Very often we see people begging in the street. Very
different ways of begging can be observed, such as playing instruments, using
kids/animals/ disabilities, plain begging or in some cases humor. In the link
above we can observe several examples of begging using humor to attract
attention and increase possibility of a donation.
An empirical study from Geuens and Pelsmacker (2002)
provides evidence that using humor in persuasive messages does increase
positive affect towards the advertised product. There were
510 participants in this study and both humorous and non-humorous advertising
stimuli were used to show that humor has a positive impact on the attitudes of
both high and low Need For Cognition-individuals, but that attitude formation
takes place in different way. In individuals low in NFC a direct effect of
humor on attitudes is found, while for individuals high in NFC and indirect
influence via biased cognition is found.
Eight fictitious advertisements were made in four
different products: paper handkerchiefs (low in involvement, informational
product) insurance (high in involvement, informational product) a snack (low in
involvement, transformational product) and holidays (high in involvement,
transformational product). Two versions were used: humorous with slogans and
pictures, and non-humorous just with slogans. Perceived humor, need for
cognition and attitudes towards ad were all measured. Need for cognition didn’t
exert any influence on number of positive ad cognitions but high
NFC-individuals did have more negative cognitions towards ad. Use of humor had
a positive impact on all affective responses increasing the number of positive
cognitions towards ads and decreasing the number of negative ones.
The results from this experiment could be also relevant for begging, as the
humor would increase the positive response towards the person and hence the
possibility of the passerby giving money.
Reference
Geuens,
M. & De Pelsmacker, P. (2002). The
role of humor in the Persuasion of individuals varying in need for cognition. Advances in Consumer
Research, Volume 29, pp 51-55.