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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Andrade, E. B. (2005). Behavioral consequences of affect: combining evaluative and regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 355–362.
Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 203–214.
Beard, F. K. (2005). One hundred years of humor in American advertising. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 54–65.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic.
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.
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.
Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130–141.
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.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 191–203.
Evans, R. B. (1988). Production and creativity in advertising. London: Pitman.
Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 181–202.
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.
Gelb, B. D., & Pickett, C. M. (1983). Attitude-toward-the-ad: links to humor and to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 12, 34–42.
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.
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.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising. A comprehensive analysis. Armonk: Sharpe.
Hampes, W. P. (2005). Correlations between humor styles and loneliness. Psychological Reports, 96, 747–750.
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.
Homer, P. M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: some additional evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 78–86.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nelson, J. E., Duncan, C. P., & Frontczak, N. T. (1985). The distraction hypothesis and radio advertising. Journal of Marketing, 49, 60–71.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
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.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885.
Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads. Does audience involvement matter? Journal of Advertising, 35, 113–127.
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.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Eisend, M. How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models. Mark Lett 22, 115–132 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9116-z
- Structural equation modeling