Original Article
It's funny because we think it's true: laughter is augmented by implicit preferences

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This study tests the folk psychological belief that we find things funny because we think they are true. Specifically, it addresses the relationship between implicit preferences and laughter. Fifty-nine undergraduate Rutgers University students (33 females and 26 males) from ethnically diverse backgrounds were videotaped while watching a white stand-up comedian for 30 min. Positive emotional expression associated with laughter was later scored using the facial action coding system (FACS). Computer-timed Implicit Association Tests (IATs) were used to measure a subject's implicit preferences for traditional gender roles and racial preferences (blacks vs. whites). Results show that participants laughed more in response to jokes that matched their implicit preferences (e.g., those with stronger implicit preferences for whites laughed more at racially charged material). Implications for the evolution of humor, and laughter as a hard-to-fake signal of preferences, are discussed.

Introduction

In an episode of the Simpsons, Homer makes a toast, “To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems” (Groening, 2004). One way to interpret this joke is that the reason some people find it funny is that it is both surprising — making a toast to alcohol with alcohol while lauding the benefits of drunkenness — and that it illuminates an inherent contradiction: alcohol is both a problem and a solution to life's problems. In this joke, we are forced to confront opposing beliefs about alcohol. In this interpretation, it is the recognition of the two contradictory beliefs that ignites laughter. It may also be the case, however, that some individuals find the joke funny because they have experience with the truth of both claims without referencing the surprise aspect or the contradiction of Homer's toast. Why would some individuals find this joke funny and laugh and others not? George Meyer, a lead writer for the Simpsons, says appreciating humor is “like seeing in two dimensions and then opening the other eye or looking through a View-Master and suddenly seeing in three” (Owen, 2000). ‘Getting the joke,’ however, may require the recognition of either the contradiction or implicit agreement with the ‘truth’ revealed by the joke, and this may rely on what someone believes is true. Comedians often start with the standard, “you ever notice that…” and then encourage us to identify with their observation. Their success may be determined by whether or not we agree with their observation.

Researchers from a wide range of disciplines have suggested that laughter has a role in facilitating in-group bonds. Laugh tracks amplify laughter only when individuals believe it comes from members of an in-group (Platow et al., 2005). If contagious laughter does not extend to out-group members, it may have a function in reinforcing social group bonds. People tend to like others who laugh and share their sense of humor (Fraley & Aron, 2004, Reysen, 2005, Sprecher & Regan, 2002), and laughter is more common in the presence of others (Malpass & Fitzpatrick, 1959, Martin & Kuiper, 1999, Provine & Fischer, 1989), indicating that it may be connected to both social bonding and communication. It has also been shown to increase more in the presence of friends than of strangers, further indicating that it is mediated by group affiliation (Devereux & Ginsburgh, 2001). Laughter is also likely to play an important role in mate choice. In opposite sex encounters, laughter has been shown to indicate sexual interest (Grammer, 1990). Indeed, the high value that humans place on sense of humor when choosing an opposite sex mate, often outranking physical attractiveness (Buss & Barnes, 1986, Feingold, 1981, Goodwin, 1990, Hendel, 1978), indicates that it may have an important function in signaling important information about another's quality or compatibility. Miller (2000) argues that humor evolved through sexual selection and was a way of honestly signaling intelligence and creativity to potential mates.

Laughter is an extremely difficult behavior to study empirically. It can be instigated by humor, but some studies have indicated that laughter may have little to do with humor. Provine (2000) found that less than 20% of conversational laughter followed anything that he or his assistants were able to recognize as humor. However, if many jokes require the laugher to have inside information and are taken out of context, it may be that Provine was unable to understand many of the jokes he claims did not involve humor. Despite this caveat, some proportion of the laughter he recorded was unlikely to have been instigated by humor. Straight lines such as “I'll see you guys later” which were followed by laughter are unlikely to require in-group status to decode. Additional factors affecting laughter may include power, gender and social status (Stillman, Baumeister, & DeWall, 2007). Furthermore, laughter, in response to humor, is often activated spontaneously, beyond purposeful or deliberate control. Researchers from a wide range of disciplines have long noticed the importance of involuntary processes in laughter (Coulson & Wu, 2005, Fried et al., 1998, Moran et al., 2004, Ramachandran, 1996, Shammi & Stuss, 1999). Some have suggested that researchers should distinguish between involuntary, Duchenne laughter, and purposeful, non-Duchenne laughter, when considering the evolution of the laughter signal (Gervais & Wilson, 2005). All of these factors make the objective study of laughter difficult.

Until recently, laughter was regarded as a uniquely human phenomenon. Laughter-like behavior has now been reported in chimpanzees (Provine, 1996) and rats (Knutson, Burgdorf, & Panskepp, 2002). Chimpanzees utter laugh-like sounds when they are tickled and engage in play panting when they are being chased. As in human children, it is the one being chased that laughs. Research on wild chimpanzees provides evidence that play panting may serve as a signal the interaction is not perceived as threatening and play can continue (Matsusaka, 2004).

The ubiquity of laughter and humor across all human cultures, its importance in mate choice, in-group bonding and potentially deep phylogenetic roots all point to an evolutionary function for this behavior. Owren and Bachorowski (2001) propose that laughter evolved in humans because it facilitated cooperative relationships among nonkin, and Weisfield (1993) suggests that humor functions to promote learning through social behavior). Flamson and Barret (2008) similarly argue that humor functions as an honest signal which serves to identify other individuals with similar knowledge, attitudes and preferences. They hypothesize that humor evolved to broadcast information about one's self. Humor is often purposefully oblique or ‘encrypted’ (the lock), and only those with the same knowledge (the key) are able to decode the message. In this way, the humor producer encodes the humor and only those with the same background knowledge are able to decode it and laugh at the joke. Their hypothesis provides an explanation for what is often the deliberately obscure nature of humor and how it differs from other forms of communication. Furthermore, it may incorporate other hypotheses regarding the function of humor, such as the theory that humor involves the violation of expectations (incongruity resolution), as being just another way to cleverly encrypt a message. Another related possibility is that laughter enhanced early hominid's ability to communicate and signal positive emotion, thus improving their chances of being accepted into social groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Clarke (in press) argues that humor is evoked by the surprise recognition of a pattern and rewards cognitive development (e.g., the recognition of novel patterns in the environment). It later evolved as an external signal (laughter) which allows this ability to be advertised in an involuntary and honest manner.

An evolutionary theory may explain why we laugh but it cannot explain what is objectively funny, since nothing is inherently funnier than anything else. Here, the individual is of paramount importance; individual differences in personality, memories and beliefs may play an important role in what we find humorous. In humans, whether or not we laugh may signal something about our unconscious preferences or beliefs; and sharing the joke teller's biases may be important in our response to a joke. Stand-up comedy relies on one person, often without props; a microphone; and an audience. It is unique in that there are no other confounding influences on the humor, and it is clear who is appealing for our complicity in the joke. Clarke argues that stand-up comedy often features what he calls the ‘it's so true’ form of humor (Clarke, in press). He claims that the observer's response will partly depend on the similarity between the image retained by his or her own brain and that depicted by the comedian. So the comparison may depend on the implicit preferences of the audience. If the comparison is perceived as being accurate, the response will be greater.

Conventional wisdom has it that we often find things funny because we think they are true. To date, however, this folk psychological belief has never been scientifically examined. Although the Flamson and Barret (2008) study provides support for the hypothesis that humor signals in-group status by way of advertising shared knowledge between the humor producer and receiver (laugher), it does not empirically address whether or not humor signals shared preferences or beliefs. This is the first study to empirically examine the often heard claim that things are funny because we think they are true. Importantly, we are not testing the claim that something is funny because it is objectively true. Rather, do we find something humorous because we think it is true? If the folk psychological belief that we find things funny because we think they are true is correct, then we should expect that our response to humor will be content specific, and that humor targeting particular implicit preferences or beliefs should result in more laughter by those individuals with these implicit preferences or beliefs.

Section snippets

Methods

Fifty-nine undergraduates from diverse backgrounds (26 males, 33 females — 36 Caucasians, 21 Asians and two African Americans) from an introductory anthropology course were selected for the study and offered extra credit (5% added to their final) in exchange for their participation. Each participant was videotaped while watching a 30-min video of stand-up comedian Bill Burr's HBO special and took two computer-based Implicit Association Tests (IATs). The order of the tasks was counterbalanced

Results

The total EMFACS scores for gender differences jokes minus the control jokes were significantly and positively correlated with scores on the gender preferences IAT (r=.334, N=59, p=.010) (see Fig. 2 and Table 2). So participants who more strongly associated males with career and females with family (traditional gender roles) showed greater positive affect in response to the gender differences jokes than those who showed this association less strongly. The association strengthened marginally

Discussion

The primary result was that the magnitude of the laughter response was specific to the content of the jokes and the implicit preferences of the participants. Participants laughed more in response to specific bits which matched their implicit preferences. Implicit preferences may play an important role in an individual's response to different types of humor or specific jokes. If implicit preferences affect our response to humor, then laughter may serve as a signal that we share the joke teller's

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Rolando DeAguiar for helping to develop the IATs and for suggestions at every phase of the study. I also would like to thank Robert Trivers, Alistair Clarke, Anthony Greenwald and Paul Ekman for help with the study and editorial comments on the manuscript.

References (42)

  • DevereuxP.G. et al.

    Sociality effects on the production of laughter

    Journal of General Psychology

    (2001)
  • EkmanP. et al.

    The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology II

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • EkmanP. et al.

    Facial Action Coding System (FACS): Manual

    (1978)
  • FeingoldA.

    Testing equity as an explanation for romantic couples “mismatched” on physical attractiveness

    Psychological Reports

    (1981)
  • FlamsonT. et al.

    The encryption theory of humor: A knowledge based mechanism of honest signaling

    Journal of Evolutionary Psychology

    (2008)
  • FraleyB. et al.

    The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters

    Personal Relationships

    (2004)
  • FriedI. et al.

    Electric current stimulates laughter

    Nature

    (1998)
  • GervaisM. et al.

    The evolution and function of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach

    Quarterly Review of Biology

    (2005)
  • GoodwinR.

    Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar?

    Sex roles

    (1990)
  • GrammerK.

    Strangers meet: Laughter and non-verbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

    (1990)
  • GreenwaldA.G. et al.

    Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1998)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Insights from the animal kingdom

      2014, Journal of Consumer Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Among other traits, these include such general ones as having a sense of humor, using complex communication, having emotions, having culture, having self-awareness, and constructing and using tools. Some have argued that only humans have a sense of humor and that laughter as a response to humor was a uniquely human response (Lynch, 2010). However research has shown that three other great apes in addition to humans (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) react in similar ways when they are tickled by another member of their species.

    • The animal nature of spontaneous human laughter

      2014, Evolution and Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      If spontaneous laughter originated from a highly conserved play signaling system shared by our closest primate relatives (e.g., the sound of labored breathing during physical play) (Provine, 2000), honest displays might function to guide adaptive behavior in receivers in the form of trust and cooperation. Several functions for human laughter have been proposed such as signaling playful and cooperative intent (Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Mehu & Dunbar, 2008), implicit preferences (Lynch, 2011), encrypted knowledge (Flamson & Barrett, 2008; Flamson & Bryant, 2013) or group coalitions (Bryant, 2012). Dishonest signals associated with communicative behaviors of affiliative intent could facilitate manipulative strategies, and we should expect vigilance that minimizes their effectiveness.

    • Convergence of speech rate in conversation predicts cooperation

      2013, Evolution and Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Research has shown that people who have known each other longer tend to laugh together more (Smoski & Bachorowski, 2003a; Bryant, 2012) and familiarity between conversationalists is perceptible in the co-laughter itself (Bryant, 2012). Lynch (2011) found that people with greater similarity in implicit preferences laugh together more, suggesting an association with social cohesion. Gervais and Wilson (2005) argued that laughter functions as a medium for mirthful emotional contagion that recruits partners into resource-building social play.

    • Encrypted humor and social networks in rural Brazil

      2013, Evolution and Human Behavior
    • Sharing a joke: The effects of a similar sense of humor on affiliation and altruism

      2013, Evolution and Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      As Flamson and Barrett argue with their “encryption model of humor”, jokes consist of an explicit public utterance, and also an implicit “encrypted” reference to an item of background knowledge, and that only those who share this background knowledge have the “key” that enables them to decrypt, and therefore ‘get’ the joke. In this way, ‘getting’ a joke provides a hard-to-fake signal of shared background knowledge; and hence monitoring others' reactions to jokes and comparing them to one's own, provides a reliable means of identifying others with shared knowledge (Flamson & Barrett, 2008; see also, Lynch, 2010). As such, “intentionally produced humor provides “a means of broadcasting information about the self and acquiring information about others to aid in determining which peers would be most compatible as long-term partners, such as friends or mates” (p262).

    • Sharing the joke: The size of natural laughter groups

      2012, Evolution and Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      This gives rise to the commonly observed phenomenon that conversation groups readily split into several subgroups once they get too large (Dunbar et al., 1995). The fact that laughter subgroups are of the similar size to conversational subgroups might reflect the fact that, in the contemporary context at least, laughter depends on jokes, and hence speech, and will thus be sensitive to the same factors as speech, including the physical distance between the interactants (Chapman, 1975), the relationship between them (Platow et al., 2005), and the similarity in sense of humor (Lynch, 2010). However, this cannot be the whole explanation because we do not need to hear the joke to laugh when everyone else is laughing: under these circumstances; we simply cannot help laughing even if we do not understand the joke (Provine, 2001).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text