The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: The Case of Business Ethics Training

Abstract In this study, persuasion theory was used to develop the following predictions about use of humor in persuasive messages for business ethics training: (a) cartoon drawings will enhance persuasion by creating liking for the source, (b) ironic wisecracks will enhance persuasion by serving as a distraction from counterarguments, and (c) self-effacing humor will enhance persuasion by improving source credibility. Canadian business students (N = 148) participated in 1 of 4 versions of 'The Ethics Challenge,” a training exercise used by the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Three versions were modified by adding or removing cartoon drawings (of cartoon characters Dilbert and Dogbert) and humorous responses (Dogbert's wisecracks). Removing the cartoon drawings had little effect on persuasiveness. Removing ironic wisecracks had more effect, and interfering with the self-effacing combination of cartoons and wisecracks had the strongest effect. The results suggest that researchers should ground their predictions in existing theory and that practitioners should differentiate among humor types.

[1]  Chester A. Insko,et al.  The Cognitive Mediation Hypothesis Revisited: An Empirical Response to Methodological and Theoretical Criticism , 1996 .

[2]  John C. Meyer,et al.  Humor in Member Narratives: Uniting and Dividing at Work , 1997 .

[3]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator , 1966 .

[4]  L. Wallinger.  Don't Smile Before Christmas: The Role of Humor in Education , 1997 .

[5]  Jennings Bryant,et al.  Relationship Between College Teachers' Use of Humor in the Classroom and Students' Evaluations of Their Teachers , 1980 .

[6]  C. Moran.  Short-term mood change, perceived funniness, and the effect of humor stimuli. , 1996, Behavioral medicine.

[7]  Leila T. Worth,et al.  Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[9]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[10]  Robert A. Cribbie,et al.  The pairwise multiple comparison multiplicity problem: An alternative approach to familywise and comparison wise Type I error control. , 1999 .

[11]  L. Festinger,et al.  ON RESISTANCE TO PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATIONS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[12]  W. Hampes,et al.  The relationship between humor and trust , 1999 .

[13]  R. Giora,et al.  Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis , 1999 .

[14]  Retention of Lecture Items Reinforced with Humorous and Non-Humorous Exemplary Material. , 1979 .

[15]  J. Harvey,et al.  Opinion Change as a Function of When Information About the Communicator Is Received and Whether He Is Attractive or Expert. , 1972 .

[16]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing. , 1970 .

[17]  T. Cook,et al.  Cognitive tuning set, source credibility, and the temporal persistence of attitude change , 1982 .

[18]  Dolores Albarracin.  Processing of Behavior-Related Communications as a Function of Cognitive Elaboration: A Multiple-Stage Model , 1997 .

[19]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Persuasion by a Single Route: A View From the Unimodel , 1999 .

[20]  Peter F. Jorgensen.  Affect, persuasion, and communication processes , 1996 .

[21]  James J. Kellaris,et al.  The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments , 1999 .

[22]  Deborah J. Hill,et al.  Humor in the classroom : a handbook for teachers (and other entertainers!) , 1988 .

[23]  Jennings Bryant,et al.  EFFECTS OF HUMOROUS ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS , 1981 .

[24]  Kenneth A. Carpenter.  Working Papers for Scholarly Comics: The College Instructor's Visual Communications Advisor. , 1997 .

[25]  W. Stroebe.  The Return of the One-Track Mind , 1999 .

[26]  N. Kuiper,et al.  Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications , 1995 .

[27]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Controlling Error in Multiple Comparisons, with Examples from State-to-State Differences in Educational Achievement , 1999 .

[28]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual process models : The case of mood and information processing , 1999 .

[29]  S. Chaiken,et al.  An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. , 1975 .

[30]  John A. Berkowitz,et al.  Some determinants of attitudes toward a joker , 1989 .

[31]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood-Related Persuasion Depends on (Mis)Attributions , 1994 .

[32]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.