But seriously folks, shouldn’t psychologists take humour more seriously? Interview with evolutionary psychologist Dr Gil Greengross

Mar 31

April is National Humour Month, started in 1976 to highlight the benefits of humour. Even if laughter is not the best medicine, it has fewer side effects and is preferable to a lobotomy [Editor’s note: ba dum tish]. Although we might learn a lot from the insights of some comedians, perhaps inevitably, humour is not taken as seriously as other aspects of human psychology. A whole Pandora’s box of odd behaviours and pathologies are studied by psychologists to an excruciating degree, but we are much less curious about the Jack-in-the-box of the psychology of humour. However, scratch the surface and it’s significance is revealed. For example, humour is implicated in mating success, meaning it has deep relevance to the survival of our species. So what else should we know about humour, especially in relation to male psychology? To find out more, I spoke with Dr Gil Greengross, lecturer in psychology at Aberystwyth University.

JB: What got you interested in the psychology of humour?

GG: It’s a really fascinating topic, and one that is very understudied and undervalued. Also it raises a lot of questions related to a lot of other different topics in psychology, like personality, the evolutionary function of humour, so it’s much more complex than people realise. It’s very unique human experience, even though primates laugh and smile, but nobody uses humour in the way humans do.

JB: Ironically some people don’t take it seriously.

GG: I have had professors telling me when I started that it’s not a serious topic to study. There is nothing interesting to say about it, it’s just trivial. But that’s definitely untrue. We have benefitted a lot from the field of positive psychology in the past 20 years, shining a light on positive emotions in general. Psychology is consumed with mental illness and other negative aspects of life, disorders and so on, which are important topics, but there is a flip side of that when you focus on positive aspects, on how we can enhance our lives, live better. That’s not to say there are no negative aspects of humour, that is also an understudied topic. People mostly think of humour as being positive, which is probably true, but there is also a darkish side.

“generally speaking men’s humour is a good predictor of relationship satisfaction, as long as the woman appreciates it. A lot of studies show that men try to impress women with humour”.

JB: Do you think your professors took that view, and that it is less researched in psychology, because academics are not inclined to be humorous?

GG: Maybe, but I think my professors thought that it might just hinder my career. In fact the opposite was true because it fascinates people everywhere. And I think there are now enough researchers who are interested in humour, and think its valuable. I teach a class on the psychology of humour that is quite popular – the students love it. So I think there is definitely a lot of interest in the topic, and people want to engage with it in academia and beyond. Of course it’s very popular topic in ‘the real world’.

JB: In male psychology we have seen a difference in how academics and therapists see humour and how everyday people see humour. For example, humour can be used as a coping strategy, or a valid way of communicating in therapy, though this can be interpreted as a client not taking therapy seriously.

GG: There is very little research on humour in therapy, partly for ethical issues. But there are some observations that there are two sides to using humour, so it is quite risky behaviour for the therapist to use humour, depending on the rapport with the patient. If it is not used overtly by the therapist it can be welcomed by the patient. Therapists mostly are fine if patient uses humour but it could be taken as a sign of trying to deflect the issue. There are studies of relationships, couples facing divorce, where they find that men’s sense of humour is a good predictor of divorce within the next six months or year: what works well in the short term can [later in the relationship] be used a defence mechanism, can be used to avoid discussing serious issues. It's a delicate issue: how much is it used, is it open communication, or help avoid. It’s a double-edged sword. It could lighten the atmosphere. Humour can be ambiguous so you can always claim plausible deniability, which might be useful in therapy.

***Image: People might laugh at a simple joke, but humour is not a simple phenomenon***

JB: “I was only joking” – the old favourite! But it sounds like men’s humour can backfire over time.

GG: I was talking mainly about conflict, but generally speaking men’s humour is a good predictor of relationship satisfaction, as long as the woman appreciates it. A lot of studies show that men try to impress women with humour, and women are the ones who are evaluating males based on their sense of humour, while the women’s humour ability doesn’t really correlate with the man’s interest in her. But women’s laughter does correlate with their interest in the guy, and also how the guy perceives the interest from the female. This has long evolutionary roots, I have argued in several papers.

“if the target of a joke is a woman, obviously women will not like it that much, and they will tend to like more sexual jokes that are targeting men.”

JB: Well if it facilitates mating and reproduction, then it’s relevant to evolution. But do men and women laugh at the same things?

GG: Well, women laugh more in general. The flip side of that is that men tend to tell jokes more often, especially in the presence of women – there are lots of studies about that. Men tend to like more sexual and aggressive jokes but sometimes it can be attributed to the type of jokes they use, because a lot of sexual jokes might be sexist. So if the target of a joke is a woman, obviously women will not like it that much, and they will tend to like more sexual jokes that are targeting men. Also women tend to enjoy sexual humour more when they are around other women, not men. Men tend to tell this type of humour to anyone. But for a lot of humour appreciation, men and women tend to be quite similar.

JB: Has humour changed over time? For example, various comedy shows have been banned, comedians cancelled.

GG: People are more sensitive today about telling jokes in public. We see this with stand-up comedians who get backlash, like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais, for joking about transgender for example. So yeah men are more aware of that, but don’t necessarily not want to tell these jokes, but they guess they have to be more sensitive. And this speaks a lot of the social aspect of humour, because it’s not just about memorising jokes, or just telling jokes into the void, you have to know something about the people you are interacting with, to know if your jokes are appropriate, so you need some level of emotional intelligence or conscientiousness to get the vibe and understand the crowd.

“people who are high on hostile sexism, when they hear a sexist joke, they are more likely to be tolerant to a sexist event. So it’s not that the sexist joke will change your mind, but might give you a reason to be more tolerant to sexism, but only if you are already have sexist views.”

JB: Which is more acceptable, and has this changed over time: sexual jokes against men or sexual jokes against women?

GG: Most likely, if women tell a joke about men they are less likely to be punished or cancelled or suffer backlash, because justifiably or not, with women being marginalised, or there having been sexist views against them for years, many. people think they need more protection, so jokes are more acceptable when ‘punching up’, than someone in authority telling jokes about subordinates. So that’s what happens here. In other power relationships, like a boss, wouldn’t tell jokes about their employees, but the other way around is more acceptable.

JB: Of course there’s a whole other issue like who’s the boss in a marriage. But let’s talk about negative uses of humour. Can it be weaponised? Can satire be damaging to political parties? I read that the EU [European Union] wanted to ban memes.

GG: Sociologist Christie Davies said that censoring humour is like smashing a thermometer because it is telling you the truth. So it is more of a thermometer than a thermostat, in that they don’t cause social change. But if you are saying something that is considered bad now, you have to bear with social media, so that can definitely have some ramifications, like being fired or cancelled. I don’t think in the Soviet Union, where jokes against the government popular, I don’t think they changed things, they just reflected the mood of the people. But people who are high on hostile sexism, when they hear a sexist joke, they are more likely to be tolerant to a sexist event. So it’s not that the sexist joke will change your mind, but might give you a reason to be more tolerant to sexism, but only if you are already have sexist views. The same goes for racist jokes.

JB: Interesting. It could be a general principal. So banning all sexist humour wouldn’t reduce sexism, because people who aren’t already sexist won’t be effected.

GG: Yes, banning doesn’t work, especially with the internet. It’s impossible to do that.

“It sometimes takes time to get humour, because humour is a kind of language, and you need to sometimes watch a few episodes before you understand the intricacies of the language, the connections between things. A lot of people didn’t like Seinfeld at the beginning”.

JB: Why are some types of humour hard to get into initially, but after a while it seems hilarious?

GG: It sometimes takes time to get humour, because humour is a kind of language, and you need to sometimes watch a few episodes before you understand the intricacies of the language, the connections between things. A lot of people didn’t like Seinfeld at the beginning, but it took time to understand what was going on. A lot of sitcoms have similar reactions: they start slow, they have maybe some rabid fans at the beginning, but as it becomes more popular, then other people want to be part of the group and so watch it more carefully. But there is also the case that some jokes just have to be repeated several times until the seem funny. It’s like the rule of three – if you say something 3 times, people start to laugh at it. So you need repetition to just understand better the world or the character, and appreciate it.

***Image: The academic journal ‘Humor’***

JB: Different languages, different cultures...

GG: There are quite interesting sex differences in comedy. There are fewer female comedians everywhere. The UK is quite good in that there are a relatively high number of women in comedy, but they are still a minority. I think this speaks to some sex differences that are possibly both cultural and biological. The comedy scene is mainly more fine tuned to male psychology than female psychology, because it is a very competitive job. Very few make it to be a headliner and make real money, not just an amateur. The history is that women tend to be a bit less competitive, but it’s related to job security. Stand-up comedy is one of the least secure jobs in the world. One day you can be the most successful in the world, and in a few months trends change or culture shifts and you aren’t considered so funny any more. Men are more willing to take this risk. Also comedians tend to travel a lot, moreso in the US, but even here there are comedy festivals, you go from place to place, you go over the weekend to perform, which is very hard if you are a woman who wants to establish a family, to raise kids, it’s really difficult to raise kids like that, but it’s much more acceptable for a man to leave his wife and kids to go on a tour, or the weekend and then come back. A lot of the work of stand-up comedians is done outside of performances, with practicing and travelling, it’s very solitary job, which fits better to male psychology, whereas women are looking more to be with people, much more social than men. So all this difference means men are more inclined to go into comedy. So some of it is biological, some of it is sexism. Women still face a lot of sexism in the industry, for example if a woman goes on stage and she happened to be not funny people will say ‘women are not funny’, while if a guy comedian goes on stage and not be funny people will say ‘John Smith isn’t funny’, they won’t say ‘men are not funny’.

“humour is strongly correlated with intelligence, especially verbal intelligence”

JB: What do you think about gender quotas in comedy. A female comedian called Kate Smurthwaite has suggested female comics should have equal airtime to men, so if a show has three male comedians on it, then there should be three female comedians too. But some people say men are naturally funnier than women – is there evidence for that, or is that idea just based on sexism?

GG: Well, my meta-analysis reviewed 28 studies and showed a consistent sex difference in humour production and ability that favoured men. This doesn’t mean that women are not funny, it’s just that there are different scores on average between men in general compared to women in general. There is lots of overlap, there are lots of great female comedians in the UK and elsewhere, so it’s not about the stereotype that women are not funny. We find in the right tail of the distribution more male than female comedians, just like we find it in some other occupations, like physics, maths departments where there are more males. So it might be some combination of biological and evolutionary forces and cultural forces, but I think there is a lot of evidence that evolutionarily that men strive to impress women with their sense of humour. They try to show how bright they are - humour is strongly correlated with intelligence, especially verbal intelligence, and presumably underlying genetic quality, and since women in general are choosier than men, because they undertake the heavier cost of reproduction, so they pay attention to this sign more, so that is why men tend to produce more humour that is appreciated in the mating context. while the female sense of humour doesn’t change much male views about how attractive the woman will be.

Humour also helps to recognise ingroup versus outgroup, but I think it works for men as well as women. Again it’s related to the language of humour – if you come to a new group, and you don’t know what the code is, how they use language, what they like to laugh at, and you start telling jokes out of the blue, then you might be offensive, your joke might be inappropriate. That’s a good way for the group to recognise their own members, coalitions, which is very important among males who are very important in our evolutionary history.

JB: Fascinating. Have you written a book on this topic?

GG: I have a new chapter coming up on the evolutionary case for humour. That’s not out yet, but all of my publications are on my academic website. Also, I have a blog where I review humour research that people can check out. I’m also looking at the genetic basis of humour, how much is biological and how much is environmental. We know in psychology that all traits have some genetic component to them.

JB: Thanks Gil. It’s so interesting to hear about your research. I have a feeling the subject is much more alive outside academia. I mean, can you imagine a world without humour? It would be a depressing place.

GG: If you see someone who is not laughing or smiling, it makes you have an eerie feeling, like people on the dark triad, though humour is a mode of communication, and people who are manipulative might use that to their advantage.

JB: What causes some people to develop humour and others not? Is it related to trauma, or dark triad traits…?

GG: There is research with young children looking at things like when they start to understand simple jokes and so on, but with older kids… it would be a great topic to study. We know that humour is often used in bullying, making fun of others. Some people actually like to be the butt of the jokes. They are often people of lower status. I did a study on stand-up comedians asking about childhood experiences, and they actually said they tended to be the class clown, often the butt of the jokes, and it may be a way for them to gain status, which is much more important for men that to women, and has strong evolutionary roots. So if someone is not the best looking or doesn’t have other traits that make them attractive to females, humour could be a great tool. And we see that some of the very famous comedians are not necessarily the most beautiful, but they are still considered to be high status and attract a lot of women.

JB: So comedy can be a way of coping with bullying

GG: Yes, coping both as a way of diffusing mechanism, where if you make someone laugh they won’t hurt you, and possibly also just using humour to deal with bullying, not necessarily interacting with others.

JB: Banter is often seen as just bullying these days, but can it also be a way of bonding, especially with men, and a way of being part of an in-group?

GG: There are studies about arguing. In the Inuit, a way to settle arguments is the one who is considered the superior [in arguing their point] wins. And I think it’s the same with humour. You can outwit others, and of course humour is correlated with intelligence, and that helps you gain status at the expense of other people. It’s part of what we call intrasexual competition that males face much more fiercely than women because they are the ones who have to be chosen, because it is mostly female choice.

JB: As well as competition, is there a sense of building comradery, social cohesion…?

GG: Definitely humour is a strong social lubricant, increasing social cohesion, it helps to recognise ingroup versus outgroup, but I think it works for men as well as women. Again it’s related to the language of humour – if you come to a new group, and you don’t know what the code is, how they use language, what they like to laugh at, and you start telling jokes out of the blue, then you might be offensive, your joke might be inappropriate. That’s a good way for the group to recognise their own members, coalitions, which is very important among males who are very important in our evolutionary history.

Final thoughts
There is no Psychology of Humour Section of the BPS (so far), but does this mean that humour is not a serious subject? Humour can be described as a sword, a shield, a tickling stick, a sign of intelligence, an aspect of attractiveness, of popularity, of coping with duress… there aren’t many topics in psychology that you can say all that about.

You can find out more about the psychology of humour in this journal and annual conference.

Biography
Dr Gil Greengross is a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Aberystwyth University. His interdisciplinary research bridges traditional fields of study and includes the evolutionary bases of humor and laughter, the importance of humor in mating, sex differences in humor, lives and personalities of stand-up comedians and improv artists, assessment of humor ability, and more.

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.