Introduction

AJA

The Arab Journal of Administration

Arab J Adm

1110-5453 2663-4473

Arab Administrative Development Organization, League of Arab States

2 El Hegaz Street, Roxy, Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt

10.21608/aja.2025.356476.1791

https://ajajournal.org/aja/article/view/689

Marketing Communication Humor Brand equity Customer relationships Fast food restaurants X platform Saudi Arabia

Impact of Humor Communication Message Elements on Brand Equity Mediated by Customer Relationships: A Study on Fast Food Restaurant Customers via the X Platform in Saudi Arabia

Al-Nsour

Iyad Abdel Fattah

Professor of Marketing Communication College of Media and Communication, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU)

Riyadh

Saudi Arabia Nsour_2005@yahoo.com Al-Saleh

Nada Homoud

Assistant Professor of Marketing Communication nadaha.dr@gmail.com

College of Media and Communication, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU)

Riyadh

Saudi Arabia

28012026

28022026

28012025 13072025 28012026 46 1 83 106

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

The study aimed to measure the impact of humorous message elements on brand equity in fast-food restaurants in Saudi Arabia. The independent variable is the humorous message, comprising three sub-variables: timing, content, and customization. The dependent variable is brand equity, comprising emotional association, brand recall, and brand attention. The mediator is customer relationships. A quantitative, analytical-descriptive design was used. The population is all Saudi customers of fast-food restaurants who engage on the X platform (16.84 million Saudis in 2024). A judgment (purposive) sample was used; the minimum sample size reached 385 individuals. A fully structured questionnaire was distributed via Google Drive, achieving a full response rate.

Findings: there is a moderate positive effect of humorous message timing on emotional association and a small positive effect on brand attention. Humor content has a small positive effect on emotional association and brand attention. Humor customization has a small positive effect on emotional association and brand recall. Overall, humorous message elements jointly have a high positive effect on brand equity in fast-food restaurants. Timing shows a moderate positive effect on brand equity, while content and customization show small positive effects. The mediator (customer relationships) is statistically significant and mediates the link between humorous messages and brand equity. The study offers practical implications for decision-makers in Saudi fast-food restaurants.

Communication message Humor Brand equity Customer relationships Fast food restaurants X platform Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Humor is a widely used construct that gathers interactive elements driving people to laugh and enjoy. It is commonly deployed in televised comedy films, talk shows, and product advertising. Scholars agree that humor is a mechanism that triggers laughter or playful reactions when exposed to specific stimuli; it forms part of the recipient’s emotional development toward an event or trigger. In marketing, humor is a powerful communication tool in competitive markets and a vehicle for persuasive messages.

Literature Review Theoretical foundations of humor and mirth

Laughter is a human practice to escape social pressure and difficult life conditions. Bergson viewed laughter as a social function that reduces fear of ridicule and sustains attentive contact. Freud argued that sarcasm is a common element tied to fear of mockery. The classic typology distinguishes four humor categories: spontaneous, commercial, textual, and emotional. Spontaneous humor appears in leisure media, commercial humor entertains and supports sales, textual humor appears in political communication and democratic contexts, and emotional humor signals taste and style. Humor is a reaction to environmental stimuli, conveyed through amusing words or acts, often involving incongruity, playfulness, sarcasm, or irony. It reduces tension and affects physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

Importance of humor in communication

Humor in marketing communication increases attention, delivers unexpected and memorable content, and leverages emotions within customer relationships. Positive, non-aggressive humor enhances competitiveness and is seen as a flexible, low-cost tool in fast-moving markets. Humor styles include affiliative (sharing jokes), self-enhancing (light on life’s contradictions), aggressive (sarcasm), and self-defeating. All styles reduce stress but differ in social impact. Humor can fail if misaligned with context or culture, underscoring the need for situationally appropriate, audience-fit humor.

Relationship between humorous message elements and brand equity

Research links humor to brand awareness, recall, emotional attachment, and word of mouth. Effective timing increases spread and reputation while lowering mass-promotion costs. Humor content that is funny, relevant, non-intrusive, innovative, and entertaining improves emotional association and attention. Poorly received humor—sad or off-tone content—reduces sharing willingness. Humor fosters enjoyment and surprise, encouraging positive engagement. Integrating humor in messages can improve prices, demand, and sales by boosting awareness, recall, acceptance, trust, association, and purchase intent, thereby elevating brand equity.

Problem Statement

Prior studies show mixed evidence on humor’s effectiveness across cultures and sectors. In Saudi Arabia, humor is prevalent in ads and events, and most Saudis on X are young and engaged. Yet empirical evidence on humorous communication in fast-food brand equity is scarce. The main question: What is the effect of humorous communication message elements on brand equity for fast-food restaurants on the X platform in Riyadh?

Sub-questions:

What is the effect of humorous message timing on brand equity?

What is the effect of humorous message content on brand equity?

What is the effect of humorous message customization on brand equity?

Objectives

Main objective: Measure the effect of humorous communication message elements on brand equity in Saudi fast-food restaurants.

Specific objectives:

Measure the effect of humorous message timing on brand equity.

Measure the effect of humorous message content on brand equity.

Measure the effect of humorous message customization on brand equity.

Study Design Population

The population is all Saudi customers of fast-food restaurants who post comments or interactions on the X platform. Saudi X users numbered 16.84 million in 2024 (45.3% of the population).

Sample

A judgment (purposive) sample was used to select respondents with relevant characteristics. The minimum required sample size was 385.

Unit of analysis

Saudi fast-food restaurant customers who are active on X.

Instrument and data collection

A structured questionnaire (Google Drive) was developed drawing on prior studies. Experts reviewed items for content validity. The final e-questionnaire was distributed as described; all distributed forms were returned and analyzed (100% usable response).

Measures

A five-point Likert scale (1 very low to 5 very high) measured: humorous message (timing, content, customization), brand equity (emotional association, brand recall, brand attention), and customer relationships (mediator). Relative thresholds: ≥4.2 very high; 3.6–<4.2 high; 2.4–<3.6 moderate; 1.6–<2.4 low; <1.6 very low.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (means, SDs, relative frequencies) were used. PLS-SEM (SmartPLS) tested the model. Indicators: standardized beta, t, p; f², R², Q²; SRMR, NFI, chi-square. Validity: convergent (loadings, CR, AVE, rho_A) and discriminant (cross-loadings, Fornell–Larcker). GoF assessed model fit.

Data and Results Descriptive statistics

Humorous message overall mean = 3.162 (moderate); timing = 3.349; content = 3.307; customization = 2.830. Brand equity overall mean = 2.906 (moderate); emotional association = 2.900; brand recall = 2.906; brand attention = 2.994.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables (Likert 1–5)

Item	Mean	SD	Very Low (%)	Low (%)	Moderate (%)	High (%)	Very High (%)	Degree
X11	3.414	1.010	1.0	18.2	36.4	27.3	17.2	Moderate
X12	3.323	1.067	3.0	19.2	37.4	23.2	17.2	Moderate
X13	3.384	1.218	7.1	17.2	29.3	23.2	23.2	Moderate
X14	3.273	1.168	4.0	25.3	30.2	20.2	20.2	Moderate
Timing (aggregate): Mean 3.349; SD 1.116; Very Low 3.78; Low 19.98; Moderate 33.33; High 23.5; Very High 19.45 (Moderate)
X21	3.303	1.092	4.0	19.2	36.4	23.2	17.2	Moderate
X22	3.394	1.123	3.0	20.2	32.3	23.2	21.2	Moderate
X23	3.374	1.121	5.1	15.2	37.4	22.2	20.2	Moderate
X24	3.172	1.204	8.1	21.2	35.4	16.2	19.2	Moderate
X25	3.293	1.172	5.1	22.2	31.3	21.2	20.2	Moderate
Content (aggregate): Mean 3.307; SD 1.143; Very Low 5.06; Low 19.6; Moderate 34.56; High 21.2; Very High 19.6 (Moderate)
X31	3.343	1.135	7.1	14.1	33.3	28.3	17.2	Moderate
X32	3.475	1.119	4.0	15.2	32.3	26.3	22.2	Moderate
X33	3.343	1.090	5.1	14.1	40.4	22.2	18.2	Moderate
X34	3.253	1.146	5.1	23.2	30.3	24.2	17.2	Moderate
Customization (aggregate): Mean 2.830; SD 1.274; Very Low 20.1; Low 19.213; Moderate 29.75; High 19.6; Very High 11.363 (Moderate)
Humorous message (overall): Mean 3.162; SD 1.178; Very Low 9.647; Low 19.598; Moderate 32.547; High 21.433; Very High 16.804 (Moderate)
Y11	2.787	1.329	22.6	19.4	28.4	16.1	13.5	Moderate
Y12	3.045	1.340	19.4	12.9	27.7	23.9	16.1	Moderate
Y13	2.987	1.358	20.6	14.2	27.1	21.9	16.1	Moderate
Y14	2.890	1.327	20.0	19.4	26.5	20.0	14.2	Moderate
Y15	2.871	1.352	21.9	17.4	27.1	18.7	14.8	Moderate
Y16	2.819	1.351	23.2	18.1	25.8	19.4	13.5	Moderate
Emotional association: Mean 2.900; SD 1.343; Moderate
Y21	2.852	1.333	21.3	18.1	29.7	16.1	14.8	Moderate
Y22	2.961	1.343	20.0	16.8	25.2	23.2	14.8	Moderate
Y23	2.858	1.297	21.3	16.8	27.7	23.2	11.0	Moderate
Y24	2.916	1.294	18.7	17.4	31.6	18.1	14.2	Moderate
Y25	2.936	1.303	18.1	19.4	27.7	20.6	14.2	Moderate
Brand recall: Mean 2.906; SD 1.314; Moderate
Y31	2.961	1.338	17.4	20.6	28.4	15.5	18.1	Moderate
Y32	3.032	1.311	18.1	16.1	23.9	28.4	13.5	Moderate
Y33	2.961	1.333	20.6	14.2	27.7	23.2	14.2	Moderate
Y34	3.020	1.312	17.4	16.8	27.7	22.6	15.5	Moderate
Brand attention: Mean 2.994; SD 1.324; Moderate
Brand equity (overall): Mean 2.936; SD 1.321; Moderate

Validity and reliability

Cross-loadings showed each item loaded highest on its construct; discriminant validity was met. Convergent validity was supported: all loadings > 0.78; CR > 0.91; AVE > 0.74; rho_A > 0.85. Fornell–Larcker criterion was satisfied.

Table 2 Cross-loadings, AVE, CR, rho_A, and VIF

Construct	Item	Loading	AVE	CR	rho_A
Timing (X1)	X11	0.935	0.824	0.949	0.935
	X12	0.908
	X13	0.934
	X14	0.877
Content (X2)	X21	0.882	0.793	0.950	0.936
	X22	0.879
	X23	0.861
	X24	0.919
	X25	0.910
Customization (X3)	X31	0.901	0.781	0.935	0.911
	X32	0.874
	X33	0.872
	X34	0.888
Brand recall (Y1)	Y21	0.855	0.844	0.956	0.939
	Y22	0.901
	Y23	0.911
	Y24	0.922
	Y25	0.907
Brand attention (Y2)	Y31	0.891	0.844	0.956	0.940
	Y32	0.929
	Y33	0.914
	Y34	0.919
Brand association (Y3)	Y11	0.864	0.744	0.953	0.944
	Y12	0.805
	Y13	0.886
	Y14	0.908
	Y15	0.891
	Y16	0.920

Table 3 Fornell–Larcker criterion (square roots of AVE on the diagonal)

Construct	Timing	Content	Customization	Brand recall	Brand attention	Brand association
Timing	0.908
Content	0.891	0.891
Customization	0.884	0.783	0.659
Brand recall	0.900	0.720	0.704	0.659
Brand attention	0.919	0.808	0.700	0.785	0.810
Brand association	0.888	0.901	0.823	0.735	0.823	0.810

Hypotheses testing (direct effects)

Path analysis (PLS-SEM) showed significant direct effects as in Table 4. Most p-values are below 0.05, supporting the proposed directional relationships.

Table 4 Direct effect path analysis

H	Relationship	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t	p	f²	R²	Q²	Decision
H1	Timing → Brand association (BASS)	0.385	0.100	3.892	0.001	0.243	0.655	0.493	Positive, moderate
H2	Timing → Brand attention (BATT)	0.302	0.113	2.668	0.008	0.103	0.547	0.455	Positive, weak
H3	Timing → Brand recall (BR)	0.208	0.120	1.769	0.078	0.033	0.432	0.343	Not significant
H4	Content → Brand association	0.350	0.104	3.329	0.001	0.138	0.657	0.514	Positive, moderate
H5	Content → Brand attention	0.421	0.127	3.269	0.001	0.139	0.613	0.507	Positive, moderate
H6	Content → Brand recall	0.229	0.129	1.729	0.084	0.033	0.491	0.394	Not significant
H7	Customization → Brand association	0.223	0.089	2.478	0.014	0.079	0.568	0.431	Positive, weak
H8	Customization → Brand attention	0.168	0.126	1.364	0.173	0.034	0.485	0.400	Not significant
H9	Customization → Brand recall	0.405	0.130	3.082	0.002	0.147	0.514	0.411	Positive, weak
—	Timing → Brand equity (aggregate)	0.327	0.106	3.072	0.002	0.162	0.744	0.529	Positive, moderate
—	Content → Brand equity (aggregate)	0.344	0.118	2.926	0.004	0.129	0.744	0.529	Positive, weak
—	Customization → Brand equity (aggregate)	0.278	0.099	2.804	0.005	0.117	0.744	0.529	Positive, weak
H10	Humorous message → Brand equity	0.869	0.037	23.553	<0.001	0.887	0.749	0.530	Positive, high

Effect size (f²)

Effect sizes align with Cohen thresholds: timing → association (moderate), timing → attention (small), content → association/attention (moderate), customization → association/recall (small), aggregate humorous message → brand equity (high).

Explained variance (R²)

R²: emotional association 0.655; brand attention 0.657; brand recall 0.514; brand equity 0.749. These indicate substantial explanatory power (above 0.26).

Predictive relevance (Q²)

All Q² values are positive; Q² for brand equity is 0.529, indicating strong predictive relevance.

Table 5 Q² values

Construct	SSO	SSE	Q² = 1 - SSE/SSO
Timing	396.000	396.000	0.000
Content	495.000	495.000	0.000
Customization	396.000	396.000	0.000
Brand equity (aggregate)	1485.000	699.177	0.529

Model fit

SRMR = 0.060 (<0.08); NFI = 0.720; chi-square = 1050.044; d_ULS = 1.458; d_G = 2.441. GoF indicates acceptable model fit for PLS-SEM.

Table 6 Goodness-of-fit indicators

Indicator	Saturated model	Estimated model
SRMR	0.060	0.060
d_ULS	1.458	1.458
d_G	2.441	2.441
Chi-square	1050.044	1050.044
NFI	0.720	0.720

Mediation analysis

Customer relationships significantly mediate the link between humorous message and brand equity (indirect effect 0.270, t=3.019, p=0.003), accounting for 45.3% of the total effect, with a significant remaining direct effect (0.596, t=6.840, p<0.001).

Table 7 Mediation (customer relationships as mediator)

Path	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t	p	Decision
Humorous message → Customer relationships → Timing	0.627	0.063	10.015	0.000	Positive, supported
Humorous message → Customer relationships → Content	0.668	0.055	12.109	0.000	Positive, supported
Humorous message → Customer relationships → Customization	0.637	0.058	10.996	0.000	Positive, supported
Humorous message → Customer relationships → Brand equity (indirect)	0.270	0.089	3.019	0.003	Positive, supported
Humorous message → Brand equity (direct)	0.596	0.087	6.840	0.000	Positive, supported

Table 8 Indirect vs. direct effects (shares of total effect)

Path	Indirect effect	t	Share of total (%)	95% CI (bias-corrected)	Decision
Humorous message → Customer relationships → Brand equity	0.270	3.019	45.3	[0.095, 0.449]	Full mediation supported
Humorous message → Brand equity (direct)	0.596	6.840	54.7	[0.417, 0.764]	Direct effect supported

Discussion

Humorous message timing shows moderate positive effects on emotional association and brand equity, aligning with situational humor and rapid-response literature. Humor content yields small-to-moderate effects on association and attention; weak effects on recall reflect limited use of rich, visual, and story-based humor by brands studied. Humor customization shows weak effects, suggesting current personalization is insufficient to create meaningful, self-expressive experiences. However, the aggregate humorous message strongly boosts brand equity, confirming humor’s holistic value.

Practical Implications

Institutionalize humor as a strategic capability; train frontline marketers in light, respectful humor to ease information delivery and customer engagement.

Use positive, non-aggressive humor; avoid offensive or self-defeating styles. Prioritize customer well-being and comfort.

Align timing with seasons, holidays, and emergent events to maximize relevance and spread at lower promotion cost.

Invest in thoughtful, culturally sensitive personalization; blend stories, witty wording, visuals, and short-form video tailored to segments.

Balance humor with product-context fit to avoid misinterpretation and protect loyalty, reputation, and purchase intent.

Limitations and Future Research

The purposive sample limits generalizability; future work should use probabilistic sampling. Extend to other sectors (apparel, cosmetics, autos, electronics) and to emerging formats (AR/VR, short video). Examine cultural nuance in Saudi digital humor and test humor in turbulent versus stable contexts.

Conclusion

Humor, when well-timed and well-crafted, enhances brand equity for Saudi fast-food brands. Timing carries the strongest single-element effect; content and customization add smaller gains. Customer relationships significantly mediate humor’s impact, underscoring the relational pathway. Brands should professionalize humorous communication to unlock its equity potential.

Figure 1 Conceptual model of the study (humorous message elements → customer relationships (mediator) → brand equity dimensions)

References

Al-Jubouri

Zwein

Ali

2019

Humorous marketing and its effect on achieving customer well-being through enhancing social communication quality: An exploratory study of mobile telecom customers in Iraq

HSS 16 1 64 94

Saudi Central Bank 2018

Annual data

Riyadh

General Authority for Small and Medium Enterprises 2021

Statistical data

Riyadh

Rees

Levakova

Fogelquist

Addyman

2018

Social facilitation of smiles and laughter in preschool children

Frontiers in Psychology 9 ? 1048

Berger

Akpinar

2017

Valuable virality

Journal of Marketing Research 54 2 318 330

10.1509/jmr.13.0350

Al-Shaibani

Majed

2024

Impact of humorous visual advertising on customer relations in Saudi fast-food restaurants

Iberoamericana de Psicologia del Ejercicio y el Deporte 19 3 271 275

Ali

Alhasan

Jabri

2023

Subtitling Arabic humor into English: Case of stand-up comedies on Netflix

European Journal of Humour Research 11 2 159 177

10.7592/EJHR.2023.11.2.754

Al-Sahli

A. S.

Al-Nsour

A. I.

2022

Effects of cash and non-cash communications on brand awareness: Empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia

Asian Journal of Business and Finance 9 5 507 518

10.13106/JAFEB.2022.VOL9.NO5.0507

Aiaf

Al-Nsour

I. A.

2024

Effect of communication message innovation on customer financial relationships: New evidence from Saudi Arabia

Asian Journal of Business Strategy 14 1 61 69

10.55493/5006.i14v1.5054

Al-Nsour

2023

The impact of social media celebrity on retailer customers’ buying behavior: Evidence from Riyadh, KSA

Jordan Journal of Business Administration 20 1

10.35516/jjba.v19i1.1719

Al-Nsour

A. I.

2017

Effectiveness of WOM in improving purchasing behavior: A study on private hospital inpatients in Saudi Arabia and Jordan

Arab Economic and Business Journal 12 1 13 28

10.1016/j.aebj.2017.04.003

AlOtoum

J. F.

AlNsour

R. I.

Al-Nsour

2021

Enhancing customers’ satisfaction using rewards programs: Evidence from Jordanian banks

Asian Journal of Business and Finance 8 11 297 305

10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO11.0297

Baker

Pickering

Attardo

2019

Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor in conversation

Pragmatics & Cognition 19 2 224 247

10.1075/pc.19.2.03att

Baltezarević

2023

Negative effects of humor in marketing communications

Trendovi u poslovanju 11 2 101 106

Barahmeh

Yousef

2024

Individual and collective expressions of humor in social media: Insights from Jordan after the Arab Spring

European Journal of Humour Research 12 2 1 17

Gibson

Barsade

2007

Why it matters in organizations: A tribute to humor

Management Perspectives 21 1

Milkman

K. L.

Berger

2012

What makes online content viral?

Journal of Marketing Research 49 2 192 205

Vachon

Bergeron

2008

The effects of humor usage by financial advisors in sales encounters

International Journal of Bank Marketing 26 6 376 398

10.1108/02652320810902424

Eisingerich

B. A.

Jain

Lin

Banerjee

Borah

2020

Improvised marketing interventions in social media

Journal of Marketing 84 2

10.1177/0022242919899383

Senecal

Durrieu

Bressolles

2014

A typology of consumer e-satisfaction and e-service quality

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 6 889 896

McGraw

P. A.

Warren

2016

Does humorous marketing hurt brands? When it does and when it does not

Journal of Marketing Behavior 2 1 39 67

McGraw

Peter

Barsky

Adam

Warren

Caleb

2018

Humor, comedy, and consumer behavior

Journal of Consumer Research 45 3 529 552

Miao

Hou

Wang

Zhou

Cao

2023

Leader humor influence on employee creativity: The role of employee voice

Frontiers in Psychology 14

Lowe

Chan

Y. F. F.

2021

Placing products in humorous scenes: Impact on brand perceptions

European Journal of Marketing 55 3 649 670

10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0701

Martin

Rod A.

Chen

Hai-Guo

2007

A comparison of humor styles and mental health between Canadian and Chinese university students

HUMOR 20 3 215 234

10.1515/HUMOR.2007.011

Dibbern

Chin

W. W.

2010

An introduction to a permutation-based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis

Handbook of Partial Least Squares Springer

Berlin

171 193

10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_8

Kellaris

J. J.

Altsech

B. M.

Cline

W. T.

2003

When does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? The moderating role of need for humor

Journal of Advertising 32 3 31 45

10.1080/00913367.2003.10639134

Constantin

Plessen

2020

A systematic review: Humor styles and the Big Five personality traits

Personality and Individual Differences 154 109676

10.1016/j.paid.2019.109676

Sosik

John J.

Cooper

Cecily D.

2012

Cultivating a high-quality laughter advantage

Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship Oxford University Press

New York

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0036

De Bellis

Schmitt

Herrmann

Ito

Hildebrand

2019

A theory of matching mass customization and cultural interfaces: The role of information processing

Journal of Marketing Research 56 6 1050 1065

Henseler

Dijkstra

K. T.

2015

Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations

Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 81 1 10 23

Bundaleska

Petrovska

Djambaska

2016

Is advertising humor always effective? Parameters for effective use of humor in advertising

Journal of Management Research 8 1

Eisend

2009

A meta-analysis of humor in advertising

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37 2 191 203

10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y

Eisend

2021

Explaining the persuasive influence of humor in two-sided messages

Journal of Marketing & Psychology 10 2

10.1002/mar.21634

Dinana

Tazy-El

G. W.

2018

The impact of humor in advertising on consumer attitude toward brand and purchase: Word of mouth and recall

JBRMR 12 2 202 211

Storme

Lempp

Hamstra

M. W. R.

Garnier

2024

A little humor goes a long way? The influence of humor on offer acceptance in one-shot online negotiations

International Journal of Conflict Management 35 5 1060 1078

10.1108/IJCMA-11-2023-0229

Coelho

Bairrada

M. C.

Coelho

J. F.

2019

Functional brand qualities and perceived value: The mediating role of brand personality and brand experience

Journal of Marketing & Psychology 37 1 41 55

10.1002/mar.21279

Fehrest

Murphy

Pabel

Panchal

2024

Incorporating humor into the educational journey of young tourists: A systematic multidisciplinary review

European Journal of Humour Research 12 2 145 162

Oxford Dictionary 2024

Humor and mirth (entry)

https://www.oxfordreference.com

Pearce

L. P.

Pabel

2016

Tourists’ responses to humor

Annals of Tourism Research 57 96 97

10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.011

Palikhe

2019

Impact of advertising humor on brand purchase strategy: A profile of consumer demand

Nepalese Journal of Business Studies 12 1 60 70

10.3126/jnbs.v12i1.28183

Karpen

Sands

Pallant

2021

What drives consumers to customize products? The mediating role of brand experience

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 102773

10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102773

Karpen

Sands

Pallant

2020

Product customization: A consumer demand profile

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 102030

10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102030

Panke

2013

Polintertainment: The use of humor in political communication

Publica 13 2 18

Pabel

Pearce

L. P.

2015

Humour and tourism

Channel View Publications

Bristol

Y. M.

Pearce

L. P.

2018

Entertaining international tourists: An empirical study of an iconic site in China

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24 5 772 792

Zhou

Rahman

S. M.

2023

Effect of self-related humor on convergent and divergent thinking

European Journal of Humour Research 11 4 1 13

World Bank 2023

Digital transformation of education systems: Policy brief.

https://www.worldbank.org

Al-Nsour

Al-Sahli

Saud

2024

Impact of value on customer retention of fast food restaurants in Saudi Arabia

The Arab Journal of Administration 44 3

Al-Nsour

2018

Involvement degree of women in the buying decision of Saudi families

The Arab Journal of Administration 38 4

Al-Nsour

2022

Impact of saving accounts’ prizes on customer retention in Jordanian commercial banks using SEM

The Arab Journal of Administration 42 4

Al-Nsour

Al-Sahli

Saud

2025

The brand involvement as a mediator between sports sponsorship and Jordanian audience behavior: A psychological-communication analysis

The Arab Journal of Administration 45 6

Roseman

J. I.

2013

Appraisal in the emotion system: Coherence in coping strategies

Emotion Review 5 2 141 149

10.1177/1754073912469591

Milkman

Berger

2012

What makes online content viral?

Journal of Marketing Research 49 2 192 205

Borah

et al.

2020

Humor in crisis communication: Effects on engagement

Journal of Marketing 84 2

Hill

E. K.

Vorhies

Bush

D. V.

King

A. R.

2017

Performing under pressure: Improvisation in selling teams

Journal of Relationship Marketing 16 4 227 244

10.1080/15332667.2017.1349554

Boso

Banin-Yeboah

A. A.

Hultman

2019

Linking improvisational behavior to customer satisfaction: The role of relational dynamics

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 34 6 1183 1193

10.1108/JBIM-11-2017-0298

Jones

E. S.

Fox

L. C.

Hunter

C. S.

2016

Similarity and difference in humor style in friendship dyads

Journal of Early Adolescence 46 1 30 37

Arqam.com 2021

Annual data

bonat.io 2023

Annual data

Deportal.com 2024

Annual data

Katz

Ilan-Brender

2024

Trying to make me laugh to persuade me: Humor and compliance

Atlantic Journal of Communication ? ?

10.1080/15456870.2024.2397962

Yeoman

S. I.

2019

Humour and tourism

Journal of Tourism Futures 5 1 96 97

10.1108/JTF-01-2016-0002

Goldman

Hao

Yue

2010

Dispositional optimism, humor styles, and mental health among Chinese and Hong Kong undergraduates

Copyrighted Material Press 11 2 173 188

Choudrie

Jyoti

Pepple

Dennis Gabriel

Zahoor

Nadia

2021

Entrepreneurial mutual trust, absorptive capacity, and alliance success

Journal of Business Research 136 440 450

Speck

S. P.

1991

The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for studying humorous ads

Current Issues and Research in Advertising 13 1-2 1 44

Poutiainen

Oikarinen

L.-E.

Alatalo

Vuorela

2021

Young consumers’ views on humorous BELF communication

Corporate Communications: An International Journal 26 2 265 278

10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0008

Vinzi Esposito

Amato

Tenenhaus

2004

PLS path modeling: Global goodness-of-fit indices

Proceedings of SIS 42 739 742

Erber

Sprecher

Treger

2013

Exploring the interpersonal effects of laughing and liking

European Journal of Social Psychology 43 6 523 543

Vernon

P. A.

Schermer

A. J.

Martin

R. A.

Mackie

2008

A behavioral genetic investigation of humor styles and their correlations with the Big Five

Personality and Individual Differences 44 5 1116 1125

10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.003

McGraw

P. A.

Carter

P. E.

Warren

2019

Being funny is not enough: Negative emotions, perceived humor, and brand attitudes

International Journal of Advertising 38 7 1025 1045

10.1080/02650487.2019.1620090

Gulas

C. S.

Weinberger

M. G.

1992

A review of humor in advertising

Journal of Advertising 21 4 35 59

10.1080/00913367.1992.10673384

Wold

1982

Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce: Example of partial least squares

Department of Econometrics, University of Geneva ? 79 106

Chen

C.-H.

L.-C.

2019

The influence of humor on creativity: Incongruity-resolution vs. nonsense comprehension

Creativity Research Journal 31 1 110 118

Ogungbe

O. E.

2020

Pragmatics of coronavirus-motivated humor in social media

Journal of Applied Thought 8 1 1 20

Barreiros

Arriaga

Oliveira

2023

The social, psychological, and physical well-being roles of humor

HUMOR 36 3 487 509

10.1515/humor-2022-0072

Larsson

Å.

Olsson

2005

The use of humor in advertising: A comparative study between the United States, China, and France

Bachelor Thesis, Luleå University of Technology

Cha

Fornell

1994

Partial least squares for covariance structure analysis

Advanced Methods in Marketing Research 52 78

Larcker

D. F.

Fornell

1981

Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error

Journal of Marketing Research 18 3 382 388

Gretzel

2018

The impact of firm-initiated social media humor on conversations

Information Technology & Tourism 18 61 83

Gerber

2009

Using improvisation to enhance the effectiveness of brainstorming

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 97 104

10.1145/1518701.1518718

Gluscevskij

2017

Methodological issues and prospects of the semiotics of humor

Sign Systems Studies 45 1-2 15 137

Said

Kihl

Gustafsson

2016

The use of humor in advertising: A cultural cross-study

Bachelor Thesis, University of Dubin

Hair

J. F. Jr.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2017

A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)

SAGE

Thousand Oaks, CA

Nitzl

Matt

Hair

J. F.

2020

Assessing measurement model quality using SEM-PLS

Journal of Business Research 109 101 110

Bougie

Sekaran

2020

Research methods for business: A skill-building approach

Wiley

Hoboken, NJ

Sarstedt

Henseler

2013

Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling

Computational Statistics 28 2 565 580

Skouteris

Connor

Blewitt

Bergmeier

Miller

2021

Humor-based strategies addressing public health priorities

Journal of Public Health 45 6 568 577

Minazzi

2021

Social media communication approaches in tourism

Handbook of e-Tourism Springer

Cham

Brookes

Mahood

Gusé-Moyer

2011

Effects of humor in edutainment on safer sex intentions

Health Communication 26 8 765 774

10.1080/10410236.2011.566832

Wijewardena

Härtel

C. E. J.

Samaratunge

2017

Using humor to boost employees’ emotions and psychological capital

Human Relations 70 11 1316 1341

10.1177/0018726717691809

Kismiantini

Nurmawati

2019

PLS-SEM goodness-of-fit: A simulation study

IOP Conference Series: Physics 1320 1 012018

10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012018

Rawal

Dang

Bhattarai

Torres Saavedra

L. J.

2024

Using dark humor as brand-to-brand communication: Boundaries and persuasion

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 18 2 220 237

10.1108/JRIM-12-2022-0370

Andrea

Kobel

2021

Laughing or not? Humor effects in service failure situations

Journal of Business Research 132 260 269

10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.034

Homburg

Klarmann

Vomberg

E. A.

2017

Handbook of market research

Springer

Cham

Henseler

Rademaker

E. M.

Schuberth

2023

Assessing overall model fit of composite models estimated by partial least squares path modeling

European Journal of Marketing 57 6 1678 1702

Sekaran

Bougie

2020

Research methods for business: A skill-building approach

Wiley

Schroder-Odekerken

Oppen

2005

GoF criteria in PLS path modeling

Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48 159 205

Henman

2001

Reducing stress through humor in conversations

Psychology Today

Treger

Sprecher

Erber

2013

Effects of humor use in initial social interactions

European Journal of Social Psychology 43 6 523 543