The Sound of Music: The Effect of Timbral Sound Quality in Audio Logos on Brand Personality Perception

Abstract

This research aims to advance the understanding of audio branding by investigating the effect of an understudied auditory attribute, timbre, in the context of brand audio logos. Specifically, the authors propose, and provide evidence in ten studies, that timbral sound quality in audio logos (i.e., roughness/smoothness) informs abstract judgments of brand personality (i.e., ruggedness/sophistication). Study 1 shows that the industry practice of altering instrumentation, and thus timbre, in audio logos can change personality perceptions of even well-known brands. This effect persists when the sound source is kept constant with various instruments (Studies 2a–2d), with a combination of instruments (Study 3), and in the absence of an identifiable sound source (Study 4). The authors test specific acoustic underpinnings of timbral sound quality perceptions (Study 4) and show that the effect on brand personality judgments is counteracted by incongruent sensory information from another modality (Study 5). The results of Study 6 suggest that the influence of timbral sound quality on brand personality perceptions is nonconscious, as consumers are unaware of the extent to which the stimulus affects their judgments. Study 7 shows downstream consequences for purchase intentions. Practical implications, theoretical contributions, and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

acoustics audio logo branding information processing music perception timbre sensory marketing

Although audio branding has historically been neglected compared with visual branding, the broad adoption of voice technology, which creates novel auditory brand–consumer touchpoints, has sparked industry interest (Dooley 2021). Indeed, the number of brands using audio branding elements, such as audio logos, is increasing (amp 2022). Exemplifying this trend, Mastercard recently spent millions on a new audio branding concept (Armstrong 2019). However, despite the growing popularity of audio branding, a flourishing literature on sensory marketing has dedicated less attention to the auditory modality than to other sensory modalities (e.g., Krishna and Schwarz 2014). Reflecting the relative paucity of academic research, practitioners’ understanding of how auditory parameters can be leveraged to inform consumers’ brand perceptions is often limited, forcing them to resort to intuition (Areni 2003). This research aims to advance the understanding of audio branding by examining timbre, an understudied yet ecologically important auditory parameter, and its potential to communicate a brand's personality.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) defines timbre as “that attribute of auditory sensation which enables a listener to judge that two non-identical sounds, similarly presented and having the same loudness and pitch, are dissimilar” (ANSI 1994, p. 35). This definition is traditionally used in both acoustics and music perception (e.g., McAdams 2019; Siedenburg et al. 2019) and defines timbre at a perceptual level. The perception of timbre not only provides the basis for distinguishing different sound sources (i.e., what produces the sound: e.g., instrument) but also informs differences in sound quality perceptions (i.e., what it sounds like: e.g., rough/smooth). Given the information richness of timbre, it has been referred to as the most ecologically important feature in auditory sensation (e.g., Handel 1995; Menon et al. 2002; Nunes and Ordanini 2014; Siedenburg et al. 2019). At the same time, timbre is considered the least well understood auditory property due to its complexity (e.g., Siedenburg, Jones-Mollerup, and McAdams 2016) and is understudied in marketing (Bruner 1990).

We investigate timbre as an auditory design parameter in the practically relevant context of brand audio logos, which are the core element of audio branding and the sonic equivalent of visual brand logos (Steiner 2014). Although visual logo design and its effects on consumers have received much attention in the marketing literature (e.g., Cian, Krishna, and Elder 2014; Fajardo, Zhang, and Tsiros 2016; Hagtvedt 2011; Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001; Jiang et al. 2016; Morgen, Fajardo, and Townsend 2021), audio logos have received limited attention (but see Krishnan, Kellaris, and Aurand 2012; Mas et al. 2020). Audio logos are most commonly melodic and, as such, consist of a short sequence of notes that are designed to be memorable, make a brand auditorily identifiable, and communicate a brand's image (Bronner and Hirt 2009; Krishnan and Kellaris 2021). We propose that timbre plays an important role in communicating a brand's personality, a key aspect of brand image (e.g., Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986). Specifically, we examine empirically how rough and smooth timbral sound quality systematically affects consumers’ brand personality perceptions on the dimensions of ruggedness and sophistication (Aaker 1997).

In doing so, we aim to make several substantive and theoretical contributions. To elaborate, this research provides practical insights of relevance to multiple audio branding stakeholders. That is, brand managers gain insights into the implications of using different timbres in audio logos for brand personality judgments, brand (re)positioning, and purchase intentions. In addition, by investigating a specific auditory design parameter, this research informs the growing community of specialized audio branding agencies, their audio engineers, and composers, who are tasked by brand managers to design audio logos that communicate a brand's personality. Further, this research contributes theoretically to diverse streams of literature. That is, we add to the growing literature on sensory marketing by investigating how a sensory cue can influence abstract attributes in the relatively neglected auditory modality (Krishna and Schwarz 2014). By focusing on timbral sound quality, we expand the conceptualization of timbre in marketing beyond sound source (Bruner 1990), which offers new research opportunities. Finally, we add to the literature in acoustics and music perception both by showing that timbral sound quality perception can elicit abstract meaning in terms of personality dimensions and by investigating acoustic correlates of such sound quality perceptions.

Theoretical Background

Before developing the conceptual framework, we provide a brief review of literature on music in marketing to situate the present research, organized by a distinction between molar (i.e., entire musical piece) and molecular (i.e., individual design parameter) units of analysis.

Prior Research on Music in Marketing

Music is more than the sum of its parts (Meyer 1956), and therefore it is not surprising that the majority of marketing investigations have focused on a molar approach, investigating effects of characteristics of entire musical pieces (e.g., Areni and Kim 1993; Gorn 1982; Kellaris and Cox 1989; Kellaris, Cox, and Cox 1993; McInnis and Park 1991; Nunes, Ordanini, and Valsesia 2015; Park and Young 1986; Valsesia, Nunes, and Ordanini 2016; Zhu and Meyers-Levy 2005). Although putting composite parameters aside in favor of holistic characteristics clearly has merits, this approach makes it difficult to evaluate which parameters in a piece of music create the desired effects. However, an understanding of individual parameters is important to guide their effective use and combination, as prior research suggests that much of listeners’ interpretation of music can be accounted for by the effects of individual parameters (e.g., Juslin and Lindström 2011; Scherer and Oshinsky 1977), thus supporting the merits of a molecular analysis.

Musical parameters have been broadly categorized into pitch (e.g., melody, harmony, tonality), time (e.g., tempo, rhythm, phrasing), and texture (e.g., loudness, timbre; Bruner 1990). Pitch parameters have received the most empirical attention, with many investigations studying the effects of fundamental frequency (e.g., Hagtvedt and Brasel 2016; Lowe and Haws 2017; Lowe, Loveland, and Krishna 2019) or tonality (Kellaris and Kent 1992, 1993; Knöferle et al. 2012), followed by time parameters, largely focusing on tempo (e.g., Kellaris and Kent 1993; Knöferle et al. 2012; Milliman 1986). Texture parameters, however, have received relatively little attention. Kellaris and Rice (1993) investigated effects of loudness on consumers’ hedonic responses to music, and, more closely related to the present research, Kellaris and Kent (1993) varied texture in addition to tempo and tonality to investigate effects on aesthetic judgments. Their manipulation of texture entailed a classical composition and a pop-style composition, which, as they acknowledged, varied not only in terms of the instruments used for orchestration and thus timbre, but also in terms of other musical parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this research is the first in marketing to investigate timbre in isolation and, specifically, its sound quality.

Timbre

As defined previously, the perception of timbre is based on the acoustic information remaining when pitch, duration, and loudness are equated. The perception of pitch corresponds to the lowest frequency of a tone (i.e., fundamental frequency = F₀) measured in hertz (Hz), the perception of time corresponds to seconds, and the perception of loudness corresponds to amplitude measured in decibels (dB). Whereas these three percepts are essentially based on unidimensional properties, the percept of timbre is based on multidimensional acoustic properties (Siedenburg, Jones-Mollerup, and McAdams 2016; Siedenburg et al. 2019).

The multidimensional acoustic properties of timbre can be summarized at a high level as follows: Complex sounds, such as those created by musical instruments, consist of overlaying simple waves (i.e., sinusoids); the lowest of which is F₀ (e.g., 440 Hz), whereas multiples of F₀ (e.g., 880 Hz) are referred to as partials. The spectral and temporal envelope of such partials are the acoustic basis for the perception of timbre (Roederer 2000; Siedenburg et al. 2019). The spectral envelope is a function of the different frequencies included in a complex tone and their relative amplitude (e.g., 440 Hz at 90 dB, 880 Hz at 70 dB), and the temporal envelope is a function of changes in this amplitude–frequency plane over time. While acoustically complex, this information is integrated into a perceptual gestalt (Roederer 2000; Siedenburg, Jones-Mollerup, and McAdams 2016), which can be interpreted intuitively to provide two distinct pieces of information (Siedenburg and McAdams 2017; Siedenburg et al. 2019): sound source and sound quality.

Sound source identification

Timbre is the primary vehicle for sound source recognition and identification (Handel 1995; McAdams 1993, 2013). There are some acoustic properties within timbre, called invariants, which remain constant and are “shared by objects that, at some level of description, can be considered the same” (Michaels and Carello 1981, p. 25). This allows listeners to identify and recognize sound sources depending on previous encounters (McAdams 1993). Prior conceptualizations of timbre in marketing have focused on timbre in its capacity to represent a sound source (see Bruner 1990). However, although timbre varies as a function of source, it is not equivalent to a sound source. For instance, a saxophone played with a given articulation, playing effort, and embouchure technique or added effects produces a distinct timbre despite emanating from and signifying the same sound source (McAdams and Goodchild 2017). Thus, an instrument does not create “a” timbre, but can create a wide range of timbres varying in sound quality (Siedenburg and McAdams 2017; Siedenburg et al. 2019).

Sound quality perception

Unlike sound source identification, sound quality can be interpreted independently of prior encounters. In simple terms, sound quality determines “what it sounds like” (Handel 1995, p. 426). Whereas auditory percepts based on unidimensional properties can be described along a single dimension (e.g., pitch: high–low; duration: short–long; loudness: quiet–loud), timbral sound quality resulting from the fused percept of complex spectro-temporal acoustic information can be described on multiple dimensions. As consumers lack a specific sensory vocabulary for timbral sound quality perceptions, they use semantic descriptors from other modalities (e.g., Saitis and Weinzierl 2019). The sensory dimensions, which are most often used to describe perceptions of timbral sound quality, are luminance (e.g., dark, bright), mass (e.g., heavy, light), and tactility (e.g., rough, smooth; Bismarck 1974; Saitis and Weinzierl 2019; Zacharakis, Pastiadis, and Reiss 2012, 2015). The tactile dimension enjoys high agreement across listeners cross-culturally (Zacharakis, Pastiadis, and Reiss 2012) and is the focus of the present research.

The Present Research

Mas et al. (2020) manipulated melodic contour, tempo, and loudness of audio logos and showed that although ectodermal activity, heart rate, and emotion perception were affected, brand personality was not, with timbre held constant. Our central hypothesis is that sensory information in the form of timbral sound quality elicits abstract meaning, which we test specifically in the context of the effect of rough/smooth sound quality perceptions on rugged/sophisticated brand personality perceptions (Aaker 1997). Focusing on a subset of dimensions is in line with prior empirical research on brand personality (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Batra and Homer 2004; Sundar and Noseworthy 2016).

Elicitation of Abstract Meaning Through Timbral Sound Quality

Musical stimuli can affect consumers’ interpretation of abstract meaning through an embodied and a referential route (Meyer 1956; Zhu and Meyers-Levy 2005). Referential meaning relates to meaning elicited by activating a network of associations with sound-extrinsic concepts that a stimulus brings to mind (Radocy and Boyle 2012), whereas embodied meaning is intrinsic to the stimulus and refers to meaning evoked by patterns within the sound (Meyer 1956). Timbre may trigger referential meaning by activating a network of associations that are independent of the sound itself but held with the sound source a timbre signifies (i.e., a musical instrument). However, such referential meaning activation is contingent on identifying the instrument through timbre. This research focuses on embodied meaning elicited by sound-intrinsic timbral sound quality perceptions that are not subject to this contingency and can be interpreted independent of sound source identification. Whereas previous research has conceptualized embodied meaning as “the hedonic value or positive feelings that may simply emerge from the sound within the music” (Zhu and Meyers-Levy 2005, p. 333), we propose that musical embodied meaning is not limited to a hedonic apprehension, but may elicit abstract meaning by serving as the sensory source domain in the process of scaffolding.

Scaffolding is a natural process by which consumers develop abstract knowledge structures on the basis of physical concepts acquired early in life through their sensory experience of their environment (Bargh 2006; Williams, Huang, and Bargh 2009). As such, the sensory source domain and the abstract target domain become linked, and a sensory perception can automatically activate more abstract, higher-level concepts (Williams, Huang, and Bargh 2009). The conceptual metaphor framework makes a similar argument linking physical source domains to abstract target domains that consumers cannot grasp with their senses (Lakoff and Johnson 1999). Prior research in marketing has successfully applied this theorizing in the visual modality, for instance, to uncover that up vertical positions cue associations with rationality, whereas down vertical positions cue associations with emotionality (Cian, Krishna, and Schwarz 2015).

We propose that rough timbral sound quality perceptions cue associations with ruggedness characteristics such as rugged, tough, strong, and powerful, whereas smooth timbral sound quality perceptions cue associations with sophistication characteristics, such as sophisticated, glamorous, prestigious, and high-class (Aaker 1997). To elaborate, “rough” can be defined as having an uneven and bumpy surface and “smooth” as having an even and continuous surface (Merriam-Webster 2022a, b). It is thus conceivable that abstract personality characteristics related to the ruggedness or sophistication dimension derive their meaning—at least in part—from these perceptual dimensions. That is, although abstract concepts, such as personality characteristics, cannot be directly grasped with the senses (Lakoff and Johnson 1999), they can be described and understood at a more concrete and intuitive level in terms of sensory perceptions as being rough, uneven, irregular, jagged, or hard (vs. smooth, even, regular, level, or soft). For instance, a rugged personality can be described as being “rough around the edges” and a sophisticated personality as “well rounded.” A dictionary review suggests a semantic association between these sensory perceptions and abstract personality dimensions (see Web Appendix A). These associations were confirmed by an implicit association test (N = 87; Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998) showing that consumers categorize words reflecting the dimensions of roughness, smoothness, ruggedness, and sophistication faster when grouping them in congruent (i.e., rough/rugged vs. smooth/sophisticated) versus incongruent (rough/sophisticated vs. smooth/rugged) categories (M_DScore = .72, SD_DScore = .39; t(86) = 17.32, p < .001, d = 1.86; see Web Appendix B).

Acoustics Underpinnings of Timbral Sound Quality and Their Relation to Abstract Meaning

While these results show such a relationship at a purely semantic level, scaffolding suggests that sensory perception could directly trigger abstract meaning. In the following, we propose acoustic underpinnings of rough (smooth) timbral sound qualities and suggest that they may trigger a rugged (sophisticated) personality due to the physical acts of sound elicitation that they often arise from, which can be naturally tied to ruggedness (sophistication) characteristics.

Rough timbral sound quality

We propose that rough sound quality perception is, at least in part, a function of attack time and sensory dissonance. Attack time is a significant aspect of the temporal envelope and denotes the time from tone onset until its maximum amplitude is reached (e.g., McAdams 2013). The shorter the attack time, the steeper is the slope of the temporal envelope. This is often the case when a tone is elicited relatively abruptly. Sensory dissonance (also referred to as auditory roughness) is a function of the closeness of the frequencies of sinusoids (e.g., Farbood and Price 2017; Sethares 1998). Adding inharmonic partials (i.e., fractional multiples of F₀; e.g., 440 Hz × 1.2 = 528 Hz) leads to a closer pairing of frequencies as they occupy spaces between harmonic partials (i.e., integer multiples of F₀; Farbood and Price 2017), and closely paired frequencies are difficult to resolve by the cochlea, a part of the hearing system (Saitis and Weinzierl 2019; Sethares 1998). Sensory dissonance can be achieved through the addition of inharmonic partials via instrument specific techniques (e.g., forceful embouchure in brass instruments, increased bow pressure in string instruments) or added effects (e.g., overdrive or distortion effects through signal clipping; Tsai et al. 2010). Shorter attack times and sensory dissonance are often a function of a physical mechanism of sound elicitation that is more abrupt, demanding, and forceful, resulting in waveforms that also look irregular, uneven, jagged, and rough (see Figure 1, Panel A). Consequently, due to the natural correlation between more forceful and abrupt physical acts of sound elicitation and a rough sound quality, manifested as shorter attack time and sensory dissonance in the acoustic realm, a rugged personality may be directly evoked.

Figure 1.

Illustrative Oscillograms.

Smooth timbral sound quality

We propose that smooth sound quality perception is, at least in part, a function of attack time and frequency modulation. To elaborate, the longer the attack time is, the gentler is the slope of the temporal envelope. This is often the case when a tone is elicited in a more gradual fashion. Frequency modulation is a regular and continuous variation in the signal frequency according to the instantaneous value of the modulating waveform along with a cyclical modulation in amplitude. Vibrato articulation, which can be used on all pitched instruments, introduces such frequency modulation, typically within the range of 4–6 Hz (e.g., Fritz et al. 2010; Maher 2008). It can be achieved through instrument-specific techniques (e.g., embouchure techniques for wind instruments, or gentle backward and forward rocking of the finger that cyclically alters the vibrating length of the string for string instruments) or added effects. Longer attack times and frequency modulation are often a function of a more gradual, delicate, and precise mechanism of sound production, with resulting waveforms that also look cyclical, regular, even, and smooth (see Figure 1, Panel B). Consequently, due to the natural correlation between more gradual and gentle physical acts of sound elicitation and a smoother sound quality, manifested as longer attack time and vibrato frequency modulation in the acoustic realm, a sophisticated personality may directly be evoked.

Cross-Modal Integration of Sensory Qualities in Abstract Meaning Elicitation

We have argued that sensory information in the form of rough (smooth) timbral sound quality may elicit embodied meaning in terms of a rugged (sophisticated) brand personality through the process of scaffolding. To the extent that this is the case, sensory information from other modalities (e.g., rough- or smooth-looking visuals) should have a similar effect. Thus, the elicited abstract meaning should be jointly determined by perceptions of accessible sensory information across modalities. Such an account of cross-modal sensory integration suggests an important boundary condition. That is, visual sensory information that is incongruent with timbral sound quality—such as a rough (smooth) visual logo presented alongside a smooth (rough) audio logo—should counteract the effect of sound quality on brand personality perceptions.

Transfer of Abstract Meaning Elicited by Timbral Sound Quality to Brands

Prior research suggests that consumers frequently infer values of unspecified attributes using available information (e.g., Ahluwalia, Unnava, and Burnkrant 2001), and, specifically, sensory cues have been shown to lead to inferences about abstract attributes (Krishna 2012). For instance, vowel sounds in brand names (Yorkston and Menon 2004) or absolute shifts in pitch in music (Lowe and Haws 2017) have been shown to influence consumers’ impressions of brand and product attributes. However, the question arises whether timbral sound quality in brand audio logos influences brand personality judgments in a controlled or nonconscious manner. To elaborate, timbral sound quality is intuitive to interpret and, given the ecological relevance of timbre in auditory events in general, consumers may be particularly attuned to it, making it, arguably, highly accessible. In addition, audio logos are created or commissioned by a brand and, as such, arguably have some diagnostic value for the formation of brand perceptions. Thus, it is conceivable that consumers may use accessible timbral sound quality in a controlled manner as a function of its informative value for brand judgments (Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988). Alternatively, consumers may be unaware of the extent to which sound quality influences judgments, and use it nonconsciously as a function of its mere accessibility, irrespective of how informative it is (Menon and Raghubir 2003; Raghubir 2008).

Empirical Overview

We test our theorizing in ten studies. Study 1 shows that changing instrumentation and thus timbre in an otherwise identical audio logo systematically affects brand perceptions of a well-known brand (Coca-Cola). Studies 2a–2d, using different visual and audio logos drawing from four major instrument families, show that rough (smooth) timbral sound quality systematically affects ruggedness (sophistication) brand personality perceptions even when the sound source (i.e., instrument) is kept constant. Study 3 replicates and generalizes the effect to polyphonic orchestrations (i.e., multiple sound sources) and assesses brand personality between participants. Study 4 provides evidence for the proposed acoustic correlates of rough and smooth sound quality perceptions by manipulating them directly through additive synthesis, examines their effect in comparison with a “clean” reference timbre as a control condition, and generalizes the effect of sound quality to unidentifiable sound sources. Study 5 shows that visual brand logos that are perceptually incongruent with the sound quality of an audio logo counteract the effect of timbral sound quality on brand personality perceptions. Study 6 tests whether the transfer of meaning elicited by timbral sound quality to a brand is a controlled or nonconscious process and shows that, consistent with a nonconscious process, the effect of timbral sound quality persists when its informativeness is discredited. Finally, Study 7 shows downstream consequences for purchase intentions. All data and materials are available at https://osf.io/64c3e/?view_only=a7401069d8824b6998b287d5781ccf4d.

In the following, we elaborate on the experimental procedure common across all studies.

Sound check

At the beginning of each study, participants listened to a sound file containing a short verbal message, which was followed by a surprise sound check. Since manipulations are auditory, participants who failed the sound check were directed out of the survey and were not assigned to an experimental condition (see Web Appendix C).

Manipulation

Across studies, participants were presented with short videos containing brand visual and audio logos (i.e., short melodies). Audio logos were created in consultation with a composer and music editor using industry standard tools: the digital audio work station Pro Tools and the high-fidelity virtual instrument packages Komplete Ultimate and EastWest (except Study 4, which used an additive synthesis approach in MATLAB). Timbre was manipulated between conditions, and duration, pitch, and loudness were kept constant across conditions according to the ANSI (1994) definition (see Web Appendix D for integrated loudness measurement and equation; Web Appendix E for pictures of visual brand logos, musical notation of auditory stimuli, and extracted audio descriptors for all studies; and Web Appendix F for an explanation of audio descriptors).

Supplemental measures

We assessed self-rated musical proficiency in all studies, which did not affect the results and is therefore not discussed further (see Web Appendix G).

Study 1: Changing Instrumentation in Brand Audio Logos

Timbre is an absolute musical parameter, such as tempo or tonality, and is therefore less relevant for the identity of a piece of music, which is based on relative relationships of pitch and time aspects (Schellenberg, Iverson, and McKinnon 1999). To illustrate, the recognition of “Happy Birthday” should be relatively unaffected whether played with a guitar or violin, faster or slower, in C or F major, as long as its melody, the pitch- and time-related intervallic structure, is preserved. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, it is not uncommon for some brands to change the instrumentation of their audio logo to fit different ad themes while maintaining their identity signaling function. Although admittedly changing instrumentation not only changes timbral sound quality but also sound source, Study 1 mimicked this industry practice to investigate whether changing timbre affects personality perceptions in ways that are potentially unbeknownst to brand managers. We used a well-known brand, Coca-Cola, which has a propensity to vary instrumentation in its existing audio logo melody and is considered among the top U.S. audio brands (amp 2021).

Method

We aimed to recruit at least 50 students per condition but collected responses from as many participants available in the laboratory (N = 148; 76 female, 72 male; M_age = 20.09 years, SD = .94). They were presented with a video containing the visual logo and audio logo melody of Coca-Cola and assigned at random to one of two instrumentation conditions: rough e-guitar (string plucked and distortion added for shorter attack time and sensory dissonance) or smooth violin (string bowed and vibrato articulation for longer attack time and frequency modulation). To account for existing personality perceptions, we assessed all five brand personality dimensions on seven-point scales. In line with prior research, we assessed each dimension with four items (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Sundar and Noseworthy 2016): ruggedness (tough, strong, powerful, rugged; α = .81), sophistication (glamorous, sophisticated, prestigious, high-class; α = .91), competence (efficient, reliable, responsible, dependable; α = .81), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date; α = .69), and sincerity (honest, domestic, genuine, cheerful; α = .78; Aaker 1997; see Web Appendix H for item selection). In this and all following studies, all personality items were presented in randomized order. Participants then rated rough and smooth sound quality (order randomized) on seven-point scales and answered exploratory questions (see Web Appendix I).

Results

Sound quality perception

A 2 (instrumentation: rough e-guitar, smooth violin) × 2 (sound quality perception: rough, smooth) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed an effect of timbre, F(1, 146) = 4.95, p = .028, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03; a marginal effect of sound quality, F(1, 146) = 3.67, p = .057, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03; and a significant interaction, F(1, 146) = 148.85, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .51. Participants perceived the e-guitar version (M = 5.09, SD = 1.56) as rougher than the violin version (M = 2.11, SD = 1.36; F(1, 146) = 153.70, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .51) and the violin version as smoother (M = 5.24, SD = 1.65) than the e-guitar version (M = 2.81, SD = 1.60; F(1, 146) = 82.60, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .36). Viewed differently, participants rated the e-guitar version as more rough than smooth (F(1, 146) = 52.88, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .27) and the violin version as more smooth than rough (F(1, 146) = 99.65, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .41).

Brand personality perception

A 2 (instrumentation: rough e-guitar, smooth violin) × 5 (brand personality: competence, excitement, sincerity, ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVA revealed no effect of timbre (F < 1), a significant effect of brand personality (F(4, 584) = 23.61, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .14), and an interaction (F(4, 584) = 39.60, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .21). Participants perceived Coca-Cola as more rugged in the e-guitar condition than in the violin condition, and more sophisticated in the violin condition than in the e-guitar condition (ps < .001). Unexpectedly, participants also perceived Coca-Cola as more exciting in the e-guitar condition than in the violin condition (p = .016). Competence and sincerity perceptions did not differ between instrumentation conditions (Fs < 1). In the e-guitar condition, participants perceived Coca-Cola as more rugged than sophisticated (F(1, 146) = 95.72, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .40), whereas in the violin condition, participants perceived Coca-Cola as more sophisticated than rugged (F(1, 146) = 14.69, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .09; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Coca-Cola Brand Personality Perception in Study 1.

Personality Dimension	Timbre Condition		Between-Group Comparison Statistics
Personality Dimension	Rough E-Guitar	Smooth Violin	Between-Group Comparison Statistics
Competence	4.07 (1.25)	4.25^a (1.18)	F < 1
Excitement	4.32^a (1.12)	3.86^b (1.70)	F(1, 146) = 5.94, p = .016, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04
Sincerity	4.31^a (1.10)	4.49 (1.34)	F < 1
Ruggedness	4.62 (1.30)	3.35 (1.19)	F(1, 146) = 38.40, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .21
Sophistication	2.81 (1.18)	4.06^a,b (1.54)	F(1, 146) = 30.66, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .17

Notes: Means with common superscripts are not significantly different from each other within condition at p < .05.

Discussion

These results suggest that the industry practice of changing instrumentation, and thus timbre, in audio logos can change personality perceptions of even a well-known brand. Further, the effect of rough e-guitar (smooth violin) timbre was relatively specific to ruggedness (sophistication). We report a conceptual replication with Intel showing similar results in Web Appendix J. Since different instruments were used, these effects may also have been driven by sound-extrinsic referential meaning arising from identification of the respective sound source. In the following studies, we manipulated sound quality while keeping the sound source constant.

Studies 2a–2d: Manipulating Sound Quality While Keeping Source Constant

Studies 2a–2d aimed to demonstrate the effect of timbral sound quality in audio logos on brand personality perceptions while keeping the sound source constant across four primary instrument families to demonstrate generalizability: guitars (e.g., e-guitar), classical strings (e.g., violin), keyboards (e.g., organ), and wind instruments (e.g., saxophone). Across conditions we manipulated the sound quality (i.e., rough vs. smooth) through musical articulation. In the rough sound quality condition, tone onset was relatively more sudden to decrease attack time. Sensory dissonance through addition of inharmonic partials was achieved through emulation of instrument-specific articulation techniques (bowing pressure for strings, embouchure for wind instrument) or commonly used effects (overdrive for organ, distortion for guitar). In the smooth sound quality condition, tone onset was relatively more gradual and gentler to increase attack time. Vibrato articulation was used to introduce frequency modulation.

Method

The studies were conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), and we aimed to collect 50 participants per cell for a two-cell design for each instrument (Study 2a: e-guitar: N = 101; 45 female, 54 male, 2 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 39.24 years, SD = 10.82; Study 2b: violin: N = 100; 45 female, 54 male, 1 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 40.43 years, SD = 13.08; Study 2c: organ: N = 100; 49 female, 50 male, 1 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 40.48 years, SD = 11.70; Study 2d: saxophone: N = 100; 49 female, 47 male, 4 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 40.51 years, SD = 12.62). In all studies, participants were presented with a short video, in which they saw a unique brand name and logo (2a: Molia; 2b: Zalan; 2c: Instru-Tech; 2d: Velix) accompanied by a unique audio logo melody composition, whose sound quality (rough or smooth) was manipulated between subjects.

Participants then indicated brand perceptions on the dimensions of ruggedness (αs = .88, .86, .84, and .87) and sophistication (αs = .92, .96, .92, and .97) followed by sound quality perceptions (as in Study 1) and were asked to identify the instrument in an open-ended format. Identification was coded at the instrument family level in this and the following studies, in line with prior research (e.g., Giordano and McAdams 2010; see Web Appendix K for details).

Results

Source identification

Participants identified the instrument at different rates as a function of sound quality in Studies 2a and 2d (see Table 2), which is addressed subsequently.

Table 2.

Source Identification in Studies 2a–2d.

Study	Instrument	Identification Overall	Identification of Rough Sound Quality	Identification of Smooth Sound Quality	Comparison Statistics
2a	Guitar	68.3%	92.2%	44%	χ²(1) = 27.05, p < .001
2b	Violin	70%	64.7%	75.5%	χ²(1) = 1.39, p = .239
2c	Organ	57%	52%	62%	χ²(1) = 1.02, p = .313
2d	Saxophone	62%	50%	74%	χ²(1) = 6.11, p = .013

Sound quality perception

Across Studies 2a–2d, 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (sound quality perception: roughness, smoothness) mixed ANOVAs revealed the predicted cross-over interactions (Fs ≥ 35.79, ps < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ ≥ .27). Rough audio logo versions were perceived as rougher than the respective smooth versions and vice versa (ps < .001). Viewed differently, rough audio logo versions were perceived as more rough than smooth, and smooth audio logo versions were perceived as more smooth than rough (ps ≤ .027; see Web Appendix L for detailed reporting).

Brand personality perception

Across Studies 2a–2d, 2 (timbral sound quality: rough, smooth) × 2 (brand personality perception: ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVAs all revealed the predicted cross-over interaction (Fs ≥ 29.55, ps < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ ≥ .23; see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Brand Personality Perception (± SE) in Studies 2a–2d.

As identification rates differed significantly in Studies 2a and 2d we reanalyzed them including source identification as a factor in the model. However, source identification yielded neither main effects (ps ≥ .145) nor interaction effects (ps ≥ .246).

Discussion

Studies 2a–2d showed that, keeping the musical instrument constant, changes in the timbral sound quality in otherwise identical audio logos systematically affected brand personality judgments across a variety of musical instruments, melodies, fictitious brand names, and logos.

Study 3: Polyphonic Timbre Mix

Instead of using a single instrument (i.e., monophonic orchestration; Study 2), multiple instruments can be used in the orchestration of an audio logo, creating a sound quality that emerges from their combination: a polyphonic “timbre mix” (e.g., Nunes and Ordanini 2014). Study 3 extends the investigation to polyphonic timbres by orchestrating a unique audio logo composition for violin, cello, e-guitar, and trumpet and creating rough and smooth versions. In addition, we assessed brand personality perceptions between participants.

Method

We aimed to collect 50 participants per cell for a four-cell design on MTurk (N = 200; 105 female, 94 male, 1 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 41.59 years, SD = 12.38). Participants were presented with a short video of the fictitious brand JoMa. We manipulated timbral sound quality as well as the assessment of brand personality dimension (ruggedness: α = .86; sophistication: α = .96) between participants. Participants also indicated sound quality perceptions on a single scale (1 = “rather rough,” and 7 = “rather smooth”). Given that multiple instruments were used, participants indicated how many different instruments they heard (in an open-ended question), which did not differ between conditions (M_overall = 2.13, SD_overall = .86; Fs ≤ 2.72, ps ≥ .101, $η_{p}^{2}$ ≤ .01).

Results

Sound quality perception

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (brand personality perception: ruggedness, sophistication) between-subjects ANOVA on sound quality perception revealed only a significant main effect of timbral sound quality (F(3, 196) = 48.71, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .20; all other Fs < 1), such that the rough timbre was perceived as more rough (M = 3.67, SD = 1.62) and the smooth timbre was perceived as more smooth (M = 5.13, SD = 1.32).

Brand personality perception

The same ANOVA on brand personality perception revealed only a significant interaction (F(3, 196) = 20.66, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10; all other Fs < 1) such that in the rough sound quality condition, ratings were higher for ruggedness than for sophistication (M = 4.42, SD = 1.32 vs. M = 3.45, SD = 1.55; F(1, 196) = 11.49, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06). The reverse pattern occurred in the smooth sound quality condition (ruggedness: M = 3.60, SD = 1.46; sophistication: M = 4.47, SD = 1.38; F(1, 196) = 9.24, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05).

Conversely, when ruggedness was assessed, ratings were higher in the rough condition (F(1, 196) = 8.31, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04), and when sophistication was assessed, ratings were higher in the smooth condition (F(1, 196) = 12.58, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06).

Discussion

Study 3 showed that the effect of timbral sound quality extends to a fused timbre mix emerging from a polyphonic orchestration and replicates the effect when brand personality perceptions are measured between participants versus within participants. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated generalizability of the effect across various instrumentations. Although source identification did not change the pattern of results, effects of timbral sound quality could not be shown in the absence of an identifiable source. Also, while being reflective of real-world listening contexts, altering sound quality through musical articulations does not allow for an isolated manipulation of the proposed acoustic underpinnings. Finally, Studies 2 and 3 did not include a reference to which rough and smooth sound quality could be compared. Study 4 aimed to address these shortcomings.

Study 4: Manipulating Sound Quality Through Additive Synthesis

In this study, we created timbres using additive synthesis (i.e., layering of sinusoids) in MATLAB, which uniquely allows for a more precise and controlled manipulation of the spectral and temporal envelope. This has three advantages: (1) we can create timbres that do not correspond to any existing sound source, allowing any effects to be uniquely attributed to timbral sound quality; (2) we can manipulate acoustic correlates of interest directly and in isolation (vs. indirectly through musical articulation, which may also affect other parameters); and (3) we can create a “clean” reference timbre as a control condition.

We created an artificial timbre for a three-tone melody (D5: F₀ = 587 Hz; E5: F₀ = 659 Hz; A4: F₀ = 440 Hz) in MATLAB. That is, for each tone, a spectral envelope was created on the basis of the respective F₀ that consisted of only ten harmonic partials (i.e., integer multiples of F₀), whereby the amplitude of each harmonic partial (A_n) was an inverse function of its rank, n, according to A_n = k × 1/n (see Caclin et al. 2005). The temporal envelope of each tone consisted of 150 ms attack time part (exponential rise to maximum amplitude), a 1,800 ms sustain part (no change in amplitude), and an exponential decay of 50 ms (return to zero amplitude). This served as the reference timbre. Harmonic partials remained the same across all stimuli, as did decay time and total duration (2,000 ms). The attack portions of the rough and smooth timbre were set to 100 ms above and below the reference timbre (50 ms and 250 ms, respectively), with according adjustment of sustain time (1,900 ms and 1,700 ms for rough and smooth, respectively). For the rough timbre, we added inharmonic partials above and below each harmonic partial f_n according to γ = .18 as follows: f_n (1 – 3γ); f_n (1 – 2γ); f_n (1 – γ); f_n (1 + γ); f_n (1 + 2γ); f_n (1 + 3γ). The amplitude of these inharmonic partials was set to 40% of the respective neighboring harmonic partial n (e.g., Farbood and Price 2017). In the smooth timbre, we added frequency modulation to the harmonic series by manipulating the period length corresponding to the nth harmonic determined according to T_n = T₀ (1 + a_mod sin (2 π n f_mod T₀)), where T₀ is the period corresponding to the nominal frequency of the harmonic partial f_n, f_mod is the modulation frequency (5.5 Hz), and a_mod is the modulation amplitude (.000125) (e.g., Fritz et al. 2010). Thus, the attack time of the reference timbre was exactly between the rougher and smoother timbre. Keeping harmonic partials constant, only the rough timbre contained inharmonic partials and only the smooth timbre contained frequency modulation.

Method

As these stylized timbres provide a less rich signal than musical instruments, we doubled the sample size to 100 participants per condition for a three-cell design on MTurk (N = 301; 151 female, 147 male, 3 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 41.34 years, SD = 11.83). Participants were presented with a short video showing the fictional brand Altino, including the audio logo in one of the three timbre versions. Then, they rated ruggedness (α = .87), sophistication (α = .96), and sound quality as in previous studies. However, participants were not asked to identify the source, as it could not be identified.

Results

Sound quality perception

A 3 (timbre: reference, rough, smooth) × 2 (sound quality perception: roughness, smoothness) mixed ANOVA revealed no effect of timbre (F(1, 298) = 1.92, p = .149, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .91), an effect of sound quality perception (F(1, 298) = 72.36, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .20), and an interaction (F(2, 298) = 77.73, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .34). Participants perceived the reference timbre as more rough (M = 4.21, SD = 2.05) than smooth (M = 3.32, SD = 1.93; F(1, 298) = 7.42, p = .007, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02), with the pattern exacerbated for the rough timbre (roughness: M = 6.23, SD = 1.26; smoothness: M = 1.41, SD = .91; F(1, 298) = 211.60, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .42) and reversed for the smooth timbre (roughness: M = 3.22, SD = 2.19; smoothness: M = 4.08, SD = 1.90; F(1, 298) = 6.93, p = .009, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02). Compared with the reference timbre, the rougher timbre was perceived as rougher (F(1, 298) = 57.96, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .23), and the smoother timbre was perceived as smoother (F(1, 298) = 10.73, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05).

Brand personality perception

The same ANOVA on brand personality perceptions revealed effects of timbre (F(2, 298) = 4.54, p = .011, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03), brand personality (F(1, 298) = 20.96, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07), and the predicted interaction (F(2, 298) = 62.09, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .29). Participants in the reference condition perceived Altino as similarly rugged and sophisticated (F(1, 298) = 1.03, p = .310, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003). Participants in the rough condition perceived Altino as more rugged than sophisticated (F(1, 298) = 126.16, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .30), and participants in the smooth condition perceived Altino as more sophisticated than rugged (F(1, 298) = 17.93, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06). Compared with the reference condition, Altino was perceived as more rugged in the rough condition (F(1, 298) = 9.25, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04) and more sophisticated in the smooth condition (F(1, 298) = 14.36, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07; see Figure 3 for all means).

Figure 3.

Brand Personality Perception (± SE) in Study 4.

Discussion

These results demonstrated that the effect of timbral sound quality on brand personality perceptions persists in the absence of an identifiable sound source. In addition, these results provide evidence for the proposed acoustic underpinnings of rough and smooth sound quality, as their direct and isolated manipulation produces the effect in comparison with a reference timbre.

Study 5: Moderation by Incongruent Visual Sensory Information

To the extent that abstract judgments of brand personality draw from embodied meaning elicited by sensory cues, sensory information across different modalities should be recruited jointly, and in a similar way, to inform brand personality perceptions in an integrated fashion. Thus, visual sensory information that is incongruent with sound quality should counteract the effect of sound quality on brand perceptions. Prior research suggests that angular shapes are perceived as hard or rough, whereas round shapes are perceived as soft or smooth (Jiang et al. 2016). Thus, the joint presentation of a visual brand logo whose sensory quality is incongruent with the timbral sound quality of the audio logo (i.e., an angular visual logo alongside a smooth-sounding audio logo, or a round visual logo alongside a rough-sounding audio logo) should attenuate the effect of timbral sound quality on brand personality perceptions. To test this, we created an angular logo version for the fictitious brand Mahk using a block font and a triangle shape, and we created a round logo version for the same brand using a cursive font and an oval shape, as depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Visual Brand Logos in Study 5.

In a pretest, undergraduate students (N = 91) saw one of the two versions and rated how rough and smooth the respective logo looked (on seven-point scales). The angular logo was perceived as more rough than smooth, and the round logo was perceived as more smooth than rough, with all four contrasts being significant (ps < .001; F_interaction(1, 89) = 48.74, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .35; see Web Appendix M). For audio logos, we used the stimuli developed in Study 3 (MTurk population) and conducted a similar pretest with undergraduate students for the polyphonic audio logos, affirming that the rough-sounding version was perceived as more rough than smooth and the smooth-sounding version was perceived as more smooth than rough (N = 103; all four contrast ps < .001; F_interaction (1, 101) = 58.95, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .37; see Web Appendix N).

Method

We aimed to recruit at least 50 students per cell for a three-cell design but collected as many responses as were available in the laboratory (N = 183; 100 female, 79 male, 4 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 20.21 years, SD = 1.30). Participants were assigned at random to one of three conditions: rough congruent (rough audio–rough visual logo), smooth congruent (smooth audio–smooth visual logo), and incongruent (rough audio–smooth visual logo or smooth audio–rough visual logo). Participants assigned to the incongruent condition were further assigned to one of its two versions, as the proposed cross-modal sensory integration account would suggest that the two aspects of incongruent sensory information should counteract each other. Thus, the two incongruent versions should yield comparable brand personality perceptions, justifying the collapse of these versions into one condition. Participants indicated brand personality perceptions (ruggedness: α = .81; sophistication: α = .93).

Results

Combination of incongruent versions

A 2 (incongruent audio–visual logos version: rough audio–smooth visual, smooth audio–rough visual) × 2 (brand personality perception: ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVA revealed no significant effects (all Fs < 1). Brand personality perceptions (rough audio–smooth visual: ruggedness M = 3.53, SD = 1.43, sophistication M = 3.38, SD = 1.26; smooth audio–rough visual: ruggedness M = 3.23, SD = 1.36, sophistication M = 3.46, SD = 1.53) did not differ within or between incongruent versions, justifying the combination of the two versions into a single audio–visual logo incongruent condition.

Brand personality perception

A 3 (audio–visual logo combination: rough congruent, incongruent, smooth congruent) × 2 (brand personality perception: ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVA revealed no effect of brand personality (F(1, 180) = 2.11, p = .148, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01), a significant effect of audio–visual logo combination (F(2, 180) = 5.43, p = .005, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06), and an interaction (F(2, 180) = 47.90, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .35). In the rough congruent condition, participants perceived Mahk as more rugged than sophisticated (F(1, 180) = 33.04, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .16), whereas in the smooth congruent condition, participants perceived Mahk as more sophisticated than rugged (F(1, 180) = 64.83, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .27). In the incongruent condition, brand personality perceptions did not differ (F < 1). Furthermore, in the incongruent condition, ruggedness perceptions were reduced compared with the rough congruent condition (F(1, 180) = 4.89, p = .028, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04), and sophistication perceptions were reduced compared with the smooth congruent condition (F(1, 180) = 27.23, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .18; see Figure 5 for all means).

Figure 5.

Brand Personality Perception (± SE) in Study 5.

Discussion

The results of Study 5 showed that incongruent visual information can counteract the effect of timbral sound quality on personality perception. This speaks to the proposed embodied link between rough/smooth sensory qualities and rugged/sophisticated personality perceptions and to the proposed cross-modal sensory integration account, according to which sensory information from different modalities is jointly recruited to influence abstract meaning elicitation in an integrated fashion. As audio and visual logos are often presented jointly, these results also suggest a practically relevant boundary condition.

Study 6: Controllable or Nonconscious Process?

The primary goal of Study 6 was to investigate the process by which timbral sound quality in audio logos affects brand personality perceptions. Bargh (1989) proposed that an automatic process is effortless, outside of awareness, unintentional, and uncontrollable. Many processes have one or more of these characteristics (Raghubir 2008; Figure 7.1, p. 146). For example, a nonconscious process is one where consumers are aware of the stimulus, but unaware of the extent of its influence (Fitzsimons et al. 2002). Prior research has tested for such a process by discrediting the informativeness of a stimulus (Menon and Raghubir 2003; Yorkston and Menon 2004). If discrediting the informativeness of a stimulus eliminates an effect, that is consistent with a conscious and controlled process (e.g., Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988). If the effect persists, then the process is nonconscious if consumers are aware of the stimulus but only partially aware of the extent of its influence on their judgments (Menon and Raghubir 2003).

Leveraging this paradigm, we examined the effect of discrediting the informativeness of auditory information for a brand. To make for a conservative test, we used the brand Intel, a well-known brand with competence as a core personality dimension. A pretest on MTurk (N = 50) displaying a short video of the visual Intel logo without sound showed that consumers are familiar with Intel (M = 5.84, SD = 1.45) and perceive it as predominantly competent (α = .89: M = 5.31, SD = 1.26; seven-point scales as in Study 1), versus exciting (α = .85: M = 4.17, SD = 1.47), sincere (α = .78: M = 4.51, SD = 1.16), rugged (α = .90: M = 4.04, SD = 1.55), or sophisticated (α = .89: M = 4.15, SD = 1.43; all ps < .001). Importantly, the pretest also revealed no difference between ruggedness and sophistication perceptions (p = .511).

Method

This study followed a 2 (timbral sound quality: rough, smooth) × 2 (audio information: audio logo, unrelated audio) × 3 (brand personality: competence, ruggedness, sophistication) mixed design with the third factor varying within participants. To be able to detect a three-way interaction, we aimed to collect 100 participants per condition on MTurk (N = 400; 187 female, 208 male, 5 preferred not to indicate; M_age = 42.62 years, SD = 13.40). Participants in the audio logo condition were informed that they were going to be presented with a video including the Intel brand visual logo and audio logo melody, while those in the unrelated audio condition were told that they would see the Intel visual logo and a melody composed by the researchers that was not connected to the brand. In fact, we reversed the Intel audio logo melody in the unrelated audio condition so that participants would not recognize it. While reversing a melody makes it unrecognizable, pitches and their respective duration are kept constant, satisfying the definition of timbre (ANSI 1994). We used e-piano presets in a synthesizer for the rough and smooth versions to create a sound design in the spirit of the original.

As an attention check, participants had to correctly select the information they had received about what the video would include: visual logo only, visual logo and audio logo melody, visual logo and unrelated melody. Participants who failed this check were directed out of the survey. Next, participants indicated their familiarity with the brand Intel, which was high (M = 5.19, SD = 1.57) and did not differ across conditions (all Fs < 1). After seeing the brand video, participants indicated brand personality perceptions of competence (α = .93), ruggedness (α = .85), and sophistication (α = .91). We included competence as the pretest results show that consumers predominantly perceive the familiar brand Intel as competent, an established brand personality perception that should not be influenced by timbral sound quality manipulations. To examine the perceived extent of the influence of auditory information, they then indicated the extent to which (1) their brand knowledge and experience, (2) the brand visual logo and the brand name, and (3) the sound of the brand audio logo melody or unrelated melody were informative for their perception of Intel (seven-point scales). Finally, participants rated sound quality perceptions and were asked to identify the sound source. We expected prior brand knowledge to be perceived as most informative, as consumers viewing a video of a familiar brand should predominantly draw on existing brand knowledge (Campbell and Keller 2003). Importantly, informativeness of the sound of the unrelated melody should be lower than that of the sound of the audio logo melody.

For brand personality perceptions, we expected competence (i.e., core dimension) ratings to be higher than ruggedness and sophistication ratings in all conditions, given participants’ prior brand knowledge as a diagnostic information source for a familiar brand. In addition, we expected our effect to replicate in the audio logo condition: higher ruggedness than sophistication perceptions in the rough sound quality condition, and higher sophistication than ruggedness perceptions in the smooth sound quality condition. The pattern in the unrelated audio condition would speak to process: If consumers use auditory information as a function of its informativeness in a controlled manner, we would expect differences between ruggedness and sophistication as a function of sound quality to be attenuated. However, if consumers use auditory information nonconsciously, irrespective of perceived informativeness, we would expect the pattern to be similar to the audio logo condition.

Results

Source identification

A logistic regression with sound quality, audio information, and their interaction as predictors revealed only a marginally significant main effect of sound quality manipulation (b = .61, SE = .34, Wald χ²(1) = 3.22, p = .073; rough: 65.0%; smooth: 79.3%; all other effects, p ≥ .109). Differential source identification is addressed subsequently.

Informativeness

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (audio information: audio logo, unrelated audio) × 3 (informativeness: audio information, visual logo, brand knowledge) mixed ANOVA revealed a main effect of informativeness (F(2, 792) = 112.12, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .23), a marginal main effect of sound quality (F(1, 396) = 3.66, p = .056, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01), and an interaction between audio information and informativeness (F(2, 792) = 21.09, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05; for all other effects, Fs < 1). Collapsed across sound quality manipulation, participants rated brand knowledge as most informative (audio logo: M = 4.32, SD = 1.28; unrelated audio: M = 4.57, SD = 1.42; F(1, 396) = 3.22, p = .074, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01), followed by the visual logo (audio logo: M = 3.82, SD = 1.45; unrelated audio: M = 3.84, SD = 1.45; F < 1) and the sound of the melody (ps ≤ .002). Importantly, the sound of the melody was rated significantly less informative in the unrelated audio condition (M = 2.63, SD = 1.57) than in the audio logo condition (M = 3.49, SD = 1.57; F(1, 396) = 29.54, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07), indicating a successful manipulation.

Sound quality perception

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (audio information: audio logo, unrelated audio) × 2 (sound quality perception: rough, smooth) mixed ANOVA revealed only main effects of sound quality perception (F(1, 396) = 8.98, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02), sound quality manipulation (F(1, 396) = 5.38, p = .021, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01), and their interaction (F(1, 396) = 294.24, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .43; for all other effects, Fs ≤ 1.29, ps ≥ .256). Collapsed across audio information, participants perceived the rough melody (M = 4.96, SD = 1.66) as rougher than the smooth one (M = 2.38, SD = 1.47; F(1, 396) = 274.18, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .41) and the smooth melody (M = 5.25, SD = 1.43) as smoother than the rough one (M = 2.95, SD = 1.66; F(1, 396) = 221.49, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .36). Viewed differently, participants perceived the rough melody as more rough than smooth (F(1, 396) = 98.70, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .20) and the smooth melody as more smooth than rough (F(1, 396) = 206.16, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .34), indicating a successful manipulation check, such that timbral sound quality was orthogonal to the audio information manipulation.

Brand personality perception

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (audio information: audio logo, unrelated audio) × 3 (brand personality: competence, ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVA revealed a main effect of brand personality (F(2, 792) = 136.60, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .26) and a two-way interaction of sound quality and brand personality (F(1, 792) = 44.68, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10). Importantly, the three-way interaction (F < 1) was not significant, suggesting that audio information did not alter the effect on brand personality judgments (for all other effects, Fs ≤ 1.11, ps ≥ .292). All key contrasts held within each audio information condition (ps ≤ .026; see Figure 6 for all means). Averaged across audio information conditions, competence perceptions were higher than both ruggedness and sophistication perceptions in both the rough condition (M = 5.20, SD = 1.23; ruggedness: M = 4.81, SD = 1.19; sophistication, M = 4.24, SD = 1.43, ps < .001) and the smooth condition (M = 5.43, SD = 1.01; ruggedness: M = 4.36, SD = 1.29, sophistication, M = 4.79, SD = 1.06; ps < .001). However, unexpectedly, competence perceptions were higher in the smooth condition than in the rough condition (F(1, 396) = 4.09, p = .044, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01). Replicating results of previous studies, in the rough condition, ruggedness perceptions were higher than sophistication perceptions (F(1, 396) = 44.70, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10), and in the smooth condition, sophistication perceptions were higher than ruggedness perceptions (F(1, 396) = 27.09, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06). Seen differently, ruggedness perceptions were higher in the rough condition than in the smooth condition (F(1, 396) = 12.82, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03), and sophistication perceptions were higher in the smooth condition than in the rough condition (F(1, 396) = 19.04, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05). Given differences in identification rates, we reanalyzed the model including source identification as a factor, which revealed only a marginally significant sound quality × source identification × brand personality interaction (F(2, 784) = 2.47, p = .086, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01; for all other effects including source identification, ps ≥ .103). In Web Appendix O, we decompose this interaction and report a reanalysis, including only participants who identified the source, yielding similar results.

Figure 6.

Brand Personality Perception (± SE) in Study 6.

Discussion

The results of Study 6 showed that timbral sound quality continues to influence perceptions of ruggedness and sophistication, even when its informativeness is discredited, and when consumers have access to prior brand knowledge. Participants found that the unrelated audio (i.e., melody composed by researchers) was relatively and absolutely low in informativeness (below the midpoint p < .001, d = .87), suggesting that they were unaware of the extent of its influence on their judgments, as it continued to influence their personality judgments in a manner similar to the audio logo melody. This pattern is consistent with a nonconscious process, as accessible auditory information influenced judgments irrespective of its perceived informativeness (Fitzsimons et al. 2002). However, timbral sound quality's influence has limits: a familiar brand, such as Intel, personifying competence (see pretest and Study 1B in Web Appendix J), continues to be perceived as more competent than rugged or sophisticated.

Study 7: The Effect of Timbre on Purchase Intentions

The goal of Study 7 was to test downstream consequences of the effect of timbral sound quality in brand audio logos for purchase intentions. Specifically, we predicted that if a brand's product offering fits with a personality dimension activated through timbral sound quality in the audio logo and transferred to the brand, intentions to purchase should be increased.

Method

We aimed to collect 50 responses per cell for a two-cell design on MTurk (N = 100; 49 female, 51 male; M_age = 39.58 years, SD = 11.63). Participants were presented with the following scenario:

Imagine that the birthday of two friends of yours is coming up and they are both into board games.

One friend loves action games; that is, games that involve fast reactions to surprising turns of events and physical activity.

The other friend loves educational games; that is, games that involve careful deliberation and analytical problem solving.

Participants who failed a reading comprehension check confirming that their friends were into board games (out of ten options) were directed out of the survey before condition assignment. Participants then saw a short video introducing a fictional company, Cosmos Board Games, with a visual logo and a unique audio logo containing either smooth e-guitar or rough e-guitar, and indicated how likely they would be to buy a board game for the friend who loves action games and the friend who loves educational games (counterbalanced) on seven-point scales. Then, they indicated brand personality perceptions (ruggedness: α = .92; sophistication: α = .91) and sound quality perceptions and were asked to identify the instrument. Since an action game is more consistent with a rugged brand personality and an educational game is more consistent with a sophisticated brand personality, we predicted an interaction, such that purchase intentions should be higher for the game that is consistent (vs. inconsistent) with the personality dimension triggered by timbral perceptual sound quality.

Results

Sound quality perception

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (sound quality perception: rough, smooth) mixed ANOVA revealed only a significant interaction (F(1, 98) = 39.81, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .29; all other effects, Fs ≤ 1.21, ps ≥ .273). Participants perceived the rough (M = 4.51, SD = 1.82) e-guitar as rougher than the smooth one (M = 2.73, SD = 1.57, F(1, 98) = 27.34, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .22), and they perceived the smooth (M = 4.94, SD = 1.64) e-guitar as smoother than the rough one (M = 2.96, SD = 1.64; F(1, 98) = 36.47, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .27). Conversely, participants perceived the rough e-guitar as more rough than smooth (F(1, 98) = 13.84, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .12) and the smooth e-guitar as more smooth than rough (F(1, 98) = 26.92, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .22).

Source identification

Similar to Study 2a, participants’ identification rate differed (rough e-guitar: 82.4%; smooth e-guitar: 10.2%; χ²(1) = 52.22, p < .001; addressed subsequently).

Brand personality perception

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (brand personality: ruggedness, sophistication) mixed ANOVA revealed only a significant interaction (F(1, 98) = 42.79, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .30; for all other effects, Fs ≤ 2.63, ps ≥ .108). Participants in the rough condition perceived Cosmos Board Games as more rugged (M = 4.20, SD = 1.56) than those in the smooth condition (M = 3.09, SD = 1.32; F(1, 98) = 14.50, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .13), and participants in the smooth condition perceived the brand as more sophisticated (M = 3.86, SD = 1.24) than those in the rough condition (M = 2.97, SD = 1.41; F(1, 98) = 11.22, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10). In the rough condition, Cosmos Board Games was perceived as more rugged than sophisticated (F(1, 98) = 32.92, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .25), whereas in the smooth condition, the brand was perceived as more sophisticated than rugged (F(1, 98) = 12.50, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .11). Including source identification as a factor does not reveal a main effect or interaction effect (ps ≥ .240), and patterns held irrespective of identification.

Purchase intentions

A 2 (sound quality manipulation: rough, smooth) × 2 (purchase intentions: action, educational game) mixed ANOVA revealed only a significant interaction (F(1, 98) = 50.61, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .34; for all other effects, Fs ≤ 1.34, ps ≥ .251). Purchase intentions for the action game were higher in the rough condition (M = 4.96, SD = 1.59) than in the smooth condition (M = 3.24, SD = 1.65; F(1, 98) = 28.06, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .22), whereas purchase intentions for the educational game were higher in the smooth condition (M = 5.29, SD = 1.51) than in the rough condition (M = 3.49, SD = 1.71; F(1, 98) = 30.75, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .24). In the rough condition, purchase intentions for the action game were higher than those for the educational game (F(1, 98) = 18.12, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .16), whereas in the smooth condition, purchase intentions for the educational game were higher than those for the action game ((F(1, 98) = 33.52, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .26). Including identification as a factor did not reveal a main effect or interaction effect (ps ≥ .215), and patterns held irrespective of identification.

General Discussion

We investigated the effect of timbral sound quality in audio logos on brand personality perceptions. Study 1 showed that changing instrumentation and, thus, timbre systematically changes brand personality perceptions of even a well-known brand, Coca-Cola. Changing timbral sound quality systematically altered brand personality perceptions across a variety of instruments or their combination, even when sound source was held constant (Studies 2 and 3). Study 4 provided evidence for the proposed acoustic underpinnings of sound quality perceptions and replicated the effect in the absence of an identifiable sound source. Visual sensory information that is incongruent with timbral sound quality can counteract the effect of sound quality on personality perception (Study 5). Study 6 showed that meaning elicited by timbral sound quality affects brand personality perceptions even when the informativeness of auditory input is discredited, suggesting a nonconscious process. Finally, Study 7 showed downstream consequences for purchase intentions. In the following, we discuss managerial implications, theoretical contributions, and opportunities for future research based on these findings.

Managerial Implications

Judgments of brand personality are important as they can affect consumer preference, attitudes, and purchase intentions (Batra and Homer 2004; Biel 1993) and our results suggest timbral sound quality as an effective means to inform consumers’ brand personality perceptions. In particular, the strategic use of timbral sound quality in audio logos is unobtrusive and can affect consumers’ brand personality judgments even if they are not deemed informative. As consumers self-generate brand personality perceptions based on timbre with limited awareness, it is plausible that the timbral quality of audio logos may be as effective as or even more effective than the content of verbal claims (see also Krishna 2012), which could be perceived as persuasion attempts. Strategic audio logo design not only is a powerful means of expressing a desired brand personality but is increasingly important in light of companies’ growing investments in audio branding efforts (e.g., amp 2022; Armstrong 2019). We provide marketers with insights into the capabilities of sound quality to communicate brand personality, and for composers tasked with creating audio branding elements, we provide insights into the acoustic underpinnings of timbral sound quality. These insights are relevant not only for new brand introductions but also for rebranding exercises, as brand personality judgments can be updated with new encounters (Wentzel 2009). Although some brands (e.g., Coca-Cola) change timbres in their audio logos to fit specific occasions, this may have unintended consequences for brand personality perceptions. Further, the design of audio and visual logos ought to be considered jointly, as our results suggest that consumers draw from available sensory information across modalities and integrate such information in the formation of personality perceptions.

Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to multiple streams of literature. By examining the effect of timbral sound quality on brand personality perceptions, we add to the literature on timbre in acoustics by answering calls for research on the capabilities of timbre to elicit meaning (Siedenburg et al. 2019). In addition, this research extends the notion of embodied musical meaning (Zhu and Meyers-Levy 2005). That is, our results suggest that a single parameter (i.e., timbral sound quality) can trigger abstract semantic associations, and thus the embodied route to meaning elicitation is not limited to a mere hedonic apprehension.

Further, this research answers the call for more research into the auditory sensory modality in marketing (Krishna 2012). We examine the auditory modality from an acoustics angle that has so far been little explored by providing insights into acoustic correlates of sound quality perceptions and by introducing additive synthesis as a promising tool for sensory marketing research concerning the auditory modality. In addition, we show that embodied meaning elicited from sensory qualities is formed by integrating sensory information across modalities. Finally, our results suggest that consumers are unaware of the extent to which sound quality influences their judgments, speaking to the literature on nonconscious processes.

Directions for Future Research

With the rapid adoption of voice technologies creating novel auditory brand–consumer touchpoints, audio branding increases in importance and provides fertile ground for research in marketing (see also Krishnan and Kellaris 2021). In the following, we provide some directions for future research specifically addressing the exploration of timbre in marketing research.

Although the present research demonstrates that timbre, specifically timbral sound quality, can be a powerful design parameter in audio branding by virtue of its capability to elicit abstract meaning in terms of brand personality, the empirical investigation focused on a limited set of sound quality dimensions (i.e., rough and smooth). However, the sound quality aspect of timbre provides rich opportunities for research due to its multidimensionality. That is, future research may explore how other dimensions of timbral sound quality (e.g., luminance) may activate meaning and investigate important underlying acoustic correlates. For instance, could a bright sound quality potentially trigger associations with competence or superior performance? Such investigations do not have to be confined to the context of musical branding elements, such as audio logos, but could extend to timbral sound qualities of brand spokespersons’ voices, synthesized AI agents’ voices, or product sound design.

In addition, although we investigated how timbral sound quality interacts with visual sensory qualities across modalities, we did not examine intramodal interactions with other auditory parameters. Future research could explore how timbral sound quality could be combined with other auditory parameters (e.g., loudness, which was held constant in the present research) in a way that reinforces the elicited abstract meaning. For instance, could increased loudness of an audio logo with rough timbral sound quality exacerbate brand personality perceptions of ruggedness, or could decreased loudness with a logo of smooth sound quality do the same for perceptions of sophistication?

Finally, although we focused on embodied meaning triggered by timbral sound quality, timbre may also activate referential meaning by signifying a sound source. Future research could disentangle the relative contribution of these two aspects of timbre to meaning elicitation and investigate whether meaning elicitation through sound quality and meaning elicitation through sound source identification are qualitatively different processes. That is, although consumers appear to generate embodied meaning elicited by timbral sound quality and draw on it for the formation of brand personality perceptions in a nonconscious manner, the referential meaning elicitation process through activation of associations held with a sound source that needs to be identified may constitute a more effortful and controlled process.

Conclusion

In summary, timbre is an ecologically important, multidimensional, information-rich auditory parameter that can be meaningfully leveraged in branding and provides ample opportunities for future investigations in marketing.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-mrj-10.1177_00222437221135188 - Supplemental material for The Sound of Music: The Effect of Timbral Sound Quality in Audio Logos on Brand Personality Perception

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mrj-10.1177_00222437221135188 for The Sound of Music: The Effect of Timbral Sound Quality in Audio Logos on Brand Personality Perception by Johann Melzner and Priya Raghubir in Journal of Marketing Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Maximilian Melzner for his help with digital signal processing and analysis, the composer and music editor Nicholas Kmet for his advice and help with stimulus creation, and the JMR review team for their thoughtful comments. The authors would also like to thank Rita Aiello, Andrea Bonezzi, the Trope lab, the NYU Stern Marketing Department, the Northwestern Kellogg Marketing Department, the LMU Munich Economic and Organizational Psychology Department, and the audience at the New Beginnings conference (2021) for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

Associate Editor

Eileen Fischer

Author Note

This research is part of the first author’s dissertation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Johann Melzner

References

Aaker

Jennifer L.

(1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (4), 347–56.

Aaker

Jennifer L.

Fournier

Susan

Brasel

S. Adam

(2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 1–16.

Ahluwalia

Rohini

Unnava

H. Rao

Burnkrant

Robert E.

(2001), “The Moderating Role of Commitment on the Spillover Effect in Marketing Communications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), 458–70.

American National Standards Institute (1994), Psychoacoustical Terminology: Timbre. American National Standards Association.

amp (2021), “Best Audio Brands 2021,” (accessed April 23, 2021), https://www.bestaudiobrands.com.

amp (2022), “Best Audio Brands 2022,” (accessed May 12, 2022), https://www.bestaudiobrands.com.

Areni

Charles S.

(2003), “Exploring Managers’ Implicit Theories of Atmospheric Music: Comparing Academic Analysis to Industry Insight,” Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (2), 161–85.

Areni

Charles S.

Kim

David

(1993), “The Influence of Background Music on Shopping Behavior: Classical Versus Top-Forty Music in a Wine Store,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, McAlister

Leigh

Rothschild

Michael L.

, eds. Association for Consumer Research, 336–40.

Armstrong

Paul

(2019), “These Are the World’s Best Sonic Brands,” Forbes (July 3), https://www.forbes.com/sites/paularmstrongtech/2019/07/03/these-are-the-worlds-best-sonic-brands/.

10.

Bargh

John A.

(1989), “Conditional Automaticity: Varieties of Automatic Influence in Social Perception and Cognition,” in Unintended Thought, Uleman

James S.

Bargh

John A.

, eds. Guilford Press, 3–51.

11.

Bargh

John A.

(2006), “What Have We Been Priming All These Years? On the Development, Mechanisms, and Ecology of Nonconscious Social Behavior,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (2), 147–68.

12.

Batra

Rajeev

Homer

Pamela Miles

(2004), “The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 318–30.

13.

Biel

Alexander L.

(1993), “Converting Image into Equity,” in Brand Equity and Advertising, Aaker

David

Biel

Alexander L.

, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 67–82.

14.

Bismarck

Gottfried von

(1974), “Timbre of Steady Sounds: A Factorial Investigation of Its Verbal Attributes,” Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 30 (3), 146–59.

15.

Bronner

Kai

Hirt

Rainer

(2009), Audio Branding: Brands, Sound, and Communication. Nomos.

16.

Bruner

Gordon C.

(1990), “Music, Mood, and Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 94–104.

17.

Caclin

Anne

McAdams

Stephen

Smith

Bennett K.

Winsberg

Suzanne

(2005), “Acoustic Correlates of Timbre Space Dimensions: A Confirmatory Study Using Synthetic Tones,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118 (1), 471–82.

18.

Campbell

Margaret C.

Keller

Kevin Lane

(2003), “Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 292–304.

19.

Cian

Luca

Krishna

Aradhna

Elder

Ryan S.

(2014), “This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 184–97.

20.

Cian

Luca

Krishna

Aradhna

Schwarz

Norbert

(2015), “Positioning Rationality and Emotion: Rationality Is Up and Emotion Is Down,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 632–51.

21.

Dooley

Roger

(2021), “Sonic Branding: Why Every Brand Needs It Today,” Forbes (May 31), https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2021/05/31/sonic-branding-why-every-brand-needs-it-today.

22.

Fajardo

Tatiana M.

Zhang

Jiao

Tsiros

Michael

(2016), “The Contingent Nature of the Symbolic Associations of Visual Design Elements: The Case of Brand Logo Frames,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 549–66.

23.

Farbood

Morwaread M.

Price

Khen C.

(2017), “The Contribution of Timbre Attributes to Musical Tension,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141 (1), 419–27.

24.

Fitzsimons

Gavan

Hutchinson

Patti Williams

Alba

Joseph

Chartrand

Tanya

Huber

Joel

Huber

Joel

Kardes

Frank R.

Menon

Geeta

Raghubir

Priya

Russo

J. Edward

Shiv

Baba

Tavassoli

Nader T.

(2003), “Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer Choice,” Marketing Letters, 13, 269–79.

25.

Fritz

Claudia

Woodhouse

Jim

Cheng

Felicia P.-H.

Cross

Ian

Blackwell

Alan F.

Moore

Brian C.J.

(2010), “Perceptual Studies of Violin Body Damping and Vibrato,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127 (1), 513–24.

26.

Giordano

Bruno L.

McAdams

Stephen

(2010), “Sound Source Mechanics and Music Timbre Perception: Evidence from Previous Studies,” Music Perception, 28 (2), 155–68.

27.

Gorn

Gerald J.

(1982), “The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (1), 94–101.

28.

Greenwald

Anthony G.

McGhee

Debbie E.

Schwartz

Jordan L.

(1998), “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1464–80.

29.

Hagtvedt

Henrik

(2011), “The Impact of Incomplete Typeface Logos on Perceptions of the Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 86–93.

30.

Hagtvedt

Henrik

Brasel

Adam S.

(2016), “Cross-Modal Communication: Sound Frequency Influences Consumer Responses to Lightness,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), 551–62.

31.

Handel

Stephen N.

(1995), “Timbre Perception and Auditory Object Identification,” in Hearing, Moore

Brian C.J.

, ed. Academic Press, 425–62.

32.

Janiszewski

Chris

Meyvis

Tom

(2001), “Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 18–32.

33.

Jiang

Yuwei

Gorn

Gerald J.

Galli

Maria

Chattopadhyay

Amitava

(2016), “Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular and Angular Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 709–26.

34.

Juslin

Patrik

Lindström

Erik

(2011), “Musical Expressions of Emotions: Modeling Listeners’ Judgments of Composed and Performed Features,” Music Analysis, 29 (3), 334–64.

35.

Kellaris

James

Cox

Anthony

(1989), “The Effects of Background Music in Advertising: Reassessment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 113–18.

36.

Kellaris

James

Cox

Anthony

Cox

Dena

(1993), “The Effect of Background Music on Ad Processing: A Contingency Model,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4), 114–25.

37.

Kellaris

James

Kent

Robert

(1992), “The Influence of Music on Consumers’ Temporal Perceptions: Does Time Fly When You're Having Fun?” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 365–76.

38.

Kellaris

James

Kent

Robert

(1993), “An Exploratory Investigation of Responses Elicited by Music Varying in Tempo, Tonality, and Texture,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (4), 381–401.

39.

Kellaris

James

Rice

Ronald C.

(1993) “The Influence of Tempo, Loudness, and Gender of Listener on Responses to Music,” Psychology and Marketing, 10 (1), 15–29.

40.

Knöferle

Klemens M.

Spangenberg

Eric R.

Herrmann

Andreas

Landwehr

Jan R.

(2012), “It Is All in the Mix: The Interactive Effect of Music Tempo and Mode on In-Store Sales,” Marketing Letters, 23 (1), 325–37.

41.

Krishna

Aradhna

(2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 332–51.

42.

Krishna

Aradhna

Schwarz

Norbert

(2014), “Sensory Marketing, Embodiment, and Grounded Cognition: A Review and Introduction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), 159–68.

43.

Krishnan

Vijaykumar

Kellaris

James

(2021), “Hearing, Remembering, and Branding: Setting Strategic Directions for Sonic Branding Research,” in The Oxford Handbook of Music and Advertising, Deaville

James

Tan

Siu-Lan

Rodman

Ron

, eds. Oxford University Press, 647–96.

44.

Krishnan

Vijaykumar

Kellaris

James

Aurand

Timothy

(2012), “Sonic Logos: Can Sound Influence Willingness to Pay?” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21 (4), 275–84.

45.

Lakoff

George

Johnson

Mark

(1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.

46.

Lowe

Michael L.

Haws

Kelly L.

(2017), “Sounds Big: The Effects of Acoustic Pitch on Product Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (2), 331–46.

47.

Lowe

Michael L.

Loveland

Katherin E.

Krishna

Aradhna

(2019), “A Quiet Disquiet: Anxiety and Risk Avoidance due to Nonconscious Auditory Priming,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (1), 159–79.

48.

Lynch

John G.

Jr. Marmorstein

Howard

Weigold

Michael F.

(1988), “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 169–84.

49.

Maher

Robert C.

(2008), “Control of Synthesized Vibrato During Portamento Musical Pitch Transitions,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 56 (1–2), 18–27.

50.

Mas

Lluis

Bolls

Paul

Rodero

Emma

Ángeles

Miguel B.

Churchill

Ashley

(2020), “The Impact of the Sonic Logo’s Acoustic Features on Orienting Responses, Emotions, and Brand Personality Transmission,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30 (5), 740–53.

51.

McAdams

Stephen

(1993), “Recognition of Sound Sources and Events,” in Thinking in Sound: The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition, McAdams

Stephen

Bigand

Emmanuel

, eds. Oxford University Press, 146–98.

52.

McAdams

Stephen

(2013), “Musical Timbre Perception,” in The Psychology of Music, 3rd ed., Deutsch

Diana

, ed. Academic Press, 35–67.

53.

McAdams

Stephen

(2019), “The Perceptual Representation of Timbre,” in Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition, Siedenburg

Kai

Saitis

Charalampos

McAdams

Stephen

Popper

Arthur N.

Fay

Richard R.

, eds. Springer, 23–58.

54.

McAdams

Stephen

Goodchild

Meghan

(2017), “Musical Structure: Sound and Timbre,” in Routledge Companion to Music Cognition, Ashley

Richard

Timmers

Renee

, eds. Routledge, 129–39.

55.

McInnis

Deborah J.

Park

C. Whan

(1991), “The Differential Role of Characteristics of Music on High- and Low-Involvement Consumers’ Processing of Ads,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2), 161–73.

56.

Menon

Vinod

Levitin

Daniel J.

Smith

Bennett K.

Lembke

Anna

Krasnow

Ben D.

Glazer

Glover

G.H.

McAdams

(2002), “Neural Correlates of Timbre Change in Harmonic Sounds,” Neuroimage, 17 (4), 1742–54.

57.

Menon

Geeta

Raghubir

Priya

(2003), “Ease-of-Retrieval as Automatic Input in Judgments: A Mere-Accessibility Framework?” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 230–43.

58.

Merriam-Webster (2022a), “Rough,” (accessed April 23, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rough.

59.

Merriam-Webster (2022b), “Smooth,” (accessed April 23, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smooth.

60.

Meyer

Leonard

(1956), Emotion and Meaning in Music. University of Chicago Press.

61.

Michaels

Claire F.

Carello

Claudia

(1981), Direct Perception. Prentice Hall.

62.

Milliman

Ronald E.

(1986), “The Influence of Background Music on the Behavior of Restaurant Patrons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 286–89.

63.

Morgen

Carter

Fajardo

Tatiana M.

Townsend

Claudia

(2021), “Show It or Say It: How Brand Familiarity Influences the Effectiveness of Image-Based Versus Text-Based Logos,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (February), 566–83.

64.

Nunes

Joseph C.

Ordanini

Andrea

(2014), “I Like the Way It Sounds: The Influence of Instrumentation on a Pop Song’s Place in the Charts,” Musicae Scientiae, 18 (4), 392–409.

65.

Nunes

Joseph C.

Ordanini

Andrea

Valsesia

Francesca

(2015), “The Power of Repetition: Repetitive Lyrics in a Song Increase Processing Fluency and Drive Market Success,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 187–99.

66.

Park

C. Whan

Jaworski

Bernard J.

MacInnis

Deborah J.

(1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (4), 135–45.

67.

Park

C. Whan

Young

Mark

(1986), “Consumer Response to Television Commercials: The Impact of Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (1), 11–24.

68.

Radocy

Rudolf E.

Boyle

J. David

(2012), “Functional Applications of Music in Contemporary Life,” in Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 46–100.

69.

Raghubir

Priya

(2008), “Are Visual Perceptual Biases Hard-Wired?” in Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action, Wedel

Michel

Pieters

Rik

, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 143–66.

70.

Roederer

Juan G.

(2000), Physikalische und Psychoakustische Grundlagen der Musik [Physical and Psychoacoustic Foundations of Music]. Springer.

71.

Saitis

Charalampos

Weinzierl

Stefan

(2019), “Timbre Semantics,” in Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition, Siedenburg

Kai

Saitis

Charalampos

McAdams

Stephen

Popper

Arthur N.

Fay

Richard R.

, eds. Springer, 119–49.

72.

Schellenberg

Glenn

Iverson

Paul

McKinnon

Margaret

(1999), “Name That Tune: Identifying Popular Recordings from Brief Excerpts,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6 (4), 641–46.

73.

Scherer

Klaus R.

Oshinsky

James S.

(1977), “Cue Utilization in Emotion Attribution from Auditory Stimuli,” Motivation and Emotion, 1 (4), 331–46.

74.

Sethares

William A.

(1998), Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale. Springer.

75.

Siedenburg

Kai

Jones-Mollerup

Kiray

McAdams

Stephen

(2016), “Acoustic and Categorical Dissimilarity of Musical Timbre: Evidence from Asymmetries Between Acoustic and Chimeric Sounds,” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1977.

76.

Siedenburg

Kai

McAdams

Stephen

(2017), “Four Distinctions for the Auditory ‘Wastebasket’ of Timbre,” Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1747.

77.

Siedenburg

Kai

Saitis

Charalampos

McAdams

Stephen

Popper

Arthur N.

Fay

Richard R.

(2019), Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition. Springer.

78.

Steiner

Paul

(2014), Sound Branding: Grundlagen der Akustischen Markenführung [Sound Branding: Foundations of Acoustic Brand Management]. Springer.

79.

Sundar

Aparna

Noseworthy

Theodore J.

(2016), “Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The Effects of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (1), 44–67.

80.

Tsai

Chen-Gia

Wang

Li-Ching

Wang

Shwu

Shau

Yio-Wha

Hsiao

Tzu-Yu

Auhagen

Wolfgang

(2010), “Aggressiveness of the Growllike Timbre: Acoustic Characteristics, Musical Implications, and Biomechanical Mechanisms,” Music Perception, 27 (3), 209–22.

81.

Valsesia

Francesca

Nunes

Joseph C.

Ordanini

Andrea

(2016), “What Wins Awards Is Not Always What I Buy: How Creative Control Affects Authenticity and Thus Recognition (But Not Liking),” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 897–914.

82.

Wentzel

Daniel

(2009), “The Effect of Employee Behavior on Brand Personality Impressions and Brand Attitudes,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 359–74.

83.

Williams

Lawrence E.

Huang

Julie Y.

Bargh

John A.

(2009), “The Scaffolded Mind: Higher Mental Processes Are Grounded in Early Experience of the Physical World,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (7), 1257–67.

84.

Yorkston

Eric

Menon

Geeta

(2004), “A Sound Idea: Phonetic Effects of Brand Names on Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 43–51.

85.

Zacharakis

Asterios

Pastiadis

Konstantinos

Reiss

Joshua

(2012), “Interlanguage Study of Timbre Semantic Dimensions and Acoustic Correlates,” Music Perception, 31 (4), 339–58.

86.

Zacharakis

Asterios

Pastiadis

Konstantinos

Reiss

Joshua

(2015), “Interlanguage Unification of Musical Timbre: Bridging Semantic, Perceptual, and Acoustic Dimensions,” Music Perception, 32 (4), 394–412.

87.

Zhu

Rui

Meyers-Levy

Joan

(2005), “Distinguishing Between Meanings of Music: When Background Music Affects Product Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (3), 333–45.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.89 MB