Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
MSc Marketing Dissertation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

MSc Marketing Dissertation

3,785

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,785
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The University Of Birmingham The Birmingham Business School Department Of Commerce MSc Marketing Dissertation Does female appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising diminish among low self-monitoring females? Student Name: Rami Al Ashi Supervised by: Mr. Peter Hyde Student ID: 843790 Date: September 2007 Academic Year: 2006/07 Word Count: 13,173 words Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MSc Marketing (2006/07) in the Department of Commerce at the University of Birmingham.
  • 2. 2
  • 3. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments 4 Abstract 5 Chapter 1 Aims and Objectives 6 Introduction 7 Aims 8 Specific Objectives 9 Chapter 2 Literature Review 11 Introduction 12 What is Humour? 12 How humour works? 14 Components of Humour 20 Factors influencing the perception of humour 21 Self-monitoring 23 Gender and Humour 27 Self-monitoring and Gender 30 Rationale 30 Chapter 3 Research Methods 33 Research Design 34 Hypotheses 36 Primary Data 36 Sampling 38 Design of Focus Groups 39 Secondary Data 41 Chapter 4 Findings 42 Chapter 5 Discussion 61 Chapter 6 Conclusions 66 Conclusions 67 Limitations 68 Recommendations 69 Appendix 1: Self-monitoring Scale 70 Bibliography 74 Important Note: The word count has exceeded 12,000 words upon agreement with the supervisor.
  • 4. 4 First, I would like to express my gratitude to God for granting me health, might, and determination to achieve this piece of research. To my parents, no word describes my gratitude for your support and devotion, thank you. I would like to thank my tutors for widening my perspectives and enriching my knowledge. Special thanks to my supervisor, Mr. Peter Hyde, for his extra time and effort in providing me with guidance and support all the way through, without which this study would not have been accomplished. I would also like to thank all the participants who participated in the focus groups; your participation was valuable and priceless, thank you so much. Many thanks to all my friends who supported me all the way. Special thanks to Alia, Rania, Ermina, and Omar for their exquisite help and support which will always be remembered and appreciated. To Haris, I am so grateful for your superb and decent help and assistance, thank you my good friend.
  • 5. 5 From Lammers (1991) suggestion that low self-monitoring women tend to be more negative toward humorous ads compared to high self-monitoring women, it was hypothesized that appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising will diminish among low self-monitoring females compared to high self-monitoring females. The assumption was based on Snyder’s (1974) notion of self-monitoring, where high self- monitors were thought to adjust the way they express themselves in order to achieve a desirable social appearance and therefore be highly responsive to social cues of performances that are suitable according to a certain situation, while on the other hand low self-monitors were thought to lack the ability/motivation to adjust they way they express themselves which was thought to reflect the stability of their attitudes, traits, and feelings. Having that said, it was hypothesised that appreciation toward aggressive humour in advertising will diminish among low-self monitoring females compared to high self-monitoring females. The results of the current study supported the hypothesis and it was found that low self-monitoring females show less enthusiasm and interest in expressing reactions and responses toward aggressive ads as opposed to high self-monitors. Low self-monitors showed more uptight negative attitudes compared to high self-monitors, and it was generally noted that low self- monitors reacted more negatively to aggressive advertising compared to high self- monitors.
  • 6. 6
  • 7. 7 Introduction With the evolution of broadcasting technologies (e.g. TV, Radio, and Internet), the increase in literacy rates, and as a consequence of globalization (e.g. consumer’s demands and wants have become more sophisticated and diverse), consumers have become more complex and sophisticated in their consumption behaviour. Product functionality is no longer at the heart of today’s commercials; rather, creative ad agencies compete to stress emotional appeals attached to products/services, employing various strategies to attract consumers’ attention. Humour is one strategy that advertisers use to elicit a positive feeling, leading eventually to more attention, along with motivation to buy the advertised product/service. Although the use of humour in advertising may date back to the very beginnings of advertising, broadly defined, humorous ads may predate widespread literacy. When literacy was restricted to the elite, shops used to hang a signboard and present a drawing to show the nature of the goods provided, such as a drawing of scissors representing a tailor, some of which even extends today in the use of logos. However, it was until the introduction of broadcasting that humour became a major executional tactic (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). The growth of humour in advertising was inspired by many factors, such as the increase of advertising spending, television promoting a spending and creative advertising revolution that gave the advertising agencies a new stand and set of tools to convey humour. As media outlets continue to develop, many advertisers have
  • 8. 8 focused on humour as a tool to break through clutter and to reach increasingly jaded consumers (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). Aims This study aims at improving the understanding of whether female appreciation for aggressive humour diminish/amplify among low self-monitoring females, who are expected to respond more favourably to humorous ads. Key research questions: How do females respond to aggressive humorous ads? Does female response differ between high and low self-monitoring females? And if so, is the difference worth considering when developing aggressive humorous ads? The study will include two focus groups, each including seven female participants sharing the same level of self-monitoring. TV aggressive humorous ads will be used to test the response of the participants. The main research theme is of an interest to the researcher in his attempt to employ the marketing knowledge gained through academic study into a research project.
  • 9. 9 Specific Objectives Given the aims of the current study, specific objectives were devised in order to facilitate the investigation of the subject topic and set a plan for the research methodology and data collection as well as analysis of the same. The specific objectives are discussed hereunder: 1- Identifying female appreciation of aggressive humour in general. A starting point will be to investigate whether females appreciate aggressive humour or not in general terms, such a laughter, tolerance, or annoyance. This will set the foundation for a following investigation of aggressive humour as compared to other types of humour in advertising. 2- Recognising the main differences between high and low self-monitors in terms of reacting in an explicit aggressive humorous context. The study aims at unearthing the differences, if any, between high and low self- monitoring females with regard to reaction toward aggressive humour in advertising of an explicit nature (e.g. the obvious deep disparagement of something, someone, or an idea or a context). 3- Exploring positivism vs. negativism toward aggressive humour in advertising. The study aims at exploring the extent to which appreciation toward aggressive humour in advertising is achieved compared to other types of humour, such as sexual and incongruity humour.
  • 10. 10 4- Assessing the extent to which disparagement of own sex/opposite sex affects appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humour. Differences in the appreciation of own sex vs. opposite sex disparagement and the effect of that on appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humour will be assessed and explored. This is expected to provide a bigger picture of female appreciation to aggressive humour and the differences therein among high/low self- monitors. 5- Determining the main difference collectively between high and low self-monitors toward aggressive humour in advertising. Eventually, and upon arriving to an understanding of how females different in their self-monitoring levels differ in the appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humour, the major differences will be identified and some suggested study outcomes and recommendations will be proposed to advertising practitioners that the researcher believe should be taken into consideration when creating humorous ads, if any.
  • 11. 11 Introduction What is Humour? How humour works Components of Humour Factors influencing the perception of humour Self-monitoring Gender and Humour Self-monitoring and Gender Rationale
  • 12. 12 Introduction The literature review will shed some light over the definition of humour, the mechanisms by which humour works, and components of humour. This illustration will help set a background understanding of humour as a phenomenon, and as a creative tool used in advertising. For the purpose of this study, focus will be shifted afterwards to the factors influencing the perception of humour, particularly the interrelationships between humour, gender, and self-monitoring, which serve as the main topic of this study. What is Humour? In order to deal with humour in advertising, it is important to define the word Humour. The word Humour originates from: Middle English humour, from Anglo- French umor, umour, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin humor, from Latin humor, umor moisture; akin to Old Norse vǫkr damp, Latin humēre to be moist, and perhaps to Greek hygros wet , Date: 14th century (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, July 2007). Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defined Humour as: a. that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b. the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c. something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, July 2007). Oxford’s Online English Dictionary defined Humour as: a. that quality of action, speech, or writing, which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun. b. The faculty of perceiving what is
  • 13. 13 ludicrous or amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing, or other composition; jocose imagination or treatment of a subject. (Oxford’s Online English Dictionary, July 2007). In the context this paper, it is essential to note that there is no comprehensive, generally-agreed definition of humour (Weinberger & Gulas 1992). ‘Humour is a phenomenon that is so universal to humans, it is a paradox that there is so little agreement among scholars about how it operates, what it is, and how it operates’ (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 21) Semantically, humour is a multi- faceted concept. Attardo (1994) has put together a semantic illustration (figure 1) of the interrelated concepts within which humour is deemed to be part of a whole field considering the context of humour. Generally speaking, there is little agreement on what would be generally understood or accepted as being humorous, the same resulting from individual tendencies and the way by which individuals are socialized, both on psychological and social levels.
  • 14. 14 How Humour Works? In order to better understand humour in an advertising context, and the mechanisms by which humour is employed as a creative tool, several theories have been developed to describe such mechanisms, given the complex interactions between humour, audience, type of message, product, context, and media. The major mechanisms by which humour in advertising works will be illustrated herein. Behavioural Theory Based on behavioural theories, Duncan (1979) has developed a theory to identify the variables which mediate humour’s effect on audience behaviour. His notion shows the roles which theory plays in providing illustrations about ‘how consumers respond to humorous appeals and about how mediating variables affect those responses’ (Duncan 1979, P. 294). His paper argues that the success which a particular humorous commercial will achieve depends largely upon (1) the extent to which the advertiser is aware of the variables that may mediate the impact of humour on audience behaviour, and (2) the advertiser’s knowledge of the cognitive processes which establishes how consumers act in response to incoming stimulus. These mediating factors are illustrated in figure 2 shown hereunder. This theory creates an understanding of how humour works from a behavioural perspective. Provides distraction from counter argumentation Distraction Hypothesis Provides reward for agreement with persuasive message Operant Learning Humour Attitude Generate positive/arousing reception environment Stimulus Environmental Psychology Change Links positive response to humour with sales proposition Classical Conditioning Creates high perceived source credibility (likeability) Source Effects Figure 2
  • 15. 15 Cognitive (Incongruity) Theories An vital aspect of cognitive theories evolves around ‘incongruity’ and ‘incongruity resolution’ as conditions for humour. Incongruity takes place when an expectation contradicts with what the recipient perceives. The enjoyment derived from incongruity is the deviation from an expectation, and the greater the deviation the funnier the material. The pleasure is derived from the playful confusion and contradictions (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). However, there is a debate as to whether incongruity is enough to trigger humour by itselt. Schultz (1976) argued that incongruity is nonsense if it was not resolved, but humour is created when resolution is included. While Suls (1983) (cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 24) suggested that incongruity resolution humour depends on (1) rapid resolution of the incongruity, (2) a ‘playful’ context that is, with cues signifying that the information is not to be taken seriously, and (3) an appropriate mood for the listener. Similarly, Alden & Hoyer (1993) (cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 24) argue that resolving incongruities in an advertising context may result in more positive effect. ‘Contradictions can take place from (1) actual/existing and non- actual/non-existing, (2) normal/expected and abnormal/unexpected, and (3) possible/plausible and fully/partially impossible or much less plausible, which results eventually in incongruity and therefore humour’.
  • 16. 16 Superiority (Disparagement) Theories Superiority theories, which are often labelled disparagement, examine the social function of humour (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). Gruner (1997) (cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 26) views superiority theories as the dominant thread in all humour. Quoting Jay Leno, Gruner believes that ‘jokes have to be demeaning to be funny’ (Gruner 1997, P. 2). He argued that: • ‘For every humorous situation, there is a winner. • For every humorous situation, there is a loser. • Finding the ‘winner’ in every situation and what the ‘winner’ wins, is not often easy. • Finding the ‘loser’ in every situation and what the ‘loser’ loses, is often even less easy. • Humorous situations can be best understood by knowing who wins what, and who loses what. • Removing from a humorous situation (jokes, etc.) what is won or lost, or the suddenness with which it is won or lost, removes the essential elements of the situation and renders it humourless. This type of humour, which is labelled frequently as aggressive humour, will be further illustrated through interaction with gender later in the review’.
  • 17. 17 Arousal and Relief Theories of arousal safety view humour as a physiological release in which humour helps to vent tension (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). Morrell (1983) (cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 28) summarizes the relationship between arousal-safety and the other theories: ‘while superiority theory focuses on emotions involved in laughter, and in the incongruity theory on objects or ideas causing laughter, relief theory addresses a question little discussed in the other two theories, namely: Why does laughter take the physical form it does, and what is the biological function?’ (Morrell 1983, P.20). Examples of different types of incongruent and aggressive ads are provided within the enclosed CD-Rom containing the ads shown within the conducted focus groups. The Challenge Model of Humour A comprehensive model was developed by Gulas and Weinberger (2006) which serves as a descriptive integration of the three main stands of humour theory that often are co dependent on each other, as shown in Figure 3. Humour Challenge Facilitating conditions Humour Response Outcome Mechanisms Cognitive Play Signals Reaction Incongruity Arousal Arousal/Safety Challenge Familiarity Mirth Conative Surprise Surprise Reaction Receptivity Affective No Mirth Reaction Figure 3
  • 18. 18 Gulas & Weinberger suggested that there seem to be unity among the proponents of all theories that contextual cues play a vital role in tuning an ordinary incongruity, disparagement, or arousal situation from being fearful, strange, or simply tension filled. • They summarized the cues as ‘the surrounding situation and social context (Rothbart 1976; Foot & Chapman 1976), other observers of humour (i.e. audience) (Chapman & Foot 1976), the deliverer of the humour (McGhee 1979), the stimulus itself (Berlyne 1972; Zillmann 1983) or internal cues related to the subjects’ own mood or predispositions and affective and behavioural response (Leventhal and Cupchick 1976)’ (cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 31-32) • Having that said, they suggested that incongruity, disparagement, or arousal have a shared impact that they labelled it as ‘challenge’, this challenge is variant and can originate as follows: - In incongruity humour: the audience is introduced with a challenge to resolve a variation from what is normal or expected. - In disparagement humour (aggressive): the audience is introduced with a challenge that can be resolved on a social, psychological, or physical level, such as cases when fun is made of oneself or others. - In arousal safety: the challenge arouses from the release of tension. • Enabling conditions are presented in a circular order due to the fact that flexibility is required to form variant humorous situations, as flexibility facilitates the prediction of different conditions that trigger humour.
  • 19. 19 • Arousal, surprise, and play signals are agreed to be vital in order to create a humour situation, in addition, there is a need of a common understanding of the situation, which was referred to as (schema familiarity) to interpret the challenge that a certain message elicits. • Schema familiarity helps to illustrate the reason why some humour that fits in one culture fails in another culture where the audience is unaware of the schema, which is the basis for the challenge. • Executional receptivity refers to a tendency toward humour in the given situation. For example, audience became more receptive to humour employing sex in advertising compared to racial humour over the past 50 years. • Generally, the response toward the aforementioned is labelled as (mirth) or (no mirth), summarising the variant responses to humour that are elicited. • The outcome of humour responses affect on feelings, thoughts, or actions which will end up with a positive, neutral, or negative outcomes (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). The Challenge Model provides a deeper understanding of how humour works, collectively analysing the three main theories of humour, and suggesting a comprehensive perspective to view humour as an integrated progression of three interrelated stands.
  • 20. 20 Components of Humour Humour is a complex phenomenon where several factors work together to create a humorous situation. The humour process consists of components that work together to create humour. These components might collapse sometimes as will be illustrated herein. These components include: An Agent: the source of the humour The agent is the joke teller, as shown in Figure 4. Humour There are two levels of Agent Object Audience agency in the application of humour in advertising. A humour agent can be internal to the ad, such as a character who delivers a punch line. Or, the advertiser can be the agent, based on the fact that an effect transfer is one of the primary rationales behind the use of humour in advertising. However, the advertiser is always the ultimate humour agent. The internal agent may or may not be present depending on the nature of the ad (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 39-40). An Object / Target: The butt of the joke The object is the Humour butt/victim of the joke. It can Agent/Object Audience be the agent itself as in self depreciating humour, but usually it is a third party, as shown in Figure 5. The target can be an individual or a group, whereas age, gender, physical characteristics, and political affiliation are among the grouping attributes of a third party, in addition to
  • 21. 21 numerous other grouping attributes. Yet, targeting a group of people is likely to be offending to some; therefore the target should be selected carefully in order to avoid paying a high price for a bad humour execution (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 40). An Audience: The recipient The audience is the Humour recipient and true target of Agent Audience/Object the humour, given the fact that humour is deliberately designed in order to entertain the audience, as shown in Figure 6. In this regard, there is a distinction between ‘attempted humour’ and ‘perceived humour’ whereby the audience is the arbiter of what constitutes humour. The perception of humour by the audience depends on the nature of the audience, and the relationships between the agent, the audience, and the object, of which can be complex interactions within (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 40-41). Factors influencing the perception of humour ‘While humour is a natural human trait, response to specific humour executions is a learned behaviour’. Although details of an execution of humour in advertising are decided by advertisers, yet, it is the audience who decides whether an attempt at humour will result in the perception of humour (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 56). Several factors influence the evolution from an ‘attempt’ to a ‘success’ in humour. At the heart of these factors is the commonality principle, where Commonality between the agent, the audience, and the object plays an important role in determining the success of a humour attempt, as illustrated in Figure 7 (Gulas &
  • 22. 22 Weinberger 2006). Humour likelihood tends to be lower when there is no commonality between the agent, the object, and the audience, or when only the object and the audience share commonality. Humour Commonality Likelihood Agent Object Audience Agent, object, and audience High share commonality Agent and object share High commonality Agent and audience share High commonality Object and audience share Low commonality No commonality Low Figure 7 Additionally, demographic and psychographic factors can dramatically affect the perception of humour (Gulas & Weinberger 2006). For example, research regarding age by Schindler & Holbrook (2003) (as cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006) has found that youthful experiences can have widespread lifelong effects, suggesting differences in perception of humour. Other researches regarding culture have suggested differential usage of humour among countries, both in humour types employed and in absolute levels of humour used (e.g. Alden, Hoyer, & Lee 1993; Weinberger & Spotts 1989) (as cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006). Figure 8 shows the factors influencing the perception of humour as divided into demographic and psychographic factors. It is worthwhile mentioning that all researches were confounded to some extent by the complex interactions of such factors, thus, difference in age, gender, or culture can not be interpreted as generalisable effects (Gulas & Weinberger 2006).
  • 23. 23 For the purpose of this study, gender and self-monitoring, together with their interaction with humour, are going to be illustrated subsequently in more detail in the review. Gender Age Educational Culture & Prior Commonality Level Subculture Brand Experience Humour Need for Need for Self- Sense of Political Humour Reviver Source (Audience) (Joke Teller) Cognition Humour Monitoring Humour Ideology Figure 8 Self-monitoring Self-monitoring is among the factors influencing the perception of humour. The term was first proposed by Snyder (1974) as s social psychological construct of how individuals express and present themselves in a social context. The term refers to the extent to which people can and do observe and control they way they express and present themselves (Snyder 1974). To further illustrate the concept, individuals high in self-monitoring are thought to adjust the way they express themselves in order to achieve a desirable social appearance and therefore be highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues of performances that are suitable according to a certain situation (Snyder 1974). Thus, high self-monitors tend to be doubtful of their emotional reactions and therefore they look to the behaviour of others for cues to define their emotional states and copy the
  • 24. 24 way other people behave in the same situation who appear to be behaving appropriately (Schachter & Singer, 1962) (as cited in Snyder 1974, P. 527). In this regard, the goals of self-monitoring may be: • ‘To communicate accurately one's true emotional state by means of an intensified expressive presentation. • To communicate accurately an arbitrary emotional state, which need not be congruent with actual emotional experience. • To conceal adaptively an inappropriate emotional state and appear unresponsive and inexpressive; • To conceal adaptively an inappropriate emotional state and appear to be experiencing an appropriate one; • To appear to be experiencing some emotion when one experiences nothing and a ‘no response’ is inappropriate’ (Snyder 1974, P. 527). Individuals low in self-monitoring are thought to lack either the ability or the motivation to so adjust the way they express and present themselves. Their expressive behaviours, instead, are thought to reflect the stability of their attitudes, traits, and feelings (Snyder & Gangestad 1986).
  • 25. 25 Hence, low self-monitors are persons who have not learned to worry about how appropriate they present or express themselves, and would not have such developed self-monitoring skills. They would not be so alert to compare social information about appropriate ways to behave in a social context. This does not mean that low self- monitors do not express their emotions, or even that they are less so than those who monitor their presentation. Rather, the way they express and present themselves seem to be functionally controlled from within by their affective states (they express it as they feel it) rather than monitored, controlled, and moulded to fit a certain situation (Snyder 1974). ‘The cross-situational variability of the self-monitoring versus the consistency of the non self- monitoring individuals is similar to the "traits versus situations" issue: Is behaviour controlled by situational factors and hence predictable from characteristics of the surrounding situation, or is it controlled by internal states and dispositions which produce cross-situational consistency and facilitate prediction from characteristics of the person, measures of internal states, or dispositions’ (Mischel, 1968; Moos, 1968, 1969) (as cited in Snyder 1974, P. 528). To better understand the concept, table 1 depicted hereunder provides examples of personal characteristics of individuals high vs. low in self-monitoring (Snyder 1974):
  • 26. 26 High Self-monitoring Low Self-monitoring - They put on a show to impress or entertain - Their behaviour is usually an expression of their people. true inner feelings, attitudes and beliefs. - They look to the behaviour of the others for cues - They usually seek the advice of their friends to when uncertain how to act in a social situation. choose movies, books, or music. - Sometimes appear to others to be experiencing - In a group of people they are usually the centre deeper emotions than they actually are. of attention. - They laugh more when watching a comedy with - They are particularly good at making other others than when alone. people like them. - They often act like very different persons, in - They don’t change their opinions in order to please different situations and with different people. someone else or win their favour. - They often pretend to be having a good time, - They are good at games like charades or even if they not enjoying themselves. improvisational acting. - They tend to be what people expect them to be rather - At a party, they keep the jokes and stories going. than anything else, in order to get along and be - They feel relaxed in company and show up quite liked. so well. - They may deceive people by being friendly when they really dislike them. Table 1 The interactions between self-monitoring has been a subject of several studies, investigating the different interrelationships between humour, gender, culture, marketing communications, attitude toward the message, perception of the message, and self-monitoring.
  • 27. 27 In an advertising context, Snyder & DeBono (1985) found that ‘high self- monitors reacted more favourably to image-oriented advertisements, while low self- monitors reacted more favourably to product quality-oriented advertisements’ (Snyder & DeBono (1985) (as cited in Lammers 1991, P. 58-59). Later, Snyder (1987) suggested that ‘such differences illustrate the tendency for high self-monitors to choose ‘form over function’ while low self-monitors choose ‘function over form’’ (Snyder 1987) (as cited in Lammers 1991, P. 59). In brief, Snyder (1974) referred to self-monitoring as ‘self-observation and self- control guided by situational cues to social appropriateness’ (Snyder 1974, P. 526). A Self-monitoring scale was developed by Snyder to assess an individual’s level of self- monitoring, in terms of high or low self-monitoring. The scale was used as a tool for selecting candidates for the subject focus groups for the current study. Gender and Humour Research in several areas including psychology and communications has unearthed numerous factors that affect humour appreciation. Gender was found among demographic factors that are especially important in determining the response toward humorous ads. The interactions between gender and humour has been extensively researched, yet, gender still serves as an important factor to be investigated through interaction with other factors that influence the perception of humorous ads. It was found that men use humour negatively more often than women, and men attempt humour more often than women (Meyers et al 1997) (as cited in Gulas &
  • 28. 28 Weinberger 2006, P. 44). Women have been found to laugh more frequently than men (Provine 2000) (as cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 44). Lammers et al (1983) found that humour significantly increased liking of an advertising message for male respondents while the same execution decreased liking for female respondents (as cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 44). Zillman & Stocking (1976) conducted an in depth investigation of putdown (aggressive) humour, which serves as the main topic of this study. In their study, they argued that ‘appreciation of different types of disparaging humour depends on who is disparaging who’ (Zillman & Stocking 1976, P. 154). They considered self- disparaging humour to be ‘a fairly widespread phenomenon, where individuals in everyday public and private encounters poke fun at their own shortcomings, blunders, or humiliations’ (Zillman & Stocking 1976, P. 154). Generally, men were found to enjoy aggressive humour, given that the joke does not disparage males. Disparagement of a male was considered funny by men only when a male is identified as an enemy or belonging to an alien group. On the other hand, women do not find aggressive humour as funny as men do. Women particularly found jokes to be funniest when their own sex is disparaged. The sex of the victim has been found to be more important in determining responses to aggressive humour than the sex of the aggressor, in a way explaining why women like self-disparaging humour better than men do (Zillman & Stocking 1976).
  • 29. 29 Figure 9 depicts humour Females appreciation according to the High Males target of disparagement as found by Zillman & Stocking Low (1976). The figure shows that ‘for males, it was significantly Self Friend Enemy funnier to see a male disparage a male enemy than to see a male disparage himself. Conversely, it shows that for females it was significantly funnier for females to see a male disparage himself than to see him disparage a male enemy’ (Zillman & Stocking 1976, P. 157). However, it should be noted that what is seen as a gender difference in a particular study may only be reflecting a specific humour execution, a class of execution, or an underlying audience characteristic but not a generalisable effect (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 45). Humour is very closely related to the culture, experiences, and points of reference that are common among the humour originator and the humour receiver, therefore, the shared point of view among the creator of a humorous ad and the target of the ad is probably an important prevailing variable in humour effectiveness (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 45). Therefore, in this study, the researcher attempts at exploring the interaction between gender and self-monitoring with relation the humorous ads.
  • 30. 30 Self-monitoring and Gender As suggested by Snyder and tanke (1976), individuals high in self-monitoring were found to show considerable variation in their behaviour based on situational factors (Snyder and tanke 1976) (as cited in Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 52) Lammers (1991) conducted a study among American students where he found that self-monitoring and gender interactions implied that ‘high self-monitoring relative to low self-monitoring men tended to become more positive in terms of attitudes and cognitive responses toward the advertisements, whereas high self-monitoring relative to low self-monitoring women tended to become more negative’ (Lammers 1991, P. 57). In their study, they highlighted the fact that self-monitoring should not be overlooked, as it did in fact moderate gender effects on responses to the advertisements. It’s worthwhile mentioning that only few studies have tackled the interactions between self-monitoring, gender, and humour, thus offering an interesting and necessary area to investigate. Rationale The rationale for the current study was based on extensive review of the literature and inspired by certain gaps in it. Numerous interactions between humour, audience factors, media, product type, message, and context could be explored. For the purpose of this study, it has been decided to focus on very specific areas where it will be possible to investigate and explore the suggested interactions more in depth, given the time constraints of this study.
  • 31. 31 Self-monitoring serves as an interesting concept for the current study, given the fact that respondents attitude and perception may differ between high and low self-monitors according to the fact that their attitudes and perceptions are shaped by the tendency to take cues from the surrounding. In addition, self-monitoring has always been overlooked by researchers as a main topic of a study, which serves as an interesting opportunity to investigate the interactions between female audience, self- monitoring, and humour. Snyder (1974) suggested that ‘self-monitoring individuals should be most likely to monitor and control their expression in situations which contain reliable cues to social appropriateness. Thus, such a person would be more likely to laugh at a comedy when watching it with amused peers than when watching it alone. The laughing behaviour of the non-self-monitoring person should be more invariant across those two situations and more related to how affectively amused he actually is. The expressive behaviour of self-monitoring individuals should be more reflective of an internal affect state when it is generated in a situation with minimal incentives for, and cues to, self-monitoring’ (Snyder 1974, P. 528) thus providing a rich topic for further investigation. Women have usually shown a more negative response to humorous ads compared to men; however, due to the complex nature of humour as a phenomenon, investigating the interactions between the three aforementioned factors serve as a good basis to explore this area in more depth.
  • 32. 32 As noted earlier, women laugh more when their own sex is disparaged more often compared to men. This suggestion lends itself to further exploration in view of the fact that women have always been known to fight the stereotypic employments of women as a sexual or disparagement object in advertising. Whether the same applies similarly to women different in self-monitoring levels lends itself to further exploration. Interestingly, women’s responses and attitudes toward humorous ads have often been studied with comparison to men, but not as a focal aim of a study. In addition, aggressive humour lends itself to a more complex nature given the disparagement of an object, an audience, or the source of the message. Some findings depicted in the review suggest that men and women differ in their attitude toward aggressive humour, but whether such difference applies to women with different self- monitoring levels remains unclear, as such inspiring further exploration of the same. As suggested by lammers (1991), low self-monitoring women tend to respond less negatively to humour than high self-monitoring women. The current study aims at exploring whether such appreciation for aggressive humour among low self- monitoring females diminish/amplify with comparison to high self-monitoring females.
  • 33. 33 Research Design Hypotheses Primary Data Sampling Design of Focus Groups Secondary Data
  • 34. 34 Research Design The present study is exploratory, aiming at comparing the appreciation and reaction of females different in their self-monitoring levels toward aggressive humour in advertising. Gulas & Weinberger (2006) have conducted a comprehensive analysis of humour in advertising, analysing hundreds of studies in the field. A result of fifteen years of collaboration between the authors and humour in advertising, their book (Humour in Advertising: A comprehensive analysis) is an exceptional text book tackling all aspects related to the subject. As part of their analysis, they have analysed the research methods undertaken within hundreds of studies in the field, of which will be a major part of the rationale for planning the methodology for the current study. In this regard, they found that most humour studies have been conducted in a laboratory setting. Briefly, laboratories and experiments are best suited for the study of humour in advertising given the following advantages: • The researcher can eliminate, or control for, most confounding variables, such as the ads, the context, and the nature of the exposure. • Respondents are selected and assigned to conditions. • Distractions are minimized. • Tight controls available to experimental researchers and the ability to randomly assign respondents to conditions allow for detailed hypothesis testing.
  • 35. 35 • The researcher is able to control the audience exposure to the ads. In addition, they concluded that experiments are a popular research tool for studying humour in advertising, as it allows for testing causal relationships as a result of the control they offer. However, as in any study, certain trade-offs should be made. A laboratory is a very unnatural setting for advertising exposure, as consumers are usually in control of the exposure, i.e. consumers can leave the room, change the TV channel, talk with other people…etc. In addition, the fact that the respondents know that they are participating in a study may alter their behaviour to present a more socially desirable picture of themselves, to aid the researcher, or to sabotage the experiment. By any means, respondents’ behaviour is different at least to some degree from the behaviour that occurs without observation. The aim of the study will be examined within the following framework: Context Audience Product Message Media Measurement Aggressive Gender, General Aggressiveness, TV In terms of humour Self- own vs. appreciation monitoring opposite sex and reaction Thus, the present study is designed as follows: - Independent variables: Gender, Self-monitoring level. - Dependant variables: Appreciation and response toward aggressive humorous ads. - Test units: Female respondents different in their self-monitoring levels. - Extraneous variables: Cues taken from the surrounding.
  • 36. 36 Hypotheses Based on the aims and objectives of the present research, together with the outlined framework, the following hypotheses were set for testing: H1: Female appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising diminishes among low self-monitoring females. H2: Female appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising is the same among high/low self-monitoring females. Primary Data The present study will be qualitative in nature due to the fact that it follows a semi-structured, primarily exploratory design based on small samples, intended to provide insight and understanding of the gender implications on the use of humour in advertising. It will encompass an open ended discussion that will be conducted in a flexible manner, to enable respondents to reflect upon and express their views (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). Therefore, the primary data for this study will be collected using focus groups. Malhotra & Birks (2006) summarized the advantages of focus groups in the 10 Ss: Synergy (getting people together will produce a wide range of information compared to individual responses), Snowballing (a person’s comment trigger a chain reaction from the other respondents), Stimulation (the general level of excitement over the topic increases in the group), security (having similar feelings allows each
  • 37. 37 respondent to open up and reveal thoughts), spontaneity (responses are spontaneous and unconventional and therefore provide an accurate idea of the respondents’ view), serendipity (ideas are more likely to arise unexpectedly in a group rather than in an individual interview), specialisation (the number of respondents involved simultaneously justifies the use of a trained highly paid trainer), scientific scrutiny (the group discussion allows close scrutiny of the data collection process), structure (flexibility in topics covered and the depth with which each respondent is treated), and speed (data collection and analysis proceed relatively quickly) (Malhotra & Birks 2006, P. 162-163). However, focus groups involve other disadvantages. These include: misjudgement (results can be more easily misjudged than the results of other data collection methods), moderation (focus groups are difficult to moderate), and messiness (the unstructured nature of the response makes coding, analysis and interpretation difficult), and misinterpretation (generalising results can be misleading), and meeting (problems in getting potential respondents to agree to take part in a focus group) (Malhotra & Birks 2006, P. 163). Yet, given the qualitative nature of the data required, focus groups will be the most favourable method to collect primary data. As mentioned earlier, the study will involve several aspects of aggressive humour and different self-monitoring levels between females. Focus groups have several advantages over other data collection methods which supports the selection of this method in this study.
  • 38. 38 Certain characteristics of focus groups, suggested by Malhotra & Birks (2006), were taken into consideration. Respondents were selected based on the following: - Group Size: 6-12 respondents per group (each group included equal proportions of low and high self-monitoring females). - Group Composition: Homogeneous in terms of demographic and socio- economic characteristics. - Physical Setting: a relaxed informal atmosphere to help the respondents forget that they are being questioned and observed; however, care was taken not to lead the discussion into a comedian show but rather a serious investigation of views and responses related to humorous Ads. - Time duration: 1 - 1.5 hours. - Recording: Audiocassettes were used to record the data. - The researcher was observational, employing interpersonal and communication skills. Sampling Convenient sampling was adopted in the present study, based on the fact that most published research concerning humour in advertising has employed college students, although the same was driven by convenience and cost rather than theory. ‘College students are relatively easily accessible, in addition to being legitimate consumers of a wide range of products as well as media’ (Gulas & Weinberger 2006, P. 154).
  • 39. 39 As developed by Snyder (1974), the Self-monitoring Scale was used to recruit and allocate the participant into two separate groups based on their scores (Appendix 1), the first group included 7 high self-monitors, the second group included 7 low self- monitors. The number of participants in each group was based on the average number of participants as suggested by Malhotra & Birks (2006) for focus groups in marketing research. Design of Focus Groups The focus groups took place in the social room at the University’s accommodation, a relaxing and friendly atmosphere was made available to the participants in order to encourage open and free discussion of the topics under study. Each focus group lasted for approximately 90 minutes, and participants were shown random ads preceding the conduct of the actual focus groups in order to ensure that clear image and sound is provided. Appendix1 includes a detailed description of the participants. Respondents were presented by a number of diverse humorous aggressive TV ads and a semi-structured discussion followed to uncover their appreciation as well as response to these ads.
  • 40. 40 The focus groups characteristics have been divided into Break (differentiating) Characteristics and Control (common) Characteristics (Morgan 1993) as follows: Type of characteristic Characteristic Break Control Gender: Female x Age: 20-25 x Educational Level: Postgraduate x Language: English (2nd lang.) x Self Monitoring: High vs. Low x Nationality: Various x The main focus of the study is to explore the differences, if any, between high/low self-monitoring females, thus, self-monitoring was the base for the analysis, following in the next chapter. Although respondents came from different nationalities (Turkey, Germany, Cyprus, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Russia, Taiwan), however, the researcher ensured that the respondents share numerous control characteristics in view of the fact that self- monitoring is the main topic for the current study, being the main break characteristic among the participants. Care was taken to disguise the hypothesis, in addition to encouraging participants to take cues from the surrounding or other participants. Upon request, a brief illustration of the aims and objectives of the current study was offered to the participants following the conduct of the focus groups.
  • 41. 41 Secondary Data Academic journals supported the initial secondary data collection. All listed journals were secured using the Business Source Premier (EBSCO) web.ebscohost.com made available by The University of Birmingham Main Library. In addition, academic texts tackling humour in advertising in particular have been utilized to provide a better understanding of the literature, along with research methodologies. The internet served as a very rich resource for samples of TV ads that were used to test the overall appreciation of the participants in the study. Websites that offer free access to such ads have been utilised including www.veryfunnyads.com and www.youtube.com. A CD-Rom containing the groups of ads shown during the conduct of the focus groups is enclosed herein for analysis purposes.
  • 42. 42
  • 43. 43 Findings Given the aims and objectives of the present study, the focus groups were conducted in light with the same. The objectives were translated into 4 general topics, with open ended questions following each group of ads. Kindly refer to the enclosed CD-Rom containing the groups of ads shown during the conduct of the focus groups. For analysis purposes, each objective, topic, and group will be presented along with the summarised reactions and responses for each part and the results therein, together with the researcher’s observations and discussions, as follows: Objective 1: Identifying female appreciation of aggressive humour in general Topic discussed General female appreciation of aggressive humour. Ads shown Group 1: Ads 1.1: Non-humour Ads. Ads 1.2: Aggressive Ads. Questions asked - What you like/dislike about the first group? - What you like/dislike about the second group? - Which group of ads do you like more? In addition to observing the general reaction toward both groups of ads, in terms of laughter, amusement, rejection, intolerance, or any other possible reaction that have aroused. Group 1 Ads 1.1: Non-humour Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent. Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 Boring 1 Boring Doesn’t attract attention Doesn’t enhance recall 2 Boring 2 Normal Doesn’t attract attention 3 Boring 3 Doesn’t enhance recall
  • 44. 44 Doesn’t attract attention 4 Boring 4 Doesn’t grab attention Neutral reaction 5 Lack of comprehension 5 Very boring Doesn’t attract attention 6 N/A 6 Boring Won’t keep watching 7 N/A 7 A bit interesting The contents of this group of ads were merely non-humorous. Ads were a mix of creative, traditional, and common ads shown regularly on TV, and the contents were free of any type of humour. For example, one ad showed family members merely expressing their satisfaction with an air freshener (Advertised Product: Liquid Air Freshener). This group of ads was meant to set the basis for comparison with the second group of aggressive ads following this group. Upon showing the ads, responses matched reactions as ads were considered to be boring and relaxing. Participants expressed their boredom and familiarity with such type of ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (Low): I think they are kind of boring for me, if I see such kind of ads I will probably change the channel; it doesn’t attract my attention at all. Respondent 1 (High): It almost put me to sleep, it’s very relaxing, and by the time I leave here I will not remember these products, it doesn’t grab my attention. Eventually, this group was found to be boring, traditional, and classical, based on the researcher’s observation and probing. Nothing was found interesting by the participants; both groups’ reacted indifferently and showed boredom.
  • 45. 45 Group 1 Ads 1.2: Aggressive Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: Laughs Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent Ad5: No laughs, indifferent Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Liked 1 - Liked - Attracts attention - Funny - No association with the product - Interesting - Neutral reaction - Enhances recall 2 - Amusing 2 - Amusing - Entertaining - Ads 4,5 a bit exaggerated 3 - Shocking 3 - Interesting comparatively - Attracts attention - A bit disturbed - Distributed - Negative reaction 4 - Funny 4 - Interesting comparatively - Disturbed to follow up ad2 - Creative comparatively - Attracts attention - Ad3 is not humorous 5 - Preferred 5 - Disliked - No association with the product - A bit irritating - Humour was employed well - Not humorous - Racist - Pointless 6 - Preferred 6 - Preferred comparatively - Enhances recall - Doesn’t attract attention - Interesting comparatively yet neutral reaction. - Doesn’t enhance recall - Ad1 is funny - Ad4 is boring, won’t watch till the end. 7 - Amusing 7 - Interesting - Ad4 is not funny, pointless The contents of this group consisted of messages disparaging different objects. The extent to which the disparagement mocked the objects was moderate. For example, one ad disparaged death, as a man was shown in different dangerous situations where death is the natural outcome of such situations; however, the man was still alive as death was illustrated as a black-dressed ghost drinking beer
  • 46. 46 (Advertised Product: Beer). Another ad disparaged the English language, as a narrator was narrating random explanations of what may cause heart attacks in different countries (e.g. eating fat, drinking red wine, ..etc); however, these facts were described to be causing less heart attacks in other countries compared to the US. The ad ended with a comment that ‘speaking English’ is what may cause death, as a disparagement of the English language compared to the French language (Advertised Aervice: teaching French). Upon showing this group, high self-monitors seemed to react positively compared to group 1.1. It was noted generally that ads were considered moderately funny, containing ideas that are a bit shocking, aggressive, unusual, unexpected, yet, not very pleasing. Examples of responses: Respondent 2 (High): Well, it was amusing but it only let me just smile, that’s all, it was different, but it’s all what I can say. Respondent 3 (High): I think I prefer this group, this group is better than the first one, but the jokes could be cleverer, I didn’t like all of them. Low self-monitors tended to express a less enthusiastic reaction compared to high self-monitors. Ads were seen as a bit more interesting compared to group 1.1, in addition to being a bit exaggerated. Examples of responses: Respondent 4 (Low): I think its generally more interesting, and more creative than the first group of ads, and it started to sense a type of humour, it grabs my attention. Respondent 5 (Low): I noticed this group of ads more than the previous ones, because I didn’t notice the previous group at all, but this group was not interesting.
  • 47. 47 Objective 2: Recognising the main differences between high and low self- monitors in terms of reacting in an explicit aggressive humorous context Topic discussed Differences in reaction between high/low self-monitors. Ads shown Group 2: Ads 2.0: Aggressive Ads. Questions asked - What do you like/dislike about this group? In addition to observing the general reaction toward both groups of ads, in terms of laughter, amusement, rejection, intolerance, or any other possible reaction that have aroused. Group 2 Ads: 2.0 Aggressive Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: laughs in the beginning, yet Ad1: Shocked. surprised in the end. Ad2: Few laughs while some were shocked. Ad2: Laughs in the end. Ad3: Shocked. Ad3: Laughs in the end. Ad4: No response. Ad4: Showed disgust. Ad5: No response. Ad5: No response. Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Very disturbing 1 - Creepy - Humiliating - Disgusting - Doesn’t enhance recall - Insulting - Doesn’t attract attention - Not funny - Offensive to the disabled 2 - Disliked 2 - Offensive - Not funny 3 - Disgusting 3 - Very bad - Negative reaction - Irritating - Disliked - Humiliating 4 - Badly shocking 4 - Offensive - Stupid - Disturbing - Would change the channel - Cheap humour 5 - Agree with others 5 - Shocking - Successful - Irritating comparatively 6 - Agree with others 6 - Not funny - A bit disgusting - Ad2 is pointless, no association with the product 7 - Disliked 7 - Very annoying - Disgusting - Disliked
  • 48. 48 The contents of this group included explicit aggressive messages, employing the disparagement of different objects in an exaggerative manner, or contained messages that are so explicit. For example, one ad was disparaging to an old woman, with a man hitting her on the back and the head (Advertised Service: Documentary Film Festival). Another ad showed a woman breastfeeding her baby when suddenly the baby vomits an excessive amount of milk on the mother’s face (Advertised Product: Bread Spread). Another ad was showing a cock trying desperately to escape from a cage but was not successful when a message appeared ‘cocks need space to move’ while showing a male underwear. (Advertised Product: male underwear ‘boxer’). The reaction of high self-monitors differed slightly in laughter triggered upon showing this group of ads compared to low self-monitors. While low self-monitors expressed explicit shock and disgust of this group, high self-monitors laughed at the end of some ads, however, their reaction was changed dramatically upon receiving the messages eventually at the end of each ad shown. Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (High): I think most of them are pretty sick, pretty disturbing, I don’t want to see it, and I don’t want to watch it. Respondent 1 (Low): It is creepy, disgusting, insulting, not even funny. ‘Very negative attitude’ is the right phrase to describe both high and low self- monitors’ responses toward this group of aggressive ads. Responses tended to be identical in both groups in terms of the general appreciation, which ranged from being shocked, disgusted, annoyed, disturbed, and offended.
  • 49. 49 According to the researcher’s observation, high and low self-monitors reacted equally in the same manner toward aggressive ads. The ads were highly disliked by both groups, and negative appreciation to this type of ads was obvious and clear. However, low self-monitors showed a more rejecting and disturbed attitude compared to high self-monitors. Objective 3: Exploring positivism vs. negativism toward aggressive humour in advertising Topic discussed Positivism vs. Negativism toward aggressive humour. Ads shown Group 3: Ads 3.1: Incongruity Ads. Ads 3.2: Sexual Ads. Ads 3.3: Aggressive Ads. Questions asked - What do you like/dislike about the first group? - What do you like/dislike about the second group? - What do you like/dislike about the third group? - Which group of ads do you like more? In addition to observing the general reaction toward both groups of ads, in terms of laughter, amusement, rejection, intolerance, or any other possible reaction that have aroused. Group 3 Ads 3.1: Incongruity Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: Few laughs. Ad1: Annoyed. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: Laughs in the end. Ad3: Laughs in the end. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent.
  • 50. 50 Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Disliked 1 - Stupid - Very disturbing - Neutral reaction - Ridiculous - Pointless 2 - Funny 2 - Stupid - Dislikes farts and burps - Disliked farts and burps - No association with the product - Disliked - Touched motherhood feeling, embarrassed. 3 - Disliked 3 - Disliked comparatively - Preferred comparatively - Pointless - Shocking yet funny - Irritating - Doesn’t trigger laughter - No association with the product 4 - Annoying 4 - Stupid - Not interesting - Not funny - Disliked ad4, no association with the - Doesn’t trigger laughter product - Won’t switch the channel - A bit offensive - Preferred comparatively 5 - Disturbing 5 - A bit disgusting - Doesn’t like farts, burps - Very stupid - Ridiculous - Pointless - Ad4 is exaggerated 6 - Preferred to aggressive group. 6 - Ad5 is funny - Funny yet not cheerful - Funny but stupid 7 - A bit humorous 7 - Disliked - Disliked comparatively The contents of this group of incongruent ads generally contained messages that were stupid, unexpected, and made no sense. In addition, some message contained totally unwelcomed situations such as farts and burps. For example, one ad was showing a pregnant woman approaching a window when suddenly she blows a big fart and eventually ended up with a flat stomach (Advertised Product: Mexican Food). Another ad was showing a couple waking up in the morning then going through ridiculous situations while they prepare to go out, such as being hit by a bawling ball when opening the closet, or being burnt by fire when turning the light on…etc (Advertised Product: 4x4 Car).
  • 51. 51 High self-monitors expressed their appreciation to this group generally by responses such as being not very funny, not triggering laughter, and conveying moderate-to-low humorous messages. Reactions came in consistence with the generated responses, while only one ad triggered brief laughter. However, ads were considered less irritating compared to the previous group of aggressive ads (group 2.0). Ads were not considered to be annoying or disturbing. Eventually, participants expressed their disliking to such type of ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 2 (High): Just funny, something was wrong with them, most of them farted, giving strange gases, farts, I don’t like it as a girl, and I don’t like seeing that. Respondent 7 (High): I think this group is in the middle, a bit humorous, but I don’t like in general, in relation with the other groups, I think it doesn’t have something special to see. Yet again, low self-monitors showed less enthusiastic reactions and responses compared to high self-monitor, although pretty similar to the responses and reactions generated by high self-monitors. Low self-monitors confirmed that the messages contained in this group of ads are stupid, don’t make sense, and not considered funny or amusing. Participants detected humour-attempts by the source, yet such attempts were considered unsuccessful. Eventually, participants expressed their disliking to such type of ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (Low): Stupid is the right word for it, not offensive, not funny, its just stupid. Respondent 3 (Low): I didn’t like any of them, but compared to the previous parts, they are not humiliating like the other group, I was very angry and annoyed with the previous group, but this group doesn’t make me laugh, it doesn’t make me smile, but it is just meaningless, and it doesn’t have any effect on me.
  • 52. 52 Group 3 Ads 3.2: Sexual Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent. Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Disturbing 1 - Liked ad5, neutral reaction - Disliked - Funnier and more enjoyable than the - Humorous but not preferable previous group 2 - No association with the product 2 - Doesn’t mind watching - Not impressing - Would attract attention - Won’t switch the channel 3 - No association with the product 3 - Disliked - Humiliating to females - Will switch the channel - Disturbing - Not funny - Very exaggerated 4 - No association with the product 4 - Disliked - Pointless - Pointless - Will switch the channel 5 - Exaggerated 5 - Humiliating - No association with the product except - Disliked ad3 - Offending 6 - Ad3 makes sense 6 - Liked ad5, no association with the product - No association with the product - Ad3 is insulting and exaggerated, will switch the channel - Disliked - Boring - Pointless 7 - No association with the product 7 - Disliked - Pointless - Ad4 is disgusting, pointless, no association with the product The contents of this group of sexual ads employed usage of almost-naked female bodies, the majority of which were detected by all the participants as having no association with the advertised product. The ads were mainly focusing on the usage of female bodies in a sexual context. For example, one ad was showed a woman
  • 53. 53 stripping but suddenly stopped when she’s half naked, then showing a message that ’30-second previews make you want more’ (Advertised Service: File Sharing Software ‘Napster’). Another ad was showing large groups of women getting together into one big group and eventually ending up on a beach with a man spreading his deodorant. (Advertised Product: Male deodorant). High self-monitors found this groups of ads as not appealing. The use of sexual humour was considered pointless by the participants, the majority of which were offended by the same. As observed by the researcher, one ad was considered a successful employment of sexual advertising in a deodorant ad for males, thus it was appreciated positively. Nevertheless, the overall reactions and responses expressed general disliking to such type of ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (High): I think none of them are sexy for me, everything is too explicit, and there is some kind of harshness, too fast, too obvious, that’s why for me its not sexy, after some time it starts to get disturbing, I would not say sex is not good in ads, I think its nice, if it’s attractive, but none of them for me are attractive. I didn’t like them. Respondent 5 (High): I think I like the deodorant ad, they use the exaggeration, lots of women, it’s really targeted for men then I think its very effective, but the others, I don’t really agree with the use of sexy women to explain what’s the product or to associate their products and brands. Low self-monitors differed in their appreciation to this group of sexual ads. Although some participants rejected such type of ads and were offended, other participants found it acceptable and normal to employ sex in ads. However, the overall appreciation in terms of reactions and responses as observed by the researcher indicated that sexual ads generated no amusement to low self-monitors.
  • 54. 54 Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (Low): I think some people may see this as degrading to women, for me personally, it’s not like that, its how we get the power, be more powerful than men, we control them with that, with that sexual appeal. Respondent 3 (Low): I disagree, I hate all of them. They are humiliating the female and they are using only the sex appeal, and I don’t like the way they use woman like this in ads, I don’t like to see women in this manner, and it doesn’t have any affect on me, and probably if I was the person watching the TV I will probably switch the channel, I wont keep on watching the rest of them, because it disturbs me. Group 3 Ads 3.3: Aggressive Ads Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: Laughs. Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: Laughs. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: Some laughs. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Humorous due to making fun of men 1 - The funniest group - Triggers laughter - Enjoyable 2 - Liked 2 - Moderately funny - Funny - Amusing 3 -Funny yet not entertaining 3 - Preferred comparatively - Humiliating to men - Not preferable to such type of ads - Ad2 is funny, liked - Ad3 is disliked - Ad4 exaggerated yet acceptable due to use of men 4 - Very funny 4 - Disliked - Amusing - Neutral reaction - Humorous yet not funny - Doesn’t trigger laughter - Preferred comparatively 5 - Liked 5 - Liked far more than other groups - Funny - Offensive to men - Entertaining - Doesn’t trigger laughter - Amusing comparatively 6 - Liked 6 - Funny - Funny - Ad4 is stupid 7 - A bit humorous 7 - Amusing - Would switch the channel - Neutral reaction - Not amusing - Acceptable
  • 55. 55 The contents of this group of ads contained aggressive messages, mainly demeaning to different objects. For example, one ad showed two gay couples enjoying their times together, when suddenly ended up with a man on an airplane waking up to find another man sleeping on his shoulder, a female voice commented ‘if you want to sleep with him, you would have married him’. (Advertised Service: Airways Upper Class). Another ad showed a husband going back home and getting naked to surprise his wife, but suddenly surprised to find his in-laws at home (Advertised service: Discounted rates to fly in-laws). High self-monitors showed a greater appreciation to this group ads. Ads were considered to be amusing and preferable, yet not very entertaining. Laughter was triggered and participants showed deeper involvement with the ads compared to low self-monitors. This group was generally liked by the majority of the participants. Eventually, participants expressed their amusement yet they added that they have seen funnier ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 3 (High): Its funny but not that entertaining, its ok, a bit boring, but its funny in a way that I had no offending feelings towards women, that was more relevant to what I accept as a joke. Respondent 6 (High): I like this group, I can accept to joke like this, I think it’s funny. Similarly, low self-monitors expressed their liking and appreciation to this group of ads, it was noticed by the majority of the participants that ads were disparaging to men as opposed to women, thus considered it funny. Their reactions and responses were again less enthusiastic compared to high self-monitors, and reactions came contradictory to responses.
  • 56. 56 Examples of responses: Respondent 1 (Low): I think this one is the funniest group, I like this one, it actually made me laugh, nothing offensive, I enjoyed it. Respondent 6 (Low): I like them, I don’t think it was offensive to men, its not offensive to use gays, and I think they were fine, ofcourse they were not hilarious, I didn’t laugh, it was amusing, and ok I prefer this type of ads. Objective 4: Assessing the extent to which disparagement of own sex/opposite sex affects appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humour Topic discussed Own vs. opposite sex disparagement. Ads shown Group 4: Ads 4.1: Ads disparaging Men. Ads 4.2: Ads disparaging Women. Questions asked - What you like/dislike about the first group? - What you like/dislike about the second group? - What group of ads do you like more? In addition to observing the general reaction toward both groups of ads, in terms of laughter, amusement, rejection, intolerance, or any other possible reaction that have aroused. Group 4 Ads 4.1: Ads disparaging men Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: Loud laughs. Ad1: Laughs. Ad2: Laughs in the end. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: Moderate laughs. Ad3: No laughs, indifferent. Ad4: Moderate laughs. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: Laughs. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent.
  • 57. 57 Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Disliked ad5 1 - Moderately funny - Liked due to making fun of men - Enjoyable 2 - Liked 2 - Not consistent - Funny and creative - Disliked being embraced. - Triggers laughter - Irritating 3 - Very funny 3 - Ad1 funny - Real sense of humour - Ads 2, 5 disliked - Exaggerated but realistic - Ad5 humiliating to females, offended - Very clever 4 - Creative 4 - Liked - Moderately funny - Acceptable 5 - Liked 5 - Indifferent - Very entertaining - A bit boring - A bit disliked comparatively 6 N/A 6 - Neutral reaction - Ad1 triggers laughter - Other ads are not funny - Indifferent - Won’t switch the channel 7 - Very funny 7 - Neutral - Entertaining The contents of this group of ads contained message disparaging to men. Men were shown in embarrassing and poking situations, and women were shown in a winning situation opposite to men. For example, one ad showed a man shopping, he found a female underwear by chance in the changing room and tried to wear it, suddenly the alarm bell rang and the shop was vacated, the man had to get out wearing the female underwear and he was shown on TV on emergency news while his family were watching (Advertised Product: Spicy Potatoes Crisps). Another ad was showing an overweight man holding his baby to calm when the baby started to such the dad’s overweight nipples (Advertised Service: Gym). High self-monitors showed great appreciation to this group of ads. Disparagement of men was considered funny and triggers laughter. Participants’ responses ranged from creative, funny, favourable, liked and very funny and amusing.
  • 58. 58 Nothing in particular was disliked about this group of ads. Reactions came in consistence with responses; ads have triggered laughter in most of the ads. Examples of responses: Respondent 2 (High): I liked that it made fun of typical men, something that you didn’t expect in a way, it was nice to see this, even men are not perfect. Respondent 3 (High): It was really funny and nice sense of humour. On the other hand, low self-monitors showed a different appreciation therein. Participants were indifferent to this group of ads, responses ranged from irritating, disturbing, and not funny. The majority of participants were indifferent in their responses and reactions in terms of liking. Only one participant found this group to be funny and amusing. Generally, reactions were consistent with responses; almost no laughter was triggered among the participants. Examples of responses: Respondent 5 (Low): I think they were indifferent and a bit boring, I didn’t like them very much, some of them I didn’t find them irritating of offensive. Respondent 6 (Low): Generally speaking, they were fine, I don’t really like them, but not really decided, it’s acceptable, I don’t mind watching them but I won’t prefer it, but it won’t let me switch the channel. Group 4 Ads 4.2: Ads disparaging Women Reaction High self-monitors Low self-monitors Ad1: Z laughed. Ad1: No laughs, indifferent. Ad2: Loud laughs. Ad2: No laughs, indifferent. Ad3: Laughs. Ad3:No laughs, indifferent Ad4: Laughs. Ad4: No laughs, indifferent. Ad5: Laughs. Ad5: No laughs, indifferent.
  • 59. 59 Response High self-monitors Low self-monitors 1 - Funny yet strange 1 - Disliked - Preferred comparatively - Only liked ad3 2 - Liked 2 - Liked except ad1 - Enjoyable - Ad1 is extreme - Discriminatory - Attracts attention - Not offended - Doesn’t trigger laughter - Amusing 3 - Funny yet strange 3 - Disliked - Discriminatory - Pointless 4 - Interesting 4 - Moderately funny - Not so creative comparatively - Indifferent - Not persuaded by ads 3, 4 - Liked 5 - Very entertaining 5 - Disliked - Enhances recall - Pointless - Stupid - Boring 6 - Preferred comparatively 6 - Disliked - A bit shocked from ad1 - Creative 7 - Moderately funny 7 - Disliked the concept - Liked comparatively - Moderately funny Contents of this group of ads included message disparaging to women, of which contained winning situations for men. For example, one ad was showing a woman trying to make a hole in the wall using a drill but was unsuccessful while a man was reading a newspaper, a male voice commented ‘women, don’t’ expect any help on a Thursday’ (Advertised service: Men’s magazine). Another ad showed a man screaming at a female driver as she was causing a traffic jam, using disparaging comments, the woman only reacted when the man insulted her car, but she was ignoring other insulting comments (Advertised Product: Car). High self-monitors differed in their reactions and response toward this group of ads. The same ranged from very amusing to some, while not enjoyable to others. However, the general appreciation could be summarised in being comparatively positive and welcomed. The majority of the participants expressed liking and amusement.
  • 60. 60 Examples of responses: Respondent 2 (High): I liked it, but at first it tried to make fun of women like in the other group of men, but it was ok, because it was obvious in some way, women are not able to change the wheels, or craftsmanship, ok we all know this, its alright, it was not a big deal, so I enjoyed it. Respondent 4 (High): I prefer the previous group, the content of this group was completely crap. Similarly, low self-monitors differed in their reactions and response toward this group of ads. The same ranged from funny and amusing to some, while some disliked this group. Some participants showed indifference. The overall appreciation seemed to be unfavourable, as disparagement of women was found to be unwelcomed and disliked by the majority of the participants. Examples of responses: Respondent 3 (Low): I don’t like the way that they use women and females again, it seems that the humour is incapable of doing anything, and that women always need the support and guidance of man, I hate this world stereotype, and I also don’t like to see such ads, and so it doesn’t make me happy, it seems that they are meaningless and just puts the woman in a bad position in people’s mind, so I don’t like them, none of them. Respondent 4 (High): I really liked them, generally, but not too much, it doesn’t make me laugh loud, but only smile.
  • 61. 61
  • 62. 62 Discussion In light with the findings depicted in Chapter 4 and the Literature Review in Chapter 1, the outcomes and results generated from primary data will be illustrated herein. Objective 1: Identifying female appreciation of aggressive humour in general Ads 1.1: Non-humour Ads Both high and low self-monitors disliked this group of ads. Ads were considered boring, classical, and initiated no interest among participants. Ads 1.2: Aggressive Ads Both low and high self-monitors reacted similarly to aggressive ads; however, their general appreciation was neutral. Aggressive ads were only preferred when compared to non-humorous ads but not preferred absolutely. Low self-monitors expressed a less enthusiastic reaction compared to high self-monitors. Objective 2: Recognising the main differences between high and low self- monitors in terms of reacting in an explicit aggressive humorous context. Ads: 2.0 Aggressive Ads Negative appreciation to aggressive ads of an explicit manner was equal among high and low self-monitors and no difference was detected by the researcher between both groups. Reactions and responses were very negative, as this group of ads was highly disliked equally by all participants.
  • 63. 63 Objective 3: Exploring positivism vs. negativism toward aggressive humour in advertising. Ads 3.1: Incongruity Ads Incongruent ads generated a less disturbed reaction compared to aggressive ads that contained explicit exaggerated messages. High self-monitors considered this group to be a bit funny but not triggering laughter, while high self-monitors found it stupid and detected an unsuccessful attempt to humour. Low self-monitors expressed a less enthusiastic reaction compared to high self-monitors. Overall, both high and low self-monitors expressed their disliking to incongruent ads. Ads 3.2: Sexual Ads Sexual ads were found by the majority of the participants to have no association with the advertised product, hence affected their appreciation to such type of ads. In cases where participants associated the ad with the product, the use of sexual humour was considered acceptable, however, not preferable. High self-monitors showed more consistency in their appreciation compared to low self-monitors. The researcher observed a tendency among low self-monitors toward the agreement and thus appreciation to the employment of female sexual appeal in ads compared to high self-monitors.
  • 64. 64 Ads 3.3: Aggressive Ads Obviously, both high and low self-monitors showed greater appreciation and liking to aggressive ads compared to incongruent and sexual ads. Laughter was triggered among high self-monitors opposite to low self-monitors. High self-monitors were amused but not very entertained, while low self-monitors were more concerned with the disparagement of men justifying the humorous context of the ads. To summarise, this group of aggressive ads was appreciated, liked and preferred by both high and low self-monitors compared to the previous two groups of ads (Groups 3.1 and 3.2). It can be presumed, hence, that females in general appreciate aggressive humour compared to sexual and incongruent humour. Objective 4: Assessing the extent to which disparagement of own sex/opposite sex affects appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humour. Ads 4.1: Ads disparaging men A major difference occurred in the appreciation to this group of ads. High self- monitors expressed their liking and favourability to ads disparaging men, ads were considered very funny and amusing. Low self-monitors showed indifferent responses and reactions, in addition to expressing irritation and disturbance. Ads triggered laughter for high self-monitors opposite to low self-monitors.
  • 65. 65 Ads 4.2: Ads disparaging Women High self-monitors showed more positive appreciation to ads disparaging women compared to low self-monitors. Ads triggered laughter for high self-monitors opposite to low self-monitors. Low self-monitors tended to show more negative appreciation toward such type of ads, hence, a noticeable difference was detected among high and low self-monitors in terms of reactions and responses. Collectively, the group of aggressive ads disparaging men (group 4.1) was more appreciated, liked and preferred by both high and low self-monitors compared to this group of ads. This result contradicts with Zillman & Stocking’s (1976) suggestion that women find jokes to be funniest when their own sex is disparaged. Based on the analysis depicted in Chapters 4 and the aforementioned discussion, the researcher arrived at evidence supporting the first hypothesis which stated: Female appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising diminishes among low self- monitoring females. However, the same does not imply a generalisable effect, further research is required to uncover a deeper investigation based on larger samples and wider perspective regarding aggressive humour in terms of ads used and questions asked to reveal profound reactions and responses.
  • 66. 66
  • 67. 67 Conclusions This study aimed at exploring the main differences among high and low self- monitoring females toward aggressive humour. The conclusions of the current study lie in the discussion of the fifth objective, i.e. determining the main differences collectively between high and low self-monitors toward aggressive humour in advertising. Based on the researcher’s observations and the results depicted above, two major differences occurred among high and low self-monitoring females in terms of the general appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising. Generally, low self-monitors showed less enthusiasm and interest in expressing reactions and responses opposite to high self-monitors. Low self-monitors were less involved with the ads shown. Where ads triggered negative attitudes, low self- monitors showed generally more uptight attitudes compared to high self-monitors. In brief, low self-monitors reacted more negatively to aggressive advertising compared to high self-monitors. Interestingly, this was found to be contradicting with Lammer’s (1991) suggestion that low self-monitoring women tend to respond less negatively to humour than high self-monitoring women. Additionally, a major difference occurred within the discussions of the group of ads conveying messages disparaging to men. High self-monitors expressed amusement and enjoyment, additionally, ads have triggered laughter. In contrast, low self-monitors showed irritation and disturbance, their reactions and responses were indifferent and apathetic. Moreover, differences in the levels of individual sense of
  • 68. 68 humour have also been noted by the researcher, where high self-monitors expressed generally a higher level of individual sense of humour relative to low self-monitors. However, high and low self-monitors expressed generally more consistent responses and reactions. No other major difference could be detected, as the majority of the reactions and responses among participants in both high and low self- monitoring groups tended to be parallel and delivering similar connotations. Self- monitoring was still noted as a moderating effect, affecting both appreciation and reaction toward aggressive humorous ads. Limitations The limitations of the current study range from sampling to audience factors. The small sample size used in this study does not imply a deep thorough investigation of the subject topic, due to time and arrangement limitations. A larger sample size will be required in future studies in order to generate a wider range of different responses and reactions and therefore provide a wider perspective toward appreciation to aggressive humour in advertising. On the other hand, Snyder (1987) suggested that cultural differences in self- monitoring should be expected. Age has also been a limiting factor restricting the ability to generalise the findings, given the fact that females among different life stages respond and react differently. Moreover, the usage of TV ads has also restricted the ability to generalise the findings, as aggressive humour has been used in other different media, including Radio and Print. Such factors should be taken into
  • 69. 69 consideration in future research tackling aggressive humour in advertising in order to generate a wider profound perspective toward the subject topic. Recommendations Given the results of the current study, the researcher has arrived at recommendations to advertising practitioners worth considering when developing aggressive humorous ads, these can be summarised as follows: 1- Generally, females do like aggressive humour in advertising as opposed to non-humorous ads; however, it is not preferred when compared to other types of humour. 2- Aggressive humour in advertising should be treated carefully. Explicit aggressive messages in advertising are highly disliked by females and do increase aversion to the product advertised, as well as create negative attitude toward ads. 3- Disparagement of men in advertising is considered funnier and more humorous as opposed to disparagement of females. 4- The use of females as a disparaging object or sexual appeal in advertising is considered funny and acceptable by females only when such employment is associated with the product/services advertised. 5- High self-monitoring females express greater appreciation to aggressive ads compared to low self-monitoring females.
  • 70. 70
  • 71. 71 Appendix 1: Self-Monitoring Scale The statements that follow concern your personal reactions to a number of different situations. No two statements are exactly alike, so consider each statement carefully before answering. It is important that you answer as frankly and as honestly as you can. Your answers will be kept in the strictest confidence. If a statement is true or mostly true as applied to you, mark “True”. If a statement is false or not usually true as applied to you, mark “False”. If the option buttons are not active, when opening the document you should deactivate the design mode by clicking the “exit design mode” button from the control toolbox toolbar (view → toolbars → control toolbox) 1. I find it hard to imitate the behaviour of other people. T rue False 2. My behaviour is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes and beliefs. T rue False 3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. T rue False 4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. T rue False 5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information. T rue False 6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people. T rue False 7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behaviour of the others for cues. T rue False 8. I would probably make a good actor. T rue False
  • 72. 72 9. I rarely seek the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or music. T rue False 10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am. T rue False 11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone. T rue False 12. In a group of people I am rarely the centre of attention. T rue False 13. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. T rue False 14. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. T rue False 15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time. T rue False 16. I’m not always the person I appear to be. T rue False 17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or win their favour. T rue False 18. I have considered being an entertainer. T rue False 19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than anything else. T rue False 20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting. T rue False 21. I have trouble changing my behaviour to suit different people and different situations. T rue False
  • 73. 73 22. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. T rue False 23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so well as I should. T rue False 24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). T rue False 25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. T rue False The following corresponds to responses of high self-monitoring individuals: 1 F 6 T 11 T 16 T 21 F 2 F 7 T 12 F 17 F 22 F 3 F 8 T 13 T 18 T 23 F 4 F 9 F 14 F 19 T 24 T 5 T 10 T 15 T 20 F 25 T The self-monitoring score was calculated by adding a mark next to each answer matching the answers depicted above. A score that is between 0-12 indicates that the individual is a relatively low self-monitor. A score that is between 12-25 indicates that the individual is relatively high self-monitor (Snyder 1974). As collected by the researcher, the scores of both low and high self-monitors are illustrated hereunder: High Low 1 15 1 5 2 16 2 1 3 13 3 2 4 13 4 9 5 15 5 7 6 14 6 10 7 14 7 8
  • 74. 74
  • 75. 75 Bibliography Books: Assael, H. (1995), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 5th ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Attardo, S. (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Berlybe, D. (1972) “Humour and Its Kin” in Psychology of Humour, ed. J.H. Goldstein, and P,E, McGhee, 43-60. New York: Academic Press. Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Foot, C., and Chapman, A. (1976) “The Social Responsiveness of Young Children” in Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application, ed. Antony Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 187-214. London: John & C. Wiley & Sons. Gruner, C. (1997) The Game of Humour. New Brunswick, NJ: Transcription Publishers. Gulas, C., Weinberger, M. (2006) Humour in Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
  • 76. 76 Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2006), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Essex: Pearson. McGhee, P. (1979) Humour: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Morgan, D., (1993) Successful Focus Groups, Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. Morreal, J. (1983) Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley. Patton, M. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, California: Sage Publications. Rothbart, K. (1976) “Incongruity, Problem Solving and Laughter” in Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application, ed. Antony Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 34-54. London: John & C. Wiley & Sons.
  • 77. 77 Rudestam, K. and Newton, R. R. (2001), Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Schultz, R. (1976) “A Cognitive Development Analysis of Humour” in Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application, ed. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 11-36. London: John C. Wiley & Sons. Silverman, D. (2004), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Solomon, M, Manossy, G, Askegaard, S. and Hogg, M.K. (2006), Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective, 3rd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Snyder, M. (1987) Public Appearances/Private Realities: The Psychology of Self- monitoring. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Suls, M. (1983) “Cognitive Processes in Humour Appreciation”, in Handbook of Humour Research, ed. Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 39-58, vol. 1. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zillmann, D. (1983) “Disparagement Humour” in Handbook of Humour Research, ed. Paul McGhee and Jeffery Goldstein, Vol. 1, 85-107. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • 78. 78 Academic Journals: Alden, D., Hoyer, W. (1993) An examination of cognitive factors related to humorousness in television advertising, Journal of Advertising, 22(2):29-37. Alden, L., Hoyer, W., and Lee, C. (1993) Identifying Global and Culture-Specific Dimensions of Humour in Advertising: A Multinational Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 57(April):64-75. Alden, D., Mukherjee, A., and Hoyer, W. (2000) The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise, and Positive Moderators on Perceived Humour in Television Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 29(2):1-13. Calder, B. and Sternthal, B. (1980) Television commercial wearout: an information processing view, Journal of Marketing Research, 17:173-86. Chattopadhyay, A. and Basu, K. (1990) Humour in advertising, the moderating role of prior brand evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 27:466-76. Darley, W. and Smith R. (1995) Gender differences in information processing strategies, an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response, Journal of Advertising, 24(1):41-56. De Pelsmacker, P. and Geuens, M. (1998), “Reactions to different types of ads in Belgium and Poland”, International Marketing Review, 14 (3): 421-33.
  • 79. 79 De Pelsmacker, P. and Geuens, M. (1999) The advertising effectiveness of different levels of intensity of humour and warmth and the moderating role of top of mind awareness and degree of product use, Journal of Marketing Communications, 5:113- 129. Duncan, C. (1979) Humour in Advertising: A Behavioural Perspective, Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 7(4):285-306. Elpers, J., Mukherjee, A. and Hoyer, W. (2004) Humour in advertising: a moment to moment analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 31:592-598. Flaherty, K., Weinberger, M. and Gulas, C. (2004) The impact of perceived humor, product type, and humor style in radio advertising, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(1):25-36. Herzog, T. and Larwin, D. (1988) The appreciation of humour in captioned cartoons, The Journal of Psychology, 122:597-607. Janssens, W. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2005) Emotional or informative, creative or boring, the effectiveness of different types of radio commercial, International Journal of Advertising, 24(3):373-394. Kelly, J. and Solomon, P. (1975) Humour in television advertising, Journal of Advertising, 4(3): 31-35.
  • 80. 80 Kempf, D., Palan, K. and Laczniak (1997) Gender differences in information processing confidence in an advertising context: a preliminary study, Advance in Consumer Research, 24:443-449. Lammers, H., Liebowitz, L. Seymour, G., Hennessey, J. (1983) Humour and Cognitive Responses to Advertising Stimuli: A Trace Consolidation Approach, Journal of Business Research, 11(2):173-185. Lammers, H. (1991) Moderating Influence of Self-Moniroting and Gender on Responses to Humorous Advertising, The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(1):57-69. Leventhal, H., and Cupchick, G. (1976) A Process of Model of Humour Judgement, Journal of Communication, 26(Summer):190-204. Madden, T. and Weinberger, M. (1982) The effects of humour on attention in magazine advertising, Journal of Advertising, 11(3):8-14. Madden, T. and Weinberger, M. (1984) Humour in advertising: a practitioner view, Journal of Advertising Research, 24(4):23-29. Meyers, A., Ropong, B., Rodgers, R. (1997) Sex Differences in Humour, Psychological Reports, 81(1):221-222. Moos, R. (1968) Situational Analysis of a Therapeutic Community Milieu, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73:49-61.
  • 81. 81 Moos, R. (1969) Sources of Variance in Responses To Quationnaires and in Behaviour, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74:403-412. Provine, R. (2000) The Science of Laughter, Psychology Today, 33(6):58-62. Samiee, S. and Jeong, I. (1994), “Cross-cultural research in advertising: an assessment of methodologies”, Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 22 (3): 205-217. Scott, C., Klien, D. and Bryant, J. (1990) Consumer response to humour in advertising, a series of field studies using behavioural observation, Journal of Consumer Research, 16:498-501. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962) Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of Emotional state, Psychological Review, 69:379-399. Schindler, M., and Holbrook, B. (2003) Nostalgia for Early Experience as a Determinant of Consumer Preferences, Psychology & Marketing, 20(4):275-302. Snyder, M. (1974) Self-monitoring of Expressive Behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4):526-537 Snyder, M., and Tanke, E. (1976) Behaviour and Attitude: Some People Are More Consistent Than Others, Journal of Personality, 44(3):501-517.
  • 82. 82 Snyder, M., DeBono, K. (1985) Appeals to Images and Claims About Equality: Understanding The Psychology of Advertising, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49:586-597. Snyder, M., Gangestad, S. (1986) On the Nature of Self-monitoring: Matters of Assessment, Matters of Validity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1):125-139. Spotts, H., Weinberger, M. and Parsons, A. (1997) Assessing the use and impact of humour on advertising effectiveness: A contingency approach, Journal of Advertising, 26(3):17-32. Sudman, S. and Blair, E. (1999), “Sampling in the twenty-first century”, Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 27 (3): 269-277. Sternthal, B. and Craig, C. (1973) Humour in advertising, Journal of Marketing, 37:12-18. Toncar, M. (2001) The use of humour in television advertising, revisiting the US UK comparison, International Journal of Advertising, 20:521:539. Weinberger, M., and Spotts, H. (1989) Humour in U.S. vs. U.K. TV Commercials: A Comparison, Journal of Advertising, 18(2):39-44.
  • 83. 83 Weinberger, M. and Campbell, L., (1990) The use and impact of humour in radio advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 30(6):44-52. Weinberger, M., Gulas, C. (1992) The Impact of Humour in Advertising: A Review, Journal of Advertising, 21(December):35-59. Weinberger, M., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., and Parsons, A. (1995) The use and effect of humour in different advertising media, Journal of Advertising Research, 35(3):44- 56. Zhang, Y. and Zinkhan G. (2006) Responses to humorous ads, does audience involvement matter?, Journal of Advertising, 53(4):113-127. Zillmann, D., Stocking, S. (1976) Putdown Humour, Journal of Communication, 26(3) 154:163.
  • 84. 84 Online Resources: Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (2007) Definition of Humour [online] www.m- w.com [Accessed July, 2007]. Oxford’s Online Dictionary (2007) Definition of Humour [online] www.oed.com [Accessed July, 2007]. Very Funny Ads (2007) Humorous Ads [online] www.veryfunnyads.com [Accessed July, 2007]. Youtube (2007) Humorous Ads [online] www.youtube.com [Accessed July, 2007]. The End

×