Analysis of Common Cognition of Impression among Japanese Fonts and Tea Beverage Packaging

Shioko Mukai
Chiba University, Rikkyo University, Japan

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: KEER2014. Proceedings of the 5th Kanesi Engineering and Emotion Research; International Conference; Linköping; Sweden; June 11-13

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 100:126, s. 1509-1519

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2014-06-11

ISBN: 978-91-7519-276-5

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


The purpose of the present paper was to investigate the influence of various cognitions regarding package design on consumer behavior. In considering cognitions concerning product preference; we focused on commonalities between impressions of packaging components; especially typeface design and product characteristics. In Study 1; we developed a scale for evaluating the impression of Japanese fonts using the semantic differential method. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that our scale has three subscales: Activity; Aesthetic preference and Legibility. The results revealed that our factor; “Aesthetic preference;” was similar to the “Evaluating” factor in a prior sca- le. In Study 2; we conducted the principal examination using the scale developed in Study 1. Participants (N = 303) responded to a questionnaire that included 12 pairs of adjectives on a 7-point scale to determine their impressions of four kinds of Japanese fonts and four kinds of tea beverages. Structural equation modeling indicated that there was a partial scalar invariance; with two items having differential item functioning for the evaluation of impressions between Japanese fonts and tea beverages. These findings indicate that people have common cognitions of impressions regarding the shape of typeface design and product characteristics.


Typeface Design; Product Characteristics; Semantic Differential Method; Commonality; Simultaneous Analysis of Several Groups.


Ampuero; O.; & Natalia; V. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing; 23(2); 102–114.

Bennett; P. D. (1995). Dictionary of Marketing Terms; 2nd ed. Barrons Educational Series Inc.

Buck; R. (1985). Prime theory: An integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review; 92(3); 389–413.

Buck; R.; Anderson; E.; Chaudhuri; A.; & Ray; I. (2004). Emotion and reason in persuasion: Applying the ARI Model and the CASC Scale. Journal of Business Research; 57(6); 647.

Buck; R.; Chaudhuri; A.; Georgson; M.; & Kowta; S. (1995). Conceptualizing and operationalizing affect; reason; and involvement in persuasion: The ARI Model and the CASC Scale. Advances in Consumer Research; 22(1); 440–447.

Butkeviciene; V.; Stravinskiene; J.; & Rutelione; A. (2008). Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision making process. Engineering Economics; 56(1); 57–65.

Byrne; B. M.; & van de Vijver; F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing; 10(2); 107–132.

Cha; J. M.; & Noguchi; K. (2006). [Does technical experience in visual art influence the aesthetic preference for color?] 25(1); 140.
Gonzalez; M. P.; Thornsbury; S.; & Twede; D. (2007). Packaging as a tool for product development: Communicating value to consumers. Journal of Food Distribution Research; 38(1); 61–66.

Gosling; S. D.; Rentfrow; P. J.; & Swann Jr.; W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality; 37(6); 504.

Hair; J. F.; Black; W.; Babin; B.; Anderson; R. E.; & Tatham; R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River; NJ: Prentice Hall.

Henderson; P. W.; Giese; J. L.; & Cote; J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing; 68(4); 60–72.

Hoelter; J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods& Research; 11(3); 325.

Inoue; M.; & Kobayashi; T. (1985). [The research domain and scale construction of adjective-pairs in a semantic differential method] 33(3); 253–260.

Ishii; H.; Onzo; N.; & Terao; Y. (2008). [The placement of verbal and nonverbal information in designing product packages]. 4(1); 2–16.

Ishii; H. (2009). [Regulatory focus and package design symmetry]: 69; 219–231.

Ishii; H. (2010). [Layout and vertically/horizontally arranged words in designing product packages]. 6(1); 23–37.

Kamata; A.; & Vaughn; B. K. (2004). An introduction to differential item functioning analysis. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal; 2(2); 49–69.

Kasumi; T. (1987). Comprehension of synesthetic expressions--Cross-modal modifications of sense adjectives. Japanese Journal of Psychology; 58; 373–380.

Mishra; H. G.; & Jain; D. (2012). Impact of packaging in consumer decision making process of Namkeen products. Journal of Marketing & Communication; 7(3); 48–63.

Namatame; M.; & Ishikawa; S. (1999). [An image research for Japanese fonts: The font database for imagery (2)]. (46); 56–57.

Namatame; M.; & Ishikawa; S. (2000). [A Image Research for Japanese Fonts : The Font Data Base for Imagery[2]]. (47); 228–229.

Noguchi; K. (2003). The relationship between visual illusion and aesthetic preference - An attempt to unify experimental phenomenology and empirical aesthetics. Axiomathes; 13; 261–281.

Ohanian; R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise; trustworthiness; and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising; 19(3); 39–52.

Osgood; C. E. (1962). Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems. American Psychologist; 17; 10–28.

Osgood; C. E.; Suci; G. J.; & Tannebaum; P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana; IL: University of Illinois Press.

Oyama; T.; Takimoto; S.; & Iwasawa; H. (1993). [A comparative study of synesthesia using semantic differential method: Comparing between factor structure and factor scores] 20; 55-64.

Oyama; T.; Yamada; H.; & Iwasawa; H. (1998). Symbolic meanings of computer-generated abstract forms. 19; 4–9.

Rawlings; D.; & Twomey; F. (1998). Personality; creativity; and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism; sensation seeking; schizotypy; and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts; 16(2); 153–178.

Schmitt; B. H.; Tavassoli; N. T.; & Millard; R. T. (1993). Memory for print ads: Understanding relations among brand name; copy; and picture. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates); 2(1); 55.

So; M. J.; Choi; J. S.; Koyama; S.; & Hibino; H. (2009). [The effects of the package design elements on consumers’ visual attention: The analysis of eye movements while viewing packages of Japanese canned coffee beverages]. 8(2); 407–417.

Sogn-Grundvåg; G.; & Østli; J. (2009). Consumer evaluation of unbranded and unlabelled food products: The case of bacalhau. European Journal of Marketing; 43(1/2); 213–228.

Steenkamp; J. B. E. M.; & Baumgartner; H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research; 25(1); 78–90.

Suzuki; M.; Gyoba; J. (2003). [Analyzing the factor structure and the sensory-relevance of impressions produced by words and drawings]. 73(6); 518–523.

Suzuki; M.; Gyoba; J.; Kawabata; H.; Yamaguchi; H.; & Komatsu; H. (2006). [Analyses of the sensory-relevance of adjective pairs by the modality differential method]. 77(5); 464–470.

Takahashi; S. (1995). Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception. Psychological Review; 102(4); 671.

Citeringar i Crossref