Language is critical to the effectiveness of marketing messages. Achieving a desired outcome requires arranging words to formulate a message (i.e., syntax), but this task is not trivial. The authors study the role of syntax in marketing communications by focusing on syntactic surprise (i.e., how unexpected the syntax of a message is). They introduce a measure that captures syntactic surprise, establishes its internal and external validity, and tests its effectiveness for marketing messages. In a series of studies that include field data and randomized field experiments from contexts such as donations, advertising, and product reviews, the authors show that a message's syntactic surprise is related to its effectiveness. This relationship follows an inverted U-shape, such that medium-syntactic-surprise messages are the most effective. The authors then conduct experiments on Facebook and Instagram to demonstrate how these findings can be used to write effective marketing messages. In collaboration with two independent companies, they show that ads for products, services, or jobs that are written with medium syntactic surprise result in higher click-through rates than ads written with low or high syntactic surprise.
Abou JaoudeAbdo (2017), “The Paradigm of Complex Probability and Claude Shannon’s Information Theory,” Systems Science & Control Engineering, 5 (1), 380–425.
2.
ArmeniKristijanWillemsRoel M.BoschAntal Van denSchoffelenJan-Mathijs (2019), “Frequency-Specific Brain Dynamics Related to Prediction During Language Comprehension,” NeuroImage, 198, 283–95.
3.
BaddeleyAlan D.HitchGraham (1974), “Working Memory,” in Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation, Vol. 8, BowerG.H., ed. Academic Press, 47–90.
4.
BatesMadeleine (1995), “Models of Natural Language Understanding,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92 (22), 9977–82.
5.
BergerJonahHumphreysAshleeLudwigStephenMoeWendyNetzerOdedSchweidelDavid (2020), “Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), 1–25.
6.
BergerJonahMilkmanKatherine L. (2012), “What Makes Online Content Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 192–205.
7.
BergerJonahMoeWendy W.SchweidelDavid (2019), “What Leads to Longer Reads? Psychological Drivers of Reading Online Content,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 47, BagchiRajeshBlock,LaurenLeeLeonard, eds. Association for Consumer Research19–23.
8.
BergerJonahPackardGrant (2018), “Are Atypical Things More Popular?” Psychological Science, 29 (7), 1178–84.
9.
BradleySamuel D.MeedsRobert (2002), “Surface–Structure Transformations and Advertising Slogans: The Case for Moderate Syntactic Complexity,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (7/8), 595–619.
10.
BridgwaterEmmaKyröläinenAki-JuhaniKupermanVictor (2019), “The Influence of Syntactic Expectations on Reading Comprehension Is Malleable and Strategic: An Eye-Tracking Study of English Dative Alternation,” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 73 (3), 179–92.
11.
BrysbaertMarcWarrinerAmy BethKupermanVictor (2014), “Concreteness Ratings for 40 Thousand Generally Known English Word Lemmas,” Behavior Research Methods, 46 (3), 904–11.
12.
CarnevaleMarinaLunaDavidLermanDawn (2017), “Brand Linguistics: A Theory-Driven Framework for the Study of Language in Branding,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (2), 572–91.
13.
ChebatJean-CharlesGelinas-ChebatClaireHombourgerSabrinaWoodsideArch G. (2003), “Testing Consumers’ Motivation and Linguistic Ability as Moderators of Advertising Readability,” Psychology & Marketing, 20 (7), 599–624.
14.
CheemaAmarPatrickVanessa M. (2008), “Anytime Versus Only: Mind-Sets Moderate the Effect of Expansive Versus Restrictive Frames on Promotion Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (4), 462–72.
15.
CookThomas D.CampbellDonald Thomas (1979), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
16.
CrupiVincenzoNelsonJonathan D.MederBjörnCevolaniGustavoTentoriKatya (2018), “Generalized Information Theory Meets Human Cognition: Introducing a Unified Framework to Model Uncertainty and Information Search,” Cognitive Science, 42 (5), 1410–56.
17.
CsákyRichárdPurgaiPatrikRecskiGábor (2019), "Improving Neural Conversational Models with Entropy-Based Data Filtering,” arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.05471.
18.
Degaetano-OrtliebStefaniaTeichElke (2019), “Toward an Optimal Code for Communication: The Case of Scientific English,” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18 (1), 175–207.
19.
Del PradoMartın Fermın MoscosoKostićAleksandarBaayenHarald R. (2014), “Putting the Bits Together: An Information Theoretical Perspective on Morphological Processing,” Cognition, 94 (1), 1–18.
20.
DozatTimothyQiPengManningChristopher D. (2017), “Stanford’s Graph-Based Neural Dependency Parser at the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task,” in Proceedings of the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies. Association for Computational Linguistics, 20–30.
21.
EgnerTobiasMontiJim M.SummerfieldChristopher (2010), “Expectation and Surprise Determine Neural Population Responses in the Ventral Visual Stream,” Journal of Neuroscience, 30 (49), 16601–08.
22.
EliashbergJehoshuaHuiSam K.ZhangJohn Z. (2007), “Assessing Box Office Performance Using Movie Scripts: A Kernel-Based Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering, 26 (11), 2639–48.
23.
EllenbogenRavidMeiranNachshon (2008), “Working Memory Involvement in Dual-Task Performance: Evidence from the Backward Compatibility Effect,” Memory & Cognition, 36 (5), 968–78.
24.
FeldmanHarrietFristonKarl J. (2010), “Attention, Uncertainty, and Free-Energy,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1–23.
25.
FrazierLynFodorJanet Dean (1978), “The Sausage Machine: A New Two-Stage Parsing Model,” Cognition, 6 (4), 291–325.
26.
FutrellRichardGibsonEdwardLevyRoger P. (2020), “Lossy–Context Surprisal: An Information–Theoretic Model of Memory Effects in Sentence Processing,” Cognitive Science, 44 (3), 1–54.
27.
FutrellRichardMahowaldKyleGibsonEdward (2015), “Dependency Length Minimization in 37 Languages,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (33), 10336–41.
28.
GenovaHelen M.LengenfelderJeannieChiaravallotiNancy D.MooreNancy B.DeLucaJohn (2012), “Processing Speed Versus Working Memory: Contributions to an Information-Processing Task in Multiple Sclerosis,” Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 19 (2), 132–40.
GibsonEdwardFutrellRichardPiantadosiSteven P.DautricheIsabelleMahowaldKyleBergenLeonLevyRoger (2019), “How Efficiency Shapes Human Language,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (5), 389–407.
31.
GoodfellowIanBengioYoshuaCourvilleAaron (2016), Deep Learning. MIT Press.
32.
GunningRobert (1952), Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw-Hill.
33.
HaleJohn (2003), “The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (2), 101–23.
34.
HaleJohn (2006), “Uncertainty About the Rest of the Sentence,” Cognitive Science, 30 (4), 643–72.
35.
HaleJohn (2011), “What a Rational Parser Would Do,” Cognitive Science, 35 (3), 399–443.
36.
HendersonJohn M.ChoiWonilLowderMatthew W.FerreiraFernanda (2016), “Language Structure in the Brain: A Fixation-Related fMRI Study of Syntactic Surprisal in Reading,” NeuroImage, 132, 293–300.
37.
HorstmannGernot (2015), “The Surprise–Attention Link: A Review,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339 (1), 106–15.
38.
HorstmannGernotHerwigArvid (2016), “Novelty Biases Attention and Gaze in a Surprise Trial,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78 (1), 69–77.
39.
HosmanLawrence A. (2002), “Language and Persuasion,” in The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, James Price Dillard and Michael Pfau, eds. Sage Publications, 371–90.
40.
HudsonRichard (1995), “Measuring Syntactic Difficulty,” working paper.
41.
Hudson KamL. CarlaChangAnn (2009), “Investigating the Cause of Language Regularization in Adults: Memory Constraints or Learning Effects?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (3), 815–21.
42.
HumphreysAshleeLaTourKathryn A. (2013), “Framing the Game: Assessing the Impact of Cultural Representations on Consumer Perceptions of Legitimacy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 773–95.
43.
HumphreysAshleeWangRebecca Jen-Hui (2018), “Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1274–306.
44.
IrelandMolly E.PennebakerJames W. (2010), “Language Style Matching in Writing: Synchrony in Essays, Correspondence, and Poetry,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (3), 549–71.
45.
JacobyJacobNelsonMargaret C.HoyerWayne D. (1982), “Corrective Advertising and Affirmative Disclosure Statements: Their Potential for Confusing and Misleading the Consumer,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (1), 61–72.
46.
JustMarcel A.CarpenterPatricia A. (1992), “A Capacity Theory of Comprehension: Individual Differences in Working Memory,” Psychological Review, 99 (1), 122–49.
47.
KempenGerardVosseTheo (1992), “Incremental Syntactic Tree Formation in Human Sentence Processing: A Cognitive Architecture Based on Activation Decay and Simulated Annealing,” in Connectionist Natural Language Processing, SharkeyN., ed. Springer, 83–100.
48.
KincaidJ.P.FishburneR.P.RogersR.L.ChissomB.S. (1975), “Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel,” Institute for Simulation and Training, 56.
49.
KronrodAnnDanzigerShai (2013), “‘Wii Will Rock You!’ The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 726–39.
50.
LabrecqueLauren I.SwaniKunalStephenAndrew T. (2020), “The Impact of Pronoun Choices on Consumer Engagement Actions: Exploring Top Global Brands’ Social Media Communications,” Psychology & Marketing, 37 (6), 796–814.
51.
LandauMark J.MeierBrian P.KeeferLucas A. (2010), “A Metaphor-Enriched Social Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 136 (6), 1045–67.
LeclercFranceSchmittBernd H.DubéLaurette (1994), “Foreign Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2), 263–70.
LinYueweiFangBinTangYuanyan (2010), “A Computational Model for Saliency Maps by Using Local Entropy,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 967–73.
56.
LinzenTalJaegerT. Florian (2014), “Investigating the Role of Entropy in Sentence Processing,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 10–18.
57.
LiuH. (2008), “Dependency Distance as a Metric of Language Comprehension Difficulty,” Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 159–91.
58.
LiuHaitaoXuChunshanLiangJunying (2017), “Dependency Distance: A New Perspective on Syntactic Patterns in Natural Languages,” Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–93.
59.
LowderMatthew W.ChoiWonilFerreiraFernandaHendersonJohn M. (2018), “Lexical Predictability During Natural Reading: Effects of Surprisal and Entropy Reduction,” Cognitive Science, 42, 1166–83.
60.
LowreyTina M. (1998), “The Effects of Syntactic Complexity on Advertising Persuasiveness,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 187–206.
61.
LowreyTina M. (2006), “The Relation Between Script Complexity and Commercial Memorability,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 7–15.
62.
LowreyTina M. (2008), “The Case for a Complexity Continuum,” working paper, University of Texas at San Antonio.
63.
LowreyTina M.ShrumLarry J.DubitskyTony M. (2003), “The Relation Between Brand-Name Linguistic Characteristics and Brand-Name Memory,” Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 7–17.
64.
LudwigStephanDe RuyterKoFriedmanMikeBrüggenElisabeth C.WetzelsMartinPfannGerard (2013), “More Than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 87–103.
65.
MalaiaEvie A.WilburRonnie B. (2019), “Syllable as a Unit of Information Transfer in Linguistic Communication: The Entropy Syllable Parsing Model,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 11 (1), e1518.
66.
McDonaldRyanNivreJoakimQuirmbach-BrundageYvonneGoldbergYoavDasDipanjanGanchevKuzmanHallKeithPetrovSlavZhangHaoTäckströmOscarBediniClaudiaCastellóNúria BertomeuLeeJungmee (2013), “Universal Dependency Annotation for Multilingual Parsing,” in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 92–97.
67.
McLaughlinG. Harry (1969), “MOG Grading—A New Readability Formula,” Journal of Reading, 12, 639–46.
68.
MeedsRobertBradleySamuel D. (2007), “The Role of the Sentence and Its Importance in Marketing Communications,” in Psycholinguistic Phenomena in Marketing Communications, Tina M. Lowrey, ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 103–20.
69.
MillerJ.F. (1981), Assessing Language Production in Children: Experimental Procedures. University Park Press.
70.
MilneAndrew J.HerffSteffen A. (2020), “The Perceptual Relevance of Balance, Evenness, and Entropy in Musical Rhythms,” Cognition, 203, 104233.
71.
MotesWilliam H.HiltonChadwick B.FieldenJohn S. (1992), “Language, Sentence, and Structural Variations in Print Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (5), 63–77.
72.
NiJianmoLiJiachengMcAuleyJulian (2019), “Justifying Recommendations Using Distantly-Labeled Reviews and Fined-Grained Aspects,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, 188–97.
73.
NivreJoakim (2005), “Dependency Grammar and Dependency Parsing,” MSI Report5133, https://cl.lingfil.uu.se/∼nivre/docs/05133.pdf.
74.
NivreJoakimde MarneffeMarie-CatherineGinterFilipGoldbergYoavHajicJanManningChristopher D.McDonaldRyanPetrovSlavPyysaloSampoSilveiraNataliaTsarfatyReutZemanDaniel (2016), “Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection,” in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association, 1659–66.
75.
OstinelliMassimilianoLunaDavid (2021), “Syntax and the Illusion of Fit: How Grammatical Subject Influences Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 48 (5), 885–903.
76.
OyaMasanori (2010), “Directed Acyclic Graph Representation of Grammatical Knowledge and its Application for Calculating Sentence Complexity,” in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. PAAL, 303–400.
77.
OyaMasanori (2011), “Syntactic Dependency as Sentence Complexity Measure,” in Proceedings of the 16th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. PAAL, 313–16.
78.
PancerEthanChandlerVincentPooleMaxwellNoseworthyTheodore J. (2019), “How Readability Shapes Social media Engagement,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (2), 262–70.
79.
PogacarRuthShrumL.J.LowreyTina (2017), “The Effects of Linguistic Devices on Consumer Information Processing and Persuasion: A Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (4), 689–711.
80.
QiPengZhangYuhaoZhangYuhuiBoltonJasonManningChristopher D. (2020), “Stanza: A Python Natural Language Processing Toolkit for Many Human Languages,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics, 101–08.
81.
ReisenbichlerMartinReuttererThomasSchweiderDavidDanDaniel (2021), “Frontiers: Supporting Content Marketing with Natural Language Generation,” Marketing Science, 41 (3), 441–52.
82.
SawyerAlan G.LaranJulianoXuJun (2008), “The Readability of Marketing Journals: Are Award-Winning Articles Better Written?” Journal of Marketing, 72 (1), 108–17.
83.
SchmidhuberJurgen (2009), “Simple Algorithmic Theory of Subjective Beauty, Novelty, Surprise, Interestingness, Attention, Curiosity, Creativity, Art, Science, Music, Jokes,” Journal of SICE, 48 (1), 21–32.
84.
SchusterSebastianManningChristopher D. (2016), “Enhanced English Universal Dependencies: An Improved Representation for Natural Language Understanding Tasks,” in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC '16). European Language Resources Association, 2371–78.
85.
SelaAnerWheelerS. ChristianSarial-AbiGülen (2012), “We Are Not the Same as You and I: Causal Effects of minor Language Variations on Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Brands,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 644–61.
86.
SepehriA.MarkowitzD.M.MirM. (2022), “PassivePy: A Tool to Automatically Identify Passive Voice in Big Text Data,” psyarxiv.com/bwp3t.
87.
ShannonClaude Elwood (1948), “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (3), 379–423.
88.
SongHyunjinSchwarzNorbert (2009), “If It’s Difficult to Pronounce, It Must Be Risky: Fluency, Familiarity, and Risk Perception,” Psychological Science, 20 (2), 135–38.
89.
SridharShrihariSrinivasanRaji (2012), “Social Influence Effects in Online Product Ratings,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 70–88.
90.
SwetsBenjaminDesmetTimothyHambrickDavid Z.FerreiraFernanda (2007), “The Role of Working Memory in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: A Psychometric Approach,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (1), 64–81.
91.
TalburtJohn (1986), “The Flesch Index: An Easily Programmable Readability Analysis Algorithm,” in SIGDOC85: Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Systems Documentation. Association for Computing Machinery, 114–22.
92.
TausczikYla R.PennebakerJames W. (2010), “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29 (1), 24–54.
93.
TribusMyron (1961), “Information Theory as the Basis for Thermostatics and Thermodynamics,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, 28 (1), 1–8.
Van SchijndelMartenSchulerWilliam (2013), “An Analysis of Frequency- and Memory-Based Processing Costs,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, 95–105.
96.
VenhuizenNoortje J.CrockerMatthew W.BrouwerHarm (2019), “Expectation-Based Comprehension: Modeling the Interaction of World Knowledge and Linguistic Experience,” Discourse Processes, 56 (3), 229–55.
97.
WangXueweiWeiyanShiRichardKimYoojungOhSijiaYangJingwenZhangYuZhou (2019), “Persuasion for Good: Towards a Personalized Persuasive Dialogue System for Social Good,” in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 5635–49.
98.
WarrenNooshin L.FarmerMatthewGuTianyuWarrenCaleb (2021), “Marketing Ideas: How to Write Research Articles That Readers Understand and Cite,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (5), 42–57.
99.
WillemsRoel M.FrankStefan L.NijhofAnnabel D.HagoortPeterBoschAntal Van den (2016), “Prediction During Natural Language Comprehension,” Cerebral Cortex, 26 (6), 2506–16.
100.
WilliamsCharlotte A. (1977), “Entropy Revisited,” Journal of Business Communication, 14 (2), 35–42.
101.
WilsonMichael P.GarnseySusan M. (2009), “Making Simple Sentences Hard: Verb Bias Effects in Simple Direct Object Sentences,” Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (3), 368–92.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
