Using four between-subjects experiments (N1 = 106, N2 = 166, N3 = 159, and N4 = 164), this project tests the ways audiences process grammatical errors in news articles. In all, results suggest that readers perceive stories with grammatical errors to be lower in quality, credibility, and informativeness, but the number of errors needed is relatively large. Analysis shows amplified effects for people who report concern about grammar, and, to a lesser degree, people with knowledge of grammar rules. Given these results, the findings suggest a nonlinear, nonuniversal effect of grammatical errors on readers of news articles.
AppelmanA. (2009). Grammar and cognitive processing of news articles: Exploring dual processing theories (Master’s thesis). University of Missouri, Columbia.
4.
AppelmanA.BollsP. (2011). Article recall, credibility lower with grammar errors. Newspaper Research Journal, 32, 50-62.
5.
AppelmanA.SundarS. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Scale construction and validation with news articles. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 59-79.
6.
BaughJ. (2016). Linguistic profiling and discrimination. In GarciaO.FloresN.SpottiM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 349-368). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
BellurS.SundarS. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 116-137.
8.
BrooksB. S.PinsonJ. L.WilsonJ. G. (2006). Working with words: A handbook for media writers and editors (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
9.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
10.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
CharneyD. H.RaymanJ. (1989). The role of writing quality in effective student résumés. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3, 36-53.
13.
CharneyD. H.RaymanJ.Ferreira-BuckleyL. (1992). How writing quality influences readers’ judgments of resumes in business and engineering. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6, 38-74.
14.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
ChungC.NamY.StefanoneM. (2012). Exploring online news credibility: The relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 171-186.
16.
ConnorsR.LunsfordA. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
17.
FigueredoL.VarnhagenC. K. (2005). Didn’t you run the spell checker? Effects of type of spelling error and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology, 26, 441-458.
HughesC.MamiseishviliK. (2014). Linguistic profiling in the workforce. In ByrdM.ScottC. (Eds.), Diversity in the workforce: Current issues and emerging trends (pp. 249-265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
21.
JohnsonD.VanBrackleL. (2012). Linguistic discrimination in writing assessment: How raters react to African American “errors,” ESL errors, and standard English errors on a state-mandated writing exam. Assessing Writing, 17, 35-54.
22.
KeithS. M. (2009, September). Sinking subs and collapsing copy desks? The evolution of editing at newspapers and their web sites. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Conference on the Future of Journalism, Cardiff, Wales.
23.
KreinerD. S.SchnakenbergS. D.GreenA. G.CostelloM. J.McClinA. F. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 5-17.
24.
Martin-LacrouxC.LacrouxA. (2016). Do employers forgive applicants’ bad spelling in résumés?Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80, 321-335.
25.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
26.
MiestamoM.SinemmäkiK.KarlssonF. (Eds.). (2008). Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
27.
MutzD.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
28.
O’ConnerP. T. (2003). Woe is I: The grammarphobe’s guide to better English in plain English. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
29.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188.
30.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
31.
QueenR.BolandJ. E. (2015). I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates. Linguistics Vanguard, 1, 283-293.
ReillyS.RicheyS. (2011). Ballot question readability and roll-off: The impact of language complexity. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 59-67.
34.
SampsonG.GilD.TrudgillP. (Eds.). (2009). Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
SchrammR. M.Neil DortchR. (1991). An analysis of effective resume content, format, and appearance based on college recruiter perceptions. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 54(3), 18-23.
36.
SolomonW. S. (1985). Technological change in the workplace: The impact of video display terminals on newspaper copy desk work (Unpublished dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
37.
SolomonW. S. (1989, August). Tasks and status: Newspaper copy editing and the division of newsroom labor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
38.
SundarS. (1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 373-386.
TrussL. (2006). Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. New York, NY: Gotham Books.
41.
van WeertJ.van NoortG.BolN.van DijkL.TatesK.JansenJ. (2011). Tailored information for cancer patients on the Internet: Effects of visual cues and language complexity on information recall and satisfaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 368-378.
42.
VulanovićR. (2007). On measuring language complexity as relative to the conveyed linguistic information. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 20, 399-427.
43.
VulteeF. (2015). Audience perceptions of editing quality: Assessing traditional news routines in the digital age. Digital Journalism, 3, 832-849.
Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.). (2005). Cleveland, OH: John Wiley.
46.
WolfM.DavisT.ShrankW.RappD.BassP.ConnorU.. . . ParkerR. (2007). To err is human: Patient misinterpretations of prescription drug label instructions. Patient Education and Counseling, 67, 293-300.
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.
