Does social distancing affect the processing of brand logos?
brand logos
distancing effect
perception
social distancing
spaced
Journal
Brain and behavior
ISSN: 2162-3279
Titre abrégé: Brain Behav
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101570837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
revised:
12
12
2021
received:
04
08
2021
accepted:
29
12
2021
pubmed:
26
2
2022
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
25
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Social distancing and isolation have been imposed to contrast the spread of COVID-19. The present study investigates whether social distancing affects our cognitive system, in particular the processing of different types of brand logos in different moments of the pandemic spread in Italy. In a size discrimination task, six different logos belonging to three categories (letters, symbols, and social images) were presented in their original format and spaced. Two samples of participants were tested: one just after the pandemic spread in Italy, the other one after 6 months. Results showed an overall distancing effect (i.e., spaced stimuli are processed slower than original ones) that interacted with the sample, revealing a significant effect only for participants belonging to the second sample. However, both groups showed a distancing effect modulated by the type of logo as it only emerged for social images. Results suggest that social distancing behaviors have been integrated in our cognitive system as they appear to affect our perception of distance when social images are involved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35212187
doi: 10.1002/brb3.2501
pmc: PMC8933757
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2501Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Nov;7(11):483-8
pubmed: 14585444
Cognition. 2021 Jan;206:104481
pubmed: 33075568
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Feb;83(2):543-545
pubmed: 33506352
J Exp Psychol. 1971 Oct;90(2):227-34
pubmed: 5134329
Cogn Emot. 2020 Jun;34(4):633-642
pubmed: 31496360
Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Jun;175:110706
pubmed: 33551529
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 20;10(7):e039334
pubmed: 32690752
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Jun;38(3):561-9
pubmed: 22545601
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Feb;52(1):388-407
pubmed: 31016684
Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 09;12:650715
pubmed: 33935910
Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Dec;1(4):476-90
pubmed: 24203555
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1208-15
pubmed: 23696199
Psychogeriatrics. 2021 Jul;21(4):540-551
pubmed: 33955115
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 18;12:652086
pubmed: 33815233
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015 Sep;160:170-7
pubmed: 26253595
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243023
pubmed: 33284812
Behav Res Methods. 2012 Dec;44(4):1255-65
pubmed: 22437511
Nature. 1996 Jun 6;381(6582):520-2
pubmed: 8632824
Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 06;5:1106
pubmed: 25339927
Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jan;49(2):238-46
pubmed: 21110990
Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):495-500
pubmed: 7991347
Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):152-60
pubmed: 15686582
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 25;11(1):4636
pubmed: 33633303
Brain Behav. 2022 Mar;12(3):e2501
pubmed: 35212187
Neurol Sci. 2021 Jul;42(7):2625-2635
pubmed: 33914195
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 May;76(4):914-30
pubmed: 24510424
Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 17;11:561609
pubmed: 33041925
Psychol Res. 2004 Dec;69(1-2):22-9
pubmed: 14648224
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep;48(3):1086-99
pubmed: 26170056
J Exp Psychol. 1969 Aug;81(2):275-80
pubmed: 5811803
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 24;12:573846
pubmed: 33746815