Moving images

When flipping through a magazine, do you know what makes you pay attention to an ad? Sometimes I find myself stopping to look at one for a long time, even if it barely applies to me (no, I don’t need a fancy watch or a backyard full of patio furniture) but don’t know why. 

After writing today’s piece, I’ll be on the lookout. What for? Action. Images that evoke or imply action can capture our attention and can change our behavior. We’ll see whether that explains the irrelevant-but-strangely-captivating-ads mystery going forward. Or some of it anyway.

Dynamic imagery 

Static images that evoke movement—so-called dynamic imagery—can capture our attention. In the context of brand logos or ads, dynamic images can also make us more amenable to what we’re seeing. 

One study tested the impression that brands with static or dynamic logos make on viewers. In one experiment, the researchers created two versions of a logo, one that was static (a static see-saw at equilibrium) and one that evoked movement (a see-saw mid-motion). These two logo versions differed in their perceived movement, but not in other important qualities, like visual appearance, complexity, novelty, and others. 

Participants saw one of the two versions of the logo and then rated their attitude toward the pictured brand. 

Their attitudes were more favorable toward the brand with the dynamic logo.

Follow-up experiments revealed that this more favorable attitude was due in part to greater engagement. People found the dynamic logos to be more engaging than the static logos. And engagement, in turn, predicted a more favorable brand attitude. After controlling for engagement, the relationship between dynamic imagery and a favorable attitude disappeared. 

Another experiment used eye tracking to measure engagement directly. Participants saw either a static or dynamic version of an ad for a watch brand. The static version had an image of a resting Newton’s cradle. You may know it as that device with balls on strings that people keep on their desk because someone once thought the thing would make a good gift. And you wouldn’t be wrong, as wiki purports, its “most common application is that of a desktop executive toy”. In the dynamic version of the ad, two of the balls in the cradle were raised in the air, ready to go.

People looked at the dynamic ad more times, and fixated on it longer than those viewing the static ad.

Image source. Adding an executive toy to a watch ad is one thing. Adding an executive toy that’s mid-motion to a watch ad is quite another.

Turning the right way

Outside of showing action in the frame, an image can also evoke action by inviting the viewer to imagine themselves interacting with the pictured scene. 

A study found that images inviting viewers to interact with a product can make these viewers want to do so. And pay for it. 

In one experiment, participants saw either a bowl of yogurt with a spoon sticking out toward the left or toward the right. Those in a control condition saw a plain bowl of yogurt, no spoon.

The idea was that seeing the spoon on the side of the bowl corresponding to the side of the body that people normally use to eat would make it more likely that they’d mentally simulate the scene and imagine themselves inside it. Eating yogurt.

The researchers noted whether people were right- or left-handed to know if the pictured scene was one they could easily transport themselves into. An image was coded as a match if the direction the spoon stuck out matched the handedness of the viewer (i.e., a spoon to the right for righties). 

After seeing the image, people rated how likely they would be to purchase the yogurt.

Image source. Seeing the spoon oriented to match handedness increased purchase intention.

People reported being more likely to buy the yogurt when the spoon matched their dominant hand than when the spoon direction was a mismatch, or when there was no spoon at all. 

The researchers also replicated the same effect in another experiment where people saw a picture of a hamburger (a hamburger by itself, a left hand holding a hamburger, or a right hand holding a hamburger). 

Lest you think there is some food-related magic going on here, the same effect held true for non-food objects. 

In another experiment, participants saw pictures of a travel mug, either one oriented to be grabbed with the left hand or the right hand. People reported how much mental simulation they did as they saw the picture. They also rated how likely they’d be to buy the mug.

Image source. A grabbable mug.

People who saw a mug that could be grabbed with their dominant hand reported more mental simulation and a higher purchase intention. And increased mental simulation had a significant effect on people’s purchase intentions.

It turns out that the action invited by an image has to be possible for it to have an effect. In a cool experimental variation, participants saw a picture of a, speaking as a representative of sweet tooths, appealing cake with a fork that either matched or didn’t match their dominant hand. 

At the same time, some of these participants had to hold open a clamp while viewing the cake image. The cover story was that this experiment had something to do with physical endurance.

There were four conditions. In one, participants didn’t hold anything. In another, they held the clamp open with their dominant hand, in another, in their non-dominant hand, and in a fourth condition, they held clamps open with both hands.

Image source. Holding a clamp changed cake purchase intentions.

People holding a clamp in their non-dominant hand had the same cake purchase intention as those who held nothing – they wanted to buy the cake more if the fork faced their dominant hand. But for those who held a clamp in their dominant hand, there was a total reversal of the effect. In this case, people were more likely to want to buy the cake if the fork faced their non-dominant (i.e., clamp-free) hand.  Shoveling in cake with a non-dominant hand while holding a clamp open with a dominant hand? Sounds pretty good apparently.

Finally, when people had to hold a clamp open with both hands, the difference in purchase intentions between the fork match and mismatch images disappeared. There were no hands free to hold a fork!

Does helping people simulate actions always make them want to interact more with pictured scene? Not if what they’re simulating is crummy!

Another experiment tested what would happen if images invited people to interact with unappealing products. To find unappealing food items, the researchers took good combos (asiago cheese and tomato soup) and made yucky versions (cottage cheese and tomato soup). 

If you’re not sure if cottage cheese and tomato soup is yucky, rest assured. The researchers asked another group of participants about attitudes toward different kinds of soups. Cottage cheese and tomato soup is, indeed, much less appealing than asiago cheese and tomato soup.

Image source. Cottage cheese and tomato soup with a spoon ready to go. Nope!

Participants saw a bowl of soup with a spoon that either matched or didn’t match their dominant hand.

In the case of cottage cheese soup, the typical effect we saw above reversed. Getting into a cottage cheese and tomato soup scene makes you realize it’s gross and no, you don’t want to buy it, thank you.

Danger ahead

Getting viewers to imagine themselves into unappealing scenes can also be used for good. That’s what one study found was the case for warning signs.

Image source. Do you feel something when you see these signs? I do. I think it’s called danger.

In one experiment, participants’ gaze was tracked while they saw road signs set within driving scenes. Each road sign had two versions: a dynamic one that evoked more movement, and one that evoked less. Participants saw just one version of each.

The dynamic road signs drew people’s attention more quickly and increased their vigilance to the external environment—people glanced around the rest of the environment more when a dynamic sign was in the scene.

Image source. Dynamic signs are spotted faster and lead to more environmental monitoring.

In another experiment, participants had to respond to warning signs as quickly as they could. They responded faster to signs with more dynamic images than those with less movement. 

And in two other experiments, participants were asked where they’d slow down (driving or walking) in response to a warning sign and how much risk they felt was present in the situation. People indicated they’d slow down further away in response to a more dynamic sign. And they also thought the situation was riskier when alerted with a dynamic sign.  

Whether in logos, in ads, or on signs, action in images can make us act.