See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319936148

Angular Versus Curved Shapes: Correspondences and Emotional Processing

Article  in  Perception · September 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0301006617731048

CITATIONS READS

14 942

2 authors, including:

Olesya Blazhenkova
Sabanci University
14 PUBLICATIONS   489 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Olesya Blazhenkova on 02 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Perception
Angular Versus Curved 2018, Vol. 47(1) 67–89
! The Author(s) 2017
Shapes: Correspondences Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

and Emotional Processing DOI: 10.1177/0301006617731048

journals.sagepub.com/home/pec

Olesya Blazhenkova and Melisa Maya Kumar

Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract
The present work aimed to systematically examine sensory and higher level correspondences to
angular and curved shapes. Participants matched angular and curved abstract shapes to sensory
experiences in five different modalities as well as to emotion, gender, and name attributes
presented as written labels (Study 1) and real experiences (Study 2). The results demonstrated
nonarbitrary mapping of angular and curved shapes to attributes from all basic sensory modalities
(vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and tactation) and higher level attributes (emotion, gender,
and name). Participants associated curved shapes with sweet taste, quiet or calm sound, vanilla
smell, green color, smooth texture, relieved emotion, female gender, and wide-vowel names.
In contrast, they associated angular shapes with sour taste, loud or dynamic sound, spicy or
citrus smell, red color, rough texture, excited or surprise emotion, male gender, and narrow-
vowel names. These prevalent correspondences were robust across different shape pairs as well
as all sensory and higher level attributes, presented as both verbal labels and real sensory
experiences. The second goal of this research was to examine the relationship between the
shape correspondences and individual differences in emotional processing, assessed by self-report
and performance measures. The results suggest that heightened emotional ability is associated with
making shape attributions that go along with the found prevalent trends.

Keywords
multisensory or crossmodal processing, angularity and curvature, individual differences, shape,
emotion

Introduction
On a daily basis, the human brain receives multisensory information and integrates it to
create a coherent meaning of perceptual experiences (Calvert & Thesen, 2004; Evans &
Treisman, 2010; Hanson-Vaux, Crisinel, & Spence, 2013; Lewkowicz & Ghazanfar, 2009;
Spence, 2011; Spence & Zampini, 2006). Crossmodal correspondences refer to systematically
mapping stimuli from different sensory modalities; that is, a sensory attribute from one

Corresponding author:
Olesya Blazhenkova, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabanci University, Orta Mahalle, Üniversite Caddesi No: 27
Tuzla, 34956 Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: olesya@sabanciuniv.edu
68 Perception 47(1)

modality is nonarbitrarily matched with another sensory attribute from a different modality
(Spence, 2011, 2012). Spence coined the term shape symbolism that refers to crossmodal
mapping between abstract shapes and different sensory attributes. Previous research
provided rich evidence of nonarbitrary shape correspondences to various attributes;
however, there were not many studies that simultaneously examined shape
correspondences to multiple sensory and nonsensory attributes. The present work aimed
to systematically examine angular versus curved shape correspondences to attributes from
five basic sensory modalities as well as to higher level attributes presented both as verbal
labels and actual sensory experiences. Furthermore, our research aimed to examine the
relationship between the shape correspondences and individual differences in emotional
processing, which is an overlooked dimension in shape correspondences research.
Previous works described many cases of non-arbitrary correspondences between angular or
curved shapes and different sensory and higher level attributes. One renowned case is a
nonarbitrary association between angular versus curved shapes and meaningless narrow-
versus wide-vowel nonwords such as takete versus maluma (Köhler, 1929). Ramachandran
and Hubbard (2001) replicated this finding with similar stimuli and demonstrated that 98%
of participants consistently associated the label kiki with a spiky, angular shape and the label
bouba with a curved, cloud-like shape. This phenomenon, dubbed the ‘‘kiki-bouba effect’’ or
‘‘takete-maluma phenomenon,’’ was subsequently demonstrated in different age-groups
(e.g., in 4-month olds, Ozturk, Krehm, & Vouloumanos, 2013; in 2.5 year olds, Maurer,
Pathman, & Mondloch, 2006; in 9 year olds, Irwin & Newland, 1940) and cross culturally
(Bremner et al., 2013; D’Andrade & Egan, 1974; Ngo et al., 2013; Wan et al., 2014).
The robustness of this phenomenon may be explained by the critical importance of
crossmodal correspondences for multisensory processing. Crossmodal correspondences
may arise due to the high frequency of certain naturally occurring concurrences (e.g.,
large objects tend to make loud noises and have greater weight). They allow the brain to
navigate through complex sensory inputs by integrating various stimuli across multiple
sensory modalities (i.e., vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and tactation; Evans &
Treisman, 2010; Hanson-Vaux et al., 2013; Spence, 2011; Spence & Zampini, 2006).
Recent literature reported the existence of the ‘‘kiki-bouba effect’’ associating angular or
curved shapes with attributes from different sensory modalities (Ghoshal, Boatwright, &
Malika, 2016). Research documented correspondences between the shapes and taste,
sound, or smell attributes. For example, angular shapes were associated with bitter (e.g.,
dark chocolate) and sour (e.g., vinegar chips or citrus juice) or sharp (e.g., cheddar cheese)
tastes, while round shapes were associated with sweet (e.g., blubbery jam or mango juice),
creamy, and rich (e.g., milk chocolate) tastes (Gallace, Boschin, & Spence, 2011; Ngo, Misra,
& Spence, 2011; Ngo et al., 2013; Spence & Ngo, 2012). Angular shapes were associated with
higher pitches and harsh (e.g., crash cymbals) timbers, while round shapes were associated
with lower pitches and soft (e.g., piano) timbers (Adeli, Rouat, & Molotchnikoff, 2014;
Melara & O’Brien, 1987). Angular shapes were associated with more intense or
unpleasant smells (e.g., lemon or pepper), while rounded shapes were associated with less
intense smells with more hedonic value (e.g., vanilla or raspberry; Hanson-Vaux et al., 2013).
Moreover, this effect was documented not only for shape correspondences to various
sensory attributes but also for correspondences between various characteristics from
different sensory modalities (Spence, 2011). For example, Etzi, Spence, Zampini, and
Gallace (2016) studied correspondences between tactile stimuli (i.e., smooth or rough
textured everyday materials) and diverse sensory attributes. They found that smooth
tactile stimuli were characterized as bright, light, quiet, and lightweight, whereas the rough
textured stimuli were characterized as dim, dark, loud, and heavy. Research has found
Blazhenkova and Kumar 69

associations between color and musical sound. Faster classical music in the major mode was
associated with bright, yellower colors, while minor music was associated with dark, bluer
colors (Palmer, Schloss, Xu, & Prado-León, 2013). Faster tempo in music was also
associated with sour taste (Knoeferle, Woods, Käppler, & Spence, 2015). Both sour and
sweet food item names were associated with high-pitched sounds (Crisinel & Spence, 2010),
while rough musical sound was associated more with bitter and sour tastes and less with
sweet tastes (Knoeferle et al., 2015). Fabrics presented with a lemon smell, in contrast to an
animal-like smell, were perceived as softer (Dematte, Sanabria, Sugarman, & Spence, 2006).
Olfactory processing was found to be facilitated when the odor was accompanied by a
congruent visual image (Gottfried & Dolan, 2003; Small, 2004). Darker objects were
perceived as heavier demonstrating an association between vision and weight sense
(Walker, Francis, & Walker, 2010). Fryer, Freeman, and Pring (2014) demonstrated an
auditory-haptic association using classical Köhler shapes as two-dimensional cutouts and
three-dimensional models and the names kiki and bouba. The angular shapes were associated
with the kiki name, and the rounded shapes were associated with the bouba name.
Furthermore, research evidence indicates that nonarbitrary correspondences exist not
only in multiple sensory but also in higher level non-sensory correspondences, such as
attributions of emotion, intent, gender, or even personality traits. For example, alongside
sensory modalities, Etzi et al. (2016) found that smooth textures were associated with
emotional labels such as pleasant, comfort, and relief as well as feminine labels. Milan
et al. (2013) showed that the spiky kiki shape was associated with the label male and a
few emotional properties as well as personality traits such as clever, happy, and
extroverted. Similarly, research on aesthetical processing demonstrated the involvement of
higher level cognitive and emotional processing in the perception of simple, meaningless
visual displays. It is important to note that emotion per se does not necessarily refer to
low-level processing; instead, it may be involved in higher order cognitive processing
(Pessoa, 2008). Arnheim (1954) proposed that all visual characteristics, such as shape,
color, space, and light, convey emotional expressiveness and may arouse tension.
Lundholm (1921) found that participants drew more angular lines to express the affective
tone of adjectives such as hard, harsh, and cruel and more curved lines for adjectives such as
weak, gentle, and mild. Also, Collier (1996) demonstrated that people reliably attribute
emotions to simple perceptual stimuli such as basic lines, shapes, colors, and sound
effects. Literature reported that humans tend to attribute agency and even ascribe
intentions to inanimate objects (Brüne & Brüne-Cohrs, 2006; Heider & Simmel, 1944).
In their classical study, Heider and Simmel discovered that while interpreting a visual
display with moving geometrical primitives, people tended to perceive these shapes as
animate characters having gender, intention, and personality (i.e., the circle was typically
described as female, and the big triangle was described as being strong). These findings
highlight the remarkable human ability to associate meaningless and simple visual stimuli
with higher level attributes and indicate the link between shape correspondences and
affective processes.
Research demonstrated a general preference towards curved over sharp/angular shapes (Bar
& Neta, 2006; Bertamini, Palumbo, Gheorghes, & Galatsidas, 2016; Gómez-Puerto, Munar,
& Nadal, 2015; Leder & Carbon, 2005; Leder, Tinio, & Bar, 2011; Munar, Gómez-Puerto,
López-Navarro, & Nadal, 2014; Palumbo & Bertamini, 2016; Palumbo, Ruta, & Bertamini,
2015; Silvia & Barona, 2009; Westerman et al., 2012). The curvature preference was claimed
to be a basic visual primitive having evolutionary-based function (Carbon, 2010), and it was
linked to emotional processing (Leder et al., 2011). Angular abstract stimuli were found to be
associated with threat (Aronoff, Barclay, & Stevenson, 1988; Aronoff, Woike, & Hyman,
70 Perception 47(1)

1992) and aggressive emotions (Hevner, 1935; Lundholm, 1921; Poffenberger & Barrows,
1924). Bar and Neta (2007) suggested that the preference of objects with curved contours
over sharp-angled objects may be due to amygdala involvement in fear processing. They
found significantly greater amygdala activation for everyday sharp objects (e.g., sofa with
sharp corners) than for curved ones (e.g., sofa with curved corners). However, other research
showed that amygdala activation is not specific to fear; amygdala was also activated in
response to pleasant stimuli evoking positive emotions (Garavan, Pendergrass, Ross,
Stein, & Risinger, 2001). Furthermore, the ‘‘threat hypothesis,’’ suggesting that curvature
preference is due to angularity association with threat, was challenged by Bertamini et al.
(2016), who found that the preference for curvature is not a consequence of a negative
response to angularity. Instead, curved shapes possess their own intrinsic characteristics
that generate a visual preference and an approach response. Overall, research on curved
over angular shapes preferences indicates the involvement of emotion in curvature versus
angularity processing.
Furthermore, emotion was found to be a factor mediating different crossmodal
correspondences (e.g., between color and music; Palmer et al., 2013). In particular,
crossmodal correspondences may be mediated by the affective properties of the matching
stimuli (Kenneth, 1923; Marks, 1996; Velasco, Woods, Deroy, & Spence, 2015). Stimuli from
different sensory modalities may be indirectly associated via their common hedonic
properties (Deroy, Crisinel, & Spence, 2013); though, hedonic properties of sensory
information do not fully explain the mechanisms underlying crossmodal correspondences
(Spence, 2011). Neuroscience research provided evidence of the involvement of limbic
structures in multisensory correspondences. The brain structures involved in emotional
processing, such as the amygdala, are extensively connected to sensory pathways (Drevets
& Raichle, 1998; Pessoa, 2008; Vuilleumier, 2005). Brown, Gao, Tisdelle, Eickhoff, and
Liotti (2011) conducted meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies on aesthetic processing
and described the core circuit of the brain used for aesthetic processing that includes the
insula and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). It was concluded that this circuit is involved in
processing reward and emotion and operates across all sensory modalities, supporting the
multisensory convergence for aesthetic appraisal. Insula was found to be the most
concordant brain site involved in aesthetic processing across four sensory modalities (i.e.,
vision, audition, gustation, and olfaction), and which is typically associated with the
perception of the valence of objects (disgust, pain, etc.). In addition, OFC, which receives
input from the major sensory pathways and plays a role in multisensory integration and
reward processing across all sensory modalities, was found to be involved in the aesthetic
processing of artworks. Research suggested that art understanding involves brain structures
responsible for understanding others’ mental states, emotions, and intentions (so-called
theory of mind, see Brüne & Brüne-Cohrs, 2006, for a review).
Moreover, research found a relationship between non-arbitrary attributions to abstract
shapes and individual differences in emotional processing. The ability to perceive affective
content in ambiguous visual stimuli was claimed to be a component of emotional
intelligence (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990). Abell, Happe, and Frith (2000)
demonstrated that children with autism spectrum disorder, who have atypical emotional
and ‘‘theory of mind’’ development, used mentalizing descriptions of animated triangles
(as in Heider & Simmel, 1944) less often than normally developing children did. Similarly,
research on nonarbitrary correspondences revealed that individuals with autism or those
with damage to the brain sites involved in emotional processing demonstrated violations of
the robust ‘‘kiki-bouba effect’’ (Bien, ten Oever, Goebel, & Sack, 2012; Oberman &
Ramachadran, 2007, 2008; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2003). Individuals with atypical
Blazhenkova and Kumar 71

emotional development showed less pronounced manifestation of the ‘‘takete–maluma

phenomenon’’ than neurotypical controls (Occelli, Esposito, Venuti, Arduino, & Zampini,
2013). They also demonstrated abnormalities in multisensory integration (Iarocci &
McDonald, 2006; Marco, Hinkley, Hill, & Nagarajan, 2011; Van der Smagt, van
Engeland, & Kemner, 2007). These findings suggest that impaired emotional processing
could be associated with difficulties in making nonarbitrary correspondences and
multisensory integration. However, the relationship between emotional abilities and
making nonarbitrary attributions in neurotypical individuals has not been well studied.
There is an evidence from the research on shape preferences, indicating that individual
differences characteristics such as artistic expertise, personality, or emotional ability play a
role in moderating the preference for curved shapes (Cotter, Silvia, Bertamini, Palumbo, &
Vartanian, 2017; Zhang, Feik, & Price, 2006). For example, Cotter et al. (2017) found that a
greater preference for curvature was associated with artistic expertise or openness to
experience (a personality trait related to imagination, creativity, and emotional sensitivity;
Kaufman, 2013; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Thus, based on previous research, we expected
individual differences in emotional processing to be related to making nonarbitrary
correspondences between curved or angular shapes and different sensory as well as higher
level attributes.
The present work aimed to examine angular and curved shape correspondences to
different sensory and higher level attributes as well as their relationship to individual
differences in emotional processing. The first goal of the present study was to
systematically explore basic sensory (i.e., vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and
tactation) and higher level (i.e., emotion, gender, and name) attributions to a variety of
angular and curved shape pairs. In addition, to ensure that the results are consistent for
attributes presented as words and actual experiences, our research studied correspondences
by using both verbal attributes and real sensory experiences. The second goal was to examine
whether individual differences in emotional processing are related to making crossmodal
correspondences. In Study 1, participants matched angular versus curved shape pairs to
sensory and higher level attributes presented as verbal labels. Study 2 used a subset of the
shape stimuli and used real experiences for the same attributes. In addition, both studies
examined individual differences in emotional processing, assessed by self-report and
performance measures.

Pilot Study
The pilot study tested the experimental procedure and explored the patterns of
correspondences between angular or curved shapes and different attributes, as well as the
relationship between the correspondences and emotional abilities. Sabanci University
students (N ¼ 147, 74 women, 19–25 years old) participated in the pilot study. They were
reimbursed with either a course credit or a chocolate upon their choice.
Participants matched four shape pairs to pairs of written labels, describing characteristics
of sensory experiences in five sensory modalities as well as emotion, gender, and name labels.
The shape stimuli were adopted from Maurer et al. (2006; see Shapes no. 24, no. 25, and no.
26 in Figure 1, note that Shape no. 24 was framed in the pilot study) and consisted of one
angular and one curved shape. Binomial tests (test proportion ¼ .50) revealed significant (all
p’s < . 001) and consistent matching of all shape pairs to labels (the correspondences ranged
from 72% to 95%, M ¼ 84%). In particular, curved shapes were associated with sweet and
angular with sour taste; curved shapes were associated with quiet and angular with loud
sound; curved shapes were associated with vanilla and angular with spicy smell; curved
72 Perception 47(1)

Figure 1. Angular versus curved shape stimuli.

Blazhenkova and Kumar 73

shapes were associated with green and angular with red color; curved shapes were associated
with smooth and angular with rough texture; curved shapes were associated with relieved and
angular with excited emotion; curved shapes were associated with female and angular with
male gender; and curved shapes were associated with narrow-vowel (i.e., Baa-moo, Boo-baa,
Go-gaa, and Maa-boo-maa) and angular with wide-vowel (i.e., Kuh-tay, Kay-kee, Tee-tay,
and Tuh-kee-tee) name. For each participant, we computed correspondences scores,
separately for taste, sound, smell, color, texture, emotion, gender, and name attributions.
These scores indicated the number of participant’s answers that went along with the
correspondences prevalent in the sample. The correlations among these correspondences
scores were weak and inconsistent, except for the emotion score that correlated with all
sensory attributions. Overall, the pilot study demonstrated nonarbitrary correspondences
between angular versus curved shapes and all the attributes. The found effect was strong and
consistent for all the attributes and shape pairs. Following the pilot study, several
modifications were made to the stimuli and instructions. A larger set of stimuli were
created, which included the pilot study stimuli as well as additional shape pairs. For the
consistency, the frames were removed from the shapes in Pair no. 24, thus making all the
shapes unframed. We also realized that spicy as a smell was only viable in the cultural
context of our participants. To make more generalizable conclusions, we changed spicy to
citrus. Also, to emphasize a qualitative difference in sound attributes, quiet versus loud were
replaced by calm versus dynamic. The name attributes, used in the Maurer et al. (2006) study
(Baa-moo vs. Kuh-tay, Boo-baa vs. Kay-kee, Go-gaa vs. Tee-tay, and Maa-boo-maa vs.
Tuh-kee-tee), were changed to classical Kiki versus Bouba names (Ramachandran &
Hubbard, 2001) and were the same for all shape pairs, consistent with other attributes.
In addition, the participants completed a self-report measure assessing individual
differences in emotional range and differentiation (Range and Differentiation of
Emotional Experience Scale [RDEES]; Kang & Shaver, 2004). The results revealed that
emotional range ratings significantly but weakly correlated with smell (r ¼ .171) and
emotion (r ¼ .194) scores (p’s < .05), suggesting that individual differences in emotional
processing may relate to shape correspondences. To further explore this issue, Study 1
included the same self-report measure as well as a performance test of emotional
recognition ability.

Study 1
Method
Participants. Sabanci University students (N ¼ 197, 108 women, 18–27 years old, M
age ¼ 20.43) participated in the study. The research was approved by the Sabanci
University Research Ethics Council. Participants provided written informed consent and
were reimbursed with a course credit.

Materials and procedure. All participants completed the shape correspondences task, as well as
RDEES (Kang & Shaver, 2004). In addition, participants completed the Emotion
Recognition Test (Geneva Emotion Recognition Test [GERT]; Schlegel, Grandjean, &
Scherer, 2014). Qualtrics software was used for data recording (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).
Students received the online link and completed the study at their convenient time and
location.1
Shape correspondences task. Twenty-six angular versus curved shape pairs were used as
stimuli (Figure 1). Four stimuli were adopted from Maurer et al. (2006), and frames were
74 Perception 47(1)

removed from shapes in the Pair no. 24. The remaining 22 shape pairs were drawn for this
study by a visual artist. These stimuli are available on Open Science Framework
(Blazhenkova, 2017). The shape pairs varied in a number of characteristics, yet, within each
pair, the shapes were drawn to maximally resemble each other, except for being angular or
curved. For each pair, participants matched angular and curved shapes to written labels
describing characteristics of sensory experiences in five different modalities as well as
emotion, gender, and name labels. The verbal labels were, respectively, as follows: sweet
versus sour taste, dynamic versus calm sound, citrus versus vanilla smell, red versus green
color, smooth versus rough texture, surprise versus relieved emotion, female versus male
gender, and Kiki versus Bouba name. In a forced choice task, for each shape pair,
participants had to match one shape to one label by dragging each shape with a mouse into
the box with the subjectively matching attribute. The same 26 shape pairs were presented in all
the eight conditions (taste, sound, smell, color, texture, emotion, gender, and name), thus
making overall 208 items. The order of conditions and trials within the conditions was fixed.
Range and differentiation of emotional experience scale. RDEES is a self-report measure
assessing individual differences in emotional complexity defined as having emotional
experiences that are broad in range and well differentiated (Kang & Shaver, 2004). It
includes two subscales, each assessed by seven items: emotional differentiation (e.g., ‘‘I am
aware of the different tones or subtleties of my various emotions’’) and emotional range (e.g.,
‘‘I experience a wide range of emotions’’). Participants rated their agreement on 5-point
Likert scale for each of these statements, and the two subscales’ scores were computed by
averaging corresponding items. According to Kang and Shaver, the reliability Cronbach
alpha coefficient is .82 for the range subscale and .79 for the differentiation subscale.
Geneva emotion recognition test. GERT assesses emotion recognition ability, which is the
ability to accurately recognize emotional states from nonverbal expressions conveyed by
face, voice, and body (Schlegel et al., 2014). Participants watched 42 short video clips
with sound, in which male and female actors expressed different emotions conveyed both
by facial expressions and voiced pseudolinguistic sentences. Participants had to select an
emotion word from the given 14 words, which best described the emotion expressed in the
video. According to Schlegel et al., the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of this test is .76.

Results
Shape correspondences task. To examine the trends in matching between angular versus curved
shapes and various attributes, binomial tests (test proportion ¼ .50) for all the items were
conducted. The found correspondences between angular versus curved shapes and other
attributes were highly consistent with those obtained in the pilot study. For 205 out of
208 the shape associations, the analysis revealed significant (ps < .001) and consistent
patterns in attributions (see Table A1 in Appendix A). In particular, curved shapes were
predominantly associated with sweet and angular with sour taste; curved shapes were
associated with calm and angular with dynamic sound; curved shapes were associated with
vanilla and angular with citrus smell; curved shapes were associated with green and angular
with red color; curved shapes were associated with smooth and angular with rough texture;
curved shapes were associated with relieved and angular with surprise emotion; curved
shapes were associated with female and angular with male gender; and curved shapes were
associated with Bouba and angular with Kiki name. Overall, the found effects were strong
and consistent for all the attributes and for an overwhelming majority of shape pairs. Only 3
Blazhenkova and Kumar 75

Figure 2. Mean shape correspondences scores for each attribute in Study 1. Shape correspondences score
refers to the number of a participant’s answers that went along with the correspondences prevalent in the
sample.

out of 208 shape pairs were not significantly matched to these prevalent attributions.
Particularly, correspondences with sound and emotion attributes for Shape no. 13 were
consistent with the prevailing trends, but did not reach significance, while texture
correspondences for Shape no. 22 were neither consistent nor significant. However, these
exceptions can be explained. Curved Shape no. 13 may resemble expanding soundwaves,
associated with loudness and intensity. The straight dashed lines in the angular version of
Shape no. 22 may elicit the feeling of smooth texture, while the wavy lines in the curved
shape version may convey a more textured, rough surface.
For each condition, we computed a shape correspondences score (ranging from 0 to 26),
indicating the number of participant’s answers that went along with the prevalent
correspondences described earlier. Then, for each condition, we conducted a one-sample t
test to examine whether the shape correspondence score was different from the chance level
(¼ 13). The results indicated that all shape correspondence scores were significantly above
the chance level (all p’s < . 001): for taste t(196) ¼ 23.305, sound t(196) ¼ 16.437, smell
t(196) ¼ 10.996, color t(196) ¼ 14.301, texture t(196) ¼ 10.015, emotion t(196) ¼ 17.040,
gender t(196) ¼ 17.088, and name t(196) ¼ 9.402 (see Figure 2). For all the shape
correspondences scores, the mode was 26, which was the maximum score.

Relationship between shape correspondences and measures of emotion. To examine relationships

between the shape correspondences scores and individual differences in emotional
processing, we conducted Pearson’s correlational analysis (Table 1). Both measures of
individual differences in emotion (RDEES and GERT) tended to correlate with each
other as well as with a number of correspondences scores, though, these correlations were
not strong. In particular, RDEES Emotional Range Scale correlated or tended to correlate
positively with name and emotion scores of the shape correspondences task. GERT was
positively associated with sound, color, texture, emotion, and name scores. Besides, the
shape correspondences task scores across multiple attributes were generally interconnected.
76 Perception 47(1)

Table 1. Correlations Among All the Measures in Study 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Taste score 1
2. Sound score .145* 1
3. Smell score .432** .133þ 1
4. Color score .199** .344** .159* 1
5. Texture score .077 .108 .119þ .063 1
6. Emotion score .158* .325** .154* .365** .174* 1
7. Gender score .386** .120þ .149* .134þ .219** .126þ 1
8. Name score .140* .190** .038 .172* .079 .212** .030 1
9. RDEES-range .078 .098 .067 .092 .112 .138þ .017 .198** 1
10. RDEES-difference .004 .049 .079 .083 .001 .055 .043 .047 .512** 1
11. GERT .058 .299** .071 .260** .176* .243** .064 .188** 129þ .107

Note. RDEES ¼ Range and Differentiation of Emotional Experience Scale; GERT ¼ Geneva Emotion Recognition Test.
**p < .001. *p < .05. þp < .10.

Study 2
Study 1 presented matching attributes in the shape correspondences task as verbal descriptions
instead of actual experiences. Using words describing sensory attributes instead of real sensory
experiences was argued to be a potential limitation of crossmodal correspondences research
(Simner, Cuskley, & Kirby, 2010). Velasco et al. (2015) found that correspondences between
shapes and sensory stimuli presented as words or real experiences were highly consistent.
However, Velasco et al. examined associations only in gustatory sensory modality (people
associated angular and round shapes with taste words and actual tastants). To ensure
that the found results would generalize to more ecologically valid tasks, in Study 2, we
presented the same attributes by using real experiences. Furthermore, Study 2 examined the
relationships between shape correspondences and emotional processing. It introduced a new,
more elaborate measure of emotion attribution to angular versus curved shapes.

Method
Participants. Sabanci University students (N ¼ 113, 70 women, 18–25 years old, M age ¼ 21.2)
participated in the study. The research was approved by the Sabanci University Research
Ethics Council. Participants provided written informed consent and were reimbursed with
either course credit or chocolate upon their choice.

Materials and procedure. All participants completed the shape correspondences task as well as
two measures of emotion: RDEES (Kang & Shaver, 2004) and the newly developed
emotional shapes task. Participants were tested individually. Qualtrics software was used
for data recording (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).1
Shape correspondences task. In this task, participants matched eight pairs consisting of
one angular and one curved shape to pairs of attributes, representing sensory experiences in
different modalities as well as emotion, gender, and name. All the matching attributes were
the same as in the Study 1; however, participants matched the shapes to real experiences
instead of their verbal labels. The eight stimuli were selected from the shape pairs used in
Study 2 (no. 7, no. 8, no. 9, no. 10, no. 14, no. 8, no. 21, and no. 24) based on their
resemblance to the classical kiki-bouba shapes. The participants received shape booklets,
Blazhenkova and Kumar 77

containing shape pairs, each on a separate laminated page. Participants were instructed to
match shapes in their booklets with different attributes that they will see, smell, taste, listen
to, touch, and so on. The same eight shape pairs were matched with all of the eight attributes
(taste, sound, smell, color, texture, emotion, gender, & name), thus making overall 64 items.
The order of trials was fixed. Participants were asked to hold the booklet in their hands at all
times and to provide their responses by pointing to the selected shape. The experimenters
presented the stimuli to the participants. They never used word labels to describe the stimuli
(e.g., sweet or rough) but only used numbers ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘2’’ to refer to the specific stimuli.
The script used was as follows: ‘‘I will give you two things to smell. Then I will ask you to
match the smells to the shapes in your booklet. Okay? Please close your eyes. This is smell
‘1’. Can you smell it? This is smell ‘2’. Can you smell it? Now you may open your eyes. Please
match the two smells to the two shapes in front of you. Which shape feels more like ‘1’?
Which feels more like ‘2’?’’ After which, the experimenters recorded the participants’
responses in the Qualtrics software, while participants were asked to turn away from the
computer screen.
For each of the five basic sensory modalities (vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and
tactation), the stimuli were created (Figure 3) to represent the following attributes,

Figure 3. Stimuli for Shape correspondences task from Study 2.

78 Perception 47(1)

Figure 4. Sample item from the Emotional shapes task.

respectively: sweet versus sour taste (each participant received two disposable cups with sweet
and sour mixtures; 1000 ml of water was mixed with 50 ml of lemon juice or with 75 g of
sugar), dynamic versus calm sound (20-s samples of dance or meditative music), citrus versus
vanilla smell (citrus soap or vanilla candle samples), red versus green color (colored red or
green papers), and smooth versus rough texture (surfaces of smooth laminating paper or
sandpaper). In addition, the following higher level attributes were included: surprise versus
relief emotion (photographs of faces expressing surprise or relief, Retrieved from Azimage
Free Images, 2016), female versus male gender (common signs used to refer to female or male
gender), and Kiki versus Bouba name (voice clips pronouncing Kiki or Bouba). The color,
emotion, and gender stimuli were viewed by the participants. The smell, taste, and texture
stimuli were perceived through smelling, tasting, and touching, respectively, with eyes closed.
The sound and name stimuli were listened to through headphones.
Emotional shapes task. On individual computer screens, participants were presented with
eight angular and eight curved shapes, the same as in the shape correspondences task. Each
shape was surrounded by 14 answer choices (see Figure 4) based on the Geneva Emotion
Wheel (Scherer, 2005; Scherer, Fontaine, Sacharin, & Soriano, 2013), the same as in the
GERT (Schlegel et al., 2014). For each shape, participants were asked to select the word that
best describes the emotion conveyed by a particular shape.

Results
Shape correspondences task. To examine the trends in participants’ matching between angular
versus curved shapes and various attributes, we conducted binomial tests (test
proportion ¼ .50) for all the items. The analysis revealed significant (all p’s  .002) and
consistent patterns of correspondences (M ¼ 77.9%, ranging from 65% to 90%; see
Blazhenkova and Kumar 79

Figure 5. Mean shape correspondences scores for each attribute in Study 2. Shape correspondences score
refers to the number of participant’s answers that went along with the correspondences prevalent in the
sample.

Table A2 in Appendix A for details). In particular, curved shapes were associated with sweet
and angular with sour taste (mean correspondence ¼ 86%, ranging from 81% to 90%);
curved shapes were associated with calm and angular with dynamic sound (M ¼ 84%;
ranging from 80% to 89%); curved shapes were associated with vanilla and angular with
citrus smell (M ¼ 70%; ranging from 66% to 73%); curved shapes were associated with green
and angular with red color (M ¼ 69%; ranging from 65% to 73%); curved shapes
were associated with smooth and angular with rough texture (M ¼ 85%; ranging from
80% to 89%); curved shapes were associated with relief and angular with surprise
emotion (M ¼ 79%; ranging from 65% to 78%); curved shapes were associated with
female and angular with male gender (M ¼ 71%; ranging from 65% to 78%); curved
shapes were associated with Bouba and angular with Kiki name (M ¼ 79%; ranging from
75% to 84%).
As in Study 1, we computed separate scores (ranging from 0 to 8), indicating the number
of participants’ answers that went along with the prevalent correspondences for a particular
attribute (Figure 5). Then, for each condition, we conducted a one-sample t test to examine
whether the correspondences were different from the chance level ¼ 4. The results indicated
that all correspondence trends were significantly above the chance level (all p’s < .001):
for taste t(112) ¼ 14.409, sound t(112) ¼ 13.743, smell t(112) ¼ 5.727, color t(112) ¼
5.738, texture t(112) ¼ 13.867, emotion t(12) ¼ 9.622, gender t(112) ¼ 6.652, and name
t(112) ¼ 9.526. For all the shape correspondences scores, the mode was 8, equal to the
maximum score. Thus, Study 2, using real experiences referring to attributes presented as
verbal labels in Study 1, demonstrated the correspondences, consistent for all attributes and
shape pairs.

Emotional shapes task. For each of the 16 shapes (eight curved and eight angular), a chi-square
test of goodness-of-fit was performed to determine whether different emotional labels were
equally preferred (Figure 6). The analysis demonstrated significant results, indicating that
emotional associations were not equally distributed for curved shapes, 2(12) ¼ 58.761,
p < .001 for Shape no. 7; 2(12) ¼ 78.549, p < .001 for Shape no. 8; 2(12) ¼ 68.655,
80 Perception 47(1)

Figure 6. Distribution of participants’ choices in the Emotional shapes task.

Blazhenkova and Kumar 81

p < .001 for Shape no. 9; 2(12) ¼ 74.867, p < .001 for Shape no. 10; 2(12) ¼ 42.425, p < .001
for Shape no. 14; 2(12) ¼ 24.478, p < .001 for Shape no. 18; 2(13) ¼ 118.558, p < .001 for
Shape no. 21; 2(13) ¼ 50.168, p < .001 for Shape no. 25, as well as for angular shapes,
2(12) ¼ 61.522, p < .001 for Shape no. 7; 2(13) ¼ 33.814, p ¼ .001 for Shape no. 8;
2(13) ¼ 97.991, p < .001 for Shape no. 9; 2(13) ¼ 121.283, p < .001 for Shape no. 10;
2(13) ¼ 51.407, p < .001 for Shape no. 14; 2(13) ¼ 111.124, p < .001 for Shape no. 18;
2(13) ¼ 51.159, p < .001 for Shape no. 21; 2 (13) ¼ 70.735, p < .001 for Shape no. 25.
For further analysis, the emotions were classified into positive and negative categories,
based on models that depict each emotion along the pleasure-displeasure continuum
(Bänziger, Mortillaro, & Scherer, 2012; Russell, 1980; Scherer, 2005). The pride, joy,
amusement, pleasure, relief, interest, and surprise emotional attributes were classified as
positive, whereas anxiety, fear, despair, sadness, disgust, irritation, and anger were classified
as negative. Then, for all the items, the proportions of positive and negative emotional
attributions were compared using binomial tests (test proportion ¼ .50). The analysis
revealed consistently prevalent associations between curved shapes and positive emotions,
which were significant for the majority of curved shapes in Pairs no. 7, no. 8, no. 9, no. 10,
and no. 21 (76%, 81%, 80%, 70%, 73%, and 84%, correspondingly; all p’s < .001), but not
significant for no. 18 (p ¼ .188) and no. 25 (57%; p ¼ .573). In contrast, most angular shapes
were more frequently associated with negative emotions, which were significant for the
majority of angular Shapes no. 7, no. 9, no. 10, no. 18, and no. 25 (61%, 76%, 74%,
84%, and 73%, correspondingly; all p’s  .024), but not significant for no. 8 (55%;
p ¼ .347) and no. 14 (57%; p ¼ .188). Exceptionally, the angular Shape no. 21 was also
associated with positive emotions (74%; p < .001). The overall emotional shapes score was
computed for each participant as a sum of positive emotional attributions for eight curved
shapes and negative emotional attributions for eight angular shapes. One-sample t test
showed that the emotional shapes score (M ¼ 10.79) was significantly above chance level
(¼8), t(112) ¼ 10.245, p < .001.
The results of the emotional shapes task performance indicated that semantic meaning
may override the role of angularity versus curvature in shape perception. For example, both
angular and curved versions of Shape no. 7 were predominantly associated with pride
emotion. From the subsequent informal interviews with participants, we learned that both
shapes resembled a human face profile with a nose turned up. Furthermore, both angular
and curved visions of the Shape no. 21 were predominantly associated with positive
emotions, which may be due to these shapes’ resemblance to flowers.

Relationship between shape correspondences and measures of emotion. To examine relationships

among the correspondences and measures of emotion, we conducted Pearson’s correlational
analysis (Table 2). The relationships between the correspondences and measures of emotion
were, overall, consistent with those of Study 1. Measures of emotion positively correlated
with each other (RDEES scales and emotional shapes). The emotional shapes task positively
correlated with most correspondences scores (notably, the highest correlation was with the
emotion score). Similar to the results obtained in Study 1, shape correspondences task scores
were generally interconnected across multiple sensory attributes. Markedly, emotion scores
manifested significant associations with most of the other correspondences scores.

General Discussion
The present research aimed to systematically examine angular and curved shape
correspondences to different sensory and higher level attributes. The analyses
82 Perception 47(1)

Table 2. Correlations Among All Measures in Study 2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Taste score 1
2. Sound score .046 1
3. Smell score .111 .001 1
4. Color score .027 .091 .059 1
5. Texture score .203* .185* .190* .274** 1
6. Emotion score .211* .417** .222* .075 .249** 1
7. Gender score .166þ .088 .233* .009 .138 .275** 1
8. Name score .108 .008 .099 .133 .270** .343** .023 1
9. RDEES-range .030 .097 .057 .130 .121 .018 .116 .042 1
10. RDEES-difference .023 .118 .003 .166 .089 .007 .040 .124 .575** 1
11. Emotional shapes .290** .184þ .226* .093 .243** .408** .258** .200* .288** .318** 1

Note. RDEES ¼ Range and Differentiation of Emotional Experience Scale.

**p < .001. *p < .05. þp < .10.

demonstrated the existence of nonarbitrary correspondences between angular or curved

shapes and all attributes from the five basic sensory modalities (i.e., vision, audition,
gustation, olfaction, and tactation) as well as higher level attributes (i.e., emotion, gender,
and name). The found correspondences were highly consistent across the studies.
Participants associated curved shapes with sweet taste, quietness or calmness, vanilla
smell, green color, smooth texture, relieved emotion, female gender, and wide-vowel
names. In contrast, they associated angular shapes with sour taste, loud or dynamic
sound, spicy or citrus smell, red color, rough texture, excited or surprise emotion, male
gender, and narrow-vowel names. This effect was robust across all experiments,
conditions, and shape pairs. For all the studies and conditions, the mode of the shape
correspondences score was equal to the maximum score. In the present work, we created
a large stimuli set of shape pairs; within each, the shapes were similar in terms of all
characteristics except for being angular or curved. The correspondences effect was reliably
demonstrated for a number of different shapes that largely deviated from the classical kiki-
bouba shapes in terms of diverse characteristics such as complexity, symmetry, and being
closed or opened, and so on. Our findings are consistent with previous research that
demonstrated nonarbitrary correspondences between angular versus curved shapes and
various attributes (Fryer et al., 2014; Hanson-Vaux et al., 2013; Spence, 2011; Spence,
Levitan, Shankar, & Zampini, 2010). However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to
systematically demonstrate that the kiki-bouba effect exists consistently across most sensory
and nonsensory, higher level attributions, such as gender, name, and emotion. Markedly, the
correspondences effect was established both when attributes were presented as verbal labels
in Study 1, and when attributes were presented as real experiences in Study 2. The present
results extend Velasco et al.’s (2015) finding that the ways in which people match taste words
and taste experiences to shapes are quite similar. Our results suggest that the similarity
between the shape correspondences to words and to real experiences may exist for all
sensory and higher level attributes. Furthermore, the present findings support previous
arguments that connecting information across the different senses may involve both low-
level and high-level mechanisms, and that crossmodal correspondences may arise from
perceptual similarities as well as semantic meaning (Martino & Marks, 1999; Velasco,
Woods, Marks, Cheok, & Spence, 2016). The mechanisms that underlie crossmodal
correspondences are still to be clarified (Velasco et al., 2016). The present research helps
to shed light on this matter.
Blazhenkova and Kumar 83

The second goal of the present research was to examine the relationship between angular
and curved shape correspondences and individual differences in emotional processing.
Across the studies, we found associations between the correspondences scores and
measures of emotion. Overall, emotional assessments tended to correlate with each other
as well as with different correspondences scores, though, these associations were not strong.
Notably, the correlations were more pronounced between the emotional assessments and
emotion correspondences score. Also, higher correlations were observed between
performance emotional measures (GERT and emotional shapes) and correspondences
scores, and lower between self-report emotional measures (RDEES) and correspondences
scores. Taken together, these findings suggest that individual differences in emotional
processing relate to shape correspondences. Thus, heightened emotional ability may be
associated with the likelihood in making prevailing nonarbitrary attributions. This is
consistent with previous reports demonstrating that individuals with atypical emotional
development less pronounced manifestation of crossmodal correspondences and
multisensory integration (Bien et al., 2012; Iarocci & McDonald, 2006; Marco et al., 2011;
Oberman & Ramachadran, 2007, 2008; Occelli et al., 2013; Ramachandran & Hubbard,
2003; Van der Smagt et al., 2007). Besides, the present findings extend the previous research
on the moderating role of individual differences in angular versus curved shape processing
(Cotter et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2006). The present results emphasize the role of emotional
processing in angular versus curved shape correspondences, which is also supported by
neuroscience evidence highlighting the role of emotion in multisensory perceptual
processing and shape perception (Bar & Neta, 2007; Brown et al., 2011; Drevets &
Raichle, 1998; Palmer et al., 2013; Pessoa, 2008; Vuilleumier, 2005). Future research is
needed to examine which specific emotional abilities (e.g., emotional recognition,
discriminating between different emotions, the ability to monitor one’s own and other
people’s emotions, etc.) are involved in making crossmodal correspondences. Besides, it is
not clear why emotional sensitivity predicts greater crossmodal correspondences, and
whether this relationship reflects lower level or higher level processes. Future neuroscience
studies with individuals that differ in their emotional abilities could elucidate the role of
emotional abilities in making crossmodal correspondences.
In addition, correlational analyses of the shape correspondences task scores indicated
that the scores were generally interconnected across multiple attributes. Although most of
the relationships were positive, significant correlations were not present across all the
attributes, and the size of these correlations was not high. This indicates that the
likelihood of making certain shape correspondences to attributes from one modality is
only weakly related to the likelihood of making certain shape correspondences to
attributes from a different modality. Notably, the attributes from different modalities
were sometimes incompatible for naturally occurring associations (e.g., sour taste and
spicy smell both were associated with angular shapes). Thus, it is unlikely that
participants formed a single and coherent underlying object representation linking
multiple different attributes to a particular shape.
One limitation of this research was using shape correspondences task with a forced choice
between the two alternatives; thus, the results may be affected by the selection of specific
attributes. However, a slight modification of stimuli in the correspondences task yielded
quite similar results. For example, using quiet instead of calm and loud instead of dynamic
for sound; spicy instead of citrus for smell, excited instead of surprise for emotion, and a
variety of wide-vowel and narrow-vowel names elicited the same correspondences. Besides,
emotion correspondences that were based only on two attributes highly correlated with the
emotional shapes task, which included a range of different emotions. Another limitation of
84 Perception 47(1)

the present work was the fixed order of stimuli, which was partially caused by the motivation
to ease the stimuli presentation, especially when real experiences were used.
The present findings enrich the crossmodal correspondences research field by providing
evidence of consistent shape associations across multiple sensory and higher level attributes.
Moreover, the present work brings the perspective of individual differences in emotional
processing to the study on correspondences of angular versus curved shapes. The present
findings have potential applications in various disciplines beyond multisensory research,
such as visual cognition, the psychology of individual differences, empirical aesthetics,
marketing, developmental psychology, and applied fields.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Petr Grigorash for drawing the shape stimuli. We also want to thank Duygu
Yal|nk|l|nç who assisted in data collection.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: The present work was supported by Sabanci University (Individual Research
Fund).

Note
1. Research was done in English.

References
Abell, F., Happe, F., & Frith, U. (2000). Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to
animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cognitive Development, 15, 1–16.
Adeli, M., Rouat, J., & Molotchnikoff, S. (2014). Audiovisual correspondence between musical timbre
and visual shapes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 352.
Arnheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Aronoff, J., Barclay, A. M., & Stevenson, L. A. (1988). The recognition of threatening facial stimuli.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 647.
Aronoff, J., Woike, B. A., & Hyman, L. M. (1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and
happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 1050.
Azimage Free Images. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.azimage.com/
Bänziger, T., Mortillaro, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Introducing the Geneva multimodal expression
corpus for experimental research on emotion perception. Emotion, 12, 1161.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation.
Neuropsychologia, 45, 2191–2200.
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., Gheorghes, T. N., & Galatsidas, M. (2016). Do observers like curvature
or do they dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107, 154–178.
Blazhenkova and Kumar 85

Bien, N., ten Oever, S., Goebel, R., & Sack, A. T. (2012). The sound of size: Crossmodal binding
in pitch-size synesthesia: A combined TMS, EEG and psychophysics study. NeuroImage, 59,
663–672.
Blazhenkova, O. (2017, August 13). Curved vs. angular shapes set: unframed, square-framed, round-
framed. Open Science Framework. Retrieved from osf.io/zrn29
Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & Spence, C. (2013). ‘‘Bouba’’
and ‘‘Kiki’’ in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape–sound matches, but different shape–
taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126, 165–172.
Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. B., & Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain
areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage, 58, 250–258.
Brüne, M., & Brüne-Cohrs, U. (2006). Theory of mind—Evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and
psychopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 437–455.
Calvert, G. A., & Thesen, T. (2004). Multisensory integration: Methodological approaches and
emerging principles in the human brain. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 98, 191–205.
Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta
Psychologica, 134, 233–244.
Collier, G. L. (1996). Affective synesthesia: Extracting emotion space from simple perceptual stimuli.
Motivation and Emotion, 20, 1–32.
Cotter, K. N., Silvia, P. J., Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., & Vartanian, O. (2017). Curve appeal:
Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. i-Perception, 8,
2041669517693023.
Crisinel, A. S., & Spence, C. (2010). A sweet sound? Food names reveal implicit associations between
taste and pitch. Perception, 39, 417–425.
D’Andrade, R., & Egan, M. (1974). The colors of emotion. American Ethnologist, 1, 49–63.
Dematte, M. L., Sanabria, D., Sugarman, R., & Spence, C. (2006). Cross-modal interactions between
olfaction and touch. Chemical Senses, 31, 291–300.
Deroy, O., Crisinel, A. S., & Spence, C. (2013). Crossmodal correspondences between odors and
contingent features: Odors, musical notes, and geometrical shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 20, 878–896.
Drevets, W. C., & Raichle, M. E. (1998). Reciprocal suppression of regional cerebral blood flow during
emotional versus higher cognitive processes: Implications for interactions between emotion and
cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 353–385.
Etzi, R., Spence, C., Zampini, M., & Gallace, A. (2016). When sandpaper is ‘Kiki’and satin is ‘Bouba’:
An exploration of the associations between words, emotional states, and the tactile attributes of
everyday materials. Multisensory Research, 29, 133–155.
Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2010). Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory
features. Journal of Vision, 10, 6.
Fryer, L., Freeman, J., & Pring, L. (2014). Touching words is not enough: How visual experience
influences haptic–auditory associations in the ‘‘Bouba–Kiki’’ effect. Cognition, 132, 164–173.
Gallace, A., Boschin, E., & Spence, C. (2011). On the taste of ‘‘Bouba’’ and ‘‘Kiki’’: An exploration of
word-food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 34–46.
Garavan, H., Pendergrass, J. C., Ross, T. J., Stein, E. A., & Risinger, R. C. (2001). Amygdala response
to both positively and negatively valenced stimuli. Neuroreport, 12, 2779–2783.
Ghoshal, T., Boatwright, P., & Malika, M. (2016). Curvature from all angles (pp. 91–106). London,
England: Routledge.
Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2015). Preference for curvature: A historical and
conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 712.
Gottfried, J. A., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). The nose smells what the eye sees: Crossmodal visual
facilitation of human olfactory perception. Neuron, 39, 375–386.
Hanson-Vaux, G., Crisinel, A. S., & Spence, C. (2013). Smelling shapes: Crossmodal correspondences
between odors and shapes. Chemical Senses, 38, 161–166.
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal
of Psychology, 57, 243–259.
86 Perception 47(1)

Hevner, K. (1935). Experimental studies of the affective value of colors and lines. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 19, 385.
Iarocci, G., & McDonald, J. (2006). Sensory integration and the perceptual experience of persons with
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 77–90.
Irwin, F. W., & Newland, E. (1940). A genetic study of the naming of visual figures. Journal of
Psychology, 9, 3–16.
Kang, S. M., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Individual differences in emotional complexity: Their
psychological implications. Journal of Personality, 72, 687–726.
Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to
creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 233–255.
Kenneth, J. H. (1923). Mental reactions to smell stimuli. Psychological Review, 30, 77.
Knoeferle, K. M., Woods, A., Käppler, F., & Spence, C. (2015). That sounds sweet: Using cross-modal
correspondences to communicate gustatory attributes. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 107–120.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20766
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.
Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 19, 603–618.
Leder, H., Tinio, P. P., & Bar, M. (2011). Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved
objects. Perception, 40, 649–655.
Lewkowicz, D. J., & Ghazanfar, A. A. (2009). The emergence of multisensory systems through
perceptual narrowing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 470–478.
Lundholm, H. (1921). The affective tone of lines: Experimental researches. Psychological Review,
28, 43.
Marco, E. J., Hinkley, L. B., Hill, S. S., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011). Sensory processing in autism: A
review of neurophysiologic findings. Pediatric Research, 69, 48R–54R.
Marks, L. E. (1996). On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 11, 39–66.
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification:
Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903–923.
Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape
correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322.
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual
stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772–781.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: Guilford.
Melara, R. D., & O’Brien, T. P. (1987). Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 323.
Milan, E., Iborra, O., de Cordoba, M., Juárez-Ramos, V., Artacho, M. R., & Rubio, J. L. (2013). The
kiki-bouba effect a case of personification and ideaesthesia. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20,
84–102.
Munar, E., Gómez-Puerto, G., López-Navarro, E., & Nadal, M. (2014). Visual preference for
curvature as a potential aesthetic primitive. In A. Kotzbelt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-
Third Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 316–319).
New York, NY. Available at: http://www.science-of-aesthetics.org/congresses.html.
Ngo, M. K., Misra, R., & Spence, C. (2011). Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that people
associate with chocolate samples varying in cocoa content. Food Quality and Preference, 22,
567–572.
Ngo, M. K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A., Boehm, E., O’Neill, D., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing
crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound symbolism. Food
Quality and Preference, 28, 361–369.
Oberman, L. M., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). The simulating social mind: The role of the mirror
neuron system and simulation in the social and communicative deficits of autism spectrum
disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 310.
Blazhenkova and Kumar 87

Oberman, L. M., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2008). Preliminary evidence for deficits in multisensory
integration in autism spectrum disorders: The mirror neuron hypothesis. Social Neuroscience, 3, 348–355.
Occelli, V., Esposito, G., Venuti, P., Arduino, G. M., & Zampini, M. (2013). The Takete-Maluma
phenomenon in autism spectrum disorders. Perception, 42, 233–241.
Ozturk, O., Krehm, M., & Vouloumanos, A. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: Evidence for sound-
shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
114, 173–186.
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., Xu, Z., & Prado-León, L. R. (2013). Music-color associations are
mediated by emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8836–8841.
Palumbo, L., & Bertamini, M. (2016). The curvature effect a comparison between preference tasks.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 34, 35–52.
Palumbo, L., Ruta, N., & Bertamini, M. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of
implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. PloS One, 10, e0140043.
Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9,
148–158.
Poffenberger, A. T., & Barrows, B. E. (1924). The feeling value of lines. Journal of Applied Psychology,
8, 187.
Qualtrics software (Version 1354750 0.905s [0.281, 0.217, 0.118, 0.051, 0.017]) of Qualtrics. Copyright 
2015 Qualtrics. [Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks
or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA.] Retrieved from http://www.qualtrics.com
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Psychophysical investigations into the neural basis of
synaesthesia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 979–983.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2003). Hearing colors, tasting shapes. Scientific American,
288, 52–59.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A cirumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
1161–1178.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information,
44, 693–727.
Scherer, K. R., Shuman, V., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Soriano, C. (2013). The GRID meets the wheel:
Assessing emotional feeling via self-report. In R. J. Johnny, K. R. Fontaine, C. Scherer, & Soriano
(Eds.), Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook (pp. 281–298). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Schlegel, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Introducing the Geneva emotion recognition
test: An example of Rasch-based test development. Psychological Assessment, 26, 666.
Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and
aesthetic preference. Empirical studies of the arts, 27(1), 25–42.
Simner, J., Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2010). What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mappings across
gustation and audition. Perception, 39, 553–569.
Small, D. M. (2004). Crossmodal integration—Insights from the chemical senses. Trends in
Neurosciences, 27, 120–123.
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 73, 971–995.
Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on
the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 37–54.
Spence, C., Levitan, C. A., Shankar, M. U., & Zampini, M. (2010). Does food color influence taste and
flavor perception in humans? Chemosensory Perception, 3, 68–84.
Spence, C., & Ngo, M. K. (2012). Assessing the shape symbolism of the taste, flavour, and texture of
foods and beverages. Flavour, 1, 1.
Spence, C., & Zampini, M. (2006). Auditory contributions to multisensory product perception. Acta
Acustica United With Acustica, 92, 1009–1025.
Van der Smagt, M. J., van Engeland, H., & Kemner, C. (2007). Brief report: Can you see what is not
there? Low-level auditory-visual integration in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37, 2014–2019.
88 Perception 47(1)

Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2015). Hedonic mediation of the crossmodal
correspondence between taste and shape. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 151–158.
Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Marks, L. E., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2016). The semantic basis of
taste-shape associations. PeerJ, 4, e1644.
Vuilleumier, P. (2005). How brains beware: Neural mechanisms of emotional attention. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 9, 585–594.
Walker, P., Francis, B. J., & Walker, L. (2010). The brightness-weight illusion: Darker objects look
heavier but feel lighter. Experimental Psychology, 57, 462–469.
Wan, X., Woods, A. T., van den Bosch, J. J., McKenzie, K. J., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. (2014). Cross-
cultural differences in crossmodal correspondences between basic tastes and visual features.
Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1365.
Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., &Wells, S.
(2012). Product design: Preference for angular versus curved design elements. Psychology &
Marketing, 29, 595–605.
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for
angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 794–805.

Appendix A

Table A1. Percentage of Prevalent Correspondences in Study 1.

Shape Taste Sound Smell Color Texture Emotion Gender Name

no. (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1 88 67 79 76 63 74 92 66
2 81 88 76 84 69 83 67 80
3 80 84 69 84 65 82 73 78
4 90 84 78 76 87 84 85 68
5 89 85 83 78 78 83 90 68
6 87 78 80 74 79 79 87 68
7 84 86 75 80 78 84 80 81
8 83 85 70 81 78 86 77 77
9 88 87 75 85 76 87 80 77
10 91 82 80 77 81 84 86 69
11 85 71 78 74 66 74 84 63
12 84 88 73 85 69 82 76 79
13 78 55 70 70 64 53 81 66
14 82 85 71 79 75 84 79 76
15 86 84 79 77 81 81 81 71
16 90 70 75 74 69 68 88 68
17 79 78 81 77 74 80 81 69
18 87 87 76 79 79 88 72 77
19 86 78 71 81 66 84 80 77
20 87 77 82 77 72 77 87 70
21 85 81 74 80 74 85 78 78
22 80 64 67 77 51 70 80 80
23 77 75 71 79 63 83 72 75
24 93 80 76 79 77 78 86 66
25 91 79 82 73 88 82 86 69
26 82 90 74 81 72 92 76 80
 Blazhenkova and Kumar 89

Table A2. Percentage of Prevalent Correspondences in Study 2.

Shape Taste Sound Smell Color Texture Emotion Gender Name

no. (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

7 86 89 73 72 86 78 75 79
8 88 85 70 67 88 78 65 81
9 88 82 71 73 80 82 71 80
10 81 82 73 68 83 80 71 75
14 90 84 66 65 83 79 78 84
18 81 85 71 68 89 80 65 78
21 84 80 68 68 89 75 68 80
25 86 83 67 70 85 79 76 77

View publication stats