SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE APPENDIX
Sound and sound symbolism
Sound symbolism refers to the psycholinguistic process that explains the relationship
between sounds and their meanings. It implies that the mere sound of a word provides cues about
a word’s meaning while the word itself is meaningless (Yorkston & Menon 2004). Sound
symbolism applies to both vowels and consonants. Among others, one common classification of
vowels is by front versus back distinction, taking into account the position of the tongue during
articulation. Front vowels are produced when the highest point of the tongue is positioned toward
the front of the mouth as when pronouncing the sounds [i] (such as in the last sound of the word
happy) or [e] (such as in bed). In contrast, back vowels are produced when the highest point of
the tongue is positioned toward the back of the mouth as for [o] (such as in for) or [u] (such as in
actual). Among others, linguists classify consonants as plosives (i.e., a certain kind of stops;
Klink 2000; Lowrey & Shrum 2007; Yorkston & Menon 2004) or fricatives. For the articulation
of plosives, the mouth is closed and therefore the airflow is impaired from escaping the mouth. A
sound like an explosion is then produced like for [k] (such as in key) or [t] (such as in ten). By
contrast, fricatives are pronounced by not fully closing the mouth and causing a partial friction of
the airstream as for [f] (such as in fat) or [s] (such as in soon).
Hypotheses
Sound-preference effects. In line with previous studies, we suggest that “preference for front
versus back vowel sound words changes as a function of product category” (Shrum et al. 2012, p.
1
277; Lowrey & Shrum 2007). We propose that brand name preferences derived from sound
symbolism hold across languages of the same language family. As basis for our hypotheses, we
expect that consumers prefer brand names for a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain front
vowels (back vowels) compared to back vowels (front vowels; Lowrey & Shrum 2007).
Replicating the study by Shrum et al. (2012), we hypothesize that these sound symbolism effects
of vowels on brand name preference hold for English, French, German, and Spanish (H1).
Extending the study by Shrum et al. (2012) to consonants, we additionally apply the same line of
argument by varying brand names with respect to the consonant sound that is, whether brand
names contain fricatives versus plosives (Klink 2000). Specifically, we propose a preference for
brand names for a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain fricatives (plosives) compared to
plosives (fricatives). Again, we argue that these sound symbolism effects of consonants on brand
name preference hold for English, French, German, and Spanish (H2).
H1: Preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain front
(back) vowels compared to brand names that contain back (front) vowels holds across
languages (English, French, German, and Spanish).
H2: Preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain fricatives
(plosives) compared to brand names that contain plosives (fricatives) holds across
languages (English, French, German, and Spanish).
Sound-perception effects. Research suggests that “people prefer particular words as brand
names when the attributes connoted by the vowel sound of the word are congruent with the
attribute of the product” (Lowrey & Shrum 2007, p. 412; Yorkston & Menon 2004). In the
following, we will refer to this fit as sound-attribute fit. Sound-attribute fit explains the
previously discussed sound-preference effects by providing an explanation for the
underlying mechanism (Klink 2000; Lowrey & Shrum 2007; Yorkston & Menon 2004). We
2
propose that brand name perceptions derived from sound symbolism hold across languages
of the same language family. In particular, we hypothesize that brand names that contain
front vowels are perceived as smaller, faster, and lighter compared to brand names that
contain back vowels (Klink 2000; Lowrey & Shrum 2007) regardless of the languages of
the Indo-European language family used (H3). We expect the same pattern for brand names
that contain fricatives compared to plosives (H4).
H3: Across languages (English, French, German, and Spanish), consumers perceive
brand names that contain front vowels as (a) smaller, (b) faster, and (c) lighter
compared to brand names that contain back vowels, and vice versa.
H4: Across languages (English, French, German, and Spanish), consumers perceive
brand names that contain fricatives as (a) smaller, (b) faster, and (c) lighter
compared to brand names that contain plosives, and vice versa.
Stimuli Development
Selection of languages. Some evidence from psycholinguistics suggests that sound symbolism
may elicit similar effects across different languages that belong to the same language family
while they might vary between language families (O’Boyle, Miller, & Rahmani 1987; Roper et
al. 1976; Smith 1998). We therefore have selected the languages English, French, German, and
French, which all belong to the Indo-European language family (Fortson 2010).
Development of fictitious international brand names. To create fictitious international brand
names, we first used sound inventories to determine which vowels and consonants exist across
English, French, German, and Spanish. We found that the front vowels [i] and [e] and the back
vowels [o] and [u] as well as the plosives [k] and [t] and the fricatives [s] and [f] are employed in
all four languages (International Phonetic Alphabet, IPA 2005). In a second step, we created 56
3
pairs of fictitious brand names for which each only varies in the vowel sound (i.e., front versus
back vowel) and 77 pairs of fictitious brand names for which each only varies in the consonant
sound (i.e., plosive versus fricative). Brand names were then transcribed in the respective
phonographic writing system of each language. As a next step, we used dictionaries and an online
brand search machine (United Domains 2012) to investigate whether these brand names exist.
Brand names that were already available or provoked associations with existing brand names
were eliminated. A set of 50 brand names was then pretested with five native speakers of each
language to further exclude brand names that elicit negative, foreign, or any other semantic
association and to ensure correct spelling and pronunciation when subjects read the brand names
aloud (Shrum et al. 2012). The final set includes sixteen brand names of which four word pairs
differ in vowel (front versus back vowel) and four word pairs differ in consonant (plosive versus
fricative) sound.
4
Table 1: Classification of international brand names tested in this study
5
Participants and Procedure
In total, 456 subjects participated in our online survey, N = 213 native speakers of
German (126 women, Mage = 30.3), N = 74 native speakers of English (46 women, Mage = 30.8),
N = 74 native speakers of Spanish (42 women, Mage = 28.2), and N = 95 native speakers of
French (58 women, Mage = 27.1). Participants were told that for each accomplished questionnaire,
the authors donated 10 cents to Engineers without Borders, a non-governmental organization
supporting international development work. Each participant received the survey in his/her
mother tongue that is, in English, French, German, or Spanish. Before, we had pre-tested our
survey for clarity in task instruction and consistency across languages.
In line with Shrum et al. (2012), participants self-selected their mother tongue, while they
were randomly assigned to a car type (SUV, N = 229; two-seater convertible, N = 227). Apart
from that, all participants received the same set of stimuli that differed only in the language of the
survey. Accordingly, phonetic symbolism for vowels and consonants was a within-subjects
factor, and both language and car type a between-subjects factor.
Participants were told that the study’s objective was to identify a brand name for the
respective car type (Shrum et al. 2012). Throughout the experiment, we continuously asked them
to read the brand names aloud, or, in case the subjects were not able to speak loudly, to mentally
read the brand names aloud (Baddeley 2003).
In the first part of the questionnaire, participants were presented a series of eight word
pairs. Four word pairs differed by one vowel (Nooran-Neran, Nonra-Neenra, Nooma-Neema, and
Nolam-Nelam) representing our manipulation of phonetic symbolism of front ([e] and [i]) versus
back vowel ([o] and [u]) sounds. The remaining four word pairs differed by one consonant
6
(Calrum-Falrum, Tumral-Sumral, Tanum-Fanum, and Kemrum-Semrum) representing our
manipulation of phonetic symbolism of consonant sounds for plosives ([k] and [t]) versus
fricatives ([s] and [f]). The order of word pair presentation was randomized. Participants were
asked to state their preference for one brand name of each word pair.
The second part of the questionnaire dealt with brand perceptions to investigate soundattribute fit. Participants evaluated brand names with respect to size (big versus small), speed
(fast versus slow), and weight (heavy versus light) on seven-point semantic differential scales for
the above mentioned word pairs. Order of word pair presentation was again randomized.
Following this exercise, participants were asked to evaluate a typical two-seater convertible
(SUV) in terms of size, speed, and weight (Lowrey & Shrum 2007). Finally, subjects were asked
to indicate their age, gender, and nationality.
7
Results for sound-preference effects
Table 2 provides an overview on the results of the original studies (Lowrey & Shrum
2007; Shrum et al. 2012) and our study with respect to sound-preference effects across languages.
Specifically, we indicate which cross-language and language-specific effects we were able to
replicate for different vowels and to extend to consonants.
Replication: Sound-preference effects of vowels in international brand names. We first created
continuous dependent variables that represented the proportion of front and back vowel words
chosen for each car type (Lowrey & Shrum 2007; Shrum et al. 2012). We then ran a 2 (vowel
sound) x 2 (car type) x 4 (language) mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test H1. As
expected the sound by car type interaction is significant (F(1, 448) = 10.67; p = .001) with post
hoc paired t-tests indicating a preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that
contain front vowels (back vowels) compared to back vowels (front vowels) (Mconvertible = 57.5%,
t(226) = -4.10, p < .00; MSUV =53.9%, t(228) = 2.05, p < .05). Furthermore, a non-significant 3way interaction by language, sound, and car type confirms the assumption of a languageindependent preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain front
(back) vowels compared to brand names with back (front) vowels (Shrum et al. 2012) (F(3, 448)
= 1.33; p = .26).
However, a significant language by vowel interaction (F(3, 448) = 3.22; p = .02) indicates
a language-dependent preference for front versus back vowels regardless of car type. While posthoc performed paired t-tests for sound and language indicate that there is no general preference
for front versus back vowels for German, French, and Spanish native speakers, English native
8
speakers generally prefer the tested front vowels over tested back vowels (MEnglish = 60.8%, t(73)
= -3.14, p < .01). In addition, post-hoc performed paired t-tests within each language and within
each car type reveal three non-significant differences between the means of front versus back
vowels (MFrench_convertible = 42.9%, t(48) = -1.59, p > .05; MFrench_SUV = 53.3%, t(45) = .85, p > .10;
MSpanish_convertible = 54.9%, t(35) = -1.23, p > .10). It is important to note that sample sizes may
account for these unsuccessfully replicated effects.
Sound-preference effects of consonants in international brand names. To test whether a similar
pattern as shown by Shrum et al. (2012) also exists for consonants, we created continuous
dependent variables that represented the proportion of fricative and plosive words chosen for
each car type, and ran a 2 (consonant sound) x 2 (car type) x 4 (language) mixed-model ANOVA.
As expected the sound by car type interaction is significant (F(1, 448) = 10.43; p < .01). In
contrast to the overall sound-preference effect of vowels in international brand names, we found a
significant interaction by consonant sound, car type, and language (F(3, 448) = 2.80; p = .04) and
thus, cannot confirm H2. In addition, the interaction between sound and language is significant
(F(3, 448) = 4.83; p < .01). Post-hoc performed paired t-tests for sound and language indicate a
general preference for plosives over fricatives for German (MGerman = 60.3%, t(212) = -5.33, p <
.00) and English (MEnglish = 58. 5%, t(73) = -2.99, p < .01) native speakers. Individual paired
comparisons within each car type and each language demonstrates a tendency toward the
preference for brand names that contain plosives for SUVs across all languages (MSpanish_SUV =
61.2%, t(37) = -2.90, p < .01) besides French (MFrench_SUV = 51.1%, t(45) = -.28, p > .10).Due to
sample size constraints, comparisons for English are significant at p < .1.
9
Table 2: Results of replication and extension of sound-preference effects in international brand names
Lowrey & Shrum (2007)
Shrum et al. (2012)
our study
sound manipulation
vowels
vowels
vowels
sound x product effect
significant
significant
significant
replicated
significant
extended
sound x product x language effect
-
not significant
not significant
replicated
significant
not extended
All languages combined
n
n
n
Convertible
SUV
-
-
replicated
replicated
fricatives not preferred
back vowels preferred
not extended
extended
122
front vowels preferred
back vowels preferred
74
front vowels preferred
front vowels preferred
replicated
plosives preferred
not replicated plosive preference ns 1
not extended
not extended
English
Convertible
SUV
-
French
Convertible
SUV
-
-
-
German
Convertible
SUV
-
-
-
Spanish
Convertible
SUV
-
-
-
375
front vowels preferred
back vowels preferred
front vowels preferred
plosives preferred
-
-
106
front vowels preferred
back vowels preferred
95
front vowel preference ns
back vowel preference ns
not replicated frivative preference ns
not replicated plosive preference ns
not extended
not extended
-
213
front vowels preferred
back vowels preferred
extended
extended
not extended
extended
74
front vowel preference ns
back vowels preferred
not replicated frivative preference ns
plosives preferred
replicated
-
88
-
456
consonants
-
front vowels preferred
back vowels preferred
plosives ns preferred
plosives preferred
Notes: 1 tendency confirmed by results as significant at p < .1
Hypotheses of our study are drawn from Shrum et al. (2012):
H1: Preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain front (back) vowels compared to brand names that contain back (front) vowels holds across languages.
H2: Preference for brand names of a two-seater convertible (SUV) that contain fricatives (plosives) compared to brand names that contain plosives (fricatives) holds across languages.
10
not extended
extended
Results for sound-perception effects
Table 3 provides an overview on the results of our study with respect to sound-perception
effects across languages. Specifically, we indicate which cross-language and language-specific
effects we were able to extend for vowels and consonants. These effects were only pretested in
the study by Lowrey & Shrum (2007).
Car type–attribute fit. To ensure that car types are associated with typical attributes in the same
way across all of the four languages which were examined in the present study, we analyzed how
participants rated an SUV compared to a two-seater convertible in terms of size (big versus
small), speed (fast versus slow), and weight (heavy versus light; all items measured on sevenpoint semantic differential scales) using t-tests. In comparison to a two-seater convertible, an
SUV is generally considered bigger in size (M = 1.96, t(454) = -31.6, p < .01), slower (M = -.39,
t(454) = -11.6, p < .01), and heavier (M = 1.7, t(454) = -26.7, p < .01). These findings do not vary
across the four languages examined in this study (all ps < .01).
Sound–perception effects of vowels in international brand names. We investigated whether
differences in sound symbolism for front vowels versus back vowels exist for the four languages
in terms of brand name perception. Accordingly, we ran three separate 2 (vowel sound) x 4
(language) mixed-model ANOVAs. All analyses show a significant main effect of sound (speed:
F(1, 452) = 29.46; p = .00). The results confirm that front vowels compared to back vowels in
brand names elicit associations of smaller size in English, French, German, and Spanish (H3a:
F(3, 452) = 1.61; p = .19). We find similar patterns for fastness (H3b: F(3, 452) = 2.33; p = .07)
11
and lightness (H3c: F(3, 452) = .17; p = .91). Individual paired t-tests confirm these findings
except for Spanish people’s perception of speed (M = -.79, t(73) = .54, p > .10).
Sound–perception effects of consonants in international brand names. We ran the same analyses
for the comparison between fricatives and plosives across the four languages. All ANOVAs show
a significant main effect of sound (speed: F(1, 452) = 14.98; p = .00). We find support for H4a,
which predicts that regardless of the language, consumers associate brand names that contain
fricatives compared to brand names that contain plosives with smaller size (F(3, 452) = .59; p =
.62), higher speed (H4b: F(3, 452) = 1.71; p = .16), and less weight (H4c: F(3, 452) = .96; p =
.41). Again, we conducted paired t-tests, which confirm the results of the ANOVAs except for the
perception of speed by Germans (M = -.21, t(212) = .90, p > .10) and Spanish people (M = -.70,
t(73) = 1.52, p > .05).
12
Table 3: Results of sound–perception effects in international brand names
sound manipulation
Lowrey &
Shrum (2007)
Shrum et
al. (2012)
our study
vowels
vowels
vowels
n
front vowel
456
smaller
faster
lighter
All languages combined
Size (small – big)
Speed (fast – slow)
Weight (light – heavy)
-
-
English
Size (small – big)
Speed (fast – slow)
Weight (light – heavy)
-
74
pretest
pretest
pretest
French
Size (small – big)
Speed (fast – slow)
Weight (light – heavy)
-
-
95
German
Size (small – big)
Speed (fast – slow)
Weight (light – heavy)
-
-
213
Spanish
Size (small – big)
-
-
74
Speed (fast – slow)
-
-
consonants
back vowel
fricative plosive
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller
faster
lighter
bigger
slower
heavier
extended
extended
extended
smaller bigger
extended
ns faster ns slower not extended
lighter heavier
extended
smaller
bigger
extended
smaller
ns faster
ns slower
not extended ns faster ns slower not extended
bigger
extended
Weight (light – heavy)
lighter
heavier
extended
lighter heavier
extended
Hypotheses of our study are inspired by Lowrey & Shrum (2007):
H3: Across languages, consumers perceive brand names that contain front vowels as (a) smaller, (b) faster, and (c) lighter compared to brand
names that contain back vowels, and vice versa.
H4: Across languages, consumers perceive brand names that contain fricatives as (a) smaller, (b) faster, and (c) lighter compared to brand names
that contain plosives, and vice versa.
13
References not cited in the manuscript
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 4 (10), 829-839.
Fortson, B. W. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. (2nd ed.).
Malden, Mass. et al.: Blackwell.
IPA (2005). URL: http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/ipachart.html.
Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating Brand Names With Meaning: The Use of Sound Symbolism.
Marketing Letters, 11 (1), 5-20.
O’Boyle, M. W., Miller, D. A., & Rahmani, F. (1987). Sound-Meaning Relationships in Speakers
of Urdu and English: Evidence for a Cross-Cultural Phonetic Symbolism. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 16 (3), 273-288.
Roper, C. W., Dixon, P. W., Ahern, E. H., & Gibson, V. L. (1976). Effect of Language and Sex
on Universal Phonetic Symbolism. Language and Speech, 19 (4), 388-396.
United Domains (2012). URL: http://www.namecheck.com.
Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A Sound Idea: Phonetic Effects of Brand Names on
Consumer Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 43-51.
14