How fun can you run?
A Study on the Impact of Different Styles of Humor on the Affinity
towards Political Candidates and the Role of Agreeableness.
Name: Barbora Stárková ID: 11119349
Date: 26/06/2020
Course: Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Supervisor: Alessandro Nai
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 3
Theoretical Framework ... 7
Humor in general ... 7
Humor as a persuasive tool ... 7
Different dimensions of humor ... 8
Different styles of humor as persuasive tools ... 10
Humor and Personalities ... 12
Methodology ... 15
Stimuli ... 15
Randomization ... 17
Manipulation Check ... 17
Dependent variable and covariates ... 19
Method ... 21 Results ... 22 Hypothesis 1 ... 22 Hypothesis 2 ... 22 Hypothesis 3 ... 23 Discussion ... 25 Conclusion ... 29 References ... 30 Appendix ... 41
Abstract
Humor is a crucial tool in political communication, and it plays a key role in how we perceive politics. According to prior research, political humor plays a significant role in the
communication of politicians on social media (more than half of the most viral political tweets has some kind of humorous content), politicians use humor in order to avoid criticism, and political satire has the power to change our perception of politics. Nevertheless, scholars have largely neglected to take into account the role of different humor styles in political
communication from candidates themselves and its effects. First of all, this study suggests that humor should be treated as a complex entity and tested so. Humor styles have shown that they differ significantly and demonstrate different effects on relationships, organizational practices, or leader affinity. Therefore, this study focuses on the effect of four different humor styles, introduced by the research of Martin and colleagues (2003), and apply them into a political setting. Nevertheless, these effects are expected to be stronger for some, as people tend to have preferences for certain styles of humor according to their personalities. This study extends previous research on humor from political candidates on studying focuses on the effect of four different styles of humor on affinity towards political candidates with a combination of the moderating role of Agreeableness. The experiment was conducted in the Czech Republic in May 2020 (N = 233). Even though the data have not provided statistically significant results, this thesis stipulates the importance of good conceptualization of humor and the need for an application of the framework for different humor styles. It also suggests focusing on the role of different humor styles in combination with personalities in future research in order to see, why some people are more drawn to certain political candidates and their humor.
Introduction
"While Prime Minister @AndrejBabis pretends to fight against the dual quality of food, tens of thousands of people protest in the squares against him and the dual quality of democracy. His country's administration is as fake as his sausages," tweeted a Czech oppositional politician Miroslav Kalousek, insinuating his populist fight against the dual quality of food, mocking Prime Ministers' famous ownership of sausage company and calling out his so-called democratic missteps (Boček, 2019). This tweet was a reaction to one of the biggest demonstrations in 2019 happening in the Czech Republic since the Velvet revolution – demonstrations against Prime Minister Andrej Babiš.
Babiš, a Slovakian businessman and one of the country's wealthiest people, decided to run with his new party ANO 2011 for election in 2013 to the Czech Parliament and surprisingly ended second, making him the Minister of Finances (ČT24, 2017). He only lasted three years as the Minister of Finance and was sacked in 2017 due to the first revealed affairs about corruption allegations, media ownership and secret tax dealings (Fraňková, 2017). The following elections, his party was victorious, and he was proclaimed the Prime Minister. Since then, Babiš is famous worldwide for bending democratic rules and threatening liberal democracy as he is gaining his wealth through his role in the Government, subverting the independence of the judiciary or controlling free press (Vachudova & Rovny, 2019).
Even though there were many reactions from politicians on his actions, this tweet went viral in minutes. The sarcastic, almost aggressive attack on twitter by Kalousek became the 18th most popular political tweet in Czechia, and unlike other oppositional comments has been repeated in media many times (Boček, 2019). It seemed that the sarcastic content of the tweet caught the attention of the voters, which might be explained by the tradition of humor in the Czech Republic. Humor and satire is part of the Czech political tradition due to the communist regime, as Školníková claims: "well-hidden humor was often the only way people and
oppositional politicians could express their dissatisfaction and frustration” (Školníková, 2018). Therefore, humorous content and its virality might be particular in countries where humor has a tradition and thrives.
The phenomenon of humorous political tweets going viral has been observed by research such as Freelon and Karpf (2014), Wells, Van Thomme, Maurer et al. (2016), or Driscoll, Ananny, Bar et al. (2018). According to Driscoll and colleagues (2018), at least 20% of tweets overall sent out during 2012 US presidential debates included an entertaining content – and that the humourous form reinforced the visibility and virality of the tweet. This number is doubles in the research of Freelon and Karpf (2014), stating that “fifty-eight percent of the most-duplicated tweets across both debates contained humor” (p. 13). The number of humorous viral tweets is even higher in the Czech Republic – out of the thirty most popular political tweets, one third has humorous content (Boček, 2019). Although humor is such a big part of the social media debate, political communication research has ignored the complexity of humorous content as all of the prior studies treated humor as a monolithic and single entity. Research on humor, on the other hand, points out the complex meaning of humor and its styles (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather & Morey, 2011). Kalousek‘s aggressive tweet is just one example of his well-chosen aggressive style of humor going viral - he has also been know for its self-enhancing jokes, but those never made it into the top 30 (Boček, 2019). Therefore, the focus of this research is to study the effects of these different styles.
Humorous comments by politicians and how they affect voters' preferences were examined by Bippus (2017) and Stewart (2011). This research focused on one dimension of humor in terms of aim – self-deprecatory and other- deprecatory. However, Martin and colleagues (2003) point out that there is another, complementary, side of humor – the dimension of tone. The tone implies that even if humor focuses on one's self or others, there is a distinction in terms of its attitude – humor can have a benign or malign undertone. Previously
mentioned studies on the political use of humor and its implications on preferences ignored the dimension of tone. The framework suggests that humor can be distinguished into four different styles according to the dimensions – Aggressive (malign, other-deprecatory), Self-Defeating (malign, self-deprecatory), Affiliative (benign, other-deprecatory) and Self-defeating (benign, self-deprecatory). The effects presented in the studies of Stewart (2011) and Bippus (2007) can, therefore, be extended by studying the second dimension.
As previously mentioned, one-third of the most popular political tweets take some kind of humorous form. The reason why can be seen in explanation of Endowment fund for the fight against the corruption (NFPK, n.d.) who claim that when "the argument is wrapped in a humorous garb, it amplifies its effect." But what kind of effect? Primarily, candidates use humor in order to be part of a group and increase their perceived affinity (Bippus, 2007). On top of that, politicians use humor frequently as a tool to attack each other or to humiliate their opposition (Stewart, 2011). It can be assumed that their goal is to decrease voters' perception of their opponent and at the same time increase their portrait, and therefore, it should be tested how these attacks affect both candidates. This thesis, therefore, broadens the research of political humor on two different dimensions – the aim of humor combined with the tone, studying the impact of four different styles of humor on the affinity towards political candidates (sponsor and target).
As a communication element, humor is defined as "any sudden episode of joy or elation associated with a new discovery that is self-rated as funny" (Davis, 2008, p. 546). In other words, the content of a message, which intends to be entertaining and humorous is mostly an individual preference. Caprara and Zimbardo (2004) claim that people tend to be supportive of messages that resonate with their personalities. Prior research suggests that personalities, which are deeply-rooted and stable, predict the perception and message process of persuasive messages (Bakker, Rooduijn, & Schumacher, 2020; Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2014). The
explanation of political behavior by individual underlying characteristics is an added value to the traditional explanation of “funnel of causalities” (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2011). As Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Seligson, and Anderson (2010) argue, personalities are fixed, and in the long run, they predict general patterns of political behavior. Research into the relationship between personality and humor is extensive, showing significant correlations explaining a sense of humor and individual differences (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir, 2003; Mendiburo‐Seguel, Páez, & Martínez‐Sánchez, 2015; Vernon, Martin, Schermer & Mackie, 2017). Therefore, it is expected that personality plays a significant role in determining one's preferences. This thesis assumes that this is precisely the case for Agreeableness, as it is the one personality that not only deals with social interaction but also it is strongly correlated to humor appreciation (Beins, & O’Toole, 2010).
Therefore, the research question of this study states: To what extent do different styles of humor affect how people perceive political candidates and their messages and To what extent does Agreeableness moderates this effect? This thesis establishes the different impact of humor styles on people's preferences, in order to fill the gap which is in the literature nowadays, and how personal characteristics moderate these attitudes. The chosen hypotheses are tested through experimental research in a 2x2 factorial design. The experiment is presented in forms of tweets due to supporting evidence about the effectiveness of humor on social media (Driscoll at al., 2018; Walter et al., 2018; Nabi, 2016).
Theoretical Framework
Humor in general
People tend to use humor in uncomfortable situations when they want to ease the tension or simply be part of a group (Fritz, Russek, & Dillon, 2018). Humorous content can catch attention (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), decrease frustration (Meyer, 2000), reduce the possibility of counterarguments (Strick, Holland, van Baaren & van Knippenberg, 2009) or as Gruner (2000) claims the most significant effect increased credibility of the sponsor. Nabi (2016) explains that the advantage of humor and its implications simply stands in “attracting and holding attention in real message environments” (p. 873).
On the other hand, it can also create an outgroup and an ingroup (Ford in Suttie, 2017) or depressed school performance (Terry & Wood, 1975). As Meyer (2000) accurately suggests, this might be the paradox of humor as humor acts as a "double-edged sword by which communicators can unite or divide their audiences" (p. 329). It can serve as a unifier or the opposite, divider. When using jokes, the goal of a politician can differ for two groups - the opponent and the audience. Therefore, he might want to use a specific type of joke in order to fit his objective. Kronenberger (in Davis, 2008) points out that humor can benefit the sponsor at the expense of someone else as “humor simultaneously hurts and heals, makes one larger from a willingness to make oneself less” (p. 11). These quotes imply that the effects of humor are complex and their secret lies in the content, and therefore should be studied as so.
Humor as a persuasive tool
Humor is part of our everyday life and plays a significant role in our social interaction. Even though we associate humor with a positive thing, it can also bare adverse effects, and some people think humor is not effective at all. Research into humor bears mostly consistent
findings, most studies reporting that a humorous message is a powerful tool in persuasive communication (Eisend, 2009; Becker, 2012, Meyer, 2000), even though some disagree and instead argue that humor undermines persuasive attempts (English, Sweetser & Ancu, 2011). These inconsistencies were settled by Walter and colleagues (2018), who conducted a meta-analysis of 89 studies and concluded that humor indeed does have a significant but weak effect on persuasion.
Research into humor in the political arena showed, for example, that voters‘ assessment of political humor has a significant positive impact on the perception of the sponsor and negative on the target of the message (Stewart, 2011). However, it has also shown that humor sometimes backlashes against the sponsor when misused (Compton, 2008). Nevertheless, what does misuse implies? Bippus (2007) mentions, for example, that humor targeted at the opposition should be inherently aggressive, unlike humor about one's self, and that is why other-deprecatory humor is more likely to backfire and, therefore, have the opposite effect. Nevertheless, self-deprecatory humor can also be aggressive in some form when used with a malign undertone. This leads to the assumption that one should think about the content in a more complex sense which might lead to different humor effects. The content of the message and the assessment by the receiver might be the answer to the paradox described by Meyer (2000). According to Holbert and colleagues (2011) and LaMarre, Landreville, Young, & Gilkerson, (2014), the inconsistencies in findings and different effects can be explained by the different styles of humor as humor should not be considered monolithic.
Different dimensions of humor
As previously mentioned, not all humor is the same. The first theoretical framework of humor was given by Meyer (2000), who describes two types of humor in general. First, Meyer (2000) highlights the importance of the unification role of humor. People use humor to become part of
a group by diminishing their portrait and putting them on the same level with their audience. In order to do that, speakers make themselves the "butt of the joke," as Meyer calls it "self-deprecatory humor." The second type of humor serves as a diving tool (Meyer, 2000). People aim at attacking others by ridicule and sarcasm in order to differentiate themselves from others. This one-dimensional framework was extended by another dimension - the tone (Martin et al., 2003). The tone is distinguished into two – benign and malign. Benign is defined as a "tolerant and accepting of both self and others" tone, unlike malign, which stands for "detrimental or injurious of both self and other" (Martin et al., 2003, p. 52). These two dimensions, in combination, lead to a 2x2 model, creating four different styles of humor, which are portrayed in Table 1.
Table 1
The Four Humour styles – 2x2 factorial design Aim
Tone
Self-Deprecatory Other-Deprecatory
Benign Self-Enhancing Affiliative
Malign Self-Deprecatory Aggressive
Martin and colleagues (2003) created a unified network, which recognized four main types of humor, which reflect how people use jokes in everyday life. From crossing those two dimensions, the four styles of humor were distinguished as malign other-deprecatory (Aggressive), malign self-deprecatory (Self-defeating), benign other-deprecatory (Affiliative) and malign self-deprecatory (Self-enhancing). Firstly, Aggressive humor belongs to the malign tone and other-deprecatory dimension and is defined by the use of sarcasm and ridicule and can be considered a form of manipulation. People who use Aggressive humor do not care about the
potential harm of others, and the form of humor is somewhat compulsive. It is related to anger and aggression. Self-defeating is another negative type of humor, but unlike aggressive, it aims at one's own expense – it is often used to get attention or approval of others from being “the butt of the joke” (Martin et al., 2003; Mendiburo-Seguel et al., 2015). People who use these jokes are considered the "clowns of the class," but the humor does involve certain negative feelings such as neediness or low self-esteem.
In the benign tone, Affiliative humor is characterized as other-deprecatory humor but with benign components – it is described as an aspiration to relate to others, provide entertainment and amusement (Mendiburo-Seguel et al., 2015). People who make use of Affiliative humor do so in order "to facilitate the relationship and to reduce interpersonal tensions" (Martin et al., 2003). Therefore, Affiliative humor also does not have to be only pointed at one person; it can also be pointed at a situation. This type of humor is the most common and the one, which people mostly associate with a sense of humor. The last style of humor is Self-enhancing, which is defined as self-deprecatory benign humor and related to people who keep a positive attitude in stressful, tough situations. It is a form of coping humor to avoid negative feelings (Martin et al., 2003).
Different styles of humor as persuasive tools
Research into the effects of four different styles of humor is developed but not in terms of politics. Cann, Zapata, and Davis (2009) put forward evidence of the importance of considering all humor styles by showing its impact on romantic relationships. Cann and colleagues (2009) suggest that when there is conflict, people who get in contact with hostile, aggressive humor have a negative response. This is supported by Bippus (2003) and by Yam, Christian, Wei, Liao & Nai (2018), who studied humor applied in leadership and warn, that leaders using humor should be careful as “aggressive humor harms relationship quality and
elicits more norm violating behaviors from followers” (p. 363). Different styles of humor have also been applied in the context of work behavior in research by Romero and Arendt (2011). As well as previously mentioned authors, Romero and Arendt (2011) mention that workers who use aggressive humor do so to spite others. Furthermore, individuals use Affiliative humor to reduce tensions, which leads to a stable positive relationship with others.
Humor applied in political context has only focused on the aim dimension of humor. Three scholars introduced what we know until now about self and other deprecatory humor in politics, Becker (2012), Bippus (2007), and Stewart (2011). Becker (2012) focuses on political comedy perceived from late-night shows, pointing out that other-deprecatory humor from Colbert to John McCain was more effective than self-deprecatory McCain. On the other hand, according to Bippus (2007), when humor is directed towards the candidate itself, it is considered by people more effective than when the joke “is on” the opponent (p. 116). In general, self-deprecatory humor is evaluated higher by participants than in other-deprecatory humor, which leads to a higher perception towards the sponsor of that message (Stewart, 2011). This is supported by journalists, such as Nussbaum (2016), who claims that “voters like pols that can laugh at themselves.” Therefore, the first hypothesis in terms of aim testing effects towards the sponsor is:
H1a: Exposure to a candidate's campaign message with self-deprecatory humor will lead to a higher affinity towards the sponsor than a message with other-deprecatory humor.
Furthermore, one should look at the tone dimension. According to humor researcher Thomas Ford (Suttie, 2017), benign, or non-derogatory jokes, are used to create a bond with others. Therefore, we should expect benign humor to be accepted in a more positive manner than malign and positively affect people's perception. Therefore, the second hypothesis states:
higher affinity towards the sponsor than a message with malign humor.
On the contrary, other-deprecatory humor has shown to harm attitude towards the target more than self-directed humor (Becker, 2012). We can look at other-deprecatory humor from the point of negative campaigning. In Hunter's research, it has been shown that almost 70% of the humorous messages have been negative, aimed at their opponents (Kaid & Postelnicu, 2008). According to Harris (2009), the reason is that "humor allows candidates to seem less negative" (p. 16), and therefore, they can use humor as a way to hide the negative message. By framing negativity in a humorous light, candidates can avoid adverse effects (Baumgartner, 2013). Therefore, third hypothesis in terms of aim was created in order to test the impact on the target:
H2a: Exposure to a candidate's campaign message with other-deprecatory humor will lead to a lower affinity towards the target than a message with self-deprecatory humor aggressive humor.
Malign humor has the results of affecting how people perceive and respond to the target (Suttie, 2017). When people use malign, other-deprecatory humor, it "enhances ingroup cohesion," especially when the ingroup's identity feels endangered and it creates a bond against the common enemy (Ford in Suttie, 2017). Therefore, we can expect that malign forms of humor will harm the target's perception.
H2b: Exposure to a candidate's campaign message with malign humor will lead to a lower affinity towards the target than a message with benign humor.
Humor and Personalities
susceptibility to media model." Valkenburg and Peter (2013) argue that the difference in preferences is explained by distinguished personalities and attitudes (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Therefore, particular messages might be more successful with specific groups of individuals than others. As Thomas Ford (Suttie, 2017) suggests that even malign humor can "increase cohesion among like-minded people.” There have been studies on the correlation between personality and humor, but these studies were not implied in a political setting. This application is especially important when the role of political marketers is primarily to target voters in the most effective way by tailoring their message in accordance with their preferences (Lipsitz et al., 2005).
There is an academic consensus on the five essential psychological traits. This is what research calls the Big Five: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. This thesis focuses on Agreeableness due to its association with social interaction, as this trait is mostly connected with maintaining social relationships with others (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Highly agreeable individuals are described as warm-hearted, trusting, kind, and with a high amount of tolerance. On the other hand, low Agreeableness is characterized by egoism, distrust, intolerance, and antagonism (Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991).
Prior research found a correlation between Agreeableness and appreciation of humor (Beins, & O’Toole, 2010). Agreeableness is negatively correlated with Aggressive and Self-defeating humor and positively with Affiliative and Self-enhancing humor (Martin et al., 2007; Mendiburo‐Seguel et al., 2015; Vernon et al., 2008). The negative correlation between malign humor and Agreeableness is supported by Jensen-Campbell and Graziano (2010), who show that people who are low on Agreeableness are more in favor of interpersonal conflict and destructive tactics. In combination with politics, Agreeableness plays a role in perceiving negativity and conflict. Bakker, Rooduijn, and Schumacher (2016, 2020) connected low
Agreeableness with populist rhetoric due to conflict seeking. The study of Weinschenk and Panagopolous (2014) demonstrated that individuals high on Agreeableness were less likely to report participating in politics after viewing negative messages. Therefore, the moderating hypotheses of this thesis state that:
H3a: Exposure to a candidate's campaign message with malign humor will lead to a lower affinity towards the target than a message with benign humor, especially for people low on Agreeableness.
H3b: Exposure to a candidate's campaign message with benign humor will lead to a higher affinity towards the sponsor than a message with malign humor, especially for people high on Agreeableness.
Methodology
Stimuli
The online experiment included 21 questions, and participants were randomly exposed to one of four experimental conditions, considering different types of humor. These were presented in forms of tweets of Ivan Bartoš, the leader of the Pirate party (sponsor) about Andrej Babiš, prime minister and leader of the party ANO 2011 (target). Even though some studies warn about using real-world stimuli for their possible interference with background and previous attitudes of participants, they are better in terms of effectiveness and in terms of ecological validity (Barker, Gouvier, & Musso, 2014). On top of that, Wixted and Thompson-Schill (2018, p. 316) also point out that these limitations should be avoided when the experiment is randomized. Therefore, this thesis decided to use real candidates and real-world jokes, which were found on Twitter from three different political actors (Miroslav Kalousek, Dominik Feri, Ivan Bartoš). Bartoš and Babiš were chosen based on the popularity of the party (two biggest parties in the Czech Parliament and since both are the leaders of these parties. The humorous content was presented in forms of tweets due to previously researched humor's effectiveness on social media (Nabi, 2016, Walter et al., 2018).
In order to make conditions comparable, each dimensional factor had its own specifically created sentence to match the description of the factor, which was mixed into a condition. The self-deprecatory factor was presented as a joke about the sponsor itself and other-deprecatory about the target. The tone of the message (benign and malign) was operationalized in terms of positive and negative campaigning due to a limited amount of literature on the topic of the tone. The benign tone was presented as a positive message about the sponsor himself and his party. The malign aspect of the message was displayed as an uncivil negative message about the sponsor. The topic was based on a salient issue and therefore, a recent issue - COVID-19. No control condition was created. The complete stimuli
in Czech and English are included in Appendix A.
Sample
The author contacted people in his immediate network in the Czech Republic (family, friends, social network), and therefore, the dataset consists of a convenience sample. The data were collected in May 2020 through online software Qualtrics. The sampling method was contacting people on social media (Facebook and Instagram) without an offer for monetary incentives. A snowballing component complemented the collection as other participants diffuse the survey as well. The sample is quite young, educated, and involves more females. This study implemented an attention check as several scholars recommend it to identify participants who do not pay attention and delete them before the analysis (Huang, Bowling, Liu & Li, 2015; Curran, 2016). This check comprised of description concerning political participation, and second to the last sentence provided instructions for the participants to check the box “other” and spell “volby” (translation: elections).
Six hundred sixteen participants filled in the survey, but three hundred seventy-two participants were eliminated for failing the attention check (N = 244). Eleven were excluded for not finishing the survey, leading to a final number of participants (N = 233). The final sample comprises of a female majority, which represents 63.1 % of the sample (M = 1.64, SD = .49). The convenience rather represents a young society as the majority of 56.5 % is less than twenty-five, one refusing to answer (M = 27.48, SD = 8.9). Scale for education was measured from one (without primary education) to eight (doctorate studies), and the analysis shows that the sample is quite educated as half of the sample (58.8 %) received a university education (M = 5.26, SD = 1.65). A four-point scale measured political interest, and it shows that the sample is quite politically interested as 68.2% answered that they are very or at least a bit interested in politics (M = 2.16, SD = 1.62). The sample was very well distributed in terms of political
orientation (M = 5.96, SD = .72), which scored from extreme left (1) to extreme right (10).
Randomization
In order to check for age and education randomization, oneway ANOVA was conducted. Age and political orientation served as numeric dependent variables and conditions as a nominal independent variable. Age was not significantly higher in any of the conditions, F(3, 231) = .97, p = .406. Secondly, political orientation was manipulated successfully as the means were not significantly different, F(3, 231) = .56, p = .639. Randomization check for gender and education was conducted through the Chi-square test as gender and education were a nominal dependent variable, and conditions were nominal independent variables. There was no significant difference between the number of male participants and female participants in any of the conditions, χ! (6, N = 233) = 7.07, p = .214 and no significant difference in education, χ! (21, N = 233) = 24.58, p = .266. Therefore, randomization was successful.
Manipulation Check
Prior to the experiment, the author conducted a pre-test (N=15) of the ten jokes with its immediate network, and the ones with the highest score for the humor were used in the thesis. To show that the experiment was manipulated successfully, manipulation checks of humor and credibility through ANOVA were conducted. Participants answered on a 7-item scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). First, ANOVA about humor showed, that participants find the Affiliative humor condition the funniest, (M = 5.02, SD = 1.62). All other three conditions were not found funny by the participants with the second highest being Aggressive humor condition (M = 3.95, SD = 1.93), then Self-Enhancing humor conditions (M = 3.68, SD = 1.7) and last, Self-defeating humor condition (M = 3.36, SD = 9.62). In general, the conditions were significantly different, F(3, 232) = 9.24, p = .000.
Furthermore, in order to check if the categorization of benign and malign tone was manipulated correctly, the survey included a question about the negativity of the tweet. Both of the malign humor styles, Aggressive (M = 5.56, SD = 1.28) and Self-Defeating (M = 5.69, SD = 1.30), were considered more negative than benign humor, Affiliative (M = 3.98, SD = 1.97) and Self-Enhancing (M = 3.91, SD = 1.59), and were significantly different, F(3, 232) = 22.38, p = .000. Therefore, the tone of the message was manipulated successfully. Last ANOVA testing credibility of the manipulation demonstrated that participants found all four conditions almost equally credible, F(3, 232) = 1.33, p = .266, Aggressive humor condition (M = 4.90, SD = 1.33) Self-Enhancing humor conditions (M = 4.59, SD = 1.4), Self-defeating humor condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.53) and Affiliative humor condition (M = 4.39, SD = 1.58). The manipulation check was successful in terms of credibility and tone, but this study failed to manipulate humor. All results are compared in Figure 1. Therefore, these results should be taken into account when analyzing and presenting the results of this study.
Figure 1
Manipulation Check
Dependent variable and covariates
As this thesis tests effects on both sponsor and the target of the messages, two dependent variables are measured in order to find the effect. These were both measures by a feeling thermometer towards the candidate. This variable was measured with a 101-item thermometer, scoring from 0 to 100. The lowest item (0) stands for the most negative feeling towards a candidate up to the point of 50, which is neutral. The highest item (100) indicated the warmest feeling towards a candidate. According to the information theory, measurements with continuum give more accurate information, and the feeling thermometer is considered the most appropriate measurement for its variance (Alwin, 1997). First dependent variable feeling towards the sponsor (M = 63.49, SD = 21.28) scored in general much more than the second dependent variable feeling towards the target (M = 10.57, SD = 18.07).
Agreeableness and Big Five are in research measured in multiple ways. One of the most popular measurements in recent research is TIPI, which is a short 10-item questionnaire with a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Self-‐Enhancing Self-‐defeating Aggressive Af>iliative
Humor Negativity Credibility
reversed question for each trait (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Even though this measurement is favored by many researchers for its time-saving capability and accurate measurement, Bakker and Lelkes (2018) criticized batteries with a low amount of items as they are somewhat inconsistent and inaccurate and have high bandwidth (p. 1312). Therefore, Agreeableness, which serves as a moderator in this study, was measured by a higher number of items from the Big Five Inventory Short version (Soto & John, 2017). This decision was based on the fact that the Big Five Factory model of personality consists of six lower subdimensions, and therefore, six-item measurement should be the most appropriate. Agreeableness was measured as a moderator prior the experimental conditions by six items: “I am sensitive," "Easily trusts others," and "Is respectful and kind to others" (three positive), "Tends to criticize others," "Is sometimes rude to others” and “Can be cold and distant” (three reversed). Other personalities were measured by TIPI. Even though the long measurement of Agreeableness and TIPI measurement of Agreeableness were positively significantly correlated (r = .795, p = .000), Bakker and Lelkes (2018) suggest that results tend to be twice as large with longer measures. After the experimental conditions, questions measuring the manipulation checks were asked. These variables were scored on a seven-point Likert scale, scoring from the lowest 1 (fully disagree) to the highest 7 (fully agree).
Principal axis factor with Direct Oblimin rotation was conducted with six items that measure the battery of Agreeableness. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test demonstrated a KMO of .66, which is, according to Kaiser (1974), barely acceptable but adequate. The Bartlett’s test for Sphericity demonstrated results significantly different from zero χ! (15) = 182.83, p < .001. Two items from the tested six items showed an Eigenvalue above 1, of which the highest factor 1 (EV = 2.2) explains 36.66% of the variance and the second-highest factor (EV = 1.06) adding another 17.73%. However, the scree plot demonstrates that the point of inflection is at 1.06, and thus, it can be assumed that there is one Eigenvalue. In total, the factors account for 54.4%
variance in the original items. The second step was to conduct a reliability check. The scale created from the six-item battery can be considered reliable as Cronbach’s Alfa demonstrates above .60 (α = .64), and this score is acceptable. The scale would not improve by removing any item. Therefore, these six items were computed into one variable Agreeableness (M = 4.84, SD = .95); this scale demonstrates a minimum score of 2.50 and a maximum score of 7.00.
Method
In order to answer our research question, two sets of independent sample t-tests and two regressions with moderation were conducted. The dependent variables in this study are feeling towards the target (Babiš) and feeling towards the sponsor (Bartoš). First, this thesis compares the means of two categories in one dimension, and therefore, four t-tests are tested to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the different types of humor are significantly different in their effect on the feeling towards the source/target. Second, two regression models with moderation are conducted in order to test the effect of different styles of (independent variable) on feeling towards the target (dependent variable) moderated by Agreeableness (moderator). Other personalities served as control variables in the third model.
Results
Hypothesis 1
Two independent samples t-tests were conducted in order to examine H1. An independent samples t-test checked the effect of different styles of humor in terms of aim, specifically whether self-deprecatory and other-deprecatory tone, on a feeling towards the sponsor (H1a). Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant, F = .24, p = .626. Results revealed that the self-deprecatory tone of humor (M = 64.36, SD = 22.13) had higher scores than otherdeprecatory type of humor (M = 62.70, SD = 20.53) on a feeling towards the sponsor, Mdiff = -1.65, t(231) = -.59, p = .554, 95%CI -7.16, 3.85]. Cohen’s d = 0.08 indicated a trivial effect of the factor. The second independent samples t-test was conducted to check the effect of different humor styles in terms of tone, specifically whether benign and malign tone have an impact on a feeling towards the sponsor (H1b). Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant, F = .22, p = .638. Results revealed that the benign tone of humor (M = 62.52, SD = 21.34) had lower scores than malign type of humor (M = 64.44, SD = 21.26) on a feeling towards the sponsor, Mdiff = -1.91, t(231) = -.69, p = .493, 95%CI [-7.41, 3.58]. Cohen’s d = 0.09 indicated a trivial effect of the factor. Both results do not show any statistically significant results; therefore, H1a and H1b are rejected. H1a shows the suggested direction of the relationship.
Hypothesis 2
In order to examine H2, another two tests were conducted. The first independent samples t-test t-tested how different humor styles in terms of aim, specifically whether self-deprecatory and other-deprecatory tone, affect a feeling towards the target (H2a). Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant, F = .92, p = .339. Results revealed that the self-deprecatory tone of humor (M = 11.44, SD = 18.68) had higher scores than other-deprecatory type of
humor (M = 9.78, SD = 17.54) on a feeling towards the target, Mdiff = -1.66, t(231) = -.70, p = .484, 95%CI -6.33, 3.01]. Cohen’s d = 0.09 indicated a trivial effect of the factor. The last independent samples t-test checked for the effect of benign and malign tone of humor on a feeling towards the target (H2b). Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant, F = .73, p = .395 Results demonstrated that benign tone of humor (M = 11.17, SD = 18.31) had higher scores than malign type of humor (M = 9.99, SD = 17.89) on a feeling towards the target, Mdiff = 1.17, t(231) = .5, p = .621, 95%CI [-3.5, 5.85]. Cohen’s d = 0.06 indicated a trivial effect of the factor. Equal variances were not assumed. Even though both t-tests demonstrated suggested direction of the relationship, due to statistical insignificance are both H2a and H2b rejected.
Hypothesis 3
The last set of models serves to test to what extent Agreeableness moderates the effect between humor styles and feeling towards the target/sponsor. The models control for the four remaining traits beyond Agreeableness. First regression model testing feeling towards the sponsor was insignificant, F(7, 220) = .82, p = .573. Together the variables explain 2.5% of the variance in feeling towards the sponsor, which is a weak prediction (R square = .03). The moderator is not significant predictor, b* = -.61, t = -.21, p = .838, 95%CI [-6.5, 5.26]. For this effect, other control variables are held constant. Second model was also insignificant, F(7, 220) = 1.14, p = .342. Together the variables explain 3.5% of the variance in feeling towards the target, which is a weak prediction (R square = .04). The moderator is not significant predictor, b* = 1.81, t = .76, p = .446, 95%CI [-2.86, 6.49]. For this effect, other control variables are held constant. Therefore, both hypotheses H3a and H3b are rejected.
Table 2 Model 1 and 2
Note. The reference category of the binary variable Malign is benign. N = 227
Feeling towards the sponsor/target
Model 1 Model 2
Coef Se Sig Coef Se Sig
Constant 67.8 13.76 .000 17.2 10.95 .118 Malign 3.77 14.7 .798 -10.22 11.7 .383 Agreeableness -.77 2.12 .715 -1.86 -1.86 .271 Malign * Agreeableness -.61 2.98 .838 1.81 2.37 .446 Extraversion 1.43 .94 .129 .65 .75 .387 Emotional Stability -.34 1.09 .753 1.54 .13 .077 Conscientiousness -1.93 1.29 .137 .63 1.03 .539 Openness to Experience .86 1.46 .555 -1.64 1.16 .159 𝑅! 0.03 0.04 F .82 1.14
Discussion
The experiment conducted in the Czech Republic focused on answering the research question To what extent do different styles of humor affect how people perceive political candidates and their messages, and To what extent does Agreeableness moderates this effect? Even though it has been claimed that humor plays such a big part in political communication, it is still treated as a single monolithic entity, and the difference in humor has been largely ignored in political communication research. Therefore, even though this thesis does not provide significant statistical evidence, it should be noted that it aims to widen the academic debate about the role of different types, nevertheless. Furthermore, personalities prove to be a topic for further research as they still yield to uncover more significant findings.
Firstly, different styles of humor did not show a significant effect on the sponsor. On the other hand, the results uncover which styles were preferred. Notably, Aggressive humor demonstrated the highest perceived affinity towards the sponsor (M = 65.35, SD = 18.37) and the lowest perceived affinity towards the target (M = 9.05, SD = 15.75). The preferences towards malign tone and its candidate can be explained from the point of view of negative campaigning, as Baumgartner (2013), and Verhulsdonk, Nai, and Karp (2020) demonstrated that humor has the power to hide negativity and therefore, avoid unintended negative effects of negative messages. Furthermore, even though Aggressive humor might not be appealing in romantic relationships or work environments, aggressive personality skills might have the opposite effect in the political arena. According to the Guardian (Burnett, 2015), people look for confidence in politicians as confident people appear to be more convincing and credible (Cramer, Brotsky & DeCoster, 2009). The findings of Veselka, Schermer, Martin & Vernon (2010) confirm this claim and highlight the correlation between aggressive humor styles and confidence.
When it comes to personality, Aggressive humor is correlated with low levels of empathy and concern for others (Vernon et al., 2007). Impaired empathy and low amount of
remorse are one of the primary identifying characteristics of the personality of psychopathy. Therefore it can be assumed that politicians who use aggressive humor would score high in psychopathy. As Nai (2019) shows in his study, politicians who score high in psychopathy are attractive to voters and receive more votes overall. Aggressive humor is also highly correlated with Agreeableness. Joly, Soroka, and Loewen (2018) found that politicians who scored low on Agreeableness tend to succeed more in elections. Therefore, people might be more appealed to an aggressive message as people who communicate aggressively have personality, which is attractive in a political environment.
It should be noted that the relationship of the hypotheses about aim (self and other-deprecatory) showed suggested direction. According to Becker (2012), other-deprecatory humor should primarily hurt the target. This goes hand in hand with theories of previously mentioned negative campaigns using humor – other-deprecatory humor about the target has a negative consequence on the affinity. On the other hand, self-deprecatory humor had higher results and benefitted the sponsor. Former White House speechwriter Landon Parvin supports this claim and stipulates that for it specifically applies for politicians as: "If you can make fun of yourself, it says that I'm just like you" (Shapiro, 2012). The opposite effect of other-deprecatory humor goes hand in hand with expectations of Stewart (2011) and Bippus (2007). Greengross and Miller (2008) put forward this assumption as they find the reasoning in "humanization" - high-status targets are “humanized” by these jokes and seem less intimidating. As Burnett (2015) sais, elitism is not “trendy” anymore as people prefer to have a leader who is "one of their own."
The results did not provide statistically significant evidence and, therefore, cannot provide a clear conclusion to whether different humor styles have different effects on politicians' affinity. In general, these results might be due to the failed manipulation check about humor. Even though the author of this thesis prior to the survey conducted a pre-test on the humorous content, the chosen jokes in the final survey were not matched with the same
results. One possible explanation lies in the sense of humor of individuals. A sense of humor is regarded as its own stable self-constructed multidimensional personality (Martin, 1996; Ruch, 2010). A sense of humor is considered gender-neutral, but it has been claimed that older and younger people see humor differently (Thorson, Powell, Sarmany-Schuller & Hampes, 1997). Therefore, a possible explanation might lie in the structure of this sample. Moreover, Cann and Matson (2014) studied correlations between sense of humor and different styles of humor and the results showed that not all humor is considered funny by everyone, and it can lead to humor being “a positive or even negative symbol” (p. 180). Therefore, future research should consider a sense of humor as a personality trait and its implications when creating experimental conditions.
Future studies should focus on the effects of different types of humor. Even though Martin and colleague established the aforementioned framework in 2003, it was not applied by the academic world into political communication field. In general, communication science should focus on the complexity of the content of political messages and how this specific content is used for negativity not to backfire. Furthermore, it would be interesting to test this research with a different "real-world" stimuli such as campaign spots. Research showed that humor is more effective when laughter is involved as it increases the cohesion between the sponsor and the group (Stewart, 2011). Videos of real events are claimed to have a more substantial impact as a manipulation tool and, therefore, might guarantee a larger effect. Humor in political video spots is a rising trend in the Czech Republic, and more parties attempt to apply humor in their campaign. The question of how effective it is stays open.
Finally, the limitations of this study should be discussed. As was previously stated, the apparent limitation of this study is the manipulation of the stimuli. Unfortunately, the manipulation check did not succeed in terms of humor, and therefore, it is hard to conclude our results. Furthermore, as it was a convenience sample, this research should not be applied to the whole Czech Republic population. Another interesting part of the thesis would be more
in-depth research into the sense of humor and its correlation to other personalities and humorous content. Personalities have shown to play a significant role in our attitude towards politics and political behavior and, therefore, should be applied to political communication in a more detailed way. Finally, stimuli were created with the use of two well-known politicians in order to have substantial effects. On the other hand, these results could have been influenced by previously held views, and therefore, a study on fictional political figures could lead to different results.
Conclusion
Humour is a powerful campaign weapon – politicians use it to get attention, point out an argument, relate to others, humanize themselves or simply ambush and disarm the opponent (Shapiro, 2012). Historically, this notion was held even by Greeks as their texts highlight the importance of humor in rhetorics and its affinity (Benacka, 2006), but it is even more applicable in the modern age. According to Stewart (2011), candidates are not merely "the unwilling foils of the mass media's humor but also may define themselves and their opponents through the use of humor on the campaign trail" (p. 202). Today, politicians can reach an audience well beyond the crowd of a public event – the averages engagement rate on Trump’s twitter account is up to 120 000 (Timmons & Shendruk, 2019), but his rally can fit in from 1.000 to 20.000 people (Rizzo, 2018).
As John Meyer suggests, “media culture makes humor in politics more valuable now than it has ever been” (Shapiro, 2012). Therefore, it is surprising that research into the effects of humor is young, and there is unsatisfyingly not enough information about how different humor types affect people’s behavior. This study aimed to establish to what extent the dimensions of humor affect political preferences. Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw conclusions due to the statistically insignificant findings, which could have been the result of the wrong manipulation in terms of humor. In general, there is a need for a better conceptualization of humor in order to test its complex effects and its role in the political world. These measures are especially needed now when the audience is right behind the screen of a computer and humor serves as an attractive communication tool for everyone. As Thomas Ford sais: "People who have an audience should use humor responsibly because it does have consequences" (Suttie, 2017). The consequences are yet to be identified.
References
Alwin, D. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better?. Sociological Methods & Research, 25(3), 318-340.
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?. American political science review, 88(4), 829-838.
Bakker, B. N., & Lelkes, Y. (2018). Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way we think about personality and politics. The Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1311-1325.
Bakker, B. N., Rooduijn, M., & Schumacher, G. (2016). The psychological roots of populist voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 302-320.
Bakker, B.N., Schumacher, G. & Rooduijn, M. (2020). The Populist Appeal: Personality and Anti-establishment Communication. The Journal of Politics. https://osf.io/wq8um/
Barker, A., Gouvier, W., & Musso, M. (2014, October 28). Ecological validity. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/science/ecological-validity
Bartoš, I. (n.d.) Twitter Account. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/PiratIvanBartos
Baskin, M. (2017, September 19). The Secret to Presidential Humor: Lessons From Obama's Funniest Speechwriter. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/social-justice/inside-obamas-humor-with-david-litt
Baumgartner, J. C. (2013). Internet political ads in 2012: Can humor mitigate unintended effects of negative campaigning?. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 601-613. Beard, F. K. (2005). One hundred years of humor in American advertising. Journal of
Becker, A. B. (2012). Comedy types and political campaigns: The differential influence of other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule on candidate evaluations. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 791-812.
Beins, B. C., & O’Toole, S. M. (2010). Searching for the sense of humor: Stereotypes of ourselves and others. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 267-287.
Benacka, E. (2016). Rhetoric, humor, and the public sphere: From Socrates to Stephen Colbert. Rowman & Littlefield.
Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict episodes. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 413–426. Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (19
Bippus, A. (2007). Factors predicting the perceived effectiveness of politicians’ use of humor during a debate. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 20(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.006
Boček, J. (2019). ‚Nevím, nečetl jsem, nemám brejle, kampaň.' 30 nejúspěšnějších tweetů českých politiků v roce 2019. Retrieved from https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/twitter-feri-kalousek-babis-schwarzenberg-top_1912310716_jab
Cann, A., & Matson, C. (2014). Sense of humor and social desirability: Understanding how humor styles are perceived. Personality and Individual Differences, 66(C), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.029
Cann, A., Zapata, C., & Davis, H. (2009). Positive and Negative Styles of Humor in Communication: Evidence for the Importance of Considering Both Styles. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903313398
Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference. American psychologist, 59(7), 581.
Compton, J. (2008). More than laughing? Survey of political humor effects research. In Jody C. Baumgartner & Jonathan S. Morris (eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age. 39– 63. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the neo personality inventory. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12(9), 887–898.
Curran, P.G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19.
ČT24. (2017). Babiš obhájil post předsedy hnutí ANO, vyzyvatele opět neměl. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/2044606-babis-obhajil-post-predsedy-hnuti-ano-vyzyvatele-opet-nemel
Dailey, W.O., Hinck, E.A., & Hinck, S.S. (2005). Audience perceptions of politeness and advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41: 196–210.
Davis, D. (2008). Communication and humor. The Primer of Humour Research, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 543-568.
Dionigi, A., Sangiorgi, D., & Flangini, R. (2014). Clown intervention to reduce preoperative anxiety in children and parents: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 369–380. doi:10.1177/1359105312471567
Dowthwaite, L. (2017, October 17). A sense of humor could mean you're a healthier, happier, and smarter person. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/a-
Driscoll, K., Leavitt, A., Guth, K., Bar, F., & Mehta, A. (2018). Beyond Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets: Humor and Visibility Among Connected Viewers of the 2012 US Presidential Debates. Social media + Society, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118761201
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 191–203. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y
English, K., Sweetser, K. D., & Ancu, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of political talk: An examination of persuasion appeals in viral video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 733– 748. doi:10.1177/0002764211398090
Feri, D. (n.d.) Twitter account. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/DominikFeri
Fraňková, R. (2020, May 26). Finance Minister Babiš to be sacked on Wednesday. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://english.radio.cz/finance-minister-babis-be-sacked-wednesday-8192096
Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390-406.
Fridkin, K.L., and P.J. Kenney. 2011. Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 307–325.
Fritz, H.L., Russek, L.N., & Dillon, M.M. (2017). Humor use moderates the relation of stressful life events with psychological distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 845-859.
Gamble. D. (2004). Funnyman Reagan. Humor glowed from his soul. Retrieved from http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/gamble200406070851.asp
Geer, J.G. (2006). In Defence of Negativity. Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692-706.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating
success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006.
Gruner, C. R. (2000). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Harris, M.K. (2009). The Political Application of Humor.
Haselmayer, M. (2019). Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead. French Politics, 1-18.
Howard, A. (2016, December 29). Comedian-in-Chief: Obama's Funniest Moments as President. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/president-obama-the-legacy/comedian-chief-obama-funniest-moments-president-n690166
Huang, J.L., Bowling, N.A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015). Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 299–311.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of personality, 69(2), 323-362.
Johnston, R. (2019, July 29). Czechs have the world's best sense of humor, says Monty Python's Michael Palin - Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from
https://news.expats.cz/weekly-czech-news/czechs-have-the-worlds-best-sense-of-humor-says-monty-pythons-michael-palin/
Joly, J., S. Soroka, and P. Loewen. 2018. “Nice Guys Finish Last: Personality and Political Success.” Acta Politica, doi:10.1057/s41269-018-0095-z.
Kaiser, M. O. (1974). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for identity correlation matrix. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52, 296-298.
LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D., & Gilkerson, N. (2014). Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 400-423.
Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of US Senate elections. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lipsitz, K., Trost, C., Grossmann, M., & Sides, J. (2005). What voters want from political campaign communication. Political Communication, 22(3), 337-354.
Lipsitz, K., and Geer. J. (2017). Rethinking the Concept of Negativity: An Empirical Approach. Political Research Quarterly 70(3): 577–589.
Mankoff, R. (2012, June 19). Lincoln's Smile. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/lincolns-smile
Martin, R. A. (1996). The situational humor response questionnaire (SHRQ) and coping humor scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3-4), 251-272.
Martin, R.A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. New York: Elsevier.
uses of humor and their relation to psycho- logical well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
McAndrew, F. (2020, April 15). Politicians don't seem to laugh at themselves as much anymore. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/politicians-dont-seem-to-laugh-at-themselves-as-much-anymore-122103
Mendiburo‐Seguel, A., Páez, D., & Martínez‐Sánchez, F. (2015). Humor styles and personality: A meta‐analysis of the relation between humor styles and the Big Five
personality traits. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 335–340.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12209
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310–331. doi:10.1111/j.14682885.2000. tb00194.x
Kalousek, M. (n.d.). Twitter Account. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/kalousekm
Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85-110.
Nabi, R. L. (2016). Laughing in the face of fear (of disease detection): Using humor to promote cancer self-examination behavior. Health communication, 31(7), 873-883.
Nai, A. (2019). The electoral success of angels and demons: Big five, dark triad, and performance at the ballot box. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7, 830-862.
Nai, A., & Seeberg, H. B. (2018). A series of persuasive events. Sequencing effects of negative and positive messages on party evaluations and perceptions of negativity. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(4), 412-432.
Niven, D., Lichter, S. R., & Amundson, D. (2008). Our first cartoon president: Bill Clinton and the politics of late night comedy. In J. C Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nussbaum, J. (2016). Voters like pols who can laugh at themselves. Why can’t ... Retrieved
June 17, 2020, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/04/voters-like-pols-who-can-laugh-at-themselves-why-cant-these-candidates-pull-it-off/
Postelnicu, M., & Kaid, L. L. (2008). Air amusement versus web wit: Comparing the use of humor in 2004 political advertising on television and the Internet. Lauging Matters: Humor and American Politics in the Media Age. New York, 117-130.
Rizzo, S. (2018). President Trump’s crowd-size estimates: Increasingly ... Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/19/president-trumps-crowd-size-estimates-increasingly-unbelievable/
Romero, E. J., & Arendt, L. A. (2011). Variable Effects of Humor Styles on Organizational
Outcomes. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 649–659.
https://doi.org/10.2466/07.17.20.21.PR0.108.2.649-659
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (2010). The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (Vol. 3). Walter de Gruyter.
Shapiro, A. (2012). Not Just For Laughs: Why Humor Can Be A Powerful Campaign ...
Retrieved June 12, 2020, from
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/04/11/150424688/not-just-for-laughs-why-humor-can-be-a-powerful-campaign-tool
Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in political argument: How “strategery” and “lockboxes” changed a political campaign. Argumentation and advocacy, 39(2), 110-129.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the big five inventory–2: The bfi-2-s and bfi-2-xs. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81.
Strick, M., Holland, R. W., van Baaren, R. B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Finding comfort in a joke: Consolatory effects of humor through cognitive distraction. Emotion, 9, 574– 578. doi:10.1037/a0015951
Suttie, J. (2017). When Humor Widens the Political Divide. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/when_humor_widens_the_political_divide
Školníková, K. (2018). Má mít humor nějakou hranici? Retrieved June 18, 2020, from
https://www.e15.cz/the-student-times/ma-mit-humor-nejakou-hranici-1348231
Tabery, E. (2017). Opuštěná společnost: česká cesta od Masaryka po Babiše. Erik Tabery. Nakladatelství Paseka.
Terry, R. L., & Woods, M. E. (1975). Effects of humor on the test performance of elementary
school children. Psychology in the Schools, 12(2), 182–185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197504)12:2<182::AID-PITS2310120210>3.0.CO;2-3
Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany‐Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological health and sense of humor. Journal of clinical psychology, 53(6), 605-619.
Timmons, H., & Shendruk, A. (2019). Data show Trump is right, fewer people like his tweets now ... Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://qz.com/1665059/data-show-trump-is-right-fewer-people-like-his-tweets-now/
