This study extends political humor effects research by focusing on two distinct types of satire, juvenalian and horatian. Theoretical arguments grounded in the elaboration likelihood model culminated in the positing of a series of interactions between message (juvenalian, horatian, traditional opinion-editorial) and recipient ability (high, low) relative to three outcome variables: perceived humor, counterarguing, and attitudes concerning Hillary Clinton’s universal health care plan. An experiment was conducted during the 2008 Democratic primary election. The Message × Ability interactions revealed a need to step beyond the study of satire as monolithic; different types of satire produce divergent effects depending on the ability of the audience member. Future lines of research and the need for additional theory building are discussed.
Baum, M.A. ( 2003). Soft news goes to war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Baumgartner, J.C. ( 2007). Humor on the next frontier: Youth, online political humor, and the JibJab effect. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 319-338.
3.
Baumgartner, J.C., & Morris, J.S. ( 2008). Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age. New York, NY: Routledge .
4.
Baym, G. ( 2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276.
5.
Baym, G. ( 2008). Serious comedy: Expanding the boundaries of political discourse. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 21-38). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
Beard, F.K. ( 2008). Advertising and audience offense: The role of intentional humor. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, 1-17.
7.
Benoit, W.L., & Holbert, R.L. ( 2008). Conducting communication research at methodological intersections: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Communication, 58, 615-628.
8.
Bogel, F.V. ( 2001). The difference satire makes: Rhetoric and reading from Jonston to Byron. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenberg, P.M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6, 147-167.
10.
Cantor, P.A. ( 1999). The Simpsons: Atomistic politics and the nuclear family . Political Theory, 27, 734-749.
11.
Cao, X. ( 2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of age and education. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 43-61.
12.
Caufield, R.P. ( 2008). The influence of "infoenterpropagainment": Exploring the power of political satire as a distinct form of political humor. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge .
13.
Conway, M., & Dube, L. ( 2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening topics: Effectiveness is a function of audience sex role orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 863-873.
14.
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. ( 2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.
Darr, C., & Barko, J. ( 2004, October 20). Under the radar and over the top: Online political videos in the 2004 election. Retrieved from http://www.ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/web_videos.pdf
17.
Feinberg, L. ( 1967). Introduction to satire. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
18.
Fox, J.R., Koloen, G., & Sahin, V. ( 2007). No joke: A comparison of substance in The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and broadcast network television coverage of the 2004 presidential election campaign. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 213-227.
19.
Goel, V., & Dolan, R.J. ( 2001). The functional anatomy of humor: Segregating cognitive and affective components. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 237-238.
20.
Graber, D. ( 2008). Conclusion: Why political humor is serious business. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 333-342). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
Gruner, C.R. ( 1965). An experimental study of satire as persuasion. Speech Monographs, 32, 149-153.
22.
Gruner, C.R. ( 1966). A further experimental study of satire as persuasion . Speech Monographs, 33, 184-185.
23.
Guehlstorf, N., Hallstrom, L., & Morris, J. ( 2008). The ABCs of The Simpsons and politics: Apathy of citizens, basic government leaders, and collective interests. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 211-228). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
Hafner, J. (Chair). (2003, November). Homer, Hank and the American dream: Social and political satire on American television. A conversation with writers for King of the Hill and The Simpsons. Symposium sponsored by the Program in American Studies at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
25.
Harrington, C., & Estes, C.L. ( 2004). Health policy: Crisis and reform in the U.S. health care delivery system (4th ed.). Sudbury , MA: Jones and Bartlett.
26.
Hart, R.P., & Hartelius, J. ( 2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 263-272.
27.
Hendley, W.C. ( 1983). The horatian satire of Trudeau’s Doonesbury. Journal of Popular Culture, 16, 103-115.
28.
Highet, G. ( 1962). The anatomy of satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Holbert, R.L. ( 2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453.
30.
Holbert, R.L., Lambe, J.L., Dudo, A.D., & Carlton, K.A. ( 2007). Primacy effects of The Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy . Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 20-38.
31.
Holbert, R.L., Pillion, O., Tschida, D.A., Armfield, G.G., Kinder, K., Cherry, K., & Daulton, A. ( 2003). The West Wing as endorsement of the American presidency: Expanding the domain of priming in political communication. Journal of Communication, 53, 427-443.
32.
Holbert, R.L., Shah, D.V., & Kwak, N. ( 2003). Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women’s rights . Journal of Communication, 53, 45-60.
33.
Knight, C.A. ( 2004). The literature of satire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Lee, Y.H., & Lim, E.A.C. (2008). What’s funny and what’s not. Journal of Advertising, 37, 71-84.
35.
Lyttle, J. ( 2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206-216.
36.
Makino, K. ( 2005). Persuasion and humorous expressions: A review of the mechanism of effects of humor. Japanese Psychological Review , 48, 96-100.
37.
Minar, D.M. ( 1961). Ideology and political behavior. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 5, 317-331.
38.
Moy, P., Xenos, M.A., & Hess, V.K. ( 2003). Priming effects of late-night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 198-210.
39.
Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Guse, E., & Byrne, S. ( 2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs , 74, 29-54.
40.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes of attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
41.
Petty, R.E., Priester, J.R., & Brinol, P. ( 2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 155-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Pokorny, G.F., & Gruner, C.R. ( 1969). An experimental study of the effect of satire used as support in a persuasive speech. Western Speech, 33, 204-211.
43.
Powell, L. ( 1977). Satire and speech trait evaluations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 117-125.
44.
Powell, L. ( 1978). Voter needs and evaluations of satire. Journalism Quarterly, 78, 311-318.
45.
Rockwell, P.A. ( 2006). Sarcasm and other mixed messages: The ambiguous ways people use language. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
46.
Rowland, B. ( 1985). Seven kinds of irony: Essays on Chaucerian irony. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
47.
Sander, C. ( 1971). The scope of satire. Glenview, IL : Scott, Foresman.
48.
Shabbir, H., & Thwaites, D. ( 2007). The use of humor to mask deceptive advertising: It’s no laughing matter. Journal of Advertising, 36, 75-85.
49.
Sheagley, G., O’Loughlin, P.L., & Lindberg, T. ( 2008). New humor, old school style: A content analysis of the political cues offered by The Onion on the 2000 and 2004 elections. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 81-96). New York, NY: Routledge .
50.
Simon, A.F., & Iyengar, S. ( 1995). Toward theory-based research in political communication . PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 29-33.
51.
Simpson, P. ( 2003). On the discourse of satire: Toward a stylistic model of satirical humor. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
52.
Slater, M.D. ( 2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity . Communication Theory, 17, 281-303.
53.
Stroud, N.J. ( 2007). Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11 . Political Communication, 24, 415-432.
54.
Young, D.G. ( 2004). Late-night comedy in election 2000: Its influence on candidate trait ratings and the moderating effects of political knowledge . Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48, 1-22.
55.
Young, D.G. ( 2006). Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates’ caricatured traits in the 2000 election. Mass Communication and Society, 9, 339-366.
56.
Young, D.G. ( 2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119-142.
57.
Zimmerman, B. ( 2004). The tradition and techniques of satire: The case of Michael Moore. Humanist Perspectives, 151. Retrieved from http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue151/case_michael_moore.html
