CC BY
80УДК 81 ГРНТИ 16.31
А. Кузио
Роль обмана и юмора в формировании отношения потребителей к рекламе (на материале английского языка)
Это исследование направлено на изучение того, влияет ли наличие ложных утверждений и юмора в рекламе на отношение потребителей к рекламе. Кроме того, рассматривается и непосредственное отношение к обману. Для этого был проведен эксперимент. Данные были собраны с помощью офлайнового опроса, проведенного среди 140 человек. Было представлено четыре вида рекламы (обман без юмора, обман с юмором, без юмора и обмана, юмор без обмана), которые представлялись респондентам случайным образом.
Опрос показал, что к рекламе без обманчивых утверждений респонденты проявляли более негативное отношение. Тогда как рекламные объявления с обманчивыми утверждениями получили более позитивное отношение у респондентов. Также отличается от ожидаемого результата и отношение к рекламе с юмором. Кроме того, не наблюдалось никаких эффектов взаимодействия ложных утверждений и юмора. Более того, посредническая роль обмана не была подтверждена предложенной моделью. Поскольку никаких экспериментальных исследований по этому предмету не было сделано ранее, это исследование может быть представлено как первый шаг в области исследований рекламы и развеивание некоторых мифов о ней.
Ключевые слова: обман, юмор, реклама, дискурс.
A. Kuzio
The Role of Deceptive Claims Disguised by Humor in Shaping Advertisements Attitude towards Deception in English
This study aims at investigating whether the occurrence of deceptive claims and humor in an advertisement influences the consumers' attitude towards the advertisement. Then, the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception was examined. The expectations were tested by conducting a two (non-deceptive vs deceptive claim) x two (non-humor vs humor) in between subjects' factorial design. The data was collected through an offline survey which was conducted amongst 140 people. There were four conditions to which the respondents were randomly assigned, namely non-humor deceptive, humor deceptive, non-humor-non-deceptive and humor-non-deceptive.
The results display that there are no important main effects observed on the attitude towards the advertisement. Against expectations, it indicated that ads with non-deceptive claims exhibited a more negative attitude towards the advertisement. In contrast, the advertisements with deceptive claims presented a more positive attitude towards the advertisement. Afterward, the direction in which the occurrence of humor marks the attitude towards the adver-
© Кузио А., 2017 © Kuzio A., 2017
tisement was also different than anticipated. Additionally, no interaction effects of deceptive claims and humor were observed. Moreover, the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception was not supported by the proposed model. The consequences of these findings will be discussed in the conclusion and discussion.
Since no experimental research about this subject was ever done before, this study functions as a small first step within the research field of advertising and deceptive claims.
Key words: deception, advertising, discourse.
Introduction
Currently, advertisers appear to overpower themselves and their products to make sure that they attract consumers' attention over other competitors. These deceptive claims tend to be an effective advertising strategy to grasp consumers' attention [10].
However, advertisers try their best to hide these false statements by camouflaging it with humor. Recent research indicated that 73,5 percent of the humorous advertisements comprise deceptive claims and 74,5 percent of these were "masked" by humor, indicating that the processing of the deceptive claims was intermittent by the successive immediate presentation of a joke. Consistent with previous studies and current knowledge on these deceptive claims, the exploitation of humor in advertisements with deceptive claims would disturb viewers' processing of information, and consequently divert individuals to look critically at the false given statements [16]. This would cause a more positive assessment of the ad.
Besides the interference that humor creates, the framing of deceptive claims by humor can also be perceived as a mechanism that grounds an association between the appeal form, humor, and the message, the deceptive claim [21]. Humor, that frequently initiates well-being feelings could transfer this to the deceptive claim. Although consumers admit the deceptiveness in an advertisement, it is anticipated that he or she would be less critical, given the ''feeling of well-being'' caused by the humor.
Yet, there is little to no research done on the precise effect of the exploitation of deceptive claims and humor on the consumers' response, precisely when it comes to the attitude towards the advertisement. The same could be supposed about the potential mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception. The fact that consumers notice the deception, does not essentially specify that they all react the same towards it [3]. One might find the deception entirely improper, while another person could not care less. Consequently, it is significant to take the mediating role of the attitude towards the perception into consideration in this research.
This study will aim to offer an answer to the question to what extent the masking of deceptive claims by humor influences the attitude towards the advertisement and what the mediating effect of the attitude towards deception is in this connection. The following research question will be examined:
RQ: To what degree does the masking of deceptive claims by humor influences consumers' attitude towards the advertisement? And what is the mediated effect of the attitude towards deception?
1. Theoretical framework
1.1. Deceptive claims
With the purpose of applying a study about deceptive claims in advertising, it is significant to know how to recognize deception. Previous studies display multiple viewpoints to describe the concept. One of these standpoints is that of marketing research in which the emphasis lies in providing consumers with partial or inappropriate information about the product (Xie & Bousch, 2011). Other researchers, like Gardner [10], concentrate more on a societal marketing oriented definition. As said by Gardner [10], deception happens when an advertisement leaves the consumers with a belief or impression that is precisely false or potentially misleading. Aditya (2000) enhances this definition that deception is mostly a message that (a) causes at least some consumers rationally to make decisions which they would otherwise not make; (b) leads to that consumers will essentially start to have confidence in something about the product, brand or manufacturer that is not exactly true; or (c) has the potential to foster suspicion of any kind, general or specific, or in other ways cause a destruction of ethical values considered desirable in society. It also can be perceived as "message distortion resulting from deliberate falsification or omission of information by a communicator with the intent of stimulating in another, or others, a belief that the communicator himself or herself does not believe" [13].
1.2. Persuasion knowledge model and deceptive claims
This study will mainly concentrate on the effect that has been produced when consumers are exposed to deceptive claims in advertising and how this influences their attitude towards the advertisement. Consequently, it is significant to recognize how consumers react towards persuasion efforts and how they deal with it. To comprehend this process, one can exploit the persuasion knowledge model by Friestad and Wright [9]. In line with the model, it is believed that when individuals are exposed to persuasion efforts, such as deceptive claims, a change of meaning happens. When consumers start to consider an agent's action as a persuasion tactic, the meaning of the message will be altered. This essentially can modify the way in which a consumer replies to a persuasion attempt. Since deceptive claims aim to influence consumers with false information, it is anticipated that when individuals admit the deception in an advertisement they will become more resistant towards the message specified in the advertisement.
Consequently, in this study it is expected that the exposure to deceptive claims will trigger persuasion knowledge when individuals perceive the deception. Since they might feel misled or deliberately persuaded by the sender, this will negatively influence the attitude towards the advertisement. The following hypothesis will be examined:
H1: An advertisement with a non-deceptive claim will lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, in comparison to an advertisement with a deceptive claim.
1.3. Humor in advertising
Before concentrating on the masking tactic of deception by humor, it is vital to get a good understanding of how humor in advertising influences the consumer in general. The existence of humor in an advertising appeal might be regulated on the basis whether puns, jokes, satire and irony were employed. Yet, it has been impossible to distinguish the properties that make each category humorous [18]. Maybe this is one of the chief reasons why humor, one of the most predominant and studied communication strategies, still remains one of the most poorly comprehended [2]. However, its' effectiveness in advertising has been demonstrated many times. Not only did studies display that 94 percent of advertising practitioners recognized humor as an effective way to gain attention, humorous ads have found to outperform non-humorous ads on many attention measures [22].
Taking the current knowledge into account, this study supposes that the presence of humor in advertisements will positively affect the attitude towards the advertisement. Consequently, the following hypothesis has been shaped:
H2: An advertisement comprising humor will lead to a higher attitude towards the advertisement, in comparison to an advertisement without humor.
1.4. Deceptive claims disguised by humor
From a theoretical standpoint, it may be claimed that humor could distract an audience during the presentation of a persuasive message. Distraction constrains those viewers who originally compete with the arguments advanced in the persuasive message from producing and reviewing counterarguments. Minimization of counter-argumentation yields to greater message acceptance and persuasion [18]. Hence, individuals are more prone to be persuaded by a message when distraction is existing that when it is absent. In terms of deceptive claims, advertisers could benefit from the distraction produced by the humor to disguise the false claims.
As Tanaka (1994) and Phillips (1997) examined formerly, this study will explore the masking of deceptive claims by humor as a persuasion element that advertisers exploit in their advertisements. This tactic is employed to conceal and function through a process of complex subliminal persuasion. Consequently, the masking of the deceptiveness by humor as a possible mechanism through which an association between an appeal (humor) and the message (deceptive claim) will be presented. Since earlier research drew attention to that humor is recognized to create well-being feelings [20], this association should be able to prime the subject towards anticipated behavioral consequences [12]. The framing of humor with deceptive claims permits an association between the two such that if consumers do deliberately process the deceptive claim they are more
prone to prime this possible deceptiveness with the humor. This would indicate that he or she is less critical, assumed the feeling of well-being generated by the humorous content of the ad. Therefore, the following hypothesis is generated
H3: Ads with deceptive claims that are disguised by humorous content cause a more favorable evaluation of the ad, in comparison to ads with deceptive claims without humorous content.
1.5. Mediating result of the attitude towards the deception
Even though many studies preserve different definitions of deception, there seems to be one problem they all have in common, namely whether a consumer is able to identify if a certain belief is incorrect or false. Some individuals could perceive a certain message as deceptive, while another person as the same time does not distinguish the deception at all.
Thus, one of the most significant things that will be examined in this study is the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception. It is assumed that having the knowledge that consumers distinguish the deception in an advertisement is not enough to foresee the attitude towards the advertisement. It might be that multiple individuals all recognize deception after confronting with the same advertisement, but this does not have to indicate that they all reply the same to it. Previous studies about deceptive communication already presented that consumers vary in to what extent deception seems to be an unethical act that might harm their interests and those of competitors [3]. Also Scholl and O'Hair (2005) specified that the attitude towards deception signify the extent to which one has confidence in deception in unacceptable and unethical communicative behavior.
It can be assumed that the attitude towards the deception facilitates the relationship between deceptive claims disguised by humor and the attitude towards the advertisement. If a consumer finds the deception in the advertisement entirely improper and misleading, this could probably harm the attitude towards the advertisement. In contrast, when a consumer could not care less about the deception, it would not damage the attitude towards the advertisement at all. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formed:
H4: The attitude towards the deception mediates in the relationship of exposure to ads comprising deceptive claims disguised by humor and the attitude towards the advertisement.
2. Method
2.1. Design and participants
A two (deceptive claim, no deceptive claim) x two (humor, no humor) between subjects' factorial design was employed to examine the effect of humor on the perception and influence of deceptive claim related to no deceptive claim in a research. All participants (N=140) were recruited randomly. The mean age of the contributors was 31,5 (SD=.503) and 49,5 percent of the participants were female.
2.2. Stimulus Development
The purpose was to choose a neutral low-involvement item that could be advertised in all circumstances. Toothpaste was chosen as product for this research since its fits all criteria. It is assumed that everyone uses toothpaste on daily basis and no difference in gender is present. To ensure the efficiency of the humor manipulation, the adverts were pre-tested. Three various storyboards were offered to ten participants, followed by a survey to measure the supposed humor. These respondents did not take part in the final test. The perceived humor was measured by the means of three 7-point bipolar scales involving of funny/not funny, humorous/not humorous, and amusing/not amusing [5]. After the pre-test, it was decided that new stimuli had to be formed, since the occurrence of the researcher in the advertisements could influence the outcomes. New stimuli involving the same elements but with another model were created. As a result of time limitations, there was no opportunity to pre-test these advertisements.
To confirm that the degree of brand familiarity would not affect the outcomes, the same invented brand X was chosen in all four conditions. It is expected that when individuals already know the brand of the product that is advertised, attitudes are already shaped and would consequently affect the results.
2.3. Procedure
Before the test happened, the contributors received a brief introduction about this study. After this, the participants were requested to take part in the study. Deliberately, only brief information was offered to confirm no attitudes were already shaped before exposure to the advertisements. Each participant was requested to pay close attention to one of the four advertisements. Secondly, partakers were requested to complete a small questionnaire containing statements related to the advertisement. During the test the participants were not permitted to share any thoughts with their surrounding participants. At the end of the test, the participants were thanked for their contribution and if they would like to stay informed about the present study, they had the possibility to hand in their e-mail address.
Non-humor
Humor
Non-deceptive claim N=35
N=35
Deceptive claim
N=35
N=35
Figure 1. Contributors divided into 4 conditions
3. Measurements
3.1. Perceived humor
With the intention of measuring the perceived humor the five items on seven-point bipolar scale of Zhang [23] were employed. One of the items was removed, 1) very playful to 7) not playful, as it was too similar compared to the other items. After performing a reliability test, two items remained. Response categories ranged from 1) very non-humoristic to 7) very humoristic and 1 not funny at all to 7 very funny (a=.87, M = 2.61, SD = 1.57). It was decided to remain the items as dependable as possible, consequently the more positive, the higher the score.
3.2. Attitude towards the advertisement
With the purpose of measuring the attitude towards the advertisement, three elements on seven point bipolar scales were employed [6]. Response groups ranged from 1) very unpleasant to 7) very pleasant, 1) very bad to 7) very good and 1) very unfavorable to 7) very favorable (a=0.69, M3.85, SD = 0.96).
3.3. Attitude towards the deception
With the aim of measuring the mediating role of the attitude towards the deception, a four items on seven point bipolar scales were exploited. The statements involved: the consumer has been 1) completely misled to 7) not misled at all, this advertisement is compared to others 1) very unfair to 7) not unfair at all, the purpose of this advertisement is to 1) mislead the consumer to 7) not to mislead the consumer at all and the advertisement is about the product 1) not honest at all to 7) very honest (a=.67, M= 3,49, SD = 1,11) [3].
3.4. Perceived deception
With the intention of performing the second manipulation check, one had to check to what extent the respondents perceived deception. Consequently, the four items on seven-point bipolar scale from Chaouchi, Rached and Said [3] was employed. The statements contained the following: the advertisement displays what 1 only what the consumer wants to perceive to 7) what the consumer not only wants to perceive and the advertisement displays what 1) is completely not reality to 7) is completely reality (a=.29, M = 4.39).
3.5. Brand familiarity
Almost at the end of the survey, participants had to specify if they were acquainted with the advertised (fictitious) brand (1= no, 2= yes).
3.6. Demographic variables
In this study, some of demographic variables were used to check whether these variables did not cause any differences between the several groups. The respondents had to complete the questionnaire with their age and gender (1= female, 2= male).
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation checks
With the intention of checking the manipulations, a one-way ANOVA with (non)humor and (non)deceptive claim as independent variables was conducted. For the (non)humor manipulation it was observed that an expected difference between the two conditions: F(1,127) = 25.265; p > .001. The respondents did certainly perceive the humor condition as more humorous than the non-humor condition: Mnonhumor = 2.08; SD = 1.04 versus Mhumor = 3.25; SD = 1.69. There was no important effect observed on perceived deception: F(1,127) = 2.143; p = .135; Mnondeceptive = 4.12; SD = 1.26 versus Mdeceptive = 3.78; SD = 1.27).
4.2. Control for different clarifications
With the intention of checking whether one needs to control for different explanations one ran a bivariate correlation analysis for the control variables age and gender as well as the dependent variable attitude towards the advertisement. The bivariate correlation analysis displays that they are no important correlations between the control variables (age, gender) and the attitude towards the advertisement as age (r = -.137 , p = .095) and gender (r = .062, p = .435). This designates that the alterations in those several groups are not triggered by these control variables. Consequently, there is no necessity to control for these variables.
A bivariate correlation analysis was also carried out to see whether brand familiarity required to be controlled for. Also this test demonstrates that there is no important correlation between brand familiarity and the attitude towards the advertisement (r=.056, p=429). The outcomes specify that it does not matter whether the respondent implied to be acquainted with the advertised (fictions) brand displayed in the stimuli. All these results suggest that the alterations between the results of the several group are not triggered by differences in the background variables. Therefore, these variables will not be controlled.
5. Key effects on the attitude towards the advertisement
5.1. Deceptive claims in advertisements
The first hypothesis (H1) specified that advertisements with non-deceptive claims would cause a more positive attitude towards the advertisement than advertisements including deceptive claims. In contrast to what was anticipated, the condition with a deceptive claim displays a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, yet this is not substantial. An independent t-test presented no significant difference between the non-deceptive claims (M = 36; SD = .952) and deceptive claim conditions (M = 3.70; SD = .960): T(135) = .31; p = 0.732). In contrast as anticipated, the condition with a deceptive claims idnicates more positive attitude towards the advertisement, however this is not significant. Therefore, the first hypothesis was rejected.
5.2. Humor in advertisements
The second hypothesis (H2) specified that advertisements encompassing humorous content, would cause a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, than advertisements without humorous content. Surprisingly, the nonhumor advertisements cause a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement than does the humor advertisements. The way in which the occurrence of humor effects the attitude towards the advertisement is different than expected. An independent t-test specified no significant difference between the non-humor (M = 3.82; SD = 1.03) and humor conditions (M = 3.43; SD = .92): T(135) = 1.74; p = .058).
5.3. Additive effect of deceptive claims with humorous content
The third hypothesis (H3) specified the occurrence of an additive effect between the deceptive claims and humor. Anticipated was that the deceptive claims with humorous content, would cause a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, in comparison to the deceptive claims without humorous content. The analysis of variance displayed no significant result to support this additive effect: F(1,135) = .700; p = .403; Mdeceptive*nonhumor = 3,27 versus Mdeceptive*humor = 3,57). The anticipation that the circumstances whereby the deceptive claim is disguised by which humor would cause a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement seems to be correct. Yet, the analysis of variance is not substantial. One therefore cannot declare that these differences can be clarified by coincidence and because of this, the third hypothesis is rejected.
6. Interaction effect of deceptive claims and humor
To verify if there is an influence of one independent variable (deceptive claim) on the other independent variable (humor) and the other way around, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. This test exhibited that there is no significant interaction effect existing between deceptive claims and humor; F(1,128) = 0.65, p = .62. Consequently, one can conclude that the effect of deceptive claims on the attitude towards the advertisement is not lessened, strengthened, or vary from different levels of humor.
7. The mediating effect of attitude towards the deception
The third hypothesis (H3) specified the attitude towards the deception facilitates the relationship between the impact of deceptive claims concealed by humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. With the intention of checking whether a mediation effect indeed happened, a mediation analysis is completed.
Firstly, to evaluate if a mediation effect takes place, one has to verify whether the independent variables (deceptive claims and humor) meaningfully correlate with the dependent variable (attitude towards the advertisement) [8]. In the preceding sections, it could have been observed that this is not the case.
Since this test already shows insignificant results, one can reject that the attitude towards the deception appears to be a mediator in the relationship of deceptive claims along with humor on the attitude towards the advertisement.
Yet, it is stimulating to validate how the attitude towards the deception carries out the dependent variable, the attitude towards the advertisement. For example, it could be matter that the attitude towards deception relates with the attitude towards the advertisement. When the attitude towards the deception increases, it could be that the attitude towards the advertisement therefore also rises.
To confirm if maybe more independent variables correlate, perceived deception and perceived humor were also involved, the variables were exploited for the manipulation checks.
The multiple regression analysis approves a significant result (R = .325, R2 = .10, p = .002). The analysis displays that not only the perceived humor (b* = 0.15, t = 2.21, p = 0.016) is an important predictor of the attitude towards the advertisement, but also the attitude towards the deception explained a significant part of the variance in scores on the dependent variable (b* = 0.23, t = 3.20, p = 0,001). Subsequently the beta appears to be positive, one can notice that when the perceived humor or attitude towards the deception increases in value, the attitude towards the advertisement also rises in value.
But even assuming the attitude towards the deception relates to the dependent variable, one can also detect that there is no mediation effect intricate. Therefore, hypothesis four can also be omitted.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study examined whether the occurrence of deceptive claims and humor in advertisements influences the attitude towards the advertisement as well as whether the attitude towards deception has a mediating effect in this relationship. A two (non-deceptive vs deceptive claim) x two (non-humor vs humor) be-tween-subjects factorial design was employed. It was expected that the existence of deceptive claims would cause a less favorable attitude towards the advertisement. Also the general occurrence of humor in advertisements would positively affect the attitude towards the advertisement. Besides these two core effects, it was expected that one would find an additive effect whereby advertisements with deceptive claims and humorous content would cause a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, compared to deceptive claims without humorous content.
This study also aimed at verifying the expectancy that the attitude towards the deception would mediate the effect of deceptive claims as well as humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. Even if individuals recognize the deception, they might respond differently since the deception can be recognized as more acceptable by one person than another.
In contrast as anticipated, the condition with a deceptive claim indicates a more positive attitude towards the advertisement, compared to the condition
with a non-deceptive claim. This outcome can be clarified by the contradicting results that were observed during the manipulation check. Here, it can be seen that the respondents that were exposed to the non-deceptive claim advertisement recorded higher scores on the perceived deception, than the respondents that were offered the deceptive claim advertisement. Because of the lack of time, it was not possible to generate new stimuli and collect new data whereby a new manipulation check could be performed.
The way in which the occurrence of humor effects the attitude towards the advertisement was also diverse than anticipated. The advertisements encompassing humor did not cause a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement, compared to the non-humor advertisements. Surprisingly, as the manipulation check did indicate that the advertisements with humorous content recorded higher scores on the perceived humor.
Even though the additive effect does not seem to be substantial, the outcomes did display that the deceptive claims concealed by humor slightly lead to a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement. Comparing these two outcomes, one can state that the occurrence of the deceptive claims is supposed to be more important than the occurrence of humor only. Future research could concentrate on the significance of deceptive claims and humor, to see whether the importance of both variables moderates the effect on the attitude towards the advertisement.
This study also did not observe a significant effect to support the mediating effect of the attitude towards the deception. Since there were not any main effects observed, this did not come as a surprise. Yet, exploratory analyses revealed that the attitude towards the deception correlates with the attitude towards the advertisement. Consequently, the attitude towards the deception still remains a stimulating variable where future research could concentrate on. For example, they could test the attitude towards deception previously, to observe whether the current attitude towards deception (low vs. high) moderates the effect of deceptive claims on the attitude towards the advertisement. Next to attitude towards deception, it was also observed that perceived humor correlates with the attitude towards the advertisement. It can be said that when the perceived humor rises in value, the attitude towards the advertisement also rises.
The subsequent limitations should be taken into consideration when assessing the results of this study. First of all, the sample involved only 140 respondents. Although the chosen group was not homogenous, this sample size appears to be still quite small to generalize the results. Secondly, owing time and money limitations, the stimuli that were formed the second time has not been pre-tested. This could also be the reason why the manipulation of the perceived deception did not work. Furthermore, the outcomes are dependent on the exploitation of only one specific product. Further evidence should comprise more or others products categories to discover a probable interaction effect or support the effect of deceptive claims and humor on the attitude towards the advertisement. Toothpaste appears to be a neutral product, but it could also have other as-
sociations for various individuals, which makes this product maybe less consistent for this study.
Besides the fact that the attitude towards the deception and the significance of deceptive claims versus humor requires more attention in the future, further research could examine if brand familiarity influences the attitude towards the deception. It has been generally described that when consumers already exhibit a positive attitude towards the advertised brand, this immediately influences the way they investigate an advertisement [4]. This said, it is probable that consumers are more tolerant while being exposed to deceptive claims of brands they already recognize, compared to exposure to unknown brands.
Subsequently, future research could also explore if the strength of the deceptive claims impacts the attitude towards the advertisement. For example, Darke and Ritchie [7] expected that the accurateness and the defensive-bias views theory foresee that deception will cause more negative attitudes for weak arguments. If deception in advertising stimuluses an increase in objective, accuracy-motivated processing, the outcome should be more positive evaluations in reply to strong arguments. On the other hand, if advertisement deception creates defensive processing, responses should be more negative even in the face of strong arguments. More experimental research to examine these assumptions has to be performed.
Furthermore, further research could concentrate on the various types of deceptive claims and humor in advertisements. For example, Shabbir and Thwaites [16] employed a content analysis to compare various types of deceptive claims like false/outright lies, vague/ambiguous and omission claims, combined with several humor types (arousal-safety-, incongruity and disparagement humor). In this study, it was shown that false/outright lie claims within arousal safety humor in ads are more commonly employed than both vague/ambiguous and omission claims combined. Experimental studies could verify if these different types of claims and humor affects the consumers' response.
Taking into account that no experimental study on deceptive claims was ever performed, this research functions as a small first step for further research. The unexpected outcomes of this study can indicate the combination of deceptive claims and humor really seems to be a complex phenomenon that involves more experimental research.
References
1. Aditya, R. N. (2001). The psychology of deception in marketing: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Psychology & Marketing, 18(7), 735. DOI: 10.1002/mar.1028
2. Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 1-15.
3. Chaouachi, S. G., Rached, K. S. B., & Saied, K. (2012). Perceived deception in advertising: Proposition of a measurement scale. Journal of Marketing Research & Case Studies, 2012. DOI: 10.5171/2012.712622
4. Chattopadhyay, A. & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in advertising: The moderating role of prior brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 466-476. DOI: 10.2307/3172631
5. Cho, J. (1995). Humor mechanisms, Perceived humor and their relationships to various executional types in advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 191-197.
6. Dahlen, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is advertising advertising? Comparing responses to non-traditional and traditional advertising media. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(1), 33-42. D0I:10.1080/10641734.2007.10505206
7. Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114
8. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(1), 115. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
9. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 1-31.
10. Gardner, D. M. (1975). Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach. The Journal of Marketing, 40-46.
11. Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising: A comprehensive analysis. ME Sharpe.
12. Mathur, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1991). The impact of moods generated by television programs on responses to advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 59-77. DOI: 10.1002/mar.4220080106
13. Miller,G. R. & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Series in interpersonal communication, M. L. Knapp Ed., Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA.
14. Phillips, M. J. (1997). Ethics and Manipulation in Advertising: Answering a Flawed Indictment. Westport, CT: Quorom Books.
15. Scholl, J. C. & O'Hair, D. (2005). Uncovering Beliefs about Deceptive Communication. Communication Quaterly, (53)3, 377-399. DOI: 10.1080/01463370500101352
16. Shabbir, H., & Thwaites, D. (2007). The use of humor to mask deceptive advertising: it's no laughing matter. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 75-85. DOI:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360205
17. Speck, P. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
18. Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. S. (1973). Humor in Advertising. Journal of Marketing,
37(4).
19. Strick, M., Holland, R. W., van Baaren, R. B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2012). Those who laugh are defenseless: How humor breaks resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 213. Doi: 10.1037/a0028534
20. Szabo, A. (2003). The acute effects of humor and exercise on mood and anxiety. Journal of Leisure Research, 35 (2), 152-162.
21. Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising language: A pragmatic approach to adverts in Britain and Japan, New York: Routledge.
22. Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35-59.
23. Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating role of Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1, 15-32.
