8/10/2019 Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cline-kellaris-2007-the-influence-of-humor-strength-and-humor-message-relatedness 1/15 This article was downloaded by: [University of Groningen] On: 26 November 2014, At: 07:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-4 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Advertising Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20 The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor—Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability: A Dual Process Model Thomas W. Cline Ph.D. a & James J. Kellaris Ph.D. b a Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics, and Government, St. Vincent College b College of Business, University of Cincinnati Published online: 04 Mar 2013. To cite this article: Thomas W. Cline Ph.D. & James J. Kellaris Ph.D. (2007) The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor—Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability: A Dual Process Model, Journal of Advertising, 36:1, 55-67, DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360104 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360104 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed b Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with pr sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, c expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection n relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduct redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-cond
15
Embed
Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/10/2019 Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability
This article was downloaded by: [University of Groningen]On: 26 November 2014, At: 07:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-4Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of AdvertisingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20
The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor—MessageRelatedness on Ad Memorability: A Dual Process ModelThomas W. Cline Ph.D.
a & James J. Kellaris Ph.D.
b
a Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics, and Government, St. Vincent College
b College of Business, University of Cincinnati
Published online: 04 Mar 2013.
To cite this article: Thomas W. Cline Ph.D. & James J. Kellaris Ph.D. (2007) The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor—Message
Relatedness on Ad Memorability: A Dual Process Model, Journal of Advertising, 36:1, 55-67, DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360104
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360104
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed bTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with prsources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, cexpenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection n relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductredistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-cond
Following the early research on humor in advertising (e.g.,
Duncan 1979; Speck 1987; Sternthal and Craig 1973), numer-
ous studies have attempted to explain the relationship between
humor and ad outcomes (e.g., Alden and Hoyer 1993; Alden,
Mukherjee, and Hoyer 2000; Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990;Cline, Altsech, and Kellaris 2003; Krishnan and Chakravarti
2003; Lee and Mason 1999; Spotts, Weinberger, and Parsons
1997; Weinberger and Campbell 1991). Nevertheless, a lack of
systematic empirical results contrasts with humor’s widespread
use and an intuitive sense among advertising practitioners
that humor enhances ad persuasion (Madden and Weinberger
1984). Accordingly, the goal of our research is to provide a
clearer picture of humor’s role in advertising by examining
important stimulus factors and personality traits that shape
the effects of humorous appeals on consumers’ recall, as well
as the processes underlying such effects.
HUMOR AND ATTENTION
Although some of what is currently known about humor’s ef-
fects on advertising response may be equivocal, a strong case
can be made for humor’s impact on attention. The majority
of studies conducted in industry as well as in laboratory set-
tings bear this out. Madden and Weinberger (1982) find that
humorous magazine ads outperform nonhumorous ads on three
common surrogates for attention. Weinberger et al. (1995)
find evidence that humor is directly linked to attention and
recognition. Spotts, Weinberger, and Parsons (1997) show
that humor enhances initial attention, aids brand recall, and
holds attention. In a laboratory setting, Speck (1987) finds
that humorous ads outperform nonhumorous ads on sustained
attention, even after controlling for initial attention.
HUMOR STRENGTHAlthough some prior studies examined effects of humor’s pres-
ence (versus absence) in an ad (e.g., Lee and Mason 1999), the
impact of humor should depend in part on its strength (e.g.,
Alden, Mukherjee, and Hoyer 2000). Our use of the term humor
strength refers to the extent of humor elicitation provoked by an
ad (Wyer and Collins 1992). Humor strength can be thought
of as “how funny” an ad is, rather than merely referring to
whether or not an ad employs humor (e.g., Elpers, Mukherjee,
and Hoyer 2004). Hence, in the present research, we vary the
strength of humor rather than its mere presence/absence.
HUMOR RELATEDNESS
Weinberger and Gulas (1992) argue that controlling for the
relatedness of humor makes experimental findings unanimous
in their support of humor’s positive impact on attention. In
fact, the relatedness of humor to the product or message may
also be a strong predictor of the success of an ad. Madden
(1982) finds that a radio commercial with product-related
humor is perceived as more interesting than one in which the
humor is unrelated to the product. Weinberger and Campbell
(1991) define related humor as being linked to the product and
the fabric of the commercial. Results of their study show that
related humor offers recall advantages over unrelated humor
for high-involvement/feeling goods. Weinberger et al. (1995)
THE INFLUENCE OF HUMOR STRENGTH AND HUMOR–MESSAGE
RELATEDNESS ON AD MEMORABILITY
A Dual Process Model
Thomas W. Cline and James J. Kellaris
ABSTRACT: This research examines contingencies that shape the effects of humorous appeals on consumers’ recall ofads, as well as the processes underlying such effects. Results of experimentation show that ads are more memorable when
humor is both strong and related to the message, and this interaction is mediated by attention and mood. Stronger humorappeals also induce higher recall among individuals with a high “need for humor” (NFH).
Thomas W. Cline (Ph.D., University of Cincinnati) is an associate
professor of marketing, Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Eco-
nomics, and Government, St. Vincent College.
James J. Kellaris (Ph.D., Georgia State University) is a professor of
marketing, College of Business, University of Cincinnati.
The authors thank Karen Machleit and Steve Posavac for their helpful
comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this work. This research
was supported in part by a CoB Research Fellowship at the University of
Cincinnati. A portion of the work was conducted while the second author
was visiting at Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
8/10/2019 Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability
Alba, Joseph W., J. Wesley Hutchison, and John G. Lynch (1991),“Memory and Decision Making,” in Handbook of Consumer Research, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian,eds., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–49.
Alden, Dana L., and Wayne D. Hoyer (1993), “An Examination
of Cognitive Factors Related to Humorousness in TelevisionAdvertising,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 29–37.
———, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2000), “TheEffects of Incongruity, Surprise, and Positive Moderatorson Perceived Humor in Television Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (2), 1–15.
Arias-Bolzmann, Leopoldo, Goutam Chakraborty, and John C.Mowen (2000), “Effects of Absurdity in Advertising: TheModerating Role of Product Category Attitude and theMediating Role of Cognitive Responses,” Journal of Adver-tising, 29 (1), 35–49.
Batra, Rajeev, and Michael L. Ray (1986), “Affective ResponsesMediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 234–249.
Bower, Geoffrey H., Stephen G. Gilligan, and Kenneth P. Mon-teiro (1981), “Selectivity of Learning Caused by AffectiveStates,” in Affect and Social Cognition, Susan Fiske andMargaret Clark, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,291–331.
Bruner, Gordon C., II, and Paul J. Hensel (1996), Marketing ScalesHandbook, vol. 2, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Kunal Basu (1990), “Humor in Ad-vertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (November), 466–476.
Cline, Thomas W., Moses B. Altsech, and James J. Kellaris(2003), “When Does Humor Enhance or Inhibit Ad Re-sponses? The Moderating Role of Need for Levity,” Journalof Advertising, 32 (3), 31–46.
———, Karen A. Machleit, and James J. Kellaris (1998), “IsThere a Need for Levity?” in Proceedings of the Society forConsumer Psychology 1998 Winter Conference, Margaret C.Campbell and Karen A. Machleit, eds., Washington, DC:American Psychological Association, 155–157.
Dixon, Paul N., William Willingham, Donald A. Strano, andCynthia K. Chandler (1989), “Sense of Humor as a MediatorDuring Incidental Learning of Humor-Related Material,” Psychological Reports, 64, 851–855.
Duncan, Calvin P. (1979), “Humor in Advertising: A BehavioralPerspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7(4), 285–306.
———, and James E. Nelson (1985), “Effects of Humor in aRadio Advertising Experiment,” Journal of Advertising, 14
(2), 33–40.———, ———, and Nancy T. Frontczak (1984), “The Effect
of Humor on Advertising Comprehension,” in Advances inConsumer Research, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed., Provo, UT: As-sociation for Consumer Research, 432–437.
Edell, Julia A., and Richard Staelin (1983), “The InformationProcessing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 10 (1), 45–61.
Elpers, Josephine, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne Hoyer (2004),“Humor in Television Advertising: A Moment-to-MomentAnalysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 592–598.
Galizio, Mark, and Clyde Hendrick (1972), “Effect of Musical Ac-companiment on Attitude: The Guitar as a Prop for Persua-sion,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 (4), 350–359.
Gelb, Betsy, and George Zinkhan (1985), “The Effect of Repeti-
tion on Humor in a Radio Advertising Study,” Journal of Advertising, 14 (4), 13–20, 68.
Gerbing, David W., and James C. Anderson (1988), “An UpdatedParadigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimen-sionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 186–192.
Heckler, Susan E., and Terry L. Childers (1992), “The Role ofExpectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and VisualInformation: What Is Incongruency?” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (4), 475–492.
Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler(1987), “Picture-Word Consistency and the ElaborativeProcessing of Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (December), 359–369.
Isen, Alice M. (1987), “Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes andSocial Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, Lawrence Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press,203–253.
———. (1989), “Some Ways in Which Affect Influences Cogni-tive Processes: Implications for Advertising and ConsumerBehavior,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Alice M.Tybout and Patricia Cafferata, eds., New York: LexingtonBooks, 91–117.
Kellaris, James J., Anthony D. Cox, and Dena Cox (1993), “TheEffect of Background Music on Ad Processing: A Contin-gency Explanation,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (October),114–125.
Krishnan, H. Shanker, and Dipankar Chakravarti (2003), “A
Process Analysis of the Effects of Humorous AdvertisingExecutions on Brand Claims Memory,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 230–245.
Lammers, H. Bruce, Laura Liebowitz, George E. Seymour,and Judith E. Hennessey (1983), “Humor and CognitiveResponses to Advertising Stimuli: A Trace ConsolidationApproach,” Journal of Business Research, 11 (2), 173–185.
Lee, Yih L., and Charlotte Mason (1999), “Responses to Informa-tion Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy,Relevancy, and Humor,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156–169.
Littmann, Jane R. (1983), “A New Formulation of Humor,” Advances in Descriptive Psychology, 3, 183–207.
Machleit, Karen A., and R. Dale Wilson (1988), “Emotional
Feelings and Attitude Toward the Advertisement: The Rolesof Brand Familiarity and Repetition,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (Fall), 27–35.
Madden, Thomas J. (1982), “Humor in Advertising: Applicationsof a Hierarchy-of-Effects Paradigm,” Ph.D. diss., Universityof Massachusetts–Amherst.
———, Chris T. Allen, and Jacquelyn L. Twible (1988), “At-titude Toward the Ad: An Assessment of Diverse Measure-
8/10/2019 Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability
ment Indices Under Different Processing ‘Sets,’” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (3), 242–252.
———, and Marc G. Weinberger (1982), “The Effects of Humoron Attention in Magazine Advertising,” Journal of Advertis-ing, 11 (3), 8–14.
———, and ——— (1984), “Humor in Advertising: A Practi-tioner View,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (4), 23–29.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1991), “Elaborating on Elaboration: The Dis-tinction Between Relational and Item-Specific Elaboration,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3), 358–367.
Muehling, Darrel D., Jeffrey J. Stoltman, and Sanford Gross-bart (1990), “The Impact of Comparative Advertising onLevels of Message Involvement,” Journal of Advertising, 16(3), 41–50.
Olson, James M., and Neal J. Roese (1995), “The Perceived Fun-niness of Humorous Stimuli,” Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 21 (9), 908–913.
O’quin, Karen, and James Aronoff (1981), “Humor as a Tech-nique of Social Influence,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(4), 349–357.
Ping, Robert A., Jr. (1996), “Latent Variable Interaction and
Smith, Stephen M. (1993), “Does Humor in Advertising EnhanceSystematic Processing?” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol.20, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, eds., Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 155–158.
Sobel, Mark E. (1982), “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effectsin Structural Equation Models,” in Sociological Methodology,S. Leinhart, ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 290–312.
Speck, Paul S. (1987), “On Humor and Humor in Advertising,”Ph.D. diss., Texas Tech University.
——— (1991), “The Humorous Ads,” in Current Issues and Re- search in Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin,
Jr., eds., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1–44.
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger, and Amy L. Parsons(1997), “Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Ad-vertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach,” Journalof Advertising, 26 (3), 17–32.
Srull, Thomas K., Meryl Lichtenstein, and Myron Rothbart (1985),“Associative Storage and Retrieval Processes in Person Mem-ory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (2), 316–345.
Sternthal, Brian, and C. Samuel Craig (1973), “Humor in Ad-vertising,” Journal of Marketing, 37 (4), 12–18.
Vaughn, Richard (1980), “How Advertising Works: A PlanningModel,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (5), 27–33.
——— (1986), “How Advertising Works: A Planning ModelRevisited,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1), 57–66.
Weinberger, Marc G., and Leland Campbell (1991), “The Useand Impact of Humor in Radio Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (December), 44–52.
———, and Charles S. Gulas (1992), “The Impact of Humorin Advertising: A Review,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (4),36–59.
———, Harlan E. Spotts, Leland Campbell, and Amy L. Par-sons (1995), “The Use of Humor in Different Advertising
Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (May/June),44–56.
Wicker, Frank W., Irene M. Thorelli, William L. Barron III, andMarguerite R. Ponder (1981), “Relationships Among Af-fective and Cognitive Factors in Humor,” Journal of Researchin Personality, 15, 350–370.
Wyer, Robert S., and James E. Collins (1992), “A Theory of Hu-mor Elicitation,” Psychological Review, 99 (4), 663–688.
Yi, Youjae (1990), “Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects ofthe Context for Print Advertisements,” Journal of Advertis-ing, 19 (2), 40–48.
Zhang, Yong (1996), “Responses to Humorous Advertising:The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (1), 15–32.
8/10/2019 Cline & Kellaris 2007 - The Influence of Humor Strength and Humor-Message Relatedness on Ad Memorability