2.2.4 SOCIAL Social Psychology of Humour

1-36: Describe what humour is and its various types Discuss the theoretical explanations of humour Explain the social functions of humour and laughter Discuss how humour can help explain real world issues such as prejudice and discrimination Discuss how humour can help solve real world issues such as improving stress and health

Warren and McGraw (2016): definition of humour

a psychological response characterised by the positive emotion of amusement, the appraisal that something is funny, and the tendency to laugh

sense of humour definition

the ability to perceive what is ludicrous, or amusing, or expressing it in speech, writing, or another composition

what is ‘humour’ derived from?

• ancient Greeks’ study of medicine

• taught the balance of fluids in the human body- known as humors- controlled human health and emotion

• Latin: humor- body fluid

Latin: humor

body fluid

humour: broad term

• anything people say/do to elicit laughter

• captures cognitive processes related to how we deem something as funny

• can influence our health

essential components of humour

1. social context

2. cognitive - perceptual processes

3. emotional response

4. vocal-behavioural expression of laughter

→ these four components common to almost all instances of human

what type of phenomena is humour?

• a social phenomenon

• needs to be a stimulus, often perceived as out of the ordinary/incongruent with typical ideas - cognitive/perceptual processes

social context of humour

• we laugh/joke much more with others than by ourselves (Martin & Kuiper, 1999)

• provides us with opportunities for play- serves important social, emotional, and cognitive functions (Bateson, 2005)

cognitve - perceptual processes of humour

• involves idea, image, text, or event that is in some way absurd, surprising, or out of the ordinary

• we need to cognitively appraise the stimulus as nonserious or unimportant, putting us into a playful frame of mind at least momentarily (Gervais & Wilson, 2005)

what do we need to do, cognitively, to find something funny + who is this according to?

to cognitively appraise the stimulus as nonserious or unimportant, putting us into a playful frame of mind at least momentarily (Gervais & Wilson, 2005)

emotional response of humour

• comprises an emotional response that is elicited by these cognitive appraisals (as nonserious/unimportant) (Szabo, 2003)

• referred to as mirth- pleasurable feeling, joy, happiness

mirth

pleasurable feeling, joy, happiness

comprises the emotional response elicited by cognitive appraisals of humourous stimuli

vocal-behavioural expression

• of laughter

• mirth is expressed as smiling/laughing, communicating to others we are in a playful state (Van Hooff, 1972)

Van Hooff, 1972: how is mirth expressed + impact?

as smiling/laughing, communicating to others we are in a playful state

describe the four essential components of humour as a step by step

• social context- with others

absurd/surprising stimulus → cognitive appraisal of this as nonserious or unimportant → playful frame of mind → emotional response of mirth → vocal-behavioural expression of laughter/smiling → communicating to others we are in a playful state

types of humour

• jokes

• spontaneous conversational humour

• unintentional humour (physical or linguistic)

jokes

short, amusing stories consisting of a setup and a punchline

setup of a joke

• includes all but last sentence

• creates, in the listener, particular set of expectations about how the situation should be interpreted

punch line of a joke

• suddenly shifts the meaning of setup in an unexpected and playful way

• creating perception of nonserious incongruity that is neccessary for humour to occur

what proportion of day to day humour do jokes make up?

• fairly small

• 72% is spontaneous conversational humour

• besides verbal forms of humour, non-verbal means used to create it day to day- e.g. exaggerated facial expressions

how does 72% of daily laughter occur? (Martin & Kuiper, 1999)

• from spontaneous conversational humour

• occurs spontaenously during social interactions either in response to funny comments or amusing anecdotes

what is spontaneous conversational humour?

• more context-dependent than joke-telling, so not as funny when recounted after

• laughter occurs spontaneously during social interactions either in response to funny comments or amusing anecdotes

• many different forms of SCH (Norrick, 2003)

• some forms: anecodotes, wordplay, irony

difference contextually between jokes and spontaenous conversational humour

SCH usually more context dependent than joke telling and therefore is not as funny when recounted afterwards

Norrick (2003) highlights what about spontaneous conversational humour

• it takes many different forms

• anecdotes

• wordplay

• irony

anecdotes

relaying an amusing story about oneself or someone else

form of SCH

wordplay

creating puns, witty responses, or wisecracks that play on meaning of words

form of SCH

irony

a statement where the literal meaning is different (juxtaposing) from the intended meaning

form of SCH

unintentional humour types (Nilsen and Nilsen, 2000)

• physical

• linguistic

• also called accidental humour

unintentional humour: physical

includes minor mishaps and blunders

• funny when they occur in surprising and incongruous manner

• person experiencing them is not seriously hurt or badly embarrassed

unintentional humour: linguistic

arises from

misspellings, mispronunciations, errors in logic

and

speaker confusions like Freudian slips, malapropisms, and spoonerisms

Freudian slips

• errors in speech/incorrect word use that supposedly reflect unconscious thoughts

• accidental linguistic humour can arise from this

malpropisms

• incorrect usage of a word in place of a different word with different meaning but with a similar sound

• resulting in nonsensical often humourous utterance

• can be (usually is) unintentional or for comedic effect

• accidental linguistic humour arises from this

spoonerisms

• phonemes/morphemes in a word are swapped, e.g. belly jeans

‘belly jeans’ instead of ‘jelly beans’ is an example of a…

spoonerism

calling your teacher ‘mum’ is an example of a…

Freudian slip

‘doggy dog world’ is an example of a…

malpropism

theoretical explanations of humour

• evolutionary theory

• superiority theory

• incongruity theory

• relief theory

evolutionary theory of humour- evidence to support

• humour and laughter are a universal aspect of human experience (Apte, 1985; Lefcourt, 2001)

• developmentally, laughter is one of the first social vocalisations (after crying) emitted by human infants (McGhee)

→ even born Deaf or Blind children can laugh without having ever perceived the laughter of others (Provine, 2000)

• laughter/humour observed in chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas (Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997 and 2003)

• laughter appears to have originated in social play + be derived from primate play signals (Burling, 1993)

• humans now adapted to mental play with words = humour

• experienced cross culturally → contributes to idea of laughter = innate

evolutionary origins of humour and laughter suggest they likely have…

important socioemotional functions that have contributed to our survival as a species

Miller (2000): evolutionary theory

suggests witty sense of humour, like linguistic skills and creativity, is an indicator of superior intelligence, enhancing one’s ability to compete successfully for resources and mates

Dunbar (1996): evolutionary theory

laughter is a form of “vocal grooming” which, like physical grooming in primates, facilitates social bonding

Ramachandran (1998): evolutionary theory

views laughter as a “false alarm”, signalling to others that a stimulis or event is unimportant and nonserious

superiority theory of humour suggests human results from…

a sense of superiority we feel from the belittling of another person or of one’s own past blunders or foolishness

Plato + humour

• superiority theory

• stated laughter originates in malice

• we laugh at what is ridiculous in other people, feeling delight instead of pain when we see even our friends in misfortune

Gruner (1997): superiority theory

• views humour as “playful aggression”

• generations of men responded to their sudden victories in violent encounters with roars of triumph

• triumph thought of as early origin of laughter

• evolved into our modern day humour, ppl can now use language to make fun of those inferior

• why we find pranks funny

• Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude

harm-joy/mirth

• the joy of another’s misfortune

strength/s of superiority theory

• studies show aggressive elements in jokes and the perception of pain in others contribute to the funniness of the humour

Zillmann & Bryant, 1974; Deckers & Carr, 1986

limitation/s of superiority theory

• little evidence that all humour involves some form of aggression and that aggressive people enjoy all types of humour more than non aggressive ppl (Ruch & Hehl, 1998)

• animal studies suggest facial displays associated w humour (playful face, smiling, laughter) only occur in context of friendly social/play activities, not aggression (van Hooff, 1972)

• essentially unfalsifiable, Gruner defined playful aggression so broadly that he claims the theory seems to account for all humour

if lump humour into one single category, ignore other means of humour being categoried

so has largely been replaced by more modern theories

incongruity theory of humour suggests that…

• the perception of incongruity is the crucial determinant in whether or not something is humourous (Suls, 1972)

• however, for incongruity to be funny, it must also be resolved or make sense in some way

incongruity theory - what makes incongruence funny?

• resolution - go back and search for ambiguity in the joke setup that can be interpreted differently so punch line makes sense

incongruity theory- focus on what + what necessary?

• cognitive component of humour

• set up and punchline both necessary

• human comprehension of joke as a problem-solving task

which word is where the ambiguity is?

A lady went into a clothing store and asked “May I try on that dress in the window?” “Well,” replied the sales clerk doubtfully, “don’t you think it would be better to use the dressing room?”

window

what do we search for in where to make sense of the punch line of a joke?

ambiguity in the joke set up that can be interpreted in a different way

Suls, 1972

• incongruity theory

• incongruity resolution model

• comprehension of humour viewed as a process of problem solving

Suls’ Incongruity Resolution Model: for laughter

1) story or cartoon set up → 2) prediction of outcome → 3) is ending as predicted? — no —→ 4) surprise → 5) find rule that makes ending follow from preceding material → 6) is rule found? —- yes—> 7) laughter

according to Suls’ incongruity resolution model, what would have to happen for there to not be laughter?

1. if ending IS as predicted → no surprise, no laughter

2. if ending is not predicted, eliciting surprise, but NO rule can be found that makes ending follow from preceding material → puzzlement

evidence support for incongruity theory

• Shultz & Horibe, 1974- suggest resolution of incongruity needed for smth to be perceived as funny

evidence against incongruity theory

• Deckers, 1993 study- incongruity w/o resolution still capable of humour

• Pollio + Mers, 1974- joke funnier when can see punchline coming

• much research only based on jokes, may not apply to other types of humour without a setup punchline joke format

Shultz & Horibe, 1974: procedure

• presented different versions of several jokes to children aged 6, 8, 10, 12

• original joke

• resolution removed joke

• incongruity removed joke

which condition are these jokes examples of, from Shultz + Horibe (1974)

1. Waiter, what's this? That's bean soup, ma’am.

I'm not interested in what it's been, I'm asking what it is now

2. Waiter, what's this? That's tomato soup, ma’am.

I'm not interested in what it's been, I'm asking what it is now

3. Waiter, what's this? That's bean soup, ma’am.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

1. original

2. resolution removed

3. incongruity removed

Shultz + Horibe, 1974: results

by age 8, children found the original versions of the jokes funnier than resolution removed or incongruity removed versions

Shultz + Horibe, 1974: findings

• when children are old enough to engage in cognitive processes and problem solving → they appreciated resolvable incongruity and found jokes with these elements funnier

• suggesting that resolution of incongruity is needed for something to be perceived as funny

Deckers, 1993: procedure

size-weight illusions studies

• Ps pick up items where there is incongruity between size and weight of items

• no resolution as to why object is heavier/lighter than expected

Deckers, 1993: findings

• ppl laugh when they pick up an object heavier/lighter than expected

→ incongruity without resolution is still capable of eliciting humour