Web Appendix A: Examples of products displayed with and without packaging
Packaged and unpackaged foods at The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf
(Atlanta Hartfield Airport)
Store audit (Whole Foods and Target)
We conducted a store audit (Ye, Morrin, and Kampfer 2020) of two major retailers (Whole Foods and Target) in two different U.S. markets (Baton Rouge, LA and Annapolis, MD).
We searched the website of each store in each location for two products: bath bombs and apples.
We chose these product categories to reflect food and non-food items with a low necessity for packaging. Across all four stores, we analyzed product listings yielded by our search terms. We categorized listings based on whether the primary photo showed the product packaged,
unpackaged, or both. A total of 216 product listings were classified (165 bath bombs, 51 apples).
Listings not directly relevant to our search terms were not classified. For instance, a website search for apples yielded applesauce products. We did not classify these related products. As shown in Table 1, the results of our search showed that both apples and bath bombs were displayed packaged and unpackaged. These results are consistent with our observations in brick-
and-mortar retail in showing that products within a particular category are commonly displayed packaged and unpackaged.
Web Appendix A - Table 1: Product listing classifications
How the Product was Displayed in Primary Photo Yielded by Search
Product Store Unpackaged Packaged Both Packaged &
Unpackaged
Apples
Target 1 5 14 0
Target 2 5 7 0
Whole Foods 1 7 1 0
Whole Foods 2 9 3 0
Total 26 25 0
% of relevant listings 50.98% 49.02% 0%
Bath Bombs
Target 1 12 54 1
Target 2 13 48 1
Whole Foods 1 0 19 0
Whole Foods 2 0 17 0
Total 25 138 2
% of relevant listings 15.15% 83.64% 1.21%
Screenshot of one page of apple listings and one page of bath bomb listings from one Target location
Web Appendix B: Images of packaged and unpackaged stimuli
Study 1a stimuli
Study 1b and 4 stimuli
Study 2a stimuli
Study 2b stimuli
Study 3 stimuli
Study 5 stimuli
Web Appendix C: Measures
Study 1a
Stimuli test Appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the cheesecake?
How does the cheesecake look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good; r = .91, p < .01;
Lam & Mukherjee 2005) Freshness:
How stale or fresh is the cheesecake? (1 = very stale, 7 = very fresh; Zampini &
Spence 2004) Display familiarity:
How often do you come across cheesecake like the one pictured?
How frequently do you encounter cheesecake like the one pictured? (1 = never, 7
= all the time; r = .95, p < .01; Martin & Stewart 2001) Main study
Naturalness:
The cheesecake seems natural.
The cheesecake seems connected to nature.
The cheesecake seems close to nature. (1 = strongly disagree, 7
= strongly agree; α = .90; Rozin 2005) Purchase likelihood:
If you wanted to buy natural cheesecake, how likely would you be to buy this one? (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely; Newman &
Dhar 2014) Study 1b
Stimuli test Appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the starfish shell?
How does the starfish shell look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good; r = .83, p < .001;
Lam & Mukherjee 2005) Visibility:
How visible is the starfish shell? (1 = not visible, 7 = very visible) Certainty:
How certain did you feel evaluating the starfish shell? (1 = not at all, 7 = very certain)
Size:
How small or large is the starfish shell? (1 = very small, 7 = very large) Main study
Naturalness:
This shell seems natural.
This shell seems close to nature.
This shell seems connected to nature. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .94; Rozin 2005)
Purchase likelihood:
If you wanted to buy a natural starfish shell, how likely would you be to buy this one? (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely; Newman & Dhar 2014)
Freshness, Familiarity, Manufactured, Eco-Friendliness:
How would you rate the starfish shell?
Fresh, Familiar, Manufactured, Eco-Friendly (1= not at all, 7 = very) Study 2
Stimuli test Appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the grapes?
How do the grapes look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good; r = .91, p < .001; Lam &
Mukherjee 2005) Display familiarity:
How often do you come across grapes like the one pictured?
How frequently do you encounter grapes like the one pictured? (1 = never, 7 = all the time; r =.87, p < .001; Martin & Stewart 2001)
Main studies Naturalness:
These grapes seem natural.
These grapes seem close to nature
These grapes seem connected to nature (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Rozin 2005; α = .91 study 2a; α = .92 study 2b)
Purchase likelihood:
If you wanted to buy natural grapes, how likely would you be to buy these? ( 1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely; Newman & Dhar 2014)
Study 3
Stimuli test
Visual appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the banana bread?
How does the banana bread look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good; r = .88, p < .001;
Lam & Mukherjee 2005) Display familiarity:
How often do you come across banana bread like the one pictured?
How frequently do you encounter banana bread like the one pictured? (1 = never, 7 = all the time; r = .94, p < .001; Martin & Stewart 2001)
Freshness:
How stale or fresh is the banana bread? (1 = very stale, 7 = very fresh; Zampini &
Spence 2004) Main study
Naturalness:
This banana bread seems natural/close to nature/connected to nature. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α =.93; Rozin 2005)
Product evaluation:
What are your thoughts about this banana bread? (1 = dislike/bad/not
appealing/unlikely to buy, 7 = like/good/appealing/likely to buy; α =.95; Fuchs et al. 2015)
Study 4
Naturalness:
This shell seems natural/close to nature/connected to nature (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .94; Rozin 2005)
Product evaluation:
What are your thoughts about this starfish shell? (1 = dislike/bad/not
appealing/unlikely to buy, 5 = like/good/appealing/likely to buy; Fuchs et al.
2015; α =.94) Study 4 replication
Stimuli test
Visual appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the sponge?
How does the sponge look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good, r = .83, p < .001; Lam
& Mukherjee 2005) Visible:
How visible is the sponge? (1 = not visible, 7 = very visible) Certain:
How certain do you feel evaluating the sponge? (1 = not at all, 7 = very certain) Size:
How small or large is the sponge? (1 = very small, 7 = very large) Freshness, Familiarity, Manufactured, Eco-Friendliness:
How would you rate the sponge?
Fresh, Familiar, Manufactured, Eco-Friendly (1= not at all, 7 = very) Main study
Product evaluation:
What are your thoughts about this sponge? (1 = dislike/bad/not appealing/unlikely to buy, 5 = like/good/appealing/likely to buy; α =.94; Fuchs et al. 2015;)
Manipulation checks:
When purchasing a sponge to use for household cleaning, how important is it that the sponge is natural?
When purchasing a sponge to use for washing your body, how important is it that the sponge is natural? (1 = not at all important, 7 = very important)
Study 5
Stimuli test Appearance:
How would you rate the visual appearance of the produce?
How does the produce look? (1 = very bad, 7 = very good; r = .79, p < .001; Lam
& Mukherjee 2005) Display familiarity:
How often do you come across produce like the assortment pictured?
How frequently do you encounter produce like the assortment pictured? (1 = never, 7 = all the time; r = .70, p < .001; Martin & Stewart 2001)
Freshness:
How stale or fresh is the produce? (1 = very stale, 7 = very fresh; Zampini &
Spence 2004) Size:
How small or large is the assortment of produce? (1 = very smalll, 7 = very large)
Web Appendix D: Results of stimuli tests
Stimuli
Appearance Familiarity Freshness Additional Measures
Study
No
Package Package No
Package Package No
Package Package No
Package Package Mean
(SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD) 1a Cheesecake 4.52
(1.62) 4.38
(1.87) 3.58
(1.43) 3.47
(1.75) 4.80
(1.30) 4.60 (1.35)
1b & 4 Starfish
Shell 5.03
(1.23) 5.20 (1.28)
Visibility Certainty
Size
5.88 (1.37) 5.00 (1.51) 4.38 (1.01)
6.40 (1.09) 4.88 (1.71) 3.84 (1.13) 1b
(main study)
Starfish Shell
5.00 (1.66)
4.86 (1.64)
3.70 (1.76)
3.44 (1.73)
Manufact ured Eco- Friendly
4.08 (1.79) 4.14 (1.63)
4.00 (1.90) 3.10 (1.61)
2 Grapes
4.77 (1.35)
4.73 (1.46)
5.12 (1.14)
4.98 (1.80)
3 Banana
Bread 4.34
(1.47) 3.28
(1.31) 3.81
(1.74) 2.88
(1.14) 4.13
(1.31) 3.97 (1.32)
4(repli
cation) Sponge
2.62 (1.47)
3.49 (1.54)
3.96 (1.86)
4.27 (1.66)
2.71 (1.57)
3.67 (1.70)
Visibility Certainty
Size Manufact ured Eco- friendly
5.12 (1.86) 4.80 (2.00) 3.22 (1.01) 4.47 (1.84) 3.27 (1.69)
5.78 (1.50) 4.52 (1.43) 3.42 (1.01) 4.84 (1.48) 3.74 (1.64)
5 Produce
Box
5.06
(1.37) 4.13
(1.44) 4.54
(1.69) 4.15
(1.42) 5.36
(1.19) 4.54
(1.33) Size
4.22
(1.22) 3.84 (1.08)
NOTE: Italicized values indicate that the packaged and unpackaged means for that particular measure were significantly different (p < .05).
Web Appendix E: Study 4 replication
Design, procedure, participants
The study 4 replication had a 2 (packaging: package vs. no package) x 2 (importance of naturalness: high vs. low) between subjects design. US based members of Prolific (N = 200, Mage = 33.60, 112 females, 4 prefer not to indicate gender) were told to imagine that they needed to buy a sponge.
Participants in the “naturalness less important” conditions were told that the sponge will be used for household cleaning. Participants in the “naturalness more important” conditions were told that the sponge will be used for
washing their body. Participants were shown an image of a sponge either in a package or unpackaged and responded to a four-item product evaluation scale (Fuchs et al. 2015). Finally, individuals rated the importance of
naturalness for a sponge used for cleaning and a sponge used to wash the body, indicated whether they experienced issues with the survey, age and gender.
Stimuli test
We randomly assigned 99 US based Prolific panelists (56 females, 2 prefer not to indicate gender, Mage = 31.19) to view either the packaged or unpackaged sponge and complete measures related to appearance, visibility, size, certainty, freshness, familiarity, manufactured and eco-friendly. One
participant did not respond to measures of freshness, manufactured, or familiarity. Data from this participant were retained.
A one-way ANOVA revealed no differences in certainty (F (1, 97) = .63, p = .431), size (F (1, 97) = .93, p = .337), familiarity (F (1, 96) = .74, p = .
392), manufactured (F (1, 96) = 1.19, p = .278) or eco-friendly (F (1, 97) = 2.01, p = .160) based on the presence or absence of packaging. The
packaged sponge was rated as fresher (Mpackage = 3.67 (1.70) vs. Mno_package = 2.71 (1.57); F (1, 96) = 8.43, p = .005), more visually appealing (Mpackage = 3.49 (1.54) vs. Mno_package = 2.62 (1.47); F (1, 97) = 8.19, p = .005), and as marginally more visible (Mpackage = 5.78 (1.50) vs. Mno_package = 5.12 (1.86); F (1, 97) = 3.76, p = .055). See appendix B for stimuli, C for measures, and D for results.
Results
Manipulation check Consistent with the intended manipulation, a paired samples t-test showed that naturalness was more important for a sponge used to wash the body than a sponge used for household cleaning (Mwash = 4.06 (2.01) vs. Mclean = 3.0 (1.80); t (199) = -9.68, p < .001).
Evaluations A 2 (packaging) x 2 (importance) ANOVA revealed only a significant interaction (F (1, 196) = 10.41, p = .001, ηρ2 = .05). The main effect of packaging (F (1, 196) = .04, p = .840, ηρ2 = .000) and the main effect of importance of naturalness (F (1, 196) = .90, p = .345, ηρ2 = .005) were not significant. As predicted, when naturalness was relatively more important (i.e., the sponge was for washing the body) participants who saw
the sponge in a package evaluated it less favorably than participants who saw the sponge unpackaged (Mno package = 2.68 (1.22) vs. Mpackage = 2.15 (1.04); F (1, 196) = 5.94, p = .016). However, the negative effects of packaging on product evaluations attenuated, and even reversed when naturalness was less important (i.e., the sponge was for household cleaning), (Mno package = 2.04 (.95) vs. Mpackage = 2.50 (1.11); F (1, 196) = 4.53, p = .035).
Discussion
The results of this study show that the negative effects of packaging are contingent on the importance of product naturalness. Specifically, the negative effects of packaging hold when naturalness is an important product attribute, but attenuate (and even reverse) when naturalness is not an
important attribute. This pattern of results suggests that the symbolic effects of packaging as a barrier could be advantageous for some product uses while detrimental for others.
