lit review 2

7/27/2019 Lit Review 2

1/25

Running head: HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 1

Humor as a Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Strategy:

A Focus on Speakers

Tara Hack

Arizona State University

Dr. Paul Mongeau


2/25

HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to understand the ways in which humor functions as a

communicative strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance in message senders. In order to do so,

a comprehensive literature review will be presented whereby humor theories will be analyzed

alongside cognitive dissonance theory as guiding theoretical frameworks from which to draw

conclusions about this potential phenomenon. This paper is organized by three sections- humor

theories and functions (including the role of humor in persuasion research), cognitive dissonance

theory and dissonance reduction strategies, and lastly, the connections between these two bodies

of research, in efforts to demonstrate that humor may function as a strategy to relieve cognitive

dissonance in message senders. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of implications and

future directions.

Key words:Humor, Relief Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Dissonance Reduction, Uncertainty


3/25


Humor as a Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Strategy:

A Focus on Speakers

Several researchers have focused on the use of humor in everyday interactions. For

example, scholars have examined the ways in which humor provides entertainment (Berger,

2001; Hill, 1988), facilitates group cohesion and relationship development (Hopfl, 2007; Porcu,

2005; Ziv, 2010), in addition to how it influences persuasive communication (Meyer, 2000;

Markiewicz, 1974; Skalski, Tamborini, Glazer, & Smith, 2009), among other contexts. Humor is

understood to be an innately social, goal-driven phenomenon that is constituted of humorist,

stimulus, recipient, and reaction (Lili, 2012, p. 95). Humor has been studied as both an

individual personality characteristic (e.g. the study of ones sense of humor), and as a social

event (e.g., the exchange of jokes between friends) (Lynch, 2002). As a communicative act,

humor requires the exchange of messages between individuals, followed by an audience

interpretation of the message that renders its content humorous (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield &

Booth-Butterfield, 1995). In some instances, (though not always the case) laughter has served as

a reliable indicator/response for researchers interested in the interpretation of humorous

communication, as to whether or not speakers messages are understood and appreciated as

comical by an audience (Chapman & Chapman, 1974; Lili 2012). By analyzing various

responses to humor, researchers gain a better cultural understanding of humorous trends

regarding style and content.

Furthermore, humor theorists have established organizing principles to describe how

humor functions in society by means of three major theories- superiority theory (Keith-Speigel,

1984; Meyer, 2000) incongruity theory (Graham, 1995; Lili, 2012), and relief theory (Freud,

1960; Perks, 2012; Perlmutter, 2002). The latter two of these theories have been used by scholars


4/25


to elaborate on the cognitive and communicative roles of humor in situational meaning making

(Brown, 2005; Tracy, Myers & Scott, 2006), including the ways in which various forms of

humor function as coping mechanisms to reduce uncertainty and manage social tensions

(Graham, 1995; Lili, 2012). Consistent with these claims, a study by Kelly (2002) found that

humor is frequently used to reduce stress, anxiety, negative cognitive states and psychological

discomfort, while increasing positive affective states. Because humor has been found to

effectively manage tensions by introducing positive affective responses and psychological states,

thereby alleviating tension and the experience of discomfort (i.e., negative affective states),

humor may also function as a communicative strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance

(Festinter, 1957). For the purpose of this paper, the term tension will be analyzed in the context

of cognitive dissonance theory, first introduced by Leon Festinger, as an undesirable affective

state (or conflict) that stems from a discrepancy between message senders thoughts and

behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance theory asserts that individuals experience

psychological discomfort when there is a discrepancy between two or more cognitions

(Festinger). According to Festinger, human beings are naturally driven to reduce the experience

of cognitive dissonance due to the tension and discomfort this creates.

Given this research, this is a space where humor can function as a motivational and

communicative strategy to reduce cognitive dissonance in and for message senders during

instances of psychological discomfort. Humor allows for the pairing of disjointed ideas, and

according to humor theorists, people laugh when they experience ill-suited pairings of ideas,

situations, or concepts that are framed as humorous expressions (Keith-Speigel, 1984, p. 19).

However, few (if any) communication researchers have established this direct connection

between humor and cognitive dissonance. Perhaps this relationship remains unexplored because


5/25


humor has traditionally been studied by psychologists as a form of cognitive relief (Meyer,

2000), and by communication theorists as a purposeful act, focused on audience effects rather

than speaker motivations (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Perhaps it is because the experience of

cognitive dissonance is a sender focused area of research, whereas the study of humor remains

dependent upon receivers interpretations. One thing is clear, there is a significant gap in the

literature regarding the juxtaposition of these two topics in communication studies. The purpose

of this paper is to therefore draw connections between humor research and cognitive dissonance

theory in order to understand the role of humor in the experience of cognitive dissonance to

contribute to this field of research. Stated as a research question, the study seeks to answer:

RQ: How does humor function as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy for message

senders, if at all?

Following is a literature review whereby humor theories, specifically relief theory (Freud, 1960;

Perks, 2012; Perlmutter, 2002) and research studies, will be integrated with cognitive dissonance

theory (Festinger, 1957) and reduction strategies as guiding theoretical frameworks from which

to draw conclusions about this phenomenon. The literature is organized by the following

sections- humor theories and research, including the role of humor in persuasion, cognitive

dissonance theory and dissonance reduction strategies, and lastly, the connections between these

two bodies of research in support of the aforementioned research question.

Integrating Humor and Cognitive Dissonance Theory

It is first important to situate humor in the context of communication studies by pairing

the existing research from psychology and communication on the functions of humor in society.

This discussion includes an analysis of humor as both a cognitive and communicative

phenomenon, in addition to a brief summary of humor in persuasion research. Following this


6/25


discussion is an examination of the major functions and theories of humor, concluding with a

focus on relief theory, in order to provide a context for the juxtaposition of humor and cognitive

dissonance.

Study of Humor

The study of humor has been approached by social scientists on an individual level (Ziv,

2010), such as examining ones sense of humorvia cognitive processes (Meyer, 2000), as well as

on a social level by analyzing the humorous exchange of messages and their perceived outcomes

(Mintz, 2985). Multiple theorists regard humor as a highly cognitive experience (Brown, 2005)

that involves an internal redefining of sociocultural realityresulting in a mirthful state of

mind (Meyer, 2000, p. 312). Elaborating on the cognitive functions of humor, Brown (2005)

stated, many theorists have noted that humour[sic] mimics reasoning by making abstract

conceptual connections (p. 12). According to research by Kelly (2002), the cognitive ability to

manipulate and reframe ideas playfully enables individuals with a sense of humor to view

unpleasant events as funny (p. 658). For example, Chapple and Ziebland (2004) examined the

role of humor in patients with fatal illness, and found that the use of humor provided patients

with a means of coping with adversity, exploring ambiguities about their health, and managing

psychological tensions about health uncertainties surrounding their diagnoses through cognitive

reframing. These assertions raise questions about the likelihood of humor to serve as a cognitive

mechanism for reframing cognitive dissonance by adopting a humorous state of mind.

Humor has also been analyzed as a form of communication and is typically regarded as

persuasive by nature (Meyer, 2000). For example, researchers have concluded that humor is not

generally produced for humors sake, but is a goal-oriented expression by a sender with an

alternative intended message and/or purpose (Lili, 2012), sometimes as an act of social critique


7/25


(often in the context of stand-up comedy) or as a means of self-disclosure, among other

motivations (Madison, 2005). As stated by Lynch (2002), it is communication [that] acts as the

medium in humor between the structure of social settings and the motivations of individuals (p.

424).

As it relates to the study of persuasion, humor has been shown to increase source

likability between sender and receiver due to its affiliative function (Lyttle, 2001; OQuin &

Aronoff, 1981). For example, in a study conducted on humor in the workplace, humor was found

help new employees negotiate entry into organizations by facilitating the transition from out-

group member to in-group member, increasing their overall likeability (Heiss & Carmack, 2011).

This study mimics the results from OQuin and Aronoff (1981), which found that liked

communicators carry more social influence and are therefore able to gain greater interpersonal

compliance in business setting (p. 349). This study reveals that humorous people may be

perceived as more persuasive communicators.

Humor has also been studied in the context of persuasion via advertising campaigns.

When used in persuasive advertisements, humor has been shown to increase perceived source

credibility in consumers by creating positive emotions, such as joy and mirth (Skalski et al.,

2009). Moreover, Lyttle (2001) published a report on the effectiveness of humor in persuasion,

and reported that humor (in the form of irony) enhanced persuasive message effects by serving

as a distraction to receivers from developing counterarguments to senders messages. Lyttle

found that the distraction of humor inhibited central processing (a characteristic of the

elaboration likelihood model) for message receivers, and resulted in an increase of positive

emotions, trust, and overall likeability for the source. These studies highlight the transactional

nature of humor and persuasive capabilities for humor to influence affective cognitive states.


8/25


Humor Functions and Theories

Although humor theorists have differed in the ways in which they have traditionally

defined humor (e.g., as a comedic performance, a personality characteristic, a communicative

act, a dyadic/social experience) (Dudden, 1985; Meyer, 2000; Lili, 2012), they have agreed upon

three major theories that explain the functions of humor in society. It is important to discuss

these theories in order to develop a context for relationship between humor and cognitive

dissonance. Historically, these theories have been studied in the context of comedic

performances, originating with the rhetoric of Mark Twain as a performative and persuasive

attempt at cultural critique (Dudden, 1985); however, researchers have since extended the study

of humor to the areas of psychology (Freud, 1960), education (Banas, Dunbar, Rodriguez & Liu,

2011), health (Wanzer, Sparks, Frymier, 2009), persuasion (Skalski et al.), and interpersonal

communication studies (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1995) in order to

explore its many functions and effects.

Superiority Theory.

First is the superiority theory of humor, which posits that humor allows audiences to

laugh at the foolishness of others as an expression of dominance or superiority (Keith-Speigel,

1984; Perks, 2012). Humor styles congruent with superiority theory include ridicule, teasing,

insults, stereotypes, or sarcasm (Berger, 2001; Gilbert, 2004; Meyer, 2000), and are assumed to

leave the audience with greater feelings of self-worth after the denigration of a target (Perks,

2012, p. 121). As it relates to cognitions and affective states, superiority theory assumes that

humorists experience elation in the form of triumph over and at the expense of others. However,

some scholars have argued that this triumph may produce consequent cognitive tensions if their

attempt at superiority-driven humor results in feelings of stupidity, immorality or confusion by


9/25


the speakers (Burke, Sparkes, & Allen-Collinson, 2008). The effects of this pattern will be

elaborated upon in the following section reviewing cognitive dissonance theory.

Incongruity Theory.

Incongruity theory describes humor as a process tied to the experience of the

inconsistencies found in everyday life. Incongruity, as stated by McGhee, is defined as

something unexpected, out of context, inappropriate, unreasonable, illogical, [and/or]

exaggerated (as cited in Lili, 2012, p. 10). Incongruity theory assumes that people laugh when

situations contain these elements and are framed as humorous message content (Keith-Speigel,

1984, p. 19). According to Graham (1995), incongruity theories focus on the cognitive

processes involved in perceiving humor and reacting to incongruities (i.e., humor results from

the discovery of an incongruity) (p. 158). Several theorists argue that incongruities are at the

core of all humorous messages (Lili, 2012) and that the discovery of an incongruity is an

essential condition of humor (Graham, 1995; Perlmutter, 2002). The incongruity theory attempts

to highlight the ways in which individuals make sense of conceptual inconsistencies through

expressions of humor (i.e., jokes, wit, irony, sarcasm) and/or laughter.

Cognitive Relief Theory.

Of most relevance to this review is the cognitive relief theory of humor (Wilson, 1979),

also referred to as the psychoanalytic theory of humor, originally proposed by Freud (1960). This

theory assumes that people laugh in order to relieve cognitive tensions that are otherwise

suppressed, thus creating psychological discomfort. Relief theory further suggests that laughter,

(as a response to humor) functions as a vehicle to rid of built-up disagreeable emotions, cognitive

tensions, and/or nervous energies as an attempt to regain cognitive homeostasis after a struggle

or strain has occurred (Lynch, 2002). One form of humor associated with the relief theory is


10/25


contextual irony, meaning that the seriousness (or lack of seriousness) of ones discourse is not

consonant with the gravity of a situation (Perks, 2012, p. 124). This type of humor is routinely

found in television shows such as The Colbert Report and/or Daily Show with John Stewart,

where the show hosts use irony as a means to expose crisis situations. In this way, the humorist

attempts to alleviate psychological discomfort (both on behalf of the speaker and audience)

through the expression of contextual irony in the form of a joke. Relief theory provides a more

comprehensive understanding about speaker motivations to reduce cognitive distress by

establishing connections between the experience of psychological distress and the concurrent

drive to regain cognitive homeostasis (neither positive or negative affect) through the use of

humor.

Research by Chapple and Ziebland (2004) on patients with testicular cancer reported that

the patients jokes allowed for the expression of a wide range of emotions, including anxiety,

guilt, disappointment, anger and group which helped the patients to manage feelings, reduce

tensions and share solidarity among other patients (p. 1125). This tension management is made

possible because the relief theory assumes an affective change in the message sender and

receiver through the use of humor (Perks, 2012). This theory provides a platform for exploring

the ways in which humor functions as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy for message

senders by reducing tensions, thus allowing message senders to regain a homeostatic cognitive

state during experiences of dissonance. In order to further develop this conclusion, a review of

cognitive dissonance theory and dissonance reduction strategies is provided as context for this

potential phenomenon.


11/25


Cognitive Dissonance Theory

The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is predicated on the assumption that

people have certain cognitions, or pieces of knowledge, about ones own behavior and about the

surrounding world, including the behavior and opinions of other people, as well as perceived

characteristics of the physical world (Brehm, 2007, p. 382). These cognitions are reflective of

individualspast experiences and carry potential to shape behaviors and attitudes (Oshikawa,

1968). Cognitive dissonance occurs when two or more cognitions or thoughts are in

disagreement with one another, (Festinger, 1957, p. 20) thus creating an uncomfortable

cognitive state. Because people have a need for consistency, a discrepancy occurs between

cognitions which results in tension (Stiff & Mongeau in press). Cognitive dissonance has

typically been studied in situations where individuals are required to make a decision between

competing and favorable alternatives (Graham, 2007). A common example of cognitive

dissonance can be found in the following circumstance: a smoker continues to smoke regardless

of their belief that smoking causes negative or detrimental effects to their health (Dijkstra, 2009).

In this example, the smokers belief about their behavior is discrepant with the behavior itself.

Cognitive dissonance theory accounts for situations in which an individual may believe one

thing, yet acts or behaves in a different way.

According to Brehm (2007), the magnitude of dissonance one experiences is directly

related to three factors- importance of cognitions, resistance to change, and the relationship of

the person to the cognition (i.e., how individuals perceive the cognition in relation to self). In

other words dissonance is primarily dependent on the importance ones eventual decision made

in order to reduce (and/or cope with) the tension, and [the] relative attractiveness of the

unchosen alternative (Stiff & Mongeau, in press). Some individuals self-reported greater


12/25


tolerances and/or tendencies for cognitive dissonance based on various personality characteristics

(Hawkins, 1972; Shaffer, Hendrick, Regula, & Freccona, 1973). For example, research by Burke,

Sparkes, and Allen-Collinson (2008) showed that people who demonstrated a low tolerance for

cognitive dissonance were more likely to display greater efforts to reduce it than people with a

high tolerance. High tolerance has been associated with a strong sense of humor or sense of self.

Although tolerance in this case was not operationally defined, Hawkins (1972) described these

relationships in terms of personality characteristics, suggesting that some individuals are more

prone to anxiety under certain conditions, and therefore, the experience of cognitive dissonance.

As such, individuals develop differing thresholds over time in order to cope with anxiety and

manage cognitive dissonance. Graham (2007) further suggested that different types of moral

dilemmas complicate this process and elicit different levels of dissonance based on the moral

beliefs of the individual. Moreover, experimental research by Oshikawa (1968) on the theory of

cognitive dissonance post decision-making, concluded that the stronger cognitive dissonance is

experienced by individuals, the more motivated they were to reduce dissonanceby

reevaluating their attitudes (p. 429).

Researchers agree that humans are naturally driven to reduce cognitive dissonance

(Festinger, 1957) because it is an uncomfortable state (Graham, 2007). Several reduction

strategies have been explored including those focused on human development (Egan, Santos, &

Bloom), self-concept (Graham, 2007), and psychological discomfort (Graham, 2007; Oshikawa,

1968). For example, a study by Egan, Santos and Bloom (2007) suggested that this innate

motivation to reduce dissonance is both a developmental and evolutionary adaptation aimed at

resolving internal inconsistencies. Other researchers have concluded that the need to reduce

cognitive dissonance occurs as a restorative strategy to regain a preferred self-concept (Stone &


13/25


Cooper, 1999). Research by Stone and Cooper highlighted this relationship and suggested that

dissonance occurs when self-standards are discrepant, and when/because cultural or group

norms are breached (p. 6). So, if an individual assesses ones actions against perceived

normative patterns of behavior, and concludes that their behavior is discrepant, the goal is then,

to restore the moral and adaptive integrity of the overall self-system, thus maintaining the

integrity of ones self-concept (Stone & Cooper, 1999, p. 2).

Cognitive dissonance has also been connected to feelings of increased anxiety, stress, and

psychological discomfort (Hawkins, 1972). According to Elliot and Devine (1994), discomfort is

a mandatory condition for dissonance to occur, and due to this condition, individuals enter a

drive state, much like hunger, to reduce tensions. Overall, cognitive dissonance researchers

assume that humans have tendencies toward equilibrium that create these drive states to reduce

dissonance (Carter, 1959). It is by these assumptions that the cognitive relief theory of humor

provides a further explanation to the ways in which humor functions to alleviate tensions created

by cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction

Cognitive dissonance reduction has traditionally been categorized into three separate

strategies (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Graham 2007; Stiff & Mongeau, in press), with

variations of these strategies elaborated upon by critical-cultural scholars (Burke, Sparkes, &

Allen-Collinson, 2008; Mahaffy, 1996). The first strategy to reduce cognitive dissonance

requires an individual to alter her/his attitude related to the behavior to make it more consistent

with their decision (Festinger, 1957). Thus, cognitive dissonance is reduced by attitude change

(Cooper, 1992). In doing so, an individual may reevaluate their original attitudes about their

decision and develop more favorable thoughts about their choice or preference, and a more


14/25


negative view of the unchosen option (Oshikawa, 1968). According to Cooper (1992) cognitive

dissonance is most easily achieved through these means.

The second method occurs when the message sender attempts to add new cognitions (i.e.,

information) that are consonant with their behavior. Individuals may do so by seeking out new

information or emphasizing beliefs that support their behavior. Finally, the third strategy is for

individuals to decrease the importance or value of the conflicting beliefs (Carter, 1959; Graham,

2007). Research by Stiff and Mongeau (in press) summarized research that found this process

achieved by forming negative attitudes about the decision alternatives that were not chosen.

Ones mood has also shown to have an effect on individuals motivation to reduce cognitive

dissonance, such that a negative mood and high dissonance experience drives ones motivation to

repair the negative affective state (Jonas, Graupmann, & Frey, 2006).

In a qualitative study of identity and cognitive dissonance, Mahaffy (1996) explored the

tensions between two competing identities- women who identified as both lesbian and Christian,

in order to understand the experience of cognitive dissonance that occurs when ones actions go

against their theological belief system. After interviewing multiple women, the researchers found

that the participants used a variety of strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance in order to

maintain consonant cognitions. These strategies included altering ones interpretation of

scripture to fit their attitudes, ignoring others perceptions and responses, emphasizing morality a

central to their relationship with God (i.e., Gods love for all), reevaluating ones identity in the

context of religion, and embracing uncertainty as a leap of faith. Several of these coping

mechanisms demonstrate how the three traditional strategies listed above may be creatively

contextualized to fit a variety of scenarios. Furthermore, many of the women described the

experience of cognitive dissonance reduction as reflexive process, one that occurred over time


15/25


and with social support. Social support was also evident in the study by Chapple and Ziebland

(2004) with patients diagnosed with testicular cancer that used joking as a means to

communicate shared feelings of sadness, grief, uncertainty, and embarrassment.

Burke, Sparkes, and Allen-Collinson (2008) also described cognitive dissonance

reduction as a reflective, social process in their ethnographic study of high altitude climbers. In

their study, climbers were asked to reflect on their experience of cognitive dissonance when their

attempts to climb Mt. Everest were not met with success, despite their expressed intentions to

reach the top of the mountain. For the climbers, the resolution of cognitive dissonance was

reported as a reflexive experience produced in dialogue with fellow climbers. They were able to

resolve dissonance by reconstructing their past alongside others (i.e., experience climbing Mt.

Everest) over time and through elaborate stories. Their findings conclude that cognitive

dissonance involves a mutually elaborative process in which meaning is accomplished from

within the interactions with others who share similar cognitions (p. 352). Earlier research by

Hunt (1970) reported comparable results in the study of consumers post-transaction

communication as dissonance reduction. Here, the dissonance experienced by discrepant

purchasing behavior (i.e., making a purchase then feeling guilty and/or bad for the purchase) was

reduced via dialogue between consumers and retail companies when the consumers were thanked

for their purchase.

Making Connections

After thoroughly reviewing the literature on humor theories and functions, alongside

cognitive dissonance theory and reduction strategies, there is a clear overlap in the research that

suggests the potential for humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy. The

aforementioned research on humor and cognitive dissonance suggests compelling evidence that


16/25


humor does relieve cognitive dissonance due to its potential to reduce uncertainty, alleviate

negative psychological tensions, and influence positive affective states. It is also clear that there

are many parallels between the cognitive relief theory of humor (Freud, 1960) and the experience

of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), such that relief theory explains the role of humor

during experiences of cognitive dissonance. Although there is no existing study that establishes

these connections, efforts will be made to highlight research from which this connection may be

explored in greater depth.

First and foremost, communication scholars have determined that the expression of

humor is a deliberative act that requires communicative effort on behalf of the sender (Wanzer,

Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1995). It has also been determined that humor is not

typically communicated for the sole purpose of being funny, but that humorists frequently

maintain alternative goals, such as rendering laughter to gain favor with audiences (Chapman &

Chapman, 1974; Lili, 2012), or to facilitate social interaction (Norrick, 1993). Through laughter

and shared humor, social bonds are strengthened (Lili, 2012). Summarizing these findings

together, it is safe to assume that humor is a motivated, goal-oriented, and social phenomenon

with the power to shape attitudes and/or behavioral outcomes. It is essential to understand that

under these conditions, humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy may occur more

frequently in the presence of others.

However, research has shown that expressions of humor produce a variety of positive and

worthwhile internal outcomes for speakers. According to Chapple and Ziebland (2004), under

unpleasant psychological conditions of distress, humor provided individuals with a means of

exploring ambiguous situations[and] distancing unpleasantness (p. 1124). For example, the

researchers found that joking with others frequently allowed speakers to express shared feelings


17/25


of anxiety, guilt, disappointment, [and] anger in health settings where fatal health diagnoses

were administered to patients with cancer (p. 1125). Kelly (2002) explained that a sense of

humor during times of anxiety or worry, or rather the ability to cognitively reframe unpleasant

events as humorous, helped individuals decrease depression, loneliness, negative mood, and

social inadequacy (p. 658). Given this research, there are several inherent cognitive and social

rewards for the speaker through the use of humor to reduce dissonant states.

With regard to cognitive dissonance, humor has been studied as a source of dissonance

on many occasions, but not necessarily as a reduction strategy. For example, Hobden and Olsen

(1994) studied the effects of disparagement humor as the source of dissonance by testing whether

participants who freely told disparaging jokes about lawyers experienced cognitive dissonance

under certain conditions (i.e., when the jokes were tape recorded and participants were told the

recordings would be used in a future study with high-school students). The hypothesis was that

telling disparaging jokes about lawyers may produce undesirable outcomes for the speakers

such as strengthening listeners stereotypes, offending listeners,or damaging ones reputation

that could have been anticipated, thus creating dissonance (p. 240). However, this effect was not

shown in all cases. The explanation provided was that perhaps humor is recognized as a domain

where speakers do not necessarily believe their messages, in which case individuals might feel

little self-presentational pressure to appear consistent with their joke telling behavior (p. 247).

Although this study aimed to investigate humor as a source of cognitive dissonance, the results

carry valuable implications for the study of humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy,

due to the nature of humor to allow for these kinds of attitudinal and behavioral deviations in

message senders.


18/25


Similar results were reported in a study of African Americans and their experience of

cognitive dissonance as a result of showing support for the Chappelle Show (Relevance and

racial humor, n.d.). The Chappelle Show has a solid history of showcasing racial discrimination

and prejudice of the African American community through humorous acts and discourse,

performed by Dave Chappelle and fellow comedians. After interviewing African Americans

about the ways in which the various acts conflicted with their racial ideologies, the participants

who selected a humorous framework from which to make interpretations reported that the show

had little effect on their attitudes because it was just humor. Although humor was not

employed by the participants as a means to reduce cognitive dissonance, the experience of humor

allowed for a state of reduced dissonance among viewers when attitudes (racial ideologies) and

behaviors (support for the show) were inconsistent. This assertion may be supported by the idea

that joking lowers the threat of stress and anxiety (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) such that when

individuals make a joke about a stressful situation, one develops a sense of dominance and

control over it, which is incompatible with [the production of] stress and anxiety (p. 62). For

example, self-enhancing humor has been shown to reduce stress in several work related scenarios

between managers and subordinates, demonstrating the cognitive relief theory of humor (Meyer,

2000; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In efforts to draw connections between the use of humor

under stressful conditions and the potential to relieve cognitive dissonance, Meyer (2000)

explained:

Communicators take advantage of humor by telling a joke, often at the beginning of

their remarks, to defuse a potentially tense situation. Often tension results from

dissonance people experience after making a decision or sensing the approach of

incompatible and undesirable thoughts or actions. Because people desire and find it


19/25


pleasing to reduce dissonance (Festinger, 1957), speakers who do so can create

humor[to] make the situation seem more elastic, or more manageable by showing that

difficulties are not so overwhelming. (p. 312).

This explanation may be the closest researchers have come to drawing connections between

humor and cognitive dissonance reduction. Given this explanation, speakers may produce humor

during their experience of cognitive dissonance, thus making light of the situation or their

decision. In this way, humor functions as a communicative (re)framing tool and/or a verbal

manifestation of dissonance that aims to produce mirth in place of tension.

Conclusions, Implications and Future Directions

The study of humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy carries several

implications for the study of communication. To summarize the above literature, one may

assume that under conditions of cognitive dissonance, humor functions as a cognitive and

communicative reframing device that enables speakers to reduce tensions. This is achieved

through the production of humorous messages during instances of cognitive dissonance after a

decision has been made, perhaps best produced in the presence of others due to the affiliative

functions of humor including the production of laughter by message receivers and the experience

of joy that humor creates among group members. As it relates to cognitive dissonance reduction

(Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Graham 2007; Stiff & Mongeau, in press), one may argue that

humor provides a framework from which to employ tension reducing strategies. In other words,

humor shapes (i.e., sets the tone for) the experience of cognitive dissonance reduction. There are

several implications regarding these assertions: humor carries potential to shape or change

peoples attitudes and/or behaviors by adopting a more humorous outlook on the decision

elements; humor provides new cognitions in the forms of jokes and/or stories that relieve


20/25


tensions (cognitive relief theory); and humor assists people in devaluing decision alternatives.

For example, through ridicule or sarcasm (humor styles consistent with superiority theory),

speakers can make their cognitions and subsequent behaviors appear more entertaining. It is also

possible that humor functions to temporarily suspend tensions until a future point when an

attitude or behavior change occurs, or when uncertainty might be reduced; however, these

conclusions have yet to be tested.

There are many variables that remain untested and therefore remain a mystery for humor

and communication scholars. For example, scholars cannot yet determine whether or not

speakers are motivated by humor to reduce cognitive dissonance, what kinds of decisions

encourage the use of humor (e.g., moral, ethical, practical, critical), and/or if speakers are aware

of this potential. Future directions therefore include the study of speakers motivations, their

sense of humor in relation to proneness for cognitive dissonance, and the circumstances that

render humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy effective and useful in daily

interactions. Future studies should seek to determine whether or not the use of humor is a

purposeful strategy, and what characteristics influence this method of cognitive dissonance

recovery. The inclusion of these studies in the communication discipline will assist in

establishing the sound relationship between the study of humor as a motivated strategy and

conceptual framework from which to reduce cognitive dissonance.


21/25


References

Albanese, R., & Stewart, J. (producers). (1996). The daily show with Jon Stewart. [Television

Series]. New York: Mad Cow Productions.

Banas, J. A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., & Liu, S. (2010). A review of humor in educational

settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60, 115-144.

Berger, A. A. (2001).Jewish jesters: A study in American popular comedy. Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton Press.

Brehm, J. W. (2007). A brief history of dissonance theory. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 1, 381-391.

Brown, D. (2005). What part of know dont you understand?The Monist, 88, 11-35.

Burke, S. M., Sparkes, A. C., & Allen-Collinson, J. A. (2008). High altitude climbers as

ethnomethodologists making sense of cognitive dissonance: Ethnographic insights from

an attempt to scale Mt. Everest. The Sport Psychologies, 22, 336-355.

Carter, R. F. (1959). Bandwagon and sandbagging effects: Some measure of dissonance

reduction. The Opinion Quarterly, 23, 279-287.

Chapman, A. J., & Chapman, W. A. (1974). Responsiveness to humor: Its dependency upon

companions humorous smiling and laughter. The Journal of Psychology, 88, 245-252.

Chapman, A. J. (1973). Funniness of jokes, canned laughter and recall performance.

Sociometry, 36, 569-578.

Chapple, A., & Ziebland, S. (2004). The role of humor for men with testicular cancer.

Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1123-1139.

Cooper, J. (1992). Dissonance and the return of self-concept.Psychological Inquiry, 2, 320-323.

Dijkstra, A. (2009). Disengagement beliefs in smokers: Do they influence the effects of a


22/25


tailored persuasive message advocating smoking cessation?Psychology and Health, 24,

791-804.

Dudden, A. P. (1985). American humor.American Quarterly, 37, 7-12.

Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence

from children and monkeys.Psycological Science, 18, 978-983.

Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance:

Dissonance as psychological discomfort.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

67, 382-392.

Festinger, L. (1957)A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Freud, S. (1960).Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. (J. Strachey, Trans.) New

York: The Norton Library. (Original work published 1905).

Gilbert, J. R. (2004).Performing marginality. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Graham, R. D. (June, 2007). Theory of cognitive dissonance as it pertains to morality.Journal of

Scientific Psychology, 20-23.

Graham, E. E. (1995). The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social

relationships. Communication Reports, 8, 158-169.

Hawkins, D. I. (July, 1972). Reported cognitive dissonance and anxiety: Some additional

findings.Journal of Marketing, 63-64.

Heiss, S. N., & Carmack, H. J. (2011). Knock, knock; Whos there? Making sense of

organizations entrance through humor.Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 106-

132.

Hill, D. J. (1988).Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers (and other entertainers!).

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.


23/25


Hobden, K. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). From jest to antipathy: Disparagement humor as a source

of dissonance-motivated attitude change.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 239-

249.

Hopfl, H. (2007). Humor and violation. In R. Westwood & C. Rhodes (Eds.),Humour, work

and organization, 3345. London: Routledge.

Hunt, S. D. (1970). Post-transaction communications and dissonance reduction. Journal of

Marketing, 34, 46-51.

Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., & Frey, D. (2006). The influence of mood on the search for

supporting versus conflicting information: Dissonance reduction as a means of mood

regulations?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 3-15.

Keith-Speigel, P. C. (1984). Eight humor theories. In M. Helitzer (Ed.), Comedy

techniques for writers and performers (pp. 17-22). Athens, OH: Lawhead Press.

Kelly, W. W. (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of humor. The Journal of Psychology,

136, 657-666.

Knock, knock- whos there?: Humorous communication during organizational entrance. (n.d.).

(Unpublished conference paper). National Communication Association Database.

Lili, Z. (2012). Understanding humor based on incongruity theory and the cooperative principle.

Studies in Literature and Language, 4, 94-98.

Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication

research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training.

The Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206-216.

Mahaffy, K. A. (1996). Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians.


24/25


Journal of scientific study of religion, 35, 392-402.

Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37, 407-422.

Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in

communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310-331.

Mintz, L. E. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation.American

Quarterly, 37, 71-80.

Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomingdale,

IN: Indiana University Press.

OQuin, K., & Aronoff, J. (1981). Humor as a technique of social influence. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 44, 349-357.

Oshikawa, S. (1968). The theory of cognitive dissonance and experimental research.Journal of

Marketing Research, 5, 429-430.

Perks, L. G. (2012). The ancient roots of humor theory.Humor, 25, 119-132.

Perlmutter, D. D. (2002). On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humor: The delicate

balance.Humor, 15, 155-168.

Porcu, L. (2005). Fishy business: Humor in a Sardinian fish market.Humor, 18, 69-102.

Relevance and racial humor inChappelles Show. (n.d.). (Unpublished conference paper).

National Communication Association Database.

Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace.Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20, 58-69.

Shaffer, D. R., Hendrick, C., Regula, C. R., & Freconna, J. (1973). Interactive effects of

ambiguity tolerance and task effort on dissonance reduction.Journal of Personality, 41,

224-233.


25/25


Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Glazer, E., & Smith, S. (2009). Effects of humor on presence and

recall of persuasion messages. Communication Quarterly, 57, 136-153.

Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (in press).Persuasive communication (3rd ed.). New York:

Guilford.

Stewart, J., Purcell, T., & Colbert, S. (2005). The Colbert Report. [Television Series]. New York:

Spartina Productions.

Stone, J. & Cooper, J. (2000). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance.Journal of

experimental social psychology, 1-16. DOI:10.1006/jesp.2000.1446

Tracy, S. J., Myers, K. K., & Scott, C. W. (2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves:

Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication

Monographs, 73, 283-308.

Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). Are funny people

popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction.

Communication Quarterly, 44, 42-52.

Wanzer, M. B., Sparks, L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). Humorous communication within the lives

of older adults: The relationships among humor, coping, efficacy, age, and life

satisfactory.Health Communication, 24, 128-136.

Wilson, C. P. (1979).Jokes: Form, content, use and function. London: Academic Press.

Ziv, A. (2010). The social function of humor in interpersonal relationships. Sociology, 47,

11-18.

lit review 2

Documents