Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 115–132 | Cite as

How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models

  • Martin Eisend
Article

Abstract

This study tests a cognitive and an affective model based on extant explanations of the effects of humor along with a new affective–cognitive model. Results are derived from meta-analytic data and show how previous explanations may be integrated in order to explain how humor in advertising works. Humor reduces negative cognitions related to the ad because it serves as a distraction from counter-argumentation. In order to maintain positive affect, humor reduces cognitive efforts, in particular those related to brand-related cognitions, thus supporting a vampire effect; that is, humor distracts from processing central benefits of the brand. Humor exerts its strongest impact along affective paths, supporting the dominance of affective mechanisms. Affect and cognition do interplay in line with a congruency effect where the impact of positive affect on attitudes towards the ad is mediated by positive cognitions. The models differ when they are performed based on data from studies using either real or fictitious stimuli. Depending on the type of stimuli, slight changes occur that can be explained by the lack or existence of prior brand experience. Overall, the integration of affect and cognitions into one model provides a better explanation than the previous solely cognitive or solely affective models.

Keywords

Humor Advertising Meta-analysis Structural equation modeling 

References

  1. Andrade, E. B. (2005). Behavioral consequences of affect: combining evaluative and regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beard, F. K. (2005). One hundred years of humor in American advertising. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, B. J., & Schram, C. M. (1994). Examining explanatory models through research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 357–381). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, S. P., Homer, P. M., & Inmann, J. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of relationships between ad-evoked feelings and advertising responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (2007). The influence of humor strength and humor-message relatedness on ad memorability. Journal of Advertising, 36, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. 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, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Bayens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: a review of 25 years of research on human affective conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 853–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dröge, C. (1989). Shaping the route to attitude change: central versus peripheral processing through comparative versus noncomparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, R. B. (1988). Production and creativity in advertising. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  16. Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelb, B. D., & Pickett, C. M. (1983). Attitude-toward-the-ad: links to humor and to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 12, 34–42.Google Scholar
  19. 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: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  20. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising. A comprehensive analysis. Armonk: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  23. Hampes, W. P. (2005). Correlations between humor styles and loneliness. Psychological Reports, 96, 747–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Homer, P. M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior - cognitive loop. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lapierre, L. M., & Hackett, R. D. (2007). Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour: a test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGuire, W. J. (1978). An information processing model of advertising effectiveness. In H. L. Davis & A. J. Silk (Eds.), Behavioral and management science in marketing (pp. 156–180). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, J. E., Duncan, C. P., & Frontczak, N. T. (1985). The distraction hypothesis and radio advertising. Journal of Marketing, 49, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Stratham, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shadish, W. R. (1996). Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: a primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psychological Methods, 1, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strick, M., van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Humor in advertisements enhances product liking by mere association. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 15, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads. Does audience involvement matter? Journal of Advertising, 35, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 Education & Psychology, 72, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European University ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations