Cracking wise to break the ice: The potential for racial humor to ease interracial anxiety

2.1.1 Aversive racism

As mentioned above, members of racial majority groups are commonly concerned about appearing biased to others in interracial contexts. These concerns and the behaviors they produce can stem from internal factors (e. g. the desire to maintain a non-prejudiced identity) or external factors (e. g. the desire to maintain a non-prejudiced appearance to others; Plant and Devine 1998). For individuals with high levels of external motivations to control prejudice, the internal struggle between explicitly endorsing egalitarian views but privately harboring negative affect toward minority group members can lead to aversive racism (Gaertner and Dovidio 1986). In this relatively subtle form of prejudice, individuals who are highly motivated to respond without prejudice due to concerns over how they will be viewed by others are more likely to avoid interracial interactions entirely or experience undesirable outcomes when interracial interactions are unavoidable. This is due to the fact that, compared to those high in blatant racism, those high in aversive racism are mentally preoccupied with their concerns and efforts to appear non-biased. For example, Dovidio et al. (2002) found that interaction pairs consisting of a White person high in aversive racism and a Black person took significantly longer to solve a laboratory-based problem than race-congruous pairs or pairs consisting of a White person high in blatant prejudice (i. e. with tendencies to explicitly express prejudice toward minority group members) and a Black person.

2.1.2 Stereotype suppression

Individuals who are concerned about appearing prejudiced may exert effort to suppress any prejudicial thoughts or behavior. For example, Richeson and Trawalter (2008) demonstrated that Whites who scored high on a measure assessing external motivations to control prejudice (for example, concerns about one’s own social appearance; Devine 1989) were more likely to unconsciously divert their attention away from neutral Black faces, signaling an attentional bias shaped by anxiety. In actual interracial interactions, this anxiety has been demonstrated to have detrimental effects on both psychological and physiological outcomes. Trawalter et al. (2012) found increased cortisol levels (signaling a heightened stress response) amongst Whites concerned about appearing prejudiced during an interracial interaction with a Black partner. In a longitudinal investigation, the authors also discovered spikes in cortisol levels amongst these participants when engaging in interracial interactions throughout an entire academic year (Trawalter et al. 2012; Study 2). As a result of investigations like these, it is not surprising that members of racial majority groups tend to avoid interacting with racial minority groups entirely.

Paradoxically, the concern of appearing prejudiced, the subsequent attempt to suppress that prejudice, and even the avoidance of situations in which prejudicial attitudes might be exposed may not be enough to prevent it. As Crandall and Eshleman (2003) note in their development of the justification-suppression model of prejudice expression, the suppression of prejudice requires substantial cognitive energy and is often accompanied with justifications for the expression of “genuine” prejudice – that is, prejudice learned early in development from family or direct cultural learning which is activated automatically (Fazio et al. 1995). The justification of prejudicial attitudes is prominent and can take many forms according to social psychologists (e. g. believing in just society or attitudes about one’s own status; system justification theory, Jost and Banaji 1994; social dominance orientation, Pratto et al. 1994; belief in a just world; Rubin and Peplau 1973), and some investigations even report more positive attitudes toward interracial interactions on behalf of the perpetrator of the prejudice (Crandall and Eshleman 2003). Other work suggests that individuals who are instructed to suppress – or who spontaneously suppress – stereotypic thoughts are sometimes subject to increases in the expression of these stereotypes at a later time (Monteith et al. 1998; Macrae et al. 1994; Wyer et al. 1998). In either case, prejudice is still experienced by minority group members in these situations, often leading to undesirable and harmful outcomes relating to self-perception (e. g. feeling unjustly mistreated or disrespected; Barrett and Swim 1998).

2.1.3 Being confronted for bias expression

For some race-related problems such as police brutality, education disparities, mass incarceration, and immigration policies, dialogue begins with a confrontation of the (alleged) perpetrator. In general, those faced with confrontations that threaten the self-image can experience an increase in negative emotions or aggression (Baumeister, Smart, and Boden 1996; Czopp et al. 2006), and react accordingly. For example, several investigations have demonstrated that majority group members who are confronted respond with evaluative backlash toward racial minority group members who confront expressions of bias (e. g. Czopp et al. 2003). Those who choose to confront are disliked and viewed as “complainers” relative to those who do not confront (Kaiser and Miller 2001; Schultz and Maddox 2013).

2.2.1 Stereotype threat

Like their interaction partners, members of racial minority groups experience measurable anxiety both during and after interracial interactions (see Trawalter et al. 2009, for a review). In contrast to racial majority group members, however, racial minority group members are more concerned with being perceived through the lens of negative stereotypes and experiencing bias (Swim and Hyers 1999). This concern often leads minority racial group members to monitor their own thoughts and behaviors in situations in which they believe they may be the targets of prejudiced. For example, members of minority racial groups for whom stereotypes about their group membership are salient prior to performing in a stereotype-relevant domain (e. g. awareness of the stereotype that Black Americans are unintelligent in the context of a standardized testing situation) may experience anxiety leading to decreased performance (stereotype threat; Steele and Aronson 1995; Spencer et al. 1999). It has been shown that individuals experiencing stereotype threat can show heightened cardiovascular response and surface skin temperature throughout the performance in which the threat is induced (Osborne 2007).

2.2.2 Attributional ambiguity

In other scenarios, racial minority group members may experience attributional ambiguity (i. e. psychological state of uncertainty about the cause of a person’s outcomes or treatment). These situations have been shown to induce stress responses in racial minority groups. Additionally, anxiety during performance tasks may lead to attributional ambiguity – the uncertainty experienced by minority group members about whether or not feedback, either positive or negative, is due to their own aptitude or to prejudice of the evaluator (e. g. Crocker et al. 1991). Like those experiencing stereotype threat, individuals experiencing attributional ambiguity have shown heightened arousal associated with cognitive vigilance (e. g. cardiovascular increases, skin conductance) after receiving positive feedback from a different-race evaluator, with these patterns of reactance becoming more pronounced when that feedback was negative (Mendes et al. 2008).

2.2.3 Observing bias

Members of racial minority groups need not be the direct targets of discrimination in order to experience anxiety-related arousal. In another example, Merritt et al. (2006) found that Black men exposed to audio recordings depicting the unfair treatment of a Black customer in a shopping center demonstrated higher blood pressure, even when the behavior in question was ambiguous and the discrimination was unclear. Results like these suggest that racial minorities are sensitive to subtle cues in interracial contexts that have the potential to chip away at their physical health. In the past decade, counseling psychologists have documented among patients of color anxiety associated with experiencing racial microaggressions: purposeful or unintentional actions which perpetuate racial stereotypes and subtly communicate racial hostility or prejudice (e. g. Wing Sue et al. 2007).

2.2.4 Confronting bias expression

As discussed in Section 2.1.3, racial majority group members often respond to accusation of bias by attacking the confronter, particularly if that person is from a minority group (e. g. Czopp et al. 2003; Kaiser & Miller 2003). Accordingly, members of racial minority groups are aware of the potential for backlash and may avoid confrontations as a result (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008; Stangor et al. 2002).

2.3.1 Majority interventions

For members of racial majority groups, research suggests that acknowledging and reassessing the source of their anxiety may help to alleviate it during interracial interactions. For example, Whites who were provided with instructions that help them to reframe the anxiety they anticipate before interracial interactions were more likely to choose to speak with a Black partner about race issues and displayed more positive nonverbal indicators of engagement during those interactions (Schultz et al. 2015). Alternatively, instructing White participants to work toward a positive exchange (promotion focus) versus to avoid prejudice (prevention focus) has been demonstrated to lead to less cognitive depletion after an interracial interaction (Trawalter and Richeson 2006). Increased contact with minority groups members has also been shown to alleviate majority group members’ concerns (the intergroup contact hypothesis, Allport 1954; Dovidio, Gaertner, and Kawakami 2003). Indeed, researchers argue that majority group members exposed to members of minority group prior to interactions are cognitively better equipped to handle these interactions (e. g. Hewstone and Brown 1986).

2.3.2 Minority interventions

Racial minority group members also develop and learn coping strategies which have been demonstrated to alleviate the anxiety involved with perceiving and confronting bias from intergroup interactions. These strategies are associated with stigma consciousness (Pinel 1999), which asserts that a certain level of preparation to handle prejudice is associated with growing up and living life with a stigmatized identity. These individuals may be somewhat more cognitively prepared to handle the anxiety associated with prejudice and discrimination from certain majority groups because of previous experiences as members of devalued groups (e. g. Crocker, Major, and Steele 1998), For example, a Black person might have experience with being discriminated against, and may use parts of that experience to influence his or her behavior in future situations in which discrimination might occur (e. g. confronting perceived bias). That said, many coping mechanisms can lead to short term relief with negative long-term interpersonal outcomes (e. g. avoiding confrontation or disidentification with stereotype-relevant domains). Thus, stigmatized individuals may be at a disadvantage when interacting with others who they perceive to be biased. Because of this disadvantage, it has become vital for researchers to examine strategies minority group members can utilize in order to manage interracial interactions.

While recognizing the costs of confronting prejudice, Czopp et al. (2003) suggest that members of racial minority groups can still be effective agents for bias reduction amongst prejudiced majority group members by directly confronting prejudiced statements and behaviors, often leading to future avoidance of public displays of prejudice by perpetrators (for a review, see Kaiser and Major 2006). While many negative consequences associated with confrontation are well-documented, research has also identified methods that members of racial minority groups can use to increase its effectiveness in reducing bias while preventing negative evaluations of the individual confronting. For example, Schultz and Maddox (2013) demonstrated that Blacks who use high-quality arguments to support racial bias confrontations experience less backlash – indistinguishable from that of their White counterparts – over and above Blacks using low-quality arguments.

2.3.3 Summary

In sum, interracial interactions can be stressful for members of both racial majority and minority groups. However, a growing body of research has helped to identify potential ways to ameliorate the concerns faced by those involved. For members of racial majority groups, reframing pre-interaction anxiety has been shown to be effective in reducing stress during interactions (e. g. Schultz et al. 2015). Additionally, previous intergroup contact could have a buffering effect on stress during interactions, leading to more positive evaluations of interaction partners and their groups. For members of racial minority groups, the anxiety associated with experiencing prejudice is difficult to minimize but can be tempered by confronting bias when it is encountered. However, the potential costs of confrontation are high, which has led researchers to identify distinct strategies to buffer these costs.

3.1.1 Self-disparagement

Self-disparaging (or self-deprecating) humor is a type of humor that individuals use to make fun of themselves directly, individual members of their ingroup, or their ingroup in general (e. g. Gruner 1997). It is commonly used to address perceived deficits in an individual or group’s intelligence, personality traits, moral virtues, mental health, or physical attractiveness, and in peacemaking after arguments or other tense interpersonal events (e. g. Lundy et al. 1998). Though beginning a speech with pointed self-deprecation may seem counterintuitive, self-disparaging humor is a tool recommended by many resources designed to help people prepare and execute speeches through its potential to lighten the mood, improve speaker credibility, or create a bond with the audience (e. g. Andeweg et al. 2011). Thus, much of the empirical research on self-disparaging humor is related to audience perceptions of speakers, and generally reports relationships between the use of self-disparaging humor and perceptions of speaker humor, wit, and general levels of attraction (e. g. Gruner 1997; Chang and Gruner 1981). As humor theorist Gruner (1985, p. 1295) states, “Humor that is self-disparaging enhances speaker image … and will have a cushioning effect [on perceptions of the speaker].” For example, Chang and Gruner (1981) demonstrated the use of self-disparaging humor in speeches has the potential to increase perceived levels of likeability, sense of humor, wittiness, kindness, and trustworthiness. Importantly, this same type of humor also has the potential to reduce feelings of anxiety among audience members while simultaneously increasing speaker credibility. But the potential benefit of self-disparagement may depend on several factors, such as the goals of the presentation or whether the attempted humor is perceived as funny (e. g. Andeweg et al. 2011; Chang and Gruner 1981).

3.1.2 Other-disparagement

To the extent that people can infer personality from behavior, using jokes which disparage others has the potential to heighten negative perceptions of the humorist. Research suggests there may be personality differences between people who prefer to tell jokes about themselves versus others, with those who report using self-disparaging humor more likely to possess low extraversion, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness and those who use other-disparaging humor more likely to possess low agreeableness, but more competitiveness and dominance (Greengross, Martin, and Miller 2012; Greengross and Miller 2011;Hodson 2010). In addition, using other-disparaging humor could result in more negative perceptions. Greengross and Miller (2011) explored the implications of using disparagement humor for individuals with low- or high-status in a study of mate potential. Their findings suggested that high-status individuals were seen as more attractive when telling self- vs. other-disparaging jokes, while joke type did not influence judgments of low-status individuals. The authors suggest this status disparity in the use of self-disparaging humor reflects that potential of high-status individuals to lose status when they belittle low-status individuals.

3.1.3 Summary

Taking this research into consideration, it is clear there are both positive and negative consequences for those who use disparaging humor with the goal of improving how others may see them. Consistent with Martineau’s (1972) framework, these consequences seem to depend on the sources, audiences, and targets of the humorous material. This is also the case when considering of how exposure to this type of humor may affect intergroup attitudes, which we discuss next.

3.2.1 Prejudice expression

Building on the hypothesis that encountering disparagement humor can lead to prejudicial responses, Ford and Ferguson (2004) proposed a model known as Prejudiced Norm Theory (PNT). This model describes four steps that outline a potential mechanism by which exposure to disparagement humor encourages the expression of prejudice against outgroup members, suggesting perpetrators of prejudice rely primarily on external social norms dictating either the suppression or release of prejudice (Devine 1989), and are more likely to express prejudice when exposed to disparagement humor. Briefly, this mechanism operates as follows: (1) When exposed to disparagement humor, people to switch from a serious mindset to a noncritical “humor mindset” that trivializes its subject. This implies that one can treat prejudicial attitudes and behaviors in a more lighthearted manner. (2) A shared understanding of the message underlying the humor is accepted if the recipient approves of the humorous content. (3) Once the disparagement humor is interpreted through a noncritical humor mindset, people are more likely to perceive and assent to a prejudiced norm in their immediate social context. (4) The acceptance of this prejudice norm can then guide their own potentially prejudicial responses toward the targeted outgroup.

Investigations of PNT have been used to describe attitudinal changes as a result of disparagement humor targeting many social groups. Ford and Ferguson (2004) applied PNT to describe effects related to the perception of sexist humor in men and found that exposure to sexist humor, over and above non-humorous sexist communication and neutral communication, was found to increase sexist attitudes among men high in hostile sexism. Similar effects have been reported in other investigations of sexist humor; for example, Ryan and Kanjorski (1998) found that college-aged men who perceived sexist jokes to be funny were also more likely to display higher levels of sexual aggression, specifically on self-reported attitudes about sexual assault and rape. Additionally, this research found that even women who enjoy sexist humor were also likely to tolerate more interpersonal and domestic violence. Other studies have shown men who self-report they have no moral qualms against the use of sexist humor have been shown more likely to indicate signs of rape proclivity following exposure, an increased tolerance of hypothetical situations involving rape, and even diminished respect for women outside the context in which the humor was presented (Romero-Sanchez et al. 2010; Romero-Sánchez et al. 2016). These findings of increased tolerance of sexism after exposure to sexist humor extend beyond self-report measures. One study even found a significant relationship between exposure to sexist humor and various discrimination measures (Ford et al. 2008). Specifically, it was observed that men high in hostile sexism were less likely to donate money to a women’s organization and more likely to endorse the cutting of funds from that organization after exposure to a sexist comedy skit.

These effects also extend to other traditionally and nontraditionally stigmatized minority groups and can lead to prejudice and discrimination toward these groups as well (e. g. Hodson and MacGinnis 2016). For example, one study found that exposure to Black actors portraying stereotypically Black characters in comedy sketches was more likely to result in higher guilt ratings for a Black suspect in an assault investigation (Ford 1997). Maio et al. (1997) found that participants who recited humor disparaging Newfoundlanders (a commonly disparaged area in Canada) reported more negative attitudes about that group after the recitation. Additionally, Hobden and Olson (1994) reported similar effects when asking people to tell jokes about lawyers, with these individuals reporting higher negative attitudes toward lawyers than their counterparts who were not asked to tell these jokes. These effects may be related to the costs of suppressing prejudice among those already high in prejudice; as Ford et al. (2017) demonstrate, individuals who are asked to restrict the expression of prejudice can consequently express more prejudice at a later time – a phenomenon referred to as “prejudice rebounding”. However, prejudice rebound was shown to be minimal after exposure to disparagement humor, indicating the prejudiced norms fostered by this humor are a sufficient substitute for prejudice. Taken together, these findings indicate that there are some very unfunny consequences of being exposed to stereotypes about social groups, and that humor which utilizes these stereotypes can create a norm of prejudice tolerance and expression.

3.2.2 Attitude and stereotype change

Though disparagement humor can clearly affect the expression of bias and even endorsement of prejudice and discrimination in the context in which the humor is being perceived, there has been some debate as to whether or not exposure to disparagement humor has the potential to change individuals’ stereotypes and attitudes about targeted groups over time (e. g. Ford 2000). An investigation by Olson et al. (1999) suggests that the expression of prejudice might temporarily increase in contexts where disparaging jokes are being overheard, but the underlying impact on stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are minimal. Over three studies, the authors exposed participants to either disparaging or non-disparaging jokes about men and lawyers. Of many outcome measures related to the extremity of participants’ stereotypes and attitudes and some additional measures related to the accessibility of stereotypes in general (e. g. interpretations of ambiguous behaviors), only one significant difference emerged between groups exposed to disparaging vs. non- disparaging jokes – participants were more likely to have less favorable impressions of men after hearing a disparaging joke about men, but did not influence other groups of relatively lower status (e. g. women).

3.2.3 Status as a moderator

The pattern of findings in Olson et al. (1999) may have emerged as a function of the relatively high status of the social groups targeted (e. g. men and lawyers). Ford et al. (2013) suggest that social groups are differentially susceptible to prejudice from disparagement humor depending on their societal position. To specify, Crandall et al. (2013) normative window model of prejudice argues that members of a social group occupy one of three positions in society: the left-most position (called the “justified prejudice region”), reserved for those largely agreed upon as deviant (e. g. terrorists), the right-most position (called the “unjustified prejudice region”) consisting of groups uniformly considered good (e. g. nurses), and the middle position (called the “normative ambiguity region”) comprised of historically disadvantaged groups (e. g. Muslims). The “normative ambiguity region” describes groups once blatantly discriminated against but who are currently treated with ambiguity. It is considered socially unacceptable to express prejudice against those in the unjustified prejudice and normative ambiguity regions, but prejudice may be expressed against those in normative ambiguity regions in the presence of situational “releasers” (e. g. disparagement humor) that allow for these expressions.

3.2.4 Identity as a moderator

As suggested by the quotes in our introduction and the model by Martineau (1972), the context of the delivery of humor can influence how it is perceived – and thus its potential impact on intergroup attitudes. This may be especially important regarding the racial or ethnic makeup of the humorist and their audiences. This question has not been explored in the context of the impact on intergroup attitudes. However, as Asian-American blog writer Liz Lin explains, disparagement humor used by members of stigmatized minority groups has the potential to influence how members of nonstigmatized groups behave, often with indignation from members of the group being deprecated:

I feel conflicted about this on a regular basis, whenever I see an Asian person – be it a friend, a comedian, or a celebrity – make generalizations about Asian people in mixed company. On one hand, it’s great that Asians have other Asians in their lives, either in person or on screen, who can make observations and poke fun at familiar experiences. That’s a beautiful, cathartic thing. But on the other hand, I always tense up a little, worrying that the non-Asians in the crowd will take this person uttering these words as license to do the same. So to anyone who may be uncertain about this: A person of color (or a gay person, or a woman) making fun of their group does not give you permission to make the same joke.

– Liz Lin (Lin 2013)

This sentiment is also consistent with PNT, suggesting that exposure to disparagement humor increases the likelihood that non-stigmatized majority group members will repeat what they hear, but perhaps with a very different impact on the audience.

3.2.5 Summary

The work reviewed in this section suggests that exposure to disparagement humor will likely lead to greater expressions of prejudiced attitudes and behavior toward disparaged groups. This pattern may depend on the status of the group in question, with some groups being associated with statuses that may make them more or less likely to experience the normative effects of disparagement humor. And while the identity of the humorist is theorized to have an influence, this question has yet to be explored in the context of humor’s influence on intergroup attitudes.

3.3.1 Strategic humor and bias reduction

To the authors’ knowledge, there have been three modern empirical investigations attempting to resolve questions involving the attempted use of strategic group-related humor by members of racial minority groups in the context of intergroup perceptions. In the domain of occupational/managerial psychology, the use of humor in different-race dyads has been investigated through the lens of conflict negotiations. Using a large sample of flight attendants, Smith et al. (2000) examined how workers from different social groups (e. g. men, women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians) used group-related humor to facilitate either confronting or avoiding workplace intra- and intergroup conflicts. The researchers found that both women and members of racial minority groups were more likely to use this type of humor when attempting to avoid conflict, whereas White men reported a much higher incidence of humor use when confronting conflict in the workplace. In related research on the managerial structure of large organizations, it was demonstrated that women in supervisory positions use humor related to their identities to acknowledge and navigate potentially tense interpersonal dilemmas with both their employees and superiors (Martin 2004). However, the effect of this humor on interpersonal and intergroup outcomes (e. g. anxiety reduction, prejudice reduction) was not examined.

Similarly, Focella (2014) investigated explicit disparagement humor compared with humor designed to acknowledge stereotypes about one’s own group identity without explicitly disparaging that identity (termed by the author as acknowledgement humor), as tools members of minority groups might use to reduce bias. For example, a woman who makes a sexist joke which acknowledges stereotypes about women but does not explicitly disparage them (e. g. if a woman showed up late to an event and casually used the excuse “sorry, I took three hours to pick a dress” to acknowledge the stereotype that women take a long time to prepare for social gatherings) would be using acknowledgment humor. The results demonstrated that the effects of disparaging humor were similar to acknowledgement humor in that they both increased interpersonal liking toward the target. However, disparagement humor resulted in more discriminatory behaviors toward the target’s stigmatized group. Specifically, participants exposed to disparagement humor about Muslims were less likely to distribute an equal amount of funding to a Muslim Student Association after hearing this humor compared with acknowledgement humor, humor unrelated to the target’s group, and no humor. This effect would be well explained well by the propositions of PNT, with exposure to humor resulting in increased discrimination against the targeted group, but no evidence of changes in perceived local or general norms as a result of humor exposure were documented in the investigation.

3.3.2 Strategic humor and bias confrontation

Though the theoretical work by Strain et al. (2016) and Saucier et al. (2016) and the empirical investigations by Smith et al. (2000), Martin (2004), and Focella (2014) support the claim that some disparagement humor can subvert stereotypes and effectively relieve anxiety in members of majority groups, there are some questions left unanswered by these investigations. Notably, these works do not address whether self-disparaging humor affects the subsequent confrontation of bias by minority group members. Additionally, these investigations seem to be relegated to effects of disparagement humor used by a member of the derogated group. Investigations exploring how the group membership of the humorist affects the expression, tolerance, and subsequent confrontation of prejudice would aid in determining whether subversion of stereotypes and anxiety reduction are restricted to members of the disparaged group.

Recent work on the effects of humor on bias confrontation has attempted to fill some of these gaps. For example, Mallett et al. (2016) investigated how the use of sexist humor, compared to nonhumorous sexist statements, affected women’s likelihood to label a male interaction partner as sexist. Broadly, their results demonstrated that the use of sexist humor led to decreased perceptions of the male humorist as a sexist, as well as a decreased likelihood of confronting that individual for those views. Additionally, the presence of hostile sexist beliefs among the female participants in this investigation exacerbated these effects (Mallett et al. 2016; Experiment 2). Research by Woodzicka et al. (2015) helps to contextualize these effects. In two experiments, the researchers compared participants’ willingness to confront disparaging humor or nonhumorous disparaging remarks related to race and sex. Results demonstrated that humor tampered participants’ negative attitudes toward biased statements overall, and that sexist humor was viewed as less offensive and less worthy of confrontation than all other forms of communication. Importantly, participants viewed both types of racist communication as worthy of confrontation. This set of experiments begins to address how disparagement humor used members of majority groups might affect subsequent confrontations of prejudice by those targeted, as well as how the attitudes of those exposed to the humor might play a role in these confrontations.