Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 696–703 | Cite as

A hard-to-read font reduces the framing effect in a large sample

  • Christoph W. Korn
  • Juliane Ries
  • Lennart Schalk
  • Yulia Oganian
  • Henrik Saalbach
Brief Report


How can apparent decision biases, such as the framing effect, be reduced? Intriguing findings within recent years indicate that foreign language settings reduce framing effects, which has been explained in terms of deeper cognitive processing. Because hard-to-read fonts have been argued to trigger deeper cognitive processing, so-called cognitive disfluency, we tested whether hard-to-read fonts reduce framing effects. We found no reliable evidence for an effect of hard-to-read fonts on four framing scenarios in a laboratory (final N = 158) and an online study (N = 271). However, in a preregistered online study with a rather large sample (N = 732), a hard-to-read font reduced the framing effect in the classic “Asian disease” scenario (in a one-sided test). This suggests that hard-read-fonts can modulate decision biases—albeit with rather small effect sizes. Overall, our findings stress the importance of large samples for the reliability and replicability of modulations of decision biases.


Decision-making biases Apparent irrationalities Cognition Syllogistic reasoning 



The authors thank Alica Thissen and Christian Hahn for their help with data collection and discussion. They thank Dr. Dominik Leiner, the administrator of SoSci Survey, without whom Experiment 3 would not have been possible. Funding was provided by a research grant from Saarland University. CWK was supported by the SFB TRR 169 during the final stages of manuscript preparation. The funders had no role in the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Declaration of interest

No conflict of interest.


  1. Alter, A. L. (2013). The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 437–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, (1994), 147–154. Google Scholar
  4. Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Theoretical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T., Huber, J., Kirchler, M., … Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436.
  6. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
  7. Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., & Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the foreign language effect in decision making. Cognition, 130(2), 236–254. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2013). The “whys” and “whens” of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 172–178. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 114–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Mueller, M. L. (2016). Recommendations for exploring the disfluency hypothesis for establishing whether perceptually degrading materials impacts performance. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 123–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eitel, A., & Kühl, T. (2016). Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eitel, A., Kühl, T. I. M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand ? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 488–501. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, S., Zika, O., Rogers, R. D., & Thierry, G. (2015). Second language feedback abolishes the “hot hand” effect during even-probability gambling. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(15), 5983–5989. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2016). Foreign language affects the contribution of intentions and outcomes to moral judgment. Cognition, 154, 34–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayakawa, S., Costa, A., Foucart, A., & Keysar, B. (2016). Using a foreign language changes our choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20:791-793. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1). doi:
  19. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. The American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661–668. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magreehan, D. A., Serra, M. J., Schwartz, N. H., & Narciss, S. (2016). Further boundary conditions for the effects of perceptual disfluency on judgments of learning. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 35–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 679–690. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Guerva Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., … Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16–30.
  26. Oganian, Y., Korn, C. W., & Heekeren, H. R. (2016). Language switching—but not foreign language use per se—reduces the framing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 140–148. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251).
  28. Oppenheimer, D. M., & Frank, M. C. (2008). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106(3), 1178–1194. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–28. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2015). Fortune is fickle: Null-effects of disfluency on learning outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 57–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seufert, T., Wagner, F., & Westphal, J. (2017). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 45, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thompson, V. A., Ackerman, R., Sidi, Y., Ball, L. J., Pennycook, G., & Prowse Turner, J. A. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency in the monitoring and control of reasoning: Reply to Alter, Oppenheimer, and Epley (2013). Cognition, 128(2), 256–258. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Weissgerber, S. C., & Reinhard, M.-A. (2017). Is disfluency desirable for learning ? Learning and Instruction, 49, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph W. Korn
    • 1
  • Juliane Ries
    • 2
  • Lennart Schalk
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yulia Oganian
    • 5
  • Henrik Saalbach
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute for Systems NeuroscienceUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.PH SchwyzGoldauSwitzerland
  5. 5.School of MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.Leipzig UniversityLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations