Does Humor Increase the Effectiveness of Persuasion?

As we discuss humor and persuasion, and the retention of information learned through humorous messages, I am drifted back to my freshman year in high school. I recall sitting in my German Foreign Language class and the teacher used humor in his instruction for the day. He picked up his waste basket, took the bag out, and passed it around the class – each student took turns yelling into the waste basket “EIN PAPIERKORB” – which is the German word for waste basket or recycle bin. The whole class laughed as each student took a turn with the waste basket – I have never forgotten this useless word (how often would I really need to say “waste basket” in German?).


The point of the opening story is that in some situations, humor can have a lasting effect on the recipient. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the effectiveness and risks of using humor in persuasion. Humor will also be related to other persuasion theories with a discussion of how it may
support or limit the effectiveness of persuasion.

Through all the research done for this essay, it has not been proven or disproven that humor helps or hinders persuasion attempts; each incident is different. With that being said “although the literature has not supported the conclusion that humor (in general) supports persuasion (in general), there is reason to think that humor may bolster the weak link between attitude change and behavior” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 66).

“Humor seems to depend on (and perhaps be attributed to) two factors. First, the humor must be closely related to the topic or message . . . [and] the humor must be arousing or tendentious in order to create the engaging learning conditions” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 67). Therefore the humor must be enticing and relevant to the message. For example, in an advertisement for a specific product, it would not be effective to use humor in the advertisement that has nothing to do with the product itself, it must be related.

One effective theory of humor is the distraction hypothesis; “a persuasive message that is discrepant with a position strongly held by consumers will be more successful in generating attitude change if the consumer is distracted during the message presentation” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, p. 72). Using humor in advertisements may be effective in changing the opinion of a consumer that favors a competing brand, or for a product that is new on the market. “Research suggests that humor may induce distraction” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, p. 72), which can also be effective in deterring the audience from developing a counter-argument.

“Studies involving magazine ads, radio, and television spots provide converging evidence that humorous ads are more attention-getting than non-humorous ads (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, pp.70-71). Hence, humor is an effective way of getting consumers to read or listen to the advertisement. In fact, “attitude toward brand improved over time when humor had been incorporated in the advertisement” (Lyttle, 2001, p.63). So, not only does humor entice the audience and draw in their attention, it also increases their overall attitude about the brand.

One final interesting effect of humor in persuasion is the counter argument. It was previously stated that humor can dissuade an audience from forming their own counter-arguments, but what if the persuader himself included these arguments? Studies suggest that “after convincing people of an argument – bringing up (and refuting) humorous counter-arguments can sometimes serve [to solidify the argument]” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 63). Creating a humorous counter-argument may be easier to disprove than a non-humorous one, and including these arguments helps to give the argument more credibility.

What about risks of using humor in persuasion? Although humor is generally light hearted and fun, there are situations that it should not be used. Humor works very well from products with low importance, or a lack of need for a strong argument, but for some products it “may be considered inappropriate, and consequently disrupt the processing of the ad claims” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, p. 72). Depending on the situation of the humor, “it may offend some listeners, and can actually reduce retention” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 62).

Another risk is that “some humor, such as exaggeration and irony, may be retained literally by students and distort learning” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 62); in this case, the attempt of using humor in persuasion was successful, but it may have produced an alternate outcome than expected if the audience found the exaggerated humor to be true. Although humor is thought to attract attention and enhance the ad likeability, it does not significantly affect the way the audience comprehends it (Cline & Kellaris, 1999); it actually may disrupt the process. “The increased attention may focus consumers on the humorous part of the ad and simultaneously divert them from the ad claims” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, p. 71).

Through research and studies, it cannot be held conclusive that humor is effective in all persuasion. Markiewicz suggests “humor attracts attention, does not harm comprehension, does not appear to offer an advantage over non-humor at increasing persuasion, does not enhance source credibility, but does enhance liking for the source and is most effective if related to the message rather than unrelated” (as cited in Lyttle, 2001, p. 64). In other words, there are pros and cons for using humor in persuasion.

There are two models of humor and persuasion, cognitive and affective, which can be linked to the explanation of supraliminal and subliminal priming. “The cognitive model indicates that humor positively influences processing of a persuasive message by provoking attention, which engages an audience and motivates them to move through an information-processing hierarchy” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 63). This cognitive model can be linked to the supraliminal priming, which a priming that we are consciously aware of. This model suggests that the audience is provoked and engaged in this type of message, and they consciously move through an information-processing hierarchy.

“The affective model for humor in persuasion suggests that a favorable attitude toward the advertisement is a mediating variable which positively influences attitude toward the brand, purchase decision, and other outcomes of interest to advertisers” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 63). This model suggests that humor would be more of a subliminal prime – one that is not consciously considered. It suggests that the humor in advertisements would change the audience’s attitude toward the product/brand, but not through a thoughtful process.

“The persuasive effects of humor elude broad generalizations. Hence, the fundamental question about humor’s effectiveness in advertising remains unsolved. Given the mixed evidence, it would seem appropriate to ask when humor in advertising is effective, rather than if humor is effective” (Cline & Kellaris, 1999, p. 70). Although humor may work perfectly in one advertisement, it may be completely ineffective, or even have negative results in another. 



Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 69-87. Retrieved from the ProQuest database.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-217. Retrieved from the ProQuest database.