Serif or sans serif typefaces? The effects of typefaces on consumers’ perceptions of activity and potency of brand logos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the effects of serif and sans serif typefaces in brand logos on consumers’ activity and potency perceptions of brands. It further examines the moderating roles of design freedom and brand value on these effects and their impact on consumers’ brand attitudes. Design/methodology/approach Five studies were conducted to address the research objectives. Studies 1a and 1b compared the consumer perceptions of a brand with either a serif or a sans serif logo, revealing that consumers perceive serif logos as more active but less potent. Studies 2a, 2b and 3 verify the moderating roles of design freedom and brand value on the effects of typefaces in brand logos on consumers’ perceptions and their overall effects on brand attitudes. Findings The results indicate that a serif brand logo enhances consumers’ activity perceptions of the brand, whereas a sans serif brand logo enhances consumers’ potency perceptions. The research further establishes that design freedom significantly impacts consumers’ perceptions of logos with varying typefaces and subsequently influences their brand attitudes. In addition, brand value moderates the effects of typefaces in brand logos on consumer perceptions and brand attitudes. Research limitations/implications This research exclusively focuses on serif and sans serif typefaces within brand logos and also considers the use of uppercase, lowercase, mixed case and black logo designs. However, brand logo design encompasses broader visual design considerations and aesthetic diversification. Practical implications The practical implications of this research mainly include three points. First, brands should invest more effort in designing brand logos, choosing serif for activity and sans serif for potency, to align with desired brand perceptions. Second, the typeface selection should match the brand’s approach to design freedom, with serif typefaces fostering activity in open brands and sans serif enhancing potency in more controlled brands. Finally, aligning the typeface choice with the brand values – serif for hedonic and sans serif for utilitarian—can significantly influence brand attitudes. Accordingly, they can guide market segmentation and target consumer selection. Originality/value This study contributes to the field of brand logo design by shedding light on the effects of serif and sans serif typefaces on consumers’ perceptions and brand attitudes. In addition, it explores the moderating influence of design freedom and brand value, offering insights into the conditions under which these effects manifest.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".