Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of Advertising
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of Advertising
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of Advertising
Television Advertising
Author(s): Dana L. Alden, Ashesh Mukherjee and Wayne D. Hoyer
Source: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 1-15
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4189138
Accessed: 01-12-2019 13:27 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Advertising
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise and Positive
Moderators on Perceived Humor in Television
Advertising
Dana L. Alden, Ashesh Mukherjee and Wayne D. Hoyer
Few studies have tested models incorporating cognitive as well as affective mechanisms that help
different levels of perceived humorousness in advertising (cf. Alden and Hoyer 1993; Speck 1991
of two studies, an extended incongruity resolution model of humor perception in television adv
proposed and tested. In that test, schema familiarity is found to moderate surprise resulting fro
incongruity. Furthermore, playfulness of the ad, ease of resolution of the incongruity in the ad
created by the ad moderate the effects of surprise on humor. Thus, surprise appears to be a nec
sufficient, condition for humor in television advertising. In the second study, the role of surpr
humor is examined in more detail. Specifically, evidence supports the hypothesis that, following
incongruity, surprise can be transformed into diverse affective outcomes such as fear and humo
the presence of different contextual moderators. Implications of the overall model are discussed
theoretic and applied perspectives and directions for future research are suggested.
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Advertising
important consequences for advertising outcomes such gruent situation and ad warmth) are proposed to m
as message credibility, recall, and attitude toward erate the subsequent humorous evaluation. Perce
the ad and brand (Shimp 1997). Thus, researchers humor in turn is hypothesized to result in posi
have begun building theory that helps explain how attitude toward the ad.
advertising content affects levels of perceived humor. In the model shown in Figure 1, surprise is hypotb
For example, Speck (1991) identifies incongruity reso- esized to play a central role in the generation of a
lution, arousal-safety and humorous disparagement humorous response. The role of surprise follows from
as methods used in advertising to generate humor. past research in other areas. Such research has linked
Past research in psychology (cf. Herzog and Larwin surprise with both schema incongruity as well as hu-
1988) and linguistics (cf. Raskin 1985) indicates that mor. For example, it has been empirically demon-
incongruity-resolution is a particularly useful frame- strated that surprise is a primary reaction to perceiv-
work for understanding the process of humor genera- ing "stimulus-schema" incongruity (Meyer 1986; see
tion. Working within this framework, Alden and Hoyer also Meyer et al. 1991). Hence, based on the incon-
(1993) report that most of the television ads in their gruity-resolution model of humor, which posits "stimu-
national sample used "incongruity from expectations" lus-schema" incongruity as a key condition for humor
to generate humor. In addition, more than two-thirds (cf. Raskin 1985; Suis 1983), feelings of surprise fol-
of these ads featured either reality-based or fantasy- low exposure to incongruity and should also be asso-
based incongruities, with the former rated as more ciated with a subsequent humorous evaluation. In
humorous than the latter. More recently, Alden, the following sections, we hypothesize relationships
Mukherjee and Hoyer (1999) found that incongruity between incongruity and surprise on one hand and
type also influenced feelings of surprise which, in surprise and humor on the other.
turn, were positively related to perceived humor.
Building on studies such as these, research on hu- The Influence of Incongruity on Surprise
morous evaluation in television advertising can be
extended in at least two ways. First, the potential As mentioned earlier, past research suggests that
role of surprise as a mediator of the incongruity- surprise is a primary individual-level response to
humor relationship in television advertising would "stimulus-schema" incongruity (Izard 1977; Meyer
benefit from additional theoretical development and 1986; Meyer et al. 1991; Meyer and Niepel 1994). In
empirical testing. Second, previous research has not the current context of television advertising, the de-
tested potential moderators that may enhance the gree of "stimulus-schema" incongruity can be viewed
positive affect associated with humorous evaluation. as the extent to which ad content differs from gener-
Seeking to increase understanding of this widely used ally expected beliefs, attitudes and/or behaviors. For
but risky execution strategy, the following two stud- example, consider an ad that shows a man walking
ies propose and test an extended "incongruity resolu- down a street who then begins to skip like a child.
tion" model of humor in television advertising. Since grown people are generally not expected to skip
while walking, it is likely that analysts would label
Theoretical Development this sequence of behaviors at least moderately incon-
gruent with typical adult behavior.
Model Overview However, stimulus incongruity is unlikely to per-
fectly correlate with viewer feelings of surprise. This
As mentioned above, one stream of research on hu-
might occur, for example, when ad content is incon-
gruent with a schema that is not well-formed due to
mor has adopted an incongruity-resolution framework
to explain how humor operates (Speck 1991). lack In
of the
experience. In such cases, high levels of sur-
present study, we extend this work by proposing a likely. Thus, an ad might initially cue
prise seem less
the generally
model of humor in television advertising (see Figure familiar "shopping in a supermarket"
1) that incorporates content incongruity (anschema and then show an unexpected event within
ad stimu-
the context
lus characteristic), surprise (a primary viewer re- ofthat schema (e.g., a father with ram-
sponse) and perceived humor (a secondary viewertwins trying to get through the checkout
bunctious
stand).
response). Viewer familiarity with the situation Alternatively, an ad may cue a generally less
pre-
familiarof
sented in the ad is posited to moderate the degree schema (e.g., a military staff meeting) as the
background
viewer surprise in response to an incongruent situa-for an incongruous execution (e.g., a colo-
nel sneaking
tion presented in the ad. Three affect-inducing fac- a potato chip snack during the formal
tors (ad playfulness, ease of resolution of meeting).
the incon-
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000
Figure 1
Proposed Extension of Incongruity-Resolution Model of Humor in Television Advertising
Degree of Incongruity
Schema Familiarity
Surprise
Warmth
Playfulness
Ease of Resolution
Perceived
Humor
Aad
I
The spreading activation model of memory proposed The Role of Surprise in Generating Humor
by Anderson (1983) predicts that more rapid and wide-
spread activation of nodes in working memory will be There is considerable evidence that surprise is a
associated with more familiar sch?mas. Each node is primary reaction to stimulus-schema incongruity
(Meyer 1986; see also Meyer et al. 1991). What is the
viewed as a distinct source of arousal. Thus, the total
nature
arousal associated with an ad that presents an incon- of this surprise reaction? Based on a sorting
task
gruity in the context of a familiar schema is likely to of 135 emotion labels by large numbers of sub-
jects,
be higher than that associated with an ad that cues a Shaver, Wu and Schwartz (1992) found evi-
less familiar schema (Berlyne 1960; Grunert 1996). dence for a "surprise emotion cluster" among six ba-
Given that arousal is a defining characteristic of sur-sic-level emotions. Furthermore, Izard (1977) identi-
prise (see Larsen and Diener 1992; Oliver 1994; fied surprise as an emotion characterized by a transi-
Russell, Suzuki and Ishida 1993), the effect of incon- tory feeling of uncertainty following any sudden, un-
gruity on surprise is likely to be magnified as famil-expected event. Finally, surprise is described by Meyer
and Niepel (1994, p. 353) as:
iarity with the situation presented in the ad increases.
This leads to our first hypothesis: ...an emotional entity that can be observed from
HI: Higher levels of incongruity will result in three classes of hypothetical events: specific physi-
stronger viewer surprise when viewers ological changes, behavior patterns, and verbal re-
have high familiarity with the situation ports about subjective experience. Surprise is elic-
ited by unexpected events, that is, events that de-
presented in the ad than when they have
viate from a schema.
low familiarity.
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Advertising
Hence, surprise is similar to other emotions in that Aaker, Stayman and Hagerty (1988) identify a feel-
it usually involves physiological arousal. However, ing cluster in response to TV advertising which they
surprise also differs from most other emotions in that label "playful/childish." This cluster is comprised of
a specific "tone" or valence is not necessarily associ- the following items: playful, childish, silly, mischie-
ated with that arousal (Batson, Shaw and Oleson vous, zany, youthful and spunky. Although separate
1992; Frijda et al. 1992). For example, joy is inher- from the "friendly/humorous" cluster, the research-
ently pleasant and fear is inherently unpleasant, while ers suggest that the two sets of clusters "may be
surprise can result in pleasant, unpleasant or limited related to humor" in advertising (Aaker, Stayman
feelings depending on contextual factors. and Hagerty 1988, p. 13).
The "self-report affect circumplex model" of emo- In humor theory, the concept of playfulness ap-
tion (Larsen and Diener 1992) supports a valence- pears fairly central to the generation of a humorous
neutral conceptualization of surprise. Based on em- response. For example, Suis (1983) argues that a play-
pirical data, it arrays different emotions on a two ful context is one factor that allows "problem-solving"
dimensional grid. "Pleasant-unpleasant" were found following incongruity to result in a humorous evalua-
to be located along one dimension and "high-low acti- tion. This assumption is widely shared among humor
vation" on the other. Surprise was located in the va- theorists as evidenced by the presence of seventeen
lence-neutral quadrant of the pleasant-unpleasant references to "play" in a recent bibliography on hu-
dimension along with such terms as "aroused," "as- mor scholarship (Nilsen 1993). Within advertising,
tonished," and "stimulated." Similarly, in a factor Speck (1991) refers to the "play signal" as a necessary
analysis of 16 affects, Oliver (1994) found that sur- component of the humor generation processes in ad-
prise was best categorized as an emotion with a neu- vertising (see also McGhee, 1979, p. 71).
tral valence, along with "active" and "lively." While there is widespread agreement concerning
Thus, there is considerable evidence for conceptu- the importance of playful feelings to humorous evalu-
alizing surprise as relatively neutral arousal. This ation in general (Nilsen 1993), the role of playfulness
view in turn suggests that the effect of surprise onin generating humor within an advertising context
perceived humor (a positive emotion; Aaker, Stayman appears to be untested. The present study is inter-
and Vezina 1988) may be related to the presence of ested in examining the role of playfulness as a mod-
contextual moderators that induce positive affect in erator of the surprise-humor relationship. Given its
the consumer and facilitate a humorous evaluation affect-inducing nature, playfulness is likely to con-
(see also Rothbart 1976). Three potential affect-in-
tribute to a positive, low risk context in which sur-
ducing moderators are now discussed in detail. prise-related arousal can be transformed into humor.
Thus, surprise is likely to have a stronger relation-
Playfulness ship to humor when playfulness is high than when it
is low. This leads to the following hypothesis:
One construct that is likely to serve as a moderator
H2: The effect of surprise on perceived humor
of the surprise-humor relationship is play fulness (see will be stronger when playfulness is high
Barnett 1990; Costa and McCrae 1988). Glynn and than when it is low.
Webster (1992, p. 85) propose the following individual-
level definition of playfulness:
Ease of Resolution
...a propensity to define (or redefine) an activity in
an imaginative, nonserious or metaphoric manner Ease of resolution refers to the effort required by
so as to enhance intrinsic enjoyment, involvementindividuals to resolve an incongruent situation shown
and satisfaction.
in an ad. Suis (1972) argues that successful resolu-
In marketing, playfulness has been primarily stud-tion of the incongruity underlying a humorous mes-
sage is a necessary condition for experiencing a hu-
ied as a "feeling" response to advertising rather than
morous response. A similar argument is made in
as an individual difference characteristic. For example,
it emerges as one of 69 feelings associated withRaskins'
ad- (1985) contrast-resolution model where reso-
vertising by Edell and Burke (1987) and is found lution
to is posited as a necessary condition for humor-
load on a factor described as "upbeat" rather than ous evaluation. In addition, these theorists have sug-
gested that humorous messages vary in terms of how
"negative" or "warm." It is also identified by Holbrook
easily the incongruity can be resolved. Above a cer-
and Batra (1987) as one of 94 emotional content indi-
tain threshold level, messages that are more easily
cators in advertising based on their review of prior
resolved should engender a stronger sense of closure,
research (see also Batra and Holbrook 1990). Finally,
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 The Journal of Advertising
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000
Table 1
Anova Results: Stage 1
graduate business students from a southwestern uni- being measured and obtain a benchmark inter-coder
versity received class credit for evaluating the 60 test agreement rate. In these sessions, coders were pro-
ads on surprise, humor and attitude towards the ad. vided with the definitions of each of the constructs
In the second phase, another group of 48 students being measured, and each construct was illustrated
rated the same ads on warmth, ease of resolution and by several advertising examples. Coders then rated a
familiarity of ad content. A standard, blank interval set of ten humorous ads collected separately on each
was placed between ads to allow subjects sufficient of the constructs in question. Intercoder agreement
time to record their evaluations immediately follow- in rating these ten ads ranged between 86% and 93%.
ing each advertisement. For the 60 test ads, the intercoder agreement rate
The ads were shown in two random orders to con- was 93%, exceeding standards suggested by
trol for order effects. Seven-point semantic differen-Kassarjian (1977). Disagreements were resolved by
tial scales were used for subject measures in both discussion among the coders and in two cases, a tie-
phases of data collection. The scales were anchored breaking vote was cast by the researchers.
by: not at all surprising/very surprising; not at all
funny/very funny; dislike a lot/like a lot; not at all Study One: Results
familiar situation/very familiar situation; very little
warm feeling/a lot of warm feeling; and very easyModeration
to of the Incongruity-Surprise
understand/very difficult to understand. Means com- Relationship (HI)
puted across subjects for each ad were used in subse-
quent analysis. Attitude towards the brand (Abr) To in test HI, a 2x3 ANOVA was performed with ad
each ad and brand familiarity were also measured for incongruity and viewer familiarity with the ad situa-
each brand featured in the 60 ads as potential tion as independent variables and viewer surprise as
covariates. These data were collected from the first the dependent measure. Two levels of "ad situation
familiarity" were based on a median split of subject
set of subjects two weeks before their initial ad rating
task. ratings. Three levels of incongruity were created us-
ing coder ratings. In an initial test, Abr and brand
Coder Measures familiarity were not significant as covariates and were
dropped in the final model. The results of the ANOVA
Three new coders blind to the hypotheses are rated
summarized in Table 1.
each ad in terms of degree of incongruity from Asgen-
shown in Table 1, the overall F test for this
eral viewer expectations (low-medium-high) ANOVAand is significant (O2=42.2%; p<0.001). There is
playfulness (low-medium-high). Three-point also scales
a significant, positive main effect for "degree of
were used for the coder measures since past research incongruity" on surprise (p<0.001). However, it is im-
indicates that expert coders have had difficulties portantpro- to note that the relationship between incon-
viding reliable responses with scales that require gruityfine and surprise is significantly moderated by
discrimination (see Spiggle 1994). Prior to the vieweractual
familiarity with the situation presented in the
task, coders were intensively trained on the details ad (p<.05).
of As shown in Table 2, the effect of high
the task and the dimensions of the constructs versus being
low incongruity is significant when familiarity
measured. Specifically, warm-up sessions were is highcon-(p<.001), but not when familiarity is low
ducted to familiarize the coders with the variables (p<.ll). Hypothesis 1 is therefore supported.
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 The Journal of Advertising
Table 2
Means for Surprise
"Planned comparison for high versus low incongruity, n.s. (t[13]=1.7, p<0.11)
"Planned comparison for high versus low incongruity, significant (t[14]=3.83, p<.001)
Table 3
Intercorrelation Matrix: Stage 2
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000
Table 4
Regression Coefficients: Stage 2
tionship between degree of incongruity and perceived been found to produce positive affect (cf., Meyers-
humor. Specifically, incongruity significantly affected Levy and Tybout 1989; see also Nerhardt 1976 for
both surprise (p<0.01) as well as humor (p<0.01). evidence of direct incongruity effects using non-rep-
Surprise also had a significant effect on humor resentational stimuli). In advertising, it is likely that
(p<0.03), and the squared partial correlation (i.e., many ads attempting humor employ moderate incon-
squared beta coefficient) indicating the effect of in- gruity, given the context and consumer expectations
congruity level on humor dropped by 93% when sur- (Goodstein 1993). Hence, despite the significant ef-
prise was included in the regression equation (?^ re fects of affect-inducing moderators such as warmth,
i?clu?io?=0-39, P<0.02; ?^,^?.10, p<0.18). TW simple arousal of the Autonomie Nervous System as-
results indicate that the effects of "objective" stimu- sociated with perception of moderate incongruity may
lus incongruity on perceived humor operated (on av- directly produce a portion of the positive affect re-
erage) through viewer surprise rather than directly. flected in a humorous evaluation. A second possibil-
ity is the existence of moderators that were not speci-
The Relationship between Humor and Aad fied in the model tested in this study, e.g., timing of
the surprise reaction (Baumgartner, Sujan and
Finally, consistent with H6, there was a strong cor- Padgett 1997).
relation between humor and Aad (r=0.90, p<0.001). These possibilities suggest the importance of exam-
Thus, as humor evaluation increases, so does the prob- ining the hypothesized neutrality of surprise in greater
ability that the ad is liked. detail. One approach to determining the validity of
surprise as valence-neutral could involve demonstra-
Study One: Discussion tion of different outcomes depending on whether posi-
tive or negative affect-inducing factors moderate sur-
The results of Study One extend current under-prise-related arousal. For example, if surprise gener-
standing of the mechanisms of humorous perceptionsated by incongruity can result in negative evalua-
in television advertising. When viewer familiarity with
tions (e.g., fear) or positive evaluations (e.g., humor),
the situation presented in the ad was high, "objec- depending on the type of moderators present in the
tive" incongruity produced significantly stronger lev-ad, then the conceptualization of surprise as valence-
els of viewer surprise than when familiarity was low.neutral would have stronger support. Such evidence
Higher levels of surprise were then found to play awould also reinforce the importance of playfulness,
critical role in producing humorous evaluations, par- resolution ease and warmth as affect-inducing mod-
ticularly in the presence of playfulness, easily re- erators of the surprise-humor relationship. These are
solved incongruity and warm ad content. Finally, con-the goals of Study Two.
sistent with past research, attitude toward the ad
was positively related to perceptions of humor. Study Two: Hypotheses
The significant main effect for surprise obtained in
this study was not expected. There are at least two In this study, we attempt to show that surprise can
potential explanations for this result. As noted ear-lead to humor or fear depending on the levels of two
lier, exposure to moderate levels of incongruity has contextual variables, playfulness and threat. As pre-
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 The Journal of Advertising
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000 11
Table 5
Correlations of Surprise, Humor and Fear: Study Two
Humor1 Fear1
1 n=52 ads
2 n=26 ads
* Significant at p<0.05
was found to positively correlate with humor when only Speck (1991) and Alden and Hoyer (1993)
playfulness was high (r=0.37, p<0.04, n=26 ads). How-pear to have applied this model in an advertisi
ever, the correlation was negative when playfulnesscontext. Furthermore, there appears to be no p
was low (r= -0.28, p<0.12, n=26 ads). In Une with Hlb, research that has specifically examined the ro
surprise correlated strongly with fear at high levels of surprise in humorous advertising.
threat (r=0.68, p<0.01, n=26 ads), but failed to reach Seeking to enhance our understanding of hu
significance when the threat was low (r=0.27, p<0.08, generation in television advertising, the first s
n=26 ads). Discussion of these results follows. reported in this paper provides evidence for an
tended incongruity-resolution model that inclu
Study Two: Discussion surprise as a mediator and playfulness, ease of
lution and warmth as moderators. In line with the
Study Two found that surprise-related arousal was circumplex model of emotions (Larsen and Diener
strongly associated with a fearful evaluation when 1992),
a these results support the conceptualization of
negative affect-inducing factor (threat) was high, butsurprise as valence-neutral arousal that leads to hu-
not when it was low. On the other hand, surprise-mor in the presence of certain moderators. Thus sur-
related arousal was strongly associated with a humor prise appears to be a necessary but insufficient condi-
tion for humorous evaluation in television advertis-
evaluation when a positive affect-inducing factor (play-
fulness) was high, but not when it was low. Theseing. A second study bolsters this conclusion by show-
results support the conceptualization of surprise asing that surprise is associated with different affective
valence-neutral arousal that leads to different affec- outcomes depending on the presence of alternative
moderators.
tive outcomes depending on the types of moderating
Given the volume of resources that managers ex-
influences in the ad. As such, Study Two provides
pend on brand communications that attempt humor
evidence of the internal validity of the regression model
(Alden, Hoyer and Lee 1993; Weinberger and Spotts
tested in Study One. It also suggests that the surprise
main effect identified in the first study was either1989),
the there is a pressing need for more detailed theo-
result of "mere arousal" (Stayman, Alden and Smith retical understanding of factors that increase humor-
1992) or an effect that would become insignificantous in evaluation. As noted earlier, there are several
the presence of additional moderators. Verificationrisks
of associated with the use of humor in advertising
(cf. Madden and Weinberger 1982; Unger 1996; Zhang
these possibilities awaits future research. In the mean-
time, Study Two enhances confidence in the central- 1996). Unfortunately, few systematic methods are
ity of affect-inducing moderators to the relationshipavailable to ensure that a joke or message will actu-
between surprise and humor in advertising. ally be perceived as funny (i.e., it is entirely a creative
rather than part creative, part scientific process). As
General Discussion a result, the development of humorous content ap-
pears often to be subjective, unstructured and, thus,
"hit or miss."it
From Speck's (1991) comprehensive framework,
is clear that there are multiple pathways to generat-
The present findings provide guidance to advertis-
ing humorous evaluations in advertising. ersThe byincon-
focusing their efforts on a parsimonious num-
gruity model of humor is one of those pathways. To
ber of content-related constructs that appear impor-
date, the incongruity model has receivedtant to generating humorous evaluations. For ex-
consider-
ample, creative
able attention in psychology (cf. Suis 1972; Wicker et thinking in terms of situational in-
al. 1981) and linguistics (cf. Raskin 1985). congruities
However, and the levels of surprise resulting from
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 The Journal of Advertising
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000 13
during Parsons
ad expos
1997). As such, successful print ads may rely
Padgett to 1997).
a greater extent on generating feeUngs
For of control
in and self-efficacy (Bandura 1977) during the incon-
generation the
gruity resolution process
significant differ as opposed to generating
which the
feeUngs of warmth and audien
playfulness. In addition, the
peak degree of resolution required to eUcit
humor. Alo a humorous
gent evidence fr
evaluation may differ for print. Given print media's
contention generally higher level of involvement, it may be su
that that
is initially neutr
humor evaluations are better executed by posing more
argument complex incongruitiescould
than typically found in televi-
surements of
sion advertising. Finally, sur
as noted by other research-
dation ers, individual
of the difference variables such as "need for
mod
task for future research. cognition" (Zhang 1996) and "tolerance of ambiguity"
Fourth, the potential mechanisms through which(Durrheim 1998; Tegano 1990) could well interact
humor impacts Aad were not fully investigated in with predictors such as "ease of resolution" and "me-
these studies. However, the relatively low-involve-
dia channel" to affect humor evaluations. These types
ment conditions during data collection, as well as the of issues are clearly important to theorists and adver-
experimental method of measuring Aad immediately tising managers and suggest several interesting av-
after viewing the ad would lend support to an affect enues for future research.
transfer explanation (due to immediacy of the favor-
able affect), rather than a more cognitive mechanism References
working through enhanced recall and elaborated pro-
cessing. An affect transfer explanation would also be Aaker, David ?., Douglas M. Stayman and Michael R. Hagerty
consistent with the main effects of warmth and ease (1986), "Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact an
Sequence Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March),
of resolution obtained in Study One, since positive 365-381.
affect associated with high values of these variables- ,- and Richard Vezina (1988), "Identi-
could be directly transferred to humor evaluations. fying Feelings Elicited by Advertising," Psychol
keting, 5(1), 1-16.
Clearly, however, definitive identification of theAlden, Dana L. and Wayne D. Hoyer (1993), "An
mechanism underlying these effects is an important Cognitive Factors Related to Humorousness in
topic for future research. vertising," Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 29-37.
Fifth, since respondent fatigue is a vital factor in- t- and Choi Lee (1993), "Identifying
Global and Culture-Specific Dimensions of Humor i
the investigation of humor, several steps were taken A Multinational Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 57
to minimize its potential effects. However, use of Ashesh Mukherjee and Wayne D. Hoye
single-item measures and a combination of coder and "Extending a Contrast Resolution Model of Hum
subject measures may have increased error variance. sion Advertising: The Role of Surprise," HUM
tional Journal of Humor Research, 12 (1), 15-2
Fortunately, this also has the effect of making the Anderson, John R. (1983), The Architecture of C
statistical tests more conservative, leading to greater bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
confidence in obtained significant results. In addi- Bandura, Albert (1977), "Self-Efficacy: Toward a U
tion, as mentioned earUer, similar approaches have of Behavioral Change," Psychological Review, 8
Barnett, Lynn A. (1990), "Playfulness: Definiti
been successfully used in past advertising research Measurement," Play and Culture, 3, 319-336.
(e.g., Batra and Ray 1986). Nevertheless, future re-Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "
search may seek to address this issue by conducting Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psycholog
controlled studies with a Umited number of variables Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Consider
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6
and stimuli, where it would be possible to use more Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1986), "Affec
re?able measurement scales. Mediating Acceptance of Advertising," Journa
Finally, our studies examined antecedents to hu-Research, 13 (September), 234-249.
- and Morris B.
morous evaluation for television advertising only. Holbrook (1990), "Developing a Ty-
pology of Affective Responses to Advertising," Psychology and
Hence, it will be important to determine whether the
Marketing, 7 (1), 11-25.
moderators we tested operate similarly in other me- C. Daniel, Laura L. Shaw and Kathryn C. Oleson (1992)
Batson,
dia channels such as print, radio and the internet.
"Differentiating Affect, Mood, and Emotion," in Emotion, Mar-
For example, successful humorous executions may garet S. Clark, ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc., 294-322.
need to be generally more "cognitive" in print chan-
nels than on television (cf. Spotts, Weinberger and
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 The Journal of Advertising
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Summer 2000 15
Raskin, Victor Stewart, David M. and David H. Furse (1986), Effective Televis
(1985),
Reidel. Advertising, Lexington, MA: D.C. Health & Co., Chicago.
Rothbart, Mary K. (1976), "Incongruity, Problem Solving and Laugh- Suis, Jerry (1972), 'Two-stage Model for the Appreciation of Jok
ter," in Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applica- and Cartoons: Information Processing Analysis," in The Psy
tions, Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds., London: chology of Humor, J.H. Goldstein and P.E. McGhee, eds., S
John Wiley and Sons, 37-54. Diego, CA: Academic Press, 81-100.
R?ssel, James ?., Naoto Suzuki and Noriko Ishida (1993), "Cana- - (1983), "Cognitive Processes in Humor Apprecia-
dian, Greek and Japanese Freely Produced Emotion Labels for tion," in Handbook of Humor Research, Jeffery Goldstein, ed.,
Facial Expressions," Motivation and Emotion, 17 (4), 337-351. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc., 39-57.
Russell, J.A. (1980), "A Circumplex Model of Affect," Journal of Tanner, John F., Jr., James B. Hunt and David R. Eppright (1991),
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178. 'The Protection Motivation Model: A Normative Model of
Scott, Cliff, David M. Klein and Jennings Bryant (1990), "Con- Fear Appeals," Journal of Marketing, 55 (3), 36-45.
sumer Response to Humor in Advertising: A Series of Field Tegano, Deborah W. (1990), "Relationship of Tolerance of Amb
Studies Using Behavioral Observation," Journal of Consumer ity and Playfulness to Creativity," Psychological Reports,
Research, 16 (March), 498-501. (3 Part 1 June), 1047-1056.
Sharma, Subhash, Richard M. Durant and Oded Gur-Arie (1981), Unger, Lynette S. (1995), "A Cross-Cultural Study of the Affect-
"Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables," Journal Based Model of Humor in Advertising," Journal of Advertis-
of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 291-300. ing Research, 35 (1), 66-69.
Shaver, Phillip R., Shelley Wu and Judith C. Schwartz (1992), - (1996), "The Potential for Using Humor in Global
"Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differrences in Emotion and Advertising," Humor, (9-2), 143-168.
Its Representation: A Prototype Approach," in Emotion, Weinberger,
Mar- Marc G. and Leland Campbell (1991), 'The Use and
garet S. Clark, ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,Impact of Humor in Radio Advertising," Journal of Advertis-
Inc., 175-212. ing Research, 31 (December/January), 44-52.
Shimp, Terence A. (1997), Advertising, Promotion and Supplemen- - and Charles S. Gulas (1992), "The Impact of Humor in
tal Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 4th Ed., Advertising: A Review," Journal of Advertising, 21 (4), 35-59.
Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press. and Harlan E. Spotts (1989), "Humor in U.S. Versus
Speck, Paul S. (1987), "On Humor and Humor in Advertising," U.K. TV Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 39-44.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University. Wicker, F.W., I.M. Thorelli, W.L. Barron III and M.R. Ponder
- (1991), "The Humorous Message Taxonomy: A (1981), "Relationships Among Affective and Cognitive Factors
Framework for the Study of Humorous Ads," in Current Is-
in Humor," Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 359-70.
sues & Research in Advertising, 13, James H. Leigh and Zhang, Yong (1996), "Responses to Humorous Advertising: The
Claude
R. Martin Jr., eds., Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Business School. Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition," Journal of Advertis-
Spiggle, Susan (1994), "Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative ing, 25 (1), 15-32.
Data in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, - and George M. Zinkhan (1991), "Humor in Televi-
21 (3), 491-503. sion Advertising," Advances in Consumer Research, 18, Rebecca
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger and Amy L. ParsonsH.(1997),
Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds., Provo, UT: Associa-
"Assessing the Use and Impact on Humor Effectiveness: tionAfor Consumer Research, 813-818.
Contingency Approach," Journal of Advertising, 26 Zinkhan, George M. and Betsy D. Gelb (1990), "Humor Repetition
(3), 17-32.
Stayman, Douglas M., Dana L. Alden and Karen H. Smith (1992),
and Advertising Effectiveness," in Advances in Consumer Re-
search, 17, Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn and Richard W.
"Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expecta-
Pollay, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
tions and Disconfirmation Judgements," Journal of Consumer
Research, 19 (September), 240-255. 438-441.
This content downloaded from 106.192.74.224 on Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:27:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms