title: "Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance" authors: "Felipe M. Affonso, Chris Janiszewski" journal: "Journal of Marketing" year: 2023 volume: 87 issue: 5 pages: "736-754" doi: "10.1177/00222429221142281" citation: "Affonso, Felipe M. and Chris Janiszewski (2023), \"Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance,\" Journal of Marketing, 87 (5), 736-54." bibtex: | @article{affonso2023marketing, title={Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance}, author={Affonso, Felipe M. and Janiszewski, Chris}, journal={Journal of Marketing}, volume={87}, number={5}, pages={736754}, year={2023}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, doi={10.1177/00222429221142281} } > **Disclaimer:** This is a machine-readable conversion of the published paper for use with AI tools. It may contain conversion errors in formatting, tables, or equations. Always verify against the [published version](https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221142281). **Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance** FELIPE M. AFFONSO CHRIS JANISZEWSKI Felipe M. Affonso (felipemarinelliaffonso@gmail.com) is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078. Chris Janiszewski (chris.janiszewski@warrington.ufl.edu) is the Russell Berrie Eminent Scholar Chair and Professor of Marketing, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32601. Supplementary materials are included in the Web Appendix accompanying the online version of this article. The authors thank the Editor and the JM review team for their thoughtful comments and guidance throughout the review process. They are also grateful to Juliano Laran and Aner Sela for their helpful comments. This article is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation. **Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance** **Abstract** Visual marketing communications consist of two components: (1) semantic content (e.g., headings, images, copy) that communicates a brand's positioning, benefits, and personality and (2) visual design (e.g., font selection, image size, the organization of the content) that encourages inferences about brand claims. We investigate how visual design can be used to encourage inferences that support brand claims and improve brand performance. We find that brands with a utilitarian positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications encourages structured perceptions, whereas brands with a hedonic positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications encourages unstructured perceptions. In both cases, (un)structured perceptions encourage inferences that reinforce brand claims and, consequently, improve brand performance. This research offers actionable insights into how marketing communication specialists can coordinate logo design, product design, package design, visual merchandising, and retail environments to reinforce brand claims. **Keywords**: visual design, marketing communications, logos, package design, branding, retail architecture [\ ] **Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance** Visual marketing communication is a critical part of any integrated marketing communication strategy (Andrews and Shimp 2018). Visual marketing communication concerns the use of logos, packaging, advertising, websites, social media broadcasts, point-of-purchase displays, visual merchandising, and retail architecture to make and reinforce brand claims (Andrews and Shimp 2018). Visual marketing communications allow marketers to inform consumers about brand positioning, brand benefits, brand personality, consumption practices, and product usage contexts. Visual marketing communications consist of two components: (1) semantic content (e.g., headings, images, and copy on a website) that communicates a brand's positioning, benefits, and personality and (2) visual design (e.g., font selection, image size, the layout and organization of the content) that encourages inferences about brand claims. Although there has been a considerable amount of research on how the semantic content of a marketing communication influences brand meaning, persuasion, and product choice, there is much less research on how visual design influences similar outcomes. The research that does exist investigates the influence of specific visual design manipulations (e.g., logo font, merchandise display arrangement, visual borders) on cognitions and/or behaviors (Bajaj and Bond 2018; Chae, Lu, and Zhu 2013; Cutright 2012; Kahn and Wansink 2004; Luffarelli, Stamatogiannakis, and Yang 2019; Sevilla and Townsend 2016). This research investigates a perceptual construct that is sensitive to visual design: perceptual structure. A structured perception is cohesive (i.e., the elements are perceived as interrelated), homogeneous (i.e., the common features of elements are fundamental to the perception), predictable (i.e., the repetition of elements makes it possible to use one part of the image to anticipate other parts of the whole), stable (i.e., one perception is dominant, as opposed to vacillation between competing perceptions), and systematic (i.e., the elements of the perception can be effectively segregated or categorized should there be a motivation to do so). For instance, Intel uses a visual design strategy that encourages structured perceptions (see ). Intel's logo was purposefully "crafted with an underlying geometry", and "has a refined symmetry, balance, and proportion" (Intel 2022). Similar design objectives guide Intel's advertising, website design, billboards, and social media sites. An unstructured perception is incohesive (i.e., the elements are perceived as unrelated or contradictory), heterogeneous (i.e., the elements lack commonality in their features), unpredictable (i.e., the lack of repeated elements makes it difficult to use one part of the image to anticipate other parts of the whole), unstable (i.e., there is vacillation between competing perceptions), and unsystematic (i.e., the elements of the perception are difficult to segregate or categorize). For instance, Pepsi uses a visual design strategy that encourages unstructured perceptions (see ). Pepsi's logo has visual elements with dissimilar and asymmetric shapes, sizes, and colors. Similar design objectives guide Pepsi's package design, merchandising, advertising, and related visual communications. We find that brands with a utilitarian positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications supports structured perceptions, whereas brands with a hedonic positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications supports unstructured perceptions. This occurs because design principles that generate structured perceptions (e.g., similarity, symmetry, regularity) can be used to make inferences about objective, actionable, and stable outcomes, such as utilitarian benefits (e.g., reliability, efficacy). For example, Intel's visual marketing communications encourage the structured perceptions that reinforce Intel's claim of being functional, reliable, and effective. Design principles that generate unstructured perceptions (e.g., low similarity, asymmetry, irregularity) can be used to make inferences about subjective, experiential, and dynamic outcomes, such as hedonic benefits (e.g., fun, excitement). For example, Pepsi's visual marketing communications encourage the unstructured perceptions that reinforce Pepsi's claims of being dynamic, exciting, and fun. We illustrate this idea in Figure 1, where (un)structured perceptions influence inferences about a brand's ability to deliver promised benefits which, in turn, influences brand performance. This research makes four contributions. First, we propose and provide evidence for a novel construct: perceptual structure. Second, we demonstrate how perceptual structure influences consumer inferences and/or behaviors. Third, we document how practitioners can use visual design to encourage (un)structured perceptions of marketing stimuli including logos, product packages, websites, social media communications, and retail environments. Finally, we illustrate how perceptual structure can be used as an efficient marketing communication tool. Perceptual structure can encourage consumer inferences at the point of purchase, hence is a relatively costless way to support brand claims. **Figure 1.** The Influence of (Un)Structured Perceptions on Brand Performance [Conceptual framework diagram. At top center: "IV (Perceptual Structure)" box containing "**Structured** Perceptions of Visual Communications." A dashed arrow connects this to a list of operationalizations for structured perceptions (visual organizational principles): High Proximity, High Similarity, Symmetry, Common Region (Borders), Balance, Completeness, More Geometric, Organization, Regularity (Patterns). At left: "IV (Brand Positioning)" with two boxes: "Brand Promises **Utilitarian Benefits** (Functional, Instrumental, Useful)" and "Brand Promises **Hedonic Benefits** (Enjoyment, Experiential, Pleasure)." Center: "Mediator (Inferences)" with "Value Delivered by Utilitarian-Positioned Brands" and "Value Delivered by Hedonic-Positioned Brands." Right: "DV" box for "**Brand Performance** (Product Interest, Product Evaluations, Product Choice, Brand Equity, Financial Valuation)." At bottom: "**Unstructured** Perceptions of Visual Communications" connected to operationalizations: Low Proximity, Low Similarity, Asymmetry, Lack of Common Region (Borders), Lack of Balance, Lack of Completeness, More Organic, Disorganization, Irregularity (No Patterns). Arrows show: Structured perceptions + Utilitarian positioning encourages inferences about utilitarian value, leading to brand performance. Unstructured perceptions + Hedonic positioning encourages inferences about hedonic value, leading to brand performance.] **GESTALT THEORY** Historically, there have been two competing approaches to perception: a bottom-up reductionist approach and a top-down holistic approach. The reductionist approach assumes people initially perceive specific features in a visual display and then integrate the specific features into a perception (e.g., Feature-Integration Theory; Treisman and Gelade 1980). In contrast, the holistic approach assumes people perceive the most coherent, parsimonious organization of the available information (i.e., there is an emergent process that encompasses as much information as possible). This holistic approach, called Gestaltism, assumes that a perception is an act of trying to use the available information to generate a meaningful interpretation. A perception "consists of more or less definitively structured wholes and whole processes with their whole properties and laws" (Wertheimer 1924, p. 14). Gestalt theory has sought to understand (1) why one perception is subjectively experienced while alternative perceptions are not (e.g., why one sees 10 people as "a group" rather than as "10 individuals") and (2) why a perception is stable or not (e.g., why one continues to see "a group" instead of vacillating between seeing "a group" and "individuals") (Koffka 1935; Wagemans et al. 2012a; Wertheimer 1924). A Gestalt theorist assumes a visual perception emerges and is sustained owing to the relationships among the elements in a visual display (i.e., principles of visual organization). Principles of visual organization (e.g., proximity, similarity, symmetry) encourage the simplest a perceptual process that encourages the "grouping" of the elements in a display and most encompassing a perceptual process that allows grouped elements to be more than the sum of the elements organization of the information (Palmer 2002; Wagemans et al. 2012b). Importantly, Gestalt theorists do not view the principles of visual organization as causal. Instead, organizational principles are stimulus characteristics (an objective state of the environment) that perceptual processes (an internal process) are sensitive to. Hence, visual organizational principles can be directly manipulated to encourage structured or unstructured perceptions. Appendix H provides 30 pages of real-world examples of visual marketing communications with different levels of perceptual structure. **THE PROPERTY OF STRUCTURE** Perceptual structure is a hypothesized property of a perception that is based on the Gestalt theory assumption that perceptions can vary in their degree of *gestaltet* (i.e., structure, design) (Koffka 1935; Wagemans et al. 2012b; Wertheimer 1924). The Gestalt and related literatures suggest structured perceptions have five characteristics: cohesive, homogeneous, predictable, stable, and systematic. Cohesive perceptions contain related or joined parts, whereas incohesive perceptions contain unrelated or contradictory parts (Milne and Szczerbinski 2009). Homogeneous perceptions contain elements that have common features (e.g., color, forms, lines, textures, contour, borders, shape, objects), whereas heterogeneous perceptions have elements with features that lack commonality (Pomerantz and Portillo 2011). Predictable perceptions contain repeated parts such that one part of the perception can be used to anticipate other parts of the perception. Stable perceptions consist of a single enduring perception, as opposed to vacillation between competing perceptions (Attneave 1971; Schwartz et al. 2012). Systematic perceptions have constituent parts that can be effectively segregated or categorized into manageable groups in a two-dimensional space (Palmer 1977). Each of these characteristics captures what a person experiences when they have a structured perception, though all characteristics may not be present in any single perception. Still, we expect measures of these characteristics to represent a unidimensional scale we call perceptual structure. Perceptual structure is anticipated to influence judgments in a manner similar to another property of a perception perceptual fluency. Perceptual fluency is a feeling of ease that can accompany the processing of perceptual information (Schwarz et al. 2021; Shapiro 1999). Perceptual fluency occurs when an image is previously exposed, has high contrast, or is salient relative to surrounding information so that its perception feels relatively effortless (Whittlesea and Williams 2000). Perceptual fluency influences judgments about the familiarity, recognition, liking, acceptability, risk, and truth of the content of a perception (Schwarz et al. 2021; Shapiro 1999). Perceptual fluency effects depend on context-dependent non-conscious attributions (Bornstein and D'Agostino 1994; Whittlesea and Williams 2000). For example, if a context requires a judgment about liking, and prior experience has created an association between processing fluency and liking, then a person can attribute fluency with a stimulus to liking. Importantly, attributions about fluency are only made if the fluency is diagnostic for the judgment. For example, fluent negative names are more likely to be judged as belonging to a criminal, but not to a senator (Klinger and Greenwald 1994). Similarly, fluent positive names are more likely to be judged a belonging to senator, but not to a criminal. Thus, nonconscious attributions about fluency depend on an alignment between the semantic content of the perception and the nature of the judgment to be made (Bornstein and D'Agostino 1994; Klinger and Greenwald 1994). We propose that perceptual structure can also influence judgments, but that the scope of this influence is not as far-reaching as that of perceptual fluency. Perceptual structure should inform attributions about metacognitive confidence. Metacognitive confidence refers to the certainty one has about a thought or a belief (Petty et al. 2007). When metacognitive confidence is relatively low (i.e., there is ambiguity about the belief), people seek additional information that can improve confidence (Petty et al. 2007). Perceptual structure is one type of evidence that can alter confidence in a belief about a product claim. A structured perception is more cohesive, homogeneous, predictable, stable, and systematic. These characteristics should align with product-claim beliefs that are more objective, actionable, and stable over time. An unstructured perception is incohesive, heterogeneous, unpredictable, unstable, and unsystematic. These characteristics should align with product-claim beliefs that are more subjective, experiential, and dynamic over time. In each case, alignment of perceptual structure and the type of belief should increase confidence in the belief. In the next section, we provide more detail on the types of judgments perceptual structure could influence. **UTILITARIAN AND HEDONIC PRODUCT BENEFITS** Two broad classes of consumption goals are utilitarian goals and hedonic goals (Babin and Darden 1994). Utilitarian goals focus on the functional and instrumental objectives of consumption, whereas hedonic goals focus on the enjoyment and pleasure of consumption. Businesses appeal to consumers with utilitarian (hedonic) consumption goals by offering products and services that promise utilitarian (hedonic) benefits. Utilitarian benefits tend to be prominent in product categories like automotive services, health care, and household appliances. Hedonic benefits tend to be prominent in product categories like apparel, beauty, and entertainment. Of course, many product categories have both utilitarian and hedonic benefits, as exemplified by the research in consumer behavior (see table 1). Nonetheless, although consumption can produce both utilitarian and hedonic value (Babin et al. 1994; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003), the weight placed on utilitarian or hedonic benefits should depend on whether the brand is positioned to provide primarily utilitarian or hedonic benefits (Botti and McGill 2011; Khan et al. 2005). **Table 1.** Hedonic and Utilitarian Products in Consumer Research +++++ | Domain | Utilitarian Positioning | Hedonic Positioning | Reference | +==============================+===================================+==================================+=============================+ | Activities | Exercise for health | Exercise for fun | Woolley and Fishbach (2016) | +++++ | Activities | Play tennis for exercise | Play tennis for enjoyment | Lin, Wang, and Chou (2012) | +++++ | Activities | Functional shopping experience | Hedonic shopping experience | Ballantine et al. (2010) | +++++ | Services | Business hotel | Pleasure hotel | Kronrod and Danziger (2013) | +++++ | Services | Coffee shop for work | Coffee shop for enjoying coffee | Ratner and Hamilton (2015) | +++++ | Services | Limited-service restaurant | Full-service restaurant | Brown (2020) | +++++ | Products | Cheesecake deLite (low fat) | Bailey\'s Irish Cream Cheesecake | Okada (2005) | +++++ | Products | Functional suitcase | Fashionable suitcase | Huettl and Gierl (2008) | +++++ | Products | Nutritional beverage | Refreshing and tasty beverage | Chen, Lee, and Yap (2017) | +++++ | Products | Functional sneakers | Stylish sneakers | Chen, Lee, and Yap (2017) | +++++ | Products | Earphones for studying | Earphones for entertainment | Kivetz and Zheng (2017) | +++++ | Products | Chocolate as an energy source | Chocolate as a pleasurable snack | Kivetz and Zheng (2017) | +++++ | Products | Nutritious yogurt | Flavorful yogurt | Roy and Ng (2012) | +++++ | Products | Antiperspirant shower gel | Perfumed shower gel | Klein and Melnyk (2016) | +++++ | Products | Insect-repellent candle | Scented candle | Klein and Melnyk (2016) | +++++ | Product Design | Performance cell phone | Personalized cell phone | Chitturi et al. (2008) | +++++ | Product Design | Laptop with memory / battery life | Colorful, sleek laptop | Lu, Liu, and Fang (2016) | +++++ | Product Design | Functional citrus juicer | Stylish citrus juicer | Hagtvedt and Patrick (2014) | +++++ | Online shopping | Convenience, selection, savings | Adventure/exploration | To, Liao, and Lin (2007) | +++++ | Online shopping | Usefulness of shopping site | Enjoyment of shopping site | Childers et al. (2002) | +++++ | Note: See Web Appendix I for the reference list of research cited in this table. | | +++ **Inferring Utilitarian Value from Structured Perceptions** When a brand promises to provide utilitarian benefits, a consumer can make an assessment about the extent to which the utilitarian benefit will be present (i.e., assess confidence in the belief the brand delivers the benefit). Although there is no direct evidence that the structure of a perception can be used to make inferences about utilitarian benefits, there is evidence that manipulations of structured perceptions influence objective, actionable, and stable outcomes. For example, ads with proximal products and benefits increase beliefs about brand-benefit causality (Chae et al. 2013), ads with repeated products (i.e., similarity) encourage inferences of product efficacy (VanBergen et al. 2020), brand logos with symmetry encourage inferences of functionality (Bettels and Wiedmann 2019), stimuli with a common region encourage inferences about control (Cutright 2012), and completeness in the typeface of logos encourages inferences of trustworthiness (Hagtvedt 2011). Causality, product efficacy, product functionality, control, and trustworthiness are beliefs one might have about products that offer utilitarian benefits. Thus, we assume that this class of manipulations encourages a structured perception and hypothesize: > **H1: (a)** When a brand promises to provide utilitarian benefits, structured perceptions (relative to unstructured perceptions) positively affect product interest, product evaluation, and brand equity. > > **(b)** This effect is mediated by an increase in perceived utilitarian value. **Inferring Hedonic Value from Unstructured Perceptions** There is no direct evidence that unstructured perceptions can be used to make inferences about hedonic benefits. Yet, there is evidence that the manipulations we expect to result in unstructured perceptions influence subjective, experiential, and dynamic outcomes. For example, low proximity between information encourages inferences of prestige (Sevilla and Townsend 2016), low similarity in a product display encourages inferences of variety (Kahn and Wansink 2004), asymmetric logos encourage inferences of excitement (Luffarelli et al. 2019), lack of a logo frame (i.e., common region) encourages inferences of about being unconfined (i.e., freedom) (Fajardo et al. 2016), and a lack of completeness encourages inferences of innovativeness (Hagtvedt 2011). Prestige, variety, excitement, freedom, and innovativeness are concepts that are beliefs one might have about products that offer hedonic benefits. Thus, we assume that this class of manipulations encourages an unstructured perception and hypothesize: > **H2: (a)** When a brand promises to provide hedonic benefits, unstructured perceptions (relative to structured perceptions) positively affect product interest, product evaluation, and brand equity. > > **(b)** This effect is mediated by an increase in perceived hedonic value. Six studies[^1] were used to investigate the hypotheses. Study 1 is a large-scale field experiment that uses Facebook Ads to demonstrate that products with structured (unstructured) perceptions generate higher click-through rates when the product offers utilitarian (hedonic) benefits. Study 2 shows, across several different organizational principles, that products with structured (unstructured) perceptions are preferred when a buyer seeks utilitarian (hedonic) benefits. Study 3 uses industry brand equity data to show that structured (unstructured) perceptions of brand logos are associated with more brand value for brands offering utilitarian (hedonic) benefits. Study 4 demonstrates the process by mediation \ a structured (unstructured) perception of the environment increases perceived utilitarian (hedonic) value, leading to higher evaluations when the product is positioned as utilitarian (hedonic). Studies 5a and 5b demonstrate the process by moderation \ when diagnostic information about benefit performance is accessible (i.e., information on actual utilitarian/hedonic performance is available), so that inferences about benefits is unnecessary, consumers do not use a structured (unstructured) perception as a cue to infer utilitarian (hedonic) value. In all experimental studies, we use different principles of visual organization (e.g., similarity, symmetry, balance) as operationalizations that can be used to manipulate the perceptions of structure, which is our key independent variable. **STUDY 1: LARGE-SCALE FIELD EXPERIMENT USING FACEBOOK ADS** In Study 1, we provide initial evidence for H1a and H2a. We conducted a field experiment using Facebook Ads using ads for perfumes. We chose perfumes because this product category allows us to manipulate perceptual structure and product positioning while keeping other product features constant, similar to prior research (Bajaj and Bond 2018). **Method** *Design.* The design was a 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product positioning: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (product replicate) between-subjects design. *Stimuli*. We created a page for a fictitious fragrance store named PerfumeGallery.com and launched eight advertisements for the organization on Facebook. We used eight advertisements (two replicates for each perceptual structure x product positioning combination) to assess the robustness of our findings across different designs. All advertisements were reviewed and approved by Facebook, and the procedure of this and our other studies were approved by an Institutional Review Board. Each advertisement consisted of a brand name (Horizon 3.4oz Eau de Parfum), positioning claim, and package image. The utilitarian positioning claim was: "Long-lasting. Great for work and everyday occasions. Click to learn more." The hedonic positioning claim was: "Delightful. Great for special and fun occasions. Click to learn more." The (un)structured perception was manipulated by using a different set of design principles for each replicate. In the first replicate, we manipulated the symmetry, balance, organization, and regularity of several abstract blue lines. In the second replicate, we manipulated the proximity, similarity, symmetry, balance, organization, and regularity of a forest landscape. For the exact stimuli used in this and all other studies, see the Web Appendix. *Pretests*. We assessed whether the replicates (N = 100 per replicate) generated perceptions with different levels of structure. Five items measured the characteristics of perceptual structure: cohesiveness, homogeneity, predictability, stability, and systematic. Cohesiveness (i.e., the elements are perceived as interrelated) was measured with 1 = "incohesive" and 9 = "cohesive." Homogeneity (i.e., the common features of elements are fundamental to the perception) was measured with 1 = "heterogeneous" and 9 = "homogeneous." Predictability (i.e., the repetition of elements makes it possible to use one part of the image to anticipate other parts or the whole) was measured with 1 = "unpredictable" and 9 = "predictable". Stability (i.e., one perception is dominant, as opposed to vacillating between competing perceptions) was measured with 1 = "unstable" and 9 = "stable". Systematicity (i.e., the elements of the perception can be effectively segregated or categorized should there be a motivation to do so) was measured with 1 = "unsystematic" and 9 = "systematic". The definition of each measure was explained before soliciting the participant's rating (see Web Appendix A). For the first replicate, the perceptual structure (α = .78) was greater for the structured stimulus (M = 6.52, SD = 1.42) than the unstructured stimulus (M = 5.55, SD = 1.64; (F(1, 98) = 10.01, *p* = .002). For the second replicate, the perceptual structure (α = .88) was greater for the structured stimulus (M = 7.06, SD = 1.61) than the unstructured stimulus (M = 6.05, SD = 1.74; (F(1, 98) = 9.21, *p* = .003). *Procedure*. The study targeted U.S. Facebook users who have an interest in fragrances. The potential reach (i.e., the size of the audience that was eligible to see the ads) was 58 million people. The study was conducted over four days in July 2020. Because we created the ads (as well as the sponsoring page, which was purportedly a fragrance e-commerce website), consumers were unfamiliar with the brand at the time of the experiment. We set up the ads to be optimized for clicks (i.e., the ads were delivered to the people most likely to click on them). The daily budget for each of the eight ads was \$20. This determined the daily estimated reach and the opportunity for clicks on each of the ads. The dependent variable was advertising click-through rates (CTRs), a function of impressions and clicks. CTRs can determine advertising effectiveness and are associated with real product interest. We anticipated that perfumes with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning would generate more CTRs when the perception was structured (unstructured). **Results** *Click-Through Rate.* The eight ads generated a total of 82,413 impressions, 2,503 of which were clicked on (2.23%). We used these data to conduct a 2 (perceptual structure) x 2 (product positioning) x 2 (product replicate) Poisson log-linear regression based on the number of times an ad had been served and whether or not the ad has been clicked (Click Through Rate: CTR) as the binary choice (1 = yes, 0 = no). First, there was no three-way interaction (χ^2^(1) = .116, *p* = .733). Thus, we collapsed across replicates for the subsequent analyses (see Web Appendix A for the analyses split by replicate). We then ran a 2 (perceptual structure) x 2 (product positioning) Poisson log-linear model, which revealed the predicted interaction (β = .56, χ^2^(1) = 34.73, *p* \< .001). As predicted, a structured perception increased CTR when the product was positioned as utilitarian (CTR~structured~ = 2.53% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 1.82%; χ^2^(1) = 24.82, *p* \< .001), but decreased CTR when the product was positioned as hedonic (CTR~structured~ = 2.03% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 2.54%; χ^2^(1) = 14.29, *p* \< .001). There were no main effects of perceptual structure (χ^2^(1) = 1.20, *p* = .273) or positioning (χ^2^(1) = 1.48, *p* = .223). We present additional metrics (e.g., cost-per-click), on which we find a similar pattern of results, in Web Appendix A. **Discussion** Study 1 provides initial support for the notion that a structured perception of a product increases product interest when the product is positioned as utilitarian, whereas an unstructured perception of a product increases product interest when the product is positioned as hedonic (H1a and H2a). In Study 2, we will investigate consumer choices and show that our effects are robust across different manipulations of a (un)structured perception of a product. **STUDY 2: ROBUSTNESS ACROSS DIFFERENT VISUAL MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS AND MANIPULATIONS OF STRUCTURE** Study 2 (preregistration: ) sought to demonstrate that hypotheses 1 and 2 are robust across different manipulations of (un)structured perceptions and different types of visual marketing communications. Perceptual structure was manipulated using different combinations of visual design principles in a single stimulus because visual design principles typically co-occur in natural stimuli. **Method** *Participants and Design.* Two hundred MTurk workers (58.3% male, M~age~ = 40.30) were randomly assigned to two conditions (shopping goal: utilitarian vs. hedonic). Participants made choices between brands with visual marketing communications that generated structured versus unstructured perceptions. *Stimuli*. The stimuli were 10 sets of options designed to generate structured versus unstructured perceptions (see Web Appendix B). A first pretest (N = 100; see table in Web Appendix B) confirmed the 10 sets of options varied on the structure scale (incohesive cohesive, heterogenous homogeneous, unpredictable predictable, unstable stable, unsystematic systematic) (F-values ranging from 5.69 to 31.64, p-values from .019 to \< .001). A second pretest (N = 270; Web Appendix B) ensured that the options were equally preferred in the absence of a utilitarian or hedonic shopping goal. We also show in Web Appendix B that the manipulation of perceptual structure is robust across different types of design manipulations. *Procedure*. We told participants we were investigating consumers' personal preferences and opinions, and that they would read different scenarios and make choices. For instance, in the spa replicate, participants who wanted a spa for a utilitarian (hedonic) goal were told: "Imagine you are looking for a spa where you can get a massage that provides immediate pain relief and reduces body fatigue \[is enjoyable and relaxes your body\]. Which spa would you choose?" Participants chose between a spa logo designed to generate an unstructured perception and a competing spa logo designed to generate a structured perception. Each participant made 10 choices, resulting in a total of 2000 choices in the experiment. The shopping goal was counterbalanced so that the utilitarian (hedonic) goal was salient for the spa, grocery store, sunglasses, headphones, and artisan soaps (perfume, coffee, gift shop, spa store, and restaurant) replicates for one-half of the participants. The replicate presentation order was randomized. The counterbalancing conditions ensured that there would be an equal number of choices for each possible combination of replicates and shopping goals. We coded participants' choices as 1 if they were consistent with our hypotheses, i.e., a choice of an option generating a structured (unstructured) perception when considering a utilitarian (hedonic) benefit. For each participant, we created an index of hypothesis-consistent choices (varying from 0 to 10). If our hypotheses are correct, the index should be significantly above 5 (i.e., choices are consistent with our hypotheses more than 50% of the time). Further, if our effects are robust across different visual design manipulations of structure and different types of visual communications, then there should be no effects of the counterbalancing condition or the product replicate on the index of hypothesis-consistent choices. Finally, for each replicate, the choice shares of the options generating a structured (unstructured) perception should be higher when consumers are considering the options to satisfy a utilitarian (hedonic) benefit. **Results** *Hypothesis-Consistent Choices.* Table 2 shows the choice shares by replicate. A 2 (counterbalancing condition) x 10 (replicate) mixed ANOVA revealed no main effects or interactions (all F's \< 1). A t-test that aggregated the choices for each participant showed the hypothesis-consistent choice proportion was above .50 (M = .631, SD = .168, t(199) = 11.00, *p* \< .001, Cohen's d = .63). A z-test that assumed each participant's choices were independent showed the hypothesis-consistent choice proportion was above .50 (M = .631, z = 11.67, *p* \< .001, Cohen's d = .56). These results suggest that consumers are more likely to choose an option with a structured (unstructured) perception when they seek a utilitarian (hedonic) benefit. **Table 2.** Study 2: Choice Shares by Replicate +++++++ | | **Spa Logos** | | | **Restaurant Environments** | | +:=========================================:+:===========================================================================================================================================================:+:===============================================================================================================================================================:+:==========================================:+:============:+:================================================================================================================================================:+:=====================================================================================================================================================:+:=====:+ | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | +++++++++ | | [Logo: "The Ark Spa" -- orange-colored stacked stones with a leaf design, unstructured perception.] | [Logo: brand with structured/unstructured design characteristics.] | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | | | | | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +++++++++ | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | +++++++++ | **Util.** | 43.0% | 57.0% | | **Util.** | 40% | 60% | | +++++++++ | **Hed.** | 67.0% | 33.0% | | **Hed.** | 70% | 30% | | +++++++++ | **Consist.** | 62.0% | 3.39 | **Consist.** | 65.0% | 4.24 | +++++++ | | **Grocery Store Logos** | | | **Coffee Package Imagery** | | +++++++++ | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | +++++++++ | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Bubble chart or scatter plot from study data analysis.] | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand name text label or experimental condition indicator.] | | +++++++++ | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | +++++++++ | **Uti.** | 33% | 67% | | **Uti.** | 31% | 69% | | +++++++++ | **Hed.** | 62% | 38% | | **Hed.** | 63% | 37% | | +++++++++ | **Consist.** | 64.5% | 4.10 | **Consist.** | 66.0% | 4.53 | +++++++ | | **Sunglasses Brand Names** | | | **Perfume Packages** | | +++++++++ | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | +++++++++ | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | | | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +++++++++ | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | +++++++++ | **Uti.** | 41% | 59% | | **Uti.** | 37% | 63% | | +++++++++ | **Hed.** | 60% | 40% | | **Hed.** | 64% | 36% | | +++++++++ | **Consist.** | 59.5% | 2.69 | **Consist.** | 63.5% | 3.82 | +++++++ | **Spa Product Store Displays** | | **Gift Shop Displays** | | +++++++++ | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | | **Unstructured** | **Structured** | | +++++++++ | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | | +++++++++ | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | **Goal** | **Choice Shares** | **Z** | +++++++++ | **Uti.** | 36% | 64% | | **Uti.** | 46% | 54% | | +++++++++ | **Hed.** | 62% | 38% | | **Hed.** | 66% | 34% | | +++++++++ | **Consist.** | 63.0% | 3.68 | **Consist.** | 60.0% | 2.83 | +++++++ Notes: Util. = Utilitarian shopping goal; Hed. = Hedonic shopping goal; Consist. = Percentage of hypothesis-consistent choices. Z = Test statistic (z-score) comparing the % of hypothesis-consistent choices to 50%. See Web Appendix B to see the replicates in high-resolution. **Discussion** Study 2 provides support for the notion that consumers are more likely to choose options perceived as structured (unstructured) when they seek utilitarian (hedonic) benefits. The effects emerged across a variety of marketing contexts (i.e., logos, typeface design, product packaging, product package imagery, retail store displays, and restaurant environments) and manipulations of perceptual structure (i.e., proximity, similarity, symmetry, common region, balance, regularity, geometric), suggesting that the influence of structured (unstructured) perceptions is a robust phenomenon. One limitation of Study 2 is that the results can be explained by a matching, rather than an inference-making, mechanism. It is possible that participants looked at each pair of stimuli prior to reading the shopping goal, spontaneously generated associations to the stimuli, and subsequently matched the stimuli to the shopping goal. We address this alternative explanation in studies 4, 5a, and 5b. **STUDY 3: (UN)STRUCTURED PERCEPTIONS OF BRAND LOGOS AND BRAND FINANCIAL VALUATION** In study 3, we demonstrate that a structured (unstructured) perception of a brand logo, and its influence on inferences about product performance, can influence brand equity. Specifically, we show that when a brand is strongly associated with utilitarian (hedonic) considerations, a structured (unstructured) perception of the brand logo is associated with an increase in customer-based brand equity. The data used in this study were collected from five sources: "BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable U.S. Brands 2020" by Kantar Millward Brown, "Brand Finance US 500 2020" by Brand Finance, the Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) customer-based brand equity tracker by VMLY&R, and two surveys of U.S. consumers that we conducted. **Data Description** *First Dependent Variable: Brand Valuation.* Kantar Millward Brown (BrandZ) and Brand Finance, two leading marketing consultancy firms, publish annual rankings of the top 100 (top 500 for Brand Finance) most valuable brands. While each firm uses a unique methodology, both estimate brand equity in billions of U.S. dollars. We analyzed the top 100 BrandZ and Brand Finance brands. For conciseness, we report the analysis of the BrandZ top 100 brands here and the analysis of the Brand Finance top 100 brands in Web Appendix C. *Second Dependent Variable: Brand Asset Index.* Given that BrandZ and Brand Finance dollar valuations are known to be sensitive to many financial factors, we sought a more consumer-centric way to analyze the "top 100 brands". VMLY&R's Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) is based on four brand "pillars": perceived brand differentiation, relevance, esteem, and knowledge. Collectively, these four pillars form the Brand Asset Index.[^2] The BAIndex is calculated using responses from a representative sample of 12,412 U.S. consumers. The Brand Asset Index (henceforth BAIndex) is an important predictor of the financial valuation (e.g., BrandZ, Brand Finance) and the performance of brands (Datta, Ailawadi, and Van Heerde 2017; Mizik 2014; Mizik and Jacobson 2008). We extracted the BAIndex for 121 of the 128 brands[^3] listed in the top 100 BrandZ or top 100 Brand Finance rankings. Higher Brand Asset Index scores (M = 7.96, SD = 1.79) reflect higher levels of consumer-based brand equity. *Independent Variable: (Un)structured Perception of a Brand Logo.* We measured the degree to which the perception of a brand logo is structured for the 128 unique brands in the BrandZ and Brand Finance top 100 rankings. The sample was 1300 U.S. Prolific workers (32.5% male, M~age~ = 35.29). The sample size was determined by planning for each participant to rate 5 random brands (out of the 128) and for each brand to receive a minimum of 50 ratings (\[128/5\] x 50 = 1280 participants). For each of the brands, participants saw the logo "The \[brand\] logo is below. Please look carefully at the logo image and consider its visual characteristics and elements (e.g., colors, shapes, forms, lines, textures, objects). How would you evaluate the logo?" and were asked to evaluate the logo using the five indicators of a structured perception: cohesiveness (1 = "incohesive" and 9 = "cohesive"), homogeneity (1 = "heterogeneous" and 9 = "homogeneous"), predictability (1 = "unpredictable" and 9 = "predictable"), stability (1 = "unstable" and 9 = "stable"), and systematic characteristic (1 = "unsystematic" and 9 = "systematic"). The definition of each item was explained to participants (see Web Appendix C). *Moderator: Brand Hedonic-Utilitarian Benefit.* We measured the perceived hedonic-utilitarian benefit for the 128 unique brands using 1301 U.S. consumers via MTurk (54.3% male, M~age~ = 39.24). For each of the brands, participants indicated how utilitarian versus hedonic each brand was: "Now, please evaluate the brand on the following dimensions. When evaluating, consider the products/services offered by this brand" with 1 = "utilitarian (satisfies useful needs)" and 9 = "hedonic (provides pleasure)"; 1 = "functional (performs practical functions)" and 9 = "experiential (provides experiences and indulgences)"; 1 = "instrumental (provides material benefits)" and 9 = "transformational (transforms the consumption experience)" as scale items. In this and in subsequent studies, we reversed scored these items such that higher scores indicate brands more associated with utilitarian rather than hedonic benefits. This survey also measured the organizational principles of symmetry, balance, regularity, and geometry. These measures yielded results consistent with those of the structure measure (see Web Appendix C for additional analyses). We collapsed the structure measure (α = .98) and the hedonic-utilitarian measure (α = .98) at the brand level, such that each brand would have a structure score and a hedonic-utilitarian score, both ranging from 1 to 9. All logo images are on the OSF website. *Control Variables.* VMLY&R encourages researchers to use control variables in analyses of the Brand Asset Index.[^4] These control variables are strong predictors of brand equity; hence they should be allowed to account for variance prior to investigating additional influences on brand equity. The control variables were (1) *brand usage* (percentage of respondents who used the brand at least occasionally and plan to do so in the future), (2) *brand preference* (percentage of participants who consider the brand as their preferred within a category), and (3) *recommendation behavior* (percentage of participants who would recommend the brand). **Analyses and Results** *First Dependent Measure: BrandZ.* We performed a perceptual structure of the brand logo (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian benefit score (continuous) regression on brand valuation. Because the distribution of the brand valuation amounts was right-skewed (range = \$6.51B to \$334.65B, mean = \$39.80B, SD = \$65.32B, skewness = \$3.32B), we normalized it a using log-transformation. In support of H1a and H2a, we found a significant interaction (ß = .31, t(85) = 3.15, *p* = .002). To decompose this interaction, we conducted a floodlight analysis (Johnson and Neyman 1936; Spiller et al. 2013) using PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes 2018). As Figure 2 shows, the floodlight analysis revealed that the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) points (p \< .05) on the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 3.62 (1.59 SD below the mean) and 5.80 (.29 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) considerations, structured (unstructured) perceptions of logos are associated with increased financial valuation. Web Appendix C presents additional analyses and robustness tests. **Figure 2.** Study 3: The Influence of a Brand's Perceptual Structure and Positioning on BrandZ Valuation [Interaction plot. Y-axis: Log of BrandZ Valuation (range 1-5). X-axis: Hedonic-Utilitarian Index (1-9, M = 5.46, SD = 1.16). Two lines cross: a solid line for Structured (+1 SD) slopes upward from left to right, and a dashed line for Unstructured (-1 SD) slopes downward. A shaded region between the lines highlights the divergence. Johnson-Neyman points at 3.62 and 5.80 (both p < .05) are marked with vertical lines. The range of observed data spans approximately 3.62 to 5.80. The pattern shows that structured brand logos are associated with higher BrandZ valuations for more utilitarian brands, while unstructured logos are associated with higher valuations for more hedonic brands.] *Second Dependent Variable: Brand Asset Index.* A perceptual structure of the brand logo (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian index (continuous) regression on customer-based brand equity (BAIndex) revealed a significant interaction (ß = .18, t(101) = 3.59, *p* \< .001). As Figure 3 shows, the floodlight analysis revealed that the J-N points (p \< .05) on the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 4.66 (.69 SD below the mean) and 6.19 (.63 SD above the mean). Web Appendix C presents a series of robustness tests involving the BAIndex. **Figure 3.** Study 3: The Influence of a Brand's Perceptual Structure and Positioning on BAIndex [Interaction plot. Y-axis: Brand Asset Index (range 6-10). X-axis: Hedonic-Utilitarian Index (1-9, M = 5.46, SD = 1.15). Two lines: a solid line for Structured (+1 SD) slopes upward, a dashed line for Unstructured (-1 SD) is relatively flat but slightly declining. Johnson-Neyman points at 4.66 and 6.19 (both p < .05). The pattern shows that structured logos are associated with higher BAIndex scores for utilitarian brands, while unstructured logos are associated with higher BAIndex for hedonic brands.] **Discussion** Study 3 showed that brands offering utilitarian (hedonic) benefits have greater brand equity when the perception of the brand logo is more (less) structured, supporting H1a (H2a). These effects were observed for the top 100 brands in the marketplace. These effects are likely a consequence of two phenomena. First, consumers often use visual marketing communications (e.g., brand logos) to make inferences about the performance of a brand, especially when they lack experience with a brand. It may be that people are more likely to try, and subsequently adopt, a brand when the structure of the logo perception aligns with brand claims. Second, major brands tend to have visual design consistency across visual marketing communications (e.g., logos, product design, product packaging, visual merchandising, retail architecture). To the extent the structure in the structure of the logo perception is similar to the structure of other visual marketing perceptions, perceptions of all visual communications should influence brand inferences and brand equity. That is, if logo perceptions can be treated as an indicator of visual marketing communications perceptions, then logo perceptions can explain differences in brand equity that depend on a variety of marketing communications. We acknowledge that Study 3 has limitations. First, the results consist of only 128 top-ranked brands. In addition, we were not able to directly control for many brand-level variables, such as advertising expenditure or market share (i.e., it could be that highly structured \[unstructured\] utilitarian \[hedonic\] brands advertise more or have larger market shares). Despite these limitations, the results of this study are consistent with the results of studies 1 and 2. **STUDY 4: PROCESS-BY-MEDIATION EVIDENCE WITH RETAIL ENVIRONMENTS THAT GENERATE (UN)STRUCTURED PERCEPTIONS** Thus far, we have shown that structured perceptions boost interest, choice, and brand financial valuation when the product is positioned as utilitarian, whereas the opposite occurs when the product is positioned as hedonic. We contend this happens because consumers use structured (unstructured) perceptions as a cue to infer utilitarian (hedonic) value when the brand promises utilitarian (hedonic) benefits (H1a and H2a). In Study 4 (preregistration: ), we investigate the hypothesized mediating processes: inferences about utilitarian (H1b) and hedonic (H2b) value. In addition, the study tests an alternative explanation for the previously observed results: conceptual fluency. Conceptual fluency refers to the ease with which customers can process and understand information (e.g., brand meaning, product claims) (Shapiro 1999). Previous research has shown that matching anticipated product needs with delivered product benefits increases conceptual fluency and, consequently, encourages positive responses (Lee and Labroo 2004). One could argue that when structured (unstructured) perceptions of visual marketing communications are paired with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning, conceptual fluency is experienced. If this explanation holds, then we should observe a perceptual structure by product positioning interaction on the conceptual fluency dependent measure, as well as a mediating influence of conceptual fluency. **Method** *Participants and Design.* Eight hundred Prolific workers (58.3% male, M~age~ = 27.60) were randomly assigned to a 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product positioning: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (product replicate) between-subjects design. *Stimuli*. Perceptual structure was manipulated using a symmetric, balanced, and regular (asymmetric, unbalanced, and irregular) image of a library interior. The operationalization varied by product replicate. In the first replicate, the structured (unstructured) perception was manipulated by showing a perfectly mirrored library environment (a library environment with curved shelves and no specific pattern) (see Web Appendix D). In the second replicate, the structured (unstructured) perception was manipulated using pictures of the same library space taken from two different angles (see Web Appendix D). A pretest (N = 101 for replicate 1 and N = 99 for replicate 2) confirmed the 5-item structure scale differentiated the first (α = .77; M~structured~ = 6.69, SD~structured~ = 1.46 vs. M~unstructured~ = 5.90, SD~unstructured~ = 1.47; F(1, 99) = 7.38, *p* = .008) and second (α = .85; M~structured~ = 7.75, SD~structured~ = 1.31 vs. M~unstructured~ = 5.96, SD~unstructured~ = 1.73; F(1, 97) = 33.88, *p* \< .001) replicates. *Procedure*. Participants were told the study investigated consumers' personal preferences. Participants saw a picture and read a description of "The Spectrum Library." Product positioning was manipulated by highlighting the utilitarian or hedonic benefits of the library. Participants in the utilitarian positioning condition read a description of the library highlighting a quiet, safe, and connected environment for personal productivity with a wide selection of opportunities to learn, search, and inquire. In addition, participants also read the library provided access to several research resources, databases, career services, and individual study rooms. Participants in the hedonic positioning condition read a description of the library highlighting a stimulating, pleasurable, and comfortable environment for personal growth with a wide selection of opportunities to learn, discover, and have fun. In addition, participants also read the library provided access to many facilities including common spaces for meeting and socializing, cafes, and modern cinema/media rooms. Immediately after seeing the product picture and description, participants responded to the dependent measure: "Please provide your overall evaluation for The Spectrum Library" (1 = "very bad" and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative" and 9 = "very positive"; 1 = "very unfavorable" and 9 = "very favorable") (α = .95). Next, the mediators were measured. The *inferences about utilitarian value* measure was: "How effective do you think The Spectrum Library is at offering..." ("an effective learning environment?", "access to a large amount of information?", "professional development opportunities?", and "a safe environment?"; all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") (α = .91). The *inferences about hedonic value* measure was: "How effective do you think The Spectrum Library is at offering..." ("interesting experiences?", "exciting experiences?", "unexpected experiences?", and "enjoyable experiences?" all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") (α = .87). The measurement of mediators was counterbalanced. Next, to measure conceptual fluency, we used: "The description and picture of the library was: (1 = "difficult to process" and 9 = "easy to process"; 1 = "difficult to understand" and "9 = "easy to understand"; 1 = "required a lot of effort to understand" and 9 = "required no effort to understand"; 1 = "very complex" and 9 = "very simple") (α = .88). Then, we asked: "How aesthetically pleasing is The Spectrum Library?" with 1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much". To confirm the positioning manipulated perceived benefits, we asked about product positioning: "We want you to evaluate The Spectrum Library in terms of what you think it is most consistent at relative to what it claims to offer. This question is not about how well The Spectrum Library can offer what it claims to offer, but about what The Spectrum Library claims to offer" with (1 = "utilitarian (satisfies useful needs)", and 9 = "hedonic (provides pleasure)"; 1 = "functional (performs practical functions)", and 9 = "experiential (provides experiences and indulgences)"; 1 = "instrumental (provides material benefits)", and 9 = "transformational (transforms the consumption experience)" (α = .79) (reverse scored). **Results** There were no three-way interactions between perceptual structure, product positioning, and replicate on any of the dependent measures (all F's NS), so we collapsed across replicates. *Manipulation Check Positioning.* As expected, participants in the utilitarian positioning condition (M = 5.29, SD = 2.03) perceived the library to be more utilitarian than participants in the hedonic positioning condition (M = 4.21, SD = 1.77; F(1, 796) = 63.93, *p* \< .001). There was no main effect of perceptual structure (F(1, 796) = .174, *p* = .677) or an interaction of perceptual structure and positioning (F(1, 796) = 2.52, *p* = .113). *Evaluation.* A two-way ANOVA on product evaluation revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 796) = 14.09, *p* \< .001, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .017; see Figure 4). As expected, structure increased evaluations when the library was positioned as utilitarian (M~structured~ = 8.25, SD~structured~ = 1.15 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.79, SD~unstructured~ = 2.05; F(1, 796) = 8.47, *p* = .004, Cohen's d = .28), but decreased evaluations when the library was positioned as hedonic (M~structured~ = 7.75, SD~structured~ = 1.86 vs. M~unstructured~ = 8.14, SD~unstructured~ = 1.01; F(1, 796) = 5.75, *p* = .017, Cohen's d = .25). **Figure 4.** Study 4: Interaction Between Positioning and the Structure of the Perception on Evaluation [Bar chart. Y-axis: Evaluation (1-9 scale). Two clusters: Utilitarian Positioning and Hedonic Positioning. Each cluster has two bars (Structured in white, Unstructured in gray). Utilitarian: Structured M = 8.25, Unstructured M = 7.79 (p = .004). Hedonic: Structured M = 7.75, Unstructured M = 8.14 (p = .017). Error bars = +/- 1 SE. Structured perceptions boost evaluations for utilitarian positioning but reduce them for hedonic positioning.] Notes: Error bars = +/− 1 SE. †p \< .10. \*p \< .05. \*\*p \< .01.*Mediation by Inferences about Utilitarian and Hedonic Value*. To confirm that the dependent variable (evaluation) and the mediators (hedonic and utilitarian value) were distinct constructs, we tested for discriminant validity. First, the average variance extracted (AVE) for evaluation and utilitarian value exceeded their squared correlation (AVE evaluation = .85; AVE utilitarian value = .698; squared correlation = .655), for evaluation and hedonic value exceeded their squared correlation (AVE evaluation = .85; AVE hedonic value = .605; squared correlation = .549), and for utilitarian value and hedonic value exceeded their squared correlation (AVE utilitarian value = .698; AVE hedonic value = .605; squared correlation = .504) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Second, the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the correlation between the two factors excluded 1 for evaluation and utilitarian value (CI = \[.78; .84\]), evaluation and hedonic value (CI = \[.70; .78\]), and utilitarian and hedonic value (CI = \[.67; .75\]) (Bagozzi and Phillips 1982). Third, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was below the recommended threshold of .90 for evaluation and utilitarian value (.81), evaluation and hedonic value (.71), and utilitarian and hedonic value (.68) (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). These three tests provide evidence for the discriminant validity of the constructs. We report the discriminant analyses for subsequent studies in the Web Appendix. A two-way ANOVA on the inferences about utilitarian value revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 796) = 4.69, *p* = .031, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .006). As expected, a structured perception increased inferences about utilitarian value when the library was positioned as utilitarian (M~structured~ = 8.05, SD~structured~ = .90 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.53, SD~unstructured~ = 1.88; F(1, 796) = 10.79, *p* = .001, Cohen's d = .35). There was no effect of perceptual structure when the library was positioned as hedonic (M~structured~ = 7.33, SD~structured~ = 1.75 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.29, SD~unstructured~ = 1.62; F(1, 796) = .048, *p* = .827). A bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2018; model 8) with perceptual structure as the independent variable, evaluation as the dependent variable, library positioning as the moderator, and inferences about utilitarian value as the mediator revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (Index = -.36, 95% CI \[-.72 to -.04\]). Supporting our reasoning, the indirect effect was positive in the utilitarian positioning condition (β = .39, SE = .12, 95% CI: \[.16 to .63\]), suggesting that the structured perception increased inferences about utilitarian value, which in turn increased evaluations. As predicted, the indirect effect was not significant in the hedonic positioning condition (β = -.24, SE = .14, 95% CI: \[-.51 to .02\]). A two-way ANOVA on the inferences about hedonic value revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 796) = 5.43, *p* = .020, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .007). As predicted, an unstructured perception increased inferences about hedonic value when the library was positioned as hedonic (M~structured~ = 7.01, SD~structured~ = 1.76 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.49, SD~unstructured~ = 1.02; F(1, 796) = 9.74, *p* = .002, Cohen's d = .33). There was no effect of perceptual structure when the library was positioned as utilitarian (M~structured~ = 6.82, SD~structured~ = 1.53 vs. M~unstructured~ = 6.79, SD~unstructured~ = 1.75; F(1, 796) = .03, *p* = .865). A bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2018; model 8) with perceptual structure as the independent variable, evaluation as the dependent variable, library positioning as the moderator, and inferences about hedonic value as the mediator revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (Index = .33, 95% CI \[.04 to .66\]). Supporting our reasoning, the indirect effect was positive for the hedonic library positioning (β = .31, SE = .10, 95% CI: \[.12 to .52\]), suggesting that the unstructured perception increased inferences about hedonic value, which in turn increased evaluations. As predicted, the indirect effect was not significant for the utilitarian library positioning (β = .02, SE = .11, 95% CI: \[-.25 to .86\]). *Alternative Explanation.* A two-way ANOVA on the conceptual fluency measure did not reveal an interaction (F(1, 796) = .22, *p* = .642), suggesting that a structured (unstructured) perception for product with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning did not increase conceptual fluency. Conceptual fluency did not mediate the influence of structured perceptions on evaluations in the utilitarian positioning condition (β = .09, SE = .06, 95% CI: \[-.02 to .23\]) or unstructured perceptions on evaluations in the hedonic positioning condition (β = .05, SE = .06, 95% CI: \[-.07 to .17\]). Further, there was no significant effects of the manipulations on aesthetic appeal (all F's less than .873), suggesting aesthetic appeal did not drive the effect. **Discussion** Study 4 supports H1b and H2b by providing evidence that structured (unstructured) perceptions increase inferences about utilitarian (hedonic) value, which in turn drives evaluations of the product. In addition, we show that our effects are not driven by conceptual fluency. Further, Study 4 used a product category where both utilitarian and hedonic values were high at the baseline. In other words, people's judgments about utilitarian and hedonic value were quite high regardless of whether the positioning was utilitarian or hedonic, and inferences based on structured (unstructured) perceptions provided an incremental effect in utilitarian (hedonic) value when the benefit was utilitarian (hedonic). This suggests that products do not need to be strictly utilitarian (hedonic) to benefit from structure-based inferences. Rather, structure is a perceptual property that supports utilitarian or hedonic benefit claims irrespective of the baseline utilitarian/hedonic value. Our next studies will investigate strictly utilitarian/hedonic categories. **STUDY 5A: PROCESS-BY-MODERATION WITH DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION** Study 5A (preregistration: ) uses a moderation approach to provide support for the proposed underlying mechanism (inferences about value) when visual marketing communications encourage structured perceptions. We contend that people use a structured perception to infer the utilitarian value of a product with claimed utilitarian benefits when they have lower confidence in their beliefs (Petty et al. 2007). If this assumption is correct, then providing diagnostic information about the utilitarian value of a product should increase confidence in one's beliefs and make it unnecessary to use perceptual structure to make inferences about claimed product benefits. This prediction is consistent with the fluency/ attributional model account of how perceptual characteristics influence judgments, although the perceptual characteristic is structure rather than fluency (Bornstein and D'Agostino 1994; Klinger and Greenwald 1994). Study 5B, which will be discussed later, will investigate a similar idea with a strictly hedonic product category. **Method** *Participants and Design.* Four hundred Prolific workers (38.0% male, M~age~ = 32.91) were randomly assigned to a 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product claims: less diagnostic vs. more diagnostic) between-subjects design. *Stimuli*. The stimulus was a logo for an Astro G vacuum cleaner that generated a structured (unstructured) perception. The structured (unstructured) perception was generated using a logo that was symmetric, balanced, geometric, and regular (asymmetric, unbalanced, organic, and irregular) (Web Appendix E). A pretest (N = 100) using the 5-item structure scale (α = .89) confirmed the logos created perceptions with different levels of structure (M~structured~ = 6.58, SD~structured~ = 1.61 vs. M~unstructured~ = 5.63, SD~unstructured~ = 1.81; F(1, 98) = 7.68, *p* = .007). *Procedure*. Participants were told the study investigated consumers' opinions. Participants read an advertisement about Astro G, a brand of a cordless vacuum cleaner. In addition, they read a product description. All participants read "Astro G S7 Pro is a smart, cordless stick vacuum cleaner excellent for multiple surfaces and pet hair cleaning." Participants in the less diagnostic information condition further read: "Astro G S7 Pro is fully charged quickly, has a long runtime, a large capacity dust cup, comes with a seal technology that captures almost all dust and allergens, and has a very long battery life." Participants in the more diagnostic information condition further read: "Astro G S7 Pro is fully charged in 30 minutes, runs for up to 70 minutes, has a 1-quart capacity dust cup, comes with a complete seal technology that captures 99.99% of dust and allergens, and has a 10-year battery life." After participants saw the advertisement, they evaluated the product: "Please provide your overall evaluation for Astro G" (1 = "very bad" and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative" and 9 = "very positive"; 1 = "very unfavorable" and 9 = "very favorable") (α = .93). Next, we measured inferences about utilitarian value by asking participants: "How effective do you think Astro G is at offering a cordless vacuum cleaner..." ("that charges quickly?", "with superior runtime?", "with a large dust cup capacity?", "with a high-efficient filter?", and "that is durable?"; all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") (α = .84). We also administered the conceptual fluency measures from Study 4 (α = .94). To check the product claim diagnosticity manipulation, we showed the advertisement again, and asked: "How specific is the information about Astro G in describing the product's performance?," "How helpful is the information about Astro G for understanding the product's actual level of performance?," and "To what extent does the information about Astro G make you certain about the product's performance?" (1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much") (α = .88). **Results** *Manipulation Check.* The product claim was less diagnostic condition in the less diagnostic condition (M = 6.25, SD = 1.78) than in the more diagnostic condition (M = 7.36, SD = 1.22; F(1, 396) = 52.10, *p* \< .001). There was no main effect of perceptual structure (F(1, 396 = .125, *p* = .724) or a product claim by perceptual structure interaction (F(1, 396 = 1.11, *p* = .294). *Evaluation.* A two-way ANOVA on the evaluation index revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 396) = 6.71, *p* = .010, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .014; see Figure 5). As expected, perceptual structure increased evaluations when the product claim was less diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.66, SD~structured~ = 1.05 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.11, SD~unstructured~ = 1.59; F(1, 396) = 8.89, *p* = .003, Cohen's d = .41). However, there was no effect of perceptual structure when the product claim was more diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.59, SD~structured~ = 1.31 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.71, SD~unstructured~ = 1.24; F \< 1). **Figure 5.** Study 5A: The Influence of Information Diagnosticity and Structure of the Perception on Product Evaluation [Bar chart. Y-axis: Evaluation (1-9 scale). Two clusters: Less Diagnostic Information and More Diagnostic Information. Each cluster has two bars (Structured and Unstructured). Less Diagnostic: Structured M = 7.66, Unstructured M = 7.11 (p = .003). More Diagnostic: Structured M = 7.59, Unstructured M = 7.71 (ns). Error bars = +/- 1 SE. Structure boosts evaluations only when product information is less diagnostic.] Notes: Error bars = +/− 1 SE. †p \< .10. \*p \< .05. \*\*p \< .01. *Mediation by Inferences about Utilitarian Value*. A two-way ANOVA on the inferences about utilitarian value revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 396) = 5.60, *p* = .018, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .011). Perceptual structure increased inferences about utilitarian value when the product claim was less diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.38, SD~structured~ = .94 vs. M~unstructured~ = 6.96, SD~unstructured~ = 1.52; F(1, 396) = 6.34, *p* = .012, Cohen's d = .33). There was no effect of perceptual structure when the product claim was more diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.41, SD~structured~ = 1.12 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.55, SD~unstructured~ = 1.13; F(1, 396) = .683, *p* = .409). A bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2018; model 8) with perceptual structure as the independent variable, evaluation as the dependent variable, product claim diagnosticity as the moderator, and inferences about utilitarian value as the mediator revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (Index = -.42, 95% CI \[-.80 to -.06\]). The indirect effect was positive for the less diagnostic claim condition (β = .32, SE = .14, 95% CI: \[.05 to .61\]), suggesting that the structure of the perception increased inferences about utilitarian value, which in turn increased evaluations. The indirect effect was not significant when the information was more diagnostic (β = -.10, SE = .12, 95% CI: \[-.34 to .14\]). *Alternative Explanation.* A two-way ANOVA on the fluency measure did not reveal an interaction (F(1, 396) = .064, *p =* .800), a main effect of product claim diagnosticity (F(1, 396) = 2.13, *p* = .146), or a main effect of perceptual structure (F(1, 396) = 1.33, *p =* .250). Further, fluency did not mediate the influence of perceptual structure on evaluations in the less diagnostic (β = -.03, SE = .05, 95% CI: \[-.12 to .07\]) or in the more diagnostic (β = -.05, SE = .05, 95% CI: \[-.15 to .05\]) conditions, suggesting that fluency did not drive the effect. **Discussion** Study 5A provides further support for the inference-based mechanism by showing that when a diagnostic cue about attribute performance is available, people do not use the structure of the perception to infer utilitarian value because the diagnostic information is sufficient to judge utilitarian value. The structure cue only supports inferences when there is uncertainty about the utilitarian product claims (i.e., claims are less diagnostic about performance). **STUDY 5B: PROCESS-BY-MODERATION WITH DIAGNOSTIC REVIEWS** Study 5B (preregistration: ) uses a moderation approach to provide support for the proposed mediator (inferences about value) when visual marketing communications are structured (unstructured). We contend that people use an unstructured perception as a cue to infer the hedonic value of a product with claimed hedonic benefits. If this reasoning is correct, then providing product information that is more diagnostic about hedonic value should make people refrain from using the unstructured perception to infer hedonic value. **Method** *Participants and Design.* Four hundred Prolific workers (30.5% male, M~age~ = 34.38) were randomly assigned to a 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product review: less diagnostic vs. more diagnostic) between-subjects design. *Stimuli*. The stimulus was a product package for a Choco-bliss candy bar that generated a structured (unstructured) perception. The structured (unstructured) perception was generated using a product package that had similar, symmetric, regular, and geometric (dissimilar, asymmetric, organic, and irregular) imagery (Web Appendix F). A pretest (N = 100) using the structure scale (α = .89) confirmed product packages manipulated perceptual structure (M~structured~ = 6.65, SD~structured~ = 1.71 vs. M~unstructured~ = 5.58, SD~unstructured~ = 1.93; F(1, 98) = 8.57, *p* = .004). *Procedure.* We told participants we were investigating consumers' opinions. Participants read an advertisement about Choco-Bliss, a brand of chocolates. All participants read: "A new chocolate experience has arrived: Choco-Bliss!" Participants in the less diagnostic review condition read a positive review that focused on the delivery time, price, and tangential information that the purchase was made as a gift for the reviewer's significant other. Participants in the more diagnostic review condition read a positive review that focused on the pleasure, enjoyment, and satisfaction derived from tasting the chocolate. We pretested the reviews with 100 Prolific participants to ensure that they were perceived as equally positive (1 = "very negative", and 9 = "very positive") in the absence of product imagery (M~less\ diagnostic~ = 8.18, SD~less\ diagnostic~ = 1.55, M~more\ diagnostic~ = 8.44, SD~more\ diagnostic~ = 1.20, F(1, 98) = .882, *p* = .350). After seeing the advertisement, we measured evaluations: "Please provide your overall evaluation for Choco-Bliss' chocolate" (1 = "very bad" and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative" and 9 = "very positive"; 1 = "very unfavorable" and 9 = "very favorable") (α = .97). Next, we measured inferences about hedonic value by asking participants: "How effective do you think Choco-Bliss is at offering..." ("pleasurable chocolates?", "delicious chocolates?", "enjoyable chocolates?", and "tasty chocolates?" all with 1 = "not effective at all", and 9 = "very effective") (α = .96). We also collected the fluency measures from study 4 (α = .95). To check the review diagnosticity manipulation, we showed participants the advertisement again, and asked: "How well does the review about Choco-Bliss describe the consumption experience?," "How helpful is the review about Choco-Bliss for understanding how one feels when eating the chocolate?,' and "To which extent the review about Choco-Bliss help you anticipate the taste of the chocolate?" (1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much") (α = .93). **Results** *Manipulation Check.* Participants considered the product review to be less diagnostic in the less diagnostic condition (M = 4.51, SD = 2.62) than in the more diagnostic condition (M = 7.61, SD = 1.42; F(1, 396) = 216.41, *p* \< .001). There was no main effect of perceptual structure (F(1, 396) = .529, *p* = .467) or an interaction (F(1, 396) = 1.76, *p* = .185). *Evaluation.* A two-way ANOVA on the evaluation index revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 396) = 4.53, *p* = .034, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .011; see Figure 6). As expected, unstructured perception increased evaluations when the product review was less diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.00, SD~structured~ = 1.76 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.66, SD~unstructured~ = 1.30; F(1, 396) = 10.26, *p* = .001, Cohen's d = .43). There was no effect of the structure of the perception when the product review was diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.63, SD~structured~ = 1.26 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.67, SD~unstructured~ = 1.42; F \< 1). **Figure 6.** Study 5B: The Influence of Information Diagnosticity and Structure of the Perception on Product Evaluation [Bar chart. Y-axis: Evaluation (1-9 scale). Two clusters: Less Diagnostic Review and More Diagnostic Review. Each cluster has two bars (Structured and Unstructured). Less Diagnostic: Structured M = 7.36, Unstructured M = 7.87 (p = .011). More Diagnostic: Structured M = 7.88, Unstructured M = 7.81 (ns). Error bars = +/- 1 SE. Unstructured perceptions boost evaluations of hedonic products only when reviews are less diagnostic.] Notes: Error bars = +/− 1 SE. †p \< .10. \*p \< .05. \*\*p \< .01. *Mediation by Inferences about Hedonic Value*. A two-way ANOVA on the inferences about utilitarian value revealed the predicted interaction (F(1, 396) = 5.80, *p* = .017, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .012). As expected, the unstructured perception increased inferences about hedonic value when the product review was less diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.10, SD~structured~ = 1.65 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.67, SD~unstructured~ = 1.22; F(1, 396) = 9.19, *p* = .003, Cohen's d = .39). There was no effect of perceptual structure when the product review was more diagnostic (M~structured~ = 7.88, SD~structured~ = 1.13 vs. M~unstructured~ = 7.81, SD~unstructured~ = 1.22; F(1, 396) = .140, *p* = .709). A bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2018; model 8) with perceptual structure as the independent variable, evaluation as the dependent variable, product review as the moderator, and inferences about hedonic value as the mediator revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (Index = -.59, 95% CI \[-1.08 to -.11\]). Supporting our reasoning, the indirect effect was positive for the less diagnostic product review condition (β = .52, SE = .19, 95% CI: \[.16 to .90\]), suggesting that the unstructured perception increased inferences about hedonic value, which in turn increased evaluations. The indirect effect was not significant when the product review was more diagnostic (β = -.06, SE = .16, 95% CI: \[-.38 to .23\]). *Alternative Explanation.* A two-way ANOVA on the conceptual fluency measure did not reveal an interaction (F(1, 396) = 1.09, *p* = .297), a main effect of product claim (F(1, 396) = .124, *p* = .725), or a main effect of perceptual structure (F(1, 396) = .394, *p* = .531). Further, conceptual fluency did not mediate the influence of perceptual structure on evaluations in the less diagnostic (β = -.09, SE = .08, 95% CI: \[-.26 to .07\]) or in the more diagnostic (β = .03, SE = .05, 95% CI: \[-.13 to .17\]) conditions, suggesting that conceptual fluency did not drive the effect. **Discussion** Study 5B shows that when diagnostic information about product claims is available (i.e., reviews), consumers use this information to judge hedonic value. When less diagnostic information about product claims is accessible (i.e., reviews), consumers use perceptual structure to make inferences about the believability of the product claims. This study provides further support for the inference-based mechanism by showing that structure-based inferences occur in the absence of a competing, diagnostic cue for hedonic value. **GENERAL DISCUSSION** The current research examines the structure of a perception and the role it plays in the effectiveness of visual marketing communications. Drawing on prior research on perception-based inference-making (Bornstein and D'Agostino 1994; Klinger and Greenwald 1994; Whittlesea and Williams 2000) and utilitarian and hedonic considerations in consumer choice (Babin et al. 1994; Botti and McGill 2011; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982), we hypothesized when a product/service promises to deliver utilitarian benefits, a structured perception encourages inferences that increase confidence in this claim and, consequently, increases the perceived utilitarian value of the product/service. However, when a product/service promises to deliver hedonic benefits, an unstructured perception encourages inferences that increase confidence in this claim and, consequently, increases the perceived hedonic value of the product/service. These different notions of value, in turn, influenced an array of marketing outcomes, including product interest (S1), choices (S2), consumer-based brand equity and the financial performance of brands (S3), the appeal of a retail environment (S4), and product evaluations (S5). These hypotheses were supported by six studies that used a variety of actionable manipulations of perceptual structure. **Theoretical Contributions** This work makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on perception. First, prior work has focused on how each principle of visual design (e.g., asymmetry) are associated with specific concepts (e.g., excitement) (Bajaj and Bond 2018). Each principle of visual design is an empirical construct. We us principles of visual design to manipulate perceptual structure. Each principle of visual design is an operationalization and perceptual structure is a hypothetical construct. Shifting the theoretical focus to a hypothetical construct (i.e., perceptual structure), creates opportunities to hypothesize relationships between perceptual structure and other hypothetical constructs. In our studies, perceptual structure was combined with utilitarian and hedonic benefits. Second, we contribute to research on consumer inference-making. For instance, previous research has shown that consumers infer the overall quality of a product based on its price (Tellis and Gaeth 1990) or warranty period (Srivastava and Mitra 1998). Consumers also infer values of specific unobservable attributes based on overall evaluations of the product (Broniarczyk and Alba 1994) or inter-attribute correlations (Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). Adding to this research, we show that consumers use the structure of perceptions of brand logos, products, retail displays, and store environments to make inferences about the utilitarian and hedonic value associated with the corresponding brand. These inferences play a role in determining consumer responses to products associated with utilitarian and hedonic benefits. **Managerial Implications** This work has practical implications for logo and typeface design, product design, package design, advertising, social media communications, visual merchandising, and retail environments. Specifically, the findings suggest that practitioners may want to consider using design elements that encourage (un)structured perceptions of logos, products, product packaging, and retail store design if their brand is primarily associated with (hedonic) utilitarian benefits. Altering the structure of a perception might be tactically easier for some visual communications (e.g., point-of-purchase media, advertisements, Meta page, Instagram communications, webpage layout) than others (e.g., logos, product shapes, package design, store environment). Thus, there are opportunities to do A/B tests with manipulations designed to alter perceptual structure. These opportunities are important because they might provide insight into when and where perceptual structure is influential on downstream consequences. In addition, although we demonstrate our framework using logos, typefaces, product imagery, retail displays, and store design, the implications likely extend to many other visual marketing communications, including print advertisements, website layouts, and app user interfaces. For instance, website layouts organize products and information in a way that encourages (un)structured perceptions. Apps can naturally influence the structure of a series of perceptions (i.e., the perceptions generated while interacting with the app) by creating a more symmetric, balanced, and regular (or asymmetric, unbalanced, and irregular) interface. As long as these brands are positioned as utilitarian or hedonic, marketers can take advantage of our findings and anticipate the consequences of key visual design decisions. Future work can investigate additional marketing stimuli where manipulating perceptual structure is possible. This work has important implications to brand equity management. Study 3 showed that perceptual structure is associated with the financial valuation of real brands in the marketplace. To further explore this impact, we used the regression model from Study 3 (BrandZ valuation as a function of perceptual structure, brand positioning, their interaction, and brand usage, preference, and recommendation behavior as controls) to estimate the loss/gain impact of perceptual structure for utilitarian (+1 SD on the brand positioning scale) and hedonic (-1 SD on the brand positioning) brands. For a hypothetical utilitarian brand with a structured perception at the mean level, the predicted log of BrandZ valuation is 2.98. The same hypothetical utilitarian brand has a predicted log of BrandZ valuation of 3.47 when the structured perception is increased in one standard deviation. In terms of actual financial impact, this translates to exp(3.47) exp(2.98) = \$12.31B. Likewise, for a hypothetical hedonic brand with a structured perception at the mean level, the predicted log of BrandZ valuation is 2.82. The same hypothetical hedonic brand has a predicted log of BrandZ valuation of 3.01 when the structured perception is decreased in one standard deviation. In terms of actual financial impact, this translates to exp(3.01) exp(2.82) = \$3.51B. Given the magnitude of these estimates, we elaborate on some drivers of these effects, limitations, and suggestions for future research. The effects of visual marketing campaigns are a cumulative result of many years of execution. Over time, brands slowly reinforce ideas and establish associations in consumers' minds. Hence, the impact of a standard deviation change in structured perception should not be interpreted as what would happen if a brand suddenly changed the structure of its visual communications. Instead, the impact should be interpreted as the possible change in brand equity if a brand had aligned the design in its visual communications with its positioning. In addition, the effects are a cumulative result of assorted visual communications (e.g., logos, packages, advertising, social media), each of which reinforces brand claims independently. Hence, the benefits of strategically altering perceptual structure in visual marketing communications should become more noticeable after years of execution. Across our experimental studies, we used unfamiliar brands and/or stimuli so that consumers did not hold strong beliefs about the brand. We did so because perceptual structure only supports inferences when there is a certain level of ambiguity about brand performance. If that is the case, then why was perceptual structure was associated with brand equity in Study 3? In addition to the cumulative effects discussed above, we believe there are several other reasons. First, because consumers make inferences about brand performance based on visual marketing communications, it is possible that consumers are more likely to try, and adopt, brands when their perceptual structure aligns with brand claims. Second, the findings in Study 3 are correlational, and it is possible that brands that perform better are more likely to hire designers and marketing communications specialists with better intuitions about the effects of perceptual structure on consumer beliefs about brand claims. One limitation of Study 3 is that the data is cross-sectional, and thus does not provide insights into the cumulative effects of perceptual structure on brand equity. Over the years, brands go through changes not only in their financial valuation, but also in their perceptual structure. For instance, Pepsi's visual marketing communications in the past encouraged structured perceptions (), whereas their current visual marketing communications encourage unstructured perceptions. Future research could explore how changes in the perceptual structure of brands over time influence a variety of brand-related outcomes, which could provide valuable insights for marketers of established brands. A final characteristic of Study 3 is that it provides a real-world overview of some brands that align benefit claims and the perceptual structure of their visual communications, and some that do not. We selected four brands to illustrate the alignment, or lack thereof, of perceptual structure and brand positioning: Intel, Pepsi, Walgreen's, and Subway. We prepared a file with a selection of visual marketing communications of these brands (). Intel is a utilitarian brand that uses visual marketing communications that encourage structured perceptions and Pepsi is a hedonic brand that uses visual marketing communications that encourage unstructured perceptions. We suggest that these brands are effectively aligning brand positioning and perceptual structure. On the other hand, Walgreen's is a utilitarian brand that uses visual marketing communications that encourage unstructured perceptions and Subway is a hedonic brand that uses visual marketing communications that encourage structured perceptions. While these brands are successful, we suggest that these brands could benefit, in the long-term, from shifting the structure of their visual marketing communications align with their positioning. Finally, Studies 5A and 5B showed consumers do not make inferences based on structured (structured) perceptions when competing diagnostic cues are accessible. While these results suggest that structure is not a silver bullet, there are many contexts where providing diagnostic information is not feasible. For instance, tangible performance information in some categories such as wood glues, power drills, jig saws, knives, and microwaves may be too specific (e.g., a jig saw's number of strokes per minute or the suction power of a vacuum cleaner) to be diagnostic about utilitarian value. Alternatively, review information describing the consumption experience of hedonic products may be suitable on the internet, but not in retail settings. In addition, there are contexts where information may be diagnostic for some consumers, but not for others. For consumers who are unfamiliar with a product category (e.g., someone who has just started a woodworking hobby), tangible information that is diagnostic for more experienced people (e.g., "clamp time" of a wood glue) may not be helpful. Thus, there are several contexts where perceptual structure can be a more effective tactic to reinforce brand performance claims than providing actual performance information. **Limitations and Future Directions** Our insights emerged across many potential applications (brand logos, product imagery, retail environments, retail displays), but it is possible that the effects would not emerge for certain products. First, consumers are unlikely to make structure-based inferences when brands are not positioned using utilitarian or hedonic benefits. Second, we did not disentangle effects associated with each manipulation of a structured perception. Third, we did not investigate other dimensions of perceptions, beyond structure, and classifications of benefits, beyond utilitarian / hedonic, that are critical to visual marketing communications. Despite these limitations, we consistently found that a structured (unstructured) perception increases utilitarian (hedonic) value in the presence of a utilitarian (hedonic) positioning. These inferences led to an array of positive marketing outcomes. We hope future research will consider the role of the structure of a perception when investigating the influence of visual marketing stimuli on consumer-relevant outcomes. We also hope this research is valuable for practitioners, as it shows actionable ways to signal different types of value to consumers. **REFERENCES** Andrews, J. Craig and Terence A. Shimp (2018), *Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications*. Cengage. Attneave, Fred (1971), "Multistability in Perception," *Scientific American*, 225 (6), 6271. Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), "Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value," *Journal of Consumer Research,* 20(4), 64456. Bajaj, Aditi and Samuel D. Bond (2018), "Beyond Beauty: Design Symmetry and Brand Personality," *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 28 (1), 7798. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), "Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal," *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 27 (3), 459489. Bettels, Jannick and Klaus-Peter Wiedmann (2019), "Brand Logo Symmetry and Product Design: The Spillover Effects on Consumer Inferences," *Journal of Business Research*, 97 (April), 19. Bornstein, Robert F. and Paul R. D'Agostino (1994), "The Attribution and Discounting of Perceptual Fluency: Preliminary Tests of a Perceptual Fluency/Attributional Model of the Mere Exposure Effect," *Social Cognition*, 12 (Summer), 103128. Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), "The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 37 (6), 106578. Broniarczyk, Susan M., and Joseph W. Alba (1994), "The Role of Consumers' Intuitions in Inference Making," *Journal of Consumer Research,* 21 (3), 393407. Chae, Boyoun (Grace), Xiuping Li, and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2013), "Judging Product Effectiveness from Perceived Spatial Proximity," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 40 (2), 31735. Cutright, Keisha M. (2012), "The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 38 (5), 77590. Datta, Hannes, Kusum L. Ailawadi, and Harald J. van Heerde (2017), "How Well Does Consumer-Based Brand Equity Align with Sales-Based Brand Equity and Marketing Mix Response?" *Journal of Marketing*, 81 (3), 120. Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), "Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 17 (1), 8293. Fajardo, Tatiana M., Jiao Zhang, and Michael Tsiros (2016), "The Contingent Nature of the Symbolic Associations of Visual Design Elements: The Case of Brand Logo Frames," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 43 (December), 54966. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 18 (1), 3950. Hagtvedt, Henrik (2011), "The Impact of Incomplete Typeface Logos on Perceptions of the Firm," *Journal of Marketing*, 75 (4), 8693. Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), *An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach*, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford. Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt (2015), "A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling," *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 43 (1), 115135. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), "Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions," *Journal of Marketing*, 46 (3), 92101. Intel (2022), "Explore Intel's Visual Brand Identity," (Accessed February 1, 2022), . Kahn, Barbara E. and Brian Wansink (2004), "The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 30 (4), 51933. Klinger, Mark R. and Anthony G. Greenwald (1994), "Preferences Need No Inferences: The Cognitive Basis of Unconscious Mere Exposure Effects," in The Heart's Eye: Emotional Influences in Perception and Attention, ed. Paula M. Niedenthal and Shinobu Kitayama, San Diego: Academic Press, 6785. Koffka, Kurt (1935), *Principles of Gestalt Psychology*, New York: Routledge. Lee, Angela Y. and Aparna Labroo (2004), "Effects of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgment," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 41, 15165. Luffarelli, Jonathan, Antonios Stamatogiannakis, and Haiyang Yang (2019), "The Visual Asymmetry Effect: An Interplay of Logo Design and Brand Personality on Brand Equity," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 56 (1), 89103. Milne, Elizabeth and Marcin Szczerbinski (2009), "Global and Local Perceptual Style, Field-Independence, and Central Coherence: An Attempt at Concept Validation," *Advances in Cognitive Psychology*, 5, 126. Mizik, Natalie (2014), "Assessing the Total Financial Performance Impact of Brand Equity with Limited Time-Series Data," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 51 (6), 691706. Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2008), "The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand Attributes," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 45 (1), 1532. Palmer, Jonathan W. (2002), "Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics," *Information Systems Research*, 13 (2), 15167. Palmer, Stephen E. (1977), "Hierarchical Structure in Perceptual Representation," *Cognitive Psychology*, 9 (4), 44174. Petty, Richard E., Pablo Briñol, Zakary L. Tormala, and Duane T. Wegener (2007), "The Role of Metacognition in Social Judgment," in *Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles*, Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, eds. The Guilford Press, 254284. Pomerantz, James R. and Mary C. Portillo (2011), "Grouping and Emergent Features in Vision: Toward a Theory of Basic Gestalts," *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance*, 37 (5), 133149. Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Nicolas Grimault, Jean-Michel Hupé, Brian C. J. Moore, and Daniel Pressnitzer (2012), "Multistability in Perception: Binding Sensory Modalities, an Overview," *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*, 367, 896905. Schwarz, Norbert, Madeline Jalbert, Tom Noah, and Lynn Zhang (2021), "Metacognitive Experiences as Information: Processing Fluency in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making," *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 4 (1), 4-25. Sevilla, Julio and Claudia Townsend (2016), "The Space-to-Product Ratio Effect: How Interstitial Space Influences Product Aesthetic Appeal, Store Perceptions, and Product Preference," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 53 (5), 66581. Shapiro, Stewart (1999), "When an Ad\'s Influence Is beyond Our Conscious Control: Perceptual and Conceptual Fluency Effects Caused by Incidental Ad Exposure," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 26 (1), 1636. Srivastava, Joydeep and Anusree Mitra (1998), "Warranty as a Signal of Quality: The Moderating Effect of Consumer Knowledge on Quality Evaluations," *Marketing Letters*, 9 (4), 32736. Tellis, Gerard J. and Gary J. Gaeth (1990), "Best Value, Price-Seeking, and Price Aversion: The Impact of Information and Learning on Consumer Choices," *Journal of Marketing*, 54 (2), 3445. Treisman, Anne M. and Gary Gelade (1980), "A Feature-integration Theory of Attention," *Cognitive Psychology*, 12 (1), 97136. VanBergen, Noah, Caglar Irmak, and Julio Sevilla (2020), "Product Entitativity: How the Presence of Product Replicates Increases Perceived and Actual Product Efficacy," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 47 (August), 192214. Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohman (2003), "Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 40 (August), 31020. Wagemans, Johan, James H. Elder, Michael Kubovy, Stephen E. Palmer, Mary A. Peterson, Manish Singh, and Rüdiger von der Heydt (2012a), "A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception: I. Perceptual Grouping and Figure-ground Organization," *Psychological Bulletin*, 138 (6), 11721217. Wagemans, Johan, Jacob Feldman, Sergei Gepshtein, Ruth Kimchi, James R. Pomerantz, Peter A. van der Helm, and Cees van Leeuwen (2012b), "A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception: II. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations," *Psychological Bulletin*, 138 (6), 121852. Wertheimer, Max (1924), "Gestalt Theory: The General Theoretical Situation," in *A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology*, ed. Willis D. Ellis, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 116. Whittlesea, Bruce W. A. and Lisa D. Williams (2000), "The Source of Feelings of Familiarity: The Discrepancy-Attribution Hypothesis," *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, 26 (May), 547565. **WEB APPENDIX** **Marketing by Design: The Influence of Perceptual Structure on Brand Performance** FELIPE M. AFFONSO CHRIS JANISZEWSKI Felipe M. Affonso (), and Chris Janiszewski (). **Table of Contents** [WEB APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 1 [3](#web-appendix-a-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-1)](#web-appendix-a-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-1) [*Facebook Ads Used in the Study* [3](#facebook-ads-used-in-the-study)](#facebook-ads-used-in-the-study) [*Pretest Product Positioning and Product Attractiveness* [6](#pretest-product-positioning-and-product-attractiveness)](#pretest-product-positioning-and-product-attractiveness) [*Pretest Perceptual Structure of Replicate 1* [7](#pretest-perceptual-structure-of-replicate-1)](#pretest-perceptual-structure-of-replicate-1) [*Pretest Perceptual Structure of Replicate 2* [9](#pretest-perceptual-structure-of-replicate-2)](#pretest-perceptual-structure-of-replicate-2) [*Additional Metrics* [9](#additional-metrics)](#additional-metrics) [*Analyses Split by Replicate* [10](#analyses-split-by-replicate)](#analyses-split-by-replicate) [WEB APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 2 [12](#web-appendix-b-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-2)](#web-appendix-b-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-2) [*Sample Size Determination* [12](#sample-size-determination)](#sample-size-determination) [*Materials* [12](#materials)](#materials) [*Perceptual Structure Pretest and Robustness of Manipulations* [17](#perceptual-structure-pretest-and-robustness-of-manipulations)](#perceptual-structure-pretest-and-robustness-of-manipulations) [*Pretest Attractiveness* [26](#pretest-attractiveness)](#pretest-attractiveness) [WEB APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 3 [27](#web-appendix-c-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-3)](#web-appendix-c-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-3) [*Availability of Information per Brand* [27](#availability-of-information-per-brand)](#availability-of-information-per-brand) [*Survey Instructions and Definitions for the Perceptual Structure Scale* [30](#survey-instructions-and-definitions-for-the-perceptual-structure-scale)](#survey-instructions-and-definitions-for-the-perceptual-structure-scale) [*Analyses using the Brand Finance Valuation and the Perceptual Structure Scale* [30](#analyses-using-the-brand-finance-valuation-and-the-perceptual-structure-scale)](#analyses-using-the-brand-finance-valuation-and-the-perceptual-structure-scale) [*Analyses Using a Structure Index (Symmetry, Balance, Regularity, and Geometry)* [32](#analyses-using-a-structure-index-symmetry-balance-regularity-and-geometry)](#analyses-using-a-structure-index-symmetry-balance-regularity-and-geometry) [*Additional Analyses and Robustness Tests for Perceptual Structure* [34](#additional-analyses-and-robustness-tests-for-perceptual-structure)](#additional-analyses-and-robustness-tests-for-perceptual-structure) [*Robustness Tests Involving Brand Personality Dimensions and the Perceptual Structure Scale* [35](#robustness-tests-involving-brand-personality-dimensions-and-the-perceptual-structure-scale)](#robustness-tests-involving-brand-personality-dimensions-and-the-perceptual-structure-scale) [*Robustness Tests Involving Brand Personality Dimensions and Perceptual Structure Index* [36](#robustness-tests-involving-brand-personality-dimensions-and-perceptual-structure-index)](#robustness-tests-involving-brand-personality-dimensions-and-perceptual-structure-index) [WEB APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 4 [37](#web-appendix-d-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-4)](#web-appendix-d-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-4) [*Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* [37](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any)](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any) [*Materials* [37](#materials-1)](#materials-1) [WEB APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 5A [42](#web-appendix-e-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-5a)](#web-appendix-e-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-5a) [*Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* [42](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any-1)](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any-1) [*Discriminant Analysis* [42](#discriminant-analysis)](#discriminant-analysis) [*Materials* [42](#materials-2)](#materials-2) [WEB APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 5B [45](#web-appendix-f-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-5b)](#web-appendix-f-additional-methodological-details-and-analyses-for-study-5b) [*Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* [45](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any-2)](#sample-size-determination-and-data-exclusions-if-any-2) [*Discriminant Analysis* [45](#discriminant-analysis-1)](#discriminant-analysis-1) [*Materials* [45](#materials-3)](#materials-3) [WEB APPENDIX G: REFERENCES FOR THE WEB APPENDIX [50](#web-appendix-g-references-for-the-web-appendix)](#web-appendix-g-references-for-the-web-appendix) [*Reference List* [50](#reference-list)](#reference-list) [WEB APPENDIX H: REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURE IN THE MARKETPLACE [51](#web-appendix-h-real-world-examples-of-structure-in-the-marketplace)](#web-appendix-h-real-world-examples-of-structure-in-the-marketplace) [*Structured Brand Logos and/or Typefaces:* [51](#structured-brand-logos-andor-typefaces)](#structured-brand-logos-andor-typefaces) [*Unstructured Brand Logos and/or Typefaces:* [52](#unstructured-brand-logos-andor-typefaces)](#unstructured-brand-logos-andor-typefaces) [*Structured Product Shapes, Packaging, and Imagery:* [53](#structured-product-shapes-packaging-and-imagery)](#structured-product-shapes-packaging-and-imagery) [*Unstructured Product Shapes, Packaging, and Imagery:* [54](#unstructured-product-shapes-packaging-and-imagery)](#unstructured-product-shapes-packaging-and-imagery) [*Structured Assortments and Product Displays:* [55](#structured-assortments-and-product-displays)](#structured-assortments-and-product-displays) [*Unstructured Assortments and Product Displays:* [61](#unstructured-assortments-and-product-displays)](#unstructured-assortments-and-product-displays) [*Structured Environments:* [65](#structured-environments)](#structured-environments) [*Unstructured Environments:* [76](#unstructured-environments)](#unstructured-environments) [WEB APPENDIX I: TABLE 1 REFERENCES [84](#web-appendix-i-table-1-references)](#web-appendix-i-table-1-references) These materials have been supplied by the authors to aid in the understanding of their paper. The AMA is sharing these materials at the request of the authors. # WEB APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 1 ## *Facebook Ads Used in the Study* +++ | Replicate 1 Unstructured Perception, | Replicate 1 Structured Perception, | | | | | Hedonic | Hedonic | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | +:==============================================================================================================================================:+:========================================================================================================================================================:+ | Replicate 1 Unstructured Perception, Utilitarian | Replicate 1 Structured Perception, Utilitarian | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | +++ +++ | Replicate 2 Unstructured Perception, Hedonic | Replicate 2 Structured Perception, Hedonic | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | +=================================================+================================================================================================================================================+ +++ | Replicate 2 Unstructured Perception, Utilitarian | Replicate 2 Structured Perception, Utilitarian | | | | | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] | +=========================================================================================================================================================+=================================================================================================================================================================+ ## *Pretest Product Positioning and Product Attractiveness* Before launching the ads, we pretested them to ensure that the perceptual structure and product positioning manipulations were working as intended. Specifically, we first created the ads on the Facebook platform, saved the images, and pretested the actual ads on MTurk (N = 429). Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product positioning: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (product replicate) between-subjects design. To assess product positioning, we asked participants to provide their perceptions of the advertised perfume (1 = "utilitarian (satisfies useful needs)" and 9 = "hedonic (provides pleasure)"; 1 = "functional (performs practical functions)" and 9 = "experiential (provides experiences and indulgences)"; and 1 = "instrumental (provides material benefits)" and 9 = "transformational (transforms the consumption experience")$\ (\alpha = \ .$``{=html}82). Because greater values mean higher hedonic perception, we will refer to this measure as hedonic perception. We also asked how attractive the advertised perfume was (1 = "not attractive at all," and 9 = "very attractive"). There was no three-way interaction between perceptual structure, product positioning, and replicate on hedonic perception (F(1, 421) = .23, *p* = .632), suggesting that the pattern of results is similar across replicates. Thus, we collapsed across replicates for the subsequent analyses. There was only a main effect (F(1, 425) = 7.81, *p* = .005, ${\widehat{\omega}}_{p}^{2}$ = .016) of product positioning on hedonic perception, with no main effect (F(1, 425) = .02, *p* = .898) or interaction (F(1, 425) = .404, *p* = .53) involving the perceptual structure manipulation. As predicted, the perfumes with hedonic positioning (M = 6.38, SD = 1.77) were perceived as more hedonic than the utilitarian positioned perfumes (M = 5.89, SD = 1.83). Finally, there were no effects on perceived attractiveness (all F's NS). Collectively, these results suggest that the Facebook Ads manipulated product positioning as intended, and that the perfumes were equally attractive. ## *Pretest Perceptual Structure of Replicate 1* One hundred Prolific participants were randomly assigned to a 2-cell (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) design. Participants saw one of the perfumes, with no positioning statement, and responded to the perceptual structure measure. We measured perceptual structure by explaining the definition of each of five items before administering the items. Specifically, we told participants: *We want you to rate the visual characteristics of the product on five different characteristics. Please read about the characteristics below.* *(Incohesive - Cohesive) An image can contain several parts. When the parts easily join to create an entire image, the image is cohesive. When the parts are unrelated or contradictory, so that they are hard to join, the image is incohesive.* *(Heterogeneous - Homogeneous) An image can have features (e.g., font, color scheme, shapes, textures). When the features are similar (e.g., all the letters are the same size; objects have the color, shape, or texture), the image is more homogeneous. When the features are dissimilar, the image is more Heterogeneous.* *(Unpredictable - Predictable) An image can have multiple parts. When a part of an image repeats in multiple places, the image is predictable (e.g., you can predict one half of a figure from the other). When a part of an image does not repeat in multiple places, the image is unpredictable.* *(Unstable - Stable) When you see the same thing no matter where you focus (i.e., you see a single, enduring image), the image is stable. When you see a different thing depending on where you focus (i.e., what you see depends on where you look), the image is unstable.* *(Unsystematic - Systematic) When it is easy to categorize or organize the elements in a way that makes sense, the image is systematic. When it is difficult to categorize or organize the elements in a way that makes sense, the image is unsystematic.* After explaining the item definitions, participants saw the replicate image. Below the replicate, we told participants: "Please look carefully at the product above and consider its visual characteristics and elements (e.g., colors, shapes, forms, lines, textures, objects). How would you evaluate the product?" We designed the measure such that there would be a shorter version of the explanations above each item: [Qualtrics survey interface screenshot showing a Facebook-style ad stimulus with the "Horizon" perfume and study questions below, including evaluation scales and demographic measures.] *Results*. The perceptual structure measure had high reliability (α = .78). Participants perceived the package with a structured design had higher perceptual structure (M = 6.52, SD = 1.42) than the package with an unstructured design (M = 5.55, SD = 1.64; (F(1, 98) = 10.01, *p* = .002). ## *Pretest Perceptual Structure of Replicate 2* One hundred Prolific participants were randomly assigned to a 2-cell (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) design. The pretest had the exact same procedure as the one we used in replicate 1, except for the replicate. *Results.* The perceptual structure measure had high reliability (α = .88). Participants perceived the package with a structured design had higher perceptual structure (M = 7.06, SD = 1.61) than the package with an unstructured design (M = 6.05, SD = 1.74; (F(1, 98) = 9.21, *p* = .003). ## *Additional Metrics* ++ | **Facebook Ads Metrics (Study 1)** | +:=============================:+:===============:+:===============:+:===============:+:===============:+ | Metric | Product Positioning | | | | | | Perception | | +++ | | Utilitarian | Hedonic | | +++++ | | Structured | Unstructured | Structured | Unstructured | ++++++ | Impressions | 20940 | 20920 | 19890 | 20663 | ++++++ | Link Clicks | 529 | 380 | 403 | 525 | ++++++ | CTR (Link Click-Through Rate) | 2.53% | 1.82% | 2.03% | 2.54% | ++++++ | Reach | 19757 | 19712 | 18446 | 19448 | ++++++ | Unique Link Clicks | 481 | 353 | 373 | 489 | ++++++ | Unique CTR | 2.43% | 1.79% | 2.02% | 2.51% | ++++++ | Cost per Link Click | \$0.18 | \$0.26 | \$0.23 | \$0.18 | ++++++ Notes: Impression is the number of times an ad appears on a screen. Link clicks refer to the number of clicks within the ad. CTR is the percentage of times people saw the ad (impression) and performed a link click. Reach is the number of people who saw the ad at least once (it differs from impressions because impressions may include multiple views of an ad by the same people). Unique link clicks refer to the number of people who performed a link click. Unique CTR is the percentage of people who saw the ad and performed a link click. Cost per link click is the average cost for each link click. Additional information can be found at Facebook's Business Help Center (). ## *Analyses Split by Replicate* *Replicate 1 CTR analyses.* We ran a 2 (perceptual structure) x 2 (product positioning) Poisson log-linear model, which revealed the predicted interaction (χ^2^(1) = 17.62, p \< .001). As predicted, perceptual structure increased CTR when the product was positioned as utilitarian (CTR~structured~ = 2.55% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 1.75%; χ^2^(1) = 15.75, p \< .001), but decreased CTR when the product was positioned as hedonic (CTR~structured~ = 2.46% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 2.90%; χ^2^(1) = 3.86, p = .050). *Replicate 2 CTR analyses.* We ran a 2 (perceptual structure) x 2 (product positioning) Poisson log-linear model, which revealed the predicted interaction (χ^2^(1) = 18.79, p \< .001). As predicted, perceptual structure increased CTR when the product was positioned as utilitarian (CTR~structured~ = 2.51% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 1.89%; χ^2^(1) = 9.39, p = .002), but decreased CTR when the product was positioned as hedonic (CTR~structured~ = 1.58% vs. CTR~unstructured~ = 2.19%; χ^2^(1) = 9.96, p = .002). ++ | **Facebook Ads Metrics for Each Replicate (Study 1)** | +:===================:+:=============:+:=============:+:=============:+:=============:+ | Metric | Replicate 1 | | +++ | | Utilitarian | Hedonic | | +++++ | | Structured | Unstructured | Structured | Unstructured | ++++++ | Impressions | 9935 | 10801 | 10047 | 10155 | ++++++ | Link Clicks | 253 | 189 | 247 | 295 | ++++++ | CTR | 2.55% | 1.75% | 2.46% | 2.90% | ++++++ | Reach | 9287 | 10208 | 9252 | 9568 | ++++++ | Unique Link Clicks | 225 | 178 | 229 | 272 | ++++++ | Unique CTR | 2.42% | 1.74% | 2.48% | 2.84% | ++++++ | Cost per Link Click | \$0.19 | \$0.27 | \$0.18 | \$0.16 | ++++++ | Metric | Replicate 2 | | +++ | | Utilitarian | Hedonic | | +++++ | | Structured | Unstructured | Structured | Unstructured | ++++++ | Impressions | 11005 | 10119 | 9843 | 10508 | ++++++ | Link Clicks | 276 | 191 | 156 | 230 | ++++++ | CTR | 2.51% | 1.89% | 1.58% | 2.19% | ++++++ | Reach | 10470 | 9504 | 9194 | 9880 | ++++++ | Unique Link Clicks | 256 | 175 | 144 | 217 | ++++++ | Unique CTR | 2.45% | 1.84% | 1.57% | 2.20% | ++++++ | Cost per Link Click | \$0.18 | \$0.25 | \$0.31 | \$0.21 | ++++++ # WEB APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 2 ## *Sample Size Determination* There were 10 pairs of replicates and 2 shopping goals. We wanted 100 choices per replicate per shopping goal, which would result in a total of 2000 choices. Because each participant made 10 choices, we determined the final sample size as 200. We preregistered (preregistration: ) and collected 200 participants. This was the final sample after screening out participants who failed the attention check (n = 12). The data collection program was written so that those who failed the attention check exited the survey prior to receiving the manipulations / dependent measures. ## *Materials* **CONSUMER DECISION MAKING**   We are investigating consumers\' personal preferences and opinions. You will read different scenarios and make a choice. Please click the arrow button to continue. Participants made 10 choices. Each choice had a layout similar to the one below. The example shows a utilitarian shopping goal with the perfumes pair. [Survey interface screenshot showing experimental stimuli and measurement items.] Each replicate pair could be shown with one of two shopping goals. We will list every replicate and their associated shopping goals. We note that the presentation order of the replicates (and the choice options) was counterbalanced. The hedonic shopping goal is described inside the brackets. **Spa** Imagine you are looking for a spa where you can get a massage that provides immediate pain relief and reduces body fatigue \[is enjoyable and relaxes your body\]. Which spa would you choose? [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] **Grocery Store** Imagine you are looking for a grocery store that sells fresh food and produce. You find two stores (below) that claim to offer low prices, convenience, and member benefits \[an enjoyable experience, exciting products, and a pleasurable environment\]. Which one would you choose? [Bubble chart from study data analysis showing brand structure scores.][Retail environment or store interior photograph illustrating visual merchandising principles.] **Sunglasses** Imagine you are looking for sunglasses that provide superior UV protection, comfort, and durability \[superior style, designer frames, and novelty\]. Which brand would you choose? [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] **Headphone** Imagine you are looking for headphones that provide superior performance functions, battery life, and comfort \[superior personalization functions, entertainment, and fun\]. Which brand would you choose? [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] **Artisan Soaps** Imagine you want to buy an artisan soap that revitalizes old skin, protects against infection, and removes sticky impurities \[relaxes your body, eases your state of mind, and is pleasant to use\]. Which bar would you choose? [Product photo: Artisan Soap - Sinus Soother (LIMITED EDITION) - Joyful Brands][Product photo: Oatmeal Soap Handmade] **Perfume** Imagine you are shopping for a perfume that is long-lasting and great for work / everyday occasions \[delightful and great for special / fun occasions\]. Which perfume would you choose? [Facebook-style sponsored advertisement for "Horizon" Eau de Parfum by PerfumeGallery.com, showing a perfume bottle with visual design manipulated for perceptual structure conditions.][Facebook-style sponsored advertisement for "Horizon" Eau de Parfum by PerfumeGallery.com, showing a perfume bottle with visual design manipulated for perceptual structure conditions.] **Coffee** Imagine you want to buy a coffee that enhances concentration and alertness \[has a delightful taste and is enjoyable to drink\]. Which coffee would you choose? [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.][Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] **Gift Shop** Imagine you are looking for a gift shop that provides a hassle-free shopping experience and reasonable pricing (an enjoyable shopping experience and exciting options). Which gift shop do you think is the best for your needs? [Retail photo: 3 Hard Techniques To Optimize Your Visual Merchandising - Business 2 Community][Retail photo: Museums gift shops make money and shape our understanding of art - Vox] **Spa Product Store** Imagine you are looking for a store that specialize in spa products that have superior performance, durability, and money-back guarantee? \[inspire, invigorate, and stimulate your body and mind\]. Which spa store would you choose? [Photo: Tri-Village Magazine - Holiday Gift Guide - What To Buy For Mom - What To Buy for Holidays - Christmas Gift Ideas - Holiday Gift Ideas - Best Holiday Gifts - Local][Interior photo: Discover The Palm Beaches - West Palm Beach - Travel - Travel Diaries - Staycation - BisousBrittany - Bisous,Brittany - SiSpa] **Restaurant** Imagine you are looking for a place to eat while on vacation. You want a restaurant that provides a fast, reliable, sophisticated \[an entertaining, exciting, and enjoyable\] experience. Which restaurants would you choose? [Interior photo: Greenbelt Hotels near University of Maryland - Crowne Plaza Greenbelt - Washington DC][Interior photo: LOT 1 Café, Bar \ & Restaurant / Enter Projects - ArchDaily] After participants' choices, we collected demographics ## *Perceptual Structure Pretest and Robustness of Manipulations* First, we pretested whether the set of options designed to generate structured versus unstructured perceptions varied on the perceptual structure scale. Second, we confirmed that perceptual structure was sensitive to a robust set of design manipulations. The robustness test was necessary to confirm that design principle manipulations influenced the hypothetical perceptual structure construct rather than unique empirical constructs reflected by their manipulation. **Pretest Perceptual Structure Perceptions** We conducted a pretest with 100 Prolific participants to confirm the perceptual structure scale differentiated the options designed to generate structured and unstructured perceptions for each of the 10 replicates. We wanted each replicate option (10 pairs with 2 options per pair = 20 options) to have 50 evaluations. Thus, each participant saw all 10 pairs, and we randomly assigned whether the participant saw the structured perception or the unstructured perception option for each pair. We told participants we were investigating consumers' personal preferences and opinions. We told them we wanted them to rate the visual characteristics of products, logos, or stores on five different characteristics. We showed them the definitions for each of the characteristics that indicate a structured perception using the same text from the pretest for Study 1. Then, participants saw one of the replicates and evaluated the replicate on the structure scale. We presented the scale with shorter versions of the definitions just as we did in Study 1's pretest. The pretest results confirmed the perceptual structure scale differentiated the structured stimulus and unstructured stimulus options for each of the 10 replicates. The "Structure Scale" line in table 1 (below) shows the results for all replicates. The manipulation of perceptual structure was successful for all replicates. The remining lines will be discussed in the next pretest. **Table 1 Study 2 Perceptual Structure and Robustness to Design Manipulations** [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] **Pretest Perceptual Structure Manipulations** The literature on organizational design principles is empiricist. Past researchers have manipulated symmetry, balance, organization, regularity, organic/geometric, proximity, and similarity and observed the effect of the manipulation on cognition or behavior. These researchers treated each design principle as a unique empirical construct. For example, a manipulation of symmetry (a property of a stimulus) is treated as a manipulation of the symmetry construct. We claim design principles (proximity, similarity, symmetry, common region, balance, completeness, geometry, organization, regularity) can be used to manipulate perceptual structure. One way to provide evidence that design principles are not only unique empirical constructs, but also manipulations of perceptual structure, is to show that perceptual structure is sensitive to the manipulation of each design principle, either alone or in combination with other design principles. If all design principles can be used to manipulate perceptual structure, then there must be something common among the design principles that is different than the unique influence of each empirical construct. We conducted a pretest with 1,000 MTurk participants to assess which design principles varied by replicate. Recall there were 20 replicate options (10 pairs with 2 options per pair). Each pair had an unstructured and a structured option. We wanted participants to evaluate each replicate option separately across a variety of design principles. Thus, we randomly assigned participants to one of the 20 replicate options. Participants read the following instructions: > *The things that we see (figures, objects, environments) are comprised of different parts - or elements. For example, the McDonald\'s logo is comprised of golden arches resembling an M. A picture of a store has different elements such as its shelves and products.* > > *These elements may (or may not) follow certain rules and principles. For example, a figure or object that follows the principle of symmetry has elements with sides identical to each other, such as the wings of a butterfly or the McDonald\'s logo. There exist many other principles, such as the principle of similarity. When the elements of a picture or scene (such as products in a store) are all similar to each other, then these elements are said to follow the principle of similarity.* > > *We want to investigate your perception about these principles in a variety of contexts. We will show you some images, illustrate some principles, and ask you question about these images.* Then, participant moved to the next page. On each subsequent page, participants read a description of one of the organizational principles described in Table 1 of the main text, a question about this principle pertaining the replicate option that they were randomly assigned to see, and a picture of the replicate. Below we show one example of a participant rating the structured spa in the balance organizational principle: [Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] Balance captures the notion that there is a center of suspension between two weights or portions of a figure or design object. For example, the figure on the left is balanced by the circle in the middle. The figure on the right is unbalanced.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **logo** below are **balanced** with one another? [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] Once this participant rated the "balance" principle, he or she moved to the next organizational principle. We covered all organizational principles mentioned in the main text (proximity, similarity, symmetry, common region, balance, completeness, geometry, organization, regularity) for all options. The organizational principles presentation order was counterbalanced. A subsequent evaluation page for this participant that has just rated balance could show the following (if common region was randomly selected as the next principle): [Statistical bar chart from study results showing interaction effects.] The principle of the common region states that objects located within the same closed region (common region) are grouped together. For example, the two leftmost columns on the left are grouped by a rectangle. The four elements on the top right are grouped by a rectangle. Therefore, these objects are perceived as grouped together by a rectangle.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **logo **below are **located within the same common region**? [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] The survey was designed such that each replicate option would have at least 50 evaluations across all organizational principles. Below, we will list every question used to measure the organizational principles. We note that the "field/descriptor" varied depending on the replicate. If the replicate stimulus was a logo, it showed the word "logo". If it was a product, it showed the word "product". If it was a store, it showed the word "store". All questions were evaluated with 1 = "not at all", and 9 = "very much". Participants evaluated one organizational principle at a time. The replicates are the same ones described in the materials. **Proximity** [Visual pattern stimulus used in experimental conditions, showing structured or unstructured design elements.] The principle of proximity states that when different elements are relatively close (proximal), they are grouped together and perceived as a unified object. For example, the circles on the left are perceived as a single object, whereas the circles on the right are perceived as two separate objects (two columns of circles).\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR}** below are **proximal **to each other? **Similarity** [Visual pattern stimulus used in experimental conditions, showing structured or unstructured design elements.] The principle of similarity states that when different elements share common features (similarity), they are grouped together and perceived as a unified object. For example, the circles on the left are grouped by color, and the circles on the right are grouped by shape.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the** \${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} **below are **similar **to each other? **Symmetry** [Logo icon used as experimental stimulus.] Symmetry is the extent to which the size, shape, and position of the interrelated parts of a whole correspond in reference to a point or axis - generally the middle of the object. Symmetrical elements tend to be perceived as a unified object. For example, the figure on the left has two symmetrical triangles that form a unified triangle. The figure on the right has two asymmetrical triangles.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the \${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} below are **symmetrical **to each other? **Common Region** [Statistical bar chart from study results showing interaction effects.] The principle of the common region states that objects located within the same closed region (common region) are grouped together. For example, the two leftmost columns on the left are grouped by a rectangle. The four elements on the top right are grouped by a rectangle. Therefore, these objects are perceived as grouped together by a rectangle.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} **below are **located within the same common region**? **Balance** [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] Balance captures the notion that there is a center of suspension between two weights or portions of a figure or design object. For example, the figure on the left is balanced by the circle in the middle. The figure on the right is unbalanced.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR}** below are **balanced** with one another? **Completeness** [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] The principle of completeness states that visual elements that are part of an incomplete stimulus tend to be grouped into a recognizable pattern. For example, the two figures on the left are complete, and the two figures on the right are incomplete.\   To which extent the \${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} below is comprised of **complete and/or full **elements? **Geometry** [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] Geometric objects resemble objects that are human made, planned, or measured, whereas organic objects are more irregular, unplanned, or natural. For example, the figures on the left are geometric, and the figures on the right are organic.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} **below are **geometric, planned, or measured**? **Organization** [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] Organization is the grouping of a spatial configuration of a set of elements based on identifiable criteria such as a product\'s brand, price, color, size, or any other visually salient features. For example, the figure on the left is organized by shape and/or color. The figure on the right is disorganized.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR}** below are **organized**? **Regularity** [Statistical chart from study results.] Regularity is the state or condition of having a fixed pattern, with equal or similar amounts of space or time between one and the next. For example, the figure on the left is regular and uniform because it follows a specific pattern for each row. The figure on the right is irregular and not uniform because there is no pattern between the circles.\   To which extent the different elements that are part of the **\${e://Field/DESCRIPTOR} **below have a **fixed or regular **pattern? The analysis is presented in Table 1 (above). Across the 10 replicated, each design principle was reflected in the stimulus manipulation. The implication is that perceptual structure can be manipulated by combinations of design principle, hence, it reflects a perceptual property that is common to the design principle manipulations. ## *Pretest Attractiveness* We conducted a pretest with 270 participants from MTurk to ensure that the choice options were equally preferred in the absence of a shopping goal. Participants saw 5 (out of 10) pairs and chose the one they considered the best option in the absence of a shopping goal. The pair presentation order was counterbalanced. We coded the choice as 0 for the unstructured perception option and 1 for the structured perception option, and compared all choices with .5. None of the comparisons were significant (all t's \< 1), showing that preference did not vary between options in the absence of a shopping goal. All choice shares were in the 45 to 55% range. # WEB APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 3 ## *Availability of Information per Brand* **Brand** **BrandZ Valuation** **Brand Finance Valuation** **Brand Asset Index** **BAV Control Variables** **BAV Perceptual Dimensions** 21st Century Fox No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3M No Yes Yes No Yes 7-Eleven Yes No Yes Yes Yes Accenture Yes Yes Yes No Yes Adobe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Aetna Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Airbnb.com Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Allstate No Yes Yes Yes Yes Amazon.com Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes American Airlines Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes American Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Anthem No Yes No No No Apple Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AT&T Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bank of America Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Boeing No Yes Yes No Yes booking.com No Yes Yes Yes Yes Budweiser Yes No Yes Yes Yes Burger King Yes No Yes Yes Yes Capital One No Yes Yes Yes Yes CBS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Century Link Yes No No No No Chase Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chevrolet No Yes Yes Yes Yes Chevron Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chipotle Yes No Yes Yes Yes Cisco Yes Yes Yes No Yes CITI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Clinique Yes No Yes Yes Yes Coca-Cola Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cognizant No Yes No No No Colgate Yes No Yes Yes Yes Costco Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CVS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dell Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Deloitte No Yes Yes No Yes Delta Airlines Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dish Network Yes No Yes Yes Yes Disney Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Domino\`s Pizza Yes No Yes Yes Yes eBay.com Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ESPN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Estée Lauder Yes No Yes Yes Yes ExxonMobil Yes Yes Yes No Yes Facebook Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes FedEx Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ford Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fox No Yes Yes Yes Yes Geico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GE Yes Yes Yes No Yes Gillette Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Goldman Sachs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Google Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HBO Yes No Yes Yes Yes HCA No Yes No No No Hewlett-Packard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HP Enterprise Yes No No No No Hilton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Home Depot Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Humana No Yes Yes Yes Yes IBM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Instagram Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Intel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes J.P. Morgan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes John Deere No Yes Yes No Yes Johnson & Johnson No Yes Yes Yes Yes KFC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lay\`s Yes No Yes Yes Yes LinkedIn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lockheed Martin No Yes Yes No Yes Lowe\`s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Marlboro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Marriott Yes No Yes Yes Yes Mastercard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes McDonald\`s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medtronic No Yes Yes No Yes Metlife No Yes Yes Yes Yes Microsoft Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Morgan Stanley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NBC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Netflix Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nike Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OptumRx No Yes Yes Yes Yes Oracle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pall Mall Yes No No No No Pampers Yes No Yes Yes Yes Paypal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pepsi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pinterest Yes No Yes Yes Yes Pizza Hut Yes No Yes Yes Yes PNC Bank Yes No Yes Yes Yes Progressive Insurance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Purina No Yes Yes Yes Yes PWC No Yes Yes No Yes Salesforce Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sam\`s Club No Yes Yes Yes Yes Southwest Airlines Yes No Yes Yes Yes Spectrum (cable) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sprint Yes No Yes Yes Yes Starbucks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State Farm Yes No Yes Yes Yes Subway Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes T.J. Maxx No Yes Yes Yes Yes Taco Bell Yes No Yes Yes Yes Target Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tata Group No Yes Yes No Yes TESLA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tide Yes No Yes Yes Yes T-Mobile Yes No Yes Yes Yes Twitter Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tyson No Yes Yes Yes Yes U.S. Bancorp Yes Yes Yes No Yes Uber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Union Pacific No Yes No No No United Airlines Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes UnitedHealthCare Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Universal Pictures No Yes Yes Yes Yes UPS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Verizon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Visa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Walgreens Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WalMart Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WarnerMedia No Yes Yes Yes Yes Wells Fargo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Whole Foods Yes No Yes Yes Yes XBOX Yes No Yes Yes Yes Xfinity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YouTube Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ## *Survey Instructions and Definitions for the Perceptual Structure Scale* Before rating the logos, participants read the definition of each perceptual structure measure, similar to the pretest in Study 1: (Incohesive - Cohesive) An image can contain several parts. When the parts easily join to create an entire image, the image is cohesive. When the parts are unrelated or contradictory, so that they are hard to join, the image is incohesive.  (Heterogeneous - Homogeneous) An image can have features (e.g., font, color scheme, shapes, textures). When the features are similar (e.g., all the letters are the same size; objects have the color, shape, or texture), the image is more homogeneous. When the features are dissimilar, the image is more Heterogeneous. (Unpredictable - Predictable) An image can have multiple parts. When a part of an image repeats in multiple places, the image is predictable (e.g., you can predict one half of a figure from the other). When a part of an image does not repeat in multiple places, the image is unpredictable. (Unstable - Stable) When you see the same thing no matter where you focus (i.e., you see a single, enduring image), the image is stable. When you see a different thing depending on where you focus (i.e., what you see depends on where you look), the image is unstable.  (Unsystematic - Systematic) When it is easy to categorize or organize the elements in a way that makes sense, the image is systematic. When it is difficult to categorize or organize the elements in a way that makes sense, the image is unsystematic. ## *Analyses using the Brand Finance Valuation and the Perceptual Structure Scale* Analyses using the BrandZ and Brand Asset Index are reported in the main text. As a reminder, the control variables were (1) *brand usage* (percentage of respondents who used the brand at least occasionally and plan to do so in the future), (2) *brand preference* (percentage of participants who consider the brand as their preferred within a category), and (3) *recommendation behavior* (percentage of participants who would recommend the brand). *Brand Finance Valuation (with control variables).* We performed a perceptual structure of the brand logo (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian benefit score (continuous) regression on Brand Finance valuation. Because the distribution of the brand valuation amounts was right skewed (range = \$7.70B to \$220.79B, mean = \$28.32B, SD = \$34.61B, skewness = \$3.51B), we normalized it using a log-transformation. The analysis revealed a significant interaction (ß = .26, t(76) = 3.36, *p* = .001). The floodlight analysis revealed that the Johnson-Neyman points for p \< .05 for the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 5.25 (0.52 SD below the mean) and 7.05 (1.30 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) considerations, structured (unstructured) perceptions of logos are associated with increased financial valuation. *Brand Finance Valuation (without control variables).* We performed a perceptual structure of the brand logo (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian benefit score (continuous) regression on Brand Finance valuation. Because the distribution of the brand valuation amounts was right skewed (range = \$7.70B to \$220.79B, mean = \$26.23B, SD = \$32.00B, skewness = \$3.84B), we normalized it using a log-transformation. The analysis revealed a significant interaction (ß = .19, t(96) = 2.42, *p* = .017). The floodlight analysis revealed that the Johnson-Neyman points for p \< .05 for the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 4.40 (1.25 SD below the mean) and 7.24 (1.41 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) considerations, structured (unstructured) perceptions of logos are associated with increased financial valuation. ## *Analyses Using a Structure Index (Symmetry, Balance, Regularity, and Geometry)* Organizational principles are manipulations of perceptual structure, thus, variations in organizational principles should also influence brand value. This demonstration is important for two reasons. First, our studies have assumed and demonstrated that organizational principles can be used to manipulate perceptual structure. This assumption should hold with secondary data on brand valuation. Second, visual design engineers operate at the level of construct operationalizations (design principles) rather than at the level of hypothetical constructs (perceptual structure). Hence, it is important to show that design principles predict brand performance. We measured four organizational principles of the logos in the same survey that measured the brand hedonic-utilitarian benefit (reported in the main text). For each of the brands, participants saw the logo "The \[brand\] logo is below," and were asked to indicate their perceptions of the organizational principle: "Look carefully at the figure. What are your perceptions of this logo?" with 1 = "symmetric" and 9 = "asymmetric"; 1 = "balanced" and 9 = "unbalanced"; 1 = "geometric" and 9 = "natural"; and 1 = "uniform" and 9 = "not uniform" as scale items (Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004). We collapsed across organizational principles and created a structure index (α = .95) at the brand level ranging from 1 to 9 (reverse-scored such that higher scores refer to more structure in a stimuli). The correlation between the structure index and the 5-item structured perceptions measure was .65 (*p* \< .001), suggesting that brands that had more organizational principle tend to score high (low) on the structure perceptions measure. *BrandZ Brand Valuation (with control variables).* We performed a brand logo structure index (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian benefit score (continuous) regression on brand valuation. Because the distribution of the brand valuation amounts was right skewed (range = \$6.51B to \$334.65B, mean = \$39.80B, SD = \$65.32B, skewness = \$3.32B), we normalized it a using log-transformation. In support of H1a and H2a, we found a significant interaction (ß = .49, t(85) = 4.33, *p* \< .001). To decompose this interaction, we conducted a floodlight analyses using PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes 2018). The floodlight analysis revealed that the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) points (p \< .05) on the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 4.52 (0.82 SD below the mean) and 5.86 (0.34 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning, organizational principles that generate perceptions of structured (unstructured) logos are associated with increased financial valuation. *Brand Finance Valuation (with control variables).* We performed a brand logo structure index (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian index (continuous) regression on Brand Finance valuation. Because the distribution of the brand valuation amounts was right skewed (range = \$7.70B to \$220.79B, mean = \$28.32B, SD = \$34.61B, skewness = \$3.51B), we normalized it using a log-transformation. The analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction (ß = .26, t(76) = 3.05, *p* = .003). The floodlight analysis revealed that the Johnson-Neyman points for p \< .05 for the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 4.69 (0.71 SD below the mean) and 7.10 (1.38 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning, organizational principles that generate a structured (unstructured) perception of logos are associated with increased financial valuation. *Brand Asset Index (with control variables).* A brand logo structure index (continuous) × brand hedonic-utilitarian index (continuous) regression on customer-based brand equity (BAIndex) revealed a significant interaction (ß = .20, t(101) = 3.37, *p* = .001. The floodlight analysis revealed that the J-N points (p \< .05) on the hedonic-utilitarian index moderator occurred at 3.82 (1.42 SD below the mean) and 5.76 (.25 SD above the mean). These results suggest that for brands associated with utilitarian (hedonic) positioning, organizational principles that generate a structured (unstructured) perception of logos are associated with increased financial valuation. ## *Additional Analyses and Robustness Tests for Perceptual Structure* We performed a series of additional analyses and robustness tests, both for the perceptual structure scale and the perceptual structure index, to bolster the validity of our findings. This test was important because individual organizational design principles have been linked to brand personality traits. Thus, it is possible that the correlation between perceptual structure and brand performance is spurious, with the true underlying cause being each design principle and its influence on perceptions of brand personality. To address this concern, we computed brand personality scores for each brand. VMLY&R uses binary assessments to measure consumers' perceptions of personality traits, then aggregates these assessments to determine the percentage of consumers who perceive a brand to have a certain personality trait. We averaged the percentages for the traits that corresponded to the brand personalities of excitement (daring, trendy, unique, fun, independent, and up-to-date; α = .75), sophistication (upper-class, glamorous, charming; α = .64), competence (reliable, intelligent, leader; α = .75), ruggedness (rugged), and sincerity (friendly, original, down-to-earth; α = .80). Excitement and sophistication are particularly interesting because excitement (sophistication) is associated with hedonic (utilitarian) evaluative dimensions. Hence, we performed separate analyses controlling for these. Because we have two measured of perceptual structure (perceptual structure scale, perceptual structure index), three dependent variables (two financial brand valuation measures and one customer-based brand equity measure), and several robustness tests (control for excitement and sophistication, control for all brand personality dimensions, control for brand buying behavior together with the brand personality dimension variables), we organized the results in two tables. We report the interaction results and the Johnson-Neyman points. Note that the brand personality scores for 121 brands were not available for each brand in each brand in the BrandZ or Brand Finance data set, hence, the degree of freedom will vary for the tests. The tables below list all three dependent variables (BrandZ Financial Valuation, Brand Finance Valuation, and the Brand Asset Index) and four sets of analyses: control for excitement and sophistication (while controlling vs. not for brand buying behavior) and control for all brand personality dimensions (while controlling vs. not for brand buying behavior). This resulted in four additional analyses per brand. The results show that when we control for several factors, including brand personality dimensions, the there is an influence of perceptual structure on brand performance. Similar to the analyses above and in the main text, the BrandZ and Brand Finance valuations use log-transformed dependent variables. ## *Robustness Tests Involving Brand Personality Dimensions and the Perceptual Structure Scale* +++++ | | | Excitement and Sophistication | All Brand Personality Dimensions | +:=================================:+:===================:+:===========================:+:=============================:+:==================================:+:===================================:+ | **Dependent Variable** | **Analysis** | With Control Variables | Personality Dimensions Only | With Control Variables | Personality Dimensions Only | +++++++ | Log of BrandZ Financial Valuation | Interaction | ß = .260, | ß = .21, t(91) = 1.97, | ß = .32, t(80) = 3.89, *p* \< .001 | ß = .21, t(88) = 2.42, | | | | | | | | | | | t(83) = 2.66, | *p* = .051 | | *p* = .018 | | | | | | | | | | | *p* = .009 | | | | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[3.64, 5.75\]\* | Above 5.86 | Outside of \[4.41, 5.84\] | Outside of \[3.35, 5.92\]\* | +++++++ | Log of Brand Finance Valuation | Interaction | ß = .21, | ß = .16, | ß = .20, t(71) = 2.69, *p* = .009 | ß = .124 , | | | | | | | | | | | t(74) = 2.67, | t(90) = 1.86, | | t(87) = 1.75, | | | | | | | | | | | *p* = .009 | *p* = .066 | | *p* = .084 | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[5.26, 7.21\]\* | Below 4.95\* | Outside of \[5.30, 7.28\]\* | Below 4.03 | +++++++ | Brand Asset Index | Interaction | ß = .160, | ß = .20, | ß = .146, t(96) = 3.90, *p* = .002 | ß = .120, t(112) = 1.96, *p* = .052 | | | | | | | | | | | t(99) = 3.26, | t(115) = 1.41, | | | | | | | | | | | | | *p =* .001 | *p =* .160 | | | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[4.66, 6.40\] | No points of significance\*\* | Outside of \[4.51, 5.92\] | Above 5.11 | +++++++ \*J-N interval for p\<.10 \*\* While not significant, the pattern of results is consistent with the main findings ## *Robustness Tests Involving Brand Personality Dimensions and Perceptual Structure Index* +++++ | | | Excitement and Sophistication | All Brand Personality Dimensions | +:=================================:+:===================:+:==========================:+:===========================:+:==================================:+:===================================:+ | **Dependent Variable** | **Analysis** | With Control Variables | Personality Dimensions Only | With Control Variables | Personality Dimensions Only | +++++++ | Log of BrandZ Financial Valuation | Interaction | ß = .47, | ß = .44, t(91) = 4.21, | ß = .37, t(80) = 3.70, | ß = 3.60 t(88) = 3.55, | | | | | | | | | | | t(83) = 4.31, | *p* \< .001 | *p* \< .001 | *p \<* .001 | | | | | | | | | | | *p* \< .001 | | | | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[4.65, 6.00 \] | Outside of \[4.80, 6.18\] | Outside of \[4.69, 6.33\] | Outside of \[4.90, 6.63\] | +++++++ | Log of Brand Finance Valuation | Interaction | ß = .264, | ß = .27, t(90) = 3.73, | ß = .22, t(71) = 2.69, *p* = .009 | ß = .23, | | | | | | | | | | | t(74) = 3.30, | *p* \< .001 | | t(87) = 3.12, | | | | | | | | | | | *p* = .001 | | | *p* = .002 | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[4.86, 7.04\] | Outside of \[5.00, 6.62\] | Outside of \[4.93, 7.18\]\* | Outside of \[5.05, 7.25\] | +++++++ | Brand Asset Index | Interaction | ß = .211, | ß = .509, t(115) = 3.08, | ß = .146, t(96) = 3.09, *p* = .003 | ß = .105, t(112) = 1.43, *p* = .156 | | | | | | | | | | | t(99) = 3.62, | *p =* .003 | | | | | | | | | | | | | *p \<* .001 | | | | | ++++++ | | J-N p\<.05 interval | Outside of \[4.26, 5.90\] | Outside of \[3.18, 5.20\]\* | Outside of \[3.44, 5.68\] | Above 4.75 | +++++++ \*J-N interval for p\<.10 \*\* While not significant, the pattern of results is consistent with the main findings # WEB APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 4 ## *Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* We preregistered (preregistration: ) and collected 100 participants per cell. No participants were removed from the analysis. ## *Materials* 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product positioning: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (product replicate) between-subjects design. **CONSUMER DECISION MAKING** We are investigating consumers\' personal preferences and opinions. Please click the arrow button to continue. **\[Utilitarian Library Framing Condition\]** Below, you will see a description and a picture of The Spectrum Library, a local library. The Spectrum Library provides a quiet, safe, and connected environment for personal productivity, both for kids and adults. Our wide selection of services offers multiple opportunities to inquire, search, and learn. The Spectrum Library provides access to newspapers, magazines, audiobooks, CDs, DVDs, and videos. There\'s free computer and Internet access, free Wi-Fi, and individual study rooms. In addition, we also offer research resources including free databases to the community. Finally, there are also employment, and career resources to the community, including events with career specialists. **\[Hedonic Library Framing Condition\]** Below, you will see a description and a picture of The Spectrum Library, a local library. The Spectrum Library provides a stimulating, pleasurable, and comfortable environment for personal growth, both for kids and adults. Our wide selection of services offers multiple opportunities to learn, discover, and have fun. The Spectrum Library provides access to many facilities, including common spaces for meeting and socializing, cafes (with monthly food tasting events), and modern cinema/media rooms. There\'s also a viewing space with a variety of exhibits featuring books, artifacts, artwork, and local student projects. In addition, we also support local and street artists by hosting small concerts and presentations to the community. Finally, there are also resources related to cultural events, including information about local cultural events in the community. **\[Structured Perception Library, Replicate 1\]** (High-resolution picture: ). [Interior photograph of a library environment manipulated for perceptual structure (structured: symmetric, mirrored, regular layout; unstructured: curved shelves, organic layout).] **\[Unstructured Perception Library, Replicate 1\]** (High-resolution picture: ). [Interior photograph of a library environment manipulated for perceptual structure (structured: symmetric, mirrored, regular layout; unstructured: curved shelves, organic layout).] **\[Structured Perception Library, Replicate 2\]** (High-resolution picture: ). [Interior photograph of a library environment manipulated for perceptual structure (structured: symmetric, mirrored, regular layout; unstructured: curved shelves, organic layout).] **\[Unstructured Perception Library, Replicate 2\]** (High-resolution picture: ). [Interior photograph of a library environment manipulated for perceptual structure (structured: symmetric, mirrored, regular layout; unstructured: curved shelves, organic layout).] "Please provide your overall evaluation for The Spectrum Library" (1 = "very bad" and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative" and 9 = "very positive"; and 1 = "very unfavorable" and 9 = "very favorable") "How effective do you think The Spectrum Library is at offering..." **\[Utilitarian Value\]\*** ("an effective learning environment?", "access to a large amount of information?", "professional development opportunities?", and "a safe environment?"; all with 1 = "not effective at all", and 9 = "very effective") "How effective do you think The Spectrum Library is at offering..." **\[Hedonic Value\]\*** ("interesting experiences?", "exciting experiences?", "unexpected experiences?", and "enjoyable experiences?" all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") \*The presentation order of the mediators was counterbalanced\* "The description and picture of the library was:" (1 = "difficult to process" vs. 9 = "easy to process"; 1 = "difficult to understand" vs. "9 = "easy to understand"; 1 = "required a lot of effort to understand" vs. 9 = "required no effort to understand"; and 1 = "very complex" vs. 9 = "very simple") :"How aesthetically pleasing is The Spectrum Library?" with 1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much "We want you to evaluate The Spectrum Library in terms of what you think it is most consistent at relative to what it claims to offer. This question is not about how well The Spectrum Library can offer what it claims to offer, but about what The Spectrum Library claims to offer (1 = "utilitarian (satisfies useful needs)" and 9 = "hedonic (provides pleasure)"; 1 = "functional (performs practical functions)" and 9 = "experiential (provides experiences and indulgences)"; and 1 = "instrumental (provides material benefits)" and 9 = "transformational (transforms the consumption experience") What are your perceptions of The Spectrum Library? The Spectrum Library is\... (1 = "symmetric" and 9 = "asymmetric"; 1 = "balanced" and 9 = "unbalanced); and 1 = "regular" and 9 = "irregular"). Demographics (Gender, Age) # WEB APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 5A ## *Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* We preregistered (preregistration: ) and collected 100 participants per cell. No participants were removed from the analysis. ## *Discriminant Analysis* We conducted a test of discriminant validity for the dependent measure (evaluation) and the mediator (utilitarian value). First, the average variance extracted (AVE) for evaluation and utilitarian value exceeded their squared correlation (AVE evaluation = .82; AVE utilitarian value = .58; squared correlation = .56) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Second, the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the correlation between the two factors excluded 1 for evaluation and utilitarian value (CI = \[.69; .81\]) (Bagozzi and Phillips 1982). Third, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was below the recommended threshold of 0.90 for evaluation and utilitarian value (.77) (Henseler et al. 2015). These three tests provide evidence for discriminant validity. ## *Materials* 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product claims: less diagnostic vs. more diagnostic) between-subjects design. **CONSUMER DECISION MAKING** We are investigating consumers\' personal preferences and opinions. Please click the arrow button to continue. **\[Unstructured Condition\]** [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] **\[Structured Condition\]** [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] Astro G S7 Pro is a smart, cordless stick vacuum cleaner excellent for multiple surfaces and pet hair cleaning. **\[Less Diagnostic Condition\]** The Astro G S7 Pro is fully charged quickly, has a long runtime, a large capacity dust cup, comes with a seal technology that captures almost all dust and allergens, and has a very long battery life. **\[More Diagnostic Condition\]** Astro G S7 Pro is fully charged in 30 minutes, runs for up to 70 minutes, has a 1-quart capacity dust cup, comes with a complete seal technology that captures 99.99% of dust and allergens, and has a 10-year battery life. **(The ad stayed throughout all the survey participants who clicked the next button saw the different questions, but the manipulations were on top of the page\]** "Please provide your overall evaluation for Astro G" (1 = "very bad," and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative," and 9 = "very positive"; and 1 = "very unfavorable," and 9 = "very favorable") "How effective do you think Astro G is at offering a cordless vacuum cleaner..." ("that charges quickly?", "with superior runtime?", "with a large dust cup capacity?", "with a high-efficient filter?", and "that is durable?"; all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") "The brand logo and description of Astro G S7 Pro was:" (1 = "difficult to process" vs. 9 = "easy to process"; 1 = "difficult to understand" vs. "9 = "easy to understand"; 1 = "required a lot of effort to understand" vs. 9 = "required no effort to understand"; and 1 = "very complex" vs. 9 = "very simple") What are your perceptions of Astro G\'s logo in terms of its visual characteristics? (1 = "symmetric" and 9 = "asymmetric"; 1 = "balanced" and 9 = "unbalanced"; 1 = "geometric" and 9 = "organic"; and 1 = "regular" and 9 = "irregular"). "How specific is the information about Astro G in describing the product's performance?," "How helpful is the information about Astro G for understanding the product's actual level of performance?," and "To what extent does the information about Astro G make you certain about the product's performance?" (with 1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much") Demographics (Gender, Age) # WEB APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS AND ANALYSES FOR STUDY 5B ## *Sample Size Determination and Data Exclusions (if any)* We preregistered (preregistration: ) and collected 100 participants per cell. No participants were removed from the analysis. ## *Discriminant Analysis* We conducted a test of discriminant validity for the dependent measure (evaluation) and the mediator (utilitarian value). First, the average variance extracted (AVE) for evaluation and hedonic value exceeded their squared correlation (AVE evaluation = .91; AVE hedonic value = .86; squared correlation = .74) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Second, the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the correlation between the two factors excluded 1 for evaluation and hedonic value (CI = \[.83; .89\]) (Bagozzi and Phillips 1982). Third, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was below the recommended threshold of 0.90 for evaluation and hedonic value (.87) (Henseler et al. 2015). These three tests provide evidence for discriminant validity. ## *Materials* 2 (perceptual structure: structured vs. unstructured) x 2 (product review: less diagnostic vs. more diagnostic) **CONSUMER DECISION MAKING** We are investigating consumers\' personal preferences and opinions. Please click the arrow button to continue. A new chocolate experience has arrived: Choco-Bliss! **\[Unstructured Condition\]** [Choco-Bliss chocolate package design manipulated for structured (similar, symmetric, regular, geometric patterns) vs. unstructured (dissimilar, asymmetric, organic, irregular patterns) perceptions.] **\[Structured Condition\]** [Brand name text label or experimental condition indicator.] **\[Less Diagnostic Review Condition\]** [Brand name text stimulus with structured/unstructured typography.] **\[More Diagnostic Review Condition\]** [Survey interface showing experimental ad stimulus with product image and measurement scales.] **(The ad was pictured throughout all the survey participants who clicked the next button saw the different questions, but the manipulations were on top of the page\]** Please provide your overall evaluation for Choco-Bliss: (1 = "very bad" and 9 = "very good"; 1 = "very negative" and 9 = "very positive"; and 1 = "very unfavorable" and 9 = "very favorable") ""How effective do you think Choco-Bliss is at offering..." ("pleasurable chocolates?", "delicious chocolates?", "enjoyable chocolates?", and "tasty chocolates?" all with 1 = "not effective at all" and 9 = "very effective") "The information about Choco-Bliss was\...:" (1 = "difficult to process" vs. 9 = "easy to process"; 1 = "difficult to understand" vs. "9 = "easy to understand"; 1 = "required a lot of effort to understand" vs. 9 = "required no effort to understand"; and 1 = "very complex" vs. 9 = "very simple") "How would you evaluate Choco-Bliss' chocolate visual elements? The visual elements are..." (1 = "symmetric" and 9 = "asymmetric"; 1 = "similar to each other" and 9 = "dissimilar to each other"; 1 = "regular" and 9 = "irregular"; and 1 = "geometric" and 9 = "organic") "How well does the review about Choco-Bliss describe the consumption experience?," "How helpful is the review about Choco-Bliss for understanding how one feels when eating the chocolate?," and "To which extent the review about Choco-Bliss help you anticipate the taste of the chocolate?" (with 1 = "not at all" and 9 = "very much") Demographics (Gender, Age) # WEB APPENDIX G: REFERENCES FOR THE WEB APPENDIX ## *Reference List* Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), "Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal," *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 27(3), 459489. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 18 (1), 3950. Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), *An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach*, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford. Henderson, Pamela W., Joan L. Giese, and Joseph A. Cote (2004), "Impression Management Using Typeface Design," *Journal of Marketing*, 68 (4), 6072. Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt (2015), "A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling," *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 43 (1), 115135. # WEB APPENDIX H: REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURE IN THE MARKETPLACE ## *Structured Brand Logos and/or Typefaces:* [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] [Logo icon used as experimental stimulus.][Geometric shape logo stimulus (structured perception).][Brand logo with company name.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.]![Volkswagen Logo Meaning and History \[Volkswagen symbol\]](media/image77.png) [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo with company name text.] [Brand logo: adidas ZX 500 Trainers - White/Blue - Shoes - ARKET IT - Adidas originals logo, Adidas logo wallpapers, Adidas logo] ## *Unstructured Brand Logos and/or Typefaces:* [Brand logo with company name.] [Brand image: Nike tagline voted most memorable brand slogan - Creative Bloq] [Brand image: Mountain Dew - Wikipedia] [Brand image: Marriott International, Inc. Archives - Symmons] [Brand logo: Spotify\'s Asymmetrical Strokes In Its Logo Design Are Irking Some Of Its Users - Brandikaran] [Brand image: YouTube] [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.][Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] [Brand logo stimulus from experimental materials.] [Brand logo: Gatorade logo after 2009 - Drinks logo, Gatorade, Logos] [Brand logo: Logo, icon Description automatically generated] [Brand logo: Burger King - Logopedia - Fandom] ## *Structured Product Shapes, Packaging, and Imagery:* [Product photo: Amazon.com : Wall Street/Bond No.9 Edp Spray 1.7 Oz (M) : Perfumes : Beauty][Product photo: Absolut Vodka 750ml - Crown Wine & Spirits][Product photo: Silent Pool Gin 750ml - Uptown Spirits - Fast Shipping] [Photo: Voss Artesian Still Water, 16.9 Fl Oz, 24 Count - Walmart.com - Walmart.com][Product photo: Simply Orange Pulp Free Orange Juice, 11.5 fl oz - Walmart.com - Walmart.com][Product photo: Lipton Lemon Iced Tea 20 fl. oz. - Walmart.com - Walmart.com] [Product photo: Silent Pool Distillers\' Colorado High CBD gin - Product Launch - Beverage Industry News - just-drinks][Product photo: Wisteria Blue Eau de Parfum (50mL) - Eau de parfum, Fragrance, Wisteria][Product photo: Kellogg\'s Frosted Flakes Cereal, 33.5 oz - Foods Co.] ## *Unstructured Product Shapes, Packaging, and Imagery:* [Product photo: Water Bottle Packaging Designs That Stands Out - AterietAteriet - Food Culture][Design photo: The World\'s Most Beautiful Alcohol Bottle Designs - TOMO DESIGN][Product photo: Anestasia Vodka Price & Reviews - Drizly] [Product photo: Ralphs - Tropicana Orange Juice Homestyle Some Pulp Bottle, 12 fl oz][Product photo: Image result for water bottle design][Product photo: Amazon.com: Kellogg\'s Corn Flakes Cereal - The Original & Best Breakfast Cereal, Fat-Free, 24 oz Box] [Product photo: Easy Shine Brown Sponge][Design photo: How Product Shape Design Influence Your Sales? - Blog][Product photo: CHEETOS® Crunchy FLAMIN\' HOT® Limón Cheese Flavored Snacks - Cheetos] ## *Structured Assortments and Product Displays:* [Retail photo: Streetology - Architizer - Clothing store displays, Retail merchandising, Retail store design] [Retail photo: Part Two: Apple Granted Four Series of Design Patents in Hong Kong covering Retail Display Units - Patently Apple] [Retail photo: Triple Your Retail Sales This Week- Hair Salon Tips] [Retail photo: Planogram Optimization at Store Level - RELEX Solutions] [Retail photo: 80+ Product Display ideas - retail design, store design, display] [Retail photo: Product display - Aveda institute, Top beauty products, Aveda] [Retail photo: What is visual merchandising and why is it so important? - eXPD8] [Product photo: Colour blocking packaging Kusmi Teashop in Marylebone Lane, London - Tea shop, Tea store, Tea packaging] [Retail photo: 3 Hard Techniques To Optimize Your Visual Merchandising - Business 2 Community] [Retail photo: How Visual Merchandising is Driving the Retail Industry? - by Pazo Inc - Pazo Operations Management System - Medium][Retail photo: More from Hay Copenhagen - INTERIORATOR in 2021 - Bedding shop, Retail store design, Shop interiors] [Retail photo: Pin by Chelsea Jones on Denim Merchandising - Color, Retail display, Visual merchandising] [Retail photo: 4 Cost-Effective Visual Merchandising Skills - Hamstech Online] [Retail photo: Glamshops Review] [Photo: Tri-Village Magazine - Holiday Gift Guide - What To Buy For Mom - What To Buy for Holidays - Christmas Gift Ideas - Holiday Gift Ideas - Best Holiday Gifts - Local] ## *Unstructured Assortments and Product Displays:* [Interior photo: Feel the comfort of a spa, anytime you choose!] [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] [Retail photo: Gift & Nature Shop at Tarpon Bay Explorers] [Retail photo: Museums gift shops make money and shape our understanding of art - Vox] [Retail environment or store interior photograph illustrating visual merchandising principles.] [Retail photo: Shopping in Asheville, NC - The Omni Grove Park Inn] [Interior photo: Discover The Palm Beaches - West Palm Beach - Travel - Travel Diaries - Staycation - BisousBrittany - Bisous,Brittany - SiSpa] ## *Structured Environments:* [Visual stimulus or image from study materials.] [Interior photo: Restaurants Near Greenbelt - Crowne Plaza] [Restaurant interior photograph illustrating structured or unstructured design principles.] [Retail photo: Creating an effective retail space - Design Middle East] [Interior photo: Fine dining in São Paulo - Fasano Restaurant - SamCora - A Fashion, Travel and Lifestyle Blog] [Retail photo: Liverpool Polanco Department Store, Mexico City (A.R.E Awards)] [Interior photo: Ananti Hilton Busan, Busan Updated 2022 Prices][Retail photo: Chinese Bookstore Provides a Futuristic Shopping Experience - Architectural Digest][Brand logo or visual stimulus from study materials.] [Interior photo: Learning Hub - Sign in - Restaurant interior design, Asian interior design, Interior design principles] [Retail photo: Workshop Palm Springs Crowned America\'s Top Restaurant Design for 2013] [Retail environment or store interior photograph illustrating visual merchandising principles.] [Visual pattern stimulus used in experimental conditions, showing structured or unstructured design elements.] [Interior photo: Prime - Bellagio Hotel - Wheelchair Jimmy Restaurant Accessibility Reviews] [Interior photo: Bellagio - Las Vegas, NV Meeting Rooms & Event Space - Northstar Meetings Group] [Product photo: Sotheby\'s Launches "Instant Cellars" and Wine Collection Services - Barron\'s] ## *Unstructured Environments:* [Interior photo: LOT 1 Cafe , Bar and Restaurant - Enter Projects - Arch2O.com] [Retail photo: Nemika Concept Store by Kohei Nawa, Tokyo Japan] [Retail environment or store interior photograph illustrating visual merchandising principles.] [Retail photo: FRAME - A multifunctional retail space in Shanghai changes with each season] [Retail photo: Contemporary Bookstore in China has Large Installation of Floating Paper] [Retail photo: Spar supermarket displays groceries between curved wooden ribs] [Design photo: Bold Curves and Colors in Food Court Interior Design] [Design photo: Curved Line- interior - Interior design awards, Interior architecture design, Architecture] [Retail photo: Architecture. Adorable Store Interior Design Ideas With Unique Curved Beige Ceiling Panel... - Store design interior, Boutique interior design, Modern interior design] [Interior photo: NEX designed restaurant with spiralling concrete wall and retractable curved glass system in London] # **WEB APPENDIX I: TABLE 1 REFERENCES** Ballantine, Paul W., Richard Jack, and Andrew Parsons (2010), "Atmospheric Cues and Their Effect on the Hedonic Retail Experience," *International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management*, 38 (8), 64153. Brown, James R. (2020), "The Competitive Structure of Restaurant Retailing: The Impact of Hedonic-utilitarian Patronage Motives," *Journal of Business Research*, 107 (C), 23344. Chen, Charlene Y., Leonard Lee, and Sandy J. Yap (2017), "Control Deprivation Motivates Acquisition of Utilitarian Products," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 43 (April), 103147. Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen Carson (2002), "Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior," *Journal of Retailing*, 77 (4), 51135. Chitturi, Ravindra, Rajagopal Raghunathan, and Vijay Mahajan (2008), "Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Benefits," *Journal of Marketing*, 72 (3), 4863. Hagtvedt, Henrik and Venessa M. Patrick (2014), "Consumer Response to Overstyling: Balancing Aesthetics and Functionality in Product Design," *Psychology & Marketing*, 31 (7), 51825. Huettl, Verina and Heribert Gierl (2012), "Visual Art in Advertising: The Effects of Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Product Positioning and Price Information," *Marketing Letters*, 23, 893904. Kivetz, Rand and Yuhuang Zheng (2017), "The Effects of Promotions on Hedonic versus Utilitarian Purchases," *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 27 (1), 5968. Klein, Kristina and Velentyna Melnyk (2016), "Speaking to the Mind or the Heart: Effects of Matching Hedonic versus Utilitarian Arguments and Products," *Marketing Letters: A Journal of Research in Marketing*, 27 (1), 13142. Kronrod, Ann and Shai Danziger (2013), "Wii Will Rock You!" The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 40 (December) 2013, 72639. Lin, Hsin-Hui, Yi-Shun Wang, and Chien-Hsiang Chou (2012), "Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Physical Game Systems Use Behavior," *International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction*, 28 (7), 44555. Lu, Jingyi, Zhengyan Liu, Zhe Fang (2016), "Hedonic Products for You, Utilitarian Products for Me," *Judgment and Decision Making*, 11 (4), 33241. Okada, Erika M. (2005), "Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods," *Journal of Marketing Research*, 42 (1), 4353. Ratner, Rebecca K. and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2015), "Inhibited from Bowling Alone," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 42 (August), 26683. Roy, Rajat and Sharon Ng (2012), "Regulatory Focus and Preference Reversal between Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption," *Journal of Consumer Behaviour*, 11 (1), 8188. To, Pui-Lai, Chechen Liao, and Tzu-Hua Lin (2007), "Shopping Motivations on Internet: A Study based on Utilitarian and Hedonic Value," *Technovation*, 27 (12), 77487. Woolley, Kaitlin and Ayelet Fishbach (2016), "For the Fun of It: Harnessing Immediate Rewards to Increase Persistence in Long-Term Goals," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 42 (April), 95266. [^1]: The web appendix reports all stimuli, materials, additional methodological details, additional analyses (if any), and data exclusions (if any) for all experiments. We provide the link for preregistrations in the text. The raw data and code for all studies (except for study 3, which involves proprietary data) are available at the Open Science Framework (). [^2]: Mizik (2014) and Mizik and Jacobson (2008) provide detailed descriptions of the BAV model. [^3]: There were 128 unique brands in the two top-100 lists, with 72 brands simultaneously present in both rankings. Seven out of the 128 brands are not tracked by VMLY&R, and therefore were not available in the data set: Anthem, Century Link, Cognizant, HCA, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, PallMall, and Union Pacific. [^4]: Of the 121 brands for which the BAIndex is available, control variable data for thirteen brands (3M, Accenture, Boeing, Cisco, Deloitte, ExxonMobil, General Electric, John Deere, Lockheed Martin, Medtonic, PWC, Tata Group, US Bank) were not available. Thus, the analyses reported in the main text do not include these brands. Web Appendix C provides a list that details what information is available for each of the brands, and analyses without the control variables.