THE PRIMING EFFECTS OF CUTENESS ON CONSUMERS’ FOOD

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

THE “CUTENESS = SWEETNESS” INTUITION:

THE PRIMING EFFECTS OF CUTENESS ON CONSUMERS’ FOOD

PERCEPTION AND PURCHASE INTENTION

A Thesis in

Hospitality Management

by

Xunyue Xue

© 2020 Xunyue Xue

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

May 2020

ii

The thesis of Xunyue Xue was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Anna S. Mattila Marriott Professor of Lodging Management

Professor in Charge of Graduate Program

Thesis Advisor

Donna Quadri-Felitti

Associate Professor of Hospitality Management Marvin Ashner Director of the School of Hospitality Management

Heyao (Chandler) Yu

Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management

iii

ABSTRACT

All humans crave for sweet foods despite their age, race, and cultural background

(Drewnowski et al., 2012), and they are conditioned to expect sugary foods at a high sweet

level (De la Peña, 2010; Laudan, 2016; Woloson, 2002). Therefore, lots of food marketers

intuitively use cute elements to position their products as “sweeter”. Yet, research on the

“cuteness = sweetness” link in the marketing domain is scant. This research examines how

priming cuteness influences consumers’ food perceptions (i.e., perceived sweetness,

tastiness, and healthiness) and purchase intention. An online and a lab experiment were

employed to test the proposed hypotheses. The major findings indicate that priming cuteness

increases purchase intention, which is sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and

tastiness. Cute elements increase perceived sweetness and the positive priming effect of

cuteness on perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived sweetness, whereascute stimuli

have no impact on healthiness perception. I present the theoretical contribution and practical

implications of the study’s findings and propose directions for future research.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ vii

Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................... 4

Overview of cuteness research .................................................................................... 4

Cute priming and sweetness perception ....................................................................... 6 Cute priming and opposite tastiness/healthiness perception ......................................... 9

Chapter 3 Methods and Results .......................................................................................... 13

Study 1 ........................................................................................................................ 13 Design and participants ........................................................................................ 13

Stimuli ................................................................................................................. 14 Procedures and measures ..................................................................................... 15

Results ................................................................................................................. 16 Study 2 ........................................................................................................................ 20

Design and participants ........................................................................................ 20

Stimuli ................................................................................................................. 20 Procedures and measures ..................................................................................... 21

Results ................................................................................................................. 22

Chapter 4 General Discussion ............................................................................................ 26

Theoretical implications ............................................................................................. 27

Managerial implications ............................................................................................. 29 Limitations and future research ................................................................................... 30

Appendix Cuteness Measurements for Study 1 & 2 ............................................................. 32

References .......................................................................................................................... 34

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Examples of cuteness marketing practices ......................................................... 2

Figure 2-1: The conceptual framework ................................................................................ 11

Figure 3-1: Cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 1). ......................................... 14

Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (1)....... 17

Figure 3-3: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (1)................................ 18


Figure 3-1: Cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 2). ......................................... 21

Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (2)....... 23



vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Demographic profile of respondents ................................................................... 13

Table 3-2: Two study results. ............................................................................................. 25

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the Marriott Foundation for the funding of this research

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Cute attack: A sensational response incited by the witnessing of something cute, precious,

fuzzy or otherwise snuggly. Symptoms include chills traveling up the spine and through the

fingertips, impulsive smiling and jerking of the limbs.

- Urban Dictionary, December 14, 2009

Humans naturally prefer sweet foods despite their age, race, or cultural background

(Drewnowski et al., 2012). Collectively, the United States has an extreme, not-reserved-for-

special-occasions sweet tooth that adds up to a startling statistic: the average American

consumes 22 pounds of candy every year, and more than 1,200 firms in the U.S.

manufacture sweets and treats worth $14.5 billion a year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

Riding on this consumer trend, a greater number of food producers have started to position

their products as “sweeter” by using various visual appeals. Approximately 64% of

consumers say that they choose a product simply based on the packaging’s visual appeal

(Nielsen, 2016). A vast majority of academic research has investigated the impact of single

design elements on perceived sweetness, such as the shape (Ngo et al., 2013; Fenko et al.,

2016; Van Ooijen et al. 2017), color (Karnal et al. 2016; Mai et al., 2016), transparency

(Deng & Srinivasan 2013), imagery (Deng & Kahn 2009; Machiels & Karnal 2016), and

label placement (Huang et al. 2019). Among all the design elements, a specific marketing

cue that has attracted both industrial and scholarly attention is cuteness.

Cuteness, though denoting varied meaning in daily communication, its academic

conceptualization falls into two types: (1) kindchenschema, which assesses the degree to which

the object has a baby-like in appearance (Lorenz, 1943), and (2) whimsicality, which focuses on

2

characteristics of whimsical fun and playfulness (Nenkov & Scott, 2014). Previous studies found

that the effect of cuteness, evoked by multiple design elements, is robust and universal (Esposito

et al., 2014; Hildebrandt, 1983). Therefore, worldwide food marketers widely incorporate cute

elements into their sweet foods to increase product likability, to generate favorable emotions and

attitudes, consequently influencing consumers’ food intake and food choice (Boyer et al., 2012;

Branen et al., 2002; Nenkov & Scott, 2014). For example, Innocent Drinks makes use of

anthropomorphic fruit pictures on their juice bottles; Fujiya’s cute mascot Peko-chan, the smiley

and mischievous babyface, is a big part of what makes the brand so instantly recognizable;

Sanrio, a Japanese company that designs, licenses and produces kawaii (cute) characters that

graces the packaging of many snack and bakery companies.

Figure 1-1: Examples of cuteness marketing practices

Such widespread use of cute stimuli in the sweets/treats marketing may reflect an

intuitive association between cuteness and sweetness (REF?). Surprisingly, to the best of my

knowledge, no study has empirically investigated the cuteness-sweetness link in the marketing

domain. So, how does the visual appeal of cuteness influence consumers’ sugary food perceptions

and behavior intention? To answer the questions, I draw insight from both the cuteness and the

sensory marketing literature. Previous research suggests that both internal and external sources

underlie the “cuteness = sweetness” intuition. Internally, humans have an instinct to integrate

3

multiple sensory elements when such sensory modalities evoke common feelings and emotions

(Frank et al., 1993; Marks, 2014; Spence, 2011). Building on this notion named “crossmodal

correspondences”, I argue that that the “sweet taste/cute vision” match is evoked by the hedonic

properties embedded in both sensory modalities. Externally, before tasting, the visual perception

may induce some expectations based on consumers’ previous experiences. This cognitive status,

in turn, influences consumers’ subsequent taste perceptions. To elaborate, the marketing efforts of

constantly pairing cute elements with sugary foods may enhance perceived sweetness regardless

of the actual sugar level.

This thesis has several implications for theory. First, it illuminates a novel facilitator,

cuteness, that serves as an extrinsic sensory cue and leads consumers to perceive the sugary food

as sweeter. Second, this research extends the line of food perception research to the concept of

cuteness, suggesting that priming cuteness only significantly increases perceived tastiness but not

influences perceived healthiness of sugary foods. Third, this research also adds to the growing

literature on cute marketing. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first research to investigate

the priming effect of cuteness on consumers’ purchase intention of sweet foods, and the

sequential mediating role of sweetness perceptions and tastiness/healthiness perceptions. In the

following chapter, the literature related to the priming effect of cuteness and food perception is

reviewed. The research methods employed in this study and the results are then described.

Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of this research, in addition to a discussion of

limitations and potential future research, are presented.

4

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Overview of cuteness research

The word “cute” is ubiquitous in both the marketplace and daily communication (Wang

& Anirban, 2015). Even though cuteness denotes various, somewhat contradictory meanings in

colloquial language, in academia, it is categorized into two types: kindchenschema and

whimsicality.

Kindchenschema. Also known as “baby schema”, kindchenschema is a classic, well-

accepted definition of cuteness, firstly proposed by ethologist Konrad Lorenz (1943). It refers to

a set of infantile characteristics that evoke positive affective responses in human beings, including

both physical features (e.g., the large forehead, round chubby cheeks, and big eyes) and

behavioral traits (e.g., clumsy behavior; Glocker et al., 2009). Kindchenschema can attach

cuteness to infants (Li, Haws & Griskevicius, 2018), adults (Berry & McAuthur, 1985), and even

to non-human objects like animals and manufactured products (Golle et al., 2013; Miesler et al.,

2011). Miesler et al. (2011) suggest that cars with larger “eyes” (headlights), narrower “lips” (air

intake), and small “noses” (middle grilles) are perceived cuter than ones without such features,

thus eliciting observers’ positive responses. Since it relates to the vulnerable nature of a living

entity, exposure to kindchenschema cuteness triggers an innate releaser of parental care (Berry &

McArthur 1985; Lorenz 1943). Due to such mental representations of vulnerability and

caretaking, marketing researchers mainly study the impact of kinchenschema on enhancing

“other-benefit” behaviors such as charity donations consumption of green products and tolerance

of product failure (Xie et al., 2018). For instance, Shin (2019) found that after viewing a set of

cute images, participants exhibited higher donation intentions to a local food bank; Silva (2016)

5

demonstrated the effect of cuteness appeals on promoting a more plant-based diet; and

Sprengelmeyer et al. (2019) pointed out that since cuteness increases perceived warmth,

consumers tend to have higher tolerance for the failure of cute brands and are more willing to

listen to failure explanations.

Whimsicality. Nenkov and Scott (2014) proposed a novel dimension of cuteness, which

“is associated with capricious humor and playful disposition”. Examples of such cuteness include

an ice-cream scoop shaped like a miniature person or a dress with tropical colors and pink

flamingos. Wang and Anirban (2015) suggest that the French firm Pylones is an excellent

example of capturing whimsical cuteness since it specializes in “poetic and colorful objects”.

Distinctively different from the vulnerable nature inherent in kindchenschema, whimsicality

primes mental representations of fun and hedonic values. Therefore, related studies focus on its

impact on self-benefit behaviors. Nenkov and Scott (2014) found that priming cuteness increases

consumers' self-reward focus and makes them more likely to choose indulgent options. In a later

study (2016), they identified the effect of “responsibility reminders” on reducing cuteness-

induced indulgent consumption. When consumers are reminded of their responsibility to

themselves and other people, they are more likely to resist the temptation of purchasing cute

products, thus contributing to their long-term well-being.

Overall, cuteness is a multifaceted construct with two underlying subsets. The general

cuteness is a robust yet universal cue. Firstly, the effect of cuteness tends to override the effects

of other visual cues (Wang & Anirban, 2015). For example, usually, facial expressions with

positive emotions are found to increase perceived attractiveness. However, Hildebrandt (1983)

suggests that certain babies were rated more attractive, simply out of cuteness rather than the

expressions they conveyed. Secondly, cuteness perceptions are universal rather than culturally

determined. Sanefuji et al. (2007)’s study showed that preschool children, with little cultural

experiences, have similar preferences for cute objects. Esposito et al. (2014) found that cuteness

6

perceptions transcend group membership distinctions (i.e., similar responses for both in-groups

and out-groups). Parsons et al. (2011) also found that although women were more likely to report

sensitivity towards cute infant features, no significant difference was found between men’s and

women’s time spent looking at cute stimuli.

Cute priming and sweetness perception

The mainstream research of cuteness marketing centers around “the priming effect” of

cuteness on consumers’ perceptions and behaviors. Priming, as suggested by social-cognitive

theories, refers to the “technique whereby exposure to one stimulus influences an individual’s

response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention” (Bargh & Chartrand,

2000; Weingarten et al., 2016). In other words, exposure to one stimulus, which appears to have

an overlap or strong association (the association can be perceptual, semantic, or conceptual) with

the targeted stimulus, can activate given types of perceptions or behaviors (Dijksterhuis & Bargh,

2001). A significant amount of research has shown that people infer underlying traits and exhibit

behaviors they associate with other individuals, social groups, symbols, brands, and even product

attributes (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Fitzsimons et al., 2008). Consumers often lack access to

complete product information, and therefore, they tend to use symbolic associations to form

judgments about product attributes, which in turn, spill over to their product evaluations

(Benedikt, 2019; Deval et al. 2013).

Of particular importance to the current research, prior research has demonstrated that

packaging design elements, such as shape, color, and imagery, can alter consumers’ mental

representations, thus influencing their sweetness perceptions of food. Consumers perceive food

as sweeter when food packages are rounded rather than angular (Velasco et al., 2014), symmetric

rather than asymmetric, contain more elements rather than less (Salgado-Montejo et al., 2015),

7

voluminous rather than tight (Deroy & Valentin, 2011). Moreover, the priming effect still holds

when it’s not directly related to the target object. For instance, when instructed to listen to low-

pitched sounds and to read semantically familiar words, participants expressed higher levels of

“sweet” sensitivity (Liang et al., 2013; Velasco et al., 2014)

Taken together, prior research has examined the effect of single design elements, while

the focus of the current study is to investigate the effects of cute priming evoked by multiple

design elements. So, how does cute priming influence consumers’ sweetness perceptions of food?

This study posits that both internal and external sources underlie the “cuteness = sweetness”

intuition.

Internal sources. Humans are naturally integrative in their sensory perceptions (Frank et

al., 1993). The idea that the sweet food’s cute features can convey clues about its sweet taste may

be explained by the notion of “crossmodal correspondences”. Spence (2011) defines crossmodal

correspondences as “the tendency to match various attributes and sensory dimensions across

different sensory modalities”. To elaborate, when one sensory modality (e.g. taste) only provides

ambiguous and incomplete information, humans need to take in information from other parallel

sensory channels (e.g. light, sound, temperature, pressure and smell) to form concepts and

opinions about a complex stimulus, such as food or consumer products (Lavin & Lawless, 1998).

Crossmodal correspondences are more likely when all the sensory modalities evoke a common

feeling or emotion (Marks, 2014; Spence, 2011).

This study proposes that sweet taste/priming cuteness matches may be partly mediated by

the hedonic properties embedded in both sensory modalities. On the one hand, sweetness has high

hedonic value (Frijters, 1987) - the response to ingestion is one of pleasure, thus imparting high

hedonic value to sugar and sugar-containing foods. People typically match sweet taste with visual

stimuli when they denote similar hedonic and intensity-related properties (Velasco et al., 2014).

For example, Liang et al. (2013) and Velasco et al. (2015) showed that package shapes with

8

curvature attributes (e.g. circles and ellipses) induce higher hedonic scores, thus increasing

consumers’ sweet sensitivity (i.e., the ability to detect sweetness in food). Salgado-Montejo et al.

(2015) also suggest that participants categorized shapes that were round, symmetrical, and which

had fewer elements as sweeter and more pleasant. On the other hand, cuteness in general evokes a

positive affective response. The evidence in the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)

showed that the seven images rated highest in positive valence are all images of cute animals and

human babies (Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1999). Both the mental representations of

kinchenschema (i.e., wholesomeness) and whimsicality (i.e., fun and playfulness) point to the

hedonic value of cute features. Taken together, this study proposes that the positive feelings

people associate with cute visual stimuli spill over to the pleasure associated with sweet taste.

External Sources. In addition to sensory transference, marketing communications

repeatedly pairing sweet food with cute elements also account for the “cuteness = sweetness”

intuition. As Piqueras-Fiszman et al. (2012) suggested, the visual perception may set up some

expectations based on previous experiences and thereby unconsciously influence people’s taste

perceptions. Being constantly exposed to marketing communications pairing sweet food with cute

elements, consumers tend to view cuteness and sweetness cues as compatible. Other external

sources include personal communications, in which people are constantly exposed to views that

are compatible with the cuteness=sweetness intuition. The dictionary definition of “kawaii”

(cuteness) – “has a sweet nature” has suggested the co-occurrence of sweet and cute concepts

(Nittono, 2016). Cuteness has become the favored language of (the predominantly female) the

popular consumer culture (Granot, Alejandro & Russell, 2014). Taken together, I propose the

following:

H1: Cute (vs. neutral) priming increases consumers’ perception of food sweetness.

9

Cute priming and its opposite effect on tastiness/healthiness perceptions

Prior research suggests that as sweet intensity increased it had a positive impact on

perceived pleasantness, up to a flattening point (Pfaffmann, 1980; Wundt, 1874) When stored in

long-term memory, sweetness is not only a sensory perception but also “a part of the mental

attitude towards the food concerned” (Frijters, 1987). In other words, sweetness positively

correlates with perceived tastiness. For example, Meiselman (1977) found that 40% of 378

preferred food items were classified as being sweet. Despite their age, ethnicity, or culture,

humans have an innate preference towards the sweet taste due to the rewarding properties of

sugars and repeated experiences with heavily marketed, intensely sweet foods (Drewnowski et

al., 2012). The sense of pleasant feelings/emotions generated by cute priming will raise

consumers’ focus and responsiveness to cues regarding the possible self-reward, thus increasing

their perceptions of potential hedonic benefits (Voss et al., 2003). The hedonic value of food

products is defined by how good the food tastes (Connell & Mayor, 2013). In the field of sweet

foods, one important criterion of tastiness is perceived sweetness.

Therefore, the impact of cute priming increasing consumers’ tastiness perceptions is a

two-step process: (1) when exposed to a food item with cute packaging/shape, the notion of

pleasure is likely to be triggered and become mentally accessible. (2) The product imagery is

likely to be influenced by the pleasure association, resulting in the food item being perceived as

having more hedonic value (i.e., for sugary foods = sweeter and tastier). Thus,

H2a: Cute (vs. neutral) priming increases perceived tastiness.

H2b: The positive effect of cute priming perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived

sweetness.

However, according to the naive theory (Deval et al. 2013), people tend to draw opposing

inferences from the same information. Specifically, consumers categorize objects into those that

10

are fun and exciting (tasty) and those that are wholesome (healthy, nourishing, and good for you)

and hold the belief that there exists a compensatory relationship between the “wholesomeness”

and the one with “hedonic potential” (Raghunathan, Naylor & Hoyer, 2006). People generally

believe that healthy foods should have simple and clean designs such as muted colors, transparent

packages, and non-animated packages. While foods with cute elements go against such traditional

belief that healthy foods should look serious and may lead to negative healthiness inference. For

example, Elliott (2009) suggested that foods’ playful appearance negatively influences children’s

interpretation of health and nutrition. Huang and Lu (2013) also show that sweetness perceptions

mediate the relationship between package color and healthiness perceptions of foods. Since I

expect that priming cuteness leads to a positive inference about the food’s sweetness, I predict

that that cute priming serves as a positive taste cue and as a negative health cue. Thus,

H3a: Cute (vs. neutral) priming decreases perceived healthiness.

H3b: The negative effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness is mediated by

perceived sweetness.

Previous research shows that perceptions have a direct and often unconscious effect on a

wide range of behaviors, from simple motor movements to elaborate behavioral patterns

(Dijksterhuis et al. 2005). Accordingly, consumers’ food perceptions, activated by a particular

mental construct, influence their food decisions such as purchase intention. As priming cuteness

simultaneously increases perceived tastiness while decreasing perceived healthiness of the food

item, what is their relative impact on consumers’ purchase intention?

Previous studies have shown that product type influences consumer responses to

products, assortments, and promotions by shifting consumers’ focus to make judgments (Hui et

al., 2009; Milkman et al., 2008; Okada, 2005; Wertenbroch, 1998). For vice products (known as

“wants”), consumers pay more attention to the immediate pleasure they could experience rather

than long-term outcomes to make purchase decisions. While for virtue products (known as

11

“should”), the contribution to health is the most prominent criteria (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011).

The sugary foods like cookies, chocolates, and cakes are vice products since they bring the

affective gratification and are hedonic by nature (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Holbrook,

1982). Prior studies show that consumers focus on experiential attributes (i.e., the taste and

social–cultural meaning of the food) rather than functional values when evaluating hedonic foods.

For example, Schnurr (2019) found that for vice products (vs. virtue products), consumers

interpret cute packaging as a positive signal for tastiness, and care less about their negative

association with healthiness, thus increasing their purchase intention. Therefore, I predict that

when evaluating sugary foods, consumers prioritize tastiness rather than healthiness when making

purchase decision. Thus,

H4: For sweet foods, the positive impact of cute priming on consumers’ purchase

intention is sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and perceived tastiness.

The conceptual framework is shown below:

Figure 2-1: The conceptual framework

12

Chapter 3

Methods and Results

Study 1

Study 1 has two main goals. Firstly, it aims to demonstrate the cute priming effect. If

so, cuteness priming will have a positive impact on consumers’ purchase intention of sweet

foods. Secondly, this study investigates the underlying mechanism that cuteness cues make

consumers expect sugary foods to be sweeter, which further influences perceived tastiness,

perceived healthiness, and consequent purchase intention. I conduct an online experiment

with visual stimuli in line with previous studies on cuteness and food decision (Nenkov &

Scott, 2014; Schnurr, 2019).

Design and participants

This study used a single-factor (cute priming: cute vs. control) within-subjects design.

Cuteness priming was manipulated with images. Fifty-five participants were recruited from

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for a small monetary compensation. Two participants who

did not pass the attention checks were excluded from further analyses. Table 3-1 shows the

demographic profile of the respondents.

Table 3-1: Demographic profile of respondents.

Variables Characteristics Participants (N = 53) Percentage

Gender Male 34 64.2%

Female 19 35.8%

Age 18 - 24

3 5.7%

25 – 34 20 37.9%

35 – 44 19 36%

13

Stimuli

Pictures of two sugary cookies were chosen as stimuli. A Hello Kitty shape and a round

shape were selected as cute and neutral shapes, in line with the definition of cuteness and

previous experiments (Lee et al., 2018; Nenkov & Scott, 2014).

Figure 3-1: cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 1)

To ensure the effectiveness of the cuteness manipulation, all participants viewed both the

cute or neutral cookie and rated the extent to which the cookies were overall cute (cute, adorable,

endearing; α = .849), reflected whimsical cuteness (whimsical, playful, fun; α = .884 ), reflected

45 – 54 6 11.4%

55 – 64 3 5.7%

65 or over 2 3.8%

Ethnicity White 42 79.2%

Black or African American 6 11.3%

Asian 3 5.7%

Other 2 3.8%

Education High school graduate 13 24.5%

Some college 9 17%

2-year degree 6 11.3%

4-year degree 21 39.6%

Professional degree 4 7.5%

Income $10,000 to $50,000 33 62.3%

$50,000 to $100,000 19 35.8%

$100,000 to $150,000 1 1.9%

14

kindchenschema cuteness (vulnerable, naive, caretaking; α = .892), and were likable (likable,

attractive; r = .742 ). All items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely;

Nenkov & Scott, 2014).

Procedures and measures

Participants were informed that they would be completing a survey about consumers'

food consumption behavior. To avoid the order effect, the experimental procedure followed a

counter-balanced presentation order (Macfie et al., 1989; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012), that is,

half of the participants viewed the kitty cookie picture first, while the other half viewed the round

one first. After reporting their hunger level, participants viewed the first cookie picture and

completed the manipulation check and measurements of interests (see Appendix A for the full list

of measurements). Next, participants viewed the second cookie picture and answered the same

measures again. Demographic information was collected at the end.

Purchase intention

Likelihood to purchase the sugary cookie was captured with three items adapted from

Baker and Churchill (1977), and Kilbourne (1986): “Would you like to try this cookie?”, “Would

you buy this cookie if you happened to see it in a store?” and “Would you actively seek out this

cookie in a store in order to purchase it?” (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes; α = .843)

15

Food perceptions

An unstructured 10-cm-long scale was used to measure anticipated food sweetness,

anchored with “not sweet at all” and “extremely sweet” (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012).

Participants have to drag the slider to indicate their sweetness perception. Perceived tastiness and

healthiness were measured by one single item, respectively: “How would you rate this cookie on

the following attributes?” (1 = not at all tasty/healthy, 7 = very tasty/healthy).

Control variables

Participants indicated their hunger level (1 = not at all hungry, 7 = extremely hungry) and

their general liking of sugar cookies (1 = dislike extremely, 7 = like extremely). Having answered

the questions of interests, participants reported their demographic information (i.e., age, gender,

ethnicity, education and income).

Results

A paired sample t-test was conducted on perceived cuteness. The results showed that,

comparing to the control condition (i.e., round cookie), the cute condition (i.e., kitty cookie) was

perceived as cuter (Mcute = 5.264 vs. Mcontrol = 2.642, p < .001), more whimsical (Mcute =

5.214 vs. Mcontrol = 2.465, p < .001), and more kindchenschema (Mcute = 3.094 vs. Mcontrol =

2.170, p = .001), and more likable (Mcute = 5.311 vs. Mcontrol = 3.359, p < .001). The cuteness

manipulation was successful.

Results of paired samples t-test revealed that, comparing to the sugar cookie in the

neutral condition, participants rated the one in the cute condition as sweeter (Mcute = 7.359 vs.

16

Mcontrol = 6.377, t(3.201), p = .002), and as tastier (Mcute = 5.910 vs. Mcontrol = 5.380, t(2.654), p

= .011). The effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness was not significant (Mcute = 2.660 vs.

Mcontrol = 2.890, t(-1.030), p = .308). Furthermore, participants showed a higher purchase intention

with the cute cookie than the neutral one (Mcute = 4.798 vs. Mcontrol = 4.113, t(3.080), p = .003; see

Figure 3-2).

A mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach (MEMORE,

2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and tastiness as serial mediators (See Figure 3-3).

The positive indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived

sweetness and tastiness was not significant (effect (b) = .035, standard error (SE) = .059, 95%

Confidence Interval (CI95%) =- .076 to .166). The cute shape positively predicted perceived

sweetness (b = .981, SE = .307, t(3.), p = .002); Perceived sweetness positively predicted

perceived tastiness (b = .325, SE = .078, t(4.162), p < .001); But perceived tastiness failed to

positively predict purchase intention (b = .109, SE = .164, t( .669), p = .507). The direct

Figure 3-2: Main effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sweetness Tastiness Healthiness Purchase Intention

Cute Neutral

17

impact of cute priming on purchase intention was also significant (b = .686, SE = .223,

t(3.080), p = .003).

Figure 3-3: Sequential effect of cute priming on purchase intention (1)

Similarly, a mediation analysis was conducted using the bootstrapping approach

(MEMORE, 2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and healthiness as serial mediators.

The negative indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived

sweetness and healthiness was not significant (b = .002, SE = .016, CI95% =- .042 to .029).

The cute shape positively predicted perceived sweetness (b = .981, SE = .307, t(3.201), p

= .002); Perceived sweetness failed to negatively predict perceived healthiness (b = .037, SE

= .104, t( .355), p = .724) and perceived healthiness also failed to positively predicted

purchase intention (b = .061, SE = .119, t(. 515), p = .609). The direct impact of cute priming

on purchase intention was significant (b = .686, SE = .223, t(3.080), p = .003).


Cute

Priming

Purchase

Intention

Perceived

Sweetness

Perceived

Tastiness

.002

(+ .981) .002

(+ .328)

.507

(+ .109) .264

(+ .210)

< .001

(+ .325) .003

(+ .686)

18

Cute

Priming

Purchase

Intention

Perceived

Sweetness

Perceived

Healthiness

.002

(+ .981) < .001

(+ .365)

.609

(+ .061) .291

(- .262)

.724

(+ .037) .003

(+ .686)

19

Study 2

Study 1 initially established the cute priming effect derived from visual stimuli in an

online setting. Study 2 applied a lab experiment to demonstrate the robustness of the cute priming

effect. Specially, while Study 1 only gauged participants’ anticipated sweetness of the food,

Study 2 captured taste perceptions.

Design and participants

Study 2 used a single-factor (cute priming: cute vs. control) within-subjects design.

The priming of cuteness was manipulated via cookie shapes. Fifty-three undergraduate

students (N = 53, 64% Female) at the Pennsylvania State University participated in the study

in return for extra credit

Stimuli

Sugar cookies were chosen as stimuli. Consistent with Study 1, the Hello Kitty shape and

a round shape were selected as the cute and neutral shape, respectively. The cookies were custom

ordered from a local bakery. Regardless of their shape (kitty vs. round), both cute and neutral

cookies had the same color, weight, and ingredients. Again, to ensure the effectiveness of the

cuteness manipulation, all participants viewed both the cute or neutral cookie and rated the extent

to which the cookies were cute (cute, adorable, endearing; α = .881), reflected whimsical cuteness

(whimsical, playful, fun; α = .837 ), reflected kindchenschema cuteness (vulnerable, naive,

caretaking; α = .906), and were likable (likable, attractive; r = .764 ). All items were measured on

a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).

20

Figure 3-5: cute (left) vs. neutral (right) cookie shape (Study 2)

Procedures and measures

The experiment was conducted at a research laboratory at the university, where

participants sat in an individual carrel and filled out a computer-assisted survey. Before

entering the lab, the “fake” study purpose and instructions were given to the participants.

After reporting their hunger level, participants were given either a kitty shape or round shape

cookie on a white plate. They were instructed to observe, touch and taste the cookie and then

fill out the questionnaire on the computer, before trying the next cookie. The presentation

order (kitty shape cookie vs. round shape cookie) was counterbalanced. A cup of water was

available for rinsing the palate between samples. Participants were allowed to finish cookies

after they had completed the evaluation if they so wished. Evaluations were performed under

artificial daylight type illumination, temperature control (70–75 °F) and air circulation.

The focal study was disguised as the evaluation of the local bakery’s new products.

To mask the genuine purpose, participants were asked rate the cookie on different several

21

irrelevant attributes (e.g. perceived quality, perceived intensity). Other measurements were

the same as Study 1.

Results

The manipulation check of cuteness was successful. The results showed that, compared to

the control condition (i.e., round cookie), the cute condition (i.e., kitty cookie) was perceived as

cuter (Mcute = 4.799 vs. Mcontrol = 2.654, p < .001), more whimsical (Mcute = 4.868 vs. Mcontrol =

2.270, p < .001), more kindchenschema (Mcute = 3.157 vs. Mcontrol = 2.346, p < .001), and evoked

more positive affect (Mcute = 4.962 vs. Mcontrol = 3.302, p < .001) as expected.

Results of paired samples t-test found that, participants in the cute condition rated the

cookie as sweeter (Mcute = 5.453 vs. Mcontrol = 4.189, t(3.619), p = .001) and were more willing to

purchase it (Mcute = 3.925 vs. Mcontrol = 3.006, t(5.735), p < .001). The effect of cute priming on

perceived tastiness was marginally significant (Mcute = 4.580 vs. Mcontrol = 4.250, t(1.749), p

= .086), while the effect of cute priming on perceived healthiness was insignificant (Mcute = 2.940

vs. Mcontrol = 2.830, t(1.352), p = .182).

Figure 3-6: Main Effect of cute priming on food perceptions and purchase intention (2)

22


2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and tastiness as serial mediators (See Figure. 3-7).

It produced a significant positive indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention

through perceived sweetness and tastiness (effect (b) = .084, standard error (SE) = .045, 95%

Confidence Interval (CI95%) = .017 to .189). Specifically, the cute shape positively predicted

perceived sweetness (b = 1.264, SE = .349, t(3.619), p < .001); Perceived sweetness

positively predicted perceived tastiness (b = .220, SE = .073, t(3.018), p < .004) and

perceived tastiness positively predicted purchase intention (b = .302, SE = .115, t(2.625), p

< .012). The direct impact of cute priming on purchase intention was also significant (b

= .918, SE = .160, t(5.735), p < .001).


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sweetness Tastiness Healthiness Purchase Intention

Cute Neutral

23


2017; Model 1) with perceived sweetness and healthiness as serial mediators. The negative

indirect effect of cute priming on purchase intention through perceived sweetness and

healthiness was not significant (b =- .015, SE = 0.026, 95%, CI95% =- .069

to .043).Specifically, the cute shape positively predicted perceived sweetness (b = 1.264, SE

= .349, t(3.619), p < .001); Perceived sweetness failed to negatively predict perceived

healthiness (b = - .023, SE = .340, t(- .686), p = .496) and perceived healthiness also failed to

positively predicted purchase intention (b = .493, SE = .271, t(1.817), p = .076). The direct

impact of cute priming on purchase intention was significant (b = .918, SE = .160, t(5.735), p

< .001).


Cute

Priming

Purchase

Intention

Perceived

Sweetness

Perceived

Tastiness

<.001

(+ 1.264) .002

(+ .079)

.012

(+ .302) .766

(+ .061)

.004

(+ .220) <.001

(+ .918)

24

The table below summarizes the support for the proposed hypotheses

Table 3-2: Two study results

Study 1 Study 2

H1 Supported Supported H2a and H2b Supported Supported

H3a and H3b Not Supported Not Supported

H4 Not Supported Supported

Cute

Priming

Purchase

Intention

Perceived

Sweetness

Perceived

Healthiness

<.001

(+ 1.264) .017

(+ .154)

.076

(+ .493) .139

(+ .143)

.496

(- .023) <.001

(+ .918)

25

Chapter 4

General Discussion

Results from Study 1 provide initial evidence of the cute priming effect. The findings

suggest that viewing an image of a cute cookie increases perceived sweetness (H1 supported).

Moreover, the positive priming effect of cuteness on perceived tastiness is mediated by perceived

sweetness (H2a and H2b supported). Such an increase in perceived sweetness and tastiness,

however, did not influence participants’ purchase intention (H4 not supported). The failure to

detect such a mediation may be attributed to the limitation of an online survey. In the online

setting, participants can only “imagine and expect” the taste/flavor by viewing food pictures

rather than actually tasting them. Therefore the mediating effect of “anticipated tastiness” is not

strong enough to drive purchase intention. If so, we would expect that consumers are more

willing to buy cute cookies when they are able to actually taste them, which drives me to conduct

the second lab experiment.

These findings also indicate that priming cuteness has no influence on healthiness

perceptions (H3a and H3b not supported). This counterintuitive finding can be explained with the

“Least Mean Square (LMS)” connectionist model (Gluck & Bower, 1988; Janiszewski & Van

Osselaer, 2000): The LMS was developed to explain how people learn, remember, and react to

stimuli, assuming that cues compete to acquire predictive values. In other words, one cue can

only acquire predictive value when performance differences that it predicts have not been covered

by other available cues. For instance, Besharat (2010) found that, in the context ofco-branding,

quality perceptions for products with two high-equity brands do not differ from those for a

product with one high-equity and one low-equity brand, because one high-equity brand has

already provided sufficient predictive cues to form attitudinal judgments.

26

Similarly, there are two cues consumers use for making healthiness judgment: (1) the cue

brought by food type, and (2) the cue brought by the cute shape. According to the LMS

connectionist model, since the product type of the sugary cookie is hedonic in nature and provides

sufficient information about how unhealthy the cookie may be, it inhibits the access to any

possible associations of the second ally (i.e., the negative healthiness perception brought by the

cute shape). Such a ceiling effect is a compelling reason why H3a and H3b are rejected.

Study 2 replicates Study 1 in a real lab setting. The study findings provide converging

evidence for the cute priming effect. Priming cuteness positively influenced consumers’ purchase

intention (H4 supported), which is sequentially mediated through perceived sweetness and

tastiness (H1, H2a and H2b supported). Consistent with Study 1, priming cuteness does not

influence consumers’ healthiness perceptions (H3a and H3b not supported), which may result

from the ceiling effect of two competing cues as previously suggested.

Theoretical implications

The current research contributes to the hospitality literature in several ways. First, the two

studies illuminate a novel facilitator, cuteness, that serves as an extrinsic cue and leads consumers

to perceive the sugary food as sweeter. Previous research has mainly focused on single elements

such as color brightness (Mai et al. 2016), color hue (Karnal et al. 2016), shape angularity (Fenko

et al. 2016; Velasco et al. 2014), shape size (Deroy & Valentin, 2011) and product visuals

(Machiels & Karnal 2016), while little attention has been devoted to stimulus combined with

multi design elements. To fill this void, this research demonstrates that cuteness, a robust and

universal visual cue with multiple elements can effectively leverage consumers’ sweetness

perception. It is noteworthy here that the study findings reveal that the impacts of cute priming on

27

sweetness perception are not only the result of crossmodal correspondences, but also driven by

marketing efforts (Velasco et al., 2014). My findings shed light on a pleasant catalyst of cute

priming, which has a strong appeal in the hospitality industry since it overrides other visual

marketing elements.

Second, this study extends food perception research. Prior research shows that consumers

depend on expectations about food quality (i.e., taste, health, convenience and process) when

making food choices(Brunsø & Grunert, 2002). I extend this stream of literature by showing that

hedonic values induced by sweetness (taste) and the cute food shape (visual) jointly influence

consumers’ taste perceptions, thus leading to higher purchase intention.

Third, this research adds to the growing literature on cute marketing. When exploring the

role of cuteness in food marketing, the vast majority of research primarily focuses on one subset

of cuteness rather than picture cuteness holistically. Also, the impacts of cuteness on food intake

have generated more attention than the perception-purchase behavior link. For instance,

kinchenschema effectively reduces meat consumption and induces a more plant-based diet (Silva,

2016), while whimsicality promotes indulgent consumption by increasing consumers’ self-reward

focus (Nenkov & Scott, 2014). To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to examine

how cute food shapes drive consumers’ food perceptions and subsequent purchase intention.

Sugary foods are often bundled with cute images, thus magnifying their hedonic nature. I extend

the stream of literature by demonstrating the sequential mediating role of sweetness and tastiness

on the relationship between cute priming and purchase intention of sugary foods.

Managerial implications

This study also provides actionable managerial implications for marketers and

policymakers. On the one hand, the findings suggest that marketers should make use of cute

28

elements to promote sweet treats’ perceived sweetness. Cultural factors are powerful

determinants of which food we prefer, as dietary experience may influence liking for tastes and

flavors (especially sweet and bitter; Rozin & Vollmecke, 1986). Prescott and Bell (1995) show

that compared with Taiwanese students, US students rated the cookies as more pleasant at high

sucrose concentrations. Also, foods are pervasively sweeter in the North American region due to

a complex and interlocking set of forces like support from the US government, sugar growers,

and food service sectors (De la Peña, 2010; Laudan, 2016; Woloson, 2002). Since Americans are

conditioned to expect sweet foods at a high sugar level, marketers should use more cute elements

to increase perceived. Moreover, when consuming sweet treats, people predominantly focus on

the immediate pleasure, thus looking for cues that signal tastiness with less attention to how

unhealthy the food might be. To make such pleasure more salient, designers can incorporate

"cuteness" into products by color, material, motion, sound, shape, size, and proportion (Cheok,

2010).

On the other hand, priming cuteness could be an effective strategy for policymakers to

fight against obesity. From 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the prevalence of obesity increased

from 30.5% to 42.4%, resulting to an estimated $147 billion expenditures in the U.S. per year

(CDC, 2020) Results of Study 2 show that the cute food shape can “fool” our taste buds by

making us think the food is sweeter than it actually is. Therefore, policymakers can encourage

companies to produce healthy snacks with cute elements, leading consumers to make healthier

food choices and reduce their sugar intake.

Limitations and future research

Despite the contributions to theory and practice, the limitations of the current study open

up several avenues for future research. First, the two experiments were conducted using a single

29

stimulus, a kitty shape cookie, to represent cuteness. The results indicate that priming cuteness

evokes positive affective responses, therefore influencing consumers’ food perception. Nenkov

and Scott (2014) identify two sub-dimensions of cuteness – kinchenschema and whimsicality.

The former leads to more careful behaviors, suggesting restraint, while the latter induces

indulgent consumption. Therefore, future research should examine the strength of the priming

effect for each sub-dimension on consumers’ food perceptions and decision-making processes.

This research failed to demonstrate that cuteness has a negative impact on perceived healthiness.

One possible explanation is that these two types of cuteness may produce distinctive effects, thus

potentially offsetting each other. Also, there are various ways to prime cuteness. Xie et al., (2018)

categorized cuteness marketing into two types: “impression type” (e.g., package, logo, brand

name, placement) and “interactive type” (e.g., interaction, social media campaign). It would be

interesting to examine how different ways of priming cuteness influence consumers’ food

perceptions.

Second, food type has important implications for food decisions (Raghunathan et al.,

2006; Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). The current studies used a sugar cookie as a stimulus, which

is hedonic in nature. Future investigations should consider the moderating role of food type (e.g.,

vice food vs. virtue food, hedonic food vs. functional food) on the relationship between cuteness

priming and consumer responses.

Lastly, the study findings indicate that the priming effect of cuteness on purchase

intention was sequentially mediated by perceived sweetness and tastiness. In other words, the

sweeter the food, the tastier the participant rated it. However, previous research suggests that taste

preferences are culture-dependent (Getchell, 1991; Prescott & Bell, 1995). It is possible that

cuteness effect might backfire in cultures with less emphasis on sugary foods. Future studies

should examine the moderating role of culture on cute marketing in the food context.

30

Appendix

Cuteness measurements for Study 1 & 2

Cuteness Manipulation (Nenkov & Scott, 2014)

To what extent do you think this cookie is (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely)

Overall cuteness: cute, adorable, endearing

Whimsical cuteness: whimsical, playful, fun

Kindchenschema cuteness: vulnerable, naive, caretaking

Likability: likable, attractive

Purchase Intention (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Kilbourne, 1986)

Please answer the following questions (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely yes)

Would you like to try this cookie?

Would you buy this cookie if you happened to see it in a store?

Would you actively seek out this cookie in a store in order to purchase it?

Sweetness Perception (Lei & Ji, 2015; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012)

Please drag the slider to rate this cookie on anticipated sweetness

Please drag the slider to rate this cookie on perceived sweetness

(1 = not at all, 7 = extremely high)

Tastiness and Healthiness Perception

How would you expect this sugar cookie on the following attributes?

How would you perceive this sugar cookie on the following attributes?

(1 = not at all tasty/healthy, 7 = very tasty/healthy)

Hunger Level

Please indicate your hunger level (1 = not at all hungry, 7 = extremely hungry)

Sweet Food Preference

31

In general, to what extent do you like sugar cookies (1 = dislike extremely, 7 = like extremely)

32

References

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands?

Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of consumer

research, 39(2), 307-323.

Baker, M. J., & Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on

advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing research, 14(4), 538-555.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle. Handbook of research methods

in social and personality psychology, 2, 253-285.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer

attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.

Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a

babyface. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(2), 312.

Besharat, A. (2010). How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of

new products: A brand equity approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1240-

1249.

Boyer, L. E., Laurentz, S., McCabe, G. P., & Kranz, S. (2012). Shape of snack foods does not

predict snack intake in a sample of preschoolers: a cross-over study. International

Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 94.

Branen, L., Fletcher, J., & Hilbert, L. (2002). Snack consumption and waste by preschool

children served “cute” versus regular snacks. Journal of nutrition education and

behavior, 34(5), 279-282.

Brunsø, K., Fjord, T. A., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and quality

perception. The Aarhus School of Business Publ., Aarhus, Denmark.

33

Cheok, A. D. (2010). Art and technology of entertainment computing and communication.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Connell, P. M., & Mayor, L. F. (2013). Activating health goals reduces (increases) hedonic

evaluation of food brands for people who harbor highly positive (negative) affect toward

them. Appetite, 65, 159-164.

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.

Deroy, O., & Valentin, D. (2011). Tasting liquid shapes: investigating the sensory basis of cross-

modal correspondences. Chemosensory Perception, 4(3), 80.

Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive

opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),

1185-1201.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects

of social perception on social behavior. In Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1-40). Academic Press.

Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., Van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The unconscious

consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of consumer

psychology, 15(3), 193-202.

Drewnowski, A., Mennella, J. A., Johnson, S. L., & Bellisle, F. (2012). Sweetness and food

preference. The Journal of nutrition, 142(6), 1142S-1148S.

Elliott, C. (2009). Healthy food looks serious: How children interpret packaged food products.

34

Esposito, G., Nakazawa, J., Ogawa, S., Stival, R., Kawashima, A., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein,

M. H. (2014). Baby, you light-up my face: culture-general physiological responses to

infants and culture-specific cognitive judgements of adults. PloS one, 9(10).

Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., & Galetzka, M. (2016). What’s in a name? The effects of sound

symbolism and package shape on consumer responses to food products. Food quality and

preference, 51, 100-108.

Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand

exposure on motivated behavior: how apple makes you “think different”. Journal of

consumer research, 35(1), 21-35.

Frijters, J. E. (1987). Sensory sweetness perception, its pleasantness, and attitudes to sweet foods.

In Sweetness (pp. 67-80). Springer, London.

Getchell, T. V. (Ed.). (1991). Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven Press (ID).

Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N.

(2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for

caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263.

Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive

network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 227.

Golle, J., Lisibach, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Sweet puppies and cute babies:

Perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. PloS one, 8(3), e58248.

Granot, E., Alejandro, T. B., & Russell, L. T. M. (2014). A socio-marketing analysis of the

concept of cute and its consumer culture implications. Journal of Consumer

Culture, 14(1), 66-87.

Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1983). The infant's physical attractiveness: Its effect on

bonding and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 4(1), 1-12.

35

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods

and propositions. Journal of marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

Huang, R., Dahl, D. W., Li, S., & Zhou, Q. (2019). The Effect of Packaging Perceptual Cues on

Consumer Disposal Behavior of Partially Consumed Products. Journal of the Association

for Consumer Research, 4(4), 352-362.

Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2013). When color meets health: The impact of package colors on the

perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. ACR North American Advances.

Hui, S. K., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2009). Testing behavioral hypotheses using an

integrated model of grocery store shopping path and purchase behavior. Journal of

consumer research, 36(3), 478-493.

Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2000). A connectionist model of brand–quality

associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 331-350.

Karnal, N., Machiels, C. J., Orth, U. R., & Mai, R. (2016). Healthy by design, but only when in

focus: Communicating non-verbal health cues through symbolic meaning in

packaging. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 106-119.

Kilbourne, W. E. (1986). An exploratory study of the effect of sex role stereotyping on attitudes

toward magazine advertisements. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(4),

43-46.

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective picture system

(IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. The center for research in

psychophysiology, University of Florida.

Lavin, J. G., & Lawless, H. T. (1998). Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness

among children and adults. Food Quality and Preference, 9(4), 283-289.

36

Lee, H. C., Chang, C. T., Chen, Y. H., & Huang, Y. S. (2018). The spell of cuteness in food

consumption? It depends on food type and consumption motivation. Food Quality and

Preference, 65, 110-117.

Li, Y. J., Haws, K. L., & Griskevicius, V. (2019). Parenting motivation and consumer decision-

making. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 1117-1137.

Liang, P., Roy, S., Chen, M. L., & Zhang, G. H. (2013). Visual influence of shapes and semantic

familiarity on human sweet sensitivity. Behavioural Brain Research, 253, 42-47.

Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen formen möglicher erfahrung. Zeitschrift für

Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 235-409.

MacFie, H. J., Bratchell, N., GREENHOFF, K., & Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance the

effect of order of presentation and first‐order carry‐over effects in hall tests. Journal of

sensory studies, 4(2), 129-148.

Mai, Robert, Claudia Symmank, and Berenike Seeberg-Elverfeldt. "Light and pale colors in food

packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior

tastiness?." Journal of Retailing 92, no. 4 (2016): 426-444.

Meiselman, H. L. (1977). The role of sweetness in the food preference of young adults. Taste and

development, 269-281.

Miesler, L., Leder, H., & Herrmann, A. (2011). Isn’t it cute: An evolutionary perspective of baby-

schema effects in visual product designs. International Journal of Design, 5(3), 17-30.

Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels and

demons: What we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can

help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 3(4), 324-338.

Nenkov, G. Y., & Scott, M. L. (2014). “So cute I could eat it up”: priming effects of cute

products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341.

37

Ngo, M. K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A., Boehm, E., O’Neill, D., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing

crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound

symbolism. Food quality and preference, 28(1), 361-369.

Nielsen, R., & Nielsen, M. R. (2016). Package‘arabicStemR’.

Nittono, H. (2016). The two-layer model of'kawaii': A behavioural science framework for

understanding kawaii and cuteness. East Asian Journal of Popular Culture, 2(1), 79-96.

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian

goods. Journal of marketing research, 42(1), 43-53.

Parsons, C. E., Young, K. S., Kumari, N., Stein, A., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2011). The

motivational salience of infant faces is similar for men and women. PloS one, 6(5).

Pfaffmann, C. (1980). Wundt's schema of sensory affect in the light of research on gustatory

preferences. Psychological research, 42(1-2), 165-174.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food?

Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on the

perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 205-208.

Prescott, J., & Bell, G. (1995). Cross-cultural determinants of food acceptability: Recent research

on sensory perceptions and preferences. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 6(6),

201-205.

Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy= tasty intuition and its

effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of

Marketing, 70(4), 170-184.

Rozin, P., & Vollmecke, T. A. (1986). Food likes and dislikes. Annual review of nutrition, 6(1),

433-456.

38

Salgado Montejo, A., Alvarado, J. A., Velasco, C., Salgado, C. J., Hasse, K., & Spence, C.

(2015). The sweetest thing: The influence of angularity, symmetry, and the number of

elements on shape-valence and shape-taste matches. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1382.

Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2007). Development of preference for baby faces

across species in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Ethology, 25(3), 249-254.

Scott, M. L., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2016). Using consumer responsibility reminders to reduce

cuteness-induced indulgent consumption. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 323-336.

Schnurr, B. (2019). Too cute to be healthy: How cute packaging designs affect judgments of

product tastiness and healthiness. Journal of the Association for Consumer

Research, 4(4), 363-375.

Shin, J. (2019). Aww effect: Incidental exposure to cuteness increases prosociality (Doctoral

dissertation, Pennsylvania State University).

Silva, C. R. P. D. (2016). Am I too cute to eat? The effect of cuteness appeal on the promotion of

a more plant-based diet (Doctoral dissertation).

Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, &

Psychophysics, 73(4), 971-995.

Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer,

A., ... & Milne, N. (2009). The cutest little baby face: A hormonal link to sensitivity to

cuteness in infant faces. Psychological Science, 20(2), 149-154.

Van Ooijen, I., Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2017). Packaging design as an

implicit communicator: Effects on product quality inferences in the presence of explicit

quality cues. Food quality and preference, 62, 71-79.

Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014). Predictive

packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and

Preference, 34, 88-95.

39

Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2015). Hedonic mediation of the crossmodal

correspondence between taste and shape. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 151-158.

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian

dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3), 310-320.

Wang, T., & Anirban, M. (2015). How consumers respond to cute products. The psychology of

design: Creating consumer appeal, 149-67.

Weingarten, E., Chen, Q., McAdams, M., Yi, J., Hepler, J., & Albarracín, D. (2016). From

primed concepts to action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally

presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 472.

Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and

vice. Marketing science, 17(4), 317-337.

Wundt, W. M. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Vol. 1). W. Engelman.

Xie, Z., & Wang, T., & Zhao, J. (2018). A literature review of cuteness in marketing. Foreign

Economics & Management, 40(05), 56-68.

Documents

THE PRIMING EFFECTS OF CUTENESS ON CONSUMERS’ FOOD