Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Sample Demographics.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Experiment Overview.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Definitions of Rated Dimensions.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 1.

Lexical Associates.

Proportions of lexical associates from moist-averse and non-averse participants by category. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference at the p < .001 level.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 4.

Most and Least Frequently Recalled Words.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Demographics of Word Aversion.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Predicting Word Aversion by Individual Differences.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Speculation on Cause of Word Aversion.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 2.

Aversiveness Ratings.

Ratings of the aversivness of “moist” and words from six lexical categories from Experiment 1, grouped by participants who identified as moist-averse or non-averse. Error bars denote standard errors of the means. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences at the p < .05 level.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 8.

Difference in Aversiveness Ratings by Word Type.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Fig 3.

Rated words sorted from most to least aversive.

Separate means of word aversiveness are presented for participants who reported an aversion to moist (dark red) and for participants who did not (light blue). A subset of words are identified in the plot as reference points.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Positive and Negative Connotations.

Relationship between ratings of the 64 words’ negative and positive connotations. The dotted line represents what would be expected if the ratings of the words’ negative connotations were perfectly anti-correlated with the words’ positive connotations. The solid line reflects predicted values from the regression line, which revealed linear and quadratic relationships between the ratings. Items that deviated from the general pattern and “moist” are identified with labels.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Moist Ratings by Aversion.

Ratings of “moist” along six dimensions grouped by participants who identified as moist-averse or non-averse. Error bars denote standard errors of the means. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences at the p < .001 level.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 9.

Differences in Rated Dimensions of Moist.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 6.

Moist Ratings by Condition.

Ratings of “moist” along six dimensions grouped by condition: immediately before rating “moist” participants either watched a video designed to make “moist” seem cringeworthy, a video designed to prime a positive culinary sense of the word, or no video. Error bars denote standard errors of the means.

More »

Fig 6 Expand