Koch dissertation defense presentation december 9, 2011

Human emotion responseto typographic design

Beth E. Koch, MFA, PhD Candidate

INTRODUCTION

While much effort has been aimed at understanding the

psychological underpinnings of written and verbal communication, research to characterize important

laws of visual language has received little attention

(Changizi, 2009)

Not much is empirically known about how people comprehend

visual systems such as graphic design and typography.

People seem to intuitively decipher the meaning of typefaces

(Van Leeuwen, 2005)

It is increasingly important for all people to have some degree of design understanding,

not only to decipher messages, but to reciprocate with

visually appropriate messages.

The aim of this study was toproduce empirical evidence

about how people perceive different typefaces.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine whether people report emotions when looking at typestyles;

OBJECTIVES

(2) To understand how people respond to different typestyles; and

OBJECTIVES

(3) To determine whether there is any link between design features of typestyles and

specific positive or negative emotions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

“Ultimately the key to understanding all visual communication lies in the neurological workings of the brain”

(Barry, 2005).

Vision Different cells in the retina become selectively tuned to detect surprisingly subtle features of the visual scene

(Nelson, 2001)

Neural Processing

of Visual Features

Movement (motion)

Spatial relationships

Color

Size

Direction

Edges

Form (shape)

Pattern

Emotion “Most practitioners remain unaware that what they are really selling to clients is indeed emotion”

(Karjaluoto, 2008)

EMOTION DEFINED

Theoreticalunderpinning

Gestalt Theory of Visual Perception

Neuroesthetics

Perceptualist Theory of Industrial Design

Perception Theory of Visual Communication

Perceptual Aesthetics Theory

Visual Social Semiotics

HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONSOF TYPOGRAPHY

STUDIES ABOUT THE MEANING OF TYPEFACES

Congeniality (adjectives)

Personality characteristics

Emotional connotation

Connotative messages

Emotional meaning

Dress

Descriptions

METHODS

ResearchQuestions

Q1: Does viewing specific typefaces produce emotional responses?

Q2: When viewing typestyle designs, do all people feel the same emotions?

Q3: Are certain emotions predominantly associated with the formative design features of typefaces—differences in classification (serif or sans serif), terminal construction (angular or rounded), character width (condensed or extended),

and weight (light or bold)?

Introduction to the Declaration of Independence— Poffenberger &Franken (1923)

“Now is the time for all good men… ” — Davis & Smith (1933)

Artificial languages “ere sasesuth wid oteren bo” — Weaver (1949)

Format to approximate English — Wendt (1968)

Alphabets (ABC… abc… ?+!@...) — Kastl &Child (1968), Tannenbaum et al. (1964), Benton (1979)

“Lorem ipsum” greek —Morrison (1986)

Typeface sampler — Koch (2011)

Data collection

Presentation format:

Non-verbal reporting

Mechanism

(Morrison, 1986)

https://www.measuring-emotions.com/admin/preview-experiment.php

Participants

FINDINGS

Analysisand

Findings

Paired t-Tests α = .05

People respond to type designs with emotion.

Certain emotions are associated with the formative design features of typefaces.

Weight

Results indicate that the light weight typeface Helvetica Light is

more desired

more satisfying

and more fascinating

than heavy weight typeface Helvetica Bold

Desire paired t(df 41) = 3.3, p = 0.001 (95% confidence)Satisfaction paired t(df 41) = 2.6, p = 0.01 (95% confidence)

Fascination paired t(df 41) = 4.0, p = 0.0001 (95% confidence)

Weight

Results indicate that the heavy weight

typeface Helvetica Bold is

more dissatisfying

and subjects reported more fear

than light weight typeface Helvetica Light

Dissatisfaction paired t(df 41) = 2.3, p = 0.026 (95% confidence)Fear paired t(df 41) = 2.5, p = 0.01 (95% confidence)

Classification

Emotion responses indicate that theserif typeface Glypha Medium is

more satisfying

than sans serif typeface Helvetica Bold

Satisfaction paired t(df 41) = 2.1, p = 0.03 (95% confidence)

Classification

Emotion responses indicate that thesans serif typeface Helvetica Bold is

not significantly different than

than serif typeface Glypha Medium

Terminals

Emotion responses to therounded terminals of the typefaceHelvetica Rounded Bold are

Not significantly different than

than emotion responses to the square terminals of the typeface Helvetica Bold.

Terminals

Emotion responses to thesquare terminals of the typefaceHelvetica Bold are

Not significantly different than

than emotion responses to the rounded terminals of the typeface Helvetica Rounded Bold .

Characterwidth Narrow character width of typeface

Helvetica Bold Condensed is

more desired

more satisfying

more joyful

and more fascinating

than wide character width of typefaceHelvetica Extended Bold.

Desire paired t(df 41) = 3.3, p = 0.001 (95% confidence)Satisfaction paired t(df 41) = 2.6, p = 0.01 (95% confidence) Joy paired t(df 41) = 2.8, p = 0.007 (95% confidence)Fascination paired t(df 41) = 4.0, p = 0.03 (95% confidence)

Characterwidth Wide character width of typeface

Helvetica Extended Bold is

more dissatisfying

more fearful

more sad and

more boring

than narrow character width of typeface Helvetica Bold Condensed.

Dissatisfaction paired t(df 41) = 2.05, p = 0.04 (95% confidence)Fear paired t(df 41) = 2.38, p = 0.0004 (95% confidence) Sadness paired t(df 41) = 3.3, p = 0.002 (95% confidence)Boredom paired t(df 41) = 2.05, p = 0.04 (95% confidence)

1. People responded to type designs with emotion rather than indifference.

2.

3.

4.

5.


2. People agreed about the emotions associated with specific typefaces.

3.

4.

5.



3. Certain emotions were associated withthe formative features of typefaces.

4.

5.




4. Of the six positively-valenced emotions, no significance was found for pride or hope.

5.




4. Of the six positively-valenced emotions, no significance was found for pride or hope.

5. Of the six negatively-valenced emotions,no significance was found for shame.

RESULTS