Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works
Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections
5-1-1979 An Investigation of the Emotional Connotations of Printing Types Michael Blum
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
Recommended Citation Blum, Michael, "An Investigation of the Emotional Connotations of Printing Types" (1979). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
EMOTIONAL CONNOTATIONS OF PRINTING TYPES
by
Michael L. Blum
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the School of Printing in the College of Graphic Arts and Photography of the Rochester Institute of Technology
May, 1979
Thesis advisor: Mr. Carl Gross School of Printing Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
MASTER'S THESIS
This is to certify that the Master's Thesis of Michael L. Blum with a major in Printing Technology has been approved by the Thesis Committee as satisfactory for the thesis requirement for the Master of Science degree at the convocation of May, 1979.
Thesis Committee: Carl Gross ~T~h-e-s~i-s-'A~d'v~i's-o-r------
Robert Hacker Graduate Advisor Mark Guldin Director or Designate ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible without
the assistance of many people. I am indebted to my parents, Hank and Helen Blum, for instilling within me an interest in printing at an early age; for ideas they
shared with me which led to this thesis topic; and for
assistance in many other ways, too numerous to mention.
Thanks are due to my thesis advisor, Mr. Carl Gross,
for his assistance and encouragement at many stages
along the way, which helped make this thesis a reality.
I would also like to thank the other members of my
thesis committee for their assistance: Dr. Robert Hacker,
Dr. Mark Guldin, and Professor Walter Campbell.
Special thanks are due to Professor Archie Provan who often made me think critically about my topic.
I am greatful to a number of other faculty members
at RIT who offered their support in various ways :
Professor Albert Rickmers, Professor Alexander Lawson,
Professor Alfred Horton, and Professor Herbert Johnson.
In addition to the above, the help and understanding of my wife Karen, was indispensible in the completion of this thesis. M.L.B.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Footnotes for Chapter 1 6
II A HISTORY OF THE LITERATURE 7
Non-Empirical Literature . 8
Empirical Literature .11
Footnotes for Chapter II 23
III HYPOTHESES 26
Definitions 27
Limitations 28
IV METHODOLOGY , 30
The Measuring Instruments 30
The Stimulus Materials 33
Subj ects 34
Experimental Design and Analysis 34
Procedures 35
Footnotes for Chapter IV 36
iii V RESULTS OF THE. RESEARCH 37
VI ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 41
VII DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 46
VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 52
IX RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION 55
LIST OF REFERENCES 56
APPENDICES 61
APPENDIX A 62
APPENDIX B .66
APPENDIX C. . .-.:, ...... '.... . 71
iv LIST OF TABLES
1 Factors and Scales 33
2 Type Face Predictions . . . 37
3 Hypothesis Testing at 90% Significance. 44
4 Appropriate & Neutral Types Compared to All Other Types 45
v LIST OF FIGURES
1 Semantic Space 31
2 Semantic Differential 31
vi ABSTRACT
This thesis addresses itself to the problem of under
standing the emotional connotations of printing types . It is hypothesized that there is a model useful in predicting
* reactions to a given type style based on atmosphere value and usage.
The majority of the literature on this subject is non- empirical. It is characterized by the author's stating their opinions with little or no attempt to validate them. The empirical literature shows that there is an emotional connota tion associated with particular type faces. These studies have not shown, however, the importance of this connotation
in terms of appropriate choice of type faces . There seems to be a need for research which measures the ability of printing type to change the contextual meaning of a message.
Five hypotheses were formulated in order to study this
problem. The hypotheses utilized type face predictions -- appropriate, inappropriate, and neutral. It was hypothesized that those type faces predicted to be appropriate would arouse
stronger emotions compared to type faces predicted to be neutral or inappropriate; and that those predicted to be
vi1 inappropriate would arouse stronger emotions compared to a type face predicted to be neutral. It was also hypothesized that the prediction for the neutral type face would not arouse stronger emotions compared to all other types tested. A six-scale semantic differential was uS'ed to test the reactions of students and employees at RIT to six type faces and six messages. Tne scores rtJere taken as absolute values in order to see the strengtn of the emo~ional response to the message/type face combinations. Z scores '"-'Jere calculated to test the hypotheses at the 90% level of significance. The results show that some of tne hypotheses are valid at the desired level of significance in all cases tested, some are valid for certain messages only, and a few are rarely valid. The results seem to show that the emotional connotations of messages are indeed influenced by type face selection, and that a methodology for measuring this phenomonen has been developed. While the number of type faces and messages tested was small, the large number of responses obtained tend to esta.blisn the metnodology as a sound one for developing a more extensive body of knowledge on this subject.
Abstract Approved: Carl Gross Thesis Advisor ....:..I:....:.n=st:..:..,.ru=..c=t=o;.:..r ___ Tit le
-=2:..:.1.....:.M..:...:.=.ay~19::;..:7'-'9'---_ Da t e
viii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
It has long been a problem for someone designing printed matter to choose from among the myriad of type styles available. Many studies have been conducted which help in this matter by attempting to measure the degree of legibility and/or readability of text with
length-of- respect to such parameters as size, style, line, leading, justification, color of print and back ground, and quality of paper. Some of the most extensive of these studies were conducted by Tinker and Patterson.
Another aspect of typography which has great import for the user is a factor which has been variously called congeniality, atmosphere value, feeling tone, emotional or affective connotation. Ovink has defined the atmosphere value of a type face as "those properties by which it
"2 excites feelings within the reader, while Zachrisson has defined congenial typography as "a correspondence
form."-> between content and visual
Most of the literature on this subject consists of intuitive statements. Relatively few experimental approaches to the problem have been attempted.
Beatrice Warde, also known as Paul Beaujon, has written the following on this matter:
The best part of typographic wisdom lies in this study of connotation, the suitability of form to content. People who love ideas must have a love of words, and that means, given a chance they will take vivid interest in the clothes which words wear. The more they like to think, the more they will be shocked by any discrepancy between a lucid typesetting.^ idea and a murky
Others take a more pragmatic view of the matter --
in terms of the quantity of mass -media communication
one is exposed to today, the typographer has an important
role in determining initial attention, comprehension,
and future recall of a message.-' Lewis has noted that
the average person is less and less inclined to read
copy; rather, because of television he is conditioned to
headlines." looking at pictures and reading short, shocking
The typographer's role has thus been partly defined
"metacommunication" as or communicating messages about
' the message. Ovink has summarized this idea aptly:
If a type, while fulfilling its original function, i.e., the conveying of a message, at the same time created a certain mood or feeling, then we should suit this feeling to the general tendency of the feelings of the message. For by doing so, we make the reader more accessible for that kind of communication. The study of congeniality has various other applications in the graphic arts; a few examples would
include: the connotations of colors used in printing,
the feeling or mood created by various types of substrates, and the impression given by using different halftone
screen patterns .
To return again to typography, two basic schools of
thought may be discerned with respect to how typography
can accomplish the task of metacommunication: one school
says that the variation of the type face itself can alter the meaning, while the other school maintains that
the typographic treatment given in terms of leading,
symmetry, line-length, and other aspects of presentation have the greatest role in determining the feeling of the message. A good synthesis of the two is typified by
Dowdine :
It will be found that almost any quality inherent in or attributed to a product or a service can be suggested if care is exercised in chosing the right type face. Naturally the way in which the types are arranged and set -- their sizes and leading -- count enormously. As an obvious example it would be difficult to suggest the quality of airiness, even with the most suitable of types, if that type were used in a solid setting to a wider than normal measure. 9
The. entire concept of congeniality, however, has not been without opposition. Typical of this school of thought are the following remarks :
A lot of nonsense has been talked about the appropriate use of typefaces for certain kinds of job. I was once asked to design a type book on this principle. You know the kind of thing: delicate, pretty little scripts and eminently respectable roman faces for Banking Houses and Money Lenders. ... It was only after I had designed about twenty of these examples that I found I could change their typefaces round at will and with ever 10 increasing effect.
According to Rehe, studies about the feelings of type faces are still in their infancy, and the major guide to type selection is still the intuition of the experienced typographer. Rehe feels that the results of research have only shown the value of certain methods of investigation, but that eventually research may
H shed light on the problem.
Ovink has stated:
The typographer . . . who did not hit upon the specially appropriate type, will not have done actual harm to the transmission of the meaning of the text, but he has missed an opportunity to intensify the force of impression of the text in a considerable
degree. ---
It is on this premise that the present study is based. It is hypothesized that there is a model useful in predicting reactions to a given type style based on atmosphere value and usage. The following pages will summarize how this question has been dealt with historically. FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER I
M.A. of (Ames: Iowa State Tinker, , Legibility Print, University Press, 1963), pp. 9-31. 2
. . and Ovink , G E , Legibility, Atmosphere Value, Forms of Printed Type, (Leiden: A.W. Sijhoff ,. 1938) , p. 127.
the of Zachrisson, B. , Studies in Legibility Printed Text, (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells Bktryckeri AB, T9B5), p. 76.
^Warde, B., The Crystal Goblet, (New York: World Publishers, 1956), p. 148.
and -'Harrison, R. Morris, D. , "Communication Theory Research," and Typographical The Journal of Typographical
1 and : Research, (1967): 122; Rehe, R.F. , Typography How to Make It Most Legible, (Indianapolis: Design Research
Publications , 1974), p. 14.
Lewis, J., Typography: Basic Principles, (New York: Reinhold p. Publishing Corporation, 1964) , 70.
p. 7Rehe, R.F. , 14.
G.E. p. 127. 80vink, , Q of Dowding, G. , Factors in the Choice Type Faces, and (London: Wace Company, Ltd. , 1957) , p. 81*1
pp. 10Lewis, J. , 52-3.
1:LRehe, R.F. ; and Rehe, R.F., "Psychological Studies and Their Impact on Modern Typography, Inland Printer/ and American Lithographer 164 (March 1970) , 165 (April 1970)
120vink, G.E., p. 177. CHAPTER II
A HISTORY OF THE LITERATURE
Much has been written about the affective connotation of printing type. Several sources are valuable in search ing the literature on the subject in addition to graphic
Word^ arts abstracts. The Visible contains a very complete bibliography on the problems of legibility, and much of the literature may be found there. Legibility
Abstracts though published , only for two years is also a valuable resource.
The literature on the emotional connotation of type faces can roughly be broken down into two categories : empirical research, and non-empirical research. The quantity of non-empirical research by far out-weighs the empirical research; a sampling of the non-empirical literature will be given, followed by a more detailed account of the empirical literature. A brief account of research, findings regarding the connotations of lines will be presented, as the results are pertinent to a thorough study of the emotional connotations of printing types. 8
NON-EMPIRICAL LITERATURE
The non-empirical literature related to this subject is comprised of essays, treatises, articles, type specimen
authors' books, and other sources, all characterized by the stating their opinions with little or no attempt to validate them.
Beatrice Warde has compared type face legibility to the audibility of a human voice; she tells us:
Set a page in Fournier against another in Caslon and another in Plantin, and it is as if you heard three different people delivering the same discourse -- each with impeccable pronunciation and clarity, yet each through the medium of a different 15 personality .
Exactly what these personalities are and how to use them is a matter she leaves up to each typographer's sense of good taste, cultural background, and literary
1" training.
Dowding is somewhat more specific in suggesting how to select a type face according to suitability or fitness for purpose. He suggests that the theme of the book should be considered, as well as the approximate typographical style of the period of the book. In addition he states that display type may be chosen to suggest some quality, for example a sharply cut face like
Perpetua to suggest precision as in watch advertising.
Turnbull and Baird have stated that the appropriateness of a type face is second only to legibility; they define appropriateness of type as being the use of faces harmonious with the other elements and the over-all design of the printed communication, as well as the selection of faces in terms of the psychological impressions they bear. 18
congruence;" Harrison and Morris speak of "connotative they state that a type style can communicate certain connotations, and that the message itself has certain connotations. They state that the typographer in his choice of a type face can (a) reinforce the connotations,
(b) provide new connotations, (c) offer minimal connotations, and (d) introduce conflicting
Dair in Design With Type suggests that letters come in all shapes and sizes, and like people, have different personalities. He too feels that proper type face selection can emphasize a quality of meaning, and get an emotional response through associations. For Dair part of the feeling of type is in its texture, which he compares to weaving: "...In the setting of type the texture of the finished composition is affected by any differences in thickness of the lines used in the vertical and the 10
horizontal, and by any variation in the space that separates
these lines, in one direction or the other.... The
relative coarseness of our typographic threads will thus
affect the texture of our line in exactly the same way
'silky' as in textiles; we can get a line with Caslon
'tweedy' Bold."20 Old Style and a line with a Clarendon
The Intertype Corporation published a booklet, How to
Select Type Faces, which states that type should be
judged more according to its spirit than its physical
characteristics. The booklet does not specify which types
should be used when, and states that "Typography being
largely a matter of feeling, like any art, cannot be
worked out with a slide rule, or practiced successfully
by referring to a chart of suitably combining elements . . .
'feel' the first essential is to become sensitive to the
of the various faces; and then the question of combinations
"21 resolves itself.
While many of these sources only make suggestions
of a very general nature, there is another category of
non-empirical literature of type face connotations --
that of annotated type specimen books . A few examples
will suffice: Perpetua, Stanley Morison tells us, "Is a
design appropriate for select classes of work with which
'style' "22 a certain obvious degree of is desired.
Butler and Likeness describe various display faces in
a manner similar to the following: 11
SAPPHIRE: A chalet high in the Swiss alps... a yodeled chant glancing from peak to peak,
returning at last in a distorted round. . cheeked skiers zooming through flying white powder and then soaring toward cobalt skies .... No face, in our opinion, quite catches the spirit of Switzerland as does Hermann Zapf's exported to SAPPHIRE (Saphir) , this country from Germany's Stempel foundry. 23
Perhaps the most extreme example of this type of
literature is to be found in the work of Hlasta who
throughout his book Printing Types and How to Use Them,
lists specific uses for each type face; for example,
"In magazine use, Deepdene is best employed in house
organs for female employees, dramatic arts and music journals, and chamber of commerce magazines for residential
"24 towns. Hlasta has been criticized by Zachrisson,
among others, who states, "It may be sufficient to point
out that, for instance, a commodity such as a motor car
variety!"2-' represents a wide
EMPIRICAL LITERATURE
The first empirical study published about the
agreed"10 atmosphere value of types is generally to be a 27 study written in Germany by Anna Berliner in 1920.
Begun as an attempt to determine the most appropriate type
for a fishery, her study eventually involved over 130 female
college students who were tested by the order of merit 12
method on their preferences for 18 styles of hand lettered type for advertising each of the following products : fish, pork and beans, pancake flour, and orange marmalade.
She then tested their aesthetic judgements and their perception of legibility for each of the types using the same method. Her conclusions were that certain classes of products seem to have a particular atmosphere value, as determined by their appropriate association with particular type faces. She illustrates the types used
experiments not which type in the , but she does specify faces were associated with which products. Her study may also be criticized in that it does not test reliability or significance, that her sample was made up entirely of female college students, and that the stimulus material was made up of types of various sizes which were in either all capitals or capitals and lower-case letters, thus introducing additional variables.
A study by Poffenberger and Franken published three 28 years later improved on Berliner's work. Instead of hand lettering, the stimulus material consisted of twenty- nine of the type faces used at the time for advertising work; the appropriateness of the type faces was tested for abstract qualities as well as actual products ; and the judgments of both men and women were tested. The order of merit method was used, and the type faces were listed by name along with the results. The researchers concluded, 13
The results of this experiment show quite conclusively that differing type faces do vary in appropriateness and that judges are 'feel' able to this appropriateness or lack of appropriateness. Furthermore, there is close agreement between sexes and among members of the same sex in the character of their reactions to the different type 29 specimens .
They attributed these effects to two causes : the type faces themselves having certain atmosphere because of their shape and structure; and the associ ations connected to them because of traditional use.
Their study may be criticized on several accounts: the stimulus material, taken from the Declaration of
Independence, may contain an emotional content of its own which was not taken into account; the number of lines for each type face varied from one to four; there was no reference to tests of significance; the sizes of types were varied, though the sizes were not given; and the experiment did not show the strengths of the
effects .
An experiment conducted in 1933, by Davis and Smith,
->0 was. designed to improve upon the two earlier studies.
They used the following phrase as the stimulus material:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Zania has fallen and other sections are
away." fast going They varied the type style, size, boldness, condensation, expansion, and italics, and asked 14
90 college students to state their preferences for these
types for various products and feelings . They found that
a product was more likely to arouse different feelings
in different persons. They explained this as follows:
For example, from association one might get a feeling of dirtiness, warmth, labor, darkness, etc. from the product Coal. Likewise with almost of any of the other products . Some the feelings described or set out in the list might possibly also get a double interpretation but evidently
products.-51 not to such a degree as the
They determined that these characteristics, in
descending order, are most influential in expressing the
feeling tone of a type face: Extreme size, condensation,
boldness, family style, and italics. In addition to this,
their results showed the same trends as those of the two
earlier experiments. Davis and Smith have been criticized
for their statistical techniques by later researchers
Two years later Schiller published the results of her
experiments which were essentially a repeat of Poffenberger
and Franken's, though she used different type faces, and
the addition of testing for the appropriateness of color. 33
Her conclusions were virtually the same with respect to the
appropriateness of type faces , with the exception of the
"automobiles" "coffee." categories of and She interprets
this difference as being due to a shift in values --
automobiles and coffee, she reasoned, were being associated more with luxury than they had been earlier. 15
A study on the legibility and atmosphere value of type faces by Ovink has been called, "...the pioneer in scientific
"34 work on congeniality. Ovink summarized all of the re search to his day, and compared the study of congeniality
Ovink' of type faces to hand writing analysis. s method
involved the use of non-sense stimulus material, set to a
Seventy- constant line length, size and with uniform leading. one subjects were asked to rank order thirty type faces as
to the most appropriate for eight categories of books, and as to the most appropriate for eight goods or ideas.
The data was analyzed for rank-order correlation in various permutations, and the results were printed in the
form of brief descriptions of each category of book, each of the eight qualities, and each of the type faces. Thus,
for example, Ovink concludes that a book of stately nature would best be printed In a type which ras rhythmic,
fairly full, fairly large, etc.; the quality of freshness
demanded a thin, simplified, small type face; and the type
face Excelsior indicated precision, delicacy, refinement,
etc.-5-- narrow-mindedness, Ovink. is cautious, however, in
terms of his recommendations for applying these results.
For one thing, he cautions the reader that the adjectives
tested were in Dutch, and that the results might not apply to different languages. He also remarks that more research is needed and that "for the average public, these 16
atmospheres are not quite distinct... that a clever lay-out can make such types appropriate for a certain quality that
"3" are properly unsuitable. Ovink completed tests to measure the effect of lay-out in terms of leading and margins, as well as experiments relating to the kind and color of paper printed on.
In another significant study, Sir Cyril Burt investigated the psychology of typography, using factorial
' methods along with an analysis of introspections. His results seemed to show a statistically significant positive correlation between type legibility and preference
Analysis of introspections showed that these preferences were attritibutable, to a large extent, to previous habits and experience.
Haskins^*- combined ten different Saturday Evening Post articles with ten headings set in different types, and presented the material to a nation-wide randomized sample of 300 subjects. The subjects were asked to select the most appropriate headings for the articles. Analysis of variance was performed on the data. Haskins felt that his hypothesis of type face appropriateness as a quality varying with magazine articles on different topics was established at a highly significant level. His findings
"high-tension" seemed to show that articles demanded a more specific choice of type; Cheltenham and Bodoni were preferred for crime, Futura Bold for sports, and Bodoni 17
for medicine.
"good" "poor" Wrolstad examined the effects of and
aesthetic standards in typography based on balance, contrast,
proportion, rhythm, unity, and the age, sex and education
^ of the respondents.
He compared their responses with those of professional
typographers; an analysis of variance failed to establish
"good" "poor" the differences between and typography.
Zachrisson has criticized this study by stating his
"good" opinion that half of the material presented as
mediocre.^0 was at best The experiment, hox^rever, did
stimulate Zachrisson to attempt a similar study.
His study involved the variation of type face (roman
and sans serif) , arrangement (symmetric and asymmetric) ,
and the subjects (expert and non-expert.) The subjects
were asked to select the best typographic presentation for
each of six items. The data tended to show that expert
and non- experts agreed with each other on the most
congenial combinations; for example, a symmetric arrange
and roman ment for wedding invitations , type face for the
advertisment of a perfume. He also unsuccessfully
attempted to show that educated adults are able to match
/ 0 typography with examples of art and painting .
Brinton also attempted to test the difference between
/ o expert and non-expert groups. He tested 13 type faces 18
using a semantic differential scale of 26 bi-polar
44 1 adjectives. He too concluded that there was a general
agreement between experts and non-experts.
Tannenbaum, et al. also used the semantic differential
technique to determine the emotional connotations of type
for three groups: professional typographers, semi-
professionals, and amateurs. Four type faces were used,
italic* all of the same size, in roman and inclination, and
in upper and lower case letters. The stimulus material
was the alphabet. The results of an analysis of variance
showed that the professional and semi-professional groups
had the highest agreement; the professional group judged
the type faces more favorably in general than the other
groups; roman letters and upper case letters were judged
to be more potent, while italics were judged to be more
active.
li.fi Wendt conducted a similar experiment in German. He
cautioned that this restricts the generality of the results,
but not the value of the method as a tool for typographic
research. He stated that the main advantage of the semantic
differential is "that it can be used to compare the
connotations, descriptions, or association fields of any
"^7 kinds of objects. He also suggests its use in testing
typographical lay-outs of various kinds . 19
A study by Kastl and Child tested for the emotional meaning of four typographical variables -- angular versus
curved, bold versus light, simple versus ornate, and serif 48 versus sans-serif. The experiment used 32 type faces,
and an analysis of variance showed results in accord with
previous experiments. Their experiment has been criticized because the stimulus material consisted of slides of the
first sixteen letters of the alphabet in all capitals,
arranged in four rows; the generalizability from a projected 49 alphabet to a printed page is open to question.
Kleper asked respondents from various educational
levels to associate type faces with drawings depicting some
feeling or emotion. He also asked his subjects to classify
type faces as masculine or feminine and to associate type
faces with particular businesses. He concluded that
"The definition which distinguishes type faces having
strong emotive qualities and others having little or none
is one of morphology. Structural differences, contrasts,
emotionality."51 and visual appeal all combine to affect
It is interesting to note that Kleper questions the
validity of questionnaires in such studies, and suggests
that a more accurate method would be to use a polygraph
test, in which the respondent has no control as to his
responses .
Morrison tested thirty type face combinations; five
type families, three weight variations and italic versus 20
roman. 52 He used the semantic differential technique
to have subjects rate nonsense words which resembled
English sentences in their form, and analysis of variance
on the data seemed to show that italic type faces
communicate a feeling of potency. He recommended further
study, and that particularly a study be attempted to
determine if type face can communicate an emotional
connotation and therby reinforce the contextual meaning
^3 of the message.
The study of the emotional connotations of lines is
of interest here, as it may be observed that printing
types are made up of lines, and can tend to vary in a manner
similar to lines, depending on the type face.
One of the earliest studies on lines was conducted
54 by Lundholm. He asked his subjects to draw lines which
expressed the feeling of thirteen groups of adjectives.
Using percentages, he determined that long, low waves
suggested slow, weak movement, and small waves with sharp
angles were suggestive of intense rapid movement. Large
high waves were suggestive of strength, and thin lines
suggested weakness. Werner and Kaplan have attempted to
synthesize the research on the congeniality of lines, and
Lundholm' 55 have stated that s work is representative.
Poffenberger has also been mentioned in connection with
one of the earliest studies on the congeniality of type.
He shows a chart of eight border designs in his article 21
^ on the feeling value of lines, and states that "they
might be more effectually used by taking account of the
relation between quality, direction and rhythm of line
them."--' and the feelings that are aroused in seeing
Morrison has pointed out that the variables used in
the research of lines -- height, width, and curvature --
are quite similar to the ways in which type can vary. He
states:
There are typefaces which are curved and others which are angular. Different typefaces exhibit variations in stroke width from hairline strokes to very thick strokes. A typeface can give the illusion of height through variations in x-height,
the length of the ascenders and descenders , and in the pattern created by upper and lower case letters. biS
The most common problem to be noted with the experi ments on type face congeniality is with the confounding variable of the stimulus material. While the experimenters
attempted to have neutral connotation attributable to the
stimulus material itself, it is doubtful that many of them
did this. It was shown how some experimenters used familiar
phrases, such, as, "When In the course of human events....";
and some used the alphabet, which is so different from normal printed communications that it too may confound the matter. Kastl and Child have been criticized for using
slides, which may not apply to printed media, while Brinton
did not disclose his stimulus material. 22
One of the most fruitful avenues for future research may be found in Kleper 's suggestion of using a polygraph
to measure the emotional reaction of a subject to type faces
It has also been pointed out that there is the need for
research which would show how a type face can reinforce
the context of a message.
Rehe has summarized some of the literature on
congeniality, and arrived at the following conclusions:
Some might say that typography does not need all this scientific framework. Their arguments are well founded. Printing and typography indeed
have a proud and long history. . . . But typography, above all, is a means of communication and has to convey information as productively as possible. . . . Today, we in the printing industry are still somewhat hesitant to apply the results
suggested. . . . However, if we combine inherited wisdom and tradition with new scientific findings, then all will benefit -- industry, consumer, society in general, and the proud, historic
-*9 typographic art . 23
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER II
13Spencer, H. , The Visible Word, (New York: Hastings House, Publishers, 1968), pp. 83-107. 14 ^Foster, J. J. , ed. , Legibility Abstracts, (London: Lund Humphries, 1970 and 1971) .
B. p. 15Warde, , 138.
B. p. 16Warde, , 147.
G. pp. 17Dowding, , 79-82.
A.T. and of 18Turnbull, Baird, R.N. , The Graphics Com (New York: munication, Holt, Rinehart Co. , 1964) , pp. 189-90
and ^Harrison, R. Morris, D. , p. 120. 20 C. Design With Dair , Type, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), pp. 3 21 Intertype Corporation, How to Select Type Faces , (Brooklyn: The Intertype Corporation, 1949), p. 15. 22 Morison, S., A Tally of Types, (Cambridge: Cambridge p. University Press, 1973) , 104.
oo and Butler, K. , Likeness, G. , Practical Handbook on Display Typefaces for Publication Layout, (Mendota: Butler
Typo-Design Research Center, 1959) , p. ?6 . 24 Hlasta, S.C., Printing Types and How to Use Them, (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1950), p. 29.
25Zachrisson, B., p. 80.
and 26See Poffenberger, A.T. Franken, R. , "A of faces," study the appropriateness of type -Journal of Applied Psy p. and "Deter- chology, 7 (1923), 314; Davis, R. Smith, H. , faces," minants of feeling tone in type Journal of Applied and Psychology, 17 (1933), p. 742; Schiller, G. , "An experi mental study of the appropriateness of color and type in ad vertising," Journal of Applied Psychology, 19 (1935) , p. 652, 24
27 Drucktypen," Berliner, A., "Atmospharenwert von (Zeitschrlft fur angewandte Psychologie) 17 (1920) , pp. 165-172.
28 ^Poffenberger, A.T. and Franken, R.B., pp. 312-29. 29 Poffenberger, A.T. and Franken, R.B., p. 328. 30 Davis, R.C. and Smith, H. J. , pp. 742-64. 31 and Davis, R.C. Smith, H.J. , p. 749.
00 JZ-Kastl, A.J. and Child, I.L., "Emotional meaning
variables," of four typographical Journal of Applied 52 p. Psychology, (1968), 440; and Morris'on, G. , An Investi gation of the Communlcability of the Emotional Connotation of Type"". (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1977), p. 32.
G. pp. 33Schiller, , 652-64. 34 Zachrisson, B., p. 82.
350vink, G.E., pp. 155, 159, and 169.
p. 360vink, G.E. , 177. 37 'Burt, Sir Cyril, A Psychological Study of Typography,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) .
o o Haskins, J.B. "Testing suitability of typefaces for matter," editorial subject Journalism Quarterly, 35 (1958), pp. 186-94.
Wrolstad, M.E., "Adult preferences in typography: design," the of exploring function Journalism Quarterly , 37 (.1960), pp. 211-21.
Zachrisson, B. , p. 83.
^Zachrisson, B., pp. 156-62.
B. p. ^"Zachrisson, , 162.
'feeling' faces," 43Brinton, J.E., "The of type
Communication Arts , 3 (1961) .
and See Osgood, C.E., Succi, G.J. , Tannenbaum, P.H., The Measurement of Meaning, (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1957) . 25
H.K. and ^-'Tannenbaum, p.H., Jacobson, , Norris, L.N., connotations," "An experimental investigation of typeface Journalism Quarterly, 41 (1964), pp. 65-73. 46 of typefaces as a Wendt, D. , "Semantic Differential
research," method of congeniality Journal of Typographic Research, 2 (1968), pp. 3-25.
p. 47Wendt, D. , 5.
48Kastl, A.J., and Child, I.L., pp. 440-6.
p. ^Morrison, G. , 34.
of Typographic Kleper, M. , A Historical Investigation Morphology and Emotional Response Elicitation, (Unpublished Bachelor s Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1969).
p. 51Kleper, M. , 113.
->2Morrison, G. , p. 119.
-^Morrison, G., p. 119.
of --^Lundholm, H. , "The affective tone lines:
researches," experimental s cho al ew P y logic Revi , 28 (1921), pp. 43-60.
ymbo Forma on -^Werner, h. , and Kaplan, B., S I ti ,
and . pp. (New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc , 1963) , 337-64.
^"Poffenberger, A.T. and Barrows, "The feeling value lines," of Journal of Applied Psychology, 8 (1924), pp. 187-205.
A.T. and p. 205. ^7Poffenberger, , Barrows,
pp. 41-2. 5Morrison, G. ,
-^Rehe, R.F., "Psychological studies and their impact typography," on modern p. 60. 26
CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES
The previously cited literature tended to show that
there is an emotional connotation associated with
particular type faces. These studies have not shown, however, the importance of this connotation in terms of
appropriate choice of type face. There seems to be
a need for research which measures the ability of printing
type to change the contextual meaning of a message. In
order to study this problem the following hypotheses were formulated:
1. A message set in a type face predicted by
the experimenter to be appropriate to that message, will arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message set In a type face predicted by the experimenter
to be inappropriate to that message.
2. A message set in a type face predicted by the ex perimenter to be appropriate to that message, will arouse
stronger emotions compared to the same message set in a
type face predicted by the experimenter to be neutral.
3. A message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be appropriate to that message, will 27
arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message
set in all other type faces tested.
4. A message set in a type face predicted by the
experimenter to be inappropriate to that message, will
arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message
set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be
neutral.
5. A message set in a type face predicted by the
experimenter to be neutral will not arouse stronger
emotions compared to the same message set in all other
type faces tested.
Additional post hoc analysis will be done to test
for other significant interactions.
DEFINITIONS
Certain terms used in this study are defined below.
Emotion: This term shall be operationally defined
as points on the semantic differential scale running from
-3 to +3, with larger absolute values representing
stronger emotions.
Connotation : This term shall refer to the emotional meaning of a type face or message, as distinct from the
denotative meaning.
Message: This shall be defined as a sentence or 28
phrase having both a denotative and a connotative meaning;
"message" however, the alphabet shall be considered a
having no particular meaning or connotation.
Appropriate type face: This term shall be defined
as a particular type face predicted by the experimenter
to have a connotation similar to a given message.
Inappropriate type face: This term shall be defined
as a particular type face predicted by the experimenter
to have a connotation different from a given message.
Neutral type face; This term shall be defined as a
particular type face predicted by the experimenter to
have little or no connotative value on its own.
LIMITATIONS
This study shall he limited in the following respects
No attempt is being made to test all type faces. Only a
limited number of display faces will be used to test the
hypotheses, in order to ascertain the veracity of the
hypotheses in some situations, and the validity of the measuring instrument. It will be left to future
researchers to test a more generalized selection of type
faces, and to arrive at theoretical bases for selecting
appropriate type faces in general. Furthermore, the only
typographical variable being tested by these hypotheses 29
will be that of type face style. Size, as determined by cap height will remain constant, as will paper, color, approximate length of line, position on paper, and other similar typographical variables. In order to keep form constant between samples, all type tested will be upper case letters. 30
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
This chapter has been divided into the following parts:
The measuring instruments, the stimulus materials, the subjects, and the experimental design and procedure.
THE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
This section consists of a discussion of the theoretical bases underlying the measuring instruments to be used in this research; namely, the semantic differential.
Osgood, et al, discuss the use of the semantic theory
of concepts. They view semantic space as a vast region,
Euclidian in nature, containing all concepts. In this conception, similar concepts would be close to each other while dissimilar concepts would be far apart. This can be graphically illustrated as shown in Figure 1.
The semantic differential technique involves the subject rating a concept on a series of bi-polar adjec tive scales. These scales are arranged graphically so that 31
FIGURE 1
there are seven steps between each of the two bi-polar
adjectives :
hot cold ~=1 ~~^l ~~-l 0 I 2 3
The spaces corresponding to + or - 3 indicate that the
concept rated is strongly related to one end of the scale,
the two cells labeled 2 indicate the concept is somewhat
closely related to the end of the scale, the cells
labeled 1 indicate a slight relation, and 0 indicates no
relation. A number of these scales can be used to judge
a single concept (see Figure 2.)
FIGURE 2 happy X sad hard X soft
slow X fast 32
By plotting these points in semantic space, one can
differentiate meaning both in terms of direction from the
origin, and in terms of distance from the origin. Osgood,
et al identify these properties as the quality and intensity
of meaning. One can thus see that semantic difference has been equated to linear distance; the greater the
semantic distance the greater the dissimilarity between
concepts; and the closer a concept is to the origin, the more meaningless it is.
The semantic differential technique has been useful
c o in quantifying connotative meaning. Much of the early work with this technique involved testing its reliability,
and arriving at a series of bi-polar adjectives valid for
differentiating concepts. Osgood et al found that most
of the variance in semantic differential scores was
attributable to bi-polar adjectives representing three fi 3 main factors: activity, evaluation, and potency.
The semantic differential has been chosen as a measuring instrument for this study because it has been
successfully applied to the connotative meaning of type fli. faces by previous researchers. Based on these
studies it was decided to use three factors with two sets
of scales for each factor (see Table 1.) 33
TABLE 1
FACTOR SCALE
Evaluative pleasant/unpleasant
good/bad
Potency rugged/delicate
heavy/weak
Activity active/passive
exciting/ calming
THE STIMULUS MATERIALS
The stimulus materials consist of two parts: type
faces and messages. Six type faces will be used, selected
from display type faces, with all type faces having a
constant cap height. Five sentences or phrases will be used as messages, each sentence or phrase having approxi mately the same number of characters. An additional
"message" will consist of letters in alphabetical order,
in order to make the message relatively meaningless. All
8%" messages will be set to fit on a page wide.
Type faces and messages will be selected which, in
the opinion of the experimenter, have varying degrees of congeniality with each other. The experimenter will intuitively predict which type faces are appropriate, 34
inappropriate and neutral for the messages, for comparison with subsequent results.
The six type faces, five sentences, and the alphabet for each type face may be combined in 36 ways. Each
8%" 5%" possible combination will be printed on x pages.
The pages will be arranged in random order.
SUBJECTS
The subjects for this experiment shall be chosen at random from the following groups at the Rochester
Institute of Technology: secretarial staff, janitorial staff, food service personnel, maintenance crews, faculty, administration, and students. Fifty subjects are desired for the study.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
This experiment involves the measurement of the connotative meanings of type faces and messages, to determine how predicted combinations change responses. The subjects will rate the 36 type face/messages combinations on a 6- scale semantic differential.
The data for all subjects will be analyzed to determine if type face predictions show results as out- 35
lined in the five hypotheses, as indicated by higher or lower absolute values on the semantic differential scale. A z-test using a 90% level of significance will be applied to each hypothesis to test its validity.
PROCEDURES
The experiment will be presented to Subjects individually. The instructions will give no indications that emotional connotations of type faces are being measured. Subjects will be instructed to check the boxes that indicate how they feel about what they see on the pages. They will be requested to work as rapidly as possible and not to change previous answers. 36
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV
fin Osgood, C.E., Succi, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H., The Measurement of Meaning, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957), pp. 25-30. 61 Osgood, C.E., Succi, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H., p. 26.
620sgood, C.E., Succi, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H., pp. 76-77.
and 630sgood, C.E., Succi, G. J. , Tannenbaum, P.H., pp. 36-8.
64 Tannenbaum, P.H., Jacobson, H.K., andNorris, L.N. , pp. and pp. 65-73; Brinton, J.E.; Wendt, D. , 3-25; Morrison, G. 37
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
Five messages and the alphabet were used in this
study. Type faces were selected by the experimenter with *
the advice of a commercial typographer, and formed the predictions for appropriate, inappropriate and neutral
types. The neutral type face in all cases was Palatino.
The messages other than the alphabet along with their respective type face predictions are listed in Table 2.
A panel of four experts at the School of Printing in
the Rochester Institute of Technology was asked. to view all of the messages set in each of the six type faces used,
in order to validate whether the predictions made were
in general agreement. The panel agreed almost entirely
that the predicted type faces would be among possible types that could be used to effectively convey the messages.
TABLE 2
Message Appropriate Inappropriate
THE OLD CATHEDRAL Uncial Computer ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS Bernhard Uncial GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL Prisma Cooper DATA PROCESSING CENTER Computer Uncial PACK PUNCH AND POWER Cooper Bernhard 38
Some of those questioned had various reservations about
some selections; for example the message, "DATA PROCESSING
CENTER," was most often coupled with the type Moore Computer, but the comment was made that Computer might be a poor
choice if readability was an important factor. One
CATHEDRAL," respondent felt that for the message, "THE OLD
the most appropriate type would be Palatino; however, he
felt that the average person would associate that message more readily with Uncial.
The panel was also questioned as to their bases for
selecting a type face for a message in general. Here
there was no uniformity of opinion. The answers included
the following: the type face should be historically
tied to the subject matter; the type face should be selected
according to the entire pictorial content of the message;
the reading distance should be considered; the feeling
given off by the relative blackness of the type should be considered; the feeling given off by the stroke of
the type face should be considered; the type should be
selected according to what we perceive the current
usage to be. . . .
The questionnaire for the main part of the research consisted of 37 pages -- one page containing instructions, and the remaining pages containing each of six messages set in each, of six type faces. (See Appendix C.) The 39
pages with the messages also included a seven-step
semantic differential scale for each of the six scales
listed in Table 1.
In order to insure that the sequence of the pages
was not a significant factor in the results of this study,
the booklets were assembled in a random sequence according
to a list of random numbers generated by computer.
A total of 50 subjects were utilized in this research,
made up of 10 full-time employees and 40 full-time students.
The ratio between employee and student subjects was
approximately the same as the ratio between full-time
employees and full-time students on campus during the
time the experiment was conducted. The subjects in each
case were selected at random from employee and student lists
using computer-generated random numbers. All subjects
were either contacted in person or by telephone; it was
explained that their name had been selected at random to
participate in a graduate research project through the
School of Printing at RIT. It was further explained
that if they were willing to participate, they would be asked to rate their opinions on various statements
and messages by checking the boxes that expressed how they
felt.
All of the employees contacted agreed to participate,
and all but two of the students initially contacted were 40
willing to fill out the questionnaire. The booklets were distributed either in person, through campus mail folders,
through departmental secretaries, or by means of U.S.
Mail with return postage-paid envelopes. Some comments by the subjects, though not solicited, were written on
the test booklets. These will be mentioned where significant
in discussing the results. 41
CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Several specialized computer programs were written to analyze the data for this experiment, due to the large
* amount of data involved; 50 subjects each marking six scales on each of 36 pages yields 10,800 individual answers. The data was entered and stored in the computer according to subject number. Since the booklets were assembled in random sequence, the message and type face for each page was first entered, followed by the six scores for that page. Careful checks were built into the programs to insure accuracy, including that each subject entered, and that all messages and type face combinations were entered once and only once. A hard copy print-out of each subject's scores was provided, along with a means for correcting improperly entered scores .
Scores were coded on a scale from -3 to +3 with 0 being the neutral point. The polarity of the scales was arbitrarily assigned as follows: pleasant and good, delicate and weak, and passive and calming ends of the scales were given positive scores, while unpleasant and bad, rugged and heavy, and active and exciting were 42
given negative scores .
Since each factor was made up of two scales, in
order to arrive at a score for each subject on each
factor, the mean of the two scales was taken. For
example, if a subject checked the box for unpleasant (-3)
and the box for good (+3) on the same page, the score
assigned to the evaluative factor for that message/type
face combination was 0, indicating that the conflicting
scores neutralized each other. On the other hand, a
subject who marked the same page by checking the box
closest to pleasant and the box closest to good was
given a score of +3 for that combination.
These scores have been summarized for all subjects
on each of the three factors and for all three factors
combined, by message and type face, In Appendix A. These
scores reflect the mean and variance for all factors , and
are indicative of the magnitude and direction of the
scores for all message/ type face combinations. While this
information is both interesting and valuable, in itself
it does not provide us with, the data necessary to test
the five hypotheses used in this study.
The hypotheses are not concerned with the direction
of the scores in any case, but rather attempt to define
the relationships involved in the magnitude of scores.
In arriving at the scores in Appendix A, much, of the 43
information regarding the magnitude of the scores may have been canceled out by averaging. Therefore to test
the hypotheses it is necessary to analyze the data as
absolute scores, or as deviations from neutral. This
data is summarized in Appendix B.
The hypotheses may each be tested for each of the
five messages having appropriate, inappropriate, and
neutral type face predictions. A summary of this infor
"Yes" mation is listed in Table 3. An Answer of in this
table indicates that at the 90% level of significance we
"No" reject the null hypothesis, while indicates that we
fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Hypotheses 3 and 5 deal with, appropriate type faces
and the neutral type face, Palatino, compared with all
other type faces for a given message. In Table 3, the
results of testing these hypotheses at the 90% level are
given as affirmative only If the z scores for all type
faces are within the critical region; z scores are not
listed, as a meaningful comparison would necessitate
listing all scores. Therefore Table 4 has been provided
to show appropriate and neutral type faces compared to all
other type faces for each message. The data has also
been analyzed separately for the subjects who were
employees, and the results are essentially the same as
those obtained for the entire group of 50 subjects. 44
TABLE 3
HYPOTHESIS TESTING AT 90% SIGNIFICANCE
HYPOTHESIS # :l. IS CONNOTATION OF APPROPRIATE TYPE GREATER THAN INAPPROPRIATE TYPE? MESSAGE Z ANSWER
THE OLD CATHEDRAL -0*03 NO < = > ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS 1,52 YES
GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL -0*48 NO (=) DATA PROCESSING CENTER 0,97 NO < = >
PACK PUNCH AND POWER 2*61 . YES
HYPOTHESIS # 2 IS CONNOTATION OF APPROPRIATE TYPE GREATER THAN NEUTRAL TYPE? MESSAGE Z ANSWER THE OLD CATHEDRAL 1,66 YES ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS 5*65 YES GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL 0*71 NO < = > DATA PROCESSING CENTER 4,51 YES PACK PUNCH AND POWER 6,23 YES
HYPOTHESIS # 3 IS CONNOTATION OF APPROPRIATE TYPE GREATER THAN ALL OTHER TYPES? MESSAGE Z ANSWER THE OLD CATHEDRAL NO ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS NO GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL NO DATA PROCESSING CENTER NO PACK PUNCH AND POWER YES
HYPOTHESIS # 4 IS CONNOTATION OF INAPPROPRIATE TYPE GREATER THAN NEUTRAL TYPE? MESSAGE Z ANSWER THE OLD CATHEDRAL 1,63 YES ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS 4,10 YES GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL 1,16 NO (=) DATA PROCESSING CENTER 3,80 YES PACK PUNCH AND POWER 3.66 YES
HYPOTHESIS * 5 IS CONNOTATION OF NEUTRAL TYPE NOT GREATER THAN ALL OTHER TYPES? MESSAGE Z ANSWER THE OLD CATHEDRAL YES ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS YES GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL YES DATA PROCESSING CENTER YES PACK PUNCH AND POWER YES 45
TABLE 4
APPROPRIATE & NEUTRAL TYPES COMPARED TO ALL OTHER TYPES
MESSAGE TYPEFACE APPROPRIATE NEUTRAL
THE OLD CATHEDRAL
BERNARD -1.27 (=) -2 . 78 ( < ) PALATINO 1,66 <>)
COOPER -1.53 (<) -2.99 (<)
UNCIAL. -1.66 CO
PRISMA -0,43 (=) -1.98 (<) COMPUTER -0.03 (=) -1,63 (<)
ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS BERNARD -5,65 <<) PALATINO 5.65 (>)
COOPER 0.53 ( = ) -5,16 (<) UNCIAL 1.52 <>) -4.10 <<)
PRISMA 1,60 <>) -4,08 < < )
COMPUTER 1.08 < = ) -4,65 <<)
GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL
BERNARD -1.47 <<) -2,11 <<> PALATINO 0.71 ( = )
COOPER -0.48 ( = ) -1.16 (=)
UNCIAL 0.14 ( = ) -0.58 (-=) PRISMA -0.71 <==)
COMPUTER -0,81 ( = ) -1.48 <<)
DATA PROCESSING CENTER
BERNARD -0.23 ( = ) -4.89 <<) PALATINO 4,51 ( > )
= COOPER 0.66 < > -3 . 82 <<)
UNCIAL 0.97 ( = ) -3.80 ( < )
PRISMA 3,36 <>) -1.21 (=-> COMPUTER -4.51 < < )
PACK PUNCH AND POWER BERNARD 2.61 <>) -3.66 (<> PALATINO 6.23 (>)
COOPER -6.23 (<) UNCIAL 2.97 <>) -3.48 <<)
PRISMA 3.03 (>) -3.56 (<)
COMPUTER 3,22 ( > ) -3.27 CO 46
CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
This study set out to research the ability of printing type to change the contextual meaning of a message. In order to do this five hypotheses were formulated. The first hypothesis stated that a message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be appropriate to that message, will arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be inappropriate to that message.
The data suggests that this hypothesis is only true in some cases. For the messages "ALL THE LATEST
FASHIONS," POWER" and "PACK PUNCH AND the hypothesis
CENTER" seems proven. For the message "DATA PROCESSING the hypothesis does not hold true at the 90% level of significance; it does show a trend, since it Is valid at the 83% level. For the remaining messages there appears to be no significant difference between the appropriate and in appropriate type faces. We must consider the possibility that the type face we have selected as appropriate or inap propriate is not the best choice on some or all of the factors
In addition, we must consider that for certain messages 47
an inappropriate type face may cause a higher score than
an appropriate one simply because it is so incongruent.
CATHEDRAL." This may be the case with the message "THE OLD
An examination of the absolute scores for this message
on the evaluative factor shows that the score for the
appropriate type, Uncial, and the score for the inapprop
riate type, Computer, are very nearly the same -- 1.44
and 1.42, respectively. However, looking at the raw
scores in Appendix A, the evaluative score for Uncial
is .78 while Computer is -.72. This indicates that the
type face selected as being appropriate resulted in a
"good" "pleasant" response toward the or direction,
while the inappropriate type resulted in a response
nearly equal in magnitude, but in the opposite direction.
Similar findings hold true for this message on the other
factors .
STEEL" The message "GLASS AND STAINLESS does not seem
to fit itself into easy categorization. Perhaps the type
face selected was not the most appropriate, though the
results show that no one type face gave the highest
response over the three factors.
One of the subjects volunteered the following
information about the experiment: "I'm an engineer and my
STEEL," feelings toward the message "GLASS AND STAINLESS
in general are very positive. However, as the type face 48
feelings." changed, so did my While we cannot draw any conclusions about this message based on the predicted appropriate type face, we can see that what the message designer wishes to communicate can be varied as we vary the type style.
The implications for the first hypothesis are that according to the definitions previously established, for certain messages an appropriate type face will arouse stronger emotions than an inappropriate one, while for other messages the amount of arousal may not be different, but the direction may.
The second hypothesis stated that a message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be appropriate to that message, will arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be neutral.
The data seems to show that this hypothesis is valid at the 907o level in all cases except for the message
STEEL." "GLASS AND STAINLESS This message shows a trend in this direction as it is valid at the 76% level; perhaps further testing would establish this at a significant level.
The other messages appear to be significant at high levels -
CATHEDRAL" 95% for "THE OLD and over 99.9% for the other
messages .
The third hypothesis stated that a message set in a 49
type face predicted by the experimenter to be appropriate
to that message, will arouse stronger emotions compared
to the same message set in all other type faces tested.
This hypothesis seems to hold true only in the case
POWER," of the message "PACK PUNCH AND where it is signif
icant at greater than 99%. The other messages do show a
trend in this direction, as they range from 70% to 86%.
Further testing may establish this hypothesis at a signif
icant level.
One subject sent the following message back along with his questionnaire: "I am a computer programmer and
CENTER" yet I found the "DATA PROCESSING sheet (the one
in computer-type letters), quite alarming. It made those
feelings of being a number (not a name) quell up within me. No other phrase in those type letters (or the same
way." phrase in other type ) made me feel that
The remaining messages do not seem to exhibit any particular pattern. This hypothesis is a difficult one
to prove, since the appropriate type face must arouse a greater response compared to all other type faces tested.
It seems that this is usually not the case.
The fourth hypothesis stated that a message set in a type face predicted by the experimenter to be inapprop riate to that message, will arouse stronger emotions compared to the same message set in a type face predicted 50
by the experimenter to be neutral.
This hypothesis was validated at the 90% level for
all messages, except, once again the message "GLASS AND
STEEL," STAINLESS which was just below the desired level of
significance at S8%.
The fifth, hypothesis stated that a message set in
a type face predicted by the experimenter to be neutral
will not arouse stronger emotions compared to the same
message set in all other type faces tested.
This hypothesis was validated at the 90% level for all
messages. We may also infer that the type Palatino
resulted in lower absolute scores for all messages except
STEEL," "GLASS AND STAINLESS at 89% -- just below the
STEEL" desired level of significance. "GLASS AND STAINLESS
did show a trend in this direction also.
It seems clear that all of the types tested
produce significantly stronger emotional reactions than
Palatino --a type face predicted to be somewhat neutral.
This may also be inferred by comparing the scores for
Palatino listed in the over all averages at the end of
Appendix B -- Palatino has both a smaller mean and a
smaller variance compared with all other type faces .
It is difficult to say how substituting a different
STEEL" message for "GLASS AND STAINLESS would affect
the results of this experiment. It is possible that 51
this message is congenial with several type faces, and can change its connotation more readily than other messages tested. 52
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The question may be asked, "What do these results
tell the printer, typesetter, or buyer of type about * how to type?" select At this stage the answer may still
be that the results of such research do not have a
great deal of direct application. A limited number of
type faces were used in these experiments; the results
only reflect the reactions of full-time students and
employees at the Rochester Institute of Technology. It
is clear that a great deal more work must be done before any universal principles are forthcoming.
Much of the knowledge about type face selection is based on intuition. There are various schools of
thought concerning type face congeniality; experts seem
to agree only that it is important to select the proper type face, not how to accomplish this end.
This study has attempted to trace the literature on the subject of the emotional connotations of printing types through both empirical and non-empirical works.
Previous studies seemed to neglect the aspect of type face and message interaction, concentrating on proving that 53
a type face in itself does carry a certain connotation.
In order to fill this gap in the empirical research,
hypotheses were formulated and an experiment designed
to test these hypotheses. The hypotheses utilized type
face predictions r- appropriate, inappropriate, and
neutral -- to point out various interactions between message and type face. Scores were analyzed as absolute
values, since the information desired was defined in
terms of deviations from neutral.
The results show that some of these hypotheses are
valid at the desired level of significance in all cases
tested, some are valid some of the time, and a few are
rarely valid.
The salient point of this research is that the
emotional connotations of messages are indeed influenced
by type face selection, and that a methodology for measuring this phenomonen has been developed. This methodology allows for testing of predicted results
against actual results on various factors. While the number of type faces and messages tested was small,
the large number of responses obtained tended to establish
the methodology as a sound one for developing a more
extensive body of knowledge on this subject.
The empirical research into type face connotations
is still in its early stages of development. Eventually 54
this information, along with future research may be
developed into a system which will predict, with a measured degree of accuracy, how a given message, with
a given type face, will affect a given group of people. 55
CHAPTER IX
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
A number of areas touched on by this research are in need of further investigation. The experiments described here should be replicated for a wider range of type faces and messages, with the idea in mind of arriving at some sort of classification scheme to predict appropriate type faces, depending on the aim of the communication.
It would also be valuable to replicate this work with a wider range of subjects, to investigate the effects of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds on these
results .
An area for further investigation in this subject is the use of galvanic skin response and other biological feedback instruments in measuring states of emotional arousal brought about by type face usage. 56
LIST OF REFERENCES 57
LIST OF REFERENCES
typefaces." Beaujon, Paul. "On the choice of The Monotype cor Re der , Spring, 1933.
Drucktypen." Berliner, Anna. "Atmospharenwert von Zeitschrift fur angewandte Psychologle, 17 (.1920) .
'feeling' faces." Brinton, J.E. "The of type Communication
Arts, 3 (1961) .
Burns, Aaron. Typography . New York: Reinhold Publishing Co., 1961.
Burt, Sir Cyril. A Psychological Study of Typography. : Cambridge Cambridge Press . University , 1959
Butler, Kenneth, and Likeness, George. Practical Handbook on Display Typefaces for Publication Layout. Mendota, Illinois : Butler Typo-Design Research Center, 1959.
Craig, J. Designing With Type: a basic course in typography, New York: Watson-Cuptill Publications, 1971.
Dair, Carl. Design With Type. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.
Davis, R.C, and Smith, H.J. "Determinants of feeling faces." tone in type Journal of Applied Psychology, 17 (1933).
Dowding, Geoffrey. Factors in the Choice of Type Faces.
London: Wace and Company, Ltd. , 1957.
Abstracts. London: Lund Foster, J. J. , ed. Legibility Humphries, 1970 and 1971.
society." Gray, Nicolete. "Lettering and Visible Language,
8 (.Summer, 1974) .
Haley, Alan. "Picking type that does the job to fit readability." message, Printing Impressions , 20
(September, 1977) . 58
R. and Harrison, , Morris, D. "Communication theory and research." typographical The Journal of Typographical Research, 1 (1967).
Haskins, J.B. "Testing suitability of typefaces for editorial subject matter." Journalism 35 Quarterly,* *- (1958).
Hevner, K. "Experimental studies of the affective value lines." of color and Journal of Appliedn Psychology,1 **- 19 (1935).
Hoy- Hlasta, S.C. Printing Types and to Use Them. Pittsburgh: Carneigie Press, 1950. *
Intertype Corporation. How to Select Type Faces. Brooklyn: The Intertype Corporation, 1949.
Johnson, Henry. Printing Type Specimens . Boston: The
Graphic Arts Co. , 1924.
Kastl, A.J., and Child, I.L. "Emotional meaning of four variables." typographical Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52 (1968) .
Kleper, M. A Historical Investigation of Typographic Morphology 'and Emotional Response Elicitation. Unpublished Bachelor's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1969.
Lewis, John. Typography: Basic Principles. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1964.
Lucas, D.B., and Rritt, S.H. Aavertising Psychology and Research. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950.
Lundholm, H. "The affective tone of lines: experimental researches." Psychological Review, 28 (1921) .
Cyril." and C. "An epitaph for Sir Mac Pherson, M. , Panati, December Newsweek , 20, 1976.
Morrison, Stanley. A Tally of Types . Cambridge: C ambridge University Press, 1973 .
Morrison, G.R. a An Investigation of the Communicability of
the Emotional Connotation of Type. -Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1977. 59
Osgood, C.E., Succi, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University ot Illinois Press, 1957.
Ovink , G.E. Legibility, Atmosphere Value, and Forms of Printed Type. Leiden: A.W. Sijhoff, 1938.
Poffenberger and value of , A.T., Barrows. "The feeling lines." Journal of Applied Psychology, 8 (1924).
Rehe, R.F. "Psychological studies and their impact on typography." modern Inland Printer/American Lithog rapher, 164 (March, 1970), and 165 (April, 1970).
Rehe , R.F. Typography: How to make it most legible .
Indianapolis : Design Research Publications, I74 .
and Communication. Ruesch, J., Kees , W. Nonverbal Berkeley: University of California Press, T956.
Schiller, G. "An experimental study of the appropriatness
advertising." of color and type in Journal of
Applied Psychology, 19 (1935) .
Snider, J.G., and Osgood, C.E., eds. Semantic Differential
Technique . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969.
Spencer, H. The Visible Word. New York: Hastings House, Publishers, 196.8.
H.K. and L.N. Tannenbaum, P.H. , Jacobson, , Morris, "An experimental investigation of typeface connotations
Journalism Quarterly, 41 (1964) .
Tinker, M.A. Legibility of Print. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1963.
Turnbull, A.T., and Baird, R.N. The Graphics of Communi cation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
Beatrice. The Crystal Goblet. New York: World Warde, ~~ Publishers, IzTSW.
Wendt, D. "Semantic differential of typefaces as a method research." Journal of Typographic of congeniality Research, 2 (1968) . 60
and . Werner, H. , Kaplan, B. Symbo 1 Formation New York;
and . John Wiley Sons, Inc , 1963.
Wrolstad, M.E. "Adult preferences in typography: design." exploring the function of Journalism
Quarterly, 37 (I960) .
Zachrisson, B. Studies in the Legibility of Printed Text, Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells Bktryckeri AB, 1965. 61
APPENDICES 62
APPENDIX A 63
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF RAW DATA
MESSAGE ALPHABET
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACT IV AVERG VARIANCE
' BERNHARD 0,72 1.58 0.79 1.03 1.4474 PALATINO 1,05 -0.42 -0.29 0.11 1.3705 COOPER- 0,74 -1,63 -0,58 -0.49 2.3482
UNCIAL 0.36 -0 , 56 -0,86 -0.35 1.7118
PRISMA 0,46 -0,19 -1,00 -0.24 1.6591 COMPUTER- -0,33 -0.82 -0.94 -0.70 1.5630
ALL 0.50 -0.34 -0.48 -0.11 1.6833
MESSAGE THE OLD CATHEDRAL
TYPEFACE PREDICTONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE COMPUTER NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACT IV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 0,32 1.50 0.85 0.89 1.4296
PALATINO 0.98 -0.56 0.08 0.17 1.5522 COOPER- 0.77 -1,52 -0.25 -0.33 2.2656
UNCIAL 0,78 -0.25 -0.08 0.15 1 . 7392
PRISMA -0.04 -0.40 -0 ? 52 -0.32 1.9309
COMPUTER -0.72 -0.70 -0.56 -0.66 1.4511
ALL 0.35 -0.32 -0.08 -0.02 1,7281
APPROP 0.78 -0.25 -0.08 0.15 1.7392
INAPPR -0.72 -0.70 -0.56 -0.66 1.4511
NEUTRL 0.98 -0,56 0.08 0.17 1.5522 64
MESSAGE - ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS
TYPEFACE PREDICTONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE BERNHARD INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACT IV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 0,78 1,47 0,20 0.82 1.7347 ' PALATINO 0,69 -0,23 -0,06 0.13 0.9789
COOPER 0.67 -1.33 -0.90 -0.52 1.9429
UNCIAL 0.03 -0,28 -0,64 -0 ? 30 1.8637
PRISMA 0,76 -0,30 -1.11 -0.22 1.8614
COMPUTER- -0.37 -0,80 -0.96 -0.71 1.5242
ALL 0.43 -0,24 -0 ? 58 -0.13 1.6510 APPROP 0,78 1,47 0,20 0,82 1.7347
INAPPR 0,03 -0,28 -0.64 -0.30 1.8637
NEUTRL 0,69 -0 , 23 -0.06 0.13 0.9789
MESSAGE GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL
TYPEFACE PREDICTONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE PRISMA INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE COOPER NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACT IV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 0.71 1.43 0,4.1 0.85 1.5058 PALATINO 0.95 -0,65 -0.53 -0.08 1.7891 COOPER 0.78 -1,43 -0.53 -0.39 1.8386 UNCIAL 0.16 -0,27 -0.67 -0.26 1.6757 PRISMA 0,80 -0,43 -0.90 -0.19 1.7893 COMPUTER -0.04 -0,98 -0.95 -0.66 1 ? 5705
ALL 0.56 -0,40 -0.53 -0.12 1.6948 APPROP 0.80 -0,48 -0.90 -0.19 1,7893 INAPPR 0.78 -1,43 -0,53 -0.39 1.8386 -0,53 -0,08 1.7891 NEUTRL 0,95 -0,65 65
MESSAGE DATA PROCESSING CENTER
TYPEFACE PREDICTONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE COMPUTER INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL N E U TR A I... T Y P EF A C E PA L ATI N 0
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 0,44 1.66 0.63 0.91 1.4769
PALATINO 0 , 55 -0.54 -0.36 -0.12 1.1947
COOPER 0,68 -1.58 -0,59 -0.50 1.9017
UNCIAL -0,57 -0.48 -0.52 -a. 52 1.6311
PRISMA 0,58 -0.42 -0.30 -0.21 1.3745
COMPUTER- 0,25 -0,76 -1,13 -0.55 2.0312
ALL 0,32 -0.35 -0.46 -0.16 1.6017 2.0312 APPROP 0,25 -0,76 -1.13 -0.55 1.6311 INAPPR -0,57 -0.48 -0,52 -0.52 1.1947 NEUTRL 0,55 -0.54 -0.36 -0.12
MESSAGE PACK PUNCH AND POWER
TYPEFACE PREDICTONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE COOPER INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE BERNHARD NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
AVERG VARIANCE TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV
0,59 0.53 1,9325 BERNHARD -0.30 1.44 -0.10 1.3557 PALATINO 0.2S -0.37 -0.20
COOPER- 2.5991 0.63 -1.83 -1.02 -0.76
-0.53 1.8126 UNCIAL -0.38 -0.46 -0.74 -0.55 1.7205 PRISMA 0.38 -0.88 -1.16
COMPUTER- -0.82 1.3381 -0.43 -1.08 -0.94
-0,36 1.7931 ALL 0.03 -0.54 -0.58 -0,76 2.5991 APPROP 0.63 -1.88 -1.02 1.44 0.59 0,58 1.9325 INAPPR -0.30 -0.20 -0,10 1.3557 NEUTRL 0 . 28 -0.37 66
APPENDIX B 67
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF ABSOLUTE DATA
MESSAGE ALPHABET
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV VERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 1.58 1.29 0.8442 PALATINO 1,15 0.68 0.67 0,83 0.6839 COOPER- 1.18 1 . 63 0,96 1.26 1.0091 UNCIAL 1.30 0.96 0,92 1.06 0.7131 PRISMA 1.30 0.65 1.04 1.00 0.7250
COMPUTER 1 , 39 0.90 1,10 1.13 0.7714
ALL 1.23 1.07 0,99 1.09 0.7920
MESSAGE THE OLD CATHEDRAL
TYPEFACE PREDICTIONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL COMPUTER- INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 1.02 1,50 1,01 1.18 0.8371
PALATINO 1.28 0 , 72 0,66 0.89 0.7938 COOPER- 1,17 1,54 0.91 1,21 0.9206
. 05 UNCIAL 1 .44 0,89 0,32 1 0.6592 0.8380 PRISMA 1 .44 0,74 1.10 1,09 COMPUTER- 1.42 0,83 0.86 1.05 0.7772
ALL 1,29 1,04 0,89 1,08 0.8043 APPROP 1,44 0,89 0,82 1,05 0,6592 INAPPR 1,42 0,88 0,86 1.05 0.7772
, 66 0,89 0.7938 NEUTRL 1 , 28 0 , 72 0 68
MESSAGE - ALL THE LATEST FASHIONS
TYPEFACE PRED I CT I ONS APPROPR I ATE TYPEFACE BERNHARD INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 1.18 1.49 1.04 1.24 0.8723 PALATINO 0.95 0.47 0.66 0.69 0.5160 COOPER- 1.07 1.41 1,06 1.18 0.8209 UNCIAL 1.39 0.86 0.98 1.08 0.7925 PRISMA 1,34 0.60 1.27 1,07 0.7634 COMPUTER 1.35 0.94 1.08 1.12 0.7665
ALL 1.21 0.96 1.01 1.06 0.7553 APPROP 1,13 1.49 1.04 1.24 0.8723 INAPPR 1.39 0.86 0.98 1.08 0.7925 NEUTRL 0.95 0.47 0.66 0.69 0.5160
MESSAGE GLASS AND STAINLESS STEEL
TYPEFACE PREDICTIONS APPROPRIATE TYPEFACE PRISMA INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE COOPER- NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 1.09 1.65 0.91 1 .'?'? 0.7481 PALATINO 1.23 0.97 0.81 1.00 0.7383 COOPER- 1.02 1.51 0.83 1.12 0.7389 UNCIAL 1.34 0.85 0.99 1.06 0.6197 PRISMA 1.22 0.86 1,14 1.07 0.6746 COMPUTER- 1.28 1.10 1 . 07 1.15 0.6792
ALL 1.20 1,16 0.96 1.10 0.7081 APPROP 1.22 0.86 1.14 1.07 0.6746
INAPPR 1 . 02 1.51 0,83 1,12 0.7389 NEUTRL 1.23 0.97 0.81 1.00 0.7883 69
MESSAGE DATA PROCESSING CENTER
TYPEFACE PREDICTIONS A P PR0 P R I A T E T Y P E F A C E C 0 M P U TE R INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE UNCIAL NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 1.00 1.66 1.07 1,24 0.7591 PALATINO 0.99 0,70 0,64 0.78 0.6051 COOPER 1.00 1.64 0.81 1.15 0.8258 UNCIAL 1.47 1.00 0,90 1.12 0.6431 PRISMA 0.96 0.74 0,96 0.89 0.6338 COMPUTER- 1.49 0.90 1,27 1.22 0.8416
ALL 1.15 1.11 0,94 1 . 07 0.7131 APPROP 1.49 0.90 1,27 1.22 0.8416
INAPPR 1.47 1.00 0 , 90 1.12 0.6431 NEUTRL 0.99 0.70 0,64 0.78 0.6051
POWER- MESSAGE PACK PUNCH AND
TYPEF A C E P R E D I C T IONS A PPR 0PR I A T E T Y P E F A C E COOPER INAPPROPRIATE TYPEFACE BERNHARD NEUTRAL TYPEFACE PALATINO
TYPEFACE EVALU POTEN ACTIV AVERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 0.92 1,62 1,05 1.20 0.8330 PALATINO 0.76 0,89 0,84 0,83 0.6761
COOPER- 1 . 23 1,88 1.34 1,48 0.9714
UNCIAL 1 . 36 1,10 1,04 1,17 0.7289
PRISMA 1.14 1,02 .1 , 34 1.17 0.6656 COMPUTER- 1,19 1,12 1,12 1.14 0.6978
ALL 1.10 1,27 1,12 1,16 0,7621
APPROP 1.23 1 , 83 1,34 1.48 0.9714 INAPPR 0,92 1,62 1,05 1,20 0.8330 NEUTRL 0,76 0,89 0,84 0,83 0.6761 70
AVERAGES BY TYPEFACE FOR ALL MESSAGES
EVALU POTEN ACTIV VERG VARIANCE
BERNHARD 05 1.58 1.05 1,23 0.8157
PALATINO 06 0 . 74 0,71 0,84 0.6780
COOPER 11 1.60 0,99 1 , 23 0.8812 UNCIAL 38 0.94 0,94 1,09 0.6928 PRISMA 23 0.77 1,14 1.05 0.7167
COMPUTER 1.35 0.97 1,08 1.14 0 . 7556
AVERAGES FOR ALL MESSAGES EXCEPT ALPHABET
EVALU POTEN ACTIV VERG VARIANCE
ALL 1.19 1,11 0.99 1.10 0.7496 APPROP 1.31 1.20 1,12 1.21 0,8038
INAPPR 1 . 24 1.17 0,92 1.11 0,7569
NEUTRL 1.04 0 . 75 0.72 0.84 0.6759 71
APPENDIX C 72
APPENDIX C
TEST BOOKLET 73
as r* * *t-i r 5 !^ v 4J
" bo in rt 4J *> as in V rt a U > S3 bO '2 j) rt u 3
cn rt u 4J "O g as > u be S" CJ -a i- -c c . a 3 * u *- C be C 11 'u C > rt 4J hi o > V * -a! * 3 5 >- u ?
rt ? u fi, c 4J be 3 c u .J rt T3 c rt u C rt z - >- bo u as o c 3 c .S o Si > ~ W >s rt X h 2 c rt -. ^ rt *j C rt s c .a 2 X rt bfi h. * c ' X ^ h rt 7= be "51 In =3 C/3 rt J3 as O z u rt 3
rt .41 -S "a o > " ? 3 W O
>- w 3
.s 5 > 3 4J o e s> J2 'as faa V as as V a "3 U a * a c u ^ bo -o 3 E d E c "2 c S - x a w rt ? be g> U 3 ^ CL IS 5 JS o u "rt JC 3 3X C 5 >- flj 4J bo >S as j-i *-> 4i Q oj bo 3 rt -= 3 4J '> -3 O C 5j rt b H ^2 as be O u rt 3 c -**1 rm* rt n= s 74
H Q Q O Z O w < > z < 0 O o o s < ID U W < < J ft. z
D D D D D ?
? D ? ? era ? ?
? ? ? D D ?
Um D ? ? ? ? D
CC ? ? ? ? D ?
? ? D ? ? ?
5BM
? ? ? D D ?
H W O Z h UJ Z < < >
h Q Q UJ o z UJ < > z 0 r-i < O W CO o h s O U < ^4 -J < w e* < u z D pnaaj
P^ H D D D D D a
U D D ? D D a
? ? ? a D ?
CD ? ? ? a D ? CD W U ? ? ? a a a O c* ? ? ? ? a ? h
< ? D ? a D D H h UJ o < z h UJ z < < > < CO > u > *t Q < 1( CO UJ Q < CO u UJ UJ -J < < X ft. CQ Q X UJ 76
h Q Q m UJ o z O w < > z >1 < O UJ to4 O h co O J UJ CC < < J < D ? D ? D ? o ? ? ? ? D ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? o ? ? ? D D ? -V tain D ? ? D ? ? H W o Z UJ Z < < > > CO U H 14- > < CO UJ Q ?J < CO CJ J < UJ UJ < X ft. CQ Q X ft, UJ 77 h Q Q ui UJ O Z UJ < > z C -I O UJ < 0 H CO o o U < D < U) cd < ft, Z -J) c o D D D D D ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? a a a ? a P ? ????? g a a a a a a a a a a P a a ? a ? d H UJ o Z H UJ Z < < > CO > H < CO a < CO u UJ UJ J < UJ < X ft* CQ Q X ft. UJ 78 H Q Q ui UJ O Z O UJ < > z >* < o O UJ ?< CO O o < UJ c< < < ?J ft- u Z D ? ? D ? ? ? CC ? ? ? ? ? ? uu ? D ? ? D ? D D ? D ? ? D ? D ? ? ? fmmSSBt LU ? D ? D ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? UJ O Z h UJ z < > > CO U 14 > < >1 CO i UJ Q < CO UJ UJ -J < < X ft. 33 Q X Cu UJ 79 H Q Q X UJ O Z O UJ < > z O UJ ** < O H CO O O CJ < ?J < UJ CC < cu Z D D D D ? ? D D D ? ? ? a a a d a ? ? Z CO CO a d ? a a a u ? a ? a ? ? a ? a a ? a a < a a a a ? ? H UJ O Z h UJ z < < >* > a CO u > < 11 co n 4 Cj uj Q co < UJ UJ < -J ** ft. CQ P X CU UJ 80 H Q Q X UJ o Z O UJ < > z *-4 < o O UJ CO o s o u < J UJ cc < -J ft. Z D D D D D D D D ? ? ? D ? D D ? D ? ? ? ? ? D ? D D ? ? ? D ? ? ? D ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? UJ O z H UJ Z < < > co U > CO < < c_> UJ Q CO UJ UJ X -J < < CQ Q X 0- UJ 81 h Q Q X UJ o Z O UJ < > z < 0 UJ >< CO o H O u < -J < UJ CC < _J o ft. Z 3 n a a ? ? ? a a a a a ? a ? ? ? a o a ? a ? d ? a ? a a a a ? ? ? a ? ? a d a n a a UJ * o Z h UJ Z < < eo > > < "H CO >-H uj Q < CO u < UJ UJ < X a, CQ Q X Oh UJ 82 Q Q X UJ o z 0 UJ < > z 0 O UJ O s O u < -J P < fti < z EC LU ? D D ? D D r * 7" UU ? D D D ? D Iss&hkI D D D D D D Q3 D D D D D D C_3 D D D D D D _ , gat D D D ? D D bsbshb D ? ? ? D D Z H Ul z < < > > CO c_> > e < CO UJ Q < C/5 UJ Ui -J < < X ft- CQ a X ft- UJ 83 Q Q x UJ o UJ < > z Z O >-H O UJ < o s CO o O < D < UJ CC < -J Oh z D D D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? D D D D D D D ? '? ? ? . ? ? ? ? D D D D D ? D ? ? ? D ? D ? ? ? H UJ C Z H Ul Z < < > > H < y CO < CO D UJ UJ < UJ < X J UJ a- CQ Q X ft. 84 h Q Q X UJ o UJ < > z O ** z < O O UJ CO O o u < D --J n9 UJ < J CJ 0- Z D ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? D D D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? D ? D D D ? d a a a a ? ? a a a ? H UJ O Z H UJ Z < < >< > CO U > N-4 < CO UJ a J < co CQ a a a a a ? a d ? a a a 01 LtU a ? a d a a I < a d a d ? a a a a ? a a a ? ? ? a d H UJ O Z h UJ z < < > > < co V > H < < CO UJ Q J CO (J UJ 'UJ -J < < X ft, CQ Q X ft. UJ 86 h Q Q X UJ O Z O UJ < > z O UJ I( < O H CO O O < CJ < UJ oi < J Oh z D D D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? D ? ? D a ? ? d a ? ? a d ? a ? a ? d ? d ? ? ? a a a ? u UJ O z UJ z IT1 < < >< > CO (J > h < CO *-4 ,1 a -J < CO D a D a a a hJ < & D a a a a D D a ? a a D X <; D a ? ? ? a u D a ? a a a ?J o D a ? a a c w X ? a ? ? a D H h UJ a Z h UJ z *-4 < < >* > CO u > H < < CO UJ Q CO U < UJ UJ < X ft- CQ a X UJ 88 h Q Q X UJ O z UJ < > z *-4 < O O UJ 14 CO O h O u < D -J < UJ oi < -J u ft. Z 3 D D D D D D ? D ? ? ? ? D ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? D D ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? d a a a ? ? a a a 1 B UJ O 11 II II z h UJ Z >-H < < >- > CO > h-1 < y co a j < CO U UJ UJ < X CQ a X 0- UJ 89 h Q Q X UJ O Z O UJ < > z < O O UJ CO O H 2s O U < 3 -J w X < < J V ft. Z 3 D D D ? ? D D ? ? ? ? ? l-M D D D D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? a ^B$ a ? a a a a {^ a ? a a a a UJ O Z H UJ z < < > *-~4 CO > h-4 -< < < CO UJ a CO CJ J < UJ UJ < X a- CQ Q X a. UJ 90 Q Q X UJ O z UJ < > Z 0 *-4 < 0 O UJ ^-4 CO O h s a u < ^4- UJ X < < J CJ _ o- c* z ^J tf ^ a a a ? a ? o * a ? n ? a a c n D D a D a < D a D a ? D c a a ? a ? D Q* a a a a ? D u D a ? D a a UJ h . o Z UJ z *-4* < < > > CO Q Q X UI o uJ < > z Z o ?-H N O UJ < o H CO o s o cj < D -J < UJ X < -J CJ ft. Z > ID a a a a a a H CD ? a a a a a a Ph a a a ? ? a o a a a a a a a a a ? ? d d d ? a D D E O a a d ? ? a W UJ o z H UI Z Q < < > > r . Vi U > U < CO u a < CO j < UJ UJ < X PQ 0. CQ Q X ft. UJ < 92 Q Q X UJ O z o UJ < > z < O O UJ CO O O CJ 3 < 3 4 < UJ X < -J CJ ft. Z CD 3 D D ? n D ? o-*l^ X D ? D n D ? CD < Ph D ? ? n D ? H CD D ? ? D D ? W H < D ? ? D D ? hJ w ? ? ? D ? ? H ? ? ? ? ? ? K-t-"-! h UJ o -J z UJ z 1t < < > > CO V > H > ?* < < l-H CO Q < CO CJ p*4Li] UJ UJ -J < < X ft- CQ Q X ft* UJ 93 Q Q X UJ O UJ > Z Z O < l-H O UJ < o H CO o O U < D < UJ X ft. Z 3 P4 W n a ? ? ? ? O a a a ? a Ph a Q a a ? a a a a ? d ? D D a a ? d ? ? a d a d ? d Ph d a a ? a ? u < H UJ o z H UJ Z i- < < > Ph CO CJ > 11 < 1-H CO < CO U UJ a UJ UJ X -J < < UJ ft. CQ a X ft. 94 h Q Q X UJ O Z O UJ < > z 4 UJ , < o O i-r co a o CJ < D -J UJ X < < -J ft- C y. C* a a D D D D s\ge0r D a a ? a D 0> f* n a a ? a a fc y> ^ D a a D a ? y H UJ o < Z H UJ z < < >* *>r^ V CO (J > H < i + CO l-H UJ a < CO u < UJ UJ < X ft. CQ a X Oh UJ 95 h Q Q X UJ O Z 0 UJ < > z ** *-4 O UJ r . < c r- CO o s < CJ < UJ CC < -J -J n ? ? D D a < ? D ? a D D ? D ? n D < n ? ? ? D ? r1 D D ? ? ? ? > c ? ? ? ? a D D ? D D a a t H UJ o Z H UJ z < < l-H > >1^ CO > H < y CO l-H UJ Q j < CO a < UJ UJ < X Oh CQ Q X ft. UJ 96 H Q Q X UJ Z O UJ < > z < O O UJ II CO o O U < D J < UJ X J CJ ft. Z D D D ? D ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? D D ? ? D D ? ? ? ? a a a d a a a ? ? a a d a a ? ? ? d a H UI a Z H ui z 1< < < >* > CO CJ l-H H ?4 J-4 > < < CO UJ a CO < UJ UJ < X cu CQ Q X cu ua 97 h Q Q X UI o Z O UJ < > z 1-H < O UJ l-H o h CO O O s < CJ U) X < < -J Oh z W D W H CD _J D D ? D D CD CD ? D ? ? D ? W .-J D ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? ? CD ? ? ? D D ? ? ? D ? D ? CD D ? ? ? D ? CD < h UJ o z h UJ Z < < >- ? CO > CJ > l-H H < l-H CO Q < O UJ CO U UJ UJ -] < < X 0- CQ Q X ft. UI 98 Q Q X UJ O z 0 UJ < > z O UI < 0 h zr. o O < -J < u; X < -J CJ z D D D D D D ? D ? ? D ? ? D D D D D a ? d a d ? a ? d d a d ? a ? a a ? d ? d ? d a UJ O z UJ *-4 < < > > co CJ ^1 H > >-4 < i i CO Q -J < CO U < Ul UJ < X CQ a X i-M UJ h Q a X UJ o z o UJ < > z *-4 O UJ < o h CO o O s < -J < UJ X < -J CJ 0- Z D ? n D D ? D ? ? D ? ? ? ? D ? ? N ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? D D ? D ? ? ? D ? D ? ? D H UJ O Z H UJ Z < < > CO CJ > N-* P NH CO < < cj UJ Q -J CO UI UJ -j < < X o- CQ Q X 0- UJ 100 Q Q X w o z O UJ < > z < O O UJ N-4 co O s o cj < -J uj X < < J u o- Z D CO D ? D a a CO ? d ? a ? ? d a ? d a ? ? D ? ? D ? CjO ? ? ? D ? D Q Z D ? D D ? ? < CO a d a a n ? h UJ O Z H UJ Z ?4 < < > CO N-4 l-H > N-4 < < co Ul Q CO u UJ UJ , i < < X 0- CQ Q X ft. UJ 101 h Q Q x UJ O z UJ > z < o O UJ p N4 CO o O < D -J < ui oi < J u ft. Z 3 D D ? D D D D D ? ? Q D D D D ? D D anna ? a ? ? a d ? ? ? ? ? ? ? d ? ? a H UI O Z h UJ Z < < > CO cj > H < l-H CO Q J < CO UJ ul UJ X -J < < UJ e- CQ a X ft- 102 h Q Q X UJ o Z 0 UJ < > z NH < o O UJ f CO o O > s < J UJ X < < ?J ft. u Z 3 1 mmHffiwaf! LU ? D D ? D D * BSU&B ? D D D D D CL ? D D D D D ' ' ''win D D D ? ? ? r i ? a ? d ? a ? a a d a a JanNE P 1 IT" D D D D D ? Linn H UI o Z h UJ z < < N-4 > >Ir CO CJ > *i H ?1 l-H < < CO UJ Q CO cj UJ J < UJ < X 0- CQ Q X Oh UJ 103 N h Q Q x, UJ n z O UJ < > z O UJ N-4 y < o f . CO o o -s < D CJ X UI X < < ft. Z 3 > D D D D D D D # iy> D ? ? a D D y G D ? D a D D n /* N. D ? D D a a > 1 ? ? ? D D D V ) ? ? ? a a ? h UJ a Z h UJ z l-H < < >< > CO CJ > h n < NH CO l-H _J < UJ CO CJ < UJ UI < X u 0- CQ a X Oh UJ CD < 104 h a Q X UJ o z UJ < > N-4 z < r~\ O UJ N-4 CO O H o U < -J UI X < < 1-J CJ M 0- Z D D D D D ? D cn ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? D ? ? ? ? D ? ? V SB D D ? D ? ? D ? D D ? ? CDEH U- LU ? ? -D ? ? ? h UJ O LJ r- Z Ui l-H < < > > d3 CO CJ l-H H > l-H *< CO < < CJ UJ p -4 CO UI ui -J < < X o- CQ Q X Oh UJ 105 h Q Q X UJ O z o UJ < > z NH O UJ < o h W-4 CO o O -s < u - < ui X < -J CJ 0- Z D n n n d d ? M D ? ? D D ? ? ? ? D D ? D D ? C ? o-59P ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? ? ? D ? ? ? ? D ? H UJ Z h UJ z < < > co CJ > < l-H co r; J < CO cj ul UJ J < UI < X ft. CQ Q X ft. UJ 106 H Q Q X UJ O Z O UI < > z 1-H O UJ CO c h O U < -J <. UJ oi < ?J CJ Oh z p > 3 ? ? ? D D ? P -!> ? ? ? ? ? a a a d a a a a c a d ? d ? D a n d d d d X n a a a d d D D D D D D h UJ z UJ z N-H < < > > CO l-H H > N* < y CO Q j < CO J UI uj UJ X -I < < UJ u ft. CQ Q X ft- 107 H Q Q X UJ o Z 0 UJ < > z 1-H < o O UJ r CO o O < CD ? D D ? D ? cn LU j ? D D ? D ? ZE ? ? ? ? D U2 ? ? D ? D ? ? ? D D D D era U2 D D D D D ? UJ O Z H u UJ z l-H < < > CO CJ > l-H < NH CO UJ Q -J < CO CJ UJ UJ -J < < X ft. CQ Q X a. UJ 108 Q Q X ui O UJ < > z z O l-H O ui < o h CO o O s < UJ X < -J ft. z a a d d d a a a n n a d a z D D D D D a < d a a ? ? ? U n a a n d d a a a a a a a a a d a n H UJ o Z H UJ z < < > > CO CJ > *i < l-H CO Q < CO u ul Ul 1 < UJ < X Cu ui C-4 CQ a X 109 H Q Q X UJ O UJ > z O < z UJ < O O H CO O s O -J < D < ui X < _J u ft. Z -5 P D D D D D ? u> D D ? D D ? ? . D D C '? ? D < ? ? D ? D D P -J) ? ? ? ? ? ? o c D ? ? D ? ? < D D D D D D i) H UJ 0 < Z H Z UJ l-H < < > > co > H < y CO j <- CO O UJ 0> < UJ UJ < X -J Ul 0- 05 Q X ft.