2489461

7/27/2019 2489461

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2489461 1/5

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

Consumer Response to Humor in Advertising: A Series of Field Studies Using BehavioralObservationAuthor(s): Cliff Scott, David M. Klein and Jennings BryantSource: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Mar., 1990), pp. 498-501Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489461 .

Accessed: 24/02/2014 06:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489461?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489461?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

7/27/2019 2489461


Consumer Response t o u m o r inAdvertising S e r i e s o i e l d tudies

U s i n g ehavioral Observation

CLIFFSCOTTDAVIDM. KLEINJENNINGS BRYANT*

Ina series of field studies, social and business events were promoted using humor-

ous, non-humorous, and control formats. The humorous promotions significantlyincreased attendance for the social events, but showed no significant impact for

business events.

T he use of humor n advertisings a controversialissue for advertisingmanagersas well as for writ-

ers, theorists, and researchers(Sternthal and Craig1973). Advocates of humor in advertising maintainthat lightheartedmessage appeals secure audience at-tention, increase memorability, overcome sales resis-tance, and enhance message persuasiveness(Duncan1979; Duncan, Nelson, and Frontczak 1984) byc.

attractingattentionin a relevant way, then by impart-ing pleasant information and making a soft sell, allin a mixed atmosphere of relaxation and integrity(Herold 1963, p. 1). Other researchersconsider thepractice dangerous, particularlywhen humor is used

in associationwith serious problems, misfortune, ill-ness, or death (e.g., Runyon 1979). One approach toresolvingthe question of whether humorous messagesstimulate greater changes in levels of audience re-sponse (McGuire 1969) may lie in investigatingtheimpact of judiciously used humor (Monroe andEhninger 1969, p. 232).

Positive effects of the use of humor in advertisingmight be expectedif two factorsarepresent.First,thehumor should be directly related to and well inte-grated with the objective(s) and message of the ad(i.e., the humor should contribute to the main pointof the message; Klein, Bryant, and Zillmann 1982).Second, the advertised product, service, or event

should be appropriatefor the use of levity (Runyon1979, p. 246). Thesetwo factors furtherspecify Dun-can's (1979) hypothesis that humor relevant to theselling propositionwill be more effectivein changingaudience response levels than irrelevant humor will.

The primary purpose of this study is to test the be-havioral impact of humorous versus non-humorouspromotional efforts. The study attemptsto determinewhether relevant humor is a promotional tactic pow-erful enough to affect patronageactivitywithin a real-istic environment. A humorous promotionshould beeffective only if humor is relevant to the product, ser-vice, or event being promoted, that is,only if the pro-

moted object or event may be associated with plea-sure or mirth. This tenet will be tested using promo-tions for social events (such as a clam bake) versusbusiness events (such as a town meeting on a zoningreferendum). The following hypothesis is advancedregardinghumorous promotions' effectiveness.

Hi: Humorous promotions will increase atten-dance only forthe social events, and shouldeither have no impact or a negative impactforthe business events.

The secondary purpose of this study is to providesome insight into the mechanism by which a humor-ous promotion might affect patronagebehavior, Inthe current instance, humor that is well integratedinto the ad may help communicate thatthe promotedevent will be associated with lightheartedness ormirth. To the degreethat this is viewed as desirable,humor may lead to anticipation of enjoyment, andanticipation of enjoyment may increase the likeli-hood of attendance. Thus, the following hypothesiswill be tested.

*CliffScott is AssociateProfessorof Marketing,School of Busi-ness Administrationand Economics, California State University,Fullerton, CA 92634. David M. Klein is Chief OperatingOfficer,The FranchisePartnership, nc., Boca Raton, FL 33487. JenningsBryantholds the Ronald ReaganChairof Broadcasting,College ofCommunication,Universityof Alabama, Tuscaloosa,AL 35487.The authorswish to thank the JCR reviewers or their mosthelpfulcomments.

498? JOURNALOFCONSUMER ESEARCHVol.16* March1990

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:41:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions




7/27/2019 2489461


HUMOR IN ADVERTISING 499

H2: Subjects exposed to humorous promotionsfor social events should show greater evelsof anticipation of enjoyment than those ex-posed to non-humorouspromotions.

RESEARCH DESIGNThree field sites were used, with each site hosting

one complete replication of the experiment. Eachreplication had six treatment conditions: two types ofevents by three promotion formats. The criterionvariableof interest was the efficacyof the specificpro-motional format for the specific type of event, whichwas operationalized as the proportion of exposedhouseholds with at least one household member at-tending the event. A measure of nonverbal expres-sions of enjoyment was also used.

Field Sites and Subjects

The study involved households in three differentNew England ocations: a neighborhoodwith an asso-ciation of 160 households in a university town of30,000; an industrial/agrarian own with 811 house-holds and 3,100 residents; an agriculturalvillage of204 households and 850 residents. By randomlyelim-inating one household from each of the first twogroups, equal cell sizes were obtained for all threegroups of households. Comparisons could then bemade across three cells of 53 households each forevents in the neighborhood of the university town,three cells of 270 households each for the events inthe industrial/agrarian town, and three cells of 68

households eachforevents in the agriculturalvillage.

Independent Variables

Type of Event. Each field site hosted one socialevent and one business event. The neighborhoodas-sociation's social event was an annual picnic, thetown's was a firemen'smuster,and the village'swas aclam bake. The neighborhoodassociation's businessevent was a general meeting and election of officers,the town's was a zoning referendum,and the village'swas an open council meeting. At all events, very lightattendance was expected and promotions were notexpectedto be vigorous.

Promotional Formats. One flier in each format-humorous, non-humorous,andcontrol-was used topromote each event. The humorous promotion wasoperationalizedas a cartoonwith a caption. The non-humorous promotion was operationalized as a flierwith an illustration but no humor. The control pro-motion used neither humor nor an illustration, andwas included to act as a control for the effect of theillustration itself. Aside from this variation, all sub-jects received similar promotional materials:letter-

sized, black on white, photocopied fliers that wereplaced unfolded into residential mailboxes.

For illustrative purposes, the set of-fliers for theneighborhood association picnic will be described ingreater detail. The humorous version had fourphrases descriptive of picnic activities, each paired

with a caricature-type drawing. The non-humorousversion had foursimilar phrasespaired with more re-alistic drawings. The control version mirrored thenon-humorous copy, but used no illustrations. Forexample, the first statementin the humorousversionwas, Gourmet food from cordon bleu chefs, pairedwith a drawing of a beatnik-looking individual flip-ping a hamburgerover a hibachi. This phrasewas al-tered in the non-humorous version to read, Deli-cious food fromexpert cooks, and waspairedwith amore realistic sketch of a young man in a chef's hatgrilling a hamburger.The second description in thehumorous version, luscious libations, became de-lightful drinks in the non-humorous version, with

each again being paired with differingillustrations.The other two descriptionsdid not vary between thetwo versions, but the illustrations did. This across-treatment copy variation occurredonly on the fliersfor the neighborhoodassociationpicnic; the fliers forall other events kept the copy consistent across treat-ments and differedonly in terms of their illustrations.

Dependent Measures

Attendance. If one or more members of a house-hold entered the groundsof the event, it wasreportedas an act of attendance,since the promotion could be

considered at least minimally successful. The unit ofanalysis for this measure was the household, so theattendance of any adult member was the criterion forassessment.Multiple attendanceby aduilthouseholdmembers or the presence or absence of children hadno furthereffecton attendancescores.Attendancebynon-residents was likewiseignored (non-residentsac-counted for0 to 26 percentof those attending).

Nonverbal Expression of Enjoyment. This assess-ment was made on the average nonverbalexpressionof enjoyment of all adult household members com-bined. In other words, if the mother and father at-tended together and the father looked ecstatic to bethere while the mother seemed bored, the singlehousehold score was the averageof these expressions.Threejudges, who were hidden from the attendants,collaborated n assigninga singlehouseholdratingona scalerangingfrom -5 (labeled seems to hatebeinghere )to 5 (labeled seemsto love being here ).Rat-ingswere made in integers.

The collaborative udging procedurewasusedto al-low for the fact that the measure requires simulta-neous observation of several individuals.This leavesthe researcherwitha choice. S/he mayhave each rater





7/27/2019 2489461


500 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1

ATTENDANCEAT SOCIAL AND BUSINESS EVENTS

BY TYPE OF PROMOTION

Non-Humorous humorous No humor,

Event promotion promotion no illustration

SocialNeighborhood picnic

(n = 53) 41* 19 17

Clambake(n = 68) 67* 46 40

Firemen's muster

(n = 270) 74* 41 39

BusinessNeighborhood meeting

(n = 53) 11 14 13

Zoning referendum

(n = 68) 9 11 13

Council meeting(n = 270) 19 17 22

NOTE:Counts markedwithan asterisk differ ignificantlyt the 0.001 levelfromothercountsnot so marked.Comparisonswere madeonly within ows.The est used was thep correctedZ-test forproportionsi.e.,p correctedalpha= 1 - (1 - a)n, where a is the observedtable value, andn is the numberofcomparisonsmade;Neterand Wasserman1974, p. 582).

(1) attempt to observeall individualswithin a house-hold group,introducing biasdue to proximity,physi-cal attractiveness, or any other factor that may in-duce/reduce observationof a given individual, or (2)focus on a single individual, then collaborateto pro-duce a singlescore.Althoughthe latterapproachdoesnot allow inter-rater reliability comparisons, it does

reduce the aforementioned sources of bias, and wasthereforeemployed in this instance.The judges were upper-division communication

studentsselected via a two-step process.First, 10 stu-dents were shown photographs of faces displayingemotions rangingfromhappyto serious to angry.Theeightratersdemonstratingthe highestdegreeof inter-rater reliability proceeded to step two. These eightratedthe emotions of randomly selected shoppersina local mall. The six raterswith the highest level ofinter-raterreliabilityacted as judges for the nonver-bal expressionof enjoyment measure.

The measure was obtained for the social eventsonly. This was due to the requirementsof a behav-

ioral observation data collection format.At the socialgatherings,a groupofjudges could stand near the en-trance and observe the attendees without arousingsuspicion or appearingout of place. Suchwas not thecase at the business events, due both to their smallerattendance and to the situation's more restrictedsetof accepted behaviors. In the judgment of the re-searchers, t was not possibleto gatherthese measuresat the business events in a fashion sufficientlyunob-trusiveto yield meaningfuldata.

PROCEDURE

Promotion Schedule and Distribution

Each household received three exposures to thesame condition-specific promotional flier. The first

set of fliers was distributed three weeks prior to theevent, the second two weeks before the event, and thefinal exposure was one week before the event. Twoexceptions to this schedule occurred due to the re-quest of the neighborhood association's board of di-rectors to limit promotional efforts. In the case of theneighborhood picnic and business meeting, house-holds received only one exposure to the condition-specific promotional flier two weeks prior to theevents.

A list of all occupied dwellings was compiled foreach field site with the assistance of town/villageclerks,the secretaryof the neighborhood association,and the local mail carriers.These lists were updated

prior to each event's promotions. The households onthe lists were then assignedto theexperimentalcondi-tions. A random procedure placed one-third of thehouseholds at each site into each condition. With theassistance of local mail carriers, he flierswere distrib-utedaccordingto their assigned promotion conditionand schedule. For households without a residentialmailbox, the flierswere taped to the door.

Collection of Criterion Measures

On the day of the event, two or three people whocould identify local residents (e.g., town clerks, gro-cery checkers)were located at the entrance to recordattendanceby markingthe householdlists. In the fewinstances in which an attendee was not immediatelyrecognized, one of the researchers ntroduced him/herself to obtain identification and to determinewhether the person lived within the promotionboundaries. At the social events, threejudges collabo-rated to determinewhetherthe adults' facial expres-sions as they entered the event site indicateddisplea-sure-pleasure.The students udgingfacialexpressions

TABLE 2

MEANSCORES OF NONVERBALLYEXPRESSEDENJOYMENT RATEDFACIALDISPLAY)AT SOCIAL

EVENTS BY TYPE OF PROMOTION

Humorous Non-humorous No humor,Event promotion promotion no illustration

Neighborhood picnic 2.22* 1.05 0.71

Clambake 2.64* 1.46 1.08

Firemen's muster 2.59* 1.00 0.85

NOTE:Meansmarkedwith an asteriskdiffer ignificantlyrommeansnot somarked t the0.05 levelbythe Newman-Keulsest. Comparisonsweremadeonlywithin ows.





7/27/2019 2489461


HUMOR IN ADVERTISING 501

wereblind concerningthe treatmentconditions of thesubjects.

Data Analysis

The data for attendance were analyzedusing the Z-test for proportions. The data from thejudged facialexpressions were analyzed by unequal-n analysis ofvariance.

RESULTS,

For social events, attendance was greater amongpeople who had received promotional material con-taininghumorouspromotionsthan amongpeople re-ceiving other types of promotions (see Table 1). TheZ-tests for proportions were statistically significantfor all three social events, when comparing the hu-morous with the non-humorous promotions. How-ever, differences n frequencyof attendancewerenotsignificant acrosspromotion types at any of the busi-ness events.

On meanscores ofjudgments of non-verbalexpres-sions of enjoyment, analyses of variance revealeddifferencesby type of promotion (see Table 2). Thedifferences were statistically significant at the 0.05level for all three social events.

DISCUSSION

This study tests the behavioral mpact of humorouspromotions within a fieldsetting.Wherehumoris rel-evant to the objectof the promotional effort,the ma-

nipulation is associatedwith increasedpatronage be-havior. Moreover, this effect holds over three inde-pendent replications. These results support thehypothesisthat relevanthumor will increasepatron-age activity, but thathumor not relevant to the objectof thepromotionwill haveeither no impactora nega-tive impact.The studyalso found supportfor the ideathat humorous ads influence nonverbally expressedenjoyment for the events.

Thepresent field-studyresearch ormat carrieswithit certain limitations. First, any field study containsmanyuncontrollable variables hat mayinfluence theresults.Therefore,certainquestions of internalvalid-ity accompany this approach. Further testing in a

more controlled settingcould address this shortcom-ing and provide furtherinsight into the informationprocessing mechanismsat work.

Second, this study deals with event promotiononly. Additional replications in other contexts arenecessaryto determine the generalizabilityof the cur-rent findings. For example, the currentfindingsmaylead one to believe that the element of humor mightenhance consumer response to promotions for toysand games, while havingeither no impact or a nega-tive impact upon response to more seriousproducts,such as health-relatedones, forexample. The authorspositthat while suchstatements do suggestan intrigu-ing line of research, hey must be held to the status ofworking hypotheses based on current knowledge. Aportionof the ambiguity in the resultsof previous hu-mor-in-advertisingresearchmay be due to the factthat researchers have over-generalizedcontext andpurpose. Therefore,cautious interpretation seems inorder;in social event promotion, the use of humormay significantly increase attendance. More sweep-ing statements must awaitfurther nvestigation.

[ReceivedMarch 1984. RevisedAugust 1989.]

REFERENCES

Duncan, Calvin P. (1979), Humor in Advertising:A Be-havioralPerspective, Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 7 (Fall), 285-306.

, James E. Nelson, and Nancy T. Frontczak (1984),The Effect of Humor on Advertising Comprehen-

sion, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 11, ed.Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Con-sumer Research,432-437.

Herold,D. (1963), Humor in Advertisingand How to MakeIt Pay, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Klein, David, Jennings Bryant, and D. Zillman (1982),Relationship Between Humor in IntroductoryText-

books and Students' Evaluations of the Texts' Appealand Effectiveness, PsychologicalReports,50 (Febru-ary), 235-241.

McGuire, William J. (1969), The Nature of Attitude andAttitude Change, n The Handbookof Social Psychol-ogy, Vol. 3, eds. GardnerLindzeyand ElliotAronson,Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley,136-314.

Monroe, Alan H. and Douglas Ehninger(1969), Principlesof Speech Communication,New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.

Neter, John and William Wasserman 1974), AppliedLin-earStatisticalModels, Homewood, IL:RichardD. Ir-win.

Runyon, K.E. (1979), Advertising,Columbus,OH:Charles

Merrill.Sternthal,Brian and C. Samuel Craig(1973), Humor in

Advertising, Journal ofMarketing, 37 (4), 12-18.





Documents

2489461