ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Journal home page: http://www.journalijiar.com
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF INNOVATIVE AND
APPLIED RESEARCH
RESEARCH ARTICLE
IMPACT OF CONSUMERS’ DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ON RICE PACKAGING DESIGN IN THE
LENS OF KANO’S ATTRACTIVE QUALITY THEORY
Abbas Dadras
Graduate School, University of Santo Thomas, Espana, Manila, 1015 Philippines, Thomas Aquinas Research
Complex Espana.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Abstract:
Packaging is a powerful marketing tool to communicate directly, conveying the message of the product and creating
added value to the consumer. Nowadays, consumers desire products that match their own attitude toward design and
function. It’s all about functionality and visual aesthetics which can be seen as the characteristics that create the
product’s appearance and define the product’s totality and also consumers buying decision. In this case,
demographic factors are very important, because consumers have varied preference (interests and tastes) of the
packaging appearance design approach due to the difference in quality of demographic factors. By changing in
quality of demographic factors such as changes in young or aging of the population, changes in the gender
composition of the population, etc., designers are convinced to react to the dynamics of demographic factors in
product packaging design. In the study, the author will study demographic factors impact to the packaging design
with a focus on recognition of consumer preferences. This objective can be achieved by using Kano's theory of
attractive quality and packaging and also Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient statistical test. The study results of
Kano’s model show the wide range of customer preferences towards packaging design elements.
Key Words: Packaging, Demographic factors, Design elements, Consumer preferences, Kano’s model.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1. Introduction:
This study deals with the examining consumer preferences for rice packaging design in Tehran, Iran. The central
argument of this study is that rice consumer needs and tastes have changed drastically with change in the quality of
demographic factors in today's competitive market. For example, in Iran’s young society (with 32% of 15-30 yearolds population) it seems that today's rice consumers do not prefer to buy rice in freezer bags in the traditional way
and without the normal visual beauty. Hence, consumers prefer that purchased product in addition to quality have a
desired visual beauty in packaging. In fact, packaging makes remarks on product presentation. Product packaging
gives body, soul and reason for being (Gilaninia et al, 2013). This is why it has become one of the necessities of
human life (Chaneta 2010; Abdalkrim & AL-Hrezat, 2013).
Packaging as a powerful communication tool is an element of the buying experience (Qing H. et al, 2012).
Moreover, in today's competitive market packaging design is a tool that enables consumers to identify some of the
iconic landmarks that differentiate the product from competitors (Nickels & Jolson 1977, as cited in Alervall
&Saied, 2013). As a result, it’s the key component of successful sales (Liu 2011). Thus, packaging designers must
have complete knowledge of the interests and tastes of consumers. They need to know how the various design
elements of packaging can affect consumer preferences and influence their buying decision.
In this case, demographic factors are very important because consumers have varied preference (interests and tastes)
of the packaging appearance design approach due to the difference in the quality of demographic factors.
Demographic factors (sometimes called personal factors) are about population features. The most important
population features in the study include: age, gender, marital status, family size, education level and income level.
The author knows well that the main target of rice buyers is to eliminate the hungry feeling (fill the stomach) and
consumers main focus is on price and quality rather than packaging appearance and its quality. But the main
objective of this research is to answer this question that “How the stable food product could be offered in a more
proper packaging with regard to consumer preferences?" Definitely the answer while respecting to the consumer
rights can lead to greater consumer satisfaction.
43
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
1.1. The Theory of Attractive Quality
Inspired by Herzberg’s M-H theory in behavioral science, Kano and his coworkers developed the theory of attractive
quality. The theory of attractive quality is useful to better understand different aspects of how customers evaluate a
product or offering (Gustafsson 1998). Over the past two decades, this theory has gained exposure and acceptance
through articles in various marketing, quality, and operations management journals. The theory of attractive quality
has been applied in strategic thinking, business planning, and product development to demonstrate lessons learned in
innovation, competitive- ness, and product compliance (Watson 2003).
According to Kano (2001), the theory of attractive quality originated because of the lack of explanatory power of a
one-dimensional recognition of quality. For instance, people are satisfied if the packaging of rice has cooking
instructions and dissatisfied if the packaging does not have cooking instructions. For a quality attribute such as
religious symbols & images, people are not satisfied if the package does not religious symbols & images, but they
are very dissatisfied if it does. To understand the role of quality attributes, Kano et al. (1984) present a model that
evaluates patterns of quality, based on customers’ satisfaction with specific quality attributes and their degree of
sufficiency. On the horizontal axis in the Kano diagram (Fig1) the physical sufficiency of a certain quality attribute
is displayed. The vertical axis shows satisfaction with a certain quality attribute (Kano et al. 1984). The theory
explains how the relationship between the degree of sufficiency and customer satisfaction with a quality attribute
can be classified into five categories of perceived quality. According to Kano et al. (1984), their ideas are similar to
quality theories suggested by Mizuno and Ishikawa. But instead of only providing general concepts and
nomenclature, Kano and his coworkers provide a methodology to use.
The categories of perceived quality are:
 Attractive quality. Attractive quality attributes can be described as a surprise and delight attributes; they
provide satisfaction when achieved fully, but do not cause dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano et al.
1984). These are attributes that are not normally expected, for example, a maintenance instructions on a
package of rice showing the better storage of the rice. Since these types of quality attributes often
unexpectedly delight customers, they are often unspoken. An example of this is W. Edwards Deming’s
rather bantered statement: “The customer never asked Mr. Edison for a light bulb” (Watson 2003).
Researchers have emphasized the importance of attractive quality creation (Kano 2001) since this
dimension has been somewhat neglected by quality specialists, who have tended to focus on how to
eliminate things gone wrong (Kano 2001). In a similar sense, Cole (2001) suggests that the understanding
of continuous improvement should be widened to continuous innovation and include concepts such as
exploration and discontinuous innovation.
 One-dimensional quality. One-dimensional quality attributes result in satisfaction when fulfilled and
dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano et al. 1984). These attributes are spoken and are those with which
companies compete (Gustafsson 1998). For example, having weight information on label of ricepackage is
likely to result in customer satisfaction, but if there is not, it is likely that the customer will feel misled,
which results in dissatisfaction.
 Must-be quality. Must-be quality attributes are taken for granted when fulfilled, but result in
dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano et al. 1984). In the rice example, these attributes can be represented
by the ease of reading in attractive typography category. Customers are dissatisfied when the font of
information on package is not easy for reading, but when it’s easy to read the result is not increased
customer satisfaction. Since customers expect these attributes and views them as basic, it is unlikely that
they are going to tell the company about them when asked about quality attributes. They assume that
companies understand these product design fundamentals (Watson 2003).
 Indifferent quality. Indifferent quality refers to aspects that are neither good nor bad, and, consequently,
they do not result in either customer satisfaction or customer dissatisfaction.
 Reverse quality. Reverse quality refers to a high degree of achievement resulting in dissatisfaction (and
vice versa, a low degree of achievement resulting in satisfaction) and to the fact that not all customers are
alike. For example, some customers prefer a high variation in color combinations, while others prefer the
single color and will be dissatisfied if a package has too many colors.
2. Material and Methods
2.1 Study location
This study was conducted in three shopping centers in Tehran. Shopping centers include: Shahrvand Shopping
Centers, Refah Shopping Centers and Hyper Star Markets.
44
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
2.2 Population and Sample
Data were collected through a questionnaire that was implemented in person through interviews with 600 consumers
to randomly chosen ages 20 to 65 at the place where they buy rice and asking them about their experiences of
packaging in everyday commodities. The sample was calculated according to the Cochran formula.
𝑍 2 𝑝𝑞𝑁
𝑛= 2
𝑑 𝑁 − 1 + 𝑍 2 𝑝𝑞
N = Statistical population size = 8,500,000
Z = Confidence Level= 95%
p = Ratio of a trait in the population = 50%
q = Percentage of those without that trait in the population (q = 1-p)
d = Acceptable margin of error = 4%
n = Sample size = 600
Figure 1
An Overview of the Theory of Attractive Quality.
45
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
2.3 Identifying Quality Attributes of Packaging
To get “out of the box” and not get caught in traditional views of packaging, the authors used four main elements of
graphical design and three main structural elements. Graphical design elements include: color, images and symbol,
label and typography and structural elements include: size, shape, material.
Identifying consumers’ preferences is the first step in implementing the Kano model. In this regard, the author has
tried to do a preliminary interview to identify consumers' interests and tastes. This was done by asking of the 60 rice
consumer and the real question that what updates would you like to have on the appearance of the existing rice pack
according to your preferences.
Accordingly, the author identified 18 attributes of graphical design elements and 12 attributes of structural elements
in line with consumer.
Graphical attributes include:
 Religious symbols & images. Muslim Kaaba, Muslim crescent;
 Useful information on labels. Cooking instructions, Maintenance instructions, Nutritional values,
Manufacturer information, Production date and expiration date information, Weight information;
 Attractive typography. Variations in package font, Ease of reading;
 Variations in color combination. % More Blue, % More Orange, % More Yellow, % More Purple, %
More Red, % More Gray, % More White, % More Green.
Structural attributes include:
 Variations in size. Multiples of 3 kg, Multiples of 4 kg, Multiples of 5 kg;
 Variation in shape. Jute Bags, Cotton Bags, Paper Bags, Plastic Gallon, Plastic Jars, Plastic Bags, Metal
Cans, Polypropylene Bags;
 Material. Durability& Maintenance
2.4 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was divided into two parts: background questions (gender, age, education, and so on).Kano pair
questions. In addition to the questionnaire, a letter that explained the purpose of the survey was included. The Kano
questionnaire contained pairs of customer requirement questions (Berger et al. 1993; Kano et al. 1984). Each
question had two parts:
 “How do you feel if that feature is present in the product?” (This is the functional form of the question.)
 “How do you feel if that feature is not present in the product?” (This is the dysfunctional form of the
question.) (Berger et al. 1993).
Each part of the question, the customer could answer chosen one of five alternatives exemplified in (Fig 2).
According to Berger et al. (1993), the wording of the alternatives is the most critical choice made in the Kano
methodology. The chosen wording of the alternatives adapted from Berger et al. (1993) (that is, “I like it that way,”
“It must be that way,” “I am neutral,” “I can live with it that way,” “I dislike it that way”) is similar to the Japanese
version suggested by Kano et al. (1984).
The classification of attributes described previously is made based on the pair questions. Each quality attributes can
be classified into one of the six categories shown in (Fig 3).
The category “questionable” contains skepticalanswers, and it is debatable whether the respondent has understood
the question (Kano et al. 1984). It was suggested by Berger et al. (1993) that cells 2-2 and 4-4 in the Kano
evaluation table be changed from “I” to “Q,” since they believe, for example, that a requirement that is rated as
must-be functional cannot simultaneously be rated as must-be dysfunctional. Lee and Newcomb (1997) classify five
combinations of the 25 options as questionable (cells 1-1, 1-2, 2-1,2-2, and 5-5).
In the last section of the questionnaire, the quality of all the attributes identified and classified, then by using
Kendall’s tau test its effect on customer satisfaction and buying decisions are evaluated.
Figure 2 A pair of Consumer Requirement Questions in a Kano Questionnaire
How do you feel if the rice is presented packed in “Metal
Cans”?
How do you feel if the rice is NOT presented packed in
“Metal Cans”?
1. I like it that way.
2. It must be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.
1. I like it that way.
2. It must be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.
46
ISSN 2348 – 0319
Figure 3
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Kano Evaluation Table (adapted from Berger et al. (1993)).
Dysfunction
Quality
attributes
1. Like
Function
I: Indifferent
2. Must - be
3. Neutral
4. Live with
5. Dislike
1. Like
Q
A
A
A
O
2. Must - be
R
I
I
I
M
3. Neutral
R
I
I
I
M
4. Live with
R
I
I
I
M
5. Dislike
R
R
R
R
M
A: Attractive
R: Revers
O: One-dimensional
Q: Questionable
M: Must-be
Result and discussion
The first part of the analysis was concerned with classifying the 18 quality attributes according to the theory of
attractive quality. Each quality attribute was classified according to the evaluation table into either attractive (A),
one-dimensional (O), must-be (M), indifferent (I), reverse (R), or questionable (Q). Lee and Newcomb (1997)
introduced two measurements to aid in the classification of quality attributes: category strength and total strength.
Category strength is defined as the percent difference of the highest category above the next-highest category. Total
strength is defined as the total percentage of attractive, one-dimensional, and must-be responses.
A calculation of an average (better and worse), without losing the quality dimension’s attractive, one- dimensional,
and must-be attributes, was performed as suggested by Berger et al. (1993). These averages state whether customer
satisfaction can be increased by meeting a certain quality attribute or whether fulfilling this quality attribute merely
prevents the customer from being dissatisfied (Berger et al. 1993).
A+O
O+M
B=
W=
A+O+M+I
A+O+M+I
The positive better numbers indicate that customer satisfaction will increase by providing a quality attribute and the
negative worse numbers indicate that customer satisfaction will decrease by not providing a quality attribute (Berger
et al. 1993). The maximum value of better and worse is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the greater the influence on
customer satisfaction. A value of about 0 signifies that a certain quality attribute has little influence on customer
satisfaction (Matzler et al. 1996).
In the analysis, a Kano variable containing the classification of quality attributes was used as a dependent variable,
while the demographic variables, such as gender, age, and family, were used as independent variables. The below
tables 1 and 2 show an overview of the quality attributes of packaging design. Furthermore, tables 3 and 4 show the
correlation between demographic factors with graphical and structural design elements based on Kendall’s tau test.
47
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Table 1. An Overview of the Graphical Quality Attributes of Packaging Design Elements
Classification
Category strength
Quality Attributes
Religious symbols &images
Muslim Kaaba
Muslim crescent
Variations in color combination
Blue
Orange
Yellow
Violet
Red
Gray
White
Green
Useful information on label
Cooking instructions
Maintenance instructions
Nutritional values
Manufacturer information
Production date and expiration date
Weight information
Attractive typography
Variation in package font
Ease of reading
Classification Classification Classification
agreement
Total strength agreement Better Worse
Category strength
Total strength
Reverse
-
100.66%
387.17%
252.49%
59.6%
-
Indifferent
Must-be
Indifferent
-
Reverse
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Reverse
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Must-be
Must-be
Must-be
Must-be
Must-be
Indifferent
Must-be
61.16%
42%
49.5%
51.66%
53.34%
50.67%
46.17%
48.34%
45.83%
48.17%
30.84%
31.5%
37%
49.5%
57.16%
60%
36.5%
35.2%
0.11
0.21
0.08
0.19
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.33
0.12
0.37
0.36
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.28
0.10
0.34
0.24
0.47
0.39
0.39
0.31
0.26
0.27
0.37
0.54
0.60
0.72
0.79
0.82
0.50
0.40
0.34
0.61
Table 2. An Overview of the Structural Quality Attributes of Packaging Design Elements
Quality Attributes
Classification
Category strength
Variations in size
Multiple of 3kg
Multiple of 4kg
Multiple of 5kg
Variation in shape
Jute Bags
Cotton Bags
Paper Bags
Plastic Gallon
Plastic Jars
Plastic Bags
Metal Cans
Indifferent
Reverse
-
Classification Classification Classification
agreement
Total strength agreement Better Worse
Category strength
Total strength
116.17%
231.99%
-
48
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Reverse
Indifferent
Attractive
Reverse
Must-be
Indifferent
Indifferent
43.17
43.84
29.16
45.67%
35.67%
35%
69.67%
28%
33.17%
31.84%
0.26
0.28
0.51
0.30
0.34
0.45
0.43
0.45
0.60
0.26
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.44
0.33
0.27
0.26
0.61
0.26
0.24
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Polypropylene Bags
-
-
One
dimensional
25.9%
0.50
0.54
Material
Package durability
-
-
Must-be
49.33%
0.35
0.76
Table 3 An Overview of Kendall's tau Correlation Coefficient Between Demographic Factors and
Graphical Design Elements.
Demographic Factors
Graphical Elements
Muslim Kaaba
Muslim crescent
Blue
Orange
Yellow
Violet
Red
Gray
White
Green
Cooking instructions
Maintenance instructions
Nutritional values
Manufacturer information
Production date and expiration date
Weight information
Variation in package font
Ease of reading
Age
.039
.017
-.027
-.002
.020
.049
.026
.059
.059
.074*
.033
.010
.036
-.013
.025
-.057
.101
-.001
Gender
HH size
-.080* -.111 .095 -.018
-.034 -.072* .059 -.046
.024 -.034 .061 -.016
.052 .085* -.040 .040
.045 .042 .051 .039
.013 -.025 .030 -.006
.022 .076* .022 -.033
-.001 .059 -.001 -.001
.006 .059 .006 .010
-.019 -.025 .058 -.067*
.093 .073* .052 -.021
.051 .124 .026 .020
.041 .140 -.076* .008
.062 .016 .081* -.053
.033 .024 .016 -.090
.132 .093* -.040 -.025
.044 .059 .061 -.021
.144 .004 -.003 .004
.022
.049
.047
-.023
-.036
.000
.012
-.012
-.009
.038
.043
.053
-.007
.021
.007
-.021
.020
.073*
Educational Incomelevel
level
.100 -.034
.079* -.084*
.086 -.106
.003 -.116
.031 -.099
.040 -.115
.020 -.053
.030 .000
.024 .005
-.031 .041
-.031 .040
-.039 .066*
-.070* .075*
-.021 .062
-.077* .180
.033 .140
.051 -.103
-.035 .057
.028
.027
.046
.060*
.013
-.003
.043
.043
.025
.029
-.028
-.042
-.101
-.054
-.052
-.031
.006
-.017
Marital
status
-.035 -.005 .002
-.044 -.040 .055
-.120 .007 .007
-.096 -.048 .063*
-.087 .020 .032
-.098 .076* .000
-.034 -.001 .065*
-.067* .051 .015
-.031 -.006 .043
-.049 .115 -.041
.028 .015 .077*
.070* -.067* .037
-.002 -.036 .083*
-.001 -.041 .077*
.022 .001 .011
.058 -.046 .094
-.024 .067* .021
-.029 -.058 .046
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Table 4 An Overview of Kendall's tau Correlation Coefficient Between Demographic Factors and
StructuralDesign Elements.
Demographic Factors
Structural Elements
Multiple of 3kg
Multiple of 4kg
Multiple of 5kg
Jute Bags
Cotton Bags
Paper Bags
Plastic Gallon
Plastic Jars
Plastic Bags
Metal Cans
Age
.062*
.081*
-.065*
-.060
-.045
.126
-.023
-.037
.060
.035
-.012
-.051
.140
.058
.128
-.006
.071*
.080*
-.005
.026
Gender
-.013
.035
.040
-.036
-.063*
-.009
.005
-.050
-.017
.056
HH size
.046
.006
.073*
.009
.052
.001
-.011
.059
.006
-.044
49
.080 -.076*
.059* -.079*
.008 .029
-.011 .047
-.067* .034
.019 -.039
.015 .005
.061* -.032
.020 .018
.039 -.071*
Educational Income level
level
.099
.066*
-.045
-.028
.004
.001
.104
.011
.070*
.012
-.156
-.114
.030
.061*
.013
-.058
-.091
-.014
-.056
-.131
.150 -.109
.097 -.062*
-.053 .074*
-.042 -.001
-.067* .034
.019 -.039
.015 .005
-.051 .032
.081* .001
.006 -.099
Marital
status
-.037 .073
-.005 .038
-.010 .062
-.032 .021
.022 .028
.025 -.076*
-.037 .103
.064* .049
.019 .008
.021 .071*
ISSN 2348 – 0319
Polypropylene Bags
Package durability
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
-.016 .040 .026 .032 .021 -.042 .016 -.096 .004 -.006 -.027 .046
.036 -.079* .140* -.076 .053* -22 .070* .032 -.101 -.002 .083* -0.36
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
The Kendall’s tau findings, describes the significant correlation between demographic factors with graphical design
elements for rice packaging design as follows:
 Age vs. graphical design elements. Elderly consumers do not prefer to use the “Religious image”ofthe
rice packaging design. Also, younger consumers prefer to use more percentage of “Green” in package color
combination.
 Gender vs. graphical design elements. Male consumers prefer to use “Muslim crescent” as a religious
symbol on rice package. Also, they prefer to design “Nutritional values” on the rice package. On the other
hand, female consumers prefer to use more percentage of “Orange” and “Red” in package color
combination. They also prefer to design “Cooking instructions”, “Weight information” and “Nutritional
values” on the rice package label, but their preference about “Manufacturer information” is negative.
 Household size vs. graphical design elements. Consumer with smaller households does not prefer touse
more percentage of “Green” in package color combination. Furthermore, consumers with larger households
do not prefer for “Ease of reading” in typography.
 Educational levelvs. graphical design elements. Consumers with higher education do not prefer to design
the “Maintenance instructions” on the rice package label and consumers in the lower education levels do
not prefer to design the “Production date and expiration date”. Consumers in both educational level prefer
to design the “Nutritional values” on the label and “Muslim crescent” as a religious symbol on rice
package, although the correlation is weak.
 Income levels vs. graphical design elements. Consumers at higher income levels do not prefer to design
the “Maintenance instructions” on the rice package label.
 Marital status vs. graphical design elements. Married consumers prefer to use more percentage of
“Orange” and “Red” in package color combination. Also, they do not prefer to design the “Cooking
instructions”, “Nutritional values” and “Manufacturer information” on the rice package label but married
consumers prefer to “Variation in package font”. On the other hand,single consumers prefer to design the
“Maintenance instructions” on the rice package label.
There is not more significant correlation between demographic factors and graphical design elements. Moreover, the
Kendall’s tau findings, describes the significant correlation between demographic factors with structural design
elements for rice packaging design as follows:
 Age vs. structural design elements. Younger consumers prefer to provide rice in “Multiples of3 and 4
kg”packages. Also, they don’t prefer to provide rice in “Plastic gallon”and “Plastic jars”. Elderly
consumer’spreference is “Multiples of 5 kg”. Furthermore,“Package durability” is a preference for elderly
consumers.
 Gendervs.structural design elements. Female consumers do not prefer to have rice in “Multiples of 5 but
“Package durability” is a preference for female consumers. On the other hand, male consumers prefer to
provide rice in “Cotton bag”.
 Household size vs.structural design elements.Consumer with smaller households prefers to provide rice
in “Multiples of 3 kg” packages. In addition, consumer with smaller households does not prefer to have rice
in “Cotton bags” and they prefer to have rice in “Metal cans”. On the other hand, consumers with larger
households prefer to have rice in “Plastic jars” and “Package durability” is a preference for this group of
household size. Moreover, consumers in any size of household prefer to provide rice in “Multiples of 4 kg”
packages.
 Educational levelvs.structural design elements. Providing rice in “Multiple of 4kg” packages and in
“Plastic bags” is a preference for higher educated consumers. They don’t prefer to have rice in “Jute bags”.
Also, “Package durability” is a preference for higher educated consumers.
 Income levels vs.structural design elements. Consumers at higher income levels do not prefer to provide
rice in “Multiples of 4 kg” packages and they prefer to have rice in “Plastic bags”. Consumers at lower
income level prefer to provide rice in “Multiple of 4kg” and they do not prefer to have rice in “Cotton
bags”.
50
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53

Marital status vs.structural design elements. Married consumers prefer to have rice in “Plastic jars” and
they do not prefer to have rice in “Metal cans”. Also,“Package durability” is a preference for married
consumers. Moreover, single consumers prefer to have rice in “Paper bags”.
There is not more significant correlation between demographic factors and structural design elements.
Conclusion
In today's competitive market packaging design is a tool that enables consumers to identify some of the iconic
landmarks that differentiate the product from competitors. As a result, it’s the key component of successful
sales.Consistent with the changes in demographic factors, it seems natural to be changing consumer
preferences.Therefore, packaging designers must have update knowledge of consumer preferences to provide the
product properly and influence consumer satisfaction. Accordingly, in addition to identifying consumer preferences
in tow main elements of design (graphical and structural), the author was able to classify the preferences by using
Kano model. Furthermore, by using the consumer satisfaction index (CSI), the impact of all preferences measured in
the consumer’s satisfaction. Finally, Kendall’s tau statistical test evaluates the significant correlation between
demographic factors and packaging design elements.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank to his parents and his family. Thank you very much to the research supervisor
Professor Manuel Morga and Mr. Kiarash Jahanpour. Special thanks to Mrs. Donna Mae Mendoza.
References
Abdalkrim, G. M., & AL-Hrezat, R. S. (2013). The Role of Packaging in Consumer's Perception of Product
Quality.European Journal of Business and Management at the Point of Purchase, 5(4): 69 – 82.
Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (A. 2010). Identifying Important Package Features of Milk Desserts Using Free Listing
and Word Association. Journal of Food Quality and Preference, 21: 621–628.
Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (B. 2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations
of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Journal of Food Quality and Preference, 21: 930 –
937.
Asadollahi, A., & Givee, M. (2011). The Role of Graphic Design in Packaging and Sales of Product in IRAN.
Contemporary Marketing Review, 1(5): 30 – 34.
Aziz, S., & Nas, Z. (2013). Demographic Segmentation and Its Effects on Customer Satisfaction. International
Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 4(2): 44-53.
Butkeviciene, V., Stravinskiene, J., & Rutelione, A. (2008). Impact of Consumer Package Communication on
Consumer Decision Making Process. Journal of Engineering Economics, 1(56): 57 – 65.
Chaneta, I. (2010). Marketing: Packaging and Branding. Journal of Comprehensive Research, 8: 19-30.
Chaudhary, P. (2011). Role of Packaging on Consumers Buying Decisions: A Case Study of PANIPAT City.
International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing, 1(8): 76 – 84.
Estiri, M., Hasangholipour, T., Yazdani, H., Nejad, H., & Rayej, H. (2010). Food Products Consumer
Behaviors: The Role of Packaging Elements. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(7): 535-543.
FarrukhSial, M., Gulzar, A., Riaz, N.-u.-A., & Nawaz, B. (2011). Impact of Labeling and Packaging on
Buying Behavior of Young Consumers with Mediating Role of Brand Image. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 3(8): 1022 – 1029.
Gilaninia, S., & Sharif, B. (2011). Impact of Social Marketing on Consumption Reduction. Journal of Applied
Business and Economics, 12(5): 111-124.
51
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Gilaninia, S., Hossein, G., & Saeid, M. (A. 2013). Effect of Packaging Elements on Consumer Purchasing
Decisions(Case Study Detergent Market). Universal Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3(8):10-15
Gilaninia, S., Hossein, G., & Saeid, M. (B. 2013). Overview on Importance of Product Packing and Its Impact
on Consumer Purchasing Process. International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 3(8): 50 – 54.
Gilaninia, S., Monsef, S. M., & Soleymani, F. (2013). Quality Packaging and Saffron Export. Singaporean
Journal of Business Economics and Management Studies, 1(10): 1-5.
Jafari, S., nia, M. S., Salehi, M., & Zahmatkesh, R. (2013). Influence of Package on Consumer Behavior.
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter), 2(6): 65 – 71.
Jalali, S., & Modrek, M. (2012). The Effect of Label English and Persian Language on Persian Males and
Females' Buying Behavior., 4(2). Modern Journal of Applied Lingusitics, 4(2): 95 – 108.
Joo, J. (2011). Asking about and Predicting Consumer Preference: Implications for New Product Development.
PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management,
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/.../Joo_Jaewoo_201106_PhD_thesis.pdf
karimi, P., Mahdieh, O., & Rahmani, M. (2013). The Study of Relationship between Packaging Elements and
Purchase Behavior: Consumers of Food, Cosmetics and Health Products. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research, 5(3): 281 – 295.
Kazmi, S. Q. (2012). Consumer Perception and Buying Decisions (The Pasta Study). International Journal of
Advancements in Research & Technology, 1(16).
Kushe Shekhar, S., & Raveendran, P. T. (2013). Role of Packaging Cues on Consumer Buying Behavior.
International of Engineering and Management, 4(1): 61 – 69.
Löfgren, M., & Witell, L. (2005). Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging. Quality Management
Journal, 12(3): 7-20.
Mansori, S. (2012). Impact of Religion Affiliation and Religiosity on Consumer, The Evidence of Malaysia.
World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(3): 301 – 307.
Mokhlis, S. (2008). Consumer Religiosity and the Importance of Store Attributes. The Journal of Human
Resource and Adult Learning, 4(2): 122-133.
Mokhlis, S. (2010). Religious Contrasts in Consumer Shopping Styles: A Factor Analytic Comparison. Journal
of Business Studies Quarterly, 2(1): 52 – 64.
Mutsikiwa, M., & Marumbwa, J. (2013). The Impact of Aesthetics Package Design Elements on Consumer
Purchase Decisions: A Case of Locally Produced Dairy Products in Southern Zimbabwe. Business and
Management (IOSR-JBM), 8(5): 64 – 71.
Mutsikiwa, M., Marumbwa, J., & Mudondo, D. C. (2013). The Impact of Informational Package Elements on
Consumer Purchase Behavior of Breakfast Cereal Products: The Case of University Students in Masvingo,
Zimbabwe. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(8): 55-63.
Naseri, A., & Tamam, E. (2012). Impact of Islamic Religious Symbol in Producing Favorable Attitude Toward
Advertisement. The Public Administration and Social Policies Review, 1(8): 62-77.
Nayyar, E. (2012). Packaging - An Innovative source of Impulsive and Abrupt Buying Action. International
Journal of Management & Information Technology, 1(1): 13 – 16.
52
ISSN 2348 – 0319
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue (3): 43- 53
Nilsson‐Witell, L., & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: a test of Kano's theory of attractive
quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2): 152-168.
Qing, H., Kai, Z., Zhang, C.-F., & Chen, M.-R. (2012).Packaging Design Research and Analysis Based on
Graphic Visual, International Proceedings of Computer Science & Information Tech, 28: 148 – 153.
Ramly, Z., Chai, L. T., & Lung, C. K. (2008). Religiosity as a Predictor of Consumer Ethical Behavior: Some
Evidence from Young Consumers from Malaysia. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 3(4): 43
– 56.
Rundh, B. (2009). Packaging design: creating competitive advantage with product packaging. British Food
Journal, 111(9): 988 - 1002.
Salahshoo, A., & Mojarrad, F. (2012). Applying Golden Ratio in Product Packaging and Its Effect on
Consumer’s Buying Behavior. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2): 49 - 60.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of
involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 106(8): 607 - 628.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach.
European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12): 1495 – 1517.
Ullah, M., Jan, M. F., & Jan, M. F. (2012). Elements of Brand Salience and Its Impact on Buying Behavior and
Sales. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2): 381 – 395.
53