Essay
The processing fluency of a harder font type results in a lower motivation to do said task.
- Module
- Psychology (100PY)
- Institution
- Coventry University (West Midlands) (CU)
Essay of 5 pages for the course Psychology at CU
[Show more]
Seller
FollowContent preview
Student I.D. : 5607088The processing fluency of a harder font type results in a lower motivation to do said task.
Abstract.
Individuals are more likely to be reluctant towards doing a task, if the instructions are hard-to-read.
Participants were given a task which was written in either a hard-to-read font (Brush) or an easy-to-
read font (Arial). They then filled out a questionnaire assessing difficulty and motivation on doing
that task. They found that the harder-to-read font had some effect on motivation and not much
effect on difficulty. Song and Schwarz (2008), who conducted comparable research, found similar.
They found that people misinterpreted the difficulty of processing the information as the actual task
being difficult. This means that the brain associates the difficulty of understanding a task to the task
itself.
Introduction
Processing fluency is how easy or difficult it is to process information. It has previously been involved
in research in an attempt to explain its role in a variety of circumstances. Jiang and Hong (2014)
looked at how expected processing fluency matched experienced processing fluency. When
expected fluency matched experienced fluency there was reassurance within participants which
allowed them to then evaluate a given policy more favourably. This suggests that processing fluency
has effects in which way we assess things. Therefore similar assumptions can be made about
processing fluency and task ratings. Koch and Forgas (2012) conducted related research which
delivered equivalent findings. They showed that easier to process statements were more likely to be
judged as true than harder to process statements. This shows that the ease of processing fluency
effects our judgement whether or not we know something to be true or false. Therefore more
research into processing fluency can help society understand the dangers and benefits of processing
information.
Research by West and Bruckmuller (2013) has the same independent variable as the one replicated
from Song and Schwarz, which is the font type in which the information was written in. Evidently the
clearer the font type the easier it is to process the information. West and Bruckmuller observed to
see if the font type altered participant’s views on prejudice. They found that with the easier-to-read
font, they showed less prejudice. This research shows that there is an interaction between
processing fluency and judgement, which supports this current study.
In this study participants were asked to read and rate the difficulty and motivation of a task. They
were given a short text to read, then answered a questionnaire. The aim of the study was to see if
processing fluency had an effect on the difficulty and motivation rating of the task written in a harder
to read font type. From previous research it can be said that if text is clear and fluent, then the
information would be clearer to understand. Therefore, it was predicted that there would be
considerably higher difficulty ratings in the harder-to-read condition than in the easier-to-read
condition. Moreover it was also predicted that there would be considerably higher motivation
ratings in the easier-to-read condition that in the harder-to-read condition.
Method
As mentioned above, this study had one independent variable which is the font type. There are two
levels, there was the easier-to-read font, which was Arial, and there was a harder-to-read font,
, Student I.D. : 5607088
which was Brush. This was a between groups design. There were two dependent variable, which is
the difficulty rating and the motivation rating of doing the task described in the two different fonts,
measured by a 6-point Likert scale.
The participants were all Coventry University students who study level 1 psychology. They were an
opportunity sample, and the experiment was conducted over a period of time with 12 different
groups. There were 238 participants in total. There were more females, of which were 171, than
males, of which were 67. Their mean age was 19.2. There were randomly allocated into the two
different conditions. There were 121 in the harder-to-read condition and there were 117 in the
easier-to-read condition.
Two different questionnaires were given to participants, both have the same information but the
main text was written in different font. An information sheet was given to participants which
outlined the purpose of the study, what the study expected them to do and ethical concerns. They
were asked to sign a consent form. They were given instructions to read the text and answer the
questionnaire which included the two questions, ‘How difficult do you think that the assignment
would be to complete, 1=not at all 6=very’ and ‘How motivated would you be in completing the
assignment, 1=not at all, 6=-very.’ Which were reported on a Likert scale. These materials are similar
to Song and Schwarz (2008), however in this study the text describes a coursework assessment.
Ethical issues were countered in the information sheet. They included the right to withdraw, safety
issues and confidentiality. Participants entered the room and were then randomly allocated to the
two different conditions. They were given 45 minutes to do the task. They read the information
sheet then read and signed the consent form which outlined that they have understood the
information sheet, are aware of the ethical issues and to take part in the study. They then read the
instructions and answered questions. Finally the participants were debriefed, showing the true
nature of the study and answering any questions participants may have had.
Results.
Participants in the Arial condition found a mean of 3.7094 for the difficulty rating and a mean of
3.8376 for the motivation rating. Those in the brush condition found a mean of 3.7107 for difficulty
rating and a mean of 3.5620 for the motivation rating, see Table 1 and Figure 1.
The mean ratings between the two groups are fairly close, the difficulty rating’s means only have a
difference of 0.0013 which is an extremely small value. This suggests that even though there is a
difference between the brush and Arial condition, as brush condition had a higher difficulty rating, it
is only more difficult by an insignificant amount. However there is a greater difference in the
motivation rating mean values (0.2756), even though it is also similar to one another there is still a
difference showing that motivation was lower in the brush condition than in the Arial condition,
which suggests that the harder-to-read font lightly affects the motivation of the exercise given,
which consequently supports the hypothesis.
Arial condition Brush condition
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller arthananavaratnam. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.59. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
82956 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now