Abstract:

People typically buy products for a certain function (e.g., laundry detergent for cleaning clothes, energy drinks for refreshing, ibuprofen tablets for pain relief, and hand cream for moisturizing). Marketers spare no effort to utilize marketing elements to enhance consumers’ perception of product efficacy. This research documents an intriguing empirical phenomenon whereby visual simplicity in packages increases the valuation of product efficacy.

Seven studies were conducted to verify our predictions. Study 1 (N = 80) was an Implicit Association Test, providing initial evidence for the link between visual simplicity and effectiveness attributes. That is, visual simplicity is more associated with high effectiveness, whereas visual complexity is more associated with low effectiveness (see Table 1). Moving forward, Studies 2A (N = 261), 2B (N = 259), and 2C (N = 222) were conducted to confirm the core effect of visual simplicity on perceived product efficacy by using different principles that determine visual complexity. In particular, we tested the core effect of visual simplicity on product efficacy judgment across different product categories, including handwash (Study 2A) and medical products (Studies 2B and 2C). The results showed that products with simple aesthetics are perceived as more effective, in support of Hypothesis 1 (see Table 2).

To reveal the underlying mechanism of the effect of package simplicity on product efficacy, perceived goal focus was introduced to this research. Study 3 (N = 264) provided empirical evidence for this process. A between-subjects design of a single factor (package simplicity: simple vs. complex) was utilized to test the proposed underlying mechanism. With a PROCESS Model 4 (resamples = 5000), it was found that perceived goal focus mediated the effect of package simplicity on product efficacy (Indirect effects = -0.09, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: [-0.2037, -0.0084]). The results showed that products with simple aesthetics are perceived as more focused on the goal of utilitarian benefits, thus resulting in a higher evaluation of product efficacy. In contrast, products with complex aesthetics are perceived as less focused on the goal of utilitarian benefits, thus leading to a lower evaluation of product efficacy. These results provided additional evidence for Hypothesis 2.

Furthermore, Study 4 (N = 258) was conducted to identify the moderating role of zero-sum beliefs about products (i.e., Hypothesis 3). In this study, we manipulated package complexity and measured participants’ zero-sum beliefs about products. The results indicated that when participants’ zero-sum belief is strong, the effect of package simplicity on product efficacy will be replicated, which echoes the findings from Studies 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3. However, when participants’ zero-sum belief is weak, the effect of package simplicity on product effectiveness will be attenuated. Thus, the moderating role of zero-sum beliefs is significant, confirming Hypothesis 3 (see Figure 1).

Finally, Study 5 (N = 456) manipulated, rather than measured zero-sum beliefs to test the moderation. Additionally, we confirmed that the core effect holds only when priming participants with utilitarian appeals. Study 5 employed 2 (package simplicity: simple vs. complex) by 2 (mindset: weak zero-sum vs. control) by 2 (appeal: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects design. The simple effect of zero-sum beliefs indicated that the effect of package complexity on product efficacy was significant in the control group of zero-sum beliefs (M _simple = 5.41, SD = 0.79 vs. M _complex = 5.01, SD = 0.74; F(1, 441) = 15.48, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.033), but the effect of package complexity disappeared in the weak zero-sum group (M _simple = 5.14, SD = 0.87 vs. M _complex = 5.15, SD = 0.76; p = 0.97). Furthermore, the simple effect of product appeals indicated that the effect of package complexity on product efficacy was significant in utilitarian group (M _simple = 5.54, SD = 0.79 vs. M _complex = 5.11, SD = 0.76; F(1, 441) = 16.80, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.036), but disappeared in hedonic group (M _simple = 5.03, SD = 0.81 vs. M _complex = 5.05, SD = 0.74; p = 0.81). As expected, when participants hold a weak zero-sum belief about products or are primed with a hedonic appeal, the core effect of package simplicity on product efficacy judgment is attenuated.

Collectively, seven studies demonstrate that participants perceive products in a simple package as more effective than complex counterparts. Notably, this effect is mediated by consumers’ perceived goal focus of product function. Moreover, this effect is weakened among consumers with a weak zero-sum belief about products and who are framed with hedonic appeals. These findings have significant implications for theoretical research regarding product perceptions and visual aesthetics. From the managerial perspective, we suggest that marketers utilize packages with simple aesthetics when they aim to highlight product effectiveness.

Key words: visual simplicity, product efficacy, packaging design, goal focus, zero-sum beliefs