Sex Roles

, Volume 16, Issue 9–10, pp 521–531 | Cite as

Gender, attitudes towards women, and the appreciation of sexist humor

  • Timothy E. Moore
  • Karen Griffiths
  • Barbara Payne
Article

Abstract

According to the dispositional theory of humor, females should enjoy female-disparaging jokes less than male-disparaging jokes because the recipient of the disparagement in the former situation is a member of the respondent's reference group. Several studies have shown, however, that both men and women often prefer female-disparaging humor. In the present study, attitudinal disposition was measured using Spence and Helmreich's Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Participants were then asked to rate the funniness of sexist and nonsexist jokes. Although sexist jokes were, in general, rated funnier than nonsexist jokes, joke type interacted with attitudinal disposition such that males and females with less traditional views of women's roles showed reduced preference for sexist humor, compared to their more traditional counterparts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354–364.Google Scholar
  3. Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K., & Aiello, J. R. Sex of subject and gender identity as factors in humour appreciation. Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 561–573.Google Scholar
  4. Canter, R. J., & Ageton, S. S. The epidemiology of adolescent sex-role attitudes. Sex Roles, 1984, 11, 657–676.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, J. R. What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 164–172.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, A. J., & Gadfield, N. H. Is sexual humour sexist? Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 141–153.Google Scholar
  7. Grote, B., & Cvetkovitch, G. Humour appreciation and issue involvement. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 27, 199–200.Google Scholar
  8. Janus, S. Humour, sex, and power in American society. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1981, 41, 161–167.Google Scholar
  9. Jean, P. J., & Reynolds, C. R. Sex and attitude distortion: Ability of females and males to fake liberal and conservative positions regarding changing sex roles. Sex Roles, 1984, 10, 805–815.Google Scholar
  10. Judd, C. M., & Kulik, J. A. Schematic effects of social attitudes on information processing and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 569–578.Google Scholar
  11. Henkin, B., & Fish, J. M. Gender and personality differences in the appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Psychology, 1986, 120, 157–175.Google Scholar
  12. LaFave, L. Humour judgments as a function of reference groups and identification classes. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humour: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. Levine, J. B. The feminine routine. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 173–175Google Scholar
  14. Losco, J., & Epstein, S. Humor preference as a subtle measure of attitudes towards the same and opposite sex. Journal of Personality, 1975, 43, 321–334.Google Scholar
  15. McGhee, P. E. Humor: its origin and development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1979.Google Scholar
  16. McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. The role of identity of the victim in the development of disparagement humor. Journal of General Psychology, 1983, 108, 257–270Google Scholar
  17. McGhee, P. E., & Lloyd, S. A. A developmental test of the disposition theory of humor. Child Development, 1981, 52, 925–931.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, T. E., & Hood, J. Schematic processing of sex stereotypes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, PA, April 1983.Google Scholar
  19. Neitz, M. Humor, hierarchy, and the changing status of women. Psychiatry, 1980, 43, 211–223.Google Scholar
  20. Nevo, O. Does one ever really laugh at one's own expense? The case of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 49, 799–807.Google Scholar
  21. Priest, R. F., & Wilhelm, P. G. Sex, marital status, and self-actualization as factors in the appreciation of sexist jokes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 92, 245–249.Google Scholar
  22. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculine instrumentality and feminine experessiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1980, 5, 147–163.Google Scholar
  23. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 219–220.Google Scholar
  24. Zillman, D. Disparagement humor. In Paul E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humour research, volume 1. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications: London: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. Zillman, D., & Stocking, S. H. Putdown humour. Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 154–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy E. Moore
    • 1
  • Karen Griffiths
    • 1
  • Barbara Payne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Glendon CollegeYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations