The “font size effect” has rarely been studied in the context of valence judgments. In this paper, we aimed to determine whether the font size of neutral words could influence their perceived positivity. We conducted four experiments. In the first two experiments, the words appeared in the participants' peripersonal space (i.e., the area immediately surrounding the body, where one can easily act). The first experiment showed that words in size 36 were judged more positively than words in size 18. The second experiment showed that words in size 18 were judged more positively than words in size 9 and more positively than they were in Experiment 1. In the third and fourth experiments, the words appeared in the participants’ extrapersonal space (i.e., space beyond the reach of the body). The results of the third experiment showed that words in size 36 were judged more positively than those in size 18. The fourth experiment revealed that words in size 72 were judged more positively than those in size 36. However, words in size 36 in this experiment were judged less positively than those in size 36 in Experiment 3. Finally, neutral words in sizes 18 and 36 in Experiment 1 (peripersonal space) were judged more positively than in Experiment 3 (extrapersonal space). Taken together, these results support the idea that valence is influenced by the relative contrast between competing sizes rather than by an inherent size-related valence and the space in which they appear.
AggarwalP.VaidyanathanR. (2016). Is font size a big deal? A transaction–acquisition utility perspective on comparative price promotions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(6), 408–416. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-10-2015-1587
3.
AlexanderE.ChangC. C.ShimabukuroM.FranconeriS.CollinsC.GleicherM. (2017). Perceptual biases in font size as a data encoding. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(8), 2397–2410.
4.
ÅhsF.DunsmoorJ. E.ZielinskiD.LaBarK. S. (2015). Spatial proximity amplifies valence in emotional memory and defensive approach-avoidance. Neuropsychologia, 70, 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.018
BartoloA.CarlierM.HassainiS.MartinY.CoelloY. (2014). The perception of peripersonal space in right and left brain damage hemiplegic patients. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00003
7.
BayerM.SommerW.SchachtA. (2012). Font size matters—emotion and attention in cortical responses to written words. PloS One, 7(5), e36042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036042
8.
BianchiR. G.da Hora RodriguesK. R.de Almeida NerisV. P. (2021, October). Emotional responses to font types and sizes in web pages. In Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–11).
9.
BliniE.DesocheC.SalemmeR.KabilA.Hadj-BouzianeF.FarnèA. (2018). Mind the depth: Visual perception of shapes is better in peripersonal space. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1868–1877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618795679
10.
BoninP.MéotA.AubertL. F.MalardierN.NiedenthalP.Capelle-ToczekM. C. (2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d'imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots. L'année Psychologique, 103(4), 655–694. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29658
11.
ChangM.BrainerdC. J. (2022). Association and dissociation between judgments of learning and memory: A Meta-analysis of the font size effect. Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 443–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09298-8
12.
CléryJ.GuipponiO.WardakC.HamedS. B. (2015). Neuronal bases of peripersonal and extrapersonal spaces, their plasticity and their dynamics: Knowns and unknowns. Neuropsychologia, 70, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.022
13.
CoelloY.QuesqueF.GigliottiM. F.OttL.BruyelleJ. L. (2018). Idiosyncratic representation of peripersonal space depends on the success of one's own motor actions, but also the successful actions of others!. PLoS One, 13(5), e0196874. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196874
14.
CostantiniM.AmbrosiniE.TieriG.SinigagliaC.CommitteriG. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2435-8
15.
DavisJ. D.CoulsonS.ArnoldA. J.WinkielmanP. (2021). Dynamic grounding of concepts: implications for emotion and social cognition (pp. 23–42). In, RobinsonM. D.ThomasL. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Embodied Psychology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78471-3_2
EbertN.AckermannK. A.BearthA. (2023). When information security depends on font size: how the saliency of warnings affects protection behavior. Journal of Risk Research, 26(3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2142952
18.
EveraertT.SpruytA.De HouwerJ. (2011). On the (un) conditionality of automatic attitude activation: the valence proportion effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 65(2), 125. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0022316
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20.
FerriF.Tajadura-JiménezA.VäljamäeA.VastanoR.CostantiniM. (2015). Emotion-inducing approaching sounds shape the boundaries of multisensory peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 70, 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.00
21.
GallD.LatoschikM. E. (2020). Visual angle modulates affective responses to audiovisual stimuli. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106346
GrobelnyJ.MichalskiR. (2015). The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.036
HoA. G. (2017). Emotional typography: The effectiveness of current typographic design categories in eliciting emotion. The International Journal of Visual Design, 11(2): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1581/CGP/v11i02/37-44
28.
JordanT.MartinC. (1987). The importance of visual angle in word recognition: A “shrinking screen” modification for visual displays. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19(3), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202566
29.
KatzirT.HershkoS.HalamishV. (2013) The Effect of font size on reading comprehension on second and fifth grade children: Bigger is not always better. PLoS One, 8(9), e74061. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074061
30.
KawaiC.LukácsG.AnsorgeU. (2020). Polarities influence implicit associations between colour and emotion. Acta Psychologica, 209, 103143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103143
31.
KwonB. C.YiJ. S.ZhuY. (2013). ReadingMate: The effect of the content stabilizing technique, font size, and interline spacing on the letter-counting task performance of treadmill runners. Human Factors, 55(6), 1101–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813485089
32.
LakensD. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 726. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024955
33.
LakensD.FockenbergD. A.LemmensK. P.HamJ.MiddenC. J. (2013). Brightness differences influence the evaluation of affective pictures. Cognition & Emotion, 27(7), 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.781501
34.
LakensD.SeminG. R.ForoniF. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through shared relational structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 584. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026468
35.
LevinC. A.HaberR. N. (1993). Visual angle as a determinant of perceived interobject distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 54(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211761
36.
LunaK.NogueiraM.AlbuquerqueP. B. (2019). Words in larger font are perceived as more important: Explaining the belief that font size affects memory. Memory, 27(4), 555–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1529797
37.
MansteadA. S. R.WagnerH. L.MacDonaldC. J. (1983). A contrast effect in judgments of own emotional state. Motivation and Emotion, 7(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991678
38.
MasulliF.GalluccioM.GerardC. L.PeyreH.RovettaS.BucciM. P. (2018). Effect of different font sizes and of spaces between words on eye movement performance: An eye tracker study in dyslexic and non-dyslexic children. Vision Research, 153, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.008
39.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
40.
MatsushimaE. H.de OliveiraA. P.Ribeiro-FilhoN. P.Da SilvaJ. A. (2005). Visual angle as determinant factor for relative distance perception. Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 26(1), 97–104.
41.
McCreadyD. (1985). On size, distance, and visual angle perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211355
42.
MedvecV. H.MadeyS. F.GilovichT. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 603.
43.
MilhauA.BrouilletT.BrouilletD. (2013). Biases in evaluation of neutral words due to motor compatibility effect. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.008
44.
MilhauA.BrouilletT.BrouilletD. (2015). Valence–space compatibility effects depend on situated motor fluency in both right-and left-handers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 887–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.967256
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K.RhodesM. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?. Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007
47.
MurphyD. H.RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2024). The perceived importance of words in large font guides learning and selective memory. Memory & Cognition, 52, 1463–1476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01555-2
48.
OhnishiM.OtsukuniT.TakahashiA.SugiyamaM.HirakimotoM.OgawaS.SuzukiA.OshimaYSheuC. F.OdaK. (2020). Effects of luminance contrast and character size on reading speed. Vision Research, 166, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.09.010
49.
PowersJ. P.LaBarK. S. (2019). Regulating emotion through distancing: A taxonomy, neurocognitive model, and supporting meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.023
50.
RelloL.PielotM.MarcosM. C. (2016). Make it big! The effect of font size and line spacing on online readability. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3637–3648). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY.
51.
RelloL.PielotM.MarcosM. C.CarliniR. (2013). Size matters (spacing not) 18 points for a dyslexic-friendly Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 10th international cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility (pp. 1–4). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, pp. 1–4.
52.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
53.
RizzolattiG.ScandolaraC.MatelliM.GentilucciM. (1981). Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys. I. Somatosensory responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 2(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(81)90052-8
54.
SchönbrodtF. D.WagenmakersE. J. (2018). Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1230-y
55.
TeneggiC.CanzoneriE.di PellegrinoG.SerinoA. (2013). Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries. Current Biology, 23, 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.043
56.
UndorfM.ZimdahlM. F. (2019). Metamemory and memory for a wide range of font sizes: What is the contribution of perceptual fluency?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000571
57.
Valls-SoléJ.ValldeoriolaF.TolosaE.NobbeF. (1997). Habituation of the auditory startle reaction is reduced during preparation for execution of a motor task in normal human subjects. Brain Research, 751(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-8993(97)00027-9
58.
VuilleumierP.ValenzaN.MayerE.ReverdinA.LandisT. (1998). Near and far visual space in unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 43(3), 406–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410430324
59.
WagenmakersE. J.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.LoveJ.SelkerR.GronauQ. F.ŠmíraM.EpskampS.MatzkeD.RoudeJ. N.MoreyR. D. (2018a). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
60.
WagenmakersE. J.LoveJ.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.SelkerR.GronauQ. F.DropmannD.BoutinB.MeerhoffF.KnightP.RajA.van KesterenE.-J.van DoornJ.ŠmíraM.EpskampS.EtzA.MatzkeD.de JongT.van den BerghD.SarafoglouA.SteingroeverH.DerksK.RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D. (2018b). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 58–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
61.
WangH. F.WangP. Y.TingH. C. (2012, April). The influence of highlighting and font size on visual search performance. In Contemporary ergonomics and human factors 2012: proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors (pp. 91–98). Taylor & Francis.
62.
WhittleseaB. W.JacobyL. L.GirardK. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
63.
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
64.
YangC.HuangT. S. T.ShanksD. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.11.005
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
