Advertisement

ECTJ

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 235–244 | Cite as

Communicability of the emotional connotation of type

  • Gary R. Morrison
Articles

Abstract

The communicabllity of the emotional connotation of type was investigated in this study. Typographers, student instructional technologists, and naive readers rated 30 typefaces using a semantic differential scale. The results indicated that different typefaces arouse similar results in different subject groups, and that different subject groups agree on the emotional connotations of typefaces. The agreement of these results with previous studies suggests the use of typeface connotation as a variable in typeface selection.

Keywords

Stimulus Material Naive Subject Semantic Differential Semantic Differential Scale Emotional Connotation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albers, J. (1963).Interaction of color. New Haven: Yale Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, C. L. (1979).The connotative dimensions of selected display typefaces. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  3. Brinton, J. E. (1961). The “feeling” of type faces.Communication Arts, 3, 43–45.Google Scholar
  4. Craig, J. (1971).Designing with type: A basic course in typography. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dair, C. (1967).Design with type. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, R. Y., & Smith, H. J. (1933). Determinants of feeling tone in type faces.Journal of Applied Psychology, 17, 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frase, L. T., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Typographic cues that facilitate comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison, R., & Morris, D. (1967). Communication theory and typographical research.The Journal of Typographic Research, 33, 115–124.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, J., & Burnhill, P. (1977). Fifty guidelines for improving instructional text.Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14, 65–73.Google Scholar
  11. Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (1981). The effects of change in layout and changes in wording on preferences for instructional text.Visible Language, 15(1), 13–31.Google Scholar
  12. Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (1983). The effects of headings on recall, search, and retrieval.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 205–214.Google Scholar
  13. Kastl, A. J., & Child, I. L. (1968). Emotional meaning of four typographical variables.Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 440–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirk, R. E. (1968).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Koontz, W. A. (1967). The analysis of the effects of three manipulated elements in non-representational line stimuli on connotative meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  16. Lundhom, H. (1921). The effective tone of lines: Experimental researches.Psychological Review, 28, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macdonald-Ross, M., & Waller, R. (1975). Criticism, alternatives and tests: A conceptual framework for improving typography.Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 12, 75–83.Google Scholar
  18. Ovink, G. E. (1938).Legibility atmosphere, and forms of printed type. Leiden: A. W. Sijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. Poffenberger, A. T., & Franken, R. B. (1923). A study of the appropriateness of typefaces.Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Secrest, J. M. (1947). Personalities of type design.Printer's Ink, 218, 52–53.Google Scholar
  21. Shebilske, W. L., & Rotondo, J. A. (1981). Typographical and spatial cues that facilitate learning from textbooks.Visible Language, 15(1). 41–54.Google Scholar
  22. Tannenbaum, P. H., Jacobson, H. K., & Norris, L. N. (1964). An experimental investigation of typeface connotation.Journalism Quarterly, 41, 65–73.Google Scholar
  23. Tinker, M. A. (1963).Legibility of print. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Warde, B. (1956).The crystal goblet: Sixteen essays on typography. New York: The World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Weaver, W. (1949). Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.),The mathematical theory of communication (1–28). Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wendt, D. (1968). Semantic differential of typefaces as a method of congeniality research.Journal of Typographic Research, 2, 3–25.Google Scholar
  27. Zachrisson, B. (1965).Studies in the legibility of printed text. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Morrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Memphis State University in the Department of Curriculum and InstructionMemphis

Personalised recommendations