The Psychology of
Packaging

How big should your packaging be?

It depends.

How to Apply

• Small = Intense. Coffee seems more intense and bitter from a narrow cup because it feels like a condensed version (Van Doorn et al., 2017).
• Small = Higher Quality. Customers preferred the taste of Pringles chips from a small (vs. large) can because each chip was a higher unit price (Yan et al., 2014). And if your packaging is self-contained, even better. Participants preferred a 1 oz. serving of Gatorade when it came from an individual packet (vs. a 32 oz. container) because it seemed like a full portion (Ilyuk & Block, 2016). A partial serving from a large inventory feels less effective. Perhaps that’s why some brands of laundry detergent are now selling individual capsules (e.g., Tide Pods).

• Tall = Large. Bottles of beer seem larger than cans of beer because customers fixate on the height (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999). But there's a drawback: Customers buy tall packages in smaller quantities because they seem larger. Beer cans are purchased at a 64% higher quantity than bottles (Yang & Raghubir, 2005).

• Ilyuk, V., & Block, L. (2016). The effects of single-serve packaging on consumption closure and judgments of product efficacy. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 858-878.
• Van Doorn, G., Woods, A., Levitan, C. A., Wan, X., Velasco, C., Bernal-Torres, C., & Spence, C. (2017). Does the shape of a cup influence coffee taste expectations? A cross-cultural, online study. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 201-211.
• Yan, D., Sengupta, J., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2014). Package size and perceived quality: The intervening role of unit price perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 4-17.

Which package texture is best?

It depends.

How to Apply

• Glossy = Fattening. Food in a glossy package seems fattier, perhaps because glossiness resembles greasiness (De Kerpel et al., 2020).
• Matte = Healthy. Glossy packages often contain unhealthy snacks (e.g., chips), while matte packages contain healthier snacks (e.g., crackers). Based on these real-world exposures, customers believe that food in matte packages are healthier and more natural (Ye et al., 2020; Marckhgott, & Kamleitner, 2019).
• Glass = Tasty. Food in glass packaging seems tastier (Balzarotti et al., 2015). Since glass packaging is more expensive, these products inherit perceived quality. And perhaps the heaviness of this packaging is conflated for the heaviness of the items, as if this food is more satiating.
• Rough = Masculine. Masculine scents are preferred on rough paper, whereas feminine scents are preferred on smooth paper (Krishna et al., 2010).

• No Packaging = Fresh. Do you need packaging at all? Maybe not. Remove any outside material if freshness is important: "packaging acts as a symbolic barrier that separates the product from nature, decreasing perceived product naturalness and leading to less favorable product responses” (Szocs, Williamson, & Mills, 2022)

• De Kerpel, L., Kobuszewski Volles, B., & Van Kerckhove, A. (2020). Fats are glossy but does glossiness imply fatness? The influence of packaging glossiness on food perceptions. Foods, 9(1), 90.
• Marckhgott, E., & Kamleitner, B. (2019). Matte matters: When matte packaging increases perceptions of food naturalness. Marketing Letters, 30(2), 167-178.
• Szocs, C., Williamson, S., & Mills, A. (2022). Contained: Why it’s better to display some products without a package. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(1), 131-146.
• Ye, N., Morrin, M., & Kampfer, K. (2020). From glossy to greasy: The impact of learned associations on perceptions of food healthfulness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 96-124.

What's the ideal shape for packaging?

It depends.

How to Apply

• Wide = Heavy. Wide packages are stable, and stable objects look heavy (Yang et al., 2021). Wider packages should perform better for a rich and creamy brand of yogurt, whereas a healthy brand should perform better with a short width at the bottom.

• Tall = Healthy. Customers subconsciously compare packaging traits to humans. Tall packages seem healthy because they remind customers of a tall and slender person (van Ooijen et al., 2017).
• Tall = Luxury. Participants believe that tall and thin people belong in higher socioeconomic classes, and they transfer this belief to packaging: Tall packages are more effective in high-end markets (Chen et al., 2020).

• Round = Feminine. Evolutionary conditions have cultivated rounder shapes in female bodies (Van Tilburg et al., 2015). And this belief affects packaging: Angular packages seem masculine, while round packages seem feminine (Pang & Ding, 2021).
• Round = Sweet. Since round packages seem feminine, they inherit feminine traits, such as sweetness (Velasco et al., 2014). Choose a round package for sweet chocolate, yet an angular package for spicy food.

• Chen, H., Pang, J., Koo, M., & Patrick, V. M. (2020). Shape matters: package shape informs brand status categorization and brand choice. Journal of Retailing, 96(2), 266-281.
• Pang, J., & Ding, Y. (2021). Blending package shape with the gender dimension of brand image: How and why?. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(1), 216-231.
• van Ooijen, I., Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2017). Signalling product healthiness through symbolic package cues: Effects of package shape and goal congruence on consumer behaviour. Appetite, 109, 73-82.
• Van Tilburg, M., Lieven, T., Herrmann, A., & Townsend, C. (2015). Beyond “pink it and shrink it” perceived product gender, aesthetics, and product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 422-437.

Do your customers want a heavy product?

Then place images in the bottom or right of the package (Deng & Kahn, 2009).

Why It Works

• Bottom = Heavy. Heavy objects sink to the bottom.
• Right = Heavy. Visual canvases are conceptualized like a teeter-totter. Objects on the right seem heavier because they “pull” downward (Arnheim, 1997)

• Left = Light. Conversely, choose the left side for light products. Food seems healthier when it appears on the left (Romero & Biswas, 2016; Togawa et al., 2019).

• Arnheim, R. (1997). Visual thinking. Univeristy of California Press.
• Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725-738.
• Romero, M., & Biswas, D. (2016). Healthy-left, unhealthy-right: Can displaying healthy items to the left (versus right) of unhealthy items nudge healthier choices?. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 103-112.
• Togawa, T., Park, J., Ishii, H., & Deng, X. (2019). A packaging visual-gustatory correspondence effect: using visual packaging design to influence flavor perception and healthy eating decisions. Journal of Retailing, 95(4), 204-218.

Packages with missing sections feel smaller.

Customers believe that they contain less volume:

We show that people prefer completely shaped items because they perceive them to have more quantity than incompletely formed items of equal size, thus evoking a greater likelihood of purchase (Sevilla & Kahn, 2014, p. 9).

In one of their studies, MBA students preferred fully circular sandwiches, compared to semicircular (but larger) sandwiches of the same size.

This effect also happened with a detergent bottle that contained an empty gap for a handle.

How to Apply

• Add an Attached Handle. A separate attachment maintains the full shape.

• Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The completeness heuristic: Product shape completeness influences size perceptions, preference, and consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57-68.

Light colors seem easier to lift.

Customers attribute this heaviness to the product. Chocolate in dark packaging seems rich and filling, but chocolate in light packaging seems light and healthy.

Light colors seem natural, too:

...au naturel colors are defined as undyed, non- artificial, untreated, and unprocessed colors, that bring to mind something earthy, genuine, unadulterated, and expressing authenticity. Hues of beige (e.g., cream, sandy beiges, and mellow browns) belong to this color family (Marozzo et al., 2020)

Beige packaging outperformed orange packaging for both rice and carrots (even though carrots are orange; Marozzo et al., 2020).

Indeed, food seems less healthy in brightly saturated packaging (Mead & Richerson, 2018).

Choose light, muted, and natural colors for healthy packaging.

• Arnheim, R. (1997). Visual thinking. Univeristy of California Press.
• Marozzo, V., Raimondo, M. A., Miceli, G. N., & Scopelliti, I. (2020). Effects of au naturel packaging colors on willingness to pay for healthy food. Psychology & Marketing, 37(7), 913-927.
• Mead, J. A., & Richerson, R. (2018). Package color saturation and food healthfulness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 82, 10-18.

Some products evoke strong emotions (e.g., desserts).

In these contexts, realistic images are more persuasive because they depict the product experience more vividly (Ketron et al., 2021).

How to Apply

• Add Transparent Windows on Packaging. Customers prefer food packaging with transparent windows because the food seems fresher and higher quality: "the ability to see a food product directly through a transparent window would make it more salient in the mind of the consumer (compared to just a printed graphic of the product), thus eliciting greater levels of hunger and food cravings” (Simmonds et al., 2018). Though be careful with breakable products (e.g., chips).
• Obscure Views of Virtuous Products. If you sell a fitness program to people who don't enjoy exercise, don't show photos of people exercising. Show people in sweat after the workout. Help people envision this desired outcome, rather than the costs to achieve this outcome.

• Ketron, S., Naletelich, K., & Migliorati, S. (2021). Representational versus abstract imagery: Effects on purchase intentions between vice and virtue foods. Journal of Business Research, 125, 52-62.
• Simmonds, G., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2018). ‘Show me the goods’: Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product imagery on product evaluation. Food quality and preference, 63, 18-27.