FRONTSPIECE
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE
FOUNDATION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES |
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HUMOR IN PERSUASION:
THE CASE OF BUSINESS ETHICS TRAINING
JAMES BRUCE LYTTLE
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Program in Administrative Studies
York University
Toronto, Ontario
April 12, 2001
Permission has been granted to the LIBRARY OF YORK
UNIVERSITY to lend or sell copies of this dissertation, to the
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA to microfilm this disser-
tation and to lend or sell copies of the film, and to UNIVERSITY
MICROFILMS to publish an abstract of this dissertation.
The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the
dissertation nor extensive abstracts from it may be printed or
otherwise reproduced without the author's written permission.
ABSTRACT
Although practitioners insist that humor is effective as an aid to persuasion, previous research
has produced conflicting and inconclusive results. The thesis of this dissertation is that humor's
effectiveness can be demonstrated only if it is first explained theoretically. After reviewing both
humor theory and persuasion theory, specific propositions were made about when humor would be effective
in persuasion. It was predicted that cartoon drawings would increase susceptibility to persuasion
by generating an agreeable mood, that ironic comments would increase susceptibility to persuasion
by providing a cognitive distraction, and that self-effacing humor would increase susceptibility
to persuasion by increasing liking for the source.
The Ethics Challenge was selected as an example of the use of humor in persuasion. It is a board
game that uses cartoon characters and wisecracks to persuade Lockheed Martin employees to consult
the ethics office when in doubt. Participants were 170 adults studying business at a large public
university. The dependent variable was persuasion, measured with six behavioral intention items
and five descriptive-adjective ratings. In a controlled experiment, elements of the humor were
removed from the game. Whenever this inhibited the effectiveness of the Ethics Challenge, it
was inferred that the element had been playing an important role.
Overall, the use of humor had a weak but significant impact on persuasiveness. Cartoon drawings
alone generated negligible effects. Self-effacing humor improved the effectiveness of the message,
seemingly by increasing source credibility. Ironic wisecracks improved the effectiveness of the
message even more. Further research into the causal mechanisms that explain these results is
advocated, and a campaign of re-education is recommended to generate realistic expectations
for the benefits of humor in the workplace.
PREFACE
Gary David (Tomlinson) passed away just as I was entering this program. I met him when I was a
musician with entertainer Johnnie Johnston. Gary used our audiences to refine the comedy act that
would later make him a headliner at Mark Breslin's chain of Yuk Yuk's comedy cabarets. Gary
understood the value of humor; he found success late in life and shared it generously with
everyone he knew.
I grew up watching comedians who understood pathos as well as sarcasm, such as Johnny Carson,
Carol Burnett and Red Skelton (who passed away as I began my second year). My parents taught me
that humor was important and serious, and that humorists performed a noble function. My mother
contributed an artistic side that enabled me to have an early career as a musician. My father
contributed an analytical side that enabled me to tackle this academic project.
This work is dedicated to all of those wonderful people.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For some reason I have always been blessed with understanding friends, sympathetic lovers, and
incredibly patient bosses.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of several people who are
mentioned here in roughly chronological order. Christine Oliver headed up the committee that
admitted me and, later, my Comprehensive Examination Committee. Gareth Morgan encouraged me to
stand up for my own ideas. Rekha Karambayya encouraged me to take humor seriously and responsibly
as an academic pursuit. David Dimick offered sage advice from the beginning and Rob Lucas refused
to let me get away with less than thoughtful work. Thank you.
Ron Burke has been my supervisor, patient listener, advisor, mentor, (occasional tormentor), and
friend. Thanks for setting a terrific example and valuing the contribution of a teacher/scholar.
|
|
