Humor and Persuasion

Humor and Persuasion

G. W. Goodrum, Jr.

                      

In the following paper I will detail the effectiveness of humor in persuasion.    More importantly I will describe the effectiveness of humor and the risks associated when attempting to use humor in advertisement. This paper will provide research information from theorist that challenge the hypotheses of others theorist attempts to persuade readers of their conclusions of the effectiveness of humor

in advertisements.  This paper will include theories of persuasion and how the techniques of humor can support or limit their effectiveness.   

            “Persuasion is the coproduction of meaning that results when an individual or group of individuals uses language strategies and/or visual images to make audiences identify with that individual or group”, Borchers (2002).  Persuasion can also be defined as “the intended communication that affects how others think, feel, and/or act toward some object, person, group or idea”, Cegala (1987).  These two distinct definitions of persuasion are intentional influences on how consumers will relate to or evaluate products, systems or even advertisements. 

            Consumers relate to advertisements based upon their need for cognition (NFC).  The cognition or attention can determine the effectiveness of the ad.  The success of an ad depends on the initial, sustained projected and overall attention of the consumer.  Advertisers understand the NFC goals of consumers and have ingeniously introduced humor into their campaigns to satisfy this need.  Madden and Weinberger (1984) noted that “94 percent of advertising practitioners see humor as an effective way to gain attention, and 55 percent of research executives believe humor to be superior to non-humor in gaining attention”. 

            Advertisers have developed four specific ways to introduce humor into persuasive techniques: (1) create a positive atmosphere (2) increase the liking of the source, (3) block distracting counterarguments, (4) increase trust in the source.  Creating a positive atmosphere using humor is accomplished by keeping consumers in a good mood.  According to persuasion theorist Freedman, Sears and Carlsmith (1978) “People who are in good mood are less likely to disagree with a persuasive message”.  This theory is upheld by Moran (1996) who stated “Humor has been shown to produce a positive effect” on consumers who enjoy the advertisement.

            Enjoying a television or printed ad through humor can be more effective if the company or source is liked by the consumer.  Meyer (1997) noted that the choice of humor might illustrate a shared sense of humor that hints at a similar set of underlying values.  In that same year Carpenter (1997) indicated “cartoons in textbooks have been linked to a relaxed learning environment”.  Educators, politicians and advertisers often use instruments like humor and cartoons to get their message across to consumers.  Still others consider ironic humor to be more effective than cartoon characters.  Cline and Kellaris (1999) suggests that humor attracts attention and enhances likability of the brand and the ad. 

            The likability of an ad leads to blocking distracting counterarguments against a commercial advertisement or even the company promoting the product.  Distractions in humor are difficult to differentiate because they can range from ironic wisecracks or ill-timed cartoon drawings.  Advertisers fought against distractions and discovered the most effective way to persuade consumers were to combine ironic wisecracks and cartoon drawing in their ads.  By implementing this combination technique, the advertisers also increased the credibility of the source through self-effacing humor. 

            Increasing credibility of the source is by far the greatest impact of advertisements.  Sternthal and Craig (1973) noted that humor enhanced the liking of the source or company.   In the 1980s, the Department of Transportation launched a series of television ads titled, “You Can Learn a lot From a Dummy”.  The public service announcement introduced the antics of two crash test dummies called Larry and Vince.  The infomercial covered a serious topic about wearing seatbelts, but it introduced slapstick comedy to get consumers to really think about the safety practice of wearing seatbelts.  

According to distraction theorist (Festinger and Maccoby, 1964) “A persuasive message that is discrepant or has disagreeing conclusions with positions strongly held by consumers will be more successful in generating attitude changes if the consumer is distracted during the message presentation.”  Plainly stated, if the consumer is distracted he or she will not disagree with the advertisers intent, especially if the counterarguments conflict with their values or attitudes.  By introducing distractions in commercial ads, you reduce the counterarguments and may focus the consumer’s attention on the humor and not the ad. 

Although some studies provide evidence of the positive effects of humor in humorous ads, Zinkhan (1986) found humor to be clearly related to brand attitude, and Speck (1987) found that humor increased perceived product quality.  Considering there are many attributable variables that can affect the overall balance between humor in persuasive ads and their outcomes, most theorist have concluded that there are compounding effects and with varying humorous types.  Speck (1991), concluded that humor was neither intentionally nor structurally related to message processing. 

To be effective in persuasion, consumers must process critical information influenced by an ad.  Processing information about a particular ad invokes an argument developed within the attitude of the consumer.  Researchers have experimented and investigated the effects of cognition when humor is introduced in advertising.  According to Zhang (1996), “Advertising humor is more effective in influencing audience members’ responses…when audience members’ need for cognition is low.”  This study is based solely on the need of the individual cognition or the audience’s ability to process information or the lack thereof.  Individuals with low cognition will admit that humor in advertisements distracts from the original message. 

Cognitive responses to the ads message are determined by the receiver motivation and the ability to process the message cognitively.  According the Gass and Seiter (2003), “the more important a message topic (advertisement) is the greater the involvement”; the more motivated that person is to recall and process the message over and over.  Humor in ads keeps the consumer engaged in the process producing either favorable or unfavorable cognitive responses.  Consumers or receivers who are distracted produce fewer thoughts in response to a persuasive message than those who are not (Osterhouse, & Brock, 1970).

In conclusion this paper has detailed different effects of humor in persuasion.    More importantly it described the effectiveness of humor and the risks associated when attempting to use humor in advertisement. This paper provided research information from theorist that challenged the hypotheses of others with intentions to persuade readers of their conclusions of the effectiveness of humor in advertisements.  This paper addressed some previous theories of persuasion and how the techniques of humor can support or limit their effectiveness.   

References

Borchers, T. A. (2002). Persuasion in the media age. Boston: McGraw-Hill, p. 15.

Carpenter, K. A. (1997). Working papers for scholarly comics: The college instructor's visual

communications advisor Bridgeport, CT: Housatonic Community-Technical College

Cegala, D. J. (1987). Persuasive communication: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Edina,

MN:  Burgess International, p. 13.

Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a

print   advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16,

69-86.

Festinger, L., & Maccoby, M. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal

of  Abnormal Social Psychology, 68, 359-366.

Freedman, J. L., Sears, D. O., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1978). Social psychology (3rd

ed.).  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gass, R. H., & Seiter J. S. (2003). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (2nd ed.

Boston, Allyn & Bacon

Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A practitioner view.

Journal    of Advertising Research, 24, 23-29.

Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western

Moran, C. C. (1996). Short-term mood change, perceived funniness, and the effect of humor

stimuli. Behavioral Medicine, 22, 32-38.

Osterhouse, R. A., & Brock, T. C. (1970). Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by

inhibiting counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 344–358.

Speck, P. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous

ads. In J. H. Leigh & C. R. Martin, Jr. (Eds.), Current issues & research in advertising

(pp. 1-44). Ann Arbor: The Division of Research Michigan Business School,

The University of Michigan.

Sternthal, B., & Craig, S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37, 12-18.

Zinkhan, G.M., & Marting, C. R. (1983).  Two copy testing techniques: The Close procedure and

the cognitive complexity test.  Journal of Business Research, 11, 217 – 228.

Zhang, Y. (1996). The effect of humor in advertising: An individual-difference perspective.

Psychology & Marketing (1986-1998), 13(6), 531. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/230397113?accountid=32521