19
Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs* Franck Celhay and Jean François Trinquecoste Designers and marketing managers often agree that visual codes, in terms of product and package design, typify certain product categories. These “category-based visual codes” refer to the formal and graphic characteristics most fre- quently seen in a given category, like specific shapes, colors, materials, typefaces, layouts, and illustrations. Given that the concept of “category-based visual codes” seems to be connected with the concepts of “perceived typicality,” “cognitive categories,” “family resemblance,” and “design newness,” this research examines the impact of typicality/ atypicality judgments regarding the visual appearance of a product on consumers’ aesthetic appreciation and purchase intent. Several studies have sought to determine the relationships among design perceived typicality, aesthetic appre- ciation, and purchase intent. However, the literature indicates contradictory results. While some studies have shown a preference for the most typical design, others have demonstrated that consumers prefer moderately atypical design. This paper offers an explanation for this discrepancy by providing evidence that the relationships among design perceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent are a case of moderated mediation. An empirical study using wine labels was conducted with 780 respondents. The results indicate that the relationships among perceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent are linear and positive, although several individual variables have a moderating effect. Thus, it appears that certain consumer segments are more likely to appreciate atypical packages. Moreover, the level of perceived risk at the time of purchase also plays an essential role. Consumers are more apt to accept atypical packaging when the perceived risk is low. Several theoretical and managerial implications are drawn from these results. Introduction D esigners and marketing managers generally agree that there are visual codes for product and package designs that typify certain product cat- egories (Blijlevens, Mugge, and Schoormans, 2009; Colin, 2006; Fishel, 2003). These “category-based visual codes” refer to the formal and graphic characteristics most frequently seen in a given category, such as specific shapes, colors, materials, typefaces, layouts, and illustra- tions. For example, on the French market, milk bottles tend to show the same colors (plain white for the bottle and blue for the screw cap), the same shapes (curved or rounded), and the same family of typefaces (bold, rounded, and sans serif lowercases). Laundry detergent powders also display specific visual codes on their pack- ages, such as specific colors (blue or green background with bright red for the brand name), typographies, and text layouts. Almost all brand names appear on a diagonal axis and use extra bold/uppercase/sans serif/italic letters. The facing is generally organized around an explosion of white light against a blue or green background and shows a very dynamic layout structured with diagonal lines. The notion of category-based visual codes has not been extensively explored in the marketing literature. When it has been addressed, the authors have generally dealt with color codes only (Divard and Urien, 2001; Garber, Hyatt, and Boya, 2008; Gollety and Guichard, 2011; Lawes, 2002; Roullet and Droulers, 2005), or they have considered overall product design rather than package graphic design (Blijlevens et al., 2009; Dell’Era and Verganti, 2007; Goode, Dahl, and Moreau, 2013; Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005; Landwehr, Wentzel, and Herrmann, 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013). In both cases, the importance of such visual aspects as typography, layout, and illustrations has been overlooked. Yet the Address correspondence to: Franck Celhay, Montpellier Business School, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +33-4-67-10-27-02. * The authors thank Saman Khajehzadeh from the University of Tas- mania and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance through- out the review process. J PROD INNOV MANAG 2014;••(••):••–•• © 2014 Product Development & Management Association DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12212

Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables thatModerate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs*Franck Celhay and Jean François Trinquecoste

Designers and marketing managers often agree that visual codes, in terms of product and package design, typify certainproduct categories. These “category-based visual codes” refer to the formal and graphic characteristics most fre-quently seen in a given category, like specific shapes, colors, materials, typefaces, layouts, and illustrations. Given thatthe concept of “category-based visual codes” seems to be connected with the concepts of “perceived typicality,”“cognitive categories,” “family resemblance,” and “design newness,” this research examines the impact of typicality/atypicality judgments regarding the visual appearance of a product on consumers’ aesthetic appreciation and purchaseintent. Several studies have sought to determine the relationships among design perceived typicality, aesthetic appre-ciation, and purchase intent. However, the literature indicates contradictory results. While some studies have shown apreference for the most typical design, others have demonstrated that consumers prefer moderately atypical design.This paper offers an explanation for this discrepancy by providing evidence that the relationships among designperceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent are a case of moderated mediation. An empirical studyusing wine labels was conducted with 780 respondents. The results indicate that the relationships among perceivedtypicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent are linear and positive, although several individual variableshave a moderating effect. Thus, it appears that certain consumer segments are more likely to appreciate atypicalpackages. Moreover, the level of perceived risk at the time of purchase also plays an essential role. Consumers are moreapt to accept atypical packaging when the perceived risk is low. Several theoretical and managerial implications aredrawn from these results.

Introduction

D esigners and marketing managers generallyagree that there are visual codes for product andpackage designs that typify certain product cat-

egories (Blijlevens, Mugge, and Schoormans, 2009;Colin, 2006; Fishel, 2003). These “category-based visualcodes” refer to the formal and graphic characteristicsmost frequently seen in a given category, such as specificshapes, colors, materials, typefaces, layouts, and illustra-tions. For example, on the French market, milk bottlestend to show the same colors (plain white for the bottleand blue for the screw cap), the same shapes (curved orrounded), and the same family of typefaces (bold,rounded, and sans serif lowercases). Laundry detergent

powders also display specific visual codes on their pack-ages, such as specific colors (blue or green backgroundwith bright red for the brand name), typographies, andtext layouts. Almost all brand names appear on a diagonalaxis and use extra bold/uppercase/sans serif/italic letters.The facing is generally organized around an explosionof white light against a blue or green background andshows a very dynamic layout structured with diagonallines.

The notion of category-based visual codes has notbeen extensively explored in the marketing literature.When it has been addressed, the authors have generallydealt with color codes only (Divard and Urien, 2001;Garber, Hyatt, and Boya, 2008; Gollety and Guichard,2011; Lawes, 2002; Roullet and Droulers, 2005), or theyhave considered overall product design rather thanpackage graphic design (Blijlevens et al., 2009; Dell’Eraand Verganti, 2007; Goode, Dahl, and Moreau, 2013;Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005; Landwehr, Wentzel, andHerrmann, 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013). In both cases,the importance of such visual aspects as typography,layout, and illustrations has been overlooked. Yet the

Address correspondence to: Franck Celhay, Montpellier BusinessSchool, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France.E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +33-4-67-10-27-02.

* The authors thank Saman Khajehzadeh from the University of Tas-mania and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance through-out the review process.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2014;••(••):••–••© 2014 Product Development & Management AssociationDOI: 10.1111/jpim.12212

Page 2: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

concept of visual codes is valuable because of the way itaffects “design newness,” the importance of which wasrecently underlined by Talke, Salomo, Wieringa, andLutzBloch (2009) and Radford and Bloch (2011). In fact,the degree of newness or novelty in a package design orproduct is expressed relatively rather than absolutely(Dell’Era and Verganti, 2007; Garber et al., 2008; Goodeet al., 2013; Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005). This meansthat a product design will appear to be innovative only incomparison with the designs of other brands within thesame product category (i.e., in comparison with the visualcodes of the category). Moreover, it appears likely thatthese visual codes work as “category cues” for consumers(Goode et al., 2013) and define a “dominant graphicdesign” for the category in matters of package design(Dell’Era and Verganti, 2007).

With regard to this notion of category-based visualcodes, Heilbrunn (2006), Dell’Era and Verganti (2007),and Person, Schoormans, Snelders, and Karjalainen(2008) observed that marketers have two choices forpackage designs when products are being put on themarket: they can choose to conform to the prevailingcodes for their product category or radically break withthese codes. Although conforming has the advantage ofreassuring consumers by giving them what they arefamiliar with (Erdem, 1998; Heilman, Bowman, andWright, 2000; Milberg, Sinn, and Goodstein, 2010;Miyazaki, Grewal, and Goodstein, 2005), breaking withthe codes has distinct advantages as well (Person et al.,

2008). The brand is visually distinguished from allothers, and it thus communicates—by its package graphicdesign—a distinct positioning of the product (Butterand Krippendorff, 1984; Karjalainen, 2001, 2007;Karjalainen and Snelders, 2010; McCormack and Cagan,2004; Monö, 1997; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008; PantinSohier, 2009). This stimulates consumer interest and curi-osity, and ultimately the product gains in retail visibility(Garber et al., 2008; Schoormans and Robben, 1997).

Marketers have become increasingly aware of theseadvantages and now often opt for the second choice, tosuch an extent that Divard and Urien observed as early as2001 a tendency toward transgression in the choice ofcolors. Among the most famous examples are iMac Applecomputers (using new colors, as well as rounded ratherthan rectangular forms), Badoit sparkling mineral water(using bright “Badoit Red”), and Vittel flat mineralwater (using bright red, along with sharp lines ratherthan curves, and vertically oriented text) (Sudjic, 2008).

Yet the strategy of breaking with the visual codes fora product category is not without risk. A brand can beoutright rejected by consumers or merely overlooked: ineither case, the product is not perceived as belonging tothe product category and is thus not considered for pur-chase (Goode et al., 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013; Personet al., 2008). In the French wine market, for instance,many cases of product failure have been observed whenbrands attempted to break with the visual codes. Brandslike e-motif, Chamarré, and Rock’n Rhône made daringattempts to differentiate their products through the labelgraphics and were summarily rejected by consumers(Castaing, 2013; Celhay and Trinquecoste, 2008).

The intriguing question is this: How to explain thefailure of e-motif and Chamarré and the clear success ofBadoit Red and Vittel? And more importantly, on whatbasis should marketers decide whether it is best toremain faithful to the established codes for a productcategory or take the risk of innovating by transgressingthese codes?

Although many marketing studies have addressed thisfundamental issue (Blijlevens, Carbon, Mugge, andSchoormans, 2012; Campbell and Goodstein, 2001;Heilbrunn, 2006; Hekkert, Snelders, and Van Wieringen,2003; Landwehr et al., 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013;Pantin Sohier and Lancelot, 2012; Person et al., 2008;Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), it seems that it has notbeen definitively resolved. Hekkert and Leder (2008) thusreviewed the literature on this topic and pointed out thatthe degree of typicality of a product’s visual appearanceinfluenced the aesthetic responses and preferences ofconsumers. However, to what degree are deviations from

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Franck Celhay is an assistant professor of marketing at MontpellierBusiness School in France. He received a master’s in marketing from theUniversity of Paris-Est and a Ph.D. from the University of Bordeaux.His major topics of research are graphic design, semiotics, and winemarketing. He investigates the impact of graphic design on consumerbeliefs and behaviors. Franck has published in journals such as FoodQuality and Preference, International Journal of Wine BusinessResearch, Décisions Marketing, and Finance Contrôle Stratégie. Healso works as a consultant to the wine industry.

Dr. Jean-François Trinquecoste is a professor of marketing and chair ofthe Center of Research in Management, Institut de Recherche enGestion des Organisations, at the University of Bordeaux (IAE) inFrance. He is also head of the Marketing Research Group and deputydirector of the Doctoral School in Economics and Management at theUniversity of Bordeaux. He is an affiliate professor of Kedge BusinessSchool and former editor of Décisions Marketing. Dr. Trinquecosteconducts research in strategic marketing, wine marketing, consumerbehavior, and ethics. His research has been published in journals such asRecherche et Applications en Marketing, Journal of Product and BrandManagement, Décisions Marketing, Management et Avenir, and Journalof Marketing Trends. He received his Ph.D. from the University ofBordeaux.

2 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 3: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

the expected attractive? In some cases, consumers seemto prefer the most typical package graphics, although inothers they appreciate a moderate degree of atypicality.

The objective of this study was thus to make someheadway in identifying these different “cases” of productpreference as they relate to package graphic design. Thegeneral problem addressed in this paper is the following:“What are the conditions of acceptance—by theconsumer—of a design that deviates from the visualcodes of its product category?”

Theoretical Framework

Category-Based Visual Codes, FamilyResemblance, and Judgment of Typicality

The literature on consumer behavior indicates thatcategory-based visual codes are linked to concepts offamily resemblance, perceived typicality, and cognitivecategory. The insights on these issues can thus provide atheoretical framework for exploring the research ques-tion. Indeed, marketing researchers assume that productsfall into natural cognitive categories for consumers andthat brands are hierarchically arranged within theirrespective categories according to their degree of per-ceived typicality (Ladwein, 1995; Loken and Ward, 1990;Nedungadi and Hutchinson, 1985). The studies on thistopic agree with the conclusion that the degree of per-ceived typicality of a product member of a natural cog-nitive category is linked to its degree of familyresemblance with the other members belonging to thesame category (Loken and Ward, 1990; Nedungadi andHutchinson, 1985). In other words, the stronger thefamily resemblance is, the more likely the member isjudged as typical of its category. Because the visual codesfor a product category are defined as those formal andgraphic characteristics most often employed in the cat-egory, the more product packaging conforms to the visualcodes of its category, the higher the family resemblanceshould be, with the product perceived by consumers astypical of its category. Conversely, the more the packag-ing deviates from the visual codes of its category, themore likely it should be perceived as atypical and thusvisually “innovating” (Celhay and Passebois, 2011;Landwehr et al., 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013; Talkeet al., 2009). From this theoretical and conceptual per-spective on typicality judgments, the research questioncan thus be reformulated as follows: “What are the con-ditions of acceptance—by the consumer—of a productwhose appearance is perceived as atypical with regard toits reference category?”

Package Design, Judgment of Typicality, andAesthetic Appreciation

Previous works have indicated that a package or productdesign can provoke aesthetic appreciation in consumers,which has a positive impact on consumer choice (Bloch,1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Landwehr et al.,2013; Patrick and Hagtvedt, 2011; Radford and Bloch,2011; Reimann, Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, andWeber, 2010). Aesthetic appreciation is usually definedin the literature as the appreciation of an object (e.g., aproduct) in terms of beauty. The degree of perceivedbeauty is based on the visual aspects of the product (i.e.,its design) that induce a hedonic response (i.e., a senseof pleasure) for the consumer (Charters, 2006; Crilly,Moultrie, and Clarkson, 2004; Holbrook, 1980, 1986;Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Veryzer, 1993, 1995).In 1995, Bloch proposed a theoretical model of con-sumer response to product design and hypothesized thatthe consumer’s aesthetic appreciation of a productpositively impacts his or her purchase intent. A consid-erable body of research also suggests that aestheticappreciation is an important determinant of consumerpreferences, with many studies demonstrating thepositive impact on product perceived value, and there-fore on consumer purchase intent, satisfaction, andloyalty (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold, 2003; Chitturi,Raghunathan, and Mahajan, 2007, 2008; Creusen andSchoormans, 2005; Creusen, Veryzer, and Schoormans,2010; Page and Herr, 2002; Reimann et al., 2010;Rindova and Petkova, 2007). Moreover, these resultshave been observed for an ever wider selection of prod-ucts (Patrick and Hagtvedt, 2011), from consumergoods to business to business products (Gemser andLeenders, 2001; Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994) andservices (Candi, 2010; Candi and Saemundsson, 2011).It is therefore unsurprising that marketers have longtried to understand the determinants of aesthetic appre-ciation (Patrick and Hagtvedt, 2011; Ravasi andStigliani, 2012; Swan and Luch, 2011), with severalstudies showing that design perceived typicality (oratypicality) is one of the determining factors (Blijlevenset al., 2012; Campbell and Goodstein, 2001; Carson,Jewell, and Joiner, 2007; Hekkert et al., 2003;Landwehr et al., 2013; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998).This body of literature points clearly to aesthetic appre-ciation as one of the key variables to be taken intoaccount in research on the conditions for consumeracceptance of atypical package design. Therefore, thisstudy sought to evaluate (1) the impact of the degree ofperceived atypicality of a product design on aesthetic

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 32014;••(••):••–••

Page 4: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

appreciation and (2) the impact of this aesthetic appre-ciation on purchase intent.

Theory of “Preference for Prototype” versusTheory of “Moderate Atypicality Effects”

Two theories in the field of cognitive psychology andexperimental aesthetics have generated apparently con-flicting conclusions (Blijlevens et al., 2012; Campbelland Goodstein, 2001; Hekkert et al., 2003). The first isthe theory of “preference for prototype” (Whitfield, 1983;Whitfield and Slatter, 1979). Derived from the works ofZajonc (1968) on the mere exposure effect, it assumesthat the relationship between typicality and aestheticappreciation is linear and positive. Thus, the more aproduct design is perceived as typical of its category, themore it will be appreciated aesthetically and will producestrong purchase intent. The second theory is derived fromthe works of Berlyne (1970) in experimental aestheticsand deals with the effects of moderate atypicality. Itassumes that the relationship between typicality andaesthetic appreciation follows an inverted U curve(Blijlevens et al., 2012; Cox and Locander, 1987;Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989;Schoormans and Robben, 1997; Stayman, Alden, andSmith, 1992). Stimuli presenting a moderate degree ofatypicality should thus be preferred to stimuli that arehighly typical and those that are highly atypical.

A Relationship Likely to Be Moderated

These two theories are seemingly contradictory. A fewstudies, however, have suggested that the consumer ten-dency to prefer the atypical to the typical may be mod-erated by a certain number of variables that need to bemore precisely determined (Bornstein, 1989; Hekkertet al., 2003).

According to Bornstein (1989), for example, thesearch for what is new or atypical and the search forwhat is familiar or typical are two natural behaviors thatare part of the human behavioral repertoire and aretherefore likely to coexist in the same individual. It isnatural to favor what is familiar to what is new asnovelty often involves risk. On the other hand, Bornstein(1989) points out that it is also natural to look for newstimuli as the search for novelty facilitates learning.People thus tend to alternate between seeking typicaland atypical stimuli. According to a given set of condi-tions, the individual will favor one or the other of thesebehaviors, and preference will be given to the typical oratypical alternative. The various studies on variety-

seeking behavior have come to the same conclusion(Aurier, 1991; McAlister and Pessemier, 1982). Con-sumers oscillate constantly between these two behaviors,sometimes focusing on known or typical products andsometimes seeking out more innovative or original prod-ucts. Novelty seeking suggests the need for stimulation,whereas looking for familiarity indicates a need for reas-surance. These studies have further noted that the pref-erence for typicality or atypicality may be moderated bynumerous variables, such as the consumer’s global ten-dency to innovate, his or her involvement and expertisein the product category, the need for stimulation, knowl-edge or social distinction, attitudes toward risk, andthe situation in which the consumer expects to use theproduct. In the study of Hekkert et al. (2003), theauthors demonstrated that perceived typicality and per-ceived originality both explain consumer aestheticappreciation. However, they went on to note thatbecause the two variables are negatively correlated, theirimpact is mutually cancelled. The authors then sug-gested that preferences for typicality and originality cor-respond to different cognitive processes. Depending on anumber of conditions, one or the other of these pro-cesses may be activated, which would explain whyunder certain conditions consumers tend to prefer thetypical alternative while under other conditions theyprefer the original one. According to these authors, therespective weights of typicality judgment and noveltyjudgment in the aesthetic appreciation of a stimulusdepend on a number of moderating variables, such aspersonal characteristics or the context of exposure.

It seems that no study has yet empirically tested theseproposals. Therefore, the general goal of this researchwas to identify some of these potential moderating vari-ables through a review of the literature and then to testtheir impact on the relationships among perceived typi-cality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intention. Bydoing so, this research is likely to contribute to a betterunderstanding of the conditions for acceptance of atypi-cal designs.

Research Model and Hypotheses

Relationship between Perceived Typicality andAesthetic Appreciation

Although Berlyne’s theory is frequently cited in theliterature, it has rarely been empirically supported(Blijlevens et al., 2012; Schoormans and Robben, 1997).Conversely, the theory of the preference for prototype hasbeen empirically demonstrated by several researchers

4 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 5: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

(Campbell and Goodstein, 2001; Celhay and Passebois,2011; Hekkert and Van Wieringen, 1990; Leder andCarbon, 2005; Martindale and Moore, 1988; Martindale,Moore, and Anderson, 2005; Martindale, Moore, andBorkum, 1990; Martindale, Moore, and West, 1988;Pedersen, 1986; Purcell, 1984; Veryzer and Hutchinson,1998; Whitfield and Slatter, 1979). With regard to thissituation, Martindale et al. (1990, 2005) thus remarkedthat the empirical confirmation of Berlyne’s theoryseemed to constitute “the exception rather than the rule.”The first hypothesis is therefore the following:

H1: The aesthetic appreciation of a packaging design ispositively and linearly correlated with its degree of per-ceived typicality.

Relationship among Perceived Typicality, AestheticAppreciation, and Purchase Intent

Several studies have shown that product designs provokeaesthetic appreciation and that this appreciation is posi-tively correlated with purchase intent (Bloch, 1995;Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Kreuzbauer and Malter,2005; Radford and Bloch, 2011; Reimann et al., 2010).As perceived typicality is assumed to be positively andlinearly correlated with aesthetic appreciation and aes-thetic appreciation to be positively and linearly correlatedwith purchase intent, aesthetic appreciation shouldmediate the relationship between perceived typicalityand purchase intent. The hypothesis is formalized asfollows:

H2: Aesthetic appreciation is positively correlated withpurchase intent. It is thus a mediating variable in the

relationship between perceived typicality and purchaseintent.

Variables Moderating the Relationships amongPerceived Typicality, Aesthetic Appreciation, andPurchase Intent

Several studies have suggested that the relationshipbetween perceived typicality and aesthetic appreciationcould be moderated by a number of individual and situ-ational variables (Bornstein, 1989; Hekkert et al., 2003).Moreover, other studies have indicated that perceivedtypicality may directly and positively impact purchaseintent and product preference (Campbell and Goodstein,2001; Ladwein, 1998; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998). Asaesthetic appreciation is assumed to mediate the relation-ship between perceived typicality and purchase intent, itis likely to observe what Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt(2005) called a moderated mediation (see Figure 1). Inthe following sections, the variables that are likely topresent such a moderating effect are presented.

First, several studies suggest that the consumer ten-dency to innovate may moderate the relationship betweenperceived typicality and aesthetic appreciation. Odin,Odin, and Valette Florence (1997) initially noted that thecreative behaviors of consumers and the associated per-sonality traits (taste for adventure, open-mindedness,etc.) are likely to introduce an inverse relationshipbetween product typicality and consumer preferences;that is, when consumers display a strong tendency towardinnovation, they will tend to prefer the atypical to thetypical. Jacoby (1971); Coney (1972); Blake, Perloff, andHeslin (1978); and Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989)

X = Perceived typicality

M = Aesthetic appreciation

Y = Purchase intent

W = − Tendency to innovate− Expertise− CVPA− Sign value− Age− Gender− Educational level− Perceived risk

Figure 1. Research Model

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 52014;••(••):••–••

Page 6: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

studied the impact of consumer dogmatism on the accep-tance of new and/or atypical products. The underlyinghypothesis of these studies was that consumers showinglow dogmatism would prefer original products, and thoseshowing high dogmatism would prefer typical products.Roehrich (1987) concluded that the presence of a mod-erating effect would itself depend on the following per-sonal characteristics: innovativeness, being an opinionleader, and dogmatism. A scale to measure the consumerglobal tendency toward innovation—assumed to be acentral and latent personality trait—was proposed by LeLouarn (1997). This scale (échelle de la tendance àinnover globale) has three dimensions: attraction tonovelty, autonomy in innovation decisions, and risktaking in the pursuit of novelty. Based on these variousfindings, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3: The consumer’s overall tendency to innovate mod-erates the relationships among perceived typicality, aes-thetic appreciation, and purchase intent. The positiveimpact of perceived typicality on aesthetic appreciationand purchase intent is weaker in consumers showing astrong tendency to innovate.

Other studies suggest that consumer expertise in theproduct category is also likely to have a moderatingeffect. Hekkert et al. (2003) thus pointed out thatseveral studies in the field of artistic production demon-strated that the aesthetic preferences of experts differedconsiderably from those of novices (Getzel andCsiksentmihalyi, 1976; Hekkert and Van Wieringen,1996; Locher, Smith, and Smith, 2001). Experts wereshown to place high value on novelty and originality,whereas novices displayed a preference for what wasfamiliar. Moreover, Hekkert et al. (2003) added that thehypothesis of a moderating effect of consumer expertiseon the relationship between typicality and aestheticappreciation also seems to be suggested by the researchof Alba and Hutchinson (1987). According to theseauthors, experts are even more likely to look for newstimuli because they have more elaborated cognitive cat-egories and require less cognitive effort to class newinformation. A new hypothesis can thus be advanced:

H4: Consumer expertise in a product category moder-ates the relationships among perceived typicality, aes-thetic appreciation, and purchase intent. The positiveimpact of perceived typicality on aesthetic appreciationand purchase intent is weaker in consumers with highexpertise.

According to Hekkert et al. (2003), the tendency ofsome consumers to prefer atypical designs can also be

explained by the importance that they give to the appear-ance of products. For these authors, the more productappearance is an important attribute for the consumer, themore this consumer will have the tendency to place valueon the originality of the design. Conversely, when theappearance of the products is not important, the consumerwill tend to prefer packaging that is familiar. Bloch et al.(2003) proposed the centrality of visual product aesthet-ics (CVPA) scale to identify those individuals who placehigh importance on visual appearance. The followinghypothesis is based on these works:

H5: The importance accorded to the aesthetic function ofproducts (the degree of CVPA) moderates the relation-ships among perceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation,and purchase intent. The positive impact of perceivedtypicality on aesthetic appreciation and purchase intentis weaker in consumers who accord great importance tothe aesthetic function.

For Ward and Loken (1988), the relationship betweenthe perceived typicality of a category member and theconsumer’s preference can be reversed for certain catego-ries of products, such as cars or clothing. To explain thisresult, the authors turned to uniqueness theory (Snyderand Fromkin, 1979), according to which consumers maysee their product choices as a means to express individu-ality. In this case, the preferred options are often thosethat are the most atypical. Talke et al. (2009) also evokedthis idea, noting that the degree of the design novelty of aproduct may be a means by which consumers expressindividuality (Yalch and Brunel, 1996). Evrard andAurier (1996) proposed a four-item scale to measure the“sign value” that consumers attribute to product catego-ries. According to these findings, if consumers place high“sign value” on a product category, they will show atendency to value the products with atypical design,whereas the attribution of low “sign value” to a productcategory indicates the tendency to place value on moretypical alternatives.

H6: The sign value attributed by consumers to a productcategory moderates the relationships among perceivedtypicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent.The positive impact of perceived typicality on aestheticappreciation and purchase intent is weaker in consumerswho accord great sign value to the product category.

In 1992, De Bont, Schoormans, and Wessel showedthat certain demographic variables like age, sex, and edu-cational background were likely to have an impact on thetendency to accept products with atypical designs.Regarding age, Bornstein (1989) explained that young

6 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 7: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

individuals are more likely to seek novel stimuli asnovelty is part of their learning process, whereas olderindividuals tend to avoid novelty as they are more sensi-tive to the risk associated with trying something new. Thisidea is supported by the work of Budner (1962), whodemonstrated a negative relationship between age and thetolerance of ambiguity, and by the research of De Bontet al. (1992), who found that the youngest respondentshad a greater tolerance for ambiguity and a greater ten-dency to accept atypical designs. More recently, this ideahas also been backed up by several studies reporting thatyounger individuals tend to value novelty more easily(Czaja et al., 2006; Schmidt, Zayer, and Calantone,2012). On the other hand, in an experiment comparing agroup of middle-aged respondents with a group of olderrespondents, Carbon and Schoormans (2012) observedno significant age effect on the appreciation of innovativedesign. Moreover, in the light of an extensive review ofthe literature, the two authors observed that “although it iswidely believed that older consumers have more diffi-culty adopting new products, the literature on the rela-tionship between older consumers and the adoption ofinnovations is inconclusive.” Therefore, it seems thatadditional research is needed to assess the impact of ageon the appreciation of atypical design.

Regarding gender, the experiments conducted by Mossand Colman (2001) and Moss, Gunn, and Heller (2006)showed that men have a more “conventional” approach todesign, with women being more “adventurous.” Theseresults were later supplemented by Creusen (2010), whoconducted an empirical study on 10 product categoriesand found that women gave more importance to the aes-thetic and symbolic dimensions of products than men.

Finally, regarding educational background, De Bontet al. (1992) found an indirect moderating effect of therespondent’s educational level on the appreciation ofatypical design. According to these authors, those withhigh educational levels are more tolerant of ambiguityand therefore more likely to accept atypical stimuli. Onthe basis of these studies, the following three hypothesesare advanced.

H7: Age moderates the relationships among perceivedtypicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent.The positive impact of perceived typicality on aestheticappreciation and purchase intent is weaker in the young-est consumers.

H8: Gender moderates the relationships among per-ceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchaseintent. The positive impact of perceived typicality onaesthetic appreciation and purchase intent is weaker inwomen.

H9: Educational level moderates the relationshipsamong perceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, andpurchase intent. The positive impact of perceived typical-ity on aesthetic appreciation and purchase intent isweaker in consumers with high levels of education.

Last, several studies have suggested that the level ofperceived risk at the time of purchase may moderate therelationships among perceived typicality, aesthetic appre-ciation, and purchase intent. Campbell and Goodstein(2001) showed that if consumers are placed in a situationof no perceived risk while making a decision, they mayprefer moderately atypical packaging to typical packag-ing. Conversely, when the perceived risk is higher,consumers systematically choose the most typical alter-native. The authors called this phenomenon “preferencefor the norm.” They encouraged further research toexamine the extent to which purchase-based evaluationsdiffer from relatively risk-free evaluations, and they spe-cifically suggested taking into account the perceived riskassociated with different purchase goals: “if high risk isseen as an extrinsic motivation for the norm . . . an inter-esting extension of this conjecture would be to test howdifferent risk scenarios (e.g., purchase occasions) affectconsumers preferences for variety seeking.” In agreementwith this research, Ladwein (1998) showed that high per-ceived risk results in a positive and direct relationshipbetween the degree of perceived typicality and purchaseintent. According to this author, the choice of the mosttypical alternative could be described as a risk-reductionstrategy. Therefore, consumers who perceive consump-tion in a given product category as low in risk would bemore likely to accept atypical alternatives, while consum-ers who perceive the product category as high in riskwould be more likely to choose the most typical alterna-tive. Based on these works, the following hypothesis isformulated:

H10: Perceived risk moderates the relationships amongperceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, and pur-chase intent. The positive impact of perceived typicalityon aesthetic appreciation and purchase intent is weakerwhen the perceived risk is low.

The research model is summarized in Figure 1.

Methodology

In order to test the hypotheses, three bottles of Bordeauxwine were presented to a sample of 780 French consum-ers (60% men, Mage = 40 years). The bottle labels con-tained the same information but differed in terms ofdesign.

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 72014;••(••):••–••

Page 8: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Choice of Product Category

The product category was chosen following a qualitativestudy of 20 wine industry professionals. The studyrevealed that, as a product category, wine is character-ized by particularly imposing visual codes that Frenchproducers occasionally try—although usually with greatdifficulty—to break away from. Such a context islikely to provide fertile ground for theoretical research,yet with strong practical/managerial implications aswell.

Identification of the Visual Codes forBordeaux Wines

The first step was to identify the visual codes for Bor-deaux wines. To do so, the visual characteristics of thelabels from 117 chateau-produced wines were analyzedusing content analysis methods (Kassarjian, 1977;McNeal and Ji, 2003). A 20-item observation grid wasused to detail the visual characteristics of each label(e.g., colors, layout, composition, typeface, theme, orstyle of illustration). The labels were analyzed by twocoders and the interjudge reliability was 92.25%(based on 1872 judgments). Appearance rate for variouscolors, layouts, compositions, fonts, themes, or stylesof illustration was then calculated to identify thevisual characteristics most frequently seen in thisproduct category. For example, it was found that 96% ofthe labels showed a centered layout, 96% had a whiteor off-white background, 73% used gold foil, and68% used serif capital letters to present the name of thewine.

Manipulation of the Perceived Typicality

Once the visual codes for Bordeaux wines wereidentified, a professional graphic designer created 12

labels, all presenting the same information but withdesigns that conformed to or deviated from the codes byvarying degrees. These labels were then tested for per-ceived typicality in a sample of 80 respondents. Finally,three labels were selected to operationalize three levels ofperceived typicality that were significantly different (seeFigure 2).

Manipulation of the Perceived Risk

The level of perceived risk associated with consumptionof a product may be considered as an individual vari-able, according to the perception of each consumer, oras a situational variable, according to different scenariosof consumption. Thus, to assess the impact of perceivedrisk on the relationships among perceived typicality,aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent, twoapproaches were used. First, each respondent was askedto evaluate wine consumption on the Laurent andKapferer (1985) scale of perceived risk. This allowed usto distinguish those respondents who perceive the pur-chase of wine as low in risk from those who perceive itas high in risk. Three scenarios of consumption associ-ated with different levels of perceived risk were thenintroduced: “scenario 1 = buying a bottle of wine for ameal at home without guests,” “scenario 2 = buying abottle wine to bring to a dinner with friends who are notwine connoisseurs,” and “scenario 3 = buying a bottle ofwine to bring to a dinner with friends who are connois-seurs.” The level of risk associated with these three sce-narios was pretested (n = 166) and then controlledduring the final round of data collection (n = 780) usingmono-item Likert scales (“when I buy a bottle of winefor [scenario of consumption], I worry about making thewrong choice”). The pretest and control measures indi-cated that the three scenarios were appropriate tooperationalize three significantly different levels ofperceived risk: scenario 1 (Mrisk = 3.27, SD = 1.53),

Label 1 Label 2 Label 3

Typical Moderatly atypical Atypical

Figure 2. Stimuli (Labels)

8 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 9: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

scenario 2 (Mrisk = 4.08, SD = 1.65), and scenario 3(Mrisk = 4.87, SD = 1.76).

Data Collection

To test the three labels, a questionnaire was posted online.More than 800 responses were collected over a period ofthree weeks. After removing the questionnaires withincomplete responses and those for which the respon-dents had ticked the same box for all the Likert scales(Malhotra, 2007), a sample of 780 usable responses wasretained. The labels were considered as within-subjectfactors, with each respondent assessing the three labels interms of perceived typicality, aesthetic appreciation, andpurchase intent. At the end of the questionnaire, respon-dents were also asked to make an absolute choice fromamong the three packages for each scenario of consump-tion. The labels and scenarios of consumption were pre-sented in a random order to the respondents.

Measurement of Variables

As this study was conducted in France, scales developedin French have been used whenever possible. In othercases, scales developed in English but adapted for andtested in the French context have been used. Thus, thefollowing scales have been employed: Ladwein’s (1993)scale for perceived typicality, Jolibert and Jourdain’s(2006) scale for purchase intent, Evrard and Aurier’s(1996) scales for perceived expertise and perceived signvalue, Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) scale for perceivedrisk, and Le Louarn’s (1997) scale for the global ten-dency to innovate. The CVPA scale of Bloch et al. (2003)has no equivalent in the French literature and has neverbeen adapted to the French context. It was translated bythree bilingual researchers, and the committee methodwas applied to achieve consensus. The translated scalewas then tested using exploratory and then confirmatoryfactor analysis. The three-dimensional structure pro-posed by Bloch et al. (2003) was confirmed afterremoval of two items. The remaining nine items havebeen retained to measure the CVPA score of the respon-dents. Last, no satisfactory scale was found in the Frenchliterature for the aesthetic appreciation construct. There-fore, the articles measuring this variable in the Englishliterature have been reviewed (Blijlevens et al., 2012;Boudreaux and Palmer, 2007; Eckman and Wagner,1994; Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick, 2008; Hekkertet al., 2003; Hekkert and Van Wieringen, 1990;

Henderson and Cote, 1998; Henderson, Giese, and Cote,2004; Hirschman, 1986; Holbrook, 1986; Holbrook andSchindler, 1994; Landwehr et al., 2013; Martindale et al.,1990, 2005; Schoormans and Robben, 1997; Underwoodand Klein, 2002; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson,1998). It appeared that five items were more frequentlyused than the others (“I like it/I dislike it,” “good/bad,”“beautiful/ugly,” “pleasing/displeasing,” and “attractive/not attractive”). Four of them were already included inHolbrook’s (1986) original scale. When these items weretranslated into French, two (“good/bad” and “attractive/not attractive”) were found to have connotations thatmade them irrelevant for measuring the aesthetic appre-ciation of a wine label. Therefore, the following threeitems have been retained (“I like it/I dislike it,”“beautiful/ugly,” and “pleasing/displeasing”) to measurethis construct in the French context. The translated scalewas then tested using factor analysis, and the resultswere satisfactory.

Data Analysis

Summary statistics for all variables are shown in Tables 1and 2. Although the variables had the usual handicaps ofvariables based on subjective rating with Likert scales,they were reasonably distributed. Correlations betweenvariables were examined prior to regression analysis, andvariance inflation factors (VIFs) were examined follow-ing regression analysis to confirm that multicollinearitywas not a problem (VIF < 2).

For the analysis, only the answers for the firststimulus that had been randomly presented to eachrespondent have been extracted from the data file. Thiswas done to fulfill the condition of independencebetween the observations. To test the nature of the rela-tionship between perceived typicality and aestheticappreciation, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasconducted. Linear and quadratic regressions were alsoperformed to determine whether the relationship waslinear or curvilinear. The mediating effect of aestheticappreciation and the moderating effects of the indi-vidual and situational variables were tested according tothe method proposed by Hayes et al. (Hayes, 2009,2013; Hayes, Preacher, and Myers, 2011; Preacher andHayes, 2004; Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes, 2007),Muller et al. (2005), and Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010).More specifically, models 4 and 8 of the PROCESSmacro (Hayes, 2013) were used, entering the perceivedtypicality, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intentratings as the independent, mediating, and dependentvariables.

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 92014;••(••):••–••

Page 10: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Results

Test of the Relationship between PerceivedTypicality and Aesthetic Appreciation

The ANOVA indicated significant differences in themeans regarding the perceived typicality (F[2, 777] =708.55, p < .001) and aesthetic appreciation (F[2, 777] =26.55, p < .001) of the three labels. Consistent with H1,the post hoc tests of means comparison suggested a linearand positive relationship between perceived typicalityand aesthetic appreciation (Figure 3). This result wasconfirmed by the regression analyses. While the quadraticmodel was not significant, the linear model (equation 1)revealed a linear and positive relationship between per-ceived typicality and aesthetic appreciation: a1 = .33,t = 12.17, p = <.001. The more typical the respondentsperceived the labels to be, the more they aestheticallyappreciated them. Therefore, H1 is supported.

M i a X eM M= + +1 (1)

Test of the Mediating Effect

To test H2, a mediation analysis was performed inaccordance with Preacher and Hayes (2004), Zhaoet al. (2010), and Hayes et al. (2011). Hayes (2013)reminds that the observation of a mediating effectimplies that an independent variable X (e.g., perceivedtypicality) influences a dependent variable Y (e.g., pur-chase intent) directly as well as indirectly through amediator variable M (e.g., aesthetic appreciation) (asdepicted in Figure 1). Therefore, the direct and indirecteffects of X on Y have been estimated using twolinear regressions (equations 1 and 2). The first esti-mates M from X, and the second estimates Y from bothX and M.

Y i c X b M eY Y= + ′ + +1 1 (2)

Table 1. Summary Statistics for the Variables

Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

Independent variablePerceived typicality 3.51 1.83 1 7

Mediating variableAesthetic appreciation 4.32 1.51 1 7

Dependent variablePurchase intent 4.30 1.43 1 7

Moderating variablesTendency to innovate 4.05 .70 1.56 7Wine expertise 3.94 1.5 1 7CVPA score 4.45 .91 1.50 7Wine sign value 4.07 1.30 1 7Age 39.86 13.66 18 81Perceived risk 4.72 .87 1.43 7

CVPA, centrality of visual product aesthetics.

Table 2. Pairwise Correlations for the Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Perceived typicality 12. Aesthetic appreciation .40** 13. Purchase intent .47** .69** 14. Tendency to innovate .01 .07* .08* 15. Wine expertise −.08* −.03 −.08* .05 16. CVPA score .03 .01 .02 .09** .04 17. Wine sign value .01 .03 .03 −.00 .40** .30** 18. Age −.06 −.14** −.09** −.04 .10** .10** .09* 19. Perceived risk .03 .02 .8* −.15** −.36** .24** −.03 −.11** 1

* p < .05, ** p < .01.CVPA, centrality of visual product aesthetics.

10 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 11: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

The direct effect of X on Y is estimated with c′1 inequation 3. The indirect effect of X on Y through M isestimated as a1b1, meaning the product of the effect of Xon M (a1 in equation 1) and the effect of M on Y control-ling for X (b1 in equation 2). The total effect of X on Y canbe estimated by regressing Y on X alone (c1 in equation 3)or by making the sum of the direct and indirect effects ofX on Y (c′1 + a1b1).

Y i c X eY Y= + +* *1 (3)

The results of these regression analyses confirmed thataesthetic appreciation is positively and linearly correlatedwith purchase intent (b1 = .56, p < .001) and that per-ceived typicality positively impacts purchase intentthrough a direct effect (c′1 = .18, p < .001) and an indirecteffect (a1b1 = .18, p < .001). The Sobel test (Z = 10.61,p < .001) and the bootstrapping procedure (Hayes, 2013;Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008) indicated that the indi-rect effect is positive and statistically different from 0, asevidenced by a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidenceinterval that is entirely above zero (.15–.22). Therefore,H2 is supported.

Test of the Moderating Effects

For H3–H10, the procedure proposed by Preacher et al.(2007) and Hayes (2013) has been used to test what arecalled “moderated mediations” (Muller et al., 2005).Such a model implies that the direct and/or indirecteffects of X (perceived typicality) on Y (purchase intent)

through mediator M (aesthetic appreciation) are moder-ated by one or several variables W (e.g., the respondent’stendency to innovate). Hayes (2013) explained that instatistical form, this model is represented with two linearmodels, one with M as the outcome and the other with Yas the outcome:

M i a X a W a XW eM M= + + + +1 2 3 (4)

Y i c X c W c XW b M eY Y= + ′ + ′ + ′ + +1 2 3 1 (5)

These regression models were performed for eachmoderator (H3–H10). The results are presented inTable 3.

Consistent with H3, H4, H7, H9, and H10, the con-sumer tendency to innovate (a3 = −.17, p < .001), wineexpertise (a3 = −.06, p < .001), age (a3 = .01, p < .001),educational level (a3 = −.11, p < .001), and perceived risk(a3 = .14, p < .001) moderate the relationship betweenperceived typicality and aesthetic appreciation and, there-fore, the indirect effect of perceived typicality on pur-chase intent. To further investigate these interactioneffects, the Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro was used toestimate the conditional direct and indirect effects ofperceived typicality on purchase intent at various valuesof the moderators (see the Appendix). The results indi-cated that the indirect effect of perceived typicality onpurchase intent was weaker in the respondents showing astrong tendency to innovate, a strong expertise, theyoungest respondents, the respondents with high levelsof education, and the respondent who perceive wine

Label 1 Label 2 Label 3Perceived typicality 5.55 (1.04) 2.80 (1.19) 2.15 (1.04)Aesthetic appreciation 4.82 (1.24) 4.25 (1.44) 3.88 (1.68)

Label 1

Label 2

Label 3

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Aest

he�c

app

reci

a�on

Perceived typicality

Figure 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Typicality and Aesthetic Appreciation for Each Label

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 112014;••(••):••–••

Page 12: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

purchase as low in risk. Therefore, H3, H4, H7, H9, andH10 were supported. However, no moderating effect ofthe wine sign value or the respondent’s gender wasobserved on either the direct or the indirect effect ofperceived typicality on purchase intent. Therefore, H6and H8 are rejected. Last, it appears that the CVPA scoremoderates the indirect (a3 = .09, p < .001) effect of per-ceived typicality on purchase intent, but in the oppositedirection from that suggested in the marketing literature.Therefore, H5 is rejected.

The last result confirmed the moderating effect of per-ceived risk on the overall impact of perceived typicalityon purchase intent. When the respondents were asked tomake an absolute choice among the three labels in thecontext of three scenarios of consumption, it appearedthat when the scenario was perceived as low risk, therepartition of the choice was almost equivalent for thethree bottles. However, when the scenario was perceivedas risky, the percentage of respondents choosing the mosttypical label increased to 68% (Figure 4).

Discussion and Conclusion

In 1999, Snelders and Hekkert noted a widespread beliefamong managers that products that looked new and origi-

nal sold better than products that looked familiar or werewell known. The idea behind this belief is that productsthat look new stimulate consumer interest, whereas otherslook rather humdrum and arouse no interest. However, acareful analysis of the consumer behavior literaturereveals that this belief is simplistic. Innovative designscan lead to rejection and, in some cases and for someproduct categories, consumers prefer products with themost typical visual appearance or, in other words, withthe least innovative packaging design (Person et al.,2008). Other studies nevertheless have confirmed that amoderate degree of novelty stimulates consumers,attracts their attention in the store aisles, and most impor-tantly effectively differentiates a brand from its competi-tors. In addition, Talke et al. (2009) demonstrated thatdesign innovation has a positive impact on sales in theautomotive sector.

According to Person et al. (2008), the “styling deci-sion” about whether a product should look similar to ordifferent from its competitors is one of the main strategicdecisions for designers and marketing managers. Yetthese authors observe that “as much literature there is onthe marketing decisions behind new products in general,as little is there on the commercial considerations behindthe styling decision.” Moreover, the empirical findings on

Table 3. Testing the Moderated Mediations

Moderators (W) a1 a2 a3 b1 c′1 c′2 c′3

Tendency to innovate (H3) 1.03*** .72*** −.17*** .56*** .15 .03 .01Wine expertise (H4) .59*** .21** −.06*** .56*** .18** .04 −.00CVPA score (H5) −.08 −.31** .09** .56*** .15 −.01 .01Wine sign value (H6) .29** −.00 .01 .56*** .17* −.00 .00Age (H7) −.09 −.05*** .01*** .56*** .24*** .01 −.00Gender (H8) .30*** −.26 .05 .56*** .20*** −.05 −.04Educational level (H9) .84*** .47*** −.11*** .56*** .14† −.01 .00Perceived risk (H10) −.32* −.47*** .14*** .56*** .11 −.01 .02

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.CVPA, centrality of visual product aesthetics.

36%

33%

31%

51%

29%

20%

68%

14%

19%

Label 1 Label 2 Label 3

Normal meal without guest Risk = 3.3

Bring to non-connoisseursRisk = 4.1

Bring to connoisseursRisk = 4.9

Figure 4. Absolute Choices Made by Consumers for Each Scenario of Consumption

12 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 13: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

this topic are discrepant, sometimes showing a preferencefor typical designs and sometimes for innovative designs(Blijlevens et al., 2012; Hekkert and Leder, 2008). Nev-ertheless, recent studies have provided new insight intothis issue, confirming Bornstein’s (1989) assumption thatthe preference for the typical or the atypical is likely to bemoderated. Person et al. (2008) showed that, from thedesigner’s point of view, the styling decision about a newproduct may be moderated by several factors, such as thestage in the product life cycle or the size of the companyportfolio. Mugge and Dahl (2013) showed that the pref-erence for typical versus atypical designs for new prod-ucts is moderated by the kind of innovation that is beingproposed to the consumer. For radical innovation, con-sumers prefer a typical design as it makes the innovationeasier to process, while for incremental innovation theyseem more willing to accept innovative designs. A studyconducted by Landwehr et al. (2013) reinforced the con-clusions of Coughlan and Mashman (1999), Carbon andLeder (2005), and Carbon and Schoormans (2012) byshowing that the acceptation of atypical design is mod-erated by the number of exposures. Although typicaldesigns perform better from a short-term perspective,consumers tend to prefer atypical designs from a long-term perspective. The study thus extends this body ofwork by seeking to identify other variables, in addition tothe number of exposures and to the kind of innovation,that moderate the relationships among perceived typical-ity, aesthetic appreciation, and purchase intent.

Theoretical Implications

The findings confirm that several individual variableshave a moderating effect on these relationships. Althoughthe relationship between perceived typicality and aes-thetic appreciation remains linear and positive, its inten-sity varies according to the consumer segment underconsideration, with some segments clearly more likely toaccept atypical packaging. This is the case, for example,of consumers who are “expert” in a category, consumerswith a high propensity to innovate, and young con-sumers with a high level of education. These results are oftheoretical interest because they respond to certain ques-tions and certain avenues of research identified byCampbell and Goodstein (2001) and Hekkert et al.(2003). Moreover, they confirm Bornstein’s (1989)hypothesis, according to which seeking novelty andseeking familiarity are both part of the human behavioralrepertory and the same individual may therefore prefer atypical proposal under certain conditions and an atypicalalternative under other conditions.

In addition, the study indicates that certain situationalvariables—such as the level of perceived risk at the timeof purchase—also have a moderating effect. When con-sumers are in purchasing situations that are perceived aslow risk, they are more inclined to accept atypical pack-aging than when the purchasing situation is perceived ashigh risk. This result is significant because it reinforcesthe conclusion of Ladwein (1998) and Campbell andGoodstein (2001) that the consumer’s choice of a typicalcategory member may be a strategy to reduce perceivedrisk.

This study offers an original contribution because itfocuses on package graphic design rather than on overallproduct design. Although there is now a considerablebody of research on the acceptance of atypical designs(Blijlevens et al., 2009, 2012; Campbell and Goodstein,2001; Dell’Era and Verganti, 2007; Goode et al., 2013;Hekkert et al., 2003; Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005;Landwehr et al., 2013; Mugge and Dahl, 2013; Veryzerand Hutchinson, 1998), these studies for the most partmanipulated overall product design (i.e., overall productform) rather than package graphic design. By investigat-ing the acceptance of atypical graphic design, this studytherefore extends knowledge on this topic and providesexternal validity of the previous results. Most impor-tantly, it shows that product perceived typicality or designnewness can be significantly manipulated by even slightchanges in colors, typefaces, or illustrations (versuschanges in the overall form).

Last, this study acknowledges the existence of“category-based visual codes” in matters of packagegraphic design. By doing so, it introduces a concept thatis widely used by marketing managers and graphicdesigners, but quite absent from the academic marketingliterature. Yet the concept of categorial visual codes isimportant for marketing researchers because it may verywell be linked to perceived typicality and designnewness, two concepts that are themselves importantdeterminants of consumer behavior. Moreover, this paperalso indicates that the concept of categorial visual codescan be linked to the concepts of category cues and domi-nant design, thereby opening interesting avenues ofresearch on brand and design management. Indeed,categorial visual codes may be useful for identifyingthose elements that define product design typicality or thedominant graphic design in a given category. Such defi-nitions would provide concrete guidelines for marketersand designers on what is typical or innovative in a givenproduct category, in answer to the direction for researchidentified by Ranscombe, Hicks, and Mullineux (2012)and Blijlevens et al. (2009).

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 132014;••(••):••–••

Page 14: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Managerial Implications

The test of the moderating effects of individual variablesshows that certain consumer segments are more likely tovalue and therefore accept atypicality. From a managerialpoint of view, this of course means that it will be easierfor marketing directors to break away from the visualcodes of their product categories if the targeted consum-ers belong to these segments. Moreover, the finding onthe moderating effect of the level of perceived risk isinteresting for its managerial implications because it sug-gests that if marketers focus on the purchasing situationsthat are perceived as low risk, it will again be easier tovisually differentiate from competitors (Figure 3). Last,difficulties will also be reduced if marketers target con-sumers who perceive the product category as low risk.

For wine professionals, the results provide insight intowhy it might be especially difficult to visually differenti-ate a brand in this particular product category. The accep-tance of an atypical package design appears to bedetermined by the level of risk associated with purchase.And, as already explained by Campbell and Goodstein(2001), wine is a product category inherently perceived asrisky, especially because the social consequences of apoor choice are perceived as important. Therefore, theresults suggest that to make an atypical wine label accept-able, wine producers have to find solutions to reassure theconsumer about their product. This could be donethrough more communication about their wine or throughthe use of quality guaranties like tasting notes from well-known wine tasters. As a consequence, these results alsosuggest that an atypical wine label will be more accept-able if the wine is distributed in wine cellars rather than insupermarkets, where the uncertainty and perceived riskare higher because of the absence of advice from a wineprofessional.

Limitations and Perspectives for Research

The hypotheses were tested in a single product category.Although the choice of this category is justified by thetimeliness and importance of the issues for wine industryprofessionals, this study should be replicated in otherproduct categories in order to increase the external valid-ity of the results. It might be particularly interesting totest these hypotheses in product categories for whichpurchases are perceived as low risk (mineral water, softdrinks). Moreover, it would also be interesting to test thesame hypotheses on product categories perceived asstrongly implicating personal identity and for whichthe aesthetic dimension of the product is generally

considered as fundamental (e.g., clothes, home furniture,or cars).

The second limitation of this work is that it retainedprincipally individual moderating variables. However, ifthe person-object-situation approach (Bloch and Richins,1983; Perwin, 1989; Punj and Stewart, 1983) is applied tothe concept of aesthetic appreciation, it appears that therelationship between typicality and aesthetic appreciationis also moderated by variables that are “situational” or“contextual.” It would thus be worthwhile to complementthis research with an experimental protocol that takes intoaccount the impact of situational variables (such as thelevel of complexity of the package environment).

Several visual attributes of the wine label (typeface,colors, layout, and illustration) have been simultaneouslymanipulated in order to operationalize three levels ofperceived typicality. This decision allowed to providethree realistic “holistic designs” (Orth and Malkewitz,2008) that could be evaluated by the study respondents atthe end of the questionnaire, with one design beingchosen as preferable to the two others. However, thestudy design did not allow us to investigate how the visualcharacteristics individually and synergistically contrib-uted to the package perceived typicality and aestheticappreciation. Therefore, a future direction for researchwould be to run a set of experiments using packagesdesigned to manipulate the visual elements both indepen-dently and simultaneously. This would help researchersto identify the most salient visual attributes and to deter-mine how they contribute to the package perceived typi-cality and aesthetic appreciation.

Several studies have shown that the visual aspect of apackage is a source of inference for the consumer. There-fore, a change in the package design may change theconsumer expectations regarding product taste or levelof quality (Ares et al., 2011; Becker, van Rompay,Schifferstein, and Galetzka, 2011; Mizutani et al., 2012;Rebollar, Lidóna, Serranoa, Martín, and Fernández,2012; Sester, Dacremont, Deroye, and Valentin, 2013;Smets and Overbeeke, 1995; Westerman et al., 2013).Such changes are also likely to modify the perception ofthe brand personality or image (Orth and Malkewitz,2008; Pantin Sohier, 2009). This research showed thatspecific visual codes are associated with a specificproduct category and therefore define the package per-ceived typicality in that category. However, the meaningsof each of these visual codes for the consumer have notbeen analyzed. Yet a change in the codes is likely tomodify not only the product perceived typicality, but alsothe product perception in terms of expected taste orpositioning. Following the work of Ares et al. (2011), a

14 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 15: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

direction to complete this research would be to conduct asemiotic analysis of the visual codes that have been iden-tified, as this would provide insight into the meaningsassociated with these codes, which in turn would enhancethe understanding of what a change in the visual codesimplies for the consumer in terms of both product typi-cality and product perception. In a category marked byentrenched consumer expectations, marketers would havea better grasp on why it might be difficult to deviate fromthe established visual codes.

Last, this paper sought to assess the impact of theperceived degree of typicality of a stimulus when it waspresented to an individual for the first time. However, itdoes not take into account the impact of the frequency ofexposure on the acceptance of atypical packaging.However, Zajonc’s (1968) theory of the effect of repeatedexposure suggests that the acceptability of atypicalstimuli improves when the frequency of exposure to thesestimuli increases. Moreover, several studies have empiri-cally verified that the appreciation of innovative designincreases with the number of exposures (Carbon andLeder, 2005; Carbon and Schoormans, 2012; Coughlanand Mashman, 1999; Landwehr et al., 2013). Anotherresearch direction would thus be to test labels accordingto the repeated evaluation technique (Carbon and Leder,2005) to determine whether the aesthetic appreciation oflabels perceived as atypical—as well as the attitudetoward them and the purchase intent—improves when thefrequency of exposure to these stimuli increases.

References

Alba, J. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of consumer exper-tise. The Journal of Consumer Research 13 (4): 411–54.

Ares, G., B. Piqueras-Fiszman, P. Varela, M. R. Morant, A. Martín López,and S. Fiszman. 2011. Food labels: Do consumers perceive what semi-otics want to convey? Food Quality and Preference 22: 689–98.

Aurier, P. 1991. Recherche de variété: un concept majeur de la théorie enmarketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 6: 85–106.

Becker, L., T. J. L. van Rompay, H. N. J. Schifferstein, and M. Galetzka.2011. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging designon taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Pref-erence 22: 17–23.

Berlyne, D. E. 1970. Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perceptionand Psychophysics 8 (5): 279–86.

Blake, B., R. Perloff, and R. Heslin. 1978. Dogmatism and acceptance ofnew product. Journal of Marketing Research 7 (4): 483–86.

Blijlevens, J., R. Mugge, and J. P. Schoormans. 2009. Are modern productscurved or angular? The effect of the prototype shape on the perceivedproduct meaning. In EMAC 38th conference proceedings, ed. J. P.Helfer and J. L. Nicolas, 1–5. Nantes: Audencia.

Blijlevens, J., C. C. Carbon, R. Mugge, and J. P. Schoormans. 2012. Aes-thetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicalityand arousal. British Journal of Psychology 103 (1): 44–57.

Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumerresponse. Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 16–29.

Bloch, P. H., and M. L. Richins. 1983. A theoretical model for the study ofproduct importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing 47 (3): 69–81.

Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. Individual differences inthe centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement.The Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 551–65.

Bornstein, R. F. 1989. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis ofresearch, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 265–89.

Boudreaux, C. A., and S. E. Palmer. 2007. A charming littleCabernet—Effect of wine label design on purchase intent and brandpersonality. International Journal of Wine Business Research 19 (3):170–86.

Budner, S. 1962. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journalof Personality 30 (1): 29–50.

Butter, R., and K. Krippendorff. 1984. Product semantics: Exploring thesymbolic qualities of form. Journal of the Industrial Designers Societyof America 3: 4–9.

Campbell, M., and R. Goodstein. 2001. The moderating effect of perceivedrisk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference forthe norm. The Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3): 439–49.

Candi, M. 2010. Benefits of aesthetic design as an element of new servicedevelopment. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27: 1047–64.

Candi, M., and R. J. Saemundsson. 2011. Exploring the relationshipbetween aesthetic design as an element of new service development andperformance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28: 536–57.

Carbon, C. C., and H. Leder. 2005. The repeated evaluation technique(RET): A method to capture dynamic effects of innovation and attrac-tiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19: 587–601.

Carbon, C. C., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2012. Rigidity rather than age as alimiting factor in the appreciation of innovative design. Swiss Journalof Psychology 71 (2): 51–58.

Carson, S., R. D. Jewell, and C. Joiner. 2007. Prototypicality advantages forpioneers over me-too brands: The role of evolving product designs.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (2): 172–83.

Castaing, Y. 2013. Stratégies et marketing du vin. Paris: Dunod.

Celhay, F., and J. Passebois. 2011. Wine labelling: Is it time to break withtradition? A study of the moderating role of perceived risk. Interna-tional Journal of Wine Business Research 23 (4): 318–37.

Celhay, F., and J. F. Trinquecoste. 2008. Pourquoi est-il difficile de “sortir”des codes graphiques du vin français? Marketing et Communication 8(1): 6–30.

Charters, S. 2006. Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: A review.Consumption Markets & Culture 9 (3): 235–55.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2007. Form versus function:How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versushedonic tradeoffs mediate product preferences. Journal of MarketingResearch 44: 702–14.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2008. Delight by design: Therole of hedonic and utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing 72 (3):48–63.

Colin, C. 2006. L’imitation et sa négation (réutilisation, appropriation,digestion, piratage, mixage . . .). In Design et imitation, ed. C. Colin,14–47. Paris: Éditions des industries françaises de l’ameublement.

Coney, K. A. 1972. Dogmatism and innovation: A replication. Journal ofMarketing Research 9 (4): 453–55.

Coughlan, P., and R. Mashman. 1999. Once is not enough: Repeated expo-sure to and aesthetic evaluation of an automobile design prototype.Design Studies 20 (6): 553–63.

Cox, D. N., and W. B. Locander. 1987. Product novelty: Does it moderatethe relationship between ad attitudes and brand attitudes? Journal ofAdvertising 16 (3): 39–44.

Creusen, E. H. 2010. The importance of product aspect in choice: Theinfluence of demographic characteristics. Journal of Consumer Mar-keting 27 (1): 26–34.

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 152014;••(••):••–••

Page 16: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Creusen, E. H., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2005. The different roles ofproduct appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovationand Management 22 (1): 63–81.

Creusen, M. E. H., R. W. Veryzer, and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2010. Productvalue importance and consumer preference for visual complexity andsymmetry. European Journal of Marketing 44 (9/10): 1437–52.

Crilly, N., J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson. 2004. Seeing things: Consumerresponse to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies 25 (6):547–77.

Czaja, S. J., N. Charness, A. D. Hertzog, C. S. N. Nair, W. A. Rogers, andJ. Sharit. 2006. Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings fromthe center for research and education on aging and technology enhance-ment. Psychology and Aging 21 (2): 333–52.

De Bont, C., J. P. L. Schoormans, and M. Wessel. 1992. Consumer person-ality and the acceptance of product design. Design Studies 13 (2):200–8.

Dell’Era, C., and R. Verganti. 2007. Strategies of innovation and imitationof product languages. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(6): 580–99.

Divard, R., and B. Urien. 2001. Le consommateur vit dans un monde encouleurs. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 16 (1): 3–24.

Eckman, M., and J. Wagner. 1994. Judging the attractiveness of productdesign: The effect of visual attributes and consumer characteristics.Advances in Consumer Research 21 (1): 560–64.

Erdem, T. 1998. An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal ofMarketing Research 35: 339–51.

Evrard, Y., and P. Aurier. 1996. Identification and validation of the compo-nents of the person-object relationship. Journal of Business Research37 (2): 127–34.

Fishel, C. 2003. Design secrets: Packaging. Gloucester, MA: RockportPublishers.

Garber, L. L., E. M. Hyatt, and Ü. Ö. Boya. 2008. The mediating effects ofthe appearance of nondurable consumer goods and their packaging onconsumer behavior. In Product experience, ed. H. N. J. Schiffersteinand P. Hekkert, 581–602. Oxford: Elsevier.

Gemser, G., and M. A. A. M. Leenders. 2001. How integrating industrialdesign in the product development process impacts on company per-formance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 28–38.

Getzel, J. W., and M. Csiksentmihalyi. 1976. The creative vision: A longi-tudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Gollety, M., and N. Guichard. 2011. The dilemma of flavor and color in thechoice of packaging by children. Young Consumers 12 (1): 82–90.

Goode, M. R., D. W. Dahl, and C. P. Moreau. 2013. Innovation aesthetics:The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, andnewness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(2): 192–208.

Hagtvedt, H., R. Hagtvedt, and V. M. Patrick. 2008. The perception andevaluation of visual art. Empirical Studies of the Arts 26 (2): 197–218.

Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysisin the new millennium. Communication Monographs 76 (4): 408–20.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditionalprocess analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., K. J. Preacher, and T. A. Myers. 2011. Mediation and theestimation of indirect effects in political communication research. InSourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures,and analytical techniques, ed. E. P. Bucy and R. L. Holbert, 434–65.New York: Routledge.

Heilbrunn, B. 2006. Le marketing à l’épreuve du design. In Ledesign—essais sur des théories et des pratiques, ed. B. Flamand, 277–94. Paris: Editions de l’Institut Français de la mode et Editions duregard.

Heilman, C. M., D. Bowman, and G. P. Wright. 2000. The evolution ofbrand preferences and choice behaviors of consumers new to a market.Journal of Marketing Research 37: 139–55.

Hekkert, P., and H. Leder. 2008. Product aesthetics. In Product experience,ed. H. N. J. Schifferstein and P. Hekkert, 259–85. Oxford: Elsevier.

Hekkert, P., and P. Van Wieringen. 1990. Complexity and prototypicality asdeterminants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal ofPsychology 81 (4): 483–95.

Hekkert, P., and P. Van Wieringen. 1996. Beauty in the eye of expert andnon expert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. The AmericanJournal of Psychology 109 (3): 389–407.

Hekkert, P., D. Snelders, and P. Van Wieringen. 2003. “Most advanced, yetacceptable”: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aestheticpreference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology 94 (1):111–24.

Henderson, P. W., and J. A. Cote. 1998. Guidelines for selecting or modi-fying logos. Journal of Marketing 62 (2): 14–30.

Henderson, P. W., J. L. Giese, and J. A. Cote. 2004. Impression manage-ment using typeface design. Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 60–72.

Hirschman, E. 1986. The effect of visual and pictorial advertising stimulion aesthetic, utilitarian and familiarity perceptions. Journal of Adver-tising 15 (2): 27–34.

Holbrook, M. B. 1980. Some preliminary notes on research in consumeresthetics. Advances in Consumer Research 7 (1): 104–8.

Holbrook, M. B. 1986. Aims, concepts, and methods for the representationof individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. TheJournal of Consumer Research 13 (3): 337–47.

Holbrook, M. B., and E. C. Hirschman. 1982. The experiential aspects ofconsumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. The Journal ofConsumer Research 9 (2): 132–40.

Holbrook, M. B., and R. M. Schindler. 1994. Age, sex, and attitude towardthe past as predictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural prod-ucts. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (3): 412–22.

Jacoby, J. 1971. Personality and innovation proneness. Journal of Market-ing Research 8 (2): 244–47.

Jolibert, A., and P. Jourdain. 2006. Marketing research—Méthodes derecherche et d’études en marketing. Paris: Éditions Dunod, collectiongestion sup.

Karjalainen, T. M. 2001. When is a car like a drink? Metaphor as a meansto distilling brand and product identity. Design Management Journal2001: 66–71.

Karjalainen, T. M. 2007. It looks like a Toyota: Educational approaches todesigning for visual brand recognition. International Journal of Design1 (1): 67–81.

Karjalainen, T. M., and D. Snelders. 2010. Designing visual recognition forthe brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27: 6–22.

Kassarjian, H. 1977. Content analysis in consumer research. The Journal ofConsumer Research 4 (1): 8–17.

Kreuzbauer, R., and A. J. Malter. 2005. Embodied cognition and newproduct design: Changing product form to influence brand categoriza-tion. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 165–76.

Ladwein, R. 1993. Extension de marque et catégories cognitives: Contri-bution expérimentale à l’évaluation de l’extension de marque. PhdDissertation, Université des sciences et technologies de Lille.

Ladwein, R. 1995. Catégories cognitives et jugement de typicalité encomportement du consommateur. Recherche et Applications en Mar-keting 10 (2): 89–100.

Ladwein, R. 1998. Le jugement de typicalité et le choix de la marque: lerôle de l’incertitude. Association Française de Marketing Proceedings,14th AFM Conference, Bordeaux.

Landwehr, J. R., D. Wentzel, and A. Herrmann. 2013. Product design forthe long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs atdifferent stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing 77 (5): 92–107.

Laurent, G., and J. N. Kapferer. 1985. Measuring consumer involvementprofiles. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (1): 41–53.

Lawes, R. 2002. Demystifying semiotics: Some key questions answered.International Journal of Market Research 44 (3): 251–64.

16 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 17: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Leder, H., and C. Carbon. 2005. Dimensions in appreciation of car interiordesigns. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19 (5): 603–18.

Le Louarn, P. 1997. La tendance à innover des consommateurs: Analyseconceptuelle et proposition d’une échelle de mesure. Recherche etApplications en Marketing 12 (1): 3–19.

Locher, P. J., J. K. Smith, and L. F. Smith. 2001. The influence of presen-tation format and viewer training in the visual art on the perception ofpictorial and aesthetic qualities of painting. Perceptions 30 (4): 449–65.

Loken, B., and J. Ward. 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding thedeterminants of typicality. The Journal of Consumer Research 17 (2):111–26.

Malhotra, N. 2007. Marketing research: An applied orientation. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mandler, G. 1982. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affectand cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium, ed. M. S.Clark and S. T. Fiske, 55–78. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Martindale, C., and K. Moore. 1988. Priming, prototypicality, and prefer-ence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception andPerformance 14 (4): 661–70.

Martindale, C., K. Moore, and A. West. 1988. Relationship of preferencejudgments to typicality, novelty and mere exposure. Empirical Studiesof the Arts 6 (1): 79–96.

Martindale, C., K. Moore, and J. Borkum. 1990. Aesthetic preference:Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. The Ameri-can Journal of Psychology 103 (1): 53–80.

Martindale, C., K. Moore, and K. Anderson. 2005. The effect of extraneousstimulation on aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts 23(2): 83–91.

McAlister, L., and E. Pessemier. 1982. Variety seeking behaviour: Aninterdisciplinary review. The Journal of Consumer Research 9 (3):311–22.

McCormack, J. P., and J. Cagan. 2004. Speaking the Buick language:Capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shapegrammars. Design Studies 25: 1–29.

McNeal, J. U., and M. F. Ji. 2003. Children’s visual memory of packaging.Journal of Consumer Marketing 20 (5): 400–27.

Meyers-Levy, J., and A. M. Tybout. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis forproduct evaluation. The Journal of Consumer Research 16 (1): 39–54.

Milberg, S. J., F. Sinn, and R. C. Goodstein. 2010. Consumer reactions tobrand extensions in a competitive context: Does fit still matter? TheJournal of Consumer Research 37 (3): 543–53.

Miyazaki, A., D. Grewal, and R. C. Goodstein. 2005. The effect of multipleextrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. TheJournal of Consumer Research 32: 146–53.

Mizutani, N., I. Dan, Y. Kyutoku, D. Tsuzuki, L. Clowney, Y. Kusakabe, M.Okamoto, and T. Yamanaka. 2012. Package images modulate flavors inmemory: Incidental learning of fruit juice flavors. Food Quality andPreference 24: 92–98.

Monö, R. 1997. Design for product understanding: The aesthetics of designfrom a semiotic approach. (M. Knight, Trans). Stockholm: Liber AB.

Moss, G., and A. M. Colman. 2001. Choices and preferences: Experimentson gender differences. Brand Management 9 (2): 89–99.

Moss, G., R. Gunn, and J. Heller. 2006. Some men like it black, somewomen like it pink: Consumer implications of differences in male andfemale website design. Journal of Consumer Behavior 5 (4): 328–41.

Mugge, R., and D. W. Dahl. 2013. Seeking the ideal level of designnewness: Consumer response to radical and incremental productdesign. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 34–47.

Muller, D., C. M. Judd, and V. Y. Yzerbyt. 2005. When mediation ismoderated and moderation is mediated. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 89 (6): 852–63.

Nedungadi, P., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1985. The prototypicality of brands:Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. Advances inConsumer Research 12: 498–503.

Odin, N., Y. Odin, and P. Valette Florence. 1997. L’heuristique de typicalitédes marques: Principes validité et spécificités fonctionnelles, Associa-tion Française de Marketing Proceedings, 13th AFM Conference,Toulouse.

Orth, U., and K. Malkewitz. 2008. Holistic package design and consumerbrand impressions. Journal of Marketing 72 (3): 64–81.

Page, C., and P. M. Herr. 2002. An investigation of the processes by whichproduct design and brand strength interact to determine initial affectand quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (2): 133–47.

Pantin Sohier, G. 2009. The influence of the product package on functionaland symbolic associations of brand image. Recherche et Applicationsen Marketing 24 (2): 53–72.

Pantin Sohier, G., and C. Lancelot. 2012. The emotional and cognitiveeffects of a new food product’s information stimuli on the consumer.Recherche et Applications en Marketing 27 (1): 3–32.

Patrick, V. M., and H. Hagtvedt. 2011. Aesthetic incongruity resolution.Journal of Marketing Research 48 (2): 393–402.

Pedersen, D. M. 1986. Perception of interior designs. Perceptual and MotorSkills 63: 671–77.

Person, O., J. Schoormans, D. Snelders, and T. M. Karjalainen. 2008.Should new product look similar or different? The influence of themarket environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies 29:30–48.

Perwin, L. A. 1989. Persons, situations, interactions: The history of acontroversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Man-agement Review 14 (3): 350–60.

Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures forestimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. BehaviorResearch Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (4): 717–31.

Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strate-gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediatormodels. Behavior Research Methods 40 (3): 879–91.

Preacher, K. J., D. D. Rucker, and A. F. Hayes. 2007. Assessing moderatedmediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivari-ate Behavioral Research 42 (1): 185–227.

Punj, G., and D. W. Stewart. 1983. An interaction framework of consumerdecision making. The Journal of Consumer Research 2 (1): 182–96.

Purcell, A. T. 1984. The aesthetic experience and mundane reality.Advances in Psychology 19: 189–210.

Radford, S. K., and P. H. Bloch. 2011. Linking innovation to design:Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of ProductInnovation Management 28 (S1): 208–20.

Ranscombe, C., B. J. Hicks, and G. Mullineux. 2012. A method for explor-ing similarities and visual references to brand in the appearance ofmature mass-market products. Design Studies 33 (5): 496–520.

Ravasi, D., and I. Stigliani. 2012. Product design: A review and researchagenda for management studies. International Journal of ManagementReviews 14: 464–88.

Rebollar, R., I. Lidóna, A. Serranoa, J. Martín, and M. J. Fernández. 2012.Influence of chewing gum packaging design on consumer expectationand willingness to buy. An analysis of functional, sensory and experi-ence attributes. Food Quality and Preference 24: 162–70.

Reimann, M., J. Zaichkowsky, C. Neuhaus, T. Bender, and T. Weber. 2010.Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychologicalinvestigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 431–41.

Rindova, V. P., and A. P. Petkova. 2007. When is a new thing a good thing?Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value.Organization Science 18 (2): 217–32.

Roehrich, G. 1987. Nouveauté perçue d’une innovation. Recherche etApplications en Marketing 2 (1): 1–15.

Roullet, B., and O. Droulers. 2005. Pharmaceutical packaging color anddrug expectancy. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 164–71.

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 172014;••(••):••–••

Page 18: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Schmidt, J. B., L. T. Zayer, and R. J. Calantone. 2012. Grumpier old men:Age and sex differences in the evaluation of new services. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 29 (1): 88–99.

Schoormans, J. P. L., and H. S. J. Robben. 1997. The effect of new packagedesign on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal ofEconomic Psychology 18 (2–3): 271–87.

Sester, C., C. Dacremont, O. Deroye, and D. Valentin. 2013. Investigatingconsumers’ representations of beers through a free association task: Acomparison between packaging and blind conditions. Food Quality andPreference 28: 475–83.

Smets, G. J. F., and C. J. Overbeeke. 1995. Expressing tastes in packages.Design Studies 16: 349–65.

Snelders, D., and P. Hekkert. 1999. Association measures as predictors ofproduct originality. Advances in Consumer Research 26: 588–92.

Snyder, C. R., and H. L. Fromkin. 1979. Uniqueness: The human pursuit ofdifference. New York: Plenum Press.

Stayman, D. M., D. L. Alden, and K. H. Smith. 1992. Some effects ofschematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmationjudgements. The Journal of Consumer Research 19 (2): 240–55.

Sudjic, D. 2008. The language of things. London: Penguin Books.

Swan, S., and M. Luch. 2011. From the special issue editors: Product designresearch and practice: Past, present and future. Journal of ProductInnovation Management 28 (3): 321–26.

Talke, K., S. Salomo, J. E. Wieringa, and A. LutzBloch. 2009. What aboutdesign newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimensionof product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management26 (6): 601–15.

Underwood, R. L., and N. M. Klein. 2002. Packaging as brand communi-cation: Effects of product pictures on consumer responses to thepackage and brand. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 10 (4):58–69.

Veryzer, R., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity andprototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product design. TheJournal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–94.

Veryzer, R. W. 1993. Aesthetic response and the influence of design prin-ciples on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research 20 (1):224–28.

Veryzer, R. W. 1995. The place of product design and aesthetics in con-sumer research. Advances in Consumer Research 22 (1): 641–45.

Ward, J. C., and B. Loken. 1988. The generality of typicality effect onpreference and comparison: An exploratory test. Advances in Con-sumer Research 15: 55–61.

Westerman, S. J., E. J. Sutherland, P. H. Gardner, N. Baig, C. Critchley, C.Hickey, S. Mehigan, A. Solway, and Z. Zervos. 2013. The design ofconsumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation,and alignment of graphical forms on consumers’ assessments. FoodQuality and Preference 27: 8–17.

Whitfield, T. W. A. 1983. Predicting preference for familiar, everydayobjects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aes-thetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (3): 221–37.

Whitfield, T. W. A., and P. E. Slatter. 1979. The effects of categorization andprototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. BritishJournal of Psychology 70 (1): 65–75.

Yalch, R., and F. Brunel. 1996. Need hierarchies in consumer judgments ofproduct designs: Is it time to reconsider Maslow’s theory? Advances inConsumer Research 23: 405–10.

Yamamoto, M., and D. R. Lambert. 1994. The impact of product aestheticson the evolution of industrial products. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 11 (4): 464–71.

Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement 9 (2): 1–27.

Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:Myths and truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (2): 197–206.

Appendix. Direct and Indirect Effect of Perceived Typicality on Purchase Intent at Valuesof the Moderators

Conditional Direct Effect of X on Y at Values of the General Tendency to Innovate

Z values Effect SE t p

3.35 .17 .03 5.88 .0004.05 .18 .02 8.43 .0004.76 .18 .03 6.83 .000

Conditional Direct Effect of X on Y at Values of the Wine Expertise

Z values Effect SE t p

2.44 .18 .03 5.61 .0003.94 .18 .02 8.21 .0005.45 .17 .03 6.55 .000

Conditional Direct Effect of X on Y at Values of the Age

Z values Effect SE t p

26 .20 .03 7.14 .00040 .18 .02 8.42 .00054 .16 .03 5.15 .000

18 J PROD INNOV MANAG F. CELHAY AND J. F. TRINQUECOSTE2014;••(••):••–••

Page 19: Package Graphic Design: Investigating the Variables that Moderate Consumer Response to Atypical Designs

Appendix. Continued

Conditional Direct Effect of X on Y at Values of the Educational Level

Z values Effect SE t p

Low .17 .03 5.62 .000Medium .18 .02 8.48 .000High .19 .03 7.00 .000

Conditional Direct Effect of X on Y at Values of the Perceived Risk

Z values Effect SE t p

3.85 .17 .03 6.05 .0004.72 .18 .02 8.47 .0005.59 .19 .03 6.65 .000

Conditional Indirect Effect of X on Y at Values of the General Tendency to Innovate

Z values Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

3.35 .25 .02 .21 .314.05 .18 .02 .15 .234.76 .12 .02 .07 .17

Conditional Indirect Effect of X on Y at Values of the Wine Expertise

Z values Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

2.44 .24 .03 .20 .303.94 .19 .02 .16 .235.45 .14 .02 .10 .18

Conditional Indirect Effect of X on Y at Values of the Age

Z values Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

26 .10 .02 .06 .1540 .18 .02 .15 .2254 .26 .02 .22 .31

Conditional Indirect Effect of X on Y at Values of the Educational Level

Z values Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

Low .26 .02 .22 .32Medium .19 .02 .15 .22High .10 .02 .06 .15

Conditional Indirect Effect of X on Y at Values of the Perceived Risk

Z values Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

3.85 .12 .02 .07 .164.72 .18 .02 .15 .225.59 .25 .02 .20 .31

Values for quantitative moderators are the mean plus/minus one SD from the mean.SE, standard error.

PACKAGE GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ATYPICALITY ACCEPTANCE J PROD INNOV MANAG 192014;••(••):••–••