Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Affordant Shapes of Product Holder Influence Product Evaluation and Purchase Intention

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several studies have shown that stocking products on a display stand (vs. on a shelf) favors purchasing. However, little is known about whether the spatial layout of the display stand (i.e., its shape) may influence consumers’ evaluation of the product and their purchase intention. The present research aims to investigate the role of the shape of an in-store display as a contextual cue potentially able to influence consumers’ evaluation of the exposed product and their subsequent purchasing intention. Two experiments were carried out in which we manipulated the shape of the product holder and the brand name as a function of brand awareness. We found that a meaningful shape representing the product induced a more positive product evaluation and indirectly, a greater intention to purchase in respect to shelf, when the product was a little-known brand (Study 1). Furthermore, the strongest effect occurred when the display stand facilitated product affordance in consumers’ minds (Study 2). These results confirmed that the ability of the immediate context (i.e., the display stand) to evoke an action with an object (the product) influences the perceiver evaluation and behavioral intention towards the object itself. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. None of the participants took part to both the studies here presented. The two samples are completely independent from each other.

  2. We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

  • Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 2–18. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). The effects of in-store display and feature advertising on consideration sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 17–23. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16–29. doi:10.2307/1252116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. M., & Tucker, W. T. (1961). The marketing center: Vanishing shelf space. Atlanta Economic Review, 11(10), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106, 27–58. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bultez, A., & Naert, P. (1988). SH.ARP. Shelf allocation for retailers’ profit. Marketing Science, 7(3), 211–231. doi:10.1287/mksc.7.3.211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134, 233–244. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, I. A., Morales, A. C., & Nowlis, S. M. (2013). The influence of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. Journal of Marketing, 77, 118–133. doi:10.1509/jm.11.0495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing, 73, 1–17. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1406506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier, M. (1975). Increase in sales due to in-store display. Journal of Retailing, 51, 65–72. Accession number 4999995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curhan, R. C. (1972). The Relationship between shelf space and unit sales in supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 406–412. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3149304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio, D., Henard, D. H., & Freling, T. H. (2006). The effect of sales promotion on post-promotion brand preference: a meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 86(3), 203–213. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.10.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P., & Renaudin, V. (1998). Estimation of product category sales responsiveness to allocated shelf space. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(5), 443–457. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00018-4

  • Eisend, M. (2014). Shelf space elasticity: a meta analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 168–181. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.03.003

  • Fischer, M., Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2010). How important are brands? A cross-category, cross-country study. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 823–839. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. E., & Massy, W. F. (1970). Shelf position and space effects on sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 59–66. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3149508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielli, V., & Cavazza, N. (2014). The influence of in-store product holders on orientation toward the product and on purchase intention. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 24, 311–327. doi:10.1080/09593969.2013.862507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. P., & Osterhaus, J. T. (1985). Effectiveness of floor displays on the sales of retail products. Research Note of Journal of Retailing, 61, 104–116. Accession number 4667984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1993). A retailer promotion policy model considering promotion signal sensitivity. Marketing Science, 12(4), 339–356. doi:10.1287/mksc.12.4.339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut? Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 74–81.

  • Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 230–256. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotzan, J. A., & Evanson, R. A. (1969). Responsiveness of drug store sales to shelf space allocations. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 465–469. doi:10.2307/3150084. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regenberg, N. F. E., Hafner, M., & Semin, G. R. (2011). The Groove move. Action affordances produce fluency and positive affect. Experimental Psychology, 59, 30–37. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Houghton, D. C. (1997). Contextual influences on judgment based on limited information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(3), 251–264. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B., & Marshall, R. (2010). Exploring impulse buying and variety seeking by retail shoppers: towards a common conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 26, 473–494. doi:10.1080/02672570903485097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, T., & Grimes, A. (2012). Memory enhances the mere exposure effect. Psychology and Marketing, 29, 995–1003. doi:10.1002/mar.20581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Still, J. D., & Dark, V. J. (2010). Examining working memory load and congruency effects on affordances and conventions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 561–571. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.03.003#doilink.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. T., & Till, B. D. (2011). Effects of outdoor advertising: does location matter? Psychology and Marketing, 28, 909–933. doi:10.1002/mar.20418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, Y., & Yoo, J. (2011). The long-term effects of sales promotions on brand attitude across monetary and non-monetary promotions. Psychology and Marketing, 28, 879–896. doi:10.1002/mar.20416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. doi:10.1037/h0025848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2006). An integrated choice model incorporating alternative mechanisms for consumers’ reactions to in-store display and feature advertising. Marketing Science, 25(3), 278–290. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We wish to express our gratitude to the company Espo&Cartotec (Modena-Italy) for providing us with the experimental material, and Cristina Iani for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Nicoletta Cavazza & Veronica Gabrielli

Authors
  1. Nicoletta Cavazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veronica Gabrielli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicoletta Cavazza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cavazza, N., Gabrielli, V. Affordant Shapes of Product Holder Influence Product Evaluation and Purchase Intention. Curr Psychol 34, 447–465 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9268-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9268-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation