Humor as an abrasive or a lubricant in social situations: Martineau revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Martineau’s seminal chapter on the social functions of humor, he postulated some of the ways in which disparagement humor shapes social behavior. This research paper discusses three research studies that compared the effects of other-deprecating humor and self-deprecating humor on the observer and examines how they relate to Martineau’s theory. In our research, we hypothesized that people who observe ridicule of others experience “jeer pressure.” This inhibiting effect on behavior was expected to result in conformity to others’ opinions, fear about failing or standing out, and conventional thinking. In the first two studies, participants observed videotapes containing self-ridiculing humor, other-deprecating humor, or non-ridiculing/no humor. Participants then completed tasks assessing conforming, fear of failure, and creativity. Results of both studies showed that participants who observed ridicule of others were more conforming and more afraid of failing than participants who observed self-deprecating humor or the control condition. Study 3 examined the effects of ridicule of others versus self-deprecating humor on creativity using a more sophisticated creativity measure, and less caustic humor. Results supported the hypothesis that observing self-deprecating humor would result in higher levels of creativity compared to the other-ridicule condition. Implications of these findings for Martineau’s model are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".