Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 357–363 | Cite as

Humor as a negatively accelerated function of the degree of incongruity

  • Lambert Deckers
  • Debra Salais


The method of limits with weights was employed to determine whether a positive or inverted-U relation described the function between the degree of incongruity and indicators of humor. The degree of incongruity was defined as the difference between the mean of six previous Comparisons and a seventh heavier Comparison ranging from 250 to 7040 grams. Facial expressions and humor and surprise ratings to the seventh Comparison increased in a negatively accelerated fashion with the degree of incongruity. Downward trends in humor indicators with increased incongruity did not occur, and thus the inverted-U relation was not supported. Studies finding an inverted-U relation were interpreted as being the result of the incongruous stimulus coming from another dimension rather than from within the same dimension as the internal standard.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berlyne, D. E. Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.),The psychology of humor. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. Curiosity and learning.Motivation and Emotion 1978,2 97–175.Google Scholar
  3. Deckers, L., & Edington, J.Facial expressions of mirth as a log-log function of the degree of incongruity in a psychophysical task. Paper (poster) presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Deckers, L., & Kizer, P. Humor and the incongruity hypothesis.Journal of Psychology 1975,90 215–218.Google Scholar
  5. Gerber, W., & Routh, D. K. Humor as related to violation of expectancies and to stimulus intensity in a weight judgment task.Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975,41 673–674.Google Scholar
  6. Hopkins, J. R., Zelazo, P. R., Jacobson, S. W., & Kagan, J. Infant reactivity to stimulusschema discrepancy.Genetic Psychology Monographs 1976,93 27–62.Google Scholar
  7. Hoppe, R. A. Artifical humor and uncertainty.Perceptual and Motor Skills 1976,42 1051–1056.Google Scholar
  8. Kenny, D. I. The contingency of humor appreciation on the stimulus configuration of joke-ending expectations.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1955,51 644–648.Google Scholar
  9. Nerhardt, G. Humor and inclination to laugh: Emotional reactions to stimuli of different divergence from a range of expectancy.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1970,11 185–195.Google Scholar
  10. Nerhardt, G. Rated funiness and dissimilarity of figures: Divergence from expectancy.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1975,16 156–166.Google Scholar
  11. Nerhardt, G. Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and application. London: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, H. Discrepancy hypotheses: Methodological and theoretical considerations.Psychological Review 1971,78 249–259.Google Scholar
  13. Wilson, C. P.Jokes: Form, content, use and function. London: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lambert Deckers
    • 1
  • Debra Salais
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceBall State UniversityMuncie

Personalised recommendations