Assessing size and subjective value of objects with diminutive names

Open access


Numerous studies show that language (in its grammatical forms or morphology) can influence both perceptual judgments, as well as the mental categorization of objects in memory. Previous research showed that using diminutive names of objects resulted in being less satisfied with owning said objects and lowering their perceived value. In the present studies, to explore this phenomenon, we decided to investigate whether the influence of a diminutive on the reduction in the subjective value of an object is determined by the perceived size of the object, in accordance with the „bigger is better” heuristic. In Study 1 participants estimated a banknote to be smaller when it was presented with a diminutive label “banknocik” (banknote with diminutive) than “banknot” (banknote). However, this was not related to the perceived subjective value of the banknote. In Study 2 participants declared that they could buy less with a coin labeled as “pieniążek” (coin with diminutive) than “pieniądz” (coin), but the effect was not linked to the perceived size of the coins. In Study 3 a candy bar labeled as “batonik” (candy bar with diminutive) was evaluated worse than the same product labeled “baton” (candy bar), however, once again this was not related to the evaluation of its size (weight). Thus, we show that the effect of diminutives on the reduction in the subjective value of an object is independent of the evaluation of the size of the object and we consider other explanations for the occurrence of this phenomenon.

Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (5), 985-990.

Abele, A.E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A Dual Perspective Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195-255.

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientifi c American, 304, 62-65.

Bruner, J., & Goodman, C. (1947). Value and Need as Organizing Factors in Perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33-44.

Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.

Dąbrowska, E. (2006). Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case infl ections. Language Sciences, 28, 120-135.

Drabik, L., & Sobol, E. (2007). Słownik Poprawnej Polszczyzny. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B.J. (2015). Enhanced visuala wareness formorality and pajamas? Perception vs. memory in top-down effects. Cognition 136, 409-416.

Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.

Gleason, H.A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Haman, E. (2003). Early productivity in derivation. A case study of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish. Psychology of Language and Communication, 7, 1, 37-56.

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language 72, 533-578.

Królak, E., & Rudnicka, K. (2006). Selected aspects of directives in Polish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 19, 129-142.

Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Levin, D.T., & Banaji, M.R. (2006). Distortions in the Perceived Lightness of Faces: The Role of Race Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 501-512.

Loftus, E.F., & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Learning Behavior, 13, 585-589.

Lupyan, G., Thompson-Schill, S.L., & Swingley, D. (2010). Conceptual penetration of visual processing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 21, 682-691.

Mantonakis, A., Schwarz, N., Wudarzewski, A., Yoon, C. (2017). Malleability of taste perception: Biasing effects of rating scale format on taste recognition, product evaluation, and willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 28, 293-303.

Nęcka, E. (2007). Psychologia poznawcza [Cognitive Psychology]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Parzuchowski, M., Bocian, K., & Pascal, G. (2016). Sizing Up Objects: The Effect of Diminutive Forms on Positive Mood, Value, and Size Judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1452.

Roberson, D., & Jules, D. (2000) The categorical perception of colors and facial expressions: The effect of verbal interference. Memory and Cognition, 28, 977-986.

Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., & Braisby, N. (1999) Similarity and categorisation: Neuropsychological evidence for a dissociation in explicit categorisation tasks. Cognition, 71, 1-42.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.

Sapir, E. (1994). Grading, A Study in Semantics. Philosophy of Science, 11, 93-116.

Spelke, E.S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605-632.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, 251-278.

Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings. Ed.: J.B. Carroll. MIT, New York: J.Wilky/London: Chapinaon & Hall.

Wojciszke, B. (2005a). Affective concomitants of information on morality and competence. European Psychologist, 10, 60-70.

Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A.E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1139-1147.

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 220 149 6
PDF Downloads 128 95 6