Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why the word 'moist' makes you cringe
One psychologist’s quest to figure out one incredibly icky word
Moist. Just reading the word makes you cringe, doesn't it? There are many theories as to why — but according to psychologist Paul H. Thibodeau, the word “moist" makes you cringe because I just told you it should.
We've written about Thibodeau's work on the word "moist" before. While he initially thought there were contextual clues to people's aversion with the word, after crunching his data he found there weren't any. So, Thibodeau changed his approach to get to the bottom of the “moist aversion crevice" — which is both a cringeworthy description and the title of his study. That study, published by journal PLOS ONE in 2016, tests people's preconceived aversion to the word “moist" in one of 3 three ways: a physical response, the characteristics of people who are averse to the word, and whether people who describe themselves as averse to the word “moist" are averse to other words with negative connotations.
In order to do that, Thibodeau asked more than 2,400 participants to rate their feelings about the word through 5 rounds of tests. They compared their feelings on that word versus other words with both positive and negative connotations. Overall, 18 percent of participants found the word cringeworthy. Here's a chart of the word rankings:
Image source: Paul Thibodeau, PLOS ONE
Of the people who self-identified as moist-averse, they “reported less familiarity with and personal use of the word," writes Thibodeau. “They also considered the word to be more negatively valenced."
Most interestingly, people who weren't familiar with the word “moist" still cringed when they heard it. As established by both this experiment and his previous one, that reaction had nothing to do with the imagery conjured by the word. That cringeworthy reaction implies that those participants absorbed their negative connotation from somewhere else — and was strong enough to influence their own perception.
So who's most likely to cringe at the word moist? “A young, neurotic, female who is well-educated and somewhat disgusted by bodily function," according to the study. That bit about bodily function was an especially important link for Thibodeau: “The relationship between word aversion and disgust for bodily function, and not disgust for sex, suggests possible support for a specific semantic relatedness hypothesis — that aversion to “moist" may be grounded in associations to effluvia." Effluvia is gross bodily discharge, and given that the same people who think that's gross learn that from their environment, the same appears to be true for “moist."
Even with all of that cringing, the study's most interesting find is the characterization of being averse to a word. As Thibodeau explains:
The phenomenon is characterized by a visceral response to the aversive word, which can be seen directly in subjective ratings of word aversiveness, and in the responses of participants in a free association task. In addition, people with an aversion to 'moist"' were significantly more likely to remember and report having encountered the word in a surprise recall task.
All this means word aversion is a real thing. It's rooted in semantics and affects people who don't regularly use words they're averse to. Still, the fact that participants who self-identified as moist averse ranked it more negatively than people who didn't identify that way seems a bit too obvious a conclusion. Thibodeau admits that his work isn't exhaustive, but it is encouraging to see research confirming the ickiness of the word “moist." And, since Thibodeau seems obsessed with figuring this out, we'll get to the bottom of that moist aversion crevice sooner or later.
In the meantime, enjoy these celebrities attempting to say the word without cringing:
Feature image credit: Marcus Povey/Flickr
"You dream about these kinds of moments when you're a kid," said lead paleontologist David Schmidt.
- The triceratops skull was first discovered in 2019, but was excavated over the summer of 2020.
- It was discovered in the South Dakota Badlands, an area where the Triceratops roamed some 66 million years ago.
- Studying dinosaurs helps scientists better understand the evolution of all life on Earth.
Credit: David Schmidt / Westminster College<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We had to be really careful," Schmidt told St. Louis Public Radio. "We couldn't disturb anything at all, because at that point, it was under law enforcement investigation. They were telling us, 'Don't even make footprints,' and I was thinking, 'How are we supposed to do that?'"</p><p>Another difficulty was the mammoth size of the skull: about 7 feet long and more than 3,000 pounds. (For context, the largest triceratops skull ever unearthed was about <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2010.483632" target="_blank">8.2 feet long</a>.) The skull of Schmidt's dinosaur was likely a <em>Triceratops prorsus, </em>one of two species of triceratops that roamed what's now North America about 66 million years ago.</p>
Credit: David Schmidt / Westminster College<p>The triceratops was an herbivore, but it was also a favorite meal of the T<em>yrannosaurus rex</em>. That probably explains why the Dakotas contain many scattered triceratops bone fragments, and, less commonly, complete bones and skulls. In summer 2019, for example, a separate team on a dig in North Dakota made <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/science/triceratops-skull-65-million-years-old.html" target="_blank">headlines</a> after unearthing a complete triceratops skull that measured five feet in length.</p><p>Michael Kjelland, a biology professor who participated in that excavation, said digging up the dinosaur was like completing a "multi-piece, 3-D jigsaw puzzle" that required "engineering that rivaled SpaceX," he jokingly told the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/science/triceratops-skull-65-million-years-old.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a>.</p>
Morrison Formation in Colorado
James St. John via Flickr
|Credit: Nobu Tamura/Wikimedia Commons|
The world's 10 most affected countries are spending up to 59% of their GDP on the effects of violence.
- Conflict and violence cost the world more than $14 trillion a year.
- That's the equivalent of $5 a day for every person on the planet.
- Research shows that peace brings prosperity, lower inflation and more jobs.
- Just a 2% reduction in conflict would free up as much money as the global aid budget.
- Report urges governments to improve peacefulness, especially amid COVID-19.
The lush biodiversity of South America's rainforests is rooted in one of the most cataclysmic events that ever struck Earth.
- One especially mysterious thing about the asteroid impact, which killed the dinosaurs, is how it transformed Earth's tropical rainforests.
- A recent study analyzed ancient fossils collected in modern-day Colombia to determine how tropical rainforests changed after the bolide impact.
- The results highlight how nature is able to recover from cataclysmic events, though it may take millions of years.