Reconciling a New Theory of Laughter With Its Predecessors

The following is the second of a two-part post.

In this post, I will attempt to harmonize the Mutual Vulnerability Theory of Laughter (MVT) with two other prominent explanations, Superiority Theory and Play Theory.

To see part one, where I give an introduction and reconcile Incongruity and Tension Relief theories, please click here.

Reconciling Superiority Theory

Whereas Incongruity and Tension Relief theories concentrate mainly on laughter’s benefits to individual mental and emotional well-being, Superiority Theory focuses on its ability to initiate changes within the social hierarchy. Laughter, it holds, exists as a signal of dominance, victory, or, at the very least, one’s hope for such positive outcomes. Superiority Theory postulates that laughter and humor are built upon the failings or misfortune of others (or our former selves), something that gives the laugher a delightful leg-up in the world.

Source: Mikhail Nilov/Pexels

It’s not hard to understand why Superiority Theory goes back as far as the ancient Greeks and, to many, remains the most robust explanation for laughter (e.g., Gruner, 1978). It correctly begins with the important supposition that laughter is, first and foremost, a nonverbal signal—an active form of communication—not simply a reaction to certain stimuli. Superiority also understands the central role that status shifts play in determining what we find amusing. It clearly recognizes what the MVT recognizes as lowering laughter, where one laughs in delight at someone else’s shortcomings. It also accounts for the ability of laughter to express ascendency over our “former” selves (whereby we laugh at our own foibles and follies) and sees its role in expressing joy in our serendipitous victories—what MVT recognizes (though with different motivations) as self-lifting and self-lowering laughter, respectively.

What Superiority Theory fails to recognize, however, is that laughter, rather than being an expression of dominance, is much more about fellowship. It neglects the most significant and common role of laughter—that is, to raise others up after they reveal some shortcoming, to ease their anxiety. This is lifting laughter—laughter’s original reason for being. It’s the default message: the laughter of playful chases, of sympathy and compassion, of friendship and support. By contrast, lowering laughter, laughing “at” others, though important, is comparatively rare. And while it’s true that humor can take on an aggressive nature when bringing to light the vulnerabilities of those who tend not to recognize them, the intent behind most of that laughter is to bring them back into the “fold.” It helps to foster group cooperation by shaming those considered either unreliable or unappreciative. Only after that fails will they be targeted for removal from the social circle, again helping to bond those who remain.

Reconciling Play Theory

Play Theory, as the name suggests, posits that laughter initially evolved as a play signal. It is, indeed, commonly employed during play bouts, in humans and our Great Ape cousins, by young and old alike. Laughter can communicate that one’s actions, especially those that could be interpreted as aggressive, are, in fact, inoffensive or safe.

The connection between laughter and play is both obvious and robust; I recently devoted an entire post to this subject. However, as to whether laughter arose specifically as a play signal, I have my doubts. Certainly many, if not most, mammals engage in physical play (Burghardt, 1984). This begs the question: Why did laughter (in its current Great Ape incarnation), only emerge in the last 14 to 18 million years? Old and New World monkeys, along with the Lesser Apes (gibbons and siamangs), exhibit a range of vocalizations, but nothing that resembles what we observe in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

What’s more, one might wonder why laughter, a supposed play signal, acoustically resembles sobbing—again, a behavior observed only in the Great Apes (see Fossey, 1983). It seems much more likely that for our common ancestor, among other potential play signals, nascent laughter filled an ancillary role because most play involves at least some feeling of vulnerability—be it physical, emotional, cognitive, social, or some combination thereof.

Source: Dmitriy Ganin/Pexels

The MVT has no such difficulties explaining laughter’s utility in the types of play we see most in the Great Apes: tickling, play fighting, and mock attacks of various sorts. In each case, one or both participants can experience, or perceive in the other, physical and emotional vulnerability. One would expect the target to express self-lowering laughter to reduce any sense of threat an attacker might feel (that is, after all, why attackers attack). And then, if that doesn’t work, they would add some self-lifting laughter to keep from being thought of as too helpless, as having no ability to equalize things should the opportunity present itself.

If, however, there were no feelings of vulnerability (say, if the target weren’t ticklish) or if the target felt truly threatened and, therefore, physically deficient, then no feeling of amusement would be felt. The MVT thus clarifies how someone’s laugh response would be affected by early experiences with tickling, their current emotional state, their relationship with the tickler, and other factors.

Laughter Essential Reads

Look Who’s Laughing: Are There Differences in Men and Women?

Can We Compare New and Old Theories of Laughter?

MVT also explains other aspects of playful laughing. It accounts for “anticipatory” laughter by the target when there is merely the threat of tickling. And it resolves the question of why the pursuing ticklers and chasers often laugh throughout the exchange as well. Depending on their emotional state, relationship, and so on, aggressors may want to express lifting or self-lowering laughter (including, perhaps, preemptively) to keep the target from mistaking the encounter as a “serious” one. In effect, they laugh to promote feelings of safety, equality, and shared vulnerability, all important prerequisites of play.

Parts of this post were derived from Chapter Seven of Why We Laugh: A New Understanding.

© John Charles Simon