Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Humour Influence Perceptions of the Ethicality of Female-Disparaging Advertising?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article responds to calls for further research on ethical issues in advertising. The study examines whether advertising strategies which use female-disparaging themes are perceived as ethical, and what effect this has on ad and brand attitudes. It also examines whether or not humour assuages ethical evaluations of female-disparaging ads. The findings from an experimental research design, which included 336 British respondents, show that non-disparaging and non-humorous ads are considered to be the most ethical, while disparaging ads (regardless of the level of humour) are considered the least ethical. Across the board, female-disparaging ads are not perceived as ethical; however, high benevolent sexists appear to favour them most. Finally, an ad’s perceived ethicality mediates the relationship between ad disparagement and ad attitudes; likewise, an ad’s perceived ethicality and ad attitudes mediate the relationship between an ad’s female disparagement and brand attitudes. Female-disparaging ads should be avoided given that they are perceived as less ethical and given the impact that advertising has on behaviour, as well as on societal and moral values. Advertisers should also avoid using female-disparaging advertising themes, even light-hearted ones, since they constitute a risky strategy for the ad and the brand as they can backfire and alienate consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An example is Donald Trump’s sexist references to women (Cohen 2017), which have resulted in many protests.

  2. The Austrian Advertising Council notes that, in 2013, almost half of the complaints it received pointed towards unjust gender treatment, with female-objectification themes outnumbering those referring to males (Förster and Brantner 2016).

  3. For example, the ASA (2002) dismissed complaints against the Yorkie chocolate bar ad because it was light-hearted and humorous and, as such, was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

  4. Although female sexist advertisements would be expected to provoke female sensitivities and objections to the disparagement of the gender, the sexist Yorkie chocolate bar campaign in Britain succeeded in doing the opposite (Mills 2003). Yorkie managed to increase its sales by 30% even though the chocolate was banned from shops in Birmingham and Liverpool. Inspired by Yorkie’s success, in the United States Dr Pepper used a similar “It’s not for women” theme for its low-calorie Dr Pepper Ten brand advertising campaign. Dr Pepper tested the ad in six markets and found that 40% of people who tried the soda were women (Anderson 2011). The campaign’s commercial featured men in a faux-action film telling women that they should drink their girly diet sodas and watch romantic comedies. The campaign included a Facebook page with an app that prohibited women from viewing the page’s content. The page had a “manly shooting gallery” game in which men had “23 seconds to take out all the girlie stuff”, with the directions that, “If it’s girlie shoot it—if it’s manly avoid it”. However, according to a study by YouGov’s BrandIndex (a daily measure of brand perception), unlike the Yorkie ad the advertising campaign backfired. The Dr Pepper ad lowered women’s opinions of Dr Pepper while leaving men’s perceptions unaffected (YouGov 2011)

  5. ‘Sex’ is a biological term that permits the distinction between females and males based on their physiological characteristics which may, in turn, profoundly affect a person’s socialisation (Bristor and Fischer 1993). On the other hand, ‘gender’ is a social concept that refers to psychological, sociological and cultural traits, attitudes, beliefs and behavioural inclinations that work as filters through which individuals experience their social settings as well as matters of consumption (Chen et al. 2009; Hearn and Hein 2015). Though the concepts of sex and gender may be related, they are not fully regulated by sex (Bristor and Fischer 1993).

  6. Gender schema theory elucidates the ways in which individuals establish and employ their masculine or feminine propensities in the evaluation and control of experiences and behaviours (Bem 1981).

References

  • Abrams, J. R., & Bippus, A. (2011). An intergroup investigation of disparaging humor. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(2), 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Advertising Standards Authority. (2002). ASA Adjudication on Yorkie. Retrieved August 30, 2015, from http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=34040&from_index=by_issue&dates_of_adjudications_id=all.

  • Advertising Standards Authority. (2013). ASA Adjudication on Renault UK Ltd. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/Renault-UK-Ltd-A13-226910.html.

  • Adweek. (2016). Bayer disowns controversial Lion-winning Ad, saying BBDO made it just to win awards. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/bayer-disowns-controversial-lion-winning-ad-saying-bbdo-made-it-just-win-awards-172223.

  • Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Social criticism of advertising: On the role of literary theory and the use of data. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlen, M. (2017). Advertising “like a girl”: Toward a better understanding of “femvesting” and its effects. Psychology & Marketing, 34(8), 795–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. (2011, October 10). Dr Pepper Ten ‘not for women’. USA Today. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-10-10/dr-pepper-for-men/50717788/1.

  • Andrade, E. B. (2005). Behavioral consequences of affect: Combining evaluative and regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R., et al. (2010). Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(4), 711–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A. B. (2014). Humiliate my enemies or mock my friends? Applying disposition theory of humor to the study of political parody appreciation and attitudes toward candidates. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benwell, B. (2002). Is there anything ‘new’ about these lads? The textual and visual construction of masculinity in men’s magazines. In L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 149–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J. Q. (2015). The regulation of gender and sexuality portrayals in British television advertising. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, Department of Sociology UK, available online at University of Warwick institutional repository. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/71321/1/WRAP_Thesis_Quigley%20Berg_2015.pdf.

  • Black, I. R., Organ, G. C., & Morton, P. (2010). The effect of personality on response to sexual appeals. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1453–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borau, S., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2017). The imaginary intrasexual competition: Advertisements featuring provocative female models trigger women to engage in indirect aggression. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3643-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bristor, J. M., & Fischer, E. (1993). Feminist thought: Implications for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 518–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11/12), 765–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H., Yoo, K., Reichert, T., & LaTour, M. S. (2016). Do feminists still respond negatively to female nudity in advertising? Investigating the influence of feminist attitudes on reactions to sexual appeals. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 823–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, K., Lee, D.-H., & Kim, J. Y. (2016). The effect of non-stereotypical gender role advertising on consumer evaluation. International Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 106–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2003). Humour effect on memory and attitude: Moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Advertising, 22(1), 117–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (2007). The influence of humor strength and humor-message relatedness on ad memorability. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohan, J. A. (2001). Towards a new paradigm in the ethics of women’s advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4), 323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C. (2017). Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one place. The Telegraph. Retrieved July 14, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/.

  • Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(4), 432–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A., Anderson, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2009). The current state of advertising ethics: Industry and academic perspectives. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts selfconstrual and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62(7/8), 545–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humour in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M., Plagemann, J., & Sollwedel, J. (2014). Gender roles and humor in advertising: The occurrence of stereotyping in humorous and non-humorous advertising and its consequences for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 43(3), 256–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2007). The rating of sexist humor under time pressure as an indicator of spontaneous sexist attitudes. Sex Roles, 57(9), 651–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Arnold, S. (1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles and Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 333–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1094–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More than ‘just a joke’: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 677–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, K., & Brantner, C. (2016). Masking the offense? An ethical view on humor in advertising. Journal of Media Ethics, 31(3), 146–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, O. C. (1992). Cognitive consistency of marketing managers in ethical situations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3), 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L., Castro, Y. R., … Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 Nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1994). Sexuality and ethics in advertising: A research agenda and policy guideline perspective. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulas, C. S., McKeage, K. K., & Weinberger, M. G. (2010). It’s just a joke-violence against males in humorous advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(4), 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42(3), 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 422–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9), 649–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J., & Hein, W. (2015). Reframing gender and feminist knowledge construction in marketing and consumer research: Missing feminisms and the case of men and masculinities. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(15/16), 1626–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henthorne, T. L., & LaTour, M. S. (1995). A model to explore the ethics of erotic stimuli in print advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(7), 561–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, G., Rush, G., & McInnis, C. C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn’t): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 660–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huhmann, B. A., & Limbu, Y. B. (2016). Influence of gender stereotypes on advertising offensiveness and attitude toward advertising in general. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 846–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishida, C. (2006). How do scores of DIT and MJT differ? A critical assessment of the use of alternative moral development scales in studies of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race relations. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. L. (2008). Imaging in advertising: Verbal and visual codes of commerce. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, F., & Fleming, S. (2008). Nuts, zoo, and the mediation of a youthful masculinity. Leisure/Loisir, 32(2), 331–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (1993). Is it time for a theory of out group favoritism? A comment on the paper by Mullen, Brown & Smith. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, D., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadić-Maglajlić, S., Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M., Micevski, M., Michaelidou, N., & Nemkova, E. (2017). Controversial advert perceptions in SNS advertising: The role of ethical judgement and religious commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2), 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, S., Eisend, M., & Steinhagen, J. (2011). Gender roles in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 867–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2005). Some like it bad: Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psychology, 7(2), 107–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, S. H., & Chakravarti, D. (2003). A process analysis of the effects of humorous advertising executions on brand claims memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 230–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humour: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M., & Woodzicka, J. A. (1998). No laughing matter: Women’s verbal and nonverbal reactions to sexist humour. In J. K. Swim & C. Strangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 61–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaTour, M. S., & Henthorne, T. L. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H., Sweeney, D., & Wagner, S. H. (1999). Depicting women as sex objects in television advertising: Effects on body dissatisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1049–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, K. (1996, August 8–10). Offensive, titillating, outrageous? Australian Professional Marketing. Australian Marketing Association.

  • Lysonski, S. (1985). Role portrayals in British magazine advertisements. European Journal of Marketing, 19(7), 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallett, K. R., Ford, T. E., & Woodzicka, J. A. (2016). What did he mean by that? Humour decreases attributions of sexism and confrontation of sexist jokes. Sex Roles, 75(5/6), 272–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humour: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humour: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 15–60). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in the uses of humour and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humour styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behaviour funny. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1141–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, B. S. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2003). Caught between sexism, anti-sexism and ‘political correctness’, feminist women’s negotiations with naming practices. Discourse and Society, 14(1), 87–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2008). Language and sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. E., Griffiths, K., & Payne, B. (1987). Gender, attitudes towards women, and the appreciation of sexist humour. Sex Roles, 16(9/10), 521–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moradi, B. (2010). Addressing gender and cultural diversity in body image: Objectification theory as a framework for integrating theories and grounding research. Sex Roles, 63(1), 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. D., Wong, J., & Newton, F. J. (2016). Listerine—for the bridesmaid who’s never a bride: Disparaging humour increases brand attitude and recall among the powerless. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1137–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, K. (2018). Moving beyond ideas of laddism: Conceptualising ‘mischievous masculinities’ as a new way of understanding everyday sexism and gender relations. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2017). How cognitive neuroscience informs a subjective-evolutionary explanation of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 717–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 271–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory. Management Science, 48(6), 765–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakoyiannaki, E., Mathioudaki, K., Dimitratos, P., & Zotos, Y. (2008). Images of women in online advertisements of global products: Does sexism exist? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakoyiannaki, E., & Zotos, Y. (2009). Female role stereotypes in print advertising – identifying associations with magazine and product categories. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11/12), 1411–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M. J., Ford, J., Evans, K., Harman, A., Hogan, S., Shelley, L., & Tarjan, L. (2001). Are feminists more critical of the portrayal of women in Australian beer advertisements than non-feminists? Journal of Marketing Communications, 7(4), 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, G., Cheung, W. L., & West, D. (2008). How far is too far? The antecedents of offensive advertising in modern China. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(4), 484–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putrevu, S. (2008). Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals: The influence of involvement, need for cognition (NFC), and gender. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putrevu, S., & Swimberghek, K. (2013). The influence of religiosity on consumer ethical judgements and responses toward sexual appeals. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raney, A. A. (2006). The psychology of disposition-based theories of media enjoyment. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 137–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reklamombudsmannen. (2009). Stiftelsen reklamombudsmannen verksamhetsberättelse 2009. Stockholm: Reklamombudsmannen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogan, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. (1977). Is the ANOVA F-test robust to heterogeneity of variance when sample sizes are equal?: An investigation via a coefficient of variation. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 493–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullo, S. (2016). How 2016 super Bowl commercials’ treatment of women took 1 step forward & 2 steps back. Bustle. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from https://www.bustle.com/articles/140254-how-2016-super-bowl-commercials-treatment-of-women-took-1-step-forward-2-steps-back.

  • Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment of sexist humour, rape attitudes, and relationship aggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38(9), 743–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., & David, B. (2003). Gender differences in ways of knowing: The context dependence on attitudes toward thinking and learning survey. Sex Roles, 49(11/12), 693–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabri, Q. (2017). Does viral communication context increase the harmfulness of controversial taboo advertising? Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2), 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, J., & Dahl, D. W. (2008). Gender-related reactions to gratuitous sex appeals in advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(1), 62–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabbir, H., & Thwaites, D. (2007). The use of humour to mask deceptive advertising: It’s no laughing matter. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabbir, H. A., Maalouf, H., Griessmair, M., Colmekcioglu, N., & Akhtar, P. (2018). Exploring perceptions of advertising ethics: An informant–derived approach. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3784-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silván-Ferrero, M., & López, A. B. (2007). Benevolent sexism toward men and women: Justification of the traditional system and conventional gender roles in Spain. Sex Roles, 57(7), 607–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (2011). Who shall lead us? How cultural values and ethical ideologies guide young marketers’ evaluations of the transformational manager-leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 633–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, W. S. (2008). The ethical consequences of your advertisement matter. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveriges Kvinnolobby. (2013). Ad watch. Stockholm: Swedish Women’s Lobby. In Huhmann, B. A., & Limbu, Y. B. (2016). Influence of gender stereotypes on advertising offensiveness and attitude toward advertising in general. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 846–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—what did you just say?!: Women’s public and private response to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Statistics Portal. (2018). Advertising spending in the world’s largest ad markets in 2017 (in million U.S. dollars). Retrieved June 20, 2018, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/273736/advertising-expenditure-in-the-worlds-largest-ad-markets/.

  • Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humour. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological health and sense of humour. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 605–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treise, D., Weigold, M. F., Conna, J., & Garrison, H. (1994). Ethics in advertising: Ideological correlates of consumer perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 59–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. R., & Bateman, C. R. (2011). The impact of ethical ideologies, moral intensity, and social context on sales-based ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 155–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1984). Intergroup differences in group perceptions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (pp. 560–578). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuilenburg, P., de Jong, M. D. T., & van Rompay, T. J. L. (2011). ‘That was funny, but what was the brand again?’—Humorous television commercials and brand linkage. International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 795–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • WARC. (2016). UK adspend rises 5.2% year-on-year to reach £10bn during H1 2016. Retrieved December 20, 2016, from http://expenditurereport.warc.com/FreeContent/Q2_2016.pdf.

  • Weber, R., Tamborini, R., Lee, H. E., & Stipp, H. (2008). Soap opera exposure and enjoyment: A longitudinal test of disposition theory. Media Psychology, 11(4), 462–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Herrmann, A. (2010). The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychology & Marketing, 27(5), 510–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. N. (1983). Impartiality, racism, and sexism. The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 3, 147–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodzicka, J. A., Mallett, R. K., Hendricks, S., & Pruitt, A. (2015). It’s just a (sexist) joke: Comparing reactions to racist and sexist sentiments. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 289–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H. J., & Kim, Y. (2014). The moderating role of gender identity in responses to comedic violence advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 382–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • YouGov (2011, October 20). Dr. Pepper dude diet drink backfires. Retrieved July 4, 2012, from http://www.brandindex.com/article/dr-pepper-dude-diet-drink-backfires.

  • Zayer, L. T., & Coleman, C. A. (2015). Advertising professionals’ perceptions of the impact of gender portrayals on men and women: A question of ethics? Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 264–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X.-H., Perkins, A. J., & Hui, S. L. (1999). Comparisons of software packages for generalized linear multilevel models. The American Statistician, 53(3), 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D. (1996). The psychology of suspense in dramatic exposition. In P. Vorderer, W. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 199–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 93–116). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, A., & Dahlberg, J. (2008). The sexual objectification of women in advertising: A contemporary cultural perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Egnatia 156, 54636, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Vassiliki Grougiou

  2. Faculty of Management, Cass Business School, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London, EC1 8TZ, UK

    George Balabanis

  3. Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, 5 Barrack Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

    Danae Manika

Authors
  1. Vassiliki Grougiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Balabanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danae Manika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vassiliki Grougiou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, as well as with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grougiou, V., Balabanis, G. & Manika, D. Does Humour Influence Perceptions of the Ethicality of Female-Disparaging Advertising?. J Bus Ethics 164, 1–16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4032-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4032-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation