Extensive research shows that people are attracted to funny dating partners, with several competing, sometimes conflicting, explanations for why humor is strongly desired in a mate. The present research asks whether humor is interpreted as a reliable, hard-to-fake indicator of some other, valuable trait. Across six experiments, we manipulated humor in a hypothetical date, online dating profile, or video profile and asked which of several traits statistically linked to humor are reliably inferred about funny partners. Humor—specifically partners producing humor—consistently led to higher ratings of partner creative ingenuity. This effect was not moderated by gender, and mediated desirability for different types of partnership. Results further revealed stronger preference for a first-date activity requiring creative ingenuity with a funny versus non-funny partner. Humor may signal that a potential partner is skilled at creative problem-solving, which may be particularly important when considering various forms of partnership.
AmabileT. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge.
2.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3), 372–374.
3.
BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J.PaquinA. C.ChanM.ParisottoK. L.SarracinoJ.GillisR. L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 452–459.
4.
BodenmannG. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In RevensonT. A.KayserK.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002
5.
BouchardT. J. (2014). Genes, evolution and intelligence. Behavior Genetics, 44(6), 549–577.
6.
BoxerC. F.NoonanM. C.WhelanC. B. (2015). Measuring mate preferences: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 163–187.
7.
BresslerE. R.BalshineS. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(1), 29–39.
8.
BussD. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.
9.
CannA.CalhounL. G. (2001). Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(2), 117–130.
10.
CheneyD. L.SilkJ. B.SeyfarthR. M. (2016). Network connections, dyadic bonds and fitness in wild female baboons. Royal Society Open Science, 3(7), Article 160255.
11.
ChristensenA. P.SilviaP. J.NusbaumE. C.BeatyR. E. (2018). Clever people: Intelligence and humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 136–143.
12.
DiDonatoT. E.BedminsterM. C.MachelJ. J. (2013). My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic interest. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 374–390.
13.
DunbarR. (2021). Friends: Understanding the power of our most important relationships. Hachette UK.
14.
Eibl-EibesfeldtI. (1975). Ethology: The Biology of Behavior. Translated by Erich Klinghammer. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
15.
FeingoldA. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125–139.
16.
FlamsonT.BarrettH. C. (2008). The encryption theory of humor: A knowledge-based mechanism of honest signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 261–281.
17.
FraleyB.AronA. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 61–78.
18.
GangestadS. W.SimpsonJ. A.DiGeronimoK.BiekM. (1992). Differential accuracy in person perception across traits: Examination of a functional hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 688–698.
19.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
20.
GottfredsonL. S.DearyI. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–4.
21.
GreengrossG.MillerG. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192.
22.
GreengrossG.SilviaP. J.NusbaumE. C. (2020). Sex differences in humor production ability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 84, Article 103886.
23.
GriskeviciusV.CialdiniR. B.KenrickD. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 63–76.
24.
HallJ. A. (2015). Sexual selection and humor in courtship: A case for warmth and extroversion. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), Article 1474704915598918.
25.
HampesW. P. (1994). Relation between intimacy and the multidimensional sense of humor scale. Psychological Reports, 74(Suppl. 3), 1360–1362.
26.
HampesW. P. (1999). The relationship between humor and trust. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12(3), 253–260.
27.
HawkleyL. C.CapitanioJ. P. (2015). Perceived social isolation, evolutionary fitness and health outcomes: A lifespan approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1669), 20140114.
28.
HeinrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29.
29.
HenrichJ.MuthukrishnaM. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 207–240.
30.
HouserM. L.HoranS. M.FurlerL. A. (2008). Dating in the fast lane: How communication predicts speed-dating success. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 749–768.
31.
HowriganD. P.MacDonaldK. B. (2008). Humor as a mental fitness indicator. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), Article 147470490800600411.
32.
HumkeC.SchaeferC. E. (1996). Sense of humor and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(2), 544–546.
33.
KaufmanS. B.KozeltA.BromleyM. L.MillerG. L. (2008). Creativity and humor in human mate selection. In GeherG.MillerG. (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 227–262). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
KellnerR.BenedekM. (2017). The role of creative potential and intelligence for humor production. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 52–58.
35.
KenrickD. T.SadallaE. K.GrothG.TrostM. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 97–116.
36.
KimD. A.BenjaminE. J.FowlerJ. H.ChristakisN. A. (2016). Social connectedness is associated with fibrinogen level in a human social network. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1837), 20160958.
37.
KorovkinS.NikiforovaO. (2015). Humor as a facilitator of insight problem solving. EAPCogSci.
38.
KremsJ. A.Conroy-BeamD. (2020). First tests of Euclidean preference integration in friendship: Euclidean friend value and power of choice on the friend market. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(3), 188–198.
39.
KuiperN. A.MartinR. A. (1998). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to positive and negative affect. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 133–153.
40.
KuncelN. R.HezlettS. A.OnesD. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–161.
41.
LattaR. L. (1999). The basic humor process. Humor research. Mouton de Gruyter.
42.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
43.
LiN. P.GriskeviciusV.DuranteK. M.JonasonP. K.PasiszD. J.AumerK. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 923–936.
44.
LippaR. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 193–208.
45.
LundyD. E.TanJ.CunninghamM. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 311–325.
46.
LuriaS. R.BaerJ.KaufmanJ. C. (2018). Creativity and humor. Academic Press.
47.
McGheeP. E. (1979). Humor, its origin and development. WH Freeman.
48.
MickesL.WalkerD. E.ParrisJ. L.MankoffR.ChristenfeldN. J. (2012). Who’s funny: Gender stereotypes, humor production, and memory bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 108–112.
49.
MillerG. F. (2001). Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2(1), 20–25.
50.
MoranJ. M.RainM.Page-GouldE.MarR. A. (2014). Do I amuse you? Asymmetric predictors for humor appreciation and humor production. Journal of Research in Personality, 49, 8–13.
51.
NettleD. (2008). Why is creativity attractive in a potential mate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(3), 275–276.
52.
NettleD.CleggH. (2006). Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1586), 611–615.
53.
NorrickN. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Indiana University Press.
54.
O’QuinK.DerksP. (1997). Humor and creativity: A review of the empirical literature. Creativity Research Handbook, 1, 223–252.
55.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371.
56.
SilkJ. B.AlbertsS. C.AltmannJ. (2003). Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science, 302(5648), 1231–1234.
57.
SprecherS.ReganP. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481.
58.
TofighiD.MacKinnonD. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700.
59.
WangC. C.WangY. T. (2010). Who is everyone’s darling in cyberspace? The characteristics of popular online daters. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 3(1), 69–98.
60.
WanzerM. B.Booth-ButterfieldM.Booth-ButterfieldS. (1996). Are funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 42–52.
61.
WarrenC.BarskyA.McGrawA. P. (2018). Humor, comedy, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 529–552.
62.
WarrenC.BarskyA.McGrawA. P. (2021). What makes things funny? An integrative review of the antecedents of laughter and amusement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(1), 41–65.
63.
WilburC. J.CampbellL. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918–929.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
