The logo ‘visual thickness effect’: When and why it boosts brand personality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although the literature suggests that logos impart symbolic meanings via visual elements that influence consumers' early evaluation of brands, few such elements have been studied, with others (e.g., logo thickness) awaiting scholarly investigation. According to the literature, visual thickness seems to influence perception of power and consumers' consequent judgments. This research tests and theorises the influence of the logo visual thickness effect on consumer behaviour. Results of five studies employing more than 4000 MTurk participants and 20 fictitious logos suggest that thick logos boost perception of brand personality mediated by a pronounced perception of brand power. In addition, the logo‐thickness‐induced perception of brand power is negatively moderated by consumers' level of perceived power of the self. Further, the perception of brand power induced by logo thickness is moderated by consumers' level of visuospatial sketchpad, meaning that people with high (vs. low) visuospatial sketchpad can cancel out the extraneous influence of logo thickness while evaluating the underlying brand, once the stimulus magnitude hits the salience threshold. Theoretical and managerial implications are accordingly provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it