Put-down humor always has a target, and the intent of the speaker is to make fun of someone or something. Due to its inherently social nature, put-down humor could strongly affect socio-emotional group processes and outcomes like cohesion. We hypothesized that put-down humor would increase cohesion when it was targeted at outgroup members and was followed by laughter. Two laboratory experiments were conducted to examine the underlying processes of the put-down humor – cohesion relation. Study 1 showed that put-down humor of outgroup members (as compared to no humor) did not increase participants’ attraction to the group. But it increased perceived cohesion among other group members and the perception that other group members felt safer and were more similar to each other. Even when procedures were altered in Study 2 to reduce participants’ evaluation apprehension and their potential anxiety about not themselves being humorous, we found the same pattern of results. We discuss which conditions might be necessary for put-down humor to increase one’s personal attraction to a group.
About the authors
Christine Gockel is Professor of Business Psychology at SRH University of Applied Sciences Berlin. Prior to that, she held post-doctoral positions at Chemnitz University of Technology and the University of Fribourg, after receiving her Ph.D. in 2007 at Michigan State University. In her research, she focuses on transactive memory systems, shared leadership, and humor in teams.
Norbert L. Kerr is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Kent and Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University. His research interests focus on group performance, social dilemmas, and psychology and the law.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A.1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology51. 1173–1182.Search in Google Scholar
Byrne, D.1971. Can Wright be wrong? Let me count the ways. Representative Research in Social Psychology2. 12–18.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. R.1986. Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In B. B.Schieffelin & E.Ochs (eds.), Languages socialization across cultures, 183–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620898.009Search in Google Scholar
Foot, H.1991. The psychology of humor and laughter. In R.Cochrane & D.Carroll (eds.), Psychology and social issues: A tutorial text, 1–13. London & New York: Falmer Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L.2012. Reflections on the “Fourth Drawback” [Blog post]. http://grouplab.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-kerrmudgeon-blog-pet-peeves-of-a-social-psychological-greybeard/Search in Google Scholar
La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maeson, W. A.1976. Superiority, enhanced self-esteem and perceived incongruity humor theory. In A. J.Chapman & H. C.Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Levine, J.1969. Motivation in humor. New York: Atherton Press.Search in Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J.1993. What is known about unit cohesion and military performance. In Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: Options and assessment, 283–331. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, R. A.2001. Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin127. 504–519.Search in Google Scholar
Pogebrin, M. R., & Poole, E. D.1988. Humor in the briefing room: A study of the strategic uses of humor among police. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography17. 183–210.10.1177/089124188017002003Search in Google Scholar
Platt, T. & Forabosco, G.2012. Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed at. In P.Gremigni (ed.), Humor and health promotion, 229–252. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Biomedical Books.Search in Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F.2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40. 879–891.10.3758/BRM.40.3.879Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L.2001. Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces80. 123–158.Search in Google Scholar
Ruch, W.1992. Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the 3 WD humor test. In C. D.Spielberger & J. N.Butcher (eds.), Advances in personality assessment, Vol. 9, 27–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E.1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.Leinhardt (ed.), Sociological methodology 1982, 290–312. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.10.2307/270723Search in Google Scholar
Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E.2002. From “I” to “we”: The role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations55. 55–88.10.1177/0018726702055001606Search in Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, A., Vander Elst, T., Dikkers, J., De Lange, A., & De Witte, H.2012. This is funny: On the beneficial role of self-enhancing and affiliative humour in job design. Psicothema24. 87–93.Search in Google Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A.1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54. 1063–1070.10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton