Cited by 200Multisensory perception and integrationConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods

Crossmodal correspondences between taste and shape, and their implications for product packaging: A review

Velasco, Carlos, Woods, Andy T., Petit, Olivia, Cheok, Adrian D., Spence, Charles·2016·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

A growing body of empirical research now demonstrates that people associate different basic tastes and taste words with specific packaging shapes. While it may be obvious that semantic knowledge concerning products, based on the packaging and/or design elements (e.g., typeface, logo, label, images), can guide the taste expectations that consumers generate in relation to a given product, here we demonstrate that there are also more fundamental correspondences that operate even with unfamiliar stimuli. Specifically, shape features (e.g., straight vs. curvy, or symmetrical vs. asymmetrical) have been shown to influence the taste that people naturally associate with a given shape. The evidence suggests that, at least to a certain extent, people match such shape dimensions with tastes on the basis of their common affective connotation. Here, we critically review the literature on these seemingly arbitrary, yet systematic, crossmodal correspondences between tastes and shape features. We suggest that they can inform the design process when it comes to product packages and labels with the aim of conveying taste information more effectively. This review is relevant to those researchers interested in taste-vision correspondences as well as to food marketers, and those designers interested in the communication and influence of taste information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.005

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 102 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Petit, O., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Velasco, Carlos
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
52
Pages
17-26
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2297829261
Cited by
200
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
FWCI
34.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L007053/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Keywords
cross-modal correspondence, packaging design, product labels, shape features, taste expectations, affective connotation, food marketing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review