||The Effects of Package Design on Product Experience and Parent-Child Purchase Decision-Making - A Case Study of Wooden Educational Toys
||Department of Industrial Design
Along with children’s development, the toys that are suitable for them at each stage vary. According to Maria Montessori, an Italian educator, if children aged 3 to 7 years old are provided with toys that are attractive and could help them play voluntarily and repeatedly, their sensory ability is believed to be developed and cultivated. Therefore, if children can be engaged in making purchase decision, the toys that are bought can not only better meet their preference and needs but also greatly benefit their development. While selecting product in a brick-and-mortar store, packaging is always considered the primary media between consumers and the product. According to 林圓舒(2013), it was discovered that different types of packaging initiated different gestures, providing people with different visual and tactile product experience. Hence, the present study adopted the analysis of Quantification III and classified the wooden educational toys that are available in the market, selecting four types of educational toys which are operated by different gestures as experimental samples. Moreover, via observation from video recordings and EGM interview, the product experience, parent-child communication and decision-making process initiated by each type of packaging were investigated.
The present study found that the pleasure of playing was the major feature that attracted children, who did not have much experience and were still learning, to contact and select the packaging. This finding was more evident in the half-sealed type of packaging, which exposed almost the entire toy to the environment. Whereas, parents put emphasis on the features of being able to confirm the quality of the content and the functions of packaging after it was unpacked. Accordingly, parents preferred the half-transparent type of packaging, which provided complete covering and allowed them to see the content. During collaborative decision-making task, the half-sealed type of packaging was found to initiate conversation between parents and children the most effectively. Nevertheless, in making a selection, parents’ opinions were still quite decisive. The percentage of selecting the packaging was higher if it was the one that won parents’ acceptance. This finding was more evident in the half-transparent type and sealed and transparent type with a hole. Consequently, while showcasing wooden educational toys, the half-sealed type of packaging, which can best catch children’s eyes and initiate parent-child communication, is recommended. Finally, it is essential to consider what kinds of operational experience that consumers expect from the packaging and manage to equip it with as complete covering as possible. This way, the packaging is overall more likely to win parents’ acceptance.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Framework 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Educational Toy and Child Development 5
2.1.1 Definition of Educational Toy 5
2.1.2 Educational Toy and Child Development 5
2.1.3 Wooden Educational Toys 7
2.1.4 Brief Summary 9
2.2 Toys and Purchase Decision-Making 9
2.2.1 Children’s Purchase Decision-Making 9
2.2.2 Parent-Child Collaborative Purchase Decision-Making 10
2.2.3 Brief Summary 13
2.3 Packaging and Product Experience 13
2.3.1 Commercial and Toy Packaging 13
2.3.2 Visual Experience of Product 15
2.3.3 Tactile Experience of Product 16
2.3.4 Brief Summary 17
2.4 Summary 17
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Experimental Design and Structure 19
3.2 Experimental Preparation 20
3.2.1 Participants 20
3.2.2 Samples of Wooden Educational Toys 20
3.2.3 Samples of Toy Packaging 24
3.2.4 Experimental Environment 25
3.3 Experimental Design and Process 26
3.3.1 Participants 26
3.3.2 Experimental Methods 26
3.3.3 Experimental Procedures 27
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28
4.1 Visual Product Experience Triggered by Each Type of Packaging 28
4.1.1 Sealed 28
4.1.2 Sealed with a hole 29
4.1.3 Half-transparent 30
4.1.4 Half-sealed 30
4.1.5 Sealed and transparent with a hole 31
4.1.6 Summary 32
4.2 Tactile Product Experience Triggered by Each Type of Packaging 32
4.2.1 Sealed 33
4.2.2 Sealed with a hole 34
4.2.3 Half-transparent 36
4.2.4 Half-sealed 37
4.2.5 Sealed and transparent with a hole 39
4.2.6 Summary 40
4.3 The Suitable Type of Packaging for Each Type of Educational Toy 42
4.3.1 Hamburger Castanets 42
4.3.2 Potato Maracas 43
4.3.3 Wobbling Boat 45
4.3.4 Fish Xylophone 47
4.3.5 Summary 48
4.4 The Purchase Decision-Making Influenced by Types of Packaging 49
4.4.1 Independent Decision-Making 49
4.4.2 Collaborative Decision-Making 55
4.4.3 Summary 61
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63
5.1 Conclusions 63
5.1.1 The Impact of Packaging on Product Experience 63
5.1.2 The Impact of Packaging on Purchase Decision-Making 64
5.1.3 The Suitable Type of Packaging for Each Type of Educational Toy 65
5.2 Recommendations 66
Appendix A HAND-OBJECT INTERACTION OF EDUCATIONAL TOYS 70
Appendix B QUANTIFICATION III OF WOODEN EDUCATIONAL TOYS 71
Appendix C TIMES OF SELECTION OF TOY PACKAGING 84
Appendix D PREFERENCE SCORES OF TOY PACKAGING 86
Appendix E TIME LENGTH OF CONTACTING TOY PACKAGING 88
Appendix F DATA OF EGM INTERVIEW 92
Appendix G T-TEST 111
Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Cognitive responses in persuasion: Affective and evaluative determinants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 180-200.
De Groot, I. M., Antonides, G., Read, D., & Raaij, W. (2009). The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3), 509-518.
Desmet, P. M., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
Elkind, D. (2006). Power of Play: How Spontaneous, Imaginative Activities Lead to Happier, Healthier Children: Da Capo Press.
Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 492-507.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system”. Perception & Psychophysics, 37(4), 299-302.
Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Visual-tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 61-87.
Madar, A., Boscor, D., Baltescu, C.-A., & Neacşu, N.-A. (2012). Wooden Versus Plastic Toys. Annals-Economy Series, 4, 162-166.
Mann, D. (1996). Serious play. The Teachers College Record, 97(3), 446-469.
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 189-202.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.
Schifferstein, H. N., & Cleiren, M. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. Acta psychologica, 118(3), 293-318.
Schifferstein, H. N., & Desmet, P. M. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50(12), 2026-2048.
Schmitt, B. H. (2000). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate: Simon and Schuster.
Smith, G. E., & Nagle, T. T. (1995). Frames of reference and buyers' perception of price and value. California Management Review, 38, 98-116.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of product trial versus advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 257-267.
王川華. (2000). 玩具也可以是教具: 蒙特梭利.
林圓舒. (2013). 以使用者經驗探討玩具產品包裝與使用者之互動性. 臺中科技大學商業設計系碩士班學位論文.
金子修也. (1989). パッケージ・デザイン: 夜も地球もパッケージ: 鹿島出版会.
高橋弘子. (1995). 日本のシュタイナー幼稚園: 水声社.
許勝雄. (1996). 手部動作分類研究. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol.13(No.2), 10.
陳俊宏, & 楊東民. (2000). 視覺傳達設計概論, 台北: 全華科技圖書.
劉翠華. (2007). 幼兒教玩具設計與運用. 楊智, 台北.
The Family Room Strategic Consulting Group, LLC, (2013). Toy & Game Family Descision Making Study--A White Paper prepared for the Toy Industry Association. Retrieved 10/20, 2014, from http://www.toyassociation.org/app_themes/tia/pdfs/resources/
日本GFK（Gesellschaft für KonSumforschung）. (2014).「玩具購入や子どもの生活に関する意識調査」 - 子ども主体のおもちゃ選び、基準は好きなキャラクター.Retrieved 10/5, 2014, from http://www.gfk.com/jp/news-and-events/