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

Abstract

Picture naming takes longer in the presence of socially inappropriate (taboo) distractor words compared with neutral distractor words. Previous studies have attributed this taboo interference effect to increased attentional capture by taboo words or verbal self-monitoring-that is, control processes scrutinizing verbal responses before articulation. In this study, we investigated the cause and locus of the taboo interference effect by contrasting three tasks that used the same target pictures, but 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 observed taboo interference in picture naming and phoneme decision. In size decision, taboo interference was not reliably observed under the same task conditions in which the effect arose in picture naming and phoneme decision, but it emerged when the difficulty of the size decision task was increased by visually degrading the target pictures. Overall, these results suggest that taboo interference cannot be exclusively attributed to verbal self-monitoring operating over articulatory responses. Instead, taboo interference appears to arise already prior to articulatory preparation, during lexical processing and-at least with sufficiently high task difficulty-during prelexical processing stages.

Selective suppression of taboo information in visual word recognition: Evidence for cognitive control on semantics.

“…Consistently, lexical decision experiments have reported detrimental effects of the taboo connotation on reaction times (e.g., Carretié et al, 2008; Sulpizio et al, 2019; Sulpizio, Pennucci, et al, 2020). Taboo words have also been found to yield an increased interference compared to nontaboo ones when used as distractors within picture–word interference (Hansen et al, 2017; Mädebach et al, 2018; White et al, 2016; White et al, 2017) and Stroop paradigms (MacKay et al, 2004; Siegrist, 1995). Taken together, these findings seem to point toward a pervasive influence of taboo words irrespective of their status as targets or distractors within different experimental paradigms.…”

Age-related differences in the evaluation of highly arousing language.

“…Taboo language has been increasingly used to investigate the impact of strong emotion on language processing, with results suggesting that distractor taboo words reliably lead to interference in picture naming tasks (Madan et al, 2017; Mädebach et al, 2018; White & Abrams, 2021; White et al, 2016, 2017) and taboo Stroop tasks (MacKay et al, 2004; Scaltritti et al, 2022). The consensus of these studies is that tabooness affects early stages of lexical processing via arousal-induced attentional capture (Hansen et al, 2017; MacKay et al, 2004; Mathewson et al, 2008), which can persist beyond a single trial (White & Abrams, 2021).…”

Situated speaking: from distraction to disruption. Neurocognitive mechanisms of monitoring and control in spoken word production.

“…Motivated by the publication of our study, Mädebach, Markuske and Jescheniak (2018) recently found that taboo distractors not only interfere with picture naming but also impede manual responses for phoneme decisions and natural size judgements. Thus, it seems taboo interference is best characterised as a pre-lexical, conceptual level effect and appears to be relatively independent of the speech production system.…”

“…However, this distractor-based attention-capture/blocking mechanism could be relatively independent of the production system, i.e., it could be engaged irrespective of the nature of the primary task. For example, a recent study by Mädebach, Markuske and Jescheniak (2018) found that taboo distractors not only interfere with picture naming but also impede manual responses for phoneme decisions and natural size judgements about depicted objects. If so, then dorsolateral PFC, IFG and ACC (dorsal subdivision) might be engaged (see Song et al, 2017).…”