Notes on Schmitt, Pan, and Tavassoli (1994) – Language and Consumer Memory

Paper: “Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic Differences between Chinese and English,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 419–31.

Main Topic or Phenomenon

This paper examines how structural differences between ideographic (Chinese) and alphabetic (English) writing systems affect consumer memory for brand names. The study investigates whether the fundamental differences in how languages encode information—visually versus phonologically—influence how consumers process, store, and recall brand information.

Theoretical Construct

Mental Representations and Dual-Access Models: The paper builds on dual-access theories of memory, which propose that verbal information can be encoded in multiple formats:

• Phonological Encoding: Information stored as sound-based representations (dominant in alphabetic languages like English)
• Visual Encoding: Information stored as visual/spatial representations (dominant in ideographic languages like Chinese)

Language Structure Theory: The framework distinguishes between:

• Ideographic Systems: Characters represent meanings directly with loose orthographic-phonemic correspondence (Chinese)
• Alphabetic Systems: Letters map systematically to sounds with strong orthographic-phonemic correspondence (English)

Key Findings

1. Recall Patterns: Chinese speakers recalled significantly more brand names when asked to write them down rather than say them aloud, while English speakers showed the opposite pattern (better spoken than written recall)
2. Recognition Performance: Chinese speakers performed better at recognizing brand names learned auditorily versus visually, while English speakers performed better with visually learned names
3. Cross-Cultural Memory Differences: Overall, Chinese participants recalled more brand names than English participants, potentially due to the dual-coding advantage in their language system
4. Signal Detection Analysis: Results held when controlling for response bias, indicating true memory differences rather than cultural differences in decision-making

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Presentation Mode: Whether brand names are learned auditorily or visually moderates the language effect

• Auditory presentation benefits Chinese speakers more
• Visual presentation benefits English speakers more

Memory Mode: How consumers are asked to recall information (spoken vs. written) interacts with language

• Written recall favors Chinese speakers
• Spoken recall favors English speakers

Task Complexity: Effects were strongest for unaided recall; recognition showed more complex three-way interactions

Stimulus Characteristics: Effects limited to carefully controlled nonword brand names with matched phonetic components across languages

Building on Previous Work

Extends Cognitive Psychology Research: Takes laboratory findings about Chinese-English processing differences and applies them to consumer behavior contexts for the first time

Challenges Universal Models: Questions the assumption that consumer memory processes are universal across cultures, showing that basic cognitive differences can affect marketing-relevant outcomes

Bridges Psycholinguistics and Marketing: Connects research on language processing with practical brand memory issues, creating a new research stream

Cultural Content vs. Structure: Moves beyond studying cultural values and attitudes to examine structural linguistic factors that have been ignored in consumer research

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper establishes linguistic structure as a fundamental factor in consumer information processing. It demonstrates that the writing system of a language creates systematic differences in how consumers encode, store, and retrieve brand information. This represents a shift from viewing cross-cultural differences as primarily attitudinal to recognizing deeper cognitive-structural influences on consumer behavior.

The work introduces the concept that mental representation preferences are culturally and linguistically determined, challenging universalist approaches to consumer memory and suggesting that information processing models may need to be language-specific.

Major Managerial Implication

Communication Strategy Optimization: Marketers should tailor their brand communication strategies to match the dominant encoding preferences of their target language group:

• For Chinese Markets: Emphasize visual distinctiveness in brand names, unique calligraphy, memorable logo designs, and written communications
• For English Markets: Focus on sound qualities, jingles, memorable pronunciations, and auditory brand elements

Global Brand Adaptation: Companies expanding internationally should not simply translate brand names but should consider how the structural properties of the target language will affect brand memorability and recognition.

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Individual Difference Moderators:

• Bilingual proficiency levels and age of second language acquisition
• Individual differences in visual vs. auditory processing preferences
• Educational background and literacy levels

Product Category Moderators:

• High vs. low involvement products
• Symbolic vs. functional product benefits
• Product complexity and purchase frequency

Contextual Factors:

• Media channel effects (TV, radio, print, digital)
• Competitive context and clutter
• Time pressure and processing motivation

Brand Characteristic Moderators:

• Brand name length and complexity
• Meaningful vs. meaningless brand names
• Brand familiarity and prior exposure

Cultural Moderators Beyond Language:

• Collectivism vs. individualism orientations
• High vs. low context communication styles
• Power distance and uncertainty avoidance

This paper opens numerous avenues for exploring how fundamental cognitive differences across cultures affect consumer behavior beyond the specific Chinese-English comparison studied.

Reference

Schmitt, Bernd H., Yigang Pan, and Nader T. Tavassoli (1994), “Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic Differences between Chinese and English,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 419–31.