Humor in Advertising:

A Behavioral Perspective*

Calvin P. Duncan, D.B.A.

Washington State University

INTRODUCTION

In recent years a growing number of promotionally minded firms have

turned to humor as a primary ingredient in their marketing communica-
tions. The success which humorous appeals have enjoyed is reflected in
the reactions of consumers, agencies and clients alike. Shoppers, when
asked to recall their favorite advertisements, are likely to cite commercials
about Mikey, the little brother who isn’t afraid to try Life Cereal, retired
athletes who can’t agree on what’s best about Lite beer, and Benson &
Hedges’ smokers who regularly butt into nearby objects. The advertising
community regularly pays tribute to this new wave of creativity at annual
awards banquets by bestowing many of the evening’s accolades upon
artists and agencies that have developed particularly amusing spots. Adver-
tisers; whose sales have soared with the infusion of humor into their com-
mercials, are equally enthusiastic. As a result, estimates of the percentage
of television advertisements which use some element of humor range from
15 percent (Kelly and Solomon 1975) to as high as 42 percent (Markie-
wicz 1972).’ A similar pattern of increasing acceptance of light-hearted
copy has emerged in radio (Lubalin 1977).

285

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

286

Yet, while millions of dollars in promotional monies are being spent

annually on messages laced with understatement, parody, and puns, mem-
bers of the advertising profession remain widely divided in their assessment
of the true effect of such humor. Advocates of humor in advertising argue
that light-hearted copy secures audience attention, increases advertisement
memorability, overcomes sales resistance, and enhances message persua-
siveness. Clearly, however, not everyone is convinced. Well-known practi-
tioners, Rosser Reeves and Alfred Politz among them, have criticized the
application of humorous advertising as unnecessary and potentially dys-
functional (Cone 1969). To use humor as an attention-getting device,
reasoned Politz, &dquo;bypasses the product and, therefore, the advertising
function... If a product has features worth paying for, it must have fea-
tures worth paying attention to&dquo; (Politz 1960). Other observers have held
comic appeals to be risky2 (Phillips 1968; Longman 1979) and difficult to
cost-justify when applied in expensive media (Winters 1971).
This division of opinion about the efficacy of humorous appeals does
not mean that one contingent of the advertising community is right and
the other wrong. Sufficient evidence, in the form of actual campaign suc-
cesses, is available to substantiate claims that humor does in fact work-at
least some of the time. Sales of the Seattle based Rainier Brewing Com-
pany, for example, have increased at an annual rate of from 10 to 15 per-
cent since the firm initiated the first of its parody styled commercials in
1974 (Marshall-1979). Other firms which have utilized the comic approach
with positive results include the Campbell Soup Company, Philip Morris,
Burlington Industries, and Chung King. Humor has not always brought
success, however. The Piels Brothers Brewery developed amusing and very
popular commercials that did not sell beer (Monica 1971). In 1977 Schlitz
was forced to abondon its controversial &dquo;Don’t take my gusto away&dquo; cam-

paign after ony ten weeks because of extremely adverse public response
(Winski 1978).
The central issue therefore is not whether entertaining commercials can
be effective. Rather, advertisers must direct their attention to questions
concerning (1) when humorous appeals should be applied, and (2) how
amusing messages should be presented. Answers to these questions require
an understanding of the factors and mechanisms which underlie consumer

response to humorous stimuli.

To this point in time, relatively few studies have explored the capacity
of humor to stimulate changes at various levels of audience response.
More studies of this type seem warranted. We need to know, for example,

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 287

whether humor can in fact enhance message persuasibility. Just as critical,

however, is the need for investigation focusing on the cognitive processes
which explain why response changes occur. If humor does promote atti-
tude change, what principles or theoretical foundations govern this pro-
cess ? Under what circumstances and for which classes of products can we
expect humor to be effective?
The problem of how to most effectively utilize the humor stimulus in
marketing communications is a timely and an economically significant
one. This article addresses this problem in two ways. First, the paper

briefly reviews the existing literature on humor and, in doing so, demons-
trates the contribution which may be made by further systematic and
theory-based research in this area. A conceptual framework is then intro-
duced (1) to identify variables which mediate humor’s effect on audience
behavior, (2) to provide a forum for discussing how existing behavioral
theories might be productively applied to humorous advertising decisions,
and (3) to lay a structural foundation for the generation of testable research
hypotheses.

REVIEW OF HUMOR RESEARCH

Sales Effects

Various authors have commented on the problems of measuring the

impact of advertising on final sales (Starch 1958; Beckwith 1972; Aaker
and Myers 1975 p. 87). The unique sales impression made by any single
advertising change, such as a shift to humorous copy, is often obscurred by
the influence of other promotional activities. Similarly, it is difficult to
isolate the sales contribution of advertising of any type from the effects of
other marketing inputs. While Miles Laboratories’ humorous commercials
were widely credited with the upsurge of Alka Seltzer sales in the 1960s, it
is noteworthy that Miles also changed its pricing, altered its sales promo-
tion, and adopted new packaging during the same period (Weingarten
1967).

Communication Effects

The contribution made by the addition of humorous advertising can be

more directly examined by focusing on the pre-purchase cognitive responses

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

288

of message recipients. Following the work by Hovland, Janis and Kelley

(1953), Rogers (1962), and McGuire (1969), a basic decision process
model may be constructed which provides a set of measures for appraising
advertising impact.

This conceptualization suggests that promotional objectives and perfor-

mance evaluation may be stated in terms of changes in the receiver’s cog-
nitive position in any of the intermediate stages leading to purchase.3 Be-
cause some marketing communications are intended simply to stimulate

awareness of a product’s existence while others provide product informa-

tion or attempt to alter brand allegiances, each level represents an appro-
priate measure of the effectiveness of advertising in general and humorous
advertising in particular.

Attention

A survey of the literature dealing with humor research reveals an ab-

sence of published studies which directly investigate the impact of humor
on audience attention. However, interest ratings in response to exposure
to humorous messages have been examined. The use of such ratings pre-
sumes that consumers are more likely to attend to stimuli which they per-
ceive as interesting.
Lull (1940), in an experiment comparing the effects of humorous and
nonhumorous versions of a speech on state medicine, found no significant
differences in message interestingness judgments between treatment groups.
In contrast, two studies by Markiewicz (1972; 1973) indicated that light-
hearted communications were rated as significantly more interesting than
similar seriously-stated messages. Gruner has hypothesized that discre-
pancies such as these are due to differences in the inherent appeal of the
message topics being examined. His findings (1970) suggest that the addi-
tion of humor will result in significantly increased interest ratings when
the basic message is perceived as dull but not when it is initially regarded
as interesting.
Because attention has been only indirectly measured, the reader is
forced to assume that humor which affects level of interest will also affect
the extent to which a message is noticed. While this logic is intuitively
appealing, additional research using more direct recall measures seems war-
ranted.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 289

Comprehension
Reported studies have generally failed to support the notion that
humor enhances message comprehension (Gruner 1965, 1966, 1967a;
Zeman 1967; Markiewica 1972). Taylor (1964) administered identical
tests of knowledge to high school students prior to, immediately after, and
one week following exposure to a speech on eighteenth century religious

ideology. Half of the subjects heard the speech with humorous remarks
added while the other half listened to a serious version of the same message.
A between-group comparison of changes in knowledge test scores revealed
no significant differences at either of the post-treatment measurement

points. In another experiment, Markiewicz (1972) found message compre-

hension to actually be lower among subjects receiving the communication
in humorous form than among those exposed to the serious rendition
(Markiewicz 1974).
While these results are not conclusive, they do suggest that the infusion
of humor into a message presentation may interfere with the audience’s
grasp of communicated information. This effect is likely when the form
of humor utilized (e.g., satire) is not recognized or fully understood by a
large portion of the audience (Gruner 1965).

Attitude Change
Under certain circumstances, the task of advertising is not so much to
attract or inform consumers as it is to reinforce existing product loyalties

or alter prevailing brand preferences. Does the introduction of humor

increase a message’s capacity to persuade?
Two studies using before and after designs (without serious-message
control groups) reported humorous messages to be effective in changing
subjects’ attitudes in the desired direction (Berko and Kumata 1956;
Gruner 1967a). Attitude shift was found to be greatest among listeners
whose initial positions were least consonant with the stance advocated
in the experimental communication (Gruner 1967a).
In experiments where the persuasiveness of humorous messages was
contrasted with the persuasiveness of similar seriously-stated communica-
tons, no significant differences were found (Pokorny and Gruner 1969;
Lull 1940; Kilpela 1961; Markiewicz 1972; Kennedy 1972). Thus, while
humorous presentations of information may precipitate changes in atti-
tude, the evidence does not indicate that they arc more effective in doing

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

290

so than their non-humorous counterparts. The verdict is still out on the

persuasive capability of light-hearted copy, however. Previous studies have
not controlled for, or experimentally manipulated, many of the variables
which can be expected to mediate humor’s impact in a commercial setting.
Message topics for example have generally dealt with serious, complex
issues (e.g., capital punishment, censorship) rather than the simpler, often
repeated content typical of broadcast advertising.

Retention

Some advocates of humorous advertising have also maintained that

amusing commercials are recalled long after less creative communications
have disappeared from memory (Byor 1974; Television Age 1967). Presu-
mably, consumers who are exposed to persuasive material before they are
prepared to buy will retain and use that information longer if it is per-
ceived as humorous. Published findings have not yet confirmed this line
of reasoning, however. Experiments by Gruner (1967b, 1970), Kennedy
(1972), Kilpela (1961), Taylor (1964) have revealed no significant differ-
ences in the length of retention between messages containing light-hearted
and serious copy.

Conclusion

From the perspective of advertising management, these findings on the

communication effects of humorous messages should be regarded as use-
ful, but tentative. The utilization of student subjects, the selection of con-
troversial and complex social issues as message topics, the frequent adop-
tion of satire as the humor form, and the laboratory settings used in many
of the experiments make the generalization of results to the marketplace
risky. Yet these studies do contribute because they question the conven-
tional wisdom.4 Humor does not in all cases increase attention, and amus-
ing commercials may not always be remembered longer. The absence of
consistent outcomes suggests that humor’s influence on audience behavior
may be a complex one. Advertisers must understand this complexity if
they are to administer hu mor effectively.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 291

AN EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK

Although the humor literature has been reviewed in greater depth else-
where (Markiewicz 1974; Sternthal and Craig 1973), no attempt has pre-
viously been made to evaluate these studies in the context of a single
conceptual frmaework. Such a framework is proposed here and is pre-
sented in Table 1.
The value of this model lies in the perspective it offers to practitioners
and researchers alike. It recognizes the humorous advertising process as
an integrated system in which the impact of the humor stimulus is depen-
dent upon the action of various interdependent mediating variables. By
identifying several of these mediating variables and stressing the impor-
tance of their effect on measured audience response, the model serves a
dual role. First, it encourages advertising decision making ;’1unded upon
careful analysis of all components of the communication process. When-
ever possible, and especially when promotional expenditures are large,
decisions on the use of humor should reflect present circumstances rather
than broad heuristics developed from past experience. Second, the model
provides a vehicle for &dquo;locating&dquo; and appraising the sufficiency of existing
research findings on humor. Areas of rich theoretical and empirical devel-
opment may be noted (for example, studies on source factors in persua-
sion). At the same time, holes in our current knowledge base can be pin-
pointed and marked for future empirical investigation.
The construction of the proposed framework is straightforward. It in-
corporates communication theory principles and borrows from McGuire’s
(1969) earlier work on consumer information processing. The success of a
humorous stimulus, represented at the left of Table 1, may be assessed in
terms of the changes it effects in one or more levels of consumer response,
shown on the right. However, as our review of the literature has revealed,
research efforts directed at finding simple and consistent associations
between humorous messages and specific dependent measures have not
always proven fruitful. Table 1 suggests that consistent relationships of
this type should probably not be anticipated. Because audience reaction is
mediated by a number of intervening influences, the effects of humorous
advertising tend to be conditionally determined. Recognition of this fact
and of the importance of critical intervening variables is therefore essential
to the productive application of humor in advertising.S

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

292

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 293

Mediating Variables
Mediating variables are those influences which determine the level, the
intensity and the timing of the audience’s response following exposure to a
humorous presentation. When applied to a marketing context, they may
be usefully classified into two subsets. &dquo;Situational Variables,&dquo; including
promotional objectives, product characteristics and audience character-
istics, define the communication problem at hand. The advertiser must
consider these factors before reaching a decision on whether to use humor
or some other form of message appeal. Once a light-hearted approach is

adopted, Situational Variables help target the levels of audience response

which the advertising is to influence. They also help determine the effect
that humorous copy will have on message receivers. As an example of the
effect of one audience factor, Gruner (1967a) found persuasion to be
greatest among listeners whose initial attitudes were least in agreement
with the position advocated in a humorously presented message.
Situational Variables also interact with &dquo;Communication Variables&dquo; to
establish the parameters of the communication process. The source of the
humor, the nature of the humor stimulus, the content and structure of the
message, and the media selected all help affect how audience members will
perceive and then act upon the conveyed information. The importance of
these Communication Variables derives not only’ from the fact that they
mediate the impact of humor but also from the realization that they are
managed by the advertiser. If advertisers manage them effectively, with an
understanding of how they influence consumer response, ar- improvement
in the performance of humorous promotions should result.

Planning Matrix
The intersection of mediating variables sets (rows) with behavioral re-
sponse levels (columns) forms a matrix relevant for advertising planning
and control. For the advertiser, the matrix offers a. check list of the fac-
tors which, individually and in combination, may contribute to the success
of an entertaining commercial. Further, by its very construction, the
matrix emphasizes the importance of integrative thinking. Thus the source
of a message and the type of humor utilized must reflect the basic objec-
tives of the promotion as well as the levels of audience response to be in-
fluenced. The form of appeal which is best for securing attention may net
always be effective in bringing about increased retention or attitude
change (McGuire 1969; Steadman 1969).

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

294

The matrix also serves to help visualize how theoretical and empirical
contributions, both past and future, may be productively applied to
humorous advertising decisions.

,-

APPLICATION OF BEHAVIORAL THEORY

To design and implement a successful humorous commercial, the adver-

tiser must possess some knowledge of the message’s target-the human
mind (Stewart 1968). If the communication goal is to garner attention for
the product, the advertiser should understand something about the factors
which motivate individuals to selectively attend to his message. If long-
term message retention is sought, knowledge is needed about the learning
process as well as the principles of forgetting and extinction. In general,
decisions concerning when humor is appropriate and how amusing appeals
are to be formulated should emanate from a scientific foundation of
theory and empirical findings.While such a base has not yet been com-
pleted, several behavioral theories presently exist which may provide signi-
ficant insights into the operation of the humorous advertising process.
In the following paragraphs the conceptual foundations of adaptation
level theory, the distraction hypothesis, learning theory, and environ-
mental psychology will be presented. These conceptualizations have been
selected to illustrate the valuable role which theory plays in providing test-
able explanations about how consumers respond to humorous appeals and
about how mediating variables affect those responses. Each of these
theories has been located in Table 1 to indicate its relevance for individual
communication-sales response levels and for specific mediating variables.
While adaptation level theory pertains to audience attention, learning
theory and the distraction hypothesis offer differing explanations of the
attitude change process. Environmental psychology principles also deal
with attitude change as well as message retention. In each case, potential-
ly important mediating variables have been identified and underlined.

Adaptation Level Theory

This theory, as described by Helson (1947; 1959), deals with the capa-
city of a stimulus to attract attention. Each stimulus which an individual
encounters becomes associated with an adaptation or reference level.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 295

Thus, adaptation levels exist for both physical and abstract stimuli.
Attention is attracted when the individual perceives the focal stimulus to
be plainly different from its reference stimuli. Helson theorizes that the
perceived contrast may occur in either of two ways. The individual may
use past experience to compare the present level of the focal stimulus
with an adaptation level developed from previously perceived stimuli
(called residual stimuli). Alternatively the individual will attend to the
focal stimulus if it is framed within a context or background (contextual
stimuli) which deviates from the perceived norm.
The implications of adaptation level theory for advertising management
are worth considering (Aaker and Myers 1975, p. 285). It has been assert-
ed that humor is effective in stimulating audience attention (Phillips 1968;
Sternthal and Craig 1973). Helson’s paradigm implies, however, that
humor’s attention-getting capability will vary according to the history and
circumstance of its application. An amusing commercial which is viewed
in close proximity to other light-hearted advertisements will capture rela-
tively little audience attention. Media planning therefore assumes a pro-
minent role in the success of a humorously designed message. Whenever
possible, advertisers should select vehicles (types of magazines, television
and radio programs) and time slots which reduce the risk of &dquo;comedic
clutter.&dquo;
Advertisers should also consider audience expectations concerning the
use of humor for particular products. Has the product been promoted in
an entertaining fashion in the past? Are competing brands in the same
product category using humor extensively? Adaptation level theory argues
that products which are not usually associated with humorous advertising
may benefit most from the light-hearted approach. This line of reasoning
provides a rationale for New England Mutual Life Insurance Company’s
unconventional death-scoffing cartoon campaign. As the President of the
firm’s advertising agency commented,&dquo; the mellifluous generalities that
...

traditionally occupy such an important place in life insurance advertising...

serve only one purpose: To put people to sleep. We want them to sit up
and take notice&dquo; (Advertising Age, May 20, 1961).

The Distraction Hypothesis

According tothis thesis, individuals generate subvocal counter-argu-

ments when exposed to a persuasive communication which is discrepant
with their existing views. The effect of the counter-argumentation process

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

296

is to reduce the likelihood that attitude change will occur. By interfering

with the individual’s counter-arguments, visual, audio or behavioral distrac-
tions overcome receiver resistence and thereby increase the persuasive im-
pact of the incoming message (Allyn and Festinger 1961).
Bither (1969) and others (Venkatesan and Haaland 1968; Gardner
1970) have applied the distraction hypothesis to marketing communica-
tions. Although humor was not manipulated in any of these experiments,
the potential of humor as a distraction device has been recognized (Baron
et al. 1973). Evidence gathered thus far indicates that humor will operate
as an effective distraction when the target audience: is against the advo-

cated message position, perceives the message to be important, knows

enough about the issue to form counter-arguments, and associates the
humor with the incoming message (Bither 1969; Markiewicz 1974). For
practical purposes these conditions do not appear to be overly restrictive.
They encompass numerous product/market situations where humor might
prove effective in altering brand preferences.
While the validity of the distraction hypothesis has yet to be established,
its ready applicability to humorous advertising suggests that additional
research in this area would be worthwhile. Studies are needed to deter-
mine the extent to which the form of the humor stimulus and its intensity
might influence the distraction effect. The timing of the humorous pre-
sentation relative to the persuasive appeal should also be explored. Humor,
poorly positioned, runs the risk of interfering with the sales message rather
than the subsequent counter-arguments.

Learning Theory
Learning theory principles have been frequently applied to the market-
ing communication process (Britt 1955; Ruck 1963;Krugman 1963). But
what role, if any, does learning theory play in explaining the effect of
humorous appeals on audience response?
It may be hypothesized that humor’s influence on audience persuasion
follows an operant learning explanation. To demonstrate how operant
learning applies to the advertising process, we must first identify the ele-
ments of behavior and reward. The individual responds to receipt of the
advertiser’s selling proposition by either agreeing or disagreeing with the
conveyed information. If the response is positive and if it is followed by a
reward, such as a humorous joke or anecdote, it becomes reinforced. In
this way repeated showings of a humorous commercial should strengthen
the receiver’s adherence to the position advocated by the message.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 297

The practical implications of operant learning theory for the advertiser

are evident. The theory’s applicability extends only to situations where
the purpose of the humor is to solidify existing positive attitudes. Success-
ful utilization of operant learning principles requires that considerable
attention be devoted to message structure. Humor may act as a reward
only if it follows both the administration of the persuasive arguments and
the individual’s affective response to those arguments. Further investiga-
tion is needed to establish the mediating effects of humor form, intensity,
and repetition on reinforcement. To the extent that these factors may in-
crease the perceived reward, they can be expected to enhance message

reception and persuasibility.

TABLE 2. HUMOR: HOW DOES IT WORK?

Environmental Psychology
Advocates of humorous advertising contend that selling propositions
conveyed in an atmosphere of goodwill and entertainment are more apt to
be learned and remembered. Humor, it is reasoned, places the audience in
a positive and receptive frame of mind. Although this &dquo;receptive mood&dquo;
thesis has not been verified empirically, it derives considerable theoretical
support from research adapted from environmental psychology.
Tyebjee (1978) has theorized that an individual’s response to incoming
information depends in part on the reception environment extant at the
time of the communication. One important way that the reception envi-
ronment affects cognitive response is in its psychological impact on the
receiver. To the extent that environmental stimuli are able to arouse the
message recipient, they increase the likelihood that he will process the
information and subsequently act upon it. The individual’s arousal level,

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

298

according to Tyebjee, is the composite of five contributing factors. One

such factor, emotional arousal, represents the affective state which the
environment evokes in the individual. A second factor embodies the
degree of involvement which the receiver feels toward specific environ-
mental stimuli. Presumably, high involvement circumstances will increase
the individual’s level of arousal and therefore his processing of concurrent-
ly presented information.
It is not difficult to see how these concepts apply to advertising. Of
particular interest, however, is the relevance of this theory for the applica-
tion of humor. It has been pointed out that consumer behavior represents
only a limited part of our total everyday activity. Therefore, &dquo;it should
probably not be surprising that products and information directed toward
consumer needs tend to occupy relatively small fractions of an individual’s
information processing capacity, and tend to receive lower involvement
status in real world information processing situations&dquo; (De Bruicker and
Robertson 1978). Krugman (1965) suggests that the intrusiveness of
advertising stimuli (as part of the receiver’s reception environment) may be
reduced still further when they are received by electronic means rather
than in print.
Against this background, humor offers the advertiser a way to increase
audience arousal by stimulating either emotional arousal or involvement
arousal. In each case, the heightened reception environment should lead
to greater processing of the persuasive message by the receiver.
The basic tenets of environmental psychology provide several insights
into how humor might be effectively administered by advertising planners.66
While humor’s capacity to intensify emotional arousal may enable it to
effect attitude change, it might also be used to augment message retention.
Previous authors (Dutta and Kanungo 1975) have reported that highly
emotional encounters are remembered longer than less intense ones. If, in
addition, pleasant emotional experiences are retained more readily than
unpleasant ones, humor can be expected to improve message memorabil-
ity. Additional research is needed to explore the exact nature of the role
played by emotional arousal in mediating humor’s effect on message reten-
tion. Reception environment theory has implications for product deci-
sions as well. Within a generally low commitment behavioral context,
products and product messages which are perceived as unexciting would
seem to be poor subjects for persuasive communication attempts. The in-
sertion of a high involvement stimulus (humor) into the communication
environment may provide a solution, however. The involvement arousal
elicited by the humorous material should increase the likelihood of cogni-
tive response to the associated (uninteresting) information.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 299

Obviously, this discussion of behavioral theories and their implications

for humorous advertising is not complete. Three of the four theories pre-
sented .are primarily concerned with the &dquo;attitude change&dquo; column in
Table 1. Table 2 provides a summary comparison of these explanations,
plus two others which are not addressed in this paper (classical condition-
ing, communication source effects). Other bodies of conceptual develop-
ment need to be identified and tested to further our understanding of
humor’s impact on comprehension, attitude change, and retention. (For
example, see Wright 1973).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The purpose of this fimal section is to identify some of the directions

which research in the humorous advertising area might take. The planning
model shown in Table 1 again serves as a reference point for the discussion.
No attempt is made to deal with the methodological issues which are rele-
vant to future humor experimentation as these points have been discussed
elsewhere (Sternthal and Craig 1973).
An audit of empirical findings as they apply to the process matrix in
Table 1 provides a means of assessing the composition of the existing
humor research base. A survey of the literature shows that a large propor-
tion of advertising research has concentrated on the &dquo;attitude change&dquo;
column and the &dquo;receiver,&dquo; &dquo;source,&dquo; and &dquo;message&dquo; rows of the matrix.
Studies focusing specifically on humorous advertising have followed much
the same pattern. For example, Markiewicz (1974) found more experi-
ments investigating humor’s impact on message persuasibility than on mes-
sage comprehension and retention combined. Research dealing with the
effects of mediating variables has consisted of studies on initial attitude
position (Gruner 1967a), verbal ability (Markiewicz 1972), source influ-
ences (Gruner 1967b; Kennedy 1972; Markiewicz 1972), humor relevance
(Festinger and Maccoby 1964; Markiewicz 1972) and transmission mode
effectiveness (Kennedy 1972).
There are basic questions which remain unanswered however. While
humorous advertising can probably be expected to elevate audience atten-
tion, it is still not clear whether humor is more effective than serious
material in producing increased comprehension, attitude change or reten-
tion. What is evident is that when humor is effective, its impact is likely to
be contingent upon other variables. Therefore, researchers should design

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

300

studies which reflect these interdependencies. Hypotheses based upon the

anticipated influence of mediating factors need to be formulated and
tested. For example:
*Humor which is relevant to the product or selling proposition will be
more effective in inducing receiver attitude change than irrelevant
humor. It is reasoned that relevancy interacts with receiver involve-
ment to determine message’s persuasiveness. Involvement arousal
a
evoked by exposure to an amusing advertisement will lead to processing
of the selling point only to the extent that the humor is perceived as
relevant to that selling point.
*The longer the time interval between presentation of the persuasive in-
formation (sales proposition) and the subsequent insertion of humor,
the less effective the communication will be in altering attitudes among
receivers holding initially discrepant positions. This hypothesis suggests
that humor’s value as a distraction depends upon the timing of its intro-
duction into the communication. In situations where the punch line
arrives at the end of an advertisement, the receiver has adequate time to
effectively counter-argue the advocated position, thereby reducing the
impact of the persuasive appeal.
Examples of other areas which warrant additional research attention in-
clude the following.
Level of humor-Previous studies have not controlled for the quantity
of humor introduced into the message. In cases where humor serves as a
reward for persuasion acceptance or as a means for eliciting audience in-
volvement, more humor appears desirable. Added humor, however, may
divert attention from the message’s primary selling proposition. Research
is therefore needed to determine how humor intensity affects different
levels of receiver response.

Form of humor-In varying degrees, the advertiser’s decision on the

type of humor to adopt must reflect his communication goals, the nature
of the product, the composition of the target audience and the medium
used. The effectiveness of various humor forms may also depend upon
message complexity. It is submitted that more sophisticated types of
humor (e.g., satire,
irony, puns) require a greater mental effort on the part
of the receiver than do simpler forms (Seldes 1957). In these cases, the
humor may compete with rather than enhancc the accompanying message.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 301

This line of reasoning suggests that higher forms of humor are not appro-
priate when the communication is complex or contains multiple selling
points.
Audience purchase patterns-The success of a particular form of adver-
tising appeal gauged by its ability to generate a specified level of response
is
from a target market. However, the measured effectiveness of the appeal
may be misleading if the target audience is not partitioned according to
volume consumption of the product. Evidence suggests that heavy users
of some products are less receptive to amusing appeals than are light users.’
11 can be speculated that high volume consumers consider the product
decision to be too serious for levity. Research is necessary to test the
merit of this explanation. More importantly, additional investigation is
needed to identify those product categories where this, pattern exists so
that humorous advertising decisions may be planned accordingly.

Humor wear out-Appel reports that &dquo;commercials which initially

make a vivid impression upon the consumer’s mind benefit more from
repeat exposure than do commercials which initially do less well&dquo; (1971,
p. 13). Does this suggest that advertisements which are perceived as
humorous (and therefore vivid) should be repeated often? Other authors
(Orkin and Berdes 1977; Sternthal and Craig 1973) have maintained that
humor effectiveness decays quickly with repetition. The wear out charac-
teristics of humorous advertising should be studied empirically. Do
humorous spots and campaigns actually wear out faster than non-humor-
ous ones? Also, is wear out rate dependent upon the form of humor? For

example, do the effects of simple parodies or one-line jokes dwindle faster

than the effects of satire or elaborate humor-laden stories?

Target of humor-Considerable disagreement seems to exist among

advertising practitioners concerning the appropriate focus of comic adver-
tisements. Some strongly advise against making the product the subject of
humorous material (Daniels 1959; Orkin and Berdes 1977). Others have
suggested that humor can be directed at the product (Batman 1965) but
that fun should never be made of the listening audience (Monica 1971). In
actuality, a recent survey of 2,000 television commercials indicates that
humor is aimed at the product in just over half of all light-hearted com-
mercials (Kelley and Solomon 1975). Further empirical investigation
should be initiated to determine the effect that humor &dquo;direction&dquo; has on
advertising’s capacity to attract audience attention or to alter buyer atti-
tudes.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

302

SUMMARY

Experience indicates that general rules for the application of humor do

not produce consistent advertising results because entertaining appeals
which work well well in some communication settings simply are not
effective in others. This paper has argued that the success which a parti-
cular humorous commercial will achieve depends largely upon ( 1 ) the ad-
vertiser’s awareness of the variables which may mediate the impact of
humor on audience behavior, and (2) his knowledge of the cognitive pro-
cesses which determine how consumers respond to incoming stimulus dis-

plays. A conceptual framework has been presented which identifies several

of these mediating variables and stresses how some of them (Communica-
tion Variables) may be managed to improve advertising effectiveness. The
framework was also utilized to demonstrate the applicability of behavioral
theory to advertising management. Conceptual guidelines such as those
offered in the principles of adaptation level theory, the distraction hypo-
thesis, operant learning theory and environmental psychology may con-
tribute greatly to our understanding of how humor operates in the com-
munication process.

*The author wishes to thank Dr. Phillip D. White for his helpful com-
ments and critical review of an earlier draft of this paper.

NOTES

1 Estimates of the incidence of humor in television advertising vary according to

the author’s definition of humor. For example, Bellaire (1977) found less than 10
percent of prime time television advertisements to be humorous, when humor was
defined as material which is "outright funny." In this paper, humorous advertising
is afforded a broader meaning. It includes all forms of smile-inducing stimuli (e.g.,
puns, jokes, irony, satire, understatement, slapstick, parody, facial expressions, and
gestures) incorporated into a marketing communication for the purpose of achieving
stated promotional objectives.
2
Risk associated with the use of humor in advertising stems from the realization
that "nothing is worse than a bad joke." The perception of risk may also reflect
general economic conditions. It is during periods of relative economic prosperity
that clients and agency representatives are most willing to tie future sales results to
humorous appeals (O’Connor 1972).

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 303

While the arrows in this conceptualization suggest a unidirectional sequence of

3
(Colley 1961), such an assumption is not necessary for this discussion.
mental steps
4 In the context of humorous advertising, "conventional wisdom" refers to fre-
quently propounded rules for the application of light-hearted copy. Examples in-
clude : "Never use humor in drug advertising" (McMahan 1969); "Don’t use humor
to sell products in which there is a measurable competitive difference" (Weingarten
1969); "Humor is good if the product is of low unit value" (DeVoe 1956); and "A
humorous commercial...should not make fun of a product" (Orkin and Berdis 1977).
5It is recognized that humorous advertisements sometimes fail because of poor
creative input and the inherent unpredictability of human behavior. The important
point here is that successful applications of comedy in advertising depend largely on
the advertiser’s understanding of how consumers process and respond to humorously
presented information.
6This part of the discussion is based upon material in Tyebjee (1979).
7Based on information provided in written communication from Kenneth A.
Longman, Senior Vice President, N. W. Ayer ABH International, March 15, 1979.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. and John G. Myers. 1975. Advertising Management. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Appel, Valentine. 1971. "On Advertising Wear Out," Journal of Advertising Research
11 (February) 11-13.
Baron, R., P. Baron and N. Miller. 1973. "The Relation Between Distraction and
Persuasion," Psychological Bulletin 80, 310-323.
Batman, Thomas. 1965. "The Stan Freeberg Syndrome," Sponsor (March 1) 37-43.
Bechwith, N. E. 1972. "Multivariate Analysis of Sales Responses of Competing
Brands to Advertising," Journal of Marketing Research 2 (May) 168-176.
Bellaire, Arthur. 1977. "Bellaire Survey III Finds Music and Demo Up; Humor, Ani-
mation Decline," Advertising Age (January 3) 17-18.
Berlo, D. C. and H. Kumata. 1956. "The Investigator: The Impact of a Satirical
Radio Drama," Journalism Quarterly, 33, 287-298.
Bither, Stewart W. 1969. "Comments on Venkatesan and Haaland’s Test of the Fes-
tinger-Maccoby Divided Attention Hypothesis," Journal of Marketing Research 6
(May) 237-238.
Byor, T. V. 1974. "Don’t Spurn Humor-It Can Get You TV Memorability and Sales
Punch, Too," Advertising Age (June 10) 39.
Colley, Russell H. 1961. Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Re-
sults. New York: Association for National Advertisers.
Cone, Fairfax M. 1969. "Advertising Is No Joke; Don’t Make It Into One," Advertis-
ing Age (December 15) 47.
Daniels, Draper. 1959. "Humor in Advertising," in E. R. French (ed.), The Copy-
writer’s Guide. New York: Harper and Brothers, 137-147.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

304

DeBruicker, F. Stewart and Thomas S. Robertson. 1978. "An Appraisal of Low-

Involvement Consumer Information Processing," Attitude Research Conference.
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
DeVoe, Merrill. 1956. Effective Advertising Copy. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 215-217.
Dunn, S. Watson. 1956. Advertising Copy and Communication. New York: Mc
Graw-Hill Book Company, 303.
Dutta, S. and R. N. Kanungo. 1975. Affect and Memory: A Reformation. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Festinger, Leon and Nathan Maccoby. 1964. "On Resistance to Persuasive Commu-
nications," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68 (November) 359-366.
Gardner, David. 1970. "The Distraction Hypothesis in Marketing," Journal of Ad-
vertising Research 10 (December) 25-30.
Gruner, Charles R. 1965. "An Experimental Study of Satire as Persuasion," Speech
Monographs 32 (June) 149-154.
_. 1966. "A Further Experimental Study as Persuasion," Speech Mono-
graphs 33 (June) 184-185.
. 1967. "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism
Quarterly 44 (Winter) 727-730.
_. 1967. "Effect of Humor on Speaker Ethos and Audience Information
Gain," Journal of Communication 17 (September) 228-233.
_. 1970. "The Effect of Humor on Dull and Interesting Informative
Speeches," Central State Speech Journal 21 (Fall) 160-166.
Helson, H. 1947. Adaptation-Level as a Frame of Reference for Prediction of Psy-
chophysical Data. American Journal of Psychology 60, 1-29.
_. 1959. "Adaptation-Level Theory," in Psychology: A Study of a Science,
I. Sensory Perception and Physiological Formulations. New York: McGraw-Hill,
565-621.
Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis and H. H. Kelley. 1953. Communication and Persuasion.
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University.
Kelly, J. Patrick and Paul J. Solomon. 1975. Journal of Advertising 4 (Summer) 31-
35.
Kennedy, A. J. 1972. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Humorous Message
Content Upon Ethos and Persuasiveness," Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Michigan.
Kilepla, D. E. 1961. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Humor on Persua-
sion," unpublished Master’s Thesis, Wayne State University.
Krugman, Herbert E. 1965. "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning With-
out Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly (Fall) 349-356.
Lubalin, Peter. 1977. "Humor in Radio," ANNY (November 4) 22.
Longman, Kenneth A. 1979. Personal Communication to C. Duncan, March 15.
Lull, P. E. 1940. "The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasive Speech," Speech Mono-
graphs 7 (December) 26-40.
Lynch, Mervin D. and Richard C. Hartman. 1968. "Dimensions of Humor in Adver-
tising," Journal of Advertising Research 8 (December) 39-45.
Markiewicz, Dorothy. 1972. "The Effects of Humor on Persuasion," unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

 305

. 1973. "Persuasion as a Function of Humorous Vs. Serious Messages or

Contexts," unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University.
. 1974. "Effects of Humor on Persuasion," Sociometry 37 (3) 407-1422.
Marshall, John. 1979. "Getting Ahead on Beer," Daily Journal American (February
5) 2.
McMahon, Harry W. 1969. "Contac and Alka Seltzer Prove Humor Can Sell Big,"
Advertising Age (September 8) 90.
Monica, Corbett. 1971. "Six Rules to Help You Make Funny TV Commercials,"
Advertising Age 42 (October 4) 46.
"N. E. Mutual Life Scoffs at Death in New Campaign," 1968, Advertising Age (May
20).
O’Connor, John. 1972. "Humor or Information? WRG Feels Its Recent Ad Efforts
Combine Both," Advertising Age (June 26) 10.
Orkin, Richard and B. Berdis. 1977. "The Funny Thing About Some Commercials,"
Broadcasting (June 20) 16.
Phillips, Kalman. 1968. "When a Funny Commercial Is Good, It’s Great!," Broad-
casting 74 (May 13) 26.
Pokorny, G. F. and C. R. Gruner. 1969. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of
Satire Used as Support in a Persuasive Speech," Western Speech 33 (Summer)
204-211.
Politz, Alfred. 1960. "The Dilemma of Creative Advertising," Journal of Marketing
(October) 1-6.
Schwartz, David A. 1971. "Ads Aren’t That Memorable Anyway," Marketing Com-
munications (August) 25.
Seldes, Gilbert. 1959. "I Laughed Until I Thought I’d Buy," Tide (January) 24-26.
Starch, D. 1958. "Do Ad Readers Buy the Product?," Harvard Business Review 36
(May-June) 49-58.
Steadman, Major. 1969. "How Sexy Illustrations Affect Brand Recall," Journal of
Advertising Research 9 (March) 15-19.
Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. 1973. "Humor in Advertising," Journal of
Marketing 37 (October) 12-18.
Stewart, Daniel K. 1968. "Some Theoretical Considerations of Current Advertising
Research," Journal of Advertising Research 8 (December) 49-51.
Taylor, P. M. 1964. "The Effectiveness of Humor in Informative Speeches," Central
States Speech Journal 15 (November) 295-296.
Television Age. 1967. (June 5) 28.
Tyebjee, Tyzoon T. 1978. "Cognitive Response and the Reception Environment of
Advertising," in S. C. Jain (ed.), Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and
Directions, American Marketing Association Proceedings.
Venkatesan, M. and Gordon A. Haaland. 1968. "Divided Attention and Television
Commercials: An Experimental Study," Journal of Marketing Research 5 (May)
203-205.
Weingarten, Jaala. 1967. "Is ’Far Out’ Advertising Entertaining the Public More But
Selling It Less?" Dun’s Review 90 (July) 27-28.
Winski, Joseph M. 1978. "Tragedy of ’Drink Schlitz or I’ll Kill You’ Ads," Chicago
Tribune (August 9).

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012

306

Winters, L. 1971. Personal Communication to D. Markiewicz. Referenced in: Stern-

thal and Craig. "Humor in Advertising," Journal of Marketing 37 (October 1973)
12.
Wright, Peter L. 1973. "The Cognitive Process Mediating Acceptance of Advertis-
ing," Journal of Marketing Research 10, 53-62.
Zeman, J. V. 1967. "An Experimental Study of the Persuasive Effects of Satire in a
Speech Presented to a High School Audience," unpublished master’s thesis, Uni-
versity of Nebraska.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CALVIN P. DUNCAN is Assistant Professor of Business Administration in

the College of Business and Economics at Washington State University. He
received his B.S. and M.B.A. degrees from the University of Colorado and
his D.B.A. from Indiana University. His areas of research interest include
consumer behavior, promotion management, public policy, and marketing

management. Articles by Dr. Duncan have appeared in Decision Sciences,

Omega, and the Proceedings of the American Institute for Decision
Sciences.

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 6, 2012