University of Dundee Sounds sweet, sounds bitter Pathak ...

University of Dundee

Sounds sweet, sounds bitter

Pathak, Abhishek; Calvert, Gemma A.

Published in:Food Quality and Preference

DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103918

Publication date:2020

Licence:CC BY-NC-ND

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link to publication in Discovery Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):Pathak, A., & Calvert, G. A. (2020). Sounds sweet, sounds bitter: How the presence of certain sounds in a brandname can alter expectations about the product’s taste. Food Quality and Preference, 83, 1-10. [103918].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103918

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated withthese rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain. • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 02. Feb. 2022

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103918

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/d53b243a-98bc-446c-9a98-ad6d9027df20

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103918

Sounds sweet, sounds bitter: How the presence of certain sounds in a brand name can

alter expectations about the product’s taste

Abhishek Pathak1 and Gemma Anne Calvert2

1 School of Business, University of Dundee, UK

2 Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Correspondence to: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Abhishek

Pathak, School of Business, 4 Nethergate, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK (Tele:

+44(01382)884867; E-mail: [email protected])

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

Author Accepted Manuscript version of Pathak, A & Calvert, GA 2020, 'Sounds sweet, sounds bitter: How the presence of certain sounds in a brand name can alter expectations about the product’s taste', Food Quality and Preference. Released under the terms of a CC-BY-NC-ND License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Abstract

This paper examines how certain speech sounds within a brand name can alter expectations

about the product’s taste. Across two studies we demonstrate that the presence of voiced (b, d, g,

z & v) vs. voiceless (p, t, k, s & f) obstruents (speech sounds produced when airflow is

obstructed in the oral cavity) in a chocolate’s brand name can alter its expected taste as bitter vs.

sweet. We propose this is because voiced obstruents are typically of low frequency (frequency

code hypothesis), contain harsh acoustic qualities and evoke negativity (due to aerodynamic

difficulties in their pronunciation). In a third study, we extended these findings to show, using

the Brand Personality Scale (BPS), that the presence of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents makes

brand names sound more masculine, rugged and tough and less honest, charming, glamorous,

wholesome, cheerful and sentimental. Research linking consonant sound symbolism (specifically

voiced obstruents) and product attributes is sparse. Most research in this field links vowels with

product attributes, sounds with shapes and music (or musical notes) with taste attributes. We

contribute by extending these findings to voicing (and associated harshness) and the sweet-bitter

continuum of the expected taste.

Keywords: Sound symbolism; voiced obstruents; voicing; brand names; brand personality

traits; taste attributes Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

Highlights

When asked to make a choice, respondents rate food products having voiced obstruents

(b, d, g, z & v) in their brand names as bitter (compared to ones with voiceless

obstruents)

When asked to make a choice, respondents rate food products having voiceless obstruents

(p, t, k, s & f) in their brand names as sweet (compared to ones with voiced obstruents)

Hypothetical brand names with voiced obstruents are perceived as more rugged and less

sophisticated than the brand names with voiceless obstruents

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

VOICING AND TASTE ATTRIBUTES

1

Sounds sweet, sounds bitter: How the presence of certain sounds in a brand name can

alter expectations about the product’s taste

1 Introduction

A brand’s name typically represents the first touchpoint between a brand and its

consumers, making its selection a vital component of a brand’s marketing strategy (Charmasson,

1988; Klink & Athaide, 2012). Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that up to 40% of a brand’s

success can be attributed to a well-chosen name (Alashban, Hayes, Zinkhan, & Balazs, 2002;

Zaltman & Wallendorf, 1979). Research has shown that during the process of selecting a product

consumers are more influenced by the brand name to a greater extent than other important

determinants (e.g., price and physical appearance) (Dawar & Parker, 1994). There is now a

considerable body of research demonstrating the relationship between brand name sounds and

perceived product attributes (e.g., slowness vs. fastness, heaviness vs. lightness, basic vs. luxury,

feminine vs. masculine). This suggests that consumers often expect some congruency between

the sound of a brand name and its associated product features. Furthermore, when these brand

evoked expectations are consistent with the actual product experience, consumers typically

appreciate them more (Friese, Wänke, & Plessner, 2006). In fact, the relationship between brand

names and product expectancy has been shown to be more salient when the brands (or brand

names) are unfamiliar (Fenko, Lotterman, & Galetzka, 2016).

All languages contain sounds which are perceived as harsh or soft (Aryani, Conrad,

Schmidtke, & Jacobs, 2018). In this paper, we provide evidence for a sound symbolic link

between harsh sounds and expectations of how a product will taste. More specifically, we show

that brand names containing harsh sounds lead to expectations that the associated product will

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


2

taste bitter whereas those with soft sounds generate taste expectations of a sweet tasting product.

We used voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents, the speech sounds produced when airflow is

obstructed in the oral cavity, in hypothetical brand names to imbue them with a sense of

harshness. This paper builds on previous research in that here (i) we use voicing in consonants to

induce perceptual harshness [previous research has used ‘hard’ vs ‘soft’ consonants (e.g., /k/ vs

/l/)] with taste attributes, and (ii) other research has shown voicing (vs. non-voicing) to be

associated with roundness (vs. spikiness) and roundedness with sweetness (vs. spikiness with

bitterness). These findings suggest an association of voicing (vs. non-voicing) with sweetness

(vs. bitterness). We on the contrary show an opposite association of voicing (vs. non-voicing)

with bitterness (vs. sweetness).

1.1 Sound symbolism and taste

A vast body of research has now shown a systematic relationship between sounds and

their perceived meanings (e.g., Hinton, Nichols, & Ohala, 1994; Ramachandran & Hubbard,

2001; Sapir, 1929). This relationship has been shown in the context of names (e.g., Sidhu &

Pexman, 2015; Slepian & Galinsky, 2016), psycholinguistic elements (e.g., Nuckolls, 1999),

shapes (e.g., Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001), product attributes (e.g., Klink, 2000), personality

traits (e.g., Klink & Athaide, 2012) and more specifically, related to the current paper, with taste

perceptions (see Spence, 2012 for a review), to name but a few.

Fónagy (1963) was the first to suggest a relationship between taste (on a sweet-bitter

continuum) and the sound of articulated front vs. back vowels. For example, amongst Hungarian

respondents, /i/ was found to be sweeter, and /u:/ as bitter. A similar relationship was shown by

Yorkston and Menon (2004) albeit in the context of the creaminess of ice-creams. Similarly,

Simner, Cuskley, and Kirby (2010) have linked vowel height and back-ness with tastes. In their

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


3

studies, higher vowels tended to signify sweetness while lower vowels connoted bitterness and

sourness. Similarly, back vowels were linked to sweetness while front ones indicated bitterness

and sourness. More recently, sharper speech sounds (e.g., takete, kiki) have been linked with

sharp objects (e.g., spiky shapes) and bitter tastes (vs. softer sounds, e.g. maluma, lula, with

rounded objects and sweet tastes) (Gallace, Boschin, & Spence, 2011). A similar cross-modal

relationship has been reported by Ngo, Misra, and Spence (2011). These researchers showed that

chocolates containing only 30% cocoa (i.e. sweeter chocolates) were more easily matched with

rounded speech sounds (e.g., maluma) whereas chocolates containing 70% cocoa (i.e. bitter

chocolates) were more closely matched with sharper speech sounds (e.g., takete). The association

between sounds (e.g., musical notes) and tastes has also been explored in depth (e.g., Bronner,

Frieler, Bruhn, Hirt, & Piper, 2012; Crisinel & Spence, 2009; Knoferle, Woods, Käppler, &

Spence, 2015; Knöferle & Spence, 2012), but the relationship between speech sounds and tastes

has not been as extensively researched as those between speech sounds and other product

attributes (e.g., fastness, heaviness, lightness) (e.g., Abel & Glinert, 2008; Klink, 2000; see

Spence, 2012 for a review). The current paper is an attempt to bridge this gap.

So why should voiced obstruents signify bitterness while voiceless ones connote

sweetness? We propose two mechanisms that may explain this phenomenon. The first is the

frequency code hypothesis (FCH) and the second is the aerodynamic difficulties associated with

the pronunciation of voiced obstruents. Voiced (vs voiceless) obstruents have been shown to

have lower (vs. higher) frequencies (Kingston & Diehl, 1995; Kingston, Diehl, Kirk &

Castleman, 2008) and low frequency sounds have been shown to be more closely associated with

warnings, threat and hostility (vs. pleasure, appeasement and friendliness for higher frequency

sounds) (Morton, 1977; Ohala, 1994). Similarly, low (vs. high) frequencies have been indirectly

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


4

(e.g., music) shown to be associated with bitter (vs. sweet) tastes (Simner et al., 2010; Knöferle

& Spence, 2012; Spence, 2012).

The second mechanism that may explain these obstruent-taste associations is the

significant aerodynamic difficulties associated with the pronunciation of voiced obstruents (see

Ohala, 1983 for a review). These difficulties have often been cited as the reason why voiced

obstruents are associated with negative meanings or perceptions (Kawahara, Shinohara, &

Uchimoto, 2008; Kubozono, 1999; Ohala, 1983). Voiced obstruents have also been shown to be

associated with perceived heaviness and largeness (e.g., large and dangerous animals)

(Kubozono, 1999; Saji, Akita, Imai, Kantartzis, & Kita, 2013). Other research suggests that,

when used in the names of fictitious characters, voiced obstruents evoke feelings of a bigger,

larger and more threatening character. For example, studies using Pokémon characters in

Japanese and English speakers show that a larger and more menacing character’s name is

considered more appropriate if it contains voiced obstruents (Kawahara & Moore, 2018; Shih,

Ackerman, Hermalin, Inkelas, & Kavitskaya, 2018).

In the current paper, we extend this relationship between negativity and harshness of

sounds associated with voiced obstruents to the taste dimension. We aim to show that when used

in the context of brand names (BNs) of chocolates, consumers consider names containing harsh

speech components as signifying that the chocolate is bitter. Chocolate was chosen as the

preferred product category as this has been successfully used in past research on cross-modal

associations, specifically on the sweet-bitter continuum (e.g., Ngo et al., 2011; Ngo & Spence,

2011; Spence & Gallace, 2011). Auth

or's f

inal v

ersion


5

1.2 Speech sounds

Consonants and vowels form the two building blocks for all languages. Vowels are

typically smoother, do not involve much movement of the articulatory muscles and are produced

by the movement of the air within the oral cavity with little obstruction. The production of

consonants, on the other hand, typically involves a higher degree of obstruction, friction and

constriction of the vocal tract (Carrol, 2004; Ladefoged, 1993). Speech sounds can be broadly

classified into obstruents and resonants. Obstruents are sounds made due to a partial (or full)

obstruction of the airflow within the oral cavity, whereas resonants are produced without any

obstruction to the airflow. Obstruents can further be divided into, stops (e.g., /p/, /b/), fricatives

(e.g., /f/, /v/), and affricates (e.g., /t∫/ as in Chin, /dʒ/ as in General). Within these, voiced

obstruents is a sub-class of sounds where an additional voicing accompanies the phonemic

sounds (e.g., /b/, /ɡ/, /z/). Voicing is the vibration of the vocal cords during the pronunciation of

some speech sounds. For example, feel the vibration of the vocal cords on Adam’s apple while

saying /b/ (voiced) vs /p/ (unvoiced) (Slepian & Galinsky, 2016)]. The accompanied voicing and

modulation of the vibrating vocal cords, is believed to make the voiced obstruents sound even

harsher compared to the smoother, unmodulated sound of the voiceless obstruents.

Voicing is a complicated process, involving complex articulatory movements and

aerodynamic control. For voicing to occur, two essential conditions have to be met. Firstly, there

should be an adequate amount of tension in the vocal cords, and secondly, air must be expelled

from the lungs into the vocal cords to vibrate them. While tensing the vocal cords is easy, the

process of vibrating them is not so. The entire oral cavity consists of two smaller spaces

demarcated by the glottis, the oral cavity (having an intra oral pressure of Po) and subglottal

cavity (having sub glottal pressure of Ps). The vocal cord vibration requires a differential of

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


6

pressure (approx. 2–3 cm H20 in normal speaking conditions) between the oral cavity and

subglottal cavity. To initiate voicing, the speaker has to actively lower the Po so that Po < Ps and

the air flows across the vocal cords to vibrate them (Ohala, 1983; Shinohara & Kawahara, 2010).

In the case of voiced obstruents, the process is further complicated due to the obstruction of the

airways, which makes the condition of making Po< Ps more difficult (as the intra oral pressure

tends to rise due to the obstruction) (Hayes & Stivers, 1996). In order to reduce the Po, the

speaker resorts to complex manoeuvers such as extending the oral cavity by lowering the larynx,

raising the velum or expanding the cheeks (Ohala, 1983; Shinohara & Kawahara, 2010).

Moreover, for the voicing to sustain, the speaker has to continuously maintain this pressure

differential across the cavities, otherwise the vocal cord vibration will cease and so in turn will

the voicing. This complex exercise of voicing, also called Aerodynamic Voicing Constraint

(Ohala, 2011), takes less than 15 ms (Chollet, Di Benedetto, Esposito, & Marinaro, 2012).

Specifically, based on voicing there can be three types of voiced (vs. voiceless)

obstruents: stops (voiced & voiceless; /p/ & /b/; /t/ & /d/; /k/ & /g/), fricatives (voiced &

voiceless; /f/ & /v/; /θ/& /ð/ as in Theatre vs. Then; /s/ & /z/ as in See vs. Zoo; /ʃ / & /ʒ/ as in

She vs. Measure) and affricates (/tʃ/ & /dʒ/). Out of these voiced obstruents, in the current paper

we excluded /θ/ & /ð/ and /ʃ/ & /ʒ/ as the differences in these speech sounds is purely auditory

and not visual (e.g., a hypothetical name Thodake, can be pronounced by a respondent in two

different ways, one with /θ/ as in Theatre and other with /ð/ as in /Then/ and in a visual stimuli,

these can be a confound1)

2 Methods (common to all the studies)

Twenty-five hypothetical brand names (HBNs) in a CV-CV-CV structure were created

using voiced (/b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, and /v/) vs. unvoiced (/p/, /t/, /k/, /s/ and /f/) obstruents (Appendix

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


7

1) and the HBNs were tested for similarity with the existing words or known brands. To reduce

the known sound symbolic associations linked to vowels, three different vowels were used

within the HBNs. All studies were designed on Inquisit 5 software (millisecond.com) and

participants were native English speakers, recruited from the USA through Amazon Mechanical

Turk (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014; also see Woods, Velasco, Levitan, Wan, & Spence, 2015 for a

recent review on the online experimental research). The Institutional Review Board of a large

South East Asian university approved the research and respondents who consented to participate,

were paid for their time and effort. Each respondent was allowed to participate only in one of the

studies. In all studies, participants were asked to guess the purpose of the experiment; none of the

participants could correctly guess the hypotheses, except for two participants in Study 1, whose

data was excluded. With N≈60, the power to detect a medium-sized effect (0.5) in the Wilcoxon

Signed Rank tests and paired t-tests (α = 0.05) was found to be, 1 – β = 0.96 (approx.) (using

G*Power 3.1.9.2; Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

3 Study 1

3.1 Participants

A total of 61 participants between the ages of 24 to 70 years completed the study (2

participants guessed the hypothesis to some extent and were excluded from analysis); Mage =

40.58 yrs., SD = 12.83, Males = 37, Females = 22). All participants were English speakers (one

participant also knew the Thai language).

3.2 Procedure and design

Participants were told that a company was launching two new chocolates (one sweet and

one bitter) in an international, non-English speaking market and was looking for suitable brand

names for them. They were then shown fourteen HBN pairs (one with voiced obstruents and

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


8

another with voiceless obstruents), chosen randomly from the 25 HBNs created. Each HBN was

presented only once. Participants were asked to ‘drag and drop’ the HBNs to one of the product

categories (sweet and bitter) shown on top, which they felt was appropriate for the HBN shown.

Position mapping of the HBNs was counterbalanced within-subjects and those of the product

categories was counterbalanced between-subjects. Before the study, participants were

familiarized with the ‘drag and drop’ procedure in a few practice trials, where real brands were

used (e.g., Mars). Participants also signed an electronic consent and provided demographic

information before commencing the study.

3.3 Results

The results show that participants rated HBNs with voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents as

more appropriate for a bitter (vs. sweet) chocolate. It was labelled as a congruent response for

our analysis, incongruent being voiced obstruents with sweet chocolate, and vice-versa; data was

segregated into total number of congruent vs. incongruent trials, Z = 25.10, p < 0.0001, r = 0.17.

To explore the individual differences across participants, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was

conducted which revealed significant differences between the proportions of congruent and

incongruent responses (M congruent = 58.72, SD = 20.72, M Incongruent = 41.28, SD = 20.72, Z = 2.94,

p = 0.003, r = 0.27). In the English language, the phoneme /g/ can have a different sound

depending on its usage e.g., a hard /g/ sound (as in Gate) or a soft /g/ sound (as in Gem).

Research suggests that often the phoneme /g/ is pronounced as hard whenever it precedes vowels

/a/, /o/ and /u/, and as a soft sound, whenever it precedes the vowels /e/, /i/ and /y/ (Emerson,

1997). In view of this confound, we reanalyzed the data after excluding the affected HBNs.

Specifically, seven such HBNs (e.g., Zadoge) were found. The affected trials were excluded and

the rest of the data was reanalyzed. The results showed that participants rated HBNs with voiced

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


9

(vs. voiceless) obstruents as more appropriate for a bitter (vs. sweet) chocolate. Here, we refer to

these as congruent (voiced with bitter) and incongruent (voiceless with sweet) combinations, Z =

22.08, p < 0.0001, r = 0.19. Across participants, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test showed significant

differences between the proportions of congruent and incongruent responses (M congruent = 59.53,

SD = 22.32, M Incongruent = 40.49, SD = 22.32, Z = 3.10, p = 0.002, r = 0.29). The results of Study

1 provide evidence for a link between brand names (voiced vs. voiceless) and expected taste

attributes (bitter vs. sweet).

4 Study 2

Study 1 employed a forced-choice task. Forced-choice tasks have been used extensively

by scholars working in the field of sound symbolism. However, they have received some

criticism (Lockwood, Dingemanse, & Hagoort, 2016; Lockwood, Hagoort, & Dingemanse,

2016; Monaghan, Mattock, & Walker, 2012; Saji, Akita, Imai, Kantartzis, & Kita, 2013). Firstly,

the contrast between two given choices is often maximal (i.e. often the choices presented have a

maximum possible difference, e.g., very angular vs. very rounded or the two extremes of a

continuum). Secondly, forced-choice tasks are argued to be unrepresentative of natural language

learning or the way in which we use novel words (e.g., new brand names) (Lockwood,

Dingemanse, & Hagoort, 2016). To control for these potential confounds, in Study 2 we asked

participants to create novel brand names for sweet and bitter chocolates in a free choice task, and

explored the differences in the use of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents. In Study 2a, a few

participants used some known English words or random, unpronounceable letters (e.g., SZV) as

the brand names. Consequently the study was repeated (Study 2b) with clearer instructions.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


10

4.1 Study 2a

4.1.1 Participants

A total of 60 participants between the ages of 24 to 68 years completed the study (Mage =

42.4 yrs., SD = 11.68, Males = 38, Females = 22). All participants were English speakers (seven

participants could speak a foreign language; five knew Spanish, one Arabic and one Chinese).

4.1.2 Procedure and design

Participants were told that a company was launching two new chocolate brands (one sweet

and one bitter) in an international non-English speaking market, and was looking for suitable

brand names for both its products. Participants were then asked to create three pairs of HBNs,

from a given set of letters continually displayed at the top of the computer screen (consonants:

/p/, /b/, /k/, /g/, /t/, /d/, /f/, /v/, /s/, /z/) and vowels: (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/). Participants were told to

create BNs, such that the name itself can suggest to the consumer whether the chocolate is sweet

or bitter. Participants then typed in the HBNs in six text boxes in pairs (e.g., HBN Sweet 1 and

Bitter 1) and could proceed further only when they had provided all six HBNs.

4.1.3 Results

The number of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents used for creating the HBNs for sweet

(vs. bitter) chocolates were segregated. Only the number of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents

were included in the analysis (vowels and consonants (e.g., /r/) other than obstruents were

excluded). Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests revealed that participants chose a significantly higher

number of voiced obstruents in the BNs for bitter (vs. sweet) chocolates, Z = 2.26, p = 0.024, r =

0.21. No difference was observed in the use of voiceless obstruents, Z = 0.83, p = 0.41.

However, the results were not entirely clear-cut as some participants used known English words

as BNs (e.g., ‘delightfully sweet’, ‘better bitter’) which might be argued, does not constitute the

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


11

testing of our hypothesis due to the semantic connotations these words might have.

Consequently, we decided to repeat the study with stricter instructions.

In Study 2b, participants were asked to create brand names with a few additional

instructions, 1) BNs should be pronounceable (i.e., no random placement of letters e.g., SZV), 2)

BNs should contain at least three consonants, 3) BNs should not be an English word or a known

brand name.

4.2 Study 2b

4.2.1 Participants

A total of 60 participants between the ages of 25 to 75 years completed the study (Mage =

42.49 yrs., SD = 12.57, Males = 29, Females = 30; one participant completed the study twice and

his/her data was deleted). All participants were English speakers (one also knew Russian and one

Turkish). The rest of the instructions and experimental design was similar to Study 2a.

4.2.2 Results

As in Study 2a, only the number of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents used for creating the

HBNs were included in the analysis. Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests revealed a significantly higher

use of voiced obstruents in the BNs for bitter (vs. sweet) chocolates, Z = 3.39, p = 0.001, r =

0.31. No difference was observed in the use of voiceless obstruents, Z = 1.48, p = 0.14. Study 2

confirms our findings and demonstrates that even in a free choice task, respondents tend to use a

higher number of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents for creating names for bitter (vs. sweet)

chocolates. The results also suggest that while voiced obstruents are more associated with the

expectation of bitterness, the same may not be true for the link between voiceless obstruents and

sweetness (as no difference was found in the usage of voiceless obstruents across sweet vs. bitter

chocolate categories).

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


12

5 Study 3

It is important to note that multiple meanings can be associated with a brand name,

depending on the context and goals of a consumer (Motoki et al., 2020). For example, it is likely

that a luxurious sounding brand name can evoke a sense of rarity and uniqueness simultaneously

(Pathak, Calvert, & Lim, 2017; Pathak, Calvert, & Velasco, 2017). In the F&B sector, research

on sound symbolism has mostly linked brand names with gustatory and other sensory attributes

or shapes (e.g. flavor, color, sounds, roundness, spikiness), but not with brand personality traits.

As with any category, a brand name used in connection with a food product does not only signify

the gustatory attributes of the product. While the taste of a food product is important for a brand

in the F&B space, other, non-gustatory brand attributes are also considered in the naming process

(e.g., sincerity and honesty). For a brand across any category, sound symbolic congruency

between the brand name and the multitude of traits that it evokes is important. Indeed, no

company would wish for their brand name to connote sweetness and dishonesty at the same time.

Given this, we feel that it is appropriate to explore the link between sound symbolic taste

attributes with the other brand personality dimensions. To our knowledge, there has been only

one study (e.g., Klink & Athaide, 2012) that has linked brand personality traits with sound

symbolic attributes (though not related to taste per se). Therefore, in Study 3, we aimed to extend

this research further, and explored the link between sound symbolic attributes of taste (sweetness

vs. bitterness) with well-known brand personality traits.

To date, sound symbolic associations related to brand names have been found for a large

pool of product traits (e.g., slow, fast, luxury, heavy, sharp, round, feminine). The same BN has

been shown to evoke multiple simultaneous connotations. For example, apart from being sweet

or bitter, a brand name can also be perceived as round or spiky. Many previous studies have

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


13

linked sounds with shapes (e.g., Kovic, Plunkett, & Westermann, 2010; Ramachandran &

Hubbard, 2001). This body of research suggests that voiced consonants are generally considered

rounded, and voiceless consonants spiky (D’Onofrio, 2014; McCormick, Kim, List, & Nygaard,

2015). These results have been demonstrated using a mix of consonants and not exclusively with

obstruents alone, as in the current paper. In order to explain our results, we also explored the

association of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents with roundedness (vs. spikiness), but our results

were inconclusive. We did not find a link between voiced obstruents and spikiness or vice versa

(61 participants were asked to match the HBNs with either rounded or spiky shapes [similar to

D’Onofrio’s (2014) and McCormick et al.’s, (2015) study], Voiced with roundedness = 0.54, Voiced

with spikiness = 0.46, SD = 0.22, t (60) = 1.58, p = 0.12; Voiceless with roundedness = 0.53, Voiceless with

spikiness = 0.47, SD = 0.20, t (60) = 1.30, p = 0.20).

Research suggests that consumers create an image of a brand based on the sound of its

name, even if it is hypothetical2 (Klink & Athaide, 2012). Moreover, many of the perceived

attributes of a brand name are sound-symbolically congruent with each other, for example,

spikiness, harshness, bitterness and angularity are all linked attributes of a brand. Similarly, all

brands are known to have a personality with many dimensions (Aaker, 1997; Eisend &

Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). In Study 3, we aimed to explore the other linked sound symbolic

dimensions of the brand personality. For example, it is likely that a bitter/harsh sounding food

brand name is also perceived as more masculine (vs. feminine), rugged (vs. soft), tough (vs.

soft), dishonest (vs. honest), less cheerful (vs. less cheerful) and less friendly (vs. more friendly).

Klink and Athaide (2012) have used the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) to explore the

sound symbolic associations of HBNs and in Study 3, we use a similar method to explore

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


14

specifically, three BPS factors (ruggedness, sophistication and sincerity), eight BPS facets

contained within these factors (outdoorsy, tough, charming, upper-class, down-to-earth, honest,

wholesome and cheerful) and twenty-two BPS traits contained within these facets (masculine,

outdoorsy, western, rugged, tough, charming, feminine, glamorous, good looking, smooth,

upper-class, down-to-earth, family oriented, small town, honest, sincere, real, wholesome,

original, cheerful, sentimental and friendly).

5.1 Participants

A total of 61 participants between the ages of 22 to 67 years completed the study, M age =

38.59 yrs., SD = 10.62, Males = 30, Females = 31. All participants were native English speakers

(one participant knew Western Armenian and another Spanish).

5.2 Procedure and design

Participants were told that all brands have a personality (e.g., BMW is upper-class and

Nike is sporty) and in this study we were interested in finding out the personality traits of two

chocolate brands, judged purely on the basis of their names. Participants were told that they

would be shown two new brand names for chocolates. They were asked to read the name aloud

and to rate them on different personality trait dimensions displayed on the computer screen [e.g.,

‘How tough do you think this brand is?’ on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 11 (very much)].

There were ten practice trials to familiarize them with the procedure, in which car brands were

used (e.g., Ford, Mercedes). Participants then rated only two HBNs (one each of voiced and

voiceless, e.g., Satoke vs. Zadoge) for all the 22 BPS traits. Presentation of the HBNs was

random and counterbalanced between participants, with a break in between. The HBN being

rated was continuously shown on top of the screen, while the question on the BPS trait kept on

changing.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


15

5.3 Results

Ratings of the BPS traits for the HBN voiced vs. HBN voiceless were compared using paired

sample t-tests; BPS trait ratings were also collapsed into eight BPS facets and three BPS factors

to compare (see Table 1). The means of the BPS factors and facets were calculated as the

averages of the means of the associated BPS traits with them. For example, the BPS facet of

outdoorsy (M Voiced = 5.34) was computed as the average of the BPS traits of masculine (M Voiced

= 6.34), outdoorsy (M Voiced = 5.62) and western (M Voiced = 4.07) (see Table 1 for the mappings

of BPS traits on to the BPS facets and factors). Out of the three BPS factors, voiced (vs.

voiceless) HBNs were found to be significantly different in their perceived ruggedness and

sophistication, but not on the sincerity factor (Table 1 & Figure 1). In a view to control the Type

1 errors, three univariate repeated measures ANOVA were conducted, with the Likert ratings of

the HBNs (voiced vs. voiceless) as the independent variables and the three BPS factors

(ruggedness, sophistication and sincerity) as the dependent variables. The results revealed that

ruggedness and sophistication factors (ruggedness, F (1, 60) = 9.76, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.14;

sophistication, F (1, 60) = 4.91, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.08) were significantly different in the voiced vs.

voiceless HBNs, whereas no difference was observed in the sincerity factor (F (1, 60) = 1.99, p =

0.16, ηp2 = 0.03). The results are reported below for each BPS factor.

Insert Table 1 & Figure 1 about here

Ruggedness HBNs with voiced obstruents were found to be significantly more rugged

compared to their voiceless counterparts (Ruggedness Voiced = 5.64, SD = 2.28; Ruggedness

Voiceless = 4.68, SD = 1.90; t (60) = 3.12, p = 0.003, d = 0.40). Within the rugged dimension too,

both toughness (Tough Voiced = 6.90, SD = 2.76; Tough Voiceless = 4.73, SD = 2.28; t (60) = 3.33, p

= 0.002, d = 0.43) and outdoorsy (Outdoorsy Voiced = 5.34, SD = 2.17; Outdoorsy Voiceless = 4.66,

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


16

SD = 1.90; t (60) = 2.38, p =0.02, d = 0.30) facets were found to be significantly higher for the

voiced obstruents than for the voiceless.

Sophistication Similarly, for the sophistication dimension, HBNs with voiceless

obstruents were found to be more sophisticated than their voiced counterparts (Sophistication

Voiced = 5.48, SD = 2.02; Sophistication Voiceless = 6.22, SD = 2.05; t (60) = 2.22, p = 0.03, d =

0.28). Within the sophistication dimension, it was the charming BPS facet which was found to be

different between the HBNs (Charming Voiced = 5.30, SD = 2.03; Charming Voiceless = 6.25, SD =

2.16; t (60) = 2.76, p = 0.008, d = 0.35), but not the upper-class facet (Upper-class Voiced = 5.65,

SD = 2.31; Upper-class Voiceless = 6.18, SD = 2.22; t (60) = 1.39, p = 0.17).

Sincerity No differences were found overall in the BPS factor of sincerity, but within the

sincerity factor, there were differences found in the cheerfulness facet (i.e., cheerful, sentimental

and wholesome BPS traits) (Cheerful Voiced = 5.74, SD = 2.04; Cheerful Voiceless = 6.39, SD = 2.01;

t (60) = 2.08, p = 0.042) and the wholesome facet (only the wholesomeness BPS trait was found

to be different, but not the originality trait, i.e., both type of HBNs were found to be equally

original), Wholesome Voiced = 5.77, SD = 2.16; Wholesome Voiceless = 6.47, SD = 2.33; t (60) =

2.78, p = 0.007; Sentimental Voiced = 5.03, SD = 2.18; Sentimental Voiceless = 5.77, SD = 2.32; t (60)

= 2.10, p = 0.04), no differences were found between honest and down-to-earth BPS facets.

The results of Study 3 suggest that the HBNs with voiced obstruents are perceived to be

more masculine, rugged and tough, but at the same time, less charming, glamorous, honest,

wholesome, cheerful and sentimental than their voiceless counterparts.

6 General discussion

Taste is a multi-sensory experience (Reinoso Carvalho et al., 2015) and not only the

appearance of food, but even cues unrelated to food e.g., lighting (Cho et al., 2015) or color of

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


17

the plate can influence taste expectations and perceptions (Piqueras-Fiszman, Alcaide, Roura, &

Spence, 2012). Topolinski and Boecker (2016) showed that a simple imitation of inwards (i.e.

imitating deglutition) vs. outwards (i.e. imitating regurgitation) muscle movement involved in

spoken words (e.g., brand names) could increase the palatability of the associated food product.

Similarly, sound symbolic associations of non-words (i.e. inwards and outwards) have been

linked with approach vs. avoidance states (Topolinski, Maschmann, Pecher, & Winkielman,

2014) and even with likeability of persons and products (Topolinski, Boecker, Erle, Bakhtiari, &

Pecher, 2017; Topolinski et al., 2014). Even the fluency of a brand name (e.g., ease vs. difficulty

of pronunciation) (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001; Topolinski, Likowski, Weyers, & Strack, 2009)

has been shown to affect consumers attitudes (e.g., likability, willingness to pay) towards brands.

The purpose of the current paper was to examine the sound symbolic associations between

voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents and product taste expectations.

Across three studies, we show that consumers associate HBNs containing voiced

obstruents with a bitter tasting product, and voiceless obstruents with a sweet tasting product. We

demonstrate the results by using a forced-choice task and a free-choice task. By using the BPS

traits, we additionally show the link between other associated (or similar) sound symbolic

dimensions of the voiced obstruents (i.e., higher toughness, ruggedness and masculinity and a

lack of charming, glamorous, honest, wholesome, cheerful and sentimental traits, which were

instead found to be more closely associated with voiceless obstruents). We contribute to the

literature by providing empirical evidence to connect voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents with a

sensory dimension (i.e. taste) and at the same time integrating the widely followed BPS

framework with the research on sound symbolism. The only other paper which integrates these

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


18

two theories is Klink and Adelaide (2012), in which they link front and back vowels with BPS

traits.

We propose two reasons3 behind our findings: the frequency code hypothesis and

aerodynamic difficulties associated with the utterances of voiced obstruents. In the animal

kingdom, lower frequencies are used to express hostility and threat, and higher frequencies for

friendliness and non-threatening behavior (Morton, 1977). Because of this evolutionary link

between sound harshness (vs. softness) and stressfulness (vs. pleasantness), scientists believe that

across all languages, swear (and cuss, threatening) words often use more voiced obstruents

(Nielsen & Rendall, 2011; Nielsen & Rendall, 2013; Van Lancker & Cummings, 1999). Humans

too associate low (vs. high) frequency sounds with aggressive (vs. submissive) behavior (Dahl,

2010; Krishna, 2012; Pogacar et al., 2018). Similarly, the pronunciation of voiced obstruent

requires extreme aerodynamic control which likely explains why these are rare in many

languages, and some languages do not use them at all (e.g., Cantonese, Hawaiian, Zuñi, Ainu,

Korean, Mandarin) (Major & Faudree, 1996; Ohala, 2011; Żygis, Fuchs, & Koenig,

2012).Voiced obstruents have also been shown to be associated with negative meanings (e.g.,

concepts of dirtiness, sneakiness and negative images in listeners on hearing the hypothetical

words containing voiced phonemes) (Hamano, 1998; Hinton et al., 1994; Kawahara et al., 2008).

Since the sound symbolic association of voiced obstruents is with harshness and negative

images/perception, the present research extends these findings to a sweet-bitter continuum (here

note that the voiced phonemes are of low frequency and are perceived as harsh; Kingston et al.,

2008; Slepian & Galinsky, 2016).

A large body of research now shows a strong association between high (vs. low) pitches4

with sweet and sour (vs. bitter) tastes (Crisinel & Spence, 2009; also see Knöferle & Spence,

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


19

2012 for a review). A similar association of tastes has been shown with certain musical

instruments; for example, pleasant/sweet tastes with piano (or high pitches) and unpleasant/bitter

tastes with the brass instruments (or low pitches) (Crisinel & Spence, 2010). It has also been

shown that even the perception of taste can be altered by changing the music

being played in the background. For example, the same toffee can taste slightly more bitter (vs.

sweet) with low (vs. high) pitched sounds being played (Crisinel et al., 2012). It is worthwhile to

note here that low (vs. high) pitch associations between sounds and tastes may be explained by

the linkages of oro-facial responses with unpleasant (vs. pleasant) tastes (Spence, 2012).

According to this explanation, babies of different mammals (e.g., humans, monkeys, rats)

protrude their tongues outwards (vs. inwards) in response to pleasant (e.g. sweet) vs. unpleasant

tastes (e.g. bitter) (Steiner, Glaser, Hawilo, & Berridge, 2001). Since humans imitate

characteristic facial expressions for disgust, distaste and unpalatable taste (e.g., bitter) (Forestell

& Mennella, 2017), in this account (i.e., due the learned associations between specific gustatory

responses and associated tongue position and vice versa), one would expect utterances with the

same or matching tongue positions to have similar meanings (Knöferle & Spence, 2012). Since

gustatory centers (e.g., insular cortex) and regions processing phonology (e.g., Broca’s area) in

the brain are said to lie in close proximity to each other (Colizoli, Murre & Rouw, 2013; Ward,

Simner, & Auyeung, 2005), this might explain these linguistic-sensory pairings.

In contrast to the large body of literature on the cross-modal association between tastes

and sounds, there is scant evidence specifically connecting consonants with taste associations.

Most research demonstrates the connection of tastes with either sounds or musical notes (e.g.,

Crisinel & Spence, 2010, 2011; Ngo & Spence, 2011), but not with consonants per se. This is

surprising given the fact that sound symbolic associations were initially popularized by scientists

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


20

linking psycholinguistic properties of words with sensory attributes (see Lockwood &

Dingemanse, 2015 for a review; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001) and that consonants

substantially outnumber vowels across most languages (Maddieson & Disner, 1984; Nespor et

al., 2003).

We believe that the perception of voiced obstruents/consonants, in the context of brand-

naming and product attributes, is an under-researched area (Guevremont & Grohmann, 2015)

and that the current research contributes to our understanding of how consumers associate BNs

with expectation of taste attributes. An obvious extension of this research is to investigate

whether our results generalize to a sweet-sour continuum. We hypothesize that voiced obstruents

would be more preferred in brand names for sour products, compared to voiceless for the sweet

ones.

We argue that sound symbolism should be considered carefully by marketing managers

during the process of product and brand naming, as we now know that consumers intuitively

expect a congruency of sensory expectations. For example, the brand name for a hiking boot

should better be rugged; Klink and Athaide (2012) and that of a skin conditioner should be soft

and gentle. A similar congruency is desired between brand names of food products and their

taste expectations (Crisinel, Jones, & Spence, 2012) as incongruent combinations may affect the

subsequent product ratings. For example, in the context of medications for cancer /p/, /t/, /k/, /f/

and /s/ (mainly voiceless obstruents), are over represented whereas /b/, /d/, /g/, /v/ and /z/

(mainly voiced obstruents) are underrepresented (Abel & Glinert, 2008). Most researchers (e.g.,

Spence, 2014) attribute this to the fastness vs. slowness of these phonemes. Since we now

suggest that voiced obstruents can also signify bitterness, is it likely that these inherent ‘bitter’

associations cue manufacturers sound symbolically to avoid these phonemes. This is perhaps

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


21

especially pertinent when naming drugs designed to combat a disease that in any case induces

public fear (e.g., cancer).

We acknowledge a few potential limitations of this paper, which generates some

suggestions for future research. Firstly, we used only tri-syllabic names (e.g., Sa-to-ke); and

research suggests that even the syllabic length of a word can affects its perceived attributes (e.g.,

luxury; Pathak, Velasco, Petit, & Calvert, 2019). It is likely that the length of a name itself holds

meaning (in terms of taste) for consumers, and this has not been tested in the current paper.

Secondly, the word structure used to create the HBNs in the current paper was a simple CV-CV

(Consonant-Vowel) structure. It is unlikely that the results will be different for HBNs with

complex linguistic structures (e.g., the word ‘trap’ has a more complex CCVC structure), but the

current paper has not tested this. Similarly, HBNs with even more complex consonant clusters

(e.g., /Zk/) can be created and tested. Thirdly, we have used an equal number of consonants in

HBNs and have not tested the increase (vs. decrease) in the perceived sweetness (vs. bitterness)

of a brand name with a varying number of voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents. It might be the case

that the perceived sweetness (vs. bitterness) associated with an HBN vary with the number of

obstruents used (e.g., one vs. two vs. three voiced obstruents in an HBN). Future studies could

use HBNs with one, two vs. three voiced obstruents to examine the effect of the number of

voiced obstruents present in an HBN on the perceived sweetness (or bitterness). Lastly, in this

paper we have only chosen to study the sound symbolic attributes associated with brand names

of chocolates. Further research is required to determine whether our results extend to other

product categories (e.g., sweet vs. bitter beer/jams).

Sensory perceptions play an important role in a consumer’s interaction with brands and

research has consistently shown that colors, sounds, textures, tastes and smells can often affect a

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


22

product’s perception. However, when it comes to expressing the multitude of sensory feelings

through speech, one encounters linguistic limitations (Caballero & Paradis, 2015). For example,

how can one communicate different types of smells in speech, or how can one talk about flavors

which go beyond traditional sweet, bitter, salt and sour axes? The findings of this paper will help

brand managers to communicate some of these complicated sensory experiences through novel

names and psycholinguistic elements.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


23

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),

347-356.

Abel, G. A., & Glinert, L. H. (2008). Chemotherapy as language: Sound symbolism in cancer

medication names. Social Science & Medicine, 66(8), 1863-1869.

Alashban, A. A., Hayes, L. A., Zinkhan, G. M., & Balazs, A. L. (2002). International brand-

name standardization/adaptation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of

International Marketing, 10(3), 22-48.

Aryani, A., Conrad, M., Schmidtke, D., & Jacobs, A. (2018). Why 'piss' is ruder than 'pee'? The

role of sound in affective meaning making. PloS One, 13(6), e0198430.

Bronner, K., Frieler, H., Bruhn, H., Hirt, R., & Piper. D. (2012). What is the sound of citrus?

Research on the correspondences between the perception of sound and flavour. In

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition

(ICMPC) and the 8th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive

Sciences of Music (ESCOM) (pp. 142-148). Thessaloniki, Greece.

Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2015). Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and

cultures. Functions of Language, 22(1), 1-19.

Carroll, D. W. (2004). Psychology of language. Belmont, California, USA: Thomson Wadsworth

Charmasson, H. (1988). The name is the game: How to name a company or product. Homewood,

Illinois, USA: Dow Jones-Irwin .

Cho, S., Han, A., Taylor, M. H., Huck, A. C., Mishler, A. M., Mattal, K. L., . . . Seo, H.-S.

(2015). Blue lighting decreases the amount of food consumed in men, but not in women.

Appetite, 85, 111-117.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


24

Chollet, G., Di Benedetto, M. G., Esposito, A., & Marinaro, M. (2012). Speech Processing,

Recognition and Artificial Neural Network. Paper presnted at the Proceedings of the 3rd

International School on Neural Nets “Eduardo R. Caianiello”. Salerno, Italy.

Colizoli, O., Murre, J. M., & Rouw, R. (2013). A taste for words and sounds: A case of lexical-

gustatory and sound-gustatory synesthesia. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 775.

Crisinel, A.-S., Cosser, S., King, S., Jones, R., Petrie, J., & Spence, C. (2012). A bittersweet

symphony: Systematically modulating the taste of food by changing the sonic properties

of the soundtrack playing in the background. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 201-

204.

Crisinel, A.-S., Jones, S., & Spence, C. (2012). ‘The sweet taste of maluma’: Crossmodal

associations between tastes and words. Chemosensory Perception, 5(3-4), 266-273.

Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2009). Implicit association between basic tastes and pitch.

Neuroscience Letters, 464(1), 39-42.

Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2010). As bitter as a trombone: Synesthetic correspondences in

non-synesthetes between tastes and flavors and musical instruments and notes. Attention,

Perception & Psychophysics,72, 1994-2002

Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers’ use of brand name, price,

physical appearance and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of

Marketing, 58(2), 81-95.

Dahl, D. W. (2010). Understanding the role of spokesperson voice in broadcast advertising. In A.

Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products (pp. 169-182).

New York, USA: Routledge.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


25

D’Onofrio, A. (2014). Phonetic detail and dimensionality in sound-shape correspondences:

Refining the bouba-kiki paradigm. Language and Speech, 57(3), 367-393.

Eisend, M., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of

antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24(3), 205-216.

Emerson, R. H. (1997). English spelling and its relation to sound. American Speech, 72(3), 260-

288.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior

Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.

Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., & Galetzka, M. (2016). What’s in a name? The effects of sound

symbolism and package shape on consumer responses to food products. Food Quality

and Preference, 51, 100-108.

Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik [The metaphors in phonetics]. The

Hague:Mouton.

Forestell, C. A., & Mennella, J. A. (2017). The relationship between infant facial expressions and

food acceptance. Current Nutrition Reports, 6(2), 141-147.

Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their influence

on product choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23(9), 727-740.

Gallace, A., Boschin, E., & Spence, C. (2011). On the taste of “Bouba” and “Kiki”: An

exploration of word–food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive

Neuroscience, 2(1), 34-46.

Guevremont, A., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Consonants in brand names influence brand gender

perceptions. European Journal of Marketing, 49(1/2), 101-122.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


26

Hagtvedt, H., & Brasel, S. A. (2016). Cross-modal communication: Sound frequency influences

consumer responses to color lightness. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 551-562.

Hamano, S. (1998). The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, California, USA: CSLI

Publications

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (Eds.) (1994). Sound symbolism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing

on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18-32.

Kawahara, S., & Moore, J. (2018). Exploring sound symbolic knowledge of English speakers

using Pokémon character names. Ms. Keio University and Sophia University.

Kawahara, S., Shinohara, K., & Uchimoto, Y. (2008). A positional effect in sound symbolism:

An experimental study. Proceedings of the Japan Cognitive Linguistics Association, (vol.

8, pp. 417-427). Tokyo, Japan.

Kingston, J., & Diehl, R. L. (1995). Intermediate properties in the perception of distinctive

feature values. Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 4, 7-27.

Kingston, J., Diehl, R. L., Kirk, C. J., & Castleman, W. A. (2008). On the internal perceptual

structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 28-54.

Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism.

Marketing Letters, 11(1), 5-20.

Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2012). Creating brand personality with brand names. Marketing

Letters, 23(1), 109-117.

Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westermann, G. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition,

114(1), 19-28.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


27

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia -A window into perception,

thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3-34.

Knoeferle, K. M., Woods, A., Käppler, F., & Spence, C. (2015). That sounds sweet: Using cross‐

modal correspondences to communicate gustatory attributes. Psychology & Marketing,

32(1), 107-120.

Knöferle, K. M., & Spence, C. (2012). Crossmodal correspondences between sounds and tastes.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 992-1006.

Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect

perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332-351.

Kubozono, H. (1999). Japanese phonetics. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten.

Lockwood, G., & Dingemanse, M. (2015). Iconicity in the lab: A review of behavioral,

developmental, and neuroimaging research into sound-symbolism. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6, 1246.

Lockwood, G., Dingemanse, M., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Sound-symbolism boosts novel word

learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(8),

1274-1281.

Lockwood, G., Hagoort, P., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). How iconicity helps people learn new

words: Neural correlates and individual differences in sound-symbolic bootstrapping.

Collabra, 2(1), 1-15.

McCormick, K., Kim, J. Y., List, S. & Nygaard, L. C. (2015). Sound to meaning mappings in the

bouba-kiki effect. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of Cognitive Science Society,

(pp. 1565-1570), Pasadena, CA, USA.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


28

Monaghan, P., Mattock, K., & Walker, P. (2012). The role of sound symbolism in language

learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5),

1152-1164.

Motoki, K., Saito, T., Park, J., Velasco, C., Spence, C., & Sugiura, M. (2020). Tasting names:

Systematic investigations of taste-speech sounds associations. Food Quality and

Preference, 80, 103801.

Saji, N., Akita, K., Imai, M., Kantartzis, K., & Kita, S. (2013). Cross-linguistically shared and

language-specific sound symbolism for motion: An exploratory data mining approach.

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conf. of the Cognitive Science Society, (vol. 31, pp.

1253-1259), Berlin, Germany.

Major, R. C., & Faudree, M. C. (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing

contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1),

69-90.

Morton, E. S. (1977). On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some

bird and mammal sounds. The American Naturalist, 111(981), 855-869.

Ngo, M. K., Misra, R., & Spence, C. (2011). Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that people

associate with chocolate samples varying in cocoa content. Food Quality and Preference,

22(6), 567-572.

Ngo, M. K., & Spence, C. (2011). Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that consumers

associate with different kinds of chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26(6), 421-428.

Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-symbolic role of

consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


29

Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 65(2), 115-

124.

Nielsen, A. K., & Rendall, D. (2013). Parsing the role of consonants versus vowels in the classic

Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue

canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 67(2), 153-163.

Nuckolls, J. B. (1999). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28(1),

225-252.

Obrist, M., Comber, R., Subramanian, S., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C., & Spence, C.

(2014). Temporal, affective, and embodied characteristics of taste experiences. In

Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in Computing

Systems (pp. 2853–2862). New York, USA: ACM Press.

Ohala, J. J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In P. F. MacNeilage

(Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 189-216). New York, NY, USA: Springer.

Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J.J. (Eds.). Sound symbolism (pp. 325-347). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ohala, J. J. (2011). Accommodation to the aerodynamic voicing constraint and its phonological

relevance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of

Phonetic Sciences (pp. 64-67), Hong Kong, China.

Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A., & Lim, E. A. (2017). How the linguistic characteristics of a brand

name can affect its luxury appeal. International Journal of Market Research, 59(5), 567-

600.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


30

Pathak, A., Calvert, G., & Velasco, C. (2017). Evaluating the impact of early-and late-acquired

phonemes on the luxury appeal of brand names. Journal of Brand Management, 24(6),

522-545.

Pathak, A., Velasco, C., Petit, O., & Calvert, G. A. (2019). Going to great lengths in the pursuit

of luxury: How longer brand names can enhance the luxury perception of a brand.

Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 951-963.

Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A. & Lim, L. (Submitted). Harsh voices, sound branding: How voiced

consonants in a brand’s name can alter its perceived attributes. Psychology & Marketing

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a

participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184-188.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food?

Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on the

perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 205-208.

Pogacar, R., Kouril, M., Carpenter, T. P., & Kellaris, J. J. (2018). Implicit and explicit

preferences for brand name sounds. Marketing Letters, 29(2), 241-259.

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia-A window into perception,

thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3-34.

Reinoso Carvalho, F., Van Ee, R., Rychtarikova, M., Touhafi, A., Steenhaut, K., Persoone, D., . .

. Leman, M. (2015). Does music influence the multisensory tasting experience? Journal

of Sensory Studies, 30(5), 404-412.

Saji, N., Akita, K., Imai, M., Kantartzis, K., & Kita, S. (2013). Cross-linguistically shared and

language-specific sound symbolism for motion: An exploratory data mining approach.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


31

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science

Society (pp. 1253-1259), Berlin, Germany.

Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3),

225-239.

Shih, S. S., Ackerman, J., Hermalin, N., Inkelas, S., & Kavitskaya, D. (2018). Pokémonikers: A

study of sound symbolism and Pokémon names. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of

America (vol 3(42), pp. 1-6). Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Shinohara, K., & Kawahara, S. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images

of size. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society (pp. 396-410). Berkeley, California, USA.

Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2015). What’s in a name? Sound symbolism and gender in first

names. PloS One, 10(5), e0126809.

Simner, J., Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2010). What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mappings

across gustation and audition. Perception, 39(4), 553-569.

Slepian, M. L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The voiced pronunciation of initial phonemes predicts

the gender of names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 509-527.

Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing

on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1),

37-54.

Spence, C. (2014). Assessing the influence of shape and sound symbolism on the consumer’s

response to chocolate. New Food, 17(2), 59-62.

Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2011). Tasting shapes and words. Food Quality and Preference,

22(3), 290-295.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


32

Steiner, J. E., Glaser, D., Hawilo, M. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2001). Comparative expression of

hedonic impact: Affective reactions to taste by human infants and other primates.

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(1), 53-74.

Topolinski, S., & Boecker, L. (2016). Mouth-watering words: Articulatory inductions of eating-

like mouth movements increase perceived food palatability. Appetite, 99, 112-120.

Topolinski, S., Boecker, L., Erle, T. M., Bakhtiari, G., & Pecher, D. (2017). Matching between

oral inward–outward movements of object names and oral movements associated with

denoted objects. Cognition and Emotion, 31(1), 3-18.

Topolinski, S., Likowski, K. U., Weyers, P., & Strack, F. (2009). The face of fluency: Semantic

coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cognition

and Emotion, 23(2), 260-271.

Topolinski, S., Maschmann, I. T., Pecher, D., & Winkielman, P. (2014). Oral approach–

avoidance: Affective consequences of muscular articulation dynamics. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 885-896.

Van Lancker, D., & Cummings, J. L. (1999). Expletives: Neurolinguistic and neurobehavioral

perspectives on swearing. Brain Research Reviews, 31(1), 83-104.

Ward, J., Simner, J., & Auyeung, V. (2005). A comparison of lexical-gustatory and grapheme-

colour synaesthesia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(1), 28-41.

Woods, A. T., Velasco, C., Levitan, C. A., Wan, X., & Spence, C. (2015). Conducting perception

research over the internet: A tutorial review. PeerJ, 3, e1058.

Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer

judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 43-51.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


33

Yoon, C., Gutchess, A. H., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. A. (2006). A functional magnetic resonance

imaging study of neural dissociations between brand and person judgments. Journal of

Consumer Research, 33(1), 31-40.

Zaltman, G., & Wallendorf, M. (1979). Consumer behavior: Basic findings and management

implications. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Żygis, M., Fuchs, S., & Koenig, L. L. (2012). Phonetic explanations for the infrequency of

voiced sibilant affricates across languages. Laboratory Phonology, 3(2), 299-336.

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


34

Footnotes

1 Words with /g/ also can be pronounced in two different ways, with a hard g (as in Gate)

sound vs. a soft /g/ (as in Gem). This was an oversight in the design of our Study 1, which was

kindly pointed out by an anonymous reviewer; we now report an additional analysis excluding

the /g/.

2 Recent studies also point out that our brain processes the personality of a brand vs. that of

a person differently, and not in a way that marketing scholars have proposed for long (Yoon,

Gutchess, Feinberg, & Polk, 2006).

3 Another probable explanation can be the temporality of tastes, as described by Obrist et

al. (2014). These authors argue that some tastes (e.g. sour) are short-lived and explosive in nature

whereas others (e.g. sweet) are lingering, pleasant and slow. Participants describe these tastes in

a similar fashion (e.g. instant vs. slow). Similarly, voiced (vs. voiceless) obstruents can be

perceived as harsh and more intense (vs. smooth and less intense) and may explain their linkages

with bitterness (vs. sweetness).

4 Low (vs. high) pitch and low (vs. high) frequency sounds hold the same meaning. Pitch

denotes the perceptual dimension of the frequency of sounds (Hagtvedt & Brasel, 2016).

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


35

Appendix 1

HBNs used in the current paper.

HBN with voiceless obstruents HBN with voiced obstruents

Satoke Zadoge

Sokita Zogida

Sipetu Zibedu

Sukapi Zugabi

Sekuto Zegudo

Kaseti Gazedi

Ketiso Gedizo

Kipotu Gibodu

Kopusa Gobuza

Kutape Gudabe

Tupasi Dubazi

Tosepa Dozeba

Tekopu Degobu

Tisuko Dizugo

Tapise Dabize

Pokasi Bogazi

Pesoka Bezoga

Pituse Biduze

Pukeso Bugezo

Patisu Badizu

Fakise Vagize

Fetoki Vedogi

Fipatu Vibadu

Fokuta Voguda Source: Pathak, Calvert & Lim (Submitted)

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion


36

Appendix 2

A sample of brand names created by participants in Studies 2a and 2b.

Study 2a Study 2b

Sweet chocolates Bitter chocolates Sweet chocolates Bitter chocolates

BN1 BN2 BN3 BN1 BN2 BN3 BN1 BN2 BN3 BN1 BN2 BN3

nice milk sweet dark tart cocoa zetes govst kakest bedits stafe pitsid

kis good favs bit sorz betz kizzley bapple grivvely pizzley taffe buddle

pasuite pati tavi zasoote pelo tavo tuoi peiou givs dost zoks gisk

debita apedis vobisa ekgazi biveto patozi svent minity bahbahtee bivat dagoosh aklin

paive pugie vea gotuk vizat odi perfektionz blizzed skrumptionz grateens vorzatsan panzkats

set svet seet zip bepz beed kavt fost sekt vakt kovt pegt

swwecho swechoc swchoco bttlate bittatt bittlat pagio gestavi tebapou fibaet zubogsi vistopug

delightfully

sweet

ohh so

sweet!

my

sweet

choloate

cringe

delight

bitter

blast

better

bitter

shugarkic popsikulee kandees bavet bisot bizuk

svet zeap kavo gobk pogi dapu dibs steet fibet peets zouts viteek

kast dak tee dae kiou busie zupod sdap koged tadgo vopas bokeg BN= Brand name

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

* p<.05; **p=.098; *** p=.056; Error bars represent the SE of means

Figure 1. Study 3: Brand Personality Scale (BPS) factors, facets and traits of the HBNs.

4

5

6

7

Ruggedness* Sophistication* Sincerity

Rat

ings

BPS factors

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rat

ings

BPS traits

VoicedVoiceless

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rat

ings

BPS facets

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

(BPS factors: HBNs containing voiced obstruents are perceived as more rugged whereas HBNs containing voiceless obstruents are perceived as more

sophisticated.

BPS facets: HBNs containing voiced obstruents are perceived as more outdoorsy and tough, whereas HBNs containing voiceless obstruents are perceived as

more charming, cheerful and wholesome.

BPS traits: HBNs containing voiced obstruents are perceived as more masculine, rugged and tough, whereas HBNs containing voiceless obstruents are perceived

as more charming, feminine, glamourous, honest, wholesome, cheerful and sentimental)

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

Tables

Table 1. Results of Study 3.

BPS traits Voiced

obstruents

SD Voiceless

obstruents

SD BPS facets Voiced

obstruents

SD Voiceless

obstruents

SD BPS factors Voiced

obstruents

SD Voiceless

obstruents

SD

Masculine 6.34 3.07 4.89 2.63 Outdoorsy 5.34 2.17 4.66 1.90 Ruggedness 5.64 2.28 4.69 1.90

Outdoorsy 5.62 2.90 4.97 2.73

Western 4.07 2.59 4.11 2.56

Rugged 6.02 2.92 4.57 2.45 Tough 6.09 2.76 4.73 2.28

Tough 6.16 2.87 4.89 2.54

Upper-class 5.85 2.66 6.11 2.57 Upper class 5.65 2.31 6.18 2.22 Sophistication 5.48 2.02 6.22 2.05

Glamorous 4.89 2.71 5.87 2.66

Good looking 6.21 2.38 6.56 2.50

Charming 5.46 2.48 6.54 2.40 Charming 5.30 2.04 6.25 2.16

Feminine 4.51 2.80 5.84 2.91

Smooth 5.93 2.44 6.38 2.57

Down-to-earth 6.20 2.34 5.92 2.34 Down-to-

earth

5.63 1.89 5.63 2.02 Sincerity 6.13 1.56 6.39 1.71

Family oriented 5.64 2.32 6.11 2.37

Small town 5.05 2.70 4.87 2.56

Honest 6.46 2.05 6.92 2.14 Honest 6.52 1.83 6.59 1.91

Sincere 6.54 2.20 6.59 1.95

Real 6.57 2.46 6.26 2.60

Wholesome 5.77 2.16 6.48 2.33 Wholesome 6.89 1.81 7.22 1.92

Original 8.00 2.20 7.97 1.97

Cheerful 5.75 2.29 6.56 2.39 Cheerful 5.74 2.05 6.39 2.01

Sentimental 5.03 2.18 5.77 2.32

Friendly 6.44 2.37 6.85 2.28

Figures in bold show significantly different results Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

Ruggedness (BPS factor) = Average means of the BPS facets (outdoorsy and tough)

Sophistication (BPS factor) = Average means of the BPS facets (upper-class and charming)

Sincerity (BPS factor) = Average means of the BPS facets (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful)

Outdoorsy (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (masculine, outdoorsy and western)

Tough (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (rugged and tough)

Upper-class (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (upper-class, glamorous and good looking)

Charming (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (charming, feminine and smooth)

Down-to-earth (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (down-to-earth, family oriented and small town)

Honest (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (honest, sincere and real)

Wholesome (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (wholesome and original)

Cheerful (BPS facet) = Average means of the BPS traits (cheerful, sentential and friendly)

Author'

s fina

l vers

ion

University of Dundee Sounds sweet, sounds bitter Pathak ...

Documents

Transcript of University of Dundee Sounds sweet, sounds bitter Pathak ...