The locus of taboo context effects in picture naming

Abstract

Speakers respond more slowly when naming pictures presented with taboo (i.e., offensive/embarrassing) than with neutral distractor words in the picture-word interference paradigm. Over four experiments, we attempted to localize the processing stage at which this effect occurs during word production and determine whether it reflects the socially offensive/embarrassing nature of the stimuli. Experiment 1 demonstrated taboo interference at early stimulus onset asynchronies of −150 ms and 0 ms although not at 150 ms. In Experiment 2, taboo distractors sharing initial phonemes with target picture names eliminated the interference effect. Using additive factors logic, Experiment 3 demonstrated that taboo interference and phonological facilitation effects do not interact, indicating that the two effects originate at different processing levels within the speech production system. In Experiment 4, interference was observed for masked taboo distractors, including those sharing initial phonemes with the target picture names, indicating that the effect cannot be attributed to a processing level involving responses in an output buffer. In two of the four experiments, the magnitude of the interference effect correlated significantly with arousal ratings of the taboo words. However, no significant correlations were found for either offensiveness or valence ratings. These findings are consistent with a locus for the taboo interference effect prior to the processing stage responsible for word form encoding. We propose a pre-lexical account in which taboo distractors capture attention at the expense of target picture processing due to their high arousal levels. ARTICLE HISTORY

When does reading dirty words impede picture processing? Taboo interference with verbal and manual responses

“…We investigated the cause and locus of interference from taboo distractor words on picture processing by contrasting three tasks that systematically differed with respect to the processing stages involved: picture naming (requiring conceptual processing, lexical processing, and articulation), phoneme decision (requiring conceptual and lexical processing), and natural size decision (requiring conceptual processing only). We replicated the taboo interference effect in picture naming from previous studies (Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2011;Hansen et al, 2017;White et al, 2017;White et al, 2016), demonstrating the sensitivity of our materials. Importantly, taboo interference was also observed in phoneme decision and in size decision in the latter task only, however, when task difficulty was increased by visually degrading the target pictures.…”

“…The presence of taboo interference in phoneme decision and size decision (with degraded targets) demonstrates that neither articulatory processing nor lexical processing are necessary for the effect to arise. This is in line with attentional capture of taboo distractors affecting target processing at the conceptual and the lexical processing stage (Hansen et al, 2017;MacKay et al, 2004). In size decision, reliable taboo interference was only found when task difficulty was high (with degraded target pictures).…”

“…Hansen et al (2017) observed that taboo interference did not correlate with rated offensiveness or valence of taboo words, but rather with arousal ratings, which suggest attentional modulations as the cause of the effect. Furthermore, Hansen et al (2017) observed additivity of phonological facilitation and taboo interference (cf. White, Adams, LaBat, & Rhynes, 2016), suggesting that the two effects arise at different loci.…”

“…The present study is concerned with taboo interference in the picture-word interference (PWI) task, that is, the observation that picture naming is slowed down by taboo distractor words (i.e., offensive or socially inappropriate words) compared with neutral distractor words (Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2011; for a similar effect in color naming, see MacKay et al, 2004;Siegrist, 1995). Previous studies have related this effect to attentional capture by taboo distractors (Hansen, McMahon, Burt, & de Zubicaray, 2017), prearticulatory verbal self-monitoring (Dhooge & Hartsuiker, 2011), or a combination of mechanisms across multiple processing stages (White, Abrams, Koehler, & Collins, 2017). In the present study, we further investigated the source of the taboo interference effect by testing for taboo interference in three tasks, which systematically differ with respect to the processing stages involved.…”

“…Attentional capture accounts of taboo interference posit that increased attention to taboo distractor words (relative to neutral words) slows preparation of the target response at prelexical and lexical processing stages. Increased attention to taboo words might affect prelexical, conceptual processing of target pictures because binding of word meaning and contextual information is promoted with taboo words, which would divert resources away from target processing (Hansen et al, 2017;MacKay et al, 2004). However, increased attention to distractor words might also affect lexical processing of target pictures.…”