User:Vtrevizo18/Theories of humor

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Article Draft

Theories of Humor

It has been said that many benefits that come with experiencing laughter and mirth. But why do we experience this emotional expression? There are many theories of humor which attempt to explain what

humor is, what social functions it serves, and what would be considered humorous. Although various classical theories of humor and laughter may be found, in contemporary academic literature, three theories of humor appear repeatedly: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory.[1] These theories are used as building blocks for the rest of the theories. Among current humor researchers, there has yet to be a consensus about which of these three theories of humor is most viable.[1] Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor.[1][2] However, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory.[1][2][3][4] Similarly, one view holds that theories have a combinative effect; Jeroen Vandaele claims that incongruity and superiority theories describe complementary mechanisms that together create humor.[5]

Relief Theory

Relief Theory suggests humor is a mechanism for pent-up emotions or tension through emotional relief. In this theory, laughter serves as a homeostatic mechanism by which psychological stress is reduced[6][7][8]Humor may thus facilitate ease of the tension caused by one's fears, for example. Laughter and joy, according to relief theory, result from this release of excess nervous energy.[9] According to relief theory, humor is used mainly to overcome sociocultural inhibitions and reveal suppressed desires. It is believed that this is why we laugh while being tickled, due to a buildup of tension as the tickler "strikes."[10][11] Thus it is essential for those in the industry to ass bits of comic relief in media that may be dramatic or tragic.

Relief theory dates back to the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. In Poetics, he suggested humor to be a way in which one releases pent-up negative emotions that may have been caused by trauma or tragedy we've experienced. Many philosophers and researchers took the idea of humor being a release of tension and have evolved relief theory or comic relief over time.[12]

In the eighteenth century, English drama theorists John Dryden and Samuel Johnson argued that relief theory was to be used as a dramatic tool. John Dryden (1668) believed mirth and tragedy would make for the best plots.[13]

On the other hand, Shurcliff (1968) argued that humor is a mechanism to relieve tension. When in anticipation of a negative experience, one may begin to feel some heightened arousal. According to Shurcliff, the heightened arousal is then reduced through mirth or laughter. [14] Comparably, an English Scholar, Lucas (1958), wrote that audiences respond better based on the "strain-rest-strain-rest" idea in which a tragic event may happen with moments of relaxation.[15]

According to Herbert Spencer, laughter is an "economical phenomenon" whose function is to release "psychic energy" that had been wrongly mobilized by incorrect or false expectations. The latter point of view was supported also by Sigmund Freud. Immanuel Kant also emphasized the physiological release in our response to humor.[16]Eddie Tafoya uses the idea of a physical urge tied to a psychological need for release when describing relief theory in his book The Legacy of the Wisecrack: Stand-up Comedy as the Great Literary Form. Tafoya explains "…that each human being is caught in a tug-of-war: part of us strains to live free as individuals, guided by bodily appetites and aggressive urges, while the other side yearns for conformity and acceptance. This results in every normal person being continually steeped in psychic tension, mostly due to guilt and lack of fulfillment. This tension can be relieved, albeit temporarily, through joking."[17]

Superiority theory

The superiority theory of humor traces back to Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. The general idea is that a person laughs about the misfortunes of others because they assert their superiority based on the shortcomings of others.[18] We feel superior to the person who is the target of the joke. Plato described it as being both a pleasure and pain in the soul. One may experience these mixed emotions during the malicious person's happiness at the victim's misfortune. For Aristotle, we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals because we feel joy at feeling superior to them.[19]Aristotle observed that many jokes relied on a combination of incongruity and hostility. He explained that jokes are funny because they catch the listener off guard, introducing a surprising and unexpected twist that amuses them. However, this incongruity alone doesn't entirely explain the mechanics of laughter. There also appears to be a component of hostility from both the comedian and the audience. What makes something funny often involves ridiculous features, such as a physical deformity or a slip-up. Therefore, whether through jokes, situations, or physical characteristics, while humor's laughter-inducing quality primarily stems from incongruity, aggression is also intertwined with it.[20]

Nevertheless, Aristotle regarded humor as a positive

alienate the audience. He considered irony to be an acceptable and effective tool if used sparingly. Buffoonery, on the other hand, or crude humor, should be avoided altogether. One of the most important contributions of Aristotle to the future development of the theory of humor is the opposition of comedy versus tragedy, which has been a major theme in the study of humor until the 20th century.[21]

In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes described superiority theory in two pieces, Human Nature (1650) and

humorous narrative. The sense of glory comes from the recognition of power. Hobbes also mentions the theory of passion in which laughter is not passion; however, laughter is how the body manifests a particular emphasis.[22]
Hobbes proposed there are several which typically evoke this feeling of glory:

  1. Success in one's actions beyond one's expectations.
  2. The perception of infirmities and defects in others.
  3. The perception of infirmities and defects in one's past.
  4. The conception of some absurdity is abstracted from individual persons.

According to Hobbes, laughter evoked by these circumstances always has connections with the feeling of superiority.[22]

While Kant is not usually recognized as a superiority theorist, there are elements of superiority theory in his account. Kant thinks that there is a place for harmless teasing. In addition, philosopher of humor Noël Carroll observes that even the structure of a narrative joke, on Kant's view, requires the joke teller to "take in" or outdo the joke receiver, even if only momentarily. Because such joking is recognized as joking and it is carried out in a playful way, it does not imply that the joker feels or thinks they are actually superior.[23]

Superiority theory has built a strong foundation for researchers to continue studying humor. Over time, philosophers and scholars have redefined and expanded the theory. We see superiority theory used as the building block for newer ideas of humor.

Disposition Theory

Feelings of superiority in humor are examined more closely in disposition theory. Disposition theory is explained in Zillmann and Cantor's disposition theory, which states that in media and entertainment, audiences make moral judgments, and the attitude (disposition) towards a person can affect the audience's experience of humor.[24] Audiences enjoy the attempts of humor more when good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Thus, for good characters, good fortune is hoped, or tragedy is feared—while characters who are disliked are the complete opposite. If what the audience hopes for is achieved, then they may feel a sense of enjoyment or, in this case, humor. Similarly, audiences may find a comedian's jokes more humorous if they like the person delivering jokes. [25]

Disposition humor can also be used outside of media and entertainment. It can be used to

ridicule or humiliate in a way that may be socially acceptable, which is closely related to the superiority theory. According to Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Baudelaire, Bain, and Freud, humor may occur when one feels superior to another. Much of humor is built on the ideal of disparaging others is what makes us laugh[26]. One individual may feel an unexpected ego boost, while the other may feel low self-esteem. [27] Many individuals disparage themselves. Self-disparaging humor is a phenomenon that happens in social setting, gathering, parties, or private encounters individuals humiliate themselves.[26] Philosopher Hazlitt expressed, "We grow tired of everything but turnings others into ridicule and congratulating ourselves on their defeats." [28]

However, when good things happen to people who deserve it, very little amusement is experienced by the audience. Thus, it is more beneficial to mirth in situations of misfortune rather than instances of fortune.

Disposition Toward Victim

  1. The more intense the negative affective disposition toward the disparaged agent or entity, the greater the magnitude of mirth.
  2. The more intense the positive affective disposition toward the disparaging agent or entity, the smaller the magnitude of mirth.

Disposition Toward the Victor

  1. The more intense the negative affective disposition toward the disparaging agent or entity, the smaller the magnitude of mirth.
  2. The more intense the positive affective disposition toward the disparaging agent or entity, the greater the magnitude of mirth.[25]

These guidelines examine how amusement is expected when an extremely liked individual disparages an extremely disliked individual. On the other hand, one may experience less amusement when a disliked individual disparages the desired individual..[25][26]

However, It is not in every instance of disparagement that humans experience mirth and laughter. In some cases, the comment or act of disparagement can be too much of a tragedy for such a reaction. Aristotle mentioned the emotions that come with instances of death, serious harm, or tragedy overpower laughter and instead evoke pity.  

Superiority and disposition theories also play into the idea of punching up or punching down in comedy. Making jokes about someone who is superior to us is considered "punching up," while making jokes about someone who is inferior to us is considered "punching down". Due to these power imbalances, punching up is seen as ethical, where punching down is seen as the opposite.[29]

It's important to note that humor is complex, and different theories attempt to explain its various aspects. The disposition theory adds a psychological perspective by suggesting that individual differences play a crucial role in determining what people find

funny
.

Misattribution Theory

The misattribution theory of humor describes an audience's inability to identify precisely what is funny and why they find a joke humorous. The formal approach is attributed to Zillmann & Bryant (1980) in their article, "Misattribution Theory of Tendentious Humor." However, they derived ideas based on Sigmund Freud. Initially, Freud proposed that audiences do not understand what they find amusing. [30][31]Freud suggested the tendentious elements paired with the jokes evoke people to experience laughter. It is the taboo and hostility that create such a reaction. Thus, the theory explains how individuals misattribute their responses and believe they laugh at the innocent elements; in reality, the hostility has individuals rolling on the floor.[30]

Freud made distinctions between tendentious and non-tendentious humor. Tendentious humor is that of a victim, someone whose shortcomings are used for humor. Non-tendentious humor is victimless. Although Freud determined tendentious elements pushed individuals to potential laugh attacks, innocuous elements were still essential. Hostility alone cannot be enjoyed because society deems it wrong. In society, one cannot laugh when told a story of tragedy. The only way it is accepted is if they are embellished with jokework. Freud argued that innocent jokework was a disguise for the hostility in humor. The elements of innocuous (innocent) features make such wordplay socially acceptable.[30]

Zillmann and Bryant (1980) conducted a study to test Freud's ideology and combine or separate non-tendentious and tendentious humor. The results confirmed their expectations.[30] Amusement was high when 'good comedy' was presented. As predicted, participants laughed at instances of victimization and demise of the individuals. Zillman and Bryant proved Freud's finding to be accurate. Innocuous cues only amused to double in response to the misfortune.[32]

Incongruity Theory

Incongruity theory, otherwise known as incongruous

deciphering of ambiguities, a process that can be likened to problem-solving." [30]For example, What is black and white and red all over?" "A newspaper!" The joke evokes laughter due to the contradiction or cognitive dissonance of being black and red. However, the punchline solved the riddle
with a widely familiar item.

ugliness,[34]but is much broader. Hutcheson thus initiated the incongruity theory. It was later developed by others, and now typically states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept.[35]

A view much like that contemporary sense of the incongruity theory was put forth a half-century after Hutcheson by the Scottish poet James Beattie. Although not widely read today, historically, Beattie's presentation of the incongruity theory has been very influential.[36] He made the theory more universal, and instead of incongruity per se, emphasized its partial appropriateness by the idea of "assemblage." In turn, incongruity has been described as being resolved (i.e., by putting the objects in question into the real relation), and the incongruity theory is often called the incongruity-resolution theory (as well as incongruous juxtaposition).[35]

A famous version of the incongruity theory is that of Immanuel Kant, who, due to his renown, claimed that the comic is "the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing."[37] Kant explained laughter at humor as a response to an "absurdity."[38] We first expect the world. Still, that expectation is then disappointed or "disappears into nothing." Our response to humor consists of a "play with thoughts." According to Kant, humor must involve the element of surprise. It creates a sense of cognitive dissonance and builds up tension, which is a pleasurable relief or laughter. [39]

While Kant is an incongruity theorist, his account also has elements of release theory (emphasizing the

physiological
and physical aspects). It also evokes the superiority theory. He thought that teasing was acceptable as long as it occurred in the right setting and did not harm the person being teased.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote that the perceived incongruity is between a concept and the real object it represents. Schopenhauer argued that humor results from the sudden recognition of an incongruity between the representation of an object and its actual nature. He also proposes the more unexpected incongruity, the more violent one's laughter will be.[39] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel shared almost the same view but saw the concept as an "appearance" and believed that laughter negates that appearance.

Henri Bergson attempted to perfect incongruity by reducing it to the "living" and "mechanical." He proposed that comedy/humor lies in the portrayal of situations experiencing mechanical rigidity. Bergson emphasizes that humor involves an inappropriate relationship between habitual or mechanical behaviors and human intelligence. In Bergson's many types of combinations of the mechanical and the living, there is much similarity with the incongruity theory.[39]

There has been some debate attempting to clarify the roles of juxtaposition and shifting in humor, hence, the discussion in the series Humor Research between John Morreall and Robert Latta.[40] Though Morreall himself endorses a cognitive shift theory, in this particular dialogue he indicated examples of simultaneous contrast, while Latta emphasized the mental shift.[41] Humor frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective, which the incongruity theory assimilates. This has been defended by Latta (1998) and Brian Boyd (2004).[42] Boyd views the shift from seriousness to play. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist; it is, however, in the areas of human creativity (science and art being the varieties) that the shift results from "structure mapping" to create novel meanings.[43] Arthur Koestler argues that humor results when two different frames of reference are set up and a collision is engineered between them.

Benign Violation Theory

The benign violation theory (BVT) was developed by researchers A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren. Their ideas build on the work of Linguist Tom Veatch, who proposed that humor emerges when one's sense of how the world 'ought to be" is threatened or violated. BVT claims that humor occurs when three conditions are satisfied:

  1. Something threatens one's sense of how the world "ought to be."
  2. The threatening situation seems benign.
  3. A person sees both interpretations at the same time.[44][45]

From an evolutionary perspective, humorous violations likely originated as apparent physical threats, like those present in play fighting and tickling. According to Benign violation, people often laugh when being tickled or play fighting because laughter signifies the situation is somehow threatening but safe.[46] As humans evolved, the conditions that elicit humor likely expanded from physical threats to other violations, including violations of personal dignity (e.g., slapstick, teasing), linguistic norms (e.g., puns, malapropisms), social norms (e.g., strange behaviors, risqué jokes), and even moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behaviors).[44]

There is also more than one way a violation can seem benign. McGraw and Warren tested three contexts in the domain of moral violations. A violation can seem benign if one norm suggests something is wrong, but another salient norm suggests it is acceptable. A violation can also seem benign when one is psychologically distant from the violation or is only weakly committed to the violated norm.[47][48]

For example, McGraw and Warren find that most consumers were disgusted when they read about a church raffling off a Hummer SUV to recruit new members, but many were simultaneously amused. Consistent with BVT, people who attended church were less likely to be amused than people who did not. Churchgoers are more committed to the belief that churches are sacred and, consequently are less likely to consider the church's behavior benign.[49]

Furthermore, it is essential to note that one must have a slight connection to the norm that is being violated but, at the same time, cannot be too attached or committed. If a person is too attached, then there will be no humor. The violation will then be considered benign. On the contrary, the violation will not be a moral norm if a person isn't slightly attached. Thus, both of these must simultaneously be categorized as benign violations to emerge as humor.[46]

The benign violation theory helps explain why some jokes or situations are funny to some people but not to others. It emphasizes the importance of context and individual differences in humor appreciation. A violation that one person finds amusing might be offensive or upsetting to another, and the perception of benignity plays a crucial role in determining the overall humor response.

References

  1. ^
    S2CID 96438940
    .
  2. ^
    doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x
    .
  3. ^ Berger, A. A. (1993). An Anatomy of Humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  4. S2CID 143643347
    .
  5. S2CID 14068723
    .
  6. S2CID 96438940
    .
  7. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x
    .
  8. ^ Berlyne, D. E. (1972). "Humour and its kin", in J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The Psychology of Humour (pp. 43–60). New York: Academic.
  9. S2CID 96438940
    .
  10. S2CID 96438940
    .
  11. ^ Schaeffer, N. (1981). The Art of Laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.
  12. ^ a b Morreall, John (2023), Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), "Philosophy of Humor", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2023-11-20
  13. ^ Dukore, Bernard (1974). "Dramatic theory and criticism: Greeks to Grotowski". Holt, Rinehart & Winston. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ^ Shurcliff, Arthur (1968). "Judged humor, arousal, and the relief theory". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
  15. ^ Lucas, F.L. (1958). Tragedy: Serious drama in relation to Aristotle’s poetics. New York: MacMillan.
  16. ISBN 9781350112797
    .
  17. ISBN 978-1599424958
    .
  18. ^ Mulder, M.P.; Nijholt, Anton (November 2002). Humor in Human-Computer Interaction. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
  19. ^ Poetics, 1449a, p. 34-35.
  20. ISBN 9780190460549
    .
  21. ISBN 9783110142556
    .
  22. ^ a b Heyd, David (1982). "The Place of Laughter in Hobbes's Theory of Emotions". Journal of the History of Ideas: 285–295.
  23. ISBN 9781350112797
    .
  24. ISBN 0471146129
    .
  25. ^
    ISBN 9780805833249
    .
  26. ^
    ISSN 0021-9916
    .
  27. ^ McGhee, Paul E. (1981). A Developmental Test of the Disposition Theory of Humor. Chicago, etc: University of Chicago Press.
  28. ISBN 0143036319
    .
  29. ^ Julin, G. (2021) What’s the punch line?: Punching up and down in the comic thunderdome. In J.M. Henrigillis & S. Gimbel (Eds.), It’s funny cause it’s true: The ligthearted philosophers’ society’s introduction to philosophy through humor (pp. 143-155). Gettysburg College Open Educational Resources.  
  30. ^ a b c d e Zillmann, Dolf; Vorderer, Peter (2000). Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal. Routledge.
  31. ^ Suls, Jerry (1976). "Misattribution and Humor Appreciation: A Comment on "Enhancement of Humor Appreciation by Transferred Excitation"". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
  32. ^ Zillmann, Dolf; Bryant, Jennings (1980). "Misattribution theory of tendentious humor". Journal of experimental social psychology. 2.
  33. Peter Ludwig Berger
    Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (1997) p.22
  34. ^ Poetics 1449a
  35. ^ a b Mulder, M.P.; Nijholt, Anton (November 2002). Humor in Human-Computer Interaction. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
  36. ^ J.Beattie, Essays (William Creech, Edinburg, 1776).
  37. ^ Laurie, Timothy; Hickey-Moody, Anna (2017), "Masculinity and Ridicule", Gender: Laughter, Farmington Hills, Michigan: Macmillan Reference: 216–217
  38. ISBN 9781350112797
    .
  39. ^ a b c "Humor | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  40. ISBN 3-11-016103-6
    .
  41. ISBN 0-87395-642-7
    .
  42. S2CID 144552197
    .
  43. ^ Koestler, Arthur (1964): "The Act of Creation".
  44. ^ a b "Benign Violation Theory". leeds-faculty.colorado.edu. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
  45. SSRN 2559414. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
    )
  46. ^ a b Oring, Elliott (2016). Joking Aside;; The Theory, Analysis, and Aesthetics of Humor. University Press of Colorado. pp. 57–80.
  47. ^ "A brief introduction to the benign violation theory of humor – guest post by Dr Peter McGraw | Psychology of Humor". Retrieved 2020-03-16.
  48. ^ "A brief introduction to the benign violation theory of humor – guest post by Dr Peter McGraw | Psychology of Humor". Retrieved 2020-03-16.
  49. S2CID 1968587
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vtrevizo18/Theories_of_humor&oldid=1190114902"