ATTITUDE-TOWARD-THE-AD: LINKS TO HUMOR AND TO ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS

INTRODUCTION Are ads that people like any more effective than ads that people dishke? Developments in advertising theory and practice over the past five years have led to several calls for examination of whatever relationship may exist between a consumer's attitude toward an ad, liking or disliking, and that ad's effectiveness. The study to be described here investigated a hypothesized link between h king/disliking of ads and four specific advertising outcomes. They are:
Betsy D. Gelb Charles M. Pickett

Attitude toward the sponsor/brand, Credibility of the ad, Persuasiveness of the ad, and Stated intention to purchase the advertised product. A link between perceiving humor in an ad and liking that ad was also examined.

Betsy D. Gelb is associate professor of Marketing at the University of Houston and received her Ph.D. from that same institution. Her research interests include the marketing of preventive health care (e.g., smoking cessation) and other issues where marketing activities have significant societal consequences. She is a member of the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Advertising Research, and her publications include two books plus articles in such publications as Harvard Business Reuiew, California Management Review, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research. She wishes to acknowledge the support of the Office of Sponsored Programs at the University of Houston and the assistance of the San Jacinto Lung Association and American Lung Association. Charles M. Pickett is a doctoral student in the Marketing Department at the University of Houston. He received a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University in 1976. His interests include Marketing Strategy, Marketing Theory, and Research Methods. Communications regarding this paper should be sent to Professor Betsy D. Gelb. Marketing Department-323M, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE Three areas of advertising literature underlie this research. Its immediate foundation are two 1981 studies linking attitude-to ward-ad with some outcome sought by advertiser. A second background area includes practitioner interest in consumer attitude toward ads, an interest heightened by the competition of non-advertising generics with advertised brands. Third, the research builds on the idea advanced by some advertising researchers and practitioners that humor perceived in an ad significantly affects the degree of liking/disliking of the ad. Each of these issues will be discussed in turn. The idea that attitude toward an ad affects the likelihood of a purchase decision is expressed in a model by Mitchell and Olson (10). They identify an Agj (attitude-toward-ad): a construct influencing attitude toward the brand, and attitude toward purchasing and using the brand. Their research set out to test the effect of beliefs about four brands of a product (facial tissues) on attitude toward each brand. They found that they could better predict brand attitude and behavioral intention if they took attitude toward the ad into account, along with beliefs about product attributes associated with each brand. Similarly, Shimp (13) advocates consideration of (his abbreviation of attitude-toward-ad), using
34

ABSTRACT
Previous research has suggested that people form an unfavorable or favorable attitude toward a particular ad, which in turn affects their attitude toward what is being advertised and other measures of advertising effectiveness, including brand choice. This study found that idea substantiated: a favorable attitude toward an ad for a smoking cessation kit was associated with four measures of advertising effectiveness. A hypothesized link between perceived humor and favorable attitude toward the ad was found, but direct relationships between perceived humor in an ad and three of the four advertising effective-measures were not observed. A conclusion drawn from the study is that perceived humor may aid advertising effectiveness, but the relationship is for the most part moderated by the degree to which people like the ad in which the humor is perceived.

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983

classical conditioning as his theoretical rationale. He is saying, in other words, that just as Pavlov's dog linked its behavioral response to one stimulus (salivating for food) with another stimulus (a bell that accompanied the food), so an attitudinal response of "I like it" or "I dislike it" will over time become the response not only to an ad, but also to the branded product that is the subject of the ad. Shimp reports research results in which ads and cola drink formulations were experimentally manipulated. As one result, ATTA proved to be a more important determinant of behavior (purchase) than the rating awarded for the taste of each of the respective "brands" of the drink. Furthermore, research by Shimp and Yokum (14) on the effect of advertising appeals on repeat purchase found attitude-toward-the-ad significant in affecting brand choice, although copy treatment was not. Shimp distinguishes between cognitive and emotional components of ATT^. The former deals with liking for a "reason," e.g., a humorous execution of an ad. Shimp contrasts this component to what he calls generalized "feeling" in response to an ad, a dimension described in some detail by Rossiter and Percy. They note that attitude can be "created or altered" by visual imagery without a verbal belief process occurring (12:12). The distinction between these two components is offered here simply to point out that the study being described in this paper focuses on the cognitive component of attitude. Parallel to this theoretical work has been practitioner interest in attitude-to ward-ad. The sales growth of "generics" has prompted interest not only in the effects of liking advertising, but also in the effects of disliking it. Bartos (2) argues that the existence of non-branded, unadvertised versions of consumer packaged goods has raised the penalties for advertising that consumers dislike. In her view, an advertiser could previously succeed with disliked advertising, as long as the brand was competing only with other brands whose advertising was also disliked. In the 198O's, however, a brand competing with generics carries the burden of negative attitude toward its advertising into a battle with competitive brands, or "unbrands," which do not advertise and therefore suffer no such burden, she notes. Bartos is one of several advertising researchers to have considered what variables might be associated with "Uking an ad," having recognized that advertisers would prefer something more concrete than a mandate to produce "likeable" advertising. She and Dunn (3) identified humor (ads seen as "funny" or "clever") as a key variable. Others have simply assumed that perceived humor is what makes advertising liked. Cadwell, for example, says: If a viewer feels good about a commercial, odds

are that theyll [sic] transfer that positive feeling to the product itself . . . . Humor can draw attention and increase retention (5). The assumption that perceived humor is the path to favorable attitude toward an ad does have support in the literature. Sternthal and Craig (15), who define humor as what is perceived to be humorous by recipients of a persuasive message, see humor "rewarding" the audience under some circumstances. Leavitt (7), in a factor analytic study, found humor to be one component of an energy/attention-getting dimension which accounted for 55% of variance in viewer rating of TV commercials. However, liking and perceived humor are not different words for the same audience reaction, according to research by Wells. He developed an Emotional Quotient (EQ) scale to test reaction to print ads, and in the process noted that the funnyserious dimension was something other than either "meaningfulness" or "attractiveness,"two (combined) predictors of effectiveness. He concluded (16:51): This series of studies . . . suggests that raters can tell . . . at least two and possibly three things about their reactions to a print ad. They can tell whether they like the ad or not; and they can tell whether the ad is meaningful in the sense that it delivers a message they understand, consider important, and are ready to believe. Later research by Wells et al. (17) on "subjective reactions" to TV commercials found six stable semantic dimensions, including (separately) "humor" and "dislike." The study presented respondents with actual commercials; one illustrated strongly the distinction between perceived humor and liking by scoring significantly above the norm on humor, but below the norm on "personal relevance," a dimension which included "worth remembering"and "valuable." The authors concluded that the humor had been counterproductive for the product being advertised. Whether humor in advertising has any effect has been questioned by other researchers. Markiewicz (4) reviewed a number of studies and concluded that humor may not increase attitude change, persuasion, or retention, at least, that evidence is mixed and methodological problems serious. More recently, Brooker (3) compared the effects of mild humor and mild fear appeals in advertising. He found straightforward appeals to be as "motivating" as four different humor techniques: a pun, a limerick, a joke, and a "one-liner." He did not, however, gather data concerning respondents' attitudes toward the advertising. Further complicating the issue of humor in advertising is the question of whether different kinds of humor are differentially effective in their influence

on attitude-toward-the-ad. Gruner, for example, distinguished between humor and satire, the latter defined as a "special kind of wit intended to be both funny and, in some way, damaging to the object of its ridicule" (6:288). He found the two distinct, with humor more "appreciated," but satire more persuasive. The literature just cited suggests, in summary: (1) that attitude toward an ad (ATT^) has been shown to be associated with that ad's effectiveness, (2) that perceived humor may lead to a favorable ATT^; and (3) that satire and other humor may differ in their impact on ATT^ and in their impact on the ad's effectiveness. Those basic ideas were tested in research involving anti-smoking ads sponsored by a local affiliate of the American Lung Association. The study was a mail survey asking reactions to a Lung Association ad about the danger of smoking. The ad offered a $5 kit consisting of two publications. Freedom From Smoking in 20 Days and A Lifetime of Freedom. HYPOTHESES Specific hypotheses were as follows: 1. Perceiving humor in an ad will be positively associated with liking the ad. 2. Liking (or not disliking) an ad will be positively associated with: a. Favorable attitude toward the brand. This was operationalized as degree of agreement that the sponsor (a non-profit agency) is "worthy of support." b. Credibility of the message: degree of agreement that the message "is true." c. Persuasiveness of the message. This was operationalized as degree of agreement that the anti-smoking message would cause anyone even to consider giving up smoking. d. Stated intention to purchase the advertised product (a stop-smoking "kit"). This variable was measured by requesting a Yes or No answer to the statement, "if I saw this ad in the paper, I would order the advertised kit for $5." 3. A satiric creative statement in an ad will be significantly more "persuasive," influencing the perceived capacity of the ad to change behavior and influencing the proportion of respondents who state a positive purchase intention. The application of advertising and specifically of humor and satire to smoking cessation has considerable precedent. "Corrective" TV advertising parodied paid cigarette company commercials before they were
36

banned by Congress in 1970, and at least one report (18) credits the effectiveness of the spots with the willingness of the cigarette industry to forego broadcast advertising and, thus, get the "equal time" satiric spots off the air. A Stanford University research team concluded that multi-media, anti-smoking campaigns were effective; residents in test communities reported a 31% reduction in cigarette smoking when exposed to a media campaign on its dangers, vs. a 4% reduction in a non-exposed control city (1). Encouraged by such results, a Chicago physicians' group. Doctors Ought to Care (DOC), began in 1980 to sponsor satiric print and radio advertising, such as an ad for "Emphysema Slims" (19). Ads parodied cigarette promotions and were designed to make fun of cigarette advertisers, not of smokers. METHOD The hypotheses were tested in a mail survey to a random sample of licensed drivers in a large southwestern metropolitan area. Mail was employed to enhance realism, since the ad used was a flyer from the area's Lung Association, which communicates with the public by mail in its more visible effort, the Christmas Seal campaign. The sample consisted of 2400 names supplied by a commercial list service and based on licensed drivers (age 16 and up). Five zip codes in the county were selected based on a random number table, and individual names from the zip codes were chosen by systematic random sampling. All county drivers had an equal probability of being chosen when the multistage sampling procedure began. It was decided not to limit the sample to smokers because (1) non-smokers may contribute to efforts by others to give up smoking and therefore, are a target of actual anti-smoking messages, and (2) non-smokers may order stop-smoking kits for smokers they know. Each individual selected was sent a letter from the Marketing Department of the area's largest university. The envelope contained a cover letter asking cooperation, an ad, a questionnaire, and a postage-paid retum envelope to be returned to the professor who signed the letter. Two ads, reproduced in Figure 1, were used in the research. Half the respondents received one ad and the other half, every other name in each 2ip code, received the other ad. Questionnaires and return envelopes were inconspicuously coded by the ad sent. The two ads were chosen from seven supplied by the local Lung Association for a pretest with a convenience sample of 38 individuals representing various racial/ethnic/age/sex categories. The purpose of the pretest was to identify ads which evoked a viide range of reaction on the variables to be tested, liking/disliking and perceived humor, and also provided a

FIGURE 1 Ads Tested in the Study

III ^ ^ a

Ip QUIT'0 manu.

C O

CO

{r-^

-H
;iNTO 1LUNG ASSO < : SAN.
U

?3^

SZ *"'

moking >f Freedc

u
H

CO

c c
^ |

u u u

-^Ss: t^33f^,
/

1*

o *^ o ^
3 C D
CQ C/)

37

Housion, Texas 77019

u u

re's a new s d we 11 mail V

"aj P

ATIOh

hlfcfe

contrast between the two ads on the dimension of perceived satire. Specifically the ads employed in the study were chosen for use because; 1. Each ad evoked extreme agreement from at least 10% of the pretest group and extreme disagreement from another 10% in response to the statement, "There is humor in this ad." 2. Each ad evoked extreme agreement from at least 10% of the pretest group and extreme disagreement from arrother 10% in response to the statement, "I dislike this ad." 3. One of the ads, a cartoon ad, was seen as satiric by more than half of the 23 individuals who saw any humor in it in a pretest. The non-cartoon ad was seen as satiric by only one respondent. Gruner's definition of satire had been given to each pretest respondent. The questionnaire employed in the study asked respondents to mark for a number of statements whether they agreed strongly, agreed somewhat, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed somewhat, or strongly disagreed. Numerical scaling was not requested, in the belief that mail surveys are best limited to the simplest level of directions and tasks. Thus, ordinal-level measurement was attained. Statements in the questionnaire included those in the pretest regarding humor in the ad and dislike of the ad, plus similar statements related to: (1) whether the ad was true, (2) whether the sponsor was worthy of support {chosen as a measure of brand attitude), (3) whether anyone would even consider giving up smoking from seeing the ad (persuasion), and (4) whether the respondent would order the kit. Respondents were also asked whether they smoked, had quit, or never smoked, and were asked for demographic information, including zip code. Following the suggestion of Marasauilo and McSweeney (8:447) the responses were cross-tabulated, converted to ranks, and Kendall's rank order correlation coefficient (r) was calculated. This technique was selected for simplicity in assigning ranks, and is equivalent in outcome to procedures which assign ranks without the intermediate step of cross-tabulation. The technique was also deemed appropriate for Einalyzing the order/not order response because it was treated as a dichotomous variable (11:5). RESULTS Twenty-one percent of all envelopes could not be delivered, a result consistent with the extremely high mobility and high percentage of apartment dwellers 38

in the county. It was assumed that 1898 envelopes (all those not retumed) were actually delivered. A total of 383 responses were received by the 6-week cutoff, for a response rate of 20%. Costs precluded a second mailing to non-respondents. However, a telephone survey to a random sample of 32 non-respondents found no significant difference between their answers and those mailed back, and none of the non-respondents said they had qualms about the legitimacy of the mailing. Thus, it was assumed that, while college-educated suburban residents were likely to be overrepresented, there was no reason to infer bias on the relationships of interest: the association of perceived humor and liking/disliking (ATT^), and the association of ATT^ with other advertising effectiveness measures. Analysis of data concerning smoking status, sex, age, and zip code categories showed that nearly identical proportions of respondents in each category viewed the satiric (cartoon) ad vs. the non-satiric ad. The total number of smokers responding was 99 (26%) vs. 284 non-smokersAs shown in Table 1, a highly significant association was found (p < .001) when categories of agreement that an ad contained humor were compared with categories of liking/disliking the ad. The data, thus, show a relationship between the perception of humor in an ad and a positive attitude toward it, although the direction of causal flow is unknown. Table 2 shows the level of significance of correlations relating liking/disliking of the ad to measures of agreement that the ad is true, the sponsor is worthy of support, the ad is persuasive, and the respondent would purchase the product. All relationships were highly significant (p < .001). Table 3 shows in greater detail responses to the purchase intention question. Of the 370 respondents to the question only 38 (10%) said they would order. Yet, the proportion of stated purchase intention is 21/84 (25%) among those who disagreed strongly that they disliked the ad, vs. 0/39 (0%) among those who agreed strongly that they disliked the ad. Data were also analyzed to show the relationship between humor and the advertising effectiveness variables, independent of ATT^. Degree of agreement/disagreement with the statement that "there is humor in this ad" did not significantly correlate with degree of agreement with statements concerning ad credibility, persuasiveness, or purchase intention. Sponsor image (brand attitude), however, was related positively to perceived humor. Table 4 shows the significant association (p < .05) between category of agreement that the Lung Association is worthy of support and category of agreement that there is humor in the ad. As with other associations, there is no basis to infer causal direction.

TABLE 1 Relationship Between Perceived Humor and Liking/Disliking an Ad

dislike It the ad." "There is humor in this ad.' Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly TOTAL Agree Somewhat 24 35 Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly

Total 88 82

19 3

5 12

6
15

34 17

6 4
3 35

26 8

14 6 1
38

26 15 4 66

41 22 29
143

113 55 39 377

2
95

T =+0.2162 p<,001 (Highest disagreement with "dislike" is given highest rank to produce positive sign on correlation coefficient,)

TABLE 2 Significance of Relationship Between Liking/Disliking Ad and Four Effectiveness Measures Variable Related to Like/Dislike Dimension

TABLE 3 Relationship Between Liking/Disliking an Ad and Stated Purchase Intention **I would order the advertised kit."

n*
"What this ad says is true." "San Jacinto Lung Association is a worthwhile organization for the public to support." "Nobody would even consider giving up smoking from seeing this ad." "I would order the kit. . ." 378 .1624 .001

"I dislike the ad." Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree nor Disagree

Yes

No 63 73 103 54 39 332

Total

21 8
7

84 81
110

374

.2031

.001

Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly

2
0 38

56
39 370

378 370

.3742 .2319

.001 .001

TOTAL
= .2319 p<.001

*Variations in n are due to missing data. All questions were asked of all 383 respondents, but not all were answered.

39

TABLE 4 Relationship Between Perceived Humor and Sponsor/Brand Attitude "There is humor in this ad." "San Jacinto Lung Association is a worthwhile organization for the public to support."

Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly TOTAL 28

Agree Somewhat 2
22

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3

22

Disagree* Somewhat 1 0

Total 34 96

11

5
16

0 2 0 3

37 66 142 375

13

81
217

19 67

42 88

*No respondent disagreed strongly. T =+.06453 p<.05

Concerning the hypothesis of greater persuasion by satire, the predicted differences did not appear. No significant difference was found when the two ads were compared for proportion agreeing that anyone would give up smoking from seeing the ad. Purchase intentions did differ significantly, but in the opposite direction: the non-satiric ad prompted 25 of the 38 statements that the respondent would purchase the advertised kit (p < .02). It should be noted that the satiric ad was significantly more likely to be categorized as humorous (p < .001). Data from smokers and non-smokers were also analyzed separately, in recognition of a possible artifactual explanation for the results. Given the inclusion of both groups in the sample, it would have been possible that smokers would, simply because they smoke, dislike the ad and be unpersuaded, unwilling to order the kit, etc., while non-smokers would like the ad and find it persuasive simply by virtue of their non-smoker status. As Tables 5 and 6 show, however, the artifactual explanation does not appear applicable. The ad was seen as at least somewhat persuasive by 34% of the non-smokers and 35% of the smokers, while 52% of

the non-smokers and 42% of the smokers agreed at least somewhat with the contrary view, that "no one would even think of giving up smoking from seeing this ad" (others said they neither agreed nor disagreed). The ad was disliked at least somewhat by 26% of the non-smokers and 23% of the smokers, while 46% of the non-smokers and 40% of the smokers disagreed at least somewhat with the "I dislike the ad" statement on the questionnaire. These differences are not significant when the two groups are compared using Chi-Square analysis.

DISCUSSION The research reported here has obvious limitations. To receive an ad in the mail with a questionnaire and to be asked hypothetical questions concerning it is not the way ads are conventionally presented. The method did, however, permit exposure to be assumed (for those responding) and to be standardized in context. Further, there seems no reason that the method should bias the links hypothesized between humor, liking, and other variables. However, the use
40

of only one city and the artificiality of the datagathering method do limit conclusions which can be drawn. Similarly, the 20% response rate means that in all likelihood these data disproportionately reflect the responses of the well educated segment of society which traditionally is overrepresented in mail surveys. An additional limitation concerns assumptions about the direction of hypothesized relationships. The ad received was clearly the independent variable leading to some (or zero) degree of perceived humor. From that point on, however, it can only be assumed that perceived humor leads to liking, which in turn affects credibility, sponsor image, persuasiveness, and stated purchase intention. Further research might indicate that what is liked is then disproportionately perceived as humorous, or that an ad perceived as truthful is therefore liked. While this research offers support for the sequence presented, it could also be perceived to support models which sequenced the same variables differently. Subject to these limitations, however, certain conclusions may be tentatively offered: If an ad was perceived as humorous it was, all other things equal, more likely to be associated with a favorable ATT^ . By contrast, however, perceived humor was significantly associated with only one of four measures of advertising effectiveness employed in the study, sponsor image. The variable significantly associated with all the effectiveness measures was liking/disliking the ad (ATT^). In fact, the ad more likely to be perceived as humorous, the satiric ad, was significantly less likely to be associated with a statement of purchase intention. Humor, then, might be counter-effective when the ad in which it is used does not prompt a favorable ATT^. Yet favorable ATT^ is associated with effectiveness, independent of perceived humor in the ad.

These findings support Bartos' advocacy of pretesting for ATT^ and preferring the ad that evokes more favorable (or less unfavorable) response. Clearly, it is insufficient to assume that an ad designed to be "funny" will thereby be effective. Advertisers appear to be better off running ads that people like than ads they like less but see as more humorous. It should be noted, however, that a significant association was found between perceived humor and agreement that the sponsoring agency was worthy of support. In other words, independent of whether respondents liked or disliked the ad, those who saw humor in it were more often those who found the Lung Association a worthy group. Since the data do not support the explanation that it was disproportionately non-smokers who found the ad humorous and they would be expected to be Lung Association supporters, it appears useful to speculate about this relationship. One possible link, untested in this study, may relate to perceived sponsor competence. Those who saw humor may be saying in effect, "Here is a group that tried to run a humorous ad and succeeded, so maybe they're good at the substantive work they do." By contrast, those who found the ad less humorous may nevertheless feel it tried to be funny and failed, and a failing organization is less worthy overall. Here is certainly an area for further research. From a theoretical perspective, it is useful to note that in this study liking/disliking represents a dimension of response to advertising that appears to be distinct from others which are conventionally measured. This finding supports the work of Wells (16). Furthermore, the emphasis on ATT^ as a construct separate from brand attitude, yet a useful construct for designing effective advertising, seems supported by this study.

TABLE 5 Comparison of Smokers vs. Non-Smokers in Ratings of Persuasiveness of the Ad "Nobody would even consider giving up smoking from seeing this ad.'* Agree Strongly Smokers Non-smokers Total
X = 5.62 ( . 3 > p > .2)

Agree Somewhat

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Total 97 281 378

14 52
66

27

22 38
60

H
121

m n
95

11 25
36

X . 0 5 , 4 d.f. = 9.49

41

TABLE 6 Comparison of Smokers us. Non-Smokers in Ratings of Liking/Disliking the Ad " I dislike the ad." Agree Strongly Smokers Non-smokers Total
X^ = 2.99 ( . 7 > p > . 5 )

Agree Somewhat 14 42 56

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Total 97 281 378

8 31 39

35 78 113

21 61 82

19 69 88

x^ .05, 4 d.f. = 9.49

No support was found for the hypothesis that satire is more persuasive, but given the different contexts in which satire can be expressed, there seems no basis to question the theoretical formation on which the hypothesis was based. A challenge this study made no pretense of meeting is the design of two ads which differ only in the degree to which they are perceived as satiric. Overall, research which examines the relationships discussed here in settings which enhance realism will be of great value. So will richer models which lead to more sophisticated hypotheses concerning the relationships examined in this study. Overall, however, the interest in the attitude-toward-the-ad from which this study began appears to be justified.

REFERENCES
1. "Ad Efforts Can Alter Health Habits, Stanford Study Finds," Advertising Age. (December 9, 1974), p. 36. 2. Bartos, Rena. "Ads that Irritate May Erode Trust in Advertised Brands," Harvard Business Review, 59 (July - August, 1981), pp. 138-140. 3. Bartos, Rena and Theodore F. Dunn. Advertising and Consumers: New Perspectives, American Association of Advertising Agencies (New York, 1976). 4. Brooker, Geoige W. "A Comparison of the Persuasive Effects of Mild Humor and Mild Fear Appeals," Journal of Advertising. 10 (No. 4, 1981), pp. 29-40. 5. Cadwell, Frankie. "Funny Makes Money," Cadwell Davis Savage Advertising, March, 1981 (Mimeographed). 6. Gruner, Charles R. "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly, 44 (Winter, 1967), pp. 727-730. 7. Leavitt, Clark. "A Multidimensional Set of Rating Scales for Television Commercials," Journal of Applied Psychology. 54 (No. 5, 1970), pp. 427-429. 8. Marascuilo, Leonard A. and Maryellen McSweeney. Nonparametic and Distribution-Free Methods for the Social Sciences (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1977).

9. Markiewicz, Dorothy, "Effects of Humor on Persuasion," Sociometry, 37 (No. 3, 1974), pp. 407-422. 10. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson. "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?" Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August, 1981), pp. 318-332. 11. Nie, Norman H. et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Second Edition (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975). 12. Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy. "Attitude Change Through Visual Imagery in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 9 (No. 2, 1980), pp. 10-16. 13. Shimp, Terence. "Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice," Journal of Advertising, 10 (No, 2, 1981), pp. 9-15,48. 14. Shimp, Terence and J. Thomas Yokum. "The Influence of Advertising on Repeat Purchase Behavior," in Kenneth Bernhardt et al., eds.. The Changing Marketing Environment: New Theories and Applications, 1981 Educators Conference Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association). 15. Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. "Humor in Advertising," Joumo? o/"Marfcefi>ig, 37 (April, 1973), pp. 12-18. 16. Wells, William D. "E.Q., Son of E.Q,, and the Reaction Profile," Journal of Marketing, 28 (October, 1964), pp. 45-52. 17. Wells, William with Clark Leavitt and Maureen McConville. "A Reaction Profile for TV Commercials," Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (Decemher, 1971), pp. 11-17. 18. Whiteside, Thomas. "Cutting Down," New Yorker (December 19, 1970), pp. 42 f t 19. Wolinsky, Howard. "Doctors Try Satire to Sell Health," Advertising Age, (December 15, 1980), p. 325.

42