One of the most famous American cartoonists of the 20th century was Rube Goldberg, who was widely known for his “Goldberg machines.” Each of these comical inventions depicted a complex set of “instructions” for completing what should have been a fairly simple everyday task. His Self-Operating Napkin, for example, required 13 sequential steps involving a parrot, a cigar lighter, a rocket and a sickle—along with various strings, springs and pendulums.
The cartoons were funny because they poked good-natured fun at a fundamental irony of human psychology. People will make even the simplest task much more complicated than it needs to be, yet all this overexplaining rarely helps. Indeed, the opposite is often true: Goldberg’s convoluted “how-to” instructions may make us laugh, but they also leave us feeling exhausted. If that is what it takes to use a napkin, why would we bother?
How Things “Feel”
Psychologists are very interested in the complex interplay of effort, motivation and cognitive crunching—the ease with which we think about a task in our mind. Is it possible that the simplicity (or complexity) of how a task is described and processed—whether it feels “fluid” or “difficult”—actually affects our attitude toward the task itself and ultimately our willingness to put our head down and work?
Two psychologists at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor decided to investigate this idea in their lab. Hyunjin Song and Norbert Schwarz wanted to see if they could motivate a group of 20-year-old college students to exercise regularly. They gave all the students written instructions for a regular exercise routine, but they used a simple yet ingenious method to make the how-to instructions either cognitively palatable or challenging: some received instructions printed in Arial typeface, a plain font designed for easy reading; others got their instructions printed in a Brush font, which basically looks as if it has been written by hand with a Japanese paintbrush—it is unfamiliar and much harder to read.
There are many ways to make something mentally palatable—or not. You can use clear, straightforward language or arcane vocabulary words; simple sentences or convoluted sentences with lots of clauses.
The psychologists chose to vary the font, because it is easy to manipulate in the lab. After the students had all read the instructions, the researchers asked them some questions about the exercise regimen: how long they thought it would take, whether it would flow naturally or drag on endlessly, whether it would be boring, and so forth. They also queried the students about whether they were likely to make exercise a routine part of their day.
Give It to Me Plain
The findings were remarkable. Those who had read the exercise instructions in an unadorned, accessible typeface were much more open to the prospect of exercising: they believed that the regimen would take less time and that it would feel more fluid and easy. Most important, they were more willing to make exercise part of their day.
Apparently the students’ brains mistook the ease of reading about exercise for the ease of actually doing push-ups and crunches, and this misunderstanding motivated them to think about a life change. Those who struggled through the Japanese brushstrokes had no intention of heading to the gym; the reading alone tired them out.
Song and Schwarz decided to double-check these results with another experiment, this one involving a completely unrelated activity: cooking.
Again they used easy-and hard-to-read typefaces, but in this case the instructions were for making a Japanese sushi roll. After the volunteers had read the recipe, they estimated how long it would take them to make the dish and whether they were inclined to do it. They were also asked how much skill a professional cook would need to prepare the sushi roll.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThe article correctly points at our tendency to complicate. However, it does not identify the roots of this tendency - poor understanding. And this poor understanding seems to grow poorer and poorer. Even scientists often forget that they need to simplify, simplify and simplify their theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see much more research done in this arena. Research in difficulties novel thoughts might face would be especially interesting.
Kind regards,
i'd like to know if the researchers considered visual effects as well. i'm thinking of the Presentation Zen method of PPTs versus the traditional bulletized "death by PowerPoint" method. intuitively Reynolds simplified method makes sense, but i'd like to see some hard data behind the story, similar to what the gents Univ of Mich have done w/ font.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat explains why this SciAm web is so hard to read - a cryptic layout, large fonts and forced paging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter practicing 30 years in the motivational business I can categorical agree with the research. If the instructions, written, spoken or pictorial are complicate the perceived complexity of the task is greater. Further, a clear deductive overview preceding inductive training eases the perceived difficulty of the lesson. Marketing executives, technical and textbook writers should keep it in mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPublishers and corporations have long understood why graphic design is important, and are willing to pay for it. I have seen indications that some scientists put less value on graphic design, which may be why this research seems notable to that community. For example, compare the web site design of the Encyclopedia of Life that Edward O. Wilson has helped promote. It is poorly designed when compared to the New York Times web site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy was the name of the hard-to-read typeface not given? There is a lot of research being done by graphic designers and usability engineers about legibility of fonts, especially in the realm of digital displays. Generally, in this field, the writers are careful to give the names of the fonts being used for testing.
Decades ago, I read of the "reformation" of Readers Digest (and later, the Wall Street Journal): the whole point was to "reduce the reading level" to convey what is considered important information. Both publications (if memory serves) reduced their reading level to that of the average 13 year-old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat may sound "disastrous" but in fact it meant much greater success for both publications and for their readers. Of course, the distinction between useful simplification and "dumbing down" must always be kept in the forefront.
Interestingly (to me, at least) is that some of the best examples of useful simplification can be found in fiction. Novels which create "whole worlds" at a reading level no higher than "age 13" are massively popular for a reason. It might be a useful thing for every scientist and scientific organization to hire ghost writers from that category.
In my business, incentive compensation systems, and in the computer systems world in general, we're always encouraging clients to simplify. I referenced this article in one of my own here: http://www.canidiumblog.com/2009/03/this-seems-complicated/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this