Humor and Persuasion

"Most notably, certain jokes work well for certain audiences."– Rosenbusch et al. (2022, p. 6)

Humor is an underappreciated efflorescence of human intelligence and, at its best, a liberation from an existence that might otherwise seem absurd. Humor makes the unbearable bearable. Henri Bergson thought that at the core of a humorous episode lies something ridiculous: the conventional human pretension not to be ridiculous. In his opening chapter of Laughter (Bergson, 1913), he wrote, “A man, running along the street, stumbles and falls; the passers-by burst out laughing” (p. 8). Conjure the mental image, and you see how this can be funny. Bergson observed that the passers-by do “not laugh at him [but they] laugh because his sitting down is involuntary.”

I confirm that this sort of thing is funny. In 1984, when my cohort of first-year Ph.D. students at the University of Oregon presented their research projects to the faculty, each of us had to take a turn sitting at the head of the conference table. When it was a student's turn, the chair disintegrated beneath him, and we were treated to the spectacle of a pratfall. Conflicting instincts to laugh and show concern immediately asserted themselves. Laughter won. Bergson would have understood. Being a good sport, the student pulled up another chair and gave a fantastic presentation. Now imagine the chair underneath a chairperson collapses.

The mother of my children recalls an episode of her mother tripping and falling into an open suitcase, resulting in the uncontrollable laughter of her two daughters. I did not find this story so funny, considering the possibility of injury. Bergson’s pedestrian presumably was not amused, and my mother-in-law's reaction was not recorded.

Laughter, or humor more generally, is highly context-dependent. There are, of course, general psychological theories about what makes an event or a deliberately designed bit of comedy funny, but these theories capture only a small portion of the humorous effect. In a recent article, Rosenbusch et al. (2022) unpacked the sources of effective humor with data and statistical analyses. Their finding: Whether humor elicits delight very much depends on the match between the material and the audience.

It is easy to see why this must be so. The victim of a mishap is unlikely to be amused, yet a window into their inner strength opens up when he or she is. More generally, many jokes are designed to appeal to a specific group while offending another (members of which tend not to be present at the telling). Xenophobic jokes fall into this category, as do political jokes, which tend to flourish in totalitarian societies and are told when the secret police are not around. Likewise, marginal groups in a society (which need not be totalitarian) tend to develop codes of humor that fellow group members have an easier time getting and appreciating than outsiders.

Besides providing psychological relief from the burdens of oppression, humor supports ingroup bonding. When you know that only you and your friends laugh about this one, you can say “Thank you for sharing!” and mean it.

Professor Barbara Tannenbaum teaches a popular course on persuasive communication at Brown University. While she impresses on her students the need to establish their credibility as speakers (Aristotle’s ethos), she notes that knowing one’s audience is paramount (see Corbett, 1971). Is the audience smart enough to understand a good argument (logos)? What audience’s sensitivities may be exploited to stir up their passions (pathos)? Telling a joke is an act of persuasive speech.

The audience must be smart enough “to get it,” and their sensibilities and prejudices must be such that the material can find a place to dock. Only then will it be funny. The comedian succeeds as a rhetorician when the audience laughs. Their laughter confirms the persuasive intent. Expressive laughter signals agreement. This agreement is often missing.

In an earlier post, I sought to plumb the comedy found in farting (Krueger, 2013). I argued that fathers with a certain attitude and children of a certain age delight when wind is broken, whereas mothers tend to take a less permissive attitude. Incidentally, the post’s title, "Flatus Interruptus," has graduated to being an entry in the irrepressible Urban Dictionary, an outcome I find hilarious.

Christopher Hitchens (2007) distinguished between the ironic and the literal mind, asserting that the latter does not understand the former “and sees it always as a source of danger” (p. 29). See what form the Rosenbusch et al. material-audience interaction takes here: Ironic minds produce wry humor savored by other ironic minds. Literal minds produce literal humor–if there is such a thing–welcomed by other literalists.

Humor Essential Reads

The Psychology Behind Humor

Teasing Apes Suggest Humor Has Deep Evolutionary Roots

Since Hitchens was very concerned with religion, we may ask if interaction effects can be found such that the audience may laugh, thinking they had heard a joke when the communicator had no such intention. Those who assert that jokes can be found in the Bible tend to give God’s announcement to Abraham and Sara that they would have a son as an example (Adams, 1993). Abraham and Sara laughed heartily. Whether God was amused is not recorded. Yitzhak (“he laughed”) was born, suggesting the announcement was not made in jest.

Was it funny? Rosenbusch and colleagues might say, “You had to be there!”