1 / 13

EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR

Silvia Pontalti and Stefania Giacomozzi Lingua e traduzione inglese II A - LS. EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR. by David J. Wimer and Bernard C. Beins. Difficulty in measuring humor. 1) We don’t have an objective metric for identifying how funny humorous material really is.

dinah
Download Presentation

EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Silvia Pontalti and Stefania Giacomozzi Lingua e traduzione inglese II A - LS EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED HUMOR by David J. Wimer and Bernard C. Beins

  2. Difficulty in measuring humor 1) We don’t have an objective metric for identifying how funny humorous material really is. We rely on ratings of humor We rely on external demonstration of appreciation like smiling and laughter Both of these types of observation vary according to the nature of the social setting 2) The present research is concerned with how contextual factors influence cognitive humor appraisal. Two experiments: 1) plausibility of message about joke quality 2) group size

  3. The present research is concerned with three questions: • You’re going to love this next comedian - she/he is very funny! 1) Would that message improve your cognitive appraisal of the comedian? • This next comedian is the funniest person in the world! 2) Would your cognitive appraisal of the comedian be different? 3) Would your cognitive appraisal of the comedian differ if you were the only patron at the club?

  4. The authors focus on the: Distinction between two humor appreciation: 1. Cognitive: occurs in one’s mind. Measured through objective ratings. 2. Affective: involves more physical reaction, like smiling and laughter (mirth)‏

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

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

  7. Results:Partecipants rate the jokes in accord with the information that researchers have provided about supposed prior ratings Mean joke rating Horribly funny Very Unfunny Neutral Very Funny Hysterically Funny Expected Humor Value

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

  9. Experiment 2 To answer the question: • Social factors (less cognitive and more affective) will affect joke ratings ? • Participant:120 undergraduate psychology students (volunteers). 83 women and 37 men, aged from 18 to 23. • Materials: Partecipants receive a booklet containing 21 jokes and researchers give them information about their presumed funniness. (same as in Exp. 1)‏ • Procedure:students are tested individually or in group of 3 or 4/ 7 or 8. The two less plausible categories of Exp. 1 (Histerically funny and Horribly Unfunny) are omitted. They do not receive indications during testing (participants not influenced by reaction of others)

  10. Results:the presence of others does not have an effect on cognitive evaluation of jokes, only on affective responses (mirth)‏ Expectations Very unfunny Very funny Testing format Individual 3.48 3.65 (3.56)‏ Group of 3 or 4 3.30 4.18 (3.72)‏ Group of 7 or 8 3.39 3.92 (3.66)‏ (3.39)‏ (3.88)‏

  11. Discussion: Results support Chapman and Chapman’s (1974) contention ratings are affected by different factors than are affective responses.

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

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

More Related