EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR

1
EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR
by David J. Wimer and Bernard C. Beins

• Silvia Pontalti and Stefania Giacomozzi
• Lingua e traduzione inglese II A - LS

2

Difficulty in measuring humor
1) We dont have an objective metric for
identifying how funny humorous material
really is.
We rely on ratings of humor
We rely on external demonstration of appreciation
like smiling and laughter
Both of these types of observation vary according
to the nature of the social setting
2) The present research is concerned with how
contextual factors influence cognitive humor
appraisal.
Two experiments 1) plausibility of message about
joke quality 2) group size
3
The present research is concerned with three
questions

• Youre going to love this next comedian - she/he
  is very funny!

1) Would that message improve your cognitive
appraisal of the comedian?
This next comedian is the funniest person in
the world!
2) Would your cognitive appraisal of the comedian
be different?
3) Would your cognitive appraisal of the
comedian differ if you were the only patron at
the club?
4
The authors focus on the

• Distinction between two humor appreciation
• 1. Cognitive occurs in ones mind. Measured
  through objective ratings.
• 2. Affective involves more physical reaction,
  like smiling and laughter (mirth)?

5
Literature (previous researches)?

• Forabosco (1994) jokes are perceived as
  differentialy funny depending on the order they
  are told.
• Van Giffen and Maher (1995) importance of
  context. Anecdotes recounted without explaining
  the situation in which they occur, are perceived
  like non amusing.

6
Experiment 1

• Participant Ninety ungraduate students (61 women
  and 29 men) whose ages ranged from 17 to 23 years
  
• Materials Partecipants receive a booklet
  containing 21 jokes and researchers give them
  information about their presumed funnisness.
• Procedure Students have to rate a series of
  jokes on a scale of 1 (not funny) to 7 (very
  funny). They also know that others have
  previously rated these jokes.

Hysterically funny Very funny Not very
funny Horribly funny
7

• Results Partecipants rate the jokes in accord
  with the information that researchers have
  provided about supposed prior ratings

Mean joke rating
Horribly funny
Very Unfunny
Neutral
Very Funny
Hysterically Funny
Expected Humor Value
8

• Discussion gt The private evaluation seem to have
  changed, perhaps due to conformity based on
  information that others presumably possess
  
  
  gt
  The finding suggests that a simple message is a
  potent tool for manipulating judgments.

9
Experiment 2

• To answer the question

• Social factors (less cognitive and more
  affective) will affect joke ratings ?

Participant 120 undergraduate psychology
students (volunteers). 83 women and 37 men, aged
from 18 to 23.
Materials Partecipants receive a booklet
containing 21 jokes and researchers give them
information about their presumed funniness. (same
as in Exp. 1)?
Procedure students are tested individually or
in group of 3 or 4/ 7 or 8. The two less
plausible categories of Exp. 1 (Histerically
funny and Horribly Unfunny) are omitted. They do
not receive indications during testing
(participants not influenced by reaction of
others)
10

• Results the presence of others does not have an
  effect on cognitive evaluation of jokes, only on
  affective responses (mirth)?

11

• Discussion Results support Chapman and Chapmans
  (1974) contention ratings are
  affected by different factors than are affective
  responses.

12
Group size

• Previous studies focusing on affect
• Chapman 1973 Levy and Fenley 1979 Social
  factors associated with humor appreciations
  when one is in the presence of others, overt
  mirth responses tend to increase
• Deckers 1998 Ruck 1997 overt mirth responses
  tend to increase when individuals are in a
  cheerful mood
• Ruch 1997 effect of state and trait cheerfulness
  on emotional responses to humor

13
Conclusions

• Conflicting evidence on the matter
• Wimer and Beins
• Information affect ratings, while social factors
  (group size) do not.
• Chapman, Nosanchuk and Lightstone
• the presence of canned laughter elevates overt
  mirth responses, but does not affect joke ratings
  
• VS
• Pistole and Shor group effects lead to
  changes in ratings