Humor in American,

British, and German Ads

Lynette S. McCullough
Ronald K. Taylor
Some 665 advertisements were sampled from American,
British, and German trade magazines and assessed by three
bilingual judges to determine incidence of humor. Although
there was some evidence that humorous messages may be less
appropriate in business-to-business
advertising, 23% of the
ads contained humor. There were no differences in humor
frequency among the three nationalities. Humor use varied by
industry, and there was significant interaction between nationality and industry in humor ratings. Five types of humor
were investigated: aggressive, sexual, nonsense, warm, and
pun. Puns, nonsense humor, and warm humor were employed
most often, with no national differences. Aggressive humor
was used in some industries more than others.

The use of humor appears to be quite popular in consumer-targeted advertising. Content analyses of American television advertising reported humor frequencies
ranging from 15% to 24% to 42% of ads [l-3].
Humor
was present in 3 1% of American radio ads [4], however
its incidence in print has rarely been studied [5]. Humor
appeared to be widespread in non-American advertising
as well. It was found to be present in 36% of British
television commercials [2] and was widely used in ads

Address correspondence to Lynette S. McCullough,

Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056.

Industrial Marketing Management 22, 17-28 (1993)

0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1993
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

Marketing Department,

in the International CL10 award and Cannes competitions

[6, 71. A number of companies have incorporated humor
into their global campaigns [8-l 11.
The popularity of humor is based on its effectiveness
in persuasive communication. There is considerable evidence that humorous content facilitates cognitive processing of advertising information because it commands
audience attention [ 12-201. Other researchers have proffered an affective model to explain humors positive impact on persuasion: Humor creates a positive emotional
response to the ad, which is generalized onto the product
and may have positive impact on the purchase decision
[21-251.
For the same reasons, humorous appeals should be
effective in business-to-business
advertising. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that humor is used successfully in industrial advertising [8, 261. It is present among B/PAA
creative award winners and in corporate and business ads
that have won International CLIOs.
There are concerns, however, with the use of humor
in business-to-business
advertising. The following four
problems of humor are generally recognized:
1. Its detrimental effect on comprehension
2. Its proneness to psychological wearout
3. Questions of humors appropriateness with particular types of products
4. Audience differences in humor appreciation

17
0019-8501/93/$5.00

Preferences

for types of humor vary.

Several researchers have provided reviews of the problems of humor [6, 19, 271. While the first two problems
are more general, the last two have particular applicability
to international business advertising and are the focus of
this article.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN
HUMORS APPROPRIATENESS
It is generally recognized that humorous appeals may
be inappropriate with certain types of products [5, 18,
28-301. For example, humorous presentations of some
image products (cosmetics, fashion), serious products
(charities, financial services), or life-and-death products
(life insurance, tombstones) are rare; there are exceptions [ 17, 311. The use of humor with business products may damage a serious or high-technology
image;
it may detract from professionalism
in corporate advertising.
Humor in business advertising may exacerbate the
problem of cultural differences in international promotion. Research indicates that humors situational appropriateness is culture-bound [32]. What one nationality
might regard as a perfectly acceptable situation for humor
might be considered tasteless by another. Evidence from
executive surveys, content analyses, and research on national differences in negotiating style suggests that there
may be cultural differences in the acceptance of humorous
business advertising.
Executive

Surveys

Interviews with American and British advertising executives indicated a common hesitancy to use humor in
business advertising [2]. Some 48% of the American and
3 1% of the British executives interviewed mentioned industrial and business products as least suited for humor-

LYNETTE S. MCCULLOUGH is Associate Professor of

Marketing and RONALD K. TAYLOR is an Assistant Professor
of Marketing at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

18

ous appeals. Business services were mentioned as least

suited by 22% and 35% of the executives, respectively,
and corporate advertising by 65% and 55%, respectively.
There was also evidence of cultural differences. Nearly
one-fourth of American executives mentioned industrial
and business products as best suited for humor, compared
to only 14% of the British; 47% of American executives
mentioned business services as best suited compared to
10% for British executives.
Content

Analyses

Research by Weinberger and colleagues identified a

lower incidence of humorous appeals in advertising for
business products and services [2, 41. In their content
analysis of American radio ads, Weinberger and Campbell found humor to be present in 31% of all ads; but in
the high-involvement/thinking
category
of products
(which included business products and services), humor was present in only 14% of the ads [4]. In a content analysis of television ads, some 24% of American
ads for high-involvement/thinking
products contained
humor (the same as the 24% humor frequency overall for
American ads). Among British ads, only 25% of
high-involvement/thinking
products contained humor,
compared to a 36% frequency for humor overall [2].
Conversely, in another study of 500 international print
ads, 46% of industrial and corporate ads contained humor, compared to 35% for the sample overall [33].

Differences

in Negotiating

Styles

Research on national negotiating styles may be relevant

to the question of humors cultural appropriateness in
business communication.
Business-to-business
advertising is often used to prepare the way for the sales representative [34, 351, and there is evidence that message
variables (such as humor) are important in creating buyer
awareness [36].
While it is generally recognized that humor helps establish rapport in American selling and negotiating situations [34, 371, negotiating styles appear to vary across
cultures [38-431. Some national negotiating styles may

accommodate humor more than others, suggesting that

humorous advertising may also vary in effectiveness.
Researchers distinguish high-context
cultures from
low-context cultures. In high-context cultures, context
and nonverbal aspects of communication are important.
The roles of negotiators are more important than the
words used. In low-context cultures, words are more
important than nuance, and explicit verbal expression is
critical to communication [44-481.
Researchers suggest that businesspeople from highcontext cultures respond better to a softer sell, while those
from low-context cultures may be more impressed by a
harder sell [49, 501. This is borne out in empirical studies
on negotiating styles [38] and on advertising [51, 521.
Since humor is often considered to be a soft-sell approach
[lo], it might be concluded that it would be more acceptable in business communication in high-context cultures. The findings of Weinberger and Spotts contradict
this to a certain degree [2]. While humor appeared to be
more common and acceptable in British than in American
consumer advertising, it was less desirable in businessto-business appeals, despite the fact that British culture
was recognized as higher context than American culture
144, 471.

shared experience of reality [64, 651. A number of researchers defined humor as an essentially social experience, for example, You cant tickle yourself [66-681.
Humor often defines and reinforces relationships and
maintains group cohesion. It may do this negatively by
isolating and deprecating out-groups or, more positively,
by incorporating private jokes or inside humor [66, 681.
Shared experience may stimulate feelings of empathy in
the audience, making them more receptive to a persuasive
message [6, 691.
Shared experience is the focus of many successful international advertising campaigns, particularly those that
focus on a common problem. In addressing the human
elements of the problem, shared experiences often involve humorous situations that people around the world
can recognize [8, 701. The use of product demonstration
often visually illustrates the solution of a common problem and appears to travel well across cultures [71].
Business advertisers share experience with their target
market in the common problems and technical language
of their particular industry. Researchers speak, for example, about the potential for global advertising in hightechnology products because of such commonalities [26,
701.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN
HUMOR PREFERENCES

HUMOR TYPES

Even if humor is generally appropriate in business advertising, the presence of different national tastes in humor also creates problems [ 17, 191. When a joke fails,
the audience counterargues,
increasing comprehension
problems [53]. There is considerable trade press evidence
that indicates transnational differences in humor appreciation [7, 54, 551.
Individual preferences for types of humor vary, and
researchers note that investigation of audience characteristics is lacking, despite its importance [19]. While
humor itself is universal [ 19, 56-581, research on humor
preferences has found differences between genders [59,
601, among subcultures [6 1, 621, and across cultures [32,
45, 631.

Commonalities in Shared Experience

Despite cultural differences
in humor preferences,
there may be promise for the use of humor in business
advertising by addressing shared experience. According
to some researchers, the key to successful comedy is the

Researching cultural differences in humor preferences

should begin with the identification of different types of
humor. Freud identified tendencious (aggressive and/or
sexual) and nontendencious (nonsense) wit [ 171. Goldstein and McGhee substantiated the presence of these
three types of humor in their survey of humor research
between 1950 and 1971 [72]. In addition, other researchers identified warm humor and puns as potential humor
types 11, 2, 61.

Aggressive and Sexual Humor

Practitioners have noted that tendencious humor has
been used in global advertising campaigns [31]. Such
humor allows for appropriate expression of needs that
are strictly controlled in most societies [68]. Aggressive
humor is used to achieve or maintain superiority, encourage group morale and cohesion, or deal with uncomfortable topics [37, 67, 731. Sexual humor sublimates or
expresses sexual pleasure or disappointment [37,67,68].

19

Nonsense Humor
Incongruity or nonsense humor has also been noted in
transnational advertising [70]. Some researchers argue
that incongruity alone is enough to create humor, while
others indicate that humor is a two-step process in which
incongruity is perceived and then resolved [73-751. The
more challenging the incongruity, the more humorous the
relief [37]. Such playfulness in humor allows us to become illogical and to escape the bonds of the daily world
[761.

Warm Humor
Researchers have distinguished humor from warmth,
which appears to be more gentle, loving, and serene [77].
However, others have suggested that there may be some
overlap between warmth and humor in advertising, as
humor may be used to create warmth and warmth may
often contain humor [6]. Warm humor creates empathy
in the audience and has been noted in advertising worldwide [6, 10, 691.

Puns
Advertising researchers have noted the presence of
puns in humorous advertising [ 1, 21. Brooker used four
verbal humor types as treatments: pun, limerick, joke,
and one-liner [ 131. It could be argued that verbal humor
is not a type of humor but rather a genre or format.
Moreover, it is often difficult to extend such humor to
other cultures, given its close tie to language [63, 7880].

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
A content analysis of 665 American, British, and German trade magazine advertisements was made based on
the following research questions:
1. What is the incidence of humor in trade advertising?
2. Do funniness and the incidence of humor vary by
nationality? If so, do differences reflect the countrys position on the high-/low-context
continuum
[38, 44]? Based on this continuum, British ads
should contain the most humor, followed by American and then German ads.
3. Do funniness and the incidence of humor in business-to-business advertising vary by industry?
4. How often do the specific types of humor appear?

20

METHODOLOGY
The sample frames for trade magazine selection were
the British Rates and Data (United Kingdom), Mediuduten (Germany), and Standard Rate and Data Service
Business Publications (United States). Some 35 industrial
classifications (about one-third of the frame) were selected randomly from the Standard Rate and Data Service
(SRDS) list and matched across the other two frames.
Six classifications (design engineering, materials handling, pet trade, photography, purchasing, and vending)
were eliminated because there were no similar German
either were
categories available. The classifications
embedded in other categories or were nonexistent, or
there were no magazines available in the category. The
remaining 29 industries are listed in Table 1.
Three trade publications were selected randomly from
each of the 29 industries across the three nationalities.
A letter was sent to the publisher requesting a copy of a
September 1988 or October 1988 issue of the trade publication. The letter was translated for the German publications. Where fewer than three magazines were listed
for a particular industry, the letter was sent to all listed
publications. In the American industry listings, only two
categories out of 29 contained fewer than three publications. Five of the British and four of the German categories listed only one or two publications.
Response rates for receiving copies of the publications
were nearly identical across the three countries. Some
68% of British publishers and 68% of German publishers
complied. Similarly, 69% of American publishers sent
copies of their publication upon request, yielding an overall response of 68%. By product category, response from
the publishers ranged from 33% to lOO%, with only three
classifications below 50% (fur, hotels, and laundry).
Within each magazine, five ads were selected based
on two criteria: they had to be display ads and the ads
had to be one-quarter page or larger. The ads were sampled in order from the beginning of each magazine. Only
7% of the ads were duplicates, to be expected given the
homogeneity of the industries and the identical placement
time. These duplications were included in the total analysis, as in previous content analysis studies [8 11.
The advertisement sample contained 203 (3 1%) British
ads, 192 (29%) German ads, and 270 (4 1%) American
ads. Number of ads judged per publication was 3.7, 3.4,
and 4.7 by country, respectively,
averaging 3.9. The
skew toward American ads was caused by two factors.
The European publications sometimes contained fewer

TABLE 1

Magazine Sample Description

Number of magazines
(Received/Ordered)

Industry
Accountancy
Aeronautics
Agriculture
Baking
Business
Chemistry
Computers
Dairy
Dental
Electronics
Environment
Fishing
Fur
Graphics
Grocery
Hotels
Insurance
Laundry
Marketing/advertising
Medical
Mining
Music
Packaging
Paper/pulp
Plastics
Safety
Security
Toys
Travel
Total
Response rate (%)
Average number of
ads/publication

British
2l3
213
313
2/3
2i3
313
2l3
2/3
113
313
013
213
l/2
212
313
O/l
313
012
313
313
2/3
l/3
213
2l3
313
213
213
213
iV2
55l8 1
68

German
l/l
o/3
2l3
313
113
l/3
213
313
213
213
2/3
o/2
l/3
213
213
213
313
212
313
313
313
213
313
313
213
l/3
l/3
212
213
56182
68

American
213
313
213
313
313
213
l/3
213
313
l/3
313
213
O/l
112
l/3
l/3
213
l/3
213
313
313
213
213
213
313
313
2l3
113
213
58l84
69

Total

Number of Ads
Industry
Response
Rate (%)

5/l
519
II9
819
619
619
519
II9
619
619
519
418
216
517
619
317
819
317
819
919
819
519
II9
II9
819
619
519
518
418
1691247
68

than five ads altogether, and ads often did not meet the
selection criteria. This skew was not a function of sample
bias, given the equivalent publisher response rates. While
the goal was equal numbers of ads by country, the skew
roughly paralleled adspend differentials among the three
nations [82]. By industry, only two classifications (dairy
and electronics) averaged fewer than three ads per magazine .
Three graduate student judges assessed each of the 665
advertisements. All three were proficient in both English
and German. Two of the judges were native German
speakers enrolled in an American M.B.A. program. The
other, an American, had professional qualifications as a

71
56
78
89
67
67
56
78
67
67
56
50
33
71
67
43
89
43
89
100
89
56
78
78
89
67
56
63
50

British

German

American

Total

10
6
13
7
10
10
10
6
4
5
0
10
2
6
11
0
11
0
14
5
7
5
10
2
13
10
9
7
0
203
31

2
0
10
13
1
5
10
3
10
8
3
0
5
5
6
8
8
10
13
13
10
4
11
13
5
1
1
4
10
192
29

9
14
8
15
15
10
5
8
15
3
14
10
0
5
5
5
10
3
10
15
10
10
10
10
13
15
10
4
9
270
41

21
20
31
35
26
25
25
17
29
16
17
20
7
16
22
13
29
13
37
33
27
19
31
25
31
26
20
15
19
665
100

3.7

3.4

4.7

3.9

Average number
of Ads/
Publication
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
5.0
2.4
4.8
2.6
3.4
5.0
3.5
3.2
3.7
4.3
3.6
4.3
4.6
3.7
3.4
3.8
4.4
3.6
3.8
4.3
4.0
3.0
4.8

translator and extensive living experience in Germany.

This array of backgrounds was similar to other crosscultural content analyses of ads [5 1, 831. The number of
judges equals or surpasses the number used in analyses
for humor content and cross-cultural analyses [l, 2, 4,
84, 851.
For each ad, judges indicated whether the ad was humorous on a fully anchored 5-point scale, where 1 = not
at all humorous and 5 = very humorous. This differs from
earlier humor content analyses and other humor studies
that operationalized humorous as dichotomous [ 11. The
use of the judges personal assessments of funniness varied from the research of Weinberger and Spotts who asked

21

Differences

are exhibited across industries.

judges to assess humorous intent of the ad in order to

reduce subjectivity [2]. The reason the more subjective
response was elicited in this study is because what the
audience thinks is funny was a commonly used definition
in studies of humors effectiveness [ 15, 191.
If an ad received a 4 or 5 on the humor scale, it was
judged to be humorous. For each ad judged to be humorous, coders were then asked to indicate if each of the
five humor types-aggressive,
sexual, nonsense, warm,
and pun humor-were
present using a yes/no response
[ 1, 21. Coders also noted ad nationality and industry type.
To address the first research question, ads that averaged
>3 on the humorous scale were considered to contain
humor. For the second and third research questions, analysis of variance was used to assess funniness differences,
with nationality and industry as treatments and the average humor rating as the dependent variable. Chi-square
tests were used to assess differences in humor frequency
among nationalities and industries. The incidence of each
of the five humor types was assessed for the ads judged
to be humorous. Categorization was based on majority
agreement of the judges.

RESULTS
Incidence

of Humor

Some 152 ads (23% of the sample) were humorous,

based on the criterion of an average humor rating >3.
Average rating overall was 2.72, with a standard deviation of 0.607 and range of 1 to 4.33.
TABLE 2
Results of Analysis of Variance
Nationality and Industry

Source of Variance
Nationality
Industry
Nationality X Industry
Explained variance
*P > 0.05.

22

Sum of
Squares
1.44
48.00
20.28
69.49

on Average

DF
2
28
49
79

Mean
Square
.I2
1.71
.41
.88

Humor Rating by

F
2.40
5.12
I .38
2.93

DIFFERENCES
AMONG NATIONALITIES.
Results of the
analysis of variance are shown in Table 2. There was no
significant difference in average humor ratings among
nationalities. British ads averaged 2.79, German 2.70,
and American
2.69. Table 3 provides details by
nationality.
ANOVA
results inDIFFERENCES
AMONG INDUSTRIES.
dicated significant differences among industries on average humor ratings (P < O.Ol), as shown in Table 2.
Industries that averaged the highest humor ratings included marketing/advertising
(3.14)) business (3. lo),
dental (3.05), travel (3.02), and toys (3.00); the lowest
humor ratings were found in paper/pulp (2.20), mining
(2.27), safety (2.31), fur (2.33), and security (2.38)
(Table 4).
As indicated in Table 2, the two-way Nationality x
Industry interaction was significant at P = 0.05. This
indicated that there were differences among nationalities
on average humor ratings for some industries. British ads
were more likely to be humorous than German or American ads in the graphics industry. German ads were least
humorous in the grocery and mining industries, but funnier than American ads in the medical industry and funnier than British ads in the packaging industry.
There were also significant differences among industries in humor frequency, based on chi-square analysis
(x2 = 66.40, df = 28, P < 0.01). The highest percentages of humorous ads were found in marketing/advertising (49%), business (42%)) dairy (41%), dental
(41%), and toys (40%); the lowest percentages were
found in fur (0%)) mining (4%)) paper/pulp (4%)) fishing
(5%), and hotels (8%) (Table 4).

TABLE 3
Frequency of Humorous
by Nationality

Ads and Mean Humor Rating

Slgniflcance
NS*
.oo
.05
.oo

British
German
American
Total Sample

Sample

Humorous
Ads

Mean Humor
Rating

203
192
270
665

31
29
41
100

52
44
56
152

26
23
21
23

2.19
2.70
2.69
2.12

TABLE

TABLE 5
Incidence of the Five Humor Types Among Ads Judged
to be Humorous

Frequency of Humorous Ads and Mean Humor Rating

by Industry

Total Ads
Accountancy
Aeronautics
Agriculture
Baking
Business
Chemistry
Computers
Dairy
Dental
Electronics
Environment
Fishing
Fur
Graphics
Grocery
Hotels
Insurance
Laundry
Marketing/advertising
Medical
Mining
Music
Packaging
Paper/pulp
Plastics
Safety
Security
Toys
Travel
Total Sample

21
20
31
35
26
25
25
17
29
16
17
20
7
16
22
13
29
13
37
33
27
19
31
25
31
26
20
15
19
665

Humor
Frequency
3
2
10
10
11
6
8
7
12
4
2

1
2
3
1
3
2
18
8

1
5
8

1
8
3
2
6
5
152

Mean
Humor Rating

14
10
32
29
42
24
32
41
41
25
12
5
0
13
14
8
10
15
49
24
4
26
26
4
26
11
10
40
26
23

2.49
2.55
2.96
2.90
3.10
2.61
2.95
2.94
3.05
2.69
2.53
2.55
2.33
2.42
2.10
2.54
2.72
2.69
3.14
2.83
2.27
2.74
2.86
2.20
2.59
2.31
2.38
3.00
3.02
2.72

Humor Type
For each ad judged to be humorous (assigned a 4 or
5 on the humor scale), coders indicated the presence of
each of the five humor types with a yes/no response.
Type of humor was categorized based on majority response. If only one judge thought the ad was funny, his
or her assessment was used for the categorization. If two
judges thought the ad was humorous but disagreed on
humor type, the ad was excluded from analysis.

Humor Type
Aggressive
Sexual
Nonsense
Warm
Pun
Other

Number of Ads Containing

Type

21
9
27
28
52
12

%
14
6
18
18
34
8

As shown in Table 5, pun humor was the most popular,

as it was in 34% of the humorous ads. Aggressive, nonsense, and warm humor were in 14%) 18%, and 18% of
the ads, respectively. Sexual humor was least popular,
found in 6% of the ads.
Seventy-three percent of the humorous ads contained
at least one humor type, as indicated in Table 6; 55%
contained one type, 17% contained two, and 1% contained three. Of the 25 ads that incorporated two types
of humor, the most popular combinations were aggressive/pun (9 ads), nonsense/pun (8 ads), and sexual/pun
(5 ads). Some 27% of the humorous ads were judged not
to contain any of the five types of humor, or the judges
indicated that another humor type was present.
Analysis of variance was conducted to ascertain
whether any of the five types were more humorous than
the others. Treatments were the five humor types with
average humor rating the dependent variable. Results,
shown in Table 7, indicated that nonsense ads were
judged to be most humorous and aggressive ads were
judged to be least humorous.
Chi-square test results indicated no significant differences among nationalities by type of humor, as shown
in Table 8. However, there were significant differences
in incidence of the humor types by product, as shown in
Table 9. Specifically, aggressive humor appeared in some
industries more than others and was more likely to appear
in ads for computers, insurance, and mining. There were
also differences among industries on the other category
of humor assessment.

Four conclusions can be drawn from

the study.
23

TABLE 6
Number of Humor Types per Ad
Number of Humor Types

TABLE 6
Incidence of Humor Types by Nationality
Number of Ads

None/Other
One
Two
Three
Total

British

41
84
25
2
152

27
55
17

1
100

Aggressive
Sexual
Nonsense
Warm
Pun
Other

American

German

Chi-Square

Freq.

Freq.

Freq.

x2

DF

Sig.

4
3
7
9
13
6

8
6
14
18
26
11

5
2
11
6
20
3

11
5
25
14
45
7

12
4
9
12
18
3

21
7
16
21
32
5

4.45
29
2.24
1.02
4.31
1.61

2
2
2
2
2
2

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

P > 0.05.

DISCUSSION
Four Conclusions Result From This Study
HUMOR IS A POPULAR MESSAGE ELEMENT IN AMERICAN,

tained humor.
significant.

These differences

were not statistically

BRITISH, AND GERMAN BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS ADVER-

WHILE HUMOR APPEARS TO BE QUITE ACCEPTABLE IN

TISING.

TRADE

Some 152 ads (23% of the sample) were judged

to be humorous, based on coders average ratings. This
is comparable to earlier findings from content analyses
of American broadcast commercials,
which reported
overall humor frequencies ranging from 15% to 24% to
42% of ads [l-3]. Given the paucity of studies on humor
in print and in business advertising, it is difficult to draw
direct comparisons.
THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR INCIDENCE IN
TRADE ADVERTISING AMONG THE THREE NATIONALITIES
STUDIED.

It was hypothesized
that humor incidence
would be highest among British ads, followed by American and German ads. This was based on each countrys
position on the high-/low-context
continuum and on earlier content analysis research that found humor intent
in 36% of British television ads and in 24% American
commercials [2, 38, 441. In this study, 26% of British
ads, 23% of German ads, and 21% of American ads con-

TABLE 7
Analysis of Variance

on Average

ADVERTISING,

ITS USE VARIES BY INDUSTRY. There were significant differences among the 29
industries sampled in average humor rating, incidence of
humor and frequencies of particular humor types. These
findings support earlier research that indicated that humor
was more appropriate with some products than with others [5, 18, 28-301.
Categories with the highest average humor ratings were
marketing/advertising,
business, dental, travel, and toys.
The industries with the highest percentages of humorous
ads were marketing/advertising,
business, dairy, dental,
and toys.
While high humor ratings in the travel and toy industries was intuitively appealing, given the ludic elements
inherent in leisure and play, the high humor incidence in
dental ads was somewhat curious [86]. The marketing/
advertising and business ads were often very creative and
innovative, and their high ratings on humor indirectly

Humor Rating by Humor Type

Group Mean
Humor
Ratings

Source of Variance

Aggressive
Sexual
Nonsense
WCUln
pun
Explained
Variance

24

Sum of Squares

2,720.90
98.68
6,735.43
2,185.72
1,554.15
15,595.35

DF

I
1
1

I
1
5

Mean squares

2.720.90
98.68
6.735.43
2,185.72
1,554.15
3,119.07

3.966

,144
9.818
3.186
2.266
4.547

Significance

.05
NS
.Ol

NS
NS
,001

Yes

344.2
351.8
313.9
348.0
352.8

No

358.2
356.5
352.4
358.0
358.0

TABLE 9
Incidence of Humor Types by Industry

Accountancy
Aeronautics
Agriculture
Baking
Business
Chemistry
Computers
Dairy
Dental
Electronics
Environment
Fishing
Fur

Aggressive

Sexual

1 (10)
1 (9)

1 (9)

1 (17)
4 (57)
1 (9)

2 (33)
1 (14)

Insurance
Laundry
Marketing/advertising
Medical
Mining

2 (37)
7 (34)

1 (50)

2 (20)

Music
Packaging
Paper/pulp

1 (20)

1 (100)

1 (9)

1 (14)

1 (14)
2 (17)
1 (25)

2 (17)

Toys
Travel
Chi-Square
DF

1 (17)
1 (20)
45.34
27

Significance

.02

1(17)

1 (100)

1 (50)
2 (67)
2 (67)

1 (16)

3 (17)
3 (35)

5 (50)
3 (30)

3 (27)
1 (17)

1 (33)
-

Warm

1 (33)

Graphics
Grocery
Hotels

Plastics
Safety
Security

1 (8)

Nonsense

Pun

1 (50)

1 (33)
2 (100)

4
4
3
2
1

1 (9)

(40)
(40)
(27)
(33)
(14)
1 (14)
4 (33)
1 (25)
2 (100)
1 (100)
2 (37)
1 (100)

1 (16)
2 (25)

2 (67)
1 (33)
9 (50)
2 (25)
1 (100)

3 (60)

2 (25)
-

1 (13)
-

1 (13)

2 (25)

2 (33)
30.31
27
NS

3 (50)

3 (50)

1 (20)

2 (40)

supported the use of humor in persuasive communication.

It is possible that two of the judges may have found the
marketing and business press funnier because, as business
graduate students, they were more familiar with the industry area. Ratings differences did not bear this out,
however.
Among the lowest average humor ratings were paper/
pulp, mining, safety, fur, and security. Fur, mining, paper/pulp, fishing, hotels, and safety had the lowest humor
frequencies. Two patterns emerged among the industries
where humor was least used. First, several were basic
industries, such as mining, paper/pulp, fishing, and fur.
It appeared that such established industries found levity
less acceptable. Second, the security and safety industries
deal with highly serious issues where humor may be
inappropriate. Similiarly, average ratings for aeronautics

1 (17)
1 (14)
1 (14)
-

1 (50)
-

1 (6)

1 (20)

1 (13)

1939
27
NS

Other

2 (25)
1 (100)

31.41
27
NS

1 (13)

30.20
27
NS

2 (40)
47.55
27
.Ol

and environment were also among the lowest. The mining

category seemed to embrace both patterns, as over half
of the ads were for safety equipment.
THE BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS
ADS CONTAINEDALL FIVE
TYPES OF HUMOR; HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE SOME
DIFFERENCES
IN EFFECTIVENESS.Puns were the most
popular of the five types of humor, present in 51 (34%)
of the 152 humorous ads. Puns may have representeda

low-key, less risky form of humor especially fitting to

business audiences. Their frequent appearance indirectly
suggested that they were an effective distraction in persuasive communication.
Their disadvantage, however,
was the difficulty in translation of international campaigns. Runs were often used in combination with other
humor types.
Run frequency in this study was higher than in an earlier

25

television advertising content analysis study. Puns were

present in 26% of humorous British ads and 32% of
American ads in this study, compared to 14% of British
ads and 5% of American ads in earlier research [2]. Puns
and other verbal humor may work better in print.
The three classic humor types-aggressive,
sexual,
and nonsense-were
found in 14%, 6%, and 18% of the
humorous ads, respectively. Sexual humor was probably
least used because of its questionable tastefulness and
advertising standards that frown on its use. Warm humor
was present in 18% of the humorous ads, attesting to its
potential for inclusion as a humor type and, possibly, to
its effectiveness in international advertising.
There were differences in average humor rating among
the five humor types. Ads that contained aggressive humor were found to be less funny than those that did not,
while nonsense humor was rated funnier than the other
four types, suggesting that aggressive humor may sometimes be too irritating for use in business advertising and
may increase counterargumentation
[53]. Computer, insurance, and mining industries contained the most aggressive humor. Nonsense humor may have potential for
transnational advertising campaigns.
The results of this study suggest a need for more research into humor typologies. Some 41 ads (27% of the
sample) either did not contain any of the five types of
humor or were judged to contain some other type of
humor. Some product types, such as aeronautics and
travel, appeared to contain their own undefined brand of
humor. Since the typologies used here were based primarily on Western thought and North American empiricism, this would be a fruitful area for future research,
particularly for international advertising.

in Television

Advertising,

2. Weinberger,
Marc. G., and Spotts, Harlan E., Humor in U.S. versus
U.K. TV Commercials: A Comparison, Journal of Advertising 18, 3944 (1989).
3. Markiewicz, Dorothy, Can Humor Increase Persuasion or Is It All a Joke?,
paper presented at Speech Communications
Association, Chicago, December 1972.
4. Weinberger, Marc. G., and Campbell, Leland, The Use and Impact of
Humor in Radio Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research 30, 44-51
(1990).
5. Madden, Thomas J., and Weinberger, Marc G., Humor in Advertising:
A Practitioner View, Journal of Advertising Research 24, 23-29 (1984).

26

McCullough, Lynette S., The Potential for Using Humor in Standardized

Advertising, presented at the Association of International Business Conference, Miami, October 17-22, 1991.

Homblower,
1991.

Margot,

Advertising

Spoken

Here,

Time 71-72,

July 5,

8. Berry, Norman, Presentation at the First Annual Ad Week Conference

Global Creativity, November 6, 1985.
9. Levitt, Theodore, The Globalization
99-102 (1983).
10. Miracle, Gordon E.,
Japanese Consumer
ceedings of the 1987
Florence Feasley ed.
olina, 1987.

on

of Markets, Harvard Business Review

Feel-do-learn: An Alternative Sequence Underlying

Response to Television Commercials,
in The ProConference of the American Academy of Advertising,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Car-

11. Oliver, Brian, A Little Romance Puts Impulse on Global Path, Advertising
Age 39-40 (June 24, 1985).
12. Bower, Gordon H., Mood and Memory, American Psychologist
148 (1981).

36, 129-

13. Brooker, George, A Comparison of the Persuasive Effects of Mild Humor

and Mild Fear Appeals, Journal of Advertising Research 10,9-40 (1981).
14. Duncan, Calvin P., Humor in Advertising: A Behavioral Perspective,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 7, 285-306 (1980).
15. Gelb, Betsy D., and Zinkhan, George M., Humor and Advertising Effectiveness After Repeated Exposures to a Radio Commercial, Journal of
Advertising 15, 15-20 (1986).
16. Leavitt, Clark, A Multidimensional
Set of Rating Scales for Television
Commercials, Journal of Applied Psychology 54, 427-429 (1970).
17. Madden, Thomas J., and Weinberger,
on Attention in Magazine Advertising,
(1982).

Marc G., The Effects of Humor

Journal of Advertising 11, 8-14

18. Scott, Cliff, Klein, David M., and Bryant, Jennings, Consumer Response
to Humor in Advertising: A Series of Field Studies Using Behavioral
Observation, Journal of Consumer Research 16, 498-501 (1990).
19. Stemthal, Brian, and Craig, C. Samuel,
of Marketing 37, 12-18 (1973).

Humor in Advertising,

Journal

20. Stewart, David M., and Furse, David H., Eflective Television Advertising.
D.C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Massachusetts,
1986.
Carol A., Attributes
21. Biel, Alexander L., and Bridgwater,
Television Commercials,
Journal of Advertising Research
(1990).

of Likable
30, 38-44

22. Duncan, Calvin P., and Nelson, James E., Effects of Humor in a Radio
Advertising Experiment, Journal of Advertising 14, 38-40, 64 (1985).

REFERENCES
1. Kelly, Pat, and Solomon, Paul J., Humor
Journal of Advertising 4, 33-35 (1975).

Links
23. Gelb, Betsy D., and Pickett, Charles M., Attitude-Toward-the-Ad:
to Humor and to Advertising Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising 12,
34-42 (1983).
24. Gem, Gerald J., The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior:
A Classical Conditioning Approach, Journal of Marketing 46, 94-101
(1982).
25. Shimp, Terence, Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator
Brand Choice, Journal of Advertising 9, 10-16 (1981).
26. Global Marketing: How Marketing
April, 30-31 (1985).

Executives

Really Feel, Ad Forum

27. DeLozier, M. Wayne, The Marketing Communications

Hill, New York, 1976.
28. Runyon,
1979.

Kenneth

E., Advertising.

Charles

of Consumer

Merrill,

Process. McGrawColumbus,

Ohio,

29. Vaughn, Richard,

of Advertising

How Advertising Works: A Planning

20, 27-33 (1980).

Model, Journal

53. Bartos, Rena, Ads that Irritate May Erode Trust in Advertised
Harvard Business Review 138-140 (198 1).

Brands,

30. Vaughn, Richard, How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited,

Journal of Advertising Research 26, 57-66 (1986).

54. Ricks, David, Fu, Marilyn Y. C., and Arpan, Jeffrey, Internationul Business Blunders. Grid, Columbus, Ohio, 1974.

31. Hill, T. Grant, Presentation

ber 15, 1989.

55. Sedelmaier, Joe, Presentation at the First Annual Ad Week Conference

on Global Creativity, November 6, 1985.

on Advertising

Creativity

32. Ziv, Avner, National Styles of Humor. Greenwood

necticut, 1988.

at BBDO, Novem-

Press, Westport, Con-

33. McCullough, Lynette S., The Use of Humor in International

vertising: A Content Analysis, working paper (1992).

Print Ad-

34. Wagle, John S., Using Humor in the Industrial Selling Process, Industrial
Marketing Management 14, 221-226 (1985).
35. Wells, William, Burnett, John, and Moriarty, Sandra, Advertising: Principles and Practice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
36. Korgaonkar,
Pradeep K., Bellenger, Danny N., and Smith, Allen E.,
Successful Industrial Advertising Campaigns, Industrial Marketing Management 15, 123-128 (1986).
37. McGhee, Paul E., The Role of Arousal and Hemispheric Lateralization
in Humor, in Handbook of Humor Research, Volume I, Paul E. McGhee
and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. Springer, New York, pp. 13-38, 1983.
38. Campbell, Nigel C. G., Graham, John L.. Jolibert, Alain, and Gunther.
Hans Meissner, Marketing Negotiations in France, Germany, the United
Kingdom and the United States, Journal of Marketing 52, 49-62 (1988).
39. Condon, J. C., Perspective for the Conference, in Intercultural Encounters
with Japan, J. C. Condon and M. Saito, eds. Simul Press, Tokyo, 1974.
40. Graham, John L., Brazilian, Japanese and American Business Negotiations, Journal of International Business Studies 36, 47-61 (1983).
41. Graham, John L., and Andrews, J. Douglas, A Holistic Analysis of
Japanese and American Business Negotiations, Journal of Business Communication 24, 63-77 (1987).
42. Graham, John L.. and Herberger. R. A., Negotiations Abroad,
Shoot from the Hip, Harvard Business Review 160-168 (1983).
43. Tung, Rosalie L., How to Negotiate
agement Review 26, 62-77 (1984).
44. Cateora, Philip R., International
Inc., New York, 1990.
45. Hall, Edward T., The
1959.

Silent

with the Japanese,

Marketing,

California Man-

7th ed. Richard

Language. Fawcett, Greenwich,

46. Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension.

Doubleday,

Dont

D. Irwin

Connecticut,

New York, 1966.

47. Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture. Anchor Press/Doubleday,

New York, 1976.

Garden City,

48. Hall, Edward T., and Hall, Mildred R., Hidden DifSerencest Doing Business wirh the Japanese. Anchor Press/Doubleday,
Garden City, New
York, 1987.
49. Kassarjian, Harold H., Content Analysis in Consumer
of Consumer Research 4, 8-18 (1977).

Research, Journal

56. Apte, Mahadev L., Humor Research,

Methodology
and Theory in
Anthropology,
in Handbook of Humor Research, Volume I, Paul E.
McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. Springer, New York, pp. 183-2 12,
1983.
57. Berlyne, D. E., Laughter, Humor and Play, in The Handbook of Social
Psychology, Second Edition, G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds. AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts,
1969.
58. Monroe, D. H., Argument of Laughter.
South Bend, Indiana, 1963.

University

of Notre Dame Press,

59. Courtney, Alice E., and Whipple, Thomas W., Women

mercials, Journal of Communication 24, 110-l 18 (1979).

in TV Com-

60. Hassett, James, and Houlihan, John, Different Jokes for Different Folks,
Psychology Today 65-101 (1979).
61. Shana, Avraham, and Coughlin, Maureen, An Experimental Study of the
Use of Humor in Advertising, in American Marketing Association Educators Conference Proceedings, N. Beckwith et al., eds. American Marketing Association, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 249-252, 1979.
62. Weller, Leonard, Amitsour, Ella, and Pazzi, Ruth, Reactions to Absurd
Humor by Jews of Eastern and Western Descent, Journal of Social Psychology 98, 149-163 (1976).
63. Hall, Edward T., The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension
Anchor Press/Doubleday,
Garden City, New York, 1983.

of Time.

64. Brown, Dan, and Bryant, Jennings, Humor in the Mass Media, in Handbook of Humor Research, Volume II. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H.
Goldstein, eds. Springer, New York, pp. 143-172, 1983.
65. Wilde, L., How the Great Comedy Writers Create Laughter.
Hall, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.

Nelson-

66. Chapman, Anthony J., Humor and Laughter in Social Interaction and
Some Implications for Humor Research, in Handbook ofHumor Research,
Volume I, Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. Springer, New
York, pp. 135-158, 1983.
67. Fine, Gary Alan, Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humor, in
Handbook of Humor Research, Volume I, Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey
H. Goldstein, eds. Springer, New York, pp. 159-182, 1983.
68. Ziv, Avner, Personality andSense

ofHumor.

69. Schlinger, Mary Jane, A Profile of Responses

of Advertising Research 19, 37-46 (1979).

Springer,

New York, 1984.

to Commercials,

Journal

70. Domzal, Teresa, and Unger, Lynette, Emerging Positioning Strategies in

Global Marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing 4, 23-40 (1987).
71. Dusenbcrry. Phil, Presentation at the First Annual Ad Week Conference
on Global Creativity, November 6, 1985.

50. Schmidt, Klaus D., Doing Business in France, Germany and the United
Kingdom, pamphlets published by Business Intelligence Program of SRI
International, Menlo Park, California, 1979.

72. Goldstein, Jeffrey H., and McGhee, Paul E., The Psychology of Humor;
Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. Academic Press, New
York, 1972.

51. Hong, Jae W., Muderrisoglu. Aydin, and Zinkhan, George M., Cultural
Differences and Advertising Expression: A Comparison Content Analysis
of Japanese and U.S. Magazine Advertising, Journal of Advertising 16,
55-62 (1987).

73. Suls, Jerry M., Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation, in Handbook

of Humor Research, Volume I, Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein,
eds. Springer, New York, pp. 39-58, 1983.

52. Mueller, Barbara, Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese and

American Advertising Appeals, Journal of Advertising Research 27, 5 l59 (1987).

74. Nerhardt, G., Humor and Inclination of Humor: Emotional Reactions to

Stimuli of Different Divergence from a Range of Expectancy, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 11, 185-195 (1970).

75

Forabosco, Giovannantonio,
The Concept of Incongruity,

Cognitive Aspects of the Humor Process:

Humor 5, 45-68 (1992).

16 Pollio, H. R., Notes on a Field Theory of Humor, in Handbook of Humor

Research, Volume 1. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds.
Springer, New York, pp. 213-230,
1983.
77 Asker, David A., Stayman, Douglas. and Hageny, Michael, Warmth in
Advertising: Measurement, Impact and Sequence Effects, Journal of Consumer Research 12, 365-381 (1986).
78

Laurian, Anne-Marie,
5, 1 I I-127 (1992).

19

Mintz, Lawrence E., Humor and Popular Culture, in Handbook of Humor

Research, Volume It, Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds.
Springer, New York, pp. 129-142, 1983.

80. Redfem,

Possible/Impossible

Walter, Puns. Basil Blackwell

Translation

Publisher,

of Jokes, Humor

Ltd., Oxford,

1984.

81. Unger, Lynette S., and Stearns, James M., The Use of Fear and Guilt
Messages in Television Ads: Issues and Evidence, in American Marketing

28

Association Educators Conference Proceedings, Patrick E. Murphy,

American Marketing Association, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 16-20.
82. Advertising Ages European Media and Marketing
munications, New York, 1988.

ed.

Guide. Crain Com-

83. Tansey, Richard, Hyman, Michael R., and Zinkhan, George M., Cultural
Themes in Brazilian and U.S. Auto Ads: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,
Journal of Advertising 19, 30-39 (1990).
84. Madden, Charles S., Caballero, Marjorie J., and Matsukubo, Shinya,
Analysis of Information Content in U.S. and Japanese Magazine Advertising, Journal of Advertising 15, 38-45 (1986).
85. Rice, Marshall D., and Lu, Zaiming, Content Analysis of Chinese Magazine Advertisements,
Journal ofAdvertising
17, 43-48 (1988).
86. Unger, Lynette S., and Keman, Jerome B., On the Meaning of Leisure:
An Investigation of Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience,
Journal of Consumer Research 9, 381-392 (1983).