View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
THE “CUTENESS = SWEETNESS” INTUITION:
THE PRIMING EFFECTS OF CUTENESS ON CONSUMERS’ FOOD
PERCEPTION AND PURCHASE INTENTION
A Thesis in
Hospitality Management
by
Xunyue Xue
© 2020 Xunyue Xue
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2020
ii
The thesis of Xunyue Xue was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Anna S. Mattila Marriott Professor of Lodging Management
Professor in Charge of Graduate Program
Thesis Advisor
Donna Quadri-Felitti
Associate Professor of Hospitality Management Marvin Ashner Director of the School of Hospitality Management
Heyao (Chandler) Yu
Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management
iii
ABSTRACT
All humans crave for sweet foods despite their age, race, and cultural background
(Drewnowski et al., 2012), and they are conditioned to expect sugary foods at a high sweet
level (De la Peña, 2010; Laudan, 2016; Woloson, 2002). Therefore, lots of food marketers
intuitively use cute elements to position their products as “sweeter”. Yet, research on the
“cuteness = sweetness” link in the marketing domain is scant. This research examines how
priming cuteness influences consumers’ food perceptions (i.e., perceived sweetness,
tastiness, and healthiness) and purchase intention. An online and a lab experiment were
employed to test the proposed hypotheses. The major findings indicate that priming cuteness
increases purchase intention, which is sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and
tastiness. Cute elements increase perceived sweetness and the positive priming effect of
cuteness on perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived sweetness, whereascute stimuli
have no impact on healthiness perception. I present the theoretical contribution and practical
implications of the study’s findings and propose directions for future research.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................... 4
Overview of cuteness research .................................................................................... 4
Cute priming and sweetness perception ....................................................................... 6 Cute priming and opposite tastiness/healthiness perception ......................................... 9
Chapter 3 Methods and Results .......................................................................................... 13
Study 1 ........................................................................................................................ 13 Design and participants ........................................................................................ 13
Stimuli ................................................................................................................. 14 Procedures and measures ..................................................................................... 15
Results ................................................................................................................. 16 Study 2 ........................................................................................................................ 20
Design and participants ........................................................................................ 20
Stimuli ................................................................................................................. 20 Procedures and measures ..................................................................................... 21
Results ................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 4 General Discussion ............................................................................................ 26
Theoretical implications ............................................................................................. 27
Managerial implications ............................................................................................. 29 Limitations and future research ................................................................................... 30
Appendix Cuteness Measurements for Study 1 & 2 ............................................................. 32
References .......................................................................................................................... 34
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Examples of cuteness marketing practices ......................................................... 2
Figure 2-1: The conceptual framework ................................................................................ 11
Figure 3-1: Cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 1). ......................................... 14
Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (1)....... 17
Figure 3-3: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (1)................................ 18
Figure 3-4: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (2)................................ 19
Figure 3-1: Cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 2). ......................................... 21
Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (2)....... 23
Figure 3-3: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (3)................................ 24
Figure 3-4: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (4)................................ 25
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Demographic profile of respondents ................................................................... 13
Table 3-2: Two study results. ............................................................................................. 25
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the Marriott Foundation for the funding of this research
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Cute attack: A sensational response incited by the witnessing of something cute, precious,
fuzzy or otherwise snuggly. Symptoms include chills traveling up the spine and through the
fingertips, impulsive smiling and jerking of the limbs.
- Urban Dictionary, December 14, 2009
Humans naturally prefer sweet foods despite their age, race, or cultural background
(Drewnowski et al., 2012). Collectively, the United States has an extreme, not-reserved-for-
special-occasions sweet tooth that adds up to a startling statistic: the average American
consumes 22 pounds of candy every year, and more than 1,200 firms in the U.S.
manufacture sweets and treats worth $14.5 billion a year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
Riding on this consumer trend, a greater number of food producers have started to position
their products as “sweeter” by using various visual appeals. Approximately 64% of
consumers say that they choose a product simply based on the packaging’s visual appeal
(Nielsen, 2016). A vast majority of academic research has investigated the impact of single
design elements on perceived sweetness, such as the shape (Ngo et al., 2013; Fenko et al.,
2016; Van Ooijen et al. 2017), color (Karnal et al. 2016; Mai et al., 2016), transparency
(Deng & Srinivasan 2013), imagery (Deng & Kahn 2009; Machiels & Karnal 2016), and
label placement (Huang et al. 2019). Among all the design elements, a specific marketing
cue that has attracted both industrial and scholarly attention is cuteness.
Cuteness, though denoting varied meaning in daily communication, its academic
conceptualization falls into two types: (1) kindchenschema, which assesses the degree to which
the object has a baby-like in appearance (Lorenz, 1943), and (2) whimsicality, which focuses on
2
characteristics of whimsical fun and playfulness (Nenkov & Scott, 2014). Previous studies found
that the effect of cuteness, evoked by multiple design elements, is robust and universal (Esposito
et al., 2014; Hildebrandt, 1983). Therefore, worldwide food marketers widely incorporate cute
elements into their sweet foods to increase product likability, to generate favorable emotions and
attitudes, consequently influencing consumers’ food intake and food choice (Boyer et al., 2012;
Branen et al., 2002; Nenkov & Scott, 2014). For example, Innocent Drinks makes use of
anthropomorphic fruit pictures on their juice bottles; Fujiya’s cute mascot Peko-chan, the smiley
and mischievous babyface, is a big part of what makes the brand so instantly recognizable;
Sanrio, a Japanese company that designs, licenses and produces kawaii (cute) characters that
graces the packaging of many snack and bakery companies.
Figure 1-1: Examples of cuteness marketing practices
Such widespread use of cute stimuli in the sweets/treats marketing may reflect an
intuitive association between cuteness and sweetness (REF?). Surprisingly, to the best of my
knowledge, no study has empirically investigated the cuteness-sweetness link in the marketing
domain. So, how does the visual appeal of cuteness influence consumers’ sugary food perceptions
and behavior intention? To answer the questions, I draw insight from both the cuteness and the
sensory marketing literature. Previous research suggests that both internal and external sources
underlie the “cuteness = sweetness” intuition. Internally, humans have an instinct to integrate
3
multiple sensory elements when such sensory modalities evoke common feelings and emotions
(Frank et al., 1993; Marks, 2014; Spence, 2011). Building on this notion named “crossmodal
correspondences”, I argue that that the “sweet taste/cute vision” match is evoked by the hedonic
properties embedded in both sensory modalities. Externally, before tasting, the visual perception
may induce some expectations based on consumers’ previous experiences. This cognitive status,
in turn, influences consumers’ subsequent taste perceptions. To elaborate, the marketing efforts of
constantly pairing cute elements with sugary foods may enhance perceived sweetness regardless
of the actual sugar level.
This thesis has several implications for theory. First, it illuminates a novel facilitator,
cuteness, that serves as an extrinsic sensory cue and leads consumers to perceive the sugary food
as sweeter. Second, this research extends the line of food perception research to the concept of
cuteness, suggesting that priming cuteness only significantly increases perceived tastiness but not
influences perceived healthiness of sugary foods. Third, this research also adds to the growing
literature on cute marketing. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first research to investigate
the priming effect of cuteness on consumers’ purchase intention of sweet foods, and the
sequential mediating role of sweetness perceptions and tastiness/healthiness perceptions. In the
following chapter, the literature related to the priming effect of cuteness and food perception is
reviewed. The research methods employed in this study and the results are then described.
Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of this research, in addition to a discussion of
limitations and potential future research, are presented.
4
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Overview of cuteness research
The word “cute” is ubiquitous in both the marketplace and daily communication (Wang
& Anirban, 2015). Even though cuteness denotes various, somewhat contradictory meanings in
colloquial language, in academia, it is categorized into two types: kindchenschema and
whimsicality.
Kindchenschema. Also known as “baby schema”, kindchenschema is a classic, well-
accepted definition of cuteness, firstly proposed by ethologist Konrad Lorenz (1943). It refers to
a set of infantile characteristics that evoke positive affective responses in human beings, including
both physical features (e.g., the large forehead, round chubby cheeks, and big eyes) and
behavioral traits (e.g., clumsy behavior; Glocker et al., 2009). Kindchenschema can attach
cuteness to infants (Li, Haws & Griskevicius, 2018), adults (Berry & McAuthur, 1985), and even
to non-human objects like animals and manufactured products (Golle et al., 2013; Miesler et al.,
2011). Miesler et al. (2011) suggest that cars with larger “eyes” (headlights), narrower “lips” (air
intake), and small “noses” (middle grilles) are perceived cuter than ones without such features,
thus eliciting observers’ positive responses. Since it relates to the vulnerable nature of a living
entity, exposure to kindchenschema cuteness triggers an innate releaser of parental care (Berry &
McArthur 1985; Lorenz 1943). Due to such mental representations of vulnerability and
caretaking, marketing researchers mainly study the impact of kinchenschema on enhancing
“other-benefit” behaviors such as charity donations consumption of green products and tolerance
of product failure (Xie et al., 2018). For instance, Shin (2019) found that after viewing a set of
cute images, participants exhibited higher donation intentions to a local food bank; Silva (2016)
5
demonstrated the effect of cuteness appeals on promoting a more plant-based diet; and
Sprengelmeyer et al. (2019) pointed out that since cuteness increases perceived warmth,
consumers tend to have higher tolerance for the failure of cute brands and are more willing to
listen to failure explanations.
Whimsicality. Nenkov and Scott (2014) proposed a novel dimension of cuteness, which
“is associated with capricious humor and playful disposition”. Examples of such cuteness include
an ice-cream scoop shaped like a miniature person or a dress with tropical colors and pink
flamingos. Wang and Anirban (2015) suggest that the French firm Pylones is an excellent
example of capturing whimsical cuteness since it specializes in “poetic and colorful objects”.
Distinctively different from the vulnerable nature inherent in kindchenschema, whimsicality
primes mental representations of fun and hedonic values. Therefore, related studies focus on its
impact on self-benefit behaviors. Nenkov and Scott (2014) found that priming cuteness increases
consumers' self-reward focus and makes them more likely to choose indulgent options. In a later
study (2016), they identified the effect of “responsibility reminders” on reducing cuteness-
induced indulgent consumption. When consumers are reminded of their responsibility to
themselves and other people, they are more likely to resist the temptation of purchasing cute
products, thus contributing to their long-term well-being.
Overall, cuteness is a multifaceted construct with two underlying subsets. The general
cuteness is a robust yet universal cue. Firstly, the effect of cuteness tends to override the effects
of other visual cues (Wang & Anirban, 2015). For example, usually, facial expressions with
positive emotions are found to increase perceived attractiveness. However, Hildebrandt (1983)
suggests that certain babies were rated more attractive, simply out of cuteness rather than the
expressions they conveyed. Secondly, cuteness perceptions are universal rather than culturally
determined. Sanefuji et al. (2007)’s study showed that preschool children, with little cultural
experiences, have similar preferences for cute objects. Esposito et al. (2014) found that cuteness
6
perceptions transcend group membership distinctions (i.e., similar responses for both in-groups
and out-groups). Parsons et al. (2011) also found that although women were more likely to report
sensitivity towards cute infant features, no significant difference was found between men’s and
women’s time spent looking at cute stimuli.
Cute priming and sweetness perception
The mainstream research of cuteness marketing centers around “the priming effect” of
cuteness on consumers’ perceptions and behaviors. Priming, as suggested by social-cognitive
theories, refers to the “technique whereby exposure to one stimulus influences an individual’s
response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention” (Bargh & Chartrand,
2000; Weingarten et al., 2016). In other words, exposure to one stimulus, which appears to have
an overlap or strong association (the association can be perceptual, semantic, or conceptual) with
the targeted stimulus, can activate given types of perceptions or behaviors (Dijksterhuis & Bargh,
2001). A significant amount of research has shown that people infer underlying traits and exhibit
behaviors they associate with other individuals, social groups, symbols, brands, and even product
attributes (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Fitzsimons et al., 2008). Consumers often lack access to
complete product information, and therefore, they tend to use symbolic associations to form
judgments about product attributes, which in turn, spill over to their product evaluations
(Benedikt, 2019; Deval et al. 2013).
Of particular importance to the current research, prior research has demonstrated that
packaging design elements, such as shape, color, and imagery, can alter consumers’ mental
representations, thus influencing their sweetness perceptions of food. Consumers perceive food
as sweeter when food packages are rounded rather than angular (Velasco et al., 2014), symmetric
rather than asymmetric, contain more elements rather than less (Salgado-Montejo et al., 2015),
7
voluminous rather than tight (Deroy & Valentin, 2011). Moreover, the priming effect still holds
when it’s not directly related to the target object. For instance, when instructed to listen to low-
pitched sounds and to read semantically familiar words, participants expressed higher levels of
“sweet” sensitivity (Liang et al., 2013; Velasco et al., 2014)
Taken together, prior research has examined the effect of single design elements, while
the focus of the current study is to investigate the effects of cute priming evoked by multiple
design elements. So, how does cute priming influence consumers’ sweetness perceptions of food?
This study posits that both internal and external sources underlie the “cuteness = sweetness”
intuition.
Internal sources. Humans are naturally integrative in their sensory perceptions (Frank et
al., 1993). The idea that the sweet food’s cute features can convey clues about its sweet taste may
be explained by the notion of “crossmodal correspondences”. Spence (2011) defines crossmodal
correspondences as “the tendency to match various attributes and sensory dimensions across
different sensory modalities”. To elaborate, when one sensory modality (e.g. taste) only provides
ambiguous and incomplete information, humans need to take in information from other parallel
sensory channels (e.g. light, sound, temperature, pressure and smell) to form concepts and
opinions about a complex stimulus, such as food or consumer products (Lavin & Lawless, 1998).
Crossmodal correspondences are more likely when all the sensory modalities evoke a common
feeling or emotion (Marks, 2014; Spence, 2011).
This study proposes that sweet taste/priming cuteness matches may be partly mediated by
the hedonic properties embedded in both sensory modalities. On the one hand, sweetness has high
hedonic value (Frijters, 1987) - the response to ingestion is one of pleasure, thus imparting high
hedonic value to sugar and sugar-containing foods. People typically match sweet taste with visual
stimuli when they denote similar hedonic and intensity-related properties (Velasco et al., 2014).
For example, Liang et al. (2013) and Velasco et al. (2015) showed that package shapes with
8
curvature attributes (e.g. circles and ellipses) induce higher hedonic scores, thus increasing
consumers’ sweet sensitivity (i.e., the ability to detect sweetness in food). Salgado-Montejo et al.
(2015) also suggest that participants categorized shapes that were round, symmetrical, and which
had fewer elements as sweeter and more pleasant. On the other hand, cuteness in general evokes a
positive affective response. The evidence in the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)
showed that the seven images rated highest in positive valence are all images of cute animals and
human babies (Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1999). Both the mental representations of
kinchenschema (i.e., wholesomeness) and whimsicality (i.e., fun and playfulness) point to the
hedonic value of cute features. Taken together, this study proposes that the positive feelings
people associate with cute visual stimuli spill over to the pleasure associated with sweet taste.
External Sources. In addition to sensory transference, marketing communications
repeatedly pairing sweet food with cute elements also account for the “cuteness = sweetness”
intuition. As Piqueras-Fiszman et al. (2012) suggested, the visual perception may set up some
expectations based on previous experiences and thereby unconsciously influence people’s taste
perceptions. Being constantly exposed to marketing communications pairing sweet food with cute
elements, consumers tend to view cuteness and sweetness cues as compatible. Other external
sources include personal communications, in which people are constantly exposed to views that
are compatible with the cuteness=sweetness intuition. The dictionary definition of “kawaii”
(cuteness) – “has a sweet nature” has suggested the co-occurrence of sweet and cute concepts
(Nittono, 2016). Cuteness has become the favored language of (the predominantly female) the
popular consumer culture (Granot, Alejandro & Russell, 2014). Taken together, I propose the
following:
H1: Cute (vs. neutral) priming increases consumers’ perception of food sweetness.
9
Cute priming and its opposite effect on tastiness/healthiness perceptions
Prior research suggests that as sweet intensity increased it had a positive impact on
perceived pleasantness, up to a flattening point (Pfaffmann, 1980; Wundt, 1874) When stored in
long-term memory, sweetness is not only a sensory perception but also “a part of the mental
attitude towards the food concerned” (Frijters, 1987). In other words, sweetness positively
correlates with perceived tastiness. For example, Meiselman (1977) found that 40% of 378
preferred food items were classified as being sweet. Despite their age, ethnicity, or culture,
humans have an innate preference towards the sweet taste due to the rewarding properties of
sugars and repeated experiences with heavily marketed, intensely sweet foods (Drewnowski et
al., 2012). The sense of pleasant feelings/emotions generated by cute priming will raise
consumers’ focus and responsiveness to cues regarding the possible self-reward, thus increasing
their perceptions of potential hedonic benefits (Voss et al., 2003). The hedonic value of food
products is defined by how good the food tastes (Connell & Mayor, 2013). In the field of sweet
foods, one important criterion of tastiness is perceived sweetness.
Therefore, the impact of cute priming increasing consumers’ tastiness perceptions is a
two-step process: (1) when exposed to a food item with cute packaging/shape, the notion of
pleasure is likely to be triggered and become mentally accessible. (2) The product imagery is
likely to be influenced by the pleasure association, resulting in the food item being perceived as
having more hedonic value (i.e., for sugary foods = sweeter and tastier). Thus,
H2a: Cute (vs. neutral) priming increases perceived tastiness.
H2b: The positive effect of cute priming perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived
sweetness.
However, according to the naive theory (Deval et al. 2013), people tend to draw opposing
inferences from the same information. Specifically, consumers categorize objects into those that
10
are fun and exciting (tasty) and those that are wholesome (healthy, nourishing, and good for you)
and hold the belief that there exists a compensatory relationship between the “wholesomeness”
and the one with “hedonic potential” (Raghunathan, Naylor & Hoyer, 2006). People generally
believe that healthy foods should have simple and clean designs such as muted colors, transparent
packages, and non-animated packages. While foods with cute elements go against such traditional
belief that healthy foods should look serious and may lead to negative healthiness inference. For
example, Elliott (2009) suggested that foods’ playful appearance negatively influences children’s
interpretation of health and nutrition. Huang and Lu (2013) also show that sweetness perceptions
mediate the relationship between package color and healthiness perceptions of foods. Since I
expect that priming cuteness leads to a positive inference about the food’s sweetness, I predict
that that cute priming serves as a positive taste cue and as a negative health cue. Thus,
H3a: Cute (vs. neutral) priming decreases perceived healthiness.
H3b: The negative effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness is mediated by
perceived sweetness.
Previous research shows that perceptions have a direct and often unconscious effect on a
wide range of behaviors, from simple motor movements to elaborate behavioral patterns
(Dijksterhuis et al. 2005). Accordingly, consumers’ food perceptions, activated by a particular
mental construct, influence their food decisions such as purchase intention. As priming cuteness
simultaneously increases perceived tastiness while decreasing perceived healthiness of the food
item, what is their relative impact on consumers’ purchase intention?
Previous studies have shown that product type influences consumer responses to
products, assortments, and promotions by shifting consumers’ focus to make judgments (Hui et
al., 2009; Milkman et al., 2008; Okada, 2005; Wertenbroch, 1998). For vice products (known as
“wants”), consumers pay more attention to the immediate pleasure they could experience rather
than long-term outcomes to make purchase decisions. While for virtue products (known as
11
“should”), the contribution to health is the most prominent criteria (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011).
The sugary foods like cookies, chocolates, and cakes are vice products since they bring the
affective gratification and are hedonic by nature (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Holbrook,
1982). Prior studies show that consumers focus on experiential attributes (i.e., the taste and
social–cultural meaning of the food) rather than functional values when evaluating hedonic foods.
For example, Schnurr (2019) found that for vice products (vs. virtue products), consumers
interpret cute packaging as a positive signal for tastiness, and care less about their negative
association with healthiness, thus increasing their purchase intention. Therefore, I predict that
when evaluating sugary foods, consumers prioritize tastiness rather than healthiness when making
purchase decision. Thus,
H4: For sweet foods, the positive impact of cute priming on consumers’ purchase
intention is sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and perceived tastiness.
The conceptual framework is shown below:
Figure 2-1: The conceptual framework
12
Chapter 3
Methods and Results
Study 1
Study 1 has two main goals. Firstly, it aims to demonstrate the cute priming effect. If
so, cuteness priming will have a positive impact on consumers’ purchase intention of sweet
foods. Secondly, this study investigates the underlying mechanism that cuteness cues make
consumers expect sugary foods to be sweeter, which further influences perceived tastiness,
perceived healthiness, and consequent purchase intention. I conduct an online experiment
with visual stimuli in line with previous studies on cuteness and food decision (Nenkov &
Scott, 2014; Schnurr, 2019).
Design and participants
This study used a single-factor (cute priming: cute vs. control) within-subjects design.
Cuteness priming was manipulated with images. Fifty-five participants were recruited from
Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for a small monetary compensation. Two participants who
did not pass the attention checks were excluded from further analyses. Table 3-1 shows the
demographic profile of the respondents.
Table 3-1: Demographic profile of respondents.
Variables Characteristics Participants (N = 53) Percentage
Gender Male 34 64.2%
Female 19 35.8%
Age 18 - 24
3 5.7%
25 – 34 20 37.9%
35 – 44 19 36%
13
Stimuli
Pictures of two sugary cookies were chosen as stimuli. A Hello Kitty shape and a round
shape were selected as cute and neutral shapes, in line with the definition of cuteness and
previous experiments (Lee et al., 2018; Nenkov & Scott, 2014).
Figure 3-1: cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 1)
To ensure the effectiveness of the cuteness manipulation, all participants viewed both the
cute or neutral cookie and rated the extent to which the cookies were overall cute (cute, adorable,
endearing; α = .849), reflected whimsical cuteness (whimsical, playful, fun; α = .884 ), reflected
45 – 54 6 11.4%
55 – 64 3 5.7%
65 or over 2 3.8%
Ethnicity White 42 79.2%
Black or African American 6 11.3%
Asian 3 5.7%
Other 2 3.8%
Education High school graduate 13 24.5%
Some college 9 17%
2-year degree 6 11.3%
4-year degree 21 39.6%
Professional degree 4 7.5%
Income $10,000 to $50,000 33 62.3%
$50,000 to $100,000 19 35.8%
$100,000 to $150,000 1 1.9%
14
kindchenschema cuteness (vulnerable, naive, caretaking; α = .892), and were likable (likable,
attractive; r = .742 ). All items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely;
Nenkov & Scott, 2014).
Procedures and measures
Participants were informed that they would be completing a survey about consumers'
food consumption behavior. To avoid the order effect, the experimental procedure followed a
counter-balanced presentation order (Macfie et al., 1989; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012), that is,
half of the participants viewed the kitty cookie picture first, while the other half viewed the round
one first. After reporting their hunger level, participants viewed the first cookie picture and
completed the manipulation check and measurements of interests (see Appendix A for the full list
of measurements). Next, participants viewed the second cookie picture and answered the same
measures again. Demographic information was collected at the end.
Purchase intention
Likelihood to purchase the sugary cookie was captured with three items adapted from
Baker and Churchill (1977), and Kilbourne (1986): “Would you like to try this cookie?”, “Would
you buy this cookie if you happened to see it in a store?” and “Would you actively seek out this
cookie in a store in order to purchase it?” (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes; α = .843)
15
Food perceptions
An unstructured 10-cm-long scale was used to measure anticipated food sweetness,
anchored with “not sweet at all” and “extremely sweet” (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012).
Participants have to drag the slider to indicate their sweetness perception. Perceived tastiness and
healthiness were measured by one single item, respectively: “How would you rate this cookie on
the following attributes?” (1 = not at all tasty/healthy, 7 = very tasty/healthy).
Control variables
Participants indicated their hunger level (1 = not at all hungry, 7 = extremely hungry) and
their general liking of sugar cookies (1 = dislike extremely, 7 = like extremely). Having answered
the questions of interests, participants reported their demographic information (i.e., age, gender,
ethnicity, education and income).
Results
A paired sample t-test was conducted on perceived cuteness. The results showed that,
comparing to the control condition (i.e., round cookie), the cute condition (i.e., kitty cookie) was
perceived as cuter (Mcute = 5.264 vs. Mcontrol = 2.642, p < .001), more whimsical (Mcute =
5.214 vs. Mcontrol = 2.465, p < .001), and more kindchenschema (Mcute = 3.094 vs. Mcontrol =
2.170, p = .001), and more likable (Mcute = 5.311 vs. Mcontrol = 3.359, p < .001). The cuteness
manipulation was successful.
Results of paired samples t-test revealed that, comparing to the sugar cookie in the
neutral condition, participants rated the one in the cute condition as sweeter (Mcute = 7.359 vs.
16
Mcontrol = 6.377, t(3.201), p = .002), and as tastier (Mcute = 5.910 vs. Mcontrol = 5.380, t(2.654), p
= .011). The effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness was not significant (Mcute = 2.660 vs.
Mcontrol = 2.890, t(-1.030), p = .308). Furthermore, participants showed a higher purchase intention
with the cute cookie than the neutral one (Mcute = 4.798 vs. Mcontrol = 4.113, t(3.080), p = .003; see
Figure 3-2).
A mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach (MEMORE,
2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and tastiness as serial mediators (See Figure 3-3).
The positive indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived
sweetness and tastiness was not significant (effect (b) = .035, standard error (SE) = .059, 95%
Confidence Interval (CI95%) =- .076 to .166). The cute shape positively predicted perceived
sweetness (b = .981, SE = .307, t(3.), p = .002); Perceived sweetness positively predicted
perceived tastiness (b = .325, SE = .078, t(4.162), p < .001); But perceived tastiness failed to
positively predict purchase intention (b = .109, SE = .164, t( .669), p = .507). The direct
Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sweetness Tastiness Healthiness Purchase Intention
Cute Neutral
17
impact of cute priming on purchase intention was also significant (b = .686, SE = .223,
t(3.080), p = .003).
Figure 3-3: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (1)
Similarly, a mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach
(MEMORE, 2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and healthiness as serial mediators.
The negative indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived
sweetness and healthiness was not significant (b = .002, SE = .016, CI95% =- .042 to .029).
The cute shape positively predicted perceived sweetness (b = .981, SE = .307, t(3.201), p
= .002); Perceived sweetness failed to negatively predict perceived healthiness (b = .037, SE
= .104, t( .355), p = .724) and perceived healthiness also failed to positively predicted
purchase intention (b = .061, SE = .119, t(. 515), p = .609). The direct impact of cute priming
on purchase intention was significant (b = .686, SE = .223, t(3.080), p = .003).
Figure 3-4: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (2)
Cute
Priming
Purchase
Intention
Perceived
Sweetness
Perceived
Tastiness
.002
(+ .981) .002
(+ .328)
.507
(+ .109) .264
(+ .210)
< .001
(+ .325) .003
(+ .686)
18
Cute
Priming
Purchase
Intention
Perceived
Sweetness
Perceived
Healthiness
.002
(+ .981) < .001
(+ .365)
.609
(+ .061) .291
(- .262)
.724
(+ .037) .003
(+ .686)
19
Study 2
Study 1 initially established the cute priming effect derived from visual stimuli in an
online setting. Study 2 applied a lab experiment to demonstrate the robustness of the cute priming
effect. Specially, while Study 1 only gauged participants’ anticipated sweetness of the food,
Study 2 captured taste perceptions.
Design and participants
Study 2 used a single-factor (cute priming: cute vs. control) within-subjects design.
The priming of cuteness was manipulated via cookie shapes. Fifty-three undergraduate
students (N = 53, 64% Female) at the Pennsylvania State University participated in the study
in return for extra credit
Stimuli
Sugar cookies were chosen as stimuli. Consistent with Study 1, the Hello Kitty shape and
a round shape were selected as the cute and neutral shape, respectively. The cookies were custom
ordered from a local bakery. Regardless of their shape (kitty vs. round), both cute and neutral
cookies had the same color, weight, and ingredients. Again, to ensure the effectiveness of the
cuteness manipulation, all participants viewed both the cute or neutral cookie and rated the extent
to which the cookies were cute (cute, adorable, endearing; α = .881), reflected whimsical cuteness
(whimsical, playful, fun; α = .837 ), reflected kindchenschema cuteness (vulnerable, naive,
caretaking; α = .906), and were likable (likable, attractive; r = .764 ). All items were measured on
a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
20
Figure 3-5: cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 2)
Procedures and measures
The experiment was conducted at a research laboratory at the university, where
participants sat in an individual carrel and filled out a computer-assisted survey. Before
entering the lab, the “fake” study purpose and instructions were given to the participants.
After reporting their hunger level, participants were given either a kitty shape or round shape
cookie on a white plate. They were instructed to observe, touch and taste the cookie and then
fill out the questionnaire on the computer, before trying the next cookie. The presentation
order (kitty shape cookie vs. round shape cookie) was counterbalanced. A cup of water was
available for rinsing the palate between samples. Participants were allowed to finish cookies
after they had completed the evaluation if they so wished. Evaluations were performed under
artificial daylight type illumination, temperature control (70–75 °F) and air circulation.
The focal study was disguised as the evaluation of the local bakery’s new products.
To mask the genuine purpose, participants were asked rate the cookie on different several
21
irrelevant attributes (e.g. perceived quality, perceived intensity). Other measurements were
the same as Study 1.
Results
The manipulation check of cuteness was successful. The results showed that, compared to
the control condition (i.e., round cookie), the cute condition (i.e., kitty cookie) was perceived as
cuter (Mcute = 4.799 vs. Mcontrol = 2.654, p < .001), more whimsical (Mcute = 4.868 vs. Mcontrol =
2.270, p < .001), more kindchenschema (Mcute = 3.157 vs. Mcontrol = 2.346, p < .001), and evoked
more positive affect (Mcute = 4.962 vs. Mcontrol = 3.302, p < .001) as expected.
Results of paired samples t-test found that, participants in the cute condition rated the
cookie as sweeter (Mcute = 5.453 vs. Mcontrol = 4.189, t(3.619), p = .001) and were more willing to
purchase it (Mcute = 3.925 vs. Mcontrol = 3.006, t(5.735), p < .001). The effect of cute priming on
perceived tastiness was marginally significant (Mcute = 4.580 vs. Mcontrol = 4.250, t(1.749), p
= .086), while the effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness was insignificant (Mcute = 2.940
vs. Mcontrol = 2.830, t(1.352), p = .182).
Figure 3-6: Main Effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (2)
22
A mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach (MEMORE,
2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and tastiness as serial mediators (See Figure. 3-7).
It produced a significant positive indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention
through perceived sweetness and tastiness (effect (b) = .084, standard error (SE) = .045, 95%
Confidence Interval (CI95%) = .017 to .189). Specifically, the cute shape positively predicted
perceived sweetness (b = 1.264, SE = .349, t(3.619), p < .001); Perceived sweetness
positively predicted perceived tastiness (b = .220, SE = .073, t(3.018), p < .004) and
perceived tastiness positively predicted purchase intention (b = .302, SE = .115, t(2.625), p
< .012). The direct impact of cute priming on purchase intention was also significant (b
= .918, SE = .160, t(5.735), p < .001).
Figure 3-7: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (3)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sweetness Tastiness Healthiness Purchase Intention
Cute Neutral
23
A mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach (MEMORE,
2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and healthiness as serial mediators. The negative
indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived sweetness and
healthiness was not significant (b =- .015, SE = 0.026, 95%, CI95% =- .069
to .043).Specifically, the cute shape positively predicted perceived sweetness (b = 1.264, SE
= .349, t(3.619), p < .001); Perceived sweetness failed to negatively predict perceived
healthiness (b = - .023, SE = .340, t(- .686), p = .496) and perceived healthiness also failed to
positively predicted purchase intention (b = .493, SE = .271, t(1.817), p = .076). The direct
impact of cute priming on purchase intention was significant (b = .918, SE = .160, t(5.735), p
< .001).
Figure 3-8: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (4)
Cute
Priming
Purchase
Intention
Perceived
Sweetness
Perceived
Tastiness
<.001
(+ 1.264) .002
(+ .079)
.012
(+ .302) .766
(+ .061)
.004
(+ .220) <.001
(+ .918)
24
The table below summarizes the support for the proposed hypotheses
Table 3-2: Two study results
Study 1 Study 2
H1 Supported Supported H2a and H2b Supported Supported
H3a and H3b Not Supported Not Supported
H4 Not Supported Supported
Cute
Priming
Purchase
Intention
Perceived
Sweetness
Perceived
Healthiness
<.001
(+ 1.264) .017
(+ .154)
.076
(+ .493) .139
(+ .143)
.496
(- .023) <.001
(+ .918)
25
Chapter 4
General Discussion
Results from Study 1 provide initial evidence of the cute priming effect. The findings
suggest that viewing an image of a cute cookie increases perceived sweetness (H1 supported).
Moreover, the positive priming effect of cuteness on perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived
sweetness (H2a and H2b supported). Such an increase in perceived sweetness and tastiness,
however, did not influence participants’ purchase intention (H4 not supported). The failure to
detect such a mediation may be attributed to the limitation of an online survey. In the online
setting, participants can only “imagine and expect” the taste/flavor by viewing food pictures
rather than actually tasting them. Therefore the mediating effect of “anticipated tastiness” is not
strong enough to drive purchase intention. If so, we would expect that consumers are more
willing to buy cute cookies when they are able to actually taste them, which drives me to conduct
the second lab experiment.
These findings also indicate that priming cuteness has no influence on healthiness
perceptions (H3a and H3b not supported). This counterintuitive finding can be explained with the
“Least Mean Square (LMS)” connectionist model (Gluck & Bower, 1988; Janiszewski & Van
Osselaer, 2000): The LMS was developed to explain how people learn, remember, and react to
stimuli, assuming that cues compete to acquire predictive values. In other words, one cue can
only acquire predictive value when performance differences that it predicts have not been covered
by other available cues. For instance, Besharat (2010) found that, in the context ofco-branding,
quality perceptions for products with two high-equity brands do not differ from those for a
product with one high-equity and one low-equity brand, because one high-equity brand has
already provided sufficient predictive cues to form attitudinal judgments.
26
Similarly, there are two cues consumers use for making healthiness judgment: (1) the cue
brought by food type, and (2) the cue brought by the cute shape. According to the LMS
connectionist model, since the product type of the sugary cookie is hedonic in nature and provides
sufficient information about how unhealthy the cookie may be, it inhibits the access to any
possible associations of the second ally (i.e., the negative healthiness perception brought by the
cute shape). Such a ceiling effect is a compelling reason why H3a and H3b are rejected.
Study 2 replicates Study 1 in a real lab setting. The study findings provide converging
evidence for the cute priming effect. Priming cuteness positively influenced consumers’ purchase
intention (H4 supported), which is sequentially mediated through perceived sweetness and
tastiness (H1, H2a and H2b supported). Consistent with Study 1, priming cuteness does not
influence consumers’ healthiness perceptions (H3a and H3b not supported), which may result
from the ceiling effect of two competing cues as previously suggested.
Theoretical implications
The current research contributes to the hospitality literature in several ways. First, the two
studies illuminate a novel facilitator, cuteness, that serves as an extrinsic cue and leads consumers
to perceive the sugary food as sweeter. Previous research has mainly focused on single elements
such as color brightness (Mai et al. 2016), color hue (Karnal et al. 2016), shape angularity (Fenko
et al. 2016; Velasco et al. 2014), shape size (Deroy & Valentin, 2011) and product visuals
(Machiels & Karnal 2016), while little attention has been devoted to stimulus combined with
multi design elements. To fill this void, this research demonstrates that cuteness, a robust and
universal visual cue with multiple elements can effectively leverage consumers’ sweetness
perception. It is noteworthy here that the study findings reveal that the impacts of cute priming on
27
sweetness perception are not only the result of crossmodal correspondences, but also driven by
marketing efforts (Velasco et al., 2014). My findings shed light on a pleasant catalyst of cute
priming, which has a strong appeal in the hospitality industry since it overrides other visual
marketing elements.
Second, this study extends food perception research. Prior research shows that consumers
depend on expectations about food quality (i.e., taste, health, convenience and process) when
making food choices(Brunsø & Grunert, 2002). I extend this stream of literature by showing that
hedonic values induced by sweetness (taste) and the cute food shape (visual) jointly influence
consumers’ taste perceptions, thus leading to higher purchase intention.
Third, this research adds to the growing literature on cute marketing. When exploring the
role of cuteness in food marketing, the vast majority of research primarily focuses on one subset
of cuteness rather than picture cuteness holistically. Also, the impacts of cuteness on food intake
have generated more attention than the perception-purchase behavior link. For instance,
kinchenschema effectively reduces meat consumption and induces a more plant-based diet (Silva,
2016), while whimsicality promotes indulgent consumption by increasing consumers’ self-reward
focus (Nenkov & Scott, 2014). To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to examine
how cute food shapes drive consumers’ food perceptions and subsequent purchase intention.
Sugary foods are often bundled with cute images, thus magnifying their hedonic nature. I extend
the stream of literature by demonstrating the sequential mediating role of sweetness and tastiness
on the relationship between cute priming and purchase intention of sugary foods.
Managerial implications
This study also provides actionable managerial implications for marketers and
policymakers. On the one hand, the findings suggest that marketers should make use of cute
28
elements to promote sweet treats’ perceived sweetness. Cultural factors are powerful
determinants of which food we prefer, as dietary experience may influence liking for tastes and
flavors (especially sweet and bitter; Rozin & Vollmecke, 1986). Prescott and Bell (1995) show
that compared with Taiwanese students, US students rated the cookies as more pleasant at high
sucrose concentrations. Also, foods are pervasively sweeter in the North American region due to
a complex and interlocking set of forces like support from the US government, sugar growers,
and food service sectors (De la Peña, 2010; Laudan, 2016; Woloson, 2002). Since Americans are
conditioned to expect sweet foods at a high sugar level, marketers should use more cute elements
to increase perceived. Moreover, when consuming sweet treats, people predominantly focus on
the immediate pleasure, thus looking for cues that signal tastiness with less attention to how
unhealthy the food might be. To make such pleasure more salient, designers can incorporate
"cuteness" into products by color, material, motion, sound, shape, size, and proportion (Cheok,
2010).
On the other hand, priming cuteness could be an effective strategy for policymakers to
fight against obesity. From 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the prevalence of obesity increased
from 30.5% to 42.4%, resulting to an estimated $147 billion expenditures in the U.S. per year
(CDC, 2020) Results of Study 2 show that the cute food shape can “fool” our taste buds by
making us think the food is sweeter than it actually is. Therefore, policymakers can encourage
companies to produce healthy snacks with cute elements, leading consumers to make healthier
food choices and reduce their sugar intake.
Limitations and future research
Despite the contributions to theory and practice, the limitations of the current study open
up several avenues for future research. First, the two experiments were conducted using a single
29
stimulus, a kitty shape cookie, to represent cuteness. The results indicate that priming cuteness
evokes positive affective responses, therefore influencing consumers’ food perception. Nenkov
and Scott (2014) identify two sub-dimensions of cuteness – kinchenschema and whimsicality.
The former leads to more careful behaviors, suggesting restraint, while the latter induces
indulgent consumption. Therefore, future research should examine the strength of the priming
effect for each sub-dimension on consumers’ food perceptions and decision-making processes.
This research failed to demonstrate that cuteness has a negative impact on perceived healthiness.
One possible explanation is that these two types of cuteness may produce distinctive effects, thus
potentially offsetting each other. Also, there are various ways to prime cuteness. Xie et al., (2018)
categorized cuteness marketing into two types: “impression type” (e.g., package, logo, brand
name, placement) and “interactive type” (e.g., interaction, social media campaign). It would be
interesting to examine how different ways of priming cuteness influence consumers’ food
perceptions.
Second, food type has important implications for food decisions (Raghunathan et al.,
2006; Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). The current studies used a sugar cookie as a stimulus, which
is hedonic in nature. Future investigations should consider the moderating role of food type (e.g.,
vice food vs. virtue food, hedonic food vs. functional food) on the relationship between cuteness
priming and consumer responses.
Lastly, the study findings indicate that the priming effect of cuteness on purchase
intention was sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and tastiness. In other words, the
sweeter the food, the tastier the participant rated it. However, previous research suggests that taste
preferences are culture-dependent (Getchell, 1991; Prescott & Bell, 1995). It is possible that
cuteness effect might backfire in cultures with less emphasis on sugary foods. Future studies
should examine the moderating role of culture on cute marketing in the food context.
30
Appendix
Cuteness measurements for Study 1 & 2
Cuteness Manipulation (Nenkov & Scott, 2014)
To what extent do you think this cookie is (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely)
Overall cuteness: cute, adorable, endearing
Whimsical cuteness: whimsical, playful, fun
Kindchenschema cuteness: vulnerable, naive, caretaking
Likability: likable, attractive
Purchase Intention (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Kilbourne, 1986)
Please answer the following questions (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes)
Would you like to try this cookie?
Would you buy this cookie if you happened to see it in a store?
Would you actively seek out this cookie in a store in order to purchase it?
Sweetness Perception (Lei & Ji, 2015; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012)
Please drag the slider to rate this cookie on anticipated sweetness
Please drag the slider to rate this cookie on perceived sweetness
(1 = not at all, 7 = extremely high)
Tastiness and Healthiness Perception
How would you expect this sugar cookie on the following attributes?
How would you perceive this sugar cookie on the following attributes?
(1 = not at all tasty/healthy, 7 = very tasty/healthy)
Hunger Level
Please indicate your hunger level (1 = not at all hungry, 7 = extremely hungry)
Sweet Food Preference
31
In general, to what extent do you like sugar cookies (1 = dislike extremely, 7 = like extremely)
32
References
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands?
Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of consumer
research, 39(2), 307-323.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on
advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing research, 14(4), 538-555.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle. Handbook of research methods
in social and personality psychology, 2, 253-285.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a
babyface. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(2), 312.
Besharat, A. (2010). How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of
new products: A brand equity approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1240-
1249.
Boyer, L. E., Laurentz, S., McCabe, G. P., & Kranz, S. (2012). Shape of snack foods does not
predict snack intake in a sample of preschoolers: a cross-over study. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 94.
Branen, L., Fletcher, J., & Hilbert, L. (2002). Snack consumption and waste by preschool
children served “cute” versus regular snacks. Journal of nutrition education and
behavior, 34(5), 279-282.
Brunsø, K., Fjord, T. A., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and quality
perception. The Aarhus School of Business Publ., Aarhus, Denmark.
33
Cheok, A. D. (2010). Art and technology of entertainment computing and communication.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Connell, P. M., & Mayor, L. F. (2013). Activating health goals reduces (increases) hedonic
evaluation of food brands for people who harbor highly positive (negative) affect toward
them. Appetite, 65, 159-164.
Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on
perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 46(6), 725-738.
Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food
consumption?. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104-117.
Deroy, O., & Valentin, D. (2011). Tasting liquid shapes: investigating the sensory basis of cross-
modal correspondences. Chemosensory Perception, 4(3), 80.
Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive
opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),
1185-1201.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects
of social perception on social behavior. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1-40). Academic Press.
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., Van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The unconscious
consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of consumer
psychology, 15(3), 193-202.
Drewnowski, A., Mennella, J. A., Johnson, S. L., & Bellisle, F. (2012). Sweetness and food
preference. The Journal of nutrition, 142(6), 1142S-1148S.
Elliott, C. (2009). Healthy food looks serious: How children interpret packaged food products.
34
Esposito, G., Nakazawa, J., Ogawa, S., Stival, R., Kawashima, A., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein,
M. H. (2014). Baby, you light-up my face: culture-general physiological responses to
infants and culture-specific cognitive judgements of adults. PloS one, 9(10).
Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., & Galetzka, M. (2016). What’s in a name? The effects of sound
symbolism and package shape on consumer responses to food products. Food quality and
preference, 51, 100-108.
Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand
exposure on motivated behavior: how apple makes you “think different”. Journal of
consumer research, 35(1), 21-35.
Frijters, J. E. (1987). Sensory sweetness perception, its pleasantness, and attitudes to sweet foods.
In Sweetness (pp. 67-80). Springer, London.
Getchell, T. V. (Ed.). (1991). Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven Press (ID).
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N.
(2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for
caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263.
Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive
network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 227.
Golle, J., Lisibach, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Sweet puppies and cute babies:
Perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. PloS one, 8(3), e58248.
Granot, E., Alejandro, T. B., & Russell, L. T. M. (2014). A socio-marketing analysis of the
concept of cute and its consumer culture implications. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 14(1), 66-87.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1983). The infant's physical attractiveness: Its effect on
bonding and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 4(1), 1-12.
35
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions. Journal of marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Huang, R., Dahl, D. W., Li, S., & Zhou, Q. (2019). The Effect of Packaging Perceptual Cues on
Consumer Disposal Behavior of Partially Consumed Products. Journal of the Association
for Consumer Research, 4(4), 352-362.
Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2013). When color meets health: The impact of package colors on the
perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. ACR North American Advances.
Hui, S. K., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2009). Testing behavioral hypotheses using an
integrated model of grocery store shopping path and purchase behavior. Journal of
consumer research, 36(3), 478-493.
Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2000). A connectionist model of brand–quality
associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 331-350.
Karnal, N., Machiels, C. J., Orth, U. R., & Mai, R. (2016). Healthy by design, but only when in
focus: Communicating non-verbal health cues through symbolic meaning in
packaging. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 106-119.
Kilbourne, W. E. (1986). An exploratory study of the effect of sex role stereotyping on attitudes
toward magazine advertisements. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(4),
43-46.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective picture system
(IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. The center for research in
psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Lavin, J. G., & Lawless, H. T. (1998). Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness
among children and adults. Food Quality and Preference, 9(4), 283-289.
36
Lee, H. C., Chang, C. T., Chen, Y. H., & Huang, Y. S. (2018). The spell of cuteness in food
consumption? It depends on food type and consumption motivation. Food Quality and
Preference, 65, 110-117.
Li, Y. J., Haws, K. L., & Griskevicius, V. (2019). Parenting motivation and consumer decision-
making. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 1117-1137.
Liang, P., Roy, S., Chen, M. L., & Zhang, G. H. (2013). Visual influence of shapes and semantic
familiarity on human sweet sensitivity. Behavioural Brain Research, 253, 42-47.
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen formen möglicher erfahrung. Zeitschrift für
Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 235-409.
MacFie, H. J., Bratchell, N., GREENHOFF, K., & Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance the
effect of order of presentation and first‐order carry‐over effects in hall tests. Journal of
sensory studies, 4(2), 129-148.
Mai, Robert, Claudia Symmank, and Berenike Seeberg-Elverfeldt. "Light and pale colors in food
packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior
tastiness?." Journal of Retailing 92, no. 4 (2016): 426-444.
Meiselman, H. L. (1977). The role of sweetness in the food preference of young adults. Taste and
development, 269-281.
Miesler, L., Leder, H., & Herrmann, A. (2011). Isn’t it cute: An evolutionary perspective of baby-
schema effects in visual product designs. International Journal of Design, 5(3), 17-30.
Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels and
demons: What we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can
help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 3(4), 324-338.
Nenkov, G. Y., & Scott, M. L. (2014). “So cute I could eat it up”: priming effects of cute
products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341.
37
Ngo, M. K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A., Boehm, E., O’Neill, D., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing
crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound
symbolism. Food quality and preference, 28(1), 361-369.
Nielsen, R., & Nielsen, M. R. (2016). Package‘arabicStemR’.
Nittono, H. (2016). The two-layer model of'kawaii': A behavioural science framework for
understanding kawaii and cuteness. East Asian Journal of Popular Culture, 2(1), 79-96.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of marketing research, 42(1), 43-53.
Parsons, C. E., Young, K. S., Kumari, N., Stein, A., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2011). The
motivational salience of infant faces is similar for men and women. PloS one, 6(5).
Pfaffmann, C. (1980). Wundt's schema of sensory affect in the light of research on gustatory
preferences. Psychological research, 42(1-2), 165-174.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food?
Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on the
perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 205-208.
Prescott, J., & Bell, G. (1995). Cross-cultural determinants of food acceptability: Recent research
on sensory perceptions and preferences. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 6(6),
201-205.
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy= tasty intuition and its
effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of
Marketing, 70(4), 170-184.
Rozin, P., & Vollmecke, T. A. (1986). Food likes and dislikes. Annual review of nutrition, 6(1),
433-456.
38
Salgado Montejo, A., Alvarado, J. A., Velasco, C., Salgado, C. J., Hasse, K., & Spence, C.
(2015). The sweetest thing: The influence of angularity, symmetry, and the number of
elements on shape-valence and shape-taste matches. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1382.
Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2007). Development of preference for baby faces
across species in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Ethology, 25(3), 249-254.
Scott, M. L., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2016). Using consumer responsibility reminders to reduce
cuteness-induced indulgent consumption. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 323-336.
Schnurr, B. (2019). Too cute to be healthy: How cute packaging designs affect judgments of
product tastiness and healthiness. Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 4(4), 363-375.
Shin, J. (2019). Aww effect: Incidental exposure to cuteness increases prosociality (Doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University).
Silva, C. R. P. D. (2016). Am I too cute to eat? The effect of cuteness appeal on the promotion of
a more plant-based diet (Doctoral dissertation).
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 73(4), 971-995.
Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer,
A., ... & Milne, N. (2009). The cutest little baby face: A hormonal link to sensitivity to
cuteness in infant faces. Psychological Science, 20(2), 149-154.
Van Ooijen, I., Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2017). Packaging design as an
implicit communicator: Effects on product quality inferences in the presence of explicit
quality cues. Food quality and preference, 62, 71-79.
Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014). Predictive
packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and
Preference, 34, 88-95.
39
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2015). Hedonic mediation of the crossmodal
correspondence between taste and shape. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 151-158.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3), 310-320.
Wang, T., & Anirban, M. (2015). How consumers respond to cute products. The psychology of
design: Creating consumer appeal, 149-67.
Weingarten, E., Chen, Q., McAdams, M., Yi, J., Hepler, J., & Albarracín, D. (2016). From
primed concepts to action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally
presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 472.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and
vice. Marketing science, 17(4), 317-337.
Wundt, W. M. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Vol. 1). W. Engelman.
Xie, Z., & Wang, T., & Zhao, J. (2018). A literature review of cuteness in marketing. Foreign
Economics & Management, 40(05), 56-68.
Recommended