This study aims to understand the influence of mirth, anger, and hope, as elicited by messages with different humor types, on support for global warming action, and the potential moderating role of individual climate concern. Although mirth did not significantly vary across the different stimuli, the analysis found that climate concern moderated the influence of hope on support for global warming actions. The implications of these findings, especially for respondents who were least supportive of actions to combat global warming, are discussed.
AndersonAABeckerAB (2018) Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication40(4): 524–540.
2.
BergerAA (1976) Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication26(3): 113–115.
3.
BrewerPRMcKnightJ (2017) “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication25(3): 166–180.
4.
BuijzenMValkenburgPM (2004) Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology6(2): 147–167.
5.
CacciatoreMABeckerABAndersonAAYeoSK (2020) Laughing with science: The influence of audience approval on engagement. Science Communication42(2): 195–217.
6.
CampoSAskelsonNMSpiesELBoxerCScharpKMLoschME (2013) “Wow, that was funny”: The value of exposure and humor in fostering campaign message sharing. Social Marketing Quarterly19(2): 84–96.
7.
ChadwickAE (2015) Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication30(6): 598–611.
ChenHTGanCSunP (2017) How does political satire influence political participation? Examining the role of counter-and pro-attitudinal exposure, anger, and personal issue importance. International Journal of Communication11: 19.
10.
DiRussoCMyrickJG (2021) Sustainability in CSR messages on social media: How emotional framing and efficacy affect emotional response, memory and persuasion. Environmental Communication15(8): 1045–1060.
11.
EttingerJWaltonPPainterJDiBlasiT (2021) Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Climatic Change164(1): 19.
12.
FarinellaM (2018) The potential of comics in science communication. Journal of Science Communication17(1): Y01.
13.
FeldmanL (2013) Breaking boundaries cloudy with a chance of heat balls: The portrayal of global warming on the daily show and the Colbert report. International Journal of Communication7: 22.
14.
FeldmanL (2017) Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–332.
15.
FeldmanLHartPS (2018a) Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis38(3): 585–602.
16.
FeldmanLHartPS (2018b) Climate change as a polarizing cue: Framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Global Environmental Change51: 54–66.
17.
FreudS (1960 [1905]) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (trans. and ed. StracheyJ). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
18.
FrijdaNH (1988) The laws of emotion. American Psychologist43(5): 349–358.
19.
FuterfasMLNanX (2017) Role of humor in the persuasiveness of entertainment narratives on unprotected sexual behavior. Journal of Health Communication22(4): 312–318.
20.
GoodwinJDahlstromMF (2014) Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change5(1): 151–160.
21.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd edn.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
22.
HayesAFPreacherKJ (2014) Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology67(3): 451–470.
23.
HornseyMJFieldingKS (2016) A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environmental Change39: 26–34.
24.
HulmeM (2009) Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
JeeBDAnggoroFK (2012) Comic cognition: Exploring the potential cognitive impacts of science comics. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology11(2): 196–208.
26.
JohnsonPONeymanJ (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs1: 57–93.
27.
KaltenbacherMDrewsS (2020) An inconvenient joke? A review of humor in climate change communication. Environmental Communication14(6): 717–729.
28.
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.
29.
LeiserowitzAMaibachERoser-RenoufCRosenthalSCutlerMKotcherJ (2018) Climate Change in the American Mind: March, 2018. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
30.
MaibachEWLeiserowitzARoser-RenoufCMertzCKAkerlofK (2011) Global Warming’s six Americas Screening Tools: Survey Instruments; Instructions for Coding and Data Treatment; and Statistical Program Scripts. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
31.
MaioGRBellDWEssesVM (1996) Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology32(6): 513–536.
32.
ManzoK (2012) Earthworks: The geopolitical visions of climate change cartoons. Political Geography31(8): 481–494.
33.
NabiRL (1999) A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory9(3): 292–320.
34.
NabiRL (2003) Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research30(2): 224–247.
35.
NabiRL (2016) Laughing in the face of fear (of disease detection): Using humor to promote cancer self-examination behavior. Health Communication31(7): 873–883.
36.
NabiRLMyrickJG (2019) Uplifting fear appeals: Considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. Health Communication34(4): 463–474.
37.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter to public engagement. Environment51(2): 514–518.
38.
ObermillerCSpangenbergEMacLachlanDL (2005) AD skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising34(3): 7–17.
39.
O’NeillSNicholson-ColeS (2009) “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication30(3): 355–379.
40.
PettyRECacioppoJT (eds) (1986) Message elaboration versus peripheral cues. Communication and Persuasion. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 141–172.
SkurkaCNiederdeppeJRomero-CanyasRAcupD (2018) Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication68(1): 169–193.
44.
SmithNLeiserowitzA (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis34(5): 937–948.
45.
SpillerSAFitzsimonsGJLynchJGJrMcClellandGH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research50(2): 277–288.
46.
StrickM (2021) How humor can promote central-route persuasion. In: StrickMFordTE (eds) The Social Psychology of Humor. London: Routledge, pp. 3–9.
47.
SuLYFMcKasyMCacciatoreMAYeoSKDeGrauwARZhangJS (2022) Generating science buzz: An examination of multidimensional engagement with humorous scientific messages on Twitter and Instagram. Science Communication44(1): 10755470211063902.
48.
Torres-MarínJNavarro-CarrilloGCarretero-DiosH (2018) Is the use of humor associated with anger management? The assessment of individual differences in humor styles in Spain. Personality and Individual Differences120: 193–201.
49.
VilaythongAPArnauRCRosenDHMascaroN (2003) Humor and hope: Can humor increase hope?International Journal of Humor Research16(1): 79–89.
50.
VragaEKKimSCCookJBodeL (2020) Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/politics25(4): 632–652.
51.
WalterNCodyMJXuLZMurphyST (2018) A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar: A meta-analysis of humor effects on persuasion. Human Communication Research44(4): 343–373.
52.
Wong-ParodiGFeyginaI (2021) Engaging people on climate change: The role of emotional responses. Environmental Communication15(5): 571–593.
53.
YeoSKCacciatoreMASuLYFMcKasyMO’NeillL (2021) Following science on social media: The effects of humor and source likability. Public Understanding of Science30(5): 552–569.
54.
YeoSKSuLYFCacciatoreMAMcKasyMQianS (2020) Predicting intentions to engage with scientific messages on Twitter: The roles of mirth and need for humor. Science Communication42(4): 481–507.
55.
ZhangYZinkhanGM (2006) Responses to humorous ads: Does audience involvement matter?Journal of Advertising35(4): 113–127.
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.
