Party games and prejudice: are these Cards Against Humanity?

Abstract

Two experiments assess the validity of common criticisms against the popular party game Cards Against Humanity (CAH), namely that it promotes prejudice while absolving players of any moral responsibility. Study 1a (based on Prejudiced Norm Theory) finds no evidence that sexist humor in CAH encourages men to express prejudice against women. However, Study 1b (based on Social Identity Theory) provides evidence that sexist humor in CAH cues women to anticipate such discrimination. CAH’s reputation does not appear to contribute to these results. Exploratory analyses further reveal that, consistent with criticisms, people do allocate moral responsibility for offense differently in CAH than in traditional verbal exchanges of humor; however, this moral allocation is generally unrelated to prejudiced outcomes. Implications and future directions for refining these theories and understanding the intergroup functions of humor in party games are discussed in light of the studies’ mixed support of CAH’s criticisms.