Modeling the Senses of Humor in the
Context of Mass Media Comedy

Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D.
School of Communication
Cleveland 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)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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
6
5.5
5
4.7
4.5
4.7
4.4
4
3.5
Low preference for
slapstick
High preference for
slapstick
3.8
Interaction is ns
3
Low perceived
slapstick
High perceived
slapstick
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall episode
enjoyment (0-10) as an Interaction of Perceived
slapstick and Preference for slapstick
7
6.5
6.1
6
5.4
5.5
5
5.3
5.1
Low preference for
slapstick
High preference for
slapstick
4.5
Interaction is ns
4
Low perceived
slapstick
High perceived
slapstick
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor
Response and Mirth
Behavior (7/9/07)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
86%
61%
"Yes"
"No"
"Don't know"
27%
13%
No Laugh Track
Condition
7% 7%
Laugh Track
Condition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Chi-square for correct
identification = 9.3,
p=.01
LT ’07: Preference for Laugh Tracks as related to
Condition and Identification of LT
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
10.5
No Laugh Track
Condition
Laugh Track
Condition
3.4
-2.4
Incorrect
identification of LT
-4.1
Correct identification
of LT
Main Effects:
Condition
ns
ID of LT
p=.068
Interaction:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
ns
Evidence from LT ‘07

Significant differences in humor
response to the 8 conditions:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Total perceived
funniness scores by condition
140
No Laugh
Track
127
120
80
Laugh
Track
94
100
74
83
76
65
62 65
60
Main effect for laugh
track: ns
40
Main effect for episode:
F(3,106)=5.32, p=.002
20
0
Interaction effect:
F(3,106)=3.06, p=.031
Opie the
Birdman
Black Day
for
Mayberry
Opie's IllGotten
Gains
Up in
Barney's
Room
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
15.9
16
14
12.6
12
10.8
10.3
10
8
No Laugh
Track
7.1
8.4
10.8
7.6
6
Main effect for laugh
track: ns
4
Main effect for episode:
ns
2
0
Laugh
Track
Interaction effect:
F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005
Opie the
Birdman
Black Day
for
Mayberry
Opie's IllGotten
Gains
Up in
Barney's
Room
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor
Response and Mirth
Behavior (7/9/07)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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)
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-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 characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Identification with characters/situations
6. Personality characteristics
7. Higher level interactions
Information
Acquisition
Humor Response
(Affective
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Preference for various
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
Preference for
stimulus
presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Surprise
-Etc.
Individual Differences
(e.g., proclivity to
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g.,
co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,
privacy)
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
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:
1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)
2. Demographic characteristics
3. Past experiences with content elements
4. Past experiences with source elements
5. Higher level interactions
Perceived levels of
various humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-High Arousal
(e.g., Shock) Humor
-Etc.
Presentations to follow will examine
the role of some of
Humor Response
(Affective
these critical variables:
response; i.e.,
finding a stimulus
funny)
Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
1. Medium-specific characteristics (e.g., Evan
Lieberman’s analysis of early film conventions and
their comedic violations)
Perceived levels of
stimulus presentation
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Etc.
2. Past experiences with content forms (e.g., Jack
for
Powers’ tracing of Preference
the changing
emphases
in Contextual Cues (e.g.,
Individual
Differences
co-laughers, laugh track,
stimulus
(e.g.,
proclivity
to
television
comedy)
Preference for various
expectations of others,
presentation
humor types:
-Incongruity
-Disparagement
-Social Humor
-Shock Humor
-Etc.
characteristics:
-Reality
-Intentionality
-Rarity (“Odds”)
-Dry delivery
-Etc.
laugh/traditional
“sense of humor”
scales, perceived
social presence)
privacy)
3. Interactions of medium with humor preferences and
expectations (e.g., Paul Skalski’s look at the
evolution of humor in video gaming)
Neuendorf, ISHS '07