Expectations and perceived humor

Abstract

Without an objective metric for identifying how funny humorous material “really” is, a person may rely on external information in evaluating the humor of a particular humorous joke. In two experiments, we examined the effect of expectations on participants' ratings of jokes. When participants received a message that jokes had previously been rated as either funny or unfunny, they rated the jokes accordingly. In addition, participants who were told less plausible messages about the jokes (“hysterically funny” or “horribly unfunny”) tended to discount the messages and give ratings comparable to the control group. In a second experiment, we examined the effect of testing participants individually or in groups. As predicted from previous research, group effects, which may be social and emotional, did not influence participants' ratings of jokes. We discuss the findings in terms of the role of information in cognitive evaluation versus affective appreciation of humor.

The effect of joke-origin-induced expectancy on cognitive humor

“…In summary, it is argued that prior exposure to the named comedian primes an expectancy of forthcoming humor; this expectancy influences humor ratings. These findings are consistent with Wimer and Beins (2008), who showed that priming humor expectations through joke ratings can influence cognitive humor. The current study may explain why new comics need to "win over the audience" whereas established comedians can rely upon the expectation of humor derived from past exposures.…”

“…Furthermore, Wimer and Beins (2008) have shown that exposure to prior ratings of a joke can influence the subsequent appraisal of the joke. In Experiment 1 of their study, the authors presented participants with a booklet of jokes in which each joke had been described as hysterically funny, very funny, neutral, not very funny, or horribly unfunny.…”

“…hysterically funny/horribly unfunny) did not. Wimer and Beins (2008) suggested that humor rating can be influenced by prior Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/30/15 5:59 AM messages but that the credulity of such messages has limitations. Socially-driven conformity to the prior rating was shown not to be the mechanism underpinning the effect of prior judgment, as manipulation of group size did not impact the effect of prior rating (Experiment 2).…”

“…Socially-driven conformity to the prior rating was shown not to be the mechanism underpinning the effect of prior judgment, as manipulation of group size did not impact the effect of prior rating (Experiment 2). It is important to note that Wimer and Beins (2008) distinguished between cognitive humor (mental evaluation of humor) and affective humor (the physical, more social, response to humor). Gavanski (1986) noted that affective responses to humor are more susceptible to change (and one might speculate intuitively on the social role of affective responses) compared to the more robust cognitive evaluations.…”

The influence of a virtual companion on amusement when watching funny films

“…For example, the frequency and duration of smiling and laughter in response to humorous stimuli is impacted by the presence of a laughing versus a nonlaughing model person. Further factors, such as the responsiveness of the companion, the seating position, and proximity to the companion, as well as eye contact, age difference between the companion and the subject, whether groups of strangers or friends are together, and the group size have been investigated and shown to be influential (i.e., leading to more overt amusement responses; e.g., Devereux and Ginsburg 2001;Levy and Fenley 1979;Wimer and Beins 2008). Furthermore, the current mood influences the effects of the increased amusement due to the presence of a companion: Only high state cheerful individuals smiled more by the mere presence of another person, but this was not so for individuals that were not in a cheerful mood (e.g., Deckers 2007).…”