2786391

8/12/2019 2786391

1/17

Effects of Humor on PersuasionAuthor(s): Dorothy MarkiewiczSource: Sociometry, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 407-422Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391.

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].

.

American Sociological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:41:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

8/12/2019 2786391

2/17

Sociometry1974, Vol. 37, No. 3, 407-422

Effectsof Humor on PersuasionDOROTHY MARKIEWICZ*Northernllinois University

An information-processingnalysis s used inexamining umor's effects ntheattitude changeprocess. Generally:humor ntegral o oradjacent toapersuasive message does not influencepersuasion significantly; umor'seffectson comprehensionand source evaluations are inconsistent; ndretention does not appear to be altered by humor usage. Severemethodologicalproblems with prior research nclude inadequate controlmessages, questionable humor manipulations, nappropriate ettingsforreceipt of humor, limited subject populations, and blatant demandcharacteristics.Many of these problems plague persuasion research ingeneral. Two theoretical approaches, learningtheory and distractioneffects, ffer equisiteguidance forfuturenvestigators.Those concernedwithpolitics, dvertising,r rhetoric ften uggestthat humor enhances the effectivenessf a persuasivemessage.Advertisinggencies'bias is evidentn that42 percent f televisioncommercials se some humor Markiewicz, 972a,b). Yet, researchconsideringhe effects f humoron messageeffectivenessuggeststhat tscontributionsquestionable; hus,muchofthisresearch oesunpublisheddue to the failure o findany significantffect.Thisreview onsiders ublished, s well as unpublished,tudies n order opoint out seriousmethodological roblems nd steer nvestigatorstoward moreexpeditious se ofenergy.An information-processingodel of persuasion Hovlandet al.1953) is used to explicate the relationshipof humor to thepersuasionprocess. n thisapproach, heprocessing f a persuasivecommunicationncludes equential ognitivections fattending o,comprehending,ccepting, nd retainingcceptanceof a persuasive

*The author thanksAnthony Greenwald,Timothy Brock, Thomas Ostromand Ladd Wheelerfortheirhelpful uggestions nd advice. Special appreciationis expressed o MartinKaplan and RobertHaccoun fortheir omments n earlierdraftsof this review. Requests for reprintsshould be sent to the author,Department fPsychology,Northern llinoisUniversity,e Kalb, Illinois 60115.407

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

8/12/2019 2786391

3/17

408 SOCIOMETRYcommunication. ompletion f all stagesyieldspersuasion.Researchconsideringumor'spersuasivempactwillbe reviewedo determinethe effect f humor n each of these tages.Additionally,ubstantivemethodologicalssues,whichbearon the nterpretationfthemanymarginal nd conflicting indings,will be discussed. Finally, twotheoretical pproaches re suggested s potentially sefulguidestofuture umor-persuasionesearch.

EFFECTS OF HUMOROUS MESSAGESStudiesare considered nder hreemain ections: 1) studies hatdid not employcontrols or seriousmessages, hereby onfoundingthe effectsf humorncorporatednto a messagewith uchfactorssmessage rgumentsnd sourcevariables; 2) studieswhichhaveusedserious messagesfor controlgroups;and (3) studies whichofferimplications or the effects f humor which is externalto (andsometimes nrelatedo) theadjacentmessage.

SeriousControlsAbsentIs humoran effective ehiclefor persuasion?Relevant studiestypically mploysatire n producinghumor; hosereviewedn thissection mit eriousmessage ounterparts akingheresults ifficultto interpret. hat is, the humor-only esignsused confoundtheeffect of humor with other variables also likely to influenceattitudes.However, these are reviewedto highlight he seriousmethodologicaldifficultiespresent even in those experimentsemploying serious control messages. Table 1 summarizes the

implications of these studies for humor's effects on thecomprehensionnd acceptancestages fthe attitude hangeprocess.Of the seven studies whichconsidered he effects f humorousmessageswithoutcomparablecontrolmessages, hreefailedto findany change n attitudesfollowing eceiptof thehumorousmessage(Gruner,1965, 1966; Zeman, 1967). These threeused the samemessage, satireattacking ensorship,he persuasivenessf which(regardless f the humorous ontent) s questionable.The lack ofattitude change in Gruner (1965) may have been due to thepretest-posttestesigncoupled with instructions ivento subjects(Ss): theexperimenterE) indicated hathe was interestedn howstable or unstable opinions were (see Papageorgis, 968, for areviewof the effects f warning n persuasion). n the othertwoexperiments,heEs attempted o reducepossiblemiscomprehension


8/12/2019 2786391

4/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 409TABLE 1Studies Considering he Effects f HumorousMessages

Reference ResultsCompre- Reten- Atti- Ratingsofhension tion tude SourceL Humorous Message OnlyBerlo & Kumata (1956) + +Gruner (1965) - 0Gruner (1966) - 0Gruner (1967a) - +Gruner 1971a) +Windes 1961) +?

Zeman (1967) - 0I. Serious Message ControlGibb (1964) +Gruner1967b) 0 +Gruner1970) 0 +Gruner1971b) +?Gruner (1972) - 0Kennedy 1970) 0Kennedy 1972a) 0 0 +Kennedy 1972b) +Kilpela (1961) 0 0Lampton 1971) 0Lull (1940) 0Markiewicz 1972a) 0 +? +Experiment , Chapter2Markiewicz (1972b) - 0 0Experiment , Chapter2Markiewicz1973) 0 +ExperimentMarkiewicz (1973) - - - -ExperimentMcGown (1967) 0 0Pokorny 1965) 0Pokorny nd Gruner 1969) 0Taylor 1964) 0Taylor (1972) -Youngman(1966) 0

Note: For Humorous Message Only experiments, (in I) + indicates a positive effectrelative to control condition. + indicates a significant difference between humorous andserious messages in II with the more favorable effect following the humorous message (e.g.,more persuasion, retention, positive source evaluations due to humorous message).- indicates that the more negative effects occurred following humorous than controlconditions if in I, or than serious messages in II (e.g., poor comprehension, less retention,less attitude change, lower source evaluations).O indicates that no significant differences occurred on the measure comparinghumorous message and control conditions (in I) or humorous and serious messageconditicns (in II).


8/12/2019 2786391

5/17

410 SOGIOMETRYof the message y pointingut itssatiric urpose,yetwereunabletochange s' opinions.Of the four studieswhichdid observe effects ue to humorousmessages,Gruner1967a) foundeffects nlywhenSs were toldthepoint of the satire-which suggeststhe possiblecontributionfdemand characteristics.Windes (1961) did not actually measureattitudechange,but insteadused as dependentvariables he udgedeffectivenssfcampaign peechesbyAdlaiE. Stevenson interms fadvancinghecandidate'scause. Thisfindings equivocalsincethejudges mighthave evaluated the speeches as a functionof theirassumed effectivenesswith the electorate, rather than withthemselves. ffectsobserved n the othertwo studies Berlo andKumata, 1956; Gruner, 971a) weregenerallyweak, comparedtono-message ontrol conditions,and not consistent n all of therelevantttitude ependentmeasures.In theone case (Berloand Kumata,1956) inwhich hesource theCanadianBroadcasting ompany)was evaluated, s contrastedwithpretest atings, ourceevaluationsweremorenegative ollowinghesatiricmessage.Researchers ftensuggest hat Ss are unlikely ocomprehend he message correctlywithout extra cues about itspersuasive urpose Gruner, 965, 1966, 1967a; Zeman,1969). Thushumor may interferewith comprehension. inally, since humorratingswere generallyacking n thesestudies, he successof thehumormanipulationsnotcertain,which eriouslyhreatensnternalvalidity. nadequate operationalization f the humorvariable s arecurrentroblemn this ypeofresearch.ComparisonsWith eriousMessages

Studies summarized n this section focused on whethertheaddition of humor to a message enhances its persuasiveness;therefore,hese studieshave generally ncluded a serious messagecontrol. In addition to those studiesmeasuring ttitude change,studiesexploring he effects f humoron retention nd speakerethos realso consideredn this ection.Humor and attitudechange.Thirteen xperimentsompared herelativepersuasive mpact of humorous versus seriousmessages(Gruner, 971b, 1972; Kennedy,1972; Kilpela, 1961; Lull, 1940;Markiewicz, 972a, 1972b, 1973; McGown, 1967; Pokorny, 965;Pokorny nd Gruner, 969; Youngman, 966). Table 1 summarizesthe results f theseexperiments. en studiesfailed o find videnceforany differencen persuasion ue to messagehumor; wo foundtentativeupportfor hegreaterffectivenessfhumorousmessages;


8/12/2019 2786391

6/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 411andone found seriousmessage o bemorepersuasive.The majority f these studies mployedone-way actorial esignscontaininghree onditions: 1) a humorousmessage; 2) a seriouscontrolmessage; and (3) a no-message ontrol.Major dependentvariableswereattitudescales-generallyLikert-typer Thurstone.These studieswere characterized y a plethora f typesofhumor,includingatire, rony,puns,turns f phrases, necdotes,burlesque,hyperbole,understatement,nd witticisms.The messages weresometimes developed by professional comedy writers, andsometimes ytheresearchers. ariabilitiesn thetypes fhumorhadno systematic ffect n persuasion.The messages ocused n seriousproblems uch as statemedicine, ensorship pro or con), goalsofhigher education, capital punshment,Martha Mitchell, summerschool,safety-belt sage,anti-gunegislation, nd arming f campuspolice.Two studiesprovide quivocalevidenceforthegreater ersuasiveimpactof humorousmessages Gruner, 971b; Markiewicz, 972a).In theGruner tudy, hecomparabilityf hishumorous nd seriousmessages an Art Hoppe satireversusa shortbiographicalketchfromTime, both negative riticisms f MarthaMitchell)was notdiscussed.Thus,themorenegative atings fMitchell n characterand ridiculousness scales by those reading the satire areuninterpretablep < .01). In theMarkiewicz1972a) study,on alisted-thoughts easureof attitudes, eventh-gradetudentswrotemorethoughts greeingwiththe humorousmessagethanwiththeseriousone (p < .04), suggestingmorepositive ttitude oward heformer.However,no significant ifferencesmerged on a moreconventional ttitude measure self-ratingcales). Finally,Markie-wicz (1973) showed esspersuasion ollowinghehumorous hantheseriousmessage p

8/12/2019 2786391

7/17

412 SOCIOMETRYhumor has been generally nsuccessful. umorapparently as nosimpleeffect n persuasion, nd possiblemoderator ariables aveyet to be reliablydentified.Humor and retention.Some investigatorse.g., Gibb, 1964;Gruner,1967b; Kennedy,1970; Taylor, 1964) have hypothesizedthat humor increasesmessage retention.However,as Table 1indicates, nly one out of eleven tudies upported hishypothesis.In thiscase (Gibb, 1964) a humorous iology ecturewas retainedsignificantly ore than a serious one. Again,these resultsmustbeinterpretedwith caution since intact classes were used for eachgroup (i.e., Ss were not randomly assignedto conditions,andinstructorwas confoundedwith condition). In two experiments(Markiewicz, 972b, 1973) recognitionf theargumentsontainedin the humorousmessagewas significantlynferior o that fortheseriousmessage.The dependentmeasures n thesestudies do notdistinguish etweenretention nd comprehension; hus, effects nmemory annot be separatedfrom hose on initialunderstanding.Recognition ests,focusing n message rguments,houldbe usedtotap comprehensionifferences; elayed recall testsmight e usedtoindex retention.However, n most cases, usinggrossmeasuresofretention r recognitione.g.,Gruner, 967b, 1970; Kennedy, 970,1972) no significantifferences ereobtained.Humorand sourceevaluations. tudieswhichconsidervariationsin perceptions f the source as a function fhumorusage generallyemploy ourceratings n several emantic-differential-typecales. nsix experimentsGruner,1967b, 1970; Kennedy,1972a, 1972b;Markiewicz,1972a, 1973), the humoroussource appeared to bemorepositivelyvaluated han the serious ource, n one ormoreofthe followingdimensions: character , qualification expertise),safety evaluative,trustworthiness),nd dynamism.n several ases(Lampton, 1971; Markiewicz,972b; McGown, 967), no significantdifferencesn sourceevaluations merged. inally, everal nvestiga-torsreported hatthe serious ourcewas evaluatedmorepositivelythan thehumorous ne (Markiewicz, 973; Taylor, 972). Thus,theeffectsfhumor n sourceperceptionsends o be inconsistent, ithenhancementmoreprobable han owered valuation, uggestinghatsourceswho are nothighly valuatednitiallymight enefit rom heuse of humor.This should be tested na factorial esignwith ource(high versus ow credibilityr liking) and messageappeal (humorversus erious) s factors. urther,hetypeofhumorused slikely oinfluence ourceperceptions. ostilehumor oulddecrease iking orthesource Gutman ndPriest, 969).


8/12/2019 2786391

8/17

EFFECTS OF HUMORON PERSUASION 413Humor and interestratings.Are humorous messages moreinteresting han serious ones? Two studies reportno significantdifferences etweenhumorous ndseriousmessagesGruner, 967b;

Lull, 1940), and two suggest hat humorousmessagesare moreinterestinghancomparable erious nes (Markiewicz,972a, 1973).Gruner (1970) varied interestingnesshigh versus low) andhumorousnesshighversus ow) of a message n a 2 x 2 factorialdesign. A dull messagewas created by rewriting he interestingversion o remove lements f interestpersonalwords ndpersonalsentences).A significantnteractionp

8/12/2019 2786391

9/17

414 SOCIOMETRY(i.e., the percentage frecipientswhoreturnednclosedpostcards)revealedno significant ain effect f thecartoon nd no interactionwithmessage ength.

In another tudy Markiewicz, 972b) either humorous ilm,serious film, r no filmon safety-beltsage ntroduced standardrecordedmessage dvocating egislation o enforce afety-beltsage.Subjectsweretold that the source ofboth film ndmessagewasthesame. No significantdifferences n attitudinalor behavioralintentionsmeasureswere found, ven though he serious ourcewasrated as significantlyetter nformedhan the humorous ne (p

8/12/2019 2786391

10/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 415For example, many of the studies reviewed nserted additionalhumorousmaterial nto a message Pokorny, 1965; Pokorny ndGruner, 1969; Kennedy, 1972a; Gruner, 1967b, 1970). Theadditional humormade the humorousmessage longer than theseriousmessage.Thismight esult n an additional actore.g.,moretimeto rehearse rguments)hat could havemaskeddifferencesnresponsesto the messages.Those studieswhich triedto controlmessage length had to insert some additional material (e.g.,repetition, laborationof arguments r introductionfnew ones).Thus, one cannot determinewhat is responsiblefor differencesobtained (or lack of differences)-themanipulation of theindependentvariableor some seemingly nnocuousaspect of thecontrolmessage.For thesereasons,t s critical orresearcherso useseveral ssueswithinthe same study. f the independent ariablesyield equivalent ffects cross all issues,one can be more confidentin attributinghese ffects o the ntendedmanipulationsatherhanto someconfounded actor(s).How funnysfunnynough.?The variation n degreeof funniness f messagesused in priorresearchcomplicatesthe interpretationf results. Sometimesthehumorousmessages re actuallyonly attempts t humor, problemcommon nstudiesusing atire, complex ndsubtleform fhumor.Sincethedegreeof funniness as never eensystematicallyaried nan attitude tudy, t is difficulto determinewhat effect hisfactormighthave on responsesto the message.Future research houldsystematicallyary hehumor evel of themessages. urthermore,fthe humor s differentiallyoignantacrossstudies and thereforedifferentiallyperationalized), then valid comparisons betweenexperiments ecome precarious.How doesone measure ttentionnthe aboratory?The majorityof the researchdiscussedhere was conducted nclassrooms r laboratories.The pressure o attendto the messageswas likely o havebeengreat,makingt probable hat ttentionwasheld constant high)acrossconditions.Thus,one cannotdeterminefrom hesestudieswhethern the real worldpersonswould attendmoreto a humorousmessagethanto a seriousone. Future tudiesmightmanipulatebase line attentivenesso humorous nd seriousinfluence ttempts. or example,messagesnot apparently partofthe experimentmightbe presented, nd immediate ecallcould beusedas an indexofattention.


8/12/2019 2786391

11/17

416 SOCIOMETRYWhat re theeffects ue to differentypes fhumor?The typeof humorused conveys nformation hichcould affectrecipients' attitudes towards the source the perceived signifi-cance of theissue,and theinterpretationf arguments.Youngman(1966) consideredhe relative ffectsfspeeches ontaining ermanehumor humorthat supplementedhepoint of the communicationby providingn illustrationfit),non-germaneumor, rnohumor.No significantifferences erefoundon measures f attitudes; utsinceSs already greedwith hethesis fthespeech, hiswas a weaktest of the persuasive mpact of the messages. Brandes (1970)attempted o testthepersuasivenessffive ategories fhumor, utfoundthat Ss could not tellthe differenceetween ategoriese.g.,punsversus lays-on-words).he formal lassification aynot be asimportants theimplied one of thehumor cf.Gutman nd Priest,1969). Critical, ostilehumormayhave quitedifferentffects romslapstick.Do serious ettingsnhibit umor ppreciation?Since thestudies akeplace in classroom r aboratoryituations,the serious environmentmay well have interferedwith theappreciationof the humor.Experimentalampleswho expectedaserious ask,but insteadreceivedhumormaynothaveperceivedhehumorousmessages s funny.McGhee 1971) points utthatSs needexternal cues in order to know when it is appropriate o usefantasy assimilation as when interpretingumor) versusrealityassimilation (as when interpreting serious representation).Investigatorsmight ircumventhis problemby creating atural rfamiliar ettingsmoreappropriateo thepresentationf humorousstimuli.How much do demandcharacteristicsontaminate esults f humorandpersuasion tudies?Two kindsof demand effectsOrne,1962) areparticularlyalientin humorresearch.First, he persuasionto be persuaded effectmighthave induced some Ss to indicatethat their ttitudeswerechanged. This problemwas especially ikelyin studies that usedrather ransparentoverstories e.g.,Pokorny, 965; Gruner, 966),and could accountfor he ack ofdifferencesetweenhumorous ndserious conditions. n additionto this demand, Ss in the humorconditions xperiencedhedemand oratethemessage s humorous.Thus,whentheir nstructorsppearedto be asking hem to rate he


8/12/2019 2786391

12/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 417obvious attempt t humor s funny,manycomplied. nyder 1971)has shown that Ss' judgmentsof humor are affectedby demandcharacteristics. his makes it particularly ifficulto determine hesuccessof humormanipulations.More indirectmeasures f humorevaluations hould be used (e.g., see Langevin nd Day (1972) fordiscussion fphysiologicalorrelatesfhumor).How might ariationsn the persuasivemessages ffect heresults fstudies?Thevarietyfmessages sed nthese tudies ddsto theconfusionof interpretations. omplex messagesmake comprehensionmoreproblematic. Not all studies actually measured comprehension,althoughauthorsoftensuggested hat Ss did not understandhemessages e.g., Gruner, 965; Zeman, 1967). Messages lso vary npersuasiveness.f the argumentsn a humorousmessage re weak, anextraboost due to humormight ot be detected.On the other ndof thecontinuum, owerfulmessagesmight auseceiling ffectshatwouldmask dditional ainsduetohumor.How do subjectpopulations ffect esults?Very little information xists about how personsother thanstudents eactto humorousmessages. n addition o thelimitationon the generality f the results, he use of students s Ss oftencreatesotherproblems. Students n speech classes hear numerousspeecheson various opics, ometimesncludinghepersuasion opic,prior o the experiment. okorny nd Gruner 1969) pointout thatthis occurred in their experiment.Other studies using speechstudents might also sufferfrom this contamination. Second,evaluation apprehension Rosenberg,1965) and compliance toexperimental emand haracteristicsre aggravated. tudentsmay beparticularlyikelyto comply with what they perceive as theE'swishes,whenthe E is their eacher.Third, ollege ubjectswhohavebeen trainedto value rationalismmay rejectan emotional ppealmore thanwould otherpopulations.This is impliedby Rokeach's(1973) findings hat those with less formal educttion rankintellectual alues ower. Thus,the useof morevaried opulations simperative.How doesoneprove thenullhypothesis?On thebasisof thisreview,tmaybe concluded hathumor oesnot increase the persuasivenessf a message. The majority f the


8/12/2019 2786391

13/17

418 SOCIOMETRYstudies reviewed, however, sufferedin varying degrees frommethodologicalproblems that could mask actual differences.Nevertheless,umormaynot increasepersuasion n even the mostmethodologicallyoundexperiment. hese no difference indingsshouldnot be ignored.

SOME THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONSResearchers avegenerallygnored heories elevanto theeffectsof humor on persuasion.This has resulted n simple approaches

incompatiblewith the complexity f theproblem.Two theoreticalapproachespotentially pplicableto the questionare considerednlight fprior esearch, ndare offered s possible ompasses o thosewhoenter he abyrinth.Learning heoryA numberof studieshave foundthat associating n irrelevantreinforcer itha persuasivemessage ffectedtspersuasivenesse.g.,Janiset al., 1965; Rosnow, 1965, 1966; Rosnow and Lana, 1965;Rosnow and Russell, 1963). If humor functions s a positivereinforcer, umor placed in temporal proximityto persuasivecommunicationshould nhance heir ersuasiveness.The logical researchsteps should be to show that (1) humorfunctions s a reward in a-standardearning aradigm) nd 2) thisreward ffects ersuasion.Researchmaybe directed t testing heeffectsof humorpresentationontingentn recipients' greementwiththearguments resented;hat s,usinghumor s a reinforcer,nan operant ense. n all casespreviouslynvestigated,hehumorwaspresented egardlessf Ss' responses o themessage. f Ss are told toindicate overtly heir greement r disagreement iththe messagearguments,umorpresented ollowing greement iththemessagemayproveuseful nstrengtheningecipients'xistingttitudes ndinincreasingesistanceopersuasion.Humor may operate as an unconditioned timulus,n a classicalconditioning ense. That is, if humor elicits a positiveaffectiveresponse,a message paired withhumormighteventually licit apositive agreeing)response.The generallynegativeresults f thereviewedresearchwould appear to contradict simpleassociationmodel prediction.However,the associativeprocessmay be wellsuited for simple messages n which one concept,argument, rproductis presented everaltimes n connectionwiththe humor.


8/12/2019 2786391

14/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 419Messagesused in the researchreviewedwere generally omplex,containingeveral rgumentsach presented nlyonce.DistractionffectsThe inclusion fhumor ntoa messagemayelicit aughterwhichcouldprove o be a distractioneading o a greatermpact fmessagearguments Baron et al., 1973). The failure to find increasedpersuasion due to humor would thus appear to decrease thelikelihoodthat this process s an adequate description f humor'seffects npersuasion.Again,moreadequate testsof thishypothesismight rove to beenlightening. ccordingto the counterargument-reductionxpla-nation of distraction ffects,for distraction o result n greaterpersuasion, t least two conditionsmust xist: a) recipientsmustbemotivatedto counterarguenitially, nd (b) recipientsmust becapableof counterargument.he firstondition ecessitates hat heaudiencebe opposed to the messageposition nd thattheissue besignificanto them. nitialopinions fSs werenotalwaysopposedtothemessageposition n theresearch escribed.Also sincethetopicsweregeneralrather hanspecific o the problemsofthe audience,low involvement s likely. Finally, whetherSs could producecounterargumentss unknown,since no informations providedconcerningheirknowledge f thetopics.Future tudies, estinghecounterargument-reductionistraction ypothesisfhumor's ffectsonpersuasion,mightmanipulate s' ability o counterargueiaeitherequipping rnot equipping hemwith pposingmaterial rior o thereceipt fthemessage.

CONCLUSIONSSince the majority of the research reviewed has yieldednon-significantesults, ne is faced with the questionof whetherhumor nfacthasno significantffects npersuasion,rwhetherheappropriate onditions r mediumforthe emergence f theeffecthave not been created. Priorresearch s characterizedby poormethodology.More variability n the experimentalpopulationssampledseemsimperative. ess complextopics,moreconducive ohumorous reatment,houldbe deliveredn ess solemn tmospheres.Various evels fattention houldbe requirednsubsequent esearch.Thus,future xperimental orkshouldsystematicallyary omeofthese factors. n general, he researchreviewedwas empirical norientation and conspicuouslyatheoretical. nvestigatorswould


8/12/2019 2786391

15/17

420 SOCIOMETRYbenefitfromworkingwithin ome theoretical ramework,r at aminimum rom less simplisticpproachto the problem.Finally,sufficientare should be devoted to increasing hepowerof thestatisticalnalysesused,since he prior esearch indingsuggesthata humor-persuasionffect s not likelyto be robust. Even a smalleffect ouldbe significantormessages elivered othemultitude.

REFERENCESBaron, R., P. Baronand N. Miller1973 The relation between distraction and persuasion. PsychologicalBulletin.80:310-323.Berlo,D. K. and H. Kumata1956 The investigator: he impact of a satiricalradio drama. JournalismQuarterly 3:287-298.Brandes,P. D.1970 The persuasiveness f varying opics of humor. Paper presented tSpeech CommunicationAssociation,New Orleans.Festinger, . and N. Maccoby1964 On resistanceto persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology 8:359-366.Gibb, J. D.1964 An experimental comparison of the humorous lecture and thenonhumorous lecture in informative peaking. Unpublished M.A.thesis,UniversityfUtah.Gruner,C. R.1965 An experimental tudy of satire as persuasion. Speech Monographs32:149-154.1966 A further experimental study of satire as persuasion. SpeechMonographs 3:184-185.1967a Editorial satireas persuasion:An experiment. JournalismQuarterly44:727-730.1967b Effect of humoron speakerethos and audience information ain.Journal fCommunication17:228-233.1970 The effect of humor in dull and interestingnformativepeeches.CentralStatesSpeechJournal 1:160-166.1971a An experimental tudyof ad hominem editorial satire: ArtHoppe vs.Martha Mitchell. Paper presented at Speech CommunicationAssociationConvention, an Francisco.1971b Ad hominem satire as a persuader: An experiment. JournalismQuarterly 8:128-131.1972 Art Hoppe vs. capital punishment:An experiment. Paper presentedat SouthernSpeech CommunicationAssociation,San Antonio.

Gutman,J. and R. F. Priest1969 When is aggression funny? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 2:60-65.Hovland,C. I., I. L. Janis nd H. H. Kelley1953 Communication nd Persuasion.New Haven,Conn.: Yale.


8/12/2019 2786391

16/17

EFFECTS OF HUMOR ON PERSUASION 421Janis, . L., D. Kaye and P. Kirschner1965 Facilitating effects of 'eating-whilereading' on responsivenesstopersuasive ommunication. Journalof Social Psychology :181-186.Kennedy,A. J.1970 An experimental tudy of the effectof humorousmessage contentupon ethos and persuasiveness. Paper presented at SpeechCommunicationAssociation,New Orleans.1972a An experimentalstudy of the effect of humorous messagecontentupon ethos and persuasiveness. Doctoral dissertation,University fMichigan.1972b The effect of humor upon source credibility. Paper presented atSpeech CommunicationAssociation,Chicago.Kilpela, D. E.1961 An experimentalstudy of the effects of humor on persuasion.UnpublishedMaster'sthesis,WayneState University.Lampton,W. E.1971 The effectof humor in a persuasive sermon. Paper presentedatSpeech CommunicationAssociation,San Francisco.Langevin,R. and H. I. Day1972 Physiological orrelates f humor. Pp. 129-142 in J.H. Goldstein ndP. E. McGhee (eds.), The Psychology f Humor. New York: AcademicPress.Lull,P. E.1940 The effectivenessf humor npersuasive peech. Speech monographs7:26-40.Markiewicz,D.1972a Can humor ncrease persuasion,or is it all a joke? Paperpresented tSpeech CommunicationAssociation,Chicago,December.1972b The effects of humor on persuasion. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, hio State University.1973 'Persuasion as a function of humorous vs. serious messages orcontexts. Unpublishedmanuscript, orthern llinoisUniversity.McGhee, P. E.1971 Development of the humor response: A review of the literature.PsychologicalBulletin76:328-348.McGown,M. A.1967 An experimental tudy of the persuasive mpactof a satiriceditorialand thatof a comparabledirecteditorial. Unpublishedmasters hesis,Universityf Nebraska.Orne,M. T.1962 On the social psychology of the psychological experiment:Withparticularreference o demandcharacteristics nd their mplications.AmericanPsychologist 7:776-783.Papageorgis, .1968 Warning nd persuasion. PsychologicalBulletin70:271-282.Pokorny,G. F.1965 An experimental tudyof the mpactofsatiricmaterial ncluded n anargumentativespeech. Unpublished masters thesis, UniversityofNebraska.


8/12/2019 2786391

17/17

422 SOCIOMETRYPokorny,G. F. and C. R. Gruner1969 An experimental tudy of the effectof satire used as support in apersuasive peech. Western peech 33:204-211.Rokeach,M.1973 The NatureofHumanValues. New York: The FreePress.Rosenberg,M. J.1965 When dissonancefails: On eliminatingvaluationapprehensionfromattitudemeasurement. Journal of Personality nd Social Psychology1:28-42.Rosnow,R. L.1965 A delay-of-reinforcementffect in persuasive communication?Journal fSocial Psychology 67:39-43.1966 'Conditioning' the direction of opinion change in persuasive

communication. Journal f Social Psychology 9:291-303.Rosnow,R. L. and R. E. Lana1965 Complementary and competing-order ffects in opinion change.Journal f Social Psychology 6:201-207Rosnow,R. L. and G. Russell1963 Spread of effect of reinforcement n persuasivecommunication.PsychologicalReports 12:731-735.Smith,E. E.1961 Methods for changing consumer attitudes: A report of threeexperiments. Project Report QuartermasterFood and ContainerInstitutefortheArmedForces (PRA Report 61-2).Snyder,A. F.1971 The effectsof demand characteristics pon conformityn judgmentsofhumor. DissertationAbstracts nternational 1:7581.Taylor,P. M.1964 The effectiveness f humor in informative peeches. CentralStatesSpeech Journal 3-15:295-296.1972 The relationshipbetween humorand retention. Paper presented tSpeech CommunicationAssociation,Chicago.Windes,R. R., Jr.1961 A study of effective nd ineffective residential ampaignspeaking.Speech Monographs 8:39-49.Youngman,R. C.1966 An experimental nvestigationf the effect f germanehumorversusnon-germane umor in an informative ommunication. Unpublishedmasters hesis,Ohio University.Zeman,J. V.1967 An experimental tudyof the persuasive ffects f satire n a speechpresented to a high school audience. Unpublishedmastersthesis,Universityf Nebraska.

Documents

2786391