This study hypothesised that (a) exposure to online comedy about political issues promotes public engagement, critical thinking, and opinion sharing; (b) the relationship between exposure to online comedy and the dependent variables is mediated by self-perception of critical thinking on religious freedom (as an example of social justice issues); and (c) the relationship between online comedy and dependent variables (perception of public engagement and opinion leadership) is moderated by individuals’ self-reported political leaning. A post-test-only between-subject experimental design with a control group was conducted using a sample drawn from an online panel (N = 576). The treatment group was shown a video of political stand-up comedy and asked about their perceptions of public engagement, critical thinking, and opinion sharing. The control group did not view any videos before answering the questionnaire. It was observed that viewing online political comedy is associated with lower self-reported public engagement and opinion leadership on digital platforms. The results of this study in a non-Western developing country context indicate a positive relationship between exposure to online political comedy and public engagement, critical thinking, and opinion sharing.
AhmadF., AlamS., & KaurA. (2022). Performative retrieving of humour for socio-political subversion: Stand-up comedy as a form of creative resilience. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 9(1), 2131968.
2.
AndersonJ., & KincaidA. D. (2013). Media subservience and satirical subversiveness: The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, the propaganda model and the paradox of parody. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(3), 171–188.
3.
BaumM. A. (2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in a new media age. Princeton University Press.
4.
BaumgartnerJ. C., & MorrisJ. S. (2008). One “nation,” under Stephen? The effects of the Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52(4), 622–643.
5.
BaymG. (2006). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259–276.
6.
BBC. (2019, 9November). Ayodhya dispute: The Complex Legal History of India’s holy site. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277
7.
BeckerA., & AndersonA. A. (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 Communication, 18(4), A07.
8.
BeckerA. B. (2011). Political humor as democratic relief? The effects of exposure to comedy and straight news on trust and efficacy. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19(5), 235–250.
9.
BlancN., & BrigaudE. (2014). Humor in print health advertisements: Enhanced attention, privileged recognition, and persuasiveness of preventive messages. Health Communication, 29(7), 669–677.
10.
CacioppoJ. T., & PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
11.
CameronJ. D. (2015). Can poverty be funny? The serious use of humour as a strategy of public engagement for global justice. Third World Quarterly, 36(2), 274–290.
12.
CaoX., & BrewerP. R. (2008). Political comedy shows and public participation in politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 90–99.
13.
ChandlerJ., MuellerP., & PaolacciG. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130.
14.
ChattooC. B. (2018). A funny matter: Toward a framework for understanding the function of comedy in social change. Humor, 32(3), 499–523.
15.
ChattooC. B., & Green-BarberL. (2018). An investigative journalist and a stand-up comic walk into a bar: The role of comedy in public engagement with environmental journalism. Journalism, 22(1), 196–214.
16.
ChristensenL. (1992). Revising the classroom: Teaching to read, write and fight injustice (Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 19–21). Re-thinking Schools.
17.
ChuK. M. (2009). A study of members’ helping behaviors in online community. Internet Research, 19(3), 279–292.
18.
CliffordS., JewellR. M., & WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research and Politics, 2(4), 1–9.
19.
CumminsJ. (1989). The sanitized curriculum: Educational disempowerment in a nation at risk. In JohnsonD. M. & RoenD. H. (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 19–38). NY Longman.
20.
DharA. (2020, 13July). Why female comedians refused to talk on agrima Joshua controversy. The Quint. https://www.thequint.com/gender/women/why-female-comedians-refused-to-talk-on-agrima-joshua-controversy
21.
EisendM. (2011). How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models. Marketing Letters, 22(2), 115–132.
22.
Ellis-PetersonH. (2023, 3October). Delhi Police Search Journalists’ homes in latest raids on Media. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/delhi-police-search-journalists-homes-raids-media
23.
FlynnL. R., GoldsmithR. E., & EastmanJ. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 137–147.
24.
GangulyM. (2020, 28October). Dissent is ‘anti-national’ in Modi’s India. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved, 15August2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/12/13/dissent-anti-national-modis-india
25.
GettlemanJ., SchultzK., RajS., & KumarH. (2019, 11April). Under Modi, a Hindu nationalist surge has further divided India. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/asia/modi-india-elections.html
26.
GeuensM., & De PelsmackerP. (2002). The role of humor in the persuasion of individuals varying in need for cognition. In BroniarczykS. M. & NakamotoK. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 50–56). Association for Consumer Research.
27.
HardyB. W., GottfriedJ. A., WinnegK. M., & JamiesonK. H. (2014). Stephen Colbert’s civics lesson: How Colbert Super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 329–353.
28.
HollanderB. A. (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers?Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49(4), 402–415.
29.
HuffC., & TingleyD. (2015). ‘Who are these people?’ Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research and Politics, 2(3). 10.1177/2053168015604648
30.
India | RSF. (2023, 22March). Reporters without borders. https://rsf.org/en/country/india
31.
JamesA. (2020). What does ‘Global’. In ‘Global Indian’ mean?: Cultural production and new urban subjectivities in world-class Mumbai. Urban Geography, 41(5), 791–800.
32.
KelkarS. (2018, 21June). Kunal Kamra: Indian comedian riles ruling party with edgy humour. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/6/21/kunal-kamra-indian-comedian-riles-ruling-party-with-edgy-humour
33.
KümpelA. S., KarnowskiV., & KeylingT. (2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media Society, 1(2), 2056305115610141.
34.
LaMarreH., LandrevilleK., YoungD., & GilkersonN. (2014). Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 400–423.
35.
McKainA. (2005). Not necessarily not the news: Gatekeeping, remediation, and The Daily Show. Journal of American Culture, 28(4), 415–430.
36.
Mendiburo-SeguelA., VargasS., & RubioA. (2017). Exposure to political disparagement humor and its impact on trust in politicians: How long does it last?Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2236.
37.
MillerZ. (2020). Stand-up comedy and Young India: The expression and construction of identity. Changing English, 27(4), 446–459.
38.
MogulR. (2022, 13February). In India, comedians can face arrest for making the wrong kind of jokes. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/india/india-comedians-crackdown-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
39.
MorreallJ. (2009). Humor as cognitive play. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 241–260.
40.
MoyP., XenosM. A., & HessV. K. (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111–131.
41.
NabiR. L., Moyer-GuséE., & ByrneS. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29–54.
42.
NeundorfA., NiemiR. G., & SmetsK. (2016). The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: How civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior, 38(4), 921–949.
43.
NüskeL. S. (2018). Comedy as resistance: Indian stand-up comedians and their fight against India’s anti-democratic tendencies. [M.Ed Thesis, University of Potsdam].
44.
PaletzD. L. (1990). Political humor and authority: From support to subversion. International Political Science Review, 11(4), 483–493.
45.
PaulS. (2018). East India comedy: Channeling the public sphere in online satire. InFrom networks to Netflix (pp. 265–273). Routledge.
46.
PettyR. E., CacioppoJ. T., & SchumannD. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.
47.
PoonamS. (2019, 24May). Modi’s message was simple: Hindus first. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/24/modis-message-was-simple-hindus-first/
48.
ShivaprasadM. (2023). Mediatisation, digital spaces and live performance: Understanding Indian stand-up comedy and evolving performance landscapes. Convergence, 29(6), 1422–1436.
49.
SrinivasanL. (2023, 22November). Comedian Vir Das wins Emmy for Netflix stand up special. The Daily Guardian. https://thedailyguardian.com/comedian-vir-das-wins-emmy-for-netflix-standup-special/
50.
WaisanenD. (2011). Jokes inviting more than laughter … Joan Rivers’ political-rhetorical world view. Comedy Studies, 2(2), 139–150.
51.
WaisanenD. (2014). Standing-up to the politics of comedy (pp. 426–442). 10.4018/978-1-4666-5003-9.ch023.
52.
WaisanenD. (2018). The comic counterfactual: Laughter, affect, and civic alternatives. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 104(1), 71–93.
53.
WalterN., CodyM. J., XuL. Z., & MurphyS. T. (2018). A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walkinto a bar: A meta-analysis of humor effects on persuasion. Human Communication Research, 44(4), 343–373.
54.
WarnerJ. (2004). George Bush. Jon Stewart and Michel Foucault: Laughter as political problematization. Paper Prepared for 2004 Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, 2 September–5 September, Chicago, IL.
55.
WeeksB. E., LaneD. S., KimD. H., LeeS. S., & KwakN. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 363–379.
56.
YoungD. G. (2004). The counterargument-disruption model of political humor (CADIMO): An experimental exploration of the effects of late-night political jokes on cognitive elaboration and the conditional effects of partisanship. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago, IL: The Palmer House Hilton.
57.
YoungD. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119–142.
58.
ZhangY., & ZinkhanG. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads: Does audience involvement matter?Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113–127.
