JOURNAL OF

N
ELSEVIER Journal of EconomicPsychology 18 (1997) 271-287

The effect of new package design on product

attention, categorization and evaluation
Jan P.L. Schoormans a,*, Henry S.J. Robben b
a Delft Universi~ of Technology, Dept. of New Product Development, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The
Netherlands
b Nijenrode University, Centre for Supply Chain Management, Straatweg 25, 3621 BG Breukelen, The
Netherlands
Received 16 April 1996; accepted 15 September 1996

Abstract

Deviations in well-known stimuli attract attention. Furthermore, deviations in the appearance

of stimuli affect the way in which consumers categorize stimuli. Our experiment investigates the
effect of the degree of deviation of coffee packages on consumers' attention and categorization.
The stimuli are modified packages of the best known Dutch ground coffee brand. The first
hypothesis described a positive relation between the attention that a package gets and the degree
of deviation of its appearance. Based on the categorization literature, the second hypothesis stated
that an n-relation exists between the degree of deviation of the package appearance and the
evaluation of the product. The data from the experiment supported both hypotheses. The results
suggest that when redesigning stimuli in marketing practice, for instance of products or packages,
a trade-off has to be made between (a) the high attention getting value of discrepant stimuli and
(b) their ability to transfer existing positive affects to new stimuli that resemble the existing
products or packages in the product category.
PsyclNFO classification: 3900; 3920; 3940

JEL classification: M31 ; M37

Keywords: Product attention; Product categorization;Packaging design; Consumerevaluation

* Corresponding author. E-mail: j.p.l.schoormans@io.tudelft.nl,Tel.: +31 15 2784048, Fax: +31 15

2787662.

0167-4870/97/$17.00 Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S0167-4870(97)00008-1
272 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

1. Introduction

Thirty years ago, WRrneryd and Nowak (1967) published a book on mass
communication and advertising. In that book, the authors described the most
important aspects of the mass communication process and the role of psycholog-
ical aspects underlying the effectiveness of mass-media advertising. Much of the
contents of that book is still valid to date. However, with growing marketing
knowledge and changing consumer behavior, the central and leading role of
mass-media advertising within marketing communications appears to have
changed. One of the things we have learned since W~rneryd and Nowak (1967)
is that despite manufacturers' and resellers' large scale attempts of preselling
products and services to consumers through mass-media advertising, many
purchases are influenced to a significant degree by the store environment (e.g.,
Solomon, 1996). About two-thirds of all supermarket purchases have been
reported to be decided upon when consumers are actually in the store. Of
department store purchases, about 39% go unplanned and are probably influ-
enced by in-store marketing stimuli (Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982). In some
product categories, the proportion of unplanned purchases is even higher: Meyer
(1988) reports 85% for gum and candy, 75% for oral-hygiene purchases, and
about 70% for cosmetics. In this light it is not surprising that next to the role of
mass-media advertising, there is an increasing attention for the role of point-of-
purchase marketing stimuli as attempts to inform and persuade consumers.
Several processes may underlie the relative large influence of in-store market-
ing instruments on consumer decision making. Being unfamiliar with a store's
layout or being under time pressure affects the proportion of unplanned pur-
chases (Iyer, 1989). In addition, about one-third of unplanned buying has been
attributed to consumers' recognition of new needs while they were shopping
(Park et al., 1989). Also, impulse buying occurs (Rook, 1987), but buying on
impulse does not necessarily constitute 'bad' or irrational behavior (Rook and
Fisher, 1995). Finally, it appears that individuals differ in the extent to which
they plan their purchases (Cobb and Hoyer, 1986; Iyer and Ahlawat, 1987).
One of the in-store-marketing instruments is the product itself, and in the case
of many fast-moving consumer goods, it is the product as packaged. Firms
spend more money on packaging than on advertising and packaging is often the
most distinguished marketing effort (Dickson, 1994). Next to a number of
technical functions like protection of the contents and facilitating distribution,
packaging performs several communication functions. These are, for instance,
brand and product identification, price information and information on ingredi-
ents and product use. However, one can question the effectiveness of packaging
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 273

as a communication function. Several studies suggest that the amount of

attention that consumers give to nondurable goods is limited. Hoyer (1984)
observed that the median purchase time taken for groceries, including coffee,
was 8.5 seconds. Consistent with this finding, Burke et al. (1992) argue that
consumers use strategies that reduce the time spent on buying these products, for
instance, "buy what you bought last time" and "buy the cheapest brand". In
these cases the main task of the product or the product as packaged is to attain
recognition. For products in the maturity stage of the product life cycle,
consumers tend to react positively to price and in-store promotions when
deciding on buying the product (Howard, 1989). Such markets typically show
strong competition with little room for competitive differentiation for products,
thus necessitating manufacturers to seek other ways to persuade consumers to
buy.
The effect of in-store promotions is assumed to be caused by a positive effect
on the evaluation of the product independent of the attitude toward the brand
that already exists (Nedungadi, 1990). It should be recognized here that these
effects can only be observed if the marketing instruments succeed at attracting
attention for the product. Based on the reported effects of price and promotions,
it can be expected that a product's appearance, and in many cases this means the
appearance of its package, will influence the decision process when buying
consumer packaged goods.

1.1. Product appearance and consumer responses

The present study focuses on the communicative functions of a product's

appearance through its packaging rather than on technical packaging functions.
Two recent models describe the influence of product appearance on consumer
responses. In particular, they emphasize the effects of product design on
consumer responses. In his theoretical model of consumer responses to product
form, Bloch (1995) recognizes cognitive responses and affective responses. The
two cognitive responses affected by product design are beliefs about the product
and categorization. Affective responses are both positive and negative aesthetic
responses. Garber's (1995) model emphasizes the effect of product appearance
on consumer attention and on product categorization.
In the present study we try to incorporate these three types of consumer
responses of product appearance: attention given to a product, the way the
product is categorized, and the aesthetic responses that the product appearance
induces. We will not pay attention to the effects of package appearance on
expected product use (see, for instance, Wansink, 1996).
274 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben /Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

1.2. Attention and product appearance

Attention refers to the momentary focusing of information processing capac-

ity on a particular stimulus. Marketing stimuli like brand names and advertise-
ments are important for their ability to attract consumer attention, to maintain
this attention, or both. The ability of stimuli to attract attention is a prerequisite
for information processing. This prerequisite condition accounts for the exis-
tence of marketing stimuli (Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984), but also for in-store
marketing instruments like point-of-purchase stimuli.
Both consumer characteristics and characteristics of stimuli can enhance the
probability that consumers focus their attention on a specific stimulus, or in
other words, show an orienting response towards that stimulus. Individual
characteristics that enhance the probability that a stimulus induces an orienting
response are, among others, motivation and opportunity to perceive the stimulus.
The effect of motivation is shown in a study by Mackenzie et al. (1986) in
which respondents who were asked to pay attention to advertisements indeed
showed more attention to the relevant stimuli. In addition, Ratheswar et al.
(1990) show that stimuli that have relevance for consumers have lower percep-
tual thresholds, and as such induce faster orienting responses. Opportunity to
process brand related information is one of the key factors distinguished in
recent research on advertising effectiveness, in which high opportunity to
process should lead to more favorable brand and product attitudes (Maclnnis and
Jaworski, 1989; Robben and Poiesz, 1993). Regarding the effect of opportunity,
Hrroux et al. (1988) state that increasing experienced time pressure leads to
decreased consumer recall.
Stimulus characteristics that can induce orienting responses are color, size,
motion, the use of complex stimuli and the degree of novelty of the stimulus.
These stimulus characteristics are frequently and abundantly used in advertising
(Stewart and Furse, 1986). The use of these stimulus characteristics in a
marketing environment increases the probability that consumers change or
interrupt existing patterns of choice behavior (Bettman, 1979). Although certain
characteristics of stimuli have a significant absolute impact on individuals, for
example the attention given to a loud noise, the effect of stimuli is often
moderated by the context in which the stimuli appear. Stimuli with character-
istics that contrast with those of other stimuli in the environment are more likely
to attract consumers' attention. It is such perceptually novel stimuli such as the
form of packaged goods or in-store communications that particularly succeed in
distracting consumer shopping routines and interrupting existing patterns of
behavior (Garber, 1995).
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 275

Many marketing stimuli can perform an attention arousing function if they

contain specific characteristics that turn them into novel stimuli. The appearance
of a product can be and often is used as a means to induce novelty. The
appearance of fast-moving consumer goods is in many cases strongly dictated by
their package. Changes in package design will therefore influence whether the
product is seen as novel and consequently will get product attention.
The above analysis leads to the following hypothesis about the relation
between package design and product attention:

Hypothesis 1: The more a package redesign deviates from the existing package
design in a product category, the more product attention will be induced.

].3. Categorization and product appearance

After a first orienting response to a novel stimulus, information processing is

needed for any persuasion effects of a package or brand to occur. Maintaining
attention on the stimulus is a prerequisite for more elaborate information
processing and hence deeper and more permanent persuasion (Petty et al., 1983).
For instance, Celsi and Olson (1988) found that the proportion of brand-directed
and elaborative thoughts decreased as the amount of attention to an ad declined.
Several factors influence the ability of stimuli to maintain attention. Again,
stimulus characteristics like color and vividness have a higher ability to maintain
consumer attention. Vivid information provokes imagery (McGill and Anand,
1989) and so maintains consumer attention. This stimulation of imagery is
thought to be related to the way in which information enhances imagination and
visualization processes in the consumer.
It is obvious that such provoking stimulus characteristics can be found in the
appearance of products. The maintenance of attention by such stimulus charac-
teristics, however, does not necessarily imply adequate or intended information
processing. For example, vivid information enhances elaboration by its ability to
access and retrieve additional information from memory. One drawback of the
attention arousing capacity of certain stimuli is that they may complicate fast
and successful information processing. Some studies have shown that the
expected enhancement in information processing after showing vivid stimuli did
not occur. Meyers-Levy and Peracchio (1995) show that full-color pictures in
advertisements seem to complicate and slow down information processing of the
contents of the advertisement. This deterioration especially occurs when high
resource demands are made to the consumer, that is when the product informa-
tion presented is new. So in contrast to advertisers' intuitions, Meyers-Levy and
276 ZP.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

Peracchio (1995) show that full-color ads may impair the information processing
of other ad elements. Another negative effect can occur because the information
provided to the consumer is discrepant with information already available in
long-term memory. Typically, such problems arise in marketing when con-
sumers confront new products they have never seen before. To explain con-
sumers' reactions to such products, researchers have relied on categorization
processes to drive information processing and evaluation formation.
Categorization is the process by which individuals respond to the variety and
newness of information in their environment (Rosch, 1978). Individuals group
objects and events on the basis of perceived similarity and resemblance. The
outcome of this process is the storage of information into categories. A newly
formed category functions as a framework of knowledge by which individuals
analyze new information. Or, as Cohen and Basu (1987) state, "categorization,
in essence, involves comparison between a target and categorical knowledge."
They consider categorization a fundamental cognitive activity encompassing all
forms of stimulus situations. The consumer and economic psychology literatures
widely recognize that consumers categorize products and use so-called products
categories (e.g., Bloem and Groenland, 1995). Categorization enhances informa-
tion processing efficiency as well as cognitive stability. The categorization of
knowledge allows us to identify novel items or events, respond to them in terms
of class membership rather than their often irrelevant uniqueness, draw infer-
ences about features, and make causal or evaluative judgments. It is also for
such reasons that categorization theory is important in studying consumer
responses to new products. To understand the relationship between categoriza-
tion processes and the evaluation of new products, we first discuss how new
information about stimuli in general is categorized.
Several studies have found that the degree to which information is discrepant
from category expectations affects information processing strategies. For exam-
ple, Mervin and Rosch (1981) show that individuals categorize less representa-
tive members of a category less accurately. Research also shows that the more
typical a stimulus is, the more quickly people respond to the question whether it
belongs to a certain category (Snelders et al., 1992). This time effect is
explained by the idea that more typical stimuli elucidate the strongest associa-
tions with a category, and therefore are retrieved from memory most quickly
(Rosch, 1978).
The literature has shown several distinct effects of product categorization on
consumer preference, one of which is that typicality strongly relates to prefer-
ence. Hekkert and Snelders (1995) discuss the literature on 'preference for
prototypes' by referring to Whitfield and Slatter (1979), who report evidence for
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 277

the effect in several studies. More specifically, consumers prefer those products
that are most typical for a product category (Barnes and Ward, 1995; Barsalou,
1985; Loken and Ward, 1990; Nedungadi and Hutchinson, 1985). According to
Alba and Hutchinson (1987), consumers will choose a typical product in
situations where they are insufficiently motivated to compare brands. They rely
on their product knowledge and choose the typical brand, which is easier to
recall. Other explanations for the typicality or preference effect reside in the idea
that a more typical product is also better known (Loken and Ward, 1990). A
second idea is that the best product will become the prototype in the market. The
best product according to Barsalou (1985) is the product that best fits the goal
that the consumer has in mind when using the product. According to Ward and
Loken (1987), the best product is the product with the best set of salient
attributes. Some studies, however, show important exceptions to the typicality or
preference relationship. Ward and Loken (1987) found that consumers seeking
variety, prestige or scarcity negatively valued typicality. In such cases, product
uniqueness instead of product typicality will drive consumer preference.
Studies that focus on the way in which consumers evaluate new or discrepant
stimuli show that the categorization construct can give insight in how consumers
process new product information. Consumers can use different strategies to
categorize (discrepant) information. First, they can try to assimilate the new
stimulus into an existing category. Assimilation can occur only when a stimulus
is perceived to be more or less consistent with expectations and contains only
mildly discrepant information. Other strategies are subtyping, the process of
creating a subcategory, and the strategy of forming a new category. These two
strategies occur when the level of discrepancy in the stimulus is high. According
to Rosch (1978), the time needed to categorize stimuli and the uncertainty
experienced are related to the methods that individuals choose for handling the
information displayed by or inferred from (discrepant) stimuli. Mervin and
Rosch (1981) show that in those cases where new information is mildly
discrepant and so can be assimilated within an existing category, speed of
processing and experienced certainty are high relative to those instances where
new information is very discrepant.
Ozanne et al. (1992) studied the effect of different degrees of discrepancy on
time used to categorize stimuli and experienced uncertainty. They used verbal
product descriptions as stimuli. Their results show an N-shaped relationship
between the time spent on searching stimulus information and the degree of
stimulus discrepancy. A similar effect was found between the experienced
uncertainty and the degree of discrepancy of the stimulus. These effects occur
because new information that is congruent with existing category expectations
278 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

can be quickly and successfully assimilated in an already existing category.

Highly incongruent product information deviates so strongly from existing
category expectations that the stimulus can be disregarded quickly and with high
certainty as a member of the product category. New information that has
medium incongruency, however, has to be processed in detail and longer to
determine whether the new product belongs to the category. Such cases will
typically show higher levels of remaining uncertainty about the process.
Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) used the differences in consumer informa-
tion processing strategies when handling information with different levels of
incongruity to explain the relationship between product newness and product
evaluations. They elaborated on Mandler's (1982) suggestion that "the very
process of responding to (in)congruity may itself produce affect that contributes
to product evaluations." Mandler proposed that schema congruity, which is the
amount of congruity that exists between a stimulus and consumers' category
expectations, leads to a favorable response because individuals like objects that
conform to expectations. This idea seems at first to correspond to the relation-
ship between typicality and preference reported earlier. However, stimuli with a
high schema congruity are well known but are inconsequential in the sense of
stimulating information processing. Hence, they will prompt limited cognitive
elaboration at best. A different scenario occurs when individuals encounter
schema incongruity. According to Mandler (1982), such incongruities are inter-
esting and often positively valued by individuals, thereby leading to more
positive responses than congruent stimuli. The novelty of the incongruent
information increases arousal and greater cognitive elaboration. This relationship
between the degree of schema incongruity and the degree of arousal follows an
A-shaped curve (Berlyne, 1960), with moderate levels of arousal inducing the
highest preference in individuals. High levels of incongruity will also induce
high cognitive elaboration but the inability to resolve this discrepancy will lead
to frustration and to lower evaluations. Meyers-Levy and Tybout's (1989)
results support Mandler's (1982) idea that moderate schema incongruity en-
hances stimulus evaluation.

1.3.1. Conceptual uersus perceptual information

The studies reported in the consumer literature typically concern the way
consumers process conceptually discrepant information as is, for instance, done
in studies involving advertising copy. However, the marketing environment is
replete with information that is discrepant on a perceptual level. Relevant
examples of such perceptually deviating stimuli are, for instance, new package
designs. We draw on the body of knowledge accumulated in research on
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben /Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 279

conceptual categorization, and more specifically on Mandler's (1982) notion that

moderate incongruity enhances stimulus evaluation, to explain consumer evalua-
tions of new product packages. We assume here that the new product is not
preferred for reasons of prestige or scarcity, a condition that impacts the
preference for unique new products (see, e.g., Verhallen and Robben, 1994).
This analysis leads to Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 2: An N-shaped relationship exists between the discrepancy of new

product packages in a product category with the existing package and the
evaluation of the product.

2. Method

2.1. Participants, procedure, and design

In the study reported below, 144 female respondents participated. They were
selected from the departmental Product Evaluation Laboratory research panel
that consists of 791 households from the Delft neighborhood. Members of this
panel have volunteered to regularly participate in scientific research. Their ages
varied from 25 to 82, with a mean age of 47.5 years. The investigation took 40
to 50 minutes, and the participants received a compensation of Dfl. 12.50. The
present study was part of a larger research study involving several evaluation
studies of consumer goods. Through their previous participation, all respondents
were familiar with this multiresearch setting.
Participants took part individually and completed two main tasks, an evalua-
tion task and a typicality task. Task order varied randomly among the partici-
pants. During the evaluation task, they completed a questionnaire with the
standard coffee package in front of them. At a certain point in that question-
naire, they were to request a new package (one of the experimental packages,
see below) from the research assistant and evaluate that package in the remain-
der of the questionnaire. In the typicality task, participants saw all experimental
packages. They indicated the least deviating and the most deviating packages as
compared to the standard package. Both packages were then placed opposite
each other on a large table thus forming the anchors of a deviation scale.
Participants then placed the other packages between both anchors at distances
that represented the extent of deviation from the standard package. Next, they
used a cardboard arrow to indicate the line of demarcation between packages
280 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

that they still considered to belong to the category of acceptable coffee packages
and those that were unacceptable. Participants also expressed these differences
numerically in distances from the standard package. Finally, the packages were
presented to the participants in random order, and they rank ordered those on
personal preference.
To check participants' ideas about the goals of the study, all participants
evaluated the research study with a research assistant before they left the
laboratory. They received a written debriefing stating the research goals and the
rationalization of the procedure used, and an envelope containing their monetary
compensation.

2.2. Independent variables

2.2.1. Manipulated variables

Form and color of coffee packaging were manipulated in a 2 X 3 between-
subjects full-factorial design. Form had two levels: the standard package form
(rectangular) or a moderate deviation (cube). ~ Color had three levels: standard
(red), a moderate deviation (part orange, part red), and a strong deviation
(orange). Deviations in the packages represent deviations from the typical
package design in the category of ground coffee. The packages contained the
main distinguishing graphical elements such as the brand name and the logo of
the original package. Each cell in the design was represented by a unique,
three-dimensional package. The cell characterized by standard form and stan-
dard color contained a replica of the original coffee package so that its execution
was identical to those of the experimentally manipulated packages. Like the
original package, all packages weighed 250 grams. The original coffee package
('Douwe Egberts roodmerk') is the package of the best known and highly
valued coffee brand in the Netherlands (Stroeker and Parker Brady, 1995). We
opted for the product category ground coffee since in the Netherlands coffee is
not a scarce product or a product that enhances social prestige. We therefore
expect that the preference for members of this product category will probably
follow the rule that prototypicality induces preference rather than the rule that
preference follows from the perceived uniqueness of the product.

Originally, the experiment also contained a third condition of form, namely strong deviation as represented
by a pyramid-shaped package. Over three-quarters of the participants indicated that this package was
completely unacceptable to them. This condition was subsequently dropped, thus reducing the sample by
one-third (N = 96).
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 281

2.2.2. Evaluation of deviation

Participants indicated the extent to which each package deviated from the
original package by rank ordering the packages in increasing deviation. The
least deviating package received a score of '1', the most deviating package a
score of '6'.

2.3. Dependent variables

2.3.1. Attention of Package and Evaluation of Package

Participants answered six five-point items that assessed the attention arousing
value of the package (for color of the package, form of the package, and
package as a whole: 'inconspicuous-conspicuous' and 'does not draw atten-
tion-draws attention') (or = 0.79). Three five-point semantic differential-type
statements assessed participants' evaluation of the package as a whole ( ' u g l y -
beautiful', 'badly finished-very well finished', and 'does not confer quality-
confers quality') ( a = 0.71). Higher scores on these summated scales indicated
more attention aroused by the package and a more positive evaluation of the
package, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Subjective experience variables

All analyses reported below included only those participants who indicated on
the postexperimental questionnaire that they were familiar with the brand under
study and that they had bought this brand in the past. 2 In the postexperimental
questionnaire participants gave their subjective impressions of the experimental
conditions to which they were exposed. Five-point rating scales assessed both
participants' perceptions of the form and color deviations in the experiment in a
'totally disagree-totally agree' format. They indicated their agreement with the
item "The form (for the other item: color) of the new package resembles that of
the old package." A one-way analysis of variance showed a significant effect
for color (F(2,92) = 13.7, p < 0.0001); a t-test showed a significant effect for
form (t(62) = 11.0, p < 0.001) (see Table 1). The entries in Table 1 show that
the standard packaging form and color are evaluated as closely resembling those

2 This p r o c e d u r e limited the sample to N = 66.

282 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

Table 1
Subjective experiences of experimental manipulations
Standard Moderate deviation Strong deviation
New form resembles old one 4.61 (0.96) 1.75 (1,08) NA
New color resembles old one 3.64 (1.50) 3.48 (1,27) 2.26 (1.56)

Entries are means on a scale from '1' 'totally disagree' to '5' "totally agree'. Standard deviations are within
parentheses. NA means not applicable.

of the old package. The evaluation of the moderate and strong deviations
indicate perceived dissimilarity with the original package. These results show
that the manipulations of form and color have been successful in that they
induced the intended subjective experiences in the participants.

3.2. Testing the hypotheses

To test Hypothesis 1, we calculated a regression analysis to test whether the

extent of the package's deviation and the evaluation of the package linearly
influenced the attention value of the package. 3 To do so, we first scaled the
rank order data of the evaluation of deviation variable with the SPSS Proximities
(SPSS, 1990) procedure to arrive at a metric independent variable. This scaling
yielded a unidimensional solution, and we substituted the stimulus coordinates
from the scaling analysis for the original rank order data. The resulting
regression equation on the attention value of the package was significant
(F(2,56) = 3.8, p < 0.05, adjusted R 2 = 0.11) with a significant regression
coefficient for the evaluation of deviation (B = 0.34, SE B = 0.13, t = 2.64,
p < 0.01), but not for the evaluation of the package (B = 0.19, SE B = 0.14,
t = 1.42, n.s.). This result supports Hypothesis 1.
To test the second hypothesis, which specified the impact of the evaluation of
the deviation on the evaluation of the package as an • -shaped relationship, we
calculated a quadratic regression analysis. The resulting regression equation was
significant (F(2,59) = 6.1, p < 0.01, adjusted R 2 = 0.14) with a significant
regression coefficient for the evaluation of deviation (B = 0.27, SE B = 0.12,
t = 2.3, p < 0.01) and for the squared evaluation of deviation ( B -- - 0 . 3 1 , SE
B = 0.12, t = 2.6, p < 0.05). The regression coefficients indicated that both the
linear and the squared evaluation of the deviation are necessary to explain the

3 Two outliers were detected that distorted the solutions for the regression equations, and were subsequently
removed from the analyses.
 J.P.L. Schoorrnans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 283

Attention

-1"
Evaluation

-2"

-3
-2 -1' 0 1'

Package design deviation score

Fig. 1. The impact of package deviation on attention aroused and package evaluation. Note: All scores are
Z-scores.

evaluation of the package. The negative sign for the coefficient for the squared
evaluation shows that the curve is indeed a hyperbola. This result supports
Hypothesis 2.
Fig. 1 shows the empirically established effects after standardization of all
variables. Attention appears to rise monotonically with increasing deviation,
suggesting further support for Meyers-Levy and Tybout's (1989) findings. Like
Ozanne et al. (1992) found and predicted, evaluation is curvilinearly related to
increasing deviation, and the evaluation of a new stimulus is optimal given a
moderate deviation (point A in Fig. 1). These effects show the positive value of
changing a package's appearance. The increased attention may enter the brand
into an individual's attention set, whereas the positive evaluation may lead the
brand into the consideration set. Both these effects perform necessary functions
in the hierarchy of consumer choice (Roberts and Lattin, 1991). Between points
A and B in Fig. 1 we witness the onset of the differential influence of increasing
deviation on attention and evaluation. Attention rises linearly with the package's
deviation but evaluation starts to decrease. The area beyond point B suggests
that there is a trade-off between increased attention and a diminishing evaluation
of the brand. Here, it is relevant what the goals are that a manufacturer wants to
achieve. From the point where both effects intersect onwards, the attention value
of the increasing deviation still increases, but the evaluation of that deviation
284 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

may diminish below the starting evaluation of the standard package. 4 In that
case, a negative condition occurs in which consumers may be aware of the
package but have a negative attitude towards it.

4. Conclusions and implications

A product category can be defined as a group of products that share several

similarities that are relevant for the consumer. What is a relevant ground for
categorization is subject of yet unresolved academic discussions. A first issue
concerns the distinction between fixed and stable common categories that are
more or less context independent, and flexible content dependent ad hoc or
goal-oriented categories (Barsalou, 1985). A second issue concerns categoriza-
tion on perceptual and categorization on conceptual grounds (Cheridan and
Jones, 1991; Cohen and Basu, 1987); also referred to as the use of sensory and
generic-knowledge categories (Medin and Barsalou, 1987).
Products or brands can be put into a category on the basis of their conceptual
similarity. For instance, departing from the assumption of high quality, expen-
sive cars are most likely grouped into the category of luxury cars. Products or
brands can also be categorized on basis of perceptual similarity. For instance, at
least in the Netherlands, rectangular packages with specific dimensions are
likely to be categorized as packages of ground coffee. In consumer research
settings, most effort is dedicated to study effects of different forms of informa-
tion presentation on generic knowledge categories. Those studies typically
employ an analytic kind of information processing, often even using an informa-
tion display board task in the experiment (Ozanne et al., 1992). Few consumer
research studies have addressed the question how information processing based
on perceptual differences or similarities, affect categorization of products. The
present study shows that perceptual differences also affect product categoriza-
tion.
From a marketing point of view it is important to see that consumers
indicated that package deviations can be too strong and, in their perception, even
lead to an unacceptable package. Unacceptability in this case led to the

4 There was a significant effect of task order on the evaluation of the package. The evaluation results
reported for the analysis of Hypothesis 2 and in Fig. 1 were less pronounced for participants who first did the
typicality task. However, the general picture did stay the same. We think this effect occurred because having
viewed all experimental packages diminished the extremity of the experimental package in the subsequent
evaluation task. Participants were already familiar with that stimulus, so there was a smaller probability of an
extreme evaluation.
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 285

exclusion of the package as a representative of the product category coffee. In

other words, although we succeeded in getting the highest level of attention with
the strong form deviation, this particular shape pushed the package outside the
regions of acceptability for the category of ground coffee as perceived by the
participants in the present study (see, e.g., Garber, 1995). This region of
acceptability is restricted to the relevant subjective product category, which in
turn represents current perceptions about category and constituent brands.
According to Lee (1995), if the product already enjoys a favorable image, it is
wise to avoid a package redesign that pushes the product outside the acceptabil-
ity regions. Then, the incongruity between the existing and the new product has
to be minimized to avoid that a transfer of positive affects from the existing to
the modified product is inhibited. When not congruity but change in the
consumers' product perceptions is the issue, package designs should deviate and
stand out from the shelves. Such an issue might arise, for example, for a brand
that needs revitalization and a corresponding change in attitude toward the
brand, or when a product category faces the introduction of a new product, such
as a new brand of ground coffee. In those instances, the package can change
consumers' perceptions of the product.
According to the present study, both the attention drawing and evaluation
enhancing properties of the package of an established market leader in ground
coffee appear together. However, as Fig. 1 shows, these effects occur in two
different ways. Our results indicate that a trade-off has to be made by manufac-
turers and package designers between the ability of modified packages to draw
attention and to avoid negative package evaluations of such packages. Moderate
package deviations of modified packages appeared to give the best trade-off
with regard to drawing attention and creating favorable consumer evaluations of
a well-established brand.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marja Bakker and Irene Herbers for their help in
carrying out the reported research, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful and
stimulating comments.

References
Alba, J.W. and LW. Hutchinson, 1987. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13,
411-454.
286 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287

Barnes, J.W. and J.C. Ward, 1995. Typicality as a determinant of affect in retail environments. Advances in
Consumer Research 22, 204-209.
Barsalou, L.W., 1985. Ideals, central tendency, and the frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded
structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 11,
629-649.
Berlyne, D.E., 1960. Conflict, Curiosity, and Arousal. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bettman, J.R., 1979. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 59,
16-29.
Bloem, J.G. and E.A.G. Groenland, 1995. 'The prototypicality of the saving concept for consumers'. In: E.
Nyhus and S.V. Troye (Eds.), Frontiers in Economic Psychology. Bergen, Norway: NHH, pp. 30-43..
Burke, R.E., B.A. Harlam, B.E. Kahn and L.M. Lodish, 1992. Comparing dynamic consumer choice in real
and computer-simulated environments. Journal of Consumer Research 19, 71-82.
Celsi, R.L. and J.C. Olson, 1988. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal
of Consumer Research 15, 210-224.
Cheridan, J. and M. Jones, 1991. Some processes in brand categorizing; why one person's noise is another
person's music. Advances in Consumer Research 18, 77-83.
Cobb, C.J. and W.D. Hoyer, 1986. Planned versus impulse purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing 62,
384-409.
Cohen, J. and K. Basu, 1987. Alternative models of categorization: Towards a contingent processing
framework. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 455-472.
Dickson, P.R., 1994. Marketing management. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.
Garber, L.L., 1995. The package appearance in choice. Advances in Consumer Research 22, 653-661.
Greenwald, A.G. and C. Leavitt, 1984. Audience involvement in advertising: four levels. Journal of Consumer
Research 11, 581-592.
Hekkert, P. and H.M.J.J. Snelders, 1995. Prototypicality as an explanatory concept in aesthetics: A reply to
Boselie (1991). Empirical Studies of the Arts 13, 149-160.
H4roux, L., M. Laroche and K.L. McGown, 1988. Consumer product label information processing: An
experiment involving time pressure and distraction. Journal of Economic Psychology 9, 195-214.
Hoyer, W.D., 1984. An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product.
Journal of Consumer Research 11,822-829.
Howard, J., 1989. Consumer Behavior in marketing strategy. London: Prentice-Hall.
Iyer, E.S., 1989. Unplanned purchasing: Knowledge of shopping environment and time pressure. Journal of
Retailing 65, 40-57.
lyer, E.S. and S.S. Ahlawat, 1987. Deviations from a shopping plan: When and why do consumers not buy as
planned. Advances in Consumer Research 14, 246-249.
Lee, M., 1995. Effects of schema congruity and involvement on product evaluations. Advances in Consumer
Research 22, 210-216.
Loken, B. and J.C. Ward, 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality.
Journal of Consumer Research 17, 111-126.
Mackenzie, S.B., R.L. Lutz and G.E. Belch., 1986. The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research 23, 130-143.
Mandler, G., 1982. 'The structure of value: accounting for taste'. In: M.S. Clark and S.T. Fiske (Eds.) Affect
and Cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie Symposium (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McGill, A.L. and P. Anand, 1989. The effect of vivid attributes on the evaluation of alternatives: The role of
differential attention and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 188-196.
Maclnnis, D.J. and B.J. Jaworski, 1989. Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative
framework. Journal of Marketing 53, 1-23.
Medin, D.L. and L.W. Barsalou, 1987. 'Categorization processes and categorical perception'. In: S. Harnad
(Ed.), Categorical Perception. New York: Cambridge University Press, 455-490.
 J.P.L. Schoormans, H.S.J. Robben / Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) 271-287 287

Mervin, C.B. and E. Rosch, 1981. 'Categorization of natural objects'. In: M.R. Rozenzweig and L. Porter
(Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology 32. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, pp. 89-115.
Meyer, M., 1988. Attention shoppers! Marketing and Media Decisions 23, 67.
Meyers-Levy, J. and L.A. Peracchio, 1995. Understanding the effects of color: How the correspondence
between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research 22, 121-138.
Meyers-Levy, J. and A.M. Tybout, 1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of
Consumer Research 16, 39-54.
Nedungadi, P., 1990. Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 263-276.
Nedungadi, P. and J. Hutchinson, 1985. The prototypicality of brands: Relationships with brand awareness,
preference, and usage. Advances in Consumer Research 12, 498-503.
Ozanne, J.L., M. Brucks and D. Grewal, 1992. A study of information search behavior during the
categorization of new products. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 452-463.
Park, C.W., E. lyer, and D.C. Smith, 1989. The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping
behavior: The role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer Research
15, 422-432.
Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo and D.W. Schumann, 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effective-
ness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10, 135-146.
Ratheswar, S., D. Mick and G. Reitinger, 1990. Selective attention in consumer information processing: the
role of chronically accessible attributes. Advances in Consumer Research 17, 547-553.
Robben, H.S.J. and T.B.C. Poiesz, 1993. The operationalization of motivation, capacity and opportunity to
process and advertising image. European Advances in Consumer Research 1, 160-167.
Roberts, J.H. and J.M. Lattin, 1991. Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition.
Journal of Marketing Research 28, 429-440.
Rosch, E., 1978. 'Principles of categorization'. In: E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Recognition and
Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.27-48.
Rook, D.W., 1987. The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 189-199.
Rook, D.W. and R.J. Fisher, 1995. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research 22, 305-313.
Snelders, H.J.M.M., G. Hussein, S.E.G. Lea and P. Webley, 1992. The polymorphous concept of money.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 71-92.
Solomon, M.R., 1996. Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stewart, D.W. and D.H. Furse, 1986. Effective TV Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials. Lexington,
MA: Lexington.
Stroeker, N, and R. Parker Brady, 1995. Onderzoek koffiemerken [An investigation of Dutch coffee brands].
Nieuwstribune, Week 48.
Verhallen, T.M.M. and H.S.J. Robben, 1994. Scarcity and preference: An experiment on unavailability and
product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 15, 315-331.
Weinberg, P. and W. Gottwald, 1982. Impulsive consumer behavior as a result of emotions. Journal of
Business Research 10, 43-87.
Wansink, B., 1996. Can package size accelerate usage volume? Journal of Marketing 60(3), 1-14.
Ward, J.C. and B. Loken, 1987. The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison: An
exploratory test. Advances in Consumer Research 15, 55-61.
W~irneryd, K.E. and K. Nowak, 1967. Mass communication and advertising. Stockholm: The Economic
Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics.
Whitfield, T.W.A. and P.E. Slatter, 1979. The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice
in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology 70, 65-75.