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
OMC
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)
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.
1. People responded to type designs with emotion rather than indifference.
2. People agreed about the emotions associated with specific typefaces.
3.
4.
5.
1. People responded to type designs with emotion rather than indifference.
2. People agreed about the emotions associated with specific typefaces.
3. Certain emotions were associated withthe formative features of typefaces.
4.
5.
1. People responded to type designs with emotion rather than indifference.
2. People agreed about the emotions associated with specific typefaces.
3. Certain emotions were associated withthe formative features of typefaces.
4. Of the six positively-valenced emotions, no significance was found for pride or hope.
5.
1. People responded to type designs with emotion rather than indifference.
2. People agreed about the emotions associated with specific typefaces.
3. Certain emotions were associated withthe formative features of typefaces.
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
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
Non-expert typographers are becoming increasingly
important shapers of our graphic language
(Walker, 2001)
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
“Things loved for one reason in a particular situation,
can be hated for the same reason in another”
(Hassenzahl, 2004)
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
Gestalt Theory of Visual Perception
Neuroesthetics
Perceptualist Theory of Industrial Design
Perception Theory of Visual Communication
Perceptual Aesthetics Theory
Visual Social Semiotics
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
human issues
typographic issues
emotion issues
methodological issues
human issues
typographic issues
emotion issues
methodological issues
human issues
typographic issues
emotion issues
methodological issues
human issues
typographic issues
emotion issues
methodological issues
SIX IMPLICATIONS
For individuals
For practitioners
For society
For theory
For design research
For the field
CONCLUSION