Humor and Status in Groups: Assessing Use of Humor as Status-relevant Information

• In Event: 447 - Section on Social Psychology Roundtable Session (co-sponsored with Section on Sociology of Emotions)
  In Refereed Roundtable: Section on Social Psychology Roundtables (co-sponsored with Section on Sociology of Emotions). Table 01. Status Processes

Abstract

This research assesses experimentally the utility of framing use of humor as status-relevant information in task-oriented groups, based on status characteristics and expectation states theories (Berger and colleagues). Predictions: (1) using humor, compared to not using humor, will increase status — more for lower-status than higher-status individuals, (2) humor from higher-status individuals will be especially successful, and (3) this process will mediate status evaluations. The experiment used a standard computerized group task (contrast sensitivity), with each participant working with a fictitious partner. Primary measurements are indicators of the partner’s status, including partner’s influence on the participant during the group task and responses to related survey questions. Participants received both initial status (a test score) and humor (on a personal profile sheet) partner information (2x2 between-subjects experimental manipulation). Analyses did not support predictions for the behavioral indicator of status (group task) statistically, though the pattern observed was somewhat consistent with the predictions. Results for other status evaluations were mixed. Notably, participants rated low-status partners using humor as significantly more competent than low-status partners not using humor. As predicted, for partners using humor, several ratings of humor success were significantly higher for high-status than low-status partners. Results generally did not support mediation effects of evaluations of humor success on the relationship between using humor and behavioral status outcomes. Possible implications for members of traditionally lower-status or marginalized groups are discussed, as well as limitations of the present study and possible directions for future research.

Author

• Kristin Kerns, University of Maryland