How Strong Is Your Coffee? The Influence of Visual Metaphors and Textual Claims on Consumers’ Flavor Perception and Product Evaluation

Abstract

This study investigates the relative impact of textual claims and visual metaphors displayed on the product’s package on consumers’ flavor experience and product evaluation. For consumers, strength is one of the most important sensory attributes of coffee. The 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment (N = 123) compared the effects of visual metaphor of strength (an image of a lion located either on top or on the bottom of the package of coffee beans) and the direct textual claim (“extra strong”) on consumers’ responses to coffee, including product expectation, flavor evaluation, strength perception and purchase intention. The results demonstrate that both the textual claim and the visual metaphor can be efficient in communicating the product attribute of strength. The presence of the image positively influenced consumers’ product expectations before tasting. The textual claim increased the perception of strength of coffee and the purchase intention of the product. The location of the image also played an important role in flavor perception and purchase intention. The image located on the bottom of the package increased the perceived strength of coffee and purchase intention of the product compared to the image on top of the package. This result could be interpreted from the perspective of the grounded cognition theory, which suggests that a picture in the lower part of the package would automatically activate the “strong is heavy” metaphor. As heavy objects are usually associated with a position on the ground, this would explain why perceiving a visually heavy package would lead to the experience of a strong coffee. Further research is needed to better understand the relationships between a metaphorical image and its spatial position in food packaging design.

“Seeing What’s Left”: The Effect of Position of Transparent Windows on Product Evaluation

“…Note also that previous findings have identified greater purchase intent for products that feature a product image at the top of the design in both Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) and Van Rompay, Fransen, and Borgelink (2014) [ 12 , 16 ]; and at the bottom in Fenko, de Vries, and Van Rompay (2018) [ 14 ]. In contrast, the present results identified no main effect of window verticality―instead, finding a main effect of laterality―and highlight further differences in the effects elicited by transparent windows and product imagery.…”

“…Where a significant main effect of a measure was reported between different positions, the measure is shown in bold for position(s) where the score was highest, with the standardised effect size (Cohen’s d) in subscript (if enough data has been presented to calculate effect size), and with the reference letter (as in ‘References’ below) in superscript. References: (A) Deng and Kahn (2009) [ 11 ]; (B) Westerman et al (2013) [ 19 ]; (C) Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) [ 16 ]; (D) Van Rompay, Fransen and Borgelink (2014) [ 12 ]; (E) Fenko, de Vries, and Van Rompay (2018) [ 14 ]; (F) Machiels and Orth (2017) [ 15 ]. Measures: He: Perceived product heaviness; In: Expected product intensity (e.g., taste intensity, smell intensity, alcohol content); OL: Overall liking or generalised design appeal; PI: Purchase intent; Po: Perceived product or brand powerfulness; Va: Expected product valence (e.g., tastiness).…”

“…If manipulated appropriately, even seemingly minor design elements can elicit strong responses in the mind of the consumer. The relative positions of various design elements on packaging have, for example, been found to influence perceptions of product weight (Deng and Kahn, 2009; Van Rompay, Fransen, and Borgelink, 2014) [ 11 , 12 ], brand and product powerfulness (Dong and Gleim, 2018 [ 13 ]; Fenko, de Vries, and Van Rompay, 2018 [ 14 ]; Machiels and Orth, 2017 [ 15 ]; Sundar and Noseworthy, 2014 [ 16 ]), product quality (Machiels and Orth, 2017) [ 15 ], product healthfulness (Festila and Chrysochou, 2016) [ 17 ], calorific content (Thomas and Gierl, 2017) [ 18 ], and overall product liking (Westerman et al, 2013 [ 19 ]; see also Velasco, Adams, Petit, & Spence, 2018 [ 20 ]). These effects have been found for the position of elements that include: basic shapes, product imagery, text, and brand logos.…”

Packaging design elements and consumers' decision to buy from the Web: A cause and effect decision‐making model

“…Previous research suggests that effects of either textual or visual elements on consumer purchasing decisions are dependent on the type of products being purchased online . For example, textual elements were found to have a greater influence on consumers' decisions than visual elements, especially in food products' purchasing .…”

“…Previous research suggests that effects of either textual or visual elements on consumer purchasing decisions are dependent on the type of products being purchased online. 12 For example, textual elements were found to have a greater influence on consumers' decisions than visual elements, especially in food products' purchasing. 13,14 However, Simmonds et al, 8 in their review of the packaging design of food products contend that visual packaging elements that capture a products' image in the packaging design have an important effect on consumers' buying decisions.…”