Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual
Tasting shapes and words Charles Charles Spence a, , Alberto Gallace b ⇑
a b
Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 August 2010 Received Received in revised revised form 16 Novembe Novemberr 2010 2010 Accepted 16 November 2010 Available online 20 November 2010 Keywords: Sound symbolism Flavour Taste Crossmodal correspondences correspondences Synaesthesia
a b s t r a c t
We report a series of quick and simple paper-and-pencil demonstrations illustrating the reliable crossmodal modal correspon corresponden dences ces that people people have have between between commer commercial cially-a ly-avail vailable able food and drink drink items items and both visually visually-pre -present sented ed shapes shapes and nonsen nonsense se words. words. The foodstuf foodstuffs fs tested tested in this study study include included d still and sparsparkling water, Brie cheese and cranberry juice, and two kinds of chocolate. Participants were given paperbased based line scales, scales, anchore anchored d at either either end with with a nonsens nonsense e word word or simple simple outline outline shape. They were instructed to taste the foodstuffs and to indicate whether their perception of the flavour matched more one or other of the items anchoring the scales, and then mark the appropriate point on the scale. The results highlight the fact that certain of these foodstuffs (sparkling water, cranberry juice, and Maltesers – chocolate-covered malt honeycomb) were better associated with angular angular shapes and high-pitched meanin meaningles glesss words, words, such as ‘kiki’ ‘kiki’ and ‘takete’ ‘takete’,, whose whose pronunc pronunciatio iation n requires requires sharp sharp inflectio inflection n of the mouth. mouth. By contrast, still water, Brie, and Caramel Nibbles (chocolate-covered caramel) caramel) were all more strongly strongly associate associated d with with rounded rounded shapes shapes and softer softer soundin sounding, g, lower-p lower-pitch itched ed pseudo-w pseudo-words, ords, such as ‘bou‘bouba’ and ‘maluma’. These results, which build on the classic literature on ‘sound symbolism’, have both theoretical and applied implications: On the one hand, they demonstrate that the phenomenon of sound symbolism extends beyond the visual modality, by showing that speech sounds carry meaning in the domain of flavour, and in terms of the oral-somatosensory attributes of foodstuffs as well. As a consequence, these results may also be useful on an applied level in terms of helping companies to design novel brand names and graphics for the packaging of their food and drink items that best connote the likely attributes of the product within. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Can speech sounds connote the tastes, textures, or flavours of food and drink? There have certainly been numerous reports over the years of synaesthetes synaesthetes for whom the sounds of particular words words elicited specific tastes and oral-textural experiences (e.g., Ferrari, 1907, 190 7, 1910 1910;; Gen Gendle, dle, 200 2007; 7; Pie Pierce, rce, 190 1907; 7; Sim Simner ner & Hay Haywoo wood, d, 2009; 200 9; War Ward d & Sim Simner ner,, 200 2003; 3; Wa Ward, rd, Sim Simner ner,, & Auy Auyeun eung, g, 200 2005 5). The word ‘synaesthe ‘synaesthesia’ sia’ (from ancient ancient Greek Greek syn = togeth together, er, and aisthe¯ sis sis = sensati sensation) on) has been used to describe describe individu individuals als who, when presented with a specific stimulus in one sensory modality, report an additional sensory experience (in either the same or a different different sensory modality) modality) that is not experienced experienced by non-synaesnon-synaesthetes (e.g., Cytowic Cytowic & Eaglem Eagleman, an, 2009; Marks, 1975). 1975). Take, for example example,, the young young lady tested by Pierce Pierce more more than than a century century ago. She reported the vivid sensation of tasting ketchup whenever she heard the experimenter experimenter pronounce the word ‘‘Amy’’. That said, ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK. Tel.: +44 1865 271364; fax: +44 1865 310447.
[email protected] sy.ox.ac.uk (C. (C. Spence). E-mail address: charles.spence@p
0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.11.005 doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.11.005
more recent laboratory-bas laboratory-based ed research from Simner Simner and War Ward d (2006) on six lexicallexical-gus gustato tatory ry synaest synaesthet hetes es has shown shown that that it may be the meaning meaning of the words words themse themselve lves, s, rather rather than than their their sound or spelling, that actually elicit the taste (or flavour) sensations in many of these individuals. Simner and Ward found that when these synaesthetes were encouraged to think of an unfamiliar word that induced induced a ‘tip-of-the-to ‘tip-of-the-tongue ngue’’ state (i.e., where the meanin meaning g of the word, word, but not its phonol phonologi ogical cal word-f word-form orm was available for processing), the concurrent taste normally associated with that word was often still experienced. Note, though, that what is called ‘lexical-gustatory’ synaesthesia would often seem more appropriately appropriately called ‘lexical-flavour’ ‘lexical-flavour’ synaesthesia. Given that gustation only tells us about sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, etc., while flavour refers to the sensations we have that rely on the combination of taste (gustatory) and olfactory stimuli, as is the case with most everyday foodstuffs. The only possible exception comes from Pierce’s (1907) (1907) original report of a synaesthetic lady who claimed to be anosmic (i.e., she claimed claimed not to be able to perceiv perceive e odours odours). ). Curious Curiously, ly, though though,, many many of the concurren concurrents ts she experie experience nced d that that were were induced induced by hearing hearing particular particular words words bear bear more more resembl resemble e to fairly fairly complex complex flavours than to basic tastes (e.g., asparagus in milk, catnip, apple
C. Spence, A. Gallace / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295
sauce). That said, it remains just possible that this synaesthete was able to discriminate between the foods on the basis of their oralsomatosensory attributes. Independently of this research on synaesthesia, an extensive literature has emerged over the last 80 years or so on the topic of sound (or phonetic) symbolism (see Köhler, 1929; Sapir, 1929, for early research on this topic). Hinton, Nichols, and Ohala (1994) define sound symbolism as ‘‘the direct linkage between sound and meaning’’ . Numerous studies have highlighted the fact that people will spontaneously associate certain speech sounds with specific shapes (e.g., Boyle & Tarte, 1980; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). So, for example, nonsense words such as ‘takete’ and ‘kiki’ tend to be associated with angular shapes while nonsense words such as ‘maluma’ or ‘bouba’ tend to be associated with rounded ‘cloudlike’ shapes instead (see Spence, submitted for publication, for a review). Interestingly, people all over the world, appear to exhibit the same crossmodal correspondences (see Hinton et al., 1994, for a review). What is more, it turns out that crossmodal correspondences emerge very early in human development (i.e., within a few months of birth; e.g., Maurer, Pathman, & Mondloch, 2006; Walker et al., 2010). In terms of information processing, they also emerge prior to semantic access (i.e., within 200 ms of stimulus onset according to the latest EEG data; Kovic, Plunkett, & Westermann, 2009). It is worth noting that while this may be insufficient time for semantic access, it is not too early for phonological processing of the stimulus to have taken place (see Diaz & Swaab, 2007). The majority of the research on sound symbolism published to date has tended to focus almost exclusively on the nature of the crossmodal correspondences that exist between speech sounds and the visual attributes of objects or stimuli (see Hinton et al., 1994, p. 4). We are aware of no research that has specifically attempted to investigate whether certain phonological soundbites also bear a non-arbitrary relationship to non-visual stimulus attributes, be they modality-nonspecific (i.e., amodal or multisensory), such as shape, size, or duration, or modality-specific (i.e., modal), such as sweetness (see Spence, submitted for publication, for a review). In fact, the only example of sound symbolism that we have come across in the domain of food was mentioned in passing by Vickers (1984), when she noted that the foods that we classify as ‘crunchy’ tend to make a lower-pitched sound when we bite into them than those foods we describe as crispy. Is it mere coincidence, one might ask, that the English word ‘crunchy’, when pronounced, has a lower pitch than the word ‘crisp’? As Vickers (1984, p. 162) puts it: ‘‘The very descriptors ‘‘crisp’’ and ‘‘crunchy’’ differ in pitch. The vowel sound of the ‘‘i’’ in crisp is higher pitched than the sound of the ‘‘u’’ in crunch (Marks, 1975). The ‘‘sp’’ ending of crisp is also higher pitched than the ‘‘ch’’ ending to the term crunch. Perhaps, the sounds of the words themselves convey part of their meaning.’’ Fónagy (1963) also suggested that there might be a crossmodal correspondence between foods on the bitter–sweet continuum and front/back vowel sounds (e.g., an example of a frontal vowel sound is the ‘i’ sound in ‘hit’ whereas a back vowel sound would be the ‘o’ in ‘home’). However, as far as we are aware, no empirical research has been conducted to follow-up on these intuitions. One of the questions to be addressed in the present study is whether certain meaningless speech sounds are associated with certain tastes or flavours in foods. To date, the only evidence that specific speech sounds may signify (or be associated with) specific tastes/textures comes from Yorkston and Menon (2004). They demonstrated that people’s impressions about a new product could be shaped by the vowel sounds that happened to be contained within the product’s name. In particular, people were more likely to think that an ice cream would taste creamy if it happened to be called ‘Frosch’ than if it
291
were called ‘Frisch’ instead. Importantly, however, the participants in Yorkston and Menon’s study never actually tasted anything (they only read a short textual descriptionabout the product). Elsewhere, Klink (2000; Experiment 1) asked participants to think about a range of products, including three food items (beer, ketchup, and lemonade), and then choose which of a pair of words (whose sounds were based on the findings of previous sound symbolism research; e.g., Hinton et al., 1994; Nuckolls, 2003) presented visually, was most appropriate. So, for example, the participants might be asked ‘‘Which brand of ketchup seems thicker? Nidax or Nodax.’’ Once again, though, no products or foodstuffs were actually presented to the participants in this study. Therefore once again in this case, the participants’ answers could simply be based on people’s beliefs or prior experience rather than on any possible natural association between flavour/taste and word sounds. More recently, Gallace, Boschin, and Spence (in press) demonstrated that people reliably associate nonsense words (e.g., ‘maluma’ and ‘takete’, as originally popularized by Köhler (1947); and ‘bouba’ and ‘kiki’, as popularized by Ramachandran and Hubbard (2001), as well as ‘Lula’ and ‘Ruki’) with real foodstuffs. The participants in their study were given a range of up to ten different foods, including jam, chocolate, crisps, and yoghurt. They had to rate each foodstuff on 24 different visual linear scales with a pair of words such as good/bad, salty/sweet, etc., at the end-points. Amongst these computerized scales were three scales designed to test for the existence of sound symbolism in the food domain, namely: bouba/kiki, takete/maluma, decter/bobolo. The results showed that people consistently rated salt and vinegar crisps (potato chips) as much more kiki (or takete) than cheddar cheese, yoghurt, or blueberry jam, and chocolate with mint chips and crisps as significantly more kiki/takete than regular chocolate. Gallace et al.’s (in press) results therefore demonstrate the existence of robust crossmodal associations between word sounds and certain flavour/oral-somatosensory attributes of foodstuffs. That is, certain speech sounds appear to be associated in a non-arbitrary way with particular tastes/flavours. On the basis of their findings, it would appear that sound symbolism might provide a useful means of giving rise to certain expectations with regard to foodstuffs. However, one potential limitation with the methodology used by Gallace et al. relates to the fact their participants had to fill-in 24 analog scales for each of the food items that they tasted. The participants may not, therefore, have paid particular attention to the sound symbolism scales embedded within the extensive range of scales that they had to respond to (cf. Gardner, Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998). Would people still show such robust crossmodal correspondences between speech sounds and flavours if this was the only thing that they were asked to do? Under such conditions, the participants will presumably process the stimuli much more deeply (i.e., less superficially). We wondered whether such effects could be demonstrated by means of a simple and easy to administer paper and pencil task. In the present study, we also wanted to go beyond Gallace et al.’s (in press) research by addressing the question of whether people would also match visual shapes to tastes/flavours. Anecdotal evidence from chefs such as Bertolli (2003) suggests that some may actively design their meals around the shapes that certain foods evoke. Once again, there have also been a few case reports of synaesthetes who reliably experience certain geometric shapes in response to specific tastes/flavours. For example, Richard Cytowic described the case of Michael, a synaesthete who experienced geometric shape taste synaesthesia. To illustrate this phenomenon, take the following description from Cytowic’s book ‘The man who tasted shapes’: ‘‘It was not surprising that he liked to cook and that he cooked by feel. He never followed a recipe but liked to create a dish with an ‘‘interesting shape.’’ Sugar made things taste
292
C. Spence, A. Gallace/ Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295
‘‘rounder,’’ while citrus added ‘‘points’’ to the food. He adjusted other seasonings to ‘‘make the lines steeper,’’ to ‘‘sharpen up the corners,’’ or to ‘‘make the surface stretch further.’’ (Cytowic, 1993, p. 66). The following quote from Cytowic’s (1993, p. 3–4) book gives further insight into the peculiarity of Michael’s condition: I sat nearby while he whisked the sauce he had made for the roast chickens. ‘‘Oh, dear,’’ he said, slurping a spoonful, ‘‘there aren’t enough points on the chicken.’’ . . .I know it sounds crazy, but I have this thing, see, where I taste by shape.’’ He looked away. ‘‘How can I explain?’’ he asked himself. ‘‘Flavors have shape,’’ he started, frowning into the depths of the roasting pan. ‘‘I wanted the taste of this chicken to be a pointed shape, but it came out all round.’’ He looked up at me, still blushing. ‘‘Well, I mean it’s nearly spherical,’’ he emphasized, trying to keep the volume down. ‘‘I can’t serve this if it doesn’t have points.’’ Note that these tactile-shape sensations (or ‘concurrents’ in the language of synaesthesia researchers) were usually localized to one of Michael’s shoulders or hands. Cytowic and Wood (1982) conducted a psychophysical study in which they compared the reliability of Michael’s taste-shape correspondences with those of four non-synaesthetic control participants (though one of the controls dropped out of the study early on saying that the task didn’t make any sense!). The remaining participants were given a choice of 23 different shapes from spheres through to spears to match to each of a range of solutions that varied from 0.2 M sucrose solution through to 0.2 M citric acid solution (with the middle solution a 50/50 mix of sweet and sour). Various combinations of these 13 solutions were then squirted repeatedly into the participants’ mouth in each of three experiments. The results suggested that the synaesthete used a more restricted range of shapes when responding, as compared to the controls, and that his responses were more asymmetrical. That is, there was some evidence that he could reliably match tastes to shapes. However, there was little evidence that the control participants (one of whom was a professional chef and restauranteur) exhibited any crossmodal correspondence between the various tastes and particular shapes. One might, though, question whether testing just three control participants would have been sufficient to demonstrate a significant effect, had one been present. Moreover, it is important to note here that Gallace et al. (in press) argued that the total Gestalt of real foods may be a more salient driver of such crossmodal correspondences than pure tastants (such as those used by Cytowic & Wood, 1982). If so, one might expect to see more reliable crossmodal correspondences emerge when people (be they synaesthetes or non-synaesthetes) are asked to match shapes to real foods. This constituted an additional aim of the present study. The one area where even non-synaesthetes often talk in terms of shape is in the case of wine-tasting. It is not uncommon, for example, for wine experts to talk about wines as having a ‘sharp’ or ‘rounded’ taste (e.g., Lehrer, 2009, p. 140–141; Peynaud, 1987, p. 168–171). That said, it has never been clear quite how literally one should take such statements. Is one to understand that the wine tasters really taste ‘round’, ‘pointed’, or ‘sharp’ shapes on their tongues? Or, are they instead merely using language metaphorically to talk about the acidity or balance of the wine, akin to the situation where people describe a cheese as being ‘‘sharp’’ (see Marks, 1991; Williams, 1976)? One of the only literal attempts to link shape to foods in non-synaesthetes comes from Lyman (1989, p. 102–104) who, in his book on ‘The psychology of food’, suggests that ‘‘ . . .foods having irregular, jagged shapes might carry stronger, somewhat unpleasant meanings, while smooth, rounded foods carry calmer, more pleasant ones.’’ However, no empirical evidence was brought forward by Lyman to support these suggestions. More promising evidence regarding a putative link between shape and taste in non-synaesthetes comes from an unpublished study by Gal, Wheeler, and Shiv (submitted for publication). They
reported that if people performed a task requiring them to judge which of three angular shapes had the largest surface area, they subsequently rated a sample of cheddar cheese as tasting sharper than if they had just completed the same task using rounded shapes instead (a 0.41 difference on a 6-point scale, i.e., equivalent to a 6.8% difference in rated sharpness). While such results provide stronger evidence for the existence of crossmodal correspondence between shape and taste/flavour, it is worthnoting that Gal and his colleagues had to test a very large number of participants ( N = 224) in order to obtain an effect that was only-just significant ( p = .03). What is more, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the angular shape task simply primed the word ‘sharp’ in the participants’ minds, and it was this semantic prime that carried over to influence their responses to the cheese sample (see Neely, 1977; Schneider, Engel, & Debener, 2008). Here, we report a number of simple demonstrations highlighting the fact that people really do reliably link certain attributes of shapes and nonsense words to specific tastes, oral textures, and flavours, using everyday food products such as mineral water and chocolate. Furthermore, we show that when tested appropriately, these crossmodal correspondences can be easily demonstrated in relatively small groups of people using nothing more than a quick and easy to administer pencil-and-paper task. We believe that these findings, and the methodology outlined here, are potentially important in terms of the marketing and branding of food and drink items. Note that the choice of foodstuffs used in the present study was based simply on the results of our previous research (Gallace et al., in press) and on the basis of the results of a number of public science demonstrations over the last couple of years where we have adopted the technique reported here to illustrate to the general public the crossmodal link between the tastes, flavours, and textures of foods and angular/rounded words and shapes.
2. Methods Twenty participants (ranging in age from 18 to 60 years, approximately matched for gender) were given paper analog labelled line scales on which to score each of the food and drink items that were presented (see Fig. 1, for the scales and the labels used). Each line scale was 13.5 cm long, with a crayon (of the type shown in Fig. 1) marking the mid-point of the line. The first four
Still water
-3.74±1.85
Sparkling water
3.51±1.94
Brie
Maluma
Takete -3.02±2.22
Maluma
Cranberry juice
Takete
2.45±2.26
Malteser
Tuki
Lula -1.54±3.49
Tuki
Caramel Nibble
Lula
2.69±2.73
Fig. 1. The six line scales used in the demonstrations reported here. Each line was 13.5cm long. The dotted line represents the centrepoint of each of the lines. The participants’ mean response ± the standarddeviations (SD) foreach of the scales are reported next to each of thescales (note that ve values fall tothe left of the dotted line, +ve values to the right). The means and their SDs (error bars) are also shown schematically.
C. Spence, A. Gallace / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295
scales were shown on the first sheet, the last two scales on a second sheet. The participants were simply instructed to make a mark on the line. The following written instructions appeared on the bottom of the first sheet: ‘‘Please make a mark along the line above that you think best matches the flavour of the various foods and drinks you are about to try. If the flavour better matches the shape/word on the left of the page mark a point to the left of centre, whereas if the flavour better matches the shape/word on the right of the page mark a point to the right of the centre.’’ The participants were first given two opaque white plastic cups which were each filled to a height of approximately 1 cm, one with tap water, the other with San Pellegrino sparking mineral water. They were asked to taste each of the samples and rate them by putting a mark on the score sheet in front of them. Next, the participants were given a paper plate with a small piece of Brie cheese and another opaque white cup containing about 1 cm of cranberry juice. These were both supermarket own label products. The participants were asked to mark the next two line scales on the sheet. Finally, the participants were given two pieces of chocolate: A Malteser (Nestlé) and a Caramel Nibble (Cadbury). Maltesers are a popular product in the UK. They consist of a round honeycomb-centre coated in milk chocolate. Caramel Nibbles are ovalshaped and have a milk chocolate shell containing a soft caramel centre. The participants were again asked to taste the chocolate samples and to rate them on the scales provided. Note that the angular and rounded shapes, and the Maluma/Takete word pair incorporated in this study have been used in previous sound symbolism research (see Spence, submitted for publication, for a review). The Tuki/Lula word pair was chosen because we had used a similar pair of terms in our previous research (see Gallace et al., in press). Over the years, many different pairs of words have been used to demonstrate sound symbolism (see Spence, submitted for publication, for a review). Tuki and Lula were chosen because they fit with the general form of such stimuli: The former word containing sharp sounds (e.g., ‘t’ and ‘k’), while the latter word containing more rounded sounds. No verbal instruction was given about the order in which the participants should sample the stimuli.
3. Results The participants’ responses were measured using a ruler, with the 0-point corresponding to the mid-point of the scales shown by the dashed line in Fig. 1). Negative values indicate responses to the left of the mid-point, while positive values indicate a response on the right half of the scale. Participants’ responses for each pair of foodstuffs assessed with each of the three scales were compared using paired samples t -tests. Significant differences were observed for all three of the scales (see Fig. 1). Participants scored the sparkling water much further (7.3 cm) toward the angular shape end of the scale than they did the still water ( p < .001). They also rated the Brie cheese significantly further toward the ‘Maluma’ end of the scale than they did the cranberry juice (mean difference of 5.5 cm along the scale; p < .001). Finally, the comparison for the chocolates shows that sound symbolism effects are also sufficiently strong to discriminate between competitively marketed commercial products, with the Maltesers being rated as much more Tuki than the Caramel Nibble (mean difference of 4.2 cm along the scale; p = .001).
4. Discussion These results highlight the existence of reliable crossmodal correspondences between the taste/texture/flavour of real foods/ drinks and nonsense words and shapes. These findings are of
293
theoretical interest in terms of broadening the number of sensory modalities in which sound symbolism effects have been demonstrated. To date, sound symbolism research has tended to focus almost exclusively on matching speech sounds to purely visual forms (most typically to line drawings; Boyle & Tarte, 1980; see Hinton et al., 1994; and Spence, submitted for publication, for a review). Nevertheless, the results reported here bear comparison with other research in which people have been shown to make reliable crossmodal matches between specific tastes (e.g., bitter, sweet, salty, sour), and flavours (orange blossom, vanilla, coffee, etc.) and sounds (Bronner, 2010; Bronner, Bruhn, Hirt, & Piper, 2008; Crisinel & Spence, 2009, 2010a, 2010b; Holt-Hansen, 1968, 1976; Rudmin & Cappelli, 1983; Simner, Cuskley, & Kirby, 2010; Spence, in press). Over the years, crossmodal correspondences involving taste/flavour have been demonstrated using everything from pure tones (Holt-Hansen, 1968, 1976) through to simulated instrument sounds (Crisinel & Spence, 2010b), and phonetic speech sounds (Simner et al., 2010). Qualitatively similar crossmodal associations, albeit phenomenologically much stronger, have also been reported in a number of synaesthetes over the years. These unusual individuals apparently experience taste concurrents in response to the presence of particular inducing tones or musical tone intervals (e.g., Beeli, Esslen, & Jäncke, 2005; Luria, 1968). So, for instance, ‘‘S.’’, the Russian mnemonist studied extensively by Luria, when presented with a 50 Hz tone at 100 dB, reported experiencing a taste sensation that he likened to sweet and sour borscht ‘‘a sensation that gripped his entire tongue’’ . When presented with a 3000 Hz tone at 113 dB instead, he reported ‘‘an ugly taste – rather like that of a briny pickle’’ (Luria, 1968, p. 23). The link to full-blown synaesthesia is interesting in the case of taste/flavour-tone matching, given recent claims that synaesthetes may simply exhibit more intense/ stronger crossmodal correspondences than the rest of the population (e.g., Martino & Marks, 2001; Ward, Huckstep, & Tsakanikos, 2006; though see also Spence, submitted for publication). Over the years, many have seen the commercial potential of capitalizing on the findings of sound symbolism research (e.g., Belli, 2001; Klink, 2000, 2001; Yorkston & Menon, 2004 ; see also Schloss, 1981). Indeed, it is well-known that changing various attributes of a product’s packaging and/or name can influence a consumer’s perception of the product itself, be it mouthwash, potato chips, or water (Gal et al., submitted for publication; Schloss, 1981; Spence, Shankar, & Blumenthal, 2010; Krishna & Morrin, 2008; Spence & Gallace, in press). Thus, in terms of the results of the sparkling/still water comparison reported here, food manufacturers might be encouraged to consider the use of angular (or rounded) shapes in the graphic design of their product packaging. Indeed, given our results, the purveyors of sparkling water might be well advised to use angular shapes in the graphic designs on their packaging. As it happens, San Pellegrino sparkling mineral water bottles are already covered with angular red stars. Whether this use of angular symbols on their packaging reflects the lucky intuitions of their marketing team, or is merely coincidental may, of course, never be known (according to their Italian website, http://www.sanpellegrino.it, accessed on 29/08/2010, the stars have been an integral part of the label at least since 1908; i.e., pre-dating the modern advent of sound symbolism research in 1929; see Köhler, 1929; Sapir, 1929). It is interesting to note that the still bottled water sold by the same manufacturer (Acqua Panna) has no such angular shapes on its packaging. Meanwhile, the Apollinaris brand of carbonated water sold in Germany also has a prominent red triangle displayed on the front of the bottle. One might ask here which sense is driving the crossmodal correspondence between the angularity of shape and carbonation? Well, according to the latest research, carbonation involves both chemosensory taste perception together with robust stimulation of the somatosensory system (see Chandrashekar et al., 2009).
294
C. Spence, A. Gallace/ Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295
The results of the comparison of the chocolates are particularly interesting, because they show significant differences between the words associated with similarly-positioned commercially-available chocolate products. Maltesers are certainly noisier to eat than Caramel Nibbles. It may have been this difference in aural texture that was driving the participants’ responses. Recent research has highlighted the importance of sound to our perception of food and drink (e.g., Zampini & Spence, 2004, 2005). In order to determine just how important eating sounds are as a driver of people’s responses to chocolate confectionary, one might consider repeating the experiment reported here in deaf individuals, or in normal-hearing individuals while listening to loud background white noise.
5. Conclusions The results of the research reported here demonstrate that crossmodal correspondences really do exist between the taste/texture/flavour of commercially-available food and drink items and the angularity of nonsense shapes, as well as the roundedness/ low pitch of the vowel sounds used to describe them. What will be needed in future research is to determine whether graphical designs on product packaging, or brand names that have been designed on the basis of sound symbolism research, change a consumer’s sensory expectations about, and hence experience of, real products (cf. Keller, Heckler, & Houston, 1998; Westbury, 2005; Yeomans, Chambers, Blumenthal, & Blake, 2008). In the years to come, it would seem likely that sound symbolism research could be fruitfully used to help constrain the development of new product names/brands. Of course, sound symbolism may not, in itself be enough. Many brand names also incorporate have some kind of semantic link to the product that they describe. In this regard, it is interesting that Klink (2001) has been able to demonstrate that sound symbolism insights can easily be combined with some element of semantics (e.g., though see Pinker, 2007, p. 303– 304). In summary, marketers should consider designing product names and packaging where both the semantic associations and sound symbolism synergistically contribute to create a given expectancy about the product.
References Beeli, G., Esslen, M., & Jäncke, L. (2005). When coloured sounds taste sweet. Nature, 434, 38. Belli, S. (2001). Qual e’ takete? Qual e’ maluma? [Which one is takete? Which one is maluma?]. La psycolonguistica applicata alla cominicazione pubblicitaria (2nded.). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli. Bertolli, P. (2003). Cooking by hand . New York: Clarkson Potter. Boyle, M. W., & Tarte, R. D. (1980). Implications for phonetic symbolism: The relationship between pure tones and geometric figures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 535–544. Bronner, K. (submitted for publication). What is the sound of citrus? Research on the correspondences between the perception of sound and taste/flavour . Bronner, K., Bruhn, H., Hirt, R., & Piper, D. (2008). Research on the interaction between the perception of music and flavour. Poster presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the International Multisensory Research Forum (IMRF), 15–19th July . Germany: Hamburg. Chandrashekar, J., Yarmolinsky, D., von Buchholtz, L., Oka, Y., Sly, W., Ryba, N. J. P., et al. (2009). The taste of carbonation. Science, 326 , 443–445. Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2009). Implicit association between basic tastes and pitch. Neuroscience Letters, 464, 39–42. Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2010a). A sweet sound? Exploring implicit associations between basic tastes and pitch. Perception, 39 , 417–425. Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2010b). As bitter as a trombone: Synaesthetic correspondences in non-synaesthetes between tastes and flavours and musical instruments and notes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1994–2002. Cytowic, R. E. (1993). The man who tasted shapes. USA: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M. (2009). Wednesday is indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synesthesia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cytowic, R. E., & Wood, F. B. (1982). Synaesthesia II: Psychophysical relations in the synaesthesia of geometrically shaped taste and colored hearing. Brain and Cognition, 1, 36–49.
Diaz, M. T., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, 1146 , 85–100. Ferrari, G. C. (1907).Una varietà nuovadi sinestesia [A newvariety of synaesthesia]. Rivista di Psicologia, 3 , 297–317. Ferrari, G. C. (1910). Un nuovo caso di sinestesia uditivo-gustativa [A new case of auditory–gustatory synaesthesia]. Rivista di Psicologia, 6 , 101–104. Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik [The metaphors in phonetics]. The Hague. Gal, D., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (submitted for publication). Cross-modal influences on gustatory perception . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030197. Gallace, A., Boschin, E., & Spence, C. (in press). On the taste of ‘Bouba’ and ‘Kiki’: An exploration of word-food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive Neuroscience. Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58 , 898–915. Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (Eds.). (1994). Sound symbolism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gendle, M. H. (2007). Word-gustatory synaesthesia: A case study. Perception, 36 , 495–507. Holt-Hansen, K. (1968). Taste and pitch. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27 , 59–68. Holt-Hansen, K. (1976). Extraordinary experiences during cross-modal perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43 , 1023–1027. Keller, K. L., Heckler, S. E., & Houston, M. J. (1998). The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing, 62 , 48–57. Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11 (1), 5–20. Klink,R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful newbrand names: A study of semanticsand sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing: Theory and Practice, 9 , 27–34. Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology . New York: Liveright. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York: Liveright Publication. Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westermann, G. (2009). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition, 114 , 19–28. Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 , 807–818. Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine & conversation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Luria, A. R. (1968). The mind of a mnemonist . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lyman, B. (1989). A psychology of food, more than a matter of taste . New York: Avi, van Nostrand Reinhold. Marks, L. E. (1975). On colored-hearing synaesthesia: Cross-modal translations of sensory dimensions. Psychological Bulletin, 82 , 303–331. Marks, L. E. (1991). Metaphor and the unity of the senses. In H. T. Lawless & B. P. Klein (Eds.), Sensory science theory and applications in foods (pp. 185–205). New York: Marcel Dekker. Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2001). Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 61–65. Maurer, D., Pathman,T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas:Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming andretrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106 , 226–254. Nuckolls, J. (2003). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 225–252. Peynaud, E. (1987). The taste of wine: The art and science of wine appreciation (Trans. M. Schuster). London: Macdonald & Co. Pierce, A. H. (1907). Gustatory audition; A hitherto undescribed variety of synaesthesia. American Journal of Psychology, 18 , 341–352. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature . London: Allen Lane. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8 , 3–34. Rudmin, F., & Cappelli, M. (1983). Tone-taste synesthesia: A replication. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 56 , 118. Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225–239. Schloss, I. (1981). Chicken and pickles. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 47–49. Schneider, T. R., Engel, A. K., & Debener, S. (2008). Multisensory identification of natural objects in a two-way crossmodal priming paradigm. Experimental Psychology, 55, 121–132. Simner, J., Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2010). What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mapping across gustation and audition. Perception, 39, 553–569. Simner, J., & Haywood, S. L. (2009). Tasty non-words and neighbours: The cognitive roots of lexical-gustatory synaesthesia. Cognition, 110 , 171–181. Simner, J.,& Ward, J. (2006). The taste ofwords onthetip of the tongue. Nature, 444 , 438. Spence, C. (submitted for publication). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Spence, C. (in press). Wine and music. The World of Fine Wine. Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (in press). Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing. Spence, C., Shankar, M. U., & Blumenthal, H. (2010). ‘Sound bites’: Auditory contributions to theperception andconsumption of food anddrink. In F. Bacci &
C. Spence, A. Gallace / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 290–295 D. Mecher (Eds.), Art and the senses (pp. 207–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vickers, Z. M. (1984). Crispness and crunchiness – A difference in pitch? Journal of Texture Studies, 15 , 157–163. Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., et al. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21, 21–25. Ward, J., Huckstep, B., & Tsakanikos, E. (2006). Sound-colour synaesthesia: To what extent does it use cross-modal mechanisms common to us all? Cortex, 42, 264–280. Ward, J., & Simner, J. (2003). Lexical-gustatory synaesthesia: Linguistic and conceptual factors. Cognition, 89 , 237–261. Ward, J., Simner, J., & Auyeung, V. (2005). A comparison of lexical-gustatory and grapheme-colour synaesthesia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 28–41.
295
Westbury, C. (2005). Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: Evidence from an interference task. Brain and Language, 93 , 10–19. Williams, J. M. (1976). Synesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–478. Yeomans, M., Chambers, L., Blumenthal, H., & Blake, A. (2008). The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream. Food Quality and Preference, 19 , 565–573. Yorkston, E. A., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer judgements. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 , 43–51. Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2004). The role of auditory cues in modulating the perceived crispness and staleness of potato chips. Journal of Sensory Science, 19 , 347–363. Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2005). Modifying the multisensory perception of a carbonated beverage using auditory cues. Food Quality and Preference, 16 , 632–641.
