Abstract: Dynamic product presentation has become a default design choice in short-video commerce and online retail interfaces, yet “dynamics” are typically treated as a monolithic feature (dynamic vs. static). This paper advances a more diagnostic and actionable account by theorizing zoom-in vs. zoom-out camera movements (i.e., zoom-in vs. zoom-out) as distinct dynamic distance cues that systematically reorganize consumers’ information processing during comparative decision making. We develop an integrative framework that explains why the same dynamic medium can generate divergent preference patterns, and we specify when these effects should strengthen or attenuate.
Our central contribution is the dynamic distance-cue perspective, which treats zooming not merely as motion but as a directional change in perceived distance—from far-to-near (zoom-in) versus near-to-far (zoom-out). We argue that this directional cue alters (a) the viewer’s psychological stance toward the focal object, (b) the type of inferences drawn about brands, and (c) the comparison strategy used to evaluate competing options. Importantly, we unify evidence and theory streams that have largely evolved in parallel by mapping zoom direction onto three analytically distinct yet connected levels of comparison: product-level preferences, brand-level impressions, and attribute-level decision strategies.
Product level: hedonic versus utilitarian preference via self-immersed versus self-distanced stance
At the product level, we propose that zoom direction shapes whether consumers approach the decision through affective versus cognitive evaluation. A zoom-in sequence progressively concentrates attention on the focal product, producing a felt sense of moving “into” the scene. This fosters a self-immersed stance, amplifying experiential and affective reactions and thereby increasing preference for hedonic options in comparative choice. In contrast, a zoom-out sequence expands the field of view to include more contextual information and creates a sense of stepping back from the object, fostering a self-distanced stance that supports more deliberative, function-oriented evaluation and increases preference for utilitarian options. This mechanism clarifies not only whether dynamic presentation matters but also how specific shot movements can tilt consumers’ comparison criteria toward emotion-laden versus performance-relevant attributes.
A key boundary condition is playback speed. We argue that the strength of perceived distance change depends on whether viewers have sufficient temporal bandwidth to register the unfolding movement. Slower zooming should heighten dynamic distance perception, strengthening the self-immersed/self-distanced experience and thus magnifying hedonic-versus-utilitarian preference divergence. Faster zooming, by reducing perceptual clarity and processing time, should attenuate these effects.
Brand level: warmth versus competence inference via power orientation
At the brand level, we extend the framework beyond product evaluation to explain how zoom direction reorganizes social inferences about brands. Drawing on the stereotype content tradition (warmth and competence) and power-orientation logic, we propose that zooming changes the consumer’s perceived relational stance toward the brand. Zoom-in signals psychological proximity and interpersonal closeness, which encourages more communal interpretation of intent and increases perceived brand warmth. Zoom-out increases perceived distance and can cue status, authority, and professionalism, thereby increasing perceived brand competence. This account specifies a visual route through which dynamic advertising can differentially advantage “warm” versus “competent” brand positioning in comparative contexts.
We also identify a decision-focus boundary condition: choosing for oneself versus choosing for others. When choosing for oneself, viewers are more likely to use the self-relevant relational stance induced by zooming, allowing warmth/competence impressions to translate into choice. When choosing for others, comparative evaluation is less anchored in the decision maker’s own relational stance, and zoom-driven warmth/competence advantages should weaken.
Attribute level: dimension-by-dimension versus holistic comparison strategy
At the attribute level, we propose that zoom direction shapes the form of comparison itself. Zoom-in promotes a concrete, detail-focused mindset and increases attention to separable product components, making consumers more likely to adopt a dimension-by-dimension (attribute-wise) comparison strategy and to choose options that dominate on more individual attributes. Zoom-out promotes more abstract, global construal, encourages holistic processing, and increases reliance on overall (option-wise) evaluation, favoring options with stronger aggregate performance even if they do not win on every single attribute. This mechanism connects visual motion to choice architecture: zooming can effectively shift consumers between “counting wins” across attributes and “summing up” overall value.
A further boundary condition is cognitive load. Because holistic evaluation is more resource-demanding, high cognitive load should reduce the advantage of zoom-out in promoting overall comparison, thereby shrinking the predicted divergence between zoom-in and zoom-out strategies.
Implications
Collectively, the paper contributes a multi-level, mechanism-based framework that (1) differentiates zoom-in vs. zoom-out as theoretically distinct dynamic cues, (2) integrates product preference, brand inference, and comparison strategy into a single explanatory architecture, and (3) specifies actionable moderators—playback speed, decision target (self vs. other), and cognitive load—that delimit when zoom-driven advantages should occur. For managers, the framework implies that “adding motion” is insufficient: effective dynamic creative should align zoom direction with the intended comparative goal (experience vs. function, warmth vs. competence, attribute-wise vs. holistic choice) and with platform contexts that vary in viewers’ time and attention constraints.

Key words: dynamic advertising presentation, zoom-in/zoom-out shots, consumer decision making, marketing strategy