Is less readable liked better? The case of font readability in poetry appreciation

Autoři: Xin Gao aff001;  Jeroen Dera aff003;  Annabel D. Nijhof aff004;  Roel M. Willems aff001
Působiště autorů: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands aff001;  Marketing and Consumer Behavior group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands aff002;  Faculty of Arts, Department of Dutch Language and Culture, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands aff003;  King’s College London, London, United Kingdom aff004;  Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands aff005;  Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225757


Previous research shows conflicting findings for the effect of font readability on comprehension and memory for language. It has been found that—perhaps counterintuitively–a hard to read font can be beneficial for language comprehension, especially for difficult language. Here we test how font readability influences the subjective experience of poetry reading. In three experiments we tested the influence of poem difficulty and font readability on the subjective experience of poems. We specifically predicted that font readability would have opposite effects on the subjective experience of easy versus difficult poems. Participants read poems which could be more or less difficult in terms of conceptual or structural aspects, and which were presented in a font that was either easy or more difficult to read. Participants read existing poems and subsequently rated their subjective experience (measured through four dependent variables: overall liking, perceived flow of the poem, perceived topic clarity, and perceived structure). In line with previous literature we observed a Poem Difficulty x Font Readability interaction effect for subjective measures of poetry reading. We found that participants rated easy poems as nicer when presented in an easy to read font, as compared to when presented in a hard to read font. Despite the presence of the interaction effect, we did not observe the predicted opposite effect for more difficult poems. We conclude that font readability can influence reading of easy and more difficult poems differentially, with strongest effects for easy poems.

Klíčová slova:

Cognition – Emotions – Experimental design – Grammar – Language – Phonology – Syllables – Syntax


1. Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personal Soc Psychol Rev Off J Soc Personal Soc Psychol Inc. 2004;8: 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 15582859

2. Hanauer D. Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics. 1996;23: 363–380. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(95)00010-H

3. Lea RB, Rapp DN, Elfenbein A, Mitchel AD, Romine RS. Sweet Silent Thought: Alliteration and Resonance in Poetry Comprehension. Psychol Sci. 2008;19: 709–716. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02146.x 18727787

4. McGlone MS, Tofighbakhsh J. Birds of a Feather Flock Conjointly (?): Rhyme as Reason in Aphorisms. Psychol Sci. 2000;11: 424–428. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00282 11228916

5. Menninghaus W, Bohrn IC, Knoop CA, Kotz SA, Schlotz W, Jacobs AM. Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition. 2015;143: 48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026 26113449

6. Obermeier C, Menninghaus W, von Koppenfels M, Raettig T, Schmidt-Kassow M, Otterbein S, et al. Aesthetic and Emotional Effects of Meter and Rhyme in Poetry. Front Psychol. 2013;4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00010 23386837

7. Wallot S, Menninghaus W. Ambiguity effects of rhyme and meter. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000557 29683711

8. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2009;13: 219–235. doi: 10.1177/1088868309341564 19638628

9. Alter AL. The Benefits of Cognitive Disfluency. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013;22: 437–442. doi: 10.1177/0963721413498894

10. Blohm S, Wagner V, Schlesewsky M, Menninghaus W. Sentence judgments and the grammar of poetry: Linking linguistic structure and poetic effect. Poetics. 2018;69: 41–56. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2018.04.005

11. Erickson TD, Mattson ME. From Words to Meaning: A Semantic Illusion. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav N Y. 1981;20: 540–551.

12. Ferreira F, Patson ND. The ‘Good Enough’ Approach to Language Comprehension. Lang Linguist Compass. 2007;1: 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x

13. Kuperberg GR, Holcomb PJ, Sitnikova T, Greve D, Dale AM, Caplan D. Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003;15: 272–93. doi: 10.1162/089892903321208204 12676064

14. van Herten M, Kolk HHJ, Chwilla DJ. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005;22: 241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002 15653297

15. Song H, Schwarz N. If It’s Hard to Read, It’s Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation. Psychol Sci. 2008;19: 986–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x 19000208

16. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM, Epley N, Eyre RN. Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136: 569–576. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569 17999571

17. Diemand-Yauman C, Oppenheimer DM, Vaughan EB. Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition. 2011;118: 111–115. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012 21040910

18. Faber M, Mills C, Kopp K, D’Mello S. The effect of disfluency on mind wandering during text comprehension. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017;24: 914–919. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1153-z 27600802

19. Kühl T, Eitel A. Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition Learn. 2016;11: 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x

20. Meyer A, Frederick S, Burnham TC, Guevara Pinto JD, Boyer TW, Ball LJ, et al. Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144: e16–e30. doi: 10.1037/xge0000049 25844628

21. Perloff M. Writing as Re-Writing: Concrete Poetry as ArrièreGarde. CiberLetras Rev Crítica Lit Cult. 2007;17.

22. Elger D., Grosenick U. Dadaism. Koeln/London: Taschen; 2004.

23. van Peer W. Typographic foregrounding. Lang Lit. 1993;2: 49–61. doi: 10.1177/096394709300200104

24. Bogman J. De stad als tekst: over de compositie van Paul van Ostaijens Bezette stad. Rotterdam: Van Hezikfonds; 1991.

25. Bru S, Willaert T. A Centrifugal Reading of De Stijl’s Constructivist Poetics: On the Literature of Blaise Cendrars, Georges Vantongerloo, Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and László Moholy Nagy. J Dutch Lit. 2016;7: 43–58.

26. Dera J. Een kind met een hartaanval: Over het handschreeuwkoor van Tonnus Oosterhoff. Dietsche Warande Belfort. 2010;155: 121–130.

27. Dera, J., Posman, S., Van der Starre, K. Dichters van het nieuwe millennium: Nederlandse en Vlaamse poëzie in de 21e eeuw. Nijmegen: Vantilt; 2016.

28. Dera J, De Strycker C. Bundels van het nieuwe millennium: Nederlandse en Vlaamse poëzie in de 21e eeuw. Nijmegen: Van Tilt; 2018.

29. Jacobs AM. Towards a Neurocognitive Poetics Model of Literary Reading. In: Willems RM, editor. Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

30. Jacobs AM. Neurocognitive Poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive- affective bases of literature reception. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9: 186. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186 25932010

31. Ullrich S, Aryani A, Kraxenberger M, Jacobs AM, Conrad M. On the Relation between the General Affective Meaning and the Basic Sublexical, Lexical, and Inter-lexical Features of Poetic Texts—A Case Study Using 57 Poems of H. M. Enzensberger. Front Psychol. 2017;7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02073 28123376

32. Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personal Soc Psychol Rev Off J Soc Personal Soc Psychol Inc. 2004;8: 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 15582859

33. Schwarz N. Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. J Consum Psychol. 2004;14: 332–348. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2

34. Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM. Equivalence Testing for Psychological Research: A Tutorial. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1: 259–269. doi: 10.1177/2515245918770963

35. Hartung F, Withers P, Hagoort P, Willems RM. When Fiction Is Just as Real as Fact: No Differences in Reading Behavior between Stories Believed to be Based on True or Fictional Events. Front Psychol. 2017;8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01618 28983269

36. Mak M, Willems RM. Mental simulation during literary reading: Individual differences revealed with eye-tracking. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2018;0: 1–25. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1552007

37. JASP Team. JASP. 2018.

38. Jacobs AM, Willems RM. The Fictive Brain: Neurocognitive Correlates of Engagement in Literature. Rev Gen Psychol. 2017; No Pagination Specified.

39. Menninghaus W, Wagner V, Wassiliwizky E, Jacobsen T, Knoop CA. The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics. 2017;63: 47–59. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2016.12.001

40. Aryani A, Conrad M, Schmidtke D, Jacobs A. Why “piss” is ruder than “pee”? The role of sound in affective meaning making. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0198430. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198430 29874293

41. Aryani A, Kraxenberger M, Ullrich S, Jacobs AM, Conrad M. Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2016;10: 191–204. doi: 10.1037/aca0000033

42. Auracher J, Albers S, Zhai Y, Gareeva G, Stavniychuk T. P Is for Happiness, N Is for Sadness: Universals in Sound Iconicity to Detect Emotions in Poetry. Discourse Process. 2010;48: 1–25. doi: 10.1080/01638531003674894

43. Kraxenberger M, Menninghaus W. Mimological Reveries? Disconfirming the Hypothesis of Phono-Emotional Iconicity in Poetry. Front Psychol. 2016;7: 1779. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01779 27895614

44. Kraxenberger M, Menninghaus W. Emotional effects of poetic phonology, word positioning and dominant stress peaks in poetry reading. Sci Study Lit. 2016;6: 298–313. doi: 10.1075/ssol.6.2.06kra

45. Kraxenberger M, Menninghaus W, Roth A, Scharinger M. Prosody-Based Sound-Emotion Associations in Poetry. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01284 30090078

46. Unkelbach C, Greifeneder R. A general model of fluency effects in judgment and decision making. The experience of thinking : how feelings from mental processes influence cognition and behavior. Hove: Psychology Press; 2013. pp. 11–32.

47. Oppenheimer DM. The secret life of fluency. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12: 237–241. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014 18468944

48. Pelowski M, Markey PS, Lauring JO, Leder H. Visualizing the Impact of Art: An Update and Comparison of Current Psychological Models of Art Experience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160 27199697

49. de Vries CM, Reijnierse WG, Willems RM. Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Sci Study Lit. 2018.

50. Willems RM, editor. Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

51. Hasson U, Egidi G, Marelli M, Willems RM. Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension. Cognition. 2018;180: 135–157. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.018 30053570

52. Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12