Original Article
Love for logos: Evaluating the
Correspondence:
Alejandro Salgado-Montejo,
Department of Experimental
Psychology, University of Oxford,
Oxford OX1 3UD, UK
E-mail: alejandro.salgado@
psy.ox.ac.uk
congruency between brand
symbols and typefaces and their
relation to emotional words
Received (in revised form): 23th October 2014
Alejandro Salgado-Montejo
Currently conducting his DPhil studies at the Crossmodal Research Laboratory, University of Oxford. His research focuses on
how visual information can convey emotion and influence decision making and reward estimation. He has worked with several
multinational corporations in topics, such as packaging development and evaluation, food, behavioural finance, design, film,
marketing, innovation, social behaviour and entrepreneurship. He has presented in diverse events and academic symposia
which include TEDxOxford, The Royal Institution, ESOMAR, SXSW, FENS, EBBS and The Pangborn Society Meeting.
Carlos Velasco
DPhil student of Experimental Psychology at the Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental
Psychology, University of Oxford. His research focuses on crossmodal correspondences and visual attention, and its
applications to multisensory experience design. He has participated in both academic and industry congresses including
SPSP, IMRF, Pangborn, SXSW, ABA, Digital Biscuit and ESOMAR. His research has been published in journals, such as Food
Quality and Preference, Journal of Sensory Studies and Flavour, and has been covered by several media news, for example, BBC,
ScienceShot, Daily Mail and NPR.
Juan Sebastián Olier
Electronics engineer and MSc in intelligent systems design. He has focused on topics of AI and the development of models of
cognition and conceptual representations, as well as the simulations of social behaviour and the evolution of emerging
patterns. He has worked and carried out research with psychologists on evaluating and enhancing experiences through
understanding, modelling and predicting human behaviours. His work is driven by interests in intelligence, the emergence of
complex behaviours and the recognition of patterns in human activities for proposing more embedded and natural ways of
interaction, and the creation of collaborative learning between humans and machines.
Jorge Alvarado
Assistant Professor of Analytics at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. He has a MSc in Analytics from North Carolina State
University and is pursuing a PhD in Engineering. His research interests are in analytics of databases of human behaviour and
Human–Computer Interaction in the field of judgmental forecasting. His work has been published in refereed academic
journals including Computers in Human Behavior and the Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business
Administration.
Charles Spence
Received his PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Cambridge, UK, in 1995. He is a university professor at
the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford and head of the Crossmodal Research Laboratory.
He has published over 500 articles in top-flight scientific journals over the last decade and has been awarded the
10th Experimental Psychology Society Prize, the British Psychology Society: Cognitive Section Award, the Paul Bertelson
Award, recognizing him as the young European Cognitive Psychologist of the Year and the Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research
Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Germany.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Salgado-Montejo et al

ABSTRACT Simple line segments and shapes convey emotional meaning, with rounder
shapes being linked with positive emotions and generally preferred over more angular
shapes. We assessed the hypothesis that brand components – specifically typeface and
logo symbol – with similar scores on visual analogue scales (anchored by sound/shape
symbolic stimuli) would be associated with a higher frequency of positive emotions. We
also evaluated whether roundness or angularity were correlated with positively
valenced emotions. Nine different brand logos were tested; each was separated into its
logo symbol and typeface. Half of the 80 participants rated the logotype while the other
half rated the logo symbol using a variety of shape symbolism scales. The participants
were also asked to choose the emotions that they associated with each of the brands
from a list of 20 emotions. Brand components that presented (dis-) similar scores in
terms of the shape symbolism scales were coded as (in-) congruent. Those brands with
more congruent scores also presented more positive as compared with negative emo-
tions. These results support the view that more congruent design elements in brand
logos can give rise to higher emotional engagement. They also help to explain the way
in which consumers perceive brands.
Journal of Brand Management (2014) 21, 635–649. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.29

Keywords: brands; shape symbolism; emotion; logo design

INTRODUCTION owners, shape the perception of the

Brand management and brand development
have become increasingly challenging in
recent years (Shocker et al, 1994). The glo-
bal nature of competitive niches, the com-
plexity of brand–market interactions and
the massive amount of information that is
available to consumers constitute just a
handful of the challenges that have been
inherited from the end of the last century
(see Aaker, 2010 for a brief mention of
some of the most pressing marketing chal-
lenges). It is becoming increasingly difficult
to control what is being talked about or
even what information consumers are read-
ing, listening to or viewing concerning a
particular brand (Karaosmanoglu and
Melewar, 2006; Wu and Fang, 2010;
Labrecque et al, 2013). This means that it is
increasingly important to make the most of
any interaction between the consumer and
brands. One needs to understand how
design elements that are part of brands and
products, which are in the control of brand
consumer.
In their seminal work, Henderson and
Cote (1998) pointed out that brands are
important assets for companies. For this
reason, it is necessary to ensure that logos
communicate effectively and engage the
target consumers/clients. This, in turn,
poses an important challenge for those
brand managers wanting to choose the right
design. According to Henderson and Cote,
a good logo needs to be both easily and
quickly identified, to transmit positive affect
and to communicate the same meaning
across different consumers. In an eight-
country study, Madden et al (2000) reported
that particular colour combinations could
more easily communicate the meaning of a
logo, thus suggesting that sensory informa-
tion could indeed influence brand recogni-
tion and positioning (see also Hynes, 2009).
Another key attribute in logo design and
evaluation is typeface. Several studies have
already investigated how to evaluate logos

636 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649

(see Henderson et al, 2004) and to help
determine the congruency between type-
face and product (see Doyle and Bottomley,
2006).
In order to further our understanding of
the many factors that influence brand per-
ception and brand management, Bartholmé
and Melewar (2009) have suggested that it is
necessary to take into account the role that
sensory information has in defining corpo-
rate and brand identity. As Schmitt (1999)
suggests, experiences that take sensory and
emotional components into account will be
more effective at engaging the consumer.
However, while there is growing evidence
concerning how sensory information influ-
ences the consumer’s perception of packa-
ging and products (see Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982; Becker et al, 2011;
Spence and Piqueras-Fiszman, 2012), less
attention has been given over by sensory
researchers to the brand itself (see Hultén,
2011). This is especially true when it comes
to research addressing how different design
elements, such as typography and shapes,
influence the perception that consumers
have about brands.
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is
still a basic need to try and understand
how various design elements within brands
influence the perception of consumers con-
cerning companies and products. This could
help to enhance the influence of pre- and
post-purchase factors (that is, packaging,
brand logos and advertising) on consumers’
decision making. This, in turn, could poten-
tially help to reduce design evaluation times
(and hence costs) since part of the process
of brand and product evaluation could be
conducted as part of the design phase instead
of as a separate, subsequent, process.
In the case of logos, which constitute the
focus of the present study, it is important to
assess how distinctive typefaces and sym-
bolic elements convey affective information
to the consumer. It has often been noted
that the explicit reports of consumers do not
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Love for logos
necessarily reflect the complexity, or the
underlying drivers, of consumer behaviour
(Shapiro and Krishnan, 2001; Friese et al,
2006; Ariely and Berns, 2010; Parise and
Spence, 2012). The interest of both industry
experts and academics in increasing their
understanding of consumer behaviour has
led to renewed interest in the adoption of
techniques from the field of experimental
psychology (for example, shape symbolism
scales) in order to better understand the
behaviour of the consumer (for example,
see Spence and Gallace, 2011; Ngo et al,
2012; Yoon et al, 2012).
The use of shape symbolism scales allows
one to measure the associations that con-
sumers may have towards different sensory
attributes in different modalities, using
nonsense words (for example, Bouba, Kiki,
Takete, Maluma, Lula, Tuki and so on),
rounded and angular shapes, and sensory
properties such as bright, dim, high pitch or
low pitch. The idea behind shape symbo-
lism is that the brain associates stimuli in
different modalities (often making connec-
tions that might at first seem surprising) and
is able to associate the information obtained
from one sensory modality (for example,
vision) in another sensory modality (Spence
and Parise, 2012; Deroy and Spence, 2013;
Marks and Mulvenna, 2013). The last cou-
ple of decades have provided extensive
behavioural and neurophysiological evi-
dence to show that the brain associates
information across the senses (Calvert et al,
2004; Ghazanfar and Schroeder, 2006;
Spence and Deroy, 2013; Connolly, 2014).
Since design involves different sensory
modalities and, as Noble and Kumar (2010)
have pointed out, design is an important
factor when it comes to establishing and
building competitive advantage. It seems
interesting to explore how shape symbolism
could be applied to the fields of marketing
and branding.
It is only recently that research on
the topic of shape symbolism has been
637
 Salgado-Montejo et al
introduced to the field of marketing
(Spence, 2012; Ngo et al, 2013; Velasco
et al, 2013, 2014; Spence et al, 2014).
Nevertheless, the suggestion is that it might
potentially provide a powerful tool with
which to understand what meaning is con-
veyed by shapes and, ultimately, influence
the perceptions/decisions of the consumer
(Cheskin, 1981). There is already a sub-
stantial body of evidence to support the idea
that angular geometric shapes tend to com-
municate threat (for example, Larson et al,
2011; Watson et al, 2011), while rounded
shapes tend to be linked to more positive
emotions and are generally preferred (Leder
and Carbon, 2005; Bar and Neta, 2006,
2007; Silvia and Barona, 2009; Jadva et al,
2010; Dazkir and Read, 2011; Vartanian
et al, 2013; Westerman et al, 2013). A study
by Westerman et al (2012) has further cor-
roborated these findings in the context of
consumer behaviour, showing that con-
sumers (at least in certain product cate-
gories) prefer rounder, over angular,
contours and packaging.
There is, however, no evidence that has
addressed the question of whether rounder
and angular shapes have a similar effect in
the context of logo design. Jansson-Boyd
(2011) found that it is actually possible to
operationalize aesthetic concepts by mod-
ifying colours and shapes. This provides an
interesting standpoint for logo design since
they are usually made up of typefaces, col-
ours and shapes; all of which are susceptible
to study using shape symbolism scales. The
fact that particular design elements influ-
ence aesthetic preference also links logo
design to appetitive and aversive responses.
It is possible that the congruency between
design elements as well as the angularity or
roundness of the overall design can influ-
ence participants’ emotions towards a logo.
So far, however, there has been no research
that has used shape symbolism scales to
determine the congruency between differ-
ent design elements (for example, typeface,
638 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
symbols and shapes) and how this influences
emotion in the context of logo design.
That said, further research is needed to
help operationalize logo design and provide
better tools for brand managers when it
comes to choosing, modifying or evaluating
the logo of a company or product. We are
particularly interested in trying to under-
stand how various design elements can
influence brand perception via the affective
value that is conveyed by shapes and type-
faces that are part of brand logos. For this
reason, in the present study, we sought to
evaluate the shape symbolic profiles of the
elements that can communicate brand
identity (that is, typeface, logo symbol and
packaging shape) to determine whether this
would have an effect on the explicit report
of consumers. We also wanted to assess
whether roundness and angularity can
influence the explicit emotional associations
that consumers have with a brand.
By utilizing shape symbolism scales with
a list of emotion-related words, we investi-
gated whether it would be possible to gain
information concerning certain visual fea-
tures of brands and products and their
influence on the perception of the con-
sumer. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first time that brands have been eval-
uated using both shape symbolism scales and
emotion-related words. This may be parti-
cularly important for those companies
wanting to enter new markets, seeking to
increase the value of their brand and/or for
those companies wanting to export their
products to unfamiliar regions. For exam-
ple, the attributes of brands, packaging or
advertising may, or may not, convey the
same information to those consumers who
happen to live in different countries (for
example, Piqueras-Fiszman et al, 2012;
Bremner et al, 2013).
A key issue when studying emotion is
the variety of words or ways that a partici-
pant can use to describe or express what
they feel towards, for example, a brand.

For this reason, presenting the participants
with a set of words that has already been
validated across a range of contexts and
languages (Scherer, 2005) provides a
straightforward and easy means of studying
the perceptions that participants may have
of a brand. While the choices that partici-
pants make cannot be regarded as emo-
tions themselves, they do reflect the
participants’ explicit emotional valence
towards the brand. As Deonna and Teroni
(2014) have recently suggested, emotions
can be construed as evaluations and later
they can become evaluative attitudes that
influence the way in which a consumer
can perceive an experience. In a sense,
then, emotions provide input as to the
success, failure, correctness, inappropri-
ateness, pleasure or pain of an experience.
Emotions can therefore be understood as
being part of how we weight information
and/or are themselves a source of infor-
mation (Ragunathan and Pham, 1999;
Ragunathan et al, 2006). Hence, by asking
the participants to select different emo-
tion-related words we can better under-
stand their evaluations and attitudes
towards different experiences (in this case
brands) and what sort of impressions they
have formed throughout the many inter-
actions with the brand, advertisements and
other strategies that can influence brand
perception. In the end, the focus should
not be about separating the design from
the experience, rather, it should be about
understanding the brand in the context of
consumer experience.
We seek to determine if similar scores on
the shape symbolism scales for typefaces and
logo symbols or packaging shapes (depend-
ing on the brand) can influence the explicit
affective responses of consumers towards a
brand. Our expectation was that brands that
are rated as rounder in the shape symbolism
scales in both their logo type and symbol
will also be associated with more positive
emotional words. We also predicted that
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Love for logos
participants will choose less positively
valenced words for those logo types and
symbols that do not present consistent scores
in the shape symbolism scales. We used
internationally renowned brands as well as
local brands across different categories (given
that this study was conducted in Colombia,
these were local Colombian brands).
METHODS
Participants
Eighty participants (49 women, Mage = 28.9
years, SD = 5.14, rangeage = 25–45 years)
from different universities and two Colom-
bian companies took part in this study. The
participants were divided into two groups
and were presented with either the typeface
or logo symbols associated with nine differ-
ent brands. The participants signed a standard
consent form. The experiment lasted for
approximately 20 min, and was reviewed
and approved by the Research Committee
of the Escuela Internacional de Ciencias
Económicas y Administrativas at Universidad
de la Sabana, Chía, Colombia.
Apparatus and materials
Customized computer-based software was
developed using JAVA in order to integrate
the scales for word and shape symbolism and
the emotions taken from the Geneva Emo-
tion Wheel (Scherer, 2005). The participants
were seated in front of a 15″ LED monitor,
with a screen resolution of 1024×768 pixels,
and a screen refresh rate of 60 Hz.
Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop
CS5 were used to separate the typeface from
the logo symbol. Nine brands1 from a variety
of different categories were chosen for use in
the study: Carrefour, Coca-Cola, Davi-
vienda, Falabella, Fanta, Homecenter, Man-
antial, Samsung and Trident (Weblinks).
These included both local and foreign brands
that were well-known in the country. For
639
 Salgado-Montejo et al
Figure 1: Visual analogue scales used to evaluate shape
symbolism on each of the typefaces and logo symbols: (i) circle–
square, (ii) curve–triangle, (iii) Bouba–Kiki image, (iv) Bouba–Kiki
text, (v) Maluma–Takete and (vi) low pitch–high pitch.
Coca-Cola and Fanta we used the outline of
the bottles as symbols.
The participants responded using six
visual analogue scales (anchored by sound/
shape symbolic stimuli); circle–square,
curve–triangle, Bouba–Kiki image, Bouba–
Kiki text, Maluma–Takete and low pitch–
high pitch (see Figure 1).
Procedure
The participants were divided into two
groups and were presented with either the
typeface or the symbol associated with each
logo for 5000 ms. After that, they had to
rate each typeface or symbol using the six
visual analogue scales (see Figure 1), and
then select, from a list of 20 possible emo-
tions, those that corresponded best to each
of the stimuli (without a limit to the total
number of emotions that could be chosen).
The order of presentation of each of the
typefaces and logo symbols was rando-
mized. Each participant viewed and rated
either the nine typefaces or the nine logo
symbols. Note that the scales and emotion
list were presented in Spanish.
640 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Data analysis
SPSS 22 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) was
used to analyse the data. A multivariate ana-
lysis of variance (MANOVA) was used taking
the six visual analogue scales as dependent
variables and the typeface or logo symbol
as the independent variable. Participants’
choices on the emotion list were added and
coded according to their emotional valance
(see Appendix); the difference between the
number of positive and negative emotions
was calculated and is referred to (within the
text) as the emotional valence difference.
A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare
differences in emotional valence between the
various presented brands; Mann–Whitney
U tests were then used for post-hoc analyses.
Pearson’s correlations between the visual
analogue scales scores and the emotional
valence difference were also performed.
RESULTS
Two different criteria were used to deter-
mine the congruency between typefaces
and logo symbols. First, brand components
(typefaces, logos, symbols or packaging
outlines) that did not display statistically
significant differences in any of the visual
analogue scales (that is, similar mean scores
and closely tied negative values or positive
values) were classified as more congruent.
Brand components that displayed statisti-
cally significant differences were deemed
incongruent. Second, logos that presented
small effect sizes were categorized as more
congruent, whereas brand components that
presented significant differences and large
effect sizes were labelled as incongruent (see
Figure 2 and Table 1). For the MANOVA,
Pillai’s trace was used because of its robust-
ness against assumption violations. The sig-
nificance level was set at P < 0.05 (Table 2).
Post-hoc analyses of each of the scales
using an ANOVA revealed significant dif-
ferences for Carrefour, Samsung and Man-
antial. None of the other brands displayed a
 Love for logos

Table 1: Mean scores of the six shape symbolism scales by the nine brands presented to the participants

Brand Brand component Maluma–Takete Bouba–Kiki (image) High pitch–low pitch

M SD M SD M SD

Carrefour Name 19.2 57.4 −5.3 62.7 −3.8 59.2

Symbol 19.0 59.1 −38.8 60.8 −16.3 62.3
Coca-Cola Name −18.8 66.9 −33.9 65.8 −2.4 68.4
Symbol −9.4 72.9 −51.5 59.7 −3.7 63.9
Davivienda Name −11.4 59.6 −47.4 48.3 −8.4 54.5
Symbol −31.3 55.6 −51.6 54.4 −13.4 61.9
Falabella Name −7.0 64.5 −1.2 64.0 5.1 59.0
Symbol −1.9 65.0 −9.9 64.7 34.7 57.9
Fanta Name −30.5 67.4 −70.9 44.6 −0.8 71.6
Symbol −14.2 67.6 −49.2 44.1 −12.4 61.2
Homecenter Name 35.9 59.0 21.4 66.2 −12.4 60.1
Symbol 23.3 63.8 30.0 54.7 −26.4 60.7
Manantial Name −2.3 66.7 6.5 71.1 13.6 62.0
Symbol −40.6 56.1 −59.6 36.3 9.0 63.9
Samsung Name 13.3 61.5 23.7 53.0 −6.4 57.6
Symbol −16.3 65.3 −51.2 47.0 8.5 68.3
Trident Name 5.3 68.8 −16.4 69.6 4.4 65.1
Symbol −14.9 65.8 −38.3 60.4 15.2 63.0

Brand Brand component Curve–triangle Bouba–Kiki Circle–square

M SD M SD M SD

Carrefour Name −2.3 61.2 −5.8 62.2 11.6 60.5

Symbol −11.1 69.7 −12.4 63.1 −44.7 47.0
Coca-Cola Name −67.0 49.1 −18.8 64.9 −58.3 42.5
Symbol −69.4 44.4 3.2 77.2 −59.8 39.3
Davivienda Name −24.1 60.9 −27.5 58.8 −27.9 56.2
Symbol −8.0 77.5 −33.3 65.3 −1.8 74.8
Falabella Name −25.5 64.6 17.1 58.4 −2.2 61.4
Symbol −45.3 61.4 −8.9 60.8 −14.6 61.9
Fanta Name −62.4 48.5 −28.2 73.2 −66.6 41.5
Symbol −64.8 42.6 −31.8 65.1 −50.1 52.9
Homecenter Name 48.5 50.6 6.7 65.8 62.3 37.8
Symbol 46.4 59.6 10.9 58.4 70.2 41.5
Manantial Name −14.2 74.6 12.7 68.9 16.7 71.0
Symbol −70.4 37.9 −29.2 61.2 −46.9 50.0
Samsung Name 21.1 59.6 0.1 58.2 21.2 68.0
Symbol −52.2 48.4 −40.0 59.5 −62.2 43.9
Trident Name −38.0 62.3 0.0 73.8 −10.8 71.7
Symbol −64.4 48.9 −3.8 66.2 −37.9 59.9

Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation.

significant difference in the shape symbo- intermediate emotional valence difference

lism scales (see Figure 2 and Table 1).
Small significant correlations were found
between roundness and higher values in the
emotional valence difference; except for
Manantial, which presented incongruent
scores in the shape symbolism scales and an
score (see Table 3).
The only brands presenting a significant
difference when comparing typeface and
logo symbol were Carrefour F(6, 72) = 4.48,
P < 0.01, Manantial F(6, 72) = 5.48, P < 0.01
and Samsung F(6, 72) = 11.2, P < 0.01.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649 641
 Salgado-Montejo et al

Circle-square Bouba-kiki image Circle-triangle

Bouba-kiki text Maluma-takete text Low pitch-high pitch
1.2

0.8

Effect size
0.6

0.4

0.2

Figure 2: Effect sizes of each scale depicting the magnitude of the difference (in standard deviations) between typeface and logo symbol
scores for each brand on each scale. Effect sizes are order by level of congruency. Brands that are rated as significantly incongruent are
presented on the left side of the grey line.

Table 2: Frequency of the emotion-related words that were chosen by the participants across trials and for each brand

Emotion-related words Coca-cola Trident Fanta Davivienda Manantial Falabella Homecenter Samsung Carrefour

Pride/Zest 67 35 29 60 12 25 52 29 18
Pleasure/Enjoyment 197 171 167 72 164 142 86 90 78
Nostalgia/Longing 36 26 29 34 46 20 27 25 23
Relief/Calm 45 55 46 44 92 27 44 20 27
Interest/Enthusiasm 119 83 72 119 75 144 124 125 120
Fun/Laughter 147 167 154 108 41 58 35 60 26
Joy/Happiness 223 146 140 109 74 64 73 59 33
Tenderness/Love 56 32 51 20 30 17 40 10 13
Admiration/Awe 146 46 45 122 68 69 78 86 46
Surprise/Wonder 67 62 39 50 43 57 47 88 53
Contempt/Scorn 15 4 11 21 9 12 19 16 27
Envy/Jealousy 5 9 3 3 7 17 3 12 4
Sadness/Desperation 10 3 17 4 7 2 2 13 7
Fear/Preoccupation 4 4 7 7 13 2 8 26 21
Shame/Embarrassment 7 5 10 18 11 5 7 28 25
Regret/Disappointment 2 6 2 5 6 2 2 8 5
Revulsion/Disgust 9 2 9 6 4 9 17 6 12
Guilt/Remorse 10 5 3 22 10 6 9 7 23
Anger/Irritation 30 9 8 11 7 6 5 6 7
Compassion/Pity 3 3 11 30 11 19 15 14 20
Total positively valenced (+) 1103 823 772 738 645 623 606 592 437
Total negatively valenced (−) 95 50 81 127 85 80 87 136 151
Valence ratio (+/−) 11.61 16.46 9.53 5.81 7.59 7.79 6.97 4.35 2.89

642 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649

The differences between the logo symbol
and typeface for the Carrefour brand were
generated by scores in the circle–square scale,
F(1, 77) = 21.6, P < 0.001, d = 0.735 and the
Bouba–Kiki image scale F(1, 77) = 5.8,
P = 0.02, d = 0.383. Lack of congruency for
Samsung was found in five of the scales:
Maluma–Takete F(1, 77) = 4.3, P < 0.05,
d = 0.33; circle–square, F(1, 77) = 42.9,
P < 0.001, d = 1.031, Bouba–Kiki (image)
F(1, 77) = 44.3, P < 0.001, d = 1.057,
Bouba–Kiki (text) F(1, 77) = 9.2, P < 0.01,
d = 0.48 and curve–triangle F(1, 77) = 36.3,
P < 0.001, d = 0.955. Lack of congruency for
Manantial was found in the Maluma–Takete
F(1, 77) = 7.5, P < 0.01, d = 0.439; Bouba–
Kiki image F(1, 77) = 16.8, P < 0.001,
d = 0.828; curve–triangle F(1, 77) = 17.1,
P < 0.001, d = 0.671; and Bouba–Kiki text
scales F(1, 77) = 8.1, P < 0.001, d = 0.455.
No significant differences were found for any
of the brands when it came to the high pitch–
low pitch scale.
The choices made by the participants in
the emotion-related list demonstrate that,
overall, there was a higher frequency of
positively valenced emotion-related words
associated with each of the nine brands.
However, there are differences in the over-
all frequency of both positively and nega-
tively valenced emotion-related words as
can be seen in the valence ratio. Trident
presented the highest number of positively
valenced emotions for every negatively
valenced emotion (16.46:1) while Carre-
four presented the lowest (2.89:1). There
were also differences in the specific words
that were related to each brand, for exam-
ple, Coca-Cola presents a high frequency of
associations with the words ‘Pleasure/
Enjoyment’ and ‘Joy/Happiness’, which is
consistent with their campaigns and adver-
tisements. On the other hand Trident pre-
sents a higher number of choices in the
words ‘Pleasure/Enjoyment’ but also in
‘Fun/Laughter’. The words that were more
easily associated with the bank, Davivienda,
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Love for logos
Table 3: Average ranks for the emotional valence
difference for each of the brands
Brand Average ranks
Carrefour 254.9
Samsung 308.5
Homecenter 327.1
Falabella 336.7
Manatial 341.5
Davidienda 364.4
Fanta 385.4
Trident 415.7
Coca-Cola 462.7
Note: Higher scores indicate a higher frequency of positive
emotions
were ‘Admiration/Awe’. Thus suggesting
that each brand has a different emotional
profile and that consumers associate differ-
ent emotion concepts to them.
The Emotional valence difference was
evaluated with a Kruskall–Wallis test and
was positive for all of the brands tested in
the present study. This suggests that there
was a higher frequency of positive emotions
when compared with the frequency of
negative emotions (Medianemotions per stimulus
= 3, SD = 3.39, median was chosen over
mean because of high kurtosis). The results
were significant χ2(8) = 56.086, P < 0.001.
Further analyses revealed that there was less
of a difference between the frequency of
positive and negative emotions, and a greater
difference in terms of the overall frequency
of positive emotions (that is, participants
paired some brands with a greater number
of positive emotions). Carrefour and
Samsung displayed the lowest emotional
valence difference (see Table 3). Post-hoc
Mann–Whitney U tests revealed that
Carrefour had the lowest emotional valence
difference and was significantly different
when compared with all of the other brands
tested in the present study, with the excep-
tion of Samsung. The emotional valence
difference was significantly lower for
Samsung than for both Trident (U = 2133.5,
P = 0.001) and Coca-Cola (U = 1881.5,
P < 0.001).
643
 Salgado-Montejo et al

Table 4: Pearson’s correlations between each scale and the brands that have been successful in building
emotional valence difference scores their reputation and market share must have
Maluma–Takete Pearson’s correlation −0.053 a minimum level of emotional engagement;
Sig. (bilateral) 0.160 it is likely that brands that are associated
N 709 with emotions that are perceived by con-
Bouba–Kiki image Pearson’s correlation −0.113**
Sig. (bilateral) 0.002
sumers as negative and that would reduce
N 709 approach motivation would not survive in a
Low pitch–high pitch Pearson’s correlation −0.054 competitive marketplace. However, the clo-
Sig. (bilateral) 0.148
N 709
seness or strength of consumer–brand rela-
Curve–triangle Pearson’s correlation −0.181** tionships may well-depend not only on the
Sig. (bilateral) 0.000 emotional valence difference, but also on the
N 709 intensity of the emotion and on the parti-
Bouba–Kiki text Pearson’s correlation 0.011
Sig. (bilateral) 0.768 cular emotions that a brand generates, or is
N 709 associated with. On this last point, further
Circle–square Pearson’s correlation −0.162** research is undoubtedly needed in order to
Sig. (bilateral) 0.000
N 709 determine whether, and how, distinct visual
design elements can communicate particular
**P < 0.01 emotions. There is also a need to address
the question of whether visual elements
Pearson’s correlations between emo- influence consumers’ perception, trust and
tional valence differences and the scales loyalty towards a brand or product (Amine,
were performed in order to determine 1998; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
whether those brands with higher scores Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Spanjaard
(indicating roundness) also presented a and Freeman, 2012).
higher emotional valence difference (see The congruency of the different logo
Table 4). Small significant negative correla- elements, in terms of the shape symbolism
tions were observed between the emotional scales, may lead to more positive emotions.
valence difference and Bouba-Kiki image This could be the result of increased pro-
(r = −0.113, P = 0.002), curve-triangle cessing fluency (Labroo et al, 2008); since
(r = −0.181, P < 0.001) and circle-square higher congruency could mean that more
scales (r = −0.162, P < 0.001); thus showing elements are providing consistent informa-
that there was a higher frequency of positive tion. Reber et al (2004) have suggested that
emotions for brands that were evaluated as visual or semantic priming can have an
rounder in the visual analogue scales. influence on processing fluency and that this
can enhance aesthetic judgments. Previous
research by Lee and Labroo (2004) found
DISCUSSION that advertising can facilitate processing flu-
In the present study, we tested brands taken ency and generate more positive attitudes
from several different categories (from both towards the brand. Congruency between
the service and product sectors). We were brand typeface and logo symbols could
interested in evaluating whether the con- increase the effect of both semantic and
gruency of the various elements that com- visual priming and thus enhance processing
pose a brand’s visual identity would fluency. The Manantial brand, however,
influence people’s affective judgments. The seems to provide an exception to this rule
results revealed that the emotional valence (see Table 2 and Figure 2) and indicates that
difference scores were positive for all of the other factors, aside from shape symbolism,
brands tested here, thus suggesting that can also influence processing fluency for

644 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649

typefaces and logo symbols. More research is
needed in order to explore this phenomenon.
Particular emotions associated with
brands may also convey information about
which contexts and experiences are more
suitable for a brand. This has important
implications for product placement, adver-
tising and media campaigns in general.
Pearson’s correlations between the scales
and the emotional valence difference sug-
gest that brands that were classified as
‘rounder’ (that is, circle, Bouba and curve)
actually had a higher frequency of positive
emotions associated with them. This is
consistent with the results of previous
research showing that rounder shapes are
associated with positive emotions and are
preferred in different contexts (Bar and
Neta, 2006, 2007; Westerman et al, 2012;
Vartanian et al, 2013).
Research by both Parise and Spence
(2012) and by Velasco et al (2014) suggests
that packaging shapes can be associated with
particular product attributes and consumer
experiences (see also Spence and Piqueras-
Fiszman, 2012, for a review). The results of
the present study further demonstrate that
brand logos could also have underlying
associations that might influence a con-
sumer’s experiences.
The specific emotion-related words cho-
sen by our participants for each brand also
reveal an interesting opportunity to study
consumers’ emotional associations towards
specific brands. The choices made by the
participants in this particular task also reflect
that complexity of consumers’ attitudes
towards brands and support the notion that
there can be different layers of attitudes
towards brands, products and experiences
(see Olney, Holbrook and Batra, 1991;
Wilson et al, 2000; Kugler et al, 2012).
As Scherer (2005) has pointed out, some
emotions are more conducive, while others
are more obstructive of potential goals,
actions or motives. Emotions can also be
understood in terms how much the person
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Love for logos
has control over the experience, leading to a
classification of emotions in terms of ‘high’
and ‘low control’. In the context of brand
management, these categories (high/low
control and conducive/obstructive) could
help explain how the consumer relates to
each brand. It could also reflect the type of
communication, behaviours and interactions
that the consumer associates or expects when
interacting with a brand (or its products/ser-
vices). Words such as interest/enthusiasm,
pleasure/enjoyment, fun/laughter and joy/
happiness are classified as being related to low
control conducive emotions. These four
categories were the most chosen in most of
the brands that presented a high degree of
congruency between logo type and logo
symbol. The brands that presented lower
congruency scores had more dispersed choi-
ces in the emotion-related list, with interest/
enthusiasm being the emotion that presented
the highest frequency.
An interesting finding here is that extreme
values on the shape symbolism scales
(no matter in which direction) might be
correlated to a higher change on emotional
valence. This would suggest on the one hand
that consumers are more likely to associate
designs that present congruent elements with
positively valenced emotions. On the other
hand, these findings also show that less con-
gruent elements are more likely to be asso-
ciated with negatively valenced emotions.
With the latter in mind, an important
guideline for brand design could be to match
design elements in terms of congruency (and
not only aesthetics). It is also interesting to
note that brands that contain more round
elements (that is, curves, lines, typefaces),
such as Trident, Coca-Cola, Fanta and
Davivienda displayed the highest emotional
valence difference. As a side note, it is inter-
esting that two of the previously mentioned
brands presented human-like shapes as part
of their designs. In the case of Trident we can
observe a smile-like line under the typeface
and in the case of Davivienda the logo
645
 Salgado-Montejo et al
symbol is a house that resembles a face.
Already, there is evidence that simple design
elements can be associated with emotional
categories (Landwehr et al, 2011, but see
Puzakova et al, 2013). There is also evidence
that rounder body movements are associated
with positively valenced emotions and
angular movements with negatively valenced
emotions. It is possible that curves, such as
the ones displayed by the Coca-Cola logo
could be associated with rounder move-
ments and that this, in turn, communicates
positively valenced emotions.
Another key element that is relevant to
this study is the fact that we used known
brands. While this may have the effect of
generating noise within our measurements
from other information that the consumer
may possess about the brand (that is, as a result
of being exposed to advertisements, market-
ing campaigns and interactions with products
or services). Brand identity and perception is
not only shaped by logo design (Alden et al,
1999; Schmitt, 1999; Underwood, 2003).
In reality, a variety of information and inter-
actions influence consumers perception of a
brand. Thus, suggesting that an ecologically
valid measurement of the perception that a
consumer has of a brand should account for
the overall impression that has been formed
via different channels. That said, future
research should also consider how to isolate
brand components to avoid the intrusion of
other information. Research that utilizes
shape symbolism scales and other tools to
study brand identity and logo design should
take into account whether they are interested
in the design itself (for example, in the case
of a new brand or design) or if they are
interested in understanding the underlying
attitudes and emotions that consumers have
towards a brand.
The present study also addresses a key
issue in brand management. So far most
research has separated emotional, cognitive
and sensory aspects into different categories
or intervention strategies. Evidence from
646 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
psychology and neuroscience, suggest that
emotion can be understood as information
and that it is part of the thought process.
It also shows that sensory information can
influence emotion and therefore they
should always be thought of as a joint sys-
tem. Further research is needed in order to
address the link between crossmodal corre-
spondences (that is, the tendency to match
information across the senses, see Spence,
2011, 2012 for reviews; see also Connolly,
2014) and logo design.
Finally, since a consumer’s explicit
reports can help shape brand reputation, it is
important to understand how design ele-
ments influence word-of-mouth and can
ultimately alter purchase behaviour. We are
convinced that the use of methods and
techniques from the field of experimental
psychology to answer design questions
could become a powerful tool with which
to support the development of brand value
across niches and cultures. These types of
tests could also be used to diagnose how
well a brand is performing in a given market
and can provide marketers, brand managers
and media agencies with relevant informa-
tion as to consumers’ impressions about a
brand. Certainly, combining design with
the analytical tools provided by the field of
experimental psychology could potentially
open up a whole new range of possibilities
as to how to create trust between brands and
consumers and also suggests that design may
be a vehicle to create attitudes and percep-
tions towards brands that increase brand
value.
NOTE
1 Note that the visual presentation of the brands may
change over time. The brands tested here were from the
end of 2013, beginning of 2014.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (2010) Marketing challenges in the next
decade. Journal of Brand Management 17(5): 315–316.

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999)
Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North
America, and Europe: The role of global consumer
culture. Journal of Marketing 63(1): 75–87.
Amine, A. (1998) Consumers’ true brand loyalty: The
central role of commitment. Journal of Strategic
Marketing 6(4): 305–319.
Ariely, D. and Berns, G.S. (2010) Neuromarketing: The
hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience 11(4): 284–292.
Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2006) Humans prefer curved
visual objects. Psychological Science 17(8): 645–648.
Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2007) Visual elements of
subjective preference modulate amygdala activation.
Neuropsychologia 45(10): 2191–2200.
Bartholmé, R.H. and Melewar, T.C. (2009) Adding
new dimensions to corporate identity management
and corporate communication: Exploring the sensory
perspective. The Marketing Review 9(2): 155–169.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T.J.L., Schifferstein, H.N.J.
and Galetzka, M. (2011) Tough package, strong
taste: The influence of packaging design on taste
impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality
and Preference 22(1): 17–23.
Bremner, A.J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J.,
Linnell, K.J. and Spence, C. (2013) ‘Bouba’ and
‘Kiki’ in Namibia? A remote culture make similar
shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste
matches to Westerners. Cognition 126(2): 165–172.
Calvert, G., Spence, C. and Stein, B.E. (eds.) (2004) The
Handbook of Multisensory Processing. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing 65(2): 81–93.
Cheskin, L. (1981) Research design and analysis in the
testing of symbols. In: W. Stern (ed.) Handbook
of Package Design Research. New York: Wiley
Interscience, pp. 211–220.
Connolly, K. (2014) Multisensory perception as an
associative learning process. Frontiers in Psychology 5:
1095.
Dazkir, S.S. and Read, M.A. (2011) Furniture forms and
their influence on our emotional responses toward
interior environments. Environment and Behavior
44(5): 722–732.
Deonna, J.A. and Teroni, F. (2014) In what sense are
emotions evaluations? In: S. Roeser and C. Todd
(eds.) Emotion and Value. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 15–31.
Deroy, O. and Spence, C. (2013) Why we are not all
synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review 20(4): 643–664.
Doyle, J.R. and Bottomley, P.A. (2006) Dressed for the
occasion: Font-product congruity in the perception
of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16(2):
112–123.
Friese, M., Wänke, M. and Plessner, H. (2006) Implicit
consumer preferences and their influence on product
choice. Psychology and Marketing 23(9): 727–740.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
Love for logos
Ghazanfar, A.A. and Schroeder, C.E. (2006) Is neocortex
essentially multisensory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences
10(6): 278–285.
Henderson, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1998) Guidelines for
selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing
62(2): 14–30.
Henderson, P.W., Giese, J.L. and Cote, J.A. (2004)
Impression management using typeface design.
Journal of Marketing 68(4): 60–72.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982) Hedonic
consumption: Emerging concepts, methods
and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46(3):
92–101.
Hultén, B. (2011) Sensory marketing: The multi‐sensory
brand‐experience concept. European Business Review
23(3): 256–273.
Hynes, N. (2009) Colour and meaning in corporate
logos: An empirical study. Journal of Brand
Management 16(8): 545–555.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012) The role of
emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand
relationships. Journal of Product and Brand Management
21(2): 98–108.
Jadva, V., Hines, M. and Golombok, S. (2010) Infants’
preferences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex
differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior
39(6): 1261–1273.
Jansson-Boyd, C.V. (2011) Designing aesthetic concepts:
Can it be done? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts 5(3): 279–290.
Karaosmanoglu, E. and Melewar, T.C. (2006)
Corporate communications, identity and image:
A research agenda. Journal of Brand Management
14(1/2): 196–206.
Kugler, T., Connolly, T. and Ordóñez, L.D. (2012)
Emotion, decision, and risk: Betting on gambles
versus betting on people. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making 25(2): 123–134.
Labrecque, vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T.P.
and Hofacker, C.F. (2013) Consumer power:
Evolution in the digital age. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 27(4): 257–269.
Labroo, A.A., Dhar, R. and Schwarz, N. (2008) Of frog
wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming,
perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of
Consumer Research 34(6): 819–831.
Landwehr, J.R., McGill, A.L. and Herrmann, A. (2011)
It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive
‘facial’ expressions on product liking and sales. Journal
of Marketing 75(3): 132–146.
Larson, C.L., Aronoff, J. and Steuer, E.L. (2011)
Simple geometric shapes are implicitly associated
with affective value. Motivation and Emotion 36(3):
404–413.
Leder, H. and Carbon, C. (2005) Dimensions in
appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive
Psychology 19(5): 603–618.
Lee, A.Y. and Labroo, A.A. (2004) The effect of
conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 41(2):
151–165.
647
 Salgado-Montejo et al
Madden, T.J., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000)
Managing images in different cultures: A cross-
national study of color meanings and preferences.
Journal of International Marketing 8(4): 90–107.
Marks, L.E. and Mulvenna, C.M. (2013) Synesthesia, at
and near its borders. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 651.
Ngo, M.K., Piqueras-Fiszman, B. and Spence, C. (2012)
On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water:
Insights from online and laboratory-based testing.
Food Quality and Preference 24(2): 260–268.
Ngo, M.K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A. and Spence, C.
(2013) Assessing crossmodal correspondences in
exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound
symbolism. Food Quality and Preference 28(1):
361–369.
Noble, C.H. and Kumar, M. (2010) Exploring the
appeal of product design: A grounded, value-based
model of key design elements and relationships.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(5):
640–657.
Olney, T.J., Holbrook, M.R. and Batra, R. (1991)
Consumer responses to advertising: The effects of ad
content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on
viewing time. Journal of Consumer Research 17(4):
440–453.
Parise, C.V. and Spence, C. (2012) Assessing the
associations between brand packaging and brand
attributes using an indirect performance measure.
Food Quality and Preference 24(1): 17–23.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C. and Spence, C.
(2012) Exploring implicit and explicit crossmodal
colour-flavour correspondences in product packaging.
Food Quality and Preference 25(2): 148–155.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H. and Rocereto, J.F. (2013) When
humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect
of brand anthropomorphization amid product
wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing 77(3): 81–100.
Ragunathan, R. and Pham, M.T. (1999) All negative
moods are not created equal: Motivational influences
of anxiety and sadness on decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process
79(1): 56–77.
Ragunathan, R., Pham, M.T. and Corfman, K.P. (2006)
Informational properties of anxiety and sadness, and
displaced coping. Journal of Consumer Research 32(4):
596–601.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N. and Winkielman, P. (2004)
Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in
the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and
Social Psychology Review 8(4): 364–382.
Scherer, K.R. (2005) What are emotions? And how can
they be measured? Social Science Information 44(4):
695–729.
Schmitt, B. (1999) Experiential marketing. Journal of
Marketing Management 15(1–3): 53–67.
Shapiro, S. and Krishnan, H.S. (2001) Memory-based
measures for assessing advertising effects: A
comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects.
Journal of Advertising 30(3): 1–13.
Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W.
(1994) Challenges and opportunities facing brand
648 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649
management: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Marketing Research 31(4): 149–158.
Silvia, P.J. and Barona, C.M. (2009) Do people
prefer lined objects? Angularity, expertise, and
aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts
27(1): 25–42.
Spanjaard, D. and Freeman, L. (2012) The hidden
agenda: Emotions in grocery shopping. The Inter-
national Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 22(5): 439–457.
Spence, C. (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: A
tutorial review. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics
73(4): 971–995.
Spence, C. (2012) Managing sensory expectations
concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the
potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 22(1): 37–54.
Spence, C. and Deroy, O. (2013) How automatic are
crossmodal correspondences? Consciousness and
Cognition 22(1): 245–260.
Spence, C. and Gallace, A. (2011) Tasting shapes
and words. Food Quality and Preference 22(3):
290–295.
Spence, C. and Parise, C.V. (2012) The cognitive neuro-
science of crossmodal correspondences. i-Perception
3(7): 410–412.
Spence, C. and Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2012) The
multisensory packaging of beverages. In: M.G.
Kontominas (ed.) Food Packaging: Procedures,
Management and Trends. Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Publishers, pp. 187–233.
Spence, C., Puccinelli, N.M., Grewal, D. and Roggeveen,
A.L. (2014) Store atmospherics: A multisensory
perspective. Psychology & Marketing 31(7): 472–488.
Underwood, R.L. (2003) The communicative power of
product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived
and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice 11(1): 62–76.
Vartanian, O. et al. (2013) Impact of contour on
aesthetic judgments and approach–Avoidance
decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
110(2): 10446–10453.
Velasco, C., Jones, R., King, S. and Spence, C. (2013)
Assessing the influence of the multisensory
environment on the whisky drinking experience.
Flavour 2(1): 23.
Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos,
F. and Spence, C. (2014) Predictive packaging
design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and
sounds. Food Quality and Preference 34: 88–95.
Watson, D.G., Blagrove, E. and Selwood, S. (2011)
Emotional triangles: A test of emotion – Based
attentional capture by simple geometric shapes.
Cognition and Emotion 25(7): 1149–1164.
Westerman et al. (2012) Product design: Preference for
rounded versus angular design elements. Psychology
and Marketing 29(8): 595–605.
Westerman, S.J. et al. (2013) The design of consumer
packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape,
orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on
 Love for logos

consumers’ assessments. Food Quality and Preference APPENDIX

27(1): 8–17.
Wilson, T.D., Lindsey, S. and Schooler, T.Y. (2000)
A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review Table A1: List of emotions presented to participants
107(1): 101–126.
Wu, S.-C. and Fang, W. (2010) The effect of consumer- Positive emotional valence Negative emotional valence
to-consumer interactions on idea generation in
virtual brand community relationships. Technovation Spanish
30(11–12): 570–581. Orgullo/Júbilo Desprecio/Desdén
Yoon, C. et al. (2012) Decision neuroscience and Placer/Disfrute Envidia/Celos
consumer decision making. Marketing Letters 23(2): Nostalgia/Anhelo Tristeza/Desesperación
473–485. Alivio/Descargado Miedo/Preocupación
Interés/Involucramiento Vergüenza/Pena
Diversión/Risa Arrepentimiento/Descepción
Alegría/Felicidad Repulsión/Asco
WEBLINKS Ternura/Amor
Admiración/Respeto
Culpa/Remordimiento
Ira/Irritacion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrefour; Sorpresa/Asombro Compasión/Lástima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davivienda; English
Pride/Zest Contempt/Scorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.C.I._ Pleasure/Enjoyment Envy/Jealousy
Falabella; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nostalgia/Longing Sadness/Desperation
Fanta; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home Relief/Calm Fear/Preoccupation
Interest/Enthusiasm Shame/Embarrassment
center_Sodimac; http://www.revistapym. Fun/Laughter Regret/Disappointment
com.co/noticias/rediseno/agua-manantial- Joy/Happiness Revulsion/Disgust
renueva-su-imagen; http://en.wikipedia Tenderness/Love Guilt/Remorse
.org/wiki/Samsung; http://en.wikipedia Admiration/Awe Anger/Irritation
Surprise/Wonder Compassion/Pity
.org/wiki/Trident_(gum)

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 7/8, 635–649 649