Speck Humor Taxonomy

The Humorous Message Taxonomy:
A Framework for the Study

of Humorous Ads
Paul Surgi Speck
This article suggests a new framework for the analysis of humor's com-
munication effects, a model that accounts for differences in humor type,
message type, and humor-message interaction. Specifically, it describes
three humor processes and the five humor types that result from combin-
ing them. Next, by crossing humor types and message types, it develops a
taxonomy of humorous message forms. This Humorous Message Taxon-
omy provides a conceptual, experimental, and managerial framework for
analyzing humor's communication effects. The Humorous Message Tax-
onomy is used to _compare a sample of humorous television commercials
to those message types used in prior humor appeals research. Apparently
the humorous message types that have been most frequently researched
differ considerably from those that are normally aired on television. The
two final sections recommend a program for the study of humor effects
and offer guidelines for operationalizing and manipulating humor in
subsequent research.
Introduction
Are humorous ads effective? Madden and Weinberger [1984] polled adver-
tising executives and creative directors regarding the effectiveness of humor.
These practitioners felt that humor positively affects attention, awareness for
new products, name registration, the communication of simple points, reten-
tion, mood, and brand switching. Not surprisingly, these positive beliefs are
matched by a high incidence of humor across various media. For example,
previous surveys suggest that up to 42 % of television commercials employ
some humor [Bellaire 1977; Kelly and Solomon 1975; Cantor 1976; Wein-
berger and Spotts 1989; Markiewicz 1972]. The incidence of humor in radio
ads is similarly high [Lubalin 1977], and while humorous ads appear less
2 Original Research and Theoretical Contributions
often in other media, their overall use seems extensive [Madden and Wein-
berger 1984J1.
Academic research on humor in advertising only partly supports these
practitioner beliefs. Several studies report positive effects with a variety of
variables [Madden 1982; Madden and Weinberger 1982; Gelb and Pickett
1983; Belch and Belch 1984; Duncan and Nelson 1985; Gelb and Zinkhan
1986; Stewart and Furse 1986]. Positive effects are generally found for atten-
tion and attitude towards the ad. Just as often, researchers report nonsignifi-
cant, mixed, or negative effects [Murphy, Cunningham and Wilcox 1979;
Cantor and Venus 1980; Brooker 1981; Madden 1982; Gelb and Pickett 1983;
Lammers et al 1983; Belch and Belch 1984; Duncan and Nelson 1985; Gelb
and Zinkhan 1986; Stewart and Furse 1986]. Research on humor's effect in
nonadvertising communication contexts is also equivocal [see reviews by
Markiewicz 1974, Gruner 1976, Zillmann and Bryant 1983].
Madden and Weinberger [1984] specifically examined this discrepancy
between practitioner beliefs and academic research. They compared practi-
tioner beliefs to eight research-based generalizations offered by Sternthal and
Craig [1973]. Surprisingly, practitioners agreed with only two of those gener-
alizations (that humorous messages attract attention and that audience char-
acteristics play an important role in humor's success). It is not surprising that
advertisers are using a strategy without stronger support from academicians.
The research and extensive experience of agencies generally attests to the
value of humor [Ogilvy and Raphaelson 1982; Topline 1982; Madden and
Weinberger 1984]. I am concerned that academic researchers so often fail to
confirm practical experience.
Why isn't there more academic evidence to support humor's role in adver-
tising? This discrepancy could result from several factors. First, despite posi-
tive practitioner beliefs, humor may have no effect, limited benefits (through
attention-getting only), or even detrimental effects (due perhaps to distrac-
tion or accelerated wearout). Second, it could be that the beneficial effects of
humor require natural environments, low task-involvement, simple mes-
sages, and multiple exposures- conditions that are seldom met in experimen-
tal settings. Third, humor may work well only in certain media (television vs
print), in certain markets (consumer vs business), in certain messages (image
vs informational), with certain products (snack foods vs cosmetics), with
certain brands (established vs new), or under certain market conditions (high
brand-switching behavior vs low).
Fourth, the lack of experimental support could also result from the use of
humor manipulations that can be matched with straightforward (humor-
removed) controls. Inresearch, humor manipulations are often nonhumorous
messages that incorporate bits of humor. In advertising, humorous ads are
often humorous messages that incorporate bits of information. Although both
message types employ humor, it is unclear that findings based on humor-
The Humorous Message Taxonomy 3
within-message manipulations can be extended to message-within-humor

ads.
Finally, advertising researchers vary in the way they define and opera-
tionalize humor. Few distinguish between humor types, and findings based
on the use of a single humor type are often generalized to all humor. In short,
humor is typically treated as a unidimensional construct, despite evidence
that suggests its multidimensionality. If there are, in fact, several types of
humor, researchers should not necessarily expect them to produce the same
communication effects. Instead, they should identify these different types
and examine the ef fects specific to each.
In short, research on humor's communication effects is encumbered by
conceptual problems that threaten the generalizability of many findings.
Since these problems involve the independent variable, their solution will
require us to consider two fundamental issues regarding humorous ads:
whether there are different types of humor and whether there are different
types of humorous ads.
The question of humor's effectiveness cannot be addressed until researchers
adopt a more complex approach to humorous phenomena and the role of
humor in larger communication units. This article argues that humor is
multidimensional, that there are three underlying humor processes, that
there are five combinational humor types, and that each humor process (and
therefore each humor type) promotes a distinct set of effects. Furthermore,
the communication effects of humor almost certainly depend on the overall
nature of the ad and the specific relationship of humor elements to message
elements within that particular processing context.
Humor Is Multidimensional
Are there different kinds of humor? The multidimensionality of humor is
indirectly supported by research concerning the multidimensionality of
arousal [Godkewitsch 1972], of smiling [Keith-Spiegel 1972; Pollio 1983;
Ekman and Friesen 1978, 1982], and of laughter [LaFrance 1983; Giles and
Oxford 1970; Foot and Chapman 1976; and Pollio, Mers and Lucchesi
1972].
Here it is argued that humor is dimensional in two ways: first, in respect to
certain underlying processes (basic dimensionality), and sec ond, in respect to
various combinations of those processes (combinational dimensionality).
Basic dimensionality involves the building blocks of humor. There appear to
be three of these underlying humor processes. Each humor process (HP)
engages the subject on a different level, requires a unique pattern of process-
ing, and produces a distinct effect. Combinational dimensionality concerns
the mixture of underlying processes which occur in a specific instance of
humor. There appear to be five combinational humor types. Each humor

type (HT) represents a distinct combination of the basic humor processes, but
before we can discuss humor processes per se, we should consider the nature
and role of play.
Play and Its Relationship to Humor
Play and humor are not the same. Humor is a particular expression of play,
and playfulness is a general precondition for humor. Play occurs when some-
one willingly suspends rules that normally govern interpretation or behavior.
Play is always temporary, and its consequences -other than the pleasure it
evokes -have limited meaning outside of play. Games are a type of play
[Huizenga 1955]. In games, rules that have no "real world" meaning are
adhered to as thoroughly as normal rules are outside of play. In such cases,
play imitates the rule-boundedness, the earnestness, and the purposefulness
of serious behavior. At other times, play is characterized by spontaneity, lack
of structure, and a general lack of purpose [Huizenga 1955]. In such cases,
one does not pretend that the "rules of play" should be taken seriously (as one
does in games). Instead, one pretends that there are no rules, or perhaps that
rules are infinitely substitutable- that they can be discovered or invented
(and discarded) at will. Fantasy is a type of play that takes this form.
The essence of play is pretense. Like games and fantasy, humor occurs
within and as an expression of play. When humor requires participants to
assume a role or to employ specific rules, it is gamelike. When humor encour-
ages one to imagine, invent, or elaborate, it resembles fanta sy. But humor
differs significantly from both games and fantasy. In games, we can escape to
a real world-like structure of rather meaningless events. In fantasy, we can
escape to a rather meaningless sequence of real world -like fragments. In each
case, some aspect of the real world (either a semblance of structure or a
semblance of meaning) has been imported into or imitated within the world
of play. In each case, our activity (playing a game or fantasizing) carries us
out of and away from normal life.
This is not the case with humor. Inevitably, humor brings us back to the
world of nonplay. In humor, the world of play and the serious world overlap,
and humor serves as an ironic overlay, a commentary, on the details of life. In
short, unlike other forms of play, which have little meaning outside of them-
selves, humor takes meaning from and gives meaning to the normal world. In
humor, play achieves metaproportions. In humor, we only pretend that we
are not referring to, thinking about, or feeling emotions for the people and
things of the real world. Of course we are. In humor, we are really quite
serious. We are only pretending to play. We are only playing at playing.
Humo r is then metaplay -a way to be serious and playful, involved and
detached, in this world and out of it, all at the same time. This ironic
dualism, sometimes af fective, sometimes cognitive, and sometimes behav-
ioral, is the essence of humor.
Even though humor bridges the worlds of play and nonplay, it must be
entered into from the world of play. Piaget [1962] and McGhee [1979] argue
that people must shift out of a realistic processing mode (reality assimilation)
and into play (fantasy assimilation) as a precondition for all humor process-
ing. Since adults are generally preoccupied with serious matters, they need
some sort of signal, some kind of play cue, whenever nonserious processing is
called for. If play cues are not present or if the subject fails to observe them,
he or she will attempt to process the information "in a realistic or adaptive
fashion" that is "incompatible with humor" [McGhee 1979].
Play cues can be provided by various aspects of the humor event: by the
humor source [McGhee 1979]; by the stimulus [Berlyne 1969, 1972; Freud
1905; Suls 1983; and Zillmann and Cantor 1976]; by the social context
[Rothbart 1976; Chapman 1973, 1976, 1983; and Chapman and Foot 1976];
by the behavior of other respondents [Chapman and Foot 1976; Leventhal
and Cupchik 1975, 1976; Cupchik and Leventhal 1974]. The concept of play
manipulation is essential for our understanding of humor. Later it will help
us to distinguish between two types of humorous ads: those where the play
manipulation affects processing in only a portion of the ad (humor-within-
message ads), and those where the play manipulation affects processing of the
entire ad (message-within-humor ads).
The Three Underlying Humor Processes
Humor research has been surveyed by Monro [1951]; Keith-Spiegel [1972];

McGhee [1979]; and Morreall [1983]. This literature suggests that there are
three basic humor processes: arousal-safety (HPl), incongruity-resolution
(HP2), and humorous disparagement (HP3). Each humor process involves (1)
a play manipulation, (2) arousal, (3) tension, and (4) some mechanism that
allows one to reduce the tension and enjoy arousal.
H Pl : Arousal-Safety
Humor has long been viewed as a mechanism that allows for relief from
some kind of strain: relief from an expectation [Kant 1790], from surplus
energy [Spencer 1860], from the exertion needed to repress feelings [Freud
1905], or from uncomfortably elevated levels of arousal [Berlyne 1960].
Relief theories are reviewed by Keith-Spiegel [1972], McGhee [1983], Mor-
reall [1983], and Rothbart [1977].
Most recent relief theorists hold that humor is somehow related to arousal
[Berlyne 1960, 1969, 1972; Godkewitsch 1972, 1976]. Rothbart [1973, 1976]
argues that the key variable is neither arousal nor arousal change, but [a la
Schachter and Singer 1962] the interpretive act which accompanies arousal.
Building on the distinction between physiological states (like arousal) and
emotional states (like anxiety), she offers an "arousal-safety" explanation of
humorous relief.
In Rothbart's [1973] view, "laughter occurs when a person has experienced
heightened arousal but at the same time (or soon after arousal) evaluates the
stimulus (usually another person) as safe or inconsequential." On the other
hand, when a situation is judged serious, it induces a problem-solving atti-
tude which disallows the playful disposition required for humor. The same
event can evoke either fear or joy. Whether fear or joy results does not depend
on arousal, which rises in either case, but on the person's judgment of how
the arousing stimulus should be interpreted.
Arousal-safety responses (HPl) generally involve an outpouring of senti-
ment or good will for people (or personified creatures) that we consider cute,
warm, friendly, or familiar. In its fullest form, arousal-safety involves an
empathetic bonding with someone who narrowly avoids disaster. Such disas-
ters can be quite mundane. In fact, their everyday quality may facilitate
stronger identification. For example, the classic film, It's a Wonderful Life
(with Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed), often evokes a strong arousal-safety
response. Frank Capra's sentimental tale of a common man's near tragedy is
so successful at arousing fear and then restoring order that many viewers
smile through their tears even after seeing it numerous times. Apparently, this
film's effect does not require genuine surprise. It only requires strong arousal
that is assigned first a negative and then a positive valence.
A recent American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) promotion also
involves arousal-safety (HPl). A man introduces himself as a former IRS
agent, i.e., someone to fear and avoid. He then explains that he currently
works in an AARP program that helps people with their taxes, i.e., someone
to welcome and like. In fact, the final scene shows a elderly woman opening
her door, recognizing the speaker, and expressing great relief . AARP has
helped the man to escape from the social stigma of his former job, and it has
helped the woman escape from the confusion and anxiety she associates with
taxes. Whether one identifies with the man or the woman, the sequence is
arousal-safety.
In summary, the arousal-safety process (HPl) involves the judgment of a
subject regarding a humorous source and the subject's relief from any anxiety
regarding the source's intent. In its fullest form, HPl requires (1) arousal
related to the discomforting presence, behavior, intention, or fate of another
person, (2) af fective uncertainty, (3) a play signal, and (4) a safety judgment.
Its effect is mainly affective. On the other hand, advertisers need not always
present an entire arousal-safety sequence to produce an HPl effect. It is often
enough for them to depict a critical image, such as a family celebration, a

child laughing, or a cartoon character, to evoke the response. In such cases,
there is still a play signal and a safety judgment, but there is no arousal or
tension directly related to the message. Perhaps people are aroused enough
going into such ads that no additional tension is necessary. In this view,
humorous safety cues allow us to displace the negative arousal of a prior
mood state with positive arousal elicited by the ad. Furthermore, since our
level of arousal stays about the same, the intensity of our positive experience
should correspond to the intensity of our preexisting mood state.
Rothbart's arousal-safety hypothesis is consistent with the work of Shultz
[1976], Apter and Smith [1977], and Apter [1982]. Both Rothbart [1977] and
Apter and Smith [1977] list conditions which promote judgments of stimulus
safety and therefore promote the experience of humor.
HP2: Incongruity Resolution.

Humor often involves incongruity. Incongruity occurs whenever (1) two or
more elements in a stimulus field cannot be assimilated using a single process-
ing schema or (2) when the entire stimulus event does not comport with one's
expectations regarding that event.
In general, there are two kinds of explanations for the role of incongruity in
humor: one-stage incongruity theories and two-stage incongruity-then-
resolution theories. Both theories start with the experience of discrepancy or
surprise, but while incongruity theories emphasize interruption, perceptual
contrast, and playful confusion, incongruity-then-resolution theories empha-
size insight, reintegration, and the discovery of meaning. Since research sug-
gests that people above the age of seven require at least partial resolution for
the incongruity to seem humorous [Shultz 1972, 1974a, 1974b, 1976;
Rothbart and Pien 1977], this discussion will focus on the two-stage
incongruity-then-resolution formula.
Many researchers argue that cognitive humor has a biphasic structure of
incongruity-then-resolution [Jones 1970; Shultz 1970, 1972, 1976, 1977; Suls
1972, 1977, 1983; McGhee 1972, 1976, 1979]. Shultz [1976] believes that
resolution is "necessary to distinguish humour from nonsense." The humor-
perceiver "engages in a form of problem-solving to find a cognitive rule
which makes the punch line follow from the main part of the joke and
reconciles the incongruous parts" [Suls 1972]. This two-step pattern is charac -
teristic of puns, punchlines, comic reversals, and all forms of humorous com-
parison, including comic irony, understatement, and exaggeration.
Consider several advertising examples. A print ad for Cancun, Mexico,
juxtaposes two seemingly disparate pictures: above, a fierce and forbidding
Mayan idol; below, two well dressed young couples entering a casino. These
images produce visual incongruity. The accompanying text provides humor-
ous resolution, "We've catered to creatures of the night for over 1,000 years."
Similarly, an ad for Centrum Vitamins reads, "Beta Than Ever." The discrep-
ancy between what we read ("Beta Than Ever") and what we expect ("Better
Than Ever") is resolved when the accompanying discussion announces the
addition of beta-carotene. Finally, a Saab ad begins, "The good news is you
can buy a Saab for about $17,000. There is no bad news." Incongruity is
produced by substituting an unexpected statement for the second half of a
familiar joke formula ("The good news is. . . . . . . The bad news is. . . .. . .").
Resolution occurs when you reprocess the statement, but this time without
the expectation that good news is always accompanied by bad.
According to incongruity-resolution theory, joke-processing is a special
form of information processing, problem-solving, and textual interpretation.
In an iterative process, the jokeperceiver tests various semantic, logical, and
experimental operators and compares the resulting transformed schema to
the incongruous outcome. When correspondence is achieved, the jokeper-
ceiver "gets" the joke. If the necessary rule or operation cannot be found, the
incongruity remains unresolved and the joke-perceiver remains puzzled. If,
however, the joke is understood, there are two distinct pleasures implied by
this theory: the pleasure of playf ul confusion (a result of phase one) and the
pleasure of mastering that confusion (a result of phase two).
In summary, incongruity-resolution (HP2) involves one's interpretation of
the humorous text (and the subject's relief from anxiety concerning the pro-
cessing of that text). HP2 requires (1) an initial play manipulation, (2) colla-
tive arousal, (3) cognitive uncertainty, and (4) schematic resolution. Its effect
is mainly cognitive.
This incongruity-then-resolution model is supported by several streams of
research. Neurophysical research [Berlyne 1969, 1972; Godkewitsch 1972,
1976) suggests a two-stage pattern. Studies in lateralization [McGhee 1983)
indicate that left-and right-brain processing differentially perform incongru-
ity recognition (left hemisphere) and incongruity resolution (right hemi-
sphere). Shultz [1972, 1974a, 1974b, 1976) and Shultz and Horibe [1974)
directly tested the two-stage model and found that most humor is associated
with a combination of incongruity and resolution. Finally, by factor-
analyzing the perceived dimensions of humor stimuli, Wicker et al (1981)
found that incongruity and resolution are both needed for most humor.
HP3: Humorous Disparagement

Disparagement theories of humor response date from Aristotle. (For
reviews of this tradition see Monro [1951); Keith-Spiegel [1972); Zillmann
and Cantor [1976); La Fave, Haddad and Maesen [1976); Zillmann [1983),
and Morreall [1983)). These theories hold that humor is fundamentally
social, a tool for criticism, censure, and control. As Purpel says, "because it is
so compellingly attractive, humor is one of the most insidious forms of hostil-

ity" [1981]. Satire, ethnic humor, and put-down humor are the best known
members of this class.
Disparagement humor always implies a triadic relationship (joke-teller,
joke-hearer, and victim) such as that described by Freud's [1905] jokework
paradigm. The joke-teller attacks a victim. The victim may or may not be
present. The joke-hearer is asked to condone the attack, humor serves as a
bribe, and the hearer's laughter is evidence of his/her complicity.
Several varieties of disparagement humor can be distinguished based on
the purpose of the attack. Ifthe joke-teller's intent is mainly didactic (to teach
the hearer or the victim a lesson), the humor is satiric. When the joke-teller
only means to embarrass the victim in front of others and most hearers are
expected to condone the attack, it is put-down humor. When a put-down
occurs and the joke-teller does not really care whether others enjoy the attack
or not, the result is sarcasm. In the special case of self-deprecating humor,
joke-tellers make fun of themselves. Ethnic, racial, and sexist jokes can serve
any of these purposes. Satire, put-down humor, and self-deprecating humor
are frequently used in advertising.
Consider three examples. A print ad for the HeadStart Explorer (a personal
computer) begins, "For years IBM and Apple have told you they're user
friendly. With friends like these, who needs enemies?" An ad for Ford Aeros-
tar pictures their van pulling a trailer up a hill. The caption reads, "The only
things it leaves behind are other mini-vans." Finally, an ad for the Escort
compact car reads, "Ford Escort's laundry list takes the imports to the clean-
ers." Satire is often used in comparative ads.
All instances of humorous disparagement conform to the basic dynamic
described by Zillmann [1983]: that mirth varies "proportionally with the
negativeness of the affective disposition toward the disparaged party and
with the positiveness of the affective disposition toward the disparaging
party." Researchers are quick to add that disparagement itself (detraction,
denunciation, or censure) is not funny [La Fave et al 1976; Zillmann and
Cantor 1976; Zillmann 1983; Morreall 1983]. As Zillmann [1983] says,
humorous disparagement is really a theory of humor facilitation. Playfulness
and wit are needed for disparagement to seem humorous.
Zillmann [1983] and Freud [1963] suggest that humorous disparagement
requires a "misattribution" of motive. For example, when subjects laugh at
an ethnic joke, they might attribute their pleasure to the joke' s technique,
when it is largely a result of pleasure that they take in the disparagement.
This confusion between pleasure associated with a joke's technique (its wit)
and pleasure associated with its purpose (the attack) provides the hearer with
an opportunity to rationalize what is otherwise unacceptable behavior, a
chance to shirk full responsibility for his affective responses [Zillmann and
Cantor 1976].
Certain circumstances make it easier for a joke-hearer to enjoy the humor-

ous attack: when the victimization seems beyond his control, when it appears
to be deserved, when his participation is not subject to criticism, and when
others join in or condone the disparaging remarks. In this latter instance his
or her individual responsibility decreases inversely with the size of the group,
an ethical equivalent to social loaf ing. However, these facilitative conditions
all appear secondary to the central role of misattribution.
Humorous disparagement (HP3) then involves one's attitude towards those
derogated by the humor. HP3 requires (1) a play manipulation, (2) arousal
associated with the disparagement, (3) uncertainty regarding one's response,
and (4) elements of incongruity-resolution that can facilitate the necessary
"misattribution." HP3's effect is largely conative since it allows one to express
disparaging feelings.
The Overall Pattern of Humor Processing

The effects of each humor process are certainly distinct. One could even
distinguish between "Ahhh" humor (safety-judgment), "Ah-Ha" humor
(incongruity-resolution), and "Ha-Ha" humor (disparagement). Still, despite
such differences, the three processes are strikingly similar. Each one involves
arousal, tension, play, and a mechanism that resolves affective, cognitive, or
conative uncertainty (safety-judgment, incongruity-resolution, or misattri-
bution, respectively).
In all three cases, equilibrating systems are knocked out of kilter and order
is restored as a function of humor. When unfamiliar elements threaten the
status quo, the reclassification effected by a safety judgment restores percep-
tual order (HP1) . When incongruity cl,iallenges semantic and logical order, a
new rule provided by the punchline transforms nonsense into sense (HP2). By
dressing up criticism in the vestments of a joke, that which has no place in
ordinary society (aggression) is temporarily sanctioned (HP3). Thus, humor is
a mechanism for making people feel safe again, for redefining categories, and
for enforcing social boundaries, in short, a method for coping with anoma-
lous experience and restoring affective, cognitive, or conative order. By
defining humor as an interpretive response to anomalous phenomena, the
entire process is cast in terms appropriate for exploring how the meaning and
the meaningf ulness of humor can affect the meaning and the meaningf ulness
of a message.
HT1-HT5: The Five Combinational Humor Types
The three humor processes (HP1-HP3) can occur either alone or in combi-
nation. Research cited above suggests that only two of them (HPl and HP2)
TABLE 1
Five viable humor types (HTl-HTS) result from combining three basic
humor processes (HP1-HP3).
HPl HP2 HP3
Arousal- Incongruity- Humorous
safety resolution disparagement
Comit wit (HTl) x
(Example: Burger King Ad)
Sentimental humor (HT2) x
(Example: Crest Ad)
Satire (HT3) x x
(Example: AT&T Ad)
Sentimental comedy (HT4) x x
(Example: Milk Ad)
Full comedy (HTS) x x x
(Example: R C Cola Ad)
can be used alone (neither requires another HP to produce its humorous

effect). By contrast, HP3 (disparagement) only seems humorous when it is
combined with HP2 (elements of incongruity). Since two HP3-combinations
do not include HP2, the three underlying processes (HP1-HP3) result in only
five viable humor types (see Table 1).
Before considering each humor type (HT), several comments should be
made. First, we have no reason to expect that everyone should like or like
equally all humor types. People develop strong humor preferences. Some
people like (or dislike) most puns (a form of HTl), most sentimental humor
(HT2), or most satire (HT3). In a sample of 182 college students 82% consid-
ered ads using HTS (full comedy) to be humorous, while only 40 % consid-
ered ads using HT2 (sentimental humor) to be humorous. The fact that
another 40 % considered HT2 ads (sentimental humor) to be nonhumorous
did not make them less humorous for those who enjoyed them. If 40 % con-
sider something humorous, it cannot be ignored.
Second, humor preferences are at least partly a function of culture. Thus,
within our own culture, humor tastes may evidence generational, gender
based, age-related, ethnic, or educational effects. On a larger scale, Ameri-
ca's favorite humor types may not be the same as Britain's or France's, and
humor tastes may change over time (from the '30s to the '50s to the '70s).
Ideally, an advertiser should understand the humor likes and dislikes of each
market. Finally, as a result of different humor preferences and selective

attention which may serve those preferences, the same ad can be viewed by
two people as two different kinds of humor.
These comments are offered as a caution for readers who might feel that
some of the following examples are not humorous. All of these ads were
classified as humorous by trained panels, and all of them were viewed as
humorous by a significant portion (40-82% ) of an experimental sample. In
short, the degree to which any reader considers certain ads more or less
humorous is largely a reflection of his or her own humor taste.
Five 30-second television commercials will be used to illustrate the five
humor types. Each commercial was evaluated by a panel of trained judges in
order to determine how much of its perceived humor was related to each of
the underlying humor processes3.
HT1: Comic Wit
As indicated in Table 1, comic wit requires one and only one basic humor
process: incongruity-resolution. A 1984 Burger King commercial will be used
to illustrate comic wit. (On average, panelists attributed 74 % of this ad's
humor to incongruity-resolution processes.)
This Burger King ad was part of the "we f ix it your way" campaign. As the
camera moves in slowly on a burger, the narrator makes five incomplete
product claims. Each idea is then completed by images and sounds that cue
the missing words (whistle, target, water, ring, and boat). For example, "Go
someplace else, and you're probably missing the . . . .." (the sight and sound
of an oceanliner are used to cue the word boat)." Comic wit is provided by
techniques that involve incongruity-resolution (HP2): visual puns, ironic jux-
taposition, perceptual displacement, and exaggeration (for instance, it is not
just any boat, but an oceanliner).
This ad moves rather quickly (16 edits in 30 seconds). Calmer moments
(shots of the product) separate and set up sections where the pace accelerates .
Viewers are not only rushed through hurried images, they are abruptly
shifted from one mode of processing to another (from audio to visual and
back again). To make sense of the ad, they must collate visual images, sound
images, and narrative voiceover. Some transitions are less expected, i.e.,
more incongruous, than others. Humor stems from the ad's technique, from
the humorous way that it mixes otherwise nonhumorous images. Like other
examples of HTl, this commercial appeals to the puzzle-solving skills of
viewers who enjoy the excitement of a perceptual and cognitive challenge.
Although such ads might initially require high attention, energy, and task
involvement, subsequent viewings probably entail less effort and provide less
wit related (HTl) humor 4
HT2: Sentimental Humor

As indicated in Table 1, sentimental humor also requires one and only one
humor process: arousal-safety. A 1984 Crest Toothpaste commercial will be
used to illustrate sentimental humor. (On average, panelists attributed 94 %
of this ad's humor to arousal-safety processes.)
With chorus, song, and sentimental warmth, this commercial relates the
happy tale of Little Susie's latest dental checkup. Susie is proud of her report.
She shows it to mom, calls grandma, and tells dad the moment he gets home.
Everyone is proud of her. Dad gives her a big hug and puts her report on the
side of the refrigerator. Bits of product information are inserted throughout
the narrative. Susie is such a dear child; she wants to make her parents
happy; she even tries to show Grandma her report over the phone ("How
cute!"). This ad is replete with warm smiles, big hugs, and good will. With-
out knowing anything else about Susie's life, viewers recognize this scene for
what it is: the sentimentalized conclusion of a middle-class melodrama, a
proverbial happy ending5. By empathizing, viewers can share in the relief
occasioned by Susie's good news. These are all standard characteristics of
arousal-safety (HPl).
Melodrama is an enduring form. Infiction, film, and countless TV series,
middle-class values are reaffirmed by the simple triumphs of everyday
heroes. Susie is no Joan of Arc. In the world of high drama her achievement
would be trivial, but this commercial does not reference the world of high
drama. Instead, it evokes the world of middle-class ideals. Within this ethos,
Susie's achievement has meaning that goes beyond the issue of healthy teeth.
This commercial celebrates the importance of family, of raising kids well, of
teaching them to value good health, to take care of themselves, and to
develop good habits. Consequently, Susie's homecoming is a rite of passage,
early evidence that she is responsible. Since her success in tooth care is evi-
dence of her parents' success in the education of their child, and their success
reflects on that of their own parents, it is appropriate that all three genera-
tions share in this moment. Tragedy, however mundane, has been avoided,
core values have been affirmed, and everyone, including the willing viewer,
is happy.
HT3: Satire
As indicated in Table 1, satire requires a combination of two humor pro-
cesses: incongruity-resolution and humorous disparagement. A 1984 AT&T
commercial will be used to illustrate satire. On average, panelists attributed
40% of this ad's humor to incongruity-resolution processes and 48% to
humorous disparagement.
This commercial presents a series of annoying and pushy salespeople. They
talk directly into the camera, and by implication, directly to some unseen
manager who must endure this parade of fools. Since the camera never offers
another angle, viewers adopt the manager's perspective. These salespeople
stand too close, their proximity is irritating, and that irritation seems calcu-
lated to invite ridicule. Each salesperson compares the price of his or her
phone to AT&T's. Many companies say that their phones are cheaper than
AT&T's, but none say their phones are better. The salespeople and their
phones look silly. Their physical appearance, dress, mannerisms, voices, and
designs are increasingly exaggerated. Constant repetition of the phrase "we're
cheaper than AT&T" undermines the very meaning of cheaper. In 30 sec-
onds, a word that starts off meaning "savings" ends up meaning "lack of
quality." Not only are AT&T's competitors discredited by this ironic reversal,
so is the intelligence of anyone who buys from them. Ridicule and attack
characterize HP3. Repetition, exaggeration, and irony characterize HP2.
Although AT&T positions itself as the viewer's champion, this commercial
is extremely manipulative. AT&T fashions caricatures of its competition,
trots these unflattering images across our small stage, puts fatuous words in
their mouths, and then, when they have said enough to incriminate them-
selves, has an omniscient narrator interrupt them, mock their words, and
reinterpret their meaning. Since members of the audience see only what the
advertiser presents, since they are not personally at risk, and since they can
expect humorous pleasure in return for their cooperation, they generally
allow the attack to proceed without questioning the accuracy of the joke-
maker's account. Satire allows AT&T to circumvent normal standards of fair
play by stigmatizing its competition and frightening its less faithful cus-
tomers. In this ad, satire serves to reinforce the status quo.
HT4: Sentimental Comedy

As indicated in Table 1, sentimental comedy also combines two humor
processes: arousal-safety and incongruity-resolution. A 1984 milk commercial
will be used to illustrate sentimental comedy. On average, panelists attrib-
uted 47% of this ad's humor to arousal-safety processes and 38% to
incongruity-resolution.
Sentimental comedy (HT4) provides affective pleasure (via HPl) that is not
found in comic wit (HTl) and cognitive pleasure (via HP2) that is not found
in sentimental humor (HT2). On the other hand, since sentimental comedy
employs no disparagement (HP3), it lacks the aggression that characterizes
satire (HT3) and full comedy (HT5). As a consequence, sentimental comedy
(HT4) is a relatively rich, relatively complex, and yet generally inoffensive
form of humor.
This milk commercial is entitled "Dad's Ordinary Day." Its basic theme is
that milk gives people the energy they need to overcome their everyday
problems. A boy and his dad sit on their front porch drinking milk. The boy's
newspapers must be delivered. Since the kid's arm is broken, dad (in dress
shirt and tie) sets out to deliver them on his son's bike. He is very awkward at
first, running over curbs, nearly running into people, and throwing papers
that fly apart. Then dad gets things going, delivers the papers, and even
shows a flash of skill. He grins with pride. Incongruity-based humor (HP2)
results from the irony of the phrase "Dad's Ordinary Day," from the image of
an adult in dress clothes on a child's bike delivering papers, and from his
numerous pratfalls. On the other hand, the pattern of empathy, anxiety, and
relief is classic arousal-safety (HP!). Dad's smile and the music-help to shape
this sympathetic effect.
Like the Crest tale about Little Susie, this milk ad relates a story that is
deeply rooted in the myths of middle class America. Like Susie, dad is one of
life's ordinary heroes. Viewers identify with his attempt to master the paper
route, worry over his near disasters, and cheer his ultimate success. Also like
the Crest ad, this commercial references a number of middle class values:
family members helping each other, fathers taking time to participate in their
children's lives, children learning the value of work, and people acting
responsibly. On the other hand, our attitude toward this father is different
from our attitude toward Susie: he is much more likeable. His greater like-
ableness probably stems from the ad's use of incongruity-resolution (HP2).
That is, the father's pratfalls (HP2) are clownish, and his clownishness
humanizes him. Although Dad is an adult, a parent, and an authority figure,
he is neither infallible nor austere. He is willing to look silly (for his son's
sake), and he is willing to laugh at himself. These traits facilitate our enjoy-
ment of the many incongruities in the commercial, and our enjoyment of
these incongruities (HP2) sets up and intensifies the sentimental humor of the
conclusion (HP1)6
HTS: Full Comedy

As indicated in Table 1, full comedy requires a mixture of all three humor
processes: arousal-safety, incongruity-resolution, and humorous disparage-
ment. A 1984 RC Cola commerci will be used to illustrate full comedy. On
average, panelists attributed 27 % of this ad's humor to arousal-safety pro-
cesses, 40 % to incongruity-resolution, and 33% to humorous dispar-
agement.
Unlike sentimental comedy (HT4), full comedy involves aggression (HP3).
Unlike satire (HT3), it offsets negative affect (via HP3) with positive senti-
ment (via HP!). As a result, full comedy (HT5) is a very rich, cognitively,
affectively, and socially complex form of humor.
This RC Cola ad is a geopolitical allegory about freedom. While Coke and
Pepsi represent the false alternatives that are forced on society, RC represents
a "real" alternative for people who refuse to conform. This commercial is set
in a Russian landscape shaped by pre-Gorbachev communist stereotypes. In
the opening scene, party members are lined up in uniform. A party leader
endorses first one official choice (Coke) and then another (Pepsi). The party
members loudly but mechanically affirm the party line. Meanwhile, in a
distant village (away from the influence of "the party"), some common folk
are drinking RC and enjoying their own party. Suddenly, the door swings
open. Two menacing agents have arrived to stop the fun. Coke, Pepsi, and
conformity are all being satirized (HP3). The ironic use of the phrase "our
friends" (meaning the Russians), the ironic reversals, the concluding pun, and
the exaggerated stereotypes all involve HP2 as well as HP3. The joyful peas-
ants at play, dancing, laughing, and smiling, represent a world that is free
from the oppressive forces of conformity (HPl). In the final scene, humorous
disparagement (HP3) breaks in on and stops the celebration of good will
(HPl): satire overwhelms sentiment.
This RC commercial possesses many of the characteristics noted in previous
examples. Like the Burger King ad (HTl), it rushes the viewer through a
series of unexpected developments. Moderate complexity (14 edits in 30 sec-
onds) challenges the viewer's collative skills (HP2). Like the Crest ad (HT2)
and the milk ad (HT4), it relates the story of ordinary folk trying to overcome
an everyday problem, in this case by building some fun into their otherwise
difficult lives. Like these earlier ads, it references cultural values that evoke
positive sentiment (HPl): community, joy of living, an appreciation for sim-
ple pleasures, and most particularly, belief in one's freedom to be different.
Finally, like the AT&T ad (HT3), this RC commercial ridicules important
competitors (Coke and Pepsi). Because of associations established in the first
half of the commercial, the two heavies who eventually spoil the fun stand for
Coke and Pepsi, as well as the KGB. Within the logic of this cola allegory, all
three villains (Coke, Pepsi, and the KGB) symbolize repression and conform-
ity. In this ad, just as in the AT&T commercial, a product claim (that their
products are "sold in Russia") which would normally benefit the competition
has been ironically turned against them.
How Does Humor Relate to a Message?
Aside from humor type (HT1-HT5), the significance of humor in an ad

depends on the relationship of humor elements to message elements. Consider
an example, the use of a pun in an ad. If a topically irrelevant pun occurs in
the middle of an otherwise nonhumorous message, it could (1) cause distrac-
tion, (2) be judged inappropriate, and (3) lead to a negative evaluation of the
source. Imagine now the same pun, but used at the very end of a somewhat
more playful ad whose message is cleverly repeated by the pun itself. In this
case, the pun (1) would probably be judged appropriate and could provide
(2) rhetorical closure, (3) reinforcement of important information, (4) moti-
vation to rehearse portions of the ad, and even (5) a more positive regard for
the source. How do these cases differ? The pun itself has not changed, but the
relationship of the pun to the message has.
Humor elements and message elements can be related on three levels: with
respect to the ad's intention, its themes, and its structure7 In the five com-
mercials that were just discussed (Burger King, Crest, AT&T, milk, and RC
Cola), humor and the message are related in all three ways. That is, an
immediate goal of each ad is humor, this humor relates to product themes,
and product elements play an important role in the success of that humor.
Intentional Relatedness
Intentional relatedness is the relationship of humor to message type and
message processing. All five commercials are humor-dominant. In each,
product-related elements (brand name, product image, product benefits, and
competitor weaknesses) are presented within a humorous structure that con-
trols and shapes the viewer's overall experience of the ad. Humor-dominant
ads always have a message-within-humor structure. If one were to remove
humor from such ads, they would no longer make sense. Initial play cues
signal that the entire ad should be processed humorously.
Many humorous ads are not humor-dominant. Many are message-
dominant, with only bits of humor added to a message that is basically
nonhumorous. If one removes the humor from a message-dominant ad, the
ad will still be intact. Message-dominaJ;lt ads always have a humor-within-
message structure. When a play manipulation occurs in a message-dominant
ad, its impact is localized, that is, it requires viewers to shift only momentar-
ily out of the nonhumorous processing mode required by the rest of the ad.
The effect of this shift will depend on the nature of the nonhumorous
processing.
There are two types of message-dominant ads: information-dominant ads
and image-dominant ads. When humor occurs in an informational ad, there
is likely to be a contrast between the processing style required by the embed-
ded humor (fantasy assimilation) and that required by the rest of the ad
(reality assimilation) The mood associated with one type of processing can
impair the effectiveness of the other.
On the other hand, when humor occurs in a less informational, image-
laden ad, there is less likelihood of a processing contrast. In this case, humor
(one type of fantasy assimilation) occurs within a context of product and user
imagery (other forms of fantasy assimilation). It is not my present purpose to
suggest the specific effects of humor under different processing conditions.
Still, it is likely that humor would have different effects depending on the
overall purpose of the ad, in particular, whether the ad is information-

dominant, image-dominant, or humor-dominant.
Semantic Relatedness
The relationship of humor to product-related themes is a type of semantic
relatedness. In each of our five examples, humor is thematically related to the
advertiser's message. Each Burger King pun (HTl) involves a product-related
claim. Little Susie's tale (HT2) concerns a product benefit. AT&T's satire
(HT3) underscores the link between price and quality. The milk ad (HT4)
illustrates the importance of nutrition. RC (HT5) distinguishes its cola from
the market leaders by associating RC with freedom and its competitors with
conformity. In each case, the humor draws on product-related themes.
Although most humorous ads employ product-relevant humor, some do
not. Local car, furniture, and appliance ads are notorious for using irrelevant
humor to attract initial attention. But thematically irrelevant humor can be
used anywhere in an ad. For example, in a 1984 Old Milwaukee Beer com-
mercial, people are pictured in a western setting enjoying beer, barbecue,
and a quarter horse race. As the riders drive towards the finish line, the
crowd cheers. Then at the very moment they cross, amid the excitement and
confusion, a woman at the front of the crowd falls backwards onto her rear.
She is young, attractive, and embarrassed. In several screenings, viewers,
especially male viewers, were observed to smile. This pratfall is thematically
irrelevant. There is no other humor in the ad. It is probably an appeal to the
sexist attitudes of male beer drinkers.
Structural Relatedness
Structural relatedness refers to the syntactical function of humor within
message-dominant ads and of product information within humor-dominant
ads. In each of our five humor-dominant examples, message elements are
fully integrated into the jokework. In the Burger King ad, viewers must
process the product claims in order to "get" the visual puns (HTl). Little
Susie's sentimental triumph (HT2) is facilitated by her use of Crest. AT&T's
competitors are the object of the ridicule (HT3). Milk, which is first used to
af firm a bond between father and son, eventually provides dad with enough
energy to be heroic (HT4). And in the RC Cola ad, competitors are the object
of satire, while RC users are the object of warm sentiment (HT5).
In humor-dominant ads, structural relatedness is so extensive that it often
becomes confounded with thematic relatedness. In message-dominant ads,
the distinction is clearer. Consider again the Old Milwaukee Beer commer-
cial. The girl's "put-down" occurs at the very climax of the race and just
before the final product pitch. Excitement and expectation associated with
the race set up the joke and enhance its effect. For those viewers who enjoy
the humor, this deftly placed put-down could increase attention to the final
pitch, produce pleasure that is associated (via classical conditioning) with the
product name, which appears just after the fall, or reduce counterargumen-
tation by those viewers who are loyal to other brands of beer (beneficial
distraction). Notably, the potential benefit of this joke depends on the struc-
tural, not the thematic, relationship between humor and the message. In
short, the syntactical function of humor within a message-dominant ad or of
product information within a humor-dominant ad can be a critical determi-
nant of humor's communication effect.
Developing a Taxonom y of Humorou s Message Types
My purpose is to construct a theoretically-based taxonomy of humorous

message types (HMT). To this end, I have considered (1) different humor
processes (HP1-HP3), (2) different humor types (HT1-HT5), and (3) different
types of humor-message relatedness [intentional, thematic, and structural].
In practice, process differences (HP1-HP3) are captured by type differences
(HT1-HT5). We can now develop a taxonomy based on these distinctions.
Building Structural Relatedness into the Taxonomy.

Aside from considerations of theme and purpose, how are various symbolic
elements related? What is their order? What is their proximity? Are some
subordinate and others superordinate? Do they provide for continuity, repeti-
tion, or closure? Or do they involve oppositions, contrasts, or interruptions?
Structural relatedness occurs on many levels. It can involve features of the
stimulus material (color, movement, size, rhythm), images or image
sequences (verbal, visual, graphic, or musical), or even the internal states
associated with these images (mood and arousal). The Old Milwaukee ad
illustrates how embedded humor (the girl's fall) can be positioned to facilitate
the effectiveness of a message-dominant ad, coming as it does at the climax of
the race and just before the final product pitch. The RC commercial demon-
strates how an embedded product reference can be positioned to facilitate the
effectiveness of a humor-dominant ad. By intruding when they do, the
humorless forces of conformity -Coke and Pepsi -compound their perceived
villainy and thus heighten overall irony.
With regard to the structural relationship of humor to product-related
messages, two questions seem paramount. First, is the humor superordinate
(or subordinate) to nonhumorous elements? Second, what is the position (or
function) of subordinate elements within the overall structure. The first ques-
tion is addressed by the distinction between humor-dominance and message
dominance. This is the first aspect of structural relatedness built into the
taxonomy.
The second question takes two forms (depending on the answer to the
first). In message-dominant ads, the syntactical function of humor largely
depends on its placement. On the simplest level, we must distinguish among
three conditions. Does the subordinate humor occur initially? Is it embedded
in the body of the message? Or does it occur at the end? This gross measure of
position is the second aspect of structural relatedness built into the
taxonomy.
Finally, in the case of humor-dominant ads, what is the functional rela-
tionship of subordinate message elements to the larger humor structure? Is
product information part of the humor? Does it facilitate arousal, arousal-
relief, incongruity, incongruity-resolution, disparagement, or misattribution.
On the simplest level, one should determine whether subordinate informa-
tional elements are (or are not) integrated into the humor. This was the third
aspect of structural relatedness incorporated into the taxonomy.
Building Thematic Relatedness into the Taxonomy

To account for differences in thematic relatedness, the taxonomy must
indicate whether the propositional content of the humor is related to the
propositional content of the message. What is the strength, the valence, and
the nature of this relationship? Is the ad's humor primarily related to the
product or service? To its use? To its benefits? To the brand name? To typical
users and use situations? Or to nonusers? Although there is reason to believe
that all of these issues affect the semantic relationship of humor to the prod-
uct message, one question is paramount. Is humor thematically related to the
message? The five humor-dominant examples employ product-related
humor. The Old Milwaukee ad does not. This fundamental but crude distinc-
tion between thematically-related and thematically-unrelated humor is the
only aspect of semantic relatedness that is built into the taxonomy,
Building Intentional Relatedness into the Taxonomy

To account for differences in processing, one must evaluate the intent of
the source. Is the ad meant to inform or to entertain? Is the appropriate mode
of processing reality assimilation or fantasy assimilation? If the ad is humor-
dominant, what is the specific purpose of the humor? To be playf ul, to
celebrate, to ridicule? Different types of humor (HT1-HT5) serve somewhat
different purposes. If the ad is message-dominant, what is the source's pri-
mary intention? To inform us? To reason with us? To distract us? Or to exc ite
us?
Processing distinctions were built into the taxonomy on two levels. First,
TABLE 2
Six Basic Distinctions Incorporated into the Humorous Message Taxonomy

(HMT).
Structural Characteristics
1. Is the overall structure of the message humor-dominant or message-
dominant?
2. In message-dominant ads, what is the position of subordinate humor
elements? Initial, embedded, or closing.?
3. In humor-dominant ads, is embedded product information
functionally integrated into the humorous structure?
Semantic Characteristics
1. Is the humor thematically-related to the product?
Intentional Characteristics
1. Is the overall message information-dominant, image-dominant, or
humor dominant? That is, does it elicit central, peripheral, or
humorous processing.
2. Is the primary humor comic wit (HTl), sentimental humor (HT2),
satire (HT3), sentimental comedy (HT4), or full comedy (HT5)?
humorous messages are divided into information-dominant, image-

dominant, and humor-dominant messages. Then, in all cases, messages are
classif ied by the type of humor they employ (HT1-HT5).
In summary, the Humorous Message Taxonomy is based on three structural
distinctions, one thematic distinction, and two intentional distinctions (See
Table 2). In all, it describes 80 humorous message types (See Table 3).
Humorous messages fall into three broad groups: information-dominant,
image-dominant, and humor-dominant messages. The information-and
image-dominant portions of the taxonomy contain 30 cells each: 5 (humor
type) x 2 (thematic relatedness) x 3 (position of the humor within the
message). The humor-dominant portion has 20 cells: 5 (humor type) x 2
(thematic relatedness) x 2 (structural relatedness of the message to the
humor).
The Humorous Message Taxonomy is intended to serve as a conceptual,
descriptive, experimental, and managerial framework. As a conceptual
framework, it captures theoretic distinctions that seem important for the
study of humor's communication effects, distinctions that should account for
both the diversity of forms and the diversity of effects. As a descriptive
framework, the HMT should facilitate the assignment of individual messages
TABLE 3
A classification of humorous commercials using the HMT*

THEMATICALLY THEMATICALLY
RELATED UNRELATED
1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5
Information-Dominant
I (3)
E (7) (1) (2)
c (7)
Image-Dominant
I (3) (2) (1) (3)
E (2) (4) (2) (2) (1)
c (2) (1) (5) (2) (2) (1)
Humor-Dominant
SR (15) (8) (14) (23) (18) (2) (1)
SU
KEY: 1-5 HT1-HT5 SR Structurally Related
I Initial Humor SU Structurally Unrelated
E Embedded Humor ( ) The number of ads classified
C Closing Humor in this cell
*T he ads analyzed were 125 unique commercials contained in 19 hours of primetime
programming. Since nine ads required clification in two cells, there were 134 distinct humor
manipulations.
to meaningful categories. In this article, it will be used to compare the

humorous message types used in TV commercials to those studied by
researchers. As an experimental framework, it can be used to generate and
test hypotheses regarding the characteristics associated with different HMT
types. As a managerial framework, its dimensions correspond to copy-related
variabies within the control of advertisers. Eventually, advertisers may be
able to predict which HMT types are most (or least) likely to produce specific
communication effects.
Classification of Primetime Televis ion Comm ercials

Based on the Humorous Message Taxonomy
To get some idea of how humor is typically used in television commercials,

a sample of ads was content-analyzed using the HMT. In the fall of 1984, one
week of primetime programming was pulled off the air from a CBS af filiate.
Nineteen hours of this represented regular commercial programming.
Excluding network promotions, these 19 hours contained 335 promotional
messages: 265 national ads, 48 local ads, 10 public service announcements,
and 12 political ads. Each commercial was viewed at least three times to
determine whether it contained any humor. Humor was defined using the
descriptions of HT1-HT5 outlined above. Any ad that included even one
instance of HT1-HT5 was counted as humorous. Overall, 51% of these mes-
sages employed humor: 60 % of the national ads, 25 % of the local ads, 10%
of the PSAs, and none of the political ads. For the rest of this analysis, only
national nonpolitical commercials were considered, and multiple occurrences
were ignored. In all, the research sample contained 125 unique humorous,
national, nonpolitical ads.
Each humorous ad was viewed three to five more times to determine the
type of message it employed (information-, image-, or humor-dominant),
the type of humor it employed (HT1-HT5), and whether or not the humor
was product-related. Furthermore, if the ad was message-dominant
(either information-or image-dominant), the researcher determined
whether the humor occurred initially, within the message, or at the close.
On the other hand, if the ad was humor-dominant, the researcher consid-
ered whether product-related elements were integrated into the humor.
Employing this procedure, 125 humorous, national, primetime ads were
assigned to cells in the HMT (refer again to Table 3). Before discussing the
entire HMT, we will consider several specific variables or variable
combinations.
Message Type and Humor Type

Nearly two-thirds of the ads were humor-dominant (65 % ), 14 % were
information-dominant, and 22 % were image-dominant. Overall, the most
frequently observed humor type was comic wit (31% ), while the least
observed was sentimental humor (12 % ) . Although different types of humor
occurred with all message types, this sample suggests that certain message
types are more (or less) commonly associated with certain humor types. (A
chi-square test for independence proved very significant: x2 = 47.11, k = 8,
Prob.001.) Most notably, 82 % of the information-dominant ads employed
HTl. (Perhaps comic wit is best suited for the cognitive nature of
information-dominant messages.) Most image-dominant ads (81% )
employed either HTl, HT2 or HT4. (Humor types that involve no dispar-
agement or are high in positive affect may be best suited for the generally
upbeat character of image-dominant messages.) Finally, although humor-
dominant ads did employ all kinds of humor, more complex humor types
(HT3-HT5) occurred with greater relative frequency (77 % ). (Complex
TABLE 4
An HMT Analysis of Humorous Ads

A: Humor Type (HT1-HT5 ) by Message Ty pe (Information-Dominant,
Image-Dominant, or Humor-Dominant)
Info Image Humor Total Percent

HTl (comic wit) 14 8 17 39 (31)
HT2 (sentimental humor) 6 9 15 (12)
HT3 (satire) 1 3 14 18 (14)
HT4 (sentimental comedy) 2 8 23 33 (26)
HT5 (full comedy) 2 18 20 (16)
Total 17 27 81 125
Percent (14) (22) (65)
B: Thematic Relatedness (Related vs Unrelated) by Message Type
Info Image Humor Total Percent
Thematically Related 17 22 78 117 (94)
Thematically Unrelated 5 3 8 (06)
Total 17 27 81 125 (100)

Percent (14) (22) (65)
C: Humor Placement (Initial, Embedded , or Closing) in M essage-

Dominant Ads (Information-Dominant and Image-Dominant)
Info Image Total Percent

Initial 3 (15% ) 9 (27% ) 12 (23)
Embedded 10 (50% ) 11 (33% ) 21 (40)
Closing 7 (35% ) 13 (39% ) 20 (38)
Total 20 33 53
Percent (38) (62)
humor types probably need more time to be developed.) These results are
summarized in Table 4A.
With regard to Table 4A, two comments are in order. First, although the
sample was small, some instances of nearly every humor type/message type
combination are observed. Second, there is no way to know whether the
observed patterns reflect underlying relationships between humor type and

message type or whether they merely reflect current beliefs and practice.
Thematic Relatedness and Message Type

Most of these ads (94 % ) employed humor that was thematically relevant,
but with considerable differences across message type. (A chi-square test for
independence was significant: 12 = 8.89, k = 2, Prob < .025.) In information-
dominant ads, the percent of unrelated humor was zero, in humor-dominant
ads it was 4 % , but in image dominant ads it was 19% . These results are
summarized in Table 4B. Although this pattern may only reflect current
practice, it does suggest that irrelevant humor can work in messages that are
not informational [Rossiter and Percy 1987]. In the Old Milwaukee ad, posi-
tion was more important than relevance. Finally, most of the ads that used
thematically unrelated humor used simpler humor types (HTl or HT2).
Humor Position and Message Type

Where did humor occur in the message-dominant ads? Since 9 of the 44
message-dominant ads (information-and image-dominant) employed humor
in two positions (for example, both initially and in closing), 53 instances of
humor are reported in Table 4C. In all, there were 21 instances of embedded
humor (40 % ) , 20 instances of closing humor (38% ) , and 12 instances of
initial humor (23% ). Inimage-dominant ads, humor occurred equally across
the three positions, but in information-dominant ads, there were fewer
instances of initial humor. (Is it riskier to start off a serious commercial with
humor?) These results are summarized in Table 4C.
HMT Classification of Humorous Commercials.

Table 3 offers a complete classification of the observed humor. Three
groups of HMT types account for 91% of the sample. Humor-dominant ads
that employ product-related humor with structurally integrated message ele-
ments (5 cells) account for 62 % of the sample. Image-dominant ads that
employ product related humor (15 cells) account for 18% of the sample.
Information-dominant ads that employ product related wit (3 cells) account
for 11% of the sample. In short, three-tenths of the HMT cells account for
nine-tenths of the observed humor. The five most common HMT types are all
humor-dominant.
There is a greater variety of image-dominant types (15/30 = 50 % ) than
humor-dominant (7/20 = 35 % ) or information-dominant (5/30 = 17 % )
types. Still, two-thirds of the HMT cells (53/80) are empty. Most empty cells
involve (1) messages that employ thematically unrelated humor (34 of 40 such
cells were empty), (2) information-dominant ads with thematically related
humor other than comic wit (10 of 12 cells were empty), or (3) humor
dominant ads whose product information is not integrated into the humorous
structure (all 10 of these cells were empty). At least in regard to television,
these three groups have (or they are perceived to have) limited benefits.
Earlier surveys estimated that the incidence of humor in television adver-
tising is either 10% [Bellaire 1977], 15% [Kelly and Solomon 1975], 20 %
[Cantor 1976], or 42% [Markiewicz 1972]. This study found it to be much
higher, 51% . (In a similar analysis of 712 ads from ABC and NBC, the
overall incidence of humor was approximately the same, 52% ). Since this
study used a more inclusive definition of humor, since the researcher viewed
each ad several times, since the sample consisted of primetime (rather than
daytime) commercials, and since humor became more popular in the 1980s,
the higher incidence of humor is not surprising.
HMT Classific ation of Messages Employed

in Previous Humor Effects Research
What humorous message types have been previously studied? In this sec-
tion, the Humorous Message Taxonomy is used to classify 86 humor-mes s age
manipulations reported in 78 research studies. This literature represents a
variety of research domains, including speech, journalism, communication,
psychology, education, and advertising. This section does not review find-
ings; it only reviews the types of humor manipulation that have been used in
humor appeals research.
Eighty-six humor-message manipulations were classified by the author
using HMT criteria discussed above. Since some pieces of information (espe-
cially humor type) could not always be determined based on published
accounts of the research, the classification reported in Table 5 is only approxi-
mate. Each manipulation was placed within a range of HMT cells.
Speech, Journalism, Communications, and Psychology.
Altogether, Sternthal and Craig [1973], Markiewicz [1974], Gruner

[1976], and Duncan [1979] reviewed 49 humor studies from the areas of
speech (33), journalism (5), communications (3), and psychology (8).
Although Markiewicz's and Stemthal and Craig's surveys are more frequently
cited, Gruner's is the most comprehensive. More recent studies include
O'Quin and Aronoff [1981] and Powell [1975]. Since three studies could not
be classified and two required multiple classification, this literature accounts

for 50 of the 86 manipulations classified in Table 5.
What HMT types did this research employ? Of these 50 manipulations,
there were 25 information-dominant messages with embedded instances of
thematically-related humor. There were 22 humor-dominant messages that
employed-thematically related satire. The three remaining manipulations
involved other information-dominant cells.
Education
Generally, education has been viewed as a serious undertaking that is not
particularly suited for levity. Some researchers have argued that the benefits
of humor in educational contexts are at best limited and frequently purchased
at the expense of important objectives [Schramm 1973; Singer and Singer
1979]. Despite this view, classroom teachers often report that humor is a
valuable asset [Bryant, Comisky, and Zillmann 1979; Mogavero 1979; Pollio
1984; Pollio 1985/1986; Ziv 1988].
Research on the effect of humor in educational communications has been
reviewed by McGhee [1980], Pollio [1985/1986], Powell and Andreson
[1985], Zillmann and Bryant [1983], and Ziv [1988]. This analysis considers
only those studies that used adolescent or adult subjects [Bahr 1978; Bryant,
Brown, Silberberg and Elliot 1981; Ziv 1988; Bryant, Crane, Comisky and
Zillmann 1980; Hezel, Bryant, and Harris 1982 (unpublished research cited
in Zillman and Bryant [1983]); Houndoumadi 1977; Kaplan and Pascoe
1977; Klein, Bryant and Zillmann 1982; Pollio 1984; Schleicher and Bryant
1982 (unpublished research cited in Zillman and Bryant [1983]); Tamborini
and Zillmann 1981; Weinberg 1973]. Inall, these 12 studies account for 17 of
the 86 manipulations reported in Table 5.
What HMT types did these education studies employ? Eleven considered
the effect of inserting thematically relevant humor into a serious message,
five considered the effect of inserting unrelated humor into a serious message,
and one considered the effect of using thematically related humor to intro-
duce a serious message.
Advertising
There is a growing body of experimental research on the effects of humor

in advertising. Two studies examined the effect of humor in print ads
[Brooker 1981; Gelb and Pickett 1983]. Eleven examined the effects of humor
in radio commercials [Cantor and Venus 1980; Duncan and Nelson 1985;
Duncan, Nelson and Frontczak 1985; Gelb and Zinkhan 1985; Gelb and
Zinkhan 1986; Lammers, Leibowitz, Seymour and Hennessey 1983; Madden
1982; Madden and Dillon 1982; Nelson 1987; Nelson, Duncan and Frontczak
TABLE 5
HMT Classification of 84 Humorous Messages Employed by Humor

Researchers
THEMATICA LLY THEMATICALLY
RELATED UNRELATED
l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5
Information-Dominant
I [ 7 -]
E [ 40 ] 9
c [ l ]
Image-Dominant
I
E
c
Humor-Dominant t
SU [ 7 22 J
SU +
KEY: 1-5 HT1-HT5 SR Structurally Related
I Initial Humor SU Structurally Unrelated
E Embedded Humor I The number of experimental
c Closing Humor manipulatians classjied in
this cells
1985; Zinkhan and Gelb 1987]. Only two considered the effect of humor in
TV commercials [Belch and Belch 1984; Murphy, Cunningham and Wilcox
1979]. These 15 publications (based on nine experiments) account for 19 of
the 86 manipu lat ions reported in Table 5.
What HMT types did these advertising studies employ? Two involved the-
matically unrelated humor embedded in an information -dominant message.
Ten involved thematically related humor variously positioned within an
information-dominant message: five cases of initial humor, four of embed-
ded, and one of closing. Seven involved thematically related, humor-
dominant messages with structurally integrated product elements. Interest-
ingly, both television manipulations were humor-dominant, all four print
manipulations were information-dominant, and most radio manipulations (8
of 11) were informat ion -d o min ant .
TABLE 6
Initial Comparison of Humorous Commercials and Humor Research

Ad Research
Sample Sample
(N = 134) (N = 86)
Information-dominant
Related 15% 56 %
Unrelated 0% 10%
Image-dominant
Related 20 % 0%
Unrelated 4% 0%
Humor-dominant
Related 58% 34 %
Unrelated 2% 0%
HMT Classification of Research Mani pulations

Eighty-six humor manipulations are classified in Table 5. Of these, 57
(66 % ) involved information-dominant messages, 29 (34 % ) involved humor-
dominant messages, and none involved image-dominant messages. All nine
manipulations that used thematically unrelated humor involved information-
dominant messages. While 49 research manipulations (57 % ) focused on
embedded humor, only 7 (8% ) considered initial humor, and only 1 (1% )
studied closing humor. Finally, at least 22 of the 29 humor-dominant manip-
ulations involved satire (HT3).
Comparison of HMT Types Observed in Primetime

to HMT Types Employed in Humor Research
To what extent do the HMT types observed in research (Table 5) match

those observed in the sample of television commercials (Table 3). The experi-
mental findings would have ecological validity only where there is significant
overlap. Table 6 compares them in terms of message type and product rele-
vance. The ad sample and the research sample differ considerably. Although
information-dominant messages with related humor are seldom observed on
television (only about 15% of them), they have been frequently used in
research (56% ). On the other hand, humor-dominant messages with related
humor occur on television (58 % ) more than they are used in research (34 % ) .
HMT categories that collectively account for 27 % of the commercials have

never been researched. This initial comparison suggests that prior humor
effects research may have at least limited relevance for the study of humor in
television commercials, but a closer inspection demonstrates that the match is
weaker than it first appears.
Information-Dominant Messages
While 47 % of all research involved information-dominant messages

embedded with thematically related humor, only 7 % of the commercials
exhibit similar characteristics. Much research involved information-
dominant types that were either not observed (thematically unrelated
humor) or seldom observed (initial humor) in the advertising sample. On the
other hand, virtually no research exists on closing humor, a category that
accounts for 35% of the information-dominant ads. Apparently, even in the
area where humor research has been most concentrated (information-
dominant forms), some HMT types that occur regularly in TV commercials
(messages with closing humor) have not been adequately studied. Finally,
while the information-dominant experiments employed a variety of humor
types (HT1-HT5), 85% of the information-dominant ads used comic wit
(HT1). Such differences could even further limit the generalizability of
results involving information-dominant messages.
Image-Dominant Messages
No experiment has employed an image-dominant humor manipulation,

yet image-dominant forms account for 22 % of the humorous commercials in
our sample. Given this total absence of empirical data and the potential
importance of this message-type or message-processing distinction (that the
effect of a play within an image-dominant context probably differs from the
effect of play in an information-dominant context), we should wonder
whether existing research can tell us anything about this important category
of ads.
Humor-Dominant Messages
At first glance, it seems that considerable research has been done on humor -
dominant messages (that class of HMT types occurring most frequently in
the ad sample). Unfortunately, closer inspection fails to support this. Almost
80 % of the humor-dominant research manipulations employed satire (HT3)
rather than other humor types (HTl, HT2, HT4, or HT5). Yet satiric messages
account for only 18% of the thematically-related humor-
dominant ads in the CBS sample. Thus, with regard to humor-dominant

messages that employ product relevant humor other than satire, only 8% of
the research corresponds to 48 % of the observed humor.
In short, the research summarized here mainly speaks to two small HMT
groups: information-dominant ads that use thematically relevant embedded
humor (5 cells) and humor-dominant thematically relevant satire (2 cells).
Only 18% of the observed humor possessed these particular characteristics.
Nine HMT types were observed four or more times and together they account
for 75 % of the humorous commercials. Past research (Table 5) addresses only
two of these nine cells. It ignores or barely considers most of the HMT forms
typically used in television commercials.
In the absence of more relevant data, researchers have often looked to
other fields for findings that help explain humor's effect in advertising [Stem-
thal and Craig 1973; Duncan 1979]. Only 19 of the 86 research manipula-
tions classified here used advertising stimuli, and only four used television
commercials. Most employed messages that were longer, more complex, and
more thoughtful than typical ads, and most used written material. Still, all of
these studies address the same basic question: Does humor enhance (or dimin-
ish) message effectiveness? The HMT temporarily ignores variables such as
message complexity or length in order to focus on the most fundamental
determinants of humor's effect.
Recommendations for Future Research

Theory suggests that humor is a multimensional construct (HP1-HP3),
that there are several humor types (HT1-HT5) and many types of humorous
message (HMT). Although there may be some communication effects (such as
increased initial attention) common to all HT types or to all forms involving
thematically related humor, it is likely that other communication effects vary
across HMT type. In short, despite previous research, we have little knowl-
edge about the communication effects of humor in advertising. Much addi-
tional research is needed. The HMT can serve as a practical framework for
descriptive, experimental, and correlational studies.
A general research strategy would be (1) to determine which HT types
occur in various areas of advertising, (2) to see what previous research can tell
us about those types, and (3) to fill in the gaps with new research.
Research Program for the Study of Humor Effects in TV Commercials

A survey of primetime television commercials demonstrated that most
humorous television commercials involve either humor-dominant or image-
dominant forms. Our survey of humor manipulations indicates that previous
studies have largely ignored these forms. Basic research is needed in all
areas.
l. General Research. Researchers must determine whether there are

main effects associated with the most basic HT variables (thematic
relevance, message type, and humor type) . This research would
include:
a. An overall comparison of relevant and irrelevant humor. Prior
research has focused too narrowly on information-dominant
message form.
b. Overall comparisons of information-, image-, and humor-
dominant types. For instance, do information-dominant ads gen-
erally produce different effects than image-or humor-dominant
ads?
c. Comparisons of specific humor types (HT1-HT5) across various
processing styles. For instance, how does satire embedded in an
informational message compare to satire embedded in an image-
dominant ad or to a message whose overall structure is satiric?
2. Research of Humor-Dominant Message Types. Due to their heavy
use in television commercials (65 % ) and a general lack of research
(on humor-dominant forms other than satire), highest priority
should be given to the study of humor-dominant message types.
Studies that are needed include:
a. More basic work on all nonsatiric forms. For instance, two of
Madden's [1982] manipulations constitute the only research on
humor-dominant ads that employ full comedy (HT5).
b. Comparisons across humor types. For instance, does a humor-
dominant ad that employs full comedy (HT5) have a different
effect than one that uses sentimental comedy (HT2), or satire
(HT3), or another humor type?
3. Research on Image-Dominant Message Types. Due to their moder-
ately high use in TV commercials (22 % ) and the total absence of
related research, high priority should also be given to the study of
humorous messages that employ image-dominant forms. Studies
that are needed include -virtually everything!
4. Research on Information-Dominant Message Types. Although fewer
humorous commercials (14 % ) employ an information-dominant
format, several questions merit attention. Studies that are needed
include:
a. More comparisons of HTs across various message positions. For
example, does the effect of a pun vary when it appears in an
initial or embedded position versus a closing position? So far,
only the work by Duncan, Nelson, and Frontczak [1985] has
considered such a question.

b. More comparisons of effects across humor type. For example, is
embedded sentimental humor (HT2) more (or less) effective than
embedded satire (HT3)? To date, only the study by Gelb and
Pickett (1983) has considered such a question. c. Work on all
aspects of closing humor.
5. Additional Descriptive Research. The descriptive analysis of humor-
ous television commercials reported above should be replicated,
preferably so as to compare the incidence of humor and HMT types
(1) across major parts of the programming day, (2) across product
categories, and (3) across new versus established products.
Programs for Studying Humor Effects in Other Forms of Advertising.

Research on the effects of humor in television commercials may not address
those HMT types that are most important in radio or print. It is tempting to
assume that the information-dominant research referenced above at least
partly corresponds to the message types that occur in print advertising. But
this is an empirical issue. The first step in a program to study humorous
advertising in other media would be a descriptive survey using the HMT.
Only after researchers determine the sort of humorous advertising used in
each medium will they be able to assess the relevance of prior research and
the need for further studies. A caution is in order. Research should not be
limited to those HMT types that are used by practitioners. By chance or as a
result of current fashion or beliefs, advertisers may be ignoring certain HMT
types that have significant potential.
The Potential for HMT Research in Other Areas of Promotion.

Although this article has focused on the use of humor in advertising, the
HT can be used to study humor in other consumer-marketer interactions: the
effect of humor in personal selling, in negotiation and bargaining, in point- of -
purchase displays and package design, and even in brand name selection and
signage. For instance, Wangel [1985] discusses the appropriateness of using
humor to facilitate the various steps of an industrial sale. Although he suggests
that there are many ways that humor might assist the salesman, Wangel is
unequivocal in his belief that humor should never be used "in either a trial
close or the final close." By contrast, in a study of negotiation techniques,
O'Quin and Aronoff [1981] found that the addition of humor to a trial close
significantly increased a subject's final financial concession. The HMT could
be used to sort out this apparent contradiction. What kind of humor was used
by O'Quin and Aronoff? Where did it fall within the dis-
course? How did the humor relate to other message elements or the flow of
the discourse?
Guidelines for Research Using the HMT
Seven conceptual or methodological issues require brief discussion. To

some extent, these comments can serve as guidelines for operationalizing and
manipulating humor in studies based on the HMT:
Two global hypotheses inform all HM T research. All research based on the
HT implicitly tests theoretical distinctions built into the taxonomy. Conse-
quently, two global hypothetical questions underlie all HMT research: To
what extent are there general humor eects ? And to what extent are there
humor eects related to specific HMT types?
HM T research is more concerned with humor type than humor level. Some
HMT types may be more humorous than others, and one instance of an HMT
can be much funnier than another. Humor level is a quantitative issue. HMT
research is not directly concerned with whether humor level differences
af fect product attitude. Instead, HMT research focuses on qualitative differ-
ences, that is, whether HMT differences affect product attitude. How should
humor level be treated in HMT research? On one hand, humor level could be
held constant or used as a covariate while researchers focus on humor type
effects. However, if humor level depends on humor type (as the panel data
suggest), this strategy could mask the f ull effect of humor type. Eventually,
researchers will have to sort out the relationship of humor type to humor level
and determine what part each plays in various communication effects.
HM T research requires one to measure both manipulated humor and per-
ceived humor. Several researchers argue that humor manipulations should
involve "perceived" rather than "manipulated" humor [Sternthal and Craig
1973; Duncan and Nelson 1985; Gelb and Pickett 1983; and Gelb and
Zinkhan 1986]. Manipulated humor requires only that subjects be exposed to
pretested humor treatments. Since no allowance is made for individual
response, the relationship between perceived humor and the dependent vari-
ables is obscured. When perceived humor is measured directly, one can better
assess the relationship between perceived humor and other variables.
This writer agrees that humor response is ultimately subjective and that
studies which depend entirely on manipulated humor only estimate an aver-
age response to humor. Since exposed groups inevitably contain some subjects
who appreciate the humor and others who do not, it is important to deter-
mine which subjects perceive the humor and how much they are affected by
that perception (the argument for perceived humor). On the other hand, it is
important to know what type of exposure has the greatest chance of influenc-
ing the entire audience (the argument for manipulated humor). Inpractice,
advertising managers expend considerable resources to assure that most mem-

bers of a target audience will perceive and enjoy the humor. Researchers can
use both types of manipulation by pretesting stimuli and including measures
of perceived humor.
But which kind of manipulation is appropriate for the study of humor type
effects? In this case, manipulated humor should be used in the analysis of
processing measures (attention and comprehension), since processing vari-
ables can be inf luenced by exposure to a humor stimulus whether or not the
humor is enjoyed. The researcher's strategy should change for variables that
require a successful perception of humor (all attitude measures). For these
variables, perceived humor should be used to identify those subjects who are
successfully manipulated, then the analysis should proceed using only those
subjects.
Multiple examples of humor are required to overcome the problem of
creating nonhumorous controls for humor-dominant ads. Humorous ads
include a variety of executional elements besides humor, and it is-even at best -
difficult to determine which aspect of the ad (humor or another dimension)
is responsible for a particular effect. The normal technique for isolating a
humor effect would be to employ a nonhumorous ad that is identi- cal to the
humorous ad in all respects except humor. Unfortunately, such an exact control
is possible only in the study of message-dominant ads (either information-or
image-dominant). There is no nonhumorous equivalent for a humor-dominant
ad.
The following strategy is recommended to get around this problem. First,
each HMT type under investigation should be represented by multiple
examples. Multiple examples will allow the researcher to separate humor type
effects from individual ad effects. Since the researcher's interest is in humor
type effects, there is no need to match each ad with its nonhumorous equiva-
lent. Instead, "a set of humorous ads" (for instance, five examples of HT4)
should be matched with "a set of nonhumorous ads." If all ads are drawn
from preclassified pools (a HTI pool, a HT5 pool, a nonhumorous pool), then
the larger the set size, the more likely it is that nonhumorous factors will wash
out. Although it is unlikely that the number of examples would be large
enough to assure true randomization, this strategy should significantly reduce
the impact of extraneous variables. Alternatively, one could identify potential
sources of variance, such as, product category, brand, or message format and
use blocking strategies or covariates to remove their effects. In either case, the
researcher develops a set of nonhumorous ads, and the entire set serves as a
control.
Real ads facilitate the use of multiple examples. It is impractical for a
researcher to generate large pools of experimenter-designed ads. The solution
lies in real ads. Besides providing the numbers necessary to create preclassi-
fied ad pools from which examples can be drawn, real ads enhance external
validity, provide stronger humor manipulations, and assure a greater variety

of execution variables within the pool (an advantage when one employs
multiple examples). Real ads do introduce variance related to the subject's
prior experience with the ad, the brand, and/or the product category. Strate-
gies like those mentioned above (pretesting, blocking, and the use of covari-
ates) can be used to reduce or adjust for such effects. Of course, if multiple
examples are used, humor type effects can be separated from individual ad
effects, including extraneous effects.
Researchers should incorporate a repeated measures component into every
humor effects experiment. Humor appreciation is fundamentally subjective.
Repeated measures can be used to estimate and remove subject-related vari-
ance. If the researcher already plans to employ multiple examples of each
humor type, it requires little to have each subject respond to some or all of
those examples. Either completely-crossed or incomplete but balanced
designs will serve the purpose.
Using the HM T to retrospectively classify copy-testing data. Extant copy-
testing data offers a particularly attractive alternative to experimental
research. In this case, the researcher would retrospectively classify humorous
ads that are contained in the files of a copy -testing service. Some intermediate
screening criteria may be required. Once the ads have been classified using
the HMT, various HMT types could be compared using earlier test scores. By
employing this strategy, researchers could obtain samples large enough to
guarantee a good representation of the HMT types under investigation. Simi-
lar strategies have been employed in previous advertising and humor effects
research [Madden and Weinberger 1982; Ogilvy and Raphaelson 1982; Top-
line 1982; Stewart and Furse 198,5; and especially Stewart and Furse 1986].
Summary
Research must begin with a careful specification of the phenomenon in

question and healthy skepticism regarding accepted generalities. This article
attempts to lay a foundation for the study of humor in advertising. To do this,
it reconsidered the nature of humor and the nature of humorous messages. Its
chief theoretical contribution is the Humorous Message Taxonomy (HMT),
which can be used to coordinate descriptive, experimental, and managerial
efforts. Current television advertising and previous humor res earch were
analyzed and compared.using the HMT in order to demonstrate the need for
greater coordination. Finally, a program for research was laid out identifying
those areas that seem most in need of study.
ENDNOTES
1For various practitioner views see Herold (1963], Phillips [1968], McMahan (1975], McMa-
han (1976], Ross (1976], Januz (1977], Industrial Marketing (1979], Wolinsky (1980],
Cadwell (1981], Chemical Week (1981], Marketing News (1981], Patrick (1982], Zip/Target
Marketing (1983), and T iegel (1986].
2 Based on his factor analytic study of humor, Eysenck [1942) long ago suggested that hum o r h as
three underlying dimensions: one that is affective, one that is cognitive, and one that is
conative.
3 One hundred and twenty-four humorous television commercials were submitted to one of five
panels. Each panel consisted of 9-12 students. After being t rained to understand the conceptual
distinctions required for their task, each panel evaluated 32 ads. Among other things, panelists
determined how much of the humor in each ad was related to HPl (arousal -safety), HP2
(incongruity-resolution), or HP3 (humorous disparagement). T he classification of ads by humor
type (HT 1-HT 5) was based on this information.
4
0ver time, surprise and novelty probably play a smaller role in the pleasure of this ad. If viewers
have seen the ad enough to develop a history of pleasure related to it, then mere recognition
could trigger expectations that are pleasurable (HPl). T his would constitute a fundamental
change in the type of humor experienced by the viewer. What had been (in the initial viewing)
an example of comic wit (HT l: HP2 alone) has become, through a history of positive experience,
sentimental comedy (HT 4: HP2 and HPl).
5
If people are very familiar with the standard elements of these middle-class myths, they don't
need the entire story to enjoy the effect. T he last three minutes of a familiar script, like The
Wizard of Oz, can do the job. A person can even enjoy the last few minutes of a movie that she
has never seen before (if it employs a standard formul and stock characters).
6
Why is this dad's clowning viewed positively, while that of the salespeople in the AT &T ad is
viewed negatively? T here are several important differences: (1) the AT &T ad compels viewers to
identify with the narrator (against the salespeople), while the milk ad allows viewers to form
their own opinions; (2) initial images or comments provide very different interpretive cues (in
one ad, the first scene establishes the father's concern and sincerity; in the other, it casts doubt on
the sincerity of the salespeople); (3) the milk ad uses a single character and this focus facilitates
personal identification; (4) Dad knows that he looks silly and accepts it, while the salespeople are
entirely serious (people who do not recognize their clownishness invite ridicule, but those who
accept it invite sympathy); (5) the father's smile looks genuine while those of the sales people
seem disingenuous; and finally (6) peripheral cues throughout each ad reinforce either a sympa-
thetic or nonsympathetic interpretation (e.g., the tempo and tone of the music, t h e t o n e o f t h e
narrator's voice, the affective value of associated images, and camera placement).
7
T he analysis in this section is consistent with much semiotic theory. Semiotics is a general science
of sign-using behaviors. Morris (1938] divided semiotics into three branches: syntactics, seman-
tics, and pragmatics. Syntactics deals with the formal or structural relationship of signs to each
other. Semantics deals with the relation between signs and what they refer to, including theories
of meaning and reference. Pragmatics deals with the relation between signs and sign users,
including the consideration of intention and use. T he three kinds of relatedness discussed here
roughly parallel the three levels of meaning discussed by Morris. For more on semiotics and the
application of semiotics to consumer behavior and advertising see Seung [1982), Mick (1986),
and Sherry [1987].
REFERENCES
Apter, Michael J. (1982). The Experience of Motivation, London: Academic Press, pp. 177-195.
Apter, Michael J. and Smith, K. C. P. (1977). "Humour and the T heory of Psychological Rev er -
sals." In It's a Funny Thing, Humour. A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot, eds. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, pp. 95-100.
Bahr, Judith D. (1978). "A Comparison of Learning and Retention as Functions of T hree L ev els
of Humorous Emotional Arousal, Humor Argumentation and Verbal Repetition of Facts."
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Belch, George E. and Belch, Michael A. (1984). "An Investigation of the Effects of Repetitio n o n
Cognitive and Affective Reactions to Humorous and Serious T elevision Commercials." In
Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 11. T homas C. Kinnear, ed. Provo, UT : Association
for Consumer Research, pp. 4-10.
Bellaire, Arthur (1977). "Bellaire Survey III Finds Music and Demo Up; Humor, Animation
Decline." Advertising Age Ganuary 3), 17-18.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1969). "Laughter, Humor, and Play." In Handbook of Social Psychology.
Vol. 3. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds. New York: Addison -Wesley, pp. 795-852.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1972). "Humor and Its Kin." In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical
Perspectives and Empirical Issues. J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee, eds. New York: Aca-
demic Press, pp. 43-60.
Brooker, George W. Jr. (1981). "A Comparison of the Persuasive Effects of Mild Hum o r an d M ild
Fear Appeals." Journal of Advertising, 10 (#4), 29-40.
Bryant, Jennings, Brown, Dan, Silberberg, Alan and Elliot, Scott (1981). "Effects of Humorous
Illustrations in College T extbooks." Human Communication Research, 8, 43-57.
Bryant, Jennings, Comisky, P. W. and Zillmann, Dolf (1979). "T eachers' Humor in the College
Classroom." Communication Education, 28, 110-118.
Bryant, Jennings, Crane, J. S., Comisky, P. W., and Zillmann, Dolf (1980). "Relationship
Between College T eachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom and Students' Evaluations of t h eir
T eachers." Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 511-519.
Cadwell, Frankie (1981). "Funny Makes Money." Cadwell Davis Savage Advertising, March.
Cantor, Joanne (1976). "Humor on T elevision: A Content Analysis." Journal of B ro a d ca stin g , 2 0

(Fall), 501-510.
Cantor, Joanne and Venus, Pat (1980), "T he Effect of Humor on Recall of a Radio Advertise-
ment." Journal of Broadcasting, 24 (Winter), 13-22.
Chapman, Antony J. (1973). "Funniness of Jokes, Canned Laughter and Recall Performance."
Sociometry, 36, 569-578.
Chapman, Antony J. (1976). "Social Aspects of Humorous Laughter." In Humour and Laughter:
Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. London:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 155-185.
Chapman, Antony J. (1983). "Humor and Laughter in Social Interaction and Some Im p licat io n s
for Humor Research." In Handbook of Humor Research. Vol. l. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey
H. Goldstein, eds. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 133-157.
Chapman, Antony J. and Foot, Hugh C. eds. (1976). Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research
and Applications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Chemical Week (1981). "Funny Ads Are a Serious Business," 128 Oune 3), 42-43.
C:upchik, Gerald and Leventhal, Howard (1974). "Consistency Between Expressive Behavior an d
the Evaluation of Humorous Stimuli: T he Role of Sex and Self -Observation." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 429-442.
Duncan, Calvin P. (1979). "Humor in Advertising: A Behavioral Perspective." Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 7, 285-306.
Duncan, Calvin P. and Nelson, James E. (1985). "Effects of Humor in a Radio Advertisi ng
Experiment." Journal of Adverti8ing, 14 (#2), 33-40.
Duncan, Calvin P., Nelson, James E. and Frontczak, Nancy T . (1984), "T he Effect o f Hum o r o n
Advertising Comprehension." InAdvances in Consumer Research. Vol. 11. T homas Kinnear,
ed. Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, pp. 432-437.
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1982). Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1982). "Felt, False and Miserable Smiles." Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 6, 238-252.
Eysenck, H.J. (1942). "T he Appreciation of Humor: An Experimental and T heoretical Study."
British Journal of Psychology, 32, 295-309.
Foot, Hugh C. and Chapman, Antony J. (1976). "T he Social Responsiveness of Young Children
in Humorous Situations." In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application.
Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 187-214.
Freud, Sigmund (1963). Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, translated and edited by
James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton & Company (Originally published in 1905).
Gelb, Betsy D. and Pickett, Charles M. (1983). "Attitude-T oward-T he-Ad: Links to Hum o r an d
to Advertising Effectiveness." Journal of Advertising, 12 (#2), 34-42.
Gelb, Betsy D. and Zinkhan, George M. (1985). "T he Effect of Repetition on Humor in a Radio
Advertising Study." Journal of Advertising, 14 (#4), 13-20, 68.
Gelb, Betsy D. and Zinkhan, George M. (1986). "Humor and Advertising Effectiveness after
Repeated Exposures to a Radio Commercial." Journal of Advertising, 15 (#2), 15-20, 34.
Giles, Howard and Oxford, G. S. (1970). "T owards a Multidimensional T heory of Laughter
Causation and Its Social Implications." Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23, 97-
105.
Godkewitsch, Michael (1972). "T he Relationship Between Arousal Potential and Funniness of
Jokes." In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. J. H.
Goldstein and P. E. McGhee, eds. New York: Academic Press, pp. 143-158.
Godkewitsch, Michael (1976). "Physiological and Verbal Indices of Arousal in Rated Humour."
In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh
C. Foot, eds. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 117-138.
Gruner, Charles R. (1976). "Wit and Humour in Mass Communication." In Humour and La u g h -
ter: Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. London:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 287-312.
Herold, D. (1963). Humor in Advertising and How to Make It Pay. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Houndoumadi, Anastasia (1977). "Humor as a Facilitator in the Learning and Retention of
Written Instructional Material." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
Huizinga, J. (1955) Homo Ludens. Boston: Beacon Press (Beacon paperback).
Industrial Marketing (1979) "Is T here a Place for Sex and Humor in Industrial Marketing?" 64
(December), 74-80.
Januz, LR. (1977). "Humor in Advertising Can Be Effective If Used Carefully and with Good
T aste." Inland Printer/ American Lithographer, February, 70.
Jones, J.M. (1970). "Cognitive Factors in the Appreciation of Humor: A T heoretical and E x p er i-
mental Analysis." Doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven , Connecticut.
Kant, Immanuel (1790). Kritik der Urteilskrajt. Berlin: Lagarde.
Kaplan, Robert and Pascoe, Gregory (1977). "Humorous Lectures and Humorous Examples:
Some Effects upon Comprehension and Retention." Journal of Educational Psychology, 69
(February), 61-65.
Keith-Spiegel, Patricia (1972). "Early Conceptions of Humor: Varieties and Issues." In The
Psychology of Humor. J.H. Goldstein and P.E. McGhee, eds. New York: Academic Press, pp.
3-39.
Kelly, J. Patrick and Solomon, Paul J. (1975). "Humor in T elevision Advertising." Journal of
Advertising, 4, 31-35.
Klein, D.M., Jennin Bryant, and Dolf Zillmann (1982). "Relationship Between Humor in
Introductory T extbooks and Students' Evaluations of the T exts' Appeal and Effectiveness."
Psychological Reports, 50, 235-241.
La Fave, Lawrence, Jay Haddad and William A. Maesen (1976). "Superiority, Enhanced Self-
Esteem, and Perceived Incongruity Humour T heory." In Humour and Laughter: Theory,
Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. London: John Wiley
& Sons, pp. 63-92.
La France, Marianne (1983). "Felt Versus Feigned Funniness: Issues In Coding Smiling and
Laughter." In Handbook of Humor Research. Vol. L Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Gold-
stein, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-12.
Lammers, H. Bruce, Laura Leibowitz, George E. Seymour, and Judith E. Hennessey (1983).
"Humor and Cognitive Responses to Advertising Stimuli: A T race Consolidation Approach."
Journal of Business Research, 11 Gune), 173-185.
Leventhal, Howard and Gerald Cupchik (1975). "T he Informational and Facilitative Effects of
an Audience upon Expression and Evaluation of Humorous Stimuli." Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 11, 363-380.
Leventhal, Howard and Gerald Cupchik (1976). "A Process Model of Humor Judgment." Journa l
of Communications, 26 (Summer), 190-204.
Lubalin, Peter (1977). "Humor on Radio." ANNY (November 4), 22.
Madden, T homas Justin (1982). "Humor in Advertising: Application of a Hierarchy of Effects

Paradigm." Ph.D. drtat io n , Univ er sity of Massa c h use tts, Amh e r st, Mass ac h use tts.
Madden, T homas J. and Dillon, William R. (1982). "Causal Analysis and Latent Class Models:
An Application to a Communication Hierarchy of Effects Model." Journal of Marketing
Research 19 (November), 472-490.
Madden, T homas J. and Weinberger, Marc C. (1982). "T he Effects o f Humor on Attention in
Maine Advertising." Journal of Advertising, 11 (#3), 8-14.
Madden, T homas J. and Weinberger, Marc C. (1984). "Humor in Advertising: A Practitioner
View." Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (Aug/Sept), 23-29.
Marketing News (1981). "Funny Ads Provide Welcome Relief During T hese Gloom and Doom
Days," 14 (April 17), 3.
Markiewicz, Dorothy (1972). "T he Effects of Humor on Persuasion." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Markiewicz, Dorothy (1974). "Effects of Humor on Persuasion." Sociometry, 37, 407-422.
McGhee, Paul E. (1972). "On the Cognitive Origins of Incongruity Humor: Fantasy Assimilat io n
versus Reality Assimilation." In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and
Empirical Issues. J.H. Goldstein and P.E. McGhee, eds. New York: Academic Press, pp. 61-
79.
McGhee, Paul E. (1976). "Children's Appreciation of Humor: A T est of the Cognitive Congru-
ency Principle." Child Development, 47, 420-426. McGhee, Paul E. (1979). Humor: Its
Origin and Development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
McGhee, Paul E. (1980). "T oward the Integration of Entertainment and Educational Functions
of T elevision: T he Role of Humor." In The Entertainment Functions of Television. P.H.
T annenbaum, ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 183-208.
McGhee, Paul E. (1983). "T he Role of Arousal and Hemispheric Lateralization in Humor." In
Handbook of Humor Research. Vol. 1. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 13-38.
McMahan, Harry Wayne (1975). "'Money Makers' Show Humor, Human Interest Used in 43
Percent of T op T V Marketing Successes." Advertising Age, 46 Gune 23), 41-42.
McMahan, Harry Wayne (1976). "So Funny Ain't Funny -Sort of a Serious Look at Humor."
Advertising Age, 47 (September 13), 72-73.
Mick, David Glen (1986), "Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of
Signs, Symbols, and Significance." Journal of Consumer Research. 13 (September), 196-213.
Mogavero, Donald T . (1979). "It's Confirmed: }-students Like Humor in the Classroom." Jour-
nalism Educator, 34 (April), 43-44, 52-53.
Monro, D.H. (1951). Argument of Laughter. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Morreall, John (1983). Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany, New York: State University of New
York Press.
Morris, Ch111rles (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. [Reprinted in Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclo-
pedia of Unified Science. Vol. 1. Otto Neurath, Rudoli Carnap and Charles Morris, eds.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969, pp. 77-137.)
Murphy, John H., Cunningham, Isabella C. M., and Wilcox, Gary B. (1979). "T he Impact of
Program Environment on Recall of Humorous T elevision Commercials." Journal of Advertis-
ing 8 (#2), 17-21.
Nelson, James E (1987). "Comment on 'Humor and Advertising Effectiveness after Repeated
Exposures to a Radio Commercial." Journal of Advertising 16 (#1), 63-65.
Nelson, James E., Duncan, Calvin, and Frontczak, Nancy T . (1985). "The Distraction Hy p o th e-
sis and Radio Advertising." Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter), 60-71.
Ogilvy, David and Raphaelson, J. (1982). "Research on Advertising T echniques that Work -and
Don't Work." Harvard Business Review , July-August, 14-16.
O'Quin, Karen and Joel Aronoff (198 1). "Humor as a T echnique of Social Influence." Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44 (no.' 4), 349-357
Patrick, Margaret (1982). "Humour's Highland Fling." Marketing, 9 (May 13), 49-52.
Phillips, K. (1968). "When a Funny Commercial Is Good, It's Great!" Broadcasting, 74 (May
13), 26.
Piaget, Jean (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Pollio, Howard R. (1983). "Notes T oward a Field T heory of Humor." In Handbook of Humor
Research. Vol. 1. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag,
pp. 213-230.
Pollio, Howard R. (1984). "What Students T hink About and Do in College Lectures." Tea ch in g -
Learning Issues, 53 (Spring), prepared by the Learning Research Center, University of T en-
nessee, 3-18.
Pollio, Howard R. (1985/1986). "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Humor in the
Classroom but Were Afraid to Ask." Teaching-Learning Issues, No. 57 (Fall, Winter), pre-
pared by the Learning Research Center, University of T ennessee, 3-20.
Pollio, Howard R., Rodney Mers, and William Lucchesi (1972). "Humor, Laughter, and Smil-
ing: Some Preliminary Observations of Funny Behaviors." In The Psychology of Humor:
Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. J.H. Goldstein and P.E. McGhee, eds. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 211-239.
Powell, James L. (1975). "Ego Involvement: A Mediating Factor in Satirical Persuasion." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Florida.
Powell, J. P. and L. W. Andresen (1985). "Humour and T eaching in Higher Education." Studies
in Higher Education, 10 (no. 1), 79-90.
Purpel, D. E. (1981). "Humour in the Great Scheme of T hings-A Response to Elizabeth Val-
lance." Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 231-237.
Ross, H.L. (1976). "How to Create Effective Humorous Commercials, Yielding Above Average
Brand Preference Changes." Marketing News, 9 (March 26), 4.
Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1987). Advertising and Promotion Mana g em ent. New Yo r k :
McGraw-Hill.
Rothbart, Mary K. (1973). "Laughter in Young Children." Psychological Bulletin, 80 (No. 3),
247-256.
Rothbart, Mary K. (1976). "Incongruity, Problem Solving and Laughter." In Humour and
Laughter: Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds.
London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 37-54.
Rothbart, Mary K. (1977). "Psychological Appro aches to the Study of Humour." In It's a F u n n y
Thing, Humour. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 87 -
94.
Rothbart, Mary K. and Diana Pien (1977). "Elephants and Marshmallows: A T heoretical Syn-
thesis of Incongruity-Resolution and Arousal T heories of Humour." In It's a Funny Thing,
Humour. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 37-40.
Schachter, S. and J. E. Singer (1962). "Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of

Emotional State," Psychological Review, 69, 379-399.
Schramm, W. (1973). Men, Messages, and Media: A Look at Human Communication. New
York: Harper & Row.
Seung, T . K. (1982). Semiotics and Thematics in Hermeneutics. New York: Columbia Universit y
Press.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1987). "Advertising as a Cultural System." In Marketing and Semiotics: New
Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok. Berlin, West Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 441-461.
Shultz, T homas R. (1970). "Cognitive Factors in Children's Appreciation of Cartoons: Incongr u-

ity and Its Resolution." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Shultz, T homas R. (1972). "T he Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children's Appreciation of
Cartoon Humor." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13,456-477.
Shultz, T homas R. (1974a). "Development of the Appreciation of Riddles." Child Development,

45, 100-105.
Shultz, T homas R. (1974b) "Order of Cognitive Processing in Humour Appreciation." Cana d ia n

Journal of Psychology, 28, 409-420.
Shultz, T homas R. (1976). "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Humour." In Humour and

Laughter: Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds.
London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 11-36.
Shultz, T homas R. (1977). "A Cross-Cultural Study of the Structure of Humour." in It's a Funny
Thing, Humour. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp.
175-180.
Shultz, T homas R. and Frances Horibe (1974). "Development of the Appreciation of Verbal
Jokes." Developmental Psychology, 10 (No. 1), 13-20.
Singer, J. L. and D. G. Singer (1979). "Come back, Mister Rogers, come back." Psychology
Today, 56 (March), 56, 59-60.
Spencer, Herbert (1860). "T he Physiology of Laughter." Macmillan's Magazine, l, 395-402.

Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig (1973). "Humor in Advertising." Journal of Marketing, 37
(October), 12-18.
Stewart, David W. and Furse, David H. (1985). "T he Effects of T elevision Advertising Execution
on Recall, Comprehension, and Persuasion." Psychology and Marketing, 2 (Fall), 135-160.
Stewart, David W. and Furse, David H. (1986). Ef fective Television Advertising: A Stud y of
1000 Commercials. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.
Suls, Jerry M. (1972). "A T wo-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons: An
Information-Processing Analysis." In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives a n d
Empirical Issues. J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee, eds. New York: Academic Press, p p. 8 1-
100.
Suls, Jerry M. (1977). "Cognitive and Disparagement T heories of Humour: A T heoretical and
Empirical Synthesis" in It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot,
eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 41-45.
Suls, Jerry M. (1983). "Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation" in Handbook of Humor

Research. Vol. 1. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. New York: Springer Verlag,
pp. 39-58.
T amborini, Ron and Dolf Zillmann (1981). "College Students' Percept ion of Lecturers Using
Humor." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 427-432.
T iegel, Eliot (1986). "Laughter Reigns at Hot Spots." Advertising Age, 57 Oune 9), 47.
Topline (1982). "Focus on Funny," 3 Ouly), 1 -6, prepared by McCollum/Spielman & Company,
Inc.
Wangel, John S. (1985). "Using Humor in the Industrial Selling Process." Industrial Marketing
Management, 14, 221-226.
Weinberg, Murray D. (1973), "T he Interactional Effect of Humor and Anxiety on Academic
Performance." Doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva Uniyersity.
Weinberger, Marc G. and Spotts, Harlan E. (1989). "Humor in the U.S. versus U.K. T V Com-
mercials: A Comparison." Journal of Advertising 18 (2), 39-44.
Wicker, F. W., T horelli, I.M., Barron, W. L., and Ponder, M.R. (1981). "Relationships Among
Affective and Cognitive Factors in Humor." Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 359-370.
Wolinsky, Howard (1980). "Doct ors T ry Satire to Sell Health." Advertising Age, December 15,
325.
Zillmann, Dolf (1983). "Disparagement Humor." In Handbook of Humor Research. Vol. 1. Paul
E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 85-108.
Zillmann, Dolf and Bryant, Jennings (1983). "Uses and Effects of Humor in Educational Ven-
tures." In Handbook of Humor Research. Vol. 2. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein,
eds. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 173-193.
Zillmann, Dolf and Cantor, Joanne R. (1976). "A Disposition T heory of Humour and M ir t h . " I n
Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C.
Foot, eds. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 93-116.
Zinkhan, George M. and Gelb, Betsy D. (1987). "Humor and Advertising Effectiveness Reex am -
ined" Journal of Advertising, 16 (#1), 66-68. [A reply to the 1987 comment by Nelson.]
Zip/Target Marketing (1983). "Comedy Can Be a Vital Tool." 6 (October), 52.
Ziv, Avner (1988). "T eaching and Learning with Humor: Experiment and Replication." Jo u rn a l
of Experimental Education, 57 (Fall), 5-15.
Copyright 2002 EBSCO Publishing

Speck Humor Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speck Humor Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speck Humor Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Humorous Message Taxonomy:

A Framework for the Study

within-message manipulations can be extended to message-within-humor

humor. There appear to be five combinational humor types. Each humor

Play and Its Relationship to Humor

The Three Underlying Humor Processes

Humor research has been surveyed by Monro [1951]; Keith-Spiegel [1972];

enough for them to depict a critical image, such as a family celebration, a

HP2: Incongruity Resolution.

HP3: Humorous Disparagement

so compellingly attractive, humor is one of the most insidious forms of hostil-

Certain circumstances make it easier for a joke-hearer to enjoy the humor-

The Overall Pattern of Humor Processing

HT1-HT5: The Five Combinational Humor Types

can be used alone (neither requires another HP to produce its humorous

market. Finally, as a result of different humor preferences and selective

HT1: Comic Wit

HT2: Sentimental Humor

HT4: Sentimental Comedy

HTS: Full Comedy

How Does Humor Relate to a Message?

Aside from humor type (HT1-HT5), the significance of humor in an ad

overall purpose of the ad, in particular, whether the ad is information-

Developing a Taxonom y of Humorou s Message Types

My purpose is to construct a theoretically-based taxonomy of humorous

Building Structural Relatedness into the Taxonomy.

Building Thematic Relatedness into the Taxonomy

Building Intentional Relatedness into the Taxonomy

Six Basic Distinctions Incorporated into the Humorous Message Taxonomy

humorous messages are divided into information-dominant, image-

A classification of humorous commercials using the HMT*

to meaningful categories. In this article, it will be used to compare the

Classification of Primetime Televis ion Comm ercials

To get some idea of how humor is typically used in television commercials,

Message Type and Humor Type

An HMT Analysis of Humorous Ads

Info Image Humor Total Percent

Total 17 27 81 125 (100)

C: Humor Placement (Initial, Embedded , or Closing) in M essage-

Info Image Total Percent

observed patterns reflect underlying relationships between humor type and

Thematic Relatedness and Message Type

Humor Position and Message Type

HMT Classification of Humorous Commercials.

HMT Classific ation of Messages Employed

Speech, Journalism, Communications, and Psychology.

Altogether, Sternthal and Craig [1973], Markiewicz [1974], Gruner

be classified and two required multiple classification, this literature accounts

There is a growing body of experimental research on the effects of humor

HMT Classification of 84 Humorous Messages Employed by Humor

Initial Comparison of Humorous Commercials and Humor Research

HMT Classification of Research Mani pulations

Comparison of HMT Types Observed in Primetime

To what extent do the HMT types observed in research (Table 5) match

HMT categories that collectively account for 27 % of the commercials have

While 47 % of all research involved information-dominant messages

No experiment has employed an image-dominant humor manipulation,

dominant ads in the CBS sample. Thus, with regard to humor-dominant

Recommendations for Future Research

Research Program for the Study of Humor Effects in TV Commercials