkertetal.(2003),theauthorsfoundthat

perceivedtypicalityandperceivedoriginalitybothexplainconsumeraestheticappreciationoftheproduct.

Theyinvestigatedthiswitharangeofproducts(i.e.telephonesandteakettles)thatvaryfromtypicalshaped

productstomoreatypicalshapedproducts(Hekkertetal.,2003).

9

Moreover,packagingshapeisalsoanimportantpredictorforconsumersonhowtheyperceivethe

qualityoftheproduct(Orth,Campana,&Malkewitz2010;Orth&Malkewitz2008).Inmoredetail,Orthand

Malkewitz(2008)investigateddesignelementsofwinebottlesandfoundfortheatypicalbottleshapesand

theatypicallabelshapesthattheywereperceivedtobehighinqualityasopposedtothetypicalbottleand

labelshapes(Orth&Malkewitz,2008).Thereasonthatconsumersperceivedatypicalpackagingshapeto

beofhigherqualityisbecauseitappearsthatmoreeffort,technology,andattentionwereputintothedesign

(Crilly,Moultrie,& Clarkson, 2004). In addition, in a study towards food evaluationwhere researchers

investigatedthepersuasivenessofweakandstrongproductclaimsonatypicalandtypicalpackagingshapes

ofketchup,resultsshowthatatypicalshapedpackagingwiththestrongclaimsresultedinhigherquality

judgementofconsumers(VanOoijenetal.,2016).

Consumers associate atypical product elements such as the shape of the packaging with

exclusivenessandexpensiveness(Creusen&Schoormans,2005).Forsuchproducts,preferencedeclines

whenitbecomesmorewidelyavailableandthusmoretypical,becauseuniquenessisvalued(Wardand

Loken,1988).Basedonthisinformation,itcanbeassumedthatatypicalshapesinproductdesignleadto

exclusiveness and expensiveness and therefore consumers are willing to pay more for the product.

Anselmssonetal.(2014)arguedthisaswell.Theystatedthatatypicalityinproductdesignsuchastheshape

ofthepackagingisamongthestrongestdeterminantsofpriceandthewillingnesstopayforthatproduct

(Anselmssonetal.,2014).

Additionally,thereisgreaterconsiderationforpurchase,whenproductsarevisuallyatypicalfor

theirproductcategory(Garber,1995).Forinstance,inastudyofDelićetal.(2018)wheretheyinvestigated

packagingmaterials,shapeandtypesofpackagingonconsumers’beveragepreferences(i.e.milk,soda,and

water) itwasfoundforpackagingshapethatconsumersthatconsumedacertaintypeofbeverageona

regularbasisweremoreopentopurchaseatypicalpackagingshapesthantypicalpackagingshapes(Delić

et al., 2018). These associations about packaging shape lead to the following hypotheses for shampoo

packaging:

H1a:Consumersliketheshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapemorethantheshampoo

packagingwithastandardshape.

10

H1b:Shampoopackagingwithauniqueshapeisperceivedhigherinqualitythanshampoo


H1c:Consumersarewillingtopaymoreforshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapethanfor

shampoopackagingwithastandardshape.

H1d:Consumershavehigherpurchaseintentionsforshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapethan

forshampoopackagingwithastandardshape.

2.3Effectofatypicalpackagingtexture

Textureisaninterestingandimportanttactilefeaturethatencourageconsumerstopick-upthe

productandeventuallyincreasetheprobabilityofpurchase(Spence,2016).Marketersanddesignersare

eagertoenhancetheproductexperienceofconsumersbyintegratingsensoryelements(Spence&Gallace,

2011).Somemarketersalreadycapitalizingtothisbyusingvariousvisualtechniquessuchastheuseof

textureonpackagingtoincreasetheattentionoftheconsumer(Silayoi&Speece,2007).Whiletherearea

numberof studies thathaveexaminedhow the surfaceof thepackaging influencesproduct evaluation,

especiallyinfoodandbeverageevaluations,thereisnoclearconsensusonwhetherapackagingtexture

thatisatypicaloruniqueforitsproducttypehaseitherpositiveornegativeeffectsonconsumers’product

evaluation.However,thereareacoupleofstudiesthathaveexaminedthesurfaceofproductpackagingon

foodandbeverageevaluationandtasteperceptionbyprovidingthesurfacewith forexampleatexture,

material,orcoating.Thesepreviousstudiesarenotentirelyconsistentwithwhatisexaminedinthisstudy,

butarerelevanttomentionastheyareusedasasupportforthehypotheses.

For instance, Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence (2012) provided yogurt packaging with a rough

(sandpaper)textureandasmoothtexture.Participantshadtoratethetextureofthefood(crunchyfood

versuscreamyfood)insidethepackagingandhadtoratehowmuchtheylikedtheproduct.Resultsshow

thatproduct likingwassignificantlyaffectedbythetextureofthepackaging.Thismeansthattherough

texturewas likedmore inrelation tocrunchy food(Piqueras-FiszmanandSpence,2012).Furthermore,

Schifferstein(2009)alsoconcludedthatconsumers’productexperienceisaffectedbypackagingtexture

andrelyonpackagingtexturetodrawinferencesaboutthecontentinthepackaging(Schifferstein,2009).

Similarlyandmorerelatedtothisstudy,Ferreira(2019)studiedthevisualinfluenceofpackagingtexture

11

onattractiveness.Forthisstudy,twoproductsandtwopackagingtexturesweremade.Thetwoproducts

and the twopackaging textureswereprovidedwitha smooth textureandwithagranular texture.The

findingsrevealthatforboththeproductsasforthepackagingtexturesthegranulartexturewasconsidered

moreattractive than thesmooth texture(Ferreira,2019).Despite, thegranular texture in thisprevious

studyisnotmeasuredasanatypicaloruniquepackagingtextureandthesmoothtextureisnotmeasured

asstandardpackagingtexture.Moreover,KrisnaandMorrin(2008) foundthat thetextureofaproduct

packagingcanaffecttheperceivedproductquality.Theystatedthatwhenthepackagingtextureofaplastic

cupistoofirm(asopposedtoflimsy)itincreasestheperceivedqualityofthebeveragecontainedinthat

cup (Krisna&Morrin,2008). Inaddition, researchonproductdesign (including thepackaging texture)

suggeststhatatypicalityinpackagingmayincreaseproductpreferenceinsomecircumstances.Forexample,

it is found thatconsumersassociateatypical,novelproductswithhighquality (Creusen&Schoormans,

2005).

Also, researchhasbeendoneon the influenceofpackagingdesignon thewillingness topay in

relationtothematerialofthesurfaceofthepackaging.Toillustrate,Banks(1950)investigatedtheeffectof

a new bakery packagingmaterial (good quality) as opposed to an old bakery packagingmaterial (bad

quality).Thisstudywasconductedtodeterminewhatincreaseinsalesmightresultfromswitchingtonew

packagingmaterial.Theresultsofthisstudyshowedasignificantpreferenceforthenewpackagingmaterial

asopposedtotheoldpackagingmaterial.Hence, itcanbeconsideredthatthepreferenceforpackaging

materialisonlyoneofthemanyfactorsthatinfluencethepurchaseofbakeryproducts.ThestudyofBanks

(1950)differ fromwhat isbeing investigatedwiththisstudy,as itdoesnot involveaspecific(atypical)

packagingtexture,butthematerialofthesurfaceofthepackaging.Nevertheless,itcanbeconcludedbased

onthetypeofpackagingmaterialthatconsumersarewillingtopaymoreforthenewtypeofpackaging

material(Banks,1950).Followingfromthisconclusion,itcanbeassumedthatconsumersprefernewtypes

ofpackagingtexturesandarewillingtopaymoreforthatpackagingtexture.

Moreover, results of previous studies have shown that the texture of products and providing

productpackagingwithaninterestingtexturehaveastrongimpactonconsumerstobuyacertainproduct

(Schifferstein, 2009). For instance, according to Rundh (2009), textures and combinations of different

textures can encourage people to be inspired. When the packaging texture stands out on the shelf,

consumersarebeingstimulatedtopurchasethatproduct(Rundh,2009).Beckeretal.(2011)described

thatconsumersbaseexpectationsonthelookandfeelofthepackagingandthattheymostlikelyconsume

12

productsthatareneworwhentheexperienceislimited(Beckeretal.,2011).However,todate,therehas

beenfewempiricalevidencedemonstratingtheinfluenceofuniquepackagingtexturesofcosmeticproducts

onconsumers’productevaluation.Therefore,thegoalistofurtherinvestigatethisandassumethatthese

associationsaboutpackagingtextureleadtothefollowinghypothesisforshampoopackaging:

H2a:Consumersliketheshampoopackagingwithauniquetexturemorethantheshampoo

packagingwithastandardtexture.

H2b:Shampoopackagingwithauniquetextureisperceivedhigherinqualitythanshampoo


H2c:Consumersarewillingtopaymoreforshampoopackagingwithauniquetexturethanfor

shampoopackagingwithastandardtexture.

H2d:Consumershavehigherpurchaseintentionsforshampoopackagingwithaunique

texturethanforshampoopackagingwithastandardtexture.

2.4Consumers’needforuniqueness

Consumers’ product preferences are often guided by the need for uniqueness. The need for

uniquenessstartedwiththeconceptofconsumers'needforuniqueness(CNFU).Thisconceptderivesfrom

Snyder and Fromkin's (1977) theory of uniqueness. CNFU reflects individual differences in consumer

counterconformitymotivationwhichisreferredtoastheactofmovingawayfromnormresponses(Nail,

1986). In other words, consumers or individuals’ aim for uniqueness via consumer possessions and

activities. CNFU implies that “motivation for differentiating the self via consumer goods and the visual

displayofthesegoodsthatinvolvesthevolitionalorwillfulpursuitofdifferentnessrelativetoothersasan

endgoal”(Snyder,1992,p.13).Previousresearchshowedtheroleofuniquenessinconsumerbehavior.

Forinstance,Ruvio(2008)studiedthedualroleofCNFUandfoundthatexpressinguniquenessvia

consumptionbehaviorisasafewaytoachieveadifferentsenseofbeingwithoutdamaginganindividual’s

sense of social assimilation. Ruvio (2008) concluded that people with a high level of CNFU perceive

themselves asmore unique than their friends and demonstrate their uniqueness in their consumption

13

behavior.Thisis,forexample,buyingcertainproductsthatenrichtheirself-imageforbeingmoreunique

thanothers(Ruvio,2008).Besidesthat,Krueger(2002)foundthatthereisadirectandpositiverelationship

betweenCNFU level and consumerpreference fornewand innovativeproducts;high-CNFUconsumers

havestrongerpreferencesforsuchproductsthandolow-CNFUones(Krueger,2002).Insimilar,consumers

thatareseekingprestige,uniqueness,andscarcityevaluatetypicalproductslesspositive.Thereasonfor

thislesspositiveproductevaluationisbecausetypicalproductsdonotcreateexcitementorachievethese

attributeswereconsumersarelookingfor.Also,atypicalproductscanbeaformofself-expression(Coates,

2003). These associations about consumers’ need for uniqueness on product evaluation lead to the

followinghypothesesforthemoderatorvariable:

H3a: Consumerswith a high (as opposed to a low) need for uniqueness have amore positive

productevaluationfortheshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapethanforshampoopackaging

withastandardshape.

H3b: Consumerswith a high (as opposed to a low) need for uniqueness have amore positive

productevaluationfortheshampoopackagingwithauniquetexturethanforshampoopackaging

withanormaltexture.

2.5Researchmodel

Basedonthefindingsfromliteratureandpreviousstudiesaresearchframeworkhasbeenmade.Figure

1illustratestheresearchframeworkandtherelationshipamongtheresearchvariables.Thisresearchaims

toinvestigateifshapeandtextureofshampoopackagingwillinfluenceconsumers’productevaluation.This

studywillmeasuretheoverallproductevaluationwiththefollowingdependentvariables:productliking,

perceived quality, willingness to pay, and purchase intention. In addition, this study also measures

perceivedproductuniquenessandperceivedbranduniqueness.Thesedependentvariablesarerelatedto

thedesignvariables(shapeandtexture).Itisalsoexpectedthatconsumers’needforuniquenesshasan

influencewhenevaluatingacertainpackagingshapeorpackagingtexture.Thisisthemoderatorvariable

inthisstudy.

14

Independentvariables Dependentvariables

Figure1.Researchframeworkforthisstudy

Productevaluation

Productliking

Perceivedquality

Willingnesstopay

Purchaseintention

Needforuniqueness

Low/High

Packagingshape

Unique/Standard

Packagingtexture

Unique/Standard

Perceivedproductuniqueness

Perceivedbranduniqueness

H3a

H3b

H1a,H1b,H1c,H1d

H2a,H2b,H2c,H2d

15

3. Method

Theaimofthisstudyistoinvestigateifshapeandtextureofshampoopackaginghaveaneffecton

theproductevaluationofconsumers.Specifically,thisstudyexaminedtowhatextentauniquepackaging

shapeandtexture,asopposedtoastandardpackagingshapeandtextureinfluenceproductliking,perceived

quality, willingness to pay, purchase intention, perceived product uniqueness, and perceived brand

uniquenessofconsumers.Inthissectionofthepaperamoredetaileddescriptionisgivenoftheresearch

design,pretest,stimulusmaterials,participants,procedure,andmeasuresofthisstudy.

3.1Researchdesign

Tothisend, thisstudyemployeda2(packagingshape:uniqueversusstandard)x2(packaging

texture:uniqueversusstandard)x2(needforuniqueness:lowversushigh)between-subjectsdesign.This

researchdesignisshowninTable1.

Table1.

Researchdesign

Standardpackagingshape Numberofrespondents Uniquepackagingshape Numberof

respondents Total

Standardpackagingtexture Condition1 30 Condition2 30 60

Uniquepackagingtexture Condition3 30 Condition4 30 60

Total 60 60 120

3.2Pretest

Toensurethemanipulationsofthepackagingshapeandpackagingtextureinthemainstudy,a

pretestwasconducted.Thepurposeofthispretestswastoinvestigatewhichtypeofshapepeopleseeas

mostuniqueandasmoststandardandtoseewhichtypeoftexturepeopleseeasmostuniqueandasmost

standard.Besides that, thepretest alsohelped todeterminewhether themanipulationswereclearand

realistic.Firstofall,inspirationwasgainedfromPinteresttocomeupwithuniquepackagingshapesand

textures.Inthedesignphaseitwaschosentodesignacoupleofstandardandmorecommonshapesand

texturesandacoupleofuniqueandmoreunusualshapesandtextures.Figure2portraysthemanipulations

forshapeandFigure3portraysthemanipulationsfortextureinthispretest.Besidesthat,itwaschosento

implementapomplidontheshampoopackagingbecausethisstudyisconcernedwithuniqueshapesand

16

textures and it may be more difficult to squeeze in the packaging when using the shampoo. The

manipulationswerecreatedinAdobePhotoshopandAdobeDimensionandwereconvertedtoPNG-format.

Thecolorofthepackagingiswhiteandthebackgroundcontainsagreytowhitegradient.Therefore,no

otherfactorscaninfluencetheresultsofthepretest.

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Figure2.Pretestmanipulationsforshape

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Figure3.Pretestmanipulationsfortexture

The pretest was conducted with an online questionnaire created in Qualtrics. For the pretest,

participants(n=17)evaluatedtheeightmanipulationsofshapeandthefivemanipulationsoftexture,as

shown in the figures above. The participants were recruited by asking acquaintances to fill in the

questionnaire.Theparticipantsindicated(using3-pointratingscalerangingfrom“disagree”to“agree”)to

whatextenttheyconsideredtheshapesandtexturesoftheshampoopackagingunique,unusual,original,

17

standard,unobtrusive,andplain.Theparticipantsalsoindicatedwiththesamescaletowhatextentthey

considered the shapes and textures realistic, credible, appropriate to product type, and attractive. The

pretestquestionscanbefoundinAppendix1.

3.3Resultspretest

Analysiswas done by observing the data onwhich design themost participants agreed on for

unique,unusual,original.Thesameprocedurewasdoneforstandard,unobtrusive,andplain.Theresults

ofthepretestshowthattheuniqueshapesandtextureswereallperceivedasunique,unusual,andoriginal,

buttherewasoneuniquepackagingshape(seeFigure2,number8)andoneuniquepackagingtexture(see

Figure3,number4)thatstoodoutfromtherestofthedesigns.Besidesthat,thisuniqueshapeandtexture

werealsoperceivedasmorerealistic,creditable,appropriatetoproducttype,andattractive.Forinstance,

acoupleofuniqueshapeswereperceivedasuniquebytheparticipantsinthepretest,butnotasattractive.

Forthemorestandardpackagingshapesandtextures,alsoonestandardshape(seeFigure2,number1)

andonestandardtexture(seeFigure3,number1)stoodoutfromtherestofthedesigns.Besidesthat,it

was noticeable that this standard shape and standard texture were also perceived as more realistic,

creditable, andappropriate toproduct type in comparisonwith theother standard shapesand texture.

However,forattractiveness,allstandardshapesandtextureswereperceivedaslessattractive.

Basedonthefindingsfromthepretest,fourconditionshavebeenmadeandwereusedinthemain

study.ThesemanipulationsareshowninthematrixinFigure4.Theconditionwithauniqueshapeaswell

auniquetexturehasbeendesignedafterthepretestbycombiningthemostuniqueshapeandthemost

uniquetexturefromtheresultsofthepretest.Inaddition,itwasalsochosentodesignafictiousbrandname

and to design the shampoo packaging in a campaign environment tomake it more realistic. The four

conditionsforthemainstudymakefourtypesofpackaging,(1)ashampoopackagingwithastandardshape

andastandardtexture,(2)apackagingwithauniqueshapeandastandardtexture,(3)apackagingwitha

standardshapeandauniquetexture,andlastly,(4)apackagingwithauniqueshapeandauniquetexture.

18

Standardshape Uniqueshape

Standardtexture

1.

2.

Uniquetexture

3. 4.

Figure4.Stimulimaterialsformainstudy

3.4Participantsandprocedure

Forthemainstudy,asampleof239Dutchparticipantswasrecruitedviasocialmediaandsnowball

sampling.Fromthe239responses,94responseshadtoberemovedfromthedatasetduethefactofthe

filterquestion(n=13),unfinishedquestionnaires(n=61),andinvalidansweratthemanipulationcheck

(n=20).Thefinaldatasetthereforeconsistsof145validresponsesinthisstudy.Participantsinthisstudy

wererandomlyassignedtooneofthefourconditions.Allrespondentsparticipatedcompletelyvoluntarily

andtherewerenobenefitsorrisksassociatedwiththisstudy.Theparticipantswerebetween19and78

yearsold(𝑀!"#=33.62,SD=14.35).Table2showsthedistributionofgenderandageperconditioninmore

detail.

Theexperimentwasconductedinanonlineenvironmentbecauseitwasnotpossibletoconduct

theexperiment inaphysicalenvironment(i.e.,drugstore)due the factof thestrictmeasuresrelated to

COVID-19andthelockdowninTheNetherlands.Thisisthereasonwhythestimulimaterialsweredesigned

in a 3D environment in Adobe Dimension and are shown on an image instead of developing tangible

prototypesofthedesigns.Therefore,anonlinequestionnairehasbeenmadeinQualtrics.Itwaschosento

19

translatethequestions intoDutchbecausethestudywasconducted inTheNetherlandsandthiswould

expandthechangeforahighernumberofparticipants.ThequestionnairecanbefoundinAppendix2.

Firstofall,beforeparticipantscontinuedwiththeonlinequestionnaire,theyhadtogiveconsent

andtheyhadtoanswerthefilterquestion.Thefilterquestionwasaddedtothequestionnairetoascertain

whethertherewereparticipantswhodidnotwanttoorcouldnotuseashampooproduct.Thefirstpartof

thequestionnaireconsistedofsocio-demographicquestionssuchasgenderandage.Afteransweringthe

socio-demographicquestions,theparticipantswereexposedtooneofthefourmanipulations.Assoonas

participantsfinishedlookingattheproduct,theywereaskedtofillintherestofthequestionnaireandthus

evaluatetheproduct liking,perceivedquality,willingnesstopay,purchase intention,perceivedproduct

uniqueness,perceivedbranduniqueness,andCNFU.Afterwardstheparticipantswerethankedfortheir

participationanddebriefed.

Table2.

Genderandageofparticipantsineachoftheconditions

Age Male Female Total

Standardshape/standardtexture M=35.76

SD=14.91

27,7% 28,6% 28,3%

Uniqueshape/standardtexture M=33.13

SD=15.04

23,4% 29,6% 27,6%

Standardshape/uniquetexture M=32.78

SD=13.09

21,3% 22,4% 22,1%

Uniqueshape/uniquetexture M=32.62

SD=14.31

27,7% 19,4% 22,1%

Total M=33.62

SD=14.35

100% 100%

3.5Measures

Productliking.Forthedependentvariable“productliking”fouritemswereusedtomeasurehowmuch

participantswillliketheproductaftertheywereexposedtothemanipulation.ThisscaleisbasedonFenko,

Backhaus and van Hoof (2015) where they used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (1 = strongly

disagree,5=stronglyagree).Theitemsthatwereusedforthisvariablewiththecorrespondingalphalevel

areshowninTable3.

20

Perceived quality. The dependent variable ‘perceived quality’ was used to measure how participants

perceivethequalityoftheshampooaftertheywereexposedtothemanipulation.Thisvariableismeasured

usingthreeitemsbyusingafive-pointLikertscale,rangingfrom(1=stronglydisagree,5=stronglyagree).

ThescalehasbeenadaptedfromthestudyofPeters(2016).Peters(2016)usedthis itemsandscaleto

measureperceivedquality onotherproduct types.The items thatwereused for this variablewith the

correspondingalphalevelareshowninTable3.

Willingnesstopay.Thedependentvariable‘willingnesstopay’measureshowmuchparticipantswouldbe

willing to pay for the shampoo product after they were exposed to themanipulation of the shampoo

packaging.Participantswereasked,withoneopenquestion to: “Please fillout theprice (€)youwould

expecttopayforthisproduct”.

Purchaseintention.Thedependentvariable‘purchaseintention’ismeasuredusingfouritemsbyusinga

five-pointscale,rangingfrom(1=stronglydisagree,5=stronglyagree).ThisscaleisemployedbyBaker

andChurchill (1977).The itemsthatwereusedforthisvariablewiththecorrespondingalpha levelare

showninTable3.

Perceived product uniqueness. The dependent variable ‘perceived product uniqueness’ was used to

measurehowparticipantsperceivetheproductuniqueness.Thisismeasuredusingfouritemsbyusinga

five-point scale, ranging from (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The second item is recoded

reversely to obtain a correct reliability score. The items that were used for this variable with the


Perceived brand uniqueness. The dependent variable ‘perceived brand uniqueness’ measures how

participantsperceivethebranduniquenessoftheproduct.Thisismeasuredusingfouritemsbyusinga

five-point scale, ranging from (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The second item is recoded

reversely to obtain a correct reliability score. The items that were used for this variable with the


21

Consumers’needforuniqueness.Themoderatorvariable‘needforuniqueness’ismeasuredusingtwelve

items by using a five-point scale, ranging from (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This scale

measuresconsumers’needforuniquenessandisadoptedfromthestudyofRuvio,ShomanandBrenčič

(2008),where theyshortened theoriginalscaleofTianetal. (2001).The items thatwereused for this

variablewiththecorrespondingalphalevelareshowninTable3.Forthismoderatorvariable,amedian

splitwasperformedtocreatetwo(lowversushigh)groups(m=2.58,SD=0.69).

Table3.

Overviewofitemsandreliabilitiesofscalesused

Scale Items a

Perceivedquality(3) (1)Theoverallqualityoftheproductisgood.

(2)TheLikelihoodthatthisproductkeepswhatitpromisesishigh.

(3)Theworkmanshipofthisproductisgood.

.82

Productliking(4) (1)MyfirstimpressionoftheproductisthatIextremelylikeit.

(2)Theproductlooksnice.

(3)Theproductdrawsattention.

(4)Ingeneral,theproductseemsattractivetome.

.85

Purchaseintention(4) (1)IwouldbuythisproductifIhappenedtoseeitinastore.

(2)Iwouldactivelyseekoutthisproductinastore.

(3)Iwouldconsiderbuyingthisproduct.

(4)Iwouldrecommendthisproducttoothers.

.91

Perceivedproduct

uniqueness(4)

(1)Thisproductlookslikeauniqueproduct.

(2)Thisproductlookslikeanordinaryproduct.(=Reverseditem)

(3)Thisproductlookslikeanexclusiveproduct.

(4)Thisproductisdifferentfromotherproductsinthiscategory.

.82

Perceivedbrand

uniqueness(4)

(1)Thisbrandisanexclusivebrand

(2)Thisbrandisanordinarybrand.(=Reverseditem)

(3)Thisbrandisdifferentfromotherbrandsinthiscategory.

(4)Thisbrandisapremiumbrand.

.86

Consumers’needfor

uniqueness(12)

(1)IoftencombinepossessionsinsuchawaythatIcreateapersonalimagethatcannotbeduplicated.

(2)Ioftentrytofindamoreinterestingversionofrun-of-the-millproductsbecauseIenjoybeingoriginal.

(3)Iactivelyseektodevelopmypersonaluniquenessbybuyingspecialproductsorbrands.

(4)Havinganeyeforproductsthatareinterestingandunusualassistsmeinestablishingadistinctiveimage.

(5)WhenitcomestotheproductsIbuyandthesituationsinwhichIusethem,Ihavebrokencustomsandrules.

(6)Ihaveoftenviolatedtheunderstoodrulesofmysocialgroupregardingwhattobuyorown.

(7)Ihaveoftengoneagainsttheunderstoodrulesofmysocialgroupregardingwhenandhowcertainproductsareproperlyused.

(8)IenjoychallengingtheprevailingtasteofpeopleIknowbybuyingsomethingtheywouldnotseemtoaccept.

(9)WhenaproductIownbecomespopularamongthegeneralpopulation,Ibegintouseitless.

(10)IoftentrytoavoidproductsorbrandsthatIknowareboughtbythegeneralpopulation.

(11)Asarule,Idislikeproductsorbrandsthatarecustomarilyboughtbyeveryone.

(12)Themorecommonplaceaproductorbrandisamongthegeneralpopulation,thelessinterestedIaminbuyingit.

.89

22

4. Results

Thissectioncontainstheresultsofthisstudy.Totestwhethertheshapeandtexturemanipulationshavean

influence,aMANOVAwasperformedonalldependentvariablesandanANOVAwasconductedforeach

dependentvariable.Nexttothat,themoderatorvariableCNFUwasexamined.So,datawereanalyzedusing

a2(packagingshape:uniqueversusstandard)x2(packagingtexture:uniqueversusstandard)x2(need

foruniqueness:lowversushigh)between-subjectsdesign.

4.1Multivariateanalysisofvariance

Firstofall,aMANOVAwasperformedtotestwhetherthepackagingshapeandpackagingtexture

influencethedependentvariablesinthisstudy.Besides,themoderatorCNFUisalsotakenintoaccount.The

resultsoftheanalysiscanbefoundinTable4.Theresultsshowthatthereisamaineffectfoundforshape

(F(1,137)=5.24,p<.01)andfortexture(F(1,137)=2.83,p=.01).Thisanalysisalsoshowsasignificant

interactioneffectfortextureandthemoderatorCNFU(F(1,137)=2.20,p=.05)

Table4.

Multivariateanalysisofvariance

EffectsWilks’Lambda Value F Sig.

Shape .808 5.24 <.01

Texture .886 2.83 .013

Shape*Texture .983 .37 .895

Shape*CNFU .961 .90 .500

Texture*CNFU .909 2.20 .047

Shape*Texture*CNFU .971 .65 .693

4.2Productliking

Forthedependentvariableproductliking,asexpected,amaineffectwasfoundforthepackaging

shape(F(1,137)=5.361,p=.02)andforthepackagingtexture(F(1,137)=8.795,p<.01).Participantsin

thisstudylikedtheuniquepackagingshape(𝑀$%&'$#=3.92SD=0.09)morethanthestandardpackaging

shape(𝑀()!%*!+* =3.63,SD=0.08).Fortexture,theuniquepackagingtexture(𝑀$%&'$#=3.96,SD=0.09)

waslikedmorebytheparticipantsincomparisontothestandardpackagingtexture(𝑀()!%*!+* =3.59,SD=

0.09).AnalysisalsorevealedamarginallysignificantinteractioneffectforpackagingtextureandCNFU(F(1,

23

137) = 3.025,p= .08). In fact,with followup analysis (pairwise comparison), it became clear that the

packagingtextureshowssignificantdifferencesforparticipantswithahighCNFU(𝑀,&",./01=3.84,SD=

0.09)butnotfortheparticipantswithalowCNFU(𝑀234./01=3.72,SD=0.09).Thisinteractioneffectis

shown in Figure 5. The interaction effect between shape and texture and shape and CNFUwere non-

significant.

Figure5.InteractioneffectforpackagingtextureandCNFUonproductliking

4.3Perceivedquality

Themaineffectofpackagingshapeandpackagingtextureonthedependentvariableperceived

qualitydidnotreachanysignificance.ThisisinvestigatedwithanANOVA-analysis.Besidesthat,theANOVA

alsoshowednostatisticallysignificantinteractionforperceivedqualityonpackagingshapeorpackaging

textureandCNFU.TheresultsoftheANOVA-analysisareshowninTable5.

Table5.

ResultsfromANOVAonthedependentvariableperceivedquality

Source df MeanSquare F Sig.

Shape 1 .793 1.80 .182

Texture 1 .063 .14 .706

Shape*Texture 1 .277 .63 .430

Shape*CNFU 1 .101 .23 .633

Texture*CNFU 1 .001 .00 .958

Shape*Texture*CNFU 1 .516 1.17 .281

24

4.4Willingnesstopay

Investigationontheeffectofpackagingshapeandpackagingtextureonthedependentvariable

willingnesstopayshowed,contrarytotheexpectations,thatthereisnomaineffectfoundforpackaging

textureonthewillingnesstopay.However,thereisamarginallysignificancefoundforthemaineffectfor

packagingshape(F(1,137)=3.607,p=.06).Resultsshowthatparticipantsarewillingtopaymoreforthe

uniquepackagingshape(𝑀$%&'$#=8.71,SD=0.67)thanforthestandardshape(𝑀()!%*!+* =7.03,SD=

0.58). Besides that, followup analysis (pairwise comparison) showed that therewas also amarginally

significantinteractioneffectfoundbetweenpackagingtextureandCNFU(F(1,137)=3.278,p=.07).This

isshowninFigure6.Withthisanalysis,itwasfoundthatpackagingtexturesshowssignificantdifferences

forparticipantswithalowCNFU(𝑀234./01=7.31,SD=0.62)butnotforparticipantswithahighCNFU

(𝑀,&",./01=8.42,SD=0.63).Nofurtherinteractioneffectswerefound.

Figure6.InteractioneffectforpackagingtextureandCNFUonwillingnesstopay

4.5Purchaseintention

Asforthedependentvariablepurchaseintention,packagingshapedoesnotinfluencethepurchase

intentionontheparticipants.Thus,thereisnomaineffectfoundforthepackagingshape.Themaineffect

forpackagingtexture,ontheotherhand,ismarginallysignificant(F(1,137)=3.290,p=.07).Participants

havemoreintentiontopurchaseapackagingwithauniquetexture(𝑀$%&'$#=3.03,SD=0.10)thanthe

intentiontopurchaseapackagingwithastandardtexture(𝑀()!%*!+* =2.77,SD=0.10).Boththeinteraction

effect between shape or texture and CNFU and the interaction between shape and texture were non-

significant.

25

4.6Perceivedproductuniqueness

As forperceivedproductuniqueness,amaineffectwas found forpackagingshape(F(1,137)=

26.781,p<.01).Theparticipantsperceivethepackagingwithauniqueshape(𝑀$%&'$#=3.85,SD=0.09)

moreuniquethanthepackagingwithastandardshape(𝑀()!%*!+* =3.22,SD=0.08).However,theeffectof

packagingtexturedidnotreachsignificance.Finally,lookingattheinteractioneffectbetweenpackaging

shapeorpackagingtextureandCNFU,aneffectwasfoundforpackagingtextureandCNFU(F(1,137)=

4.310, p = .04). However, looking closely to the data, the results of the follow up analysis (pairwise

comparison)revealedthatthepackagingtexturedidnotreachsignificantdifferencesforparticipantswith

ahighCNFU(𝑀,&",./01=3.70,SD=0.08,p=.14)andforparticipantswithalowCNFU(𝑀234./01=3.37,

SD=0.09,p=.15).TheinteractioneffectforpackagingshapeandCNFUandbetweenpackagingshapeand

packagingtexturewerealsonon-significant.

4.7Perceivedbranduniqueness

Finally,theeffectofpackagingshapeandpackagingtexturewerestudiedonthedependentvariable

perceivedbranduniqueness.Inlinewiththeexpectations,amaineffectisfoundforpackagingshapeon

perceivedbranduniqueness(F(1,137)=17.550,p<.01).Thismeansthatparticipantsperceivethebrand

on the packagingwith a unique shape (𝑀$%&'$# = 3.76, SD= 0.09)more unique than the brand on the

packagingwithastandardshape(𝑀()!%*!+* =3.25,SD=0.08).However,contrarytotheexpectations,both

themaineffectforpackagingtextureonperceivedbranduniqueness,northeinteractioneffectofshapeor

textureandCNFUwerenon-significant.Finally,nointeractioneffectsbetweenpackagingshapeandtexture

werefound.

4.8Overviewofhypotheses

In the theoretical framework, tenhypotheseswere formulated for this study.Asa resultof the

ANOVA-analysis,thehypothesescanbeacceptedorrejected.Table4showsanoverviewoftheaccepted

andrejectedhypothesesinthisstudy.

26

Table6.

Overviewofacceptedandrejectedhypotheses

Hypotheses Content Results

H1a

Consumersliketheshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapemorethantheshampoo


Accepted

H1b Shampoopackagingwithauniqueshapeisperceivedhigherinqualitythanshampoo


Rejected

H1c Consumersarewillingtopaymoreforshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapethanfor

shampoopackagingwithastandardshape.

Accepted

H1d Consumershavehigherpurchaseintentionsforshampoopackagingwithauniqueshape

thanforshampoopackagingwithastandardshape.

Rejected

H2a

Consumers like the shampoo packaging with a unique texture more than the shampoo


Accepted

H2b Shampoo packaging with a unique texture is perceived higher in quality than shampoo


Rejected

H2c Consumersarewillingtopaymore forshampoopackagingwithauniquetexturethanfor

shampoopackagingwithastandardtexture.

Rejected

H2d Consumershavehigherpurchase intentions forshampoopackagingwithauniquetexture

thanforshampoopackagingwithastandardtexture.

Accepted

H3a

Consumerswithahigh(asopposedtoalow)needforuniquenesshaveamorepositive

productevaluationfortheshampoopackagingwithauniqueshapethanforshampoo


Rejected

H3b Consumerswithahigh(asopposedtoalow)needforuniquenesshaveamorepositive

productevaluationfortheshampoopackagingwithauniquetexturethanforshampoo

packagingwithanormaltexture.

Partlyaccepted

27

5. Discussion

Themainconcernofthisstudywastoinvestigatetowhatextentpackagingshapeandpackagingtexture

ofshampooinfluenceconsumers’productevaluation.Toinvestigatethis,anexperimentwasconducted.

Theshapeandthetextureofshampoopackagingweremanipulatedtoseeifthereisaneffectonproduct

liking, perceived quality, willingness to pay, purchase intention, perceived product uniqueness, and

perceived brand uniqueness and to study if consumers’ need for uniqueness has an influence when

evaluatingacertainpackagingshapeorpackagingtexture.Thecentralresearchquestioninthisstudywas:

“Towhatextentdoshapeandtextureofshampoopackaginginfluenceconsumers’productevaluation?”

Theresultsofthisstudyhaveshownthattheshapeandtextureofshampoopackagingdoinfluence

consumers’productevaluationtoacertainextent.Lookingatthefindingsintermsofpackagingshape,it

becomes clear that a unique packaging shape positively influenced product liking, willingness to pay,

perceivedproductuniqueness,andperceivedbranduniquenessofconsumers.Thesefindingsaresimilar

to earlier conducted studies. For example, Blijlevens et al. (2012) demonstrated with the Theory of

ModerateAtypicalityEffects thatatypical shapes inpackagingdesignareconsideredmoreaesthetically

pleasing than typical shapes (Blijlevens et al., 2012). Moreover, Anselmsson et al. (2014) found that

atypicalityinpackagingshapeisthestrongestdeterminantsofwillingnesstopay(Anselmsonnetal.,2014)

andfinally,Schnurr(2017)statedthatatypicalityinproductdesignaffecttheconsumersbrandperceptions

(Schnurr,2017).

Thepresentedfindingsconcerningpackagingtextureindicatethatauniquetexturehadaneffecton

product liking and purchase intention. Again, these findings are in linewithwhat is found in previous

studies.Forinstance,RadfordandBloch(2011)statedthiswiththeself-perceptionprocess.Theystated

thatwhenthepackagingisfavorableinappearance,consumerstendtoliketheproductmore(Radford&

Bloch,2011).Hence,itcanbediscussedthatthenewnessintheuniquepackagingtextureoftheshampoo

productwillresultinconsumerstoreactwithmoreaestheticresponsesandthereforelikedthisproduct

more.Moreover,Rundh(2009)foundthatconsumersaremoreopentopurchasethepackagingwiththe

uniquetexture.Atypicalpackagingtexturedoencouragepeopletobeinspiredandwhenitstandsouton

theshelf,consumersarebeingstimulatedtopurchasethatproduct(Rundh,2009).

28

Anunexpectedfindingisthattherewasnothingfoundforbothpackagingshapeandpackagingtexture

ontheperceivedquality.Thiscontradictsstudiesby,forexample,CreusenandSchoormans(2005)who

found that consumers associate atypical, novel productswith high quality. As already discussed in the

theoreticalframework,therewasnoclearconsensusonwhetherpackagingwithauniquetexturehaseither

positive or negative effects on consumers’ product evaluation. Therefore, it can now be stated that

consumersdidnotperceivetheuniquetexturetobehigherinqualityforshampooproducts.However,itis

importanttonotethatauniquepackagingtexturedoinfluenceconsumers’productevaluationtoacertain

extent.But,asmentioned,thisonlyappliestoproductlikingandpurchaseintention.Anothercontradictory

findingisthatconsumerswerenotwillingtopaymorefortheshampooproductwiththeuniquetexture.

Hence,theassumptionthisstudymadeaboutconsumerswillingtopaymoreforanovel,atypicaltypeof

packagingtextureoveranoldpackagingtexture(Banks,1950)wasnottrueforthisstudy.Besides,there

wasnothingfoundforpackagingshapeonpurchaseintention.Thisiscontrarytotheexpectationsandwhat

isfoundbyDelićetal.(2018)wheretheystatedthatconsumersweremoreopentopurchaseanatypical

packagingshape.Tothisend,itcanbeclaimedthatconsumersinthisstudywerenotmoreopentopurchase

theuniquepackagingshapeoftheshampooproduct.

LookingatthepresentedfindingsforthemoderatorCNFU,itcanbeassumedthatCNFUhadacertain

influenceonpackagingtexture.ConsumerswithahighlevelofCNFUlikedtheshampooproductwiththe

uniquepackagingtexturemore.Ontheotherhand,lookingatthewillingnesstopay,packagingtextureonly

impactedthewillingnesstopayforconsumersthathadalowlevelofCNFU.Hence,especiallyforconsumers

withalowlevelofCNFUresultedthestandardpackagingtextureinalowwillingnesstopayfortheshampoo

product.FindingsrelatedtoCNFUarenotcompletelyinlinewithwhatisfoundinpreviousresearch.For

instance,itwasexpectedthatconsumerswithahighlevelofCNFUwoulddemonstratetheiruniquenessin

theirconsumptionbehaviorbecause theyareseeking foruniquenessandevaluate typicalproducts less

positive(Ruvio,2008).Thisstudyassumedthatthestandardpackagingshapeandtexturefortheshampoo

producthada lesspositiveproductevaluation forconsumerswithahigh levelofCNFUbecausetypical

productsdidnotcreateexcitementfortheseconsumers(Coates,2003).However,itcannowbestatedthat

thisonlyappliedfortheuniquepackagingtextureonproductliking.Anargumentforthiscanbegivenbased

onwhatisfoundinpreviousresearch.Forexample,Krueger(2002)statedthatconsumerswithahighlevel

ofCNFUhavestrongerpreferencesfornewandinnovativeproducts(Krueger,2002).Hence,itmightbe,

thatconsumerswithahighlevelofCNFUperceivedtheshampooproductwithauniquepackagingtexture

29

moreinnovativeandmoreuniquethantheshampooproductwithauniquepackagingshape,andthusliked

theuniquepackagingtexturemore.

Overall,itcanbearguedthatthecontradictoryresultsfoundinthisstudywereduethefactthatthe

participantscouldnotseeandfeelatangibleshampooproduct.Itcanbeassumedthatthemultisensory

experienceinproductevaluationisofgreatimportance.But,theremightbeotherreasonswhytheoutcome

ofthisstudycontradictstheexpectedpowerofuniqueness.Itisforexamplepossiblethatconsumersare

usedtothemorecommonshapesandtexturesinshampoopackagingdesignandthustrustandpreferthe

standarddesignmore.Thiscanalsobeconnectedtopreviousfindings.Forexample,WhitfieldandSlatter

(1979)statedwiththePreferences-For-Prototypestheorythatconsumershaveastrongerpreferencefor

the most typical examples of a category, because consumers have been repeatedly exposed to these

examplesanditisthusfamiliarforconsumers(Whitfield&Slatter,1979).

Also,itispossiblethattheresultsdependonthetypeofproductbeingstudied.Auniqueoratypical

packagingdesignmaynotbefullyacceptedforshampooproductsandthereforetheexpectedoutcomes

havenotbeenachievedinthisstudy.Itmightbethecasethatuniquenessoratypicalityismoreaccepted

onothertypesofbeautyproducts(i.e.,bodylotion,handlotion,handsoaporfacialcare)orthatitisnot

acceptedatallandonlyacceptedinfoodandbeverageevaluation.Additionally,inthisstudynointeraction

effectshavebeenfoundbetweenauniqueshapeandauniquetexture.Itmighthavebeenthecasethatthe

combination of the unique shape and the unique texturewas too atypical for consumers andwas not

recognizableanymore.ThisisalsoinlinewithwhatisstatedinthetheoryknownMAYA-principle.Itmight

havebeenthecasethatthisdesignwasnotrecognizablefor itsproductcategoryandthusresultedina

negative product evaluation (Loewy, 1951). Finally, based on this information and the results of this

research,itcanbestatedthattherearetwocontrastingneedsinconsumerbehaviorbasedonpersonality

andproducttype.Hence,someconsumershaveaneedfortypicalityandsomeconsumershaveaneedfor

uniqueness.

5.1Limitationsandfutureresearch

Thisstudycontainssomelimitationsthatshouldbeaddressedandmaybeimprovedinfutureresearch.

Forinstance,thisstudyisconductedinanonlineenvironmentandthismighthaveinfluencedsomeofthe

results,becauseparticipantscouldnot feelandseethepackagingdesign.Another limitation is that it is

unknown what participants were doing when they were at home or elsewhere filling in the online

30

questionnaire. It might be that participants got distracted or that they not seriously filled in the

questionnaire.Also,itisnotknownhowthedesignsturnedoutonthedigitalscreenofparticipants,despite

the fact that all the designs were designed in the same way. It might have been possible that the

contradictoryresultswerefoundduethefactthatsomeparticipantsmayhaveusedasmartphoneanyway,

insteadofacomputerortablet.

Futureresearchcouldaddressastudyinaphysicalenvironmentsuchasadrugstore.Theresultsofthis

onlinestudymighthavebeeninfluencedregardlesstheunderlyingqualityperception,purchaseintention,

andwillingness topay. Itmighthavebeendifficult for theparticipants toevaluate theproduct froman

image.Hence,itwouldbeinterestingtoinvestigatethemulti-sensoryexperiencewith3D-printed,tangible,

prototypes,whichthisstudydidnotexamine,sothatparticipantscanfeelandseethepackagingandeven

smelltheproductinsidethepackagingdesign.Aphysicalstudyalsoprovidestheopportunitytoinclude

newvariablessuchasperceivedsmell. Inaddition, there isalsoapossibilitythatsomevariables inthis

studywillreachsignificanceinaphysicalstudy,becauseinpreviousstudiesithasbeenfoundthatthemulti-

sensoryexperienceplaysamajorroleinpackagingdesign.ThisisforinstancestatedinthestudyofSpence

andGallace(2011)wheretheydescribedthatthesensoryelementsinpackagingdesign(i.e.texture)can

improvetheconsumers’productexperience(Spence&Gallace,2011).Moreover,multisensoryperception

inpackaginghasstartedtogainincreasingimportanceoverthelastcoupleofyearsrelatestothetopicof

crossmodalcorrespondences.Crossmodalcorrespondencecanbedefinedas“atendencyforafeature,or

attribute,inonesensorymodalitytobeassociatedwithasensoryfeatureinanothersensorymodality”(p.

3). Crossmodal correspondence can impact the consumer’s overall multisensory experience positively,

when the different sensory attributes of a packaging experienced correspond crossmodally (Parise &

Spence, 2012). In relation to a new, physical study, associations evoked by the product (i.e., unique,

distinctive,atypical,innovative)couldcarryoverintotheperceptionoftheshampooproductwhichwould

leadtotheexperienceofamoreuniquesmell.

Finally,thisstudycanalsobeconductedwithothertypesofproductsorwithmoretypesofatypical

designs and adopt the MAYA-principle. To be more elaborate, it can be investigated if uniqueness or

atypicalityismoreacceptedinotherproductcategories(i.e.facialcareinsteadofhaircare)andtoseeif

veryatypicaldesignsdohaveanegativeeffectonconsumers’productevaluation(Loewy,1951).Onthe

otherhand,itisalsointerestingtostudytheeffectoflong-termexposureorfrequentexposureofshampoo

productswithauniquepackagingdesign.ThiscanforexamplebeinvestigatedwiththePreference-For-

31

PrototypesTheory.Afterseeingtheproductmorefrequentorforalongeramountoftime,theseunique

elementsinpackagingdesignbecomemoretypical,recognizable,andfamiliartoconsumersandtheymay

haveastrongerpreferencefortheseexamples(Whitfield&Slatter,1979).Ontheotherhand,itmightbe

thatproducts andbrandareno longdistinctive, because theybecome typically for theproduct typeof

category.

5.2Conclusionandpracticalimplications

Sincethecrowdedbeautyindustrywillgrowevenmoreinthefutureandisfacingcompetition,it

iscrucialformarketers,retailersandmanufacturestounderstandwhatvaluepackagingdesign(shapeand

texture) may bring to the table and to effectively translate the findings of this study into a valuable

marketingstrategyinbeautyproductdesign.Therefore,thisstudycouldbeusedasaguidelineandshows

insightsinpackagingdesigntomarketersanddesignersonhowtodifferentiatetheirproductandbrand.

Theresultsofthisstudydemonstratethatpackagingshapeandpackagingtexture influencethe

productevaluationofconsumers toacertainextent.This indicates thatshampooproductswithunique

featureshavesomeadvantageovercompetitiveproductsorbrands.Thefindingsofthisstudycouldguide

marketersanddesignerstomake,forinstance,auniquepackagingshapeandauniquepackagingtexture

to increaseproduct likingamongconsumers. Inaddition,providingtheshampooproductwithaunique

packaging shape could affect the consumer’s willingness to pay more for the product. Besides that,

consumersperceiveashampooproductandbrandmoreuniquewhenthepackagingshapeisalsounique.

Withthisinformation,marketersanddesignerscouldadjusttheshapeofthepackagingtoauniqueshape

andmaketheirproductandbrandmoreuniquecomparedtoothercompetitiveproductsandbrands.When

adjustingthepackagingtextureontheshampooproduct,consumershavehigherintentiontopurchasethat

shampooproduct.Marketersanddesignerscouldprovidethepackagingwithauniquetextureinsteadofa

standardtextureandalsodifferentiatetheirproductandbrand.

Insum,despiteofsomeunexpectedresults, thisstudydemonstrates thatauniqueshapeanda

uniquetexturehaveapositiveeffectontheinfluenceoftheshampooproductevaluationofconsumerstoa

certain extent andprovides valuable insights inpackagingdesign. Yet,more research is neededon the

packagingdesignofshampooandthemulti-sensoryexperience.

32

References

Aidnik,S.(2013).TheEffectofCosmeticPackagingonConsumerPerceptions.SanLuisObispo,CA:PolytechnicStateUniversity.

Anselmsson,J.,Bondesson,N.V.,Johansson,U.,2014.Brandimageandcustomers'willingnesstopayapricepremiumforfood

brands.JournalofProductBrandManagement,23(2),90–102.

Baker,M.J.,&Churchill,G.A.(1977).Theimpactofphysicallyattractivemodelsonadvertisingevaluations.JournalofMarketing

Research,14(4),538-555.

Banks,S.(1950).Themeasurementoftheeffectofanewpackagingmaterialuponpreferenceandsales.TheJournalofBusinessofthe

UniversityofChicago,23(2),71-80.

Becker,L.,vanRompay,T.J.,Schifferstein,H.N.,&Galetzka,M.(2011).Toughpackage,strongtaste:Theinfluenceof

packagingdesignontasteimpressionsandproductevaluations.FoodQualityandPreference,22(1),17-23.

Bem,D.(1972).Self-perceptiontheory.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

Biron,B.(2019).Beautyhasblownuptobea$532billionindustry–andanalystssaythatthese4trendswillmakeitevenbigger.

Retrievedfrom:https://www.businessinsider.com/beauty-multibillion-industry-trends-future-2019-7

Blijlevens,J.,Carbon,C.C.,Mugge,R.,&Schoormans,J.P.(2012).Aestheticappraisalofproductdesigns:Independenteffectsof

typicalityandarousal.BritishJournalofPsychology,103(1),44–57.

Bloch,P.H.(1995).Seekingtheidealform:Productdesignandconsumerresponse.JournalofMarketing,59,16-29.

Borg,E.(2007).Onperceivedexertionanditsmeasurement.(Doctoraldissertation),Stockholm:StockholmUniversity.

Celhay,F.,&Trinquecoste,J.F.(2015).Packagegraphicdesign:Investigatingthevariablesthatmoderateconsumerresponseto

atypicaldesigns.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,32(6),1014-1032.

Creusen,M.E.,&Schoormans,J.P.(2005).Thedifferentrolesofproductappearanceinconsumerchoice.JournalofProduct

InnovationManagement,22(1),63–81.

Crilly,N.,Moultrie,J.,&Clarkson,P.J.(2004).Seeingthings:Consumerresponsetothevisualdomaininproductdesign.

DesignStudies,25,547-577.

Delić,G.,Vladić,G.,Banjanin,B.,&Vasić,J.(2018).Theinfluenceofthetypeofbeverageonitspackagingshape.

Retrievedfrom:https://doi.org/10.24867/GRID-2018-p30

Fenko,A.,Backhaus,B.W.,&vanHoof,J.J.(2015).Theinfluenceofproduct-andperson-relatedfactorsonconsumerhedonic

responsestosoyproducts.FoodQualityandPreferences,41,30-40.

Ferreira,B.M.(2019).Packagingtextureinfluencesproducttasteandconsumersatisfaction.JournalofSensory

Studies,34(6),e12532.

Gallace,A.,&Spence,C.(2014).Intouchwiththefuture:Thesenseoftouchfromcognitiveneurosciencetovirtualreality.

Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Garber,L.L.(1995).Thepackageappearanceinchoice.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,22,653–660.

Gatti,E.,Bordegoni,M.,&Spence,C.(2014).Investigatingtheinfluenceofcolour,weight,andfragranceintensityontheperceptionof

liquidbathsoap:Anexperimentalstudy.FoodQualityandPreference,31,56-64.

Hanson-Vaux,G.,Crisinel,A.S.,&Spence,C.(2013).Smellingshapes:Crossmodalcorrespondencesbetweenodorsand

shapes.Chemicalsenses,38(2),161-166.

33

Hekkert,P.,D.Snelders,andP.VanWieringen.2003.“Mostadvanced,yetacceptable”:Typicalityandnoveltyasjointpredictorsof

aestheticpreferenceinindustrialdesign.BritishJournalofPsychology94(1),111–24.

Henderson,P.W.,&Cote,J.A.(1998).GuidelinesforSelectingorModifyingLogos.JournalofMarketing,62,14-30.

Holmes,G.R.,&Paswan,A.(2012).Consumerreactiontonewpackagedesign.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,

21(2),109-116.

Kesler,L.(1986).Grocerymarketing:Successfulpackagesturnmediumintomessage.AdvertisingAge,57(53),13.

Kestenbaum,R.(2019).Thefutureofretailinthebeautyindustrywillbeverydifferent.Retrievedfrom:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardkestenbaum/2019/09/04/the-future-of-retail-in-the-beauty-industry-will-be-

very-different/#5859c986c4f2

Krishna,A.,Cian,L.,&Aydınoğlu,N.Z.(2017).Sensoryaspectsofpackagedesign.JournalofRetailing,93(1),43-54.

Krisna,A.,&Morrin,M.(2008).Doestouchaffecttaste?Theperceptualtransferofproductcontainerhapticcues.

JournalofConsumerResearch,34,807–818.

Krueger,J.(2000).Theprojectiveperceptionofthesocialworld.InHandbookofsocialcomparison.Boston,MA:Springer.

Landwehr,J.R.,Wentzel,D.,&Herrmann,A.(2013).Productdesignforthelongrun:Consumerresponsestotypicalandatypical

designsatdifferentstagesofexposure.JournalofMarketing,77(5),92–107.

Loewy,R.(1951).Neverleavewellenoughalone.NewYork,NY:SimonandSchuster.

Nail,P.R.(1986).Towardanintegrationofsomemodelsandtheoriesofsocialresponse.PsychologicalBulletin,100,190-206.

NørgaardOlesen,S.,&Giacalone,D.(2018).Theinfluenceofpackagingonconsumers’qualityperceptionofcarrots.JournalofSensory

Studies,33(1),e12310.

Orth,U.R.,Campana,D.,&Malkewitz,K.(2010).Formationofconsumerpriceexpectationbasedonpackagedesign:Attractiveand

qualityroutes.JournalofMarketingTheoryandPractice,18,23-40.

Orth,U.R.,&Malkewitz,K.(2008).Holisticpackagedesignandconsumerbrandimpressions.JournalofMarketing,72,64-81.

Parise,C.V.,&Spence,C.(2012).Audiovisualcrossmodalcorrespondencesandsoundsymbolism:astudyusingtheimplicit

associationtest.ExperimentalBrainResearch,220(3-4),319-333.

Peters,M.L.(2016).Feelingnatural:Theinfluenceoftactilecharacteristicsandsensorypresentationoffoodpackagingonconsumers’

perceivednaturalness.(Master'sthesis),Enschede:UniversityofTwente.

Piqueras-Fiszman,B.,&Spence,C.(2012).Theinfluenceofthefeelofproductpackagingontheperceptionoftheoral-somatosensory

textureoffood.FoodQualityandPreference,26(1),67-73.

Radford,S.K.,&Bloch,P.H.(2011).Linkinginnovationtodesign:Consumerresponsestovisualproductnewness.JournalofProduct

InnovationManagement,28(1),208-220.

Rundh,B.(2009).Packagingdesign:Creatingcompetitiveadvantagewithproductpackaging.BritishFoodJournal,111(9),988-1002.

Ruvio,A.(2008).Uniquelikeeverybodyelse?Thedualroleofconsumers'needforuniqueness.Psychology&Marketing,25(5),

444-464.

Ruvio,A.,Shoham,A.,&Brenčič,M.M.(2008).Consumers'needforuniqueness:short-formscaledevelopmentandcross-cultural

validation.InternationalMarketingReview,25(1),33-53.

Sherwood,M.(1999).Winningtheshelfwars.GlobalCosmeticIndustry,164(3),64-67.

Schifferstein,H.N.J.(2009).Thedrinkingexperience:Cuporcontent?FoodQualityandPreference,20(3),268-276.

34

Schnurr,B.(2017).Theimpactofatypicalproductdesignonconsumerproductandbrandperception.JournalofBrandManagement,

24(6),609–621.

Schoormans,J.P.L.,&RobbenH.S.J.(1997).Theeffectofnewpackagedesignonproductattention,categorizationandevaluation.

JournalofEconomicPsychology,18,271–287.

Selame,T.,&Koukos,P.(2002).Isyourpackageshelf-evident?DesignManagementJournal,13(4),25-31.

Silayoi,P.,&Speece,M.(2007).Theimportanceofpackagingattributes:Aconjointanalysisapproach.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,

41,1495–1517.

Snyder,C.R.(1992).Productscarcitybyneedforuniquenessinteraction:Aconsumercatch-22carousel?BasicandAppliedSocial

Psychology,13,9-24.

Snyder,C.R.,&Fromkin,H.L.(1977).Abnormalityasapositivecharacteristic:Thedevelopmentandvalidationofascalemeasuring

needforuniqueness.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,86(5),518.

Spence,C.(2016).Multisensorypackagingdesign:Color,shape,texture,sound,andsmell.InIntegratingthepackagingandproduct

experienceinfoodandbeverages.Cambridge,UK:WoodheadPublishing.

Spence,C.,&Gallace,A.(2011).Multisensorydesign:Reachingouttotouchtheconsumer.Psychology&Marketing,28,267–308.

Tian,K.T.,Bearden,W.O.,&Hunter,G.L.(2001).Consumers'needforuniqueness:Scaledevelopmentandvalidation.Journalof

consumerresearch,28(1),50-66.

VanOoijen,I.,Fransen,M.L.,Verlegh,P.W.,&Smit,E.G.(2016).Atypicalfoodpackagingaffectsthepersuasiveimpactofproduct

claims.FoodQualityandPreference,48,33-40.

VanRompay,T.J.,Finger,F.,Saakes,D.,&Fenko,A.(2017).“Seeme,feelme”:Effectsof3D-printedsurfacepatternsonbeverage

evaluation.FoodQualityandPreference,62,332-339.

Velasco,C.,Woods,A.T.,Petit,O.,Cheok,A.D.,&Spence,C.(2016).Crossmodalcorrespondencesbetweentasteandshape,andtheir

implicationsforproductpackaging:Areview.FoodQualityandPreference,52,17-26.

Vladić,G.,Kecman,M.,Kašiković,N.,Pál,M.,&Stančić,M.(2016).Influenceoftheshapeontheconsumersperceptionofthe

packagingattributes.JournalofGraphicEngineeringandDesign,7,27-32.

Whitfield,T.W.A.,&Slatter,P.E.(1979).Theeffectsofcategorizationandprototypicalityonaestheticchoiceinafurnitureselection

task.BritishJournalofPsychology,70(1),65–75.

35

Appendices

Appendix1:Pretestquestions

Thankyouforparticipatingtoevaluateashampoopackagingdesign.Youranswerswillbeusedtoseeto

whatextentthecreateddesignswillbeusedinastudy.Youwillbeexposedtodifferentdesignsofshampoo

packagingwherethemainfocusisontheshapeandtextureofthepackaging.Iwouldliketoaskyouto

answerthequestionsafteryouhavefinishedobservingthepackagingdesignontheimages.

Fillinginthequestionnairewilltakeaboutfiveminutesanditwouldbeveryhelpfultotheresearcherto

come upwith a final design for the study. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the

researchervia:[email protected]

Questionsforthetypesofpackagingshapes

(Disagree–Neutral–Agree)

1. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingstandard.

2. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingunobtrusive.

3. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingplain.

4. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingunique.

5. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingunusual.

6. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingoriginal.

7. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingrealistic.

8. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingcreditable.

9. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingappropriatetoproducttype.

10. Ifindthisshapeforashampoopackagingattractive.

Questionsforthetypesofpackagingtextures

(Disagree–Neutral–Agree)

1. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingstandard.

2. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingunobtrusive.

3. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingplain.

4. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingunique.

5. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingunusual.

6. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingoriginal.

7. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingrealistic.

8. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingcreditable.

9. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingappropriatetoproducttype.

10. Ifindthistextureforashampoopackagingattractive.

36

Appendix2:Questionnairemainstudy

Q1.Thankyouforyourinterestinparticipatinginthisstudytoevaluateaproductdesign.Thisstudy

investigatestheinfluenceofpackagingdesignonconsumers'productevaluation.Thisresearchis

conductedbyaMScstudentinCommunicationSciencefromtheFacultyofBehavioral,Managementand

SocialSciencesattheUniversityofTwente.

Participationispossibleviacomputerortablet.Participationinthisstudyisvoluntary.Youcanstop

participatingatanytime.Youdonothavetoexplainthisandstoppinghasnonegativeconsequences.If

youstopthesurvey,theresearcherwillunfortunatelynotbeabletouseyouranswersgiventothatpoint.

Therearenorisksorbenefitsassociatedwithparticipatinginthisstudy.

Answeringthequestionswilltakeabout5minutes.

Forquestions,comments,orformalcomplaintsaboutthesurvey,pleasecontacttheresearchervia:

[email protected]

o Iwanttoparticipateinthisstudy

Q2.Doyouhaveareasonthatpreventyoufromusingshampoo?(Forexampleallergies)

o Yeso No

Q3.Whatisyougender?

o Maleo Femaleo Othero Prefernottosay

Q4.Whatisyourage?

________________________________________________________________

37

Q5.Inthepictureyouseeashampoopackaging.Pleasefocusonthepackagingandonthebrandofthe

shampooproduct.Takeyourtimetoobservethepackagingandthebrandcarefullyandpleasecontinueto

thenextquestionwhenyouhavefinishedlookingatthepicture.

[Imageofcondition1,2,3or4]

Q6.Pleaseindicatetowhatextentyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatements:

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

agree

Theoverallqualityofthe

productisgood o o o o o Thelikelihoodthatthis

productkeepswhatit

promisesishigh

o o o o o Theworkmanshipofthis

productisgood o o o o o


Strongly

disagree


agree

Myfirstimpressionofthe

productisthatIextremely

likeit

o o o o o Theproductlooksnice o o o o o Theproductdraws

attention o o o o o Ingeneral,theproduct

seemsattractivetome o o o o o

Q8.Pleasefillouttheprice(€)youwouldexpecttopayforthisproduct:

________________________________________________________________

38


Strongly

disagree


agree

Iwouldbuythisproductif

happenedtoseeitina

store

o o o o o Iwouldactivelyseekout

thisproductinastore o o o o o Iwouldconsiderbuying

thisproduct o o o o o Iwouldrecommendthis

producttoothers o o o o o


Strongly

disagree


agree

Thisproductlookslikea

uniqueproduct o o o o o Thisproductlookslikean

ordinaryproduct o o o o o Thisproductlookslikean

exclusiveproduct o o o o o Thisproductisdifferent

fromotherproductsin

thiscategory

o o o o o


Strongly

disagree


agree

Thisbrandisanexclusive

brand o o o o o Thisbrandisanordinary

brand o o o o o Thisbrandisdifferent

fromotherbrandsinthis

category

o o o o o Thisbrandisapremium

brand o o o o o

39


Strongly

disagree


agree

Thesmellofthisshampoo

isunique o o o o o


Strongly

disagree


agree

Ioftencombine

possessionsinsuchway

thatIcreateapersonal

imagethatcannotbe

duplicated

o o o o o

Ioftentrytofindamore

interestingversionofrun-

of-the-millproducts

becauseIenjoybeing

original

o o o o o

Iactivelyseektodevelop

mypersonaluniqueness

bybuyingspecialproducts

orbrands

o o o o o

Havinganeyefor

productsthatare

interestingandunusual

assistsmeinestablishing

adistinctiveimage

o o o o o

Whenitcomestothe

productsIbuyandthe

situationsinwhichIuse

them,Ihavebroken

customsandrules

o o o o o

Ihaveoftenviolatedthe

understoodrulesofmy

socialgroupregarding

whattobuyorown

o o o o o

Ihaveoftengoneagainst

theunderstoodrulesof o o o o o

40

mysocialgroupregarding

whenandhowcertain

productsareproperly

used

Ienjoychallengingthe

prevailingtasteofpeopleI

knowbybuying

somethingtheywouldnot

seemtoaccept

o o o o o

WhenaproductIown

becomespopularamong

thegeneralpopulation,I

begintouseitless

o o o o o

Ioftentrytoavoid

productsorbrandsthatI

knowareboughtbythe

generalpopulation

o o o o o

Asarule,Idislike

productsorbrandsthat

arecustomarilyboughtby

everyone

o o o o o

Themorecommonplacea

productorbrandisamong

thegeneralpopulation,

thelessinterestedIamin

buyingit

o o o o o

Q14.Whichofthefollowingpackagingwereshowntoyouinthebeginning?

o Design1[Imageofcondition1]o Design2[Imageofcondition2]o Design3[Imageofcondition3]o Design4[Imageofcondition4]

41

Q15.Yourresponseisrecorded!Thankyouverymuchforparticipatinginthisstudyregardingyour

visiononshampooproductpackaging.

Ifyouhavefriendsoracquaintanceswhoareeligibletoparticipateinthisstudy,theresearcherrequests

thatyoudonotdiscussthiswiththemuntiltheyhavehadtheopportunitytoparticipate.Priorknowledge

ofthequestionsaskedduringthestudymayinvalidatetheresults.Theresearchergreatlyappreciates

yourcooperation.

Asbefore,ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisstudy,pleasefeelfreetocontacttheresearchervia:

[email protected].

Thankyouagainforyourparticipation!

Beda The power of uniqueness

Documents

Transcript of Beda The power of uniqueness