Home She’s everything: reactions to and perceptions of the Barbie (2023) movie as subversive and disparagement humor
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

She’s everything: reactions to and perceptions of the Barbie (2023) movie as subversive and disparagement humor

  • Donald A. Saucier

    Donald A. Saucier (PhD, University of Vermont) is a Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences and University Distinguished Teaching Scholar at Kansas State University. His research focuses broadly on how individual differences (e.g., levels of prejudice, racism, social vigilantism, masculine honor beliefs) interact with situational factors to produce expressions of prosocial and antisocial behavior (i.e., helping, morality, aggression, discrimination, and expressions of humor).

         , Noah D. Renken

    Noah D. Renken (MS, Kansas State University) is a graduate student at Kansas State University, currently working toward his degree in Couple and Family Therapy. His research interests include intimate partner violence, male victimization, and factors that contribute to the stigmatization of gender-based violence.

         , Amanda L. Martens

    Amanda L. Martens (PhD, Kansas State University) is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Simpson College. Her research explores perceptions of women through both traditional and contemporary gender roles, with a specific focus on gendered honor ideology, reactions to and perceptions of subversive humor, and knowledge and perceptions of abortion. She is passionate about teaching undergraduate courses such as the Psychology of Prejudice and the Psychology of Sex and Gender, while also mentoring students through her programs of research.

     EMAIL logo     , Megan L. Strain

    Megan L. Strain (PhD, Kansas State University) is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nebraska Kearney. She studies the intersection of sexism and humor, the factors that may influence that intersection (e.g., attitudes toward women and women’s issues), and the outcomes that such humor may predict.

     ORCID logo     , Tucker L. Jones

    Tucker L. Jones (PhD, Kansas State University) is an Assistant Professor at Washburn University. His research broadly focuses on person perceptions and the factors that influence how we perceive and anticipate responding to various other individuals. Much of his research involves collaborating with undergraduate students to further investigate (a) the factors that influence how we perceive and subsequently respond to ambiguous rejection, (b) how the adherence to honor ideologies influences how we respond to various insults and threats and/or perceive others’ behaviors, and (c) how individual differences shape how we perceive various individuals with undesirable characteristics.

         and Svyatoslav “Slava” Prokhorets

    Svyatoslav “Slava” Prokhorets (ABD, Kansas State University) is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology at Bradley University and a PhD candidate in Social/Personality Psychology at Kansas State University. Slava is interested in how racial dog whistles influence perceptions of political candidates and political issues as well as how masculine honor ideology relates to perception of aggression against women.
Published/Copyright: April 2, 2025
HUMOR
From the journal HUMOR Volume 38 Issue 2

Abstract

Our study examined individuals’ reactions to and perceptions of the Barbie (2023) movie as subversive (e.g., targeting the United States patriarchal structure) versus disparaging (e.g., perpetuating negative perceptions of men/women). More specifically, we examined how various attitudes (e.g., ambivalent sexism, adherence to traditional gender roles, feminist attitudes) related to individuals’ decision to see Barbie, their expectations for and enjoyment of the movie, and their perceptions of its use of subversive humor for social commentary. Participants (N = 446, 71 % women, 79 % heterosexual, 78 % White, 65 % first-year students, Mage = 19.40, SD = 3.25) were recruited from undergraduate courses from several Midwestern universities and completed a survey via Qualtrics. In line with our Selective Exposure Hypothesis, individuals with more egalitarian gender beliefs (e.g., higher levels of feminism, lower levels of sexism) were more likely to have seen Barbie. Similarly, in line with our Motivated Cognition Hypothesis, individuals with more egalitarian gender beliefs had more positive perceptions of Barbie, its messages, and intentions. Our findings further suggest that individuals who disagreed with Barbie’s message may have avoided viewing the movie, and if they did not avoid it, they may have resisted its message. This research furthers our understanding of subversive humor in relation to gender issues by examining how it was perceived in Barbie, one of the most significant pop culture events of the 2020s thus far.

Keywords: humor; subversive; patriarchy; gender
Corresponding author: Amanda L. Martens, Simpson College, Indianola, IA, USA, E-mail:

About the authors

Donald A. Saucier

Donald A. Saucier (PhD, University of Vermont) is a Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences and University Distinguished Teaching Scholar at Kansas State University. His research focuses broadly on how individual differences (e.g., levels of prejudice, racism, social vigilantism, masculine honor beliefs) interact with situational factors to produce expressions of prosocial and antisocial behavior (i.e., helping, morality, aggression, discrimination, and expressions of humor).

Noah D. Renken

Noah D. Renken (MS, Kansas State University) is a graduate student at Kansas State University, currently working toward his degree in Couple and Family Therapy. His research interests include intimate partner violence, male victimization, and factors that contribute to the stigmatization of gender-based violence.

Amanda L. Martens

Amanda L. Martens (PhD, Kansas State University) is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Simpson College. Her research explores perceptions of women through both traditional and contemporary gender roles, with a specific focus on gendered honor ideology, reactions to and perceptions of subversive humor, and knowledge and perceptions of abortion. She is passionate about teaching undergraduate courses such as the Psychology of Prejudice and the Psychology of Sex and Gender, while also mentoring students through her programs of research.

Megan L. Strain

Megan L. Strain (PhD, Kansas State University) is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nebraska Kearney. She studies the intersection of sexism and humor, the factors that may influence that intersection (e.g., attitudes toward women and women’s issues), and the outcomes that such humor may predict.

Tucker L. Jones

Tucker L. Jones (PhD, Kansas State University) is an Assistant Professor at Washburn University. His research broadly focuses on person perceptions and the factors that influence how we perceive and anticipate responding to various other individuals. Much of his research involves collaborating with undergraduate students to further investigate (a) the factors that influence how we perceive and subsequently respond to ambiguous rejection, (b) how the adherence to honor ideologies influences how we respond to various insults and threats and/or perceive others’ behaviors, and (c) how individual differences shape how we perceive various individuals with undesirable characteristics.

Svyatoslav “Slava” Prokhorets

Svyatoslav “Slava” Prokhorets (ABD, Kansas State University) is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology at Bradley University and a PhD candidate in Social/Personality Psychology at Kansas State University. Slava is interested in how racial dog whistles influence perceptions of political candidates and political issues as well as how masculine honor ideology relates to perception of aggression against women.

Appendix

Items using yes/no response scales

  1. Have you seen the 2023 Barbie movie?

  2. Before seeing the Barbie movie, did you know that the movie’s message would challenge contemporary stereotypes and norms about gender?

  3. I have heard positive things about the Barbie movie.

  4. I am interested in the societal message promoted in the Barbie movie.

  5. I am interested in the entertainment value of the Barbie movie.

  6. I am a fan of the cast of the Barbie movie.

  7. I am a fan of the music in the Barbie movie.

  8. I had time to see the Barbie movie.

  9. I was able to afford to see the Barbie movie.

  10. I was interested in the controversy surrounding the Barbie movie.

  11. I am not interested in seeing the Barbie movie.

  12. I have heard negative things about the Barbie movie.

Note. Item 1 was used to identify participants who had seen Barbie. The remaining yes/no questions were exploratory in nature and were not included in any formal analysis for this study.

Items using 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) response scales

Expectations for Barbie

  1. I expected the movie to be entertaining. (R)

  2. I expected the movie to be thought-provoking.

  3. I expected the movie to promote an important message about society.

  4. I expected the movie to be offensive to certain groups.

  5. I expected the movie to be bad.

  6. I expected the message of the movie to be “pro-women.”

  7. I expected the message of the movie to be “anti-women.”

  8. I expected the message of the movie to be “anti-men.”

Note. A PCA grouped items 1, 4–5, and 7–8 to form “Negative Expectations” as a dependent measure. Items 2, 3, and 6 were grouped to form “Positive Expectations” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie

  1. The Barbie movie was enjoyable.

  2. The Barbie movie was entertaining.

  3. The Barbie movie had a storyline that was engaging.

  4. The Barbie movie had a storyline that was important.

  5. The Barbie movie was funny.

  6. The production of the Barbie movie was well done.

  7. The overall message of the Barbie movie was important.

  8. I would recommend the Barbie movie to others.

  9. The Barbie movie was offensive.

  10. The Barbie movie was inappropriate.

  11. The Barbie movie was insensitive to certain groups of people.

  12. The Barbie movie portrayed offensive stereotypes about certain groups of people.

  13. The Barbie movie made me feel uncomfortable.

  14. The Barbie movie promoted a message that went against my personal beliefs.

Note. A PCA grouped items 1–8 to form “Enjoyable” as a dependent measure. Items 9–14 were grouped to form “Offensive” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie threatening women

  1. The Barbie movie harms women’s sense of self.

  2. The Barbie movie demeaned women.

  3. The Barbie movie devalued women.

  4. The Barbie movie created a negative perception of women.

  5. The Barbie movie attacked womanhood.

  6. The Barbie movie threatened the social standing of women.

  7. The Barbie movie threatened the way women are viewed.

Note. These items were adapted from Lawless et al. (2020) and were grouped to form “Barbie Threatens Women” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie threatening men

  1. The Barbie movie harms men’s sense of self.

  2. The Barbie movie demeaned men.

  3. The Barbie movie devalued men.

  4. The Barbie movie created a negative perception of men.

  5. The Barbie movie attacked manhood.

  6. The Barbie movie threatened the social standing of men.

  7. The Barbie movie threatened the way men are viewed.

Note. These items were adapted from Lawless et al. (2020) and were grouped to form “Barbie Threatens Men” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie promoting White feminism

  1. The Barbie movie promoted a message that was inclusive of all women. (R)

  2. The Barbie movie focused on issues that are relevant to all women. (R)

  3. The Barbie movie promoted a message that was specific to White women.

  4. The Barbie movie focused on issues that are specific to White women.

  5. The Barbie movie reinforced the idea that feminism primarily benefits White women.

  6. The Barbie movie featured a cast that catered mostly to White women.

Note. A PCA grouped items 1–6 to form “Promoted White Feminism” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie’s message

  1. The Barbie movie promoted an important message about societal issues.

  2. The Barbie movie inspired important conversations about today’s societal issues.

  3. The Barbie movie has potential to inspire real-world change in society.

  4. The Barbie movie critiqued societal issues in a productive way.

  5. The Barbie movie critiqued societal issues in a harmful way. (R)

  6. The Barbie movie promoted a message that caused more harm than good. (R)

  7. The Barbie movie does not have any real impact on society. (R)

Note. A PCA grouped items 1–7 to form “Promoted Important Message” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie’s purpose

  1. The Barbie movie intended to empower women.

  2. The Barbie movie intended to promote negative stereotypes about men.

  3. The Barbie movie intended to promote self-acceptance.

  4. The Barbie movie intended to promote equality.

  5. The Barbie movie intended to challenge the status-quo.

  6. The Barbie movie intended to offend certain groups.

  7. The Barbie movie intended to promote a specific political agenda.

  8. The Barbie movie intended to create controversy in a good way.

  9. The Barbie movie intended to create controversy in a bad way.

Note. A PCA grouped items 1, 3–5, and 8 to form “Promoted Positive Change” as a dependent measure. Items 2, 6–7, and 9 were grouped to form “Promoted Negative Change” as a dependent measure.

Perceptions of Barbie deserving success

  1. The Barbie movie deserves to be nominated for an academy award.

  2. Co-writer and director Greta Gerwig deserves to be nominated for an academy award.

  3. Margo Robbie should be nominated for an academy award.

  4. Ryan Gosling should be nominated for an academy award.

  5. The cast of the Barbie movie should be nominated for academy awards.

  6. The Barbie movie should not have made $1.44 billion at the box office. (R)

Note. A PCA grouped items 1–6 to form “Deserves Success” as a dependent measure.

References

Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, Katheryn A. Morris & Stephanie A. Goodwin. 2008. The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(3). 332–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.34251671.Search in Google Scholar

Baber, Kristine & Corinna Tucker. 2006. The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles 54. 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y.Search in Google Scholar

Bitterly, Bradford. 2022. Humor and power. Current Opinion in Psychology 43. 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.017.Search in Google Scholar

Cacioppo, John, Richard Petty, Jeffrey Feinstein & W. Jarvis. 1996. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119(2). 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.Search in Google Scholar

Czopp, Alex & Leslie Ashburn-Nardo. 2012. Interpersonal confrontations of prejudice. In Dale Russell & Cristel Russell (eds.), The psychology of prejudice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on contemporary issues, 175–201. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Czopp, Alex, Margo Monteith & Aimee Mark. 2006. Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90. 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784.Search in Google Scholar

Duckitt, John, Boris Bizumic, Stephen Krauss & Edna Heled. 2010. A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology 31(5). 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x.Search in Google Scholar

Dunning, David. 2015. Motivated cognition in self and social thought. In Mario Mikulincer, Phillip Shaver, Eugene Borgida & John Bargh (eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition, 777–803. American Psychological Association.10.1037/14341-025Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E. 1997. Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on person perception. Social Psychology Quarterly 60. 266–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787086.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E. 2000. Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26. 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611006.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E. & Andrew R. Olah. 2021. Disparagement humor and prejudice: Advances in theory and research. In Madelijn Strick & Thomas Ford (eds.), The social psychology of humor, 151–169. Taylor and Francis.10.4324/9781003042440-9-13Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E., Christie Boxer, Jacob Armstrong & Jessica Edel. 2008. More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34. 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310022.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E., Julie Woodzicka, Shane Triplett, Annie Kochersberger & Christopher Holden. 2014. Not all groups are equal: Differential vulnerability of social groups to the prejudice-releasing effects of disparagement humor. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 17(2). 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502558.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Thomas E., Kyle Richardson & Whitney Petit. 2015. Disparagement humor and prejudice: Contemporary theory and research. Humor 28(2). 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0017.Search in Google Scholar

Gaetz, Ginger. 18 July 2023. https://x.com/GingerLGaetz/status/1681329395343007746. Post on X (accessed 17 November 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Gerwig, Greta. 2023. Barbie [Film]. Warner Bros.Search in Google Scholar

Glick, Peter & Susan Fiske. 1996. Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21(1). 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.Search in Google Scholar

Henley, Nancy. M., Karen Meng, Delores O’Brien, William. J. McCarthy & Robert. J. Sockloskie. 1998. Developing a scale to measure the diversity of feminist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22(3). 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00158.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hiatt, Brian. 2023. The brain behind Barbie: Inside the brilliant mind of Greta Gerwig. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/barbie-greta-gerwig-interview-margot-robbie-ryan-gosling-superhero-movie-1234769344 (accessed October 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Hodson, Gordon & Cara C. MacInnis. 2016. Derogating humor as a delegitimization strategy in intergroup contexts. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000052.Search in Google Scholar

Hodson, Gordon, Jonathan Rush & Cara C. MacInnis. 2010. A joke is just a joke (except when it isn’t): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(4). 660–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019627.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet & Meredith Marra. 2002. Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 1683–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00032-2.Search in Google Scholar

Hoskin, Rhea Ashley. 2020. “Femininity? It’s the aesthetic of subordination”: Examining femmephobia, the gender binary, and experiences of oppression among sexual and gender minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior 49. 2319–2339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01641-x.Search in Google Scholar

Jacks, Julia Zuwerink. & Kimberly A. Cameron. 2003. Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 25. 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5.Search in Google Scholar

Kaiser, Cheryl R. & Carol T. Miller. 2001. Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(2). 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010.Search in Google Scholar

LaMarre, Heather. L., Kristen D. Landreville & Michael A. Beam. 2009. The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14(2). 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904.Search in Google Scholar

Lawless, Tiffany J., Conor J. O’Dea, Stuart S. Miller & Donald A. Saucier. 2020. Is it really just a joke? Gender differences in perceptions of sexist humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 33(2). 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0033.Search in Google Scholar

Maio, Gregory R., James M. Olson & Jacqueline E. Bush. 1997. Telling jokes that disparage social groups: Effects on the joke teller’s stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27. 1986–2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01636.x.Search in Google Scholar

McIntosh, Steven. 2023. Barbie reviews: What do critics make of the Margot Robbie film? https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66242100 (accessed 11 November 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Stuart S., Conor J. O’Dea, Tiffany J. Lawless & Donald A. Saucier. 2019. Savage or satire: Individual differences in perceptions of disparaging and subversive racial humor. Personality and Individual Differences 142. 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.029.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Stuart S. & Donald A. Saucier. 2018. Individual differences in the propensity to make attributions to prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21(2). 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111088.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Stuart. S., John P. Hutson, Megan L. Strain, Tim J. Smith, Maria Palavamäki, Lester C. Loschky & Donald A. Saucier. 2023. The role of individual differences in resistance to persuasion on memory for political advertisements. Frontiers in Psychology 14. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196209.Search in Google Scholar

Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth & Bertman F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(4). 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.Search in Google Scholar

Rappoport, Leon. 2005. Punchlines: The case for racial, ethnic, and gender humor. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.10.5040/9798216003335Search in Google Scholar

Riquelme, Andrés R., Hugo Carretero-Dios, Jesús L. Megías & Mónica Romero-Sánchez. 2019. Subversive humor against sexism: Conceptualization and first evidence on its empirical nature. Current Psychology 42. 16208–16221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00331-9.Search in Google Scholar

Riquelme, Andrés R., Hugo Carretero-Dios, Jesús L. Megías & Mónica Romero-Sánchez. 2021a. Individual differences in the appreciation and interpretation of subversive humor against sexism versus sexist humor: The role of feminist identity and hostile sexism. Personality and Individual Differences 177. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110794.Search in Google Scholar

Riquelme, Andrés R., Hugo Carretero-Dios, Jesús L. Megías & Mónica Romero-Sánchez. 2021b. Joking for gender equality: Subversive humor against sexism motivates collective action in men and women with weaker feminist identity. Sex Roles 84. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01154-w.Search in Google Scholar

Saucier, Donald A. & Russell J. Webster. 2010. Social vigilantism: Measuring individual differences in belief superiority and resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(1). 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346170.Search in Google Scholar

Saucier, Donald A., Conor J. O’Dea & Megan L. Strain. 2016. The bad, the good, the misunderstood: The social effects of racial humor. Translational Issues in Psychological Research 2(1). 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000059.Search in Google Scholar

Saucier, Donald A., Megan L. Strain, Stuart S. Miller, Conor J. O’Dea & Derrick F. Till. 2018. “What do you call a Black guy who flies a plane?” The effects and understanding of disparagement and confrontational racial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 31(1). 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0107.Search in Google Scholar

Saucier, Donald A., Tiffany J. Lawless, Stuart S. Miller & Svyatoslav “Slava” Prokhorets. 2024. Disparagement humor, satire, and subversion. In Thomas E. Ford (ed.), De Gruyter handbook of humor studies, 431–448. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110755770-025Search in Google Scholar

Saunders, Kristin A. & Charlene Y. Senn. 2009. Should I confront him? Men’s reactions to hypothetical confrontations of peer sexual harassment. Sex Roles 61(5). 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9638-0.Search in Google Scholar

Shapiro, Ben. 22 July 2023. Ben Shapiro DESTROYS the Barbie movie for 43 minutes. The Ben Shapiro Show. YouTube video. https://youtu.be/ynU-wVdesr0?si=t0_3K2FV0GrcVS-s (accessed 17 November 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Stangor, Charles, Gretchen B. Sechrist & John T. Jost. 2001. Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(4). 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274009.Search in Google Scholar

Strain, Megan L., Donald A. Saucier & Amanda L. Martens. 2015. Sexist humor in Facebook profiles: Perceptions of humor targeting men and women. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 28(1). 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0137.Search in Google Scholar

Strain, Megan L., Amanda L. Martens & Donald A. Saucier. 2016. “Rape is the new black”: Humor’s potential for reinforcing and subverting rape culture. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 2(1). 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000057.Search in Google Scholar

Thai, Michael, Alex M. Borgella & Melanie S. Sanchez. 2019. It’s only funny if we say it: Disparagement humor is better received if it originates from a member of the group being disparaged. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85. 103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103838.Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, Emma F., Craig McGarty, Russell Spears, Andrew G. Livingstone, Michael J. Platow, Girish Lala & Kenneth Mavor. 2020. “That’s not funny!” Standing up against disparaging humor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 86. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103901.Search in Google Scholar

Variety. 8 April 2024. The 30 highest-grossing movies of all time. https://variety.com/lists/highest-grossing-movies-of-all-time/ (accessed 11 November 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Vidmar, Neil & Milton Rokeach. 1974. Archie Bunker’s bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication 24(1). 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00353.x.Search in Google Scholar

Vizcaíno-Cuenca, Rocío, Andrés R. Riquelme, Mónica Romero-Sanchez, Jesús L. Megias & Hugo Carretero-Dios. 2024. Exposure to feminist humor and the proclivity to collective action for gender equality: The role of message format and feminist identification. Sex Roles 90. 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01430-5.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Matt. 24 July 2023. Audiences tricked into watching the adventures of man-hating feminist Barbie. X video post. https://x.com/MattWalshShow/status/1683540126985535509 (accessed 17 November 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Weitz, Bastian & Yasin Koc. 2022. The effect of relational status on perceptions of gay disparaging humor. Current Psychology 42. 26617–26632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03712-9.Search in Google Scholar

Zehnter, Miriam K., Francesca Manzi, Patrick E. Shrout & Madeline E. Heilman. 2021. Belief in sexism shift: Defining a new form of contemporary sexism and introducing the belief in sexism shift scale (BSS scale). PLoS One 16(3). e0248374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248374.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-04-12
Accepted: 2024-11-29
Published Online: 2025-04-02
Published in Print: 2025-05-26

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Full Length Articles
  3. She’s everything: reactions to and perceptions of the Barbie (2023) movie as subversive and disparagement humor
  4. Humor as a bourgeois shibboleth? Humor and social boundaries in Schlaraffia associations, 1859–1939
  5. It’s all fun and games until…: unintentional (?) direct fire amid the playful humor of Miguel Mihura’s Codorniz
  6. Stylistic techniques to generate humor: an analysis of humorous instructive examples cited in the Gardens of Magic
  7. Disaffiliative humor in improvised musical interactions: an experimental study
  8. How ethnic is ethnic humor? Theorizing a relationship between ethnic humor and identity
  9. Book Reviews
  10. Nick Butler: The Trouble with Jokes: Humour and Offensiveness in Contemporary Culture and Politics
  11. Mary Beard: Laughter in Ancient Rome: on Joking, Tickling and Cracking Up
  12. Krista Bonello Rutter Giappone, Tomasz Z. Majkowski, and Jaroslav Švelch: Video Games and Comedy
  13. David Humphrey: The Time of Laughter: Comedy and the Media Cultures of Japan
https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2024-0117
Keywords for this article
humor; subversive; patriarchy; gender

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Full Length Articles
  3. She’s everything: reactions to and perceptions of the Barbie (2023) movie as subversive and disparagement humor
  4. Humor as a bourgeois shibboleth? Humor and social boundaries in Schlaraffia associations, 1859–1939
  5. It’s all fun and games until…: unintentional (?) direct fire amid the playful humor of Miguel Mihura’s Codorniz
  6. Stylistic techniques to generate humor: an analysis of humorous instructive examples cited in the Gardens of Magic
  7. Disaffiliative humor in improvised musical interactions: an experimental study
  8. How ethnic is ethnic humor? Theorizing a relationship between ethnic humor and identity
  9. Book Reviews
  10. Nick Butler: The Trouble with Jokes: Humour and Offensiveness in Contemporary Culture and Politics
  11. Mary Beard: Laughter in Ancient Rome: on Joking, Tickling and Cracking Up
  12. Krista Bonello Rutter Giappone, Tomasz Z. Majkowski, and Jaroslav Švelch: Video Games and Comedy
  13. David Humphrey: The Time of Laughter: Comedy and the Media Cultures of Japan
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 25.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2024-0117/html
Scroll to top button