When Type Becomes Trend: Understanding Typography Through Gen Z’s Social Media Lens

Typography in digital media has moved beyond aesthetics to become a cultural and communicative tool, especially for Generation Z. On platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube Shorts, and Discord, typographic choices influence not only attention but also identity and community-building. This study examines typography’s role in shaping digital engagement and learning by integrating insights from participatory culture, branding, and microlearning research. A mixed-methods approach combines quantitative measures of engagement outcomes with qualitative analysis of user perceptions, offering a comprehensive view of typography as both a functional and cultural marker. The findings highlight how consistent, well-structured typographic systems enhance trust, clarity, and recognition, while creative variations help establish trends within social media ecosystems. The study contributes practical guidance for educators, content creators, and brands on using typography to strengthen communication and engagement with Gen Z audiences.

Typography, Generation Z, Participatory Culture, Social Media, Learning

1. Ahmad, N., Yusof, N., & Rahim, R. (2023). Social media engagement and cultural adaptation among Malaysian youth. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 15(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/ 10 .xxxx/jmcs.2023.15.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bernard, M., Chaparro, B., Mills, M., & Halcomb, C. (2003). Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readability of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59(6), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00121-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Brumberger, E. (2003). The rhetoric of typography: The persona of typeface and text. Technical Communication, 50(2), 206–223. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3, 843–861. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. DataReportal. (2025). Digital 2025: Malaysia. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/ reports/ digital2025-malaysia [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2011). Visual appeal and future intentions in website design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 69(9), 550–562. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.ijhcs .2011.04.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dyson, M. C. (2013). Where theory meets practice: A critical comparison of research into typography for children. Information Design Journal, 20(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/ idj.20 .1.02dys [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dyson, M. C., & Suen, C. Y. (2002). Readability of continuous text in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing, 15(3–4), 349–376. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fong, J. (2019). Kinetic typography in digital video: Impact on viewer engagement. Journal of Visual Communication, 18(2), 223–240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Fromm, J., & Read, A. (2018). Marketing to Gen Z: The rules for reaching this vast—and very different—generation of influencers. AMACOM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hall, R. H., & Hanna, P. (2004). The impact of web page text–background color combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics, and behavioral intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(3), 183–195. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hall, R., Hanna, P., & Birt, J. (2018). The impact of website font type on trust, loyalty, and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hashmeta. (2025). Social media landscape Malaysia: Key statistics and platforms you need to know. Retrieved from https://hashmeta.com/blog/social-media-landscape-malaysia-key-statistics-platforms you-need-to-know/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 60–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2016). Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Huff, M., Burns, K., & Kane, M. (2022). Disfluent fonts and learning: A meta-analysis of Sans Forgetica and other manipulations of perceptual fluency. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Larsen, L. (2014). Readability and legibility of onscreen text: A review. Visible Language, 48(3), 66–89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 60(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.ijhcs .2003.09.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Lee, E. J. (2020). Typeface and trust: The effects of typographic style on credibility in digital advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 85–99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Lee, J., & Park, S. (2023). Kinetic typography and cognitive load: Balancing attention and distraction in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 195, 104708. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104708 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330448 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Lonsdale, M., Dyson, M., & Reynolds, L. (2006). Reading in examination-type situations: The effects of text layout on performance. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00319.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Lupton, E. (2010). Thinking with type: A critical guide for designers, writers, editors, & students (2nd ed.). Princeton Architectural Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC). (2024). Malaysia Digital Economy Blueprint (2024 Update). Putrajaya: MDEC. Retrieved from https://mdec.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Medved, A., Kovač, N., & Kralj, A. (2023). Emotional responses to typographic form: Linking font personality with affect and trust. Journal of Visual Communication and Design, 47(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/174934.2023.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Monotype. (2023). The state of brand typography: How fonts shape perception and trust. Monotype Imaging Inc. https://www.monotype.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Reinecke, K., & Bernstein, A. (2011). Improving performance, perceived usability, and aesthetics with culturally adaptive user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 18(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1970378.1970382 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Reinecke, K., & Gajos, K. Z. (2014). Quantifying visual preferences around the world. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2014), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2016). The effect of font type on screen readability by people with dyslexia. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 8(4), 15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897736 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Satué, E. (2012). The history of typographic writing. Campgràfic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Schroeder, R. (2010). Mobile phones and the inexorable advance of multimodal connectedness. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 592–600. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 136911809 03266620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Shaikh, A. D., Chaparro, B. S., & Fox, D. (2006). Perception of fonts: Perceived personality traits and uses. Usability News, 8(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Shaikh, A. D., Chaparro, B. S., & Fox, D. (2007). Perception of fonts: Perceived personality traits and appropriateness for different tasks. Usability News, 9(1), 1–6. Retrieved from https:// usability news.org/perception-of-fonts [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Shaikh, A. D., Chaparro, B. S., & Fox, D. (2007). Perception of typeface personality based on design characteristics. Usability News, 9(1). Wichita State University, Software Usability Research Laboratory. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Stojanović, D., Bogdanović, Z., Despotović-Zrakić, M., Naumović, T., & Radenković, M. (2019). An approach to using Instagram in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Virtual Learning (ICVL 2019) (pp. 248–253). University of Bucharest, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. Cognitive Load Theory, 29(2), 29–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Taylor, S. (2020). Sans Forgetica and the myth of desirable difficulty in typography. Visible Language, 54(1), 37–53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. TechNode Global. (2025, February 11). Digital 2025: Nearly two-thirds of Southeast Asia’s population are on social media. Retrieved from https://technode.global/2025/02/11/digital-2025-nearly-two-thirdsof-southeast-asias-population-are-on-social-media/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Tietz, T., Schwarz, N., & Kühn, S. (2025). When difficult fonts make learning harder: Revisiting disfluency effects on memory and motivation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00510-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Tuch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., Stöcklin, M., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 70(11), 794–811. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.06.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2015.0021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. van Zoonen, W. (2024). Trust but verify? Examining the role of trust in institutions and reasons for sharing unverified information on social media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Vișan, A. M., Almășan, B. H., & Orășanu, A. (2019). Social media in the educational environment: What? How? Why? In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Virtual Learning (ICVL 2019) (pp. 285–289). University of Bucharest. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2008). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1221–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2007. 04.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Wibowo, M. C., Zainudin, A., & Sugiarto. (2024). The influence of minimalist design elements on visual preferences of Generation Z: A quantitative study. International Journal of Graphic Design (IJGD), 2(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.51903/ijgd.v2i2.2133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Ye, P. (2025). The role of media watermarks in shaping credibility judgments: A qualitative study of Premier League transfer rumours among Chinese Gen Z football fans. Communications in Humanities Research, 74, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar