A

RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

ON

THE EFFECT OF HUMOR

ON
ADVERTISING CREDIBILITY & RECALL

PAWAN KUMAR MBA (2ND YEAR) UBS PURC LUDHIANA

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

ABSTRACT
This study examines the effect of humor on the perceived credibility, character and authority of an advertisement and on the recall of that advertisement. Two groups of subjects were shown two television commercials: one humorous and another non humorous. Subjects then filled out a questionnaire that solicited information on their perception of the commercials credibility, authoritativeness, and character. As well as their retention of the message. For the analysis of the datas nonparametric test is done. After the analysis it was observed that there is a major difference of impact of humorous and non humorous type of advertisement on the subjects. The detailed result is published in the research design chapter.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the successful completion of this project My deepest thanks to Lecturer, Mr.Shashi kapoor, the guide of the project for guiding and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. I express my thanks to Mr.Tarun vashisth ,lecturer ,UBS, PURC, LUDHIANA for his positive support and encouragement throughout the project period I express my thanks to my friends, Ms. Megha dutta,Mr. Akhilesh Mittal,and Mr. Arvind Jain for their moral and academic support throughout the project period.

PAWAN KUMAR

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

CONTENTS NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CHAPTERS Introduction Need of study Review of literature Purpose of the study Methodology Interpretations Limitations References PAGE NO. 5-7 8 9-14 15 16-17 18-24 25 26

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

INTRODUCTION
ADVERTISING
Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, good, or services by an identified sponsor. Ads can be a cost-effective way to disseminate messages, whether to build a brand preference or to educate people.

SETTING THE ADVERTISEMENT OBJECTIVES

Advertising objectives can be classified according to whether their aim is to inform, persuade, remind, reinforce. These goals correspond to different stages in the hierarchy-of effects model.

AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE LIKING PREFERENCE CONVICTION AND PURCHASE

FIG: HIERARCHY OF EFFECT MODEL

So from seeing this model we can say that conviction and purchase depends upon awareness and knowledge of the advertisement.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Thus its clear from the model that a marketer can use the consumer behavior in favors of its product only if there is mass awareness among the consumer for the product. Also its obvious that just awareness is not enough for conviction and purchase, a liking and positive attitude is necessary for purchase behavior.

HUMOR AND ADVERTISING

These day we rarely see a television commercial which does not use humor to lure

customers. Advertiser continues to employ humor in their campaigns, apparently with some success. Campaign of soft drink brand in India has proved that humor is effective.
Many practitioners favors the use of humor in advertising. They support the use of humor because humorous ads may take longer to get on ones nerves than serious ones which, because of their constant badgering may produce resentment and hence and unfavorable attitude towards the product being advertised.

On the other hand ,critics of the use of humor in persuasive communication supply equally convincing arguments .Claude Hopkins ,considered by many the father of modern advertising, denounced the use of humor, claiming people donor buy from clowns. Roser reeves described copy writer using humor as a group of dreaming, frustrated literary people who want to have fun with words regardless of what it does to their sponsors sale. Most critics in humor in advertising concur that humor may tend to entertain more than sell and should therefore be avoided. Humor may detract from the real selling information by focusing attention to itself rather than the message it is designed to convey. As Weingarten explains. The problem is that the humorous, understated maverick point of view often obfuscates the content as the heavy emphasis on presentation gets in the way of product. There is the chance then that while humor may improve attention, it may decrease comprehension and overall message reception. But despite these opposing argument. Humor continues to be used in advertising. It continues to be used to take advantage of following theorized effect of humor:

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

1. Humor attracts attention and holds the audience. 2. Humor creates a relaxed, positive mood which will improve liking for the product being advertised. 3. Because the advertiser is seen as willing to laugh about the product, the advertiser is perceived as more honest 4. Because humor makes a message more memorable, it will be acted upon for a longer period of time. 5. Because humor acts as a distractor, counter argument is inhibited, resulting in increased persuation. Results of research on the effectiveness of humor are contradictory .Two of the major areas of emphasis in research on humor have been RECALL and source perception. In these studies humor has been operationalised in the context of audio visual commercials.

RECALL Again there is a difference of opinion among scholars that a humorous advertisement does have effect on audience ability to recall the message between a serious presentation and a humorous presentation. Till now there is not any undisputed notion evolved which is supportive to creative use of advertising for higher recall value. Few studies found that humor has a negative effect on recall of message. CREDIBILITY Its a matter of concern for research scholars that whether a humorous advertisement is more credible or a serious one. However it might be possible that humorous advertisement may attract more attention of the audience than a serious does, but as far as credibility is concern, serious advertisement seems to be more credible.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

NEED OF STUDY
Many studies examined the effect of humor on the audiences perception of the source. The dependent variable ranged in operations from source character to safety, qualification, and dynamism. Few of these studies found evidence that humor has a positive effect on source perception. The result of these studies on humor suggest that the effect of humor on recall is still unclear. in some case humor in advertising may depress recall while in other cases it enhance recall. And in others it probably doesnt matter whether one selects a humorous or serious approach. While the result of the source perception studies can be utilized in planning advertisement employing testimonials or single spokespersons they are not so readily applicable to other type of advertisements. The question of these studies was how credible was the source? The question, how credible was the message? Need to be answered. Thats why I have decided to work on this ambiguous topic once more and have tried to find out the result with greater accuracy and effectiveness.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Till now many research been done on the same topic or related topic, but unfortunately no concrete result been detected so far. Below is the excerpts of few of the research literatures.

Author: Sutherland, john, c. Title: The effect of humor on advertising credibility Abstract
A study examined the effect of humor on the perceived credibility, character, and authority of an advertisement and on the recall of that advertisement. Two groups of subjects each heard two radio spots announcements, one humorous and one serious. Two different products were advertised, so that the first group of subjects, 117 college advertising students, were exposed to a serious commercial for one product and a humorous spot for the other, while the second group, 132 students, heard the opposite. The humorous and serious versions of each advertisement were identical in situation, product information, basic sales appeal, and number of times the product name and slogan war mentioned. subjects then filled out a questionnaire that solicited information on their perception of the commercial credibility, and character, as well as their retention of the message, the result indicated that there was a significant difference between the two group for each ad on the perceived humor of the message, however no difference in the subjects ability to recall Copy points was found between the humorous and serious message. Subjects rated the serious versions more credible than the humorous versions. The results suggest that the use of humor will have little effect on recall, and that a serious message is likely to be judged more credible and to have more authority than a humorous add

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Title: A Meta analysis of humor effects in advertisement Author: Martin Misspend Abstract
Although the pace of humor research in advertising has quickened over the past decades, the body of empirical evidence regarding humor effects in advertising remains equivocal. Previous Qualitative reviews barely provide generalizable conclusions on the question if humor is effective or when humor in advertising is effective. Both issues, the search for generalizable results and for factors that moderate the impact of humor in advertising are specific tasks to be addressed by application of a meta-analysis. Assumptions for the analysis are based on theoretical models and on previous qualitative reviews.

Theoretical Models and Previous Qualitative Reviews

Two types of models, cognitive and affective, have been used to explain the impact of humor in advertising. The models suggest a positive impact of humor on attitude towards the ad (AAD), Attitude towards the brand (ABR), purchase intention and behavior. Effects on attention, comprehension, recall, and recognition may be positive in case humor impact follows an information processing perspective. However, if humor causes distraction, humor decreases elaborate processing and reduces cognitive responses (CR); it harms comprehension and probably also memory effects. The overall conclusions reached by the authors of previous qualitative reviews are fairly consistent with respect to some of the outcome Variables. They infer that humor attracts attention and awareness, enhances source liking (AADV), ad liking, and brand liking, but is not very effective in bringing about actions/sales. However, it is not clear if humor detrimentally affects comprehension and recall or not, if it enhances or decreases source credibility, and if it is more persuasive than serious messages or not. Previous studies vary with respect to several characteristics related to product, placement, humor, and method that have been discussed as possible moderating variables in the literature. Advertisers believe that humor is best suited for low involvement products, particularly for hedonic/feeling products compared to functional/ thinking products.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Humorous ads are said to be more successful for existing than for new products. Furthermore, ad executives Believe humor to be most suited in radio and TV-advertising compared to print advertising. Humor seems to work best for younger and well-educated consumers, particularly males. Two Method factors may be important that allow for more control and should hence lead to increased effects: the way the control ad is and if humor research is field research or performed as Laboratory study. The crucial moderating factor, however, is apparently the humorous stimulus. Advertisers seem to conceive humor as the degree of personal recognition and appreciation of humor. Humor ads that vary in the level of humor they evoke in the target audience lead to variations in advertising effect variables as well. The relationship between humor intensity and ad effectiveness can be conceived as either linear or curvilinear.

Method
The literature search for the meta-analysis revealed 64 studies investigating the impact of humor in advertising; 47 studies provided enough data to calculate relevant effect sizes. The effect size Metric selected for the analysis is the correlation coefficient between humor and dependent variables. Since most papers reported multiple measures, also multiple effect sizes from single studies for particular relationships were included. Altogether, 443 effect sizes were available for the purpose of the meta-analysis. Integration of effect sizes is performed based on sample size weighted and attenuation corrected correlations. In order to consider multiple measures per study, correlations between the same constructs from a single study were averaged for integration purposes. If the integration of effects sizes yielded heterogeneity, a WLS regression Analysis applying moderator variables was performed. Moderator variables were coded by two coders based on information given in the studies.

Results
The integration results show that humor significantly enhances AAD, ABR, attention, comprehension, cognitive responses, positive emotions, purchase intention, recall and

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

recognition. Humor reduces credibility and negative emotions. Humor has no impact on AADV, distraction, and purchase behavior. The results of the moderator analysis come up with rather Consistent findings. Contrary to expectations, humor works better in influencing attitudes for high involvement products and thinking products than for low involvement or feeling products. No effects were found for established vs. new brands. Also media have an effect that contradicts previous assumptions: humor effects are stronger for print media than for broadcast media for AAD. Ads are also more liked when the program context is rather humor incongruent than congruent. Repeated exposure enhances ABR, but shows no effect on other dependent variables. Finally, reception in social group leads to less attention compared to reception of humorous ads Alone. No difference was found for different demographic groups. Also culture does not influence attitudes and memory, but attention: humorous ads do enhance attention particularly for US consumers compared to other countries. Methodological factors impact only the attention measure such that more controlled ads and laboratory studies enhance the effects on attention. Results of nonlinear regressions of humor intensity on ad effectiveness show that perceived humor does not affect AAD or attention, but brand attitudes and memory. While ABR increases With perceived humor which is in line with the idea of conditioning theory, memory effects rather follow a curvilinear relationship for humor intensity; particularly, they increase with strong levels of humor intensity.

Title: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Humor on Advertising

This paper presents results of a meta-analysis performed using published results of experimental Studies on the effects of humor in advertising. Three categories of response variables were considered as measures of effectiveness of advertising: cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral constructs. Separate analyses were performed for each response variable to estimate the combined effect sizes of humor in advertising and to assess the moderating effect of methodological characteristics of the different studies. The results indicate that cognitive measures are not affected by humor in ads, while attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

brand, and purchase intention are higher in the presence of humor. In addition, recall of humorous ads is stronger when humor is measured during the experiment rather than manipulated and when the sample is exclusively male. Attitude toward the ad is also higher in Studies whit measured humor.

Title: print and Television Advertisements and the Effects of Humor Author: Elliott Sawyer Abstract
This study investigates the use of humor in both Print and Television Advertisements to study the persuasiveness of humor in advertising and the difference between the two mediums. Zhang, Baize, and Altenburg all suggest that advertisements are much more attractive to a consumer when using humor but they may not be as effective for selling the product. Strick, van Baaren, Holland, van Knippenberg, and Zhang all suggest that humor does increase the positive attitudes towards the ad, but not necessarily towards the brand. This study bridges the gap between other studies that focus primarily on either Television or Print ads. Participants (N=27) completed measures of attitudes towards the ad, humor in the ad, and purchase intent. The hypothesis that the humorous television ad would have the highest attitudes and purchase intent out of all four categories was not supported by the data

Method Participants:
Participants consisted of 27 undergraduate students from the University of Puget Sound. The majority of the students came from First Year Communication Studies Courses. Participation was volunteer and confidential. The participants were asked to complete a packet consisting of three questionnaires twice. The first set was finished after viewing the print stimulus material, and the second was completed after viewing the television stimulus material. The questionnaires measured attitudes towards the ad, humor in ads, and purchase intent. Participants were split up into two groups: one receiving both a print and television humorous stimulus and the other receiving both a print and television non humorous stimulus.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Stimuli
All 4 stimuli were from Pepsi campaigns, and both non humorous stimuli were from the newest 2009 campaign. The non-humorous print ad featured very bright colors with different phrases with Os being filled instead with the new Pepsi logo. Also, different smiley faces resembling emoticons were created out of the manipulation of the new logo. The nonhumorous television ad was very short at 30 seconds, and they also featured bright colors and the replacement of Os with the new logo in positive phrases. The humorous print ad displayed a monkey handing a Pepsi to a truck driver to bribe the driver for the Bananas in the truck. The humorous television ad was about a minute and a half and featured a child growing up and training to become a monk. At his initiation, he realizes that the symbol for the monks is actually the top of a Pepsi can. So, he promptly crushes the can with his forehead to gain the symbol and acceptance.

Results
Means were first used to compute the difference between the non-humorous and humorous stimuli in the print and television groups. Hypothesis 1 stated that Humorous television group would have the highest ATA, PIS, and Brand. In table 1, this is proven to be false in a statistically significant way for the ATA and Brand. The PIS does also show false, but not statistically significant.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

1. To study the effect of humor on the perceived character of an advertising? 2. To study the effect of humor on the perceived authority of an advertisement? 3. To Study the effect of humor on the perceived recall of an advertisement

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
Two groups of subjects each watched two commercials one humorous and one serious. Two different products were advertised ,so that one group of subjects were exposed to a serious commercial for one product and a humorous spot for another, while the second group watched the opposite as indicated in the diagram below.

PRODUCT A PRODUCT B

GROUP 1 SERIOUS HUMOROUS

GROUP2 HUMOROUS SERIOUS

SAMPLE
Subjects exposed to the PRODUCT a (COCACOLA), PRODUCT B (NIRMA) are being chosen from male and female post graduation students of MBA.

STIMULI
To assure that the humorous television commercials used in the experiment would be perceived as humorous, a simultaneous test of extent of humor present in the commercial is done.

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
The questionnaire design combined elements of tests formerly employed by both Cantor and Venus (1980) and Charles gruner (1967 and 1970).Identical for all groups the questionnaire consisted of three parts 1) 2) 3) 4) Basic demographic data Data regarding recall of the advertisement Data regarding authority of the advertisement Data regarding character of the advertisement

Various factors been chosen to rate authority and character of the advertisement on semantic differential scale. These factors were presented to the subjects as two poles. Factors for authoritativeness are

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

1) Reliable-Unreliable 2) Informative-Uninformative 3) Intelligent-Unintelligent 4) Valuable-Worthless Factors for character are 1) 2) 3) 4) Honest-Dishonest Friendly-Unfriendly Pleasant-Unpleasant Nice-Awful

DATA PROCESSING
Responses were coded, with open-ended question receiving a 3 for correct answer, a 2 for partially correct response, and 1 for dont know. Semantic differentials were coded on a scale from 1-5 with 1 always the least favorable and 5 for most favorable. After the completion of survey data was analyzed by computer The statistical package for the social sciences(spas) was used to perform general frequency calculation and cross-tabulation of selected variables. MANN-WHITNEY test is performed to determined statistical difference between means a 0.05 alpha level was considered acceptable for statistical significance.

DATA FEEDING IN SPSS

Data for two experiments were feeded in the spss software, There were two experiments. 1) Humorous and non humorous effect on subjects of coca cola commercials 2) Humorous and no humorous effect of normal commercials.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

INTERPRETATIONS
NIRMA AD:
For both humorous and non humorous ads sig. value for different variable. Such as gender, product recall, slogan recall, overall message recall,reliability,etc were found different. Below is the description for each variable differently: Gender: a no difference hypothesis may be accepted, it means that there is no relationship between gender and humorous/nonhumorous ads.
GET FILE='C:\Users\PAWAN\Desktop\nirma spss.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet0 WINDOW=FRONT. NPAR TESTS /M-W= Q1 BY Q15(1 2) /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.

NPar Tests
Test Statistics GENDER Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: AD CODE 84.000 189.000 -.742 .458 .541
a

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Product name Slogan Message Feature Of the above written group of variables only in the case of recall of message ,a no difference hypothesis can be accepted. In case of recall of product name,slogan,and product feature..there is a significant difference between the effect of humorous and non humorous ads.

Descriptive Statistics N PRODUCT NAME SLOGAN FEATURE MESSAGE AD CODE 28 28 28 28 28 Mean 2.1071 2.3929 1.9286 2.1429 1.5000 Std. Deviation .73733 .68526 .71640 .70523 .50918 Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

Test Statistics PRODUCT NAME Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: AD CODE 20.000 125.000 -3.869 .000 .000
a

SLOGAN 12.500 117.500 -4.354 .000 .000

a

FEATURE 34.000 139.000 -3.203 .001 .002

a

MESSAGE 68.500 173.500 -1.481 .138 .178

a

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Reliability Informative Intelligence of ad Valuable product Of the above written variable humorous and non humorous ads have considerable effect on reliability, informative ads, intelligence of ad, and perceived value of the product.
Test Statistics RELIABILITY Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: AD CODE 29.000 134.000 -3.321 .001 .001
a b

INFORMATION 32.000 137.000 -3.245 .001 .002

a

INTELLIGENT 14.500 119.500 -3.948 .000 .000

a

VALUABLE 22.500 127.500 -3.643 .000 .000

a

Honesty Nice Friendly Pleasant Of the above written variables humorous and non humorous ads have significant effect on all of them it means that we can reject the no difference hypothesis.

Descriptive Statistics N HONEST FRIENDLY PLEASANT NICE AD CODE 28 28 28 28 28 Mean 3.1786 2.9286 3.5357 3.1429 1.5000 Std. Deviation .98333 1.18411 .99934 1.23871 .50918 Minimum 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 2.00

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Test Statistics HONEST Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: AD CODE 31.500 136.500 -3.237 .001 .001
a

FRIENDLY 2.000 107.000 -4.692 .000 .000

a

PLEASANT 5.000 110.000 -4.474 .000 .000

a

NICE 14.500 119.500 -4.069 .000 .000

a

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

COCA-COLA AD:
For both humorous and non humorous ads of cocacola I found different values of sig. Below is the description of all the variables differently. Gender: in case of response of different genders we cannt reject our no difference hypothesis.

Test Statistics

GENDER Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] Monte Carlo Sig. (2-tailed) Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Monte Carlo Sig. (1-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Sig. a. Not corrected for ties. b. Based on 20 sampled tables with starting seed 299883525. c. Grouping Variable: ADCODE 50.000 105.000 .000 1.000 1.000 1.000
a b

.861 1.000 .281 .719 .500

b

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Product recall Slogan Feature Sales message Of all the variables written above: based on the results found by spss data processing we can say that only recall of sales message has sig.value more than .05 . so in this variable only we can accept the no difference hypothesis.

Test Statistics

PRODUCTREC SLOGANRECAL FEATURERECA SALESMESSAG ALL Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: ADCODE 21.000 76.000 -2.591 .010 .029
a

L 19.000 74.000 -2.554 .011 .019

a

LL 17.000 72.000 -2.690 .007 .011

a

E 49.000 104.000 -.108 .914 .971

a

Reliability Information Intelligent valuable Of the above written variables only in case of reliability, we can accept the no difference hypothesis. In the rest of cases,nonhumorous and humorous cases hav different impact on subjects perceived reliability,information,and valuability.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

Test Statistics RELIABILITY Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: ADCODE 27.000 82.000 -1.863 .062 .089
a

INFORMATIVE 19.000 74.000 -2.527 .012 .019

a

INTELLIGENT 5.000 60.000 -3.823 .000 .000

a

VALUABLE 14.000 69.000 -2.865 .004 .005

a

Honesty Nice Pleasant Friendly Of the above written variables friendliness and nice/awfulness variables we can accept nodifference hypothesis. In rest of the variables there is a considerable difference of the impact of humorous and non humorous advertisements.
Test Statistics HONEST Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] a. Not corrected for ties. b. Grouping Variable: ADCODE 21.000 76.000 -2.433 .015 .029
a b

FRIENDLY 33.500 88.500 -1.417 .156 .218

a

PLEASANT 22.000 77.000 -2.274 .023 .035

a

NICE 28.000 83.000 -1.837 .066 .105

a

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

LIMITATIONS
These are the following limitation to the experiment 1. Results from college student will be generalized to the whole population 2. There was no random selection of subject. 3. Because subjects are management student they are sensitive to the advertisement. 4. All the students were aware of the advertisement before the same were shown to them. 5. This type of study fails to read the long term effect of the advertisement.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA

REFERENCES
1)Sutherland,john c. the effect of humor on advertising recall (1982) 2) Haseeb Shabbir and Des Thwaites the use of humor to mask deceptive Advertising 3) Martin Eisend, Freie Universitt Berlin, German A Meta-Analysis of Humor Effect in advertising 4)Mark g.weinberger ,Charles s.Gulas the impact of humor in

advertising.

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, LUDHIANA