HealthResJ, health, medicine, nursing, research https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/HealthResJ/sitemap

The influence of canned laughter in the sense of humor of healthy Greek adults. A pilot study with debatable results.

PDF
Published: Oct 4, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/healthresj.34139
Keywords:
Humor laughter canned laughter Greece
Maria Danai Vichou
Student, School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Alexandra Neila
Student, School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Olga Gavala
Student, School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Filomila Dimitra Kotidou
Student, School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Georgios Pilafas
Accredited Lecturer & UG Program Leader in Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2299-8257
Penelope Louka
Accredited Lecturer & Head of School of Psychology, University of Derby at Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Abstract

Background: Humor is the individual’s perception of something interpreted as funny. It is usually accompanied by emotional and vocal reactions, such as laughter. Scientists have long studied the factors that can influence this response and have argued whether it is contagious. Canned laughter is widespread in American situation comedies, but does it influence the sense of humor of the audience? To test this question, much research has been conducted, but the findings remain controversial.


Method and Material: This laid the foundations to create a study on healthy Greek adult population to examine the influence of canned laughter on their sense of humor, using independent sample test comparison in SPSS software. Thirty individuals were recruited through the convinent sampling method and participated in the study. Half of them watched a video with canned laughter in the background (M=6.53, SD=2.1), whereas the rest watched a video without canned laughter (M=5.46, SD=1.77). Then they were asked to evaluate the comicality of the video on a Likert scale.


Results: The data was collected with the use of questionaries and the statistical analysis was conducted in SPSS. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the means of the two groups, concluding that there was not a direct influence of canned laughter on the humor of the participants, t(28)= -1.505, p= .868


Conclusion: Great limitations to this study were the sampling method, the language of the videos that were not in the native language of the participants, and the tendency of the participants to respond with socially liked answers.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Original Articles

Copyright notice:

Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the Health and Research Journal the right of first publication.

License:
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the original publication in this journal, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated.

Attribution requirement:
Any reuse must include the article citation and DOI (where available), and indicate if changes were made.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ford TE, Platt T, Richardson K, Tucker R. The psychology of humor: Basic research and translation. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 2016;2(1):1–3.
Jiang T, Li H, Hou Y. Cultural differences in humor percep-tion, usage, and implications. Front Psychol. 2019;10:123.
Warren C, Barsky A, McGraw AP. What makes things funny? An integrative review of the antecedents of laughter and amusement. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2021 Feb;25(1):41–65.
Parvulescu A. Even laughter? From laughter in the magic theater to the laughter assembly line. Critical Inquiry. 2017;43(2):506–27.
Owren MJ, Bachorowski J. Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2003;27(3):183–200.
Waddell TF, Bailey E. Is social television the “anti-laugh track?” testing the effect of negative comments and canned laughter on comedy reception. Psychology of Popular Me-dia Culture.2019;8(1):99–107.
Curran W, McKeown GJ, Rychlowska M, André E, Wagner J, Lingenfelser F. Social context disambiguates the interpreta-tion of laughter. Front Psychol. 2018;8:2342.
Baranowski AM, Teichmann R, Hecht H. Canned emotions. Effects of genre and audience reaction on emotions. Art and Perception. 2017;5(3):312–36.
Jebb AT, Ng V, Tay L. A review of key likert scale develop-ment advances: 1995–2019. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2017.
Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2017.
Coolican H, Coolican H. Research methods and statistics in psychology.Psychology Press; 2017.
Taherdoost H. Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. SSRN Journal. 2016.
The opening scene of friends. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIZ91tq8Lr0. 2022.
The friends pilot but with no laugh track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SrHHFo_XK4. 2017.
BPS code of human research ethics. 5th ed. Leicester: The British Psychological Society; 2021.
Weber M, Quiring O. Is it really that funny? Laughter, emo-tional contagion, and heuristic processing during shared media use. Media Psychology. 2019;22(2):173–95.
Steenkamp JBEM, De Jong MG, Baumgartner H. Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research. 2010; 47(2):199–21.
Most read articles by the same author(s)