Phonotactic probability of brand names: I’d buy that!
Psycholinguistic research shows that word-characteristics influence the speed and accuracy of various language-related processes. Analogous characteristics of brand names influence the retrieval of product information and the perception of risks associated with that product. In the present experiment we examined how phonotactic probability—the frequency with which phonological segments and sequences of segments appear in a word—might influence consumer behavior. Participants rated brand names that varied in phonotactic probability on the likelihood that they would buy the product. Participants indicated that they were more likely to purchase a product if the brand name was comprised of common segments and sequences of segments rather than less common segments and sequences of segments. This result suggests that word-characteristics may influence higher-level cognitive processes, in addition to language-related processes. Furthermore, the benefits of using objective measures of word characteristics in the design of brand names are discussed.
- de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Ellis, A. W., & Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age of acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 515–523.Google Scholar
- Gathercole, S. E., Frankish, C. R., Pickering, S. J., & Peaker, S. (1999). Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 84–95.Google Scholar
- Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 735–747.Google Scholar
- Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 514–529.Google Scholar