Recently, two forms of virtue-related humor, benevolent and corrective, have been introduced. Benevolent humor treats human weaknesses and wrongdoings benevolently, while corrective humor aims at correcting and bettering them. Twelve marker items for benevolent and corrective humor (the BenCor) were developed, and it was demonstrated that they fill the gap between humor as temperament and virtue. The present study investigates responses to the BenCor from 25 samples in 22 countries (overall N = 7,226). The psychometric properties of the BenCor were found to be sufficient in most of the samples, including internal consistency, unidimensionality, and factorial validity. Importantly, benevolent and corrective humor were clearly established as two positively related, yet distinct dimensions of virtue-related humor. Metric measurement invariance was supported across the 25 samples, and scalar invariance was supported across six age groups (from 18 to 50+ years) and across gender. Comparisons of samples within and between four countries (Malaysia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK) showed that the item profiles were more similar within than between countries, though some evidence for regional differences was also found. This study thus supported, for the first time, the suitability of the 12 marker items of benevolent and corrective humor in different countries, enabling a cumulative cross-cultural research and eventually applications of humor aiming at the good.

We tested the hypothesis that group norms would have an effect on humor appreciation, specifically on ingroup disparaging humor. In this study (N=195), participants were exposed to two humor conditions (neutral or ingroup disparaging humor) and to two group norms regarding humor appreciation (favoring or rejecting). Favoring group norm had a direct effect on the funniness scores. Moreover, an interaction effect of group norm and type of humor was found on the humor appreciation. When the group norm was rejecting, appreciation of the two different types of humor was different, whereas in the favoring group norm, no statistically significant differences were observed. Additionally, for the disparaging humor exposure, a favoring group norm promoted a greater acceptation of the stereotypical characteristics presented in the disparaging humor as realistic and representative of the ingroup. These results suggest that group norms act as important contextual information that influences disparaging humor appreciation.

In three studies, we examined whether ingroup disparaging humor leads to greater stereotyping of the ingroup. First, in Study 1, (N = 101) university students were exposed to (a) ingroup disparaging humor, (b) neutral humor, or (c) ingroup disparaging nonhumorous text. Participants exposed to disparaging humor reported more stereotypic evaluations than those in the neutral humor or disparaging text condition. Study 2 (N = 167) replicated these findings with humor conditions (disparaging vs. neutral) and showed that ingroup identification moderated the effects of the type of humor. Low identifiers exposed to ingroup disparaging humor (vs. those in the control condition) reported a greater frequency of stereotypic evaluations, whereas the manipulation did not affect high identifiers. Finally, Study 3 (N = 153) also manipulated the source of the jokes. As in Study 2, we found an interaction effect showing that high identifiers were not affected by the manipulation, whereas for low identifiers disparaging humor increased stereotyping and led to more negative emotions toward the ingroup. No significant effects were found for source of the jokes. We discuss findings in terms of how the traditional pattern of humor facilitating outgroup stereotyping also seems to apply to ingroup stereotyping.

Previous research has stated a relationship between sexist ideologies and humour appreciation. However, most research has been done in North America and Europe. In the present study, we aimed to approach in an exploratory way to the social perceptions of sexist humour in Costa Rica. Data was gathered through an online survey, participants (N = 323; 220 females) completed measures to characterise expressions of sexist humour. The main measures included perceived funniness, frequency and means of exposure, and perceived offensiveness, as well as completing the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). Overall, previous exposure to this kind of humour was remarkably high. No significant differences were observed between women's and men's perceptions of the frequency, means and places of exposure, but emotional and behavioural reactions to sexist humour were gender‐based. Women reported higher displeasure, more confrontation and felt angrier and more offended than men when exposed to this type of humour. Data support existing evidence of the relationship with sexist ideology. Specifically, hostile sexism was found to be a significant predictor of perceived funniness and offensiveness of the sexist jokes. An interaction effect between hostile sexism and the sex of participants was found, showing that as hostile sexism increased, perceived offensiveness decreased, but more rapidly for men. Results are discussed considering the practical implications and limitations, as well as the need for more research in the Latin American context.

Previous research suggests that moral foundations have consequences for intergroup relations, but the evidence is mostly correlational and gathered mainly in north American countries. This work aimed to replicate the conceptual findings in the European context and test the effects of manipulating a moral framing on the perceived (im)morality of minority groups, willingness to defend their rights collectively and support for anti-immigration policies. A correlational study showed that binding and individualizing foundations contributed to predict support for anti-immigration policies and willingness to participate in collective actions for immigrants’ rights. A follow-up experiment suggested that emphasizing the benefits for society of fairness—an individualizing foundation—(vs. authority—a binding foundation) may improve intergroup evaluations, increase collective action intentions, and reduce support for anti-immigration policies. Although a second preregistered experiment could not replicate the results, complementary analyses suggested some positive effects of fairness compared with the control and authority conditions. These results open a path to investigate whether a fairness moral reasoning might improve attitudes toward immigrants.