Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media

MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 147 167 Copyright 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media Moniek Buijzen and Patti M. Valkenburg The Amsterdam School of Communications Research University of Amsterdam The main aim of this study was to develop and investigate a typology of humor in audiovisual media. We identified 41 humor techniques, drawing on Berger s (1976, 1993) typology of humor in narratives, audience research on humor preferences, and an inductive analysis of humorous commercials. We analyzed the content of 319 humorous television commercials to investigate (a) whether and how humor techniques cluster into higher order humor categories and (b) which humor techniques and categories characterize commercials aimed at different audience groups. From principle components analysis, 7 categories of humor emerged: slapstick, clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire, and parody. Our findings showed some marked differences in the humor techniques and categories in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups. Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers and other scholars have tried to understand the origin, functions, and importance of humor (McGhee, 1971; Veatch, 1998). Over the years numerous theories have been proposed to explain why we laugh and what makes us laugh. Although classic theories on humor and laughter often appear under different names, in the literature three humor theories show up repeatedly: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory (Berger, 1993; Meyer, 2000). From the perspective of relief theory, people laugh because they need to reduce physiological tension from time to time (Berlyne, 1972; Meyer, 2000). Relief theory assumes that laughter and mirth results from a release of nervous energy. In this view humor is mainly used to reveal suppressed desires and to overcome Requests for reprints should be sent to Moniek Buijzen, The Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. E-mail: m.a.buijzen@uva.nl

148 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG sociocultural inhibitions. Humor explained by relief theory typically involves sexual and aggressive themes (Freud, 1963; Schaeffer, 1981). According to superiority theory, people laugh because they feel some kind of triumph over others or feel superior to them (Meyer, 2000). From this perspective humor has a primarily emotional function, helping the humorist to build confidence and self-esteem. Laughter and mirth result from seeing oneself as superior, right, or triumphant, in contrast to another who is inferior, wrong, or defeated. Ridicule and making fun of those who are less fortunate or who deviate from the norm are typical themes of humor covered by superiority theory (Berger, 1993). From the perspective of incongruity theory, people laugh at things that are unexpected or surprising (Berger, 1976, 1993; McGhee, 1979). According to this theory, it is the violation of an expected pattern that provokes humor in the mind of the receiver. Rather than focusing on the physiological (relief theory) or emotional (superiority theory) function of humor, incongruity theory emphasizes cognition. It assumes that the cognitive capacity to note and understand incongruous events is necessary to experience laughter or mirth. Absurdity, nonsense, and surprise are vital themes in humor covered by this theory (Berger, 1993; McGhee, 1979; Veatch, 1998). There is no consensus among humor theorists about which of these three theories of humor is most viable. Originally, proponents of each theory maintained that their theory could explain all instances of humor (Meyer, 2000), but current humor researchers often consider the three theories as complementary. They acknowledge that although each humor theory has its own focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory (Berger, 1993; Meyer, 2000; Veatch, 1998). The aim of this study was to develop a typology of humor in audiovisual media based on the three theories of humor. To date, the bulk of research into humor in audiovisual media has focused on audience perceptions of humor. For example, the use of humor to facilitate selective attention has been investigated (e.g., Wakshlag, Day, & Zillmann, 1981), as has its use to facilitate message liking (e.g., Goldstein, 1993; Madden & Weinberger, 1984), comprehension (e.g., Stewart & Furse, 1986; Weinberger & Campbell, 1991), and recall (e.g., Perry, Jenzowsky, King, Yi, Hester, & Gartenschlaeger, 1997). Few studies have addressed the content and specific types of humor used in audiovisual media. This is remarkable because humor researchers generally acknowledge that any research on audience perception of humor must begin with an identification of types of humor (McCullough, 1993; Unger, 1996). Some authors have attempted to identify several types of humor such as aggressive, sexual, and incongruous humor (Goldstein & McGhee, 1972; Veatch, 1998). However, there

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 149 has, to date, been no empirical verification of the occurrence and relative importance of these types of humor in audiovisual media. Our typology of humor is inspired by the one created by Berger (1976, 1993), which is to date the most extensive typology in the literature and, to our knowledge, the only one that takes different humor theories into account. Berger s typology is based on the assumption that humor can be divided into various parts or techniques. His typology consisted of humor techniques such as exaggeration, ridicule, coincidence, repetition, and misunderstanding. By themselves many of these techniques are not necessarily funny; they must complement one another to generate humor. Berger s (1976) typology was developed to categorize humor in verbal narratives intended for adults. Berger studied verbal jokes to inductively create his typology of humor techniques. However, because of this focus on verbal narratives, Berger s typology might need some adjustment when applied to audiovisual media. After all, audiovisual media may permit more or different types of humor techniques than verbal narratives do. Moreover, the jokes that Berger used to compile his typology were primarily intended for adults, with the consequence that more simple childlike humor techniques received relatively little attention in his typology. To adapt Berger s (1976, 1993) typology of humor to audiovisual media, we undertook two steps. First, we reviewed the research into humor preferences of different audience groups to identify the humor types that appeal to different age and gender groups. Second, as Berger did, we conducted an inductive analysis of audiovisual media to identify as many humor techniques as possible. Berger used jokes to inductively arrive at his typology because jokes include short and complete storylines that can be dealt with in a direct manner. In our analysis we used commercials as an audiovisual equivalent of Berger s jokes because, like jokes, commercials present short and complete storylines, making them a usable unit of analysis. Before we present the results of our inductive analysis, we discuss the main conclusions of previous studies into the humor preferences in different age and gender groups. HUMOR PREFERENCES IN DIFFERENT AUDIENCE GROUPS Audience research on humor preferences suggests that understanding and appreciating different types of humor is highly dependent on cognitive and sociocognitive factors (McGhee, 1971, 1979; Zigler, Levine, & Gould, 1966).

150 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG For example, children s developmental level is strongly related to their understanding and appreciation of certain types of abstract and verbal humor such as irony and puns (McGhee, 1979). Similarly, the rebelliousness that characterizes adolescence is an important determinant for adolescents preference for scatological and disgusting humor (Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997). Theories on the development of humor (e.g., McGhee, 1971) often distinguish among different age groups: early childhood (2 7 years), middle childhood (8 11 years), adolescence (12 18 years), and adulthood (19+). We have organized our review of the literature on humor preferences according to these four different age groups. Early Childhood: Clownish Behavior and Visual Surprise Children in early childhood (ages 2 7) usually appreciate simple forms of humor (McGhee, 1979; Shultz, 1996). Children in early childhood are very visual in their orientation to the world; therefore, they have a strong preference for visual and physical humor such as funny faces, grimaces, and sudden visual surprises, as in playing peek-a-boo (Shultz, 1996). In particular, slapstick, vigorous arm and leg movement, clownish behavior, and anthropomorphism tickle the young child s funny bone (Acuff & Reiher, 1997; McGhee, 1971). In addition to visual and physical humor, small children also laugh at other simple forms of humor such as unusual voices and sounds. Humor techniques that require a higher cognitive understanding, such as irony or sarcasm, are neither understood nor appreciated by this age group (Bryant & Meyer, 1977; Dews et al., 1996). By age 4 most children start to appreciate simple forms of verbal humor such as playing with the sound of words or the incongruous labeling of objects and events (McGhee, 1979). Conceptual incongruity, such as the exaggeration or distortion of familiar concepts and situations, is comprehended and appreciated only by older children in this age group (McGhee, 1979). At the end of early childhood, children begin to appreciate more malicious and irreverent humor techniques (McGhee, 1971, 1979). Although boys and girls in early childhood differ little in their comprehension of humor, some gender differences in humor appreciation do occur. Research suggests that boys prefer more stinging or malicious humor such as teasing and ridicule (McGhee, 1976). In early childhood boys more often appreciate aggressive and violent humor (Acuff & Reiher, 1997; McGhee, 1976), whereas girls more frequently favor incongruous and surprising events, amusing physical behaviors, verbal forms of humor, and animal antics (Groch, 1974; McGhee, 1976).

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 151 Middle Childhood: Slapstick and Logic Children in middle childhood (ages 8 11) begin to develop a preference for more complicated and abstract humor such as playing with logic and the meaning of words (McGhee, 1979). Around age 10 children begin to like social transformations as well as illogical behavior and situations. In spite of their enhanced cognitive skills, slapstick remains a favorite among children in this age group. Due to children s increasing ability to take another person s point of view (Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993), teasing and invective humor are found less humorous by this group than in the younger age group (McGhee, 1979). Other people s misfortunes are perceived as humorous only in accidental or unintentional cases or if the object of humor is an unpleasant character (McGhee, 1979). At the end of middle childhood, children increasingly favor more complex forms of humor such as word play, sarcasm, and sexual allusion. Gross forms of humor such as disgust, violence, and irreverent behavior are also increasingly appreciated (Acuff & Reiher, 1997). As with the gender differences seen in early childhood, boys between 8 and 11 appreciate hostile humor more than girls do. Making fun of others, especially irreverent behavior toward adults, is valued more by boys than by girls (Brodzinsky, Barnet, & Aiello, 1981; McGhee, 1976). Girls tend to prefer sophisticated forms of humor such as riddles and puns more than boys do (Brodzinsky et al., 1981). Additionally, research suggests that girls responses to humor are more influenced by their environment. Boys tend to be more responsive to the humor stimulus itself, whereas girls more frequently react to what their companions perceive as funny (Chapman, Smith, & Foot, 1980; McGhee, 1979). Adolescence: Subtleties and Irreverent Behavior During adolescence (ages 12 18) children develop an appreciation for more sophisticated forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, irony, and sexual allusion (Acuff & Reiher, 1997). However, slapstick and physical forms of humor popular among younger children are still appreciated in this age group (Acuff & Reiher, 1997). Adolescents prefer anecdotes and spontaneous humor to memorized jokes. They also like absurdity (McGhee, 1979) and more gross types of humor such as irreverent humor and humor based on taboos or disgust (Acuff & Reiher, 1997; Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997). As in the younger age groups, these gross types of humor are more popular among male than female adolescents (Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997).

152 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG Adulthood: Diversity and Individuality In adulthood age differences become less important, whereas other demographic factors such as gender, culture, and socioeconomic status become more important determinants of humor appreciation (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). Puns on multiple meanings of a word form the basis of much adult humor (McGhee, 1979). Most adults appreciate slapstick and sexual humor (Unger, 1996). Aggressive and hostile types of humor are also popular although generally more so among men than among women (Mundorf, Bhatia, Zillmann, Lester, & Robertson, 1988; Whipple & Courtney, 1980). Adult women tend to appreciate nonsensical and silly humor more often than men (Brodzinsky et al, 1981; Johnson, 1992; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), whereas men more frequently prefer malicious (Unger 1996), sick (Herzog & Karafa, 1998), and sexual humor (Groch, 1974; Hassett & Houlihan, 1979). Finally, cartoon humor is generally valued more highly by men than by women (Brodzinsky et al., 1981; Mundorf et al., 1988). A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR IN AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA Following Berger s (1976, 1993) procedure, we conducted an inductive analysis of 30 humorous commercials, taking into account the specific humor preferences of different audience groups. The inductive analysis yielded a typology of 41 audiovisual humor techniques, a large number of which were directly adopted from Berger. The remaining consisted of techniques derived from audience research (e.g., anthropomorphism, irreverent behavior) and from the analysis of commercials (e.g., peculiar music, visual surprise). The humor techniques and their definitions are listed in Table 1. According to Berger (1976, 1993), humor techniques fall into four general categories: language, logic, identity, and action. However, it has never been investigated whether humor techniques cluster into higher order categories and, if so, how. The aim of our study was to investigate whether and how the 41 techniques we identified cluster into humor categories. To this end we analyzed content of 319 humorous commercials and used data-reduction methods to verify how the techniques we identified combine with one another and cluster into higher order categories. In addition, we examined the relative prevalence of the humor techniques and categories in commercials and compared their use in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups. The results of this content analysis were related to Berger s humor categories, the three main theories of humor, and findings from audience perception research. We formulated the following research questions:

TABLE 1 Humor Techniques Humor Technique Absurdity a Anthropomorphism Bombast a Chase a Clownish behavior a Clumsiness Coincidence a Conceptual surprise Disappointment a Eccentricity a Embarrassment a Exaggeration a Grotesque appearance a Ignorance a Imitation a Impersonation a Infantilism a Irony a Irreverent behavior Short Description Nonsense, a situation that goes against all logical rules Objects or animals with human features Talking in a high-flown, grandiloquent, or rhetorical manner A pursuit or chase of someone or something Making vigorous arm and leg movements or demonstrating exaggerated irregular physical behavior Lacking dexterity or grace A coincidental and unexpected occurrence Misleading the audience by means of a sudden unexpected change of concept A situation that leads to (minor) disappointment Someone who deviates from the norms, an odd character An awkward situation in which someone gets a sense of discomfort, uneasiness, or shame Making an exaggeration or overstatement; reacting in an exaggerated way; exaggerating the qualities of a person or product Someone who has a bizarre or monstrous appearance with striking features Someone acts or behaves in a foolish, naive, gullible, or childish manner Mimicking or copying someone s appearance or movements while keeping one s own identity at the same time Taking on the identity of another person, intentionally or unintentionally Playing with the sound of words Saying one thing and meaning something else or exactly the opposite of what you re saying Lacking proper respect for authority or the prevailing standards (continued) 153

TABLE 1 Continued Humor Technique Malicious pleasure Misunderstanding a Outwitting Parody a Peculiar face Peculiar music Peculiar sound Peculiar voice Pun a Repartee a Repetition a Ridicule a Rigidity a Sarcasm a Satire a Scale a Sexual allusion a Slapstick a Speed a Stereotype a Transformation a Visual surprise Short Description Taking pleasure in other people s misfortune; victim humor Misinterpreting a situation Outsmarting someone or the establishment by retort, response, or comeback Imitating a style or a genre of literature or other media Making a funny face, grimace Funny, unusual music Funny sound, unexpected sound, as in cartoons Funny, unusual voice Playing with the meaning of words Verbal banter, usually in a witty dialogue Repetition or replay of the same situation Making a fool of someone, verbally or nonverbally Someone who thinks along straight lines, who is conservative and inflexible Biting remark made with a hostile tone; sarcasm is always a verbal put-down Making a fool of or poking fun at well-known things, situations, or public figures Very large or small sizes of objects that surpass people s logical expectations Making a reference or insinuation to sexual or naughty matters Physical pie-in-the-face humor often involving degradation of someone s status Talking or moving in very fast or slow motion Stereotyped or generalized way of depicting members of a certain nation, gender, or other group Someone or something takes on another form or undergoes a metamorphosis; before/after A sudden unexpected visual/physical change a Humor technique adopted from Berger (1976, 1993). 154

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 155 RQ1: How do the humor techniques identified in our study cluster into higher order categories of humor? RQ2: What is the relative prevalence of different humor techniques and categories in audiovisual media, and how does this differ for media aimed at different age and gender groups? Sample METHOD During the fall and winter of 1998 and the spring of 1999, we collected a sample of commercials from Dutch television representative of advertising to children, adolescents, and adults. In total, we taped 216 hours of television. We selected different time periods on two public and three private networks. Taping occurred each week on Saturday between 8 a.m. and noon, and on subsequent weekdays between 4:30 and 8:30 p.m. All commercials broadcast before, during, and after the recorded programs were collected. This resulted in a sample of approximately 2,500 commercials. After eliminating repeats, public service announcements, and noncommercial advertising, the total sample consisted of 601 different commercials. Coding Procedure Two coders were trained over a 2-month period. To practice coding, coders used a separate subsample of commercials that was not included in the final analysis. During this period extensive coders instructions and decision rules were created. Throughout the coding period, applying the codebook and dealing with doubtful cases were regularly discussed. Variables in the codebook included the target age group, the target gender group, and the type of humor used in the commercials. Each coder analyzed approximately 50% of the final sample of commercials. Humor. The coders first determined whether a commercial was intended to be humorous in the first place. The intercoder reliability of this variable, based on a subsample of 30 commercials, was 100%. Of the total sample of 601 commercials, 53.1% (n = 319) of the commercials contained some type of humor. The analysis presented in this article is based on these 319 humorous commercials. Types of humor. Because many commercials in our sample contained more than one humor technique, each type of humor was coded as being present (1) or

156 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG absent (0) in the commercial. Intercoder agreement was perfect on 83% of all the types of humor we distinguished (Cohen s κ = 1.00). For the majority of the remaining humor techniques (coincidence, exaggeration, visual surprise, peculiar face, and clumsiness), the reliability was satisfactory (κ >.78). However, for two humor techniques (peculiar sound and malicious pleasure), the kappa was not satisfactory (κ =.65). The definitions of these humor techniques were evaluated and then rewritten until consensus between the coders was reached. Target audience. In analyzing commercials there are two accepted methods of defining the age and gender positioning of the commercial. One method derives the age and gender of the target audience from the key characters in the commercial (e.g., Welch, Huston-Stein, Wright, & Plehal, 1979; Winick, Williamson, Chuzmir, & Winick, 1973). The other method is based on the coder s estimation of the target audience (e.g., Chandler & Griffiths, 2000). In this latter method, the coders consider the nature of the advertised product and the gender and age of the key characters in the commercial. Because it is implausible in our view that advertisers would consistently use same-age and same-sex key characters in commercials to reach a specific target audience, we relied on the coder s estimation of the target audience. During their training coders turned out to have difficulty distinguishing between commercials aimed at the two youngest age groups. Because maintaining the age categories 2 to 7 and 8 to 11 would have been problematic, we distinguished among the following age groups: aimed at children (2- to 11-year-olds), aimed at adolescents (12- to 18-year-olds), and general audience. The latter category included all the commercials that did not fit into the categories aimed at children or aimed at adolescents. Coders defined the gender positioning of the commercial as aimed at males, aimed at females, oraimed at both males and females Measures of intercoder reliability were satisfactory. The kappa for the estimated target age was.94 and the kappa for the estimated target gender was 1.0, indicating that coders were reliably able to estimate the gender and age positioning of the commercials. RESULTS Categories of Humor Techniques Used in Television Advertising To explore the component structure of the different humor techniques, we conducted a principle component analysis for categorical variables (CATPCA; available in SPSS 10.1). The CATPCA procedure quantifies categorical data while re-

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 157 ducing the dimensionality of the data with minimal loss of information found in the original variables (De Haas, Algera, & Van Tuijl, 2000). The CATPCA technique is exploratory in nature and, therefore, suitable for the purposes of this study. An initial principle component analysis (CATPCA) performed on the 41 humor techniques yielded 15 components, all with an eigenvalue > 1.0. Because these were impossible to interpret, we applied the Scree criterion and conducted a second CATPCA with a restriction of seven components, which explained 33.4% of the variance. Six items (imitation, impersonation, eccentricity, sexual allusion, repetition, and grotesque appearance) failed to load exclusively on one component. After removing these items, a third CATPCA was conducted. This analysis again revealed seven interpretable components, explaining 38.2% of the variance. These components clearly represented seven categories of humor: slapstick (nine items; eigenvalue, 2.73), surprise (four items; eigenvalue, 1.66), irony (five items; eigenvalue, 1.47), clownish humor (four items; eigenvalue, 2.32), satire (four items; eigenvalue, 1.79), misunderstanding (four items; eigenvalue, 1.49), and parody (five items; eigenvalue, 1.96). The seven humor categories as well as the individual techniques that loaded on each component are presented in the first column of Table 2. Under the heading miscellaneous, the six items that were removed from the CATPCA are listed. The Use of Humor Techniques and Categories Table 2 shows how often (in percentages) each humor technique and category appeared in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups. The number of times the different humor categories were used in commercials aimed at different audience groups was computed by means of multiple-response techniques (using SPSS 10.1). The total column percentages in Table 2 reflect the percentages of commercials that used one or more of the techniques that made up the humor category in question. Humor in commercials aimed at different age groups. As shown in Table 2, the prevalent humor categories in children s commercials were slapstick and clownish humor. Satire and parody were used the least. In comparison with commercials aimed at adolescents and a general audience, commercials aimed at children used clownish humor, slapstick, and misunderstanding considerably more often. Within these prevailing categories, humor techniques such as peculiar faces, peculiar voices, anthropomorphisms, and clumsiness were the most common. In commercials aimed at adolescents, the most frequently used humor categories were slapstick and surprise, followed by satire. Clownish humor was used the least. Satire, parody, and surprise were used in commercials aimed at adolescents

158 TABLE 2 Techniques and Categories of Humor in Commercials Aimed at Different Age and Gender Groups % Aimed at Age Groups % Aimed at Gender Groups Children (n = 77) Adolescents (n = 64) General Audience (n = 178) Males (n = 29) Females (n = 46) % Total Sample (N = 319) Slapstick humor Slapstick 20 16 6 10 4 11 Peculiar face 40 42 32 31 11 36 Peculiar voice 44 30 9 21 13 22 Coincidence 9 14 7 3 4 9 Clumsiness 22 6 10 3 9 12 Stereotype 5 31 21 21 11 19 Ridicule 13 13 6 24 7 9 Malicious pleasure 8 16 13 10 7 12 Repartee 1 5 3 3 0 3 Total 84 64 54 76 37 63 Surprise Conceptual surprise 21 42 31 24 24 31 Visual surprise 22 20 12 14 15 16 Transformation 9 14 7 10 9 9 Exaggeration 7 25 11 10 9 13 Total 47 60 46 45 44 49

159 Irony Irony 5 11 9 7 9 9 Sarcasm 3 6 6 7 7 5 Embarrassment 8 8 6 24 7 7 Puns 26 20 25 21 15 24 Scale 12 3 3 10 4 5 Total 39 30 39 52 35 39 Clownish humor Clownish behavior 31 11 8 17 11 14 Anthropomorphism 36 6 11 3 17 16 Speed 7 6 3 3 0 5 Chase 12 6 2 7 0 5 Total 58 20 22 21 26 30 Satire Satire 3 5 7 7 2 5 Irreverent behavior 16 27 12 24 7 16 Outwitting 3 11 7 10 2 7 Peculiar music 8 5 7 0 7 7 Total 27 34 25 31 15 27 Misunderstanding Misunderstanding 3 3 7 3 7 5 Ignorance 1 9 5 3 0 5 Disappointment 10 11 7 7 9 9 Peculiar sound 25 14 7 10 7 13 Total 34 25 22 21 17 25 (continued)

160 TABLE 2 Continued % Aimed at Age Groups % Aimed at Gender Groups Children (n = 77) Adolescents (n = 64) General Audience (n = 178) Males (n = 29) Females (n = 46) % Total Sample (N = 319) Parody Parody 10 9 5 0 2 7 Bombast 1 3 3 3 0 3 Rigidity 1 3 2 0 0 2 Absurdity 16 19 7 14 4 11 Infantilism 4 5 7 7 0 6 Total 25 30 19 21 7 22 Miscellaneous Imitation 4 2 3 0 0 3 Impersonation 1 2 2 7 0 2 Eccentricity 4 6 2 10 2 3 Sexual allusion 0 9 8 7 4 7 Repetition 3 2 3 0 2 3 Grotesque appearance 8 6 1 7 0 3 Total 18 25 19 28 9 20

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 161 more often than in commercials for children or a general audience. Within these prevailing categories, techniques such as conceptual surprise, exaggeration, irreverent behavior, and absurdity predominated. In addition, adolescent commercials employed the miscellaneous humor techniques such as sexual allusion, eccentricity, and grotesque appearance relatively often. Prevalent humor categories in commercials aimed at a general audience were slapstick, surprise, and irony. Parody and clownish humor were used the least. None of the seven categories of humor was used substantially more often in commercials aimed at a general audience than in commercials for the two younger age groups. Within the three prevailing categories, frequently used humor techniques were peculiar faces, conceptual surprises, and puns. Humor in commercials aimed at different gender groups. When comparing the use of humor categories in commercials aimed at different gender groups, Table 2 indicates that slapstick, irony, and satire were commonly used in male-targeted commercials. Within these prevailing categories, commercials aimed at a male audience used the techniques of ridicule, conceptual surprise, embarrassment, and irreverent behavior most frequently. In addition, male-targeted commercials used humor techniques such as eccentricity, impersonation, grotesque appearance, and sexual allusion in the miscellaneous category relatively often. The predominant humor category in commercials aimed at women and girls was surprise, closely followed by slapstick and irony. Satire and parody were used the least. Although none of the seven types of humor was typical of commercials aimed at women and girls, clownish humor was a little more common in female commercials than in male commercials. Within these humor categories, techniques such as puns, anthropomorphisms, and peculiar voices prevailed. DISCUSSION The main aim of this study was to develop and test a typology of humor techniques in audiovisual media. To this end we developed a list of 41 humor techniques, compiled from the typology of Berger (1976, 1993), research literature on humor preferences (e.g., McGhee, 1979; Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997; Shultz, 1996; Unger, 1996), and an inductive analysis of humorous commercials. We analyzed content of a random sample of humorous television commercials and used categorical principle components analysis to investigate whether and how these techniques clustered together into higher order categories of humor. We also investigated the

162 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG relative prevalence of the categories in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups. Seven Categories of Humor Our findings show that most of the inductively established humor techniques cluster together into higher order categories of humor. However, instead of the four categories proposed by Berger (1996), our study yielded seven humor categories: slapstick, clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire, and parody. In addition, our study shows that some techniques (i.e., imitation, impersonation, eccentricity, sexual allusion, repetition, grotesque appearance) do not load on any single humor-category factor and do not cluster together with other techniques. One explanation for this finding is that some of these techniques such as repetition and eccentricity are used in more than one humor category (e.g., slapstick and parody). Another explanation is that some humor techniques do not have to be combined with other techniques to generate humor. For example, sexual allusion can be humorous by itself without the addition of other humor techniques. The seven categories of humor that emerged in our study vary primarily in level of complexity. Clownish humor, the simplest category, involves pursuit and vigorous arm and leg movements. Surprise, equally innocent but cognitively more demanding, involves sudden changes of concepts and images. Parody is a more complex humor category that requires knowledge of the particular media styles or genres that are parodied. Finally, misunderstanding is also relatively innocent although it tends more toward victim humor in that it reflects laughing at others, ignorance, or disappointment. The remaining three categories involve relatively unfriendly and pungent humor. Slapstick humor, a physical pie-in-the-face type of humor, typically has an unfriendly nature and is often accompanied by malicious delight. Satire and irony are also often antagonistic but cognitively more demanding than slapstick. Irony clusters with sarcasm and puns, whereas satire involves making fun of a well-known person or situation. The typology of humor developed in the study deals with the question what it is that generates humor in media; it does not explain why something is perceived as humorous. However, each of the seven categories relates to one or more of the three main theories that attempt to explain humor. Incongruity theory explains the humorousness of the more innocuous humor categories (i.e., clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding). For example, surprise involves incongruous narratives and unexpected events. Superiority theory explains some of the less innocuous categories (i.e., satire, irony) because these humor categories involve outwitting

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 163 others and laughing at the less fortunate. Finally, relief theory could explain the antagonistic nature of slapstick humor. Even though the three humor theories can explain one or more specific humor categories, some categories can be explained by more than one theory. For instance, slapstick can be explained by all three theories: It encompasses coincidence (incongruity theory), malicious delight (superiority theory), and aggressiveness (relief theory). Humor Categories Used in Commercials The second aim of our study was to determine the relative prevalence of different humor categories in audiovisual media and to investigate how the use of these categories differs for media aimed at different age and gender groups. Our results show that, overall, slapstick was most frequently employed, followed by surprise, irony, clownish humor, satire, misunderstanding, and parody, in that order. Children s commercials were characterized by slapstick, clownish humor, and misunderstanding. These types of humor closely correspond to children s humor preferences (McGhee, 1979; Shultz, 1996). Our results show that humor in children s commercials addresses the preferences of children in early childhood more closely than those of children in middle childhood. Types of humor that are popular among children aged 8 to 11, such as parody and rebellious humor, were relatively rare in children s commercials. Commercials aimed at adolescents were characterized by satire, parody, and surprise. Satire is a relatively complex and caustic humor category that appeals to the noncompliant attitude of adolescents. Parody is a relatively complicated and abstract type of humor that requires more developed cognitive skills. Our finding that parody was used more often in commercials aimed at adolescents than in those aimed at children is consistent with developmental theories of humor appreciation (McGhee, 1971; Zigler et al., 1966). Irony, slapstick, and surprise prevailed in commercials for a general audience. Irony and surprise rely on play with logic, words, and knowledge and are, therefore, most appropriate for adolescents and adults (McGhee, 1979). In addition, audience research has shown that simple humor such as slapstick is popular among all age groups, including adults (Unger 1996). Types of humor that are generally more appealing to adults than to children, such as sexual and hostile humor, were detected more often in commercials aimed at a general audience than in commercials specifically aimed at children. Commercials aimed at men and boys contained considerably more irony, satire, and slapstick than commercials aimed at women and girls. These findings are consistent with research on gender differences in humor preferences (Brodzinsky et

164 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG al., 1981; McGhee, 1976, 1979; Unger 1996), which has shown that men and boys have a greater preference for caustic and disparaging types of humor than women and girls have. In commercials aimed at women and girls, more innocent humor categories such as clownish humor prevailed, which is also consistent with research on female humor preferences (Brodzinsky et al., 1981; Johnson, 1992; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). When relating these findings to the three theories of humor, we can conclude that children s commercials mainly make use of humor that can be explained by incongruity theory and, to a lesser extent, superiority theory. Humor in commercials aimed at adolescents can largely be explained by superiority theory and, to a lesser extent, incongruity theory. The humor used in commercials aimed at a general audience represents all three theories of humor. These findings indicate that the humor theories are related not only to specific humor categories but also to humor that appeals to specific audience groups. This study was based on Dutch television commercials. Because it is conceivable that an analysis of other media types or of commercials in other countries could yield different findings, replication and extension of our study are important. We do believe, however, that our study provides a valuable starting point for a further validation of a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Our Typology of Humor and Media Uses and Effects Research The typology advanced in this study can serve as a useful tool for research on the uses and effects of humorous media. Previous studies of the effects of humor on attention, liking, comprehension, and recall often produced contradictory results (for a review, see Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). A possible explanation for these inconsistent findings could be that most previous research focused only on the effects of the presence or absence in humor in audiovisual media. Most experimental research, for instance, focused on the effects of humorous versus nonhumorous media (e.g., Wakshlag, Day, & Zillmann, 1981). Survey research, on the other hand, usually investigated how funny an audience perceived humorous media content. Our study has demonstrated that the use of humor differs largely for different audience groups, which suggests that media producers are well aware that different audience groups are attracted to different types of humor. Although research that compares different categories of humor is scarce, it is well possible that different types of humor (e.g., slapstick vs. irony) lead to different types of effects in different types of audiences. To investigate this proposition, researchers may find our

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 165 typology to be of great value to experimental as well as survey research. Future experimental researchers can use our typology to compare the cognitive and affective reactions to stimulus materials varying in level of complexity (e.g., slapstick vs. parody) and friendliness (e.g, clownish humor vs. satire). Future survey researchers can employ our typology of humor to design questions and instruments that allow a more in-depth and differentiating analysis of humor appreciation than those that have been carried out in previous research. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank Marije de Bie for her assistance with coding commercials. REFERENCES Acuff, D. S., & Reiher, R. H. (1997). What kids buy and why. New York: Free Press. Berger, A. A. (1976). Laughing matter: A symposium: Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 113 115. Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 43 60). New York: Academic. Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K., & Aiello, J. R. (1981). Sex of subject and gender identity as factors in humor appreciation. Sex Roles, 7, 561 573. Bryant, J., & Meyer, T. P. (1977). A developmental analysis of children s favorite jokes. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It s a funny thing, humor (pp. 223 224). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Chandler, D., & Griffiths, M. (2000). Gender-differentiated production features in toy commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 503 520. Chapman, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Foot, H. C. (1980). Humor, laughter, & social interaction. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children s humor (pp. 141 180). New York: Wiley. De Haas, M., Algera, J. A., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M. (2000). Macro and micro goal setting: In search of coherence. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 579 595.

166 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., et al. (1996). Children s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child Development, 67, 3071 3085. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Oxford, UK: Norton. Goldstein, J. (1993). Humor and comedy in mass media. Medien Psychologie [Media Psychology], 4, 246 256. Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (1972). The psychology of humor. Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York: Academic. Groch, A. (1974). Generality of response to humor and wit in cartoons, jokes, stories, and photographs. Psychological Reports, 35, 935 938. Hassett, J., & Houlihan, J. (1979). Different jokes for different folks. Psychology Today, 12, 65 101. Herzog, T. R., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Preferences for sick versus nonsick humor. Humor, 11, 291 312. Johnson, A. M. (1992). Language ability and sex affect humor appreciation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 571 581. Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A practitioner view. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(4), 23 29. McCullough, L. S. (1993). A cross-cultural test of the two-part typology of humor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1275 1281. McGhee, P. E. (1971). Cognitive development and children s comprehension of humor. Child Development, 42, 123 138. McGhee, P. E. (1976). Laughing matter: A symposium: Sex differences in children s humor. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 176 189. McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: Freeman. Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310 331. Mundorf, N., Bhatia, A., Zillmann, D., Lester, P., & Robertson, S. (1988). Gender differences in humor appreciation. Humor, 1, 231 243. Oppliger, P. A., & Zillmann, D. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to adolescents. Humor, 10, 421 437. Perry, S. D., Jenzowsky, S. A., King, C. M., Yi, H., Hester, J. B., & Gartenschlaeger, J. (1997). Using humorous programs as a vehicle for humorous commercials. Journal of Communication, 47(1), 20 39. Schaeffer, N. (1981). The art of laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 167 Shultz, T. R. (1996). A cognitive developmental analysis of humor. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11 36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Stewart, D. W., & Furse, D. H. (1986). Effective television advertising. A study of 1000 commercials. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Unger, L. S. (1996). The potential for using humor in global advertising. Humor, 9, 143 168. Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor, 11, 163 215. Wakshlag, J. J., Day, K. D., & Zillmann, D. (1981). Selective exposure to educational television programs as a function of differently paced humorous interests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 27 32. Weinberger, M. G., & Campbell, L. (1991). The use and impact of humor in radio advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1) 44 52. Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35 59. Welch, R. L., Huston-Stein, A., Wright, J. C., & Plehal, R. (1979). Subtle sex-role cues in children s commercials. Journal of Communication, 29(3), 202 209. Whipple, T. W., & Courtney, A. E. (1980). How to portray women in TV commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 53 59. Winick, C., Williamson, L. G., Chuzmir, S. F., & Winick, M. P. (1973). Children s television commercials: A content analysis. New York: Praeger. Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive processes in the development of children s appreciation of humor. Child Development, 37, 507 518.