Humor in Persuasion on Threatening Topics: Effectiveness Is a Function of Audience Sex Role Orientation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis was that humor relative to no-humor appeals on threatening topics are effective for high-masculinity individuals because they seem particularly averse to experiencing distress (i.e., sadness and fear). Persuasive targets were sunscreen use to prevent melanoma (skin cancer) in Study 1 and condom use to prevent AIDS in Study 2. The humor and no-humor appeals presented the same substantive information. In both studies, high-masculinity men and women exhibited greater intent to adopt the preventive behaviors in response to the humor relative to the no-humor appeal; no difference emerged for low-masculinity individuals. Humor effects were not related to explicit responses to the ads (e.g., listed thoughts and feelings). In Study 2, threat intensity in the media context was manipulated (moderate vs. low) as experiential processing is likely favored under greater threat. Overall, the results seem attributable to experiential processing of humor appeals on threatening topics by high-masculinity participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it