ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-Of-Mouth Dave Bussiere, University of Windsor, Canada Exploratory qualitative analysis of 127 actual on-line conversations revealed the presence of humor in word-of-mouth (WOM). This use of humor seemed to weaken the impact of the WOM advice. While there is a rich history of research on the impact of humor on advertising, there is no equivalent research in the WOM literature. Using a 2x2 experimental design, the impact of humorous WOM on behavioral intentions, WOM intentions, evaluations of source credibility and evaluations of message persuasiveness are analyzed. Humor was found to decrease the impact of positive and negative WOM messages. [to cite]: Dave Bussiere (2009),"The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-Of-Mouth", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36, eds. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 399-404. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/14731/volumes/v36/na-36 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-of-Mouth Dave Bussiere, University of Windsor, Canada ABSTRACT Exploratory qualitative analysis of 127 actual on-line conversations revealed the presence of humor in word-of-mouth (WOM). This use of humor seemed to weaken the impact of the WOM advice. While there is a rich history of research on the impact of humor on advertising, there is no equivalent research in the WOM literature. Using a 2x2 experimental design, the impact of humorous WOM on behavioral intentions, WOM intentions, evaluations of source credibility and evaluations of message persuasiveness are analyzed. Humor was found to decrease the impact of positive and negative WOM messages. At its most basic level humor is an intended or unintended message interpreted as funny. Yet curiously, the communication field has only skimmed the surface of the world of humor. (Lynch 2002, p. 423) For almost 35 years, marketing research has acknowledged the impact of humor on message processing. This research has focused primarily on the role of humor in advertising and its impact on message persuasiveness, source credibility and behavioral intentions. In contrast, research on word-of-mouth (WOM) has focused on neutral, positive or negative WOM comments. This paper will provide a literature base for future humor research in WOM. Humor in Advertising Since Sternthal and Craig s pivotal article (1973), there have been numerous articles that have analyzed various implications of humor in advertising. As Duncan (1979) notes, learning theory suggests that humor should positively impact advertising results through increased distraction, higher arousal, positive conditions and increased source credibility: Advocates of humor in advertising argue that light-hearted copy secures audience attention, increases advertisement memorability, overcomes sales resistance, and enhances message persuasiveness. (Duncan 1979, p. 286). While some studies have found a positive relationship between the use of humor and ad results (c.f. Madden & Weinberger 1984), there are mixed results overall. In fact, the impact of a humorous message seems to be contingent on who receives the message: If humor is used in a persuasive communication, its function may also vary depending on how humor is processed by the message recipient. (Zhang & Zinkhan 2006, p. 114). persuasiveness, but that it does not appear to influence actual persuasion when compared to serious appeals because of the moderating impact of other variables (Booker 1981, Madden and Weinberger 1984). In fact, much of the past research has found indirect effects that moderated the impact of humor such as the need for humor (Cline, Altsech and Kellaris 2003), liking of the ad (Gelb and Pickett 1983), the need for cognition (Zhang 1996) and the attitude towards the ad (Zhang and Zinkhan 2006). Source Credibility The impact of humor on source credibility is far less studied and yet the same mix of results exists (Weinberger and Gulas 1992). While Sternthal and Craig (1973) found that Humor tends to enhance source credibility, (p.17), the only other study found that advertising executives, both researchers and creative directors generally did not agree (Madden and Weinberger 1984). There is also mixed support for using humor to increase the likelihood of message recipients intending to follow the advice in the message. One study found that humor did, in fact, increase intentions to purchase the product (Perry et al 1997). In contrast, Gelb and Pickett (1983) and Duncan and Nelson (1985) found an opposite effect. Madden and Weinberger (1984) found mixed support for the impact of humor on purchase intention amongst advertising executives. In a study of humor in promotion for events, Scott, Klein and Bryant (1990) found that humor increased attendance at social events, but had no impact on business event attendance. Only one study analyzed the impact of humor in advertising on word-of-mouth intentions. Perry et al (1997) found that humor increased the likelihood that the message recipient would pass on the massage to other consumers. As the preceding highlights, despite 35 years of research, the impact of humor in advertising remains unsettled. As Weinberger and Gulas (1992) note: Though the broad question of humor s effectiveness in advertising is unanswerable, we can compile the accounts of humor research in the proper constraints to gain insights about its effects. (Weinberger and Gulas 1992, p. 35) Following this line of reasoning, this article will acknowledge imperfect understanding of humor, and expand research to humor in word-of-mouth messages. Message Persuasiveness While there has been a substantial amount of research on the impact of humor on message persuasiveness, the understood direction of the effect is mixed (Weinberger and Gulas 1992). Duncan and Nelson (1985), for example, found that humor in radio ads had positive impact on lower-order processes like attention, but weakened persuasion. Other studies found that humor increased message persuasion because it reduced resistance to the message (Lammer et al 1983, Zhang1996). More common, however, were studies that support Sternthal and Craig s (1973) proposition that humor may, in theory, increase Word-of-Mouth For over 50 years, WOM has been actively researched (Brooks 1957) and yet there is general agreement that the research is incomplete (c.f. Bowman & Narayandas 2001, Wangenheim 2005). In general, WOM has been found to provide an easy, credible source of information and more effective than ads (c.f. Goldenberg, Libai & Muller 2001). Research has also found that individuals turn to strong-tie, rather than weaker social connections (Brown & Reingen 1987, Gilly, Graham, Wolfinbarger & Yale 1998, Goldenberg, Libai & Muller 2001, Yale & Gilly 1995). 399 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36, 2009
400 / The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-of-Mouth Research indicates that there are many reasons for consumers to participate in WOM discussions. Some participate post-consumption, and want to discuss their experience. Others participate pre-purchase and want to better their purchase decision. Post Consumption Word-Of-Mouth Post consumption research has focused on within the consumer complaint literature. This research has examined how service failure increases the likelihood of complaining to the service provider and to other consumers. One of the prime drivers of WOM is the desire to complain about a service failure (Bone 1995, Halstead 2002, Maxham & Netemeyer 2003, Maxham & Netemeyer 2002, Maxham 2001, Nyer & Gopinath 2005, Richins 1983). The desire to participate in negative word-of-mouth/complaining behavior is lessened by a company s reaction to complaints. Company reaction to complaints influences the degree to which people participate in negative WOM (Brown, Barry, Dacin & Gunst 2005, Halstead 2002, Maxham 2001, Nyer & Gopinath 2005, Richins 1983, Wangenheim 2003, Voorhees, Brady & Horowitz 2006). Pre-Consumption Word-Of-Mouth Consumers cannot know everything and so must turn to others for advice and information. In general, this research has found that positive and negative WOM massages have different impacts on consumers with negative being more effective (DeCarlo et al 2007, Wangenheim 2005). This negative WOM has been shown to negatively influence consumers brand perceptions (Bone 1995, Gruen, Osmonbekov & Czaplewski 2006), intentions to buy (Bone 1995, Gruen, Osmonbekov & Czaplewski 2006, Keiningham, Money 2004, Lee, Lee and Feick 2006, Maxham 2001, Mayzlin 2006, Perkins-Munn & Evans 2003, Woodside & Delozier 1976,) and intentions to pass of further WOM (Brown, Barry, Dacin & Gunst 2005, Maxham 2001). Interestingly, negative WOM has been found to result in stronger perceptions of source credibility (Godes & Mayzlin 2004). Humor in Word-of Mouth It is not surprising that humor would exist within WOM messages. As Lynch (2002) notes: Jokes and humor, in general, play an important part in determining who we are and how we think of ourselves, and as a result how we interact with others. (Lynch 2002, p. 425) EXPLORATORY RESEARCH Given the importance of humor within the communication process, it can be expected that it will impact the message exchange within WOM conversations. As such, exploratory qualitative research was undertaken to understand the role of emotions and humor in WOM. Internet based WOM has become increasingly used in consumer research (Chevalier & Mayzlin 2006, Dellarocas 2003, Godes & Mayzlin 2004, Goldenberg, Libai & Muller 2001, Gruen, Osmonbekov & Czaplewski 2006, Mayzlin 2006, Phelps et al 2004,). In keeping with this line of research, electronic WOM was used in the exploratory research. Prior qualitative research indicated that online home improvement forums contained ample electronic WOM conversations (Bussiere 2000), so 127 naturallyoccurring online conversations from the internet newsgroup alt.home.repair were analyzed. The conversations varied in length from two comments to over 40 comments. Some conversations included over 20 individuals. All conversations dealt with home improvement issues. The conversations were analyzed for evidence of any emotion or mood that moved the word-of-mouth message away from a neutral statement. The impact on the flow of conversation was then analyzed. The primary focus of the analysis was the tone of the WOM advice rather than the advice seeker. Samples of the complete text were also coded by two additional researchers to assess reliability. Findings Approximately a quarter of messages included elements of humor. This not only altered the tone of the conversation, but also resulted in further use of humor or, at times, angry responses to the humor. In the following conversation, the humorous comment seems to be intentional and seems to seek to make the other participants smile or comment. After a 264 word question about his furnace, Edge concludes (Conversation 3): Have I got a faulty thermostat or is there something wrong down at the furnace? Thanks a million-edge The conversation maintains a focus on the question, and yet the humor also becomes an integral part of the conversation. Participants even began using emoticons (e.g. :-) the sideways smile) to make sure that the comment was being understood as humor. ANSWER 1: You should have 24 volts ac. (measure again with the meter in the ac mode). If the voltage is still low, check the wiring for a bad connection. this can cause an intermittent problem) > Thanks a million - No problem, just send a half a million, please!!! :-)(want the address to send it??)better yet, I ll pick it up personally. :- )(wouldn t want it to get lost in the mail) :-) RESPONSE TO ANSWER: Thanks for the tip! It was a loose wire, where the thermostat connects to the gas valve. Hmmm. Half a million? Maybe I can talk you down? COMMENT FROM OBSERVER: Do what everyone else does just don t pay. Christopher Similarly, a request for help in hanging wallpaper resulted in the following comment (Conversation 29): Use longer nails? Alternatively, the humor is essentially tangential to the conversation. The participants likely see it, but it does not actually influence the flow of conversation. Consider, for example, the following conversation. At the end of a conversation that actually addresses the issue, a new participant enters the conversation and takes advantage of the wording of the question to add some adult humor. The question asks about mounting a toilet flange. The final answer is less than useful (Conversation 123). for good sex i alwayze mount it. This tangential humor, however, can actually influence the flow of conversation. Consider, for example, the following conversation. The questioner, Stormin Mormon, begins with mild humor in describing his vehicle. More importantly, Stormin Mormon signs his question with additional references to his religion. Because
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 36) / 401 some participants have multiple postings, it is worthwhile noting the commentor s name (Conversation 76). QUESTION: Stormin Mormon My land tank is a 87 Dodge, with the 8 engine, and has about 150K miles. Running about 8 or 9 MPG.Recently had the tune up parts. Cap, rotor, sparks, air filter, fuel filter. What else might help improve mileage? Christopher Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org www.mormons.org ANSWER 1: Tony Hi, You mean V8? Advancing timing as much as you can will help. Changing advance curve by trying different springs in the distributor can help changing the thermostat with hotter one(if that old engine can take it without leaking coolant) can help Trying to get lower idle RPM can help. Tranny shift kit may help. Changing the jet in the carb, etc., etc. No new ignition wires? ANSWER 2: Randd01 Jack it up and put a GMC under it! ANSWER 3: Loose Cannon Don t think putting a GMC under it would help get better mileage. I have an older GMC Gaucho van with a 350. What a pig on gas! Don t know which Chrysler V8 the Stormin Mormon has in his Dodge van, but if it is the 318, the gas mileage should be better than he is getting. Had a few big old Chrysler cars with the 318 engine and got pretty good mileage out of them. Seldom, if ever had any engine problems either. ANSWER 4: Randd01 My new GMC with 5.3 V8 averages 20 mpg got up to 23 on highway with automatic overdrive tranny. Way better then my 1995 GMC with 350 got. ANSWER 5: Swampy get a few of your wives to push it RESPONSE TO ANSWER 5: Stormin Mormon Oddly enough, I m a bachelor. But thanks for the idea. Note that the humor moved the conversation into a GM versus Chrysler debate. In addition, Stormin Mormon s Mormon status elicited the multiple wife joke. In each case, the actual issue became a side issue. Yet, at times, humor is used to add strength to the message. The cutting aspect of the humor actually speaks to the seriousness of the issue. In the following conversation, the questioner asks about soldering a natural gas control valve. The response is humorous and serious (Conversation 118): Increase your life insurance twofold. Have your next of kin two counties away with copies of all important papers when you do this. This exploratory research indicates that the presence of humor in WOM messages can alter the flow of a conversation. Specifically, the presence of humor seems to weaken the impact of the WOM message on behavioral intentions the likelihood that an individual who receives the WOM message will be more likely to follow the advice in a purchase decision and on the likelihood of passing on the advice to others through future WOM. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the literature review and the exploratory research, the following behavioral intention, WOM intention, source credibility and message persuasiveness hypotheses were developed. H1a: Positive humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker behavioral intentions than positive neutrally-toned WOM messages H1b: Negative humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker behavioral intentions than negative neutrally-toned WOM messages H2a: Positive humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker WOM intentions than positive neutrally-toned WOM messages. H2b: Negative humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker WOM intentions than negative neutrally-toned WOM messages. Source Credibility H3a: Positive humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker perceptions of source credibility than positive neutrally-toned WOM messages. H3b: Negative humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker perceptions of source credibility than negative neutrally-toned WOM messages. Message Persuasiveness H4a: Positive humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker perceptions of message persuasiveness than positive neutrally-toned WOM messages. H4b: Negative humorous WOM messages will evoke weaker perceptions of message persuasiveness than negative neutrally-toned WOM messages. METHOD Participants and Design Participants were 492 American adults who participated in the survey as part of a paid survey panel. The design was a two (positive/negative WOM message) by two (neutral and humorous WOM) experimental design. Each participant was presented with two WOM scenarios. Stimuli and Procedure Four WOM messages were created for the experiment (a positive and negative version of the neutral and humorous messages). All stimuli were based closely on actual messages found in the 127 conversations from the exploratory research. All WOM messages were changed to a fictional brand name (Granger). In keeping with the home improvement focus of the exploratory research, all WOM messages dealt with garage door openers. Five business professors and three adult non-academics rated a total of 16 potential scenarios to ensure internal validity. Additional WOM descriptors were provided to avoid leading the responses (e.g. impatient, confused, shy, curious, etc.). The four scenarios that were used had agreement from all raters. Participants completed the experiment online. After viewing each WOM message, participants were asked to evaluate the credibility of the source, persuasiveness of the message, behavioral intention and WOM intentions. Using existing scales ensured high reliability of the scales as is demonstrated in Table 1. Source credibility measured the trustworthiness of the WOM message provider using a 5 item scale that focused on trustworthiness. Persuasiveness of the Message uses a 4 item scale to measure the strength of the WOM message. measures the inclination of the message recipient to follow the advice given
402 / The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-of-Mouth Scale TABLE 1 SCALE RELIABILITY Source Source Credibility Mackenzie and Lutz 1989 0.90 Persuasiveness of the Message Gurhan-Canli and Maheswarn 2000 0.89 Behavioral Intention Mackenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986 0.92 WOM Intention Price and Arnould 1999 0.93 in the WOM message using a 3 item scale. The WOM Intention scale measured the willingness to recommend the brand discussed in the WOM message using a 3 item scale. RESULTS The behavioral intentions scale was used to determine the inclination of the respondent to purchase the Granger garage door opener if they needed a garage door opener based on the WOM message that they read. There was strong support for H1a. Behavioral intentions for positive neutral WOM messages (M=0.80) were reduced for positive humorous comments (M=0.26; T(261)=15.25, p<0.01). Similarly, H1b was supported behavioral intentions for negative neutral WOM messages (M=0.70) were reduced for negative humorous messages (M=0.21; T(231)=12.48, p<0.01). Overall, there was strong support for the hypotheses that neutral WOM messages have a larger impact on behavioral intentions than do humorous WOM messages. The WOM intentions scale was used to determine the inclination of the respondent to pass on the WOM comment about Granger garage door openers to others through future WOM conversations. There was strong support for H2a. WOM intentions for positive neutral WOM messages (M=0.76) were reduced for positive humorous comments (M= -0.92; T(261)=12.55, p<0.01). Similarly, WOM intentions for negative neutral WOM messages (M=0.35) were reduced for negative impatient messages (M= - 1.11; T(231)=11.28, p<0.01), thereby supporting H2b. Overall, there was general support for the hypotheses that neutral WOM messages have a larger impact on WOM intentions than do humorous WOM messages. Dissecting The Results In order to understand why behavioral intentions and WOM intentions decreased with the presence of humor, the role of positive versus negative messages was analyzed. Positive versus Negative Messages While the flow of the WOM conversations altered when humor was present, there was some indication that negative and positive comments impacted the flow differently. It was, however, difficult to forecast a directional effect for each of the message types. Positive and negative messages influenced behavioral intentions differently, based on the message tone. Neutrally-toned comments that were positive (i.e. supported the Granger brand), exhibited slightly stronger behavioral intentions (M=0.80) than negative messages (M=0.70; T(261)=2.82, p<0.01). This was consistent with previous research. Humorous WOM demonstrated no significant difference on behavioral intentions between positive and negative comments. In general, positive comments had a weaker impact on WOM intentions than negative comments. WOM intentions for positive neutral comments (M=0.76) were greater than WOM intentions for neutral negative messages (M=0.35; T(261)=3.22, p<0.01). This was not consistent with previous research. Humorous WOM demonstrated no significant difference on WOM intentions between positive and negative comments. Source Credibility and Message Persuasiveness In addition to answering questions about behavioral and WOM intentions following each WOM, participants also asked to evaluate the credibility of the message giver and the persuasiveness of the message. Hypothesis 3a was supported. Positive neutral WOM resulted in higher ratings of source credibility (M= 0.84) than humorous WOM (M=0.50; T(261)= 10.33, p<0.01). Similarly, hypothesis 3b was supported. Negative neutral WOM resulted in higher ratings of source credibility (M= 0.77) than humorous WOM (M=0.47; T(231)= 8.47, p<0.01). This is consistent with Godes & Mayzlin (2004). In judging message persuasiveness, hypotheses 4a and 4b were both supported. Positive neutral WOM also resulted in higher ratings of message persuasiveness (M= 0.67) than humorous WOM (M=0.28; T(261)= 10.40, p<0.01). Negative neutral WOM resulted in higher ratings of message persuasiveness (M= 0.63) than humorous WOM (M=0.23; T(231)= 10.77, p<0.01). DISCUSSION The complete analysis of hypotheses found significant differences between neutrally-toned and humorous WOM comments. These differences are partially explained by the degree of positivity or negativity in the messages. The WOM message tone and degree of negativity have significant influences on perceived source credibility and persuasiveness of the message. These findings have important implications for our understanding of WOM dynamics and consumer behavior. First, the findings in general indicate that word-of-mouth is a more complicated construct than previously believed. Second, it indicates that the tone of the message may be as important as the actual message. Humor generally detracts from the impact of the message. Managers will benefit from understanding that WOM is more complicated that previously understood. This means that compa-
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 36) / 403 nies may want to spark neutral WOM comments rather than using humorous appeals to spark WOM. This is increasingly important given recent interest in viral marketing campaigns. Future research could evaluate the ways in which these changes interact. Specifically, research that attempts to model the interactions between message positivity/negativity and message tone would provide important insight into consumer analysis of WOM messages. Given Zhang and Zinkhan s (2006) finding that the impact of a humorous message seems to be contingent on who receives the message, research that further investigates the recipients of humorous messages would be beneficial. As such, demographic analysis may also provide insight into the differing views of males versus females, experienced consumers versus inexperienced, and individuals with varying personal traits. Similarly, an analysis of how market mavens those most likely to pass on marketplace advice react to humorous WOM would be beneficial. This research is limited by its data collection method. Online word-of-mouth messages may not be representative of off-line WOM behavior. Also, the fact that message givers were unknown to the participants may impact results. Again, this may speak to the differences between electronic WOM and traditional WOM. Also, any research based on humor is subject to differing views of the humor. While statistical differences were found, studies that replicate the findings would be useful. REFERENCES Alden, Dana, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne Hoyer (1993), An Examination of Cognitive Factors Related To Humorousness, Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 29-38. Alden, Dana, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D Hoyer (2000), The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise And Positive Moderators On Perceived Humor, Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 1-15. Arndt, Johan (1967), Role of Product-related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product, Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (3), 291. Athanassopoulos, Antreas, Spiros Gounaris, and Vlassis Stathakopoulos (2001), Behavioral Responses to Customer Satisfaction: An empirical study, European Journal of Marketing, 35 (5/6), 687. Bone Paula F. (1995), Word-of-Mouth Effects On Short-Term and Long-Term Product Judgments, Journal of Business Research, 32, 213 23. Bowman, Douglas and Das Narayandas (2001), Managing Customer-Initiated Contacts With Manufacturers: The Impact on Share of Category Requirements and Word-Of- Mouth Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (3), 281. Brooker, George (1981), A Comparison of The Persuasive Effects of Mild Humor And Mild Fear Appeals, Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 29-40. Brooks, Robert (1957), Word-of-Mouth Advertising In Selling New Products, Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 154-161. Brown Jacqueline and Peter Reingen (1987), Social Ties And Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 350 362. Brown, Tom, Thomas Barry, Peter Dacin, and Richard F Gunst (2005), Spreading The Word: Investigating Antecedents of Consumers Positive Word-of-Mouth, Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 33(2), 123-138. Bussiere, Dave (2000), Evidence and Implications of Electronic Word-of-Mouth, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science Conference. Chevalier, Judith A., and Dina Mayzlin (2006), The Effect of Word of Mouth On Sales: Online Book Reviews, Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August), 345 354. Cline, Thomas, Moses Altsech, and James Kellaris (2003), When Does Humor Enhance Or Inhibit Ad Responses?: The Moderating Role of the Need for Humor, Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 31-45. Decarlo Thomas, Russell Laczniak, Carol Motley, and Sridhar Ramaswami (2007), Influence of Image and Familiarity on Consumer Response to Negative Word-of-Mouth, Journal of Marketing Theory And Practice, 15(1) 41 51. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos (2003), The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback, Management Science, 49(10), 1407-1424. Duhan, Dale F, Scott D Johnson, James B Wilcox, and Gilbert D Harrell (1997), Influences on Consumer Use of Word-of- Mouth Recommendation Sources, Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 25 (4), 283. Duncan, Calvin (1979), Humor In Advertising: A Behavioral Perspective, Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 7(4), 285 306. Duncan, Calvin, and James Nelson (1985), Effects of Humor In A Radio Advertising Experiment, Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33-40. Engel, James, Roger Blackwell, and Robert Kegerreis (1969), How Information Is Used To Adopt An Innovation, Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 3 8. Gelb, Betsy, and Charles M Pickett (1983), Attitude-Toward- The-Ad: Links To Humor And To Advertising Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising, 12(2), 34-42. Gilly, Mary C, John L Graham, Mary Finley Wolfinbarger, and Laura J Yale (1998), A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search, Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 26 (2), 83. Godes, David, and Dina Mayzlin (2004) Using Online Conversations To Study Word-of-Mouth Communication, Marketing Science, 23(4), 545 560. Goldenberg Jacob, Barak Libai and Eitan Muller (2001), Talk of The Network: A Complex Systems Look At The Underlying Process of Word-of-Mouth, Marketing Letters, 12(3), 211-223. Gruen, Thomas, Talai Osmonbekov, and Andrew Czaplewski (2006), Ewom: The Impact of Customer-To-Customer Online Know-How Exchange On Customer Value And Loyalty, Journal of Business Research, 59, 449 456. Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep and Durairaj Maheswaran (2000), Determinants of Country-of-Origin Evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 96-108. Halstead, Diane (2002), Negative Word of Mouth: Substitute For Or Supplement To Consumer Complaints? Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction And Complaining Behavior, 15, 1-12. Keiningham, Timothy, Tiffany Perkins-Munn, and Heather Evans (2003), The Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Share-of-Wallet in a Business-To-Business Environment, Journal of Service Research, 6(1) 37-50. Lammers, Bruce, Laura Leibowitz, George Seymour, and Judith Hennessey (1983), Humor and Cognitive Responses to Advertising Stimuli: a Trace Consolidation Approach, Journal of Business Research 11(17), 173-185.
404 / The Effects of Humor on the Processing of Word-of-Mouth Lee, Jonathan, Janghyuk Lee, and Lawrence Feick (2006), Incorporating Word-of-Mouth Effects in Estimating Customer Lifetime Value, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 14(1), 29 39 Lynch, Owen (2002), Humorous Communication: Finding a Place for Humor in Communication Research, Communication Theory, 12(4), 423 445. Madden, Thomas and Marc Weinberger (1984), Humor in Advertising: A Practitioner View, Journal of Advertising Research, 24(4), 23-29. Maxham James G. III (2001), Service Recovery s Influence on Consumer Satisfaction, Positive Word-of-Mouth, and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Business Research, 54, 11 24. Maxham, James G and Richard G Netemeyer (2003), A Longitudinal Study of Complaining Customers Evaluations of Multiple Service Failures and Recovery Efforts, Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 57. (2002), Modeling Customer Perceptions of Complaint Handling Over Time: The Effects of Perceived Justice on Satisfaction and Intent, Journal of Retailing, 78 (4), 239. Mayzlin, Dina (2006), Promotional Chat on The Internet, Marketing Science, 25(2), 155 163. MacKenzie, Scott and Richard Lutz (1989), An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context, Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 48-65. MacKenzie, Scott, Richard Lutz and George Belch (1986), The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Moderator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 130-143. Money, Bruce (2004), Word-of-Mouth Promotion and Switching Behavior in Japanese and American Business-To- Business Service Clients, Journal of Business Research, 57, 297 305. Nyer, Prashanth, and Mahesh Gopinath (2005), Effects of Complaining Versus Negative Word of Mouth on Subsequent Changes in Satisfaction: The Role of Public Commitment, Psychology & Marketing, 22(12): 937 953. Perry, Stephen, Stefan Jenzowsky, Cynthia King, Huiuk Yi, Joe Bob Hester and Jeanne Gartenschlaeger (1997), Using Humorous Programs as a Vehicle for Humorous Commercials, Journal of Communication, 47(1), 20-39. Phelps, Joseph, Regina Lewis, Lynne Mobilio, and David Perry (2004), Viral Marketing Or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email, Journal of Advertising Research, 333-348. Price, Linda and Eric Arnould (1999), Commercial Friendships: Service Provider-Client Relationships in Context, Journal or Marketing, 63(October), 38-56. Richins, Marsha L. (1983), Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study, Journal of Marketing, 47(68). Scott, Cliff, David Klein, and Jennings Bryant (1990), Consumer Response to Humor in Advertising: A Series of Field Studies Using Behavioral Observations, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 498-501. Spotts, Harlan, Marc Weinberger, and Amy L Parsons (1997), Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Advertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach, Journal of Advertising, Fall 1997; 26(3), 17-33. Stern, Barbara (1996), Advertising Comedy in Electronic Drama: The Construct, Theory and Taxonomy, European Journal of Marketing, 30(9), 37-59. Sternthal, Brian and Samuel Craig (1973), Humor in Advertising, Journal of Marketing, 37(4), 12-18. Voorhees Clay, Michael Brady and David Horowitz (2006), A Voice from The Silent Masses: An Exploratory and Comparative Analysis of Noncomplainers, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 514-527. Wangenheim, Florian, and Tomas Bayon (2004), The Effect of Word of Mouth on Services Switching: Measurement And Moderating Variables, European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1173-1185. Wangenheim, Florian (2005), Postswitching Negative Word of Mouth, Journal of Service Research, 8(1), 67-78. Weinberger, Marc, and Charles Gulas (1992), The Impact of Humor in Advertising: A Review, Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35-59. Woodside, Arch and Wayne Delozier (1976), Effects of Word of Mouth Advertising On Consumer Risk Taking, Journal of Advertising, 5(4), 12-19. Zhang, Yong, and George M Zinkhan (2006), Responses to Humorous Ads, Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113-127.