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

Introduction....................................................................................................................3

Definition of concepts....................................................................................................3

Literature Review and Hypotheses.............................................................................3

Hypothesis 1............................................................................................................4

Hypothesis 2............................................................................................................5

Hypothesis 3............................................................................................................5

Hypothesis 4............................................................................................................6

Hypothesis 5............................................................................................................6

Delimitations of the Research........................................................................................6

Research Methodology...................................................................................................7

Measurement..................................................................................................................9

Sampling......................................................................................................................10

Analysis of Data...........................................................................................................10

Conclusions..................................................................................................................24

Appendix......................................................................................................................26

Works Cited.................................................................................................................26

[2]


IntroductionThere 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

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 conceptsTo 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 HypothesesBroadly 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

[3]


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

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

[4]


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

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 3H3 i.Humor enhances harms or has no impact on credibility depending on the

type of humor applied.

[5]


H3 ii. Personification has a more positive effect than silliness and exaggeration

on source credibility.

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 4H4 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

[6]


ability, so education is positive related to humor comprehension and influences liking

of a humorous advertisement (Eisend, 2009, p.193).

Hypothesis 5Education is positively related to perceiving a humorous advertisement.

Delimitations of the ResearchDue 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 MethodologyAn 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

[7]


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

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.

[8]


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

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.

MeasurementIn 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

[9]


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

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.

SamplingA 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.

[10]


Analysis of DataWe 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.

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

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.

ConclusionsSo 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?


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?


10. How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message is?




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?


15. How comprehensive do you consider the advertisement’s message is?




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

11. Πώς η συγκεκριμένη διαφήμιση επηρεάζει την άποψη σας όσον αφορά την αξιοπιστία της επωνυμίας;




[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

16. Πώς η συγκεκριμένη διαφήμιση επηρεάζει την άποψη σας όσον αφορά την αξιοπιστία της επωνυμίας;




[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]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250353

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391

http://www.uky.edu/~ngrant/CJT780/readings/Day%209/WeinbergerGulas1992.pdf

https://books.google.gr/books?id=cQMOAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false



http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400108


[40]

Date post:	12-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alexandra-boula
View:	17 times
Download:	0 times

Humor-in-Advertising-Research-Paper

Documents