Low system justification drives ideological differences in joke perception: a critical commentary and re-analysis of Baltiansky et al. (2021)

IF 1.2 3区 心理学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Harry R. M. Purser, Craig A. Harper
{"title":"Low system justification drives ideological differences in joke perception: a critical commentary and re-analysis of Baltiansky et al. (2021)","authors":"Harry R. M. Purser, Craig A. Harper","doi":"10.1515/humor-2021-0135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A recent study by Baltiansky et al. (2021), which was published in HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research tested two hypotheses related to system justification and the perception of stereotypical humor. They reported to have found evidence for a cross-over interaction, with judgments of jokes being contingent on a combination of the social status of the targets of jokes and raters’ system justification motivations. Here, we discuss the original analysis, presentation, and interpretation of the data in the target article, before presenting a re-analysis of the authors’ shared data file. We show that the framing of claims such as that “high system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups (e.g., women, poor people, racial/ethnic minorities) to be funnier than low system-justifiers did” are misleading. Instead, our re-analyses suggest that ideological differences in joke perception are driven primarily by those scoring low on the system justification motivation rating jokes about ostensibly low-status groups as less funny than jokes about other social groups.","PeriodicalId":51635,"journal":{"name":"Humor-International Journal of Humor Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humor-International Journal of Humor Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0135","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract A recent study by Baltiansky et al. (2021), which was published in HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research tested two hypotheses related to system justification and the perception of stereotypical humor. They reported to have found evidence for a cross-over interaction, with judgments of jokes being contingent on a combination of the social status of the targets of jokes and raters’ system justification motivations. Here, we discuss the original analysis, presentation, and interpretation of the data in the target article, before presenting a re-analysis of the authors’ shared data file. We show that the framing of claims such as that “high system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups (e.g., women, poor people, racial/ethnic minorities) to be funnier than low system-justifiers did” are misleading. Instead, our re-analyses suggest that ideological differences in joke perception are driven primarily by those scoring low on the system justification motivation rating jokes about ostensibly low-status groups as less funny than jokes about other social groups.
低系统正当性驱动笑话感知的意识形态差异:对Baltiansky等人(2021)的批判性评论和重新分析
balbalansky et al.(2021)最近发表在《幽默:国际幽默研究杂志》上的一项研究测试了两个与系统正当性和刻板幽默感知相关的假设。他们报告说,他们发现了跨界互动的证据,对笑话的判断取决于笑话对象的社会地位和评分者的系统辩护动机的结合。在本文中,我们讨论目标文章中数据的原始分析、表示和解释,然后再对作者的共享数据文件进行重新分析。我们发现,诸如“高系统辩护者发现针对低地位群体(如妇女、穷人、种族/少数民族)的笑话比低系统辩护者发现的笑话更有趣”这样的说法是有误导性的。相反,我们的重新分析表明,笑话感知的意识形态差异主要是由那些在系统正当性动机上得分较低的人所驱动的,他们认为关于表面上低地位群体的笑话不如关于其他社会群体的笑话有趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信