Humor and Ad Liking: Evidence That Sensation Seeking Moderates the Effects of IncongruityResolution Humor

Graeme Galloway
La Trobe University, Bendigo

ABSTRACT
It is widely reported that humorous ads are better liked and therefore more effective than are non-humorous ones. This study examines whether the liking advantage associated with ads containing incongruity-resolution humor depends on sensation seeking. Higher sensation seekers are assumed to enjoy arousal induction because they are lower in base arousal level. From this it can be predicted that ads containing incongruity-resolution humor will not be liked better by such people than will equivalently arousing non-humorous ads. However, the higher base arousal assumed to characterize lower sensation seekers is claimed to be associated with a preference for reduction of induced arousal. Incongruity-resolution humor provides a mechanism for reduction of the arousal occasioned by the incongruity. As a result, it is expected that lower sensation seekers will like ads containing such humor more than non-humorous ads matched in arousal to the humorous ones. The results support those suggestions. The relevance of the findings for advertising is discussed, and requirements for further research are indicated. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(9): 779792 (September 2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20299 779

Humor is widely used in advertising (Elpers, Mukherje, & Hoyer, 2004). For instance, Kellaris and Cline (2007) point out that as much as 30% of the billions of dollars spent on advertising in national media each year is used for the placement of humorous ads. Humor is claimed to influence positively such things as: attention to, and comprehension of, ads (Norris & Colman, 1996; Weinberger et al., 1995); ad persuasiveness (Geuens & Pelsmacker, 2002; Unger, 1995); attitude toward the product advertised (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992); memory for ads (Berg & Lippman, 2001; Cline & Kellaris, 2007; Furnham, Gunter, & Walsh, 1998; Krishnan & Chakravarti, 2003; Perry et al., 1997); and ad liking (Cline & Kellaris, 1999; Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003; Eisend, 2008; Tomkovick, Yelkur, & Christians, 2001; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). However, the reasons for humors effects in advertising are not well comprehended (Kellaris & Cline, 2007). Enhanced understanding of this issue could facilitate the effective design and use of humorous ads. One theme that appears promising for further examination concerns whether individual difference variables moderate those effects. Moderation has already been productively investigated in regard to other determinants of consumer behavior. Potential moderators examined include: consumer desire for uniqueness/unique products (Lynn & Harris, 1997; Ruvio, 2008); sensation seeking/optimal stimulation level (DSilva & Palmgreen, 2007; Everett & Palmgreen, 1995; Fiore, Jin, & Kim, 2005; Leone & DArienzo, 2000; Lorch et al., 1994; Malhotra, 1984; Martin, Sherrard, & Wentzel, 2005); mood (Lee & Sternthal, 1999; Park, Lennon, & Stoel, 2005); need for cognition (Brennan & Bahn, 2006); attitude toward the product category (Arias-Bolzmann, Chakraborty, & Mowen, 2000); prior brand evaluation (Chattopadhyay & Basu, 1990); need to evaluate (Fennis & Bakker, 2001); extraversion/introversion (Chang, 2006a); affect intensity (Moore & Harris, 1996); and self-monitoring (DeBono, 2006). Some individual difference moderators of the effects of humor in advertising have also been identified. These include: need for humor (Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003; Cline & Kellaris, 2007; Kellaris & Cline, 2007); need for cognition (Geuens & Pelsmacker, 2002; Zhang, 1996a, 1996b); sex role (Conway & Dube, 2002); cultural background (Villegas & Shah, 2008); cultural orientation (Lee & Lim, 2008); sex of the consumer (Fugate, Gotlieb, & Bolton, 2000); and self-monitoring (Lammers, 1991). The present study investigates whether another individual difference variable, sensation seeking, moderates the effects of incongruity-resolution humor on ad liking. As indicated above, it is widely reported that humorous ads are better liked than are non-humorous ones. Such a connection is significant practically given that a commercials success can be influenced by how much it is liked (Holbrook & Batra, 1987; Smit, Van Meurs, & Neijens, 2006; Zhang, 1996a). Incongruity resolution is a structural feature of humor characterized by the introduction of an incongruity which can be completely resolved. In contrast, the other kind of structural feature of humor, nonsense, introduces an incongruity which is left unresolved, or only partially resolved, or new absurdities are created in attempts to resolve the incongruity (Ruch & Hehl, 1998; Speck, 1991). Humor characterized by incongruity resolution has been extensively used in advertising (Alden, Hoyer, & Lee, 1993; Alden, Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2000; Lee & Schumann, 2004; Spotts, Weinberger, & Parsons, 1997). Furthermore, Hehl and Ruch (1985) indicate that only one humor content dimension, sexual content, underlies humor appreciationthe other dimensions being the structural
780 GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

features incongruity and incongruity resolution. Given this, increased understanding of the basis for the effects of incongruity-resolution humor has broad relevance to advertising. There are several reasons to suspect that sensation seeking might affect whether ads containing incongruity-resolution humor are better liked than are non-humorous ads. Specifically, arousal theories of humor propose that the arousal brought about by humor is an important determinant of its appreciation. Arousal can be defined in physiological terms as energization, activation, inner tension, or alertness, or in psychological terms as wakefulness or action preparationsee Shapiro, MacInnis, and Park (2002). According to one arousal theory of humor (Berlyne 1969, 1971, as cited in Wyer & Collins, 1992), the relationship between the arousal occasioned by humor and enjoyment of the humor can be described in terms of an inverted U function. Higher sensation seekers are supposed to be characterized by lower base arousal. Arousal induction brought about by the incongruity component of humor should therefore raise their arousal to a more optimal level. An enjoyable level of arousal should also be occasioned for such people by arousing non-humorous ads. It can be suggested, then, that ads containing incongruity-resolution humor, and equivalently arousing non-humorous ads, will be liked equally well by higher sensation seekers. On the other hand, lower sensation seekers are assumed to be higher in base arousal. For them, increases in arousal are likely to be experienced as unpleasant (on these points, see Arnett, 1994; Leone & DArienzo, 2000; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992). Incongruity-resolution humor enables arousal associated with the incongruity to be reduced. Ads containing such humor should thus be better liked by lower sensation seekers than are non-humorous ads matched in arousal to the humorous ones. In what follows, these contentions are examined empirically and the implications for advertising of the results observed are considered.

METHOD Participants, Procedure, and Materials

The materials used to test the above-mentioned predictions were chosen from the 54 taped television advertisements comprising the UK entries in the London International Advertising Awards 1999. That source was used in an attempt to reduce the likelihood that the ads were familiar to the people tested. Post-study debriefing of the participants indicated that they had not seen the ads before. Initially, each of the 54 ads was rated for funniness, arousal, and liking by a convenience sample of 42 undergraduates (9 males and 33 females, mean age 23.5, SD 8.2, range 1849), using a 5-point scale (1 very low, 5 very high); see Gardner et al. (1998) and Patrician (2004) for arguments in support of the use of single-item measures of constructs. Those participants were tested in two groups comprising approximately equal numbers. The ads were shown in two blocks of 27, a 10-minute rest break separating the sessions. Approximately 50 minutes was required to complete each block. At the end of block 2, participants completed the Arnett (1994) Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS), which took about 10 minutes. The AISS comprises 20 items that provide a total score, as well as scores on two sub-scalesNovelty seeking and Intensity seeking
HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar 781

Table 1. Brief Description of Exemplars of Each Ad Category. Humorous 1. Baby food: A baby is shown apparently miming a song. 2. Cigar ad: A golfer tees off, but the ball lands on a bus and, through a very circuitous route, ends up going in the hole. The golfer appears relaxed, and smokes a cigar throughout all of the events. 3. Poppadums: An Indian Elvis impersonator is singing about the product to the tune of an Elvis song. 4. Bread: A voiceover describes the quality of the bread; a child is shown who is reluctant to throw the bread to ducks in a pond, preferring to eat it himself.* Non-Humorous 1. Car tire: A series of bizarre images is presented with a rock song as background music. 2. Vodka: Features a colorful shipboard scene, with people drinking the beverage. 3. Sports shoe: Rock music playing; images of soccer action and spectators shouting. 4. Petrol company: Ominous music playing; a runway de-icer is featured; a duck is shown crash landing on icy ground and skidding into a pond.*
* The item was excluded from the data set on the basis of the results of the principal components analysis.

(each comprising 10 items). Total scale scores were used in all of the analyses reported in this paper. Responses were provided anonymously. A reduced set of 25 of the above-mentioned 54 ads was compiled by the experimenter by reference to the above-mentioned ratings. That set comprised ads which, on the basis of the ratings and the experimenters judgement, clearly belonged to one of the categories required (humorous ads using incongruityresolution structure, and non-humorous ads). The above-mentioned finding reported by Hehl and Ruch (1985) that sexual humor appears to be the only type of humor content that influences humor appreciation was also taken into account in the choice of the humorous ads. As humor structure, and not humor content, is the aspect of humor of interest in this study, the humorous ads chosen did not include any items judged by the experimenter as containing sexual content. A further 70 participants (25 males, 45 females, mean age 31.8, SD 14.3, range 1870) rated the reduced set of ads for arousal, funniness, and liking. Participants also completed the AISS during a break in ad viewing, which occurred mid-way through the presentation. The whole procedure took around 40 minutes, participants being tested in small groups of up to five. Ratings for the 25 ads from all participants were combined, which resulted in a data set comprising responses from 112 participants (34 males, 78 females). Four humorous and four non-humorous ads that received similar arousal ratings were identified for further analysis. The humorous ads were judged by the experimenter as being characterized by incongruity-resolution humor. Those items are briefly described in Table 1.

RESULTS
Analysis was undertaken using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows. In order to investigate the construct validity of the items of interest (the four humorous

782

GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

and four non-humorous ads), a principal components analysis of the liking ratings for each of them was undertaken. Examination of the correlation matrix indicated numerous correlations in excess of 0.30, and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy exceeded the suggested criterion of 0.6 with an actual value of 0.759. In addition, Bartletts test is significant. These values indicate that the data satisfy the requirements for performing a good factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Examination of the scree plot revealed that a two-factor solution was most appropriate (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, pp. 620621), which accounted for a total of 50.5% of the variance. As the correlation between the components is low (0.249), a varimax rotation was used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 622). However, two of the items loaded above 0.4 on both components. Those items were excluded from the data set, and another principal components analysis was run. The items excluded are indicated in Table 1. The KMO for the second analysis is 0.664, and Bartletts test is significant. The scree plot again indicated a two-component solution is most suitable, which accounted for 55.55% of the variance. The correlation between the components is 0.201, so once again a varimax rotation was used. The results of the second principal components analysis are reported in Table 2. Each of the items identified with a given component loaded above 0.4 on it, loadings ranging from fair to excellent as indexes of the component (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 625). All of the non-humorous items loaded on Component 1, and each of the humorous ones loaded on Component 2. Repeated measures t-tests indicated that, as required, there is no difference in mean arousal for the humorous ads (mean 2.87, SD 0.80) and the non-humorous ones (mean 2.90, SD 1.0; t(110) 0.292, p 0.771, Cohens d measure of effect size 0.03). As also required, the mean funniness rating for the humorous ads (mean 2.92, SD 0.70) is higher than the mean funniness rating for the non-humorous ads (mean 1.67, SD 0.52, t(110) 16.4, p 0.000, d 1.56). The former effect size is negligible, and the latter is very large (Aron & Aron, 2003, p. 323). Additionally, evidence that the items which loaded on Component 2 are exemplars of incongruity-resolution humor is provided by examination of the correlation between mean funniness ratings of those items and sensation seeking scores. The correlations reported in this paper used Spearman rho (r) because the sensation seeking scores and the mean funniness ratings were not
Table 2. Varimax Rotated Component Matrix. Ads 1. Tyres 2. Vodka 3. Sports shoe 4. Baby food 5. Cigars 6. Poppadums Cronbachs alpha Eigenvalues % of variance Total variance explained Component 1 Non-Humorous Ads 0.796 0.761 0.732 0.028 0.177 0.177 0.70 1.79 29.80% 55.55% Component 2 Humorous Ads 0.150 0.182 0.312 0.764 0.762 0.476 0.50 1.55 25.75% Communalities 0.657 0.612 0.634 0.585 0.587 0.258

HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

783

normally distributed. Hehl and Ruch (1985) observed that total scores on the SSS-1V measure of sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979) were not significantly correlated with rated funniness of their incongruity-resolution humor items. Similarly, the total scale scores on the AISS used in this study were not significantly related to the rated funniness of the ads characterized here as containing incongruity-resolution humor [r (110) 0.020, p 0.832; effect size 0.04%]. There is also evidence that the single-item measure of arousal used here did provide a valid index of that construct. Specifically, it enabled identification of an expected positive relationship between the AISS total scale score and mean liking of the non-humorous ads [r(110) 0.251, p 0.008; effect size 6.3%]. Such a relationship is expected, given that the non-humorous ads were matched in rated arousal to the humorous ones, and so should be exemplars of more arousing stimuli of the sort preferred by higher sensation seekers. Effect sizes for the correlations were calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient (see Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998, p. 122). The effect size for the significant correlation can be characterized as medium (Aron & Aron, 2003, p. 111). As indicated in Table 2, the Cronbach alpha measure of the reliability of items comprising the humorous ads is 0.50, and it is 0.70 for the non-humorous ads. It is generally suggested that alpha values of 0.70 or more are acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). However, others (for instance, Aron & Aron, 2003, p. 607) claim that alphas of 0.60 or greater are satisfactory. In fact, Schmitt (1996) suggests that even a scale with an alpha as low as around 0.5 may be useful if it has other desirable properties. These include meaningful content with respect to the domain covered and reasonable unidimensionality. The funniness ratings for the ad stimuli support the former requirement. The principal components analysis indicates that unidimensionality is the case for the items examined in the present study. In addition, Lienert and Raatz (1994) indicate that alpha values of 0.50 or greater are sufficient for research involving comparison of groups, as was undertaken in the present investigation. Additionally, as described below, the predicted relationships between sensation seeking and the relative liking of humorous compared to non-humorous ads were obtained. Furthermore, Cortina (1993) indicates that coefficient alpha is restricted in its ability to establish scale unidimensionality. Clark and Watson (1995) suggest that the average inter-item correlation is better than coefficient alpha as an indicator of a scales internal consistency, and recommend values in the range 0.150.50 (p. 316). The average inter-item correlation for liking ratings of the humorous ads in this study is 0.22, and for the non-humorous ones it is 0.40. Given those considerations, the fact that the members of one of the categories of interest are associated with an alpha value of 0.5 was not viewed as posing difficulties regarding their usefulness. The Cronbach alpha observed in this study for the total scale of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking is 0.70. A 2 2 mixed factorial design was used to test the abovementioned predictions. The within-subjects factor is ad type (humorous vs. non-humorous), and the between-subjects factor is sensation seeking (higher vs. lower). Participants who scored in approximately the top or the bottom 25% of AISS total scale scores were classified as higher or lower sensation seekers, respectively. The latter group comprised 31 participants (23 females, 8 males, mean age 35.0 years, SD 16.2, range 1869), and the higher sensation seeker category contained 32 participants (20 females, 12 males, mean age 24.3 years, SD 9.5,
784 GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Liking of Humorous and Nonhumorous Ads by Level of Sensation Seeking

3.20 Higher Sensation Seekers

Ad Liking Ratings

3.00

2.80

2.60

Lower Sensation Seekers

Nonhumorous ads Humor Type

Humorous ads

Figure 1. Liking of humorous and non-humorous ads by level of sensation seeking.

range 1858). Results were analysed using two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The above-mentioned predictions concern the interaction with respect to ad liking between sensation seeking and humor type. A significant interaction was observed [F (1,61) 10.64, p 0.002, effect size 14.9%, as indicated by partial eta-square). This effect size can be characterized as large (Aron & Aron, 2003, p. 435). Post hoc repeated measures t-tests indicated that, for the higher sensation seekers, the difference in liking ratings between the humorous ads (mean 3.04, SD 0.68) and the non-humorous ads (mean 3.08, SD 0.85) was not significant [t(31) 0.291, p 0.773, d 0.04, which is a negligible effect size]. For the lower sensation seekers, the difference in liking ratings for the humorous ads (mean 3.26, SD 0.69) compared to the non-humorous ones (mean 2.52, SD 1.04) was significant [t(30) 3.82, p 0.001, d 0.71, which is a large effect size]; see Aron & Aron, 2003). A graphical representation of the interaction is presented in Figure 1.

DISCUSSION
In this study, a liking advantage for lower but not for higher sensation seekers was observed for humorous ads characterized by incongruity-resolution structure

HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

785

compared to equivalently arousing non-humorous ads. This result is consistent with the above-mentioned theory-based suggestions that such humors effects on ad liking for lower sensation seekers stem from reduction of induced arousal, and arousal induction for higher sensation seekers. These results have potential implications for the effective design and use of humor in advertising that should be investigated in further research on this topic. For instance, it can be suggested that ads characterized by incongruityresolution humor will be better liked by lower sensation seekers than will those containing nonsense humor (which introduces an incongruity that is not resolved or that is only partially resolved). Consistent with this suggestion, Galloway and Chirico (2008) have demonstrated that higher neuroticism scorers (who, as is also the case for lower sensation seekers, can be characterized as having higher base levels of arousal) prefer incongruity-resolution humor to nonsense humor. On the other hand, higher sensation seekers should show similar enjoyment of equivalently arousing nonsense humor and incongruity-resolution humor. In addition, for lower sensation seekers, the liking of ads characterized by incongruity-resolution humor should increase as the ease with which the incongruity can be resolved increases. The influence of sensation seeking on ad liking is also relevant to the question of how humor might affect liking of the brand advertised. Specifically, the latter is influenced by attitudes to the ad (Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003). Accordingly, incongruity-resolution humor structure can be expected to be most effective for enhancing brand liking for lower sensation seekers. However, for higher sensation seekers, equivalently arousing ads, whether they contain nonsense humor, incongruity-resolution humor, or are non-humorous, should have similar effects on brand liking (see Galloway & Cropley, 1999, for a discussion of possible mechanisms for such effects). The greater preference of lower compared to higher sensation seekers for resolving incongruity should also make it more likely that the former will devote more attention to ads containing incongruity-resolution humor compared to ones using nonsense humor or to arousing non-humorous ads. This in turn should result in lower sensation seekers showing better comprehension and memory for ads characterized by incongruity-resolution humor. However, higher sensation seekers prefer higher sensation value messages (Everett & Palmgreen, 1995; Lorch et al., 1994; Palmgreen et al., 2001; Stephenson et al., 1999). Such people should be more likely to attend to and therefore to show better comprehension and memory of higher compared to lower arousal ads, irrespective of whether they are non-humorous or use incongruity-resolution humor or nonsense humor. Higher sensation value advertising messages are also known to be more persuasive for higher compared to lower sensation seekers, whereas the latter are more persuaded by less arousing messages (Everett & Palmgreen, 1995). Ads associated with incongruity-resolution humor should therefore be more persuasive than ads characterized by nonsense humor for lower sensation seekers, whereas both kinds of humor structure should, if highly arousing, be persuasive for higher sensation seekers. The present results also have implications regarding how to maximize the effectiveness of ads for which the use of humor is inappropriate (see Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). In such cases, more or less arousing non-humorous ads should optimize the above-mentioned reactions to them for higher and for lower sensation seekers, respectively. Additionally, means should be provided in more
786 GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

highly arousing ads to reduce the arousal induced in an attempt to increase their appeal to lower sensation seekers. Although the ads examined in this study were rated in a different context from that in which ads are normally viewed, the results obtained were as predicted. Nevertheless, several variables associated with the broader program context in which ads are normally embedded have been found to affect reactions to the ads. These should be taken into account in any comprehensive examination of the effects of humor in advertising. Such variables include involvement with the program, program content and valence, and effects of other ads (Andrews, Durvasula, & Akhter, 1990; Aylesworth & MacKenzie, 1998; Bushman, 1998; Chang, 2006b; Furnham, Gunter, & Walsh, 1998; Gunter, Furnham, & Pappa, 2005; Mattenklott, 1998; Moorman, Neijens, & Smit, 2005; Norris & Colman, 1996; Singh & Hitchon, 1989; Tavassoli, Shultz, & Fitzsimons, 1995). Another issue related to the context in which the ads were rated in this study concerns the fact that participants were required to process the humor content of the ads presented. However, there are grounds to suggest that the processing of such content under different circumstances might depend on the moderating influence of the variables need for humor (NFH), and need for cognition (NFC). NFH refers to a persons motivation to attend to and process humorous stimuli. Higher, but not lower, scorers on that variable respond more positively to humorous ads compared to non-humorous ones (Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003). NFC concerns the motivation of individuals to engage in effortful cognitive processing of information presented to them. People who score lower on that variable are more likely to process and be influenced by peripheral cues such as humor in ads. In contrast, higher NFC scorers are more likely to be persuaded by argument strength and not humor (Zhang, 1996a, p. 16). Not surprisingly, NFH and NFC interact as determinants of the influence of humor on responses to ads (Cline, Altsech, & Kellaris, 2003). Accordingly, those variables might be useful for identifying individuals who will be influenced by the use of humor in real-life advertising. The present results suggest which kinds of humor structure are likely to appeal to higher and to lower sensation seeker members of that cohort. Given the findings of the present study, it can be suggested that existing attempts to model the determinants of peoples reactions to humorous as well as non-humorous incongruity in advertising (see, for instance, Alden, Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2000; Arthur & Quester, 2004; Lang et al., 2003; LaTour & Rotfield, 1997; Lee & Mason, 1999; Saad & Gill, 2000) can productively be extended by incorporating reference to the effects of sensation seeking. Such analysis can also inform the development of a comprehensive model of the determinants of peoples reactions to ads in general (Alden & Hoyer, 1993; Alden, Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2000; Andrews, Durvasula, & Akhter, 1990; Arthur & Quester, 2004; Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; DSilva & Palmgreen, 2007; Duncan, 1979; Harrington et al., 2006; Havlena, Holbrook, & Lehmann, 1989; Henthorne, LaTour, & Nataraajan, 1993; Lang et al., 2003; LaTour & Rotfield, 1997; LaTour & Zahra, 1988; Mowen & Voss, 2008; Saad & Gill, 2000; Schmidt, 1994; Singh & Hitchon, 1989; Unger, 1995). In short, the effects observed in this study for higher and for lower sensation seekers of incongruity-resolution humor structure on ad liking have potentially broad implications for the use of humor in advertising. However, those results, and the additional effects predicted from them, should be replicated in real-life
787

HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

ad viewing situations examined with respect to the above-mentioned situational and individual difference variables.

REFERENCES
Alden, D., & Hoyer, W. (1993). An examination of cognitive factors related to humorousness in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22, 2937. Alden, D., Hoyer, W., & Lee, C. (1993). Identifying global and culture-specific dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 6475. Alden, D., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. (2000). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators of perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29, 115. Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of Advertisng, 19, 2740. Arias-Bolzmann, L., Chakraborty, G., & Mowen, J. (2000). Effects of absurdity in advertising: The moderating role of product category attitude and the mediating role of cognitive responses. Journal of Advertising, 29, 3549. Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289296. Aron, A., & Aron, E. (2003). Statistics for psychology, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Whos afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation model. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 671696. Aylesworth, A., & MacKenzie, S. (1998). Context is key: The effect of program-induced mood on thoughts about the ad. Journal of Advertising, 27, 1731. Bagozzi, R., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184-206. Berg, E., & Lippman, L. (2001). Does humor in radio advertising affect recognition of novel product brand names? Journal of General Psychology, 128, 194205. Brennan, I., & Bahn, K. (2006). Literal versus extended symbolic messages and advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognition. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 273295. Bushman, B. (1998). Effects of television violence on memory for commercial messages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 291307. Chang, C. (2006a). Context-induced and ad-induced affect: Individual differences as moderators. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 757782. Chang, C. (2006b). Beating the news blues: Mood repair through exposure to advertising. Journal of Communication, 56, 198217. Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 466476. Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309319. Cline, T., Altsech, M., & Kellaris, J. (2003). When does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? The moderating role of the need for humor. Journal of Advertising, 32, 3145. Cline, T., & Kellaris, J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 6986. Cline, T., & Kellaris, J. (2007). The influence of humor strength and humor-message relatedness on ad memorability. Journal of Advertising, 36, 5567. Conway, M., & Dube, L. (2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening topics: Effectiveness is a function of audience sex role orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 863873.
788 GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98104. Crowley, A., & Hoyer, W. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561574. DeBono, K. (2006). Self-monitoring and consumer psychology. Journal of Personality, 74, 715738. DSilva, M., & Palmgreen, P. (2007). Individual differences and context: Factors mediating recall of anti-drug public service announcements. Health Communication, 21, 6571. Duncan, C. (1979). Humor in advertising: A behavioral perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 7, 285306. Elpers, J., Mukherje, A., & Hoyer, W. (2004). Humor in television advertising: A momentto-moment analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 592-598. Eisend, M. (2008). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. http://www.springerlink.com/content/78388v3h124645l1/ Everett, M., & Palmgreen, P. (1995). Influences of sensation seeking, message sensation value, and program context on effectiveness of anticocaine public service announcements. Health Communication, 7, 225248. Fennis, B., & Bakker, A. (2001). Stay tunedwe will be back right after these messages: Need to evaluate moderates the transfer of irritation in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1525. Fiore, A., Jin, H., & Kim, J. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 669694. Fugate, D., Gotlieb, J., & Bolton, D. (2000). Humorous services advertising: What are the roles of sex, appreciation of humor, and appropriateness of humor? Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21, 922. Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Walsh, D. (1998). Effects of programme context on memory of humorous television commercials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 555567. Galloway, G., & Chirico, D. (2008). Personality and humor appreciation: Evidence of an association between trait neuroticism and preferences for structural features of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21, 129142. Galloway, G., & Cropley, A. (1999). Benefits of humor for mental health: Empirical findings and directions for further research. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12, 301314. Gardner, D., Cummings, L., Dunham, R., & Pierce, J. (1998). Single-item versus multipleitem measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 898915. Geuens, M., & Pelsmacker, P. ( 2002). The role of humor in the persuasion of individuals varying in need for cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 5056. Gunter, B., Furnham, A., & Pappa, E. (2005). Effects of television violence on memory for violent and nonviolent advertising. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 16801697. Harrington, N., Lane, D., Donohew, L., & Zimmerman, R. (2006). An extension of the activation model of information exposure: The addition of a cognitive variable to a model of attention. Media Psychology, 8, 139164. Havlena , W., Holbrook, M., & Lehmann, D. (1989). Assessing the validity of emotional typologies. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 97112. Hehl, F., & Ruch, W. (1985). The location of sense of humor within comprehensive personality spaces: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 703715. Henthorne, T., LaTour, M., & Nataraajan, R. (1993). Fear appeals in print advertising: An analysis of arousal and ad response. Journal of Advertising, 22, 5969. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences, 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Holbrook, M., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 404420.
HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar 789

Kellaris, J., & Cline, T. (2007). Humor and ad memorability: On the contributions of humor expectancy, relevancy, and need for humor. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 497509. 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, 230245. Lammers, H. B. (1991). Moderating influence of self-monitoring and gender on responses to humorous advertising. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 5769. Lang, A., Wise, K., Lee, S., & Cai, X. (2003). The effects of sexual appeals on physiological, cognitive, emotional, and attitudinal responses for product and alcohol billboard advertising. In T. Reichert & J. Lambiase (Eds.), Sex in advertising: Perspectives on the erotic appeal (pp. 107132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. LaTour, M., & Rotfield, H. (1997). There are threats and (maybe) fear-caused arousal: Theory and confusions of appeals to fear and fear arousal itself. Journal of Advertising, 26, 4559. LaTour, M., & Zahra, S. (1988). Fear appeals as advertising strategy: Should they be used? Journal of Services Marketing, 2, 514. Lee, A., & Sternthal, B. (1999). The effects of positive mood on memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 115127. Lee, E., & Schumann, D. (2004). Explaining the special case of incongruity in advertising: Combining classic theoretical approaches. Marketing Theory, 4, 5990. Lee, Y., & Lim, E. (2008). Whats funny and whats not. Journal of Advertising, 37, 7184. Lee, Y., & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 156169. Leone, C., & DArienzo, J. (2000). Sensation seeking and differentially arousing television commercials. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 710720. Lienert, G., & Raatz, U. (1994). Test construction and test analysis, 5th ed. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Lorch, E., Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Helm, D., Baer, S., & DSilva, M. (1994). Program context, sensation seeking, and attention to televised anti-drug public service announcements. Human Communication Research, 20, 390412. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 601616. Malhotra, N. (1984). Information and sensory overload. Psychology & Marketing, 1, 921. Martin, B., Sherrard, M., & Wentzel, D. (2005). The role of sensation seeking and need for cognition on Web-site evaluations: A resource marching perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 109126. Mattenklott, A. (1998). Commercial effectiveness in the context of TV programs: Program induced activation and mood. Zeitschrift fur Socialpsychologie, 29, 175193. Moore, D., & Harris, W. (1996). Affect intensity and the consumers attitude toward high impact emotional advertising appeals. Journal of Advertising, 25, 3750. Moorman, M., Neijens, P., & Smit, E. (2005). The effects of program responses on the processing of commercials placed at various positions in the program and the block. Journal of Advertising Research, 45, 4959. Mowen, J., & Voss, K. (2008). On building better construct measures: Implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 485505. Norris, C., & Colman, A. (1996). Context effects of radio programming on cognitive processing of embedded advertisements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 473486. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E., Hoyle, R., & Stephenson, M. (2001). Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 292296. Park, J., Lennon, S., & Stoel, L. (2005). On-line product presentation: Effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 695719.

790

GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Patrician, P. (2004). Single-item graphic representational scales. Nursing Research, 53, 347352. Perry, S., Jenzowsky, S., King, C., Yi, H., Hester, J., & Gartenschlaeger, J. (1997). Using humorous programs as a vehicle for humorous commercials. Journal of Communication, 47, 2039. Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its relation to aesthetic appreciation and simplicity-complexity of personality. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 109142). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers need for uniqueness. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 444464. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2000). Applications of evolutionary psychology in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 10051034. Schmidt, S. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 953967. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350353. Shapiro, S., MacInnis, D., & Park, C. (2002). Understanding program-induced mood effects: Decoupling arousal from valence. Journal of Advertising, 31, 1526. Singh, S., & Hitchon, J. (1989). The intensity effects of exciting television programs on the reception of subsequent commercials. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 131. Smit, E., Van Meurs, L., & Neijens, P. (2006). Effects of advertising likeability: A 10-year perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 7383. Speck, P. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. In J. Leigh & C. Martin (Eds.), Current issues and research in advertising, 13, 144. Spotts, H., Weinberger, M., & Parsons, A. (1997). Assessing the use and impact of humor on advertising effectiveness: A contingency approach. Journal of Advertising, 26, 1732. Steenkamp, J. B., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 434448. Stephenson, M., Palmgreen, P., Hoyle, R., & Donohew, L. (1999). Short-term effects of an anti-marijuana campaign targeting high sensation seeking adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 175195. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, 4th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon. Tavassoli, N., Shultz, C., & Fitzsimons, G. (1995). Program involvement: Are moderate levels best for ad memory and attitude toward the ad? Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 6172. Tomkovick, C., Yelkur, R., & Christians, L. (2001). The USAs biggest marketing event keeps getting bigger: An in-depth look at Super Bowl advertising in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Communications, 7, 89108. Unger, L. (1995). ObservationsA cross-cultural study on the affect-based model of humor in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 6671. Villegas, J., & Shah, A. (2008). The price of laughter: Differences between Hispanic groups responses to the use of humor in financial services advertising. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37, 3951. Weinberger, M., & Gulas, C. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21, 3559. Weinberger, M., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., & Parsons, A. (1995). The use of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 4456. Wyer, R., & Collins, J. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663688. Zhang, Y. (1996a). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1532.

HUMOR AND AD LIKING Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

791

Zhang, Y. (1996b). The effect of humor in advertising: An individual-difference perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 531545. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. New York: Wiley. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Dr. Graeme Galloway, School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bendigo Campus, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, 3552, Victoria, Australia (g.galloway@latrobe.edu.au).

792

GALLOWAY Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar