在企業品牌的建立之下，增加企業品牌形象的研究有許多，例如品牌資產、品牌名稱、品牌的標誌設計，若是從品牌標誌圖案層面來探討，就有非常廣泛的內容可以討論。品牌標誌可以分成圖像型、文字形、混和型。本研究將根據圖像型品牌標誌深入研究，分為「抽象性品牌標誌」與「具象性品牌標誌」。本研究以品牌標誌屬性為自變數，應變數為產品種類數量、產品連結強度、產品差異性、產品類別，其中又根據想像能力來當作調節變數，調節品牌標誌屬性與產品應變數之間的關係。
問卷調查總共有三部分，第一部分為品牌標誌測驗，受試者需要根據問卷上面的標誌圖案來寫下可能代表著什麼樣的產品與服務，再根據自己寫下的產品與服務，選擇產品服務和品牌標誌的連結強度(1-7點)。需要注意的是，本研究問卷有兩份，分成抽象品牌標誌版本與具象品牌標誌版本，兩版本差別僅在於，第一部分分成抽象與具象兩種相同代表物品的品牌標誌，例如抽象籃球與具象籃球，其餘第二部分想像能力測量與第三部分受試者基本資料調查的題目皆相同。
本研究利用受試者組間設計的實驗方法，紀錄受試者ID編號與分別在不同時間發放問卷，來確保填寫兩版本問卷的所有受試者能夠分隔開來，以避免同一個受試者填寫了抽象品牌標誌版本問卷，又填寫了具象品牌標誌問卷。本研究利用Prolific平台來蒐集問卷調查的樣本資料，受試者包含歐洲地區和幾個非洲、亞洲、中南美國家，年齡層範圍在20至60歲之間。扣除無效問卷後，抽象品牌標誌版本總共收集了121份調查，具象品牌標誌版本總共收集了123份調查。
研究結果證實了：(1)不是所有人觀看抽象品牌標誌都會比具象品牌標誌想到更多的產品種類數量，但如果是想像力較高的人，他們就會在觀看抽象品牌標誌時想到更多的產品種類數量 (2)抽象品牌標誌聯想到的產品種類，確實比具象品牌標誌有更弱的連結強度；此外，想像能力並不會影響觀看抽象或具象品牌標誌所聯想的產品之連結強度 (3)抽象品牌標誌使人聯想到的產品種類差異性確實比具象品牌標誌更大；此外，想像能力並不會影響觀看抽象或具象品牌標誌所聯想到的產品之差異性 (4)抽象品牌標誌不會讓人想到更多象徵性產品，具象品牌標誌也不會讓人想到更多功能性產品。

Under the establishment of corporate brand, there are many studies on increasing corporate brand image, such as brand equity, brand name, and brand logo design. If we discuss it from the pattern of brand logo, there will be a very wide range of content to discuss. Brand logos can be divided into image type, text type, and mixed type. This research will be based on the in-depth study of image-based brand logos, which are divided into "abstract brand logos" and " figurative brand logos". In this study, the brand logo attribute is used as the independent variable, and the dependent variable are number of product categories, product connection strength, product differentiation, and product Classification. The relationship between the brand logo attribute and the product variable is adjusted according to imagination ability.
The questionnaire survey has three parts in total. The first part is the brand logo test. participant need to write down what kind of products and services they may represent according to the logo patterns on the questionnaire. Then, according to the products and services you wrote down, choose the strength of the connection between the product service and the brand logo (1-7 points). It should be noted that there are two questionnaires in this research, which are divided into abstract brand logo version and figurative brand logo version. The only difference between two versions is that the first part is divided into two type of brand logos, abstract and figurative, which represent the same items. such as abstract basketball and figurative basketball. Except first part, second part of the imagination ability measurement and third part of the participant's basic information survey are all the same.
This study uses the experimental method of Betweem-subject design. Records the participant ID number and distributes the questionnaires at different times. Make sure that all the participant who fill out two versions of the questionnaire can be separated. Avoiding the same participant filling out the abstract brand logo version questionnaire and also filling out the figurative one. This study uses the Prolific platform to collect sample data for questionnaire surveys. The participant include European regions and several countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. The age range is between 20 and 60 years old. After deducting invalid questionnaires, a total of 121 surveys were collected for the abstract brand logo version and 123 surveys were collected for the figurative brand logo version.
The results of the study confirmed: (1) Not everyone will connect with more product categories when looking at abstract brand logos than figurative brand logos. But if there is a person with a higher imagination, they will think of a greater number of product categories when looking at an abstract brand logo. (2) The product categories associated with abstract brand logos indeed have weaker connection strength than figurative brand logos. In addition, imagination does not affect the connection strength of products associated with viewing abstract or figurative brand logos. (3) The difference of product types associated with abstract brand logos is indeed greater than figurative brand logos. In addition, imagination does not affect the difference of products associated with viewing abstract or figurative brand logos (4) Abstract brand logos do not evoke more symbolic products, nor do figurative brand logos evoke more functional products.

鄭明媚 (2016) ,Brand Logo Characteristics and its Effects on Product Representation
Aaker, D. A., & Equity, M. B. (1991). Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York.
Adîr, V., Adîr, G., & Pascu, N. E. (2014). How to Design a Logo. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 122, 140-144.
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241.
Buttle, H., & Westoby, N. (2006). Brand logo and name association: it's all in the name. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(9), 1181-1194
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), "Symbolic and functional positioning of brands", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Berlyne, Daniel E. 1970. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics 8/5A: 279-286.—. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Dondis, D. A. (1974). A primer of visual literacy. Mit Press.
DAVIS, F, C. The functional significance of imagery differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1932, IS, 630-661
DAVID F. MARKS.(1973). VISUAL IMAGERY DIFFERENCES IN THE RECALL OF PICTURES .British Journal of Psychology , Volume64, Issue1 February 1973 Pages 17-24
Greimas , AJ and Courtés , J. (1993), Sémiotique – dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie de langage ,Hachette Supérieur
Heilbrunn, B. (1997). Representation and legitimacy: A semiotic approach to the logo. APPROACHES TO SEMIOTICS, 127, 175-190
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of consumer research, 28(1), 18-32
Jun, J.W. and Lee, H.-S. (2007), “Cultural differences in brand designs and tagline appeals”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 474-491
Jeon, W., Franke, G., Huhmann, B. and Phelps, J. (1999), “Appeals in Korean magazine advertising: a content analysis and cross-cultural comparison”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 249-58.
Khalid, H. M., & Helander, M. G. (2004). A framework for affective customer needs in product design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 27–42.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 635–642.
Kohli, C., & Suri, R. (2002). Creating effective logos: Insights from theory and practice. Business Horizons, 45(3), 58-64.
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-747.
Liberman, Nira, Lorraine C. Idson, Christopher J. Camacho, and E. Tory Higgins (1999), “Promotion and Prevention Choices between Stability and Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (December), 1135–45.
LeBoutillier, N., & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 29-44.
Lahad, M. (2017a). From victim to victor: the development of the BASIC PH model of coping and resiliency. Traumatology 23, 27–34.
Lahad, M. (2017b). The lonely ape that told himself stories: The necessity of stories for human survival. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Marcos Nadal Roberts & Camilo José Cela Conde & Gisèle Marty (2007) COMPLEXITY AND AESTHETIC PREFERENCE FOR DIVERSE VISUAL STIMULI
Miller, D. W., & Stoica, M. (2004). Comparing the effects of a photograph versus artistic renditions of a beach scene in a direct-response print ad for a Caribbean resort island: A mental imagery perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), 11–21.
Miller, D. W., & Stoica, M. (2004). Comparing the effects of a photograph versus artistic renditions of a beach scene in a direct-response print ad for a Caribbean resort island: A mental imagery perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), 11–21.
Pimentel, Ronald W. 1996. I don’t know much about design, but I know what I like: An exploratory study of preference for visual images. Working paper, University of Central Florida.
Spehar, B., Wong, S., van de Klundert, S., Lui, J., Clifford, C. W., & Taylor, R. P. (2015). Beauty and the beholder: the role of visual sensitivity in visual preference. Front Hum Neurosci, 9, 514.
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., Olivarez Jr, A., Lee, S., & Roberts, N. M. (1990). Imagination in story reading: The role of imagery, verbal recall, story analysis, and processing levels. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(1), 55-70.
Samli, A. C. (2011). From imagination to innovation: New product development for quality of life. Springer Science & Business Media.
To, P. L., Liao, C., & Lin, T. H. (2007). Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value. Technovation, 27(12), 774–787.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Woo Jun, J., Small, J., & Lee, H. S. (2007). Cultural differences in brand designs and tagline appeals. International Marketing Review, 24(4), 474-491.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2010). Strategies for distinctive brands. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 548-560.
Zhou, Z., Zheng, L., & Li, X. (2021). Abstract or concrete? The influence of image type on consumer attitudes. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(5), 1132-1146.
Zabelina, D. L., & Condon, D. M. (2020). The Four-Factor Imagination Scale (FFIS): a measure for assessing frequency, complexity, emotional valence, and directedness of imagination. Psychol Res, 84(8), 2287-2299