7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
1/25
Running head: HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 1
Humor as a Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Strategy:
A Focus on Speakers
Tara Hack
Arizona State University
Dr. Paul Mongeau
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
2/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 2
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to understand the ways in which humor functions as a
communicative strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance in message senders. In order to do so,
a comprehensive literature review will be presented whereby humor theories will be analyzed
alongside cognitive dissonance theory as guiding theoretical frameworks from which to draw
conclusions about this potential phenomenon. This paper is organized by three sections- humor
theories and functions (including the role of humor in persuasion research), cognitive dissonance
theory and dissonance reduction strategies, and lastly, the connections between these two bodies
of research, in efforts to demonstrate that humor may function as a strategy to relieve cognitive
dissonance in message senders. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of implications and
future directions.
Key words:Humor, Relief Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Dissonance Reduction, Uncertainty
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
3/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 3
Humor as a Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Strategy:
A Focus on Speakers
Several researchers have focused on the use of humor in everyday interactions. For
example, scholars have examined the ways in which humor provides entertainment (Berger,
2001; Hill, 1988), facilitates group cohesion and relationship development (Hopfl, 2007; Porcu,
2005; Ziv, 2010), in addition to how it influences persuasive communication (Meyer, 2000;
Markiewicz, 1974; Skalski, Tamborini, Glazer, & Smith, 2009), among other contexts. Humor is
understood to be an innately social, goal-driven phenomenon that is constituted of humorist,
stimulus, recipient, and reaction (Lili, 2012, p. 95). Humor has been studied as both an
individual personality characteristic (e.g. the study of ones sense of humor), and as a social
event (e.g., the exchange of jokes between friends) (Lynch, 2002). As a communicative act,
humor requires the exchange of messages between individuals, followed by an audience
interpretation of the message that renders its content humorous (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield &
Booth-Butterfield, 1995). In some instances, (though not always the case) laughter has served as
a reliable indicator/response for researchers interested in the interpretation of humorous
communication, as to whether or not speakers messages are understood and appreciated as
comical by an audience (Chapman & Chapman, 1974; Lili 2012). By analyzing various
responses to humor, researchers gain a better cultural understanding of humorous trends
regarding style and content.
Furthermore, humor theorists have established organizing principles to describe how
humor functions in society by means of three major theories- superiority theory (Keith-Speigel,
1984; Meyer, 2000) incongruity theory (Graham, 1995; Lili, 2012), and relief theory (Freud,
1960; Perks, 2012; Perlmutter, 2002). The latter two of these theories have been used by scholars
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
4/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 4
to elaborate on the cognitive and communicative roles of humor in situational meaning making
(Brown, 2005; Tracy, Myers & Scott, 2006), including the ways in which various forms of
humor function as coping mechanisms to reduce uncertainty and manage social tensions
(Graham, 1995; Lili, 2012). Consistent with these claims, a study by Kelly (2002) found that
humor is frequently used to reduce stress, anxiety, negative cognitive states and psychological
discomfort, while increasing positive affective states. Because humor has been found to
effectively manage tensions by introducing positive affective responses and psychological states,
thereby alleviating tension and the experience of discomfort (i.e., negative affective states),
humor may also function as a communicative strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance
(Festinter, 1957). For the purpose of this paper, the term tension will be analyzed in the context
of cognitive dissonance theory, first introduced by Leon Festinger, as an undesirable affective
state (or conflict) that stems from a discrepancy between message senders thoughts and
behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance theory asserts that individuals experience
psychological discomfort when there is a discrepancy between two or more cognitions
(Festinger). According to Festinger, human beings are naturally driven to reduce the experience
of cognitive dissonance due to the tension and discomfort this creates.
Given this research, this is a space where humor can function as a motivational and
communicative strategy to reduce cognitive dissonance in and for message senders during
instances of psychological discomfort. Humor allows for the pairing of disjointed ideas, and
according to humor theorists, people laugh when they experience ill-suited pairings of ideas,
situations, or concepts that are framed as humorous expressions (Keith-Speigel, 1984, p. 19).
However, few (if any) communication researchers have established this direct connection
between humor and cognitive dissonance. Perhaps this relationship remains unexplored because
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
5/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 5
humor has traditionally been studied by psychologists as a form of cognitive relief (Meyer,
2000), and by communication theorists as a purposeful act, focused on audience effects rather
than speaker motivations (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Perhaps it is because the experience of
cognitive dissonance is a sender focused area of research, whereas the study of humor remains
dependent upon receivers interpretations. One thing is clear, there is a significant gap in the
literature regarding the juxtaposition of these two topics in communication studies. The purpose
of this paper is to therefore draw connections between humor research and cognitive dissonance
theory in order to understand the role of humor in the experience of cognitive dissonance to
contribute to this field of research. Stated as a research question, the study seeks to answer:
RQ: How does humor function as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy for message
senders, if at all?
Following is a literature review whereby humor theories, specifically relief theory (Freud, 1960;
Perks, 2012; Perlmutter, 2002) and research studies, will be integrated with cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger, 1957) and reduction strategies as guiding theoretical frameworks from which
to draw conclusions about this phenomenon. The literature is organized by the following
sections- humor theories and research, including the role of humor in persuasion, cognitive
dissonance theory and dissonance reduction strategies, and lastly, the connections between these
two bodies of research in support of the aforementioned research question.
Integrating Humor and Cognitive Dissonance Theory
It is first important to situate humor in the context of communication studies by pairing
the existing research from psychology and communication on the functions of humor in society.
This discussion includes an analysis of humor as both a cognitive and communicative
phenomenon, in addition to a brief summary of humor in persuasion research. Following this
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
6/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 6
discussion is an examination of the major functions and theories of humor, concluding with a
focus on relief theory, in order to provide a context for the juxtaposition of humor and cognitive
dissonance.
Study of Humor
The study of humor has been approached by social scientists on an individual level (Ziv,
2010), such as examining ones sense of humorvia cognitive processes (Meyer, 2000), as well as
on a social level by analyzing the humorous exchange of messages and their perceived outcomes
(Mintz, 2985). Multiple theorists regard humor as a highly cognitive experience (Brown, 2005)
that involves an internal redefining of sociocultural realityresulting in a mirthful state of
mind (Meyer, 2000, p. 312). Elaborating on the cognitive functions of humor, Brown (2005)
stated, many theorists have noted that humour[sic] mimics reasoning by making abstract
conceptual connections (p. 12). According to research by Kelly (2002), the cognitive ability to
manipulate and reframe ideas playfully enables individuals with a sense of humor to view
unpleasant events as funny (p. 658). For example, Chapple and Ziebland (2004) examined the
role of humor in patients with fatal illness, and found that the use of humor provided patients
with a means of coping with adversity, exploring ambiguities about their health, and managing
psychological tensions about health uncertainties surrounding their diagnoses through cognitive
reframing. These assertions raise questions about the likelihood of humor to serve as a cognitive
mechanism for reframing cognitive dissonance by adopting a humorous state of mind.
Humor has also been analyzed as a form of communication and is typically regarded as
persuasive by nature (Meyer, 2000). For example, researchers have concluded that humor is not
generally produced for humors sake, but is a goal-oriented expression by a sender with an
alternative intended message and/or purpose (Lili, 2012), sometimes as an act of social critique
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
7/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 7
(often in the context of stand-up comedy) or as a means of self-disclosure, among other
motivations (Madison, 2005). As stated by Lynch (2002), it is communication [that] acts as the
medium in humor between the structure of social settings and the motivations of individuals (p.
424).
As it relates to the study of persuasion, humor has been shown to increase source
likability between sender and receiver due to its affiliative function (Lyttle, 2001; OQuin &
Aronoff, 1981). For example, in a study conducted on humor in the workplace, humor was found
help new employees negotiate entry into organizations by facilitating the transition from out-
group member to in-group member, increasing their overall likeability (Heiss & Carmack, 2011).
This study mimics the results from OQuin and Aronoff (1981), which found that liked
communicators carry more social influence and are therefore able to gain greater interpersonal
compliance in business setting (p. 349). This study reveals that humorous people may be
perceived as more persuasive communicators.
Humor has also been studied in the context of persuasion via advertising campaigns.
When used in persuasive advertisements, humor has been shown to increase perceived source
credibility in consumers by creating positive emotions, such as joy and mirth (Skalski et al.,
2009). Moreover, Lyttle (2001) published a report on the effectiveness of humor in persuasion,
and reported that humor (in the form of irony) enhanced persuasive message effects by serving
as a distraction to receivers from developing counterarguments to senders messages. Lyttle
found that the distraction of humor inhibited central processing (a characteristic of the
elaboration likelihood model) for message receivers, and resulted in an increase of positive
emotions, trust, and overall likeability for the source. These studies highlight the transactional
nature of humor and persuasive capabilities for humor to influence affective cognitive states.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
8/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 8
Humor Functions and Theories
Although humor theorists have differed in the ways in which they have traditionally
defined humor (e.g., as a comedic performance, a personality characteristic, a communicative
act, a dyadic/social experience) (Dudden, 1985; Meyer, 2000; Lili, 2012), they have agreed upon
three major theories that explain the functions of humor in society. It is important to discuss
these theories in order to develop a context for relationship between humor and cognitive
dissonance. Historically, these theories have been studied in the context of comedic
performances, originating with the rhetoric of Mark Twain as a performative and persuasive
attempt at cultural critique (Dudden, 1985); however, researchers have since extended the study
of humor to the areas of psychology (Freud, 1960), education (Banas, Dunbar, Rodriguez & Liu,
2011), health (Wanzer, Sparks, Frymier, 2009), persuasion (Skalski et al.), and interpersonal
communication studies (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1995) in order to
explore its many functions and effects.
Superiority Theory.
First is the superiority theory of humor, which posits that humor allows audiences to
laugh at the foolishness of others as an expression of dominance or superiority (Keith-Speigel,
1984; Perks, 2012). Humor styles congruent with superiority theory include ridicule, teasing,
insults, stereotypes, or sarcasm (Berger, 2001; Gilbert, 2004; Meyer, 2000), and are assumed to
leave the audience with greater feelings of self-worth after the denigration of a target (Perks,
2012, p. 121). As it relates to cognitions and affective states, superiority theory assumes that
humorists experience elation in the form of triumph over and at the expense of others. However,
some scholars have argued that this triumph may produce consequent cognitive tensions if their
attempt at superiority-driven humor results in feelings of stupidity, immorality or confusion by
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
9/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 9
the speakers (Burke, Sparkes, & Allen-Collinson, 2008). The effects of this pattern will be
elaborated upon in the following section reviewing cognitive dissonance theory.
Incongruity Theory.
Incongruity theory describes humor as a process tied to the experience of the
inconsistencies found in everyday life. Incongruity, as stated by McGhee, is defined as
something unexpected, out of context, inappropriate, unreasonable, illogical, [and/or]
exaggerated (as cited in Lili, 2012, p. 10). Incongruity theory assumes that people laugh when
situations contain these elements and are framed as humorous message content (Keith-Speigel,
1984, p. 19). According to Graham (1995), incongruity theories focus on the cognitive
processes involved in perceiving humor and reacting to incongruities (i.e., humor results from
the discovery of an incongruity) (p. 158). Several theorists argue that incongruities are at the
core of all humorous messages (Lili, 2012) and that the discovery of an incongruity is an
essential condition of humor (Graham, 1995; Perlmutter, 2002). The incongruity theory attempts
to highlight the ways in which individuals make sense of conceptual inconsistencies through
expressions of humor (i.e., jokes, wit, irony, sarcasm) and/or laughter.
Cognitive Relief Theory.
Of most relevance to this review is the cognitive relief theory of humor (Wilson, 1979),
also referred to as the psychoanalytic theory of humor, originally proposed by Freud (1960). This
theory assumes that people laugh in order to relieve cognitive tensions that are otherwise
suppressed, thus creating psychological discomfort. Relief theory further suggests that laughter,
(as a response to humor) functions as a vehicle to rid of built-up disagreeable emotions, cognitive
tensions, and/or nervous energies as an attempt to regain cognitive homeostasis after a struggle
or strain has occurred (Lynch, 2002). One form of humor associated with the relief theory is
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
10/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 10
contextual irony, meaning that the seriousness (or lack of seriousness) of ones discourse is not
consonant with the gravity of a situation (Perks, 2012, p. 124). This type of humor is routinely
found in television shows such as The Colbert Report and/or Daily Show with John Stewart,
where the show hosts use irony as a means to expose crisis situations. In this way, the humorist
attempts to alleviate psychological discomfort (both on behalf of the speaker and audience)
through the expression of contextual irony in the form of a joke. Relief theory provides a more
comprehensive understanding about speaker motivations to reduce cognitive distress by
establishing connections between the experience of psychological distress and the concurrent
drive to regain cognitive homeostasis (neither positive or negative affect) through the use of
humor.
Research by Chapple and Ziebland (2004) on patients with testicular cancer reported that
the patients jokes allowed for the expression of a wide range of emotions, including anxiety,
guilt, disappointment, anger and group which helped the patients to manage feelings, reduce
tensions and share solidarity among other patients (p. 1125). This tension management is made
possible because the relief theory assumes an affective change in the message sender and
receiver through the use of humor (Perks, 2012). This theory provides a platform for exploring
the ways in which humor functions as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy for message
senders by reducing tensions, thus allowing message senders to regain a homeostatic cognitive
state during experiences of dissonance. In order to further develop this conclusion, a review of
cognitive dissonance theory and dissonance reduction strategies is provided as context for this
potential phenomenon.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
11/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 11
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
The theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is predicated on the assumption that
people have certain cognitions, or pieces of knowledge, about ones own behavior and about the
surrounding world, including the behavior and opinions of other people, as well as perceived
characteristics of the physical world (Brehm, 2007, p. 382). These cognitions are reflective of
individualspast experiences and carry potential to shape behaviors and attitudes (Oshikawa,
1968). Cognitive dissonance occurs when two or more cognitions or thoughts are in
disagreement with one another, (Festinger, 1957, p. 20) thus creating an uncomfortable
cognitive state. Because people have a need for consistency, a discrepancy occurs between
cognitions which results in tension (Stiff & Mongeau in press). Cognitive dissonance has
typically been studied in situations where individuals are required to make a decision between
competing and favorable alternatives (Graham, 2007). A common example of cognitive
dissonance can be found in the following circumstance: a smoker continues to smoke regardless
of their belief that smoking causes negative or detrimental effects to their health (Dijkstra, 2009).
In this example, the smokers belief about their behavior is discrepant with the behavior itself.
Cognitive dissonance theory accounts for situations in which an individual may believe one
thing, yet acts or behaves in a different way.
According to Brehm (2007), the magnitude of dissonance one experiences is directly
related to three factors- importance of cognitions, resistance to change, and the relationship of
the person to the cognition (i.e., how individuals perceive the cognition in relation to self). In
other words dissonance is primarily dependent on the importance ones eventual decision made
in order to reduce (and/or cope with) the tension, and [the] relative attractiveness of the
unchosen alternative (Stiff & Mongeau, in press). Some individuals self-reported greater
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
12/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 12
tolerances and/or tendencies for cognitive dissonance based on various personality characteristics
(Hawkins, 1972; Shaffer, Hendrick, Regula, & Freccona, 1973). For example, research by Burke,
Sparkes, and Allen-Collinson (2008) showed that people who demonstrated a low tolerance for
cognitive dissonance were more likely to display greater efforts to reduce it than people with a
high tolerance. High tolerance has been associated with a strong sense of humor or sense of self.
Although tolerance in this case was not operationally defined, Hawkins (1972) described these
relationships in terms of personality characteristics, suggesting that some individuals are more
prone to anxiety under certain conditions, and therefore, the experience of cognitive dissonance.
As such, individuals develop differing thresholds over time in order to cope with anxiety and
manage cognitive dissonance. Graham (2007) further suggested that different types of moral
dilemmas complicate this process and elicit different levels of dissonance based on the moral
beliefs of the individual. Moreover, experimental research by Oshikawa (1968) on the theory of
cognitive dissonance post decision-making, concluded that the stronger cognitive dissonance is
experienced by individuals, the more motivated they were to reduce dissonanceby
reevaluating their attitudes (p. 429).
Researchers agree that humans are naturally driven to reduce cognitive dissonance
(Festinger, 1957) because it is an uncomfortable state (Graham, 2007). Several reduction
strategies have been explored including those focused on human development (Egan, Santos, &
Bloom), self-concept (Graham, 2007), and psychological discomfort (Graham, 2007; Oshikawa,
1968). For example, a study by Egan, Santos and Bloom (2007) suggested that this innate
motivation to reduce dissonance is both a developmental and evolutionary adaptation aimed at
resolving internal inconsistencies. Other researchers have concluded that the need to reduce
cognitive dissonance occurs as a restorative strategy to regain a preferred self-concept (Stone &
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
13/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 13
Cooper, 1999). Research by Stone and Cooper highlighted this relationship and suggested that
dissonance occurs when self-standards are discrepant, and when/because cultural or group
norms are breached (p. 6). So, if an individual assesses ones actions against perceived
normative patterns of behavior, and concludes that their behavior is discrepant, the goal is then,
to restore the moral and adaptive integrity of the overall self-system, thus maintaining the
integrity of ones self-concept (Stone & Cooper, 1999, p. 2).
Cognitive dissonance has also been connected to feelings of increased anxiety, stress, and
psychological discomfort (Hawkins, 1972). According to Elliot and Devine (1994), discomfort is
a mandatory condition for dissonance to occur, and due to this condition, individuals enter a
drive state, much like hunger, to reduce tensions. Overall, cognitive dissonance researchers
assume that humans have tendencies toward equilibrium that create these drive states to reduce
dissonance (Carter, 1959). It is by these assumptions that the cognitive relief theory of humor
provides a further explanation to the ways in which humor functions to alleviate tensions created
by cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance Reduction
Cognitive dissonance reduction has traditionally been categorized into three separate
strategies (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Graham 2007; Stiff & Mongeau, in press), with
variations of these strategies elaborated upon by critical-cultural scholars (Burke, Sparkes, &
Allen-Collinson, 2008; Mahaffy, 1996). The first strategy to reduce cognitive dissonance
requires an individual to alter her/his attitude related to the behavior to make it more consistent
with their decision (Festinger, 1957). Thus, cognitive dissonance is reduced by attitude change
(Cooper, 1992). In doing so, an individual may reevaluate their original attitudes about their
decision and develop more favorable thoughts about their choice or preference, and a more
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
14/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 14
negative view of the unchosen option (Oshikawa, 1968). According to Cooper (1992) cognitive
dissonance is most easily achieved through these means.
The second method occurs when the message sender attempts to add new cognitions (i.e.,
information) that are consonant with their behavior. Individuals may do so by seeking out new
information or emphasizing beliefs that support their behavior. Finally, the third strategy is for
individuals to decrease the importance or value of the conflicting beliefs (Carter, 1959; Graham,
2007). Research by Stiff and Mongeau (in press) summarized research that found this process
achieved by forming negative attitudes about the decision alternatives that were not chosen.
Ones mood has also shown to have an effect on individuals motivation to reduce cognitive
dissonance, such that a negative mood and high dissonance experience drives ones motivation to
repair the negative affective state (Jonas, Graupmann, & Frey, 2006).
In a qualitative study of identity and cognitive dissonance, Mahaffy (1996) explored the
tensions between two competing identities- women who identified as both lesbian and Christian,
in order to understand the experience of cognitive dissonance that occurs when ones actions go
against their theological belief system. After interviewing multiple women, the researchers found
that the participants used a variety of strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance in order to
maintain consonant cognitions. These strategies included altering ones interpretation of
scripture to fit their attitudes, ignoring others perceptions and responses, emphasizing morality a
central to their relationship with God (i.e., Gods love for all), reevaluating ones identity in the
context of religion, and embracing uncertainty as a leap of faith. Several of these coping
mechanisms demonstrate how the three traditional strategies listed above may be creatively
contextualized to fit a variety of scenarios. Furthermore, many of the women described the
experience of cognitive dissonance reduction as reflexive process, one that occurred over time
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
15/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 15
and with social support. Social support was also evident in the study by Chapple and Ziebland
(2004) with patients diagnosed with testicular cancer that used joking as a means to
communicate shared feelings of sadness, grief, uncertainty, and embarrassment.
Burke, Sparkes, and Allen-Collinson (2008) also described cognitive dissonance
reduction as a reflective, social process in their ethnographic study of high altitude climbers. In
their study, climbers were asked to reflect on their experience of cognitive dissonance when their
attempts to climb Mt. Everest were not met with success, despite their expressed intentions to
reach the top of the mountain. For the climbers, the resolution of cognitive dissonance was
reported as a reflexive experience produced in dialogue with fellow climbers. They were able to
resolve dissonance by reconstructing their past alongside others (i.e., experience climbing Mt.
Everest) over time and through elaborate stories. Their findings conclude that cognitive
dissonance involves a mutually elaborative process in which meaning is accomplished from
within the interactions with others who share similar cognitions (p. 352). Earlier research by
Hunt (1970) reported comparable results in the study of consumers post-transaction
communication as dissonance reduction. Here, the dissonance experienced by discrepant
purchasing behavior (i.e., making a purchase then feeling guilty and/or bad for the purchase) was
reduced via dialogue between consumers and retail companies when the consumers were thanked
for their purchase.
Making Connections
After thoroughly reviewing the literature on humor theories and functions, alongside
cognitive dissonance theory and reduction strategies, there is a clear overlap in the research that
suggests the potential for humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy. The
aforementioned research on humor and cognitive dissonance suggests compelling evidence that
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
16/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 16
humor does relieve cognitive dissonance due to its potential to reduce uncertainty, alleviate
negative psychological tensions, and influence positive affective states. It is also clear that there
are many parallels between the cognitive relief theory of humor (Freud, 1960) and the experience
of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), such that relief theory explains the role of humor
during experiences of cognitive dissonance. Although there is no existing study that establishes
these connections, efforts will be made to highlight research from which this connection may be
explored in greater depth.
First and foremost, communication scholars have determined that the expression of
humor is a deliberative act that requires communicative effort on behalf of the sender (Wanzer,
Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1995). It has also been determined that humor is not
typically communicated for the sole purpose of being funny, but that humorists frequently
maintain alternative goals, such as rendering laughter to gain favor with audiences (Chapman &
Chapman, 1974; Lili, 2012), or to facilitate social interaction (Norrick, 1993). Through laughter
and shared humor, social bonds are strengthened (Lili, 2012). Summarizing these findings
together, it is safe to assume that humor is a motivated, goal-oriented, and social phenomenon
with the power to shape attitudes and/or behavioral outcomes. It is essential to understand that
under these conditions, humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy may occur more
frequently in the presence of others.
However, research has shown that expressions of humor produce a variety of positive and
worthwhile internal outcomes for speakers. According to Chapple and Ziebland (2004), under
unpleasant psychological conditions of distress, humor provided individuals with a means of
exploring ambiguous situations[and] distancing unpleasantness (p. 1124). For example, the
researchers found that joking with others frequently allowed speakers to express shared feelings
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
17/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 17
of anxiety, guilt, disappointment, [and] anger in health settings where fatal health diagnoses
were administered to patients with cancer (p. 1125). Kelly (2002) explained that a sense of
humor during times of anxiety or worry, or rather the ability to cognitively reframe unpleasant
events as humorous, helped individuals decrease depression, loneliness, negative mood, and
social inadequacy (p. 658). Given this research, there are several inherent cognitive and social
rewards for the speaker through the use of humor to reduce dissonant states.
With regard to cognitive dissonance, humor has been studied as a source of dissonance
on many occasions, but not necessarily as a reduction strategy. For example, Hobden and Olsen
(1994) studied the effects of disparagement humor as the source of dissonance by testing whether
participants who freely told disparaging jokes about lawyers experienced cognitive dissonance
under certain conditions (i.e., when the jokes were tape recorded and participants were told the
recordings would be used in a future study with high-school students). The hypothesis was that
telling disparaging jokes about lawyers may produce undesirable outcomes for the speakers
such as strengthening listeners stereotypes, offending listeners,or damaging ones reputation
that could have been anticipated, thus creating dissonance (p. 240). However, this effect was not
shown in all cases. The explanation provided was that perhaps humor is recognized as a domain
where speakers do not necessarily believe their messages, in which case individuals might feel
little self-presentational pressure to appear consistent with their joke telling behavior (p. 247).
Although this study aimed to investigate humor as a source of cognitive dissonance, the results
carry valuable implications for the study of humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy,
due to the nature of humor to allow for these kinds of attitudinal and behavioral deviations in
message senders.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
18/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 18
Similar results were reported in a study of African Americans and their experience of
cognitive dissonance as a result of showing support for the Chappelle Show (Relevance and
racial humor, n.d.). The Chappelle Show has a solid history of showcasing racial discrimination
and prejudice of the African American community through humorous acts and discourse,
performed by Dave Chappelle and fellow comedians. After interviewing African Americans
about the ways in which the various acts conflicted with their racial ideologies, the participants
who selected a humorous framework from which to make interpretations reported that the show
had little effect on their attitudes because it was just humor. Although humor was not
employed by the participants as a means to reduce cognitive dissonance, the experience of humor
allowed for a state of reduced dissonance among viewers when attitudes (racial ideologies) and
behaviors (support for the show) were inconsistent. This assertion may be supported by the idea
that joking lowers the threat of stress and anxiety (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) such that when
individuals make a joke about a stressful situation, one develops a sense of dominance and
control over it, which is incompatible with [the production of] stress and anxiety (p. 62). For
example, self-enhancing humor has been shown to reduce stress in several work related scenarios
between managers and subordinates, demonstrating the cognitive relief theory of humor (Meyer,
2000; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In efforts to draw connections between the use of humor
under stressful conditions and the potential to relieve cognitive dissonance, Meyer (2000)
explained:
Communicators take advantage of humor by telling a joke, often at the beginning of
their remarks, to defuse a potentially tense situation. Often tension results from
dissonance people experience after making a decision or sensing the approach of
incompatible and undesirable thoughts or actions. Because people desire and find it
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
19/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 19
pleasing to reduce dissonance (Festinger, 1957), speakers who do so can create
humor[to] make the situation seem more elastic, or more manageable by showing that
difficulties are not so overwhelming. (p. 312).
This explanation may be the closest researchers have come to drawing connections between
humor and cognitive dissonance reduction. Given this explanation, speakers may produce humor
during their experience of cognitive dissonance, thus making light of the situation or their
decision. In this way, humor functions as a communicative (re)framing tool and/or a verbal
manifestation of dissonance that aims to produce mirth in place of tension.
Conclusions, Implications and Future Directions
The study of humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy carries several
implications for the study of communication. To summarize the above literature, one may
assume that under conditions of cognitive dissonance, humor functions as a cognitive and
communicative reframing device that enables speakers to reduce tensions. This is achieved
through the production of humorous messages during instances of cognitive dissonance after a
decision has been made, perhaps best produced in the presence of others due to the affiliative
functions of humor including the production of laughter by message receivers and the experience
of joy that humor creates among group members. As it relates to cognitive dissonance reduction
(Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Graham 2007; Stiff & Mongeau, in press), one may argue that
humor provides a framework from which to employ tension reducing strategies. In other words,
humor shapes (i.e., sets the tone for) the experience of cognitive dissonance reduction. There are
several implications regarding these assertions: humor carries potential to shape or change
peoples attitudes and/or behaviors by adopting a more humorous outlook on the decision
elements; humor provides new cognitions in the forms of jokes and/or stories that relieve
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
20/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 20
tensions (cognitive relief theory); and humor assists people in devaluing decision alternatives.
For example, through ridicule or sarcasm (humor styles consistent with superiority theory),
speakers can make their cognitions and subsequent behaviors appear more entertaining. It is also
possible that humor functions to temporarily suspend tensions until a future point when an
attitude or behavior change occurs, or when uncertainty might be reduced; however, these
conclusions have yet to be tested.
There are many variables that remain untested and therefore remain a mystery for humor
and communication scholars. For example, scholars cannot yet determine whether or not
speakers are motivated by humor to reduce cognitive dissonance, what kinds of decisions
encourage the use of humor (e.g., moral, ethical, practical, critical), and/or if speakers are aware
of this potential. Future directions therefore include the study of speakers motivations, their
sense of humor in relation to proneness for cognitive dissonance, and the circumstances that
render humor as a cognitive dissonance reduction strategy effective and useful in daily
interactions. Future studies should seek to determine whether or not the use of humor is a
purposeful strategy, and what characteristics influence this method of cognitive dissonance
recovery. The inclusion of these studies in the communication discipline will assist in
establishing the sound relationship between the study of humor as a motivated strategy and
conceptual framework from which to reduce cognitive dissonance.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
21/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 21
References
Albanese, R., & Stewart, J. (producers). (1996). The daily show with Jon Stewart. [Television
Series]. New York: Mad Cow Productions.
Banas, J. A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., & Liu, S. (2010). A review of humor in educational
settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60, 115-144.
Berger, A. A. (2001).Jewish jesters: A study in American popular comedy. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Brehm, J. W. (2007). A brief history of dissonance theory. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 1, 381-391.
Brown, D. (2005). What part of know dont you understand?The Monist, 88, 11-35.
Burke, S. M., Sparkes, A. C., & Allen-Collinson, J. A. (2008). High altitude climbers as
ethnomethodologists making sense of cognitive dissonance: Ethnographic insights from
an attempt to scale Mt. Everest. The Sport Psychologies, 22, 336-355.
Carter, R. F. (1959). Bandwagon and sandbagging effects: Some measure of dissonance
reduction. The Opinion Quarterly, 23, 279-287.
Chapman, A. J., & Chapman, W. A. (1974). Responsiveness to humor: Its dependency upon
companions humorous smiling and laughter. The Journal of Psychology, 88, 245-252.
Chapman, A. J. (1973). Funniness of jokes, canned laughter and recall performance.
Sociometry, 36, 569-578.
Chapple, A., & Ziebland, S. (2004). The role of humor for men with testicular cancer.
Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1123-1139.
Cooper, J. (1992). Dissonance and the return of self-concept.Psychological Inquiry, 2, 320-323.
Dijkstra, A. (2009). Disengagement beliefs in smokers: Do they influence the effects of a
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
22/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 22
tailored persuasive message advocating smoking cessation?Psychology and Health, 24,
791-804.
Dudden, A. P. (1985). American humor.American Quarterly, 37, 7-12.
Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence
from children and monkeys.Psycological Science, 18, 978-983.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance:
Dissonance as psychological discomfort.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 382-392.
Festinger, L. (1957)A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Freud, S. (1960).Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. (J. Strachey, Trans.) New
York: The Norton Library. (Original work published 1905).
Gilbert, J. R. (2004).Performing marginality. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Graham, R. D. (June, 2007). Theory of cognitive dissonance as it pertains to morality.Journal of
Scientific Psychology, 20-23.
Graham, E. E. (1995). The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social
relationships. Communication Reports, 8, 158-169.
Hawkins, D. I. (July, 1972). Reported cognitive dissonance and anxiety: Some additional
findings.Journal of Marketing, 63-64.
Heiss, S. N., & Carmack, H. J. (2011). Knock, knock; Whos there? Making sense of
organizations entrance through humor.Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 106-
132.
Hill, D. J. (1988).Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers (and other entertainers!).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
23/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 23
Hobden, K. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). From jest to antipathy: Disparagement humor as a source
of dissonance-motivated attitude change.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 239-
249.
Hopfl, H. (2007). Humor and violation. In R. Westwood & C. Rhodes (Eds.),Humour, work
and organization, 3345. London: Routledge.
Hunt, S. D. (1970). Post-transaction communications and dissonance reduction. Journal of
Marketing, 34, 46-51.
Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., & Frey, D. (2006). The influence of mood on the search for
supporting versus conflicting information: Dissonance reduction as a means of mood
regulations?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 3-15.
Keith-Speigel, P. C. (1984). Eight humor theories. In M. Helitzer (Ed.), Comedy
techniques for writers and performers (pp. 17-22). Athens, OH: Lawhead Press.
Kelly, W. W. (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of humor. The Journal of Psychology,
136, 657-666.
Knock, knock- whos there?: Humorous communication during organizational entrance. (n.d.).
(Unpublished conference paper). National Communication Association Database.
Lili, Z. (2012). Understanding humor based on incongruity theory and the cooperative principle.
Studies in Literature and Language, 4, 94-98.
Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication
research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training.
The Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206-216.
Mahaffy, K. A. (1996). Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
24/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 24
Journal of scientific study of religion, 35, 392-402.
Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37, 407-422.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in
communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310-331.
Mintz, L. E. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation.American
Quarterly, 37, 71-80.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomingdale,
IN: Indiana University Press.
OQuin, K., & Aronoff, J. (1981). Humor as a technique of social influence. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44, 349-357.
Oshikawa, S. (1968). The theory of cognitive dissonance and experimental research.Journal of
Marketing Research, 5, 429-430.
Perks, L. G. (2012). The ancient roots of humor theory.Humor, 25, 119-132.
Perlmutter, D. D. (2002). On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humor: The delicate
balance.Humor, 15, 155-168.
Porcu, L. (2005). Fishy business: Humor in a Sardinian fish market.Humor, 18, 69-102.
Relevance and racial humor inChappelles Show. (n.d.). (Unpublished conference paper).
National Communication Association Database.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace.Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20, 58-69.
Shaffer, D. R., Hendrick, C., Regula, C. R., & Freconna, J. (1973). Interactive effects of
ambiguity tolerance and task effort on dissonance reduction.Journal of Personality, 41,
224-233.
7/27/2019 Lit Review 2
25/25
HUMOR AS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION 25
Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Glazer, E., & Smith, S. (2009). Effects of humor on presence and
recall of persuasion messages. Communication Quarterly, 57, 136-153.
Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (in press).Persuasive communication (3rd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Stewart, J., Purcell, T., & Colbert, S. (2005). The Colbert Report. [Television Series]. New York:
Spartina Productions.
Stone, J. & Cooper, J. (2000). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance.Journal of
experimental social psychology, 1-16. DOI:10.1006/jesp.2000.1446
Tracy, S. J., Myers, K. K., & Scott, C. W. (2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves:
Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication
Monographs, 73, 283-308.
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). Are funny people
popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 42-52.
Wanzer, M. B., Sparks, L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). Humorous communication within the lives
of older adults: The relationships among humor, coping, efficacy, age, and life
satisfactory.Health Communication, 24, 128-136.
Wilson, C. P. (1979).Jokes: Form, content, use and function. London: Academic Press.
Ziv, A. (2010). The social function of humor in interpersonal relationships. Sociology, 47,
11-18.
Recommended