Article summary with How morality judgments influence humor perceptions of prankvertising by Chang - 2021

Prankvertising is a relatively new and little investigated form of marketing that uses humor. This study aims to provide a theoretical framework based on morality that helps to identify when this kind of marketing leads to positive brand attitudes. Prankvertising is defined as the use of videos in which customers are being pranked, that spread on social media in order to convey the brand’s image or positioning. In order to determine which aspects lead to positive attitudes, first the benign violation theory will be explained. Then, the researchers discuss how people perceive different cues for morality judgements from prank videos. Finally, the theory is tested in a pilot study. 

What is the Benign Violation Theory?

The Benign Violation Theory suggests that laughter and amusement arise when there are violations that are seen as both threatening and benign. These violations originate from expected norms and provoke humor when three conditions are met:

1. The violations must pose physical or psychological threats
2. They must occur in contexts that are perceived as safe and playful. 
3. An interpretative process must reconcile the contradiction between the violation and the sense of safety.

While the Benign Violation Theory provides a useful model for understanding humor, it falls short in explaining the effects of prankvertising, where pranks are edited to highlight their playful and benign nature. According to Benign Violation Theory, viewers should always recognize the safety and benignity of pranks and find them humorous. However, real-world evidence suggests that humor perception in prankvertising depends not only on the perception of benignity but also on whether the pranks are morally acceptable. In the case of prankvertising, assessing violations and their perceived benignity is not sufficient to understand humor responses.

What are cues for morality judgement? 

The level of fear perceived in the victims when they are pranked is suggested to influence viewers' judgments of the pranks' morality. More significant fear in victims is likely to lead to a more negative assessment of the prank's morality, potentially reducing the humor viewers find in it.

Additionally, the meaningfulness of the pranks, their coherence with the campaign themes, and their connection to the product or brand are considered essential factors in influencing viewers' interpretation of the advertiser's motives. Creative pranks that are meaningfully connected to the brand may help viewers justify the pranks and, subsequently, lead to more positive humor perceptions.
Furthermore, the interaction of surprise, fear, and meaningfulness can affect morality judgments and humor perceptions in prankvertising, with the perceived humor in the ad influencing brand attitudes.

Viewers' perception of humor in prankvertising is influenced by their judgments of morality, the victims' level of fear, and the meaningfulness of the pranks, all of which ultimately impact their attitudes toward the advertised brand.

What did the pilot study show?

In the pilot study, 107 videos with prankvertising were analysed. Two coders identified whether the videos provoked negative or positive feelings and what the advertised brand was. This analysis showed that mainly global brands use this strategy. Furthermore, both positive and negative forms of pranking existed among these videos. When prankvertising doesn't induce much fear among victims, their surprise is judged as morally appropriate and leads to humor perceptions. However, when the pranks lack meaningfulness, perceptions of victims' fear can negate the positive mediation effect, turning it negative. The degree of fear perceived in others (the victims) plays a more critical role in this process than the viewers' own sense of fear.