Think about the logos of brands you consider high-end. Chances are, many of them look still, stable, and composed. Now think about brands that feel more casual or mass-market. Their logos often seem more energetic or in motion. Is that a coincidence, or is something deeper happening in how we judge brands based on visual movement cues?
A recent study published in Psychology & Marketing set out to answer that question. The research found that logos designed to look stationary or still led consumers to perceive brands as more premium, while logos that conveyed a sense of motion had the opposite effect. The connection between stillness and premium perception, the researchers argue, runs through the psychological feeling of distance between the consumer and the brand.
The question behind the research
Xueting Gong, a researcher at the School of Economics and Management at Southwest Jiaotong University in China, led a team investigating a gap in existing knowledge about logo design. Previous studies had looked at how features like font case (uppercase vs. lowercase), brand name length, and logo shape (angular vs. circular) influence whether consumers see a brand as upscale. But one design characteristic had been largely overlooked: how much motion or dynamism a logo conveys.
In visual design, some logos create the impression of stillness. Think of a tree standing upright or text placed horizontally. Other logos suggest movement, like a deer leaping mid-air or text tilted at an angle. Researchers refer to these as “low-dynamic” and “high-dynamic” logos, respectively. The team wanted to know whether these differences in implied motion could shape how premium a brand appears to consumers.
Most prior research on visual dynamism in marketing had focused on the benefits of motion. Dynamic visuals, for example, have been shown to increase engagement and make food seem fresher. Gong and colleagues wanted to flip the script and explore whether less dynamism could be an advantage in certain branding contexts.
How the team tested the idea
The researchers ran three separate experiments, each using a different product category and a different type of logo. All participants were recruited through Credamo, described as China’s largest survey platform, and were randomly assigned to different conditions.
In the first study, 298 participants viewed an image of headphones branded with a fictional name, “TUPOULR.” One group saw the brand name paired with a still tree logo (low-dynamic), another saw it with a tree that appeared to be bending or in motion (high-dynamic), and a third group saw the brand name alone with no logo. After viewing the product, participants rated how premium they perceived the brand to be, including whether it seemed expensive, high-quality, unique, and status-signaling.
The second study, with 299 participants, followed a similar structure but used a coffee machine as the product and a deer as the logo image. A standing deer represented the low-dynamic condition, while a leaping deer represented the high-dynamic condition. This time, participants also answered questions about how psychologically distant the brand felt. Psychological distance, in this context, refers to how far away or unreachable something feels to a person. The researchers measured it by asking participants whether they felt the brand was above their current level of use, not their regular product, and so on.
The third study expanded the investigation with 397 participants evaluating a handbag. This experiment introduced two new elements. First, the logos were text-only, with the low-dynamic version placed horizontally and the high-dynamic version tilted at an angle. Second, half the participants were given a scenario designed to activate a desire to express social status (they were told they would be attending a premium club event with wealthy elites), while the other half received a neutral scenario. This allowed the researchers to test whether a consumer’s motivation to signal status changed how they responded to logo dynamism.
What the experiments revealed
Across all three studies, the pattern was consistent. Participants who saw low-dynamic logos rated the brand as significantly more premium than those who saw high-dynamic logos. In Study 1, for instance, premiumness scores averaged 5.60 out of 7 for the low-dynamic logo, compared to 4.00 for the high-dynamic version. The control group, which saw no logo at all, fell in between at 4.84. This suggested a two-way effect: still logos appeared to boost premium perception, while motion-suggesting logos appeared to lower it.
Study 2 shed light on why this happens. The analysis showed that participants who viewed the low-dynamic logo reported feeling greater psychological distance from the brand. Those who saw the high-dynamic logo felt closer to it. This feeling of distance, in turn, was linked to higher premiumness perceptions. In other words, the low-dynamic logo made the brand feel more remote and exclusive, and that sense of remoteness was associated with seeing the brand as more upscale. The reverse was also true: the high-dynamic logo made the brand feel more accessible and approachable, which was associated with lower perceived premiumness.
The team also tested whether other explanations could account for the results. They measured whether the logos triggered different levels of enjoyment (hedonism), creativity, or feelings of being unsafe. None of these alternatives explained the effect. Only psychological distance held up as a connecting factor.
Study 3 added an important wrinkle. When participants were primed to think about expressing social status, they showed a much stronger preference for the low-dynamic logo. Their purchase intentions were significantly higher for the still logo (5.15 out of 7) compared to the dynamic one (3.77). But when participants were not motivated by status, the difference in purchase intention between the two logo types was small and not statistically significant. This indicates that the link between perceived premiumness and actual buying behavior depends on what the consumer is trying to accomplish with their purchase.
The theory behind the findings
The researchers grounded their explanation in Construal Level Theory, a framework from psychology. The basic idea is that people mentally represent things at different levels of abstraction. When something triggers vague, abstract thinking (what researchers call “high-level construal”), it tends to feel psychologically farther away. When something triggers vivid, detailed thinking (“low-level construal”), it feels closer.
Low-dynamic logos, because they are still and less visually stimulating, tend to generate more vague mental images. That vagueness activates abstract thinking, which makes the brand feel more distant. Because premium brands are typically associated with exclusivity and limited access, that distance reinforces a feeling that the brand is upscale. High-dynamic logos, on the other hand, create vivid, motion-filled mental images that make the brand feel more immediate and accessible, qualities more commonly associated with mainstream products.
What this means for brand managers
The findings point to a practical tool that is relatively inexpensive to implement: adjusting the level of visual motion in a logo. For companies positioning themselves as premium or luxury, a low-dynamic logo design, one that conveys stillness and stability, may reinforce the desired perception. For brands aiming for an approachable, everyday image, a more dynamic logo could signal friendliness and accessibility.
This is particularly relevant for companies engaged in brand extension. As the researchers noted, many parent brands create sub-brands that target different market segments. A luxury brand launching a more affordable line might benefit from a more dynamic logo for that sub-brand to signal accessibility. A mass-market brand creating a premium tier might adopt a more restrained, low-dynamic design for its upscale offering. Real examples already reflect this pattern: COS, the premium sub-brand of H&M, uses a simpler, more static logo compared to its parent brand, while Hollister, the more casual offshoot of Abercrombie & Fitch, employs a more dynamic visual identity.
The status-motivation finding adds another layer. If a company knows its customers are buying primarily to signal social standing, say for visible luxury goods like handbags or watches, a still, restrained logo may be especially effective. But for products where status signaling is less relevant, the logo’s dynamism may matter less for driving purchases.
Important caveats
There are some limitations worth noting. All three studies relied on participants recruited from a single Chinese survey platform, which means the findings may not generalize to consumers in other cultural contexts. Attitudes toward status, luxury, and visual design vary significantly across cultures, and the researchers did not test whether these effects hold in Western or other non-Chinese markets.
The studies also used fictional brand names and controlled laboratory-style settings. In the real marketplace, consumers encounter logos alongside many other brand signals, including price, advertising, word-of-mouth, and personal experience. How logo dynamism interacts with these other factors was not tested here. The researchers themselves noted that future work should explore how logo dynamism interacts with elements like brand personality, slogans, and product type.
Finally, the studies measured perceptions and self-reported intentions rather than actual purchasing behavior. While purchase intention is a commonly used proxy in marketing research, it does not always translate directly into real buying decisions.
