A meta-analysis evaluated the persuasive effects of political satire and how such effects may differ between Horatian (light-hearted) and Juvenalian (acerbic) satire types. A synthesis of 33 studies (N = 7,469) revealed that political satire is no more persuasive than serious news, but the data find several contingencies when distinguishing between satire types. Namely, satire type was found to interact with issue involvement and format, but not ideology or perceived humor. Particularly, persuasion was enhanced by Juvenalian sketch format (compared with news format) satire, as well as Juvenalian satire for high-involvement individuals, but was inhibited by Horatian satire for those same individuals.
BaumM. A.JamisonA. S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00482.x
2.
BaumgartnerJ. C.LockerbieB. (2018). Maybe it is more than a joke: Satire, mobilization, and political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12501
3.
BaymG. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492
4.
BaymG. (2013). Breaking boundaries—Political media as discursive modes: A comparative analysis of interviews with Ron Paul from Meet the Press, The Tonight Show, The Daily Show, and Hannity. International Journal of Communication, 7, 19. https://ijoc.org/
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
7.
BeckerA. B. (2020). Applying mass communication frameworks to study humor’s impact: Advancing the study of political satire. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1794925
8.
BeckerA. B. (2021). When comedy goes to extremes: The influence of ideology and social identity on source liking, credibility, and counterarguing. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000265
9.
BeckerA. B.GoldbergA. B. (2017). Entertainment, intelligent, or hybrid programming? An automated content analysis of 12 years of political satire interviews. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1293670
BodeL.BeckerA. B. (2018). Go fix it: Comedy as an agent of political activation. Social Science Quarterly, 99(5), 1572–1584. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12521
12.
BorensteinM. (2005). Software for publication bias. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 193–220). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168
BoukesM.BoomgaardenH. G. (2016). Politician seeking voter: How interviews on entertainment talk shows affect trust in politicians. International Journal of Communication, 10, 22. http://ijoc.org
15.
BoukesM.BoomgaardenH. G.MoormanM.De VreeseC. H. (2015). At odds: Laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing, and persuasiveness of political satire. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12173
16.
BrewerP. R.YoungD. G.LambeJ. L.HoffmanL. H.CollierJ. (2018). “Seize your moment, my lovely trolls”: News, satire, and public opinion about net neutrality. International Journal of Communication, 12, 23. https://ijoc.org/
17.
BrugmanB. C.BurgersC.BeukeboomC. J.KonijnE. A. (2020). Satirical news from left to right: Discursive integration in written online satire. Journalism, 23(8), 1626–1644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920979090
18.
BrugmanB. C.BurgersC.BeukeboomC. J.KonijnE. A. (2021). From The Daily Show to Last Week Tonight: A quantitative analysis of discursive integration in satirical television news. Journalism Studies, 22(9), 1181–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1929416
BurgersC.BrugmanB. C. (2022). How satirical news impacts affective responses, learning, and persuasion: A three-level random-effects meta-analysis. Communication Research, 49(7), 966–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211032100
21.
CantorP. A. (1999). The Simpsons: Atomistic politics and the nuclear family. Political Theory, 27, 734–749. http://www.jstor.org/
FeldmanL.YoungD. G. (2008). Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication, 25(4), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802427013
GreengrossG.MillerG. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600303
27.
GriffinD. H. (1994). Satire: A critical reintroduction. The University Press of Kentucky.
GurilloL. R. (2013). Parody as evaluation: About a television sketch in Spanish. ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante, 27, 251–274. https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2013.27.09
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138
HmielowskiJ. D.HolbertR. L.LeeJ. (2011). Predicting the consumption of political TV satire: Affinity for political humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542579
33.
HolbertR. L. (2013). Breaking boundaries—Developing a normative approach to political satire: An empirical perspective. International Journal of Communication, 7, 19. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1933/855
HolbertR. L. (2016). Entertainment television and political campaigns: The Political Satire Appropriateness (PSA) model. In BenoitW. L (Ed.), Praeger handbook of political campaigning in the United States (pp. 171–191). Praeger.
36.
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
37.
JohnsonB. T.MullenB.SalasE. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.94
KnightC. A. (2004). The literature of satire. Cambridge University Press.
40.
LaMarreH. L.LandrevilleK. D.BeamM. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904
41.
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
42.
LaMarreH. L.WaltherW. (2013). Ability matters: Testing the differential effects of political news and late-night political comedy on cognitive responses and the role of ability in micro-level opinion formation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt008
43.
LichtensteinD.NitschC.WagnerA. J. (2021). Jokers or journalists? A study of satirists’ motivations, role orientations, and understanding of satire. Journalism Studies, 22(13), 1756–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1952476
44.
LingJ.KlingerR. (2016). An empirical, quantitative analysis of the differences between sarcasm and irony. In SackH.RizzoG.SteinmetzN.MladenićD.AuerS.LangeC. (Eds.), The semantic web: Lecture notes in computer science: European semantic web conference, 2016 (Vol. 9989, pp. 203–216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47602-5_39
45.
LuckersonV. (2015, January20). How the “John Oliver Effect” is having a real-life impact. TIME Magazine. https://time.com/
46.
LuqiuL. R. (2017). The cost of humour: Political satire on social media and censorship in China. Global Media and Communication, 13(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766517704471
47.
MartinR. A.FordT. E. (2018). Introduction to the psychology of humor. In The psychology of humor: An integrative approach (pp. 1–32). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-03294-1
48.
MattinglyG. (1958). Machiavelli’s “Prince”: Political science or political satire?The American Scholar, 27, 482–491.
49.
McClennenS. A. (2021). Be really afraid: What parody does with political paranoia. symplokē, 29(1), 43–56.
50.
McClennenS. A.MaiselR. (2016). Is satire saving our nation? Mockery and American politics. Springer.
51.
Moyer-GuséE. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
52.
Moyer-GuséE.NabiR. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x
53.
MtumaneZ. (2001). Elements of satire in selected works of SM Burns-Ncamashe. South African Journal of African Languages, 21(3–4), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2001.10587473
54.
NabiR. L. (2016). Laughing in the face of fear (of disease detection): Using humor to promote cancer self-examination behavior. Health Communication, 31, 873–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.1000479
55.
O’KeefeD. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different message types does not vary as a function of the persuasive outcome assessed: Evidence from 29 meta-analyses of 2,062 effect sizes for 13 message variations. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679151
OschatzC.MarkerC. (2020). Long-term persuasive effects in narrative communication research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 70(4), 473–496. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa017
PerloffR. M. (2017). Dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century. Routledge.
60.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
61.
PopaD. E. (2011). Political satire dies last: A study on democracy, opinion formation, and political satire. In TsakonaV.PopaD. E. (Eds.), Studies in political humour: In between political critique and public entertainment (Vol. 46, pp. 137–165). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.46.10pop
RokeachM. (1968). The role of values in public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1086/267645
64.
SaucierC. J.WalterN. (2021). Dissecting a frog: A meta-analytic evaluation of humor intensity in persuasion research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2033634
65.
SienkiewiczM. (2012). Out of control: Palestinian news satire and government power in the age of social media. Popular Communication, 10(1–2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2012.638575
66.
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
67.
SkurkaC.Romero-CanyasR.JooH. H.AcupD.NiederdeppeJ. (2021). 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
68.
TchernevJ. M.BrownC.Walther-MartinW.Moyer-GuséE. (2021). Forceful or funny? Audience interpretations of narrative persuasion in satirical entertainment media. Communication Studies, 72(4), 734–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2021.1953099
69.
TesnohlidkovaO. (2021). Humor and satire in politics: Introducing cultural sociology to the field. Sociology Compass, 15(1), e12842. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12842
70.
WalterN.CodyM. J.XuL. Z.MurphyS. T. (2018). A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar: A meta-analysis of humor effects on persuasion. Human Communication Research, 44(4), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy005
71.
WalterN.DemetriadesS. Z.KellyR.GilligT. K. (2016). Je suis Charlie? The framing of ingroup transgression and the attribution of responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo Attack. International Journal of Communication, 10, 19. https://ijoc.org/
72.
WangA. B. (2018, February26). A coal exec sued John Oliver for calling him a “geriatric Dr. Evil.” A judge tossed the case. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com
73.
WarnerB. R.HawthorneH. J.HawthorneJ. (2015). A dual-processing approach to the effects of viewing political comedy. Humor, 28(4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0099
74.
WeaverC. N. (1973). Juvenalian satire: Rochester to Johnson [Master’s thesis]. https://uh-ir.tdl.org/
75.
WrightM. (2016). Block, Herbert (1909-2001). In BanvilleL. (Ed.), Covering American politics in the 21st century: An encyclopedia of news media titans, trends, and controversies (p. 64). ABC-CLIO.
76.
XuJ. (2014). The impact of entertainment factors on news enjoyment and recall: Humour and human interest. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 3(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.3.2.195_1
77.
YoungD. G. (2013). Breaking boundaries| Political satire and Occupy Wall Street: How comics co-opted strategies of the protest paradigm to legitimize a movement. International Journal of Communication, 7, 23. https://ijoc.org/
78.
YoungD. G. (2020). Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear, and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
79.
ZhaoX.StrasserA.CappellaJ. N.LermanC.FishbeinM. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2010.547822
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.
