↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

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

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

Abstract

How can apparent decision biases, such as the framing effect, be reduced? Intriguing findings within recent years indicate that foreign language settings reduce framing effects, which has been explained in terms of deeper cognitive processing. Because hard-to-read fonts have been argued to trigger deeper cognitive processing, so-called cognitive disfluency, we tested whether hard-to-read fonts reduce framing effects. We found no reliable evidence for an effect of hard-to-read fonts on four framing scenarios in a laboratory (final N = 158) and an online study (N = 271). However, in a preregistered online study with a rather large sample (N = 732), a hard-to-read font reduced the framing effect in the classic "Asian disease" scenario (in a one-sided test). This suggests that hard-read-fonts can modulate decision biases-albeit with rather small effect sizes. Overall, our findings stress the importance of large samples for the reliability and replicability of modulations of decision biases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 42%
Computer Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,365,968
of 13,628,925 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#367
of 1,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,388
of 391,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,628,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 391,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.