Effects of Humor in a Radio Advertising Experiment
Author(s): Calvin P. Duncan and James E. Nelson
Source: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1985), pp. 33-40+64
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188563 .
Accessed: 24/01/2011 06:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Advertising.
http://www.jstor.orgEFFECTS OF HUMOR IN A RADIO ADVERTISING EXPERIMENT
Calvin P. Duncan is Associate Professor of Marketing at the
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. He received his
D.B.A. in Marketing from Indiana University. He has published
articles in the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of
Marketing, Decision Sciences, Omega, the Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, and the Journal of
Macromark eting.
James E. Nelson is Associate Professor of Marketing at the
University of Colorado at Denver. He received his Ph.D. from
the University of Minnesota. He has written two texts in mar-
keting research and several cases for marketing management
casebooks. He has published in the Journal of Marketing,
the Journal of Marketing Research, and elsewhere.
ABSTRACT
This paper reports results of a radio programming experi-
ment that extends prior research by examining the impact of
perceived humor on nine managerially relevant dependent
variables. Findings show significant humor effects on atten-
tion to the ad, liking the ad, liking the product, and irritation.
Findings also support the position that attitude-toward-
advertisement mediates humor's impact on product prefer-
ence and intention to buy.
Received January 24, 1984. Revision accepted for publica-
tion September 28, 1984.
Humor has long been an important element in
the communication programs of many consumer
goods advertisers. Estimates indicate that up to 20
percent of all television commercials (7) and a sub-
stantial proportion of radio advertisements (25)
contain some element of humor. Nevertheless,
advertisers continue to ask questions about the effects
of humor. Is humor positively related to audience
attention? Are humorous advertisements associated
with message comprehension? Does a failed attempt
at humor produce irritation? This article reports
empirical findings that address these and related
questions.
PRIOR RESEARCH
Several previous studies have examined relationships
between humor and various communication response
variables (11, 12, 29, 41). While valuable in providing
a research base to supplement advertisers' creative
talent, these investigations have yielded few conclu-
sive findings. The reasons are threefold:
Many humor studies have focused on noncom-
mercial communications. Researchers in speech
(17, 18, 26, 36, 42), joumalism (3, 19), and
sociology (29) have examined the effects of
relatively sophisticated forms of humor (e.g.,
satire) on acceptance of complex and emotion-
laden topics (e.g., capital punishment). Appli-
cation of these findings to brief, low involve-
ment television or radio messages may not be
appropriate (8).
Research investigating humor's effects in adver-
tising has been fragmented. Studies in the
advertising and marketing literatures have
typically been independent investigations, pro-
viding valuable but piecemeal contributions
(4, 8, 12, 23, 33, 39, 43). Rarely have studies
replicated or extended earlier research by using
common measures and similar research designs.
Only a few have explored the impact of humor
stimuli on a broad array of managerially rele-
vant response variables.
Studies have used manipulated humor rather
than perceived humor as the independent
variable. Humor, like beauty, is in the eyes of
the beholder. Yet previous researchers have
examined humor's influence by administering
humor treatments rather than by measuring
humor perceptions. Typically, studies have
compared advertising responses between subjects
exposed to a humorous commercial and subjects
exposed to aserious version of the same message.
All subjects exposed to the humorous version
are regarded as similar in their perception of
humor in the advertisement. Because individual
differences in perceived humorousness within
the humor treatment group are not measured,
true relationships between humor and depen-
dent variables are obscured.
Another criticism of previous research is the failure
to offer theoretical explanations of observed results.
Only one study has attempted to deal with these
shortcomings. Gelb and Pickett (15) sent a direct
mail flyer to 1,898 licensed drivers in a large south-
westem metropolitan area. Half of the sample received
-fe *
Calvin P. Duncan
James_ENL
James E. Nelson
(JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, Vol. 14, No. 2,1985 33 a humorous flyer employing a cartoon while the other
half received a flyer containing only copy. Analysis
of 383 completed questionnaires indicated that
perceived humor was positively related both to liking
the ad and to the sponsor's image. However, per-
ceived humor "did not significantly correlate with
degree of agreement with statements concerning ad
credibility, persuasiveness, or purchase intention"
(15:38).
Although the Gelb and Pickett study makes a
contribution, results should be accepted with cau-
tion. Each of their four dependent variables was
measured by a single-item Likert statement, devel-
oped apparently without an examination of either
parallel form or test/retest reliability. Their measure
of perceived humor also consisted of a single-item
Likert statement: "There is humor in this ad." The
statement invites respondents to take the role of an
expert and critically examine the flyer for elements
of humor. Respondents doing this may not provide
responses that indicate the degree to which they
themselves perceived the flyer to be humorous.
This paper seeks to extend and clarify earlier
research on advertising by examining humor's effects
in a radio advertising setting. Unlike much prior
research, the study investigates the impact of per-
ceived as well as manipulated humor on an array of
managerially relevant response variables. It presents
and tests theoretical explanations for humor's effects.
It expands on Gelb and Pickett by using a different
advertising medium and multiple-item measures.
RESPONSES TO ADVERTISING HUMOR
Humor might be expected to influence consumer
response at several levels (11, 41). In a classic article,
Young (44) identifies four components of an effec-
tive selling message:
Attention: Flagging enough of the appropriate
target customers.
Communication: Transmitting a clear message
about the assets of the product.
Persuasion: Overall - persuading the prospect
that this brand is generally more desirable than
other alternatives, and specific
-
that this
brand is better than others on the strategically
important benefits.
No Negative Diagnosis: Not antagonizing the
prospect such that he may be turned off by the
message after repeat exposure.
A total evaluation of humor's effect should involve
measures of each component. Four additional response
variables might also be of interest, on both practical
and theoretical grounds. Advertisers often wish to
know whether or not the addition of humor to their
copy will influence ultimate purchase of the product.
Buying intentions are conceptualized by many
researchers as the logical extension of successful
persuasion and as the link between affect and pur-
chase behavior in a hierarchical communication effects
model (9, 24).
Another potential impact of humor is its effect
on how an audience feels about the advertisement
itself. Recent studies (15, 31, 40) have investigated
the role of attitude-toward-advertisement in influen-
cing brand attitudes and buying intentions. Results
have shown significant, positive effects; at issue is
humor's ability to trigger these effects.
Two final dependent variables are audience distrac-
tion and counterargumentation. Each is a key element
in a distraction hypothesis explanation of how humor
influences advertising response. The distraction
hypothesis operates when "a persuasive communica-
tion argues strongly against an opinion to which an
audience is committed" (13). In advertising, this
condition may hold when a persuasive message is
targeted at consumers with strong preferences for
competing brands or when a new product is intro-
duced that conflicts with existing attitudes, values or
product use patterns. According to the distraction
hypothesis, a discrepant message will be more effec-
tive in generating attitude change if the audience
is distracted during message presentation. Distraction
enhances message persuasiveness by interfering with
the audience's subvocal attempts to counterargue the
dissonant information. Humor may serve as a distrac-
tion agent (1, 34, 41). The emotional response elicited
by humor may disrupt counterargumentation of the
discrepant message and, in doing so, increase message
receptivity.
METHOD
An experiment was conducted in which subjects
were exposed to either a humorous version or a
serious version of a 60-second radio commercial
for a new men's hair care product. Both versions
contained identical selling points but differed in the
inclusion of a humor stimulus (see Appendix A for
copy). The differential insertion of humor caused the
two versions to vary in dialogue and length as well as
in perceived humorousness, the variable under con-
sideration in the study. Commercials were embedded
in approximately fifteen minutes of prerecorded
music and commercial programming. At the conclu-
sion of programming, the two groups of subjects
completed a questionnaire that measured communi-
cation effects of the commercial.
Sample
Subjects were 157 male undergraduate students
34 who volunteered to take part in a "radio programming
experiment." A student sample was deemed appro-
priate as males in the 18-25 age bracket constituted
a primary target market for the advertised product,
a men's home permanent called "New Wave." Sub-
jects were paid $4.00 each for their participation.
The convenience sample used in this study is more
homogeneous than any target market would be for
the advertised product. It is not representative of
male college students or of mnale consumers generally.
However, the purpose of this research is to conduct
a test of theorized relationships between humor and
pertinent advertising response variables. As Calder
et al. (6) point out, samples that are convenient,
homogeneous, and not exactly representative of a
target segment do not invalidate or even diminish
conclusions in research of a basic or theoretical
nature.
Radio Programming and New Wave Commercial
Radio programming contained: 1) one minute of
announcer, identifying musical selections played
previously, 2) five minutes of music, 3) one minute
of announcer, including time and temperature, 4)
one minute of commercial for local clothing store,
5) one minute of commercial for New Wave home
permanent, and 6) four minutes of music. A local
disk jockey recorded all announcer spots, chose
musical selections, and produced the completed
tapes.
The New Wave commercial was professionally
written and recorded. It contained four selling
points: "New Wave makes men attractive to women,"
"New Wave is safe to use," "New Wave has been tested
by over 100 men's hair stylists," and "New Wave
is sold only in better stores and salons." Pretesting
indicated that this message would be relatively
involving for college-age males and that it would be
discrepant with their existing attitudes toward home
permanent use.
Procedure and Measures
The experiment was conducted in the behavioral
laboratory at the University of Colorado College
TABLE 1
SCALE RESPONSE SUMMARY (n=149)
N of Standard
Scale Items Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Reliability
Perceived Humor 3 3 26 13.3 4.9 .61
Counterarguments 1 0 8 3.5 1.7 *
Attention Paid 3 3 25 11.3 5.7 .71
Positive Product Beliefs 6 8 52 27.0 7.7 .71
Liking the Commercial 3 3 26 9.7 5.6 .87
Liking the Product 4 4 32 12.1 5.2 .75
Intention to Buy 3 7 22 9.4 3.2 .53
Distraction Experienced 3 7 27 19.0 4.1 .43
Selling Points Recalled 7 0 7 2.3 1.6 .66
Irritation Experienced 3 3 25 17.0 5.5 .75
Scale Intercorrelations**
Positive Liking Liking Intention Selling
Perceived Counter- Attention Product the the to Distraction Points Irritation
Humor arguments Paid Beliefs Commercial Product Buy Experienced Recalled Experienced
Perceived Humor
Counterarguments -.03
Attention Paid .50 .11
Positive Product Beliefs .13 -.18 .34
Liking the Commercial .57 .10 .70 .37
Liking the Product .28 -.15 .40 .56 .50
Intention to Buy .10 -.16 .33 .30 .23 .61
Distraction Experienced -.10 -.01 -.28 -.05 -.31 -.11 .08
Selling Points Recalled .21 .05 .37 .01 .15 .14 .14 -.15
Irritation Experienced -.44 -.10 -.60 -.26 -.82 -.39 -.22 .33 -.16
*Composite reliability (22:137) attending the scoring of counterarguments (a process undertaken independently by three judges) was .79.
**Correlations with absolute values > .14 are significant at p<
.(05 (one-tail.
35 of Business during a three-day period. Subjects read
preliminary instructions that described experimental
procedures and were then individually assigned on
a random basis to one of six private listening rooms.
Each room contained the same fumishings: a chair,
a desk, and a ceiling speaker wired to a master control
room. Written instructions on each desk asked
subjects to relax and to listen to the prerecorded
radio programming that was about to begin. For 75
percent of the subjects, the transmitted programming
contained the humorous version of the commercial;
the remaining subjects received the serious version.
When programming ended, subjects were given a
two-part questionnaire. The first section measured
the incidence of counterarguing behavior associated
with the commercial. Subjects were allowed three
minutes to record reasons why a New Wave home
permanent "might not be a good purchase." Each
unique reason was counted as a counterargument,
following the procedure of Osterhouse and Brock
(35) and Nelson et al. (34). The second section mea-
sured perceived humor of the commercial and a
set of eight constructs as dependent variables: atten-
tion paid to the commercial, positive beliefs about
New Wave, liking New Wave, irritation experienced
from the commercial, intention to buy New Wave,
liking the commercial, distraction experienced dur-
ing the commercial, and number of selling points
recalled (unaided). The first seven dependent varia-
bles were measured using multiple item scales com-
posed of Likert statements (nine-step response
categories, anchored by "Strongly Agree" and
"Strongly Disagree"). Scale statements for each
dependent variable appear in Appendix B (the state-
ments were randomly ordered on the questionnaire).
The eighth dependent variable, recall, used open-ended
questions to measure unaided recall of the commer-
cial's selling points.
Subjects took approximately 25 minutes to com-
plete the experiment.
RESULTS
Six subjects failed to respond to 20 percent or
more of the questionnaire's items. Two subjects
circled the neutral response to almost all items.
Responses from these subjects were not coded to
become part of the analysis. Table 1 summarizes
responses of the remaining 149 subjects to the ten
constructs under investigation (greater possession of
each construct is indicated by a higher score). Except
for distraction and intention to buy, scales generally
show acceptable reliabilities for research of this
nature. Results for distraction and intention to buy
as reported later should be interpreted with caution.
Table 2 presents mean scale responses for subjects
in the humorous and serious treatments. At issue is
whether the two columns of dependent variable
means are significantly different. To test for signifi-
cance using nine separate t-tests would almost certainly
produce ambiguous results because some tests would
be significant while others would not. Further, such
an analysis would be inappropriate because of correla-
tions among the dependent variable measures and the
tendency for treatment differences to be significant
merely by chance (32:127). Consequently, Hotelling's
T2 test was used as a simultaneous multivariate inves-
tigation of mean differences. The value of T2 for a
multivariate test of mean vector differences in Table
2 is 11.2, equivalent to an F test statistic of 1.17
(p < .320, with 9, 128 df). Observed data indicate
no significant differences between the two groups.
However, such results are suspect because they do
not account for subjects' differing perceptions of
the humor stimulus. Table 3 supports this position,
summarizing responses from all subjects to the
perceived humor scale. Clearly, some subjects saw
the humor stimulus as much funnier than did others.
Thus, a second analysis is warranted, based on
treatments defined by perceived humor rather than
on treatments defined by manipulated humor. To
undertake this analysis, the 103 subjects exposed
to the humor stimulus and having no item nonresponse
TABLE 2
MEAN SCALE RESPONSES FOR
NINE DEPENDENT VARIABLES;
HUMOROUS V. SERIOUS TREATMENTS
Mean Responses For:
Humorous Serious
Treatment Treatment
Scale (n=103)* (n=35)*
Counterarguments 3.7 3.4
Attention Paid 12.2 9.5
Positive Product Beliefs 27.1 26.8
Liking the Commercial 10.4 8.0
Liking the Product 12.4 11.2
Intention to Buy 9.3 9.2
Distraction Experienced 19.0 19.1
Selling Points Recalled 2.3 2.1
Irritation Experienced 16.3 18.6
*Eleven subjects in the experiment failed to respond to all
scale items. Their responses were not included in this
analysis.
36 TABLE 3
PERCEIVED HUMOR SCALE
RESPONSE SUMMARY
(n=143)
Perceived
Humor Humorous Serious Entire
Score Treatment Treatment Sample
4 orless 2 2 4
5to8 12 7 19
9 to 12 31 12 43
13 to 16 34 13 47
17 to 20 18 3 21
21to24 4 0 4
25andover 5 0 5
Total* 106 37 143
Mean 13.9 11.4 13.3
S.D. 5.1 3.8 4.9
*Six subjects in the experiment failed to respond to all three
perceived humor scale items. Their responses were not in-
cluded in this and all later analyses.
were divided into three groups based on their perceived
humor scale scores:
Scale Score n Group Designation
10 or less 21 low humor
11 to 17 59 moderate humor
18 and over 23 high humor
Mean responses for each group on the nine dependent
variables appear in Table 4. At issue again is whether
means differ significantly across groups.
The appropriate method of analysis is one-way
MANOVA. The resulting value for Wilk's lambda
is 0.582, equivalent to an F test statistic of 3.18
(p < .001 with 18, 184 df). These results support
the conclusion of a significant humor effect. The
magnitude of this effect is estimated by the squared
value of the MANOVA correlation ratio (10:234),
MANOVA eta2:
MANOVA eta2 = 1 - lambda
= 1
- 0.582 or .418
The theoretical range of value of MANOVA eta2
is from 0 to 1. The value observed here indicates a
moderate effect of perceived humor on the dependent
variable variates.
Because the multivariate test achieved significance,
some further investigation into the source of group
differences is warranted. That is, givren that the three
groups of subjects are significantly different, it is
appropriate to ask "on which dependent variables?"
Several procedures are available (13:357-68, 32:182-
85, 38). A discriminant analysis approach was used
here, with results as shown in Table 5. Table 5
indicates that group differences come prinarily
from attention paid to the commercial, liking the
commercial, liking New Wave, and irritation experi-
enced from the commercial. Inspection of Table 4
shows that subjects who perceived the commercial
as humorous produced higher scores for attention,
liking the commercial, and liking New Wave. These
subjects produced lower scores for irritation.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Results of the experiment reported here indicate
that humor measurement is a critical factor in estab-
lishing the influence of humor stimuli on radio adver-
tising effectiveness. As shown in Tables 3 and 4,
target customers may perceive and react to the same
humorous element in different ways. Because these
differences are unaccounted for in studies employing
only manipulated humor, such studies are likely to
produce findings inconsistent with investigations
measuring perceived humor.
TABLE 4
MEAN SCALE RESPONSES FOR NINE DEPENDENT VARIABLES;
LOW, MODERATE, AND HIGH PERCEIVED HUMOR GROUPS
Low Moderate High
Perceived Humor Perceived Humor Perceived Humor
Scale Group (n=21)* Group (n=59)* Group (n-23)*
Counterarguments 3.9 3.7 3.4
Attention Paid 9.5 11.5 16.7
Positive Product Beliefs 27.4 26.2 29.4
Liking the Commercial 6.3 9.9 15.7
Liking the Product 10.3 12.5 14.1
Intention to Buy 9.4 9.2 9.7
Distraction Experienced 19.9 19.1 17.9
Selling Points Recalled 1.6 2.5 2.3
Irritation Experienced 19.4 16.7 12.3
*All sample members responded to all scale items.
Does addition of humor increase the effectiveness
of a radio advertisement? Data in Table 2 suggest
that a humorous commercial generally performs as
well as its serious counterpart (the failure to find
statistically significant differences between mean
vectors in Table 2 supports this position). In addition,
data in Table 4 show significant humor effects for
attention paid to the commercial, liking the commer-
cial, liking New Wave, and irritation experienced from
the commercial for subjects who perceived low,
moderate, and high humor in the humorous commer-
cial. Subjects in the high perceived humor group gave
the most favorable set of mean responses. However,
subjects who saw only moderate humor still produced
37 TABLE 5
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
SCALE RESPONSES AND THE
FIRST DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION*
(n=103)
Scale Correlation**
Counterarguments -.12
Attention Paid .62
Positive Product Beliefs .13
Liking the Commercial .86
Liking the Product .33
Intention to Buy .06
Distraction Experienced -.23
Selling Points Recalled .19
Irritation Experienced -.63
*The first discriminant function is significant at p <.001;
the second at p < .17.
"Correlations with absolute values > 0.20 are significant at
p < .05 (two-tailed).
mean responses to most scales that were more favor-
able than mean responses for subjects exposed instead
to the serious coimmercial. Even when an attempt at
humor fails (i.e., the low perceived humor group in
Table 4), mean' responses are only slightly less attrac-
tive than those for the serious commercial. In short,
results suggest that a radio advertiser has much to
gain and relatively little to lose by airing a humorous
rather than a serious commercial.
Study findings indicate that humor is more effec-
tive in generating lower order rather than higher order
communication effects. As shown in Table 1, per-
ceived humor correlates moderately with audience
attention, but less strongly with recall of selling
propositions (comprehension), liking the product
(persuasion), and intention to buy.
In addressing the question of how humor influences
audience response to a radio advertisement, little
support is given to the distraction hypothesis or to
the notion of humor as an irritant. According to the
distraction hypothesis, humor serves to distract the
receiver from counterarguing against a discrepant
message. Reduced counterarguing, in turn, should
produce greater yielding to the persuasive advertise-
ment. Data in Table 1 show that the process of coun-
terarguing was weakly, yet significantly, associated
in the predicted direction with positive beliefs about
New Wave, liking New Wave, and intention to buy
New Wave. However, perceived humor showed an
insignificant relationship with distraction experienced
during the commercial which, in turn, showed an
insignificant relationship with counterarguing. In
summary, results support the existence of counter-
arguing, but as a phenomenon quite apart from per-
ceived humor and distraction.
Young identified "no negative diagnosis" as an
essential component of any effective selling message.
Advertisers should avoid antagonizing prospects with
inappropriate or annoying copy. Some advertisers,
however, seem to believe that irritation and effective-
ness go hand-in-hand (16). This view holds that irri-
tating commercials break through advertising clutter
to stimulate audience awareness. Thus, advertisements
that use humor either unsuccessfully or too often
may still be effective by being irritating. While exami-
nation of repetitious humor was precluded by the
cross-sectional nature of the experiment, study results
show that failed humor (subjects perceiving little
humor) may indeed be annoying. Low humor is
associated with increased irritation in both Tables 1
and 5. However, Table 1 indicates that irritation
experienced from the commercial is also negatively
correlated with attention paid to the commercial
(-.60), number of selling points recalled (-.16),
positive beliefs about New Wave (-.26), liking the
commercial (-.82), and liking New Wave (-.39).
In sum, data do not support the position that irri-
tating humor is effective.
Data are more consistent with an attitude-toward-
advertisement explanation of how humor operates.
Bartos and Dunn (2) identify humor as a variable that
produces liking of an advertisement. Table 1 shows
the correlation between these variables to be .57.
Other researchers hold that liking the advertisement
influences attitude toward the advertised brand which,
in turn, influences attitude toward purchasing. Table
1 shows that liking the advertisement correlates
37 with beliefs about the advertised brand and .50.
with liking New Wave. Beliefs about the advertised
product correlate .37 with intention to buy, while
liking New Wave correlates .61 with intention to buy.
In sum, observed data support a sequence of activities
whereby humor's effect is mediated by the con-
struct, attitude-toward-advertisement.
CONCLUSION
Study results suggest that advertising managers
may use humor to improve effectiveness of their
radio commercial messages. Specifically, humor
appears to increase attention paid to the commercial,
improve liking of the commercial, reduce irritation
experienced from the commercial, and increase liking
of the product. The effect of humor seems much
stronger for the first three dependent variables than
for the fourth. Humor does not appear to reduce
mental arguing of the advertised message, improve
product-related beliefs, increase intention to buy,
38 produce distraction, or increase recall of the com-
mercial's selling points. Taken together, these results
suggest that humor is more appropriate when the
communication objective is to generate awareness
of an advertising campaign or product. Humor seems
less appropriate in achieving objectives relating to
comprehension, persuasion or purchasing action.
Study results support an attitude-toward-
advertisement hypothesis whereby humor's effect
on liking New Wave and intention to buy is mediated
by liking the commercial. It is important to note
that factors other than the degree of humor present
in an advertisement may show stronger influences
on the dependent variable. Sex appeals, fear appeals,
rationality appeals, and other motivationally-based
claims may outperform humor. The effects of these
factors should be investigated relative to the effects
of humor.
Additional research is also needed to extend the
present study to commercials in other media and to
commercials using other forms of humor. While this
work is being conducted, advertising managers should
continue to use humor in their advertising messages.
Nothing in this research can be taken to show nega-
tive effects of humor. That is, at its best, humor
appears to help achieve some communication objec-
tives. At its worst, humor seems to have an insignifi-
cant impact.
REFERENCES
1. Baron, R., P. Baron and N. Miller. "The Relation Between
Distraction anxd Persuasion," Psychological Bulletin, 80(4,
1973), pp. 310-23.
2. Bartos, Rena and Theodore F. Dunn. Advertising and
Consumers: New Perspectives, New York: American Associa-
tion of Advertising Agencies, 1976.
3. Berlo, D.K. and H. Kumata. "The Investigator: The Impact
of a Satirical Radio Drama," Journalism Quarterly, 33(Sum-
mer 1956), pp. 287-98.
4. Brooker, George. "A Comparison of the Persuasive Effects
of Mild Humor and Mild Fear Appeals," Journal of Advertis-
ing, 10(4, 1981), pp. 29-40.
5. Calder, Bobby J. and Brian Sternthal. "Television Commer-
cial Wearout: An Information Processing View," Journal of
Marketing Research, 17(May 1980), pp. 173-86.
6. Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice M. Tybout.
"Designing Research for Application," Journal of Consumer
Research, 8(September 1981), pp. 197-207.
7. Cantor, Joanne R. "Humor on Television: A Content
Analysis," Journal of Broadcasting, 20(Fall 1976), pp. 501-10.
8. Cantor, Joanne and Pat Venus. "The Effect of Humor on
Recall of a Radio Advertisement," Journal of Broadcasting,
24(1, 1980), pp. 13-22.
9. Colley, Russell H. Defining Advertising Goals for Measured
Advertising Results, New York: Association of National
Advertisers, 1961.
10. Cooley, William W. and Paul R. Lohnes. Multivariate
Data Analysis, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.
11. Duncan, Calvin P. "Humor in Advertising: A Behavioral
Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
7(4,1979), pp. 285-306.
12. Duncan, Calvin P., J. Nelson and N. Frontczak. "The
Effect of Humor on Advertising Comprehension," in Thomas
C. Kinnear (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. XI,
Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 1984, pp.
432-37.
13. Festinger, Leon and Nathan Maccoby. "On Resistance to
Persuasive Communication," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 68(4, 1964), pp. 359-66.
14. Finn, Jeremy D. A General Model For Multivariate
Analysis, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.
15. Gelb, Betsy D. and Charles M. Pickett. "Attitude-Toward-
The-Ad: Links To Humor and To Advertising Effectiveness,"
Journal of Advertising, 12(2, 1983), pp. 34-42.
16. Greyser, Stephen A. "Irritation in Advertising," Journal
of Advertising Research, 13(1, 1973), pp. 3-10.
17. Gruner, C.R. "An Experimental Study of Satire as Persua-
sion," Speech Monographs, 32(June 1965), pp. 149-54.
18. Gruner, C.R. "A Further Experimental Study of Satire
as Persuasion," Speech Monographs, 33(June 1966), pp.
184-85.
19. Gruner, C.R. "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experi-
ment," Journalism Quarterly, 44(Winter 1967), pp. 727-30.
20. Gruner, C.R. "The Effect of Humor in Dull and Interesting
Informative Speeches," Central States Speech Journal, 21(Fall
1970), pp. 160-66.
21. Gruner, C.R. "Wit and Humour in Mass Communications,"
in A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot (eds.), Humour and Laughter:
Theory, Research and Applications, London: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1976.
22. Holsti, Ole R. Content Analysis For The Social Sciences
and Humanities, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., 1969.
23. Kelly, J.P. and P.J. Solomon. "Humor in Television
Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 4(Summer 1975), pp.
31-35.
24. Lavidge, Robert and Gary Steiner. "A Model for Predic-
tive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of
Marketing, 25(October 1961), pp. 59-62.
25. Lubalin, Peter. "Humor on Radio," ANNY, November 4,
1977, p. 22.
26. Lull, P.E. "The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasive
Speech," Speech Monographs, 7(December 1940), pp. 26-40.
27. Lynch, Mervin D. and Richard C. Hartman. "Dimensions
of Humor in Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research,
8(December 1968), pp. 39-40.
28. Madden, Thomas J. and Marc G. Weinberger. "The Effects
of Humor on Attention in Magazine Advertising," Series
WP81-19, School of Business Administration, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1981, pp. 1-18.
29. Markiewicz, Dorothy. "Effects of Humor on Persuasion,"
Sociometry, 37(3, 1974), pp. 407-22.
30. McGuire, William J. "Some Internal Psychological Factors
Influencing Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research,
2(March 1976), pp. 302-19.
31. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson. "Are Product
Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects
on Brand Attitude?," Journal of Marketing Research, 18(Au-
gust 1981), pp. 318-32.
32. Morrison, Donald F. Multivariate Statistical Methods, New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
33. Murphy, John H., Isabella C.M. Cunningham and Gary B.
Wilcox. "The Impact of Program Environment on Recall of
Humorous Television Commercials," Journal of Advertising,
8(Spring 1979), pp. 17-21.
34. Nelson, James E., C. Duncan and N. Frontczak. "The
Distraction Hypothesis and Radio Advertising," Journal of
Marketing (in press).
39 APPENDIX A*
ANNOUNCER: Introducing New Wave. The new home
peimanent for a man's hair.
MAN: (One man, trying to stifle a laugh. Like an
intemal build up, until the man lets out a
laugh. He still tries to stifle.) With this
home pennanent, do I use it before, or
after I put on my pantyhose? (Laughter
fades.)
WOMAN: Rodney. First I loved him for his hair.
Then I loved him. If it weren't for his
hair, I wouldn't have noticed him in the
irust place.
MAN: Ah, yeah, what was the name of that men's
home pennanent?
ANNOUNCER: New Wave. New Wave will make you look
the way you always wanted to look: good
to women. New Wave is guaranteed safe.
It's been tested and approved by more than
100 professional men's hair stylists. It's
available only at finer stores and hair care
shops. New Wave. The New Home perma-
nent for a man's hair.
APPENDIX B
SCALE ITEMS
Perceived Humor
The man in the New Wave commercial was funny.
The New Wave commercial was more serious than it was
funny.
Most men would not find the New Wave Home permanent
commercial to be humorous.
Attention
The New Wave commercial caught my interest.
The New Wave advertisement was boring.
I paid close attention to the New Wave commercial.
Positive Beliefs About New Wave
New Wave home permanent gives hair body.
Most men could use a New Wave home permanent with-
out harmful consequences.
Women would find a user of a men's home permanent
attractive.
On me, a permanent would look ridiculous.
Giving oneself a New Wave home permanent is easy.
The points made in the New Wave commercial were
believable.
Liking the Commercial
I liked the New Wave commercial.
I disliked the home pernanent commercial.
The New Wave commercial itself was enjoyable.
Liking New Wave
If I used a New Wave home permanent, I probably would
like it.
Men like myself would probably not like a New Wave
home pennanent.
I would expect that most men using a New Wave home
permanent would be satisfied.
Overall, I would describe the New Wave home pennanent
product as:
extremely extremely
appealing unappealing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Intention To Buy
There is no way that I would try a home pernanent.
If I saw a New Wave home permanent in a store, I would
buy it.
When passing by a New Wave home permanent in a
store, I:
would definitely buy it.
would probably buy it.
might or might not buy it.
would probably not buy it.
would definitely not buy it.
Distraction Experienced During the Commercial
Parts of the New Wave advertisement were distracting.
It was hard to concentrate on major ideas in the home
permanent advertisement.
*NOTE: The serious version of the commercial contained only
statements made by the announcer.
40
35. Osterhouse, Robert A. and Timothy C. Brock. "Distrac-
tion Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counter-
arguing," Joumnal of Personality and Social Psychology,
15(4, 1970), pp. 344-58.
36. Pokorny, G.F. and C.R. Gruner. "An Experimental Study
of the Effect of Satire Used as Support in a Persuasive Speech,"
Western Speech, 33(Summer 1969), pp. 204-11.
37. Politz, Alfred. "The Dilemma of Creative Advertising,"
Journal of Marketing,25(2, 1960), pp. 1-6.
38. Roy, J. and R.E. Bargmann. "Tests of Multiple Indepen-
dence and the Associated Confidence Bounds," Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 29(June 1958), pp. 491-503.
39. Shama, Abraham and Maureen Coughlin. "An Experimen-
tal Study of the Effectiveness of Humor in Advertising,"
American Marketing Association, Educators' Conference
Proceedings, Chicago: 1979, pp. 249-52.
40. Shimp, Terence. "Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator
of Consumer Brand Choice," Journal of Advertising, 10(2,
1981), pp. 9-15.
41. Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. "Humor in Adver-
tising," Journal of Marketing, 37(October 1973), pp. 12-18.
42. Taylor, P.M. "The Effectiveness of Humor in Informative
Speeches," Central States Speech Journal, 15(November
1964), pp. 295-96.
43. Whipple, Thomas W. and Alice E. Courtney. "How Men
and Women Judge Humor," Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 1981, pp. 43-56.
44. Young Shirley. "Copy Testing without Magic Numbers,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 12(February 1972), pp. 3-12.
(continued on p. 64) readability, it is expected that this textbook will be
well received in academia. Due to its strategic orienta-
tion, this work is also recommended reading for
practicing marketing managers.
GEOFFREY P. LANTOS
Bentley College
This publication
_ is available in
microform.
r~~^> - University Microfilms
International reproduces this
-publication in microform:
microfiche and 16mm or
35mm film. For information
about this publication or any
of the more than 13,000 titles
we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: University
Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor,
MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response:
800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan, Alaska and
Hawaii: 313-761-4700.
O Please send information about these titles:
Name
Company/Institution
Address
City
State Zip
Phone(
Unive
Microi lms
International
(continued from p. 40)
The New Wave advertisement described the product's
features clearly.
Irritation Experienced From the Commercial
The New Wave advertisement was somewhat irritating.
The home permanent commercial was annoying.
The New Wave commercial itself was enjoyable.
Appendices A and B reprinted with permission, Journal of
(continued from p. 32) Marketing, 49 (1, 1985), pp. 69-70.
10. "Continental Drift: EEC's Agencies Wield Ever-Increasing
Power Over Europe's Business," Wall Street Journal, July 9,
1982,pp. 1,6.
11. Council of Europe, Report of the Working Party on
Misleading Advertising, 1972.
12. Council of Ministers, European Community. Resolution
of 14 April 1975 on a Preliminary Programme of the EEC
for a Consumer Protection and Information Policy (No. C92),
April 25, 1975.
13. Council of Ministers, European Community. Second
Programme of the European Community for a Consumer
Protection and Information Policy, June 27, 1979.
14. Denning, Candace. "Consumer Reports, EC Style,"
European Community, November-December 1978, p. 44.
15. Economic and Social Committee, European Economic
Community. Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive
Relating to the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and
Administrative Provisions of the Member States Concerning
Misleading and Unfair Advertising (OJ No. C171), July 9,
1979.
16. "European Ad Groups Rally to Fight 'Horror' Law
Proposal," Advertising Age, June 7, 1976, p. 3.
17. European Report, No. 1001, December 6, 1983, p.
IV-7. EEC, Brussels.
18. Fisher, R.C. Letters from Fisher, commercial officer,
Foreign Ministry of Britain, 1983.
19. Haferkamp, Wilhelm, Vice-President of the EEC Commis-
sion. Speech, 19 November 1974, EEC Document No. 659.1.
20. Jordan, A.G. and J.J. Richardson. "Policy Communities:
The British and European Policy Style," Policy Studies Jour-
nal, 11, No. 4 (June 1983), pp. 603-15.
21. McComas, Maggie. Europe's Consumer Movement: Key
Issues and Corporate Responses, Geneva: Business Interna-
tional, 1980.
22. "Misleading and Unfair Advertising: Public Enterprises
Consider EEC Proposals Too Restrictive," Europe, January-
February 1980, p. 53.
23. Nader, Laura. "The Anthropological Study of Law,"
in Rita J. Simon (ed.), The Sociology of Law, San Francisco:
Chandler, 1968, pp. 220-42.
24. Richardson, J.J. Policy Styles in Western Europe. London
and New York: Allen and Unwin, 1982.
25. Ross-Skinner, Jean. "Is the EEC Splitting Apart?" Dun's
Review, October 1978, p. 92.
26. Thorncraft, Anthony. "Lull in Outside Pressures to
Regulate Industry," Financial Times, October 20, 1980,
p.8.
27. The Consumer in the European Community, Brussels:
EEC, 1978.
28. Timmermans, C.W.A. "Directives: Their Effect Within
the National Legal Systems," Common Market Law Review,
16 (November 1979), pp. 533-55.
29. Welch, Diana. "From 'Euro Beer' to 'Newcastle Brown,'
A Review," Journal of Common Market Studies, 22, 1 (Sep-
tember 1983), pp. 47-70.
(continued from p. 47)
10. Simon, Julian L. "What do Zielske's Real Data Really
Show about Pulsing?," Journal of Marketing Research, 16
(August 1979), pp. 415-20.
11. Singer, Bob. "Advertising Consistency and Your Bottom
Line," Industrial Marketing, 64(October 1979), pp. 62, 66.
12. Treasure, J. and T. Joyce. As Others See Us, London:
Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, 1967.
13. Zielske, Hubert A. "The Remembering and Forgetting
of Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 23 (March 1959),
pp. 239-43.
14. Zielske, Hubert A. and Walter A. Henry. "Remembering
and Forgetting Television Ads," Journal of Advertising
Research, 20 (April 1980), pp. 7-12.
64