Article in Press: Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice

+Model
RETAIL-704; No. of Pages 16 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2019) xxx–xxx
Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and

Brand Choice
Huan Chen a,1 , Jun Pang b,∗,1 , Minkyung Koo c,1 , Vanessa M. Patrick d,1
a China National Petroleum Corporation Managers Training Institute, Beijing, China
b School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
c Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, United States
d C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, United States
Abstract
Ten studies examine package shape as a cue for brand status categorization. The authors show that products in tall, slender packages are more
likely to be categorized as high-end products (high brand status) than those in short, wide packages (low brand status; studies 1a&b). This effect
is driven by a Shape-SES lay theory (a person’s body shape is associated with his or her socioeconomic status) that consumers apply to categorize
products as high versus low in brand status (studies 2a–c), and this application process occurs spontaneously (studies 3a–b). The authors showcase
the retailing implications of this work in two contexts—when consumers get free-sample products (study 4a) and when they engage in conspicuous
consumption (study 4b). The theoretical contributions, retailing implications, and directions for future research are discussed.
© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Brand categorization; Brand status; Package shape; Lay theory; Visual branding
“During the 30 minutes you spend on an average trip to the has to choose from in a relatively short span of shopping time.
supermarket, about 30,000 different products vie to win your Second, making a choice is “an exercise in self-definition” in
attention, and ultimately make you believe in the promise of which a consumer scans the environment and attempts to cat-
the product. When the door opens, automatically, before you, egorize products as “for me” versus “not for me” to narrow
you enter an arena where your emotions and your appetites down the available options to a manageable choice set. Third,
are in play, and a walk down the aisle is an exercise in self- package design can serve as a heuristic or tool to simplify and
definition. . .. . .But the package is also useful to the shopper. speed up how consumers categorize and choose brands and
It is a tool for simplifying and speeding decisions.” products. Given the important role that product packaging plays
Thomas Hine, The Total Package in consumer decision-making, a growing body of research has
With this observation, Hine acknowledges three marketing investigated how product packaging changes consumer impres-
truisms germane to the current research. First, there are an over- sions and beliefs about product offerings (Dubois, Rucker, and
whelming number of products in a given store that a consumer Galinsky 2012; Folkes and Matta 2004; Raghubir and Greenleaf
2006; Raghubir and Krishna 1999; Wansink and van Ittersum
2003; Yan, Sengupta, and Wyer 2014). The current research
extends this line of work to examine the impact of package shape
Preparation of this paper was supported by Grant # 71472181 from the on brand status categorization (e.g., luxury or high-end vs. mass
National Natural Science Foundation of China awarded to Jun Pang, and by or low-end) and brand choice.
Junior Faculty Grant from the Department of Business Administration at the Package shape is one of the most important and salient visual
Gies College of Business awarded to Minkyung Koo.
∗ Corresponding author. features that marketers use to attract consumer attention and
E-mail addresses: chenhuan120@ruc.edu.cn (H. Chen), communicate information about a product or brand at the point of
pangjun@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn (J. Pang), mkoo@illinois.edu (M. Koo), sale (Bloch 1995; Kapferer 2012). Package shape can affect con-
vpatrick@bauer.uh.edu (V.M. Patrick). sumer perceptions of product attributes and performance, such
1 The four authors contributed to the paper equally.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.08.003
0022-4359/© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Chen, Huan, et al, Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.08.003
+Model
2 H. Chen et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2019) xxx–xxx
as the volume (Folkes and Matta 2004; Raghubir and Krishna Schmitt 1997). Indeed, Krishna, Cian, and Aydinoğlu (2017)
1999; Wansink and van Ittersum 2003), the size (Sevilla and liken product packaging to “the outfit of the product” which
Kahn 2014), and even the taste (Ares and Deliza 2010) and changes consumer impressions and beliefs about the product
healthiness (van Ooijen et al. 2017) of the package contents. offering. Our research provides managerial insight into how
Package shape can also create the identity (Peterson 2014) and package shape might be visually encoded by consumers to form
shape the personality of a brand (Orth and Malkewitz 2008). inferences and make judgments about brand status in a crowded
Ten experiments (and a pilot study) show that consumers use retail space. While managers know that brand status is a func-
package shape as a brand status categorization cue to inform tion of a brand’s strategic positioning and associated marketing
brand choice. Specifically, holding the quantity of a product tactics (Kapferer 2012), here we demonstrate that consumers
constant, we show that a product in a tall and slender package infer brand status from subtle product cues such as the shape
is categorized as higher in brand status than a product in a short of the product package. This insight emphasizes that packaging
and wide package. We posit that this effect has its roots in a can serve as a strategic element in a marketer’s toolkit to aid in
consumer lay theory about the association between a person’s brand positioning and effective market targeting.
body shape and his or her socioeconomic status (SES)–a Shape-
SES lay theory–such that tall, thin people are more likely to
be members of a higher social class than short, heavy people.
Although this lay theory is originally formed in perceptions in Theoretical Background
interpersonal relationships, it is generalized to the domain of
brand perceptions based on the notion that consumers tend to Brand Status Categorization
spontaneously transfer their knowledge, inferences, and beliefs
about people to how they think about brands (Gregan-Paxton and Brand status, which refers to the status or social prestige
John 1997). We further demonstrate the implications of the focal value conferred to a brand (Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn
effect by examining how package shape affects brand choice via 1999), plays a pivotal role in purchase decisions when consumers
the mediating process of brand status. seek to attain social status or enhance a sense of self-worth
This research makes several important theoretical and man- (Sivanathan and Pettit 2010). A brand’s status is largely inferred
agerial contributions. From a theoretical perspective, we shed by consumers from the brand’s strategic positioning and asso-
new light on how package design facilitates product and brand ciated marketing tactics, such as high quality, premium pricing,
categorization in the early stages of consumer decision-making. exclusive distribution and retailer reputation (Dawar and Parker
While ample evidence exists that consumers try to understand 1994; Keller 2009). It seems obvious to consumers today that if a
a new product by placing it within an existing category (Loken brand is of high quality, priced at a premium (e.g., SubZero), and
and Ward 1990) and that this process can be strongly influenced available for purchase only in select outlets or high-end retail-
by the product’s package design (Bloch 1995; Schoormans and ers (e.g., Nordstrom), the brand is most likely a high-end brand.
Robben 1997), much of the extant research focuses on prod- However, in the absence of these highly diagnostic brand sta-
uct categorization based on category membership (e.g., a new tus cues, or all else being equal, how do consumers infer brand
motorbike product categorized as an off-road motorbike or a status of various products?
street motorbike, Kreuzbauer and Malter 2005). In contrast, this Kapferer (2012) argues that the physique (physical features)
research is the first to examine a status-based product categoriza- of a product can contribute to its visual distinctiveness and
tion. As such, our findings contribute to the packaging literature convey brand status. Some prior research has investigated how
(e.g., Deng and Srinivasan 2013; Sundar and Noseworthy 2014) different aspects of product appearance and packaging can sig-
by suggesting that packaging aesthetics and product design nal brand status. For instance, Han, Nunes, and Drèze (2010)
can extend beyond visual appeal to signal brand status and implicate brand prominence – the extent to which a brand has
inform consumer choice. The second theoretical contribution visible markings that help ensure observers recognize the brand
of this research is to implicate a prevailing lay theory of how – as a way in which a consumer might discern brand status. How-
a person’s body shape is associated with his or her socioeco- ever, such logos are not the only way in which consumers might
nomic status as the basis for consumer reliance on package discern brand status. Packaging design that uses artwork, for
shape as a brand categorization cue. These findings demonstrate instance, effectively conveys the perception of luxury (Hagtvedt
the spontaneous crossover of this lay theory from an interper- and Patrick 2008). Prior research also shows that package size
sonal perception domain to a brand evaluation domain, and thus (Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2012), surface appeal (glossy
advance our knowledge of how lay theories affect consumer packaging; Meert, Pandelaere, and Patrick 2013), the use of
judgments and choices (Haws, Reczek, and Sample 2016; Jain, gold as a dominant color in marketing materials (Lee, Noble,
Mathur, and Maheswaran 2009; Labroo and Mukhopadhyay and Biswas 2018), and ornate decorations (Townsend 2017) can
2009; Mukhopadhyay and Yeung 2010; Raghunathan, Naylor, similarly signal brand status.
and Hoyer 2006). In this research, we adopt the perspective that in an increas-
From a managerial perspective, it is increasingly difficult to ingly crowded marketplace, the time-pressed consumer relies
differentiate products based on price, functionality, or quality on a brand’s “visual equity” as a cue from which to discern the
alone. Therefore, marketers often turn to product packaging as brand’s status and differentiate it from other brands on the shelf.
a way to help them stand out from the clutter (Simonson and More specifically, we propose package shape as a visual fea-
+Model
H. Chen et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2019) xxx–xxx 3
ture that helps consumers categorize brands as high-end versus BMI are associated with higher SES, especially in developed
low-end, thus acting as a brand status categorization cue. countries (Sobal and Stunkard 1989; Tyrrell et al. 2016). Higher
SES results in taller stature owing to higher standards of nutri-
Package Shape as a Brand Cue tion in childhood (Barros et al. 2006). At the same time, taller
people often have higher average incomes, which is generally
Package shape is an important element of product design. caused by the better health (Strauss and Thomas 1998), higher
Prior research on package shape falls in two main domains. The self-esteem (Lechelt 1975), higher social dominance (Hensley
first focuses on how package shape affects consumer evalua- 1993), and higher intelligence (Case and Paxson 2008) that
tion of product attributes and performance. Ample evidence has accompany stature. With respect to BMI, people of higher SES
suggested that the elongation of a container positively influ- usually have lower BMI because they are more attentive to obe-
ences consumer perception of volume, and perceived volume in sity issues (Jeffery and French 1996) and have greater access
turn influences purchase and consumption behaviors (Wansink to health-promoting food and resources such as sport facili-
and van Ittersum 2003; Yang and Raghubir 2005). A product ties, fitness clubs, and walking or biking trails (Estabrooks, Lee,
package is also perceived as containing greater volume when its and Gyurcsik 2003). High BMI is also likely to induce bias,
shape attracts more attention from consumers (Folkes and Matta stigmatization, and discrimination, all limiting access to high
2004). Other research has suggested that package shape affects SES (Sobal 1991). Based on observations about the association
perceived size of the product: an incompletely shaped product between body shape and SES or personal experience, consumers
(e.g., bread with a hole in the middle) is perceived as smaller might form a Shape-SES lay theory.
and thus less desirable than a completely shaped one of equal Externally, the media may play a substantial role in shap-
size and weight (Sevilla and Kahn 2014). ing the association between body shape and SES. For example,
The second set of studies has examined symbolic meaning female models and celebrities featured in popular magazines are
associated with package shape. Raghubir and Greenleaf (2006), taller and thinner than the average female (Garner et al. 1980). In
for example, show that the ratio of the sides of a rectangular addition, myriad online articles and blog posts equate the general
product affects perceived harmony of the product such that the ideal of tall and thin with fitness and success. Thus, exposure
ratio 1.62 leads consumers to perceive the product as more har- to the media coverage enhances the belief in the Shape-SES lay
monious than the ratio 1.38. Using a holistic approach, Orth theory.
and Malkewitz (2008) identify five holistic types of package In sum, we posit that personal observations and experiences
shapes–massive, contrasting, natural, delicate, and nondescript coupled with media exposure contribute to the formation and
designs–and match the package shape for each of the five brand consolidation of the Shape-SES lay theory: the belief that tall,
personalities in Aaker’s (1997) framework. Package shape can thin people are more likely to be members of a higher social
also symbolize the healthfulness of a product such that a slim class than short, heavy people. Next, we discuss how consumers
package indicates lower calories and thus is perceived as con- transfer this lay theory from interpersonal perceptions to brand
taining a more healthful product than a wide package (van Ooijen perceptions and use it to judge a product’s brand status.
et al. 2017).
The current research is more aligned with the second stream Influence of the Shape-SES Lay Theory on Brand Status
of studies in that we look at package shape as a cue that Categorization
consumers rely on to categorize a product as high-status or low-
status. We adopt a cross-domain transfer of lay theory approach By categorizing a stimulus–a product, for
to account for the effect of package shape on brand status cate- instance–consumers are able to give meaning to it since
gorization. categorization allows them to make inferences about the
product and relate to the product accordingly (Niedenthal,
Research Hypotheses Halberstadt, and Innes-Ker 1999). Here, we are interested in
how consumers categorize a product (or brand) as high- versus
The Shape-SES Lay Theory low-status based on package shape.
It is well established that consumers infer missing pieces of
A lay theory, or lay belief, is a common-sense explanation product information, that is, fill in the gaps based on the lay theo-
consumers use to understand people and their environments ries that they hold, regardless of whether the theories are correct
(Furnham 1988). Lay theories can be formed internally through or not (Broniarczyk and Alba 1994; Raghunathan, Naylor, and
personal experience and observation of the environment, or Hoyer 2006). For example, when asked to make inferences about
externally through environmental cues encountered in daily life a camera’s durability, consumers rely on the intuition that dura-
(Haws, Reczek, and Sample 2016; Raghunathan, Naylor, and bility and warranty are positively related and thus rate durability
Hoyer 2006). We posit that our focal lay theory–the Shape-SES based on the camera’s warranty rating (Broniarczyk and Alba
theory–about the association between a person’s body shape and 1994). Similarly, Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer (2006) show
his or her SES most likely stems from both internal and external that the “unhealthy = tasty” intuition leads to a negative effect of
sources. the perceived healthfulness of a food item on its judged tastiness,
The lay theory associating body shape and SES might be and Haws, Reczek, and Sample (2016) show that when evaluat-
formed by the common observation that taller stature and lower ing food items, consumers use health information to infer price
+Model
in a manner consistent with the intuition that healthy foods are Package Shape Influences Brand Choice via Brand Status
expensive. The reliance on lay theories is more likely to take Inferences
place when direct information or prior knowledge that is required
for more systematic processing is lacking (Chaiken 1980; Haws, Given our hypothesis that package shape influences brand
Reczek, and Sample 2016). status categorization, we then identify the downstream conse-
In a similar vein, our proposed Shape-SES lay theory is quences of this status categorization for brand choice.
grounded in interpersonal perceptions, and we expect that this Consumers are inclined to weigh brand status heavily in cer-
belief will be transferred to the domain of brand perceptions. tain purchase contexts such as when they pursue high value
Previous research has found that consumers imbue brands with without financial constraints (Baek, Kim, and Yu 2010) and
human personality traits (Aaker 1997), relate to brands in ways when they purchase a product to publicly display their social
that resemble their relationships with humans (Fournier 1998; status (Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2012; Mazzocco et al.
Park et al. 2010), and perceive brands according to intentions 2012). When brand status becomes a predominant considera-
and abilities—two fundamental dimensions used in perceiving tion, consumers tend to make a purchase decision based on their
people (Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone 2012). Drawing on cross- judgment of that status. As previously discussed, in the absence
domain knowledge transfer theory (Gregan-Paxton and John of other cues that indicate the brand’s status (e.g., price, brand
1997), Aggarwal (2004) finds that consumers transfer norms name, and retailer) or when consumers are seeking informa-
from interpersonal relationships to guide their brand assessments tion quickly and need to rely on an available heuristic, they use
such that brands that adhere to expected relationship norms are package shape to infer brand status and categorize a product as
evaluated more favorably than those that violate those norms. a high-end product or a low-end product. Thus, in purchase con-
Zhang and Patrick (2018) similarly find that consumers transfer texts in which brand status is a primary purchase consideration,
their knowledge of nickname use in the interpersonal domain consumers are more likely to choose a brand presented in a tall,
to the use of brand nicknames such that they forge stronger slender package because it is perceived as having a higher brand
consumer-brand relationships with brands that they refer to by status than a brand presented in a short, wide package.
nicknames (e.g., Beemer for BMW or Tarjay for Target).
H3a. In purchase contexts in which brand status is a primary
We posit that in the absence of other overt brand status cues,
purchase consideration, consumers are more likely to choose a
consumers transfer the Shape-SES lay theory from the interper-
brand presented in a tall, slender package than a brand presented
sonal domain to the brand domain and categorize a product as
in a short, wide package.
high (low) status when the product is in a tall and slender (short
and wide) package. H3b. Perceived brand status mediates the effect of package
shape on brand choice.
H1. A product in a tall, slender package is more likely to be Research Overview
categorized as a high-end product (high brand status) compared
to a product in a short, wide package that holds the same amount We present ten studies (a pilot study and nine experiments;
of product. see Table 1 for an overview in the web appendix). The pilot
study demonstrates that people do hold a lay theory that asso-
If the effect of package shape on brand status categorization is ciates body shape with perceptions of a person’s SES. Studies 1a
indeed driven by the Shape-SES lay theory, as we have proposed, and 1b test the effect of package shape on brand status catego-
then we expect that this effect will be mitigated when the lay rization and provide convergent support for our focal hypothesis
theory is less accessible at the time of categorization (Feldman that products in tall, slender packages are categorized as higher
and Lynch 1988). One factor that influences the accessibility of in brand status than products in short, wide packages. Studies
the lay theory might be how strongly consumers associate body 2a–2c implicate the Shape-SES lay theory as the underlying pro-
shape with SES. A stronger Shape-SES association might make cess. We examine whether the effect of package shape on brand
it easier for consumers to retrieve this lay theory at the time of status categorization is diminished when individuals hold a weak
categorization (Schwarz et al. 1991). As such, we expect that (vs. strong) lay belief in the association between body shape and
when the Shape-SES lay theory is chronically and strongly held SES (study 2a), when the lay theory is temporarily discounted
or temporarily strengthened, products in tall and slender (vs. (study 2b) or reversed (study 2c) rather than strengthened. Stud-
short and wide) packages will be more likely to be categorized ies 3a and 3b provide some evidence that the effect of package
as high-end. However, if the lay theory is chronically but weakly shape on brand status categorization is based on the spontaneous
held or temporarily discounted, this effect will be diminished. application of the Shape-SES lay theory, rather than via a delib-
erate thought process. Study 3a shows that the focal effect still
holds when participants are placed under a high cognitive load.
H2. When the Shape-SES lay theory is held strongly by con- Relying on a rapid object categorization task, study 3b corrobo-
sumers, a product in a tall, slender package is more likely to be rates the spontaneity of the underlying process by demonstrating
categorized as a high-end product (high brand status) compared that participants categorize the status associated with geometric
to those in a short, wide package. However, if the Shape-SES lay shapes in accordance with the Shape-SES lay theory. Studies 4a
theory is held weakly, the effect of package shape is diminished. and 4b elucidate the downstream retailing implications of the
+Model
focal effect in two contexts: when consumers get the product person) ANOVA indicated a significant effect of body shape
for free (Study 4a) and when they need to signal status via con- (F(3, 414) = 16.40, p < .001) after controlling for gender of
spicuous consumption (Study 4b). In both contexts, we show the target person (F(1, 414) = 6.42, p = .012). Contrast anal-
that brands with tall and slender packages are more likely to be yses further revealed that, consistent with the Shape-SES lay
chosen, and, this choice is mediated by brand status inferences. theory we proposed, participants perceived the pictured tall-and-
slender people (Mtall-and-slender = 3.30, SD = .56) as higher in SES
Pilot Study: Inference of Socioeconomic Status from a than the pictured short-and-heavy people (Mshort-and-heavy = 2.66,
Person’s Body Shape SD = .66, p < .001). For the sake of brevity, we report the results
for other pairs of body shapes in the web appendix.
The pilot study had two key objectives. The first was to estab- We then submitted the measured SES inference to a 2
lish that people do hold a Shape-SES lay theory, that is, they infer (height) × 2 (BMI) × 2 (gender of the target person) ANOVA to
a person’s SES from his or her body shape. We predicted that disentangle the separate effects of height and BMI. The results
respondents would regard a tall, thin person as having a higher indicated main effects of height and BMI, suggesting that a
SES than a short, heavy person. The second aim was to disen- person was perceived as having a higher SES when he or she
tangle the effect of height versus weight on SES inferences to was tall (vs. short, Mtall = 3.11, SD = .73, Mshort = 2.97, SD = .71;
support our proposition that it is the perceived shape of an indi- F(1, 414) = 9.04, p = .003) or slender (vs. heavy, Mslender = 3.24,
vidual in terms of both height and BMI (tall and slender vs. short SD = .63, Mheavy = 2.83, SD = .76; F(1, 414) = 42.63, p < .001).
and heavy) that drives the Shape-SES association. No interactive effect of height and BMI was found (p > .10).
This supports the idea that height and BMI can separately influ-
Method ence SES perceptions (other results can be found in the web
appendix).
Design and procedure
A total of 422 registered users (51.2% female, Mage = 35.45)
of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in the experiment Discussion
for monetary compensation. They were randomly assigned to
one of eight conditions in a 2 (height: tall vs. short) × 2 (BMI: The pilot study showed that people do hold an intuitive the-
low vs. high) × 2 (gender of the target person: female vs. male) ory that body shape is associated with SES, such that a tall, thin
between-subjects design. person has higher SES than a short, heavy person, and this associ-
The experiment was presented as an online survey on social ation applies to both genders. We also show that both height and
perception. Participants were shown a picture of either a woman BMI contribute to the SES inference. In the studies that follow,
or a man who was tall or short and slender or heavy (see Supple- we test the hypothesis that the Shape-SES lay theory that con-
mentary Appendix A), and asked to infer the SES of that person sumers use in the domain of interpersonal perceptions transfers
(1 = lower/working class, 2 = lower middle class, 3 = middle to the domain of brand perceptions, leading consumers to rely on
class, 4 = upper middle class, 5 = upper class, Hollingshead package shape as an indicator of brand status. It is worth noting
1965). Next, participants evaluated that person’s body shape that throughout the paper, we focus on the comparison between
in terms of both height (1 = very short, 7 = very tall) and BMI a tall, slender package and a short, wide package for the sake of
(1 = very thin, 7 = very heavy) as manipulation checks, and marketing relevance since firms often face the choice between
reported their demographic information. these two package shapes, keeping the product volume/quantity
constant.
Results
Manipulation checks Study 1: Brand Status Categorization from Package Shape

Confirming the success of our manipulation, a 2 (height) × 2
(BMI) × 2 (gender of the target person) MANOVA on body Study 1 tested the effect of package shape on brand status
shape evaluations revealed that participants perceived significant categorization. In study 1a, participants were asked to choose
differences in body shape between the four people, with the tall the package design (tall and slender vs. short and wide) that
people evaluated as taller than the short people (Mshort = 3.33, was better suited to a product targeting the high-end market
SD = 1.42, Mtall = 4.88, SD = 1.05, F(1, 403) = 169.45, p < .001) or the low-end market. In study 1b, participants were shown
and the high BMI people perceived as heavier than the low products with different package shapes and asked to categorize
BMI people (Mlow = 3.57, SD = 1.22, Mhigh = 5.83, SD = .88; the products as better suited for a high-end versus a low-end
F(1, 403) = 485.29, p < .001). market. We hypothesized that products in tall, slender packages
would be perceived as higher in brand status than those in short,
SES inference wide packages that hold the same amount of product (H1 ). The
To examine whether people hold a Shape-SES lay the- participants would thus be more likely to select the product in
ory, we compared SES inferences of the four people pictured the tall and slender package for a high-end versus low-end target
(i.e., tall and heavy, tall and slender, short and heavy, and market (study 1a) and they would perceive the product in the tall
short and slender). A 4 (body shape) × 2 (gender of the target and slender versus short and slender package as more suitable
+Model
for the high-end market (study 1b). In these studies, we also (n = 59) chose the tall and slender package. In contrast, for the
ruled out several alternative explanations for the focal effect. mass market (n = 65), the proportion dropped to 71% (n = 47).
These results suggested that when choosing for a high-status
Study 1a target market, consumers select tall and slender packages. This
effect still held after we controlled for the potential effect of the
Method shape-status learned association (see detailed results in the web
One hundred and thirty-four registered users (45% females, appendix).
Mage = 40.10) on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) were
recruited to participate in the study for monetary compensa- Study 1b
tion. They were informed that a wine company had developed a
brand new product targeting either the luxury market or the mass Despite the supporting evidence, Study 1a has several alter-
market. Participants were then shown two package designs with native explanations to account for the results. First, although we
the same capacity (750 ml): a tall and slender bottle and a short, presented the volume capacity of the package to control for its
wide bottle, with the order counterbalanced (see Supplementary potential effect on brand status categorization, it was possible
Appendix A). The volume information was provided to control that participants still perceived the tall, slender package to con-
for the potential effect of elongation on volume perception and tain more product than the short, wide package (Raghubir and
any associated product evaluation (Raghubir and Krishna 1999). Krishna 1999). Second, prior research has shown that consum-
A pretest (n = 108) examined whether the two package able items are perceived to be healthier if they are presented in a
designs differed in perceived shape but not in perceived slim (vs. wide) package (van Ooijen et al. 2017). We used wine
typicality (1 = very typical, 7 = very unique), perceived beauty as the target product in study 1a, and it was possible that the
(1 = very ugly, 7 = very beautiful), or perceived powerfulness participants perceived the wine in the tall, slender bottle to be
(1 = not at all, 7 = very much). We measured perceptions of typ- healthier and thus higher in brand status than the wine in the
icality, beauty, and powerfulness because these constructs could short, wide bottle. We ruled out these alternative explanations in
be confounded with package shape and influence brand status this study. Specifically, we used a purse as the target product and
categorization. Specifically, an atypical package design could manipulated its shape by rotating it to be either tall and slender
signal uniqueness and lead the product to be perceived as higher or short and wide.
in brand status than a typical package design (Westerman et al.
2012). Attractive products could be perceived as being superior Method
across other attributes, which may include brand status (Wan, A total of 214 registered users (51% females, Mage = 35.97)
Chen, and Jin 2017). Last, a higher logo position represents on MTurk were recruited to participate in the study for monetary
higher power (Sundar and Noseworthy 2014), therefore a tall compensation. They were randomly assigned to the tall-and-
and slender (vs. short and wide) package may be perceived as slender condition or the short-and-wide condition.
more powerful, a construct correlated with status. We aimed to The study was presented as an online survey on product eval-
ensure that the two package designs were different in perceived uation. Participants were informed that a purse company was
shape but not in other confounding variables. As intended, the gauging consumer opinions about a new product that was going
results confirmed that the two bottles were perceived to be to be introduced to the market. A picture of the new product was
significantly different in package shape (Mtall-and-slender = 6.52, then presented in which a purse was designed to be either tall
SD = .77, Mshort-and-wide = 3.11, SD = 1.88; F(1, 106) = 151.86, and slender or short and wide (see Supplementary Appendix A).
p < .001) but were equally typical (Mtall-and-slender = 3.65, Participants were asked to indicate which market the new prod-
SD = 1.57, Mshort-and-wide = 3.38, SD = 1.65; F(1, 106) = .36, uct was suitable for (1 = low-end market, 2 = high-end market),
p = .551), equally beautiful (Mtall-and-slender = 4.46, SD = 1.24, followed by demographic questions.
Mshort-and-wide = 4.24, SD = 1.50; F(1, 106) = .70, p = .404), A pretest (n = 108) confirmed that there was a sig-
and equally powerful (Mtall-and-slender = 4.19, SD = 1.32, nificant difference between the two purses in perceived
Mshort-and-wide = 3.74, SD = 1.59; F(1, 106) = 2.47, p = .117). shape (Mtall-and-slender = 6.31, SD = .84, Mshort-and-wide = 2.65,
Participants were asked to choose the package design that SD = 2.05; F(1, 106) = 148.01, p < .001), but not in perceived typ-
would be more suitable for the given market, and based on their icality (Mtall-and-slender = 3.76, SD = 1.65, Mshort-and-wide = 3.41,
observation, personal experience, or both to rate how frequently SD = 1.63; F(1, 106) = 1.24, p = .267), perceived beauty
tall-and-slender shapes are used for high-status wine products (Mtall-and-slender = 4.30, SD = 1.36, Mshort-and-wide = 4.54,
(1 = not at all, 7 = very much). We added this measure to rule out SD = 1.13; F(1, 106) = 1.01, p = .318), or perceived powerful-
the possibility that the focal effect results from an association ness (Mtall-and-slender = 4.20, SD = 1.28, Mshort-and-wide = 3.96,
between brand status and package shape consumers might have SD = 1.65; F(1, 106) = .72, p = .398).
learned in the real world.
Results
Results A chi-square test on suitable market choice indicated a signif-
A chi-square test on package design choice indicated a significant main effect of package shape such that 61% of participants
icant main effect of target market (␹2 (1) = 4.9, p = .027). When in the tall-and-slender condition (n = 108) chose the high-end
choosing for the luxury market (n = 68), 87% of the participants market, whereas this proportion in the short-and-wide condition
+Model
(n = 106) was only 40% (␹2 (1) = 9.88, p = .002). These results food to tastiness (Werle, Trendel, and Ardito 2013). With respect
suggested that package shape resulted in a product being cat- to the association between body shape and SES, early pub-
egorized as high- versus low-end: the tall, slender (the short, lic health research in China reported a positive relationship
wide) purse was more likely to be categorized as for the high-end between BMI and SES for Chinese people in the 1990s (Sobal
(low-end) market. and Stunkard 1989); however, in recent years, this relationship
has gradually become negative, especially for women (Xiao et al.
Discussion of Study 1 2013). This change possibly implies that Chinese people hold
various beliefs about the association between body shape and
Taken together, studies 1a and 1b provide converging support SES, providing a suitable context for this study.
for H1 , which predicts that products in tall, slender packages are
more likely to be categorized as high-end than products in short
and wide packages. These results were consistent using differ- Method
ent study designs and stimuli. More importantly, we demonstrate
that the effect of package shape on brand status categorization Design and procedure
cannot be explained by the shape-status learned association, Four hundred and fifty registered users (47% females,
the perceived volume and healthfulness of the product, or the Mage = 34.84) of QQ Survey, a Chinese online survey company,
perceived beauty, typicality, or power associated with tall and participated in the experiment for monetary compensation. They
slender packages. were randomly assigned to the tall and slender condition or the
One might argue that tall, slender packages might be more short and wide condition.
attention-grabbing or more familiar to consumers than short, This study consisted of two ostensibly unrelated tasks, with
wide packages, both of which have a potential influence on their order counterbalanced to minimize the potential effect
brand status categorization2 . To check whether the effect of of one task on the other. One task was identical to the task
package shape was confounded with any of these variables, we in study 1c, except that shampoo was used as the target
conducted a posttest (n = 126) examining whether the two pack- product (see Supplementary Appendix A). A pretest (n = 119)
age designs for the bottle of wine and the purse differed in terms confirmed that the two package designs were significantly
of attracting attention (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) and famil- different in perceived shape (Mtall-and-slender = 5.66, SD = .99,
iarity (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). The results indicated that Mshort-and-wide = 3.88, SD = 1.38; F(1, 117) = 66.61, p < .001), but
the two shapes did not differ in any of these measures for either not in perceived typicality, perceived beauty, or perceived pow-
the wine (Fs < 2.69) or the purse (Fs < 3.39), thus ruling out these erfulness (all ps > .10).
variables as alternative accounts for the observed differences in The other task was presented as a survey about the lay beliefs
brand status categorization. people hold on different topics. Participants were shown four
statements describing the relationship between body shape and
Study 2: The Shape-SES Lay Theory Influences Brand SES: “Compared to short and heavy people, tall and thin peo-
Status Categorization ple usually possess a higher socioeconomic status”; “It comes
as no surprise that compared to people from the lower classes,
Study 2 was designed to provide evidence that the Shape- people from the upper classes are usually taller and thinner”; “It
SES lay theory is the process underlying how package shape is effective to infer the socioeconomic status of others based on
influences brand status categorization (H2 ). Specifically, we their body shape”; and “Tall and thin people are more likely to
measured (study 2a) and manipulated (studies 2b and 2c) the be members of the upper classes than short and heavy ones.”
consumer lay belief associating body shape and SES, and exam- These were included in the items measuring other lay beliefs
ined whether it moderated the effect of package shape on brand not relevant or related to our focal hypothesis, and participants
status categorization. were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). An index of lay the-
Study 2a ory strength was created by averaging the scores across the four
items (Cronbach’s ␣ = .88). Participants answered some demo-
In Study 2a, we measured individual differences in the graphic questions at the end of survey.
strength of the Shape-SES lay theory and examined whether the
package-shape effect on brand status categorization increased
with the strength of the lay theory. Previous research has shown Results
that lay theories may vary across cultures because they are
socioculturally determined. For example, American consumers Brand status categorization
believe in the “unhealthy = tasty” intuition, but the opposite intu- As expected and consistent with H1 , a 2 (package shape) × 2
ition exists in France such that French consumers link healthy (task order) ANOVA on target market evaluation revealed a
main effect of package shape (F(1,446) = 7.66, p = .006). The
shampoo in the tall and slender bottle (Mtall-and-slender = 5.31,
2 We sincerely thank the reviewers for bringing these potential confounding SD = 1.04) was rated as more suitable for the high-end market
variables to our attention. than the one in the short and wide bottle (Mshort-and-wide = 5.04,
+Model
SD = 1.06). Task order had no main or interactive effect on target

market evaluation (ps > .10).
Moderating effect of lay theory strength

To examine the process underlying the focal effect, we
performed a floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Neyman tech-
nique (Spiller et al. 2013). The results showed a significant
interaction between package shape and strength of the lay the-
ory (␤ = .14, t(447) = 2.06, p = .040). In support of H2 , package
Fig. 1. Interactive Effect of the “Shape-SES” Lay Theory and Package Shape
shape influenced brand status categorization for participants who on Brand Status Categorization.
held a strong belief in the association between body shape and
SES (when M > 3.86, 63.33% of the full sample, ␤ = .21, SE = .1,
nificantly different in perceived shape (Mtall-and-slender = 5.81,
p < .05). However, this effect was not significant for those who
SD = 1.21, Mshort-and-wide = 2.83, SD = 1.51; F(1, 106) = 127.43,
held a relatively weak belief in this association (when M < 3.86,
p < .001) but not in perceived typicality, perceived beauty, or per-
36.67% of the full sample, ␤ = .17, SE = .1, p > .05). The strength
ceived powerfulness (all ps > .10). After that, participants were
of the lay theory had a significant main effect on brand status
asked to indicate which market the new product was suitable for
categorization (t(447) = 2.04, p = .042), but the effect of package
(1 = definitely the low-end market, 7 = definitely the high-end
shape was not significant (t(447) = −1.19, p = .236).
market), followed by demographic questions.
Study 2b
Results
Study 2b provided additional support for the underlying pro-
cess in terms of lay theories and extended study 2a by testing Manipulation checks
whether the effect of package shape on brand status categoriza- The manipulation of lay theory was successful. A 2 (lay
tion would be mitigated when the Shape-SES lay theory was theory) × 2 (package shape) ANOVA on lay theory strength
temporarily discounted rather than strengthened. revealed a main effect of the research report such that the
Shape-SES lay theory was more strongly endorsed by partic-
Method ipants who read the report supporting rather than discounting
the lay theory (Mstrengthened = 4.64, SD = 1.39, Mdiscounted = 2.59,
Design and procedure SD = 1.76; F(1, 175) = 74.48, p < .001).The main effect of pack-
A total of 179 registered users on MTurk (48% females, age shape and the interaction were not significant (ps > .1).
Mage = 39.22) participated in the study for monetary compensa-
tion. They were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions Brand status categorization
in a 2 (lay theory: discounted vs. strengthened) × 2 (package A 2 (lay theory) × 2 (package shape) ANOVA on tar-
shape: tall and slender vs. short and wide) between-subjects get market evaluation revealed a main effect of package
design. shape, suggesting that the tall and slender bottle made the
The survey consisted of two ostensibly unrelated tasks. The milk generally more suitable for the high-end market than
first, a reading and comprehension task, was used to discount or the short and wide bottle (Mtall-and-slender = 5.03, SD = 1.22,
strengthen participants’ lay theory about the association between Mshort-and-wide = 4.62, SD = 1.39; F(1, 175) = 4.65, p = .032).
body shape and SES. Following previous research (Koo et al. H1 was thus supported. More importantly, this main effect
2019; Wan, Chen, and Jin 2017), we gave participants a research was qualified by a significant interaction between lay theory
report arguing that a tall, thin body shape is positively related and package shape (F(1, 175) = 3.95, p = .048). As expected
(in the strengthened condition) or unrelated (in the discounted and consistent with H2 , the milk in the tall, slender bot-
condition) to SES (see Appendix B in the web appendix). Par- tle was rated as more suitable for the high-end market
ticipants were asked to summarize the key idea of the report and than the one in the short, wide bottle when the Shape-SES
write down experiences they had had supporting this idea. lay theory was strengthened (Mtall-and-slender = 5.30, SD = 1.09;
As a manipulation check, we then measured their agreement Mshort-and-wide = 4.49, SD = 1.44, F(1, 175) = 8.54, p = .004).
with the four statements describing the relationship between However, this effect disappeared when the lay theory was dis-
body shape and SES as in study 2a and averaged the scores counted (Mtall-and-slender = 4.78, SD = 1.30; Mshort-and-wide = 4.75,
across the four items (Cronbach’s α = .94). SD = 1.35, F(1, 175) = .01, p = .906, see Fig. 1). The lay the-
The second task was presented as a product perception sur- ory did not affect brand status categorization (F(1, 175) = .42,
vey. Participants were told that a milk company was gauging p = .519).
consumer opinions about a new brand of milk that was going to
be introduced to the market. A picture of the new product was Discussion of Study 2
then presented in which the milk was either in a tall and slender
bottle or in a short and wide bottle (see Supplementary Appendix Study 2 examined the role of the Shape-SES lay theory in
A). A pretest (n = 108) confirmed that the two bottles were sig- explaining how package shape influences brand status catego-
+Model
rization. Across two studies, we replicated the findings of study 1 Method

when participants held a strong belief in the association between
body shape and SES (study 2a) or when this lay belief was tem- Design and procedure
porarily strengthened (study 2b). However, when the lay theory A total of 238 registered users (48% females, Mage = 38) on
was weakly held (study 2a) or temporarily discounted (study 2b), MTurk were recruited to participate in the study for monetary
the results were diminished. To provide further support for the compensation. They were randomly assigned to one of the four
underlying role of the Shape-SES lay theory, we conducted study conditions in a 2 (cognitive load: high vs. low) × 2 (package
2c (reported in the web appendix) and found that the effect of shape: tall and slender vs. short and wide) between-subjects
package shape on brand status categorization was even reversed design.
when the lay theory was reversed rather than strengthened. These The experiment was presented as an online survey on mul-
studies together support the proposition that the effect of pack- titasking. Participants were asked to remember a passcode
age shape on brand status categorization may be explained by randomly generated for them while completing a product sur-
the Shape-SES lay theory that consumers hold. While this lay vey. Following past research, participants were given 20 s to
theory is formed in relation to people in the social world, con- memorize their passcode, which was either a two-digit number
sumers appear to generalize it to products and rely on it to infer (15) in the low-cognitive-load condition or an eight-digit num-
a product’s brand status and categorize products according to ber (29483057) in the high-cognitive-load condition. After that,
their brand status. participants were asked to complete a product survey identical
to that in study 1c, except that we measured brand status cate-
gorization on a 7-point scale (1 = definitely the low-end market,
Study 3: Focal Effect Occurs Spontaneously 7 = definitely the high-end market). As a manipulation check of
cognitive load, participants were asked to indicate how diffi-
In study 3, we demonstrate that the application of the Shape- cult it was to complete the product survey while remembering
SES lay theory to brand status categorization is a relatively the passcode (1 = very easy, 7 = very difficult). Finally, partici-
spontaneous, non-deliberate process. One possibility is that con- pants entered the passcode they remembered and answered some
sumers consciously and deliberately apply the Shape-SES lay demographic questions at the end of survey.
theory from the interpersonal domain to that of brands to inform
brand status. Alternatively, the transfer of knowledge from the Results
social world to that of brands could be more spontaneous where
the consumer has a particular knowledge structure and applies Manipulation checks
this knowledge spontaneously across domains. We designed The manipulation of cognitive load was successful. A 2 (cog-
two studies to test these competing hypotheses. Specifically, in nitive load) × 2 (package shape) ANOVA on perceived difficulty
study 3a, we manipulated participants’ cognitive load when they of remembering the passcode revealed only a main effect of
were evaluating the brand status of a given product. In study 3b cognitive load (F(1, 234) = 122.04, p < .001), indicating that par-
(reported in the web appendix), we asked participants to perform ticipants in the high-cognitive-load condition reported greater
a rapid categorization task in which they had to judge whether difficulty (Mhigh = 3.59, SD = 1.94) than these in low-cognitive-
a given shape was associated with high status or low status. We load condition (Mlow = 1.47, SD = .87). No other significant
expect that if application of the lay theory is spontaneous (vs. effects were found (ps > .10).
deliberate), then the effect of package shape on brand status
categorization will hold (disappear) when consumers are under Brand status categorization
a high cognitive load (study 3a) or when consumers need to A 2 (cognitive load) × 2 (package shape) ANOVA on tar-
complete the evaluation task in a limited time (study 3b). get market evaluation revealed a main effect of package
shape (F(1, 234) = 11.11, p = .001), but the effect of cognitive
load and interaction were not significant (ps > .10). Consistent
with our spontaneous transfer hypothesis, participants rated
Study 3a the tall and slender purse as more suitable for the high-end
market than the short and wide one regardless of the cogni-
Study 3a used a complementary approach to examine the tive load they were under while making evaluations (in the
spontaneous application of the lay theory to brand status catego- low-cognitive-load condition, Mtall-and-slender = 4.95, SD = 1.14,
rization. Following previous research (Gilbert and Hixon 1991), Mshort-and-wide = 4.28, SD = 1.47; F(1, 234) = 6.99, p = .009;
we adopted a cognitive load procedure, which is an established in the high-cognitive-load condition, Mtall-and-slender = 4.71,
method to test whether a process is deliberate or automatic. If SD = 1.44, Mshort-and-wide = 4.17, SD = 1.54; F(1, 234) = 4.33,
the application of the Shape-SES lay theory is deliberate, it is p = .039).
less likely to take place under a high cognitive load, leading
the package shape effect to be attenuated. However, if the lay Discussion of Study 3
theory is applied more spontaneously, being under a cognitive
load would not influence the hypothesized package shape effect Study 3 tested whether the application of the lay theory to
(Rocklage, Rucker, and Nordgren 2018). brand status categorization is spontaneous (automatic) rather
+Model
than deliberate. We replicated the effect of shape on status cat- 100) = 409.59, p < .001). Participants perceived the two brands
egorization even when participants were under a high cognitive of shampoo as significantly different in package shape when
load at the time of categorization (study 3a), and when par- SISINOY was presented in a short, wide bottle and DIONW in a
ticipants categorized geometric shapes under time constraints tall, slender bottle (MSISINOY = 2.37, SD = 1.34; MDIONW = 6.02,
(study 3b). These findings suggest that the package shape effect SD = 1.36, F(1, 50) = 171.61, p < .001), and this difference was
is likely to be derived from the spontaneous or automatic applica- also significant in the counterbalanced condition in which SISI-
tion of the Shape-SES lay theory to brand status categorization. NOY was presented in a tall, slender bottle and DIONW in a
short, wide bottle (MSISINOY = 6.39, SD = .92; MDIONW = 2.22,
Study 4: Package Shape Influences Brand Choice SD = 1.38, F(1, 50) = 242.51, p < .001). No effects were found
for perceived typicality, perceived beauty, or perceived power-
Study 4 was designed to highlight the retailing implications fulness (all ps > .10).
of our focal effect. We aim to expand the effect of package shape After looking at the picture, participants chose the brand they
on consumer brand choice by implicating perceived brand status wanted to receive and rated the relative status of the two brands
as the underlying process (H3a and H3b ). Study 4a was a study (1 = SISINOY has a much higher brand status, 7 = DIONW has a
asking participants to make a real choice in order to examine much higher brand status), followed by demographic questions.
how package shape influences brand choice when consumers
choose free product samples. We predicted that when no other Results
product information was made available and price was not a Supporting H3a , a chi-square test on brand choice revealed
concern, consumers would show greater preference for high- that 49% of participants chose DIONW over SISINOY when
status (vs. low-status) products because brand status is positively DIONW was in a tall and slender bottle, and SISINOY was in
associated with the perceived value of a product (Baek, Kim, a short and wide bottle. In contrast, only 31% of participants
and Yu 2010). As such, they would be more likely to choose chose DIONW when DIONW was in a short and wide bot-
the product in a tall and slender (vs. short and wide) package. tle, and SISINOY was in a tall and slender bottle (χ2 (1) = 4.58,
In study 4b, we manipulated the consumption goal and tested p = .032).
whether the effect of package shape on brand choice exists when Results of a one-way ANOVA on brand status perception
consumers purchase the product to express status but not when showed that DIONW’s package shape had a significant effect on
they purchase the product to save money. the relative status of the two brands (F(1, 138) = 3.54, p = .022).
Supporting our hypothesis, DIONW was perceived as higher
Study 4a in brand status when it was presented in the tall and slender
bottle (Mtall-and-slender = 3.75, SD = 1.96) than in the short and
Method wide bottle (Mshort-and-wide = 3.01, SD = 1.79).
Design and procedure. Participants were 140 registered users To demonstrate that perceived brand status mediated the
of QQ Survey (51% females, Mage = 31.76) in China, recruited effect of DIONW’s package shape on brand choice, we per-
for monetary compensation. They were randomly assigned to formed a mediation analysis following Hayes (2012, Model
the tall-and-slender condition or the short-and-wide condition. 4) with DIONW’s package shape (0 = short and wide; 1 = tall-
Participants were informed that as a token of appreciation and-slender) as the independent variable, perceived relative
for completing the survey, they were invited to participate in brand status (1 = SISINOY has a much higher brand status
a lottery, which would give them a chance to receive and try than DIONW, 7 = DIONW has a much higher brand status than
new products. They were told that this lottery was sponsored by SISINOY) as the mediator, and brand choice (0 = SISINOY;
P&G, which intended to gauge consumer opinions about two 1 = DIONW) as the dependent variable. DIONW was perceived
new brands of shampoo. Participants then proceeded to a lottery as higher in brand status when it was in a tall and slender (vs.
in which only 25% of the participants could purportedly win. short and wide) shaped bottle (B = .74, SE = .32, t(139) = 2.31,
Next, all participants were told that they had won the lottery p = .022), and perceived brand status positively influenced the
and could choose to receive a travel-sized sample of shampoo likelihood of choosing DIONW (B = .81, SE = .14, Z = 5.90,
(150 ml) from one of the two new brands. Participants were p < .001), after controlling for the direct effect of DIONW’s
shown two fictitious brands of shampoo: SISINOY and DIONW. package shape on brand choice (B = .36, SE = .44, Z = .82,
SISINOY was presented in a tall, slender bottle and DIONW p = .414). The indirect effect of perceived brand status had a
was presented in a short, wide bottle in one condition, and vice 95% CI excluding zero (index = .60, 95% CI = .07–1.21). H3b
versa in the other condition (see Supplementary Appendix A). was thus supported.
Counterbalancing the brand names with the different shapes con-
trolled for the potential confounding condition that might be Study 4b
caused by brand name differences. We pretested the manipula-
tion of package shape (n = 102). As intended, a 2 × 2 repeated Method
ANOVA with brand (SISINOY vs. DIONW) as the within- Design and procedure. A total of 350 registered users of MTurk
subject factor and the package shape of DIONW (tall and slender (46% females, Mage = 34.34) participated in the experiment for
vs. short and wide) as the between-subjects factor revealed a monetary compensation. They were randomly assigned to one
significant interaction effect on package shape perception (F(1, of the four conditions in a 2 (consumption goal: saving money
+Model
vs. expressing a high status) × 2 (package shape: tall and slender

vs. short and wide) between-subjects design.
Participants were instructed to imagine that they were in a
retail store shopping for a bottle of wine. In the status-expressing
condition, they were informed that the wine would be used in
an important business party, and they would like to choose a
product to express their high social status. In the money-saving
condition, participants were informed that they had a tight budget Fig. 2. Moderated Mediation Model (Study 4b).
at the moment and they would like to choose a product to save
money. p < .001), but no other significant effects (ps > .10). These results
Next, participants were shown two brands of wine. As in indicate that we were successful in manipulating the consump-
Study 4a, we counterbalanced the brand names with the dif- tion goal.
ferent shapes (see Supplementary Appendix A). To confirm
the manipulation of package shape, we conducted a pretest Test of hypotheses. To test H3a , We first focused on the interac-
(n = 108), which indicated a significant interaction of brand tive effect on brand choice of the package shape of whichever
name and package shape on package shape perception (F(1, brand was located on the right and the consumption goal. A
106) = 6.07, p = .015). Participants perceived the two brands chi-square test on the likelihood of choosing the brand on the
of wine as significantly different in package shape when the right revealed that when the participants purchased the wine
brand on the right was presented in a tall, slender bottle with the goal of expressing a high status, they were more likely
(Mbrand left = 4.78, SD = 1.11; Mbrand right = 6.65, SD = .87, F(1, to choose the brand on the right when it was presented in a tall,
53) = 119.06, p < .001), and this difference was also significant slender shaped bottle than in a short, wide shaped bottle (61.6%
in the counterbalanced condition in which the brand on the right vs. 41.1%, ␹2 (1) = 7.20, p = .007), and this pattern was reversed
was presented in a short, wide bottle (Mbrand left = 6.56, SD = .93; when the participants purchased the wine with the goal of sav-
Mbrand right = 4, SD = 1.41, F(1, 53) = 136.1, p < .001). No effects ing money (40.2% vs. 60.2%, χ2 (1) = 6.78, p = .009), supporting
were found for perceived typicality, perceived beauty, or per- H3a .
ceived powerfulness (all ps > .10). After reading the picture, we To test H3b , we examined a moderated mediation model fol-
measured participants’ brand choice by asking which brand they lowing Hayes (2012, Model 14), with the package shape of the
would like to purchase, followed by the measure of perceived brand on the right as the independent variable, the perceived
brand status, which was embedded in a list of adjectives assess- brand status of the brand on the right (relative to the brand on
ing other brand perceptions (e.g., warmth and competence). the left) as the mediator, the consumption goal as the moder-
As a manipulation check, we used two items to measure the ator, and brand choice as the dependent variable (see Fig. 2).
consumption goal of expressing social status (“How strongly The results indicated a main effect of package shape on brand
were you motivated to express your social status in this pur- status such that the brand on the right was perceived as having
chase?” and “how strongly did you consider high brand status a higher status when it was presented in a tall, slender (vs. short
as the most important thing when you made the purchase deci- and wide) package (B = 1.27, SE = .18, t = 7.13, p < .001). After
sion?” r = .91, p < .001) and two items to measure the goal of controlling for the direct effect of package shape (B = −.54,
saving money (“How strongly were you motivated to save money SE = .27, z = −1.96, p = .05), brand status had a main effect on
in this purchase?” and “how strongly did you consider saving brand choice (B = 1.36, SE = .18, z = 7.45, p < .001), and more
money as the most important thing when you made the purchase importantly, this effect was further qualified by the consump-
decision?” r = .89 p < .001). tion goal (B = −1.73, SE = .21, z = −8.35, p < .001). When the
participants had the goal of expressing a high status, the per-
Results ceived status of the brand on the right increased the likelihood
Manipulation checks. As expected, a 2 (consumption goal: sav- of choosing this brand, thus playing a positive mediating role in
ing money vs. expressing a high status) × 2 (package shape: the effect of package shape on brand choice (index = 1.74, 95%
tall and slender vs. short and wide) on the consumption goal CI = 1.12–2.55). When the participants had the goal of saving
of expressing a high status revealed a significant main effect of money, however, brand status decreased the likelihood of brand
consumption goal, such that participants in the expressing-status choice, thus playing a negative mediating role in the effect of
condition were more motivated to express their social status than package shape on brand choice (index = −.47, 95% CI = −.85
those in the saving-money condition (Mexpressing-status = 5.76, to −.21). These results supported H3.
SD = 1.59, Msaving-money = 2.84, SD = 1.80; F(1, 346) = 260.26,
p < .001), but the main effect of package shape and interaction Discussion of Study 4
were not significant (ps > .10). Similarly, there was a significant Study 4 demonstrated the retailing implications of package
main effect of consumption goal on the consumption goal of shape on brand status categorization by examining brand choice
saving money showing that participants in the expressing-status as a downstream consequence. The results showed that package
condition were less motivated to save money in the purchase than shape helps consumers decide whether a product is “for me”
those in the saving-money condition (Mexpressing-status = 2.58, or “not for me,” depending on its perceived brand status. Con-
SD = 1.74, Msaving-money = 6.08, SD = 1.10; F(1, 346) = 497.90, sumers are more likely to purchase a brand presented in a tall,
+Model
slender (vs. short, wide) package when brand status is a primary we focus on lower-order, more basic design elements, namely
purchase consideration, such as when they are making a decision shape. This focus facilitates a more nuanced understanding of
on free sample products (study 4a) or when they are making an how specific design elements contribute to brand status infer-
in-store purchase with the goal of expressing a high status (study ences.
4b). Second, Orth and Malkewitz (2008) made an initial effort to
establish the relationship between packaging designs and brand
General Discussion image perceptions. We take a step further by examining the
downstream implications of this relationship for consumer brand
In this research, we study the effect of package shape on brand choice. By implicating package shape as a visual heuristic that
status categorization, the underlying process, and the down- consumers rely on to make brand choice, our research highlights
stream implications on brand choice. This is a managerially the important role that packaging can play in a relatively early
relevant topic given the importance marketers place on segmen- stage of consumer decision-making (Bloch 1995), and adds to
tation, targeting, and positioning. It is a primary goal of marketer the growing body of studies investigating how structural (e.g.,
to convey a brand image consistent with the brand’s positioning shape, size, and color) and design features (e.g., logo place-
to reach the right target market. ment and use of art images) of packaging can affect consumer
With a pilot study and nine experiments, we tested the focal judgments and choices by creating different brand perceptions
hypothesis that package shape influences brand status cate- (Childers and Jass 2002; Deng and Srinivasan 2013; Hagtvedt
gorization. We systematically demonstrated support for this and Patrick 2008; Schlosser, Rikhi, and Dagogo-Jack 2016;
hypothesis by having consumers choose either (1) a suitable Sundar and Noseworthy 2014). In particular, we focus on how
package design for a given target market (high-end vs. low-end; package shape affects consumer choice by informing the prod-
study 1a) or (2) a suitable target market for products in a given uct’s brand status. This focus relates the current research to the
shaped package (tall and slender vs. short and wide; study 1b). work of Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2012), which shows that
The results provide converging evidence that products in a tall larger sizes in a set of options convey greater status and are thus
and slender package are categorized as having a higher status preferred by powerless consumers because of their desire to sig-
than those in a short and wide package. We show that the effect nal status to others. Our research is in line with their work by
of package shape on brand status categorization is driven by identifying the association between packaging design and sta-
the reliance of a Shape-SES lay theory that a person’s body tus. However, we focus on the shape dimension and demonstrate
shape is associated with his or her SES such that tall, thin peo- that even with the size (volume) being equal, a tall, slender pack-
ple are more likely to be members of a higher social class than age can make the product be perceived as higher in status than
short, heavy people (studies 2a–2c). We further demonstrate that a short, wide package.
this lay theory gets transferred spontaneously from the realm of Moreover, our research takes a lay theory perspective to
interpersonal perceptions to that of brand perceptions to inform understand the mechanism underlying the focal effect. By show-
brand status categorization (studies 3a and 3b). Last, we illus- ing a cross-domain application of the focal lay theory, our
trate the retailing implications of our findings by showing that research advances knowledge of how lay theories affect con-
package shape affects real brand choice via the mediating pro- sumer judgments and choices. Lay theories are traditionally
cess of brand status inferences when brand status is a primary regarded as domain-specific in the sense that they affect con-
purchase consideration (studies 4a and 4b). sumer perceptions and choices in the same domain where the
theories are developed. For example, in the emotion domain,
Theoretical Contributions different lay theories about the progression of affective expe-
riences have been found to influence forecasting of changes in
Although marketing scholars and practitioners have long affect intensity and duration over time (Igou 2004). People esti-
noted that package design plays an important role in creating mate a shorter duration of affect when they hold the lay theory
and communicating brand images (Bloch 1995; Underwood of decreasing affect than when they hold the lay theory of con-
2003), empirical investigation of the effect of package shape tinuing affect (Igou 2004). In the domain of food, consumers
on symbolic brand associations is limited. The most closely believe that healthfulness is positively related to expensiveness
related work is by Orth and Malkewitz (2008), who identified (Haws, Reczek, and Sample 2016) and negatively related to tasti-
five holistic package designs (i.e., massive, contrasting, natu- ness (Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006), and they evaluate
ral, delicate, and nondescript) and examined how these designs a food item’s expensiveness and tastiness based on that belief.
help shape brand personality perceptions. For instance, they Our research contributes to the lay theory literature by showing
found that delicate designs, which are negatively related to com- that the Shape-SES lay theory formed in the domain of interper-
pressed or weighty design features, generate an impression of sonal perceptions can cross over, in a spontaneous manner, to a
sophistication. At a broad level, these results are in line with consumption domain to inform brand status categorization.
our findings because a sophisticated brand personality might be
related to high status. However, our research differs from, and Implications for Marketing and Retailing
thus extends, their work in at least two major aspects. First, Orth
and Malkewitz (2008) took a holistic perspective to examine The findings from this research generate practical and action-
higher-order, generalizable holistic package designs. In contrast, able implications for both brand and retailing managers. We
+Model
suggest that brand managers use package shape as a strategic we demonstrated would hold across populations that are more
visual cue to help position their brand in the consumer’s mind as a diverse in terms of education and age. To explore some popu-
high-end or low-end brand, influencing whether or not it gets into lation characteristics as possible moderators, we ran a study on
a consumer’s choice set, and ultimately determining choice and MTurk in which we measured participants’ education, income,
consumption. Consider for example, when Procter & Gamble’s and age. In this sample, the age of participants ranged from
Crest set out to develop a premium whitening product in 2003, 18 to 71, the household income ranged from “under $20,000”
packaging designers did not design a horizontal toothpaste box to “above $150,000,” and the education level ranged from
but instead created a vertical package “to convey ‘premium,’” “less than high school” to “professional degree.” We examined
as noted by Greg Zimmer, a design manager. Thanks to the new whether the effect of package shape on brand status categoriza-
package, Crest toothpaste sales rose by 5% in 2005, whereas tion would be moderated by age, income, or education, but did
its competitor Colgate’s sales fell by 6%, according to IRI, not find evidence for the moderation. We considered MTurk
an American market research company (Hamner 2006). This respondents to be as varied a sample as we could obtain, given
example illustrates the importance of package shape in commu- that a MTurk sample is known to be more diverse and closer
nicating brand image and influencing consumer choices, which to the general population in terms of gender, geographic distri-
is empirically supported by our research. bution, ethnicity, age, the demographic composition than other
If a consumer is familiar with the product or product category, convenience samples (e.g., Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gosling,
then category norms might influence the package shape effect. 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, and Ipeirotis 2010). However, we
However, there are vast opportunities to utilize the package- acknowledge that it is still possible that the effect may not hold
shape effect for the successful launch of new products. In 2006, with a sample that is more varied than that of MTurk, such as
Coca-Cola launched a coffee-flavored soft drink, Coke Blak, those in extremely rural areas with no access to the Internet
positioned as a premium energy drink to help office-goers better or severely impoverished populations with very limited educa-
deal with the post-lunch productivity slump. It was discontinued tional opportunities. This possibility can be explored in future
in 2008. A post-mortem of the failure suggested a number of pos- research.
sible reasons, but germane to this research is the mismatch of its Second, in this research, we rely on the knowledge-transfer
pricing strategy and packaging design: the product was launched theory to explain the effect of package shape on brand sta-
at a premium price ($1.99) but in a short and stocky 8-ounce bot- tus categorization and have ruled out a number of alternative
tle (BevNET.com Staff, 2007). Needless to say, according to our explanations. Nevertheless, there might be other alternative
research, the tall, slender can of Red Bull likely contributed to explanations for our hypothesized effect. For example, one
its widespread success. might argue that tall, slender packages are perceived as more
Based on our research, retailing managers similarly need to decent than short, wide packages, and perceived decency of
take package shapes into consideration when making decisions the package design increases brand status perceptions of the
on what products to stock. Based on our findings, a tall, slender product. There may be a mutual influence between perceived
package creates the perception of higher brand status to a sig- decency of design and brand status: perceived decency of pack-
nificantly greater extent than a short, wide package. Therefore, age design leads to categorization as a high-status brand, and
retailers in the high-end market can stock more products in tall, a high-status brand leads to perceived decency of the package
slender packages to communicate and enhance their positioning. design. Future research can more closely examine the causal
It is also important to display these products in their shop win- relationships between them and explore other potential under-
dows because consumers passing by the window might confer lying processes of the focal effect.
status on a retailer based on the products displayed. Third, future research might identify additional factors that
Retailers in the low-end market, on the other hand, face more moderate the package-shape effect. For example, the effect
complicated decisions. Should they stock more products in short, might be mitigated when more diagnostic brand status cues (e.g.,
wide packages? On the one hand, consumers who are aware of price) are present, or when consumers are made aware of the
the retailer’s economic positioning might still prefer a product Shape-SES lay theory because the lay theory might be consid-
they perceive to have a high brand status over one perceived ered to be politically incorrect and hence socially undesirable.
to have a low brand status, all other things being equal. On the The package shape effect might be diminished, or reversed, for
other hand, for new consumers who know little about the retailer, some product categories, in which the shape-SES lay theory is
high perceived brand status may lead to a high estimation of less applicable, like the baby product category, for instance.
product price, and turn price-sensitive consumers away. Thus, Last, there are rich opportunities to explore how package
the decision outcomes might depend on a number of contextual shape might interact with other brand status cues and how these
factors. interactions influence consumer preferences and brand choices.
For example, when a product’s price indicates a high (low)
Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research brand status, consumers might perceive a tall, slender (short,
wide) package as more congruent with the brand status than
Our research provides several avenues for future research. a short, wide (tall, slender) package (van Rompay, Pruyn, and
First, our research was based on samples including respondents Tieke 2009). Perceived congruence leads to a perception that
from MTurk and QQ Survey, and undergraduate students. One the product’s package is appropriately designed, thus positively
may wonder whether the effect and the underlying mechanism affecting consumer preference for the product. These effects and
+Model
the underlying processes are of immense importance for future Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use
research to address. of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as
Signals of Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 81–95.
Deng, Xiaoyan and Raji Srinivasan (2013), “When Do Transparent Packages
Conclusions Increase (or Decrease) Food Consumption?,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (4),
104–17.
In this article, we focus on a ubiquitous aspect of package Dubois, David, Derek D. Rucker and Adam D. Galinsky (2012), “Supersize Me:
design – its shape – and demonstrate its influence on brand sta- Product Size as A Signal of Status,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6),
1047–62.
tus categorization and brand choice. We illustrate that packaging
Estabrooks, Paul A., Rebecca E. Lee and Nancy C. Gyurcsik (2003), “Resources
is integral to daily life to the extent that consumers seamlessly for Physical Activity Participation: Does Availability and Accessibility
transfer the Shape-SES lay theory from the domain of interper- Differ by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status?,” Annals of Behavioral
sonal perception to that of brands. The main idea encompassing Medicine, 25 (2), 100–4.
this research is that “design is information” and packaging can Eastman, Jacqueline K., Ronald E. Goldsmith and Leisa Reinecke Flynn (1999),
“Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Vali-
be designed to visually convey desired brand meaning. This is a
dation,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (3), 41–52.
powerful notion that reflects the immense potential for marketers Folkes, Valeri and Shashi Matta (2004), “The Effect of Package Shape on Con-
to strategically manage the design of everyday objects. sumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 390–401.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship
Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4),
343–73.
Supplementary material related to this article can be Furnham, Adrian F. (1988), Lay Theories: Everyday Understanding of Problems
found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in the Social, New York: Pergamon.
jretai.2019.08.003. Feldman, J.M. and J.G. Lynch (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other
Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Jour-
References nal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 421–35.
Garner, David M., Paul E. Garfinkel, Donald Schwartz and Michael Thomp-
son (1980), “Cultural Expectations of Thinness in Women,” Psychological
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Mar- Reports, 47 (2), 483–91.
keting Research, 34 (3), 347–56. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Deborah Roedder John (1997), “Consumer Learn-
Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Con- ing by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer,” Journal of
sumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1),
Consumer Research, 24 (3), 266–84.
87–101. Gilbert, Daniel T. and J. Gregory Hixon (1991), “The Trouble of Thinking:
Ares, Gastón and Rosires Deliza (2010), “Studying the Influence of Package Activation and Application of Stereotypic Beliefs,” Journal of Personality
Shape and Colour on Consumer Expectations of Milk Desserts Using Word and Social Psychology, 60 (4), 509–17.
Association and Conjoint Analysis,” Food Quality and Preference, 21 (8), Hagtvedt, Henrik and Vanessa M. Patrick (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of
930–7. Visual Art on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal
Baek, Tae Hyun, Jooyoung Kim and Jay Hyunjae Yu (2010), “The Differential of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 379–89.
Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige in Consumer Brand Choice,” Hamner, Steve (2006), “Packaging That Pays,” Business, 2 (7), 6.
Psychology & Marketing, 27 (7), 662–78. Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes and Xavier Drèze (2010), “Signaling Status
Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang and Samuel D. Gosling (2011), “Amazon’s with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing,
Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, yet High-quality, Data?,” 74 (4), 15–30.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (1), 3–5. Haws, Kelly L., Rebecca Walker Reczek and Kevin L. Sample (2016), “Healthy
Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Diets Make Empty Wallets: The Healthy = Expensive Intuition,” Journal of
Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 16–29. Consumer Research, 43 (6), 992–1007.
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba (1994), “The Role of Consumers’ Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Condi-
Intuitions in Inference Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), tional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford
393–407. Press.
BevNET.com Staff (2007), Coke Blak Goes Black, (accessed August Hensley, Wayne E. (1993), “Height as a Measure of Success in Academe,”
31), [available at https://www.bevnet.com/news/2007/08-31-2007-blak Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 30 (1), 40–6.
coca-cola.asp]. Hollingshead, August B. (1965), Two-Factor Index of Social Position, New
Barros, A.J.D., C.G. Victora, B.L. Horta, H.D. Goncalves, R.C. Lima and J. Haven: Yale University Press.
Lynch (2006), “Effects of Socioeconomic Change from Birth to Early Adult- Igou, Eric R. (2004), “Lay Theories in Affective Forecasting: The Progression
hood on Height and Overweight,” International Journal of Epidemiology, of Affect,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (4), 528–34.
35 (5), 1233–8. Jain, Shailendra Pratap, Pragya Mathur and Durairaj Maheswaran (2009), “The
Childers, Terry L. and Jeffrey Jass (2002), “All Dressed up with Something Influence of Consumers’ Lay Theories on Approach/Avoidance Motivation,”
to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Percep- Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 56–65.
tions and Consumer Memory,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), Jeffery, Robert W. and Simone A. French (1996), “Socioeconomic Status and
93–106. Weight Control Practices among 20- to 45-Year-Old Women,” American
Case, Anne and Christina Paxson (2008), “Stature and Status: Height, Abil- Journal of Public Health, 86 (7), 1005–110.
ity, and Labor Market Outcomes,” Journal of Political Economy, 116 (3), Kapferer, Jean-Noël (2012), The New Strategic Brand Management: Advanced
499–532. Insights and Strategic Thinking, New York: The Free Press.
Chaiken, Shelly (1980), “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing Keller, Kevin Lane (2009), “Managing the Growth Tradeoff: Challenges and
and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Opportunities in Luxury Branding,” Journal of Brand Management, 16
Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752–66. (5–6), 290–301.
+Model
Kreuzbauer, Robert and Alan J. Malter (2005), “Embodied Cognition and New Schlosser, Ann E., Ruchi R. Rikhi and Sokiente W. Dagogo-Jack (2016), “The
Product Design: Changing Product form to Influence Brand Categorization,” Ups and Downs of Visual Orientation: The Effects of Diagonal Orien-
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2), 165–76. tation on Product Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (4),
Kervyn, Nicolas, Susan T. Fiske and Chris Malone (2012), “Brands as Intentional 496–509.
Agents Framework: How Perceived Intentions and Ability Can Map Brand Sevilla, Julio and Barbara E. Kahn (2014), “The Completeness Heuristic:
Perception,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2),166–76. Product Shape Completeness Influences Size Perceptions, Prefer-
Koo, Minkyung, Hywon Oh, and Vassessa M., Patrick (2019, forthcoming), ence, and Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1),
“From Odie to Goldie: Humanizing Old Produce Enhances Its Appeal,” 57–68.
Journal of Association for Consumer Research. Simonson, Alex and Bernd H. Schmitt (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strate-
Krishna, Aradhan, Luca Cian and Nilüfer Z. Aydinoğlu (2017), “Sensory gic Management of Brands, New York: The Free Press.
Aspects of Packaging Design,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 43–54. Sobal, Jeffery (1991), “Obesity and Socioeconomic Status: A Framework for
Lee, Na Young, Stephanie M. Noble and Dipayan Biswas (2018), “Hey Big Examining Relationships between Physical and Social Variables,” Medical
Spender! A Golden (Color) Atmospheric Effect on Tipping Behavior,” Jour- Anthropology, 13 (3), 231–47.
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (2), 317–37. Sobal, Jeffery and Albert J. Stunkard (1989), “Socioeconomic Status and
Labroo, Aparna A. and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2009), “Lay Theories of Emo- Obesity: A Review of the Literature,” Psychological Bulletin, 105 (2),
tion Transience and the Search for Happiness: A Fresh Perspective on Affect 260–75.
Regulation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 242–54. Sundar, Aparna and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2014), “Place the Logo High or
Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Alternative Approaches to Under- Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design,” Journal
standing the Determinants of Typicality,” Journal of Consumer Research, of Marketing, 78 (5), 138–51.
17 (9), 111–26. Sivanathan, Niro and Nathan C. Pettit (2010), “Protecting the Self through
Lechelt, Eugene C. (1975), “Occupational Affiliation and Ratings of Physical Consumption: Status Goods as Affirmational Commodities,” Journal of
Height and Personal Esteem,” Psychological Reports, 36 (3), 943–6. Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (3), 564–70.
Mazzocco, Philip J., Derek D. Rucker, Adam D. Galinsky and Eric T. Ander- Strauss, John and Duncan Thomas (1998), “Health, Nutrition and Eco-
son (2012), “Direct and Vicarious Conspicuous Consumption: Identification nomic Development,” Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (June),
with Low-Status Groups Increases the Desire for High-Status Goods,” Jour- 766–817.
nal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (4), 520–8. Schwarz, Norbert, Herbert Bless, Fritz Strack, Gisela Klumpp, Helga Rittenauer-
Meert, Katrien, Mario Pandelaere and Vanessa M. Patrick (2013), “Taking a Schatka and Annette Simons (1991), “Ease of Retrieval as Information:
Shine to It: How the Preference for Glossy Stems from an Innate Need for Another Look at the Availability Heuristic,” Journal of Personality and
Water,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), 195–206. Social Psychology, 61 (2), 195–202.
Mukhopadhyay, Anirban and Catherine W.M. Yeung (2010), “Building Char- Townsend, Claudia (2017), “The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design
acter: Effects of Lay Theories of Self-Control on the Selection of Products Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicita-
for Children,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (2), 240–50. tions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 794–815.
Niedenthal, Paula M., Jamin B. Halberstadt and Â.se H. Innes-Ker (1999), “Emo- Tyrrell, Jessica, Samuel E. Jones, Robin Beaumont, Christina M. Astley, Rebecca
tional Response Categorization,” Psychological Review, 106 (2),337–61. Lovell, Hanieh Yaghootkar, Marcus Tuke, Katherine S. Ruth, Rachel M.
Spiller, Stephen A., Gavan J. Fitzsimons, John G. Lynch and Gary H. Mcclel- Freathy, Joel N. Hirschhorn, Andrew R. Wood, Anna Murray, Michael N.
land (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Weedon, Timothy M. Frayling, et al. (2016), “Height, Body Mass Index, and
Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 Socioeconomic Status: Mendelian Randomisation Study in UK Biobank,”
(2), 277–88. BMJ, 352, i582.
Orth, Ulrich R. and Keven Malkewitz (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Underwood, Robert L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of Product Packag-
Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 64–81. ing: Creating Brand Identity Via Lived and Mediated Experience,” Journal
Park, Chul Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisin- of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 62–76.
gerich and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude van Ooijen, Iris, Marieke L. Fransen, Peeter W.J. Verlegh and Edith G. Smit
Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand (2017), “Signalling Product Healthiness through Symbolic Package Cues:
Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 1–17. Effects of Package Shape and Goal Congruence on Consumer Behaviour,”
Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis (2010), “Running Appetite, 109 (1), 73–82.
Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk,” Judgment and Decision Making, van Rompay, Thomas J.L., Ad T.H. Pruyn and Peter Tieke (2009),
5 (5), 411–9. “Symbolic Meaning Integration in Design and Its Influence on Prod-
Peterson, Kim (2014), 10 of the World’s Most Iconic Packages, CBS uct and Brand Evaluation,” International Journal of Design, 3 (2),
News (accessed October 9), [available at https://www.cbsnews.com/media/ 19–26.
10-of-the-worlds-most-iconic-packages] Wan, Echo Wen, Rocky Peng Chen and Liyin Jin (2017), “Judging a Book
Raghubir, Priya and Eric A. Greenleaf (2006), “Ratios in Proportion: What by Its Cover? The Effect of Anthropomorphism on Product Attribute Pro-
Should the Shape of the Package Be?,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (2),95–107. cessing and Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6),
Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume 1008–30.
Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?,” Journal of Marketing Research, Wansink, Brian and Koert van Ittersum (2003), “Bottoms Up! The Influence
36 (3), 313–26. of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption Volume,” Journal of Consumer
Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Rebecca Walker Naylor and Wayne D. Hoyer (2006), Research, 30 (3), 455–63.
“The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Westerman, Steve J., Peter H. Gardner, Ed J. Sutherland, Tom White, Katie
Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), Jordan, David Watts and Sophie Wells (2012), “Product Design: Preference
170–84. for Rounded Versus Angular Design Elements,” Psychology & Marketing,
Rocklage, Matthew D., Derek D. Rucker and Loran F. Nordgren (2018), 29 (8), 595–605.
“Persuasion, Emotion, and Language: The Intent to Persuade Trans- Werle, Carolina O.C., Olivier Trendel and Gauthier Ardito (2013), “Unhealthy
forms Language via Emotionality,” Psychological Science, 29 (5), Food Is not Tastier for Everybody: The “Healthy = Tasty” French Intuition,”
749–60. Food Quality and Preference, 28 (1), 116–21.
Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Henry S.J. Robben (1997), “The Effect of New Pack- Xiao, Yuanyuan, Naiqing Zhao, Hao Wang, Jie Zhang, et al. (2013), “Association
age Design on Product Attention, Categorization and Evaluation,” Journal between Socioeconomic Status and Obesity in a Chinese Adult Population,”
of Economic Psychology, 18 (2–3), 271–87. BMC Public Health, 13 (1), 1–9.
+Model
Yang, Sha and Priya Raghubir (2005), “Can Bottles Speak Volumes? The Effect Zhang, Zhe and Vanessa M. Patrick (2018), “Call Me Rollie! The Role of
of Package Shape on How Much to Buy,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), Brand Nicknames in Shaping Consumer-Brand Relationships,” Journal of
269–81. the Association for Consumer Research, 3 (2), 147–62.
Yan, Dengfeng, Jaideep Sengupta and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2014), “Package Size
and Perceived Quality: The Intervening Role of Unit Price Perceptions,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (1), 4–17.

Article in Press: Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Article in Press: Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

+Model

RETAIL-704; No. of Pages 16 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2019) xxx–xxx

Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and

Manipulation checks Study 1: Brand Status Categorization from Package Shape

SD = 1.06). Task order had no main or interactive effect on target

Moderating effect of lay theory strength

rization. Across two studies, we replicated the findings of study 1 Method

vs. expressing a high status) × 2 (package shape: tall and slender

Potrebbero piacerti anche