This study examined perception through typeface familiarity and provocativeness. Typeface presentation frequency was set as the independent variable. Perceived provocation and familiarity were set as the dependent variables. Participants were presented 30 slides that displayed 1 of 10 typefaces. Each typeface was presented once within every set of 10 slides. After viewing each slide participants recorded their perceived provocation and familiarity to the typeface. There was a significant effect of typeface frequency on perceived typeface familiarity at the p < .05 level for the three conditions. There was also a significant effect of typeface frequency on perceived typeface provocativeness at the p < .05 level for the three conditions. Due to this an effect can be observed for participant perceived typeface familiarity and provocativeness during repeated exposure. The results of this study would most likely benefits typographic designers and endorse a type of design that employs multiple sets of typefaces. Future studies built from these results could observe more meaningful results by investigating a specific typeface familiarity and provocativeness during repeated exposure.
The choice of a typeface within print or on a screen can have many consequences. Due to the prevalence of type as a medium, the effect of this stimulus is being increasingly explored. Some researchers have focused on the readability of typefaces when compared to a viewer's familiarity with them (Beier & Larson, 2013), while other researchers attempted to observe the emotional effect a typeface has upon a viewer (Juni & Gross, 2008). These are important areas of research to explore, but they require initial interest by a viewer to investigate. Typefaces found in a natural setting are often in competition with other forms of type. The most attention grabbing typefaces are the ones that are read. In this study perception will be examined through typeface provocativeness and familiarity. Provocativeness will be defined as a raise in mental arousal. Will a participant's perceived typeface provocativeness or typeface familiarity be affected by repeated exposure?
The word typeface can be defined as “uniform and identically shaped types. Typeface consists of: uppercase types, lowercase types, extenders, punctuation types, special and expert types as well as mathematic operations types” (Tomiša, Vusić & Milković, 2013, p 905-911). One contemporary classification of typefaces is serif, san-serif, script and other (Tomiša, Vusić & Milković, 2013). For this study we will only need a working definition of serif and sans-serif typefaces. A serif type can be defined as a type with an accent line placed at the end of a letterform line and sans-serif typefaces are letters without these accent lines (Tomiša, Vusić & Milković, 2013).
Similar research on typeface has shown that familiarity with a typeface affects a participant's reading performance (Beier & Larson, 2013). This same study concluded that uncommon letter forms within the type categories do not significantly affect reading performance. Research of typographic letter form also explored how participants react to differing typefaces. Familiar typefaces have been shown to have an emotional effect during word recognition (Kuchinke, Krause, Fritsch & Briesemeister, 2014). This can result in a manipulation of sentence meaning based typeface choice. This study also shows that typefaces and the letter forms that compose them contain information within their design absent of word creation.
These and similar conclusions have led to appropriate scrutiny when choosing a typeface to aid the message being communicated (Doyle & Bottomley, 2004). This experiment will attempt to test typeface provocativeness and the role familiarity plays in its perceived provocativeness. Through a series of trials participants will be presented typefaces and requested to record their level of provocation and how familiar they are with the typeface. Typeface presentation frequency was set as the independent variable. Perceived provocation and familiarity were set as the dependent variables. If the provocativeness or familiarity level of a typeface set is effected across participants with repeated exposure then it can be concluded that repeated exposure effects perceived typeface provocativeness or familiarity.
This study consisted of 7 participants. The gender of the participants included were 5 females and 2 males. Their ages ranged from 20 to 32. The racial makeup of the study consisted of multiracial, Hispanic/Latino, African American, Caucasian, and Asian participants. They were undergraduate students at Fordham University. The majority of these participants were part of the psychology department. All participants possessed relevant psychological information learned within an introductory course in the topic of psychology. Their motivation to take part in this study was to further their knowledge in the subject of cognition.
The apparatus required for this study were computers with word processing and document viewing software for each participant. The word processor must have at least 10 different typefaces available to it. The typefaces used in this study were open sans, lora, prosto one, sofadi one, ubuntu, merriweather, libre baskerville, istok web, cantarell, and tinos. All mentioned typefaces are available through Google Fonts. With the use of this apparatus a set of materials were created. The experimenter used placeholder text for each typeface and entered “Lorem Ipsum” into the word processor at the size of 60 pt on separate pages. As stated by Richard McClintock that placeholder text is an excerpt from De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum by Cicero ("Lorem Ipsum," n.d.). This resulted in a 10 page document with a typeface on each page. This document was replicated 2 times. With the use of a random number generator from 1 to 10 each of the 3 documents had their typeface order randomized. These documents were combined into one document after individual document randomization. A participant reaction recording sheet was also prepared. The sheet was numbered from 1 to 30. Each number inquired two things, type provocativeness and type familiarity. This was worded as such: “How provocative is this typeface?” and “How familiar is this typeface?” For both inquiries participants were given the choice to answer between 1 to 5. (1 being “not at all” and 5 being “extremely”).
Each participant was seated in front of a computer with an 80 page document on the screen. Participants were informed that the study to be conducted would examine their provocation and familiarity with specific typefaces. The participants were instructed to view the first page of the document and record their reaction to the corresponding question on the sheet. Participants continued this until all 80 pages in the document were viewed.
The study's data was yielded from an analysis of 10 typefaces viewed by 6 participants across 30 lorem ipsum images. A one way ANOVA was performed to compare the mean values of typeface provocativeness across participants. A one way ANOVA was also performed to compare the mean values of typeface familiarity across participants. This analysis was performed to determine if exposure to the same 10 typefaces in sets of 10 over 3 instances would result in a significant change in perceived typeface provocativeness and familiarity. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of presented typeface frequency on perceived typeface familiarity in the first instance presented, second instance presented, and third instance presented conditions. There was a significant effect of typeface frequency on perceived typeface familiarity at the p < .05 level for the three conditions, F(2 , 177) = 5.45, p = 0.005. Also, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of presented typeface frequency on perceived typeface provocativeness in the first instance presented, second instance presented, and third instance presented conditions. There was a significant effect of typeface frequency on perceived typeface provocativeness at the p < .05 level for the three conditions, F(2, 177) = 28.25, p = 0.001.