“The Effectiveness of Absurdity in Advertising Across Cultures,” Journal of Promotion Management, 18(4): 393-413

Journal of Promotion Management, 18:393–413, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496491.2012.693058

Effectiveness of Absurdity in AdvertisingAcross Cultures

KATJA GELBRICH and DANIEL GATHKECatholic University Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany

STANFORD A. WESTJOHNUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, USA

This paper examines the effect of absurd advertising on memoryand persuasion across cultures. Drawing on Hofstede’s culturaldimensions, it is hypothesized that the effect of absurdity on recall isculturally invariant, whereas the effect on attitude toward the ad iscontingent on the recipients’ cultural orientation. The assumptionsare tested using a between-subjects experimental design, in whichwe manipulated type of absurdity and used the cultural dimensionsas blocking variables. Data was collected from 274 students in theUnited States, Germany, Russia, and China. We discuss theoreticaland managerial implications of these findings as well as guidelinesfor further research.

KEYWORDS absurdity, advertising, cross-cultural

INTRODUCTION

Absurd ads have been increasingly used over the past several years asmarketers attempt to attract attention in a crowd of advertising messages(Fawcett, 1995; Mostafa, 2005; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2002). Absurd ads arethose that combine incongruous pictorial images that are perceived as ir-rational (Arias-Bolzmann, Chakraborty, & Mowen, 2000). Such irrationalmessages draw attention because they enhance ad originality, which dif-ferentiates them in the crowd of regular campaigns that merely highlightpositive product or brand features (Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002). More-over, absurdity entails incongruity, which recipients intuitively seek to re-solve (Heckler & Childers, 1992). This need facilitates cognitive processing

Address correspondence to Daniel Gathke, Catholic University Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Aufder Schanz 49, 85049, Ingolstadt, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2

394 K. Gelbrich et al.

of the advertising message. Hence, absurd ads may be better memorizedthan conventional ads.

Indeed, Homer and Kahle (1986) and Arias-Bolzmann et al. (2000) finda significant main effect of absurdity on ad recall for U.S. respondents.However, using attitude toward the ad/brand as the dependent variable,Arias-Bolzmann et al. and Mostafa (2005) find no significant main effectof absurdity. Instead, these studies suggest prior product category attitude(PCA) as a pure moderator on the relationship between absurdity and attitudetoward the ad/brand. Yet, the results on this interaction effect are contradic-tory. Mostafa (2005) finds for Egyptian consumers that the positive effect ofabsurdity on attitude toward the ad/brand requires a favorable PCA, whereasArias-Bolzmann et al. find for U.S. consumers that absurdity only increasesattitude toward the ad/brand when PCA is unfavorable. In summary, thesefindings do not allow for recommendations on the effectiveness of absurdityin international advertising campaigns. This is because the positive effectof absurdity on memory (i.e., recall) is limited to U.S. samples. Moreover,the nonsignificant effect of absurdity on persuasion (i.e., attitude toward thead/brand) is based on two single-culture studies (United States, Egypt) andproduce contradictory results for the role of product category attitude (PCA).However, PCA may be confounded with culture for the examined productcategories, such as alcohol, which is negatively viewed in Muslim societies(i.e., Egypt) as compared to non-Muslim cultures (i.e., United States).

The lack of cross-cultural research in this area is surprising given thatother ad types (e.g., humor, suspense, shock) and ad contents (e.g., informa-tion content, sex roles, expectancy and relevancy, visual imagery, context,ad-brand-incongruity) are extensively addressed in cross-cultural research(e.g., Callow & Schiffmann, 2002; Fang, Hong, & Jianyao 2009; Rojas-Mendez,Davies, & Madran 2009). Hence, we draw on Hofstede’s (1984) concept ofculture to examine whether or not culture moderates the effect of differentabsurdity types in advertising on recall and on attitude.

In answering this research question, we make several contributions tothe literature. Most importantly, we examine whether the effectiveness of ab-surdity is culture-bound and if so, if this applies to both memory (i.e., recall)and persuasion (i.e., attitude). Hereby, we control for prior product categoryattitude (PCA) that appears to be confounded with culture. Finally, whileArias-Bolzmann et al. (2000), Homer and Kahle (1986), and Mostafa (2005)examined only one type of absurdity, that is, surrealism, we concurrently in-vestigate all four categories of absurdity identified by Arias-Bolzmann et al.,that is, surrealism, anthropomorphism, allegory, and hyperbole.

The results of this study have important implications for marketers.Specifically, we identify whether absurdity is an adequate means for gettingnoticed in the crowd of advertising in international markets. Moreover, weidentify whether some types of absurdity may be inappropriate in certain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2

Absurdity in Advertising Across Cultures 395

cultures because they violate cultural norms. Finally, advertising practitionersreceive guidance on how to adapt absurd ads to the cultural context.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Concept of Absurdity in Advertising

Starting with a few cigarette campaigns in the late 1940s, absurd ads areused more often today, although they still represent the exception ratherthan the usual (Stern, 1992). Yet, bizarre campaigns seem to be among themost effective. Fawcett (1995) identifies almost 20% among the best U.S.commercials as absurd. Some campaigns, such as the Joe Camel or AbsolutVodka ads, even gain cult status as creative art pieces and outlive for decades(Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008).

Given its increasing popularity, absurdity in advertising has becomean object of interest for marketing theorists distinguishing between fourdifferent forms of absurdity: surrealism, anthropomorphism, allegory, andhyperbole (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000). Surrealism comprises a combinationof images in an unexpected way that breaks every rule of photographyand editing (Arias-Bolzmann et al.). For example, an ad may display anorange instead of a sun up in the sky. Anthropomorphism is the ascription ofhuman characteristics to a non-human creature or to a non-personal object(Arias-Bolzmann et al.). Allegory means that a story, image, or object is toldor displayed in a way that it bears a veiled meaning beyond what it obviouslyseems (or is expected) to be. Expectations are jarred when the previouslyhidden double meaning is unveiled (Stern, 1990). For example, an allegoryad for the German car rental company Sixt depicted a delivery van along withthe slogan: “For everyone who wants to quickly carry away documents.” Thecampaign alluded to the case of some German top managers having hiddenincriminating documents from tax investigators. Hyperbole refers to a grossexaggeration that is used to make a point, such as movers packing theStatue of Liberty into the trunk of a truck, which emphasizes the surplus ofspace in the car (Arias-Bolzmann et al.). While using different means tocreate irrationality, all four types have in common that they trigger surprisein the recipients through displaying some sort of incongruity.

Advertising Effectiveness

Advertising effectiveness has long been discussed in the marketing litera-ture (e.g., Eisend, 2008; Hammer, Riebe, & Kennedy, 2009; Till & Baack,2005; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). Pertinent success criteria can be organizedinto three categories: memory (e.g., attention, recall, recognition), persua-sion (cognitive responses, attitude toward the ad, brand, and advertiser),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


and behavior (purchase intent, actual purchase). We focus on memory andpersuasion because they are a precondition for (purchase) behavior to occur(e.g., MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Till & Baack). Following prior researchon the effectiveness of absurd ads (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Homer &Kahle, 1986; Mostafa, 2005), we focus on recall (as an indicator of memory)and attitude toward the ad (as an indicator persuasion) for the followingreasons.

First, recall is a more objective (and thus more valid) measure of adver-tising effectiveness than other memory measures, such as recognition (Mehta& Purvis, 2006). Recognition only connects an ad to a certain context with-out questioning anything about the product or the brand/company name(Ahn & La Ferle, 2008). In contrast, an (unaided) recall of ad information(e.g., brand attributes) delivers a reliable account of how well ad contentis memorized after a single, short-term contact. Second, attitude toward thead—along with attitude toward the brand—has been shown to be a salientpredictor of consumer behavior in prior research and a key factor for persua-sion. Such attitude represents consumers’ feelings of favorability toward thead/brand itself and therefore is a good proxy for purchase intention (Eisend,2008; MacKenzie et al., 1986). In our theoretical development, we focus onattitude toward the ad because it tends to be transferred to the advertisedbrand due a conditioning process (MacKenzie et al.). Indeed, prior researchon absurd ads fails to establish discriminant validity for the two constructs(Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Mostafa, 2005).

Culture as a Moderator of Advertising Effectiveness

A large body of literature addresses the issue of cross-cultural standardizationversus differentiation of advertising (e.g., Diehl, Terlutter, & Weinberg, 2003;Han & Shavitt, 1994; Zhang & Gelb, 1996). Drawing on Hofstede’s (1984)concept of cultural values, which are measured on cultural dimensions, ad-vertising appeals that are congruent with the recipient’s cultural values areshown to improve attitude (toward the ad, brand, and advertised product)and, subsequently, purchase intention (Diehl et al.; Han & Shavitt; Zhang& Gelb). Hence, value-congruent advertising appeals are more persuasivethan appeals that are incompatible with cultural values. The reasoning forthis effect is that people from one and the same culture share a commonset of values. These values guide the judgment of environmental stimuli asright (i.e., consistent with individual values) or wrong (i.e., inconsistent withindividual values) (House et al., 2004). Hence, we also assume for absurdads that cultural values (measured on cultural dimensions) moderate ad-vertising effectiveness. In particular, we expect that culture plays a crucialrole for absurdity in advertising to be persuasive (i.e., to affect attitude to-ward the ad), whereas we expect that culture plays no role for absurdity to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


FIGURE 1 The role of culture in explaining the effect of absurdity in advertising.

explain memory (i.e., to affect recall). Figure 1 summarizes the hypothesizedrelationships.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Absurdity and Recall

Absurd ads present pictorial images that appear senseless and bizarre(Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Stern, 1990). Such schema-discrepant infor-mation differs from the majority of advertising messages that usually aimto affirm positive product or brand features (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010).Hence, absurdity entails deviation from regular advertising messages. Theeffect of such schema-discrepant information on memory can be explainedby the isolation effect, which suggests that a particular object that has beenpreviously made distinct from other items is better memorized than a conven-tional object (Bireta, Surprenant, & Neath, 2008). This is because novel andunexpected objects capture attention and trigger cognitive processing, whichincreases the likelihood of the object being memorized (Homer & Kahle,1986).

Applying the isolation effect to an advertising context, recipients ex-posed to an absurd ad are likely to engage in comprehensive cognitiveprocessing, triggered by the schema-incongruent stimulus. Such cognitiveprocessing enhances the likelihood of the presented stimulus and its at-tributes to be stored in the recipients’ memories (e.g., Houston, Childers,& Heckler, 1987; Till & Baack, 2005). Hence, consistent with prior em-pirical findings on the effectiveness of absurdity in advertising (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Homer & Kahle, 1986; Mostafa, 2005), we hypoth-esize that absurdity in advertising increases the recall of brand/productattributes:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


H1: Absurdity increases recall.

We expect this effect to be culturally invariant because the isolationeffect merely suggests that schema incongruence reflexively triggers cogni-tive processing (Homer & Kahle, 1986). However, cognitive processing doesnot yet comprise any judgment of the deviant stimulus. Hence, the recip-ients’ value system (i.e., culture) should not be involved in mere memoryformation (e.g., Butler & Berry, 2001; Schacter, 1987). Thus, we suggest thatabsurdity increases recall across cultures.

H2: The positive effect of absurdity on recall is invariant across cultures.

Absurdity and Attitude Toward the Ad

In contrast to recall, we do not expect absurdity in advertising to reflexivelyincrease attitude toward the ad. On one hand, absurdity may satisfy theneed for novel impressions and variety seeking thus representing a pleasantdiversion from the crowd of uniform advertising (Hammer et al., 2009).On the other hand, the mere exposure effect suggests that novel stimulimay be perceived as less favorable than familiar stimuli (Grimes & Kitchen,2007). Therefore, absurd ads should receive no better evaluation than non-absurd ads (Homer & Kahle, 1986). Indeed, pertinent research on advertisingeffectiveness supports that novel and creative stimuli do not enhance attitude(e.g., Machleit, Allen, & Madden, 1993; Till & Baack, 2005). Prior research onabsurd ads also suggests that there is no significant main effect on attitudetoward the ad (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Mostafa, 2005).

While absurdity may not automatically induce positive attitudes towardthe ad, we assume that the process of attitude formation toward an absurd adis culture-bound. This is because cultural values prescribe what members ofa society consider desirable (House et al., 2004). Hence, recipients may differin judging a bizarre pictorial image that contradicts any rule of photographyand does not seem to have any obvious meaning. In order to hypothesizethe moderating effect of culture on the effect of absurdity on attitude towardthe ad, we draw on the four cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede(1984).

The masculinity index (MAS) describes the degree to which membersof a culture consider gender roles to be distinct (vs. overlapped) and thedegree to which members of a society should stress traditional masculine(vs. feminine) values. In masculine cultures (e.g., Japan), gender roles areclearly distinguished, and members of these cultures emphasize success,achievement, and performance, which usually lead to materialistic advan-tages such as money, consumption, and possession (Hofstede, 1984). Hence,masculinity entails competitive (owning more than others) and materialisticmotives (valuing things as more important than people) (Ger & Belk, 1996).In contrast, feminine societies (e.g., Sweden) stress equal gender roles and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


values such as modesty, nurturance, service, and life quality (Hofstede &Bond, 1984). Hence, femininity entails that the relationship between peopleis more important than success and material possession.

We suggest that recipients with a masculine value orientation will havemore positive attitudes toward absurd ads because they entail intrusive im-ages and challenging contents. In contrast, recipients from feminine cultures,who are skeptical of advertising in general (Mooij 1998), may consider it asinappropriate and too offensive to use bizarre images and incongruent mes-sages for a commercial purpose like selling a product. Hence, we proposethat:

H3a: The effect of absurdity on attitude toward the ad is greater amongindividuals with high levels of MAS than for individuals with low levels ofMAS.

The uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) describes the extent of threatthat members of a society feel when being exposed to an uncertain orunknown situation. It reflects the level of idiosyncrasy toward the uncertainand thus indicates the way people respond to the unknown (Hofstede, 1984).People from cultures scoring high on uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Greece)tend to be afraid of novel situations. In contrast, people from cultures scoringlow on uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Jamaica) are tolerant of ambiguity. Theytend to consider new, unstructured situations as a challenge rather than as athreat (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995).

We assume that uncertainty avoidance affects attitude formation towardan absurd ad because absurd ads differ from regular ads in that they compriseincongruity of information and ambiguity of meaning. Hence, they representhigh levels of novelty and uncertainty to recipients (Arias-Bolzmann et al.,2000; Stern, 1990). Recipients in cultures with high UAI tend to be fright-ened of unknown and ambiguous situations (Hofstede, 2001). Hence, theymay feel uncomfortable with such advertisements and form a negative atti-tude toward the ad. In contrast, recipients with low UAI levels will not feelthreatened by the ad content because they are tolerant of ambiguity. Theyconsider incongruity as an exciting challenge (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995).Hence, they may form a positive attitude toward an absurd ad, which entailshigh levels of incongruity. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:

H3b: The effect of absurdity on attitude toward the ad is greater for individ-uals with low levels of UAI than for individuals with high levels of UAI.

The power distance index (PDI) refers to the extent to which peopleaccept unequal distribution of power (Hofstede, 1984). It is a measure ofsocial inequality, which is expressed by the degree to which a superiorperson is able to determine a subordinate’s behavior through his/her status(Hofstede, 2001). In cultures scoring high on power distance (e.g., Russia),people generally tend to accept that power is not equally distributed and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


that superiors should be dominant and subordinates should be obedientto authorities. In cultures scoring low on power distance (e.g., Austria),people are generally reluctant to accept authorities and unequal distributionof power (Mooij & Hofstede, 2010).

We expect power distance to affect the relationship between absurdityand attitude toward the ad. This is because absurd ads do not convey an ob-vious, easy to understand message, but they leave it to the recipient to inter-pret the ad message (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000). Recipients from cultureswith high power distance may feel irritated by such ambiguous messagesbecause they are accustomed to following rules set up by an authority (Hof-stede, 2001). Hence, they may expect from advertising organizations to usetheir expert knowledge to clearly indicate favorable product and brand at-tributes and give advice on product usage and/or purchase decisions. Giventhis preference for a clear-cut advertising message, they are unlikely to forma positive attitude toward absurd ads.

Recipients from cultures scoring low on power distance, on the con-trary, are generally skeptical of authorities and tend to reject any kind ofheteronomy (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). Hence, they might appre-ciate the vagueness comprised in an absurd message because it providesthem with the autonomy to interpret the message based on their own ideasand preferences. We assume that, in acknowledging this freedom of choiceand decision, recipients with low power distance are likely to form a posi-tive attitude toward the ad when exposed to an absurd ad. In summary, weadvance the following:

H3c: The effect of absurdity on attitude toward the ad is greater for individ-uals with low levels of PDI than for individuals with high levels of PDI.

The individualism index (IDV) indicates the relationship between anindividual and the collectivity in a society. People in individualistic societies(e.g., United States) prefer acting as independent individuals, showing adistinctive sense for autonomy, personal achievement, and self-actualization(Hofstede, 1984). Hence, they have a strong need for uniqueness (Burns &Brady, 1992). In contrast, people in collectivistic societies (e.g., China) tendto pertain to a cohesive group and to place common welfare over personalsuccess. They are “we”-conscious, basing their identity on their social en-vironment (Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). Collectivistic people are high-contextcommunicators, laying importance on trust and long-term relationships. Theystrive to belong to a community and consider themselves to be just one per-son among many others rather than standing out of the masses (Hofstede,1984).

We assume that the need for uniqueness comprised in individualismmakes recipients from these cultures susceptive to absurd ads. This is becauseabsurd ads deviate from regular ads thus representing something unique.Individualistic recipients may infer that purchasing the advertised product

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


may help them to establish a distinct unique self-presentation. Collectivisticindividuals, on the contrary, seek to conform to the community. Hence, theydo not strive for a unique self-presentation and may reject the nonconformitycomprised in absurd ads. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H3d: The effect of absurdity on attitude toward the ad/brand is greater forindividuals with high levels of IDV than for individuals with low levels ofIDV.

METHOD

Sample and Data Collection

Selecting cultures is a crucial consideration in cross-cultural sample design(Samiee & Jeong, 1994). Looking at prior research, a major point of criticismis the arbitrary choice of cultures based on availability of respondents andon descriptive characterization of nations, which often lack the variancenecessary for cross-cultural research (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001). In orderto achieve a reasonable variance, we selected four cultures in a way that weobtained at least one culture scoring high and low on each of the four culturaldimensions, respectively. Further, we chose cultures that represent importanteconomies and advertising markets to ensure relevance for the examinationof advertising effectiveness. Based on these criteria, we selected the UnitedStates, Germany, China, and Russia for the purpose of this study.

A student sample was deemed suitable for this research because ho-mogeneous subgroups that are stable on certain demographic characteristicsallow for a conservative test of cultural differences as they provide sampleequivalence (Calder, Phillips, & Tybout, 1981). Using students also ruledout confounding effects of educational background, income, and age, whichare relatively homogenous in this population. The data was collected onlinefrom students at four universities in the four countries. Removing cases dueto missing values yielded a sample size of 274 (United States: 76, Germany:83, China: 52, and Russia: 63). Of the participants, 135 were male (49.3%)and 139 were female (50.7%). The average age was 22 years.

Stimuli Development

To avoid the confounding effects of prior category attitude (PCA) reportedin prior studies (Arias-Bolzmann et al., 2000; Mostafa, 2005), we kept priorPCA constant across cultures. We chose a product category with positivePCA across cultures because advertising usually aims to persuade consumerswho like the respective product category of a particular brand. Convinc-ing consumers with a negative PCA, on the contrary, requires extraordinaryadvertising effort and usually is not the primary goal of advertising practi-tioners. Based upon a series of pretests, we chose lemonade as the product

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


category, for which the respondents indicated a high positive mean PCA(M = 5.06). We ruled out confounding effects of brand attitude by using afictitious brand name (“Wild Lime”).

The type of absurdity was then manipulated in a between-subjects ex-perimental design. We used a non-absurd ad as a reference stimulus display-ing a young woman standing in the sun and drinking a bottle of “Wild Lime”lemonade. In addition, the lower bottom of the ad contains a bottle of “WildLime” along with some lemons and the slogan “Refreshing. Sparkling. Tasty.”The four different types of absurdity (surrealism, anthropomorphism, alle-gory, and hyperbole) were evoked through re-composition of this referencetheme.

The surreal ad shows a young woman in front of a purple sky, withthe sun being substituted by a “shining” lemon. A bizarre lemon tree withmelting limes was added to express unbearable heat. The anthropomorphis-tic ad shows a young woman on the beach, drinking a bottle of lemonade.Next to her, stands a lime with arms, legs, and a hat on its top, embrac-ing a second bottle of lemonade. The allegoric ad shows a young womanin the desert, leaning toward a palm tree and drinking a bottle of lemon-ade. The background shows an exhausted woman lying next to a well.Although the woman is thirsty, she ignores the well next to her, and creepstoward the bottle of lemonade instead. The hyperbolical ad depicts a youngwoman standing in the sun. Her gigantic arm holds an equally gigantic bottle,from which a big flush of lemonade flows into her mouth (see Figure 2).

The claim was then translated into German, Russian, and Chinese, andrespondents of the four cultures were randomly exposed to one of the fiveads. They were asked to carefully look at the ads and then answer a numberof questions including manipulation check measures, cultural values, recall,and attitude toward the ad.

Measures

All constructs were measured on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” Scales were adapted fromprevious studies or developed for this study. All items were translated intoGerman, Chinese, and Russian using double-back translation (Brislin,1980).

MANIPULATION CHECK MEASURES

The manipulation check measures included the level of absurdity, whichwas captured by four items (absurd, irrational, bizarre, and odd) derivedfrom Arias-Bolzmann et al. (2000). A one-way ANOVA using type of ad asthe independent variable and level of absurdity as the dependent variablerevealed that four absurd ads were perceived as significantly more absurd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


FIGURE 2 Ads used to manipulate type of absurdity (English version). (Color figure availableonline.)

(Msurreal = 4.08; Manthropomorphistic = 4.11; Mallegoric = 3.80; Mhyperbolical = 3.85)than the non-absurd ad (M = 2.86), and post-hoc comparisons revealedthat the level of absurdity did not differ across the four absurd ad types.In addition, we developed scales for the four types of absurdity based onpertinent definitions of the four absurdity forms (Arias-Bolzmann et al.; Cal-lister & Stern, 2007; Colston & Keller, 1998; Stern, 1990). Sample items are“weird” for surrealism, “‘lets an animal/object appear as a human being” foranthropomorphism, “tells a story with a deeper meaning” for allegory, and“displays the promotional object in an exaggerated way” for hyperbole. Ma-nipulation checks revealed that the surreal ad was perceived as significantlymore surreal (M = 4.53) than all other ads (M = 4.11, t = 1.966, p < .05).The anthropomorphistic ad was perceived as significantly more anthropo-morphistic (M = 5.14) than all other ads (M = 2.51, t = 12.38, p < .001).The allegoric ad was perceived as significantly more allegoric (M = 3.51)than all other ads (M = 3.03, t = 1.81, p < .10). Finally, the hyperbolical adwas perceived as significantly more hyperbolical (M = 4.83) than all otherads (M = 4.05, t = 3.82, p < .001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


BLOCKING VARIABLE

The four cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1984) were used as blocking vari-ables. We drew on cultural values at the individual level rather than at thesocietal (i.e., country) level (Donthu & Yoo, 1998). This is because equatingthe stereotypical culture of a country to all citizens of this country is mislead-ing for examining individual customer reactions to stimuli (Yoo, Donthu,& Lenartowicz, 2004). Indeed, prior research finds within-country hetero-geneity of values to be greater than between-country heterogeneity (e.g.,Samiee & Jeong, 1994). Hence, measuring value-orientation at the individuallevel allows for extrapolating beyond the countries examined and providesgreater explanatory power (Patterson, Cowley, & Prasongsukarn, 2006). Wemeasured individual value orientation using the CVSCALE (Yoo et al.). Allfour cultural dimensions displayed satisfactory internal consistency (α > .70).The scales for each dimension were averaged and cultural disposition wasclassified via median split as low or high.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

To measure recall, participants were asked to freely recall the ad. Usingcontent analysis of the answers, we then counted the number of correctlyrecalled ad information (brand name, setting, product details, claim). Atti-tude toward the ad was measured via 7-point semantic differential scales,using Holbrook and Batra’s (1987) 4-item index (dislikable/likable, unfavor-able/favorable, negative/positive, bad/good). The reliability of this scale wassatisfactory (α = .88).

RESULTS

Effects of Absurdity on Recall

H1 suggests a positive effect of absurdity on recall. A one-way ANOVArevealed that the mean of correctly memorized ad information for the absurdads is significantly higher (M = 1.56) than for the non-absurd ad (M = .93;F (1, 274) = 13.16, p < .001). According to post-hoc comparisons, this appliesto all forms of absurdity, and the recall level across these forms does notvary significantly. Hence, H1 is supported.

H2 claims that the effect of absurdity on recall is invariant across cul-tures. Table 1 displays the results of four two-way ANOVAs with type of adand the respective cultural dimension as independent variables. The resultsshow nonsignificant interaction effects between type of ad and masculinity(F (4, 274) = .838, p < .502), uncertainty avoidance (F (4, 274) = 1.253,p < .289), power distance (F (4, 274) = 0.958, p < .431), and individualism(F (4, 274) = 0.161, p < .958). Hence, H2 is supported.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


TABLE 1 ANOVA Results Illustrating the Effect of Absurdity on Recall Across Cultures

Cultural dimension SS F df p

Masculinity main effect absurdity 5.859 4.025 4 .003main effect masculinity 3.432 2.358 1 .126absurdity × masculinity 1.219 .838 4 .502

Uncertainty Avoidance main effect absurdity 6.072 4.222 4 .002main effect uncertainty avoidance 5.962 4.146 1 .043absurdity × uncertainty avoidance 1.802 1.253 4 .289

Power Distance main effect absurdity 5.87 4.008 4 .004main effect power distance .055 .038 1 .846absurdity × power distance 1.403 .958 4 .431

Individualism main effect absurdity 5.421 3.658 4 .006main effect individualism .267 .18 1 .672absurdity × individualism .238 .161 4 .958

Effects of Absurdity on Attitude Toward the Ad

H3a through H3d refer to the interaction of absurdity and culture on attitudetoward the ad. Table 2 shows the mean scores of attitude toward the adacross different types of ad and cultural orientations. Table 3 shows theresults of the respective two-way ANOVAs.

H3a suggests that a high MAS increases the effect of absurdity on attitudetoward the ad. The two-way ANOVA yields nonsignificant main effects forabsurdity (F (4, 274) = .877, p < .478) and masculinity (F (1, 274) = 1.639,p < .202), whereas the interaction of absurdity × masculinity is significant(F (4, 274) = 3.667, p < .006). Hence, masculinity is a pure moderator.Single 2 × 2 ANOVAs with masculinity (low vs. high) and each ad type(e.g., anthropomorphistic ad vs. non-absurd ad) as independent variablesyield significantly higher levels of attitude toward absurd ads in the case ofanthropomorphism (4.39 vs. 3.68, F (1, 120) = 11.568, p < .001), allegory(4.60 vs. 3.85, F (1, 96) = 9.809, p < .002), and hyperbole (4.46 vs. 4.02, F (1,120) = 7.229, p < .008), with the only exception being surrealism (4.36 vs.4.44, F (1, 274) = 2.764, p < .099). In contrast, low levels of masculinityincrease attitude toward the non-absurd ad (4.43 vs. 3.62, F (1, 58) = 7.679,p < .008). The mean scores with significant differences are indicated bythe bold figures in Table 2. These results largely support H3a: masculinityleads to a positive effect of absurdity (i.e., anthropomorphism, allegory, andhyperbole) on attitude toward the ad.

H3b proposes that a high UAI decreases the effect of absurdity on atti-tude. The two-way ANOVA shows a nonsignificant main effect for absurdity(F (4, 274) = 1.258, p < .287), but a significant main effect for uncertaintyavoidance (F (1, 274) = 7.026, p < .009). However, the interaction of ab-surdity × uncertainty avoidance is only marginally significant (F (4, 274) =2.022, p < .092). The mean scores in Table 2 even suggest that, contrary toexpectations, high levels of uncertainty avoidance increase attitude toward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2

TA

BLE

2M

ean

Score

san

dSt

andar

dD

evia

tion

ofA

ttitu

de

Tow

ard

the

Ad

MA

Slo

wM

AS

hig

hU

AI

low

UA

Ihig

hPD

Ilo

wPD

Ihig

hID

Vlo

wID

Vhig

h

Non-a

bsu

rd4

.43

(1.0

2)3

.62

(1.2

0)3.

88(1

.64)

4.18

(1.9

1)4.

07(1

.14)

3.98

(1.2

3)3.

79(1

.19)

4.16

(1.1

6)Su

rrea

lism

4.44

(1.2

9)4.

36(1

.10)

4.19

(1.0

8)4.

67(1

.28)

4.46

(1.1

1)4.

33(1

.27)

4.46

(1.2

1)4.

35(1

.18)

Anth

ropom

orp

his

m3

.68

(1.2

4)4

.39

(1.3

9)3.

76(1

.29)

4.20

(1.3

8)3.

95(1

.44)

4.12

(1.2

6)4.

21(1

.39)

3.75

(1.2

5)A

llego

ry3

.85

(1.3

2)4

.60

(1.2

8)3

.76

(1.2

7)4

.96

(1.1

1)3.

89(1

.40)

4.51

(1.2

2)4

.80

(1.2

3)3

.66

(1.2

1)H

yper

bole

4.0

2(1

.28)

4.4

6(1

.53)

4.32

(1.3

1)4.

02(1

.52)

3.90

(1.1

7)4.

49(1

.53)

4.39

(1.3

6)3.

98(1

.42)

406

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


TABLE 3 ANOVA Results for the Effects of Ad Type and Culture on Attitude Toward the Ad

Cultural dimension Effect SS F df p

Masculinity (H3a) main effect absurdity 5.639 .877 4 .478main effect masculinity 2.634 1.639 1 .202absurdity × masculinity 23.571 3.667 4 .006

UncertaintyAvoidance (H3b)

main effect absurdity 8.166 1.258 4 .287main effect uncertainty

avoidance11.404 7.026 1 .009

absurdity × uncertaintyavoidance

13.129 2.022 4 .092

Power Distance(H3c)

main effect absurdity 5.127 .769 4 .546main effect power

distance3.557 2.134 1 .145

absurdity × powerdistance

6.764 1.015 4 .400

Individualism (H3d) main effect absurdity 7.130 1.095 4 .359main effect individualism 7.766 4.770 1 .030absurdity × individualism 13.946 2.142 4 .076

absurd ads (except for hyperbole). Single 2 × 2 ANOVAs for the respectiveabsurdity types yield a marginally significant effect for allegory (4.96 vs. 3.76,F (1, 96) = 3.181, p < .078), which is indicated by the bold figures in Table 2.Hence, H3b is not supported. Instead, the results suggest that an allegoricad yields a positive attitude toward the ad when uncertainty avoidance ishigh.

H3c suggests that a high PDI decreases the effect of absurdity on at-titude. A two-way ANOVA shows nonsignificant main effects for absurdity(F (4, 274) = .769, p < .546) and PDI (F (1, 274) = 2.134, p < .145).Contrary to our assumption, the interaction between absurdity × power dis-tance is also nonsignificant (F (4, 274) = 1.015, p < .400). Single 2 × 2ANOVAs show that this applies to all absurdity forms. Thus, H3c is notsupported.

H3d states that a high IDV increases the effect of absurdity on attitude.An ANOVA shows an nonsignificant main effect for absurdity (F (4, 274) =1.095, p < .359), but a significant main effect for individualism (F (1, 274) =4.77, p < .030). The interaction of absurdity × individualism is onlymarginally significant (F (4, 274) = 2.142, p < .076). Hence, H3d is notsupported. The mean scores in Table 2 even suggest that, contrary to expec-tations, high levels of individualism tend to decrease attitude toward absurdads. Individual 2 × 2 ANOVAs for the respective absurdity types show thatthis effect is only significant for allegory (4.80 vs. 3.66, (F (1, 96) = 9.004,p < 0.003) as indicated by the bold figures in Table 2. Hence, H3d is notsupported. Instead, the results suggest that an allegoric ad yields to a positiveattitude toward the ad when individualism is low.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


DISCUSSION

Theoretical Contributions

The effect of absurd ads on memory (i.e., recall) versus persuasion (i.e.,attitude toward the ad) appears to be divergent. On one hand, all four typesof absurdity exert a positive effect on recall. This result supports the isolationeffect suggesting that schema-incongruent information induces an extendedelaboration process (Bireta et al., 2008). As a consequence, recipients recallmore and more precisely what is shown in absurd ads compared to ads witha non-absurd setting. This isolation effect appears to be culturally invariant: itis a reflexive reaction to a deviant stimulus, which does not entail judgmentof this stimulus. Hence, cultural orientation does not interfere with memoryformation.

On the other hand, absurdity alone does not increase attitude towardthe ad, but persuasion depends on culture. In particular, the moderatingeffect of masculinity is confirmed for three absurdity types: anthropomor-phistic, allegoric, and hyperbolical ads lead to a positive attitude toward thead when masculinity is high. Respondents with a feminine value orientation,on the contrary, form a more positive attitude toward non-absurd ads. Theseresults support our assumption that the intrusive images and challengingcontent comprised in absurd ads persuade recipients with a masculine ori-entation, whereas respondents with a feminine orientation prefer messagesthat comply with the norm.

Although contrary to expectations, two more interactions between ab-surdity and culture on attitude toward the ad deserve attention. These interac-tions refer to uncertainty avoidance and individualism, which both interferewith the effect of allegoric ads.

With respect to uncertainty avoidance, allegoric ads yield a positiveattitude toward the ad among respondents with a high UAI. Originally, wehad assumed that uncertainty avoidance decreases attitude toward absurdads because such ads entail ambiguous or even meaningless pictorial im-ages that people scoring high on UAI may refrain from. However, this doesnot hold true for allegoric ads because allegory entails a second meaningthat recipients only reveal if they understand the seemingly incongruent(i.e., senseless) message (Stern, 1990). Having resolved incongruity, theserecipients may experience relief from the strain that incongruous informa-tion bring about (Speck, 1990). Moreover, they might be proud that theyunveiled the hidden meaning. The perceived pride and relief, in turn, arelikely to enhance attitude toward the ad.

With respect to individualism, an allegoric ad yields a positive attitudetoward the ad among respondents with a low IDV (i.e., a collectivistic valueorientation). Originally, we had assumed that absurd ads appeal to indi-vidualistic recipients because deviation helps to establish a distinct uniqueself-presentation, whereas collectivistic recipients seek to conform to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


community and therefore reject deviant (i.e., absurd) ads. However, collec-tivistic individuals also tend to pay high attention to the context of a message(Hofstede, 2001), and contextual cues may be relevant for the perception andjudgment of allegoric ads. This is because allegory is the only type of absur-dity that actually has a deeper meaning, and the detection of this meaningprovides relief (Speck, 1990). As collectivistic individuals pay more attentionto contextual cues (such as the crawling woman and the well on the back-ground of the allegoric ad), they are more likely to unveil the ad’s meaning(i.e., that the woman ignores the well because she wants lemonade). Feelingrelieved and proud of this cognition, they may form a more positive atti-tude toward the ad. Individualistic recipients pay less attention to contextualcues (Callow & Schiffmann, 2002). They may view the ads more superficiallyand fail to unveil allegoric ad’s meaning, which jeopardizes positive attitudeformation.

While masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism affect atti-tude formation toward absurd ads, power distance appears to be the onlycultural dimension without such an effect. Originally, we had predicted thatrecipients with low PDI form positive attitudes because they appreciate au-tonomy of interpretation, whereas recipients with high PDI, who tend toacknowledge authorities, prefer clear and direct guidance. Probably, theneed for autonomy versus heteronomy from authorities does not apply toadvertising because advertisers are usually not perceived as credible as otherauthorities, such as governments, seniors, or supervisors (Hunt 1972). Hence,the acceptance or rejection of power distance may not affect attitude towardabsurd ads.

In summary, the results suggest a salient position of allegoric ads: thepersuasive effect of this absurdity type more than others depends on therecipients’ cultural disposition. One reason for this salient role may be thatallegory is the only tale-telling form of absurdity, which contains a secondmeaning that may provide relief and pride when being unveiled. Unveilingthe meaning may require high levels of empathy, whereas all other forms ofabsurdity are picturesque, visually oriented, and need less immersion. Hence,allegoric ads are to a larger degree dependent on the cultural disposition tointerpret incongruent information.

Managerial Implications

Our findings have significant implications for international marketing prac-titioners. Absurd ads are shown to be an adequate means to overcomeselective perception because they reflexively draw recipients’ attention. Asthis effect is culturally invariant, advertising practitioners who primarily seekto foster memory (e.g., brand awareness) may use absurd ads in any inter-national markets that are highly competitive. Thus, they are able to stand outof the plethora of regular ads that emphasize positive product attributes in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


a rather direct way. Advertisers may choose any of the four absurdity typesbecause all of them equally increase recall across cultures.

However, marketers operating in international markets may not onlyseek to increase memory, but they may also focus on persuasion. For thispurpose, it is advisable to use absurd ads in particular cultures only. Overall,absurd ads (anthropomorphism, allegory, and hyperbole) are most suitablefor masculine cultures (e.g., Austria), whereas they are less persuasive infeminine cultures (e.g., Netherlands). In feminine culture, non-absurd ads aremore appropriate. Among the absurdity types, the effectiveness of allegoricads is particularly culture-bound. Allegoric ads should be primarily usedin collectivistic cultures with high uncertainty avoidance (e.g., South Korea),whereas they are less effective in individualistic cultures with low uncertaintyavoidance (e.g., Denmark).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Some limitations of the present study require further research. First, weused a student sample. In order to establish external validity, the studyshould be replicated with a general population sample. Second, we onlyexamined print advertisements. However, prior research provides evidencethat consumers memorize pictorial content better than verbal information(picture-superiority effect) (Childers & Houston, 1984; Houston et al., 1987).Hence, it would be interesting to examine if these results remain stable whenexamining TV spots or banner ads. Third, we only examined the effect ofhigh vs. low absurdity rather than looking at different levels of absurdity.One might argue that the effect of absurdity on recall is not a continuum,but that at a certain degree of absurdity, recipients become puzzled and dono longer recall product and brand attributes correctly. Therefore, advertisingpractitioners might be interested in the optimum level of absurdity. Fourth,we chose lemonade, which is a simple product type that does not requiredetailed explanations. More complex products (e.g., insurance) may requirea more serious and clear advertising message, which would rule out absurdityas a stylistic device. Hence, further research should include different levelsof product complexity to identify the product categories that may or may notbenefit from absurdity in advertising across cultures.

REFERENCES

Ahn, S., & La Ferle, C. (2008). Recall & recognition for brand names and body copy:A mixed-language approach. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 107–117.

Arias-Bolzmann, L., Chakraborty, G., & Mowen, J. C. (2000). Effects of absurdity inadvertising: the moderating role of product category attitude and the mediatingrole of cognitive responses. Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 35–49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


Bireta, T. J., Surprenant, A. M., & Neath, I. (2008). Age-related differences in the vonRestorff isolation effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3),345–352.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials.In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychologyVol. 2 (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Burns, D. J., & Brady, J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of the need for unique-ness in Malaysia and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4),487–495.

Butler, L. T., & Berry, D. C. (2001). Implicit memory: Intention and awarenessrevisited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 192–197.

Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for applica-tion. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207.

Callister, M. A., & Stern, L. A. (2007). The role of visual hyperbole in advertisingeffectiveness. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 29(2),1–14.

Callow, M., & Schiffmann, L. (2002). Implicit meaning in visual print advertisements:A cross-cultural examination of the contextual communication effect. Interna-tional Journal of Advertising, 21, 259–277.

Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effecton consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 643–654.

Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyper-bole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513.

Diehl, S., Terlutter, R., & Weinberg, P. (2003). Advertising effectiveness in differ-ent cultures: Results of an experiment analyzing the effects of individualisticand collectivistic advertising on Germans and Chinese. European Advances inConsumer Research, 6, 128–136.

Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (1998). Cultural influences on service quality expectations.Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 178–186.

Eisend, M. (2008). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 37, 191–203.

Fang, L., Hong, C., & Jianyao, L. (2009). Consumer responses to sex appeal adver-tising: a cross-cultural study. International Marketing Review, 26(4/5), 501–520.

Fawcett, A. W. (1995). The Fifth Best. Advertising Age, Spring, 36–39.Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the

concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–200.Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in materialism. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 17(1), 55–77.Grimes, A., & Kitchen, P. J. (2007). Researching mere exposure effects to advertising -

Theoretical foundations and methodological implications. International Journalof Market Research, 49(2), 191–219.

Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art onthe perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of MarketingResearch, 45(3), 379–389.

Hammer, P., Riebe, E., & Kennedy, R. (2009). How clutter affects advertising effec-tiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 159–163.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


Han, S.-P., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in indi-vidualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,30, 326–350.

Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy inmemory for verbal and visual information. What is incongruency? Journal ofConsumer Research, 18(4), 475–492.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independentvalidation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,15(4), 417–433.

Holbrook, M., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators ofconsumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 404–420.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1986). A social adaption explanation of the effects ofsurrealism on advertising. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 50–60.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M.,Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations, TheGLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, London, Dehli: Sage Publications.

Houston, M. J., Childers, T. L., & Heckler, S. E. (1987). Picture-Word Consistencyand Elaborative Processing of Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research,24(4), 359–369.

Hunt, K. (1972). Source effects, message effects, and general effects in counter-advertising. In Proceedings of the third annual conference of the Associationfor Consumer Research (pp. 370–381). Chicago, IL: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Machleit, K. A., Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1993). The mature brand and brandinterest: An alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect.” Journal of Marketing,57, 72–82.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward thead as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations.”Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130–143.

Mehta, A., & Purvis, S. C. (2006). Reconsidering recall and emotion in advertising.Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 49–56.

Mooij, M. de. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behaviour. In G. H.Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of nationalcultures (pp. 55–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mooij, M. de, & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model. Applications to globalbranding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Adver-tising, 29(1), 85–110.

Mostafa, M. M. (2005). An experimental investigation of the Egyptian consumers’attitudes towards surrealism in advertising. International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 29(3), 216–231.

Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E., & Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service failure recovery: themoderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptionof justice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 263–277.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2


Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2002). The development, change, and transfor-mation of rhetorical style in magazine advertisements 1954–1999. Journal ofAdvertising, 21(4), 1–13.

Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion adver-tising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 368–392.

Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefitsof advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory.Management Science, 48(2), 765–781.

Rojas-Mendez, J. I., Davies, G., & Madran, C. (2009). Universal differences in adver-tising avoidance behavior. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 947–954.

Samiee, S., & Jeong, I. (1994). Cross-cultural research in advertising: An assessmentof methodologies. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 22(3), 205–217.

Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 501–518.

Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework:Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 32(3), 555–574.

Speck, P. S. (1990). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the studyof humorous ads. Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 13(1), 1–44.

Stern, B. B. (1990). Marketing as drama. Theatre of the absurd. Research in ConsumerBehavior, 4, 195–215.

Stern, B. B. (1992). Crafty advertisers - Literary versus literal deceptiveness. Journalof Public Policy & Marketing, 11(1), 72–81.

Till, B. D., & Baack, D. W. (2005). Recall and persuasion: Does creative advertisingmatter? Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 47–57.

Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: Areview.” Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35–59.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2004). CVSCALE: The five-dimensionalmeasure of personal cultural values, Working Paper.

Zhang, Y., & Gelb, B. D. (1996). Matching advertising appeals to culture: The influ-ence of products’ use conditions. Journal of Advertising, 25(3), 29–46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat E

ichs

tatt]

, [D

anie

l Gät

hke]

at 0

2:47

11

Oct

ober

201

2

“The Effectiveness of Absurdity in Advertising Across Cultures,” Journal of Promotion Management, 18(4): 393-413

Documents