Across a wide range of issues and a variety of sources, scientific information often gets lost in translation, failing to properly inform, educate, and engage publics in a meaningful way. But science communication is like a wine—it is better when it is outside the box. One promising tactic for more effective scientific communication is the use of humor to both engage and educate less interested and knowledgeable citizens on important topics. Here, we investigate whether the identity of a speaker influences perceptions of their effectiveness at connecting with and engaging public audiences. We conducted a 2 (Gender: Female vs. Male) × 2 (Race: Black Speaker vs. White Speaker) × 2 (Credentials: Scientist vs. Comedian) between-subjects experiment and found that race and gender of the source, relative to their credentials, were not significant factors for predicting the perceptions of communicator effectiveness. We also found that experienced humor, or mirth, moderated the relationship between the speaker’s credentials and perceived effectiveness. We discuss the implications of our findings for science communication research and practice.
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
AriesE. (1987). Gender and communication. In ShaverP.HendrickC. (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 149–176). Sage Publications, Inc.
4.
BairdJ. E.JrBradleyP. H. (1979). Styles of management and communication: A comparative study of men and women. Communication Monographs, 46(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757909375995
5.
BanjoO. O.WangZ.AppiahO.BrownC.Walther-MartinW.TchernevJ.. . . IrwinM. (2017). Experiencing racial humor with outgroups: A psychophysiological examination of co-viewing effects. Media Psychology, 20(4), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1234396
6.
BaumM. A. (2005). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton University Press.
7.
BeckerA. B. (2022). Does gender matter? Comic hosts, audience reception, and the processing of political satire content. Psychology of Popular Media. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000432
8.
BednarekM. (2012). Constructing “nerdiness”: Characterisation in The Big Bang Theory. Multilingua, 31, 199–229. https://doi.org/0.1515/multi-2012-0010
9.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478
10.
BighamA.MeyersC.LiN.IrlbeckE. (2019). The effect of emphasizing credibility elements and the role of source gender on perceptions of source credibility. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2270
11.
Borum ChattooC.Green-BarberL. (2021). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918763526
BradleyP. H. (1981). The folk-linguistics of women’s speech: An empirical examination. Communication Monographs, 48(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758109376048
14.
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
15.
BrewerP. R.McKnightJ. (2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(3), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453
16.
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
17.
CaldwellT. L.WojtachP. (2020). Men are funnier than women under a condition of low self-efficacy but women are funnier than men under a condition of high self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 83(5), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01109-w
18.
CameronD. (1997). Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In JohnsonS.MeinhofU. H. (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 47–64). Blackwell.
CheshireJ.TrudgillP. (1998). Section I: Introduction. In CheshireJ.TrudgillP. (Eds.), The sociolinguistics reader: Volume 2 gender and discourse (pp. 1–6). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
21.
CoatesJ. (1996). Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Blackwell.
22.
ConnellR. (2005). Masculinities. Polity Press.
23.
ConnellR.MesserschmidtJ. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 6, 829–859.
24.
CooperL. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle: An expanded translation with supplementary examples for students of composition and public speaking. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
25.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.
26.
DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw006
27.
DudoA.BrossardD.ShanahanJ.ScheufeleD. A.MorganM.SignorielliN. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century. Communication Research, 38(6), 754–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988
28.
DuncanC. P.NelsonJ. E. (1985). Effects of humor in radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33–64.
29.
EckertP.McConnell-GinetS. (2013). Language and gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
30.
FeldmanL. (2017). Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD. M.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 322–343). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.35
31.
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 AmarasingamA. (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real Impacts if fake news (pp. 25–46). McFarland.
32.
FergusonS. L.LezotteS. M. (2020). Exploring the state of science stereotypes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the Draw-A-Scientist Checklist. School Science and Mathematics, 120(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12382
33.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
34.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2003). The perceived credibility of personal web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00021-9
35.
GainsburgI.SekaquaptewaD. (2020). Using an egalitarian social norms message to improve attitudes toward diversity in an academic context: Examining intended and unintended effects of source and recipient gender. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1–26.
36.
GerbnerG. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 109–115.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1985). Television entertainment and viewers’ conceptions of science (p. 122). The Annenberg School of Communications. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED271096.pdf
39.
GreengrossG.MillerG. F. (2009). The Big Five personality traits of professional comedians compared to amateur comedians, comedy writers, and college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.045
40.
HamiltonM.HenleyN.ThorneB. (1977). Womanspeak and manspeak: Sex differences and sexism in communication, verbal and nonverbal. In SargentA. G. (Ed.), Beyond sex roles (pp. 201–218). West Publishing.
41.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
HehlF.-J.RuchW. (1985). The location of sense of humor within comprehensive personality spaces: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(6), 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90081-9
44.
HekmanD. R.JohnsonS. K.FooM. D.YangW. (2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior result in diminished performance ratings for non-white and female leaders?Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 771–797.
45.
HolmesJ. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. Blackwell.
46.
HooperJ.SharpeD.RobertsS. G. B. (2016). Are men funnier than women, or do we just think they are?Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000064
47.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communications and Persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
48.
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
49.
HughesP. C.BaldwinJ. R. (2002). Communication and stereotypical impressions. Howard Journal of Communications, 13(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170290089917
50.
JarreauP. B.CancellareI. A.CarmichaelB. J.PorterL.TokerD.YammineS. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PloS One, 14(5), e0216625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625
KaplanM.DahlstromM. (2017). How narrative functions in entertainment to communicate science. In JamiesonK. H.ScheufeleD. A.KahanD. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 261–272). Oxford University Press.
KentonS. B. (1989). Speaker credibility in persuasive business communication: A model which explains gender differences. The Journal of Business Communication, 26(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368902600204
LadegaardH. (2011). “Doing power” at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 4–19.
57.
LammersJ.DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2013). Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 776–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.008
58.
Leet-PellegriniH. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In GilesH.RobinsonW. P.SmithP. (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives: Selected papers from the first international conference on Social Psychology and Language Held at the University of Bristol, England, July 1979. Elsevier Science & Technology. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utah/detail.action?docID=1875354
59.
LeonardK. M.Van ScotterJ. R.PakdilF. (2009). Culture and communication: Cultural variations and media effectiveness. Administration & Society, 41(7), 850–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709344054
60.
LeonardR.LockeD. C. (1993). Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication possible?Journal of Black Studies, 23(3), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/002193479302300303
61.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
Lindvall-ÖstlingM.DeutschmannM.SteinvallA. (2020). An exploratory study on linguistic gender stereotypes and their effects on perception. Open Linguistics, 6, 567–583.
64.
MaccobyE. E.JacklinC. N. (1977). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford University Press.
65.
MartinR. A. (2010). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Elsevier Academic Press.
66.
McGeeE. O.KazembeL. (2016). Entertainers or education researchers? The challenges associated with presenting while black. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 96–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1069263
MickesL.WalkerD. E.ParrisJ. L.MankoffR.ChristenfeldN. J. S. (2012). Who’s funny: Gender stereotypes, humor production, and memory bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0161-2
69.
MohindraV.AzharS. (2012). Gender communication: A comparative analysis of communicational approaches of men and women at workplaces. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(1), 18–27.
70.
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
71.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896
PoppD.DonovanR. A.CrawfordM.MarshK. L.PeeleM. (2003). Gender, race, and speech style stereotypes. Sex Roles, 48, 317–325.
76.
PottsR.MartinezI. (1994). Television viewing and children’s beliefs about scientists. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(94)90018-3
77.
PykeK.JohnsonD. (2003). Asian American women and radicalized femininities: “Doing” gender across cultural worlds. Gender and Society, 17(1), 33–53.
78.
SchippersM. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), 85–102.
79.
SkurkaC.NiederdeppeJ.NabiR. (2019). Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication, Article 1075547019853837. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019853837
80.
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
81.
SkurkaC.Romero-CanyasR.JooH. H.AcupD.NiederdeppeJ. (2022). Emotional appeals, climate change, and young adults: A direct replication of Skurka et al. (2018). Human Communication Research, 48(1), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqab013
82.
SpillerS. A.FitzsimonsG. J.LynchJ. G.McclellandG. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420
83.
StewartP. A.SeniorC.DyeR.BucyE. (2019). Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the “great communicator.” PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bcpsg
84.
TalbotM. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Reproduction and challenge. In HolmesJ.MeyerhofM. (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 468-486). Blackwell.
85.
TatumT. J. D.SekaquaptewaD. (2009). Teachers and learners: Roles adopted in interracial discussions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 579–590.
86.
ThaiM.BorgellaA. M.SanchezM. S. (2019). It’s only funny if we say it: Disparagement humor is better received if it originates from a member of the group being disparaged. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103838
87.
ToddP. R.MelanconJ. (2018). Gender and live-streaming: Source credibility and motivation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-05-2017-0035
Walther-MartinW. (2015). Media-generated expectancy violations: A study of political humor, race, and source perceptions. Western Journal of Communication, 79(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1072233
WeingartP.MuhlC.PansegrauP. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123006
93.
WeitekampM. A. (2017). The image of scientists in The Big Bang Theory. Physics Today, 70(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3427
XenosM. A.BeckerA. B. (2009). Moments of Zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903053569
96.
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
97.
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
98.
ZillmannD.CantorJ. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In ChapmanA. J.FootH. C. (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 93–115). John Wiley & Sons.
99.
ZimmermanD. H.WestC. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In ThorneB. M.HenleyN. (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Newbury House Publishers.
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.
