Fonts and Authority Perception (Psychology)

thomasv1's picture

I'm doing my Bachelor Thesis in English Language and Culture on the perception of typefaces. I intend to establish the existence and extent of the phenomenon that authority is transferred upon the reader through reading the font. So, by having the participants rate texts on authority, I intend to establish that serifs are more authoritative than sans serifs.

So, my question is, have you perhaps come across past research dealing with the subject of fonts and perception? Currently, I'm looking for any info I can get. Any websites, papers, journals... I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks,

Thomas

paragraph's picture

Thomas, in a body text context a serif is the traditional winner. Convention and legibility should not be confused with authority. How many books or newspapers in the world are set in sans serif?

Chris Dean's picture

@ Thomas: Excellent breakthrough. A semantic differential scale. Well done.

Nick Shinn's picture

Claude Hopkins used couponing to optimize the performance of direct-mail advertisements:
http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/4124/
But he was just fine-tuning text, not type choice.

Colin Weildon conducted similar experiments with typographic parameters:
http://www.amazon.com/Type-Layout-Communicating-Making-Pretty/dp/1875750223

thomasv1's picture

Considering the sample group consists of university students, one could envision the group perceiving serifs as opposed to sans-serifs to be more authoritative. The group is primarily familiar with that category from school text books, journals, and news papers, whereas they encounter sans-serifs in more informal settings, such as the internet, magazines and other mediums that to them might appear to have less substance or authority.

Nick Shinn's picture

Here's an idea:
Get a professor to send out an invitation to students to attend an optional seminar. Half the students receive the message in sans, half in serif.
Then see which message generates the best attendance.
That would be a better indication of authority than self-reporting a perception.

Chris Dean's picture

@ Shinn: A good example of a study with high ecological/external validity, but less internal validity, in that it would be difficult to reproduce and draw conclusions due to confound variables such as time of day, who the instructor is, what the class is &c, however, this would be so easy to do, I think it a fantastic idea. You could gather data from 100+ Ss in less than an hour, and material prep would be a snap. In experimental psychology, we call experiments like this "paper and pencil" which are great as they are easy to set up.

@ Thomas: This could easily be part of your study. I say do it. Shouldn't take less than a week an you can simply add it to your manuscript as an appendix or make it a multi-experiment study.

Nick Shinn's picture

But how do you make sure that the design of the test document isn't biased towards either sans or serif?
"What designers do" is to harmonize and optimize all the variables in a design.
Real designers don't design documents where type style may be changed willy-nilly: you change one thing, everything changes.
So Thomas, could you produce a page design for a real-world document, such as an invitation to a seminar, where the text type may be changed from serif to sans or vice versa, without skewing the effectiveness of the document?
And bear in mind that the majority of design work, such as Typophile, for instance, mixes serif and sans.
So consider the relative "authority" of say, a serif body face, when combined with either a sans or serif headline.
The tonality of the piece as a whole, and by extension, the effectiveness of the body type, depends on the relationship between the elements.
A page with serif body text makes quite a different impression depending on whether the headline is set in serif or sans.
Also, should the headline be light or bold weight?
And to measure the effectiveness of a document with only body text is irrelevant.
As I said before, people don't read typefaces, they read documents.

Chris Dean's picture

@ Shinn: You raise some more good points. Do you have a background in experimental psychology? It has been my experience that most designers "shoot from the hip" and are somewhat resistant to a structured scientific approach to problem solving.

@ Thomas: Look into counterbalancing.

Ed_Aranda's picture

Here’s an idea:
Get a professor to send out an invitation to students to attend an optional seminar. Half the students receive the message in sans, half in serif.
Then see which message generates the best attendance.
That would be a better indication of authority than self-reporting a perception.

Very cool idea. But, as Christopher pointed out, a correlation wouldn't have internal validity unless you are able to control for all possible confounding variables. There are so many other reasons that a student might attend or not attend a seminar. Even if results are statistically significant, it would be foolish to assume causation.

You know, there is a significant negative relationship between greenhouse gas saturation in the atmosphere and the number of active pirates. So one can only assume that CO2 killed off the pirates! =P

Chris Dean's picture

@ Aranda: "You know, there is a significant negative relationship between greenhouse gas saturation in the atmosphere and the number of active pirates. So one can only assume that CO2 killed off the pirates!"

One of the better metaphors for tautology I've heard in a while.

Nick Shinn's picture

Do you have a background in experimental psychology?

No. I used to work in advertising, so I have some experience with market research and working with focus groups--for developing advertising campaigns, not products.

It has been my experience that most designers “shoot from the hip” and are somewhat resistant to a structured scientific approach to problem solving.

That's because they are designers, not artists or scientists.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a scientific approach to problem solving, but it sounds like the kind of thing which would kill a designer's creativity, resulting in boring, unappealing design.
It's not true that the process of graphic design is unstructured--you can't study design at college for several years, learning the institutional methodology, then work in an industry with a vast ecology of trade practices, and be a wild creative genius--although we do like to promote the myth.
What a designer needs is good taste, an eye for detail, and a sense of which way the cultural wind is blowing.
These are not qualities that can be understood by scientific principle.

Mr Dean, how can science be used to develop good taste?

First, quantify what people like, then give it to them?
By the time you do that, they will have moved on.
So how do you give them what they will like?
How do you decide when a particular market will become jaded by a certain look, and embrace the pendulum's swing?
When to switch from this:


to this:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but conventional wisdom would seem to dictate that sepia-toned photography, combined with a logo and name that look like they came from a 19th century Savile Row outfitter, and text set in a classic serif typeface (even more prominent in the poster for the new CD) would not be "authoritative" with teenage girls!

johnnydib's picture

Well soon after Kyoto and the action taken by some governments to cut CO2 emissions piracy is increasing again in the red sea.

Nick Shinn makes excellent points.

Ed_Aranda's picture

Well soon after Kyoto and the action taken by some governments to cut CO2 emissions piracy is increasing again in the red sea.

Exactly. Negative relationship. We have to find the proper balance of piracy and pollution.

[Edit]
Yes, Nick Shin does make good points. I think there's a lot more intuition involved in staying "ahead of the curve" than there is science.

paragraph's picture

there is a significant negative relationship between greenhouse gas saturation in the atmosphere and the number of active pirates. So one can only assume that CO2 killed off the pirates

That looks more like a causative fallacy to me, rather than tautology, sorry.

Ed_Aranda's picture

I don't really see how that is tautology either, but wikipedia's page on tautology was very interesting, thanks!

Chris Dean's picture

Christie, J., Klein, R., Waters, C. (2004). A comparison of simple hierarchy and grid metaphors for option layouts on small-size screens. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (60) 564–584.

A simple study that shows while users preferred one design, they actually performed better on the one they didn't like. If all we did was give people what they liked (gasoline, hamburgers, sneakers, teen-porn), we'd live in a socially warped world at war with a completely devastated economy and environment…

I don't know how to define "good taste" and if "staying ahead of the curve" means figuring out clever new ways to sell more boy-band albums to teenage girls, then I'd rather step aside.

De Zurco, E. R. (1957), The origins of functionalist theory, Colombia University Press talks a great deal about various ways to define beauty. A good read.

Nick Shinn's picture

I don’t know how to define “good taste”

In typography it can be taught, and learnt through practice.
Good taste is instrumental in designing a document which is appealing, a pleasure to read, and communicates well--qualities which people like when they're reading--hardly the cause of Armageddon.

That's not to say that good taste is a fixed set of preferences, rather, it's a discriminating eye.
So a group of designers may all have good taste, but their tastes will vary amongst one another, and over time.

...if “staying ahead of the curve” means figuring out clever new ways to sell more boy-band albums to teenage girls...

That's exactly what it means, it's how graphic designers make a living.
From clients who want clever new ways to sell more of a particular product or service to a particular target market.
The nature of the product and market is immaterial, although professional bodies do have standards which draw the line against certain practices--though not against designing for boy-bands.

kentlew's picture

Sorry Charlie. StarKist doesn't want tuna with good taste, StarKist wants tuna that tastes good.

Chris Dean's picture

…good taste can be taught…?

Who's taste? Hitler? Ghandi? Bush? Gore?

Nick Shinn's picture

No, as I said, good taste is not a fixed set of preferences (to be downloaded from master to pupil).
The idea is to help each student develop his/her own taste.

This is very different from your agenda, which is to use science to find the reader's hot button, and transform the job of creative graphic designer into a mouse jockey whose main job is to push that button.

Ed_Aranda's picture

I think the answer to this debate is, like the answer to most things in the world, to strike a balance between science and intuition. Using scientifically gathered information to guide your intuition as an artist/advertiser/designer would be ideal. Because great execution without sound strategy is as useless as the poor execution of a great strategy.

Nick Shinn's picture

Graphic design is a form of reason, not intuition.
Science, of course, is also a form of reason, somewhat different.
The answer, to those who would apply scientific reason where it does not belong, is not compromise.

Chris Dean's picture

…to those who would apply scientific reason where it does not belong…

1. Who decides where scientific reason does and does not belong?
2. Where does scientific reason not/belong?

This debate reminds me of a guy I read about

Chris Dean's picture

Erratum:

Christie, J., Klein, R., Waters, C. (2004). A comparison of simple hierarchy and grid metaphors for option layouts on small-size screens. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (60) 564–584.

Nick Shinn's picture

Chris, don't be so sure the good guys are on your side and not the quacks.
Ever hear of this fellow, and his Psychological Study of Typography?

Chris Dean's picture

Yes I have, but not that work specifically. I'll definitely put it on my reading list. A lot of good science comes from reviewing other researcher's work and attempting to improve upon it. Thanks for the reference.

paragraph's picture

I have another book for you to read, Chris, as you seem to think that from-the-hip shooting (and a lot of other sins) are limited to designers, whereas budding scientists are righteous and their motives are as pure as fallen snow.

henrypijames's picture

I think what Nick means by "teaching good taste" is refining one's senses -- "good taste" not as in "X tastes better than Y", but as in "I can now better differentiate the taste between X and Y than I could before".

And yes, the latter is absolutely teachable, while the former isn't and shouldn't ever be attempted. But as soon as people gain the ability to differentiate, a common sense of what's good and what's not will automatically arise, as well as of what's comparable and what's not.

Ed_Aranda's picture

Graphic design is a form of reason, not intuition.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Graphic design cannot be summed up that simply. Yes, part of being a good designer is using sound reason, but there is a much larger, intangible part that is intuitive by nature. I find that good reason can be taught, but artistic intuition is something you are either born with, or not. Maybe intuition is the wrong word. I define artistic intuition as a quality analogous to raw intelligence–like IQ. It is at the core of an artist's style and can be seen in the conceptual scope and vision of the artist, rather than in the execution of a particular technique. It's easy to see this in music. Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Kurt Cobain to name a few obvious examples. None of these musicians were particularly polished or accomplished vocalists or instrumentalists, yet they possessed unique artistic vision, taste and intangible sense of balance and proportion that allowed them to create something wonderful, despite their technical shortcomings. I don't think that had anything to do with conscious reasoning.

[Edit]
It's imagination. You simply can't teach imagination.

Nick Shinn's picture

Graphic design cannot be summed up that simply.

I don't see why not.
After all, "Scientific Reason" is well established, and equally simple.

What has intuition got to do with graphic design?
Intuition is without reason, yet design is problem solving.
How can a problem be solved without reason?
You think about the problem, you think of a solution to it--and that's not reasoning?!

I don't buy the "born genius" argument.
What about the 10,000 hours?
And please, don't diss Shakey's axe-work!

Those who don't understand how something has been done often assume that it's magical or intuitive, and that's how a lot of people consider graphic design, eg "shooting from the hip".

Ed_Aranda's picture

I don’t buy the “born genius” argument.

I don't think it's "born genius", so much as it is born with a certain capacity for creating art. Is this turning into a nature vs. nurture argument?

Those who don’t understand how something has been done often assume that it’s magical or intuitive, and that’s how a lot of people consider graphic design, eg “shooting from the hip”.

I'm not saying that hard work and education doesn't pay off. And I'm not saying that graphic design is without reason. I am only saying that some people are born without much capacity to be creative. Some people are simply born with limited imagination, and will never be able to make great art, no matter how hard they try.

I'm far from being a genius; but I believe that when I'm inspired, I am a better designer and artist than your average person (as are most of us on this forum). And for all the reason and logic and problem-solving that goes into the design process, I know that there is an aspect unexplained by reason – something that just clicks when inspiration hits. It feels as if the answer is presented to us and all the puzzle pieces fall into place. The ability to start with a raw feeling or emotion and turn it into something you can see/touch/taste/smell/hear can be explained by reason, but the origin of that feeling to me is unreasonable.

No diss intended. I'm totally down with Shakey's axe!

eliason's picture

On the "born genius" question, I think Elizabeth Gilbert's TED talk is brilliant and inspiring. link

Ed_Aranda's picture

That was a brilliant speech. And funny too.

Alessandro Segalini's picture

True to me, ‘graphic design is a form of reason, not intuition,’ indeed intuition should be supported by experience, i.e., a throughout practice and the use of hands. People with good taste shall keep in mind that writing is the base of communication design, and that a great idea isn't necessarily visual — it can be put into words. (The latter may refer to the very beginning of graphic design I saw in the works of a ‘serif designer’ such as G.B. Bodoni). Looking for a beautiful theory ?

Chris Dean's picture

Science can do three things for our profession:

1. Add new knowledge (needs no explanation)

2. Support some of our conventions, traditions, intuitions &c with scientific reasoning and empirical data which only adds strength to our position. Just one more reason to say "that's why this is 'good typography'." Not the only reason. Please note, I said "support" not prove.

3. Refute some of our conventions in a similar fashion, which could perhaps help us redirect our focus and resources onto other areas (be they typographic or horticultural) that could provide us and our clients a greater return on investment. Again, I said "refute" not disprove.

Nick Shinn's picture

1. Add new knowledge (needs no explanation)

That's doubtful.
The science of reading is fascinating, and may spark new design directions, but the use people want from it, such as "this typeface is 5% more effective than that typeface", can never be a scientific proposition, or a practical benefit.
So far all I've ever come across from the science of reading is completely useless to practice.
Sometimes it's the "discovery" of something very basic that is well know to typographers, but generally it's along the lines of Pauli's "That's not even wrong", such as the Song & Schwartz assertion that Arial is better than Mistral for recipe instructions.

2. Support some of our conventions, traditions, intuitions &c with scientific reasoning and empirical data which only adds strength to our position

It might seem that a "scientific" rationale could help the professional esteem of graphic designers, art directors, and typographers, but the opposite would occur, as technicians and "smart" software would derogate true design thinking.

3. Refute some of our conventions

If it can't support, it can't refute.

There IS a place for scientific methodology in the practice of design.
In product development, and in market research.
But in both cases, science cannot prescribe what a design will be, it can only test the efficacy of a particular design against a specific set of parameters.

In product development (for typefaces), there is no need for lab-testing of typefaces, because the market soon enough determines what works. I've used focus groups in the development of newpaper type, to help choose between different possibilities, but that's as scientific as it's got, I can't imagine more thorough statisitical research fitting into a commission workflow.

Microsoft had the opportunity in typeface development to use lab testing to refine the ClearType faces, but AFAIK did not, instead merely using testing post facto to justify design decisions. The same has happened with various "typefaces for the reading challenged" projects: what happens is that someone with little or no experience in type design gets a grant to develop a typeface for, say, dyslexic readers, then they develop a typeface according to their theory of how people read, but they never test existing designs against their theory, or against their new design. And then well-meaning NGOs or government agencies will use or mandate the typeface, instead of far better typefaces from established commercial foundries. This short-changes everybody.

Market research has been used for consumer products for at least 100 years. Daniel Starch was a pioneer. It began, early in the era of mass-market consumer culture, with the idea that science could be used to produce more effective "salesmanship in print"--but the scientific method has made no further inroad into the art of selling. However, scientists are nothing if not confident, and the latest generation of scientists always thinks it can do a better job than previous, that we are just on the doorstep of understanding how everything works. But that's a fallacy, as any philosophical critique of scientific reason will point out.

Finally, I would say that the "better reading through science" agenda is not legitimate science, but scientism and quackery, and this is why it deserves debunking.
The scientific study of reading, in the realm of neuroscience and social psychology, is entirely worthy, but beyond that, science can never be of prescriptive use to typographers, and is counter-productive to the true nature of typography and the work of typographers.

Chris Dean's picture

@ Shinn: You raise a lot of points. Before we addresses them, how do you define "typographer?"

nina's picture

"I would say that the “better reading through science” agenda is not legitimate science, but scientism and quackery"
Nick, would you care to elaborate why you say this?

FWIW, to throw in a different angle: I would suspect the problem is just that most scientists and most typographers/type designers, respectively, live in different worlds; yes, they don't ask the same questions, in fact they often don't speak the same language, they don't understand each other. But that doesn't mean they can't, or couldn't, ever.

In the end, if science researches the very processes that we as graphic designers / typographers / type designers address and rely on – the nature of how humans see, perceive, and read –, don't we need to be interested in that?
And if they research it in ways that we find inappropriate or pointless from our angle; if they ask questions we don't find relevant; if they lack knowledge we could provide (and maybe don't even realize), shouldn't we try to step up to them and communicate this, try to bridge the gap – instead of refuting science altogether?

Maybe I'm naïve, or idealistic; but I wonder if this isn't a prime example of a situation where building bridges between isolated disciplines could do so much to make them see each other more clearly, and work to each other's benefit. Yes, that would be difficult. But not only would it help type (immensely, I think), but taking walks on both sides of such a bridge could be one hell of a lot more interesting than throwing grenades across the divide.

My $.02. Maybe I misread what you said? This got a bit epic.

Nick Shinn's picture

how do you define “typographer?”

The typographer is the person who makes decisions about typeface choice, size, leading, and other typographic parameters in a document.
So even a person customizing their browser interface is, in a sense, a typographer.

Nick, would you care to elaborate why you say this?

I already have, in numerous Typophile posts.
However, ultimately I think the issue is philosophical, concerning the limits of scientific reason.
I don't see these issues being addressed in the psychology of reading, which seems to be stuck in a retro behaviorist mode.

shouldn’t we try to step up to them and communicate this, try to bridge the gap – instead of refuting science altogether?

Refuting science? Demarcating it is doing the opposite, reinforcing its integrity.
Science can enlighten as to how reading works, but it cannot offer prescriptive advice to typographers.
That's not science, but quackery and social engineering, and should be vigorously debunked.

The methodology of specific experiments by reading researchers has been repeatedly critiqued (trashed, even) at Typophile, and I think you will find that has happened earlier in this thread. If scientists want to be taken seriously by typographers, they will have to better address the issues raised, and steer clear of "Arial vs Mistral" tests in the first place, and then back off trying to justify them as legitimate baby steps.

Finally, why should one build bridges to aid those who seek to destroy one's calling?
They don't recognize, understand, or believe in the value of typography as craft, and think that it should be reducible to an objectively manageable practice. As Christopher Dean puts it, "I also conduct experimental research designed to support or refute typographic conventions in accordance with objective measures of human performance and empirical data."

Nina, did you catch the Rock 'n' Roll museum presentation at Typo Berlin, where the designers said they were told by officials that for accessibility reasons, the type on the walls had to be 24 pt sans serif? That's where this path leads.

There's no denying technological progress, after all that's the history of typography, and we all benefit from it.
But believing in progress isn't the same as giving technologists carte blanche to administer "adapt or die".

nina's picture

"I already have, in numerous Typophile posts."
OK, I'm still working on reading my way through the archives. :)

"Science can enlighten as to how reading works, but it cannot offer prescriptive advice to typographers."
Where do you draw the line between the two?
I mean if –hypothetically speaking– I were working on typesetting a book and a scientist would find that the book would do slightly better in terms of readability if it had 0.5pt more leading, or if the type was slightly smaller and the measure shorter or whatever, is that already "prescriptive advice"?
Further, if I were to accept this input, and consequently attempt to balance the complex system of variables that typography juggles in a slightly different way, so as to better accommodate the scientific findings, and find a compromise between them and my initial, visually guided concept; and if I then find it still "looks good" (if slightly different), but now with the added benefit that it supposedly also works better, then haven't both sides won?

"They don’t recognize, understand, or believe in the value of typography as craft, and think that it should be reducible to an objectively manageable practice"
What makes you say that? The sentence you quote from Christopher Dean's post doesn't sound like wanting to "destroy your calling" to me, exactly. More like trying to counter-balance fuzzy anecdotal wisdom with empirical findings.
First step to building the bridge: try to see the value in other approaches to finding truths. Or at least stop being terrified of them (or conversely, looking down on them).

But just to clarify: I do think there's a huge difference in the usefulness of science to us between the realms of the functional and the æsthetic. Which means I'd laugh at that same scientist from above if he told me I need a font with serifs 10 em units longer to make the Average Person perceive it to be 10% more "authoritative"! Especially so if said scientist were unaware of the complex overlapping effects of all those variables in typography.
(Whee, did I just get this back on topic?)

"Nina, did you catch the Rock ’n’ Roll museum presentation at Typo Berlin"
No! I'm beginning to think I really missed a lot of good bits. :-\

Nick Shinn's picture

if –hypothetically speaking– I were working on typesetting a book and a scientist would find that the book would do slightly better in terms of readability if it had 0.5pt more leading, or if the type was slightly smaller and the measure shorter or whatever, is that already “prescriptive advice”?

No, that's "let's try all the permutations and see what works best" product development.

The sentence you quote from Christopher Dean’s post doesn’t sound like wanting to “destroy your calling” to me, exactly.

"objective measures of human performance" means design-by-formula, turning graphic designers into robots.

More like trying to counter-balance fuzzy anecdotal wisdom with empirical findings.

My "anecdotal wisdom" is nothing of the sort, it is in fact empirical know-how gained in the laboratory of commerce.
It is not fuzzy but finely honed, enabling me to discriminate between, say, Meta and DIN (both of which I have experience spec'ing in printed projects) for setting recipe instructions, rather than the extreme generalizations of Arial and Mistral, which is the state of the art for reading scientists.

paragraph's picture

I for one have no problem with science as such. I love and respect science, read about it, have worked with scientists all my life. The problem with this thread is not too much science, it's too little of it.

Nick Shinn's picture

Exactly.
Let's start with a definition of type size.

...is that already “prescriptive advice”?

OK, so we'd like to be able to say something along the order of "10 pt serifed type is more readable" (as determined by objective measures of human performance).

But how do I, as a type designer, design a 10 pt serifed type?
I don't, I scale according to the em square.
Ignoring the fact that there isn't a definition of the em square which typographers can agree on (as emerged on a thread at Typophile), and that scientists haven't even addressed this issue, considering foundry/layout application definition of "size" as axiomatic, I have to ask:

1. Are those serifs slab or bracketed, and are the terminals ball, square, or adnate?
2. Is type size determined by cap height or x-height, and then, what percentage of em square is that height?

That would be prescriptive advice, but without it, all science can do is performance reviews of specific typefaces in specific documents.

Chris Dean's picture

I have not seen this "type size thread." Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Nick Shinn's picture

"type size thread":

http://typophile.com/node/27742

Just re-read that, it's hilarious! (well, I think so.)
Relates to leading as well as type size.

nina's picture

Cheers for clearing that up, Nick.

Chris Dean's picture

New word:

In science land, they refer to leading as "inter-linear spacing."

nina's picture

Note to the original poster: just found this old thread that might be of interest
Psychology of Typefaces
http://typophile.com/node/2635

thomasv1's picture

I've recently 'finished' the paper (it was incredibly rushed), and having played a part in its conception and development, you--I thought--deserve to read it. Any comments would be welcome--just bear in mind that it was a rush-job and if you think some elements might not seem as thought-out as they could be, I whole-heartedly agree.

Paper
Questionnaire 1 (serif)
Questionnaire 2 (sans)

thomasv1's picture

The questionnaire roughly translates to the following:

Dear participant,

Please read the introduction carefully before you answer questions. The study will take about 5 minutes of your time. We appreciate your cooperation very much and thank you for the effort.

With Ahmadinejad victory conflict in Iran government still present
Elections have caused a rift within the political elite

The Iranian authorities are likely to succeed in suppressing the street riots that arose after the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the rift that has developed in the political elite seems permanent.

Rotterdam, June 14. Continuing street protests in several major Iranian cities underlines the belief by many Iranians that the electoral victory of the radical-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the product of fraud. But there is little doubt that the authorities will succeed in suppressing that spirit.

I think the author of the above text is:

no expert 1 2 3 4 5 expert
unbelievable 1 2 3 4 5 credible
unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 reliable
unfair 1 2 3 4 5 fair
not really 1 2 3 4 5 sincerely
incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 expert
incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 qualified
amateurish 1 2 3 4 5 professional
not authoritative 1 2 3 4 5 authoritative

Syndicate content Syndicate content