Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal
      

 

Berezner T.A., Gorbunova E.S. Improving text memorization by changing fonts: the study of Sans Forgetica

Full text in Russian: Березнер Т.А., Горбунова Е.С. Улучшение запоминания текста посредством изменения шрифтов: исследование Sans Forgetica

National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

About author
Suggested citation

Recently, the idea of beneficial effect of perceptually disfluent, poorly legible fonts on memory has been actively discussed. Among the explanations for the positive effect is the "desirable difficulties" approach, according to which the disfluent fonts affect metacognitive processes while reading. Such interruption is thought to promote better information processing compared to ordinary, fluent fonts. In accordance with this approach, a special, initially disfluent font Sans Forgetica was designed in 2018 to improve memorization of texts. Existing studies still debate on the strength of the disfluency effect or even on its existence. For example, according to the cognitive load theory it is better to apply fluent, easy-to-read fonts. In order to examine this issue, we conducted a study, which involved 69 participants. Participants were presented with a short text in English with 15 open questions afterwards. Four experimental groups were formed based on the specific font: Times New Roman, Arial, Comic Sans or Sans Forgetica. Given the non-native English speakers as participants, the level of English proficiency was considered as an additional independent variable. We hypothesized that the participants from the third and fourth groups would score higher in the memorization test, since the text presented to them was written in disfluent fonts. Furthermore, it was planned to study whether the degree of English proficiency would affect the success of solving the problem when using different fonts. No significant differences were found between the participants with different level of English proficiency and the type of font. In particular, the Sans Forgetica font has not proven to be more effective for storing information. This result is consistent with recent studies that failed to observe the disfluency effect.

Keywords: memory, learning, processing fluency, disfluency, desirable difficulties, cognitive load, reading, fonts, Sans Forgetica

Full text in Russian >>

Acknowledgement
The authors thank the anonymous reviewer for careful reading and valuable comments on the manuscript of the article.

Funding
The study was supported by the HSE Basic Research Program in 2021.

References
Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.

Akhmadeeva L., Tukhvatullin I., & Veytsman B. Do serifs help in comprehension of printed text? An experiment with Cyrillic readers. Vision Research, 2012, 65, 21-24.

Ali A.Z.M., Wahid R., Samsudin K., Idris M.Z. Reading on the computer screen: does font type have effects on web text readability? International Education Studies, 2013, 6(3), 26-35.

Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M., Epley N., & Eyre R.N. Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficul-ty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007, 136(4), 569-576.

Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personal-ity and Social Psychology Review, 2009, 13(3), 219-235.

Arditi A., & Cho J. Serifs and font legibility. Vision research, 2005, 45(23), 2926-2933.

Bernard M., Lida B., Riley S., Hackler T., Janzen K. Comparison of popular online fonts: which size and type is best? Usability News, 2002, 4.1

Bjork R.A. ‘Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings’. In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 1994, 185-205.

Bjork E.L., & Bjork R.A. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental con-tributions to society, 2011, 56–64.

Bjork R.A. Desirable difficulties perspective on learning. In Encyclopedia of the mind, 2013, 4, 134–146.

Bjork R.A., & Yue C.L. Commentary: is disfluency desirable? Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11(1), 133–137.

Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli, S.H. A study of fonts designed for screen display. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1998, 87-94.

Craik F.I.M. & Lockhart R.S. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research, Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11(6), 671-684.

Craik F.I.M. & Tulving E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104(3), 268-294.

De Lange R.W., Esterhuizen H.L., & Beatty D. Performance differences between Times and Helvetica in a reading task. Electronic Publishing, 1993, 6(3), 241-248.

Diemand-Yauman C., Oppenheimer D.M., Vaughan E.B. Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 2011, 118(1), 111-115.

Eitel A. & Kuhl T. Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text. Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11, 107-121.

Faber M., Mills C., Kopp K., & D’mello S. The effect of disfluency on mind wandering during text comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017, 24(3), 914-919.

French M.M.J., Blood A., Bright N.D., Futak D., Grohmann M.J., Hsthorpe A., Heritage J., Poland R.L., Reece S., Tabor J. Changing fonts in education: how the benefits vary with ability and dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 2013, 106(4), 301-304.

Gasser M., Boeke J., Haffernan M., & Tan R. The Influence of Font Type on Information Recall. North American Journal of Psychology, 2005, 7(2), 181-188.

Geller, J., Still, M.L., Dark, V.J., & Carpenter, S.K. Would disfluency by any other name still be dis-fluent? Examining the disfluency effect with cursive handwriting. Memory & Cognition, 2018, 46(7), 1109-1126.

Geller J., Davis S.D., & Peterson D. Sans forgetica is not desirable for learning. Memory, 2020, 28(8), 957-967.

Halamish V. Can very small font size enhance memory? Memory & Cognition, 2018, 46(6), 979-993.

Halamish V., Nachman H., Katzir T. The effect of font size on children’s memory and metamemory. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9, 1577.

Kaspar K., Wehlitz T., von Knobelsdorff S., Wulf T., & von Saldern M.A.O. A matter of font type: The effect of serifs on the evaluation of scientific abstracts. International Journal of Psychology, 2015, 50(5), 372–378.

Katzir T., Hershko S., Halamish V. The effect of font size on reading comprehension on second and fifth grade children: bigger is not always better. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8(9): e74061.

Kuhl T., Eitel A., Damnik G., & Koerndle H. The impact of disfluency, pacing, and students’ need for cognition on learning with multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014, 35, 189-198.

Kuhl T., & Eitel A. Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11(1), 1-13.

Lee M.H. Effects of disfluent kanji fonts on reading retention with e-book. In 2013 IEEE 13th Inter-national Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2013, 481-482.

Lehmann J., Goussios C., & Seufert T. Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11(1), 89-105.

Miele D.B., Metcalfe J., Son L.K. Children’s naive theories of intelligence influence their metacogni-tive judgments. Children Development, 2013, 84, 1879-1886.

Mueller M.L., Dunlosky J., Tauber S.K., & Rhodes M.G. The font-size effect on judgments of learn-ing: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 2014, 70, 1-12.

Oppenheimer D.M., & Alter A.L. The search for moderators in disfluency research. Applied Cogni-tive Psychology, 2014, 28(4), 502–504.

Oppenheimer D.M., & Frank M.C. A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of per-ceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 2008, 106(3), 1178-1194.
Price J., McElroy K., & Martin N.J. The role of font size and font style in younger and older adults’ predicted and actual recall performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2016, 23(3), 366-388.

Reber R., & Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 1999, 8(3), 338-342.

Reber R., Schwarz N., & Winkielman P.. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2004, 8(4), 364-382.

Rhodes M.G. & Castel A.D. Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2008, 137, 615-625.

Rummer R., Schweppe J., & Schwede A. Fortune is fickle: null-effects of disfluency on learning out-comes. Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11(1), 57-70.

Seufert T., Wagner F., & Westphal J. The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning out-comes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 2017, 45(2), 221-238.

Strukelj A., Scheiter K., Nyström M., & Holmqvist K. Exploring the lack of a disfluency effect: Evi-dence from eye movements. Metacognition and Learning, 2016, 11(1), 71-88.

Sungkhasettee V.W., Friedman M.C., & Castel A.D. Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2011, 18(5), 973–978.

Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 1988, 12, 257-285.

Sweller J. & Chandler P. Why some material is difficult to learn, Cognition and Instruction, 1994, 12(3), 185-233.

Sweller J., Ayres P., & Kalyuga S. Measuring cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory, 2011, 71-85.

Taylor A., Sanson M., Burnell R., Wade K.A., & Garry M. Disfluent difficulties are not desirable dif-ficulties: the (lack of) effect of Sans Forgetica on memory. Memory, 2020, 28(7), 850-857.

Weissgerber S.C., & Reinhard M.A. Is disfluency desirable for learning? Learning and Instruction, 2017, 49, 199-217.

Xie H., Zhou Z. & Liu Q. Null effects of perceptual disfluency on learning outcomes in a text-based educational context: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 2018, 30, 745–771.

Yue C.L., Castel A.D., & Bjork R.A. When disfluency is — and is not — a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judjments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 2013, 41(2), 229-241.  

Received 29 April 2021. Date of publication: 29 August 2021.

About author

Berezner Timofei A. Research Assistant, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interface Users, Student, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HSE University, st. Myasnitskaya 20, 101000 Moscow, Russia.

Gorbunova Elena S. PhD in Psychology, Laboratory Head, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interface Users, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, HSE University, st. Myasnitskaya 20, 101000 Moscow, Russia.

Suggested citation

Berezner T.A., Gorbunova E.S. Improving text memorization by changing fonts: the study of Sans Forgetica. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2021, Vol. 14, No. 78, p. 2. http://psystudy.ru

Permanent URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/2021v14n78e/1920-berezner78e.html

Back to top >>

Related Articles