Master Thesis Defense

Master Thesis Defense

When Humorous Advertising Elicit Inferences of

Manipulative Intent

› 

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

•  Some level of attention is necessary for persuasion (MacInnis and Jaworski

1989) and humor is a popular and effective attention-getting tactic

•  Benefits concerning increased processing attention on advertisement

effectiveness are well established in literature (Cialdini, Petty, and Cacioppo 1981; Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983)

•  However, increased processing attention can also lead to consumers making

inferences of manipulative intent (Campbell 1995), resulting in resisting persuasion (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984)

•  Extensive research regarding effect of humor on attention, attitudes,

comprehension, etc. (Eisend 2009) but far less on intentions of the advertiser

•  New insights that help explain the persuasiveness of humor and help advertisers

make a choice between advertising appeals

› 

Central Research Question

• 

What is the effect of a humorous ad on consumers’ inferences of

manipulative intent compared to a serious ad?

› 

Additional (mediation) Research Questions

• 

What is the effect of a humorous ad compared to a serious ad on

consumers’ depth of information processing?

• 

How does the depth of information processing generated by the type of ad

mediate the effect of the advertisement on consumers’ inferences of

manipulative intent?

› 

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Explained

›  H

:

Consumers will make more inferences of manipulative intent when exposed

to a humorous ad than when exposed a serious ad

•  Campbell’s (1995) study suggested that the use of an attention-getting tactic,

which increases processing attention, arousal and involvement, is likely to lead to consumers making inferences of manipulative intent

›  H

:

Depth of information processing will be higher when consumers are

exposed to a humorous ad than when exposed to a serious ad

•  Information processing depth: the amount of effort that consumers might

devote to thinking while and after being exposed to a persuasive message (Petty and Wegener 1999)

  Cognitive Response Model (Greenwald 1968)

›  H

:

Consumers’ inferences of manipulative intent will be higher when depth of

information processing is high compared to when it is low

•  A consumer is likely process a humorous ad through the central route, leading

to higher chance of making inferences of manipulative intent

  Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1984)

› 

Research Design

•  The experiment followed a 2-conditions (serious advertising vs. humorous

advertising) between-subjects design

•  Independent variable type of advertisement: manipulated by randomly

assigning participants to one of the experimental conditions

•  Mediating variable depth of information processing and dependent variable

extent of inference of manipulative intent were measured

› 

Participants

•  110 participants in total; 6 of the participants were deleted; 104 participants left

in the analyses; humorous ad viewed by 57 participants, serious ad viewed by 47 participants

•  Majority: female; between 20 and 30 years old; European; highest level of

education reached was a bachelor’s degree

› 

Procedure / Measures

•  Commercials were placed in between a 4-minute BBC documentary about

sharks; after 2 minutes participants saw a decoy ad plus the condition ad

•  After the documentary participants were asked to:

  Write down any thoughts, ideas, and feelings they had about the target ad

  Answer an inference of manipulative intent scale (α=.91)

  Answer a manipulation check scale (α=.79)

  Answer questions about the documentary

  Answer control measure scales for mood (α=.88) and distraction

› 

Coded Variables from Thought Listings

•  Information processing depth score

•  Processing depth category

•  Thought valence score

•  Amount of thoughts listed

› 

Manipulation Check

› 

Mediation Analysis

Results of Analyses

Participants rated the

humorous Audi commercial significantly more humorous (M = 4.82) than the serious Audi commercial (M = 3.36),

t(102) = -5.70, p = .00

Model 1: hypothesis one was supported

Model 2: hypothesis two was supported

Model 3: hypothesis three was not supported

› 

Further Tests

Results of Analyses

Mean Inference of Manipulative Intent Scores

Significant main effect of type of advertisement on inference of manipulative intent, F(1,103)= 5.41, p= .02, but no significant main effect of processing depth category on inference of

manipulative intent, F(1,103) = 2.28, p= .13

› 

Theoretical Implications

•  This study contributes to the growing literature concerning the negative side of

humor

  Humorous advertising can generate more inferences of manipulative intent

than serious advertising

•  Confirmation of findings on information processing literature

  Attention and arousal generated by humor do increase consumers’ effort

devoted to processing persuasive communication

•  Expected role of information processing depth not confirmed

  Result not in line with previous studies; difference in processing

manipulation

•  Overall, inference of manipulative intent is influenced by type of ad and thought

valence and is not influenced by depth of thoughts nor amount of thoughts

› 

Managerial Implications

•  Humorous advertising increases attention and processing of persuasive message

but also inferences of manipulative intent

•  Pay close attention to strength of the arguments presented in the advertisement

  Valence of thoughts depends on the quality/strength of arguments

  Positive thoughts reduce inferences of manipulative intent

› 

Future Research

•  More in depth study to understand the relationship between information

processing depth and the extent of inference of manipulative intent

•  Explore moderating effects of thought valence and amount of thoughts