Jennifer J. Argo, Monica Popa, & Malcolm C. Smith

The Sound of BrandsRecent research has demonstrated that linguistic characteristics of brand names can cognitively affect productevaluations. In six experiments, the authors demonstrate that affect arising from sound repetition may also beinfluential. The results reveal across multiple brand names and product categories that exposure to a brand namethat has sound repetition in its phonetic structure and is spoken aloud produces positive affect, which favorablyaffects consumers brand evaluations, reactions to cross-selling, and product choice. The effects are moderated byconsumers sensitivity to repetition, consumers opportunity to experience emotions, and the degree to which thebrand names phonetic sound repetition deviates from linguistic expectations. The authors discuss implications formanagers and avenues for further research.

Keywords: brand names, affect, linguistics, sound repetition, phonetic/sound symbolism

Jennifer J. Argo is Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail: jennifer.argo@ualberta.ca), and Monica Popa is a doctoral candidate in Marketing(e-mail: mpopa@ualberta.ca), School of Business, University of Alberta.Malcolm C. Smith is Associate Professor of Marketing, I.H. Asper School ofBusiness, University of Manitoba (e-mail: malcolm_smith@umanitoba.ca).The authors thank Robert Fisher, Gerald Hubl, Jonathan Levav, KelleyMain, Page Moreau, L.J. Shrum, and Juliet Zhu for their comments onprevious versions of this article. The financial support from the Universityof Alberta and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada is gratefully acknowledged.

2010, American Marketing AssociationISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic)

Journal of MarketingVol. 74 (July 2010), 9710997

There has been a significant increase in the rate ofgrowth of brand names being introduced to the mar-ketplace. For example, in 2005, more than 320,000applications for trademarks were submitted in the UnitedStates, more than double the number introduced ten yearsearlier (PTO Today 2006). Given that brand names arecapable of enhancing awareness and creating favorableimpressions for a product (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990) andthat some product failures have been attributed to ineffec-tive brand names (e.g., Ford Edsel; Hartley 1992; Klink2000), it is not surprising that companies spend millions ofdollars in naming and maintaining their brands.

Recently, marketing researchers have begun to explorestrategies that companies may use to create effective brandnames. Some naming strategies produce brand names thatexplicitly convey information about the product and/or itsattributes (e.g., DieHard auto batteries; Keller, Heckler, andHouston 1998). Other strategies may result in names thatare not obviously connected to the products features. Anexample would be the use of sound symbolism (alsoreferred to as phonetic symbolism), which focuses on theimpact of the linguistic structure of brand names on con-sumer perceptions (e.g., Prozac communicates efficacythrough the letter z; Klink 2000, 2001). While research hasdemonstrated that linguistic characteristics of brand namescan cognitively affect product evaluations (e.g., Lowrey andShrum 2007; Yorkston and Menon 2004), we propose thataffect may also be influential. For example, names such asCoca-Cola, Hubba Bubba, Tutti Frutti, Jelly Belly, Kit Kat,

Bits & Bites, Lululemon, and Tostitos might elicit positivefeelings, especially when the names are spoken aloud.

In six experiments, we test the proposition that whenaudibly exposed to a brand name that has a phonetic struc-ture containing sound repetition, consumers will experiencepositive affect, which in turn will favorably influence con-sumption decisions. To achieve this, we manipulate thebrand names phonetic structure (i.e., a linguistic device ofsound repetition is present or absent) and the method ofexpressing the brand name (i.e., it is spoken aloud or readsilently). Moreover, we consider the moderating role ofindividual differences in sensitivity to repetition (i.e., theability to perceive repetitive patterns imparted by soundrepetition). Finally, we demonstrate that the effects areattenuated when (1) consumers regulate their emotions and(2) the sound repetition deviates too excessively from lin-guistic expectations.

This research makes several contributions to the litera-ture. Foremost, we extend research that has focused on lin-guistics from a cognitively driven perspective by demon-strating that affect also plays an influential role. We findthat when the phonetic structure of a brand name containssound repetition (e.g., rhyme) and is spoken aloud, positiveaffect arises and, in turn, favorably influences consumptiondecisions. Using a triangulation approach, we demonstratethe role of affect through mediation (Studies 1 and 2), mod-eration (i.e., emotion regulation [Study 3] and affect prim-ing [Study 4]), and affect-based dependent variables (i.e.,reactions to cross-selling of hedonic products [Study 5a]and affect-related product choices [Study 5b]). The researchalso identifies boundary conditions for our theorizing.Specifically, we find that the effects do not hold for con-sumers who are low in sensitivity to repetition (Studies 2and 3) and when the phonetic structure of the brand namedeviates too excessively from linguistic expectations (Stud-ies 5a and 5b). Another contribution of the research is that itintegrates literature on figurative language and sound sym-bolism by exploring the impact of rhyming and sound repe-tition that exist within a word. Indeed, prior research hasonly considered the impact of linguistic devices within aseries of words. Finally, the use of multiple brand names

and product categories, as well as both native and nonnativeEnglish speakers, in addition to tests of competing theoreti-cal explanations, provides what we believe is a compellingdemonstration of the predicted effects. In the next section,we review literature pertinent to the conceptual develop-ment and delineate the direction of six experiments in thecurrent research.

BackgroundPhonetic Structure of a Brand NameTo understand the impact of the phonetic structure of abrand name on consumers, we draw from research on figu-rative language. An artful deviation of language (i.e., whenthe form of an expression deviates from a persons expecta-tions), figurative language can be divided into two cate-gories of deviations: tropes (e.g., metaphors, similes) andschemes (e.g., alliterations, anaphora; McQuarrie and Mick1996). The primary difference between these categories isthat tropes have a high degree of deviation and involve adeep semantic level of processing, whereas schemes have alower degree of deviation and involve the rearrangement ofsurface characteristics of language that results in their influ-ence occurring at the sensory level. In other words, tropesplay with meaning, whereas schemes, which often com-prise repetitions of sound (e.g., rhymes; McQuarrie andMick 1996), play with expression and lend themselves tothe artful presentation of ideas (Leech 1969). Given that fig-urative language has been shown to favorably influenceconsumers (e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 1996), we proposethat the use of linguistic devices, such as sound repetition(i.e., schemes) in brand names, has a positive impact onconsumers.

Because we are interested in understanding the role ofsound repetition within a brand name, we cannot solely relyon figurative language research, which focuses on groups ofwords and syllables. Instead, we must also draw from litera-ture on sound symbolism that studies a words phonemes(i.e., the smallest units of sound in language, such as thesound of the letter b). Sound symbolism refers to thenotion that the sound of a word, separate from its connota-tion, conveys meaning. In the earliest demonstration of thisphenomenon, when people were presented with a pair ofwords that differed only by the middle value (i.e., mil ver-sus mal), more than 80% agreed that mal referred to alarge object and mil to a small object (Sapir 1929).Recently, marketing researchers have found that certainvowels and consonants (e.g., Klink 2000) and the congru-ency between the meanings elicited by phonemes and prod-uct category attributes (Lowrey and Shrum 2007; Yorkstonand Menon 2004) influence evaluations of brand names.Thus, it appears that the building blocks of words (i.e., let-ters) and brand names can have important implications forconsumers evaluations of products. In this research, weintegrate and extend the research on linguistic devices andsound symbolism by proposing that consumers are posi-tively influenced by brand names that contain linguisticschemes of sound repetition. However, we expect that this

98 / Journal of Marketing, July 2010

positive impact is moderated by the method of expressingthe brand name.

Method of ExpressionBrand names can be expressed both visually (e.g., labels onproduct packages) and aurally (e.g., pronounced by aspokesperson on television). However, to date, research onbrand names and sound symbolism has almost exclusivelyrequired respondents to read the names silently rather thanaloud or hear them (e.g., Brendl et al. 2005; Klink 2000,2001). Because sound is an essential element to being ableto appreciate and respond to characteristics such as repeti-tion (Macklin 1988), in this research, we expect that hear-ing a brand name spoken aloud will play a critical role ininfluencing consumers responses. In particular, we predictthat sound repetition contained in a brand name will bemore apparent when a consumer hears versus simply seesthe name. This is consistent with the notion that schemes ofsound repetition offer pleasure to the ears (Thonssen andBaird 1948) because they deviate from linguistic expecta-tions; that is, they violate the belief that the distribution ofsounds is unordered beyond the constraints of grammar andsemantics.

H1: Consumers will evaluate a brand most favorably when thephonetic structure of its name contains sound repetitionand is spoken aloud (versus present/silent versus absent/aloud versus absent/silent).

Role of AffectTo date, consumer research in sound symbolism has foundthat words influence consumers through their meanings(Klink 2000; Yorkston and Menon 2004). Although we donot dispute that words are influential at a cognitive level, wepropose that they may also influence consumers throughaffect, especially if the words contain sound repetition andare spoken aloud. The notion that linguistic devices mightelicit positive affect is consistent with age-old assumptionsthat speech sounds can stir pleasant emotions. Scholarssuch as Aristotle believed that linguistic ornaments (i.e., fig-urative language) elicit enjoyment through their sounds(Fergusson 1961). James (1890) also discussed the role ofaffect in response to aesthetic stimuli, suggesting thatsounds can produce subtle feelings and pure and simplepleasures. More recently, Whissell (2006) suggested thatsounds connote not only meanings but also emotions.Finally, Zhu and Meyers-Levy (2005) find that whensounds within music produce moderate levels of stimulationthrough their level of energy, positive hedonic valueemerges to influence product perceptions. This finding isrelevant in the current context because energetic music hasrepetitive rhythm (Gaston 1968). Just as a piece of energeticmusic containing sound repetition is stimulating and offerspleasure, we expect that hearing a brand name that containsrepetition will elicit positive affect. On the basis of previouswork in marketing (e.g., Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999), we fur-ther predict that affect will affect consumers evaluationsand choices of brands.

H2: Positive affect will mediate the interactive impact of pho-netic sound repetition and method of expression on con-sumers evaluations of brands.

Study 1MethodThis study uses a 2 (phonetic sound repetition: present ver-sus absent) 2 (method of expression: spoken aloud versusread silently) mixed design, with phonetic sound repetitionas a within-subjects factor and method of expressionmanipulated as a between-subjects variable. The dependentvariable is the evaluation of a target product (i.e., icecream). We assess the mediating role of positive affect.Forty-seven undergraduate students from a large NorthAmerican university, all of whom were native Englishspeakers, completed the study.

Two pairs of ice cream brand names were created, witheach pair consisting of a brand name that contained a lin-guistic scheme of sound repetition and a brand name thatdid not. The brand names within each pair were created bymatching length and phonetic structure so that the totalnumber of letters and the beginning of each word wereidentical and only the last few letters in which the phoneticsound repetition was located were different. To ensure thatthe only differentiating element within each pair waswhether sound repetition was present or absent, we matchedconsonants and vowels according to their phonetic charac-teristics (e.g., a fricative such as an f was replaced withanother fricative, such as an s). A pretest confirmed thatno differences existed in sound symbolism between brandnames within each pair. This is also true for the words usedin subsequent studies, so we do not discuss it further. Thepairs of words included in this study were sepsop/sepfutand temasema/temafanu. Thus, each pair consisted of abrand name containing sound repetition (i.e., sepsop ortemasema) and a brand name that did not (i.e., sepfut ortemafanu). Each participant was exposed to one of thetwo pairs of brands.

Participants were run individually; on arrival at the site,they were informed that the researchers were interested intheir evaluations of two brands of ice cream. Participantsfirst received the method of expression instructions. Thosein the spoken-aloud condition were asked to read the firstice cream name aloud, taste the ice cream, and then eat asaltine and take a sip of water to clean their palate. Then,they repeated the process for the second ice cream sample.Participants in the read-silently condition received the sameinstructions, except they were asked to read the names ofthe ice cream silently to themselves. After receiving theinstructions, participants were provided with the two icecream samples to taste. The two brands always had namesdrawn from the same pair (e.g., sepsop/sepfut), and theorder in which the brand names was provided was counter-balanced. Unknown to participants, the ice cream sampleswere from the same container; thus, the two samples wereidentical. Following the product trial, participants com-pleted a questionnaire.

The Sound of Brands / 99

Focal constructs. Participants were first asked to com-plete a series of affect items drawn from previous research(e.g., Edell and Burke 1987), indicating how each of thebrand names made them feel (1 = not at all, and 7 =very). Factor analysis revealed two indexes thataccounted for 75.2% of the variance. We averaged threeitemshappy, delighted, and joyousto create apositive affect index ( = .92), and we averaged three otheritemsannoyed, frustrated, and angryto create anegative affect index ( = .87). We included the latter indexto determine whether the valence of affect arising fromsound repetition is important in influencing evaluations.Participants then evaluated the brands on seven-point scales(i.e., unfavorable/favorable, dislike/like, did not enjoyat all/enjoyed very much, not at all satisfied/very satisfiedwith the brand). We averaged responses to these items tocreate an evaluation index ( = .97). To assess the manipu-lation of sound repetition, participants indicated the extentto which the words were rhythmic, cadenced, and rhymed(1 = not at all, and 7 = very much). We averaged theseitems together to create a perceived repetition index ( =.91).

Alternative explanation measures. Beyond positiveaffect, there are several alternative explanations for why dif-ferent brand names may influence brand evaluations. First,the words created for the study may elicit different soundsymbolisms, and thus the different meanings brought tomind by each word might drive the results. To test for thispossibility, participants completed a battery of items thatasked whether the brand name made them think of some-thingfor example, cold/warm or soft/hard (Klink2000). Second, it is possible that the names containingphonetic sound repetition (versus those that did not) wereeasier to process; thus, participants indicated how diffi-cult, hard, and easy (reverse scored) it was for them toread/pronounce the brand names (1 = not at all, and 7 =very; fluency index, = .85). Third, brand names withrepetition might be perceived as more novel and, thus, moreappealing to participants; therefore, participants reportedhow novel, unique, unusual, striking, and notice-able they perceived the brand names to be (novelty index, = .83). Finally, confidence with reading/pronouncing thewords correctly might differ across brand names; thus, weassessed how confident, certain, and sure participantsfelt (confidence index, = .97).

Participants then completed demographic information(e.g., gender, age) and an open-ended suspicion probe.Analyses including the demographic information did notreveal any significant effects, and an examination ofresponses to the suspicion probe indicated that participantswere not cognizant of the experimental hypotheses. Thesefindings also hold in the subsequent studies, so we do notdiscuss these variables further.

Results and DiscussionFollowing Pinheiro and Bates (2004), we conducted linearmixed effects (LME) models. Such models are used todescribe relationships between a response variable andvariables that are grouped according to one or more classifi-

cation factors. In our case, the grouped data were deter-mined by participants evaluation of two brands. By associ-ating common random effects with observations that sharethe same level of a classification factor, mixed-effects mod-els flexibly represent the covariance structure induced bythe grouping of the data and are more appropriate than tra-ditional regression analyses, which could produce biasedestimates (Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008; Pinheiro andBates 2004). Consequently, to model possible heterogeneityin the intercepts of the individual participants, we used arandom effect for participant. The fixed portion of the LMEmodel included the effects of phonetic sound repetition, themethod of expression, and their interaction term on the vari-ous dependent variables. We report any changes in themodel accordingly.

Preliminary analyses. To test whether the brand presen-tation order and pair influenced brand evaluations, we ranan LME model that included the design factors and theirinteraction, plus an order dummy variable, a pair dummyvariable, and the interactions between each of the dummyvariables and each of the independent variables. The resultsdid not produce significant effects for order or pair (ps >.10). Given the lack of significant effects for the pair andorder dummy variables in this study and in subsequent stud-ies, we do not discuss them further. Finally, to assess themanipulation of phonetic sound repetition, we conducted anLME model with perceived repetition as the dependentvariable. We found only a main effect for phonetic soundrepetition ( = .375, t = 2.76, p < .01); thus, the manipula-tion was successful.

Evaluations. An LME model with the brand evaluationindex as the dependent variable produced significant maineffects for phonetic sound repetition ( = .500, t = 3.03, p .10). Therefore, positive affectmediated the interaction between phonetic sound repetitionand method of expression on evaluations. We conducted asimilar analysis for negative affect; however, the resultsfailed to produce significant effects (ps > .20), indicatingthat negative affect was not a mediator.

Alternative explanations. We conducted a series of addi-tional analyses, using the same predictors in the LMEmodel described previously, to test more cognitive explana-tions for the results. First, to assess whether the brandnames within each pair were similar in terms of sound sym-bolism, we conducted LME models using the list identifiedin Klink (2000) as dependent variables. The results indi-cated that brand names containing phonetic sound repetitionelicited the same perceptions as those without (ps > .10; seeTable 1). Thus, the effects are unlikely to be explained bydifferences in sound symbolism (i.e., cognitive associa-tions). Second, to determine whether brand names contain-ing phonetic sound repetition (versus those that do not) areeasier to process, are more novel, or differ in the level ofconfidence they elicited, we conducted three separate LMEmodels, including the processing fluency index, the noveltyindex, and the confidence index as dependent variables.Given that none of the results were significant in any of thethree LME models (ps > .10), we ruled out the possibilitythat processing fluency, novelty, or confidence produced theeffects.

Study 1 finds that a brand was evaluated most favorablywhen its name contained phonetic sound repetition and wasspoken aloud. The results also revealed that, consistent withour theorizing, positive affect mediated the interactive effectof phonetic sound repetition and method of expression onbrand evaluations. Finally, analyses testing several alterna-tive explanations showed that brand names containing pho-netic sound repetition (versus those that did not) did not dif-fer in sound symbolism, fluency, novelty, or confidence.

Study 2 has several objectives. First, we introduce a newvariable to capture individual differences in sensitivity tosound repetition (STR). Although prior research has not

FIGURE 1Brand Evaluation Means

Repetition Present

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sound Repetition in Brand Names

Evaluation

Spoken aloudSilent

Repetition Absent

5.21

3.55 3.463.30

1A mixed-effects analysis of variance and traditional regressionanalysis also produced the same significant effects.

offered instruments for assessing peoples sensitivity tophonetic repetition directly, an indirect approach can beused by measuring STR of musical sounds. There is supportfor the use of such a proxy in Bernstein (1976) and Sloboda(1985), who suggest that a musical note is comparable to aphoneme, the smallest sound unit constituting language. Assuch, we expect that the interactive effect of sound repetitionand method of expression found in Study 1 will replicate forpeople who are high in STR but that differences in evalua-tions will be attenuated for those who are low in STR.

Second, we include an additional product category. Wedid this for two reasons. First, because the focal product(i.e., ice cream) in Study 1 was a fun (i.e., hedonic) prod-uct and because fun brand names tend to contain phoneticsound repetition, the positive match along the fun dimen-sion may have led to the observed effects rather than solelythe sound repetition arising from exposure to the brandname. To address this, we introduce a new product categorythat is utilitarian and more neutral in valence (i.e., cat litter).Second, the inclusion of a new product category enables usto further explore the mediating role of positive affect. Inparticular, if an affective mechanism underlies the results,the effects should prevail regardless of the product category.

Finally, in Study 1, we achieved the method of expres-sion manipulation by instructing participants in the spoken-aloud condition to vocalize the brand name themselves. Asa result, it is possible that the act of saying the brand namerather than hearing it influenced the findings. To test thispossibility, in Study 2, we include a purer manipulation ofsound, in which someone else says the brand name aloudand then participants evaluate the product. If the results ofStudy 1 are due to participants hearing the brand name, thefindings should replicate; if the results arose because par-ticipants enjoyed saying the name, a replication should notarise.

Individual Differences in STRIt has been suggested that some people have an ear for rec-ognizing sound patterns, whereas others do not. In psycho-

The Sound of Brands / 101

metrics research, this individual difference has receivedvarious labels (e.g., musical aptitude, sensitivity to repeti-tion; Murphy 1999). The notion that people vary in theirSTR is important in the current context because we expectthat this will influence consumers responsiveness to abrand name that contains phonetic sound repetition and isspoken aloud. Although relevant empirical evidence on theimpact of STR is scant, literature on the differencesbetween expert and novice poetry readers provides insightfor our theorizing. This stream of literature has shown thatexperts (versus novices) are more comfortable with poetictexts (Earthman 1992) and can more easily identify figura-tive deviations from everyday language (Zwaan 1993). Inthe current research, we assume that poetic expertise andSTR are akin, which seems reasonable because poetry oftencontains linguistic devices of sound repetition. Given this,we expect that a person with high STR should be especiallyresponsive to brand names that contain such devices. Takingthis together with the preceding discussion, we postulatethat consumers who are high in STR should evaluate abrand most favorably when its structure contains phoneticsound repetition and is spoken aloud because they have anear for repetitive patterns, while differences in brandevaluations will be mitigated for those who are low in STR.

H3: Consumers high in STR will evaluate a brand most favor-ably when phonetic sound repetition is present in its nameand when the name is spoken aloud (versus present/silentversus absent/aloud versus absent/silent). Differences inbrand evaluations will be attenuated for consumers low inSTR.

Study 2MethodThis study uses a 2 (phonetic sound repetition: present versusabsent) 2 (method of expression: spoken aloud versus readsilently) 2 (product category: positive versus neutral) STR mixed design. We manipulate phonetic sound repeti-

TABLE 1The Impact of Phonetic Sound Repetition and Method of Expression for the Alternative Explanations

(Study 1)Phonetic Sound Repetition

Phonetic Sound Repetition Method of Expression

SE t p SE t pSound SymbolismA. Coldwarm .074 .139 .533 .596 .009 .139 .065 .948B. Softhard .139 .130 1.069 .291 .035 .130 .268 .790C. Weakstrong .086 .129 .664 .510 .023 .129 .179 .859D. Thin-thick .010 .143 .070 .945 .032 .143 .222 .826E. Lightdark .214 .143 1.499 .141 .068 .143 .479 .635F. Lightheavy .031 .165 .190 .851 .031 .165 .190 .851G. Smallbig .191 .138 1.383 .174 .038 .138 .279 .781H. Moreless .074 .140 .530 .599 .009 .140 .065 .949I. Fastslow .139 .115 1.213 .232 .035 .115 .304 .762

Fluency .028 .118 .238 .813 .006 .118 .055 .957Novelty .019 .094 .208 .836 .085 .094 .905 .370Confidence .050 .099 .502 .618 .144 .099 1.447 .155

tion and method of expression and treat them as between-subjects factors. We measure STR using the rhythm testfrom the Primary Measures of Music Audiation Test(PMMAT; Gordon 1979) and include it as a between-subjects factor. Finally, we include product category as theonly within-subjects factor. Again, the primary dependentvariable is brand evaluations ( = .96), and we assess affectas a mediator ( = .88). One hundred twenty-five under-graduate students from a large North American university,all of whom were native English speakers, completed thestudy.

The procedure replicated that described in Study 1, witha few notable differences. First, to achieve the phoneticsound repetition manipulation, we randomly assigned par-ticipants to a condition in which they were exposed to abrand name that either did or did not contain phoneticsound repetition. Second, we used a purer manipulation ofthe spoken-aloud condition. Rather than have participantsvocalize the brand name themselves, the experimenter readthe name of the brand aloud. Third, to enhance the general-izability of the previous findings, we expanded the stimuliby using three new pairs of brand names: bobunob/bogunad, zanozan/zanovum, and kenet/kenit. To deter-mine whether the product category influenced the findings,participants tested both a positive (i.e., ice cream) and aneutral (i.e., cat litter) product. Pretesting confirmed that thetwo products were valenced accordingly. In the study, par-ticipants were given one of the products, they tested it, andthen they completed the key variables. Then, they repeatedthe process for the second product. To test the cat litter, par-ticipants were instructed to touch the product. Both prod-ucts had either a brand name that contained phonetic soundrepetition (drawn from different pairs) or a name that didnot. The order in which products/brands were presentedwas counterbalanced.

After participants completed the questionnaire, weassessed STR using the computer-based PMMAT test (i.e.,a test to gauge peoples ability to perceive patterns ofsounds). Each participant listened to the test instructions,completed a practice session, and then took the actual test.The PMMAT consisted of 40 pattern recognition tasks. Ineach task, participants listened to a short sequence ofsounds (some of which were combined to generate repeti-tive patterns) that varied in terms of duration. Then, they lis-tened to a second sequence of sounds and were subse-quently prompted on the computer screen to indicatewhether the two sequences were identical. Using theirresponses, the software generated an overall score, withlow/high numbers representing low/high STR.

Results and DiscussionBecause participants were asked to evaluate two products inthis study, we again conducted LME models for all theanalyses. Including a random effect for participant, we ana-lyzed the impact of phonetic sound repetition, method ofexpression, product category, the continuous measure forSTR, and their interaction terms on the various dependentvariables. Sound repetition, method of expression, and STRwere between-subjects variables, and product category wasa within-subjects factor.

102 / Journal of Marketing, July 2010

Evaluations. An LME model with the evaluations indexas the dependent variable produced significant main effectsfor phonetic sound repetition (p < .01), method of expres-sion (p < .05), and product category (p < .05). We alsofound a significant two-way interaction between phoneticsound repetition and method of expression, similar to thatobserved in Study 1 ( = .341, t = 3.02, p < .01), as well asa two-way interaction between phonetic sound repetitionand STR (p = .05). Finally, these results were qualified by asignificant three-way interaction among phonetic soundrepetition, method of expression, and STR ( = .021, t =2.14, p < .05). No other effects were significant.

To facilitate an examination of the three-way inter-action, we set the mean-centered continuous variable (i.e.,STR) at high versus low levels, defined as one standarddeviation above or below the mean score, respectively (e.g.,Aiken and West 1991; Verbeke et al. 2008). In the case ofhigh STR, the results revealed a significant two-way inter-action between phonetic sound repetition and method ofexpression on brand evaluations ( = .587, t = 3.64, p .50); brand evaluations wereundifferentiated for those low in STR, regardless of thebrand names phonetic structure or the way the name wasexpressed.

Regarding the role of product category, an examinationof the means indicated that, overall, ice cream was evalu-ated more favorably than cat litter (Mice cream = 4.04,Mcat litter = 3.57). However, the lack of significant interac-tions between product category and the other independentvariables suggests that the pattern of results held acrossboth categories. When we examine the ice cream data sepa-rately, as in Study 1, the product was evaluated more favor-ably when the brand name contained phonetic sound repeti-tion and was spoken aloud (M = 5.02) than in the otherconditions (Mabsent aloud = 3.78, p < .05; Mpresent silent = 3.78,p < .01; Mabsent silent = 3.74, p < .01). A similar pattern arosefor cat litter (Mpresent aloud = 4.30 versus Mabsent aloud = 2.95,p < .01; Mpresent silent = 3.54, p < .05; Mabsent silent = 3.49,p < .05). No other comparisons were significant (ps > .10).

Mediation. Again, positive affect was a mediator of theeffects. As we indicated previously, sound repetition,method of expression, and STR interacted to influenceevaluations. We ran a second model that included positiveaffect as the dependent variable; this also produced a sig-nificant interaction among the three factors ( = .026, t =3.08, p < .01). Finally, when we included positive affect as apredictor into the original model for overall evaluations, theresults indicated a main effect for positive affect ( = .229,

t = 3.06, p < .01), and the previously significant three-wayinteraction became nonsignificant ( = .015, t = 1.52, p >.10). Therefore, positive affect mediated the three-wayinteraction.

Study 2s results replicated the pattern we identifiedpreviously: Products were evaluated most favorably whenthe brand name contained phonetic sound repetition andwas spoken aloud. Consistent with H3, this finding heldonly for people who were high in STR; differences in prod-uct evaluations were attenuated for those who were low inSTR. Finally, the results again revealed that positive affectmediated our effects.

The results of Study 2 are noteworthy for several rea-sons. First, the finding that the effects held not only for apositive but also for a neutral product is important becauseit shows that the effects are not confounded, it lends supportto the notion that positive affect is driving the effects, and itadds to the generalizability of the findings. Second, repli-cating the previous findings with the use of a purer spoken-aloud condition demonstrates that it is the act of hearingrather than saying the brand name that is important. Finally,the effects held despite the introduction of new brandnames, further generalizing the findings.

In the first two studies, we demonstrated the role ofaffect through the use of a mediation approach. To providefurther support that positive affect is the underlying mecha-nism for the effects, in Studies 3 and 4, we test for it using amoderation approach. In Study 3, we suggest that unless aperson experiences positive emotions in the first place, heor she will not evaluate exposure to sound repetition favor-ably. Thus, when we hold method of expression constant(i.e., spoken aloud), an interaction effect of phonetic soundrepetition and sensitivity to repetition should occur onlyamong participants who allow their emotions to flow natu-rally. In contrast, if affect indeed drives the effects, whenconsumers suppress their emotions, we should not observedifferences in evaluations, regardless of the presence ofsound repetition. To test this possibility, following previousresearch (e.g., Gross 1998), we instructed participants inStudy 3 (1) to allow their emotions to flow naturally or (2)to suppress them before exposure to the product testingexperience.

Study 3MethodThis study uses a 2 (phonetic sound repetition: present ver-sus absent) 2 (emotion regulation: natural versus suppres-sion) STR between-subjects design. We hold method ofexpression constant, with the brand name always being spo-ken aloud, as described in Study 2. The focal product cate-gory was ice cream. Again, the primary dependent variablefor this study is brand evaluations ( = .96). Two-hundredthirteen undergraduate students from a North American uni-versity, all of whom were native English speakers, com-pleted the study.

The procedure and the brand names are the same as inStudy 2, with two exceptions. First, we included an emotionregulation manipulation before participants exposure to the

The Sound of Brands / 103

product-testing experience. Following previous research(Gross 1998), in the act-natural condition, the experimenterindicated the following to participants: During the product-testing experience, we would like you to please be as naturalas possible, both on the inside and out. If you have any feel-ings or reactions to the product testing experience, let themflow naturally. In contrast, in the emotion-suppression con-dition, the experimenter said: During the product-testingexperience, we would like you to please remain completelyneutral on the inside and out. Please try your best not to letany feelings or responses you may have to the product test-ing experience show on your face, and to the best of yourability, try to keep all your internal reactions suppressed.Second, unlike Studies 1 and 2, which used mixed designs,Study 3 uses a between-subjects design.Results and DiscussionWe conducted linear regression analysis that included pho-netic sound repetition, emotion regulation, the continuousmeasure of STR, and their interaction terms as the indepen-dent variables and brand evaluations as the dependentvariable. The results produced significant main effects forphonetic sound repetition (p < .001) and emotion regulation(p < .001) and a marginally significant main effect for STR(p < .06). We also found a significant two-way interactionbetween phonetic sound repetition and emotion regulation(p < .01), while the two-way interactions between sensitiv-ity to repetition and emotion regulation and between pho-netic sound repetition and STR were marginally significant(p < .10 and p < .07, respectively). Importantly, these resultswere qualified by a significant interaction among soundrepetition, STR, and emotion regulation ( = .207, t = 2.12,p < .05). No other effects were significant.

To examine the three-way interaction, we focused onhigh and low STR. In the case of high STR, we found a sig-nificant two-way interaction between phonetic sound repeti-tion and emotion regulation (t = 3.57, p < .001). Simpleslope analyses revealed that consumers high in STR in theact-natural condition evaluated the brand more favorablywhen phonetic sound repetition was present than when itwas absent in the brand name (t = 5.27, p < .001). However,brand evaluations of consumers high in STR were undiffer-entiated regardless of the presence or absence of soundrepetition in the brand name in the emotion-suppressioncondition (p > .80). The two-way interaction between pho-netic sound repetition and emotion regulation was not sig-nificant for those low in STR (p > .60).

This study demonstrates that when participants allowedtheir emotions to flow naturally, the results replicated thosewe found previously. Specifically, participants high in STRevaluated a brand more favorably when it was spoken aloudand contained phonetic sound repetition than when therepetition was absent; participants low in STR did not differin their evaluations of a brand, regardless of the composi-tion of the brand name. Analyses of participants who sup-pressed their emotions did not produce any significant find-ings. These results lend support to the role of affect.

We further test the role of affect using another modera-tion approach in Study 4. Specifically, we propose that ifpositive affect underlies the results, participants should

evaluate a brand equally favorably when they are in a posi-tive affective state and the brand name does not containphonetic sound repetition and when they are not in such astate but are exposed to a brand name that does containrepetition. Furthermore, participants should evaluate abrand more favorably when the brand name does not con-tain sound repetition and when they are in a positive affec-tive state than when they are in a neutral state. To explorethis, following Epstude and Mussweiler (2009), in Study 4,we exposed participants to either (1) a positive affect primeor (2) a neutral prime, before testing the products.

Study 4MethodStudy 4 uses a 2 (phonetic sound repetition: present versusabsent) 2 (affect prime: positive versus neutral) mixeddesign, in which phonetic sound repetition is a within-subjects factor. We manipulate affect prime and treat it as abetween-subjects factor. We hold method of expressionconstant, with the experimenter always saying the brandname aloud. The dependent variable is again brand evalua-tions ( = .95). Thirty-eight native and nonnative Englishspeakers from a large North American university completedthe study.

On arrival, participants were informed that they wouldbe completing a variety of unrelated studies. In the firststudy, they were told that they would be asked to examine aseries of pictures and evaluate each picture according to itsbrightness and sharpness. Participants then viewed sevenpictures and evaluated them accordingly. The pictures,which were taken from the International Affective PictureSystem (Lang, Bradley, and Cuthbert 2005), were used toachieve the affect prime manipulation. In particular, in thepositive-prime condition, the pictures were positivelyvalenced, and in the neutral-prime condition, the seven pic-tures were neutral in affective quality (for a detailed list ofpictures and a similar procedure, see Epstude and Muss-weiler 2009). After completing the task, participants beganwhat was ostensibly a second unrelated study that involvedtesting hand sanitizers. In the phonetic-sound-repetition-present condition, the hand sanitizer was called koopa-roop, and in the absent condition, the brand was calledkooparut. The order in which the brands were tested wascounterbalanced. Unknown to participants, the hand sani-tizer samples were from the same container; thus, the twosamples were identical. Finally, participants indicated thelanguage most commonly spoken at home.

Results and DiscussionAgain, we ran LME models because participants wereasked to evaluate two brands of hand sanitizer. Including arandom effect for participant, we analyzed the impact ofphonetic sound repetition, affect priming, and their inter-action term on evaluations. Phonetic sound repetition was awithin-subjects factor, and affect priming was a between-subjects variable.

Preliminary analyses. To ensure that no differencesexisted in the results between native and nonnative English

104 / Journal of Marketing, July 2010

speakers, we ran an LME model that included a languagedummy variable and its interaction terms with the indepen-dent variables. The results did not produce significant mainor interaction effects for language (ps > .30). Given thatthese results held true in the remaining studies, we col-lapsed across language and do not discuss it further.

Evaluations. An LME with the evaluations index as thedependent variable produced a significant main effect forphonetic sound repetition (p < .01), a marginally significantmain effect for affect prime (p < .07), and a significantinteraction between the two factors ( = .317, t = 2.09, p .50) ornot (M = 4.75, p > .50). Furthermore, the brand was evalu-ated least favorably when sound repetition was absent andthe prime was neutral (M = 3.29) than in the other threeconditions (present/positive, p < .01; present/neutral,p < .01; absent/positive, p < .01).

Study 4 further tested the role of affect using a modera-tion approach. Consistent with our expectations, partici-pants evaluated a brand more favorably when affect wasprimed and the brand name did not contain sound repetitionthan when positive affect was not primed and the brandname contained sound repetition. Differences in brandevaluations were also attenuated, regardless of whether thebrand name contained sound repetition when positive affectwas primed. Finally, evaluations were significantly higherfor a brand whose name did not contain sound repetitionfollowing exposure to a positive affect prime than followinga neutral prime.

The first objective of the remaining studies is to com-plete the triangulation approach in demonstrating the under-lying role of positive affect. Unlike the previous studies,which explored affect using mediation and moderation, inthe last two studies, we argue that if positive affect is indeedelicited in response to verbally stated brand names contain-ing sound repetition, this should be manifested in affect-based dependent variables. Indeed, previous research (e.g.,Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999) has shown that positive affectinfluences a variety of marketing variables (e.g., consump-tion of hedonic/utilitarian products). Thus, each of the finaltwo studies explores an affect-specific dependent variable.In particular, we predict that hearing a brand name thatincludes sound repetition will cause participants to be morelikely to select (1) hedonic options in response to a cross-selling attempt (Study 5a) and (2) an indulgent productbased on their feelings (i.e., chocolate cake) versus a health-ful product based on their reason (i.e., fruit salad; Study5b).

Studies 14 consistently found that the presence of pho-netic sound repetition in a brand name that is spoken aloudleads to favorable outcomes. Given this, the second objec-tive of Studies 5a and 5b is to identify situations in whichbrand names containing sound repetition do not have a posi-tive influence on brand evaluations and choices. We proposethat one such instance will be when the phonetic sound

repetition deviates too excessively from linguistic expecta-tions. As we discussed previously, a focal element of figura-tive language, and in particular sound repetition, that makesit pleasurable is that it deviates from expectations (McQuar-rie and Mick 1996). However, McQuarrie and Mick (1999)further suggest that there is a gradient on which figurativelanguage can deviate and that too much deviation can havediminishing returns and a negative impact on consumers(see also McQuarrie and Mick 1992). Thus, we predict thatthough a moderate level of deviation from linguistic expec-tations is positive, high levels of deviation will lead to lessfavorable responses from consumers. We do not expect anydifferences to arise between names with high or no devia-tion (Hargreaves 1984).

Study 5In the final two studies, we manipulated one factordegreeof deviation from linguistic expectationsacross three lev-els (high versus moderate versus no deviation) as abetween-subjects factor. To achieve this manipulation, wevaried the relationship between the consonants and the vow-els found within the brand name. Consistent with researchshowing that in language, listeners expect consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel sequences to occur more frequently thanconsonant-vowel-consonant-consonant sequences (Cutler,Norris, and Williams 1987), in the high-deviation condition,the repetition included a series of adjacent consonants; inthe moderate-deviation condition, the repetition had conso-nants and vowels interspersed; and in the no-deviation con-dition, the word did not contain phonetic sound repetition(i.e., it did not deviate in linguistic expectations). A pretestensured that the brand names created for the last two studiesdiffered in deviation as expected. In both studies, the experi-menter always spoke the brand names aloud. Seventy-ninenative and nonnative English speakers participated in thefinal two studies.

Study 5aParticipants were verbally informed that a new mobilephone called _____ had been introduced on the market. Inthe high-deviation condition, the model was called shon-pshon; in the moderate-deviation condition, it was calledshonoshon; and in the no-deviation condition, it wascalled shonufam. Participants were then given a studypackage that described the standard features of the product(see the Appendix) and were asked to evaluate the brand( = .96). They were then asked to imagine that they hadjust purchased the mobile phone and that in addition to thestandard features, the product had four extra features thatthey could purchase: downloadable iTunes (IT), new ring-tones (RT), internal memory, and extended warranty. Theformer two items were hedonic, and the latter two itemswere utilitarian (the order of the items was randomized).Participants indicated the extent to which they would like tobuy each of the additional features (1 = definitely wouldnot buy it, and 7 = definitely would buy it). If our con-ceptualization is valid, the positive affect that arises from abrand name whose degree of deviation is moderate (versushigh or no deviation) should result in a greater willingness

The Sound of Brands / 105

on the part of participants to select additional hedonicoptions.

Results and DiscussionEvaluations. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

with brand evaluations as the dependent variable produced amain effect for degree of deviation (F(2, 76) = 7.27, p .40).

Extra features. We first conducted a multivariate analy-sis of variance (MANOVA) with the two hedonic options asthe dependent variables. The results revealed a significantmain effect for degree of deviation (F(4, 150) = 5.47, p .80), though there was a marginally signifi-cant difference between the two conditions for the RT fea-ture (t = 1.79, p < .08).

We then conducted a MANOVA that included the twoutilitarian options as the dependent variables; however, wedid not find a main effect for degree of deviation (p > .40).

The results of Study 5a provide corroborating evidencefor the underlying role of affect by demonstrating that abrand name containing sound repetition can influence con-sumers reactions to hedonic items. In addition, this studyidentified a boundary condition under which sound repeti-tion does not lead to favorable outcomes. In particular, thefindings arose only when the sound repetition contained amoderate level of linguistic deviation; no differences inresponses to a brand arose regardless of whether its namehad high or no deviation.

Study 5bIn the final study, the experimenter read the following sce-nario to participants: A new restaurant, called ______opened in your area, and you went there for the first time.You just had a nice meal and you are examining dessertoptions on the menu. We used the name of the restaurantto manipulate the degree of deviation factor. In the high-deviation condition, the restaurant name was called Ranth-fanth; in the moderate-deviation condition, the restaurantwas called Rantifanti; and in the no-deviation condition,it was called Rantifumte. Next, participants learned thatthe restaurant was offering two dessert specials, chocolatecake and fruit salad. Then, they were asked to indicatewhich of the two desserts they would order and the extent towhich they preferred the two options (5 = strongly preferchocolate cake, 0 = neutral, and 5 = strongly prefer fruit

salad). Later, we reordered and recoded the scale (1 =strongly prefer chocolate cake, and 11 = strongly preferfruit salad). In line with the work of Shiv and Fedorikhin(1999), participants then indicated the extent to which theirdessert option decision was based on thoughts or feelingson seven-point scales (i.e., thoughts/feelings, willpower/desire, prudent self/impulsive self, rational side/emotionalside, and head/heart; higher values = feelings). We com-bined these items and averaged them together to create adecision basis index ( = .79).Results and Discussion

Dessert choice. Binary logistic regression with dessertchoice as the dependent variable revealed that degree ofdeviation was a significant predictor ( = 1.03, Wald = 9.99,p < .01); more participants selected the chocolate cakeoption in the moderate-deviation condition (80%) than inthe high-deviation (30%; = 1.04, Wald = 9.88, p < .01)and no-deviation (33%; = 2.23, Wald = 12.21, p < .001)conditions. The latter two conditions did not differ fromeach other ( = .154, Wald = .069, p > .70).

Dessert preference. A one-way ANOVA with dessertpreference as the dependent variable revealed a significantmain effect for degree of deviation (F(2, 76) = 8.90, p .90).

Decision basis index. A one-way ANOVA that includedthe decision basis index as the dependent variable produceda main effect for degree of deviation (F(2, 75) = 5.43, p .80).

Mediation analyses. Finally, to determine whether thedecision basis index underlies the impact of the degree ofdeviation on dessert choices and preferences, we conductedmediation analyses. We conducted a series of regressionanalyses, with dessert choice, dessert preference, and thedecision basis index as the dependent variables and degreeof deviation as the predictor. As we mentioned previously,degree of deviation significantly predicted choice ( = 1.03,Wald = 9.99, p < .01). In addition, degree of deviation sig-nificantly predicted preferences ( = 1.78, t = 3.46, p < .01)and the decision basis index ( = .476, t = 2.61, p < .05).Inclusion of the decision basis index in the original analysisfor dessert choice and the original analysis for dessert pref-erences revealed that the index statistically affected bothvariables (choice: = .921, Wald = 11.66, p < .01; prefer-ence: = 1.06, t = 3.37, p < .01), while the main effect fordegree of deviation for both dependent variables statisticallyfell in significance (choice: = .788, Wald = 4.82, p < .05;Sobel z = 2.15, p < .05; preference: = 1.22, t = 2.39, p