Abstract
There has been minimal research investigating the effects of language errors (e.g., grammar or spelling errors) on persuasion or impressions of the source, and research on errors in business advertising is nearly non-existent. We examined whether language errors would reduce the effectiveness of a business advertisement. Participants were presented with an error-free or an error-laden advertisement for a “white collar” service or a “blue collar” service. It was predicted that errors would reduce the persuasiveness of an advertisement, especially for a white collar service. An interaction effect revealed that participants had less interest in using the business with the error-laden versus error-free advertisement only when the business was for a white collar service. However, advertisements containing language errors significantly decreased perceived employee quality and perceived business/advertisement quality regardless of the type of service offered. All of these effects held only for those participants who noticed at least one error in the error-laden advertisement. Future research could examine how language error effects may vary across different forms of media presentation, as well as compare the effects of different types of language errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appleman, A., & Bolls, P. (2011). Article recall, credibility lower with grammar errors. Newspaper Research Journal, 32, 50–62 Retrieved from http://www.newspaperresearchjournal.org/.
Areni, C. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10077.
Hampel, S., Heinrich, D., & Campbell, C. (2012). Is an advertisement worth the paper it's printed on? The impact of premium print advertising on consumer perceptions. Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 118–127 Retrieved from http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/.
Jansen, F. (2010). Onkunde wordt bestraft Het effect van systematisch gemaakte afwijkingen van de standaardtaal op de waardering van direct-mailbrieven. Neerlandistiek.Nl, 10, 1–39. Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/190509
Jansen, F., & de Roo, E., J. (2012). Fouten tellen. De invloed van de dichtheid van dt-fouten op de lezerswaardering. Neerlandistiek.Nl, 12, 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.neerlandistiek.nl/10.02
Kloet, L., Renkema, J., & van Wijk, C. (2003). Waarom foutloos schrijven? Het effect van taalfouten op tekstwaardering, imago en overtuigingskracht. In L. van Waes, P. Cuvelier, G. Jacobs, & I. de Ridder (Eds.). Studies in Taalbeheersing (pp. 270–279). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Kreiner, D. S. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 5–17.
Lowrey, T. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_04.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00192.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
Verhoeven, G. (1981). Is dit een spelfoud of een versgissing? Een studie over primitieve schrijffouten, slips of the pen en slips of the tongue. In M. F. Steehouder, & C. J. M. Jansen, (redactie) Taalbeheersing 1981. (pp. 41–49). Enschede: VIOT.
Weintraub Austin, E., Pinkleton, B., & Fujioka, Y. (1999). Assessing prosocial message effectiveness: Effects of message quality, production quality, and persuasiveness. Journal of Health Communication, 4, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107399126913.
Wyckham, R. G., Banting, P. M., & Wensley, A. P. (1984). The language of advertising: Who controls quality? Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381713.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mozafari, A., El-Alayli, A., Kunemund, A. et al. Impressions of businesses with language errors in print advertising: Do spelling and grammar influence the inclination to use a business?. Curr Psychol 38, 1721–1727 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9735-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9735-0