ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Association for Consumer Research, University of Minnesota Duluth, 115 Chester Park, 31 West College Street Duluth, MN 55812 The Effects of Duodecimal and Hexadecimal Benchmarks on Package Size Evaluations Kunter Gunasti, Washington State University, USA Tim Ozcan, James Madison University, USA Betsy Howlett, Washington State University, USA We demonstrate positive effects of Hexadecimal and Duodecimal (H/D) numbers on consumers’ product evaluations, preferences, and willingness to pay. These effects are mediated by the round-like number properties of H/D numbers and by the perceived convenience of the change in package size and moderated by the dominant measurement system. [to cite]: Kunter Gunasti, Tim Ozcan, and Betsy Howlett (2019) ,"The Effects of Duodecimal and Hexadecimal Benchmarks on Package Size Evaluations", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 47, eds. Rajesh Bagchi, Lauren Block, and Leonard Lee, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 606-607. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2551874/volumes/v47/NA-47 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. The Effects of Duodecimal and Hexadecimal Benchmarks on Package Size Evaluations Kunter Gunasti, Washington State University, USA Timucin Ozcan, James Madison University, USA Elizabeth Howlett, Washington State University, USA EXTENDED ABSTRACT cal and the relative increase is smaller. In contrast, a downsize from Predicting consumers’ responses to specific quantity amounts 34 to 32 oz. is perceived to be smaller difference than a downsize on product packaging can be especially challenging since measures from 36 to 34 oz. Furthermore, a downsize (upsize) from a H/D num- from two very different systems are often simultaneously presented. ber is perceived to be a larger (smaller) difference than an equiva- That is, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) enacted in 1967 lent downsize (upsize) from a non-duodecimal or non-hexadecimal mandated the disclosure of quantity information in inch‐pound units, value. For example, downsizing from 16 to 14 oz. is perceived to be also known as non-metric or imperial units. This method describes a larger reduction in quantity than the reduction from 14 to 12 oz. quantity using terms familiar to United States (US) consumers such whereas upsizing from 32 to 34 oz. is perceived to be smaller than as ounces, pint, fluid ounces, inches, and cubic foot. In 1992 the the increase from 30 to 32 oz. FPLA was amended to require quantity disclosures on packaging Using a variety of methodologies, we demonstrated that H/D to appear in both metric and inch‐pound units. This mandate, infor- numbers have unique attributes resembling those of decimally round mally referred to as dual labeling, is currently in effect and applies numbers. Namely, H/D numbers serve as benchmarks or reference to most consumer-packaged goods subject to federal regulation. For points, feel “just right,” and are associated with a sense of complete- example, consider Tropicana orange juice sold in a 34 fl. oz. (1000 ness. These attributes have positive effects on consumers’ product ml) carton. We suggest that whether the marketer chooses to high- evaluations and choice preferences. Specifically, our studies clearly light the inch-pound (34 fl. oz.) or metric (1000 ml) measure may demonstrate that consumers express a strong preference for H/D have significant consumer choice implications since 1000 is a round product sizes over non-H/D product sizes when quantity is declared number in the decimal system and 34 is not. in inch-pound units. These findings are consistent across a variety of More specifically, numbers ending in zero such as 10, 500, consumer choice situations and product categories. We also demon- 9000, and 100,000 as well as their halves (e.g., 5, 250) are typically strate that a product upsize or downsize that results in a H/D number referred to as round numbers in the decimal system. The greater the is perceived as a larger change in quantity than an equivalent product number of zeros, the rounder the number (Dehaene and Mehler 1992; upsize or downsize that originates from a H/D number. This find- Thomas et al. 2010). A large body of literature has shown that round ing contributes to research on consumer (mis)perceptions of package numbers (e.g. 1000), as compared to precise numbers (e.g., 998, size changes (Ordabayeva and Chandon 2013; Vermeer et al. 2010) 1002), have unique positive characteristics (e.g., Allen et al. 2016; by demonstrating the key roles played by starting and ending product Bhattacharya et al. 2012; Coupland 2011; Dehaene and Mehler 1992; quantity reference amounts on consumer judgments. Lynn et al. 2013; Osler 2003; Pope and Simonsohn 2011; Ozcan and Our investigation of dual labeling suggests that the influence Gunasti 2018). Round (vs. precise) numbers are evaluated more of H/D on consumers’ product perceptions and preferences is sig- positively and are perceived to be more credible (Jerez-Fernandez nificantly influenced by whether inch-pound or metric units are the et al. 2013). A 1000 ml carton of orange juice is therefore likely to dominant units of measure in a quantity declaration. Results show be perceived more favorably than a 34 fl. oz. carton of orange juice that consumers were positively influenced by the round-like number although the quantities are equivalent. properties of H/D when inch-pound units of measures were domi- In this research, we propose and subsequently show that there nant; the positive influence of decimally round numbers was only are two additional types of numbers that share round-like number evident when metric measures were dominant. Our comparison of properties. Specifically, we demonstrate that duodecimals (i.e., mul- the positive effects of H/D numbers and decimally round numbers tiples and halves of 12 such as 6, 24, and 36) and hexadecimals (i.e., on consumers’ product perceptions and preferences when either the multiples and halves of 16 such as 8, 32, and 64), values commonly inch-pound or metric measurement system was dominant adds to the used in inch-pound quantity declarations, and values that are con- body of literature on numerical cognition and consumers’ percep- sidered round numbers in the decimal system (i.e., decimally round tions of quantity change. numbers) share many similarities. For example, hexadecimal and duodecimal (H/D) numbers possess round-like number properties REFERENCES such that they serve as benchmarks (Dehaene 2001), feel just right Allen, Eric J., Patricia M. Dechow, Devin G. Pope, and George Wu (Wadhwa and Zhang 2015), and are associated with a sense of com- (2016), “Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from pleteness (Gunasti and Ozcan 2016; Yan and Pena-Marin 2017). That Marathon Runners,” Management Science, 63 (6), 1657-72. is, whereas numbers ending with zeros serve as round numbers when Bhattacharya, Utpal, Craig W. Holden, and Stacey Jacobsen (2012), the metric system is used to report quantity (e.g., 100 g, 1000 ml), “Penny Wise, Dollar Foolish: Buy–Sell Imbalances On and the round-like number properties of duodecimals (e.g., 12 inches) Around Round Numbers,” Management Science, 58 (2), 413- and hexadecimals (e.g., 16 fl. oz.), along with their halves and basic 31. multiples (e.g., 8 oz., 32 fl. oz., 24 in.), are evident when quantity is Coupland, Nikolas (2011), “How Frequent Are Numbers?,” declared in inch-pound units. Language & Communication, 31 (1) 27-37. Since hexadecimals and duodecimals serve as reference points Dehaene, Stanislas, and Jacques Mehler (1992), “Cross-Linguistic of completion, or benchmarks, we find that an increase (decrease) in Regularities in the Frequency of Number Words,” Cognition, package size to a hexadecimal or duodecimal magnifies (reduces) the 43 (1), 1-29. perceived change in quantity. For instance, an increase in package ________ (2001), “Précis of the Number Sense,” Mind & size from 14 to 16 fl. oz. is perceived to be larger than an increase Language, 16 (1), 16-36. from 12 to 14 fl. oz., although the absolute increase (2 oz.) is identi- Advances in Consumer Research 606 Volume 47, ©2019 Gunasti, Kunter and Timucin Ozcan (2016), “Consumer Reactions Pope, Devin and Uri Simonsohn (2011), “Round Numbers as to Round Numbers in Brand Names,” Marketing Letters, 27 Goals Evidence from Baseball, SAT Takers, and the Lab,” (2), 309-322. Psychological Science, 22 (1), 71-79. Jerez-Fernandez, Alexandra, Ashley N. Angulo, Daniel M. Thomas, Manoj, Daniel Simon, and Vrinda Kadiyali (2010), “The Oppenheimer (2013),” Show Me the Numbers: Precision as a Price Precision Effect: Evidence from Laboratory and Market Cue to Others’ Confidence,” Psychological Science, 25, 633- Data,” Marketing Science, 29 (1), 175-90. 35. Wadhwa, Monica and Kuangjie Zhang (2015), “This Number Just Osler, Carol (2003), “Currency Orders and Exchange Rate Feels Right: The Impact of Roundedness of Price Numbers on Dynamics: An Explanation for the Predictive Success of Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), Technical Analysis,” Journal of Finance, 58 (5), 1791–819. 1172–85. Ozcan, Timucin and Kunter Gunasti (2018), “How Associations Yan, Dengfeng and Jorge Pena-Marin (2017), “Round Off the Between Products and Numbers in Brand names Affect Bargaining: The Effects of Offer Roundness on Willingness to Consumer Attitudes: Introducing Multi-context Numbers,” Accept,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 381-395. Journal of Brand Management, 1-19, doi.org/10.1057/s41262- 018-0125-1 Advances in Consumer Research 607 Volume 47, ©2019.