Think about some of the candy and snack brands you’ve encountered over the years: Kit Kat, BonBon, Tic Tac, M&M’s, Yum Yum. Notice something? Many of the most recognizable sweet treats share a quirky linguistic trait: they repeat themselves. This isn’t a coincidence, according to new research from Japan, and it might be tapping into something deeply human about how we connect sounds, cuteness, and sugar.
A team of researchers set out to test whether this repetition, known as sound reduplication, actually shapes what consumers expect a product to taste like. Their answer, published in Psychology & Marketing, is yes: brand names with repeated sounds prompt people to expect sweeter flavors, and this effect appears to run through our perception of cuteness.
The question behind the research
Kosuke Motoki of The University of Tokyo, along with colleagues Sayo Iseki (Chukyo University) and Abhishek Pathak (University of Dundee), wanted to understand a relatively unexplored corner of branding. Plenty of research has examined how individual sounds in brand names shape perceptions, whether a soft vowel suggests smallness or a harsh consonant implies ruggedness. But the effect of repetition itself, as in “MiuMiu” or “tick-tick,” has received far less attention.
The researchers had a hunch rooted in linguistics. Across many languages, reduplication appears in baby talk: think “choo-choo,” “night-night,” “mama,” and “papa.” Babies themselves often produce these repeated sounds as they learn to speak. Because of this connection, the team suspected that repeated sounds might unconsciously evoke what scientists call the “baby schema,” a collection of infant-like features such as big eyes and round faces that tends to make adults perceive something as cute.
And cuteness, the researchers reasoned, might connect to sweetness. We call loved ones “sweetie” and “honey.” We jokingly threaten to “gobble up” adorable babies. Languages worldwide tangle affection, sweetness, and cuteness together. Could that cultural knot show up in something as simple as a brand name?
How the experiments worked
The team ran seven studies, including two supplementary ones, to test their idea from different angles. They used fictitious brand names rather than real ones, to avoid the baggage that established brands carry. The invented names were matched for length and sound type, with the only systematic difference being whether syllables repeated. Names like “Fipefipe” and “Sakisaki” were pitted against control names like “Fipeseti” and “Sakifute.”
In the first study, 146 participants rated how strongly each fictitious name suggested sweet, sour, salty, or bitter flavors. Names with repeated syllables were rated as sweeter than non-repeated names. They were also rated as less sour, less salty, and less bitter. The sweetness effect was the strongest of the four.
The second study dug into why. Participants rated names on perceived baby-schema cuteness (using words like cute, adorable, and innocent) and on how appropriate each name seemed for a new chocolate brand. Reduplicated names were rated cuter than both rhyming names (like “Fipesepe”) and non-repeated names, and they were also rated as better fits for chocolate. Statistical analysis showed a chain of events: the repetition increased cuteness perceptions, and heightened cuteness perceptions led to the sense that the name suited a sweet product.
Who responds, and when
The researchers then asked who this effect influences most. In one study with 561 participants, people first reported how much they liked sweet chocolate, then rated a chocolate brand called either “Meme” (reduplicated) or “Bime” (not reduplicated). The reduplicated name was perceived as cuter across the board, but the link between cuteness and positive brand attitude grew stronger among people who genuinely liked sweets.
A follow-up study with 752 participants put real money on the line. Participants chose a gift brand for a friend who either loved or disliked sweets, with a small cash bonus awarded if their choice matched the friend’s preferences. When the friend liked sweets, participants picked the reduplicated name more often (about 73% of the time) than the non-reduplicated one. When the friend disliked sweets, they avoided the reduplicated name, choosing the plainer option more than 83% of the time.
A final study with 701 participants tested whether the type of brand matters. People chose between vanilla ice cream brands positioned as either mass-market or luxury. For mass-market products, the reduplicated name won out (about 67% chose it) over the control. For luxury positioning, the effect vanished. Reduplication seems to clash with the prestige and refinement luxury brands try to project.
What businesses might take from this
For marketers working in sweet food categories, including confectionery (a roughly $619 billion global market in 2025 according to Statista), the findings suggest that repeated sounds in a brand name can work as a subtle signal. The name itself can prime expectations of sweetness and cuteness before a consumer even tastes the product.
The research also points to limits. Reduplication helps mass-market brands connect with broad audiences and appeals most to consumers who already enjoy sweets. For luxury products or for consumers who dislike sweetness, the same trick can backfire or simply fall flat.
Some caveats are worth keeping in mind. The studies used invented names and were conducted primarily with Japanese participants, so how these effects translate across languages and cultures remains an open question. The researchers also note that brand names do not operate in isolation. Visual design, packaging shape, color, and texture all contribute to sensory expectations, and future research could examine how sound repetition interacts with those other cues.
Still, the next time you see a candy called something like “Yum Yum” or “BonBon,” you may have a better sense of why that name feels right for the product inside the wrapper.
