Don’t worry—you’ve got the perfect excuse. It’s not your fault; psychologists say movement grabs our attention because it might be a threat or, more importantly, food!
In fact, research by Luca Cian, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder—published a behavioural science experiment: ‘A Sign of Things to Come’ which shows that dynamic imagery, or visuals that suggest motion, can actually influence our behaviour.
The results were fascinating. Drivers slowed down and paid more attention to the sign with the rocks in mid-air. The implied movement triggered a response—our brains couldn’t help but notice it. This effect isn’t about consciously choosing to look; it’s subconscious. Movement, even implied movement, has a way of pulling our focus.
This got my team and me thinking: if this works on road signs, could it work in marketing? Could images that suggest movement—like kids running through a room, a car driving past a house, or a football with a shadow suggesting it’s just been kicked—grab people’s attention in the same way? And, more importantly, would this attention translate into action? Could it actually generate more leads?
So, we set up a series of experiments to find out. For Facebook ads, we used two types of images: one set featured static visuals, like an empty lounge or a stationary object. The other set used visuals with implied movement, such as kids running through the lounge. We wanted to see which images would make people stop scrolling and click.
But we didn’t stop there. We extended the test to Google Ads and landing pages. Some pages featured static images, while others used animations or visuals suggesting movement. Half the visitors saw one version; half saw the other. The question was simple: does adding motion—or the impression of motion—get more people to leave their details and inquire about a mortgage?
We even asked a few people to compare pairs of images and tell us which one grabbed their attention first. From an empty lounge to kids running, from a plain football to one with a shadow, we wanted to understand what drew their eyes.
Experiment Part One: Does Implied Movement Attract Attention?
To kick off our experiment, we focused on a simple but important question: does implied movement in an image naturally attract more attention?
To find out, we asked some friends of The Lead Engine and listeners of the podcast to participate in a quick visual exercise. Each participant was shown three pairs of images and asked to tell us which one caught their eye first. Importantly, we didn’t tell them what the experiment was about, ensuring their choices weren’t influenced by any preconceived ideas.
When designing the image pairs, we carefully considered potential biases:
- Since there’s a natural tendency to read from left to right, we avoided placing all the implied motion versions on the left.
- People naturally gravitate toward human figures, so we included only one pair featuring people to reduce the influence of this bias.
- To mix things up, we used a combination of photo-based and graphic images to see if the effect of implied motion varied across different visual styles.
Here’s what they saw:
Image Pair One
An empty lounge versus a lounge with kids running toward the camera.
Results
Left Image (lounge) = 0%
Right Image (kids running) = 100%
- Tom Martin: “The other one just looks very bare. Also, the kids are in the center of the image, so that was easy.”
- Sarah Beeson: “I’m not 100 percent sure why, because I really love the aesthetic of the left image, but it’s the right one that I keep looking at.”
- Christian Duncan: “I think just because there’s more going on in the image.”
- Hannah Sturman: “Because the children are like looking at you. It’s centralised.”
- Ben Chapman: “Because of the motion of the kids running through the living room.”
- Centralisation: Multiple participants mentioned that having subjects, like the children, placed in the center made the image more attention-grabbing.
- Human Presence and Interaction: The presence of people, particularly children looking directly at the viewer, appeared to create a stronger connection.
- Implied Motion: Some found the movement of the children running through the room to be the standout feature, emphasising how dynamic elements can draw the eye.
- Visual Complexity: Images with “more going on” were noted as being more engaging than simpler, “bare” ones.
Image Pair Two
Two identical footballs, with one subtly shaded to suggest it was bouncing.
For the next phase of my visual attention study, I moved away from photographs and used graphics to test whether implied motion affects what people notice first. The experiment involved two identical graphics of a football, with one key difference:
Left Image: Featured a shadow on the bottom left, designed to imply the football was bouncing off the ground.
Right Image: The same football graphic but without any shadow, against a plain white background.
The aim was simple: would the visual cue of motion—the shadow—make the image more attention-grabbing?
Results
Left Image (with shadow): 37%
Right Image (without shadow): 63%
Despite the addition of the shadow to suggest movement, the majority of participants found the static, shadowless football more attention-grabbing.
Why Football?
You might wonder why I used a football when it has nothing to do with mortgages, homes, or financial services. The goal was to isolate movement as the variable. By using a straightforward graphic with no emotional or contextual ties to my industry, I could focus purely on whether implied motion draws attention.
What Can We Learn?
Interestingly, these results suggest that motion cues—like shadows—may not always dominate in grabbing attention. The simplicity and uniformity of the image without the shadow seemed to appeal more to viewers in this case.
If you’re designing visuals for lead generation or marketing, this experiment highlights the importance of testing assumptions. Movement or implied motion might not always perform as expected, and simplicity can sometimes be more effective.
Image Pair Three
Two street scenes, one blurred to imply a car zooming down the street while the other remained static.
The final set of images tested whether implied motion in a real-world setting grabs attention. The setup was simple:
Left Image: A residential street with a car racing through, creating a blurred effect that implies motion.
Right Image: The same scene, but static—a clear, undisturbed view of the street and houses.
Participants were asked which image their eyes were drawn to first, not which they preferred overall.
Results
Left Image (with car and motion): 58%
Right Image (without car and motion): 42%
Observations
This result was closer than I expected, with the motion-blurred car drawing only slightly more attention than the static image. While implied motion seemed to have an edge, it didn’t dominate as a focal point.
What Can We Learn?
The results suggest that motion cues, like a blurred car speeding through a scene, do have the potential to attract attention—but not overwhelmingly so. Factors such as image clarity, subject matter, or even personal preference might balance out the pull of motion.
When designing visuals, it’s important to remember that motion alone won’t guarantee attention. Clear, well-composed images can compete effectively, even without dynamic elements.
The Impact of Left vs. Right Bias on Attention
While the primary focus of this study was to explore whether motion attracts attention, it’s worth considering another factor: natural biases in how people view images. Some participants noted that their eyes were consistently drawn to the right-hand side of each pair, regardless of content.
Here’s what they shared:
- Joanne Bish: “For the three images, my eyes were drawn directly to the right-hand side on all of them. I’m not sure whether it’s the content of the image or the way that my brain works, but I was immediately drawn to the right side on all three images.”
- Martin Lightbowne: “My eye went right on all of them. I’m also quite right-eye dominant, so I don’t know if that helps or not, but yeah, right side for every one of them.”
How Does Left-Right Bias Affect Results?
These comments suggest that inherent biases—such as eye dominance or a natural tendency to favour one side—could influence how people view images. This means that the placement of an image (left or right) could potentially skew results, regardless of its content.
For example, if the image with motion was consistently placed on the left or right in all pairs, it’s possible that part of its appeal could stem from its position rather than the motion itself.
Final Thoughts: Does Motion Attract Attention?
From our study, we’ve seen clear indications that motion—or even implied motion—can attract attention. While our approach was informal, it aligns with findings from behavioural science research, which has already proven that motion captures the human eye. We attempted to validate this ourselves with three sets of images, and the results were telling:
Motion Dominates: In two out of three sets, the majority of participants chose the motion or implied motion images. The exception was the pair of football graphics, where simplicity and clarity seemed to outweigh the effect of implied motion.
Positional Bias: If we exclude Joanne and Martin, who consistently favoured the right-hand side regardless of content, the motion images performed even better. However, their inclusion highlights an important point: these biases exist in real-world audiences, and they’re part of the complexity of human behaviour.
Other Factors: Beyond motion, participants frequently mentioned elements like centralisation, simplicity, and sharpness as reasons for their choices. This suggests that while motion is impactful, it’s one of many factors influencing attention.
Limitations of This Study
One challenge with this setup is that participants were asked to choose between two images placed side by side. In real-world marketing—whether on social media, websites, or ads—audiences rarely make direct comparisons like this. Instead, they react to a single image in the context of their scrolling or browsing experience.
Next Steps: Testing Motion in Marketing
In part two of this exploration, we’ll take these findings into the real world by testing motion in actual advertising campaigns for mortgage brokers. This will involve social media posts, website designs, and targeted ads to see whether motion doesn’t just attract attention—but also drives engagement and leads.
What Can You Take Away?
If you’re selecting images for your website, social media, or ads, there are clear lessons here:
Motion Works: Images with motion or implied motion are more likely to grab attention, potentially stopping the scroll in busy online feeds.
Keep It Simple: While motion can help, other elements like centralization and clarity matter just as much.
Test and Learn: What works for one audience might not work for another. Always test your assumptions to find the best approach for your goals.
The big question remains: can we use motion to generate more leads? That’s what we’ll explore next. Stay tuned for part two, where we put these findings into action and see if they translate into real-world results for marketing in the mortgage industry.
Acknowledgments
A huge thank you to everyone who took part in our experiment. Your insights and support have been invaluable!
Below are the participants who generously contributed, along with links to their websites where applicable:
- Valerie Morris – Tintero Creative
- Joseph Bojang – josephbojang.com
- Lewis Shaw – Shaw Financial Services
- Caz Cusumano – cusumano.uk
- Tom Martin – Content Rocket
- Sarah Beeson – Platypus Media
- Luke Sherran – Falcon Digital
- Andy Storch – andystorch.com
- Christian Duncan – Manchester Mortgage Centre
- Martin Lightbowne – On Point Financial
- Ian Hewett – When The Bank Says No
Thank you again for helping us with this project.
