Abstract
This dissertation examines the phenomenon of shrinkflation—the practice of reducing product quantity whilst maintaining price—and investigates how consumers detect such changes and the subsequent impact upon brand trust and loyalty. Employing a systematic literature synthesis methodology, this study analyses contemporary peer-reviewed research across multiple geographical contexts to understand consumer awareness mechanisms, psychological responses, and behavioural outcomes associated with shrinkflation detection. Key findings reveal that consumers demonstrate significantly lower sensitivity to size reductions compared with price increases, with demand elasticity to size approximately one-quarter that of price changes. However, upon detection, shrinkflation elicits strong negative emotional responses, including feelings of deception and unfairness, which subsequently erode brand trust and precipitate switching behaviour. The research identifies perceptual biases, including dimensional estimation errors and left-digit effects, that enable covert downsizing practices. Furthermore, evidence suggests that transparent communication and clear labelling can substantially mitigate trust erosion and loyalty damage. These findings hold significant implications for marketing practitioners, policymakers, and consumer protection advocates, whilst contributing to theoretical understanding of fairness perceptions in pricing strategy.
Introduction
The contemporary retail landscape has witnessed the emergence of shrinkflation as a prevalent pricing strategy employed by manufacturers and retailers worldwide. This practice, whereby product quantities are reduced whilst prices remain constant or increase, represents a form of hidden price increase that has garnered increasing attention from consumers, media outlets, and regulatory bodies alike. The term itself, a portmanteau of “shrink” and “inflation,” captures the essence of this phenomenon: consumers effectively pay more per unit of product without explicit notification of such changes.
The economic rationale underpinning shrinkflation is straightforward. During periods of rising input costs, supply chain disruptions, or general inflationary pressure, firms face decisions regarding how to maintain profit margins. Direct price increases risk immediate consumer backlash and potential demand reduction, as price represents the most salient and easily comparable attribute for consumers (Janssen and Kasinger, 2024). Consequently, many firms opt for quantity reductions as a less visible alternative, exploiting well-documented consumer inattention to package size variations.
This phenomenon has assumed particular significance in recent years. Global inflationary pressures, exacerbated by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and geopolitical instability, have prompted widespread adoption of shrinkflation practices across diverse product categories. Research indicates that consumers have observed shrinkflation most prominently in confectionery, beverages, and dairy products, categories characterised by frequent purchase and relatively standardised packaging (Obrębska and Malak-Rawlikowska, 2025).
The academic importance of understanding shrinkflation extends beyond mere documentation of corporate pricing practices. This phenomenon sits at the intersection of several significant research domains, including consumer psychology, pricing strategy, brand management, and ethical marketing. Questions of fairness perception, trust formation, and loyalty maintenance represent fundamental concerns within marketing scholarship, and shrinkflation provides a compelling context within which to examine these constructs.
From a practical perspective, the implications of shrinkflation are substantial. For consumers, particularly those facing economic constraints, hidden price increases compound the challenges of household budget management. For firms, whilst shrinkflation may offer short-term margin protection, the potential long-term consequences for brand equity and customer relationships warrant careful consideration. For policymakers and consumer protection bodies, shrinkflation raises questions regarding transparency, disclosure requirements, and the boundaries of acceptable commercial practice.
This dissertation addresses these concerns through systematic examination of the extant literature on shrinkflation detection, consumer response, and brand relationship outcomes. By synthesising findings from diverse methodological approaches and geographical contexts, this work aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of when and how consumers notice shrinkflation, what psychological and behavioural consequences follow detection, and what strategies might mitigate negative outcomes for both consumers and brands.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine the relationship between shrinkflation, consumer trust, and brand loyalty, with particular focus on detection mechanisms and subsequent behavioural responses.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the investigation:
1. To identify and analyse the psychological and contextual factors that influence consumer detection of shrinkflation across different product categories and market conditions.
2. To examine the emotional and cognitive responses consumers exhibit upon discovering that products have been subject to shrinkflation.
3. To evaluate the impact of shrinkflation detection upon consumer trust in brands and subsequent loyalty behaviours, including repurchase intention and brand switching.
4. To assess the effectiveness of transparency and communication strategies in mitigating negative consumer responses to product downsizing.
5. To synthesise findings into a coherent framework that illuminates the pathways from shrinkflation detection to trust erosion and loyalty loss.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the stated research objectives. This approach was selected as the most appropriate method for consolidating existing knowledge on shrinkflation, consumer detection, and brand relationship outcomes, given the emerging yet dispersed nature of research in this domain.
Search strategy and source selection
The literature search encompassed peer-reviewed academic journals, working papers from recognised research institutions, and publications from reputable international organisations. Primary databases consulted included Business Source Complete, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search terms combined variations of “shrinkflation,” “downsizing,” “package size reduction,” and “quantity reduction” with terms relating to “consumer behaviour,” “detection,” “trust,” “loyalty,” “fairness,” and “brand switching.”
Inclusion criteria required sources to be published in English, to address consumer-facing aspects of shrinkflation rather than purely economic modelling, and to demonstrate methodological rigour appropriate to their research design. Both quantitative studies employing scanner data analysis and experimental methods, and qualitative research utilising surveys and interviews, were included to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Analytical approach
The synthesis followed a thematic analysis framework, whereby extracted findings were organised according to the principal research questions. Initial coding identified distinct themes relating to detection mechanisms, psychological responses, trust outcomes, loyalty behaviours, and mitigation strategies. Subsequent analysis examined relationships between themes and sought to identify points of convergence and divergence across studies.
Particular attention was directed toward methodological diversity, geographical scope, and product category focus to assess the generalisability of findings. Studies employing large-scale scanner data provided insights into actual purchase behaviour, whilst experimental research illuminated underlying psychological mechanisms. Survey-based research offered understanding of conscious consumer attitudes and self-reported behavioural intentions.
Limitations of methodology
As with any literature synthesis, this approach is constrained by the availability and quality of existing research. The relative recency of sustained academic attention to shrinkflation means that longitudinal evidence remains limited. Additionally, potential publication bias toward statistically significant findings may influence the overall pattern of results. These limitations are acknowledged and considered in the interpretation of findings.
Literature review
Defining shrinkflation and its prevalence
Shrinkflation refers to the practice of reducing product quantity or size whilst maintaining or increasing price, effectively constituting a hidden price increase per unit of product. This strategy has become increasingly prevalent across global consumer goods markets, particularly during periods of economic instability and inflationary pressure. Research conducted in diverse national contexts, including Nigeria, Poland, South Korea, and Egypt, confirms the widespread nature of this phenomenon and growing public awareness of its occurrence (Akinwale and Ojakorotu, 2025; Obrębska and Malak-Rawlikowska, 2025; Jeon and Jeon, 2024; Saleh, Ramzani and Phung, 2018).
The strategic appeal of shrinkflation for manufacturers derives from well-established principles of consumer psychology. Research consistently demonstrates that consumers attend more closely to price information than to quantity or size information when making purchase decisions. Janssen and Kasinger (2024) provide compelling evidence from large-scale scanner data analysis, finding that consumer demand elasticity to size changes is approximately one-quarter that observed for equivalent price changes. This differential sensitivity creates an opportunity for firms to implement de facto price increases through quantity reduction whilst minimising immediate demand impact.
Mechanisms of consumer detection
Understanding how consumers detect shrinkflation requires examination of both perceptual processes and contextual factors that influence awareness. Research identifies several key mechanisms through which detection occurs or fails to occur.
Perceptual biases play a significant role in enabling shrinkflation to proceed unnoticed. Ordabayeva and Chandon (2013) demonstrate that consumers estimate package volume by adding perceived changes in individual dimensions (height, width, length) rather than accurately calculating multiplicative volume changes. This dimensional estimation bias means that packages can be reduced by approximately 24% whilst avoiding detection, particularly when reductions occur across multiple dimensions simultaneously or when elongation compensates for reduced width.
The relative salience of price versus quantity information further contributes to detection failure. Banudevi (2024) confirms that consumer price sensitivity significantly exceeds size sensitivity in the chocolate market, allowing downsizing strategies to function effectively as concealed price increases. This pattern appears robust across product categories, suggesting a fundamental aspect of consumer information processing rather than category-specific behaviour.
Left-digit effects, well-documented in pricing research, extend to quantity perceptions. Claus and Pandelaere (2024) demonstrate that reductions crossing left-digit boundaries (such as from 1,000 grams to 900 grams) attract significantly more attention and generate stronger negative reactions than equivalent reductions that maintain the left digit (such as from 1,000 grams to 990 grams). This finding has important implications for both firm strategy and consumer protection, suggesting that certain downsizing increments may systematically evade detection.
Category and contextual influences on detection
Detection of shrinkflation varies significantly across product categories and consumption contexts. Research by Obrębska and Malak-Rawlikowska (2025) indicates that Polish consumers most frequently notice shrinkflation in confectionery, beverages, and dairy products. Several factors may explain heightened awareness in these categories: frequent purchase occasions providing comparison opportunities, standardised packaging that makes deviations more apparent, and strong product familiarity enabling recognition of changes.
Macroeconomic conditions also influence detection rates. During periods of high general inflation, consumer attention to prices and value intensifies, potentially increasing scrutiny of package sizes. Media coverage of shrinkflation during inflationary periods further elevates public awareness, creating a more vigilant consumer population. Springfield and Greaves (2024) note the role of big data and digital information sharing in amplifying awareness, as consumers increasingly share observations of product changes through social media and dedicated tracking platforms.
Cross-national research reveals both universal patterns and cultural variations in shrinkflation awareness. Studies from Nigeria (Akinwale and Ojakorotu, 2025), Poland (Obrębska and Malak-Rawlikowska, 2025), and other markets confirm broad recognition of the “paying more for less” phenomenon, though the extent of awareness and emotional intensity of responses may vary with cultural and economic contexts.
Psychological responses to detected shrinkflation
Once consumers detect shrinkflation, a cascade of psychological responses typically follows. The literature identifies cognitive dissonance, feelings of unfairness, and perceptions of deception as primary affective outcomes.
Cognitive dissonance emerges when consumers recognise that their expectation of consistent product quantity has been violated. Jeon and Jeon (2024) examine this phenomenon specifically in the context of snack purchasing, finding that disconfirmed expectations regarding product size generate substantial cognitive dissonance. This psychological discomfort motivates consumers to resolve the inconsistency, often through attitude change toward the brand or behavioural adjustments such as brand switching.
Perceptions of unfairness represent a particularly significant response. Evangelidis (2023) provides experimental evidence that consumers perceive shrinkflation as more unfair than equivalent direct price increases, even when the economic impact is identical. This “shrinkflation aversion” appears to stem from the perceived covert nature of the practice; consumers interpret failure to disclose size reductions as deceptive behaviour warranting stronger negative evaluation than transparent price adjustment.
The emotional responses to detected shrinkflation extend beyond cognitive assessment to include affective reactions such as dissatisfaction, frustration, and feelings of betrayal. Leman and Maradona (2025) document these emotional consequences, noting that the sense of having been deceived or manipulated generates particularly intense negative affect. Such emotional responses carry implications beyond immediate purchase decisions, potentially affecting broader brand attitudes and word-of-mouth behaviour.
Impact on brand trust
Brand trust, understood as consumer confidence in the reliability and integrity of a brand, emerges as a critical mediator in the relationship between shrinkflation detection and behavioural outcomes. The literature consistently indicates that shrinkflation, particularly when perceived as deliberately hidden, substantially erodes trust.
The mechanism connecting shrinkflation to trust damage operates primarily through perceived honesty and transparency. When consumers interpret size reductions as attempts to deceive, attributions of dishonesty attach to the brand more broadly. Plysenko (2025) characterises shrinkflation specifically as a method of concealing price increases, emphasising the role of intentionality attributions in shaping trust outcomes. Similarly, Akinwale and Ojakorotu (2025) find that Nigerian consumers’ trust perceptions are significantly affected by perceived transparency in pricing practices.
The importance of trust as a mediator aligns with broader brand relationship literature. Ozdemir et al. (2020) demonstrate that trust and peer influence significantly shape corporate brand-consumer relationships and subsequent loyalty. Rubio, Villaseñor and Yagüe (2016) similarly confirm trust as a key mechanism through which brand perceptions translate into loyalty behaviours. These findings suggest that trust damage from shrinkflation may have compounding effects through relationship deterioration.
Padma (2024) situates shrinkflation within broader inflationary realities facing businesses, noting that while cost pressures may necessitate pricing adjustments, the manner of implementation significantly affects trust outcomes. The distinction between legitimate business response to economic conditions and deceptive consumer manipulation appears crucial in determining trust consequences.
Consequences for brand loyalty
Brand loyalty, encompassing both attitudinal commitment and repeat purchase behaviour, represents the ultimate outcome of concern in the shrinkflation-trust relationship. Evidence indicates that detected shrinkflation frequently precipitates loyalty erosion and brand switching.
Leman and Maradona (2025) provide direct evidence of the shrinkflation-loyalty relationship, finding that cognitive dissonance resulting from detected shrinkflation reduces both satisfaction and repurchase intention. The pathway from detection through dissonance to behavioural change is particularly concerning for brands, as it suggests that detection represents a critical threshold event with potentially lasting consequences.
Akinwale and Ojakorotu (2025) report that many Nigerian consumers indicate willingness to switch brands following shrinkflation detection, suggesting that loyalty erosion manifests in actual competitive behaviour rather than merely attitudinal deterioration. This finding carries significant implications for brand managers, as customer acquisition costs typically exceed retention costs substantially.
Jeon and Jeon (2024) elaborate the mediating role of satisfaction in the dissonance-loyalty relationship. Their research confirms that dissonance reduces satisfaction, which in turn diminishes repurchase intention. This sequential mediation model suggests potential intervention points for brands seeking to mitigate loyalty damage following shrinkflation implementation.
The role of transparency and communication
A consistent theme across the literature concerns the mitigating potential of transparent communication regarding product size changes. Studies suggest that clear labelling and explanation of downsizing can substantially reduce negative consumer responses.
Leman and Maradona (2025) advocate for transparency as a protective strategy, arguing that clear disclosure of size changes reduces perceptions of deception and consequently moderates trust and loyalty damage. This recommendation aligns with Springfield and Greaves’ (2024) analysis of the big data environment, wherein information asymmetries increasingly favour consumers with access to price and quantity tracking tools. Proactive transparency may therefore represent not merely an ethical choice but a strategic necessity as detection becomes more likely.
Plysenko (2025) similarly emphasises communication as central to managing shrinkflation consequences, noting that explanation of cost pressures and business rationale can reframe size reductions from deceptive practice to legitimate business response. The distinction between covert downsizing and transparent adjustment appears fundamental to consumer evaluation.
Jeon and Jeon (2024) and Padma (2024) extend this analysis by considering the role of perceived quality maintenance. Where consumers perceive that product quality has been preserved despite quantity reduction, negative responses are moderated. This finding suggests that communication strategies might emphasise quality protection as a framing device for downsizing decisions.
Discussion
Synthesis of detection mechanisms
The evidence reviewed reveals a consistent pattern regarding consumer detection of shrinkflation. The substantially lower elasticity of demand to quantity changes compared with price changes (approximately one-quarter, per Janssen and Kasinger, 2024) creates systematic opportunity for covert price increases through downsizing. This differential sensitivity appears to reflect fundamental aspects of consumer information processing rather than mere inattention; perceptual biases in volume estimation (Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2013) and left-digit effects in quantity evaluation (Claus and Pandelaere, 2024) suggest that even attentive consumers may fail to detect size reductions.
These findings have significant implications for understanding market efficiency and consumer welfare. The assumption of rational, fully-informed consumers underlying classical economic models appears particularly problematic in the shrinkflation context. Consumers systematically underestimate size reductions, enabling firms to implement effective price increases without competitive response. This dynamic suggests potential market failures that may warrant regulatory attention.
The detection mechanisms identified also illuminate opportunities for consumer empowerment. Educational interventions highlighting dimensional estimation biases and left-digit effects could enhance consumer awareness. Similarly, technological solutions such as unit pricing displays and quantity tracking applications could reduce information asymmetries. These possibilities merit consideration by consumer protection bodies and policymakers.
Understanding psychological responses
The psychological literature on shrinkflation responses provides crucial insight into why detected shrinkflation generates such intense negative reactions. The finding that shrinkflation is perceived as more unfair than equivalent price increases (Evangelidis, 2023) is particularly significant, as it suggests that consumer objection extends beyond mere economic harm to encompass moral evaluation of firm behaviour.
This pattern aligns with broader research on fairness in commercial transactions. Consumers appear to apply distinct evaluative criteria to covert versus overt pricing actions, with concealment interpreted as indicating deceptive intent. The attribution of deceptive intent, rather than legitimate business response to cost pressures, appears to drive the particularly negative evaluations observed.
Cognitive dissonance theory provides additional explanatory power for understanding consumer responses. The violation of expectations regarding product consistency creates psychological discomfort that motivates resolution through attitude change or behavioural adjustment. This framework suggests that prior brand relationship strength may moderate responses; stronger relationships create greater dissonance but may also provide greater motivation for relationship-preserving attributions.
Trust as a critical mediator
The centrality of trust in mediating the relationship between shrinkflation detection and loyalty outcomes aligns with established brand relationship theory. Trust operates as a summary evaluation of brand reliability and integrity that shapes consumer willingness to maintain relationships despite occasional negative experiences. When shrinkflation detection damages trust perceptions, the protective function of relationship investment is undermined.
The trust damage associated with shrinkflation appears particularly difficult to repair because it involves perceived intentional deception rather than mere performance failure. Research in interpersonal relationships suggests that trust violations involving competence are more readily forgiven than those involving integrity (Kim et al., 2004). Shrinkflation, interpreted as deliberate concealment, constitutes an integrity-based violation that may prove highly resistant to recovery efforts.
This analysis suggests that prevention is substantially preferable to remediation in managing shrinkflation-related trust issues. Once consumers interpret firm behaviour as deceptive, subsequent communication efforts may be viewed with scepticism. The “transparency-first” approach advocated by multiple researchers (Leman and Maradona, 2025; Springfield and Greaves, 2024; Plysenko, 2025) therefore represents not merely ethical best practice but strategic necessity.
Implications for brand management
The evidence reviewed carries substantial implications for brand management practice. The short-term appeal of shrinkflation as a margin protection strategy must be weighed against potential long-term consequences for brand equity. Whilst detection rates may be low in the immediate term, the digital information environment increasingly favours consumer awareness through price tracking tools, social media information sharing, and media attention to the phenomenon.
Brand managers facing cost pressures might consider several alternative strategies. Transparent price increases, though generating immediate demand impact, avoid the trust damage associated with perceived deception. Product line rationalisation, including introduction of smaller “economy” sizes at lower price points, provides value-seeking consumers with explicit options. Innovation-based justification for reformulation can frame changes positively rather than defensively.
Where downsizing is deemed necessary, the manner of implementation significantly affects outcomes. Clear on-pack communication of changes, explanation of cost factors necessitating adjustment, and emphasis on quality maintenance can moderate negative responses. The critical factor appears to be consumer perception of honesty rather than the economic impact of the change itself.
Policy and regulatory implications
The systematic nature of consumer detection failures raises important questions for consumer protection policy. If consumers cannot reliably detect size reductions, and firms exploit this limitation to implement hidden price increases, traditional assumptions of informed consumer choice are undermined. This dynamic may justify regulatory intervention to ensure adequate disclosure.
Several policy approaches merit consideration. Mandatory unit pricing displays, already implemented in various jurisdictions, enable consumers to compare value across different package sizes. Requirements for on-pack notification of size changes could alert consumers to recent reductions. Standardised packaging regulations could limit the dimensional manipulation strategies identified in the literature.
However, regulatory intervention must balance consumer protection against commercial flexibility and the potential for unintended consequences. Overly prescriptive requirements could impose substantial compliance costs, particularly for smaller manufacturers, and might inadvertently disadvantage innovative packaging approaches. The optimal regulatory approach likely involves disclosure requirements that empower informed consumer choice rather than direct restrictions on packaging decisions.
Limitations and areas requiring further research
Despite the coherent pattern of findings across studies, several limitations and research gaps warrant acknowledgement. The relative recency of sustained academic attention to shrinkflation means that longitudinal evidence remains limited. Whether the loyalty damage observed following detection persists over time, or whether consumers ultimately forgive and return to familiar brands, remains unclear.
Methodological diversity across studies, whilst providing complementary perspectives, also creates challenges for synthesis. Scanner data studies reveal actual behaviour but cannot illuminate psychological mechanisms; experimental studies provide controlled examination of mechanisms but may lack ecological validity; survey research captures conscious attitudes but may not predict behaviour accurately. Triangulation across methods strengthens overall conclusions but cannot fully resolve these limitations.
Cultural variation in shrinkflation responses requires further investigation. Whilst cross-national research confirms widespread awareness, the intensity of negative reactions may vary with cultural orientations toward trust, fairness, and commercial relationships. Understanding such variation would inform globally operating firms’ approaches to pricing strategy communication.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined the phenomenon of shrinkflation through systematic synthesis of contemporary research, addressing consumer detection mechanisms, psychological responses, and consequences for brand trust and loyalty. The findings contribute to academic understanding of consumer behaviour in pricing contexts whilst carrying significant practical implications for brand management and consumer protection policy.
Regarding the first objective—identifying factors influencing detection—the evidence confirms that consumers demonstrate substantially lower sensitivity to size reductions than to price changes. Perceptual biases in volume estimation, left-digit effects, and differential attention to price versus quantity information enable shrinkflation to proceed largely undetected. Detection rates vary by product category, with frequently purchased items in confectionery, beverages, and dairy categories most likely to attract notice.
The second objective—examining emotional and cognitive responses—has been addressed through analysis of psychological literature. Detection triggers cognitive dissonance, feelings of unfairness, and perceptions of deception. Importantly, shrinkflation is judged more harshly than equivalent transparent price increases, reflecting consumer sensitivity to perceived concealment and deceptive intent.
Addressing the third objective, the evidence clearly demonstrates negative impacts on brand trust and loyalty. Trust erosion follows from attributions of dishonesty, whilst loyalty deterioration manifests through reduced satisfaction and repurchase intention. The mediating role of trust in the detection-loyalty relationship is well-supported across studies.
The fourth objective—assessing mitigation strategies—finds consistent support for transparency as the primary protective approach. Clear labelling, explanation of cost pressures, and emphasis on quality maintenance can substantially moderate negative consumer responses. The distinction between transparent adjustment and covert manipulation appears fundamental to consumer evaluation.
Finally, the fifth objective has been achieved through synthesis of findings into a coherent framework. The pathway from detection through perceived unfairness and deception to trust erosion and loyalty loss is clearly delineated, with transparency identified as the key moderating factor.
These findings hold significance for multiple stakeholders. Marketing practitioners receive evidence-based guidance on shrinkflation implementation risks and mitigation strategies. Policymakers and consumer advocates gain understanding of systematic detection failures that may warrant disclosure requirements. Academic researchers benefit from synthesis identifying both established findings and priorities for further investigation.
Future research should address longitudinal outcomes following shrinkflation detection, cultural variation in responses, and the effectiveness of specific communication strategies in moderating negative reactions. As inflationary pressures and digital information environments continue to evolve, the dynamics of shrinkflation detection and response will likely remain an important area for scholarly attention.
References
Akinwale, G. and Ojakorotu, V. (2025) ‘Assessing consumers’ perception of shrinkflation in Nigeria and its implication for sustainable development’, *Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy*, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v16i1.6
Banudevi, A. (2024) ‘Consumer’s price sensitivity and shrinkflation strategy as a trailblazer of chocolate market’, *Journal of Informatics Education and Research*, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v4i1.542
Claus, B. and Pandelaere, M. (2024) ‘Penny-wise pound-fooling: a replication with extension of the left-digit effect to the context of shrinkflation’, *Marketing Letters*, 36, pp. 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-024-09758-y
Evangelidis, I. (2023) ‘Frontiers: Shrinkflation aversion: when and why product size decreases are seen as more unfair than equivalent price increases’, *Marketing Science*, 43, pp. 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0269
Janssen, A. and Kasinger, J. (2024) ‘Shrinkflation and consumer demand’, *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4783491
Jeon, D. and Jeon, H. (2024) ‘Effects of consumer expectation on cognitive dissonance, satisfaction, and repurchase intention: focusing on the case of shrinkflation when purchasing snacks’, *Foodservice Management Society of Korea*, 27(4), pp. 271–290. https://doi.org/10.47584/2024.27.4.271
Kim, P.H., Ferrin, D.L., Cooper, C.D. and Dirks, K.T. (2004) ‘Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations’, *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 89(1), pp. 104–118.
Leman, L. and Maradona, R. (2025) ‘When prices stay the same, but contents shrink: shrinkflation and consumer behavior’, *Jurnal Akuntansi, Ekonomi dan Manajemen Bisnis*, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.30871/jaemb.v13i1.9082
Obrębska, J. and Malak-Rawlikowska, A. (2025) ‘Occurrence of shrinkflation in the Polish food market from the perspective of consumers’, *Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists*. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.9637
Ordabayeva, N. and Chandon, P. (2013) ‘Predicting and managing consumers’ package size impressions’, *Journal of Marketing*, 77(5), pp. 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0228
Ozdemir, S., Zhang, S., Gupta, S. and Bebek, G. (2020) ‘The effects of trust and peer influence on corporate brand—consumer relationships and consumer loyalty’, *Journal of Business Research*, 117, pp. 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.027
Padma, S. (2024) ‘Inflationary realities, shrinkflation strategies: business unveiled’, *European Economic Letters*, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.52783/eel.v14i1.1027
Plysenko, H. (2025) ‘Shrinkflation as a method of concealing price increases on goods’, *Marketing and Digital Technologies*, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15276/mdt.9.2.2025.7
Rubio, N., Villaseñor, N. and Yagüe, M. (2016) ‘Creation of consumer loyalty and trust in the retailer through store brands: the moderating effect of choice of store brand name’, *Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services*, 34, pp. 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.07.014
Saleh, R., Ramzani, S. and Phung, S. (2018) ‘Shrinkflation from consumer’s perspective: an exploratory study using crystal products in Egypt’, *Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry*, 13, pp. 164–169.
Springfield, S. and Greaves, J. (2024) ‘The impact of shrinkflation and big data on consumer behavior’, *World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences*, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2024.13.1.0422
