Psychological Research

, Volume 76, Issue 6, pp 693–698 | Cite as

Phonotactic probability of brand names: I’d buy that!

Original Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Ellis, A. W., Holmes, S. J., & Wright, R. L. (2010). Age of acquisition and the recognition of brand names: On the importance of being early. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Hennessey, J. E., Bell, T. S., & Kwortnik, R. J. (2005). Lexical interference in semantic processing of simple words: Implications for brand names. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2009). The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psychological Science, 20, 231–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambert, B. L. (1997). Predicting look-alike and sound-alike medication errors. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 54, 1161–1171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambert, B. L., Dickey, L. W., Fisher, W. M., Gibbons, R. D., Luce, P. A., McLennan, C. T., Senders, J. W., & Yu, C. T. (2010). Listen carefully: The risk of error in spoken medication orders. Social Science and Medicine, 70(10):1599–1608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lambert, B. L., Lin, S. J., & Tan, H. K. (2005). Designing safe drug names. Drug Safety, 28, 495–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Lethbridge, A., Hinton, M., & Nimmo, L. M. (2002). Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1019–1034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Soloman, R. L., & Postman, L. (1952). Frequency of usage as a determinant of recognition thresholds for words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Storkel, H. L., & Hoover, J. R. (2011). The influence of part-word phonotactic probability/neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children varying in expressive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 38, 628–643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Storkel, H. L., & Lee, S. Y. (2011). The independent effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on lexical acquisition by preschool children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 191–211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481–487.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2005). Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech, 40, 47–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Auer, E. T. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68, 306–311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science, 19, 645–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spoken Language Laboratory, Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations