Humor as a Technique of Social Influence Author(s): Karen O'Quin and Joel Aronoff Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.

44, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 349-357 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033903 . Accessed: 24/02/2014 07:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tent analysis of sex role stereotypes." 1977 "Statuscharacteristics, reward allocation, Pacific Sociological Review21:45-53. and equity." Sociometry 40:311-324. Webster, M., Jr. Snyder, M., and N. Cantor 1977 "Equating characteristics and social inter1979 "Testinghypotheses about otherpeople: action: Two experiments." Sociometry Theuse ofhistorical knowledge." Journal of 40:41-50. Experimental Social Psychology 15:330M. A., Jr.,and J. E. Driskell, Jr. Webster, 342. 1978 "Statusgeneralization: A review and some Snyder, M., and W. B. Swann,Jr. new data." American Sociological Review 1978 "Behavioral confirmation in social interac43:220-236. tion: From social perceptionto social M., Jr.,P. Lauderdale, and S. Stublarec reality." Journal of Experimental Social Zelditch, 1980 "How are inconsistencies betweenstatus Psychology 14:148-162. and ability resolved?" Social Forces Ward,D., and J. Balswick 50:1025-1043. 1978 "Strong menand virtuous women:A con-

Social Psychology Quarterly 1981, Vol. 44, No. 4, 349' 357

Humoras a Techniqueof Social Influence

The University of Kansas

KAREN O'QUIN

Michigan State University

JOEL ARONOFF

In a dyadic bargaining paradigm,at a predetermined pointin thenegotiation, subjectsreceived in eithera an influenceattempt from a confederatethat varied in size and was administered humorousor a nonhumorous way. Results supportthe major hypothesisthathumorresultsin an increasedfinancial concession. The use of humorled to a morepositive evaluation of the task and marginally lessened self-reported tension,but did not increase liking for thepartner. Consistentwith past researchusingsocial tasks,females laughed and smiledrhore thanmales.

He made humor a tool of diplomacy. His Powell, 1977),but laboratory studiesto banter inspired banter in others and usually examinethis suggestion have-not been led to a more relaxedatmosphere in the conducted.The purposeof the present private, formal discussions or negotiations paperis to testthishypothesis. withworldleaders.The humor openedthe literature showsthatusing The humor door to morefrankness and less ritualized thelikeabilincreases humor appropriate recitations as well.In that regard, Kissinger 1972; (Goodchilds, ity of a communicator lightenedthe whole heavy international 1976;Mann,1961;Metteeet al., Gruner, diplomatic scene. (Valeriani, 1979:9) indicate that 1971), andpersuasion studies Henry Kissinger's use of humorto aid are moreinfluential likedcommunicators negotiation is well known. More (e.g., McGuire,1968;Norman,1976).In generally, students of social behavior bargaining, Chertkoff and Esser'g (1976) have suggestedforyears thathumormay aremore that bargainers review concludes facilitate social influence (e.g., whentheir socialrelationship cooperative Goodchilds, 1972; Kane et al., 1977; is positive.Thus, thesefindings suggest
We wouldliketo thank A. Messe and Lawrence D. Crano fortheirhelpful William at suggestions reviewers everystageof theresearch. Anonymous Address all communivaluable comments. provided to: KarenO'Quin,Graduate cations in SoProgram 606 FraserHall, The University cial Psychology, of KS 66045. Kansas, Lawrence,

that humor should increase influby increasing communicator enceability attractiveness. Direct evidence for this proposition, mixed.First,rehowever,is somewhat (1974) and Gruner views by Markiewicz

349

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

350

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

(1976)concluded that humor integral to or Eagly, 1978). Thus, we structured our adjacentto a persuasive messagedid not bargaining with taskto be "androgynous" influence persuasion. However, the respect to perceived competence. The use studies reviewed dealt primarily with ofa sex-neutral also minimize taskshould paperand penciltestsof attitude change thepossibility be more that jokingmight rather thansocial interaction. Second, a effective when used by males and remorebehavioral study byNosanchuk and ceived by females (e.g., Mann, 1961; Lightstone(1974) indicatedthat while McGhee,1979;Pollioand Edgerly, 1976). privately-recorded funniness ratings (pri- Size of influence attempt.Some studies vate acceptance) were unaffected by have foundthatbargainers' behavioris canned"audience"laughter, overtlaugh- unaffected by theiropponents'concesing behavior(compliance)was affected sions(e.g., Pruitt andDrews,1969), while considerably. Similarly, Cupchik and Le- othershave foundreciprocation of conventhal(1974), Leventhaland Cupchik cessions (e.g., Chertkoff and Conley, (1975),and Youngand Frye(1966)found 1967; Pruitt and Johnson, 1970).To exevidencethatcannedlaughter increased plore whether humor's effects would be overtlaughter, butnotnecessarily funni- restricted by concession size, theconfedness ratings. erate's influence attempt(size of "dePreviousstudieshave not used face- mand")was varied. to-faceinteraction and dependent measureshave beenrestricted to overt laughter and/or ratings of jokes or cartoons. Hypotheses Thepresent paperextends theliterature in The major hypothesisis that comseveral ways. First,we chose financial pliance,as measured conby a financial concessionas a dependent variablebe- cessionina bargaining is greater situation, cause it was conceptually unrelated to among humor subjects than no-humor humor or laughter. Second, we chose a subjects.Second, we predict thatattracbargaining paradigmbecause it repre- tionservesas themediator ofthehumor/ senteda face-to-face, involving interac- compliance relationship. tion that wouldlead toa clearoutcome. In thepresent study, a buyer-seller situation METHOD was used (e.g., Rapoport, 1970),wherea Pilot Study naive subjectenactedtheroleof a buyer for thebestprice bargaining for a painting. A pilot testwas conducted to determine The sellerwas a confederate whose be- a non-sex-related overwhich commodity havior, including jokingor notjokingand, to bargain. Fifty-one male and female size of concession, was preprogrammed.undergraduate judges rated 20 commodities on whether a man or a woman in buying would be more competent and Generalizability sellingthe items.Five of these objects To widenthegeneralizability ofourre- wereratedas androgynous by bothmale sults, two additionalindependent vari- and female judges. A painting was in thedesign:sex of selected ables wereincluded from fiveobjects among thefinal theinteractants and size of theinfluence on thebasis offamiliarity to subjects and attempt. of price. ambiguity womenhave been considered to be more and Undergraduate Assistants persuasible or-conforming (see McGuire, Subjects 1968),and to makegreater in concessions were Subjectsin the mainexperiment bargaining men.' 122 male and 130 femaleundergraduate (e.g.,Terhune, than 1970) and McDavid (1971) students However,Sistrunk at a largemidwestern university. thatsex differences in confor- One hundred reported oftheparticipants forty-two of the sex-related (approximately mitywere a function equal numbersof each nature ofthetask,a conclusion a portion ofcourseresupporte'd sex) werefulfilling in more recentreviews(Cooper, 1979; quirements in introductory psychology.
Sex of interactants. Traditionally,

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HUMOR AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

351

The remaining 110participants werepaid for their participation. Eight maleandfive female undergraduatestudents were trained to serveas experimenters, confederates,and observers. All assistants rotated assignments andeach performed the three tasksaboutequally.
Materials and Design

Subjectandconfederate satacrossfrom (1962): 1 = faintsmile,2 = mediumsmile, and (showsteeth), each otherat a bargaining table witha 3 = wide smileor grin by an ten-inch screendown the middle.Each 4 = laugh(any smileaccompanied faced a cloth-covered one-way mirror audible exhalation).The observersalso each of the subject'sverbalizapanel.A landscapepainting, thebargain- recorded was scored ingobject,was hungon a woodenparti- tions.A newverbalresponse of siinterval a two-second tionin theroom. ifit followed verbalization an intervening Thedesign was a 2 (presence orabsence lence,orafter x 3 (small, of the confederate.Similarly,a new of humorous communication) responsewas scored if two medium, or largedemand forsubject con- smile/laugh or if cession) x 2 (sex of subject)x 2 (sex of secondslapsed betweenresponses, changed. thecategory confederate) factorial. of the sesportion The freebargaining had sion was over whenthe participants Procedure ofeach other. $10,000 to within bargained into broke theexperimenter point, Four members comprised a team: the Atthis a confederate, and twoob- say timewas nearlyup, thatagreement experimenter, and that the servers. Before each session,theconfed- must be reached shortly, again., eratewas randomly to a specific sellerwas to go first assigned timewas called,the after Immediately condition. Boththeobservers and theexthe independent introduced were blind to the condition confederate perimenter condition, In theno-humor manipulation. prior to themanipulation. offer said,"Well,myfinal A fakeddrawalwaysassigned thesub- theconfederate ." In the humorcondition,he or ject to the position of "Buyer." In- is $ offer and said,"Well,myfinal structions read to theparticipants stated she smiled in mypetfrog." throw , and rill thatthetask was to reachagreement on is $ thepriceofthepainting. and seller The size of the demandwas variedby Buyer thebid either $7,000,$4,000,or were assignedinitialbids and were re- dropping fora small the subject thus asking quiredto agreeon a final pricethatboth $1,000, orlarge ($9,000) ($6,000), medium could accept. The instructions also em- ($3,000), then continued; phasized that subjects wouldbe evaluated concession. Bargaining made$2,000concessions on theirsuccess as bargainers; the pres- theconfederate bid untilfinal ence of the mirrors and of the exper- on each postmanipulation was reached. in the roomadded stressto the agreement imenter Sometimes,subjects made unexpectlatter point. in a Bothbuyer "strat- edly large bid jumps that resulted and seller weregiven this When than of less $10,000. critical gap egypads" and asked to recordeach bid; of the the confederate also recordedthe sub- happened(withabout one-fourth the approximated confederates received ject's bids.Each participant "pri- subjects), small deTherefore, vate instructions." The Confederate's demandcondition. as $1,000'to$4,000; sheet containedthe programmed script mandwas redefined and to$7,000; was $5,000 demand that detailed each bid, beginningat medium on each largedemandwas $8,000to $10,000,in$70,000, plusa short verbalization bid; the subject'sprivate instructions as- clusive. Three female subjects whose ina gap ofless bidjumpsresulted bid of $25,000 and made sudden a starting signed

be bidsmight thefirst, after it clearthat, The confederate of any size or number. thebargaining, bid. During madethefirst was seated behind a the experimenter smallwoodenpartition. inobservation stationed The observers, each recorded themirrors, roomsbehind of the subject'slaughing/smiling instance behavior on a four-steprating scale adapted from Schachterand Wheeler

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

352

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

than $1,000 weredropped from thesample satisfactory. The threesmile categories and replaced. werecollapsedintoa single category with Participants receiveda postexperimenreliabilities of .69 before and .50 after the tal questionnaire Summaryvariables were immediately afterthe manipulation. session. Anonymity of response was createdby averaging across the two obstressed, and the confederate was osten- servers.' Thesedatareduction procedures siblytakento another room. Debriefing resultedin three pre- and three postwas conductedby mail one week after manipulation smilmeasuresof laughter, of the study. ing,and verbalization completion frequency. nipulating humorwas assessed both by behavioral observation andby self-report. pendentmeasure was the proportionalAs reported above, humor subjects than moreafter themanipulation concessionon the bid immediately fol- laughed no-humor subjects. Two questionnaire lowing the manipulation.The dollar offered forconvergent vaevidence amount ofthesubjects' on that items concession A lidity as well. univariate analysis of bidwas divided bythetotaldollar amount "I variance of the item, felt amused during of concession possible. This measure revealed onlya mainefallowedus to makedirect of theexperiment," comparisons forhumor (F(1,228)= 5.98,p < .02). theamount ofconcession acrossthelevels fect of the demand variable (Nemeth and Humor subjects reportedmore amusesubjects. Humor Markowski, 1972).Additional dependent ment than no-humor were also more subjects likelyto agree measures weretheamount offinal agree"My partner seemedto be a funperment inthousands ofdollars, andpre-and that postmanipulation measuresof the length son" (F(1,228) = 7.90, p < .005). These demonstrate that the"pet clearly of thebargaining sessionand frequencies findings frog" manipulation was seen to be humorofthesubjects' and verlaughter, smiling, ous. balization.
Dependent measures Behavioral measures. The major deManipulation checks. Success in ma-

behaviorwas pointLikertitemsaskingforself-reportsshowed that confederate condistandardized across experimental ofnervousness, for the liking partner, liking there wereno differences due forthe task,perceived humorousness of tions.First, in to humor or size of demand of the any the situation, and perceivedrestrictions Fs measures premanipulation (univariate on bargaining freedomcomprisedthe S 1.32,n.s.), which indicates that confedvariables. questionnaire erateswerenotanticipating themanipula;ions.Second,there wereno maineffects or interaction effects forthe confederate RESULTS sex variableupon any of the dependent Adequacy of Procedure Fs - .98,n.s.). measures (all multivariate Two control variables, paymentvs. coursecredit and experimenter sex, were examined in two multivariate analysesof Effectsof Humor variance, alongwith thefour majorinde- The multivariate analysisof variance pendent variables. No maineffects or in- (Finn,1974;1976)of thebehavioral meateractions forthe control variableswere sures revealed main effects for humor found. (F(10,219)= 8.67,p < .0001),size of decorrelations of the observational data re- sex of subject (F(10,219) = 3.98, p < vealedthat thetwoobservers agreedwell Due to scheduling oneobserver difficulties, only on the codingof laughter, bothpre-and in70 cases. When thishappened, hisor postmanipulation (r(182) = .85 and .78). was present data The her were entered into the analyses. postObserver reliabilities for verbalization manipulation hada lower measure smiling reliability frequency were .74 bothbefore and after than which to be seemed anyoftheother measures, the manipulation, which was seen as causedbya "floor" effect due to itslowfrequency.
Interobserver reliability. Reliability mand (F(20,238) = 3.84, p < .0001), and

Questionnaire variables. Thirtyseven-

Confederate behavior. The evidence

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HUMOR AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

353

frequency of laughter after themanipula- Postmanipulation significant. As predicted, these results Laughter showthat subjects inthehumor condition Smiling Verbalization made a largerproportional concession Bargaining time
(seconds)

cession (F(1,228) = 4.59, p < .04) and

Differences Due to theSize of .0001).Therewas no maineffect forcon- Table 1. Significant DemandVariable federate were sex, and no interactions found. Size of Demand Dependent Fs forthe humor The univariate con- Variables Ranges Small Medium Large trastrevealedthatthe proportional conProportional
concession .00-1.0 0-3 0-2 .63 .48a .10 .46a .25 .27a .37a .48a .25a

tion (F(1,228) = 60.09, p < .0001) were

frequencies of:

0-8

1.45

2.25

2.73

.45). Humorsubjectsalso laughedmore Note: Variablesin the same row withthe same thanno-humor subjects(XCs= .68 and subscript do notdiffer at the.05 level(Tukey). .12). ter (F(2,228) = 4.93,p < .008).2 Means are presented and individual comparisons QuestionnaireVariables in Table 1. A principal components factor analysis Subject sex. Females both smiled (varimax rotation) ofthe30 questionnaire (F(1,228) = 9.05, p < .003) and laughed itemsproducedthreefactors accounting (F(1,228) = 11.28,p < .001) morethan to theindependent manipulafor24.3, 9.1, and 8.5 percent of thevari- maleLprior 1.58 dealt withsub- tion(Xs = 2.17 and 1.66forsmiling; ance. The threefactors In addition, females for and .79 forlaughter). fortheirpartners, jects' liking liking than moreafter themanipulation laughed the bargaining task,and self-perceptions oftension ornervousness. No factors rep- males (F(1,228) = 14.71,p < .0002; X's = to reach resenting reactance or perceived humor- .53 and .26). Males tooklonger thanfeafter themanipulation ousness were generated. Reliability agreement analysesof the variablesloadinghighest males (F(1,228) = 5.40, p < .03; X's = there on the threefactors yieldedsatisfactory42.00 and 34.24). Most important, sex difference was no significant in the internal consistencies (.82 < a < .88). concession ofproportional (X's = A MANOVA used as dependent mea- amount sures the factorscores fromthe factor .49 forbothsexes). of theoriginal 30-item scale. Reanalysis Mediators. The expectation that the sultsshowedonlya multivariate mainef- humor/concession relationship would be fectforhumor(F(3,226) = 3.17, p < .03). mediated forpartner, by liking for liking The univariate Fs indicated thathumor task,or self-reported tension, was examsubjects likedthetaskmorethandid no- inedusingpartial correlation coefficients humorsubjects(F(1,228) = 6.02, p < .02). (Nunnally, 1978).Ifthehumor/concession forhumor correlation Therewas a marginal tendency wereattenuated bycontrolling than for subjects to report being less nervous their roleas mediators thesevariables, control subjects (F(1,228) = 3.64, p < wouldbe supported. thecorreHowever, Fs for .06). No univariate anyoftheother lationbetween humor (presence/absence) contrasts were significant. and the proportional concessionwas not out affected significantly by partialling of the three variables or any questionnaire AdditionalAnalyses ofthesevariables. In adanycombination Demand. The univariate analyses for dition, thehumor/concession relationship the demandcontrast yieldedsignificantremained of stablewhenbothfrequency effects for the proportional concession
2 andpostmanipulation Prefrequencies oflaughter, and verbalization smiling, were dividedby corremanipulation frequencies of verbalization before and after timemeasures to control (F(2,228) = 26.77,p < .0001), timein sec- sponding for time differences. Results froma repeatedonds (F(2,228) = 15.73,p < .0001), smil- measuresMANOVA revealedlittlechange in the ing (F(2,228) = 4.31, p < .02), and laugh- pattern of results from theoriginal MANOVA.

than no-humorsubjects (XKs = .53 and

3-235 26.12

38.94 49.06

(F(2,228)

15.02, p < .0001), and post-

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

354

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

measureof attraction amusement task as an indirect laughterand self-reported toward thepartner inthiscontext, thestawerepartialled out. relationSubject involvement. Subjects' in- bilityof the humor/concession analyses volvement was examinedseveralways. ship in the partialcorrelation First, subjects madean averageofeleven arguesagainst attraction as themediator. theuse ofhumor marginally lessbidsoftheir ownbefore themanipulation; While this free bargaining tension,this variable period lasted more ened self-reported "won" did not appear to mediatethe humor/ than five minutes. Second,subjects relationship. No factors reprethebargaining overall. While themidpoint concession reactance or perceived humorousof the distance ini- senting between participants' weregenerated, inditialpositions was $47,500, theactualmean nessofthesituation that didnotserveas thesevariables level of final agreement was $45,200. cating Thus, subjects were sufficiently con- mediators. The mostencouraging finding concerncernedwith 'theoutcome to besttheconin thepresent study "I ingmediators is that federate. Third, thequestionnaire item, put a lot of effort intothe, bargaining,"humorsubjects reportedincreasedenof thetask. Goffman specifically examinedperceivedtask in- joyment (1967)and or Zijderveld (1968) have suggestedthat volvement. Therewereno main effects mayallowtheinfluenced person to interactions due to anyoftheindependent humor variables on thisitem, andthegrand mean save facebyredefining theinfluence situ(X = 3.74) was positive.These findings ation as one less threatening to him or A joke maycommunicate that the indicate that subjects wanted todo wellon herself. otheris not taking the situation thetask. so seriously. This sub rosa communication (Brunner, 1979;Davis and Farina,1970) DISCUSSION maymakepersons less averseto concesMajor Hypothesis sions because the situation becomesless The presentresultsprovidefirm sup- important than previously thought. exploration of situational redefithatverbal Further portforthemajorhypothesis humor leads to greater compliance. Sub- nition as a function of the use of humor jects who received a demand accom- shouldprovefruitful. madea greater financial A secondavenueofexploration paniedby humor maybe concession than no-humor subject's. the workof Isen (e.g., Isen and Levin, These resultsextendthe literature con- 1972)concerning ofgoodmood theeffects theeffects of humor as a method uponhelping. concerning We included questions of social influence (e.g., Nosanchuk and "fun,"but a and cerning "pleasantness" Lightstone, 1974): not onlydoes humor more of oftheeffects examination explicit influence the level of overtlaughter, but mood mightbe useful (Chertkoff and our resultsalso show thata significantEsser, 1976;Kane et al., 1977). can be aspectofinterpersonal negotiation it maybe premature to discard Finally, affected. the attraction hypothesis. Subjectsin all The generalizability liked of our resultsis experimental conditions generally thatthe humor their supported by the finding liked thetask,andwerenot partners, effect was stable across threelevels of nervous.This restriction of range may demand.Humorwas equallyeffective effectsof as have limitedthe facilitative an influence whenusedbyboth humorupon attraction. technique Futureresearch sexes, and when directedtowardboth on the mediators of the humor/influence sexes. Our compliance no relationship data provided include a wider of might range evidence that was more joking appropriate situational to examinethis pleasantness formales(McGhee, 1979). possibility. to predictions, humor Contrary subjects did not show increasedlikingfor their AdditionalConsiderations nordidthisvariable the mediate partners, humor/concession relationship. In addiSex differences.We found no sex difis conforthe ference in compliance; thisresult tion,even ifwe understood liking

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HUMOR AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

355

sistent with other sex and Johnston(1979) have suggested,that findings concerning in influenceability differences (Cooper, the two responses are not used the same 1979;Eagly,1978;Sistrunk andMcDavid, way in social situations. 1971).Cupchik and Leventhal (1974)and Leventhaland Cupchik(1975) foundno CONCLUSION in the amount that overall difference males and femaleswere influenced by In Valeriani's analysis of Kissinger's in cartoon ratings, negotiation style, he pointed out that "audience laughter" which is a non-sex-related taskas well.In "Kissingercould make a serious pointin a the present study, femalesbothlaughed joking way, withoutforcingthe Russians and smiledmore than males beforethe to react on the spot" (1979:164). A quote humor manipulation. Females laughed fromHal Sonnenfeldt,State Department morethanmales after the manipulation,counselor and experton Soviet affairs, is whilemales took longer to reachagree- equally enlightening: ment. As Rubin andBrown in (1975)noted "Someday,when someonegoes through theirresearch,men may be concerned the he will be recordsof these meetings, witha different form of self-presentation amazedby howmuchtimewas takenup in thanwomen in bargaining. We speculated byplay.Whenyou are engagedin serious that thetaskorientation ofmenmayhave is a big sort oflevity he said,"that business," focusedtheirattention towardthe bar- help."Neither itsbasic policy side changed as Ambassador Dobto longer gaining task,leading bargaining, because of thelevity, outto me,butthehumor oncepointed whereasthe womenwere more socially rynin and created a more relaxedtheatmosphere and oriented, leadingto higher laughter climate for accommodapropitious making are scores.These sex differences smiling tions.(Valeriani, 1979:166) beinteresting because, while different Our results establish that humor may havioralapproacheswere taken to the was no overallsex differenceindeed be used to influenceothers, and task,there in the amountof concession.Men took suggest that humor may be a powerful to reachagreement longer buttheywere agentofchange in everydaylife.While we not morestubborn thanwomen-results should not conclude that the formulafor that arecongruent with thoseofVallacher success is to mix one request with one mildjoke to create compliance, it is clear et al. (1979). itis important hypothesis, to notethat the temptis made should be considered. The effect ofhumor remained thesameacross study of humor withinits natural social all levelsof demand.An effect suggested context (Chapman, 1976; Fine, 1977) can by reactancetheory (Brehm,1966),that help to clarify the nature not only of inthelarge humor,but of social influenceas well. humor might be more effective demand was not supported. condition, and Subjectsprobably bargained longer REFERENCES inthemedium and spokemorefrequently J. W. demand conditions had Brehm, large becausethey 1966 A Theory ofPsychological Reactance. New more to do to reach agreement.The York:Academic Press. greaterproportional concession in the Brunner, L. J. smalldemand condition a does notreflect of 1979 "Smilescan be back channels." Journal butmerely greater monetary concession, Personality and Social Psychology 37:728734. confirms thatsmall the commonfinding A. J. aremore requests likely to be granted than Chapman, 1976 "Social aspectsofhumorous laughter." Pp. large requests (e.g., Freedman and 155-185 in A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot Fraser, 1966). Differences betweenReand Laughter: (eds.), Humour Theory, and smiling across levels of delaughter searchand Applications. London: Wiley Press. to understand. mand are more difficult J. M., and M. Conley Theymaybe an artifact of thelow relia- Chertkoff, ofconcession 1967 "Opening offer andfrequency or mayindiofthesmiling bility measure, as bargaining strategies." Journal of Percate, as Keith-Spiegel (1972) and Kraut 7:181-185. sonality and Social Psychology
Size of demand. In termsof the major thatthe contextin which an influenceat-

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

356

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

of PerJournal approach." An ethological Chertkoff, J. M., and J. K. Esser 37:1539in explicit barand Social Psychology 1976 "A reviewof experiments sonality 1553. Social Journal of Experimental gaining." 12:464-486. Psychology Leventhal, H., and G. C. Cupchik Cooper,H. M. effects and facilitative 1975 "The informational andevaluuponexpression ofan audience 1979 "Statistically combining independent of ExJournal stimuli." ationof humorous of sex differences A meta-analysis studies: 11:363-380. Journal ofPersoninconformity research." Social Psychology perimental McGhee,P. 37:131-146. alityand Social Psychology San and Development. 1979 Humor:Its Origin Cupchik, G., and H. Leventhal expressive behavior between Press. 1974 "Consistency Freeman Francisco: W. J. and the evaluation stimuli: McGuire, of humorous to socialinand susceptibility 1968 "Personality JourThe roleof sex and self-observation. in E. F. Borgatta Pp. 1130-1187 fluence." nal of Personality and Social Psychology of (eds.), Handbook and W. W. Lambert 30:429-442. Chicago: Theory andResearch. Personality Davis, J. M., and A. Farina RandMcNally. appreciation as socialcommunica1970 "Humor tion." Journal and Social Mann,R. D. of Personality in performance of individual 1961 "Dimensions 15:175-178. Psychology small groups under task and socioEagly,A. I. ofAbnormal conditions." Journal emotional Psyin influenceability." 1978 "Sex'differences 62:674-682. and Social Psychology Bulletin 85:86-116. chological D. Markiewicz, Fine,G. A. 1974 "Effects of humor on persuasion." in 1977 "Humourin situ: The role of humour 37:407-422. Sociometry culture." Pp. 315-318in A. J. smallgroup D. R., E. S. Hrelec,and P. C. Wilkens andH. C. Foot(eds.),It'sa Funny Mettee, Chapman asset and lia1971 "Humoras an interpersonal Press. Oxford: Pergamon Humour. Thing, bility." Journalof Social Psychology Finn,J. D. 85:51-64. Multivariate Modelfor Analysis. 1974 A General C., and J. Markowski and Winston. Nemeth, New York: Holt,Rinehart of position." and discrepancy and Multivariate 1972 "Conformity Univariate 1976 Multivariance: Sociometry35:562-575. and Reof Variance, Covariance Analysis R. gression.Chicago: National Educational Norman, A com1976 "Whenwhatis said is important: Resources. sources." of expert and attractive parison Freedman, J. L., and S. C. Fraser Social Psychology of Experimental Journal The footwithout pressure: 1966 "Compliance 12:294-300. of PersonJournal in-the-door technique." T. A., and J. Lightstone Nosanchuk, 4:195-202. and Social Psychology ality and publicand private 1974 "Canned laughter E. Goffman, andSoJournal ofPersonality New York:Doubleday. conformity." Ritual. 1967 Interaction 29:153-156. cial Psychology J. D. Goodchilds, J. C. and Nunnally, 1972 "On beingwitty: Causes, correlates 1978 Psychometric New York:McGraw Theory. inJ.doldstein consequences." Pp. 173-193 Hill. of and P. McGhee(eds.), The Psychology Pollio,H. R., and J. W. Edgerly Press. Humor. New York:Academic andcomicstyle." 1976 "Comedians Pp. 215-242 C. Gruner, and H. C. Foot (eds.), in A. J. Chapman in mass communication." 1976 "Witand humor Research and Laughter: Theory, Humour and H. C. Pp. 287-311in A. J. Chapman London:Wiley. and Applications. Foot (eds.), Humour and Laughter: Lon- Powell,C. Researchand Applications. Theory, A of social control: 1977 "Humouras a form don: Wiley. devianceapproach."Pp. 53-55 in A. J. Isen, A. M., and P. F. Levin Chapmanand H. C. Foot (eds.), It's a Cookies offeeling 1972 "Effect goodon helping: FunnyThing,Humour.London: Pergaand Journal of Personality and kindness." mon. 21:384-388. Social Psychology D. G., and J. L. Drews Pruitt, Kane, T. R., J. M. Suls, and J.Tedeschi time elapsed, 1969 "The effect of time pressure, 1977 "Humor as a toolofsocialinteraction." Pp. rateon beconcession and theopponent's and H. C. Foot 13-16in A. J. Chapman of Experhaviorin negotiation." Journal (eds.), It's a FunnyThing,Humour.Ox5:43-60. imental Social Psychology ford:Pergamon. D. G., and D. F. Johnson Pruitt, P. Keith-Spiegel, 1970 "Mediationas an aid to facesavingin Varieties and ofhumor: 1972 "Earlyconceptions andSoJournal ofPersonality negotiation." and P. issues." Pp. 3-39 in J. Goldstein 14:239-246. cial Psychology ofHumor. McGhee(eds.),The Psychology A. Rapoport, Press. New York:Academic in the lightof game 1970 "Conflict resolution Kraut,R. E., and R. E. Johnston andbeyond." Pp. 1-43inP. Swingle theory ofsmiling: messages 1979 "Social andemotional

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(ed.),The Structure ofConflict. NewYork: Academic Press. Rubin, J. Z., and B. R. Brown 1975 The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York:Academic Press. Schachter, S., and L. Wheeler 1962 "Epinephrine, chlorpromazine and amusement."Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65:121-128. Sistrunk, F., and J. W. McDavid 1971 "Sex variable in conforming behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17:200-207. Terhune, K. W. 1970 "The effects of personality in cooperation and conflict." Pp. 193-234in P. Swingle

NewYork: ofConflict. (ed.),The Structure Press. Academic R. Valeriani, 1979 Travels With Henry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. and L. A. R. R., C. M. Callahan-Levy, Vallacher, Messe as a on bilateral bargaining 1979 "Sex effects Personcontext." of interpersonal function ality and Social Psychology Bulletin 5:104-108. Young,R. D., and M. Frye someare not-why?" 1966 "Some are laughing, 18:747-754. Reports Psychological A. C. Zijderveld, to socialreality." relation and their 1968 "Jokes
Social Research 35:286-311.

Social Psychology Quarterly 1981, Vol. 44, No. 4, 357-362

Reactionsto theDisclosureofPublic and PrivateSelf-Information

THOMAS E. RUNGE RICHARD L. ARCHER
University of Texas at Austin

A new content dimension, public (behaviors and events) vs. private (motives, emotions, attitudes,and fantasies), is proposed to categorize self-disclosure.It was hypothesizedthat private self-disclosuresare more intimate than public ones, since they actually must be disclosed by the self to become known. To test this notion an experiment was conducted in which female subjects heard a confederate make a disclosurethatvariedbycondition along two dimensionsof content,public vs. privateand positive vs. negative,and one of circumstance, personal vs. impersonal. Results confirmthe hypothesisand appear to rule out alternative explanations based upon the positivity and personalism of the disclosure.

theirperceptions and returning Intimacy rather than has always dicating content been the variableof greatest interest of their own. The topicsand to disclosures researchers self-disclosure (see Archer, details for the alternateformsof the are selected to revelation 1979; and Kleinke, 1979,for recentre- confederate's a clearmanipulation of intimacy. views).In a typical disclosure experiment provide (e.g., Ehrlichand Graeven, 1971), the Since the contentof the disclosureis a means to achieve the ends of subjectslisten to a confederate's scripted merely high or low intimacy investigators at bestattempt to in- intimacy, disclosure before rule out its impact (e.g., Jones and Support forthisresearch was provided byNIMH Archer, 1976), andat worst ignore theimGrantMH 33199-01 (Richard L. Archer, Principal pact altogether (e.g., Rubin, 1975). Investigator) anda small grant to Richard L. Archer A fewinvestigators have directed their from theHoggFoundation forMental Health(Uniconof disclosure to theeffects versity of Texas at Austin). We wishto thank Col- attention leen Dyerand ChuckHarris, who served as exper- tent on attraction.The positivityor imenters and confederates. We are also grateful to negativity of the information disclosed Jeffrey Bermanforhis valuablehelp on methoda influseems to have direct and obvious ologicalquestions. Address all communications to: formed by the lisRichard L. Archer, Department ofPsychology, The ence on impressions University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. tener(Jonesand Gordon,1972),but the
357

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:04:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions