Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of the current study is to explain best practices for attempting humor in the workplace. Research on humor in the workplace has emphasized the use of leader humor but has neglected to provide guidance on how to successfully use humor. This is an important gap because unsuccessful humor attempts are associated with lowered status and disruptive behavior.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper summarizes three types of humor theories (i.e. cognitive, social and contextual) and derives principles from these theories that can be applied to improve humor success. Then, the authors apply the understanding of humor to workplace applications, providing suggestions for future empirical research inferred from the humor theories.
Findings
Humor attempts are most likely to land (i.e. invoke mirth) when they include a benign violation of mental schemas, societal norms or other expectations or when humor evokes shared feelings of benign superiority in the audience. Humor is less effective in goal-directed situations. Mirth is expected to increase group cohesion, leader trust and organizational identification and mitigate the effects of job stressors. Finally, employee learning and development activities (e.g. onboarding, training) seem like a good place to use humor to facilitate cognitive flexibility.
Originality/value
These suggestions from across psychological disciplines are synthesized to inform best practices for leader humor.
Keywords
Citation
Sizemore, S. and O'Brien, K. (2023), "How to tell a joke: theories of successful humor and applications to the workplace", Management Research Review, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 1679-1693. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2022-0724
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Humor is the source of a mirthful response and generally leads to positive reactions. In fact, according to the New York Times, “a workplace that embraces laughter is likely one that also encourages the kind of creativity, authenticity and psychological safety that allows people to perform their best” (Purtill, 2021). This is largely supported by empirical research, such that one study shows that leaders who use humor are perceived as motivational and their employees perform better on creative tasks (Decker, 1987). In another study, a leader's use of humor elicited greater employee enactment of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) by increasing employee positive emotions and the quality of relationship between the leader and subordinate (Cooper et al., 2018). In fact, there are a variety of studies examining employee outcomes resulting from leaders’ use of humor (Cooper et al., 2018; Hughes and Avey, 2009; Kim et al., 2016; Robert et al., 2016). A meta-analysis indicates that supervisor humor is related to better employee work performance, supervisor satisfaction and performance ratings and workgroup cohesion, among other benefits (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). However, this research shows that there can be drawbacks to using humor (Evans et al., 2019). For example, humor is appraised differently depending on whether it comes from a male or female (Gloor et al., 2022), potentially leading to bias (Evans et al., 2019). Unsuccessful humor attempts can reduce status (Bitterly et al., 2017). One study reports an employee interview stating “someone who uses [humor] badly, you just don’t want to be around them” (Cooper, 2016, p. 16).
That is, humor is potentially risky (Bitterly et al., 2017), entailing both the potential for gains and costs, depending on whether the humor “lands.” Nonetheless, there is little empirical research published on using humor successfully in the workplace. Therefore, to best guide future research, we should first look to a theoretical understanding of humor overall. Doing so can provide practical suggestions for implementing humor to achieve the best outcomes. In this paper, we propose principles for the successful use of humor in the workplace per cognitive, social and contextual theories that describe what makes something funny. Following this, we apply these humor theories to the organizational context and describe potential workplace manifestations of successful humor.
Workplace humor
Humor is viewed as anything that an individual perceives as funny and often results in laughter (Martin and Ford, 2018). Conversely, the emotional state resulting from an event being appraised as funny is referred to as mirth (Martin and Ford, 2018). Humor can emerge from the actions of other people or events, such as what people do or say, or from actions of the self, including what is done, said or thought. In addition, humor can come from intentional sources, such as jokes or conversational quips like irony, sarcasm and puns, or unintentional sources, such as accidents like slipping on ice, misspellings, mispronunciations or errors in logic. Conversely, mirth comes from the perception of humor. That is, an object, event, idea or situation must be appraised as funny for mirth to emerge.
Leader humor can be measured as the number of attempts (i.e. humor expression) or success of the attempts. Empirical research on humor expression shows that leaders who are less traditional (Tan et al., 2021) are more likely to make humor attempts. High status (e.g. official title, perception of superiority) is another predictor of humor usage (Bitterly et al., 2017; Duncan, 1985). When leaders engage in too few humor attempts, they may be seen as too serious (Cooper, 2016). However, too much humor can cause decreased credibility (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). When leaders do not make humor attempts, they avoid the risk of humor failing (i.e. unsuccessful humor attempts).
Based on employee interviews, leader humor tends to be more successful when it has utility (e.g. by resolving conflicts, increasing morale, communicating a message; Cooper, 2016). Even canned humor is sometimes seen as appropriate, as long as it has utility, such as within presentations and if work is slow (Cooper, 2016). Employees also prefer work-related humor to unrelated humor (Cooper, 2016). However, the type of humor (e.g. deprecating, sarcastic) may not matter so much, as long as it has hedonic tone (i.e. overall pleasantness of mood; Cooper, 2016). Overall, a fair amount of research shows that humor must facilitate, not distract from, work (Cooper, 2016; Evans et al., 2019).
Characteristics of the user also affect the success of humor attempts. For example, an experimental study shows that a female manager using objectively the same humor as a male manager is rated as more disruptive (Evans et al., 2019) and thus has less utility. Similarly, humor used by a male applicant is viewed less positively than humor from a female applicant in a cross-gender hiring interview (Gloor et al., 2022). Beyond the context of gender, humor success can vary within a specific dyad following leader–member exchange principles, such that a leader might be funny to some employees but not others, depending upon characteristics of their unique dyadic relationship (Cooper, 2016). Altogether, there are many characteristics that affect humor success, including qualities of the leader, employees and their interaction, as well as the context. For example, humor in joyful situations can bring mirth, whereas humor in stressful or sad situations can bring relief (Mathies et al., 2016).
When humor is viewed as disruptive or not funny, there can be negative consequences for the humor user and the organization. One researcher states, “the willingness to use humor signals confidence, but it is the successful use of humor that signals competence” (Bitterly et al., 2017, p. 432). Similarly, humor can be incompatible with the serious nature of business (Duncan et al., 1990), and disruptive humor attempts can be associated with a perceived lack of dedication (Westwood and Johnston, 2013). Thus, only successful, nondisruptive humor attempts are likely to incur workplace benefits. Overall, these studies show that humor has the potential to be beneficial but entails substantial risk. We look to theory to guide us on making suggestions for using humor successfully.
Psychological theories of humor
Cognitive theories
Cognitive theories of humor explain the underlying principles of humor, thus providing direction on identifying characteristics of successful humor. These theories generally converge around an incongruity or violation, such that humor must activate some expectation and then violate that expectation to be funny. Although incongruity theories can explain why this narrative might evoke mirth, other incongruity narratives may evoke different emotions. For instance, having your meal paid for by a stranger is unexpected, however this event is more likely to induce appreciation rather than mirth. Consequently, cognitive theories propose additional features that are required to induce mirth.
Incongruity resolution theory.
In addition to the incongruity necessary for mirth, cognitive effort to resolve the incongruity is also required (Suls, 1972). Although incongruity detection and resolution may appear to occur concurrently, research has confirmed the identification of an incongruity and the resolution process are distinctly separate processes (Hildebrand and Smith, 2014). Consider the following joke, “O’Riley was on trial for armed robbery. The jury came out and announced, ‘Not Guilty.’ ‘Wonderful,’ said O’Riley, ‘does that mean I can keep the money?’” (Suls, 1972, p. 90). First, O’Riley’s request to keep the money needs to be identified as being incongruent with the “Not Guilty” verdict. To resolve this incongruity, a second cognitive process requiring cognitive resources needs to occur to identify an explanation that makes both the “Not Guilty” verdict and the request to keep the money simultaneous possibilities. As this joke illustrates, cognitive effort was required to resolve the incongruity. Research on cognitive complexity has found cognitive effort to be a crucial element for predicting mirth (Dunbar et al., 2016). Specifically, jokes written with high complexity, operationalized as having a storyline with multiple characters, were rated as more funny than simple jokes.
However, absurd or nonsense humor that allows even a trivial degree of resolution may evoke mirth (Samson and Hempelmann, 2011). For instance, “How do you hide an elephant in a cherry tree? You paint its toenails red” (Reddit, 2023). Because this joke can provide some resolution (i.e. recognizing the intention of painting toenails to be camouflage) but leaves many incongruities unresolved (i.e. how did an elephant get into the tree?), nonsense humor has the ability to produce mirth (Samson and Huber, 2007). Conversely, humor that is either too complex (Dunbar et al., 2016) or too absurd (Samson et al., 2008), preventing resolution of the incongruity, is more likely to lead to confusion than mirth.
The incongruity resolution theory avoids any mention of humor content, thereby implying that the content of humor is irrelevant to whether stimuli would be perceived as funny. Humor content can include sexual, sexist, racist and dark themes (Carretero-Dios et al., 2010), which reflect aversive humor (Martin et al., 2003). Some people may find aversive content to be offensive where others may perceive it as funny. Yet, highly aversive humor can impede the experience of mirth despite the occurrence of resolving incongruities (Carretero-Dios et al., 2010). Thus, another requirement of evoking mirth may be the degree of perceived aversiveness.
Benign violation theory.
The benign violation theory posits that to experience mirth, two cognitive evaluations must occur simultaneously (McGraw and Warren, 2010). The first requirement is for the humor to violate expectations, similar to the incongruity resolution theory. The second requirement is for the event to be perceived as inconsequential (i.e. benign). Accordingly, events that are perceived as too harmful or offensive are unlikely to evoke mirth (Warren and McGraw, 2016). Consider the event of someone slipping and falling on a patch of ice. The behavior of falling is atypical to norms (i.e. a violation), thus meeting one requirement. If that accident resulted in a serious injury, the event would be perceived as too harmful (i.e. not benign) and obstruct the elicitation of mirth. However, if the person immediately stood up and appeared unharmed (i.e. benign), the event is more likely to elicit mirth.
The requirement for the perception of both a violation and the event being benign has been repeatedly supported (McGraw and Warren, 2010). One experimental study involves the scenario of a son managing his father’s cremated remains (McGraw and Warren, 2010). In the study, all participants read “Before he passed away, Keith’s father told his son to cremate his body. Then he told Keith to do whatever he wished with the remains.” Then, participants were randomly assigned to read one of two punchlines. The non-humorous version read, “Keith decided to bury his dead father’s ashes,” whereas the humorous version read, “Keith decided to snort his dead father’s ashes” (p. 1143). The humorous version was more frequently rated as funny (32%) compared to the non-humorous version (8%). Importantly, 44% of participants indicated the humor version made them laugh when the scenario was evaluated as both a violation and as benign. Comparably, only 13% of the participants laughed when they reported the humor version as either a violation or as benign. This study supports the need for both features to be present to prompt mirth. Another implication is that the perception of what is a violation and what is benign varies between individuals. In other words, the perception of whether the content is too much of a violation or too benign is not a universal appraisal. Rather, people having different evaluations of the content of humor will respond differently (Carretero-Dios and Ruch, 2010). In summary, the benign-violation theory specifies the degree of violation such that it needs to be perceived as trivial (i.e. inconsequential).
Principle 1: Humor should include a benign violation of mental schemas, societal norms or other expectations.
Social theories
Superiority theory.
The superiority theory proposes that mirth is experienced when someone suddenly recognizes their own superiority by perceiving the misfortunes and flaws of others (Ferguson and Ford, 2008). This perspective adds an additional explanation for why someone slipping and falling on ice can be funny. People can feel a sudden sense of superiority by evaluating another individual as being clumsy or uncoordinated. The target of humor becomes the individual and their inferior behavior stimulates a sense of superiority. This phenomenon of finding pleasure in others’ misfortunes is called schadenfreude (Smith et al., 1996). Although superiority theory does not take into account whether others’ unfortunate experiences can be too extreme, the benign violation theory explains that individual differences can explain why a situation is no longer perceived as being benign. Specifically, experiencing mirth at the expense of others is more likely for people with a tendency to express less concern for others (i.e. low in agreeableness; Ruch and Hehl, 1987).
In addition, mirth is especially likely when the humor target is an outgroup member (Kochersberger et al., 2014). Participants were presented and asked to evaluate the funniness of multiple jokes, of which four were sexist. An example is “If a woman is in the forest, talking to herself, with no man around, is she still complaining?” (Kochersberger et al., 2014, p. 446). There were no mean differences between men and women’s ratings of funniness. Instead, people rated these sexist jokes as funnier when they scored higher on hostile sexism or lower on identification with women. Thus, by feeling disconnected from the target group, people were more likely to perceive those jokes as funny. The concept of group identification moderating the connection between aversive humor and mirth has been observed in nonsocial settings as well.
Aside from social comparisons, people can laugh at the misfortune of anything when they perceive a psychological distance between themselves and the humor target (McGraw et al., 2012). Psychological distance refers to spatial (i.e. physically being far away from something), social (i.e. the strength of the relationship), temporal (i.e. time elapsed) and hypothetical (i.e. the reality of the situation) distance. For example, failed attempts at humor regarding current events are sometimes explained as “too soon” (Gottfried, 2016). In a series of experiments to test each type of psychological distance, participants reported more extreme misfortunes as being funnier when they were perceived as more distal (McGraw et al., 2012). In a similar vein, people can laugh at their own behavior when that behavior is separate from their self-identity (Gruner, 1997). In other words, when people are able to distance themselves from their own mishaps rather than perceive those mishaps as a defining characteristic, they are able to feel superior to a past version of themself and laugh at their own flaws. In an experimental study wherein participants were presented with their own digitally distorted faces, people who were more likely to laugh at their own faces were likely to take themselves less seriously (Beermann and Ruch, 2011). Thus, hypothetically distancing themselves from their distorted face enabled the participants to experience mirth.
Group dynamics.
The effect that social settings have on humor tends to be more relevant to mirthful displays rather than mirthful experiences. In other words, social settings may not impact whether someone experiences mirth, but these settings do influence whether someone expresses mirth (e.g. laughter, smiling). For instance, experiencing mirth or amusement was rated as no different for people who watched a funny movie alone compared to when they watched it with friends, yet the amount of laughter was greater when watching with friends (Devereux and Ginsburg, 2001). This partially describes the effects of laugh tracks (Lee and Marsella, 2011).
In addition, the characteristics of laughter vary according to social status (Oveis et al., 2016). In this study, the type of laugh was coded according to how expressive and disinhibited it sounded. Although both high- and low-status participants displayed a similar number of laughter episodes, higher status participants displayed more episodes of dominant (i.e. more expressive) laughter than their counterparts. Other humor research examining groups has shown that people smile more often when they perceive themselves to be lower in status than the humorist (Hall et al., 2005). Laughter could be an ingratiation tactic, such that behaviors that flatter the supervisor (laughing at their humor attempts) are likely to increase how much the supervisor likes the employee, which in turn has benefits for the employee (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Dulebohn et al., 2012). In fact, empirical evidence shows that when a leader’s humor attempts are met by an employee’s reactions, this increases an employee’s psychological capital (Shih and Nguyen, 2022).
Expressing laughter among peers, on the other hand, may offer more positive group functioning and future social benefits. In an experience sampling study, participants reported that laughing in a social interaction increased the felt intimacy and enjoyment of subsequent interactions with the same person (Kashdan et al., 2014). Moreover, felt intimacy and enjoyment of a social interaction was unrelated to laughter in subsequent interactions with that person, suggesting a causal relationship in which laughter led to increased social cohesion. Likewise, dyads who were assigned to complete a humorous task reported a stronger social connection than dyads who completed a non-humorous task (Fraley and Aron, 2004). These studies suggest that members who share a common humor experience report higher social connections. Thus, humorous interactions can facilitate social connections and benefit group members by promoting more pleasant interactions and sustain the benefits through continued social contacts.
Principle 2: Humor that evokes feelings of shared feelings of benign superiority in the audience will be more successful.
Contextual theories of humor
Arousal theory
The arousal theory proposes that humor activates arousal (i.e. arousal boost) followed by a sudden drop in arousal (i.e. arousal jag; Berlyne, 1972). At the point when incongruity is detected, such as the perception of someone slipping or the punchline of a joke, brain activity piques to locate an explanation for the incongruity (Hildebrand and Smith, 2014; Samson et al., 2008). Finding an explanation resolves the conflict caused by the incongruity, thus alleviating cognitive arousal. The arousal theory proposes that arousal boost and jag together induce a pleasant, mirthful experience. However, evidence has only supported the arousal boost as a mechanism for humor to result in mirth. After watching comedy films (Averill, 1969; Levi, 1965) or reading jokes (Godkewitsch, 1976), participants showed an increase in sympathetic arousal. Interestingly, sympathetic arousal continued to rise after the resolution of the punchlines (Godkewitsch, 1976). More recently, increases in physiological arousal were observed after watching humorous videos (Hamilton and Meston, 2011). These studies suggest that exposure to humor tends to be associated with a unilateral rise in arousal levels.
Optimal levels of arousal, however, seem to be a precondition to perceiving mirth. In an experiment, participants were randomly assigned to be injected with substances that either increased arousal (epinephrine), decreased arousal (chlorpromazine) or had no effect (saline) and were then exposed to comedy films (Schachter and Wheeler, 1962). Participants receiving epinephrine rated the films funnier than either of the other groups. Comparably, participants who were assigned to increase their arousal levels through exercise (Bunce et al., 1993) or by reading stimulating texts (i.e. sexual or violent; Cantor et al., 1974) subsequently rated humorous stimuli as funnier than control groups. Arousal theory thus complements the benign violation theory (McGraw and Warren, 2010), such that humor that is perceived as too arousing (i.e. no longer benign) or not arousing enough (i.e. not a violation) evokes arousal levels beyond those that are optimal for experiencing mirth. For example, someone who is sensitive to sexist jokes may not find sexist jokes funny because they are too stimulating. Conversely, someone may find simple jokes to be too easily resolved, therefore inhibiting an arousal boost.
Reversal theory
Reversal theory (Apter, 2001) proposed four independent dimensions that can describe any given mental state (i.e. telic versus paratelic, conformist versus negativistic, mastery versus sympathy and autic versus alloic). Although all of the dimensions have been studied in a variety of research domains, including addiction, crime, dieting and relationships (Apter, 2013), only the telic–paratelic dimension has been examined in the domain of humor. Specifically, the telic–paratelic dimension describes the current motivation as being serious or goal-directed (i.e. a telic state) versus being playful or non-goal-directed (i.e. a paratelic state). When in a paratelic state, people focus on the present, ignoring any events that appear irrelevant to the immediate place and time, and enjoy activities for their own sake. During this state, high arousal is perceived as enjoyable and pleasant, whereas low arousal (e.g. boredom) feels unpleasant. Conversely, being in a telic state involves a focus on the future, especially long-term goals, and evaluating how each moment and activity relates to achieving those goals. As such, low arousal is perceived as comfortable (e.g. relaxed), whereas high arousal is unpleasant. In support of this application to humor, research has found that people high in seriousness rated comedy films as less funny than people low in seriousness (Ruch, 1997). Likewise, when viewing distorted images of themselves, participants reported higher amusement and smiled more intensely when they were low in seriousness (Beermann and Ruch, 2011).
Principle 3: Humor is less successful in highly consequential or goal-directed situations.
Implications for the workplace
The aforementioned theories of humor explain the cognitive, social and contextual mechanisms that increase the chances of evaluating stimuli as funny. These describe the underlying principles of humor appraisal (i.e. a benign violation) and contexts (i.e. nonserious context) that govern the success of humor attempts. We also identify who is most likely to evaluate a humor attempt as funny (i.e. the “in group”). That is, effective humor must creatively appraise a situation to identify an incongruity and quickly judge whether the audience is sufficiently distal from the humor, or socially superior within the humor attempt. Successful humor is characterized by low aversiveness and requires moderate cognitive ability to reconcile the incongruity. This process takes practice, and professional joke writers write hundreds of potential jokes each day to identify a few funny statements. The difficulty, then, after generation is determining whether the audience and context fit the use of humor. Within the workplace, context may be particularly important, as successful humor should not inhibit goal striving (Apter, 2001; Cooper, 2016).
The effort is worthwhile because, by recognizing an incongruity or other violation, people may feel a sense of enjoyment when they identify an explanation. Emotions serve to motivate responses, both physical and cognitive (Frijda, 1988). For instance, feeling afraid in a threatening situation motivates a defensive response, including fighting or fleeing (Ekman, 1992). Although the action tendencies following negative emotions are better understood than following positive emotions, the broaden-and-build theory provides an explanation for the benefits of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2009). Specifically, positive emotions can help neutralize the cognitively restricting and physiologically damaging effects of negative emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2000) and can motivate exploration behaviors (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005). By engaging in explorative behaviors (i.e. broadening), people can gain new knowledge, skills or opportunities (i.e. building) that can subsequently improve a person’s adaptiveness in challenging situations. Because the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2009) is applicable to all positive emotions, mirth being reported as a positive and enjoyable emotion (Szabo, 2003) can also serve as advantageous by providing social, health and cognitive benefits.
Social benefits
As previously noted, expressing humor can provide social benefits in the form of improved social relationships. Humans have a fundamental need to belong to social groups (Baumeister and Leary, 1995), yet meeting new people is socially uncomfortable (Clegg, 2012). Humor seems to function as a social lubricant (Martin and Ford, 2018) that can initiate and strengthen social relationships. Research has shown that people who report using humor more often also rated themselves as more socially competent (Yip and Martin, 2006). Specifically, people who use humor more often tend to feel more comfortable with initiating relationships and disclosing more personal information. Similarly, sharing a humorous experience can also improve social connections by providing a distraction from social discomfort (Fraley and Aron, 2004). Furthermore, friends who reported having similar humor styles also reported having a strong relationship (Hunter et al., 2016). These shared mirthful experiences or shared humor preferences can stimulate and strengthen social connections. Within the workplace, this may manifest as group cohesion and liking.
Mirth will be associated with stronger group cohesion and individual attraction.
In particular, leaders and supervisors might be able to effectively leverage humor. Consider the Ukrainian president, a former comedian, who successfully used humor to embolden his citizens during the Russian invasion in 2022. Probably because of talent and experience, he was able to apply humor in a difficult situation (e.g. purportedly telling a volunteer who offered him exit from Kyiv, “I need ammunition, not a ride”; Associated Press, 2022). That is, leaders who are skilled can potentially use humor to build stronger relationships even in difficult humor contexts (e.g. in serious situations). In particular, humor can make people feel closer, which in the organization may manifest as trust or perceived sincerity when effectively applied. Similarly, they may feel close to the organization, or identify with it.
Supervisors and leaders who successfully use humor will have stronger relations with their constituents, operationalized as trust and perceived sincerity, and encourage stronger relations with the organization, operationalized as organizational identification.
Health benefits
The major health benefits offered by humor are a reduction in stressful experiences and a reduction in physical pain. The transactional model of stress defines stressful experiences as an encounter with any environmental factor that is perceived to threaten one’s well-being (Perrewé and Zellars, 1999). To clarify, the threatening environmental factors are termed stressors and negative psychological (e.g. cognitive, affective), behavioral and physiological responses are strains (Jex and Yankelevich, 2008). Strains can directly (e.g. high blood pressure) or indirectly (e.g. excessive alcohol use) lead to health problems. However, effective coping can mitigate strain or even encourage eustress (i.e. positive effects of stress; Perrewé and Zellars, 1999).
Humor can mitigate stressors through emotional and physiological pathways (Gremigni, 2014). First, positive emotions have the potential to reverse the effects of negative emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2000). For example, anxiety levels – after participants were told that they were to prepare and deliver a speech – were reduced faster when participants viewed an amusing film rather than a neutral or sad film (Fredrickson et al., 2000). Specific to mirth, when participants generated a humorous appraisal for an image commonly appraised to be negative, they reported lower negative emotional responses compared to generating non-humorous, positive reappraisals (Samson and Gross, 2014). Interestingly, the participants reported lower negative responses to the images a week after their participation when the image was humorously reappraised compared to non-humorously reappraised.
The second mechanism that can explain how humor attenuates the negative effect of stress is through the physiological effects of laughter (Gremigni, 2014). Laughing is a physically observable behavior that affects the cardiovascular, skeletal muscular and respiratory systems. Although laughter does not lower heart rate (White and Camarena, 1989), the cardiovascular effects seem to be focused on the blood vessels, subsequently improving blood circulation (Miller et al., 2006; Sugawara et al., 2010). Specifically, the endothelium (i.e. inner lining of the blood vessels) dilates during a laughing episode (Miller et al., 2006), releasing nitric oxide, which is involved in smooth muscle relaxation (Miller and Fry, 2009). Relaxation has also been observed in skeletal muscles after a laughing episode (Overeem et al., 2004). When testing the automatic activation of a muscle reflex, inducing laughter in participants weakened this reflex (Overeem et al., 1999), presumably by suppressing the excitability of the spinal cord (Overeem et al., 2004). Thus, muscular relaxation may occur after a laughing episode due to the suppression of certain nerve systems.
In addition, effects on the respiratory system have received limited but promising support. Laughter is associated with sharp but repeated deep breaths (Filippelli et al., 2001; Fry and Stoft, 1971). Surprisingly, this change in breathing pattern and emotional elevation was not related to an immediate change in blood oxygen levels (Fry and Stoft, 1971). Future research may examine the effects of repeated episodes of laughter over a period of time rather than a single episode. Although laughter may not have any known direct benefits for healthy individuals, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receive brief relief from trapped air in their lungs during a laughing episode (Brutsche et al., 2008).
The manifestation of job stressors (any work situation that requires adaptation) as strain (i.e. negative psychological, physiological and behavioral outcomes of stressors) can be buffered by mirth and laughter.
Cognitive benefits
The cognitive benefits associated with humor generally converge on cognitive scope. Scope can be described as width of attention or cognition (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005). Scope in attention refers to the degree of focus, whereas scope in cognition involves the ease in generating flexible, unusual or creative ideas. According to the broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions can enable people to open their mind’s eye and expand both cognitive and attentional scopes (Fredrickson, 2009). Breadth of attention can range from a gestalt, holistic perspective to a focus on individual details. Research has shown that people are better able to take a gestalt perspective when feeling positive. For instance, participants were presented with an image containing three squares placed in a triangle arrangement (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005). When participants were manipulated to feel positive by watching a film clip, they reported seeing a triangle more often than seeing squares. Conversely, when manipulated to feel negative, participants reported seeing squares more often than triangles. Although the impact of attentional scope has not been examined in a humor study, the same effects are expected to occur because the broaden-and-build theory does not differentiate between discrete emotions (Fredrickson, 2001). Because mirth is also evaluated as a positive emotion (Szabo, 2003) and is a similar experience to amusement (Shiota et al., 2003), the propositions of the broaden-and-build theory should be relevant to humor research. Thus, the effects of experiencing mirth should manifest in the ability to expand the scope of attention.
The scope of cognition involves the ability to reorganize mental structures. Based on the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005), positive emotions should enable broader, more flexible mental structures. For instance, participants feeling higher positive emotions were better able to categorize both an elevator and a camel as representing modes of transportation (Isen and Daubman, 1984). Mental flexibility has also been observed in humor research. When exposed to humorous cartoons rather than poems or no reading materials, participants were better at solving math problems (Ford et al., 2012). Similarly, when expressing or primed to express humor in the form of sarcasm, participants were better able to identify a meaningful connection among three unrelated stimuli (i.e. the remote association test) and were better at solving a cognitive problem (i.e. the Duncker candle problem; Huang et al., 2015). These studies point to cognitive flexibility as a benefit of mirth or producing humor.
Employee learning and development activities (e.g. onboarding, training) that effectively use mirth are more effective at building connection and flexibility than developmental programs that do not.
Concluding remarks
In sum, the humor theories show that humor requires cognitive effort, induces enhanced self-perceptions (i.e. superiority) and heightens arousal levels. Although previous research has studied humor in terms of socialization, forming in- and out-groups, exerting power and using humor to relieve tension (Taylor et al., 2022), future research should continue to study the social, health and cognitive benefits of humor. There may be applications of this within the workplace regarding employee–supervisor relations, employee stress outcomes and training/development. Although a majority of humor research both within and outside of the workplace domain highlight the benefits of humor (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Samson and Gross, 2014), there is growing evidence that these benefits are not consistent across all contexts or people (Cann et al., 2010; Robert et al., 2016; Samson and Gross, 2014).
Although it is clear that further research is needed to test the propositions, humor research needs to be more transparent in the operationalization of humor. Unfortunately, in previous research, the attempts and quality of humor are often not separated, precluding clear interpretation. For example, it is unclear if humor-based interventions have any group-level benefits. In addition, humor is risky, and perceptions of humor success can be biased (Evans et al., 2019; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006), potentially leading to negative effects of humor in the workplace. Future research is needed to know whether we should encourage humor and if interventions can increase humor success.
References
Apter, M.J. (2001), Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, doi: 10.1037/10427-000.
Apter, M.J. (2013), “Developing reversal theory: some suggestions for future research”, Journal of Motivation, Emotion, and Personality, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.12689/jmep.2013.101.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006), “Leader–member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 793-801.
Associated Press (2022), “Live updates: Zelenskyy declines US offer to evacuate Kyiv”, available at: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-united-nations-kyiv-6ccba0905f1871992b93712d3585f548
Averill, J.R. (1969), “Autonomic response patterns during sadness and mirth”, Psychophysiology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 399-414, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1969.tb02840.x.
Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995), “The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 497-529, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Beermann, U. and Ruch, W. (2011), “Can people really 'laugh at themselves?'– Experimental and correlational evidence”, Emotion, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 492-501, doi: 10.1037/a0023444.
Berlyne, D.E. (1972), “Humor and its kin”, in Goldstein, J.H. and McGhee, P.E. (Eds), The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 43-60.
Bitterly, T.B., Brooks, A.W. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2017), “Risky business: when humor increases and decreases status”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 112 No. 3, p. 431.
Brutsche, M.H., Grossman, P., Müller, R.E. and Wiegand, J. (2008), “Impact of laughter on air trapping in severe chronic obstructive lung disease”, International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 185-192.
Bunce, S.C., Larsen, R.J. and Cruz, M. (1993), “Individual differences in the excitation transfer effect”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 507-514, doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90333-X.
Cann, A., Stilwell, K. and Taku, K. (2010), “Humor styles, positive personality and health”, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 213-235.
Cantor, J.R., Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (1974), “Enhancement of humor appreciation by transferred excitation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 812-821, doi: 10.1037/h0037543.
Carretero-Dios, H. and Ruch, W. (2010), “Humor appreciation and sensation seeking: invariance of findings across culture and assessment instrument?”, Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 427-445.
Carretero-Dios, H., Pérez, C. and Buela-Casal, G. (2010), “Assessing the appreciation of the content and structure of humor: construction of a new scale”, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 307-325.
Clegg, J.W. (2012), “Stranger situations: examining a self-regulatory model of socially awkward encounters”, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 693-712, doi: 10.1177/1368430212441637.
Cooper, C.D. (2016), “Humor and leadership”, The Psychology of Humor at Work, Routledge, London, pp. 22-39.
Cooper, C.D., Kong, D.T. and Crossley, C.D. (2018), “Leader humor as an interpersonal resource: integrating three theoretical perspectives”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 769-796.
Decker, W.H. (1987), “Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 225-232.
Devereux, P.G. and Ginsburg, G.P. (2001), “Sociality effects on the production of laughter”, The Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 227-240.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2012), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
Dunbar, R.I.M., Launay, J. and Curry, O. (2016), “The complexity of jokes is limited by cognitive constraints on mentalizing”, Human Nature, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 130-140.
Duncan, W.J. (1985), “The superiority theory of humor at work: joking relationships as indicators of formal and informal status patterns in small, task-oriented groups”, Small Group Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 556-564.
Duncan, W.J., Smeltzer, L.R. and Leap, T.L. (1990), “Humor and work: applications of joking behavior to management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 255-278.
Ekman, P. (1992), “Facial expressions of emotion: an old controversy and new findings”, in Bruce, V., Cowey, A., Ellis, A.W. and Perrett, D.I. (Eds), Processing the Facial Image, Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 63-69.
Evans, J.B., Slaughter, J.E., Ellis, A.P. and Rivin, J.M. (2019), “Gender and the evaluation of humor at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 8, p. 1077.
Ferguson, M.A. and Ford, T.E. (2008), “Disparagement humor: a theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories”, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 283-312.
Filippelli, M., Pellegrino, R., Iandelli, I., Misuri, G., Rodarte, J.R., Duranti, R., Brusasco, V. and Scano, G. (2001), “Respiratory dynamics during laughter”, Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 1441-1446.
Ford, T.E., Ford, B.L., Boxer, C.F. and Armstrong, J. (2012), “Effect of humor on state anxiety and math performance”, Humor, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Fraley, B. and Aron, A. (2004), “The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters”, Personal Relationships, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2009), Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the Hidden Strength of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity, and Thrive, Crown Publishers/Random House, New York, NY.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Branigan, C. (2005), “Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 313-332, doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238.
Fredrickson, B.L., Mancuso, R.A., Branigan, C. and Tugade, M.M. (2000), “The undoing effect of positive emotions”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 237-258, doi: 10.1023/A:1010796329158.
Frijda, N.H. (1988), “The laws of emotion”, American Psychologist, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 349-358, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.5.349.
Fry, W.F., Jr and Stoft, P.E. (1971), “Mirth and oxygen saturation levels of peripheral blood”, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 76-84.
Gloor, J.L., Cooper, C.D., Bowes-Sperry, L. and Chawla, N. (2022), “Risqué business? Interpersonal anxiety and humor in the #MeToo era”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 107 No. 6, pp. 932-950.
Godkewitsch, M. (1976), “Physiological and verbal indices of arousal in rated humour”, in Chapman, A.J., Foot, H.C., Chapman, A.J. and Foot, H.C. (Eds), Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications, Transaction Publishers, NJ, pp. 117-138.
Gottfried, G. (2016), “Gilbert Gottfried on his infamous 9/11 joke and ‘too soon’”, Vulture, available at: www.vulture.com/2016/02/gilbert-gottfried-on-his-911-joke-too-soon.html
Gremigni, P. (2014), “Humor and mental health”, in Gremigni, P. (Ed.), Humor and Health Promotion, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 173-188.
Gruner, C.R. (1997), The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why we Laugh, Routledge, London.
Hall, J.A., Coats, E.J. and LeBeau, L.S. (2005), “Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131 No. 6, pp. 898-924.
Hamilton, L.D. and Meston, C.M. (2011), “The role of salivary cortisol and DHEA-S in response to sexual, humorous, and anxiety-inducing stimuli”, Hormones and Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 765-771.
Hildebrand, K.D. and Smith, S.D. (2014), “Attentional biases toward humor: separate effects of incongruity detection and resolution”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 287-296, doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9374-1.
Huang, L., Gino, F. and Galinsky, A.D. (2015), “The highest form of intelligence: sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 131, pp. 162-177.
Hughes, L.W. and Avey, J.B. (2009), “Transforming with levity: humor, leadership, and follower attitudes”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 540-562.
Hunter, S.C., Fox, C.L. and Jones, S.E. (2016), “Humor style similarity and difference in friendship dyads”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Isen, A.M. and Daubman, K.A. (1984), “The influence of affect on categorization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1206-1217.
Jex, S.M. and Yankelevich, M. (2008), “Work stress”, in Barling, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 498-518.
Kashdan, T.B., Yarbro, J., McKnight, P.E. and Nezlek, J.B. (2014), “Laughter with someone else leads to future social rewards: temporal change using experience sampling methodology”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 58, pp. 15-19.
Kim, T.Y., Lee, D.R. and Wong, N.Y.S. (2016), “Supervisor humor and employee outcomes: the role of social distance and affective trust in supervisor”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 125-139.
Kochersberger, A.O., Ford, T.E., Woodzicka, J.A., Romero-Sanchez, M. and Carretero-Dios, H. (2014), “The role of identification with women as a determinant of amusement with sexist humor”, HUMOR, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 441-460.
Lee, J. and Marsella, S. (2011), “Modeling side participants and bystanders: the importance of being a laugh track”, International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 240-247.
Levi, L. (1965), “The urinary output of adrenalin and noradrenalin during pleasant and unpleasant emotional states”, Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 80-85, doi: 10.1097/00006842-196501000-00009.
McGraw, A.P. and Warren, C. (2010), “Benign violations: making immoral behavior funny”, Psychological Science, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1141-1149, doi: 10.1177/0956797610376073.
McGraw, A.P., Warren, C., Williams, L.E. and Leonard, B. (2012), “Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps”, Psychological Science, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1215-1223, doi: 10.1177/0956797612443831.
Martin, R.A. and Ford, T. (2018), The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Martin, R.A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J. and Weir, K. (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, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 48-75.
Mathies, C., Chiew, T.M. and Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2016), “The antecedents and consequences of humour for service: a review and directions for research”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-162.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D.J. and Viswesvaran, C. (2012), “A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 155-190.
Miller, M. and Fry, W.F. (2009), “The effect of mirthful laughter on the human cardiovascular system”, Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 636-639.
Miller, M., Mangano, C., Park, Y., Goel, R., Plotnick, G.D. and Vogel, R.A. (2006), “Impact of cinematic viewing on endothelial function”, Heart, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 261-262.
Oveis, C., Spectre, A., Smith, P.K., Liu, M.Y. and Keltner, D. (2016), “Laughter conveys status”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 109-115.
Overeem, S., Lammers, G.J. and Van Dijk, J.G. (1999), “Weak with laughter”, The Lancet, Vol. 354 No. 9181, p. 838.
Overeem, S., Taal, W., Öcal Gezici, E., Lammers, G.J. and Van Dijk, J.G. (2004), “Is motor inhibition during laughter due to emotional or respiratory influences?”, Psychophysiology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 254-258.
Perrewé, P.L. and Zellars, K.L. (1999), “An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 739-752.
Purtill, C. (2021), “How to laugh at work”, The New York Times, available at: www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/business/dealbook/humor-seriously-work.html
Reddit (2023), available at: www.reddit.com/r/dadjokes/comments/75cbc4/how_do_you_hide_an_elephant_in_a_cherry_tree/ (accessed 25 February 2020).
Robert, C., Dunne, T.C. and Iun, J. (2016), “The impact of leader humor on subordinate job satisfaction: the crucial role of leader–subordinate relationship quality”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 375-406.
Romero, E.J. and Cruthirds, K.W. (2006), “The use of humor in the workplace”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 58-69.
Ruch, W. (1997), “State and trait cheerfulness and the induction of exhilaration: a FACS study”, European Psychologist, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 328-341, doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.2.4.328.
Ruch, W. and Hehl, F.J. (1987), “Personal values as facilitating and inhibiting factors in the appreciation of humor content”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 453-472.
Samson, A.C. and Gross, J.J. (2014), “The dark and light sides of humor”, in Gruber, J. and Moskowitz, J.T. (Eds), Positive Emotion: Integrating the Light Sides and Dark Sides; Positive Emotion: Integrating the Light Sides and Dark Sides, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 169-182, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0010.
Samson, A.C. and Hempelmann, C.F. (2011), “Humor with backgrounded incongruity: does more required suspension of disbelief affect humor perception?”, Humor International Journal of Humor Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 167-185, doi: 10.1515/HUMR.2011.011.
Samson, A.C. and Huber, O. (2007), “The interaction of cartoonist's gender and formal features of cartoons”, Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1515/HUMOR.2007.001.
Samson, A.C., Zysset, S. and Huber, O. (2008), “Cognitive humor processing: different logical mechanisms in nonverbal cartoons–an fMRI study”, Social Neuroscience, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 125-140, doi: 10.1080/17470910701745858.
Schachter, S. and Wheeler, L. (1962), “Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement”, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 121-128, doi: 10.1037/h0040391.
Shih, H.A. and Nguyen, T.V. (2022), “Effects of leader-follower congruence in humor on employee creativity: a broaden and build theory approach”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 743-754, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.2021886.
Shiota, M.N., Campos, B. and Keltner, D. (2003), “The faces of positive emotion: prototype displays of awe, amusement, and pride”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1000 No. 1, pp. 296-299, doi: 10.1196/annals.1280.029.
Smith, R.H., Turner, T.J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C.W., Urch-Druskat, V. and Weston, C.M. (1996), “Envy and schadenfreude”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 158-168.
Sugawara, J., Tarumi, T. and Tanaka, H. (2010), “Effect of mirthful laughter on vascular function”, The American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 856-859.
Suls, J.M. (1972), “A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: an information-processing analysis”, in Goldstein, J.H. and McGhee, P.E. (Eds), The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 81-100.
Szabo, A. (2003), “The acute effects of humor and exercise on mood and anxiety”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 152-162.
Tan, L., Wang, Y. and Lu, H. (2021), “Leader humor and employee upward voice: the role of employee relationship quality and traditionality”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 221-236.
Taylor, S., Simpson, J. and Hardy, C. (2022), “The use of humor in employee-to-employee workplace communication: a systematic review with thematic synthesis”, International Journal of Business Communication, Online Advance.
Warren, C. and McGraw, A.P. (2016), “Differentiating what is humorous from what is not”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 407-430.
Westwood, R.I. and Johnston, A. (2013), “Humor in organization: from function to resistance”, Humor, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
White, S. and Camarena, P. (1989), “Laughter as a stress reducer in small groups”, Humour, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 73-79.
Yip, J.A. and Martin, R.A. (2006), “Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social competence”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1202-1208.