The articulatory in-out effect: Driven by consonant preferences?

Abstract

The articulatory in-out effect describes the preference for stimuli with an inward-wandering consonant order (e.g., BODIKA) as opposed to an outward-wandering consonant order (e.g., KODIBA). Originally, the in-out effect has been explained in terms of articulation trajectories, with inward trajectories being preferred over outward trajectories. However, recent research by Maschmann et al. ( 2020) raised doubts on this explanation of articulation trajectory preferences and offered a parsimonious alternative explanation for the in-out effect based on consonant preferences instead. As we show in the present article, stimulus materials in Maschmann et al. ( 2020) diverged from materials used in previous research and might have prevented the experience of articulation trajectories. Here, we present a conceptual replication of Maschmann et al. ( 2020), using stimulus materials more likely to elicit articulation trajectory preferences. In a preregistered, high-powered experiment (N = 349), we find strong support for the original idea of trajectory preferences but no evidence for the consonant preference account. Our research shows that preferences for articulation trajectories are robust and cannot be explained by mere consonant preferences. We discuss further implications of these findings for future research on the processes involved in the empirical in-out effect.

On the emergence of the in–out effect across trials: two items do the trick

“…As another limitation, the present study is not a decisive test of the competing theories about the driving mechanisms of the in-out effect, but it provides further evidence to the ongoing conceptual debate (Ingendahl et al, 2022b). It renders an eating-related embodiment (see Maschmann et al, 2020) and an easy-first account (see Topolinski et al, 2022) even more unlikely and puts the in-out effect into the conceptual vicinity of usual fluency effects and their dependence on several sequential stimulus presentations (e.g., Bakhtiari et al, 2016;Dechêne et al, 2009).…”

“…Concluding, a fluency account of the in-out effect seems a promising explanation. However, recent research has shown that central predictions of a fluency account, a part of the presence of an internal standard, could not be supported experimentally (Ingendahl et al, ,2022b(Ingendahl et al, ,202 2c,2022d. For instance, in mediation analyses, the impact of consonant order on liking is only partially mediated by simultaneously assessed subjective fluency (Bakhtiari et al, 2016), and the in-out effect is not modulated by experimental inductions of fluency using training (Ingendahl et al, 2021).…”

“…The processing fluency and language frequency account (Bakhtiari et al, 2016;Godinho & Garrido, 2021;Ingendahl et al, 2021Ingendahl et al, ,2022bIngendahl et al, ,2022cIngendahl et al, ,2022dKörner et al, 2019) states that inward relative to outward words are easier to articulate (cf., Silva et al, 2017;Song & Schwarz, 2009;Topolinski & Strack, 2010), because their consonantal sequence structure imitates real words in natural language more closely. Indeed, in corpus analyses it was found that inward consonant sequences are slightly more frequent than outward sequences in real language (Bakhtiari et al, 2016).…”

“…Finally, the letter-position account (Ingendahl & Vogel, 2022b;Maschmann et al, 2020) states that front consonants occur more often in the beginning than at the end of real words in natural language and readers pay more attention to word beginnings than the rest of a word (for discussions to what degree reader focus on word beginnings and endings, respectively, see Ingendahl & Vogel, 2022b;Maschmann et al, 2020). Similar to the fluency/frequency account, this would yield a rather subtle internal standard.…”

The In‐Out Effect in the Perception and Production of Real Words

“…However, this relationship was stronger for individual phonemes than for more general phonetic features (e.g., place of articulation). Furthermore, recent findings suggest that front‐middle‐rear words (e.g., BODIKA) are preferred over front‐middle‐front words (e.g., BODIBA) (Ingendahl & Vogel, 2022) and that position‐weighted consonant preferences apply to consonant sequences presented as fragments, but not to fully spelled‐out words (Körner & Rummer, 2022).…”