Although humor is a recommended strategy for scientists to connect with publics, there is a lack of empirical evidence concerning its effectiveness. We conduct an experiment to test how funny science on Twitter affects engagement intentions. We find that different humor types caused viewers to experience different levels of mirth, which mediated the relationship between our experimental manipulation and engagement intentions. We also find need for humor, an individual trait, to moderate the relationship between mirth and engagement intentions. These findings extend our understanding of humor in science communication and offer empirical evidence on which practical advice can be grounded.
AlhabashS.McAlisterA. R. (2015). Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1317-1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814523726
2.
AndersonA. A.BeckerA. B. (2018). Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication, 40(4), 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786560
3.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012440634
4.
BeckerA. B. (2014). Playing with politics: Online political parody, affinity for political humor, anxiety reduction, and implications for political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 424-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891134
BesleyJ. C.O’HaraK.DudoA. (2019). Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLOS ONE, 14(10), Article e0224039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
7.
BlancN.BrigaudE. (2014). Humor in print health advertisements: Enhanced attention, privileged recognition, and persuasiveness of preventive messages. Health Communication, 29(7), 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.769832
8.
BrewerP. R.McKnightJ. (2015). Climate as comedy: The effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. Science Communication, 37(5), 635-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015597911
CacciatoreM. A.BeckerA. B.AndersonA. A.YeoS. K. (2020). Laughing with science: The influence of audience approval on engagement. Science Communication, 42(2), 195-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020910749
11.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2016). The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1984). The need for cognition: Relationship to attitudinal processes. In McGlynnR. P.MadduxJ. E.StoltenbergC. D.HarveyJ. H. (Eds.), Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology (pp. 91-119). Texas Tech University Press.
14.
ChungD. S. (2007). Profits and perils: Online news producers’ perceptions of interactivity and uses of interactive features. Convergence, 13(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507072856
15.
ClineT. W.AltsechM. B.KellarisJ. J. (2003). When does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? The moderating role of the need for humor. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2003.10639134
ClineT. W.KellarisJ. J.MachleitK. A. (2011). Consumers’ need for levity in advertising communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260903090790
18.
ClineT. W.MachleitK. A.KellarisJ. J. (1999). Is there a need for levity? In MachleitK.CampbellM. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology 1998 winter conference. Society for Consumer Psychology.
EisendM. (2011). How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models. Marketing Letters, 22(2), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9116-z
22.
FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution: School is not where most Americans learn their science. American Scientist, 98(6), 486-493. https://doi.org/10.1511/2010.87.486
23.
FeldmanL. (2007). The news about comedy: Young audiences, The Daily Show, and evolving notions of journalism. Journalism, 8(4), 406-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907078655
24.
FreudS. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. W. W. Norton.
25.
FuterfasM. L.NanX. (2017). Role of humor in the persuasiveness of entertainment narratives on unprotected sexual behavior. Journal of Health Communication, 22(4), 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1284285
26.
GoodwinJ.DahlstromM. F. (2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.262
27.
GrunerC. R. (1976). Wit and humour in mass communication. In ChapmanA. J.FootH. C. (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 287-311). John Wiley.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924-936. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924
31.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
32.
HolbertR. L.HmielowskiJ.JainP.LatherJ.MoreyA. (2011). Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: Experimental research on juvenalian satire versus horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 187-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210392156
33.
KimJ. W. (2018). They liked and shared: Effects of social media virality metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 84(July), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.030
34.
LandrevilleK. D.HolbertR. L.LaMarreH. L. (2010). The influence of late-night TV comedy viewing on political talk: A moderated-mediation model. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 482-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210371506
35.
LeeT. K.SuL. Y.-F. (2020). When a personal HPV story on a blog influences perceived social norms: The roles of personal experience, framing, perceived similarity, and social media metrics. Health Communication, 35(4), 438-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1567440
36.
LeeY. H.MasonC. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1086/209557
37.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (CartwrightD., Ed.). Harper.
MartinR. A. (2010). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Elsevier Academic Press.
41.
MatthesJ.HeissR. (2019). Funny cats and politics: Do humorous context posts impede or foster the elaboration of news posts on social media?Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219826006
42.
McCulloughL. S. (1993). A cross-cultural test of the two-part typology of humor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(Suppl. 3), 1275-1281. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.76.3c.1275
43.
McKasyM.YeoS. K.CacciatoreM. A.SuL. Y.-F.OldroydZ. (2019, February14-17). #ScienceHumor: A content analysis of science humor on Twitter and Instagram [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., United States.
44.
Moyer-GuséE.MahoodC.BrookesS. (2011). Entertainment-education in the context of humor: Effects on safer sex intentions and risk perceptions. Health Communication, 26(8), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.566832
45.
Moyer-GuséE.RobinsonM. J.McknightJ. (2018). The role of humor in messaging about the MMR vaccine. Journal of Health Communication, 23(6), 514-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2018.1473533
46.
NabiR. L. (2016). Laughing in the face of fear (of disease detection): Using humor to promote cancer self-examination behavior. Health Communication, 31(7), 873-883. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.1000479
47.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
50.
O’NeillL.McKasyM.SuL. Y.-F.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.QianS. (2020, August6-9). “That’s some positive energy:” How social media users respond to #funny science content [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), San Francisco, CA, the United States.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
53.
Qualtrics. (2014). ESOMAR 28: 28 Questions to help research buyers of online samples.
54.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth.
55.
ShifmanL.BlondheimM. (2010). The medium is the joke: Online humor about and by networked computers. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1348-1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365311
56.
Simis-WilkinsonM.MaddenH.LassenD.SuL. Y.-F.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2018). Scientists joking on social media: An empirical analysis of #overlyhonestmethods. Science Communication, 40(3), 314-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766557
57.
SkalskiP.TamboriniR.GlazerE.SmithS. (2009). Effects of humor on presence and recall of persuasive messages. Communication Quarterly, 57(2), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370902881619
58.
SkurkaC.NiederdeppeJ.Romero-CanyasR.AcupD. (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 Communication, 68(1), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx008
59.
SpartzJ. T.SuL. Y.-F.GriffinR.BrossardD.DunwoodyS. (2017). YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887
60.
StilgoeJ.LockS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
61.
SuL. Y.-F.AkinH.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415
62.
SuL. Y.-F.ScheufeleD. A.BellL.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2017). Information-sharing and community-building: Exploring the use of Twitter in science public relations. Science Communication, 39(5), 569-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017734226
63.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). MIT Press.
64.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609369999
65.
YeoS. K.AndersonA. A.BeckerA. B.CacciatoreM. A. (2020). Scientists as comedians: The effects of humor on perceptions of scientists and scientific messages. Public Understanding of Science, 29(4), 408-418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520915359
66.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701837073
