Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
The effects of political satire in The Netherlands
Understanding the mechanisms behind humour elaboration
Ayla Oostrom
Student number: 561667
Date of submission: 27/06/2012
Supervisor: drs. Linda Bos
Running head: THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Abstract:
In order to understand the mechanism behind humour elaboration the effects of political satire
were studied in a between-subjects experiment (N=136) were people where confronted with a
satirical message in two different conditions: a satire awareness condition and a satire
unawareness condition. Following the elaborate likelihood model as a theoretical framework
the effects of satire were tested on political efficacy and critical thought. Results indicate that
political knowledge is an important determinant in predicting levels of political efficacy.
Concerning critical thought a lack of significant difference between both conditions
eliminates the discounting cue mechanism as a theoretical explanation for the effects of
humour elaboration. This suggest that a resource allocation mechanism might be at play.
Future research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind humour elaboration.
Keywords: Satire; elaborate likelihood model; discounting cue; resource allocation theory;
political efficacy and political knowledge
1
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Introduction:
Our media environment has changed radically in the last couple of years. Due to technological
advancements, the way people receive political knowledge has changed dramatically. The
information supply people receive on a daily basis has grown exponentially: almost all news
organizations are represented online, providing people with the opportunity to receive the
latest news of the day at any point during the day. Smart phones have given people the
opportunity to access information anywhere at any moment and social network sites increase
the variety of information sources people are exposed to on a daily basis. Not only the
magnitude of information has changed; traditional lines between hard news and entertainment
are blurring as well. In this environment of diffuse media messages it not only becomes
problematic to separate news from entertainment, it also becomes difficult for people to
distinguish ‘real’ news from ‘fake’ news. But how do these satirical messages influence
people?
When satirical news programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert report were
gaining popularity popular amongst young people in The United States (Young & Tisinger,
2006), scholars became interested in the effects those programs. Some scholars were worried
that satire could foster an atmosphere of cynicism which would cultivate negative attitudes
towards the democratic process (Hart & Hartelius, 2007). Other scholars were more optimistic
and believed that satire could create political awareness and get people more involved with
politics.
It is believed that for a democracy to function properly people should be involved with
politics and participate with civic society. Since a few years, however, it is believed that
young people are increasingly alienating from politics. Young people seem to have a growing
feeling that their actions will not have any influence on public policy. Also their trust in
political institutions is declining. (Deli Carpini, 2000).
2
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
It is still not entirely clear what kind of normative effect satire has on a democracy.
Effect studies have found conflicting results. According to Baumgartner and Morris (2006,
2008) satire makes people more cynical. On the other hand Cao & Brewer (2008) found that
satire has a positive effect on political participation. The latest research has mainly focussed
on the effects of satire on political efficacy. Studies that have shown that satire has the
capability to either increase or decrease levels of political efficacy depending on the level of
political knowledge somebody has (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather, & Morey, 2011; Polk,
Young & Holbert 2009).
So far, the effects of satire have been mainly studied in an American context. The
satirical landscape in the United States is somewhat different from that of the Netherlands. In
The Netherlands there is not a very prominent stream of political satire. Mostly, people get in
contact with political satire sporadically. There is for instance a satirical news website called
‘The Speld’ which publishes satirical news articles with ridiculous headlines which from time
to time confuse people who are not familiar with the medium. Investigating how satire might
affect people when they are unaware of the satirical nature of the content they consume
therefore makes this study relevant in a Dutch context. This leads to the following research
question:
RQ: How do political satirical messages affect people when they are not aware of the
satirical nature of the messages they consume?
To find out how people react to political satire when they are unaware of the satirical content
a three-condition between-subject experiment (N= 136) is conducted where people are either
exposed to a written piece of satire where they are made aware of the satirical content before
3
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
reading the message, they are exposed to the same content but where they are not made aware
of the satirical content; or they are not exposed to any message.
Theoretical background:
Nature of Satire
Satire is a concept that is often mistaken for a form of humour in itself. Satire, however, is not
a form of humour but a form of criticism that uses humour as a persuasive tool. It is a rhetoric
strategy that seeks to expose follies in society and confront people with a higher truth
(Colletta, 2009). It is an indirect attack on historical particulars and its ultimate goal is to
change society for the better. Satire thus seeks to persuade a certain message using humour as
a weapon.
There are many forms of humour that satire can use as a weapon. Knight (2004)
identifies parody and irony as the two humoristic tools that are most commonly used to form a
satirical frame of mind. According to him satire is pre-generic. This means that it makes use
of an existing genre by exploiting the familiarity people already have with it. A clear example
of this is the satirical news program: The Daily Show. This program uses the format of a
traditional newscast. The style of presenting is very similar to that of a traditional newscast: it
opens with an official opening tune, the news is presented by a man in a suit, and it covers
current-events. The only difference is the content of the show. It comments on current events
using irony as a tool to point out some of the fallacies in conventional news reporting. Satire
thus uses the familiarity of a certain genre as a stage for critique.
According to the incongruence theory (Meyer, 2000) the origin of humour stems from
a violation of what is socially or culturally agreed to be normal. Thus, using a familiar genre,
satire deviates from recognizable social and cultural norms. This familiarity ensures that the
audience has a standard against which it can measure incongruent messages that are inherent
4
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
of satirical messages.
This leads to the second important feature of satire: the relationship between the
satirist (the creator of the satire) and the satiree (the audience of the satire). In order for satire
to be successful, i.e. to convey a hidden message to the public, it is very dependent on the
cognitive capacities of the satiree’s. Gringe-Pemble & Watson (2003) describe a three-step
process for a satirical message to be understood properly. Firstly, the audience must reject the
literal meaning of the satire. As stated earlier humour contains an incongruence that needs to
be solved by the audience, this incongruity, if it is recognized, has the potential to shift the
perspective of the audience. But in order for this to succeed, first the audience must be aware
of it and reject the literal meaning of the satire. Secondly, the audience must think of
alternative meanings that could replace the literal one. The last step is crucial: the audience
must decide what the moral standpoint of the satirist is in order to determine the nature of the
message. If the audience does not recognize the moral standpoint of the satirist, the humour
can still be conveyed, but the satire is not successful.
These features of satire suggest that processing satirical messages requires a lot of
cognitive energy of the audience. The delicate relationship between the satirist and the satiree
also makes clear that for satire to be successful it is impertinent that the audience is aware of
the satirical nature. Eliminating the awareness of satire therefore might give us some insights
in the persuasive power of humour. This study will look at how humour affects people’s
ability to critically read a message. As humour tries to persuade it seems relevant to look at
how it affects critical thought. Does humour in itself affect critical thought or is it the prospect
of humour that changes the way people read a messages and react to it? Understanding how
satire affects people that are unaware of the satire can tell us more about the effects of humour
as it takes away the possible effect of the prospect of humour.
5
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Effects of political satire
Early research on the effects of humour has mainly focussed on the effects of humorous
content on political attitudes, political behaviour, political learning and information seeking.
The latest research has advanced a bit more and looks more into the specific circumstances
under which humour can have an effect on different types of people. One interesting finding
is the effect humour can have on political efficacy. Mainly Baumgartner & Morris (2006,
2008) found some conflicting results regarding the effects of satire on political efficacy.
Political efficacy relates to ones perceived competence and effectiveness in one’s own
political actions. Research differentiates between internal and external political efficacy.
According to Niemi, Craig & Mattel (1991) political efficacy is the belief somebody has in
his or her own competence to understand and participate effectively in politics. External
political efficacy refers to the trust one has that his or her political behaviour will have an
effect on political institutions. Internal efficacy is more related to one’s own understanding of
politics whereas external efficacy is more related to trust in government and political
institutions.
When it comes to humour scholars agree that different types of humour have different
effects on political efficacy. For instance Baumgartner and Morris (2006) found that ‘The
daily show has the ability to increase internal political efficacy, while diminishing external
political efficacy, i.e. people got more trust in their ability to understand politics but their trust
in political institutions diminished. The Colbert Report on the other hand also decreased
levels of internal political efficacy (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008). One of the explanations for
this decrease in political efficacy might have to do with the satire not being successful. With
the humour of Stephen Colbert it is not clear who is the object of his attack. The show is
popular amongst Democrats as well as Republicans. As the moral position of Stephen Colbert
does not become clear for the audience one of the three steps of successful satire is not met.
6
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Following this logic it is expected that people who are not aware of the satire in a message
will be more confused when confronted with satire and therefore will report lower levels of
political efficacy.
Somebody’s level of political efficacy is believed to be closely related to his or her
level of political knowledge. Somebody high in political knowledge is likely to have more
confidence in his or her ability to understand politics and participate in public life. One of the
findings of Holbert et al (2011) suggest that people with a high level of political knowledge
are most affected by different forms of humour. Therefore this study will take political
knowledge in account as a moderator in the relationship between political efficacy and the
awareness condition.
H1: The relationship between internal political efficacy and awareness condition is
moderated by political knowledge where people with a higher level of political
knowledge will report higher levels of internal political efficacy for both conditions.
To understand how satire affects political-efficacy this study will now turn to some theoretical
background on the elaborate likelihood model.
Humour through the elaborate likelihood model
Scholars have become interested in understanding the mechanisms through which humorous
messages are processed and how this has an effect on attitude formation. As a theoretical
model the most advanced research uses the Elaborate Likelihood model (ELM). The ELM
model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) tries to explain how people process incoming
information, and what influence this has on attitude change and message storage. Petty &
Cacioppo propose two cognitive routes through which people process information: the central
route and the peripheral route. The route that is followed determines what cues people rely on
to process incoming information and how this affects information storage. The cognitive route
7
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
a person takes is dependent on his or her motivation and ability to process a message.
People who are highly motivated to consume a message and who have a high ability to
understand the topic of the message are predicted to take the central route. People following a
central route are believed to focus on qualitative arguments to form an attitude. It is believed
that information processed through this route will cause a more stable and long-lasting
attitude. People who are not as motivated to consume a message or who do not have the
ability to understand the message will focus on heuristic cues to form an attitude. When their
attitude changes through the communication, their attitude change is predicted to be more
short termed and instable.
When connecting this theory to the consumption of satire it remains unclear what kind
of effect humour has on attitude formation. The nature of humour is so complicated that it is
hard to attain whether it leads to central or peripheral processing of information. According to
Young (2008) existing research seems to indicate that “humour fosters some kind of cognitive
elaboration but hinders scrutiny of underlying message arguments”(Young, 2008, p. 212).
She tries to find an explanation for these finding by looking at how humour affects ability and
motivation.
There are some reasons to assume humour is processed centrally. As stated before,
humour often derives from two seemingly incompatible frames within one message. The
audience of a satirical message must have knowledge of both frames, retain them from his or
her memory and solve the underlying incompatibility of both messages in order to get the
joke. This requires a lot of cognitive effort of the audience. This suggests that for humour to
be successful the audience must have the ability to process a humorous message. This would
suggest a central route of elaboration. Additional to the ability to process humour there are
also reasons to belief that people who are confronted with humour have a higher motivation to
consume the message because they have the prospect of entertainment (Nabi, Moyer-Gusé &
8
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Byrne, 2007; Young, 2008).
There are, however, also reasons to belief that humorous message are more likely to be
processed via a peripheral route. This high cognition required from the audience in order to
understand the joke, can also move people away from critical scrutiny of the underlying
premise of a satirical message. I.e. they are distracted by the humour and their ability to
scrutinize is reduced (Young, 2008). Additionally, the prospect of humour could also reduce
the motivation of the audience to critically read the message. People can be motivated to keep
their good mood, so they will be less inclined to engage in critical scrutiny. Similarly, they
could also deem the humour not worthy of scrutiny because they consider it as just a joke.
It remains unclear which cognitive route is followed after exposure to humour. In
order to gain more insights in the effects of political satire it seems important to understand if
humour leads people to critical thought, or unstable short term opinion forming. Scholars have
posited two theories that might explain the puzzling mechanisms behind humour cognition.
The message discounting cue and the resource allocation theory (Nabi et al, 2007; Polk,
2009). According to the message discounting theory people mainly watch comedy to be
entertained. They might not take the political content of satire seriously because it is ‘just a
joke’. They are then thus not motivated to critically process a message. Another mechanism,
the resource allocation theory, posits that getting the joke requires cognitive energy, which
drains away energy for critical viewing, which reduces scrutiny. Polk (2009) set up a study to
find out which of those mechanisms is at play when it comes to humour. His findings suggest
the resource allocation theory. Young (2008), however, more in line with Nabi et al (2007)
found evidence that support the message discounting cue as a theoretical explanation.
The results discussed above indicate that the mechanisms behind humour are not yet
fully understood. The premise of prior research is that people cannot critically process
humour because they do not take it serious because it is just a joke (i.e. it is expected that the
9
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
prospect of humour lowers people’s motivation to critically assess a message) or they do not
have the cognitive capacity for scrutiny because they are distracted by the humour (resource
allocation).
For both theories the prospect of humour affects the motivation people have to
consume the message. The prospect of humour or the awareness of humour is therefore
linked to the motivation people have to process a message. People’s awareness of humour in a
message might thus have an effect on the way they process the message. This research wants
to find out if there are any differences in the way people process a satirical message if they are
aware of its satirical nature or if they are unaware of its satirical nature. If people are aware of
the humour in a message they might use their cognitive energy to understand the joke instead
of critically scrutinizing the message. However, if people are confronted with a satirical
message but they are unaware of it they will at least not on a conscious level use cognitive
effort to understand the joke. Their full cognition will be used to assess the content of the
message. From this the following hypothesis is derived:
H2: Perceived humour is expected to serve as a mediator in the relationship between
political satire exposure and critical thought, where people who perceive the message
as more humorous will be less critical than people who do not perceive the message to
be humorous.
The second aspect that influences the cognitive route people take to process a message is the
ability people have to understand the content of the message. Ability in this study will be
linked to political knowledge. It is expected that levels of political knowledge will affect the
relationship between political satire exposure and perceived humour as well as the
relationship between perceived humour and critical thought. On the one hand it is expected
that people high in political knowledge will be more likely to perceive the message as funny
in either of the two conditions. Furthermore, between perceived humour and argument
10
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
scrutiny, political knowledge also serves as a moderator in that people with higher political
knowledge will be more critical than people lower in political knowledge:
From this the following hypotheses are derived:
H3: In the relationship between satire exposure and perceived humour, political
knowledge serves as a moderator in that people high in political knowledge in both
conditions will perceive the message as funnier than people low in political
knowledge.
H4: In the relationship between perceived humour and argument scrutiny, political
knowledge serves as a moderator in that people high in political knowledge will be
more critical than people low in political knowledge.
The hypotheses are summarised in figure 1 below:
Figure 1: effect of awareness/unawareness on critical thought
Political Knowledge (W)
H2
H3
Perceived
Humour (M)
H3
H4
H1
H1
Perceived Humor (M)
Awareness/Unawareness (X)
RQ1
H2
Critical thought (Y)
H2
Awareness/Unawareness (X)
Critical thought (Y)
Method:
11
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Experimental design
To examine the research question a three-condition between-subjects experiment was
conducted. In the experiment participants were exposed to a piece of political satire. The
piece of satire was chosen from a Dutch satirical news site called ‘De Speld’. The article is
about proposed budget cuts by the government on development aid. In one condition
participants were informed about the satirical nature of the message before consuming it
(‘Awareness condition, N=43); in the second condition participants were just told that they
would read a message (Unawareness condition, N=47). Thus, they were unaware of the
satirical nature of the message before consuming it. And the third condition served as a
control group (N=46) where people were not exposed to any stimulus. After reading the
satirical message participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire (see appendix a).
Participants and procedures
The experiment was conducted in the month April of 2012. The participants were found
mainly in the personal network of the researcher through online distribution. Friends and
family were asked to send a link of the questionnaire to their social network. The respondents
were randomly assigned to one of the conditions using a randomizer tool in Qualtrics. A total
of 136 people participated in the experiment, with 44,9% males and 55,1% female. The mean
age was 34 years, with the youngest participant being 17 and the oldest being 78.
Manipulation check
To find out whether the experimental manipulation was effective, the perceived authenticity
of the message was measured with a four-item additive index consisting of adjective-opposite
pairings. Participants were asked “what did you think of the article you just read?” The
following items, each separated by a 1-to-7 scale were used: not informative-informative, not
serious-serious, not educational-educational and not interesting-interesting. The scale proved
to be reliable (Cronbach’s α=.84). The scale mean was 3.45 (SD=1.52). A one-way between12
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
group analysis of variance was conducted to find out whether there was a difference in
perceived authenticity of the message between the two conditions. There was no significant
difference between the two groups. As expected the people in the unawareness condition
(M=3.47, SD=1.56) perceived the message as slightly more authentic than people in the
awareness condition [M=3.42, SD=1.50; F(1,88)=.02, p=.89].
Measures:
Mediator
Perceived humour. Perceived humour was measured with a four-item additive index
consisting of adjective-opposite pairings. This index was taken from Holbert et al (2011).
After exposure to the satirical message participants were asked “what did you think of the
article you just read?” The following items, each separated by a 1-to-7 scale were used: not
funny-funny, not amusing-amusing, not humorous-humorous and not entertainingentertaining. This scale was shown to be highly reliable (Cronbach’s α .97). The scale mean
was 3.75 (SD=1.98). The normality of the distribution of perceived humour of the awareness
condition and the unawareness condition was further explored. For the awareness condition
the assumption for normality was met (skewness=.09) but in the unawareness condition the
population was distributed fairly skew (skewness=.32), i.e. in the unawareness condition
people perceived the satire as either very funny or not funny at all. This skewed distribution
might influence the results. This problem will be addressed more thoroughly in the discussion
Moderator
Political knowledge. Political knowledge was measured using four questions about Dutch &
European politics. The variable was an additive index from 1 to 4 (M=2.26, SD=1.25). The
reliability of the scale was not ideal, but sufficient considering the small sample size of the
study.(Cronbach’s α=.57). The participants were divided into three groups: low political
13
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
knowledge (0-1 correct answers), moderate political knowledge (2-3 correct answers) and
high political knowledge (4 correct answers).
Dependent variables
Critical thought. To capture critical thought of the participants written responses to the article
were analysed using a coding scheme based on prior research by Polk et al (2009). After
reading the article participants were asked to write down all the thoughts they had after
reading the article. Different aspects that could reflect some kind of critical thought were
measured:
Argument quality (AQ). To capture argument quality the written responses were coded
according to understanding of the joke and critical scrutiny: people who offered no opinion,
who only literally cited content from the article or who had an unclear response were coded 0
(38.8%). People who offered some understanding of the topic and people who were critical
but not specific to the stimulus material were coded a 1 (57.7%). Finally, people who had
specific counterarguments and who showed understanding of the joke, or who were critical
with counterarguments were coded 1 (3.5%). An Cohen’s Kappa intra-reliability analysis was
conducted to determine consistency in the content analysis. The intra-rater’s reliability was
found to be kappa=.62 which indicated a substantial consistency between the two coding
moments.
Word count. For each respondent the number of words used for critical thoughts was coded
(M=8.48, SD=9.38). People who had a score of zero on argument quality, where coded zero
in this variable as well.
14
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Counter argumentation. To capture both the quantity of words and the quality of the
arguments the product of AQ and word count were multiplied to form a hybrid score that
reflects counter argumentation (M=9.00, SD=10.79).
Internal political efficacy. Internal political efficacy was measured using four seven-point
statements. Participants were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the statements.
The statements used to form the scale were taken from Niemi, Craig, & Mattel (1991): “I
consider myself well qualified to participate in politics”, “I feel that I have a pretty good
understanding of the important political issues facing our country”, “I feel that I could do as
good a job in public office as most other people” and “I think that I am better informed about
politics than most other people”. The scale proved to be reliable (Cronbach’s α=.78). The
scale mean was 3.71 (SD=1.28).
Results:
Internal political efficacy
To test the conditional effect of political knowledge and awareness of satire on internal
political efficacy a regression analysis with centred interaction terms was used. See table 1
for results. The model was significant [F(3,126)=5.83, p<0.001]. As was expected political
knowledge is a significant predictor for political efficacy (p=.09). The unawareness condition
only seems to have a significant effect on political efficacy (p=.05) when political knowledge
is controlled for. Against expectation the unawareness condition seems to have a stronger
positive effect on internal efficacy than the awareness condition. The first hypothesis is
therefore only partially confirmed.
15
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Table 1: The effects of awareness condition on political efficacy when controlled for political knowledge
B
1
2
3
Constant
Unawareness
Awareness
3.54
.24
.25
Constant
Unawareness
Awareness
Political knowledge (centred)
4.57
.49
.41
.82
Constant
Unawareness
Awareness
Political knowledge (centred)
Awareness x Political knowledge (centred)
Unawareness x Political knowledge (centred)
4.26
1.01
.68
.58
.22
.38
Adjusted R-Square model 1
Adjusted R-Square model 2
Adjusted R-Square model 3
N
Beta
Sig
.09
.09
.00
.37
.37
.18*
.15
.43**
.00
.05
.11
.00
.38
.25
.30*
.13
.25
.00
.11
.28
.09
.61
.36
-.01
.16
.16
126
*p=<.01; **p=<.00
Perceived humour
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of the
two conditions on perceived humour. There were two groups, the awareness condition and the
unawareness condition. There was no significant difference between the mean of the
awareness (M=3.81, SD=1.92) and the mean of the unawareness condition [M=3.69,
SD=2.07; F(1,88)=.09, p=.77].
Political knowledge and perceived humour
To find out whether political knowledge influences the effect of the experimental condition on
perceived humour a two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted.
Participants were divided into three groups according their political knowledge (low,
moderate and high). There was a statistically significant main effect for political knowledge
16
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
[F(2,79)=2.46, p=.09]; however, the effect size was small (partial eta squared=.06. Post-hoc
comparisons using the Turkey HSD indicated that the mean score for people low in political
knowledge (M=3.32, SD=1.81) was significantly different from the people high in political
knowledge (M=4.68, SD=2.07). The people with moderate political knowledge (M=3.85,
SD=1.98) did not differ significantly from either of the other groups. The main effect for
experimental condition [F(2,79)=.19, p=.66] and the interaction effect did not reach statistical
significance [F(2,79)=1.07, p=.35]. The effect of the awareness condition, moderated by
political knowledge does not reach significant results.
When analyzing the results in a graphic, however, there seems to be an indication of a
difference between the levels of perceived humour for the awareness and the unawareness
condition (see figure 2). Especially people high in political knowledge react differently to the
humour across the two conditions. The lack of significant results could be explained by a
relatively small sample size. The second hypothesis is therefore only partially confirmed.
Figure 2: Awareness condition and political knowledge as predictors of perceived humor
17
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Awareness condition and critical thought
To test the effect of the awareness conditions on argument scrutiny, three one-way betweengroup analysis of variance (ANOVA’s) were conducted. Three constructs were used as
dependent variables: (a) the original AQ score, (b) the word count and (c) counter
argumentation (AQ X Word count). For the original AQ score there was no significant
difference between the mean of the awareness (M=.70, SD=.60) and the unawareness
condition [M=.66, SD=.52; F(1,88)=.104, p=.75]. Also for word count the difference between
awareness (M=8.80, SD=10.72) and unawareness [M=9.13, SD=10.78; F(1,83)=.47, p=.50]
was insignificant. Finally, the difference between the awareness (M=8.40, SD=9.93) and the
unawareness condition (M=8.56, SD=8.98) for counter argumentation also proved to be
insignificant [F(1,83)=.02, p=.89].
Perceived humour, political knowledge and critical thought
The second hypothesis concerned the effect of the experimental condition on critical thought.
In this relationship it is expected that perceived humour serves as a mediating variable that is
moderated by political knowledge (H3&H4). To test this model conditional process
modelling with the Process software by Hayes (2012) was used. The mediated effect of
humour when controlling for political knowledge on counter arguing was tested. The first part
of the model explains the effect of awareness versus unawareness moderated by knowledge
on humour. The effect of political knowledge on perceived humour is significant. However,
there is no significant interaction effect between political knowledge and awareness condition
on perceived humour (see table 2). Therefore, there is no support for the first hypothesis.
18
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
table 2: effect of condition x political knowledge on perceived humour
B
Beta
Sig
Constant
.23
-.01
.95
Awareness condition
.45
-.03
.95
Political knowledge
.32
.66*
.04
Awareness condition x political knowledge
.64
.59
.36
Adjusted R-Square
.07
N
76
*p<.0.1
The second part of the model examines the effect of perceived humour on critical thought
moderated by political knowledge. The model is not significant [F(2,75)=.13, p=.97]. There is
no significant interaction effect between perceived humour and political knowledge on critical
thought. There is no support for the second hypothesis. See table 3 for a summary of the
results.
Table 3 Effect of perceived humour x political knowledge on critical thought
B
Beta
Sig
1.31
9.14
.00
.70
.46
.52
Awareness condition
2.61
-.09
.97
Political knowledge
1.90
-.71
.71
Perceived humor x political knowledge
1.03
-.31
.76
Constant
Perceived humor
Adjusted R-Square
.1
N
75
*p<0.1
The indirect effect of the awareness condition on critical thought through perceived humor is
negative for people low in political knowledge and increases with the level of political
knowledge. See table 4 for a summary of the results. A 90% bootstrap confidence interval for
19
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
the conditional indirect effect does not exceed zero. The indirect effect of awareness condition
on critical thought through perceived humor is thus not significant. There is no support for the
third hypothesis.
Table 4 Effect of condition mediated by perceived humour on critical thought
90% bootstrap confidence
interval
Knowledge
Effect
B Lower bound
Upper bound
Humor
-.72
-.31
.90
-2.99
.31
Humor
.000
-.01
.35
-.69
.43
Humor
.72
.09
.91
-.40
1.75
p<.0.1
Conclusion & Discussion:
This study tried to find out how political satirical messages affect people when they are
unaware of the satirical nature of the messages they are consuming. The results of this study
only offers a scanty insight into the mechanisms behind humour elaboration. A first glance at
the results suggests that there is no significant difference in humour appreciation between the
two awareness conditions. Respondents in both conditions perceive the message almost
equally as humorous and authentic. This suggests that the experimental manipulation has
failed, therefore it becomes a bit problematic to make inferences about the results of this
study. On closer examination, however, there are a few results that offer some insights that
could steer future research.
Although the experimental manipulation was not a hundred percent successful, the
20
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
difference in the normality distribution of perceived humour in the awareness condition and
the unawareness condition is an indication that the unawareness condition did render some
sort of effect. People found the satire either very funny or not funny at all. This skewed
distribution could also be an explanation for the lack of significant results in further analysis.
Another modest finding regards the difference in perceived humour between the
different conditions tested on political knowledge. Although there are no significant results,
there is an indication that for people with high levels of political knowledge there is a
difference in humour appreciation between both conditions. The participants high in political
knowledge report the biggest difference in humour perception. This finding is in line with the
findings of Holbert et al (2011), who conclude that people high in ability are most affected by
different forms of humour. High political knowledge can be seen as a form of high ability,
because in order to understand political satire a lot of cognitive energy is required. This study
did not differentiate between different forms of humour but the fact that people high in
political knowledge reported lower levels of humour appreciation in the unawareness
condition suggests that people may feel mislead. This, however, is pure speculation. People
with moderate levels of political knowledge seem to do the exact opposite. When they are not
aware of the humour they deem the message as funnier than when they in fact are aware of
the humour. Further research is needed to find explanations for these differences.
Regarding political efficacy the findings of this study are not in line with previous
studies on the effects of humour. There is no significant difference in levels of internal
political efficacy between the two conditions. Moreover, it seems that the unawareness
condition has a stronger effect on political efficacy compared with the awareness condition. It
was expected that in the unawareness condition people would be more confused and as a
result report lower levels of internal efficacy. This again adds to the conclusion that when
people are not aware of the satirical nature of the message they consume something out of the
21
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
odds happens. The findings on internal political efficacy go opposite to findings of
Baumgartner &Morris (2008) who found that the confusing satire of Stephen Colbert
decreased levels of internal political efficacy.
Regarding the effects on critical thought the findings of these study at least suggest
that when it comes to humour, it is not the prospect of humour the decreased critical thought.
In this study there was no evidence of a significant difference in levels of critical thought
between people in the unawareness condition and people in the awareness condition. In line
with finding by Polk et al (2009) this study does not exclude the resource allocation
mechanism as a theoretical explanation for humour elaboration. It is possible that because of
the incongruence in the satirical message the cognitive energy of the participants was drained
away from critical thought. There is, however, no comparison possible with a non satirical
message.
Unavoidably, this study contained some weaknesses that should be addresses in future
research. First of all, the stimulus material was taken from a Dutch satirical website. In some
way this accounts for the validity of the study. In the real Dutch media landscape, people can
get confronted with such a message as well. On the other hand, the message was not
perceived as funny. It could be argued that the effects measured in this study are therefore not
valid. Secondly, the satire in this study was not investigated further. Some prominent research
on the effects of satire has started to differentiate between different forms of satire. Holbert et
al (2011) found that people with different levels of political knowledge and political efficacy
react differently to different forms of satire. They distinguish between Juvenalian and
Horatian satire. Especially people with high levels of political knowledge are affected
differently by different forms of humour. For future research the individual characteristics of
the satirical material should be taken into account.
Secondly, the seemingly insignificant difference between the two groups being studied
22
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
should be addressed in future research. The lack of results could have to do with the fact that
the difference between the two condition was only marked with a slight difference in wording
in the questionnaire (i.e. in one condition people read: you are going to consume a message, in
the other: you are going to consume a satirical message). For future research I would
recommend to make the difference between the two conditions more clear. For instance use
multiple signs to make clear to the participants that he or she is about to consume political
satire. Or make the message in the unawareness condition seem more like an authentic news
message (e.g. making changes in the font and the heading).
When studying the effects of humour on cognitive elaboration prior research has also
indicated that source liking plays an important role in the appreciation of the humour. This
could have an effect on the way people process humorous messages. For future studies I
would recommend taking this into account. When studying the effects of written political
satire, however, this becomes a less prominent issue.
A last explanation for the lack of significant results could have to do with the
distribution of the sample. Most of the participants were communication students at the
University of Amsterdam. The absolute number of people high in political knowledge was
low in this sample. With a more evenly distributed population combined with a bigger sample
there results of this study might have been different.
Notwithstanding these limitations this study does make a contribution to the research
on the effects of political satire. Studying the effects of humour remains an elusive practice.
The appreciation of humour is such a personal business that it is almost impossible to
objectively investigate its effect. What does becomes clear of this study is that it remains
important to investigate the effects of satire. Added value of this study is the Dutch context in
which the study was performed. This broadens the scope of research into the effects of
political satire. Until now satire has mainly been studies in The United States where young
23
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
people who are alienating from politics seem to be drawn towards satirical content. Within the
Netherlands satire is not as prominent, but young people are increasingly more confronted
with satirical messages. Even though there was no significant difference between the two
conditions this study shows that satire can have a positive effect on political efficacy. And
that is something worth studying in a time were young people seem to be losing their interest
and trust in politics.
Literature:
Baumgartner, J.C., & Morris, J.S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations,
efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367.
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J.S. (2008). One “Nation” under Stephen? The effects of the
Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
52(2), 622-643.
Bennett, W.L. (2007). Relief in hard times: a defence of Jon Stewart’s comedy in an age of
cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 278-283.
Colletta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen Colbert and
Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874.
Delli Carpini, M.X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information
environment. Political Communication,17(4), 341-349.
Hart, R.P., & Hartelius, J. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 24(3), 263-272.
Hayes, A.F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modelling. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Holbert, R.L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., & Morey, A. (2011). Adding nuance to the
study of political humour effects: experimental research on juvenalian satire versus
24
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
horatian satire. American Behavioural Scientist, 55(3), 187-211.
Knight, C.A. (2004). The literature of satire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gringe-Pemble, L., & Watson, M.S. (2003). The rhetorical limits of satire: an analysis of
James Finn Garner’s Politically correct bedtime stories. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 8(2), 132-153.
Meyer, J.C. (2000). Humour as a double-edged sword: four functions of humour in
communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310-331.
Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Gusé, E.M., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: a serious investigation
into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication
Monographs, 27(1), 29-54.
Niemi, R.G., Craig, S.C., & Mattel, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the
1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. Polk, J.,
Young, D.G., & Tisinger, R.M. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: news consumption
among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night
shows. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 113-134.
Young, D.G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: exploring humour’s role in
disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119-142.
Young, D.G., & Holbert, R.L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An
elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 202-219.
Appendix A:
25
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Vragenlijst
Beste deelnemer,
Deze vragenlijst is onderdeel van mijn afstudeerscriptie voor de opleiding politieke communicatie aan de UvA.
Graag wil ik je wat vragen stellen over actuele politieke onderwerpen en hoe jij daarover denkt. Het onderzoek
zal niet meer dan 15 minuten duren. Heel erg bedankt voor je medewerking.
Lees voordat je verder gaat eerst de onderstaande punten goed door. Deze bevatten informatie over je rechten.
Als je doorgaat aan dit onderzoek dan erken je het volgende te begrijpen:
-je deelname is vrijblijvend.
-Je kunt er op elk moment voor kiezen om je deelname aan het onderzoek te beëindigen.
-Als je er voor kiest om je deelnamen te beëindigen, zal dit verder geen gevolgen voor je hebben.
-Het onderzoek gaat over actuele onderwerpen en je mening daarover, als je op enig punt tijdens
- Wij zullen vertrouwelijk omgaan met uw proefpersoongegevens
Als je meer informatie wilt over dit onderzoek kun je contact opnemen met mij via het volgende e-mail adres:
[email protected]
1.
Links
1
2.
Weinig
1
3.
Weinig
1
In de politiek hebben de mensen het over "links" en "rechts". Wat is jouw positie? Maak je standpunt
duidelijk door gebruik te maken van een schaal van 0 tot 10, waarbij 0 betekent "links" en 10 betekent
"rechts". Welk cijfer omschrijft het best je positie?
Recht
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hoe weinig of hoeveel interesse heb je in Nederlandse politiek, dus in onderwerpen die met Nederland
te maken hebben?
Veel
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hoe weinig/veel interesse heb je in Europese politiek, dus in onderwerpen die met de Europese Unie te
maken hebben?
Veel
2
3
4
1.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Wie is de huidige fractievoorzitter van de PvdA?
Job Cohen
Nebahat Albayrak
Ronald Plasterk
Diederik Samsom
Lutz Jacobi
Ik weet het niet
2.
o
o
o
o
Van welk ministerie is Halbe Zijlstra staatsecretaris?
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie
5
6
7
26
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
o
o
Ministerie van Financiën
Ik weet het niet
4.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Welk land is volgens jou nog niet lid van de Europese Unie?
Malta
Letland
Kroatië
Bulgarije
Portugal
Ik weet het niet
5.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Wie is volgens jou de voorzitter van de Europese Commissie?
Romano Prodi
Javier Solana
Peter Mandelson
Neelie Kroes
José Manuel Barroso
Ik weet het niet
De volgende vragen gaan over hoe jij jezelf ziet. Geef aan in hoeverre onderstaande stellingen voor jou opgaan:
Ik hou niet van lang nadenken
1-klopt helemaal niet 2-klopt niet 3-klopt deels niet/deels wel 4-klopt wel 5-klopt helemaal
Ik probeer situatie te voorkomen waarin ik veel moet nadenken
1-klopt helemaal niet 2-klopt niet 3-klopt deels niet/deels wel 4-klopt wel 5-klopt helemaal
Ik doe liever dingen die weinig denkwerk vragen dan dingen die veel denkwerk vereisen
1-klopt helemaal niet 2-klopt niet 3-klopt deels niet/deels wel 4-klopt wel 5-klopt helemaal
Ik los liever eenvoudige problemen op dan ingewikkelde
1-klopt helemaal niet 2-klopt niet 3-klopt deels niet/deels wel 4-klopt wel 5-klopt helemaal
Ik vind het niet prettig lang over iets moeten na te denken
1-klopt helemaal niet 2-klopt niet 3-klopt deels niet/deels wel 4-klopt wel 5-klopt helemaal
Op de volgende pagina ga je een kort bericht lezen. Neem even de tijd om dit door te lezen en klik dan op de
pijltjes onderaan de pagina om verder te gaan met de vragenlijst.
Kabinet halveert opbrengst Serious Request
“Er is een tijd van geven en een tijd van nemen.”
Den-Haag - Het kabinet zal dit jaar de opbrengst van de jaarlijkse 3FM-actie “Serious Request” halveren. Dat
heeft demissionair Minister van Financiën Jan Kees de Jager vandaag aangekondigd. In eerdere jaren
verdubbelde het kabinet dit bedrag nog, maar volgens De Jager is deze maatregel ‘noodzakelijk’ om het
begrotingstekort onder de 3 procent te houden.
“De maatregel is vrij eenvoudig: Van iedere euro die je doneert gaat er 50 cent naar de schatkist. Bij giften
boven de 10.000 euro loopt dat op naar 80%, en boven de 50.000 euro zal het gehele bedrag de rijksbegroting ten
goede komen”. De zogeheten ‘eerlijk delen-taks’ zal volgens De Jager een kleine 3 miljoen euro opleveren.
Demissionair Premier Rutte noemt de maatregel een noodzakelijke stap: “We zijn zeer redelijk en terughoudend.
Jarenlang heeft de regering het bedrag verdubbeld. Iedereen die iets van inflatie weet, weet dat verdubbelen een
stuk meer kost dan dat halveren oplevert. Bovendien is het ronduit onverantwoord dat tienduizenden
27
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Nederlanders midden in een crisis van deze omvang klakkeloos geld naar Afrika sturen. Dan moet de overheid
durven bijsturen.”
In Afrika is de maatregel met begrip ontvangen. Mpufu (9) verloor zijn beide ouders aan de gevolgen van AIDS,
maar ziet in dat ook Nederland het zwaar heeft. Mpufu: “De overheidsfinancien staan zwaar onder druk. Het zou
egoistisch zijn om dan gewoon hetzelfde bedrag te verwachten als vorig jaar”
Het Glazenhuis zal dit jaar in Zwolle staan.
8.
Wat vond je van het artikel dat je zojuist gelezen hebt? (zet per vraag een kruisje)
Niet Informatief
Niet amusant
Niet serieus
Niet humoristisch
Niet grappig
Niet leerzaam
Niet vermakelijk
Niet interessant
9.
Informatief
Amusant
Serieus
Humoristisch
Grappig
Leerzaam
Vermakelijk
Interessant
Als je terug denkt aan het bericht wat je net hebt gelezen, wat schiet je dan te binnen? Schrijf al je
gedachten op, ook al zijn het maar een paar woorden:
Kun je aangeven in hoeverre je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. Probeer deze vragen zo
spontaan mogelijk te beantwoorden op een schaal van 1 helemaal oneens tot 7 helemaal e
10. Kun je aangeven in hoeverre je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. Probeer deze vragen
zo spontaan mogelijk te beantwoorden op een schaal van 1 helemaal oneens tot 7 helemaal eens:
Kun je aangeven in hoeverre je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. Probeer deze vragen zo
spontaan mogelijk te beantwoorden op een schaal van 1 helemaal oneens tot 7 helemaal eens:
28
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Kun je aangeven in hoeverre je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. Probeer deze vragen zo
spontaan mogelijk te beantwoorden op een schaal van 1 helemaal oneens tot 7 helemaal eens:
11. Kun je op een schaal van 1 tot 7 aangeven hoe weinig/veel vertrouwen je persoonlijk hebt in de
nieuwsmedia? 1 betekent dat je helemaal geen vertrouwen hebt en 7 betekent dat je volledig vertrouwen
hebt.
29
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL SATIRE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Helemaal geen vertrouwen
2
3
Volledig vertrouwen
4
5
6
7
12. Wat is je geslacht?
Man
Vrouw
13. Wat is je leeftijd?
_______ Jaar
14. Wat is je hoogst genoten, al dan niet voltooide, opleiding?
LO
LBO
MAVO
MBO
HAVO-VWO
HBO
WO
Anders, namelijk______________
Debriefing:
Hieronder volgt nog een debriefing als je daar interesse in hebt:
Het onderzoek waar je zojuist aan hebt deelgenomen gaat over het effect van satire op politieke meningen. Het
bericht dat je hebt gelezen is dan ook een stuk satire. Bij sommige mensen is dit bewust niet vermeld om te
kijken wat voor invloed humor heeft op iemand wanneer die persoon zich niet van te voren beseft dat hij of zij
humor gaat consumeren. Indien je geen bericht hebt gelezen dan zat je in de controle conditie. Mocht je nadelige
effecten bij jezelf vaststellen na aanleiding van dit onderzoek dan kun je contact met me opnemen via mijn email: [email protected]
Als je vragen of opmerkingen hebt dan kun je me ook altijd een mailtje sturen.
Heel erg bedankt voor je medewerking aan dit onderzoek.
30