Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14695/KJSOS.2016.19.2.19

Reversed Elongation Effect on Boxes  

Kim, Dong Eun (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University)
Song, Hyun Jin (Department of Human Systems Engineering, Arizona State University)
Sohn, Young Woo (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University)
Publication Information
Science of Emotion and Sensibility / v.19, no.2, 2016 , pp. 19-26 More about this Journal
Abstract
Previous research has shown that people perceive the larger volume for tall and lean cylindrical containers over short and wide containers of the same volume (e.g., Raghubir & Krishna, 1999; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003). The present research demonstrated that this elongation effect is reversed for boxes, presumably due to the affordance of the boxes. Two studies showed that participants judge short and wide boxes as having larger volume than long and lean boxes of the same volume. This effect replicated through two types of presentation formats (drawing, Study1; actual object, Study2) when the choice between two boxes was forced (Study 1) and not (Study 2). The results also replicated among participants residing in the U.S. (Study 1) and participants residing in Korea (Study 2). The reversed elongation effect held for liquid materials in general (water, Study 1; drinks, Study 2). Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Keywords
elongation effect; volume perception; affordance;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
2 Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company.
3 Holmberg, L. (1975). The influence of elongation on the perception of volume of geometrically simple objects. Psychological Research Bulletin, 15 (Spring), 1-18.
4 Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: ${\pi}$ or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20(4), 405-425.   DOI
5 Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 557-566.   DOI
6 Ordabayeva, N. & Chandon, P. (2013). Predicting and managing consumers' package size impressions. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 123-137.   DOI
7 Pechey, R., Attwood, A. S., Couturier, D. L., Munafo, M. R., Scott-Samuel, N. E., Woods, A., & Marteau, T. M. (2015). Does glass size and shape influence judgements of the volume of wine? PloS one, 10(12), e0144536.   DOI
8 Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
9 Cornil, Y., Ordabayeva, N., Kaiser, U., Weber, B., & Chandon, P. (2014). The acuity of vice: Attitude ambivalence improves visual sensitivity to increasing portion sizes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 177-187.   DOI
10 Dag, N., Atil, I., Kalkan, S., & Sahin, E. (2010, August). Learning affordances for categorizing objects and their properties. In Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 2010 20th International Conference on (pp. 3089-3092). IEEE.
11 Raghubir, P. & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions of volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36(August), 313-326.   DOI
12 Raghubir, P. & Greenleaf, E. A. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 95-107.   DOI
13 Tucker, M. & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 24(3), 830.   DOI
14 Wansink, B. & Van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 455-463.   DOI