Band 28, Heft 2 - Special Issue: The social consequences of disparagement humor, Guest Editor: Thomas E. Ford

In this article we review contemporary research testing Martineau’s (1972) hypothesis that disparagement humor fosters or introduces prejudice against the disparaged out-group. Supporting Martineau’s hypothesis, research suggests that instigating disparagement humor might indeed foster prejudice against the targeted group; however, through mechanisms that do not implicate unique effects of humor as a medium for communicating disparagement. Contrary to Martineau’s hypothesis, it does not appear that exposure to disparagement humor promotes a negative disposition toward the targeted group. Rather than acting as an initiator of prejudice, disparagement humor functions as a releaser of existing prejudice. Lastly, following Martineau’s theoretical framework, we identify new questions about the social consequences of disparagement humor that require further theoretical development and empirical research.

Jokes have been recognized as ways in which negative attitudes and prejudice can be communicated and enacted in hidden ways (e.g., Allport 1954; Freud 2004 [1905]). In this paper, we review the existing literature on the functions and effects of sexist humor, using Martineau’s (1972) model on the social functions of humor as well as Tajfel and Turner’s (2004 [1986]) Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Turner et al.’s (1987) Self Categorization Theory. Within these frameworks, we particularly focus on sex as an intergroup context and on the way sexist humor functions to a) enhance male in-group cohesion (sexist humor as a predictor) b) serves as a form of sexual harassment (sexist humor as an outcome) and c) amplifies self-reported rape proclivity and victim blame (sexist humor as a moderator). The paper concludes by highlighting gaps in the existing literature and providing directions for future research.

Put-down humor always has a target, and the intent of the speaker is to make fun of someone or something. Due to its inherently social nature, put-down humor could strongly affect socio-emotional group processes and outcomes like cohesion. We hypothesized that put-down humor would increase cohesion when it was targeted at outgroup members and was followed by laughter. Two laboratory experiments were conducted to examine the underlying processes of the put-down humor – cohesion relation. Study 1 showed that put-down humor of outgroup members (as compared to no humor) did not increase participants’ attraction to the group. But it increased perceived cohesion among other group members and the perception that other group members felt safer and were more similar to each other. Even when procedures were altered in Study 2 to reduce participants’ evaluation apprehension and their potential anxiety about not themselves being humorous, we found the same pattern of results. We discuss which conditions might be necessary for put-down humor to increase one’s personal attraction to a group.

Humor can be a means of social control and establishing boundaries between social groups. Disparagement humor, which is belittling and degrading while laughing at a target, is such a means of social control. Through the use of disparagement humor, people establish in-groups and out-groups and audiences of disparagement can enjoy vicarious superiority, as long as they are not members of the targeted out-group. In this paper, we look at the way disparagement humor is used on a mass stage, the popular reality television program American Idol . Using qualitative content analysis, we explore the ways in which social outsiders are marked as out-groupers and the ways their outsider status primes them as easy targets for aggressive humor. We find that disparagement humor is more often directed at social outsiders than insiders and audiences are directed to view such contestants as inferior. We also find that the gender and power of judges impacted the use of disparagement humor.

We conducted two experiments to test the possibility that sexist humor triggers a state of self-objectification in women. Our findings supported two hypotheses derived from self-objectification theory. In Experiment 1, we found that women (but not men) reported greater state self-objectification following exposure to sexist comedy clips than neutral comedy clips. Experiment 2 replicated this finding for women and further demonstrated that sexist humor causes women to engage in more body surveillance compared to neutral humor.

In Martineau’s seminal chapter on the social functions of humor, he postulated some of the ways in which disparagement humor shapes social behavior. This research paper discusses three research studies that compared the effects of other-deprecating humor and self-deprecating humor on the observer and examines how they relate to Martineau’s theory. In our research, we hypothesized that people who observe ridicule of others experience “jeer pressure.” This inhibiting effect on behavior was expected to result in conformity to others’ opinions, fear about failing or standing out, and conventional thinking. In the first two studies, participants observed videotapes containing self-ridiculing humor, other-deprecating humor, or non-ridiculing/no humor. Participants then completed tasks assessing conforming, fear of failure, and creativity. Results of both studies showed that participants who observed ridicule of others were more conforming and more afraid of failing than participants who observed self-deprecating humor or the control condition. Study 3 examined the effects of ridicule of others versus self-deprecating humor on creativity using a more sophisticated creativity measure, and less caustic humor. Results supported the hypothesis that observing self-deprecating humor would result in higher levels of creativity compared to the other-ridicule condition. Implications of these findings for Martineau’s model are discussed.

Two experiments test whether using humor moderates the effect of the type of prejudice (racist or sexist) on evaluations of discriminatory communications. Experiment 1 examined a) the offensiveness of sexist and racist humor and b) whether jokes were judged as confrontation-worthy compared to statements expressing the same prejudicial sentiment. Racist jokes and statements were rated as more offensive and confrontation-worthy than sexist statements and jokes, respectively. Additionally, sexist jokes were rated as less offensive than sexist statements. Experiment 2 examined a) the perceived appropriateness of three responses (ignoring, saying “that’s not funny,” or labeling as discrimination) to sexist or racist jokes and b) the likeability of the confronter. Saying “that’s not funny” was the most acceptable response to jokes, but labeling a racist joke as racism was perceived as more appropriate than labeling a sexist joke as sexism. Finally, confronters of racism were liked more than those who confronted sexism.

This experiment relied on social identity theory to investigate jokes that express superiority and denigration toward social groups. In particular, the social identity of gender is examined in the context of sexist-nonstereotypical jokes. Results revealed that sexist-nonstereotypical jokes had the greatest impact on women. Specifically, women rated jokes about men funnier than jokes about themselves, and highly identified women found jokes targeting men significantly funnier than jokes targeting women. These results, and others relating to prototypicality, offer insight into how disparaging intergroup jokes function to accentuate and attenuate intergroup relations.

Studies of humor informed by an understanding of rhetoric offer a number of conceptual tools for the analysis of disparagement humor. This article examines recent rhetorical approaches to humor analysis and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. Where possible, it seeks to synthesise these approaches for what might be called an emerging methodological branch of humor studies. Although not all rhetorical analysts can be considered critical theorists, the article argues for the particular usefulness of these approaches for critical humor studies. A sample of 28 online anti-Semitic jokes is used to illustrate the various methods of rhetorical humor analysis. The discussion examines the fundamental assumptions, propositions, uniqueness and limitations of each theory. The central observation is that rhetorical humor analysis provides methods that add to disparagement theory. This central observation is supported by three points: that humor is structured with rhetorical devices that might, in various ways, convince; that the context of utterance influences the meaning of humor and thus the context of utterance is rhetorical; and, that the discursive content of humor provides the material to be reinforced.