Humor and Persuasion

            Humor can be an effective tool in persuasion.  Although its effects do not seem to be conclusive, as there is some doubt to its power, there are certainly some positive effects created by the use of humor in persuasion.  These positive effects do not come without some risks.  The use of humor in persuasion should be applied appropriately and prudently, as there are consequences to using humor without considering the variables involved as it is more than simply having witty intentions.  Lyttle (2001) concludes that “the effects produced by humor may be too small to compensate for any weaknesses in the persuasive message itself” (p. 214).  In other words, humor is a tool that can enhance a well-crafted persuasive message, but is not a substitute for a poorly crafted one.

            When used appropriately humor can produce a positive result.  Freedman, Sears, and Carl smith (1978) determined that, “According to persuasion theory, people who are in a good mood are less likely to disagree with a persuasive message…” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  It is as if with humor, a message sender can create a “halo effect,” which Seiter and Gass (2004) tell us is when “one positive quality in a person causes us to assume that the individual has many positive qualities” (p. 172).  The “halo effect” is usually used to explain the increased credibility of someone who is attractive in appearance, but this effect seems to extend to other qualities as well, such as humor.   

            Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) also suggests that people are influenced by those who speak at the same rate as they do” (Seiter, & Gass, 2004, p. 175).  Although humor is seemingly unrelated to the speaking pace or rate of how a message is delivered and its connection to the effort needed for a receiver to perceive a message I would attribute the same connection to humor and message processing.  If a person processes a message more quickly and pleasantly due to the use of humor than the effect is similar to that of what is illustrated by the Communication Accommodation Theory.   

            This effect continues to be seen in the conclusions of Lyttle’s (2001) research which go on to say that humor may “increase liking for the source” (p. 207).  When a source shares the target’s humoristic style it may, according to Meyer (1997), “hint at a similar set of underlying values” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  A shared sense of humor can be a powerful connection.  One of the compliance tactics described by Seiter and Gass (2004), referred to as “similarity and liking” suggests that by simple mention of a shared similarity to the target may increase likeability of the message sender and therefore increase the influence of the message sender (p. 209).  Similarities can be shared across a range of characteristics, including humor.

            Another example of where we can see humor effectively contributing to the credibility of a message source during persuasion is when the message sender uses humor that is humbling or humor that causes the message sender to appear modest.    Lyttle (2001) expects “that the use of self-effacing humor by a source would increase the effectiveness of a persuasive message” (p. 208).   This may be true since a message sender who is able and willing to laugh at him or herself tends to give off the impression that they are more believable and/or trustworthy.

            In addition to creating positive attributes for the source of the persuasive message, Osterhouse and Brock (1970) suggest that humor may be able to alter how a message receiver processes a persuasive message which is detailed by the Elaboration Likelihood Model.  What humor may be capable of is “block[ing] systematic/central processing by distracting receivers from constructing counterarguments” (Lyttle, 2001, p. 207).  Blocking the type of processing that enables the construction of counterarguments, according to Lyttle (2001), is better-facilitated with humor that requires greater processing, such as irony.  Irony is used to make humor based on the opposite of a literal meaning so, in this case, the message recipient not only has to process the message, but he or she also needs to decipher or make sense of the meaning behind the irony as well.  Humor, in many cases, appears to be an effective tool in persuasion.  On the other hand, humor is not always effective and can be a precarious method of persuasion when not used appropriately.

            The proper use of humor is situational.  It depends on the strength of the argument and its consistency, the method of introduction of the humor, the probability of message-relevant processing, the extent to which the humor is connected to the central argument of the message, the level of involvement the target has in the subject, and the overall setting in which the humor takes place (Cline, & Kellaris, 1999, p. 69).  Cline, and Kellaris (1999) use the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) to analyze how humor effects the processing of the persuasive message.  They say, “when capacity to process is high, the central features of a communication (e.g., argument strength) should have a  greater impact on persuasion” (Cline, & Kellaris, 1999, p. 69).  This leaves room for error.  If the humor does not properly initiate the correct route of processing, either systematic or heuristic, the message may suffer.  This is seen in the conclusion of the research by Cline, and Kellaris (1999), which states that “a humorous print ad for a low-risk convenience good can be more persuasive without strong arguments, and strong arguments can be better off without humor.  On their own, humor and strong ad arguments may be persuasive, but when combined may be less effective” (p. 69).  Simply, humor is not always appropriate.  If not done properly, humor can be disruptive in the sense that it distracts from the message.  The improper application of humor can jeopardize credibility in some cases and this, once again, emphasizes the always important, respect of ones audience.

            There are strengths and weaknesses to using humor in persuasion.  It can be an effective communication tool when aiming to persuade.  However, due to the many variables involved in the potential outcomes and reactions to the use of humor, it should be crafted with concern for ones audience, and applied with careful thought.   

References

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.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of humor in persuasion: the case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-216.

Seiter, J. S., & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and

            compliance gaining. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.