The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-0833.htm
JIMA
9,2
262
Received 11 April 2016
Revised 13 February 2017
3 April 2017
Accepted 13 July 2017
Journal of Islamic Marketing
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2018
pp. 262-282
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1759-0833
DOI 10.1108/JIMA-04-2016-0030
Consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging
and impulse buying
Considering consumers’ mood and time
pressure as moderating variables
Manijeh Bahrainizad and Azadeh Rajabi
Department of Business Management, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the impact of consumers’ perception of usability of product
packaging on impulse buying in terms of its shape, color, material, label and size.
Design/methodology/approach – A structural equation model was used for testing the conceptual
model. The present research is an applied research and a descriptive survey. By using non-probability
sampling, 388 customers of different malls in Shiraz City (Iran) were selected and surveyed by using
questionnaires.
Findings – Results showed that appropriate material, shape and labeling of packaging have a
significant positive influence on consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging, while color and
size of packaging do not have an impact on consumers’ perception of a product usability. Moreover,
results showed that consumers’ perception of the usability of packaging has a significant positive
influence on impulse buying. Consumers’ mood and time pressure had also positive influence on impulse
buying, but their moderating role in their influence of consumers’ perception on impulse buying decision
was not supported.
Research limitations/implications – Although this research contributes to the product management
literature, it has some limitations. For instance, the research model was tested in only one city in Iran (Shiraz).
Besides, it is specific to only two product categories and concentrates mainly on consumers’ mood and time
pressure as moderating factors.
Originality/value – To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first research which examines the
structural relationship of packaging elements on consumers’ perception of reusability of packaging and
impulse buying while considering consumers’ moods and time pressure as moderator variables.
Keywords Packaging, Impulse buying, Time pressure, Packaging usability, Consumers’ mood
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The identification of consumers’ behavior is a common goal of all companies. Marketers try
to stimulate consumer feelings when they aim to influence their decision-making. As
impulse buying is the latent half of a consumer’s behavior, skillful salesmen would use
different stimulants to increase their sales. The studies conducted in this field show that a
high percentage of purchases is done as a result of impulse decisions rather than preplanned
choices. At present, relatively 70 per cent of purchase decisions are made at the point-of-
purchase (Hulten and Vanyushyn, 2011), and 30-50 per cent of all consumers’ purchases are
impulse purchases (Tariq Khan et al., 2015). However, an increase in impulse buying might
have adverse psychological impacts on consumers. This happens because of two reasons.
First, they spend a lot of money on buying products, which leads to impulse buying, while
they have uncertainty about the product quality and function and consider it a risk to buy Product
the product (Liang, 2012); second, consumers think that he/she would receive negative packaging and
attitudes/responses by other people as a result of buying the product. According to previous
studies (Roke, 1987), relatively 80 per cent of respondents spoke about negative results of
impulse
impulse buying and regretted shopping in this manner (BATI and ATICI, 2010) buying
(Harmancioglu et al., 2009). Consequently, consumers try to control their impulse buying
tendencies because they consider this behavior to be wrong in a normative way and do not
like to be called naive by others. Therefore, it is necessary that we look for a solution to 263
decrease these negative feelings associated with impulse buying. Many planners in
marketing research companies have diagnosed several profits in Islamic countries. Muslims’
beliefs regarding being reworded for their righteous acts (such as saving, waste reduction)
and those related to the other world have led them to certain behaviors (Wilson, 2013).
Impulse buying takes place when a purchaser browses in a store without knowing exactly
what he/she is looking for. In these cases, visual attraction is necessary for sales. Packaging
is one of the main factors of a product in purchase decision-making at the point-of-purchase
(Hollywood et al., 2013). A growth in point-of-purchase decisions increases communication
potential of food products packaging (Wang, 2013). Packaging of a product is a combination
of different elements, each of which can be effective in creation of a specific image in
consumers’ minds. This is related to impulse buying, which is a common phenomenon all
over the world (Lee and Kacen, 2008; Dawson and Kim, 2010; Hulten and Vanyushyn, 2011).
On one hand, retailers like to increase the number of impulse purchases and work on store
design, products display and packaging options to attract shoppers’ attention (Lee and
Kacen, 2008). On the other hand, consumers enjoy purchases, but reduction in their financial
abilities and environmental issues create negative feelings, which act like barriers against
their act of shopping. An important problem is that environmental issues and waste is
resulted from numerous purchases of products with different packaging by consumers.
Would some customers consider impulse buying appropriate especially in special
conditions? Under which circumstances does impulse buying behavior allow consumers to
justify their impulse buying behavior and social pressure for purchase decision-making?

The importance of the research

Studies in the field of impulse buying mainly deal with factors which affect this kind of
behavior. Identifying factors that affect impulse buying is important from different aspects.
This is especially very important in markets where the majority of population are Muslims.
In fact, morality and Islamic values have their impact on all aspects of individual and social
life of Muslims, including production, consumption and exchange of goods and services.
This needs to be considered in commercial activities in many communities. In such markets,
marketers should bear in mind that their actions would not conflict with moral and religious
standards of the community. Because in impulse buying, people buy things that are not
needed at that time, they seem to be acting against certain Islamic values. According to
Islamic teachings, waste is prohibited because of the lack of resources. This is according to
some Quranic verses, such as verse 31 of Sura AL-Araf, which reads,[1] “O sons of Adam
attaire yourselves at every time of worship; eat and drink, but do not be wasteful, for God
does not like prodigals”. In other verses such as (42/Ghafir)[2] one reads, “The transgressors
have been considered, as inmates of hall”.
On the other hand, in Islam, respect for nature is emphasized, and such rules and
approaches in the context of verses and traditions are clearly mentioned. According to
traditions, Muslims must know the environment, trust God and keep and maintain it as their
responsibility. The Messenger of Allah said too, “do not cut down trees except for an
JIMA emergency” (Javadi Amoli, 2013). Many individuals and practitioners in commercial area
9,2 request products that not only fulfills their needs and wants but also are in accordance to the
principles accepted in Islam (Wilson et al., 2013). According to Islam’s emphasis on these
two aspects, the results of this study could be of significant contribution in an Islamic
society. With regard to impulse buying in an Islamic community, Nazari and Ghaderi Abed
(2011) investigated factors which affected impulse buying among Iranian consumers. These
264 factors included gender, situational factors (purchase environment, going to shopping alone
and salesperson guidance), marketing mix factors (product, price, place and promotion) and
psychological factors (stimulation, individualism and self-esteem). Mohan et al. (2013) also
investigated the influence of store environment on impulse buying decision. However, most
of studies deal with negative aspects of impulse buying. Because statistics show that about
62 per cent of purchases from supermarkets and 80 per cent of total purchases are impulse
purchases (Sharma et al., 2010; Duarte et al., 2013), spending time for understanding factors
which influence impulse buying is important. Therefore, we look for a solution to reduce
negative aspects of this kind of behavior. One of the solutions could be reusability of
products packaging. This is because the lifetime of many packages is short, and as a result,
waste material will be increased. At present, statistics reveal that ten million of tons of solid
waste material are produced annually all over the world. Waste material produced by
packaging is part of the solid waste materials. Packaging waste materials constitute 1.3
per cent of total amount of waste materials (Zhang and Zhao, 2012). Moreover, more than 40
per cent of product sales price goes to packaging costs. This is true for most products
(Sundar and Noseworthy, 2014). It is clear that a consumer does not want to be harmful to
environment inherently and prefers to have recoverable packaging for products or buy
goods with reusable packages after the product consumption. On the other hand, many
producers and providers of halal products and services are worried about their commercial
failure with regard to the vast competitive arena (Wilson, 2013). So, to create a variety
product will be cause the success of many of these companies. Appropriate design of
reusable packages will eliminate the negative aspect of impulse buying for consumers,
because they would be able to reuse the package and feel good with his/her shopping. A
marketer needs to understand these behaviors and spend his/her marketing budget on
designing effective tactics for a better sale.

Theoretical background
Impulse buying
Impulse buying has been defined as a spontaneous, sudden, complex and hedonic tendency
�
of consumers (Cinjarevi �c, 2010), with little or no evaluation of all accessible information and
choices and little or no consideration of the consequences (Mohan et al., 2013; Parboteeah
et al., 2009) in which decision-making processes’ speed prevents from deliberate
consideration of all information (Shen and Khalifa, 2012). Impulse buying is not conducted
deliberately and thoughtfully (Mohan et al., 2013; Bashar, Ahmad and Wasiq, 2013), because
the individual neither looks for a particular product actively nor has any plan for purchase
(Nazari and Ghaderi Abed, 2011). Factors which influence impulse buying are classified into
two categories: external and internal factors. External factors refer to stimulants which are
used for motivating consumers to make more purchases from retailers, for instance, a
product appearance, display method, advertisement signals and presence of features such as
pleasant music, beautiful color and good ado. Internal factors influence impulse buying
tendency (Beatty and Ferrel, 1998). Impulse purchasers avoid gathering deep processing of
information such as the comparison of products or the decision whether the products worth
buying (Verplanken and Sato, 2011). When a consumer is not familiar with a product, he/she
makes a purchase based on its visual appearance. In this regard, the appearance of Product
packaging can stimulate purchase decision (Van Rompay et al., 2013). packaging and
impulse
Product packaging
Product packaging includes science, art and technology of design and production of a
buying
package for a product. It has three main functions: protection of its contents, provision of
information and differentiation of the product from other products via consumer attraction
(Aghazadeh et al., 2011). Many marketing texts have investigated packaging as a main
265
element of product mix in 4P strategy (Ramdani and Ghorbani, 2012; Wang et al., 2010).
Packaging is the first thing that a customer sees in a store before making a purchase
decision (Rundh, 2013). On average, customers look at 300 items in a minute in a
supermarket. Therefore, packaging must be effective and create a favorable sense alongside
sales promotion (Rundh, 2005).
Packaging form. By form, we mean all two- or three-dimensional spaces which have been
bounded by several lines. Packaging form is an effective method for differentiating because
it can influence consumers’ purchase decision (Banerjee, 2013). In many cases, it is the first
and most memorable thing for a customer who looks at many products (Tiwasing and
Sahachaisaeree, 2010). Diversity of products and competition among producers and
businessmen introduced art into packaging system as packaging shape can show a product
in a more attractive manner (Liu, Tao, and Liu, 2006). It should be mentioned that packaging
shape will improve a product’s attractiveness when it is compatible with product type and
its uses (Clement, 2007).
Packaging color. Color is one of non-verbal signals which is an important phenomenon in
market. It is made up of the following dimensions: contrast/harmony, warm/cool and color
intensity (Tiwasing and Sahachaisaeree, 2010). Color can be remembered better than any
other element and makes a product look attractive; therefore, selection of color for a
packaging is inevitable (Kauppinen and Luomala, 2010). The fact that designers of
packaging consider a particular color as appropriate for packaging depends largely on the
product which is going to be packed and its uses after purchase. Packages designed for
attraction of customers usually involve diverse and cheerful colors (Marshall et al., 2006).
Packaging material. Glass, paper, metal, plastic and wood are the main materials used in
packaging.
Paper and cardboard packaging. One of the advantages of its use in packaging is that it
is a recyclable material. Because it can be decomposed, it gives less damage to environment.
Besides, the cost of paper and cardboard recovery is low, and it is easier to use printing and
graphical methods on this kind of package compared to other types. Paper and cardboard
packaging are light and can be opened and closed easily (Dixon-Hardy and Curran, 2009).
However, besides these advantages, their disadvantage is that they are not resistant to
moisture and cannot easily be used for packaging food products. Moreover, other materials
are used in their manufacture.
Metal packaging. It is recyclable, reusable and strong. Metal packaging are resistant to
pressure, warmth, frost and impact, and moisture, light, air and pollutants do not permeate
them. Because of having these properties, their contents are more durable than other kinds
of packaging. However, their disadvantage is that in comparison with other materials,
corrosion takes place more rapidly in metal packaging and changes the color, reduces
vitamins of foods and even results in rotting (Mirnezamie Ziaberi, 2002).
Glass packaging. Its main advantage is transparency, which helps the container
contents to be easily seen. This kind of packaging can have different shapes and colors.
Also, these containers keep odor and flavor of their contents well. Besides the fact that
JIMA moisture, air and pollutants cannot permeate through them, they are recyclable and good-
9,2 looking. Contrary to wood, glass and metal can be molten and reused easily. (Dixon-
Hardy and Curran, 2009).
Plastic packaging. Advantages of this kind of packaging include low weight, relatively
appropriate price, ability to be re-formed and high flexibility. Plastic packaging can be
designed specifically for a particular product. Ability to be recycled and reused are
266 advantages, but its disadvantage is that it is easily inflammable. Plastic packaging are not
decomposed easily; however, when they are in touch with food materials in specific
conditions, they may transfer their chemicals to the food materials (Cooper, 2013). Many
studies show that plastic is the best choice for packaging because of its high flexibility
(Singh et al., 2012).
Wooden packaging. Wood has many unique advantages such as ability to ventlate air
and seal water leakage, easy to transport, reusable, inexpensive, color availablity, beautiful
texture and water- and rust-proof features However, it has some disadvantages such as
becoming loose and moldy, getting decayed, changing color change and reduction in
strength/resistance as a result of being exposed to wind, rain and insects (Liu et al, 2006;
Salahshoor and Faiz, 2007). Many studies have shown that wood is an environment-friendly
material for packaging (Lee and lye, 2003); however, wooden packaging has more waste
material than metal and plastic (Dixon-Hardy and Curran, 2009).
Packaging label. Label or ettiquete is a piece of paper of hanging piece or a space on
which the brand, name, information, specifications of a product and the producer are
written/printed. Thus, it is considered the identity of the product (Celia et al., 2011). A label
might be produced and printed separately and then be attached to the packaging, or it may
be attached to a packaging at the time of product manufacture (Rosecky et al., 2003). Most
consumers pay a lot of attention to apparent features, while a small number of them notice
details of labels (Bahrani et al., 2013). In spite of the fact that label is an important resource,
studies show that consumers pay more attention to prices and not much to details of a
product (Banerjee, 2013). For a consumer who always makes purchase to reuse the product’s
packaging, the question is that how label should be used. He/she might prefer to have a
hanging or sticking label so that he/she can remove it easily for reuse.
Size of packaging. The size and shape are important elements of packaging. Different
sizes of packaging can attract consumers with different involvement levels (Silayoi and
Speece, 2004). For instance, for some products with low involvement, low prices are specified
via shrinking their packages and husbandry in costs (distribution costs). Moreover, when
identification of a product quality is difficult, the influence of packaging size is increased
(Underwood, 2003). Other aspects of packaging such as shape, color and material can be
affected by size and volume of packaging and esthetic features (Rundh, 2005). Now, if we
design packages in sizes compatible with golden ratio (a ratio which is beautiful and
attractive for eye), then packaging will seem attractive and can do aggressive or relational
duties well and can work well in attracting customers.

Product disposition
A consumer has basically three choices after using a product: keep the product, abandon it
forever or get rid of it temporarily (Jacoby et al., 1977). For instance, if a consumer wants to
keep a product, he or she can continue using it or make a new use of it or keep it somewhere.
As a product value increases, it is more probable to leave the product in a way that has the
maximum efficiency.
Reusability of product packaging Product
According to studies conducted in USA, 65 million empty plastic dishes enter the packaging and
environment annually, but it takes about 300 years for that the plastic materials to be
decomposed in the environment, besides the fact that they pollute the environment and
impulse
damage the beauty of nature (Yaghbani et al., 2008). In Europe, only 10 per cent of 50 million buying
of tons of used plastic is reused, recycled or incinerated for energy production (Cooper, 2013).
Like many other Asian countries, Iran also suffers from pollution and environmental
problems. Both Iranian Government and people have noticed environmental alarms and 267
crises, which are important challenges for human beings (Daneshpajouh et al., 2013).
Environmental design involves a number of functional elements that should be considered
in a successful environmental strategy. These elements include recyclable designs,
reproducible design (for the case of products which can be mixed), reusable products,
disassembly and disposal products (Tien et al., 2005).

Mood
Mood is an unstable sentimental state which takes place in a particular time or condition
(Sminor and CMowen, 2013). It is classified into positive and negative. Studies show that
when consumers confront an object for the first time, their moods will be effective in the
attitude they form towards that object. Customers who enter a store with a positive mood
have more positive evaluations of the product because they use their feelings as a resource
for decision-making (Furnham and Milner, 2013). However, having a negative mood, he
wants to get away from this negative feeling by purchasing the product. Consumers’ mood
might be the most important psychological condition in stimulation of impulse purchase
(Tariq Khan et al., 2015; Bashar et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2014). Negative feelings influence
self-control negatively, and individuals get entrapped in impulse buying (Herman and
Polivy, 2004).

Time pressure
Time refers to a temporary aspect of a situation. Behavioral changes which take place
during people’s lifetime reduce accessible time. As a result, time pressure frequently affects
shopping decisions. When consumers are in a rush, they might concentrate only on the fact
that what products to buy and from where they get them (Chang et al., 2014). A consumer
may feel more stressed under time pressure and confront purchase risk (Kenhove et al.,
1999). Impulse buying can be used for everyday purchases of foods which took place in time
pressure conditions. Although purchase time is limited for shopping foods, consumers like
to buy products more than that listed on their purchase lists (Hulten and Vanyushyn, 2011).
Thus, time pressure has a negative impact on impulse buying because consumers feel
disappointed as a result of the absence of time for purchase or browsing (Hong Xiao and
Nicholson, 2013). When consumers have more accessible time, it is less likely to have
impulse purchases (Tariq Khan et al., 2015).

Background overview
Chang et al. (2014) conducted a research with two goals:
(1) They aimed to investigate direct and indirect effects of apparel store
environmental characteristics and consumers’positive emotional responses on the
environment on impulse buying behavior.
(2) They aslo aimed to examine how situational variables interact with consumers’
positive emotional responses in influencing impulse buying behavior.
JIMA The results of their study showed that consumers’ positive feelings influence their impulse
9,2 buying behavior. Furthermore, store environment might stimulate impulse buying more
than time and money availability. Money availability and task definition moderated the
relationship between consumers’ positive emotional responses and impulse buying
behavior, but time availability did not.
Ting Wei et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between harmony of the color and
268 design of packaging and its connection with psychological responses by using the semantic
differential method. The results showed that color harmony of fruit juice packages is highly
correlated with observers’ expectation of quality and liking of juice products. Furthermore,
visual evaluation of the freshness of a product is affected by lightness and chroma of a
product packaging. Finally, harmony principle of color matches a context in which colors
are used.
Koenig-Lewis et al. (2014) investigated feelings of consumers and their logical
evaluations of environment-friendly packaging, evaluation benefits of consumption of
environment-friendly products and intention for changing purchase behavior. Their results
showed that benefits perceived of environment-friendly packaging have indirect impacts on
purchase intention. Moreover, positive and negative feelings stimulated by environment-
friendly packaging (such as love for environment, guilt and regret) influence purchase
intention.
Hubert et al. (2013) investigated whether individual differences in tendency for impulse
buying influence unconscious nervous response of perception of a product packaging or not.
Their results showed that in comparison with neutral packaging (without good appearance),
attractive packaging has a stronger relationship with impulse buying. Attractive packaging
can stimulate impulse buying even when consumers do not have any program for buying
that product.
Mihik and Cresan (2010) showed that designing products, style of products display,
attractive colors, odor and music with a good mood can attract purchasers’ attention and
stimulate their impulse buying. They add that designers of packaging of products play
important roles in stimulation of impulse buying.
Buelow et al. (2010) investigated to what level consumers pay attention to recycle
capability information on packaging labels and therefore express environment-friendly
behaviors. They distributed 800 packaging among four target groups. Their results showed
that in spite of good intensions of consumers, their knowledge about the material of
packaging and its labeling, and therefore, the behavior appropriate to it, is very weak.
Goncalves and Ricardo (2008) conducted a research on the relationship between two
dimensions of packaging, i.e. color and shape. They found out that from consumers’
viewpoint, each of the color ranges is compatible with special geometric shapes. For
instance, if cool colors such as green and blue are accompanied by more stable geometric
shapes such as square and rectangle, the consumers’ understanding of product quality will
increase and purchase possibility would be higher.
Silayoi and Speece conducted a research on Thailand consumers in 2004 to investigate
the influence of the elements of packaging on purchase decision. They classified packaging
elements into two visual categories: shape and size. Their results showed that color, design,
shape and packaging size influence purchase decision, and this influence is different
depending on accessible time and involvement level. When a consumer does not have
enough time, visual elements have more impacts on purchase, and when a customer has
enough time, information elements have more impacts. Moreover, information elements
have more impacts on purchase decision contrary to visual packaging elements in high
involvement levels.
 In a research on customers of Refah Chain Stores in Hamedan City, Yousefi Fard et al. Product
(2013) investigated and ranked factors that affect impulse buying behavior. They identified packaging and
four factors that influenced impulse buying behavior: individual factors (income, age,
impulse
education level, gender, enjoying purchase and tendency to purchase), situational factors
(money availability, time availability, search in store, store environment, purchasing alone buying
and guidance of salesperson), psychological factors (self-esteem and sensation-seeking) and
product-related factors (product type, marketing promotion, price and design and
269
packaging). Their results showed that psychological factors rank first and product-related
factors rank last in terms of effectiveness.
Aghazadeh et al (2011) demonstrated the influence of product packaging on purchase
decision. They considered consumer involvement level and time pressure as moderator
variables. Their results showed that under time pressure conditions, packaging variables
(visual and information variables) have different rankings effects. In such conditions, visual
variables such as color, shape and size are more important than informational elements.
Respectively, in individuals with high levels of involvement, informational elements are
most important, while for individuals with low levels of involvement, the ranking of
packaging elements are size, color, information, technology, images and shape.
Faiz and Salahshoor (2010) investigated the influence of golden ratio on the
attractiveness of packaging. According to their definition, golden ratio in a packaging is a
size which is attractive to eye. Their research showed that golden ratio can increase
attractiveness of product packaging and make it attractive to every individual regardless of
age and gender.
Arefi and Nekoie (2010) conducted a research on the influence of two visual elements of
packaging, color and size, on symbolic and functional brand associations. Their results
showed that visual elements of packaging are variables which can be effective in creation
and transfer of a particular image. They approved that color and shape of packaging are
elements for product differentiation and formation of personality and beliefs about brands.
One of these beliefs is reusability of packaging (Arefi and Nekoie, 2010).
According to Esmailpour and Rajabi (2016) the environment-friendly attitude of
consumers impacts positively on their sensitivity toward recyclability of the product
packaging, and the harmonization of packaging has positive effect on consumers’ perception
about reusability of product packaging.
The results of the study done by Ahmad and Ahmad (2015) revealed that consumers
accept the product after they bought these amazing and attractive packaged products. In
fact, this study cannot show that it is an equal relationship between appealing packaging
design and exciting product quality. Yet, their results supported the idea about attractive
packaging design that shows that the product has valuable quality. Afshan Azam (2016)
found that purchase intention of halal packaged food produced by non-Muslim
manufacturers is influenced by halal awareness, Islamic brand orientation and product
ingredients. Clearly, the results of this study demonstrated that in Islamic markets, inserting
halal certification on product packaging is a contributing factor in sales promotion.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Research background review shows that most previous studies examined the effects of each
of packaging elements on consumers’ perception of packaging reusability and the influence
of consumers’ perception of it on impulse buying; but, few studies have examined the
structural relationship between these two constructs. However, in this research, we
investigate the structural relationship of packaging elements on consumers’ perception of
JIMA reusability of packaging and impulse buying considering consumers’ moods and time
9,2 pressure as moderator variables. Research conceptual model has been presented in Figure 1.
According to research conceptual model, hypotheses are as follows:
H1. Packaging form harmonize influences consumers’ perception of usability of
product packaging.

270 H2. Packaging color harmonize influences consumers’ perception of usability of

product packaging.
H3. Separable packaging label influences consumers’ perception of usability of product
packaging.
H4. Packaging material harmonize influences consumers’ perception of usability of
product packaging.
H5. Packaging size harmonize influences consumers’ perception of usability of product
packaging.
H6. Consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging influences impulse
buying decision.
H7. Influence of consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging on impulse
buying is different in terms of consumers’ mood.
H8. Influence of consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging on impulse
buying is different in terms of time pressure.

Figure 1.
Research conceptual
model
Methodology Product
Sampling, data gathering, instrument and measurement packaging and
The present research is an applied study in terms of goal and a descriptive survey in terms
of methodology. To enhance generalizability of findings, a non-student sample, customers of
impulse
retailers of Shiraz City were involved, because the percentage of impulse purchases is higher buying
in these stores. This research was done on foods and stationary packaging in which
consumer involvement is lower than other products. Because of the unlimited population
and the impossibility of providing customer list, we used a non-probability convenience
271
sampling method. Besides, population size is unlimited because its size is not specified.
Considering an error coefficient equal to 1 per cent, 384 people were assigned as minimum
sample size. To increase precision, 400 questionnaires were distributed, and 388 (the
questionnaire return rate is 97 per cent) complete questionnaires were examined. The
questionnaires consisted of 47 items were used for data gathering based on self-reported
ratings along five-point Likert scale (completely agree = 5; completely disagree = 1). Some of
the scale items for measuring were adopted from existing measures within the literature and
some were developed by researchers for the first time. They were included into the
questionnaire after modification and adjustment. To evaluate reliability, a pretest was
conducted, and 30 questionnaires were filled by master’s degree students of Persian Gulf
University, then the questions that were not reliable and identified as ambiguous were
revised. Internet search and library study were conducted for gathering research literature.
The first section of the questionnaire included demographic information, and the second
part included research variables items.

Validity and reliability

To assess measurement validity, confirmatory factor analyses were run with partial least
square (PLS), including construct composite reliability (CR), item loading and average
variance extracted (AVE), as presented in Table I. To ensure content validity, most of the
instruments used to measure the constructs in this study are adapted from previous studies,
and for more content validity, items measuring was evaluated and approved by experts and
university professors. Sampling quality index, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s
tests were used for factor analysis of data and the investigation of construct validity of the
questionnaire. To verify construct validity, KMO index must be a number between 50 and
69 per cent, and p-value of Bartlett’s test must be smaller than 5 per cent. Table I indicates
that all research variables have acceptable construct validity. Additionally, factor loadings
are important indices which are of great importance in investigation of construct validity.
Factor loadings indicate the importance of each of the questions in construct. All the item
loadings are greater than 0.6; thus, the construct validity is acceptable. This shows that
research questions can evaluate variables very well. AVE is used to measure the variance to
the measurement error captured by the indicators. All the values of AVEs are greater than
the cutoff value 0.5. We measured the reliability of each construct by using the CR and
Cronbach alpha. The results show that all constructs have higher scores than that of the
acceptable level of CR and alpha of 0.7. Every scale item is statistically significant at the
significance level of 0.05. Thus, our data have good convergent validity.

Results
After gathering and processing data by SPSS software, for the hypothetic structural
equation model (SEM) and because of the presence of a moderator variable in the model, we
used PLS to test whether the empirical data conformed to the proposed model.
0
9,2

272
JIMA

Table I.
Reliability analysis
Factor Cronbach’s Sig. Bartlett’s Composite
Factor and items Source loadings alpha KMO test reliability AVE values

Packaging form harmonize 0.78 0.738 0.000 0.844 0.479

I like attractive and interesting packaging Haidarzade and 0.688
The Package pretty form effect on my purchase decision Taghipoorian (2012) 0.688
If I see the product packaging is usable to decorate my house, I bought it Silayoi and Speece (2004) 0.714
If I see the product packaging is suitable for my children at home, I bought it Ogba and Johnson (2010) 0.731
I buying product that its packaging has functional for the kitchen 0.754
Of similar products, I prefer products with packaging specific forms 0.569
Packaging color harmonize 0.763 0.761 0.000 0.849 0.585
When I went to store, colorful packaging pay attention me, the first time 0.779
When I want to buy products for children, I buying colorful packaging Silayoi and Speece (2004) 0.785
I think if packaging has a variety of colors, it making decision is easier Ogba and Johnson (2010) 0.689
Packaging color is makes it attractive 0.799
Separable packaging label 0.671 0.776 0.000 0.789 0.397
I am satisfied, if I can remove the label on it Researchers 0.818
After use of the product, label on its packaging is unnecessary 0.703
The labels of the packaging material are not suitable for all packaging 0.754
Packaging material harmonize 0.64 0.778 0.000 0.803 0.577
When I want to purchase product, packaging is important for me Researchers 0.32
Packaging is means to protect the product 0.571
Packaging is not waste 0.597
The packaging material is important, because the environment is important 0.597
The Plastic, glass and cardboard packaging are reusable, if well designed 0.767
Because I think to reusing the package after using the product, packaging material 0.736
is important to me
Packaging size harmonize 0.81 0.843 0.000 0.860 0.468
If the package is offered in different sizes, I decided more comfortable Silayoi and Speece (2007) 0.707
When product is new, package size is more important for me Hollywood et al. (2013) 0.661
I prefer smaller packages, because a product novel is important to me Faiz and Salahshoor (2010) 0.671
I do not use too big packages, because this is possible the product be Rot 0.651
package size must be that package looked absorbing 0.673
At buying time, I pay attention to size 0.803
I do not use too big package because I cannot fit them in my house 0.608

(continued)
 Factor Cronbach’s Sig. Bartlett’s Composite
Factor and items Source loadings alpha KMO test reliability AVE values

Consumer perception of Usability of product packaging 0.70 0.66 0.000 0.810 0.466
At my believed, a consumer can to help waste problem Metcalf et al. (2012) 0.693
Among similar products. I purchased products that are reusable Abdul Latif and Shukri 0.784
I like that products package will be reuse Omar (2012) 0.783
I acceptance of the reuse of plastic bags in stores chains 0.554
Spending more for products with multi-function package is not hard for me 0.563
consumers’ mood 0.799 0.781 0.000 0.857 0.509
I buy things according to how I feel at the moment Mohan et al. (2013) 0.637
Sometimes, I buy something in order to make myself feel better Coley and Burgess (2003)
0.825
Buying is a way of reducing stress in my daily life
0.784
When I wanted to feel more positive emotion, I buying more
0.827
When I am happy, buying is pleasurable for me
0.709
It is possible that I felt happy and enthusiastic or sad during this shopping
0.411
Time pressure 0.696 0.70 0.000 0.823 0.543
When I have a little time, Packaging design make confused me Silayoi and Speece (2004) 0.714
When you have a little time, Color products at store makes difficult purchasing Chang et al. (2014) 0.864
decisions Poor et al. (2012)
I often have a little time for buying at store 0.784
When I have a little time, I bought a package that is beauty 0.550

Impulse buying decision 0.87 0.885 0.000 0.902 0.605

At buying times, if like things I buying it, although I don’t need it Mohan et al. (2013) 0.742
Sometime without any purchase intention, I go to store and buying product Shen and Khalifa (2012) 0.804
When I go shopping, I buy things that I had not intended to purchase Bayley and Nancarrow 0.809
It is fun to buy spontaneously (1998) 0.715
When I see something that really interests me, I buy it without considering the 0.790
consequences
I am a person who makes unplanned purchases 0.803

0
Table I.
273
buying
impulse
packaging and
Product
JIMA Demographic information indicate that most respondents were female (60.3 per cent), single
9,2 (52.8 per cent), in the age range of 25-30 (46.6 per cent) and had a master’s degree (42 per
cent).

Model and hypotheses test

A SEM approach is used in this study. Before partial fitting of model or the test of research
274 hypotheses, we deal with general investigation of the research conceptual model. By general
fitting of the model we mean testing measuring model and responding to this question that
whether gathered empirical data support research conceptual model? To this end, the
software calculates indices. To examining the model fit of our research model, we used CR
index and AVE. For measurement model fit, values greater than 0.5 for AVE and values
greater than 0.7 for CR are acceptable. By referring to Table I, it can be seen that all the
values of fit indices are greater than the cutoff value and the measurement model is
goodness-of-fit. Next, we examined structural model fit. In PLS software for fitting
structural model, determination coefficient (R2) is calculated. As shown in Figure 2 (model
with considering consumers’ mood as moderating variable) and Figure 3 (model with
considering time pressure as moderating variable), R2 values in both models are greater
than 0.4, which shows an appropriate value, and the calculated fit index is equal to 0.476 for
the first model with mood as moderator variable and is equal to 0.484 for the second model
with time pressure as moderator variable. Thus, the results indicate adequate model fit
between our research model and the empirical data.
After general fit of the model, we test the hypotheses. To examine the moderating impact
of consumers’ mood and time pressure, two models are tested, as depicted in Figures 2 and 3.
To test the significance of each hypothesis path in the research mode, standardized path

Figure 2.
The research
conceptual model
with consumers’
mood as moderator
 Product
packaging and
impulse
buying

275

Figure 3.
The research
conceptual model
with time pressure as
moderator

coefficients and t-test statistics estimates calculated by PLS for each path are shown in
Tables II and III. Therefore, we can make decisions about verification or rejection of
research hypotheses.
According to Tables II and III, the findings of the model testing support H1 (SPC = 0.103,
t = 2.081, p < 0.05), H3 (SPC = 0.172, t = 4.37, p < 0.01), H4 (SPC = 0.494, t = 10.673, p <
0.01), H6 (SPC = 0.098, t = 2.161, p < 0.05) and H7 (SPC = 0.638, t = 16.126, p < 0.01). When
the t-values exceed 1.96, they are significant at p < 0.05, and when they exceed 2.64, they are
significant at p < 0.01. Because critical value is smaller than 1.96, there is not enough
evidence for support and significance of these hypotheses.

Discussions and implications

The main objective of this study was to investigate the role of consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging on impulse buying. In addition, we focused on identifying
moderating effects of consumers’ mood and time pressure. Our study provided support for
the research model and confirmed some hypotheses. We believe that this study has
important implications for practice and allows us to gain insights into product and
packaging strategies. Furthermore, based on the study results, some managerial
implications have been presented. The findings are listed below.
Our study found that packaging form harmonize positively influenced consumers’
perception of reusability of product packages. This is consistent with the results of
Goncalves and Ricardo (2008) and Arefi and Nekoie (2010). Therefore, because the
JIMA Hypothesized paths Path coefficient t-value Result
9,2
H1. Packaging form harmonize ! consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging 0.103 2.081 Supported
H2. Packaging color harmonize ! consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging 0.053 0.944 Not supported
H3. Separable packaging label ! consumers’ perception of
276 usability of product packaging 0.172 4.37 Supported
H4. packaging material harmonize ! consumers’
perception of usability of product packaging 0.494 10.673 Supported
H5. Packaging size harmonize ! consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging 0.041 0.727 Not supported
Table II. H6. Consumer perception of usability of product
Results of structural packaging ! impulse buying decision 0.098 2.161 Supported
equations analyses H7. Consumers’ mood ! impulse buying decision 0.638 16.126 Supported
H8. Consumers’ mood � impulse buying decision 0.362 0.025 Not supported
(Model 1): consumers’
mood as moderator Note: t-values is significant at p < 0.05 when the t-values exceed 1.96

Hypothesized paths Path coefficient t-value Result

H1. Packaging form harmonize ! consumers’ perception of

usability of product packaging 0.103 2.045 Supported
H2. Packaging color harmonize ! consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging 0.053 1.076 Not supported
H3. Separable packaging label ! consumers’ perception of
usability of product packaging 0.172 3.893 Supported
H4. Packaging material harmonize ! consumers’
perception of usability of product packaging 0.494 9.015 Supported
H5. Packaging size harmonize ! consumers’ perception of
Table III. usability of product packaging 0.041 0.745 Not supported
Results of structural H6. Consumer perception of usability of product
equations analyses packaging ! impulse buying decision 0.110 2.387 Supported
(Model 2): time H7. Time pressure ! impulse buying decision 0.631 16.324 Supported
H8. Time pressure � impulse buying decision 0.004 0.045 Not supported
pressure as
moderator Note: t-values is significant at p < 0.05 when the t-values exceed 1.96

appearance of a product can influence consumer product evaluations and choice, it is

important for marketer that view to shapes as signals of quality and an essential element of
marketing strategies and to use appropriate shapes and preferably reusable shapes in order
to create the understanding and perception in consumers that product packaging is not
considered as waste.
The influence of packaging color harmonize on consumers’ perception of reusability of
packaging was not supported. However, Ting Wei et al. (2014); Goncalves and Ricardo
(2008) and Arefi and Nekoie (2010) supported the influence of appropriate packaging color.
This difference in results may be due to cultural differences. Colors represent different
meanings and esthetic appeals in different cultures. There is a need to uncover the meanings
of colors and find out what is the reason for such results. Given the findings of this study,
marketers should spend their costs on packaging shape instead of concentrating on color of Product
packaging. packaging and
The results of our analysis revealed that separable packaging label positively influenced
consumers’ perception of reusability of product packaging. This result is consistent with the
impulse
result of Buelow et al. (2010). Considering this finding, it is important that packaging label buying
should be attached to the packaging in a way that after product was consumed, it can be
removed, or it should be used in a way that the consumers can reuse it. In terms of social
responsibility, this helped consumer see themselves as “green consumers” and government 277
and industry to reduce the environmental impacts of consumer packaging.
The results of our study demonstrated that packaging material harmonize directly
influenced consumers’ perception of product packaging reusability. Buelow et al. (2010) also
found similar results. Based on this result, it is recommended that appropriate material
should be used depending on packaging shape so that the customer can reuse it. Marketers
must manage package that, in addition to maintain product safety and quality of the
product, easy to use; made from renewable resources, and minimizes environmental impact.
Our results showed that packaging size harmonize does not influence consumers’
perception of reusability of product packaging. Faiz and Salahshoor (2010) found that size is
effective in purchase. Therefore, packaging size does not influence subsequent uses of
packaging, and consumers make decisions to get rid of packaging after use or not without
paying attention to the size of packaging.
The findings show that H6 predicted the influence of consumers’ perception of
reusability of product packaging on impulse buying of consumers. The result is closely
related to the Mihic and Kursan’s (2010) study results that design of packaging of products
play important roles in stimulation of impulse buying. Considering H6, marketers are
proposed to use packaging elements in a way that consumers come to this conclusion that
packaging is not waste material. In case of impulsive buying, the results of our study
confirmed H7 that investigated the effect of consumers’ mood and time pressure on their
impulse buying:
� Consumers’ mood positively influenced their impulse buying. This result is
consistent with result reported by Chang et al. (2014) and Yousefi Fard et al. (2013).
� Time pressure positively influenced consumers’ impulse buying. This result is
consistent with Hulten and Vanyushyn’s (2011) study results. In fact, when an
individual is situated in time pressure, he or she does not have enough time for
evaluation of purchase options and provides these conditions for impulse buying.
Salespeople who face such customers are proposed to propose products to such
customers that do not lead to regret after purchase.

Finally, the moderating testing results did not support moderating effects of consumers’
mood on the relationships between consumers’ perception of reusability of product
packaging and impulse buying. The result is contrary to the Koenig-Lewis et al.’s (2014)
study, who confirmed the moderator role of this variable and reported that positive and
negative feelings stimulated by environment-friendly packaging influence purchase
intention.
Similarly, the findings did not support the moderating effects of time pressure on the
relationships between consumers’ perception of reusability of product packaging and
impulse buying. However, Aghazadeh et al. (2011) and Silayoi and Speece (2004) found
opposite results. Our results demonstrated that consumers make purchase decisions based
on their perceptions about packaging without paying attention to feelings they have at the
time of purchase and whether they have enough time for purchase and consideration.
JIMA This study significantly contributes to the existing body of knowledge of product
9,2 packaging management by examining the effect of consumers’ perception of usability of
product packaging on impulse buying. Although previous studies investigate the effects of
packaging elements on consumers’ decision buying and brand image, this study is the first
to examine the structural relationship of packaging elements on consumers’ perception of
reusability of packaging and impulse buying and with considering their moods and time
278 pressure as moderator variables.

Limitations
Although this research makes contributions to the product management literature, it has
some limitations. First, we developed a research model to determine impulse buying. It was
tested in one city of Iran (Shiraz), but there may be differences between other city and
countries. Therefore, the study cannot be generalized to the entire population. Second, it is
specific to only two product categories (foods and stationary), and the measurement scales
and the model need to be validated in different levels of product category to establish its
external validity.
The current model concentrates on consumers’ mood and time pressure as moderating
factors. A number of personality traits and demographic characteristics of consumers and
other situational variables such as consumer involvement level and money availability that
were not considered in this study can also have a moderating impact on the relationship
between consumers’ perception of reusability of packaging and impulse buying. Future
research needs to examine this issue more closely.

Notes
1. (31/‫ )ﻷﻋﺮاف‬.‫ُﻛﻠُﻮا َواْﺷَﺮُﺑﻮا َوَﻻ ُﺗْﺴِﺮُﻓﻮا إِﻧَُّﮫ َﻻ ﯾِﺤُّﺐ اْﻟُﻤْﺴِﺮِﻓﯿﻦ‬
ْ َ‫َوأََّن اْﻟُﻤْﺴِﺮِﻓﯿَﻦ ُھْﻢ أ‬
2. (43/‫ﺻَﺤﺎُب اﻟَّﻨﺎِر)ﻏﺎﻓﺮ‬

References
Abdul Latif, S. and Shukri Omar, M. (2012), “Recycling behaviour in Tioman Island: a case study”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 707-715.
Aghazadeh, H., Haghighi, M. and Ebrahimi, E. (2011), “The effect of packaging visual and
informational dimensions on the purchase decision”, Quarterly Journal Business Management,
Vol. 40, pp. 111-135.
Ahmad, A.M.K. and Ahmad, Q.M.K. (2015), “Factors influence on packaging design in an impulse
consumer purchasing behavior: a case study of Doritos pack”, International Journal of
Marketing Studies, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 92-102.
Arefi, A. and Nekoie, M. (2010), “The impact of packaging on food products image”, Quarterly Journal
Business Management, Vol. 4, pp. 107-124.
Bahrani, R., Bahrani, V. and Farashbandi, R. (2013), “The effect of the goods packaging quality on
behavior of the packaged goods consumer: the Bushehr chain stores” Accounting and
management National Conference, The Safashahr Khwarizmi Education and Research
International Institute, Shiraz, pp. 1-18.
Banerjee, S. (2013), “An empirical analysis on attitude of Indian consumers towards packaging &
labelling across different product categories”, Journal of Marketing & Communication, Vol. 9,
pp. 1-12.
Bashar, B., Ahmad, I. and Wasiq, M. (2013), “A study of influence of demographic factors on consumer Product
impulse buying behavior”, International Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-154.
packaging and
Bati, U. and Atici, B. (2010), “Impulse purchasing behaviors of the Turkish consumers in websites
as a dynamic consumer model: technology products example”, Technology Products
impulse
Example, vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-8. buying
Bayley, G. and Nancarrow, N. (1998), “Impulse purchasing: a qualitative exploration of the
phenomenon”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 99-114.
279
Buelow, S., Lewis, H. and Sonneveld, K. (2010), “The role of labels in directing consumer packaging
waste”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 198-213.
Chang, H., Yan, R. and Eckman, M. (2014), “Moderating effects of situational characteristics on impulse
buying”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 298-314.
�
Cinjarevi�c, M. (2010), “Cognitive and affective aspects of impulse buying”, Sarajevo Business and
Economics Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1-18.
Clement, J. (2007), “Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: an eye-track experiment on the
visual influence of packaging design”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 9/10,
pp. 917-928.
Coley, A. and Burgess, B. (2003), “Gender differences in cognitive and affective impulse buying”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 282-295.
Cooper, T. (2013), “Developments in plastic materials and recycling systems for packaging food
beverages and other fast-moving consumer goods”, Trends in Packaging of Food, Beverages and
Other FMCG, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 58-108.
DaneshPajouh, H., DaneshPajouh, H., VahidianKamyar, S. and TahmasbiArashloo, P. (2013), “Green
advertising in approach to environmental protection (case study: Iranian society)”, International
Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 725-733.
Dawson, S. and Kim, M. (2010), “Cues on apparel web sites that trigger impulse purchases”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp.230-246.
Dixon-Hardy, D. and Curran, B. (2009), “Types of packaging waste from secondary sources
(supermarkets) – the situation in the UK”, Waste Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1198-1207.
Duarte, P., Raposo, M. and Ferraz, M. (2013), “Drivers of snack foods impulse buying behaviour among
young consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 9, pp. 1233-1254.
Esmailpour, M. and Rajabi, A. (2016), “The effect of environment-friendly attitude on consumer
perception of usability of product packaging”, Journal of Applied Packaging Research, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 32-46.
Faiz, D. and Salahshoor, A. (2010), “Evaluation of the golden ratio in the packaging and its impact on
consumer purchasing behavior”, Journal of Business Management of Tehran University, Vol. 1,
pp. 113-134.
Furnham, A. and Milner, R. (2013), “The impact of mood on customer behavior: staff mood and
environmental factors”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 634-641.
Goncalves, P. and Ricardo, J. (2008), “Consumer Behavior: Product Characteristics and Quality
Perception” MPRA Paper 1-29.
Haidarzade, K. and Taghipoorian, M. (2012), “Typology of consumer involvement and measure
models”, Journal of Business Surveys, Vol. 1, pp. 1-12.
Harmancioglu, H., Finney, R. and Joseph, M. (2009), “Impulse purchases of new products: an empirical
analysis”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
JIMA Herman, C., Polivy, J., (2004), “The self regulation of eating: theoretical and practical problems”, in
Baumeiserm, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (Eds), Handbook of Self Regulation: Research Theory and
9,2 Application, Guil Ford Press, New York, pp. 429-508.
Hollywood, L., Wells, L., Armstrong, G. and Farley, H. (2013), “Thinking outside the carton: attitudes
towards milk packaging”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 6, pp. 899-912.
Hong Xiao, S. and Nicholson, M. (2013), “A multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural framework of
impulse buying: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of Management
280 Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 333-356.
Hulten, P. and Vanyushyn, V. (2011), “Impulse purchases of groceries in France and Sweden”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 376-384.
Jacoby, J., Berning, C. and Dietvorst, T. (1977), “Wath about disposition”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23.
Javadi Amoli, A. (2013), Mufatyh Alhayat, 17 Edition, Asraa Press, Qom.
Kauppinen, H. and Luomala, H. (2010), “Exploring consumers’ product-specific colour meanings”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 287-308.
Kenhove, V., De Wulf, P. and Waterschoot, V. (1999), “The impact of task definition on store-attribute
saliences and store choice”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 125-137.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J. and Urbye, A. (2014), “Consumers’ evaluations of ecological
packaging e rational and emotional approaches”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 37,
p. 94e105.
Lee, J. and Kacen, J. (2008), “Cultural influences on consumer satisfaction with impulse and planned
purchases”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 265-272.
Lee, S. and Lye, S. (2003), “Design for manual packaging”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 163-189.
Liang, Y.P. (2012), “The relationship between consumer product involvement, product knowledge and
impulsive buying behavior”, International Conference on Asia Pacific Business Innovation and
Technology Management, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 325-330.
Liu, Y., Tao, F. and Liu, F. (2006), “Study on value-based model of products package management”,
International Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 1, pp. 356-362.
Marshall, D., Stuart, M. and Bell, R. (2006), “Examining the relationship between product package
colour and product selection in pre-schoolers”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 41, pp. 15-21.
Metcalf, L., Hess, J., Danes, J.V. and Singh, J. (2012), “A mixed-methods approach for designing
market-driven packaging”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 268-289.
Mihic, M. and Kursan, I. (2010), “Assessing the situational factors and impulsive buying behavior:
market segmentation approach”, Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 47-66.
Mirnezamie Ziaberi, H. (2002), Principles of Food Packaging, Fourth Edition, Mersa Publication, Tehran.
Mohan, G., Sivakumaran, B. and Sharma, P. (2013), “Impact of store environment on impulse buying
behavior”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1711-1732.
Nazari, M. and Ghaderi Abed, A. (2011), “The model for the study of factors affecting on impulse
buying: Tehran Management School Students”, Journal of Management Business: Management
School of Tehran University, Vol. 4 No.1, pp. 127-140.
Ogba, I.E. and Johnson, R. (2010), “How packaging affects the product preferences of children and
the buyer behaviour of their parents in the food industry”, Young Consumers, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 77-89.
Parboteeah, D., Valacich, J. and Wells, J. (2009), “The influence of website characteristics on a
consumer’s urge to buy impulsively”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 60-78.
Poor, M., Duhachek, A. and Krishnan, S. (2012), “The moderating role of emotional differentiation on
satiation”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 507-519.
Ramdani, N. and Ghorbani, M. (2012), “The Prioritize affecting factors on demand for packaging dates: Product
Borazjan City”, The Second National Seminar on Food Security.
packaging and
Rosecky, R., Smith, L.W. and Ying, Z. (2003), “An empirical comparison of consumer package labels of
Chinese and world Brand products sold in China”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4,
impulse
pp. 1-28. buying
Rundh, B. (2005), “The multi-faceted dimension of packaging marketing logistic or marketing tool?”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 670-684.
Rundh, B. (2013), “Linking packaging to marketing: how packaging is influencing the marketing
281
strategy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 11, pp. 1547-1563.
Salahshoor, A. and Faiz, D. (2007), The Role of Packaging at Marketing, First Edition, Semnan
University, Semnan.
Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B. and Marshall, R. (2010), “Exploring impulse buying and variety seeking
by retail shoppers: towards a common conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5-6, pp. 473-494.
Shen, K. and Khalifa, M. (2012), “System design effects on online impulse buying”, Internet Research,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 396-425.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), “Packaging and purchase decisions: an exploratory study on the
impact of involvement level and time pressure”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 607-628.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2007), “The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1495-1517.
Singh, P., Saengerlaub, S., Wani, A. and Langowski, H.C. (2012), “Role of plastics additives for food
packaging”, Pigment & Resin Technology, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 368-379.
Sminor, M. and CMowen, J. (2013), “Consumer behavior: internal and external factors”, in Salehe
Ardestani, A. and Saadi, M.R. (Eds), Fifth Edition, Ettehad Publishers, Tehran.
Sundar, A. and Noseworthy, T. (2014), “Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual metaphors of
power in packaging design”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 138-151.
Tariq Khan, M., Afzal Humayun, A. and Sajjad, M. (2015), “Factors affecting impulse buying and
percentage of impulse buying in total purchasing”, International Journal of Information,
Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 22, pp. 1-16.
Tien, S.W., Chung, Y.C. and Tsai, C.H. (2005), “An empirical study on the correlation between
environmental design implementation and business competitive advantages in Taiwan’s
industries”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 783-794.
Ting Wei, S., Chen Ou, L., Luo, M. and Hutchings, J. (2014), “Package design: colour harmony and
consumer expectations”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Tiwasing, W. and Sahachaisaeree, N. (2010), “Conflicting purchasers’ and users’ appeal toward a design
goal determining children and parent’ purchasing decision: a case of toy packing design”,
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 1357-1361.
Underwood, R. (2003), “The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity
via lived and mediated experience”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 62-76.
van Rompay, T.J., Fransen, M.L. and Borgelink, B.G. (2013), “Light as a feather: effects of packaging
imagery on sensory product impressions and brand evaluation”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Verplanken, B. and Sato, A. (2011), “The psychology of impulse buying: an integrative self-regulation
approach”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 197-210.
Wang, R.W.Y., Chou, M.C. and Wen Lan, P. (2010), “Research into the elements of design differentiation
in the findability of beverage packaging”, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social
Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
JIMA Wang, E. (2013), “The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value,
and brand preference”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41
9,2 No. 10, pp. 805-816.
Wilson, J.A.J. (2013), “Assessing the implications on performance when aligning customer lifetime
value calculations with religious faith groups and afterlife time values – a socratic elenchus
approach”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-95.
Wilson, J.A.J., Belk, R.W., Bamossy, G.J., Sandikci, O., Kartajaya, H., Sobh, R. and Scott, L. (2013),
282 “Crescent marketing, Muslim geographies and brand Islam reflections from the JIMA senior
advisory board”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-50.
Zhang, G. and Zhao, Z. (2012), “Green Packaging Management of Logistics Enterprises”, International
Conference on Applied Physics and Industrial Engineering, Physics Procedia, pp. 900-905.

Further reading
Azem, A. (2015), “An empirical study on non-Muslim’s packaged halal food manufacturers, Saudi
Arabian consumers’ purchase intention”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 441-460.
Henley, C.D., Fowler, D.C., Yuan, J., Stout, B.L. and Goh, B.K. (2011), “Label design: impact on
millennials’ perceptions of wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 7-20.

Corresponding author
Manijeh Bahrainizad can be contacted at: mbahrainizadeh@pgu.ac.ir

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com