Abstract This paper focuses on two controversial cartoons that elicited debates around the conflicts between freedom of expression and the right to satire on the one hand, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others on the other. Paying special attention to genre-related aspects, we adopt a comprehensive approach that combines a discourse analysis of the cartoons, the analysis of the legal cases that followed their publication, and the assessment by 68 cartoonists from 33 nationalities on the clarity and offensiveness of the selected cartoons. The cartoons were published in Charlie Hebdo (France) and El Universo (Ecuador), respectively. Based on our analyses, we propose that the main triggers of discursive controversy are the target as well as the modal and rhetorical ways of addressing a theme. We also conclude that: (1) The plaintiff’s most relevant arguments deny the satirical status of these cartoons; (2) The high disparity in the cartoonists’ assessments of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon can be associated with its ambiguity when addressing a sensitive issue; (3) Regardless of their positive or negative assessment, cartoonists have a strong position in defense of the authors’ and newspapers’ right to publish them; (4) No significant differences were found in the assessment of the cartoons in relation to the geographical origin of the cartoonists who took part in the questionnaire.
{"title":"Cartoons on trial: a case study integrating discursive, legal and empirical perspectives","authors":"Ana Pedrazzini, Tjeerd Royaards","doi":"10.1515/humor-2022-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper focuses on two controversial cartoons that elicited debates around the conflicts between freedom of expression and the right to satire on the one hand, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others on the other. Paying special attention to genre-related aspects, we adopt a comprehensive approach that combines a discourse analysis of the cartoons, the analysis of the legal cases that followed their publication, and the assessment by 68 cartoonists from 33 nationalities on the clarity and offensiveness of the selected cartoons. The cartoons were published in Charlie Hebdo (France) and El Universo (Ecuador), respectively. Based on our analyses, we propose that the main triggers of discursive controversy are the target as well as the modal and rhetorical ways of addressing a theme. We also conclude that: (1) The plaintiff’s most relevant arguments deny the satirical status of these cartoons; (2) The high disparity in the cartoonists’ assessments of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon can be associated with its ambiguity when addressing a sensitive issue; (3) Regardless of their positive or negative assessment, cartoonists have a strong position in defense of the authors’ and newspapers’ right to publish them; (4) No significant differences were found in the assessment of the cartoons in relation to the geographical origin of the cartoonists who took part in the questionnaire.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84269571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In Deckmyn v Vandersteen, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) defined parody as an “autonomous concept of EU law” with certain “essential characteristics.” The case revolved around a parodic drawing modeled after a cover of the well-known Suske & Wiske comic book series. Building on literary theory on parody, including the work of Genette, this paper will analyze both the ECJ’s reasoning in Deckmyn and the preceding Advocate General’s opinion in this case. In search for a shared vocabulary, we will focus on the specific legal interpretation in comparison to the characteristics identified from a humanities perspective. We identify opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue, which now remains too implicit in the legal documents. In addition, we will address the conceptual challenges posed by parody in the digital age. For instance, to what extent can parody’s nuanced characteristics be recognized by filter technologies as required by modern copyright law in the online environment that has become a catalyst for sharing creative content?
在Deckmyn v Vandersteen一案中，欧洲法院(ECJ)将仿拟定义为具有某些“本质特征”的“欧盟法律的自治概念”。案件围绕着一幅模仿著名的Suske & Wiske漫画系列封面的恶搞画展开。本文将以包括Genette作品在内的仿拟文学理论为基础，分析欧洲法院在Deckmyn案中的推理和前总检察长在此案中的意见。为了寻找共同的词汇，我们将把重点放在具体的法律解释上，与从人文角度确定的特征进行比较。我们确定了跨学科对话的机会，这种对话现在在法律文件中仍然过于含蓄。此外，我们将讨论数字时代恶搞所带来的概念挑战。例如，在现代版权法所要求的网络环境中，模仿的细微特征在多大程度上可以被过滤技术识别，而网络环境已经成为分享创意内容的催化剂?
{"title":"Imagining interdisciplinary dialogue in the European Court of Justice’s Deckmyn decision: conceptual challenges when law and technology regulate parody","authors":"K. Breemen, V. Breemen","doi":"10.1515/humor-2021-0119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0119","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Deckmyn v Vandersteen, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) defined parody as an “autonomous concept of EU law” with certain “essential characteristics.” The case revolved around a parodic drawing modeled after a cover of the well-known Suske & Wiske comic book series. Building on literary theory on parody, including the work of Genette, this paper will analyze both the ECJ’s reasoning in Deckmyn and the preceding Advocate General’s opinion in this case. In search for a shared vocabulary, we will focus on the specific legal interpretation in comparison to the characteristics identified from a humanities perspective. We identify opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue, which now remains too implicit in the legal documents. In addition, we will address the conceptual challenges posed by parody in the digital age. For instance, to what extent can parody’s nuanced characteristics be recognized by filter technologies as required by modern copyright law in the online environment that has become a catalyst for sharing creative content?","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81499780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Santa and Banta jokes are the mainstay of most Indian childhoods. Santa and Banta were used as stage names by the comedian duo Gurprit and Prabhpreet Singh but somewhere along the line, they turned into fictional characters in their own right and acquired pan-Indian fame. The defining characteristics of Santa and Banta jokes are that both are simple-minded middle-aged men belonging to the Sikh religious community. Most Indians consider these jokes lame but many Sikhs find them to be offensive and demeaning, not because of what is said but because of who says it. In 2015, Harvinder Chowdhury, a Sikh lawyer, petitioned the Supreme Court of India to ban the online dissemination of the Santa and Banta jokes. The Court admitted the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition and constituted a committee to look into this matter, before ultimately dismissing the petition in 2017, without judging it on merits. This paper will examine this specific attempt of the Indian judiciary to regulate humor, within the broader context of freedom to religion and free speech. It will study the arguments raised in the PIL, the recommendations of the committee, and the observations of the Court. No study has been done of the relationship between law and humor in India. This paper will examine whether the Court missed an opportunity to contribute to the virtually non-existent humor jurisprudence in India. Last year a children’s book The Art of Tying a Pug was withdrawn by its publishers because of the backlash it faced from the Sikh community on the wordplay in its title, which referred to the dog breed and the turban (pag or pagdi) worn by Sikhs. This incident is illustrative of the chilling effect on humor publications and the current publishers’ strategy of withdrawing the material deemed offensive instead of submitting it for judicial determination. Could a decision on merits in the Santa and Banta jokes case have laid down guidelines on what was acceptable and what was offensive? What would such guidelines be? Is the laying down of guidelines even possible, or desirable, given the unique set of issues presented by humor for the law? Ethnic jokes, in the form of minority-majority community jokes, are found in cultures all over the world. This paper will also undertake a comparative analysis of ethnic jokes in an attempt to answer these questions.
圣诞老人和班塔的笑话是大多数印度人童年的主要内容。圣诞老人和班塔是喜剧演员Gurprit和Prabhpreet Singh的艺名，但在某个时候，他们自己变成了虚构的角色，并在全印度名声大噪。圣诞老人和班塔笑话的典型特征是，他们都是头脑简单的中年男子，属于锡克教团体。大多数印度人认为这些笑话很蹩脚，但许多锡克教徒认为它们是冒犯和贬低的，不是因为说的是什么，而是因为说的是谁。2015年，锡克教律师哈文德·乔杜里(Harvinder Chowdhury)向印度最高法院请愿，要求禁止在网上传播圣诞老人和班塔的笑话。法院受理了公益诉讼(PIL)的请愿书，并成立了一个委员会来调查此事，最终在2017年驳回了请愿书，没有对其进行案情判断。本文将在更广泛的宗教自由和言论自由的背景下，研究印度司法部门规范幽默的具体尝试。委员会将研究公益诉讼中提出的主张和委员会的建议、法院的意见。在印度，法律和幽默之间的关系还没有研究。本文将探讨法院是否错过了为印度几乎不存在的幽默法学做出贡献的机会。去年，一本儿童读物《系哈巴狗的艺术》(The Art of tie a Pug)被出版商撤下，原因是书名中的文字游戏遭到了锡克教社区的强烈反对。书中的文字游戏指的是锡克教徒戴的狗和头巾(pag或pagdi)。这一事件说明了幽默出版物的寒蝉效应，以及目前出版商的策略，即撤回被视为冒犯的材料，而不是将其提交司法裁决。圣诞老人和班塔笑话案的裁决是否能为什么是可接受的，什么是冒犯性的制定指导方针?这样的指导方针是什么呢?考虑到幽默给法律带来的一系列独特问题，制定指导方针是可能的，或者是可取的吗?民族段子以少数民族-多数民族社区段子的形式存在于世界各地的文化中。本文还将对民族段子进行比较分析，试图回答这些问题。
{"title":"Santa Banta jokes: the intersection between humor, religion and the law","authors":"Shivangi Gangwar","doi":"10.1515/humor-2021-0099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0099","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Santa and Banta jokes are the mainstay of most Indian childhoods. Santa and Banta were used as stage names by the comedian duo Gurprit and Prabhpreet Singh but somewhere along the line, they turned into fictional characters in their own right and acquired pan-Indian fame. The defining characteristics of Santa and Banta jokes are that both are simple-minded middle-aged men belonging to the Sikh religious community. Most Indians consider these jokes lame but many Sikhs find them to be offensive and demeaning, not because of what is said but because of who says it. In 2015, Harvinder Chowdhury, a Sikh lawyer, petitioned the Supreme Court of India to ban the online dissemination of the Santa and Banta jokes. The Court admitted the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition and constituted a committee to look into this matter, before ultimately dismissing the petition in 2017, without judging it on merits. This paper will examine this specific attempt of the Indian judiciary to regulate humor, within the broader context of freedom to religion and free speech. It will study the arguments raised in the PIL, the recommendations of the committee, and the observations of the Court. No study has been done of the relationship between law and humor in India. This paper will examine whether the Court missed an opportunity to contribute to the virtually non-existent humor jurisprudence in India. Last year a children’s book The Art of Tying a Pug was withdrawn by its publishers because of the backlash it faced from the Sikh community on the wordplay in its title, which referred to the dog breed and the turban (pag or pagdi) worn by Sikhs. This incident is illustrative of the chilling effect on humor publications and the current publishers’ strategy of withdrawing the material deemed offensive instead of submitting it for judicial determination. Could a decision on merits in the Santa and Banta jokes case have laid down guidelines on what was acceptable and what was offensive? What would such guidelines be? Is the laying down of guidelines even possible, or desirable, given the unique set of issues presented by humor for the law? Ethnic jokes, in the form of minority-majority community jokes, are found in cultures all over the world. This paper will also undertake a comparative analysis of ethnic jokes in an attempt to answer these questions.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90467522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Afterword: on words and disciplines in studying humor","authors":"J. Davis","doi":"10.1515/humor-2022-0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80273071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The United States and Europe are often contrasted with each other regarding their approach to freedom of expression. Yet, despite the differences between their respective judicial systems, courts from both regions inevitably face similar interpretive challenges when dealing with humor. Our paper conducts a comparative discussion of humor-related jurisprudence from the US and Europe, mostly (but not exclusively) focusing on two landmark cases – namely Hustler v. Falwell (US Supreme Court, 1988) and Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (European Court of Human Rights, 2007). In particular, our analysis foregrounds two aspects: 1) How courts deal with the complex relations between humor, exaggeration and factual reality; 2) The role of objective harm (as opposed to subjective offence) in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful expression, and how the subjectivity of humor interpretation can undermine this criterion. On both levels, we argue that insights from literary and linguistic theories of humor – from Simpson’s work on satirical discourse to Attardo and Raskin’s General Theory of Verbal Humor – can set the basis for a more fine-grained and systematic approach to humor across different judicial systems.
在对待言论自由的态度上，美国和欧洲经常是截然不同的。然而，尽管他们各自的司法制度存在差异，但两个地区的法院在处理幽默时不可避免地面临类似的解释挑战。我们的论文对美国和欧洲的幽默相关法学进行了比较讨论，主要(但不完全)集中在两个具有里程碑意义的案件上——即Hustler诉Falwell(美国最高法院，1988年)和Vereinigung Bildender k nstler诉奥地利(欧洲人权法院，2007年)。我们的分析特别突出了两个方面:1)法院如何处理幽默、夸张和事实真实之间的复杂关系;2)客观伤害(相对于主观冒犯)在区分合法和非法表达中的作用，以及幽默解释的主观性如何破坏这一标准。在这两个层面上，我们认为幽默的文学和语言学理论——从辛普森关于讽刺话语的研究到阿塔多和拉斯金的言语幽默通论——可以为在不同司法体系中更细致和系统地研究幽默奠定基础。
{"title":"Different systems, similar challenges: humor and free speech in the United States and Europe","authors":"Alberto Godioli, Laura E. Little","doi":"10.1515/humor-2021-0121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0121","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The United States and Europe are often contrasted with each other regarding their approach to freedom of expression. Yet, despite the differences between their respective judicial systems, courts from both regions inevitably face similar interpretive challenges when dealing with humor. Our paper conducts a comparative discussion of humor-related jurisprudence from the US and Europe, mostly (but not exclusively) focusing on two landmark cases – namely Hustler v. Falwell (US Supreme Court, 1988) and Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (European Court of Human Rights, 2007). In particular, our analysis foregrounds two aspects: 1) How courts deal with the complex relations between humor, exaggeration and factual reality; 2) The role of objective harm (as opposed to subjective offence) in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful expression, and how the subjectivity of humor interpretation can undermine this criterion. On both levels, we argue that insights from literary and linguistic theories of humor – from Simpson’s work on satirical discourse to Attardo and Raskin’s General Theory of Verbal Humor – can set the basis for a more fine-grained and systematic approach to humor across different judicial systems.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74292192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We conducted a cross-cultural experiment on a sample of 230 participants, to examine how listening to an audio recording of a male telling a joke followed by either laughter (humorous condition) or an unimpressed murmur (non-humorous condition) affected participant ratings of that male’s social status, dominance, prestige and attractiveness. The experiment followed a between-subjects design. The sample was cross-cultural to explore possible cultural variation and compared effects among Western (UK & USA) (n = 119, 74 females) and Turkish (n = 111, 87 females) participants. We measured participants’ ratings of dominance/prestige and attractiveness, based on validated and previously used scales. In the humorous condition, the male was rated as having significantly higher social status and prestige but not dominance. He was also rated as more attractive by female participants from the UK & USA; this effect was mediated by prestige. Conversely, attractiveness ratings by female Turkish participants did not differ across conditions. The effect among the former was found to have been mediated via prestige. We interpret these findings as suggesting that humor production represents a means of gaining status but also highlighting that its recognized role in attractiveness varies cross-culturally. Although the present endeavor represents a pilot study, we believe that our findings raise new questions regarding the interrelationships of humor production, status, and attractiveness, and their evolutionary background.
{"title":"Humor and hierarchy: an experimental study of the effects of humor production on male dominance, prestige and attractiveness","authors":"Ali Giritlioğlu, Nikhil Chaudhary","doi":"10.1515/humor-2022-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We conducted a cross-cultural experiment on a sample of 230 participants, to examine how listening to an audio recording of a male telling a joke followed by either laughter (humorous condition) or an unimpressed murmur (non-humorous condition) affected participant ratings of that male’s social status, dominance, prestige and attractiveness. The experiment followed a between-subjects design. The sample was cross-cultural to explore possible cultural variation and compared effects among Western (UK & USA) (n = 119, 74 females) and Turkish (n = 111, 87 females) participants. We measured participants’ ratings of dominance/prestige and attractiveness, based on validated and previously used scales. In the humorous condition, the male was rated as having significantly higher social status and prestige but not dominance. He was also rated as more attractive by female participants from the UK & USA; this effect was mediated by prestige. Conversely, attractiveness ratings by female Turkish participants did not differ across conditions. The effect among the former was found to have been mediated via prestige. We interpret these findings as suggesting that humor production represents a means of gaining status but also highlighting that its recognized role in attractiveness varies cross-culturally. Although the present endeavor represents a pilot study, we believe that our findings raise new questions regarding the interrelationships of humor production, status, and attractiveness, and their evolutionary background.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89824616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Meng-Hua Tsai, Hsueh-Chih Chen, Jen-Ho Chang, Yu-Lin Chang, H. Chien
Abstract The aim of this study is to compare the differences in humor styles between indigenous and Han Chinese populations in Taiwan. The differences in humor styles between clan systems (patriarchy or matriarchy) within indigenous people were further examined. A total of 442 indigenous students and 1,040 Han Chinese students (M age = 12.88) in Taiwan were recruited. The Chinese version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire was applied. The following are the main findings. (1) Indigenous students use positive humor (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) more often than do Han students. (2) Indigenous girls in matriarchal societies use aggressive humor more often than do indigenous girls in patriarchal societies. (3) Indigenous boys use aggressive humor more often than do girls in patriarchal societies. However, such evidence was lacking in matriarchal societies. From the perspective of social constructions, the present findings reconfirm the effect of social status on humor.
{"title":"How ethnic groups and clan systems influence humor styles: evidence from indigenous students in Taiwan","authors":"Meng-Hua Tsai, Hsueh-Chih Chen, Jen-Ho Chang, Yu-Lin Chang, H. Chien","doi":"10.1515/humor-2021-0094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0094","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this study is to compare the differences in humor styles between indigenous and Han Chinese populations in Taiwan. The differences in humor styles between clan systems (patriarchy or matriarchy) within indigenous people were further examined. A total of 442 indigenous students and 1,040 Han Chinese students (M age = 12.88) in Taiwan were recruited. The Chinese version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire was applied. The following are the main findings. (1) Indigenous students use positive humor (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) more often than do Han students. (2) Indigenous girls in matriarchal societies use aggressive humor more often than do indigenous girls in patriarchal societies. (3) Indigenous boys use aggressive humor more often than do girls in patriarchal societies. However, such evidence was lacking in matriarchal societies. From the perspective of social constructions, the present findings reconfirm the effect of social status on humor.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90719690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrew R. Olah, Janelle S. Junkin, Thomas E. Ford, Sam Pressler
Abstract This paper details the results of an 18-month program impact evaluation (n = 72) on Armed Services Arts Partnership’s “Comedy Bootcamp,” a popular stand-up comedy course specifically tailored to military veterans. Based on literature around the benefits of sense of humor and humor training (e.g., 7 Humor Habits), we anticipated that participants in Comedy Bootcamp would show greater well-being relative to a control group, and that this effect would be mediated by an increase in sense of humor (i.e., self-enhancing humor style). Results largely supported the hypotheses, showing that Comedy Bootcamp participants experienced an increased self-enhancing humor style, which in turn yielded improved self-esteem, resilience, depression, and stress (though not anxiety). Further, longitudinal analyses demonstrated the benefits of the program persist at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Implications and future directions are discussed.
摘要本文详细介绍了一项为期18个月的项目影响评估结果(n = 72)，评估对象是美国武装部队艺术合作组织(Armed Services Arts Partnership)的“喜剧训练营”(Comedy Bootcamp)，这是一个专门为退伍军人量身定制的流行单口喜剧课程。基于关于幽默感和幽默训练的益处的文献(例如，《7个幽默习惯》)，我们预计喜剧训练营的参与者相对于对照组会表现出更大的幸福感，并且这种影响将通过幽默感的增加(即，自我提升的幽默风格)来调节。结果在很大程度上支持了这些假设，表明喜剧训练营的参与者经历了一种增强自我的幽默风格，这反过来又提高了自尊、恢复力、抑郁和压力(尽管没有焦虑)。此外，纵向分析表明，该计划的好处持续3个月和6个月的随访。讨论了影响和未来的发展方向。
{"title":"Comedy Bootcamp: stand-up comedy as humor training for military populations","authors":"Andrew R. Olah, Janelle S. Junkin, Thomas E. Ford, Sam Pressler","doi":"10.1515/humor-2022-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper details the results of an 18-month program impact evaluation (n = 72) on Armed Services Arts Partnership’s “Comedy Bootcamp,” a popular stand-up comedy course specifically tailored to military veterans. Based on literature around the benefits of sense of humor and humor training (e.g., 7 Humor Habits), we anticipated that participants in Comedy Bootcamp would show greater well-being relative to a control group, and that this effect would be mediated by an increase in sense of humor (i.e., self-enhancing humor style). Results largely supported the hypotheses, showing that Comedy Bootcamp participants experienced an increased self-enhancing humor style, which in turn yielded improved self-esteem, resilience, depression, and stress (though not anxiety). Further, longitudinal analyses demonstrated the benefits of the program persist at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Implications and future directions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":73268,"journal":{"name":"Humor (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88450935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：