Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Modeling the Senses of Humor in the Context of Mass Media Comedy

Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D.School of CommunicationCleveland State University

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Assumptions based on past scholarship

and our own past investigations

The Senses of Humor Appreciation are multidimensional

There are individual differences in SOH profiles

These profiles can predict mass media comedy choice and responses to mediated comedy

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

A study testing many of the model’s components: Laugh Track ‘07

Experimental design: 4 episodes of Andy Griffith Each in Laugh Track/No Laugh Track versions (8

conditions total)—serendipitous acquisition Subjects = 114 students at CSU, in groups of 2-5 Pre-experiment questionnaire tapped numerous

SOH dimensions and other model elements Posttest tapped responses to the episode overall

and specific incidents within the episode Subjects were videorecorded as they watched the

episode—behavioral response coding to follow

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

A study testing many of the model’s components: Laugh Track ‘07

Thanks to the CSU team Some preliminary findings:

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07

Perceived type of humor in six key incidents is NOT homogenous—perceived levels of different humor types matter

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 Mixed evidence of interactions

between humor preferences and humor “found” on ratings of the episodes:

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall perceived funniness (0-10) of episode as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick

4.7

4.4

4.7

3.8

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low perceivedslapstick

High perceivedslapstick

Low preference forslapstickHigh preference forslapstick

Interaction is ns

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall episode enjoyment (0-10) as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick

6.1

5.1

5.4

5.3

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Low perceivedslapstick

High perceivedslapstick

Low preference forslapstickHigh preference forslapstick

Interaction is ns

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 Good variance on measures

indicates strong individual differences on preferences for these presentation characteristics, and perceptions of their presence in the episodes

Interactions not yet analyzed

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 Presence of laugh track? Subjects

were differentially able to gauge:

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Identification of Presence of Laugh Track

27%

61%

13%

86%

7% 7%

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

No Laugh TrackCondition

Laugh TrackCondition

"Yes""No""Don't know"

Chi-square for correct identification = 9.3, p=.01

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Preference for Laugh Tracks as related to Condition and Identification of LT

-4.1

10.5

3.4

-2.4

-5-3-113579

1113

Incorrectidentification of LT

Correct identificationof LT

No Laugh TrackConditionLaugh TrackCondition

Main Effects:

Condition ns

ID of LT p=.068

Interaction: ns

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 Significant differences in humor

response to the 8 conditions:

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Total perceived funniness scores by condition

6574

127

8376

94

62 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Opie theBirdman

Black Dayfor

Mayberry

Opie's I ll-GottenGains

Up inBarney's

Room

No LaughTrack

LaughTrack

Main effect for laugh track: ns

Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=5.32, p=.002

Interaction effect: F(3,106)=3.06, p=.031

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 Differences in perceived presence across

the 8 conditions: Sig. differences for Social Presence/Active

Interpersonal (see next graph); similar patterns for Engagement Presence and for Time Presence

No sig. differences for Social Presence/Parasocial, Social Presence/Passive Interpersonal, and Spatial Presence

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

LT ’07: Social Presence/Active Interpersonal by Condition

7.1

10.3

15.9

8.4

10.8

12.6

7.6

10.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Opie theBirdman

Black Dayfor

Mayberry

Opie's I ll-GottenGains

Up inBarney's

Room

No LaughTrack

LaughTrack

Main effect for laugh track: ns

Main effect for episode: ns

Interaction effect: F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Evidence from LT ‘07 None yet!

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

The utility of modeling Organizing past evidence Roadmap for future investigations Reference for data analysis plan Alternative models may be

compared

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)Mirth Behavior

(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions

Information Acquisition

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Notes re Humor Model A number of important variable sets are not included (see text box

above model). Variables are lumped together into sets (A, B, C, D, F, G) for

convenience only; a real test would have each variable measured and statistically tested separately.

A presumed causal link is represented by an arrow that leads from one box to another.

An interaction is represented by an arrow that hits another arrow in the middle. For example, the variable set D is shown as having an interaction with set B in the prediction of E.

Important higher-level interactions have not been specified. For example, “reality” perceptions and needs might be different for different types of humor—a three-way interaction between particular components in B and D and A. Four-way and higher interactions are clearly possible.

The nature of each of the various interactions (both specified and not yet specified) is unknown. The following two pages contain simplified examples of possible interactions (simplified=reduced to just low and high).

Neuendorf, ISHS '07

Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior

Humor Response(Affective

response; i.e.,finding a stimulus

funny)

Mirth Behavior(i.e., laughter, smiling)

Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,

expectations of others,privacy)

Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)

Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.

Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Etc.

Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.

Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Etc.

Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium

with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Higher level interactions

Presentations to follow will examine the role of some of these critical variables:

1. Medium-specific characteristics (e.g., Evan Lieberman’s analysis of early film conventions and their comedic violations)

2. Past experiences with content forms (e.g., Jack Powers’ tracing of the changing emphases in television comedy)

3. Interactions of medium with humor preferences and expectations (e.g., Paul Skalski’s look at the evolution of humor in video gaming)