This study explores the effects of two humor styles—pure humor and satire—on audiences’ Twitter engagement intentions as well as their attitudes toward mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. In an online between-subjects experiment (N = 484), these styles were embedded within a scientist’s tweet about the vaccines. The results showed that, compared to a no humor tweet, both pure humor and satire increased audience’s expectancy violation, subsequently decreasing both outcomes. Superiority as an individual trait also moderated the relationship between humor styles and both expectancy violation and Twitter engagement. These findings broaden our understanding of different humor styles in science communication on Twitter.
AldenD. L.HoyerW. D.LeeC. (1993). Identifying global and culture-specific dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 64–75. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.2307/1252027
2.
AlhabashS.McAlisterA. R. (2014). Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media & Society, 17, 1317–1399. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814523726
3.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.YuC. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6(2), 2053168019848554. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554
4.
BaumM. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/3647673
5.
BeckerA. B. (2014). Humiliate my enemies or mock my friends? Applying disposition theory of humor to the study of political parody appreciation and attitudes toward candidates. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12022
6.
BeckerA. B.WaisanenD. J. (2013). From funny features to entertaining effects: Connecting approaches to communication research on political comedy. Review of Communication, 13(3), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.826816
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
11.
BullockO. M.HubnerA. Y. (2020). Candidates’ use of informal communication on social media reduces credibility and support: Examining the consequences of expectancy violations. Communication Research Reports, 37(3), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2020.1767047
12.
BultitudeK. (2011). The why and how of science communication. In RosulekP. (Ed.), Science communication (pp. 1–18). European Commission.
13.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
14.
BurgoonJ. K.HaleJ. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158
15.
ChuH.YuanS.LiuS. (2021). Call them COVIDiots: Exploring the effects of aggressive communication style and psychological distance in the communication of COVID-19. Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989191
16.
CostasR.MongeonP.FerreiraM. R.van HonkJ.FranssenT. (2020). Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00047
17.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2021). How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.28
FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2011). The science of satire: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as sources of public attention to science and the environment. In The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news. McFarland & Company. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umichigan/detail.action?docID=699252
20.
FergusonM. A.FordT. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 21(3), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014
21.
GoldsteinJ. H.McGheeP. (Eds.). (1972). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. Academic Press.
22.
GreenwoodD.IsbellL. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00073
HatzithomasL.VoutsaM. C.BoutsoukiC.ZotosY. (2021). A superiority–inferiority hypothesis on disparagement humor: The role of disposition toward ridicule. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(4), 923–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1931
25.
HauptM. R.LiJ.MackeyT. K. (2021). Identifying and characterizing scientific authority- related misinformation discourse about hydroxychloroquine on twitter using unsupervised machine learning. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 20539517211013844. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013843
26.
HayesA. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
27.
HighetG. (1972). Anatomy of satire. Princeton University Press.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
30.
JüngerJ.FähnrichB. (2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863413
31.
KricorianK.CivenR.EquilsO. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Misinformation and perceptions of vaccine safety. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 0(0), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.1950504
32.
La FaveL.HaddadJ.MaesenW. A. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In ChapmanA. J.FootH. C. (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 63–91). Transaction Publishers.
33.
LintottS. (2016). Superiority in humor theory. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 74(4), 347–358.
34.
LuH.McComasK. A.BesleyJ. C. (2017). Messages promoting genetic modification of crops in the context of climate change: Evidence for psychological reactance. Appetite, 108, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.026
35.
LuH.YuanS. (2021). What motivates information sharing about disaster victims on social media? Exploring the role of compassion, sadness, expectancy violation, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102431
36.
MarshO. (2016). “People seem to really enjoy the mix of humour and intelligence”: Science humour in online settings. Journal of Science Communication, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020303
37.
MartinR. A. (2007). Chapter 1—Introduction to the psychology of humor. In MartinR. A. (Ed.), The psychology of humor (pp. 1-30). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50020-4
38.
MartinR. A.FordT. E. (2018a). Chapter 2—Classic theories of humor. In MartinR. A.FordT. E. (Eds.), The Psychology of Humor (2nd ed., pp. 33–69). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812143-6.00002-3
39.
MartinR. A.FordT. E. (2018b). Chapter 4—The Personality Psychology of Humor. In MartinR. A.FordT. E. (Eds.), The psychology of humor (2nd ed., pp. 99–140). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812143-6.00004-7
40.
McCainJ. L.CampbellW. K. (2018). Narcissism and social media use: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(3), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000137
41.
NahonK.HemsleyJ. (2013). Going viral. Polity.
42.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific.Ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
43.
PintoB.MarçalD.VazS. G. (2015). Communicating through humour: A project of stand-up comedy about science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513511175
44.
PratamaE. N. (2020). The analysis of meme virality factors in Twitter of scholar protest on September 2019. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on social and political sciences (ICOSAPS 2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201219.003
45.
RaimiK. T.Jongman-SerenoK. P. (2020). General belief superiority (GBS): Personality, motivation, and interpersonal relations. Self and Identity, 19(5),546–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1640785
RaskinR.TerryH. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
48.
RieschH. (2015). Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 768–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514546299
49.
RobbinsS. B. (1989). Validity of the superiority and goal instability scales as measures of defects in the self. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5301_13
50.
RobbinsS. B.PattonM. J. (1985). Self-psychology and career development: Construction of the superiority and goal instability scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.32.2.221
51.
Simis-WilkinsonM.MaddenH.LassenD.SuY.-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
52.
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
53.
SongS. Y.ChoE.KimY.-K. (2017). Personality factors and flow affecting opinion leadership in social media. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.058
54.
SuY.-F.McKasyM.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.DeGrauwA. R.ZhangJ. S. (2022). Generating science buzz: An examination of multidimensional engagement with humorous scientific messages on Twitter and Instagram. Science Communication, 44(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211063902
55.
TestG. (1991). Satire: Spirit and art. University of South Florida Press.
56.
WuD. D.LiC. (2018). Emotional branding on social media: A cross-cultural discourse analysis of global brands on Twitter and Weibo. In CurtisA.SussexR. (Eds.), Intercultural communication in Asia: Education, language and values (pp. 225–240). Springer.
57.
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, 408–418.
58.
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
59.
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
60.
YuanS.BesleyJ. C.MaW. (2019). Be mean or be nice? Understanding the effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccination debate. Health Communication, 34(10), 1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1471337
61.
YuanS.LuH. (2020). “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791
62.
ZillmannD.CantorJ. R. (1996). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In ChapmanA. J.FootH. C. (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 93–115). Routledge.
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.
