↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
A hard-to-read font reduces the framing effect in a large sample
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13423-017-1395-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph W. Korn, Juliane Ries, Lennart Schalk, Yulia Oganian, Henrik Saalbach

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 39%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 37%