“Gusto” or “Taste”? Anglicisms Change Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal in Italian Print Advertising
-
,
,
and
Abstract
This research investigates the influence of anglicisms on the Product Appeal in Italian print advertising. Despite the pervasive use of anglicisms in the Italian advertising industry, little is known about their impact on the precursors to Product Appeal. Two original studies were conducted involving potato chips (convenience product) and stereo speakers (shopping product). The results showed no effect of anglicisms on the relationships between Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, or Perceived Product Modernity and Product Appeal. However, Anglicisms consistently altered the relationship between Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal. Specifically, while anglicisms decreased Perceived Product Risk for potato chips, they increased Perceived Product Risk for stereo speakers, suggesting the impact of anglicisms on Perceived Product Risk can operate in an independent mechanism and be product-dependent. This research provides a novel insight on how anglicisms can affect consumer psychology and adds a more nuanced understanding to previous literature regarding language choice in advertising.
1 Introduction
English has emerged as the dominant global language, surpassing all historical precedents in terms of its widespread usage and global reach (Crystal 2012; Hartmann 1996). Fueled by the dissemination of Anglophone media and the popularity of British and American cultures, the linguistic dominance of the English language has led to the proliferation of anglicisms in non-English-speaking countries (Fischer and Pułaczewska 2008), particularly in Southern Europe (Díaz 2019; Sokolova 2020). An anglicism can be broadly defined as any word borrowed from the English language adapted to the linguistic system of English and integrated into its vocabulary, not necessarily having English origin (Filipović 2000, p. 206). For example, although the English word ketchup has Chinese origins (/ke2 zap1/, tomato sauce), but when borrowed into Italian, it is normally considered an anglicism rather than a sinicism. While some argue for a narrower definition of an anglicism for it must accepted as an item in the vocabulary of the receptor language (Görlach 2003, p. 7), e.g. golf or film in Italian, others acknowledge the ephemeral nature of anglicisms and allow for short-lived and incidental borrowings to also be considered as anglicisms (Pulcini 2023, pp. 204–207), e.g. wine tasting or next opening. Since Italian has seen a tremendous influx of anglicisms in recent years (Boggio 2017) and that existing dictionaries are only indicative but not definitive in their quantification (Pulcini 2023, p. 139), in this research, we adopt a broader definition of anglicisms.
The presence of anglicisms in non-English-speaking languages can have consequences in people’s perception of information. Broadly, the effects of anglicisms stem from the symbolic values associated with the English language, e.g. American and British cultures (Kelly-Holmes 2005) and the psychological feelings English evokes, e.g. modernity and globalness (Martin 2019; Piller 2003). More specifically, while some authors found that anglicisms are perceived as precise, modern, and indicative of societal progress (Algryani and Syahrin 2024; Șimon et al. 2021), others suggest that they can evoke feelings of xenophobia or barbarism due to their phonological or orthographic differences and country-specific associations (Amos 2020; Rüdiger 2018; Walsh 2014). The mixed evidence in the extant literature warrants further investigation of the use of anglicisms.
An important area where anglicisms are gaining popularity is advertising, an ideal setting for studying the interplay between language and consumer psychology (Bathia and Ritchie 2012). Previous research on the effects of language choice in advertising has predominantly compared the use of English versus the local language in advertising (Gerritsen et al. 2007, 2010; Planken, Meurs, and Radlinska 2010; Toffoli and Laroche 2002; Van Hooft and Troung 2012, 2017). However, these studies have mostly reported no differences between English and the local language in perceived product image and price (e.g. Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Spierts 2017), potentially due to problems in comprehending text in English (Gerritsen et al. 2010). It is unclear whether the same pattern of results could be observed in anglicisms versus local language, as anglicisms by definition would not pose comprehension challenges to most consumers.
Our study thus aims to fill this research gap by examining the effects of anglicisms in print advertising for Italian consumers. The reasons for selecting the Italian market are three-fold. First, the Italian language has experienced a pervasive adoption of anglicisms in both formal and informal contexts (Coffey 2011; Pulcini 2023; Varga et al. 2011). Particularly in advertising, it was estimated that half of the sample used anglicisms, around 8 % were entirely in English, and only one third was in Italian (Vettorel and Franceschi 2019). Second, in contrast with its counterparts in Southern Europe, Italian tends to directly take an English word in its original form, for instance, jeans and computer would still be jeans and computer in Italian (also pronounced similarly) but vaqueros/tejanos and ordenador in Spanish (Marello 2020; Pulcini 2023). Third, while previous research has explored markets such as East Asia (Van Hooft and Truong 2012), the Arab world (Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Spierts 2017), Western Europe (Gerritsen et al. 2010), and Eastern Europe (Planken, Meurs, and Radlinska 2010), experimental research in the Italian market is scarce. It is worth mentioning that one study tested Italian-English bilinguals in Australia, reporting more favorable consumer attitudes for advertisements in the less dominant language (Santello 2015), one could expect that Italians residing in Italy would show more favorable attitudes towards anglicisms that come from a less dominant language. In sum, the prevalence of anglicisms in the Italy, the peculiar linguistic practice of the Italian language, and the lack of empirical evidence in the Italian market validates the target population of this study.
Using a multidisciplinary approach, we experimentally test whether and how consumer attitudes contribute to product image by manipulating language choice. Specifically, we measure Perceived Product Risk, Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, and Perceived Product Modernity in predicting Product Appeal in two conditions: print advertising with versus without anglicisms in consumers’ local language. This paper is structured as follows: we first discuss language choice in advertising, giving focus on the use of English and anglicisms in printed product advertising. We then develop testable hypotheses, introduce the survey operationalization, data collection process, the statistical approach, and the results. We end by discussing the results, acknowledging the limitations, and providing directions for further research.
2 Language Choice in Advertising
Consumers today are increasingly recognized as individuals guided by subjective experiences rather than pure rational strategies when making purchasing decisions (Forlani and Pencarelli 2019; Schmitt 1999). This underscores the importance of investigating contextual factors and product attributes that can shape consumer experiences, leading to alterations of consumers’ attitudes towards the product in question. Particularly relevant in marketing is language choice, as languages can create mental associations in people (Harley 2014; Lerman, Morais, and Luna 2017). Marketers thus often make specific choices to sway consumer attitudes and nudge consumer behaviors (Bhatia and Ritchie 2012; Harun et al. 2015; Hornikx, Van Meurs, and Tenzer 2024; Hornikx and Van Meurs 2020; Leclerc, Schmitt, and Dube 1994; Santello 2016). Extant experimental research has predominantly compared local versus foreign language in advertising (Nederstigt and Hilberink-Schulpen 2018; Wagner and Charinsarn 2021), testing mainly bilingual populations and reporting a wide range of mixed effects on consumer attitudes.
Experimental studies in this research line are usually based on three theoretical considerations. The first is language-product congruency, as the two languages in bilinguals’ mind could lead to language-specific cultural and psychological associations (Chao and Lin 2017; Luna and Peracchio 2005, 2008). For example, foreign language in advertising can be more effective for congruent, e.g. wine – French, than for incongruent products, e.g. beer – French, for Dutch consumers (Hornikx, van Meurs, and Hof 2013). This could be that foreign languages in advertising often serve as implicit cues of a product’s country-of-origin (Hornikx et al. 2020; Hornikx and van Meurs 2017). A second theoretical consideration is that foreign language, particularly English, expresses globalness and prestige (Martin 2019; Piller 2003). For example, English advertisements were more effective for multinational brands and luxury products, enhancing brand perception and ad favorability, but local brands and necessity products saw less impact from the language used in India (Krishna and Ahluwalia 2008), Romania (Micu and Coulter 2010), and Taiwan (Lin and Wang 2016). Similar effects were observed in Ecuador and Chile, where English advertising were reportedly more persuasive in (Alvarez, Uribe, and León De-La-Torre 2017). A third theoretical consideration is that different languages can foment group differentiation (Maass et al. 1989; Ryan, Hewstone, and Giles 1984). For instance, Spanish-language advertising increased U.S. Hispanic consumers’ perception of solidarity with the Hispanic community, leading to positive affect toward the advertisements (Koslow et al. 1994). In Mexico, Spanish-language advertisements led to more positive attitudes and higher brand trust compared to using English only for local brands (Alonso García, Chelminski, and González Hernández 2013). In sum, language choices can evoke specific social, cultural, and psychological associations in consumers, but it is worth noting though that these effects can be moderated by language dominance and language use of the bilinguals (Luna and Peracchio 2001; Santello 2015; Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Braaf 2021).
However, anglicisms in advertising present a unique scenario, different from a foreign language. Although some may consider text with anglicisms a code-switching condition, it is not necessarily the case. Unlike foreign languages that might pose comprehension challenges (Abutalebi 2008; Gerritsen et al. 2010; Volk, Köhler, and Pudelko 2014), anglicisms are generally understood and used in everyday vocabulary even by monolingual speakers. Pulcini (2023) highlights that English terms have seamlessly integrated into Italian, often being perceived as part of the native lexicon rather than foreign intrusions. Since monolinguals and bilinguals may differ in their responses to language choices in advertising (Lin, Wang, and Hsieh 2017; Lin and Wang 2016), it is unclear whether language choice effects using a different language in advertising can be extended to using anglicisms in the same language. This lack of empirical evidence strongly warrants a more tailored approach for anglicisms to gain a more nuanced understanding of which consumer attitudes are susceptible to change. Findings of this research also complement and expand the current literature on the impacts of language choice on consumer psychology. Furthermore, by better understanding the psychological changes related to anglicisms, marketers can enhance the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns and foster stronger brand connections.
3 Hypothesis Development
The objective of this research is to examine how different consumer attitudes such as Perceived Product Risk, Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Modernity, and Perceived Product Globalness contribute to Product Appeal in two experimental conditions, i.e. advertisements with versus without anglicisms. Adopting a multidisciplinary perspective, this research specifically examines how the inclusion of anglicisms in print advertising influences Product Appeal and consumers’ attitudes preceding Product Appeal (see Figure 1 below). In the following section we develop specific testable hypotheses.
Research model.
3.1 Product Appeal
Product appeal refers to the attractiveness or desirability of a product to consumers. Product Appeal is integral to marketing, as it influences consumer attitudes, preferences, and ultimately, purchasing decisions. Product Appeal is determined by a range of intrinsic and extrinsic product features (Grigaliunaite and Pileliene 2016), such as product design (Bloch 1995) and perceptions of price and quality (Zeithaml 1988). Understanding Product Appeal involves analyzing how different attitudes toward a product resonate with the consumer.
Despite having mixed results, a sizeable amount of previous research in non-English-speaking countries have reported more favorable product image for advertisements using English (Alvarez, Uribe, and León De-La-Torre 2017; Hornikx, van Meurs, and de Boer 2010; Krishna and Ahluwalia 2008; Micu and Coulter 2010). Particularly in the Italian context, anglicisms normally enjoy a positive association with a modern and trendy flair (Boggio 2017; Pulcini 2023; Varga et al. 2011). They are naturally preferred in advertising and in texts where the foregrounding power of the exotic word is exploited for stylistic reasons both spoken and written (De Mauro 2019; Vettorel and Franceschi 2019). Based on these insights, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Product Appeal.
3.2 Perceived Product Risk
Perceived Product Risk is consumers’ perception that purchasing a product will lead to potential disappointment resulting from unmet expectations, or inferior quality of a purchased product compared to its alternative (Gemünden 1985; Havlena and DeSarbo 1991). Although there are many components in Perceived Product Risk, such as inferior quality, monetary loss, or psychological stress (Kaplan, Szybillo, and Jacoby 1974; Tham et al. 2019), Perceived Product Risk as a whole has been demonstrated to negatively associate with brand credibility and brand prestige (Baek, Kim, and Yu 2010; Chen, Yan, and Fan 2015; Zhang and Yu 2020). Language can interact with the perception of risk (Geipel et al. 2023), in particularly, a foreign language seems to reduce the perception of risk (Hayakawa et al. 2019; Keysar, Hayakawa, and An 2012), likely due to a reduced sense of fear for a risky outcome (Geipel, Hadjichristidis, and Klesse 2018, 2022). Despite the interaction between foreign language and risk perception, no study in the language choice in advertising literature has considered this crucial attitude. Based on these insights, we speculate the use of anglicisms may reduce the perception of risk associated with a product, resulting from sense of inferior product quality, potential monetary loss, and/or frustration of unmet expectations. Therefore, propose the following hypothesis:
H2.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will reduce Perceived Product Risk, leading to higher Product Appeal.
3.3 Perceived Product Differentiation
Perceived Product Differentiation examines the extent to which consumers view a product as distinct or different from its competitors, contributing to consumers’ perception of product uniqueness (Root 1972). Research shows that the use of specific packaging elements such as flavor, taste, and smell can differentiate cigarillos from competitors, leading to better appeal (Meernik et al. 2018). In a similar vein, organic products differentiate themselves from other products through perceptions of health and status, thereby increasing purchase intentions (James, Hu, and Leonce 2019). Since anglicisms can create a sense of otherness or a different status (Algryani and Syahrin 2024; Amos 2020; Rüdiger 2018), advertisements with anglicisms may make the product appear different from its counterpart without anglicisms (Díaz 2019). In fact, advertisements with anglicisms tend to get more attention from consumers in non-English-speaking countries (Martin 2002, 2008; Vettorel and Franceschi 2019). These findings collectively underscore the importance of Perceived Product Differentiation in contributing to Product Appeal and anglicisms can serve as a differentiating factor from competing products with just the local language. Drawing upon these insights, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Perceived Product Differentiation, leading to higher Product Appeal.
3.4 Perceived Price Fairness
Perceived Price Fairness of a product is consumers’ perception that a product’s price is reasonable, fair, or a good value in relation to the benefits it offers (Lewis and Shoemaker 1997). Research has shown that a high Perceived Price Fairness can significantly lead to more customer satisfaction, loyalty, and purchase intentions (El Haddad, Hallak, and Assaker 2015; Susanti 2019). Although advertising research directly testing the effect of anglicisms on Perceived Price Fairness is rare, there is research using a foreign language showing that the endowment effect can be less prominent in a foreign language versus a native language (Karataş 2020). More specifically, this study showed that sellers decreased monetary evaluation of their product in a foreign language, which would normally be inflated in their native language, suggesting that prices may be perceived more fairly with a non-local language choice. Based on this limited evidence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Perceived Price Fairness, leading to higher Product Appeal.
3.5 Perceived Product Globalness
Perceived product globalness refers to the extent to which consumers perceive a product or brand as being global, internationally available, or having a worldwide presence (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012). Mental associations with globalness or localness can critically impact critical consumer assessments of the brand (Davvetas and Halkias 2019; Diamantopoulos et al. 2019), such that products perceived as global often result in more favorable product image and higher purchase intentions (Özsomer 2012). English, being a global language, can create perceptions of the information presented to be international and cosmopolitan (Crystal 2012; Pan and Block 2011; Piller 2003). In advertising, English is associated with globalness due to its international presence (Hornikx, van Meurs, and de Boer 2010; Kelly-Holmes 2005), the use of anglicisms in particular may contribute to consumers’ perceptions of a product’s globalness with no detriment to the local identity (Martin 2007, 2008). Due to the increasing globalization of marketing practices (Diallo, Djelassi, and Kumar 2021), we propose the following hypothesis:
H5.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Perceived Product Globalness, leading to higher Product Appeal.
3.6 Perceived Product Modernity
Perceived Product Modernity is the extent to which consumers perceive a product as modern, up-to-date, and reflective of emerging trends. It focuses on the consumer’s perception of the product’s design, features, and technological capabilities, as well as its ability to align with the expectations and needs of modern consumers (Blijlevens, Creusen, and Schoormans 2009). English in advertisements in non-English-speaking countries often elicit a sense of modernity in the product (Gerritsen et al. 2007; Piller 2003; Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Braaf 2021). Similarly, the increased perception of modernity can be observed in conditions of mixing English with the local language (Bhatia 2019; Lee 2006) and of Anglicisms in TV commercials in Spain targeting young children (Luján-García 2015). The activation of a sense of trendiness or modernity can be more prominent for local brands (Laroche et al. 2022; Micu and Coulter 2010). Based on this evidence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H6.
The use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Perceived Product Modernity, leading to higher Product Appeal.
In the following section, we describe the methodology for product selection, questionnaire construction, statistical approach, and results.
4 Methods
4.1 Material Selection
Selecting the right type of product is crucial in marketing research, particularly when considering the subtle effects of language choice in print advertising. Product classification is the process of categorizing products based on their inherent attributes and is a fundamental component of marketing research (Kiang et al. 2011). Based on whether consumers can assess the goods or their characteristics before finalizing a purchase, goods can fall into three main types: search, experience, and credence products (Girard, Silverblatt, and Korgaonkar 2002; Girard and Dion 2010). Consumer attitudes may differ depending on the product type, for instance, perceptions of risk may be lower in search products compared to other product types (Girard and Dion 2010; Pascual-Miguel, Agudo-Peregrina, and Chaparro-Peláez 2015). In this research, we focus on search products due to their wider availability and better shared experience. Search products can be further classified as convenience products, i.e. products that a customer buys frequently, with little comparison, low buying effort, and low emotional involvement, and shopping products, i.e. products that are purchased less often, more durable, and more expensive, and requiring more commitment before purchase (Holton 1958; Murphy and Enis 1986). Following a review of our research team of various high-involvement and low-investment products (Miliopoulou 2019), we identified potato chips and stereo speakers as good representatives of convenience goods and shopping goods, respectively, in the current Italian market, covering two common themes: food and technology. The inclusion of two search products in our research provides a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the effects of anglicisms in print advertising.
A diverse array of images and texts were collected by our research team to construct the experimental stimuli. These images varied across several parameters including style, color, shape, and product features. Following a meticulous selection process, our research team collectively agreed upon the most representative and generic image for each product. Additionally, the image colors were adjusted to ensure visual harmony and consistency. Each advertisement featured a slogan adjacent to the product, composed of eight words. In the native language condition, the advertising slogan was entirely in Italian and in the anglicism condition, three semantic units of the advertising slogan were replaced with anglicisms. These three semantic units were highlighted in bold to better capture respondents’ attention. The products also came with brand names, which were identical in both conditions, not being identifiable with any specific region. A price tag also appeared alongside the product in each advertisement, reflecting the average market price for similar products in the Italian market during the study’s time frame. The final images of the two products in both conditions are presented in Figures 2–5.
Potato chips advertisement in Italian with anglicisms.
Potato chips advertisement in Italian only.
Stereo speakers advertisement in Italian with anglicisms.
Stereo speakers advertisement in Italian only.
4.2 Questionnaire Construction
The survey instrument comprised 24 survey items plus six demographic information questions. For all measurements, both for the independent and the dependent variables, we used 7-point Likert scales (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), containing one multi-item construct to measure the dependent variable Product Appeal and five multi-item constructs to measure the independent variables. An examination of the Cronbach's alphas for the scales showed a high internal consistency for both studies. The Cronbach's alphas coefficient ranged from .75 to .90 for Study 1 (see Table 3) and .74 to .94 for Study 2 (see Table 8). The survey instrument for this research was originally developed in English, translated into Italian by an Italian-English bilingual and proof-read by another native Italian-speaker.
4.3 Dependent Variable
4.3.1 Product Appeal
Product Appeal was measured using four items adapted from Holbrook and Batra (1987) and Kim, Gupta, and Koh (2011). The average of the values was used, and higher values indicate greater Product Appeal ratings.
4.4 Independent Variables
4.4.1 Perceived Product Risk
Perceived Product Risk was measured using four items adapted from Choi and Geistfeld (2004) and Zhang and Yu (2020). The average of the values was used, with higher values indicating greater Perceived Product Risk.
4.4.2 Perceived Product Differentiation
Perceived Product Differentiation was measured using four items adapted from Bearden and Netemeyer (2024) and Shams et al. (2015). The average of the values was used, and higher values indicate greater Perceived Product Differentiation.
4.4.3 Perceived Price Fairness
Price Fairness was measured using four items adapted from Konuk (2019). The average of the values was used, with higher values indicating greater Perceived Price Fairness.
4.4.4 Perceived Product Globalness
Perceived Product Globalness was measured using four items adapted from Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) and Özsomer (2012). The average of the values was used, with higher values indicating greater Perceived Product Globalness.
4.4.5 Perceived Product Modernity
Product Modernity was measured using four items adapted from Blijlevens, Creusen, and Schoormans (2009). The average of the values was used, with higher values indicating greater Perceived Product Modernity.
Age. Age was measured using a single item question asking the respondents their age.
Gender. Gender was measured using a single item. Respondents were asked to indicate their gender, coded as follows: 1 = Male; 2 = Female; 3 = Transgender; 4 = Non-Binary; 5 = Other.
Education. Education was measured using a single item asking the respondent to identify the highest level of education they have attained. The education responses were then divided into seven categories: No education = 1; Elementary School = 2; Middle School = 3; High School = 4; Bachelor’s degree or other similar degree = 5; Master’s degree or other similar degree = 6; PhD or other similar degree = 7.
Income . Income was measured using a single item asking the respondents to identify their monthly income level. Seven income bands were identified: 0 to 1,000 Euros = 1; 1,001 to 2,000 Euros = 2; 2,001 to 3,000 Euros = 3; 3,001 to 4,000 Euros = 4; 4,001 to 5,000 Euros = 5; Greater than 5,001 Euros = 6.
English Level. This variable was measured by asking respondents to indicate their English proficiency level according to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) scale (Europarat 2010), comprising the following categories: A0 or No Knowledge = 1; A1 or Beginner = 2; A2 or Elementary = 3; B1 or Intermediate = 4; B2 or Upper Intermediate = 5; C1 or Advanced = 6; C2 or Native Speaker = 7. This measure serves as a criterion to screen native (C2) or advanced (C1) English-speakers from analyses.
Native Language. This was added as a control to ensure all respondents are native Italian speakers.
4.5 Participants and Data Collection
Two separate studies were conducted, one for potato chips and one for speakers. To facilitate comparison between the two products, the surveys in the two studies were identical. The studies’ participants were recruited from a combination of the crowdsourcing pool Prolific (https://www.prolific.co/) and snowball sampling. The pre-screening criteria for the participants called for adult Italian citizens with residency in Italy and speaking Italian as their native language. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Ashcroft 2008) and all participants provided informed consent. Data of both studies are available in the designated OSF repository (osf.io/ckdwt).
5 Analyses and Results
5.1 Study 1: Potato Chips
The potato chips study had an initial sample of 157 respondents. Seventy-three respondents with native (C2) or advanced (C1) English proficiency were excluded from the data analysis, resulting in 84 respondents in the final data set. Conducting a post hoc power analysis, using the assumptions of anticipated size effect of 0.25, desired statistical power level = 0.8, number of predictors = 10, and a probability level of 0.05, the minimum sample size is 75. Therefore, we conclude that our sample size is adequate. There were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions for Gender, Education, Age, and Income, validating the comparison between the two groups. See Table 1 for the demographic profile of the respondents of Study 1.
Study 1 Potato chips. Demographics of respondents.
| N | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
|
|
||
| Male | 37 | 44 |
| Female | 47 | 56 |
| Total | 84 | 100 % |
|
|
||
| Education | ||
|
|
||
| No education/schooling | 0 | 0 |
| Elementary school | 0 | 0 |
| Middle school | 3 | 3.5 |
| High school diploma | 31 | 37 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 31 | 37 |
| Master’s degree | 16 | 19 |
| PhD | 3 | 3.5 |
| Total | 84 | 100 % |
|
|
||
| Age | ||
|
|
||
| Average age | 31 | |
|
|
||
| Monthly income | ||
|
|
||
| 0 or less than 1,000 | 44 | 53 |
| 1,001 to 2,000 Euros | 13 | 16 |
| 2,001 to 3,000 Euros | 17 | 20 |
| 3,001 to 4,000 Euros | 6 | 7 |
| 4,001 to 5,000 Euros | 2 | 2 |
| 5,001 or more Euros | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 84 | 100 % |
5.1.1 Model Validation
Using SPSS, a principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation was performed on the data. Using a cut-off of 1 for the eigenvalues, five components emerged from the factor analysis. An examination of the factor loadings indicated high cross-loadings on one question from the risk construct. The cross-loading question was deleted, leaving 19 questions in five constructs measuring the five independent variables. Table 2 shows the factor loading for the dependent and independent variables.
Study 1 Potato chips. Factor analysis.
| Dependent Variable | |
|
|
|
| Product appeal | |
|
|
|
| This product is appealing to me | 0.89 |
| This product has an enticing offer and sparks my interest | 0.92 |
| The presentation of this product makes me curious to learn more about it | 0.88 |
| The value proposition of this product is intriguing and compelling | 0.83 |
|
|
|
| Independent variables | |
|
|
|
| Perceived product differentiation | |
|
|
|
| This product differentiates itself from others in its category | 0.89 |
| The features of this product set it apart from the competition | 0.90 |
| The innovation of this product is superior to that of other similar products | 0.70 |
| This product offers unique benefits that are not found in competing products | 0.71 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product risk | |
|
|
|
| I have the impression that this product will not meet my expectations | 0.78 |
| I think this product’s quality will be inferior to other similar products | 0.74 |
| I suspect the actual product will not match the provided description | 0.70 |
|
|
|
| Perceived price fairness | |
|
|
|
| I believe the value for money of this product is advantageous | 0.87 |
| The price of this product seems competitive compared to similar products | 0.88 |
| The cost of this product is reasonable based on the benefits it provides | 0.87 |
| The price of this product aligns with my expectations | 0.76 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product globalness | |
|
|
|
| I think this product is valued in many countries | 0.81 |
| This product is popular among consumers in various countries | 0.80 |
| I consider this product to be widely available in many international markets | 0.86 |
| I feel this product has a strong global appeal | 0.83 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product modernity | |
|
|
|
| I consider this product to be up-to-date and reflective of emerging trends in its industry | 0.79 |
| I think this product stands out from others based on its modern appearance | 0.77 |
| I think this product aligns with the expectations of modern consumers | 0.80 |
| I appreciate how this product easily adapts to current needs and lifestyles | 0.64 |
5.1.2 Correlation Table
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas (shown on the diagonal) were calculated and are reported in Table 3. Correlations between the continuous variables were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Correlations between the categorical variables and the categorical and continuous variables were calculated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Study 1 Potato chips. Means, SDs, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas on the diagonal.
| Variable | Avg. | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product appeal | 4.2 | 1.4 | (0.90) | ||||||||||
| 2 | Product differentiation | 3.8 | 1.3 | 0.66*** | (0.86) | |||||||||
| 3 | Product risk | 3.6 | 0.73 | −0.39*** | −0.28*** | (0.75) | ||||||||
| 4 | Price fairness | 4.5 | 1.3 | 0.40*** | 0.30** | 0.33*** | (0.90) | |||||||
| 5 | Globalness | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.47*** | 0.40*** | −0.17 | 0.36*** | (0.88) | ||||||
| 6 | Modernity | 4.4 | 1.2 | 0.65*** | 0.54*** | −0.36*** | 0.43*** | 0.58*** | (0.84) | |||||
| 7 | Age | 31 | 11 | 0.22* | 0.23* | −0.14 | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.13 | NA | ||||
| 8 | Gender | 1.6 | 0.56 | 0.24* | 0.15 | −0.06 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.29** | −0.14 | NA | |||
| 9 | Education | 4.8 | 0.91 | 0.09 | −0.07 | −0.03 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.07 | NA | ||
| 10 | Income | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.19 | 0.23* | −0.23* | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.38*** | −0.26** | 0.15 | NA | |
| 11 | English level | 4.4 | 0.82 | −27*** | 0.28** | 0.12 | −0.10 | −0.35*** | −0.25*** | −0.23* | −0.11 | 0.21* | 0.03 | NA |
| 12 | Anglicism | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.09 | 0.06 | −0.07 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.16 | −0.11 | −0.08 | −0.11 |
-
N = 84, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
5.1.3 Regression Model
Separate regression models were created and the results are reported in Table 4. Model 1 shows the regression with Product Appeal as the dependent variable, six independent variables (1. Anglicisms in Advertisements, 2. Perceived Product Risk, 3. Perceived Product Differentiation, 4. Perceived Price Fairness, 5. Perceived Product Globalness, and 6. Perceived Product Modernity), and four control variables (1. Age, 2. Gender, 3. Income, and 4. Education). Models 2–6 are the separate regressions which examine the interaction effect of the use of Anglicisms in the print advertisements and the five independent variables. For models 2–6, the interaction terms are shown, but the main effects are not included in Table 4.
Study 1 Potato chips. Standardized beta coefficients. Dependent variable = Product Appeal.
| Model 1 independent variables | Standardized beta coefficients |
|---|---|
| Anglicism in advertising (H1) | 0.01 |
| Perceived product risk | −0.32*** |
| Perceived product different | 0.35*** |
| Perceived fair price | 0.30*** |
| Perceived globalness | 0.07 |
| Perceived modernity | 0.15 |
| Age | 0.10 |
| Gender | 0.06 |
| Income | −0.04 |
| Education | 0.05 |
|
|
|
| Separate MODELS using interaction terms with only the interaction terms reported | |
|
|
|
| Model 2 Anglicism X product risk (H2) |
0.86* |
| Model 3 Anglicism X product differentiation (H3) |
0.21 |
| Model 4 Anglicism X price fairness (H4) |
0.38 |
| Model 5 Anglicism X product globalness (H5) |
−0.21 |
| Model 6 Anglicism X product modernity (H6) |
−0.38 |
-
N = 84, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Adj. R 2 = 0.66, F = 11.7***.
5.1.4 Anglicism in Advertisements
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the use of Anglicisms in advertisements will increase Product Appeal. Hypothesis 1 was not significant (β = 0.01, ρ = 0.86). The use of Anglicisms did not have a statistically significant impact on Product Appeal of the potato chips.
5.1.5 Interaction Terms
Testing Hypotheses 2–6, we created a series of interaction terms. Coding the data for the regression analysis, the dependent variable was multiplied by the experimental condition Anglicism in the advertisement: 0 for No Anglicism and 1 for Anglicism. We created a series of interaction terms by multiplying the independent variable English words in advertising by the five other independent variables: Perceived Product Risk, Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, and Perceived Product Modernity. In the Perceived Product Risk × Anglicism (1) condition, all the observations were positive numbers (the product of the two variables), and in the Perceived Product Risk × No Anglicism (0) condition, all the observations were zero (the product of the two variables). Then a series of multiple regressions models was created to evaluate the influence of the interaction terms on Product Appeal.
5.1.5.1 Perceived Product Risk
Hypothesis 2 predicted the use of anglicism in advertising would reduce perceived Product Risk leading to higher Product Appeal. Hypothesis 2 was significant (β = 0.86, ρ = 0.02). The use of Anglicisms changed the relationship between Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal for potato chips. An examination of the main effects for Perceived Product Risk (Table 4) shows a significant negative relationship (−0.32***) between Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal, indicating that for the total data set, as Perceived Product Risk increases, Product Appeal decreases. Table 5 shows the mean values for each condition. In the potato chip data, the use of Anglicisms in the advertisement decreased Perceived Product Risk from 3.62 to 3.52, and it led to an increase in Product Appeal from 4.12 to 4.38. Interpreting the interaction coefficient can be confusing, but in the recoded data, the No Anglicisms observations are 0, and in the Anglicisms condition observations are positive. In other words, as Perceived Product Risk increases, Product Appeal increases from 4.12 to 4.38, resulting in a positive standardized beta coefficient of 0.86 with a p-value of 0.02.
Study 1 Potato chips. Mean values for Hypothesis 2.
| Perceived product risk | Perceived product appeal | |
|---|---|---|
| Anglicism in advertisement coded 1, N = 38 | 3.52 | 4.38 |
| No Anglicism in advertisement coded 0, N = 46 | 3.62 | 4.12 |
| No Anglicism X risk | 0 | 4.12 |
| Total sample N = 84 | 3.57 | 4.24 |
5.1.5.2 Perceived Product Differentiation
Hypothesis 3 was not significant (β = 0.21, ρ = 0.43). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Differentiation and Product Appeal.
5.1.5.3 Perceived Price Fairness
Hypothesis 4 was not significant (β = 0.38, ρ = 0.19). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Price Fairness and Product Appeal.
5.1.5.4 Perceived Product Globalness
Hypothesis 5 was not significant (β = −0.21, ρ = 0.45). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Globalness and Product Appeal.
5.1.5.5 Perceived Product Modernity
Hypothesis 6 was not significant (β = −0.38, ρ = 0.21). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Modernity and Product Appeal.
5.2 Study 2: Stereo Speakers
The stereo speaker’s study had an initial sample of one hundred 65 respondents. Fifty-nine respondents with native (C2) or advanced (C1) English proficiency were excluded from further data analysis, resulting in one hundred and six respondents in the final data set. Conducting a power analysis, using the assumptions of anticipated size effect of 0.25, desired statistical power level = 0.8, number of predictors = 10, and a probability level of 0.05, the minimum sample size is 75. We conclude the sample size in this study is adequate. There were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions for Gender, Education, Age, and Income, validating the comparison between the two groups. See Table 6 for the demographic profile of the respondents of Study 2.
Study 2 Stereo speakers. Demographics of respondents.
| Gender | N | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 61 | 58 |
| Female | 45 | 42 |
| Total | 106 | 100 % |
|
|
||
| Education | ||
|
|
||
| No education/schooling | 0 | 0 |
| Elementary school | 0 | 0 |
| Middle school | 4 | 4 |
| High school diploma | 41 | 39 |
| Bachelor’s degree or other similar degree | 32 | 30 |
| Master’s degree or other similar degree | 25 | 23 |
| PhD or other similar degree | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 106 | 100 % |
|
|
||
| Age | ||
|
|
||
| Average age | 35 | |
|
|
||
| Monthly income | ||
|
|
||
| None or less than 1,000 Euros | 48 | 45 |
| 1,001 to 2,000 Euros | 21 | 20 |
| 2,001 to 3,000 Euros | 23 | 21 |
| 3,001 to 4,000 Euros | 9 | 9 |
| 4,001 to 5,000 Euros | 4 | 4 |
| 5,001 or more Euros | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 106 | 100 % |
5.2.1 Model Validation
Using SPSS, a principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation was performed on the data. Using a cut-off of 1 for the eigenvalues, five components emerged from the factor analysis. An examination of the factor loadings indicated cross loading on one question from the Perceived Product Risk. The cross-loading question was deleted, leaving 19 questions in five constructs measuring the independent variables. Table 7 shows the factor loading for the dependent and independent variables.
Study 2 Stereo speakers. Factor analysis.
| Dependent variable | |
|
|
|
| Product appeal | |
|
|
|
| This product is appealing to me | 0.87 |
| This product has an enticing offer and sparks my interest | 0.91 |
| The presentation of this product makes me curious to learn more about it | 0.82 |
| The value proposition of this product is intriguing and compelling | 0.77 |
|
|
|
| Independent variables | |
|
|
|
| Perceived product differentiation | |
|
|
|
| This product differentiates itself from others in its category | 0.88 |
| The features of this product set it apart from the competition | 0.85 |
| The innovation of this product is superior to that of other similar products | 0.86 |
| This product offers unique benefits that are not found in competing products | 0.84 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product risk | |
|
|
|
| I have the impression that this product will not meet my expectations | 0.72 |
| I think this product’s quality will be inferior to other similar products | 0.83 |
| I suspect the actual product will not match the provided description | 0.86 |
|
|
|
| Perceived price fairness | |
|
|
|
| I believe the value for money of this product is advantageous | 0.85 |
| The price of this product seems competitive compared to similar products | 0.84 |
| The cost of this product is reasonable based on the benefits it provides | 0.87 |
| The price of this product aligns with my expectations | 0.87 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product globalness | |
|
|
|
| I think this product is valued in many countries | 0.69 |
| This product is popular among consumers in various countries | 0.61 |
| I consider this product to be widely available in many international markets | 0.79 |
| I feel this product has a strong global appeal | 0.85 |
|
|
|
| Perceived product modernity | |
|
|
|
| I consider this product to be up-to-date and reflective of emerging trends in its industry | 0.65 |
| I think this product stands out from others based on its modern appearance | 0.62 |
| I think this product aligns with the expectations of modern consumers | 0.81 |
| I appreciate how this product easily adapts to currents needs and lifestyles | 0.77 |
5.2.2 Correlation Table
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas (shown on the diagonal) were calculated and are reported in Table 8. Correlations between the continuous variables were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Correlations between the categorical variables and the categorical and continuous variables were calculated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Study 2 Stereo speakers. Means, SDs, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas on the diagonal.
| Variable | Avg. | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product appeal | 4.8 | 1.2 | (0.86) | |||||||||||
| 2 | Product differentiation | 4.0 | 1.5 | .53*** | (.94) | ||||||||||
| 3 | Product risk | 2.9 | 1.1 | −0.11 | −0.14 | (0.78) | |||||||||
| 4 | Price fairness | 4.3 | 1.3 | 0.52*** | 0.56*** | −0.10 | (0.93) | ||||||||
| 5 | Globalness | 4.9 | 0.98 | 0.32*** | 0.17 | −0.19* | 0.36*** | (0.76) | |||||||
| 6 | Modernity | 4.8 | 0.96 | 0.55*** | 0.50*** | −0.24** | 0.47*** | 0.44*** | (0.74) | ||||||
| 7 | Age | 35 | 13 | 0.23** | 0.31*** | −0.10 | 0.22* | 0.08 | 0.27** | NA | |||||
| 8 | Gender | 1.4 | 0.56 | 0.20* | 0.23* | −0.03 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.18 | NA | ||||
| 9 | Education | 4.9 | 0.95 | −0.02 | −0.01 | −0.03 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.07 | NA | |||
| 10 | Income | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.08 | 0.13 | −0.04 | 0.09 | 0.12 | −0.01 | 0.37*** | −0.07 | 0.30** | NA | ||
| 11 | English level | 4.3 | 0.85 | −0.15*** | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | −0.18 | −0.48*** | −0.20* | 0.21* | 0.01 | NA | |
| 12 | Anglicism | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.00 | −0.08 | 0.18 | −0.10 | 0.01 | −0.13 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.10 | −0.11 | −0.15 |
-
N = 106, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
5.2.3 Regression Model
Separate regression models were created, and the results are reported in Table 9. Model 1 shows the regression with Product Appeal as the dependent variable, six independent variables (1. Anglicisms in Advertising, 2. Perceived Product Risk, 3. Perceived Product Differentiation, 4. Perceived Price Fairness, 5. Perceived Product Globalness, and 6. Perceived Product Modernity), and four control variables (1. Age, 2. Gender, 3. Income, and 4. Education). Models 2–6 are the separate regressions which examine the interaction effects of the use of Anglicisms in the print advertisement with the five independent variables. For models 2–6 the interaction terms are shown, but the main effects are not included in Table 9.
Study 2 Stereo speakers. Standardized beta coefficients. Dependent variable = Product Appeal.
| Independent variables | Std. beta coefficients |
|---|---|
| Anglicism in advertising (H1) | 0.09 |
| Perceived product risk | 0.02 |
| Perceived product differentiation | 0.21* |
| Perceived fair price | 0.27** |
| Perceived globalness | 0.06 |
| Perceived modernity | 0.29** |
| Age | −0.06 |
| Gender | 0.07 |
| Income | 0.08 |
| Education | −0.03 |
|
|
|
| MODELS using interaction terms With only the interaction terms reported | |
|
|
|
| Anglicism X product risk (H2) | −0.61** |
| Anglicism X product differentiation (H3) | 0.05 |
| Anglicism X price fairness (H4) | 0.03 |
| Anglicism X product globalness (H5) | 0.22 |
| Anglicism X product modernity (H6) | 0.27 |
-
N = 106, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Adj. R 2 = 0.45, F = 6.9***.
5.2.4 Anglicism in Advertising
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the use of Anglicisms in advertising will increase Product Appeal. Hypothesis 1 was not significant (β = 0.07, ρ = 0.38). The use of Anglicisms did not have a statistically significant impact on the Product Appeal of the speakers.
5.2.5 Interaction Terms
Testing Hypotheses 2–6, we created a series of interaction terms. Coding the data for the regression analysis, the dependent variable was multiplied by the experimental condition Anglicism in the Advertisement: 0 for No Anglicism and 1 for Anglicism. We created a series of interaction terms by multiplying the independent variable Anglicisms in advertisement by the five other independent variables: Perceived Product Risk, Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, and Perceived Product Modernity. In the Perceived Product Risk × Anglicism (1) condition, all the observations were positive numbers (the product of the two variables), and in the Perceived Product Risk × No Anglicism (0) condition, all the observations were zero (the product of the two variables). Then a series of multiple regressions was created to evaluate the influence of the interaction terms on Product Appeal.
5.2.5.1 Perceived Product Risk
Hypothesis 2 predicted the use of anglicism in advertising would reduce Perceived Product Risk leading to higher Product Appeal. Hypothesis 2 was significant (β = −0.61, ρ = 0.02) but in the opposite direction than it was expected. The use of anglicisms increased Perceived Product Risk but had not significant effect on the speakers’ Product Appeal. An examination of the main effects for Perceived Product Risk (Table 9) shows no main effect (β = 0.02) between Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal, indicating that for the total data set, as Perceived Product Risk increases, there is no impact on Product Appeal. Table 10 shows the mean values for each condition. In the stereo speaker data, the use of Anglicisms in the advertisement increased Perceived Product Risk from 2.74 to 3.13 but produced no significant change in Product Appeal, which increased marginally from 4.84 to 4.85. Interpreting the interaction coefficient can be confusing, but in the recoded data, the No Anglicism condition observations are 0, and the Anglicism condition observations are positive. In other words, although Perceived Product Risk increased, Product Appeal was virtually unchanged, resulting in the negative standardized beta coefficient (β = −0.61, ρ = 0.02). This result is opposite that of the potato chips study, which showed a positive relationship.
Study 2 Stereo speakers. Mean values for Hypothesis 2.
| Perceived product risk | Perceived product appeal | |
|---|---|---|
| Anglicism in advertisement coded 1, N = 53 | 3.13 | 4.85 |
| No Anglicism in advertisement coded 0, N = 53 | 2.74 | 4.84 |
| No Anglicism X risk | 0 | 4.84 |
| Totals | 2.93 | 4.85 |
5.2.5.2 Perceived Product Differentiation
Hypothesis 3 was not significant (β = 0.05, ρ = 0.83). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Differentiation and Product Appeal.
5.2.5.3 Perceived Price Fairness
Hypothesis 4 was not significant (β = 0.03, ρ = 0.90). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Price Fairness and Product Appeal.
5.2.5.4 Perceived Product Globalness
Hypothesis 5 was not supported (β = 0.22, ρ = 0.62). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Globalness and Product Appeal.
5.2.5.5 Perceived Product Modernity
Hypothesis 6 was not supported (β = 0.27, ρ = 0.52). The use of Anglicisms did not change the relationship between Perceived Product Modernity and Product Appeal.
6 Discussion
In Italy, the pervasive adoption of anglicisms in daily life (Boggio 2017; Coffey 2011; Pulcini 2023; Varga et al. 2011) and particularly the extensive use of anglicisms in advertising (Raedts et al. 2015; Vettorel 2013; Vettorel and Franceschi 2019) may affect consumers’ product evaluations. Comparing Italian consumers’ attitudes toward two search products in conditions of print advertisements with or without anglicisms, we found that anglicisms significantly altered the relationship between Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal for the two products examined, but in opposite directions. For potato chips, a convenience product, the use of Anglicisms in advertising decreased Perceived Product Risk, increasing Product Appeal. In contrast, for stereo speakers, a shopping product, the use of Anglicisms in advertising increased Perceived Product Risk, without changing Product Appeal.
One explanation for these divergent results could lie in the search product type. Convenience goods are typically inexpensive, quickly consumed, routinely purchased, low risk purchases, with minimal time commitment required for the purchase decision (Holton 1958; Solomon 2018). In contrast, shopping goods are purchased less frequently, involve higher investment and more extensive decision-making processes, and are riskier product purchase decisions (Kotler and Keller 2012; Murphy and Enis 1986). Such a distinction suggests that while anglicisms in advertisements may decrease the perception of risk for convenience products that are low-investment, e.g. potato chips, they may increase the perception of risk for shopping products that usually require higher investment, e.g. stereo speakers. This contrast could be attributed to the inherent level of convenience risk in different products that refers to consumers’ perception that they need to spend relatively more times and effort to accustom and adjust to the product prior to its usage (Chang and Chen 2008). Thus, anglicisms could reduce even further the convenience risk of ready-to-consume products, but exacerbate such perception for products that require more convincing. Nevertheless, since product risk comprises several different components, such as financial risk, product quality risk, return policy risk etc. (Kaplan, Szybillo, and Jacoby 1974; Tham et al. 2019), future research can further distinguish which specific type of product risk anglicism might have an effect on.
An alternative explanation may be related to cultural specificity. To explicate, Italians cross-generationally place a profound emphasis on food, which is central to social interactions (Harper and Faccioli 2010). This cultural peculiarity may create positive affective reactions in the face of a commonly consumed product, i.e. potato chips, in gatherings amongst friends and family, the use of anglicisms could potentially foment more of such positive associations by reducing psychological risks related to unmet expectations of the product. However, the attitudes towards technology might present significant generational differences and can be highly individual (Zambianchi, Rönnlund, and Carelli 2019). For example, a study revealed that Italian consumers view mobile phones not just as communicative tech products but rather as a way to express identity and social belonging (Petruzzellis 2010), suggesting that inserting anglicisms in tech products such as stereo speakers could impact the affective connections with the tech product or brand. However, this alternative explanation is only a speculation, further research may better control for the cultural, individual, and affective factors for a more nuanced understanding.
There are concerns regarding whether comprehension of anglicisms could affect the results of language choice in consumer attitudes, as it can be the case in studies using a foreign language (Gerritsen et al. 2010; Hornikx, van Meurs, and de Boer 2010; Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Braaf 2021). However, we argue that it is unlikely in the case of this research using anglicisms, for anglicisms are words that are incorporated in the daily vernacular without posing comprehension issues even to monolingual nonnative-speakers of English (Filipović 2000; Fischer and Pułaczewska 2008; Sokolova 2020). Also, even if comprehension of anglicisms were an issue, we would have observed a general difference between the two advertising conditions of with and without anglicisms, but this is not the case in this research specifically. Nonetheless, we do acknowledge that comprehension of anglicisms in non-English-speaking consumers might be a potential issue, we encourage future research to better control this factor.
Regarding the other dependent variables, we hypothesized anglicisms in advertisements would alter the relationship between Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, Perceived Product Modernity and Product Appeal. Contrary to our initial predictions, the results of the two studies involving potato chips and stereo speakers showed no significant effects of anglicisms on those variables. While these results may be in misalignment with some previous research comparing English versus local language in advertising (Hornikx, van Meurs, and de Boer 2010; Micu and Coulter 2010; Santello 2015), they do seem to align with others that reported no significant differences of language choice (Gerritsen et al. 2010; Van Hooft, Van Meurs, and Spierts 2017; Van Hooft and Troung 2012). There could be several reasons why we did not observe effects for these variables, the first could relate to the integrated nature of anglicisms in the local language, making the linguistic contrast less stark compared to using a different language. A second speculation might be that these variables are moderated by broader perceptions of quality (Zhao et al. 2022), which render them more stable from product feature changes in advertisements. A third reason might be due to specificity of the Italian consumer market, which has rarely been explored by previous studies on language choice. Nevertheless, the null results of anglicisms on these variables but not Perceived Product Risk indicate that their effect on risk may operate in an independent mechanism, factoring out influences from price, modernity etc. We suggest future research to build upon this research either within Italy, considering regional differences as well as a wider range of products, or expand our findings to other less explored markets around the world.
7 Implications
The findings of this study offer both theoretical and practical implications for the field of marketing and consumer psychology. Theoretically, it underscores the importance of language choice in advertising. More specifically, the insertion of anglicisms in print advertisements can alter perceptions of risk, leading to variations, depending on product type, of evaluations of product appeal for Italian consumers. The finding that anglicisms in print advertising can alter consumers’ risk perception is consistent with the broader psycholinguistic literature on how perceived risk is susceptible to linguistic manipulations such as changing the modality of language (Geipel et al. 2023), using artificially voiced language (Hasan, Shams, and Rahman 2021), and comparing native and foreign languages (Hayakawa et al. 2019; Keysar, Hayakawa, and An 2012). Practically, these insights are valuable for marketing strategies, emphasizing the need for marketers to consider linguistic nuances and product-specific characteristics when incorporating language choice into advertising. For both local and global brands, this means tailoring their advertising content to resonate with the cultural and linguistic sensibilities of different markets. Conclusively, this study not only broadens our understanding of the complex dynamics in advertising but also serves as a critical reminder of the power of language in marketing.
8 Conclusions
This study investigated influence of anglicisms in print advertising on consumer attitudes in Italy, focusing on two search product, i.e. potato chips (convenience product) and stereo speakers (shopping product). Our findings reveal an intriguing interplay between anglicisms and consumer attitudes, particularly Perceived Product Risk. Such interaction can depend on product type, i.e. while for a convenience product, the use of anglicisms decreased Perceived Product Risk, increasing Product Appeal, for a shopping product, anglicisms increased Perceived Product Risk, without affecting Product Appeal. The null interactions between anglicisms and other attitudes such as Perceived Product Differentiation, Perceived Price Fairness, Perceived Product Globalness, and Perceived Product Modernity suggest an independent mechanism between language choice and risk perception in marketing. Further research is strongly encouraged to build upon and extend these findings by adopting a wider range of products and markets.
Funding source: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Padova e Rovigo
Award Identifier / Grant number: PhD grant
References
Abutalebi, J. 2008. “Neural Aspects of Second Language Representation and Language Control.” Acta Psychologica 128 (3): 466–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.014.Search in Google Scholar
Algryani, A., and S. Syahrin. 2024. “Anglicisms in Omani Arabic: A Study on the Use, Status, and Perception of English Loanwords.” World Journal of English Language 14 (4): 505. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n5p505.Search in Google Scholar
Alonso García, N., P. Chelminski, and E. González Hernández. 2013. “The Effects of Language on Attitudes toward Advertisements and Brands Trust in Mexico.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 34 (1): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2013.754711.Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez, C. M. O., R. Uribe, and R. León De-La-Torre. 2017. “Should I Say it in English? Exploring Language Effects on Print Advertising Among Latin American Bilinguals.” International Journal of Advertising 36 (6): 975–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1401518.Search in Google Scholar
Amos, H. W. 2020. “English in French Commercial Advertising: Simultaneity, Bivalency, and Language Boundaries.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 24 (1): 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12386.Search in Google Scholar
Ashcroft, R. E. 2008. “The Declaration of Helsinki.” In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, edited by E. J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. A. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, and D. Wendler. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baek, T. H., J. Kim, and J. H. Yu. 2010. “The Differential Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige in Consumer Brand Choice.” Psychology and Marketing 27 (7): 662–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20350.Search in Google Scholar
Bearden, W., and R. Netemeyer. 2024. Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, 2nd ed., 1. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, T. K. 2019. “World Englishes and Global Advertising.” In The Handbook of World Englishes, 616–34. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1002/9781119147282.ch34Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, T. K., and W. C. Ritchie. 2012. “Bilingualism and Multilingualism in the Global Media and Advertising.” In The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, 563–97. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.10.1002/9781118332382.ch23Search in Google Scholar
Blijlevens, J., M. E. H. Creusen, and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2009. “How Consumers Perceive Product Appearance: The Identiication of Three Product Appearance Attributes.” International Journal of Design 3 (3): 27–35.Search in Google Scholar
Bloch, P. H. 1995. “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response.” Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302.Search in Google Scholar
Boggio, C., ed. 2017. English in Italy: Linguistic, Educational, and Professional Challenges. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, H., and S. Chen. 2008. “The Impact of Online Store Environment Cues on Purchase Intention: Trust and Perceived Risk as a Mediator.” Online Information Review 32 (6): 818–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810923953.Search in Google Scholar
Chao, P., and S. Lin. 2017. “Translating Brand Names Effectively: Brand Attitude Reversal and Perceived Brand Name Translation Relevance in an Emerging Market.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 29 (3): 120–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2017.1281784.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Y., X. Yan, and W. Fan. 2015. “Examining the Effects of Decomposed Perceived Risk on Consumer’s Online Shopping Behavior: A Field Study in China.” Engineering Economics 26 (3): 315–26. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.3.8420.Search in Google Scholar
Choi, J., and L. V. Geistfeld. 2004. “A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Consumer E-Shopping Adoption.” Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (6): 821–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.08.006.Search in Google Scholar
Coffey, S. 2011. “Cristiano Furiassi. False Anglicisms in Italian.” International Journal of Lexicography 24 (4): 480–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecr007.Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2012. English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Davvetas, V., and G. Halkias. 2019. “Global and Local Brand Stereotypes: Formation, Content Transfer, and Impact.” International Marketing Review 36 (5): 675–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2018-0017.Search in Google Scholar
De Mauro, T. 2019. Guida all’uso delle parole: Parlare e scrivere semplice e preciso per capire e farsi capire (Prima edizione). Rome: GLF Editori Laterza.Search in Google Scholar
Diallo, M. F., S. Djelassi, and V. Kumar. 2021. “Marketing and Globalization: Relevance, Trends and Future Research.” Recherche et Applications en Marketing 36 (3): 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/20515707211027326.Search in Google Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A., V. Davvetas, F. Bartsch, T. Mandler, M. Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, and M. Eisend. 2019. “On the Interplay between Consumer Dispositions and Perceived Brand Globalness: Alternative Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Assessment.” Journal of International Marketing 27 (4): 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X19865527.Search in Google Scholar
Díaz, J. A. R. 2019. “The Semantics and Functions of Anglicisms and Germanisms in Present-Day Advertising Written Peninsular Spanish: A Comparison.” Lebende Sprachen 64 (1): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2019-0002.Search in Google Scholar
El Haddad, R., R. Hallak, and G. Assaker. 2015. “Price Fairness Perceptions and Hotel Customers’ Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 21 (3): 262–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766715573651.Search in Google Scholar
Europarat. 2010. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (10th Print). Strasbourg: Cambridge Univ. Press.Search in Google Scholar
Filipović, R. 2000. “Historical-Primary Etymology vs. Secondary Etymology of Anglicisms in European Languages.” In Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 186, edited by O. Mišeska Tomić, and M. Radovanović, 205. Novi Sad: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.186.18filSearch in Google Scholar
Fischer, R., and H. Pułaczewska, eds. 2008. Anglicisms in Europe: Linguistic Diversity in a Global Context (1. publ). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publ.Search in Google Scholar
Forlani, F., and T. Pencarelli. 2019. “Using the Experiential Approach in Marketing and Management: A Systematic Literature Review.” Mercati & Competitività 3: 17–50. https://doi.org/10.3280/mc3-2019oa8500.Search in Google Scholar
Geipel, J., L. H. Grant, and B. Keysar. 2022. “Use of a Language Intervention to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy.” Scientific Reports 12 (1): 253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04249-w.Search in Google Scholar
Geipel, J., C. Hadjichristidis, and A.-K. Klesse. 2018. “Barriers to Sustainable Consumption Attenuated by Foreign Language Use.” Nature Sustainability 1 (1): 31–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0005-9.Search in Google Scholar
Geipel, J., C. Hadjichristidis, L. Savadori, and B. Keysar. 2023. “Language Modality Influences Risk Perception: Innovations Read Well but Sound Even Better.” Risk Analysis 43 (3): 558–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13917.Search in Google Scholar
Gemünden, H. G. 1985. “Perceived Risk and Information Search. A Systematic Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 2 (2): 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(85)90026-6.Search in Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M., C. Nickerson, A. van Hooft, F. van Meurs, H. Korzilius, U. Nederstigt, M. Starren, and R. Crijns. 2010. “English in Product Advertisements in Non-English-Speaking Countries in Western Europe: Product Image and Comprehension of the Text.” Journal of Global Marketing 23 (4): 349–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2010.504523.Search in Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M., C. Nickerson, A. Van Hooft, F. Van Meurs, U. Nederstigt, M. Starren, and R. Crijns. 2007. “English in Product Advertisements in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.” World Englishes 26 (3): 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00510.x.Search in Google Scholar
Girard, T., and P. Dion. 2010. “Validating the Search, Experience, and Credence Product Classification Framework.” Journal of Business Research 63 (9–10): 1079–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.011.Search in Google Scholar
Girard, T., R. Silverblatt, and P. Korgaonkar. 2002. “Influence of Product Class on Preference for Shopping on the Internet.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8 (1): JCMC815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00162.x.Search in Google Scholar
Görlach, M. 2003. English Words Abroad, 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tlrp.7Search in Google Scholar
Grigaliunaite, V., and L. Pileliene. 2016. “Emotional or Rational? the Determination of the Influence of Advertising Appeal on Advertising Effectiveness.” Scientific Annals of Economics and Business 63 (3): 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1515/saeb-2016-0130.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. 2014. The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory, 4th ed. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harper, D. A., and P. Faccioli. 2010. The Italian Way: Food and Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226317267.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K., ed. 1996. The English language in Europe (1. publ). Oxford: Intellect.Search in Google Scholar
Harun, A., N. Abdul Wahid, O. Mohamad, A. Lily, and C. A. Lasuin. 2015. “Culture of Brand Origin (COBO): The Impacts of Language and Linguistics on Purchase Intention of a Brand.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7 (1): 1, https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1p32.Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, R., R. Shams, and M. Rahman. 2021. “Consumer Trust and Perceived Risk for Voice-Controlled Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Siri.” Journal of Business Research 131: 591–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.012.Search in Google Scholar
Havlena, W. J., and W. S. DeSarbo. 1991. “On the Measurement of Perceived Consumer Risk.” Decision Sciences 22 (4): 927–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00372.x.Search in Google Scholar
Hayakawa, S., B. K. Y. Lau, S. Holtzmann, A. Costa, and B. Keysar. 2019. “On the Reliability of the Foreign Language Effect on Risk-Taking.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 72 (1): 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817742242.Search in Google Scholar
Holbrook, M. B., and R. Batra. 1987. “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3): 404–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/209123.Search in Google Scholar
Holton, R. H. 1958. “The Distinction between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods.” Journal of Marketing 23 (1): 53–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224295802300108.Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., and F. van Meurs. 2017. “Foreign Languages in Advertising as Implicit Country-Of-Origin Cues: Mechanism, Associations, and Effectiveness.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 29 (2): 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1243996.Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., and F. Van Meurs. 2020. Foreign Languages in Advertising: Linguistic and Marketing Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-030-31691-4Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., F. van Meurs, and A. de Boer. 2010. “English or a Local Language in Advertising? The Appreciation of Easy and Difficult English Slogans in the Netherlands.” Journal of Business Communication 47 (2): 169–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610364524.Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., F. van Meurs, and R.-J. Hof. 2013. “The Effectiveness of Foreign-Language Display in Advertising for Congruent versus Incongruent Products.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 25 (3): 152–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2013.780451.Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., F. Van Meurs, and H. Tenzer. 2024. “Foreign Languages in Advertising: Theoretical Implications for Language-Related IB Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 55 (2): 270–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00639-6.Search in Google Scholar
Hornikx, J., F. van Meurs, J. van den Heuvel, and A. Janssen. 2020. “How Brands Highlight Country of Origin in Magazine Advertising: A Content Analysis.” Journal of Global Marketing 33 (1): 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2019.1579399.Search in Google Scholar
James, M. X., Z. Hu, and T. E. Leonce. 2019. “Predictors of Organic Tea Purchase Intentions by Chinese Consumers: Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Demographic Factors.” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 9 (3): 202–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-03-2018-0038.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, L. B., G. J. Szybillo, and J. Jacoby. 1974. “Components of Perceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-Validation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (3): 287–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036657.Search in Google Scholar
Karataş, M. 2020. “Making Decisions in Foreign Languages: Weaker Senses of Ownership Attenuate the Endowment Effect.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 30 (2): 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1138.Search in Google Scholar
Kelly-Holmes, H. 2005. Advertising as Multilingual Communication. New York: UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230503014Search in Google Scholar
Keysar, B., S. L. Hayakawa, and S. G. An. 2012. “The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases.” Psychological Science 23 (6): 661–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178.Search in Google Scholar
Kiang, M. Y., Q. Ye, Y. Hao, M. Chen, and Y. Li. 2011. “A Service-Oriented Analysis of Online Product Classification Methods.” Decision Support Systems 52 (1): 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, H.-W., S. Gupta, and J. Koh. 2011. “Investigating the Intention to Purchase Digital Items in Social Networking Communities: A Customer Value Perspective.” Information & Management 48 (6): 228–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.05.004.Search in Google Scholar
Konuk, F. A. 2019. “The Influence of Perceived Food Quality, Price Fairness, Perceived Value and Satisfaction on Customers’ Revisit and Word-Of-Mouth Intentions towards Organic Food Restaurants.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 50: 103–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.005.Search in Google Scholar
Koslow, S., P. N. Shamdasani, and E. E. Touchstone. 1994. “Exploring Language Effects in Ethnic Advertising: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4): 575. https://doi.org/10.1086/209371.Search in Google Scholar
Kotler, P., and K. L. Keller. 2012. Marketing Management, 14th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Krishna, A., and R. Ahluwalia. 2008. “Language Choice in Advertising to Bilinguals: Asymmetric Effects for Multinationals versus Local Firms.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (4): 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1086/592130.Search in Google Scholar
Laroche, M., R. Li, M.-O. Richard, and L. Xu. 2022. “What Is This Accent? Effects of Accent and Language in International Advertising Contexts.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 46 (4): 1209–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12753.Search in Google Scholar
Leclerc, F., B. H. Schmitt, and L. Dube. 1994. “Foreign Branding and its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2): 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152198.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. 2006. “Linguistic Constructions of Modernity: English Mixing in Korean Television Commercials.” Language in Society 35 (1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060039.Search in Google Scholar
Lerman, D., R. J. Morais, and D. Luna. 2017. The Language of Branding: Theory, Strategies, and Tactics, 1st ed. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203139691-1Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, R. C., and S. Shoemaker. 1997. “Price-sensitivity Measurement: A Tool for the Hospitality Industry.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 38 (2): 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049703800223.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Y.-C., and K.-Y. Wang. 2016. “Language Choice in Advertising for Multinational Corporations and Local Firms: A Reinquiry Focusing on Monolinguals.” Journal of Advertising 45 (1): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1085817.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Y.-C., K.-Y. Wang, and J.-Y. Hsieh. 2017. “Creating an Effective Code-Switched Ad for Monolinguals: The Influence of Brand Origin and Foreign Language Familiarity.” International Journal of Advertising 36 (4): 613–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1195054.Search in Google Scholar
Luján-García, A. 2015. “Lexical Anglicisms: An Analysis of Commercials Addressed to Young Children on Four Television Channels in Spain.” Onomázein Revista de Lingüística, Filología y Traducción 32: 288–304. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.32.17.Search in Google Scholar
Luna, D., and L. A. Peracchio. 2001. “Moderators of Language Effects in Advertising to Bilinguals: A Psycholinguistic Approach.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2): 284–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/322903.Search in Google Scholar
Luna, D., and L. A. Peracchio. 2005. “Advertising to Bilingual Consumers: The Impact of Code-Switching on Persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4): 760–5. https://doi.org/10.1086/426609.Search in Google Scholar
Luna, D., T. Ringberg, and L. A. Peracchio. 2008. “One Individual, Two Identities: Frame Switching Among Biculturals.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (2): 279–93. https://doi.org/10.1086/586914.Search in Google Scholar
Maass, A., D. Salvi, L. Arcuri, and G. R. Semin. 1989. “Language Use in Intergroup Contexts: The Linguistic Intergroup Bias.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (6): 981–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981.Search in Google Scholar
Marello, C. 2020. “New Words and New Forms of Linguistic Purism in the 21st Century: The Italian Debate.” International Journal of Lexicography 33 (2): 168–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecz034.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, E. 2002. “Mixing English in French Advertising.” World Englishes 21 (3): 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00256.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, E. 2007. ““Frenglish” for Sale: Multilingual Discourses for Addressing Today’s Global Consumer.” World Englishes 26 (2): 170–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00500.x.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, E. 2008. “Language-Mixing in French Print Advertising.” Journal of Creative Communications 3 (1): 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/097325860800300104.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, E. 2019. “World Englishes in the Media.” In The Handbook of World Englishes, edited by C. L. Nelson, Z. G. Proshina, and D. R. Davis, 1st ed., 595–615. Oxford: Wiley.10.1002/9781119147282.ch33Search in Google Scholar
Meernik, C., L. M. Ranney, A. J. Lazard, K. Kim, T. L. Queen, A. Avishai, M. H. Boynton, P. J. Sheeran, and A. O. Goldstein. 2018. “The Effect of Cigarillo Packaging Elements on Young Adult Perceptions of Product Flavor, Taste, Smell, and Appeal.” PLoS One 13 (4): e0196236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196236.Search in Google Scholar
Micu, C. C., and R. A. Coulter. 2010. “Advertising in English in Nonnative English-Speaking Markets: The Effect of Language and Self-Referencing in Advertising in Romania on Ad Attitudes.” Journal of East-West Business 16 (1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669860903558433.Search in Google Scholar
Miliopoulou, G.-Z. 2019. “Revisiting Product Classification to Examine Content Marketing Practices.” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 13 (4): 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-07-2018-0084.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, P. E., and B. M. Enis. 1986. “Classifying Products Strategically.” Journal of Marketing 50 (3): 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298605000303.Search in Google Scholar
Nederstigt, U., and B. Hilberink-Schulpen. 2018. “Advertising in a Foreign Language or the Consumers’ Native Language?” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 30 (1): 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2017.1363008.Search in Google Scholar
Özsomer, A. 2012. “The Interplay between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness.” Journal of International Marketing 20 (2): 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.11.0105.Search in Google Scholar
Pan, L., and D. Block. 2011. “English as a “Global Language” in China: An Investigation into Learners’ and Teachers’ Language Beliefs.” Beliefs about SLA Revisited 39 (3): 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.011.Search in Google Scholar
Pascual-Miguel, F. J., Á. F. Agudo-Peregrina, and J. Chaparro-Peláez. 2015. “Influences of Gender and Product Type on Online Purchasing.” Journal of Business Research 68 (7): 1550–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.050.Search in Google Scholar
Petruzzellis, L. 2010. “Mobile Phone Choice: Technology versus Marketing. The Brand Effect in the Italian Market.” European Journal of Marketing 44 (5): 610–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011032298.Search in Google Scholar
Piller, I. 2003. “Advertising as a Site of Language Contact.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 170–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190503000254.Search in Google Scholar
Planken, B., F. V. Meurs, and A. Radlinska. 2010. “The Effects of the Use of English in Polish Product Advertisements: Implications for English for Business Purposes.” English for Specific Purposes 29 (4): 225–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.06.003.Search in Google Scholar
Pulcini, V. 2023. The Influence of English on Italian: Lexical and Cultural Features, 23. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110755114Search in Google Scholar
Raedts, M., N. Dupré, J. Hendrickx, and S. Debrauwere. 2015. “English in Television Commercials in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.” World Englishes 34 (4): 576–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12161.Search in Google Scholar
Root, H. P. 1972. “Should Product Differentiation Be Restricted?” Journal of Marketing 36 (3): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297203600302.Search in Google Scholar
Rüdiger, S. 2018. “Mixed Feelings: Attitudes towards English Loanwords and Their Use in South Korea.” Open Linguistics 4 (1): 184–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0010.Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., M. Hewstone, and H. Giles. 1984. “Language and Intergroup Attitudes.” In Attitudinal Judgment, edited by J. R. Eiser, 135–58. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4613-8251-5_7Search in Google Scholar
Santello, M. 2015. “Advertising to Italian English Bilinguals in Australia: Attitudes and Response to Language Selection.” Applied Linguistics 36 (1): 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt037.Search in Google Scholar
Santello, M. 2016. Advertising and Multilingual Repertoires: From Linguistic Resources to Patterns of Response. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9781315392585Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, B. 1999. “Experiential Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Management 15 (1–3): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496.Search in Google Scholar
Shams, R., F. Alpert, and M. Brown. 2015. “Consumer Perceived Brand Innovativeness.” European Journal of Marketing 49 (9/10): 1589–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2013-0240.Search in Google Scholar
Șimon, S., C. E. Stoian, A. Dejica-Carțiș, and A. Kriston. 2021. “The Use of Anglicisms in the Field of Education: A Comparative Analysis of Romanian, German, and French.” Sage Open 11 (4): 215824402110532. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211053241.Search in Google Scholar
Sokolova, A. G. 2020. “Anglicisms and Loanwords: The Contribution of English Exemplified by Contemporary Italian Tourist Terminology.” Training, Language and Culture 4 (2): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2020-4-2-21-30.Search in Google Scholar
Solomon, M. R. 2018. Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, 12th ed., global edition. Boston: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J.-B., R. Batra, and D. L. Alden. 2003. “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value.” Journal of International Business Studies 34 (1): 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400002.Search in Google Scholar
Susanti, C. E. 2019. “The Effect of Service Quality and Perceived Price Fairness on Consumer Loyalty through Consumer Satisfaction on Budget Hotel in East Java.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 12 (6): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i6/141954.Search in Google Scholar
Swoboda, B., K. Pennemann, and M. Taube. 2012. “The Effects of Perceived Brand Globalness and Perceived Brand Localness in China: Empirical Evidence on Western, Asian, and Domestic Retailers.” Journal of International Marketing 20 (4): 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.12.0105.Search in Google Scholar
Tham, K. W., O. Dastane, Z. Johari, and N. B. Ismail. 2019. “Perceived Risk Factors Affecting Consumers’ Online Shopping Behaviour.” SSRN Electronic Journal 6 (4): 246–60, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3498766.Search in Google Scholar
Toffoli, R., and M. Laroche. 2002. “Cultural and Language Effects on Chinese Bilinguals’ and Canadians’ Responses to Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising 21 (4): 505–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2002.11104948.Search in Google Scholar
Van Hooft, A., and T. Troung. 2012. “Language Choice and Persuasiveness the Effects of the Use of English in Product Advertisements in Hong Kong.” The Language Factor in International Business Linguistic Insights 151: 175–97.Search in Google Scholar
Van Hooft, A., F. Van Meurs, and Q. Braaf. 2021. “General Language Use, Language Proficiency and Language Attitudes as Predictors of Consumer Response to the Use of Spanish and English in Advertising in Chile and Mexico.” In Advances in Advertising Research, Vol. XI, edited by M. K. J. Waiguny, and S. Rosengren, 77–89. Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Springer.10.1007/978-3-658-32201-4_6Search in Google Scholar
Van Hooft, A., F. Van Meurs, and D. Spierts. 2017. “In Arabic, English, or a Mix? Egyptian Consumers’ Response to Language Choice in Product Advertisements, and the Role of Language Attitudes.” In Advances in Advertising Research VIII, edited by V. Zabkar, and M. Eisend, 139–53. Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Springer.10.1007/978-3-658-18731-6_11Search in Google Scholar
Varga, D., L. O. Dvorski, and S. Bjelobaba. 2011. “Look-normal: The Colonized Child of Developmental Science.” English Loanwords in French and Italian Daily Newspapers 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021775.Search in Google Scholar
Vettorel, P. 2013. “English in Italian Advertising.” World Englishes 32 (2): 261–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12023.Search in Google Scholar
Vettorel, P., and V. Franceschi. 2019. “English and Other Languages in Italian Advertising.” World Englishes 38 (3): 417–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12432.Search in Google Scholar
Volk, S., T. Köhler, and M. Pudelko. 2014. “Brain Drain: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Foreign Language Processing in Multinational Corporations.” Journal of International Business Studies 45 (7): 862–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.26.Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, U., and A. R. Charinsarn. 2021. “What Language Should Be Displayed on Product Packaging? How Unconventional Lettering Influences Packaging and Product Evaluation.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 33 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2020.1741483.Search in Google Scholar
Walsh, O. 2014. “‘Les anglicismes polluent la langue française’. Purist attitudes in France and Quebec.” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (3): 423–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269513000227.Search in Google Scholar
Zambianchi, M., M. Rönnlund, and M. G. Carelli. 2019. “Attitudes towards and Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Among Older Adults in Italy and Sweden: The Influence of Cultural Context, Socio-Demographic Factors, and Time Perspective.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 34 (3): 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-019-09370-y.Search in Google Scholar
Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing 52 (3): 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, X., and X. Yu. 2020. “The Impact of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Cross-Platform Buying Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 592246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592246.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, J., R. S. Butt, M. Murad, F. Mirza, and M. A. Saleh Al-Faryan. 2022. “Untying the Influence of Advertisements on Consumers Buying Behavior and Brand Loyalty through Brand Awareness: The Moderating Role of Perceived Quality.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 803348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803348.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reduction of Ivory Product Purchase in China: The Role of Cultural Values on Ethical Consumption
- The Prospection and Retrospection of Experiential Purchases as More Meaningful Memories: Social and Affective Implications
- “How Brands Can Influence Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Visiting Brand-related destinations”
- Consumer Behaviour on AI Applications for Services: Measuring the Impact of Value-Based Adoption Model on Luxurious AI Resorts’ Applications
- AI-Powered Augmented Reality App Satisfies My Beauty Needs and Want
- The 4Ps Marketing Strategy as a Driver of Dynamic Capabilities: Path to Consumer/Voter Satisfaction
- Authenticity as a Strategic Weapon: Navigating the Social Media Battlefield to Enhance Brand Loyalty
- Allurement of Augmented Reality on Behavioral Intention: Delineating the Role of Visual Appeal and Arousal Using Information System Success Model
- Don’t Tell Me to Have, but to Do It! The Role of Luxury Desirability Motives in Reducing Counterfeiting Schadenfreude
- “Gusto” or “Taste”? Anglicisms Change Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal in Italian Print Advertising
- Does Advertising Facilitate Supplier-Provided Trade Credit?
- Understanding the Incongruent Brand Personalities on Social Media: Evidence from Indian Brands
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reduction of Ivory Product Purchase in China: The Role of Cultural Values on Ethical Consumption
- The Prospection and Retrospection of Experiential Purchases as More Meaningful Memories: Social and Affective Implications
- “How Brands Can Influence Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Visiting Brand-related destinations”
- Consumer Behaviour on AI Applications for Services: Measuring the Impact of Value-Based Adoption Model on Luxurious AI Resorts’ Applications
- AI-Powered Augmented Reality App Satisfies My Beauty Needs and Want
- The 4Ps Marketing Strategy as a Driver of Dynamic Capabilities: Path to Consumer/Voter Satisfaction
- Authenticity as a Strategic Weapon: Navigating the Social Media Battlefield to Enhance Brand Loyalty
- Allurement of Augmented Reality on Behavioral Intention: Delineating the Role of Visual Appeal and Arousal Using Information System Success Model
- Don’t Tell Me to Have, but to Do It! The Role of Luxury Desirability Motives in Reducing Counterfeiting Schadenfreude
- “Gusto” or “Taste”? Anglicisms Change Perceived Product Risk and Product Appeal in Italian Print Advertising
- Does Advertising Facilitate Supplier-Provided Trade Credit?
- Understanding the Incongruent Brand Personalities on Social Media: Evidence from Indian Brands
