Demonstrating the Faculties of Silliness in the Setting of Broad communications Parody - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

modeling the senses of humor in the context of mass media comedy l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Demonstrating the Faculties of Silliness in the Setting of Broad communications Parody PowerPoint Presentation
Demonstrating the Faculties of Silliness in the Setting of Broad communications Parody

play fullscreen
1 / 26
Download Presentation
tamira
Views
Download Presentation

Demonstrating the Faculties of Silliness in the Setting of Broad communications Parody

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling the Senses of Humor in the Context of Mass Media Comedy • Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D. School of Communication Cleveland State University Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  2. 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

  3. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  4. 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

  5. A study testing many of the model’s components: Laugh Track ‘07 • Thanks to the CSU team • Some preliminary findings: Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  6. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  7. 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

  8. Evidence from LT ‘07 • Mixed evidence of interactions between humor preferences and humor “found” on ratings of the episodes: Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  9. LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall perceived funniness (0-10) of episode as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick Interaction is ns Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  10. LT ’07: Sample Interaction—Overall episode enjoyment (0-10) as an Interaction of Perceived slapstick and Preference for slapstick Interaction is ns Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  11. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  12. 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

  13. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  14. Evidence from LT ‘07 • Presence of laugh track? Subjects were differentially able to gauge: Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  15. LT ’07: Identification of Presence of Laugh Track Chi-square for correct identification = 9.3, p=.01 Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  16. LT ’07: Preference for Laugh Tracks as related to Condition and Identification of LT Main Effects: Condition ns ID of LT p=.068 Interaction: ns Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  17. Evidence from LT ‘07 • Significant differences in humor response to the 8 conditions: Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  18. LT ’07: Total perceived funniness scores by condition 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

  19. 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

  20. LT ’07: Social Presence/Active Interpersonal by Condition Main effect for laugh track: ns Main effect for episode: ns Interaction effect: F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005 Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  21. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  22. Evidence from LT ‘07 • None yet! Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  23. The utility of modeling • Organizing past evidence • Roadmap for future investigations • Reference for data analysis plan • Alternative models may be compared Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  24. Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Identification with characters/situations 6. Personality characteristics 7. Higher level interactions Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior (7/9/07) Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. Information Acquisition Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Surprise -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07

  25. 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

  26. Model of Humor Response and Mirth Behavior Critical Variables Currently-Not-Appearing in this Model: 1. Medium (and, importantly, interactions of medium with other model components) 2. Demographic characteristics 3. Past experiences with content elements 4. Past experiences with source elements 5. Higher level interactions Perceived levels of various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -High Arousal (e.g., Shock) Humor -Etc. • Presentations to follow will examine the role of some of these critical variables: • Medium-specific characteristics (e.g., Evan Lieberman’s analysis of early film conventions and their comedic violations) • Past experiences with content forms (e.g., Jack Powers’ tracing of the changing emphases in television comedy) • Interactions of medium with humor preferences and expectations (e.g., Paul Skalski’s look at the evolution of humor in video gaming) Humor Response (Affective response; i.e., finding a stimulus funny) Mirth Behavior (i.e., laughter, smiling) Perceived levels of stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Etc. 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) Preference for stimulus presentation characteristics: -Reality -Intentionality -Rarity (“Odds”) -Dry delivery -Etc. Preference for various humor types: -Incongruity -Disparagement -Social Humor -Shock Humor -Etc. Neuendorf, ISHS '07