The influence of sensory and packaging cues on both liking and emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisations

Highlights

• Sensory properties do not affect consumer liking and conceptualisation in the same way as product packaging.

• Extrinsic product characteristics related to packaging influence abstract/functional conceptualisation more than sensory properties.

• Sensory properties are powerful elicitors of emotion.

Abstract

Thomson et al. (2010) have argued that the key to unlocking the mystery of consumer choice is to assess and measure the ‘meanings’ consumers attach in their minds to the product, which can be referred to as conceptualisations. Conceptualisations can be reduced to three broad categories: emotional, abstract and functional (Thomson et al., 2010). However, little data is available to understand how sensory attributes and packaging cues of a product evoke conceptualisations. The objectives of this study were to: (i) derive emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisation lexicons for a commercial product category; (ii) measure how these conceptualisations, and liking, change across blind, package and informed conditions; (iii) test the hypothesis that abstract/functional conceptualisations are more strongly associated with extrinsic product cues; and, finally (iv) explore the effect of package derived conceptualisations on liking and conceptualisations scores derived from product consumption experience. A lexicon to describe the conceptualisations associated with commercial blackcurrant squash was developed by consumers (n = 29). A larger group of consumers (n = 100) were then asked to assess their conceptual response to eleven squashes under three conditions: blind, pack and informed using Check-All-That-Apply (CATA). The findings of the study revealed that intrinsic product characteristics have more association with emotions whereas extrinsic product characteristics were more associated with abstract/functional conceptualizations. In addition, the results of the study also showed how package derived conceptualisations influenced the liking score and conceptualisations frequencies between blind and informed conditions in a small number of products. However, a more systematic experimental design is needed to further investigate the hypotheses that follow from the results obtained in this study.

Introduction

Previous research has established that both our emotional and cognitive systems contribute to decision making (Damasio, 1994). In general, the emotional system has been characterized as being more holistic, affective, concretive, and passive, while the cognitive system has been characterized as being more analytical, logical, abstract, and active (Lee et al., 2009). Although emotion measurement is gaining momentum in the sensory and consumer science research field, little data is available to understand how the cognitive response might influence consumer preference and decision making in the sensory arena. Interestingly, Thomson et al. (2010) have argued that the key to unlock the mystery of consumer choice, is to assess and measure the ‘meaning’ consumers attach in their minds to the product, which can also be referred to as conceptualisations. ‘Conceptualisation’ is therefore an overarching term encompassing any meaning or feeling attributed to, for example, the sensory/packaging experience. Conceptualisations can be reduced to three broad categories: emotional (e.g. ‘will make me happy’, ‘will calm me’, ‘will annoy me’, etc.), abstract (e.g. ‘is sophisticated’, ‘is trustworthy’, ‘is feminine’ etc.) and functional (‘will refresh me’, ‘will wash my clothes cleaner’, ‘will kill germs’, etc.) (Thomson et al., 2010). Essentially functional terms imply that the use of the product has some function, e.g. ‘controls my weight’, or other tangible characteristic, e.g. ‘cheap’. Abstract terms however denote more intangible feeling or characteristics. However, it should be noted that it can sometimes be difficult to attribute terms to these categories as the boundary between the two can be indistinct. Nevertheless, it could be hypothesized that most of these abstract/functional conceptualisations may have already been formed prior to product consumption or usage, from the information gained from the product packaging or other sources. As consumers are unable to try the product prior to purchase, the visual appearance of package design has the ability to create value (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005) and affect food consumption experience (Schifferstein et al., 2013). The evaluation of product packaging could induce cognitive processing, such as memory retrieval and hedonic evaluation (Schoormans & Robben, 1997), resulting, for example, in conceptualisations such as ‘trustworthy’ (abstract) or ‘will refresh me’ (functional).

How does conceptualisation work in practice? Red Bull is a good example of a successful product that does not perform well in taste tests with new consumers, but the associated conceptualisations created by Red Bull’s brand’s signature ‘Give you wings’, ‘Vitalizes body and mind’ positioning, coupled with its distinctive flavour (e.g. ‘medicinal)’, has led to its global success (Davis, 2010, Gschwandtner, 2004). Although ‘medicinal’ flavour has often been reported to reduce liking (Tuorila & Cardello, 2002), for Red Bull it was suggested that it matched with people’s perception ‘that the product is a stimulant, a chemical and therefore should taste rather unpleasant’ (Davis, 2010).

Indeed, Schifferstein et al. (2013) have proposed that different sensory modalities over various stages of user-product interactions (from choosing a product on a supermarket shelf to consuming food) may give rise to different meanings and cognitive associations and elicit different emotions. Many factors affect conceptualisations. Some are intrinsic cues, e.g. flavour, aroma or texture, whilst others are extrinsic cues, e.g. packaging material, information on brand name or price. The mechanisms of how consumers perceive intrinsic product cues differ from how they perceive extrinsic factors. Intrinsic product cues, i.e. physiochemical and associated sensory characteristics are derived through sensory and perceptual systems whereas the extrinsic factors operate mainly through cognitive and psychological mechanisms (Cardello, 2007). Such different mechanisms may result in different conceptualisations consequences. In fact, touch, smell and taste are more closely connected with emotions (Hinton & Henley, 1993); therefore intrinsic sensory attributes of the products might have a stronger association with emotions. On the other hand, vision and audition are sensory modalities suggested to be more closely connected to cognitive or rational thinking (Neisser, 1994) and, as consumers usually appraise packaging using visual and tactile senses, abstract/functional conceptualisations might have a stronger association with extrinsic product characteristics. Indeed, it has also been proposed that, in addition to communicating functional values which give a quality impression, product appearance also conveys aesthetic and symbolic value (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). Aesthetic value denotes something beautiful that appeals to consumers, whereas symbolic value refers to the meaning consumers attached to a product on the basis of, among other things, advertising, country of origin etc. (e.g. the product may look expensive, friendly or childish) (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005).

In addition, the level of expectations and concerns held at the moment of product appraisal also contribute to the formation of emotions (Lundahl, 2012) or perhaps even other conceptualisations. Extrinsic packaging cues such as the packaging itself, nutritional information, price, and labeling generate consumer expectation (Dransfield et al., 1998, Guinard and Marty, 1997, Guinard et al., 2001, Tuorila et al., 1998), and if these expectations are not subsequently met by the sensory delivery of the product, consumer disconfirmation may occur (Deliza and MacFie, 1996, Murray and Delahunty, 2000). Disconfirmation of expectations may influence product quality perception through four mechanisms, namely: (a) assimilation (ratings move towards expectations); (b) contrast (ratings move away from expectations); (c) generalized negativity (ratings diminished under any and all conditions of disconfirmation), and (d) assimilation-contrast (when the level of disconfirmation is low assimilation effect occurs, and when there is a high disconfirmation, a contrast effect occurs) (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). If the consumer’s expectation is confirmed by their sensory perception, the consumer would likely repeat product purchase, otherwise the consumer will probably not buy the product again (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). Therefore, it is important for manufacturers to design packaging that not only attracts consumers’ to purchase the product, but also ably conveys sensory and hedonic expectations as well as conceptualisations that are derived from the package.

Up until now, little data is available to understand how intrinsic or extrinsic product characteristics affect consumers’ conceptualisations, and how that in turn affects expectation and overall liking. The capability to understand this would help companies to design and produce products that satisfy and meet consumer expectation. The objectives of this study were to: (i) derive emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisations lexicons for a commercial product category; (ii) measure how these conceptualisations, and liking, change across blind, package and informed conditions; (iii) test the hypothesis that abstract/functional conceptualisations are more strongly associated with extrinsic product cues; and, finally (iv) explore the effect of package derived conceptualisations on liking and conceptualisations scores derived from product consumption experience.