a study of salience and motivational theories of humor

8/8/2019 A Study of Salience and Motivational Theories of Humor

1/6

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1985, Vol. 49 , No. I, 281-286Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/85/S00.75

A Study of Salience and Motivational Theories of HumorThomas L. KuhlmanMendota Mental Health InstituteMadison, Wisconsin

Experiments by Goldstein, Suls, and A nth on y (1972 ) discredited motivationaltheories of humor in favor of a cognitive salience model, which was proposed asmore parsimonious. The present experiment also tested the salience model versusmotivational explanations. College students assigned humor ratings to three setsof jokes containing salient themes (ex am ination con tent), taboo themes (sex andviolence content), and neutral themes. The joke sets had been matched a priorifor incongruity structure. The salience of examination content was manipulatedby having th e students rate jokes under one of three conditions: control (normalclassroom setting), before taking an examination, and 20 m in after beginning anexamination. Results did not confirm hypotheses derived from the salience model;motivational factors (taboo content, mastery theme) were associated with highhumor ratings. A conceptual integration of cognitive an d psychoanalytic mecha-nisms of humor is suggested.

Two general lines of humor theory thathave conceptual appeal and empirical supporthave emerged. Motivational content theories,of which Freud's (1905/1960) is best known,emp hasize them atic properties of jokes, car-toons, and the like. Freud viewed sexual an daggressive humor as important release valvesin the psychic economy. Such "tendentioushumor," as he termed it, functions as adefense mechanism, and the acute, fleetingpleasure of laughter stems from gratifying adrive that otherwise would have remainedpent up. The prominence of sexual and ag-gressive humor in adult interactions and en-tertainment cannot be dismissed withoutsome such explanation, bu t studies addressingFreud's model have yielded inconsistent re-lationships between experimentally induceddrive states and the enjoyment of sexual andaggressive humor (Baron, 1978a, 1978b;

This study was initiated while the author was a memberof the faculties of the University of Cincinnati an d XavierUniversity. A preliminary report was presented to theThird International Conference on Humor held in Wash-ington, D.C., August 1982.The author wishes to acknowledge the contributionsof Lee Callaway, Schifferau Gibran-Marion, Wilma Gil-bert, Jeff Goldstein, Frank Prerost, Susan Sorenson, JaneSteif-Nute, and Bob Zechnich.Requests fo r reprints should be sent to Thomas L.Kuhlman, Aggression Management Unit, Mendota MentalHealth Institute, 301 Troy Drive, Madison, Wisconsin53704.

Dworkin & Efran, 1967; Goldstein, 1970;Lamb, 1968; Landy & Metee, 1969; Mueller& Donnerstein, 1983; Singer, 1968; Trice,1982). This confusing empirical picture an dconceptual problems with the drive conceptof psychoanalysis have prompted the devel-opment of microtheories linking hum or andaggression to situation-specific variables (seeZillmann & Bry ant, 1974, 1980; Zillman n &Cantor, 1972).The second line of humor theory empha-sizes process variables over content and isembodied by the varieties of incongruitytheory. Effective hum or st imuli are those thatpose some in con gru ity, puzzle, or cognitivedissonance to the indiv idual. This m ust be ina modest amount; too little incongruity willnot divert the normal direction and pace ofinformation processing, and too m uch incon-gruity stresses the information processor andleads to curiosity/concentration behaviors oranxiety. When a modest incongruity is quicklyresolved (e.g., by viewing the stimulus froma second perspective, as in the pun), theaccompanying physiological arousal changesare experienced as the amused sense of plea-sure. Readily observable support fo r incon-gruity theory lies in the importance of t imingin delivering a joke and the fact that jokeslose most of their amusem ent potential fromthe first to the second presentation. Convinc-ing research evidence comes from studies of

281


2/6

282 THOMAS L . K U H L M A Nchildren's hum or revealing that the sense ofh u m o r fo r particular stimuli is greatest whe na child arrives at pivotal mastery points ofvarious Piagetian stages of cognitive devel-opment. McGhee (1979) has provided a com-prehensive review of various incongruitymodels and the evidence supporting them.The humor mechanisms posed by contentand process models appear radically different.Much would be gained by forging an integra-tion between them, including among otherthings, a closer bridge between psychoanalysisand cognitive psychology. There have beensuch beginnings (Ehrenstein & Ertel, 1978;Godkewitsch, 1976; Suls, 1977), but a morewidely cited set of experiments sought todiscredit m otivational models as being super-fluous.Experiments by Goldstein, Suls, and An-thony (197 2) disputed research showing thathumor reduced experimentally induced drivestates. Goldstein et al. argued that the exper-imental manipulations in such research af-fected not a drive state but a cognitive set forprocessing sexual/aggressive stimuli moreeasily, thus m aking such hum or m ore enjoy-able. This cognitive set interpretation of thefindings was termed salience. In one experi-m ent, G oldstein et al. exposed undergraduatesubjects to photographs of either automobilesor aggressive scenes and then asked them torate the humorousness of cartoons containingeither automobile or aggressive themes. Con-sistent with the salience model, the authorsfound that prior exposure to automobilesyielded a better appreciation fo r automobilecartoons, just as prior exposure to aggressivescenes enhanced appreciation of aggressivecartoons. Manipulation checks on controlgroups validated an effective manipulation ofcontent salience but not of subjects' hostility.A second experiment supported the saliencemodel, with verbal jokes serving as humorstimuli. The authors concluded in their dis-cussion that the motivational model of humoris superfluous:On the whole . . . the most parsimonious explanationof the data would rule ou t motivation as an explanatoryconcept, since the salience hypothesis can account forthe appreciation of nonsense as well as aggressive andsexual humor, (p. 169)

The experiment to be described in thepresent study was designed foremost as a test

of the salience model of humor. There werethree significant deviations from the Goldsteinet al. design. First, manipulation of the sa-lience v ariable was less obtrusive. The salienthumor content employed was the topic ofschool examinations. Groups of subjects ratedexamination jokes in one of three contexts:(a) in a normal college classroom meeting,(b) just before taking an examination, and(c) 20 min after beginning an examination.The salience model would predict that asexam ination taking increases in salience, hu-mor ratings of examination jokes should alsoincrease. Second, subjects in all conditionsrated not only salient jokes but also otherswith neutral or socially taboo content. Thejoke co ntent sets w ere matched for incongruitytechniques employed an d other structuralproperties. The salience model would predictthat with structural properties constant, sa-lient jokes would be preferred to the othertypes of humor by subjects in the two salienceconditions, Third, the salient jokes were di-vided into two subsets. In one subset thestudent succeeded in an examination situa-tion; in the other he or she failed or was putdown. The salience model would predict nodifference in the humor ratings assigned bysubjects to these tw o subsets of salient hum or.

MethodSubjects

Subjects were 88 female and 101 male undergraduatestudents enrolled in three different sections of an intro-ductory psychology course at a midwestern university.

Humor StimuliHumor stimuli were 30 verbal jokes presented in awritten fo rm at. Ten jokes consisted of neutral c ontent,and 10 others had socially taboo themes (i.e., sex, pro-fanity, untimely death, or sadistic violence). The thirdset of 10 jokes dealt w ith hum or aroun d test taking andexaminations; this was designated as the salient contentcategory.In joke selection the investigator drew stimuli from avariety of popular magazines. Care was taken to ensurethat the various structural dimensions of humor (i.e.,incongruity technique, number of words and dialoguesegments) were closely matched among the three contentcategories. Each joke in the neutral set corresponded toa similar joke in the taboo and salient content sets withrespect to these dimensions. Two examples of this match-ing outcome are presented in Table I. 1 The 10 jokes in

1 A set of the humor stimuli used in this study isavailable from the author.


3/6

SALIENT H U M O R 283the salient content set were selected so as to divide intotwo subsets of 5: salient victor and salient victim. Invictor jokes (see Table 1, Gr ou p 6), the stu den t scored areal or symbolic victory over the professor and/or theexamination; in victim jokes (see Table 1, Group 2), thestudent experienced a real or symbolic defeat or failureat the hands of the exam ination and/or professor.Finally, to investigate the validity of joke contentsamp ling, the 30 jokes were presented in random orderto judges who were asked to indicate w hether the them eof each joke related to e xam ination taking, some sociallytaboo behavior, or some other theme. All salient jokesand 9 of 10 taboo and neutral jokes were correctlyclassified by all five judges; the remaining taboo an dneutral jokes (1 each) w ere correctly classified by four offive judges. Judges h ad not been informed beforehandthat 10 jokes w ere intended for each category.Procedure

Subjects assigned humor ratings to each of the 30jokes in the group setting of the classroom. Jokes werepresented on paper in a randomized fashion except thattwo jokes from the same content set never appearedconsecutively. Subjects provided no identifying informationexcept for sex. Extra credit points toward the coursegrade were offered to all subjects who participated (nonedeclined). Subjects were instructed to assign a h u m o rrating to each joke by using a 7-point scale (1 = boring,7 = extremely amusing). They were permitted 15 minfor the task an d were asked (a) to read all of the jokesonce before assigning ratings and (b) to assign at leastone 7 score and at least one 1 score. The goals of theseinstructions were to obtain relative rather than absolutehumor ratings; printed jokes, devoid of spontaneity anda social context, seldom evoke the heights of amusementan d laughter.The salience variable was manipulated by testing the189 subjects under one of three group conditions. The

control group ( = 62) rated the jokes during part of anormal lecture period. The before-exam group (n = 65)rated the jokes just prior to taking an examination. Theduring-exam group (n = 62) rated the jokes after workingon an examinat ion for 20 m i n .After completing th e joke ratings, subjects in thebefore- and d uring -exa m groups were asked to indicateho w confident they were feeling about their performanceon the examination in question by use of a 7-point scale(7 = unusually high confidence about exa m performancecompared to other exam situations; 4 = normal degreeof confidence; 1 = much less confidence than usual).

ResultsHypotheses 1 and 2 were tested by meansof a three-way analysis of variance (Sex X

Salience Condition X Joke Con tent Class)performed on the summed ratings assignedto the jokes by subjects. The General LinearModel Procedure of the Statistical AnalysisSystem was used. This model breaks downbetween-groups differences by the leastsquares means method. The overall F valuefor this analysis proved significant, F(17,552) = 5.67, p < .0001. The relevant variancesource for testing Hypotheses 1 and 2 is theSalience Condition X Joke Content Classinteraction. This F value was not significant,F(4, 552) = 0.17, p = .95, and indicates thatHypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported.The analysis did yield significant maineffects for joke content class, F(2, 552) =36.03, p < .0001, and salience condition, F(2,552) = 3.66, p < .05. With respect to joke

Table 1Examples of Jokes From th e Three Content Sets as Matched for Structural PropertiesContent set Group 6 Group 2

Neutral

Taboo

Salient

A tern once graciously shared a fishit had caught with a hungryotter, and as a result of thisgesture the two became quitefriendly. It only illustrates the oldsaying that one good terndeserves an otter.There was a case recently in Texaswhere a wealthy rancher sued hi swife fo r divorce. He had foundhis dear and an interloper at play.(Victor) Upperclassmen are wellknown for getting quite chu m m ywith their profs before examtime. They follow the old adagethat familiarity breeds exempts.

Said the old man to the little boy who waseating an apple: "Be sure to look out for theworms, Sonny." "When I eat an apple theworms have to look out for themselves,"replied the boy.

The two rich old E nglishmen were taking targetpractice on the back lawn. "Watch yourshooting, old chap," one said, "you almostwinged my servant." "Dreadfully sorry! Dohave a shot at mine over there."(Victim) The student approached his prof afterclass with his corrected exam. "I don't thinkI deserve an absolute zero," said the student."Neither do I," responded the professor, "butit is the lowest mark I'm allowed to give."


4/6

284 THOMAS L . K U H L M A Ncontent, least squares means analysis indicatedthat taboo humor w as significantly preferredby subjects over the other tw o types (ps


5/6

SALIENT HUMOR 285measures of state anxiety were made to ad-dress this variable directly; however, the self-confidence ratings made by subjects in thetwo experimental groups have so ne relevance.The during-exam group displayed a signifi-cantly greater degree of confidence abouttheir collective exam performance than didthe before-exam group (t = 3.15, p < .01).One may infer that lower self-confidence isassociated with increased test anxiety. Theexperimental groups th en align in the follow-ing order of emo tional arousal: control group,during-exam group (subjected to perfor-mance-for-grade stress), and before-examgroup (subjected to anticipation-of-the-un-known as well as performance-for-gradestress). With respect to salience, the threegroups align in the following order: control,before-exam (subjective time an d attentionspent in anticipating and preparing for theexam), and during-ex am (subjective time an dattention spent in anticipating, preparing,an d performing the exam). Thus it wouldappear that there is no confound of thesalience an d arousal constructs. One unex-pected finding w as the emergence of a salienceeffect on general humor responsiveness. Be-cause it was not associated with any specificclass of humor content, terming it a saliencee f f e c t is a misnomer. The greater sense ofhumor shown by the during-exam group isbetter interpreted as evidence that a modestdegree of state anxiety elevates h um or ratingsmo re th an a high degree of anxiety (before-exam group) or a low one (control group).Dividing th e salient jokes into victor andvictim theme subsets revealed differential re-sponding by subjects. The question must beraised as to what degree the salience of thecontent contributed to these effects. Doessalience make any appreciable impact abovean d beyond a general motive to identifyoneself with mastery and alienate oneselffrom failure? The relative humor contentpreferences of the control group, who ratedthe jokes without the specter of an examina-tion, w ere identical to the relative preferencesof the experim ental grou ps. This suggests tha tgeneral mastery-failure motives are beingtapped by the jokes and that the salience ofexamination content is of little consequence.It may be argued that the control group isnot genuine; that is , that by virtue of rating

the jokes in a college classroom at the requestof a professor, a mild salience effect fo rexaminations is induced. A n alternate controlgroup might consist of a comparable subjectsample ratin g the jokes ou tside the classroomsetting without the presence of the professor.However, a nonprofessored, nonclassroomsetting introduces new con foun ding variables:The exact sociological and milieu aspects ofa college classroom would be extremely dif-ficult to recreate in a student union, fo rexample. Furthermore, it is well-establishedthat the social context of hu m or has a decidedimpact on its quantity an d quality. Otherdesigns merit consideration in addressing the"Is it salient motivation or just motivation?"question. One might simply include a fourthconte nt set of jokes w herein victor and victimthemes are played out with police officers,for example.Perhaps the most striking finding overallis the consistently greater mirth aroused bytaboo humor. The twin influences of contentsalience and mastery theme are not sufficientto merit salient victor jokes' higher ratingsthan comparably structured taboo jokes. Thiscannot be explained as content variety. A l-though the taboo jokes embraced only fourdifferent themes and the salient jokes onlytwo, the neutral jokes were the most variedamong the three content classes and yet wereconsistently rated as less funny than taboojokes. Because incon gruity structure was con-trolled, is the only recourse some variant ofFreud's drive reduction model?When one looks at Freud's (1905/1960)theory in its process aspects (the violation ofa social taboo) rather than th e content aspectsthat he emphasized (sex, aggression), thereappears to be a productive shift in pespective(Kuhlman, 1984). The experience of trans-gressing or transcending social strictures in asafe play setting such as h u mo r can be seenas inherently pleasurable. One advantage ofshifting from a drive reduction to a tabooviolation perspective is the strong parallelthat immediately appears with respect tocognitive theories of humor. Incongruitystructures violate principles of logic (though t);taboo content violates the principles of con-duct (behavior). Alford (1982) has drawn asimilar analogy. He describes incongruity hu -mor as a violation of "phenomenal expecta-


6/6

286 THOMAS L. K U H L M A Ntions" and taboo humor as a violation of"idealized expectations." The taboo violationconcept also explains the p opularity of a widerange of comm on joke topicsdrugs, alcohol,politicians, police officersthat touch on ob-stacles to one's self-determination.Taboo violation is also superior to thedrive reduction concept in examining hum orwithin its interpersonal contexts. Societal in-junctions against sexual and aggressive be-havior m ay be respected but not fully accepted(except by those who show no sense of humorwhatsoever). In a "dirty joke" interaction,the sender violates a social taboo and thereceiver's laughter registers both surprise an dacceptance. A momentary intimacy bond isformed between the two, which sets the dyadapart from some larger group. On the otherhand, if the receiver is not well know n to thesender or is, in fact, an adversary, the samedirty joke may provoke resentment or outrage.In this case th e apparent intimacy invitationis rejected because the taboo in question isoff-limits to the two parties before furthernegotiation of the relationship. Freud (1905/1960) was not ignorant of such interpersonalaspects of hum or. However, his greater interestin intrapersonal dynamics and his hydraulicconception of drives contributed to the still-prevalent disjunction of cognitive and moti-vational approaches to humor.

ReferencesAlford, R. (1982, August). The evolutionary significanceof th e human humor response. Paper presented at theThird International Conference on H umor, Washington,

D.C.Baron, R. A. (1978a). Aggression-inhibiting influence ofsexual humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 36. 189-197.Baron, R. A. (1978b). The influence of hostile andnonhostile humor upon physical aggression. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 77-80.Dworkin, E. S., & Efran, J. S. (1967). The angered: Theirsusceptibility to varieties of humor. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 6, 233-236.

Ehrenstein, W. H., & Ertel, S. (1978). Zur genese deslustigkeitseindrucks [On the genesis of the mirth re-sponse]. Psychologische Beitrage, 20, 360-374.Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the uncon-scious. Ne w York: Norton. (Original work published1905)Godkew itsch, M. (1976). Them atic and collative propertiesof written jokes and their contribution to funniness.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8, 88-97.Goldstein, J. H. (1970). Repetition, motive arousal, andhumor appreciation. Journal of Experimental Researchin Personality, 4, 90-94.Goldstein, J. H., Suls, J. M., & Anthony, S. (1972).Enjoyment of specific types of hum or content: Moti-vation or salience? In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee(Eds.), The psychology of humor. New York: AcademicPress.Kuhlman, T. L. (1984), Humor and psychotherapy.Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.Lamb, C. W. (1968). Personality correlates of humorenjoyment following motivational arousal. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 9, 237-241.Landy, E., & Metee, S. (1969). Evaluation of an aggressoras a function of exposure to cartoon humor. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 66-71.McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development.San Francisco: W . H. Freem an.Mueller, C. W., & Donnerstein, E. (1983). Film-inducedarousal and aggressive behavior. Journal of SocialPsychology, 119, 61-67.Singer, D. L. (1968). Aggression, arousal, hostile humor,and catharsis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology Monograph Supplements, 5(1, Pt. 2) .Suls, J. M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theoriesof humour : A theoretical an d empirical synthesis. InA. J. Chapm an & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing,humour (pp. 41-47). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Trice, A. D . (1982). Ratings of humor following experiencewith unsolvable tasks. Psychological Reports, 51 , 1148.Zillmann, D., & Bry ant, J. (1974). Retaliatory equity asa factor in hu m or appreciation. Journal o f ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 10, 480-488.Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1980). Misattribution theoryof tendentious humor. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 16 , 146-160.Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality oftransitory dominance as a communication variableaffecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 24, 191-198.

Received February 1, 1983Revision received March 5, 1984

a study of salience and motivational theories of humor

Documents