Safe Together, Vulnerable Apart: How Interstitial Space in Text Logos Impacts Brand Attitudes in Tight versus Loose Cultures

Abstract

This research demonstrates that interstitial space in textual brand logos—that is, spacious (vs. compact) arrangement of letters—unfavorably influences brand attitude by reducing product safety perceptions. When potential threats are salient, the effect tends to occur within tight (but not loose) cultures, characterized by sensitivity to threats and a need for rigid social structures. When threats are not salient, the effect appears to occur across cultures. Five studies, including lab and field experiments, as well as archival dataset analysis, provide supportive evidence.

Impact of self‐brand connection on willingness to pay premium: Relevant mediators and moderators

“…Brand attitude is a construct of salience in marketing, and favorable brand attitudes are a primary asset towards building strong brands (Edelman, 2018; Gupta & Hagtvedt, 2021; Park et al, 2010; Pathak et al, 2020). Brand attitude is defined as a consumer's evaluation of a brand about how would the brand deliver with regard to the consumer's buying motive (Rossiter, 2014).…”

The logo ‘visual thickness effect’: When and why it boosts brand personality

“…The logo is among the first and fundamental brand elements with which new consumers interact (Cian et al, 2014), and consumers are influenced by a logo's symbolic meanings (Hagtvedt, 2011) while evaluating the associated brand (Henderson et al, 2003; Van der Lans et al, 2009). Hence, to boost consumers' attitude toward brands, brands exploit the influential attributes associated with various visual elements of logos, such as: colour (Hynes, 2009); dynamism (Cian et al, 2014); movement trajectory (Guido et al, 2016); descriptiveness (Luffarelli et al, 2019); (in)completeness (Hagtvedt, 2011); boundaries (Cutright, 2012); circularity/angularity (Jiang et al, 2016); high/low logo location on package (Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014); framed/frameless (Fajardo et al, 2016); complexity, repetition, and spacing (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001); upward/downward (Schlosser et al, 2016); (in)stability (Rahinel & Nelson, 2016); (a)symmetry (Bajaj & Bond, 2018; Bettels & Wiedmann, 2019; Luffarelli et al, 2018); cuteness (Septianto & Paramita, 2021); uppercase/lowercase typeface (Teng et al, 2021); and typeface interstitial space (Gupta & Hagtvedt, 2021).…”

“Looking sharp”: Price typeface influences awareness of spending in mobile payment

“…Typeface design is crucial for branding (Henderson et al, 2004) as typeface and font can convey a wide range of different brand associations and meanings such as product attributes (Childers & Jass, 2002; de Sousa et al, 2020; Gupta & Hagtvedt, 2021; Liu et al, 2019; Schroll et al, 2018; Velasco, Hyndman, et al, 2018; Venkatesan et al, 2020), product category (Doyle & Bottomley, 2004, 2006; Wang et al, 2020; Zhou et al, 2021), brand personality (Grohmann et al, 2013; Mackiewicz & Moeller, 2004), brand gender (Grohmann, 2016), brand premiumness (Yu et al, 2021), purchase intention (Mead et al, 2020), and even exotic, or national, associations (Celhay et al, 2015).…”