The Impact of Perceived Humor, Product Type, and Humor

Style in Radio Advertising

Karen Flaherty, Marc G. Weinberger, and Charles S. Gulas

This study extends the existing humor research by exploring the connection between
perceived humorousness, humor style and product type on consumer perceptions of radio ads
and brands advertised. Radio ads were tested using either incongruity or incongruity-
resolution (humor type) with higher and lower risk products. The results show that
incongruity-resolution was seen as humorous by significantly more respondents than
incongruity. However, the perceived humorousness overwhelmed the type of humor tested and
product risk for important dependent measures. To gain a positive impact on attitude toward the
ad and brand; the ads must be perceived as humorous. Though this result seems obvious, there have
been few studies that have explicitly tested its importance. In fact, the results suggest that humor
findings previously attributed to product factors may be artifacts of perception of humor. Further
audience response analysis provides insight to the advertising dimensions associated with
perceived humor. The research reveals the risks associated with failed humor and the need to pretest
and monitor humor perceptions among varied key audiences.

Humor is a fundamental ingredient in social com-
munication that is featured in more than 24% of prime
time television and 35% of radio ads (Weinberger et
al. 1995). In addition, humorous ads are often favor-
ites among the judges of the International Advertis-
ing Film Festival at Cannes, and various other industry
competitions. For example, humor is used in 62% of
Clio Award winning radio ads (Murphy, Morrison
and Zahn 1993). The enjoyment of humorous ads is
evident among the general population as well. There
have been numerous network television specials cre-
ated specifically to feature humorous TV spots as en-
tertainment content in their own right.
An important aspect to the humor puzzle that re-
ceives less attention than expected is the varied ap-
preciation of humor among different audiences and
its effectiveness for particular products. Given that
advertising in print and broadcast is still largely a
Karen E. Flaherty (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst) is
Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business Admin-
istration at Oklahoma State University.
Marc G. Weinberger (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is Professor
of Marketing in the Isenberg School of Management at the Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Charles S. Gulas (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst) is
Associate Professor of Marketing in the Raj Soin College of Business
at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
mass medium, there will inevitably be audiences, per-
haps important for the product, who will not perceive
the intended humor. Alden and Hoyer (1993) specifi-
cally call for the testing of perceived humor in a vari-
ety of media and product contexts. To fill this gap, the
current study considers the implications of whether
or not humor is perceived in radio advertising. To
fully understand the role of perceived humor, we
jointly consider humor perceptions along with hu-
mor style and product type.
Earlier humor research examining product type
employed syndicated data and operationalized hu-
mor by estimating whether the advertisers intended
the ads to be humorous. The first goal of this study is
to learn whether this product effect holds up in the
context of whether the humor is perceived rather than
just intended. In doing so, this study will shed light
on the appropriateness of humor for higher or lower
risk products as well as the importance of humor per-
ception. A second goal of the study is to understand
the subtle differences within incongruity humor, the
most commonly used type of humor employed in
advertising. Specifically, the effect of incongruity ver-
sus incongruity-resolution humor is tested.
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
Volume 26, Number 1 (Spring 2004).
26
Humor in Advertising
While the use of humor in advertising is high, its
efficacy as a communication device has remained un-
certain. It is clear that this uncertainty results from the
complex nature of humor itself. Whether through a
cognitive affect transfer mechanism or through oper-
ant conditioning, the outcome of amusement gener-
ated by humor is believed to be a positive affect that
may benefit the communicator, the message or asso-
ciated objects. It is generally understood that a num-
ber of situational factors may play a role in determining
the effectiveness of humor (see Weinberger and Gulas
1992 for complete review), and a number of these
factors are investigated here: product type (high v.
low risk), humor type (incongruity v. incongruity-
resolution), and perceived humor.
Product type has been examined in several humor
studies over the past 20 years, and there is evidence
that humor is used more and works best in lower risk
(involvement) products. Unfortunately, none of the
humor studies that focused on product type exam-
ined or measured perceived humor. As a result our
knowledge about a product effect is limited to studies
that only assumed that the humor was perceived as
intended by the advertisers. To help fill this void the
connection between perception and product type is
directly tested in this investigation
An incongruity (I) v. incongruity-resolution (IR)
humor manipulation is utilized because it provides
an opportunity to test an unresolved aspect of the
incongruity literature in advertising; is IR perceived as
more humorous than I, and is it more effective? Because
incongruity is by far the most prevalent form of humor
used in advertising, the issue has significant practical
application. The use of two related humor types (I v. IR)
also allowed for maximum control over message varia-
tion because only the slightest changes are needed to
distinguish the humor between the humor styles.
Humor Style
The general mechanisms thought to generate hu-
mor are incongruity, arousal-safety and disparage-
ment, with incongruity being the most heavily used
form (Speck 1987, 1991; Spotts, Weinberger and Par-
sons 1997). There are two schools of thought about
incongruity that differ regarding the conditions
needed for humor. One view is that just the incongru-
ity of the objects can create humor. The second view
(Suls 1977) goes further and specifies a particular type
of incongruity known as incongruity-resolution. This
IR view formulates a two-stage process in which an
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
incongruity (deviation from expectation) is followed
by a resolution in which the incongruity is under-
stood. The resolution results in amusement. Both ap-
proaches are commonly used in advertising. Jokes are
often conceived as having both an incongruity and
resolution component. “An incongruity is the simul-
taneous presence of two or more habitually incom-
patible elements…” (Shultz 1972, p. 457). In fact,
according to one school of thought, incongruity alone
may be a necessary and sufficient condition for pro-
ducing humor and does not necessarily need an ex-
plicit resolution (Koestler 1964). However, the more
unexpected the incongruity, the greater the humor
response. In line with this thinking is the group of
theorists who believe that incongruity combined with
resolution enhances the unexpected or incongruous
situation, creating a greater humorous impact (Jones
1970; Nerhardt 1976). Cho (1994) found that surprise at
the punch line or some part of the ad had the highest
positive loading on the cognitive humor mechanism
and that perceived humor is mainly determined by the
cognitive mechanism. Response to IR humor depends
on: 1) “rapid resolution of the incongruity; 2) a ‘playful’
context, i.e., with cues signifying that the information is
not to be taken seriously; and 3) an appropriate mood
for the listener “ (Alden and Hoyer 1993, p. 31). An
example of incongruity and incongruity-resolution is
illustrated in the cartoon below (see Figure 1). In the top
frame there is an incongruity, which may produce some
smiles and puzzlement, but in the lower frame illustrat-
ing incongruity-resolution there is playful closure tied
directly to the incongruity. Here the closure (at least
partial) results from the text, which is itself a play on
words. A broader smile is expected from this added
twist to the situation. Such is the expected difference
between the two types of humor. By its nature the reso-
lution should add to the perception of humor.
Though there are many ways to categorize humor,
incongruity seems to be a central ingredient. Recog-
nizing its importance, Alden, Mukherjee and Hoyer
(2000) and Alden, Hoyer and Lee (1993) explicitly
called for direct advertising tests of incongruity (I) v.
incongruity-resolution (IR), a feature which is incor-
porated here as contrasting humor treatments.
The literature suggests that while incongruity (I) alone
may be sufficient to generate humor, incongruity-reso-
lution (IR) is a “stronger” humor type (Suls 1977). How-
ever, it is an open question whether resolution does
create a stronger humor treatment in an advertising
context. Based on the limited prior research outside the
advertising area, it is expected that the IR combination
will present a more humorous situation than the same
incongruity with no humorous punch line.
Spring 2004
Figure 1
Thus, research hypothesis 1 is presented:
H1: An ad using incongruity-resolution (IR)
humor will be perceived as more humor-
ous than an ad employing just incongru-
ity (I) humor.
Differential Perception of Humor
Perception of an ad as humorous is another factor
that may have an important impact on the effective-
27
ness of humor in an ad. Past research provides em-
pirical evidence suggesting that appreciation of hu-
mor does differ. Gender and culture are two broad
factors that appear to influence audience apprecia-
tion for different types of humor (Madden and
Weinberger 1982; Weller, Amitsour and Pazzi 1976;
Shama and Coughlin 1979; Whipple and Courtney
1980, 1981). Cline, Machleit and Kellaris (1999) sug-
gest that there may be an individual trait they label
need for levity that may help explain reactions to hu-
28
mor. Further, situational factors such as repetition and
the object of the humor can influence whether a hu-
morous attempt is actually perceived by a particular
audience as humorous at a particular point in time
(Gallivan 1991; Gelb and Zinkhan 1986; Gruner 1991;
Weinberger and Gulas 1992; Zhang and Zinkhan 1991).
Rustogi, Hensel and Burgers (1996) again concluded
that though basic instincts and personal values between
cultures are the same, appreciation of humor varies.
Belch and Belch (1984) examined the effectiveness
of humor in advertising using manipulation checks to
examine whether humorous treatment ads were in
fact perceived as humorous by the respondents. Only
occasionally have researchers compared attempted
humor in ads perceived as humorous with attempted
humor in ads not perceived as humorous (for notable
exceptions see: Duncan, Nelson and Frontczak 1984;
Gelb and Pickett 1983; Zhang 1996). While these stud-
ies provide insight into the perception of humor, each
of them is limited by methodology. Duncan, Nelson
and Frontczak (1984) measured only recall, in a one-
product test (hair care product) with a subject pool of
male undergraduates. Zhang (1996) used a print ad
for a high-tech 35mm camera, while Gelb and Pickett
(1983) attempted to persuade using a direct mail cam-
paign for an anti-smoking program. Both of these rep-
resent areas somewhat atypical for humor in both
media and product. Therefore, the issue of the impor-
tance of perception of humor has not been compre-
hensively explored. Alden and Hoyer (1993) suggest
that perceived humor needs to be studied with a vari-
ety of media and products using a mix of dependent
measures. Because an ad intended to be humorous
may not always be perceived as funny or entertaining
by audiences, it is important to consider potential out-
comes of unsuccessful attempts at humor. For instance,
does failed humor harm ad and product perceptions?
Since humor is closely tied to how it is perceived by
different audiences and even the same individual at
different times, humor may therefore be an inher-
ently risky strategy. When asked in a survey about
the use of humor, ad executives saw humor as harder
to create, more risky, and more susceptible to wear
out than non-humor (Madden and Weinberger 1984).
From the advertiser’s perspective what happens when
a joke falls flat is of central importance. Does a mere
attempt at humor bring positive effects, or must the
humor be successful in order to benefit the adver-
tiser? This aspect of the research addresses Alden and
Hoyer’s (1993) call for a more comprehensive exami-
nation of the impact of perceived humor on outcome
measures. In the few studies that have been com-
pleted in this area, mixed findings have resulted. For
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
instance, Duncan Nelson and Frontczak (1984) found
a positive relationship between perceived humor and
recall (of a hair care product), and Zhang (1996) con-
cluded that perceived humor positively impacted at-
titudes toward the product (35 mm camera) and the
advertising. In contrast, Gelb and Pickett (1983) found
perceived humor had a negative impact on persua-
sion (to stop smoking). The unusual application of
humor to a serious social issue rather than a product
may make the result from this later study difficult to
apply to a traditional marketing context. This result
not withstanding, this leads to the second research
hypothesis:
H2: Ads perceived as humorous should out
perform ads not perceived as humorous
on attitude toward the ad and brand.
Product Type
Past research suggests that the success of humor in
advertising varies by product type (Weinberger,
Campbell and Brody 1994; Weinberger et al. 1995).
This is, of course, not unique to humor. Research ex-
amining the impact of executional advertising vari-
ables in television (Stewart and Furse 1986) and radio
(Sewal and Sarel 1986) has found that product type
plays a significant role in the impact of the advertis-
ing. Taking this into consideration, it was essential
that the present research look at the impact of humor
across a variety of products.
In the past, products have often been classified us-
ing a matrix approach, where they are categorized
based on two dimensions (Vaughn 1980, 1986; Rossiter,
Percy and Donovan 1991; Weinberger et al. 1995). In
these and other classifications, products are often di-
vided into either high/low involvement or risk. Lower
risk products involve purchase decisions that are rou-
tine and/or lower cost. Conversely, higher risk prod-
ucts are given more time and effort since these
products are typically higher in financial, functional
or psychological cost. An underlying view has been
that lower relevance (involvement, risk) decision-mak-
ing is related to greater importance of peripheral cues
such as music, humor, celebrities, color, etc. (Petty,
Cacioppo and Schumann 1983).
Prior humor researchers have learned that there is a
stated bias among advertisers to use humor with lower
risk products (Madden and Weinberger 1984). This
bias is manifest in magazine, television, and radio
advertising in which the use of humor in ads for lower
risk products is generally 2-3 times higher than for
higher risk products (Weinberger et al. 1995). Further,
magazine and radio research has demonstrated that
Spring 2004
with some lower risk products, humor appears to boost
ad recognition and recall scores. In general, Vaughn
(1980, 1986) established a strong argument that ad-
vertising strategy and elements should vary in their
usage and effectiveness depending upon the expected
processing of information for the product. For all these
reasons, product is considered as a potentially impor-
tant factor in this research and is central to the design
of the study.
The expectation is that ads perceived as humorous
should out perform ads not perceived as humorous,
but that this effect will be moderated by the product
type. The evidence based on the Elaboration Likeli-
hood Model is that a peripheral cue like humor should
have more impact on perceptions under conditions of
lower personal relevance or involvement (Petty,
Cacioppo and Schumann 1983). In part the expecta-
tion for a product effect derives from studies that
show much lower use of humor with higher risk prod-
ucts (Weinberger et al. 1995), and surveys of advertis-
ing executives that suggest humor is least compatible
with durable products in the higher risk categories
(Weinberger and Spotts 1989). In addition, in a cross
media study of humor, Weinberger et al. (1995) found
the most consistent positive effects of humor for low
risk products that are treats (snacks, candy, etc.).
Spotts, Weinberger and Parsons (1997) found further
that ads with humor and an image focus worked best
for these same products advertised in magazines.
There are several key limitations to this earlier re-
search. First and most important, each of these earlier
studies utilized syndicated advertising research data
that measured either recognition or recall, but not
attitudes toward the advertising or brand. Second,
the studies did not measure perceived humor. Rather,
they made the working assumption that an ad judged
as intending to be humorous would be perceived as
such. The issue explored here is whether the earlier
product findings persist when perceived humor is
actually measured rather than assumed. As antici-
pated in H2, it is expected that ads perceived as lower
in humor will perform worse than ads seen as humor-
ous. Furthermore, there should be a greater advan-
tage for ads seen as humorous when they are paired
with lower risk (involvement) products.
H3: Ads perceived as humorous will be more
effective when used with lower risk (in-
volvement) products.
Methodology
To examine the hypotheses, an experiment was con-
ducted with a 2 humor style(incongruity v. incongru-
29
ity-resolution) x 2 product type (high v. low risk) be-
tween groups design with subjects listening to radio
ads professionally produced and edited for the study.
Perceptions of humor were measured and included
as a covariate in order to provide an adequate test of
the effects of humor type, product type, and percep-
tions of humor on attitudes toward the ad and brand.
Care was taken to select products appropriate for the
respondents in the sample.
Respondents
The 338 respondents ranged in age from 22 years to
63 years with an average age of 31 years and the mode
at 35 years. Of respondents, the plurality reported
ages in the range of 22 to 29 (45%), followed by 30 to
49 (35%). Fewer reported falling between the ages of
40-49 (19%), and only 1% of respondents reported
being over 50. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents
were male. All were working adults in Professional
MBA programs taking a class at one of four univer-
sity sites in the Northeast or in the Midwest. Most of
the respondents were technical employees, mid-level
managers, and sales representatives. These individu-
als are members of middle-income, white-collar house-
holds highly sought by advertisers. The typical
respondent in the study works full time and com-
mutes to attend classes on a part time basis at night or
on weekends. All of the participants were given the
option not to be part of the study. However, in all
instances, the participants elected to be part of the
experiment.
The four products selected for this study were ap-
propriate for the adult subjects and also represent the
higher and lower risk categories identified in
Weinberger et al. (1995) and in Rossiter, Percy and
Donovan (1991). In the lower risk category is a choco-
late bar (low-risk expressive), and a light bulb (low-
risk functional), and in the higher risk category is
luggage (higher-risk expressive), and a dishwasher
(higher-risk functional). These products were chosen
to provide a full range of consumer products as de-
fined by the product classifications.
Procedure
A set of radio ads representing eight experimental
conditions were produced from scripts developed
around the humor from a Clio Award winning ad for
pork in which a husband and wife walk into a store
demanding to know where the pork is located. There
was an incongruity (I) and an incongruity-resolution
(IR) ad for each of the four products (two lower and
30
two higher risk) (see Appendix A for sample scripts).
The storyline of the ad lent itself well to adaptation to
the four products and to the use of incongruity and
incongruity-resolution. The incongruity in all the ads
is derived from the odd playful bantering between
the store manager and the adamant but confused hus-
band and wife. The voices of the husband and wife
are a bit bumbling and play off one another. By con-
trast, the store manager is the straight man. The com-
bination is not unlike the incongruity of a Burns and
Allen, Abbot and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. This
incongruity is similar to the first cartoon in Figure 1.
The comic resolution of the bantering occurs in the IR
ads in a punch-line which concludes the conversation
in which the store manager politely tells the couple
that they are in a bank and that the appropriate (hard-
ware, appliance, candy, luggage) store is next door.
The tone of the store manager’s response avoids a
disparaging tone. The resolution is quite playful. The
punch line acts like the words at the bottom of the
second cartoon in Figure 1. In the incongruity ad, the
conversation simply concludes in a very ordinary and
normal exchange in which the store manager points
out where in the store the couple can find what they
are looking. Like the cartoons, the only difference be-
tween the two versions of the radio ad is the conclud-
ing statement.
Two pretests were conducted to develop the ads.
First, a pretest was done before the original pork ad
was selected as the model ad. In that test, a group of
10 individuals listened to 10 ads from a Clio Award
winning set of ads. The pork ad was selected because
it was seen as humorous (mean score of 4.3 for female
respondents and 4.0 for male respondents on a 6 point
scale). Yet, it was not so humorous as to eliminate
variance in the data. In fact, none of pretest subjects
rated the ad a 6, but some did rate it just a 3, meaning
that they mildly disagreed that the ad was humorous.
This mix of perceptions helped assure that there would
be appropriate variance in the perception of the hu-
morousness in the main subject population.
The second pretest involved eliciting important
product attributes for each of the test products. While
dependable, quiet, cleaning ability and warranty were
most important for a dishwasher; four key attributes
for the other three products were also identified for
use in the ads. Because the original ad format and the
nature of the humorous situation was so flexible, the
only difference between the ads for the four products
was the four product attributes and the fact that the
couple was looking in the specific wrong type of store.
As noted earlier, all ads were professionally pro-
duced by a radio production house using the same
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
actors for each ad. Script length (30”) was kept consis-
tent for all ads. To eliminate the effects of prior brand
attitude, a fictional brand name, Pirmin, was devel-
oped, and after pre-testing to assure its neutrality and
plausibility with each product, this name was used
for all four of the products and ad executions.
In the main study, a between groups design was
employed with groups of 10-20. When possible, indi-
viduals were recruited from several classes and then
randomly assigned to the various treatment groups;
otherwise, whole groups were assigned randomly to
treatments. The data were collected at two university
locations in the Northeast and two in the Midwest.
Participants were asked to listen to a set of five radio
ads with one of the test ads embedded in the middle
of a set of four unrelated filler ads. Each ad treatment
was tested with 2 or 3 different groups of 10-20 indi-
viduals. At the conclusion of the tape, a questionnaire
was administered to measure perceived humor along
with attitude toward the ad (Aad) and attitude to-
ward the brand (Abr) and a variety of other diagnos-
tic measures. Total time including listening to the radio
ads and questionnaire completion was 15-20 minutes.
Measurement
There were two major measures of ad performance,
Attitude toward the ad (Aad) and Attitude toward
the brand (Abr). Aad (like/dislike, react favorably/
unfavorably, feel positive/negative, good/bad)
(Holbrook and Batra 1987) and Abr (like/dislike, re-
act favorably/unfavorably, feel positive/negative,
good/bad) (Holbrook and Batra 1987) were measured
with four items. Perceived humor was measured with
three items (very funny/not funny, very humorous/
not humorous, very amusing/not amusing) (Zhang
1996). All of the measures were on 7-point scales with
anchor points of +3 and -3 and a center point of zero.
Each of the three multi-item scales produced reliabil-
ity measures of .96 or higher, indicating strong con-
vergence. For certain steps of the analysis, the three
scales were combined and averaged based on re-
sponses to the Zhang (1996) scale, subjects were split
into two groups (Zhang score>0=perceived humor,
Zhang score<0=humor not perceived). Note that re-
spondents with a Zhang score of zero were dropped
from analysis. Specifically, thirteen respondents were
dropped, resulting in a total sample of 325. When
performing the mancova, perceived humor was retained
as a continuous variable and entered as a covariate.
Thus, for this analysis the total sample remains 338. In
addition, a battery of 17 diagnostic questions (see Table
4) similar to the VRP (Viewer Response Profile) used by
Spring 2004
Table 1
Number of Respondents Perceiving Humor by Humor Style
Humor Type
Incongruity-Resolution
Humor Perceived 76
(45.8%)
Humor Not Perceived 87
(54.2%)
Overall 163
Logistic Regression of Humor Style Effect Beta=1.74, Wald Statistic=43.52, DF=1, P<.000
Chi-Square=49.69, p<.001
some ad agencies and researchers (Schlinger 1979;
Leavitt 1970; Christ and Thorson 1992) were asked of
subjects to discern their perceptions of the target ads
(i.e., the ad insults my intelligence; the ad was playful; I
thought it was clever and quite entertaining).
Results
Logistic regression and Chi-square analysis were
conducted to test the impact of humor type on per-
ceptions of humor. ANCOVA and MANCOVA (analy-
sis and multiple analysis of variance) with follow-up
comparisons of means were also performed using the
following design: 2 (humor type) x 2 (product risk).
The humor style factor was divided into two catego-
ries: Incongruity (I) and Incongruity-Resolution (IR).
Product risk was divided into high and low risk with
two products in each grouping (high risk-dishwasher,
luggage, low risk-candy, light bulbs). Humor percep-
tions were measured and included as a covariate.
Research Hypotheses
H1: An ad using incongruity-resolution (IR)
humor will be perceived as more humor-
ous than an ad employing just incongru-
ity (I) humor.
Respondents exposed to the radio ads were asked to
evaluate their humorousness on the three-item Zhang
scale. Logistic regression and Chi-square analysis indi-
cate that respondents exposed to the IR treatment were
significantly more likely to perceive them as humorous
compared to incongruity (I) alone (Wald =43.52, df 1,
p<.001), thus supporting H1. In the pretest of the origi-
nal pork ad (incongruity-resolution), two-thirds of the
respondents perceived the ad as humorous. The results
from the main study in Table 1 show that 45.8% of
31
Incongruity
22
(14.6%)
140
(83.4%)
162
respondents hearing the IR ad perceived the humor
compared to just 14.6% of the respondents in the I treat-
ment. These results provide strong evidence for the ads
tested here, that IR is more likely to result in humor
being perceived as such than I alone. Because only
twenty-five of the 171 respondents exposed to the in-
congruity (I) treatment perceived it as humorous, fol-
low-up testing was limited somewhat.
H2: Ads perceived as humorous should out
perform ads not perceived as humorous
on attitude toward the ad and brand.
The results from H1 show a link between the hu-
mor style and the perception of humor. We now ad-
dress the issue of whether there is any impact of I v.
IR on Aad and Abr when controlling for perceptions
of humor. At the same time, we test whether, when
controlling for perceptions of humor, a humor style
and product effect exists. The results of the multivari-
ate and univariate analysis show strong main multi-
variate (F=174.82, p<.01) and univariate effects of the
perception of humor covariate on all the dependent
measures (see Table 2). Interestingly, when perceived
humor is controlled, humor type has no significant
effect on either Aad or Abr.
To further examine the nature of the perceived hu-
mor effect, a factor analysis was conducted on the 17
VRP questions followed by a discriminant analysis on
those subjects perceiving the ads as humorous or not
(refer to Tables 3 and 4, respectively). There was a five
factor solution which when subjected to discriminant
analysis resulted in a significant (p<.01) canonical cor-
relation of .634. The structure matrix that resulted
showed that those who perceived the ads as humor-
ous viewed them as Entertaining (.737-clever/enter-
taining, playful, easy to follow), Useful (.320-how I
felt, new idea, reminded how dissatisfied, realistic,
message important, useful, ad personal, fun), Not An-
32 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Table 2
Multivariate and Univariate F-Values for Ad Attitude, Brand Attitude

Source MANOVA Univariate df Ad Attitude Brand Attitude

Humor Perceived 174.82** 1 370.12** 56.93**

Humor Style .170 1 .149 .047
Product Risk 4.26* 1 2.04 .258
Humor Style x Product Risk 2.32 1 4.06* 1.45
** denotes significance at the 99% level
* denotes significance at the 95% level

Table 3
Factor Analysis

Ad Not Good
Items Useful Annoying Entertaining Brand Novel Ad

The ad reminded me that I am dissatisfied

with what I am using and am looking for
something better .718
The ad was describing how I felt at times .807
The ad gave me a new idea .786
While listening to the ad, I thought how the
product might be useful to me .583
Personal and intimate .528
Fun to listen to .487

The ad was silly -.779

The ad insults my intelligence -.726

The ad was playful .778

I thought it was clever and quite entertaining .652
Not hard to follow -.477

I know the advertised brand is a dependable

reliable one .865
That’s a good brand; I wouldn’t hesitate to
recommend it to others .838

The ad has been done many times. It’s the

same old thing. -.816
I think it is an unusual ad. I’m not sure I’ve
heard another quite like it. .762

noying (.252-not silly, not insulting), Novel (.145-not To assess the predictive accuracy of the discrimi-
same old thing, unusual) and a Good Brand (.132-brand nant function, we calculated the proportional chance,
reliable, good brand), thus providing general support Cpro, of correctly classifying individuals by chance.
for the positive effects of perceived humor. The discriminant function correctly classified indi-
Spring 2004
Table 4
Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions
% of
Function Eigenvalue Variance
1 .673a 100.0
a
First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Wilk’s Lamda p< .000
Structure Matrix
Entertaining
Ad Useful
Annoying
Novel Ad
Good Brand
vidual perceptions of humor 81% of the time based on
the responses to the VRP measures which exceeds the
classification accuracy expected by chance (59%).
H3: Ads perceived as humorous will be more
effective when used with lower risk (in-
volvement) products.
To address the issue of the nature of the impact of prod-
uct risk and its possible interaction with humor style and
perception of humor, we examine the multivariate and
univariate results (Table 2). A significant main effect for
product style (F=4.26, P<.05) and a significant interaction
between product risk and humor style (F= 4.06, p<.05) are
noted for Aad. However, an examination of the means
across low risk and high risk product categories did not
result in significant differences for Aad or Abrand.
Discussion and Conclusions
The two main goals of this paper were to examine
the link between product type, humor style, and per-
ceived humor and to test the efficacy of incongruity
and incongruity-resolution humor. The results reveal
a more dominant effect of perceived humorousness
than expected. This paper points out the risk of using
humor with audiences that may not see an ad as hu-
morous. Though this may seem intuitive, there contin-
ues to be a very wide range of humorousness employed
in advertising in all media. Some advertising is pre-
tested on some audiences, but it is clear that when em-
ployed in mass media, humor is not likely to be
33
Canonical
Cumulative % Correlation
100.0 .634
Function 1
.737
.320
-.252
.145
.132
universally perceived as humorous. Based on findings
here, the role of such perception on the effectiveness of
an attempt at humor may be seriously underestimated.
The key findings are summarized as follows:
• Some theorists posit that incongruity is a nec-
essary condition for most humor. A smaller
number of researchers have argued that reso-
lution is either a necessary condition for hu-
mor or an element that enhances the humor.
The results reported here related to H1 are con-
sistent with past research indicating that in-
congruity-resolution is more likely to be seen
as humorous than incongruity humor. This re-
sult is not trivial because of the billions of dol-
lars spent on humor in advertising. It is not
hard to observe that the humor does not al-
ways work. Since the broad class of incongru-
ity constitutes two-thirds or more of humorous
advertising, this finding should be of particu-
lar interest to those making decisions about
using IR versus the more subtle I type humor.
• However, the mancova results showing no
significant impact of I v. IR on Aad and Abrand
when accounting for perceived humor extends
the literature and indicates that IR does not
have stronger outcome effects than incongru-
ity alone. This is not what prior literature would
have predicted. IR is important to the extent
that it affects the odds that an audience would
perceive an ad as humorous.
34
• The perception of humor overwhelmed the
type of humor tested here. Indeed it over-
whelmed the effects of humor type and prod-
uct risk. This finding is particularly impor-
tant and suggests that a mere attempt at hu-
mor (for any of the products or using I or IR)
is not sufficient to provide the positive ben-
efits of a humorous campaign. To gain a posi-
tive impact on Aad and Abrand, the ads must
be first seen as humorous. This study demon-
strates that for Aad and Abrand, a failed hu-
mor attempt under performs an ad seen as
humorous. Further, the VRP analysis illus-
trates that there is a clear distinction between
those who viewed the ads as humorous and
those who did not. The failed humor is viewed
as annoying, not a good brand, not useful,
not entertaining and not novel. These residual
effects emphasize the downside risk of using
humor that does not work.
• With regard to product risk it is clear from
these results that humor risk outweighs prod-
uct risk.
This result is somewhat surprising, given signifi-
cant differences in usage of humor by advertisers
across product categories and previous results that
have shown humor to work better with lower risk
products. However, these results may suggest that
findings previously attributed to product factors may
be influenced by unequal perceptions of humor in
ads tested across product categories. As noted earlier,
humor research about product comes from several
studies that performed content analyses about humor
usage for different products, asked practitioners about
their views or tested product humor effects without
testing attitudes and without measuring whether the
humor was perceived as such.
Some evidence from past humor research suggests
that aspects of humor are universal and are therefore
appropriate for international ad campaigns (Alden,
Hoyer and Lee 1993; Unger 1995). However, there is
perhaps a stronger weight of practitioner experience
and research (Rustogi, Hensel and Burgers 1996) and
academic research that suggests particular executions
of humor are not liked universally. Given the high
risk of failed attempts at humor within a culture re-
ported in the current study, it would appear to be
prudent to test any attempt at humor on appropriate
target audiences before attempting to take a humor
campaign across borders where perceptions are likely
to have greater variance. As one of the jurors at the
Cannes festival stated, “Humour travels, but it some-
times gets a bit car sick” (Archer 1994).
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
As noted earlier, humor is often culturally based,
and given the increasingly multicultural U.S. consumer
market, it is dangerous to assume that all audiences
will consider a given “humorous” ad as equally funny.
The findings reported here strongly suggest that any
attempt at humorous advertising be pre-tested on the
appropriate target audience. Furthermore, as ads wear
out and possibly move from being liked to disliked,
the risk of failed humor may increase.
As with all studies of this type there are important
limitations. First, audiences were exposed to the ads
just one time and in small groups. It is possible that
multiple exposures may accentuate the failed humor
effect, and could lead to dislike even for those indi-
viduals who initially saw the ads as humorous. Expo-
sure to the radio ads in groups also could alter
individual responses to the ads. It is possible that the
impact of listening to a pod of ads in a group setting
could distort normal attention and reaction to ads. A
second limitation involves the between groups de-
sign. While in most cases we recruited participants
from several classes and then randomly assigned in-
dividuals to treatments, in a few instances whole
groups were recruited and then randomly assigned
to treatments. Given the group assignment, we can-
not completely rule out the possibility that the groups
varied systematically in some way. A third limitation
is the type of humor selected. We selected the most
commonly used type of humor, yet many other types
of humor are used in advertising. Fourth, although
the study employed 338 respondents, not as many of
the respondents perceived the ads as humorous as
expected. Based on the pretest of the original pork ad,
it was expected that two-thirds of the IR ads would be
perceived as humorous. Instead, whether due to the
context of the experiment or poorer executions of the
humor, only 45% saw the ads as humorous. While the
ads performed within reasonable expectation, the lim-
ited cell sizes that resulted hampered some analysis.
In retrospect, the relatively low percentage of respon-
dents seeing the ads as humorous should not have
come as a surprise because using a professionally pro-
duced radio ad, Duncan, Nelson and Frontczak (1984)
and Gelb and Pickett (1984) both found that fewer
than 40% of subjects in their studies looking at per-
ceived humor found the ads amusing. The low per-
centage of respondents finding the ads humorous
points to the importance of studying the implications
of failed humor.
Finally, the adult sample of respondents used here,
while a desirable demographic for advertisers, and
certainly more representative than a traditional un-
dergraduate student, is not representative of the popu-
Spring 2004
lation as a whole. The majority of the audience fall
into the Gen X category who grew up on MTV and
perhaps are tougher to entertain and perhaps gener-
ate perceived humor. It is possible that another group
would perceive the ads as more humorous.
This study was a carefully controlled test that uti-
lized the most common class of humor taken from an
award winning radio advertising script. Despite these
advantages, a large number of respondents did not
perceive the ads as humorous. The danger for adver-
tisers is that most humor attempts do not have all
these advantages and may be seen as less humorous
than the ads used here. In fact, several of the Clio
Award ads pre-tested along with the pork ad, and
clearly intending to be humorous, were seen as far
less humorous than the pork ad! This should be a
warning flag and provide strong incentive to adver-
tisers to pretest ad humor with important subgroups.
The VRP diagnostic analysis provides evidence that
humor that fails on subjects may irritate them. This
irritation may carry over and explain the lower Aad
and Abr scores. For researchers, the implications for
future humor research is that perceived humor is a
dominant factor that needs to be explicitly treated in
research designs.
References
Alden, Dana L. and Wayne D. Hoyer (1993), “An Examination of
Cognitive Factors Related to Humorousness in Television
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (June) 29-37.
–––––––––––– , ––––––––––– , and Choi Lee (1993), “Identifying
Global and Culture-Specific Dimensions of Humor in Adver-
tising: A Multinational Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 57
(April), 64-75.
–––––––––––– , Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D. Hoyer, (2000),
“The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise and Positive Moderators
on Perceived Humor in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 29
(Summer), 1-16.
Archer, Belinda (1994), “Does Humor Cross Borders?” Campaign,
(June 17), 32-34.
Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (1984), “An Investigation of
the Effects of Repetition on Cognitive and Affective Reactions
to Humorous and Serious Television Commercials,” Advances
in Consumer Research, 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 4-10.
Cho, Hyongoh (1994), “Humor Mechanisms, Perceived Humor and
Their Relationship to Various Executional Types in Advertising,”
in Advances in Consumer Research, 22, eds. F. Kardes and M. Sujan,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 191-197.
Christ, William G. and Esther Thorson (1992), “Attitudinal Effects
of Commercials Representing Six Categories of Emotional Re-
sponses,” in Proceedings of the 1992 Conference of the American
Academy of Advertising, ed. L. Reid, Athens, GA: American
Academy of Advertising, 189-198.
Cline, Thomas, Karen Machleit, and James Kellaris, (1999), “Is There
a Need for Levity?” in ed. K.A. Machleit and M. Campbell,
Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology 1998 Winter
Conference, Austin, TX: American Psychological Association.
35
Duncan, Calvin P., James E. Nelson, and Nancy T. Frontczak (1984),
“The Effect of Humor on Advertising Comprehension,” in
Advances in Consumer Research, 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 432-437.
Gallivan, Joanne (1991), “What is Funny to Whom and Why?”
paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Humor
and Laughter, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada.
Gelb, Betsy D. and Charles M. Pickett (1983), “Attitude-Toward-
The-Ad: Links to Humor and To Advertising Effectiveness,”
Journal of Advertising, 12 (2), 34-42.
–––––––––––– and George M. Zinkhan (1986), “Humor and Ad-
vertising Effectiveness After Repeated Exposures to a Radio
Commercial,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 15-20, 68.
Gruner, Charles R. (1991), “On the Impossibility of Having a Tax-
onomy of Humor,” paper presented at the Ninth International
Conference on Humor and Laughter, Brock University, St.
Catherines, Ontario, Canada.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Rajeev Batra (1987), “Assessing the Role of
Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertis-
ing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 404-420.
Jones, J.M. (1970), “Cognitive Factors in the Appreciation of Hu-
mor: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
Koestler, A. (1964), The Act of Creation, New York: Macmillan.
Leavitt, Clark (1970), “A Multidimensional Set of Rating Scales for Tele-
vision Commercials,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (5) 427-429.
Madden, Thomas J. and Marc G. Weinberger (1982), “The Effects of
Humor on Attention in Magazine Advertising,” Journal of Ad-
vertising, 11 (3), 8-14.
–––––––––––– and –––––––– (1984), “Humor in Advertising: A
Practitioner View,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (4), 23-29.
Murphy, John H., Deborah K. Morrison, and Michael Zahn (1993),
“A Longitudinal Analysis of the Use of Humor in Award
Winning Radio Commercials: 1974-1988,” in The Proceedings
of the 1993 Conference of The American Academy of Advertising,
ed. Esther Thorson, Columbia, MO: School of Journalism,
University of Missouri-Columbia.
Nerhardt, G. (1976), “Incongruity and Funniness: Towards a New
Descriptive Model,” in eds. A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot, Hu-
mor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Application, London:
Wiley, 55-62.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983),
“Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness:
The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer
Research 10 (4), 135-146.
Rustogi, Hemant, Paul J. Hensel, and Willem P. Burgers (1996),“The
Link Between Personal Values and Advertising Appeals:
Cross-Cultural Barriers to Standardized Global Advertising,”
Journal of Euromarketing, 5 (4), 57-79.
Rossiter, John R., Larry Percy, and Robert J. Donovan (1991), “A
Better Advertising Planning Grid,” Journal of Advertising Re-
search, 31 (October/November) 11-21.
Schlinger (1979), “A Profile Response to Commercials,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 19 (2) 37-46.
Sewall, Murphy C. and Dan Sarel (1986),“Characteristics of Radio
Commercials and their Recall Effectiveness,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 50 (January) 52-60.
Shama, Avraham and Maureen Coughlin (1979), “An Experimen-
tal Study of the Effectiveness of Humor in Advertising,” in
Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Neil Beckwith, ed., Chicago:
American Marketing Association, 249-252.
Shultz, Thomas R. (1972), “The Role of Incongruity and Resolution
in Children’s Appreciation of Cartoon Humor,” Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 13,456-477.
Speck, Paul Surgi (1987), “On Humor and Humor in Advertising,”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University.
36
–––––––––––– (1991), “The Humorous Message Taxonomy: A
Framework for the Study of Humorous Ads,” in Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, 13, ed. Jr. James H. Leigh and
Claude R. Martin, The Division of Research, Michigan Busi-
ness School: The University of Michigan, 1-44.
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger, and Amy L. Parsons (1997),
“Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Advertising Ef-
fectiveness: A Contingency Approach,” Journal of Advertising,
26 (Fall), 17-32.
Stewart, David M. and David H. Furse (1986), Effective Television
Advertising, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Suls, Jerry (1977), “Cognitive and Disparagement Theories of Hu-
mor: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis,” in eds. A.J.
Chapman and H.C. Foot, It’s a Funny Thing Humour, Pergamon
Press, 41-45.
Unger, Lynette S. (1995), “Observations: A Cross-Cultural Study
on the Affect-Based Model of Humor in Advertising,” Journal
of Advertising Research, (Jan-Feb), 66-71.
Vaughn, Richard (1980), “How Advertising Works: A Planning
Model,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (5) 27-33.
–––––––––––– (1986), “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model
Revisited,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1) 57-66.
Weinberger, Marc G., Leland Campbell, and Beth Brody (1994),
Effective Radio Advertising, New York: Lexington Books.
–––––––––––– and Charles S. Gulas (1992), “The Impact of Humor
in Advertising: A Review,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (Decem-
ber), 35-59.
Appendix A
Example of Radio Scripts – Dishwasher Ads*
Incongruity-Resolution (IR) Humor
MANAGER: You asked to see the manager, sir.
CUSTOMER: Yes. You don’t sell Pirmin dish-
washershere do you? I don’t
understand it. Everyone loves
Pirmin, don’t they hon?
WIFE: Un huh.
MANAGER: Well you see sir...
CUSTOMER: They are dependable, quiet and clean
the toughest pots and pans . Did I
mention...
MANAGER: Sir...
CUSTOMER: ...the ten year warranty ?
MANAGER: Sir...
CUSTOMER It takes the hassle out of doing the
dishes.
WIFE: They are great.
CUSTOMER So why don’t you sell Pirmin dish-
washershere?
MANAGER: This is a bank sir. The appliance
store is next door.
CUSTOMER: Oh.
ANNOUNCER: Pirmin dishwasher , CUSTOMER: Wonderful.
accept nothing less.
*Words in bold were altered to accommodate the attributes of the three other products:
else was identical.
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
–––––––––––– and Harlan E. Spotts (1989), “A Situational View of
Information Content in TV Advertising in the U.S. and U.K.,”
Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 89-94.
–––––––––––– , ––––––––––– , Leland Campbell, and Amy Par-
sons (1995), “The Use of Humor in Different Advertising Me-
dia,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (June-July), 44-56.
Weller, Leonard, Ella Amitsour, and Ruth Pazzi (1976), “Reactions
to Absurd Humor by Jews of Eastern and Western Descent,”
Journal of Social Psychology, 98 (April), 159-163.
Whipple, Thomas W. and Alice E. Courtney (1981), “How Men and
Women Judge Humor, Advertising Guidelines for Action and
Research,” in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, J.H.
Leigh and C.R. Martin, Jr., eds., Ann Arbor, MI: Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, The
University of Michigan, 43-56.
–––––––––––– and –––––––– (1980), “Male and Female Differ-
ences in Response to Nonsensical Humor in Advertising,” in
Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, J.E. Haefner,
ed., 71-74.
Zhang, Yong (1996), “The Effect of Humor in Advertising: An
Individual Difference Perspective,” Psychology & Marketing,
13 (September), 531-545.
–––––––––––– and George M. Zinkhan (1991), “Humor in Televi-
sion Advertising,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
Rebecca Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds., Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 813-818.
Incongruity (I) Humor
MANAGER: You asked to see the manager, sir.
CUSTOMER: Yes. You don’t sell Pirmin dish-
washershere do you? I don’t
understand it. Everyone loves
Pirmin, don’t they hon?
WIFE: Un huh.
MANAGER: Well you see sir...
CUSTOMER: They are dependable, quiet and
clean the toughest pots and pans .
Did I mention...
MANAGER: Sir...
CUSTOMER: ...the ten year warranty?
MANAGER: Sir...
CUSTOMER: It takes the hassle out of doing the
dishes.
WIFE: They are great.
CUSTOMER: So why don’t you sell Pirmin dish-
washers here?
MANAGER: But sir. I have been trying to tell
you, we do sell Pirmin. Let me show
them to you.
ANNOUNCER: Pirmin dishwasher ,
accept nothing less.
luggage, light bulb and candy. Everything
Copyright of Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising is the property of CTC Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.