Humor in Product Design and its Influence on Consumer...

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE

ACADEMIEJAAR 2015– 2016

Humor in Product Design and its

Influence on Consumer Behavior

Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van

Master of Science in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen

Floris Van Cauwenberge

onder leiding van

Prof. Tess Bogaerts

II

Vertrouwelijkheidsclausule

Confidentiality clause

Toelating

Permission

Ondergetekende verklaart dat de inhoud van deze masterproef mag geraadpleegd en/of gereproduceerd

worden, mits bronvermelding.

Undersigned declares that the content of this thesis may be consulted and/or reproduced, with

acknowledgement.

Naam student:

Name student:

Handtekening:

Signature:

III

Nederlandse Samenvatting

Deze thesis onderzoekt hoe humor in het ontwerp van een product kan geïncorporeerd worden, als ook de

invloed die deze uitoefent op het consumentengedrag.

In het eerste deel wordt humor gedefinieerd en worden de belangrijkste humor theorieën onderscheiden.

Deze zijn geïllustreerd met toepassingen in de reclamewereld.

Vervolgens worden humor en product design samengebracht. Na de korte inleiding worden de verschillende

soorten genot of plezier die humor met zich meebrengen, uitgezet.

Deze soorten zullen een eerste pijler- interactie intensiteit- vormen voor het finaal model, namelijk de

‘Humor in Product Ontwerp Oriëntatie Kubus’.

In het derde deel zullen de drie humor theorieën vertaald worden naar het design van een product. Deze

zullen een tweede pijler-humor- vormen. Gecombineerd met de eerste pijler, kunnen we negen soorten

design principes of product categorieën onderscheiden.

Dit geeft een totaal beeld van het eerste, reeds bestaand model. Een korte herhaling en de beperkingen van

het model worden beschreven in deel vier.

In deel vijf wordt een nieuwe, derde pijler toegevoegd: de transfer van humor. Dit levert de ‘Humor in

Product Ontwerp Oriëntatie Kubus’ op. De transfer van humor kan gebeuren via de vijf zintuigen, hun rol

wordt kort beschreven. Uit dit model zullen we de ‘Trechter van Humoristische Producten’ bouwen met

bijhorend algoritme. Dankzij dit algoritme kunnen we elk humoristisch product nauwkeurig gaan

definiëren.

Tot slot zullen we aan de hand van een survey de rol die humor in product design speelt in praktijk gaan

testen. De aankoopbereidheid van de consument zal hierin een centrale rol spelen. Maar ook de rol van het

gevoel voor humor, het gevoel voor design, de mindset van de consument komen aanbod. Vaak zal er een

vergelijking gemaakt worden tussen het humoristische product en zijn niet-humoristisch alternatief.

Bovendien zal ook de creativiteit & functionaliteit van het humoristische product onderzocht worden.

Het ontwerp van de survey staat beschreven in deel zes, gevolgd door de resultaten in deel zeven.

Finaal volgen de restricties, de praktische implicaties en verder onderzoek (deel acht), en de conclusie (deel

negen)

Kernwoorden: Humor – Humor theorieën – Product design – Incongruentietheorie – Superioriteitstheorie

– Ontladingstheorie – Gevoel voor humor – Mindset – Consumentengedrag

Aantal woorden: 24.154

IV

“Humor does not add a pleasant quality to design - it reinforces it.”

(Personal edit of Pierre Bonnard)

"A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the

road."

(Henry Ward Beecher)

“The secret to humor is surprise.”

(Aristotle)

V

Preface

This thesis crowns my studies of Applied Economics at the University of Ghent.

Before I started my studies, the teachers strongly doubted my ability to bring these studies to a good

end. Especially the mathematics teacher who basically told the whole class that it would be impossible

for us. He was right. It indeed was a long and intense ride, but not impossible. Today I look back to that

moment and feel thankful for it. It has fueled me with energy during my studies and during the writing

of this thesis.

But initially it was my mum who believed in my abilities and convinced me to take a shot at it. I thank

her for her warmth and support during these years.

Further, I’m also grateful to my best friend Mathieu Blondeel who has been important for the correction

of this thesis. I wish him the best of luck during his doctorate at the Faculty of Political Sciences.

I also would like to thank Tess Bogaerts for her mild personal assistance during the writing of this

thesis. And in the first place, for offering me the opportunity to research this freely-chosen subject.

Finally I want to thank the actors of my research, the people who made it through the somewhat long-

dreaded survey. About half of the participants did not know me. That alone leaves with me with a load

of gratitude.

Floris Van Cauwenberge

Munte, December 30th 2015.

VI

Table of contents Page

Confidentiality clause………………………………………………………………………………………II Dutch summary……………………………………………………………………………………………III Quotes………………………………………………………………………………………………………IV Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………………V Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………………......VI List of figures………………………………………………………………………………………………IX List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………………...X List of used abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………...XI 1 Humor in a nutshell………………………………………………………………………………..1 1.1 What is humor?.......................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Humor theories: from an advertising standpoint…………………………………………………….1 1.2.1 Incongruity-resolution humor……………………………………………………………………….1 1.2.2 Superiority humor……………………………………………………………………………………3 1.2.3 Relief humor…………………………………………………………………………………………..4 2 Humor & design: bringing a product to life…………………………...........................................7 2.1 Pleasurable products: what fruits to be enjoyed?.................................................................................7 2.2 Humorous products: Three aspects of interaction intensity…………………………………………8 3 Humorous products: A rainbow of opportunities………………………………………………11 3.1 Incongruity-resolution humor………………………………………………………………..11 3.1.A Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..11 3.1.B Types of sensory incongruity ……………………………………………………………..12 3.1.1 Visual-tactile incongruity………………………………………………………………...12 3.1.2 Visual-olfactory incongruity……………………………………………………………...13 3.1.3 Visual-auditory incongruity……………………………………………………………...15 3.1.C Model……………………………………………………………………………………….16 3.1.4 Shape incongruity: Playing with size…………………………………………………….17 3.1.5 Unconventional use: Switching habitats ………………………………………………...17 3.1.6 Unexpected function: Having a hidden agenda ………………………………………...18 3.1.D Conditions………………………………………………………………………………….18 3.1.E Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….19 3.2 Superiority humor…………………………………………………………………………….19 3.2.A Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..19 3.2.B Model……………………………………………………………………………………….20 3.2.1 Zoomorphism: Caring about a product…………………………………………………20 3.2.2 Abused products: A personal servant……………………………………………………21 3.3.3 Self-depreciating products: Be a clown………………………………………………….22 3.2.C Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….23 3.3 Relief humor…………………………………………………………………………………...23 3.3.A Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..23 3.3.B Model……………………………………………………………………………………….26 3.3.1 Visualization of taboo: Acting on the edge ……………………………………………..26 3.3.2 Destructive play: Being rebellious……………………………………………………….27 3.3.3 Bizarre consequence: Fooling friends and family………………………………………27 3.3.C Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….28 4 Humorous Products: A set of 9 design principles ………………………………………………28

VII

4.1 Recap……………………………………………………………………………………………………28 4.2 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………………...29 5 The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube: Humorous products 360°………………………………………………………………………………………………………...29 5.1 Humor and interaction: rehearsal and hypotheses…………………………………………………..29 5.2 How to transfer the humorous stimuli? The Five Senses……………………………………………30 5.2.1 Visual transfer: Look at that!.............................................................................................................31 5.2.2 Auditory transfer: Sounds interesting…………………...................................................................32 5.2.3 Olfactory transfer: The strongest sense…………………………………………………………….32

5.2.4 Tactile transfer: Touch…Down…………………………..................................................................33 5.2.5 Gustatory transfer: Tastes like more……………………………………………………………….33

5.3 Defining humorous products: Funnel to format……………………………………………………..34 5.3.1 Advantages………………………………………………………………………………….35

6 Experimental design ……………………………………………………………………………...35 6.1 Intro……………………………………………………………………………………………………..36 6.2 Social Demographics: sex and age…………………………………………………………………….36 6.3 Mindset condition: concrete or abstract……………………………………………………………...36 6.4 Product group condition: control or humorous……………………………………………………...37 6.5 Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) ……………………………………………………………….38 6.6 Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics Questionnaire (CVPA) …………………………………...39 6.7 Posttest of humorous products………………………………………………………………………...39 6.8 Behavior Identification Form (BIF) ………………………………………………………………….40

7 Results……………………………………………………………………………………………...40 7.1 Sample…………………………………………………………………………………………………..40 7.2 Buying intensions: humorous- versus control products……………………………………………..41 7.3 What sense of humor does the participant has?...................................................................................42 7.4 Sense of humor: Relationships with buying intension and humor rating………………………….44 7.5 Sense of Design: Relationship with humor rating and buying intension…………………………...48 7.6 Humorous products: Triangle of humor, creativity and functionality……………………………..49 7.7 Mindset condition: Influence on buying intension…………………………………………………...50 7.7.1 Did the manipulation work?...............................................................................................................50

7.7.2 Mindset condition: Impact on buying behavior for humorous products………………..50 7.7.3 Mindset condition: Overall view of the buying intension…………………;………………...…...51

7.8 Buying intension on product level…………………………………………………………................52

8 Restrictions and future implications …………………………………………………………….53 8.1 Restrictions: Upscale and offline……………………………………………………………………...53 8.2 Further research: Basically a step in unknown territory……………………………………………54 8.3 Practical implications………………………………………………………………………………….55 9 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………...55 X References……………………………………………………………………………………….…58 XI Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………63/1 1. Example of Incongruity humor applied in a print ad………………………………………………….1 2. Example of Superiority humor applied in a print ad…………………………………………………..1 3. Example of Relief humor applied in a print ad…………………………………………………………2 4. Example of a Humorous product generating normative pleasure…………………………………….2 5. List of hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………………3 XII Survey……………………………………………………………….................................................4

VIII

1. Intro………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 2. Social-demographics: Sex and Age……………………………………………………………..4 3. Mindset condition: Concrete or Abstract………………………………………………………5 3.1 Concrete mindset………………………………………………………………………..5

3.2 Abstract mindset………………………………………………………………………...6 4. Product group condition: Control or Humorous………………………………………………7 4.1 Affiliative humor………………………………………………………………………...8

4.1.1 Pizza cutter…………………………………………………………………….8

4.1.2 Milk jar………………………………………………………………………..8

4.1.3 Earbuds………………………………………………………………………..8

4.1.4 Motor helmet…………………………………………………………………...9

4.1.5 Tent……………………………………………………………………………9

4.2 Self-enhancing humor…………………………………………………………………...9 4.2.1 Lunch bag……………………………………………………………………...9

4.2.2 Wallet………………………………………………………………………...10

4.2.3 Penholder……………………………………………………………………..10

4.2.4 Sticky notes…………………………………………………………………...10

4.2.5 Spoon…………………………………………………………………………11 4.3 Aggressive humor………………………………………………………………………11 4.3.1 Doormat………………………………………………………………………11

4.3.2 Knife holder…………………………………………………………………..11

4.3.3 Sink stopper…………………………………………………………………..12

4.3.4 Cooling lunch bag……………………………………………………………..12

4.3.5 Hot plate……………………………………………………………………...12 4.4 Self-defeating humor…………………………………………………………………...13 4.4.1 Umbrella……………………………………………………………………...13

4.4.2 Beanie………………………………………………………………13

4.4.3 Shoes………………………………………………………………...13

4.4.4 Dummy……………………………………………………………...14

4.4.5 Oven gloves………………………………………………………….14

5. Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) ………………………………………………………………...15 6. Central Visuality of Product Aesthetics Questionnaire (CVPA) …………………………………….17 7. Posttest of humorous products: Humor-, creativity- and functionality scores humorous products……………………………………...18 8. Behavior Identification Form (BIF) …………………………………………………………………...19 9. Afterword………………………………………………………………………………………………...21

IX

List of figures Page

Figure 1: IR humor: Adapted version of The Two-Stage Model for Joke Appreciation…………………....2

Figure 2: Relief humor: Reinterpretation of the Wundt curve: Inverted U-relationship between

physiological arousal and hedonic value/laughter …………………………………………………………...5

Figure 3: The five types of pleasure provided by pleasurable products……………………………………..8

Figure 4: Illustrations of the aspects of interaction intensity……………………………………………….10

Figure 5: Increasing order of the aspects of interaction intensity between product and use……………….10

Figure 6: The Wundt curve: Relationship between stimulus intensity(incongruity) of humorous products

and produced amount of amusement………………………………………………………………………...12

Figure 7: Visual-tactual incongruity illustrations…………………………………………………………..13

Figure 8: Visual-olfactory incongruity illustrations………………………………………………………...15

Figure 9: Humorous products: categorization by humor theory (y-axis) and interaction intensity (x-axis)..17

Figure 10: Product categories with incongruity humor and a particular level of interaction intensity……..18

Figure 11: Triangle of superiority relationships in humorous products…………………………………….20

Figure 12: Superiority humor in products: Zoomorphism………………………………………………….21

Figure 13: Superiority humor in products: Abused products……………………………………………….22

Figure 14: Superiority humor: Self-depreciating products…………………………………………………22

Figure 15: Relief humor in products: Low- vs. high-risk relief…………………………………………….24

Figure 16: Relief humor in product design: relationship between level of amusement generated and degree of violation by the product design…………………………………………………………………………...25

Figure 17: Relief humor in products: Taboo products……………………………………………………...26

Figure 18: Relief humor in products: Destructive play……………………………………………………..27

Figure 19: Relief humor in products: Bizarre Consequence………………………………………………..28

Figure 20: The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube ………………………………………………....31

Figure 21: Sensory transfer of humor……………………………………………………………………....34

Figure 22: The Funnel of Humorous Products: offers a standardized way to define humorous products.....35

X

Figure 23: Survey design...............................................................................................................................36

Figure 24: Relationships involving sense of humor of the respondent …………………………………….44

Figure 25: Significant linear regression equations between the WTB and mean Humor score per product

group expressing a particular sense of humor ………………………………………………………………45

List of tables

Table 1: Number of respondents per condition……………………………………………………………..41

Table 2: Independent-samples T-test: Buying intensions humorous- vs. control products………...............42

Table 3: Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation: Sense of humor…………………..44

Table 4: Key statistics linear regressions of the relationships involving sense of humor of the

respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………...47

Table 5: Linear regression between the Sense of Design and buying intension as well as humor rating…..48

Table 6: Linear regression between Humor and Creativity, resp. Functionality…………………………...49

Table 7: The impact of the mindset condition on buying behavior of humorous products………………...51

Table 8: Overall view of both conditions Mindset and Product type combined……………………………52

Table 9: Products with a higher WTB for the humorous version…………………………………………..52

XI

List of abbreviations

Adj………………………………………………………………………..……….Adjusted

A-S………………………………………………………………………….Arousal-Safety

BIF…………………………………………………………Behavior Identification Form

Cum…………………………………………………………………………....Cumulative

CVPA…………………………………………...Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics

D……………………………………………………………….……..Dependent Variable

Df……………………………………………………………………...Degrees Of Freedom

Etc…………………………………………………………………………………Etcetera

H…………………………………………………………………………….......Hypothesis

I…………………………………………………………………......Independent Variable

Ind…………………………………………………………………………….Independent

IR………………………………………………………………….Incongruity Resolution

M…………………………………………………………………………………..….Mean

MD………………………………………………………………………..Mean difference

Resp…………………………………………………………………………...Respectively

SHQ……………………………………………………...Sense Of Humor Questionnaire

SD……………………………………………………………………...Standard deviation

SE………………………………………………………………………….Standard Error

Sig……………………………………………………………………………...Significance

Var………………………………………………………………………………...Variable

WTP……………………………………………………………………Willingness to pay

WTB…………………………………………………………………....Willingness to buy

[1]

1. Humor in a nutshell

1.1. What is humor?

Humor is hard to define. Researchers from multiple disciplines have framed this subjective concept, leading

to a broad variety of definitions. According to two proponents of humor in advertising, Gulas and Weinberger

(1992), there is no overall consensus on its definition. The most frequently adopted one is that of the Oxford

English Dictionary (Simpson & Weiner, 1989) which defines humor twofold:

• “That quality of action, speech, or writing, which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity,

facetiousness, comicality, fun.”

• “The faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing,

or other composition; jocose imagination or treatment of a subject.”

Hence humor can be seen as either the stimulus causing amusement and the tendency to laugh, or the

psychological response following the stimulus (Veatch, 1998; Martin, 2010). When a humor attempt succeeds

in generating its intended response, the stimulus is referred to as humorous and the response as perceived

humor.(Warren & McGraw 2013).

1.2 Humor theories from an advertising standpoint

Humor is a broad term consisting of three distinct underlying mechanisms, all resulting in some degree of

laughter or amusement for the people or objects involved. This multi-dimensional nature explains the

complexity in defining humor (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006). Speck (1991) distinguishes three categories of

humor mechanisms or theories:

1. Incongruity resolution theory (IR)

2. Superiority or social theory

3. Relief or Arousal-Safety theory (A-S)

Note that these theories are generally used across all kinds of humor sciences, however in this paragraph we

will approach them from an advertising standpoint for we want to consider the commercial motive of humor

from the start. In section 2 the mechanisms used in advertising will be applied for humor in product design,

that is why it is important to have a good understanding of them. Know that using one mechanism does not

particularly exclude using another. Often different mechanisms are combined in order to optimize the reach

of the humorous message.

1.2.1. Incongruity Resolution Theory (IR)

IR humor is experienced at the moment of resolution of the incongruity between what the receiver of the

stimuli expects and what actually happens (Suls, 1972). This theory belongs to the cognitive theories because

of its focus on the disconfirmation of expectations of the receiver of the humor which is then resolved with a

cognitive rule (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006)

[2]

The Humor Comprehension Model1 illustrates with a flow chart what exactly happens during IR humor (Suls,

1972). For a joke to be appreciated, and thus to generate IR humor, a two-stage process needs to be completed,

cfr. Figure 1 below (Suls, 1972)

In the first phase a story set-up in verbal or visual format is presented, containing no incongruent elements

(Kudrowitz, 2010). The observer then anticipates, usually unconsciously, the next part of the joke. When the

expectations of the ending are confirmed, no surprise or laughter will follow and the joke will not be deemed

humorous (Kudrowitz, 2010). On the other hand when the expectations are disconfirmed by the punch line,

the observer will try to make sense of the incongruent situation and resolve the incongruity with a cognitive

rule in the second stage. However one study contradicts this, finding that people derive more pleasure of a

joke when they successfully predict the outcome (Kenny, 1955). Nevertheless, the general consensus by the

theorists is that IR humor only is generated when the perceiver can make sense- resolution- of the unexpected

ending of the joke -the incongruity(Suls,1972; Shultz, 1976).

Figure 1: Adapted version of The Two-Stage Model for Joke Appreciation by Suls (1972).

Source: Martin (2010)

Without resolution, incongruity does not make any sense and leaves the perceiver in confusion. That is what

happens when someone does not get the joke. The resolution turns the one-way communication experience

into an interactive exchange which then leads to pleasure.

In advertising a rule states that the larger the gap between the expectations and the incongruity, the more

pleasure or amusement could be derived from the ad (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006; Kellaris & Cline, 2007)

1 Slapstick is a humor style that involves exaggerated physical actions that make other people laugh. Typical

examples are seeing someone slip over a banana peel or throwing a pie in someone’s face. (Martin, 2010). [3]

Not only resolution of the incongruity is essential, but also the speed at which it gets resolved (Suls, 1972).

In most cases the perceiver needs to be able to make quickly sense of the unexpected situation. If not, the

focus on the humorous attempt could get lost. A third important condition which could play a role in humor

creation is the approachability of the perceiver (Ibid.). A convenient mood willing to absorb humor is

required. Finally in line with the mood of the receiver, the context should be playful and non-threatening

(Rothbart, 1976).

Once these four conditions are fulfilled and the ad successfully entertains the receiver, a more favorable

attitude towards the ad will be acquired, often unconsciously (Alden & Hoyer, 1993). Brands intend these

positive feelings to spill-over from the ad to the brand itself. Humor types such as satire, sentimental comedy,

comic wit embrace IR humor (Speck, 1991). A practical example of a print ad making use of the IR

mechanism can be found in Appendix 1. At first sight the observer will expect this to be an ad for some sort

of bikini brand, travelling agency, sun cream, etc. However when reading the slogan or punch line the reader’s

expectation quickly will be disconfirmed, as it appears to be an ad raising awareness for illiteracy in France.

This is the brief moment the reader could be left with the incongruity. The advertising agency used the

attractive woman to attract attention to the ad, and then tells in a small font that awareness should be raised

to illiteracy instead. The perceiver will then start to realize he or she was tricked and will then resolve the

incongruity. The possible amusement or pleasure experienced in the observer’s mind is then supposed to form

an incentive to sign the petition.

1.2.2. Superiority or social theory

Superiority in humor is considered to be one of the oldest forms of humor, first explained by Plato and

Aristotle between 428-322 B.C. (Martin, 2010). This theory focuses on the negative and aggressive part of

humor (Kudrowitz, 2010) and is often associated with disparagement, hostility, degradation and ridicule

(Martin,2010).

Jokes have to be demeaning and also result in a winner and a loser (Gruner, 1997). Centuries ago the winner

of a combat used laughter as a way to relief his adrenaline and to enjoy the victory but also as a sign of

superiority upon the opposing loser (Gruner, 1978). With the evolvement of society physical aggression

slowly became replaced by (playful) verbal aggression which eventually led to today’s superiority humor

(Ibid.).

People make fun of others’ misfortunes, psychical- or mental defects, clumsiness, ethnicity and gender

superiorly believing that they will not experience a similar situation (Martin, 2010; Gulas and Weinberger,

2006). Superiority humor could also be described as the result of a dual-process: “pleasure from feeling

superior and anxiety from feeling it is socially inappropriate to enjoy the ridicule or criticism of somebody

else” (Beard, 2008). Examples of humor styles making use of superiority are practical jokes, dumb blond

jokes, and slapstick-comedy1.

2 Satire is a form of humor that uses irony or sarcasm to expose vice or folly and ultimately to express social criticism. Satire can be found in a variety of forms of which literature, cartoons, stand-up comedy are the most frequent (Gulas and Weinberger, 1992) [4]

However, a sense of superiority does not necessarily need to be focused on others for superiority humor to

exist. In self-disparagement- or self-deprecating humor our own shortcomings or failings become the subject

of the joke. As such, instead of feeling superior over others we feel superior over the self, the one from the

past or the person we still are in the present (Martin, 2010)

As you can see from these examples, a winner and a loser are chosen. This is also the case in comparative

advertising. The competitor will be portrayed in a demeaning way or become the victim of playful humor

(Beard; 2008). Though, the role of harsh disparagement in advertising should be minimized because the

prospect could feel bad for the criticized mass or brand and look for counter-arguments (Ibid.). That is why

disparagement usually comes in form of satire2 to disguise its often harsh judgement.

Note that superiority humor only is enjoyed in a social context in case of joke telling, this in contrast to IR-

and Arousal-Safety humor that don’t require a social context to operate in (Beard, 2008). That is the reason

why the superiority theory often is labeled as social humor.

Clothing brand Diesel, for example, uses superiority humor in their ‘Be Stupid’ marketing campaign (cfr.

appendix 2). In the picture we see a half-nude girl lying next to a guy in bed. The girl is wearing a pair of

Diesel jeans. The slogan is “You’ll spend more time with your boss”. The message is that if you wear a pair

of Diesel jeans, you will look so good you can sleep with your boss. It is a playful but sexist message

supposing that all women want to sleep with their boss. The Diesel campaign used a variety of ads to spread

its “relentless pursuit of a life with no regret” and “stupid versus smart” values (Krijnen & Van Bauwel,

2015). The campaign turned out to be a huge success and a lot of its ads went viral.

1.2.3. Relief- or Arousal-Safety theory (AS)

Release, relief or arousal-safety theories are affective theories presuming that humor releases tensions and

physic, emotional energy in form of laughter (Attardo, 1994). Spencer (1860) is considered the first to have

defined the excess-energy theory of humor (Goldstein, 2013). Spencer’s theory explains that people behave

in stressful environments causing them to build up an excess of stress and energy in their bodies, which then

is released through the muscular activity of laughter. The comparison is made with a “safety-valve on a steam-

engine”, when too much stress is built up it needs to be released by laughing (Spencer, 1860). That is why it

is important to laugh sufficiently for example right before an important, stressful activity. Freud (1905)

supported Spencer’s vision claiming that laughter is the result of released excessive physic energy and must

be the cause of the relaxed, relieved feeling afterwards. For sure you can recall situations in which humor

released stress or brought comfort in hard times.

Aside from a stress-releasing mechanism humor also fulfills a cathartic function that purifies emotions

(Berlyne, 1972; Gulas & Weinberger, 2006). Different stimulus properties of humor such as complexity,

congruity, novelty and perhaps redundancy result in changes of arousal which on its turn causes laughter

(McGhee, 1983). Humor obviously is related to arousal. A number of different visions on this relationship

are put forward.

[5]

First of all a linear relationship between arousal and pleasure could be envisioned. Greater amounts of evoked

arousal then result in increased amusement (McGhee, 1983). In other words the more excited the perceiver is

the more he will be entertained.

Secondly, the most adopted one, is the inverted U-relationship between physiological arousal and hedonic

value, more specifically humor appreciation and thus laughter. This relationship is displayed in Figure 2

below. It is a reinterpretation of the Wundt Curve, that initially links stimulus intensity with pleasure

(Goldstein, 2013). Hence, this relationship shows that the optimal amount of arousal resulting in the highest

level of humor appreciation when released, should be not too low and not too high either (Martin, 2010).

When the arousal caused by the stimuli is low, for instance when the joke is redundant and not innovative,

low amounts of pleasure will be generated. The same result will hold up when arousal is very high by stimuli

characterized as very novel and too complex. We will review this relationship later when we treat relief humor

in product design, cfr. page 25.

Figure 2: Inverted U-relationship between physiological arousal and hedonic value/laughter.

A reinterpretation of the Wundt curve. Source: Goldstein (2013).

Finally ‘the transfer of excitation experiment’ (Cantor, Bryant and Zillman; 1974) underlines that both

negative emotions- in situations of fear, stress, anxiety or anger- as positive emotions can lead to the release

of higher amounts of arousal which on its turn can contribute to greater humor delight. Until today there is

no general agreement on the relationship between arousal and pleasure within this theory of arousal-relief

humor (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006). However arousal-relief theorists all seem to agree that humor is an

emotional reaction that together with simultaneous increases in arousal results in laughter whether or not

vocal.

[6]

This kind of humor is often used in comedy films (f.e. Meet the Parents, American Pie, etc.) causing laughter

by putting the character in awkward situations that eventually turn out well. Hence first arousal is caused

through empathy, which then is followed by relief thanks to a happy end (Kudrowitz, 2010). In advertising

often a fear appeal is communicated after which the brand provides relief with a solution in form of a product

or service (Beard, 2008). An example of such an ad is one of medical group Alka-Seltzer, cfr. Appendix 3.

The print ad tries to build tension by sketching a man doing the dishes with a little cat instead of a sponge.

Alka-Seltzer then provides relief with its aspirin to prevent getting into ‘dangerous situations’ hangovers can

cause.

Humor is thus a complex phenomenon. It is not a rational science and is difficult to measure. It comes in

many forms and often multiple forms are combined to spread the optimal humorous message. Humor in

advertising has been researched extensively. Humor in product design however remains more or less a blind

spot. Let us turn to the latter, less explored field of humor.

[7]

2.1 Humor & Design: bringing a product to life

A lot of humor research is focused on its use in psychology, literature and advertising. The role of humor

incorporated in a product, ditto product design, is other than some explorers more or less a blind spot in humor

research. Hence, a substantial relationship between humor and design still needs to be formed (Delaney,

2011). The complexity of such relationship lies in its multi-disciplinary range as well as humor’s completely

subjective character.

We consider Y. Yu and T-J. Nam (2014), two Korean design researchers, as pioneers in this research domain.

They are among the first to investigate the relationship between humor and product design with a broad scope.

This is why their work will be cited a lot in the following paragraphs. Following their interpretations an

important transformation is happening in the field of design. A mentality shift is occurring from a design that

solely fulfills its utility in an efficient way to one that stimulates positive emotion and maximizes user

satisfaction(Cho and Lee, 2005).

Fulfilling the emotional needs of consumers with regard to products is increasingly important (Cho and Lee,

2005). Products that are perceived as fun or amusing to use are bought more often (Jordan, 1998). It is

important that emotions are generated from the initial interaction with the product on, to the actual purchase

and throughout the use of the product (Yu & Nam, 2014).

However humor is often found difficult by designers to translate it to the process of design and the

methodological knowhow to do so is lacking (Yu & Nam, 2014). We will first take a look at the different

types of pleasure a product can elicit. Afterwards the different design principles used to create a humorous

product will be set out.

2.1 Pleasurable products: what fruits to be enjoyed ?

Pleasurable products produce four different types of pleasure in the perceiver’s mind: physio-pleasure, socio-

pleasure, psycho-pleasure and ideo-pleasure. (Jordan, 1998; Tiger, 1992) The first one relates to pleasure

experienced by the sensory stimuli. A product’s tactile-, olfactory-,gustatory-, auditory- and of course visual

properties are widely used to evoke pleasure.

Socio-pleasure refers to enjoyment when using a product in a social context. A product can lead to social

interaction for instance a cigarette can facilitate an enjoyable conversation with another smoker outside a pub.

A product can also change the way we are perceived by others or enhance our status or social identity, for

example fancy clothing or a luxury car(Helander & Khalid, 2006). The recognition that comes with it, is also

considered socio-pleasure.

Psycho-pleasure on the other hand involves pleasures of the mind, engendered when cognitive demands are

satisfied during the use of the product including the emotional reactions following that (Jordan, 1998;

Helander & Khalid, 2006), for example pleasure from enjoying a product that is interesting and engaging or

that allows us to unfold our -or someone else’s- creativity (Helander & Khalid, 2006). A good book for

instance can provide the user with psycho-pleasure.

[8]

Finally ideo-pleasure is derived from products that reflect people’s values or experience (Jordan, 2002). These

products give identity to the user. A product with a beautiful design will provide someone who has a great

sense for design and aesthetics with ideo-pleasure (Norman, 2004). Also, the values someone feels strongly

about, such as environmental care, can be incorporated into a products design or function. Hence

environmentally-friendly products reflect a person’s responsibility for people and planet and can provide the

user with pleasure or positive emotions during usage (Jordan, 2002).

Actually ideo-pleasure encompasses two concepts, reflection of experience on the one hand and of societal

values and beliefs on the other hand. Therefore it could be divided in reflective pleasure and normative

pleasure (Khalid & Helander, 2006). The overlap in Figure 3, represents the possibility of co-existence of

multiple pleasure types produced by one and the same product.

Figure 3: The five types of pleasure provided by pleasurable products

Understanding how pleasure is generated by a product is of substantial importance to get more insight in how

pleasurable products are created. Note that pleasurable products not necessarily implicate humor or laughter,

since they cover a broader range of positive emotions or -affect. However it is obvious that humorous products

fall into the category of pleasurable products. Pleasurable products are all products that provide pleasure in

some way, however they don’t necessarily incorporate humor, while humorous products logically do.

Humorous products mainly will provide physio-pleasure, socio-pleasure and psycho-pleasure. This will

become clear the further we advance in this study.

2.2 Humorous products: Three aspects of interaction intensity

When it comes to humorous products pleasure could also be approached differently. Pleasure is interpreted

more as a ‘pleasure carrier’, the interactions with the product transmit the humorous message and thus

pleasure. Three aspects of an amusing or humorous product experience are distinguished: the representational

aspect, the operational and the contextual aspect (Yu & Nam, 2014). Every aspect delivers the humorous

experience whilst making use of a different interaction intensity with the user. The interaction intensity of a

humorous product corresponds to the degree of intensity of the interaction between user and product that is

needed to unfold the humor.

[9]

The first aspect of a humorous product experience is the representational aspect. These products amuse the

user by a mix of visual stimuli such as aesthetics, material, color, unique shape, etc. (Yu and Nam, 2014).

Products in a shape of animals or imitated parts of the body are widely used (Ibid.). The humor in the product

is transferred through representation of the product and could be captured by all senses. Hence the interaction

intensity is low, as the user interacts with his senses with the product. This from a certain distance, without

touching the product and usually within a very short time frame. Products may also incorporate features of

other objects that are found humorous. Note that the representational aspect is comparable to physio-pleasure

of Tiger’s taxonomy of pleasure (1992) used by Jordan (1998) cfr. supra, since physio-pleasure refers to

pleasure caused by the sensory stimuli of the products. Examples of humorous products with representational

aspect are the creative outlet stickers in Figure 4 on the next page. These stickers can turn a socket into a

funny face. The humor is transferred through vision, does not need to be operated and does not require a

social context.

The second aspect used to transmit the humorous product experience is the operational aspect. Amusement

is derived from operation of the product and hence requires a bigger but still mediocre level of interaction

intensity. The user is amazed when discovering the unforeseen functions of the product (Yu & Nam, 2014).

Without operation the product’s humor will not be completely spread. Also, this aspect is similar to psycho-

pleasure explained in Tiger’s taxonomy of pleasure (1992).Recall that psycho-pleasure involves pleasures of

the mind, engendered when cognitive demands are satisfied during the use of the product including the

emotional reactions following that (Jordan, 1998; Helander & Khalid, 2006). The Morning Mug by The

Cottage Industry ,cfr. Figure 4, makes use of a operational aspect to transfer its humor. Looking at this coffee

mug, nothing humorous can be derived. However once you pour your hot drink in it, the mug slowly changes

color and its sleeping face turns into an awake one. This special effect occurs because of the thermochromic

paint, which changes color due to temperature. Hence this product’s humor is only derivable when it is being

operated.

The last aspect is the contextual aspect. A humorous product of this category only can create humor for the

user and the observers when it is being operated in a social context. The uncommon or even awkward

situations created by the products cause the user’s enjoyment. The humor can also evolve when thinking

where or in which situation it may be used or expose them to a new context (Yu & Nam, 2014). This process

of imagination can take place in the mind of the consumer when seeing the product in the store shelves. This

can trigger the actual purchase of the product. An example of a product using this aspect to transfer its humor

is the Goggles umbrella by Jenna Hsu, cfr. Figure 4 below. With this umbrella, people can look through a

transparent panel, the goggle, to other people. One could say that the user looks at the world as a diver at sea

life; which places the user in a new context. The diver umbrella is also interpretable less far-fetched as a

funny product being operated in company of other people. Again, note that this aspect is quite comparable to

socio-pleasure of Tiger’s taxonomy of pleasure. These products stimulate social interaction, and belong to

the highest degree of interaction intensity.

[10]

When we compare pleasure in terms of pleasurable products (Jordan, 1998) with pleasure of humorous

products, the latter only covers three out of five types of the Taxonomy of Pleasure (1998): physio-, socio-

and psycho-pleasure. This means reflective pleasure and normative pleasure are not directly included in the

model. However, by defining pleasure in a different way, through action, the outcome is not limited. The

three aspects basically encompass all types of pleasure. Recall that reflective pleasure refers to the reflection

of the user’s knowledge and experiences, while normative pleasure indicates the alignment of the societal

values and beliefs with the product.

The latter are harder to combine with humor and thus harder to become with a humorous design. Nevertheless

creative designers find ways to do so. Reflective pleasure is generated from product values, aesthetics and

quality, although these can be partly properties of a humorous product, they are rarely a source of humor.

Normative pleasure relates to products caring societal values, environmental responsibility and religious

beliefs (Helander & Khalid, 2006). In line with the superiority theory and disparagement humor, a product

can use humor to aggress or ridicule people not sharing the same normative values.

To conclude, these aspects are fundamental for the transfer of the humorous stimuli from product to user.

Every aspect corresponds to a degree of interaction intensity, the increasing order is repeated below in Figure

5. They will also play an important role in the following part of this study.

Figure 4: Illustrations of the aspects of interaction intensity.

Left: Creative socket stickers (representational aspect)

Middle: Morning Mug by The Cottage Industry (operational aspect)

Right: Goggles Umbrella by Jenna Hsu (contextual aspect)

Figure 5: Increasing order of the aspects of interaction intensity between product and user

Representational Operational Contextual

[11]

3 Humorous products: A rainbow of opportunities

3.1 Cognitive Incongruity humor in products

3.1.A Introduction

The incongruity theory implies that humor is experienced on the moment of resolution of the incongruity

between on the one hand what the receiver of the stimuli expects, and on the other hand what actually happens

(Suls, 1972). Yu & Nam (2014) state that “incongruity is adopted as a design method by breaking the balance

among design factors to make a reversal”. Incongruity in product design comes in many forms but all originate

from a conflict of information between two or more senses (Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein, Hekkert;

2012). We will elaborate the three most common types of sensory incongruity: visual-tactual, visual-auditory

and visual-olfactory.

All types start with a visual impression of the product which then will be contrasted with the senses touch,

sound or smell. Among those four senses, vision is the one that provides the most detailed information of a

product in the shortest amount of time (Schifferstein and Cleiren, 2005). The fifth sense taste will not be

examined in this part because incongruity in food products is hardly used. Communicating humor through

taste is possible, as will be illustrated in part 5.2.5 (page 33), but is very rare.

Incongruity humor in products is based on the key principals of the theory, hence the same rules apply

(Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein, Hekkert; 2012). The bottom line of the incongruity theory is expressed

by the two-stage model for Joke Appreciation (Suls, 1972; Figure 1 page 2). This theory claims that a joke

will not be considered humorous if the receiver cannot connect the punchline with the body of the joke or

when the punchline is too evident. Hence when the product -or body of the joke- is perceived by someone,

expectations about its characteristics are formed almost automatically. These are based on the visual

appearance of the product, memories of the product, or understanding with similar products (Ludden,

Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2012). During the interaction with the product a sudden incongruity or “physical

punchline” will arise which the receiver will try to understand. This while taking the other aspects of the

product in account (Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein, Hekkert; 2012). If the perceiver can connect the

incongruent element with the product, amusement or laughter could follow. Again in line with the Suls (1972)

joke theory, if the incongruity cannot be resolved or the “physical punchline” is too obvious, the perceiver

will be left in confusion and will not find the product amusing.

However, a study (Ludden et al.,2012) evaluating manipulated products with (in)appropriate incongruities

revealed a possible limitation of Suls’ Two-Stage Model for Joke Appreciation, cfr. Figure 1 page 2.

Accordingly confusion was found in both situations where the receiver could and could not resolve the

incongruity, respectively appropriate- and inappropriate incongruity. While in the joke theory this is only the

case with unresolved or inappropriate incongruity. This paradoxical effect could be caused by the fact that

people expect jokes to be funny while mostly that is not the case for products. Hence, when humor is

unexpected an appropriate incongruity can evoke both confusion as pleasure at the same time. (Wyer and

Collings, 1992)

[12]

Note that similar to the relief-arousal theory, the Wundt curve hypothesizes the optimal level of incongruity

expressed by the product. Since incongruity causes arousal the same inverted U-relationship is valid for

products. Below in Figure 6 a reinterpretation of the Wundt curve (Pfaffman, 1980) illustrates the relationship

between stimulus intensity of the product and the amusement level that results from it. A minimum amount

of stimulus intensity -the threshold- is needed to cause arousal. A moderate level of arousal and incongruity

is favored by most people, meaning that on the one hand product forms should not look too similar as others

but on the other hand should not look too different either (Jones, 1991). Once the stimulus is too novel or too

complex the perceiver will start disliking the product increasingly. Common cases apply contrast or

incongruity between the visual appearance of a product and its basic design elements such as shape, size,

material and color. As well as incongruity between the visual appearance and the purpose or the anticipated

function of a product (Yu & Nam, 2014).

Figure 6: The Wundt curve: Relationship between stimulus intensity(incongruity) of humorous products and produced

amount of amusement. Source: Pfaffman (1980).

3.1.B Types of sensory incongruity

3.1.1 Visual-tactile incongruity

Product designers try to create a surprise reaction to attract attention and to stimulate word-of-mouth, i.e.

sales (Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003). One way to do so is to incorporate visual-tactual incongruities in a

product. In this case expectations are based on vision and will be disconfirmed by touching the product. The

material of a product can be lighter or heavier than expected, surprisingly flexible, have a weird and funny

feeling, etc. This type of incongruity is experienced immediately when touching the product and thus delivers

an instant surprise. Visual-auditory and visual-olfactory incongruities on the other hand usually require

further cognitive effort and are therefore interpreted as discovery surprises (Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein

and Hekkert, 2012). Previous experiments proved that the visual-tactual incongruity is the most effective and

direct method to engender surprise as a higher product evaluation (Ibid.).

[13]

One disadvantage of this method is that the surprise effect fades away each time the product is being used. In

most cases the product knowledge will be updated in the perceivers mind after using the product for the first

time, making the surprise an one-time experience. Nonetheless, an entertaining first-time experience with the

product, e.g. in the shop, can be enough to evoke purchase. The surprise experience can also be shared with

other people; leading to multiple moments of amusement. A second disadvantage is that large differences of

liking and amusement are found between appropriate and inappropriate visual-tactual incongruities (Ludden

et al.,2012). In other words, in case of an inappropriate incongruity, when the user cannot make sense of the

incongruity between vision and touch, the negative impact on the product evaluation will be large. These

differences between appropriate and inappropriate incongruity are thought to be smaller in visual-olfactory

or visual-auditory incongruity reducing the risk of incorporating the latter (Ibid.).

A famous example of an artwork showing tremendous contrast between vision and touch are the flexible

sculptures of Beijing artist Li Hongbo cfr. Figure 7 below. These sculptures of busts look like they are made

of carved porcelain but are in fact made of thousands of layers of soft white paper and are on top of that

surprisingly flexible.

Further examples are the Coamaru stress balls designed by Japanese designer Makiko Yoshida, cfr. Figure

7. These are made of a funny-feeling material and are completely stretchable, which one would not expect at

first sight. This product relieves stress because the user can make funny faces with the stress balls by

squeezing them. The current state of mood of the user for instance can then be expressed by themselves.

Hence the humor is discovered with the first squeeze. The product is a huge success in Japan and is now being

distributed globally.

Figure 7: visual-tactual incongruity illustrations

Left: The sculptures of Li Hongbo.

Right: Coamaru stress balls by Makiko

3.1.2 Visual-olfactory incongruity

Designers can also add a scent to an object to create a positive sensory experience. Modern day technology

provides a broad spectrum of possibilities to implement odors in products. Scented packaging for example is

used to attract customers prior to purchase (Ludden and Schifferstein, 2009). Producers can communicate the

[14]

product’s characteristics or can shed light on one or more of them before purchase. A beverage brand selling

vitamin water with a strawberry taste can emphasize its taste by offering the product in strawberry-scented

plastic bottles. The products themselves can be given a touch of scent to enhance the consumer experience

like MP3 players with rose, chocolate or marijuana scent (Ludden & Schifferstein, 2009).

To evoke a visual-olfactory incongruity the designer intentionally tries to create a perceived mismatch

between the visual appearance of a product and its olfactory expression. Hence a scent can be added to an

object the consumer won’t expect to carry one. The scented cookie pillow for example, cfr. Figure 8 below,

is a pillow in the shape of a large chocolate cookie and contains a cookie smell. When perceiving the pillow

the user first could laugh with the abnormal size of the cookie, which is in itself result of a shape incongruity

which will be explained below in 3.1.C Model. Once using the product, the user could detect the unexpected

cookie smell. After detection the user tends to verify the source of this smell by additionally exploring the

product- bringing the product closer to the nose, squeezing, rubbing, waving, etc. The user is supposed to feel

amused when he can make sense of the unexpected smell of the product and when he can connect it to the

body of the product. In the cookie example, the cookie probably will be traced back to the pillow but continues

to produce enjoyment since it is rather unexpected for a pillow to have such a smell.

Another possibility is to create surprise by manipulating the existing, familiar smell of a product into a novel

and more unusual one. The brand Yankee Candles for instance, see Figure 8, produces candles with an

unusual, sometimes funny odor. A variety of odors exists, from candles with bacon scent to candles smelling

like freshly mowed grass. A study (Ludden & Schifferstein, 2009) has investigated the impact of

(in)congruent odors on products that normally contain an odor and on others that do not. A remarkable result

was that incongruent odors especially were favored for products that normally do not have an odor. This was

the case when a link was found between the smell and the theme or usage context of the product. Contrarily,

incongruent odors experienced in products that normally have a familiar odor usually were disliked.

A visual-olfactory incongruity requires more exploration and is less direct than for instance a visual-tactual

incongruity. Therefore the surprise experience following the visual-olfactory incongruity is labeled as a

discovery surprise and not as an instant surprise as caused by visual-tactual incongruities (Ludden, Kudrowitz,

Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2012). Since additional effort is required from the user, the incongruity usually

will be harder to solve. In some cases the consumer will not receive the stimuli; in the first place because

people probably will be less receptive to olfactory stimuli then for visual, tactual and auditory stimuli. During

the winter for example, people tend to have a stuffy nose. Hence the visual-olfactory incongruity might stay

undetected by the consumer, which on its turn can’t evoke a positive consumer experience. Secondly, people

have a personal taste and -preferences for smell (Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2012). Also,

the relationships between color and smell (e.g. “light green objects smell fresh”, “pink objects smell sweet”,

etc.) need to be learned and can be cultural specific (Ibid.). This in contrary to scientific relationships that

connect vision with touch and which can be considered worldwide standards (f.e. stones feel hard and feathers

are soft).

[15]

Further, the positive or negative judgement of a smell can be entirely or partly caused by a memory the user

associates the smell with (Ludden et al., 2012). Humans are able to remember specific smells for a lifetime.

Finally, an unexpected or incongruent odor was found to be disliked in some cases because the user thought

the product had been used before by other people, who have left the odor (Ludden & Schifferstein, 2009).

All these factors make it challenging for the product designer to predict the outcome of incorporating a visual-

olfactory incongruity in a product. In order to successfully create laughter with a visual-olfactory incongruity

designers need to maximize the chance; in the first place the consumer will get aware of the incongruity and

secondly the user can connect the smell to the visual appearance of the product. They are also supposed to

take the context of the olfactory stimuli in account because these are not isolated from other stimuli (Dubois,

2000). However most studies agree that odor has a minor impact on product liking (Knasko, 1995;

Schifferstein and Michaut, 2002) in comparison to its aesthetics (Ludden, Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2006)

and especially to its color (Schifferstein, Otten, Thoolen, Hekkert, 2010).

Figure 8: Visual-olfactory incongruity illustrations

Left: Scented chocolate chip cookie pillow

Right: Yankee Candle with bacon scent.

3.1.3 Visual-auditory incongruity

In the same way, visual-tactual and visual-olfactory incongruities are being produced. A visual-auditory

incongruity creates contrast between on the one hand the raised expectations of the sensory experience

through visual observation of the product, and on the other hand the actual sensory experience (Ludden &

Schifferstein, 2007). Aside from the physical aspects, people also tend to personify products by allocating

them personality characteristics and feelings. (Govers, 2004). A pair of Levi’s for instance is usually identified

as rebellious and hip, while a similar pair of jeans of Wrangler is associated with traits as macho, rough and

sturdy (Aaker, 1997). The Big Five Personality Traits model helps to classify brands or products in a

consistent way and uses five factors to do so: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and

Ruggedness (Aaker, 1997).

[16]

Similarly, the sound a product produces can play an important role in building or completing a personality

image (Janlert and Stolterman, 1997). As such, the sound of a closing door of a luxury car stimulates the total

perceived quality of the car (Parizet, Guyader & Nosulenko, 2008). The higher the tone and softness of the

sound, the more likely the product will be perceived as cute or feminine (Ludden and Schifferstein, 2007)

Thus, the lower the tone and the rougher the sound, the more likely the product is going to be perceived as

tough. When these auditory stimuli conflict with the anticipated sound, the user can feel surprised. The

anticipated sound is based on the visual impression of the product. So in order to stimulate conflict and

consequently surprise, designers can mislead the user with a visual image that does not match with the

auditory stimuli of the product. The larger the mismatch between the product and the sound it brings forth,

the stronger the feelings of surprise caused (Ludden & Schifferstein, 2007). Take for example a kitchen mixer:

one may expect a loud and rough sound from a robust, rectangular kitchen mixer and a softer sound from a

rounded-shaped, colorful kitchen mixer. Imagine that designers switch the matching sounds of both products.

The user then might be positively surprised of the rounded-shaped, ‘weak-looking’ kitchen mixer and

disappointed about the ‘strong-looking’ mixer (Ibid.).

However, a surprise reaction in tool is mostly undesirable because the user is in a goal-oriented mode or telic

state of mind (Ludden & Schifferstein, 2007). In some cases the user might assume that the product is not

operating well or even broken. Hence a visual-auditory incongruity is more effective in a toy because the user

will be more receptive for surprises since the focus is on having fun (Ibid.). When using a toy the user will

be in a play-oriented mind state of mind. However, a study revealed that the impact of incongruent auditory

stimuli on the total expression of a product generally is limited (Ludden, Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2006).

The visual impression is still exercising the most influence on consumer behavior.

3.1.C Model

We now know that a humorous product is characterized by on the one hand the incorporation of a humor

theory, and on the other hand the interaction intensity with the user; both disposing of three conditions. Hence

combining the humor theory and interaction intensity in a cross-table leads to a model with 9 (3x3) different

product groups, cfr. Figure 9 (Yu & Nam, 2014). During this study we will continuously build upon this

model, simultaneously integrating each humor theory.

First we will integrate incongruity humor, which is pictured on the upper echelon of the grid below.

Approaching them by each aspect of interaction intensity leads to the first three product categories defined

by the model: “Shape Incongruity, Unconventional Use and Unexpected Function” (Yu & Nam, 2014).

[17]

Figure 9: Humorous products: categorization by humor theory (y-axis) and interaction intensity (x-axis). Source: Yu &

Nam (2014).

3.1.4 Shape incongruity: Playing with size

“Shape Incongruity” is the first category of humorous products incorporating an incongruity in their product

design (Yu & Nam, 2014). As the term indicates, the shape of the product will be incongruent with the

expectations of the shape of the product. Following this, the shape of the humorous product rebels with those

of the existing products. One way is to exaggerate completely or partly the size or proportion of a product.

The abnormal size of a product, huge or small, can generate laughter (Ibid.) An example is the Fred & Friends

‘500xl Desktop Earbud Speakers’ (cfr. Figure 10 left), speakers in the shape of enormous earbuds. Another

technique uses a familiar form of a product and allocates it a new purpose. It is this contrast which makes the

product humorous. When users see the product they immediately recognize the borrowed element- color,

material, form, etc.- from the original object. Shape Incongruity belongs to the representational aspect of

interaction intensity. As explained in 2.2 (page 8), the representational aspect involves products that generate

a humorous or amusing experience caused by visual stimuli. Hence, incorporating a shape incongruity elicits

laughter through visual stimuli.

3.1.5 Unexpected function: Having a hidden agenda

A second incongruity technique makes use of an "Unexpected Function". Products of this group have a hidden

incongruity which the user will not notice by simply looking at the product. Instead the user will become

aware of the incongruity during operation of the product, which implicates an operational level of interaction

intensity. Of course multiple people can be part of the humorous experience when the product is used in a

social context but it is not a condition. An illustration of an "Unexpected Function" is the balloon business

[18]

card, cfr. Figure 10 middle. At first sight it seems a normal balloon, but once you inflate it, the contact details

can be read.

3.1.6 Unconventional use: Switching habitats

The final design principle to incorporate incongruity in a product is called "Unconventional Use" (Yu & Nam,

2014). Here the incongruity lies in the contrast between the expected function of the products and the actual

situations of use. When the users employ the product they realize the real intent of the product is different

than initially expected. They have fun using the product because they understand the real reason behind the

product. An example of this type is 'The Anti-theft Lunch Bag' by The, cfr. Figure 10 right. This bag with

green spots makes it look like lunch is expired and supposedly prevents it from being stolen by colleagues.

The user feels amused when he puts his lunch in the company fridge and his lunch could taste twice as good

afterwards. Initially it looks like a simple plastic bag with a spot on it, but the real goal is to prevent lunch

theft by colleagues. This category of products belongs to the contextual aspect of interaction intensity. The

context of use of this product will decide whether humor can be derived or not. In most cases a social context

is required.

Figure 10: Product categories with incongruity humor and a particular level of interaction intensity

Left: Shape incongruity (representational): Fred & Friends 500xl Desktop Earbud Speakers

Middle: Unexpected function (operational): Balloon business card

Right: Unconventional use (contextual): The Anti-theft Lunch Bag designed by 'The.'

3.1.D Conditions

Before incorporating an incongruity in the design process of a product, designers should be well aware of

what product they have in front of them. First of all the nature of the product will be important for the

evaluation of the surprise. An incongruity in a tool probably will be less appreciated than in a toy because the

user does not want to be disturbed whilst completing his task (Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein, Hekkert;

2012). Instead, when using a toy, a surprise experience may create additional amusement. However a product

may fulfill both roles in different situations. A computer for example can be used for functional reasons but

also for more playful ones. Therefore a distinction between the usage modes of the product would be more

relevant (Hassenzahl, 2008). In the goal-oriented mode completing the task is essential while in the activity-

oriented mode the activity in itself is important (Hassenzahl, 2008). Hence as a designer it is critical to know

[19]

the usage mode the user will be in, when being confronted with the surprise experience. An incongruity will

be more appreciated in the activity-oriented mode than in the goal-oriented mode.

A second element product designers need to pay attention to are the cross-cultural differences the product

will be exposed to. People from different cultures have different design tastes and habits (Armstrong, 1991).

They also make different connections which are crucial for the resolution of the incongruity and thus for

humor generation.

Finally, the product categories described (shape incongruity, unexpected function and unconventional use)

are not strictly defined. Meaning that these names are suggestions based on their corresponding humor theory-

incongruity humor and interaction level. As such, a product with a combination of incongruity humor and a

representational level of interaction intensity will not strictly use a shape incongruity in all cases. Other design

principles are possible to fit within that category. Hence the suggested names are subordinate to the axes that

determine them. This rule also applies to the suggested names defined by superiority humor and relief humor,

cfr. infra.

3.1.E Conclusion

When applied in the right conditions, products with a sensory incongruity sure can be considered humorous

by the consumer. The amusement the consumer experiences when seeing the product for the first time in the

shelves or during any other moment of interaction, could trigger the purchase of the product. Of the three

types of incongruity (visual-tactile, visual-auditory and visual-olfactory), a visual-tactile incongruity is the

most effective and most applied strategy (Ludden, Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2006). The reason for this has

not been declared yet. However, one explanation could be that people are more receptive for visual stimuli

and tactual stimuli than the other senses. Secondly, visual and tactile stimuli are considered to be more direct.

In contrary to olfactory stimuli and auditory stimuli they do not require further exploration of the product to

verify the source of the stimuli.

3.2 Superiority humor in products

3.2.A Introduction

As elaborated in the beginning of this study (cfr. 1.2.2, page 3) the superiority theory focuses on the negative

and aggressive part of humor (Kudrowitz, 2010) and is often associated with disparagement, hostility,

degradation and ridicule (Martin, 2010). One laughs with another’s misery or failure which places him in

some sort of superior position (Wiseman, 2002; Martin, 2010). This same concept of superior versus inferior

is translated to a product context. However superiority in product design is interpret slightly differently.

Humor is not always created by laughing with the shortcoming of other people, but rather produced through

emotional superiority (Yu & Nam, 2014). The user expresses superior, affective feelings towards small and

cute products, and feels compassion for a product that is positioned as inferior to him or her (Yu & Nam,

2014).

[20]

In the product context there are three actors: the product, the user and the observer(s) with whom the user

shares his humor experience. To make things more clear a visualization of the relationships between these

three actors is displayed in what we will call the ‘Triangle of superiority products’, cfr. Figure 11. The arrows

reflect a relationship between the superior-, from where the arrow starts, and the inferior actor, to where the

arrow points. These relationships allow us to distinguish products into categories. We will focus on the three

most popular types of superiority products. Note that this model does not exclude the possibility of other

types to exist.

Figure 11: Triangle of superiority relationships in humorous products

3.2.B Model

3.2.1. Zoomorphism: Caring about products

Zoomorphism is a first category. This category contains animal-shaped or humanoid products which arouse

a superior feeling towards the product (Yu and Nam, 2014). Usually they are small which makes the user

want to take care of them, as in the case of interaction with real animals. The user is amused by the funny

look of these cute products as well as by the absurdity of caring for them. A popular brand often making use

of zoomorphism is Alessi, an Italian producer of design household products. Alessi manages to find a perfect

balance between the use of humor in the product and its tasteful design. One example is the Alessi Anna G

Magnet Bottle Corkscrew, a humanoid corkscrew cfr. figure 12 below. Imagine a man opening a bottle of

wine with this corkscrew after a long workday. On the one hand he could by amused by the corkscrew looking

adorably like a woman in a dress, on the other hand he could enjoy the absurdity of treating the corkscrew

like a woman. Another example below is the Pig Buddies USB Hub made by We Play God. This USB hub is

a clear example of an animal-shaped design. The hub figures as the mother pig, while the USB sticks are her

piglets. Zoomorphism-based products require a representational interaction intensity since the pleasure they

[21]

generate is simply caused by visual stimuli. It is not necessarily supposed to be shared with others to be funny

(contextual aspect) and is not solely funny during the activity of use of the product (operational aspect).

However when the zoomorphic product is shared with others, the user may share that feeling of superiority

with the observer(s). That is why there is also an arrow representing the superiority of the observer upon the

humorous product. Zoomorphism is a design principle that is popular in humorous product designs and fairly

easy to incorporate.

Figure 12: Superiority humor in products: Zoomorphism

Left: Zoomorphism: Alessi Anna G Magnet Bottle Corkscrew.

Right: Pig Buddies USB Hub – We play God.

3.2.2 Abused products: A personal servant

A second category where the products makes the user feel superior are abused products (Yu and Nam, 2014).

These products look similar to zoomorphic products- small, cute and animal-or human-shaped. Nonetheless

humor is not created by their cuteness but by the fact that the user abuses them during the use of the product.

Just as with zoomorphism-based products, the observer feels superior over the product. This is illustrated by

the Humperdinks Dilemma door stop designed by Hugh Thomas cfr. Figure 13. This little door stop man,

named Humperdink, has a dilemma: either keeping the door closed for you or retreating his foot and releasing

himself from unbearable pain. The user is enjoyed by Humperdink’s sacrifice but also feels for him and

therefore shows sympathy. Another example is the Hotman pan holder, see Figure 13. This pan holder is

designed as a man lying on its back, sacrificing himself to carry your hot pots. Abused products are

comparable with slapstick humor in the comedy context because both are based on clumsy, absurd actions

and exaggerating, often embarrassing events. Abused products fit most with the operational level of

interaction intensity because humor experienced during the process of operating the product.

[22]

Figure 13: Superiority humor in products: Abused products-

Left: Humperdink Dilemma door stop

Right: Hotman pan holder

3.3.3 Self-depreciating products: Be a clown

A third concept utilizing superiority to create laughter is self-depreciation (Yu and Nam, 2014). This time the

user will deliberately position him inferiorly to the observer(s) whilst using the product. The product is often

embarrassing and gives the user a funny appearance which is amusing to share with the observer(s). Making

fun of yourself can allow the user and the others to drift away from a serious situation to a more playful,

entertaining one. One example are the Pick your nose party cups designed by Fred&Friends, cfr.Figure 14

below. These party cups all have a print of a different face. While drinking out of this cup on a party, the user

gets a funny appearance which is supposed to make the others laugh. They enjoy these situations and often

share them on social media. Another product illustrating self-depreciation is the bare feet design shoe. cfr.

Figure 14. The user who wears these shoes deliberately makes fun of himself and creates a pleasant, awkward

moments for the observer and himself. An essential condition of self-depreciating products to successfully

create humorous situations is its context of use. Without the presence of other people the user cannot share

the experience and thus the product will not have an added value. Hence a contextual level of interaction

intensity is required. This especially because the self-depreciating element incorporated in the product does

not have another useful function aside from that one. The print on the cups or those on the shoes do not have

a function in isolation.

Figure 14: Superiority humor: Self-depreciating products Left: Pick your nose – Fred & Friends

Right: Design shoes bare feet – Unknown source

[23]

3.2.C Conclusion

Superiority humor is rather easy to incorporate in a product design. Zoomorphism is a popular design

principle and is widely used. Abused products are more difficult to incorporate in a design, and require more

creativity. Hence they are less represented in the product shelves. Self-depreciating products are also popular

and are up and coming with the vast growth of social media users.

A final type which also could have its place in the Triangle Of Superiority is taboo products. However we

will only briefly discuss them here since principally they belong more to relief humor cfr. 3.3. Taboo products

display or express stimuli that generally are known as a taboo; such as certain themes associated with

sexuality, nudity, racism, religion, breaking the law, drugs etc. Although the humorous aspect or playful

context needs to be present. The user realizes the product circulates a taboo so when he deliberately uses this

product he positions him superior to the observers. Again taboo products will be further elaborated in the next

part. To conclude, in all case of the products of superiority humor either the user of the product or the observer

will be put in a superior position (Yu & Nam, 2014).

3.3 Relief humor in products 3.3.A Introduction

The relief theory describes laughter as the result of tension being released (Attardo, 1994). In the first place

the tension needs to be built. This can be done in numerous ways, which we will describe afterwards. This

tension or excessive energy will then be released in form of laughter once the user interprets the situation as

humorous and playful.

Products using relief humor frighten, shock or violate which is supposed to cause tension both in the user’s

mind as the observer’s. Therefore social taboos are visualized by the material or design of the product. Some

cases require the actual operation of the product, of which some within a specific context (Yu and Nam,

2014). Most people are attracted by things or actions that are prohibited or break with social norms. Just like

a kid who wants the candy even more once his parents have hidden them. That does not necessarily mean

people will break rules or norms. Products using relief humor play along with this instinctive, natural itch to

commit taboos. They give the user a ‘free pass’ to do so. It is the humorous situation following it which make

the user secure to break rules (Yu & Nam, 2014). Because once the humorous context is interpreted by both

the user and observer, their behavior would be reversed and becomes tolerable. It is both the designer’s job

as the user’s to make sure the humorous context is interpretable. If the humorous message behind the violation

of the taboo is not understood, both the user and initially the products’ brand can harm people. People getting

offended by a product can cause a major negative word-of-mouth for the brand. This is why this type of

humor should be seen as a high-risk but high-reward design method. High-reward because when the product

causes a lot of tension but succeeds in being deciphered as humorous, the relief in terms of laughter will be

high. On the one hand the designer can opt for a less offensive design, which builds up less tension but is

easier to interpret as humorous. On the other hand the design can be more improper, causing more tension

but making it automatically riskier in terms of interpretability of the humorous message.

[24]

An example is the product in Figure 15 left below. This wall hook is shaped as a little man with an erection.

Most people will not be offended by this product and they would easily understand the humor in this product.

Laughter following the observation of the product is unlikely. Now reconsider Figure 15 right. This lunch

bag looks like a medical bag in which they transport organ transplants. Imagine eating a steak in the company

restaurant and seeing a colleague walking by with this bag. One will wonder what is in the bag. The steak

suddenly does not taste that good anymore, one thinks about an organ transplant in an transparent, plastic

bag. Half a minute later one will see the colleague pulling his sandwiches out of the bag. At first one could

feel offended. But after a short while, one understands the humorous aspect of it. The tension was higher in

this case and the amusement level probably will be too. Unless one never accepted the humor of the product

in the first place and stays offended. This is thus an example of a high-risk but high-reward case.

Figure 15: Relief humor in products: Low- vs. high-risk relief This choice between high- or low risk can be guided by the brand’s marketing strategy, targeting a broad

audience or a niche market. Figure 16 on the next page illustrates a relationship that needs to be known by

the designer to successfully incorporate relief humor in products. This inverted-U curve explains the

relationship between the level of amusement generated in the user’s or observers’ mind and the degree of

violation portrayed by the design of the product. The higher the degree of violation, the higher the amount of

tension that will be relieved in form of laughter when interpreted humorous. When the degree of violation

increases, the level of amusement first will increase exponentially, then stagnating.

In Point 0 the level of amusement generated reaches its maximum, this is when the optimal degree of violation

is incorporated in the product design. The user of the product and/or the observer now experiences the

maximum level of humor, the product design highly violates but just falls within the boundary of humor

comprehension and tolerance. After Point 0 the degree of violation will be exaggerated which harms the level

of amusement. Once the degree of violation surpasses Point D, the drop-off value, the level of amusement

will drop drastically. The humor is too crude, too aggressive to be considered funny. Once the degree of

violation surpasses Point N, the product design did not incorporate a humorous element to make the user

and/or observer aware of the humorous situation. People do not sense humor, feel offended and experience a

negative feeling towards the brand.

[25]

Just like humor is very personal, this relationship is very subjective. Different users and observers will have

a different-shaped relationship between violation and amusement. The marketer should analyze the target

group to determine the factors driving this relationship. Once an estimated, aggregate relationship is deducted

the optimal level of violation should be estimated. As stated earlier, the brand can opt for a low-risk design

containing a lower level of violation. Or target the optimal level of violation. Obviously we recommend not

to surpass the estimated drop-off value of violation. Note that this inverted-U relationship is similar to the

Wundt Curve (Cfr. Figure 6 page 12) that explains the relationship between physiological arousal and

hedonic value or laughter. The optimal amount of arousal resulting in the highest level of humor appreciation

is when the stimulus intensity of the joke is not too high and not too low either.

The optima of both the relief humor curve in product design and the Wundt curve of jokes, come down to the

same principal: the stimulus needs to excite enough to create laughter, but be understood as humor at the

same time. Another remark to be made is that the context wherein one encounters the product also will

influence the degree of violation. The wall hook in Figure 15 might be funny in a friend’s bathroom but seem

out of place in a first class restaurant. Also we must take into account that this relationship is based on a

theoretical, estimated aggregate for a large sample of people. As stated before, humor is very subjective.

Hence the shape of this curve will differ from person to person with different optimal levels and different

drop-off points.

Figure 16: Relief humor in product design: relationship between level of amusement generated and degree of violation by the product design.

Now that we have elaborated the influence relief humor has on consumers, let us take a closer look at the

products incorporating it. Again we distinguish three categories: visualization of taboo, bizarre consequence

and destructive play (Yu and Nam, 2014).

[26]

3.3.BModel

3.3.1 Taboo products: Acting on the edge

As stated before, taboo products express stimuli that generally are known as a taboo; such as certain themes

associated with sexuality, nudity, racism, religion, breaking the law, public behavior, drugs etc.(Yu & Nam,

2014). Products that fall within this category do not only shock or frighten people. Along with the display of

taboo comes a stimulus revealing the humorous aspect or playful context. When the user is scared, tension or

energy will increase. Within seconds, when the user realizes he is being fooled, and the situation is interpreted

as humorous, the tension will be released in form of laughter. The visualization of the taboo is sufficient to

create humor, the product does not necessarily have to be operated. Therefore these forms mostly belong to

the representational level of interaction intensity.

Figure 17: Relief humor in products: Taboo products

Left : Bloody bath mat

Right: Dead Fred pen holder

A first example of a taboo product is the bloody bath mat cfr. Figure 17 above. When seeing this mat for the

first time, for example one definitely will be surprised for a moment. The mat makes it look like someone got

seriously hurt. The Realization one was fooled can be considered amusing afterwards. Another product

visualizing taboo in its design is the Dead Fred pen holder from Fred & Friends. The user is supposed to stab

the rubber red man in the heart with a pen. This makes the pen holder looks like a speared dead body. The

idea of hurting 'Fred' each time one puts the pen back in the holder could free tension.

As always brands need to have a good idea who will be their target group prior to launching the product. For

example the age of the user and observer could determine to success of the product. Taboo products might be

more preferable to younger people. Younger generations in general are thought to be more tolerant to breaking

rules, norms and taboos. A great awareness of cultural differences is also very important when considering

exporting a taboo product. Cultures react differently to breaking with rules or norms. A dashboard Jesus doll

with a bouncing head can be considered humorous in the Western world but picturing the prophet is

considered very offending in the Middle East.

[27]

3.3.2 Destructive play: Being rebellious A second design principle applying relief humor is described as ‘destructive play’ (Yu and Nam, 2014). This

time it is not the visualization of taboo that leads to humor, nor the context wherein the product is being used.

The punchline of the humor lies in the interaction with the product (Yu and Nam, 2014). ‘Play’ refers to the

playful situation the user is in when operating the product’s functions. ‘Destructive’ on the other hand refers

to the breaking of social rules and norms. The user feels like a rebel and is amused when using the product.

A clear example of destructive play is The L'il Lager baby bottle from Fred & Friends, see Figure 18 left.

Parents feel amused when they give their baby milk with a bottle that is similar to a beer bottle. Giving beer

to a baby makes them appear like a bad parent and they enjoy the idea of breaking with the norms. Note that

this product also could fall under the next category, 'bizarre consequence', when being used in a social context

with observers, e.g. when with family. However simply displaying the beer bottle would not break with the

norms. The focus is on the process of operating the product, that is why it fits more with 'destructive play'.

Another example is given by ‘The Paladone Diva Washing Up Brush with Afro Sponge Hair’, cfr. Figure 18

right. This sponge brush pictures the seventies disco look with stereotype afro hair. Using her hair as a sponge

to wash the dishes is funny but offending at the same time. The UK brand received a lot of criticism just after

the products were launched. The company was accused of negative reinforcement of stereotypes and urged

to take the products off the supermarket shelves. The brand mediated by stating their product is all about the

fun associated with the disco and punk of that age. There are four products and have been a phenomenal

success selling hundreds of thousands of pieces in the UK. Hence this product acted on the edge of violation

and experienced some backfire but eventually got rewarded.

Figure 18: Relief humor in products: Destructive play Left: The L'il Lager baby bottle from Fred & Friends Right: Diva dishwashing sponge with afro hair

3.3.3 Bizarre consequence: Fooling friends and family A final category of humorous relief products depend on a social context to be operated in. (Yu and Nam,

2014). In this case the user will operate the product and cause tension in the observer's mind by shocking,

[28]

threatening or frightening. This leads to bizarre situations which usually amuse the user first and followed by

the observer(s). That’s why this category is described as ‘bizarre consequence’(Yu and Nam, 2014). These

products are typically used for pranks and practical jokes on holidays and parties. The 'Naked Man Kitchen

Apron' in Figure 19 is an example of this. Other examples include fake feces, -cockroaches,- spiders, a

whoopee cushion, blood pills, itching powder etc. Recall that a lot of these products also incorporate

incongruity in their designs. However it is not the incongruity itself that will cause the humor, but the relief

building element.

Figure 19: Relief humor in products: Bizarre consequence Left: Naked man Kitchen apron Right: Fake feces and cockroaches

3.3.C Conclusion To conclude, products making use of the principle of relief humor allow users to act freely in some situations

without being social retaliation; just like stand-up comedians and cartoonists get away with abusive language

or violent acts, as people accept it under the premise of comedy (Yu and Nam, 2014). This kind of freedom

can be considered satisfying.

4. Humorous Products: A set of 9 design principles 4.1 Recap

During this study we have been building on the design principles, cfr. Figure 9 (page 17), set out by Yu and

Nam (2014). This model is useful because it integrates two conditions that lead to humor creation. Each

humorous product depends on the successfully execution of both conditions.

The first condition implies the incorporation of at least one of the humor theories: cognitive incongruity,

superiority humor and relief humor; cfr.above. Out of examination of multiple humorous products appears

that some of them make use of more than one humor theory. The bloody bath mat (cfr. Figure 17) or the

human organ transplant lunch bag (cfr. Figure 15) for instance, are illustrations of products using relief

humor. Nevertheless they both make use of cognitive incongruity. Still, the trigger for the humor itself is the

visualization of taboo. The taboo is the humorous aspect. Another example is the L’il Lager baby bottle (cfr.

[29]

Figure 18). This product looks like a beer bottle, and thus makes use of a cognitive incongruity, but it is the

process of the parent using this bottle for the baby that triggers laughter. As such to categorize humorous

products within this 3 by 3 grid of design principles, we define these by the humor theory that elicits the

humor. The humor theories are placed on the Y-axis. For this model we assume that the user and/or observer

of the product correctly interpret the humorous stimulus.

A second condition for humor creation depends on the situation the user is in at the moment of the humorous

stimulus. Recall that three levels of interaction intensity can be distinguished: representational aspect, aspect

of context of use and operational aspect (Yu and Nam, 2014). These can be found in 2.2 Page 8. These three

aspects are place on the X-axis in the model of Yu and Nam.

4.2 Limitations

The model is a very useful foundation to build on and undoubtedly plays a principal role in this initial phase

of research on humorous products. The model’s single largest limitation however, is that it defines the design

principles without leaving freedom for other product groups to be imported in this model. In other words,

based on the two axes a design principle is defined. However the existence of one design principle should not

exclude the existence of others. E.g. ‘Shape Incongruity’ is a design principle that is put forward as the product

category that uses both incongruity humor and a representational interaction. However, other design

principles could also be thought of conforming with both conditions. Instead of bringing contrast with the

shape of the product, a color incongruity for instance could cause the same humorous effect.

5. The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube: Humorous products 360°

The Humor Orientation Cube adds more depth to the model of Yu and Nam and makes a more precise

classification of humorous products possible. Building further on the two existing pillars, humor type and the

user’s interaction with product, a third pillar is added.

5.1 Humor and interaction: rehearsal and hypotheses

Before continuing, let us recall the existing two. The humor theories are placed on the y-axis of the cube cfr.

Figure 20, page 31. Each type is marked by their first letter: ‘I’ for incongruity humor, ‘S’ for superiority

humor and ‘R’ for relief humor. On the X-axis the three aspects, previously described in 2.2, are also marked

by a letter: ‘R’ for representational aspect, ‘O’ for operational aspect and finally ‘C’ for contextual aspect.

Note that we changed the order of the aspects. This is because we will label this axis according to their

strength of ‘interaction intensity’, cfr. Figure 5. Each aspect requires a different amount of interaction

intensity with the product to generate the humor. As such, the representation aspect solely requires the

representation of the product. The interaction between the user and the product is minimal and usually short.

For example, the user sees the product from some distance and it makes him laugh. The user is not operating

the product and a social context is not needed to make the product funny. The operational aspect on the other

hand requires an higher intensity of interaction between user and product. The product needs to be operated

[30]

by the user to create laughter during this process. When the product is operated in presence of observers, a

social context, the intensity will be the highest. This group of products are identified by the contextual aspect.

We hypothesize that the higher the interaction intensity will be, the higher the potential result in terms of

humor and laughter. Imagine seeing a funny video on the internet on yourself or being accompanied with

friends. Chances are high you hold back your laughter a bit while being alone but burst out of laughter with

your friends. Or your friends laughter automatically triggers you to laugh as well. The same effect could apply

for the representational aspect versus the contextual aspect, the latter resulting in a higher amount of humor

than the first. When someone laughs in company of others, a snowball effect of laughter could be generated

as well. Seeing other people laugh can not only be funny on itself but also very contagious, and in some cases

results in laughter attacks. It is this effect that drives the so-called laughter clubs.

Another hypothesis we make is that humorous products using a representational aspect could be more

successful when it comes to impulse purchases. Just seeing the product in the shop could be enough to

understand the humor of the product. Products requiring operation to unfold the humor are less likely to be

interpreted as humorous solely by watching it in the shelves. Moreover the packaging of the product might

withhold the potential buyer from operating the product in the shop. In this case packaging should promote

the comprehensiveness of the humorous trigger by the product as much as possible; similar for contextual

products that require both operation and a social context. However in this case the user can imagine the

humorous impact the product could have when using it in a given social context.

Impulse buying could benefit humorous products. The amusing feeling the prospect gets when discovering

the product in the shelves could urge him to buy the product, even when it is a product he does not need. The

level of amusement might be highest at the first encounter, after which the laughter yielded per additional

encounter with the product will decline. In advertising the wear-out effect of humor describes that additional

ad exposures lead to declining ad effectiveness (Zhang & Zinkhan, 1991). As far now it is still unknown

whether this wear-out effect applies to humorous products as well. However it is more than likely that the

humor experienced in the product wears out over time. The number of exposures after which the wear-out

effect of humor appears is supposed to differ between products. Some products might even have an inverse

wear-out effect, meaning that the humor of the product might reinforce after additional exposures.

5.2 How to transfer the humorous stimuli? The Five Senses

These two pillars, the humor type and user’s situation, are included in the existing model of design principles

(Yu & Nam, 2014). However the Humor Orientation Cube approaches the user’s situation as interaction

intensity, ranking the three aspects from low (left) to high (right) interaction intensity

However the third pillar of this model is what constitutes the added value for the existing design principles

model. It represents the way in which the humorous stimuli is transferred to the user and/or observer. In

Figure 20 the different transfer options are displayed on the z-axis. The pun of the humorous message might

be transferred to the receiver through the five human senses: vision, sound, smell, touch and taste. This

[31]

addition allows us to classify humorous products into 45 distinct groups, instead of 9. It has numerous

advantages which we will get into at the end of this section, cfr. infra. First each sense will be briefly examined

and illustrated.

Figure 20: The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube y-axis: Humor theory x-axis: Interaction intensity z-axis: Transfer of the five senses

5.2.1 Visual transfer: Look at that!

As for now mostly vision has been widely used. The humorous stimuli is transferred through vision when

someone sees the product. Most of the time these will be products making use of incongruity humor, where

the incongruity gets solved through vision. Typical examples include zoomorphism and shape incongruity.

Vision is the most popular sense for humor transfer, this became quickly clear after seeing a couple of dozens

humorous products. Vision is simply the most efficient way to let humor be interpreted successfully. Most of

its products will therefore belong to the category requiring the lowest amount of interaction intensity, the

representational aspect of the interaction axis. Simply seeing the product would trigger laughter, the humorous

stimuli is thus transferred quickly. Also, noise from the environment of the receiver will get less chance to

break up the transfer of the humorous message. Hence these two reasons enlarge the chance of successful

resolution.

[32]

5.2.2 Auditory transfer: Sounds interesting

Another possibility is to transfer the humorous message through sound. It’s the sound the product makes that

makes the people laugh. A typical example is a whoopee cushion, cfr. left upper corner of Figure 21 (Page

34). Now thanks to the Product Design Humor Orientation Cube, categorization of this example is made

possible as a humorous product with an auditory transfer of superior humor during a contextual interaction.

A whoopee cushion is a classic product used to prank friends or family and has caused numerous laughter

attacks during the ages on birthday parties of kids, family dinners and in classrooms. When someone sits on

this inflated plastic cushion it duplicates the sound of a fart. This creates embarrassing situations in social

contexts. It can both be used as a self-depreciating product or for ridiculing someone else, which makes it

belong to superiority humor. Of course it is the sound that triggers the humor and a social context is essential.

But a social context or operation of the product is not necessarily required in every auditory case. Imagine a

wall clock that looks ordinary but makes every hour an unexpected sound. In this case a low level of

interaction, solely representation of the product, will succeed to pass the humorous message. Categorization

leads us to a humorous product with an auditory transfer of incongruity humor during a representational

interaction; incongruity humor because the sound the product makes is incongruent, unexpected in

comparison to its aesthetics. Once the person involved is able to detect that the sound is coming from the

clock, the incongruity will be solved and laughter can follow.

However an auditory transfer of a humorous message is more likely to be blocked by noise than a visual

transfer. Since the sound can be interrupted by other environmental noise or simple by hearing-impaired

people. It is therefore not a good idea to target elderly people, who often have a limited sense of hearing, with

these kind of products.

As explained above, packaging should promote the understandability of the humorous trigger by the product

as much as possible. It is therefore advisable to design the packaging of the product in such a way that the

potential clients can already hear the sound of the humorous product in the shop itself. Trail can also happen

in form of displaying an already opened product as sample in the shop. This first-time experience with the

product could stimulate impulse purchasing.

5.2.3 Olfactory transfer: The strongest sense

The third sense that can trigger the humor of a product is smell. In fact smell is a sense, that unlike others can

directly active memories and emotions, which can track far back in time (Krusemark, Novak, Gitelman,

2013). A such a particular smell of a flower for instance, can take you back in time when you played in the

garden of your parents.

However product examples are scarce since humor is difficult to combine with smell. Nevertheless it is

possible. Take for example The ‘ManHands’soap in the right upper corner of Figure 21. This brand created

a number of different soaps with smells that are associated with men: bonfire, beer, fresh cut grass etc.

However once out of the packaging the product looks like an ordinary soap. It becomes quite funny then when

[33]

your friend would use it in the bathroom, and his or her hands unexpectedly smell like bacon. Obviously it

can lead to humorous situations. To further illustrate the categorization, this product can be described as a

humorous product with an olfactory transfer of incongruity humor during an operational, or contextual

interaction. It could also be seen as superior when its interpreted as self-depreciating to use this soap to smell

like a man. As you can see, a humorous product is not necessarily limited to one category and can take part

in multiple ones depending on how the humor is interpreted. Also note that the humor of this bacon-scented

soap is slightly culturally bounded since bacon is a very popular product in ‘bacon-maniac’ USA (Hepola,

2008).

Multiple brands have tried to cash in on this hype with a variety of bacon-scented products from candles to perfumes. Again, smell is often not associated with humor hence its possibilities seem somewhat limited.

5.2.4 Tactile transfer: Touch…Down

The final two categories include humorous products with a gustatory- and tactile transfer. These are probably

the less common of all. An example of a humorous product with a tactile transfer is the design Esprisso coffee

cup by Alex Polglase, Fenella Fenton and Dani Clode cfr. left corner at the bottom of Figure 21. This cup is

designed so that it looks empty. However it contains a hidden hollow within its walls which can be filled. It

is a humorous way to serve coffee. Touching the product is what sparks the humor with this category of

products. Hence we could categorize this coffee cup as a humorous product with an tactual transfer of

incongruity humor during an operational- or contextual interaction. One could also fill the hollow space with

a different liquid to create surprising gustatory experience. In this case the cup can also generate surprise and

humor through a gustatory transfer.

Note that products with a tactual transfer of humor are only imaginable for products with a either a contextual

level- and operational level of interaction intensity. It speaks for itself that humorous products with an tactual

transfer of humor during an representational interaction do not exist. Since the tactual transfer requires

touching the product which is a higher interaction level than solely its representation. This is thus an example

of an impossible combination in the Product Design Humor Orientation cube. The model with its three pillars

provides 45 combinations, nonetheless not all 45 of them are physically possible.

5.2.5 Gustatory transfer: Tastes like more

A final example is given of a humorous product with a gustatory transfer, which can be found in the right

bottom corner of Figure 21. This Harry Potter themed candy plays with incongruity. Each bean has a

different, unexpected taste ranging from spinach to soap or sardine. Not exactly the taste one would expect

of candy. The Harry Potter candy beans more specifically are an example of a humorous product with a

gustatory transfer of incongruity humor during an operational interaction.

[34]

Figure 21: Sensory transfer of humor 1: Auditory transfer: Whoopee cushion 2: Olfactory transfer: ManHands Bacon scented soap 3: Tactile transfer: 5.3 Defining humorous products: Funnel to format To conclude, the Product Design Humor Orientation Cube is a model making a more precise categorization

of humorous products possible. It offers both structure and inspiration for product designers during brainstorm

sessions for new product inventions. To simplify definition of humorous products we have developed a

standardized format, which results out of adding the ingredients in the funnel of humorous products. The

model can be seen in Figure 22 below.

[35]

Figure 22: The Funnel of Humorous Products: offers a standardized way to define humorous products

5.3.1 Advantages The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube model along with the Funnel of Humorous Products makes a

more precise categorization of humorous products possible. It can facilitate an easier organization of the

company’s product portfolio. It also offers both structure and inspiration for product designers during

brainstorm sessions for new product inventions.

6. Experimental design The survey consists of 9 parts, cfr. below. We will keep this order to explain the structure of the survey. Note

that each part of the survey can be found in XII Survey page 4 of Appendix. It is recommended to take this by

hand throughout the following paragraphs.

[36]

Figure 23: Survey design

6.1 Intro The survey started off with an introduction for the respondents. The subject of the survey was not

communicated to prevent them from having any knowledge on the subject, since this could hold the

respondents back from answering intuitively.

6.2 Social Demographics: sex and age After the introduction the sex and age of the respondent were asked enabling to construct a profile of the sample. 6.3 Mindset condition: concrete or abstract

Part three, the ‘mindset’ condition tries to manipulate the respondent so the remainder of the survey would

be completed either with a concrete or abstract mindset. Although this will be treated rather briefly,

incorporating this condition is interesting and will serve as an extra dimension of this research.

Buying a product can be seen as an ‘action’. An action on its part can be interpreted as ‘how we do it’-called

low-level construal- or ‘why we do it’-high-level construal (Trope & Liberman, 2003). As such buying a

humorous product could be seen as paying for the product at the cashier (low-level) or as for instance

investing in potential, future amusement with friends (high-level). In this part of the survey, half of the

respondents got questions ‘how’ they would improve and maintain health and the other half ‘why’ they would

do so. The questions are asked in a vertical diagram, cfr. Survey 3 page 5 , and stimulated the respondent to

think either increasingly concrete or –abstract. Increasingly since the first answer of the respondent becomes

the questioned element for the next answer. This process is repeated four times so the respondent needs to

think four times respectively why and how the actions would be performed. Again, the answers of this process

do not matter for this research, the process serves to bring the user in the concrete or abstract mindset.

Out of previous research (Freitas, Gollwitzer and Trope; 2004) follows that people who are in an abstract

mindset prefer long-term over short-term objectives. However people who are in a concrete mindset rather

look for short-term benefits. These effects would reflect to their desires when it comes to giving feedback to

[37]

others and receiving feedback from others. In fact the participants of their research assigned to the abstract

mindset would give and expect feedback focused on their weaknesses rather than their strengths. An inverse

effect was seen by the participants in the concrete mindset.

That this manipulation found place just before evaluating the WTB and WTP of products is no coincidence.

We want to look whether the manipulation had an influence on their rating. Hence expected is that the

respondents in the abstract mindset will be more critical during product evaluation and ask questions about

the purpose and the long-term benefits of the product. This would resolve in lower WTB-and WTP scores.

Usually stands that the first encounter with a humorous product is the most rewarding one. The long-term

benefit of humorous products could therefore be questioned and a more comfortable or peaceful design could

be preferred. This idea leads to H9:

H9: Respondents who are manipulated by the abstract mindset -resp. concrete mindset- have lower – resp.

higher- willingness to buy (WTB) and willingness to pay (WTP) for the same products.

Note that in part eight of the survey the Product Behavior Form questions check whether the respondent

indeed filled in the survey with the respective mindset and thus whether the manipulation has worked or not.

This is why this hypothesis is named ‘H9’.

6.4 Product group condition: control or humorous

In part four of the survey the second condition ‘Product group’ comes to work. This condition consists of two

levels, a manipulated group of products and a control group of products. The respondent of the control group

has been exposed to twenty products, one-by-one in a random order. The manipulated group was shown the

same twenty products one-by-one but this time its alternative with a humorous design. Both products have

the same function only their designs differ. Hence the stimuli of the humorous product that are not supposed

to be humorous are tried to be as similar as possible to the control product when it comes to shape, color,

function, quality, etc. Both groups of products can be seen in XII Survey 4 Page 8. This to avoid differences

in WTP- and WTP scores related to non-humorous stimuli. The respondents were requested to imagine

themselves standing in front of the product shelves of the respective type of products, with the assumption

needing such product. Then the respondent was asked to rate the willingness to buy (WTB) for each product

on a 7-point Likert scale, reaching from definitely would not buy to definitely would buy. As well as to

manually enter the willingness to pay (WTP) in euro.

Expected is that the respondents will be more willing to buy a humorous product than a standard one. Also expected is that they are willing to pay more for it. Out of these expectations follows: H1a: The willingness to buy (WTB) is higher for products with a humorous design than for products without humorous design. H1b: The willingness to pay (WTP) is higher for products with a humorous design than for products without humorous design.

[38]

The effect humor has on the buying intensions can also be considered in a different way, all respondents

(N=100) have rated the perceived humor of the humorous products on a score of zero to ten. Hence we will

compare these humor scores to the WTB of the humorous products. However only half of the respondents

(N=48) are conditioned with the WTB of the humorous products, therefore only their humor ratings will be

tested. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: The humor rating of humorous products is positively related to the WTB of the respective humorous products. (+) 6.5 Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) The respondents were asked to fill in the Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) constructed by R.A. Martin

et al. (2003) This 32-item questionnaire measures four scales of sense of humor: affiliative humor, self-

enhancing humor, aggressive humor and self-defeating humor. First of all having a sense of humor is

considered a valuable personality characteristic and is not given to everyone (Martin, 2003). Those with a

greater sense of humor usually have a more positive vision on life, experience less stress and have a better

health in general (Lefcourt, 2001). Different types of senses of humor are distinguished.

First of all, people who have a good sense of affiliative humor can easily amuse others with their humor, they

tend to laugh a lot among others and enhance their social relationships with these persons by doing so

(Lefcourt, 2001). Affiliative humor is a positive, tolerant style of humor that promotes social cohesiveness

(Martin et al., 2003). This includes laughing with oneself, without going overboard in putting yourself down

(Vaillant, 1977). People who score high on self-enhancing humor use their humorous perspective on life to

deal with stress or problems (Veselka, Schermer, Martin and Vernon, 2010). When problems arise they see

the absurdity of it and use humor as a mechanism to overcome adversity and negative emotions. Hence it is

comparable to the Freudian definition of humor (Martin et al., 2003).

Secondly, aggressive humor comprises the use of sarcasm, put-down humor and ridicule and manipulation of

others. It is related to hostility (Yip and Martin, 2006) and potentially has a negative impact on others (Martin

et al.,2003). Hence sexist, racist and vulgar humor fall within this group.

Finally someone who scores high on the dimension of self-defeating humor, ridicules himself excessively to

amuse others and to gain their approval (Chen and Martin, 2010). Hence the latter uses this style of humor to

enhance social relationships but this at expense of the self. Often it goes hand in hand with low self-esteem,

self-criticism and emotional repression (Martin et al., 2003). Using a lot of self-depreciating humor could

point to having a low self-esteem and a way of hiding underlying problems or depressing negative feelings

(Stieger, Formann and Burger, 2011; Kuiper et al., 2004). However there is some overlap, self-defeating

humor is not the completely the same as self-depreciating humor, because in the latter the user does not go

overboard in putting himself down (Martin et al., 2003). When someone excessively uses self-defeating

humor, it becomes self-defeating humor.

Hence the SHQ will test the respondents on these four humor styles by asking 8 questions per scale, in a

[39]

random order. The questions are answered with a 7-point Likert scale. Because of this questionnaire a profile

about the humor of the respondent can be made. A mean score of each humor style can be calculated.

Interesting then would be to compare this humor profile with the likeability of the humor products. As stated

above, the 20 humorous products are rated on WTB by half of the respondents. Of these 20 products, five per

humor style are represented. This means that five products have affiliative humor incorporated in their design,

five involve self-enhancing humor, respectively aggressive- and self-defeating humor. The humorous

products are structured according to the sense of humor they have incorporated cfr. XII Survey 4. This allows

us to compare the respondent’s humor profile with his buying intensions for humorous products. The arising

hypotheses are:

H3: The sense of humor of the respondent is positively related with the willingness to buy (WTB) of the

respective humorous products.

H4: The humor rating given to the product groups, that incorporate a particular sense of humor, is positively

related with the willingness to buy (WTB) of the respective humorous products.

H5: The sense of humor of the respondent is positively related with the humor rating given to the respective

humorous products corresponding with the sense of humor.

6.6 Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics Questionnaire (CVPA) After the Sense of Humor Questionnaire the respondents were asked to fill in the Centrality of Visual Product

Aesthetics Questionnaire (CVPA). This questionnaire measures the general importance of the visual design

and the aesthetics of products for the respondent (Bloch, Brunel and Arnold, 2003). The CVPA score is the

mean score of the 7-point Likert scales of 10 items, reaching from completely disagree to completely agree.

As for now it is unknown the role the importance of visual product design plays in the mind of the customer

when shopping for humorous products. In some cases the humorous stimuli incorporated in the design of a

product harm the general visual design. The smooth lines of the design of the product for instance could be

suppressed by a humorous element. Therefore we suppose that the higher the CVPA score of the respondent,

the lower the willingness of buy (WTB) for the humorous products will be. This reverse effect is also

hypothesized for the humor score of the product, which is tested in the post test (part 7). This leads to the

following hypotheses:

H6a: A negative relationship can be found between the CVPA score of the respondent and the WTB of the

products with a humorous design. (-)

H6b: An negative relationship can be found between the CVPA score of the respondent and the humor scores

of the products with a humorous design. (-)

6.7 Posttest of humorous products In the second from last part of the survey the twenty humorous products, cfr. XII Survey 4 right column, are

examined based on three variables: humor, creativity and functionality. All products were shown in a random

[40]

order to avoid a possible bias. The respondent was asked to rate the humor, creativity and functionality on a

scale of 10 based on a photo of the product. Expected is a positive relationship between humor and creativity

and a negative between humor and functionality. Humor is often based on creativity and therefore a positive

correlation is expected. Functionality however, could be at expense of the humorous focus of the design of

the product. Therefore a negative correlation is hypothesized:

H7a: There is a positive relationship between the perceived humor and creativity of a product with a

humorous design. (+)

H7b: There is a negative relationship between the perceived humor and functionality of a product with a

humorous design. (-)

6.8 Behavior Identification Form (BIF) The final part of the survey includes the Behavior Identification Form. This 24-item instrument is designed

to detect differences in ‘level of personal agency’ (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). In other words this instrument

tests the mindset of the respondent. As explained in the first part of the survey, half of the respondents are

manipulated with a concrete mindset and the other half with the abstract mindset. In order to be able to make

conclusions based on these mindsets, a check whether the manipulation indeed worked has to be made.

Hence in this case the BIF checks whether the respondent indeed filled in the survey with the respective

mindset. Each time an action is stated in a simple phrase, the respondent is told to choose between two choices

which one describes the action the best according to him. There is one low-level choice which represents the

‘how’ or process of the action. The other, high-level choice corresponds to the ‘why’ or purpose of the action.

One item for instance is ‘pay the rent’, the respondent has the option to describe this action with one of these

two options: ‘take care of a place to stay’(why) or ‘doing a bank transfer’(how). The ones who were

manipulated with the concrete, resp. abstract, mindset in the beginning of the survey, thus are expected to

thick the second, resp. first, box here. All 25 items were randomized and lead to this hypothesis:

H8: The respondents manipulated with the concrete -resp. abstract- mindset behave accordingly in the BIF.

Again, the complete survey can be found in part XII Survey, as well as the list of hypotheses in Appendix 5. 7. Results 7.1 Sample Before reporting the results, we will give a brief overall view of the sample. In total 156 Belgian respondents

started the survey of which 119 completed it. Of those 119, another 19 respondents have been deleted from

the analysis. This because they failed the control questions which were incorporated into the survey to remove

those who answered randomly or without full concentration. As such a final sample of 100 respondents (59

males, 41 females) have been analyzed. The average age of the respondent was 30.53 years young(SD:14.31),

with a minimum age of 18 and a maximum of 66. The survey was held on an online platform, Qualtrics.

About half of the respondents received a Win For Life scratch card (€1) as a participation incentive. This was

[41]

needed because the average survey time was high, approximately 25-30min.

The research has a multi-faceted design. However the bottom line of the research comes down to a 2X2

between-subjects factorial design : 2(Product group: Control vs. Humorous) X 2(Mindset: Abstract vs.

Concrete). These conditions have been assigned randomly to the respondents by the software, dividing them

into four groups. The number of respondents per condition is illustrated below.

Condition Product Group

Mindset

Control N Humorous N Total

Concrete Concrete*Control 22 Concrete*Humorous 27 49

Abstract Abstract*Control 30 Abstract*Humorous 21 51

Total 52 48 100 Table 1: Number of respondents per condition

For the next part we recommended to take the list of hypotheses (Appendix 5) at hand. The results will be

reported according to this order, the same as in the experimental design. Note that a list of used abbreviations

can be found on page XI.

7.2 Buying intensions: humorous- versus control products

In preparation of tests a new variable ‘willingness to buy’(N=100) was created, which basically is an

aggregate of the WTB scores of the control products (N=52) and the WTB scores of the humorous products

(N=48). The WTB collected the mean scores of the 7-point Likert scales of 20 control- and 20 humorous

products. This variable is interval scaled and involves two independent samples. Therefore an independent-

samples T-test was conducted to compare willingness to buy in the control products and the humorous

products conditions. There was a significant difference in the scores for control products (M=4.10 , SD=0.69)

and humorous products (M=3.45, SD=0.79) conditions; t(98)=4.40, p=0.00.

These results suggest that the design of a product does have an effect on the willingness to buy the product.

Specifically, our results show that when products have a humorous design, the WTB (M=3.45) will be slightly

lower (MD=0.65) than when the same products have a non-comical design (M=4.10). On average a standard

product is favored 0.65 Likert-scale points more than its humorous alternative, when it comes to willingness

to buy measured on a 7-point Likert scale. As a result H1a has been rejected.

To consider the effect a humorous design has on the WTP, a similar test has been performed. This time a new

variable ‘willingness to pay’ (N=100) was created, which is also an aggregate of the WTP scores of the control

products (N=52) and the WTP scores of the humorous products (N=48). The WTP in euros was entered

manually by the respondents for the 20 products of the assigned condition. This variable is again interval

scaled and involves the same two independent samples. An independent-samples T-test was conducted to

compare willingness to pay in the control products and the humorous products conditions. There was a

significant difference in the scores for control products (M=17.05 , SD=7.83) and humorous products

(M=10.48,SD=7.11) conditions; t(98)=4.38,p=0.00.

[42]

These results suggest that the design of a product does have an effect on the price in euros the consumer is

willing to pay for the product. Specifically, our results propose that when products have a humorous design,

the WTP (M=10.48) will be significantly lower (MD=6.57) than when the same products have a non-comical

design (M=17.05). On average a consumer would be willing to pay 6.57 euros more for a standard product

than for its humorous alternative. Hence H1b has been rejected.

Variable N M SD df t p Control 52 4.10 0.69

Humorous 48 3.45 0.79

WTB 100 MD*=0.65 98 4.40 0.00<0.05

Control 52 17.05 7.83

Humorous 48 10.48 7.11

WTP 100 MD**=6.57 98 4.38 0.00<0.05 Table 2: Independent-samples T-test: Buying intensions humorous- vs. control products * measured on a 7-point Likert scale * in euros

An extra check on the relationship between humor and buying intension for humorous products has been

executed. A linear regression was conducted with the humor rating as independent variable and the WTB of

the humorous products as dependent variable. An significant regression equation was found (F(1,46)) = 4,944

p=.031>.05, with an adjusted R² of .312. As a result H0: Adjusted R²=0 is rejected. This means that the

regression model is meaningful, the mean humor rating of the humorous products significantly predicts the

WTB of humorous products. The following regression equation can be established:

The mean WTB of humorous products= .171+.312 X mean humor ratingee

This means that the WTB (measured on a 7-point Likert scale) will raise with .312 scale point when the humor

rating is increased with one point. Hence this result contrasts with the previous test, which found a higher

WTB for control products than for humorous products. This could explain that a large group of people did

not understand the humor, or disliked it which results in the lower mean WTB. In the cases when a high

humor rating was given, this seemed to be translated into the WTB of that respondent. Hence H2 has been

confirmed.

7.3 What sense of humor does the participant have? To test the influence of the respondents’ humor preference on his buying behavior , they were asked to fill in

the Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ) constructed by Martin et al. (2003). This 32-item questionnaire

measures four scales of humor: affiliative humor, self-enhancing humor, aggressive humor and self-defeating

humor. These four humor styles are formulated in 8 questions each, this in a random order. The questions are

answered with a 7-point Likert scale. Some of them had to be reversed first.

A number of Principal Component Factor analyses were conducted on the 32 variables. In total six variables

with factor loadings lower than .500 were removed, one-by-one, starting with the component that explained

[43]

the highest percentage of variance. This because practical significance requires the factor loadings of

variables to be higher than .500 before it can be assigned to a factor (Janssens, Wijnen, De Pelsmacker & Van

Kenhove, 2008). However this rule is only valid with a minimum sample size of hundred respondents, which

just is the case in this research (Janssens, Wijnen, De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2008). An orthogonal

Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization is executed because each factor is expected to have a small

number of variables with a high factor loading and a large number of variables with a low factor loading

(Abdi, 2003). The first factor analysis extracted the factors based on the rule of Eigenvalue-bigger-than-1

(Kaiser, 1960). The subsequent factor analyses retrieved the factors by a predetermined number of factors,

four.

Hence the principal component factor analysis performed on 26 of the 32 Likert scale questions of the SHQ

(N=100) revealed four factors. As expected the questions that were provided to test a certain humor type by

Martin et al. (2003), also are assigned to the right factor in this research. However 6 questions, cfr. paragraph

above, are removed due to insignificant factor loadings. As a result four final factors are extracted: affiliative

humor, aggressive humor, self-defeating humor and self-enhancing humor. All factors represent a minimum

of six questions. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO=.734) suggested that factor

analysis is appropriate for the sample (Dzuiban & Shirkey, 1974). Also the Bartlett’s test of sphericity

confirms this conclusion, the test is significant (p=.00<.05) which suggests that correlations are found in the

data ((Dzuiban & Shirkey, 1974). Check Table 3 below for a summary of the most important measurements

of the factors.

The affiliative humor factor consists of 7 items and explains 24.65% of the total variance. After having

checked it’s reliability (Cronbach Alpha α =.851) the summated scale of the items was calculated (M=5.32,

SD=.98). The 7 items of the aggressive humor factor (M=3.72, SD=1.06) explain 11.11% of the total variance

and the factor is reliable as well (α=.796). The self-defeating humor factor (N=6, M=3.81, SD=.90) on its

turn is reliably (α=.784) explaining 8.64% of the total variance. Finally the self-enhancing factor (N=6,

M=3.84, SD=.99) explains with 7.51% the smallest part of the total variance, but also does so in a reliable

way (α=.766). Hence all factors pass the reliability test of a Cronbach Alpha value higher than the acceptable

0.7 for social sciences (Nunnally & Bernstein, (1994) and prove a good internal consistency. Most

respondents seem to have an affiliative sense of humor (M=5.32, SD=.98) because the mean value of its

variables is situated between ‘rather agree’ and ‘agree’. This means they have a positive, tolerant sense of

humor. They enjoy laughing together with friends and use humor as a way to improve relationships with

others (Martin et al., 2003).

The mean scores for aggressive humor(M=3.72), self-defeating humor(M=3.81) and self-enhancing humor(M=3.84) are surprisingly similar and all lie between ‘neutral’ and ‘rather agree’. In general the respondents of the sample seem quite indifferent upon these senses of humor.

[44]

Factor % of var. Cum. % α M SD N items Affiliative humor 24.65 24.65 .851 5.32 .98 7 Aggressive humor 11.11 35.76 .796 3.72 1.06 7 Self-defeating humor 8.64 44.39 .784 3.81 .90 6 Self-enhancing humor 7.51 51.90 .766 3.84 .99 6

Table 3: Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation: Sense of humor

7.4 Sense of humor: Relationships with buying intension and humor rating The four factors of sense of humor allow us to examine whether the humor profiles of persons are reflected

in their preference of particular humorous products and accordingly their buying behavior.

As stated in the experimental design, cfr. 6.5(page 38) the twenty humorous products used in the survey are

built around the humor styles comprised in the SHQ of Martin et al. (2003). This means that 5 products per

humor style have been rated on WTB, WTP and humor score. However the WTP will not be treated because

it would make the analysis too extensive. Also because it is the assumption that WTB gives a better view on

the general buying intensions. Hence this leaves us with 2 factors that will be bilaterally compared to the

sense of humor of the respondent, cfr. Figure 24. As stated above, the relationships will be considered per

sense of humor.

Figure 24: Relationships involving sense of humor of the respondent

First the summated scale per sense of humor extracted from the SHQ will be compared to the mean WTB of

the 5 products that use that kind of humor as pun. Therefore a simple linear regression analysis was conducted

four times to predict if the WTB for each humor style could significantly be predicted by its corresponding

summated scales of sense of humor. A summary of the key statistics are displayed in Table 4, regression

A(page 47). Hence in all four cases an insignificant regression equation was found, with marginal or negative

adjusted determination coefficients. This means that the regression models are not meaningful. In other words

the sense of humor of the respondents does not significantly predict the WTB of the products that incorporated

the corresponding style of humor, thus hypothesis 3 is not confirmed.

[45]

This result is unexpected as one would expect the humor profile of a person being translated more or less in

his buying intensions. However the sample to test this relationship was rather small (N=48) so this conclusion

needs to be treated with caution.

The next relationship examined is the one between the WTB and the humor score, this for each sense of

humor score. Hence regression B in Table 4 on page 47 displays the linear regressions with again the WTB

of the four different senses of humor as dependent variable but this time the mean humor ratings for the

corresponding product groups as independent variable. With these regressions we try to confirm if high, resp.

low, humor ratings for a particular humor style indeed results in higher, resp. lower, buying intensions for the

humorous products that incorporate the same humor style.

The results suggest that variation in the mean humor ratings of the affiliative-, aggressive- and self-enhancing

products significantly may predict a part of the variation in the mean WTB of the same affiliative-, aggressive-

and self-enhancing products: 15.9%, 21.9% and 18.4% (adjusted R²). Taking the coefficients in account, a

raise of one scale point of the mean humor rating of the affiliative humor products would result in a raise

of .23 Likert scale point of the mean WTB of the affiliative humor products. Note that the humor rating is

measured by a score on 10 and the WTB on a 7-point Likert scale. This effect is slightly bigger for aggressive

humor products where a raise of .30 Likert scale point of the WTB was measured when the humor rating

increases with one point. A similar effect was measured for self-enhancing products, a raise of 0.29 Likert

scale points per additional point in humor rating. This leads to the following regression equations:

Predicted mean WTB* of affiliative products = 2.30 + 0.23 x Mean Humor score** of affiliative products Predicted mean WTB* of aggressive products = 2.02 + 0.30 x Mean Humor score** of aggressive products Predicted mean WTB* of self-enhancing products = 2.06 + 0.29 x Mean Humor score** of self-enhancing products

Figure 25: Significant linear regression equations between the WTB and mean Humor score per product group expressing a particular sense of humor *: measured on a 7-point Likert scale **: measured with a score from 0-10

However, remarkable is that an insignificant regression equation was found for self-defeating products. The

variation of the mean humor rating of self-defeating products does not explain the variation of the mean WTB

for these products, which leads to only partial acceptation of hypothesis 4. It is difficult to explain this

However, self-defeating humor is the only humor style that is expensed on the self and in which the user of

the product, will figure as the ‘butt or target of the joke’ (Martin et al., 2003). According to the disposition

theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1972), the person who is the butt of the joke plays a decisive role in finding the

joke funny or not. As such, a humorous attempt that is directed at someone we dislike has a greater chance of

success than one that targets people we like (Cantor & Zillmann, 1973; Wanzer, Frymier and Irmin, 2010).

Accordingly, self-defeating humor could be a manner of popularizing oneself in a social environment. People

who gave high humor ratings for these products could find it humorous imagining another person making fun

of themselves. However when the respondents are asked if they would buy the product themselves, they

would become the target of the joke. This could explain why the self-defeating humor products that have high

humor scores are not necessarily popular when it comes to WTB.

[46]

Further research could focus exclusively on the self-defeating sense of humor, dig deeper into the causes of

a possible non-existence of a positive relationship between WTB and humor rating. Testing it on a larger

sample is recommended.

Finally the relationship between the sense of humor of a person and the humor ratings of products that express

that sense of humor has been scrutinized. This makes the circle round, as both WTB, humor rating and sense

of humor will have been compared bilaterally. This time the mean sense of humor scores (independent

variable) will predict the mean humor rating (dependent variable) for the corresponding product group.

The results are portrayed by regression C in Table 4. None of the four linear regression equations were found

meaningful and all of them showed very low adjusted determination coefficients. This means that the mean

sense of humor scores of the respondents extracted from the SHQ did not significantly explain the variation

in the mean humor ratings for the same group of products. Only the linear regression for the affiliative humor

products turned out to be significant but it failed the assumption of normality of standardized residuals. Hence

no meaningful relationships could be established between humor rating and sense of humor, which implies

rejection of hypothesis 5.

This is an alarming result because the sense of humor or humor profile of the respondent does not fit with the

humor scores he has given to the products that incorporated that particular sense of humor. A possible

explanation is that the products may not successfully express the intendent humor and that the sense of humor

of the respondent consequently did not get successfully aroused. Hence the respondent may not have

understood the humorous stimuli. This is probable since a part of the humorous products that were used in

the survey depended on a social context (contextual interaction intensity) or on operation (operational

interaction intensity) to unfold its humor. Hence some of the respondents may have lacked the imagination

to see the product in its intendent context of use. This is where the crucial role of packaging comes in play.

Brands of humorous products need to make sure to use packaging that stimulates understanding of the context

of use of the product. Which in turn would translate in a successful comprehension of the humorous stimuli.

[47]

Regression A. WTB X Sense of Humor

Adj. R² F(df)

p B cst (SE) (t); (p)

B Ind Var (SE) (t); (p)

Meaningful (incl. assumptions)

D: WTB Affiliative products I: Affiliative sense of humor

-.02 0.09(1,46) .760 >.05

/ / NO (insignificant)

D: WTB Aggressive products I: Aggressive sense of humor

-.006 .72(1,46) .399 >.05


D: WTB Self-enhancing products I: Self-enhancing sense of humor

-.01 .521,46) .474 >.05


D: WTB Self-defeating products I: Self-defeating sense of humor

.022 2.06(1,46) .158 >.05


Regression B. WTB X Humor rating

Adj. R² F(df)




D: WTB Affiliative products I: Humor rating Affiliative products

.159 9.66(1,46) .003

2.30(.43) t=5.39 p=.00

.23(.07) t=3.14 p=.003

YES

D: WTB Aggressive products I: Humor rating Aggressive products

.219 14.22(1,46) .000 2.02(.38) t=5.37 p=.00

.30(.08) t=3.78 p=.00

YES

D: WTB Self-enhancing products I: Humor rating Self-enhancing products

.184 11.57(1,46) .001 2.06(.45) t=4.57 p=.00

.29(.09) t=3.40 p=.001

YES

D: WTB Self-defeating products I: Humor rating Self-defeating products

.018 1.861(1,46) .197 >.05


Regression C. Humor rating X Sense of humor

Adj. R² F(df)




D: Humor rating Affiliative products I: Affiliative sense of humor

.057 7.01(1,98) .009 / / NO (No normality of residuals)

D: Humor rating Aggressive products I: Aggressive sense of humor

.004 1.43(1,98) .235 >.05


D: Humor rating Self-enhancing products I: Self-enhancing sense of humor

-.006 .40(1,98) .528 >.05


D: Humor rating Self-defeating products I: Self-defeating sense of humor

.001 .142(1,98) .707 >.05


Table 4: Key statistics linear regressions of the relationships involving sense of humor of the respondent

A. (WTB product group i X Sense of Humor i);

B. (WTB product group i X Humor rating product group i);

C. (Humor rating product group i X i Sense of humor)

[48]

7.5 Sense of Design: relationship with humor rating and buying intension

The Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics (CVPA) measures the general importance of the visual design

and the aesthetics of a product for the respondent (Bloch, Brunel and Arnold, 2003). The CVPA score is the

mean score of the 7-point Likert scales of 10 items.

First its relationship with the mean WTB of the humorous products has been examined. As explained earlier

only half of the respondents (N=48) rated the WTB of the humorous products. The CVPA however has been

calculated for all participants (N=100). Therefore the mean WTB of the 48 participants who were conditioned

with the humorous products will be compared to their 48 mean CVPA scores. A simple linear regression was

used to predict if the mean WTB of the humorous products could significantly be predicted by the mean

CVPA score. An insignificant regression equation was found (F(1,46)) = 1.033, p=.315>.05, with an adjusted

R² of .001. As a result H0: Adjusted R²=0 is accepted. This means the regression model is not meaningful.

There is no significant relationship between the CVPA score of the respondent and the WTB of the products

with a humorous design. The respondents’ design preferences are not related to the buying intension for

products with a humorous design. Consequently hypothesis H6a can be rejected.

Secondly the relationship between the mean CVPA scores and the humor scores of the humorous products is

examined. A negative relationship between both was expected. The humor scores entangle all the participants

(N=100) which allows us to analyze a bigger sample. Again a simple linear regression was used to predict if

the mean humor scores of the humorous products could significantly be predicted by the mean CVPA score.

An insignificant regression equation was found (F(1,98)) = .500, p=.481>.05, with an adjusted R² of -.005.

As a result H0: Adjusted R²=0 is accepted. This also means that this regression model is not meaningful.

There is no significant relationship between the CVPA score of the respondent and the mean humor scores

of the products with a humorous design. In other words the respondents’ design preferences do not influence

how humoristic the humorous products are rated. Thus hypothesis H6b can be rejected.

Regression Adj.R² df F P

Dep. Var: Mean WTB* Indep. Var: CVPA*

.001 1/46 1.033 .315>.05

Dep. Var: Mean Humor** Indep. Var: CVPA*

-.005 1/98 .500 .481>.05

Table 5: Linear regression between the Sense of Design and buying intension as well as humor rating * measured on a 7-point Likert scale ** measured with a score from 0-10

[49]

7.6 Humorous products: Triangle of humor, creativity and functionality In the post test the 20 humorous products were rated on three scales: humor, creativity and functionality of

the product. This was done with glider scales from zero to ten. The products were shown one-by-one and in

a random order to avoid bias. To discover the relationship between these variables linear regression is used.

A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the mean humor score based on the mean creativity score.

A significant regression equation was found (F(1,98)) = 170.244, p<.000, with an R² of .635. However out of

the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test followed that the assumption of normality of standardized residuals was not

satisfied (p<0.05). Therefore the outliers were examined. The outliers with the highest Cook’s distance were

removed one-by-one until the standardized residuals were normally distributed. Four outliers or 4% of the

total sample needed to be removed to fulfill the normality assumption. As a result a significant regression

equation was found (F(1,94)) = 382.647, p<.000, with an adjusted R² of .801. Participants’(N=96) predicted

mean humor score is equal to -.109 + 0.935 mean creativity score. In other words the mean humor increased

0.935 for each point of mean creativity. Remember that both are measured on a score from zero to ten. Hence

there is a substantial positive correlation between both variables for humorous products. Also, 80.1%(adjusted

R²) of the variation in the mean humor score of the humorous products may be explained by the variation of

the variable mean creativity. As a result H7a is accepted for this sample.

The same process was executed to compare mean humor and mean functionality of humorous products. A

simple linear regression was calculated to predict the mean humor score based on the mean functionality

score. The initial model again did not satisfy the assumption of normality of residuals. Hence the outliers with

the highest Cook’s distance were removed. In total two outliers or 2% of the total sample was excluded to

obtain normality of residuals. Consequently a significant regression equation was found (F(1,96)) =56.261,

p<.000, with an adjusted R² of .363. Participants’ predicted mean humor score is equal to 1.688 + 0.61 mean

functionality when both are measured in points on 10. Mean humor increased 0.61 for each point of mean

functionality. Hence there is an apparent positive correlation between both variables for humorous products.

Finally, 36.3%(adjusted R²) of the variation in the mean humor score of the humorous products may be

explained by the variation of the variable mean functionality. This effect is smaller than between mean humor

and mean creativity. As a result H7b is rejected, since instead of the expected negative expected between both

variables a positive one has been found.

Regression Adj. R² df F p Constant Creativity Functionality

Model Humor-Creativity

.801 1/94 382.647 .00<.05 -0.109 0.935 /

Equation (N=96) Predicted Mean Humor score= -.109 + 0.935 mean creativity score

Model Humor-Functionality

.363 1/96 56.261 .00<.05 1.688 / 0.61

Equation (N=98) Predicted Mean Humor score= 1.688 + 0.61 mean functionality score Table 6: Linear regression between Humor and Creativity, resp. Functionality

[50]

7.7 Mindset condition: Influence on buying intension 7.7.1 Did the manipulation work? As explained in the experimental design, we will use the Behavior Identification Form to check whether the

user filled in the survey with a concrete- or abstract mindset. (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). To calculate the

BIF score of the respondent a sum is made of the 24 items. The answers that correspond to the concrete

mindset were given the value ‘1’, while the those to the abstract mindset were valued with ‘2’. Hence the

higher the BIF score, the higher the level of abstraction measured. This variable is interval scaled and involves

two independent samples, the concrete condition (N=49) and the abstract condition (N=51). An independent-

samples T-test was conducted to compare the BIF score in the control products and the humorous products

conditions. There was an insignificant difference in the scores for the BIF under concrete manipulation

(M=38.59 , SD=4.69) and under abstract manipulation (M=38, SD=4.80) conditions; t(98)=.606, p=0.546.

We can conclude that the respondent was not successfully manipulated. It is possible that over the course of

this long survey the impact of the manipulation faded out. Its long duration might also have caused the

respondents to answer the BIF with a lack of concentration. Nevertheless it is remarkable that both mean

scores and even the standard deviations are basically the same. As a result hypothesis 8 has been rejected.

7.7.2 Mindset condition: Impact on buying behavior for humorous products Now let us examine whether a significant difference in mean WTB and WTP for the humorous products is

found between both conditions. Remember that the WTB has been rated on 7-point Likert scales while the

WTP in euro was filled in manually. The sample of the respondents who rated the humorous products and are

manipulated with the concrete mindset (N=27) is larger than those manipulated with the abstract mindset

(N=21), cfr. Table 1 page 41. On both variables, the mean WTB and the mean WTP of the humorous products,

an independent-samples T-test was conducted to compare their scores for both conditions. Their key statistics

are displayed below in Table 7.

Results showed that there was an insignificant difference in the scores for the WTB under the conditions

concrete manipulation (M=3.35 , SD=0.57) and abstract manipulation (M=3.57, SD=0.83); t(46)=-.931,

p=0.357. The mean WTB score are basically the same under both conditions, 3.35 points and 3.57 points on

a 7-point Likert scale. Hence the respondents’ mean WTB for the humorous products is basically indifferent,

since these mean points lie in between point 3 (would rather not buy) and point 4 (indecisive).

Also an insignificant difference was found in the scores for the WTP under the conditions concrete

manipulation (M=9.36, SD=5.74) and abstract manipulation (M=11.92, SD=8.50); t(46)=-1.240, p=0.221.

Hence the manipulations did not result in a significant difference in mean WTP. Based on a set of twenty

different humorous product types, the respondent was prepared to pay €9.36 on average for a humorous

product while being manipulated with the concrete mindset. This average appeared to be slightly higher for

the abstractly manipulated group, €11.92, but a higher standard deviation is measured as well.

[51]

The expectations predicted both a lower mean WTB and mean WTP for the abstract condition. Hence in

contrast to the expectations, an opposite effect has been measured. Nevertheless this difference in means is

insignificant. Therefore will H9 be rejected.

Variable N M SD df t p Concrete 49 38.59 4.69

Abstract 51 38 4.80

BIF 100 98 .606 0.546>0.05 Concrete 27 3.35 0.57

Abstract 21 3.57 0.83

WTB 48 46 -.931 0.357>0.05 Concrete 27 9.36 5.74 Abstract 21 11.92 8.50

WTP 48 46 -1.240 0.221>0.05 Table 7: The impact of the mindset condition on buying behavior of humorous products

7.7.3 Mindset condition: Overall view of the buying intension

For the final stage of the mindset analysis the focus is turned back to the bottom line of this research, the

WTB measured with two factors, each on two levels. Therefore a two-way analysis of variance is performed

for the 2X2 between-subjects factorial design, with WTB as dependent variable : 2(Product group: Control

vs. Humorous) X 2(Mindset: Abstract vs. Concrete). The means, standard deviations and p-values are

presented in Table 8 below. As we already know (cfr. Hypothesis 1), the mean WTB, is higher for control

products (M=4.10, SD=.69) than for humorous products (M=3.45, SD=.79). Hence the ANOVA showed a

significant effect for the factor product, F(1,96)=18.401, p=.00<.05. The mean WTB significantly differs

between control products and humorous products, which confirms the conclusion made by the independent

samples T-test in Hypothesis 1.

As regards the factor mindset, an insignificant effect is found between the total mean WTB of the respondents

manipulated with the concrete mindset(M=3.71, SD=.88) and the mean WTB of those with the abstract

mindset(M=3.86, SD=.72). This follows out of test F(1,96)=.200, p=.656>.05. The manipulation in the

beginning of the survey did not appear to be strong enough to significantly influence the willingness to buy.

This also confirms the conclusion of Hypothesis 8 that suggests an insignificant relationship between the

manipulation and the BIF scores. Which on its part points to an unsuccessful manipulation. This could declare

why no significant effect on WTB is found for the factor mindset here. We recommended further research to

manipulate the respondents more intensively, and on a larger scale, in order to conclude about this effect.

Also interesting to take a look at, is whether the interaction between the product type and the manipulated

mindset has an effect on the willingness to buy. The results suggest that this is not the case for this sample,

as an insignificant interaction effect was found between both factors: F(1,96)=.956, p=.331>.05.

[52]

Product Mindset M* SD N

Control Concrete 4.14 .84 22

Abstract 4.06 .56 30

Total 4.10 .69 52

Humorous Concrete 3.35 .75 27


Total 3.45 .79 48

Total Concrete 3.71 .88 49


Total 3.78 .80 100

Table 8: Overal view of both conditions Mindset and Product type combined * Measured on 7-point Likert scale

7.8 Buying intension on product level

In the analysis above conclusions have been made based on the mean scores for a large number of products.

However humor is very subjective and therefore it would be interesting to dig deeper for useful information,

namely on product level. Therefore the means are compared per product type. In other words the mean WTB

of the humorous version of product 1 is compared with the mean WTB of the control version of product 1,

etc. which results in the mean differences. We remind you that all products can be seen in XII Survey 4. Each

time a one-sample T-test is conducted on the WTB for the control version with the mean WTB for the

humorous version as test value. We already know from the precedent analysis that the mean WTB for the

group of 20 humorous products (M=4.10,SD=.69) is significantly smaller than the WTB of the 20

corresponding control products (M=3.45,SD=.79). Therefore we will restrict our results to the products for

which the mean WTB of the humorous version outperforms the WTB of the control alternative. These are the

products with a positive mean difference (MD). The results are shown below in Table 9.

Product M* SD MD** t-value Sig (p)

Wallet 3.19 1.68 .57 2.34 .024<.05

Pen holder 4.02 1.82 1.46 5.57 <.00

Doormat 4.44 1.65 .67 2.80 .007<.01

Lunch bag 3.40 1.84 .05 .172 >.05

Hot plate 3.94 1.77 .27 1.05 >.05

Dummy 4.92 1.74 .79 3.14 .003<.01 Table 9: Products with a higher WTB for the humorous version

* measured on a 7P-Likert scale

** with control product

[53]

Out of the twenty products six of them show a higher mean WTB for the humorous version than for its control

alternative. However only four of them show a significant difference: wallet(p<.05), penholder(p<.00),

doormat(p<.01) and dummy(p<.01).

The largest positive effect is measured for the pen holder (M=4.02,SD=1.82). The humorous version’s mean

WTB is significantly bigger by 1.46 Likert scale points than the standard pen holder. The aggressive humor

of the Dead Fred pen holder seems to be appreciated more than a simple pen holder. More specifically, the

Dead Fred is an example of visualization of taboo, cfr. Figure 17 page 26. According to the funnel format it

can be defined as a humorous product with visual transfer of relief humor during a representational

interaction.

A positive, significant effect has also been found for the doormat. The humorous version (M=4.44,SD=1.65)

scores .67 Likert scale point higher on the mean WTB. The WTB can be raised by simply changing the

doormat’s standard statement ‘Welcome’ to the funny quote ‘Oh no! Not you again’. The doormat is an

illustration of a humorous product with a visual transfer of superiority humor during a representational

interaction.

Next is the transparent dummy(M=4.92,SD=1.74), which has a higher WTB of .79 point Likert scale when

humor is incorporated. This is the result of adding a small black moustache on top of the dummy. The

moustache dummy can be seen as an example of destructive play, similar to the like-a-beer-looking milk

bottle cfr. Figure 18 page 27. Or defined as a humorous product with a visual transfer of relief humor during

a contextual interaction.

Next is the humorous wallet, which is .57 point Likert scale more likely to be bought than its control

alternative. Although the mean WTB score is still low(W=3.19,SD=1.68), which corresponds to ‘would rather

not buy’. Hence a simple print on the wallet significantly raised its mean WTB. The wallet is an example of

a humorous product with a visual transfer of incongruity humor during a representational- or operational

interaction. Finally the lunch bag and the hot plate only show minor positive differences, which are not

significant.

8. Restrictions and future implications

8.1 Restrictions: Upscale and offline

Before conclusions are made, three restrictions should be considered. First of all the research was conducted

on a rather small sample (N=100). As such, the results should be treated with caution. Secondly the data was

collected with an online survey. This could lead to a bias, which nevertheless is expected to be not significant.

More realistically would be to do a large scale offline experiment in which the participants are able to interact

with the products. This because interaction often plays a crucial role in resolving the humorous message.

After all the consumers are exposed to the products in real life shopping experiences as well. The reverse side

of such labor-intensive research would be the high cost. This could be funded by organizations having interest

in the results. Finally, despite the fact that two product groups are tried to be as similar as possible, we did

not manage to fully exclude other stimuli that possibly influenced both the WTB as the WTP. Small

[54]

differences in use of materials, quality, size, etc. could not be ruled out. Further research could focus on the

same relationships while tackling these restrictions.

8.2 Further research: a step in unknown territory

Very few research has been done on humorous products, at least almost none of it is published. Humor

research mainly focuses on advertising and psychology. This leaves a wide-open research domain with plenty

of potential for humor applied in product design. Throughout this research a number of interesting questions

have been raised. Not all of them have been treated, as the scope of the research would have become very

broad. However they are definitely worth being researched.

First of all future research could focus on the appropriateness of humor. When does humor in product design

become inappropriate? When does humor ‘cross the line’? With Figure 16 cfr. page 25 an estimated

relationship between the degree of violation of humorous products and the level of amusement the humor

generates has been established. It would be interesting to test this relationship. Gender differences, culture

differences, etc. could be discovered. Cultural differences are extremely important to bear in mind when

exporting products internationally. A certain level of violation could be accepted in Europe but at the same

time offending in for instance Asia. Damage to the brand image, social boycotting and even trail could be

avoided by being aware of the cultural differences.

Note that this relationship has been researched in advertising. However advertising is different than owning

a product, which kind of communicates acceptance of the violation to the social environment. The research

could also explore the differences in appropriateness of humor when the product is experienced in a situation

of expecting- or not-expecting humor.

Another attractive object for further research are products making use of self-defeating humor. This sense of

humor appeared to be the only one in which no significant relationship has been found between the mean

WTB of the self-defeating products and the mean humor rating for these products. This relationship could be

further analyzed on a larger scale to see whether the same results are discovered. If so, then the research could

try to expose the reasons behind it. A self-defeating sense of humor would follow from a lack of confidence,

self-criticism and emotional repression (Martin et al., 2003). Using a lot of self-depreciating humor could

point to having a low self-esteem and a way of hiding underlying problems or negative feelings (Kuiper et

al., 2004; Stieger, Formann and Burger, 2011). Interesting would be to research whether people who buy

these products, or who show a higher WTB for it, indeed fit within that profile.

Thirdly it would be interesting to further explore the Product Design Humor Orientation Cube cfr. Figure 20

page 31. The role that the five senses play in humor forms an appealing research topic. Nowadays senses as

touch, hearing and especially scent gain ground on vision when it comes to marketing products, shopping

experience, etc. Despite that online sales are growing fast, the shopping experience will stay important in the

flagship stores of the future. Also new technologies allow different ways to interact with our senses. An

example of that are the scented-plastic bottles of vitamin water who communicate its flavor to the consumer

[55]

before it even is opened. In conclusion, the different senses will undoubtedly play a bigger role in the product

experience of tomorrow and therefore its role within humorous products should be researched.

Finally the wear-out effect of humor in humorous product and its long-term effect is definitely worth being

studied. This relationship could be visualized in a graph and be connected to the Product Design Humor

Orientation Cube.

8.3 Practical implications

Every brand selling humorous products should have a minimal amount of interest in this research. Fulfilling

the emotional needs of the consumer becomes increasingly important. Knowing which factors and which not

drive the buying intensions of humorous products could lie at the base of important strategical decisions. Also

brands that not sell humorous products yet should consider the advantages that could come with humor. The

market is becoming increasingly saturated and humor could lead the way to stand out in the product shelves.

The Product Design Humor Orientation Cube model established in this research makes a more precise

categorization of humorous products possible. It can facilitate an easier organization of the company’s

product portfolio. It also offers both structure and inspiration for product designers during brainstorm sessions

for new product inventions.

9. Conclusion

The bottom line of this research was to examine the impact of the addition of humorous stimuli to a product,

on the buying intensions of that product. Additionally, research was done on the underlying factors that

influence the willingness to buy of humorous products.

The results suggest that the willingness to buy of products with a humorous design on average is slightly

lower than for the same products with a non-humorous design. The average WTB of a group of twenty

humorous products was rated 0.65 likert scale points (measured on a scale of 7) lower than its non-humorous

alternative. The same relationship was found in the willingness to pay for both groups. The average WTP for

a non-humorous product appeared to be €6.57 higher than its humorous alternative. Hence both the WTB and

WTP of the control products was significantly higher than those of the humorous products.

However when the data is analyzed on product level, some products reveal a different pattern. Six out of

twenty products show a higher mean WTB for the humorous version than for its control alternative. Four of

them show a significant difference.

This proves that adding humorous stimuli to an existing product can significantly increase its WTB in some

cases. The humorous stimuli of these cases are simple additions or changes to its standard alternative. It’s up

to the management to predict if the extra sales generated by the increase in mean WTB outweighs the

potentially higher cost per unit. Also a fit with the company’s business model is recommended.

But what exactly drives the WTB of humorous products? To formulate an answer on that question, a number

of factors have been studied.

[56]

Firstly, the humor rating of the humorous products positively drives their WTB. A significant positive

relationship has been found between both. For every additional point of humor rating (measured on a scale

of ten), the WTB increased with .312 Likert scale point. This means that if the humor is understood in the

product and a high humor rating was given, it seemed to be partially translated into the WTB of that

respondent. Interesting is that this outcome contrasts with the result cfr. above that both the WTB and WTP

of the control products is higher than its humorous alternative. This could mean that a larger group of people

disliked the humor in the product or did not understand it. It could also prove two things. Firstly, that the

humor perceived in a product is subjective. Secondly, that it is very important that the humorous stimuli

successfully is transferred to the perceiver.

Secondly, the sense of humor of the participant has been scrutinized to see whether it could predict the WTB

of the products that incorporate that particular sense of humor. This did not seem to be the case, an

insignificant relationship between both was found. Again, a possible cause of that may be that the humor in

the product could not be detected by the participant. Also the sense of humor of the participants did not seem

to be related to the humor scores for the products that expressed that particular sense of humor. This result is

somewhat surprising. It could suggest that the humorous products did not successfully transfer its humorous

message, or that the participant was not able to resolve it. Hence the stimulus could be too novel or too

complex, which happens when arousal is very high (cfr. Figure 2: reinterpretation of the Wundt curve; page

5). Packaging and stimulating interaction during the shopping experience could (partly) solve this problem.

However one factor did successfully predict the WTB of products that express a particular sense of humor:

the humor scores of the those products. For every Likert scale point that the mean humor score increased of

the products that incorporate affiliative-, resp. aggressive-, resp. self-enhancing humor, its mean WTB grew

with 0.23, resp. 0.3 and resp. 0.29 Likert scale point. Remarkable is that this effect is not visible for products

incorporating self-defeating humor. No relationship was significantly established. A possible explanation is

that this sense of humor is the only one that is expensed at the self, which eventually may withhold people

from buying products that makes them the ‘butt’ of the joke.

Thirdly, the mean humor scores on its own are positively related to the perceived creativity and also to the

perceived functionality of the product. When the mean creativity, resp. mean functionality, raised with one

scale point (measured on a scale of 10) then the mean humor score increased with 0.935, resp. 0.61 scale

point. Hence inversely, a higher amount of humor in a product favors its perceived creativity and

functionality.

Thirdly, the importance the participant attaches to the design of a product –expressed by the CVPA score-

was looked into. First a possible relationship with the mean WTB of the humorous products was explored.

The feeling for design of the participant appeared to be not significantly related to the buying intensions for

humorous products. One would perhaps expect a negative relationship between both, as the humorous

stimulus at times can take away the minimalism or the simple lines of the product’s design. However humor

does not necessarily exclude a simple general design, both can go hand-in-hand. Considering the products

used in the survey, this seems especially the case for: the milk jar (XII Survey 1.2), the tent (4.1.5), the knife

[57]

holder (4.3.2), the leather shoes (4.4.3) and the helmet (4.1.4). The Italian design brand Alessi is proof of

successfully combining design and humor.

Finally, an extra variable’s impact on the WTB and WTP of both the control group and the humorous group

of products was analyzed, namely the mindset the participant was in when rating the products. A manipulation

was conducted to bring the participant in either a concrete- or abstract mindset. The Behavior Identification

Form checked whether the participant was successfully manipulated but this did not seem to be the case. It is

possible that too much time passed between the moment of manipulation and the check, which might have

weakened its effect. Nevertheless an insignificant difference between the mean WTB and mean WTP of the

control- and humorous product group was found under both conditions. In other words the participant’s

mindset, control or abstract, did not seem to significantly differ the mean WTB and mean WTP.

Finally, to conclude this thesis, incorporating humor in the design of a product is a way to stand out on the

product shelve and the added value that results from it can allow higher pricing. However people have

different senses of humor, so sales are likely to depend on a niche market

[58]

X. References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 347-356.

Abdi, H. (2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. Encyclopedia for Research Methods for the Social

Sciences. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 792-795.

Alden, D. L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1993). An examination of cognitive factors related to humorousness in

television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 29-37.

Armstrong, L. (1991). It Started with an Egg. Business Week, 142-146.

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.

Beard, F. K. (2008). Humor in the advertising business: theory, practice, and wit. Rowman & Littlefield.

Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), 551-565. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), 551-565. Cantor, J. R., & Zillman, D. (1973). Resentment toward victimized protagonists and severity of misfortunes they suffer as factors in humor appreciation. Journal of Experimental Research and Personality, 6, 321_329. Cantor, J. R., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1974). Enhancement of humor appreciation by transferred

excitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(6), 812.

Chen, G. H., & Martin, R. A. (2007). A comparison of humor styles, coping humor, and mental health between Chinese and Canadian university students. Humor–International Journal of Humor Research, 20(3), 215-234. Cho, H. S., & Lee, J. (2005). Development of a macroscopic model on recent fashion trends on the basis of

consumer emotion. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(1), 17-33.

Cronk, B.C. (2012). How to use SPSS statistics: A step-by-step Guide to Analysis and interpretation.

Pyrczak Pub.

Delaney, C. (2011). Humor-Centered Design: Using Humor as a Rhetorical Approach in Design.

Derbaix, C., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of mouth by eliciting surprise – A pilot investigation.

Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99-116.

Dubois, D. (2000) Categories as acts of meaning: the case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive

Science Quarterly, 1 (1), 35-68.

Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some

decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358.

[59]

Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on

anticipating and guiding others' self-regulatory efforts. Journal of experimental social psychology, 40(6),

739-752.

Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton. (First German edition

1905.)

Goldstein, J. H. (Ed.). (2013). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues.

Academic Press.

Govers, P. 2004. Product personality. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.

Gruner, C.R. (1978). Understanding laughter: The workings of wit and humor. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Gruner, C.R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.

Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in advertising: A comprehensive analysis. ME Sharpe.

Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Aesthetics in interactive products Correlates and consequences of beauty.

Helander, M. G., & Khalid, H. M. (2006). Affective and pleasurable design. Handbook of Human Factors

and Ergonomics, Third Edition, 543-572.

Hepola, Sarah (2008). "Bacon mania: Why are Americans so batty for bacon? It's delicious, it's decadent--

and it's also a fashion statement.". Salon.com. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

Janlert, L. E., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18(3), 297-314.

Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing research with SPSS.

Pearson.

Jones, P. L. (1991). Taste today. New York: Ronald Press.

Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied ergonomics, 29(1), 25-33.

Jordan, P. W. (2002). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. CRC

press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

psychological measurement.

Kellaris, J.J. & Cline, T.W. (2007). Humor and ad memorability: on the contributions of humor expectancy, relevancy, and need for humor. Psychology & Marketing, 24(6), 497-509.

Kenny, D. T. (1955). The contingency of humor appreciation on the stimulus-confirmation of joke-ending

expectations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 644.

Khalid, H. M. (2006). Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design. Applied ergonomics, 37(4),

409-418.

[60]

Knasko, S. C. (1995). Pleasant odors and congruency: Effects on approach behavior. Chemical Senses, 20(5), 479-487. Krijnen, T., & Van Bauwel, S. (2015). Gender and Media: Representing, Producing, Consuming. Routledge. Krusemark, E. A., Novak, L. R., Gitelman, D. R., & Li, W. (2013). When the sense of smell meets emotion: anxiety-state-dependent olfactory processing and neural circuitry adaptation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(39), 15324-15332. Kudrowitz, B. M. (2010). Haha and aha!: Creativity, idea generation, improvisational humor, and product

design (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Kudrowitz, B., & Wallace, D. (2010, Oct.). Improvisational Comedy and Product Design Ideation: Making Non-Obvious Connections between Seemingly Unrelated Things. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Emotion. Chicago. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. Springer Science & Business Media. Ludden, G. D. S., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2007). Effects of visual–auditory incongruity on product

expression and surprise. International Journal of Design, 1(3), 29-39

Ludden, G. D., & Schifferstein, H. N. (2009). Should Mary smell like biscuit? Investigation scents in

product design. International journal of design, 3 (3) 2009.

Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2006, September). Sensory incongruity: comparing

vision to touch, audition and olfaction. In 5th International Conference on Design and Emotion, Göteborg,

Sweden.

Ludden, G. D., Kudrowitz, B. M., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2012). Surprise and humor in product

design. Humor, 25(3), 285-309.

Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2012). Beyond surprise: A longitudinal study on the

experience of visual-tactual incongruities in products. International journal of design, 6 (1) 2012.

Martin, R. A. (2003). Sense of humor. Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and

measures, 313-326.

Martin, R. A. (2010). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic Press, 65.

[61]

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of

humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles

Questionnaire. Journal of research in personality, 37(1), 48-75.

McGhee, P. E. (1983). The role of arousal and hemispheric lateralization in humor. In Handbook of humor

research (pp. 13-37). Springer New York

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parizet, E., Guyader, E., & Nosulenko, V. (2008). Analysis of car door closing sound quality. Applied

Acoustics, 69(1), 12-22.

Pfaffmann, C. (1980). Wundt's schema of sensory affect in the light of research on gustatory preferences.

Psychological research, 42(1-2), 165-174.

Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. Humour and laughter: Theory,

research and applications, 37-54.

Schifferstein, H. N., & Cleiren, M. P. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach.

Acta psychologica, 118(3), 293-318.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Michaut, A. M. K. (2002). Effects of appropriate and inappropriate odors on product evaluations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(2), 1199-1214. Schifferstein, H. N., Otten, J. J., Thoolen, F., & Hekkert, P. (2010). The experimental assessment of sensory

dominance in a product development context. Journal of Design Research, 8(2), 119-144.

Shultz, T. R. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of humour. Humour and laughter: Theory,

research and applications, 11-36.

Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads.

Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13(1-2), 1-44.

Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology of laughter (pp. 1868-1874). Macmillan. Simpson, J.A., & Weiner E.S.C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. Stieger, S., Formann, A. K., & Burger, C. (2011). Humor styles and their relationship to explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 747-750. Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, 1, 81-100. Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In Handbook of humor research (pp. 39-57). Springer New York.

[62]

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological review, 110(3), 403. Tiger, L. (1992). The pursuit of pleasure. Transaction Publishers. Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Harvard University Press. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660. Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Martin, R. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2010). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 772-774. Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59(1), 1-18. Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2013). When Humor Backfires: Revisiting the Relationship Between

Humorous Marketing and Brand Attitude. Marketing Science Institute Reports, 13-124.

Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of

Advertising, 21(4), 35-59.

Wiseman, R. (2002). Laughlab: The Scientific Search for the World's Funniest Joke (Humour). Arrow

Books.

Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological review, 99(4), 663. Yip, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (2006). Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social competence. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1202-1208. Yu, Y., & Nam, T. J. (2014, June). Let's giggle!: design principles for humorous products. In Proceedings

of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (pp. 275-284). ACM.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a communication variable

affecting humor appreciation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 24(2), 191.

Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1991). Humor in television advertising: the effects of repetition and social

setting. Advances in consumer research, 18(1), 813-818.

[1]

XI. Appendix

1.

Example of Incongruity Humor applied in a print ad

2.

Example of Superiority humor applied in a print ad.

Be Stupid campaign of Diesel

[2]

3.

Example of an arousal-safety print ad by Alka-Seltzer ‘Hangover is dangerous.’

Source: PROVID ad agency in Kiev, Ukraine.

4.

Humorous product generating normative pleasure

The Positivity glass of Fred & Friends

[3]

5.

List of hypotheses

H1a: The willingness to buy (WTB) is higher for products with a humorous design than for products without humorous design.

REJECTED

H1b: The willingness to pay (WTP) is higher for products with a humorous design than for products without humorous design.

REJECTED

H2: The humor rating of humorous products is positively related with the willingness to buy(WTB) of the respective humorous products. (+)

ACCEPTED

H3: The sense of humor of the respondent is positively related with the willingness to buy (WTB) of the respective humorous products.

REJECTED

H4: The humor rating given to the product groups, that incorporate a particular sense of humor, is positively related with the willingness to buy (WTB) of the respective humorous products.

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED

H5: The sense of humor of the respondent is positively related with the humor rating given to the respective humorous products corresponding with the sense of humor.

REJECTED

H6a: A negative relationship can be found between the CVPA score of the respondent and the WTB of the products with a humorous design. (-)

REJECTED

H6b: An negative relationship can be found between the CVPA score of the respondent and the humor scores of the products with a humorous design. (-)

REJECTED

H7a: There is a positive relationship between the perceived humor and creativity of a product with a humorous design. (+)

ACCEPTED

H7b: There is a negative relationship between the perceived humor and functionality of a product with a humorous design. (-)

REJECTED

H8: The respondents manipulated with the concrete -resp. abstract- mindset behave accordingly in the BIF. (+)

REJECTED

[4]

H9: Respondents who are manipulated by the abstract mindset -resp. concrete mindset- have lower – resp. higher- willingness to buy (WTB) and willingness to pay (WTP) for humorous products. (-/+)

REJECTED

XII. Survey

1. Introduction

2. Social-demographics: Sex and Age

[5]

3. Mindset condition: Concrete or Abstract

3.A Concrete mindset

[6]

3.B Abstract mindset

[7]

4. Product group condition: Control or Humorous

Both control products (N=20) and humorous products (N=20) were questioned on WTB and WTP. Both

were questioned with the same structure, as is shown by this example below. Only the picture changes:

[8]

The 20 control products (LEFT) next to its humorous alternative (RIGHT) are:

4.1 Affiliative humor

4.1.1 Pizza cutter

4.1.2 Milk jug

4.1.3 Earbuds

[9]

4.1.4 Motorhelmet

4.1.5 Tent

4.2. Self-enhancing humor

4.2.1 Lunch bag

[10]

4.2.2 Wallet

4.2.3 Pen holder

4.2.4 Sticky notes

[11]

4.2.5 Spoon

4.3. Aggressive humor

4.3.1 Doormat

4.3.2 Knife holder

[12]

4.3.3 Sink stopper

4.3.4 Cooling lunch bag

4.3.5 Hot plate

[13]

4.4. Self-defeating humor

4.4.1. Umbrella

4.4.2 Beanie

4.4.3 Shoes

[14]

4.4.4 Dummy

4.4.5 Oven gloves

[15]

5. Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ)

[17]

6. Central Visuality of Product Aesthetics Questionnaire (CVPA)

[18]

7. Posttest of humorous products: Humor-, creativity- and functionality scores humorous products

The 20 humorous products (cfr. above, right column) were questioned according this structure. Only the

picture changed:

[19]

8. Behavior Identification Form (BIF)

[21]

9. Afterword

Humor in Product Design and its Influence on Consumer...

Documents

Transcript of Humor in Product Design and its Influence on Consumer...