Effects of Color on Consumers’ Perceptions of Package Volumes
Joseph Lajos, HEC Paris School of Management, France
Amitava Chattopadhyay, INSEAD, Singapore
A body of research in marketing has examined the effects of visual biases on consumers’
judgments of product volumes (see Krishna 2007 and Raghubir 2007 for reviews). Although the
potential influences of a package’s proportions and shape on consumers’ judgments of product
volumes have been studied extensively, marketing research has not examined the potential of
package color to bias consumers’ product volume judgments.
Folkes and Matta (2004) observed that attention and size often covary, and provided
evidence that attentional differences contaminate people’s judgments of relative size such that
objects that attract more attention are judged as larger. Their logic is essentially based on
reversing the argument that large sizes attract more attention.
Fashion consultants often suggest that if you want to attract attention, you should wear
red (Manji 2009). Research in psychology confirms the common notion that reds (and other high
wavelength colors) attract more attention than blues and purples (and other low wavelength
colors). Using a variety of methods this research finds that high wavelength colors stand out,
“advance,” and are more noticeable, whereas low wavelength colors fade away, “retreat,” or go
unnoticed (e.g., Johns and Sumner 1948; Luckiesh 1918; Pillsbury and Schaefer 1937; Taylor
and Sumner 1945).
Combining research suggesting that high wavelength colors attract more attention than
low wavelength colors with research suggesting that objects that attract more attention appear
larger leads us to hypothesize that consumers judge products to have greater volumes when their
packages are colored with a high wavelength hue (e.g., red) versus a low wavelength hue (e.g.,
purple).
Consistent with our hypothesis, research in psychology that has examined the effect of
color on people’s size judgments has often found that red objects appear larger than equallysized purple or blue objects (e.g., Bevan and Dukes 1953; Claessen, Overbeeke, and Smets 1995;
Gundlach and Macoubrey 1931; Wallis 1935; Warden and Flynn 1926). It is also notable that
differences in the perceived size of the red and blue areas of the French flag (which are actually
equally sized) resulted in an official recommendation to reduce the size of the red area compared
to that of the blue (Helson 1951).
A weakness of past research on the effect of color on size judgments is that most of this
research did not utilize a standardized color system that differentiates between the various shades
of colors. Another weakness of past research in this domain is that it is solely empirical, and
does not advance a theory to explain the demonstrated results. We report results from three
studies that support our hypothesis.
In study 1, we asked 118 participants to view 30 slides, each of which displayed a pair of
shapes arranged vertically that differed in color, and to report which of the two shapes appeared
larger. On two of the slides, the shapes were actually of an identical size and differed only in
color (red vs. purple and green vs. yellow). Consistent with our hypothesis, significantly more
participants judged the red shape to be larger than the purple shape (N = 55 vs. N = 25), (χ2 (1) =
11.25, p < .01). We also obtained this effect with colors that were closer in wavelength, as
significantly more participants judged the yellow shape to be larger than the green shape than
vice versa (N = 58 vs. N = 22), (χ2 (1) = 16.20, p < .01).
In study 2, we asked 11 participants to view pictures of 12 product packages, to estimate
the volume of each package in fluid ounces, and to answer a series of distracter questions about
each product. We photographed the products next to a can of soda that served as a volume
reference and used professional software to re-color the products’ packages One package, a
bucket of fish food, appeared twice in the series, once colored red and once colored purple.
Consistent with our hypothesis, a within-subjects ANOVA revealed that participants’ estimates
of the volume of the fish food bucket were significantly higher in the red condition (M = 199.09
fl. oz.) than in the purple condition (M = 109.27 fl. oz.), (F(1, 10) = 5.21, p < .05).
In study 3, we asked 16 participants to complete the same procedure as in study 2, but
with different product packages, and the addition questions about willingness to pay and liking
of the package colors. We implemented the red vs. purple color manipulation using a box of
detergent. Consistent with our hypothesis a within-subjects ANOVA revealed that participants’
estimates of the volume of the detergent box were significantly higher in the red condition (M =
3083.33 mL) than in the purple condition (M = 2262.67 mL), (F(1, 14) = 4.64, p < .05). The
color manipulation also affected participants’ willingness to pay for the detergent, which was
significantly higher in the red condition (M = $5.36) than in the purple condition (M = $3.50),
(F(1, 14) = 6.05, p < .05). Participants reported liking packaging of both colors statistically
equally (Mred = -1.87 vs. Mpurple = -.73), (F(1, 14) = 1.32, p > .2). Furthermore, the
aforementioned effect of color on willingness to pay became non-significant when participants’
volume estimates of the red and purple packages were included in the ANOVA as covariates
(F(1, 12) = 0.78, p = .4). In contrast, when participants’ liking of the red and purple colors were
included in the ANOVA as covariates, the effect of color on willingness to pay strengthened
(F(1, 12) = 14.98, p < .005). Together, these results suggest that color influences willingness to
pay via an intermediary influence on volume estimates as opposed to an intermediary influence
on attitude toward the packaging.
References
Banks, William P., Robin Mermelstein, and Howard K. Yu (1982), “Discriminations Among
Perceptual and Symbolic Stimuli,” Memory & Cognition, 10 (3), 265-78.
Bevan, William and William F. Dukes (1953), “Color as a Variable in the Judgment of Size,”
American Journal of Psychology, 66, p.283-88.
Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), “Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A
Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (1),
84-99.
Claessen, J. P., C. J. Overbeeke, and G. J. F. Smets (1995), “Puzzling Colours,” Color Research
and Application, 20 (6), 388-96.
Ekman, Gosta (1958), “Two Generalized Ratio Scaling Methods,” Journal of Psychology, 45,
287-95.
Finn, Adam (1988), “Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing
Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 168-77.
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.
Frayman, Bruce J. and William E. Dawson (1981), “The Effect of Object Shape and Mode of
Presentation on Judgments of Apparent Volume,” Perception and Psychophysics, 29 (1),
56-62.
Gronhaug, Kjell, Olav Kvitastein, and Sigmund Gronmo (1991), “Factors Moderating
Advertising Effectiveness as Reflected in 333 Tested Advertisements,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 31 (5), 42-50.
Gundlach, Carol and Constance Macoubrey (1931), “The Effect of Color on Apparent Size,”
American Journal of Psychology, 43, 109-11.
Helson, Harry (1951), Theoretical Foundations of Psychology, 356.
Johns, Eugene H. and F. C. Sumner (1948), “Relation of the Brightness Differences of Colors to
Their Apparent Distances,” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 26, 2529.
Krider, Robert E., Priya Raghubir, and Aradhna Krishna (2001), “Pizzas: &pi; or Square?
Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons,” Marketing Science, 20 (4), 405-25.
Krishna, Aradhna (2007), “Spatial Perception Research: An Integrative Review of Length, Area,
Volume, and Number Perception,” in Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action, ed.
Michel Wedel and Rik Pieters, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
167-93.
Lennard, Dave, Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, Peter McGoldrick, and Erica Betts (2001), “Why
Consumers Under-Use Food Quantity Indicators,” International Review of Retail,
Distribution & Consumer Research, 11 (2), 177-99.
Luckiesh, M. (1918), “Retiring and Advancing Colors,” American Journal of Psychology, 29,
182.
Manji, Moshin (2009), “What Colors to Wear to a Job Interview,” Ezine @rticles, accessed on 3
May 2009 at <http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Colors-To-Wear-To-A-JobInterview&id=1090450>.
Munsell, Alfred H. (1905), A Color Notation, Boston.
Pillsbury, W. B. and B. R. Schaefer (1937), “A Note on Advancing and Retreating Colors,”
American Journal of Psychology, 49, 126-30.
Raghubir, Priya (2007), “Are Visual Perception Biases Hard-Wired?,” in Visual Marketing:
From Attention to Action, ed. Michel Wedel and Rik Pieters, Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 143-67.
Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the
Eye Fool the Stomach?,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 313-26.
Taylor, I.L. and F.C. Sumner (1945), Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 19,
p.79-85.
Teghtsoonian, Martha (1965), “The Judgment of Size,” The American Journal of Psychology, 78
(3), 392-402.
TripleCode (2009), Triplecode Munsell Palette, accessed on 14 April 2009 at
<http://www.triplecode.com/munsell/>.
Wallis, W.A. (1935), “The Influence of Color on Apparent Size,” Journal of General
Psychology, 13, p.193-199.
Wansink, Brian and Koert Van Ittersum (2003), “Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation on
Pouring and Consumption Volume,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 455-63.
Warden, C.J. and E.L. Flynn (1926), “The Effect of Color on Apparent Size and Weight,”
American Journal of Psychology, 37, p.398-401.
Wilson, Timothy and Nancy Brekke (1994), “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction:
Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluation,” Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1),
117-42.
Yang, Sha and Priya Raghubir (2005), “Can Bottles Speak Volumes? The Effect of Package
Shape on How Much to Buy,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 269-81.