The aim of this study was to explore the latent affective and persuasive meaning attributed to text when appearing in two commonly used fonts. Two satirical readings were selected from the New York Times. These readings (one addressing government issues, the other education policy) were each printed in Times New Roman and Arial fonts of the same size and presented in randomized order to 102 university students, who ranked the readings on a number of adjective descriptors. Analysis showed that satirical readings in Times New Roman were perceived as more funny and angry than those in Arial, the combination of emotional perception which is congruent with the definition of satire. This apparent interaction of font type with emotional qualities of text has implications for marketing, advertising, and the persuasive literature.

This study examined relationships between academic cheating behaviors by using self-reports of past cheating behavior, providing a situational experiment with the opportunity to cheat, and evaluating defense mechanisms and object relations as measured by the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Subjects included 75 female and 8 male university students ranging in age from 18 to 51 years (M=25.5, SD=6.9). Analysis showed variations in students' self-reported cheating history relative to their measured object relations status and type of defense mechanisms. Actual cheating in the experimental setting was not significantly related to any of these variables. Findings are discussed based on a critique of heterogeneity of the cheating construct.