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 support@jstor.org.

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