Advertisement

Exploring the temporal boundary conditions of the articulatory in–out preference effect

  • Judith Gerten
  • Sascha Topolinski
Original Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Earlier research has documented a preference for words with consonantal articulation patterns that move from the front to the back of the mouth (e.g., MENIKA) over words with reversely wandering consonantal articulation spots (e.g., KENIMA). The present experiments explored the temporal dynamics of the reading process in this in–out preference effect. In three experiments (total N = 344), we gradually reduced the presentation durations of inward and outward wandering words from 1000 ms down to 25 ms to approximate the minimum length of visual stimulus presentation required to trigger the effect. The in–out effect was reliably observed for exposure timings down to 50 ms, but vanished for 25 ms timings, which is line with previous evidence on phonological encoding. Thus, impressively, 50 ms of word presentation is sufficient to evoke the in–out effect. These findings suggest phonological activation to be a prerequisite and thus a driving mechanism of the in–out effect.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Judith Gerten declares that she has no conflict of interest. Sascha Topolinski declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adelman, J. S., Marquis, S. J., & Sabatos-DeVito, M. G. (2010). Letters in words are read simultaneously, not in left-to-right sequence. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1799–1801.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtiari, G., Körner, A., & Topolinski, S. (2016). The role of fluency in preferences for inward over outward words. Acta Psychologica, 171, 110–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.10.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory and Cognition, 33(7), 1248–1255.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & Spence, C. (2013). “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coltheart, M. (2005). Modeling reading: The dual-route approach. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology) (pp. 6–23). Malden: Blackwell Pub.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100(4), 589–608.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2010). Small sounds, big deals: Phonetic symbolism effects in pricing. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 315–328.  https://doi.org/10.1086/651241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395(6702), 597–600.  https://doi.org/10.1038/26967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 764–778.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440902834782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Erle, T. M., Reber, R., & Topolinski, S. (2017). Affect from mere perception: Illusory contour perception feels good. Emotion, 17(5), 856–866.  https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1993). The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(2), 119–122.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fort, M., Martin, A., & Peperkamp, S. (2015). Consonants are more important than vowels in the bouba-kiki effect. Language and Speech, 58(2), 247–266.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914534951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Godinho, S., & Garrido, M. V. (2016). Oral approach-avoidance: A replication and extension for European-Portuguese phonation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 260–264.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godinho, S., & Garrido, V., M (2017). Branding with the in–out effect: The impact of consonantal articulation on brand evaluation. Psychology and Marketing, 34(9), 904–911.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grainger, J., Granier, J.-P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 865–884.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 128–156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. JASP Team (2016). JASP (Version 0.7.5.5)[Computer software].Google Scholar
  21. Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Intention memory and achievement motivation: Volitional facilitation and inhibition as a function of affective contents of need-related stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 426–448.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11, 5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184423824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Körner, A., Bakhtiari, G., & Topolinski, S. (in press). Training articulation sequences: A first systematic modulation of the articulatory in–out effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Google Scholar
  24. Kramer, A. F., & Donchin, E. (1987). Brain potentials as indices of orthographic andphonological interaction during word matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(1), 76–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kronrod, A., Ackerman, J., & Lowrey, T. (2014). The effect of phonetic embodiment on attitudes towards brand names. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 136–140). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  26. Lindau, B., & Topolinski, S. (2018a). The articulatory in–out effect resists oral motor interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(2), 209–220.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindau, B., & Topolinski, S. (2018b). The influence of articulation dynamics on recognition memory. Cognition, 179, 37–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 406–414.  https://doi.org/10.1086/518530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maglio, S. J., Rabaglia, C. D., Feder, M. A., Krehm, M., & Trope, Y. (2014). Vowel sounds in words affect mental construal and shift preferences for targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1082–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00495.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman, R. L., & Connolly, J. F. (2004). Determining the role of phonology in silent reading using event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(1), 94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reber, R., Zimmermann, T. D., & Wurtz, P. (2004). Judgments of duration, figure-ground contrast, and size for words and nonwords. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(7), 1105–1114.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossi, P., Pantoja, F., Borges, A., & Werle, C. O. C. (2017). What a delicious name! Articulatory movement effects on food perception and consumption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 392–401.  https://doi.org/10.1086/693112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(2), 225–237.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Schlegelmilch, R., & Grice, M. (2014). Mood is linked to vowel type: The role of articulatory movements. Emotion, 14(2), 246–250.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva, R. R., Chrobot, N., Newman, E., Schwarz, N., & Topolinski, S. (2017). Make it short and easy: Username complexity determines trustworthiness above and beyond objective reputation. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Silva, R. R., & Topolinski, S. (2018). My username is IN! The influence of inward vs. outward wandering usernames on judgments of online seller trustworthiness. Psychology and Marketing, 35(4), 307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135–138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Topolinski, S. (2017). Articulation patterns in names: A hidden route to consumer preference. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 382–391.  https://doi.org/10.1086/692820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Topolinski, S., Bakhtiari, G., & Erle, T. M. (2016). Can I cut the Gordian tnok? The impact of pronounceability, actual solvability, and length on intuitive problem assessments of anagrams. Cognition, 146, 439–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Topolinski, S., & Boecker, L. (2016a). Minimal conditions of motor inductions of approach-avoidance states: The case of oral movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145(12), 1589–1603.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Topolinski, S., & Boecker, L. (2016b). Mouth-watering words: Articulatory inductions of eating-like mouth movements increase perceived food palatability. Appetite, 99, 112–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1073692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Topolinski, S., & Deutsch, R. (2012). Phasic affective modulation of creativity. Experimental Psychology, 59(5), 302–310.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Topolinski, S., & Deutsch, R. (2013). Phasic affective modulation of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 414–436.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Topolinski, S., Erle, T. M., & Reber, R. (2015). Necker’s smile: Immediate affective consequences of early perceptual processes. Cognition, 140, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009). Motormouth: Mere exposure depends on stimulus-specific motor simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 423–433.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Topolinski, S., Zürn, M., & Schneider, I. K. (2015). What’s in and what’s out in branding? A novel articulation effect for brand names. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation. Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1473–1477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02470.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiao, K., & Yamauchi, T. (2014). Semantic priming revealed by mouse movement trajectories. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 42–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Cognition Center Cologne, Social and Economic CognitionUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations