This study investigates the types of humor embedded in funny scientific posts on social media and their effects on engagement. We mapped the landscape of such posts on Twitter and Instagram through content analysis of their message attributes. Regression analyses were then conducted to examine how different humor types, communicative functions, and visual attributes were associated with liking, retweeting, and commenting. On Twitter, wordplay and satire were found to be positively related to posts’ engagement levels, while anthropomorphic humor was negatively associated with the presence of comments. On Instagram, humor had no relation to engagement.
AlhabashS.MaM. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students?Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117691544
2.
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
3.
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
4.
AraujoT.NeijensP.VliegenthartR. (2015). What motivates consumers to re-tweet brand content?Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2015-009
5.
BeckerA. B. (2012). Comedy types and political campaigns: The differential influence of other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule on candidate evaluations. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.628431
BorahP. (2014). The hyperlinked world: A look at how the interactions of news frames and hyperlinks influence news credibility and willingness to seek information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 576–590.
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.
ChenH. (2018). College-aged young consumers’ perceptions of social media marketing: The story of Instagram. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 39(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2017.1372321
12.
ChungJ. E. (2017). Retweeting in health promotion: Analysis of tweets about Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.025
13.
de VriesL.GenslerS.LeeflangP. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003
FarinellaM. (2018). The potential of comics in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 17(01), Article Y01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17010401
16.
FeldmanL.ChattooC. B. (2019). Comedy as a route to social change: The effects of Satire and news on Persuasion about Syrian refugees. Mass Communication and Society, 22(3), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1545035
17.
FergusonM. A.FordT. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor, 21(3), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014
18.
FineG. A.MartinD. D. (1990). A Partisan view: Sarcasm, satire, and irony as voices in Erving Goffman’s Asylums. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19(1), 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124190019001005
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
21.
GoodwinJ.DahlstromM. F. (2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. WIREs Climate Change, 5(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.262
GuidryJ. P. D.WatersR. D.SaxtonG. D. (2014). Moving social marketing beyond personal change to social change: Strategically using Twitter to mobilize supporters into vocal advocates. Journal of Social Marketing, 4(3), 240–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-02-2014-0014.
24.
HeissR.MatthesJ. (2019). Funny cats and politics: Do humorous context posts impede or foster the elaboration of news posts on social media?Communication Research, 48(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219826006
25.
HoffmanL. H.YoungD. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news: Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278
26.
HoffmannS.SchwarzU.DalichoL.HutterK. (2014). Humor in cross-cultural advertising: A content analysis and test of effectiveness in German and Spanish print advertisements. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.022
27.
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
28.
IvanovL.EisendM.BayonT. (2019). Gendering conversational humor in advertising: An evolutionary explanation of the effects of spontaneous versus canned humor. International Journal of Advertising, 38(7), 979–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1617544
29.
JoubertM.WassermanH. (2020). Spikey blobs with evil grins: Understanding portrayals of the coronavirus in South African newspaper cartoons in relation to the public communication of science. Journal of Science Communication, 19(07), Article A08. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19070208
30.
KimD.-H.SpillerL.HettcheM. (2015). Analyzing media types and content orientations in Facebook for global brands. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-05-2014-0023
31.
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, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.030
KreuzR. J.RobertsR. M. (1993). On satire and parody: The importance of being ironic. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0802_2
34.
KrippendorffK. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). SAGE.
35.
KsiazekT. B.PeerL.LessardK. (2016). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18(3), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545073
36.
LaMarreH. L.LandrevilleK. D.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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891137
37.
LovejoyK.SaxtonG. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
38.
MartinR. A. (2007). Psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Elsevier.
39.
MartinR. A.Puhlik-DorisP.LarsenG.GrayJ.WeirK. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2
MenonR. G. V.SigurdssonV.LarsenN. M.FagerstrømA.SørensenH.MarteinsdottirH. G.FoxallG. R. (2019). How to grow brand post engagement on Facebook and Twitter for airlines? An empirical investigation of desing and content factors. Journal of Air Transport Management, 79, Article 101678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.05.002
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
44.
MuddimanA.Pond-CobbJ.MatsonJ. E. (2017). Negativity bias or backlash: Interaction with civil and uncivil online political news content. Communication Research, 47(6), 815–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216685625
45.
PetersK.KashimaY.ClarkA. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.523
46.
PolkJ.YoungD. G.HolbertR. L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in the daily show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870903210055
47.
RegantiA. N.MaheshwariT.KumarU.DasA.BajpaiR. (2016). Modeling satire in English text for automatic detection [Conference session]. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), pp. 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2016.0141
48.
Salas-ZárateM.delP.Paredes-ValverdeM. A.Rodriguez-GarcíaM. Á.Valencia-GarcíaR.Alor-HernándezG. (2017). Automatic detection of satire in Twitter: A psycholinguistic-based approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 128, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.04.009
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
51.
SkurkaC.NiederdeppeJ.NabiR. (2019). Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication, 41(4), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019853837
52.
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
53.
SpeckP. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising [Doctoral dissertation]. Texas Tech University.
54.
SpeckP. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01633392.1991.10504957
55.
StavrosituC. D.KimJ. (2014). Social media metrics: Third-person perceptions of health information. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.025
SuL. Y.-F.CacciatoreM. A.LiangX.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2017). Analyzing public sentiments online: Combining human- and computer-based content analysis. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1182197
58.
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
59.
SuL. Y.-F.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2020). Political and personality predispositions and topical contexts matter: Effects of uncivil comments on science news engagement intentions. New Media & Society, 23(5), 894–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820904365
60.
SuL. Y.-F.XenosM. A.RoseK. M.WirzC.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD. (2018). Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3678–3699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818757205
61.
SulsJ. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In GoldsteinJ. H.McGheeP. E. (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81–100). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-288950-9.50010-9
van der WalA.PiotrowskiJ. T.FikkersK. M.ValkenburgP. M. (2020). More than just a laughing matter: A coding framework of humor in media entertainment for tweens and teens. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(3), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1796389
WalterN.TukachinskyR.PelledA.NabiR. (2019). Meta-analysis of anger and persuasion: An empirical integration of four models. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy054
WangX.ChenL.ShiJ.PengT.-Q. (2019). What makes cancer information viral on social media?Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.024
WeinbergerM. G.GulasC. S. (2019). The emergence of a half-century of research on humour in advertising: What have we learned? What do we still need to learn?International Journal of Advertising, 38(7), 911–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1598831
YeoS. K.CacciatoreM. A.SuY.-F.McKasyM.O’NeillL. (2021). Following science on social media: The effects of humor and source likability. Public Understanding of Science, 30(5), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520986942
72.
YeoS. K.SuY.-F.CacciatoreM. A.McKasyM.QianS. (2020). Predicting intentions to engage with scientific messages on Twitter: The roles of mirth and need for humor. Science Communication, 42(4), 481–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020942512
73.
ZiegeleM.JostP. B. (2020). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, 47(6), 891–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216671854
