Original article Exploring the effects of packaging on consumer experience and purchase behaviour: insights from eye tracking and facial expressions on orange juice Annu Mehta,1* Luca Serventi,1 Lokesh Kumar1 & Damir D. Torrico1,2* 1 Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand 2 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA (Received 16 October 2023; Accepted in revised form 15 December 2023) Summary Packaging is crucial in attracting consumer attention, conveying product identity, influencing product per- ception and affecting approach-based consumer behaviours. The present exploratory study aimed to gain insights into the effects of packaging on consumer experiences and the factors driving willingness to buy different orange juice products based on packaging. Eye tracking and facial expressions were used to cap- ture the consumer perception journey, from the initial interaction to the final product evaluation. The study also examined hedonic liking, explicit emotions and different label attributes in the evaluation stage, and the importance of texture, price and the New Zealand (NZ)-made logo in the validation stage. Results showed that the packaging’s physical features significantly affected consumer’s attention during the initial interaction stage. Implicit emotions provided deeper insights into consumers’ preferences in the orientation stage. Nutritional information gained maximum visual attention (fixation counts = 0.40) in the evaluation stage, while the NZ-made logo (odds ratio = 15.62) drove purchase intention. The study revealed that the packaging that attracted the maximum attention was not necessarily the one with the highest liking score. Moreover, consumers may not pay much visual attention to attributes (price, r = �0.22) that they reported to be important. By advancing our knowledge in this field, marketers and product designers can refine their strategies and create packaging that captures visual attention and evokes positive emotional responses, ultimately influencing consumer behaviours. Keywords Emotions, facial expressions, hedonic liking, packaging type, visual attention, willingness to buy. Introduction Packaging is more than a product-carrying medium; it is a powerful marketing tool that attracts consumers’ attention with its aesthetic qualities. When consumers engage in everyday grocery shopping, their attention and choices are often influenced by the product’s visual appearance (Clement et al., 2013; Husi�c- Mehmedovi�c et al., 2017). Packaging can steer con- sumer approach-based behaviour with its visual and aesthetic abilities (Mehta et al., 2022), especially for low-involvement products. Consumers rely heavily on visual cues to make quick, effortless decisions regard- ing low-involvement products (Silayoi & Speece, 2004), such as the case of fruit juices. Given the competitive nature of the beverage market, it is crucial for juice packaging to stand out on the supermarket shelf and capture consumers’ interest, especially considering the limited time consumers have to make decisions (Bah- rainizad & Rajabi, 2018). Attractive and well-designed packaging can capture consumers’ attention and induce a positive product evaluation. On the other hand, poorly designed packaging can have an adverse effect on consumer choices (Young & Ciummo, 2009). In supermarket shopping behaviours, consumer decisions are often driven by elicited emotions rather than rational choices. Therefore, it is essential to understand the emotional responses of consumers to different product’s design factors such as colour, texture and labels to assess their effect on approach-based consumer behaviours (Merlo et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2022). Emotions are typically cate- gorised into explicit or consciously expressed and implicit or unconscious or automatic emotions, which impact perception, attention and subsequent behaviours *Correspondent: E-mail: damir@illinois.edu; annu.mehta@ lincolnuni.ac.nz International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024, 59, 8445–8460 doi:10.1111/ijfs.16885 � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. 8445 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3696-1116 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3696-1116 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3696-1116 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-8515 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-8515 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-8515 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6147-3221 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6147-3221 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6147-3221 mailto:damir@illinois.edu mailto:annu.mehta@lincolnuni.ac.nz mailto:annu.mehta@lincolnuni.ac.nz http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fijfs.16885&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-01-08 (Lagast et al., 2017). Emotions (explicit and implicit) evoked by different milk packaging can significantly influence consumer purchasing behaviours (Clark et al., 2021). Negative explicit emotions evoked by packaging can create a negative impression of the product, deter- ring consumers’ purchase intentions (Mehta et al., 2022). Emotions also play a significant role in decision- making processes, such as perception, attention, evalua- tion and post-purchase satisfaction (de Wijk & Nol- dus, 2021). Combining implicit and explicit emotional measurements allows researchers to gain a more com- prehensive understanding of the emotional drivers behind consumer purchase intentions. Notably, the studies mentioned so far have not integrated emotions (both explicit and implicit) alongside functional and cognitive effects to comprehensively understand con- sumers’ overall experiences in a supermarket scenario. Eye tracking, a novel biometric technique, measures consumers’ physical gaze inputs to visual stimuli, cap- turing attention-fixation points and potentially affect- ing the approach-based behaviours of consumers (Ares et al., 2014; Rebollar et al., 2015; Husi�c-Mehmedovi�c et al., 2017; Merdian et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). In consumer behaviour studies (Simmonds & Spence, 2017; Huang et al., 2021), gaze patterns quantify visual attention, impacting decision-making and food choices (Torrico et al., 2022). Visual attention in the supermar- ket can be divided into orientation and evaluation stages (Clement et al., 2013), with the former being fast, non-selective and pre-attentive, providing a quick product overview. The latter is slow, selective and requires knowledge inputs, with consumers deciphering exogenous factors to make a final decision. The pre- sent study focused on exogenous factors related to packaging, which are under managerial control. Exogenous factors can be physical, semantic or context-related features. Clement et al. (2013) stated that the physical attributes (colour, texture and shape) draw initial attention, while semantic features (picture, brand, logo and text) need more focused evaluation. Bialkova et al. (2020) stated that brand strength and shelf placements drove consumer attention and choice. While Husi�c-Mehmedovi�c et al. (2017) emphasise the impact of physical features on initial visual attention, semantic factors become prominent during the evalua- tion stage. Piqueras-Fiszman et al. (2013) found that different textures of jam jars, such as ridged surfaces, attract visual attention. Torrico et al. (2018) explored baby formula labels, indicating that consumers pre- ferred figures that garner a higher value of fixation points, and a longer fixation duration, particularly with colour transitions. Label elements such as logos, country-of-origin seals and price information significantly affected consumer attention and food choices in previous studies (Bogo- molova et al., 2020; R€odiger & Hamm, 2020; Liu et al., 2022). Helmert et al. (2017) demonstrated that using different coloured price tags for suboptimal fresh produce impacted visual attention and willingness to purchase from consumers. Similarly, other studies highlighted the role of price as a determinant factor of product quality and purchase intention (Petrescu et al., 2020; Kovacs & Keresztes, 2022; Boccia et al., 2023). Amid the pandemic, country-of-origin labels (COOL) gained importance as an assurance of product quality based on the product’s origin. Recent studies underscored the significance of COOL in various prod- ucts such as Italian olive oil (Bimbo et al., 2020; Car- zedda et al., 2021), French wine (Valentin et al., 2021), speciality coffee (Teuber & Herrmann, 2012) and meat (Holdershaw & Konopka, 2023). The present research covered this gap by combining emotions (explicit and implicit) with visual attention measurements to gain a more comprehensive under- standing of the consumer experiences throughout the product journey, which spans from the initial interac- tion with the product to the point of purchase. Specifi- cally, this research focussed on various attributes of different orange juice packaging. The study hypothe- sised that packaging attributes affect consumers’ gaze behaviours, and explored whether these correlate with emotions (both implicit and explicit) elicited during the orientation and evaluation stages within the pack- aging interaction. Additionally, the study aimed to determine whether consumers have higher fixation points to specific attributes, which can imply higher perceived values of those elements. Material and methods Participants Eighty-four participants (50 women and 34 men), 64% in the age group of 18–34 and 36% above 35 years volunteered for the study. The participants were staff and students at Lincoln University recruited through email. The inclusion criteria were that participants had a normal or corrected-to-normal full-colour vision. Also, the participants reported that they were involved in everyday grocery shopping. The study was con- ducted as per the ethical requirement (HEC2021-08) of Lincoln University, New Zealand (NZ). The partici- pants were awarded chocolates for their contribution. Stimuli and apparatus Four kinds of packaging (glass, plastic bottle, pouch and tetra packTM) were selected for the experiment based on the market survey and previous study (Mehta et al., 2022). The label on the packaging con- sisted of the brand name, product picture, nutritional information [which was taken from a previous study � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8446 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense conducted by Mehta et al., 2022] and a country-of- origin logo, which was designed as a picture with the country map and the ‘Proudly Made in New Zealand’ statement written around it (logo commonly found in New Zealand products). The packaging with the NZ- made logo had a price tag of 3.49$, and the packaging without the NZ-made logo had a price tag of 3.00$ based on the market survey and studies related to the price tag of organic and locally made products (Feld- mann & Hamm, 2015; Van Loo et al., 2015). The supermarket layout and eight packaging types, a com- bination of four textures (glass, plastic bottle, pouch and tetra pack) x two labels (with and without the NZ-made logo) (Fig. 1), were edited using Adobe Pre- mier CS4 (Adobe�, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Equipment GP3 eye-tracker (Gazepoint, Vancouver, BC, Canada) (www.gazept.com) and iMotions software (iMotions, 2022) were used to collect and process the eye-tracking data. The data were viewed from a 60 cm distance at 0.5–1.0o visual accuracy. The refresh rate of the eye tracker was 60 Hz. In addition, individual calibrations were done using the 9-point calibration method to minimise tracking errors. The stimuli were displayed on a full-screen 2400 monitor (Samsung, Suwon-Si, South Korea) with a viewing angle of 178° vertically and horizontally. The screen’s resolution was 1920 by 1080 pixels with a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Facial expressions were recorded with a full HD webcam on the Samsung monitor (Samsung, Suwon- Si, South Korea) for an integrated facial recognition measurement. The stimuli presentation, eye-tracking measurements and camera recordings were controlled by the iMotions 8.1 software (iMotions, Inc., Copen- hagen, Denmark). The automated facial coding mod- ule AFFDEX (Affectiva Inc., Boston, MA, USA) was used to post-process the recorded videos, measuring seven core emotions (happy, angry, sad, contempt, sur- prise, fear and disgust) and two involvement markers (engagement and valence). In addition, the AFFDEX module creates the numeric scores for the 20 action units (specific facial muscle movement) and core emo- tions on a scale from 0 (no expression) to 100 (expres- sion detected). Procedure The research was designed into three stages: orienta- tion, evaluation and validation, as shown in Fig. 1. In the natural environment of supermarkets, there are Figure 1 Experimental layout of the study. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8447 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense http://www.gazept.com many confounding factors, such as shelf position, noise, posters or advertisements and other people shopping, which might distract the consumer’s atten- tion and perception (Reimann et al., 2010; Clement et al., 2013). Therefore, the present study was con- ducted in controlled laboratory conditions to under- stand the effect of the packaging texture, NZ-made logo, nutritional information and price on the con- sumer’s visual attention and perception. In addition, the participants’ facial expressions were also recorded to understand the elicited implicit emotions in the ori- entation and evaluation stages. In the orientation stage, the eight-juice packaging was displayed on simulated supermarket shelves (Fig. 2). The samples were randomly placed in the col- lage to replicate the shelf context in supermarkets. The two collages were randomly shown to the participants to overcome the packaging position effect, and the results were measured as the average of both collages. The price tags of the samples were also incorporated in the design set up of the shelves (Van Loo et al., 2015). Based on previous research (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011), the collage was shown for 10 s in the orientation stage. The time considered was adequate to evaluate consumers’ attention in a free viewing situation (Orquin & Scholderer, 2011; Husi�c- Mehmedovi�c et al., 2017). In the evaluation stage, participants were randomly shown the individual packaging and price tag on the monitor screen (one sample at a time). The individual displayed packaging had predefined areas of interest (AOIs), such as the NZ-made logo, packaging texture, nutritional information (NI) and price tag (Fig. 1). AOIs are the predefined rectangular shapes superim- posed on the interested area of the image. Based on previous research, the participants were shown each sample for a duration of 10 s (Chandon et al., 2009). The final measurement was the average of how many participants fixed their gaze at least once inside the AOI. The visual attention measurements reported in the study were the fixation counts (per cm2), time to first fixation (TTFF, s), total fixation duration (ms) and first fixation duration (ms). Due to the difference in the size of the different AOIs in the study, the fixa- tion count result was expressed as per square centi- metre of the label. The participants also reported explicit emotions, purchase intention and packaging liking in the evalua- tion stage. The check-all-that-apply (CATA) question- naire measured participants’ explicit emotions while recalling the packaging, using n = 25 selected emotions were included from a previous study (Mehta et al., 2022) and focus group. Emotional terms such as ‘active’, ‘adventurous’, ‘aggressive’, ‘bored’, ‘calm’, ‘disgusted’, ‘enthusiastic’, ‘energetic’, ‘free’, ‘glad’, ‘good’, ‘guilty’, ‘happy’, ‘interested’, ‘joyful’, ‘merry’, ‘mild’, ‘peaceful’, ‘pleased’, ‘pleasant’, ‘sad’, ‘satisfied’, ‘surprise’, ‘wild’ and ‘worried’ were selected from a focus group (N = 15) discussion. The emotional terms were selected on consensus within the focus group and were based on the frequency of use (>20%) categorisa- tion. The dichotomous criterion (0 = ‘will not buy the product’ and 1 = ‘will buy the product’) was used to assess the willingness to buy (WTB) the juice packag- ing by asking, ‘If you are given $5 to buy a juice of your choice, Will you buy this product?’. The overall packaging liking was measured using the 9-point hedonic scale, and the appeal of the packaging was measured using the question ‘How appealing is the packaging?’ on a 5-point Likert scale (Westerman et al., 2013). In the validation stage, participants were asked to answer attitudinal questions related to the importance of packaging attributes (price, NZ-made logo and tex- ture) on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) (Van Loo Figure 2 A heatmap representation of the supermarket juice shelves 1 and 2 with four kinds of packaging (glass, plastic bottle, pouch and tetra pack). Red and orange indicate the most viewed area, while green shows the least viewed area. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8448 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense et al., 2010). At the end of the questionnaire, demo- graphic (age, gender and ethnicity) information was obtained. All questions in the survey and the data col- lection were administered using the Redjade� Sensory Software (Redjade� software, CA, USA) (RedJade, 2022). Statistical and data analysis The visual attention measurements, attitudinal ques- tions and overall liking were analysed using the Mini- tab� Statistical Software (ver. 19.2020.2, Pennsylvania, USA) (Minitab, 2021). One-way analysis of variance (P < 0.05) was used to find the significant difference in mean values of samples using the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test. The correlation between the visual attention measurements and implicit emotional responses was analysed in the orientation stage using the principal component analy- sis (PCA). Furthermore, the facial expression graph was plotted by averaging all the participant’s emo- tional responses for 10 s. TTFF values of all the pack- aging were presented on the facial expression graph to correlate the measurements. The effect of visual atten- tion, emotions (explicit and implicit) and hedonic mea- surements on the willingness to buy response were analysed using a logistic regression model, assuming the willingness to buy as an independent variable and the other factors as predictors. In the evaluation stage, Cochran’s Q and multiple pairwise comparison tests (Sheskin) were used to ana- lyse the significant difference between the samples based on the frequency of selecting explicit emotions in the CATA questionnaire. XLSTAT� Statistical Analysis Software 2022.3.1 (Addinsoft, New York, USA) (Addinsoft, 2023) was used for multivariate data analysis (Vidal et al., 2020). The correlation among emotions (explicit and implicit), overall liking, appeal, visual attention measurements and purchase intention was analysed using the multiple factor analysis (MFA). The correlation between visual attention measurements in the evaluation stage and attitudinal measurements in the validation stage was tested with Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results and discussion Orientation stage Visual attention measurements The number of times participants looked at a particu- lar object and the total fixation durations were plotted in the supermarket collages’ heatmap (Fig. 2), showing consumers’ attention towards each packaging in the initial orientation stage. The heatmaps showed that the maximum fixation was located towards the centre of the shelves compared to the periphery. The heat- maps also revealed that the top shelf obtained the maximum fixation counts compared to the bottom shelf. The visual attention measurements were reported as fixation durations (100 ms or above) in the orientation stage because fixation is related to visual attention in psychophysical studies (Ladeira et al., 2021). In addi- tion (Fig. 2), the packaging on the shelf was divided into separate areas of interest (AOIs) for each packag- ing to understand the participant’s interest in the type of packaging texture, while exploring the supermarket shelf. Table 1 presents the results obtained from differ- ent AOIs (glass, glass L, plastic, plastic L, pouch, pouch L, tetra pack and tetra pack L) from supermar- ket collage, where ‘L’ refers to packaging with NZ- made logo. No significant difference (P > 0.05) was obtained for the first and total fixation duration. How- ever, the fixation counts and TTFF varied significantly (P < 0.05) between the packaging on the shelf. Glass (0.05/cm2) and plastic (0.04/cm2) packaging had the highest fixation counts compared to other packaging (ranging from 0.02 to 0.03/cm2). On the other hand, regarding the TTFF, the participants first looked at Table 1 Mean and standard deviation values of visual attention measurements concerning packaging displayed on supermarket shelves 1 and 2 Stimuli Fixation Count (per cm2) TTFF (s) First fixation duration (ms) Total fixation duration (ms) Glass 0.05 � 0.04a 5.23 � 3.44ab 99.18 � 39.64a 106.29 � 29.40a Glass L 0.02 � 0.02c 6.02 � 3.17a 101.51 � 39.02a 97.63 � 21.05a Plastic 0.04 � 0.05ab 4.15 � 3.03bc 103.63 � 36.37a 109.89 � 28.0a Plastic L 0.03 � 0.03c 5.63 � 3.03ab 98.31 � 38.88a 103.71 � 33.42a Pouch 0.03 � 0.02c 4.91 � 3.52abc 102.08 � 47.44a 104.28 � 35.18a Pouch L 0.03 � 0.02c 4.72 � 3.75abc 98.68 � 45.25a 101.06 � 25.97a Tetra pack 0.03 � 0.01bc 3.53 � 3.22c 100.57 � 36.19a 103.08 � 21.61a Tetra pack L 0.02 � 0.02c 5.91 � 3.32a 99.43 � 31.66a 105.27 � 26.03a Different superscripts depict significant differences (P < 0.05) between packaging. L signifies packaging with NZ-made logo and TTFF signifies time to first fixation. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8449 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense the tetra pack (3.53 ms) and then the glass (5.23 ms), tetra pack L (5.91 ms) and glass L (6.02 ms). Correlation between implicit emotions and visual attention measurements Time to first fixation indicates the time the participant took to examine the attribute of interest. A significant difference in TTFF was reported among AOIs. For example, tetra pack (3.53 s) had the lowest TTFF compared to glass (5.23 s), glass L (6.02 s), plastic L (5.63 s) and tetra pack L (5.91 s). The implicit emo- tions reported from facial expressions were plotted along with TTFF to understand the implicit behaviour of participants when they first looked at the packaging (Fig. 3a). The figure shows that the participants first looked at the tetra pack with a high intensity of fear and engagement. On the other hand, the participants had high intensity of joy when they first looked at the glass bottle. The PCA obtained for the implicit emotions and visual attention measurements from the eye tracking against different AOIs are shown in Fig. 3b. The PCA explained 60.15% of data variability, with PC1 show- ing 37.22% and PC2 showing 22.92%. Based on the PCA result, TTFF, engagement and implicit negative emotions (fear, disgust, anger and sadness) were asso- ciated with the tetra pack, tetra pack L and pouch L. In contrast, the positive implicit emotion of joy was associated with glass L. Evaluation stage Visual attention measurements In the evaluation stage, participants evaluated individ- ual packaging briefly. Each packaging was divided into four AOIs (logo, price, texture and nutritional informa- tion). Table 2a shows the significant difference among AOIs across all the samples collectively. Relatively higher fixations were obtained for the nutritional infor- mation (0.40/cm2), followed by the logo (0.18/cm2), while texture (0.03/cm2) had the least number of fixa- tions. A similar trend was also observed in the first fixa- tion duration, which was significantly higher for nutritional information (106.54 ms) than for texture (93.62 ms). However, the TTFF was low for texture (1.57 s) compared to logo (3.90 s), price (3.99 s) and nutritional information (3.82 s). The total fixation dura- tion for nutritional information (110.46 ms) and logo (105.69 ms) was significantly higher than that of price (97.31 ms) and texture (100.19 ms). The mean values and significant differences between the four AOIs (logo, price, texture and nutritional information) within each sample and across all the samples are shown in Table 2b. Within each sample, the fixation count was significantly higher on nutri- tional information AOI than other AOIs for all samples. At the same time, participants took longer to have the first fixation on the nutritional information than other AOIs for all samples. No significant differ- ence was observed for the first and total fixation dura- tion within the AOIs of all samples, except for nutritional information and texture in the case of plas- tic L and pouch L. Nutritional information had a sig- nificantly higher first and total fixation duration than other attributes in the plastic L sample. An almost similar trend was observed in the case of pouch L for texture. However, no significant difference was found in the first and total fixation duration across the pack- aging treatments (glass, glass L, plastic, plastic L, pouch, pouch L, tetra pack and tetra pack L) for any of the four AOIs. A significantly high fixation count on nutritional information was reported for pouch L (0.63/cm2) compared to tetra pack L (0.28/cm2) and glass L (0.25/cm2). The TTFF on texture was signifi- cantly lower for glass L (0.84 s) than for plastic (1.88 s). Explicit emotions, overall liking, appealing packaging and willingness to buy (WTB) The frequencies of self-reported emotions, mean values of overall liking and appealing packaging ratings and the percentage of WTB are shown in Table 3. The fre- quency of using emotional terms ‘pleasant’, ‘happy’, ‘good’ and ‘merry’ were significantly high in the case of glass L compared to pouch. The selection frequency of the high arousal emotion term ‘enthusiastic’ was 19% for glass L compared to 1% for pouch L, 6% for tetra pack L and 4% for both pouch and tetra pack. However, the frequency of selecting the negative emo- tion ‘bored’ was significantly higher in the case of the pouch (33%), pouch L (32%), tetra pack (37%) and tetra pack L (43%) compared to glass (8%), glass L (8%) and plastic L (10%). No significant differences were found in other reported emotions for packaging in the evaluation stage. A significant difference in the overall liking, appeal of the sample and willingness to buy is shown in Table 3b. The overall liking of the glass (6.48 � 1.73), glass L (6.70 � 1.71) and plastic L (6.06 � 1.91) were significantly higher than the liking of the pouch (5.02 � 1.86), tetra pack (5.04 � 1.84) and tetra pack L (4.98 � 1.88). Similarly, participants felt glass (3.45 � 0.87) and glass L (3.52 � 0.93) to be more appealing than pouch (2.63 � 0.94), tetra pack (2.64 � 0.89) and tetra pack L (2.71 � 0.99). Con- sumers were more willing to buy glass (73.8%) and glass L (77.4%) compared to pouch (34.5%), pouch L (36.9%), tetra pack (40.5%) and tetra pack L (36.9%). Figure 4 shows the principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) results that combine explicit emotions, overall liking and packaging. The PCoA result explained 79.18% of the variability in the data, where the � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8450 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Figure 3 (a) Graph plotted with implicit emotional intensities at different time stamps and TTFF packaging values in the orientation stage. (b) Results of principal component analysis (PCA) of implicit facial emotions and visual attention measurements in the orientation stage. L sig- nifies packaging with NZ-made logo and TTFF signifies time to first fixation. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8451 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense principal component (F1) described 69.85% and the principal component (F2) explained 9.33% of the data variability. The positive emotions (‘happy’, ‘interested’, ‘merry’, ‘good’, ‘joyful’, ‘pleased’ and ‘pleasant’) and high arousal emotions (‘active’, ‘energetic’ and ‘enthu- siastic’) were associated with the glass and plastic (both with and without logo). In comparison, negative emotions (‘bored’, ‘disgusted’, ‘sad’, ‘worried’ and ‘guilty’) were associated with pouch and tetra pack. The overall liking was also linked with explicit positive emotions compared to explicit negative emotions. Although no correlation analysis was done, the MFA (Fig. 5) shows few associations of explicit responses with facial behavioural data. MFA shows that overall liking and explicit emotions ‘active’ and ‘wild’ were negatively associated with FE disgust. On the other hand, the explicit emotion ‘adventurous’ was negatively associated with FE surprise and sadness. Table 2 Mean and standard deviation values of (a) average AOIs (logo, price, texture and nutritional information) for all the pack- aging and (b) average AOIs within and across all the packaging in the evaluation stage Stimuli Attributes (AOI) Fixation count (per cm2) TTFF (s) First fixation duration (ms) Total fixation duration (ms) (A) Logo 0.18 � 0.16b 3.90 � 3.02a 104.04 � 51.39ab 105.69 � 42.06ab Price 0.06 � 0.06c 3.99 � 2.84a 96.41 � 40.72ab 97.31 � 26.90c Texture 0.03 � 0.02d 1.57 � 2.11b 93.62 � 46.22b 100.19 � 25.29bc Nutritional Info 0.40 � 0.43a 3.82 � 2.59a 106.54 � 59.71a 110.46 � 53.05a (B) Glass Logo NA NA NA NA Price 0.07 � 0.06bA 4.25 � 2.91aA 98.8 � 39.6aA 101.2 � 26.8aA Texture 0.02 � 0.02bA 1.54 � 2.03bAB 89.5 � 36.5aA 96.8 � 20.9aA Nutritional Info 0.31 � 0.30aBC 3.34 � 2.16aA 94.0 � 36.5aA 97.7 � 36.5aA Glass L Logo 0.18 � 0.18aA 4.07 � 3.17aA 89.2 � 34.4aA 97.1 � 31.7aA Price 0.06 � 0.06bA 3.79 � 3.09aA 90.0 � 34.0aA 95.8 � 25.2aA Texture 0.03 � 0.02bA 0.84 � 1.35bB 97.5 � 52.3aA 99.2 � 21.6aA Nutritional Info 0.25 � 0.11aC 2.78 � 2.08aA 110.6 � 50.2aA 108.2 � 40.2aA Plastic Logo NA NA NA NA Price 0.07 � 0.06bA 4.33 � 2.97aA 90.4 � 32.0aA 94.21 � 25.29aA Texture 0.03 � 0.02bA 1.88 � 2.28bA 90.0 � 35.4aA 97.32 � 20.81aA Nutritional Info 0.56 � 0.58aAB 4.21 � 2.64aA 98.1 � 42.9aA 97.5 � 33.6aA Plastic L Logo 0.15 � 0.10bA 3.75 � 2.96aA 101.2 � 43.2abA 100.6 � 33.9bA Price 0.07 � 0.07bcA 3.79 � 2.75aA 108.4 � 50.2aA 102.6 � 27.7bA Texture 0.03 � 0.02cA 1.66 � 2.53bAB 86.5 � 35.9bA 97.3 � 24.67bA Nutritional Info 0.56 � 0.49aAB 3.40 � 2.17abA 118.3 � 62.1aA 127.7 � 58.5aA Pouch Logo NA NA NA NA Price 0.06 � 0.06bA 3.74 � 2.66aA 91.5 � 42.2aA 94.7 � 27.1aA Texture 0.03 � 0.02bA 1.76 � 2.11aAB 98.6 � 48.3aA 100.7 � 21.7aA Nutritional Info 0.34 � 0.27aBC 4.47 � 2.82bA 109.6 � 83.3aA 109.3 � 61.3aA Pouch L Logo 0.17 � 0.19bA 3.95 � 3.26aA 117.6 � 60.0aA 113.2 � 45.4abA Price 0.06 � 0.05bcA 3.66 � 2.83aA 104.6 � 51.0abA 102.2 � 32.8bA Texture 0.03 � 0.02cA 1.68 � 2.25bAB 91.6 � 45.0bA 105.1 � 31.2bA Nutritional Info 0.63 � 0.71aA 3.68 � 2.45aA 129.0 � 54.8aA 133.1 � 51.2aA Tetra pack Logo NA NA NA NA Price 0.07 � 0.06bA 3.63 � 2.43aA 95.8 � 39.4aA 96.1 � 23.3aA Texture 0.03 � 0.02bA 1.47 � 1.98bAB 96.3 � 55.3aA 103.5 � 32.7aA Nutritional Info 0.39 � 0.42aABC 3.62 � 3.12aA 92.7 � 52.3aA 108.1 � 53.0aA Tetra pack L Logo 0.21 � 0.16aA 3.80 � 2.74aA 106.8 � 60.3aA 111.4 � 53.3aA Price 0.06 � 0.05bA 4.74 � 3.04aA 92.9 � 31.9aA 92.2 � 26.2aA Texture 0.03 � 0.02bA 1.71 � 2.02bAB 99.2 � 56.1aA 101.9 � 25.5aA Nutritional Info 0.28 � 0.18aC 4.58 � 2.73aA 105.8 � 69.1aA 105.1 � 67.3aA The different superscript indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05). (A) a, b and c superscripts indicate the significant difference among stimuli at a 5% significant level. (B) a, b and c indicate significant differences within attributes of glass, glass L, plastic, plastic L, pouch, pouch L, tetra pack and tetra pack L, where L signifies packaging with NZ-made logo and TTFF signifies time to first fixation. A and B indicate significant differences among packaging for logo, price, texture and nutritional information. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8452 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Table 4 shows the visual attention measurements, explicit emotions and hedonic responses that influ- enced the juice packaging willingness to buy in the evaluation stage. Visual attention measurements signif- icantly affected the willingness to buy the product. For example, participants with a high fixation count on the logo (odd ratio = 15.62) were more willing to buy the product. However, the first fixation duration on the texture (odd ratio = 0.99) had a negative impact on the willingness to buy. The explicit emotions ‘satisfied’ (odd ratio = 4.50) and ‘adventurous’ (odd ratio = 10.31) had a positive effect on the willingness to buy, while ‘worried’ (0.27) and ‘satisfied’ (0.31) had a nega- tive impact on the willingness to buy. Participants who Table 3 (A) Frequency of explicit emotions elicited. (B) Mean values of overall liking and appealing packaging ratings, and the percentage of willingness to buy in the evaluation stage Emotions Glass Glass L Plastic Plastic L Pouch Pouch L Tetra pack Tetra pack L (A) Pleased 0.29ab 0.35a 0.24abc 0.21abc 0.12bc 0.11c 0.11c 0.16bc Pleasant 0.25a 0.24ab 0.21ab 0.16ab 0.07b 0.12ab 0.12ab 0.13ab Happy 0.35a 0.20abc 0.26ab 0.25abc 0.08c 0.17bc 0.10bc 0.12bc Good 0.42a 0.43a 0.32ab 0.27ab 0.21b 0.16b 0.30ab 0.16b Energetic 0.18ab 0.21a 0.17abc 0.20ab 0.02c 0.06bc 0.08abc 0.07abc Bored 0.08c 0.08c 0.18bc 0.10c 0.33ab 0.32ab 0.37ab 0.43a Enthusiastic 0.06b 0.19a 0.12ab 0.13ab 0.04b 0.01b 0.04b 0.06b Merry 0.11a 0.08ab 0.05ab 0.07ab 0.01ab 0.01ab 0b 0.02ab (B) Overall liking 6.48 � 1.73a 6.70 � 1.71a 5.96 � 1.96ab 6.06 � 1.91a 5.02 � 1.86c 5.12 � 1.94bc 5.04 � 1.84c 4.98 � 1.88c Appealing 3.45 � 0.87a 3.52 � 0.93a 3.16 � 0.95ab 3.19 � 0.96ab 2.63 � 0.94c 2.80 � 0.99bc 2.64 � 0.89c 2.71 � 0.99c WTB (%) 73.8a 77.4a 61.9ab 63.1ab 34.5c 36.9c 40.5bc 36.9c A check-all-that-apply (CATA) questionnaire was used to select emotions related to the sample. Cochran’s Q was used for emotions and WTB to find the significant difference (P < 0.05) between the packaging. 9-point hedonic scale, 5-point Likert scale and binomial scale were used for overall lik- ing, most appealing packaging and willingness to buy respectively. Means with different superscripts in each row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). L signifies packaging with an NZ-made logo. Figure 4 (a) Correspondence analysis and (b) principal coordinate analysis of explicit emotional terms used for different packaging with respect to overall liking in the evaluation stage. L signifies packaging with an NZ-made logo. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8453 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense liked the product (odd ratio = 2.08) and found the product appealing (odd ratio = 2.55) were more willing to buy the product. No significant effect of implicit emotions was found on the WTB. To confirm this trend, a general logistic model was run including all predictive factors. Table S1 shows the effects of all measurement parameters (eye tracking, emotions and hedonic responses) on the willingness to Figure 5 Multiple-factor analysis of emotions (implicit and explicit), overall liking, appeal, visual attention and willingness to buy. L signifies packaging with NZ-made logo and TTFF signifies time to first fixation. Table 4 Parameter estimates, probability and odds ratio estimates for predicting willingness to buy in the evaluation stage with the help of visual attention measurements, explicit emotions and hedonic liking Attributes Predictor b SEb Wald’s v2 P-value Eb (odds ratio) Visual attention measurements FC logo 2.75 1.30 4.46 0.04 15.62 FFD texture �0.01 0.00 4.99 0.02 0.99 Explicit emotions Peaceful �1.16 0.50 5.35 0.02 0.31 Worried �1.30 0.50 6.75 0.01 0.27 Satisfied 1.50 0.40 13.86 0.00 4.50 Adventurous 2.33 0.75 9.64 0.00 10.31 Hedonic responses Overall liking 0.73 0.12 27.52 <0.0001 2.08 Appealing 0.94 0.22 17.55 <0.0001 2.55 Based on the logistic regression analysis, using the full model with visual attention measurements, explicit emotions and hedonic measurements. The study of maximum-likelihood estimates was used to obtain the parameter estimates. The significance of parameter estimates was based on the Wald v2 value at P < 0.05. FC, fixation count; FFD, first fixation duration. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8454 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense buy. The largest effect size in the model was imparted by the fixation count on the logo (odd ratio = 15.62), highlighting the importance of attention in purchase intention. Multivariate data analysis Multiple factor analysis (MFA) explaining a correlation among emotions (implicit and explicit), overall liking, the appeal of packaging, willingness to buy and visual attention measurements is shown in Fig. 5. Dimension 1 of MFA accounted for 45.94% of the data variability, while dimension 2 (F2) represented 21.11%, totalling 67.05%. The factor loading for dimension 1 was charac- terised by the explicit negative emotions [‘worried’ (FL = 0.40), ‘sad’ (FL = 0.44), ‘guilty’ (FL = 0.46), ‘disgusted’ (FL = 0.28) and ‘bored’ (FL = 0.65)] on the right side, and was associated with pouch, pouch L, tetra pack and tetra pack L packaging. While the positive emotions [‘glad’ (FL = -0.24), ‘happy’ (FL = �0.26), ‘interested’ (FL = �0.03), ‘good’ (FL = �0.20) and ‘satisfied’ (FL = �0.18)] and high arousal emotions [‘energetic’ (FL = �0.40), ‘enthusiastic’ (FL = �0.42) and ‘wild’ (FL = �0.28)] were associated with willing- ness to buy and plastic, glass and glass L packaging. The factor loading of dimension 2 was categorised by the implicit negative emotions like ‘fear’ (FL = 0.89), ‘anger’ (FL = 0.76) and ‘sadness’ (FL = 0.74) on the upper side. In contrast, fixation count (FL = �0.89) and plastic L (FL = -0.59) were grouped on the lower side of the biplot. Validation stage Table 5 shows the relationship between the total fixa- tion count and fixation duration within the AOIs (logo, price and texture) and participants’ attitudinal variables (importance ratings). A significant negative relationship was reported between the stated impor- tance of price reported by the participants and the fix- ation counts with the total fixation duration values in the AOIs. The result confirms that the participants who gave higher importance to price had fewer counts and fixation durations on the price tag of the packaging. Discussion Orientation stage Visual attention measurements In the orientation stage, the heatmaps (Fig. 2) showed that the maximum attention of participants was focused on the centre rather than the periphery. More- over, the heatmaps indicated that the top shelf received the maximum attention compared to the bot- tom shelf. Chandon et al. (2009) also inferred similar results, stating that top and centre-positioned products gained more attention than a shelf’s right- or left-hand side, directly affecting the consumer’s evaluation and choice behaviour. Generally, consumers tend to look in the centre due to its strategic position (Juravle et al., 2015), which reduces the distance to the periph- ery, thus, gaining more information from the stimuli (Tatler, 2007; Peacock et al., 2020). The AOIs separation provided a more detailed and quantitative understanding of the participant’s visual attention behaviour towards each packaging material (glass, plastic, pouch and tetra pack). In the initial over- view of the displayed products, the tetra pack was first viewed but had low visual fixations compared to the glass and plastic packaging (Table 1). Viewing food from transparent packaging (glass and plastic) had higher fixation counts than opaque or translucent pack- aging. Transparent packaging helps participants locate products quickly and evaluate product quality (Sim- monds et al., 2018). Moreover, seeing the food through the transparent window of the packaging can induce a ‘salient effect’ (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013), which results in visual hunger and, hence, induces closer attention than opaque packaging (Ma et al., 2020). Transparent packaging (glass and plastic bottles) affects the con- sumer’s behaviour towards the product based on the food-reward theory of psychology (Simmonds & Spence, 2017; Morales & Berridge, 2020). Correlation between implicit emotions and visual attention measurements Based on the PCA and Fig. 3a,b, visual attention mea- surements and implicit facial emotions showed that the Table 5 Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the importance of attributes to the visual attention measurements Importance of attributes Mean and SD† Total fixation count Total fixation duration (ms) Logo Price Texture Logo Price Texture Logo 3.32 � 1.09 �0.11 �0.01 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.13 Price 4.04 � 0.94 �0.10 �0.22‡ 0.15 �0.08 �0.23‡ �0.02 Texture 4.13 � 0.89 �0.03 �0.04 �0.15 �0.04 �0.08 �0.13 †Measured on a 5-point scale from 0 = Not at all important to 5 = Extremely important. ‡Correlation is significant at the alpha = 0.05 level (2-tailed). � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8455 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense packaging was divided into different groups in the ori- entation stage. Participants were highly engaged with the packaging on the shelf in the initial 8 s, and then, the engagement dropped to a minimum (Fig. 3a). Pre- vious studies have reported that the autonomous nervous system (ANS) responses are expressed imme- diately after exposing participants to the stimuli (Dan- ner et al., 2014; Crist et al., 2016; Mehta et al., 2021), which can also be observed in this study. Glass L was associated with the positive emotion ‘joy’, while tetra pack, tetra pack L and pouch L were associated with the first-time fixation duration and implicit negative emotions ‘disgusted’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’ and ‘sad’. Trans- parent packaging is easier to understand and increases perceptual fluency, resulting in a fast, intuitive and effortless heuristic processing approach (Du et al., 2021) during product selection. As observed in the pre- sent study, the positive implicit emotion ‘joy’ was eli- cited while evaluating glass L (transparent packaging) instead of tetra pack, tetra pack L, pouch and pouch L. Evaluation stage Visual attention measurements In the evaluation stage, the consumers first observed the packaging (texture) during the individual packag- ing evaluation, and then, consumers paid attention to other packaging elements. Thus, the packaging pre- dominance was higher than the other attributes (logo, price and nutritional information) (Rebollar et al., 2015). Moreover, the visual attention measure- ments varied significantly based on shape, size and location (Peschel & Orquin, 2013; Hessels et al., 2016). In general, fixation count, first and total fixation dura- tion were higher for the nutritional information than other label elements (Table 2a). The nutritional infor- mation was a salient factor at the bottom left corner of the packaging. Fixation counts are concurrent with information processing. The denser the area with information or complex visual processing, the higher the fixation count when using eye tracking (Ares et al., 2014). Consumers paid more attention to the packaging’ salient (unexpected) features (Bialkova et al., 2014), such as nutritional information, followed by the logo. However, the price and the texture had the lowest fixation counts and duration times; hence, these elements gained the least visual attention from the consumers. The position where different attributes were located also affected the fixation and attention of consumers (Rebollar et al., 2015). As with other ele- ments in the packaging, the price tag AOI had lower fixation counts and total fixation duration than the logo. The top-to-bottom viewing pattern could be the reason for the low visual attention of the price AOI (Rebollar et al., 2015). Explicit emotions, overall liking and appealing packaging Emotions are essential in understanding consumer behaviour and choices. Marketers often use these emo- tions as leverage to design the labels, which helps pro- mote and upsell the product. Emotions are explained in terms of valence (positive/negative) and degree of arousal (Russell, 2009). In the present study, explicit emotions have provided clear packaging segregation. Consumers elicited positive and high arousal emotions towards glass, glass L, plastic and plastic L. In con- trast, negative emotions were evoked towards tetra pack, tetra pack L, pouch and pouch L. Du et al. (2021) also reported that transparency strength- ened the effect of emotions on food choices and the decision-making process due to perceptual fluency. Moreover, consumers presume glass and plastic to be innocuous to the environment compared to pouch and tetra pack and are willing to pay more for recycling (Klaiman et al., 2016). Explicit positive emotions elicited from glass and glass L also increased overall liking (Fig. 4) and will- ingness to buy response. Based on the logistic regres- sion model, the fixation counts on the NZ-made logo and the explicit emotion ‘adventurous’ have signifi- cantly affected the willingness to buy (Table 4). Juice is a refreshing drink and consumer perceives it to be fresh, natural and high quality if the product is local rather than imported (Mohebalian et al., 2013). Thus, the NZ-made logo (country of origin logo) influenced the affective (emotions) and normative aspects (moral consideration) of consumers, which in turn affected the willingness to buy the product. The impact of the country-of-origin logo on the consumer’s purchase behaviour was also reported in wine (Veale & Quester, 2009; Liu et al., 2022), meats (Furnols et al., 2011), coffee (Teuber, 2010), seafood (Lim et al., 2018) and retail foods (Berry et al., 2015). The term ‘adven- turous’ is a positive emotion (Nestrud et al., 2016) associated with high purchase intention. Previous stud- ies have proved that pleasure significantly influences consumer satisfaction with a product. Furthermore, according to the emotion–congruency effect (So et al., 2015), instances where emotional appraisals align with the product’s appeal led consumers to anticipate that the product will meet their expectations. Multivariate data analysis Multiple factor analysis (MFA) is the most powerful tool in integrating and interpreting the diverse data set of this study. MFA helped to understand the factors affecting the overall liking and willingness to buy the packaging with the help of different measurements (visual attention, explicit and implicit emotions). The results indicated that different packaging types played a significant role in driving consumers’ attention. Con- sumers had a higher level of visual attention (first � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8456 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense fixation and total fixation durations) towards the tetra pack and pouch than the glass and plastic because the former packaging was opaque. Hence, consumers relied on heuristic (indirect) clues to evaluate the prod- uct’s sensory properties (Ma et al., 2020). Suppose the product evaluation based on the heuristic signals is unsatisfactory, it can lead to negative emotions and reluctance to purchase the product, which explains the importance of packaging design and its influence on consumer perception and purchasing behaviour. Emotions play a significant role in the decision- making (Pfister & B€ohm, 2008). Implicit emotions (unconscious or automatic emotional responses) were negatively associated with the study’s overall liking and fixation counts. The negative association between implicit emotions and fixation count suggests that con- sumers may not spend as much time examining the packaging when they have implicit negative emotions towards a product, possibly due to a lack of interest or a subconscious aversion (Hamelin et al., 2021). Pre- vious studies from consumer science also reported the inverse association between implicit emotions and overall liking of the product (Danner et al., 2014; Mehta et al., 2021). On the other hand, explicit emo- tions (consciously experienced and expressed responses) were related to consumer purchasing behav- iour (Mehta et al., 2021, 2022). In a similar study, Merdian et al. (2021) also reported the difference in conscious and unconscious perception towards overall liking in the case of wine bottles. Validation stage The findings reveal a significant negative relationship between the stated importance of price and the fixation counts or average fixation duration on the price AOI. The results indicated that while consumers consider price a vital attribute when making a purchase deci- sion, they tend to pay less visual attention to the price displayed on the packaging or in the purchasing envi- ronment. Hence, consumers rely more on cues such as prior knowledge, familiarity or other packaging attri- butes for decision-making (Hamelin et al., 2021). Therefore, this study highlights the pivotal role of packaging and its attributes in capturing visual atten- tion and its subsequent impact on purchase intention. The empirical linkage established among packaging attributes, visual attention, emotions elicited and buy- ing inclination emphasises packaging’s primary func- tion as the initial conduit between products and consumers. By leveraging these insights, product devel- opers can strategically optimise packaging designs to enhance product visibility and foster positive purchas- ing decisions. Conclusion The study suggests that the positioning of products on the shelf and the type of packaging material used can significantly impact the consumer’s attention and eval- uation of products. Transparent packaging has advan- tages in attracting visual attention and influencing consumer behaviour. Moreover, the implicit emotional responses elicited from packaging were linked with participants’ visual attention and engagement. In the evaluation stage, the consumer paid more attention to packaging texture and salient features such as nutri- tional information. The different attributes within the packaging design also significantly affected consumers’ fixation and attention patterns. The emotional cues conveyed through the packaging also affected con- sumers’ perception and engagement with the product. Understanding the attributes which attract visual attention and elicit emotional responses can be benefi- cial to marketers in promoting and upselling their products. Further investigation using more specific 3D stimuli in ecologically valid contexts can expand understanding of how different packaging attributes drive consumers’ choices and preferences. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethical approval The study was approved by the Human Ethics Com- mittee of Lincoln University (Approval: HEC2021-08). Acknowledgment Open access publishing facilitated by Lincoln Univer- sity, as part of the Wiley - Lincoln University agree- ment via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Author contributions Annu Mehta: Conceptualization; investigation; writing – original draft; methodology; formal analysis. Luca Serventi: Writing – review and editing; supervision. Lokesh Kumar: Writing – review and editing; supervi- sion. Damir D. Torrico: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; funding acquisition; project admin- istration; supervision. Data availability statement Research data are not shared. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8457 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense References Addinsoft. (2023). XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution. New York, USA. http://www.xlstat.com Ares, G., Mawad, F., Gim�enez, A. & Maiche, A. (2014). Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Qual- ity and Preference, 31, 28–37. Bahrainizad, M. & Rajabi, A. (2018). Consumers’ perception of usability of product packaging and impulse buying: considering consumers’ mood and time pressure as moderating variables. Jour- nal of Islamic Marketing, 9, 262–282. Berry, C., Mukherjee, A., Burton, S. & Howlett, E. (2015). A COOL effect: the direct and indirect impact of country-of-origin disclo- sures on purchase intentions for retail food products. Journal of Retailing, 91, 533–542. Bialkova, S., Grunert, K.G., Juhl, H.J., Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., Stysko-Kunkowska, M. & van Trijp, H.C. (2014). Attention medi- ates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appe- tite, 76, 66–75. Bialkova, S., Grunert, K.G. & van Trijp, H. (2020). From desktop to supermarket shelf: eye-tracking exploration on consumer atten- tion and choice. Food Quality and Preference, 81, 103839. The study utilises eye-tracking methodology in a lab and a real supermarket environment to investigate the key parameters influenc- ing the attention and choices at a point of sale. The study under- scores the potential of eye tracking in consumer research, offering insights for effective marketing strategies in both controlled and real- world environments. Bimbo, F., Roselli, L., Carlucci, D. & de Gennaro, B.C. (2020). Consumer misuse of country-of-origin label: insights from the Ital- ian extra-virgin olive oil market. Nutrients, 12, 2150. Boccia, F., Alvino, L. & Covino, D. (2023). This is not my jam: an Italian choice experiment on the influence of typical product attri- butes on consumers’ willingness to pay. Nutrition & Food Science, 54, 13–32. The study underscores the pivotal role of packaging and labelling in conveying product information and value to consumers. It investigates consumer behaviour, focusing on willingness to pay (WTP) for cherry jam with varying attributes, including brand, production method and price. The findings, particularly the influence of price on WTP, align with my topic, highlighting the importance of consumers’ attention to specific product attributes. This research contributes valuable insights into factors impacting purchasing decisions, complementing my topic’s focus on consumer attention and behaviour. Bogomolova, S., Oppewal, H., Cohen, J. & Yao, J. (2020). How the layout of a unit price label affects eye-movements and product choice: an eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Business Research, 111, 102–116. Carzedda, M., Gallenti, G., Troiano, S. et al. (2021). Consumer pref- erences for origin and organic attributes of extra virgin olive oil: a choice experiment in the Italian market. Foods, 10, 994. Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J.W., Bradlow, E.T. & Young, S.H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing, 73, 1–17. Clark, E.A., Duncan, S.E., Hamilton, L.M. et al. (2021). Charac- terizing consumer emotional response to milk packaging guides packaging material selection. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 103984. The study highlights the intricate interplay between product- associated (PA) and product-generated (PG) emotions in the context of milk packaging and their influence on consumer behaviour. The research employs a comprehensive approach, combining psychologi- cal assessments and facial expression analysis to capture implicit and explicit emotional responses. The findings suggest that both PA and PG emotions are crucial factors in informing the packaging strategies of the food and dairy industries. Similarly, our study focused on understanding the explicit and implicit emotions evoked during evaluating different juice packaging at the point of purchase and their impact on the willingness to buy. Clement, J., Kristensen, T. & Grønhaug, K. (2013). Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: the influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Con- sumer Services, 20, 234–239. Crist, C.A., Duncan, S.E. & Gallagher, D.L. (2016). Protocol for data collection and analysis applied to automated facial expression analysis technology and temporal analysis for sensory evaluation. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), 114, e54046. Danner, L., Haindl, S., Joechl, M. & Duerrschmid, K. (2014). Facial expressions and autonomous nervous system responses eli- cited by tasting different juices. Food Research International, 64, 81–90. de Wijk, R.A. & Noldus, L.P. (2021). Using implicit rather than explicit measures of emotions. Food Quality and Preference, 92, 104125. Deng, X. & Srinivasan, R. (2013). When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing, 77, 104–117. Du, J., Li, D., Zhao, Y. & Yang, M. (2021). Does a transparent umbrella make you longing for a humorous movie? The influence of transparency on decision-making. Journal of Contemporary Mar- keting Science, 4, 205–222. Feldmann, C. & Hamm, U. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 152–164. Furnols, M.F., Realini, C., Montossi, F. et al. (2011). Consumer’s purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by country of ori- gin, feeding system and meat price: a conjoint study in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 443–451. Hamelin, N., Agrawal, S., Patwa, N., Casper Ferm, L.-E. & Thai- chon, P. (2021). Package appearance matter: facial expression and galvanic skin response analysis approach. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31, 624–644. Helmert, J.R., Symmank, C., Pannasch, S. & Rohm, H. (2017). Have an eye on the buckled cucumber: an eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 40–47. Hessels, R.S., Kemner, C., van den Boomen, C. & Hooge, I.T. (2016). The area-of-interest problem in eyetracking research: a noise-robust solution for face and sparse stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1694–1712. Holdershaw, J. & Konopka, R. (2023). The effect of visibility of country of origin labelling on consumers’ fresh meat preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35, 2266–2281. Huang, J., Peng, Y. & Wan, X. (2021). The color-flavor incon- gruency effect in visual search for food labels: an eye-tracking study. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 104078. Husi�c-Mehmedovi�c, M., Omeragi�c, I., Batagelj, Z. & Kolar, T. (2017). Seeing is not necessarily liking: advancing research on package design with eye-tracking. Journal of Business Research, 80, 145–154. iMotions. (2022). iMotions Software. Copenhagen, Denmark: iMo- tions A/S. Juravle, G., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A. & Spence, C. (2015). The hand grasps the center, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 633. Klaiman, K., Ortega, D.L. & Garnache, C. (2016). Consumer prefer- ences and demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 115, 1–8. Kovacs, I. & Keresztes, E.R. (2022). Perceived consumer effective- ness and willingness to pay for credence product attributes of sus- tainable foods. Sustainability, 14, 4338. Ladeira, W.J., Dalmoro, M., de Oliveira Santini, F., Ruffatto, J. & Zanoni, R. (2021). More bodily motor action, less visual attention: � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8458 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense http://www.xlstat.com how supermarket stimuli and consumer-related factors influence gaze behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102403. Lagast, S., Gellynck, X., Schouteten, J.J., De Herdt, V. & De Steur, H. (2017). Consumers’ emotions elicited by food: a systematic review of explicit and implicit methods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 69, 172–189. Lim, K.H., Hu, W. & Nayga, R.M., Jr. (2018). Is marine steward- ship Council’s ecolabel a rising tide for all? Consumers’ willingness to pay for origin-differentiated ecolabeled canned tuna. Marine Policy, 96, 18–26. Liu, C., Sharma, C., Xu, Q., Gonzalez Viejo, C., Fuentes, S. & Tor- rico, D.D. (2022). Influence of label design and country of origin information in wines on consumers’ visual, sensory, and emotional responses. Sensors, 22, 2158. Ma, X., Zhuang, X. & Ma, G. (2020). Transparent windows on food packaging do not always capture attention and increase purchase intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 593690. Mehta, A., Serventi, L., Kumar, L., Viejo, C.G., Fuentes, S. & Tor- rico, D.D. (2022). Influence of expectations and emotions raised by packaging characteristics on orange juice acceptability and choice. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 33, 100926. This study explores the influence of pre-existing expectations on approach-based consumer behaviours, shaped by different packaging materials (four textures and two colours). The research focused on tetra packs, pouches, glass and plastic bottles with white and orange font colours, investigating the effects of blind, expectation and informed tasting sessions on participant evaluation. The finding sug- gests the expectations’ significant impact on the juice’s overall liking and perceived freshness based on packaging texture. The study also delves into the emotional aspects of consumer responses that strongly impact their purchasing behaviour. The study recognises the crucial role of packaging features in shaping consumer responses and decision-making. Further exploring the design factors with eye tracking enhances the findings by providing insights into the visual aspects of consumer perception and behaviour. Mehta, A., Sharma, C., Kanala, M., Thakur, M., Harrison, R. & Torrico, D.D. (2021). Self-reported emotions and facial expressions on consumer acceptability: a study using energy drinks. Foods, 10, 330. Merdian, P., Piroth, P., Rueger-Muck, E. & Raab, G. (2021). Look- ing behind eye-catching design: an eye-tracking study on wine bot- tle design preference. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 33, 134–151. Merlo, T.C., Soletti, I., Saldana, E. et al. (2019). Measuring dynam- ics of emotions evoked by the packaging colour of hamburgers using temporal dominance of emotions (TDE). Food Research International, 124, 147–155. Minitab, L. (2021). Minitab. Mohebalian, P.M., Aguilar, F.X. & Cernusca, M.M. (2013). Con- joint analysis of US consumers’ preference for elderberry jelly and juice products. HortScience, 48, 338–346. Morales, I. & Berridge, K.C. (2020). ‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ in eating and food reward: brain mechanisms and clinical implications. Physiology & Behavior, 227, 113152. Nestrud, M.A., Meiselman, H.L., King, S.C., Lesher, L.L. & Car- dello, A.V. (2016). Development of EsSense25, a shorter version of the EsSense profile�. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 107–117. Orquin, J. & Scholderer, J. (2011). Attention to health cues on prod- uct packages. Journal of Eye Tracking, Visual Cognition and Emo- tion, 1, 59–63. Peacock, C.E., Hayes, T.R. & Henderson, J.M. (2020). Center bias does not account for the advantage of meaning over salience in attentional guidance during scene viewing. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1877. Peschel, A.O. & Orquin, J.L. (2013). A review of the findings and theories on surface size effects on visual attention. Frontiers in Psy- chology, 4, 902. Petrescu, D.C., Vermeir, I. & Petrescu-Mag, R.M. (2020). Consumer understanding of food quality, healthiness, and environmental impact: a cross-national perspective. International Journal of Envi- ronmental Research and Public Health, 17, 169. Pfister, H.-R. & B€ohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: a framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 5–17. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A. & Spence, C. (2013). Using combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: a case study involving jam jars. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 328–338. Rebollar, R., Lid�on, I., Mart�ın, J. & Puebla, M. (2015). The identifi- cation of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye- tracking techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 251–258. RedJade. (2022). Redjade sensory solutions, LLC. Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T. & Weber, B. (2010). Aesthetic package design: a behavioral, neural, and psy- chological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 431– 441. R€odiger, M. & Hamm, U. (2020). Do consumers care about organic and conventional food prices? An eye tracking study. Organic Agri- culture, 10, 75–87. Russell, J.A. (2009). Emotion, core affect, and psychological con- struction. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1259–1283. 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, 607–628. Simmonds, G. & Spence, C. (2017). Thinking inside the box: how seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, 62, 340–351. Simmonds, G., Woods, A.T. & Spence, C. (2018). ‘Show me the goods’: assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product imagery on product evaluation. Food Quality and Prefer- ence, 63, 18–27. So, J., Achar, C., Han, D., Agrawal, N., Duhachek, A. & Mahes- waran, D. (2015). The psychology of appraisal: specific emotions and decision-making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 359– 371. Tatler, B.W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: select- ing an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision, 7, 4.1–4.17. Teuber, R. (2010). Geographical indications of origin as a tool of product differentiation: the case of coffee. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 22, 277–298. Teuber, R. & Herrmann, R. (2012). Towards a differentiated model- ing of origin effects in hedonic analysis: an application to auction prices of specialty coffee. Food Policy, 37, 732–740. Torrico, D.D., Fuentes, S., Viejo, C.G., Ashman, H., Gurr, P.A. & Dunshea, F.R. (2018). Analysis of thermochromic label elements and colour transitions using sensory acceptability and eye tracking techniques. LWT, 89, 475–481. Torrico, D.D., Mehta, A. & Borssato, A. (2022). New methods to assess sensory responses: a brief review of innovative techniques in sensory evaluation. Current Opinion in Food Science, 49, 100978. Valentin, D., Valente, C., Ballester, J. et al. (2021). The impact of “wine country of origin” on the perception of wines by south afri- can and french wine consumers: a cross-cultural comparison. Foods, 10, 1710. Van Loo, E., Caputo, V., Nayga, J. et al. (2010). Effect of organic poultry purchase frequency on consumer attitudes toward organic poultry meat. Journal of Food Science, 75, S384–S397. Van Loo, E.J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R.M., Jr., Seo, H.-S., Zhang, B. & Verbeke, W. (2015). Sustainability labels on coffee: consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 215–225. Veale, R. & Quester, P. (2009). Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence of price and country of origin � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al. 8459 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense on perceptions of product quality. International Business Review, 18, 134–144. Vidal, N.P., Manful, C.F., Pham, T.H., Stewart, P., Keough, D. & Thomas, R. (2020). The use of XLSTAT in conducting principal component analysis (PCA) when evaluating the relationships between sensory and quality attributes in grilled foods.MethodsX, 7, 100835. Westerman, S., Sutherland, E., Gardner, P. et al. (2013). The design of consumer packaging: effects of manipulations of shape, orienta- tion, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers’ assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 8–17. Young, S. & Ciummo, V. (2009). Managing risk in a package rede- sign: what can we learn from Tropicana? Brand Packaging, 18–21. Supporting Information Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article: Table S1. Parameter estimates, probability and odds ratio estimates for predicting willingness to buy in the evaluation stage with the combined effect of visual attention measurements, explicit and implicit emotions, and hedonic liking. � 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science & Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Institute of Food, Science and Technology (IFSTTF). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2024 Consumer experiences on packaging A. Mehta et al.8460 13652621, 2024, 11, D ow nloaded from https://ifst.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ijfs.16885 by M assey U niversity L ibrary, W iley O nline L ibrary on [02/12/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Exploring the effects of packaging on consumer experience and purchase behaviour: insights from eye tracking and facial expressions on orange�juice Summary Introduction Material and methods Participants Stimuli and apparatus Equipment Procedure ijfs16885-fig-0001 ijfs16885-fig-0002 Statistical and data analysis Results and discussion Orientation�stage Visual attention measurements Correlation between implicit emotions and visual attention measurements Evaluation�stage Visual attention measurements Explicit emotions, overall liking, appealing packaging and willingness to buy�(WTB) ijfs16885-fig-0003 ijfs16885-fig-0004 ijfs16885-fig-0005 Multivariate data analysis Validation�stage Discussion Orientation�stage Visual attention measurements Correlation between implicit emotions and visual attention measurements Evaluation�stage Visual attention measurements Explicit emotions, overall liking and appealing packaging Multivariate data analysis Validation�stage Conclusion Conflict of interest Ethical approval Acknowledgment Author contributions Data availability statement References ijfs16885-bib-0002 ijfs16885-bib-0003 ijfs16885-bib-0004 ijfs16885-bib-0005 ijfs16885-bib-0006 ijfs16885-bib-0007 ijfs16885-bib-0008 ijfs16885-bib-0009 ijfs16885-bib-0010 ijfs16885-bib-0011 ijfs16885-bib-0012 ijfs16885-bib-0013 ijfs16885-bib-0014 ijfs16885-bib-0015 ijfs16885-bib-0016 ijfs16885-bib-0017 ijfs16885-bib-0018 ijfs16885-bib-0019 ijfs16885-bib-0020 ijfs16885-bib-0021 ijfs16885-bib-0022 ijfs16885-bib-0023 ijfs16885-bib-0024 ijfs16885-bib-0025 ijfs16885-bib-0026 ijfs16885-bib-0027 ijfs16885-bib-0001 ijfs16885-bib-0028 ijfs16885-bib-0029 ijfs16885-bib-0030 ijfs16885-bib-0031 ijfs16885-bib-0032 ijfs16885-bib-0033 ijfs16885-bib-0034 ijfs16885-bib-0035 ijfs16885-bib-0036 ijfs16885-bib-0037 ijfs16885-bib-0038 ijfs16885-bib-0039 ijfs16885-bib-0040 ijfs16885-bib-0041 ijfs16885-bib-0042 ijfs16885-bib-0043 ijfs16885-bib-0044 ijfs16885-bib-0045 ijfs16885-bib-0046 ijfs16885-bib-0047 ijfs16885-bib-0048 ijfs16885-bib-0049 ijfs16885-bib-0050 ijfs16885-bib-0051 ijfs16885-bib-0052 ijfs16885-bib-0053 ijfs16885-bib-0054 ijfs16885-bib-0055 ijfs16885-bib-0056 ijfs16885-bib-0057 ijfs16885-bib-0058 ijfs16885-bib-0059 ijfs16885-bib-0060 ijfs16885-bib-0061 ijfs16885-bib-0062 ijfs16885-bib-0063 ijfs16885-bib-0064 ijfs16885-bib-0065 ijfs16885-bib-0066 ijfs16885-bib-0067 ijfs16885-bib-0068 ijfs16885-bib-0069 ijfs16885-bib-0070 ijfs16885-supitem