Startseite Humor and hierarchy: an experimental study of the effects of humor production on male dominance, prestige and attractiveness
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Humor and hierarchy: an experimental study of the effects of humor production on male dominance, prestige and attractiveness

  • Ali Giritlioglu

    Ali Giritlioglu, MPhil is a Ph.D. candidate in biological anthropology at University of Cambridge. Their research interests are in human evolutionary and behavioural ecology, human evolution, and cultural evolution.

     EMAIL logo     und Nikhil Chaudhary

    Nikhil Chaudhary, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in human evolutionary and behavioral ecology at University of Cambridge. Their research interests are in human evolutionary and behavioural ecology, human evolution, and cultural evolution.
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 12. Juli 2022
HUMOR
Aus der Zeitschrift HUMOR Band 35 Heft 4

Abstract

We conducted a cross-cultural experiment on a sample of 230 participants, to examine how listening to an audio recording of a male telling a joke followed by either laughter (humorous condition) or an unimpressed murmur (non-humorous condition) affected participant ratings of that male’s social status, dominance, prestige and attractiveness. The experiment followed a between-subjects design. The sample was cross-cultural to explore possible cultural variation and compared effects among Western (UK & USA) (n = 119, 74 females) and Turkish (n = 111, 87 females) participants. We measured participants’ ratings of dominance/prestige and attractiveness, based on validated and previously used scales. In the humorous condition, the male was rated as having significantly higher social status and prestige but not dominance. He was also rated as more attractive by female participants from the UK & USA; this effect was mediated by prestige. Conversely, attractiveness ratings by female Turkish participants did not differ across conditions. The effect among the former was found to have been mediated via prestige. We interpret these findings as suggesting that humor production represents a means of gaining status but also highlighting that its recognized role in attractiveness varies cross-culturally. Although the present endeavor represents a pilot study, we believe that our findings raise new questions regarding the interrelationships of humor production, status, and attractiveness, and their evolutionary background.

Keywords: dominance; humor; mate choice; prestige; sexual selection; social status
Corresponding author: Ali Giritlioglu, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, E-mail:

About the authors

Ali Giritlioglu

Ali Giritlioglu, MPhil is a Ph.D. candidate in biological anthropology at University of Cambridge. Their research interests are in human evolutionary and behavioural ecology, human evolution, and cultural evolution.

Nikhil Chaudhary

Nikhil Chaudhary, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in human evolutionary and behavioral ecology at University of Cambridge. Their research interests are in human evolutionary and behavioural ecology, human evolution, and cultural evolution.

Appendix 1: Full survey (English)

[Note annotations in square parentheses were not visible to participants but are included here to indicate how each potential response impacted scores of status, dominance, prestige or attractiveness. In cases where participant: selected the response annotated with “+ trait” the score for that trait increased by 1; selected the response annotated with “nc (no change in) score” the score for that trait did not change; chose to skip the question, which occurred in <5% of total responses, the score for the trait did not change.]

Prompt text:

Imagine you were invited to a friend’s house for a dinner party. There will be twenty or so people there, all of whom are generally part of the same social circles, within the same age group. Besides your friends, you are familiar with some of the people, and some you do not know at all. You arrive a bit late to find one of those people whom you do not know finishing up telling a joke to a mixed group of people. The interaction, as you were able to witness, went as follows:

[−Audio clip]

“… and the old man puts on his boots and he walks all over the real-estate agent’s desk …”

[laughter or unimpressed murmur]

Instructions

Answer the following questions related to your first impressions of the focal individual in the audio recording. It is appreciated that you have little information to form your judgements, this is not a problem since the study is concerned specifically with first impressions.

Survey items

Q1 If you had to guess without further information, would you expect them to;

  1. be romantically involved with someone [+ attractiveness]

  2. be involuntarily single [nc attractiveness]

Q2 If you had to guess without further information, would you say this person is;

  1. respected and admired by others at the gathering [+ prestige]

  2. looked down upon by his peers at the gathering [nc prestige]

Q3 If you had to guess without further information, would you say they had a higher income than the average at the gathering?

  1. Higher [+ status]

  2. Lower [nc status]

Q4 If you had to guess without further information, would you say this is the type of person;

  1. your common friend, the host, goes to for advice in important matters [+ prestige]

  2. whose opinion your common friend, the host, does not seek in important matters [nc prestige]

Q5 If you had to guess without further information, would you say this person’s presence at the gathering;

  1. was unwelcome by others at the gathering [nc prestige]

  2. was especially sought out when the event was being planned [+ prestige]

Q6 If you had to guess without further information, would you say this person would be the type;

  1. that would leave the party early as a result of not being able to join many conversations [nc prestige]

  2. that would be one of the people last to leave as a result of being involved in many social interactions [+ prestige]

Q7 If you had to guess without further information, would you say this person is;

  1. sought out by other members of the group because of his outstanding talents and abilities [+ prestige]

  2. who is not considered to be particularly able and talented, but mediocre at best [nc prestige]

Q8 If you had to guess without further information, would you say other members of the group;

  1. would be flattered to be likened to this person [+ status]

  2. would be offended to be likened to this person [nc status]

Context

The host comes and informs you that the male you heard has indicated he was interested in you and wants to approach you in order to get to know you in a romantic capacity. (Answer the following question only if you are romantically interested in males)

Q9 Would you be willing to talk to them again later on that night to see if you could potentially exchange numbers in order to get to know each other further, perhaps in a more romantic capacity?

  1. I would definitely be interested in getting to know them further [+ attractiveness]

  2. I would not make a specific effort to talk to them, but would be interested to talk more if the situation presented itself [+ attractiveness]

  3. I would avoid this person for the rest of the night if I could [nc attractiveness]

  4. I am not romantically interested in males [nc attractiveness]

Context

After food and drinks are served and consumed, the host suggests you all play a board game. There are a few options and people are trying to make a decision.

Q10 If you had to guess, would you expect this person to;

  1. Try to actively force their game preference [+ dominance]

  2. Indicate their game preference only because others in the group specifically ask for his opinion [+ prestige]

  3. Do not engage in this conversation at all and leave others to decide [nc status]

Q11 If this person indeed indicated a game preference, do you think the group will end up playing it?

  1. Yes [+ status]

  2. No [nc status]

Context

At some point later on, a heated political debate about a polarising and controversial subject spark between two small factions;

Q12 If you had to guess, would you expect this person to;

  1. be part of one of the factions in this debate, engaging actively in the heated discussion [+ dominance]

  2. try to act as an arbitrator, being a person members from both factions respect, and aim for his approval of their argument [+ prestige]

  3. avoid being part of the debate at all costs, perhaps quietly going to the kitchen to ‘get something to drink’ [nc status]

Q13 Assuming he was an active proponent of one of the sides, opinions of which you possess strong views against, would you be willing to speak up against him?

  1. Yes [nc status]

  2. No [+ status]

Context

A person who had a bit much to drink bumps into the individual in question and spills the contents of his glass on to their shirt;

Q14 If you had to guess, would you expect the individual in question;

  1. to get in a physical quarrel with the person who bumped into them [+ dominance]

  2. to apologise to the intoxicated person, and moving away from them, not wanting to cause trouble [nc dominance]

Q15 If you had to guess, would you expect the intoxicated individual;

  1. to immediately start apologising to this friend of theirs whom they are greatly intimidated by [+ dominance]

  2. to immediately start apologising to this person who is respected and admired by the members of the social group [+ prestige]

  3. to not apologise at all (not because he is drunk, but because he simply does not care about this man potentially being upset with him) [nc status]

Q16 If they indeed got in a physical quarrel would you expect the focal individual to have the upper hand?

  1. Yes [+ dominance]

  2. No [nc dominance]

Context

A bit later on in the night this person suggests, as the remaining guests, you all watch a movie together, he has a specific film in mind, which the others are not very keen on watching

Q17 If you had to guess, would you say other members of the group would think it better to let him have his way?

  1. Yes [+ dominance]

  2. No [nc dominance]

Translation (Turkish)

The coding of the general status, prestige, dominance, and attractiveness ratings apply to the same questions and order of answers as the English version

Context

Soruları cevaplarken aşağıdaki senaryoyu göz önünde bulundurunuz;

Bir arkadaşınızın evinde bir sosyal görüşmeye davetlisiniz.

Görüşmede bazıları arkadaşlarınız, bazıları tanıdık, bazıları ise yabancı (arkadaşlarınızın arkadaşları vs.) olmak üzere yaklaşık 20 kişi var.

Biraz geç geldiniz ve tanımadığınız kişilerden birinin anlattığı bir fıkranın sonuna ve gelen tepkilere şahit oldunuz.

Sosyal etkileşim ses kaydında dinleyeceğiniz gibi gerçekleşti

[“… sonra amca botunu giyip bildiğin emlakçının masasının üstünde gezmeye başladı …”]

[laughter or unimpressed murmur]

Audio

Instructions

Soruları dinlediğiniz kayıttaki kişi ile ilgili ilk izlenimlerinizi göz önünde bulundurarak cevaplayınız. Kişi hakkında bilgilerinizin sınırlı olması, araştırmanın ilk izlenimler üzerine olması dolayısıyla, bir sorun teşkil etmemektedir.

Q1 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek durumunda olsam;

  1. bu kişinin sevgilisi/eşi olduğunu tahmin ederim

  2. istemsiz olarak bekar olduğunu tahmin ederim

Q2 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek durumunda olsam;

  1. toplantıdaki diğer kişiler tarafından saygı duyulan ve değer verilen biri olduğunu tahmin ederim

  2. toplantıdaki diğer kişiler tarafından küçük görüldüğünü tahmin ederim

Q3 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam bu kişinin gelirinin;

  1. toplantıdaki diğer kişilerinkinden daha yüksek olduğunu tahmin ederim

  2. toplantıdaki diğer kişilerinkinden daha düşük olduğunu tahmin ederim

Q4 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam bu kişinin;

  1. ortak arkadaşımızın önemli konularda danıştığı biri olduğunu tahmin ederim

  2. ortak arkadaşımızın önemli konularda fikrine önem vermediği biri olduğunu tahmin ederim

Q5 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam bu kişinin;

  1. bu toplantıda bulunmasının başkaları tarafından özellikle istendiğini tahmin ederim

  2. bu toplantıda bulunmasının özellikle tercih edilmediğini tahmin ederim

Q6 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam bu kişinin;

  1. sohbetlere dahil olamayıp partiden erken ayrılacağını tahmin ederim

  2. birçok farklı grup içerisinde aktif olacağından partiden en son ayrılacaklardan olacağını tahmin ederim

Q7 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam bu kişinin;

  1. üstün yetenek ve kabiliyetleri dolayısıyla sosyal çevresi içerisinde aranan bir kişi olduğunu tahmin ederim

  2. özellikle yetenekli ve mukabil olmayan, en fazla vasat sayılabilecek bir birey olduğunu tahmin ederim

Q8 Başka bilgi verilmeden tahmin etmek zorunda olsam gruptaki diğer kişilerin bu kişiye benzetilmekten;

  1. mutlu olacağını tahmin ederim

  2. bu kişiye benzetilmeye alınacağını tahmin ederim

Context

(Bir sonraki soruyu sadece kadın iseniz cevaplandırınız)

Ev sahibi size şaka anlatırken duyduğunuz kişinin sizi beğendiğini ve sizi daha yakından tanımak istediğini söylüyor.

Q9 Bu kişiyle tekrar konuşmayı, anlaşırsanız romantik bir kapasitede vakit geçirmek üzere sözleşmeyi düşünür müsünüz?

  1. Kesinlikle onu daha yakından tanımak isterim

  2. Özellikle konuşmaya çalışmam, ama denk düşerse muhabbet etmeye açık olurum

  3. Kesinlikle konuşmak istemem, benimle ilgilendiğini bildiğim için de uzak durmaya çalışırım

  4. Kadın değilim

Context

Yemek sonrasında ev sahibi bir kutu/kart oyunu oynamayı öneriyor. Birkaç farklı seçenek var ve topluca bir karar verilmeye çalışılıyor.

Q10 Tahmin etmek zorunda olsam, bu kişinin;

  1. kendi istediği oyunu oynamayı zorlayacağını tahmin ederim

  2. diğer kişiler özellikle soracağı için kendi istediği oyunu belirteceğini tahmin ederim

  3. karar verme sürecine katılmayacağını, kararı diğerlerine bırakacağını tahmin ederim

Q11 Bu kişinin isteyeceği bir oyunun grup tarafından oynanacağını tahmin eder misiniz?

  1. Evet

  2. Hayır

Context

Toplantının ilerleyen bir safhasında, iki grup arasında politik bir tartışma başladı.

Q12 Tahmin etmek zorunda olsam, bu kişinin;

  1. bir tarafta aktif olarak yer alıp münazaraya katılacağını tahmin ederim

  2. iki tarafın da saygı duyduğu ve onayını istediği bir kişi olarak, arabulucu görevi üstleneceğini tahmin ederim

  3. her durumda tartışmadan uzak kalmaya çaba gösterceğini tahmin ederim

Q13 Eğer bu kişi bir tarafı aktif olarak savunuyorsa, ve sizin görüşlerinize ters düşen argümanlar sunuyorsa, ona karşı çıkar mıydınız?

  1. Evet

  2. Hayır

Context

Fazla alkol alan bir birey bu kişiye çarpıyor ve içkisini onun üzerine döküyor.

Q14 Tahmin etmek zorunda olsam, sesini dinlediğim kişinin;

  1. fiziksel bir kavga başlatacağını tahmin ederim

  2. alkollü kişiden özür dileyerek uzaklaşacağını tahmin ederim

Q15 Tahmin etmek zorunda olsam, alkollü kişinin;

  1. çekindiği arkadaşından hemen özür dilemeye başlayacağını tahmin ederim

  2. herkesin sayı duyduğu bu arkadaşından hemen özür dilemeye başlayacağını tahmin ederim

  3. özellikle saygı duymadığı bu kişiden hiç özür dilemeyeceğini tahmin ederim

Q16 Eğer kavga edecek olsalar, sesini dinlediğiniz kişinin daha kuvvetli bir pozisyonda olmasını bekler misiniz?

  1. Evet

  2. Hayır

Context

Bir süre sonra sesini dinlediğiniz kişi spesifik bir film izlemeyi öneriyor, ama diğerleri bu konuda çok da hevesli değil.

Q17 Tahmin etmek zorunda olsanız, çok hevesli olmasalar da, bu kişinin istediği filmi izlemeye razı olacağını düşünür müsünüz?

  1. Evet

  2. Hayır

Calculation of scores:

The survey included 4 items coded for high versus low status (questions 3, 8, 11, and 13), 3 items coded for high versus low dominance (questions 14, 16, and 17), 5 items coded for high versus low prestige (questions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7), 3 items coded for high prestige versus high dominance versus low status (questions 10, 12, and 15), and 2 items coded for high versus low attractiveness (questions 1 and 9). Scores were calculated by summing the number of questions related to each trait that participants gave a positive response (indicated by an “+” annotation above). Note that all dominance/prestige “+”s also increase overall status score. If participants did not give a positive response or chose to skip a question, which was considered equivalent to not giving a positive response, their score for the associated trait remained the same.

Appendix 2: Results from full regression models

Predictors Prestige Dominance Status Attractiveness
Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 2.12 0.53 to 3.72 0.009 2.49 1.23 to 3.75 <0.001 5.16 2.74 to 7.59 <0.001
Age 0.03 −0.03 to 0.09 0.391 −0.00 −0.05 to 0.05 0.994 0.07 −0.02 to 0.16 0.135 −0.02 0.98 0.39 to 2.46 0.571
Sex [male] 0.24 −0.55 to 1.02 0.554 −0.01 −0.63 to 0.62 0.975 0.40 −0.80 to 1.60 0.511
Cultural Group [TR] 0.15 −0.56 to 0.87 0.675 −0.36 −0.93 to 0.20 0.207 −0.32 −1.41 to 0.77 0.568 0.40 1.50 0.44 to 5.12 0.368
Condition [funny] 2.10 1.33 to 2.87 <0.001 0.48 −0.14 to 1.09 0.127 3.62 2.44 to 4.79 <0.001 1.30 3.70 0.43 to 31.63 0.006
Cultural Group [TR] * condition [funny] −0.90 −1.89 to 0.10 0.078 −0.34 −1.13 to 0.45 0.402 −1.62 −3.14 to −0.11 0.036 −1.44 0.24 0.03 to 2.01 0.022
Sex [male] * condition [funny] −0.41 −1.54 to 0.71 0.471 0.08 −0.81 to 0.98 0.854 −0.40 −2.12 to 1.31 0.643
0|1 −1.70 0.18 0.17 to 0.20 0.120
1|2 1.05 2.87 1.18 to 6.95 0.331
Observations 228 228 228 168
R 2/R 2 adjusted 0.171/0.149 0.049/0.024 0.245/0.224
AIC 329.03

  1. Baseline conditions for sex, condition and cultural group are female, unfunny and Western respectively. Models of prestige, dominance and status are linear regressions as these response variables are ratings on scales from 0 to 8, 0 to 6 and 0 to 15 respectively. The attractiveness model is an ordinal logistic regression as this variable is ordinal taking values of low, medium and high attractiveness (0, 1, 2). The bolded values mark p-values of significance.

Appendix 3: Results from pathway analysis examining the mediating effect of prestige in the relationship between humorousness and attractiveness

Predictors Prestige Attractiveness
Estimates p Estimates p
(Intercept) 3.00 <0.001
Condition [Funny] 1.88 <0.001 0.08 0.74
Prestige 0.26 <0.001
0|1 0.34 0.161
1|2 1.47 <0.001
Observations 81
R 2 0.166 0.366
CFI/TLI (for the mediation model) 1/1
Direct effects 0.08 0.75
Indirect effects (through prestige) 0.49 0.001
Total effects 0.58 0.025

  1. This model only included data from females in the Western sample as no effect of humor on attractiveness was found in the Turkish sample. CFI (comparative fit index) and TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) are incremental fit indices that compare the fit of a hypothesized model with that of a baseline model.

References

2017. UN human development reports, gender development index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GDI (accessed 8 December 2021).Suche in Google Scholar

2020. Cost of living, numbeo.com. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ (accessed 8 December 2021).Suche in Google Scholar

Alexander, Richard D. 1986. Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of humor. Ethology and Sociobiology 7(3–4). 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(86)90052-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Anderson, Cameron & Gavin J. Kilduff. 2009. The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(5). 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Anderson, Rindy C. & Casey A. Klofstad. 2012. For love or money? The influence of personal resources and environmental resource pressures on human mate preferences. Ethology 118(9). 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02077.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Bird, Rebecca Bliege, Douglas W. Bird, Eric Alden Smith & Geoffrey C. Kushnick. 2002. Risk and reciprocity in meriam food sharing. Evolution and Human Behavior 23(4). 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(02)00098-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitterly, T. Bradford, Alison Wood Brooks & Maurice E. Schweitzer. 2017. Risky business: When humor increases and decreases status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 112(3). 431. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000079.Suche in Google Scholar

Boehm, Christopher, Harold B. Barclay, Robert Knox Dentan, Marie Claude Dupre, Jonathan D. Hill, Susan Kent, Bruce M. Knauft, Keith F. Otterbein & Steve Rayner. 1993. Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology 34(3). 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1086/204166.Suche in Google Scholar

Bombjakova, Dasa. 2018. The role of public speaking, ridicule, and play in cultural transmission among Mbendjele Bayaka forest hunter-gatherers. UCL (University College London) PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Bressler, Eric R., Rod A. Martin & Sigal Balshine. 2006. Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior 27(2). 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Bressler, Eric R. & Sigal Balshine. 2006. The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior 27(1). 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Buss, David M. 1988. The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4). 616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616.Suche in Google Scholar

Buss, David M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992.Suche in Google Scholar

Buss, David M. 2019. Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429061417Suche in Google Scholar

Buss, David M. & Michael Barnes. 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(3). 559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.Suche in Google Scholar

Campbell, Bernard Grant. 1972. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. IL: Aldine Publishing Company Chicago.Suche in Google Scholar

Caprioli, Mary, Valerie M. Hudson, Rose McDermott, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Chad F. Emmett & S. Matthew Stearmer. 2009. The womanstats project database: Advancing an empirical research agenda. Journal of Peace Research 46(6). 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309342947.Suche in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Humor as a disabling mechanism. American Behavioral Scientist 30(3). 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276487030003003.Suche in Google Scholar

Cheng, Joey T., Jessica L. Tracy, Tom Foulsham, Alan Kingstone & Joseph Henrich. 2013. Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(1). 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398.Suche in Google Scholar

Chudek, Maciej, Sarah Heller, Susan Birch & Joseph Henrich. 2012. Prestige-biased cultural learning: Bystander’s differential attention to potential models influences children’s learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(1). 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.05.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Danielle L. & Jay Belsky. 2008. Individual differences in female mate preferences as a function of attachment and hypothetical ecological conditions. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 6(1). 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.2008.1001.Suche in Google Scholar

Curry, Oliver S. & Robin I. M. Dunbar. 2013. Sharing a joke: The effects of a similar sense of humor on affiliation and altruism. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(2). 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Darwin, Charles. 1872a. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, vol. 2. Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey: D. Appleton.10.5962/bhl.title.2095Suche in Google Scholar

Darwin, Charles. 1872b. The expression of the emotions in man and animals by Charles Darwin. John Murray, London: John Murray.10.5962/bhl.title.4820Suche in Google Scholar

Decker, Wayne H. 1987. Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 15(2). 225–232. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1987.15.2.225.Suche in Google Scholar

Dunbar, Robin I. M., Rebecca Baron, Anna Frangou, Eiluned Pearce, Edwin J. C. Van Leeuwen, Julie Stow, Giselle Partridge, Ian MacDonald, Vincent Barra & Mark Van Vugt. 2012. Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1731). 1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1373.Suche in Google Scholar

Eagly, Alice H. & Wendy Wood. 1999. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist 54(6). 408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.6.408.Suche in Google Scholar

Feingold, Alan & Ronald Mazzella. 1991. Psychometric intelligence and verbal humor ability. Personality and Individual Differences 12(5). 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90060-o.Suche in Google Scholar

Flamson, Thomas & H. Clark Barrett. 2008. The encryption theory of humor: A knowledge-based mechanism of honest signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 6(4). 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.6.2008.4.2.Suche in Google Scholar

Gangestad, Steven W. 1993. Sexual selection and physical attractiveness. Human Nature 4(3). 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02692200.Suche in Google Scholar

Gangestad, Steven W., Christine E. Garver-Apgar, Jeffry A. Simpson & Alita J. Cousins. 2007. Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(1). 151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.151.Suche in Google Scholar

Gangestad, Steven W., Jeffry A. Simpson, Alita J. Cousins, Christine E. Garver-Apgar & P. Niels Christensen. 2004. Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science 15(3). 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Gangestad, Steven W. & Randy Thornhill. 2008. Human oestrus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275(1638). 991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1425.Suche in Google Scholar

Greengross, Gil & Geoffrey F. Miller. 2008. Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology 6(3). 147470490800600303. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600303.Suche in Google Scholar

Greengross, Gil & Geoffrey Miller. 2011. Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence 39(4). 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006.Suche in Google Scholar

Greengross, Gil, Paul J. Silvia & Emily C. Nusbaum. 2020. Sex differences in humor production ability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality 84. 103886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103886.Suche in Google Scholar

Gurven, Michael & Christopher Von Rueden. 2006. Hunting, social status and biological fitness. Social Biology 53(1–2). 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2006.9989118.Suche in Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph & Francisco J. Gil-White. 2001. The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3). 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00071-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Howrigan, Daniel P. & Kevin B. MacDonald. 2008. Humor as a mental fitness indicator. Evolutionary Psychology 6(4). 147470490800600411. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600411.Suche in Google Scholar

Huizinga, Johan. 1944. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Maurice Temple Smith. Original work published.Suche in Google Scholar

Jensen-Campbell, Lauri A., William G. Graziano & Stephen G. West. 1995. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(3). 427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427.Suche in Google Scholar

Jirasavetakul, La-Bhus Fah & Mr Antonio Spilimbergo. 2018. Economic policy uncertainty in Turkey. International Monetary Fund.10.5089/9781484387740.001Suche in Google Scholar

Jones, Adam G. & Nicholas L. Ratterman. 2009. Mate choice and sexual selection: What have we learned since Darwin? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(1 Suppl). 10001–10008. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901129106.Suche in Google Scholar

Kakkar, Hemant & Niro Sivanathan. 2017. When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(26). 6734–6739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617711114.Suche in Google Scholar

Kasser, Tim & Yadika S. Sharma. 1999. Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females’ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science 10(4). 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00171.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Norman P., Vladas Griskevicius, Kristina M. Durante, Peter K. Jonason, Derek J. Pasisz & Katherine Aumer. 2009. An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(7). 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209334786.Suche in Google Scholar

Little, Anthony C., Coren L. Apicella & Frank W. Marlowe. 2007. Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: Data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274(1629). 3113–3117. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0895.Suche in Google Scholar

Little, Anthony C., Ian S. Penton-Voak, D. Michael Burt & David I. Perrett. 2003. Investigating an imprinting like phenomenon in humans: Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evolution and Human Behavior 24(1). 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(02)00119-8.Suche in Google Scholar

MacKinnon, David P., Amanda J. Fairchild & Matthew S. Fritz. 2007. Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58. 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.Suche in Google Scholar

Manninen, Sandra, Lauri Tuominen, Robin I. Dunbar, Tomi Karjalainen, Jussi Hirvonen, Eveliina Arponen, Riitta Hari, Iiro P. Jääskeläinen, Mikko Sams & Lauri Nummenmaa. 2017. Social laughter triggers endogenous opioid release in humans. Journal of Neuroscience 37(25). 6125–6131. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0688-16.2017.Suche in Google Scholar

Marlowe, Frank W. 2004. Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature 15(4). 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1014-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Marzoli, Daniele, Francesco Moretto, Aura Monti, Ornella Tocci, S. Craig Roberts & Luca Tommasi. 2013. Environmental influences on mate preferences as assessed by a scenario manipulation experiment. PLoS One 8(9). e74282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074282.Suche in Google Scholar

Masten, Ann S. 1986. Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Development 57. 461–473. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130601.Suche in Google Scholar

McGhee, Paul E. & Edie Pistolesi. 1979. Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: WH Freeman.Suche in Google Scholar

McGraw, Kevin J. 2002. Environmental predictors of geographic variation in human mating preferences. Ethology 108(4). 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00757.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, Geoffrey. 2000a. The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Anchor Books, New York City: Anchor.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, Geoffrey. 2000b. Mental traits as fitness indicators: Expanding evolutionary psychology’s adaptationism. Annals-New York Academy of Sciences 907. 62–74.10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06616.xSuche in Google Scholar

Milner, George B. 1972. Homo ridens. Towards a semiotic theory of humour and laughter. De Gruyer.10.1515/semi.1972.5.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Fhionna Rosemary, Clare Cassidy, Miriam Jane Law Smith & David Ian Perrett. 2006. The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior 27(3). 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.08.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Olson, James M. 1992. Self-perception of humor: Evidence for discounting and augmentation effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(3). 369. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.369.Suche in Google Scholar

Pirlott, Angela G. & David P. MacKinnon. 2016. Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66. 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012.Suche in Google Scholar

Polimeni, Joseph & Jeffrey P. Reiss. 2006. The first joke: Exploring the evolutionary origins of humor. Evolutionary Psychology 4(1). 147470490600400129. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400129.Suche in Google Scholar

Prokosch, Mark D., Richard G. Coss, Joanna E. Scheib & Shelley A. Blozis. 2009. Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing. Evolution and Human Behavior 30(1). 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Provine, Robert R. 1992. Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30(1). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03330380.Suche in Google Scholar

Puts, David A. 2010. Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(3). 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, Dawn T. & Lynn Smith-Lovin. 2001. Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces 80(1). 123–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0085.Suche in Google Scholar

Salali, Gul Deniz, Nikhil Chaudhary, James Thompson, Olwen Megan Grace, Xander M. van der Burgt, Mark Dyble, Abigail E. Page, Daniel Smith, Jerome Lewis, Ruth Mace, Lucio Vinicius & Andrea Bamberg Migliano. 2016. Knowledge-sharing networks in hunter-gatherers and the evolution of cumulative culture. Current Biology 26(18). 2516–2521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.015.Suche in Google Scholar

Sauter, Disa A., Frank Eisner, Paul Ekman & Sophie K. Scott. 2010. Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(6). 2408–2412. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908239106.Suche in Google Scholar

Smyth, Mary M. & Raymond G. C. Fuller. 1972. Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous material. Psychological Reports 30(1). 132–134. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1972.30.1.132.Suche in Google Scholar

Snyder, Jeffrey K., Daniel M. T. Fessler, Leonid Tiokhin, David A. Frederick, Sok Woo Lee & Carlos David Navarrete. 2011. Trade-offs in a dangerous world: Women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates. Evolution and Human Behavior 32(2). 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Snyder, Jeffrey K., Lee A. Kirkpatrick & H. Clark Barrett. 2008. The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships 15(4). 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Sponsel, Leslie E. 1998. Yanomami: An arena of conflict and aggression in the Amazon. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression 24(2). 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2337(1998)24:2<97::aid-ab2>3.0.co;2-p.10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:2<97::AID-AB2>3.0.CO;2-PSuche in Google Scholar

Sroufe, L. Alan & Everett Waters. 1975. The ontogenesis of smiling and laughter: A perspective on the organization of development in infancy. Psychological Review 83. 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.3.173.Suche in Google Scholar

Todd, Peter M., Lars Penke, Barbara Fasolo & Alison P. Lenton. 2007. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(38). 15011–15016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705290104.Suche in Google Scholar

Tovée, Martin J., Douglas S. Maisey, Ellen L. E. Vale & Piers L. Cornelissen. 1999. Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. The Lancet 353(9163). 1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)00438-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Townsend, John Marshall & Gary D. Levy. 1990. Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior 19(2). 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01542229.Suche in Google Scholar

Turnbull, Colin 1965. The Mbuti pygmies: An ethnographic survey. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 50(3). 139–282.Suche in Google Scholar

Von Rueden, Christopher, Michael Gurven & Hillard Kaplan. 2011. Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1715). 2223–2232. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2145.Suche in Google Scholar

Weisfeld, Glenn E. 1993. The adaptive value of humor and laughter. Ethology and Sociobiology 14(2). 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90012-7.Suche in Google Scholar

West, Hannah E. R. & Isabella Capellini. 2016. Male care and life history traits in mammals. Nature Communications 7(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11854.Suche in Google Scholar

Williams, George Christopher. 1975. Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, M., Mesnick, S. L. (1997). An Empirical Test of the Bodyguard Hypothesis. In Gowaty, P. A. (eds), Feminism and Evolutionary Biology, Springer, Boston, MA.10.1007/978-1-4615-5985-6_21Suche in Google Scholar

Woodburn, James. 1982. Egalitarian societies. Man 17. 431–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2801707.Suche in Google Scholar

Woodward, Kevin & Miriam H. Richards. 2005. The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans. Behavioral Ecology 16(1). 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh121.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-05-28
Accepted: 2022-03-14
Published Online: 2022-07-12
Published in Print: 2022-10-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Full Length Articles
  3. Prosodic markers of satirical imitation
  4. The relationship between humor and women’s body image concerns and eating behaviors
  5. Humor and hierarchy: an experimental study of the effects of humor production on male dominance, prestige and attractiveness
  6. Comedy Bootcamp: stand-up comedy as humor training for military populations
  7. Laughing alone and laughing together in panel meetings: laughter as an interactional accomplishment during negotiation talks
  8. Organizational humor as making our work more meaningful: mediation by crafting job resources
  9. Humor and resilience: relationships with happiness in young adults
  10. Humor and fear of COVID-19 in Polish adults: the mediating role of generalized anxiety
  11. Book Reviews
  12. Danielle Fuentes Morgan: Laughing to keep from dying: African American satire in the twenty-first century
  13. Baumgartner, Jody C. and Amy B. Becker, eds: Political Humor in a Changing Media Landscape: A New Generation of Research
https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0006
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
dominance; humor; mate choice; prestige; sexual selection; social status

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Full Length Articles
  3. Prosodic markers of satirical imitation
  4. The relationship between humor and women’s body image concerns and eating behaviors
  5. Humor and hierarchy: an experimental study of the effects of humor production on male dominance, prestige and attractiveness
  6. Comedy Bootcamp: stand-up comedy as humor training for military populations
  7. Laughing alone and laughing together in panel meetings: laughter as an interactional accomplishment during negotiation talks
  8. Organizational humor as making our work more meaningful: mediation by crafting job resources
  9. Humor and resilience: relationships with happiness in young adults
  10. Humor and fear of COVID-19 in Polish adults: the mediating role of generalized anxiety
  11. Book Reviews
  12. Danielle Fuentes Morgan: Laughing to keep from dying: African American satire in the twenty-first century
  13. Baumgartner, Jody C. and Amy B. Becker, eds: Political Humor in a Changing Media Landscape: A New Generation of Research
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 21.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2022-0006/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen