THE INFLUENCE OF HUMOR STRENGTH AND HUMOR–MESSAGE

RELATEDNESS ON AD MEMORABILITY
A Dual Process Model
Thomas W. Cline and James J. Kellaris

ABSTRACT: This research examines contingencies that shape the effects of humorous appeals on consumers’ recall of
ads, as well as the processes underlying such effects. Results of experimentation show that ads are more memorable when
humor is both strong and related to the message, and this interaction is mediated by attention and mood. Stronger humor
appeals also induce higher recall among individuals with a high “need for humor” (NFH).

Following the early research on humor in advertising (e.g.,
Duncan 1979; Speck 1987; Sternthal and Craig 1973), numer-
ous studies have attempted to explain the relationship between
humor and ad outcomes (e.g., Alden and Hoyer 1993; Alden,
Mukherjee, and Hoyer 2000; Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990;
Cline, Altsech, and Kellaris 2003; Krishnan and Chakravarti
2003; Lee and Mason 1999; Spotts, Weinberger, and Parsons
1997; Weinberger and Campbell 1991). Nevertheless, a lack of
systematic empirical results contrasts with humor’s widespread
use and an intuitive sense among advertising practitioners
that humor enhances ad persuasion (Madden and Weinberger
1984). Accordingly, the goal of our research is to provide a
clearer picture of humor’s role in advertising by examining
important stimulus factors and personality traits that shape
the effects of humorous appeals on consumers’ recall, as well
as the processes underlying such effects.
HUMOR AND ATTENTION
Although some of what is currently known about humor’s ef-
fects on advertising response may be equivocal, a strong case
can be made for humor’s impact on attention. The majority
of studies conducted in industry as well as in laboratory set-
tings bear this out. Madden and Weinberger (1982) find that
humorous magazine ads outperform nonhumorous ads on three
common surrogates for attention. Weinberger et al. (1995)
find evidence that humor is directly linked to attention and
recognition. Spotts, Weinberger, and Parsons (1997) show
that humor enhances initial attention, aids brand recall, and
holds attention. In a laboratory setting, Speck (1987) finds
that humorous ads outperform nonhumorous ads on sustained
attention, even after controlling for initial attention.
HUMOR STRENGTH
Although some prior studies examined effects of humor’s pres-
ence (versus absence) in an ad (e.g., Lee and Mason 1999), the
impact of humor should depend in part on its strength (e.g.,
Alden, Mukherjee, and Hoyer 2000). Our use of the term humor
strength refers to the extent of humor elicitation provoked by an
ad (Wyer and Collins 1992). Humor strength can be thought
of as “how funny” an ad is, rather than merely referring to
whether or not an ad employs humor (e.g., Elpers, Mukherjee,
and Hoyer 2004). Hence, in the present research, we vary the
strength of humor rather than its mere presence/absence.
HUMOR RELATEDNESS
Weinberger and Gulas (1992) argue that controlling for the
relatedness of humor makes experimental findings unanimous
in their support of humor’s positive impact on attention. In
fact, the relatedness of humor to the product or message may
also be a strong predictor of the success of an ad. Madden
(1982) finds that a radio commercial with product-related
humor is perceived as more interesting than one in which the
humor is unrelated to the product. Weinberger and Campbell
(1991) define related humor as being linked to the product and
the fabric of the commercial. Results of their study show that
related humor offers recall advantages over unrelated humor
for high-involvement/feeling goods. Weinberger et al. (1995)

Thomas W. Cline (Ph.D., University of Cincinnati) is an associate

professor of marketing, Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Eco-
nomics, and Government, St. Vincent College.
James J. Kellaris (Ph.D., Georgia State University) is a professor of
marketing, College of Business, University of Cincinnati.
The authors thank Karen Machleit and Steve Posavac for their helpful
comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this work. This research
was supported in part by a CoB Research Fellowship at the University of
Cincinnati. A portion of the work was conducted while the second author
was visiting at Bond University, Queensland, Australia.

Journal of Advertising, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 55–67.

© 2007 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2007 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360104
56 The Journal of Advertising
focus specifically on thematic relatedness and find a positive ef-
fect for related humor. Spotts, Weinberger, and Parsons (1997)
use Speck’s (1991) typology to categorize humor relatedness.
They suggest that the most effective type of relatedness to use
in an ad depends on the product category. Speck (1987, 1991)
outlines a broad typology of humor that incorporates the re-
latedness of humor in an ad on three levels: (1) pragmatic, (2)
thematic, and (3) structural. Pragmatic relatedness refers to
the hierarchy of the humor–message relationship (i.e., humor-
dominant or nonhumorous). Semantic (thematic) relatedness
describes the relationship between the humor and the product.
Structural (syntactic) relatedness refers to the syntactic place-
ment of the humor within the ad, that is, whether the humor
is meaningful to the message.
In one of the few laboratory studies to address the issue
of humor relatedness to brand claims, Krishnan and Chakra-
varti (2003) draw on Alba, Hutchison, and Lynch (1991) and
Meyers-Levy (1991) to define humor relevance as the degree of
pertinence of the execution to the brand claims. This definition
dovetails with Heckler and Childers’s (1992) conceptualiza-
tion of relevancy as material pertaining directly to the meaning
of the primary message (e.g., brand claims). Krishnan and
Chakravarti (2003) demonstrate that the relevancy of humor
to the brand claims can positively influence memory for brand
claims. They argue that humorous executions strongly linked
to some or all other ad components (e.g., brand claims) produce
facilitation effects.
Kellaris, Cox, and Cox (1993) provide a conceptual frame-
work for understanding humor’s attention-gaining value
on advertising outcomes. They find that attention-gaining
background music enhances message reception when the
music evokes message-congruent (as opposed to incongruent)
thoughts. By analogy, humor may operate similarly. Kellaris,
Cox, and Cox’s (1993) notion of congruity corresponds with
Heckler and Childers’s (1992) concept of relevancy. Thus, it
seems likely that humor’s attention-gaining mechanisms (i.e.,
humor strength) translate into positive effects for recall, so
long as the humor is linked to the brand claims. In contrast,
incidental humor (i.e., humor that is unrelated to the brand
claims) could actually inhibit brand-claims recall. In the latter
case, all that is recalled is the funny part of the ad. In sum-
mary of our expectations, we anticipate that humor–message
relatedness will moderate the influence of humor strength
such that:
H1: The impact of humor strength on message claims recall
will be more positive when humor–message relatedness is high
than when it is low.
H2: The joint impact of humor strength and humor–message
relatedness on message claims recall will be mediated by
attention to the ad.
MEDIATING ROLE OF MOOD
Research shows that a positive mood can facilitate recall (Isen
1987) and lead to greater receptiveness to persuasive commu-
nications (Galizio and Hendrick 1972). Bower and colleagues
(Bower, Gilligan, and Monteiro 1981) provide insight into the
processes through which mood states can bias cognitive activ-
ity. They demonstrate that people better remember material
that is congruent with their mood states at the time of encod-
ing (“mood-congruent hypothesis”). These mood-congruent
memory effects are echoed in Isen (1978), who found that
people in a positive mood during retrieval recalled more posi-
tive traits, whereas those in a negative mood recalled more
negative traits. Isen (1989) goes beyond the notion of mood-
congruent message elaboration, arguing that positive mood
states may broaden cognitive organization (i.e., they encourage
people to categorize a wider range of stimuli together) and,
consequently, promote more integrated and flexible thinking.
This cognitive flexibility, in turn, may enhance the processing
of verbal content in an ad. Thus, it is possible that positive
moods increase elaboration and subsequent recall of the mes-
sage. Isen (1989) also suggests that positive affect may promote
the use of heuristics or reliance on peripheral cues.
Humor is an ad feature that is likely to induce good moods.
Littmann (1983) cites joy as one of the principal effects of
humor. Wicker et al. (1981) find a number of emotion-related
scales to be significantly correlated with perceived funniness.
Olson and Roese (1995) find support for the contention that
perceivers use their own reactions to humorous stimuli (e.g.,
mirth), together with information about the environment, to
infer the emotion-eliciting qualities of humor. Thus, if par-
ticipants express joy, they are likely to infer funniness. O’quin
and Aronoff (1981) find that humor lessens self-reported ten-
sion and increases enjoyment of a task. Smith (1993) argues
that humor in an ad can act to enhance the consumer’s mood,
and that this mood influences how individuals process the ad.
Madden, Allen, and Twible (1988) distinguish between affec-
tive reaction and cognitive evaluation in advertising response
data. They find that a humorous ad generates significantly
more nonevaluative positive affect than its nonhumorous
counterpart. Machleit and Wilson (1988) provide additional
support for this affective/evaluative dichotomy; they use the
term “emotional feelings” to describe nonevaluative, affective
responses. In the present study, we follow Bruner and Hensel
(1996, p. 435) in using the label “mood” to measure the non-
evaluative affect that has been induced by an object in a person
(see also Batra and Ray 1986). Our four-item, seven-point se-
mantic differential scale is borrowed from Yi (1990). We chose
the term “mood” to specifically avoid evaluative connotations
associated with “affect.”
To the extent that humor is related to the ad, it may be
important to understanding the brand claims. Thus, related

humor, which induces positive mood states, may facilitate brand
claims recall via systematic, or central route processing (Cline,
Altsech, and Kellaris 2003). In summary, we anticipate that
H3: The joint impact of humor strength and humor–message
relatedness on message claims recall will be mediated by
mood.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN
NEED FOR HUMOR
Individual differences are likely to affect consumers’ receptiv-
ity to humorous stimuli (Zhang 1996). Failure to account for
such differences may help explain differences in past studies
(Duncan and Nelson 1985; Duncan, Nelson, and Frontczak
1984). Gelb and Zinkhan (1985) point out that because what
is funny to one person may not be to another, individual dif-
ferences in perceptions of humor should be considered. More
recently, Elpers, Mukherjee, and Hoyer (2004) performed a
moment-to-moment analysis of humor in television advertis-
ing, demonstrating that moment-to-moment surprise and
humor drive individual perceptions of humor.
We propose that need for humor (NFH) should capture
important individual differences that shape responses to hu-
mor. NFH is a personality trait that refers to one’s tendency
to generate and seek out humor (Cline, Machleit, and Kellaris
1998). We expect NFH to moderate the effects of humor
strength on ad memorability. Based on differential motiva-
tion to process humorous stimuli, individuals high in NFH
are expected to “seek out” and attend to humorous stimuli
more readily than those who are low in NFH. Thus, high-
NFH individuals should be prone to recognize and respond
to different levels of humor in an ad. In contrast, people low
in NFH are less likely to acknowledge or respond to humor
of any strength (Dixon et al. 1989). Analogous to “need for
cognition,” NFH should distinguish individuals inclined to
process ad information based on the humor in the ad from
those likely to process ads primarily on the basis of nonhumor-
ous elements. Therefore, NFH should moderate the effects of
humor strength such that:
H4: The impact of humor strength on message claims recall will
be significantly more positive among individuals with high levels
of NFH than among those with low levels of NFH.
STUDY
Overview
The goals of this study are to test the hypotheses that (1) humor’s
strength interacts with humor–message relatedness to influence
claims recall, (2) attention and positive mood generated by hu-
Spring 2007 57
mor mediate the impact of humor’s relatedness on recall of mes-
sage claims, and (3) individual differences in NFH moderate the
influence of humor strength on claims recall. Thus, an experi-
ment crosses humor strength (lower versus higher), humor–mes-
sage relatedness (lower versus higher), and NFH (higher versus
lower) in a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design with a
no-humor control condition. We manipulate humor strength
and humor–message relatedness and measure NFH. The primary
dependent variable is message claims recall.
Participants
Two hundred fifty-three students enrolled in upper-level
undergraduate marketing courses at a large, Midwestern uni-
versity participated in the study for course credit. Ages ranged
from 18 to 48 (median = 21); 51% were female. Participants
completed the experiment independently during a single ses-
sion and received academic credit for participating.
Stimulus Materials and Pretests
Humor Strength
To manipulate humor strength, we developed three versions
of a simulated print ad (higher humor strength, lower humor
strength, and no humor control). A format was patterned
after prior research using print ads (e.g., Arias-Bolzmann,
Chakraborty, and Mowen 2000; Cline, Altsech, and Kel-
laris 2003; Edell and Staelin 1983; Heckler and Childers
1992; Houston, Childers, and Heckler 1987; Krishnan and
Chakravarti 2003). Each ad contained a brand name, a head-
line, a product picture, two cartoon figures, brand claims,
and a tag line. Following Krishnan and Chakravarti (2003),
the headline was used as the primary manipulation of humor
strength. Following Lee and Mason (1999), cartoon illustra-
tions reinforced the humor manipulation. The size, position,
and fundamental meaning of the cartoon figures were held
constant across conditions.
An extensive program of pretesting was conducted to select
the product category, brand name, and brand claims, and to
test the humor-strength manipulation. The first two pretests
(n = 54) asked participants to rate products on two separate di-
mensions: personal relevancy and humor expectancy. Based on
midscale ratings for both humor-expectancy rating (M = 4.28
on a seven-point scale) and personal relevancy (M = 3.94 on a
seven-point scale), coffee was selected as the product category.
Coffee is representative of a low-risk, convenience product
category in which the use of humor is both frequent and
believed to be effective. Weinberger and Campbell (1991)
find the incidence of ad humor to be highest in the low in-
volvement/feeling cell of the FCB (Foote, Cone, and Belding)
Matrix, a cell made up of “personal pleasures,” including coffee
58 The Journal of Advertising
(Vaughn 1980, 1986). In addition, Weinberger et al. (1995)
find that the category comprising coffee in their Product Color
Matrix had the highest incidence of humor for magazine ads
and uniformly positive humor effects on three Starch scores:
“Noted” (initial attention), “Seen-Associated” (aided-brand
recall), and “Read Most” (held attention).
To control for prior knowledge and familiarity, little-known
brand names for coffee were selected from a sample of 50
actual coffee-producing firms. A third pretest (n = 42) was
conducted to identify unfamiliar brand names that were neutral
with respect to their “signaling” of humor. Participants rated
12 brand names for humor expectancy on seven-point scales.
Because students rated the Wachusett brand name relatively
low on humor expectancy (M = 2.91 on a seven-point scale),
and because no participant recognized the name Wachusett, it
was selected as the coffee brand name. Hundreds of real brand
claims were also sampled from coffee advertisements on the
Internet. A subset of these claims was chosen on the basis of a
fourth pretest (n = 31), which asked students to rate the ap-
propriateness of each claim to the product category.
For each condition of humor strength, a “one-liner” was
created to constitute the headline. One-liners are a form of
comic wit used frequently in humorous ads (Speck 1987, 1991).
One-liners were chosen over more involved jokes to keep the
headlines simple. Also, one-liners (e.g., puns) involve an incon-
gruity-resolution process (versus arousal-safety or disparagement
processes). Using this humor process is consistent with Wyer
and Collins’s (1992) theory of humor elicitation. Finally, Spotts,
Weinberger, and Parsons (1997) find that more than 80% of
humorous magazine ads use incongruity (the humor process
comprising comic wit). Manipulating humor strength in the
form of one-liners (similar to Cline, Altsech, and Kellaris 2003;
Krishnan and Chakravarti 2003) affords the best opportunity to
control for potential confounds such as humor process, length,
complexity, and evoked emotions (Lammers et al. 1983).
A final pretest (n = 75) evaluated perceived humor for each
of the three humor-strength conditions using completed ver-
sions of the mock-up ads in a between-subjects test. The results
indicate that the treatments were perceived as differentially
humorous, F(1, 74) = 8.53, p < .001. In addition, the lower
humor strength ad (M = 3.33 on a seven-point scale) was
perceived as more humorous than the no-humor control ad
(M = 2.62 on a seven-point scale), t = 1.85, df = 51, p < .036
(one-tailed), and the higher humor strength ad (M = 4.36 on
a seven-point scale) was perceived as more humorous than the
lower humor strength ad (M = 3.33 on a seven-point scale),
t = 2.07, df = 43, p < .023 (one-tailed).
Humor–Message Relatedness
To manipulate humor–message relatedness, the tag line and
claims either refer specifically to or do not refer to the humor
in the headline. Speck (1987, 1991) identifies three underlying
humor dimensions: (1) incongruity-resolution—level of respondent
surprise, (2) dispositional humor—identification with or detach-
ment from the humor’s victim, and (3) arousal-safety—the degree
of effected relief. Speck describes five combinational humor
types: (1) comic wit—incongruity-resolution humor; (2) senti-
mental humor—arousal-safety; (3) satire—incongruity-resolution
and dispositional humor; (4) sentimental comedy—incongruity-
resolution arousal-safety humor; and (5) full comedy—incongru-
ity-resolution, dispositional, and arousal-safety humor. Speck
uses semiotic theory to define three levels of humor–message
relatedness: (1) pragmatic—is the ad fundamentally humorous
(humor-dominant) or generally nonhumorous? (2) semantic—the
thematic relationship of the humor and the message, that is,
is the humor related to the product, its use, its name, or its
benefits? (3) syntactic—the structural relationship between the
humor and the message, that is, is the message separate from or
part of the joke work? Finally, Speck draws on the ELM (Elabora-
tion Likelihood Model) to describe three fundamental processing
strategies: (1) central route—issue-relevant thinking, (2) peripheral
route—nonissue-relevant thinking, and (3) humor-dominant—a
special case of peripheral processing where the message is gen-
erally structured as a joke. Taken together, Speck’s taxonomy
allows for 20 humor-dominant ad forms—5 (humor type) × 2
(semantic relatedness) × 2 (syntactic relatedness).
In the present research, we deliberately selected semanti-
cally related comic wit for all humor conditions and manipu-
lated the structural (thematic) relatedness of the humor for the
higher (versus lower) humor–message relatedness conditions.
Specifically, the headline and message claims are semantically
related, that is, the claims “delicate, earthy flavor” and “natural,
distinct flavor” relate to the joke in the headline. However, only
in the conditions with higher humor–message relatedness is
the message syntactically (structurally) related to the humor.
Here, the play on words in the headline is carried through to
the tag line, and hence the loop in the joke work is closed.
The efficacy of the humor–message relatedness manipula-
tion was evaluated in a pretest (n = 26). Participants rated the
relatedness of the headline to the claims and tag line on a four-
item measure developed by Krishnan and Chakravarti (2003).
Results indicate that the humor–message relatedness manipu-
lation was successful for both low and high levels of humor
strength. The advertising stimuli are provided in Figure 1.
Measures
Message claims recall was prompted by asking participants,
“What major claims did the ad make? Please list as many as
you can remember. What other details about the ad do you
recall?” Participants’ recall of the message claims was com-
puted on the basis of a set of a priori rules. Two independent
raters, blind to the purposes of the study, coded the claims
 Spring 2007 59

FIGURE 1
Experimental Stimuli

Control Humor Strength Lower/Humor–Message Humor Strength Lower/Humor–Message

Relatedness Lower Relatedness Higher

Humor Strength Higher/Humor–Message Humor Strength Higher/Humor–Message

Relatedness Lower Relatedness Higher

recall measure; disparities were resolved via discussion. Because
the interrater agreement (90.9%) and the correlation between
the two rater’s scores (r = .935; n = 253, p < .001) were both
high, the two scores were averaged to form a claims recall
index, which served as the dependent measure. The proposed
mediator, attention to the ad, was measured by a three-item,
seven-point Likert-type scale intended to determine the
amount of attention devoted to the written message in the
ad (Muehling, Stoltman, and Grossbart 1990). The proposed
mediator, mood, was measured by a four-item, seven-point
semantic differential scale developed to measure the feeling
that has been induced in a person by an object (Yi 1990). In
addition, cognitive responses (e.g., humor comprehension and
elaboration) were assessed via a thought protocol task (e.g.,
Madden, Allen, and Twible 1988).
NFH was measured using a scale developed by Cline,
Altsech, and Kellaris (2003). Construct validity for the NFH
scale was assessed following the procedures recommended by
60 The Journal of Advertising
Gerbing and Anderson (1988). A median split was used to
separate the sample into low and high groups for each dimension
(e.g., Srull, Lichtenstein, and Rothbart 1985).
A manipulation check for humor strength asked participants
to record their reactions to the ad on a six-item, seven-point
semantic differential scale (humorous/not humorous, funny/not
funny, amusing/not amusing, playful/not playful, not dull/dull,
and not boring/boring) adapted from Alden, Mukherjee, and
Hoyer (2000) and Chattopadhyay and Basu (1990). Further-
more, because asking individuals whether they perceive a mes-
sage to be funny or amusing might vary significantly between
individuals, a second measure was employed. Using a one-item,
seven-point semantic differential scale, participants were asked
to what extent the advertiser was attempting to be humorous (i.e.,
a more objective measure of humor). This scale is suggested by
Duncan and Nelson (1985).
A manipulation check for humor–message relatedness asked
participants to record their reactions to the ad on a four-item
scale (related well/related poorly, were consistent/were inconsis-
tent, fit well/fit poorly, corresponded well/corresponded poorly)
taken from Krishnan and Chakravarti (2003). Finally, questions
assessing argument strength, product familiarity, and brand
familiarity were included as confounding checks.
Procedure
Participants were told that the study was concerned with their
reactions to a magazine advertisement prototype. Each partici-
pant received a questionnaire booklet containing a stimulus
ad. After about 10 minutes, participants were asked to place
the questionnaire on the floor and continue with a filler task
(e.g., Heckler and Childers 1992) to clear their short-term
memories. Subsequently, message claims recall was assessed
via a second questionnaire, which also contained manipulation
and confounding checks, as well as a final question pertaining
to the purpose of the study. At the conclusion of the study,
participants were debriefed.
RESULTS
Manipulation and Confounding Checks
Humor Strength
Both subjective and objective measures of humor were used to
verify the effectiveness of the humor manipulation. Two-factor
analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed on (1) a six-
item measure of perceived humor (Cronbach’s α = .971) and
(2) a one-item measure of attempted humor with the humor
strength and humor–message relatedness as the factors. Only
the anticipated main effect for humor was significant for both
perceived humor, F(1, 211) = 19.38, p < .001, ω2 = .080, and
attempted humor, F(1, 211) = 35.25, p < .001, ω2 = .139. No
other main or interactive effects were observed. In addition,
one-way ANOVAs with post hoc multiple comparisons indicate
that the three levels of humor (control, lower humor, and higher
humor) were perceived as differentially humorous and received
significantly different ratings for attempted humor (p < .001).
Humor–Message Relatedness
A two-factor ANOVA was performed on the perceived hu-
mor–message relatedness dependent variable with manipulated
levels of humor and humor–message relatedness as the fac-
tors. Results indicated a significant main effect for perceived
humor–message relatedness, F(1, 205) = 63.62, p < .001,
ω2 = .231, and a nonsignificant main effect for humor, F(1,
205) = .236, p = .628.
Measures assessing claim strength, product familiarity, and
brand familiarity were included as confounding checks. The
data were analyzed in a series of ANOVAs with manipulations
of humor strength and humor–message relatedness as the fac-
tors. Claim strength was not confounded with humor strength,
F(1, 205) = .096, p = .901, humor–message relatedness, F(1,
205) = .093, p = .760, or the interaction of humor strength
and humor–message relatedness, F(1, 205) = 2.35, p = .127.
Similarly, product familiarity was not confounded with the
manipulations or their interaction (all p values >.513). Brand
familiarity was not confounded with the manipulations or their
interaction (all p values >.554). In summary, results suggest
that the stimulus ads manipulated the humor and relatedness
constructs successfully and independently, and the treatments
were not confounded with other traits likely to provide alter-
native explanations.
The Impact of Humor Strength and
Humor–Message Relatedness on Recall
H1 proposed that claims recall would be more positively
influenced by humor strength when humor–message relat-
edness is high than when it is low. ANOVA shows a main
effect of humor–message relatedness, F(1, 211) = 6.25,
p = .013, ω2 = .024, with higher humor–message related-
ness (M = 1.45) engendering greater claims recall than lower
humor–message relatedness (M = 1.08), t = 2.51, df = 190,
p = .031. An interaction between humor strength and hu-
mor–message relatedness was also observed, F(1, 211) = 4.34,
p = .038, ω2 = .02. When humor strength is higher (versus
lower) people recall more ad claims under conditions of
higher (M = 1.66) versus lower humor–message relatedness
(M = .01), t = 3.26, df = 101, p = .001 (one-tailed). Thus, H1
is supported. In addition, when humor–message relatedness
is higher (versus lower) people recall more ad claims under
 Spring 2007 61

FIGURE 2 TABLE 1
Humor Strength × Humor–Message Relevancy on Descriptive Statistics
Recall
Claims recall

Mean n

Low humor
Low humor–message relatedness 1.156 52
High humor–message relatedness 1.204 50
Total 1.179 102
High humor
Low humor–message relatedness 1.009 54
High humor–message relatedness 1.661 56
Total 1.341 110
Total
Low humor–message relatedness 1.082 107
High humor–message relatedness 1.448 105
Total 1.263 212
.9

.7
Mood

H3 predicted that the joint impact of humor strength and

conditions of higher (M = 1.66) versus lower humor strength
(M = 1.20), t = 1.95, df = 103, p = .028 (one-tailed). The
higher humor strength/high humor–message relatedness
condition (M = 1.66) produces greater recall than the control
group (M = 1.24), t = 1.85, df = 95, p = .034 (one-tailed).
Claims recall for the control group does not differ significantly
from any other treatment condition. Figure 2 illustrates the
interaction. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, and Table
2 provides the ANOVA.
Attention and Mood as Mediators
Attention
To test the hypothesis that the joint impact of humor strength
and humor–message relatedness on claims recall is mediated
by attention to the ad (H2), we used a procedure similar to
that described by Sobel (1982). First, the multiplicative in-
dependent variable, humor strength × humor–message relat-
edness, is positively correlated with the dependent variable,
claims recall, r = .131, p = .038. Second, the independent
variable is positively correlated with the proposed mediator,
attention to the ad (r = .200, p = .001). Third, the mediator
is positively correlated with the brand claims recall dependent
variable, r = .147, p = .019. Finally, when the dependent
variable, claims recall, is regressed on both the mediator
(attention to the ad) and the independent variable (humor
strength × humor–message relatedness), the relationship be-
tween the independent variable and the dependent variable
attenuates (β = .108, t = 1.69, p = .092), thereby providing
support for a partial mediation model and for H2.
humor–message relatedness on ad claims recall would be medi-
ated by mood. Results from H2 indicate that the independent
variable, humor strength × humor–message relatedness, is
positively correlated with the dependent variable, claims recall.
Second, the independent variable is positively correlated with
the proposed mediator, mood, r = .548, p < .001. Third, mood
is positively correlated with claims recall, r = .216, p = .001.
Finally, when the dependent variable is regressed on both the
independent and mediator variables, the relationship between
the independent variable and the dependent variable becomes
nonsignificant (β = .018, t = .244, p = .808), suggesting full
mediation and support for H3.
Concurrent Tests of Mediation
To explain further the process by which mood mediates the
joint effects of humor strength and humor–message relatedness
on claims recall, additional analyses were conducted. Inde-
pendent support for H2 and H3 suggests that both attention
to the ad and mood may mediate the joint impact of humor
strength and humor–message relatedness on claims recall.
What is not clear from the separate analyses, however, is the
nature of the relationship between attention and mood. Thus,
the dependent variable, claims recall, was regressed on both
mediators (attention and mood) and the independent factor
(humor strength × humor–message relatedness). Results of
this model indicate that mood accounts for most of the vari-
ance in claims recall. In addition, the results imply that mood
jointly mediates the relationship between attention and recall,
as well as the relationship between the independent variable
and recall. Specifically, the coefficient for mood is significant,
62 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 2
Claims Recall: Humor Strength × Humor–Message Relatedness

Experimental method

Sum of Mean
squares df square F Significance

Main effects
Combined 8.31 2.00 4.15 3.75 .03
Humor strength 1.22 1.00 1.22 1.10 .30
Humor–message relatedness 6.92 1.00 6.92 6.25 .01
Two-way interactions
Humor strength × humor–message relatedness 4.81 1.00 4.81 4.34 .04
Model 13.12 3.00 4.37 3.95 .01
Residual 230.16 208.00 1.11
Total 243.28 211 1.15

Note: ANOVA = analysis of variance.

βmood = .186, t = 2.48, p = .014, whereas the coefficients for
humor strength × humor–message relatedness and attention
are both nonsignificant, βhum×rel = .012, t = .161, p = .872,
βattention = .084, t = 1.20, p = .194.
Next, we examined the possibility that mood may operate
through elaboration. The correlation between mood and total
thoughts generated from the ad is nonsignificant, however,
r = –.027, p = .672. Therefore, mood is unlikely to produce
effects on message claims recall via elaboration. Moreover, in a
separate model, when claims recall was regressed on both mood
and elaboration, both predictors produced significant coeffi-
cients and offered no indications of collinearity (βmood = .220,
t = 3.62, p < .001; βelaboration = .166, t = 2.72, p = .007). This
suggests that mood and elaboration may work independently
to affect claims recall.
Finally, elaboration was tested as a mediator to the relation-
ship between attention to the ad and claims recall. Pairwise
correlations among elaboration, attention, and claims recall are
significant, rattention, recall = .137 (p = .030), rattention, elaboration = .255
(p < .001), relaboration, recall = .160 (p < .011). When claims recall
is regressed on both attention and elaboration, however, the
association between attention and claims recall becomes nonsig-
nificant (β = .103, t = 1.60, p = .111). This suggests that elabo-
ration mediates the relationship between attention and claims
recall. In summary of these findings, it appears that whereas
mood and elaboration produce independent effects on claims
recall, attention works through both mood and elaboration to
influence claims recall. In both cases, the interaction of humor
strength and humor–message relatedness is likely to stimulate
the process. To test these relationships in a nomological net-
work, a path model with reliabilities (Figure 3) was developed.
The humor strength × humor–message relatedness served as
the exogenous variable and attention, mood, elaboration, and
claims recall were specified as endogenous variables.
To test the interaction hypothesis, we used the methodology
proposed by Ping (1996). The anticipated link between humor
strength × humor–message relatedness and mood is observed
(γ21 = .054, t = 9.95, df = 3, p < .01), and a significant link
between humor strength × humor–message relatedness and
attention is observed (γ11 = .026, t = 3.11, df = 3, p < .05).
In addition, attention appears to influence mood (β21 = .151,
t = 3.33, df = 3, p < .05) and elaboration (β31 = .377, t = 4.54,
df = 3, p < .01). In contrast, mood is not significantly related
to elaboration (β32 = –.195, t = 1.83, df = 3, n.s.). Finally,
mood positively influences claims recall (β42 = .256, t = 3.62,
df = 3, p < .05) and elaboration positively influences claims
recall (β43 = .117, t = 2.47, df = 3, p < .05).
In addition to validating the proposed nomological net-
work, the model fit the data exceptionally well. The χ2 value
was not significant (χ2 = .51, df = 3, p = .92). Furthermore,
the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .99), the adjusted goodness-
of-fit index (AGFI = .98), and the root mean square residual
(RMSR = .062) provide evidence that the model fit the data
well. No standardized residuals fell outside the range of –1.0 to
1.0. Thus, the path model appears to explain the relationships
between the interaction of humor strength and humor–message
relatedness, attention to the ad, mood, elaboration generated
from the ad, and message claims recall. Humor strength and
humor–message relatedness influence claims recall via a dual
process—attention and mood. Moreover, mood mediates—both
directly and indirectly—the joint effects of humor strength
and humor–message relatedness on claims recall. In contrast,
attention appears to work through mood and elaboration to
influence claims recall.
NFH as a Moderator
H4 predicted that NFH would moderate the impact of humor
strength such that its effects on claims recall would be more
positive for people with higher levels of NFH than for people

FIGURE 3
Path Model with Reliabilities
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
with lower levels of NFH.. An ANOVA was performed on
claims recall, with humor strength and NFH as the factors.
The anticipated interaction between humor strength and NFH
was observed, F(1, 195) = 4.37, p = .038, ω2 = .02. The results
indicate that when humor strength is higher (versus lower),
those higher in NFH recalled more ad claims (M = 1.59) than
those lower in NFH (M = 1.07), t = 2.48, df = 97, p = .008
(one-tailed). Thus, H4 is supported. Figure 4 illustrates this
interaction. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics, and Table 4
provides the ANOVA.
Discussion
As anticipated, the data demonstrate that humor’s attention-
gaining mechanisms (i.e., humor strength) may translate into
positive effects for memory. Specifically, it appears that humor
strength and humor–message relatedness jointly influence
participants’ recall of advertising claims. The results show
that when humor strength is higher (versus lower), partici-
pants recall more ad claims when the humor is relevant to the
claims. The data also show that when the humor is related
to the message, participants recall more advertising claims
when humor strength is higher than when it is lower. When
the humor is both stronger and related to the message, the
humorous ad outperforms the control ad with respect to mes-
sage claims recall. These results are important because they
Spring 2007 63
bring into clearer relief the value of using strong, relevant
humor, as opposed to stronger, incidental humor. It appears
that strong humor is not its own virtue; it must be connected
to the brand claims to facilitate recall. In contrast, weaker
humor, whether related to the message or not, does not aid
brand claims recall.
The data also provide additional insight into person-by-
situation influences on advertising responses. For example,
an individual’s tendency to generate humor (NFH) appears
to moderate humor strength effects such that the impact of
humor strength on claims recall is significantly more posi-
tive for people with high levels of NFH than for people with
low levels of NFH. When humor strength is higher (versus
lower), individuals higher in NFH recall more ad claims than
those lower in NFH. In addition, those higher (versus lower)
in NFH recall more ad claims when humor strength is higher
than when it is lower.
The data also support the notion that attention and mood
operate via dual processes to mediate the joint impact of hu-
mor strength and humor–message relatedness on claims recall.
Having first established the importance of strong, structurally
related humor, this dual process model helps explain why the
strong, relevant humor leads to higher brand claims recall.
These results are interesting because they suggest that humor
may trigger both cognitive (attention) and affective (mood)
routes to memorability.
64 The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE 4 TABLE 3
Humor Strength × NFH (Need for Humor) on Recall Descriptive Statistics

Recall

Mean n

Low humor
Lower NFH 1.21 49
Higher NFH 1.10 48
Total 1.16 97
High humor
Lower NFH 1.07 48
Higher NFH 1.59 51
.9 Total 1.34 99
Total
Lower NFH 1.14 104
.7 Higher NFH 1.38 92
Total 1.25 196
.5 Note: NFH = need for humor.

GENERAL DISCUSSION our knowledge of the consumer’s sense of humor in general,

The goal of this research was to test the generative mechanisms
by which humor–message relatedness influences brand claims
recall. In addition, we introduced the personality variable
“need for humor” (NFH) as a moderator of humor’s effects on
advertising recall and investigated the mediating roles of at-
tention, mood, and elaboration in a nomological network.
This research makes a number of theoretical contributions.
First, by examining the joint effects of humor strength and
humor–message relatedness on advertising recall, this research
provides evidence that message-relevant stimuli may produce
consistent effects across various attention-gaining contexts. For
example, the findings suggest that humor–message relatedness
interacts with humor’s attention-gaining properties in a man-
ner that is analogous to the interaction between music–message
congruity and music’s attention-gaining properties (Kellaris,
Cox, and Cox 1993). Thus, the present research provides a
foundation for suggesting that attention-gaining message
appeals, in general, may engender better recall when they are
structurally related to the message theme. Second, by exam-
ining the psychological mechanisms that underlie consumer
responses to humorous stimuli (e.g., attention, mood, and
elaboration), as well as the theoretical principles that activate
these mechanisms (i.e., humor–message relatedness), this re-
search leads to better explanations for why humorous effects
obtain or fail to obtain. Attention and mood, for example, are
shown as dual mediators of the impact of humor strength and
humor–message relatedness on recall for the message claims.
Third, NFH, like other individual difference variables, explains
an additional source of variation in advertising outcomes
through its role as a moderator. The NFH construct broadens
and under what conditions it influences responses to humor-
ous communication.
The incremental contributions of the present research are
twofold. First, whereas prior research has shown a positive re-
lationship between humor and attention, and between related
humor and recall, previous studies have not explicitly investi-
gated the joint interplay of humor strength and humor–message
relatedness. The present study specifically addresses this im-
portant interaction and finds that with respect to claims recall,
neither humor strength nor humor–message relatedness is its
own virtue. Relatively stronger humor must be related to the
brand or message to engender higher claims recall. Second,
previous research has not investigated the generative mecha-
nisms that follow from the interplay of humor strength and
humor–message relatedness. The present research specifically
evaluates the influence of attention and mood in a nomological
network of variables. We find that attention and mood oper-
ate in partnership, jointly mediating the interactive effects of
humor strength and humor–message relatedness on claims
recall. The path model uncovers this dual process. Mood directly
mediates humor’s influence on claims recall. In contrast, atten-
tion operates indirectly through both mood and elaboration to
influence claims recall. Thus, both variables help explain why
the interaction between humor strength and humor–message
relatedness influences claims recall.
The present findings also have practical implications in
terms of guidelines for advertisers who use humorous ads
and imply that the effects of message-congruent humor may
generalize to other attention-gaining appeals, such as music or
sexual attraction. On the basis of humor’s prevalence and the
belief in its universal effectiveness, NFH may be useful as a

TABLE 4
Recall: By Humor Strength by NFH
Sum of
squares
Main effects
Combined 3.74
Humor strength 1.14
NFH 2.27
Two-way interactions
Humor strength × NFH 4.82
Model 8.57
Residual 211.93
Total 220.50
Note: ANOVA = analysis of variance; NFH = need for humor.
segmentation tool. Clearly, advertisers cannot administer NFH
scales to members of their target audiences; however, market
research can identify media that draw groups of people with
high levels of NFH (e.g., Mad Magazine readers and Late Show
with David Letterman watchers). In addition, this information
can be used to determine which product categories or brands
tend to be popular with specific media users (e.g., Mad Maga-
zine readers may tend to be heavy users of B-movies or video
games). Thus, NFH may be helpful both in media selection
and in targeting audiences for specific products.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The results of this research are necessarily qualified by the
limitations of the studies’ designs, each of which suggests an
opportunity for additional research. First, the experimenta-
tion used mock advertisements in a controlled setting. Thus,
the extent to which the findings are limited by the artificial
context and the representativeness of the ads and product is
unknown. Second, both studies use comic wit, manipulated in
the headline of a print ad, to convey humor that is independent
of the brand name, thus limiting generality to other types of
humor. This choice, however, allows for control over the for-
mat of the ads across conditions and thus avoids confounding
other ad characteristics with humor (Krishnan and Chakravarti
2003). Furthermore, it enables clear identification of the locus
of effects to specific ad components (e.g., brand claims). Third,
whereas all ads were designed such that the humor was related
to the brand claims (i.e., thematically related), the structural
relatedness of the humor was manipulated via the tag line.
Thus, future research should examine the structural location
of the humor in an ad. Fourth, despite extensive pretesting, it
could be argued that humor is more appropriate in a broadcast
medium (e.g., Alden and Hoyer 1993; Chattopadhyay and
Spring 2007 65
Experimental method
Mean
df square F Significance
2 1.87 1.70 .19
1 1.14 1.04 .31
1 2.27 2.06 .15
1 4.82 4.37 .04
3 2.86 2.59 .05
192 1.10
195 1.13
Basu 1990) or that other humor dimensions (e.g., disposi-
tional humor; Speck 1987, 1991) or humor structures (e.g.,
message-dominant/image-oriented; Spotts, Weinberger, and
Parsons 1997) may be more effective in a print context. The
use of incongruous humor, however, is justified on the grounds
that it appears to be the most pervasive humor in magazine ads
and for nondurable items such as coffee (Spotts, Weinberger,
and Parsons 1997).
The results of the experimentation are intuitively appealing.
Each year, advertisers spend millions of dollars on humorous
ads. Some contain strong, relevant messages that engender
recall. Recently, several brands have generated remarkable
brand awareness with strong, related humor. Geico’s gecko and
Aflac’s duck appear to be deliberate attempts at linking the
source of the humor with the brand name, and hence increas-
ing recall. Orbit gum links its “dirty mouth” humor with its
primary attribute, clean-tasting gum. Classic successes like the
Eveready’s Energizer Bunny were designed to link the humor
with the claims. The message is indirect but clear—like the
bunny, the batteries keep going and going. In contrast, it ap-
pears that millions of dollars may be wasted on advertisements
that make no connection between the humor and the claim,
subsequently creating brand confusion or inhibiting recall.
CONCLUSION
The pervasive use of humor in advertising attests to the wide-
spread belief that humor enhances the effectiveness of ads. The
research reported here examines contingencies that shape the
effects of humorous appeals on an important outcome of ad-
vertising—consumers’ recall of ad claims—as well as processes
through which and boundary conditions within which such
effects operate. In so doing, this research seeks to elucidate
when and how humor contributes to remembering ads.
66 The Journal of Advertising
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W., J. Wesley Hutchison, and John G. Lynch (1991),
“Memory and Decision Making,” in Handbook of Consumer
Research, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian,
eds., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–49.
Alden, Dana L., and Wayne D. Hoyer (1993), “An Examination
of Cognitive Factors Related to Humorousness in Television
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 29–37.
———, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2000), “The
Effects of Incongruity, Surprise, and Positive Moderators
on Perceived Humor in Television Advertising,” Journal of
Advertising, 29 (2), 1–15.
Arias-Bolzmann, Leopoldo, Goutam Chakraborty, and John C.
Mowen (2000), “Effects of Absurdity in Advertising: The
Moderating Role of Product Category Attitude and the
Mediating Role of Cognitive Responses,” Journal of Adver-
tising, 29 (1), 35–49.
Batra, Rajeev, and Michael L. Ray (1986), “Affective Responses
Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (September), 234–249.
Bower, Geoffrey H., Stephen G. Gilligan, and Kenneth P. Mon-
teiro (1981), “Selectivity of Learning Caused by Affective
States,” in Affect and Social Cognition, Susan Fiske and
Margaret Clark, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
291–331.
Bruner, Gordon C., II, and Paul J. Hensel (1996), Marketing Scales
Handbook, vol. 2, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Kunal Basu (1990), “Humor in Ad-
vertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (November), 466–476.
Cline, Thomas W., Moses B. Altsech, and James J. Kellaris
(2003), “When Does Humor Enhance or Inhibit Ad Re-
sponses? The Moderating Role of Need for Levity,” Journal
of Advertising, 32 (3), 31–46.
———, Karen A. Machleit, and James J. Kellaris (1998), “Is
There a Need for Levity?” in Proceedings of the Society for
Consumer Psychology 1998 Winter Conference, Margaret C.
Campbell and Karen A. Machleit, eds., Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 155–157.
Dixon, Paul N., William Willingham, Donald A. Strano, and
Cynthia K. Chandler (1989), “Sense of Humor as a Mediator
During Incidental Learning of Humor-Related Material,”
Psychological Reports, 64, 851–855.
Duncan, Calvin P. (1979), “Humor in Advertising: A Behavioral
Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7
(4), 285–306.
———, and James E. Nelson (1985), “Effects of Humor in a
Radio Advertising Experiment,” Journal of Advertising, 14
(2), 33–40.
———, ———, and Nancy T. Frontczak (1984), “The Effect
of Humor on Advertising Comprehension,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed., Provo, UT: As-
sociation for Consumer Research, 432–437.
Edell, Julia A., and Richard Staelin (1983), “The Information
Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (1), 45–61.
Elpers, Josephine, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne Hoyer (2004),
“Humor in Television Advertising: A Moment-to-Moment
Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 592–598.
Galizio, Mark, and Clyde Hendrick (1972), “Effect of Musical Ac-
companiment on Attitude: The Guitar as a Prop for Persua-
sion,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 (4), 350–359.
Gelb, Betsy, and George Zinkhan (1985), “The Effect of Repeti-
tion on Humor in a Radio Advertising Study,” Journal of
Advertising, 14 (4), 13–20, 68.
Gerbing, David W., and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated
Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimen-
sionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research,
25 (May), 186–192.
Heckler, Susan E., and Terry L. Childers (1992), “The Role of
Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual
Information: What Is Incongruency?” Journal of Consumer
Research, 18 (4), 475–492.
Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler
(1987), “Picture-Word Consistency and the Elaborative
Processing of Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research,
24 (December), 359–369.
Isen, Alice M. (1987), “Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes and
Social Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, Lawrence Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press,
203–253.
———. (1989), “Some Ways in Which Affect Influences Cogni-
tive Processes: Implications for Advertising and Consumer
Behavior,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Alice M.
Tybout and Patricia Cafferata, eds., New York: Lexington
Books, 91–117.
Kellaris, James J., Anthony D. Cox, and Dena Cox (1993), “The
Effect of Background Music on Ad Processing: A Contin-
gency Explanation,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (October),
114–125.
Krishnan, H. Shanker, and Dipankar Chakravarti (2003), “A
Process Analysis of the Effects of Humorous Advertising
Executions on Brand Claims Memory,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 230–245.
Lammers, H. Bruce, Laura Liebowitz, George E. Seymour,
and Judith E. Hennessey (1983), “Humor and Cognitive
Responses to Advertising Stimuli: A Trace Consolidation
Approach,” Journal of Business Research, 11 (2), 173–185.
Lee, Yih L., and Charlotte Mason (1999), “Responses to Informa-
tion Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy,
Relevancy, and Humor,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26
(2), 156–169.
Littmann, Jane R. (1983), “A New Formulation of Humor,”
Advances in Descriptive Psychology, 3, 183–207.
Machleit, Karen A., and R. Dale Wilson (1988), “Emotional
Feelings and Attitude Toward the Advertisement: The Roles
of Brand Familiarity and Repetition,” Journal of Advertising,
17 (Fall), 27–35.
Madden, Thomas J. (1982), “Humor in Advertising: Applications
of a Hierarchy-of-Effects Paradigm,” Ph.D. diss., University
of Massachusetts–Amherst.
———, Chris T. Allen, and Jacquelyn L. Twible (1988), “At-
titude Toward the Ad: An Assessment of Diverse Measure-

ment Indices Under Different Processing ‘Sets,’” Journal of
Marketing Research, 25 (3), 242–252.
———, and Marc G. Weinberger (1982), “The Effects of Humor
on Attention in Magazine Advertising,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 11 (3), 8–14.
———, and ——— (1984), “Humor in Advertising: A Practi-
tioner View,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (4), 23–29.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1991), “Elaborating on Elaboration: The Dis-
tinction Between Relational and Item-Specific Elaboration,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3), 358–367.
Muehling, Darrel D., Jeffrey J. Stoltman, and Sanford Gross-
bart (1990), “The Impact of Comparative Advertising on
Levels of Message Involvement,” Journal of Advertising, 16
(3), 41–50.
Olson, James M., and Neal J. Roese (1995), “The Perceived Fun-
niness of Humorous Stimuli,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21 (9), 908–913.
O’quin, Karen, and James Aronoff (1981), “Humor as a Tech-
nique of Social Influence,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 44
(4), 349–357.
Ping, Robert A., Jr. (1996), “Latent Variable Interaction and
Quadratic Effect Estimation: A Two-Step Technique Using
Structural Equation Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 119
(1), 166–175.
Smith, Stephen M. (1993), “Does Humor in Advertising Enhance
Systematic Processing?” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol.
20, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, eds., Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 155–158.
Sobel, Mark E. (1982), “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects
in Structural Equation Models,” in Sociological Methodology,
S. Leinhart, ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 290–312.
Speck, Paul S. (1987), “On Humor and Humor in Advertising,”
Ph.D. diss., Texas Tech University.
——— (1991), “The Humorous Ads,” in Current Issues and Re-
search in Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin,
Jr., eds., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1–44.
Spring 2007 67
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger, and Amy L. Parsons
(1997), “Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Ad-
vertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach,” Journal
of Advertising, 26 (3), 17–32.
Srull, Thomas K., Meryl Lichtenstein, and Myron Rothbart (1985),
“Associative Storage and Retrieval Processes in Person Mem-
ory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (2), 316–345.
Sternthal, Brian, and C. Samuel Craig (1973), “Humor in Ad-
vertising,” Journal of Marketing, 37 (4), 12–18.
Vaughn, Richard (1980), “How Advertising Works: A Planning
Model,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (5), 27–33.
——— (1986), “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model
Revisited,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1), 57–66.
Weinberger, Marc G., and Leland Campbell (1991), “The Use
and Impact of Humor in Radio Advertising,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 31 (December), 44–52.
———, and Charles S. Gulas (1992), “The Impact of Humor
in Advertising: A Review,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (4),
36–59.
———, Harlan E. Spotts, Leland Campbell, and Amy L. Par-
sons (1995), “The Use of Humor in Different Advertising
Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (May/June),
44–56.
Wicker, Frank W., Irene M. Thorelli, William L. Barron III, and
Marguerite R. Ponder (1981), “Relationships Among Af-
fective and Cognitive Factors in Humor,” Journal of Research
in Personality, 15, 350–370.
Wyer, Robert S., and James E. Collins (1992), “A Theory of Hu-
mor Elicitation,” Psychological Review, 99 (4), 663–688.
Yi, Youjae (1990), “Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of
the Context for Print Advertisements,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 19 (2), 40–48.
Zhang, Yong (1996), “Responses to Humorous Advertising:
The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition,” Journal of
Advertising, 15 (1), 15–32.