altered joke endings and a joke structure schema

Altered joke endings and ajoke structure Schema

LAMBERT DECKERS and RAM AVERY

Abstract

Joke stems concluding with originalpunch lines (jokes), with logical endings,or with illogical endings were presented to subjects äs paragraphs or jokesfor puzzlement andfunniness ratings oft he endings. Logical endings wererated more puzzling for jokes than for paragraphs. It was hypothesized t hata Schema for joke structure constrains the recipients to expect a punch linewhen processing a joke. Although the punch line is expected, its meaning isstill incongruous. A logical ending is not expected in a joke and is thus ratedpuzzling. The original jokes were rated most funny while stems ending withillogical endings were rated least funny. According to two-process theories,jokes provide incongruity plus resolution and thus are most funny. Logicalendings provide no incongruity and illogical endings provide incongruity butno resolution. Thus, both these ending types were rated äs less funny.

The stem of a joke may activate more than one possible script (Raskin1985) or a Schema (Deckers and Buttram 1990; Suls 1983). This Schema,in turn, provides constraints to aid in the processing and comprehensionof the Information (Rumelhart and Ortony 1977; Rumelhart 1984)presented in the stem. The conclusion or punch line following the stemmay evoke a humor reaction äs a result of several possible processes.First, the expected ending did not occur. Processing of the sentences isinterrupted, which produces surprise or arousal (Mandler 1984).Physiological indicators of arousal such äs heart rate, electrodermalactivity (Godkewitsch 1976), and muscle tension (Chapman 1976)increase when a punch line is presented. In addition, a punch line is ratedäs surprising (Deckers et al. 1989).

Second, the punch line must be incongruous from or incompatible

Humor 7-4 (1994), 313-321. 0933-1719/94/0007-0313© Walter de GruyterBrought to you by | University of Arizona

AuthenticatedDownload Date | 12/18/14 12:50 AM

314 L. Deckers and P. Avery

with the one expected from the activated schema (Iran-Nejad 1986, 1989;Raskin 1985; Suls 1983). The propositions in either the stem or punchline may be momentarily unorganized or aschematic (Iran-Nejad 1986).Propositions in the stem are not assimilable into the punch line's schemanor are those of the punch line assimilable into the stem's schema. ThisSituation is puzzling, if unresolved.

Third, humor may depend on resolving this incongruity between thestem and punch line. The inability of the stem's schema to assimilate thepunch line produces accommodation (Mandler 1984) in that new Schemasare activated. Activation continues until a new stem schema is producedinto which propositions from both the stem and from the punch line areassimilated. Schema activation ceases when one occurs that assimilatesboth the stem and punch line. The joke is thus comprehended and humorresults (Raskin 1985; Suls 1983). However, if either the incongruouselements or the elements necessary for resolution are missing, then ahumor reaction is less likely (Shultz 1972; Shultz and Horibe 1974).

A fourth contributing factor may be the knowledge that a joke is beingpresented. Recipients knowing they are listening to the stem of a jokemay expect an incongruous ending, that is, a punch line. Puzzlement andamusement in turn may depend on the extent this expectation was fulfilledand resolved. In comparing logical congruous endings of joke stems withthe original incongruous punch lines, subjects rate the logical endings äsless amusing but also äs more puzzling than punch lines (Deckers et al.1989). The puzzlement over a logical ending to a joke stem leads to theInterpretation that the subject was expecting an incongruous ending(punch line). When the ending was not incongruous, subjects were puz-zled and not amused.

Several interpretations of this latter finding are possible. First, perhapsthere is a joke structure schema which consists of a stem plus punch line.The joke structure schema may be similar to other structural Schemas,such äs one for a story which consists of a setting plus episode (Rumelhart1975; Thorndyke 1977). The joke structure schema may be activatedwhen subjects are told the material consists of jokes or that they are tomake funniness or amusement ratings of the material.

A second possible Interpretation is based on reversal theory'(Apterand Smith 1977). According to this Interpretation, cues signalling a jokemaintain or place the recipient in a paratelic state. In contrast to the telicstate of striving to achieve imposed goals, a person in a paratelic stateenjoys engaging in behavior for its own enjoyment. The paratelic state is

Brought to you by | University of ArizonaAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/18/14 12:50 AM

Altered joke endings 315

a condition necessary for humor. A third possible Interpretation relieson fantasy assimilation äs the process by which the incongruous punchline is resolved. The Information that one is processing a joke is the cueto invoke fantasy rather than reality assimilation (McGhee 1972). Logicalendings to jokes, however, seem incompatible with the paratelic state orwith fantasy assimilation. Thus, these endings are rated äs puzzling forjokes (Deckers et al. 1989).

The purpose of the present experiment was to determine whetherpuzzlement and funniness depend upon knowing whether the materialwas a joke or a paragraph. Sterns with intact endings (jokes), with logicalcongruous endings, and with nonsense endings were introduced to sub-jects äs jokes or paragraphs. Subjects rated these materials for puzzlementand funniness.

Method

Design

The experiment involved a 2 3 mixed factorial design. The first (between-subjects) factor involved subjects being told that the materials were eitherparagraphs or jokes. The second (within-subjects) factor involved the threetypes of endings: original punch line, logical ending, or nonsense ending.All subjects appraised all three types of endings in order to make thedifFerences among the endings more apparent to the subjects.

Subjects

Introductory psychology students (n=72) participated in order to fulfillcourse requirements. Half of the subjects were told the materials werevery brief paragraphs and half were told the materials were jokes.

Materials

Twelve jokes were altered to produce three different types ofending condi-tions. (a) Original Punch Line: the original punch line remained intact,these were the original jokes. (b) Logical Ending: the punch line was




replaced with a logical, expected ending. (c) Konsense Ending: the punchline was replaced with an ending that was illogical and unexpected. Thus,each stem had three different endings. The logical and nonsense endingswere created by the first author and evaluated by the second author. Theendings were then refined based on discussion between the two authors.

The jokes were selected from a large pool of jokes and were of averagefunniness. They were either mildly sexual, mildly tendentious, or madereference to the stupidity of people. The single ethnic joke made referenceto a fictitious minority.

The material was compiled into 12-page booklets. Each page containeda different stem coupled with one ending. Four stems ended with theoriginal punch line (condition a), four stems ended with logical endings(condition b), and four stems ended with nonsense endings (condition c).Different booklets were constructed so that each stem was paired equallyoften with one of the three types of endings.

Along with the booklets, subjects first received a puzzlement rating scale(not at all puzzling = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 = v e r y puzzling) and later receiveda funniness rating scale (not at all funny = 0123456789=very funny).

Procedure

Groups of 18 subjects were assembled at one time in a room. Two of thegroups were told the booklets contained jokes whose endings they wereto rate for puzzlement using the accompanying scale. Following puzzle-ment ratings, the funniness scales were distributed and subjects were toldto rate the jokes for funniness. Two other groups were told the bookletscontained very brief paragraphs whose endings they were to rate forpuzzlement using the accompanying scales. Following puzzlement ratings,the funniness scales were distributed and subjects were told to rate thevery brief paragraphs for funniness. Subjects were always given puzzle-ment ratings first so äs to minimize the likelihood of subjects' discoveringthe materials were jokes.

Results

Subjects had rated four instances of each type of ending for puzzlementand for funniness. The sum of the four ratings for each type of endingwas employed for statistical analyses. The means and Standard deviations




of these sums are presented in Table 1. Puzzlement ratings were highestfor Konsense Endings and lowest for Punch Lines; MSres = 31.80, F(2,140) = 253.04, p<.001. Mean puzzlement ratings also depended on theinteraction between the Paragraph-Joke label and the type of ending;MSres = 31.80, F(2, 140) = 5.64, p<.01. This interaction can be seen inthe pattern of puzzlement means presented in Table 1. Logical Endingsof jokes were rated more puzzling than the Logical Endings of paragraphswhile the other two endings showed no significant differences betweenparagraphs and jokes (Tukey's HSD = 3.85 for p < .05).

Funniness ratings did not depend upon the materials being labeled äsparagraphs or jokes (F<1) but did depend upon the type of ending;MSres = 34.85, F(2, 140) = 133.27, p<.001. Funniness ratings were high-est for the Original Punch Line condition and much lower and approxi-mately the same for the other two types of endings (Tukey's HSD=4.03for p<.05). Shultz (1972) and Shultz and Horibe (1974) also showedthat humor ratings of jokes and cartoons are reduced if the incongruouselements are missing, which occurred in the Logical Ending condition.Furthermore, they found that when resolution is made less possible,humor is also reduced which occurred in the Nonsense Ending condition.

Discussion

The pattern of results are best interpretable by Schema influences. Thetelling of a joke is frequently prefaced by a remark that a joke is forthcom-

Table l. Means and Standard deviations of puzzlement andfunniness ratings of the differentendings of paragraphs and jokes

Punch Line Logical Ending Nonsense Ending

PuzzlementParagraph

Joke

FunninessParagraph

Joke:

X:S:X:S:

X:S:X:S:

6.31a-b

5.434.69a

5.08

23.75a

7.1724.86a

5.70

9.97b

4.8414.61C

7.38

11.02b

7.2511.61b

6.44

25.86d

8.5826.61d

8.29

10.78b

7.738.47b

6.88

Note. Means with different letter superscripts are significantly different at p < 0.05




ing. Possibly this remark activates a Schema for joke structure: stem pluspunch line. In addition, the joke stem activates a script or Schema formeaning. Puzzlement and funniness ratings of the punch line may dependupon both Schema types. On the one band, a punch line is expected fromthe joke structure Schema, while on the other, the meaning of the punchline is incongruous from the meaning derived from the Schema for mean-ing in the stem.

Puzzlement

The major finding was that a logical conclusion was rated more puzzlingwhen it ended a joke than when it ended a paragraph. Puzzlement ratings,however, did not differ when a punch line ended a joke compared towhen it ended a paragraph. Based on joke structure Schema, a logicalending to a joke is incongruous. The logical ending is not expected andthus is puzzling when it appears. Likewise, based on the idea of astructural Schema, a punch line ending a paragraph should be morepuzzling than a punch line ending a joke. This was not the case, however.Perhaps structural Schemas for paragraphs do not exist or are so uncon-straining that a paragraph ending in a punch line is not consideredpuzzling. Another possible Interpretation is that upon reading the ending,subjects recognized the ones that were punch lines. Thus, in thoseinstances the paragraphs were interpreted äs jokes.

Highest puzzlement ratings were given to nonsense endings presumablybecause of incongruity in structure and in meaning. Nonsense endingsdo not classify äs punch lines according to joke structure Schema.Furthermore, their meaning remains puzzling, since their endings are notresolvable.

Funniness

Intact jokes of the Original Punch Line condition were rated highest infunniness. Humor is assumed to result from the activation of a newSchema or script into which both the stem and punch line are assimilated.Activation is not necessary in the Logical Ending condition because theending is not incongruous. Activation, however, does occur in theNonsense Ending condition but does not result in assimilation because




no Schema common to both the stem and punch line was found. Only inthe Original Punch Line condition does the punch line produce Schemaactivation and does assimilation into the newly activated Schema occur,which are processes necessary for the occurrence of humor (Raskin 1985;Shultz 1972; Shultz and Horibe 1974; Suls 1983). It should be noted,however, that the resolution of surprise ending stories may occur withoutaccompanying humor (Iran-Nejad 1986, 1989). Careful attention mayneed to be paid to the natures of incongruities and the conditions underwhich they are resolved in order to account for humor.

Other interpretations

Both reversal theory (Apter and Smith 1977) and the fantasy assimilationhypothesis (McGhee 1972) appear able to account for puzzlement ratings.A logical ending to a joke is unexpected from the view of a paratelicstate or from fantasy assimilation. Hence, these endings are rated äspuzzling. The high puzzlement rating for nonsense endings may possiblyresult from these endings being too incompatible with even a paratelicstate or for fantasy assimilation.

Reversal theory and the fantasy assimilation hypothesis appear lesstenable for explaining the funniness rating data. If labeling the materialäs jokes places a person in a paratelic state, then funniness ratings shouldhave been higher in the joke than in the paragraph condition accordingto reversal theory (Apter and Smith 1977). Similarly the joke label shouldhave evoked fantasy rather than reality assimilation and thus shouldhave resulted in higher funniness ratings (McGhee 1972). The twohypotheses were not supported. Funniness ratings did not differ betweenparagraphs and jokes. Nevertheless, it is possible that the mere presenceof a funniness ratings scale places the recipient in a paratelic state or infantasy assimilation even though they were rating paragraphs. This effectwould eliminate differences in funniness ratings between jokes andparagraphs.

A reaction of amusement to a joke or any humor Stimulus may dependupon the context in which that Stimulus is embedded. The presence offunniness ratings scales or the announcement that a joke is forthcomingare two examples of context, which may help place the recipient in aparatelic or fantasy assimilation state. The type of contextual cues orstates may also influence the occurrence of amusement. Further research




is needed to determine how context can affect amusement or humorappreciation.

Ball State University

References

Apter, Michael J., and K. C. P. Smith1977 Humor and the theory of psychological reversals. In Chapman, Anthony J.,

and Hugh C. Foot (eds.), It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Oxford: PergamonPress, 95-100.

Chapman, Anthony J.1976 Social aspects of humorous laughter. In Chapman, Anthony J., and Hugh C.

Foot (eds.), Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications.London: John Wüey & Sons, 155-185.

Deckers, Lambert and Robert T. Buttram1990 Humor äs a response to incongruities within or between Schemata. Humor:

International Journal of Humor Research 3(1), 53-64.Deckers, Lambert, Curtis Pell, Elizabeth A. Weaver, and Geoffrey S. DeHaven

1989 Joke ending manipulations äs a lest ofscript theory of humor. Poster presentedat the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.

Godkewitsch, Michael1976 Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour. In Chapman,

Anthony J., and Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humour and Laughter. Theory,Research, and Applications. London: Wüey, 117-138.

Iran-Nejad, Asghar1986 Understanding surprise-ending stories: Long-term memory Schemas versus

schema-independent content elements. The Journal of Mind and Behavior7(1), 37-62.

1989 A nonconnectionist Schema theory of understanding surprise-ending stories.Discourse Processes 12, 127-148.

Mandler, George1984 Mind and Body: Psychology of Emotion and Stress. New York: Norton.

McGhee, Paul1972 On the cognitive origins of incongruity humor: Fantasy assimilation versus

reality assimilation. In Goldstein, Jeffrey H., and Paul E. McGhee (eds.),The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues.New York: Academic Press, 61-80.

Raskin, Victor1985 Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Rumelhart, David E.1975 Notes on a Schema for stories. In Bobrow, D. G., and A. Collins (eds.),

Representation and understanding studies in cognitive science. New York:Academic Press, 211-236.

1984 Schemata and the cognitive System. In Wyer, Jr., R. S., and T. K. Krull(eds.), Handbook of social cognition l, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 161-188.




Rumelhart, David E., and Andrew Ortony1977 The representation of knowledge in memory. In Anderson, R. C., R. J. Spiro

and W. E. Montague (eds.) Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge.Hülsdale: Erlbaum, 99-135.

Shultz, Thomas R.1972 The role of incongruity and resolution in children's appreciation of cartoon

humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 13, 456-477.Shultz, Thomas R., and Fränces Horibe

1974 Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes. Developmental Psychology10, 13-20.

Suls, Jerry M.1983 Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In McGhee, P. E., and J. H.

Goldstein (eds.), Handbook of Humor Research. New York; Springer-Verlag, 39-58.

Thorndyke, Perry W.1977 Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.

Cognitive Psychology 9, 77-110.



altered joke endings and a joke structure schema

Documents