Research report

Research Report
Received April 4, 2018; Accepted May 6, 2018

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL ELEMENTS,

DESIGN ELEMENTS, AND AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES IN
CULTURAL CHINESE LIQUOR PACKAGES

Jinrong YANG*, Takayuki HIGUCHI**

* Graduate School of Engineering, Department of Design Science, Chiba University

** Chiba University Yayoi-cho 1-33, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

Abstract: In order to assist designers and managers in improving the aesthetic experience of cultural
packaging, this study investigated the cultural Chinese liquor packaging (CCLP) from the perspective of
cultural spatial levels. Using a questionnaire survey, it firstly investigated whether customer’s aesthetic
experience varied with outer and inner levels of cultural elements within CCLP. Additionally, it explored the
interactions between cultural elements, design elements, and aesthetic experience within CCLP when it is
equipped with two levels of cultural elements. The results showed that: (1) there was no significant difference
between different levels of cultural elements in generating aesthetic experiences in CCLP, which indicated a
certain spatial level of cultural elements do not have an inherent superiority in staging aesthetic experiences.
And (2) according to the correspondence of design element’s performance and evoked aesthetic experience,
this study classified CCLP’s design elements based on Kano’s model. This classification can provide
important reference for designers, as it implies multiple design elements’ different priorities when staging
aesthetic experience and guides designer’s efforts, facilitates design work efficiency, and encourages
effectiveness.
Keywords: Liquor Packages, Cultural Elements, Aesthetic Experience, Design Elements, Kano’s Model

1. Introduction (hereinafter CCLP) mainly lists or summarizes the cultural

Under the fiercely competitive environment of the elements’ applications, which provide scant suggestions to
Chinese liquor market, a large amount of research has CCLP’s design development.
focuses on the importance of culture in liquor branding, as We explained in another paper that culture contributes to
culture is commonly accepted as an important factor in CCLP significantly by providing abundant aesthetic
evoking product’s diversity, innovation and other significant experiences and elaborated on cultural aesthetic experiences
consequences that enhance brand identity [1]. As packaging characteristics in the packaging communication process [2].
is a particularly crucial extrinsic cue that customers rely on Nevertheless, those aesthetic experiences are target experi-
to make purchase decisions, in all efforts of branding ences rather than customers’ actual experiences and inclined
‘cultural Chinese liquor’, cultural packaging has been to be empirically or theoretically inferred. In order to
increasingly valued by Chinese liquor stakeholders. There is effectively stage aesthetic experiences in CCLP for
no existing explicit definition of ‘cultural packaging’, so this contemporary customers, exploring their actual aesthetic
paper defines it as packaging which is designed with special perceptions of CCLP is necessary.
cultural elements. Although aesthetic experiences include both negative
Despite the importance of this strategy, there is a lack of and positive impressions, this study focuses only on positive
profound research on its operation mechanism. The body of impressions. The concept of aesthetic experience adopted in
existing research on cultural Chinese liquor packaging this study is interchangeable with beauty or aesthetic

Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019 1

pleasure. Following previous research, aesthetic experience is but untouchable; and the ‘inner’ level’, which is reflected in
referred to as a customer’s conceptual, physical, and human ideologies, such as values or aesthetics, and is covert,
emotional feelings evoked by CCLP, which is a process that invisible, and intangible [5]. As this spatial perspective helps
simultaneously includes affective and cognitive dimensions to ‘visualize and capture the fluid concept of culture [6]’,
[3,4]. Leong pioneered using it in design research and focus on
Among the limited Chinese cultural design research, the Chinese traditional culture’s inner level. Following this
perspective of culture’s spatial levels has been frequently research, Lin developed a framework to describe cultural
adopted. This perspective, which will be later explained in products’ features [7]. Lin’s framework accordingly includes
further details, divides culture into three levels: the outer three levels, namely the outer ‘tangible’ level (colors, texture,
level, which refers to culture’s material forms; the middle forms, lines, patterns, and details), the mid ‘behavioral’ level
level, which refers to its behavioral forms; and the inner level, (manipulation, safety, usability, convenience, function, and
which refers to human ideologies. A few studies assert that structure), and the inner ‘intangible’ level (meanings,
designs with different levels of cultural elements or cultural storytelling, affection, and cultural features).
inspiration could result in significantly different experiences, From culture’s spatial perspective, a few more studies
particularly creativity or satisfaction. Because of these have been conducted, and two experimental studies inspired
important discoveries about cultural designs, this study the current study’ focus. One conducted by Luo and Dong,
attempts to examine: whether different levels of cultural which analyzed the effects of different cultural inspirations
elements also function differently in generating aesthetic on the generation of design’s cultural features and creativity
experiences in CCLP. Additionally, as cultural elements by comparing designers’ evaluations of performance of
eventually should be expressed by design elements, this cultural-pictorial (pictorial information of culture provided
study has further examined that how does design elements’ to designers) and cultural-textual inspiration (textual
performance relate to customers’ aesthetic experiences when information of culture provided to designers). Their study
CCLP equipped with different levels of cultural elements. reported that the cultural-textual inspiration stimulates more
When exploring the relationship between design elements’ cultural features and generates more creative outcomes than
performance and perceived aesthetic experience, Kano’s the cultural-pictorial inspiration. Thereby they suggested
model was adopted to analyze the results. that the textual form of cultural information should be paid
This article begins with an explanation of the theoretical more attention to in design education and practice [8]. In
background, which presents how this study’s position was another experimental study, Chai et al. explored the
developed; Following this section, the experiment design relationship between products’ cultural elements and
and results are successively described. Based on the results, customers’ responses. They distinguished fourteen of the
this article puts forward suggestions for CCLP design. most important traditional cultural elements in products
across three cultural spatial levels and identified which
2. Theoretical background dimension of cultural elements would achieve higher
The literature reviewed below provides this study with a customer satisfaction. They discovered that the inner and the
strong theoretical basis. The applications of culture’s spatial middle levels of cultural elements emerged as notably
perspective in cultural design research offer this study superior at improving customer’s satisfaction than the outer
references to determine the research angle. Kano’s model levels of cultural elements [9]. In summary, both studies
provides this study with theoretical tools for an in-depth revealed that cultural elements or inspirations of different
analysis of the survey results. At the end of this section, spatial levels had significantly different effects on cultural
CCLP’s design elements are clarified and listed. design. So, we wonder whether CCLP with different spatial
2.1. Culture’s spatial perspective and its applications in levels of cultural elements perform significantly different in
cultural design research staging aesthetic experiences. If they are different, that
In 1992, He first put forward that culture could be means a certain level of cultural elements have inherent
divided into three spatial levels, namely the ‘outer’ level, superiority on provoking aesthetic experience in CCLP.
which is reflected in material forms (houses or clothes) and 2.2. Research questions, and the abbreviations: OLP and
is external, tangible and visible; the ‘middle’ level, which is ILP
reflected in human behavioral forms and language Because the middle levels of cultural elements (i.e.,
(regulations, music, dance or habits) and is visible, audible, behavioral forms) are rarely applied in packaging, we only

2 Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019

focused on the outer levels of cultural elements (i.e., the but have no effect on satisfaction when badly designed.
visible and tangible part of culture) and the inner levels of One-dimensional quality element improves customer
cultural elements (i.e., the intangible and invisible part of satisfaction when well-designed and negatively improve
culture) in this study. Namely, this study compared CCLP of satisfaction when badly-designed. The must-be quality
outer levels of cultural elements (hereinafter OLP) and element does not improve customer satisfaction when they
CCLP of inner levels of cultural elements (hereinafter ILP). are well-designed but negatively affect satisfaction when
Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following badly designed. Indifferent quality element has no effect on
questions: (1) Does OLP and ILP differently affect integral satisfaction. Reverse quality element improves
customers’ aesthetic experiences? (2) How does the customer satisfaction when badly designed [10] (Figure 1).
performance of CCLP’s design elements relate to customers’ Although Kano proposed a complete set of survey
aesthetic experiences? methods, including the setting of questionnaire and the
2.3. Kano’s model recognition of quality elements based on the results, the
As explained in introduction, in order to develop more survey method has not been employed in the current study.
practical suggestions for staging aesthetic experiences in When evaluating customer’s satisfaction in terms of
CCLP, it is necessary to investigate how design element’s products’ practical attributes, such as the usability of a pen,
performance relates to customers’ aesthetic experiences. it is usually easy for customers to explain their preferences
Generally, it is difficult to further expound on the when the attribute’s performance is sufficient or insufficient,
correspondences of objective elements like design elements or when the attribute is present or absent, so interviewers can
and subjective elements like aesthetic experiences, but directly ask customers in this way. However, when
Kano’s model provides us with the theoretical basis. investigating customers’ aesthetic preferences in terms of
Since Kano’s model was created, it has been widely used design elements, it is difficult for them to articulate the
in product and service development to sort customers’ correspondence, because design elements’ influence on
requirements of products’ attributes so that the limited aesthetic experiences is latent and often unrecognized by
product development resources can be effectively managed, consumers. For this reason, Llinares and Page also used
and the product’s attributes can be given different priorities Kano’s model to analyze the relationship between
in encouraging customer satisfaction. Kano et al. customer’s purchasing decisions and the performance of
distinguished the quality elements of products into five properties’ attributes in their real estate research based on
categories based on the correspondence of customer indirectly investigated results [11]. They translated the
satisfaction with specific elements and their performances in evaluation of quality elements’ presence/absence or
the 1980s. The five categories are attractive quality element, sufficient/ insufficient in Kano’s model into positive scores
one-dimensional quality element, must-be quality element, (above average scores) and negative scores (below average
indifferent quality element, and reverse quality element. The scores). They asked customers to evaluate the performance
attractive quality element is element that has the potential to of 60 properties’ attributes and purchase desires by a 5-point
improve customers’ overall satisfaction when well-designed Likert scale and explored the correspondences based on
Kano’s model. This research has confirmed that indirect
analysis is viable.
2.4. Design elements of CCLP
Design elements, as the objective attributes in this study,
should be first clarified in order to evaluate their
performances later.
There are several established theories discussing
packaging design elements (or design components).
Although these theories are not all the same, it is commonly
agreed that packages are generally composed by graphic and
structural elements. The graphic elements refer to color,
typography, graphics, images, and typewriting, whereas the
structural elements refer to shape, materials, and texture
Figure 1. Kano Model (adapted from Kano et al., 1984)
[12,13]. CCLP also includes graphic and structural elements.

Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019 3

However, because of CCLP’s inherent cultural
characteristics analyzed comprehensively in our previous
paper, we proposed CCLP also includes a third group of
connotational elements. In our previous study, we focused
on arguing for the existence of the spiritual elements in
CCLP and listed design elements incompletely. In this study,
all of CCLP’s representative design elements are listed in
terms of three dimensions following a more extensive
literature review: (1) Graphic elements, specifically image,
pattern, color, font, and typography; (2) Structural elements,
specifically shape, material and texture; (3) Connotational
elements, specifically meaning, cultural values, affection,
emotional resonance, storytelling [9]. Figure 2. Example of displayed stimuli

3. Methodology Step 2: In this step, in order to ensure that the stimuli

To address the research questions, a consumer survey has were typical representatives of CCLP, 150 reselected
been developed. And this study employed the following packages were refined to 40, 20 of which were OLP
methodology to establish and execute the survey: (1) (randomly marked as P1, P2, ……P20), and 20 others ILP
Selecting and preparing the representative stimuli; (2) (randomly marked as P1s, P2s, ……P20s).
Determining appropriate measures; and (3) Consumer At first, we randomly selected 70 (35 were OLP, 35
participants evaluate stimuli. others were ILP) from the 150 preselected packages.
Because this study, on the whole, intends to examine the Following an explanation of the concept of cultural spatial
influence of cultural elements and design elements within levels, a jury composed of three professional liquor packages
CCLP on consumers’ aesthetic experiences, so neither designers with an average of 8 years of experience was
stimuli nor participants are restricted to certain regions. required to select 20 representatives from the reselected OLP
Moreover, we did not give a hypothetical motivation like and ILP. Finally, we determined the selected liquor bottles as
choosing for a gift or for themselves when participants the final stimuli for experiment.
evaluating stimuli, because no matter what kind of situation To uniformly display the stimuli, we obtained stimuli
participant’s aesthetic perception will not change. pictures from Jiuxian’s official website, as these pictures had
the same photographic quality, view angles, and details.
3.1. Selecting and preparing stimuli of OLP and ILP Additionally, we edited the stimuli’s display details to be the
A two-step process was conducted to select appropriate same size (Figure 2).
stimuli. For selecting the cultural packaging and determining 3.2. Employed measures
the classification of OLP and ILP, three main data sources To achieve the research aims, a questionnaire was
were employed: liquor brands’ official websites; Design designed to obtain customers’ evaluations of each stimulus.
agencies websites; Jiuxian− the China’s biggest liquor e- The relevant measuring items and scales are introduced in
commerce platform. According to those released the following paragraphs.
information related to packaging’s design intention, the Familiarity measures: It is often reported that product
stimuli were selected and classified. familiarity affects customers’ aesthetic preferences [14], so
Step 1: we checked over 2000 Chinese liquor products unfamiliar liquor products were selected. In the beginning of
on the China’s biggest liquor e-commerce platform, Jiuxian, the questionnaire, following the previous study, we asked
based on five criteria: (1) Packages that are culturally participants to rate the familiarity of all stimuli using a 7-
designed; (2) Limited to bottles; (3) Similar capacity point scale (1=not familiar; 4=neutral; 7=very familiar) [15].
(465~500ml); (4) Unfamiliar products to the customers; and The mean scores of all stimuli’s familiarity were all
(5) One half of selected CCLP is OLP, the other half is ILP. significantly lower than 4 point, which showed that
150 packages (75 OLP, 75 ILP) were selected. In this step, a participants were not familiar with stimuli.
focus group composed of four liquor consumers assisted in Aesthetic experience measures: Different from
selecting unfamiliar liquor products. functional needs, customers often are unaware of their

4 Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019

aesthetic needs [16], thus it is difficult to directly determine for customers to discern. Thus, we integrated them into two
customer’s aesthetic experience. Beardsley has suggested measures: cultural connotations, which refers to meaning,
that the amount of pleasure can be used to rate the perceived storytelling, and cultural values; and cultural atmosphere,
aesthetic experience. He stated that the term pleasure which refers to affection and emotional resonance. Finally,
covered all positive affective states, such as the delightful in order to facilitate participants’ understanding, typography
characteristics of Maslow’s ‘peak-experiences’: the sense of is defined as arrangement of all the graphic information.
liberation, the joy of play, elation, fullness of power [17], etc. To summarize, with the help of 7-point Likert scale
Leder et al. proposed that the aesthetic emotion and the (1=very poor; 4=neutral; and 7=very good), participants
aesthetic judgment were two types of aesthetic experience evaluated in total twelve design elements’ performance
outputs. In terms of positive experiences, aesthetic emotions toward each stimulus, with the measuring items as (1)
were described as pleasure or happiness, and aesthetic graphic dimension–image/pattern, color, product name font,
judgments were described as interestingness or beauty. information font, and arrangement of all the graphic
Based on this research, we consider pleasure and beauty two information, (2) structural dimension–cap shape, body shape,
important measures to compare customers’ aesthetic cap material, body material, and texture, and (3)
experience. Furthermore, innovation (or originality) is one connotational dimension–cultural connotations and cultural
term frequently used to describe aesthetic experiences [18] atmosphere. These items were explained to all participants
and is particularly crucial in design. Moreover, given before evaluation.
packaging is the most important extrinsic clue for customers 3.3. Evaluating procedure
while making purchase decisions and is regarded as a The self-administered online questionnaire was
significant component of the product, the degree of employed to investigate participants’ views. The tentative
customer’s consumption desire should also be treated as a survey was operated from August 20 to 28 in 2017. The final
significant measure of CCLP’s aesthetic experience. survey was operated from January 10 to 17 in 2018.
In short, four pairs of semantic differentials with 7-point Participants accessed the questionnaire via a link. Each
scale were employed, namely ugly–beautiful, participant judged all 40 stimuli. The approximate time for
displeasurable–pleasurable, not innovative–very innovative, completing the questionnaire was 35–45 minutes. Each
and makes me reluctant to drink or buy it–makes me want to participant received a WeChat red envelope with 10 yuan as
drink or buy it. According to the results of the reliability tests, compensation. The questionnaire survey consisted of three
the correlations between four pairs’ semantic differentials sections: (1) Answering four demographic questions (gender,
were very high, as the Cronbach’s Alpha in OLP was 0.915, age, education, and profession). (2) Browsing randomly
and 0.925 for ILP. These results justified using these scales displayed stimuli pictures. (3) Assessing 40 stimuli indi-
to assess the degree of aesthetic experience. vidually on (a) familiarity, (b) holistic aesthetic experience,
Design elements measures: Although all of the design and (c) the performance of twelve design elements.
elements of CCLP have been listed, according to the 3.4. Participants
tentative investigation results of 62 participants, in order to This study focuses on young Chinese liquor customers.
make items more measurable and easy to understand, it is When the generation born in the 1960s and 1970s were
necessary to make adjustments. Firstly, the image and young, they lived in an impoverished environment, while
pattern are usually used as same form in CCLP, so they were when the generation born in 1980s and 1990s live in a more
grouped as one item. Secondly, because the shape of the diverse consumption environment. A considerable amount
bottle cap is always given considerable attention in liquor of foreign beer and wine brands have entered the Chinese
packaging design, and in many cases its material is different alcohol market and are preferred by young people. Many
from the body of the bottle, the cap and body material and Chinese liquor enterprises once thought the demise of liquor
shape are evaluated as separate items, namely cap material, in young generation was an inevitable trend because of
body material, cap shape, body shape. Thirdly, because the Chinese liquor’s strong flavor and dull impression [19].
product name and information font are usually designed However, the great market success of Jiangxiaobai (江小白),
differently, they are also evaluated separately as product a liquor brand founded in 2011, proved that this view was
name font and information font. Fourthly, although we listed overly pessimistic. Jiangxiaobai products’ alcohol by
frequently mentioned connotational design elements as volume ranged from 40 to 52 and targeted young people.
complete as possible, because they are covert, it is difficult This successful case proved that it was possible to win over

Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019 5

young customers, though it may be more difficult to Table 1． Aesthetic experiences of OLP and ILP
encourage young people to consume Chinese liquor. OLP ILP
T P
（M±SD） （M±SD）
Participants were approached using convenience
1a Beauty 4.33±1.49 4.28±1.50 0.985 0.325
sampling. 74 young Chinese liquor customers (different
2b Pleasure 4.52±1.50 4.46±1.47 1.017 0.309
from those participated in the tentative survey) finished the 3 Consuming desire
c
4.18±1.52 4.14±1.51 0.605 0.545
questionnaire, so a total of 74×40=2960 individual ratings 4d Innovation 4.27±1.49 4.32±1.53 -0.926 0.354
was obtained. 44 participants were male (59%), 30 were Aesthetic experience 4.32±1.34 4.30±1.36 0.464 0.643
female (41%). 61 were between 18 (the drinking age in a
1= ugly, 7=beautiful;
China is 18) and 25 years old (82%), and 13 were between b
1=displeasurable, 7=pleasurable;
c
1= reluctant to drink or buy it, 7=want to drink or buy it;
26 and 35 years old (18%). d
1= not innovative, 7=very innovative.

4. Results and discussions results indicated that, in terms of CCLP, neither the inner nor
All of the following analyses were conducted using the outer levels of cultural elements have inherent
SPSS statistical analysis software. superiority in evoking aesthetic experience.
4.1. Effects of different levels of cultural elements on The above results may be due to two possible reasons.
CCLP’s aesthetic experience Firstly, despite dividing culture into two levels of cultural
The first aim of this study was to inspect whether OLP elements, the two levels emerged as a fusion. He, who
and ILP performed differently in generating aesthetic pioneered the research methods of the culture’s spatial levels,
experiences. As all participants assessed both OLP and ILP, stated that although the method of culture spatial levels was
the paired-packages T-test was employed to compare the developed to study cultural phenomenon, culture inherently
means of assessed aesthetic experience between OLP and is a fusion of three levels of contents and cannot be
ILP. In checking the p-value of the T-test, the results revealed completely separated [20]. If in CCLP, cultural elements
that regardless of the individual measuring items (pleasure, really should be treated as a fusion rather than divided into
beauty, consumption desire and innovation) or the holistic different levels, they will not only result in similar aesthetic
aesthetic experience, there were no statistically significant experiences, but will also result in the same outcomes. This
differences between OLP and ILP (P>0.05) (Table1). These inference is worthy of examination in future research.

Figure 3. Selected best OLP, ILP and worst OLP, ILP of aesthetic experience

6 Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019

 Table 2．Comparison of design element’s performance between the best and the worst aesthetic experienced group
B-OLP W-OLP T P B-ILP W-ILP T P
1 Image/pattern 5.48±1.10 3.48±1.34 18.110 0.000 5.39±1.12 3.19±1.33 20.643 0.000
2 Color 5.47±1.16 3.51±1.34 17.480 0.000 5.37±1.15 3.18±1.30 20.055 0.000
3 Cap material 5.43±1.13 3.61±1.29 16.802 0.000 5.28±1.15 3.25±1.36 17.977 0.000
4 Cap shape 5.32±1.21 3.40±1.42 16.363 0.000 5.27±1.19 3.20±1.36 18.154 0.000
5 Body shape 5.42±1.17 3.46±1.34 17.467 0.000 5.43±1.06 3.27±1.35 19.789 0.000
6 Texture 5.52±1.06 3.61±1.35 17.470 0.000 5.37±1.15 3.33±1.38 17.962 0.000
7 Body material 5.48±1.08 3.64±1.29 17.279 0.000 5.37±1.09 3.39±1.37 17.810 0.000
8 Product name font 5.36±1.22 3.69±1.39 14.563 0.000 5.50±1.13 3.33±1.37 19.161 0.000
9 Information font 5.22±1.25 3.46±1.32 15.575 0.000 5.40±1.10 3.23±1.24 21.142 0.000
10 Typography 5.36±1.21 3.47±1.36 16.528 0.000 5.43±1.08 3.33±1.31 19.526 0.000
11 Cultural atmosphere 5.54±1.10 3.71±1.49 15.489 0.000 5.49±1.13 3.58±1.47 16.154 0.000
12 Cultural connotation 5.47±1.13 3.65±1.51 15.072 0.000 5.55±1.11 3.60±1.46 16.706 0.000

However, we are inclined to believe that the divide is evaluated groups are all above 4 points, while in worst
meaningful: the outer levels of cultural elements do contain aesthetic evaluated groups are all below 4 points (Table 2).
invisible cultural contents, whereas the inner levels of Inspired by Linares and Page, it can be understood as: in best
cultural elements do not necessarily require external cultural aesthetic evaluated groups, the design elements performed
elements’ expressions, and other visible forms also can relatively well and could be matched with ‘attribute is
express invisible cultural content. sufficient or present’, as defined in Kano’s model. In worst
The second possible reason is that: the differences aesthetic evaluated groups, the design elements performed
between the two levels of cultural elements are neutralized relatively poorly and were matched with Kano’s ‘attribute is
by design elements’ performance, since the appearance of insufficient or absent’.
cultural elements eventually relied on design element’s Stepwise linear regression analyses were carried out to
manifestation. This inference actually increases the need to analyze the contribution of twelve design elements to the
explore the second research question: What the interactions aesthetic experience. From these analyses, the significantly
between cultural elements, design elements, and aesthetic contributed design elements of each group were extracted.
experiences in CCLP？ Next, the results are described thoroughly using tables to
4.2. Effects of design elements’ performance on CCLP’s display the data.
aesthetic experience 4.2.1. Design elements’ contribution to OLP’s aesthetic
To observe the influence of design elements on aesthetic experience
experience more clearly, we investigated how they are Table 3 shows the regression analysis results for the best
related to relatively better aesthetic experience and relatively aesthetic evaluated OLP group. According to the results of
worsened aesthetic experience in CCLP. T-test, the body shape, color, information font, cap shape,
The investigation began by selecting the best and the cultural atmosphere and image/pattern significantly
worst aesthetic evaluated OLP/ILP. The final selected groups contributed to the group’s aesthetic experience. The results
were the five best OLP (B-OLP) and the five worst OLP (W- indicated that this group’s success in staging aesthetic
OLP) and the five best ILP (B-ILP) and the five worst ILP experiences was attributable to these design elements’
(W-ILP). More details are shown in Figure 3. excellent performance. On the other hand, according to the
Following the selection process, an independent T-test stepwise regression analysis technique, independent
was conducted to examine the differences in design elements’ variables that did not appear in final model are the
performance between the best and worst aesthetic evaluated insignificantly contributors. Thus, it can be inferred that cap
group. The results showed that in both OLP and ILP groups, material, body material, texture, product name font,
the design elements’ performance of the best aesthetic ypography, and cultural connotation did not significantly
evaluated group also scored significantly higher than the contribute to this group’s aesthetic experience, namely that
worst aesthetic evaluated group. Additionally, the mean their well performances did not have a significant positive
scores of design elements’ performance in best aesthetic

Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019 7

 Table 3． Design element’s contribution to B-OLP effect on OLP’s aesthetic experience.
Unstandardized Standardized Table 4 shows the regression analysis results of the worst
Coefficients Coefficients T Sig.
aesthetic evaluated OLP group. This group’s aesthetic
B Std.error Beta
(Constant) 1.090 0.209 5.226 0.000 experiences were found be significantly influenced by the
5 Body shape 0.123 0.041 0.161 2.990 0.003 performance of color, body shape, cap shape, image/pattern,
2 Color 0.160 0.039 0.209 4.134 0.000
9 Information font 0.090 0.031 0.126 2.944 0.004
and typography. This finding indicated that these design
4 Cap shape 0.128 0.036 0.173 3.574 0.000 elements’ poor performance had a significant negative effect
11 Cultural 0.152 0.042 0.187 3.647 0.000 on this group packages’ aesthetic experience. On the other
atmosphere
1 Image/pattern 0.128 0.041 0.158 3.096 0.002
Adjusted R2 0.585
hand, the rest of the design elements that did not appear in
F 72.04 this model were insignificant and included cap material,
P 0.000 body material, texture, product name font, information font,
a. Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Experience
cultural atmosphere, and cultural connotation. These
elements’ poor performance did not have a significant
Table 4． Design element’s contribution to W-OLP negative effect on OLP’s aesthetic experience.
Unstandardized Standardized 4.2.2. Design elements’ contribution to ILP’s aesthetic
Coefficients Coefficients T Sig.
B Std.error Beta experience
(Constant) 0.535 0.139 3.839 0.000 For the best aesthetic evaluated ILP group (Table 5), the
2 Color 0.175 0.043 0.244 4.058 0.000
significantly contributing design elements were body shape,
5 Body shape 0.122 0.045 0.168 2.701 0.007
4 Cap shape 0.150 0.042 0.220 3.554 0.000 color, information font, image/pattern, and cap shape. This
1 Image/pattern 0.125 0.043 0.174 2.945 0.004 indicated the good performance of these elements had a
10 Typography 0.117 0.041 0.164 2.832 0.005
information
significant positive effect on ILP’s aesthetic experience.
Adjusted R2 0.593
F 65.335 However, the good performance of cap material, body
P 0.000 material, texture, product name font, typography, cultural
a. Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Experience
atmosphere and cultural connotation did not have a
significant positive effect.
Table 5． Design element’s contribution to B-ILP
For the worst aesthetic evaluated ILP group (Table 6),
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients T Sig. the significant design elements were image/pattern, color,
B Std.error Beta information font, and cultural atmosphere. This finding
(Constant) 0.745 0.168 4.423 0.000
means that the poor performance of these design elements
5 body shape 0.198 0.042 0.227 4.682 0.000
2 color 0.225 0.036 0.279 6.291 0.000 had a significant negative effect on the ILP’s aesthetic
9 information font 0.157 0.038 0.186 4.157 0.000 experience. On the other side, the poor performance of cap
1 image/pattern 0.142 0.039 0.172 3.636 0.000
material, cap shape, body shape, texture, body material,
4 cap shape 0.112 0.035 0.145 3.189 0.002
Adjusted R2 0.708 product name font, typography, and cultural connotation did
F 148.5 not have a significant negative influence on this group’s
P 0.000 aesthetic experience.
a. Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Experience
4.2.3. Recognizing design element’s effect on aesthetic
experiences in CCLP using Kano’s model
Table 6． Design element’s contribution to W-ILP Based on the results of the regression analysis results,
Unstandardized Standardized OLP and ILP design elements could be further classified
Coefficients Coefficients T Sig.
B Std.error Beta according to the correspondence of design elements’
(Constant) 0.630 0.114 5.534 0.000 performance and perceived aesthetic experience using
1 Image/pattern 0.199 0.043 0.285 4.637 0.000 Kano’s theory (Table 7).
2 Color 0.195 0.042 0.273 4.678 0.000
9 Information font 0.154 0.044 0.207 3.483 0.001
One-dimensional quality elements: in OLP, these
11 Cultural atmosphere 0.117 0.035 0.185 3.348 0.001 elements are image/pattern, color, cap shape and body shape.
Adjusted R2 0.651 In ILP, these elements are image/pattern, color and
F 103.615
information font. If these design elements’ performance meet
P 0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Experience
the demands of customers, the aesthetic is positive. In
contrast, if these elements disappoint customers, the

8 Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019

 Table 7． Correspondences of design element’s performances and aesthetic experience and classifications
OLP ILP
best group worst group classification (OLP) best group worst group classification (ILP)
1 image/pattern 1 image/pattern 1 image/pattern (O) 1 image/pattern 1 image/pattern 1 image/pattern (O)
2 color 2 color 2 color (O) 2 color 2 color 2 color (O)
Significant 4 cap shape 4 cap shape 3 cap material (I) 4 cap shape 9 information font 3 cap material (I)
5 body shape 5 body shape 4 cap shape (O) 5 body shape 11cultural atmosphere 4 cap shape (A)
Contributors
9 information font 10 typography 5 body shape (O) 9 information font 5 body shape (A)
11 cultural atmosphere 6 texture (I) 6 texture (I)
7 body material (I) 7 body material (I)
3 cap material 3 cap material 8 product name font (I) 3 cap material 3 cap material 8 product name font (I)
6 texture 6 texture 9 information font (A) 6 texture 4 cap shape 9 information font (O)
7 body material 7 body material 10 typography (M) 7 body material 5 body shape 10 typography (I)
Insignificant 8 product name font 8 product name font 11 cultural atmosphere (A) 8 product name font 6 texture 11 cultural atmosphere (M)
Contributors 10 typography 9 information font 12 cultural connotation (I) 10 typography 7 body material 12 cultural connotation (I)
12 cultural connotation 11 cultural atmosphere 11 cultural atmosphere 8 product name font
12 cultural connotation 12 cultural connotation 10 typography
12 cultural connotation
(A:attractive quality element; O:one-dimensional quality element; M:must-be quality element; I:indifferent quality element)

aesthetic experience will be negative. 2) It seems that young Chinese consumers dislike CCLP
Must-be quality element: in OLP, it is typography; in which designed with high saturation, especially when they
ILP, it is cultural atmosphere. Poor performance negatively are designed with red and yellow, as shown in Figure 3, the
affects the aesthetic experience, whereas excellent most packaging in the selected worst groups are red and
performance does not improve the aesthetic experience. This yellow ones. Compared with the worst groups, the packaging
finding implies that when design liquor packages use outer in best groups are mainly achromatic. The similar results
levels of cultural elements, customers regard the appeared both in the tentative survey and the final survey in
arrangement of graphical information as basic requirement, spite of two groups of participants were completely different.
while in terms of inner levels of cultural elements, customers Thus, the coincidence factors can be excluded in some extent
deem a good cultural atmosphere a basic requirement. and this result has reference value for design work.
Attractive quality elements: in OLP, these elements are 3) In Table 7, cultural connotation (meaning, storytelling,
Information font and cultural atmosphere. In ILP, these cultural values) is classified as indifferent quality elements
elements are cap shape and body shape. These design both in OLP and ILP. Contrarily, cultural atmosphere
elements’ poor performance does not negatively affect (affection, emotional resonance) is more important both in
customers’ aesthetic experience, though their excellent OLP and ILP: In OLP it is classified as attractive element. In
performance improves the aesthetic experience. ILP is classified as must-be element. Compared cultural
Indifferent quality elements: except for typography in connotation’s referents with cultural atmosphere’s, the
ILP, cultural connotation, cap material, texture, body former more originates from the cultural elements’ inherent
material, product name font can be treated as indifferent meanings while the later more relied on design elements’
quality elements both in both OLP and ILP. These design manifestation. It can be considered that consumers’ overall
elements at present do not significantly affect aesthetic aesthetic experiences are more affected by design elements’
experience regardless of their performance. manifestation than by cultural elements’ inherent meanings.
4.2.4. Discussion Hence, designers should hold a more holistic perspective to
1) The classification to design elements offers important pay more attention to create a good cultural atmosphere as a
reference for designers to prioritize each element according whole.
to various marketing strategies. Since the one-dimensional 4) It can be found that seven of the twelve design
elements have two-way significant influence, they should be elements are classified as the same quality elements across
paid the most attention and designed as perfect as possible. OLP and ILP groups (image/pattern; color; cap material;
According to Kano et al.’s theory, the attractive quality texture; body material; product name font; cultural
elements could provide unexpected innovation, thus should connotation). It means each of these seven element has same
be treated as plus points. Must-be elements’ performance effect on participants’ aesthetic experience across spatial
should be ensured at first. Because customers generally do levels. On the one hand, it indicates that this classifying
not care about the indifferent elements [21], designers do not method steadily reveals the participants’ perceptions, it is
need to focus too much on them. reliable. On the other hand, because this is a large proportion,

Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019 9

thus it gives rise to our thinking again for the value to divide [6] Leong B. D. and Clark H., Culture-based knowledge towards
the cultural elements into inner level and outer level. We new design thinking and practice–a dialogue, Culture, 19(3),
suggest that we should hold a skeptical attitude toward 2006
employ the perspective of culture spatial levels as [7] Lin R. T., Cultural creativity added design value, Art
experimental approach in cultural design research. Appreciation, 1(7), 26-32, 2005 (in Chinese)
5. Conclusions [8] Luo S. J. and Dong Y. N., Role of cultural inspiration with
This study made an effort to explore CCLP’s operation different types in cultural product design activities,
mechanism from culture spatial perspective. The findings of International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
the study reveal that, regardless of whether cultural elements 27(3), 499-515, 2017
exist as visible material forms or invisible ideologies, they [9] Chai C. L., Bao D. F., et al., The relative effects of different
do not have inherent superiority in staging aesthetic dimensions of traditional cultural elements on customer
experience in CCLP. This finding suggests that designers product satisfaction, International Journal of Industrial
should not overly rely on certain levels of cultural elements, Ergonomics, 48, 77-88, 2015
as design solutions mediate inherent differences between [10] Kano N., Seraku N., et al., Attractive quality and must-be
cultural elements. This paper advises managers to stress quality, Quality, 14(2), 147-156, 1984 (in Japanese)
designers’ active role in CCLP. With the help of Kano’s [11] Llinares C. and Page A. F., Kano’s model in Kansei
model, the study classified the design elements of CCLP. Engineering to evaluate subjective real estate consumer
This study held a more holistic perspective in order to preferences, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
recognize design elements’ different contributions to 41(3), 233-246, 2011
customer’s aesthetic experiences of CCLP. This [12] Ampuero O. and Vila N., Consumer perceptions of product
classification provides designers with reference when packaging, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100-112,
managing the design elements of CCLP. Designers can 2006
premeditate the coordination of multiple design elements, [13] Steenis N. D., van Herpen E., et al., Consumer response to
give different priorities to each element according to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and
packaging development phases and market strategies, and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations,
avoid equally distributed efforts or worthless over-exertion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286-298, 2017
Additionally, all the participants of this study’s survey were [14] Underwood R. L. and Klein N. M., Packaging as brand
born in the 1980s and 1990s, and so the results reflect communication: effects of product pictures on consumer
contemporary young Chinese people’s aesthetic perceptions responses to the package and brand, Journal of Marketing
of CCLP, which is a valuable reference for least for Chinese Theory and Practice, 10(4), 58-68, 2002
liquor companies in future marketing campaigns. [15] Orth U. R. and Malkewitz K., Holistic package design and
Although this study has a number of limitations, it is consumer brand impressions, Journal of marketing, 72(3), 64-
hoped that it will assist designers and managers in 81, 2008
optimizing CCLP’s aesthetic experience. [16] McDonagh D., Bruseberg A., et al., Visual product evaluation:
exploring users’ emotional relationships with products.
References Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 231-240, 2002
[1] Jones G. K., and Davis H. J., National culture and innovation: [17] Beardsley M. C., Aesthetic Experience Regained, The Journal
Implications for locating global R&D operations. MIR: of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28(1), 3-11, 1969
Management International Review, 40(1), 11-39, 2000 [18] Augustin M. D., Carbon C. C., et al., Artful terms: A study on
[2] Yang J. R. and Higuchi T., How does culture contribute to liquor aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and music, I-
packages, Journal of the Science of Design, 1(2), 51-60, 2017 Perception, 3(5), 319-337, 2012
[3] Heid K., Aesthetic development: a cognitive experience, Art [19] Zou L. Y., The crisis of liquor industry, Modern Enterprise
Education, 58(5), 48-53, 2005 Culture, 5, 36, 2016 (in Chinese)
[4] Leder H., Belke B., et al. A model of aesthetic appreciation and [20] He X. L., Personal interview, September 1, 2017
aesthetic judgments, British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), [21]Verduyn D., Discovering the Kano Model, 2014
489-508, 2004 https://www.kanomodel.com/discovering-the-kano-model/
[5] He X. L., The Worship of Chinese Gods of Nature, San-Lian (Accessed 16 September 2017)
Book Store, 3-10, 1992 (in Chinese)

10

10 Journal of the Science of Design Vol. 3 No. 1 2019