Science communicators have been encouraged to use humor in their online engagement efforts. Yet, humor’s effectiveness for engaging people with science remains an open question. We report the results of an experiment designed to elicit varied levels of mirth in respondents, which was positively associated with perceived likability of the communicator and motivation to follow more science on social media. Furthermore, mirth and perceived likability serially mediated the effect of the experimental manipulation on motivation and factual science knowledge served as a moderator. This indicates that, while humor might be an effective means of reaching audiences, downstream effects are likely to vary depending on individuals’ knowledge.
AndersonAABeckerAB (2018) Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication40(4): 524–540.
4.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2013) An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication35(1): 56–85.
5.
BasnyatILimC (2018) Perspectives of young Chinese Singaporean women on seeking and processing information to decide about vaccinating against human papillomavirus. Women & Health58(7): 806–821.
6.
BeckerABAndersonAA (2019) Using humor to engage the public on climate change: The effect of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire on message discounting, elaboration and counterarguing. Journal of Science Communication18(4): A07.
7.
BoreI-LKReidG (2014) Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. Science Communication36(4): 454–478.
8.
BoukesMBoomgaardenHGMoormanMde VreeseCH (2015) At odds: Laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing, and persuasiveness of political satire. Journal of Communication65(5): 721–744.
9.
BryantJAlanDBSilberbergRElliottSM (1981) Effects of humorous illustrations in college textbooks. Human Communication Research8(1): 43–57.
10.
BryantJZillmannD (1989) Using humor to promote learning in the classroom. In: McGheePEFrankM (eds) Humor and Children’s Development: A Guide to Practical Applications, 1st edn. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 49–78.
11.
BryantJComiskyPWCraneJSZillmannD (1980) Relationship between college teachers’ use of humor in the classroom and students’ evaluations of their teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology72(4): 511–519.
12.
BuijzenMValkenburgPM (2004) Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology6(2): 147–167.
13.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDAIyengarS (2016) The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society19(1): 7–23.
14.
ChaikenS (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(5): 752–766.
15.
ChaikenSEaglyAH (1983) Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45(2): 241–256.
16.
DuncanCPNelsonJE (1985) Effects of humor in radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising14(2): 33–64.
17.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
18.
EisendM (2009) A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science37(2): 191–203.
19.
El RefaieE (2011) The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research24(1): 87–108.
20.
FalkJHDierkingLD (2010) The 95 percent solution: School is not where most Americans learn their science. American Scientist98(6): 486–493.
21.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
FlamsonTBarrettHC (2008) The encryption theory of humor: A knowledge-based mechanism of honest signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology6(4): 261–281.
23.
FuterfasMLNanX (2017) Role of humor in the persuasiveness of entertainment narratives on unprotected sexual behavior. Journal of Health Communication22(4): 312–318.
24.
GilbertCJ (2013) Toward the Satyric. Philosophy & Rhetoric46(3): 280–305.
25.
GoodrichKSchillerSZGallettaD (2015) Consumer reactions to intrusiveness of online-video advertisements: Do length, informativeness, and humor help (or hinder) marketing outcomes?Journal of Advertising Research55(1): 37–50.
26.
GoodwinJDahlstromMF (2014) Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change5(1): 151–160.
27.
GrahamEEPapaMJBrooksGP (1992) Functions of humor in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication56(2): 161–183.
28.
Gring-PembleLWatsonMS (2003) The rhetorical limits of satire: An analysis of James Finn Garner’s Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. Quarterly Journal of Speech89(2): 132–153.
29.
GrunerCR (1967) Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal of Communication17(3): 228–233.
30.
GrunerCR (1970) The effect of humor in dull and interesting informative speeches. Central States Speech Journal21(3): 160–166.
HayesAFMatthesJ (2009) Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods41(3): 924–936.
33.
HayesAFMontoyaAK (2017) A tutorial on testing, visualizing, and probing an interaction involving a multicategorical variable in linear regression analysis. Communication Methods and Measures11(1): 1–30.
34.
HaynesRD (2016) Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science25(1): 31–44.
35.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15(4): 635–650.
36.
JohnsonPONeymanJ (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs1: 57–93.
37.
LaMarreHLLandrevilleKDBeamMA (2009) The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics14(2): 212–231.
38.
MarkiewiczD (1974) Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry37(3): 407–422.
39.
MartinRA (2010) The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press.
40.
McKasyMYeoSKCacciatoreMASuLY-FOldroydZ (2019) #ScienceHumor: A content analysis of science humor on Twitter and Instagram. In: Annual Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 14–17 February.
41.
MillsJAronsonE (1965) Opinion change as a function of the communicator’s attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1(2): 173–177.
42.
NabiRL (2016) Laughing in the face of fear (of disease detection): Using humor to promote cancer self-examination behavior. Health Communication31(7): 873–883.
O’KeefeDJ (2003) Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory13(3): 251–274.
45.
ParmeleeJHRomanN (2019) Insta-politicos: Motivations for following political leaders on Instagram. Social Media + Society5(2): 2056305119837662.
46.
PerraultEKHildenbrandGMMcCullockSPSchmitzKJDolickKN (2019) Hashtag health: College health on social media and students’ motivations to follow, interact, and share their social media content. Health Promotion Practice20(5): 721–729.
47.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: PettyRECacioppoJT (eds) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 124–205.
48.
Pew Research Center (2015) How Scientists Engage the Public. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
PhuaJKimJ(Jay) (2018) Starring in your own Snapchat advertisement: Influence of self-brand congruity, self-referencing and perceived humor on brand attitude and purchase intention of advertised brands. Telematics and Informatics35(5): 1524–1533.
51.
PintoBMarçalDVazSG (2015) Communicating through humour: A project of stand-up comedy about science. Public Understanding of Science24(7): 776–793.
52.
Qualtrics (2014) ESOMAR 28: 28 Questions to Help Research Buyers of Online Samples. Seattle, WA: Qualtrics.
53.
ReinhardM-AMessnerM (2009) The effects of source likeability and need for cognition on advertising effectiveness under explicit persuasion. Journal of Consumer Behaviour8(4): 179–191.
54.
ReinhardM-AMessnerMSporerSL (2006) Explicit persuasive intent and its impact on success at persuasion: The determining roles of attractiveness and likeableness. Journal of Consumer Psychology16(3): 249–259.
55.
RieschH (2015) Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science24(7): 768–775.
Roskos-EwoldsenDRFazioRH (1992) The accessibility of source likability as a determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18(1): 19–25.
58.
Roskos-EwoldsenDRBichselJHoffmanK (2002) The influence of accessibility of source likability on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38(2): 137–143.
59.
SabriO (2012) Taboo advertising: Can humor help to attract attention and enhance recall?Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice20(4): 407–422.
60.
SabriOMichelG (2014) When do advertising parodies hurt? The power of humor and credibility in viral spoof advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research54(2): 233–247.
Simis-WilkinsonMMaddenHLassenDSuLY-FBrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2018) Scientists joking on social media: An empirical analysis of #overlyhonestmethods. Science Communication40(3): 314–339.
63.
SkurkaCNiederdeppeJNabiR (2019) Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication41: 394–421.
64.
SpeckPS (1991) The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising13(1–2): 1–44.
65.
SperberDWilsonD (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn.Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
66.
SpillerSAFitzsimonsGJLynchJGMcclellandGH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research50(2): 277–288.
67.
SternthalBCraigCS (1973) Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing37(4): 12–18.
68.
StoneVAEswaraHS (1969) The likability and self-interest of the source in attitude change. Journalism Quarterly46(1): 61–68.
69.
SulsJ (1972) A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In: GoldsteinJHMcGheePE (eds) The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. Academic Press, pp. 81–100.
70.
SulsJ (1983) Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In: McGheePEGoldsteinJH (eds) Handbook of Humor Research. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 39–57.
71.
SumnersCBBakoATFabianOMartelIMolar-CandanosaRGastelB (2016) Communicating science with integrity, effectiveness, humor, and more: Some highlights of the 2016 AAAS Annual Meeting. Science Editor39(1): 1–4.
72.
UekermannJDaumIChannonS (2007) Toward a cognitive and social neuroscience of humor processing. Social Cognition25(4): 553–572.
73.
WanzerMBBooth-ButterfieldMBooth-ButterfieldS (1996) Are funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction. Communication Quarterly44(1): 42–52.
74.
WeinbergerMGSpottsHCampbellLParsonsAL (1995) The use and effect of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research35(3): 44–56.
75.
WilsonCP (1979) Jokes: Form, Content, Use, and Function. New York, NY: Published in cooperation with European Association of Experimental Social Psychology by Academic Press.
76.
WyerRSCollinsJE (1992) A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review99(4): 663–688.
77.
YeoSKSuLY-FCacciatoreMAMcKasyMQianS (2020) Predicting intentions to engage with scientific messages on Twitter: The roles of mirth and need for humor. Science Communication42(4): 481–507.
78.
YoonHJ (2015) Humor effects in shame-inducing health issue advertising: The moderating effects of fear of negative evaluation. Journal of Advertising44(2): 126–139.
79.
ZillmannDBryantJ (1980) Misattribution theory of tendentious humor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology16(2): 146–160.
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.
