��ɫ��Ƶ

Political humor can amuse, provoke or even spark outrage, as seen in Jimmy Kimmel’s recent suspension.��

��ɫ��Ƶ Today spoke with Peter McGraw, director of the Humor Research Lab (HuRL) and a marketing and psychology professor in the Leeds School of Business, about why humor works when it’s threatening yet safe and why political jokes can split audiences between laughter and outrage.

Peter McGraw

How can comedy function as a political tool, and what makes some political jokes more risky than others?

To answer this, it’s important to understand what makes things funny in the first place. My research suggests humor arises when something is both wrong and OK at the same time—a violation that is also seen as benign. Miss one of those ingredients and you get either yawns (all benign, no violation) or outrage (all violation, not benign).

The effectiveness is obvious: We are delighted (and impressed) by people who can create benign violations and make us laugh—no easy task. In political comedy, a joke about events or figures can be used satirically (e.g., to speak truth to power) or to cope with upsetting events. However, the more divisive the topic, the harder it is to thread the needle and create something wrong and OK. Even when a comedian “succeeds” and some people are laughing, others can still be upset—they view the joke as wrong and not OK (all violation, not benign).

Are there patterns in how people respond emotionally to jokes about serious real-world events?

Yes. The common quip, “too soon,” is used when a comedian jokes about a tragedy that has just occurred. It’s harder to appraise a joke as “OK” when it is proximal in time (just happened), physical close (nearby), or social close (happened to us or our in-group). As distance increases—time passes, location is far, victim is a stranger or adversary—the situation is less threatening. Benign appraisals rise and laughter becomes a more likely outcome.

Do political affiliations shape how audiences perceive humor, and if so, how?

Yes. In-group versus out-group effects may be at play. The same line lands differently depending on who says it: When my side makes it, I might grant the benefit of the doubt; when their side makes it, I might hear an attack.

Moreover, research suggests that different political affiliations have different moral weightings, which alter what counts as a “violation” and what can be “benign.” Typically, liberals are more tuned into harm and fairness, whereas conservatives are more focused on loyalty, authority and purity. These are generalities and subject to individual differences, but as far as average group responses, these moral priorities affect what is viewed as wrong versus OK—again creating a situation where the same joke is met with laughter from some and outrage from others.

How does the media environment influence reactions to political comedy?

A 24/7 news cycle and the near-constant stream of social media that the average person consumes exposes more people to jokes that were once only viewed by the audience they were intended for. Their “non-audience” never heard the joke because there was no Twitter.

Political polarization also plays a role. With more people clustered at the extremes (on both left and right), there are simply more people with strongly opposing views. Combined with news that caters to one side or the other (rather than the middle—i.e., moderates), there is much more amplification of controversy than in the past.

What makes comedy build trust versus alienate or polarize audiences?

Intent and vulnerability of the target matter: Is the comedy meant to divide or unite, and who is the “victim” of the joke—someone in power or a true victim? All of this is subjective and interpreted differently depending on the audience.

In short, comedy is difficult to create. Even the best jokes don’t make everyone laugh. A host of factors—setting, intent, political affiliation, identity of the target and distance from the event—conspire to make something more or less funny.