Package Design

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle in Cross-Cultural Values Shopping

ABSTRACT Keywords: package design, Germany, Turkey, universals, consumer values

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Journal of International Marketing © 2009, American Marketing Association Vol. 17, No. 1, 2009, pp. 30–57 ISSN 1069-031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

30

Following a strategic approach, the authors test a universal model across cultural groups. They propose that consumers infer brand values (i.e., internal, external, and fun and enjoyment values) from packages and form their purchase intentions on the basis of those values. The authors test this proposition on three culturally diverse subsamples who evaluated three fictional brands each for one hedonic product (chocolate) and one utilitarian product (salt). The results indicate that variances in consumers’ use of package-evoked brand values are dependent on culture and are specifically driven by consumer values. The decision-making patterns studied seem to be universal in existence but not in relative or absolute importance. The findings underscore the ability of packages to convey meaning in terms of brand values; they also affirm the role of brand values as predictors of consumer purchase intentions depending on cultural groups. The authors conclude by outlining implications for international brand management and research. Should global brands adapt their packages to international markets, or is standardization acceptable? The answer to this question greatly depends on differences and similarities in how consumers form purchase intentions in culturally different markets. More specifically, international marketing managers need to know whether the underlying decision-making process is influenced by cultural or individual characteristics. Therefore, gaining insight into consumer response to packages is important to balance using culture (or national boundaries) as a segmentation criterion with using individual (or noncultural) consumer characteristics across countries (Douglas and Craig 1992). Researchers have begun to address the issue of identifying universal decision-making patterns with definable characteristics that differ within but not across cultures (e.g., Dawar and Parker 1994; Jain 1989; McDonald 1994; McGowan and Sternquist 1998). Such international marketing laws, or universals, are defined as segment- and product-specific consumer behaviors that are invariant across cultures or countries (Dawar and Parker 1994). Identifying marketing universals assists managers in choosing more effectively between emphasizing cultural differences and playing up differences at the individual consumer level when formulating international segmentation decisions. In this research, we adhere to an acknowledged approach (Dawar and Parker 1994) to test for universality of consumer behavior regarding package design. The contextual setting includes Turkey and Germany. In line with the European Union enlargement, economical interactions between

current and prospective members increase steadily. To date, many European Union enterprises have entered new markets in prospective member states, and they are becoming increasingly interested in capturing cross-border consumer segments. In particular, German companies marketing to Turkey (and Turkish companies marketing to Germany) have the choice of offering products and packages standardized for both countries or differentiated locally. Thus, a major question is whether there are patterns in consumer behavior that are stable across cultures (De Mooij 2004). The main reason we chose to examine Turkey and Germany is that they represent two culturally diverse countries with different values, beliefs, attitudes, and ways of doing things (Kabasakal and Bodur 2002; Yavas and Benkenstein 2007). For example, prior research has found differences in how consumers in both countries use brands as signals of product positions (Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela 2006). Minor reasons for choosing to examine Turkey include a dearth of studies on Turkish immigrants’ behavior in Germany and the unique role of Turkey as a traditional gatekeeper between Orient and Occident. When examining consumer response to brand communications, previous international and cross-cultural studies have almost exclusively focused on advertising; in contrast, package design has attracted little attention. Nevertheless, managers and scholars attach significant importance to package design because of its pervasive impact on purchasers, its presence at the crucial moment when the purchase decision is made, and consumers’ high level of involvement when they actively scan packages in their decision making (Bloch 1995; Garber, Burke, and Jones 2000; Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer 2005; Rettie and Brewer 2000; Schoormans and Robben 1997). Thus, the term “package design” broadly spans engineering-related attributes as well as visual and aesthetic aspects (Bloch 1995). The resulting appearance is often an integral part of a brand’s image, sometimes designed to convey external value (e.g., packages with images of public and socially relevant brand benefits) and sometimes designed to signal an internal value (e.g., packages with minimalistic Zen-like stills). Particularly relevant to this research is package design’s ability to assist in building strong brands by distinguishing offers and conveying meaning (Batra and Homer 2004; Berkowitz 1987; Bloch 1995; Henderson et al. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004; Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Underwood 2003). To develop hypotheses and arguments regarding the existence and absolute and relative importance of culturally invariant patterns of consumer behavior, our study draws on consumer values (Kahle, Beatty, and Homer 1986) and congruity theory (Fiske and Taylor 1991; Sirgy et al. 1997). Personal values have been found to be useful for predicting a variety of consumption behaviors (Donoho, Herche, and Swenson 2003; Homer and Kahle 1988; Kahle 1996; Kropp et al. 2000; Rokeach 1973). Because they are shaped through the assimilation of environmental information, personal values are directly related to culture (Rokeach 1973), and particular cultures share specific distributions of value systems (De Mooij 2004). Given their cultural specificity and critical influence on consumption behavior, personal values are a key

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

31

instrument for evaluating behavioral similarities and differences across cultures (Kahle 2000). The remainder of this article is organized around Dawar and Parker’s (1994) procedure to test for marketing universals. To develop arguments on the existence and importance of consumer package-inferred values shopping, we first discuss the ability of package design to convey meaning as a key communication tool. Second, we review the role of personal values in influencing consumer decision making and offer the concept of package-evoked brand values. Third, we draw on congruity work to predict the individual versus cultural specificity of the values inferred from packages and their impact on consumer purchase intention. The empirical study is based on data collected from three culturally diverse populations located in two countries: native Turkish, those born and residing in Turkey; fourth-generation German Turkish, those born and living in Germany; and native Germans. Then, our analyses test for the existence and absolute and relative importance of consumers’ use of package-inferred brand values and for individual versus cultural differences. The article concludes with a review of the empirical evidence for consumers’ shopping package–inferred brand values and derives implications for international brand management. We acknowledge limitations to the current study and highlight opportunities for further research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Package Design

We hypothesize that package design conveys brand values that lead to differential purchase intentions with consumers. The basis for this prediction rests on the ability of package design to convey brand meaning (Orth and Malkewitz 2008). In general, the design of a package can elicit a variety of responses from consumers (for an overview, see Bloch 1995). In contrast to previous work addressing aesthetic aspects of design (e.g., Hirschman 1986; Holbrook 1986; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998) or focusing on global cognitive evaluations, such as quality (e.g., Folkes and Matta 2004; Garber, Burke, and Jones 2000; Rahgubir and Krishna 1999; Schoormans and Robben 1997), our research focuses on the meaning inferred from package design, specifically brand values. In general, researchers agree that brand packages should convey the same intended meaning across people (e.g., Borja de Mozota 2003; Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson et al. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004; Rettie and Brewer 2000; Schoormans and Robben 1997; Underwood 2003). To systematically capture and categorize facets of brand meaning in international marketing, several concepts have been put forward (e.g., Aaker, BenetMartinez, and Garolera 2001; Aaker, Fournier, and Adam 2004). From a scholarly perspective, an appropriate concept should allow for the capturing of how consumers express their actual self (Belk 1988; Sirgy 1982), ideal self (Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998), or specific dimensions of the self through brand acquisition and use (Fournier 1998; McCracken 1986). Marketing managers require a concept to be both a means of differentiating a brand (Vernadakis 2000) and a common denominator for marketing a brand across cultures (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Sung and Tinkham 2005).

32

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Values have been conceptualized as the enduring beliefs people hold about specific modes of conduct they believe are important and as the guiding principles in a person’s life (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Schwartz and Sagiv 1995). Prior research has established that values as such guide the resolution of situations (Kahle, Beatty, and Homer 1986) and direct consumer behavior (Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel 2001; Homer and Kahle 1988; Kahle 1996; Kamakura and Novak 1992; Madrigal 1995; Munson 1984; Rokeach 1973; Rose et al. 1994; Shim and Eastlick 1998).

Consumer Values

Values must be distinguished from needs, though Maslow (1943) uses the terms interchangeably. Kahle (1983) makes a clear distinction between physiological needs and cognitive values. Cognitive values can in part represent physiological needs, but values do not go through phases of satiation in the same way as needs. Hunger as a need could go away after a big meal, but a value of being well respected would not necessarily disappear just because someone showed the value holder respect. Needs can be one source of influence in forming cognitive values, but values reflect more influences than just physical needs. Needs are not based on social and thoughtful reflection in the same way that values function. Frequently, consumer values are divided into three dimensions: internal, external, and fun and enjoyment values (Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001; Homer and Kahle 1988; Kahle, Beatty, and Homer 1986; Kahle and Kennedy 1988). Internal values imply that the person believes that he or she can control value fulfillment; internal value facets include self-fulfillment, self-respect, and accomplishment. Internally oriented people strive for control of their life outcomes and believe that their success is due only to their own efforts and achievements. In contrast, external values emphasize fulfillment beyond the control of the individual person and are characterized by attributes such as being well respected, security, a sense of belonging, and warm relationships with others. Externally oriented people do not closely link their actions to outcomes because they tend to believe that events are influenced through external sources, specifically other people. The last dimension, fun and enjoyment values, includes the facets of excitement, fun, and enjoyment. People who greatly value fun and enjoyment hold elements of both external and internal values because they can experience fun either through interaction with other people or by themselves. Table 1 summarizes the personal values concept. Because values emerge continuously through the assimilation of environmental information, they are directly affected by culture (Rokeach 1973). People who belong to a particular culture share the pattern of the same value system (De Mooij 2004; Kahle, Poulos, and Sukhdial 1988). Patterns of values can vary across nations (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Kahle 1996, 2000). People with shared history, geography, climate, and politics may develop similar patterning of values in much the same way they develop culture.

Values and National Culture

A considerable amount of research has closely tied personal values to national culture and has found that values predict similarities or differences in consumer behavior across cultures (De Mooij 2004;

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

33

Table 1. List of Personal Values Overview

Dimension Internal values

External values

Fun and enjoyment values

Values

Description

Self-fulfillment

To find peace of mind and to make the best use of your talents.

Self-respect

To be proud of yourself and confident with who you are.

Sense of accomplishment

To succeed at what you want to do.

Being well respected

To be admired by others and to receive recognition.

Security

To be safe and protected from misfortune and attack.

Sense of belonging

To be accepted and needed by family, friends, and community.

Warm relationships with others

To have close companionships and intimate friendships.

Fun and enjoyment in life

To lead a pleasurable, happy life.

Excitement

To experience stimulation and thrills.

Donoho, Herche, and Swenson 2003; Hofstede 2004; Rokeach 1973). Thus, values can be viewed as the individual cognitive representation of the influence of culture (Rokeach 1973). For example, analyzing the value compositions of consumers in Germany, Denmark, and the United States, Grunert, Grunert, and Beatty (1989) find significant differences that, in turn, account for differences in consumer choice. Beatty, Kahle, and Homer (1991) trace differences in gift-giving behavior between the United States and Japan back to different value systems inherent to those cultures. Assessing personal values in Australia, the United States, Canada, and Israel, Kropp and colleagues (2000) find few differences among Australia, the United States, and Canada but large deviations when those cultures were compared with Israel. In an extension of Kropp’s (Kropp et al. 2000) original work, Kropp and colleagues (2004) find that differences in alcohol consumption among Koreans, Canadians, Australians, and Norwegians were rooted in culturally different external and fun and enjoyment values. In summary, the literature suggests that personal values predict a significant portion of the variance in consumer response to brands across cultures. The literature does not address the question whether the meaning of the same value (e.g., sense of accomplishment) differs radically from country to country or from culture to culture or whether the function of one value is a type of marketing universal (Dawar and Parker 1994; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998).

Brand Values

34

Drawing on the previous discussion, we offer brand values as a concept that helps globally acting firms more effectively tailor brands to buyer groups. A substantial body of evidence has linked values to brands. For example, in his pioneering work, McCracken (1986) recognizes that cultural values are reflected in brands and, in turn, are transferred to the consumer. By linking brands to their personal values, consumers strengthen brand attachment and buy brands closely aligned with their values (Kim et al. 2006). Package research further suggests that values can be communicated through

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

package design elements (Van den Berg-Weitzel and Van de Laar 2001), thus providing ways for the consumer to express his or her self through purchase or consumption. For example, women buy lipstick not because of obvious benefits, such as “color your lips red,” but rather because of a self-fulfillment value in terms of an increase in attractiveness. Orth and Kahle (2008) report that personal values facilitate the benefits desired in a brand and, ultimately, brand choice. Externally oriented people chose brands that provided social benefits (i.e., brands perceived as trendy or fashionable) and avoided brands that provided good value for the money, whereas internally oriented people chose high-quality brands and brands linked to positive emotions. Similarly, Beatty, Kahle, and Homer (1991) find that external values influence giftgiving behavior. Homer and Kahle (1988) establish that consumers who place greater importance on internal values tend to be more concerned about food additives, in turn leading to patronage of natural food store brands. Dibley and Baker (2001) find that young consumers’ choice of snack food brands was motivated by external values, such as sense of belonging, and fun and enjoyment values. Kropp, Lavack, and Holden (1999) find that external values affect smoking and beer drinking behavior. Theoretically, support for consumers’ use of package design–inferred brand values is rooted in the means–end chain paradigm, in which values are considered the fundamental level in consumer decision making (e.g., Gutman 1982; Reynolds and Gutman 1984). Gutman (1982) and Reynolds and Gutman (1984) show that consumers select products on the basis of attributes. Attributes deliver consequences, and consumers judge the worth of those consequences on the basis of their personal values. The brand personality literature emphasizes traits or attributes, an intermediary construct, whereas the value literature emphasizes the starting point in the means–end logic consumers use. In the context of brands, consumers decide on their purchase on the basis of the values desired and perceived (Kim et al. 2006). In summary, the literature suggests that brand values are an appropriate concept for capturing brand meaning across different cultures. Therefore, in line with testing the existence and importance requirements of universality, we hypothesize the following: H1: Consumers infer brand values from package design across cultures. H2: Package design–inferred brand values explain a significant percentage of the variance in consumer purchase intention across cultures. To further assist managers in balancing using culture (or national boundaries) as a segmentation criterion with using individual (or noncultural) consumer characteristics across countries (Douglas and Craig 1992), we examine the potential of individual-level factors for more effectively segmenting across populations. Congruity theory (Belch 1978; Grubb and Stern 1971; Landon 1974; Levy 1959; Sirgy 1982) implies that the perception of brand values depends on personal values. For example, Phau and Lau (2001) show congruency effects in brand perception for personality traits: Consumers form an impression of a brand by perceiving its person-

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

35

ality as congruent with their own personality, thus projecting their personality onto the brand. Phau and Lau conclude that consumer personality moderates how consumers perceive brands. Given that personal values constitute a fundamental component of a person’s self—possibly even more fundamental than personality and lifestyle (Kim et al. 2006)—similar projections should occur during the perception of brand values. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: H3: Personal values enhance the perception of congruent brand values. Specifically, (a) people with a focus on internal values infer greater internal value from a brand than others, (b) people with a focus on external values infer greater external value from a brand than others, and (c) people with a focus on fun and excitement values infer a greater fun and excitement value from a brand than others. Extending congruity effects beyond the package perception stage would further imply that the effect of package-evoked brand values on purchase intention depends on consumers’ personal values. The recognition that consumers buy products that match their self is widely acknowledged (e.g., Belch 1978; Grubb and Stern 1971; Landon 1974; Levy 1959; Sirgy 1982; Sirgy et al. 1997). In other words, consumers purchase brands that match their selves. Advertising researchers have frequently assessed such congruency effects on purchase intention (e.g., Hong and Zinkhan 1995). Extending these congruity effects from advertising to package design, we expect that congruency effects apply to package-inferred brand values as well. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: H4: Brand values have a stronger effect on purchase intention when they are congruent than when they are incongruent with personal values.

METHOD

Product Categories

36

The method for testing our hypotheses draws from international marketing research (Dawar and Parker 1994; De Mooij 2004; Sivakumar and Nakata 2001; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998), research on values (Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001; Kropp et al. 2000; Orth and Kahle 2008), and research on package design (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003; Henderson et al. 2003; Orth and Malkewitz 2008). Specifically, the methodology involves (1) selecting product categories and example products that are appropriate for the research question, (2) creating stimuli, (3) selecting appropriate samples, (4) assessing consumer responses, (5) examining cross-cultural measurement equivalence, and (6) testing for universality and individual versus cultural differences. There are four major concerns in selecting an appropriate product category. First, product meaning and value (i.e., utilitarian versus hedonic value) should be similar across cultures (De Mooij 2004). For example, drip coffee is widely consumed in Germany, whereas Turkish consumers traditionally consume Turkish mocca (boiling water added to coarsely ground coffee beans directly in the mug). Thus, consumers in selected cultures should be equally familiar with the type of product with a range of readily available brands in the marketplace. Second, to evaluate consumers’ use of brand val-

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

ues as a possible marketing universal, external, internal, and fun and enjoyment values should be logical drivers of purchase decisions in the selected product category. Third, packages for the selected product category should have the potential to convey brand values. Fourth, the category selected should allow researchers to use brand names that are unfamiliar to the sample population. This avoids confounds with different levels of consumer knowledge and brand familiarity (Underwood and Klein 2002). In consideration of these criteria, we selected products from two categories for the study: chocolate as a hedonic product and salt as a utilitarian product (Laurent and Kapferer 1985; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). Central to our research is the ability of packages to evoke brand value perceptions with people who differ in cultural background. We achieved this by manipulating package design characteristics, which have been shown to be an effective means for differentially conveying brand meaning to consumers (Orth and Malkewitz 2008).

Stimuli

To classify and choose experimental stimuli, we adhered to established procedures (Henderson et al. 2003). Considerations for selecting stimuli included choosing packages that could (1) plausibly access consumer values and (2) evoke various levels of brand values with viewers. In addition, we wanted stimuli that were capable of creating varying conditions of perceived congruity with people’s value systems, because they would facilitate examination of the potential of individual-level factors for segmentation across populations. In line with these considerations, we employed experimental packages that were custom developed by an advertising and design agency experienced in marketing to consumers in different cultures. We selected six packages that were assessed to be most suitable for generating differential brand values in a pretest (N = 21) for our experiment: Three portrayed one fictional brand of chocolate, and three portrayed one fictional brand of salt. The agency produced actual stimuli by taking high-resolution digital images of the packages (for examples, see the Appendix). Participants were 822 young consumers recruited in two major cities in Turkey (Istanbul) and Germany (Hamburg) over a period of two months. We selected a young sample population to exclude the potentially distorting influence of education and age (Kahle, Beatty, and Homer 1986; Kahle and Kennedy 1988) and to obtain more homogeneous subsamples (De Mooij 2004; Hofstede 2004). To avoid gender bias, each subsample contained an approximately equal number of male and female consumers. The samples are not nationally representative but can be used for comparison purposes, which is a major issue in cross-national research (Douglas and Craig 1983; Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987).

Sample and Procedure

Note that we selected study participants in Turkey and Germany to test for universality of the consumer behavioral pattern of interest across German and Turkish cultures and to obtain variance in personal values as a basis for examining the potential of this individuallevel factor (versus culture) for segmentation purposes. We report the results for three subsamples labeled native Turkish (TUR: individuals born and living in Turkey), German Turkish (GT:

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

37

Table 2. Key Sample Characteristics

Variable

GER (N = 182)

GT (N = 190)

TUR (N = 451)

25.04

23.83

21.93

Male

51.6%

51.1%

50.2%

Female

48.4%

48.9%

49.8%

Mean age (years) Sex

fourth-generation Turkish individuals born and living in Germany), and native Germans (GER). This distinction is necessary because Turkish consumers represent the largest cultural minority in Germany with possibly differential value compositions due to cultural adaption of the original set transmitted by previous generations through assimilation of German environmental information (e.g., Noble and Schewe 2003). Table 2 shows the key sample characteristics. Collectively, the sample reflects a young, middleclass, and educated consumer group. Participants were assigned randomly to two stimuli each (one for chocolate and one for salt). They completed a questionnaire that measured brand values, purchase intention, personal values, and demographic characteristics. The questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. To increase motivation and involvement with the study task, we gave each respondent a small gift. All participants completed the survey in the language of their choice, in either German or Turkish. We developed multi-item scales of the constructs of interest from existing scales. To assess personal values, we used Kahle’s (1996) list of values. For brand values, we used a carefully adapted version of Kahle’s personal values scale (Kahle and Kennedy 1988). We assessed consumer purchase intentions using the seven-item scale widely used in prior research (Baker and Churchill 1977). We assessed the hedonic and utilitarian value of each product category using the seven-point semantic differential scale that Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) developed and validated. Before the main study, we conducted a pretest of scale items, including a reliability analysis with survey data collected from a nonprobability sample of German students. Cronbach’s alphas were high for all multi-item constructs. Additional feedback collected from Turkish students in Germany to aid scale and stimulus development provided initial evidence for the appropriateness of the package stimuli and the measurement instrument.

RESULTS Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence

A potential pitfall in cross-national comparative research is whether conclusions based on results obtained through the use of measurement scales (i.e., similarities or differences) reflect measurement and scaling artifacts or, instead, real differences between cultural subsamples. To ensure comparability, the equivalence of constructs, samples, and measurement across cultures must be addressed empirically (Mullen 1995). We consider these related issues of translation, calibration, and metric equivalence next. Translation and Calibration Equivalence. Summarized as construct equivalence, translation and calibration equivalence together

38

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

ensure that measurement instruments assess the same meaning in the cultures of interest (Mullen 1995). Translation equivalence is accomplished when a construct is measured by the same questionnaire items in different countries; calibration equivalence exists when the units of measure are the same in different countries. To achieve translation equivalence, we followed established procedures by working with bilingual speakers (Douglas and Craig 2007). We verified accuracy of the German and Turkish questionnaires by using a translation–back-translation procedure with several iterations until we considered the items conceptually equivalent. One main threat to calibration equivalence is inconsistent scoring. For example, respondents in some cultures may be unfamiliar with selected scoring formats, or they may tend to respond in extreme ways (e.g., Japanese only use the positive range of scales, Koreans prefer the scale midpoints). Young consumers in Germany are familiar with the scoring formats employed in our research because they frequently evaluate teachers and lecturers or take part in marketing surveys. Similarly, since high school, young consumers in Turkey are tested through standardized exams that use scales similar to the Likert-type scales employed in our work. To achieve calibration equivalence, we made sure to convert measures in a comparable way in both Turkey and Germany when the instrument was translated. The findings suggest that any cultural bias of specific response styles was minimal. Metric Equivalence. Metric equivalence is accomplished when participants respond to the scales in the same way; it requires establishing the reliability and validity of measures. Following established procedures, we considered metric equivalence by examining reliabilities, factor loadings, and factor structures (Davis, Douglas, and Silk 1981; Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987). If scales are applicable across cultures, patterns of reliability, factor loadings, and factor structure should be similar in the subsamples. We first performed separate evaluations to validate the scales, followed by multigroup analyses. To assess the adequacy of the three-factor measurement model assessing brand values, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Across cultural groups, the three-factor model had a significantly lower chi-square and significantly better fit statistics than alternative one-, two-, and four-factor solutions. In line with prior theory and research, items loaded onto the constructs of internal brand values (self-fulfillment, self-respect, and sense of accomplishment), external brand values (security, sense of belonging, warm relationships with others, and being well respected), and fun and enjoyment brand values (fun and enjoyment in life and excitement). Next, we performed three separate CFAs to examine the adequacy of the three-factor measurement model for each culture. The results indicated that the model has an acceptable fit within each culture. Perhaps more important, average variances extracted (AVEs), composite factor reliabilities (CRs), and the pattern of factor loadings are comparable (see Table 3). We take these findings as evidence for the cross-cultural measurement equivalence of our core brand values construct.

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

39

40 Factor

.81 .80

CFI

NFI

Notes: GFI = goodness-of-fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, and NFI = normed fit index.

.80

GFI

.84

.84

Fun and enjoyment

Fun and enjoyment

.65

Warm relationships with others

Excitement

.74

Sense of belonging

.80 .61

External value

Being well respected

Security

.80

A sense of accomplishment

.82

Loading .87

Internal value

Self-respect

Self-fulfillment

Item

.83

.79

.87

CR

GER

.71

.49

.69

AVE

.86

.87

.85

.86

.83

.63

.76

.78

.82

.84

.89

.80

Loading

.83

.84

.88

CR

GT

.71

.56

.72

AVE

.87

.88

.86

.92

.92

.65

.76

.73

.81

.87

.85

.62

Loading

.92

.83

.83

CR

TUR

.85

.55

.62

AVE

Table 3. Summary Statistics and Reliabilities for Brand Values

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

To assess the adequacy of the three-factor measurement model assessing personal values, we conducted another CFA. Again, the three-factor model had a significantly lower chi-square and significantly better fit statistics than alternative one-, two-, and fourfactor solutions. All factor loadings were considered acceptable except one item, “sense of belonging,” which exhibited a factor loading at the threshold level. Therefore, we removed this item from further analysis. Compatible with prior results (Homer and Kahle 1988), the remaining items loaded onto the constructs of internal values (self-fulfillment, self-respect, and sense of accomplishment), external values (security, warm relationships with others, and being well respected), and fun and enjoyment values (fun and enjoyment in life and excitement). We performed three separate CFAs to examine the adequacy of this model for each culture. Again, the results indicated an acceptable fit of this model within each culture. Given that AVEs, CRs, and the pattern of factor loadings were comparable (Table 4), we deemed the measurement of the consumer values scale to be equivalent across subsamples. Furthermore, to examine the variation in personal values between the subsamples expected for their cultural specificity and desired for subsequent analyses, we performed analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance. Table 5 shows the results indicating differences between the three subsamples as intended. For example, native German respondents placed greater importance on fun and enjoyment values than native Turkish respondents. Note that we aimed to obtain large variance in personal values to determine subsequently the potential of this individual-level factor for segmentation across populations. The results indicated several significant differences in personal value items and factors, enabling us to examine the influence of these variables on the formation and downstream effects of package-evoked brand values. To ascertain whether the selected products represented the utilitarian and hedonic categories, we performed t-tests that compared consumer ratings for both products separately for each culture. The results show that consumers across cultural groups perceive chocolate as a hedonic product and salt as a utilitarian product (TUR: Mhedonic = 2.10 versus Mutilitarian = 4.10, p = .01 for chocolate, and Mhedonic = 5.11 versus Mutilitarian = 3.14, p = .01 for salt; GER: Mhedonic = 2.38 versus Mutilitarian = 5.57, p = .01 for chocolate, and Mhedonic = 5.08 versus Mutilitarian = 2.44, p = .01 for salt; GT: Mhedonic = 2.24 versus Mutilitarian = 4.76, p = .01 for chocolate, and Mhedonic = 4.52 versus Mutilitarian = 2.50, p = .01 for salt). We take these findings as evidence that our initial classification of both chocolate and salt is robust across selected cultures. Regarding the measurement equivalence of the consumer purchase intentions scale, the results of a CFA indicated that all three items load on a single factor with item-to-factor loadings of .67 and greater. For each cultural group, reliability measures were satisfactory, all exceeding commonly accepted threshold levels (CR = .82, AVE = .61). Together, we take these findings as evidence that the psychometric properties of the data from our multiple groups exhibit the same

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

41

42 Factor

.87 .86

CFI

NFI

Notes: GFI = goodness-of-fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, and NFI = normed fit index.

.94

.60

GFI

Excitement

.92

Fun and enjoyment

Fun and enjoyment

.75

Warm relationships with others

.60 .53

External value

Being well respected

Security

.56

A sense of accomplishment

.61

Loading .74

Internal value

Self-respect

Self-fulfillment

Item

.74

.70

.67

CR

GER

.60

.49

.41

AVE

.92

.94

.90

.71

.95

.92

.72

.84

.68

.91

.86

Loading

.82

.92

.86

CR

GT

.70

.74

.68

AVE

.93

.94

.94

.78

.89

.67

.81

.80

.84

.84

.56

Loading

.82

.81

.80

CR

TUR

.70

.59

.57

AVE

Table 4. Summary Statistics and Reliabilities for Personal Values

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

2.03 (1.22)

Sense of accomplishment

(.59)

(.87) (.95)

1.50a 2.65a

1.81 (1.36)

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle 2.18 (1.33) 2.66 (1.42)

Fun and enjoyment in life

Excitement

(1.03) (1.20)

2.14 3.16ab

(1.15)

(1.26)

(1.08)

(1.26)

(1.35)

(1.33)

2.75ac

2.13

2.44

1.75

2.82

(1.48)

(1.40)

(1.32)

(1.38)

(1.42)

2.03b (1.32)

1.87

2.11

2.00a

1.94

2.16

2.03

GT

Notes: Superscripts a, b, and c indicate pairs of mean values that are different (p < .01) on the basis of analysis of variance.

2.42 (1.24)

Fun and Enjoyment Values

Warm relationships

(1.31)

2.70

2.85 (1.51)

Belonging

2.17a (1.16)

1.87 (1.31)

(.99)

Security

1.93

1.90 (1.27)

(.80)

(.91)

2.07

(.78)

2.41ab

(.78)

1.73

2.03

2.05

GER

Being well respected

2.11 (1.04)

1.81 (1.19)

Self-respect

External Values

2.16 (1.20)

1.99 (1.00)

Pooled

Self-fulfillment

Internal Values

Personal Values Mean (SD) (1.07)

(1.36)

(1.11)

(1.29)

(1.25)

(1.28)

(1.43)

(1.62)

2.43bc

2.22

(1.42)

(1.40)

2.32a (1.30)

1.95a

2.92

1.68ab (1.33)

1.90

2.11

1.89b

1.80

2.21

1.96

TUR

.001

.63

.01

.001

.24

.001

.92

.90

.001

.21

.24

.43

Analysis of Variance

Table 5. Personal Values by Subsample

43

coherence of structure. Given the satisfactory degree of measurement equivalence, we proceeded with testing for universality.

Testing for Marketing Universals

Universals in Existence

Dawar and Parker (1994) propose a three-level approach to test for the universality of consumer behavior patterns across cultures. Specifically, their approach involves (1) testing for the existence of a particular behavior, (2) testing for the relative importance of this behavior, and (3) testing for the absolute importance of this behavior. To assist managers in balancing cultural versus individual segmentation, they further suggest exploring the role of individual differences. We fully adopted this procedure. At the first level, we tested whether package-inferred brand values exist across cultures and whether effects exist from those values on purchase intentions (i.e., if correlation coefficients are significant). At the second level, we tested whether the rank order of correlation coefficients between brand values and purchase intentions is similar and whether brand values explain a similar percentage of variance in consumer purchase intention across cultures. At the third level, we directly tested for equality of correlation coefficients. Last, we examined the impact of personal values on the generation of brand values and on their downstream effects of purchase intention. If consumers across cultures exhibit brand values in response to package design and if they use brand values to form purchase intentions, we can conclude that this specific consumer behavior pattern is a marketing universal. We tested for universality separately for each of the two product categories and the three subsamples. Descriptive results indicate that all brand values scored significantly lower than 7 (the endpoint indicating no value is perceived) on the seven-point Likert scale (p < .001). We take these findings as support for H1 and the claim that consumers in all cultures infer brand values from package design for both the hedonic and the utilitarian products. We next examined whether all cultures use brand values to explain purchase intention by employing regression analysis with purchase intention as the dependent variable and brand values as the independent variables. The results indicate significant (p < .01) effects of all brand value dimensions on purchase intention in both product categories and in all three subsamples (see Table 6). Together, they explain between 17% and 26% of the variance in purchase intention. We take these findings as support for H2. Furthermore, we conclude that consumer use of package-inferred brand values is a marketing universal.

Universals in Relative Importance

44

To test whether the rank order of brand values used to form purchase intention is comparable across cultures, we more closely examined the regression coefficients obtained in the previous analyses. Considering the magnitude of correlation coefficients to establish rank orders indicates that both native German and native Turkish respondents use internal brand values over fun and excitement brand values to form purchase intentions of chocolate, the hedonic product (GER: .33 [βINT] > .18 [βFUN] > .00 [βEXT]; TUR: .30 [βINT] > .27 [βFUN] > .00 [βEXT]). German Turkish respondents use internal and fun and enjoyment brand values in reversed order. Result patterns further differ for the utilitarian product, salt: Both

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle .02

.18*a,b

Fun and enjoyment brand value

.19 .00

.28*a,b .05a,b

External brand value

Fun and enjoyment brand value

.21

.17

Total

R2adj.

16.94

12.86

F

.20*a

.11a

.24*a

.27*a,c

.08

.24*b

Beta

.04

.00

.17

.05

.00

.18

Partial

R2adj.

.21

.23

Total

TUR R2adj.

40.42

48.84

F

.19*b

.11b

.27*b

.38*b,c

.10

.17*a,b

Beta

*Correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01. Notes: Superscripts a, b, and c indicate that pairs of correlation coefficients are different (p < .01) in magnitude based on partial least squares multigroup analyses.

.02

.21*a,b

Internal brand value

Utilitarian Salt

.00

.00

External brand value

.15

Partial

.33*a

Beta

Internal brand value

Hedonic Chocolate

Purchase Intention = f {…}

GER R2adj.

.03

.00

.19

.22

.00

.04

Partial

GT R2adj.

.22

.26

Total R2adj.

18.49

23.61

F

Table 6. Results of Regression Analyses by Stimulus and Culture

45

native Turkish and German Turkish respondents use internal brand values over fun and enjoyment values to form purchase intentions, but native German consumers use external over internal values. The explanatory power of package design–inferred brand values reaches a similar order of magnitude with all three groups, with the explained percentage of variance ranging from 17% (GER) to 26% (GT) for the hedonic product and from 21% (GER) to 22% (GT) for the utilitarian product (Table 6). In summary, evidence for universality in relative importance is weak at best. Specifically, the rank orders of brand values used to form purchase intentions differ across subsamples.

Universals in Absolute Importance

Individual Versus Cultural Differences

In the final step, we tested for equality of correlation coefficients, employing a partial least squares multigroup analysis (Fornell and Bookstein 1982; Wold 1985). In particular, we tested whether the effect of the three brand values on purchase intention within each product category is equal across cultural subsamples. The results indicate that many differences between path coefficients are significant. We take these findings as evidence that universality in absolute importance of consumer brand values use does not exist. Because we do not find universality in absolute importance (and only limited universality in relative importance), we conclude that cultural segmentation based on brand values use may be justified. Next, we explore the potential of consumer values (which are closely tied to national culture) for segmentation across populations. To test the hypothesized interactions between personal values and consumer formation of brand values, we employed analysis of covariance. The results indicate that respondents scoring high on internal values inferred greater internal brand value from a package (Fstimulus = 6.62, Fpersonal internal value = 9.07, Fstimulus × personal value = 4.23; p = .001, η = .23), respondents scoring high on external values inferred greater external brand value (Fstimulus = 6.56, Fpersonal external value = 23.17, Fstimulus × personal value = 2.03; p = .001, η = .31), and respondents scoring high on fun and enjoyment inferred greater fun and enjoyment brand value (Fstimulus = 1.24, Fpersonal fun and enjoyment value = 11.20, Fstimulus × personal value = .74; p = .001, η = .13). We take these results to support H3a–H3c and the claim that personal values enhance the perception of brand values. When we tested interaction effects separately for each product category, we found significant effects involving personal values only for chocolate, the hedonic product. For chocolate, an internal value orientation facilitated perception of internal brand values (Fstimulus = 7.06, Fpersonal internal value = 24.46, Fstimulus × personal value = 3.13; p = .001, η = .43), an external value orientation facilitated external brand value (Fstimulus = 7.05, Fpersonal external value = 18.61, Fstimulus × personal value = 1.68; p = .001, η = .45), and a fun and enjoyment orientation facilitated fun and enjoyment brand value (Fstimulus = 3.15, Fpersonal fun and enjoyment value = 19.13, Fstimulus × personal value = 1.73; p = .001, η = .48). For salt, internal, external, and fun and enjoyment value orientation did not facilitate the perception of corresponding brand values. We take this evidence to mean that personal values shape consumer perceptions of brand values for hedonic but not utilitarian products.

46

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

H4 suggests that brand values have a stronger effect on purchase intention when personal values are congruent rather than incongruent with brand values. We conducted three regression analyses for each value dimension with purchase intention as the dependent variable, assessing (1) the effect of the package-inferred brand value, (2) effects of the package-inferred brand value and an interaction term with the corresponding personal value, and (3) the effect of the personal value dimension only. The hypothesized moderating role of personal values could be confirmed by showing that the partial regression coefficient of the interaction term is significant and the percentage of explained variance increases (Netemeyer, Durvasula, and Lichtenstein 2001). As Table 7 shows, personal values did not moderate brand value effects on purchase intention for any brand value when we pooled the data across product categories. However, when we analyzed the data separately for the hedonic and utilitarian products, personal fun and enjoyment values moderated the influence of the corresponding brand value. In this case, a fun and enjoyment brand value increased consumer purchase intention (β = .39, R2adj. = .14). However, when this perception coincides with a fun and enjoyment orientation, the effect of the interaction term is significant (.10) in addition to a significant main effect (.34), and the explained variance increases to .15. Overall, we take this evidence as insufficient support for H4. Taken together, the results suggest that personal values exert a significant influence on the formation and downstream effects of package-inferred brand values. However, we must caution that this analysis is limited to young consumers, two products, and two countries and therefore must be considered exploratory. We can conclude that cultural factors, especially underlying personal values, determine consumer use of package-inferred brand values in this context. Thus, segmenting by cultural group seems to be more relevant than segmenting by individual people. Extending the stream of research on marketing universals, we suggest that consumers across cultures infer brand values from packages and form purchase intentions on the basis of value perceptions. Using a multicultural sample, we find that brand value perceptions are evoked during exposure to a brand’s package and that those brand values have a significant impact on brand purchase intention. However, the results also indicate that some managerially meaningful differences exist in how consumers in different cultures infer brand values and in how they use brand values to form purchase intentions. Our analyses indicate that both variances in value formation and downstream influences depend on culture and are likely to be driven by personal values. We outline implications of the differences found at each of the three levels of universality and for different consumer value compositions next.

DISCUSSION Managerial Implications

Our analysis indicates that package design–inferred brand values are universal. Specifically, consumers across cultures exhibited brand values in response to brand packages, and they formed purchase intentions on the basis of those values. This finding has implications for package design’s use as a communication vehicle

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

47

Table 7. Results of Regression Analyses

Purchase Intention = f {…}

R2adj.

F

.31*

.09

74.11

.31* –.01

.09

37.01

Beta

Chocolate Internal Brand Value Internal brand value × internal personal value Internal personal value

.03

.01

.51

.30*

.09

67.63

.30* –.01

.09

33.79

.05

.01

1.46

.39*

.15

122.37

Fun and enjoyment brand value × fun and enjoy- .34* ment personal value +.09

.15

64.44

Fun and enjoyment personal value

.07

.03

3.25

.39*

.15

70.17

.40* –.04

.15

34.99

External Brand Value External brand value × external personal value External personal value Fun and Enjoyment Brand Value

Salt Internal Brand Value Internal brand value × internal personal value Internal personal value

.07

.01

1.97

.35*

.12

52.43

.31* +.07

.12

26.87

.08

.06

2.20

.46*

.21

103.02

Fun and enjoyment brand value × fun and enjoy ment personal value

.44* +.04

.21

51.77

Fun and enjoyment personal value

–.01

.01

.08

.43*

.18

183.96

.43* –.01

.18

91.87

External Brand Value External brand value × external personal value External personal value Fun and Enjoyment Brand Value

Pooled Internal Brand Value Internal brand value × internal personal value Internal personal value External Brand Value External brand value × external personal value External personal value Fun and Enjoyment Brand Value Fun and enjoyment brand value × fun and enjoyment personal value Fun and enjoyment personal value

.05

.01

2.09

.39*

.15

150.91

.40* –.02

.15

75.49

.05

.01

2.33

.42*

.18

174.94

.41* +.03

.17

87.69

.08

.01

5.74

*p < .01.

and for managers’ use of the brand values concept for strategic planning. Because consumers rely on packages to form purchase intentions, international marketing managers must pay more attention to package design as a communication vehicle across cultures. Given the prominence of brand packages in different contexts and settings, it

48

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

seems particularly useful that packages can be created to transfer meaning designed to resonate with a selected target group. Because our research shows that package designs can vary greatly in terms of the brand value perceptions they evoke, companies can more accurately convey brand meaning to target audiences using packages. Ultimately, those package-evoked values should translate into gains in brand strength and equity. Initially, managers must determine what value impressions are desirable for their brand. Then, appropriate designs can be created to achieve these desired responses (Orth and Malkewitz 2008). Managerial insight into the values their brand’s package conveys will also improve brand positioning and package design selection. Overall, our study provides evidence of the communicative power of packages and suggests that package design and the personal values of target groups should be at the forefront of managers’ branding strategies. For example, Butler adapted the package design of Life Time, a German deodorant marketed to women, to Japanese consumers. The Japanese design includes softer colors and a less contrasting layout to create a more emotional appeal appropriate for a culture that expects its women to be gentle and caring (Van den Berg-Weitzel and Van de Laar 2001). Another example is Bayer’s marketing of its painkiller. Aspirin packages in Germany and the United States demonstrate cultural differences. For the German market, the package downplays the drug name aspirin, which is displayed nonprominently and in muted and single colors. The packaging provides only basic information and conveys with its design Bayer’s professionalism. In contrast, for the U.S. market, the aspirin package features flashier colors and a more aggressive typography in line with the trend toward lifestyle pharmaceuticals in that market. Moreover, in tailoring their brand communications toward international segments, managers should consider using the brand values concept for systematically capturing and categorizing facets of brand meaning. As an alternative concept, brand values seem to be comparable, if not superior, to established concepts (Aaker, BenetMartinez, and Garolera 2001; Shen, Bei, and Wu 2006; Sung and Tinkham 2005). The partial violation of the relative importance criterion and the clear violation of the absolute importance criterion found in our research have additional implications. Given that consumers in different cultures base their purchase intention on different brand values, managers must adapt rather than standardize the values their brand stands for to cultural segments. Whereas the internal values of a brand may be the strongest driver of purchases in one culture, fun and enjoyment values may be the main driver in another. The finding of differential effects for hedonic and utilitarian products further suggests that brand values should be tailored to local cultures, especially for consumer packaged goods with mostly hedonic value. Along similar lines, the finding that consumers develop brand value perceptions in congruence with their personal values implies that managers may be able to tailor more effectively brand communications to culturally homogeneous consumer groups by focusing on consumer values. Brand managers should differentiate brands

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

49

with respect to values and integrate those into brand designs for eliciting the responses desired in a specific culture. For example, tailoring a brand to internally oriented target groups requires emphasizing the brand’s value in terms of bolstering consumer self-fulfillment, self-respect, or sense of accomplishment. Relevant outcomes include peace of mind, best use of one’s talents, being proud of oneself and confident, and succeeding at what one does. To target externally oriented audiences successfully, managers must convey how the brand assists consumers in being well respected, conveying a sense of belonging, and having a warm relationship with others. This can be accomplished by demonstrating how the brand enables consumers to be admired by others; to receive recognition; to be accepted and needed by family, friends, and community; and to have close companionships and intimate friendships. To be effective with fun and enjoyment–oriented groups, brand designs must communicate how the brand assists buyers in leading a pleasurable, happy life or in experiencing stimulation and thrill. The brand values concept may also be beneficial in ethnomarketing aimed at subcultures that differ in cultural values from those of a country’s majority population. For example, in Germany, companies such as Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank have begun to target Turkish customers with special offers reflecting their specific cultural values. Volkswagen’s new branding campaign involves print and television advertisements featuring the story of young men who ask a woman's father for permission to marry her. Only the Volkswagen owner receives the father’s permission, and the couple drives away happily. The current research examines the Turkish minority in Germany as an example, but basic mechanisms can be extrapolated to other groups, such as Hispanic consumers in the United States, North Africans in France, Indian and Pakistani minorities in England, and small European consumer groups in Asia. In all these cases, marketers must learn the value compositions of target audiences and then create brand designs that match those values.

Theoretical Implications

50

Within the constraints of the research setup, this study makes several contributions to the literature on cross-cultural branding, package design, and values. First, answering calls for additional research on marketing universals (Dawar and Parker 1994; Douglas and Craig 1992; Jain 1989; McDonald 1994), we present initial evidence that brand values may be a key instrument for more effectively marketing brands according to similarities and differences in consumer behavior across cultures. Researchers have begun to address the issue of identifying decision-making patterns with definable characteristics that differ within but not across cultures (e.g., Dawar and Parker 1994; Douglas and Craig 1992; Jain 1989; McDonald 1994; McGowan and Sternquist 1998). Although there is general agreement that brand communications should convey the same intended meaning across people (e.g., Borja de Mozota 2003; Henderson et al. 2003), previous work has most often employed the brand personality concept (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Aaker, Fournier, and Adam 2004; Sung and Tinkham 2005). Extending research on the links between personal values and national culture (De Mooij 2004; Donoho, Herche, and Swenson

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

2003; Grunert, Grunert, and Beatty 1989; Hofstede 2004; Kahle 2000; Kropp et al. 2004), we suggest that culturally specific personal values shape the brand values consumers infer from packages. If follow-up studies were to corroborate our findings, employing the brand values concept could be a step toward more effectively explaining similarities and differences in consumer behavioral patterns across cultures. Second, previous research has highlighted the ability of package design to convey meaning and to assist in building strong brands by distinguishing offerings and by evoking favorable consumer impressions (Bloch 1995; Henderson et al. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004; Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Underwood 2003). We found that package design conveys brand values, which in turn explained a significant percentage of the total variance in purchase intention. Given established effects of package design on brand personality perceptions (Orth and Malkewitz 2008), our findings underscore the communicative power of packages and add a new perspective to theorizing on inference mechanisms. The explanation we offer advances our understanding by extending congruency effects researched in advertising (e.g., Hong and Zinkhan 1995; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Sirgy 1985) to consumer evaluation of packages across cultures. Finally, in line with previous research, the role of consumer values in predicting consumption behavior within and across cultures could be corroborated (Kahle 1996; Rokeach 1973). Whereas prior research has directly linked personal values with brands (e.g., Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001; Dibley and Baker 2001; Orth and Kahle 2008), the current study extends findings toward more intricate consumer–brand relationships (e.g., Fournier 1998; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; McCracken 1986). Recognizing that personal values are reflected in brands and transferred to the consumer (Kim et al. 2006; McCracken 1986), we suggest that consumers in different cultures infer brand values from packages. This finding also adds a new perspective to means–end chain theory, in which values are considered the fundamental level in consumer decision making (e.g., Gutman 1982; Reynolds and Gutman 1984). The lesser predictive power of brand values for the selected utilitarian product underscores the need for distinguishing between hedonic and utilitarian categories (Laurent and Kapferer 1985; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). Although we believe that this research meaningfully extends the current literature on global brand management, some questions remain for future inquiries. A caveat for this study is the sample of young consumers in two countries and the question of generalizability. In line with cross-cultural scholars, we accounted for the necessity of researching homogeneous and possibly matching samples (De Mooij 2004; Hofstede 2004; Kahle, Beatty, and Homer 1986; Kahle and Kennedy 1988). However, it cannot be excluded that different effects could occur when the study is replicated with consumer populations in different cultures, with different value compositions, in contexts in which package design has a divergent salience, or with drastically different product categories. Caveats notwithstanding, we believe that our results provide a starting

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

Limitations and Further Research

51

point by showing the limited universality of consumers using package-evoked brand values to form purchase intentions. Further research is needed on the relationship between package design characteristics and brand values with particular attention to possible cultural differences. In particular, relationships between brand values and package design elements (e.g., form, size, typeface, logos, pictorial, color schemes) should be investigated across international markets to determine design characteristics suitable for achieving desired consumer responses. A lack of insight into the relationships between package design and consumer value response leads to inefficiencies in achieving brand management objectives and leaves managers and designers in the dark on what design to use for stimulating desired value impressions with international audiences. Companies need guidelines for selecting package designs suited best for achieving brand management goals in different cultural settings.

Appendix. Example Stimuli

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L., Verónika Benet-Martinez, and Jordi Garolera (2001), “Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (3), 492–508. ———, Susan Fournier, and Adam S. Brasel (2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 1–16. Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill (1977), “The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 538–55. Batra, Rajeev and Pamela M. Homer (2004), “The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 318–30. ———, ———, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Values, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), 115–28. Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, and Pamela M. Homer (1991), “Personal Values and Gift-Giving Behavior: A Study Across Cultures,” Journal of Business Research, 20 (2), 183–90.

52

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Belch, George E. (1978), “Belief Systems and the Differential Role of the Self-Concept,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H.K. Hund, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 320–25. Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68. Berkowitz, Max (1987), “Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4 (4), 274–83. Blackwell, Roger D., Paul W. Miniard, and James F. Engel (2001), Consumer Behavior, 9th ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16–29. ———, Frédéric F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003), “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 551–65. Borja de Mozota, Brigitte (2003), Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. New York: Allworth Press. Davis, Harry L., Susan P. Douglas, and Alvin J. Silk (1981), “Measure Unreliability: A Hidden Threat to Cross-National Marketing Research?” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Spring), 98–108. Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 81–95. De Mooij, Marieke (2004), Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for Global Marketing and Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dibley, Anne and Susan Baker (2001), “Uncovering the Links Between Brand Choice and Personal Values Among Young British and Spanish Girls,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1 (1), 77–94. Donoho, Casey L., Joel Herche, and Michael J. Swenson (2003), “A Cross Cultural Study of the Effects of Achievement and Relationship Values on Student Evaluations of Personal Selling Ethical Dilemmas,” Marketing Education Review, 13 (3), 53–63.

THE AUTHORS Yonca Limon is a doctoral student (e-mail: [email protected]), and Ulrich R. Orth is a professor and chair (e-mail: [email protected]), A&F Marketing, Christian-AlbrechtsUniversity, Kiel. Lynn R. Kahle is Professor of Marketing, Charles H. Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon (e-mail: [email protected]).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Roger Calantone and thank Zeynep Gürhan-Canli for her comments and support in data collection. They gratefully acknowledge the firm boy. Strategie und Kommunikation for creating the stimuli. Data collection in Turkey was facilitated through a travel grant provided by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to the first author.

Douglas, Susan P. and C. Samuel Craig (1983), International Marketing Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ——— and ——— (1992), “Advances in International Marketing,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9 (4), 291–318. ——— and ——— (2007), “Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to Back Translation,” Journal of International Marketing, 15 (1), 30–43. Elliott, Richard and Kritsadarat Wattanasuwan (1998), “Brand as Symbolic Resources for the Construction of Identity,” International Journal of Advertising, 17 (2), 131–44. Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait, and Ana Valenzuela (2006), “Brands as Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (January), 34–49. Fiske, Susan T. and Shelly E. Taylor (1991), Social Cognition, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Folkes, Valerie and Shashi Matta (2004), “The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 390–401.

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

53

Fornell, C. and F. Bookstein (1982), “Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 440–52. Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–73. Garber, Lawrence L., Raymond R. Burke, and J. Morgan Jones (2000), “The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice,” Report No. 00-104. Boston: Marketing Science Institute, 1–46. Grubb, Edward L. and Bruce L. Stern (1971), “Self-Concept and Significant Others,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 382–85. Grunert, Klaus G., Susanne C. Grunert, and Sharon E. Beatty (1989), “Cross-Cultural Research on Consumer Values,” Marketing and Research Today, 17 (1), 30–39. Gutman, Jonathan (1982), “A Means–End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 60–72. Henderson, Pamela W. and Joseph A. Cote (1998), “Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 14–30. ———, ———, Siew Meng Leong, and Bernd Schmitt (2003), “Building Strong Brands in Asia: Selecting the Visual Components of Image to Maximize Brand Strength,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (4), 297–313. ———, Joan L. Giese, and Joseph A. Cote (2004), “Impression Management Using Typeface Design,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 60–72. Hertenstein, Julie H., Marjorie B. Platt, and Robert W. Veryzer (2005), “The Impact of Industrial Design Effectiveness on Corporate Financial Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1), 3–21. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), “The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli on Aesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 27–34. Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ——— (2004), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), 337–47. Homer, Pamela M. and Lynn R. Kahle (1988), “A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4), 638–46. Hong, Jae W. and George M. Zinkhan (1995), “Self-Concept and Advertising Effectiveness: The Influence of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode,” Psychology and Marketing, 12 (1), 53–77. Jain, Subhash C. (1989), “Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 70–79. Kabasakal, Hayat and Muzaffer Bodur (1999), “Arabic Cluster: A Bridge Between East and West,” Journal of World Business, 37 (1), 40–54. Kahle, Lynn R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. New York: Praeger. ——— (1996), “Social Values and Consumer Behavior: Research from the List of Values,” in The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium,

54

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Vol. 8, Clive Seligman, James M. Olson, and Mark P. Zanna, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 135–51. ——— (2000), Cross-National Consumer Psychographics. Binghampton, UK: Haworth Hospitality Press. ———, Sharon E. Beatty, and Pamela M. Homer (1986), “Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Lifestyles (VALS),” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (December), 405–409. ——— and Patricia Kennedy (1988), “Using the List of Values (LOV) to Understand Consumers,” Journal of Services Marketing, 2 (4), 49–56. ———, Basil Poulos, and Ajay Sukhdial (1988), “Changes in Social Values in the United States During the Past Decade,” Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (1), 35–41. Kamakura, Wagner A. and Thomas P. Novak (1992), “Value-System Segmentation: Exploring the Meaning of LOV,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 119–32. Kim, Woo-Sung., David M. Boush, Adam Marquardt, and Lynn R. Kahle (2006), “Values, Brands, and Image,” in Creating Images and the Psychology of Marketing Communication, L.R. Kahle and C. Kim, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 279–90. Kropp, Frederic, Marilyn Jones, Gregory Rose, Aviv Shoham, Bella Florenthal, and Bongjin Cho (2000), “Group Identities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Values and Group Influences,” Journal of Euromarketing, 8 (1/2), 117–31. ———, Anne M. Lavack, and Stephen J.S. Holden (1999), “Smokers and Beer Drinkers: Values and Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (6), 536–57. ———, ———, David Silvera, and Joanna R. Gabler (2004), “University Alcohol Consumption: A Cross-Cultural Study of Attitudes, Values, Identity and Consumer Influence,” Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 12 (1), 1–28. Landon, E. Laird (1974), “Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Consumer Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (2), 44–51. Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (February), 41–53. Levy, Sidney J. (1959), “Symbols for Sale,” Harvard Business Review, 37 (4), 117–24. Madrigal, Robert (1995), “Personal Values, Traveler Personality Type and Leisure Travel Style,” Journal of Leisure Research, 27 (2), 125–42. Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, 50, 370–96. McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand Community,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 38–54. McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 71–84. McDonald, William (1994), “Developing International Direct Marketing Strategies with a Consumer Decision-Making Content Analysis,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 8 (4), 18–27. McGowan, Karen M. and Brenda J. Sternquist (1998), “Dimensions of Price as a Marketing Universal: A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Consumers,” Journal of International Marketing, 6 (4), 49–65.

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

55

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39–54. Mullen, Michael (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in CrossNational Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (3), 573–96. Munson, Michael J. (1984), “Personal Values: Consideration on Their Measurement and Application to Five Areas of Research Inquiry,” in Personal Values and Consumer Psychology, R.E. Pitts and A.G. Woodside, eds. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 13–29. Netemeyer, Richard G., Srinivas Durvasula, and Donald R. Lichtenstein (1991), “A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 320–27. Noble, Stephanie M. and Charles D. Schewe (2003), “The Globalization of Values: A Comparison of the United States and the Kingdom of Jordan,” working paper, Lund Institute of Economic Research Working Paper Series. Orth, Ulrich R. and Lynn R. Kahle (2008), “Intrapersonal Variation in Consumer Susceptibility to Normative Influence: Toward a Better Understanding of Brand Choice Decisions,” Journal of Social Psychology, 148 (4), 423–48. ——— and Keven Malkewitz (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 64–81. Parameswaran, Ravi and Attila Yaprak (1987), “A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures,” Journal of International Business Studies, 18 (Spring), 35–49. Phau, Ian and Kong Cheen Lau (2001), “Brand Personality and Consumer Self-Expression: Single or Dual Carriageway?” Brand Management, 8 (6), 428–44. Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26. Rettie, Ruth and Carol Brewer (2000), “The Verbal and Visual Components of Package Design,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9 (1), 56–70. Reynolds, Thomas J. and Jonathan Gutman (1984), “Advertising Is Image Management,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (1), 27–37. Rokeach, Milton (1973), The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press. Rose, Gregory M., Aviv Shoham, Lynn R. Kahle, and Rajeev Batra (1994), “Social Values, Conformity, and Dress,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24 (17), 1501–1519. Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Henry S.J. Robben (1997), “The Effect of New Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization and Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 18 (2/3), 271–87. Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Mark Zanna, ed. St. Louis: Elsevier, 1–65. ——— and Wolfgang Bilsky (1987), “Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 550–62. ——— and Lilach Sagiv (1995), “Identifying Culture-Specifics in the Content and Structure of Values,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26 (1), 92–116.

56

Yonca Limon, Lynn R. Kahle, and Ulrich R. Orth

Shen, Yung-Cheng, Lien-Ti Bei, and Chih-Yun Wu (2006), “Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Brand Personality in Print Media: The Case of Mainland China and Taiwan,” in Creating Images and the Psychology of Marketing Communication, Lynn R. Kahle and Chung-Hyun Kim, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 351–63. Shim, Soyoen and Mary Ann Eastlick (1998), “The Hierarchical Influence of Personal Values on Mall Shopping Attitude and Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (1), 139–60. Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287–300. ——— (1985), “Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation,” Journal of Business Research, 13 (3), 195–206. ———, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-Ok Park, Kye-Sung Chon, Claudius B. Claiborne, Vic J.S. Johar, and Harold Berkman (1997), “Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring SelfImage Congruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229–41. Sivakumar, K. and Cheryl Nakata (2001), “The Stampede Toward Hofstede’s Framework: Avoiding the Sample Design Pit in Cross-Cultural Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3), 555–74. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner (1998), “Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 78–90. Sung, Yongjun and Spencer F. Tinkham (2005), “Brand Personality Structures in the United States and Korea: Common and Culture-Specific Factors,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 334–50. Underwood, Robert L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of Product Package: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 62–76. ——— and Noreen M. Klein (2002), “Package as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (4), 58–68. Van den Berg-Weitzel, Lianne and Gaston Van de Laar (2001), “Relation Between Culture and Communication in Package Design,” Brand Management, 8 (3), 171–84. Vernadakis, George (2000), “What the ‘Bug’ Can Teach Gates: Brand Personality Goes a Long Way,” Advertising Age, 71 (27), 48. Veryzer, Robert W. and John W. Hutchinson (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–94. Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 310–20. Wold, H. (1985), “Partial Least Squares,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 6, S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 581–91. Yavas, Ugur and Martin Benkenstein (2007), “Service Quality Assessment: A Comparison of Turkish and German Bank Consumers,” Cross-Cultural Management, 14 (2), 161–68.

Package Design as a Communications Vehicle

57