The Differential Effects of Political Satire: An Experimental Study Comparing Juvenalian and Horatian Satire in Italy
Irene M. Dominioni De Carli 10831665
Master's Thesis
Master's programme Erasmus Mundus Journalism, Media and Globalisation Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam Dr. Sophie K. Lecheler
Abstract
This study extends political humor effects research by examining the effects of two distinct types of satire, juvenalian and horatian, in the context of Italian political satire. Drawing from extant research on political satire effects, this study uses an online experiment (N=152) to examine whether different types of satire have differential effects on perceived humor, political participation, and learning, and if this relationship is moderated by political
sophistication. Results show that the two types of satire differentially affect perceived humor; they are both demobilizing and that they equally lead to learning. Future lines of research and the need to develop studies based on the cultural context of satire in the analysis of its effects are discussed.
Keywords: political satire, satirical television, humor perception, political participation, political learning, political sophistication, Italy
The Differential Effects of Political Satire: An Experimental Study Comparing Juvenalian and Horatian Satire in Italy
Political satire, as one of the most ancient genres of entertainment aimed at pointing out political and social contradictions through laughter, is becoming a major focus of political communication research. Scholars have acknowledged the significance of satire's social and political influence on public affairs (LaMarre, Landreville,Young & Gilkerson, 2014) and its importance for an engaged, sustainable, and democratic public culture (Hariman, 2008). By its aim of delivering critical reflection for change in the society, political satire has an important impact on democratic outcomes (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather & Morey, 2011) in the way it shapes the image and the perception of political candidates in the eyes of citizens (Holbert et al., 2011). The relevance of political satire in research is also due to changes in the media landscape and in the habits of the audience. The Internet is becoming a major source of news as well as entertainment (Pew Research Center, 2015), and it represents fertile ground for political satire. In a media landscape increasingly entertainment-oriented, political satire could be the remedy to decreasing interest in politics (Pew Research Center, 2015), dropping voter turnout (Eurostat, 2015), and decreasing trust in the institutions
(Eurispes, 2015) of many current political systems. Political satire could represent an answer to citizens' disaffection and build a bridge between citizens and political actors, although academic research has not yet found evidence of this trend (Ferré-Pavia & Gayà-Morlà, 2011).
In fact, despite agreeing on its importance for democratic systems, scholars remain divided on the actual benefits of political satire for the formation of a skilled and politically responsible citizenry. Some studies found that satire exposure promotes a cynical attitude and diminishes trust towards political actors, whereas others suggest that exposure to satirical
content fosters individuals' perceptions of being able to actively contribute to the political process (Becker & Waisanen, 2013). Furthermore, it is not clear whether satire is more beneficial for politically skilled citizens, as Lee & Kwak (2014) find, or if it benefits low sophisticates (Becker, 2012; Baek & Wojcieszak, 2009). Most importantly, Holbert et al. (2011) suggest that research on the effects of political satire does not adequately focus on the variations in satire types, which are responsible of producing unique processes of persuasive influence and are therefore essential to understand the influence of political entertainment media messages. This study extends Holbert and colleagues' (2011) work to include analysis of the effects of two satire types (horatian and juvenalian) on humor perception, political participation and learning. Moreover, this study represents an unprecedented effort to study the effects of political satire in Italy, adding to a field that is mostly dominated by American studies. Extant scholarship has never considered a cultural approach to the study of political satire, and I argue that it is fundamental to take into account a specific national, cultural and social setting in order to understand variations in the perception of satire and the role it performs in the society in different countries. The influence of the two forms of satire were compared and contrasted within the political satire shows of the Italian comedian Maurizio Crozza in an online experiment.
Defining Political Satire
Although, in everyday language, terms such as humor, satire, and comedy do not have a standardized, consistent use (Backer & Waisanen, 2013), a clear research design
necessitates a definition of the position of political satire within the broader concept of (political) humor in general. In general, political humor is a ‘‘social transaction between at least two people through which one party intends to evoke amusement or laughter” (Backer & Waisanen, 2013, p. 162), focused on political issues, events, or actors. In research, political
satire and political humor are not clearly distinct. Some authors argue that political humor is more well-intended than satire, with jokes like pats on the backs for politicians, in the form of “jokes and witticisms, anecdotes, dramatic comedy, cartoons, caricatures, and political
invective” (Schutz, 1977, p. 24). Political satire, on the other hand, is distinguished from other types of humor in the way that each act of political satire is a combination of a number of rhetorical devices, like sarcasm, parody and irony, which vary themselves in a number of ways (Holbert, 2013). Parody is “a ridicule of something by exaggerated imitation or distortion of a particular work” (Rao, 2011, p. 8). Sarcasm is a “caustic and bitter expression of disapproval under the guise of praise” (Rao, 2011, p. 9). Finally, irony is a “mode in which the actual intent is expressed in words, which carry the opposite meaning” (Rao, 2011, p. 8), usually lighter and less harsh than sarcasm.
Historically, satire has been a weapon to attack the powerful, a means of interaction between politicians and citizens. Born from the Latin expression satura lanx, it aims at pointing out the contradictions of the society, conveying hidden truths, unveiling hypocrisies, and promoting critical, but positive, reflection for change (Rao, 2011). Political satire is also to be distinguished form political protest or dissent, because it does not have an agenda of its own but adapts to different times and events, and it is not aimed at influencing the political process, but simply provide entertainment (Ulivi, 2009). It points out contradictions and mistakes, but does not provide solutions to political problems. Satire does not directly express dislike or criticism, and although it is critical of society in different ways, it always has a corrective goal in the way it takes up a standard of correct moral value (Rao, 2011). Among its techniques there are irony, sarcasm, invective (denunciatory speech), innuendo, burlesque (a satirical imitation), parody, ridicule, exaggeration (an overstatement), wit, humor, and farce (laughter arising out of some actions) (Rao, 2011). Satire is often found in literature, for
example in the works of George Orwell with the novel 'Animal Farm' or in the American show 'Saturday Night Live', to cite a more recent example.
I adopt Holbert's definition of political satire as a “pre-generic form of political discourse containing multiple humor elements that are utilized to attack and judge the flawed (human) nature of political activities” (Holbert, guest lecture, 2015). Its central aim is to attack (the political power) through mockery of individuals' human weakness and vice
(Holbert, 2015) and, by implying a standard of value (Rao, 2011), to provide judgment that is either implicit or explicit (Holbert, 2015).
Political satire is an ancient practice that is characterized by several features and techniques, which are variously adopted depending on the moral, reforming, or punitive intentions of the satirist. Nevertheless, the main difficulties in studying satire derive from its traditional conceptualization and operationalization as a “monolithic” entity (Holbert et al., 2011, p. 189), when satire is multifaceted instead, because of the differences of tone in satirical work, its rhetorical figures and devices, its targets, and outlets. In fact, political research has failed to make a clear distinction between the types of satire presented to the audience, the types of messages, and even the range of comic actors delivering the jokes (Becker, 2012). Differences in types of satire, on the other hand, are crucial to point out in order to determine the effects that satire will have on its audience, because they have the ability to produce distinct effects and unique processes of persuasive influence (Holbert et al., 2011; Knight, 2004; Sander, 1971). In fact, studies suggest that the way satire is presented consequentially affects message processing and effects, because it cues specific processing mechanisms that influence agency, argument scrutiny, and political judgments (LaMarre et al., 2014). Moreover, different satire types have been found to produce divergent effects depending on the ability of the individual to understand and offer counterarguments to the
points raised in the satire (Holbert et al., 2011). Different satire types also lead people to evaluate much less positively a politician depending on their exposure to other-directed hostile humor, rather than to self-ridicule humor of that politician (Becker, 2012). It is therefore imperative for political satire research to better understand the effects that different types of satire have on the audience.
A Detailed Picture: Studying Horatian vs. Juvenalian Satire
In this study I focus on two of the most prominent types of satire (Holbert et al., 2011), namely Horatian and Juvenalian satire. Horatian satire is named after Quintus Horatius Flaccus, a Roman poet and satirist who lived from 65 BC to 8 BC, and juvenalian satire is named after Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, who produced 16 satires on the corruption and vices of Rome from 60 AD to 140 AD (Holbert et al., 2011). I analyze these two types of satire in the effort to fill the gap, mentioned above, where satire types are not clearly distinct, nor their effects on individuals are thoroughly explained. Therefore, in this study I focus on these two kinds of political satire to understand how they impact the perception of humor, how they differentially mobilize people to take active part in the politica l system and whether they impact the ways people learn from satire in different ways.
Horatian and juvenalian are two of a number of classic types of political satire (Holbert, 2013). They differ, in the most general sense, in that horatian satire is lighter than juvenalian satire. Horatian satire grounds its arguments in everyday activities (Highet, 1962) and “never gets terribly excited about the evils it ridicules. It is more playful and amused than violently disturbed about the follies of men and induces an urbane kind of laughter at them” (Rao, 2011, p. 24). Juvenalian satire, on the other hand, is more acidic in tone, it is
characterized by “a savage indignation at the sheer irrationality of men's actions; it puts them in their most ridiculous light and invites indignant, critical laughter at the irrationality of it
all” (Rao, 2011, p. 24). It is meant not to heal but “to wound, to punish, to destroy” (Highet, 1962, p. 235). Extant research has distinguished between horatian and juvenalian satire based on their varying dimensions. Horatian satire is operationalized by its features of optimism, border to comedy, and lightness, whereas juvenalian satire is characterized by pessimism, closeness to tragedy, and harsh tone (LaMarre et al., 2014). Well-known examples of Horatian satire are the night show Saturday Night Live and the American cartoon The Simpsons (Feltmate, 2013). A European example could be the British TV series Yes Prime Minister or the satirical puppet show Spitting Image. Juvenalian satire, on the other hand, is meant to attack and criticize political actors and their actions, being more offensive and cynical, as it is in the American kind of humor of Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report or in the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
The Differential Effects of Political Satire
This study focuses on the effects of horatian versus juvenalian political satire on humor perception, political participation and learning. Previous research on the effects of political satire are inconsistent on whether satire has positive or negative effects on citizens. On one hand political satire represents an important source of political information (Feldman, 2013), but it is also sometimes found to arise negative feelings towards politics in the
audience (Lee & Kwak, 2014). Watching political satire leads to diminished trust in the institutions (Becker & Waisanen, 2013), but the cynicism it inspires can also reversely foster participation to politics (Lee & Kwak, 2014; Becker & Waisanen, 2013). Other studies show that political satire stimulates only limited learning among viewers (Feldman, 2013), but it can lead people to pay more attention to the content presented by more traditional news sources (Becker & Waisanen, 2013).
differential effects are caused by the fact that there are indeed different types of satire, which have not yet been tested. I argue that horatian and juvenalian satire should have differential effects on three important variables in the political humor literature. I first argue that political satire has differential effects on (1) perceived humor, or how “funny” an individual finds a piece of satire. Second, I discuss whether horatian and juvenalian satire could also differ in how beneficial their effects are, e.g. in how much people (2) get mobilized or (3) can learn after experiencing each kind of satire.
The first dependent variable, perception of humor is the most crucial variable to take into account when analyzing the effects of political satire on the audience, because the way the message is perceived will consequentially affect effects on variables such as opinion and behavior (Nabi, Moyer-Guse, & Byrne, 2007; Young, 2008; Holbert et al., 2011). Whether a message is perceived as humorous depends on two individual aspects, namely the viewer's (1) ability to understand and (2) motivation to receive the satirical message (Holbert et al., 2011). These two central factors, called “ability” and “motivation”, are derived from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Research has found that there are also other individual- level factors, other than ability and motivation, affecting the perceived humorousness of the political satire message. For instance, the viewer's goal to seek entertainment or political information when consuming the message (Holbert, 2015), and a preference for entertaining rather than serious news (Becker & Waisanen, 2013) are also predictors of how the message will be perceived, although they are not in the interest of this study. Importantly for this study, the perception of humor depends also on the type of message that is delivered. For instance, LaMarre et al. (2014) found that juvenalian and horatian satire enable different mental processing mechanisms. Horatian satire would be responsible for processes of dismissing the arguments embedded in
humor as not relevant for political judgment making (message discounting); whereas
juvenalian satire requires a bigger cognitive effort in order to understand the arguments being made (resource allocation) (LaMarre et al., 2014). The consequence is that these processing mechanisms might affect the perception of humor in different ways, because they affect how much one thinks about the political arguments (LaMarre et al., 2014). Holbert et al. (2011) have looked at the impact of juvenalian and horatian satire on perceived humor depending on the ability of the audience member to offer counterarguments to the points raised in the satire. They found that those individuals with high ability perceive the juvenalian satirical message as more entertaining than the horatian message. I believe that the particular ability to offer counterarguments to the satire derives from a certain expertise in politics. According to Luskin (1990), to become highly sophisticated an individual needs to be intellectually able to retain and organize large portions of information. The more politically sophisticated, Luskin adds, are more resistant to political manipulations and persuaded by a reasoned argument, which I suppose is similar to the ability to offer counter arguments. Therefore, politically knowledgeable people are more likely to understand, offer counterarguments and enjoy juvenalian satire rather than horatian satire. For this reason, I am extending Holbert's concept of “ability” into the broader concept of political sophistication for my study. Conversely, people with low political sophistication will more likely enjoy the horatian satire rather than the juvenalian because they will not be able to understand all jokes from either satirical message, so the tone of the horatian satire will function as a heuristic, leading to a higher level of perceived humor among the low sophisticates (Holbert et al., 2011). With the first two hypotheses I test, like Holbert and colleagues (2011) the impact of horatian satire and juvenalian satire on perceived humor, but looking at political sophistication instead as a moderator of the relationship. Specifically, as for the moderator of ability, I hypothesize
juvenalian satire to be perceived as more entertaining for highly sophisticated audience members, and horatian satire as more entertaining for audience members with low political sophistication:
H1a: Juvenalian political satire will be perceived as funnier by high sophistication individuals.
H1b: Horatian political satire will be perceived as funnier by low sophistication individuals. The second dependent variable of this study is political participation. The various studies on the effects of political satire on participation conclude that satire exposure has a positive effect on democracy and stimulates political participation (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Cao & Brewer, 2008; Becker, 2011; Hoffman & Young, 2011). However, these studies do not take into account the types of satire as possibly having a differential impact on
political participation. Satire type has been addressed in various studies (Holbert et al., 2011; Becker, 2012; LaMarre et al., 2014) but never with an outlook on political participation. Lee and Kwak (2014) point out that the cynicism that political satire elicits is possibly responsible for reverse mobilization processes among the audience: “Consuming sarcastic political humor can indirectly increase the likelihood of political participation by eliciting negative emotions toward a government policy” (Lee & Kwak, 2014, p. 322), therefore supporting the
optimistic view that exposure to sarcastic political humor mobilizes individuals (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009). In this study I consider juvenalian satire as the satire type that is closest to the kind of sarcastic political humor addressed by these authors. Juvenalian humor, that is meant to attack and provoke indignation in the viewers, will more likely elicit negative feelings towards politics, compared to horatian humor. Following Lee and Kwak (2014), I assume that the negative feelings arisen by juvenalian satire will lead to a reverse
mobilization. I therefore hypothesize:
Provided that “those with greater skills and resources are more likely to obtain benefits from political satire because understanding humor itself requires a certain level of expertise (Moy et al., 2005; Young, 2008)” (Lee & Kwak, 2014, p. 322), I also hypothesized above (H1a) that high sophisticates will appreciate satire more than low sophisticates. Moreover, since political sophisticates are apt to be more interested in politics and more willing to take part in the political process (Luskin, 1990), my hypothesis is that their political sophistication will also positively impact the effect of satire on participation:
H2b: The mobilizing effect of juvenalian humor is moderated by political sophistication, in that high levels of political sophistication strengthen the effect.
The third and last dependent variable that this study focuses on is learning from satire. Extant research has found controversial results about whether people actually learn political information from satire, nor it is clear what kind of viewers learn the most from satire. There is evidence that exposure to political comedy programming can lead to learning effects, although the political knowledge gain appears to be modest (Becker & Waisanen, 2013). Hollander (2005) found that exposure to comedy leads to increased levels of recognition, and satire exposure can lead people to pay more attention to the content presented by more traditional news sources (Becker and Waisanen, 2013). Moreover, Becker (2013) found that people exposed to interview segments from political comedy programs recall important political information better than those exposed to an equivalent interview from a traditional news program. Relative to who learns the most from political satire exposure, Baek and Wojcieszak (2009) found that late night comedy increases knowledge, but this contribution is limited to easy political items and politically inattentive citizens. Xenos and Becker (2009) similarly found that the less politically interested are stimulated to pay attention to news media content when exposed to political satire and, thanks to previous satire exposure, they
are also more likely to retain information from traditional news sources. Cao (2008) adds that knowledge gain from political satire is higher among younger and more educated viewers. Feldman (2013) addresses motivation and viewer orientation towards the message -
approaching it as news or entertainment - as the most influential variables on learning effects. According to Feldman (2013), on the viewer's side, in fact, a possible explanation might be that:
audiences do not learn as much from late-night comedy and political satire not because of something inherent about the content of these programs, but because they approach this content as entertainment rather than as serious political information, and thus fail to deploy the cognitive resources necessary for effectively processing and learning from media messages. (p. 588)
Here, I argue that most of the extant research on learning effects of satire is too focused on individual-level predictors of learning from political satire, and not enough on the content or type of satire. If results of satire learning are still unclear, this might be due to the fact that not enough research has been developed yet on the types of messages that are delivered through satire and the different effects that these types might have on learning processes. In fact, extant research about the effects of political satire on learning takes “political comedy” and “ soft news” exposure as a whole, whereas I underline once more the need to take satire type into account in order to have a clearer picture on these effects.
Research has shown that satire type is a key antecedent in political humor message
processing (LaMarre et al., 2014), and whether these differing mental processing mechanisms also apply to learning processes is a question worthy of investigation. This is the reason why I construct a research question to test whether satire type can affect learning effects:
Methods Study Design
An online experiment was fielded in May 2015 to address this study's hypotheses. The experiment consisted of a post-test only, three group (horatian, juvenalian, control) between subjects design. Participants were provided with a link to an online survey. Random
assignment to the stimuli occurred automatically when participants linked to the survey. Ethical considerations. The study abided by the ethical standards of the University of Amsterdam. Participants were presented with a factsheet that explained the methods and goals of the study, ensuring anonymity and privacy and providing the researcher's contact for any inquiries. Following that, participants received an informed consent form as the first page of the online survey, and were instructed to click on the “I agree” button to state that they agreed to take part in the study. At the end of the questionnaire, a debriefing was presented as the last page, stating that the videos were taken from existing satire shows or news programs and the opinions expressed in them did not belong to the researcher nor to the organizations named.
The cultural variance of humor and satire across countries. Political satire is a
distinctive feature of modern democracies, but it can take very different forms across
countries. Most of the extant literature about political satire has been developed in the United States, where late-night shows stand as a well-renowned television genre. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report of Stephen Colbert are examples of two political satire shows that are consistently part of academic research on political humor. As a matter of fact, humor and political satire vary greatly across countries, but cross-cultural studies about the cultural variance of humor are meager. It is not clear, for instance, to what extent the appropriateness of humor varies among different societies, nor what aspects of humor appear
universal (Alford & Alford, 1981). Humor varies along major normative social dimensions such as collectivism- individualism and distance from power (Alden, Hoyer & Lee, 1993) and the presence of satire in a society correlates positively with overall cultural complexity, being common in complex and restrictive societies (Alford & Alford, 1981).
When approaching the study of political satire, research could lead to different findings depending on the cultural, political and societal context. Provided that extant literature on the topic is dominated by American studies, this study represents an effort to study political satire effects outside of the American cultural landscape.
The case of Italian political satire. One of the main differences between the United
States and Italy lies in their political systems. In Italy the political landscape is scattered, so that the distinction between political ideologies and political parties is not clear-cut as it is in the United States. Moreover, the Italian television system is split between State-owned and private-owned channels, which offer opposite types of content, the first having an educational function and offering serious content, and the latter being more commercial and offering mainly entertainment programs. According to Molé (2013), political satire in Italy represents a unique case due to a process of manipulation of news programming as well as to a growing theatrical style of national politics after the emergence of corruption scandals in the 1980s (Molé, 2013). The political spectacle represented the golden age for comedians on TV, but at the same time, Molé adds, it created a spiral of cynicism that propelled Berlusconi's
popularity, whose humor relied on a cynical national audience and a distrustful citizenry that found “amorality in politics to be dismally normal” (p. 290).
In this light, I test whether exposure to political satire negatively impacts Italian citizens' intention to participate to national politics or, in the contrary, provokes a reverse mobilization and stimulates them to become more politically active.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was run on a small sample of 14 participants. The pilot study served as a small-scale test of the main effects of political satire type on perceived humor, political
participation, and learning, as well as a test for the validity of the video stimuli. Overall, the pilot study was successful. The video stimuli were perceived as valid, with horatian satire being perceived as more positive than juvenalian satire. None of these measures had a significant difference between the horatian and the juvenalian group, but this was attributed to the small size of the sample so the measures were not changed in the main study. The perceived humor was controlled in the pilot study for length of the video stimuli, knowledge of the show and of the specific video stimuli that respondents were presented with.
Selection of participants
A sample of 152 adults with Italian citizenship were selected through convenience and snowball sampling, based on social media and email contacts of the researcher's personal network. The average age of study participants was 28.76 (SD = 10, 942) and the sample was 55% female. Median education level was bachelor's degree (37%), and 35% of respondents had a high school diploma.
Data Collection
Participants were first asked to complete a pre-stimulus questionnaire containing items concerning political ideology, political knowledge and interest, news media
consumption habits and exposure to political entertainment programs. All participants who completed the pretest questionnaire were asked to take part in the second phase of the experiment by engaging with one of the two stimuli conditions (horatian satire, juvenalian satire) or with a traditional news clip. Just prior to viewing the clip, participants were given the following instructions: “You are about to watch a short clip from a recent television news
program. We are mostly interested in how entertaining you think the program is”. After the manipulation, participants were asked a series of poststimulus questions. Post-test questions included basic demographics, measures of perceived humor and information recall, and key measures of political participation.
Stimuli
The video stimuli were selected from the political satire shows “Crozza nel Paese delle Meraviglie” and “Di Martedì”, hosted on the TV channel La7 and aired between 2014 and 2015. The two stimuli presented the comedian Maurizio Crozza satirizing on the current Italian government's political action and the length of the videos was 6-7 minutes each. Two different clips per satire type (horatian and juvenalian) were selected and merged in two single videos that were available online for the respondents to watch. The juvenalian stimulus presented satire on topics such as trade unions, the job reform, and widespread corruption in the country. The juvenalian piece was much more acidic in its tone. The following excerpt on the recent job reform (Jobs Act), reflects this type of satire:
“The Italian entrepreneurs are in 7th
heaven. I hadn't seen employers so happy since the times of Kunta Kinte […] For three years the Jobs Act will show to all workers how nice it would feel to live a normal life. It's not a reform, it's more of a morphine: you always die of precariousness, but you feel less pain for 36 months”. The horatian stimulus presented the mimicking of the prime minister Matteo Renzi and dealt with topics ranging from Renzi's activity on Twitter to the government's reforms. The horatian piece was much lighter in its satirical tone on government action. Here is an excerpt:
“The democratic party is stuck with its ideological totems, like labor! Labor is an invention of Ancient Egypt...let me ask you: is it easier to find a job for everyone, or
to wipe out Article 1 of the Italian Constitution?”.
A traditional news clip was used for the control group, which portrayed a journalist
interviewing a political candidate in the setting of a public gathering about the forthcoming election of the President (see the appendix A for examples of the satirical videos).
Dependent Variables
Perceived humor. The perception of humor consists in the level of enjoyment of the
satire that individuals are presented with. I based the measurement of perceived humor on the measure of Holbert (2011), where a four-item index to measure perceived humor was
constructed as a Likert scale from 1-7 with adjective-opposite pairings as follows: not funny – funny, not amusing – amusing, not entertaining – entertaining, and not humorous –
humorous.1 The reliability test proved the measurement of perceived humor to be reliable (α = .864).
Political participation. For the measurement of political participation I adopted some
of the items contained in the political participation index developed by Persson and Solevid (2013) and constructed a scale with the following items: voting, engaging in a political discussion with pairs, attending a demonstration or a political event, wearing a party symbol, contacts with politicians, active participation in political party, working or volunteering for a political campaign, petition signing, donate money, and internet campaigning2. The level of political participation was measured by the likelihood that the respondents would perform these acts after being exposed to the manipulation. The reliability test proved the
1 Funny (M = 4.03, SD = 1.88); Amusing (M = 4.12, SD = 1.96); Entertaining (M = 4.26, SD = 1.64); Humorous (M = 4.25, SD = 1.96).
2 Vote European elections (M = 5.91, SD = 1.91); Vote political elections (M = 6.23, SD = 1.78); Vote Administrative elections (M = 6.27, SD = 1.74); Vote Regional elections (M = 6.16, SD = 1.70); Discuss about politics (M = 5.44, SD = 1.76); Sign a petition (M = 5.68, SD = 1.80); Wear party symbol (M = 3.45, SD = 1.77); Demonstrate (M = 4.86, SD = 1.95); Attend campaign event (M = 5.15, SD = 1.93); Campaign on Internet (M = 4.91, SD = 1.83); Contact a politician (M = 3.65, SD = 1.77); Donate to party (M = 2.99, SD = 1.55); Work/ volunteer for campaign (M = 3.51, SD = 1.78); Become active member of party (M = 3.48, SD = 1.79); Donate for campaign (M = 2.94, SD = 1.43).
measurement of political participation to be reliable (α = .898).
Learning. Learning from political satire is intended here as the ability of satire
viewers to retain factual information about public affairs delivered through political satire (Feldman 2013). Here, I adopted the measurement of Feldman (2013) which consisted of a multiple-choice knowledge test. The test consisted of six multiple-choice questions tapping factual information that was explicitly stated in the stimulus to which participants were exposed. Three of these questions referred to information contained in the horatian satire video, and the other three questions referred to political information in the juvenalian video. These six questions were asked in the post-test to all groups (see appendix B for exact question wording). Correct responses to each question were summed to form an index. Regardless of which video subjects saw, their score on the learning test served as the dependent variable of factual learning. The reliability test proved the measurement of learning not to be highly reliable (α = .460).
Moderator Variable
Political sophistication. Luskin (1990) refers to political sophistication in these
terms: “a person is politically sophisticated to the extent to which his or her political cognitions are numerous, cuth a wide substantive swath, and are highly organized, or constrained” (Luskin, 1990, p. 332). In this study I measured political sophistication through five factual political knowledge questions about the current Italian government with varying difficulty. Correct responses to each question were summed to form an index (M = 2.65; SD = 1.37) (F (1,149) = .500, p > .05). Regardless of which video subjects saw, their score on the knowledge test served as the moderator variable of factual knowledge. For parts of the
moderator analysis, respondents were divided in high sophisticates (3 to 5 correct answers) and low sophisticates (less than 3 correct answers). The reliability test proved the
measurement of political sophistication to be approaching reliability (α = .627).
Manipulation check
A manipulation check was run to test for the correct reception of the political satire stimuli in terms of the tone of the satire. Participants were asked to rate on a 1-7 Likert scale a number of adjective opposite items. The horatian stimulus was supposed to be perceived as more optimistic, comic, gentle, provoking laughter, respectful, ironic and happy. The
juvenalian stimulus was more pessimistic, tragic, harsh, provoking indignation, cynical, caustic and bitter. Mean differences in perceptions of tone emerged between the two types of satire, as expected, with the horatian group perceiving their video as more optimistic (F (2,149) = 1.172; p > .05) (M = 3.48, SD = 1.19), comic (F (2,149) = 5.814; p < .05) (M = 4.70, SD = 1.71), gentle (F (2,149) = 1.115; p > .05) (M = 3.76, SD = 1.36), provoking laughter (F (2,149) = 5.509; p < .05) (M = 4.60, SD = 1.44), respectful (F (2,149) = 1.349; p > .05) (M = 3.84, SD = 1.16), ironic (F (2,149) = 21.029; p < .05) (M = 5.06, SD = 1.26) and happy (F (2,149) = 8.406; p < .05) (M = 4.40, SD = 1.59) than the juvenalian group and the control group. However, these differences were only significant for the “comic”, “provoking laughter” and “happy” items, where the control stimulus proved significantly less positive than the two kinds of satire. Overall, it appears that the manipulation was not successful across the board, but it pointed in the right direction, with the horatian satire being perceived as more positive than the juvenalian satire.
Randomization Check
A randomization check for gender and age by condition was run with a one-way ANOVA to check for the correct randomization of the respondents in the manipulation and control groups. Respondents were correctly randomized in the three groups both in terms of gender (F (2.145) = 1.492, p = .228) and age (F (2.145) = 1.066, p = .347).
Results Effects on Perceived Humor
My first hypothesis was that the juvenalian satire would be enjoyed more by high politically sophisticated individuals (H1a), whereas the horatian satire would be enjoyed more by low politically sophisticated respondents (H1b). Overall, my results contradict these hypotheses, in that high sophisticated individuals appeared to enjoy the horatian satire more than the juvenalian satire, and low sophisticated individuals appeared to enjoy the juvenalian satire more than the horatian.
Main effects. All participants taken together, the stimulus had a significant influence
on perceived humor. Results show that the horatian group perceived their video as funnier (M = 5.06, SD = 1.07) than the juvenalian group (M = 4.19, SD = 1.86) and the control group (M = 2.80, SD = 1.89) (F (2,149) = 23.504, p < .01).
Additionally, the control group significantly reported the lowest means of perceived humor, with their video being perceived the least funny (M = 2.80, SD = 1.89), amusing (M = 2.51, SD = 1.69), entertaining (M = 3.31, SD = 1.47), and humorous (M = 2.59, SD = 1.80). However, the other measures of perceived humor did not show significant variations between the perception of humor of the horatian group and juvenalian group.
I analyzed the data in two steps: firstly, I conducted a subgroup analysis with high and low sophistication, making a distinction between high and low level of political
sophistication by dividing respondents according to the number of correct answers to the five political knowledge questions. The high sophisticated were grouped as those who gave between three and five correct answers, whereas the low sophisticated were grouped as those who gave less than three correct answers to the political knowledge questions.
who would enjoy the two types of political satire the most.
Table 1. Perceived humor by condition and level of political sophistication (high/low) (Hypotheses H1a and H1b)
High political sophistication Low political sophistication Horatian Juvenalian Control Horatian Juvenalian Control
Funny 5.32ᵅ (0.85) 3.87ᵇ (1.83) 2.37ᶜ (1.90) 4.80ᵅ (1.25) 4.61ᵅ (1.85) 3.32ᵇ (1.78) Amusing 5.16ᵅ (1.46) 4.40ᵅ (1.61) 2.07ᵇ (1.54) 4.72ᵅ (1.45) 5.39ᵅ (1.72) 3.05ᵇ (1,75) Entertaining 5.04ᵅ (1.42) 4.57ᵅ (1.52) 3.33ᵇ (1.61) 4.56ᵅ (1.38) 4.70ᵅ (1.82) 3.27ᵇ (1.31) Humorous 5.20ᵅ (1.41) 4.80ᵅ (1.76) 2.33ᵇ (1.84) 4.84ᵅ (1.14) 5.39ᵅ (1.55) 2.91ᵇ (1.74) Note. Different superscripts abc indicate significant differences at p < .05 level within each political sophistication group. Higher means signify higher levels of perceived humor (1-7 scale). Standard deviations
appear in parentheses below means.
Moderated effects. Against expectations, Table 1 shows that the highly sophisticated
had higher levels of perceived humor for horatian satire rather than juvenalian in all four items, although the difference between horatian and juvenalian perceived humor is
statistically significant only for the item of “funny” (F (2,79) = 21.346, p < .05) (horatian: M = 5.32, SD = .85) (juvenalian: M = 3.87, SD = 1.83). Hypothesis H1a is therefore not
supported, both in terms of the direction of satire liking and in terms of the absence of statistical significance.
Low political sophisticates reported higher levels of perceived humor for horatian satire only in the item of “funny” (F (2,67) = 5.561, p < .05) (M = 4.80, SD = 1.25) but not for the items of “amusing” (F (2,67) = 12.094, p > .05) (M = 4.72, SD = 1.45), “entertaining” (F (2.67) = 5.995, p > .05) (M = 4.56, SD = 1.38) and “humorous” (F (2,67) = 17.201, p > .05)(M = 4.84, SD = 1.14). Relatively to these three items, low sophisticates appeared to enjoy juvenalian satire more than horatian satire, although the differences were not
significant. This contradicts hypothesis H1b. Therefore, hypothesis H1b is not supported either in terms of satire liking and also in terms of the absence of statistical significance. These conclusions are supported by the results of the interaction analysis with an interaction term. The interaction effects (1 = juvenalian, 0 = horatian) showed an interaction
approaching significance for the items of “funny” (b = -.387, SE = .225, p < .10) and “amusing” (b = -.410, SE = .235, p < .10) which also suggests that for higher sophistication levels the degree of enjoyment of horatian satire increases, whereas for decreasing levels of sophistication the degree of enjoyment of juvenalian satire increases.
Effects on Political Participation
My second set of hypotheses was that juvenalian satire would mobilize people more than horatian satire (H2a) and that the mobilizing effect of juvenalian satire would be moderated by the level of political sophistication of the respondents, in that high sophistication strengthens the effect (H2b).
In order to test for hypotheses H2a and H2b, a one-way ANOVA was run for the 15 items of political participation by experimental condition (horatian, juvenalian, control). Secondly, I conducted a subgroup analysis with high and low sophistication, and thirdly, I tested an interaction effect within a linear regression analysis to test who would be the most mobilized between high sophisticates and low sophisticates by political satire. Neither of the hypotheses was supported, although interaction results show that for higher sophistication levels the degree of mobilization of satire of both types increases, whereas for decreasing levels of sophistication the degree of mobilization of satire of both types decreases.
Main effects. Against expectations, results showed that people in the horatian group
presented higher means in participation than people in the juvenalian group3. Therefore,
horatian satire could appear as more mobilizing than juvenalian, except for mobilization in terms of donations to a party and political candidate or for a political campaign, and working or volunteering for a political campaign, where the effect was in the expected direction.
The mean differences between the horatian group and the juvenalian group in any case were not significant except for the donation behaviors of high sophisticates, where the horatian group significantly showed a lower willingness to perform these acts compared to the control group (Donate to party or candidate: F (2.76) = 3.450; p < .05) (Donate for a campaign: F (2.76) = 3.174; p < .05). For 7 out of 15 items, the control group presented the highest means for the political behaviors reported at the end of the list. This suggests that any exposure to humoristic content could be demobilizing. These actions, which range from contacting a politician (high sophisticates: F (2.76) = .372; p > .05) (low sophisticates: F (2.66) = 1.894; p > .05) to wearing a party symbol (high sophisticates: F (2.76) = .387; p > .05) (low sophisticates: F(2.66) = 1.720; p > .05), might be considered more politically committed, although the control group showed significantly different means from the manipulation groups only in the donation items (Donate to party or candidate: F (2.76) = 3.450; p < .05) (Donate for a campaign: F (2.76) = 3.174; p < .05). In sum, it appears that the means do not confirm hypothesis H2a. On the contrary, horatian satire appears to mobilize more than juvenalian satire and humor in general seems demobilizing compared to a control group.
6.23, SD = 1.78); Vote Administrative (F(2,145) = 1.208, p > .05) (M = 6.27, SD = 1.74); Vote Regional (F(2,145) = 1.159, p > .05) (M = 6.16, SD = 1.70); Discuss (F(2,145) = 1.221, p > .05) (M = 5.44, SD = 1.76); Sign petition (F(2,145) = 1.296, p > .05) (M = 5.68, SD = 1.80); Wear symbol (F(2,145) = 1.482, p > .05) (M = 3.45, SD = 1.77); Demonstrate (F(2,145) = 1.497, p > .05) (M = 4.86, SD = 1.95); Attend event (F(2,145) = .551, p > .05) (M = 5.15, SD = 1.93); Campaign online (F(2,145) = 1.155, p > .05) (M = 4.91, SD = 1.83); Contact politician (F(2,145) = 1.585, p > .05) (M = 3.65, SD = 1.77); Donate to party (F(2,145) = 4.584, p < .05) (M = 2.99, SD = 1.55); Work/volunteer (F(2,145) = 2.079, p > .05) (M = 3.51, SD = 1.78); Active member (F(2,145) = 1.071, p > .05) (M = 3.48, SD = 1.79); Donate for campaign (F(2,145) = 4.888, p < .05) (M = 2.94, SD = 1.43)
Table 2. Political participation by condition and level of political sophistication (high/low) (Hypotheses H2a and H2b)
High political sophistication Low political sophistication Horatian Juvenalian Control Horatian Juvenalian Control Vote in EU elections 7.04ᵅ (1.57) 6.14ᵅ (1.80) 6.42ᵅ (1.55) 5.36ᵅ (1.83) 4.86ᵅ (2.10) 5.45ᵅ (1.99) Vote in administrative elections 7.04ᵅ (1.36) 6.41ᵅ (1.70) 6.58ᵅ (1.60) 6.00ᵅ (1.80) 5.41ᵅ (2.01) 6.05ᵅ (2.64) Vote in regional elections 6.83ᵅ (1.49) 6.38ᵅ (1.47) 6.62ᵅ (1.55) 5.84ᵅ (1.62) 5.18ᵅ (2.01) 5.91ᵅ (1.71) Vote in political elections 7.04ᵅ (1.19) 6.14ᵅ (1.99) 7.00ᵅ (1.13) 5.84ᵅ (1.84) 5.55ᵅ (1.92) 5.68ᵅ (1.93) Engage in a political discussion 6.04ᵅ (1.45) 5.41ᵅ (1.86) 6.00ᵅ (1.91) 4.84ᵅ (1.70) 4.86ᵅ (1.61) 5.41ᵅ (1.70) Sign a petition 6.50ᵅ (1.41) 5.97ᵅ (1.61) 5.50ᵅ (2.02) 5.56ᵅ (1.53) 4.86ᵅ (2.12) 5.59ᵅ (1.86) Wear a party symbol 3.42ᵅ
(1.64) 3.48ᵅ (1.76) 3.85ᵅ (2.20) 3.32ᵅ (1.43) 2.82ᵅ (1.36) 3.73ᵅ (2.02) Attend a demonstration 5.42ᵅ (1.81) 5.00ᵅ (1.92) 4.73ᵅ (2.32) 5.08ᵅ (1.60) 4.45ᵅ (1.81) 4.41ᵅ (2.17) Attend a campaign event 5.63ᵅ (1.63) 5.41ᵅ (1.99) 5.50ᵅ (2.17) 5.00ᵅ (1.70) 4.27ᵅ (1.90) 4.91ᵅ (1.99) Campaign on the Internet 5.58ᵅ (1.66) 4.76ᵅ (1.95) 4.92ᵅ (1.99) 4.80ᵅ (1.44) 4.45ᵅ (1.96) 4.95ᵅ (1.91) Contact a politician 4.00ᵅ (1.74) 3.76ᵅ (1.90) 4.19ᵅ (1.93) 3.00ᵅ (1.41) 3.05ᵅ (1.46) 3.82ᵅ (1.86) Donate money to a party or candidate 2.42ᵅ (0.71) 3.14ᵅᵇ (1.74) 3.62ᵇ (2.02) 2.68ᵅ (0.98) 2.68ᵅ (1.21) 3.32ᵅ (1.88) Work or volunteer for a campaign 3.17ᵅ (1.46) 4.14ᵅ (1.95) 4,04ᵅ (2,16) 3.12ᵅ (1.53) 2.73ᵅ (1.20) 3.68ᵅ (1.78) Become active member of a political party 3.54ᵅ (1.81) 3.83ᵅ (1.96) 3,77ᵅ (2,02) 3.12ᵅ (1.74) 2.68ᵅ (0.94) 3.82ᵅ (1.84) Donate money for a
campaign 2.58ᵅ (0.92) 3.00ᵅᵇ (1.60) 3,69ᵇ (1,97) 2.56ᵅ (0.87) 2.59ᵅ (1.05) 3.14ᵅ (1.52) Note. Different superscripts abc indicate significant differences at p < .05 level within each political sophistication group. Higher means signify higher likelihood of political participation (1-7 scale). Standard
deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Moderated effects. Looking at the moderated effects by political sophistication, it
appears that horatian satire mobilizes the high sophisticates more than juvenalian satire, which contradicts hypothesis H2b. Another central finding is that both high and low
sophisticates in the control group appear to be the most willing to be politically active when it comes to more politically committed behaviors.
Table 2 shows that, for 10 out of 15 items the horatian group scores higher means for high sophisticates than the juvenalian group, although these differences are not significant. The control group presents the highest means in those political behaviors that are considered more politically committed, such as wearing a party symbol (high sophisticates: F (2.76) = .387; p > .05) (low sophisticates: F (2.66) = 1.720; p > .05), contacting a politician (high sophisticates: F (2.76) = .372; p > .05) (low sophisticates: F (2.66) = 1.894; p > .05), donating money to a party or candidate (high sophisticates: F (2.76) = 3.450; p < .05) (low sophisticates: F (2.66) = 1.557; p > .05) and donating money for a campaign (high
sophisticates: F (2.76) = 3.174; p < .05) (low sophisticates: F (2.66) = 1.738; p > .05), although these differences are only statistically significant relatively to the donation
behaviors. Specifically, high sophisticates in the horatian group are significantly demobilized in donating political behaviors compared to the control group.
Horatian satire seems to mobilize the low sophisticates more than juvenalian satire, although the control group appears to be mobilized the most. It seems therefore that exposure to satire demobilizes the low sophisticated, instead than encouraging them to become
politically active.
The interaction effects showed a significant interaction (1 = juvenalian, 0 = horatian) indicating that increased political sophistication stands in a negative relationship with
“donating to a political party or candidate” (b = -.395, SE = .187, p < .05) for those watching juvenalian satire. On the other hand, effects on willingness to “work or volunteer for a political campaign” showed a positive coefficient (b = .603, SE = .234, p < .05). This suggests that juvenalian satire, in this single case, was mobilizing for high sophisticates, while it was demobilizing for donations. In sum, the high sophisticates are less willing than the low sophisticates to donate to a political party, a finding that is not consistent with the results of the subgroup analysis. On the other hand, the high sophisticates result as more willing than the low sophisticates to work for a campaign, a finding that is consistent with the results of the subgroup analysis. Overall, hypothesis H2b was not supported.
Effects on Learning
I asked, if people learn more from juvenalian or horatian satire? (RQ1).
In order to test the research question, a one-way ANOVA was run by the experimental
conditions. Results show that significant learning from political satire took place for both the horatian group and the juvenalian group.
Juvenalian and horatian groups appear to have significantly answered better to the respective questions. Relatively to the learning questions related to the juvenalian satire video, respondents in the juvenalian group present significantly higher means (M = 1.98, SD = 1.00) compared to the horatian group (M = 1.48, SD = 0.97) and control group (M = 1.24, SD = 0.82) (F (2.149) = 8.168, p = .000). Similarly, respondents in the horatian group present significantly higher means (M =1.94 , SD = 0.89) compared to the juvenalian group (M = 1.33, SD = 0.78) and the control group (M = 1.14, SD = 0.73) (F (2.149) = 13.241, p = .000). Although the difference between the juvenalian and the control group is not significant, it is still evident that respondents in the horatian group significantly answered best to the
exposed to. This establishes that significant factual learning did take place as a result of exposure to horatian and juvenalian satire. Since both juvenalian and horatian satire lead to significant learning effects, I conclude that people can learn from juvenalian as well as horatian satire, and that no satire type caused evident increased learning.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the way in which two different types of political satire (horatian and juvenalian) impact the audience's perception of humor, their likelihood to participate in politics and their learning from satirical content. I have used theoretical
discussion to detail two very distinct types of satire, juvenalian and horatian, and have applied this study of message to understand their differential effects on perceived humor, participation, and learning, with political sophistication as a moderator. I also highlighted the need to understand the importance of the cultural and political context when analyzing the effects of political satire, and took Italy as an effort to understand the implications of political satire exposure in a context other than the American.
The results did not confirm previous findings relatively to humor perception,
suggesting instead that high political sophisticates enjoy horatian satire more than juvenalian, and that low sophisticates enjoy more juvenalian satire than horatian. In sum, juvenalian satire is found less funny with increasing levels of political sophistication. In terms of political participation, results also showed that horatian satire appears to be more mobilizing than juvenalian, although in sum satire type cannot explain variations in the citizens'
participation to politics. Moreover, results suggest that any exposure to satirical content could be demobilizing, in opposition to some previous research findings (Lee & Kwak, 2014). Finally, results showed that, in relation to learning, people are able to retain political information when watching political satire, be it horatian or juvenalian, without significant
distinction between the two types.
Relatively to perceived humor, Holbert et al. (2011) found that high ability audience members (meaning those that are more able to offer counterarguments to the points raised in the satire) enjoy more juvenalian satire than horatian. I considered high sophisticates similar to high ability individuals in Holbert's study, and hypothesized that they would prefer juvenalian satire over horatian. However, results show the opposite in the item of “funny”, with all other items not being significant. The absence of other signif icant findings might be due to several reasons. A possible explanation for the fact that respondents could not clearly distinguish between the two types of satire might be that the shows where the stimuli were taken from offer a kind of satire that is not clearly distinct in the first place between horatian and juvenalian. In fact, the type of satire that is generally found on Italian TV nowadays is rather gentle and light, more than meant to attack and criticize. This suggests therefore a substantial lack of purely juvenalian satire in the current Italian satirical TV shows, depicting a landscape that is much less incisive from what it used to be in the 1980s, as Molé (2013) suggested. The cultural factor could then be responsible to a big extent of the reason why the stimuli were not received as expected. Moreover, as Holbert et al. (2011) suggest, the most popular satirical TV shows in the US usually offer a mix of juvenalian and horatian satire. If this is the case in Italy also, it could explain why the findings did not prove the stimuli to be clearly distinct. This is why future studies should, as suggested by Holbert et al. (2011) continue to study the "frequency, nature and topic areas covered relative to the different types of satire", given that "the exact percentage breakdown of the different types of satirical
messages is an empirical question worthy of explanation" (p. 206).
I added to extant literature with my study about the influence of satire type on political participation. In fact, although the findings are not significant, no preexisting
research studied this relationship. The finding that exposure to political satire is demobilizing contributes to the branch of literature affirming that exposure to political satire increases cynicism and diminishes political efficacy. The reason for the demobilization could be, once more, cultural. As Molé (2013) pointed out, the Italian audience is characterized by a deep cynical outlook towards politics. This negative attitude amongst Italian citizens could easily associate with indifference to political discourses in general. If the degree of disinterest is so high that it translates in some kind of political apathy, this might be the reason why exposure to satire cannot really change people's willingness to take part in politics. It is important to point out that political participation should not be taken as a rigid entity, because it translates in different forms of engagement. In this respect, my finding that high sophisticates would not donate to a party or candidate suggests a degree of distrust in political actors, and is therefore in line with the cynicism that Italians feel towards politics. On the other hand, I found that high sophisticates would also be willing to work or volunteer for a political campaign. This suggests that other types of political activity, perhaps those that can be accomplished in first person - like working for a campaign - could be likely for cynical citizens. Overall, satire type did not appear to have an effect on mobilization, because the respondents exposed to both types of satire were equally demobilized compared to the control group. It might be that, provided that the satire types used in this study were not perceived as very different from one another, they resulted in being both demobilizing. Possibly, other and more distinct satire types would have different effects on participation. Lee & Kwak (2014) found that negative emotions arisen from political satire can lead to reverse mobilization processes, leading people to get politically active. In this study I have not considered the emotional response in testing the impact of satire type on participation, but it could be that different satire types provoke diverse and diversely intense emotional reactions, which might
lead to political mobilization. Future research should explore more the relationship between satire types and relative emotional responses to understand better then impact that they can have on political participation.
In terms of learning, I contributed to previous studies (Feldman, 2013; Baek & Wojcieszak, 2009) in the sense that exposure to political satire has a positive effect on people's retention of political information. Moreover, I contributed in that no previous study has addressed the possibility that satire type might impact the degree to which people learn. My finding is that people equally learn from juvenalian and horatian satire, which is an additional step in understanding how people relate to satire as a source of information. There is a possibility that satire type does simply not have an influence on learning processes. Another explanation could be that people can always retain a certain amount information delivered through satire, although it was not the scope of this study to test the size and quality of learning. It could also be that people who are instructed to watch a piece of satire, as in this survey, simply pay more attention to the content of what they are watching and can therefore recall information better than they would in a natural setting, regardless of what they are watching. Future studies should continue addressing the role of different types of satire, such as Becker's (2012) other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule, in the impact they have on learning.
In addition to what has been discussed so far, there are some limitations to this study that should be kept in mind. First of all, the sample of the study was quite small and not representative of the Italian population. Problems of representativeness are also due to the convenience and snowball sampling, which restricted the sample in terms of young age, geographical location (mainly from the Italian region of Lombardy) educational level and political ideology. Therefore, we must be cautious in generalizing the results beyond the
study participants. Another limitation lies in the fact that the video stimuli for this experiment were selected from existing satirical shows in Italy. Despite having the same length and and presenting the same comedian, the stimuli varied in terms of the topics covered. This
variation could be a confounder, but it was difficult to avoid. Moreover, respondents' answers might have been biased by the opinion that they had of the comedian showed in the stimuli in the first place. Although the reported results were averaged across two different satire types, it is not clear that the findings would generalize to other satire types or political comedy comedians like Maurizio Crozza or his shows, which represents another limitation to this study. Another limitation lies in the fact that there might be additional confounding factors that were not measured in this study, such as political efficacy levels and affinity for political humor. Further, the study relied on political knowledge items to measure political
sophistication as a moderator, which may not fully capture the complexity of the concept. Finally, it is important to recognize that this study focuses on just one process of learning from political entertainment: short-term information acquisition, which questions the depth of viewers' information processing.
Still, this study's focus on a different cultural and political context than the American serves as a useful indicator of the importance of taking into account this aspect in the study of political satire effects. Despite these limitations, the findings also help to illuminate the importance of analyzing the impact that different types of satire have on people's reaction to satirical content exposure and their subsequent political behavior. Specifically, the results confirm that political sophistication has a strong impact on how people perceive the humor contained in the satire and that exposure to satirical content can be demobilizing, but also that political satire can be a source of political information for the audience, regardless of the type. In conclusion, this research highlights the relevance of satire types as well as the
importance of considering the specific cultural context in the study of political entertainment effects. Future studies should continue exploring how political satire and its effects vary in different cultural contexts, because this is but a first step in understanding the relevance of the study of satire based on a specific cultural setting.
Finally, this research has found positive and negative sides to the question of political satire in Italy: it can be a source of information but at the same time it appears to discourage political participation amongst citizens. Whether good or bad for democracy, the political satire in Italy is moving from TV screens to the Internet, obtaining new faces, new
discourses, and new audiences. It is clear that the transition on the Internet is allowing for a new dawn for political satire and a new opportunity to be free and desecrating. There are already many examples of Italian comedians who were born and found notable success online. In sum, the new modalities of online satire could play a renewed role in performing the democratic aim of political satire and impact the audience in enhanced ways, which renders important for researchers to more fully understand the impact of exposure to political satire, broadcast and online.
