An Exploratory Investigation of Word Aversion

An Exploratory Investigation of Word Aversion Paul H. Thibodeau (paul.thibodeau@oberlin.edu) Christopher Bromberg (cbromber@oberlin.edu) Oberlin College Department of Psychology 120 West Lorain St; Oberlin, OH 44074 Robby Hernandez (rhernan3@trinity.edu) Zachary Wilson (zwilson@trinity.edu) Trinity University Department of Psychology One Trinity Place; San Antonio, TX 78212 Abstract Why do people self-report an aversion to words like “moist”? The present study represents an initial scientific exploration into the phenomenon of word aversion by investigating its prevalence and cause. We find that as many as 20% of the population equates hearing the word “moist” to the sound of fingernails scratching a chalkboard. This population often speculates that phonological properties of the word are the cause of their displeasure. One tantalizing possibility is that words like “moist” are aversive because speaking them engages facial muscles that correspond to expressions of disgust. However, three experiments suggest that semantic features of the word – namely, associations with disgusting bodily functions – underlie peoples’ unpleasant experience. This finding broadens our understanding of language and contributes to a growing literature on the cognitive processes relating to highly valenced and arousing words. Keywords: Word aversion; lexical association; affective language; taboo Introduction Many people report that they find words like “moist,” “slacks,” and “luggage” acutely aversive. They describe the experience of hearing these words as similar to hearing nails scratch a chalkboard, often claiming that the sound of the word itself triggers their visceral reaction. Attention to this phenomenon has spread virally through social and traditional media in recent years. The word “moist,” for example, has been the subject of a Facebook page (called “I HATE the word MOIST”) with over 3,000 followers and was rated as the least liked word in the English language by a Mississippi State Poll (Ward, 2009); feature articles have been written in Slate Magazine (Malady, 2013) and The New Yorker (Greenman, 2012); and popular TV shows like “How I Met Your Mother” (“Stuff”) and “The New Girl” (“Birthday”) have devoted entire plot-lines to the comic consequences of word aversion. The present study represents an initial scientific exploration into the phenomenon. Here, we address foundational questions: 1) Approximately what proportion of the population reports an aversion to words like “moist”? 2) Is aversiveness a dimension of words that can be measured in a behavioral task or is it defined exclusively by self-report? 3) What makes a word aversive? The referent? The sound? Some combination of the two? 4) And are there individual difference variables that predict who will experience word aversion? We have designed a series of studies that endeavor to provide a first step toward answering these important questions. Of particular interest to us is uncovering the cause of word aversion, for which two hypotheses have been proposed. One possibility is that phonological properties of certain words are inherently unpleasant. This is an explanation that people with an aversion to the word “moist” often provide: for instance, one person, speculating on their aversion draws attention to “the ‘oy’ sound juxtaposed to ‘ss’ and ‘tt’. It's not a word that sounds pleasant. Neither does hoist or foist” (quotation from a participant in Experiment 1). Psychologists and linguistics generally view sounds in a language as arbitrary with no inherent meaning (Hockett, 1960). However, some have argued that sound symbolism is a natural byproduct of enculturation in a language (Friedrich, 1979) and cross- cultural studies have found some evidence of sound symbolism beyond onomatopoeia (Nuckols, 1999). One tantalizing possibility is that words like “moist” are aversive because speaking them engages facial muscles that correspond to expressions of disgust (Buck, 1980; Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988). This facial feedback hypothesis is controversial and investigations of word aversion may help to shed light on embodied theories of emotion and language (Barsalou, 2012; McIntosh, 1996). An alternative possibility is that the semantic referent or lexical neighborhood of aversive words makes these lexical items unpleasant. The word “moist,” for instance, is sometimes used in a sexual context; people who are not averse to the word often speculate that it is aversive because “it reminds people of sex and vaginas” (quotation from a participant in Experiment 1). Prior work has found that a word’s emotional context (valence and arousal) is at least partially responsible for the effects of emotional words (Talmi & Mascovitch, 2004). On this view, it may be possible to identify a coherent category of the lexicon as aversive. This finding would broaden our understanding of language and contribute to a growing literature on the processing of highly valenced and arousing words (Anderson, 2005; Kensinger & Corkin, 2004; LaBar & Phelps, 1998).