Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A meta-analysis of humor in advertising

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This meta-analysis combines 369 correlations on the effects of humor in advertising and thus quantifies, updates, and expands previous literature reviews on the effects of humor in advertising. In line with previous reviews, the meta-analytic correlations demonstrate that humor in advertising significantly enhances AAD, attention, and positive affect. Contrary to the assumptions of previous reviews, there is no evidence that humor impacts positive or negative cognitions, and liking of the advertiser. The meta-analytic findings clarify some ambiguous prior conclusions: humor significantly reduces source credibility, enhances positive affect, ABR and purchase intention. The decline from lower order to higher order communication effects is particularly strong, with the effect size of the impact of humor on AAD being twice as large as the effect size for ABR. This impact of humor in advertising has been rather stable over the past decades. A moderator analysis reveals, however, that the findings of academic humor research are somewhat biased. As for the underlying theory, the positive and linear relationship between the funniness of the ad and brand attitudes supports an affective mechanism underlying the impact of humor in advertising.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D., Day, G., & Hagerty, M. R. (1986). Warmth in advertising: Measurement, impact and sequence effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alden, D. L., Hoyer, W. D., & Lee, C. (1993). Identifying global and culture specific dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000a). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000b). Extending a contrast resolution model of humor in television advertising: The role of surprise. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 13(2), 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard, F. K. (2005). One hundred years of humor in American advertising. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. E. (1984). An investigation of the effects of repetition on cognitive and affective reactions to humorous and serious television commercials. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 4–10). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Berg, E. M., & Lippman, L. G. (2001). Does humor in radio advertising affect recognition of novel product brand names? Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein, & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Psychology of humor (pp. 43–60). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Brooker, G. (1981). A comparison of the persuasive effects of mild humor and mild fear appeals. Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, J., Brown, D., Silberberg, A. R., & Elliott, S. M. (1981). Effects of humorous illustrations in college textbooks. Human Communication Research, 8(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cantor, J., & Venus, P. (1980). The effect of humor on recall of a radio advertisement. Journal of Broadcasting, 24(1), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 466–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2003a). Effects of humor ad: Moderating role of product familiarity. In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising Conference (pp. 11). Denver, CO: American Academy of Advertising.

  • *Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2003b). Humor effect on memory and attitude: Moderating role of product involvement. International Journal of Advertising, 22(1), 117–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill Jr., G. A., Ford, N. M., Walker, S. W., & Walker Jr., O. C. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cline, T. W. (1997). The role of expectancy and relevancy in humorous ad executions: An individual difference perspective. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

  • *Cline, T. W., Altsech, M. B., & Kellaris, J. J. (2003). When does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (2007). The influence of humor strength and humor-message relatedness on ad memorability. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Conway, M., & Dubé, L. (2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening topics: Effectiveness is a function of audience sex role orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 863–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. (2003). Meta-analyses of financial performance and equity: Fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., & Geuens, M. (1996). The communication effects of warmth, eroticism and humour in alcohol advertisements. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *De Pelsmacker, P. & Geuens, M. (1998). The advertising effectiveness of different levels of intensity of humor and warmth and the moderating role of affect intensity. In Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science (pp. 11–16). Norfolk, VA: Academy of Marketing Science.

  • Duncan, C. P. (1979). Humor in advertising: A behavioral perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7(4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Duncan, C. P., & Nelson, J. E. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33–40, 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, C. P., Nelson, J. E., & Frontczak, N. T. (1984). The effects of humor on advertising comprehension. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 432–437). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, R., Eccles, S., & Hodgson, M. (1993). Re-coding gender representations: Women, cleaning products, and advertising’s ‘new man’. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(3), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., & Mann, L. H. (1998). Designing the next study for maximum impact. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 496–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty, K., Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (2004). The impact of perceived humor, product type and humor style in radio advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(1), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Walsh, D. (1998). Effects of programme context on memory of humorous television commercials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(6), 555–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Mori, T. (2003). The effect of programme context on memory for humorous television advertisements in Japan. Psychologia, 46(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gelb, B. D., & Pickett, C. M. (1983). Attitude-toward-the-ad: Links to humor and to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 12(2), 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gelb, B. D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1986). Humor and advertising effectiveness after repeated exposures to a radio commercial. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 15–20, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2002). The role of humor in the persuasion of individuals varying in need for cognition. In S. M. Broniarczyk, & K. Nakamoto (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 50–56). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour. In A. J. Chapman, & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and application (pp. 117–138). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising. A comprehensive analysis. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effect models. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis pp. 285–299. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayande, U., & Bhargava, M. (1994). An examination of temporal patterns in meta-analysis. Marketing Letters, 3(2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Krishnan, H. S., & Chakravarti, D. (2003). A process analysis of the effects of humorous advertising executions on brand claims memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 230–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, H. B. (1991). Moderating influence of self-monitoring and gender on responses to humorous advertising. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, H. B., Liebowitz, L., Seymour, G. E., & Hennessey, J. E. (1983). Humor and cognitive response to advertising stimuli: A trace consolidation approach. Journal of Business Research, 11(2), 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H. (1997). The immediate and delayed effects of advertising: The role of information incongruency. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

  • *Lee, M. J., & Ferguson, M. A. (2002). Effects of anti-tobacco advertisements based on risk-taking tendencies: Realistic fear vs. vulgar humor. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 945–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H., & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. R., & Reibstein, D. J. (2006). Marketing metrics and financial performance. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, T. J. (1982). Humor in advertising: Applications of a hierarchy of effects paradigm. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Madden, T. J., & Dillon, W. R. (1982). Causal analysis and latent class models: An application to a communication hierarchy of effects model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 472–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1982). The effects of humor on attention in magazine advertising. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A practitioner view. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, W., & Carpenter, B. (2007). Humor comprehension in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(4), 606–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, P. E. (1986). Humor across the life span: Sources of developmental change and individual differences. In L. Nahemow, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett, & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), Humor and aging (pp. 27–51). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Michaels, S. L. (1997). Cognitive and affective responses to humorous advertisements. Dissertation, Wayne State University.

  • *Mukherjee, A., & Dube, L. (2001). The use of humor in threat-related advertising: an experimental processing perspective. In A. Gröppel-Klein, & F.R. Esch (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (p. 335). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mullinax, S. L. (1984). The use of humor to prevent wearout in advertising. Dissertation, Lamar University.

  • Murphy, J. H., Cunningham, I. C. M., & Wilcox, G. (1979). The impact of program environment on recall of humorous television commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 8(2), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. E., Duncan, C. P., & Frontczak, N. T. (1985). The distraction hypothesis and radio advertising. Journal of Marketing, 49, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Perry, S. D., Jenzowsky, S. A., King, C. M., Yi, H., Hester, J. B., & Gartenschlaeger, J. (1997). Using humorous programs as a vehicle for humorous commercials. Journal of Communication, 47(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prilluk, R., & Till, B. D. (2004). The role of contingency awareness, involvement, and need for cognition in attitude formation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, M. C. (1994). The fugitive literature. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 85–94). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., Percy, L., & Donovan, R. J. (1991). A better advertising planning grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Scott, C., Klein, D. M., & Bryant, J. (1990). Consumer response to humor in advertising: A series of field studies using behavioral observation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 498–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect sizes. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shifman, R. B. (1994). Take my brand...please: Attitudinal effects of functional relationships among type of humorous appeal, context, and seriousness of salient product attributes in print advertisements. Dissertation, Temple University.

  • *Skinner, D., Mackoy, R., & Osland, G. (2000). Does need for cognition moderate the effectiveness of ironic humor in advertising? Or what does it take to get the message? In Proceedings of the AMA summer marketing educator’s conference (pp. 139–140). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

  • Smith, S. M. (1993). Does humor in advertising enhance systematic processing? In L. McAlister, & M. L. Rothschild (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 155–158). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Speck, P. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising. Dissertation, Texas Tech University.

  • Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Spotts, H. E., Weinberger, M. G., & Parasons, A. L. (1997). Assessing the use and impact of humor on advertising effectiveness: A contingency approach. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, J. L., & Burke, J. (1998). Comparing the effectiveness of executional elements in TV advertising: 15- versus 30-second commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(6), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternthal, B., & Craig, S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37, 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Stewart, D. W., & Furse, D. H. (1986). Effective television advertising: A study of 1000 commercials. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125–138). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons. In P. E. Goldstein, & J. H. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humour: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81–100). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultan, F., Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). A meta-analysis of applications of diffusion models. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sutherland, J. C. & Middleton, L. A. (1983). The effect of humor on advertising credibility and recall. In D. W. Jugenheimer, K. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1983 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 17–21). American Academy of Advertising.

  • *Sutherland, J. C., & Sethu, S. (1987). The effect of humor on television advertising credibility and recall. In F. G. Feasley (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising pp. R3–R8. Columbia, SC: American Academy of Advertising.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Varadarajan, R. P. (1993). An analysis of the market share-profitability relationship. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., Troy, L. C., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (1995). Order of entry and business performance: An empirical synthesis and reexamination. Journal of Marketing, 59, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toncar, M. F. (2001). The use of humor in television advertising: Revisiting the US–UK comparison. International Journal of Advertising, 20(4), 521–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, L. S. (1995). Observations: A cross-cultural study on the affect-based model of humor in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(1), 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raaij, W. F. (1993). Postmodern consumption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 541–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, R. (1986). How advertising works: A planning model revisited. Journal of Advertising Research, 26, 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Weinberger, M. G., & Campbell, L. (1991). The use and impact of humor in radio advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(6), 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M. G., Campbell, L., & Brody, B. (1994). Effective radio advertising. New York: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M. G., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., & Parsons, A. L. (1995). The use and effect of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(3), 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woltman, E., Josephine, L. C. M., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). Humor in television advertising: A moment-to-moment analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 592–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wu, B. T. W., Crocker, K. E., & Rogers, M. (1989). Humor and comparatives in ads for high- and low-involvement products. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 653–661, 780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (1992). Audience involvement and persuasion in humorous advertising. Dissertation, University of Houston.

  • *Zhang, Y. (1996a). The effect of humor in advertising: An individual-difference perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 531–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhang, Y. (1996b). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1991). Humor in television advertising: The effects of repetition and social setting. In R. H. Holman, & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 813–818). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads. Does audience involvement matter? Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D., Williams, B. R., Bryant, J., Boynton, K. R., & Wolf, M. A. (1980). Acquisition of information from educational television as a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Alexandra Langer and Torsten Richter for their excellent and committed coding work as well as the editor and the four anonymous JAMS reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. The work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University Viadrina, Große Scharrnstraße 59, 15230, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Martin Eisend

Authors
  1. Martin Eisend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Eisend.

Additional information

Asterisks denote manuscripts that were used for the meta-analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisend, M. A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 37, 191–203 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation