Ah, humor in the art of persuasion. Through the years, those attempting to persuade have frequently chosen the humorous approach to help gain better reception for their message. From the subtle tongue-in-cheek line of attack, to the more blatant pie-in-the-face method, persuaders have hoped to win over allies to their cause by making their audience laugh.
Is this advisable? Does the comic attack guarantee a higher rate of success than the more traditional one? The answer is not a simple “yes” or “no”; but rather, “it depends.” It depends upon various factors such as the type of message (or product), the medium of delivery and the strength of the message to name a few. Humor can help in creating a higher state of receptiveness from your audience if the proper conditions are in play; but used improperly, it can inhibit that state.
Why does humor often work in persuasion? One effect it has is to put the audience more at ease and open to listening to the message. The receiver feels a let up that he will not be hard pressed to “work” at interpreting it; he can let his guard down. In essence, it can put him in a good mood; and as Jim Lyttle (2001) points out, “According to persuasion theory, people who are in a good mood are less likely to disagree with a persuasive message (Freedman, Sears, & Carlsmith, 1978).”
Source credibility is increased in two primary ways, humor increases the likeability factor for the source; and the shared humor creates a type of bond between source and receiver – it adds to the perception of similarity. Per Lyttle, “the choice of humor might illustrate a shared sense of humor that hints at a similar set of underlying values (Meyer, 1997).” Self-effacing humor is particularly effective as only a source with strong ethos could risk that kind of wit.
Now according to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) the humorous approach is one that will primarily be processed peripherally. That is, rather than dissecting and interpreting the message for its validity while enjoying the “comedy portion of the evening” as a bonus, the message will solely be evaluated on a peripheral, or superficial level for its entertainment value.
This is where preparation by the persuader comes into play. Does he have a strong, logical message that holds up to scrutiny, or does he instead have a weak one that is better presented with the aid of “smoke and mirrors”? If the latter, then of the many tools at his disposal, he may choose the comedic route to charm his receivers into accepting his message.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of persuaders, like advertisers, who have gone to the extremes of attempted humor. Domestic beer advertising is a prime example of flash (or humor) and no substance. The marketing agents appear to be targeting the most puerile, sophomoric audience by producing television ads that truly generate no information of substance, but instead present carnival-like situations of the broadest comedy – almost burlesque. There is no message here, just a hope that by providing entertainment with which the audience can strongly relate, a bonding will occur which will stimulate the purchase of their product. These agents of influence will often try to create a strong “branding” by incorporating memorable catchphrases. Who does not remember that brilliant motto, “Whassuuuuuup?!”? Luckily, Mere Exposure Theory shows that “some research indicates that there are diminishing returns to increasing exposure, with a leveling off or drop-off in effectiveness after 10 to 20 exposures” (Seiter, J. S. & Gass, R. H., 2004, p. 49). Apparently, the marketing agents for that campaign were unaware of the research as they bombarded poor, unsuspecting Americans with that phrase for months.
There is documented proof through research that shows humor can be an effective tool for achieving compliance. Results from a study performed by Thomas W. Cline and James J. Kellaris appearing in Psychology & Marketing (1999) show that, “Results of the experimentation suggest that the joint interplay of humor and argument strength in a print ad can significantly contribute to the formation of A^sub ad^ [advertisement] and A^sub b^ [brand] for a low-risk, convenience good.” This part of the study relates to the HSM component that specifies that the audience is more inclined to use heuristic or peripheral processing regarding a message that is of low importance or “low-risk.”
There is, however, also verification that the use of humor can backfire when used in conjunction with a high-risk, or high-involvement, message that calls for central processing. Those with a strong sense of NFC (need for cognition) will choose to interpret a message they deem important with strong analysis and logic. As they have a vested interest in the message they want to focus upon its message without distractions. These are proponents of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), and do not appreciate the distraction that humor can create. If the humor is relevant to the message rather than incidental, the distraction is not so great. As Cline and Kelaris point out, “The third explanation suggests that the combination of humor and strong arguments somehow back-fired and negatively affected attitudes (A^sub ad^ and A^sub b^) … It follows that the inclusion of strong arguments along with humor may signal an inconsistency regarding the nature of the product, and as a result harm attitudes.”
Of course, there are few hard and fast rules where psychology and communication are concerned; however, a safe tenet to hold would be to keep humor to a minimum if you have a strong, solid, important message to convey, and resort to the pie in the face if your message is as weak as Don Knotts. If you have a clever angle that is relevant to your strong message, and could enhance it, then, by all means, employ it. If you have nothing really to say, then the sky’s the limit and you could create the next “Where’s the Beef?” catchphrase.
Persuader, if you have something to say and want to incorporate humor into your approach, go ahead and be creative. Just be sure of how you want your message to be remembered. Do you want your audience to remember the message, with its incidental humor just that, incidental? On the other hand, do you want your message delivery method to be what they remember, and its message overlooked and forgotten? So if you are introducing an important and effective new drug for the treatment of arthritis, do not begin the message with, “A guy walks into a doctor’s office and says, “Doctor, it hurts when I do this…’”
References
Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joining impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16 (1), 69-87. Retrieved from Proquest Database, March 18, 2010.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128 (2), 206-217. Retrieved from Proquest Database, March 18, 2010.
Seiter, J. S. & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment