Humor. Integrated Regulatory Non-Compliance Model

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Although empirical studies of humor began relatively recently, it can be said that modern concepts of humor are in many ways close to the true understanding of this phenomenon. This is especially true for the cognitive direction. On the other hand, we see a lot of theories that consider humor from different angles, highlighting only some of its aspects. However, some researchers consider individual theories of humor as being out of the general canvas, instead of identifying the general scheme of humor and supplementing it with their own observations. The purpose of this article is to integrate different approaches to understanding humor into a single model. Another important direction in the development of this article is the creation of a theoretical basis on which later it will be possible to build practical developments in the field of humor (development, classification and research of individual techniques of humor, in order to create guidelines for composing jokes and teaching). Unfortunately, in contrast to the theoretical part, practical and methodological recommendations in this area are rather poorly developed, and most training courses (if any) are aimed at developing a "general sense" of humor rather than providing specific recommendations and humorous schemes. The author's subsequent articles will be devoted to the development of such schemes. In this article we will try to put more emphasis on the theoretical part of the problem of humor.

Rod Martin believes that humor is "an emotional reaction of joy in a social context, which is caused by the perception of funny incompatibility and is expressed through a smile and laughter" [18]. Of course, such a definition is insufficient, and it is necessary to clarify it through consideration of individual concepts and theories of humor.

Superiority / humiliation theories. According to this line of research, humor acts as a form of aggression. For example, Plato considered humor a negative phenomenon because this feeling is based on anger and envy [19]. Aristotle recognized a tinge of malice in laughter and considered it ethically undesirable, but he considered those who did not joke and who disliked jokes as savages. “Funny is some kind of mistake or ugliness that does not cause suffering and harm … It is something ugly and ugly, but without suffering” [16]. T. Hobbes developed this view on the basis of his more general theory of the struggle for power. Since the individual is in a constant struggle for power, and modern social norms do not allow physically destroying rivals, superiority can be expressed in other ways, for example, with the help of humor and wit.

C. Gruner's theory [9] emphasizes that humor is a form of play. Laughter performs the function of restoring homeostasis and communicating victory over the enemy.

In a similar way, humor is considered in modern human ethology (although the provisions of this science are not always considered scientifically based).

Arousal / release theories. This group of theories suggests that laughter performs the function of releasing psychological tension. Even Kant argued that laughter is an emotion that is the result of a sudden cessation of intense expectation ("Criticism of the ability to judge"). However, the most famous theory in this direction is psychoanalytic theory.

According to Sigmund Freud, humor acts as a defense mechanism of the psyche. It is a process of adaptation to an external situation based on a compromise between “Id” (the bearer of a person's unconscious motives), “Super-Ego” (the bearer of social requirements and prohibitions) and the external environment. The effect of humor occurs due to the "humorous movement" from the sphere of the forbidden to the sphere of the permissible, which reduces the power of both "Id" and "Super-Ego" [20]. At the same time, humor is the highest mechanism for protecting the psyche, since it allows you to relieve stress without going over to pathology and maladaptive responses to the current situation. Freud also connects humor with the phenomenon of insight, arguing that the effect of wit is carried out by the replacement of misunderstanding with a sudden understanding, which is accompanied by catharsis. Thus, a cognitive component is introduced into the theory of humor.

Freud's ideas found followers. For example, D. Flagel argues that the release of energy caused by humor is associated with the destruction of social prohibitions [5]. M. Choisy that laughter is a defensive reaction against the fear of prohibition. The individual, with the help of laughter, overcomes fear of the father, authorities, sexuality, aggression, etc. [17]

Daniel Berline, the creator of the modern theory of arousal [3], tried to describe this process from the standpoint of physiology. He paid particular attention to the properties of stimuli that cause pleasure from humor. He called them "comparative variables" because they required the simultaneous perception of a number of objects for comparison and comparison, and included there: ambiguity, novelty, surprise, variety, complexity, discrepancy, redundancy, which cause excitement in the brain and autonomic nervous system.

Studies by Gavansky [6] have shown that arousal and laughter are closely related to the emotional pleasure of humor, while the assessment of amusement is associated more with cognitive assessment and understanding of humor.

Godkiewicz found that the greater the general arousal, the more enjoyable humor [7], and Kantor, Bryant and Zillman found that regardless of the sign, high emotional arousal can contribute to greater pleasure from humor [15].

Cognitive theories of inconsistency. Within the framework of the cognitive direction, a number of separate theories can be distinguished that explain humor. Some of them are complementary, other theories, on the contrary, are in conflict with each other.

Theories of incongruence. This kind of theory originates from Schopenhauer's idea that the cause of laughter is the sudden perception of a discrepancy between representation and real objects. Developing this idea, Hans Eysenck argues that "laughter arises from the sudden intuitive integration of incompatible ideas, attitudes or feelings" [4]. A. Koestler, proposed the concept of bisociation, which manifests itself when a situation is perceived from two logical, but incompatible positions of perception [10].

Configuration theory. Theories postulate that humor occurs when elements that were not initially related to each other suddenly add up to a single picture / configuration. Thomas Schultz developed the theory of discrepancy resolution, which assumes that it is not the very fact of the discrepancy, but the resolution of this discrepancy that allows the individual to understand the joke. The climax of a joke creates cognitive dissonance by introducing information that is inconsistent with expectations. This encourages the listener to return to the beginning of the joke and find ambiguity that resolves the inconsistency that has arisen [12].

Jerry Sals proposed a two-step model that considers humor as the process of solving a problem [13]: the first part of the joke, creating dissonance, makes the listener assume a likely conclusion. When the climax is not what was expected, the listener is surprised and looks for a cognitive rule to reconstruct the causal logic of the situation. Having found such a rule, he can eliminate the inconsistency, and humor is the result of resolving this inconsistency.

Semantic theory. This is the theory proposed by Viktor Raskin [11] and developed by Salvatore Attardo [2]. In accordance with it, the humorous effect arises when two independent contexts intersect at the point of bisociation, when two contexts that are alien to each other seem to be associated - a cognitive dissonance arises, which is compensated by the reaction of laughter.

Ambivalence / switching theories. Goldstein's research [8] showed that inconsistency is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the manifestation of a humorous effect. It is also necessary to have a psychological mood for humor and emotional readiness for it. Switching theories assume that there is a specific mental state associated with humor. Hence the idea that humor occurs when you switch to this state.

Michael Apter [1] proposed to distinguish the serious, "telic" state of consciousness from the playful, humorous, "paratelic" state. The latter assumes that, having joked, the individual falls into the psychological safety zone. In addition, M. Apter does not agree with the theories of inconsistency and uses the term "synergies" to describe a cognitive process in which two incompatible ideas are simultaneously held in consciousness. In a parathelic state, synergy is enjoyable, and in a serious state, it causes cognitive dissonance. Psychologists R. Wyer and D. Collins [14] reformulated the concept of Apter's synergy using the theory of cognitive schemas. They looked at information processing factors such as difficulty of understanding and cognitive complexity. In particular, humor is heightened when it requires moderate mental effort; and also that more laughter caused coincidence with the expected ending of the joke.

Regulatory inconsistency model

Here we will try to develop a cognitive understanding of the origin and mechanism of humor based on the theory of cognitive dissonance. This concept will include a number of presentations of previous theories, with the aim of a more complete examination of the processes of humor.

First of all, it is worth noting that the author considers humor in terms of its evolutionary significance. So, it is assumed that humor is directly related to the realization of aggression and tension. In fact, humor in many cases acts as a tool for humans, the so-called ritualized aggression, characteristic of many animals, which, instead of attacking each other, bringing the situation to the destruction of one of the individuals, in a certain way (for example, with the help of dance or shouting) demonstrate their superiority until one of the individuals surrenders. A person, in order to show his superiority, can use humor, as it allows, on the one hand, to show aggression towards the enemy, and on the other hand, to do it within the framework of socially acceptable norms, and in such a way as to really show his superiority (an inept enemy simply cannot adequately answer this or that joke). Moreover, a good joke allows you to show a certain power over the emotional state of other people. However, in humans, humor, apparently separated from the function of establishing social hierarchy, can also play an independent role, becoming a means for the realization of various needs. Thus, we partly agree with the theory of superiority, but on the other hand, we view humor as a more complex phenomenon.

For greater clarity in understanding the further direction of research, the components of humor should be divided into its function and the mechanism of its work. We discussed the function with you above. Humor acts as a means of realizing needs. This is either a social need (the establishment of a social hierarchy), or a need for security, in which humor arises as a reaction to frustration and the resulting tension when the situation is uncertain. The second need is basic. Within the framework of social need, humor acts only as one of the ways to indicate one's rank.

In addition to dividing the components of humor into its mechanism and function, we must clarify that within the framework of this work we do not consider instinctive laughter (based on the phenomenon of conformism and infection) and reflex laughter, which implies the usual conditioning mechanism. We will try to consider with you the phenomenon of genuine humor.

Our concept will consist of a number of variables, subject to which, we will get a comic effect.

1. State. Michael Aptem, in his theory, offers consideration of two types of state: serious and playful, explaining humor by switching from the first to the second. We argue that this state is not derived from humor, but on the contrary, humor is a consequence of the state, i.e. in order for humor to be perceived, it is necessary that a person is in an appropriate state and has an attitude towards its perception. The state of perception of a joke is very similar to the easy stages of hypnosis, when attention is focused on the object of perception, a person is immersed and involved in what is happening, rather than being engaged in detached assessment and criticism. So, you can imagine a person who begins to watch a humorous program, but is initially critical of her or her presenter. The likelihood of laughing in such a situation will be much less. You can also talk about a situation when a person is not "included" in what is happening, ie. when the information has no meaning for him at the moment. In this case, he will not analyze it, but simply skip it as insignificant and the joke will have no effect. To summarize, the perception of a joke requires fixation of attention on it, a relaxed state of mind and body, and a sense of security.
2. Installation. Another important factor is attitudes and beliefs about what is happening. This can include trust in the source of humor and perceived safety. So, we know that rude jokes are sometimes accepted among friends, however, an indecent epithet from a friend is perceived by a person much more gently than the same epithet coming from the first person he meets. Even the very fact of being convinced of the other person's sense of humor increases the likelihood that his jokes will be perceived as funny. Obviously, state and attitude are closely related.
3. Inconsistency. Gestalt psychology has shown that a person, when perceiving this or that information, tends to perfection of perception. For example, three points located in a certain way will be perceived by us as a triangle - an integral figure, and not just as three separate objects. The same thing happens with verbal information. When a person receives a piece of information, he tries to complete the entire message as a whole, based on his experience. From here comes the joke formula of creating and destroying expectations. At the stage of perceiving the first part of the message, a person begins to predict possible options for the completion of the joke, based on his memories or using intelligence to predict. At the same time, the built-in options are distinguished by consistency and completeness. An individual will be engaged in such forecasting only if the topic is interesting to him, i.e. if it will be in a certain state. Having received the second part of the message, the individual compares the received variant with the predicted ones. If he finds a match, then no effect arises, since there was no tension. This partly explains why the humor of childhood will no longer cause laughter in an adult - simply because for an adult many jokes seem obvious. For the same reason, we do not laugh at jokes that are already familiar to us. If an individual finds himself in a situation where the information received does not correspond to the predicted options, cognitive dissonance arises, and the person finds himself in a situation of tension. According to the laws of the theory of cognitive dissonance, he begins to look for a new interpretation and explanation of the resulting version. If he finds an explanation, i.e. essentially comes to insight, tension is replaced by relief, accompanied by laughter. If an explanation is found, but it seems illogical, then laughter does not arise, just as the joke itself seems illogical, i.e.there is no new configuration and new understanding of what is happening. However, the process of searching for an interpretation of the situation is rather additional, and not basic, and below we will consider why this is so.
4. A situation of information deficit or uncertainty. Humor involves the use of uncertainty. Uncertainty just arises at the moment when a person is faced with a situation that contradicts the predicted one. As a result, cognitive dissonance arises, and, consequently, tension aimed at resolving the contradiction. A person finds himself in a situation of choice between a number of equivalent response options. To make a choice in the direction of a particular reaction, a person begins to look for additional informational support in external environments that would show him how to react in a given situation. The final reaction of the individual will depend on the information support that will be found for him. In the case of humor, we assume the presence of information indicating a reaction to laughter. By the way, that's why we can get a greater humorous effect in a group than with one person (the laughter of others serves as a guide for the perception of the situation by the individual). Another guideline can be the structure of the joke itself, or the attitude that we discussed above. Within the framework of the metaphor, we can say that uncertainty and attitude are two interrelated elements, where, with uncertainty, a person is lost in the forest, and the attitude is a pointer to one of hundreds of possible directions, which will lead him to laughter.
5. Regulatory conflict. Above, we said that laughter occurs when the predicted and stated message does not match. However, this fact cannot be considered sufficient, which is not noted by many theories of humor. Suppose your friend made a discovery and asks you to guess how he did it. You are interested in this topic, you are planning options and guesses, you are tense and waiting for the correct answer. As a result, it turns out that he made a complex construction by calculating many mathematical formulas. Most likely, this information will not make you laugh, unless this method seems extremely primitive to you. Thus, we can say that only certain information has a humorous effect. Here we will try to integrate into our concept the theory of arousal and the concept of laughter as a defensive reaction. Thus, we assume that there is also cognitive dissonance. To reveal the assumption, let's consider the process in more detail. We have already said that for the appearance of a humorous effect, a joke must be perceived in a state of involvement and when fixing attention on the incoming information, i.e. in a state when the critical factor is turned off (this is a term used in the USA to describe the process of hypnosis). Further, when the process of finding a logical connection between the parts of the message begins, the individual somehow creates representations of possible explanations for himself (in other words, in order to interpret the situation, the individual needs to present or at least speak the interpretation itself). At this moment, a critical factor turns on and the sphere of values and beliefs is activated, and the resulting interpretation is compared with the norms that the individual adheres to. If there is no conflict, then laughter in most cases does not arise. If there is a conflict between the norms and the received idea, then a reaction of laughter and a humorous effect arises, as the most socially acceptable way of reaction, which does not injure either the psyche of others or the psyche of the subject himself (roughly speaking, we are ashamed of our thoughts and therefore we laugh) …

However, since we are talking about normativity, then we should also discuss what kind of norms we mean. So we consider two types of norms: norms themselves and patterns (templates).

What we mean by norms is very similar to the Freudian "Super-Ego", only in a cognitive interpretation, ie. these are values and beliefs of a prohibitive nature. Each person has his own set of prohibitions, so humor may differ from person to person. But there are norms characteristic of society as a whole, among which there is a ban on the topics of sex, power, personal relationships, stupidity, violence, religion, discrimination, etc., the list goes on for a long time. It is these themes that are exploited by most foreign stand-up comedians, often building releases based on the humiliation of adherents of a particular religion or a particular social group. Since it is forbidden to discuss such topics in modern society, the audience has a choice, either to show anger towards the comedian (which often really happens at such performances), or to laugh, which is a much less stressful reaction, since it does not require entering into a conflict on one side, and assumes following the installation on the other. The narrower the social group, the more specific the norms and the more sophisticated the jokes. Moreover, the norms directly related to morality should not necessarily be violated. For example, when observing the humor of the absurd, we could refer to the norm of stupidity, but rather, this form of humor can be associated with the norms of the correct construction of the message (for example, with our ideas about how a person should and should not behave in a given situation, or what non-verbal behavior should correspond to a given verbal message, etc.)

Another specific variant of the norm is the transfer of information from personal and intimate to generally known. As we know from therapy, for example, revealing a person to a group is accompanied by catharsis. The same is true here, when expressing a truth that until then seemed relevant only for a given individual publicly, the individual begins to react to this with laughter. This is due to such a rule as "you cannot tell everyone about your personal life." However, for a really strong effect, a joke of this type must also touch upon moral norms.

Another special case of the emergence of laughter as a defense mechanism is associated with jokes using certain negative states on the part of the actor. In particular, a huge number of scenes from the films are devoted to how the hero finds himself in an awkward situation, or he experiences a pronounced disgust or any other excessive emotion. In this situation, various explanations are possible. If we reduce the explanation to normativity, then we are talking about the fact that a person compares his possible behavior in a given situation with the behavior of the hero and when the hero deviates from the norm (especially with an additional reference to the stupidity of the hero or to a ban on excessive expression of emotions) arises reaction of laughter. However, another explanation is possible, which seems more plausible, although it deviates from the general scheme. This explanation is based on the mechanisms of empathy and identification (cognitive modeling in terms of cognitive psychology). So, when perceiving another person, a person begins to put himself in his place, mentally modeling his behavior and experiencing his emotions. If the emotion is negative, a protective mechanism is triggered in the form of a laughing reaction.

The second variant of norms is templates or patterns. Patterns are sequences of events predicted by the individual. When the pattern is abruptly broken (what is commonly called pattern break), we can also observe the comic effect. Here is an example used in one of the animated series, where one of the characters - a dog - behaves like a person. The behavior of a dog as a person sets a certain pattern. The comic effect occurs when this dog begins to behave really like an ordinary dog.

Finally, the moment of insight should be discussed, as well as its necessity in the process of humor. Insight or finding a new cognitive rule is considered by many researchers (a number of which we have discussed above) as an indispensable element of humor. However, it seems to us that this is not entirely true. For explanation, two types of jokes should be described: simple and complex.

Simple jokes do not require additional logical processing. For example, one of the comedians came on stage and his first phrase, said "I am an idiot", which caused a lot of laughter from the audience. Perhaps this can be attributed to the audience finding a cognitive rule with the help of which they interpreted the given situation and this made them laugh. But we insist that the reason for the humor is that the comedian made a statement that contradicts social norms ("You can't talk about yourself like that"), which put the audience in a situation of uncertainty (it is not clear how to react to the statement), since the audience is on a humorous concert, it is obvious that everything said is worth interpreting in a humorous framework. Hence the effect of laughter arises.

Still, there are complex jokes, where it is necessary to find the intermediate, lost part of the joke. For example, M. Zadornov, in his speech, reads out the instructions for the lawn mower "Avoid getting moving parts of the body into the moving parts of the machine." In order for the joke to become funny, the listener needs to guess that this means the possibility of injury, moreover, rather severe, if the instrument is mishandled. The same is used in vulgar jokes, when the description of various oblong objects causes laughter - the listener needs to guess what the speech is about.

In fact, the second type of jokes is reduced to the first, because, due to the thought process, we again come to a conclusion / representation that contradicts the normative sphere. The second type of jokes, nevertheless, may turn out to be more effective, since in fact it bypasses criticism: while a person is busy deciding and interpreting the situation, he cannot assess the very content of the situation from the standpoint of morality. As a result, the individual first receives the result, for example, a representation, and only then the critical factor is connected, as a result of which the comic effect is also triggered as a protective mechanism that protects the person from the conflicting representation.

Summarizing the above, we can describe the mechanism of humor as follows: the effect of humor occurs against the background of a certain state of consciousness and attitude, when perceiving information that diverges from the predicted one, and comes into conflict with the normative sphere of the psyche, with the subsequent compensation of this discrepancy with the help of laughter.

This concept was an attempt to integrate modern theories of humor into a single scheme that would fill in the gaps of each of them separately. Further research can be devoted to empirical confirmation of the hypothesis presented, its expansion and addition in relation to specific techniques of humor. Also, a lot of work must be devoted to revealing the very techniques of humor, which, according to the author, has sufficient scientific value and practical significance.

Bibliographic list:

1. Apter, M. J. (1991). A structural-phenomenology of play. In J. H. Kerr & M. J. Apter (Eds.), Adult play: A reversal theory approach (pp. 13-29). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

2. Attardo S. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin; N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.

3. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Berlyne, D. E. (1969). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 795-852). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

4. Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humor: an experimental and theoretical study. British Journal of Psychology, 32, 295-309.

5. Flugel, J. C. (1954). Humor and laughter. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

6. Gavanski, I. (1986). Differential sensitivity of humor ratings and mirth responses to cognitive and affective components of the humor response. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57 (1), 209-214.

7. Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humor. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 117-138). London: John Wiley & Sons.

8. Goldstein, J. H., Suls, J. M., & Anthony, S. (1972). Enjoyment of specific types of humor content: Motivation or salience? In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology ofhumor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 159-171). New York: Academic Press.

9. Gruner, C. R. Understanding laughter: The working of wit and humor // American Journal of Educational Research. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 2014, Vol. 2 No. 7, 503-512

10. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.

11. Raskin V. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985

12. Shultz, T. R. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13 (3), 456-477.

13. Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. InJ. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81-100). New York: Academic Press.

14. Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99 (4), pp. 663-688.

15. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1974). Retaliatory equity as a factor in humor appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (5), pp. 480-488.

16. Aristotle. Poetics. Rhetoric. - SPb.: ABC. 2000 - 119 p.

17. Dmitriev A. V. Sociology of humor: Essays. - M., 1996.-- 214 p.

18. Martin R., Psychology of humor. - SPb.: Peter, 2009. P. 20

19. Plato. Collected works in 4 volumes. Vol. 1. - M.: Mysl, 1990 - 860 p.

20. Freud Z. Wit and its relation to the unconscious. / Per with it. R. Dodeltseva. - SPb.: Azbuka-classic, 2007.-- 288 p. P. 17