See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247503285

Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media

Article  in  Media Psychology · May 2004

DOI: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2

CITATIONS READS

165 7,838

2 authors:

Moniek Buijzen Patti M. Valkenburg

Erasmus University Rotterdam University of Amsterdam
146 PUBLICATIONS   3,858 CITATIONS    236 PUBLICATIONS   17,836 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MyMovez project View project

Moral Evaluations of Morally Ambivalent TV-series View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moniek Buijzen on 06 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 147–167
Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Developing a Typology of Humor

in Audiovisual Media
Moniek Buijzen and Patti M. Valkenburg
The Amsterdam School of Communications Research
University of Amsterdam

The main aim of this study was to develop and investigate a typology of humor in
audiovisual media. We identified 41 humor techniques, drawing on Berger’s
(1976, 1993) typology of humor in narratives, audience research on humor pref-
erences, and an inductive analysis of humorous commercials. We analyzed the
content of 319 humorous television commercials to investigate (a) whether and
how humor techniques cluster into higher order humor categories and (b) which
humor techniques and categories characterize commercials aimed at different
audience groups. From principle components analysis, 7 categories of humor
emerged: slapstick, clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire,
and parody. Our findings showed some marked differences in the humor tech-
niques and categories in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups.

Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers and other scholars have tried to under-
stand the origin, functions, and importance of humor (McGhee, 1971; Veatch,
1998). Over the years numerous theories have been proposed to explain why we
laugh and what makes us laugh. Although classic theories on humor and laughter
often appear under different names, in the literature three humor theories show up
repeatedly: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory (Berger, 1993;
Meyer, 2000).
From the perspective of relief theory, people laugh because they need to reduce
physiological tension from time to time (Berlyne, 1972; Meyer, 2000). Relief the-
ory assumes that laughter and mirth results from a release of nervous energy. In
this view humor is mainly used to reveal suppressed desires and to overcome

Requests for reprints should be sent to Moniek Buijzen, The Amsterdam School of
Communications Research ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48,
1012 CX Amsterdam. E-mail: m.a.buijzen@uva.nl
148 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

sociocultural inhibitions. Humor explained by relief theory typically involves sex-

ual and aggressive themes (Freud, 1963; Schaeffer, 1981).
According to superiority theory, people laugh because they feel some kind of
triumph over others or feel superior to them (Meyer, 2000). From this perspective
humor has a primarily emotional function, helping the humorist to build confi-
dence and self-esteem. Laughter and mirth result from seeing oneself as superior,
right, or triumphant, in contrast to another who is inferior, wrong, or defeated. Rid-
icule and making fun of those who are less fortunate or who deviate from the norm
are typical themes of humor covered by superiority theory (Berger, 1993).
From the perspective of incongruity theory, people laugh at things that are un-
expected or surprising (Berger, 1976, 1993; McGhee, 1979). According to this the-
ory, it is the violation of an expected pattern that provokes humor in the mind of the
receiver. Rather than focusing on the physiological (relief theory) or emotional
(superiority theory) function of humor, incongruity theory emphasizes cognition.
It assumes that the cognitive capacity to note and understand incongruous events is
necessary to experience laughter or mirth. Absurdity, nonsense, and surprise are
vital themes in humor covered by this theory (Berger, 1993; McGhee, 1979;
Veatch, 1998).
There is no consensus among humor theorists about which of these three theo-
ries of humor is most viable. Originally, proponents of each theory maintained that
their theory could explain all instances of humor (Meyer, 2000), but current humor
researchers often consider the three theories as complementary. They acknowl-
edge that although each humor theory has its own focus, many instances of humor
can be explained by more than one theory (Berger, 1993; Meyer, 2000; Veatch,
1998).
The aim of this study was to develop a typology of humor in audiovisual media
based on the three theories of humor. To date, the bulk of research into humor in
audiovisual media has focused on audience perceptions of humor. For example,
the use of humor to facilitate selective attention has been investigated (e.g.,
Wakshlag, Day, & Zillmann, 1981), as has its use to facilitate message liking (e.g.,
Goldstein, 1993; Madden & Weinberger, 1984), comprehension (e.g., Stewart &
Furse, 1986; Weinberger & Campbell, 1991), and recall (e.g., Perry, Jenzowsky,
King, Yi, Hester, & Gartenschlaeger, 1997).
Few studies have addressed the content and specific types of humor used in au-
diovisual media. This is remarkable because humor researchers generally ac-
knowledge that any research on audience perception of humor must begin with an
identification of types of humor (McCullough, 1993; Unger, 1996). Some authors
have attempted to identify several types of humor such as aggressive, sexual, and
incongruous humor (Goldstein & McGhee, 1972; Veatch, 1998). However, there
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 149

has, to date, been no empirical verification of the occurrence and relative impor-
tance of these types of humor in audiovisual media.
Our typology of humor is inspired by the one created by Berger (1976, 1993),
which is to date the most extensive typology in the literature and, to our knowl-
edge, the only one that takes different humor theories into account. Berger’s
typology is based on the assumption that humor can be divided into various parts
or techniques. His typology consisted of humor techniques such as exaggeration,
ridicule, coincidence, repetition, and misunderstanding. By themselves many of
these techniques are not necessarily funny; they must complement one another to
generate humor.
Berger’s (1976) typology was developed to categorize humor in verbal narra-
tives intended for adults. Berger studied verbal jokes to inductively create his
typology of humor techniques. However, because of this focus on verbal narra-
tives, Berger’s typology might need some adjustment when applied to audiovisual
media. After all, audiovisual media may permit more or different types of humor
techniques than verbal narratives do. Moreover, the jokes that Berger used to com-
pile his typology were primarily intended for adults, with the consequence that
more simple childlike humor techniques received relatively little attention in his
typology.
To adapt Berger’s (1976, 1993) typology of humor to audiovisual media, we un-
dertook two steps. First, we reviewed the research into humor preferences of dif-
ferent audience groups to identify the humor types that appeal to different age and
gender groups. Second, as Berger did, we conducted an inductive analysis of au-
diovisual media to identify as many humor techniques as possible. Berger used
jokes to inductively arrive at his typology because jokes include short and com-
plete storylines that can be dealt with in a direct manner. In our analysis we used
commercials as an audiovisual equivalent of Berger’s jokes because, like jokes,
commercials present short and complete storylines, making them a usable unit of
analysis. Before we present the results of our inductive analysis, we discuss the
main conclusions of previous studies into the humor preferences in different age
and gender groups.

HUMOR PREFERENCES IN DIFFERENT

AUDIENCE GROUPS

Audience research on humor preferences suggests that understanding and appre-

ciating different types of humor is highly dependent on cognitive and
sociocognitive factors (McGhee, 1971, 1979; Zigler, Levine, & Gould, 1966).
150 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

For example, children’s developmental level is strongly related to their under-

standing and appreciation of certain types of abstract and verbal humor such as
irony and puns (McGhee, 1979). Similarly, the rebelliousness that characterizes
adolescence is an important determinant for adolescents’ preference for scato-
logical and disgusting humor (Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997). Theories on the de-
velopment of humor (e.g., McGhee, 1971) often distinguish among different age
groups: early childhood (2–7 years), middle childhood (8–11 years), adoles-
cence (12–18 years), and adulthood (19+). We have organized our review of the
literature on humor preferences according to these four different age groups.

Early Childhood: Clownish Behavior

and Visual Surprise
Children in early childhood (ages 2–7) usually appreciate simple forms of hu-
mor (McGhee, 1979; Shultz, 1996). Children in early childhood are very visual
in their orientation to the world; therefore, they have a strong preference for vi-
sual and physical humor such as funny faces, grimaces, and sudden visual sur-
prises, as in playing peek-a-boo (Shultz, 1996). In particular, slapstick, vigorous
arm and leg movement, clownish behavior, and anthropomorphism tickle the
young child’s funny bone (Acuff & Reiher, 1997; McGhee, 1971). In addition to
visual and physical humor, small children also laugh at other simple forms of
humor such as unusual voices and sounds. Humor techniques that require a
higher cognitive understanding, such as irony or sarcasm, are neither understood
nor appreciated by this age group (Bryant & Meyer, 1977; Dews et al., 1996).
By age 4 most children start to appreciate simple forms of verbal humor such as
playing with the sound of words or the incongruous labeling of objects and events
(McGhee, 1979). Conceptual incongruity, such as the exaggeration or distortion of
familiar concepts and situations, is comprehended and appreciated only by older
children in this age group (McGhee, 1979). At the end of early childhood, children
begin to appreciate more malicious and irreverent humor techniques (McGhee,
1971, 1979).
Although boys and girls in early childhood differ little in their comprehension
of humor, some gender differences in humor appreciation do occur. Research sug-
gests that boys prefer more stinging or malicious humor such as teasing and ridi-
cule (McGhee, 1976). In early childhood boys more often appreciate aggressive
and violent humor (Acuff & Reiher, 1997; McGhee, 1976), whereas girls more fre-
quently favor incongruous and surprising events, amusing physical behaviors, ver-
bal forms of humor, and animal antics (Groch, 1974; McGhee, 1976).
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 151

Middle Childhood: Slapstick and Logic

Children in middle childhood (ages 8–11) begin to develop a preference for
more complicated and abstract humor such as playing with logic and the mean-
ing of words (McGhee, 1979). Around age 10 children begin to like social trans-
formations as well as illogical behavior and situations. In spite of their enhanced
cognitive skills, slapstick remains a favorite among children in this age group.
Due to children’s increasing ability to take another person’s point of view
(Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993), teasing and invective humor are found less hu-
morous by this group than in the younger age group (McGhee, 1979). Other
people’s misfortunes are perceived as humorous only in accidental or uninten-
tional cases or if the object of humor is an unpleasant character (McGhee, 1979).
At the end of middle childhood, children increasingly favor more complex forms
of humor such as word play, sarcasm, and sexual allusion. Gross forms of humor
such as disgust, violence, and irreverent behavior are also increasingly appreci-
ated (Acuff & Reiher, 1997).
As with the gender differences seen in early childhood, boys between 8 and 11
appreciate hostile humor more than girls do. Making fun of others, especially ir-
reverent behavior toward adults, is valued more by boys than by girls (Brodzinsky,
Barnet, & Aiello, 1981; McGhee, 1976). Girls tend to prefer sophisticated forms of
humor such as riddles and puns more than boys do (Brodzinsky et al., 1981). Addi-
tionally, research suggests that girls’ responses to humor are more influenced by
their environment. Boys tend to be more responsive to the humor stimulus itself,
whereas girls more frequently react to what their companions perceive as funny
(Chapman, Smith, & Foot, 1980; McGhee, 1979).

Adolescence: Subtleties and

Irreverent Behavior
During adolescence (ages 12–18) children develop an appreciation for more so-
phisticated forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, irony, and sexual allusion
(Acuff & Reiher, 1997). However, slapstick and physical forms of humor popular
among younger children are still appreciated in this age group (Acuff & Reiher,
1997). Adolescents prefer anecdotes and spontaneous humor to memorized jokes.
They also like absurdity (McGhee, 1979) and more gross types of humor such as
irreverent humor and humor based on taboos or disgust (Acuff & Reiher, 1997;
Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997). As in the younger age groups, these gross types of
humor are more popular among male than female adolescents (Oppliger &
Zillmann, 1997).
152 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

Adulthood: Diversity and Individuality

In adulthood age differences become less important, whereas other demographic
factors such as gender, culture, and socioeconomic status become more important
determinants of humor appreciation (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). Puns on multi-
ple meanings of a word form the basis of much adult humor (McGhee, 1979). Most
adults appreciate slapstick and sexual humor (Unger, 1996). Aggressive and hos-
tile types of humor are also popular although generally more so among men than
among women (Mundorf, Bhatia, Zillmann, Lester, & Robertson, 1988; Whipple
& Courtney, 1980). Adult women tend to appreciate nonsensical and silly humor
more often than men (Brodzinsky et al, 1981; Johnson, 1992; Weinberger & Gulas,
1992), whereas men more frequently prefer malicious (Unger 1996), sick (Herzog
& Karafa, 1998), and sexual humor (Groch, 1974; Hassett & Houlihan, 1979).
Finally, cartoon humor is generally valued more highly by men than by women
(Brodzinsky et al., 1981; Mundorf et al., 1988).

A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR IN AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA

Following Berger’s (1976, 1993) procedure, we conducted an inductive analysis of

30 humorous commercials, taking into account the specific humor preferences of
different audience groups. The inductive analysis yielded a typology of 41 audio-
visual humor techniques, a large number of which were directly adopted from
Berger. The remaining consisted of techniques derived from audience research
(e.g., anthropomorphism, irreverent behavior) and from the analysis of commer-
cials (e.g., peculiar music, visual surprise). The humor techniques and their defini-
tions are listed in Table 1.
According to Berger (1976, 1993), humor techniques fall into four general cate-
gories: language, logic, identity, and action. However, it has never been investi-
gated whether humor techniques cluster into higher order categories and, if so,
how. The aim of our study was to investigate whether and how the 41 techniques
we identified cluster into humor categories. To this end we analyzed content of 319
humorous commercials and used data-reduction methods to verify how the tech-
niques we identified combine with one another and cluster into higher order cate-
gories. In addition, we examined the relative prevalence of the humor techniques
and categories in commercials and compared their use in commercials aimed at
different age and gender groups. The results of this content analysis were related to
Berger’s humor categories, the three main theories of humor, and findings from au-
dience perception research. We formulated the following research questions:
TABLE 1
Humor Techniques

Humor Technique Short Description

Absurditya Nonsense, a situation that goes against all logical rules
Anthropomorphism Objects or animals with human features
Bombasta Talking in a high-flown, grandiloquent, or rhetorical
manner
Chasea A pursuit or chase of someone or something
Clownish behaviora Making vigorous arm and leg movements or
demonstrating exaggerated irregular physical behavior
Clumsiness Lacking dexterity or grace
Coincidencea A coincidental and unexpected occurrence
Conceptual surprise Misleading the audience by means of a sudden
unexpected change of concept
Disappointmenta A situation that leads to (minor) disappointment
Eccentricitya Someone who deviates from the norms, an odd character
Embarrassmenta An awkward situation in which someone gets a sense of
discomfort, uneasiness, or shame
Exaggerationa Making an exaggeration or overstatement; reacting in an
exaggerated way; exaggerating the qualities of a
person or product
Grotesque Someone who has a bizarre or monstrous appearance
appearancea with striking features
Ignorancea Someone acts or behaves in a foolish, naive, gullible, or
childish manner
Imitationa Mimicking or copying someone’s appearance or
movements while keeping one’s own identity at the
same time
Impersonationa Taking on the identity of another person, intentionally or
unintentionally
Infantilisma Playing with the sound of words
Ironya Saying one thing and meaning something else or exactly
the opposite of what you’re saying
Irreverent behavior Lacking proper respect for authority or the prevailing
standards

(continued)

153
TABLE 1
Continued

Humor Technique Short Description

Malicious pleasure Taking pleasure in other people’s misfortune; victim

humor
Misunderstandinga Misinterpreting a situation
Outwitting Outsmarting someone or the establishment by retort,
response, or comeback
Parodya Imitating a style or a genre of literature or other media
Peculiar face Making a funny face, grimace
Peculiar music Funny, unusual music
Peculiar sound Funny sound, unexpected sound, as in cartoons
Peculiar voice Funny, unusual voice
Puna Playing with the meaning of words
Reparteea Verbal banter, usually in a witty dialogue
Repetitiona Repetition or replay of the same situation
Ridiculea Making a fool of someone, verbally or nonverbally
Rigiditya Someone who thinks along straight lines, who is
conservative and inflexible
Sarcasma Biting remark made with a hostile tone; sarcasm is
always a verbal put-down
Satirea Making a fool of or poking fun at well-known things,
situations, or public figures
Scalea Very large or small sizes of objects that surpass people’s
logical expectations
Sexual allusiona Making a reference or insinuation to sexual or naughty
matters
Slapsticka Physical pie-in-the-face humor often involving
degradation of someone’s status
Speeda Talking or moving in very fast or slow motion
Stereotypea Stereotyped or generalized way of depicting members of
a certain nation, gender, or other group
Transformationa Someone or something takes on another form or
undergoes a metamorphosis; before/after
Visual surprise A sudden unexpected visual/physical change
aHumor technique adopted from Berger (1976, 1993).

154
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 155

RQ1: How do the humor techniques identified in our study cluster into higher or-
der categories of humor?
RQ2: What is the relative prevalence of different humor techniques and catego-
ries in audiovisual media, and how does this differ for media aimed at dif-
ferent age and gender groups?

METHOD

Sample
During the fall and winter of 1998 and the spring of 1999, we collected a sample of
commercials from Dutch television representative of advertising to children, ado-
lescents, and adults. In total, we taped 216 hours of television. We selected differ-
ent time periods on two public and three private networks. Taping occurred each
week on Saturday between 8 a.m. and noon, and on subsequent weekdays between
4:30 and 8:30 p.m. All commercials broadcast before, during, and after the re-
corded programs were collected. This resulted in a sample of approximately 2,500
commercials. After eliminating repeats, public service announcements, and non-
commercial advertising, the total sample consisted of 601 different commercials.

Coding Procedure
Two coders were trained over a 2-month period. To practice coding, coders used a
separate subsample of commercials that was not included in the final analysis.
During this period extensive coders’ instructions and decision rules were created.
Throughout the coding period, applying the codebook and dealing with doubtful
cases were regularly discussed. Variables in the codebook included the target age
group, the target gender group, and the type of humor used in the commercials.
Each coder analyzed approximately 50% of the final sample of commercials.

Humor. The coders first determined whether a commercial was intended to

be humorous in the first place. The intercoder reliability of this variable, based on a
subsample of 30 commercials, was 100%. Of the total sample of 601 commercials,
53.1% (n = 319) of the commercials contained some type of humor. The analysis
presented in this article is based on these 319 humorous commercials.

Types of humor. Because many commercials in our sample contained more

than one humor technique, each type of humor was coded as being present (1) or
156 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

absent (0) in the commercial. Intercoder agreement was perfect on 83% of all the
types of humor we distinguished (Cohen’s κ = 1.00). For the majority of the re-
maining humor techniques (coincidence, exaggeration, visual surprise, peculiar
face, and clumsiness), the reliability was satisfactory (κ > .78). However, for two
humor techniques (peculiar sound and malicious pleasure), the kappa was not sat-
isfactory (κ = .65). The definitions of these humor techniques were evaluated and
then rewritten until consensus between the coders was reached.

Target audience. In analyzing commercials there are two accepted methods

of defining the age and gender positioning of the commercial. One method derives
the age and gender of the target audience from the key characters in the commer-
cial (e.g., Welch, Huston-Stein, Wright, & Plehal, 1979; Winick, Williamson,
Chuzmir, & Winick, 1973). The other method is based on the coder’s estimation of
the target audience (e.g., Chandler & Griffiths, 2000). In this latter method, the
coders consider the nature of the advertised product and the gender and age of the
key characters in the commercial. Because it is implausible in our view that adver-
tisers would consistently use same-age and same-sex key characters in commer-
cials to reach a specific target audience, we relied on the coder’s estimation of the
target audience.
During their training coders turned out to have difficulty distinguishing be-
tween commercials aimed at the two youngest age groups. Because maintaining
the age categories 2 to 7 and 8 to 11 would have been problematic, we distin-
guished among the following age groups: aimed at children (2- to 11-year-olds),
aimed at adolescents (12- to 18-year-olds), and general audience. The latter cate-
gory included all the commercials that did not fit into the categories aimed at chil-
dren or aimed at adolescents. Coders defined the gender positioning of the com-
mercial as aimed at males, aimed at females, or aimed at both males and females
Measures of intercoder reliability were satisfactory. The kappa for the estimated
target age was .94 and the kappa for the estimated target gender was 1.0, indicating
that coders were reliably able to estimate the gender and age positioning of the
commercials.

RESULTS

Categories of Humor Techniques Used

in Television Advertising
To explore the component structure of the different humor techniques, we con-
ducted a principle component analysis for categorical variables (CATPCA; avail-
able in SPSS 10.1). The CATPCA procedure quantifies categorical data while re-
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 157

ducing the dimensionality of the data with minimal loss of information found in
the original variables (De Haas, Algera, & Van Tuijl, 2000). The CATPCA tech-
nique is exploratory in nature and, therefore, suitable for the purposes of this study.
An initial principle component analysis (CATPCA) performed on the 41 humor
techniques yielded 15 components, all with an eigenvalue > 1.0. Because these
were impossible to interpret, we applied the Scree criterion and conducted a sec-
ond CATPCA with a restriction of seven components, which explained 33.4% of
the variance. Six items (imitation, impersonation, eccentricity, sexual allusion,
repetition, and grotesque appearance) failed to load exclusively on one component.
After removing these items, a third CATPCA was conducted. This analysis again
revealed seven interpretable components, explaining 38.2% of the variance. These
components clearly represented seven categories of humor: slapstick (nine items;
eigenvalue, 2.73), surprise (four items; eigenvalue, 1.66), irony (five items;
eigenvalue, 1.47), clownish humor (four items; eigenvalue, 2.32), satire (four
items; eigenvalue, 1.79), misunderstanding (four items; eigenvalue, 1.49), and par-
ody (five items; eigenvalue, 1.96). The seven humor categories as well as the indi-
vidual techniques that loaded on each component are presented in the first column
of Table 2. Under the heading “miscellaneous,” the six items that were removed
from the CATPCA are listed.

The Use of Humor Techniques and Categories

Table 2 shows how often (in percentages) each humor technique and category ap-
peared in commercials aimed at different age and gender groups. The number of
times the different humor categories were used in commercials aimed at different
audience groups was computed by means of multiple-response techniques (using
SPSS 10.1). The total column percentages in Table 2 reflect the percentages of
commercials that used one or more of the techniques that made up the humor cate-
gory in question.

Humor in commercials aimed at different age groups. As shown in Ta-

ble 2, the prevalent humor categories in children’s commercials were slapstick and
clownish humor. Satire and parody were used the least. In comparison with com-
mercials aimed at adolescents and a general audience, commercials aimed at chil-
dren used clownish humor, slapstick, and misunderstanding considerably more of-
ten. Within these prevailing categories, humor techniques such as peculiar faces,
peculiar voices, anthropomorphisms, and clumsiness were the most common.
In commercials aimed at adolescents, the most frequently used humor catego-
ries were slapstick and surprise, followed by satire. Clownish humor was used the
least. Satire, parody, and surprise were used in commercials aimed at adolescents
 TABLE 2
158

Techniques and Categories of Humor in Commercials Aimed at Different Age and Gender Groups
% Aimed at
% Aimed at Age Groups Gender Groups
General % Total
Children Adolescents Audience Males Females Sample
(n = 77) (n = 64) (n = 178) (n = 29) (n = 46) (N = 319)
Slapstick humor
Slapstick 20 16 6 10 4 11
Peculiar face 40 42 32 31 11 36
Peculiar voice 44 30 9 21 13 22
Coincidence 9 14 7 3 4 9
Clumsiness 22 6 10 3 9 12
Stereotype 5 31 21 21 11 19
Ridicule 13 13 6 24 7 9
Malicious pleasure 8 16 13 10 7 12
Repartee 1 5 3 3 0 3
Total 84 64 54 76 37 63
Surprise
Conceptual surprise 21 42 31 24 24 31
Visual surprise 22 20 12 14 15 16
Transformation 9 14 7 10 9 9
Exaggeration 7 25 11 10 9 13
Total 47 60 46 45 44 49
 Irony
Irony 5 11 9 7 9 9
Sarcasm 3 6 6 7 7 5
Embarrassment 8 8 6 24 7 7
Puns 26 20 25 21 15 24
Scale 12 3 3 10 4 5
Total 39 30 39 52 35 39
Clownish humor
Clownish behavior 31 11 8 17 11 14
Anthropomorphism 36 6 11 3 17 16
Speed 7 6 3 3 0 5
Chase 12 6 2 7 0 5
Total 58 20 22 21 26 30
Satire
Satire 3 5 7 7 2 5
Irreverent behavior 16 27 12 24 7 16
Outwitting 3 11 7 10 2 7
Peculiar music 8 5 7 0 7 7
Total 27 34 25 31 15 27
Misunderstanding
Misunderstanding 3 3 7 3 7 5
Ignorance 1 9 5 3 0 5
Disappointment 10 11 7 7 9 9
Peculiar sound 25 14 7 10 7 13
159

Total 34 25 22 21 17 25
(continued)
160
TABLE 2
Continued
% Aimed at
% Aimed at Age Groups Gender Groups
General % Total
Children Adolescents Audience Males Females Sample
(n = 77) (n = 64) (n = 178) (n = 29) (n = 46) (N = 319)
Parody
Parody 10 9 5 0 2 7
Bombast 1 3 3 3 0 3
Rigidity 1 3 2 0 0 2
Absurdity 16 19 7 14 4 11
Infantilism 4 5 7 7 0 6
Total 25 30 19 21 7 22
Miscellaneous
Imitation 4 2 3 0 0 3
Impersonation 1 2 2 7 0 2
Eccentricity 4 6 2 10 2 3
Sexual allusion 0 9 8 7 4 7
Repetition 3 2 3 0 2 3
Grotesque appearance 8 6 1 7 0 3
Total 18 25 19 28 9 20
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 161

more often than in commercials for children or a general audience. Within these
prevailing categories, techniques such as conceptual surprise, exaggeration, irrev-
erent behavior, and absurdity predominated. In addition, adolescent commercials
employed the miscellaneous humor techniques such as sexual allusion, eccentric-
ity, and grotesque appearance relatively often.
Prevalent humor categories in commercials aimed at a general audience were
slapstick, surprise, and irony. Parody and clownish humor were used the least.
None of the seven categories of humor was used substantially more often in com-
mercials aimed at a general audience than in commercials for the two younger age
groups. Within the three prevailing categories, frequently used humor techniques
were peculiar faces, conceptual surprises, and puns.

Humor in commercials aimed at different gender groups. When com-

paring the use of humor categories in commercials aimed at different gender
groups, Table 2 indicates that slapstick, irony, and satire were commonly used in
male-targeted commercials. Within these prevailing categories, commercials
aimed at a male audience used the techniques of ridicule, conceptual surprise,
embarrassment, and irreverent behavior most frequently. In addition, male-tar-
geted commercials used humor techniques such as eccentricity, impersonation,
grotesque appearance, and sexual allusion in the miscellaneous category rela-
tively often.
The predominant humor category in commercials aimed at women and girls
was surprise, closely followed by slapstick and irony. Satire and parody were used
the least. Although none of the seven types of humor was typical of commercials
aimed at women and girls, clownish humor was a little more common in female
commercials than in male commercials. Within these humor categories, tech-
niques such as puns, anthropomorphisms, and peculiar voices prevailed.

DISCUSSION

The main aim of this study was to develop and test a typology of humor techniques
in audiovisual media. To this end we developed a list of 41 humor techniques, com-
piled from the typology of Berger (1976, 1993), research literature on humor pref-
erences (e.g., McGhee, 1979; Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997; Shultz, 1996; Unger,
1996), and an inductive analysis of humorous commercials. We analyzed content
of a random sample of humorous television commercials and used categorical
principle components analysis to investigate whether and how these techniques
clustered together into higher order categories of humor. We also investigated the
162 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

relative prevalence of the categories in commercials aimed at different age and

gender groups.

Seven Categories of Humor

Our findings show that most of the inductively established humor techniques clus-
ter together into higher order categories of humor. However, instead of the four cat-
egories proposed by Berger (1996), our study yielded seven humor categories:
slapstick, clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire, and parody.
In addition, our study shows that some techniques (i.e., imitation, impersonation,
eccentricity, sexual allusion, repetition, grotesque appearance) do not load on any
single humor-category factor and do not cluster together with other techniques.
One explanation for this finding is that some of these techniques such as repetition
and eccentricity are used in more than one humor category (e.g., slapstick and par-
ody). Another explanation is that some humor techniques do not have to be com-
bined with other techniques to generate humor. For example, sexual allusion can
be humorous by itself without the addition of other humor techniques.
The seven categories of humor that emerged in our study vary primarily in level
of complexity. Clownish humor, the simplest category, involves pursuit and vigor-
ous arm and leg movements. Surprise, equally innocent but cognitively more de-
manding, involves sudden changes of concepts and images. Parody is a more com-
plex humor category that requires knowledge of the particular media styles or
genres that are parodied. Finally, misunderstanding is also relatively innocent al-
though it tends more toward victim humor in that it reflects laughing at others, ig-
norance, or disappointment.
The remaining three categories involve relatively unfriendly and pungent hu-
mor. Slapstick humor, a physical pie-in-the-face type of humor, typically has an
unfriendly nature and is often accompanied by malicious delight. Satire and irony
are also often antagonistic but cognitively more demanding than slapstick. Irony
clusters with sarcasm and puns, whereas satire involves making fun of a
well-known person or situation.
The typology of humor developed in the study deals with the question what it is
that generates humor in media; it does not explain why something is perceived as
humorous. However, each of the seven categories relates to one or more of the
three main theories that attempt to explain humor. Incongruity theory explains the
humorousness of the more innocuous humor categories (i.e., clownish humor, sur-
prise, misunderstanding). For example, surprise involves incongruous narratives
and unexpected events. Superiority theory explains some of the less innocuous
categories (i.e., satire, irony) because these humor categories involve outwitting
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 163

others and laughing at the less fortunate. Finally, relief theory could explain the an-
tagonistic nature of slapstick humor. Even though the three humor theories can ex-
plain one or more specific humor categories, some categories can be explained by
more than one theory. For instance, slapstick can be explained by all three theories:
It encompasses coincidence (incongruity theory), malicious delight (superiority
theory), and aggressiveness (relief theory).

Humor Categories Used in Commercials

The second aim of our study was to determine the relative prevalence of different
humor categories in audiovisual media and to investigate how the use of these cate-
gories differs for media aimed at different age and gender groups. Our results show
that, overall, slapstick was most frequently employed, followed by surprise, irony,
clownish humor, satire, misunderstanding, and parody, in that order.
Children’s commercials were characterized by slapstick, clownish humor, and
misunderstanding. These types of humor closely correspond to children’s humor
preferences (McGhee, 1979; Shultz, 1996). Our results show that humor in chil-
dren’s commercials addresses the preferences of children in early childhood more
closely than those of children in middle childhood. Types of humor that are popu-
lar among children aged 8 to 11, such as parody and rebellious humor, were rela-
tively rare in children’s commercials.
Commercials aimed at adolescents were characterized by satire, parody, and
surprise. Satire is a relatively complex and caustic humor category that appeals to
the noncompliant attitude of adolescents. Parody is a relatively complicated and
abstract type of humor that requires more developed cognitive skills. Our finding
that parody was used more often in commercials aimed at adolescents than in those
aimed at children is consistent with developmental theories of humor appreciation
(McGhee, 1971; Zigler et al., 1966).
Irony, slapstick, and surprise prevailed in commercials for a general audience.
Irony and surprise rely on play with logic, words, and knowledge and are, there-
fore, most appropriate for adolescents and adults (McGhee, 1979). In addition, au-
dience research has shown that simple humor such as slapstick is popular among
all age groups, including adults (Unger 1996). Types of humor that are generally
more appealing to adults than to children, such as sexual and hostile humor, were
detected more often in commercials aimed at a general audience than in commer-
cials specifically aimed at children.
Commercials aimed at men and boys contained considerably more irony, satire,
and slapstick than commercials aimed at women and girls. These findings are con-
sistent with research on gender differences in humor preferences (Brodzinsky et
164 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

al., 1981; McGhee, 1976, 1979; Unger 1996), which has shown that men and boys
have a greater preference for caustic and disparaging types of humor than women
and girls have. In commercials aimed at women and girls, more innocent humor
categories such as clownish humor prevailed, which is also consistent with re-
search on female humor preferences (Brodzinsky et al., 1981; Johnson, 1992;
Weinberger & Gulas, 1992).
When relating these findings to the three theories of humor, we can conclude
that children’s commercials mainly make use of humor that can be explained by in-
congruity theory and, to a lesser extent, superiority theory. Humor in commercials
aimed at adolescents can largely be explained by superiority theory and, to a lesser
extent, incongruity theory. The humor used in commercials aimed at a general au-
dience represents all three theories of humor. These findings indicate that the hu-
mor theories are related not only to specific humor categories but also to humor
that appeals to specific audience groups.
This study was based on Dutch television commercials. Because it is conceiv-
able that an analysis of other media types or of commercials in other countries
could yield different findings, replication and extension of our study are important.
We do believe, however, that our study provides a valuable starting point for a fur-
ther validation of a typology of humor in audiovisual media.

Our Typology of Humor and Media Uses

and Effects Research
The typology advanced in this study can serve as a useful tool for research on
the uses and effects of humorous media. Previous studies of the effects of humor
on attention, liking, comprehension, and recall often produced contradictory re-
sults (for a review, see Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). A possible explanation for
these inconsistent findings could be that most previous research focused only on
the effects of the presence or absence in humor in audiovisual media. Most ex-
perimental research, for instance, focused on the effects of humorous versus
nonhumorous media (e.g., Wakshlag, Day, & Zillmann, 1981). Survey research,
on the other hand, usually investigated how funny an audience perceived humor-
ous media content.
Our study has demonstrated that the use of humor differs largely for different
audience groups, which suggests that media producers are well aware that different
audience groups are attracted to different types of humor. Although research that
compares different categories of humor is scarce, it is well possible that different
types of humor (e.g., slapstick vs. irony) lead to different types of effects in differ-
ent types of audiences. To investigate this proposition, researchers may find our
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 165

typology to be of great value to experimental as well as survey research. Future ex-

perimental researchers can use our typology to compare the cognitive and affective
reactions to stimulus materials varying in level of complexity (e.g., slapstick vs.
parody) and friendliness (e.g, clownish humor vs. satire). Future survey research-
ers can employ our typology of humor to design questions and instruments that al-
low a more in-depth and differentiating analysis of humor appreciation than those
that have been carried out in previous research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank Marije de Bie for her assistance with coding commercials.

REFERENCES

Acuff, D. S., & Reiher, R. H. (1997). What kids buy and why. New York: Free
Press.
Berger, A. A. (1976). Laughing matter: A symposium: Anatomy of the joke. Jour-
nal of Communication, 26(3), 113–115.
Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub-
lishers.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee
(Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 43–60). New York: Academic.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K., & Aiello, J. R. (1981). Sex of subject and gender
identity as factors in humor appreciation. Sex Roles, 7, 561–573.
Bryant, J., & Meyer, T. P. (1977). A developmental analysis of children’s favorite
jokes. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing, humor (pp.
223–224). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Chandler, D., & Griffiths, M. (2000). Gender-differentiated production features in
toy commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44,
503–520.
Chapman, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Foot, H. C. (1980). Humor, laughter, & social in-
teraction. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children’s humor (pp.
141–180). New York: Wiley.
De Haas, M., Algera, J. A., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M. (2000). Macro and micro goal set-
ting: In search of coherence. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
49, 579–595.
166 BUIJZEN & VALKENBURG

Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., et al. (1996).
Children’s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child
Development, 67, 3071–3085.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Oxford, UK: Norton.
Goldstein, J. (1993). Humor and comedy in mass media. Medien Psychologie [Me-
dia Psychology], 4, 246–256.
Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (1972). The psychology of humor. Theoretical
perspectives and empirical issues. New York: Academic.
Groch, A. (1974). Generality of response to humor and wit in cartoons, jokes, sto-
ries, and photographs. Psychological Reports, 35, 935–938.
Hassett, J., & Houlihan, J. (1979). Different jokes for different folks. Psychology
Today, 12, 65–101.
Herzog, T. R., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Preferences for sick versus nonsick humor.
Humor, 11, 291–312.
Johnson, A. M. (1992). Language ability and sex affect humor appreciation. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 571–581.
Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A practitioner
view. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(4), 23–29.
McCullough, L. S. (1993). A cross-cultural test of the two-part typology of humor.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1275–1281.
McGhee, P. E. (1971). Cognitive development and children’s comprehension of
humor. Child Development, 42, 123–138.
McGhee, P. E. (1976). Laughing matter: A symposium: Sex differences in chil-
dren’s humor. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 176–189.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: Free-
man.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in
communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310–331.
Mundorf, N., Bhatia, A., Zillmann, D., Lester, P., & Robertson, S. (1988). Gender
differences in humor appreciation. Humor, 1, 231–243.
Oppliger, P. A., & Zillmann, D. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to adoles-
cents. Humor, 10, 421–437.
Perry, S. D., Jenzowsky, S. A., King, C. M., Yi, H., Hester, J. B., &
Gartenschlaeger, J. (1997). Using humorous programs as a vehicle for humor-
ous commercials. Journal of Communication, 47(1), 20–39.
Schaeffer, N. (1981). The art of laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.
 A TYPOLOGY OF HUMOR 167

Shultz, T. R. (1996). A cognitive developmental analysis of humor. In A. J. Chap-

man & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applica-
tions (pp. 11–36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stewart, D. W., & Furse, D. H. (1986). Effective television advertising. A study of
1000 commercials. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Unger, L. S. (1996). The potential for using humor in global advertising. Humor, 9,
143–168.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor, 11, 163–215.
Wakshlag, J. J., Day, K. D., & Zillmann, D. (1981). Selective exposure to educa-
tional television programs as a function of differently paced humorous inter-
ests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 27–32.
Weinberger, M. G., & Campbell, L. (1991). The use and impact of humor in radio
advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1) 44–52.
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A
review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35–59.
Welch, R. L., Huston-Stein, A., Wright, J. C., & Plehal, R. (1979). Subtle sex-role
cues in children’s commercials. Journal of Communication, 29(3), 202–209.
Whipple, T. W., & Courtney, A. E. (1980). How to portray women in TV commer-
cials. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 53–59.
Winick, C., Williamson, L. G., Chuzmir, S. F., & Winick, M. P. (1973). Children’s
television commercials: A content analysis. New York: Praeger.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive processes in the development
of children’s appreciation of humor. Child Development, 37, 507–518.

View publication stats