Vol. 61 No. 1 (2013)
Research Article

The QWERTY Effect Does Not Extend to Birth Names

Published 2013-03-01


  • conceptual mappings,
  • cultural models,
  • pragmatics,
  • branding,
  • inference,
  • Rioja wine brands
  • ...More



The QWERTY effect suggests a consequence to word meaning deriving from the placement of letters on a QWERTY keyboard. reported that words formed primarily of letters from the left side of the keyboard were more aversive in nature, whereas those on the right side were more attractive (right-side advantage, RSA); they concluded that those individuals branding new products could ensure a positive affect by attending to the balance of letters. I tested this hypothesis on arguably the most important branding decision an individual can make, the naming of a baby, by associating name popularity against RSA. Names and their rank among the top 1000 names reported to the Social Security Administration were gathered for each decadal interval between 1880 and 2010 (n=28,000 names). I found no evidence for the QWERTY effect in child names (?RSA=0·007; 95% CI=[?0·014, 0·027]). Instead, gender-specific patterns in name popularity were related to length of name (?Name Length=0·079 [0·058, 0·099]). Parents should not be concerned that positive affect is dictated by the QWERTY effect.


  1. Agresti A. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. 2011. Linear Mixed-Effects Models using S4 Classes. <http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf>.
  3. Beilock SL, Holt LE. 2007. ‘Embodied Preference Judgments: Can Likeability be Driven by the Motor System?’ Psychological Science 18: 51–57.
  4. Christensen RHB. 2011. Analysis of Ordinal Data with Cumulative Link Models — Estimation with the R-package. Ordinal. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_intro.pdf>.
  5. Edwards R, Caballero C. 2008. ‘What’s in a Name? An Exploration of the Significance of Personal Naming of ‘Mixed’ Children for Parents from Different Racial, Ethnic, and Faith Backgrounds.’ Sociological Review 56: 39–60.
  6. Gelman A, Hill J. 2007. Data Analysis using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
  7. Jasmin K, Casasanto D. 2012. ‘The QWERTY Effect: How Typing Shapes the Meanings of Words.’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 19: 499–504.
  8. Logan GD, Crump MJC. 2011. In , Ross B, ed (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation 54. Ed. , Ross B, ed. Burlington, Academic Press, 1–27.
  9. Oppenheimer DM. 2008. ‘The Secret Life of Fluency.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 237–241.
  10. Ping R, Dhillon S, Beilock SL. 2009. ‘Reach for What You Like: The Body’s Role in Shaping Preferences.’ Emotion Review 1: 140–150.
  11. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  12. Van den Bergh O, Vrana S, Eelen P. 1990. ‘Letters from the Heart: Affective Categorization of Letter Combinations in Typists and Nontypists.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16: 1153–1161.
  13. Whissel C. 2006. ‘Historical and Socioeconomic Predictors of the Emotional Associations of Sounds in Common Names.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 103: 451–456.
  14. Whissell CM. 2009. Finding the Emotion in Names. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.
  15. Yasuoka K, Yasuoka M. 2011. ‘On the Pre-history of the QWERTY Keyboard.’ Zinbun 42: 161–174.