Sex Roles

, Volume 20, Issue 11–12, pp 649–654 | Cite as

Humor appreciation as a function of sexual, aggressive, and sexist content

  • Ann Marie Love
  • Lambert H. Deckers
Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationship between the rated sex, aggression, and sexism values of cartoons with their rated funniness values. Multiple regression analyses indicated that for women, only sexism values correlated with cartoon funniness, albeit negatively. For men, however, only sex values correlated (positively) with cartoon funniness. The results were interpreted by Zillmann's social predisposition theory. Women, more likely having been victims of sex discrimination, identified with the cartoon victim and thus found sexist cartoons less funny. Men, because of their social history, made no such identification and were more aware of the sexual aspects of the cartoons. This influenced their funniness ratings of the cartoons, which replicated previous research.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cantor, J. R. What is funny to whom? Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 164–172.Google Scholar
  2. Chapman, A. J., Gadfield, N. J. Is sexual humor sexist? Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 321–329.Google Scholar
  3. Chavez, D. Perception of gender inequality: A content analysis of comic strips. Sex Roles, 1985, 13, 93–102.Google Scholar
  4. Godkewitsch, M. The relationship between arousal potential and funniness of jokes. In J. H. Godstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. Groch, A. S. Generality of response to humor and wit in cartoons, jokes, stories, and photographs. Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 835–838.Google Scholar
  6. Grote, B., & Cvetkovich, G. Humor appreciation and issue involvement. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 27, 199–200.Google Scholar
  7. LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Marshall, N. Humor judgments as a function of identification classes. Sociology and Social Research, 1974, 58, 184–194.Google Scholar
  8. LaFave, L., McCarthy, L., & Haddad, J. Humor judgments as a function of identification classes: Canadian vs. American. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 53–59.Google Scholar
  9. Malpass, L., & Fitzpatrick, E. Social facilitation as a factor in reaction to humor. Journal of Social Psychology, 1959, 50, 292–303.Google Scholar
  10. McCauley, C., Woods, K., Coolidge, C., & Kulick, W. More aggressive cartoons are funnier. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44(4), 817–823.Google Scholar
  11. Prerost, F. J. Developmental aspects of adolescent sexuality as reflected in reactions to sexually explicit humor. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 543–548.Google Scholar
  12. Priest, R. I., & 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
  13. Sekeres, R. E., & Clark, W. R. Verbal, heart rate, and s.c. responses to sexual cartoons. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 1227–1232.Google Scholar
  14. Strickland, J. F. The effect of motivation arousal on humor preferences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 278–281.Google Scholar
  15. Terry, R. C., & Ertle, S. L. Exploration of individual differences in preferences for humor. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 1031–1037.Google Scholar
  16. Wolman, B. B. (Ed.). Dictionary of Behavioral Science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1973.Google Scholar
  17. Young, R. D., & Frye, M. Some are laughing: Some are not — Why? Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 747–754.Google Scholar
  18. Zillmann, D. Disparagement humor. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Marie Love
    • 1
  • Lambert H. Deckers
    • 1
  1. 1.PsySc DepartmentBall State UniversityMuncie

Personalised recommendations