Neuendorf, ISHS '07 Modeling the Senses of Humor in the Context of Mass Media Comedy Kimberly A....
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Neuendorf, ISHS '07 Modeling the Senses of Humor in the Context of Mass Media Comedy Kimberly A....
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Modeling the Senses of Humor in the Context of Mass Media Comedy
Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D.School of CommunicationCleveland State University
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Assumptions based on past scholarship
and our own past investigations
The Senses of Humor Appreciation are multidimensional
There are individual differences in SOH profiles
These profiles can predict mass media comedy choice and responses to mediated comedy
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
A study testing many of the model’s components: Laugh Track ‘07
Experimental design: 4 episodes of Andy Griffith Each in Laugh Track/No Laugh Track versions (8
conditions total)—serendipitous acquisition Subjects = 114 students at CSU, in groups of 2-5 Pre-experiment questionnaire tapped numerous
SOH dimensions and other model elements Posttest tapped responses to the episode overall
and specific incidents within the episode Subjects were videorecorded as they watched the
episode—behavioral response coding to follow
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
A study testing many of the model’s components: Laugh Track ‘07
Thanks to the CSU team Some preliminary findings:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07
Perceived type of humor in six key incidents is NOT homogenous—perceived levels of different humor types matter
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 Mixed evidence of interactions
between humor preferences and humor “found” on ratings of the episodes:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall perceived funniness (0-10) of episode as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick
4.7
4.4
4.7
3.8
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low perceivedslapstick
High perceivedslapstick
Low preference forslapstickHigh preference forslapstick
Interaction is ns
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall episode enjoyment (0-10) as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick
6.1
5.1
5.4
5.3
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Low perceivedslapstick
High perceivedslapstick
Low preference forslapstickHigh preference forslapstick
Interaction is ns
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 Good variance on measures
indicates strong individual differences on preferences for these presentation characteristics, and perceptions of their presence in the episodes
Interactions not yet analyzed
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 Presence of laugh track? Subjects
were differentially able to gauge:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Identification of Presence of Laugh Track
27%
61%
13%
86%
7% 7%
0%
10%
20%30%
40%
50%
60%70%
80%
90%
No Laugh TrackCondition
Laugh TrackCondition
"Yes""No""Don't know"
Chi-square for correct identification = 9.3, p=.01
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Preference for Laugh Tracks as related to Condition and Identification of LT
-4.1
10.5
3.4
-2.4
-5-3-113579
1113
Incorrectidentification of LT
Correct identificationof LT
No Laugh TrackConditionLaugh TrackCondition
Main Effects:
Condition ns
ID of LT p=.068
Interaction: ns
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 Significant differences in humor
response to the 8 conditions:
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Total perceived funniness scores by condition
6574
127
8376
94
62 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Opie theBirdman
Black Dayfor
Mayberry
Opie's I ll-GottenGains
Up inBarney's
Room
No LaughTrack
LaughTrack
Main effect for laugh track: ns
Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=5.32, p=.002
Interaction effect: F(3,106)=3.06, p=.031
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 Differences in perceived presence across
the 8 conditions: Sig. differences for Social Presence/Active
Interpersonal (see next graph); similar patterns for Engagement Presence and for Time Presence
No sig. differences for Social Presence/Parasocial, Social Presence/Passive Interpersonal, and Spatial Presence
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
LT ’07: Social Presence/Active Interpersonal by Condition
7.1
10.3
15.9
8.4
10.8
12.6
7.6
10.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Opie theBirdman
Black Dayfor
Mayberry
Opie's I ll-GottenGains
Up inBarney's
Room
No LaughTrack
LaughTrack
Main effect for laugh track: ns
Main effect for episode: ns
Interaction effect: F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Evidence from LT ‘07 None yet!
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
The utility of modeling Organizing past evidence Roadmap for future investigations Reference for data analysis plan Alternative models may be
compared
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07)
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)Mirth Behavior
(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Surprise-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Identification with characters/situations6. Personality characteristics7. Higher level interactions
Information Acquisition
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Notes re Humor Model A number of important variable sets are not included (see text box
above model). Variables are lumped together into sets (A, B, C, D, F, G) for
convenience only; a real test would have each variable measured and statistically tested separately.
A presumed causal link is represented by an arrow that leads from one box to another.
An interaction is represented by an arrow that hits another arrow in the middle. For example, the variable set D is shown as having an interaction with set B in the prediction of E.
Important higher-level interactions have not been specified. For example, “reality” perceptions and needs might be different for different types of humor—a three-way interaction between particular components in B and D and A. Four-way and higher interactions are clearly possible.
The nature of each of the various interactions (both specified and not yet specified) is unknown. The following two pages contain simplified examples of possible interactions (simplified=reduced to just low and high).
Neuendorf, ISHS '07
Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior
Humor Response(Affective
response; i.e.,finding a stimulus
funny)
Mirth Behavior(i.e., laughter, smiling)
Contextual Cues (e.g., co-laughers, laugh track,
expectations of others,privacy)
Individual Differences (e.g., proclivity to laugh/traditional “sense of humor”scales, perceived social presence)
Perceived levels of various humor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor-Etc.
Perceived levels of stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Etc.
Preference for varioushumor types:-Incongruity-Disparagement-Social Humor-Shock Humor-Etc.
Preference for stimulus presentationcharacteristics:-Reality-Intentionality-Rarity (“Odds”)-Dry delivery-Etc.
Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model:1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium
with other model components)2. Demographic characteristics3. Past experiences with content elements4. Past experiences with source elements5. Higher level interactions
Presentations to follow will examine the role of some of these critical variables:
1. Medium-specific characteristics (e.g., Evan Lieberman’s analysis of early film conventions and their comedic violations)
2. Past experiences with content forms (e.g., Jack Powers’ tracing of the changing emphases in television comedy)
3. Interactions of medium with humor preferences and expectations (e.g., Paul Skalski’s look at the evolution of humor in video gaming)