Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 467–489 | Cite as

Package Graphics and Consumer Product Beliefs

  • Paula Fitzgerald Bone
  • Karen Russo France
Article

Abstract

In recent years, marketers' tactics to increase product sales through health claims have been scrutinized by public policy makers. The culmination of this process was the passage of the National Labeling Education Act, which highly restricts the type, amount, and format of nutritional information conveyed on the package. In this investigation, we examine an under-explored aspect of the package—its colors and pictures—to determine what, if any, impact these aspects have on consumer beliefs regarding important product characteristics. We find that even when very concrete verbal information is used, graphical representations have a significant and long-term effect on product beliefs and purchase intentions.

Packaging labeling consumer beliefs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Integration theory applied to cognitive responses and attitudes. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (pp. 361–397). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, J. C., Akhter, S. H., Durvasula, S., & Muehling, D. D. (1992). Effects of advertising distinctiveness and message content involvement on cognitive and affective responses to advertising. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14 (Spring), 45–58.Google Scholar
  3. Bone, P. F., Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1990). Assimilation and contrast effects in product performance perceptions: implications for public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 9, 100–110.Google Scholar
  4. Commerce Clearing House Trade Regulation Reports (1988). Deception defined (10828–10835).Google Scholar
  5. Crystal clear persuasion. (1993, January). Tufts University Diet and Nutrition Letter, p. 1.Google Scholar
  6. Deighton, J. (1984). The interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December), 763–770.Google Scholar
  7. Deighton, J., & Schindler, R. M. (1988). Can advertising influence experience? Psychology and Marketing, 5 (Summer), 103–115.Google Scholar
  8. Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45–61.Google Scholar
  9. Ellen, P. S., & Bone, P. F. (1990). Measuring communication evoked imagery processing. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 18 (pp. 806–812). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  10. Federal Register (1990). Food labeling, reference daily intakes and daily reference values (55, Mo. 139, p. 29476–29486).Google Scholar
  11. Federal Trade Commission Deception Policy Statement (1983). Letter from James C. Miller, III (Former) Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, to the Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. (October 14, 1–19).Google Scholar
  12. Food and Drug Administration (1994). Guide to nutritional labeling and education act (NLEA) requirements (August).Google Scholar
  13. Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221–233.Google Scholar
  14. Houston, M. J., Childers, T. L., & Heckler, S. E. (1987). Picture-word consistency and the elaborative processing of advertisements.Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (November), 359–369.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, D. L. (1994, May 29). The titans of tint make their picks. New York Times, p. F7.Google Scholar
  16. Johar, G. V. (1995). Consumer involvement and deception from implied advertising claims. Journal of Marking Research, 32 (August), 267–279.Google Scholar
  17. Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1984). Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 54–64.Google Scholar
  18. Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1986). Examining the vividness controversy: an availabilityvalence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March), 418–431.Google Scholar
  19. Kober Hats, Inc. v. FTC (CA-1;1962) 1963 TRADE CASES 70,597,311 F. 2d 358 (FTC Dkt. 8190).Google Scholar
  20. Laczniak, R., & Grossbart, S. (1990). An assessment of assumptions underlying the reasonable consumer element in deceptive advertising policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 9, 85–99.Google Scholar
  21. Madden, T. J., Allen, C. T., & Twible, J. (1988). Attitude toward the ad: an assessment of diverse measurement indices under different processing 'sets.' Journal Marketing Research, 25 (August), 242–252.Google Scholar
  22. Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1995). Understanding the effects of color: how the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 121–138.Google Scholar
  23. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 92–107.Google Scholar
  24. Nabisco Public Relations Department, Personal correspondence, September 29, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. C. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. C., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135–146.Google Scholar
  28. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: a critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1–24.Google Scholar
  29. Ramirez, A. (1990, July 5). Lessons in the cracker market: Nabisco saved new graham snack. New York Times, p. D1.Google Scholar
  30. Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. L., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2–12.Google Scholar
  31. Shimp, T. A., Hyatt, E. M., & Snyder, D. J. (1991). A critical appraisal of demand artifacts in consumer research.Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December), 273–283.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, H. A. (1967). An information-processing explanation of some perceptual phenomena. British Journal of Psychology, 58, 1–12.Google Scholar
  33. Sullivan, A. M., Andrews, E. A., Hollinghurst, F., Maddigan, R., & Noseworthy, R. M. (1976–77). The relative effectiveness of instructional television. Interchange, 7, 46–51.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive ‘vividness’ effect. Psychological Review, 89 (2), 155–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Fitzgerald Bone
    • 1
  • Karen Russo France
    • 2
  1. 1.Marketing Department, College of Business and EconomicsWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown
  2. 2.West Virginia UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations