Startseite From humor to political dispositions: effect of disparagement humor on perceptions of political identity
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

From humor to political dispositions: effect of disparagement humor on perceptions of political identity

  • Willam E. Rice

    Willam E. Rice is a doctoral student at Western Carolina University, where he completed his master’s degree in clinical psychology. He is interested in researching the social functions of humor, including how people interpret humor as well as how humor facilitates prejudice. He has also participated in research about the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 3.

    ORCID logo
    und Thomas E. Ford

    Thomas E. Ford is a Professor of Social Psychology at Western Carolina University. He is a co-editor of the 2021 book, Social Psychology of Humor, an integrative volume detailing advances in theory and research in the social psychological study of humor. He is a co-author of the 2018 edition of The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, a comprehensive textbook providing a broad overview of research on the psychology of humor. Finally, he and his colleagues have developed the Prejudiced Norm Theory, an influential theory on the impact of disparagement humor on prejudice and discrimination.

    EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. September 2023
HUMOR
Aus der Zeitschrift HUMOR Band 36 Heft 4

Abstract

An experiment (n = 202; 136 women; 66 men) demonstrated that people use implicit theories about liberals and conservatives to guide their impression of another person based on their humor, specifically, the degree to which their humor violates the individualizing and binding moral foundations described by Moral Foundations Theory (e.g., Graham, Haidt and Nosek 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5). 1029–1046). Supporting Hypothesis 1, participants perceived a target person as more conservative when he posted to social media an immigrant-disparaging meme. They perceived him as more liberal when he posted a religion-disparaging meme. Supporting Hypotheses 2, liberals liked the target person more and conservatives less when he posted the religion-disparaging meme. Similarly, in keeping with Hypothesis 3, liberals liked the target person less and conservatives more after he posted the immigrant-disparaging meme.


Corresponding author: Thomas E. Ford, Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University, 91 Killian Building Lane, Cullowhee, 28723, NC, USA, E-mail:

About the authors

Willam E. Rice

Willam E. Rice is a doctoral student at Western Carolina University, where he completed his master’s degree in clinical psychology. He is interested in researching the social functions of humor, including how people interpret humor as well as how humor facilitates prejudice. He has also participated in research about the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 3.

Thomas E. Ford

Thomas E. Ford is a Professor of Social Psychology at Western Carolina University. He is a co-editor of the 2021 book, Social Psychology of Humor, an integrative volume detailing advances in theory and research in the social psychological study of humor. He is a co-author of the 2018 edition of The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, a comprehensive textbook providing a broad overview of research on the psychology of humor. Finally, he and his colleagues have developed the Prejudiced Norm Theory, an influential theory on the impact of disparagement humor on prejudice and discrimination.

Appendix A: Profile header for the target person

Screenshot of the Facebook profile for the target stranger.

Appendix B: Memes

Meme for the immigrant-disparaging condition.

Meme for the religion-disparaging condition.

Meme for the neutral condition.

References

Aberson, Christopher L. 2019. Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315171500Suche in Google Scholar

Ashmore, Richard D. & Mary Lou Tumia. 1981. Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory. I. A personality description approach to the assessment of sex stereotypes. Sex Roles 6(4). 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00287882.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitterly, Thomas. 2018. You’re getting warmer: The impression management benefits of humor. Academy of Management Proceedings (1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.260.Suche in Google Scholar

Brewer, Marilynn B. 1979. Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situations: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86(2). 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.Suche in Google Scholar

Buie, Hannah, Thomas E. Ford, Andrew R. Olah, Catalina Argüello & Andres Mendiburo-Seguel. 2021. Where’s your sense of humor? Political identity moderates evaluations of disparagement humor. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 25(5). 1395–1411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221998792.Suche in Google Scholar

Cann, Arnie & Chelsea Matson. 2014. Sense of humor and social desirability: Understanding how humor styles are perceived. Personality and Individual Differences 66. 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.029.Suche in Google Scholar

Ferguson, Mark A. & Thomas E. Ford. 2008. Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 21(3). 283–312.10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014Suche in Google Scholar

Fine, Gary. 1983. Sociological approaches to the study of humor. In Paul E. McGhee & Jeffrey H. Goldstein (eds.), Handbook of humor research. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_8Suche in Google Scholar

Fine, Gary & Michaela De Soucey. 2005. Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 18(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2005.18.1.1.Suche in Google Scholar

Fiske, Susan T. & Shelly E. Taylor. 2017. Social cognition: From brains to culture, 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Foster, Ally. 2019. Australians pub slammed for ‘disgusting’ Easter poster about Jesus. New York Post. Available at: https://nypost.com.Suche in Google Scholar

Gockel, Christine & Norbert L. Kerr. 2015. Put-down humor directed at outgroup members increases perceived—but not experienced—cohesion in groups. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 28(2). 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0020.Suche in Google Scholar

Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt & Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5). 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141.Suche in Google Scholar

Graham, Jesse, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva & Peter H. Ditto. 2011. Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(2). 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847.Suche in Google Scholar

Haidt, Jonathan & Jesse Graham. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 20(1). 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z.Suche in Google Scholar

Haidt, Jonathan & Craig Joseph. 2004. Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus 133(4). 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555.Suche in Google Scholar

Haidt, Jonathan, Jesse Graham & Craig Joseph. 2009. Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry 20(2–3). 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573.Suche in Google Scholar

Hayes, Andrew F. 2017. An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Heider, Fritz. 1959. On perception, event structure, and the psychological environment. Psychological Issues 1(3). 1–123.Suche in Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph. 2009. The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: Credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior 30(4). 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Jones, Edward E. & Keith E. Davis. 1965. From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2. 219–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Kelley, Harold H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 15, 192–238.Suche in Google Scholar

Klein, Ezra. 2022. Why we’re polarized. US: Avid Reader Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Koszałkowska, Karolina & Monika Wróbel. 2019. Moral judgment of disparagement humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 32(4). 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0023.Suche in Google Scholar

Kruschke, John K. & Allison Vollmer. 2014. Moral foundation sensitivity and perceived humor. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2519218.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuiper, Nicholas A. & Catherine Leite. 2010. Personality impressions associated with four distinct humor styles. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51(2). 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00734.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuiper, Nicholas A., Gillian A. Kirsh & Catherine Leite. 2010. Reactions to humorous comments and implicit theories of humor styles. PsycEXTRA Dataset 6(3). 236–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/e676422011-012.Suche in Google Scholar

La Fave, Lawrence. 1972. Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification classes. In Jeffrey H. Goldstein & Paul E. McGhee (eds.), The psychology of humor, 195–210. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-288950-9.50016-XSuche in Google Scholar

La Fave, Lawrence, Jay Haddad, William A. Maesen. 1996 [1976]. Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humor theory. In Anthony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, 63–91. New York: Wiley and Sons.10.4324/9780203789469-5Suche in Google Scholar

Levy, Neil. 2021. Virtue signaling is virtuous. Synthese 198. 9545–9562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02653-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, Rod A., Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray & Kelly Weir. 2003. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37. 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00534-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Identity based democracy. Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

McGraw, A. Peter & Caleb Warren. 2010. Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. PsycEXTRA Dataset 21(8). 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1037/e722992011-021.Suche in Google Scholar

Middleton, Russell. 1959. Negro and White reactions to racial humor. Sociometry 22. 175–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786021.Suche in Google Scholar

Olah, Andrew R. 2019. The impact of humor type on perceptions of trustworthiness. North Carolina, United States: Western Carolina University Unpublished master’s thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Rolfe, Brooke. 2019. Local Sydney pub slammed online for sacrilegious post. Australia: Yahoo News.Suche in Google Scholar

Schneider, David. 1973. Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin 79(5). 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034496.Suche in Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henri. 1969. Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues 25(4). 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00620.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henri & John Turner. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Stephen Worchel & William G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, 7–24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Suche in Google Scholar

Warren, Caleb & Peter McGraw. 2015. What makes things humorous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(23). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503836112.Suche in Google Scholar

Zeigler-Hill, Virgil, Avi Besser & Stephanie E. Jett. 2013. Laughing at the looking glass: Does humor style serve as an interpersonal signal? Evolutionary Psychology 11(1). 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100118.Suche in Google Scholar

Zillmann, Dolf & Joanne R. Cantor. 1996 [1976]. A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In Antony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, 93–116. New York: Wiley and Sons.10.4324/9780203789469-6Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-05-26
Accepted: 2023-08-10
Published Online: 2023-09-29
Published in Print: 2023-10-26

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 21.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2023-0082/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen