Human Nature

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 130–140 | Cite as

The Complexity of Jokes Is Limited by Cognitive Constraints on Mentalizing

Article

Abstract

Although laughter is probably of deep evolutionary origin, the telling of jokes, being language-based, is likely to be of more recent origin within the human lineage. In language-based communication, speaker and listener are engaged in a process of mutually understanding each other’s intentions (mindstates), with a conversation minimally requiring three orders of intentionality. Mentalizing is cognitively more demanding than non-mentalizing cognition, and there is a well-attested limit at five orders in the levels of intentionality at which normal adult humans can work. Verbal jokes commonly involve commentary on the mindstates of third parties, and each such mindstate adds an additional level of intentionality and its corresponding cognitive load. We determined the number of mentalizing levels in a sample of jokes told by well-known professional comedians and show that most jokes involve either three or five orders of intentionality on the part of the comedian, depending on whether or not the joke involves other individuals’ mindstates. Within this limit there is a positive correlation between increasing levels of intentionality and subjective ratings of how funny the jokes are. The quality of jokes appears to peak when they include five or six levels of intentionality, which suggests that audiences appreciate higher mentalizing complexity whilst working within their natural cognitive constraints.

Keywords

Mentalizing Jokes Intentionality Cognitive demand Mindstates 

References

  1. Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M. J. (2001). Not all laughs are alike: voiced but not unvoiced laughter readily elicits positive affect. Psychological Science, 12, 252–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I. (2012). Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 49, 539–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carney, J., Wlodarski, R., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). Inference or enaction? The impact of genre on the narrative processing of other minds. PloS One, 9(12), e114172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowan, M. L., & Little, A. C. (2012). The effects of relationship context and modality on ratings of funniness. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 496–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curry, O., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2013). Sharing a joke: the effects of a similar sense of humor on affiliation and altruism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davila Ross, M., Owren, M. J., & Zimmermann, E. (2009). Reconstructing the evolution of laughter in great apes and humans. Current Biology, 19, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (1988). Précis of The intentional stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dezecache, G., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Sharing the joke: the size of natural laughter groups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. Hurford, M. Studdart-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 92–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). Why only humans have language. In R. Botha, & C. Knight (Eds.), The prehistory of language (pp. 12–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Bridging the bonding gap: the transition from primates to humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 367B, 1837–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). Human evolution. London: Pelican.Google Scholar
  14. Dunbar, R. I. M., Duncan, N., & Marriot, A. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Human Nature, 8, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar, R.I.M., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., van Leeuwen, E.J.C., Stow, J., Partridge, P., MacDonald, I., Barra, V., & van Vugt, M. (2012). Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 279B, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
  16. Flamson, T., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The encryption theory of humor: a knowledge-based mechanism of honest signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forabosco, G. (2008). Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: a synthetic approach. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: laughter and nonverbal signals of interest in opposite sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grammer, K., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1990). The ritualization of laughter. In W. Koch (Ed.), Naturlichkeit der Sprache und der Kultur: Acta colloquii (pp. 192–214). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Hurley, M. M., Dennett, D. C., & Adams, R. B. (2011). Inside jokes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kinderman, P., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Bentall, R. P. (1998). Theory-of-mind deficits and causal attributions. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krems, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2013). Clique size and network characteristics in hyperlink cinema: constraints of evolved psychology. Human Nature, 24, 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, P. A., Rezaie, R., Browne, R., Roberts, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size. NeuroImage, 57, 1624–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 923–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Machin, A. J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). The brain opioid theory of social attachment: a review of the evidence. Behavior, 148, 985–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehu, M., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Naturalistic observations of smiling and laughter in human group interactions. Behavior, 145, 1747–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J.-A. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of non-linguistic communication: the case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell, J., Lewis, P. A., Dunbar, R. I. M., García-Fiñana, M., & Roberts, N. (2010). Orbital prefrontal cortex volume correlates with social cognitive competence. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3554–3562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provine, R. (1996). Laughter: A scientific investigation. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  31. Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling: the false alarm theory. Medical Hypotheses, 51, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rice, K., & Redcay, E. (2014). Spontaneous mentalizing captures variability in the cortical thickness of social brain regions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu081.Google Scholar
  33. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stiller, J., Nettle, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). The small world of Shakespeare’s plays. Human Nature, 14, 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), The psychology of humor (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vlahovic, T., Roberts, S. B. G., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Effects of duration and laughter on subjective happiness within different modes of communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. I. M. Dunbar
    • 1
  • Jacques Launay
    • 1
  • Oliver Curry
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary AnthropologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations