↓ Skip to main content

Remembering that big things sound big: Sound symbolism and associative memory

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Remembering that big things sound big: Sound symbolism and associative memory
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0047-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa A. Preziosi, Jennifer H. Coane

Abstract

According to sound symbolism theory, individual sounds or clusters of sounds can convey meaning. To examine the role of sound symbolic effects on processing and memory for nonwords, we developed a novel set of 100 nonwords to convey largeness (nonwords containing plosive consonants and back vowels) and smallness (nonwords containing fricative consonants and front vowels). In Experiments 1A and 1B, participants rated the size of the 100 nonwords and provided definitions to them as if they were products. Nonwords composed of fricative/front vowels were rated as smaller than those composed of plosive/back vowels. In Experiment 2, participants studied sound symbolic congruent and incongruent nonword and participant-generated definition pairings. Definitions paired with nonwords that matched the size and participant-generated meanings were recalled better than those that did not match. When the participant-generated definitions were re-paired with other nonwords, this mnemonic advantage was reduced, although still reliable. In a final free association study, the possibility that plosive/back vowel and fricative/front vowel nonwords elicit sound symbolic size effects due to mediation from word neighbors was ruled out. Together, these results suggest that definitions that are sound symbolically congruent with a nonword are more memorable than incongruent definition-nonword pairings. This work has implications for the creation of brand names and how to create brand names that not only convey desired product characteristics, but also are memorable for consumers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 11%
Linguistics 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 3 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,981,243
of 11,341,141 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#47
of 73 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,113
of 263,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,341,141 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 73 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.