DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00349

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2018/50:3 PP.349-357

Effects of display blurriness on consumers' attitude toward products

Based on the Associated Learning Theory, we investigate whether and how the degree of display blurriness affects product attitude. The display blurriness refers to the extent to which a product display is blurry and the product is observable relatively blurry through the semi-transparent packaging or on a picture with Gaussian blur. Softness in this study is an attribute of products such as towels, fabric, tissue, bread and such that are meant to be soft. Our lab experiments show that compared to a low level of display blurriness, a moderate blurriness is likely to induce a higher level of perceived softness, which consequently enhances consumers' positive attitude toward products, namely enhancement effect. However, for higher degrees of blurriness, this positive attitude is reversed. This is because a high level of display blurriness also simultaneously arouses consumes' negative emotion toward the product, which in turn offsets the initial positive effect on product attitude. In addition, we find that the enhancement effect of a moderate level of display blurriness on consumers' attitude toward a product is moderated by product category. When softness is a positive attribute of the product category, the enhancement effect exists. On the other hand, when softness is a negative attribute for the product category, a moderate level of display blurriness eventually impairs consumers' attitude.
We tested these hypotheses in four lab experiments. The first experiment examined the effect of display blurriness on consumers' attitude toward products. Participants were randomly assigned to four groups and were shown a product with different degrees of display blurriness (control group, low level of blurriness, moderate level, and high level of blurriness groups). After observing a packaged product, they were asked to fill an attitude scale toward that product. Experiment 2 and 3 were aimed to test the process mechanisms underlying the display blurriness-attitude relationship. In these two experiments, participants were asked to look at the photograph of a product, then rate their attitude, perceived softness and negative emotion toward that product. Experiment 4 examined the moderation role of product category on the positive relationship between level of display blurriness (moderate) and consumers' attitude toward products. 69 students participated in the 2 (blurred display[between-subjects]:low/moderate level)×2 (product category[within-subjects]:bread/electric kettle) mixed design experiment. Participants saw two product photographs and then rated an attitude scale. The order of the presenting of the two product photographs was randomized.
The results of experiment 1 identified the effect of displayed blurriness on consumers' attitude, F (3,113)=14.043, p < 0.001. Specifically, a moderate level of display blurriness enhances consumers' attitude relative to both high (4.08 vs. 3.08, p < 0.001) and low levels (4.08 vs. 3.71, p=0.036) of display blurriness. Experiments 2 provided evidence that perceived softness mediated the display blurriness-attitude relationship in moderate vs. low level of display blurriness contrast, but failed to prove the mediating role of negative emotion in moderate vs. high level of display blurriness contrast. Experiments 3 proved that negative emotion is the underlying mechanism through which high level of display blurriness impairs consumers' attitude relative to moderate level of display blurriness. Experiments 4 demonstrated that perceived softness and product quality evaluation simultaneously mediate the relationship between the display blurriness and consumers' attitude in low vs. moderate level of display blurriness contrast. In addition, experiments 4 revealed a two-way interaction between product category and display blurriness on consumers' attitude, F (1, 67)=27.00, p < 0.001.
By providing evidence for the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship between display blurriness and consumers' attitude toward products and exploring the mechanisms underlying this relationship, this paper contributes to the literature on image blurriness from both theoretical and practical aspects. On one hand, the existing literature mostly focuses on the monitoring and salience effects of transparent packaging compared with opaque packaging, but this paper compares semitransparent packaging with transparent packaging and investigates how display blurriness (semitransparent) influences consumer's attitude towards the target products. On the other hand, our findings also provide important new insights for firms' packaging strategies and product display strategies in an online environment.

Key words:blurred product display,product attitude,perceived softness,negative emotion

ReleaseDate:2018-03-29 16:23:28

Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129-148.

Cai, F., Shen, H., & Hui, M. K. (2012). The effect of location on price estimation:Understanding number-location and number-order associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 718-724.

Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks "right":Effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223-238.

Cho, H., & Schwarz, N. (2012). I like your product when I like my photo:Misattribution using interactive virtual mirrors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 235-243.

Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Positioning rationality and emotion:Rationality is up and emotion is down. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 632-651.

Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E. Jr., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input:An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 915-922.

Cloutier, J., Mason, M. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The perceptual determinants of person construal:Reopening the social-cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 885-894.

Cunha, M. Jr, Janiszewski, C., & Laran, J. (2008). Protection of prior learning in complex consumer learning environments. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 850-864.

Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The "location effect" on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725-738.

Deng, X., & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food consumption?. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104-117.

Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism:Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.

Enns, J. T., & MacDonald, S. C. (2013). The role of clarity and blur in guiding visual attention in photographs. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 568-578.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment:The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451-470.

Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research:Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434-465). New York:Routledge.

Held, R. T., Cooper, E. A., O'brien, J. F., & Banks, M. S. (2010). Using blur to affect perceived distance and size. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 29(2), 1-16.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L., Heckler, S. E., & Houston, M. J. (1998). The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. The Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 48-57.

Kergoat, M., Giboreau, A., Nicod, H., Faye, P., Diaz, E., Beetschen, M. A., & Meyer, T. (2012). Consumer preference for tactile softness:A question of affect intensity?. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27(4), 232-246.

Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807-818.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Mackintosh, N. J. (1983). Conditioning and associative learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

McDaniel, C., & Baker, R. C. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57-58.

Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion:Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with "disgusting" products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272-283.

Munch, J. M., Boller, G. W., & Swasy, J. L. (1993). The effects of argument structure and affective tagging on product attitude formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 294-302.

Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1108-1126.

Okada, Y., Ukai, K., Wolffsohn, J. S., Gilmartin, B., Iijima, A., & Bando, T. (2006). Target spatial frequency determines the response to conflicting defocus-and convergence-driven accommodative stimuli. Vision Research, 46(4), 475-484.

Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing:The "need for touch" scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442.

Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold:The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.

Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434-447.

Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good:Customers' affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56-69.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning:Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In:A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning Ⅱ:Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

van Kerckhove, A., Geuens, M., & Vermeir, I. (2015). The floor is nearer than the sky:How looking up or down affects construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1358-1371.

Sato, H., Motoyoshi, I., & Sato, T. (2015). On-off asymmetry in the perception of blur. Vision Research, 120, 5-10.

Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E. W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 1-12.

Simmonds, G., & Spence, C. (2017). Thinking inside the box:How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, 62, 340-351.

Watson, A. B., & Ahumada, A. J. (2011). Blur clarified:A review and synthesis of blur discrimination. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 10.

Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2015). The buffer effect:The role of color when advertising exposures are brief and blurred. Marketing Science, 34(1), 134-143.