Nathan Gilkerson

Humor Works in Funny Ways: Examining Satirical Tone as a Key Determinant in Political Humor Message Processing

This multi-experiment study builds upon extant political entertainment theory, testing whether satire type (horatian versus juvenalian) cues varying processing mechanisms (message discounting versus resource allocation), and if consequential differences to argument scrutiny levels or message persuasiveness result. Using novel stimuli (e.g., animated cartoons, study one) and real-world late-night political satire (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, study two), results suggest that satire type was a key antecedent in political humor message processing. Additionally, the varying mechanisms had differential effects on political argument scrutiny levels and message persuasiveness.

Aging and the Questionable Validity of Recognition-Based Exposure Measurement

Growing evidence suggests that basic exposure measures, such as recognition-based items, might not operate identically among older and younger adults. We present two studies relevant to this debate. Study 1 provides experimental confirmation of the recognition decline hypothesis, finding an interaction between age and exposure in predicting recognition memory for an advertisement related to global warming. Study 2 assesses television news project evaluation data to explore whether verbatim detail recognition difficulty explains Study 1 results. The two studies provide complementary evidence, not only illustrating recognition decline among the elderly but also providing careful control of exposure in Study 1 and the use of multiple messages, realistic viewing scenarios, and free recall data in Study 2. Taken together, the studies offer a cautionary tale for campaign evaluators. On a broader theoretical level, the results suggest a fruitful path for communication research focused on the nuanced and potentially critical moderating role of age.

Farmed and Dangerous? A Case Study of Chipotle’s Branded Entertainment Series and Polarized Reactions to its Satirical Depiction of Farming and Agribusiness

This study follows Chipotle’s innovative strategy of using branded entertainment and satire to enhance its brand image and positive consumer perceptions, while negatively portraying an entire industry. The study explores audience reactions to Chipotle’s satirical Farmed and Dangerous program, part of the company’s broader “Food with Integrity” campaign. Increasing agricultural literacy and understanding among the general public is a priority (Doerfert, 2011). Yet marketing communication campaigns—and responses or reactions to those campaigns—that simplify issues into distinct “sides,” or focus on attacks, prevent deep discussion of the complexity of our food system and efforts to collaborate on solutions. Research presented uses a case study, supported by focus group methodology and in-depth survey responses of YouTube commenters, to examine consumer and stakeholder reactions to Chipotle’s content. Findings reveal sharply divided reactions and significant anger and frustration within the agricultural community toward Chipotle for its satirical portrayal of the food production industry. Findings also reveal generally positive attitudes toward Chipotle from those without agricultural experience, and clear perceptions of “sides” in the food debate. Discussion of Chipotle’s marketing strategy explores whether the negative sentiment the company has generated among agricultural stakeholders through efforts like its Farmed and Dangerous webisode series is worth it for the brand, considering the broader positive image the company has gained among much of the general public, as well as related implications for the company linked to more recent struggles with food safety issues and attacks from political groups.

The Ultimate Cliffhanger: Campaign Strategies and Extreme Drinking Rituals for Turning 21

Abstract This qualitative study examined the drinking ritual of 21st birthday celebrations among college student binge drinkers to gain insights that can lead to more effective campaign strategies. Through depth interviews, a pattern of intense peer pressure emerged, not only for the person turning 21, who is expected to be the “drunkest,” but for friends, who make the night risk free by giving the birthday person a “free pass.” Because each plays a role in a ritual that celebrates the “ultimate cliffhanger,” campaign strategies aimed solely at the person turning 21 are not sufficient to change behavior. The pros and cons of alternate approaches are explored.