PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751

Published online 30 May 2017 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pts.2318

How Do Packaging Material, Colour and Environmental Claim

Influence Package, Brand and Product Evaluations?

By Lise Magnier1 * and Jan Schoormans2

1
Industrial Design Engineering - Product Innovation Management, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, Netherlands
2
Product Innovation Management, TU Delft - Industrial Design Engineering, Delft, Netherlands

The success of environment-friendly packages is highly dependent on consumers’ understanding and

acceptance of these packages. In an experiment using a 3 × 2 between-subject design, this study tests
how style elements (i.e. the material and the colour) influence perceptions of packaging environment-
friendliness when an environmental claim is either absent from or displayed on the package. Next, the study
tests the effects of the style elements and environmental claim on the evaluation of the social responsibility
of the brand as well as on the inferences about product environment-friendliness. Based on the responses of
207 participants from a Dutch consumer panel, the results show that the style elements and environmental
claim influenced both the evaluations of packaging eco-friendliness and the social responsibility of the
brand. When an environmental claim about the package was displayed on the package, the results show that
the material is worth a thousand words as the credibility of the claim was always significantly higher when
the package was made of a fibre-based material. Finally, the effect of the material on the inferences about
product environment-friendliness is underlined and implications for designers, managers and policy-
makers are highlighted. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 22 July 2016; Revised 21 March 2017; Accepted 20 April 2017

INTRODUCTION

Environment-friendliness in packaging consists of reducing the environmental impact of packaging. In

this paper, we specifically study consumers’ perceptions of environment-friendliness in packaging. In
other words, we focus on the perceptions of consumers that a packaging has a reduced environmental
impact. To do so, we examine how colour, material and environmental claim influence the evaluations
of the package. Next, we examine how these elements influence evaluations of the brand and the
product. Environmental-friendliness is currently a topic of great interest. Global surveys show that
consumers are paying more and more attention to it.1 At the same time, companies are taking actions
to make their packaging more environment-friendly. For example, in the next few years, Procter &
Gamble intends to reduce packaging by 20% per consumer use, double the use of recycled materials
in plastic packaging and ensure that 90% of product packaging is recyclable.2
Despite this rising importance of packaging environment-friendliness, there is limited research
regarding how packaging elements influence consumers’ reactions with regards to this issue.3–5
Studying how consumers perceive packaging style elements in terms of environment-friendliness is
relevant, as consumers’ acceptance of these packages will influence choice and might add to the
product success.3,6 Style elements refer to packaging design elements that relate to the appearance
of the package. More precisely, there is a need for knowledge about the elements of style that
consumers consider as being representative of more environment-friendly packaging.5 Next, the way
in which these elements influence subsequent evaluations of the brand and the product represents an

* Correspondence to: Lise Magnier, Industrial Design Engineering - Product Innovation Management, Technische
Universiteit Delft, Landbergstraat 15, Delft, 2628CE Netherlands.
E-mail: l.b.m.magnier@tudelft.nl

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

736 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

interesting avenue for research as prior studies have shown that individuals constantly draw inferences
about the product and the brand from the packaging.7
In this paper, we test how different packaging style elements (through the alteration of the material
and the colour) and the presence of an environmental claim about the package influence consumers’
evaluations of packaging environment-friendliness, as well as the evaluations of the brand and the
product. By these means, we aim to contribute to the literature on how packaging style influences
the evaluation of the package and the product.8–10 In addition, we seek to gain insights on how to align
style elements and packaging technologies to enhance consumers’ evaluations of environment-friendly
packages. Finally, we aim to build on the literature about how consumers make inferences about the
product and the brand based on the packaging.7–11
The paper is organized as follows. First, we discuss how packaging elements may affect evaluations
of packaging environment-friendliness and the brand’s social responsibility as well as inferences about
product environment-friendliness. We further develop the associated hypotheses. These hypotheses are
then tested in an experimental context using six packages of laundry detergent created by a trained
designer. The material, the colour and the presence of an environmental claim were altered. The paper
concludes with a discussion on the findings and implications for designers, managers and policy-
makers.

PACKAGING ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLINESS IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT

In the literature, environment-friendliness in packaging has been addressed from technical or

environmental, economic and social perspectives.12 As described by Nordin and Selke,13 the social
aspects of environment-friendly packaging address how consumers perceive these packages. In this
paper, we follow this social perspective as we aim to study how individuals perceive and evaluate
packaging with respect to environment-friendliness.
In order to be understood as environment-friendly, packaging needs to provide consumers with
information. As literature indicates, this information can be conveyed by several packaging style
elements (e.g. colour, material and graphical elements) and/or by the presence of an environmental
claim and aims to influence consumers’ responses and encourage environment-friendly purchase
decisions.4,14,15 While the design of a package encompasses its form, function and technology, the
present study focuses on style elements that express the environment-friendliness of the package. It
should be noted that style elements and technologies can sometimes be intertwined. For example,
material properties ensure a certain degree of protection for the product and are linked to the
technological aspect of design, but the visual appearance that the material gives to the product relates
to style elements. In this paper, we consider that packaging environment-friendliness can be achieved
via different materials (e.g. fibre-based materials and recycled plastics), giving different appearances to
the packaging. The material of the package is therefore defined in this paper as a style element.
Literature has demonstrated the importance of product form, which refers to the appearance of a
product, to derive inferences about unrelated attributes of the product.9,10 In this context, we can
expect that the style elements of the package as an expression of its environment-friendly design will
influence consumers’ evaluations of packaging environment-friendliness.
While some studies state that consumers consider recyclability the main aspect of environment-
friendly packaging,6,13,16,17 recent studies show that there are actually more aspects of packaging to
take into account.5,18 These elements are for example related to the perceptions of the material or to
reducing product waste. Designers should also tackle the packaging environment-friendliness issue
earlier in the life cycle of the product and design packages using other environment-friendly materials
such as recycled or some renewable (e.g. plant-based) materials. However, we argue that the
assessment of the environment-friendliness of packaging is a complex issue and that consumers use
different elements to evaluate packaging environment-friendliness.
In order to convey packaging environment-friendliness, designers may use different elements. Prior
research has demonstrated that packaging as well as environment-friendly packaging design elements
can be categorized into three main categories19,20: structure, graphics and textual information/claim. At
the structural level, shape, weight reduction, use of post-consumer materials, renewable materials and

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 737

biodegradable materials are options to be taken into account in the design of environment-friendly
packages.13 However, consumers do not always understand these elements related to the structure of
the package as being more environment-friendly. For example, the use of plant-based or recycled
plastic may represent a more environment-friendly choice than oil-based plastic, yet it might not be
visibly recognizable as being more environment-friendly. In this case, graphical and textual elements
are important ways to communicate packaging environment-friendliness. Indeed, graphical elements
such as colours, photographs, images and logos can also be used to communicate environment-
friendliness.20 Finally, textual information (e.g. figures or texts) displayed on the package is useful
in making environment-friendliness explicit. This textual information describes the environment-
friendliness of the package through environmental claims and descriptions of scientific or
environmental attributes. Yet, this information needs to be understandable and credible to truly
influence subsequent attitudes and behaviours.21,22 The use of environmental claims can represent a
sensitive issue for companies. Indeed, research has shown that when the manipulations of the
communicative aspects of the packaging are not credible, consumers may interpret it as
greenwashing.4 Greenwashing is defined as using communication to highlight environmental
commitments despite the absence of actions satisfying the engagements presented in the
communication.

PACKAGING AND INFERENCE-MAKING

Consumers use packaging to identify, categorize and differentiate products. Differentiation is

especially important on markets for low-differentiated goods. In addition, it is acknowledged that
consumers make inferences about the brand and the product based on the perception of the
packaging.23 Inference-making is defined as a process of ‘filling-in’ missing information about the
product or the brand.24
Prior studies have indicated that shapes and colours convey brand meaning25 and serve as cues for
consumers to evaluate the brands.7,26,27 For example, research has demonstrated that in the French
bottled water market, the shape and the colour of the bottle communicate different brand personalities.
For instance, when the bottle of water is red, the brand is perceived as more sophisticated and exciting
than when the bottle is blue. The red bottle is perceived as more sportive than the blue bottle. In
addition, elongated bottles are seen as more sophisticated than short and large bottles.28 Labrecque
and Milne29 showed that packaging or logo colours such as black, purple and pink influence the
perceived sophistication of a brand.
A priori, packaging style elements (e.g. shape, materials and graphics) are not directly related to the
product content. However, research has shown that consumers draw inferences through implicit
processes in which impressions derived from packaging attributes shape expectations for subsequent
product impressions.8,3031–33 Indeed, prior research has demonstrated that consumers ‘use’ symbolic
information connoted by packaging when they lack information about a product, such as when they
are confronted with a new product and cannot evaluate relevant intrinsic attributes before purchase.
In this case, consumers draw inferences about a product’s attributes or product quality based on its
visual appearance.34 For example, water in a blue bottle is perceived as more natural than water in a
red bottle.28 It was also demonstrated that the taste of a coffee presented in a brown package would
be judged as too strong.35 Another study has shown that participants with a high sensitivity to design
rate the taste of a yoghurt as more intense when the package presents an angular shape rather than a
rounded shape.8

Packaging and inferences related to environment-friendliness and social responsibility

As stated earlier, few studies have examined the effect of packaging style elements on subsequent
brand and product evaluations. It appears that even less attention has been given to the specific
influence of packaging style elements on the evaluations of packaging and product environment-
friendliness, as well as the brand’s social responsibility. Orth and Malkewitz7 have not specifically
studied the influence of an environment-friendly package design on consumers’ brand impressions,

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
738 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

but they have examined the influence of a natural package design. Prior research has demonstrated that
consumers often use naturalness as a proxy for environment-friendliness and the two concepts are
therefore related.36,37 They found that a naturel package design is perceived as high quality, feminine,
healthy, expensive but good value for money and evoking happy memories. Natural package design is
represented by a natural colour scheme, organic versus geometric typography and images of nature
including landscapes, plants and vines. Lindh et al.5 showed that consumers perceive paper-based
packaging as being more environment-friendly. However, their study neither examined how other
elements related to style (such as colours) actually influence evaluations of environment-friendliness
nor tested subsequent evaluations of the brand and the product based on packaging style elements.
In the context of packaging environment-friendliness, we suspect that the style elements (i.e. the
colour and the material) and the presence of an environmental claim are likely to influence the
evaluation of the environment-friendliness of the packaging and to positively influence subsequent
evaluations of the brand such as the evaluation of its social responsibility. We also suggest that
consumers are likely to draw inferences about product environment-friendliness from packaging style
elements. The associated hypotheses are developed in the next section.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim about
the package on the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness
Consumers can evaluate packaging environment-friendliness based on several cues. At the material
level, organic materials such as paper or fibre-based materials are generally perceived as more
environment-friendly than plastic materials4,5,38 and therefore influence the evaluation of the
environment-friendliness of the package. At the graphical level, colours may also influence the
evaluation of environment-friendliness. Green is usually used to represent nature and triggers
impressions of environment-friendliness39 but other colours could also potentially evoke
environment-friendliness. For example, white denotes morality and purity40 and could be interpreted
as more environment-friendly. On the contrary, bright colours might be considered to be less
environment-friendly. Indeed, bright colours such as red are generally used to evoke strength and as
such are negatively correlated with environment-friendliness.41 Finally, textual claims can also evoke
environment-friendliness, and we can expect that a packaging displaying an environmental claim
about the package will be perceived as more environment-friendly than a package that does not display
any claim. More formally, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H1a. The fibre-based package material triggers a higher evaluation of packaging environment-
friendliness than the plastic package material.

H1b. The white colour of the package triggers a higher evaluation of packaging environment-
friendliness than the red colour.

H1c. The evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness is higher when an environmental claim

about the package is present (vs. absent) on the package.

Influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim about
the package on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand
In this study, we also seek to understand how packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and
the environmental claim about the package are likely to influence brand evaluations. One of the
motivations for brands to carry out environment-friendly initiatives is to gain a socially responsible
image. Social responsibility represents a way of differentiating through ethical actions. Consumers
are showing increasing concern about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives,42 and prior
research has demonstrated that such initiatives have a positive influence on attitudes towards the brand
and the product, purchase intention and willingness to pay.43,44

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 739

From the consumer point of view, the evaluation of CSR represents consumers’ subjective
perceptions about a brand on different dimensions. These dimensions relate to companies’
environmental, social and economic practices. When considering packaging environment-friendly
style elements and claim, the environmental dimension is the one that prevails. We can expect that
packaging style elements (i.e. the material and the colour) and the environmental claim about the
package will represent a tangibilization of social responsibility initiatives and will therefore influence
consumers’ inferences about the social responsibility of the brand. Thus, we can assume that the
manipulation of the material and the colour as well as the presence or absence of an environmental
claim about the package will affect consumer evaluations of the social responsibility brand as follows:

H2a. The fibre-based package material triggers a higher evaluation of the social responsibility of the
brand than the plastic package material.

H2b. The white colour of the package triggers a higher evaluation of the social responsibility of the
brand than the red colour.

H2c. The evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand is higher when an environmental claim
about the package is present (vs. absent) on the package.

Role of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) in the evaluation of the credibility of the
environmental claim about the package
Credibility is defined as the degree to which a person sees a claim as being truthful and believable.45
Previous research has shown that the credibility of a packaging claim is higher when it is congruent
with the visual appearance of the packaging.4 Therefore, we can expect that both the material and
colour of the packaging will influence the credibility of the claim.

H3a. The credibility of the claim is higher when the package is made of fibre-based material than when
it is made of plastic.

H3b. The credibility of the claim is higher when the package is made of white plastic than when it is
made of red plastic.

Influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim on the
evaluation of the environment-friendliness of the product
As demonstrated in the literature review, consumers make inferences about product characteristics
based on the packaging. In this study, we aim at testing the influence of packaging style elements
(i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim about the package on the inferences about
product environment-friendliness. More precisely, we believe that individuals make inferences about
product environment-friendliness based on packaging style elements. However, we expect that they
will not draw inferences about the environment-friendliness of the product from the environmental
claim about the package because it is specifically related to the package.
In order to test the influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the
environmental claim on product environment-friendliness, we take into consideration several
dimensions of environment-friendliness which are germane to household cleaners and especially
laundry-detergent choice: naturalness, skin-friendliness and biodegradability. Literature shows that
consumers tend to associate environment-friendliness with naturalness.37,38,46 Naturalness can be
defined as a characteristic of a product that has been created by natural forces. Natural products are
usually considered as less chemical and subject to less processing.47 Therefore, we suggest that
consumers are likely to draw inferences about product naturalness when the package presents
environment-friendly design elements. Prior research also showed that environment-friendly products
are also perceived as more gentle.41We suggest that environment-friendly packaging style elements
(i.e. material and colour) influence product perceived skin-friendliness. Biodegradation refers to the
process through which substances and materials are broken down into very small innocuous parts

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
740 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

by natural processes. Prior research has demonstrated that the biodegradability of detergent is the most
important environment-friendly attribute in this category.48 Therefore, we can conclude that
naturalness, skin-friendliness and biodegradability are good indicators of laundry detergent
environment-friendliness.
Based earlier, we suggest that consumers are likely to draw positive inferences about product-
environment friendliness through their evaluations of the package-style elements but not base on the
environmental claim about the package.

H4a. The fibre-based package material of the package triggers a higher evaluation of the product
environment-friendliness than the plastic package material.

H4b. The white colour of the package triggers a higher evaluation of product environment-friendliness
than the red plastic.

H4c. The evaluation of product environment-friendliness is not higher when there is an environmental
claim about the package present (vs. absent) on the package.
These hypotheses are tested within an experimental study.

METHOD

Design of the study

This study manipulated design elements belonging to the three main packaging dimensions – structural
(i.e. the material), graphical (i.e. the colour) and textual information (i.e. the environmental
claim)7,20,49 – and examined their influence on consumers’ responses. A 3 (packaging style elements:
red hard plastic vs. white hard plastic vs. fibre-based material) × 2 (environmental claim about the
package: absence vs. presence) full factorial design was employed. Participants were presented with
one of the six stimuli in an online study and had to fill in a questionnaire with several dependent
variables measuring their evaluations of the packaging environment-friendliness and the social
responsibility of the brand and their inferences about product environment-friendliness.

Sample
The questionnaire was administered online to a selection of individuals from a Dutch consumer panel.
Selection criteria ensured that these individuals were responsible for grocery shopping and laundry in
their household. Moreover, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of consumers that was diversified in
terms of age income and education. Two hundred and seven individuals (mean age: 49.41; SD: 12.44)
fully answered the questionnaire (between 32 and 41 individuals per stimulus). The sample was
predominantly constituted of women (95%). Participants received a small fee to compensate them
for their participation. The use of a panel of consumers is a strength in the present research as too many
consumer studies use samples of college students.50

Independent variables
Six three-dimensional digital images of a laundry detergent package (Appendix 1) were created by a
trained designer. The shape of this bottle was not based on an existing package of laundry detergent
to avoid participants being biased by deductions about the brand tested. Three different packaging
styles were created and both the material and the colour of the package were altered. In order to alter
the colour, the first package was made of red hard plastic; the second package was made of the same
material but was white. The white colour was chosen to contrast the red colour because it usually
denotes morality and purity.40 Green has deliberately been excluded in order to avoid associations with
greenwashing that are sometimes connected to this colour.39 Red was chosen because bright colours
are used to attract attention and differentiate in categories where there is low differentiation between
brands, such as laundry detergent. The third packaging style was made of a fibre-based material. In

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 741

the industry, these moulded-pulp bottles are usually designed with an inner film liner to make them
waterproof and are therefore realistic as liquid containers. Finally, these three designs were presented
either with or without the environmental claim ‘bottle made of environment-friendly material’.
Moreover, in order to avoid any other potential confounding effects with the graphical dimension, this
environmental claim was displayed on the package using white font on the main background of the
package. Other design elements, shape, size and information remained constant across packages.
The brand presented on the package, ‘Cheer’, is marketed in North America and therefore
unfamiliar to the Dutch audience. This is important to avoid confusions between different levels
of consumer knowledge and brand familiarity.51 Moreover, consumers’ reliance on packaging is
especially important when there is a lack of knowledge about the product or the brand, and
therefore the consideration of an unfamiliar brand of laundry detergent is relevant in the context
of this study.

Dependent variables
Participants were first asked to carefully examine the stimulus and were presented with the following
text: ‘Please carefully evaluate the following packaging of laundry detergent’. Next, participants
answered a questionnaire with several measurement scales. It should be noted that the size of the
image presented on the screen enabled participants to assess the difference in materials. First,
participants’ familiarity with the brand was checked (Are you familiar with this brand of laundry
detergent: yes/no). In order to assess whether the different packaging style elements (i.e. material
and colour) and the environmental claim about the package had an influence on the evaluation of
packaging environment-friendliness, we asked the participants to rate the package on two Likert
scales (This packaging is eco-friendly; This is a good example of an environmentally friendly
packaging; Pearson’s r = 0.85). Packaging environment-friendliness consisted of two items; the
Pearson correlation coefficient was therefore preferred over Cronbach’s alpha to determine the scale’s
reliability.52 Next, to assess the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand, participants were
asked how they perceived the brand featured on the package using three items (When I look at the
packaging: I think the brand Cheer respects ethical standards; I think the brand Cheer is a socially
responsible brand; I think the brand Cheer makes decisions only after careful consideration of the
potential positive or negative consequences of its products; Cronbach’s α = 0.91) adapted from
Brunk.53 In order to assess the inferences about the product environment-friendliness based on the
packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim about the
environment-friendliness of the package, participants had to rate the following statements concerning
the naturalness, skin-friendliness and biodegradability of the product on three Likert scales: This
laundry detergent is a natural product; This laundry detergent will be good for my skin; This laundry
detergent is biodegradable. These items were averaged to create an index of product environment-
friendliness (α = 0.91). It should be noted that these statements are related to environment-friendly
intrinsic attributes of laundry detergent and that the environment-friendly aspects of the package were
not measured.
To control for potential alternative explanations of the effects of the material, the colour and the
presence of the environmental claim on the dependent variables, we also measured attractiveness
and environmental concern. Prior research has demonstrated that packaging attractiveness plays a
major role in influencing consumers’ expectations about a product54 and on the evaluation of
environment-friendly alternatives.55,56 The measure of the attractiveness of the package was adapted
from Bell, Holbrook and Solomon57 and assessed on four semantic differential scales (‘poor-
looking/nice-looking’, ‘displeasing/pleasing’, ‘unattractive/attractive’, ‘ugly/beautiful’; Cronbach’s
α = 0.93). Prior research also showed that environmental concern represents an important individual
variable when considering the evaluation of environment-friendly alternatives.4 Environmental
concern was measured using six Likert scales: ‘I am very concerned about the environment’,’ Humans
are severely abusing the environment’, ‘I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect
the environment’, ‘Major political change is necessary to protect the natural environment’, ‘Major
social changes are necessary to protect the natural environment’, ‘Anti-pollution laws should be
enforced more strongly’ (α = 0.91).58 Finally, the participants that were presented with the

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
742 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

environmental claim had to rate the credibility of this claim. The following Likert scale was used: ‘This
claim is believable’. All Likert scales ranged from (1) completely disagree to (7) completely agree, and
measurements were rated on 7-point scales.

Statistical analysis
In this study, a controlled experiment was performed. Specific independent variables were
systematically manipulated in six experimental conditions (i.e. six different stimuli), and subjects were
randomly assigned to these conditions. Such experimental research leads to independent variables that
are categorical by nature, and consequently, this type of experiments are typically analysed with an
analysis of (co)variance.52 An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is performed when at least one
covariate is included in the analysis. Such a covariate (e.g. attractiveness) enables to control for its
influence on the dependent variables and therefore to assess more accurately the effect of the
packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and the environmental claim about the package.
Basic assumptions (i.e. normality and homogeneity of variances) were met for all the ANCOVAs
performed in this study. It should also be noted that the adjusted means (M) are reported. F-ratios
(F) test for overall differences between group means and p-values (p) give the statistical significance
of the tests. Regression analyses are also performed to estimate the relationships between two
continuous dependent variables. β represents the standardized regression coefficient, t stands for the
t-test, and the p-value gives the statistical significance.

RESULTS

Confounding checks
No participant was familiar with the brand presented on the stimuli, and potential effects of brand
knowledge were excluded. There was also no main effect of the package style elements on the
attractiveness of the packaging (p > 0.85), and no main effect of the presence of an environmental
claim about the package on the attractiveness of the package (p > 0.51). Confounding effects of the
attractiveness of the package were avoided.

Test of the influence of packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and environmental claim on
the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness
A 3 × 2 ANCOVA with the package style elements and the environmental claim about the package as
independent variables and the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness as a dependent
variable was performed (Figure 1). We also included attractiveness of the package and environmental
concern as covariates in the analysis. However, in this preliminary ANCOVA, environmental concern
was not significant. Environmental concern was also not significant for the other dependent variables

Figure 1. Influence of the packaging style elements and the environmental claim about the package on
the inferences about product environment-friendliness.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 743

(i.e. evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand and inferences about the environment-
friendliness of the product). Thus, the measure of environmental concern was excluded from all further
analyses. Attractiveness was significant (F(1, 200) = 33.21; p < 0.001). There was a main effect of the
package style elements on the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness (F(1, 200) = 10.00;
p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that when the package was made of a fibre-based material,
the evaluation of the environment-friendliness of the package (Mfibre-basedmaterial = 3.73) was
significantly higher than in the two other conditions (Mwhiteplastic = 3.21, p < 0.05; Mredplastic = 2.71,
p < 0.001), supporting H1a. As expected, the white plastic package was evaluated as more
environment-friendly than the red plastic package (p < 0.05), supporting H1b. Finally, results showed
that there was also a main effect of the environmental claim on the evaluation of packaging
environment-friendliness (Mabsence = 2.77, Mpresence = 3.67; F(1, 200) = 25.67; p < 0.001), supporting
H1c. No other effects were found.

Test of the influence of packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and environmental claim
about the package on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand
In order to test the influence of the packaging style elements and the environmental claim about the
package on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand, we performed another 3 × 2
ANCOVA with the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand as a dependent variable
(Figure 2).
Attractiveness of the package was significant (F(1, 200) = 41.74; p < 0.001). The ANCOVA
revealed a main effect of the packaging style elements (i.e. colour and material) on the evaluation
of the social responsibility of the brand (F(1, 200) = 3.19; p < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed
that the brand was perceived as significantly more socially responsible when the package was made of
fibre-based material (Mfibre-basedmaterial = 3.09) than when it was made of red plastic (Mredplastic = 2.67,
p = 0.06). However, there was no significant difference between the fibre-based material condition
and the white plastic condition (Mwhiteplastic = 3.20, p > 0.10). H2a was therefore not supported.
The brand was considered to be significantly more socially responsible when the package was made
of white plastic than when it was made of red plastic (p < 0.05), supporting H2b. There was also an
overall significant effect of the environmental claim about the package on the evaluation of the social
responsibility of the brand (Mabsence = 2.76 vs. Mpresence = 3.22; F(1, 200) = 7.31; p < 0.01),
supporting H2c.

Test of the influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) on the credibility of the
environmental claim about the package
In hypothesis 3, it is suggested that packaging style elements influence the credibility of the claim. We
ran an ANCOVA using the sample that was presented with an environmental claim on the package.

Figure 2. Influence of packaging style elements and environmental claim about the package on the
evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
744 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

Packaging style elements was defined as the independent variable, credibility of the claim was defined
as the dependent variable, and attractiveness was entered as a covariate.
Attractiveness was significant (F(1,105) = 67.28, p < 0.001). There was a main effect of
packaging style elements on the credibility of the environmental claim (F(1,105) = 5.99,
p < 0.01). Pairwise comparisons showed that the environmental claim about the package presented
on the fibre-based packaging (Mfibre-basedmaterial = 3.94) was more credible than the environmental
claim about the package presented on the white plastic packaging (Mwhiteplastic = 3.36; p < 0.05)
and more credible than the environmental claim about the package presented on the red plastic
packaging (Mredplastic = 2.95; p < 0.001), supporting H3a. There was no significant difference in
the credibility of the environmental claim about the package when the claim was presented on
the red plastic packaging and when it was presented on the white plastic packaging (p = 0.14).
H3b was therefore not supported. In conclusion, it can be noted that the environmental claim about
the package was significantly more credible when it was presented on the packaging made of the
fibre-based material.
Although not hypothesized, we tested the influence of the credibility of the claim on the evaluation
of packaging eco-friendliness as well as on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand. As a
result, we found that the credibility of the claim had a positive and significant influence on the
evaluation of packaging eco-friendliness (β = .60, t = 7.78, p < 0.001) and on the evaluation of the
social responsibility of the brand (β = .54, t = 6.67, p < 0.001), when an environmental claim about
the package was presented on the packaging.

Test of the influence of packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) and environmental claim
about the packaging on the inferences about product environment-friendliness
In order to test the influence of the package style elements and the environmental claim on the
perceived product environment-friendliness, another ANCOVA was performed (Figure 3).
Here again, attractiveness was significant (F(1, 200) = 30.67, p < 0.001). The analysis
revealed a main effect of packaging style elements on the evaluation of product environment-
friendliness (F(1, 200) = 7.67, p < 0.01). Interestingly, pairwise comparisons showed that the
product was perceived as more environment-friendly only when it was presented in a package
made of fibre-based material (Mfibre-basedmaterial = 3.46) when compared with the white plastic
(Mwhiteplastic = 3.01, p < 0.02) and the red plastic (Mredplastic = 2.70, p < 0.001) packages,
supporting H4a. When the material was made of plastic, there was no significant effect of the
colour on the evaluation of the product environment-friendliness (p > 0.10). H4b was therefore
not supported. As expected, results also showed that there was no significant effect of the
environmental claim about the package on the evaluation of product environment-friendliness
(p > 0.56), supporting H4c.

Figure 3. Influence of packaging style elements and environmental claim about the package on the
evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 745

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Theoretical implications

The need for more research on the influence of packaging style elements on subsequent evaluations of
the packaged product has been acknowledged in past research.5 The present research aimed to address
this gap in the literature by empirically testing how the material and the colour used as well as the
presence of an environmental claim affect the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness, the
evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand as well as the inferences about product
environment-friendliness.
This study adds to the current literature on packaging sustainability by showing that it is possible to
communicate packaging environment-friendliness through style elements and an environmental claim.
When looking at the influence of the packaging style elements (i.e. material and colour) on the
evaluation of the environment-friendliness of the packaging, it was specifically demonstrated that
the package made of a fibre-based material was perceived as more environment-friendly than the
plastic packages. These results support previous literature on the influence of the material on the
evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness. More precisely, it confirms in an experimental
context the results of Lindh et al.5 showing that paper-based materials are seen as having a lower
environmental impact than plastic materials. In other words, it is suggested that the material represents
an interesting structural alternative to suggest environment-friendliness. The present study also
complements prior research showing that material properties provide instrumental information.
Instrumental information is intrinsic and specific to the evaluation of performance.59,60 In this context,
we add to the literature by showing that material perception is likely to inform consumers on the
environment-friendly performance of the packaging on the one hand, and to trigger positive inferences
about the brand and the product on the other hand.
Moreover, the study shows that the colour of the plastic can also influence the perceived
environment-friendliness of a sustainable packaging. The package made of white plastic was perceived
as being more environment-friendly than the same packaging made of red plastic. More precisely, the
results show that red colours are likely to have a negative influence on the perception of packaging
environment-friendliness. These results support the hypothesis that colour plays a role in consumers’
evaluations of packaging environment-friendliness.
Finally, the study shows that an environmental claim about the package can positively influence the
perception of packaging environment-friendliness even when it is not issued by a third-party
organization.
At the brand level, the white colour positively and significantly influenced the evaluation of the
social responsibility of the brand compared with the red colour. Next, the evaluation of the social
responsibility of the brand was negatively affected when the package was made of red plastic and
compared with the two other conditions. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between
the white plastic package and the package made of a fibre-based material. This could be explained
by the fact that the white colour denotes morality.40 Consumers may therefore make inferences about
the social responsibility of the brand based on this cue.
When looking more specifically at the packages displaying an environmental claim, it was
demonstrated that there was a main effect of the material of the package on the credibility of the claim.
More specifically, it was demonstrated that the claim on the package made of fibre-based material was
significantly more credible than the claims on the white plastic and the red plastic packages. However,
there was no difference between the white colour and the red colour regarding the credibility of the
claim.
By showing that the material positively influences inferences about the environment-friendliness of
the product, we contribute to the existing literature on the influence of packaging style elements on
product evaluations.8,36,61 More precisely, inferences about the environment-friendliness of the
product were only positively and significantly higher when the package was made of fibre-based
material rather than red or white plastic. These results provide support to previous research in the field
of food products demonstrating that the environment-friendly appearance of a package has a positive
influence on the perceived quality of the product.36 However, the results do not confirm the whole

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
746 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

corpus of literature suggesting that packaging colour influences product evaluations.32 In order to draw
more robust conclusions, further research should test the effect of other colours signalling
environment-friendliness on product evaluation. The results show that there was an effect of the
presence of the environmental claim on the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness and to
some extent on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand. However, there was no effect
of the environmental claim about the packaging on the evaluation of the environment-friendliness of
the product.
The study was realized online, and the stimuli were represented by three-dimensional images.
Especially for the material condition, the online context of the study could represent a bias because
haptics may play an important role in influencing subsequent evaluations. However, our results add
to the literature in cognitive psychology demonstrating that visual evaluation can be sufficient to
activate the retrieval of information from memory about the instrumental properties of the
material.60,62

Managerial implications

While keeping in mind that this experimental study has been realized in a Dutch context, designers,
brand managers, product managers and packaging managers are likely to be interested in the
results. The fact that packaging style elements, such as the material (fibre-based vs. plastics) and
the colour (white vs. red) as well as the presence of an environmental claim affected the evaluation
of packaging environment-friendliness can help designers and packaging managers to improve the
comprehension of their environment-friendly packaging. By choosing adequate style elements and
presenting a claim about the environmental-friendliness of their package, we suggest that designers
can enhance consumers’ understanding of environment-friendliness efforts and develop the
acceptance of their packaging. The fact that style elements and environmental claims about the
package can improve evaluations of the social responsibility of the brand represents a new
contribution that should be investigated by brand managers. Next, it is interesting to note that
the material dimension influences the evaluation of the product environment-friendliness. The latter
phenomenon may be of interest to product managers seeking to enhance evaluations of their
sustainable product through the choice of packaging material. Knowledge about potential effects
of packaging style elements on consumers’ reactions, towards the packaging itself (i.e. packaging
environment-friendliness) the brand (i.e. evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand) and
the product (i.e. product environment-friendliness) are useful for these actors to create successful
packaging.
Developing more environment-friendly packaging often requires companies to make monetary
investments. In this context, it is important to adequately convey the eco-friendliness of the package.
Indeed, research has shown that consumers are willing to pay a price premium when they are certain
that the packaged product conveys certain qualities.5 Through style elements and environmental claims
about the package, designers can enhance the understanding of environment-friendly packaging.
Ultimately, if the environment-friendliness of the product is well understood by consumers, companies
will manage to make their sustainable investment profitable by receiving price premiums related to
their initiative.
We also show that a general environmental claim about the package issued by the brand has a
positive effect on the evaluation of packaging environment-friendliness, as well as on the evaluation
of the social responsibility of the brand. In light of these results, policy-makers should encourage
companies to be as specific as possible in their environmental claim so that consumers really
understand the true environmental benefits of the packaging.
Finally, it is also important for all these players to note the role of attractiveness in an environment-
friendly packaging style. Attractiveness influences the evaluation of the social responsibility of the
brand. This may mean that when the package is not visually attractive, consumers may consider that
the environment-friendliness refers to brand motivations other than social responsibility (economical,
for example). Moreover, attractiveness plays an important role in the evaluation of product quality,
referring to the ‘What is beautiful is good’ effect first introduced by Dion and colleagues.63

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 747

Limitations

Although our study offers valuable implications for researchers and practitioners, some limitations
deserve attention and should be taken into account in further research. First, in the sample used in this
study, women are overrepresented. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that individuals
were recruited from an online panel where they had the choice to participate or not in a study about
laundry detergent and where they had to be in charge of the laundry in their household. However,
future research should try to tend towards greater diversity in terms of gender or use a more gender-
neutral product category. Furthermore, our study has been tested on a relatively limited sample of
Dutch consumers and should be replicated in different contexts and countries to be generalizable.
Second, the experiment reported here focused on the laundry detergent product category, and our
results are possibly limited to some context specificities. Although household cleaning agents represent
an interesting category because so far most packaging research has used food product packages, this
study should be replicated with the same specific settings across other product categories in order to
make claims about generalizability.
Third, several authors have shown that environment-friendly cues are likely to have a negative
influence on product perceived effectiveness, especially for products with strength-related
attributes.41,64 Further research should test the influence of packaging environment-friendliness on
the perceived effectiveness of a laundry detergent with significant strength-related attributes.
Fourth, the stimuli could have been manipulated differently. In this study, two style elements, the
material and the colour, were manipulated. Instead of manipulating the material, other structural
elements such as the size or the presence of over-packaging could have been altered. Similarly, instead
of altering the colour, other graphical elements such as photographs, nature-inspired images or logos
could have been presented on the packages. Next, the environmental claim about the package was
manipulated by presenting either no claim or a claim on the front of the package; the claim stated that
the material of the package was environment-friendly. Further research could also test the influence of
more specific messages consisting of figures presenting the carbon footprint of the package or other
textual messages featuring more scientific arguments. Moreover, the environmental claim was not
certified by a third-party organization; this could have hampered the positive influence of the claim
on the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand.
Fifth, we used a brand that was unfamiliar to the participants in order to avoid prior knowledge
about the brand and its possible influences on consumers’ responses. However, brand equity is likely
to have an effect on the evaluation of environment-friendly elements. For example, Larceneux, Benoît-
Moreau and Renaudin65 demonstrated that an organic label has no effect on perception of overall
quality when the level of brand equity is high, whereas it strongly improves the quality perception
of the product when the level of brand equity is low. Therefore, future research could examine how
brand equity interacts with packaging style and an environmental claim to influence evaluations of
packaging environment-friendliness and subsequent brand and product evaluations.
Next, the evaluation of the social responsibility of the brand was mostly based on elements related to
environment-friendliness. However, CSR also encompasses social and economic dimensions that are
not reflected in this research. Further research could study how the perception of packaging design
may influence evaluations of CSR regarding these social and economic dimensions.
The dependent variables examined in this study are related to consumers’ perceptions and
evaluations. We examined the influence of packaging executional design elements signalling
environment-friendliness on the evaluation of the brand and the product benefits that have been proven
to influence consumers’ behaviours to a great extent. Yet, future studies could focus on behavioural
aspects of environment-friendly consumption and focus on variables such as purchase intention and
willingness to pay.
Finally, this study differentiated between packaging design and packaging style and specifically
focused on the influence of the latter on perceptions of packaging and product environment-
friendliness. Especially for food products, future studies should stress the influence of the package
design on the product lifespan. Indeed, while organic or paper-based packages positively influence
perceptions of packaging and product environment-friendliness, they might not provide optimal
protection for the product, which would in turn increase the risk of wastage.5 Future experiments could

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
748 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

adopt more global approaches and test the influence of the protective qualities of the product package
(e.g. how it increases the lifespan of the product) on the evaluation of the environment-friendliness of
the package. Combining consumer research on determinants of acceptance of environment-friendly
packaged products and research on packaging sustainability at a technological level will help designers
and engineers to develop truly environment-friendly and accepted products.

REFERENCES
1. Nielsen. Global consumers are willing to put their money where their heart is when it comes to goods and services from
companies committed to social responsibility. 2014; Available from: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2014/
global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html [accessed 17 March 2017].
2. Procter&Gamble. Sustainability Report. 2014; Available from: http://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/sustainability/reports/
PG_2014_Sustainability_Report.pdf [accessed 17 March 2017].
3. Koenig-Lewis N, Palmer A, Dermody J, Urbye A. Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging–rational and emotional
approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2014; 37: 94–105.
4. Magnier L, Schoormans JPL. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: the interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim
and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2015; 44: 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2015.09.005.
5. Lindh H, Olsson A, Williams H. Consumer perceptions of food packaging: contributing to or counteracting environmentally
sustainable development? Packaging Technology and Science 2016; 29(1): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184.
6. Rokka J, Uusitalo L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – Do consumers care? International
Journal of Consumer Studies 2008; 32(5): 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x.
7. Orth UR, Malkewitz K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 2008; 72(3): 64–81.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.3.64.
8. Becker L, van Rompay TJ, Schifferstein HN, Galetzka M. Tough package, strong taste: the influence of packaging design on
taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference 2011; 22(1): 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2010.06.007.
9. Creusen ME, Schoormans JP. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 2005; 22(1): 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x.
10. Mugge R, Schoormans JP. Product design and apparent usability. The influence of novelty in product appearance. Applied
Ergonomics 2012; 43(6): 1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.009.
11. Mugge R, Massink T, Hultink EJ, van den Berg-Weitzel L. Designing a premium package: some guidelines for designers
and marketers. The Design Journal 2014; 17(4): 583–605.
12. Wever R, Tempelman E. The social component of eco-friendly packaging, in: Proceedings of the 24th IAPRI symposium on
packaging. Greenville, SC. May 17–20, 2009.
13. Nordin N, Selke S. Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 2010; 23(6): 317–326.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.899.
14. Bickart BA, Ruth JA. Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising 2012; 41(4): 51–67.
15. Atkinson L, Rosenthal S. Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product
involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising 2014; 43(1): 33–45.
16. Young S. Packaging and the environment: the shoppers’ perspective. Brand Packaging 2008; 12(1): 24–30.
17. Raymond E. Survey reveals generation gaps on sustainable attitudes. 2009 Available from: http://www.packagingdigest.
com/survey-reveals-generation-gaps-sustainability-attitudes [accessed 17 March 2017].
18. Lindh H, Williams H, Olsson A, Wikstrom F. Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable
development: a terminology of packaging functions and features. Packaging Technology and Science 2016; 29(4–5):
225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2197.
19. Gelici-Zeko M, Lutters D. Klooster tR, Weijzen P. Studying the influence of packaging design on consumer perceptions (of
dairy products) using categorizing and perceptual mapping. Packaging Technology and Science 2013; 26(4): 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.1977.
20. Magnier L, Crié D. Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: an exploration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed
packaging. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2015; 43(4/5): 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJRDM-04-2014-0048.
21. Thøgersen J. Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: model development and
multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy 2000; 23(3): 285–313. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007122319675.
22. D’Souza C, Taghian M, Lamb P, Peretiatkos R. Green products and corporate strategy: an empirical investigation. Society
and Business Review 2006; 1(2): 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465680610669825.
23. Bloch PH. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 1995; 59(3): 16–29. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1252116.
24. Graeff TR, Olson JC. Consumer inference as part of product comprehension. Advances in Consumer Research 1994; 21(1):
201–207.
25. Gorn GJ, Chattopadhyay A, Yi T, Dahl DW. Effects of color as an executional cue in advertising: they’re in the shade.
Management Science 1997; 43(10): 1387–1400. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.10.1387.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 749

26. Gordon A, Finlay K, Watts T. The psychological effects of colour in consumer product packaging. Canadian Journal of
Marketing Research 1994; 13(3): 3–11.
27. Schoormans JP, Robben HS. The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal
of Economic Psychology 1997; 18(2): 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00008-1.
28. Pantin-Sohier G. The influence of the product package on functional and symbolic associations of brand image. Recherche et
Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 2009; 24(2): 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/205157070902400203.
29. Labrecque LI, Milne GR. Exciting red and competent blue: the importance of color in marketing. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 2012; 40(5): 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0245-y.
30. Huber J, McCann J. The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 1982; 19(3):
324–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151566.
31. Pinson C. An implicit product theory approach to consumers’ inferential judgments about products. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 1986; 3(1): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(86)90040-6.
32. Kauppinen-Räisänen H, Luomala HT. Exploring consumers’ product-specific colour meanings. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal 2010; 13(3): 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751011053644.
33. Kauppinen-Räisänen H. Strategic use of colour in brand packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 2014; 27(8):
663–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2061.
34. Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of
Marketing 1988; 52(3): 2–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446.
35. Dichter E. Handbook of Consumer Motivations. McGraw-Hill: New York (NY), 1964.
36. Magnier L, Schoormans JPL, Mugge R. Judging a product by its cover: packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality
in food products. Food Quality and Preference 2016; 53: 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.006.
37. Tobler C, Visschers VH, Siegrist M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors.
Appetite 2011; 57(3): 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010.
38. Karana E, Nijkamp N. Fiberness, reflectiveness and roughness in the characterization of natural and high quality materials.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2014; 68: 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.001.
39. Parguel B, Benoit-Moreau F, Russell CA. Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional
greenwashing. International Journal of Advertising 2015; 34(1): 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116.
40. Sherman GD, Clore GL. The color of sin: white and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution.
Psychological Science 2009; 20(8): 1019–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02403.x.
41. Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R. The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on
product preference. Journal of Marketing 2010; 74(5): 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18.
42. Olsen MC, Slotegraaf RJ, Chandukala SR. Green claims and message frames: how green new products change brand
attitude. Journal of Marketing 2014; 78(5): 119–137.
43. Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the role of competitive
positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2007; 24(3): 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijresmar.2007.01.001.
44. Trudel R, Cotte J. Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review 2009; 50(2): 61–68.
45. Williams P, Drolet A. Age-related differences in responses to emotional advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research
2005; 32(3): 343–354.
46. Verhoog H, Matze M, Van Bueren EL, Baars T. The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2003; 16(1): 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021714632012.
47. Rozin P. The meaning of “natural” process more important than content. Psychological Science 2005; 16(8): 652–658.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x.
48. Roozen ITM, De Pelsmacker P. Polish and Belgian consumers’ perception of environmentally friendly behaviour. Journal
of Consumer Studies & Home Economics 2000; 24(1): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2737.2000.00114.x.
49. Bone PF, France KR. Package graphics and consumer product beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology 2001; 15(3):
467–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007826818206.
50. Peterson RA. On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal
of Consumer Research 2001; 28(3): 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1086/323732.
51. Baker TL, Hunt JB, Scribner LL. The effect of introducing a new brand on consumer perceptions of current brand similarity:
the roles of product knowledge and involvement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2002; 10(4): 45–57. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501925.
52. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage, 2013.
53. Brunk KH. Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: conceptualising and operationalising consumer meanings. Journal of
Business Ethics 2012; 111(4): 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1339-x.
54. Orth UR, Campana D, Malkewitz K. Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: attractive and
quality routes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2010; 18(1): 23–40. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-
6679180102.
55. Magnier L, Crié D, Schoormans JPL. Consumer responses to structural and informational components of eco-designed
packaging: the role of environmental concern, in: Proceedings of the 43rd EMAC conference. Valencia (Spain). June 3-6,
2014.
56. Luchs MG, Brower J, Chitturi R. Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off
between sustainability and functional performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2012; 29(6): 903–916.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00970.x.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
750 L. MAGNIER AND J. SCHOORMANS

57. Bell SS, Holbrook MB, Solomon MR. Combining esthetic and social value to explain preferences for product styles with the
incorporation of personality and ensemble effects. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1991; 6(6): 243.
58. Kilbourne W, Pickett G. How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior.
Journal of Business Research 2008; 61(9): 885–893.
59. Holbrook MB, Hirschman EC. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research 1982; 9(2): 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/208906.
60. Peck J, Childers TL. To have and to hold: the influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing
2003; 67(2): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612.
61. Schifferstein HN. The drinking experience: cup or content? Food Quality and Preference 2009; 20(3): 268–276. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.11.003.
62. Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE. Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance 1993; 19(4): 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.4.726.
63. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1972; 24(3):
285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731.
64. Lin Y-C, Chang C-CA. Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of
Marketing 2012; 76(5): 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0264.
65. Larceneux F, Benoit-Moreau F, Renaudin V. Why might organic labels fail to influence consumer choices? Marginal
labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of Consumer Policy 2012; 35(1): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-
9186-1.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts
 HOW DOES PACKAGING INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS? 751

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Stimuli. (a) From left to right: Fibre-based material, white plastic, red plastic; top:
Absence of environmental claim about the package; bottom: Presence of environmental claim about
the package, (b) Zoom in on the fibre-based material and environmental claim about the package.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017; 30: 735–751
DOI: 10.1002/pts