Advertisement

The Effects of Background Color, Shape and Dimensionality on Purchase Intentions in a Digital Product Presentation

  • Rafał MichalskiEmail author
  • Jerzy Grobelny
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)

Abstract

The presented study explores diverse ways of demonstrating the product in a digital way, e.g. in big digital outdoor telebims, monitors situated in supermarkets or electronic shops available on the Internet. Three different factors were examined in a laboratory based experiment: product presentation background colors (red, green, and blue), presentation shape (sharp versus rounded edges) and presentation dimensionality (two and three dimensional). The potential customers expressed their purchase intentions towards various product presentation variants by means of pairwise comparisons. The analysis of data collected from 51 persons revealed the statistical importance of all three examined factors along with the significance of dimensionality and shape interaction. Subjects preferred rounded options more than these with sharp edges only. The three dimensionally looking package was better liked than its two dimensional counterpart. Participants favored also blue background color over the red and green ones .

Keywords

Digital signage Two and three dimensions Package design Roundedness Purchase intensions AHP 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was partly financially supported by the Polish National Science Center grants no. 2011/03/B/HS4/03925.

References

  1. Azzi, A., Battini, D., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F.: Packaging design: general framework and research agenda. Packag. Technol. Sci. 25(8), 435–456 (2012). doi: 10.1002/pts.993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar, M., Neta, M.: Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychol. Sci. 17(8), 645–648 (2006). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, L., van Rompay, T.J.L., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Galetzka, M.: Tough package, strong taste: the influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 22(1), 17–23 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christ, R.E.: Review and analysis of color coding research for visual displays. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 17(6), 542–570 (1975). doi: 10.1177/001872087501700602 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Deliza, R., Macfie, H., Hedderley, D.: Use of Computer-Generated Images and Conjoint Analysis to Investigate Sensory Expectations. J. Sensory Stud. 18(6), 465–486 (2003). doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00401.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Granger, G.W.: An Experimental Study of Colour Preferences. J. Gen. Psychol. 52(1), 3–20 (1955). doi: 10.1080/00221309.1955.9918340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grobelny, J., Michalski, R.: Various approaches to a human preference analysis in a digital signage display design. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 21(6), 529–542 (2011). doi: 10.1002/hfm.2029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grobelny, J., Michalski, R.: The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 85–100 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guilford, J.P., Smith, P.C.: A System of Color-Preferences. Am. J. Psychol. 72(4), 487 (1959). doi: 10.2307/1419491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, J.L., Thompson, J.M., Schwartz, M.B., Brownell, K.D.: Nutrition-related claims on children’s cereals: what do they mean to parents and do they influence willingness to buy? Public Health Nutr. 14(12), 2207–2212 (2011). doi: 10.1017/S1368980011001741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. John, M.S., Cowen, M.B., Smallman, H.S., Oonk, H.M.: The use of 2D and 3D displays for shape-understanding versus relative-position tasks. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 43(1), 79–98 (2001). doi: 10.1518/001872001775992534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Labrecque, L., Milne, G.: Exciting red and competent blue: the importance of color in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(5), 711–727 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0245-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michalski, R.: Examining users’ preferences towards vertical graphical toolbars in simple search and point tasks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2308–2321 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Middlestandt, S.E.: The effect of background and ambient color on product attitudes and beliefs. Ad. Consum. Res. 17(1), 244–249 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. Murray, S.O., Kersten, D., Olshausen, B.A., Schrater, P., Woods, D.L.: Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99(23), 15164–15169 (2002). doi: 10.1073/pnas.192579399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ngo, M.K., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Spence, C.: On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: insights from online and laboratory-based testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 24(2), 260–268 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norman, J.F., Todd, J.T., Orban, G.A.: Perception of three-dimensional shape from specular highlights, deformations of shading, and other types of visual information. Psychol. Sci. 15(8), 565–570 (2004). doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00720.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rebollar, R., Lidón, I., Serrano, A., Martín, J., Fernández, M.J.: Influence of chewing gum packaging design on consumer expectation and willingness to buy. an analysis of functional, sensory and experience attributes. Food Qual. Prefer. 24(1), 162–170 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S., Jain, A.K.: Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. J. Mark. 58(4), 28–36 (1994). doi: 10.2307/1251914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robertson, A.R.: The CIE 1976 color-difference formulae. Color Res. Appl. 2(1), 7–11 (1977). doi: 10.1002/j.1520-6378.1977.tb00104.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robertson, G.L.: Food packaging: principles and practice. Taylor & Francis/CRC, Boca Raton (2006)Google Scholar
  23. Rundh, B.: The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: marketing logistic or marketing tool? Brit. Food J. 107(9), 670–684 (2005). doi: 10.1108/00070700510615053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977). doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw–Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Schloss, K.B., Strauss, E.D., Palmer, S.E.: Object color preferences. Color Res. Appl. 38(6), 393–411 (2013). doi: 10.1002/col.21756 Google Scholar
  27. Valajoozi, M.R., Zangi, N.O.: A review on visual criteria of pure milk packaging for parents and their children (case study: Tehran, Iran). Brit. Food J. 118(1), 83–99 (2015). doi: 10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Werle, C.O.C., Balbo, L., Caldara, C., Corneille, O.: Is plain food packaging plain wrong? Plain packaging increases unhealthy snack intake among males. Food Qual. Prefer. 49, 168–175 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Westerman, S.J., Sutherland, E.J., Gardner, P.H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey, C., Zervos, Z.: The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers’ assessments. Food Qual. Prefer. 27(1), 8–17 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and ManagementWrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations