After reading chapter #5 please respond to the following questions:
Of the various aspects of the social psychology of humor presented in the chapter, which did you find the most interesting? Why? Which did you find least interesting? 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?
Which of parts of the social psychology aspects fit best into the Theory "Z" your group came up with (make sure you say what group it was)? Which fit least and why?
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.
I found the section of Humor as a Desirable Trait in Friendship and Mate Selection to be the most interesting aspect of the cognitive psychology in this chapter. One reason this topic was my favorite is partly because I can relate to it in terms of finding a sense of humor attractive and desirable. I was interested to read about the several studies conducted that have found how men and women view a sense of humor differently in their partner. Throughout the course we have learned that laughter and humor play a major role in socializing and it creates positive emotions and bonding. This holds true to the concept of desiring a sense of humor in a partner. After reading this topic, I have a better understanding now why a sense of humor is a desirable trait because it is shared laughter that reinforces mutual feelings of attraction and strengthens positive attitude.
The least interesting topic from this chapter I thought was the section about social play. There wasn't very much information in this section however, we have discussed social play and humor's relationship several times in previous readings and discussions. Everything I read in this part seemed repetitive.
I'll remember the concept of teasing and humor. I enjoyed reading this part because my friends and I use teasing frequently and I never realized how much it is used in my own sense of humor. I'll remember the different types and purposes of teasing. It'll be interesting to apply what I have now learned regarding teasing to my future experiences and use of teasing.
Another concept I’ll remember from this chapter is Decommitment. People use humor and laughter as a way to cover up or as the text calls it, save face when they experience some sort of failure. Decommitment is used in several situations such as when they have been caught in a lie, being caught in inappropriate behavior, or any past action that has causing embarrassment. This concept allows people to ‘decommit’ oneself from the action that caused their embarrassment. I’ll remember this concept because it was interesting to read how humor is used in effort for people make their actions seem less severe or serious.
The last concept I’ll remember from this chapter is Group Identity and Cohesion. The book says that friendly teasing, nicknames, shared ‘in-jokes’, and slang terms provides members of groups a sense of meaning or ‘group identity.’ I’ll remember this concept because my friends and I often use funny nicknames and ‘inside jokes with each other . Our friendly teasing and joking not only strengthens our friendships but gives our group of friends more of an identity and meaning.
This chapter relates to the Swarm groups Z-theory because our theory believed that the social aspect of humor brings people together and allows for interaction and bonding. Within the chapter we read of many different ways humor plays into socializing. The Swarm group believed that within the incongruity theory, there needs to be superiority or an aggressive leader. In this reading we learned how men’s jokes usually are more aggressive than women’s jokes. Also, studies show women don’t enjoy sexual jokes as much as men do mainly because most of the sexual jokes are disparaging of women. Men seem to be more superior than women because of this concept.
Right away, I knew I would find the topic of humor and gender interesting. I am very interested in gender differences in general. I knew what is already assumed about gender differences in humor so it was interesting to see the actual research. I think that earlier research findings are still the stereotypical differences between men and women as thought about by the general public. These ideas may not always be express aloud but they are displayed in various ways. Prior to the women’s movement, biased research showed that men were more likely to create humor and use aggressive or sexual content. Women were more likely an audience of humor and tended to enjoy nonsense humor. The problem with these findings is that research was not done on spontaneous humor.
In more recent research, the settings that have been used are ones in which spontaneous humor is examined. Overall, the differences are restricted to goals and coping. Women are more likely to use humor to create group solidarity and intimacy. Men were more likely to use humor to positively present themselves. In coping, women were more likely to use humor in regard to outside situations whereas men were more likely to use humor in the immediate setting. Also, in research done using a questionnaire, men reportedly found hostile humor more enjoyable while women found anecdotal humor more enjoyable. These findings support the public view of women wanting more closeness or intimacy in their relationships and men wanting to impress in their relationships.
The reasoning for the differences in humor preference is due to how we are socialized as men and women. This information is not in the text but can be verified by looking at other social aspects. In general, these findings of humor and gender are reflective of other gender differences. It all comes back to the social construction of gender.
The part of the chapter I found least interesting was the section on humor and persuasion. All of this information was information I already knew just by being a target of persuasion all of my life. If you watch television, use the internet, look at ads, or even read; you already are aware of the basic effect of humor on persuasion.
One thing I will remember about the chapter is the section on humor, attitudes, and prejudice. This section was also very interesting to me and we see this frequently in our own lives. Just this past weekend I experienced someone talking to a group I was in and the content was negative views of a certain race. The person expressed what I now see as their views about this race in a humorous way. She was trying to express her views without offending anyone but still making her point known. Some people laughed and others did not. This could shape the views of people in the group also. If you laughed, you could be considered to believe what the storyteller believed. If you did not laugh, you could be considered to have opposing or indifferent views as compared to the speaker.
Another section that I will remember is the social aspects of laughter. This is memorable because it is also relatable. We have all experienced, at some point or another, the contagiousness of laughter. When we hear others laugh, in induces mirth in us. In this situation, laughter is the result of the mirth we feel.
Finally, I will remember the interpersonal functions of humor. This section has many sub-sections but all are relatable. Using humor in self-disclosure, decommitment, and group identity are all things most everyone has experienced first-hand.
This theory relates strongly to my group’s (PSSC) theory. We believe that without social interaction, humor would not exist. As the text says, humor is a social phenomenon. I think the parts of the chapter: Humor as Social Interaction, Interpersonal Functions of Humor, and Social Aspects of Laughter.
To be honest, I thought everything in this chapter was interesting to read and unlike some of the other chapters, this one flew right by. To me, humor is very much a social phenomenon because I can’t think of anything that I find funny that does not have some sort of social tie to it. If I had to pick a certain topic to be deemed as my favorite, I would have to say that the use of humor in intimate relationships was the most interesting because it is very relevant to my life. I have been dating my boyfriend for forever it seems and like any other relationship, ours does not come without disagreements. Throughout our relationship, I have noticed that breaking the monotony of an argument with something humorous definitely helps (but does not always solve) the problem at hand. Humor helps, at least in my case, remember what I like about him which really helps when you are essentially pointing out the bad.
In the humor and intimate relationship section, I found the studies about the difference in humor usage between husbands and wives during arguments interesting. To my understanding, when wives use humor in arguments, it helps contribute to the overall satisfaction of the relationship because wives’ humor can work to calm their husband down; however, when men use humor, it is not predicative with relationship satisfaction in the long-run. From personal experiences, I have noticed that whenever I use humor, the problem under discussion gets resolved a lot quicker than it does if my boyfriend uses humor. Whenever my boyfriend tries to joke about the situation, I always respond with something like, “this is not a laughing matter” or “this is not funny at all!” Because of this, I usually find it annoying when my boyfriend tries to lighten the mood with humor but I use humor often to decrease the intensity of the argument. This difference is strange, yet very interesting to me!
I found the section on humor, attitudes, and prejudice to be the least interesting because I typically do not find myself laughing at jokes that rely on racist or sexist remarks therefore making it least relevant to my life. I do agree with the book that you don’t need to necessarily believe in the stereotype to think the joke is funny, but even if I do understand the stereotype, I do not always find them funny (of course there are some exceptions). I do like how the section points out the potential that these types of jokes can contribute to the formation and continuation of sexist, racist, and stereotypic beliefs. I consider myself to be very tolerant and accepting of people’s beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc. even if I don’t necessarily agree with them and therefore don’t find most of these types of jokes funny.
In this chapter, I learned about the concept of “decommitting.” To me, decommitting is essentially “backing out” of something that you said you were going to do by saying you were kidding or joking. I can think of times when I have used this process, one of which is when I bet my brother on sports games. He is a sporting freak and always has a pretty good idea about who is likely to win the game. I on the other hand, pick teams by their colors or who has a cool name and will bet him like 5 bucks or something small. When I lose (which is most of the time), I will say “Oh I wasn’t serious” and therefore decommit to my bet saving myself 5 bucks! He never bets with me anymore, I wonder why?!
I also will remember the concept of how humor is used to maintain status and hierarchy. I also find this very relative to my life. I am the student manager of where I work on campus. According to the book, people with higher status positions use humor more frequently than those with lower status positions. I find this very true within myself as I have climbed the status ladder at work and find it true within the group of people I work with. My first year, I was very timid and passive and did whatever I was told no questions asked. Now, I am a lot more lax and joke around a lot more with the people I work with because I guess I feel less like I need to impress people in order to keep my job. I hired three new people this year and two of the three are very serious much like I was when I started. The other one jokes around with me, but I think it is more because I have joked around with him since he started and he feels comfortable retaliating.
Lastly, I realized just how much humor plays a role in group cohesion. My friends and I have a lot of in-group jokes that anybody outside of our group wouldn’t understand. There are times when all you have to do is say one word that is completely ambiguous to an outsider, but we will all know what it means and burst out laughing. Another example I can think of that is relevant to my life right now is my living situation. I live with my best friend and we also live with two other girls we just met. One of them is very annoying, no joke. For the first few weeks, my roommate and I didn’t really talk to either of them, but one day, we started talking to the other roommate (not the annoying one) and kept cracking jokes about how annoying or other roommate is. Every since that day, we all use humor as a cohesive agent that has made us three more close.
Honestly, this whole chapter fits in with our PSSC “Z” theory. When discussing our theory, we decided that no humor really exists without somebody causing you to laugh, laughing at past memories involving others (“pseudo-social”), or social feedback on what is considered humorous/not humorous. All humor seems to have roots with other people, therefore, it is very much a social phenomenon.
I thought the most interesting part of this chapter was the social perception and interpersonal attraction section. There are many aspects of interpersonal attraction that I had not thought of before. Obviously being attracted to someone with a sense of humor was a given, but I would have thought that was the end of it. Actually, when one finds someone with a sense of humor, for them it increases the perceived benefits of a relationship with that person, and decreases the perceived costs, which could make a big difference in the end. As far as social perception goes, I can absolutely remember times when I have judged people based on the jokes they make.
I think the first section, Humor as social interaction, was the most obvious to me, so it was the least interesting. This section basically talked about how humor is inherently social, and a way to communicate the emotion of mirth.
One of the things I learned in this chapter was the Interpersonal Functions of humor. They are; self disclosure, decommitment, control, status maintenance, ingratiation, group identity, and discourse management. Once I think about it these things are pretty obvious, but I wouldn’t have thought of all of those specific functions. Once you have them though, it is easy to think of examples for each.
Another section that was interesting and helpful for me was the section about humor as a desirable trait in friendship and mate selection. While I would have been able to assume that someone that is funny would have other positive stereotypes such as friendly and interesting, I would not have thought it could be attributed to their intelligence, or emotional stability. It was no surprise that women place more weight on humor than men, however, it was surprising that shared laughter can instill a sense of trust and loyalty.
The last section that I learned from was the humor and gender section, simply because of the part where it stated that women and men have different conversational goals. While it came as no surprise that men have a goal of impressing others, it was interesting that women are all about enhancing group solidarity and intimacy, which did come as a bit of a surprise. Also this information is helpful in deciphering between male and female humor.
My group was the Swarm Theory, and this chapter is perfect for us because the social aspects of humor are very big for our group. I think the most fitting are the Interpersonal Functions of Humor. These functions are essentially the same thing we had in our theory. Humor is used in a status and hierarchy maintenance, as well as group identity and formation. We said that humor was largely (and mostly aggressively) used as a way to interact with one another and show who’s who in the group. So while the two functions I mentioned are the most prominent functions according to our theory, all of the functions are used in a “swarm theory” social/humor situation.
I think that the section that would fit the least is the humor and persuasion section. In a group dynamic there would need to be persuasion. With this section it was mostly stated that humor has little to no affect on persuasion, so in that aspect of a group humor would make things more entertaining, but not necessarily help any more or less.
After reading the chapter, it came to my realization that I really enjoyed reading about the overall aspect of social humor, more specifically the part that humor plays in relationships. Since humor is best viewed as a sort of play, it is used in relationships. For example, if you were fighting with your other half then you can use humor as sort of an escape route, to make the fight not seem as serious as it really is. By doing so, you are stabilizing the relationship rather than going on into an endless argument. Before getting in a relationship, you seek out humor as a desirable trait. Having a good sense of humor consists of being friendly and extraverted, which many find to be desirable. I guess I find this topic to be the most interesting because I find myself seeking out partners or friends who are extraverted, friendly, and who have a good sense of humor.
Out of the topics in this chapter, I found the laughter and emotion section to be the least interesting. I though the acoustics of laughter was enjoyable, but not the emotion section because I feel as though we have already touched on this subject many times before. Mirth is related to laughter because it causes a good emotion, and I think that laughter is common knowledge as being a pleasurable sense of emotion.
One thing that I will remember from reading this chapter is the topic of gender and humor. I think that learning about the ways different genders use humor will be beneficial to my understanding of psychology of humor because if I am trying to understand why certain people think certain things are funny, I must first understand why their gender thinks it is.
Another topic I will remember from reading this chapter is the topic of prejudice and humor. I think this will benefit me because it is an everyday occurrence. Whether people want to admit it or not, prejudice occurs in any context. Before taking this class I was not made aware of the extent of the negativism that occurs in humor. Since prejudice and humor coincide with one another, it only makes sense that this type of humor can have an affect on the listeners’ attitudes and stereotypes. The listener will then have a negative attitude towards a certain race, which is prejudice.
The last topic I will remember is how even though humor can cause you to be attracted to someone, it may ruin a relationship over time. This is because humor is an easily attractive trait, so it is easy to find another person who has a good sense of humor if you aren’t happy with the relationship you are currently in.
The topic that relates to my “Z” theory, the anti-freud theory, the most is the focus on the social aspect of humor. Even though this is what the chapter is mostly made of, it is hard to find something in this chapter that doesn’t relate to my theory because this chapter also focuses on relationships a lot. The concept that deals with my theory the least is relationships and intimacy, because there is an underlying sexual theme when describing why humor is so important in relationships.
Most interesting to me were the discussion on the social aspects of laughter, and also on the role that the inherently ambiguous nature of humor plays in all social interactions. Since reading about mirror-neurons in S&P I have been absolutely enthralled with research in this area. Several observational studies found that in real-world situations people often laugh more following their own comments than after comments made by others in the group. Also it was found that laughter often came after very boring comments or comments that would not ordinarily be thought of as funny (Provine, 1993). In relation to mirror neurons this research supports the idea that after a speaker delivers a message, in order to create mirth within the observer or listener (or promote a humorous environment) they will smile and laugh themselves, in order to cause the mirror neurons of others to fire thus communicating humor to them and creating mirth within them.
One aspect of laughter that has produced inconsistent information is whether or not laughter punctuates the end of speech, or whether people laugh even while other people are talking. I found this interesting. This section includes an extensive literature review so it is not surprising that different researchers may be tapping into different types of humor and therefore may get contradictory or inconsistent results. Almost every book I've ever read teaching you how to be funny includes a rule like "Talk through the end of your joke." To get an example of this you can watch any late night talk-show host. They don't end at the punch line, they continue talking through the laughter keeping the moment going.
It might be the case, though this is speculation only, but grounds for a good research project, that sometimes we are interested in the strictly pragmatic social benefits of humor, e.g. saving face, communicating positive personality traits, attracting a mate, facilitating group cohesion, etc. etc. In this way the inherently ambiguous nature of humor allows us to put forth multiple ideas at once and back track or escape if we need to, or reap the benefits if it accepted. In this way it makes sense for us to smile and laugh after our own comments; laugh only at the end of dialogue not interrupting; and obey the hierarchical relationships of the social interaction (i.e. those of higher status use it for power, control, obedience, and to create group cohesion, lower status use it to alleviate fear or anxiety, and indeer themselves to co-workers).
However, humor also may be used for it's own sake, without direct interest to the pro (or anti)-social functions of the humor. This may account for people with a "good sense of humor" or people who seem to always be funny; comedians, performers, the 'class clown', etc. Though the formation of character traits and the 'sense of humor' may have been formed by the above processes, this might account for some of the inconsistent results. Laughing while another person is still talking might mean that the other person was engaged in more complex joke telling rather than simply using humor within the social context to facilitate group cohesion, for example.
The most boring information to me involved mate selection, gender, and the interpersonal functions of humor. What I did like was learning about how again, the inherently ambiguous nature of humor makes it an incredibly versatile communication device which, due to our inherently social/communicative nature as humans helps explain it's widespread popularity and use.
The themes and ideas I've discussed above will obviously stick with me the most. I was really interested in the idea that when we hear laughter we tend to laugh more and that laughter alone can make us laugh even without any other humor present. I'm interested in looking up some information about tv shows that DON'T use a laugh track (e.g. the Office) and seeing if I can read interviews with tv producers and creators who make this decision and what the reasons are. Obviously it changes the dynamic of the whole program.
Our 'Z' theory was equilibrium theory and much of the information in this chapter fits within the framework we originally tried to establish for humor. When you think about humor creating equilibrium in the individual the analogy gets more difficult to really articulate and it doesn’t fit as well. However, in regards to social situations it is much easier to see how humor is used to create balance. Since the humor is ambiguous it can be used to bring attention to negative topics without being seen as too harsh. Similarly it may be used to find out how other people are thinking before committing yourself to a particular path. You can always say "just joking" if you find out that the group doesn't laugh when you make fun of someone, for example, and then know not to try that again. This is sometimes less threatening and more likely to maintain balance than if you directly asked about the topic, particularly if it is sexual or aggressive in nature. This might also explain why sex and aggression are so common in humor. It is with these topics that creating a playful or safe environment through ambiguous language is most beneficial since you stand the most to gain or lose based on how you proceed.
I really enjoyed reading this chapter. I think my favorite section was the one concerned with humor and intimate relationships. I would say the vast majority of people seek someone who they find humorous and it was interesting to learn how satisfied people found their relationships overall based largely on their satisfaction with their significant other. I think that the research that John Gottman has done on marital satisfaction is amazing, especially because by only observing a couple for 15 minutes or so, he can predict with a 93% accuracy rate whether or not the couple will get divorced in the next four years. Even though humor is not specifically a characteristic that improves or makes a relationship worse, it plays a role, especially who is using humor. Gottman’s research showed that during a problem, when the male in the relationship used humor, when the couple was experiencing a lot of stress, it was less likely they would stay together. However, when the wife used humor under these same circumstances, it improved marital stability, but this correlation was only true when the humor reduced the husband’s heart rate. Humor is not necessarily a predictor of a good marriage, but in a good marriage, humor is often reported. This might just be because those who are happy with their marriage are just happier with the characteristics of their partner, like humor, even though they might not be similar to their own.
I also really enjoyed learning about the fuzzy correlation between humor and persuasion. Humor is used all the time in advertisements, and so I would think that it would be a very useful tool in social persuasion, but this is not always the case. In an Applied Psych class I am currently taking we just discussed the Elaboration Likelihood Model, and so it was beneficial for me for the book to take something that I had already learned about and apply it to humor. Based on this model there are two methods of persuasion, the central and peripheral route. The central route is better when the argument has a lot of logical points and is well thought out, and wouldn’t need humor to support its argument because it is already strong enough on its own. The peripheral route is more based on emotion or tradition rather than facts. Humor would be beneficial in these types of arguments because they kind of need as much help as they can get trying to convey their point, as opposed to the central route arguments where humor might take away from their case. There are four ways that humor can influence. These are by enhancing the mood, enhancing the feelings towards the source, distracting from weak arguments, and increasing trustworthiness in the source but conveying the impression that the source is not fully invested in this argument. Humors effectiveness is also dependent on the masculinity of the individual. Individuals that are more masculine are persuaded more by humorous messages than those who are less masculine. I thought it was really interesting how the study that examined this correlation focused on masculinity as opposed to gender. I think that a lot of research that is being done focuses on a biological gender, and groups all men together and all women together, but sometimes this might not be the best variable to base this on.
I think that the section on what types of laughter people find most appealing was interesting. I had never really thought about the tone of the laughter being a factor in how enjoyable it is, but it makes sense. Sometimes, people have an awful laugh and it’s not an enjoyable experience to hear it. On the other hand, sometimes people’s laugh is better than what makes a person laugh in the first place. My boyfriend’s roommate is a pretty quiet guy, but every once and awhile we’ll be watching something on TV or a movie and he will find something so hilarious that he laughs uncontrollably for way longer than people would normally find it, but after awhile, we just are laughing at him (in a good way) because it is so funny. Laughter causes people to be in a good mood, and is contagious. I think it is impossible to watch this and not laugh and be in a good mood afterward (I think anyways).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P6UU6m3cqk
To be honest, there really wasn’t a section in this chapter that I disliked reading. I did think it was kind of confusing how in the beginning of the chapter (p. 129) that women laughed more than men, but then later on in the chapter (p 148) it said that men and women laugh the same amount. These statements were based on different research, but I don’t think the author should have used just one at the beginning, and then a different one at the end that state two different ideas.
My group’s “Z” theory was the Equilibrium theory. This chapter agrees with our theory because a large part of it was based on the fact that humor occurs in social contexts. Even when an individual is not around others and find something humorous, they are in a ‘pseudo-social’ situation, like watching a TV show portraying people, or remembering another time when they were with others. Our theory also emphasizes that humor is used as a tool to cope with or bring balance to social situations. This chapter called attention to a couple instances where humor is not beneficial, such as to persuade in serious, thoughtful matters, and sometimes in marital relationships.
What I found most interesting was that of humor and intimate relationships. I thought it was interesting how men use humor during times of stress by trying to avoid dealing with problems, whereas women use humor as a way of helping to calm down their partner emotionally while encouraging them to continue dealing with the problems at hand. Furthermore, I was intrigued that couples who share similar preferences in humor styles will be more satisfied throughout their relationship. This made me think that I need to incorporate more humor into my relationship when fights arise besides just being harshly sarcastic to piss him off more (oops). Moreover, the text does mention that there is a positive correlation with couples’ relationship satisfaction when their partner has a sense of humor. I think it is true that we find people more enjoyable to be with and cheerful, not to mention people who don’t burden us with their problems but cheer us up when we are down or under stress….these humorous individuals are one’s I like to surround myself with.
Like many others, I did not find anything the least bit interesting, but if I had to choose I would go with Social Play basically because it was so short and not filled with very much information compared to other sections of the book. Generally the only thing I got out of it was that participants play off one another in a non-serious way using multiple meanings of words and ideas. Also, relating funny anecdotes about incongruous events and experiences and often using exaggeration, gestures, and facial expression to maximize the humorous effect (p. 124).
The first thing in this chapter that I will remember is the section on teasing. For one, I found this the second most interesting thing is this chapter. “Teasing criticizes yet compliments, attacks yet makes people closer, humiliates yet expresses affection” (pg. 124). Furthermore, it combines both prosocial and aggressive teasing. Furthermore, playful teasing allows one to communicate a message that it not intended to be taken literally and the opposite meaning is intended. In addition, a person can say “I was just joking” therefore communicating is not taken out of seriousness and is less face-threatening.
The second thing I won’t forget is interpersonal attraction. We tend to be attracted to people who have a good sense of humor. I find this to be true in guys. It definitely took me awhile to understand my boyfriends sense of humor when we first met, but know I can tell every time and others can’t which makes it ten times funnier. Moreover, it’s interesting that a person’s sense of humor increases the likelihood of a good relationship and decreases when burden arises. In addition, positive attraction and humor lead to one’s ability to enhance their own attraction to another person.
Lastly, but not least I will remember the concept of humor and gender. When it comes to humor, men more often joke, tease and kid around, whereas women act as an appreciative audience. I thought it was peculiar that women tended to enjoy jokes about other women more than jokes targeted towards men. This I guess is true because girls are major gossip queens so they are more likely to mention something about another woman than a man.
Which of parts of the social psychology aspects fit best into the Theory "Z" your group came up with (make sure you say what group it was)? Which fit least and why?
My “Z” theory was PSSC. According to this chapter on social psychology, I believe our theory fits best with most if not all of chapter. Overall, as states in the textbook, humor is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Our theory fits basically with this whole chapter. For example, laughter is usually in a social context and we tend to laugh when we’re with others. Most humor occurs spontaneously in the context of ordinary social interactions.
I found the section on humor and intimate relationships to be the most interesting. I think I found this section to be most interesting because my relationship has a lot of humor in it. My fiancé is far more humorous than I am and the research discussed in this section seemed very pertinent being that we are getting married soon. If someone had asked me what I looked for in a significant other the first thing I’d say would be a sense of humor. I know that I need someone in my life that can make me laugh especially when I’m not in a good mood because that usually snaps me out of it. The book discusses the research that has been conducted on humor to determine if it helps better relationships and relationship satisfaction. The textbook states that the common view is that couples who share similar preferences in humor styles will be more satisfied with their relationship. I don’t know if I believe they will be more satisfied because I’d argue that the humor in my relationship is pretty different and I don’t think we are any less satisfied than other relationships. The summary of the research indicated that even though humor is thought to be a very desirable characteristic, it doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood that the relationship will be more satisfying and stable over time.
The section that I found to be least interesting was the section on humor and persuasion. I think it was necessary in this chapter but I agree that it is basically common sense. The book stated politician’s speeches and commercials often use humor in an attempt to be persuasive. I was surprised that there isn’t much research that had been conducted on this topic.
Teasing will be one form of humor that I will remember from this chapter. The textbook defines teasing as paradoxical, combining both prosocial and aggressive functions. I think teasing happens on daily basis we just don’t always stop and think that we are teasing or being teased. Teasing can be aggressive but also depends on the degree of identity confrontation and amount of ambiguity and humor that are present.
Another topic I will remember from this chapter is the section on ingratiation. I will remember this when I hear “back-handed” compliments. Ingratiation refers to behaviors such as other-enhancement, opinion conformity, self-deprecation and feigned interpersonal similarity. Opinion conformity happens all the time. People don’t stand up for their own opinion rather they just agree with the people who are being vocal with their opinion. I will also remember that laughing at another person’s jokes can be a form of ingratiation.
Lastly, I will remember from this chapter are the social aspects of laughter. I will remember this because most people laugh on a daily basis and are usually around people. I have found it to be very interesting watching people laugh. Their facial expression and sometimes the movement of the rest of the body are interesting. Laughing usually emits positive emotions therefore it’s always nice to have a good laugh. I hear people say that all the time. “I needed that laugh.”
I feel like the whole section could be applied to our “Z” theory (playdoh). The two major components of our theory were based upon social and cognitive theories. It would be very hard in my opinion to have a theory that lacked any of the information presented in this chapter. More specifically I think the section on social aspects of humor and interpersonal functions of humor would be important in our theory.
During this chapter I found a lot of things interesting. One area in particular I enjoyed reading was the interpersonal functions of humor. Humor serves many functions in different types of interpersonal interactions such as to self-disclose attitudes regarding sex, politics, religion, gender, people of different nationalities, ethnicities, occupations, and emotional reactions to situations. Humor allows people to reveal things about themselves but allows to “save face” and say “just joking” if what has expressed is not taken well by the recipient. At the same time we can observe how other people react to the opinions we have expressed and learn if they share similar opinions or attitudes by whether or not they respond with laughter.
Decommitment is another way we use humor to “save face.” If we are caught in a lie or caught in an inappropriate situation we can simply say that the behavior was a joke, therefore decommiting from the behavior or action. Indicating that a behavior was intended to be humorous allows us to maintain “face” which Erving Goffman described as “an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attitudes.” I have experienced this function of humor. When a disagreement with a friend escalates I try to use humor as a way to calm things down.
Another aspect I found interesting was the idea that humor can enhance cohesion and group identity. Humor can be used among a group of friends to create a bond and a shared sense of reality. Gary Fine suggested humor such as nick-names, friendly teasing, slang terms and inside jokes are responsible for such an occurrence. I think it is very common for a group of friends to use humor as a way to bond and enjoy time together. I found these aspects of interpersonal functions interesting because I can relate to them and this information can be useful in daily interactions with people. Humor is a way to learn things and ask questions that might otherwise be inappropriate. I seem to do this a lot and my friends have pointed out to me that saying “just kidding” doesn’t work anymore and they have learned that most of the time I’m not kidding.
What I found least interesting in this chapter was the section regarding social aspects of laughter. The first few paragraphs of this section is over topics that have already been discussed in previous chapters such as that laughter is the expression of mirth, we are more likely to laugh with others and that laughter has evolved from the paniting vocilizations of apes. Other ideas presented in this section such as hearing other people laugh causes us to laugh is common sense. Also the finding that people tend to laugh more at their own utterance rather than someone else’s wasn’t surprising to me either considering I tend to laugh at myself all the time.
I think the different aspects of teasing will be helpful in understanding the psychology of humor. Teasing is made up of three components aggression, humor, and ambiguity. The aggression of teasing depends on the degree of identity confrontation and amount of humor and ambiguity present in the situation. The playful manner of teasing indicates to the target that the message that is being directed at them is not intended to be taken serious. One area of teasing that I thought was appealing was the notion that the more aggressive form of teasing uses censure. People who use this type of teasing is usually trying to point out a habit or behavior that they find annoying and want the target to change it. I experienced this form of teasing when I was a child. I sucked my thumb and my parents and relatives would tease me about it in hopes that I would kick the habit. According to the book studies have found that targets usually respond by explaining or justifying the behavior which is similar to what I did as a child. I also found it important to recognize that teasing can have negative effects not only on the target but also on people who witness others being teased.
Another thing I read in this chapter that I found useful was the idea that people tend to assume that if a person has a good sense of humor they also possess other desirable traits and in general people are attracted to people who display a sense of humor. When people laugh at strangers jokes they are creating a mutual attraction. People who share similar views of humor see each other in a positive light. Humor has the ability to lower anxiety and discomfort that can occur when strangers interact. I think this is important because it can be useful information when meeting new people such as at a new workplace.
I also think that the whole idea that humor allows us to “save face” is important when understanding the psychology of humor. People try to avoid situations that put them in awkward or embarrassing situations but if happen to be found in such a situation humor allows them to back out or decommit by claiming that it was only a joke and not meant to be taken seriously.
A lot of the social psychology fits into our anti-Freud “Z” theory. Our theory was based around the idea that humor is a social behavior that we have acquired through evolution. The interpersonal functions of humor I think best fit into our theory. Using humor as a way to avoid conflict and preserve positive relationships relates to our theorys influence of the evolutionary aspect. In order to survive you need to use humor as a coping mechanism and a way to maintain positive relationships. I agree with hollyao that the aspect that fits the least is the relationships and intimacy because of the underlying sexual theme.
This chapter has by far been the most interesting to me. Throughout the chapter I couldn’t believe that I was actually enjoying reading it. My favorite part of the chapter was “humor and intimate relationships”. I believe I liked this portion because humor is used in my marriage all the time. My husband and I often find different things funny however we still enjoy laughing and teasing each other to break up tension. I found the research that showed that marital satisfaction affects how a partner views the others sense of humor. Obviously throughout my relationship there have been highs and lows. Looking back I realize that when I was happier I found my husband to be funny. However, when we were struggling I found his humor to be annoying and often insulting. I also found Gottman’s research interesting. He stated that when more humor used when discussing issues the higher level of marital harmony. It does state however that causality is not clear. My favorite part of this section however was Cohan and Bradbury’s research showing that when humor was expressed by the husband during discussions about issues the higher likelihood that the couple would separate or divorce. They say that this is possibly because men tended to use humor to avoid the issue instead of dealing with it. Gottman and his colleagues did further research and showed that when humor was used by the wife in these situations it predicted greater stability of the marriage because women tend to use humor as a calming mechanism. I completely see this in my relationship. My husband hates confrontation and often tries to use humor to change the subject so we no longer have to talk about any issues we are having.
My least favorite portion of the chapter was on “humor and persuasion”. It’s not that I don’t find it somewhat interesting it’s more that I don’t know if I agree with the findings. The text states that there is little evidence to show that humorous messages in advertising are persuasive. I disagree only because I know personally when a commercial or ad is funny I’m more likely to pay attention which makes me think about the product. When it is a serious ad I tend to ignore it and not give the product another thought. The text goes on to mention politicians using humor does not have an effect on the persuasiveness of the speech. Again I don’t completely agree with this. Throughout the chapter it is said that humor often makes people feel closer together. I think politicians use this to make people like them more. When they make a joke during a speech if it is timed correctly I believe it makes listeners feel that the politician is more on their level which in itself is persuasive.
One part of the chapter that I’ll definitely remember is the portion on social norms and control. I find it interesting that humor can be used to force one’s beliefs on others. By using humor a person or group can show others what they believe is acceptable by making fun of people from outside the group or someone in the group’s behavior. I also found the idea of using humor as an “unmasking tactic” interesting. The text says that by making fun of someone else you can show that you will not accept the ideas or identity projected by that person. It goes on to say that by doing so in a humorous way you are making it harder for the target to retaliate.
The next portion of the chapter that I’ll remember is “decommitment”. I see this a lot at Bremwood when I am working. Residents often make inappropriate comments about another person or make a threat and then say “I was just joking”, thereby decommitting themselves from the comment. I also see myself using this method in arguments. The text states that when arguments arise between friends a humorous remark can relieve the tension and then someone does not have to back down and lose face.
The last part of the chapter I’ll talk about is “self-disclosure, social probing, and norm violation”. I find it interesting that humor is used to obtain information about the people we are with. The text discusses how it’s hard and often rude to ask direct questions so instead we use humor to find the information we want. I found the research about using humor to show sexual interest interesting as well. Participants often used sexual humor to show their interest and read the results of others to see if the interest was shared.
I was involved in the playdoh group and I think this whole chapter fits very well. Our group focused mostly on the cognitive and social theories of humor with the other theories scattered into them. Therefore this whole chapter fits well since we stressed the importance of social interaction.
I really enjoyed this chapter the most so far because I think that humor is more social than anything and I liked a lot of the topics that were discussed in the chapter. The thing that I found most interesting and most shocking was Humor and Intimate Relationships. I agree that humor is an attractive quality when it comes to romantic relationships and dating. But the results from some of the empirical studies really surprised me that humor doesn’t really have much affect on the longevity of a relationship. And the study done using younger couples suggested that humor, in a sense, takes a toll on the relationship. I also thought it was interesting that when wives used humor during arguments, it’s more beneficial because it can be “emotionally calming” to husbands. However, if husbands use humor in that same context, it was not good for the relationship. When I read that, I immediately thought of some of the scenes we see in movies and on TV where the guy basically screws everything up in an important conversation by saying something he thinks is humorous.
There wasn’t any subject that I disliked in this chapter or anything that I found not interesting. I think the topic that didn’t spark my interest as much as the others was maybe Humor and Persuasion. There’s not really a specific reason why I didn’t find this section as interesting. I think with advertising and speeches it just depends on what you’re talking about or what you’re trying to sell. You have to think about your audience. Sometimes humor works, and sometimes it doesn’t. And with advertising, sometimes the humor doesn’t make any difference with whether or not I want to buy a particular product or not. Budweiser and Bud Light have so many really funny commercials, but beer really isn’t my drink of choice, so it doesn’t make me want to go buy any Bud Light, but I still like watching the commercials.
At the end of the chapter the book quotes Linda Francis, “there is more to explain about humor than just why it is funny. People have reasons for using humor, goals they wish to accomplish with it,” (pg 150). I think that is a really interesting statement. So far we’ve kind of just been talking about why certain things are funny, but I think it’s important to look at it this way too, that there is a reason we use humor and there’s probably some sort of strategy to it all.
I thought the section on the Social Aspects of Laughter was very interesting. I think that the Affect-Induction View of laughter was really important: “laughter not only conveys cognitive information to others but it also serves the function of inducing and emphasizing positive emotions in others, in order to influence their behavior and promote a more favorable attitude toward the one who is laughing” (pg 128). I thought about how when you watch sitcoms on TV, there’s always the laughing of the audience, and I think that sometimes that influenced my laughter at the show too.
Another concept I thought was interesting was the ironic criticism and the ironic compliment and how ironic criticism is actually less insulting than direct criticism and ironic compliments are less encouraging than actual direct compliments. I can really understand that just from personal experience. I think it’s interesting how that kind of humor is actually kind of backwards.
I think that a lot of this chapter fit into our Equilibrium theory. Especially a lot of the sections at the beginning of the chapter. We basically said that humor is used to keep a sort of social balance. Right away under Humor As A Social Interaction it’s mentioned that in relationships, playful teasing and joking around can be a way to discuss things that you don’t really agree on without getting into a heated argument about it. It keeps things light and balanced. Also under Interpersonal Functions of Humor, the text says even though humor is different in different countries and cultures, it’s there to “help to maintain cohesion and positive feelings about the relationship”(pg 116). Also the concept of “saving face” fits in well with our Z Theory too. If you say something impulsively or something doesn’t come out right, or someone doesn’t take what you said in the right way, you can recover and maintain social balance by saying, “Oh I was just joking.” I think probably the section that you couldn’t really fit into our Z Theory as well as the others would be the Humor and Persuasion section. There’s not really a lot of talk about social balance when it comes to that, it’s more about finding your audience and discovering what people find funny in order to sell products (or in the case of politicians making a speech, selling themselves).
This chapter was one of the more engaging I have read so far because I find the social impact of humor so relavent. Out of all of the topics discussed, I would have to say I enjoyed reading the section on teasing the most. This is probably interesting to me because I live with two roomates that I am pretty close with and we tease each other on a daily basis. I agree with the statement that "teasing criticizes, yet compliments, attacks people yet makes them closer, humilates yet expresses affection" (Martin, 2007). The teasing that occurs within my household as well as with other friends I am close with does center around undertones of aggression, but not strong enough to be considered malicious attacks on the other person. I agree that the teasing between myself and my group of close friends has brought us closer in our relationships. I have noticed we are able to have intimate talks surrounding many topics that we would not have engaged in upon first meeting. Many of these talks include some sort of humor, most commonly the element of teasing each other.
I would have to say the topic I least liked reading about in this chapter was that on persuation because not enough research has been supportive in this area. Although humor elicits an "attention grabbing" mechanism when used in advertisement, it does not seem to be enough to persuade an individual to purchase a given product. I was also slightly confused on how it is possible to measure how a central route versus a peripheral route depicts exactly how a person can be persuaded. Since the power of persuasion is based upon many different factors such as the source, the product itself, the method to convey the message(in this case humor)and the receiver, I think it is hard to base just one route through the whole process, and I think it would be easy for the two types to be used interchangeably. The text does point out that the use of humor may be advantagous in certain sales negotiations (my final offer is $100 and I'll throw in my pet frog for free) (Miller, 2007). I can see this holding true in certain circumstances, but it would also depend on how badly the consumer wants to buy the product.
I think three things that will be useful for me to understand humor better from this chapter will be the section on humor and intimate relationships because I am able to relate to this from previous relationships of my own. I agree that males are more likely to use humor to avoid dealing with problems, and females to help calm a spouse emotionally. This is a big deal breaker in relationships! Another thing I will take away from this chapter was the discussion on predjudice. I thought it was interesting that simply beccause hearing a joke that targets a specific group does not cause the listener to have a more negative attitude towards that group. I would have thought the opposite would happen here actually and that this would reciprocate stronger feelings of prejudice based on the wanting to conform with a group. I also will take away a greater understanding on the section on status and hierarchy maintenance. Although it makes sense that someone from a higher power status is more likely to use humor as opposed to those in the group that are of lower power status. I have witnessed this myself at work (particularly at meetings). This was something I had not taken into account previously, but it makes sense. I am more likely to laugh at a joke told by a supervisor as well in regards to "feeling accepted" under them.
Our "Z" theory is the swarm theory and it is fairly relavant to most of this chapter because the primary emphasis is the social psychology aspect. I would say group identity (one bird flies, all the others follow) is a prominent factor based on the cohesion of the group. I would also comment that social play and the paratelic sense of humor is very relevant on adding interpersonal relations and strengthening of social bonds within the group. I would say the least relavent aspect is probably that on discourse management. We really didn't discuss within our group how the flow of a conversation can change the social structure or overall atmosphere. I also don't think the persuasion issue is very relavent to our theory, because it doens't focus much on creative cognitive tactics to convince one group member to sway in a different direction.
Overall, I found this chapter to include insightful thoughts on humor and the social processes it encompasses.
In the chapter on the social psychology of humor I thought the aspect of ‘teasing’ was fairly interesting. I thought this to be interesting, because teasing is a form of humor that is quite complex and has the ability to serve the many functions of interpersonal communication. Teasing is unique in that it criticizes yet compliments, attacks yet makes people closer, humiliates yet expresses affection. According to the text, teasing can be used for a number of different purposes, ranging from pro-social and welcoming to unfriendly and cruel. The aggressiveness of the tease depends on the degree of identity confrontation and the amount of ambiguity and humor that are present. An everyday example of teasing that serves a purpose is in playful, friendly teasing. Close friends might say things to one another that, if taken literally, would appear to be rather demeaning or critical. However, this playful manner of teasing communicates that the message is not intended to be taken literally and, indeed, the opposite meaning is intended: the source actually means to compliment the target in an ironic way. I found this very interesting; specifically the part where the friend who is making the teasing comment is actually giving the other friend an ironic compliment. In my experience, it is common for guys to flesh out each other’s weaknesses and tease each other for it, but I feel the teasing comments made are actually pretty accurate to the individual being teased. I think teasing someone about an actual reality about themselves is the way for someone to be a successful teaser amongst a group of guys (as long as no one is too sensitive). Although, one would think that teasing someone about something true (too skinny, too slow, etc.) would actually be destructive to the friendship, there is clear cases of people (males or females) that are closer and bond due to knowing each other’s weaknesses or differences. Clearly there is something comfortable and bonding about knowing another’s downfalls, but still sticking by their side. Perhaps friendship is about accepting the person for who they are; accepting what makes them an individual and what makes you an individual.
An aspect from this chapter that I didn’t find too interesting, but still worth mentioning was the idea of discourse management. According to the text, conversations are mutual activities that require cooperation of all participants to make the discussion intelligible and satisfactory. Humor can come into play throughout a business meeting or when several strangers get together to study. I though this was quite true. Most definitely an “icebreaker” of some sort is needed to begin a meeting or to begin studying with complete strangers. For example, a witty comment about the weather might generate further conversation, whereas a more serious comment that simply states the obvious might seem corny and purposeless.
One bit of information from the chapter that will assist in understanding psychology of humor would be the on self-disclosure, social probing, and norm violation mentioned in the text. A sociologist by the name of Walle described the way humor was used by men and women to express interest in a possible sexual relationship. According to Walle if the two involved were to use serious modes of communication in this context, participants would run the risk of causing offense to other person and being personally humiliated by rejection. With the use of humor, telling sexual jokes and making funny comments containing sexual suggestions, they were able to probe the other person’s level of interest in a way that enabled them to save face if their interest was not returned. Another idea that will help in my further understanding of humor is that humor is a social occurrence. According to the text, we laugh much more frequently when we are in the company of others than when we are alone. Those rare occasions (for some) when we do laugh with no one around commonly involve “pseudo-social” scenarios, such as a funny youtube video, reading a something humorous, or recalling an amusing experience with other people. In some way, whether we are laughing alone or with others, the concept of humor is a social one due its obvious connection with our friends, family, and coworkers. A third thing that is helpful in understanding the psychology of humor is the idea of decommitment. In the text it mentions people often use humor to save face when they experience some sort of failure, when they are about to be unmasked in some way, or when they have been caught in a lie or are found to have engaged in inappropriate behavior. By using humor to indicate that the idea or past action was intended as a joke and was therefore not meant to be taken seriously, one can save face by “decommitting” oneself from the idea or behavior.
My Z-theory group is the Anti-Freud (Evolutionary) concept. The ideas involved in the social psychology of humor chapter are greatly relative to our Z-theory. Since our theory is based on traits and skills that are useful and purposeful to the survival and progression of human beings. All of the social concepts talked about in this chapter facilitate social interaction and bonding. Our Z-theory sees humor as behavior that exists due to its benefits in our survival and successful relationships leading to reproduction; and this chapter assists greatly in understanding the social benefits of humor and how it has the ability to develop healthy relationships and finding possible mates.
This chapter forces mainly on the social aspects of humor. It is easy to recognize humor in our everyday social situations. As college students we are constantly surrounded by others, we go to class with them, eat with them, hang out, and live with others. There are distinct advantages to always being around others, it adds a lot of enjoyment to life. Watching TV or even experiencing a funny situation is much more fun when you are with another. As the book suggests, social interaction and laughter is evolutionary based as it added to our survival. Simply, it was more adaptive for humans to be in groups, as a result people who laughed and communicate well the company of others have survived to pass on that trait. However being around friends and others so much can be stressful. With your family you have more of a leash to be mean or short with them if they annoy you, but it is not as socially acceptable to do this with friends. To remedy this I believe that a lot of us use humor, “joking, teasing, banter ridicule and practical jokes” to express our annoyance, or just dealing with another. At the same time, humor can lead to serious conflicts with our friends, your partners, and family. I believe what question this chapter is continually addressing the question, “is it better to address problem with another with humor or seriousness”
The book suggests that we communicate in two basic modes: serious and humorous. This, to me, seemed a lot like the telic and paratelic states discuss in earlier chapters. In the telic or serious state of mind, one does not appreciate incongruity and incoherency. On the other hand, in the humor mode or paratelic state of mind, we “embrace” incongruity. The book suggests that this could be a more efficient way for married people or people in serious relationships to talk about an issue which they disagree or cannot resolve, without leading towards anger or frustration. Furthermore, the book states that men use humor to deal with a stressful situation. As discussion of problems within the marriage or life might be agitating or stressful for a husband, the book suggests, it “may be beneficial” for marriages if wives use humor in addressing such problems. Thus research from the book found that “more humor expression by wives during problem discussion was predictive of greater marital stability over six years”. Why humor is so effective in this conflicts or incongruities, is as the book suggests, we are able to make disclaimers or “save face”. If we realized that we have pushed the envelope too far, we might said something completely against the others opinion or something insulting, we can “save face” by saying things like “just joking”. This saves us from embarrassing or awkward situations. Similarity we can “save face” and avoid awkwardness with humor in situations or in actions where we have been unsuccessful or inappropriate. “It was only a joke”, is a good way to “decommit” ourselves from an inappropriate action or situation. The book gives the example of conversations related to sex. If we believe that our comments were awkwardly received we might face save. Lastly the book suggests that we tend to have to “save face” often. As humans, we are consistently evaluating our social environments we are having conservations in, and we are motivated to push the social norm limits with our conversation. On the other hand, we might use humor, like teasing or sarcasm to establish social norms within a situation.
Each social group has a system of norms, beliefs, customs or “idioculture”. A way to communication those rules and acceptable behavior could be humor. For example, teasing can be a way to communicate that the behavior the member is doing is not acceptable. Teasing can be a less threatening way of communication than serious mode of communication. The ones that are usually responsible for this teasing, as the book states, are the leader or dominate group member.
Lastly the book contents we tend to be attracted to more humorous people. We see them enjoyable to be around in good times and bad. We see humor and an important and admirable attribute. We are specifically more attracted to those who share our sense of humor and laugh at our jokes. This is probably because of all the good feelings we experience laughing with them. However it is unknown if sharing a similar sense of humor can guarantee things will work out in the relationships, especially in romantic relationships. However as stated before, the book suggests that handling serious situations, like relationships issues, can be done in a compromising way. Like women taking a more humor mode and men taking a more serious mode in such situation.
Our “swarm theory” is being limited with talking about the serious and humor modes, however this chapter is all about the social aspects of humor, the in-group. The swarm is all about being consistence and working together. Leaders, and other birds, express the social standards of the flock together in order to co-exist.
This was probably one of my favorite chapters I’ve read in learning about the psychology of humor which led to me finding a lot of things interesting this chapter talked about. It talked about how humor can be used in multiple ways utilizing different aspects of social psychology. Humor can be used as an avenue to express a belief or opinion with coming off too harsh in a social setting that some topics can escalate to bigger arguments. By using humor as a form of social play this can be used to decrease intensity in a situation or it can be used to break social norms in likely hood that others wouldn’t take offense to a particular situation. This type of play is usually seen in in groups of friends or close acquaintances of equal status in informal settings. Some examples of this would be them playing off of each other by using multiple means of various words, relating to funny anecdotes about different incongruous events and so on. By using facial expressions and gestures, this could in fact make the humorous event more hysterical in which would elicit a more positive sense of mirth. I’ve noticed that decommiting is used quite frequently in our society today. This is when one may use humor to save face when they may experience some sort of failure or when they’re about to be revealed.
I found the section on teasing pretty intriguing because I actually participate in this form of humor quite frequently. The book said that teasing criticizes but yet compliments, also attacks but makes people closer together. It has three components which are aggression, humor, and ambiguity. The ambiguity comes in because it enables a person to say things that would be considered face threatening if communicated a chance to disarm a threat by saying “I was just joking.” Teasing can be seen in in “Roasts” which is a way to display jokes about a person which considered to be non aggressive humor. Another form of teasing is playing practical jokes on another individual. The only difference is that teasing is generally saying things about someone and practical joking is actually physically doing something to play a prank on them that would normally be seen as unkind. Every time we have a family gathering we engage in all of these types of teasing in which can be pleasurable and harmful depending on the joke or the wisecrack. I remember last thanksgiving we were all joking and I have a uncle that smokes crack and my other uncles decided to make him the center of jokes for a while. So they all took turns crackin on his non teeth self-having dentures at 40, him smelling like pea and dukie, and them putting all their expensive stuff up so he wouldn’t steal it.!!! He didn’t like that too much and got really upset and the situation almost escalated into a fight. This form of teasing showed a way of expressing dominance over him in a harmful but playful way.
One of the main things I enjoyed about reading about this chapter was that of interpersonal attraction and humor in intimate relationships. We have seen in previous studies show that a good sense of humor is and important skill to have and that we typically admire this personality trait in others. This plays into why we are generally attracted to people who display a strong sense of humor. There was a experiment done by Barbara Fraley in which examined the degree to which a shared humorous experience between strangers would lead to greater feelings of closeness. As predicted, her results showed that participants in the humorous condition reported feeling much closer and more so attracted to one another than the non-humorous group. People seem to think that physical attraction is super important in mate selection but it really isn’t at the top of the list for females. Males are more visually stimulated than females so they in fact have physical attraction rated pretty high up on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of NEEDSS!!!! LOL. Women are more emotionally stimulated which is why humor is a huge attraction boost for males. By being humorous, they trigger a positive sense of mirth which is emotionally satisfying to women. In looking at intimate relationships, humor seems to have some pros and cons to it. The humorous person is seen as more likely to be enjoyable with, cheerful when under stress, and framed from becoming ill-humored and burdening when there is a problem. A common view that most researchers have is that couples who share similar preferences in humor styles are more likely to be satisfied with their relationship. They show high levels of laughter in situations like problem solving in which make communication easier to manage. This could be used as a defense mechanism as well. Sense men usually become more emotionally aroused and agitated than their wives during discussion of martial problems, Research shows that humor may be beneficial to marriages when its used by the wives because too emotionally calms their partners. On the flip side of this Humor can be detrimental to a relationship as well. A male with a sense of humor is generally seen as more attractive which causes him to be wanted by others and they are more likely to be able to find another relationship if that one goes south. So this causes cause the other partner to be jealous of envious of the other.
I found the section on humor and persuasion to be less interesting to read about because humor actually not something that is required for persuasion to increase. There are many other aspects that would have more effect on persuasion even though you see a few funny commercials here and there. Thus it wasn’t super excited for me to read about things that don’t increase humor in applying social psychology to it. As well as humor and gender, I really didn’t see the importance of determining which gender was more humorous. I think it can vary from person to person although men do display joking and humor more than women. I think women can come with things just as funny as men can which makes it almost irrelevant which gender is best at it!!
I think that discourse management can be applicable to our PSSC theory because it involves a lot of processing and creativity. In conversations all participants must process some discourse activities such as taking turns talking, setting the tone or style, placement of funny material, checking for meanings eye gazing and repetition. These all involve using cognitive processing to accurately apply these things. Humor and Gender really wouldn’t suit or theory very well because it isn’t beneficial to have one particular gender over the other when it comes down to see what’s funny and what’s not funny.
Chapter 5 discusses the social psychology of humor. Of the various subjects introduced in Chapter 5, I found the section on social norms and control to be the most interesting. I found this topic to be interesting because it is extremely prevalent in social groups for members to enforce social norms in order to exert control over other people’s behavior. By enforcing social norms within a group, those members are able to create an identity for themselves. As stated in our text, by using irony, teasing, sarcasm, or satire to make fun of certain attitudes, behaviors, or personality traits, members of a group can communicate implicit expectations and rules concerning the kinds of behavior that are considered acceptable within the group. Although this type of group identity is more obvious during one’s adolescence, using humor to dictate social norms is evident continuously throughout one’s life. Similarly, humor can be an “unmasking tactic.” Our textbook explains that by poking fun at another person, one is communicating a refusal to accept the identity projected by that person. Since the insult if communicated in a humorous way, it is difficult for the target to retaliate or become angry toward the person directing the insult. In other words, communicating an insult in a humorous way reduces the likelihood of anger and hostility that might result from a more serious insult.
A study mentioned in the textbook by Dews, Kaplan, and Winner (1995) used several experiments to investigate the effects of using irony, as compared to direct statements, to deliver both criticisms and complaints. The results showed that ironic statements were more humorous then direct statements. Irony also seemed to silence the message expressed by the literal language. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that ironic criticism was perceived as less aggressive and insulting than direct criticism, whereas ironic compliments were perceived as less positive than direct compliments.
The results from the study by Dews, Kaplan, and Winner (1995) are interesting because it demonstrates an example for how irony can have a social control function. In this context, irony enabled people to express both criticism and praise indirectly and ambiguously. An assumed reason humor works to control social norms so well is because it avoids the loss of face for the speakers and listeners in the process. Humor as a way to control social norms is one way that humor may be used to imply implicit messages without being obvious to the other members of a group. Similarly, this is an example of how humor can cause negative versus positive social outcomes.
I enjoyed the material discussed in this chapter and did not find any of the material to be uninteresting. However, I would have liked a little more elaboration on the section that deals with humor and intimate relationships. In a study of newlywed couples by Gottman and his colleagues, it was found that men are generally more emotionally aroused and agitated than their wives during discussions of marital problems. The study suggests that humor may be more beneficial to marriage when used by wives in ways that are emotionally calming to their partners. The results show that men use humor during times of stress as a way to avoid dealing with problems. Wives use humor to help calm their spouse emotionally while encouraging him to continue dealing with the problems. I would like this study to elaborate on what the use of humor would be for a homosexual relationship. If this study is exemplifying the fact that different uses of humor can have different effects on the long-term stability in marriage, I am curious to see what the differences in humor would be for a same sex relationship. I predict there would still be some differences with the more dominant partner adopting the role of the husband in the former study.
Social psychology is important for understanding the role that society plays in humor and how it acts to form a system of communication. Three points were made in Chapter 5 that I believe will help in studying the psychology of humor. First, I believe it is important to understand that different parts of humor in social psychology may be either positive or negative. Humor is positive in the sense that it helps stabilize relationships and lead to greater marital harmony; however, humor can have negative effects when humor ostracizes certain types of people from a group. By understanding when humor is positive or negative, people can learn to avoid potentially hostile situations or know when someone is using humor to convey an implicit message. Second, humor is a strong source of information that contributes to our initial impression of others. Noticing a person’s sense of humor may create either a positive or negative first impression. If two people do not have similar types of humor, it is unlikely that those two people will be able to develop a strong or intimate relationship. Lastly, I believe it is important to understand the social aspects of laughter. Laughter is a communication signal designed to indicate to others that one is experiencing the playful emotional state of mirth. Thus, laughter is inherently social. Laughter is a form of social communication used to express positive emotions and elicit positive emotions in others. Therefore, the social aspects of laughter are important for explaining how humor and laughter are forms of social communication.
One aspect from Chapter 5 that fits into my group’s Playdoh Theory is the evidence that suggests humor may have a stronger influence on interpersonal attraction versus attitude similarity and physical attractiveness. My group’s theory is a combination of the Cognitive Theory and Social Theory. The idea that humor has a strong influence on interpersonal attraction demonstrates that humor has an important social implication in understanding what attracts two people. Contrastingly, one aspect that does not support my group’s Playdoh theory is that the study of humor tends to be a relatively minor topic and largely ignored in mainstream social psychology. As stated previously, my group’s theory has a strong emphasis from the Social Theory. Since there is little research on the humor of social psychology, it does not prove to be as important for the field of psychology as my group’s theory suggests. One reason there is such little research on humor could be because it is such a broad topic. If the topic of humor had more narrowly focused theoretical models, more researchers may take an interest in the topic.