Skip to main content
Book cover

Multisensory Packaging pp 127–159Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Tactile/Haptic Aspects of Multisensory Packaging Design

Abstract

Consumers normally come into contact with the tactile attributes of packaging whenever they pick a food and beverage, or home and personal care, product off the shelf. What the consumer feels about the tactile attributes of the packaging (and their haptic interaction with it) can influence both their product expectations and thereafter their product experience. It should come as little surprise, therefore, to find that a growing number of companies/packaging designers are increasingly trying to distinguish their product packaging by giving it a ‘signature’ feel (i.e., one that distinguishes it haptically from the competition). There is also growing interest in functional tactile/haptic packaging that delivers a benefit in terms of enhancing the consumer’s multisensory product experience. That said, it is important to bear in mind that the tactile/haptic aspects of product packaging are typically not experienced in isolation; they are themselves influenced by the other sensory aspects of the packaging, such as its colour, fragrance, and potentially by any sounds that are heard when the consumer interacts with it. Therefore, anyone who is thinking about multisensory design really needs to consider these various crossmodal interactions in order to optimize the tactile/haptic design of their product packaging.

Keywords

  • Touch
  • Tactile
  • Haptic
  • Packaging
  • Multisensory
  • Weight
  • Texture
  • Feel

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94977-2_6
  • Chapter length: 33 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-94977-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 6.1
Fig. 6.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Matthew Unger, purchasing group manager at Procter & Gamble (P&G), suggests that a good design, in terms of material, craftsmanship, and visual quality, is important in a successful package. Critically, however, he goes on to say that the way a package feels to the consumer, how ‘it speaks’ through touch as well as vision, is the ‘moment of truth, the moment of choice’ (http://www.brandpackaging.com/Archives_Davinci?article=622). Along similar lines, Nipun Marwah, marketing manager for MeadWestvaco’s Packaging Resources Group, suggests that ‘when you create a tactile feel, the consumer is more likely to pick it [the product] up. And once it is in the consumer’s hand, the sale is that much closer’ (see also Underhill, 1999).

  2. 2.

    Active touch is often referred to as haptics in this area of research (Childers & Peck, 2010; Peck & Childers, 2008).

  3. 3.

    Note that Spence and Gallace (2011) talk of ‘affective ventriloquism’, when referring specifically to the more hedonic form of sensation transference.

  4. 4.

    Hollywood-based designer Saul Bass put it even more succinctly when he stated that ‘Packaging is the product’ (Day, 1985).

  5. 5.

    Both ‘sensation transference’ and ‘affective ventriloquism’ are typically framed in terms of assimilation. That said, it is important to note that contrast effects between the product and packaging (or between different components of the product packaging) have also been documented (e.g., Zampini, Mawhinney, & Spence, 2006).

  6. 6.

    The Dundee chocolate orange box of the last century served much the same purpose (see Sacharow, 1982, p. 52). In this case, individual chocolate segments were wrapped in foil, grouped in spheres of 20, foil-wrapped again, and then sold in a heavy box with an abaca rope containing several oranges. The box was overwrapped with transparent polypropylene. Relevant here, Krishna et al. (2017) distinguish between outer, intermediate, and inner packaging.

  7. 7.

    Of course, such unusual packaging features normally have a cost implication. Unfortunately, all too often, these ‘expensive’ design features end up being removed from the packaging in order to save money (by the bean-counting accountants). In my opinion, at least, this is often a mistake. Relevant sales data would, of course, help here.

  8. 8.

    As evidenced by consumers picking up a newspaper/magazine from anywhere but the top of the pile.

  9. 9.

    That said, it should be noted that touch tables normally display products devoid of their packaging.

  10. 10.

    Goldstein and Herschkowitsch (2010, p. 80) wrote that ‘These Bogle bottles are hefty, and their weight is a nice feature—one that often tricks people into thinking the wine is more expensive than it really is’ (see also Faraday Packaging Partnership & Glass Technology Services, 2006).

  11. 11.

    One of the only examples of consumers reporting that the packaging was too heavy comes from Nickels and Jolson (1976) who documented that the consumers they spoke to did not like the excessive weight of a particular vinegar bottle.

  12. 12.

    The author has a collection of spirits bottle stoppers and perfume lids that are disappointingly light to illustrate the wasted opportunity/poor design decisions that are sometimes taken in this regard.

  13. 13.

    Here, it is important to note that the distribution of receptor types varies across the skin surface (Klatsky, 2010; McGlone & Spence, 2010; Weinstein, 1968) and differs between the skin on the hand holding the deodorant stick and the skin surface where it is normally rubbed (be it the underarm region, or the forearm, as tested here).

  14. 14.

    While it would be easy to imagine that no one would actually coat their product packaging with sandpaper (as done by Biggs, Juravle, & Spence, 2016; Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2012c; see also Zampini et al., 2006), a few years ago one company (Der Schnaps) did indeed indicate the strength of the alcohol by the roughness of the sandpaper on which the label was printed (see Hartmann & Haupt, 2016, p. 189; Spence & Piqueras-Fiszman, 2012; meanwhile Skyy vodka ran a limited-edition holiday bottle with velvet flocking; Mohan, 2013)!

  15. 15.

    Note that lacquers have, for some years now, been printed onto standard packs in order to give them a textured (i.e., rough or smooth) feel (Raine, 2007).

  16. 16.

    The unpleasant sound associated with squeezing a plastic bottle might also convey notions of cheapness/low quality.

  17. 17.

    So enamoured were the members of this particular focus group that they were apparently reluctant to let go of the packages after having been introduced to them (see Anon, 1999). This, though, may say as much about the challenges of doing focus group research as anything else!

  18. 18.

    And, of course, when the signature shape of the bottle is represented as a silhouette on the side of a can of Coca-Cola, say, it is most certainly an example of purely visual branding (Durgee, 2003).

  19. 19.

    Of course, handedness is also an important factor to take into account here.

  20. 20.

    One might think here also of Downy Unstopables In-Wash Scent Booster Lush product line that so effectively brings haptics, sound, and scent together in a highly innovative product/packaging design.

  21. 21.

    Here, one might also think of the Dove brand deodorant that has a soft touch satiny finish together with a ‘softer-sounding’ spray than a young man’s brand such as Lynx/Axe, say (see Kaleido, 2004; Spence & Zampini, 2006, 2007).

  22. 22.

    The sorts of questions used by Peck and Childers to pick out the high autotelic NFT include Touching products can be fun; I find myself touching all kinds of products in stores.

  23. 23.

    Citrin, Stem, Spangenberg, and Clark (2003) also highlighted individual differences in touch when considering the challenges for touch of internet marketing.

References

  • Aldridge, A., & Miller, L. (2012). Why shrink-wrap a cucumber? The complete guide to environmental packaging. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, K. R., & Shansky, M. S. (1976). Influence of hue, value, and chroma on the perceived heaviness of colors. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 72–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (1999). Touch looms large as a sense that drives sales. BrandPackaging, 3(3), 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (2006, November 13). Retailers promise action on waste. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6142750.stm

  • Anon. (2008, June 27–July 3). The silver dollar. The Economist, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (2010). Maximum appeal. Active and Intelligent Packaging World, 9(3), 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(April), 81–94.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Atakan, S. S. (2014). Consumer response to product construction: The role of haptic stimulation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 586–592.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, A., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. (2016). Bottled vs. canned beer: Do they really taste different? Beverages, 2, 25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barthel, D. (1989). Modernism and marketing: The chocolate box revisited. Theory, Culture and Society, 6, 429–438.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. (2018, March 19). New ‘bumpy’ labels will show when food goes off. The Daily Telegraph, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, M. (1900). The synthesis experiment. American Journal of Psychology, 11, 405–425.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, K. (2002, January/February). Wake up your product category with ‘shapely’ packaging. Brand Packaging.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, L., Juravle, G., & Spence, C. (2016). Haptic exploration of plateware alters the perceived texture and taste of food. Food Quality & Preference, 50, 129–134.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blythe, J. (2001). Essentials of marketing (2nd ed.). London, UK: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castiello, U., Zucco, G. M., Parma, V., Ansuini, C., & Tirindelli, R. (2006). Cross-modal interactions between olfaction and vision when grasping. Chemical Senses, 31, 665–671.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. J., Reinhard, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 948–952.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Barnes, C. J., Childs, T. H. C., Henson, B., & Shao, F. (2009). Materials’ tactile testing and characterisation for consumer products’ affective packaging design. Materials & Design, 30, 4299–4310.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cheskin, L. (1957). How to predict what people will buy. New York, NY: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheskin, L. (1981). Research design and analysis in the testing of symbols. In W. Stern (Ed.), Handbook of package design research (pp. 211–220). New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., & Peck, J. (2010). Informational and affective influences of haptics on product evaluation: Is what I say how I feel? In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products (pp. 63–72). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, A., Meyners, M., Griffiths, L., & Bailey, P. (2009). The cross-modal effect of fragrance in shampoo: Modifying the perceived feel of both product and hair during and after washing. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 320–328.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915–922.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L. (2013, October 31). Sensory marketing—Could it be worth $100m to brands? Marketing Week. Retrieved from http://www.marketingweek.com/2013/10/30/sensory-marketing-could-it-be-worth-100m-to-brands/

  • Crowe, V. (2018, March 20). The truth about Easter eggs. Which. Retrieved from https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/03/the-truth-about-easter-egg-packaging/

  • Day, K. (1985, March 17). Packaging emerges as a key selling tool from cigarettes to candy, designers prove that looks rival content. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-17/business/fi-35588_1_consumer

  • Demattè, M. L., Sanabria, D., Sugarman, R., & Spence, C. (2006). Cross-modal interactions between olfaction and touch. Chemical Senses, 31, 291–300.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Desanghere, L., & Marotta, J. J. (2011). “Graspability” of objects affects gaze patterns during perception and action tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 212, 177–187.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII(February), 60–7l.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durgee, J. F. (2003). Visual rhetoric in new product design. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 367–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, S., & White, E. (2000, November 24). ‘Sensory’ marketers say the way to reach shoppers is the nose. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB975016895886269171

  • Faraday Packaging Partnership & Glass Technology Services. (2006). Container lite. Light-weight glass containers—The route to effective waste minimisation. Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.glassts.com/Consultancy/ConsultancyPDFs/ContainerLite_Lightweight__WRAP_TZ969_-_2006_.pdf

  • Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Looking hot or feeling hot: What determines the product experience of warmth? Materials & Design, 31, 1325–1331.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, B. M. (Submitted). Packaging texture influences product taste and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Sensory Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, J., & Smithers, R. (2006, November 14). Too much packaging? Dump it at checkout, urges minister. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/nov/14/supermarkets.ethicalliving/print

  • Frost, R. (2006). Feeling your way in a global marketplace. Retrieved from http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=302

  • Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2014). In touch with the future: The sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gatti, E., Spence, C., & Bordegoni, M. (2014). Investigating the influence of colour, weight, & fragrance intensity on the perception of liquid bath soap. Food Quality & Preference, 31, 56–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2009). What the dog saw and other conundrums. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, R., & Herschkowitsch, A. (2010). The wine trials 2010. Austin, TX: Fearless Critic Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E., & Sprott, D. (2007). The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 70, 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H. (2014). Dark is durable, light is convenient: Color value influences perceived product attributes. Advances in Consumer Research, 42, 27–31. (J. Cotte & S. Wood, Eds., Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, K. (2004). Haptic: Awakening the senses. Exhibition catalogue. Open Doors Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, O., & Haupt, S. (2016). Touch! Der haptic-effekt im multisensorischen marketing [Touch! The haptic effect in multisensory marketing]. Freiburg: Haufe Gruppe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, K. (2015, March). Psychology: The science of sensory marketing. Harvard Business Review, pp. 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, H.-N., Van Doorn, G. H., Kawabe, T., Watanabe, J., & Spence, C. (2014). Colour-temperature correspondences: When reactions to thermal stimuli are influenced by colour. PLoS ONE, 9, e91854.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, D. (2005). Hyperesthesia, or, the sensual logic of late capitalism. In D. Howes (Ed.), Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (pp. 281–303). Oxford, UK: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. (2007). Tactile branding leads us by our fingertips. CTV News, Shows and Sports—Canadian Television. Retrieved from http://www.applied-iconology.com/images/TactileBrandingCTVca.pdf

  • Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169–1174.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Juravle, G., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., & Spence, C. (2015). The hand grasps the centre, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Frontiers in Psychology: Perception Science, 6, 633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00633

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kaleido, L. (2004). A soft touch for aerosols. Retrieved from http://www.packagingmagazine.co.uk

  • Kampfer, K., Leischnig, A., Ivens, B. S., & Spence, C. (2017). Touch-taste-transference: Assessing the effect of the weight of product packaging on flavor perception and taste evaluation. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0186121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klatsky, R. L. (2010). Touch: A gentle tutorial with implications for marketing. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products (pp. 33–47). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatsky, R. L., & Peck, J. (2012). Please touch: Object properties that invite touch. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 5(2), 139–147.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, M. L., & Benassi, M. D. T. (2015). Impact of packaging characteristics on consumer purchase intention: Instant coffee in refill packs and glass jars. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30, 169–180.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1981). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, 1(1), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 332–351.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., Cian, L., & Aydinoğlu, N. Z. (2017). Sensory aspects of package design. Journal of Retailing, 93, 43–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., Elder, R. S., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 410–418.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 807–818.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Labbe, D., Pineau, N., & Martin, N. (2013). Food expected naturalness: Impact of visual, tactile and auditory packaging material properties and role of perceptual interactions. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 170–178.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Laird, D. A. (1932). How the consumer estimates quality by subconscious sensory impressions: With special reference to the role of smell. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 241–246.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, F., & Street, R. (2003). Touch graphics: The power of tactile design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. (2013). Does container weight influence judgments of volume? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 308–309.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: How to build brands through touch, taste, smell, sight and sound. London, UK: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littel, S., & Orth, U. R. (2013). Effects of package visuals and haptics on brand evaluations. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 198–217.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Louw, A., & Kimber, M. (2011). The power of packaging. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/47169810/The-power-of-packaging

  • Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Visual—Tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 61–87.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, E. (2002). Skin: Surface substance + design. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggioni, E., Risso, P., Olivero, N., & Gallace, A. (2015). The effect of a container’s weight on the perception of mineral water. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30, 395–403.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. (2012, October). Out of the box. Business Life, p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, N., & Jansson-Boyd, C. (2011). To touch or not to touch; that is the question. Should consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does it always alter product perception? Psychology and Marketing, 28, 256–266.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 431–439.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, C., & Baker, R. C. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality: What does “hard-to-open” mean to consumers? Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57–58.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, F. P., & Spence, C. (2010). Editorial: The cutaneous senses: Touch, temperature, pain/itch, and pleasure. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 145–147.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, H. M. (1981). Determining communication objectives for package design. In W. Stern (Ed.), Handbook of package design research (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. (1994). The shape of things: Beverages sport new packaging to stand out from the crowd. Marketing News, 28(17), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, A. M. (2013, February 1). The sentient side of packaging design. Packaging World. Retrieved from http://www.packworld.com/package-design/structural/sentient-side-package-design

  • Mooy, S. C., & Robben, H. S. J. (2002). Managing consumers’ product evaluations through direct product experience. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11, 432–445.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nickels, W. G., & Jolson, M. A. (1976). Packaging—The fifth “p” in the marketing mix? Advanced Management Journal, 41(1), 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaidou, I. (2011). Communicating naturalness through packaging design. In P. M. A. Desmet & H. N. J. Schifferstein (Eds.), From floating wheelchairs to mobile car parks (pp. 74–79). The Hague: Eleven International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overbeeke, C. J., & Peters, M. E. (1991). The taste of desserts’ packages. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 575–580.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Overvliet, K. E., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2011). I can’t believe this isn’t wool! An investigation in the perception of naturalness. Acta Psychologica, 136, 95–111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. (2010). Does touch matter? Insights from haptic research in marketing. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products (pp. 17–31). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “Need for Touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 35–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–769.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2008). Effects of sensory factors on consumer behavior: If It tastes, smells, sounds, and feels like a duck, then it must be a…. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 193–219). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434–447.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Consumers’ affective response to touch and its influence on attitudes and behavior. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Wiggins Johnson, J. (2011). Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: The role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 28, 222–239.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Harrar, V., Alcaide, J., & Spence, C. (2011). Does the weight of the dish influence our perception of food? Food Quality & Preference, 22, 753–756.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012a). The weight of the bottle as a possible extrinsic cue with which to estimate the price (and quality) of the wine? Observed correlations. Food Quality & Preference, 25, 41–45.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012b). The weight of the container influences expected satiety, perceived density, and subsequent expected fullness. Appetite, 58, 559–562.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012c). The influence of the feel of product packaging on the perception of the oral-somatosensory texture of food. Food Quality & Preference, 26, 67–73.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality & Preference, 40, 165–179.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, G. W. (1994). The contour: A packaging vision seen through Coke-bottle lenses. Beverage World, 113(Periscope Edition; May 31), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raine, T. (2007, May). Multisensory appeal. Packaging News, pp. 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, R. (2010/2011). Perfume industry: Boxing clever. Raconteur, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1998). The manipulators: A conspiracy to make us buy. London, UK: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacharow, S. (1982). The package as a marketing tool. Radnor, PA: Chilton Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein, H. N. J., Fenko, A., Desmet, P. M. A., Labbe, D., & Martin, N. (2013). Influence of packaging design on the dynamics of multisensory and emotional food experience. Food Quality & Preference, 27, 18–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 133–161). London, UK: Elsevier.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R. (2002). Consumer behaviour: Buying, having and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2016). Multisensory packaging design: Color, shape, texture, sound, and smell. In M. Chen & P. Burgess (Eds.), Integrating the packaging and product experience: A road-map to consumer satisfaction (pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2011). Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 28, 267–308.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2011). Multisensory design: Weight and multisensory product perception. In G. Hollington (Ed.), Proceedings of RightWeight2 (pp. 8–18). London, UK: Materials KTN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2012). The multisensory packaging of beverages. In M. G. Kontominas (Ed.), Food packaging: Procedures, management and trends (pp. 187–233). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Zampini, M. (2006). Auditory contributions to multisensory product perception. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 92, 1009–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Zampini, M. (2007). Affective design: Modulating the pleasantness and forcefulness of aerosol sprays by manipulating aerosol spraying sounds. CoDesign, 3(Suppl. 1), 109–123.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spinney, L. (2013, September 18). Selling sensation: The new marketing territory. New Scientist, p. 2934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, J. (2008). The finishing touch—The sense of touch is another powerful way to reinforce in the minds of your customers, employees and community residents exactly what your bank’s brand stands for. ABA Bank Marketing, 40(1), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, W. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of package design research. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, N. (2009). The cost of anchoring on credit-card minimum repayments. Psychological Science, 20, 39–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016a, May 19). When sensory marketing works and when it backfires. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/05/when-sensory-marketing-works-and-when-it-backfires?referral=03758&cm_vc=rr_item_page.top_right

  • Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016b). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw003

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Y., Yang, Z., & Ma, C. (2015). Touching tastes: The haptic perception transfer of liquid food packaging materials. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 124–130.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Underhill, P. (1999). Why we buy: The science of shopping. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, R. L. (1993). Packaging as an extrinsic product attribute: An examination of package utility and its effect on total product utility in a consumer purchase situation. In R. Varadarajan & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (Vol. 4, pp. 212–217). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usborne, S. (2012, November 22). Why we shrink-wrap the cucumber. The Independent, pp. 42–43. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/a-lesson-in-packaging-myths-is-shrink-wrap-on-a-cucumber-really-mindless-waste-8340812.html

  • Van Rompay, T. J. L., Finger, F., Saakes, D., & Fenko, A. (2017). “See me, feel me”: Effects of 3D-printed surface patterns on beverage evaluation. Food Quality & Preference, 62, 332–339.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompay, T. J. L., Kramer, L.-M., & Saakes, D. (2018). The sweetest punch: Effects of 3D-printed surface textures and graphic design on ice-cream evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 198–204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vanech, T. S. (2005, April 5). A brush with danger. The New York Sun, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Petit, O., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2016). Crossmodal correspondences between taste and shape, and their implications for product packaging: A review. Food Quality & Preference, 52, 17–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, G., & Spence, C. (2007, November). Get set for the sensory side of the century. Contact: Royal Mail’s Magazine for Marketers, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P., Francis, B. J., & Walker, L. (2010). The brightness-weight illusion: Darker objects look heavier but feel lighter. Experimental Psychology, 57, 462–469.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wastiels, L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Heylighen, A., & Wouters, I. (2012). Red or rough, what makes materials warmer? Materials & Design, 42, 441–449.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wastiels, L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Wouters, I., & Heylighen, A. (2013). Touching materials visually: About the dominance of vision in building material assessment. International Journal of Design, 7, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, S. (1968). Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex, and laterality. In D. R. Kenshalo (Ed.), The skin senses (pp. 195–222). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, T. A., Simoes-Franklin, C., & Newell, F. N. (2008). The natural truth: The contribution of vision and touch in the categorization of “naturalness”. In M. Ferre (Ed.), Eurohaptics 2008, LNCS 5024 (pp. 319–324). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, S. (2013, July 12). Good buys with terrible twists. The Sydney Morning Herald (News), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Ziembowicz, M., & Nowak, A. (2015). The coherent and fluent mind: How unified consciousness is constructed from cross-modal inputs via integrated processing experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zampini, M., Mawhinney, S., & Spence, C. (2006). Tactile perception of the roughness of the end of a tool: What role does tool handle roughness play? Neuroscience Letters, 400, 235–239.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Charles Spence

Authors
  1. Charles Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Spence .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

    Carlos Velasco

  2. Crossmodal Research Laboratory Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Charles Spence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Spence, C. (2019). Tactile/Haptic Aspects of Multisensory Packaging Design. In: Velasco, C., Spence, C. (eds) Multisensory Packaging. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94977-2_6

Download citation