After reading chapter 3 please respond to the following questions:
Of the various theories presented in the chapter, which did you like the most? Why? Which did you like the least? Why? What are three things you read about in the chapter that you think will be the most useful for you in understanding the psychology of humor? Why?
How do these theories fit into the Theory "Z" your group came up with (make sure you say what group it was)?
Please make sure you use the terms, terminology and concepts you have learned so far in the class. It should be apparent from reading your post that you are a college student well underway in a course in psychology.
Please use spaces between your paragraphs to make your post easier to read - thanks in advance.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Between the arousal, incongruity, and reversal theories, the reversal theory was my favorite. I liked this theory for numerous reasons. I related most to this theory because it viewed humor in terms of the enjoyment of play as well as supporting the social concept and a stress relief that humor provides of with. I agree with Apter's theory that we experience humor through a playful state of mind through his idea of our 'two worlds.' I feel that we all have the real world where our goals, work, stress, and future our most important and we have our private world where we are living in the present and any stressors or activities are secondary. In our private worlds, we are able to enjoy humor as a form of play. Another reason I enjoy the reversal theory is because of the the social aspect the theory pays attention to. I particularly liked reading about the weight judgment paradigm experiment. This was a great example to show that even under the most serious situations (experiment setting with researchers) people will find amusement and entertainment (subjects feeling they were being tricked) which in turn creates humor. The reversal theory describes humor as opening the doors for interpersonal communication in which i agree with 100%. The last reason I really enjoyed this theory is the idea that humor helps us cope with life. This concept was easy for me to grasp because I personally use humor to 'escape' stressors. The theory suggests that humor helps us reframe anxiety and other arousing events or problems we have on a daily basis. Funny movies, comedians, jokes, etc. are all forms of humor that help us de-stress and enjoy a break from the real life. Overall, the reversal theory was my favorite because it was the easiest for me to agree and relate to. Also, I think this theory has strong concepts that give structure to humor.
The theory that I liked the least of the three was the arousal theory. I had a hard time understanding Berlyne's idea of the inverted-U relationship being reason why we experience pleasure and humor. This theory suggests that we experience our laughter and pleasure because we get highly aroused and reach an optimal level and the sudden change between arousal boost and arousal jag gives us laughter. Overall, this theory didn't seem very strong to me and lacked the support that the reversal theory had. The text describes the inverted-U relationship as having little evidence and rather that the relationship between arousal and laughter is linear.
The three things that I learned in this chapter that will help me understand psychology of humor more would be the theories, the relationship of arousal and humor, and humor as a coping mechanism. The three new theories were very different from each other and had a lot of useful information. It was interesting to learn more about the different views of why or how humor works. This information will be useful for me in the future because these theories will be important to understand throughout the class in order to understand other students views of humor. The next idea that will be useful for me is the relationship between arousal & humor. Prior to reading this chapter, I had not understood the exact relationship or arousal plays into humor. Even though I don't agree with the arousal theory, it was useful to learn more about the relationship. The last idea about humor as a coping mechanism is going to be most useful for me. I really like this particular idea because I use humor on a daily basis to deal with any life stressors or problems. This information from the text will help me understand more about my own use of humor and how I use it not only for entertainment but also to cope with stress.
These theories play into my Z group, Swarm theory, because the reversal theory demonstrates our idea of social perspective and 'connecting' to others. The incongruity theory & Swarm theory relate because the cognitive perspective is a part of both theories. Though the incongruity theory focuses more on the cognitive aspect being the reason for humor, both theories agree that cognition or being 'aware' plays a role in humor. Arousal theory plays into the Swarm theory because we described humor as the aggressiveness and built up energies which is also supported in the arousal theory.
The reversal theory was not only my favorite theory discussed in this chapter, but my favorite theory discussed throughout the whole book to date. At first, I liked the reversal theory because it talked about two states of mind, paratelic being the playful state and telic being the serious, buckled down state. I really liked how the reversal theory emphasized the idea that depending on the context/mood (paratelic/telic) a person is in plays heavily on whether or not a joke, event, etc. will be humorous. I really like this sentence(s) so I’m going to site it because to me, it explains my day to day life perfectly:
“…arousal is experienced differently depending on whether one is in the telic or the paratelic state. In the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant (anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation), whereas in the paratelic state, low arousal is unpleasant (boredom) and high arousal is enjoyable (excitement).”
I find this to occur quite frequently during my day, particularly those in which I am up to my head deep in tasks that need to be completed. I’ll be sitting at my desk at night after a long day of work/homework (basically in my telic state), and will all of a sudden get bored out of my mind and sick of reading, sending emails, and the like and will enter the paratelic state and get very witty and do weird things (I do admit, I do some pretty weird things after a long day in a telic state!).
The other reason I like this theory is because it nicely ties together the theories we have read/talked about thus far. It acknowledges that there are different forms of humor, that humor can be used as a defense mechanism, that humor is incongruent, and is also social and used as a social communicator.
I probably liked the arousal theory the least, mostly because I had a really hard time following it. I think I got lost somewhere in the whole inverted-U relationship jargon and never got out of a state of confusion. It was also my least favorite because as I have already expressed, I really liked the reversal theory, but also liked the concept that incongruity makes the joke. The incongruity theory reminds me a lot of my own humor which is somewhat sarcastic and smartass-ish.
I will definitely remember reversal theory, probably because I was amazed at how complete it was (compared to others we have read anyway). The concepts outlined in this theory were consistent with my own thoughts of humor.
I will also remember the idea of incongruity and how it is connected with humor. I guess I have always used this type of humor in my everyday life, but never had a word or theory to connect with why I thought these types of jokes were funny.
Most specifically though, I will likely remember the words paratelic and telic because I will probably use them to explain my weird and crazy behavior after a long day of homework. My roommate always thinks I’m weird, but now I will be able to intelligently explain to her why my paratelic state comes out! :)
My “Z” theory group was the PSSC theory. I definitely think that the reversal theory is the most like our theory because it takes the main aspects of each theory and ties them together. Our theory basically explained humor as a cognitive process which also has roots in social contexts. Our theory also explained humor through aggression (though not all humor has roots in aggression as the superiority theory suggests) and suggested that humor is used as a defense mechanism in social contexts. Basically, we were hinting at something similar to the reversal theory (with the exception of the paratelic and telic states) and we just didn’t know it!
One thing I noticed when reading the empirical evidence for all the theories is that the majority of the research is 20-30 years old. Why is that?!
Of the three theories discussed in chapter 3 of the textbook, arousal, incongruity, and reversal theories; I like the reversal theory the most. I liked this theory because it states that humor is a non serious, playful, lighthearted activity. When I think of humor those are the exact things I think of. I don’t think of it being a serious cognitive event happening or the need for serious information processing. Another reason I liked Apter’s theory is because it is able to combine the strengths from other theories rather than simply try to be a completely different theory altogether.
The term reversal theory derives from the idea that we flip back and forth between two different states of mind. The states of mind include the telic and the paratelic. In the telic state of mind we are typically more goal oriented and remain more focused on series activities. The paratelic state is a more present playful oriented side. Apter believes that we reverse back and forth between these states numerous times a day. While reading about this theory I could easily relate to the idea of being in the right state of mind to find something humorous.
I also liked this theory because it took a person’s mood into context. Some days when I’m very stressed and have a lot of a anxiety and find it hard to think things are funny, but on the flip side I have periods of my day where I think I could find a lot of humor. This is one thing I will find most useful from this chapter. I found it useful because it is easy for me to personally relate my life to this theory.
I also liked this theory because rather than trying to be a theory of new ideas it incorporated the strengths of other theories we have already discussed in class. The different forms of humor, defense mechanisms, incongruity, and the social aspect are all included in the reversal theory.
I agree with Kayla that the reversal theory is definitely something I will remember from this chapter because of how well I think it explains humor. I really enjoyed reading about this theory and how it works because I felt it was very inclusive rather being very narrow-minded.
The third thing I will remember from this chapter is the idea of humor as a way to cope with stress. I find myself being very stressed all the time sometimes to the point of being sick so I often try to take a break and find something to make me laugh and help me de-stress.
The theory that I liked the least was the arousal theory. Like Kayla also mentioned, I too, had a hard time following the theory. I found that I had to keep re-reading paragraphs and sentences because I had been lost. I was also confused with the inverted-U shape relationship between arousal and enjoyment.
The group that I was part of for the “Z” theory was the Playdoh group. We believed the social and cognitive theories to have more weight and accuracy than the psychoanalytic and superiority theories. I believe the reversal theory would be a great compliment to our “Z” theory because it combines the strengths of the theories.
Kayla: I noticed the dates of the empirical research too! Crazy!
Out of the three presented theories in chapter three: Arousal, Incongruity, and Reversal; I felt that the Reversal Theory had the most basic and logical approach. The Arousal Theory seemed as though it was trying to account for too many variables at the same time. Although the discussed collective variables seemed logical, the idea of having a group of elements that are necessary in order to perceive and conceptualize a joke seems too complex. The Arousal Theory tries to incorporate too many elements to explain something as simple as understanding why a chicken crossed the road. The Incongruity Theory has a good argument that explains how people are able to understand the correct meaning behind a multi-faceted joke; however, it deals specifically with the cognition involved in humor without accounting for the social and emotional aspects involved. Therefore, out of the three presented theories, I found the Reversal Theory to be the best. I liked the Reversal theory because it explained how a joke may or may not be perceived as funny based on one’s state of mind. Furthermore, this was the only theory to account for the fact that humor is meant to playful and not serious; therefore, humor should only use a minimal amount of psychological effort to understand it and does not need to be analyzed with the same complexity as other mental processes. The Reversal Theory also emphasizes the importance of context for humor by pointing out that humor is primarily a form of social communication. This is explained by distinguishing a playful frame of mind, paratelic state, from a more goal-directed frame of mind, telic state. This provides a very basic concept for how humor is processed by an individual. If a person is in the paratelic state, a joke will be a lot funnier than if a person is told a joke while in the telic state.
I found the Arousal Theory to be the least interesting because the concepts and explanations involved seemed too categorized and far-fetched. Daniel Berlyne was mentioned in this section for formulating the collective variables associated with understanding humor. He based his theory on the inverted-U relationship, which stated that the greatest amount of pleasure is associated with a moderate amount of arousal while too little or too much arousal is found to be unpleasant. The inverted-U relationship does not even sound factual when explained and makes even less sense when Berlyne tries to confuse the ideas more by postulating two arousal-related mechanisms in humor to explain the arousal states/variables. Arousal boost mechanism is experienced during the telling of a joke or perception of a humorous situation. Arousal jag mechanism was explained by Berlyne as an expression of the pleasure resulting from changes in arousal to an optimal level that is not too high or too low. The explanation in this theory seems to over-complicate all of the concepts involved in understanding humor, while not even mentioning the importance that social context has when processing a joke. Furthermore, this theory is further weakened because all of the supporting empirical studies are focused on “structured punch-line jokes” without taking into account the importance of spontaneous humor found in every-day social interactions. It is obvious why the inverted-U relationship was found to have little empirical evidence to support it and humor is more commonly found to have a linear instead of a curvilinear relationship.
Three ideas in this chapter that I believe will help me to better understand the psychology of humor is that the idea of ‘play’ as the foundation for humor, humor depends on a person’s psychological state of mind, and lastly, humor may be manipulated to be used in ways that have intentions other than creating laughter. The idea of ‘play’ being a foundation for humor is important for understanding the psychology of humor because it shows that humor is meant to be easily understood and differs from other serious states of mind. Humor is not meant to be extremely complicated because it requires a less serious mode of thinking. A person’s psychological state of mind is important because the social context a joke is told in will impact whether the listener views the joke as funny or not. Furthermore, a person’s psychological frame of mind also has an impact on what different people find funny due to their different personalities. Finally, it is important to understand that humor may have alternative intentions. For example, if a person negatively insults someone and the other person takes offense, the first person can lighten the tense situation by saying his or her comment was nothing more than a joke. A joke can be used to say something insulting without creating a hostile situation. Humor may also be used to lighten a negative and stressful situation when it may be used as a coping mechanism. Finding the optimistic and bright side of situations may help people deal with events that would otherwise be too heavy or sad. However, not being able to deal with sad events may have an adverse reaction other than a coping strategy when a person is unable to ever take important events seriously.
These three theories fit into the Playdoh Theory that my group discussed in class because while certain aspects of each theory hold some degree of truth to it, other aspects of each theory should be eliminated or re-examined. For example, the Arousal Theory had a good point in stating that increased emotional arousal can contribute to greater enjoyment of humor, but was wrong in trying to state that humor is what raises and lowers emotional arousal levels rather than viewing humor as an emotional response. The Incongruity Theory made a good observation by explaining that humor results from two clashing ideas or surprising outcomes, but fails to account for the importance that one’s social and emotional context plays in understanding and appreciating humor. Lastly, the Reversal Theory had a good point when explaining the importance of social context within its theory, but needs to address the idea that although humor is thought of as “non-serious” it does have serious aspects to it and may have seriously negative outcomes for people who are the pun of some jokes.
Of the theories, I liked the reversal theory the best. I felt that it was the theory that covered things most completely. The incongruity theory was very much focused on one point and expanded very far on that point. The arousal theory was the least believable and most similar to Freud and Grunner’s theories where the reversal theory seemed to use logic. It involved both social and cognitive aspects, which helped with the overall believability of the theory. I think the idea of switching back and forth between states of mind is very logical. I do not think that laughter is at all a release of excess energy, which discredits the theories brought forth earlier by Freud and Grunner, and two of the theories discussed last class period. However, socially the reversal theory can fit very well. Social situations are prime for humor, because the social interaction itself and be a perfect antecedent for puns, jokes, and many incongruent situations. As far as cognitively the Reversal Theory is set up with its own word for the cognitive processes that take place in humor- synergy (holding two incongruent ideas in the mind at once).
Of the theories I disliked the Arousal theory the most. For starters it seemed to be the least supported of the theories, which is a huge strike against it in my book. Furthermore I do not buy the idea of an arousal boost mechanism and an arousal jag mechanism. Mostly because I cannot think of a situation where something is too funny, with the exception of being tickled for too long. This one exception, in my mind, is not enough to be counted as arousal that is too much.
The three points from this chapter are all things I had never thought about previous to this class. The first that at the center of all humor is incongruity. Second and third are the emotional and cognitive aspects of humor. I am unsure if anyone ever steps back to think about why most things are funny. Even broken down to simple things, someone falling is funny because you’re not supposed to fall when you’re walking. Jokes, like the one told in class about the numbered jokes are funny because it doesn’t make sense that one man yelling out a number could be telling a joke wrong. Cognitively we have to process it, and then laughter is the expression of the joyful, or playful emotions and state of mind.
I was in the Swarm Theory group, and the arousal theory relates to our theory loosely, but the idea of laughter being the expression of arousal is similar to the idea that laughter is an expression of nervous energy. It is related to the incongruity theory because of the basic idea that all humor is based on incongruity of ideas, which is the general sentiment of every theory. The reversal theory is very much related to social and cognitive theories because of reasons mentioned earlier. Social situations are prime occasions for incongruity to come about, and cognitively it needs to be processed in order to find the humor, which is described in the reversal theory as synergy.
Just like everyone else so far I liked the reversal theory the best (though incongruence is a close second). This could be, in part, due to the fact that Martin isn't shy about claiming that he likes it the best out of all the theories discussed so far. He presents it at the end as being a theory that synthesizes all the work that has come before it, and the research he presents in support of this view seems to suggest that it does this pretty well. It possesses many of the strengths of the other theories (i.e. Psychoanalytic, superiority, arousal, and incongruity) while eliminating the common weakness of placing too much emphasis on any one aspect of humor. Honestly the main reason I like reversal theory most at this point is simply because the other theories seem to have too large ,or too many holes to be correct. Reversal theory is on the right track I feel but is really the lesser of 4 evils at this point.
I disliked arousal theory the most. Arousal theory suggests that the emotional nature of humor links it the autonomic nervous system and thus, humor can be understood by studying the physiological responses present before, during, and after humorous events. Arousal theories make several hypothesis about the nature of humor which, as frequently happens, have received mixed support from various studies. One hypothesis that has received a lot of support is that if participants are in a heightened state of arousal they ought to rate things as funnier than if in a neutral or depressed state of arousal. The text claims that this is in opposition to Berlyne's 'inverted-U' relationship where arousal levels that are too high ought to have the reverse effect. However either I misunderstood, or simply disagree with what they are saying in this regard. One of the ways they tested the 'inverted-U' idea was by having people read either boring or arousing newspaper articles; to manipulate the positive or negative aspect they had people read either a sexual or erotic passage, or the graphic description of a lynch mob torturing someone. Both high arousal conditions (i.e. sex and torture) rated material viewed after the reading as funnier than those who read boring passages. Thus demonstrating a linear relationship between arousal and perceived funniness (instead of the inverted-U). I don't see this as proof against the inverted-U however, what if the negative arousal group just didn't hit the peak of the curve yet? For example, if it's linear than after witnessing a murder, being raped, attacked, robbed, or in a car accident reading jokes ought to be more comical and this doesn't seem to be the case, perhaps it is. I'm questioning the ecological validity of these and other tests (e.g. the toy-rat experiment). The main reason I dislike arousal theory is because it lacks the ability to account for the cognitive nature of humor.
I will likely remember a lot from this chapter since I enjoyed reading it a lot. Arousal theory brought a lot of research to the foreground regarding the emotional aspect of humor; incongruity theory brought to the fore cognitive processes involved in appraising and recognizing humor; reversal theory appears to mix these. One thing I really liked was Apter's disagreement about referring to the 'resolution' of incongruity. Something about this had never set right with me and now I know what it was. When we get to the punch line we often laugh because of the perception of incongruity created by a play on words or a double meaning, etc. Apter said that instead of being resolved the incongruity acts synergistically with the congruent interpretation, creating humor.
The playful 'reversal' between telic and paratelic states explains how arousal levels may have a linear relationship when in the paratelic state, but a curvalinear (inverted-U) relationship in the telic state. Similarly the fact that the second, incongruent stimuli, which creates the 'synergy' must always be a lesser than the first capitalizes on various benefits of the superiority theories without making it take center stage as the only theme in humor. The cognitive mechanisms involved in the perception of humor are very important, but may leave out other important social and emotional components; reversal theory helps with this as well. The perception of the two incongruent stimuli is almost entirely cognitive. The social and emotional aspects of humor impact not necessarily this perception, but the arousal levels surrounding the humorous perception, as well as the movement between telic and paratelic states of mind.
I was in the 'balance/homeostasis' theory group. Building off of the idea that humor is recognition of incongruity that happens most often in social situations (always if you accept the pseudo-social situations described on page 7) our theory tried to capitalize on the fact that balance is brought to both personal and social situations by the use of humor. In this way the cognitive incongruity established at the punch line is 'resolved' to the extent that it is recognized for what it is. Similarly in social situations humor is used to keep the group working cohesively.
With a few changes this theory relates to reversal theory, I say this in hind sight, not that we had any idea this is where it would go. Apter's telic and paratelic states much better describe humor than does restoring balance. It may be that since we are all in constant state of reversal between telic and paratelic states, humor may act to put us all on the same 'wave' so to speak, and this is why it often acts to bring homeostasis to ourselves and the group. The incongruity, recognized cognitively, helps to put us all in the same state of mind to experience the emotion of mirth. As mentioned in the text this explains the prevalence of sex and aggression in humor. In our theory z it was because these are such powerful drives that they are more in need of help back to baseline than other drives associated with lower arousal levels. In reversal theory it's because these help us to experience even more humor within humorous situations. Rather than brining us to a point of 'balance' it is likely that humor places us in the 'paratelic' state of mind, and that this state of mind is characterized by a lack of stress, seriousness, and rigid reality than the 'telic' state of mind.
The theory I like the most from this chapter was the Incongruity theory. Incongruity theory focuses on the cognitive component of humor. Our perception of what is funny is based on our expectations of how something should go, but what makes it funny is when things are different than we expect. A term used to describe this mental process is bisociation, when two mental perspectives are incompatible. But incongruity is not the only thing needed to make things funny. There also needs to be a resolution to the joke, the way that we ‘get’ the joke. Shultz states that as we are listening to the set-up of a joke we are piecing together the different meanings that parts and pieces of the joke may have, as well as thinking of the expected outcome. The two-stage model of humor comprehension by Jerry Suls explains why certain people ‘get’ jokes and others don’t. He describes it as a type of problem-solving task. To me, this theory helps explain sexual and aggressive humor in a more logical way than psychoanalytic and superiority theories. Incongruity theory states that these are ways to make information needed to solve the cognitive task (ie. Get the joke) readily available. This was referred to as the salience hypothesis. I like this theory because it makes sense to me. It explains why people ‘get’ jokes. I think humor is a cognitive process that happens so quickly you don’t have to think about it, yet involves an intricate brain process. I like the research involving the weight judgment paradigm. It showed the greater the incongruity between weights, the more the subjects smiled and laughed. But it also showed that when the same task was performed under different circumstances, different results were found. Researchers concluded that emotional climate and mental set can influence the funniness of something.
The theory I disliked the most was the arousal theory. One of the researchers, Berlyne focuses on describing humor through collative variables, or different aspects that must be taken into account when evaluating humor. He states that variables such as surprise, complexity, and change all attract our attention and create a sense of intrigue in our brains. He based his theory on an inverted-U relationship between arousal and pleasure. Basically saying that there is an optimal arousal level (not to low or too high) which correlates with optimal pleasure. He says that the arousal boost mechanism picks up on collative variable (as we hear a joke) and raises our arousal level. However, if the arousal becomes too high, the arousal jag mechanism kicks in causing the arousal level to lower. Thus, this fluctuation of arousal levels is what causes laughter. I agree with some of the contradictory evidence that suggests arousal and pleasure share a positive linear relationship. As arousal goes up, signs of pleasure and mirth go up. Some evidence also shows that high arousal whether positive or negative can increase the likelihood something will be perceived as funny. Although Berlyne’s original inverted-U theory is proven untrue I do agree that arousal plays a role in the perception of humor. I don’t like that this theory doesn’t talk about the social context of humor.
I like the part of arousal theory that talks about how either negative or positive arousal can have a positive relationship on laughter and one’s perception of humor. This concept creates a more social aspect of this theory because one’s mood/arousal level can be affected by others. I thought of a good example of how negative arousal can produce an intense burst of laughter. It happened during my grandpa’s funeral visitation. The atmosphere was obviously very anxious and tense. My uncle made this quip about the plant that his workplace had sent over that looked like a weed they pulled out of a ditch. Everyone just cracked up. Thinking about it now, the statement wasn’t that funny and I think if it was in a different situation where the arousal wasn’t high, it wouldn’t have gotten such a strong reaction.
The two state of minds (telic and paratelic) given in the reversal theory will also help me in understanding psychology of humor. I agree that state of mind is very important to finding something funny or not. I think when you are in a telic (goal-oriented) state you tend to be more serious and not as open to humor. This idea also involves social context and aspects of one’s life, which in turn affect cognitive processes.
One study revealed that participants found a joke to be funniest when they could see the punch line coming. This is interesting because I would have thought the opposite to be true. But this shows that most jokes or humor should have some predictability to get the best reaction.
The theory my group came up with was the equilibrium theory. We described this as one where humor is used to maintain social status and harmony and pleasantness within oneself, whether it’s used by yourself or used with others. The whole idea of Berlyne’s arousal theory revolves around keeping an equilibrium or an ‘optimal’ level of arousal. This theory could be applied in an individual status where the individual is seeking the optimal arousal through the understanding of jokes and humor. Incongruity theory says that humor occurs when there is a mismatch between the perception of something and our actual knowledge of that thing. This theory explains more of how a joke is processed rather than how it can be used in social situations. I’m not sure that our theory has a strong cognitive point of view. However, one could say that by being good at ‘processing’ jokes and understanding incongruity could encourage positive social responses. Finally, reversal theory takes on more of a social context. Paratelic and telic states of mind can be greatly influenced by environment. We seek out experiences, jokes and humor that keep our mind set in a positive equilibrium. Apter states that “in the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant (anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation), whereas in the paratelic state, low arousal is unpleasant (boredom) and high arousal is enjoyable(excitement).” So depending on your state of mind, this will determine what kind of balance you seek.
Of the three theories involved in this chapter, I felt most comfortable with the Reversal theory by Apter. Apter saw humor as a form of play, specifically, “a state of mind, a way of seeing and being, a special mental ‘set’ towards the world and one’s actions in it”. I agree that we have two different states of mind that we switch between throughout a day, one more future/goal-directed and the other more in the present/humor related. According to Apter, the frame of mind that assists in achieving our goals is referred to as the Telic state, while the frame of mind used for more present and playful matters is called the Paratelic state. In the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant (anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation). In the paratelic state, low arousal is unpleasant (boredom) and high arousal is enjoyable (excitement). To me this theory says, one must be in the mood to enjoy humor. If I’m in a bad mood, its going be pretty tough to make me laugh, hell even crack a smile, but if things are going good then my state of mind is “laid back” then most attempts at humor will be successful with me. One’s mental ‘set’ has to be open and accepting to humor to enjoy it. Apter’s theory also mentions that environmental cues such as the laughter of other people or their amusing facial expressions may help to induce the paratelic state of mind.
Out of the three theories, I disliked the Arousal theory by Berlyne. I suppose what I didn’t like is that it puts a lot of focus on arousal and saying that there is too much or too little. Berlyne felt there was two mechanisms involved in humor, one is arousal boost and the other is arousal jag. The arousal boost mechanism operates during the telling of a joke or perception of a humorous situation, when arousal is elevated by means of the collative variables in the stimulus. This increase in arousal up to an optimal level is experienced as pleasurable. The arousal jag mechanism, in brief, is the punch-line of a joke that provides resolution and relief from too much pleasure. The punch-line brings the individual back to a comfortable level of arousal, which is expressed through laughter. It seems fine on the surface, but I feel humor is more relative to the social context and how ones state of mind is at the time.
One thing I will remember from this chapter is according to incongruity theories; the funniness of a joke depends on the unexpectedness or surprisingness of the punch line. By saying this, the funniest jokes should be those having the most unpredictable or surprising endings. Unfortunately research does not always support this hypothesis, due to more predictable jokes being more common as funny. Another significant thing in this chapter would be the relationship between arousal and humor. I feel one must be aroused in some way in the first place to want to actually laugh or express enjoyment from humor. Lastly, I will remember the idea of bisociation by Koestler. Bisociation occurs when a situation, event, or idea is simultaneously perceived from the perspective of two self-consistent but normally incompatible or disparate frames of reference. An example biosociation would be a ‘pun’. Why do people become bakers? Because they knead the dough. Two different meanings of a word are brought together simultaneously.
I belonged to the anti-Freud/ Z theory. Our theory revolves around humor as being an evolutionary trait that was seen as important in some way. This theory combines many of the elements of the other theories, emphasizing that humor is form of play that involves aspects of the cognitive and social nature. Apter’s reversal theory also encompasses many of the elements of other theories as well, also stating that there are diverse ways we experience humor, such as jokes, nonverbal humor, conversational witticisms, and the humorous outlook on our problems in life. Most importantly, humor in our Z-theory is seen as a trait significant enough to evolve with us, because it serves a purpose. Humor clearly has a purpose as a defensive mechanism, which could assist anyone in living better lives.
Of the chapters presented my favorite is the reversal theory because it incorporates the arousal and incongruity theories very well. The reversal theory states that we find humor when we are in a paratelic or playful state. When we are in a telic state we are goal oriented and serious. Our behavior is driven by the need to achieve something. In a paratelic state there is no goal, our behavior is not driven but is more reactionary, and what is important is not a goal but the actual behavior we are engaging in. The book describes the telic state as being-future oriented and the paratelic state as being present-oriented.
The reversal theory accounts for arousal by supporting the view that we seek a moderate sense of arousal, not too much and not too little. Aggression or negative themes could rise arousal and jokes that relieve tension could decrease arousal, so we seek humor partially because we want to change our arousal level. The reversal theory states that we can only become pleasurabley aroused while in a telic state. Any kind of humor is lost on us while we are focused and in a goal oriented state, but when our mind seeks playful stimuli we find many things funny. Incongruity theory states that we find humor when we perceive something that is not consistent with our expectations. Basically we laugh at a joke because it surprises us, but to be able to appreciate the surprise in an amusing light we must be in a playful state. When we are in a playful mood we find things funny that we usually would think absolutely stupid.
The question is when and how do we switch, or reverse, states. Apter thought that social cues such as laughter helped to bring about a paratelic state, and indeed almost everyone mentioned in the book agrees that humor is for the most part a social experience.
I also agree with Wyer and Collins' statement that we enjoy jokes that require at least some amount of thought to understand.
The limitations of this theory are in its simplicity. If we are only subject to two states when it comes to humor why do we find different things funny at different times? And do we operate in these two black and white states or is it a like a spectrum and we move about it throughout the day. I think the theory is concrete enough to inspire research and can be tested fairly easily. The book describes a study done by the author the our book in which he found people who are generally appreciate humor more and use it in their life tend to be in a paratelic state more often than those who did not have as high a level of humor appreciation. I think more research could be done using a measure to get an idea of someone's mood at particular times throughout the day.
Of the other two theories i could not pick a least favorite. I believe both had potential but were incomplete. I was a fan of the arousal theory because it attempted to base humor in an aspect that could be easily tested. Arousal is a biological aspect that we can measure and rate and determine if mirth affects it. But humor is not always used to release tension nor is it always high energy enough to change your arousal level. The incongruity theory is grounded more in cognitive principles. I believe it very accurately evaluates how we appreciate some forms of humor, but only some. Bisociation refers to what happens when we have two normally disparate themes in the forfront of our thoughts. We recognize the discontinuity and laugh, but why do we find physical humor funny? Why do we laugh when Peter Griffin moans in pain for 60 straight seconds? We expect this because it is Peter's character and it has happened before but it's still funny.
In the end I believe that the reversal theory is the best of both the other two theories, and is also possible to research.
Between the incongruity, arousal, and reversal theories, the reversal theory was my favorite. There were many reasons why I chose this theory, but what appealed to me the most was the “simplicity” of it. By simplicity I mean the basic concept of thinking that humor is a playful, nonserious activity, which was noted in chapter one. It is not necessarily simple though, considering the mental ‘set’ that makes up the state of mind towards the world and one’s actions in it. I also like this theory because it relates to my life the most. I am constantly busy trying to balance my life with school, work, friends, and family. It seems as though humor or a playful state of mind really puts me back in balance. I also like how Apter refers to the playful state of mind as a protective frame, or a psychological safe zone, mainly because I do feel the most comfortable when I am playful and trying to relieve my stress. Another reason why I liked this chapter is because it is almost an escape. I agree with Steve, when he mentions that funny movies, comedians, and jokes are all forms of humor that help us de-stress and enjoy a break from real life.
I am going to hop on the bandwagon of this blog and agree with most of the posts so far. The theory I disliked the most was the Arousal Theory by Berlyne. I didn’t like this theory as much as the others because it emphasized more on the physiological responses, rather than the humor itself. I believe that the arousal theory made several hypotheses about the nature of humor, and received too different of support from various studies. In the study done in the 1960’s and 1970’s there were two groups of participants who were exposed to a slapstick comedy film. One group was injected with epinephrine and the other group, the placebo group, was not. It was determined that the group injected with the drug experienced more arousal than the placebo group. I may be being cynical here, but of course the group injected with the drug is going to experience more mirth and arousal, especially since the study was done in the 60’s and 70’s. Furthermore, this theory is further weakened because all of the supporting empirical studies are focused on “structured punch-line jokes.” These studies did incorporate the social interactions between people and the everyday humor that occurs in a social setting.
One of the three things I will remember from reading this chapter is the most will probably be the reversal theory. I believe that this theory will help me understand the psychology of humor more because the theory combines many of the elements of other theories to produce a theory which explains one of the more simple ways of explaining why things are funny. I believe that it is a Z theory in itself because of the concepts that are used to define the theory.
Another thing that I will remember from the chapter are the terms telic and paratelic state. These terms helped me realize why I find some things funnier than others in my everyday life. It’s almost as if I am always in a paratelic state, which may explain why my life is so hectic!
The last thing I will remember from this chapter is the relationship between arousal and humor. I found it interesting how arousal associated with negative emotions like fear can evoke a stressful event, but can eventually lead to pleasure and humor. It seems as though aggression keeps popping up throughout this book, and I keep getting surprised every time I come across it. Before taking this class, or reading this book I had no idea humor was related to aggression as much as it is.
I believe that the reversal theory relates to my Z theory, the anti-Freud theory, the most because of the psychological safe zone, or the protective frame that Apter refers to in the chapter. Since my Z theory used humor as a defense mechanism, it coincides with this theory directly. For example, you are having a stressful day and you want to just chill out. So to chill out you hang out with friends who make you laugh. It’s as if you block out the stress or use humor as a defense mechanism to help you relieve your stress. Since all three of the theories seem to coincide with each other some way, it is easy to relate defense mechanisms to the theories.
Of the three theories in this chapter, I liked the reversal theory the most. I liked how it had different elements of all the other theories sprinkled within it. I think that it’s difficult to really find a theory that thoroughly encompasses all the different elements of humor, so I thought this theory did a great job of rounding everything out. One thing that I found interesting though is that in the study done by Kuhlman testing the salience hypothesis, Kuhlman found that “all three types of jokes were enjoyed more by the subjects who were in the middle of an exam than by those in the other two conditions”(pg 71). This study didn’t really have anything to do with the Reversal theory, but according to that theory, the students who were in the exam should have probably been in the telic state because taking an exam is usually a serious activity, but it turns out the jokes were enjoyed more by that group in the middle of an exam.
I think that the reversal theory makes a lot of sense. You could be in a telic state while you’re at work or while you’re studying, and your coworker or roommate approaches you to tell you a joke, but while you’re in that state, you could just hear it, but not find it funny in the slightest because you’re not in the paratelic state.
I actually liked all of the theories in this chapter better than the theories in chapter two, but I think the one that I liked the least was the Incongruity theory. I think I mostly didn’t like it because it seems very limited to only jokes, especially the incongruity-resolution theory. For the most part, I didn’t think that it took into account more of the social types of humor like conversational humor, accidental humor, or spontaneous humor. I did find the experiment with the weights interesting though—which the results of that study goes against what I previously said. But if I imagine myself with my friends participating in that study, I could definitely imagine it being very funny. I tend to always jump right to the social aspects of humor—I always imagine myself in the example situations given with my friends, and I think about whether or not we, as a group, would find it funny. It’s probably because when I think of humor, I always think of social situations like that, and when I’m with my friends, I am almost always in Apter’s paratelic state.
I liked the concept of the arousal jag mechanism where Berlyne saw laughter as an expression of pleasure resulting from changes in arousal to an optimum level—not too high and not too low. I thought that this theory made a lot of sense, and I liked it better than the theory that laughing is just the releasing of excess energy. I think there has to be some sort of stimulus to cause laughter, not just a build-up of energy.
I found the results of a study done to test incongruity theories very interesting. In the study where participants thought jokes with most predictable punch lines were rated as being the most funny—I thought that was really surprising. I just figured that jokes that had unpredictable punch lines would be rated as being more funny. I thought that was interesting because it goes on to quote Pollio and Mers as they conclude that laughing at the jokes where you already know the punch line is actually an expression of achievement.
I thought it was interesting when the author talked about his own study that he conducted where he found that people who are the paratelic state at any given time will laugh and smile more frequently and take notice of humorous aspects from their environment. This makes me think that personality has a lot more to do with humor than any of the theories that we’ve read about have actually covered.
My group theory was the Equilibrium Theory, and we said that humor is a way to balance out social situations and to keep things on an even keel. When it comes to the Arousal theory where Berlyne explained that the greatest enjoyment comes from a moderate amount of arousal—not too much and not too little is sort of paralleled with what we were trying to accomplish with our theory. When we’re in social situations, we want to keep things at a moderate level. When trying to fit the Reversal theory into our Z theory, I immediately think of the telic and paratelic states; whatever state you’re in is obviously going to affect how you act in social situations. So if someone is trying to make light of an awkward social situation at a business meeting, for example, some people in the room may not be in the paratelic state making the humor balance thrown completely off. As far as the incongruity theories go into fitting into our Z theory, I completely agree with k1622’s post. Whether or not you have the cognitive ability to understand the humor someone is using to maintain a certain social balance can make all the difference in certain social situations.
I agreed with the reversal theory the most out of the three different theories presented in this chapter. According to this theory, humor is first and foremost a fun and playful activity, which when reading about the other theories, a person might forget about. Throughout the day, we go through a several playful (paratelic) states as well as many serious, or telic, states and they reverse back and forth over and over again. Humor is viewed as an enjoyable arousal when in the playful mindset, even if it is not positive. The incongruity theory also is brought up with this theories idea of synergy where a person is thinking about two incongruent ideas or things at the same time, and then is recognized by the person as humorous. You could tell that the author’s also liked this theory, because he has conducted his own research testing the Reversal theory, and because he never really mentions any weaknesses of the theory.
I really liked the Incongruity theory also, so I guess by process of elimination I dislike the Arousal theory. I thought this theory was interesting, but was more difficult to comprehend then the others. I don’t think I fully understand some of the concepts, like the arousal jag mechanism. Was this when there has been too many humorous things going on so that they’re no longer enjoyable? Or is this kind of similar to the Mark Twain style of storytelling, where it’s long, but not too long? Although the Arousal theory doesn’t really have a ton of tested sound empirical evidence, I thought that some of their findings were really interesting, specifically the study done in 1968 where participants were asked to do different things to a rat, like hold it or stick it with a needle, but then at the last second found out it was a fake rat, and depending on how anxiety provoking what they were asked to do to the rat, the funnier they found the situation.
I think I will definitely remember both the Reversal and Incongruity theories. I liked the Incongruity theory because personally, I feel that a lot (but not all) humor can be described as something that a person was not expecting. For example, I didn’t think that the video that showed people not getting hurt was that funny, I think largely in part because I knew that they were all going to not get hurt. If I saw just one of those segments of the video without this knowledge, the person escaping death or injury might have been funny to me because I was not expecting it. Also, since the video had several examples, even if the first one caught you by surprise, you were probably going to catch on pretty quick to the theme of the clip.
As I was reading the chapter, I was all about the Incongruity theory until I got to the Reversal theory. It would have been hard not to agree with this one the most. It seems to be the most comprehensive theory and leaves the fewest big empty spaces or exceptions than the others. This theory will be easy to remember because of our class exercise where we were challenged to come up with our own umbrella theories. This exercise was actually pretty difficult, so I can appreciate a theory that tries to accomplish this.
I also like how the idea of humor as a way to cope with life stress is mentioned in more theories. I think that this is a huge part of studying the psychology of humor because it is so different from telling jokes in a social context.
I think that the reversal theory really corresponds with my groups ‘Z’ theory (The Equilibrium theory) as well as every other groups, because I think that we all can agree with parts of a particular theory, while at the same time not accept it as true all the time, and that there will always be exceptions. This theory, and the theories that we came up with in class try to encompass a little bit of every theory. Our theory was centered around humor as both a cognitive and social perception that is used to cope with a person’s own stress or misfortune, or also help others who may be in our social surroundings by creating a friendlier, more playful (or paratelic) state by sharing humor with others.
Until this chapter, I have been having a difficult time thinking about humor as anything more than just a sort of basic and unconscious reflex. It is easy to think of the times when you were caught off guard and surprised you into laughter. Reading this chapter was the first which I was better see the cognitive side of humor. A study cited in the book Pien and Rothbart (1976) stated “that younger child also appreciate jokes resolutions if the humor is easy to understand”. Although this seems like an obvious finding, it made things it finally click . humor is not just a basic reflex. If it were adults and children would have very similar sense of humors. However this is not the case, the older and more develop we get, the more we make and enjoy complex jokes. Thus for me, I can think passed humor being nothing more than just a release of tension as Spencer and Freud had argued.
This chapter proposed 3 cognitive theories, first the arousal theory. In this theory, Berlyne proposed that there are collective variables that can make a “stimulus” or a joke pleasing. The more pleasurable the joke or situation includes such factors as “novelty, level of surprise, complexity because they require the individual to perceive various elements of a stimulus together in order to compare and contrast them”. Furthermore, Berlyne includes the idea of humor being related to arousal within this theory. Laughter can bring a person to a pleasurable level of arousal and also help relax someone who is experiencing too much negative arousal.
Next, my favorite, the incongruity theory. This theory is based individuals’ percept of incongruity of the joke, which is the source of the humor. Such theorizes proposed that “Things that are funny are incongruous, surprising, peculiar unusual, or different from what we normally expect”. Similar to arousal theory, individual must cognitively organize different elements of the joke or situation. According Sui’s model of incongruity, there are two directions which a joke or situation can go. The expected and the unexpected, however one can only find humor with unexpected good surprises. Lastly, as the book states, the reversal theory combines elements of both incongruity and arousal, with sight modifications. The theory proposes that arousal is determined by what kind of state of mind one is in, Telic(goal orentiated state) or paratelic or playful state. We liked to be aroused within a paratelic state, which can be done by humor. This I find my least favorite of the three if I had to choose one, just because I feel it is boring, just basically a restated mean of the former theories.
Again, what I liked about this chapter is that I was really able to see within these theories the cognitive side of humor. When we formulated our “flock theory” was when I still struck thinking about humor was limited as basic flex. However I can now better expand to fit cognitive into our theory even though it works better with unconscious side of humor. So a bird might react to a stimulus to fly. Why it makes a decision to fly from that stimulus could be based on both instincts but also past experiences. Other birds in that flock, can make a decision to either fly with the bird, or stay where they are. This is similar to how a person reacts to the stimulus of a joke or humorous situation(we laugh instead of fly away). We could find it funny based on elements, of surprise and incongruous to usual circumstances. Furthermore, we might make a decision of the humor of the stimulus only after comparing and contrasting this joke to others in the past. Lastly, our state of mind could matter a lot when reacting to the stimulus.
Not to sound extremely repeatitive, but I too, like 98% of the class liked the reversal theory. I did like the other two theories, but this one I agreed with completely. For one, according to Apter it is a "state of mindm a way of seeing and being, a special mental 'set' towards the world and one's actions' in it" (p.75). In this theory Apter has two states of mind which in clude paratelic and telic state. The paratelic state is more "present-oriented" whereas the telic state is future oriented. To me I like that fact how he mentions that we reverse back and forth between two states of mind at different times throughout our daily lives. Basically in his theory a person in a telic state (serious) is concerned with important goals, while trying to achieve these goals is secondary. On the other hand the paratelic state (playful) sets one's goals secondary and the ongoing activities are for one's own sake of enjoyment.
Moreover, I did not really dislike any of the theories, so I guess the one that I would rank in last place would be the arousal theory just because like stated prior, it was not as clear to me as the other two theories. For one, how can arousal be unpleasant if we have too much of it? Furthermore, there were some components of this theory that I did like, for instance, Berlyne's two arousal-related mechanisms of humor which he called the arousal boost mechanism (ABM) and arousal jag mechanisms(AJM). The ABM operated during the telling of a joke or perception of a humorous situation, when arousal is elevated by means of the collative variables in the stimulus (pg. 59). Whereas, the AJM takes over when arousal has been elevated beyond the optimal leavel and has therefore begun to be aversive (pg. 59). Once the joke punch line is completed the arousal level is reduced quickly back to a pleasureable level again.
While reading this chapter there were three things that I thought were usueful to understanding the psychology of humor. The first thing would have to be the Paratelic and Telic states, because I just found those states interesting and they do make a lot of sense. If a person is in a certain state they experience different arousal. In the telic state, high arousal is unpleasant (anxiety) and low arousal is preferred (relaxation), whereas in the paratelic state, low arousal is unpleasant (being bored) and high arousal is enjoyable (excitment) (pg. 76).
Another thing that interested me was the incongruity theory...how the funniness of a joke depends on the unexpectedness or surprisingness of a punch line, which is so true. This can relate back to the "pause" that is so crucial because the audience is waiting to hear what might comes next. In addition, the third thing I will remember from this chapter is that of the arousal theory. I like how it associates expressed laughter as a method of releasing excess arousal. Berlyne saw it as an expression of the pleausre resulting from changes in arousal wheter it was not too high but not too low in the optimal level. Although I do not understand this theory compared to the other two, I does make sense how we would release excess arousal when we are expressing ourselves in laughter.
My "Z" theory group was called PSSY. Our theory consisted of all the main points that made up each of the psychoanalytic, superiority and social and cognitive theories. Our theory basically stated that it was a cognitive process which some social aspects integrated. Also, that humor does have some aggression (Berner) and sexual impulses (Freud), but not necessarily all the time as these two theoriest believed. Moreover, our theory comprised of all the theories put together simutaneously, but more distinctively related to the reversal theory. The reason is does not fit as good with the incongruity theory is because that that theory focuses more on cognitions and less attention on the social and emotional aspects of humor. Also, the arousal theory is more physiological and psycholgical, which can play part into the psychoanayltic theory, but I believe the reversal theory takes the win. The reversal theory is the closest to what our group came up with except for the paratelic and telic states which we did not know exsisted untill know.
Out of the theories presented in this chapter I preferred the reversal theory. From the beginning of the overview of this theory I believe I was already won over. The theories that we have read are extremely serious and don't see to grasp that humor is fun and playful. Apter noticed this as well and seemed to focus his theory around it. I also liked this theory because it seems to go along well with some of the other theories we've studied. I don't believe one theory is perfect; I do believe that information from many different theories is valid and this one seems to fit in well with those views.
The theory I liked the least was the arousal theory. I believe that I disliked this theory the most because it focuses too much on the physiological response. I understand that humor is both emotional and cognitive and that there is a physiological response but I believe Berlyne placed too much emphasis on this point.
One thing I'll definitely remember from the chapter is the idea that researchers tend to focus on only cognition or only emotion. I believe I will remember this because I think it will help me balance out the views and not make the same mistakes that others have made by only looking one.
I also enjoyed reading about the telic and paratelic states. I found it interesting that depending on which state you are in will make a difference of whether or not you find something pleasurable.
The last thing I liked what the recurring theme that humor can be used as a form of release. Several of the theories that we've read about have brought this idea forward and I believe that it's an important part of humor.
I was part of the play doh theory. The thing I liked about our theory is that it took information from all the other theories and squished the best of them together. I believe the reversal theory has a lot of good information that would fit in with the main ideas of our group theory. I think each theory has positives though and in the play doh theory those positives would be highlighted.
In this chapter, reversal theory was my favorite. It seems to incorporate necessary aspects from all the previous theories. It also provides a much more complete explanation of humor. It also reminds us that humor is associated with play. The other theories tried to explain humor in such complex ways. It may be as simple as being in the mood or the paratelic state. This theory was easy for me to understand because it is a simple idea. The paratelic state is the playful state in which we enjoy high levels of arousal. This explains funniness level of sexual and aggressive humor. Also, reversal theory incorporates the aspect of diminishment. This could include ideas of the superiority theory but aggressive themes are not required to achieve diminishment. This theory states, and gives an example, that humor is communication. I like that this concept is brought up because I believe the way humor is experienced by an individual is highly influenced by social aspects and situations. The last point I want to make is that reversal theory just seems more believable. Not just because of the studies done, but the tangibility of the theory. One can read about the theory and think of situations in their own life to parallel to certain parts of the theory. For example, if you feel sick and watch a horror film, it may be unsettling and cause anxiety. On the other hand, if you are excited and in a relatively good mood, a horror movie can be exciting and fun. The same can be said for spontaneous humor.
The theory I liked the least was the incongruity theory. When reading about arousal theory, I was far less annoyed than when reading about incongruity theory which is the basis of my decision. I was annoyed with incongruity theory because it focused on the perception of the incongruity as the point where humor occurs. So this means every time I laugh I recognize an incongruity? I don’t buy it. It is true that often incongruity is humorous but I do not believe everything that I find funny has to do with incongruence. There may be underlying incongruences in many humorous situations but I do not believe that they are the cause of the humor in most cases.
I have an idea that is kind of hard to explain but I feel like people have some sort of knowledge about why things are funny to them but may just not know the way to explain it. As an intuition or initial response, this theory seems incomplete and too focused on one area of humor. It just doesn’t feel right. I know that this explanation is not a solid one and some people may not understand what I am trying to express but it is a dominant reason for why I like certain theories and dislike others.
One thing I think will be helpful to my understanding of humor is the reversal theory. It seems so much more complete and closer to the “right” explanation of humor. It is simpler but at the same time incorporates many important aspects of previous theories. This theory will definitely stick in my mind and provides a basis for more advanced and researched theories.
Another part of this chapter that I believe to be important is the focus of the reversal theory on social interaction. Personally, I believe humor depends on, in nothing else, interactions with others or perception of social interaction.
The last part of this chapter I believe to be very important also has to do with reversal theory. Reversal theory returns to the idea of humor originating in play. It brings back the feeling of humor as occurring in everyday, non-serious situations. The paratelic state is important in humor which we all know because of personal experiences such as not finding things very funny if a loved one has recently passed.
I was in the PSSC group. Our theory was most like reversal theory because we tried to incorporate what we thought was important from every theory we had discussed up to that point. We included aspects of social, cognitive, psychoanalytical, and superiority theories. We took from those theories what made sense to us and combined the ideas. This seems to be what the reversal theory is except in includes the incorporation of mood or telic and paratelic states. I believe that if the class would have created our group theories after reading chapter 3, many groups’ theories would resemble reversal theory.
Out of the three theories discussed in Chapter 3 I agree the most with the reversal theory proposed by Apter. The reversal theory incorporates many ideas from the other theories, and although it is not as well known and not as much research has been done, to me it makes the most sense. I agree with Apter’s statement that one must be in a playful state of mind in order to experience humor and that a paratelic (non-serious) state should be present to enjoy humorous situations (especially those associated with higher levels of arousal). The concept of synergy, which explains why the use of contradictory ideas has a basis for humor because of word play in which opposite meanings are used to distinguish something as funny. I also agree with the role of diminishment; the rubber rat experiment is consistent in that once the participant discovered the rat was fake, the anxiety and serious aspect of the experiment was removed, or diminished, and as a result the participant was allowed to relax and enter the paratelic state and release excess energy built up from arousal and experience emotions associated with humor.
The theory I least the liked and did not find to be convincing overall according to the research presented were the incongruity theories. I think the reason why I did not agree is because they place a large amount of emphasis on cognition and I believe humor is more related to social and emotional aspects. I agree with the bisociation concept by Koestler because it has truth in the reversal theory on the basis of two separate frames of reference. The incongruity theories base most all research on canned jokes and cartoons alone, and not simultaneous conversation in social settings when humor is brought up daily conversation. Participants in the study are already aware they are supposed to be cognitively “searching” for incongruities as to why the joke is funny, and I don’t believe this much effort is needed to take place in order to find something humorous. It seems like the approach is too scientific and focuses on the fact that there is a set explanation of why something is funny or not. Every individual has a unique sense of humor and may find different events/situations humorous for a variety of reasons and there is no way to define which individual will find something funny. Although research supports the idea that incongruity may be an essential element of humor, there is less evidence for the idea that resolution is necessary. Incongruity does not account for all aspects of humor, and it does not explain emotional and social aspects as well as sexual and aggressive tones of humor which are key elements. Without a social and emotional basis, there would be no point or enjoyment to humor.
Three things in this chapter I found important in understanding the psychology of humor that if something is perceived humorous, an increase in physiological arousal will most likely occur (increased heart rate, skin conductance, and release of energy in the form of laughter). I also found that even though I do not agree with the incongruity theories as a whole, I do believe that for some jokes to be understood, there needs to be some sort of cognitive base in order to “get” a joke, and if certain elements are removed, it may no longer be funny. Lastly, I find it important to understand how emotional and social aspects may be the most important element in humor (as described as above) because the reversal theory illustrates that they are key (especially in the concept describing “humor as play” for this is clearly a social element; even as demonstrated by primates).
The theory our group proposed in class as a “Z” theory is entitled the swarm theory and emphasizes humor as more of a social process. The other theories (particularly the arousal and reversal theory) relate to this because we described our theory as a flock of birds, and the decision of one will affect the decision of others. This in turn relates to an emotional response of arousal mechanisms occurring, and we also related our theory to the psychoanalytical theory which would relate to the reversal theory closely with the concept that there are aggressive and sexual emotions which encompass the enjoyment of humor.
Of the theories presented in this chapter I liked the reversal theory the most. I like this theory because it is comprehensive; it addresses some of the weaknesses present in the other theories and includes strengths. The reversal theory addresses cognitive, social, tendentious and aggressive elements of humor that have previously been discussed. In the reversal theory tendentious elements are seen as arousal boosters. Apter’s cognitive process of humor is described as synergy, a process that involves holding two contradictory ideas of an object in one’s mind at the same time which involves diminishment of one of the objects. An aggressive element in humor is accounted for by suggesting that disparagement in humor is one way of creating diminishment. I think it’s important to address the different elements of previous theories to acquire a superior theory.
The theory I liked the least was the arousal theory. This theory focuses on the release of physiological energy and psychological tension. This theory was the most difficult to read and understand. I think that humor encompasses more then what the arousal theory suggest. The empirical evidence to support the arousal theory wasn’t as sound as research regarding reversal theory.
The reversal theory’s description of humor is one thing that I think I will find useful in understanding the psychology of humor. It is a playful non-serious activity involving a “playful” mindset. I think this description of humor is easy, the average Joe could determine that this is an explanation of humor.
The other thing that I read that will be useful in understanding psychology is Apter’s description of play. According to Apter, play is a “psychological safety zone” created to isolate ourselves from the serious concerns of the real world. Apter continues to distinguish between two different mind frames that he believes we encounter throughout the day. The paratelic state is perceived as the playful, present-orientated, high-arousal condition while the telic state is more future goal oriented and serious. I like this rationalization. Could it be possible that people have difficulty switching from paratelic state to telic state? When reading about these different mind sets it reminded me of encounters with people who “play too much.” Some individuals don’t take anything serious and have a hard time handling serious emotions, or circumstances. Maybe people use a paratelic state to escape issues in there telic state and vice versa. This information presented by Apter may not only lead to a better understanding psychology of humor but also to other areas of psychology.
Another piece of information that will help me better understand psychology of humor is the aspect of incongruity. According to incongruity theories the perception of incongruity is the determinant of whether or not something is funny. This idea is popular in many theories. In this chapter it discussed incongruity resolution, the idea that for something to be funny we must be able to resolve or make sense of the incongruity. I enjoyed reading about the idea of incongruity resolution. When reading the examples of jokes I found myself going through the cognitive process of making sense of the joke. This idea will help me in better understanding some of the cognitive process that take place when reading or observing a humorous situation.
These theories fit into my groups ‘Z’ theory of anti-Freud, by combining aspects from the social and cognitive perspectives. The arousal theory is the theory that doesn’t really fit into our ‘Z’ theory considering that it is similar to Frued’s idea that laughter is a way to rid yourself of built up physiological energy. Our ‘Z’ theory focused on the evolution of humor as a defense mechanism which relates to the reversal theory’s idea of the psychological safety zone.
Of the three theories presented in chapter three, arousal, reversal and incongruity, i found incongruity to be the most logical idea. Incongruity revolves around surprise endings, puns, and things that do not formally fit our schema of funny.
A good example of the essence of an incongruous joke was on page 64 "A lady went into a clothing store and asked 'May I try on that dress in the window?' 'Well,' replied the sales clerk doubtfully, "don't you think it would be better to use the dressing room?"
I thought this joke was pretty funny, due to the incongruous nature of it. We expected the salesclerk to understand what the shopper was getting at when she asked to try it on. Instead, the clerks confusion, leads to a totally different, humorous answer.
I really think this encapsulates a good portion of why we think things are funny, while it isn't able to stand alone, it is a good effort in explaining humor. This theory cannot stand alone because other theories, like the reversal theory, have alot to do with the cognitive recognition of ideas not fitting into our current schemas, as Apter pointed out.
That being said, we still have to comprehend the "humor" in the joke which we've heard. Suls does a nice job of explaining this with his incongruity resolution model. Basically, if the ending isn't as we predicted, we will be surprised. This surprised leads to another step, and that is that we have to find a "rule" out of the joke that will make the surprising ending fit with the punchline. If a rule can be found, we will laugh. If no rule is found, we become befuddled. I thought this was a good attempt at explaining humor.
Oppositely, I thought the reversal theory was the most far-fetched idea. I did like the idea that we must be aware of our social contexts when telling a joke. Some jokes may work better than others in different social settings. However, I found that giving names to two different "moods" we were in (telic, paratelic) was a little off base. It reminds me a little of Frued's work. There isn't any solid empirical way to measure a "telic or paratelic" state. It's just another name given to a cognitive system. While I do find it interesting, I cannot jump all the way on board with this. In the empirical data given in the book, as in the first Wyer Collins study, of course people would find stories less humorous when their being objective driven. Work and play cannot go hand in hand. Perhaps they didn't find the stories funny because they lacked the ability to make the connections, and solve the in-congruent problems in the story. :)
The idea of all of these theories come together in our "sans frued" theory. In my view, it is harder to incorporate the psychoanalytic views into a theory. I see the points in the arousal theory and that of the incongruity theory. We enjoy humor based on "collative variables" such a Berlyne says, and must be surprised by the ending (and understand it) like the incongruity theory states.
In looking at the various theories mentioned in this chapter, it was very difficult to actually pick just one theory because I believe they are key pieces in every theory that would need to be present in order for something to be considered humorous. Also depending on the situation, there could one theory that maybe more effective than another one. For example the incongruity-resolution theory may in fact work for canned jokes and cartoons, but it could crumble in some spontaneous conversational humor situations. I find myself utilizing the incongruity theories and the reversal theory the most in my everyday life.
I actually enjoyed this chapter the most as oppose to the other ones. This Chapter was more definitive which made it more intriguing to read about. Also the examples were helpful in outlining the distinction between the various theories. By doing this, it showed how applicable this was to a particular humorous situation. In order for humor to be effective, the arousal aspect must be in place. Berlyne believes that there is what he called Collative variables which are present when aroused. They are seen a stimulus that makes work, music, or humor more pleasing. Examples of these collative variables would be surprise, incongruity, and ambiguity. There were studies done to measure the physiological responses to humor which were consistent with Berlynes arousal boost mechanism in humor. There are also some key components that lye with the incongruity theories. Incongruity theories look in-depth to the cognition aspects and decrease the emotional aspects of humor. Things that are seen as unique, peculiar, unusual, and surprising have a tendency to be funny. This approach was elaborated on by Koester who actually coined the concept of Biosociation. He developed this to actually explain the mental processing associated with humor. Biosociation is obtained in any particular situation, event, or idea that has repetition. An example of this would be: If like OJ Simpson was on trial for killing his wife and after the not guilty verdict he told Johnny Cochran I’m going to write a book about How I did killer or put some incongruity in there, IF I DID IT!!! Similar example on pg. 63 about the Armed Robbery joke. The punch line has to be inconsistent with the setup which means it can’t be something that is predictive. There must also be some sort of resolution for incongruity to appear funny.
The reversal theory is essential for humor to occur as well. It’s basically a few states of mind one must transfer back and forth in order for something to be hilarious which are the playful and serious. The playful frame of mind, is known as the paratelic state and the Telic state refers to more of the serious aspects. Paratelic associates with the present and telic looks at the future. It connects with the cognitive aspects by the concept Synergy. This is very much similar to bisociation because Synergies are found to be enjoyable. Also they are thought to increase arousal such as Berlyne theory displayed. The main reason why this theory is an essential piece of the pie is because it explains the enjoyment people receive and their strong motivation people have about something being humorous.
One thing I didn’t quite like about this chapter was the fact that every theory tried to disprove the other and it seems like nobodies a winner when it comes to Humor. Everyone took something from another theorist and applied it or tried to say it was completely wrong. It is sometimes hard to pick the most likable theories due to the fact that we constantly disprove theories.
A lot of times in psychology it sucks that out research can’t be accurate in saying "All people, Everyone would be statements that we as a disciple get to say very often. Also I don’t see too many of these theorist coming together to write stuff about the ultimate theory. I think Ill do pretty good on memorizing the key concepts because I know about the basics fundamental are for theories. Also I can remember the cross over between the theories and the changes.