Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper

HUMOR IN ADVERTISING
[1]
International Marketing Research
Working group: Alexandra Boula
Miltiadis Lappas
Nikoleta Moutafidou
Pavlos Papadimitriou
HUMOR IN ADVERTISING:
The effect of exaggeration, personification and silliness
on likeness, message comprehension,
source credibility & persuasion
Instructors: Dr. P.Repoussis
Dr. Ch.Saridakis
Dr. G.Painesis
and I.Balafoutis
Athens University of Economics & Business
M.Sc. in Marketing & Communication
Specialization in International Marketing

Contents
Contents...................................................................................................................................2
Introduction..............................................................................................................................2
Definition of concepts...............................................................................................................3
Literature Review and Hypotheses.......................................................................................3
Hypothesis 1.....................................................................................................................4
Hypothesis 2.....................................................................................................................5
Hypothesis 3.....................................................................................................................5
Hypothesis 4.....................................................................................................................6
Hypothesis 5.....................................................................................................................7
Delimitations of the Research...................................................................................................7
Research Methodology.............................................................................................................7
Measurement...........................................................................................................................9
Sampling.................................................................................................................................10
Analysis of Data......................................................................................................................10
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................25
Appendix.................................................................................................................................26
Introduction
There is little previous literature on how particular types of humor affect the
consumer’s beliefs and motives in print advertising. The majority of researchers focus
[2]

on the impact humorous content in general. Thus, an actual research was applied to
hopefully provide some more inside on the problem. The focus is on how three
distinct humor types, namely personification, exaggeration and silliness, influence the
likeness of the brand, the comprehension of the message, the credibility of the source
and the persuasiveness/buying of the product.
Definition of concepts
To facilitate the understanding of the three types of humor mentioned above,
definitions given by Catanescu and Tom are provided. Thus, personification presents
animals, plants and unanimated objects as having human characteristics (Catanescu &
Tom, 2001, p. 93). Exaggeration is detected in cases that something is overstated or
even magnified proportionately (2001, p. 93). Silliness includes a width of
phenomena “from making funny faces to ludicrous situations” (2001, p. 93).
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Broadly speaking, humor has been used extensively in advertising as it is
considered to be an effective means of communicating the advertising message to the
consumer. However, the advertiser should always bear in mind that humor is the eye
of the beholder. As Madden and Weinberger (1984) have stated in more general
terms, we should not expect that pleasure is the outcome of all humor (p. 23). The
attitude a person has towards an advertisement depends on both the humorous
stimulus and the unique characteristics of the individual (Eisend, 2009, p. 199).
Undoubtedly, humor evokes positive feelings towards the advertisement
regardless the type. In detail, considering the definitions scholars attribute to humor, it
[3]

is inferred that humor functions as a stimulator of positive feelings (Taecharungroj &
Nueangjamnong, 2015, p. 292). Eisend (2009) in his meta-analysis concludes in that
humor embellishes our attitude towards the advertisement (p. 198). Additionally,
Weinberg and Gulas (1992) stress that the positive effect of humor on liking is
stronger than any other effect humor may have on advertising (57). However,
personification is more possible to make an advertisement attractive. The products
presented with human characteristics, “unfolding” the story of a product in a funny as
well as amusing context, can intrigue the consumer liking of the plot and of the
advertisement.
Hypothesis 1
H1 i. Any type of humor affects positively the likeness of the advertisement.
H1 ii. Personification has a more positive effect than silliness and
exaggeration on advertisement likeness.
Since no common ground is shared by theory, we assume that the type of
humor used is actually indicative of the level of message comprehension. To Eisend
(2009), humor has a neutral effect on message processing (p. 200). Strernthal and
Craig (1973) found out that satire has a detrimental effect on the comprehensibility of
the message (p. 14). However, Weinberger and Gulas (1992) believe that no harm on
comprehension is done by humor (56). It is also the case that different levels of
comprehension are contingent to different types of humor (Speck, 1987, p. 250).
Regarding silliness though, there is an increased risk of aversion and
misunderstanding on consumer’s side as silliness may diminish his intelligence and
[4]

his perception. Consequently, consumers could disregard intentionally the
advertisement, ignoring or even being unable to comprehend its logic.
Hypothesis 2
H2 i. Humor enhances, impedes or has no impact on comprehension
depending on the type of humor applied.
H2 ii. Silliness is the least influential of all three humor types.
To which extend humor influences source credibility is not clear yet. In detail,
Craig and Sternthal (1973) believe that humor boosts credibility since we perceive
most advertisements as dull (p. 16). It is also believed that source credibility is either
unaffected or impaired by humor (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992, p. 57). Plus, Eisend
(2009) believes that in case the audience value the particular humor used, credibility
may even increase (195). Markiewicz (1974) was the firsts to grasp the idea that the
“type of humor is likely to influence source perceptions” (p. 412). In general,
personification in advertising generates positive emotions towards the brand and more
positive characteristics of brand personality (Delbaere, McQuarrie & Phillips,
2011, p.121). Thus, advertisements with anthropomorphic features have the most
positive effect on source credibility.
Hypothesis 3
H3 i.Humor enhances harms or has no impact on credibility depending on the
type of humor applied.
H3 ii. Personification has a more positive effect than silliness and exaggeration
on source credibility.
[5]

Again, opinions regarding the influence of humor on persuasiveness are
debated. By some it is believed that humor makes no difference in persuasiveness
(Weinberger and Gulas, 1992, p. 56). Nevertheless, Eisend (2009) believes in a
positive relationship between humor and buying intention (p. 198). Humor also
functions as a reward for the audience which reinforces persuasion (Markiewicz,
1974, p.418). Again the particular type of humor applied is expected to provide
explanations. In general, we consider exaggeration to be a crucial factor in consumer
buying of the brand since in advertising it usually projects an embellished hyper-
reality. As Lewis has stated, “exaggeration in advertising acts like morphine”, a drug
you can’t but give in and take the first dose (171).
Hypothesis 4
H4 i. Humor enhances, harms or has no impact on the buying intention.
H4 ii. Exaggeration has a more positive effect than silliness and exaggeration
on source persuasiveness.
Regarding the educational level, it is thought that along with other
demographic characteristics, it can affect the perception of a humorous advertisement.
This explains why people can identify as humorous different types of humorous
advertisements. Thus, a humorous advertisement must be adjusted to the needs and
perception of our target audience (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006, p.194-195). However,
Martin Eisend states that the comprehension of humor is strongly related to cognitive
ability, so education is positive related to humor comprehension and influences liking
of a humorous advertisement (Eisend, 2009, p.193).
[6]

Hypothesis 5
Education is positively related to perceiving a humorous advertisement.
Delimitations of the Research
Due to lack of resources and time we did not use random sampling but non
probability convenient sampling. We tried to balance this disadvantage though, by
collecting as many questionnaires as possible. So we have a convenient sample that
mainly focuses on ages 18-35. However, in those age groups our sample is highly
representative. Another difficulty that we faced was the lack of financial resources.
Research Methodology
An extensive literature review was done to better understand the topic of
humour in advertising. During that procedure a literature gap was spotted related to
the influence of each type of humor on print advertising. Thus, we collected primary
quantitative data through self administered questionnaires. Exaggeration,
personification and silliness were the humor types decided upon.
We formed a structured questionnaire on an online survey forum called e-surv.
The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions each one of them connected to our
objectives and divided in three sections. In the first section, we wanted to examine the
frequency that our sample addresses to printed media and how important people
consider humor in their everyday life. This is how we got basic but critical inside to
begin with.
In the second and most significant section, there are five same questions for
each category of advertisement (personification, exaggeration, silliness). Each one
[7]

examined the impact of the different independent variables on our dependent ones
(likeness, comprehension, credibility, buying purchase and message appeal). For
example, a question to find how the different types of humour affect the buying
intention is: “To which extend would the advertisement above influence your
intention to purchase the product?”.
In the final section, we included a conclusive preference question and
demographic related questions. In particular, question no.18 measures which type of
humor out of the three is the funniest according to the sample preference. The
following questions are linked to age, gender and educational level in order to explore
whether demographics influence the effect of each type of humor.
We made a pre-test to check if the draft questionnaire was ready for the final
sample. So, we sent the questionnaire to 30 individuals (almost 10% of our final
sample) and we asked them not only to complete it but also to comment on
misunderstandings and discontinuities to help us identify and eliminate problems. The
pre-test revealed no serious problems and the results were smoothly spaced-out.
Nevertheless, we received some negative comments about the actual print
advertisements used and we changed them to eliminate possible offense. Having
worked on these improvements and on some linguistic modifications, we distributed
our questionnaire to the final sample.
The survey was conducted on-line through e-mails and facebook messages.
The participants were 369 men and women, mainly 18–45 years old. We chose online
social media to get fast delivery and responses, avoid cost, reach large number of
audience and make the questionnaire visually pleasing and attractive. Thankfully, we
received very quick response. After data collection, we observed that 315 out of the
[8]

369 people had completed the whole survey which implicates low response bias
(14,63%) and more accuracy.
The next step was to analyze the data. We used the SPSS software, a reliable
tool for statistical analysis which comes up with helpful and accurate outputs. The
whole process of the analysis is presented explicitly in the ANALYSIS OF DATA
SECTION along with the results.
And finally, this report was constructed in order to summarize our work and to
point out every significant finding that our study can provide.
Measurement
In our research, we examine how humorous advertisements affect the buying
intention, the consumers’ feelings, the consumers’ perception of an advertisement
message and brand credibility. Finally we measure how funny a humorous
advertisement is perceived to be. These are the dependent variables. Three types of
humor have been used as independent variables, namely personification, exaggeration
and silliness. We used questions that measure the variance of each one of our
dependent variables on the three independent. There is also interest in whether
demographic characteristics are influential. Moreover, attention is drawn to whether
consumers notice printed advertisements, to how important humor is for consumers
and to which humor type they prefer.
For the measurement, all questions are close-ended except for “other” in
educational level. Close-ended questions are easier to analyze and provide precise
answers and unambiguous data. A 0-7 interval scale is used to measure how often
[9]

people read magazines and the role of humour in their everyday life. Plus, 0-7 interval
measures likeness, comprehension, credibility, and buying behaviour and humour
appeal. Additionally, a nominal scale is applied for gender and type of humour
preference. Regarding age and educational level the scale used is ordinal.
Furthermore, Zero is regarded as none, as the extreme value and represents the
missing value (no zero answers were actually collected though). So, we actually used
a 1-7 scale which provides a neutral choice in the middle of the scale to participants,
the same number of positive and negative answers, and more even shades of
favourable and unfavourable points.
Sampling
A non-probability convenient sample with elements of judgement sample is
used. Participants who were more likely to participate were chosen since we
approached them via facebook and e-mails and they all belonged to our personal or
social sphere. We asked 131 men and 184 women (total of 315 individuals). The
sample size is larger than the one needed to offset to some extend the lack of
randomness and representativeness.
Analysis of Data
We apply One-Way Anova to examine the effect of humour types on each
independent variable.
1. Q3 - How much would affect the printed advertisement above your
intention to buy this product?
First, a Levene’s test verified the non equality of variances in the sample since
P value (sig.) = 0,00 < 0,05.
[10]

Since variables are equal not assumed, Anova with Games-Howell Post-Hoc test is
applied.
[11]

Since on Anova table sig. < 0,05 the sample is representative of the
population. Then, variation on Games-Howel is checked
In a set of comparisons, when sig. < 0,05 the means of the independent
variables differ and have a statistically significant influence on buying behaviour.
Thus, the results verify hypothesis H4 i: Humor enhances, harms or has no impact on
the buying intention..
• Personification is more influential than silliness, the differences
between their means is 0.56 in a scale of 7 (8,05%).
• Exaggeration is more influential than silliness. Their difference is 0,74
(10,57%).
• Both exaggeration and personification have a strong impact on buying
behaviour, the difference between them two is statistically
insignificant.
[12]

Hypothesis 4 ii is not verified since both personification and exaggeration
affect equally positive buying behavior.
2. Q4 – How do you feel seeing an object having human attributes in the
above advertisement?
As in Q3, Levene’s test verified the non equality of variances in the sample
since P value = 0,00 < 0,05.
Again, Anova with Games-Howell Post-Hoc test is applied.
[13]

For the combined between group effect sig. < 0,05 which is indicative of the
group means difference. The differences are presented bellow:
Since sig. < 0,05 the means of the independent variables differ and have a
statistically significant influence on buying behaviour. Consequently, H1 i:.Any type
of humor affects positively the likeness of the advertisement.
• Personification is much more influential than silliness. The difference
between their means is 0.82 in a scale of 7 (11, 71%).
• Exaggeration is more influential than silliness by 7, 85%.
• Exaggeration and personification have a stronger effect on likeness.
Hypothesis 1 ii. is not verified since both personification and exaggeration affect
equally positive the likeness of the advertisement
[14]

3. Q5: How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message?
Again, Levene’s Test verified that the variances of the sample are unequal as
P-value (Sig.) = 0,00 < 0,05
In the above table,
Sig. = 0.049 <
0.05, so the sample
is representative of the population.
[15]

In the comparisons’ table, sig. > 0,05 in all cases:
• The results are statistically insignificant
• Other factors rather than the particular types of humor affect
comprehension.
None of hypothesis H2 i and H2 ii are verified since no type of humor affects
comprehension.
4. Q6 -
How the
specific
advertisement affects your opinion regarding the brand’s credibility?
Initially, we verified that the variables are not equal with Levene’s Test, p-
value (Sig.) = 0,008<0,05.
[16]

Since variables are not equal, we apply Games-Howell Post-Hoc test.
The ANOVA table verifies that the sample is representative of population with
Sig.=0.00<0.05
[17]

In the multiple comparisons table, when Sig.<0.05, the variables have a
statistically significant influence on brand’s credibility. Hypothesis 3 i according to
which humor enhances harms or has no impact on credibility depending on the type of
humor applied, is verified.
• Personification is more influential than silliness, the difference
between their means is 1.055 in a scale of 7 (15.07%).
• Exaggeration is more influential than silliness, the difference between
their means is 0.801 (11.44%) .
Hypothesis 3 ii is not verified since both personification and exaggeration
affect equally positive source credibility.
[18]

5. Q7: How humorous do you find the advertisement above?
At the beginning we verify that the variances of the sample are not equal,
through Levene test. P-value (sig.)= 0,000< 0.05
Games- Howell post-hoc test to see which of the three independent variables
affects more the dependant variable.
In the above table sig.= 0,000< 0,05, which indicates that the sample is
representative of the population.
[19]

Finally, in the Multiple Comparisons’ table, when sig. < 0,05 variables have a
statistically significant influence on how much consumers perceive the advertisement
as funny:
• Personification is more influential than silliness. Their mean
difference is 0,747 in a scale of 7 (10,6%) .
• Exaggeration is more influential than silliness. The mean difference is
0,774 in a scale of 7 (11,05%) ,
• Silliness is the least influential variable.
From our analysis, we saw that the most differences regarding the
demographics appeared to the educational level and how the individuals react in the
messages of the different advertisements. But lets take a closer look through the spss
results.
[20]

For the 1st
advertisement:
Q4: How do you feel seeing an object having human attributes in the above
advertisement? (personification)
As we can see from the post hoc table there is a difference between
Master/Phd graduates and high school graduates. Master/Phd graduates feel 0.602 (in
a scale of 7) more positive about the characteristics of the advertisement than high
school graduates, translated to 8.6% for the population.
In the second advertisement, we observe a difference between the two groups
regarding credibility. Q6: How the specific advertisement affects your opinion
regarding the brand’s credibility?
[21]

And here we observe a difference of 0.717 between the Master/Phd graduates
and the high school graduates. This means that Master/Phd graduates are affected
10.24% more positively from the exaggerated advertisement regarding the credibility
of the product.
Finally, in the 3rd
advertisement (silliness) we notice more than one difference.
Q6: How the specific advertisement affects your opinion regarding the brand’s
credibility?
[22]

Here we can see a difference of 0.966 between the means of Master/phd
graduates and high school graduates and a 0.744 difference between University
graduates and high school graduates. Both these differences are statistically
significant (sig<0.05) so we can say that 13.8% of the Master/Phd graduates and
10.62% of the University graduates are more positively affected towards the
credibility of the product that the High school graduates.
[23]

Regarding the message appeal now,
Q7: How humorous do you find the advertisement above?
Again, we notice differences between the same educational levels so we can
say that we a pattern here. We observe that high school graduates have a negative
difference of -0.927 with the Master/Phd graduates and a -0.791 with the University
graduates which are both significant and can be generalized to the population. So,
regarding how humorous each group finds the advertisement we can say that
Master/Phd graduates find it 13.24% more humorous than the High schoolers and
University graduates 11.3%.
[24]

As far as hypotheses 5 is concerned, we concluded in that the higher the
educational level, the better and more positive the perception of a humorous
advertisement is.
Conclusions
So as to conclude, the most important fact we came up with was that for all
four depended variables the least influential one is silliness in the advertisement
message. In addition, we saw that personification has a slight bigger impact on the
dependent variables but in all cases that difference was statistically insignificant. This
is also obvious in the pie chart which refers to Q18 (which advertisement is the
funniest one).
[25]

Finally, for the demographics it is verified that there is a positive relationship
between educational level and the perception of humour in advertisement.
So, as a suggestion we could say that managers should concentrate more on
advertisements where the message appeals with personification humor since it is the
more influencial one. Finally, it is suggested that further research about the reasons
why “silly” humor does not have a great influence on consumers should be conducted.
Appendix
[26]

Here you may find the questionnaire in English and in Greek.
Dear participant,
The present questionnaire constitutes an academic research in the context of
M.Sc. in Marketing and Communication with Specialization in International
Marketing (PRIMA) of Athens University of Economics and Business. It is conducted
by the master’s students: Alexandra Boula, Miltiadis Lappas, Nikoleta Moutafidou
and Pavlos Papadimitriou under the supervision and the guidance of Professors
P.Repousis, M.Saridakis, G.Painesis and H.Balafoutis.
The goal of the research team is to define how the three different types of
humor presented below can affect consumer’s behavior. We would like to inform you
in advance that the specific questionnaire is anonymous and there is no need to
provide any personal iνformation. Moreover, the collected data are going to be
exclusively used for academic purposes. The time needed to fill in the questionnaire is
about 3 minutes.
[27]

Your participation is important, there are no right or wrong answers and we
would appreciate it if you accomplished the procedure so as to acquire the optimum
results for our research.
We would like to thank you in advance for your time.
Please answer the questions according to the scale.
1. How often do you read magazines?
(0) Never (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Every day
2. How important do you consider humor in your everyday life?
0) Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Absolutely essential
[28]

3. How much would affect the printed advertisement above your intention to buy this
product?
0) Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) To a great extent
4. How do you feel seeing an object having human attributes in the above
advertisement?
(0) Totally negative (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Totally
positive
5. How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message?
(0) Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Totally
6. How the specific advertisement affects your opinion regarding the brand’s
credibility?
positive
7. How humorous do you find the advertisement above?
0) Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Extremely
[29]

8. How much would affect the printed advertisement above your intention to buy this
product?
9. How do you feel seeing the exaggeration in the above advertisement?
positive
10. How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message is?
credibility?
positive
12. How humorous do you find the above advertisement?
[30]

13. . How much would affect the printed advertisement above your intention to buy
this product?
14. How do you feel seeing attributes and situations out of the ordinary on the
advertisement above?
positive
15. How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message is?
credibility?
positive
17. How humorous do you find the above advertisement?
[31]

18. Which of the printed advertisements above is the funniest in your opinion?
1) The first one - M&M'S
2) The second one - Scotch tape.
3) The third one - McDonald's
19. In which age group do you belong?
1) 18-24
2) 25-35
3) 36-45
4) 46+
20. Sex:
1) Male
2) Female
21. What is your educational level?
1) Secondary school graduate (1st
– 3rd
level)
2) Secondary school graduate (4th
– 6th
level)
3) FE/HE graduate
4) Master’s degree / PhD
5) Other:
[32]

Αγαπητέ συμμετέχοντα,
Το παρόν ερωτηματολόγιο είναι ακαδημαϊκή έρευνα στο πλαίσιο του
Μεταπτυχιακού προγράμματος M.Sc. in Marketing and Communication with
Specialization in International Marketing (PRIMA) του Οικονομικού Πανεπιστημίου
Αθηνών. Διεξάγεται από τους μεταπτυχιακούς φοιτητές: Μιλτιάδη Λάππα, Νικολέτα
Μουταφίδου, Αλεξάνδρα Μπουλά και Παύλο Παπαδημητρίου υπό την εποπτεία των
καθηγητών Π.Ρεπούση, Μ.Σαριδάκη, Γ.Παινέση και Η. Μπαλαφούτη.
Ο στόχος της ερευνητικής ομάδας είναι να ορίσει πώς τα τρία είδη χιούμορ
που παρουσιάζονται παρακάτω επηρεάζουν την συμπεριφορά του καταναλωτή.
Θα θέλαμε να σας ενημερώσουμε εκ των προτέρων ότι το παρόν ερωτηματολόγιο
είναι ανώνυμο. Για αυτό το λόγο δεν χρειάζεται να συμπληρώσετε πουθενά το
ονοματεπώνυμο σας. Επιπλέον, τα στοιχεία που θα συγκεντρώσουμε θα
χρησιμοποιηθούν αποκλειστικά για ακαδημαϊκούς σκοπούς. Ο χρόνος που θα
χρειαστείτε για τη συμπλήρωση του ερωτηματολογίου είναι περίπου 3 λεπτά.
Η συμμετοχή σας είναι σημαντική, δεν υπάρχουν σωστές ή λάθος απαντήσεις
και θα επιθυμούσαμε να ολοκληρώσετε την διαδικασία για τα βέλτιστα
αποτελέσματα της έρευνας.
[33]

Σας ευχαριστούμε προκαταβολικά για την συμμετοχή σας.
Παρακαλούμε απαντήστε στις ερωτήσεις σύμφωνα με την κλίμακα.
1. Πόσο συχνά διαβάζετε περιοδικά;
0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Καθημερινά
2. Πόσο σημαντικό θεωρείτε ότι είναι το χιούμορ στην καθημερινή σας ζωή;
0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Απόλυτα σημαντικό
[34]

3. Κατά πόσο θα επηρέαζε η παραπάνω έντυπη διαφήμιση την πρόθεση σας να
αγοράσετε το προϊόν;
0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Πάρα πολύ
4. Πώς νιώθετε βλέποντας στην παραπάνω διαφήμιση ένα αντικείμενο να έχει
ανθρώπινες ιδιότητες;
(0) Άκρως αρνητικά (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Άκρως θετικά
5. Πόσο κατανοητό θεωρείτε ότι είναι το μήνυμα της διαφήμισης;
(0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Πλήρως
6. Πώς η συγκεκριμένη διαφήμιση επηρεάζει την άποψη σας όσον αφορά την
αξιοπιστία της επωνυμίας;?
7. Πόσο χιουμοριστική θεωρείτε την παραπάνω διαφήμιση;
0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Εξαιρετικά
[35]

8. Κατά πόσο θα επηρέαζε η παραπάνω έντυπη διαφήμιση την πρόθεση σας να
αγοράσετε το προϊόν;
9. Πώς αισθάνεστε βλέποντας την υπερβολή στην παραπάνω διαφήμιση;
(0)Άκρως αρνητικά (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Άκρως θετικά
(0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Πλήρως
αξιοπιστία της επωνυμίας;
12. Πόσο χιουμοριστική θεωρείτε την παραπάνω διαφήμιση;
[36]

13. . 13. Κατά πόσο θα επηρέαζε η παραπάνω έντυπη διαφήμιση την πρόθεση σας
να αγοράσετε το προϊόν;
14. Πώς αισθάνεστε βλέποντας χαρακτηριστικά και καταστάσεις που ξεφεύγουν από
την κοινή λογική στην παραπάνω διαφήμιση;
(0) Καθόλου (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Πλήρως
αξιοπιστία της επωνυμίας;
17. Πόσο χιουμοριστική θεωρείτε την παραπάνω
διαφήμιση;
[37]

18. Ποια από τις παραπάνω έντυπες διαφημίσεις είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας η πιο
αστεία;
1) Η πρώτη για τα M&M'S
2) Η δεύτερη για το Scotch tape.
3) Η τρίτη για τα McDonald's
19. Σε ποια ηλικιακή κατηγορία ανήκετε;
1) 18-24
2) 25-35
3) 36-45
4) 46+
20. 20. Φύλο.
1) Άνδρας
2) Γυναίκα
21. Ποιο είναι το εκπαιδευτικό σας επίπεδο;
1) Απόφοιτος Γυμνασίου
2) Απόφοιτος Λυκείου
3) Απόφοιτος ΑΕΙ/ΤΕΙ
4) Κάτοχος μεταπτυχιακού/διδακτορικού τίτλου.
5) Άλλο:
[38]

Works Cited
Catanescu, C. & Tom, G. (2001). Types of humor in television and magazine
advertising. Review of Business, 1, 92-95. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Delbaere, M, McQuarrie E., F., Phillips J., F. (2011). Personification in
advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of
Advertising, 40. 121-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400108
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Academy of
Marketing Science, 37, 191-203. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y
Lewis, St., E., E. (1908). Financial advertising: For commercial and savings
banks, trust, title insurance, and safe deposit companies, investment houses. Retrieved
from https://books.google.gr/books?
id=cQMOAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v
=onepage&q&f=false
Madden, T.J. &Weinberger, M.G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A
practitioner Perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 23-29. Retrieved from
http://www.uky.edu/~ngrant/CJT780/readings/Day%209/WeinbergerGulas1992.pdf
Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. American
Sociological Association, 37, 407-422. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391
Speck, S.P. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising (Doctoral
dissertation). Texas Tech University.
Sternthal, B. & Craig, S.C. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of
Marketing, 37, 12-18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250353
Taecharungroj, V. & Nueangjamnong P. Humour 2.0: Styles and types of
humour and virality on facebook. Journal of Creative Communications, 10, 288-302.
doi:10.1177/0973258615614420
Weinberger, M. G. & Gulas, C.S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising:
A review. Journal of Advertising, 21, 35-59. doi:10.1080/00913 367.1992.10673384
[39]

Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper

Semelhante a Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper (20)

Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper