Understanding Humor

through Communication
Understanding Humor through
Communication

Why Be Funny, Anyway?

John Meyer

LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London
Published by Lexington Books
An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com

Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB

Copyright © 2015 by Lexington Books

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available

ISBN 978-1-4985-0316-7 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-1-4985-0317-4 (electronic)

TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

 Contents

Acknowledgments vii

1 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 1

2 Functions of Humor in Communication 21
3 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 43
4 Humor and Persuasion 59
5 Humor in Organizations and Cultures 71
6 Humor in Personal Relationships 81
7 Dangers of Humor for Relationships 95
8 A Social Model of Humor 105

Bibliography 121
Index 131

v
 Acknowledgments

No book is undertaken without a foundation of support from fellow

scholars and significant others. In this instance, the early research was
greatly enhanced by the efforts of Matthew Ramsey, once a student and
now a valued humor scholar and colleague. More recently, Colleen Mes-
tayer stepped in to find some outstanding sources and provide many
words of encouragement. Also, through the years, the graduate students
in my humor communication seminars, and undergraduates in a similar
course, have found fascinating research and suggested great ideas and
elaborations upon them. Most importantly, we have shared some out-
standing moments of humor together even as we worked together to
better understand them.
Thanks also to editor Alison Pavan at Lexington Books, for being the
definition of a patient editor, and to her and her staff for all their encour-
agement and help.

vii
 ONE
Communication and Theories of
Humor Origin

Humor grows to be such an integral part of the human experience that

we often take it for granted. To study it can elicit comments like, “why
study humor?” Also, one might hear, “why not study something seri-
ous?” Humor just seems to be always there, a part of our lives. Yet,
humor is “an essential part of what it means to be human,” (Martin, 2007,
p. 3), and deserves serious exploration. As communicators, humor per-
vades our daily conversations in some form or another, and is encoun-
tered in all kinds of mediated communication and is tacitly expected in
most kinds of public address. Effectively using humor and appreciating it
has become essential for communication in many, if not most, venues. So,
practical reasons for studying humor abound. Additionally, though, it is
difficult to imagine life without humor—and what a dry, tragic life that
could be. Something that so richly enhances our lives deserves rich explo-
ration, and that is the intent of this book. Along with some coverage of
basic understandings and theories of humor, an extensive coverage of
how humor works in various communication situations is pursued.
Any definition of humor involves ambiguity—a testament to both its
malleability and high inclusiveness in human interaction. Yet in spite of
difficulties in inclusiveness (anything may be funny) and concreteness
(how can one measure humor, anyway?), definitions must be tackled so
that all can get a better grasp of the concept of humor—and readers can
follow how humor is studied and discussed in this book. A survey of
generic definitions suggests that humor is the capacity to perceive actions
as funny, respond to an amusing stimulus, or create something that elicits
amusement. Humor involves communicating in a “play mode,” and con-
sists of avoiding its opposite—taking events or ideas seriously. Already

1
2 Chapter 1

the ambiguity inherent in the concept of humor is evident in the many

additional abstract terms used to describe or define it.
Since the terms “amusement” and “funny” almost necessarily crop up
in definitions of humor, they in turn must be explored. In essence, they
both indicate a pleasant emotional experience—an emotion that for con-
venience sake may be labelled “mirth” (Martin, 2007). A sense of short-
term happiness or joy is involved, and seems to follow from particular
juxtapositions of symbols or events that both follow and violate an ex-
pected pattern. “Amusement” indicates a state of an individual who per-
ceives events in a non-serious or mirthful way. The term “funny” tries to
characterize the event or idea perceived. However, no inherent character-
istics of such incidents can be found—the designation of what is funny
must be made by someone who can appreciate a sense of amusement.
One common characteristic found in humorous events is appreciation of
a pattern along with a change in that pattern. Thus, some cognitive ability
is necessary to perceive the symbolic patterns that make possible a hu-
mor experience. One key purpose stimulating this book is to explore
explanations of how certain perceptions of symbolic patterns—as com-
municated—lead to perceptions or instigations of humorous events
which become the phenomenon of humor in communication.
The concept of sharing is central to both communication and humor.
Communication may be thought of as a process of sharing meaning. As
individuals interact with others, patterns emerge that then are reflected
back upon both self and society (Mead, 1934). Some of the meaning
present in one mind is then shared by another. Through the use of sym-
bols (mostly words in a language but also through images and actions),
meaning may be conveyed and shared with another—although never in
the exact same way as intended. Each individual filters perceptions of
communicated messages through the range of experience and knowledge
to construct a meaning. People can then share in these meaningful mes-
sages both as individuals and collectively as a society. Social patterns are
observed as communication takes place, and then each person reflects on
the self and how it fits into that social pattern. Symbolic events, then, are
key to communication and the molding together of individuals into soci-
ety.
Any particular event or symbol can involve humor—and an individu-
al’s choice of whether to perceive humor or not is central to any model
relating it to communication. All of our ongoing communication will be
affected by the decision to appreciate or engage in humor or not. That
choice, often made in a split second, influences our perceptions of events,
our communication strategies, and our ongoing relationships and organ-
izations. People respond differently when experiencing humor as op-
posed to a serious conversation or event. Often, that difference can en-
hance our further communication and relationships. It can also alienate
and divide us from others. We will change our tactics in a conversation
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 3

when humor is successfully invoked or shared, and also if attempts at

humor fall flat or no humor is invoked or welcomed. In turn, relation-
ships come to have a “humor component,” as do organizations, that af-
fect our comfort level with and strategies for communicating. Key tasks
to follow in this book include exploring how humor manifests within,
functions for, and affects varied communicative contexts. Models of hu-
mor for individuals and groups communicating will then be developed.
Symbolic interactionism theory (Mead, 1934) holds that people learn
to think and form impressions through interactions with others. The
mind seeks patterns to understand the world, and key patterns are sup-
plied by others communicating with us as we respond to them. These
patterns of communication come to represent key aspects of social life,
and give us labels for the world around us. In essence, we are supplied
with language, plus many more abstract social meanings involved with
it. Consider simple counting: One learns, in English, “one, two, three,
four, five, six . . .” and so on. A positive, reinforcing response then reifies
those numbers as correct and in the right socially acceptable order. The
labels and patterns for numbers and their use become clear and taken for
granted. One may then try a joke on a young child still learning to count:
“How about one, two, three, six . . .” The reaction might be “No, that’s
not it”—yet often accompanied by a smile or a laugh in recognition of a
pattern violation. In this way, communication is central to the develop-
ment and expression of humor. The myriad ways that humor exists in
and through communication are reflected in the chapter titles of this
book. Humor is found throughout life, as we learn patterns of social and
physical events and learn to note disruptions of them.
Humor can thus help us understand important patterns or routines in
life, along with recognizing and coping with interruptions or failures of
those patterns. Humor helps us reduce uncertainty about the patterns of
communication other people intend to follow, as well, as it makes clear
how other people’s understanding of patterns are similar to, or different
from, our own. The “counting violation” in the last paragraph merely
reinforces the correct numbers to count, yet also shows ways to deal with
violations of that expected pattern. We can correct it, but we can also
laugh at our surprise as we are startled by the violation. We can realize
that counting wrongly does not alter the way to count correctly. Part of
the choice to appreciate humor, however, is the existence of the alterna-
tive, the serious or tragic response to miscounting. One can respond with
outrage, anger, insistence upon immediate correction or even punish-
ment for counting wrongly. A mutual choice to respond to a pattern
violation with humor shows that there is room for creativity and social
trial and error in an ongoing relationship. Thus does humor facilitate
learning not only about language and the world, but about how social
relationships may develop.
4 Chapter 1

The evolutionary purposes of humor have been explored by studying

infants and noting its limited presence even in certain animal interactions
(Martin, 2007). Infants born without certain senses or with forms of epi-
lepsy still demonstrate an ability to laugh from birth, suggesting that it is
not a solely social learned capacity. The inability to ever laugh, or alterna-
tively continual uncontrollable laughter, encompasses rare and proble-
matic psychiatric conditions that fall outside the expected biological
range of behaviors. As humans grow, humor becomes such an expected
and taken-for-granted experience that it is viewed as central to our hu-
manity. Indeed, the abstract levels to which humans take humor appreci-
ation seem to be unique among life on our planet.
Humans are not the only instigators of humor, however. Evidence of
humor emerges in the behavior of some animals, generally connected
with play. Many animals, from marine life such as dolphins and otters, to
domesticated dogs and cats, are found to play. Certain facial expressions
and motions characterize signals not to consider playful acts as threats.
Primates, for instance, evoke certain forms of laughter during play along
with facial expressions that look familiar to humans as a smile (Martin,
2007). What humor exists seems to develop from a “play structure” that
allows for non-serious practices as pushing over or tackling. Humans
have taken a basic animal capacity for signaling “no threat” to highly
creative lengths to make abstract and linguistic social play possible, to
create and reinforce social structures, as well as to enhance simple enjoy-
ment of life and society. Humor has become more than ever a unique and
essential human experience.
The experience of humor was not always viewed so positively by
human societies, especially their higher ranks. Humor as an English
word emerged as a reference to someone with an odd or strange person-
ality trait that was outside the norms of society (Wickberg, 1998). Non-
conformity to social expectations was associated with a “humor,” and
thus sparked laughter and ridicule (Martin, 2007). Since breaking social
norms would often involve responses of amusement and mirth, humor
became associated with laughter at events or actions perceived as funny
(Ruch, 1998). Eventually, humor in our modern sense became associated
with symbols or events that make people laugh. Yet the social violation
involved in humor took a long time to lose supreme importance—“prop-
er” people in society were expected to refrain from engaging in laughter
at such uncouth social violations. From the time of Aristotle up to 200
years ago or so, laughter was viewed as a negative attack on someone, or
as resulting from highly unacceptable or out-of-bounds behavior (Wick-
berg, 1998). It was considered “beneath” many aspirants for climbing the
social hierarchy to initiate humor or respond to it. Eventually, the super-
iority aspect of humor was balanced with an appreciation for humor as
involving laughing at any clever wordplay or unexpected action. Thus,
from its long position as an unacceptable rebellion against proper society
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 5

humor evolved into its status as a desirable and entertaining part of all
society. People came to seek out opportunities to laugh.
Humor can be manifested by external indicators such as laughter or
smiling, but is not always so. Physiological studies of humor focus on its
effects on the human body, including its tendency to relax the individual
and cause sudden recurring exhalations of breath. The human face is also
prone to “true” or “deep” expressions of humor contrasted with partial
or “imitated” signs—polite smiling, for example. Such studies begin to
approach the psychological and health benefits of the humor experience,
which are many but are often difficult to pin down or quantify (Martin,
2007). Yet, for most, there is no denying the pleasant experience the expe-
rience of humor gives.
The humor experience is more than physical manifestations or symp-
toms. Its origins are cognitive and symbolic. People see humor in a varie-
ty of stories, events, actions, pictures, and symbols. They then respond in
a wide variety of ways, internal and invisible or external and socially
shared. We may be able to study their physical responses, including
laughter, to assess the humor response. However, one may find some-
thing amusing while giving little outward sign of doing so. The cognitive
response is key to humor—what each individual perceives. Humor re-
searchers in the past two centuries have moved beyond the idea that
“humors” are physical or social characteristics of people, to seeking the
source of humor—what makes possible those physical manifestations,
the most common of which is laughter?
In essence, the human mind chooses to and is enabled to find humor
in any situation. The events or actions that spark humorous responses are
studied, yet also key characteristics of those events or actions that lead to
a humorous experience are sought. Each individual determines what is
funny, yet humor is also a strong relational or group phenomenon. A
variety of theories have been put forward to explain how humor exists,
how it came to be, or how it is created. All theories cluster around some
kind of change in circumstances or perceptions; in essence some kind of
pleasant psychological alteration (Morreall, 1983). Later chapters of this
book will explore some of these theories in detail, to gather ideas of what
we believe causes humor to set the scene for the pursuit of humor as it
functions in communication as the overarching goal.
When two or more people communicate, occurrence of shared humor
suggests that a common path for understanding a topic and a common
choice for a closer relationship exist. The humor experience involves rec-
ognition of patterns and their violation, and a shared understanding of
such patterns and violations leads to a strong sense of sharing in a rela-
tionship. If I come into work one morning and say to a colleague, “that
team needs to get itself a defense,” the response depends upon my col-
league’s recognition of the team I refer to and the game in which the team
lacked a defense. Laughter may also ensue at the mutual thought that
6 Chapter 1

although, of course, the team did have a defense it seemed during the
game like it did not. Even if an argument ensues, our mutual recognition
of those shared sports patterns reinforces a commonality in our relation-
ship. Through its dramatic emotional evidence of shared perspectives,
humor can build unity in a relationship.
When examining thoroughly our daily communication, the pervasive
invocations of humor become compelling. During a conversation, when I
laugh at something the other says, that shows I heard the message, made
some connection to context with the message, and indicates to the other
some appreciation for the message as phrased. Humor indicates an emo-
tional response to a message along with acknowledging receipt of that
message. With shared and understood responses to increasing numbers
of messages, communicators become more confident and willing to share
more information, work together, and develop potentially more mean-
ingful relationships. Humor in communication then becomes one key
aspect of developing closer interactions with family members, friends,
and members of shared social groups.
Organizations thus serve as natural homes for humor—as people
working together develop patterns of communication and respond to
variations or violations of those patterns. Studies of communication at
work, to be explored later, show how humor pervades the daily commu-
nication of work groups. The ability to joke with coworkers emerges as a
crucial indicator of satisfaction with work life. People are, in general,
much happier with room to joke around at work, at least with some
people. In the more personal venue of family life, too, “inside jokes” are
developed which are often seen as evidence of positive family develop-
ment and desired unity. When we feel comfortable enough with a group
to readily experience or create humor as a part of it, we experience more
cohesiveness and integration into that group. Thus, many of us observing
a family or work group laughing together may experience a sense of
wistful envy—“it sure looks like they’re having fun”—and we would like
to be a part of it or part of a similar cohort.
Humor provides one key benefit for humanity in that its perception
stimulates consideration of new or alternative concepts or conclusions
based on actions or patterns observed. For individuals, the clash of con-
cepts necessary for humor provokes thought. In social groups, the com-
fort of sharing humor leads to a willingness to explore through commu-
nication. Fittingly, Koestler (1964) situated humor as a central component
of creativity deeply set in the physical and psychological nature of each
person. Humor stimulates alternative thoughts through deviations from
social norms that allow for creative manipulation of concepts. Humor fits
logically as a central component of creativity because it is an adaptable
and unrestrictive aspect of human symbolic behavior. Playing with famil-
iar concepts and creating new ones through humor spark creative
thought. Those first creative acts or thoughts then become a standard part
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 7

of a pattern of thinking or relating—or of language. Just as memorable

phrases become idioms by becoming commonplace and gradually
emerging in the basic structure of a language, so it is with humor as
certain types become commonplace and used in a patterned fashion to
reference an earlier pattern that sparked a sharing of humor. These are
the common “inside jokes” or phrases that one “had to be there” to
understand when referred to later. What starts as new and creative be-
comes a standard shared indicator of common understanding and group
membership.
Even though humor serves human creativity as one key communica-
tion tool, it is not a uniformly positive experience. Humor can build
understanding and confidence in relationships, yet it can also dramatical-
ly indicate disagreement or discord. Humor unites groups quickly and
delineates divisions scathingly. Humor shared may also distance those
sharing from those being mocked or viewed as committing “violations.”
The distinction of laughing “with” versus laughing “at” emerges as cru-
cial for understanding humor’s communication effects. Humor unites
communicators through shared meaning, but can also indicate social di-
visions through dramatizing contrasting meanings. One who does not
understand the social script giving rise to the humor, or who violated a
social script and is alienated via laughter, fails to share in the humor and
may be socially differentiated as a result. Humor thus functions both to
unite and divide. This book seeks to explore this duality in detail.
Humor enacts several communicative functions, along a continuum
from strongly unifying to drastically dividing. We can label several func-
tions of humor along this continuum, and by stopping when reaching
four spots along the journey we can designate key communication func-
tions of humor ranging from its most comforting, sympathizing, unifying
aspects to the most alienating, mocking, divisive qualities. The most uni-
fying and appreciated function of humor is the identification function,
where similarities are brought to the forefront by the invocation of hu-
mor, and relationships and social groups are reinforced by agreement on
shared social scripts. The clarification function is next, where an opinion
or viewpoint can be made vivid in a memorable, perhaps unexpected
way. The enforcement function of humor encompasses those awkward
moments where we are laughed at or teased. One is outside the social
norm in some way, and has it pointed out through humor. Finally, diffe-
rentiation humor is forthright in laughing at or mocking a difference that
bounds someone on the outside of the appreciating group or relationship.
Humor can thus be put to many communicative uses, and humans in-
deed do so. This allows humor to serve as such a rich “tool” for commu-
nicators seeking to persuade, ingratiate, or otherwise influence people.
My own interest in researching humor began with experiencing its
capacity for ingratiation and persuasion. Humor makes one feel good
when shared in communication. If I can get someone to laugh or laugh
8 Chapter 1

with someone, I know the following communication and relationship

have good potential. Sharing humor serves as one of the most powerful
indicators of a strengthening relationship. I found times when I would
laugh hysterically along with another person or group to be the most
memorable times in relationships—even when I could not remember the
actual source of the humor, I could remember the scene and laughing so
hard together. Other times I remember the spark for humor, but it does
not seem so funny, now. But it sure did then! Additionally, politicians
and other public speakers who included a sense of humor in their presen-
tations seemed able to ingratiate others transcending political factions
and beliefs. A communication tool with such rich possibilities deserves to
be studied more extensively.
Along with that social sharing that occurs when experiencing humor
evolves an openness to further communication, including possible per-
suasion. People seem more open to persuasion when laughing with
someone; at least they may be more willing to listen without as many
mental defenses “on alert.” The play mode elicited by shared humor
allows a sense of trust to grow as we feel less on guard against a personal
or persuasive “attack.” The mental processing and physiological re-
sponse involved with understanding humor may also be considered dis-
tractions, diverting the mind from contradicting incoming persuasive at-
tempts. The human connection and sense of trust that grows along with
the humor experience can enhance the believability and credibility of a
persuader. In the end, being funny certainly does not guarantee being
persuasive, but humor can certainly set the stage for persuasion in vari-
ous ways, which deserve detailed exploration.
Not only is humor important for persuasion, but it is at the heart of
human relationships. Humor lets couples build unity, manage conflict,
and develop shared history and values. Humor use does not guarantee
that these will occur for friends, family members, or significant others,
but it is a key indicator of such strong relationship characteristics. The
common jokes or one-liners told around the dinner table, or while riding
in a vehicle, or while sitting around watching a sport or a movie, become
integral patterns and key parts of such relationships. Even when, to out-
siders, teasing comments may seem harsh or mean, they could be viewed
as unifying and normal to those in the relationship. Abrasive or slashing
humor, alternatively, can indicate a diminishing or ending relationship—
or an ongoing one enmeshed in vitriol and hate. Some relationships mix
elements of both—harsh teasing can represent humorous expressions of
love for both parties, yet may allow processing of disagreements and
ways to air out problems. Sometimes mean, attacking humor may be the
major way each acknowledges a direct ongoing relationship with the
other. The varied but delicate relationship effects of humor richly deserve
elaboration.
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 9

After exploring these multiple venues for viewing humor functions in

social interaction, a book about humor in communication cannot finish
without exploring models that explain how humor “works” in the mind
of each individual and then becomes shared in relationships and groups.
What commonalities can we find about humor and its experience, even if
its specific cues are unique to each individual or social group? This book
explores models of humor from an individual and social perspective that
attempt to explain how humor emerges as experienced and invoked.
What actually happens when humor is chosen individually and socially
to color a message or social experience? The models to be proposed,
actually, can function regardless of the theoretical perspective one takes
on humor origin or “universal” explanation.
At heart, exploring humor use in communication is crucial because it
is so ubiquitous. We see it and use it everywhere, so we need to under-
stand what it is doing for us. Also, exploring humor use can be, and
should be, fun! Along with understanding the “nuts and bolts” of how
humor functions in communication, we can experience and laugh at the
wonder of a new perspective granted through humor—perhaps a turn of
phrase that makes us think of a concept or belief in a new way, or an
unexpected action that gives us insight into a significant other’s personal-
ity. Through examples and narratives, humor may be illustrated and
explored in an entertaining way, and we can understand better how and
why we use humor so much in our communication with others.

THEORIES OF HUMOR

Humor has long been considered a key part of human personality, life,
and communication. Much study has explored its origins. Humor is alter-
natively explained as an evolved victory yell, a way to release nervous
energy, or a means to deal with and adapt to change. The superiority or
victory perspective appears to be the oldest. The sense of “sudden glory”
referred to by Hobbes matches the sense of triumph one feels when an
opponent is the butt of a memorable gibe. Humor may have evolved as a
way to communicate “safety” to others, because, at least for now, hu-
mans have “won” and are in control of the situation (Martin, 2007). A
successful hunt, a rich harvest, a victory in a contest, or a win in a debate
lead to joyful emotions that closely parallel the mirth experience. This
sense of superiority serves, for some, as foundational for humor.
Yet a “win” or a victory may not be necessary, as the venting of any
nervous energy may make humor possible. Concentration on a task, or
conforming to social norms, necessitates holding back and refraining
from indulging in human subconscious impulses, thereby building up
nervous energy. Experiencing humor serves to dissipate that energy. Fa-
mous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud held that “humor and laughter per-
10 Chapter 1

mitted individuals to deal with nervous energy and social taboos such as
sexuality, death, fear, embarrassment, and aggression” (Rancer & Gra-
ham, 2012). Humor allows for socially shared and acceptable ways to
deal with such uncomfortable or socially taboo issues. Humor releases or
relieves such tensions, in a generally safe and somewhat socially unifying
way. The sense of relief or relaxation is taken as central to humor by
others.
However, explaining the cognitive element of humor remains. One
must recognize a certain pattern and perceive its alteration before one can
understand humor (Morreall, 1983). Some level of cognitive development
must occur that makes possible abstract thought; capable of invoking
ongoing patterns and entertaining possibilities of implications or evolu-
tions of them. Here is where the “surprise” or “twist” that seems essential
to humor emerges. Humor appreciation seems to require a highly devel-
oped consciousness with matching brain development. The cognitive re-
quirements include the ability to retain knowledge of abstract patterns
and to understand potential alternatives to them. Concepts and patterns
may even “clash” in the brain for the humor experience. Experiencing
humor indicates perception of a change, or that “things are not what they
initially seem to be,” thus requiring some evolved mental development to
appreciate multiple perspectives. A well-developed cognitive capacity is
thus necessary for full invocation and appreciation of humor in situa-
tions, making it a primarily human characteristic Such extensive cogni-
tive ability allows for thinking of alternative or contradictory concepts
that are held by some as necessary for humor, leading to the incongruity
approach. Before exploring details of the three major theoretical ap-
proach to humor creation, however, several efforts at universal theories
that encompass them all are worth attention.

UNIVERSAL HUMOR THEORY ATTEMPTS

One approach treats humor as a refined component of play. Humor

stems from the invocation of a mental “play state,” or paratelic mindset,
that contrasts with the regular concern with actions and accomplish-
ments in the world, or a telic state (Apter, 1982). Approaching a topic or
task with concern for the consequences, or with a definite and desirable
goal in mind, assumes the telic state. Communications are taken as sin-
cere or goal-oriented, and are responded to in like manner for the most
part. Pleasure in the task is viewed as secondary to the goal desired,
whether communication of a truth, a useful piece of information, or ac-
complishing a task with survival or profitable consequences. Most of us
function in a telic state as our “default” mode—we assume people are
communicating with us for an informative or practical purpose, and we
do the same. But then there are times where we joke; we say things just
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 11

for the fun of saying them, or do things for the enjoyment of them. This
alternative, doing something or talking with no concern for consequences
or the literal truth value of statements, suggests a paratelic frivolity of
talk or action. This game playing can still be taken seriously, though, as
some people focus tightly or get wrapped up in a task in order to win or
because they feel a passion for it. When such a paratelic state is combined
with a feeling of mirth, one has found humor.
The mental separation into a paratelic as opposed to a telic state
makes humor an “escape” through which one can entertain varied per-
spectives regardless of potentially dangerous implications in reality. This
explains the creative potential in humor, as one can “joke around” with-
out having to immediately account for how the ideas will impact or im-
prove one’s practical reality. When the conceptual manipulation with no
practical import elicits a mirth experience, one has created humor. Once
one mentally or verbally returns to practical implications or necessities
arising out of an experience, even if it was initially viewed as humorous
in the paratelic mode, one returns to a “serious” or telic mode. Some
advanced cognitive development would be necessary, then, for such
“flipping” to a mode of amusement, back to seriousness, and back and
forth as people find mirth in communicative situations or cognitively and
mirthfully “play.”
Consider if I am meeting with a group to decide on entertainment
programming for a college over the next academic year, I can suggest
ideas that will solve the group’s problem and provide such entertain-
ment. I want to get the job done by coming up with some neat ideas for
entertainment and set up a plan to enact them. I may get impatient when
other group members start to joke around, because I am in a telic mode
and they are in a paratelic mode, appreciating humor. However, if I
respond to humor with humor, joining fellow group members in a para-
telic mode, an excellent idea for entertainment may emerge that I or other
group members would not have thought of by staying in a serious, prac-
tical, telic mode. One member may joke, for instance, suggesting that “I’d
like to make Professor Smith disappear. Now that would be entertain-
ing!” This idea, laughed at in paratelic mode by the group since all would
realize none would actually want to carry out such a plan, may lead
someone to bring the idea of a magic show up for discussion as the group
returns to a telic mode. Through such cognitive alterations from the expe-
rience of humor to practical and serious considerations, outstanding new
ideas can take shape. A similar development may occur even within the
mind of one person, as amusement by a situation follows and precedes
practical thoughts about it.
Another overarching perspective encompasses key elements that uni-
versal humor theories all seek to include; holding that three components
emerge in successful humor (Smith, 1993). First, one finds an element of
surprise, also referred to as a sudden switch of perspective. Second
12 Chapter 1

comes recognition, which involves identifying a pattern and understand-

ing an incongruity altering that pattern. Third, humor has an “edge” that
involves managing anger, anxiety, or opposition. Thus, identifications of
incongruity or difference from expected patterns are needed, along with
a sudden change of perspective after some sense of potential threat is
overcome. Thus, one experiences incongruity, superiority, and relief all
together. Humor then is emotionally experienced relief through a pleas-
ant psychological shift (Morreall, 1983) or a sense of triumph with hostil-
ity or superiority (Gruner, 1997). The classic three theoretical approaches
thereby coalesce into one. Most attempts at unified humor theories like
this retain some primary allegiance to one of the three key alternative
theories of humor.
Veatch (1998) put forward a universal theory based on incongruity
when he suggested that humor results from violations of an expected
“moral order.” For Veatch, one experiences humor as a cognitive function
only if an expected norm (N) or expected moral order is perceived, a
violation (V) of that norm is also perceived, and both are in the mind
simultaneously (N & V). If only a pattern violation is noted, humor is not
invoked. Similarly, if the norm is understood along with no serious viola-
tion of it, humor does not emerge. Yet, if a sense of normal and violation
of that normal coexist in mind, humor is experienced. Thus a change in
perceptions or violation of an expected pattern is essential to humor, to
exist simultaneously in mind with an understanding of an expected pat-
tern or moral order. Such perception may go hand in hand with a sense of
triumph or superiority through understanding the norm, or relief due to
a “permissible” violation of it, but the simultaneous juxtaposition of ex-
pected norm and violation is held to be essential to the humor experience.
Humor theorists have attempted myriad ways to explain it, but they
all fall fairly reliably into three basic categories of humor theory: relief,
superiority, and incongruity (Morreall, 1983). Each of these theories, one
may argue, can best explain any given instance of humor. Consider an
example of a husband and wife conversation from McGhee (1979, p. 9):

Mr. Brown: This is disgusting. I just found out that the superintendent
has made love to every woman in this building except one.

Mrs. Brown: Oh, it must be that stuck-up Mrs. Johnson on the third
floor.

Relief theory would note the violation of expected sexual norms, and
hold that the humor perceived is a result of that violation, perhaps in the
sense that someone actually can violate that norm, or perhaps that it was
not the hearer that violated it! Superiority is invoked due to Mr. Brown’s
“victimhood”; his “loss” by being cheated upon is viewed as essential to
the humor. Incongruity theory would hold that the simple unexpected
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 13

fact that Mrs. Brown has implicitly confessed to illicitly making love in a
subtle way leads to humor for all those who pick up on that. According to
Veatch’s (1998) theory, the expected social norm of monogamous sexual
relationships is juxtaposed with Mrs. Brown’s confession of her violation
of it, leading to humor. Each theory can explain the instance, but each
theory also highlights different aspects of the humor.
Perspectives on humor origins affect our understanding of how hu-
mor functions in communication. Even if a theory fails in its goal of
explaining all humor instances, its unique approach elicits and clarifies
key strategies that people try to enact using humor. All theories put
forward to explain humor thus have merit for helping to understand its
foundations and uses in communication. The three classic theories, then,
relief, superiority, and incongruity, deserve further exploration.

Relief Humor
According to the relief theory, humor results from reducing stress or
tension, often suddenly, and allows release of nervous energy. Physiolog-
ical symptoms are the most important to look at; the emotional reaction is
the key (Berlyne, 1972; Meyer, 2000; Morreall, 1983). Tensions (or “arou-
sal”) either exist previously (jag theory) or are built up (boost theory) in a
person before sudden release. A psychoanalytic perspective holds that
people generally restrain themselves from violating social norms to avoid
the negative consequences of doing so. Humans’ normal state in society,
then, finds them repressing certain desires and longings so as not to
express them in behavior. Humorous events allow a sudden violation or
enjoyment of the idea of violating social norms. Thus, some of our exist-
ing tensions, aroused earlier, are released, and this feeling of relief creates
the humor. This is the jag theory, holding that humorous events are
“jags” in that they jettison previously aroused social tensions. The boost
theory holds that humor events first raise tensions before releasing
them—as in the classic joke told before the punchline reveals the “an-
swer,” or some specific situation causes tension that a humorous event
then relieves. The joke to begin a speech, especially in a controversial or
awkward situation, is a common example of enactment of the boost theo-
ry of relief humor. However the tension is created, however, relief theory
holds that its release or relaxation is essential to humor. Humor is held as
primarily a physiological effect accompanying some mental events. In
essence, the mirth is key to relief, however it came to be. What makes it
humor is its relief for the human organism.
The more tension relief found, the more humor experienced. This ba-
sic precept of relief theory has actually provided for some objective test-
ing. One memorable study that sought to prove the relief theory is valid
involved bringing students to an apparent biology lab, where they were
told they were to help with a biology experiment. Researchers warned
14 Chapter 1

participants that they would have to either hold a rat, hold a vicious rat
that could bite, or take a blood sample from a vicious rat. In each case, the
rat they were actually handed was plastic (Shurcliff, 1968). Sure enough,
the most humor was experienced by those thought to be in the more
dangerous situations. The plastic rat provoked the most laughter and
mirth in those that thought they would need to inject or hold a vicious
rat, respectively. The more apprehension aroused by the stated planned
task, the more humor participants experienced when the task turned out
to be not the threat they had expected.
Relief theory depends least upon the ability to reason—it allows for
happy laughter with no clear cause. Getting one’s “funnybone tickled”
and moments where “you had to be there” could stem from simple relief
at being surrounded by family or friends, with little (or less) to worry
about at the moment. Nervousness relieved somehow may lead to mutu-
al laughter in situations where there was no joke or one-liner that was
obviously laughable. Laughter at the expense of no one or where any
incongruity is difficult to pinpoint thrives on the relief explanation. A
sense of comfort and safety in the setting and with the social group leads
to humor. A sense of security may be required for humor appreciation in
the first place (Miczo, 2004). The physiological response to humor is pri-
mary for the relief approach. It feels good to laugh, and we enjoy humor
so much because nervous energy is jettisoned or released.
The release of nervous energy has definite implications for human
wellness. Multiple health benefits of humor have clearly emerged from a
variety of research projects, indicating psychological and physical heal-
ing enhanced (DuPre, 1998; Moody, 1978), which sustains explanation via
the relief theory of humor. Such release of tension clearly can have bene-
ficial physical consequences, including lower blood pressure and strong-
er functioning immune systems, protecting humans against disease and
decay. Hence there exists some scientific backing for the cliché that
laughter is the best medicine. Yet more recent research calls into question
the direct physiological evidence of humor experiences’ health benefits. It
turns out the positive effects of humor may be found more in the area of
social support and emotional positivity rather than direct physiological
effects (Martin, 2007). It is natural, however, for humans to seek such a
pleasant way to ease tensions and relieve nervous energy.
Relief theory also focuses on how humor results from releases of ener-
gy due to subconscious overcoming of sociocultural inhibitions. Freud
(1911) held this to be the essential source of humor—venting nervous
energy resulting from subtle social inhibitions through conscious jokes or
actions, or experiencing reduction of social pressure through laughter.
Lewd or scatological humor thus may serve as venues for comic resis-
tance to social norms while in practice preserving them intact. The relief
involved with discussing or playfully violating a basic social norm pro-
vides a feeling of mirth and a humor experience. Consider for the relief
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 15

theory the stress and frustration experienced when one’s accomplish-

ments are unjustly critiqued. One reassuring piece of advice was once
given: “You know, all of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays
no attention to criticism.”
Humor can also relieve tensions during human interaction. A speak-
er’s use of humor to reduce potential animosity or dissonance often
seems to fit the relief theory well. Sharing a joke with the audience can
serve to release nervous tension through reducing apprehension and un-
certainty audiences may have about a speaker or a controversial tension-
producing topic. Similarly, in relationships, a joke can release tension by
showing that a play or paratelic mindset is acceptable or welcome, and
open up avenues for further interaction and relationship development.
The sense of relaxation can be palpable, and as an explanation of humor
origin relief theory shows the strong effects humor has as a social lubri-
cant and cohesion enhancer.

Superiority Humor
The superiority theory holds that humor results from a sense of tri-
umph or winning (Feinberg, 1978; Gruner, 1997; Morreall, 1983). Humor
may have evolved from success in the hunt or in battle to success with
verbal jousting, and then to a success of understanding (Ziv, 1984). A
sense of relief and pleasure became humor from a literal victory—a suc-
cessful hunt or defeat of another human group—ensuring safety for a
period of time. Primitive exhilaration over a physical victory became
supplanted through the centuries by a successful verbal riposte, which
today can emerge through understanding a joke about others or seeing
sophisticated satire making light of politicians or commentators one does
not like. As a child (and some may still be overgrown children) one may
find something hilarious about the three stooges, Larry, Curly, and Moe,
slamming each other about and getting clunked on the head or knocked
clear off their feet. After developing more abstract levels of cognitive
ammunition, however, adults can appreciate subtle mockery or put-
downs that require understanding of ongoing events along with social
norms or political preferences that get violated.
Superiority humor also serves to explain the attraction of pleasant
mirth responses as a common individual and social reaction to stupid or
ignorant actions. Laughter follows descriptions of people acting in ignor-
ant ways, as one comments on how “these people are too stupid to live.”
The violation or contradiction endemic to humor is held to have an edge
to it—the violation indicates the superiority of those who perceive it and
presumably would not engage in the violation themselves. This theory
easily explains how laughter is used as a social corrective to enforce
social norms (Ziv, 1984). It is not pleasant to be “laughed at,” though we
love to laugh “with” others. Being laughed at threatens our social stand-
16 Chapter 1

ing or personal identity in society. So, we seek to avoid such laughter by

correcting our behavior and conforming to human society. We seek unity
in “winning” social groups, to laugh with them and at others.
Superiority theory’s typically hostile laughter may have originated as
a “victory yell”—exhilarating to share in, but deadly for those subject to it
(Chapman & Foot, 1996). A battle won could lead to exhilarating expres-
sions of humor as superiority. Humor that harshly critiques others’ char-
acteristics or actions, or resonates with a putdown effect, illustrates the
superiority theory today. With increasing levels of civilization, such hu-
mor emerges when a group experiences a sense of superiority over others
troubled by unacceptable violations of norms or ignorance. Humor can
reinforce a “winning” unity of group members as superior or “in the
know.” Research does show that we enjoy humor that disparages a dis-
liked group or individual more than other disparagements, as they seem
to “deserve it” (Zillmann, 1983). If I joke with a person about someone
who has wronged him, he in hearing it will enjoy it more than if I joke
about a good friend or someone he admires. Humor is seen to have a
“gotcha” effect—part of the humor is that someone is bested.
The paratelic nature of humor also indicates it can be like a game, and
humor is viewed as “playful aggression” (Gruner, 1997). Laughter in-
volves a sense of winning, regardless of the specifics of the situation.
There will be an identifiable winner and loser in humor, as played by Mr.
Brown in our earlier example. Even jokes or one-liners without a clear
victim, it can be argued, show a sense of superiority on the part of those
who can comprehend them and appreciate the humor involved. The
understanding, humor-appreciating self is a victor. Even when laughing
at oneself, using self-deprecatory humor, one can be viewed as a winner
now who has overcome one’s losing, then-ignorant, unsuccessful self. In
some way, then, humor is a triumph over another, whether in under-
standing, success, or victory. The game of humor may be won by those
who laugh along. Even those who lose may laugh, but more often than
not they would not be expected to, as they may not even know enough to
laugh.
A thriving source of enactments of superiority theory is accounts of
people less than smart, or less then familiar with commonly accepted
norms or knowledge. Consider, for instance, the humor found as travel
planners reported the following complaints from returning customers:
“We went on holiday to Spain and had a problem with the taxi drivers as
they were all Spanish,” or, “I was bitten by a mosquito. The brochure did
not mention mosquitos,” as well as, “It took us nine hours to fly home
from Jamaica to England—it took the Americans only three hours to get
home. That seems unfair.” Humor here stems from a sense of superiority
as we may chuckle and wonder, “How can people be so clueless?” There
is a one-up and a one-down party in all instances of humor, according to
superiority approaches. Someone “got it” and someone did not. Super-
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 17

iority theory finds such an edge of condescension and successful conceit

in most instances of humor.

Incongruity Humor
The incongruity theory holds that humor results from a mental reac-
tion to something unexpected, unusual, or odd in a nonthreatening way
when an accepted norm or pattern is violated. This difference must be
close enough to the norm to be nonthreatening, but different enough to
be remarkable (Berger, 1976; Deckers & Divine, 1981; McGhee, 1979;
Schaeffer, 1981). Such difference provokes perception of humor in one’s
mind along with an emotional experience of mirth. This theory empha-
sizes cognition, though–individuals must rationally understand patterns
of reality to recognize differences. Appreciating humor requires the men-
tal capacity to understand and categorize expected patterns and mild
deviations from them, including an unexpected event or object, a physi-
cal or moral defect, an odd or disproportionate object, or an observable
deviation from an implied standard. A key aspect of human survival is
identifying patterns and responding to them. Humor winds up inter-
twined with this capacity, as sudden alterations or violations of patterns
may be viewed as funny. A “safe” pattern change may then be contrasted
with a “dangerous” pattern change, the former calling for mirth with the
latter calling for serious action. Humor then becomes a way to recognize
and deal with nonthreatening changes or surprises.
Incongruity theory relies most on people’s mental juxtapositions,
comparisons of pattern perceptions, and explorations of multiple abstract
concepts needed to appreciate humor. Once people recognize patterns in
life, humor becomes a way to play in a paratelic manner with them. One
classic test of this theory asked individuals to move books, one at a time,
from one table to another. After participants had moved several, a book
was placed in the set that looked like any other but was lined with lead
filling, making it very heavy. After following the initial pattern of book
moving, participants responded with laughter upon lifting the dramati-
cally heavy book (Deckers & Kizer, 1975). Even the brief development of
an understood pattern was enough for its violation to elicit a humor
response. Humor thus stems from cognitive ability to detect and under-
stand patterns, and then perceive and incorporate violations of those
patterns.
Humor development has indeed been found to occur in correlation
with cognitive development in children (McGhee, 1979), which reinforces
the cognitive perspective of the incongruity theory. As children grow,
they gain more ability to manipulate abstract thoughts and understand
more sophisticated patterns of thought and observation. Some actions or
sayings that are funny to children may be funny in additional ways to
adults. A preschool child playing “teacher” may tell his friends to “Get
18 Chapter 1

out your mat and get on it,” and have them play along, while an adult
laughs at the additional notion of how apt an imitation of a common
teacher saying that phrase it was. The adult has the mental capacity to
add the abstract “teacher script” and “imitation teacher script” to the
basic idea of playing school that engages the children. This ability to hold
and compare abstract thoughts in mind seems essential to humor.
An element of surprise is also a key ingredient in humor, but not
essential. When an incongruity—a violation of expected norms or mental
reasoning patterns—suddenly and dramatically presents itself, a person
seeks to resolve the incongruity. A child, for instance, telling another
child to “Get out your mat and get on it,” is not a normal pattern, even if a
teacher does it regularly. The surprise of hearing it from a child can be
part of the humor experience. Even if the event itself is not a surprise,
some resolution or integration with expected patterns is necessary for
understanding humor. Humor appreciation requires a dramatic rear-
rangement of concepts in the mind (Maase, Fink, & Kaplowitz, 1984).
Such a change in concepts, as the mind adjusts to a pattern violation and
a possible new pattern, may result in humor.
A humor-triggering divergence from the norm also must be moder-
ate—neither so minutely different as to be unnoticed, nor so shockingly
out of place as to provoke fear. If one is unaware of a pattern, or only
aware of the basics, a minor violation may not even be perceived, pre-
venting humor appreciation. Conversely, a dramatic violation that pierc-
ingly strikes one’s notice may engage emotions other than mirth due to
feelings in response to threat or danger. Strong emotions can overwhelm
humor–anger, fear, outrage, or disgust can prevent its appreciation.
Consider, for instance, two recommendations for “maintaining a
healthy level of insanity”: When the money comes out of the ATM,
scream, “I won! I won!” Alternatively, when leaving the zoo, start run-
ning toward the parking lot, yelling, “Run for your lives! They’re loose!”
We can immediately picture such typical situations of modern life, but
can then appreciate the sudden violation of the expected pattern. In the
first situation, the juxtaposition of getting cash with successful gambling
at a machine can be two abstract concepts that blend in the mind to
produce laughter. If one did not understand the routine of getting cash
from an ATM, or how gambling machines worked, the situation might
not be funny. The second situation may be taken seriously, and humor
might not be present—a sincere threat from loose animals might be per-
ceived, as the second person joins in the sprint. Too much deviation from
an expected pattern may shock and alarm, preventing humor apprecia-
tion. Thus, the alteration of the norm must be noticeable, sudden, and
require adjustments of expected thought patterns. Therein lies the hu-
mor, according to the incongruity perspective.
Incongruity theory focuses on what needs too happen conceptually
for people to laugh or “get a joke.” Pattern recognition is key (Nowgen,
 Communication and Theories of Humor Origin 19

2008). Understanding of any particular content or subject matter in a

message requires recognizing a pattern so that violations and alterations
of it can be comprehended and reacted to with mirth. Varied individuals
can respond completely differently to the same content, so the theory
emphasizes how, wherever the source, a pattern violation produces a
sudden, pleasant psychological shift results in humor experience (Mor-
reall, 1983). Pattern recognition theory explains how humor is sparked
when one’s brain recognizes a pattern that nevertheless surprises it,
which conjunction leads to a mirth experience (Nowgen, 2008). Recogniz-
ing patterns has enabled humans to quickly understand the environment
and function effectively within it. Of course, human communication as it
takes place through language is also based on extensive patterns. A clash
of perspectives in mind seems essential to experience humor (Veatch,
1998).
Pattern recognition theory also reinforces the incongruity approach’s
expected correlations between the development of humor and the devel-
opment of cognitive ability in infants. Previous research has shown that
children respond to humor long before they can comprehend language or
develop long-term memory. Alastair Clarke drew out the process where
humor development parallels pattern recognition:
Amusing childish games such as peek-a-boo and clap hands all exhibit
the precise mechanism of humor as it appears in any adult form. Peek-
a-boo can elicit a humorous response in infants as young as four
months, and is, effectively, a simple process of surprise repetition,
forming a clear, basic pattern. As the infant develops, the patterns in
childish humor become more complex and compounded and attain
spatial as well as temporal elements until, finally, the child begins to
grapple with the patterns involved in linguistic humor (Alastair
Clarke, in Nowgen, 2008).
Recognizing clashes and comparisons of patterns, then, leads to a humor
experience. Pattern recognition and disruption are the keys to humor
from the incongruity approach. A moderate yet striking alteration in an
expected pattern can lead to humor through incongruity.
However one seeks to explain humor, it has profound effects through
communication on human society. All of the elements, whether relief,
superiority, or incongruity, can be found integral to humor creation, and
comprehensive efforts to include all of them lead to the conceptualization
of humor as a pleasant cognitive shift. A change in perceived pattern may
lead to amusement, which involves relief and/or a sense of safety, secur-
ity, or victory. Even through exploring explanations of humor origin,
however, it is clear that humor is essential to the human experience and is
communicated extensively during human interactions. Perceiving pat-
tern violations, tension-relieving perceptions, and compelling successes
20 Chapter 1

lead to experienced humor, and communicating allows sharing those

experiences that bind humans together in relationships and social
groups.
 TWO
Functions of Humor in
Communication

Humor in communication not only serves to transmit information or

share meaning but also engages a relationship between those exposed to
the message with humor. Humor will “say something” about the rela-
tionship or context, giving humor a component of meta-communication
(Berger, 1995). Humor uses will guide and affect conversation, make
statements about topics, and affect relationships. Attempts to understand
the purposes or functions of humor in communication generally start
with the basic division: humor unites or divides (Meyer, 1990; 2000).
Humor thus communicates multiple meanings and serves multiple com-
munication purposes at once. Yet, one still asks, through what means
does humor unite or divide? More specific functions of humor have been
clarified in specific ways ranging from detailed studies of humor creating
slight laughs in conversation (O’Donnell-Trujillo & Adams, 1983) all the
way to the comic as an overall perspective on life, literature, and drama
(Burke, 1984). Some access needed to be found to the multiple ways hu-
mor functions in communication so that they could be reliably and con-
cisely characterized. Research has explored all these potential functions,
from the macro to the micro.
Key conversational functions occur through the invocation of humor’s
most vocal marker—laughter: it indicates a switch of turns, it shows how
to hear a comment, it shows how a comment was taken, it asks for further
elaboration, and it shows unity in the relationship (O’Donnell-Trujillo &
Adams, 1983). Through seemingly trivial laughter during a conversation,
communication is managed subtly in a variety of ways. Such conversa-
tional laughter often fits a humor-as-relief perspective, since nothing may
be truly perceived as funny, but laughter is used as an expected conversa-
tional cue. A first analysis showed that a slight laugh can indicate one
21
22 Chapter 2

conversant is finished, and awaits the other’s contribution. This makes

laughter serve as “permission” for the other to speak next. A second
alternative allows a small conversational laugh to instruct the hearer how
to perceive a comment. Perhaps the comment seems unduly harsh, and a
laugh is perceived to moderate it. Potential humor may inhere in a com-
ment, and the speaker invites the hearer to perceive it through a little
laugh. Thirdly, a listener can signal, “I heard you” in turn through a brief
laugh. Even something that is not “really” funny can be acknowledged
through a minor chuckle rather than a verbal statement. A fourth pos-
sibility emerged when short laughs invited the other party to elaborate
on a subject. The small laugh called into question how the receiver per-
ceived the message, and the sender thus extended and altered remarks to
clarify intended meaning. Fifth and finally, almost any instance of brief
laughter in a conversation has the function of meta-communication, indi-
cating increasing affiliation through interaction. Thus, short instances of
conversational laughter give specific cues but also communicate the pres-
ence of a growing relationship. Humor is a rich medium indeed, as even
small laughs can serve to communicate so much.
Conversational laughter serves multiple “micro” social functions,
then, as small laughs can structure interaction by simultaneously indicat-
ing positive regard for the person, curiosity about the other’s view of the
topic, a view of the situation as not too serious, and that it is now the
other party’s turn in the conversation. Giving consent to a topic change is
another common conversational function of laughter (Holt, 2010). Laugh-
ter can thus perform conversational functions in communication almost
independently of more overarching theories of humor and how it works.
Indeed, we may invoke such conversational laughter, or brief guffaws or
chuckles, so readily that they are practically mindless. Little theorizing or
planning stands behind such conversational ebbs and flows using humor.
Such “micro-conversational” analysis, although useful, leaves off the
wider social functions humor may serve.
Examining humor as a profound reframing of perspective that can
result in a whole audience sharing belly laughs suggests that humor may
serve deeper and socially intense purposes moving beyond momentary
conversation management. A comic perspective may let people see alter-
native perspectives and correct perceived errors, while a tragic perspec-
tive locks one into one’s situation or on one’s course through life as
determined by fate (Burke, 1984). If one “comically” can stop worrying
even for a few moments about consequences, and entertain and laugh at
various alternatives to the current pattern, a better alternative may
present itself for one’s return to telic pursuits. Verging on the level of a
philosophy of life, one may enact a comic perspective for amusement,
refreshment, rejuvenation, or creativity. Perceiving and exploring various
pattern violations can enhance one’s ability to deal with life’s events, and
find alternative courses of action. One may even correct mistakes by find-
 Functions of Humor in Communication 23

ing another alternative. The excitement and advanced creativity that re-
sults in social groups engaged in such a comic perspective, as opposed to
the despair and oppression (even in the face of possible efficiency) one
associates with tragic-oriented groups, suggests humor may serve a use-
ful social function indeed.
Within any conversation, such laughter as occurs can communicate
positively about relationships, or unify a group through its contagious
spread sparked by evaluating procedures or events (Keyton & Beck,
2010). Since laughter most often signifies humor to a lesser or greater
extent, an overarching “comic” perspective is evident when humor is
experienced. As humor unites and divides people, through doing so so-
cial groups are constituted, relationships grow or die, and social boun-
daries are established. Thus, simply by invoking any kind of wit or joke
in conversation, humor serves key social functions. Humor use promotes
a “sharedness” that can enhance relationships and further interaction,
even at the expense of dividing from or alienating some others.

HUMOR AS LIFE PATTERN DISRUPTION

Construction of any humor model rests on how humor is conceptualized.

Some common pattern or foundation must be found. Years of theorizing
and research about humor provide a logical candidate for this root of
humor. A common element in humor research involves the detection of a
change, whether in a person’s perceptions, cognitions, or physiological
responses (Gruner, 1997; Morreall, 1983; Shurcliff, 1968). With humor,
something alters; something is disrupted for a person. Humor most often
stems from a pleasant change, and thus people seek out humor and con-
sider it to be a key part of a desirable personality and life experience.
Whether seeing a pattern or concept in a new way or becoming unified
through mutual understanding of a script or pattern, the humor experi-
ence is often a rewarding adventure. But adventure implies dealing with
a change, and the presence of some kind of alteration in events or percep-
tions is at the root of the humor experience.
Humor’s useful place in human evolution may arise from its spur
toward change and adaptability. Disruption may be necessary for hu-
mans to adjust to life effectively. We tend to get into patterns in life, get
comfortable, and not want to be enticed or forced out of them. Having
only one unitary set of actions or perceptions in mind may then prevent
needed alterations for survival. Acting like a repetitive machine instead
of a choice-making living thing makes humor necessary, according to
Bergson (1911). Rigidity leads to routine and vanity and in itself becomes
comic, and laughter corrects it by returning elasticity of perception (Berg-
son). “Loosening up” one’s perspective and lightening one’s hold on ex-
pected actions or perceptions can then lead to adaptations that provide
24 Chapter 2

for survival in changing environments. Change is necessary for life and

growth, and humor can help humans face it and even appreciate and
embrace it.
Actual examples of humor are important to be brought in, to illustrate
points and also make the study of humor more fun. For the purpose of
exploring humor and adaptability, consider, for instance, the potential
answer to the question: “Do female frogs croak?” if the answer is given:
“If you hold their little heads under water.” The question invokes
thought about the pattern of sounds animals make. We might think, “Is it
the male frogs who croak?” The joke abruptly shifts to a more morbid
consequence emerging from an alternative meaning to the word, “croak.”
This is a sudden alteration of a pattern made, and many find humor in
such sudden changes of perspective. This then may remind us that differ-
ences between the sounds animals make are less relevant or a subsidiary
factor compared to what may kill them. Familiar patterns may then be
juxtaposed in new and less familiar ways, facilitating human creativity
and change.
All overarching theories attempting to describe the origins of humor
acknowledge that it stems from a change or disruption of the life pattern.
We think or live with certain patterned expectations, and an event hap-
pens or a thought is perceived that changes our perceptions, and then a
response that meets certain conditions involves humor. Thus, a primary
key to any model of humor experience involves a violation or disruption
of the normal or expected life pattern. This may be a thought, a message,
or an action, but something disrupts one’s norm that may potentially be
viewed with humor. The disruption must fall within a midrange of note-
worthiness. If the violation is too threatening, emotions of fear or anger
will overwhelm the potential mirth response to humor. Alternatively,
trivial or unnoticed variations will likely not result in humor experience,
because the overall expected pattern observed appears solid. A notable
but nonthreatening violation of a pattern, though, has high humor poten-
tial.
One finds humor, then, in a middle range of noteworthy violations of
life patterns. Events or sayings that occur catch enough attention to pro-
voke thought. They often surprise in some way. In confronting pattern
violations humor experiences reside. Consider, for instance, the arch
phrase, “In spite of the cost of living, it’s still popular.” It is normal to
complain about high prices, but then suddenly when compared to not
needing to pay them due to not being alive, the saying puts the prices in a
different perspective. Humor may well result, along with exploring dif-
ferent thoughts about the issue. The “standard pattern” of complaining
about prices was disrupted by considering the blessing of being alive. A
similar phrase notes, “Where there’s a will, I want to be in it.” So, for one
still living, getting something more from one who is not could be
good . . . and the expected cliché about a will leading to a way is sudden-
 Functions of Humor in Communication 25

ly substituted by a reference to a document related to death. Such sudden

pattern violations are often found humorous, and an experience of mirth
results.
The capacity for a life pattern disruption to be perceived as humorous
rather than serious has been suggested to result from a mental resolution
of the disruption. Some solution to the altered state is mentally available
as an incongruity is explained or resolved (Suls, 1972). This resolution
lets the response be mirthful and invoke humor rather than invoking fear
or anger and immediate action to oppose or mitigate the disruption. The
resolution can be considered socially appropriate (Oring, 2003), or be
possible individually using some logical mechanism (Attardo, 2001) that
results in humor being perceived. Later discussion will explore how indi-
viduals choose to experience humor rather than more serious and other
less pleasant reactions like confusion or annoyance.
Changes and violations of life patterns can spark humor even in the
face of dramatic, tragic events that change life forever. Even during tragic
and near-death experiences, people have used humor to deal with them.
Once tragedy is accepted in some way, laughing in the face of it can serve
as a coping mechanism. In this way, any change of life can be laughed at,
even serious injury, loss, or death. People have sought the limits of hu-
mor; what changes or alterations may be beyond laughter, and none have
been found. Even in the aftermath of the terrible 9/11 attacks on the
United States, for instance, one cartoon showed an office window filled
by a giant plane clearly about to hit the building, with the office worker
standing at his desk, saying, “Honey, I don’t think I’ll make it home for
dinner tonight.” Personally, I found this in poor taste, but the humor
intent was clear. Even terrorist attacks that take thousands of lives—quite
the violation!—may be laughed at in some contexts.
Humor can give a sense of perspective even on otherwise tragic
changes of existential state. Compelling accounts exist. Studies of World
War II Holocaust survivors and prisoners of war in Vietnam are rich with
references to humor invoked to alter perceptions, change necessarily
tragic conceptions of the situation, and socially unify in the face of unac-
ceptable situations (McGhee, 1999; Morreall, 1997). Laughing at guards’
characteristics or personal foibles, as well as personal situations of torture
or confinement, was possible and brightened the spirits of those in other-
wise intolerable and tragic situations. Being able to mentally explore such
tragic life alterations through humor does seem to enhance the human
ability to cope with them and adapt to them.
Similarly, in interpersonal relationships, humor also helps people deal
with grief and loss. Those able to joke or laugh at comments relating to a
tragic situation showed more ability to maintain health and social func-
tion in the wake of grief (Booth-Butterfield et al., 2014). Laughing at death
or in the wake of death, often seen as socially unacceptable in many
contexts, still happens very often. In some cultures and even more widely
26 Chapter 2

in more recent times, this is even encouraged. One of the most famous
and popular episodes of the 1970s situation comedy, The Mary Tyler
Moore Show, dealt with how to deal with the death of a clown—when was
laughter appropriate? It turned out, in very humorous fashion, even at
his funeral! Although humor use in certain social circumstances normally
may be viewed as “socially unacceptable,” people find ways to use it
anyway to cope with loss and change. This experience actually seems to
enhance the human ability to adapt and cope, in defiance of expected
social norms. Humor’s capacity to disrupt events perceptually and social-
ly is valued even in ultimately tragic situations where one would expect
to humor use to be inappropriate.
Although humor is disruptive, people desire it to be so, as one of the
most pleasurable human experiences. People go out of their way to seek
humor, as popular movies, television shows, comedians, and joke-telling
indicate. Such disruptions in the form of humor lead to a contagious
humor state, spread to others by facial expressions and especially by the
sound of laughter (Chafe, 1987). That sound becomes more than just a
byproduct of the human body’s expulsion of air, as it makes known to
others that one is experiencing humor, which often infects them too. An
individual disruption thus becomes a social disruption, affecting a rela-
tionship or entire group. Laughter may be thought of as a signal indicat-
ing safety in the face of a social disruption (Morreall, 1983). Laughter,
through indicating lack of seriousness or threatening violence, can reas-
sure individual social survival intact even through a disruption. Humor
thus changes human lives through social interaction as well as individual
perceptions and thinking.
Humor produces arousal in social beings because it represents a rup-
ture in, or a temporary subversion of, the routine character of social life.
Laughter is then a spontaneous physiological response to the violation of
deeply embedded expectations about “what kind of thing should be hap-
pening here.” Examining jokes as apparent violations of a commonly
understood social order can reveal a lot about that very social order. A
humorous treatment of a topic, or laughter at it, can serve to mitigate a
threat or communicate its absence in a situation. Humor use seems to
provide morally, politically, or relationally safe ways to express ideas in
spite of the restrictions that any kind of order—even an order voluntarily
produced and reproduced—will inexorably impose. Jokes may also, for
both tellers and recipients, jointly produce an intelligible social order.
Gary Fine (1976) explored how obscene humor provided “safe” ways to
deal with sexual or unhygienic threats to society by laughing at playful
violations of them. American “bachelor parties” on the eve of a wedding,
in one instance, allows laughter at sexually explicit behavior in the face of
ongoing and soon reinforced social restrictions on sexual activity, espe-
cially within a marriage. The object or cause of the humor will reinforce
desired social patterns.
 Functions of Humor in Communication 27

One approach to humor interprets all of its indicators and its sharing
as manifestations of disablement (Chafe, 1987). Since the situation is play-
ful or “safe,” a response that leads to laughter physiologically reinforces
reduction of any ability to respond seriously or in any way that could
create serious consequences. A sense of “nonseriousness” or not being
concerned with immediate consequences may be communicated by
laughter between people (Chafe, 2007), and also experienced by individu-
als who may be viewed as disabled through humor experience. One can-
not fight when one is doubled over in laughter. The experience of humor
keeps people from acting, partly by physically disabling them, partly
through pleasure that distracts them from performing any serious task.
Laughing hard makes it difficult to get anything accomplished, as trying
to lift something while doing so indicates, or trying to make a decision as
a group in the face of strong laughter. Consider U. S. Vice President Joe
Biden, introducing as part of a campaign address a state senator who was
in attendance but who also was in a wheelchair. Not seeing the latter,
after introducing the man Mr. Biden intoned, “Stand up, Chuck, let eve-
rybody see you.” This was followed by uncertain laughter, as Biden then
noticed the situation, and said, “Well, there he is . . .” After that point, it
became difficult for a time to continue the speech with any intended
serious political topics. Similar frustrations are experienced by group
members wanting a serious discussion from a group that is distracted by
laughter at some humorous diversion. Such disablement or nonserious-
ness apparently helped human survival enough that it spreads easily
from an individual to others in a group. Laughter can be a signal for
safety or lack of concern that can transcend visual presence (Morreall,
2009). Serious, possibly regretted actions were avoided by communicat-
ing a sense of safety in the face of a noted disruption. Thus were humans
prevented from continuing to act on an ineffective perception or follow a
damaging course of action.
The key to humor as a desirable disruption emerges when the humor
experience prevents humans from taking things seriously, either physi-
cally or mentally. Humor especially keeps one from taking seriously
things one ought not to take seriously (Chafe, 1987). Everyday life often
leads to circumstances that might suggest taking a particular action; yet,
with a broader perspective, one understands that it should not be en-
acted. Jokes and humor shared therefore often suggest what NOT to do,
reinforcing social norms by calling attention to their violation. Chafe pro-
vided an example: A New Yorker cartoon shows a man beginning to
walk across a street when the sign says “WALK.” When he is in the
middle of the street, the sign changes to “DON'T WALK” and he stops,
even though cars are bearing down on him. This cartoon created a world
that has a certain kind of plausibility; a world where one follows instruc-
tions unthinkingly. Although we can understand such a world, a broader
perspective recognizes its counterproductive nature, and instead of tak-
28 Chapter 2

ing it seriously we fall into the humor state, keeping us from actually
enacting such behavior (although often vicariously). Instead of acting in
conformity with that funny world, we expel air from our lungs, our mus-
cles weaken, we feel pleased, and we let others know about it. We also
refrain from acting, as we do not take the situation seriously.
Humor itself, like any social activity, falls into patterns, and thus may
be viewed formulaically: Berger (1997) held that a limited number of
techniques exist to elicit humor, categorized by issues of language, logic,
identity, and action. Within these categories, he found 45 techniques that
create humor, suggesting that the particular changes created by humor in
a person are limited and potentially may be isolated. Language tech-
niques involve invocation of puns, irony, or sarcasm; humor that
emerged from word play or language manipulation. Logic techniques
involve clashes of logic, including absurdity, coincidence, and the com-
mon laughter at mistakes or at accidents, along with overly rigid individ-
uals or repetition. Identity techniques provide humor though character
traits, especially through stereotypes, parody, and imitations. Action hu-
mor involves slapstick or clumsy physical behaviors. Berger’s was the
most comprehensive attempt to classify these specific changes that hu-
mans encounter that produce humor, although others also have at-
tempted this (Chiaro, 1992). Such categorizations of humor forms show
that even pattern violations can potentially be patterned. Still, the wide
variety of potential sources of humor suggests a great number of creative
avenues for creativity through invoking it.
In natural speech, laughter often ensues not in response to jokes but
simply as an accompaniment to what someone is saying. The contagious
nature of humor is regularly used to improve social interaction
(O’Donnell-Trujillo & Adams, 1983), reducing a seriousness that might be
threatening. Laughter’s message implying “safety” may be taken advan-
tage of even if nothing specific can be pointed to as “funny.” One or both
parties to a conversation may laugh without seeking details on what the
other person specifically found funny—even if that person could explain
it. Humor thus serves, like politeness and smiling, as a social lubricant
enhancing interaction. Any need that one person may perceive to take
corrective action against perceived slights or violations by the other is
“put on hold” through such laughter indicating mutual ongoing regard
during a conversation. This allows the conversation to proceed, and for
both parties to risk some creative license in expressing views and bring-
ing up other topics.
Humor’s disabling process actually transforms it into a socially ena-
bling mechanism. Any human social group is in danger of falling into
rigid patterns of social expectations, or routines. Some sort of social dis-
ruption is therefore needed to enhance interest, rejuvenation, and creativ-
ity. Seriously getting things done needs to be balanced by a “play ethic.”
Play, like sleep, is a mentally disabling mechanism that allows people to
 Functions of Humor in Communication 29

disengage from serious activity or transcend a narrow perspective for a

while. Similarly, religion and fiction have shown a similar disabling qual-
ity that lets humans renew energy for more effectiveness when reengag-
ing in activities. People need humor along with play and sleep and rest to
“recharge batteries” for serious undertakings. Animals, for instance, use
play as a way of developing fighting skills in a non-threatening environ-
ment. Consider student experiences during the intense time of studying
for final exams. A serious goal is sought, in the form of studying for
success on the tests to be taken. Yet few are able to focus solely on study-
ing for days on end. At one college, strange get-togethers and outings
took place during final exam week that were rare at other times. How
often, for instance, was one still awake and about as the breakfast cafete-
ria staff arrived for work in the early morning? Laughter ensued at all
sorts of social rituals that would be taken for granted at normal times.
“Finals week” thus led to more unusual funny violations of norms even
as it was set up to be a time of more intense, serious study. More strange
and humorous college student antics likely took place then as opposed to
any other time. Even so, the fun involved with such laughable events, if
not taken to extreme, could reinforce and reinvigorate students for the
needed study. As Chafe (1987) noted, humor serves as a social lubricant
through its disabling quality that allows humans to become less competi-
tive and less combative. Creativity is therefore enhanced by less self-
serving and “straight-jacketed” thinking. Humor thus allows for mental
rest through its disablement, leading to more innovation and apprecia-
tion of multiple perspectives.
A welcome disruption to the life pattern may indeed serve, then, as an
apt descriptor of humor. People seek out such disruptions, and in the
current time they constitute a desired component of communication. A
safe interruption may be a welcome respite from serious activity, and
lead to consideration of creative ideas outside the initial rigid thinking or
social pattern one was engaged within. The implied message, of safety,
too, can lead to the initiation and enhancement of human relationships.
Social groups may find cohesion not only in their developing norms, but
in their dealing with violations and disruptions through humor. The per-
vasiveness of humor in our interaction suggests its wide capacity to help
deal with actual or social pattern violations, and to help with communi-
cation.

HUMOR AS UNITING AND DIVIDING

Even as multiple theories have attempted to explain the origins of humor,

it retains paradoxical qualities. It can unite communicators and show
good will, but it can also divide or put people down as well. We all know
the frustration and discomfort of being “laughed at” rather than
30 Chapter 2

“laughed with.” Yet making somebody laugh or laughing together at a

mutually funny event can lead to euphoric feelings of affection or togeth-
erness. One also notices how laughter can result simultaneously in strong
feelings of unity among those participating while invoking joint aggres-
siveness against outsiders. “Laughter forms a bond and simultaneously
draws a line” (Lorenz, 1963, p. 253). As a unifier, humor wins affection,
maintains consensus, and narrows social distances in groups (Ziv, 1984).
Humor can also set social boundaries and differentiate some groups from
others.
Emotional effects of humor structure social interaction. Humor that
unites suggests an “ethic of care” that helps prevent hurt to others, while
humor that divides focuses more on an “ethic of justice” that expects
everyone to be treated equally (Socha & Kelly, 1994). Thus, uniting hu-
mor supports others and pulls people in as group members, while divi-
sive humor judges and calls to account anyone who may be acting differ-
ently or expecting “special treatment.” In some ways, humor use can
reinforce the ultimate unity of a group, as sharing laughter indicates that
people mutually care for one another. A sense of security between people
can serve as a needed basis for sharing humor (Miczo, 2004). A sense of
justice, though, makes it possible to “call out” through using humor those
who are violating a group’s fairness norms. Warm, unifying effects of
humor reinforce the group’s unity and cohesiveness, and divisive conse-
quences of perceived injustice or unfairness show the norms of the group
and reinforce its boundaries against people who may violate them.
Humor strengthens groups through emotional contagion—the mirth
experience spreading through a social gathering. This can enhance inter-
action—yet instances of failed humor, failure to self-monitor statements,
and perceptions of a serious situation can halt a potential positive spread
of positive affect through a group (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). The socially
rewarding aspect of experiencing mirth helps the integration of an indi-
vidual into a group. Shared laughter indicates a shared perspective and a
sense of belonging in a group. The alienating effects of being laughed at,
meanwhile, indicate a form of social exile, or of not fitting in or behaving
as expected. One conforms to avoid being laughed at, adapts enough to
the group norms so that laughable nonconformity is balanced by value to
the group, or leaves the group. Failed humor thus can reinforce group
boundaries. Successful humor strengthens the group by increasing the
desire of members to communicate together.
Humor is seen as both facilitator and friction-inducer in social interac-
tion, depending on how its use unites a group or sets it apart from a
ridiculed other. Humor reinforces consensus, enforces norms, yet also
enacts conflict, possibly all at once (Martineau, 1972). Laughing together
indicates shared patterns understood among members, along with noting
their violation. Laughing at violations can then reinforce the norms being
violated. Those who violate norms may come to resent being laughed at,
 Functions of Humor in Communication 31

and respond in ways to show that conforming to that norm is not or

should not be so valued by group members. The conflict potentially ensu-
ing may reinforce or alter group norms, which then in turn become rein-
forced through group laughter. The shared humor among group mem-
bers may reinforce group norms among them and alienate nonconform-
ists outside the boundaries of the group.
As behaviors and beliefs become reified through what it is agreed is
laughable, social groups are formed and defined through humor (Lynch,
2007). Behavior viewed as outside the norm and thus at least somewhat
unacceptable can be mocked or the violating member teased, invoking a
norm through humor. If a group develops a norm to avoid wearing red,
for instance, due to some symbolic meaning it comes to have for group
members, any member that then wears red becomes subject to teasing
and other humorous remarks by other group members. To avoid mock-
ery or teasing that is too intense, most will conform to be part of the
group; it may not be worth wearing red so the member ceases to do so.
People are usually more pleased to be one with those laughing “with”
rather than the one being laughed “at.”
Three aspects of humor become essential for its uniting and dividing
effects: humor is subjective—it depends on one’s experiences and the
cognitive patterns developed that influence what is found to be funny.
Humor is intentional–one must choose to find some symbol or action
funny or not. Humor is social–one often finds funnier what others also
find funny, as laughter is contagious. Starting with the subjective charac-
teristic—there is no doubt that individual perceptions and experiences
lead to the abstract patterns in mind that effect humor appreciation. Since
we all subjectively perceive events in our own way, the shared perspec-
tive indicated by contagious group humor can be personally reassuring
and socially reinforcing. Yet a necessarily subjective, individual human
mind must perceive the humor.
The intentionality of humor is evident in that other emotions that
affect us in situations may reduce or eliminate our ability to perceive
humor. Each individual chooses whether or not to perceive humor (At-
tardo, 1992), whether due to overall mood or the set of perceptions one
has in a given split second. The sudden perception of humor is also, in
essence, a choice to perceive the situation as humorous. As colleagues
also choose to see the humor in a situation, one may choose to follow
their lead simply to be comfortably included in the group. Thus, one
chooses individually to see humor in a situation, but this can also become
a collective decision as multiple individuals choose to perceive and re-
spond to potential humor in a situation.
Such a collective decision indicates the contagion of laughter. It is very
tempting to join in where others are laughing. Their laughter in itself may
be incongruous in some way, or in an alternative way the social invita-
tion to perceive humor in a situation is difficult to resist. Humans are
32 Chapter 2

social creatures who want to be a part of social events, and humor experi-
ences are no different. Thus, we often laugh along and reinforce humor’s
power as a social unifier.
The combination of these humor qualities leading to a more cohesive
group can be illustrated by studying humor in the workplace. When
members of an organization were interviewed individually to elicit nar-
ratives that encapsulated values shared in their work lives, only the hu-
morous stories were duplicated by multiple interviewees. Such stories,
shared with each other as well as with the interviewer, clearly demon-
strated work values held in common (in one specific case, valuing a sense
of fun, clear communication, and teaching children—Meyer, 1997). The
understood patterns that sparked humor were definitely among the
strongest held in common by people communicating at their workplace;
each similarly chose to find such incidents funny, and sharing these sto-
ries with one another had made them seem even funnier (or, at least, their
outward reactions to humor to be more pronounced). Humor was also
used as social discipline by workers, however—those who violated
norms were called to account by their actions being laughed at in stories.
Clearly, humor divided or united through subjective choices shared by
group members communicating.
Unifying humor has been referred to as affiliative humor while divi-
sive humor has been called aggressive humor (Miczo, 2004; Miczo, Aver-
beck, & Mariani, 2009). The former draws out positive feelings in a group
and strengthens relationships; the latter creates distance between com-
municators and may lower morale between them. A playful frame of
mind makes affiliative humor more likely and creativity follows. As hu-
mans develop cognitively the ability to understand and use humor, they
begin by comprehending a unifying or relaxing function first and then
evolve a more refined appreciation of humor capable of enacting social
divisions. Children’s humor, for instance, develops from a more proso-
cial, silly form in the preschool years to a more antisocial, norm-violating
form during grade school years (Socha & Kelly, 1994). The unifying func-
tions seem to be learned first, before the divisive yet playful forms be-
come invoked. At age 10 or so, politeness violations become funnier than
simple object or language violations. People start with affiliative humor,
then, and later gradually learn to apply its converse, the aggressive per-
spective.
As humans move from a seeking for comfort and security to under-
standing social groupings, humor is used to discover and then enforce
each. Humor creation is facilitated by a sense of security, safety, and
control (Miczo, 2004). Secure attachment to another enhances and is en-
hanced by humor use. Laughter can signal a play frame that promotes a
humorous message—the initiation of one by the sender and acceptance of
one by the receiver of the message. Yet humor can also attack—it can
tease or ridicule or set apart. A violation can be pointed out or a differ-
 Functions of Humor in Communication 33

ence emphasized. Taking humor as playful or not, along with unifying or

not, creates four potential relational functions of humor. Crossing the key
humor paradox of unification and division with playful and nonplayful
aspects of humor produces a typology of humor characteristics.
First, playful unifying humor involves expressing feelings and creat-
ing affiliation, when people laugh together even over trivial things and
grow closer in the process. A sense of security in the relationship is asso-
ciated with this type of humor (Miczo, Averbeck, & Mariani, 2009). Sec-
ond, nonplayful unification humor involves using humor to cope or gain
a new perspective or understanding as individuals laughing together in
the face of adversity do. Coworkers laughing together at the antics of an
oppressive supervisor could fit this function. Third, playful division hu-
mor involves mocking and disparagement that demeans or belittles oth-
ers. Here is where teasing comes in, a more aggressive form of humor
that can unite those laughing against perceived violators or outsiders.
Fourth and finally, nonplayful division humor is concerned with social
control and enforcement of norms. Diverging from group norms or social
expectations may result in a counterweight message involving more ag-
gressive humor to get the violator back in line. In general, playful humor
in a context that feels secure is produced for its own sake, while nonplay-
ful humor is more aggressive and rhetorical as it intends to send a mes-
sage for a practical purpose. Playful humor is pleasant, with resultant
social unifying effects, and nonplayful humor more aggressively manipu-
lates people into social conformity or exile. Humor enactment may even
seem playful to some, who enjoy it, yet also seem serious and divisive to
others, who feel punished or excluded. This paradoxical aspect of humor
allows for multiple social functions that are detailed later.
In the end, humor can serve to unite and divide people even at the
same time, as communicators share appreciation of a message with hu-
mor while others may miss the cognitive pattern needed to appreciate the
violation that sparks the mirth experience or too strongly disagree with
the norm or supposed violation to make the choice to experience humor.
Even with aggressive humor use, the playful nature of humor may over-
power the serious message or goal intended. The paratelic, playful nature
of humor may dominate the interaction, subsuming or even subverting
any telic or nonplayful intent of messages that include humor. Consider a
highway patrolman who unwittingly united and divided through one
statement: A young woman was pulled over for speeding. As the motor-
cycle officer walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book, she
said, “Bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the Highway Patrolman’s
Ball.” He replied, “Highway patrolmen don’t have balls.” There was a
moment of silence while she smiled, and he realized what he’d just said.
He then closed his book, got back on his motorcycle, and left. She was
laughing too hard to resume driving for several minutes. There we have
anyone who ever felt intimidated by the highway patrol laughing togeth-
34 Chapter 2

er at one’s expense, while highway patrol officers may not enjoy that
story at all. In any given situation, a person may choose to unite in appre-
ciation of humor or divide from others by not appreciating it. These
contrasting aspects of humor may be laid out and diagrammed in rela-
tion to one another in order to ascertain humor’s key social functions.

FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR IN COMMUNICATION

Four key functions of humor have emerged from research: identification,

clarification, enforcement, and differentiation (Meyer, 2000). Identifica-
tion and clarification both serve to unite communicators, one by stressing
the shared script or expectations both share, the second making clear
one’s view or opinion through a humorous remark. Enforcement and
differentiation divide communicators by pointing out social norm viola-
tions or lack of knowledge by someone, or simply drawing a dramatic
contrast by putting another party down through humor. These four func-
tions form a continuum from “most unifying” to “most dividing” uses of
humor (Figure 2.1).

Identification
First, enhancing unity with an audience occurs most strongly through
identification, where a message invokes and stresses shared context or
meaning. Humor that strongly elicits laughter reinforces the meaning of a
message about “us,” showing that “we share this”—whatever the topic
may be. Identification humor builds speaker credibility (Gruner, 1985;
Malone, 1980) and group cohesiveness (Graham, Papa, & Brooks, 1992).

Figure 2.1. Functions of Humor in Communication

 Functions of Humor in Communication 35

A key function of communication—reducing uncertainty about others—

through interaction leads strongly to identification. Humor invokes
shared scripts to serve this function by enhancing shared values among
communicators through eliciting mutual understanding and laughter
(Meyer, 1997). We learn what patterns others perceive along with us.
Finding humor together over a common topic leads to stronger unity
through identification.
Speakers often use self-deprecatory humor to relate to audiences by
showing a shared humanity and interest in related values (Chapel, 1978).
A communicator and audience are thus placed through communication
on a similar social level. The speaker shows an affinity for the audience
through comments that avoid perception of being “above” the audience,
but more like audience members themselves. A speaker may poke fun at
a controversial topic or situation showing that both speaker and audience
can see alternative perspectives and laugh at them. Self-deprecation also
creates the understanding by the audience that “I’ve been there” or “I’ve
done that, too.” Too much self-deprecation can certainly backfire, but it is
a common identification tool used by public speakers. Any humor use
that reduces uncertainty and tensions while integrating communicators
into a group serves as a powerful function of humor as a communication
strategy.
As the aspect of humor that strengthens relationships and is socially
the most sought after, identification occurs with messages that include
and stress shared context or meaning. A “truth” is pointed out that com-
municators instantly can share. “Inside jokes” referring back to shared
experiences often fulfill this humor function. An interpersonal bond is
reinforced through shared humor. In one instance, Chalapathi Poduri
(1999) wrote of the
young man who, in his youth, professed a desire to become a “great”
writer. When asked to define “great,” this is what he said: “I want to
write stuff that the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to
on a truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, wail,
howl in pain, desperation, and anger!” He now works for Microsoft
writing error messages.
This shared experience is enhanced by humorous communication in ref-
erence to it, and couples or groups identify more closely with one another
as a result.
Group cohesiveness also strengthens through identification humor
(Graham, Papa, & Brooks, 1992). Through communication reducing un-
certainty about others, humor use can lead to compelling identification.
When others react to humor similarly, a shared experience occurs that
can be remembered and strengthened by later references. One might ask,
for instance, “Why is it that no plastic garbage bag will open from the end
you first tried?” All who share that experience can be drawn together by
36 Chapter 2

that common experience expressed through humor. Humor puts to use

shared scripts that reinforce shared values among communicators
through enhancing mutual understanding and laughter together (Meyer,
1997). Such sharing reduces communicators’ mutual uncertainty and am-
bivalence. Effective use of identification humor places communicators on
the same social level with an invoked common context to build shared
experiences. The reduced uncertainty, tension reduction, and group co-
hesion gained through identification humor makes it highly sought after.

Clarification
Second, clarification humor captures an opinion or belief in a memor-
able short phrase or anecdote. With humor, audiences recall such clarifi-
cations of issues (Goldstein, 1976; Gruner, 1967) and media often replay
them. In the past such quips might make the newspapers, magazines, or a
quick actuality or “sound bite” on the radio or television news. Now they
might spread via email, social media posts, or by views on YouTube.
When the stress of the remark remains on the expected norm rather than
the potential or actual violation of such a norm, such humor use clarifies
beliefs or social norms. A memorable or apt story or phrase emerges that
puts the issue advocated into words in a compelling way. The laughter is
not primarily sparked by a norm violation, but upon some reinterpreta-
tion of the desired social norm itself.
For instance, jokes, quips, and teases have long been noted and exam-
ined in the workplace; there, receiving new information often sparks hu-
mor use serving to clarify how the group will respond to potential
change (Ullian, 1976). The awkward situation of being told to change
something the group is used to or values can be managed by a humorous
remark. Discomfort and uncertainty about change are channeled through
remarks that make light of the need for altering routines or the social
order. Implicit in such remarks is often the notion that change is unwel-
come and will require some adjustment, but will eventually occur. When
an instance of humor emphasizes the expected norm rather than a per-
ceived violation of such a norm, it serves to clarify beliefs or social norms.
People enhance relationships through laughing together at such remarks
that effectively reinforce social norms—by showing that the background
norms and expectations still endure.
Errors and mistakes in messages can be treated humorously, allowing
messages that seek to transmit information yet go awry to actually rein-
force their message through humor. For instance, one female employee
called the office to make some arrangements for procedures after her
baby was born. The next day, she came into the office, only to have
multiple employees do a double take and ask variants of “What are you
doing here?” It turned out word had spread that she had her baby, so she
was involved in many humorous conversations with people letting them
 Functions of Humor in Communication 37

know that, no, she had not had the baby yet (Meyer, 1997). The fact that
she did need to make arrangements for after the baby was born was
reinforced by her clarifying messages, even as much humor was per-
ceived. Thus can mistakes humorously clarify a norm or intended goal.
Messages seeking to transmit information that go awry can actually rein-
force their meaning through humor. Such a message becomes more no-
ticed than it otherwise might have been. Messages that humorously vio-
late work norms may thus reinforce them, as regarding bill-paying: “If
you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments,” as well as the
work ethic itself: “Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off
now.” The incongruity of a message’s violation of expectations makes it
stand out all the more due to its error, yet its intended message is still
implied. The expected pattern of messages is reinforced by laughter at an
“exception” to the norm or rule.
The key effect of the clarification function lets one encapsulate a posi-
tion on an issue through a humorous remark. Rapier wit can help per-
suade through a memorable quip or one-liner. Humor that occurs in a
pointed or memorable phrase with which one agrees but may spark
thought is typical of the clarification function. As the humor use captures
attention and stimulates memory, receivers recall the position advocated
with extra clarity (Goldstein, 1976; Gruner, 1967). Normally, such humor
reinforces relationships or group cohesion. For instance, people of a cer-
tain age might relate to the aphorism, “[age] 35 is when you finally get
your head together and your body starts falling apart.” Such crisp,
pointed comments reinforce a commonly-experienced social norm.
Essential to the clarification function is memorably expressing a posi-
tion on an issue through a humorous remark. One can thus express a
position through a memorable quip or one-liner. Consider the advice:
“always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.” Such a
dramatic clash of concepts may be funny, but also thought-provoking.
Humor allows a sudden and dramatic clash of a perceived violation with
an expected norm, with sender and message receivers sharing that norm
and presuming that it will emerge triumphant after the interaction.

Enforcement
Third, moving toward the more divisive end of the humor function
continuum, enforcement humor allows for the potentially friendly criti-
cism of a social norm violator. Duncan (1962) noted that humor can en-
force social norms through “discipline by laughter.” Humor can be a
“safety valve” for laughing at violations of norms and thus strengthen
the effectiveness of the norm. Teases can gently correct while maintaining
some level of concern for another party (Alberts, Kellar-Gunther, & Cor-
man, 1996; Graham, Papa, & Brooks, 1992; Young & Bippus, 2001). One
can laugh at the ignorance of an outsider to the group, or a child still
38 Chapter 2

learning social norms and knowledge, without malice but clearly sug-
gesting that the person needs to learn the norm or knowledge. Humor
serving this function does stress the violation of the norm, indicating that
it may be funny for now but needs to be corrected.
Enforcement humor enacts criticism of one violating social expecta-
tions. This could be done in the form of teases, or more forthright ridi-
cule. Although similar to the “friendlier” clarification function where
one’s position can be encapsulated in a humorous phrase, enforcement
adds a critical or attacking element. This humor “calls to account” a per-
son or group found to be violating an expected norm, or a found incon-
gruity that needs correction. One husband, for instance, was reported to
say that “I haven’t spoken to my wife in 18 months. I don’t like to inter-
rupt her.” The surprise here serves as a reminder that one should not talk
too much, or that both parties in a relationship should talk more equally.
In such instances of teasing, the humor comes from a violation of a seri-
ous social norm that would often be considered unacceptable. Invoking a
humorous remark serves as a reminder of the norm and the act that
needs correcting. How the other party responds to such a remark can
make a crucial difference in relationships or social arrangements, as dis-
cussed below.
Duncan (1962) explored norm enforcement through humor use, call-
ing it “discipline by laughter.” The desire not to be the subject of humor
or jokes can be strong, and people will take pains to avoid it. Thus, being
teased about something lets that person and other witnesses know that
such divergences from the norm will be noted, pointed out, perhaps ridi-
culed. Paradoxically, even as such enforcement humor may spur some-
one to take steps to avoid violating the norm invoked, relationships are
often strengthened along with social norms through such “corrective
teasing.” Humor often serves to reinforce differences as well as norms
found in work organizations (Lynch, 2007; 2009; 2010). One humorous
question that people have asked can illustrate this: “Why do they lock
those exterior gas station bathrooms? Are they afraid someone will clean
them?” Clearly, what should be done (clean the bathrooms) is not being
done, and this can be expressed in a surprising humorous way. Often, the
source of such humor comes from contradicting norms that many would
never seriously consider removing or altering. The attention and laughter
that such violations receive reinforce the notion that here is an important
social norm that should not be changed. After all, if the norm was trivial
or of little concern, violating it would be a non-noteworthy event. Viola-
tions of a norm that matters, however, prove to be funny because the
norm in fact does matter.
Teases occur in relationships that have grown somewhat close (Al-
berts, Kellar-Gunther, & Corman, 1996; Young & Bippus, 2001). Enough
contact has preceded the interaction that shared norms make possible
mutual understanding of humor “scripts,” and relational norms are fa-
 Functions of Humor in Communication 39

miliar enough for both parties to understand a violation. Yet a focus on a

violation may, in turn, endanger one’s identity or self-concept, and hence
damage the ongoing relationship. One may laugh when a partner forgets
something important, or at some exhibited ignorance or lack of basic
knowledge. Giving seven-year-old children unfinished proverbs, for in-
stance, resulted in the following blanks filled in: “Don’t bite the hand
that . . . looks dirty,” and “you can’t teach an old dog new . . . math,” or
“an idle mind is the best way to . . . relax.” Laughing at such statements
may not indicate actual malice, but the humor clearly suggests that the
person targeted does need to learn. Such humor also may be taken as
criticism, a threat to identity, or the lack of expected respect in a reward-
ing, healthy, close relationship.
Enforcement humor stresses the violation of the norm, indicating that
it may be funny for now but needs to be corrected. The message often
becomes clear: this is a funny violation; but it is funny because it is a
violation, so correct it! Those unable to correct the condition often must
adjust to continual teasing for being, somehow, outside the social norm,
which may increase levels of perceived disrespect and endanger relation-
ships. To some degree, teasing may serve as a friendly acknowledgement
of shortcomings or faults, or even an expression of love. Reinforcing a
relationship may, in the end, grow more important than correcting per-
formance or conforming to a norm. So, some teasing, rather than enforc-
ing a social norm, may serve to “enforce” a relationship, and showing its
continuing strength. Enforcement, in the end, has an element of aggres-
sion or criticism, which may or may not be mitigated by reinforcement of
a strong relationship or cohesive group. That context can provide for
enforcement humor being taken with good fun, or having the edge of
criticism grow sharper, dominating and even alienating in unhealthy re-
lationships or groups losing cohesion. The paradox of humor’s function
becomes readily apparent with enforcement, as far as it sits along the
continuum away from the most unifying humor function of identifica-
tion.

Differentiation
Fourth, the most divisive function of humor, differentiation, contrasts
dramatically one group with another or one speaker with another. One is
being laughed at by those laughing with the humorous messenger. Such
humor exposes social alliances and divisions. Ridicule can reinforce polit-
ical unity among one group’s members as it stresses contradictions and
differences with others (Schutz, 1977). As the harshest function of humor,
its audience may be very familiar with the subject, but are expected to
completely disagree with the humor’s target. This function of humor has
been explored through hundreds of years through theories of superiority,
long viewed as a key element of humor (Gruner, 1997). The strong effects
40 Chapter 2

of differentiation humor emerge from research suggesting that jokes dis-

paraging a disliked group are funnier than those disparaging a liked
group (Goldstein, 1976). The individuals in groups laughing are winners
in some way; those being laughed at are losers. Social groups and hier-
archies are thus laid out through humor use. Differentiation humor sets
up and reinforces social boundaries.
Highlighting differences or contrasts between one group or individual
dramatically opposed to another, differentiation is a forthrightly divisive
humor function. A communicator ridicules another speaker or group by
drawing a memorable distinction between them. One party is clearly
laughed at by anyone expected to laugh with the humorous messenger.
Those who perceive the humor in such remarks understand the social
divisions referred to. Those who are ego-involved in a social group that is
placed apart or lower may well see the attempt at humor as ineffective or
“lame” if not an outrageous insult. Differentiation humor thus exposes
social alliances and divisions. For instance, one easy and highly universal
division encountered in such humor occurs between the sexes, as in one
story that made the rounds via email several years ago:
After a quarrel, a wife said to her husband, “You know, I was a fool
when I married you.”
The husband replied, “Yes, dear, but I was in love and didn’t notice.”
The final line takes the implied put-down of the husband by the wife
and turns it right back on the wife. Thus, the wife calls herself a fool, and
the husband agrees, placing the putdown back upon her. Such harsh
differentiation humor blatantly posits one person or group as better than,
or superior to, another.
Humor reinforces the sense people want to have of belonging to a
“good group” or of being a “good person” as opposed to those others
who are funny due to ignorance or malevolence. Consider a story stem-
ming from public disgust with legislators: A New York lawmaker called
a travel agent and asked, “Do airlines put your physical description on
your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?” The travel
agent said, “No. Why do you ask?” The lawmaker replied, “Well, when I
checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said FAT,
and I’m overweight. I think that’s very rude.” The travel agent said he
would look into it and put the legislator on hold. It turned out, he came
back on the line and explained, that the code for the Fresno, California
airport is “FAT”—Fresno Air Terminal, and the airline was just putting a
destination tag on the legislator’s luggage. Note how anger and frustra-
tion with elected officials finds expression in such stories. It is a pleasure
for those outraged by legislators to laugh together at such stories, which
reinforce how different—and inferior—“they” are when compared to
“us.”
Differentiation humor has long been a social tool for “setting apart”
the other. Putting opponents or those outside of desired social norms in
 Functions of Humor in Communication 41

their place through mockery—by showing that they believe or do ridicu-

lous things—is a staple of comedians today, and of the “royal fool”
through the years. Comedians ridicule wayward individuals who flout or
are ignorant of social norms, unique or odd social groups, or even power-
ful leaders who act flawed. One of Cicero’s highlighted persuasive tools
for defending citizens of ancient Rome was to ridicule their accusers
through humor (Volpe, 1977). Once Cicero was finished at a trial, the
accuser looked so ridiculous that judges could put no credibility in the
accusations, and would exonerate the defendant. Closer to our own era,
President Abraham Lincoln developed comic storytelling into a major
source of argument and evidence (Schutz, 1977), using ridicule as a pow-
erful rhetorical weapon. He would often point out how ignorant to conse-
quences his pro-slavery opponents’ arguments were, by using an anec-
dote or memorable turn of phrase. Politicians in our increasingly comic-
focused culture are only too happy to see opponents ridiculed, differen-
tiating themselves from foolish or malevolent rivals.
As the harshest function of humor in terms of dividing social actors
and potentially endangering relationships, differentiation contrasts a vio-
lation of social norms or expectations with those people unified by a
sense of conformity to those same norms. This function has been viewed
through the superiority theory as the key explanation of humor going
back to Plato’s time (Gruner, 1997), and humor use generally was seen as
“low” or “ungentlemanly” through many more recent eras (Martin, 2007;
Morreall, 1983). Human society is geared to enact social differentiation as
cultures evolve differences between groups and hierarchical levels that
create divisions and violations of expectations (Burke, 1984). These
contrasts can certainly be brought to light through humor. Individual
differences are even richer for exploring through putdown humor or
teases. Pattern changes, differences, contradictions, rejections, can all be
subject to a humorous message or response. Social groups and hierarchi-
es are thus laid out, explored, and reified as differentiation humor sets up
and reinforces social boundaries.
The paradoxical nature of humor—as it both unites and divides—can
be explained by its elements occurring simultaneously. The mental flash
that results in an experience of humor assimilates several cognitive fac-
tors in an instant. Veatch (1998) suggested that in order to experience
humor, one must possess a sense of a moral order, or pattern, and a sense
of its violation in mind at the same time. Both perceptions must be
present simultaneously for humor to be experienced. A recognized pat-
tern, or norm, is thus juxtaposed with a violation or incongruous altera-
tion of the pattern. Since humor necessitates perception of both and hold-
ing them in mind at the same time, humor can simultaneously readily
unite or divide humans socially. Aspects of the specific relationships and
situation involved will influence which humor function is enacted.
42 Chapter 2

Some guidance can be given for determining which humor function

will emerge from a humorous message or event. Divisive humor can be
distinguished from unifying humor by the stress in the communication
upon the norm or its violation (Meyer, 2000). Although, in order to per-
ceive humor, one must have a sense of the normal and a sense of its
violation in mind at the same time, communication of the humor can still
focus on one or the other. Stress on the violation leads to divisive func-
tions of humor (involving enforcement or differentiation). The violation
becomes the main purpose of experiencing or invoking the humor, and
its divisive effects become primary. A focus on the norm, with the viola-
tion sensed as a humorous exception to the normal that will soon return
undisturbed, leads to unifying humor (involving identification or clarifi-
cation). Unifying humor involves the ingratiating, rewarding functions
that people enjoy the most, as the comfortable, secure, expected norms
are highlighted as dominant. Whatever element the humorous message
or event focuses on thus determines its place on the function continuum.
Humor can stress the expected pattern and its underlying solidity—serv-
ing the identification and clarification functions—or it can stress the vio-
lation of the moral order in service to the enforcement or differentiation
functions. Thus, two key functions of humor serve to socially unite, two
to socially divide, and the context and participants determine what ele-
ments are emphasized as humor emerges and which function will follow.
 THREE
A Model of Individual Humor Choice

Humor occurs in the mind as a cognitive, yet at times unconscious, expe-

rience (Apte, 1985). Scholars have suggested that perception of a poten-
tial humorous event precedes a judgment phase where one experiences
humor and perhaps expresses it (Leventhal & Cupchik, 1976). Humorous
incidents are judged based upon both affective and cognitive informa-
tion, so that experience and situation are involved in the presence of
humor. As noted earlier, relational and cultural history and context pro-
vide the “scripts” through which surprising twists and violations of a
moral order are perceivable (Veatch, 1998). Yet, the individual experience
of humor in communication by each person remains relatively unex-
plained; social effects may be readily catalogued as in the functions of
humor discussed earlier. From an individual perspective, however, why
do individuals experience humor? Why does one take a comic perspec-
tive rather than a tragic? That question still merits exploration.
Laughter is one physical manifestation of the individual humor expe-
rience, but only one. Even without laughter, one may find humor in
events. One can explore the individual desire to get into a mindset that
includes humor to see how that mindset leads to manifesting that humor
in communication. As individuals experience life, what happens in the
mind to lead to the experience of humor? This chapter seeks to model
that process with implications for what then happens as humor is ex-
pressed in communication. In essence, we each have a constant decision
to make. The messages and events one perceives will be perceived as
funny or not. Each individual makes continuing choices as to what is
funny (Berger, 1995). What happens that leads one to make a choice to
view something as funny? What, in essence, sparks a person to choose
the comic mode as opposed to the tragic mode?

43
44 Chapter 3

The comic mode implies a playful situation that makes the emotion of
mirth possible. Pleasure is taken in a pattern violation or a relief of some
stressor. Contrasting perspectives mesh and humor is perceived. There is
more objectivizing of whatever is perceived (Grimes, 1955), and consider-
ations of alternatives are readily undertaken, yet without immediate con-
cern for possible consequences or action to be taken. The tragic mode, on
the other hand, focuses directly on potentially dangerous consequences
to a situation and often on an immediate action that must be taken. Mak-
ing a decision about what is to be done is of immediate moment, and
potentially bad consequences loom from practically any alternative. In-
stead of “playing” with possible juxtapositions of perceptions, immediate
and clear perception of the “truth” is desired, because a decision fraught
with implications is necessary. The tragic mode involves only bona-fide
communication in a telic mode, where consequences matter and mes-
sages are to be taken literally and seriously as given. A sense of “entrap-
ment” is pervasive in the tragic mode, while the comic mode has a sense
of liberation from “requirements” or immediate consequences. Thus, tol-
erance and creativity—and allowance for mistakes—are more fit for the
comic mode, while errors can be damaging or even fatal when one oper-
ates in the tragic mode.
Once an event, phrase, or more generically labeled life pattern disrup-
tion that may lead to humor occurs, there can be wide variation in human
responses to it. Some find it funny, and experience humor, but others do
not. Explaining these idiosyncratic differences has been a key barrier to
developing a comprehensive theory of humor in communication. There is
a clear element of intentionality in humor, as individuals choose whether
or not to find an event or perception funny (Attardo, 1992). This individ-
ual choice is at the heart of humor creation and appreciation: before it can
be social, it must be an individual choice to initiate or experience some-
thing as funny. So we begin with a potential humor event: something that
an individual might choose to find funny. Should one take it seriously,
and treat it as necessitating thought and action that leads to direct conse-
quences to the self? Or should one play with it mentally, seeing alterna-
tive perspectives simultaneously, and taking pleasure in unusual impli-
cations or juxtapositions of thought and symbolism? One can sense a
difference as mirthful, funny, delightful, or uncertain, dangerous, requir-
ing consequential thought or action.
This key choice illustrated in the model (figure 3.1), when a pattern
violation in the form of a disrupted norm or a psychological shift occurs,
involves whether or not to find it funny and experience humor. Even if
humans do not consciously make such a choice, mood and previous ex-
periences set the stage for the split second in which one experiences
humor or does not (Carrell, 1992). One can view the event in a playful,
non-serious, paratelic or comic mode, taking it lightly and not showing
concern for serious consequences. Alternatively, one can view the same
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 45

event as serious in a telic or tragic mode, showing great concern for

practical implications and consequences of the event. The latter choice
precludes the humor experience, while the former encourages it.
The experience of humor has been placed abstractly in a mental state
referred to as the comic mode (Burke, 1984). One can treat events and
statements “in fun” and thus not accept serious consequences as neces-
sary or relevant. This mode enhances creativity, largely due to the ability
to perceive varied perspectives simultaneously (Veatch, 1998). One can
remain personally at a distance from events, thoughts, and consequences,
as one “toys” with them in mind and perhaps laughs at them physically.
Less concern for practical worries about an issue makes possible creative
and dispassionate consideration of it. A sense of distance from events and
potential control of them serves for humor experiences to release tension,
improve health, and make events seem more manageable (DuPre, 1998;
Lefcourt, 2001). One person asked to keep a humor diary to discover
patterns of humor in relationships (Meyer, 2012) reflected on his use of
humor to spark conversations in the comic rather than in the tragic mode:
“Since it is not possible for me to be angry and genuinely laughing at the
same time, I assume the same is true for others, so I use it as a defense
mechanism against hostility.” By choosing the comic mode in many of his
initial communications with others, he hopes to encourage the same
mode for others, thus making possible flexible and pleasant communica-
tion with some “safety factor” of escape from direct considerations of
serious consequences of anything to be said.
The tragic mode, on the other hand, involves seriously accepting and
perhaps lamenting one’s fate that in general cannot be changed (Burke,
1984). The consequences of one’s actions are mentally imminent and
overwhelming. Even if one has a choice, it is fraught with drama and
potentially dangerous consequences. Because consequences matter so
much personally, no psychological distance or playfulness is possible
with options or perceptions of them. Laughter or any humor experience
is considered inappropriate and perhaps trivial. Tension grows and one
is “serious” about the issue—choices must be made and the consequences
matter. The model, thus, presents at its heart this split between experienc-
ing humor or not as the basic, crucial, stark choice. Will a given pattern
disruption result in experiencing humor through the comic mode, or re-
sponding to serious consequences in the tragic mode?
To view life in the comic mode rather than the tragic, Burke (1984)
suggested two acts: (1) see an actor as not evil, but mistaken, and (2)
critique oneself and one’s own actions in the process. One finds no
“crime” in being wrong, but it is a “crime” to be evil. Evil must be ex-
punged, but error must simply be corrected. By distinguishing between
evil and error and by preferring the latter critique over the former, Burke
placed a critical “Other” within the public sphere as correcting errors
rather than rooting out and destroying evil. Consider much current polit-
46 Chapter 3

Figure 3.1. Individual Humor Experience Model

ical commentary in the United States. It seems directly rooted in the

tragic mode—the other side is evil and must be eradicated, is the constant
assumption one sees online and on the news networks. Burke suggested
a critical “laughter” at other’s acts while we also laugh at the self’s own
misguided acts. We are all human, and we can all laugh at ourselves in
service of a rigid good/evil ideology. People can avoid the role of oppres-
sor or victim by taking a comic perspective on the situation. Also, poten-
tial critics can push away from a “precipice of victimage” by critiquing
themselves. In pointing at “Others,” one points back at oneself. Humor
can thereby serve as a “shock absorber” for the negative potential of over-
zealous outrage or anger. A comic approach to life, thus, has been advo-
cated by Burke and others seriously if ambiguously and abstractly. There
are, however, concrete elements that can shed light on the mystery of
how one chooses the comic or humorous perspective of a given situation.
It is high time to explore these elements in detail.
The key to this humor model (figure 3.1) is the explanation of the
choice whether or not to find humor in an event, and the consequences of
that choice. Inside the model’s largest “black box” one finds a character-
ization of the key decision people make, consciously or unconsciously,
about the potential humor experience: will one find it funny or not? Key
reasons, unique to each individual in a given situation, are suggested that
turn the decision toward the comic mode, and appreciating and experi-
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 47

encing humor, or toward the tragic mode of remaining serious about

events. The major factor here can be summarized as the personal involve-
ment in the issue at hand. How central to one’s identity is the pattern
alteration in question? Is there a perceived threat? Or is one’s overall
situation good in spite of the change or contradiction noted? The most
relevant determinant of the humor experience is the involvement of one’s
identity, or ego, in the situation that could be humorous.
Ego-involvement is thus the “number one” determiner of the humor
choice. The more ego-involved in an issue one is, the more identity one
has invested in the issue and the more consequences matter to the indi-
vidual (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965). Thus, the capacity to see humor
in a situation is less with larger levels of ego-involvement. High ego-
involvement in an issue leads to a choice of the tragic mode, since iden-
tity issues are wrapped up in the situation and its consequences will
make a perceived large difference to the person. On the other hand, low
ego-involvement in an issue leads to the comic mode since identity threat
is not paramount and effects of the event are not immediately or serious-
ly relevant which creates an ability to playfully consider norm violations
or alternatives. A distraction or disruption in an accepted pattern can be
enjoyed amusedly rather than worried about. One maintains an objective
distance from any potential threat to one’s identity in the situation. Con-
sider a humor journal entry from an elderly couple facing the mental
deterioration of one of the pair—a serious, sad, and therefore tragic situa-
tion. Yet they can laugh about this situation daily, rather than remaining
serious or (even justifiably) grieving over it:
Joe has senile dementia and it helps to keep things lighthearted and on
an even keel. Every night I hand him his two pills and almost every
night he asks, “Are these my sleeping pills?” and I answer, “No, they’re
your memory pills.” He answers, “Well, they’re not working are they?”
Even one of the most central facets to one’s identity, one’s own mental
capacity, can be treated as not totally ego-involving, allowing for the
experience of humor. Thus it may indeed be true that “one can find
humor in anything.”
Also key to humor appreciation is script awareness (Attardo & Ra-
skin, 1993; Raskin, 1992). One must know the pattern in order to know
that it has been violated. If one has only cursory knowledge of a language
or situation, one may not understand how a violation has occurred. Or,
one may view it as simply a “random variation” encountered in life with-
out attaching any meaning to it. If no relevant social meaning is tied to an
act or symbol, no meaningful alteration of it may be perceived, and hence
no humor may be experienced. Bona-fide messages assume that, follow-
ing a stable pattern, the consequences to the communication matter to the
individuals involved, and a serious response is expected. The script is
followed literally, with no elaborated or subversive meaning. With hu-
48 Chapter 3

mor, however, non-bona-fide messages may follow as they do not “mat-

ter” since follow-up actions are not required; messages simply may
“play” with concepts and acknowledge the contradiction or duality of
perceptions inherent in humor. Beside the literal meaning messages may
have, receivers may understand more subversive meanings of messages
relating to a pattern violation. With humor perceived, a variety of per-
spectives are simultaneously possible, the purposes or meanings of mes-
sages communicated may suddenly change, and so non-bona-fide mes-
sages are not meant to be taken “seriously.” We have all had the experi-
ence of trying to communicate some information or opinion, only to have
another crack up with laughter or respond with a funny comeback line
that we did not expect. We may join in the comic mode in this case, or in a
state of irritation seek to seriously communicate what is intended. Yet the
clash of bona-fide and non-bona-fide perceptions can certainly interfere
with communication, until both parties move to the same mode. In the
beginning, though, each individual must make that choice, of perceiving
humor in a comic perspective or not in the tragic one.
Other important issues that affect the humor choice include the source
of the message, the mood or state of mind of the individual, and the
confidence level experienced related to the issue. One takes previous
humorous acts into account when evaluating messages from a given per-
son in a given situation. The situation likely gives a person cues as to
whether a serious bona-fide message is intended, or whether one should
be prepared for “play messages” or non-bona-fide communication. Also,
one’s mood or context affects the humor choice—sadness, anger, or fear
may engender a tragic mode choice; alternatively, a readiness to engage
happy or joyful emotions can enhance appreciation of humor. Yet, even
in tragic situations people are capable of appreciating humor (McGhee,
1999). One may choose a mirthful response even in the face of tragedy or
error. Another couple found humor in a mess, for instance: “I don’t mind
when Jim gets great pleasure out of something I do wrong. I dropped an
egg and made a big mess and it delighted him. I love to see him laugh.” A
“tragedy” in the form of a mess to be cleaned up can also be viewed as a
rather entertaining pattern violation. Who sends the message to a person
and what situation and mood that person is in lead to the comic or tragic
choice. With so many variables involved, there may not be any single
given formula to explain what occurs in the “black box” leading to the
choice of comic mode appreciating humor or the tragic mode missing it
entirely.
A more complete understanding and sense of control of a situation or
issue can also lead to the choice of the comic mode (Burke, 1984; Davis,
2000). A lack of control or confidence in an issue, however, can prompt
one to worry or fear and thence to enact the tragic mode. Serious, conse-
quence-invoking messages may then be expected and sent. One “alterna-
tive path” to humor is proposed by the model, in that a situation where
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 49

one initially is serious, highly ego-involved, and earnestly concerned

with consequences of a situation may develop in such a way that one’s
own view or beliefs are reinforced or supported by an incident that is in
itself a pattern violation. This is the kind of instance involved in satire,
discussed later, where one realizes a serious issue is being addressed but
in a manner consistent with one’s own thinking. The security or safety
thus engendered (Miczo, 2004) encourages one to take a comic approach
and appreciate the humor in the situation. Then, the person may be able
to experience humor as personal identity gets reinforced and confidence
in the topic is bolstered. Disagreement with the humor presented, or its
implication of an opposing view, may prevent the comic choice and keep
one in a tragic mode considering serious consequences of such a perspec-
tive.
The humor model seeks to clearly represent the key experience indi-
viduals undergo in the event of a potentially humorous act, highlighting
the crucial choice in favor of or against experiencing humor, and some of
the consequences to thought and to communication. Once one makes that
choice of comic or tragic mode, life proceeds along with communication
and the next potentially humorous event will need a decision, whether
the next statement in the conversation or the next life incident. Thus
emerges the next pattern disruption, and the model is enacted once again.
This potentially could happen dozens of times during a single conversa-
tion; or for other individuals at other times perhaps a dozen times in a
day. Simple models like the one presented here allow for the heuristic
value of being taken and applied in a variety of situations and inspiring a
variety of research questions. Such a simple model may not fully capture
the major opening of the mind to alternatives that occurs with humor
appreciation, yet it does suggest the path toward that choice. With less
ego-involvement in an issue, and more of a sense of mastery or control,
one’s mind can explore in a playful way varying and surprising possibil-
ities. Humor allows creativity that a serious pursuit of an issue may lack.
Consider something as simple as not being able to open a package one
is eager to get into. One may declare war, as in “I am going to get into this
package in whatever way, as destructively as it may be.” This tragic
mode in an extreme could lead to hurting oneself or what is in the pack-
age. But accomplishing the same goal can be possible through the comic
mode, as one humor diary entry illustrated:
Today my wife was trying to open a package she received in the mail.
She was having difficulty getting it open, and started roaring and pull-
ing at it in a dramatic display like a cross between a professional wres-
tler and a monster. She then started making more funny angry grunt-
ing noises, and pulled with exaggerated force on the package. When it
finally ripped open, she gave several muscle-flexing poses and talked
in an Arnold Swartzenegger-like voice praising her accomplishment.
50 Chapter 3

This sounds so entertaining, and in ways preferable to the stress and

anger induced by the war-declaring tragic mode of treating such a hin-
dering package. Not only was the goal accomplished, but done so in a
humorous and entertaining way, with other options for getting into the
package also on the table.
Elaborations on this model are possible going forward. Some are un-
comfortable with the idea of a forced, bipolar, yes/no decision regarding
humor. One may not be able to be “a little bit pregnant,” but could one
perceive a little bit of humor? Perhaps. No model is perfect, and this one
is no exception. A continuum of humor experience might be suggested,
as a contrast to this bifurcated model. Indeed, to characterize individual
humor use, a Humor Assessment instrument (Wrench & McCroskey,
2001; Wrench & Richmond, 2004) has been developed as an improvement
upon an earlier Humor Orientation Scale (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-
Butterfield, 1991) to indicate varying degrees of humor perception and
use in one’s communication. Certainly one may view people as having
more or less of a sense of humor, and any given situation would likely
lead to more or fewer perceptions of humor within it. Perhaps one could
see degrees of humor in a situation; from none at all, to appreciating how
it could be funny but not finding it funny, to finding it a little funny, all
the way to finding it hysterically funny. Yet, in the end, somewhere along
that continuum or line, one must cross a boundary of either finding the
situation funny or not, and that is the key point of focus for this model.
One odd characteristic of this model showing up in a book about
communication is that it is dramatically individual-focused, as, according
to it, humor need not be shared. One can simply go through life experi-
encing events and choosing whether or not to see the humor in them or to
or see them as tragic. Yet one cannot escape the fact that, whatever or
even in spite of social influences, each individual decides for the self
what will be found funny. Conceptualizing humor shared through com-
munication could conceivably duplicate this model for each person in-
volved in an interaction. Such a shared model would grow increasingly
complicated, with differing instances of humor appreciation for each in-
dividual response to each act and thought involved in a given communi-
cation situation. This idea is explored further in a later chapter. In this
model, though, any further act or thought can be taken as a new disrup-
tion in the life pattern, and the process is enacted again. Since this process
occurs for each individual communicating multiple times, a full model
may need to be of several dimensions and so complex as to be non-
presentable on paper. One yearns for a more practical and simple way to
conceptualize humor shared among individuals; perhaps in that case we
are returned to the basic models of human communication after all is said
and done.
One additional social question occurs: Can one party influence an-
other to perceive humor? Could one initially see something tragically or
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 51

seriously, but through brief further interaction be convinced to find that

something funny? This seems possible, yet the model as is would simply
record the first instance as a choice of tragic mode, and then the second
instance as another disruption in the life pattern leading to a comic ap-
preciation of humor. The impact of communication, in this individual
model, simply acts as a new disruptive event to enact the model once
again as the individual makes a new choice about the comic or tragic
mode, and then does so again, and again, and again . . . . No recording of
precedents or messages building upon messages is made by this model.
Still, there is acknowledgement of message source and situation in the
model, yet solely for each new life pattern disruption. One must then
explore how humor in communication could be characterized on a group
or social level. The next step, then, is to further explore the multiple ways
that individuals choose a humorous or comic perspective and when com-
municating together experience humor and weave it into the fabric of
their relationships.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL HUMOR

Even as humor is social, and requires recognizable cultural patterns or

expectations to be violated, individuals are viewed as having more or less
humor involvement. Each individual likes or expresses humor in unique
ways and varying amounts. The idea of “having a sense of humor” im-
plies that one can have one or not, or, more practically, one has more or
less ability to appreciate or engage in humor. Individuals have different
levels of knowledge for understanding recurrent patterns and noting
their violations that lead to experiencing humor. Likewise, individuals
have multiple levels of motivation for experiencing humor—they may
avoid holding multiple perspectives in mind at the same time through
emotional ego-involvement in an issue, remain in a telic or tragic mode
pursuing serious goals or experience dominant influence by a strong
emotion. Such conditions can be trait-focused, recurring regularly and
typifying an individual. They can also vary by day, mood, or situation,
representing a state of humor appreciation rather than a more long-term
trait. Many attempts to measure individual levels of humor have posited
or presumed an internal, stable, ongoing trait of humor appreciation.
Researchers have sought to tap into individual levels and types of senses
of humor by devising individual humor measures. Some individual traits
that a level of humor appreciation may relate to include intelligence,
flexible thinking, problem-solving, and reduced tension or anxiety (Mar-
tin, 2007). The hope has been to track varying levels of individual humor
appreciation as related to many other communication variables.
From such an individual perspective, questionnaires have been de-
vised to measure one’s humor orientation. Early measures of individual
52 Chapter 3

humor experiences focused on humor appreciation, or how funny varied

stimuli were found to be by different individuals. People were found to
respond to humor in terms of enjoyment, or how funny something is, as
well as a rejection or sense of dislike or aversion (Ruch, 1998). A set of
jokes and cartoons that a widely diverse human sample could under-
stand was collected, and large numbers of people rated their funniness.
The most common factors found across different types of humor events
centered around three types of topics: incongruity-resolution, nonsense,
and sexual humor. Incongruity resolution involves the classic jokes or
anecdotes that one can understand by accessing a different perspective
other than the one the story initially invokes. Thus, two “scripts” or pat-
terns are held in mind at the same time. Nonsense humor involves hu-
morous antics or stories or sayings with no clear “answer” or resolution.
Acting silly or offbeat humor like that found in Gary Larsen’s Far Side
cartoons fits the nonsense label. Finally, and not surprisingly, sexual hu-
mor involved sexual content themes, and people seemed fairly stable in
terms of how funny they found this type of humor to be (Ruch 1998). This
type of research through questionnaires uncovered the key types of hu-
mor that people across settings and cultures enjoy, as well as picking up
on individual differences in appreciation level for each type. In general,
people who enjoy social interaction and have low levels of anxiety, de-
pression, or guilt appreciate all of the types of jokes or cartoons.
Exploration of individual humor appreciation in communication
started with Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield’s humor orientation
scale (1991). This questionnaire places individuals on a continuum from
low humor orientation to high humor orientation, with those at a high
level far more likely to engage in attempts at humor as well as seek out
humor in their surroundings and communication. Humor orientation
was measured primarily as how much one tells jokes or funny stories in
talk with other persons, as well as how funny one perceives others find
one to be in conversation. Thus, if one honestly answers the items on the
scale, one obtains a rating for how much one contributes humor in typical
conversations. Although focused on the amount of humor initiated rather
than how it may be appreciated, a great deal of research proceeded to see
how humor orientation levels related to other communication variables.
Indeed, it turned out humor orientation was related to a bucketful of
other communication trait measures. An early, clear finding followed
that persons high in humor orientation were naturally more gregarious
and involved in conversations, initiating more and talking more. Humor
orientation also correlates with many other important communication
variables, as explored below.
Another individual measure that focused more on how people use
humor was put forward as a uses of humor index by Graham, Papa, and
Brooks (1992). This scale tapped the positive and negative intent of hu-
mor for relationships. People were found to initiate humor use for pur-
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 53

poses of positive affect, expressiveness, and negative affect. The first pur-
pose, positive affect, involved unifying or ingratiating humor, or the like-
lihood of telling a joke or making a humorous remark to show similarity
or affiliation with others. Expressiveness involved self-disclosure and ex-
pression of feelings. Self-deprecating humor and sarcasm or irony about
one’s personal failures fit here. Finally, negative affect turned out to be
instances of humor that served differentiation functions, including de-
meaning and belittling others. Interpersonal competence was found to be
greater with those who used more positive affect humor, unsurprisingly.
More negative uses of humor tended to be viewed as means of control of
others. Humor emerged clearly as one crucial tool in competent commu-
nication and relationship-building.
A newer measure highlighting humor assessment created by Wrench
and McCroskey (2001) moved beyond the dimensions of joke-telling and
storytelling to include contributions of funny sayings and generally “be-
ing funny” in social situations. An added survey for those receiving hu-
morous messages from the target communicator included dimensions of
humor appreciation in communication as well as that of humor initiation
studied in earlier measures. The humor assessment instrument was more
sensitive to how much one “got” a joke, as in how much of the script did
one know, as well as how much one “approved” of the humor, as in
found it funny (Richmond, Wrench, & Gorham, 2001). The researchers
sought a global measure of one’s sense of humor as expressed through
communication. The humor assessment instrument also found level of
humor initiation in communication correlated with elements of sociabil-
ity and communication satisfaction, and communication competence.
An entire research program has followed from the presentations of
these scales, focusing on how individuals handle humor and sets of com-
munication variables that correlate with those measures. Individuals
high in humor orientation use humor more spontaneously and have
more flexibility in their communication (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, &
Booth-Butterfield, 1995). They more readily comment in fun and can
spark humor in a variety of situations. They also will explore a great
variety of topics in communication, and are more likely to “go with the
flow” in conversation. They also can initiate conversation and joking
around on unique or unusual topics, They find humor in more situations
than those low in humor orientation, and they also like to create positive
impressions with communicators and likely work harder at it.
Those with high humor orientation, thus, are perceived as funnier and
more entertaining by others. These people are “the life of the party” and
are fun to talk to on a personal level. They tend to brighten one’s day, as
they can be fairly counted upon the get others to laugh, smile, or appre-
ciate a creative thought in conversation. People seek them out for conver-
sation and to develop relationships. Thus, more humor-oriented individ-
uals are less lonely and have enhanced social attractiveness (Wanzer,
54 Chapter 3

Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1996). Sometimes those who seem

to so easily engage in conversation with others and readily develop ongo-
ing interactions with them may base that skill on a high humor orienta-
tion. They have a “talent for friends” as they are often as popular as they
would like to be and have fewer difficulties in initiating and maintaining
relationships.
High humor orientation relates to conversational and nonverbal sensi-
tivity in interaction, along with reduced receiver apprehension (Merolla,
2006). These are the people who can put one at ease in conversations, and
get one talking more and more by showing smiling support. One gets the
idea of social support conveyed, and high humor oriented people give
the sense, through humor, that things may not be as bad as they seem, or
may be coped with, or success achieved in the end. They more readily
reflect the nonverbal signals of the other in conversation and present a
sympathetic and supportive ear. In seeking to entertain, though, high
humor oriented individuals may not be the best of listeners for long.
They will seek to give their input, but in a funny and entertaining way. In
the end, they may not be the most sensitive and patient listeners, but their
friendly sharing of perspectives through humorous remarks and stories
will put one at ease and provide for a pleasant conversation.
Highly humor oriented people cope better at work and are more satis-
fied with their workplace (Booth-Butterfield, Booth-Butterfield, & Wanz-
er, 2007). The ability to initiate humor in communication seems to relate
to remaining open to alternatives, hope for improvement, and a positive
attitude about work events. Those higher in the hierarchy see multiplied
benefits from a high humor orientation. Workers in power positions find
that higher humor orientation relates to credibility, compliance-gaining,
and even patient satisfaction (Wrench & Booth-Butterfield, 2003). These
are the people who are believable, inspire trust, and motivate others to
follow their desires or suggestions. Through the tendency of humor to
capture attention, ingratiate through relating to others, and mark memo-
ries, highly humor-oriented people readily find themselves wielding a
source of powerful influence. In a wide variety of organizational settings,
higher humor orientation facilitates satisfaction and influence, overall.
Individual humor orientation may be viewed as a key tool, among others,
for enhancing relational, cooperative, and management skills. Humor use
lets individuals build cohesiveness by sharing work “scripts” or experi-
ences with others, and a greater individual knack for such communica-
tion tasks may make one more successful at work.
As one ages, humor orientation makes one more able to cope with
life’s health difficulties and enhances personal satisfaction (Wanzer,
Sparks, & Frymier, 2009). The “power of positive thinking” seems borne
out in research results suggesting that humor initiation leads to im-
proved results via communication that then relate to both one’s health
and attitude toward life. Finding ways to initiate humor can indeed im-
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 55

prove one’s own life as well as that of those with whom one shares
communication. Higher levels of self-reported sense of humor associate
with higher levels of extraversion and social adaptability. These are the
people more willing to communicate in various social settings and will
change messages—and types of humorous stories and remarks—to fit the
social situation. Retaining such a flexible and happy approach to life
throughout one’s life cycle, especially as one ages, is a worthy goal, and
suggests that cultivating humor appreciation and sharing that with other
can contribute greatly to life satisfaction.
The propensity to use humor may actually be partly biologically de-
termined and partly culturally learned (Wrench & McCroskey, 2001). To
some degree, then, “we cannot help it.” We are funny or we’re not. Yet
enough research shows that we are not “locked into” whatever level of
the trait of humor orientation that may be measured at one time. The
stage is set by biology and genes, but we can influence our own humor
orientation by choosing a comic mode more often, seeing the humor in
situations, and then choosing to communicate that humor in some way
through messages. The health and social benefits of humor use to indi-
viduals may translate into longer, healthier life spans and more ability to
adapt to changing natural and social environments. The evolutionary
benefits to humor in individuals follow, as greater levels of humor appre-
ciation lead, arguably, to better abilities to survive and cope with health
and social difficulties—to enhance one’s life overall. This may explain
why the capacity for humor seems “built-in” for humans and is biologi-
cally useful in an evolutionary way.
As these individual tests of humor have developed, two dimensions
of individual senses of humor have been measured. One is the ability to
create humor; to see incongruities and readily communicate them to oth-
ers. The second dimension involves humor appreciation, or the ability to
understand and enjoy messages invoking certain incongruities (Ziv,
1984). In spite of the rich quantity of research involving the initiation of
humor in conversations, most people appreciate humor and engage in
laughing but are less readily able to create laughter in others. Thus, the
second dimension seems more readily developed than the first. Many
individuals can laugh together readily, and appreciate humor in a variety
of ways without necessarily even laughing out loud. Yet, fewer people in
any social group show great ability to create humor, whether through
stories or thoughtful sayings. The uniqueness of “class clowns” comes to
mind; these were almost always a small minority of any social group. The
fact that comedians can make a living being funny does suggest that their
abilities are relatively rare and prized highly. Most individual measures
collapse both aspects of sense of humor together, but the measures dis-
cussed here of humor creation can elaborate on unique comic production
capability, but there is no pretending that a strong ability to initiate and
create humor in conversation is truly widespread in the population. Even
56 Chapter 3

if we should all be more open to trying humor initiation, we need an

account of the majority for whom appreciating and welcoming humor
into their communication is their primary contribution. One can choose
the comic mode, after all, without becoming a comedian or a clown.
One may ask what is unique about individuals who become come-
dians, or have the uncanny ability to appreciate or initiate humor in the
blink of an eye in a variety of situations. Studies have shown that one
common factor in highly comic people is gregariousness from a young
age—these are often the “class clowns” in school or other childhood set-
tings. Family dynamics also play a somewhat common role—mothers
were described as more distant yet demanding, lacking intimacy and
signs of approval toward the child (Fisher & Fisher, 1981). Fathers were
in general described as rather passive. This left the child seeking approv-
al by making others laugh in the face of a family situation leaving one
lonely and often taking care of oneself or others at a young age. Such
extensive humor use may stem from a deprived or isolated childhood,
and be enacted as assertive engagement of audiences through humor,
taking pleasure in giving pleasure through the smiles and laughs of audi-
ences. Studies did not show comedians as more depressed than the norm
(Martin, 2007), but certainly they have as a rule overcome some sort of
tragedy during their youth. This may not be a dramatic loss, but even a
lack of affection or love over the long term in their first years could lead
to development of a skill in order to find affection through making others
laugh. Through such skill, the extremely highly humor oriented bring
entertainment and joy to all, opening for many the door to the comic
mode of dealing with a wide variety of topics and social situations.
All individuals can, however, choose to find humor in situations and
adopt a readiness to appreciate humor. The ability to have a play frame in
a relationship, or take an approach less concerned with a practical goal,
corresponds with a paratelic enactment of a sense of humor. Individuals
certainly differ in their willingness to play or invoke their senses of hu-
mor. This ability affects dramatically relationships with others and how
those evolve. Nathan Miczo (2004) showed how humor appreciation re-
lates to people’s sense of security in an interaction. Anxiety about attach-
ment to significant others, beginning in infancy, associates with less hu-
mor use. Positive uses of humor increase with one’s willingness to com-
municate. Improving responses to stress and relating to others clearly
stem from affiliative, unifying humor use. Affiliative humor use relates to
reduced anxiety, playfulness, and effectiveness in interactions (Miczo,
Averbeck, & Mariani, 2009). Use of aggressive humor goes along with
avoidance of attachments. One can use divisive humor to set oneself
apart socially and maintain distance from others. Individual characteris-
tics and choices in humor use, thus, can unite one with relationships and
social groups or set one apart from them.
 A Model of Individual Humor Choice 57

Cann, Zapata, and Davis (2009) advocated an intriguing multidimen-

sional measure, the Humor Styles Questionnaire, incorporating both pos-
itive and negative humor styles. This more effectively and thoroughly
measures an individual’s humor appreciation and use tendencies. Devel-
oped by Martin and others (2003), the measure takes account of four
humor styles: it can be used to unify or affiliate with others, enact aggres-
sion toward others, enhance the self, or demean the self with putdowns.
An analogous continuum ranging from the identification to differentia-
tion functions is thus incorporated into the survey items. These then
interact with treatment of the self to present four individual humor fac-
tors. Affiliative self-enhancing humor may invite laugher at shared ene-
mies or avoided failures, while aggressive self-enhancing humor puts
others down forthrightly. Affiliative other-enhancing humor seeks unity
through laughing at a mutual or shared group experience. Affiliative
other–enhancing humor may seek laughter at one’s own failure and the
other’s success. Each individual’s tendency to engage in each form of
humor can be measured by the humor styles questionnaire. Not surpris-
ingly, benevolent or affiliative uses of humor relate to positive results
from communication. Aggressive humor directed at others (using insults
or demeaning statements) negatively affects relationship satisfaction.
Somewhat surprisingly, the humor styles questionnaire explained almost
twice as much of the variability in relationship satisfaction than did the
humor orientation scale (Cann et al.).
One key aspect of individual communication that relates to measures
of humor involves security, self-protection, and self-defense. Commonal-
ities exposed when we appreciate humor together with another can rein-
force a sense of security. Humor provides one key avenue for reassuring
ourselves in communication that we can relate to one another because we
get a sense of valuing something similar. The affiliative and self-enhanc-
ing humor styles give one a propensity for enacting this kind of security
in relationships. One jokes to relate to or unite with another in some
way—“see, we share this perspective.” Conversely, humor can serve as a
defense mechanism as one laughs at the self to deter aggressiveness—or
prevent others from laughing first (Ziv, 1984). Self-disparaging humor
shows one can laugh at the self and keep one’s own situation in perspec-
tive—especially in relation to other people. One can put oneself down—
to show a sense of balance or understanding of how one fits in society. A
self-demeaning humor style can serve this purpose, although too much
invoking of this kind of humor likely reduces one’s credibility (Gorham
& Christophel, 1990).
Aggressive humor is uniquely and flagrantly divisive, and thus can be
a dangerous weapon that potentially damages relationships or sets one
up for worse reprisal. Those who share in the aggression towards another
group through the humor, however, can be unified through it even as
social division is made clear. In a society that held women to lower stat-
58 Chapter 3

us, for instance, early individual studies of humor found higher apprecia-
tion for jokes and stories that divided women from men (Cantor, 1976).
Aggressive humor reifying social divisions of gender would explain find-
ings in earlier years of a preference across both genders for humor at the
expense of females. Fortunately, more recent studies find much less of
this phenomenon. Many other individual differences can be subject to
humorous aggression, though, and humans have been masterful through
the centuries at group divisions, into an “us” versus “them.” Humor
through aggression can paradoxically divide those subject to the aggres-
sion while unifying those appreciating or sharing the humor. Even here,
this may serve individuals well who find themselves in debates and need
a memorable way to “attack” or “disarm” an argumentative opponent.
One might argue that aggressive humor is far more socially acceptable
and useful than serious violence, or even than more serious, harsh words
that remain in a telic mode. Humor, in the end, is far more civilized as
aggression than is violence.
An additional way to measure an individual’s humor experience is to
take note of nonverbal behaviors. One can smile, laugh briefly or ner-
vously, or laugh extendedly engaging one’s diaphragm. Smiles can also
be distinguished by depth of experience or engagement. A smile associat-
ed with genuine enjoyment or amusement involves the eye muscles as
well as the mouth. This is referred to as the Duchenne smile, named for
the French doctor who identified the unique smile in 1862 (Martin, 2007).
A Duchenne smile and genuine laughter, then, can show a deep level of
humor experience, while nervous laughter and a smile not involving the
eye muscles but instead others around the face may indicate a more
“social” smile, or respect for relational or group experiences without a
strong personal humor appreciation. Nonverbal indicators have a reputa-
tion as more genuine measures of personal experiences, especially of
emotions. Individual experiences of mirth then relate to similar findings
by the measures discussed above where humor experience provides for
more creative problem solving by individuals as well as accumulates
social and physical support for coping with life (Martin, 2007).
These primarily quantitative lines of ongoing research on humor
show how central it is to individual communication. All individuals can
be assessed for humor production or humor appreciation rates, with vari-
ous combinations of those possible. Each individual humor rating is
found to correlate with all sorts of important social and communication
variables. Each person’s unique approaches to humor dramatically affect
one’s unique approaches to communication with others, which in turn
lead to desirable development of relationships. Following the human
need to relate to one another and reach out for social solidarity to get
through life, much fruitful research has occurred exploring humor’s place
in establishing and affecting human relationships.
 FOUR
Humor and Persuasion

Overall, studies have not shown humor to be a wonderfully effective

means of persuasion. Yet its widespread popularity of use suggests that it
does have some desirable effects. Humor’s capacity to promote objectiv-
ity, audience interest, and speaker credibility make up its three major
benefits to persuasion. Since persuasion involves changing a person’s
mind, the mental shifts required to appreciate humor provide one avenue
for that change. Early on, a person’s perception of humor was found to
require a certain objectivity of mind that could lead to persuasion
(Grimes, 1955). The needs to simultaneously perceive dual cognitions
and understand changing patterns suggest the potential for more objec-
tivity about a given issue, and humor appreciation may promote such
objectivity. When one adds in the enjoyment audiences may experience
through mirth, a persuader gains higher credibility invoking humor and
a basis on which to persuade others regarding a given issue.
Humor requires—and perhaps engenders—a sense of objectivity
about an issue to appreciate it (Grimes, 1955). Incongruity from humor
can help receivers see a new perspective on the topic—one they may be
surprised by along with the one they had been attached to. Thus, using
humor with an audience successfully may open that audience to other
perspectives on an issue, facilitating persuasion. This idea suggests that
getting someone to laugh at an issue, taking it less seriously, may allow
in thoughts about alternatives that a person in a serious or tragic perspec-
tive would not entertain. Once a person has laughed about an issue and
found something humorous about it, once returning to a serious mode
may consider an alternative not thought of before. This opens a possible
“road” for persuasion. One has a distance from the issue, made possible
by more alternatives in mind, that one did not have before. Although this
is not a guarantee that persuasion changing one’s view will be effective, it

59
60 Chapter 4

at least increases the possibility. Humor use, by enhancing one’s distance

from or objectivity about an issue, can thus improve chances of successful
persuasion.
The more controversial or difficult the issue at hand, the harder it will
be to persuade someone, and the more tools will be needed to do so.
Research has explored the tendency of people to cling harder to their
position on more momentous issues, so even achieving more objective
consideration of such an issue through humor use could be considered a
triumph. People who take certain issues very seriously view them as
essential to their identity, and thus are highly ego-involved in them.
Lowering the ego-involvement of the audience in a topic could make
changing minds easier (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965). Humor that
deals with a topic involving highly ego-involved perceivers results in
more defensive reactions without appreciation of the humor (Futch &
Edwards, 1999). If people can take the joke, then, less defensive resistance
to the topic will follow. However, such a joke may well backfire with a
highly ego-involved audience that takes the comment seriously, or re-
mains in tragic mode. An attempt at humor that goes badly can at least
indicate a need for other means of persuasion, as it is much harder to
persuade a highly ego-involved audience. Being able to laugh at and
distance oneself from an issue formerly ego-involving could lead to more
willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints on that issue. Paradoxical-
ly enough, experiencing mirth can enhance one’s distance and objectivity
regarding an issue, making more rational discussion of it possible. Ra-
tionality and objectivity go hand in hand, and promoting more objectiv-
ity through laughing at an issue may then promote persuasion through
rational appeals.
Although humor cannot persuade by itself, it can still act as an effec-
tive ingredient in the mixture of persuasive tools. In one early survey,
Markiewicz (1974) uncovered a majority of studies finding no differences
between persuasability of a humorous versus a serious message, but also
found many flaws with the humor and messages compared in such stud-
ies. How funny was the humor? How effective was the persuasion? Dra-
matically variable answers to those two questions made the studies not
fully comparable or effective. Humor also seems to be more effective at
facilitating persuasion regarding topics with a less ego-involved audi-
ence. If a highly ego-involving topic was studied, then humor may have
had no effect on persuasion, or even a “boomerang effect” strengthening
receivers’ position on the issue joked about. Some studies did indicate a
difference in persuasion when humor was used, so some positive effect of
humor on persuasion is possible. Clearly, though, humor cannot be
counted on as the one essential tool to persuade an audience.
Humor in a presentation clearly increases an audience’s interest (Dun-
can & Nelson, 1985; Gruner, 1970), which will enhance persuasability.
People seek out humor due to its pleasure-inducing mirth, and that extra
 Humor and Persuasion 61

drawing power and greater attention can provide more opportunities for
persuasion. Increased interest may lead to persuasion, rather than humor
use directly persuading listeners. Still, that boost in focus that may be
captured by using humor could be crucial for persuasion. Persuaders
need all the tools they can get, and enough evidence has mounted that
humor is one key tool that can pierce the fog of information overload and
myriad persuasive attempts to reach audiences for potential persuasion.
Attracting interest may be called the first necessary step toward persua-
sion, and humor use can do just that.
Interest may not only be gained by using humor, it may also distract
listeners from the persuasive message. The distraction of a mirth re-
sponse from the specific persuasive appeals can also increase their effects,
but humor also spurs some discounting of the message because it is treat-
ed as more entertaining than influential (Skalski, Tamborini, Glazer, &
Smith, 2009). A hearer may enjoy the humor so much that entertainment
and enjoyment become primary goals, and exploring arguments or alter-
natives on an issue get pushed aside as goals. Humor may serve as a
distraction, which during receiving of a persuasive message is associated
with less mental production of counterarguments and increasing levels of
communication acceptance (Osterhouse & Brock, 1970). The one plus to
this state of affairs, then, is that one who is distracted during the course of
a persuasive message is more subject to being influenced by it. So gaining
a listener’s interest along with distracting through humor can lead to
effective persuasion after all. In the end, though, relying on humor alone
to persuade can be dangerous because possibly ineffective, but using it to
interest the audience in a presentation to set the stage for additional
persuasive appeals through logic, emotion, and testimony can enhance
persuasion.
Humor does serve as a distraction that can enhance persuasion. The
effort made to understand the humor may lower the mental time and
energy spent considering the persuasive message. Emotions also affect
individual readiness for persuasion, as they act as part of the filter per-
suasive messages must pass through. Individuals who are in a good
mood will less often disagree with a persuasive message. By manipulat-
ing concepts incongruously for the sake of humor, persuaders provide a
building-up and release of tension, providing for audience relief and
mood enhancement (Maase, Fink, & Kaplowitz, 1984). A distraction that
improves mood, then, can enhance persuasion through decreased resis-
tance. There is also some evidence of a “sleeper effect” where humorous
messages may be more persuasive over the long term than immediately
(Nabi, Moyer-Guse, & Byrne, 2007). Playing with concepts in a persua-
sive talk can, through humor, get people interested, distracted, and in a
better mood where further thinking about the topic at hand will perhaps
persuade them.
62 Chapter 4

Humor use in messages can increase liking for a persuader, as well as

closer attention to arguments (Nabi, Moyer-Guse, & Byrne, 2007). The
sense of identification provided by a successful humor user can thus
increase persuader credibility. People enjoy hearing someone who makes
them feel good, and mirth can then lead to more willingness to listen,
through more sense of having views in common with a persuader. A
speaker can relate to the audience through the identification or clarifica-
tion functions of humor, and thereby enhance reputation through dem-
onstrating aspects of a common or similar identity. Well-liked speakers
are listened to more closely, so humor that enhances likability will likely
enhance persuasion, too.
Humor in speeches does add to credibility gain and information re-
tention, but only to a certain point (Gruner, 1967; Skalski, Tamborini,
Glazer, & Smith, 2009). There are limits to how much humor one can use
and still boost one’s credibility. Too much humor can “boomerang” and
actually damage a persuader’s credibility (Taylor, 1974). Although sever-
al studies have found no differences between humorous and straightfor-
ward persuasive appeals (Brooker, 1991; Lull, 1940), some of these may
actually have included too much humor. A ceiling effect has been evident
in the relationship between humor use and persuader credibility, such
that too much humor use can lower credibility. At a moderate level,
though, humor’s positive effect on credibility is solidly evident. For in-
stance, mild uses of humor are definitely more effective than mild uses of
fear appeals (Brooker, 1991). Although too much humor can lower cred-
ibility, some humor can serve to gain attention and express opinions in
memorable ways, thus serving persuasion even if at times through pro-
viding a distraction.
The sense humor gives of “being on the same page” as another sug-
gests that when one shares humor with someone one is then more per-
suadable by that someone. Credibility is built through shared values that
are exhibited by sharing experiences of humor. A sense of familiarity also
results from enjoying humor together, which seems to lower people’s
usual defenses against persuasion. A sense of common understanding
through humor can unite speakers with audiences through ingratiation.
Relevant humor shows an audience that its members are appreciated by
the speaker, and gets them involved. Speakers will often seek to open a
public address using humor for this reason. In similar circumstances,
self-deprecating humor can be used by a famous figure to place the
speaker and the audience more on the same level (Chapel, 1978). Uniting
in an experience of humor, then, may set the stage for more effective
persuasion.
Government officials and politicians are always looking for ways to
connect with and persuade the public, and have long treated humor use
carefully as fraught with dangers. Indeed, some drawbacks to humor for
persuaders have been found, including its overuse, which may indicate a
 Humor and Persuasion 63

lack of seriousness—which perception is anathema to most politicians.

Though this perspective has affected political candidates and limited
their humor use, including humor also turns out to memorably encapsu-
late a candidate’s views and endear a speaker to audiences (Levasseur &
Dean, 1996). As modern culture becomes more media-saturated and en-
tertainment-demanding, elements of comedy are increasingly expected
from politicians and national leaders. Humor can dramatize the clash of
views that occurs in political rhetoric, and successful and popular politi-
cians have shown effective uses of humor (Meyer, 1990). Invoking a para-
telic mode can open up concepts for play and further thought, while also
showing a humanness and approachability of a persuader.
One politician used humor extensively to playfully “rebel” against
what he believe was an overgrown and overblown federal government,
and did so in a way to preserve positive affect from audiences (Meyer,
1990). Ronald Reagan was a presidential “master” at incorporating hu-
mor into speeches, especially during campaigning. It proved difficult,
indeed, to find a Reagan speech without humor. He could be highly criti-
cal of the federal government, of course, yet avoid being portrayed as
overly negative or harsh largely due to humor incorporated in his presen-
tations. In addition, he enhanced his credibility using humor interspersed
with serious persuasive points. He would regularly insert a humorous
anecdote, however, to boost attention and ingratiation. He could defuse
awkward situations or topics with a funny story, usually involving him-
self. One used during the 1976 campaign explored the federal bureaucra-
cy:
There are 8,000 separate federal record-keeping systems currently
keeping tabs on us. Yet, despite all of this, Social Security could still
send a letter to a fellow in New Jersey, telling him he was dead, and
thus terminating his payments. When he showed up very much alive,
they still couldn’t figure out a way to reinstate his payments. But they
did tide him over for a while: they gave him $700 for his funeral! (cited
in Meyer, 1990, p. 83)
Reagan thus set a modern standard for presidential humor use. Although
most have not ventured to use humor as much as he did, expectations for
presidential humor are generally higher, with certain situations (like the
annual National Press Club dinner) now calling for jokes by the presi-
dent, important politicians, and current campaigners.
President Reagan generated enough humor use that authors collected
funny stories and quips of his from his speeches. He could persuade
about many controversial topics while maintaining a notably high level
of goodwill from the public. He was well thought of even by many who
disagreed with him. His use of humor seemed an essential tool to help
him remain so. Humor could keep people entertained on one level, and
perhaps persuade them at another level. Multiple studies show that using
64 Chapter 4

humor can bolster speaker credibility with audiences and hold their at-
tention (Gruner, 1967; 1970; Duncan & Nelson, 1985). Reagan would find
a way to tell a story that would reach out to his audiences and showed
them that he could relate to their lives. Through adding this element of
entertainment for audiences, Reagan successfully bolstered his credibil-
ity. In addition, Reagan would find a way to mock “inferior” politicians
who were favoring all sorts of ridiculous measures, persuasively uniting
his audience with him in opposition to “them.” He once noted that “bu-
reaucracy has a built-in instinct for preservation and reproduction of its
own kind. A federal program, once started, is the nearest thing to eternal
life you’ll ever see on this earth” (Reagan, 1976). He would also tell hu-
morous stories to memorably make campaign points. Some could be en-
capsulated in turns of phrase like: “if the President wants a definition of
recession, I’ll give him one. Recession is when your neighbor loses his
job, depression is when you lose yours, and recovery will be when Jimmy
Carter loses his“ (Boller, 1982, p. 354). Reagan enacted three key strate-
gies involving humor as he boosted his credibility and audience good
will toward him, entertained audiences with memorable quips and sto-
ries to make persuasive points, and staged a “jolly rebellion” against his
opponents without becoming harsh, slashing, or negative. Thus, humor
was his “velvet weapon” (Meyer, 1990). Politicians since that time have
tried to use humor as effectively, or have suffered in comparison.
Humor, as Reagan found repeatedly, can show a politician’s ability to
relate to and establish a similar social level for addressing an audience.
Self-deprecatory humor can be used sparingly to effectively enhance a
powerful politician’s credibility, as President Gerald Ford often did
(Chapel, 1978). Yet candidates still must beware putting in too much
humor lest they be thought of as “un-presidential” or not seriously able
to handle the nation’s problems (Levasseur & Dean, 1996). Doses of hu-
mor in political rhetoric can help to persuade, even though an overdose
will reduce credibility due to perceived lack of concern for conse-
quences—the telic mode is considered most requisite for serious political
candidates, and persuaders, after all. Once one relates to an audience and
boosts credibility, other means of persuasion are clearly called for.
Scholars have also begun to explore the growing humorous counter-
weight to politicians—the nightly news/entertainment blend that not
only reviews events of the day, but mocks them and tells humorous
stories or enacts funny skits about them. In more and more instances,
younger people have replaced the old standard view of the persuasive
political world that included news accounts punctuated by a rare humor-
ous one-liner or story with nightly entertainment at the expense of politi-
cians and newsmakers. “In short, fewer Americans are depending on
traditional news outlets for their understanding of the political world,
relying to some degree on late night talk and political comedy shows
instead” (Lichter, Baumgartner, & Morris, 2015, p. 32). The most interest-
 Humor and Persuasion 65

ing effects of learning about politics through comedy about it show an

increasing cynicism and skepticism about the possible efficacy of any
political action or attempted change, and also higher negative percep-
tions of those politicians and institutions continually skewered by nightly
comedic commentators. The superiority theory of humor, in essence,
seems consistently to be enacted so that viewers laughing along with the
nightly talk shows see themselves as elevated and knowledgeable, and
individual politicians as inferior. Politicians are not likely to be success-
ful. Political comics naturally develop themes in their humor for recur-
ring teases of politicians, and those themes often stick in people’s minds
as key impressions of those politicians. Consider a familiar type of joke
about former-President George W. Bush, delivered by Jay Leno: “People
are still talking about President Bush’s use of a four-letter word at the G-8
Summit. It’s not a big deal, President Bush using a four-letter word. Now
if President Bush used a four-syllable word, that would be unbelievable”
(cited in Lichter, Baumgartner, & Morris, p. 59). The late night comics had
fun with President Bush mocking his apparent lack of intelligence, but
similarly treated Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Governor Mitt
Romney about their wealth, The growing presence of the comic mode
relating to the world of government and statecraft cannot be doubted, but
one possible effect of this is less credibility given to politicians and office
holders.
One way politicians have chosen to deal with this growing media
presence of political comedy is to appear in person on late night talk
shows and comedy shows to present themselves as an individual to the
audiences, able both to take a joke and to participate in making them.
Their ultimate ingratiation, it seems, may be to appear themselves in the
venue where they receive so much daily teasing and ridicule. The history
of politicians appearing on comedy television goes back farther than we
might think. Richard Nixon boosted his campaign for president with a
brief appearance on Laugh-in in 1968. Former-president Gerald Ford, por-
trayed as a klutz after a fall down some stairs that was captured on film,
joined Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live to good-naturedly take some
pratfalls and show that he took the ribbing in good fun. During his first
presidential campaign, Bill Clinton went on late night television to joke
around and play the saxophone. This precedent has led many presiden-
tial candidates since to gladly guest on comic television shows to gain
exposure to entertainment-minded audiences and show their senses of
humor in largely successful ingratiation of audiences (Lichter, Baumgart-
ner, & Morris, 2015). Thus, creating and participating in humor has be-
come more and more expected in a formerly highly telic practice of politi-
cal campaigning and even governing. It remains to be seen how far come-
dy can go as a bedfellow for politicians—the day may come when politi-
cians may believe they are not taken seriously enough, and recoil from
comedy and seek the serious, tragic, or telic mode.
66 Chapter 4

Through many years, even in the printed press in the days before late
night political television comedy, much political argument has involved
satire. It has a decidedly mixed persuasive record, however. Satire is
presented on the “edge” of the telic and paratelic divide: a serious mes-
sage is being conveyed, yet it is conveyed in a humorous way. Since
mockery and imitation are part of satire, however, to understand it one
must have a well-developed sense of expected patterns and their viola-
tion. Viewers of The Colbert Report over the past decade, for instance, may
tune in to hear a conservative view of the news, and come away perceiv-
ing to have done so. However, many others may enjoy the spoofing or
mockery of conservative commentators (uses and gratifications theory
reinforces explanations of either tendency). Similarly, the compelling
portrayal of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin by Tina Fey on Saturday Night
Live in 2008 caused many to actually believe the Governor said some of
what was actually said by Fey during the show’s comedy bits. The “Fey
effect” may have caused people to lower their opinions of Sarah Palin’s
credibility in order to share in enjoyment of the compelling Tina Fey
characterizations of her (Esralew & Young, 2012). The attention drawn to
such satire by the entertaining humor can thus actually affect people’s
views of the politician mocked through agenda-setting and priming of
certain perspectives through a popular humor-filled approach. Yet the
uses and gratifications approach to media use reinforces the typical
strengthening of one’s political views based on the humor one seeks out
and enjoys. For instance, those who dislike Sarah Palin likely find much
more humor in the satire, while others may be entertained by her mimic-
ry while even being reinforced in their liking for and support of her.
Currently, politicians are subject to a continual bombardment of
satire. Popular late-night and round-the-clock comedy shows parade
skits and bits that mock politicians, and these are now posted online for
multiple repeated viewings. One study taking stock of the most popular
hosted late-night talk shows found that over the course of the recent 20
years, one out of seven jokes were directed at current presidents of the
United States (Lichter, Baumgartner, & Morris, 2015). That excluded
jokes about former presidents, candidates for president, and other politi-
cians. Creating satirical mocking of current politicians has become a con-
tinually productive industry. People clearly find this entertaining and
enjoy it, as such humor has become pervasive in United States culture.
But its persuasive effects are less clear. Although Lichter et al. found a
stronger tendency to joke at the expense of Republicans than Democrats,
no case can be made that all of this satire is having major persuasive
effects—especially since all politicians are fair game. Also, the subject of
the most jokes during the studied period was a Democrat, Bill Clinton,
even for a time after his presidency had ended. Constant ridicule of all
politicians may indeed have persuaded people that they are less than
credible as a group. The reduced regard in which most hold all presi-
 Humor and Persuasion 67

dents and politicians may well be a result of such relentless satirical

persuasion. Yet clearly those who are most politically active and aware
are those who understand the most nuances of the satirical humor, and
no study shows a major changing of minds resulting from it all.
Persuading through satire is thus layered with difficulties. On one
hand, close familiarity with the patterns of politics and media commen-
tary, and an understanding of disagreements or why such commentators
may be “off kilter,” are required to perceive or “get” the satire. On the
other hand, even well-known pieces of satire have been taken by some
literally—they did not see the humor or irony to perceive the message as
a mockery rather than as a serious or telic message. Consider, for in-
stance, Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” back in the 1700s as a solu-
tion to Ireland’s famine. He suggested that families eat their children, and
some thought this was hilarious while others were actually outraged at
such a suggestion. On a more conversational level, irony functions simi-
larly, as a person makes a statement (often in a snide tone of voice) the
exact opposite of what one really means. Consider how familiar one must
be with the person involved as well as with the topic to pick up on the
irony and not take the person seriously. Studies of irony, indeed, show
how crucial mutual understanding of an attitude must be for the effective
reception of ironic messages (Averbeck & Hample, 2008; Pexman & Oli-
neck, 2002). So, to perceive irony and satire, receivers must already be-
lieve and understand the perspective being communicated.
Satire does provide a useful way to mock and spoof political figures,
using humor as a form of rebellion (Baym & Jones, 2012). But recurring
results show that satire is relatively unappreciated by all who are not
already convinced of the mindset that “gets” the satire as humorous
mockery (Becker, 2014). For those who are already skeptical of the politi-
cal class, for instance, a readiness is shown to understand the mockery of
satirical presentation—an enactment, for instance, of actions, news, or
opinions considered humorous but presented in a seemingly serious
way. Such comedy pervades the nightly airwaves in our country, but it
can be argued that a sense of cynicism or opposition to the political
viewpoint that is satirized is needed to appreciate the satire (Gray, Jones,
& Thompson, 2009; Rottinghaus, Bird, Ridout, & Self, 2008). In short,
those already convinced of a viewpoint “get” the humor and appreciate
the satire. Those who do not may actually believe in the point of view
being mocked, or take the mockery seriously, thus detracting from
satire’s actual ability to persuade. For preaching to the already converted,
satire does a good job of reinforcing beliefs and entertaining those who
already share a point of view. Satire is far less likely, however, to win
converts, rendering it questionable as a persuasive technique.
Persuaders can certainly make serious points through the use of hu-
mor, as its differentiation function has long shown. Politicians have often
used narrative to scorn through satire, and put down through buffoon-
68 Chapter 4

ery, those they oppose. Even a hint of disagreement with a power struc-
ture or authority expressed through humor may arouse interest in an
audience through potential conflict. Effective politicians can use ridicule
as a powerful rhetorical weapon to point out the faulty policies and ig-
norance of opponents. Similarly, people regularly joke about politicians,
policies, or positions with which they disagree. Humor may be viewed as
subversive or as a form of rebellion, due to its implicit disagreement with
prevailing arguments or norms and the clashing perceptions or violations
of expectations necessary for humor appreciation (Lynch, 2007). Persuad-
ers at any level of society can give vent to criticism by using humor.
Consider a more recent example of a pollster questioning a constituent:
“What should we do with people who want to get government handouts
and are too lazy to work?” The answer came back: “Kick them out of
congress!” The twist, or incongruity in response, can suggest alternative
perspectives and perhaps reinforce one’s argument. Appreciating the hu-
mor in arguments that are thereby made more compelling may open the
audience to entertain alternative arguments through enforcement or dif-
ferentiation functions.
Overuse of humor, however, damages credibility (Gruner, 1985). Poli-
ticians and campaigners are liable to suffer from this if they try too hard
to engage audiences through humor. An additional difficulty is encoun-
tered when a politician or persuader makes light of a person or issue
using satire. A common danger of using satire becomes clear when it
primarily reinforces the views of those who already agree rather than
changing anyone’s mind (Gruner, 1965; Bloom & Bloom, 1979). Consider
one definition of diplomacy: the art of saying “nice doggie” until one can
find a stick. Those already skeptical about the effectiveness of diplomacy
may perceive the humor, while those highly ego-involved or serious
about the profession of diplomacy could find the statement inappropriate
or out of place. People may similarly choose to be entertained by satire,
or take it literally thus needing to be forthrightly told the persuasive
claim advocated, which spoils the humor effect of satire. People who find
satire funny find it hugely persuasive, mostly because they already agree
with the premise of the satire. Those who do not may take the satire
literally, not seeing its humor, or become generally outraged and angry
rather than being persuaded. Satire seems to be a more effective reinforc-
ing mechanism for persuaders rather than a tool to change minds.
The limits of humor as a persuasive tool were demonstrated by the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention which promoted a “zombie
apocalypse” preparedness campaign, intending through humor to pro-
mote actual preparedness efforts by individuals and households. On the
one hand, the campaign generated a lot of attention through social media
hits, even causing the site’s server to crash initially. Social media posting
and spreading netted thousands of views of the campaign, but a study
showed that in spite of the publicity, those reached by the zombie mes-
 Humor and Persuasion 69

sages were no more likely than anyone to actually take the recommended
preparedness actions (Fraustino & Ma, 2015). Including humor to address
a serious topic was fantastically successful at garnering attention, but
hardly successful at all in terms of changing to recommended behaviors.
Even as humor may capture attention and provide a distraction from the
persuasive message, it may also be treated as entertainment and not
worthy of considering for telic, or serious, consequences (Moyer-Guse,
Mahood, & Brookes, 2011). So viewers were entertained by the idea of
preparing for a zombie apocalypse, but did not proceed to actually pre-
pare their households for a disaster, as advocated by the campaign. Simi-
lar reactions have been found to health campaigns that have added hu-
mor providing entertainment value but not necessarily affecting advocat-
ed behaviors.
Overall, humor seems to have greater effect as an attention-getter,
credibility booster, and memory spark than as a persuasive appeal itself.
A dash of humor can stimulate interest and potentially open an audience
to further persuasion, but within limits. College students, for instance,
gravitated toward texts with humor when they were exploring relatively
simple concepts, but found lower credibility when humor use tried to
supplement difficult material (Bryant, Brown, Silverberg, & Elliott, 1981).
The positive identification and clarification functions of humor serve per-
suaders well to set the scene for persuasion, but the enforcement or diffe-
rentiation functions must be used with caution. Prosocial behaviors in-
volving humor increase compliance-gaining in the college classroom
(Punyanunt, 2000). Negative humor that puts down an audience or its
members serves, not surprisingly, to decrease the credibility or persua-
siveness of the message (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk, 2008). Divi-
sive humor may compellingly put down an opponent or opposing idea,
but may pass unappreciated by those who disagree with the premises on
which the humor is based. Adding humor to a speech can only enhance
interest or credibility so much, and self-deprecatory humor can enhance
undamaged credibility (Chang & Gruner, 1981). Too much use of humor,
though, seems to backfire in terms of credibility and “overselling” inter-
est in a topic. Humor is best used as an ingredient to set the stage for
persuasion, rather than counted upon as an essential persuasive tool.
 FIVE
Humor in Organizations and Cultures

Organizations are social groups united for a common purpose, and may
be studied from the level of an immediate family all the way to that of a
geographical region of the world. Each organization can be said to be
constituted as a unique culture, possessing its own norms, roles, and
expectations. A culture is a web of meaning created by its members
through communication (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991;
Mohan, 1993; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1982; Sackmann, 1990).
Culture can be observed and studied as a set of patterns of communica-
tion behavior. When these patterns are violated by choice-making hu-
mans, or inherent contradictions arise in the pattern, the strength and
desirability of the patterns becomes an issue. Whether responded to as
tragic violations or comic incongruities, the social structure may be called
into question through communication. Questions arise as to how valued
the patterns of interaction really are, and whether or not they are worth
keeping. Values are at the heart of a culture and must be unearthed and
studied to understand an organization’s culture (Meyer, 1995; Schein,
1985). These patterns exist at an abstract level and often go unnoticed.
Understanding organizational culture can be practically difficult, since
we are relatively unaware of or take for granted cultural norms and
beliefs until we note their violation. Often, such violations are the focus of
humorous messages. Through such violations of communication norms
or routines we often inductively or intuitively learn about a culture.
Humor depends on and traffics in violations of norms, or unusual
events. Throughout history, “tricksters’ tales” have put norms and expec-
tations into practical effect by describing their violation in memorable,
humorous ways (Apte, 1985). One key aspect of humor is its origin in
perceived incongruity. A norm must be expected, and a violation of that
norm must also be perceived (Meyer, 2000; Veatch, 1998). Seeing the

71
72 Chapter 5

humor in something means seeing an alternative perspective to the nor-

mal one, and this opens minds to alternative norms, rules, and cultures.
This opening allows us to become aware of and understand other cul-
tures, whether of an organization down the street or a nation on the other
side of the world. Humor serves to simultaneously illuminate multiple
perspectives (Boland & Hoffman, 1983; Raskin, 1985). This makes it a
useful tool for understanding one organization’s culture and relating it to
others.
Humor unites as well as divides those in the workplace, and serves to
negotiate clashing values between organization members (Meyer, 1997).
Workers are united by laughing at shared events, even ones that may
initially spark anger or conflict. Humor reframes potentially divisive
events into merely “laughable” ones which are put in perspective as sub-
servient to unifying values held by organization members. Repeatedly
recounting humorous incidents reinforces unity based on key organiza-
tional values. One team told repeated stories about a dumpster fire (Mey-
er); something that does not seem funny on its face but the reactions of
workers motivated to preserve safety sparked laughter as the stories
were shared multiple times by multiple parties in the workplace. Shared
events that cause laughter can indicate a sense of belonging since “you
had to be there” to see the humor in them, and non-members were not
and do not. Instances of humor serve to enact bonds among organization
members (Korczynski, 2011). Understanding the humor may even be re-
quired as an informal badge of membership in the organization.
Humor divides in the workplace, too, as it also serves as punishment.
One of the worst fears of many people is to be laughed at, instead of
getting to laugh with someone. Thus, humor serves to reinforce cultural
norms and values, as members unite in laughter at a violation or at a
violator, and often at both. In one example, a worker using a computer
work station made light of a coworker who violated basic workplace
politeness norms: “And he decided he wanted that computer and he
wanted it then. He wanted me to remove myself (Laughs). He told me, ‘I
want that computer, and I want it now; you have to get off of it.’ And I
turned to proceed to tell him what I thought, and Billie stepped in be-
tween, and got him out” (Meyer, 1997, p. 201). Such stories, remembered
and retold by various coworkers, reinforce cultural norms by mocking
violators of them. People will conform so as to avoid being the butt of too
many jokes, thus being assimilated to social norms through humor (Dun-
can, 1962). Those that do not conform or do not understand the humor
are “divided out” of the relevant group or organization. The organiza-
tion’s social order is thereby reinforced through humor.
Humor can probe the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of others in
the workplace (Graham, Papa, & Brooks, 1992). Humor serves to struc-
ture coworkers’ reaction to new information or new directives from
above in the hierarchy (Ullian, 1976). Indeed, humor has often been
 Humor in Organizations and Cultures 73

shown to exclude those higher in the hierarchy as not in the know and
worthy of being mocked (Korczynski, 2011; Lynch, 2007). Yet, humor use
reinforces the social structure by making light of needed changes or serv-
ing as “non-serious” (as in not actionable or true) complaints (Graham,
Papa, & Brooks). One way of making sense of events for 911 call takers
involves joking about events in ways those not part of the organization
might find inappropriate. Once, when a call about a cat that a dog had
chased into a tree was followed not long after by a report that the cat had
walked onto an electric line and been electrocuted, jokes about “fried
feline” followed (Tracy, Myers, & Scott, 2006, p. 298). Such references
would never make it into official reports, of course, and supervisors or
bosses may not be included in them, but they were regular ways for
organization members to make sense of their work life.
Workplace humor serves as one key element in group cohesiveness
(Holmes & Marra, 2002). Sharing humor involves a group understanding
of set up patterns of expectation along with similar perceptions of their
violation. Such experiences together and sharing a particular value set or
attitude about those patterns leads to group consubstantiality (Burke,
1984). Shared humorous experiences then come to characterize the group
culture. Each may be only one event, but their retelling makes them
fraught with symbolic meanings of what constitutes the identity of cul-
ture members. Events as simple—or alarming—as a dumpster fire or
electrocuted cat become markers for how organizational members should
react, whether protecting one another, ensuring safety, pursuing quality,
or putting some objective distance between workers and traumatic events
so that all can do their jobs. Being part of or understanding such humor-
ous events becomes one requirement for assuming organizational mem-
bership as part of one’s identity.
Organizational cultures not only find humor as key to group unity,
but also to maintain hierarchy and cultural norms. Ben-Ari and Sion
(2005) emphasized that humor “should be analyzed not only as a means
of maintaining social order, but also as mechanisms by which patterns of
domination are sustained in everyday life” (p. 667). In joking about norm
or pattern violations, the existing hierarchy and power structure is re-
ified. Laughing at those who violate norms motivates all to conform to
them. Those in power also have more leeway to tell jokes (Martin, Rich, &
Gayle, 2004), and those joked about may certainly take note. People then
learn what behaviors are held up to ridicule, and what behaviors mem-
bers presume to be acceptable. As hierarchies become solidified, humor
use becomes more publicly acceptable for those at elevated levels. Organ-
ization members of higher status have been found to joke around more,
often at the expense of those with lower status (Duncan, 1982). Feeling
more “in control” in an organization enhances the use of humor. Consid-
er the manager who noted, “teamwork is a lot of people doing what I
say.” Those in charge may thus through humor define their power and
74 Chapter 5

how the organization works. Most employees do evaluate managers

more favorably who are perceived as using humor as a part of their
leadership style (Holmes & Marra, 2006). Employees’ perceptions of
managerial humor orientation, or how frequently and effectively a man-
ager uses humor, have been positively associated with how satisfied em-
ployees are with their managers (Campbell, Martin, & Wanzer, 2001).
Humor is also used to resist managerial directives, as workers tell
inside jokes unintelligible to managers or mock members of the hierarchy
without those members realizing it (Lynch, 2009). Thus, not only may
managers control through humor, but workers in organizations use hu-
mor to establish personal and group identities as well as resist manage-
ment encroachment on the work group (Lynch, 2010). Humor use could
clarify resistance to changes affecting the group and clue managers in
that a planned policy switch might not work after all. Humor sets up
group boundaries where those who stand inside the boundaries under-
stand the shared humor. Those “in the know” understanding instances of
humor may feel united against management members who, via not being
members of the group, have no clue what patterns are expected or what
pattern is being violated. Often this takes the direction of psychological
resistance, where members vent their objections in paratelic mode
through humor while remaining in a serious or telic mode by complying
with organizational norms or managerial dictates. Humor can allow for
“underground” resistance or rebellion against organizational directives
without bringing such a conflict into the open (Taylor & Bain, 2003).
Humor thus shows up as a rebellion against organizational authority
(Lynch, 2009) and crystallizes divisions between social groups there.
One ethnography that detailed interactions of chefs working together
(Lynch, 2009) showed how humor established and reinforced their work
routines and their identity as workers. Yet, humor served as resistance,
too, when managers sought to take more control of their work processes.
Lynch placed workplace functions of humor on a continuum running
from strong promotion of consubstantiality (or being with one another in
a substantially similar way—this is like the identification function of hu-
mor) to subtle but dramatic dissent from the group or hierarchy (the
differentiation function). Humor is used for production control and concer-
tive control, two unifying categories involving reifying control by a hierar-
chy or by the work group members themselves, respectively. A manager
joking about a member’s absence could show how that absence is outside
the norm, and reassert control by the management hierarchy. Alterna-
tively, the workers themselves could joke about a member’s absence
upon return, showing that the group members as a body disapproved of
the action and found it to be a noted violation. Humor as reification serves
to fully establish a work group’s identity both in members’ own eyes
along with those of outsiders. Joking about unique characteristics of a
group or its members reinforces group identity for members and edu-
 Humor in Organizations and Cultures 75

cates other about a noteworthy indicator of the group or its members. On

the humor-as-dissent side of the continuum, differentiation was evident
in safety valve resistance serving to air complaints while acknowledging
that nothing would really change, while humor as resistance actually did
create change in hierarchical relations through communication with hu-
mor. Workers might joke about a supervisor’s attempts to be tough, but
in the end or in front of the supervisor conform to the request. Once
criticism through laughter and joking becomes pervasive and wide-
spread, however, members of the hierarchy may have to adapt by contra-
dicting the act of a supervisor, or even removing the person from the
position. All along the continuum of control and resistance, however,
humor serves to place workers in enacted identities as part of the organ-
ization.
Humor plays a part to enact and alter the structure of organizations
(Lynch, 2007), and is central to setting work group boundaries and
norms. Lynch argued that humor in organizations takes up half of hu-
man experience—the entire comic perspective of our existence not cov-
ered by its partner, tragedy. Humor helps humans cope—thus one would
expect humor to help guide work routines. Humor use helps manage
both organizational change and stability, a classic dialectical tension (Ei-
senberg & Goodall, 2010) that all organizations must manage. Control
supports stability, and resistance encourages change, so humor percep-
tions are naturally involved in such contradictions. Humor does not sim-
ply support organizational control; humor can either reinforce control or
resist it. Humor can be a safety valve by channeling opposition or resis-
tance away from serious communication, but it can also resist by ridicul-
ing and changing serious communication. For instance, one “corporate
lesson” shared told of a crow sitting in a tree doing nothing all day. A
small rabbit saw the crow and asked him, “Can I also sit like you and do
nothing all day long?” The crow answered, “Sure, why not?” So, the
rabbit sat on the ground below the crow and rested. All of a sudden a fox
appeared, jumped on the rabbit, and ate it. Moral of the story: To be
sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up. Stories
like this one can mock those higher in the hierarchy, sitting “very high
up,” for doing nothing, while formally not advocating or risking open
rebellion in the organization. Jokes like that may be told, but directives
are followed and organizational goals are met. Alternatively, if criticism
and mocking increased to the point one manager lost credibility due to
appearances of “doing nothing,” the organization might have to alter the
manager’s behavior or fire the person.
In the context of working in teams, humor can release tension and be
used as a tool for adaptation in order to assimilate into the group (Ziv,
1984). Announcements leading to changes or need for compliance are
often followed by jokes and laughter as the group members explore ways
to conform and implications of changes. Work groups have been found to
76 Chapter 5

laugh together to finish discussion of a topic and indicate agreement

about it, as well as to ease tension during a stressful task or controversy
(Kangasharju & Nikko, 2009). The contradictions and paradoxes the
members encounter when adjusting their behavior to the group’s expec-
tations provide great fodder for humor, and suggest ideas as to how
members can effectively become part of the group, organization, or cul-
ture.
Humor is used to establish and reinforce norms but also to defend a
group from potentially threatening forces (Fine, 1976). Outrageous or
offensive behavior can threaten the social order, but such threats can be
reduced by mocking the behavior in a comic mode rather than preparing
to “do battle” with it in a tragic mode. Sexual humor, for instance, re-
leases tension about taboo issues yet clearly establishes behaviors to be
laughed at as outside the social norm. Obscenity may be found funny as
long as it is flagrantly outside expected norms. If it was not funny, it
would not be a noteworthy deviation from the group’s expected behavior
patterns. As the relief theory of humor focuses upon, humor use may
jettison some of the social and personal energy expended in restraint and
conformity to norms of the culture. Rebellious impulses are then ex-
pressed humorously and the norms continue to be complied with. The
group is then maintained it the face of possible threats to its identity due
to dissension, rebellion, or even invasion by those not respecting the
culture’s norms and values.
Humor certainly can enhance one’s identification with a group. A
recent study found that “in the hypothetical organizational climate where
(non-teasing) humor was explained as being valued by the organization,
subjects reported higher organizational identification scores than the con-
trol group” (Ramsey, Knight, Knight, & Meyer, 2009, p. 26). The ability to
laugh together—and to tease and be teased—strengthened group mem-
ber identification. Humor is crucial to a positive emotional climate in
organizations, motivating people to expend effort and work as part of a
team (Lutgen-Sandvik, Riforgiate, & Fletcher, 2011). The paratelic mode
of humor appreciation lets people laugh about events and people at
work. When we feel able to laugh together at others and ourselves and
events in our lives, the sense of play not only improves creativity, but
bolsters our identification with the group that appreciates us and lets us
“play” in this way. Humor reinforces norms and therefore work group
identity by allowing workers to continually address the question, “who
are we in this place?” By releasing tensions, showing group superiority
over others, and maintaining distance from alternative roles and prac-
tices, work identity is continually established through humor (Tracy,
Myers, & Scott, 2006).
Since humor also can be a relief mechanism for worker stress (Robin-
son & Smith-Lovin, 2001), it likely serves as one catalyst for creating
stronger relational bonds among coworkers (Meyer, 1997; Vinton, 1989).
 Humor in Organizations and Cultures 77

People we feel confident in—through reduced uncertainty—we want to

spend more time with. Those who grant us “relief” we want to find unity
with as part of a group or organization. In a work environment, humor
has been found to promote good health, mental flexibility, relaxation and
an ability to deal in constructive ways with the many daily challenges
one faces (Morreall, 1997). Workplace unity may be enhanced by employ-
ees laughing to “demonstrate their mutual superiority by joining with the
storyteller in laughter at ignorant or malicious others” (Meyer, 1997, p.
201). One example had a story flash through an organization of a com-
ment overheard in the break room: “The boss said that I would get a raise
when I earned it. He’s crazy if he thinks I’m gonna wait that long.” Here
was a person who did not “get it” in terms of the identity of workers
trying hard in that organization, and sparking humor as a result. Such
humor invocation reinforces the work ethic in the organization, and
laughing together at that view reifies the reasonable and productive ex-
pectations for work by those high in the hierarchy. Evan as those with
more power in organizations tend to initiate more humor (Martin, Rich,
& Gayle, 2004), humor use is often part of the expected enactment of
organizational citizenship behaviors among subordinates as well. Man-
agers with higher humor use generally have more satisfied employees
who perceive the manager as approachable rather than avoidant (Camp-
bell, Martin, & Wanzer, 2001). Subordinates who can joke around with
each other enjoy work more and find a more supportive organizational
climate.
Educating new members of an organization or culture is fraught with
humor, as studies involving new employees have indicated (Heiss & Car-
mack, 2012). Humor has been used to teach organizational processes and
norms, while organizational newcomers have used it to figure out how to
fit in during a time of uncertainty. Invoking and learning desired cultural
patterns can be done with flexibility and forgiveness through humor,
rather than through a more formal error-correcting form of communica-
tion. For children, invoking and appreciating humor are a clear sign of an
ability to understand multiple perspectives and developed reasoning pat-
terns (Meyer, 2003). Humor use by adults and children contributed great-
ly to a more supportive and relaxed communication climate at a child
development center. Even preschool children have a delicate sense of
being laughed “with” as opposed to being laughed “at.” In one study,
adults they trusted were always treated as laughing “with” them, but
unless laughing at their own prompt preschool children viewed peer
laughter as a threat or insult—“Don’t laugh at me,” they would say
(Meyer, 2003). Yet when an adult would laugh at something the children
did or said, the children would respond with looks of pleasure and ex-
citement. They clearly viewed it as a sign of unity and support. Such use
for laughter does not leave us as adults, I believe. Social interaction void
of humor is uncomfortable, and researchers generally assert that in the
78 Chapter 5

workplace humor should be encouraged so individuals look forward to

completing tasks in a joyful environment (Geedey, 2006).
The comic effect in groups can be studied at larger, more inclusive
levels, also. In the organization of the United States national culture,
stand-up comedy may serve as a primary means of social and cultural
mediation (Mintz, 1985). Through the use of humor and laughter come-
dians call attention to social and cultural norms along with problems in
society, similarly ranging from control to resistance forms of humor. As
“detached observers,” their comments provide a cathartic release from
the potential seriousness of their topics; they make light of how people
abuse each other through deliberate and inadvertent stereotypes. The
perceptiveness of their specific jokes usually involves recognizable pat-
terns juxtaposed with incongruities and surprise. Depending upon the
overall strategy of the presentation and the tactics selected, such come-
dians may use all four of the humor functions ranging from identification
to clarification, enforcement, and differentiation. Successful stand-up co-
medians must be unusually perceptive observers of the social and cultu-
ral scene. They perceive the unique and distinct ways human cultures
develop and use norms and symbols. Most provide some critical com-
mentary about the ridiculousness, incongruity, or absurdity of these gov-
erning social forces, especially when they are taken to an extreme. They
may play a subversive role, mocking and calling into question social
norms, institutions, or leaders. In turn, they may play a socially integra-
tive role after all, sparking mutual laughter at incongruities breaking the
desired and expected cultural patterns. Comedians force a view and “re-
view” of norms for what they are. Whatever the approach, a comedian
offers a creative interpretation of social and cultural patterns and permits
viewing reality differently (Hill & Fitzgerald, 2002).
Humor in organizations certainly has its divisive or distracting down-
side. Humor can potentially interrupt productivity and has long been
controversial in terms of what is acceptable and what is taboo (Porcu,
2005). Humor may have an adverse effect, such as when someone at-
tempts to share humor through office gossip that can be damaging to
colleagues and may damage confidence in the source (Hafen, 2004). Also,
“there are some disadvantages of using humor in stressful discussions. It
can cause distrust between members, including suspicions about the in-
itiator’s dedication or motivation” (Dziegielewski, Jacinto, Laudadjo, &
Legg-Rodriguez, 2003, p. 84). Too much humor can indicate a lack of
seriousness or a lack of concern for organizational or personal priorities,
and thus lower a member’s levels of credibility and trust. Humor that
goes too far in belittling or punishing members can lower morale. Rising
levels of aggressive humor and self-defeating humor are signs of organ-
ization member burnout (Avtgis & Taber, 2006). Yet humor can also ag-
gressively reify organizational authority. Repressive and oppressive
forms of humor have been identified as forming a structure of domina-
 Humor in Organizations and Cultures 79

tion “where the underlying intent is to attack the addressee’s face . . . in

order to gain compliance with the superiors’ wishes” (Mullany, 2004, p.
22). Teasing or put-downs may be communicated as humor, yet there is a
telic or serious point or purpose behind them. That serious purpose can
be to repress dissent or insist on conformity in an organization. Indeed,
humor has been identified as a key part of discourse in hierarchies where
superiors assert authority, while also being utilized by subordinates to
challenge authority (Holmes & Marra, 2002).
Humor at the expense of managers can serve as a form of rebellion,
yet also to reinforce the exiting hierarchy. Consider the story of a large
company that decided that some budget cuts and streamlining were
needed for efficiency, and for that purpose hired a new manager. The
new boss was determined to rid the company of all slackers. On a tour of
the facility the new manager noticed a young man leaning against a wall.
The room was full of workers and he wanted to let them know he meant
business. The manager walked up to the guy leaning against the wall and
asked, “How much money do you make a week?” A little surprised, the
young man looked at him and replied, “I make $400 a week. Why?” The
new manager then handed the guy $1,600 in cash and screamed, “Here’s
four weeks’ pay. Now GET OUT and don’t come back!” Feeling pretty
good, the new manager looked around the room and asked, “Does any-
one want to tell me what that goof-ball did around here?” From across
the room came a voice, “Pizza delivery guy from Martino’s.” Thus does a
shared story “put management in their place” by eliciting laughter about
a manager that went to ridiculous (and in the end humorous) extremes to
assert authority. Organization members low in power found ways to use
humor to question management directives, whether to one another or
even directly to a manager in a paratelic, humorous way (Garner, Chan-
dler, & Wallace, 2015). In a sense, humor use serves as resistance to man-
agement; yet since it is in a non-serious form, in the consequential actions
actually taken by organization members the hierarchy is reinforced, and
dissatisfaction is merely vented through humorous remarks (Lynch,
2009). Humorous remarks that lead to serious dissenting actions, howev-
er, may serve to spark enacted divisiveness and actual organizational
change. Humor’s capacity to simultaneously help workers cope with triv-
ial or unsatisfactory duties yet lead to altering work routines in a non-
face-threatening way suggest its power—and its delicacy, as going too far
with humor may upset the hierarchy and damage a worker’s position
within it.
Even divisive humor can have salutatory effects on organizations and
cultures. Humor that puts down other groups can establish a light-
hearted context that invites laughter along with an attack upon another
group. Others are discouraged from negative attributions due to the in-
appropriateness of anger as a response in such a paratelic or “fun” situa-
tion. Differentiating comments pushing away or aside others can be fol-
80 Chapter 5

lowed up with “it’s just a joke” or “I only meant it in fun.” Yet the
differentiation was still accomplished, defusing resistance by putting dis-
senters in the positon of rejecting the humor and being “no fun.” Humor
also allows a speaker to mock the other group’s beliefs and individuals
while reproducing stereotypes of that group (Barnes, Palmary, & Dur-
rheim, 2001). Through such mockery, those in the group who share such
perceptions or beliefs are united in laughter. Terrion and Ashforth (2002)
found that put-down humor influences group cohesiveness, enforces
group norms, and increases identification levels. However, Terrion and
Ashforth specified that the interpretation of put-down humor may vary
from person to person. Not all who seem to enjoy it actually do so. When
a put-down is made, many laugh along with those who genuinely find
humor in the message, for the sake of social cohesion. Thus the divisive
effects of humor on the group remain influential despite those who may
not share fully in the appreciation of put-down humor.
As a key aspect of social interaction, humor has been found to crucial-
ly inhere in several organizational or cultural functions. Humor use rein-
forces essential or taken-for granted values while also helping in manag-
ing clashing values. Humor disciplines organizational members per-
ceived as violating norms, and reinforces group cohesiveness by
strengthening the acceptance of norms and values. Humor helps to ease
tension and adapt to sudden or ongoing changes while also enhancing
member identification with the organization or culture. Humor use helps
to educate new members, while also establishing and reinforcing rela-
tionships. Managers and leaders enhance their effectiveness by invoking
humor, yet members can resist supervisor power and directives through
humor. Negatively, humor can divide sub-groups one from another and
oppress groups through expectations of enjoying humor that puts others
down. With humor emerging as such a central and crucial organizational
tool, it not surprisingly has been researched extensively in organizational
settings. This chapter has attempted to summarize major findings in
terms of humor found in organizations on a group and cultural level, but
questions persist about how unique individuals may respond to all of
these humor attempts by one other person. It is to those questions of
humor in relationships that we now turn
 SIX
Humor in Personal Relationships

Relationships get their start, in part, through some sort of humor shared
with another person. When will the other person smile, or laugh? This
becomes a key question after meeting someone. A gauge of initial friend-
liness may depend in part on a mutual humor experience. An assessment
of the potential of a future relationship may also depend on humor. Hu-
mor is thus held by many to be central to the human interaction experi-
ence, and as relationships develop humorous events come to characterize
and represent one unique relationship. Two persons in a new relation-
ship begin learning about one another and each other’s perceptions of life
and its expected social patterns. Multiple potential sources of humor be-
come manifest. One is a sense of shared scripts for understanding a cultu-
ral violation together; another is mutual recognition of an awkward or
strange situation—any “departure” from a culturally or normatively ex-
pected script. Humor is regularly inserted into communication to test the
views of others along with the potential of a developing relationship
(Davis & Farina, 1970). Uncertainty is reduced, one way or another, by
the responses to the humor attempts or perceptions, and sharing in hu-
mor builds a unity that strengthens a relationship.
Solid, logical reasons exist for the cliché that people look for a sense of
humor in others before forming a relationship. As two parties grow clos-
er, uncertainty reduction is expected to occur through the couples’ com-
munication (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Humor use serves to reveal
shared understanding of life patterns. Reactions to divergences from
those patterns teach partners about one another and shared humorous
responses strengthen the bonds formed through communication. Seeking
humor experiences can help to overcome even great social differences, as
higher levels of humor orientation correlate with less apprehension for
communicating with someone from another culture (Miczo & Welter,

81
82 Chapter 6

2006). Shared humor responses help to bridge the gaps between our solo
human uniqueness. The effectiveness of humor use to build relationships
is widely known, as those individuals with a clear sense of humor are
more valued as potential relationship partners (Graham, 1995). The re-
duction of social distance readily accomplished through humor experi-
ences makes a growing relationship more probable.
Even as a couple, whether romantic or friendly, grows closer through
humor, there may be limits to the speed of closer growth. People seek to
learn about the other through communication, and much communication
can be attributed to this motive (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Humor is a
powerful tool for such learning. Yet, seldom do we seek to learn every-
thing about another person through a few interactions. Humans appre-
ciate the communication process as well as gaining knowledge about
another. There is a sense of fun that is maintained through exploring the
perspectives of each party in the relationship. Thus humor use may be
part of the “game” of relationship development, and more than simply a
practical tool for learning about another. Humor reduces the social dis-
tance between people not only by reducing uncertainty about others, but
simply through making them feel good through laughter (Ziv, 1984). A
sense of mystery infuses mutual experiences of humor with adventure
and fun. Resistance exists toward the idea of knowing everything about
the other person in a relationship. Even those together for years can en-
joy—and find funny—instances of surprise and continued learning about
one another. Not only do life situations provide new revelations, individ-
ual reactions can also surprise even after two people have learned a lot
about each other.
Following up on research that shows a higher degree of humor appre-
ciation relates to communication successes, logically a more developed
sense of humor fits with more success in relationships. People studied in
initial interactions showed that those who initiated more humor use were
highly desired for potential future relationships (Graham, 1995). Even if
one is not naturally a comedian, attempts at being funny will likely be
appreciated for promoting ingratiation. The fun inherent in humor and
the friendliness it enhances work together to build relationships. Studies
of couples show that those who respond positively to sharing the other’s
humor in their communication report higher levels of relationship satis-
faction (Honeycutt & Brown, 1998). One may initiate humor yet also
alternatively appreciate humor from the other. A higher ability to initiate
humor relates to handling stress better as well as effective expression of
emotions to the other (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield,
2005). Instead of letting a tragic mode of thinking dominate, raising stress
levels and potential negative emotions, a comic mode can help channel
stress through mocking a situation or help all realize that things may not
be so bad after all and situations can be handled together. Humor clearly
emerges as a key ingredient for healthy relationships.
 Humor in Personal Relationships 83

Humor’s presence gives us so much to talk about in relationships—

stories from the past, mutual remembrances, quirky perspectives of
events, or great topic-starters. Humor allows a shared distancing from
serious consequences or threats through a focus on amusement over a set
of circumstances. Instead of feeling uncertain and buffeted by events,
stories invoking humor can show enhanced understanding and that a
couple can deal with the situation and one another. Humor use in mes-
sages thus provides a sense of control over the topic (Morreall, 1989) and
serves as an effective comforting message in relationships (Bippus, 2000).
Exploring the question of what aspects of life actually spark humor with-
in relationships, Meyer (2012) found several common topics emerge:
laughing about the antics of pets, finding humor in acts of the self or
other, laughing together at outsiders to the partnership (especially chil-
dren), paradoxes and surprising events, wordplay, and, not surprisingly,
sexual activity. Not only did personal descriptions indicate these topics,
they clearly indicated the key unifying function humor could play for
couples, as in this description of one dog’s behavior:
Today as we got ready for the day our dog M[ac] was acting silly. He
was laying on his back with all four paws in the air and his head arched
to the side. H[usband] called me over from the bathroom to see how
cute M[ac] was acting. Not only was our dog acting funny I also
thought is was nice that once I heard H[usband] laughing I had to drop
everything and see what was going on. (Meyer, 2012, p. 171).
Couples could laugh at pets together, uniting them in a shared perspec-
tive for their relationship. Each could also share in laughing at each other,
though. One wife described watching a television commercial with her
husband:
The dad turned the water off on his child in the shower, stopped the
car a long distance from the children’s school and turned off the lights
leaving his family to eat in the dark. After each he said, “We are cutting
back.” I laughed and told Robbie how much this reminded me of him.
He is quite frugal. We both laughed. (Meyer, 2012, p, 171).
These diary entries preserving humor use by couples showed how many
topics that would be awkward confronting in a serious tone could be
approached using humor. Take, for instance, sexual relations:
So much of the humor in our relationship revolves around that typical
mid-life situation where the husband still has a strong desire to have
sex quite often and the wife desires it less often. It’s a lot like the
conversations between Ray and Debra Barone on the sitcom Everybody
Loves Raymond. In fact, there is a scene in one of the episodes where
Debra goes to bed in flannel pajamas sending the message to Ray that
he will not be “getting lucky” that night. We cracked up when we saw
that episode because it imitated our life so closely. When my husband
84 Chapter 6

sees me in flannel pajamas, he response is, “Oh no! You’ve got your
armor on tonight!” (Meyer, 2012, p. 172).
Issues including taking note of activities during daily life all the way to
potentially controversial topics in a relationship like sexuality were han-
dled by couples in a mutually inclusive way through humor.

A RELATIONSHIP TOOL: HUMOR AS UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION

Humor may be characterized as one potentially instant and powerful

form of uncertainty reduction. One theory holds that uncertainty reduc-
tion becomes the highest motivation for initiating and continuing com-
munication with others. As people communicate, they have a certain
degree of awareness of the self and how it might be perceived by others,
along with an inventory of what is known about the other person com-
municating (Berger & Bradac, 1982). To get to know other people better,
one communicates about “safe” topics at first, but then experiments with
more varied topics the more desire one has to get to know the other
person. One can talk about the weather, for instance, as a topic that af-
fects everyone, just to see if the other person will be responsive, act inter-
ested in talking, be friendly, or alternatively answer curtly and brusque-
ly. Such interaction allows a person to learn about the other and adjust
communication to that person’s personality. One may think, “well, this
isn’t going anywhere” and abandon further attempts to communicate or
grow a relationship; on the other hand an initial interaction may be so
pleasant that we seek to continue it or look forward to meeting that
person again. Humor, then, becomes a natural part of such uncertainty-
reducing interactions.
One common strategy for clarifying one’s own perspective on a topic
simultaneously with another’s consists of invoking humor. A mirth expe-
rience initiated by one party and responded to by another motivates
further communication and exploration of a relationship (whether casual,
personal, professional, or romantic). A mutual sharing of humor dramati-
cally offers something in common; a similarity. That is reassuring and
provides “ground” for further communication that becomes more com-
fortable. When people know they share a perspective on the topic pro-
voking humor, or the experience shared that both find funny, their
knowledge of the other is enhanced and further communication becomes
easier—even more desired and fun, in some situations.
Uncertainty reduction is enhanced through two elements key to shar-
ing humor: both parties must understand a “script” or have knowledge
of events so that humor can be appreciated, and there must also be some
kind of change in or violation of that script so that both are aroused in a
nonthreatening way. The shared humor allows both parties to quickly
learn something about the other through mutual understanding of a pat-
 Humor in Personal Relationships 85

tern and similar reactions to its violation. As those involved in communi-

cation all understand an event as humorous, all parties know they have
in common some element of experience crucial to sharing meaning. Thus,
people invoking a sense of humor in interactions reduce their uncertainty
about others and reduce others’ uncertainty about themselves (Graham,
1995). Laughing together, along with other ways of accepting someone’s
attempts at humor, furthers understanding between people and encour-
ages further interactions based on that common perspective shared.
Through humor, with the juxtaposition of an expected script and a
surprise or violation of that script, at least two frames of reference be-
come interpreted and resolved in a meaningful way. Thus, “humor is
symbolic action that confirms the existence of multiple frames of refer-
ence for viewing the same social reality” (Boland & Hoffman, 1983, p.
196). Appreciation of humor thus requires quick perception of at least
two perspectives. Humor allows one to move beyond the expected tidbits
of information obtained about another through the typical conversation
including asking questions. Reducing uncertainty about the other person
through adding information is useful through conversation, but invoking
humor can promote common understanding simultaneously on multiple
levels. Not only are social patterns mutually acknowledged, but viola-
tions are appreciated by laughing together as well. Whole sets of poten-
tial topics and shared perspectives can be uncovered in one communica-
tion act involving humor. Sharing humor shows that the other party is
open to alternate perspectives, too.
Consider the two perspectives invoked in this report from a company
manager: “We know that communication is a problem, but the company
is not going to discuss it with the employees.” Seriously working on
enhancing communication is juxtaposed with a refusal to engage in ap-
propriate communication. Those who can relate to and understand such
organizational situations can share in appreciating the humor caused by
such sudden contrast. With mutual laughter, aspects of multiple perspec-
tives are held in common, clarifying what is known and understood,
along with meanings where communicators find agreement. At the same
time, a willingness to explore additional perspectives through humor is
shown. Laughing at such a statement may allow both parties to appre-
ciate ongoing problems in the organization involving communication,
while also understanding contextual reasons such issues should not be
formally discussed. Whether laughing together at the communicative in-
competence of management, or mutually understanding the need to re-
frain from such discussions, both parties learn that the other can perceive
events in a similar way, potentially sparking further and more confident
discussion.
Invoking varying frames of reference through humor enhances and
elaborates understanding of situations, events, and other people. Not
only does one learn a piece of information about the other, but one learns
86 Chapter 6

how that person can alternatively see events, or consider patterns in

multiple ways. An additional follow-up comment to the communication
report, for instance, might be, “I’m sure our top-flight communication
department will get right on it.” If the tone of voice indicates sarcasm,
then both parties learn the other shares a certain distaste for the abilities
of the organization’s communication division. Both may then feel more
comfortable talking in a certain “rebellious” manner about organization
management. Even if the sarcasm is uncertain, however, then the remark
allows the other the chance to take the comment seriously, and then
reduce their uncertainty about that other person from that act as well.
Two parties or a group communicating shared knowledge and shared
appreciation of a humorous pattern violation leads to a powerful basis
for further communication and a growing relationship. The more humor
that is shared, the more common scripts people may invoke in their inter-
actions. Uncertainty may thus be reduced dramatically and quickly by
witnessing others’ reaction to the clashing perspectives invoked in hu-
mor. The “inside jokes” that develop in a relationship or group serve as a
foundation of unity and commonality, giving people a sense of comfort
and understanding of the other. One “knows more” about the others,
including communication styles, likely reactions to an increased number
of topics, and perspectives on which there is a basic level of agreement.
Such a comfort zone allows creative exploring of other ideas and a more
relaxed, informal communication atmosphere than may be maintained in
a situation where one is uncertain of the other’s perspectives and com-
munication patterns. As suggested earlier, humor enhances creativity in
part through reassuring communicators in the knowledge of one another,
allowing for multiple visions brought to bear on an issue and sparking
new ideas and combinations of them. In such ways, reduced uncertainty
about others leads to comfortable creativity in relationships and groups.
Mutual sharing of perspectives is not the only way to reduce uncer-
tainty through humor, though. Humor can be used (metaphorically) to
“probe” or “dig into” another person, as well. Somewhat more assertive
or aggressive than sharing a humorous story or remark, teases can ex-
plore and set the boundaries for relationships. The key question with
teases becomes, “will the other person find it funny? How will that per-
son react?” The answer then sets the stage for learning more about the
person through a growing relationship, or realizing that a “boundary”
has been crossed as the tease is taken seriously as a personal attack. Such
uncertainty reduction can be hazardous to relationships, but one’s posi-
tion may be clarified instantly, at least on that particular topic. If it means
a lot to the person, a lack of humor in response can clearly so indicate. Yet
a willingness to tease or accept teases in fun may also open the topic up
to further perspectives and alternative ways to approach and laugh at
such issues.
 Humor in Personal Relationships 87

Teases become more common in a comfortable communication cli-

mate of less uncertainty. Teases can also test the limits of such uncertain-
ty, as they may serve to characterize each party in a relationship. Adding
teases to the context of a relationship helps define it (Alberts, Kellar-
Gunther, & Corman, 1996). When tease recipients accept, reject, or ignore
a tease, they send a signal about how the relationship progresses. Teasing
thus serves as a form of uncertainty reduction through humor. Similarly,
teasing about ethnic groups may reinforce prejudices or actually discount
such prejudices by mocking them (La Fave & Mannell, 1976). Either way,
characteristics of a group are learned through humorous remarks by and
about members. Reduced uncertainty follows as common, shared charac-
teristics allow understanding and appreciation of teases as humor.
The most dramatic uncertainty that those invoking teasing humor face
is the response to any attempt. A tease can be viewed as aggressive and
therefore an attack, and not treated as humor. On the other hand, rich
sets of teasing that all parties find pleasant and clearly amusing charac-
terize many groups and relationships. Uncertainties about the state or
growth of relationships can be clarified by reactions to teases. Healthier
relationships involve a dominant response to teases as attempts at humor
that bring couples closer (Alberts, Kellar-Gunther, & Corman, 1996). Re-
lationships are in trouble where the primary perception of teases is as
attacks that are not viewed as humorous by the recipient; those relation-
ships are growing more distant. Thus can humor serve as a gauge of
relationship closeness, and a measure of reduced uncertainty for commu-
nicators. Some leeway granted for teasing indicates a healthy and grow-
ing relationship, while a rigid and inflexible view of teases as attacks
indicates a threatened or dying one.
From casual to intimately close relationships, then, humor serves as
one key means of uncertainty reduction. Some people are more careful
and guarded, monitoring closely what messages they send in relation-
ships, while others readily ask questions and probe through communica-
tion to learn about the other person (Berger & Bradac, 1982). Such indi-
vidual differences in uncertainty reduction methods in communication
likely extend to differences in humor use, as well. Some are ready with a
joke or a tease, while others hesitate even to laugh out loud at first about
acts found funny. Even discovering another’s propensity to use or re-
spond to humor can tell a lot about that person. Is the person ready with
a humorous line? Or, is a laugh seemingly rare? Can one get the person to
actually engage in a rare smile? Individual differences in humor use may
be explored extensively, as summarized in a separate chapter. Yet that is
one key element we regularly seek to discover about another as we inter-
act—what kind of sense of humor emerges? However humor is used,
people are curious how it fits in each individual’s personality mixture.
Yet, in the end, there is no question that humor use pervades human
88 Chapter 6

communication and sets up a rich potential of ways to reduce uncertain-

ty.

HUMOR, SECURITY, AND TRUST

Humor use enhances empathy and trust in relationships (Hampes, 1999;

2001), and leads to more intimacy as a result (Hampes, 1992; 1994). A
sense of sharing feelings without danger of hurt or tension grows rela-
tionships through laughter. Trust of the other allows the playfulness to
occur that includes treating remarks humorously. One does not have to
worry about being betrayed through something said; thus both parties
can relax and laugh at statements. In the comic mode, statements do not
have to be taken seriously. The experience of laughing together reinforces
a couple’s shared perspective and shows how much each party thinks
like the other and can talk to the other without danger of repercussions.
A member of one elderly couple noting shared humor events, even after
being together for over fifty years, put it this way: “During our early
morning walk it began to rain and it tickled our funnybone for some
reason–the idea of two old people trying to hurry in out of the rain.”
Simply sharing a perspective and knowing that an event could be per-
ceived as incongruous together improved the relationship. The fun of
being part of such a relationship leads to its strengthening and enhance-
ment.
A sense of security and safety is also conveyed in the context of a
relationship through using humor (Miczo, 2004). Less anxiety about com-
munication in a relationship, along with more sense of support from the
other, leads to more humorous statements with the resulting laughter.
Laughter, indeed, may have communicated safety for humanity even in
prehistory. It engenders the sense that “everything is OK, and there is
nothing to worry about.” In relationships, a sense of security strongly
predicts likelihood of trying out humorous comments to elicit the other’s
laughter (Miczo 2004). Effective humor use, along with the necessary
ability to understand the patterns in the situation and the perspective of
the other, can combat and reduce loneliness. A person flexible in commu-
nication and willing to take risks may “score” more successful humor
instances, and thus be sought after in relationships. Responding with
humor shows the other person can relax and take the statements as hu-
morous and in fun. More potential for humor leads to more secure rela-
tionships—and makes one less likely to be lonely.
The tendencies people have for attaching to others in relationships
have also been found to relate to humor use. People who are anxious
about their relationships are not as willing to risk seeking humor, and
thus attempt to use few unifying humorous remarks (Miczo, Averbeck, &
Mariani, 2009). Those who avoid attachments tend to use divisive humor
 Humor in Personal Relationships 89

more, teasing or differentiating themselves from others by criticizing vio-

lations or differences. People secure in their relationships or aptitude for
forming them engage in identification and clarification humor more. Uni-
fying humor serves both to accomplish relational goals and set a playful
tone as part of a relationship. Divisive humor, on the other hand, can
serve a distancing or boundary-setting function, laying out differences
and reducing rapport and preventing a close relationship. Whether
through enforcement or differentiation functions, a telic goal of dissen-
tion or correction becomes paramount and relationships are muted or
prevented. Thus can humor serve to lay out social boundaries through
interpersonal communication.
Sharing humor together, though, is a basic relationship-building tool.
Laughing together becomes a strong indicator of relationship unity.
Thus, mutual humor use is a key indicator of a relationship that is safe
and under control. People in such relationships can relax and playfully
respond to aspects of reality and social patterns encountered. They can
also enjoy one another’s characteristics and varying perspectives in an
atmosphere with less “performing” and concern for practical conse-
quences. One does not have to be seriously “on display” or proving one’s
effectiveness or practicality in the relationship, allowing for some fun
instead. Having a partner who appreciates one’s humor is strongly relat-
ed to both intimacy level and satisfaction within marriages (De Koning &
Weiss, 2002). In relationships, humor works to enhance closeness and
relieve tension, while also promoting the mental flexibility and influence
involved in ongoing give-and-take with the other. Playing with the other,
as when sharing humor, can be as important as working with or working
out serious issues with the other in a relationship.

Humor and Conflict

When it comes to conflicts, humor generally can help their manage-
ment or resolution. If one chooses to avoid a conflict or accommodate a
partner, humor may serve as a diplomatic way to do so. Compromise or
problem-solving can also be approached creatively using humor (Bippus,
2003). When styles of engaging in conflict have been studied, indeed, the
amount of humor use correlates with all conflict management styles ex-
cept forcing (Smith, Harrington, & Neck, 2000). So, a forcing or competi-
tive style is less likely to involve humor use, but all other conflict man-
agement styles are more likely to involve it. Humor use can pave the way
for a change of topic, averting a conflict, or it can minimize the impor-
tance of a potential conflict issue. It can signal laughing at one’s own
passion for an issue or mistake in approaching it. Facilitating discussion
and compromise or problem-solving about an issue, too, can be managed
with humor. Joking about an issue can reduce tension and avoid a tragic
sense that there is only one way to resolve things, with only one succeed-
90 Chapter 6

ing and the other facing the costs. A comic mode can encourage brain-
storming and creative problem solving in the face of conflict.
Potential threats to relationships can, at times, be mitigated through
humor use. People who can retain that sense of fun and creativity at least
in part through humor will tend to be more open to options for overcom-
ing obstacles and forgiving mistakes. In relationships, the ability to cope
with relational transgressions is increased by one’s level of humor appre-
ciation (Labelle, Booth-Butterfield, & Weber, 2013). The playful, open,
creative communication made possible through humor use can defuse
serious conflict and can open parties up to communication leading to
conflict management or resolution. Humor is used by couples and friends
to show affection, enjoy events together, and avoid or let go of conflicts,
all of which enhance relationship satisfaction (Hall, 2013). One party may
refuse to see the humor in a situation or comments about it, and this will
prevent humor’s salutary effects. As explored in the next chapter, how
one party reacts to the other’s attempts at humor may signal the positive
or negative future of the relationship.
Humor’s reinforcing of similarities between people can both over-
come conflict and reduce uncertainty, thereby strengthening relation-
ships. The shared appreciation of social patterns indicated—and perhaps
violated—by humor use reinforces the strength of personal bonds and
the ability to relax and play with the other. These effects can be seen in
research showing that those of similar races and classes employ humor
with one another more (Smith, Harrington, & Neck, 2000). The familiarity
of those who can appreciate humor similarly enhances cultural scripts or
norms held in common—along with violations of them that can be
laughed at together and then built upon to improve relationships. Humor
can help parties in relationships remain together and cope through stress-
ful times by enhancing a sense of shared control and reinforcement of
shared values—a strength that enhances couples’ ability to overcome dif-
ficult situations (Horan, Bochantin, & Booth-Butterfield, 2012). Indeed, in
relationships, a sense of humor can enhance the flexibility and creativity
of both parties as they experience life events together. Humor’s capacity
to illuminate violations and contrasts between expectations and alternate
patterns allows for relational “play” and mutual growth.

Hierarchical Relationships
Humor can also overcome personal differences that initially may seem
rather daunting. A serious social distance can lead to communication
being overly formal or scripted, as when one talks to someone with a
much higher degree of perceived power. A formal organizational rela-
tionship or intimidating power difference can be overcome by introduc-
tion of humor. One relationship fraught with contrasts that need bridg-
ing—mainly knowledge and power differences—is that formed between
 Humor in Personal Relationships 91

physician and patient. Much research on humor in medical relationships

shows how it can overcome fear and uncertainty and lead to more honest
discussion of disease and health issues. Humor serves to reduce a focus
on power differences and encourage doctor-patient interaction, improv-
ing information-gathering from patients and increasing their participa-
tion in their own health care (Scholl, 2007). Both parties can find patterns
shared to spark laughter and a more objective perspective on illness. A
sense of sympathy may also be conveyed through humor, as well, put-
ting both parties on a similar human level. Discussion may follow with
both parties being “real” and getting to know one another, generating
potential plans and solutions in the process. Humor can make even
strongly professional relationships more personal.
A similar power difference reinforcing formality and distance in rela-
tionships occurs in classrooms, as students and teachers seek to relate to
one another. Humor in the classroom enhances students’ perceptions of
compliance-gaining attempts (Punyanunt, 2000), suggesting a desirable
student-teacher relational outcome accomplished through humor. Much
like requests and orders in organizations, humor can help students assess
and adjust to teacher dictates. The change in behavior needed can be
laughed at in some aspect rather than treated as a tragic necessity. Stu-
dents are more willing to learn when a relationship with a teacher is
enhanced, made closer, and made somewhat less formal through the use
of humor (Banas et al., 2011). Like any relationship, humor can be crucial
for sparking mutually beneficial behaviors like paying attention and
working hard on the part of both teacher and student.
Teachers who use humor have the capability to dramatically enhance
the most important relationship necessary for learning. Effective humor
use by instructors has been shown to enhance students’ learning, encour-
age their extra effort, and improve the relationship with the instructor
inside and outside of the classroom (Goodboy, Booth-Butterfield, Bolkan,
& Griffin, 2015; Neuliep, 1991). Humor use introduces an approachability
and entertainment factor to the relationship that positively influences
learning. Humor that characterizes positively the relationship between
teacher and students can help to grow the relationship. Humor use in
deliberate and appropriate ways certainly motivates students to learn
and to interact more with the instructor, potentially leading to even more
learning (Goodboy et al., 2015). Indeed, humor use can be part of an
instructor personality that uses charisma to transform students from
knowing less to knowing more, and motivating them to pursue even
more knowledge (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011). Teachers who use humor
encourage student engagement in the topic and the instructor-student
relationship, leading to a growth in knowledge and social ties for all.
The mental stimulation provided by humor can also enhance learning,
as shared pattern recognition must occur for the incongruity of humor to
be recognized and resolved. In a sense, once a student can identify an
92 Chapter 6

incongruity that is resolved in a teacher’s message, the student perceives

the humor and has learned about that pattern (Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin,
2010). This is why humor that is relevant somehow to the course content
is found to be more effective. Success at recognizing one pattern and its
violation can motivate students to understand and pursue other such
patterns, giving a sense of entertainment to learning as well as relation-
ship satisfaction with an instructor who shares in humor appreciation.
Humor can thus serve as quite a motivator in the educational setting,
enhancing the relationships that make learning faster and more fun.
Humor use in education does have its limits, though, research finds.
Between teachers and students, too much humor in teaching lowers cred-
ibility, just as in persuasive attempts. Humor alone does not enhance
learning, as relying on humor too much by becoming a joker or clown
reduces student willingness to take the instructor seriously and take ac-
tion to learn. Humor is also judged by students as appropriate or inap-
propriate, which affects its contribution to communication and teaching
effectiveness (Wanzer & Frymier, 1999; Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, &
Smith, 2006). Ineffective humor is often viewed as inappropriate and will
hinder learning. Often these are attempts at humor that involve put-
downs of students, student groups, or other liked groups. Humor that is
so irrelevant as to seem off in a weird zone also falls into an ineffective
realm. Appropriate humor has the desired, enhancing, unifying effect,
since it humanizes a teacher or shows common perspective on a topic, as
well as possibly serving to entertain. Inappropriate humor, though, belit-
tles or puts down students and serves a divisive or differentiating role,
damaging and distancing the relationships between student and teacher
(Frymier & Houser, 2012). Yet still, in terms of education relationships,
humor used as part of “immediacy behaviors” like using personal exam-
ples, encouraging students to talk, moving around the classroom, eye
contact, and smiling, enhances teacher credibility (Gorham & Christo-
phel, 1990). Trying too hard to “perform” using humor backfires for
teachers, especially when done at the expense of students’ positive iden-
tity (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk, 2008), but when humor is made
part of a relationship growing closer it can benefit students as they are
motivated to learn more.

Teasing and Humor

Across all relationships, the question of teasing is a difficult one to
address. Teasing tends toward the enforcement and differentiation func-
tions of humor, thus potentially dividing people. Yet it clearly has some
playful and relationally enhancing aspects, as it encourages a sense of fun
or play and indicates some relational security—one seldom teases some-
one not known or cared about. Some teasing clearly indicates comfort
and familiarity in a relationship, but too much—or teasing that is taken
 Humor in Personal Relationships 93

too seriously—can open a social distance between people and hinder a

relationship. Teasing and critiquing through humor clearly function bet-
ter in relationships than more direct, serious criticism does (Young &
Bippus, 2001). Such messages with humor are viewed as less hurtful.
There is, nevertheless, a sense of critique inherent in teasing, as some
aspect of one’s personality or actions is made light of, or shown to be
contradicting some expected social pattern. Teasing involves aggression
in the sense that one’s identity is questioned in some way, yet it also
invokes a play frame that inserts ambiguity into a remark, so that it is
“funny” or just in fun (Mills & Carwile, 2009). The ability to joke and
tease creates a safer space in a relationship for communication to be less
restricted or judgmental, and thus more free. Teases about a person’s
identity and appearance are found most often, but the topic does not
determine a recipient’s response to a tease. Background knowledge of the
relationship is the major factor in how one chooses to take a tease, along
with the context of the tease, nonverbal messages, and one’s own mood
(Alberts, Kellar-Gunther, & Corman, 1996). Teasing is a unique way to
attack yet in a “friendly” way. The recipient of a tease must choose how
to receive it—and a negative or neutral reception of a tease can stifle a
relationship. Thus, if a tease is perceived more as an attack than as hu-
mor, it will naturally endanger a relationship upon its enactment.
On the one hand, teasing, like any use of humor, shows desire for a
closer relationship, as the common assumption that boys who tease girls
really do like those girls indicates. Making a remark or telling a story
with a tease and laughing together about it creates a shared “play space”
or paratelic mode that allows for comfort, creativity, and flexibility as a
relationship grows. People more likely to tease after a relationship has
formed may form more and closer ones. Those who are higher in humor
orientation, for instance, are less lonely, suggesting they use humor more
effectively in relationships (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butter-
field, 1996). Higher humor-oriented people also find humor in more situ-
ations and by enacting it, including through teases, show more adaptabil-
ity in their communication (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butter-
field, 1995). One grandmother in her humor diary suggested that teasing
was an effective way to correct her young grandson on desirable behav-
ior, and indeed even became a unifying symbol in her relationship with
her husband:
For what it is worth, my husband and I, of 41 years, use inside jokes to
de-stress. The latest came from my 4-year-old grandson who did this
fake crying last week and made me mad, at which point I reverted to
preschool behavior and howled back and told him it sounded like there
were ghosts in the house. I told my husband; who now howls at me
when I whine. Of course, I howl at him when he complains.
94 Chapter 6

A response to complaints in the form of a howl, although not seeming to

help the source of any complaint, opens up a fun and safe zone for the
relationship to continue, signaling that whatever it is, it is not so bad after
all.
Some of the fun and entertainment that people seek in close relation-
ships is provided through teasing by those with greater humor orienta-
tion. These people tend to be “the life of the party” and attract others to
potential relationships. Such elevated social attractiveness helps them
adapt to and maintain more relationships. A key part of this relationship
fun involves teasing. The capacity to show observance of the others char-
acteristics—demonstrating some care for the other—while also making
light of them in a playful way shows a potentially safe and exciting new
relationship as possible. Clearly there must be some allowance for teasing
as a healthy relationship-growing and enhancement tool. So many rela-
tionships have teasing as one of their essential rituals.
On the other hand, there can be doubt about relational humor since
teases or other potentially aggressive forms of humor “taken too far” can
be perceived as serious attacks that can damage a relationship. Even if, on
the whole, humor remains essential to the formation and strengthening
of continued relationships, too much teasing that questions or belittles to
the point of damaging someone’s identity can damage them and make
continuing the relationship fraught with difficulty as well. As with per-
suasion, too much humor may indicate that even the relationship itself or
the value of the partner in it are not taken seriously. This can spell the
beginning of the end of that relationship. Next, then, comes a considera-
tion of how dramatic differentiation humor may divide those in relation-
ships and, at times, damage them beyond repair.
 SEVEN
Dangers of Humor for Relationships

Research on humor in personal relationships and in groups has naturally

trended toward exploring the positive, unifying effects that it has. The
enjoyment people get from humor, along with its clear potential for uni-
fying groups and relationships, has overshadowed the social drawbacks
of humor use. Yet a clear aggressive tendency may be seen in humor, as
evidenced by the superiority theory. Humor can damage relationships
and exacerbate differences between people and groups, as shown by the
differentiation function. Humor can mitigate or mask hostile attacks, and
thus be used as a form of aggression (DiCioccio, 2012), and may even
serve to spark conflict itself (Wigley, 2012). So much of humor that comes
at the expense of one or the other gender, for instance, has a sense of
hostility running through it. Consider the answer to the question: “What
do you call a handcuffed man? Trustworthy.” Or, “why do men like
smart women? Opposites attract.” Contrastingly, it was noted that “a
woman has the last word in any argument. Anything a man says after
that is that beginning of a new argument.” Additionally, “any married
man should forget his mistakes. There’s no use in two people remember-
ing the same thing.” Each of these bits finds a way to “slam” or put down
the other gender. Such evident hostility finds frequent expression in hu-
mor, although one hopes that its potential serious implications are also
mitigated by the humor. Through earlier research, five key negative ef-
fects of humor in relationships have emerged to be explored here.

UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION: USING HUMOR MAY REVEAL

CERTAIN DIFFERENCES

We look for a sense of humor when we meet another person, but what
about humor at one’s own or others’ expense? We learn about relation-
95
96 Chapter 7

ships through humor, but we may also learn about disagreements, and
varied perspectives, by seeing what that other person finds to be funny.
The sense humor gives of “being on the same page” lets couples reinforce
the relationship and reassure one another that future events can be man-
aged comfortably. Such a reduction in uncertainty fits theoretical expec-
tations for a positively developing relationship (Berger & Calabrese,
1975). Yet, looking for similarities in a relationship, we may uncover
some dramatic differences, some even calling the relationship itself into
question. What if the other person jokes about a group that is considered
important? What if a topic of high ego involvement is seen to be taken
lightly or even an opposite way as revealed through humor use? For
instance, one of the most moving and inspiring movies one has ever seen
is ridiculed as idiotic or foolish. This can put a damper on a relationship
and even on further communication. Although communication with hu-
mor may fulfill a basic need for uncertainty reduction (Berger & Bradac,
1982), it may bring into certainty dramatic differences, outrages, and in-
sults.
One instance of revealing differences was enacted when a manager of
a local sales force reported that an employee’s company credit card was
stolen, but the manager chose not to pursue the crime because there were
fewer charges on the credit card after it was stolen than before. This twist,
to a listener, could be humorous, yet at the same time slams the employee
as a big spender. When an employee who thinks highly of that person
hears that line, even if seen as funny, it reveals a fairly low opinion of that
worker. Such information, perhaps not known before, becomes known
through humor. Yet difficulties in the work relationship may well follow.
Humor reduces uncertainty in promotion of unity, for sure, but it also
does so as an instigator of conflict.

Humor May be Used to Control Another

Although humor has been called glue that holds relationships togeth-
er (Meyer, 2012), one party asserting superiority over the other through
invoking humor can assert control and thus exacerbate conflict. For in-
stance, one piece of advice for workers seeking to unwind recommended
one sit in a parked car with sunglasses on, pointing a hair dryer at pass-
ing cars to see if they slow down. This humorous assertion of control
could well be resented by people who figure out they have been “had” or
tricked. Any practical joke has the potential to backfire negatively when
the victim perceives the threat or loss of control as serious rather than
humorous. Few people enjoy being so blatantly laughed at, especially by
strangers from whom no good will is perceived. Failure to sense security
in the relationship (Miczo, 2004) leads to a more tragic perspective on the
situation, rather than accepting the comic one.
 Dangers of Humor for Relationships 97

Long term relationships depend on a mutually agreeable level of shar-

ing between the parties. Each communicator wishes to perceive some
area of control or power level in relation to the other (Dunbar, 2004).
Levels of affection and involvement, if not constant, are cycling in a re-
warding way for both parties (Conville, 1991). If these cycles go “off
kilter,” to the point that one party becomes too controlling, the other
party may become dissatisfied and the relationship is in trouble. Humor
can thus be perceived as an unwarranted assertion of control—as when
expressing humor through superiority may be perceived as taking con-
trol in an aggressive way by the other party. Issues of control among
couples range from the major to minor day-to-day events. One woman
recorded how a relatively minor instance of humor could be used by her
to maintain control over her husband:
Today after walking the Trace with Henry we were in the dressing
room getting ready to change out of workout clothes into our house
clothes and shower. I saw a big pimple on Henry’s back and was going
to extract it for him. That’s my thing, extracting blemishes because they
gross me out. So I went for it and Henry knew what I was up to and
told me not to do it (because it’s painful). So we struggled back and
forth a bit with him warning me and me trying to extract it. After about
30 seconds he gave me a final warning and said if I did it, it would ruin
our night. I corrected him and said, “You mean it will ruin your night
not mine.” Then we both cracked up laughing because it was one of
those situations where he thought he was going to have to lay down
the law and instead I reminded him that it was all in his head and he
really had no control over me. It was really a funny situation for both of
us and we were laughing hard. I think this situation of humor helped
our relationship because it was a display of how both of us were trying
to assert ourselves and then realized that neither of us could do it
without the other giving in. It also relieved the tension with laughter.
In this case, both parties accepted the humor of the situation, but in many
similar situations one could see either party laughing off one instance but
remaining dissatisfied with the ongoing control in the relationship (or
lack thereof) by one party or the other.
Humor has a crucial control function in the management of interper-
sonal relations. Dealing with the characteristics and behaviors of others
through humor enables humorous responses to deal with contradictions
and unusual situations presented by life. One study showed that couples
laughing at characteristics of themselves and their partner mutually pro-
cessed potential superiorities of one partner over the other (Meyer, 2012).
Violating expected norms could result in shared humor, showing that the
resulting sense of superiority was benign and simply became a reinforc-
ing part of the relationship. Yet, such violations could also be taken as
aggressive rather than benign. Discordant couples could see the humor
attempts merely express bitter conflicts alienating the partner and dam-
98 Chapter 7

aging the relationship. The difficulty lies for researchers in attempting to

study humor use among such couples—they may not last very long in
the relationship and they often do not want to participate in humor stud-
ies, more than likely.
In organizations, social discipline has been enforced through humor
by members. Those who violate norms are punished or called to account
for their actions by being laughed at in stories. One worker in such an
instance said she had been asked to “remove herself” from a computer in
a brusque and inconsiderate way, contradicting the strong values placed
on kindness and consideration for others—and she told this story later in
a way that humorously ridiculed that employee (Meyer, 1997). There was
no doubt of the separation and dissention engaged through humor di-
rected at the expense of that employee. Clearly, in relationships, social
groups, and organizations, humor can be used to control by enforcing
violated norms through anecdotal punishment and similar dividing or
differentiating through communication.

Relational Partners Must Choose to Share Humor for the Relationship to Grow
When humor functions positively in a relationship, the flexibility and
openness involved in taking humorous approaches to events reinforces
the parties’ commitments to the other and to the relationship. Humor
could be used to avoid painful confrontations with the other, but more
often humor serves to approach or broach a topic that, taken in all seri-
ousness, could be threatening to one or the other party’s identity or to the
relationship as a whole (Meyer, 2012). Yet the context for the humor and
preceding events in relationships affect the choice each party makes to
acknowledge humor or not. Humorous incidents are judged based upon
both affective and cognitive impressions, so that both experience and
situation are involved in the presence of humor (Leventhal & Cupchik,
1976). Humor meant by its producer to unify, for instance, might be
considered the height of differentiation to an offended party. Also, a basic
choice is made by both senders and receivers of humor whether to expe-
rience humor or not (Attardo & Raskin, 1993). Humorous messages, tak-
en in a “bona-fide” spirit, may communicate basic information only or
simply nonsense without any perception of humor by another party (Ra-
skin, 1985). The “non-bona-fide” playful aspect of humor is key to experi-
encing the mental duality that allows its experience. Depending on the
context of the situation, though, one may choose to “play” or not.
Negative uses of humor and dysfunctional relationships are con-
nected (Alberts, 1990). With humor, a partner’s response to the humor
attempt is as important as the attempt itself. Well-adjusted couples accept
the other’s attempts at humor and respond positively (Alberts). Humor
use by highly humor-oriented individuals involves more flexibility and
attractiveness by them, but those individuals also high in verbal aggres-
 Dangers of Humor for Relationships 99

siveness would aim that humor at someone else through ridicule or sar-
casm more (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1996). One
woman described a potentially “violent” event for a couple that both
parties accepted as humorous, yet one could well imagine if one or both
of the parties had taken the event seriously, conflict could have sparked
and grown:
We had just emptied some boxes from my mom’s house that contained
some of my childhood keepsakes. Among the items was a box of my
old Barbie dolls. Lilly [the three-year-old daughter] promptly tore into
the box, helping herself to the dolls. I watched as she dressed one of the
dolls in a wedding dress. She was playing with the bride and a Ken
doll in a tuxedo. I told Parker to watch her because it was so cute. But
as soon as Parker turned around to look at her, she ripped Ken’s head
off. Parker and I started to laugh hard and Lilly just looked up and
gave us a huge grin. In her childish Lilly-speak she said, “Do you think
I broke it?”
This instance of humor helped our relationship because we were
both stressed from visiting my mother. (A visit to her place is always
stressful.) The innocence in Lilly’s actions combined with the “vio-
lence” of ripping the doll’s head off gave us an opportunity to laugh as
a couple and as a family, even though Lilly probably didn’t really
know why she was laughing.
In this instance, the couple both found the event funny. If one or the other
became outraged enough, though, and chose the tragic or serious per-
spective, it could lead to escalating conflict even as the other party may
attempt to joke about the situation. Refusal to accept the humor could
maintain a serious communication concerned with consequences, but
could also raise tension and exacerbate conflict.
The choice to appreciate humor has major relational implications. Be-
ing in “play” mode, ready to accept humor as such, portends a growing,
positive, relationship. Extensive research has shown that people who
show a higher degree of humor appreciation or sense of humor are more
successful in their relationships. In interpersonal relationships, humor
has been shown to enhance intimacy (Hampes, 1992; 1994), empathy
(Hampes, 2001), assertiveness (Bell, McGhee, & Duffey, 1986) and trust
(Hampes, 1999). Studies pairing communicators measured to have a
highly developed sense of humor with those demonstrating a less devel-
oped sense of humor show the power of a sense of humor within inter-
personal encounters—those invoking humor are much more desired as
potential future partners (Graham, 1995). Also, couples that shared and
accepted one another’s humor showed more satisfaction in their marriage
(Honeycutt & Brown, 1998).
There is far less research, however, on those couples that decline to
accept humor in statements by the partner. Often, it may be due to the
fact that they do not remain couples for long (Alberts, 1990). The decision
100 Chapter 7

to accept and respond to humor positively enhances a relationship, but it

also is precipitated by the context of the ongoing relationship trending
positive or negative. Children, for instance, learn young that humor can
be a powerful enhancer of relationships, even as it can divide one from
another in the process (Socha & Kelly, 1994). For children, invoking and
appreciating humor serve as a clear sign of an ability to understand
multiple perspectives and developed reasoning patterns (Meyer, 2003),
yet finding humor in a situation could also be perceived, like teasing,
hitting, kicking, or moving away, as a direct attack or rejection. Although
children would treat humor use by adults or known friends as indicating
closer relationships when shared laughter would lead to more eager initi-
ation of messages with the same party, they would also respond to hu-
mor with anger when its use was perceived as asserting superiority or an
attack. In one study of couple’s conversations, positive, affiliative or uni-
fying humor caused partners to feel more support in the relationship,
while more attacking, aggressive humor endangered the sense of support
and put partners in a more negative mood (Howland & Simpson, 2014).
A lack of acceptance of partner humor clearly suggests a more distant or
deteriorating relationship, a finding evident across multiple studies.

Couples May Use Humor as a Weapon

Invocations of humor by someone can also draw boundaries and raise
tensions. Teasing often divides people in such a way, as it can be negative
or positive; help to form or maintain relationships yet serve as a channel
of aggression (Alberts, Kellar-Gunther, & Corman, 1996). Messages can
therefore be sent with ambiguity, rather than complete earnest sincerity.
This flexibility can enhance relationships by smoothing the rough edges
of negative comments, or it can couch hurtful comments in a “play”
mode. Teases also emerge as crucial for assessing potential romantic rela-
tionships as well as negotiating rank in social hierarchies (Keltner, 2008).
The element of seriousness or truth behind any humorous remark can
then be responded to seriously, potentially exacerbating conflict. One
husband described how competition for control led to his use of humor
as a weapon—in this case, to obtain the symbolic control embodied in a
television remote control:
While I define myself as OCD and my wife the more laid back partner
in this marriage, when it comes to the television remote, she is the only
one who can possess it. (LOL) While watching a program together, she
began to flip from channel to channel between programs. She set the
remote down and when she couldn’t quickly put her hands on it, she
feverishly searched until she could hold it again. As I went to grab the
remote from her, she quickly set it on the night stand by the bed. I
reached over her and she “dared” me to touch it. Of course, I couldn’t
resist. While I didn’t grab it, I did “touch” it. She smiled and again
 Dangers of Humor for Relationships 101

“threatened” me if I touched it. What’s a man to do?! Touch it, of

course. She began to playfully pinch me and dared me to touch it yet
again. I touched it again, she got upset and folded her arms. I reminded
her what that meant in body language and laughed. I found it quite
funny. She didn’t. (Hurt the relationship.) I left the room. However,
after I let her cool off a few minutes, I went back to find her smiling and
daring me to touch her remote again. Then she kissed me. (Helped).
However, I didn’t touch her remote. (LOL).
Here was an instance that could have been an example of humor as a
weapon that exacerbates conflict, as it seemed to initially, yet in the end
both parties accepted the humor in the situation and it was defused. It
became a fun attempt at control rather than one serious symptom of an
ongoing battle for control in the relationship. The wife also recorded this
same instance in a humor diary, noting humor’s use in their case to
defuse ongoing tension:
Stan and I have this ongoing fight over the remote. Unlike many cou-
ples, I rule the remote at my house. (LOL). Stan, who is a little OCD,
hates for me to switch channels. I, on the other hand, hate to watch
commercials. He and I often playfully fight over the remote. He would
lean over to kiss and hug me, but really, he was searching for the
remote. I would catch him and we wrestled for it. He thought he was so
funny. I was a little agitated because he did this at each commercial
break and I could not keep up with the other programs I had been
checking on. Although I did not think wrestling for the remote was
funny, I did find it very amusing that he thought he was so clever.
Overall, positive, although I do admit I was a bit annoyed.
Here one can see an edge in one party’s comments as the humor verges
on becoming a serious annoyance. As long as both choose to see the
humor and “play” in the situation, there is a lot of flexibility in dealing
with it. But if humor as a weapon starts to get treated seriously as a
weapon, the interaction then becomes another volley in an ongoing con-
flict, in this case for control during television watching. The more humor
becomes a serious weapon, the less it can function as a unifying or miti-
gated factor and the more it becomes an instigator of further conflict.
Although criticisms hurt less in a relationship when delivered with
humor (Young & Bippus, 2001), they can still indicate or enhance rela-
tional conflict. During conflicts, couples who attribute internal motives
for a partner using humor respond negatively, while external motives
lead to a positive reception of the humor (Bippus, 2000). Thus, if one
party seems to use humor too blatantly to manipulate the other or obtain
goals, it is perceived as a clear weapon. If one is perceived as using
humor to respond to a situation, though, the other may more likely join
in. Humor showing a couple is “in this together” likely helps, while
humor that makes light of the other for purposes of self-gain makes con-
flict worse. Hostile humor among couples in conflict includes sarcasm
102 Chapter 7

and jokes about the partner in a negative way. Teases about a person’s
identity and appearance have been identified as most frequent, but the
topic of a tease does not primarily determine the response--background
knowledge of the relationship is the major factor in how one chooses to
take a tease, along with the context of the tease, nonverbal messages, and
one’s own mood (Alberts, Kellar-Gunther, & Corman, 1996). Teasing that
becomes “contaminated” by aggression can become simply another form
of attack. Satisfied couples in conflict accept humor attempts by the part-
ner, lightening the discussion and mood. Dissatisfied couples, on the
other hand, treat humor attempts as one further attack (Alberts, 1990).

Humor Can Be Used to Separate, yet Also to Help with Life

The incongruity theory of humor suggests that humor allows people
to deal with the unexpected events of life, notably paradoxical or surpris-
ing situations. Some of these surprises can push people socially apart.
People can be segregated in various ways through teases and humorous
quips, and differences among social groups can be laughed at. This pro-
vides a memorable, exciting social delineation or control through put-
downs. Yet, rather than adopting an inflexible, regimented, serious re-
sponse to such aspects of life, people can adopt an optimistic and flexible
response to life’s events (Meyer, 2012). Without such humor, or without
such flexibility and positive optimistic outlook, relationships could more
easily be threatened or strained by life’s events. Humor appreciation re-
lates to a sense of security in interactions (Miczo, 2004). Individuals differ
in their willingness to play or invoke their senses of humor. Anxiety
about attachment to significant others, beginning in infancy, relates to
lower humor use, while positive uses of humor associate with one’s will-
ingness to communicate. Also, affiliative, unifying humor use relates to
reduced anxiety, increased playfulness, and more effectiveness in interac-
tions (Miczo, Averbeck, & Mariani, 2009). Humor can thus serve as a
relief in the face of potential tense or conflict-filled topics. However, it is
clear that humor can also serve as another weapon in the human arsenal
for dealing with such topics, and the relational conflicts and the social
divisions that follow. Even a simple funny story can have a mean twist:
After a church service, a little boy told the pastor: “When I grow up, I’m
going to give you some money.” “Well, thank you,” the pastor replied,
“but why?” “Because my daddy says you’re one of the poorest preachers
we’ve ever had.”
Humor is notable for being found in the eye of the beholder, and
potentially offending a recipient or audience. Yet it leads to enough use-
ful and practical communicative consequences that its use, while treach-
erous, will continue to be found worthwhile. Its regular use or apprecia-
tion will influence how we perceive other people—and our desire to
develop relationships with and be influenced by them Instances of hu-
 Dangers of Humor for Relationships 103

mor can dramatize one’s conflicts with others and clarify perceived social
boundaries, as well as reinforce bonds and shared meaning with empath-
ic recipients. One couple used humor to characterize their situation as
laughable rather than truly tragic and worth fighting over:
I was watching an episode of The Middle where the characters discuss
celebrating their 16th and 17th anniversaries together because they had
postponed the 16th for so long, they had reached the 17th without
celebrating. I turned to my husband and explained the set-up. “That
definitely sounds like something we would do,” he said.
“So our life is a sitcom?” I questioned. “I don’t know if that is funny
or depressing.”
“Our life is full of sad humor,” he replied.
This instance of humor was a little on the sad side. It wasn’t a
“funny haha” moment. But at the place in life much of our life is shad-
owed by stress and strain. The funny part of this instance was that
television was so reminiscent of our real lives.
By putting their relationship in context of society, and seeing it reflected
on a television show and laughing at it, the couple could see how they
can deal with such challenges. An alternative, of course, would be offense
at the depiction followed by a resolve never to allow such a situation to
happen again—or worse, anger at the partner for the situation transpir-
ing. For some endangered couples, even an attempt at a humorous depic-
tion could be viewed as offensive and unacceptable—worth fighting
over.
Shared humor has been found to back up strengthening relationships,
and long term relationships almost always have elements of shared hu-
mor that are key parts of them. “A sense of humor” is a key characteristic
of a desired friend or romantic partner. Yet, when humor is not shared,
when most attempts at teases or jokes are taken in a telic or consequential
manner, the relationship is likely in trouble. Deterioration of some sort
will likely follow. Consider, for instance, my own choice necessary in the
past year when a seven-year-old boy I had gotten to know over several
years approached me during playtime at his after-school program and
said, “I’m your chicken finger!” I tended to find this funny, as it refer-
enced a repeated game that he had initiated earlier, where I chased him
because I was hungry for chicken fingers. So I laughed, and responded
with a chase, and our relationship was maintained and arguably
strengthened. I could, however, have taken it seriously and stayed in a
telic or tragic mode—saying something like, “No, you’re not a chicken
finger,” with no smile, no indication of humor in it. In remaining in a telic
or serious mode, I would cause a more distant or formal relationship. At
the very least, my seven-year-old friend would likely question the close-
ness of our friendship.
One can even chart social groupings by who shares and understands
instances of humor in common. We can also laugh at the odd or ignorant
104 Chapter 7

behaviors of different social groups, that do not “get” the inside appre-
ciated jokes or language or understand the commonly accepted norms
that may be violated or “played with.” Humor appreciation thus rein-
forces and delineates human social groupings. Back to the chicken finger
example, sometimes other children at the after school program would say
the same thing and join in the game. It violates multiple social scripts for
children to be saying, to an adult “homework helper” volunteer, “I’m a
chicken finger!” Yet, as other children said it, too, they joined in the
game, however funny it was. Other children who did not “get” the
phrase or tried to figure it out seriously, either were not interested in the
game or were not comfortable joining it. So, even if just for a short time
during a chase game, appreciating the humor of “I’m a chicken finger”
sorted us into groups of those playing the game, who understood the
rules, and those who did not. More permanent social groups are even
more defined by the topics and types of humor mutually appreciated.
Children’s laughter provides early opportunities for understanding
humor use. Some of their laughter seems to stem from the joy of play, or
even the delight of existence. Other laughter comes from a more concrete
communicated situation; a funny word, story, or joke, for instance. Chil-
dren do know that making others laugh can encourage liking by the other
person, and can help avoid conflict later (Bigelow, Tesson, & Lewko,
1996). They also learn even in preschool the difference between laughing
with someone and laughing at someone. Even in early childhood, the
humor mode becomes a combination of aesthetic, enjoyable moments
and practical, useful communication purposes. There is a genuineness to
children’s emotions and statements that can be alternatively refreshing
and harsh, and this includes humor. The delight and joy in children’s
humor can seem innocent and contagious, while some apparent laughing
at others’ expense can contribute to children’s reputation for cruelty. Still,
young children’s propensity for humor shows how essential—and de-
sired—the comic perspective is for the human life.
One can see how humor, so pervasively embedded in human commu-
nication, can have ill effects as well as the often lauded benefits. Through
uncertainty reduction, it can highlight dramatic differences between peo-
ple and groups. Control of others can be asserted through humor’s para-
doxical differentiating and uniting characteristics. People can refuse to
perceive remarks as humorous, making the choice against “play” or unity
and responding with seriousness or even aggression to perceived divi-
sion. Humor can simply be one more weapon in asserting divisions and
differences in the conflicts that people experience. Finally, humor can
serve to illustrate the separations and boundaries that characterize social
life. Instances of humor can potentially be dark, negative experiences
evoking serious responses. In spite of these drawbacks, however, humor
for most turns out to be a highly positive aspect of life and communica-
tion.
 EIGHT
A Social Model of Humor

After detailing the individual model of the choice for or against humor,
and then exploring the implications of humor in the vast array of human
communication situations, one cannot escape the idea that the humor
experience is clearly social. The paradox between the individual appreci-
ation of humor and the social nature of it is difficult to characterize.
Humor is individual, yet humor is social. What about a situation, for
instance, makes things funnier or elicits more laughter when one is with a
group than when alone—even about the same initial message or event?
Humor appreciation between individuals suggests shared meaning on
multiple levels, showing its capacity as a social medium (Leventhal &
Cupchik, 1976). Martineau (1972) described how humor could unite
groups together and divide members from others. His sociological model
reinforces discussions in earlier chapters about how humor use within
and between group members could fortify group unity, or cause conflict
and divide or reorganize relationships between members and groups.
Ambiguity seems to be one key to humor, as people can see humor from
a variety of differing pattern violations in the same event. Even in one’s
own mind, multiple perceptions of an event that violates an expected or
moral order seem necessary to experience humor. This effect is likely
multiplied among individuals sharing in laughter. Even if two people
share humor over an event or message, no one can be sure they are
experiencing humor for exactly the same reasons.
Humor as a social marker, however, invites a paratelic perspective on
reality—indicating that things are not so serious, consequences do not
matter, for now, and thus creativity and playfulness are encouraged. Any
sense of threat is mitigated by sharing in humor with others. Even if one
does not experience humor for the same reasons or based on exactly the
same choices based on the same perceptions as others, sharing enough to

105
106 Chapter 8

see the humor can be sufficient to spark a group experience of humor.

The social situation may sometimes influence the experience of humor
even more than the particular topic or pattern violation (Chapman, 1975;
Socha, 2012). The mutual reinforcement of the lack of threat and presence
of playful goodwill serves to enhance the relational or social unity of
those invoking similar social scripts and knowledge. Through that shared
foundation of expected patterns and understandings, a group engages a
humor experience together. These then become unifying and often mem-
orable—they can be described by members even years later, often with a
“you had to be there” message to those who were not. Even for less
memorable daily humor situations, that social sharedness can enhance
the mirth feeling in individuals and strengthen the individual experience
of humor.
Research, much of which was discussed earlier, shows clearly the en-
hancing social effects of humor. Humor use serves purposes through
communication with others, including adding interest to speeches and
credibility to speakers (Gruner, 1985), uniting groups behind similar val-
ues and beliefs (Meyer, 1990; 1997), or serving as means of control or
resistance in organizations (Lynch, 2002; 2009). Perhaps an elaboration of
the overlapping circles presented by Lynch (2002; p. 430) can serve as a
template to represent multiple individual models of humor acting in tan-
dem. A set of circles representing a set of individuals, each containing the
individual humor model explored earlier, overlap, and that shared space
among the circles represents the shared aspects of humor appreciation in
a certain situation (figure 8.1). As a result of the process of communica-
tion with one another, selected aspects of the humor choices and experi-
ences are shared, and overlapping circles enclosing humor models repre-
sent that shared humor. The less shared or unique parts of circles indicate
that even in a situation with socially shared humor, individuals perceive
potentially humorous events differently and choose how to respond in
ways which might be unique to each. They make individual choices for
humor while communicating with another person or in a group—and
observing effects of others’ humor choices in turn.
Humor then can take a comic, as opposed to a tragic, perspective and
spread it throughout human society. Rather than living in a serious, ten-
sion-filled, hazardous social situation, one may live in a fun, creative,
friendly, playful one. Humor is notably social, as seeing one person expe-
rience it makes others want to share in it. Laughter is more likely and
stronger when one is with others. Social norms, when laughed at, can be
treated as more malleable or flexible in their enactment than when pun-
ishment is serious, hurtful, or violent. Violations of standard patterns can
be seen as entertaining rather than threatening. As Burke (1984) noted,
they can be errors or mistakes rather than intended evils or social rebel-
lions. An entire society can respond more leniently to alterations and
differences with widespread humor. A sense of humor can increase “a
 A Social Model of Humor 107

Figure 8.1. A Social Model of Shared Humor

flexibility and openness to experience which a fundamentally serious

person lacks” (Morreall, 1983, p. 123). This kind of flexibility and open-
ness is certainly missing from some societies found today, notably those
that enforce a tragic rigidity of enforced thought and action among all of
their members. Terrorists in our time, for instance, seem to insist that all
think like them and conform to their power structure, or total destruction
is the only alternative. One is tempted to say, in considering social mod-
els of humor, that one key aspect of personality that terrorists and their
supporting societies lack in many instances is a sense of humor. Would
laughing at social differences help prevent their violent attempts to snuff
out anyone different from them? One wonders.
Humor seems to characterize current United States society almost to a
fault. Not only do we expect it in our relationships, but also in our enter-
tainment and even in our meetings and classes. Pretty much everything,
it seems, can be funny. Social norms do enact multiple individual choices
of finding humor in situations, and American norms seem to favor a
humorous approach in the comic mode. One may ask if so much is funny,
than what is serious? What should we regard in full concern for conse-
quences in the tragic mode? The “line” between what is serious and what
is not seems to be moving in the comic perspective’s favor, but few of us
would agree that everything can be funny. Acts that hurt or kill others, or
make life oppressive and difficult, most refuse to find funny. Even a
comic mode dominant society, it seems, must have its serious side. Yet
there is a liberating side to humor, as well—as finding humor in some-
thing distances one from it, and prevents oppression by it. “The person
with a sense of humor can never be fully dominated” (Morreall, 1983, p.
101). The liberty that is a key value of United States society may be
108 Chapter 8

epitomized by the pervasiveness of humor within it, even if the extent

and degree of humor applications are constantly being pushed.
Humor has been called a liberator. It allows one to have some mental
distance from other emotions, and assess one’s situation somewhat objec-
tively, due to the need for multiple pattern perception to appreciate hu-
mor (Eckhardt, 1992). Without the rigid perception of a pattern encasing
a situation, characteristic of a tragic perspective, one feels a sense of “this
can be handled,” or even “it doesn’t matter that much.” One dramatic
and common source of road rage, for instance, is getting cut off by an-
other driver that maneuvers into position in front. A reaction of irritation
and delay may result, with anger or despairing emotions indicating a
tragic mode. Yet, one could say, “there is an accident waiting to happen.
Move on and let it happen somewhere else.” One may also mock how
much of a hurry that person is in—or all of the few seconds that were
saved by the person when they are two cars ahead at the next red traffic
light. Those latter perceptions, enabled by a comic perspective, allow for
a variety of perspectives on the incident. Even if it is still irritating, in the
end it is not of much import after all, and there are varied ways to per-
ceive and handle it. A sense of mockery of people or situations prevents
their domination. Thus have rulers and leaders of powerful institutions
been leery of humor displays by subordinates—they tend to be rebel-
lious, bringing forward alternative perspectives that resist or alter power
sources.
The liberating role of humor was personified, through the centuries,
in the role of the royal fool, often without official rank but able to mock
and invert the serious processions of an official. Kings, emperors, even
popes were known to have fools in their retinues. This was one person
who could question, point out paradoxes, enact contradictions, and do
many creative things prohibited to most people with aspirations at court
or for social power. This freed the one in power from constant subjuga-
tion by the social order in which enactment of leadership and power was
expected. Their tolerance—and even encouragement—of the fool let
them enjoy themselves—and entertain alternatives to the imposed (even
if by themselves) social order. Fools became an autocrat’s way of enacting
the freedoms that many parts of a life involving staying in power will not
allow.
Similarly, the lower ranks of social hierarchy have long been known
for humor that mocks the power structure and those in it. Subtle rebel-
lions have been staged through humor even in prison camps. Prisoners of
the Japanese during World War II have described “farting for Hirohito”
as done when forced to bow to the emperor during morning ritual. Most
organizations are rife with chatter about bosses and titters about their
repetitions and foibles. There is liberation from serious—or tragic—au-
thority found in joking around about it, or accomplishing a contradictory
act around the edges of forced seriousness. Thus the needed serious ac-
 A Social Model of Humor 109

tion to accomplish social order and human survival can be contrasted

with the uncaring dismissal of situations through mockery and respond-
ing in the comic mode. Both perspectives seem essential for balancing
human life, human mental states, and human social order.
Experiencing humor through the choice of the comic mode makes
hero worship just as unlikely as a strong sense of fear (Morreall, 1983). If
one can laugh at someone, it is difficult to hold that person in such high
regard as to follow along with any disregard for potential foibles or mis-
takes. Similarly, the serious consequences that can provoke fear are not in
evidence when we can laugh at or with someone. The clashing perspec-
tives involved in appreciating humor provide a mental distance from
events that overcome both the awe of holding someone in extra high
regard as well as the fear of what the person can actually do to harm or
endanger. Humor use can thus call into question social hierarchy, as it
tends to level out the power differences that a tragic or serious mode can
divide social groups into. One need not accept one’s place in a social
grouping or hierarchy unquestioningly. Humor use and a choice to per-
ceive the comic mode can be “a defense against the monotony of culture”
(Martin, 2007, p. 207). Even if the ongoing social structure is not changed,
the comic perspective can liberate an individual’s perceptions and emo-
tions from being dominated by that structure, even if only for a few
moments. One can learn to cope with a variety of life situations.
Humor can be seen as a social enhancer through serving as in individ-
ual “disabling mechanism” (Martin, 2007, p. 156). It is difficult to attack,
move, or exert effort when one is laughing. So humor can indicate safety
and lack of concern for immediate circumstances, and allow for social
development and communication of potential alternative acts—which
might not have been considered if a group had stayed in a serious or
tragic mode. The use of humor, then, “disarms” potential combatants,
and allows everyone to “stand down,” enjoy the situation and the other
people, without having to take any immediate practical or survival ac-
tion.
The social nature of humor also shows itself when one attempts to
communicate with others with whom one has very little in common.
Without a similar language, one is reduced to motions and gestures. Still,
if humor can be found in the attempts to communicate, even if they
sometimes fail, the communication climate can lift the conversation to a
friendlier level and enhance potential successful communication. At one
point, for instance, an American college student passed a student from
China in the hallway who had gotten to know the American student
through several conversations in the nearby snack bar. The American
spoke out with a friendly, “Hi! What’s up?” The Chinese student paused,
looked confused, and said, “the ceiling?” The American’s response here
can make a lot of difference in furthering intercultural communication.
Laughing together and helping the Chinese student learn the meaning of
110 Chapter 8

that colloquialism can enhance further communication between the two,

as well as between the Chinese student and all Americans going forward
into the future. Laughing in a differentiating fashion, however, along
with walking away or with other fellow students, could set up a further
boundary between the American students and the Chinese student. Even
as humor could serve as a social boundary, it may also serve to transcend
that social boundary.
We noticeably tend to laugh more when we are with other people.
Laughter is usually a social affair, and most find laughter to be quite
contagious. I can still remember times where friends and I laughed until
we were breathless, but could not tell you what the joke was that was
really that funny. It was likely something about the social situation, along
with a striking pattern violation that then exacerbated the expression of
humor. (Often, alcohol or other mood enhancers provide this effect. My
laughter memories do not involve them, however . . .) Laughing together
sends a social message of safety, support, and “we’re all in this together.”
Laughter stemming from a mutual comic mode choice is an ultimate
social unifier.
Part of a stress release, or taking a vacation from the serious business
of life, involves the ability to play. No matter how serious situations get,
humans need stress release and some distancing perspective to deal crea-
tively with a situation. Playing together often involves humor and taking
a comic perspective as a key aspect of the situation. Teasing, or playful
aggression, is often a key part of social humor. This allows statements,
actions, and perspectives to clash without too serious or tragic implica-
tions. Here is where social roles are auditioned for or tried out as individ-
uals interact, joke, and tease in various ways, and if a role fails it does not
have to be a tragedy. If one succeeds at a role, the relationships and
communication can be carried on in the telic or serious social world.
Sad or difficult circumstances may develop people well-versed in hu-
mor for the ability to survive and work through them. The constant clash
between the ideal and the real engages the comic perspective to deal with
it rather than yielding and giving up to a tragic fate. Liberation from the
sad situation may be initiated through viewing it humorously. Someone
who encounters bad treatment and injustice may be outraged or furious,
and contemplate serious action to counter that ignominy. Yet what if
such action cannot be effective? One may flail away, or despair of any
success at all, in a tragic mode. A comic mode, though, makes possible
laughter at the source of oppression, and alternative perspectives and
even actions that can help one work past the bad events. Thus, groups
and individuals who have endured great difficulty often have a knack for
seeing the humor in people and situations. Many have commented, for
instance, on the sad lives or backgrounds of some of the funniest come-
dians or comic actors. The comic perspective may be an essential part of
coping with difficult acts and situations that leave people far from the
 A Social Model of Humor 111

ideal or desired state. Indeed, since we never fully reach the ideal in our
imperfect reality, humor and the comic mode may be the only way to
escape the rigid perspective of the tragic mode during our lives.
Clearly, humor is one of the essential tools for social cohesion. The
comic mode is valued so highly that all look for people who will share it.
Thus is humor such a strong factor in relationship formation and growth.
Seeing another respond with humor, where we choose to see it as well,
reinforces our own beliefs and thought processes. Such personal rein-
forcement from another enhances the desire to be with and communicate
with that person. Humor’s relationship-enhancing capability served as a
key spark to the author’s own study of humor in interpersonal situations.
The power of a smile, and the even greater exhilaration of laughing to-
gether with someone, seemed magical for powering relationship growth.
In all of the many venues of humor research, its capacity to enhance
relationships through unity gives humor an essential place throughout.
The source of this power was worth exploring. Behind my interest in
humor, there always has lurked the question of “why?” Why pursue
research on humor at all? Part of its reward as a research topic—studying
humor in a variety of settings including organizations, persuasive cam-
paigns, and personal relationships—has been shedding light on humor’s
strengthening of the bonds between people. In spite of potential differen-
tiation and divisiveness from humor that inheres in any human interac-
tion, the process through invoking humor of reducing uncertainty, ex-
ploring personal relationships, and “playing together” turns out to be a
major mover of human relationships and understanding one another.
It turns out, upon reflection, that humor helps in many ways to turn
“I-it” relationships into “I-Thou” relationships, to invoke Martin Buber
(1958). Instead of interacting with others as if they were other movable
benefits or impediments to our existence, we get to know them as people
related in their conscious existence to ourselves. Choosing to experience
humor and share it together is one essential aspect of positive communi-
cation, and therefore a positive life. Humor should be added to any list of
positive communication behaviors, as sharing humor indicates strong
listening to others, disclosing aspects of the self, and inspiring others to
creatively interact or work together (Mirivel, 2014). Humor use is part of
what binds humans together into groups and societies. It also links us as
existentially lonely individuals to those human groups and societies. The
essential individual humanness of someone can often be exposed or
shared, however briefly, through humor. Its treatment as essential to
relationships therefore makes sense. Its place as an essential social cata-
lyst is also clear. One foundation for individual learning, dyadic relation-
ships, and social grouping, it turns out, is the choice to experience and
use humor in communication.
112 Chapter 8

HUMOR’S SOCIAL DILEMMAS

Humor, while a pinnacle life experience available to humans practically

every day, takes on several paradoxical forms. It can be individual, as we
each must choose, whether subconsciously or consciously, whether to
find it and experience it in relation to life events. It can be profoundly
social, as social pattern recognition is crucial for understanding instances
of humor and shared norms and a sense of shared meaning back up and
make possible the humor experience. Social symbolism and understand-
ings of social patterns are essential for perceiving violations of them that
can be humorous. Sharing humor clearly deepens relationships and
makes them more meaningful, but it can also be invoked for searing
teases and put-downs leading to alienation. Humor unites social groups
more closely together, and makes social boundaries clearer as it divides
groups apart.
The individual choice for humor is wound about with myriad vari-
ables, yet can be made in a split second. It is also hard to predict by
someone outside the mind of that given individual. Indeed, all of the
research accomplished about humor hinges on that decision made by
each individual encountering experiences. These decisions then build one
upon another to grow into patterns of interaction in instances following
upon instances of life. Even as each individual makes the humor decision,
they are integrated together in society as others respond with their own
humor decisions, building one on another. Fortunately, we can find pat-
terns in humor appreciation and use as well that lead to a rich under-
standing of human relationships, groups, and cultures.
Humor has a paradox of being both an individual choice at each mo-
ment of life while also depending upon social agreement or moral expec-
tation to exist (Veatch, 1998). We choose a comic or tragic mode, but the
social situation may be a strong impulse toward that choice. Is a presi-
dential address to the nation a comedy, as the involved parties play ex-
pected roles and commit varied violations of common social expecta-
tions? Or, is it a momentous and impactful message that must be re-
sponded to in a serious way? One event can be both at once, depending
upon the individual doing the choosing. One also depends on the social
group that one is embedded in to help make that decision—is the event
funny, worthy of derision, or is it serious with effective consequences
needing a decision? One’s choice of the tragic or the comic may stem
from the actions and choices of those in the social group surrounding the
individual. It is also possible to see humor in a situation where many do
not, and see a momentous choice where most others are simply laughing
at an event. The individual/social dilemma pervades any choice for hu-
mor. An alternation of strength of one side or the other seems to give a
balance to decisions for the comic or the tragic across situations.
 A Social Model of Humor 113

The ability to perceive or choose humor, engaging a comic perspec-

tive, does rest on both individual and social knowledge. One finds a
sense of “truth” in humor, as laughing at anything that seems distant,
mysterious, or regal can dispel the uncertainty inherent in mystery and
pierce the pomp and circumstance of formal rulers in favor of plainer,
less contradictory perceptions. Humor as wit thrives on incongruity and
naturally ridicules pretentions of “knowing all about something.” Often
the “aha” moment of perceiving an alternative perspective in the comic
mode is a sense of “that’s so true!” Thus does mockery bring down for-
mal and serious perspectives and introduce alternatives and sharp per-
spectives that some may prefer would remain hidden or a mystery. Per-
haps the veils are kept through a serious mode about certain issues and in
certain social situations for the sake of power, but they may also serve for
the sake of smooth social functioning. Humor sweeps these social con-
structions away, with the introduction of a contradictory but also clear
truth. In that incongruity, humor speaks the truth even as it introduces a
non bona fide element to the message: “Don’t be too quick to believe that,
but urgent action is not required about it at this moment.” Humor use
can clear out misconceptions even while leaving new ones pending fu-
ture serious consideration.
Another way of viewing humor is as expressing a reversal—the every-
day is treated as wondrous or momentous, and the shocking event is
treated as commonplace. Think of the clown, for instance. Responding
with wonder and humor to simple human events of life becomes funny.
Similarly, people can clown and joke even in the face of impending death.
Major life events may be treated as just another irritating encounter with
fate. Humor and the comic perspective may indeed be inherent in the
human ability to meta-perceive things—to mentally “stand outside” and
understand that our situation is enveloped by other persons’ situations,
and takes place in a universe with multiple facets that we can learn a lot
about but never fully understand in life, seemingly. The mental work of
existing in a reality with rules and laws while possessing the brain capac-
ity to abstract and hold knowledge of myriad elements of that reality
makes humor an inherent characteristic of intelligence, it would seem.
Humor and the comic perspective hold out hope for alternatives, while a
serious and tragic perspective find one ensconced in the given reality.
Although one must in the end take serious action to survive and live in
the given material reality, a comic perspective holds out the hope that at
some time things can be different.
Even for one individual, think how being positive can make so much
of a difference in one’s day. One can choose in some portion whether the
day will be good or bad, partly due to the choice of the comic perspective
or the tragic perspective. As with students, one finds professors have
days where going to class is not the highest task desired on the agenda.
Yet, I find, when I go and teach anyway and convey the positive attitude
114 Chapter 8

necessary to promote learning, and get involved with the subject matter
and relating it to students, I inevitably leave with a better attitude. There
are other alternative perspectives on the world and events than that frus-
tration, tiredness, or irritation which was dragged to class. Being willing
to laugh, at myself or events, provides a sense of control or perspective
that overpowers the negativity that comes with the sense of being
trapped by fate that fits the tragic mode. The choice remains for every-
one, even instant by instant, whether to view events comically or tragical-
ly, and that choice can dramatically affect attitude and individual morale.
The social nature of humor can be individually tested by taking note
of times where one finds something so much funnier with other people
responding similarly to it than when one is alone. Even if humor is expe-
rienced by oneself, it also takes on a more social character when experi-
enced in a relationship or group. Laughter becomes louder or more like-
ly, smiles grow, and are shared through greater eye contact. Here is why
people enjoy watching comedies or going to comedy shows together.
People also remember such experiences—they talk about them later as
touchstones of group or relationship unity. An essential, unique, individ-
ual humor experience becomes shared and symbolic of a social group.
Conversely, people may feel uncomfortable expressing a genuine humor
response to something when it appears that no one else perceived it that
way. A sincere choice for humor may not be validated by others present,
snuffing out the social spread of humor. Most probably feel, though, that
if one could only find others who “get it,” who think similarly, they too
would share in the humor.
Humor’s emergence in early childhood and development throughout
one’s growth shows its inherency in human life. This crucial place of
humor can be taken to stem from contradiction or discrepancy. Human
ability to recognize patterns leads to a similar recognition of divergences
from or violations of them. One key aspect of mentally processing contra-
diction or discrepancy involves humor. A mentally comic response to
violations opens one up to experiencing humor. As one end of an inher-
ent perception continuum, the comic is also made possible by the tragic.
If there were no tragedy, there would be no comedy, and vice versa.
Similar juxtapositions include order and chaos and the ongoing contrasts
between what we believe ought to be and what actually is (Burke, 1984;
Eckardt, 1992). We would not recognize chaos without order, and order
is made possible by its distinction from chaos. Encountering one or the
other in an unexpected way can be funny—viewed in the comic mode.
One can find meaning in the arbitrary events of life, and then through
their chosen meanings find them tragic or comic. Are humans spiritual
beings, that strive toward eternity, or are humans extra-perceptive ani-
mals, still bound by all the same physiological limitations? Both! One
may say. Yet then the clashes between these perspectives will very likely
present humorous contradictions. A tragic perspective finds fate in
 A Social Model of Humor 115

charge, with humans subject to the whims of the universe, while a comic
perspective opens up freedom, creativity, a variety of responses to situa-
tions (Eckardt, 1992). We can mourn situations tragically, or accept
them—and perhaps manage them in some way—comically. A comic per-
spective approaches a “truth” as changeable, and depending upon per-
spective. One rational expectation must be contradicted by another or by
an observed reality. These clashing realities allow for creativity that a
tragic perspective does not—in the latter, what is, simply is. The vise or
trap that the universe can have in store for us can be very tragic indeed.
Yet, in the multiple acts of fate that lead any of us to a particular situa-
tion, it can be funny, too. Humor pervades life along with tragedy.
An example of one life can show the effects of this ongoing choice for
the comic or for the tragic. A dear friend suffered the loss of her father
one March. He was very elderly, but had not been sick and the death was
sudden. What made this sad situation worse was the death of her mother,
who had been in the hospital with pneumonia, a few days later. She was
beside herself with grief. One would expect this, but her incapacity to
cope was notable. It was as if her own life was ending, as well. Friends
and acquaintances jumped in to help, but were not only appreciated but
expected to do everything. This went on for weeks. What made this situa-
tion even more memorable was the friend’s extended reaction to this.
Even years later, the simplest things in life were found to be fraught with
an air of tragedy. The loss of her parents had reinforced or elicited a
tragic perspective on almost all aspects of life. One seldom saw the friend
laughing or smiling anymore; things were too tragic for that. Simple
things like shopping or attending events were found to be difficult, sad;
hard to bear. One recognized the symptoms of depression. Indeed, one
key element of depression is the lack of humor or a comic perspective in
most areas of life. Some sense of the comic seems necessary for our men-
tal health. Living life tragically brings one down physiologically and so-
cially. My friend lost many of her friends, as they felt strongly for her in
her loss, but as the months and years passed felt inadequate to share in or
mitigate the depth of her tragic perspective. This led to even more sense
of tragedy, of course, as loneliness set in. It was a growing spiral of tragic
perspective—one tragedy eliciting another, as each event was viewed in
only a tragic way.
This life perspective, of course, can be contrasted with others who
suffer similar losses and yet are able to laugh—at remembered happy
times with the deceased person, or at situations that the person, if still
alive, would have enjoyed and found humorous. Even while there are
tears, there can be laughter at times. The comic perspective can be taken.
A break from the sad, determined, fateful view of things from the tragic
perspective is possible. The sense of balance that each perspective pro-
vides for the other seems to lead to mental and even physical health.
Most of us can think of sad or angry times when, all of a sudden, we have
116 Chapter 8

an unaccountable desire to laugh. Or, one sees events from a different

angle and can see humor in them. Even in a sad or serious situation, then,
there are elements of humor that can be appreciated if one chooses to
observe and respond to them. Consider all the hassle involved in prepar-
ing for a vacation. In the modern web-linked age, one of those tasks is to
prepare an email to inform correspondents that responses may be de-
layed due to travel. One recommended version shared across the internet
suggested a humorous take on a normally serious, bona fide, “I’m on
vacation and so my response to you will be delayed” type of message.
The alternative recommended version ran thus:
I am currently out of the office on vacation. I know I’m supposed to say
that I’ll have limited access to email and won’t be able to respond until
I return—but that’s not true. My phone will be with me, but I promised
myself that I am going to try to disconnect, get away and enjoy my
vacation as much as possible. However, if your email is urgent and you
need a response while I’m away, please resend it to
interruptmyvacation@urkiddingme.com.
A serious message, “Don’t interrupt my vacation,” is mingled with a
message that mocks the typical wording of such vacation messages. The
template of a serious message (“I tragically may be unable to respond to
you”) serves to add the incongruity of a comic perspective suggested by a
mock outraged alteration of it resisting any vacation interruption. The
tragic and comic can be interspersed in all aspects of life, from the mo-
mentous to the mundane.
The limits of humor in society constrain it for the sake of focus on
necessary tasks like survival—how much can we maintain a serious focus
on the business of living, improving our own lot and that of others, in the
face of an ability and even encouragement to find humor in everything?
Where is the end of the line for humor? Each person must set that—the
point where the tragic mode is the choice rather than the comic. The
range of tragic mode application seems to be shrinking in our society, yet
the imbalance of a missing serious interaction in society would be keenly
felt. Some things are serious, after all, and must be acted upon or taken
care of. We cannot always be joking about things. Yet, in the end, almost
anything can be funny. Not only does each individual have to make the
humor choice, but so does an entire society or social group. How can a
society balance having a single, serious mindset toward key absolute
values with maintaining the flexibility, openness, creativity, and playful-
ness inherent in the comic approach to life? The locations of this “edge”
can suggest key characteristics of any society.
One might argue that a key to the material success of United States
society has been the constant willingness to question and pull down au-
thority not only in a serious or tragic way, but in a comic way. If anything
and everything can be subject to humorous ridicule, then norms and
 A Social Model of Humor 117

authority can always be questioned or corrected and oppression cannot

last. Errors can be corrected rather than evil killed or thrown in prison,
and one has a dynamic, mobile, society amazingly open to differences
and trying alternative ways of doing things. Certainly one finds a perva-
siveness of humor in U. S. culture. Yet how far can this be taken? How far
will this society push the edge of what can be funny? Some worry about a
lack of care and concern, or alternatively about high levels of cynicism
when it comes to political or social goals—one hears “what does it matter
anyway?” or “they’re all corrupt anyway.” Taking nothing seriously may
mean nothing will actually get done. Just as individuals need balance, so
do societies, and the social balance of the comic and tragic may continue
to be pushed toward the comic, but one may wonder how far.
Philosophers through the ages have held humor in varied levels of
esteem—often low, but at times high. As overarching philosophies of life
or social organization tend to hold up an ideal reality, some tend to push
toward one or the other extreme in terms of how humor fits in. The comic
or tragic perspective comes to be lauded as the way to approach human
life and communication. Some argue that Christian religion, for instance,
through treating every act of life as worshiping one’s savior or rejecting
one, makes all acts of the utmost seriousness and joking totally unaccept-
able (Morreall, 1983). Yet others point out that so many contradictions are
inherent in human existence that God, indeed, must have a sense of hu-
mor through the clash of so many of them (Eckardt, 1992). In terms of
religion, most such belief systems assert that we should all think alike at
least on certain key elements of the universe, yet how can so many indi-
viduals ever truly think alike? The paradox between universal expecta-
tion and the reality of individual uniqueness provides a rich set of incon-
gruities naturally providing for humor. In ways, it seems, we cannot
escape paradox, incongruity, and therefore humor and the comic mode.
Taking all things tragically leads to rigidity, despair, and the loss of hope.
Yet taking all things comically leads to the ultimate cynicism, and even to
nihilism—a sense that no authority or knowledge matters, all is absurd
and pointless. Between these extremes, one sees healthy lives lived out
with ongoing choices to recognize the comic or the tragic mode in the
multiplicity of life situations.
A perfect world could ideally totally lack humor, since no incongru-
ities or moral violations would be evident (Veatch, 1998). Allen (1992; p.
338) noted that “there’s nothing amusing about perfection. Things are
funny in some sort of loose relationship to how far they fall short of
perfection.” So the comic perspective naturally points to imperfections
and violations of desired actions in everything. This makes humor the
natural enemy of serious rulers and leaders who want to maintain a
perspective of things going right and things doing well. Those who want
to keep power or view events as positive and close to perfect find humor
in the comic perspective to be an enemy, yet one can argue that here
118 Chapter 8

“under the sun” imperfections are inevitable and always with us. Humor
is one key way we can deal with such ongoing imperfections. By laugh-
ing at them we can defer stress and worry about them, and have leave to
think of possible alternative ways of dealing with inherent imperfections.
An additional extreme may be imagined, also. What about someone
who will never get serious about anything? A person may seek to banish
tragedy to the point that nothing is sad; a humorous angle is always
found and communicated. One can take a cynical route and see the “fak-
ery” or illusion possible in human perception of anything. Similarly, any-
thing can be mocked. How far, indeed, can satire be pushed? If nothing is
serious, everything is humorous. The non-bona-fide nature of most hu-
morous communication suggests no need for concern for consequences.
One probably could not survive taking that perspective totally for long.
At some point, one must take actions that improve one’s chances for
survival, rather than simply laughing at a situation.
As shown by the personal humor model described earlier, that key
choice—for the comic mode or the tragic mode—can be made at every
moment of life. Moods and perspectives can change even over seconds.
Each situation can be viewed and responded to either way, which will
then influence the following perceptions—and communication about
them. There is some evidence that humans are genetically “pro-
grammed” to more often respond to either the comic or the tragic in
situations (Martin, 2007). Yet if the choice of one or the other predomi-
nates too much, mental dysfunction is likely to follow, whether chronic
depression or manic failure to take anything seriously. Clearly, one
should not always be choosing the same one—comic or tragic—but a
good mix seems to lead to a balanced life in many aspects both mental
and physiological.
The comic and the tragic can alternate with one another and even be
blended in many aspects of life. Consider one of the most famous works
of music, Mozart’s Requiem. Some parts are known as among the saddest
music ever written, while others soar with exuberance and praise and joy,
all within the space of a few minutes using the same voices and instru-
ments. Human lives are beset with opportunities to find tragedy and
comedy in evolving situations, and music like Mozart’s gives voice to
such feelings by eliciting both passionate sorrow and passionate joy. Mu-
sically, note combinations, tones, and volume contrast turn music from
sad to happy. At one moment emotions of despair predominate, and a
few moments later emotions of exhilaration and glee emerge. In life,
mental perspectives and even slight adjustments can change the tone of
our perceptions and reactions to situations. In any aspect of life, then, we
may find both tragedy and comedy.
How can something so contradictory and wide-ranging in its social
and communicative effects as humor be so valued yet be so taken-for-
granted as part of our lives and interactions? Its pervasiveness leads to its
 A Social Model of Humor 119

potential—for both good and bad effects. Some shared “twist” of interac-
tion or a surprising event can be discussed, shared, and laughed at. A
memorable comment leads to a clearer expression of opinion on an issue.
A cutting remark can set the tone for a vigorous debate on an issue.
Teases can critique with a telic or practical point while attempting to
maintain a paratelic mode of having fun. Even differentiation through
put-downs can be fun for the people appreciating them, even if not for
the people who are the subject of them. The pleasure humor engenders,
along with its diverse and multiple communicative functions, makes it a
desired and flexible tool for communicators along with a welcome im-
provement to one’s life.
For this author, the effects of humor on personal closeness mentioned
earlier make it one of the most valuable tools for human interaction and
influence. A connection forms between the self and those who express or
initiate humor that is appreciated. Whether mass mediated in a politi-
cian’s speech or actor’s portrayal, or enacted by someone addressing one
directly in life, humor appreciation leads to a response involving cogni-
tion as ideas and concepts connect mentally. Social issues can be ad-
dressed and new alternatives tried. At the same time, relationships are
dramatically affected, as sharing humor leads to growing closer in a more
secure or more clearly defined relationship. Interpersonal relationships
thrive on mutual humor appreciation to the point that it is treated almost
as a necessary ingredient for them. In leading toward “I-Thou” relation-
ships and enhancing their possibility and growth, humor provides a com-
prehensive tool ready to change perspectives and grow relationships. For
its huge potential to do so, and its wide availability as a communicative
choice, I am eternally grateful.
 Bibliography

Alberts, J. K. (1990). The use of humor in managing couples' conflict interactions. In D.

Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict (pp. 105–120). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Alberts, J. K., Kellar-Gunther, Y., & Corman, S. R. (1996). That’s not funny: Under-
standing recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60,
337–357.
Allen, S. (1960). Mark it and strike it: An autobiography. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Apte, M. (1985). Humor and laughter: An anthropological approach. Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Attardo, S. A. (1992). Intentionality and communication: The case of joking and humorous
interaction. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association annual con-
ference, Chicago, IL, November.
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). The general theory of verbal humor. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Averbeck, J. M., & Hample, D. (2008). Ironic message production: How and why we
produce ironic messages. Communication Monographs, 75, 396–410.
Avtgis, T. A., & Taber, K. R. (2006). “I laughed so hard my side hurts, or is that an
ulcer?” The influence of work humor on job stress, job satisfaction, and burnout
among print media employees. Communication Research Reports, 23, 13–18.
Banas, J. A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., & Liu, S. (2011). A review of humor in educa-
tional settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60, 115–144.
Barnes, B., Palmary, I., & Durrheim, K. (2001). The denial of racism: The role of humor,
personal experience, and self-censorship. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
20, 321–338.
Baym, G., & Jones, J. P. (2012). News parody in global perspective: Politics, power, and
resistance. Popular Communication, 10 (102), 2–13.
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, 137–160.
Bell, N. J., McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Interpersonal competence, social
assertiveness, and the development of humor. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology 4, 51–55.
Ben-Ari, E., & Sion, L. (2005). Hungry, weary, and horny: Joking and jesting among
Israel’s combat reserves. Israel Affairs, 11, 655–671.
Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the comic. New York: MacMil-
lan.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.) The
psychology of humor (pp. 43–60). New York. Academic Press.
Berger, A. A. (1976). Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 113–118.
———. (1995). Blind men and elephants: Perspectives on humor. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
———. (1997). The art of comedy writing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in inter-
personal relations. London: Arnold.

121
122 Bibliography

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
Bigelow, B. J., Tesson, G., & Lewko, J. H. (1996). Learning the rules: The anatomy of
children’s relationships. New York: Guilford.
Bippus, A. M. (2000). Humor usage in comforting episodes: Factors predicting out-
comes. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 359–384.
———. (2003). Humor motives, qualities and reactions in recalled conflict episodes.
Western Journal of Communication, 67, 413–426.
Bloom, E. A., & Bloom, L. D. (1979). Satire’s persuasive voice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
Boland, R. J., & Hoffman, R. (1983). Humor in a machine shop: An interpretation of
symbolic action. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.),
Organizational symbolism (pp. 187–198). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Behavioral indicators of transformational leader-
ship in the college classroom. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12,
10–18.
Boller, P. F. Jr. (1982). Presidential anecdotes. New York: Penguin Books.
Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1991). Individual differences in the com-
munication of humorous messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 43–60.
Booth-Butterfield, M., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Wanzer, M. (2007). Funny students cope
better: Patterns of humor enactment and coping effectiveness. Communication Quar-
terly, 55, 299–315.
Booth-Butterfield, M.; Wanzer, M. B.; Weil, N., & Krezmien, E. (2014). Communication
of humor during bereavement: Intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion manage-
ment strategies. Communication Quarterly, 62, 436–454.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., Silverberg, A. R., & Elliott, S. M. (1981). Effects of humorous
illustrations in college textbooks. Human Communication Research, 8, 43–57.
Brooker, G. W. (1981). A comparison of the persuasive effects of mild humor and mild
fear appeals. Journal of Advertising, 10, 29–40.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou, 2nd Ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
(Originally published in 1934)
Campbell, K. L., Martin, M. M., & Wanzer, M. B. (2001). Employee perceptions of
manager humor orientation, assertiveness, responsiveness, approach/avoidance
strategies, and satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 18, 67–74.
Cann, A., Zapata, C. L., & Davis, H. B. (2009). Positive and negative styles of humor in
communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 57, 452–468.
Cantor, J. R. (1976). What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communica-
tion, 26, 164–172.
Carrell, A. (1992). The need to incorporate audience and situation into a theory of
humor. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association annual confer-
ence, Chicago, IL, November.
Chafe, W. (1987). Humor as a disabling mechanism. American Behavioral Scientist 30,
16–26.
———. (2007). The importance of not being earnest: The feeling behind laughter and humor.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Chang, M. J., & Gruner, C. R. (1981). Audience reaction to self-disparaging humor.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 46, 419–426.
Chapel, G. W. (1978). Humor in the White House: An interview with presidential
speechwriter Robert Orben. Communication Quarterly, 26, 44–49.
Chapman, A. J. (1975). Humorous laughter in children. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 42–49.
Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1996). Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applica-
tions. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. London: Routledge.
 Bibliography 123

Conville, R. L. (1991). Relational transitions: The evolution of personal relationships. New

York: Praeger.
Davis, D. (2000). Breaking up totality: A rhetoric of laughter. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
Davis, J. M., & Farina, A. (1970). Humor appreciation in social communication. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 175–178.
Deckers, L., & Devine, J. (1981). Humor by violating an existing expectancy. Journal of
Psychology, 108, 197–210.
Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. (1975). Humor and the incongruity hypothesis. Journal of
Psychology, 90, 215–218.
De Koning, E., & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The relational humor inventory: Functions of
humor in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 1–30.
DiCioccio, R. L. (2012). Humor as aggressive communication. In DiCioccio, R. L. (Ed.),
Humor communication: Theory, impact, and outcomes. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt (pp.
93–108).
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based the-
ory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248.
Duncan, C. P., & Nelson, J. E. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experi-
ment. Journal of Advertising, 14, 33–40.
Duncan, H. D. (1962). Communication and social order. New York: Bedminster.
Duncan, W. F. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice
and research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 136–142.
DuPre, A. (1998). Humor and the healing arts: A multi-method analysis of humor use in
health care. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dziegielewski, S. F., Jacinto, G. A., Laudadjo, A., & Legg-Rodriguez, L. (2003). Humor.
International Journal of Mental Health, 32(3), 74–90.
Eckardt, A. R. (1992). Sitting in the earth and laughing: A handbook of humor. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Transaction.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L. (2010). Organizational communication: Balancing crea-
tivity and constraint, 6th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Esralew, S., & Young, D. G. (2012). The influence of parodies on mental models:
Exploring the Tina Fey—Sarah Palin phenomenon. Communication Quarterly, 60,
338–352.
Feinberg, L. (1978). The secret of humor. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Fine, G. A. (1976). Obscene joking across cultures. Journal of Communication, 26,
134–140.
Fisher, S., & Fisher, R. L. (1981). Pretend the world is funny and forever: A psychological
analysis of comedians, clowns, and actors. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fraustino, J. D., & Ma, L. (2015). CDC’s use of social media and humor in a risk
campaign—“Preparedness 101: Zombie apocalypse.” Journal of Applied Communica-
tion Research, 43, 222–241.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1991). Reframing
organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2012). The influence of teacher humor in student
learning. In DiCioccio, R. L. (Ed.), Humor communication: Theory, impact, and out-
comes. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt (pp. 215–227).
Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wojtaszczyk, A. M. (2008). Assessing students' per-
ceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education,
57, 266–288.
Futch, A., & Edwards, R. (1999). The effects of sense of humor, defensiveness, and
gender on the interpretation of ambiguous messages. Communication Quarterly, 47,
80–97.
Garner, J. T., Chandler, R. C., & Wallace, J. D. (2015). Nothing to laugh about: Student
interns’ use of humor in response to workplace dissatisfaction. Southern Communica-
tion Journal, 80, 102–118.
Geedey, N. (2006). Create and sustain a healthy work environment. Nursing Manage-
ment, 37(10), 17.
124 Bibliography

Goldstein, J. H. (1976). Theoretical notes on humor. Journal of Communication, 26,

104–112.
Goodboy, A. K., Booth-Butterfield, M., Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. (2015). The role of
instructor humor and students’ educational orientations in student learning, extra
effort, participation, and out-of-class communication. Communication Quarterly, 63,
44–61.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in
the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39,
46–62.
Graham, E. E. (1995). The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social
relationships. Communication Reports, 8, 158–170.
Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversation:
Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 161–183.
Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E. (2009). The state of satire, the satire of state. In
Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E. (Eds.) Satire TV: Politics and comedy in the post-
network era (pp. 3–36). New York: New York University Press.
Grimes, W. (1955). The mirth experience in public address. Speech Monographs, 22,
243–255.
Gruner, C. R. (1965). An experimental study of satire as persuasion. Speech Mono-
graphs, 32, 149–153.
———. (1967). Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Jour-
nal of Communication, 17, 228–233.
———. (1970). The effect of humor in dull and interesting informative speeches. Cen-
tral States Speech Journal, 21, 160–166.
———. (1985). Advice to the beginning speaker on using humor--what research tells
us. Communication Education, 34, 142–147.
———. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Transaction.
Hafen, S. (2004). Organizational gossip: A revolving door of regulation and resistance.
Southern Communication Journal, 69, 223–240.
Hall, J. A. (2013). Humor in long-term romantic relationships: The association of gen-
eral humor styles and relationship-specific functions with relationship satisfaction.
Western Journal of Communication, 77, 272–292.
Hampes, W. P. (1992). Relation between intimacy and humor. Psychological Reports,
71(1), 127–130.
———. (1994). Relation between intimacy and the Multidimensional Sense of Humor
Scale. Psychological Reports, 74 (3, Pt 2), 1360–1362.
———. (1999). The relationship between humor and trust. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 12, 253–259.
———. (2001). Relation between humor and empathic concern. Psychological Reports,
88(1), 241–244.
Heiss, S. N., & Carmack, H. J. (2012). Knock, knock; who’s there? Making sense of
organizational entrance through humor. Management Communication Quarterly, 26,
106–132.
Hill, L. B., & Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Ethnic humor as cultural mediation. Paper present-
ed to the Southern States Communication Association annual convention, Winston-
Salem, NC, April.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues
and friends. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 65–87.
———. (2006). Humor and leadership style. Humor: International Journal of Humor Re-
search, 19(2), 119–138.
Holt, E. (2010). The last laugh: Shared laughter and topic termination. Journal of Prag-
matics, 42, 1513–1525.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Brown, R. (1998). Did you hear the one about?: Typological and
spousal differences in the planning of jokes and sense of humor in marriage. Com-
munication Quarterly, 46, 342–352.
 Bibliography 125

Horan, S. M., Bochantin, J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2012). Humor in high-stress rela-
tionships: Understanding communication in police officers’ romantic relationships.
Communication Studies, 63, 554–573.
Howland, M., & Simpson, J. (2014). Attachment orientations and reactivity to humor
in a social support context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 114–137.
Kangasharju, H., & Nikko, T. (2009). Emotions in organizations: Joint laughter in
workplace meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 100–119.
Keltner, D. (2008). In defense of teasing. The New York Times, December 7.
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2010). Examining laughter functionality in jury deliberations.
Small Group Research, 41, 386–407.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
Korczynski, M. (2011). The dialectical sense of humour: Routine joking in a Taylorized
factory. Organization Studies, 32, 1421–1439.
La Fave, L., & Mannell, R. (1976). Laughing matter: Does ethnic humor serve preju-
dice? Journal of Communication, 26, 116–123.
LaBelle, S., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2013). Humorous communication and
its effectiveness in coping with interpersonal transgressions. Communication Re-
search Reports, 30, 221–229.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Levasseur, D. G., & Dean, K. W. (1996). The Dole humor myth and the risks of recon-
textualizing rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 56–72.
Leventhal, H., & Cupchik, G. C. (1976). A process model of humor judgment. Journal of
Communication, 26, 190–205.
Lichter, S. R., Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2015). Politics is a joke! How TV
comedians are remaking political life. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lorenz, K. (1963). On aggression. New York: Harcourt.
Lull, P. E. (1940). The effectiveness of humor in persuasive speech. Speech Monographs,
7, 26–40.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Riforgiate, S., & Fletcher, C. (2011). Work as a source of positive
emotional experiences and the discourses informing positive assessment. Western
Journal of Communication, 75, 2–27.
Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in commu-
nication research. Communication Theory, 12, 423–445.
———. (2007). Humorous organizing: Revealing the organization as a social process. Saar-
brucken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
———. (2009). Kitchen antics: The importance of humor and maintaining profession-
alism at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 444–464.
———. (2010). Cooking with humor: In-group humor as social organization. Humor:
An International Journal of Humor Research, 23 (2), 127–160.
Maase, S. W., Fink, E. K., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1984). Incongruity in humor: The cogni-
tive dynamics. In Bostrom, R. N., & Westley, B. H. (Eds.), Communication Yearbook 8.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Malone, P. B. (1980). Humor: A double-edged tool for today’s managers. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 357–360.
Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37, 407–422.
Martin, D. M., Rich, C. O., & Gayle, B. M. (2004). Humor works: Communication style
and humor functions in manager/subordinate relationships. Southern Communica-
tion Journal, 69, 206–222.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual
differences in the uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality,
37, 48–75.
126 Bibliography

Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In Goldstein, J. H.,

& McGhee, P. E. (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 101–125). New York: Academic
Press.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
———. (1999). Health, healing and the amuse system: Humor as survival training. Du-
buque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merolla, A. J. (2006). Decoding ability and humor production. Communication Quarter-
ly, 54, 175–189.
Meyer, J. (1990). Ronald Reagan and humor: A politician's velvet weapon. Communica-
tion Studies, 41, 76–88.
Meyer, J. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives. Com-
munication Quarterly, 43, 210–224.
Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work.
Western Journal of Communication, 61, 188–208.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in
communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310–331.
Meyer, J. (2003). Kids talking: Learning relationships and culture with children. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Meyer, J. C. (2012). Humor as personal relationship enhancer: Positivity for the long
term. In Socha, T. J., & Pitts, M. J. (Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communica-
tion. New York: Peter Lang.
Miczo, N. (2004). Humor ability, unwillingness to communicate, loneliness, and per-
ceived stress: Testing a security theory. Communication Studies, 55, 209–226.
Miczo, N., Averbeck, J. M., & Mariani, T. (2009). Affiliative and aggressive humor,
attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60, 443–459.
Miczo, N., & Welter, R. E. (2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to
aspects of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Re-
search, 35, 61–77.
Mills, C. B., & Carwile, A. M. (2009). The good, the bad, and the borderline: Separating
teasing from bullying. Communication Education, 58, 276–301.
Mintz, L. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation. American Quarterly,
37 (1), 71–81.
Mirivel, J. C. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York:
Peter Lang.
Mohan, M. L. (1993). Organizational communication and cultural vision. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Moody, R. A. (1978). Laugh after laugh: The healing power of humor. Jacksonville, FL:
Headwaters Press.
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
———. (1989). Enjoying incongruity. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 2,
1–18.
———. (1997). Humor works. New York: Human Resource Development Press.
———. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Moyer-Guse, E., Mahood, C., & Brookes, S. (2011). Entertainment-education in the
context of humor: Effects on safer sex intentions and risk perceptions. Health Com-
munication, 26, 765–774.
Mullany, L. (2004). Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: Humor as a tactic
to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingual, 23, 13–37.
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Guse, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investiga-
tion into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Mono-
graphs, 74, 29–54.
 Bibliography 127

Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers’ humor in

the classroom and development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom
humor. Communication Education, 40, 343–355.
Nowgen (2008, June 16). Humor shown to be fundamental to our success as a species.
Science Daily. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/
06/080612150144.htm.
O-Donnell-Trujillo, N., & Adams, K. (1983). Heheh in conversation: Some coordinating
accomplishments of laughter. Western Journal of Speech, 47, 175–191.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Osterhouse, R., & Brock, T. (1970). Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by
inhibiting counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 344–358.
Pacanowsky, M. E. & O’Donnell‑Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organization-
al cultures. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 115–130.
Pexman, P., & Olineck, K. (2002). Does sarcasm always sting? Investigating the impact
of ironic insults and ironic compliments. Discourse Processes, 33, 199–217.
Porcu, L. (2005). Fishy business: Humor in a Sardinian Fish market. Humor: Internation-
al Journal of Humor Research, 18(1), 69–102.
Punyanunt, N. M. (2000). The effects of humor on perceptions of compliance-gaining
in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 17, 30–38.
Ramsey, M.C., Knight, R. A., Knight, M. L., & Meyer, J. C. (2009). Humor, organiza-
tional identification, and worker trust: An independent groups analysis of humor’s
identification and differentiation functions. The Northwest Communication Associa-
tion Journal, 39(1), 9–35.
Rancer, A. S., & Graham, E. E. (2012). Theories of humor. In DiCioccio, R. L. (Ed.),
Humor communication: Theory, impact, and outcomes. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt (pp.
3–20).
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston, MA: Reidel.
———. (1992). Meaning, truth and the sense of humor. Paper presented at the Speech
Communication Association annual conference, Chicago, IL, November.
Reagan, R. (1976, January 15). [Audio tape transcribed by author.] Campaign appear-
ance in Keane, NH.
Richmond, V. P., Wrench, J. S., & Gorham, J. (2001). Communication, affect, and learning
in the classroom. Acton, MA: Tapestry.
Robert, C., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor events and
affects in organizations. Human Relations, 65, 1071–1099.
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor
in task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123–158.
Rottinghaus, B.; Bird, K.; Ridout, T., & Self, R. (2008). “It’s better than being informed”:
College-aged viewers of The Daily Show. In Baumgartner, J. C. & Morris, J. S. (Eds.)
Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 279–294). New
York: Routledge.
Ruch, W. (1998). The sense of humor: Exploration of a personality characteristic. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sackmann, S. A. (1990). Managing organizational culture: Dreams and possibilities. In
J. A. Anderson, (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.
114–148.
Schaeffer, N. (1981). The art of laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.
Scholl, J. C. (2007). The use of humor to promote patient-centered care. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 35, 156–176.
Schutz, C. E. (1977). Political humor. London: Associated Presses.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The
social-judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Shurcliff, A. (1968). Judged humor, arousal, and the relief theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 8, 360–363.
Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Glazer, E., & Smith, S. (2009). Effects of humor on presence
and recall of persuasive messages. Communication Quarterly. 57, 136–153.
128 Bibliography

Smith, R. L. (1993). Sexual humor. Shapolsky: New York, 1993.

Smith, W. J., Harrington, K. V., Neck, C. P. (2000). Resolving conflict with humor in a
diversity context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 606–625.
Socha, T. J. (2012). Children’s humor: Foundations of laughter across the lifespan. In
DiCioccio, R. L. (Ed.), Humor communication: Theory, impact, and outcomes. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall Hunt (pp. 141–155).
Socha, T. J., & Kelly, B. (1994). Children making ‘fun’: Humorous communication,
impression management, and moral development. Child Study Journal, 24, 237–253.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An
information-processing analysis. In Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.), The
psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York: Academic
Press (pp. 81–100).
Taylor, P. M. (1974). An experimental study of humor and ethos. Southern Speech
Communication Journal, 39, 359–366.
Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2003). “Subterranean worksick blues”: Humour as subversion in
two call centres. Organizational Studies, 24, 1487–1509.
Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From “I” to “we”: the role of putdown humor
on identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55 (1),
55–88.
Tracy, S. J., Myers, K. K., & Scott, C. W. (2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves:
Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communi-
cation Monographs, 73, 283–308.
Ullian, J. A. (1976). Joking at work. Journal of Communication, 26, 129–133.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,
11, 161–216.
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Group
Behavior, 20(2), 151–166.
Volpe, M. (1977). The persuasive force of humor: Cicero’s defense of Caelius. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 63, 311–323.
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). The funny people:
A source-orientation to the communication of humor. Communication Quarterly, 43,
142–154.
———. (1996). Are funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, lone-
liness, and social attraction. Communication Quarterly, 44, 42–52.
———. (2005). “If we didn’t use humor, we’d cry”: Humorous coping communication
in health care settings. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 105–125.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions
of instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education, 48,
48–62.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship
between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing
theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B. Wojtaszczyk, A. M., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate and
inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178–196.
Wanzer, M. B., Sparks, L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). Humorous communication within
the lives of older adults: The relationships among humor, coping efficacy, age, and
life satisfaction. Health Communication, 24, 128–136.
Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Wigley, C. J. (2012). Humor as a verbal trigger event. . In DiCioccio, R. L. (Ed.), Humor
communication: Theory, impact, and outcomes. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt (pp.
109–116).
Wrench, J. S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2003). Increasing patient satisfaction and com-
pliance: An examination of physician humor orientation, compliance-gaining strat-
egies, and perceived credibility. Communication Quarterly, 51, 482–503.
 Bibliography 129

Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A temperamental understanding of humor

communication and exhilaratability. Communication Quarterly, 49, 142–159.
Wrench, J. S., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Understanding the psychometric properties of
the humor assessment instrument through an analysis of the relationships between
teacher humor assessment and instructional communication variables in the college
classroom. Communication Research Reports, 21, 92–103.
Young, S. L., & Bippus, A. M. (2001). Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a
funny way? Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in per-
sonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 35–52.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In McGhee, P. E., & Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.),
Handbook of humor research: Basic issues. New York: Springer-Verlag (pp. 85–108).
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.
 Index

adaptability and change, 23–24 chicken fingers, 103–104

affiliative humor, 32, 56–57, 100, 102 childhood humor development, 15,
age, and humor orientation, 54–55 17–18, 19, 32, 77, 100, 103–104
aggressive humor: for controlling choice. See individual choice
others, 97; gender-based, 57–58, 95; Christianity, 117
Humor Styles Questionnaire on, 57; Cicero, 41
as uniting and dividing, 32, 57–58 clarification function, 7, 34, 36–37
Allen, S., 117 Clarke, Alastair, 19
alternative concepts: comic mode for, class clowns, 55–56, 92
108, 113; creativity and, 6–7, 11, 86; classroom humor, 91–92
pattern violation for, 71–72 Clinton, Bill, 65, 66
ambiguity, 1–2, 93, 100, 105 clowns, 26, 55–56, 92, 113
amusement, 1–2, 4, 19, 58, 83 cognitive development, 2, 5, 11, 15, 17,
animals, 4, 29 19; affiliative and aggressive humor
appreciating humor, measuring ability in, 32; for incongruity humor, 17–18;
to, 55–56 pattern recognition in, 10
Ashforth, B. E., 80 The Colbert Report, 66
attachment, 88–89 comic mode: alternative concepts
audience interest, 60–61, 69, 106 linked to, 108, 113; for coping,
110–111; creativity linked to, 45;
Ben-Ari, E., 73 cynicism linked to, 117, 118; of
Berger, A. A., 28 death, 115; ego-involvement in, 47,
Biden, Joe, 27 49; error instead of evil in, 45–46;
boost theory, 13 imperfection in, 117–118; as
Booth-Butterfield, M., 52 individual choice, 43–51, 46,
Booth-Butterfield, S., 52 106–107, 111, 112–114, 118;
Brooks, G. P., 52–53 liberation in, 44, 107–109, 110; in
Buber, Martin, 111 music, 118; in personal
Burke, K., 45–46, 106 relationships, 82, 111; road rage
Bush, George W., 65 and, 108; in social model, 106–107,
111, 112–114; tragic mode compared
Cann, A., 57 to, 44; tragic mode dependent on,
Carter, Jimmy, 64 114; in United States, 45–46, 66, 78,
Center for Disease Control and 107–108, 116–117
Prevention, 68–69 comic perspective, 22–23, 25–26
Chafe, W., 29 communication: clarification function
change and adaptability, 23–24 in, 7, 34, 36–37; comic perspective
characteristics, of individual humor, in, 22–23; conversational laughter
51–58 as, 21–23; differentiation function
Chase, Chevy, 65 in, 7, 34, 39–42; dividing humor in,

131
132 Index

21, 29–34; enforcement function in, danger for relationships, 95; as

7, 34, 37–39; functions of humor in, dividing, 7, 34; in organizations,
34, 34–42; identification function in, 79–80; in personal relationships, 89;
7, 34–36; individual choice in, 2; politicians using, 41; superiority in,
laughing “with” or “at” as, 7; life 39–41
pattern disruption in, 23–29; diplomacy, 68
patterns in, 2, 5–6, 7; patterns of, in disablement, 27, 28–29, 109
organizations, 6; pattern violation distraction, 61
in, 3, 5, 71; sharing in, 2, 5–6; dividing humor: aggressive humor as,
symbolic interactionism theory in, 32, 57–58; in communication, 21,
3; uncertainty reduction in, 83, 29–34; differentiation function as, 7,
84–94; uniting humor in, 21, 29–34 34; enforcement function as, 7, 34;
concertive control, 74 ethics of justice in, 30; in
conflict, 89–90 organizations, 32, 72, 79–80; in
contagiousness, of laughter, 26, 28, 31, personal relationships, 88–89;
31–32, 110 playful and nonplayful, 33; teasing
controlling others, 74, 96–98, 104 as, 100; uniting compared to, 29–34;
conversational laughter, 21–23 violations stressed in, 42
coping, comic mode for, 111 Duchenne smile, 58
couples humor, 83, 83–84; for Duncan, H. D., 37, 38
controlling, 96–98; longevity and
satisfaction in, 82, 87, 90, 97–100, edge, 12, 15, 66
101–102, 103; play state in, 99; as education, 91–92, 113–114
weapon, 100–102. See also personal ego-involvement, 47, 49, 51, 60, 96
relationships; uncertainty reduction enforcement function, 34; as dividing,
creating humor, ability to, 55–56 7, 34; in organizations, 72; in
creativity, 6–7, 11, 45, 86 personal relationships, 89; of
credibility: identification function for, superiority humor, 15–16; teasing
34; moderation linked to, 62, 68; in as, 37–39; for violation of social
persuasion, 8, 41, 54, 59, 62–66, 68, norms, 37–39, 72
69, 106 error or evil perceptions, 45–46,
criticism, 38, 39, 46, 68, 75, 89, 101; of 106–107, 117
weather, 15 ethic of care or justice, 30
cultures. See organizations and Everybody Loves Raymond, 83
cultures evolutionary purposes, 4, 23, 55
cynicism, 65, 67, 117, 118
facial expressions, 4, 5, 26, 58
dangers for relationships: aggressive family dynamics, in humor creation
humor as, 95; controlling others as, abilities, 56
96–98, 104; individual choice of Far Side, 52
humor as, 98–100; superiority Fey, Tina, 66
humor as, 95, 97; uncertainty Fine, Gary, 26
reduction and, 95–104; weaponized Ford, Gerald, 64, 65
humor as, 100–102, 102, 104 Freud, Sigmund, 9–10, 14
Davis, H. B., 57 frogs croaking, 24
death, 10, 25–26, 113, 115 functions of humor, in communication,
depression, 115, 118 34, 34–42
differentiation function, 34; in
communication, 7, 34, 39–42; as gender-based humor, 57–58, 95
 Index 133

genetics, 118 Koestler, A., 6

Graham, E. E., 52–53
grief, 25–26, 115 Larsen, Gary, 52
late night political television comedy,
health benefits, 5, 14, 54–55, 77, 115 64–66, 67
health care, 69, 90–91 Laugh-in, 65
hero worship, 109 laughter: in animals, 4; as contagious,
hierarchical relationships, 41, 100; hero 26, 28, 31, 31–32, 110;
worship in, 109; historical, 4–5; conversational, 21–23; disablement
liberation from, 108–109; in by, 27; hierarchy and, 4; historical,
organizations, 72–75, 78–79; in 4–5; safety signaled by, 26, 27, 28,
personal relationships, 90–92 110; in tragedy, 25–26; “with”
highway patrolman, 33–34 versus “at”, 7, 15–16, 29–30, 39, 77,
Hobbes, Thomas, 9 104
Holocaust, 25 Leno, Jay, 65
Humor Assessment instrument, 50, 53 liberation, 44, 107–109, 110
Humor Orientation Scale, 50, 52–54 Lichter, S. R., 66
Humor Styles Questionnaire, 57 life pattern disruption, 23–29
limits of humor, 25, 68, 116, 118
identification function, 34, 35–36; Lincoln, Abraham, 41
credibility by use of, 34; inside jokes loneliness, 88, 115
as, 35; self-deprecation as, 35; in longevity, of couples, 82, 87, 90,
uniting humor, 7, 34 97–100, 101–102, 103
imperfection, 117–118 Lynch, O. H., 74–75, 106
inclusiveness, 1, 78, 84
incongruity humor: cognitive managers, 73–74, 79, 80, 85
development of, 17–18; pattern Markiewicz, D., 60
violation in, 17–19, 71; surprise in, Martineau, W. H., 105
18, 102; theories of, 12–13, 17–19 The Mary Tyler Moore Show, 26
individual choice, 3, 5; characteristics McCroskey, J. C., 53
of, 51–58; comic and tragic modes measurements, of individual humor,
as, 43–51, 46, 106–107, 111, 112–114, 51; and appreciation of humor,
118; in communication, 2; dangers 55–56; and creation of humor,
for relationships in, 98–100; genetics 55–56; Graham, Papa and Brooks
in, 118 on, 52–53; health related to, 54–55;
infants, 4, 19 Humor Assessment instrument for,
ingratiation: in personal relationships, 50, 53; Humor Orientation Scale for,
82; politicians using, 8, 62, 63, 65; in 50, 52–54; Humor Styles
uniting humor, 7, 42, 53, 62, 82 Questionnaire for, 57; nonverbal
inside jokes, 6, 7, 35, 74, 86, 93 behavior in, 58
intentionality, 31. See also individual Meyer, J. C., 83
choice Miczo, Nathan, 56
Irish Famine, 67 mirth, 2, 4, 9, 11
irony, 28, 53, 67 moderation: in classroom humor, 92;
“I-Thou” relationships, 111, 119 credibility related to, 62, 68; in
pattern violation, 18, 24; persuasion
jag theory, 13 linked to, 62, 62–63, 68, 69; in
teasing, 94
Kerry, John, 65 “Modest Proposal” (Swift), 67
134 Index

moral order violations, 12, 41, 43, 105 moderation in, 18, 24; in
Mozart, Wolfgang, 118 organizations, 71; script awareness
Mr. Brown, 12–13 in, 84–85
music, comic and tragic modes of, 118 personal relationships: attachment in,
88–89; comic and tragic modes in,
National Press Club dinner, 63 82, 111; conflict, 89–90;
nervous energy, 9–10, 13, 14–15 development of, 82, 111;
9/11, 25 differentiation function in, 89;
911 call operators, 73 dividing humor in, 88–89;
Nixon, Richard, 65 enforcement function in, 89;
nonverbal behavior, in measuring hierarchy in, 90–92; ingratiation in,
humor, 58 82; inside jokes in, 6; moderation in,
94; pet humor in, 83; relief humor
objectivity, 59–60 in, 15; security and trust, 88–89;
organizations and cultures sexual humor in, 83, 83–84; shared
(organizations): clarification scripts in, 81; sharing in, 8, 81,
function in, 36–37; concertive 103–104; success based on humor in,
control in, 74; controlling others in, 82; superiority humor in, 97; teasing
98; defined, 71; differentiation in, 8, 38–39, 86–87, 92–94, 100, 102;
function in, 79–80; enforcement tragic mode in, 82; uncertainty
function in, 72; hierarchical reduction in, 81, 83, 84–94. See also
relationships in, 72–75, 78–79; dangers for relationships
humor orientation in, 54; managers persuasion, 7; audience interest for,
in, 73–74, 79, 80, 85; patterns of 60–61, 69; credibility for, 8, 41, 54,
communication in, 6; pattern 59, 62–66, 68, 69, 106; distraction
violation in, 71; production control and, 61; effectiveness, 59, 60, 68–69;
in, 74; resistance humor in, 74–75, ego-involvement and, 60;
78, 79, 80, 106; sharing in, 72, 73; ingratiation in, 65; late night
symbolism within, 73; uniting and political television comedy for,
dividing humor in, 32, 72, 79–80; 64–66, 67; moderation for, 62, 62–63,
violations of norms in, 72, 73 68, 69; objectivity in, 59–60;
origin theories, 1 politicians’ use of, 62–68; satire in,
66–68; sharing for, 62; sleeper effect,
Palin, Sarah, 66 61
Papa, M. J., 52–53 pet humor, 83
paradoxes, 29, 41, 58, 105, 112, 117 philosophers, 117
paratelic mode, 10–11, 15, 16, 17; in late physicians, 90–91
night political television comedy, physiology, 5, 13, 14
66; in social model, 105–106 playful and nonplayful humor, 33
patterns: adaptability and change in, play state, 1, 8, 99, 110. See also paratelic
23–24; cognitive development of, 10; mode
in communication, 2, 5–6, 7; in life Poduri, Chalapathi, 35
pattern disruption, 23–29; in political commentary: late night
organizations, 6; symbolic, 2; in political television comedy for,
symbolic interactionism theory, 3 64–66, 67; superiority humor, 65;
pattern violations: alternative concepts tragic mode in, 45–46
discovered by, 71–72; ambiguity in, politicians: differentiation function
105; in communication, 3, 5, 71; in used by, 41; ingratiation used by, 8,
incongruity humor, 17–19, 71; 62, 63, 65; moderation for, 62–63, 68;
 Index 135

persuasion used by, 62–68. See also disablement in, 109; “I-Thou”
specific politicians relationships in, 111, 119; liberation
production control, 74 in, 44, 107–109, 110; paradoxes in,
public address, 1, 8, 13, 35, 62, 106. See 29, 41, 58, 105, 112, 117; paratelic
also persuasion mode in, 105–106; sharing in, 106,
punishment. See enforcement function 114; social boundaries in, 109–110;
teasing in, 110
Reagan, Ronald, 63–64 social norms: enforcement function for
recognition, 11–12 violation of, 37–39, 72; facilitation
reification, 3, 31, 41, 58, 74, 78 of, 30–31; uniting humor stressing,
relationships. See personal 42
relationships students, 91–92
relief humor: nervous energy released subjectivity, 31
in, 13, 14–15; in personal superiority humor: for controlling
relationships, 15; physiology in, 13, others, 97; as danger for
14; theories of, 12–15, 19; violations relationships, 95, 97; differentiation
in, 13, 14 function in, 39–41; edge in, 15;
religion, 117 enforcement function of, 15–16;
Requiem (Mozart), 118 laughing ‘at’ not ‘with’ in, 15–16; in
resistance humor, 74–75, 78, 79, 80, 106 personal relationships, 97; in
reversals, 113 political commentary, 65; theories
road rage, 108 of, 12–13, 15–17, 19; victory yell in,
Romney, Mitt, 65 16; violation in, 15; winning in, 16
royal fool, 108 surprise, 10, 11, 18, 102
Swift, Jonathan, 67
safety, 26–27, 28, 110. See also symbolic interactionism theory, 3
uncertainty reduction symbolic patterns, 2
satire, 15, 49, 66–68, 118 symbolism, 5, 6, 31, 47, 85; in
satisfaction, of couples, 82, 87, 90, organizations, 73; in violations, 112
97–100, 101–102, 103
Saturday Night Live, 65, 66 teachers, 91–92, 113–114
script awareness, 47–48, 81, 84–85 teasing: as dividing, 100; as
security and trust, 88–89, 102 enforcement, 37–39, 39; moderation
self-deprecation, 16, 35, 53, 62, 64, 69 in, 94; in personal relationships, 8,
sense of control, 48–49 38–39, 86–87, 87, 92–94, 100, 102; in
sexual humor, 12–13, 26, 52, 76, 83, social model, 110; as telic, 119; in
83–84 uncertainty reduction, 86–87; as
sharing: in communication, 2, 5–6; uniting humor, 8
inside jokes, 7; in personal techniques, 28
relationships, 8, 81, 103–104; television remote control, 100–101
persuasion by, 62; of scripts, 81; in telic mode, 10–11, 66, 103, 119
social model, 106, 114; uniting Terrion, J. L., 80
humor as, 72, 73 terrorists, 107
Sion, L., 73 theories of humor, 5, 9–10; boost theory
sleeper effect, 61 in, 13; on incongruity humor, 12–13,
social boundaries, 109–110 17–19; jag, 13; on relief humor,
social dilemmas, 112–119 12–15, 19; on superiority humor,
social model, 9, 107; comic and tragic 12–13, 15–17, 19; universal, 10–19
choices in, 106–107, 111, 112–114; tragedy, 25–26
136 Index

tragic mode: choosing of, 43–51, 46; 72, 79–80; playful and nonplayful,
comic mode compared to, 44; comic 33; as sharing, 72, 73; social norms
mode dependent on, 114; of death, stressed in, 42; teasing as, 8
115; ego-involvement in, 47; evil universal theories of humor, 10–19
instead of error in, 45–46; as
individual choice, 43–51, 46, vacation e-mails, 116
106–107, 111, 112–114, 118; Veatch, T. C., 12, 13, 41
loneliness linked to, 88, 115; in victory yell, 9, 15, 16, 19
music, 118; in personal Vietnam, 25
relationships, 82; in political violations: dividing humor stressing,
commentary, 45–46; road rage and, 42; enforcement function for, 37–39,
108; in social model, 106–107, 111, 72; of moral order, 12, 41, 43, 105; in
112–114 organizations, 72, 73; in relief
tricksters’ tales, 71 humor, 13, 14; safe, of social order,
26; script awareness in, 47–48; in
uncertainty reduction: dangers for superiority humor, 15; symbolism
relationships and, 95–104; in in, 112; tricksters’ tales as, 71. See
personal relationships, 81, 83, 84–94; also pattern violations
script sharing in, 84–85; teasing in,
86–87 weaponized humor, 41, 57–58, 64,
United States, 45–46, 66, 78, 107–108, 100–102, 104
116–117 weather, and criticism, 15
uniting humor: affiliative humor as, 32, winning, 15–16
56–57, 100, 102; aggressive humor workplace. See organizations and
as, 32, 57–58; clarification function cultures
as, 7, 34; in communication, 21, World War II, 25, 108
29–34; dividing compared to, 29–34; Wrench, J. S., 53
ethics of care in, 30; identification
function for, 7; identification Zapata, C. L., 57
function in, 7, 34; ingratiation as, 7, zombies, 68–69
42, 53, 62, 82; in organizations, 32,