Becoming type-sensitive with font psychology
The fonts you include in your designs can dramatically shape how they impact your audience and what emotions they evoke. Typography also drives a handful of other cognitive processes that often get overlooked — but we can remedy that.
If selecting the right typeface has ever felt overwhelming or slightly daunting to you, perhaps reflecting upon font psychology can offer some clarity. The following science-backed ideas will hopefully inspire some typography decisions that will best suit your project and goals.
Which typefaces are easy to read and which aid memory retention? How does one choose a font that aligns with the brand on a psychological level? Which of them boast a personality and what kind? These are just a few questions research seems to have answered for us. Expect a highly condensed, but informative summary of the current findings, so you’ll know when to apply specific typefaces for your intended outcomes.
Before kicking off, as a possible trigger warning, I should mention that I will be using “fonts” and “typefaces” at times interchangeably here — despite the minor differences; namely that the former exists as part of the latter. As this doesn’t exactly seem to twist the science, the takeaways will still apply. Happy learning!
Basic but important trade-offs
Starting with a significant one: fonts that are more difficult to read actually promote memory retention. The harder our brain has to work, the better we can remember content, as it adapts (and rises) to the challenge. Such fonts also help us be less distracted and hold onto our focus in noisy environments.
Meanwhile, easy-to-read fonts are processed faster, but encoded in less depth, adding up to a shallower, more fleeting recollection. Completely illegible font types will, of course, push this takeaway way past its limits as people won’t be able to, you know, read a thing.
Another caveat to keep in mind is that material presented in more difficult-to-read fonts is enjoyed less. In other words, though they might help with studying and memorising, it all still makes for a shabby experience.
The battle of Serif vs Sans-Serif
Let’s put this into a typeface context and pitch one against another, so you can decide which will suit your design better.
1) Serifs decrease reading speed, so if you want your audience to spend more time on your content, you can use this to your advantage by picking, for example, Times New Roman, Garamond, Georgia, Didot, or whatever else takes your fancy from the Serif family.
2) We can also shift the perspective here. For larger chunks of text, you may want to choose Sans-serif fonts for a speedier read — which also improve accessibility. The 10 percent of the population believed to have dyslexia will likely thank you for going sans to help with reading performance. Those with low vision also seem to prefer sans-serifs according to a research review.
3) Serif typefaces significantly increase memory recall. As highlighted before, because they take longer to read and decipher, they can lead to a deeper, more solidified knowledge.
If we linger just a bit longer on the topic of recollections, it might also be worth pointing out the role of font sizes and styles. In short, bold content helps us remember better than normal or italic styles, and large font sizes also aid our memory. (Quite possibly nothing new here — but it’s always good to confirm our assumptions, right?)
Typefaces and their (many) associated personality traits
In the same way that colours evoke feelings, moods and personality traits can also be assigned to fonts. To this end, the Software Usability Research Laboratory (SURL) at Wichita State University tried to understand how people perceive typefaces. They asked participants to complete a questionnaire detailing which characteristics describe and resonate with different fonts, in their opinion.
1) Serif typefaces scored the highest on traits such as “stable, practical, mature, and formal”. Still, in another study, they were considered more distinct, charming, aesthetic, rich, and emotional than sans-serif fonts.
On an amusing note, satirical texts printed in Times New Roman are perceived as funnier and angrier than those written in (the Sans-serif) Arial, possibly because the former is seen as professional and formal. Print publications in general also tend to use serif fonts due to perceived (more enjoyable) readability and more refined aesthetics.
Still, we are not yet done assigning characteristics, as this research article also summarised how certain typefaces within the Serif family are regarded.
Typeface persona examples:
- Times New Roman is also seen as “bookish” and traditional.
- Garamond is described as graceful, refined, distinctly feminine, and confident.
- Century Schoolbook is considered “serious yet friendly.”
- Caslon is attractive, but not pretentious — it’s “quietly dignified.”
- Goudy is jolly and laid-back.
- Meanwhile, the whole of the Bodoni family is “very urban, dramatic and sophisticated.”
By now we should have enough font-inspired characters for a multiple-season TV series; but let’s not forget the Sans-cast.
2) Sans-serifs did not score extremely high or low on any of the personality traits listed, which makes them both natural and all-purpose in a sense. They can also be seen as fresh, high-quality, smart, readable, minimal, and crisp.
Most companies use Sans-serif typefaces (such as Helvetica, Gill Sans, Futura) on their packaging, advertising, and websites due to their clarity and legibility in both small and large font sizes. They are also more prevalent in the digital aether as they tend to render more crisply on a range of screen sizes.
(If you ever wonder why you read faster on digital mediums compared to the physical kinds, the Serif vs Sans-serif debate coupled with their online and offline uses hopefully serve as an explanation.)
Typeface persona examples:
- Futura is “no-nonsense,” cool, and restrained.
- AvantGarde is modern, yet not too formal.
3) Script fonts were seen as youthful, happy, creative, rebellious, feminine, casual, and cuddly in this study. Meanwhile, in a 1982 research paper they were specifically described as being more elegant.
4) Modern Display fonts tend to be associated with traits such as masculinity, assertion, rudeness, sadness, and coarseness.
5) Monospaced contestants were most described as dull, plain, unimaginative, and conforming.
Based on a 2018 study, handwritten fonts increase consumers’ attachment to products as they create a sense of human presence. Those who experience loneliness might also be more prone to building emotional connections with products, since they have a higher tendency to “humanize” items. This applies stronger to cases where the consumer doesn’t already feel a sense of attachment to the brand, though.
Finally, as a general rule, “friendly” typefaces tend to be simple and imperfect, displaying rounded features (such as everyone’s favourite, Comic Sans). Those showing balance and moderation in their anatomy (think weight, proportion, and thick-to-thin transitions) are seen as “professional.”
Carrying and influencing meaning
Since typefaces alone are already associated with certain feelings and messages, it is wise to choose traits that resemble your context. Fonts can not only convey, but also influence the meaning of objects, and thus how users perceive them.
Another important point to consider is that the font’s own meaning should not clash with the brand’s identity. If there is no visual consistency across the two, it makes the brand harder to remember, so picking one that fits the company’s tone and purpose is a long-term investment. Products are also chosen more often when the brand name appears in an “appropriate” typeface.
For example, in a study, ads for a “slim” phone performed better with a font that was perceived to be slimmer, and those for an “elegant” phone were more successful when written in an elegant, script font.
(A short note here. The typeface they used for the slim ad was Castellar, which may be hard to see as slim in its basic shape and form. In the ad they seem to have altered it to appear as such, so the resulting effect it had was legitimate — but chalking it up to the font alone could be misleading.)
Below are also a handful of style characteristics to keep in mind:
⮞ Italic, regular, and smaller fonts can be used to express beauty, delicacy, courtesy, femininity, and dignity. Scripted and ornate fonts are also appropriate for jewellery and perfume, as these are associated with luxury and come across as reassuring and pleasing.
⮞ Bold, non-italic, and larger fonts are suitable for conveying strength, durability, danger, importance, masculinity, and safety. For example, simple, easy-to-read, and bold fonts are a good match for car advertisements.
It’s important to note that the impact of the typeface itself is separate from the effect of the font’s colour used to communicate the brand’s personality. Fun fact: the shape of a font can convey specific taste expectations, though — rounded for sweet and angular for sour. Delicious.
Keeping it natural
In a similar study published by the Journal of Marketing, researchers investigated the types of emotional responses evoked in consumers by a font’s design characteristics.
The findings showed that naturalness had the biggest impact on creating enjoyable and engaging experiences. You may rightfully be wondering what passes as a natural trait. This refers to the irregular, organic, spontaneous styles that some fonts resemble, rather than a more contained and artificial geometric form.
Additional findings included the notion that while elaborate fonts came across as intimidating, harmony made them more comforting.
Font for thought
Circling back to the overarching psychology of neat font choices, there are two worthwhile advantages to mention still. First, aesthetically pleasing typography improves creative thinking.
Second, looking at pretty content also makes us frown less. It reduces the activation of the facial muscles that otherwise make you pull your brows together when you encounter poor typography, as you experience frustration, disapproval, and tension. (Not to mention the need for more mental effort as you try to make sense of the chaotic visuals.)
So, we also do readers a favour when we avoid ageing them faster by considering our font choices rather than presenting them with unsavoury combinations. A good skincare routine must basically include looking (only) at decent typography then. May the fonts ever be in our favour.
References & Credits:
- Brumberger, E. R. (2003). The rhetoric of typography: The persona of typeface and text. Technical communication, 50(2), 206–223.
- Childers, T. L., & Jass, J. (2002). All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of consumer psychology, 12(2), 93–106.
- Choi, S. M., & Kang, M. (2013). The effect of typeface on advertising and brand evaluations: The role of semantic congruence. J. Advertising and Promotion Research, 2(2), 25–52.
- Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italisized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111–115.
- Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2004). Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of business research, 57(8), 873–880.
- Gasser, M., Boeke, J., Haffernan, M., & Tan, R. (2005). The Influence of Font Type on Information Recall. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2).
- Grohmann, B., Giese, J. L., & Parkman, I. D. (2013). Using type font characteristics to communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 389–403.
- Halin, N. (2016). Distracted while reading? Changing to a hard-to-read font shields against the effects of environmental noise and speech on text memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1196.
- Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of marketing, 68(4), 60–72.
- Juni, S., & Gross, J. S. (2008). Emotional and persuasive perception of fonts. Perceptual and motor skills, 106(1), 35–42.
- Kaspar, K., Wehlitz, T., von Knobelsdorff, S., Wulf, T., & von Saldern, M. A. O. (2015). A matter of font type: The effect of serifs on the evaluation of scientific abstracts. International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 372–378.
- Larson, K., Hazlett, R. L., Chaparro, B. S., & Picard, R. W. (2007). Measuring the aesthetics of reading. In People and Computers XX — Engage (pp. 41–56). Springer, London.
- Mackiewicz, J., & Moeller, R. (2004, September). Why people perceive typefaces to have different personalities. In International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings. (pp. 304–313). IEEE.
- Price, J., McElroy, K., & Martin, N. J. (2016). The role of font size and font style in younger and older adults’ predicted and actual recall performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23(3), 366–388.
- Rello, Luz, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. “The effect of font type on screen readability by people with dyslexia.” ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 8.4 (2016): 1–33.
- Rowe, C. L. (1982). The connotative dimensions of selected display typefaces. Information design journal, 3(1), 30–37.
- Russell-Minda, E., Jutai, J. W., Strong, J. G., Campbell, K. A., Gold, D., Pretty, L., & Wilmot, L. (2007). The legibility of typefaces for readers with low vision: A research review. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101(7), 402–415.
- Schroll, R., Schnurr, B., & Grewal, D. (2018). Humanizing products with handwritten typefaces. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 648–672.
- Shaikh, A. D., Chaparro, B. S., & Fox, D. (2006). Perception of fonts: Perceived personality traits and uses. Usability news, 8(1), 1–6.
- Tantillo, J., Lorenzo‐Aiss, J. D., & Mathisen, R. E. (1995). Quantifying perceived differences in type styles: An exploratory study. Psychology & Marketing, 12(5), 447–457.
- Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014). Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and Preference, 34, 88–95.
