The connotative dimensions of selected display typefaces

Rowe, Camille L.

doi:10.1075/idj.3.1.03row

Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 3:1 (1981) ► pp.30–37

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download PDF

The connotative dimensions of selected display typefaces

Camille L. Rowe | The University of Iowa

Published online: 1 January 1981

https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.3.1.03row

This paper reports research on the use of the semantic differential to determine the connotative meaning of ten display typefaces using laymen as subjects. There were several surprising outcomes of the study. Helvetica, the only sans serif typeface, was not perceived as differing significantly from serifed typefaces on most dimensions. Examples of different typeface classifications were also perceived as having similar connotative meanings, and two very distinctive novelty typefaces were surprisingly neutral on all factoral dimensions.

Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Order by:

Velasco, Carlos & Charles Spence

2019. The Role of Typeface in Packaging Design. In Multisensory Packaging, ► pp. 79 ff.

Candello, Heloisa, Claudio Pinhanez & Flavio Figueiredo

2017. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 3476 ff.

Grohmann, Bianca, Joan L Giese & Ian D Parkman

2013. Using type font characteristics to communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management 20:5 ► pp. 389 ff.

DiLullo, Camille, Harry J. Morris & Richard M. Kriebel

2009. Clinical competencies and the basic sciences: An online case tutorial paradigm for delivery of integrated clinical and basic science content. Anatomical Sciences Education 2:5 ► pp. 238 ff.

Juni, Samuel & Julie S. Gross

2008. Emotional and Persuasive Perception of Fonts. Perceptual and Motor Skills 106:1 ► pp. 35 ff.

Doyle, John R & Paul A Bottomley

2004. Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of Business Research 57:8 ► pp. 873 ff.

Doyle, John R. & Paul A. Bottomley

2006. Dressed for the Occasion: Font‐Product Congruity in the Perception of Logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16:2 ► pp. 112 ff.

Evans, M.B., A.A. McBride, M. Queen, A. Thayer & J.H. Spyridakis

2004. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings., ► pp. 300 ff.

Henderson, Pamela W., Joan L. Giese & Joseph A. Cote

2004. Impression Management using Typeface Design. Journal of Marketing 68:4 ► pp. 60 ff.

Mackiewicz, J. & R. Moeller

2004. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings., ► pp. 304 ff.

MacKiewicz, Jo

2004. What Technical Writing Students Should Know about Typeface Personality. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 34:1 ► pp. 113 ff.

MacKiewicz, Jo

2005. How to Use Five Letterforms to Gauge a Typeface's Personality: A Research-Driven Method. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35:3 ► pp. 291 ff.

Mackiewicz, J.

2003. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings., ► pp. 14 pp. ff.

Childers, Terry L. & Jeffrey Jass

2002. All Dressed Up With Something to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Perceptions and Consumer Memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12:2 ► pp. 93 ff.

Lowrey, Tina M.

2002. Does language matter?. Psychology & Marketing 19:7-8 ► pp. 569 ff.

McCarthy, Michael S. & David L. Mothersbaugh

2002. Effects of typographic factors in advertising‐based persuasion: A general model and initial empirical tests. Psychology & Marketing 19:7-8 ► pp. 663 ff.

McCarthy, Michael S. & David L. Mothersbaugh

2002. Les effets de la typographie sur la persuasion publicitaire: un modèle général et des tests empiriques préliminaires. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition) 17:4 ► pp. 67 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.