Advance Search

Complexities of fonts in disfluent experiments

John Adjah
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
Lucy Afeafa Ry-Kottoh
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
Agnes Decardi-Nelson
CSIR
Samiratu Abdulai Mamah
CSIR
Eric Sam
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:

Copyright (c) 2024 John Adjah, Lucy Afeafa Ry-Kottoh, Agnes Decardi-Nelson, Samiratu Abdulai Mamah, Eric Sam

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

Complexities of fonts in disfluent experiments. (2024). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 43(2), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.36615/9pb78q28
  • Articles
  • Submited: February 28, 2023
  • Published: December 6, 2024

Abstract

This study focuses on how fonts selected from different families have been used to test for disfluency. The motivation and standard for choosing a particular font for an experiment are not yet clearly defined from past studies. Drawing on methods in a systematic review of 10 articles published between 2007 and 2020, this article shows that authors prefer to use sans serif fonts in fluent conditions and serifs, scripts or handwritten fonts in disfluent conditions. In this study, disfluency manipulations were limited to reducing font sizes and percentages of grey or black. The largest size used was 56pt (fluent) and 18pt (disfluent) while the smallest was 12pt (fluent) and 10pt (disfluent). We observed that the opacity values of disfluent fonts ranged between 10% and 60%, making it unclear how disfluent a font can be. Apart from font sizes, fixation time, familiarity with materials and other controls influenced the results. This article reveals that a major gap still exists in research because of a lack of standard methods for determining the fonts used for testing subjects.

Pdf
Pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Alter, A.L. Oppenheimer, D.M. Epley, N. & Eyre, R N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4):569-576. Available from: https://doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
  2. Alter, A.L. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3):219-235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
  3. Alter, A.L., Oppenheimer, D.M. & Epley, N.(2013). Disfluency prompts analytic thinking-but not always greater accuracy: Response to Thompson et al. Cognition, 128(2):252-255. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.006
  4. Arditi, A. & Cho, J. (2007). Letter case and text legibility in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 47(19):2499-2505. Available from: https://doi: 10.1016/j. visres.2007.06.010
  5. Arditi, A. & Cho, J.(2005). Serifs and font legibility. Vision Research, 45(23):2926-2933. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.013
  6. Bjork, E.L. & Bjork, R.A.(2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M.A. Gernsbacher, R.W. Pew, L.M. Hough & J.R. Pomerantz (eds.) & FABBS Foundation. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. Worth Publishers, 56–64.
  7. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5):752-766. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
  8. Cullatta R., Leeper L.H. (1990). The differential diagnosis of disfluency. National Students Speech Language Association Journal, 17:59-64.
  9. Diemand-Yauman, C. Oppenheimer, D.M. & Vaughan, E.B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold: Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1):111-115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012
  10. Dillon, A. Kleinman, L. Choi, G.O. & Bias, R. (2006). Visual search and reading tasks using ClearType and regular displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’06. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124849
  11. Dyson, M.C. & Stott, C. (2012). Characterizing typographic expertise: Do we process Fonts like faces? Visual Cognition, 20(9):1082-1094. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.722568
  12. Erickson, T.D. & Mattson, M.E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5):540-551. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
  13. Evans J. St B.T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3):378-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193858
  14. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4):25-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
  15. Geller, J., Still, M.L., Dark, V.J. & Carpenter, S.K. (2018). Would disfluency by any other name still be disfluent? Examining the disfluency effect with cursive handwriting. Memory & Cognition, 46:1109-1126. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0824-6
  16. Gronchi, G. & Giovannelli, F. (2018). Dual process theory of thought and default mode network: a possible neural foundation of fast thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01237
  17. Jacoby, L.L. & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2):126-135. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.126
  18. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (eds.). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, 103‒119.
  19. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K.J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 267‒293.
  20. Katzir, T., Hershko, S. & Halamish, V. (2013).The effect of font size on reading comprehension on second and fifth grade children: Bigger is not always better. PLoS ONE, 8(9):e74061. Available from: doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0074061
  21. Kress G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 2003 415 25356 X.
  22. Lieberman, M.D. (2003). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In J.P. Forgas, K.D. Williams & W. von Hippel (eds.). Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44–67.
  23. Magreehan, D.A. Serra, M.J. Schwartz, N.H. & Narciss, S. (2015). Further boundary conditions for the effects of perceptual disfluency on judgments of learning. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1):35–56. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9147-1
  24. Myers, S.J. Rhodes, M.G. & Hausman, H.E. (2020). Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test. Memory & Cognition, 48:745-758. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01025-5
  25. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. Available from: https://doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
  26. Papadima, A. & Kourdis, E. (2015). Global meets local: typographic practices and the semiotic role of subtitling in the creation of parodies in Cypriot dialect on Internet texts. Social Semiotics, 26(1):59-75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1051343
  27. Perea, M. Marcet, A. Uixera, B. & Vergara-Martínez, M. (2016). Eye movements when reading sentences with handwritten words. The Quarterly Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’06.
  28. Pieger, E. Mengelkamp, C. & Bannert, M. (2018). Disfluency as a desirable difficulty – The effects of letter deletion on monitoring and performance. Frontiers in Education, 3. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00101
  29. Rhodes, M.G. & Castel, A.D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4):615-625. Available from: https://doi: 10.1037/a0013684
  30. Sanderson, G.R. (1980). Intuitive versus analytical thinking in investment decision-making. Journal of Financial Education, 9:12-16.
  31. Serafini, F. & Clausen, J. (2012). Typography as semiotic resource. Journal of Visual Literacy, 31(2):1-16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2012.11674697
  32. Seufert, T., Wagner, F. & Westphal, J. (2016). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 45(2):221-238. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9387-8
  33. Sirota, M. Theodoropoulou, A. & Juanchich, M. (2020). Disfluent fonts do not help people to solve math and non-math problems, regardless of their numeracy. Thinking & Reasoning. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1759689
  34. Slattery, T.J., & Rayner, K. (2010). The influence of text legibility on eye movements during reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8):1129-1148. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1623
  35. Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26(6):791-799. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791
  36. Stanovich, K.E. (1999). Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers Inc.
  37. Taylor, K.L.H. Skinner, C.H. Cazzell, S.S. Gibbons, S.D. Ryan, K. Ruddy, J.L. Ciancio, D.J. Beeson T.S. & Cihak, D. (2018). Disfluent font can hinder sight-word acquisition in students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518771749
  38. Thompson, V.A. Turner, J.A.P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L.J. Brack, H. Ophir, Y. & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2):237-251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
  39. Tinker, M.A. (1963). Influence of simultaneous variation in size of type, width of line, and leading for newspaper type. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(6):380-382. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043573
  40. Weltman, D. & Eakin, M. (2014). Incorporating unusual fonts and planned mistakes in study materials to increase business student focus and retention. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 15(1):156-165. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2014.0130
  41. Xie, H., Zhou, Z. & Liu, Q. (2018). Null effects of perceptual disfluency on learning outcomes in a text-based educational context: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30:745-771. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9442-x
  42. Yue, C.L. Castel, A.D. & Bjork, R.A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2):229-241. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8
How to Cite
Complexities of fonts in disfluent experiments. (2024). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 43(2), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.36615/9pb78q28

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate