essay about dark humor

English Studies

This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.

Dark Humor in Literature

Black humor thrives on juxtaposing themes that are traditionally considered serious, such as death, suffering, and societal dysfunction, with humor, thereby challenging conventional norms and expectations.

Introduction: Dark Humor in Literature

Table of Contents

Dark humor or black humor in literature is a distinct literary device characterized by its use of dark, ironic, and often morbid humor to illuminate the absurdities and contradictions of human existence.

It thrives on juxtaposing themes that are traditionally considered serious, such as death, suffering, and societal dysfunction, with humor, thereby challenging conventional norms and expectations.

Shakespearean Dark Humor in Literature

Literary examples of dark humor.

Explanation: In Catch-22 , Joseph Heller employs dark humor to satirize the absurdity of military bureaucracy during World War II. The titular “Catch-22” rule, where a pilot must be declared insane to avoid dangerous missions but asking not to fly proves sanity, encapsulates the absurdity of war. This darkly comic element runs throughout the novel, highlighting the futility and madness of the characters’ experiences.
Explanation: Kurt Vonnegut uses dark humor in Slaughterhouse-Five to explore the disorienting effects of war. The recurring phrase “So it goes” following mentions of death creates a morbidly humorous commentary on mortality and the inevitability of death. This humor serves as a coping mechanism and a vehicle to convey the senselessness of violence.
Explanation: Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay, A Modest Proposal , presents a shocking proposal with deadpan seriousness: that impoverished Irish families should sell their children as food to the wealthy. The dark humor lies in the absurdity of the suggestion, and Swift uses it to critique British exploitation of Ireland, providing a biting commentary on colonialism and social injustice.
Explanation: In American Psycho , Bret Easton Ellis employs dark humor to expose the shallowness and materialism of 1980s American culture. The protagonist, Patrick Bateman, is a wealthy investment banker who leads a double life as a serial killer. The disconnect between his violent actions and his obsession with consumerism creates a disturbing yet satirical commentary on society’s obsession with appearances and status symbols.

How to Create Dark Humor

Juxtaposition of Contrasting Elements: Dark humor often arises from the juxtaposition of serious or grim subjects with unexpected comedic elements. Contrast serious situations with absurd or ironic twists to create a humorous effect. For example, placing a bleak scenario in a comically mundane setting can be humorous.
Satirical Commentary : Use satire to critique societal norms, institutions, or human behavior. Create humor by exposing the hypocrisy, absurdity, or irrationality of certain situations. Satirical black humor often relies on exaggeration and irony to make its point.
Incongruity and Surprise: Surprise your audience with unexpected and shocking twists. Introduce elements that violate expectations, such as characters reacting in bizarre ways to distressing situations. The element of surprise can provoke both laughter and discomfort.
Deadpan Delivery: Present dark or disturbing content with a deadpan or matter-of-fact tone. The juxtaposition of serious subject matter with an emotionless or casual delivery can enhance the comedic effect. This style of delivery invites the audience to find humor in the absurdity of the situation.
Wordplay and Wit: Clever wordplay, puns, and witty dialogue can be powerful tools for creating dark humor. Play with language to highlight the absurdity of a situation or to draw attention to the contradictions within it. Well-crafted wordplay can add depth to the humor.

Benefits of Using Dark Humor

Engagement and Captivation: Dark humor can captivate and engage the audience by drawing them into the narrative. The unexpected and often irreverent humor can pique the audience’s curiosity, making them more invested in the story.
Critical Social Commentary: Dark humor serves as a vehicle for critical social and cultural commentary. It allows writers to satirize and critique societal norms, institutions, and behaviors, shedding light on pressing issues in an unconventional and impactful manner.
Coping Mechanism and Catharsis: Black humor can serve as a coping mechanism for both creators and consumers. It provides a way to address and process challenging or traumatic subjects, offering a release of tension and a sense of catharsis through humor.
Complex Exploration of Themes: It enables writers to explore complex and multifaceted themes by juxtaposing humor with serious or dark subject matter. This complexity can lead to deeper and more nuanced storytelling, encouraging audiences to contemplate various aspects of the narrative.
Memorability and Impact: The use of dark humor can make a story more memorable and impactful. The contrast between dark themes and humor leaves a lasting impression on the audience, provoking thought and discussion long after they’ve encountered the work.

Dark Humor and Literary Theory

Theoretical Books:

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World . Indiana University Press, 1968.
Raskin, Victor. The Semantic Mechanisms of Humor . Springer, 1985.
Morreall, John. Humor Works . Prometheus Books, 1987.

Onomatopoeia: A Literary Device

When Dark Humor and Moral Judgment Meet in Sacrificial Dilemmas: Preliminary Evidence With Females

Emmanuelle brigaud.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France

Nathalie Blanc

The influence of dark humor on moral judgment has never been explored, even though this form of humor is well-known to push the boundaries of social norms. In the present study, we examined whether the presence of dark humor leads female participants to approve a utilitarian response (i.e., to kill one to save many) in sacrificial dilemmas. The effects of two types of humorous contexts were compared (i.e., dark vs. nondark) on dilemmas, which differed according to whom benefits from the crime (i.e., oneself and others vs. others only). In addition to collecting moral responses, individuals’ emotional states were assessed at three critical steps: Before and after reading the jokes and also after performing the moral judgment task. Our results revealed that dark and nondark humor similarly elicited a positive emotional state. However, dark humor increased the permissiveness of the moral violation when this violation created benefits for oneself. In self and other beneficial dilemmas, female participants in the dark humorous condition judged the utilitarian response more appropriate than those in the nondark condition. This study represents a first attempt in deepening our understanding of the context-dependent nature of moral judgment usually assessed in sacrificial dilemmas.

Suppose a runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people. Suppose further that a large stranger is standing on a bridge over the tracks and that the only way to stop the trolley is to push that person in front of the trolley, killing him for sure but saving the others. Would it be okay to sacrifice one life to save several others? Most people answer “no” to this “high conflict” personal moral dilemma ( Greene et al., 2001 , 2004 ).

This phenomenon has been widely studied by psychologists to understand the cognitive and affective processes underlying moral judgments (see Waldmann et al., 2012 for a review; see also Bartels et al., 2015 ). The dual-process theory provides a relevant framework to explain people’s responses to sacrificial dilemmas ( Greene, 2007 ; Greene et al., 2001 , 2004 , 2008 ). According to this well-known theory, two separate systems are involved in moral judgment: the controlled cognitive process, which corresponds to conscious reasoning (slow and effortful), and the automatic emotional one based on intuition and affects (fast and largely unconscious). In response to “high conflict” personal dilemmas, like the footbridge scenario described above ( Thomson, 1985 ), people are typically driven by automatic emotional responses and judge that it is morally unacceptable to push someone off a footbridge even though not pushing him would result in a greater number of deaths. The perspective entailing a moral violation, such as killing an innocent person triggers a strong emotional aversion that inhibits an amoral solution ( Greene, 2008 ). However, with sufficient time, motivation or resource conditions, people may engage in controlled cognitive processes regarding the costs and the benefits of killing another person. Such mechanisms result in a utilitarian judgment: approving the sacrifice of one life in order to save the lives of five is morally acceptable with respect to the number of victims.

In a footbridge-type dilemma, the rational choice (i.e., sacrifice the life of one person in order to save the lives of a greater number of people) is directly in conflict with deontological rules or intuition. Consequently, the utilitarian response requires one to control or overcome the initial aversive reaction against harming an innocent person ( Greene, 2008 ). Two sets of studies have provided converging evidence in line with this idea. First, both empirical and neuropsychological studies have shown that utilitarian judgments are due to an absent or a reduced affective response. Participants with emotion-related neurological deficits (e.g., Ciaramelli et al., 2007 ; Koenigs et al., 2007 ; Moretto et al., 2009 ), with decreased empathic concern or with antisocial personality traits ( Bartels & Pizarro, 2011 ; Conway & Gawronski, 2013 ; Gleichgerrcht & Young, 2013 ; Kahane et al., 2015 ) reach more utilitarian conclusions in sacrificial dilemmas. Secondly, other researchers have shown a link between the utilitarian response and working memory capacity ( Moore et al., 2008 ) and also between this type of response and an individuals’ need for cognition ( Bartels, 2008 ; Conway & Gawronski, 2013 ). Precisely, participants are more likely to approve a utilitarian response when they scored high in working memory capacity or in need for cognition (a motivational tendency to seek and enjoy effortful cognitive activity).

Concomitantly, environment-induced positive mood at the time of judgment increases a utilitarian response. For instance, simple exposure to humorous material before the presentation of the footbridge scenario increases permissiveness for moral violations (i.e., pushing the stranger over the bridge; Strohminger et al., 2011 ; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006 ). Such effect arises, because humor is usually associated with the experience of a positive emotion (i.e., mirth, laughter, pleasure). Therefore, if humor induces positive emotion at the time of judgment, the perceived negativity linked to any potential moral violation is attenuated and, thus, utilitarian response increases. This explanation is consistent with Fredrickson’s (2001) hypothesis that positive emotions can act as an antidote to negative emotions correcting or diminishing their influence.

Humor, used as a communicative activity, elicits positive emotional reactions in perceivers and tendency to laugh ( Gervais & Wilson, 2005 ; Martin & Ford, 2018 ; Veatch, 1998 ). It also indicates to the target or audience that what happening, or is going to happen, should be taken as a joke ( Gervais & Wilson, 2005 ; Ramachandran, 1998 ). In Ford's et al. (2008) words: “humor invokes a conversational rule of levity, that is, humor communicates an implicit message to the receiver that the usual rules of logic and expectations of common sense did not apply” (p. 160). In the context of social judgment, this central property of humor might allow us to treat the violation of moral rules (e.g., “it’s forbidden to kill”) as a matter of play and, therefore, favor the utilitarian judgment. Consistent with this hypothesis, Strohminger et al. (2011) found that mirth (i.e., the positive emotion associated with humor) increases permissiveness for deontological violation in moral dilemmas, whereas elevation (i.e., a positive emotion experienced upon witnessing another person perform a virtuous act; Algoe & Haidt, 2009 ; Haidt, 2003 ) has the opposite effect. This result highlighted that the influence of humor on people’s moral judgment cannot be explained simply in terms of experiencing positive emotions. They suggest that humor influences moral judgment by removing the gravitas of the moral violation (i.e., making immoral behavior funny). This interpretation is consistent with the Benign Violation Theory of humor ( McGraw & Warren, 2010 ; McGraw et al., 2012 ; Veatch, 1998 ), which suggests that humor occurs when people simultaneously appraise a violation as being normal, acceptable, or okay.

The aim of the present study was to investigate more thoroughly to what extent a humorous context can influence the response of participants in personal moral dilemmas. The only two studies ( Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006 ; Strohminger et al., 2011 ) that focused on the role of humor on moral judgment used non-transgressive humor (i.e., inoffensive comedy). Thus, it would be interesting to see if the observed humor effect on moral judgment could be stronger when one uses humor with a transgressive content. As this form of humor is closely linked to the transgression of social norms and moral systems, it creates a context that could lead individuals to consider the utilitarian response in sacrificial dilemmas as harmless or okay. McGraw and Warren (2010) showed that moral violation is benign when another norm suggests that the behavior is acceptable or correct. In this sense, expression of transgression delivered in a humorous form could suggest that, in this context, the moral violation is okay (i.e., it’s acceptable to kill someone). This is closely linked with recent research that has shown that exposure to humorous forms of disparagement (i.e., sexist, racist or anti-gay jokes) lead to an increase in expression of prejudice toward target groups (e.g., O’Connor et al., 2017 ; Saucier et al., 2016 ; Woodzicka & Ford, 2010 ). According to the benign-violation theory hypothesis, such effects may occur because in the humorous context, the moral violation (i.e., denigrate a social group) is perceived as benign (see Gutiérrez et al., 2018 ; Thai et al., 2019 , for a similar interpretation).

A particularly interesting form of humor to study in sacrificial dilemmas is dark humor because it treats sinister and tragic subjects, like death, with amusement and trivializes the victim’s suffering ( Aillaud & Piolat, 2012 ). Dark humor (death-related humor) is described as cynical, gallows, morbid. Playing with serious or sad real life events, dark humor is generally considered as transgressive since it crosses the red line of social norms and moral systems. This form of humor takes its name from jokes about condemned men or hopeless victims to relieve tension before being executed ( Freud, 1905 ). Thus, the condemned to death may well declare when led to the scaffold on a beautiful Monday morning, “This is a week that is starting well!” The juxtaposition of morbid and farcical elements in dark humor elicits two simultaneous perceptions: one, that the dark content constitutes a moral violation in which negative serious topics are mocked and, the other, an interpretation that the dark content is benign. Since dark humor treats negative serious ideas (like death, suffering of the victims or body integrity) in a light-hearted, playful manner ( Charaudeau, 2006 ), it is not surprising that people use it as a coping strategy in stressful life-and-death situations ( Christopher, 2015 ; Rowe & Regehr, 2010 ; van Wormer & Boes, 1997 ; Young, 1995 ). In the context of social judgment, dark humor might signal that the violation of moral rule (i.e., to kill someone) is fine and, therefore favor the utilitarian response. Thus, we predicted that participants exposed to dark humor before performing a moral judgment task would answer in a more utilitarian fashion (i.e., approving killing one) compared to participants exposed to nondark humor.

To deepen our understanding of moral judgment in a humorous context, we questioned whether the humor effect depends on who benefits from the crime. Our research considered cases where crime benefits oneself and others versus others only. We predicted that dark humor reinforces the tendency to morally approve the act of killing someone in particular when such action benefits the self in addition to others. This prediction is consistent with two results in psychology of morality (for a review see Ellemers et al., 2019 ). The first one showed that the tendency to produce utilitarian responses is strongly tied to consideration of self-interest ( Christensen et al., 2014 ; Kahane et al., 2015 ). Indeed, people are more inclined to approve harm if their own life is at stake than if the moral transgression is merely to save others. The second one suggested that people feel less negative emotions (e.g., guilt and shame) about their dishonest actions and perceived them to be morally acceptable when there are other beneficiaries for these actions in addition to themselves ( Gino et al., 2013 ). In this case, people use the potential benefits for others as a way to justify their self-interested and unethical actions (self-serving altruism). After being exposed to dark humor, committing harm could be considered less socially inappropriate when participants are faced with self and other beneficial dilemmas, because the crime relies on their own utility since this “selfish” consideration enables them to save others too.

The objective of the present research was to investigate more specifically the impact of two humorous contexts (i.e., dark and nondark jokes) on people’s responses to sacrificial dilemmas) as a function of whom benefits from the crime (other vs. self and other).

Participants

One hundred and thirty-six female undergraduate students 1 from the University of Montpellier 3 (France) took part in this experiment. The average age of the sample was 20.75 years ( SD = 3.40). Informed consent was obtained from all students prior to participating in any of the tasks. They were informed that their responses remained anonymous in respect of the Data Protection law. All students received course credit as compensation.

Humorous Materials

To assess the effects of humor on moral judgment, we used 12 jokes: six jokes were not transgressive (i.e., nonsense or clownish humor) and six dark jokes with a transgressive content (i.e., dealing with sinister topics with amusement like death, suffering of the victims and body integrity). For example, one of the dark jokes used:

A lawyer goes to the coroner about an autopsy: – Before signing the death certificate, did you take this man’s pulse? – No. – Did you check to see if his heart was still beating? – No. – Did you check whether he was still breathing? – No. – So you signed this death certificate without performing any of the recommended tests for establishing whether a person is really and truly dead? – Yes. Why? Did you find his head?

These jokes were selected on the basis of pretest ratings given by a total of 180 undergraduate students from the University of Montpellier 3, France ( M age = 19.84 years, SD = 2.63; the majority were female, 86%). They were all volunteers and were compensated with course credit for their participation.

A first group of 90 participants were asked to rate 30 jokes regarding their darkness. They rated “How dark is the joke?” using a scale from 1 ( not at all dark ) to 5 ( very dark ). Because participants were tested collectively, jokes were presented in a counterbalanced order across participants. Based on the results of this pilot study, we selected 12 jokes from the pool of the 30 rated jokes (i.e., those that lead to the most consistent appraisal among the sample): six jokes were attributed the lowest score (i.e., 1 = not at all dark ) by at least 78% of the sample and six jokes were attributed the highest score (i.e., 5 = very dark ) by at least 72% of the sample. All other jokes were excluded from the experimental material.

To ensure that this set of jokes (i.e., dark and nondark jokes) was similar in terms of funniness ratings, but distinct in terms of transgressive content, we recruited a second group of 90 participants. After reading each joke, they answered the two following questions: “How funny is the situation described in this joke?” and “How unbecoming and unseemly 2 is the situation described in this joke?.” Using the same procedure as Aillaud and Piolat (2012 , 2014 ), responses were made on a 4-point scale (1 = definitely not , 2 = not , 3 = slightly yes , and 4 = definitely yes ). Note that this 4-point scale enabled us to avoid a midpoint evaluation.

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; Type of humor: Dark vs. Nondark) was made for each rating. These analyses revealed a main effect of transgressive content ratings only, F (1, 88) = 77.45, p < .001, η p 2 = .47, dark jokes being judged as more unbecoming and unseemly ( M = 2.64, SD = 0.69) than nondark ones ( M = 1.23, SD = 0.32). There were no significant differences between dark and nondark jokes regarding funniness ( M = 2.57, SD = 0.48 and M = 2.69, SD = 0.63, respectively), F (1, 88) = 0.93, p = .34. These results confirm that participants perceived a difference between dark and nondark humor solely on the transgressive dimension.

Moral Dilemmas

We selected four high conflict personal dilemmas from a previously used set (see Greene et al., 2001 , 2004 ) in which the participant was always presented as the main protagonist of the situation (i.e., the one who was supposed to carry out the moral violation). The dilemmas were similar regarding at least two dimensions: All dilemmas involved killing one person in order to save several others; the number of people saved was comparable ( N = 10). In addition, all these dilemmas were known to elicit mainly the same negative emotion (i.e., guilt) during judgment ( Choe & Min, 2011 ). The dilemmas were only distinguished according to whom benefits (other vs. self and other) from the crime. The footbridge and the vitamins were the two other-beneficial dilemmas, while the lifeboat and safari were self and other beneficial ones. In the latter, the crime enabled one to save others as well as the protagonist herself. For example, in the lifeboat dilemma, the protagonist must choose whether to throw a person overboard to save the life of remaining passengers and her life too.

Emotional Scales

Participant’s emotional state was assessed on two dimensions: valence (positive vs. negative) and arousal (level of activation) using the Valence and the Arousal scales of the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Lang, 1980 ). According to Bynion and Feldner (2017) , the SAM is a brief and nonverbal measure of emotional state which reliability has been confirmed by numerous studies conducted in various domains (e.g., psychology, communication, advertising; Morris, 1995 ) and populations (e.g., gender, age, race; Backs et al., 2005 ; Nabizadeh Chianeh et al., 2012 ). The SAM scales consist of two sets of five figures depicting different levels of affective valence and arousal (see Figure 1 ). For each dimension, participants were instructed to place an “X” on or between the figures that best described their emotional state. The Valence scale (A) ranged from unhappy (1) to happy (9) and the Arousal scale (B) from calm (1) to excited (9).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ejop-17-276-g01.jpg

After giving their informed consent, participants were randomly assigned either to the dark humor condition ( N = 68) or to the nondark humor condition ( N = 68). All participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire composed of two parts: First, they were exposed to six jokes and then they had to complete a moral judgment task. Immediately after reading the humorous material, all participants responded to four high-conflict personal dilemmas. The order of presentation of the dilemmas was counterbalanced within and between the dark and nondark humor conditions. For each dilemma, participants had to decide whether the utilitarian option (i.e., to kill someone) was appropriate or not (yes/no question). The answer “yes” always represented the utilitarian response. The scenarios were briefly introduced by stating that they refer to serious situations that could be seen as unpleasant but require making a difficult choice. To put the participants “in context” for the task that awaited them, and to ensure that they were engaged in the moral issues at stake, they were instructed to imagine themselves in each situation so that their answer could mirror their action in real life (e.g., see Tassy et al., 2013 ). They were asked to be as honest as possible in their responses, knowing that there is no good or wrong answer. In addition to recording responses to the dilemmas, we also assessed the participant’s emotional state in three steps: before reading the jokes (Time 1), after reading the jokes (Time 2) and after the moral judgment task (Time 3). Participants rated their emotional state using the Valence and Arousal scales of the SAM ( Lang, 1980 ).

Emotional States

To examine whether participants’ emotional states fluctuated throughout the experiment, a repeated ANOVA was conducted, first on the valence ratings and, second on arousal ratings. The type of humor (i.e., Nondark humor vs. Dark humor) was the between-participant factor, and the mood assessment time (Time 1 vs. Time 2 vs. Time 3) was the within-participant factor. Mean ratings (and standard deviation) of valence and arousal are reported in Table 1 .

Note. Before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) reading the jokes; after the moral judgment task (Time 3).

Regarding valence ratings, a significant effect of time assessment was observed, F (2, 268) = 59.34, p < .001, η p 2 = .31. Post hoc analysis (Scheffé test) revealed that participants reported feeling happier after reading the jokes than before reading the jokes (Time 2, M = 6.05, SD = 1.68; Time 1, M = 5.43, SD = 1.82), but their induced happiness decreased after the moral judgment task (Time 3, M = 4.17, SD =1.92) ( ps < .001). Regarding arousal ratings, ANOVA revealed a significant effect of time assessment, F (2, 268) = 5.51, p < .01, η p 2 = .04. Participants reported feeling more excited after (Time 3, M = 5.49, SD = 2.07) than before the experiment (Time 1, M = 4.90, SD = 1.86), ( p < .01). No other effects were significant.

Moral Judgment

The mean proportion of utilitarian responses (i.e., killing is judged morally appropriate) was analyzed (ANOVA) to explore the effect of both the type of humor (i.e., Nondark humor vs. Dark humor) and the type of dilemma (i.e., Self and Other-beneficial vs. Other- beneficial). This 2 × 2 analysis showed a main effect of the type of dilemma indicating that killing to save oneself and others was judged to be more appropriate ( M = 0.55, SD = 0.38) than killing to save only others ( M = 0.19, SD = 0.30), F (1, 134) = 94.99, p < .001, η p 2 = .41. A significant Type of humor × Type of dilemma interaction showed that this tendency to accept moral violation in their own self-interest increased when participants were exposed to dark jokes, F (1, 134) = 7.75, p = .006, η p 2 = .05 (see Figure 2 ). Post hoc analysis (Scheffé test) revealed that, in self and other beneficial dilemmas, the mean proportion of utilitarian responses was significantly higher in the dark humor condition than in the nondark ones ( p < .001). No significant difference between these two conditions was found for other-beneficial dilemmas ( p = .60). No other effects were significant.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ejop-17-276-g02.jpg

Note . Error bars depict standard errors.

Compared to the existing literature dealing with humor and moral judgment ( Strohminger et al., 2011 ; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006 ), the present study highlights the relevance of distinguishing different types of humorous inducing materials. Contrary to previous studies that only considered nondark humor, our comparison between dark and nondark humor revealed that variability in moral judgment could not simply be explained in terms of experiencing positive emotions or in terms of the levity property of humor. The content of humorous jokes deserves to be considered especially when this content relies on the transgression of social norms. Under the veil of amusement, moral violation in self and other beneficial scenarios increased in a more important way when participants were exposed to dark humor. To deepen our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the permissiveness within different humorous contexts, four main lines of research must be considered.

First, it’s noteworthy that people are motivated by their self-interest and prone to behave for their own benefit in moral dilemmas ( Christensen et al., 2014 ; Moore et al., 2008 , 2011 ). In our study, individuals tended to exhibit a utilitarian response style when the transgressive act was described as self and other beneficial as compared to other-beneficial. This effect is coherent with Greene’s dual-process model ( Greene et al., 2001 , 2004 , 2008 ), which suggests that utilitarian judgments result from a deliberate analysis of costs and benefits. In this cost-benefit perspective of moral judgment, saving oneself (in addition to others) could be considered as an additional benefit: The gains represented by saving oneself and others outweigh the gains of saving others only. Hence, people probably experience less conflict in the analysis of cost-benefit ratio when action is for their own benefit too. This interpretation is compatible with Moore et al. (2008 , 2011 ) who showed that individuals were faster to approve the “utilitarian” response when those who benefited from the crime included themselves. This interpretation is also consistent with Shalvi et al. (2015 ; see also Gino et al., 2013 ) who underlined that people experience less internal conflicts when the temptation to profit from unethical behavior can be justified by saving others. This self-serving altruism could explain our results. In the present study, the self and other beneficial scenario enabled people to violate moral rules (e.g., approve a behavior that cause harm to a victim) while maintaining their positive self-image, because the moral violation also benefitted others.

Secondly, our results showed that the tendency to accept moral violation in both their self and other interest increased when participants were exposed to dark jokes. According to the benign violations theory literature ( McGraw & Warren, 2010 ; Warren & McGraw, 2015 , 2016 ), this result suggests that humorous contexts affect moral judgment via appraisal processes. Indeed, the fact that the permissiveness of the moral violation increases in self and other beneficial dilemmas under dark humorous context suggests that this informational context promotes the appraisal of utilitarian response as a benign violation. In other words, when negative serious ideas (like death or suffering of the victims) are associated to farcical elements through dark jokes, the utilitarian response probably becomes more benign, especially when it benefits oneself in addition to others. However, such explanation should be considered with caution since we did not directly emphasize the moral component of the utilitarian response. In the present study, the harmful actions described in sacrificial dilemmas were judged appropriate or inappropriate only. Future studies should directly investigate if utilitarian judgment is perceived as more or less immoral according to the type of humor (Dark vs. Nondark) and the type of dilemma (Self and Other-beneficial vs. Other- beneficial). Another limitation, inherent to almost all moral dilemma research is about the nature of the task and the corresponding measure. As highlighted by Crone and Laham (2017) , sacrificial dilemma responses have to be considered with caution since they have been proved to be a poor indicator of moral values. Obviously, there is a huge difference between what one judges as morally acceptable and what one actually does (see also Tassy et al., 2013 ). A profitable line of research would consist of distinguishing between evaluative judgments and choices of action.

Thirdly, the way the scenarios are perceived is another line of research that deserves to be considered. Bauman et al. (2014) strongly recommend that researchers be cautious when using sacrificial dilemmas to studying moral judgment: The ecological validity of sacrificial dilemmas needs to be carefully considered (see Körner et al., 2019 ) because the lack of realism may threaten the validity of moral decision processes under interest. Also, because the scenarios are hypothetical, a utilitarian response (i.e., kill someone) could be seen as both a violation and benign. In this circumstance, the benign-violation predicts that people will be amused. In accordance with this hypothesis, Bauman et al. (2014) showed that, in the footbridge scenario, people considered pushing the man to be wrong, but also reported laughing. If sacrificial dilemmas have the power to elicit humor, we can hypothesize that exposure to dark jokes promotes the violation and benign appraisals of the situation described in the scenario, and thus, generates laughter. The question is can dark humor transform a serious scenario into a humorous one, because its transgressive content leads to perceive that moral violation is actually okay. Rather than abandoning sacrificial dilemmas entirely, using a virtual reality paradigm may offer a more vivid experience of the scenarios, making their realism more salient (e.g., McDonald et al., 2017 ; Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016 ), and elicit more serious moral deliberation.

A last but not least contribution of the present study concerns individuals’ emotional state when faced with moral dilemma. Contrary to previous studies that only considered nondark humor, our comparison between dark and nondark humor revealed that variability in moral judgment could not simply be explained in terms of experiencing positive emotions. Interestingly, the benign-violation theory ( McGraw & Warren, 2010 ) suggests that humor does not systematically involve positive emotions (e.g., amusement, mirth). Because humor results from violations that are simultaneously seen as benign, it may elicit mixed emotions. This idea is in line with theorists (e.g., Larsen & McGraw, 2014 ; Larsen et al., 2001 ; Schimmack, 2001 ) who argue that positive and negative emotions do not mutually inhibit each other, and may at times even co-occur (i.e., mix). Clearly, humor elicits mixed feelings such disgust and amusement. For instance, people are both amused and disgusted when exposed to a disgusting humorous clip ( Hemenover & Schimmack, 2007 ). Aillaud and Piolat (2014) provided additional evidence when underlying that participants used both positive and negative emotional lexicon to describe the emotional experience associated with dark and nondark humorous cartoons. These authors reported that dark humor is particularly conducive to provoking mixed emotions. Not only does its transgressive content elicit amusement, but also triggers negative emotions such as shame or disgust. Since the present study operationalized dark humor, participants may have felt amusement and shame (or/and disgust), two emotions of opposite valence. This hypothesis cannot be tested in our study since we measured emotional valence only. Our results revealed that participants reported feeling happier after reading the jokes than before reading the jokes, but their induced happiness decreased after the moral judgment task. Further research should consider the panel of discrete emotions to understand how individuals manage mixed feelings when asked to judge whether the acts are morally appropriate or not. It would be interesting to examine what they feel in the different steps: before the moral judgment task, during the reading of the scenario and after the moral judgment. Because the dilemmas have proven to elicit different negative emotions (i.e., guilt, disgust, sadness, empathy, anger; see Choe & Min, 2011 ), the question remains on how different types of humor can counterbalance such negative feelings.

Overall, there is no doubt that the next step to overcome in deepening our understanding of moral judgments is to focus on its context-dependent nature. This line of research allows us to get a better understanding of the mechanisms in which humor influences moral judgment. Some additional factors may contribute to this line of research like an individuals’ need for humor ( Cline et al., 2003 ; see also Picard & Blanc, 2013 ) and also gender (e.g., Herzog & Anderson, 2000 ). Interestingly, in the present research, dark humor effects are observed on a sample composed exclusively of females. It is noteworthy that females are known to usually find less humor in dark events than males ( Aillaud & Piolat, 2012 ). The tendency to produce a utilitarian response could be strongly reinforced under dark humor with males who are predisposed to generate and seek out humor (i.e., who scored high in need for humor). Future research is needed to test this hypothesis. Finally, this study sheds light on the necessity to not neglect the fact that moral judgments take place in a specific sociocultural environment more or less prompt to accept dark humor. The exposure to dark humor in an individualist culture is of great importance since moral decision experienced in everyday life is often driven by selfish attitudes. The presence of dark humor can promote moral transgression that favors the tolerance of utilitarian response.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. We also thank Rachel Michel for her careful reading of our manuscript.

Biographies

Emmanuelle Brigaud is an associate professor at the University of Montpellier 3. Her main works concern applied social psychology, mainly through the domain of communication, with a special interest for studying humor effects.

Nathalie Blanc is a professor at the University of Montpellier 3. The scope of her interests covers the field of cognitive and developmental psychology, mainly in regard to higher cognition and its interaction with emotions involved in educational and communication domains.

The authors have no funding to report.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aillaud, M., & Piolat, A. (2012). Influence of gender on judgment on dark and nondark humor . Individual Differences Research , 10 , 211–222. [ Google Scholar ]
Aillaud, M., & Piolat, A. (2014). Nature du lexique émotionnel produit en situation d'appréciation et de rejet de dessins d’humour noir et d’humour non noir . Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology , 68 ( 3 ), 166–178. 10.1037/cep0000019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration . Journal of Positive Psychology , 4 ( 2 ), 105–127. 10.1080/17439760802650519 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Backs, R. W., da Silva, S. P., & Han, K. (2005). A comparison of younger and older adults' self-assessment manikin ratings of affective pictures . Experimental Aging Research , 31 ( 4 ), 421–440. 10.1080/03610730500206808 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making . Cognition , 108 ( 2 ), 381–417. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels, D. M., Bauman, C. W., Cushman, F. A., Pizarro, D. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2015). Moral judgment and decision making. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 1–51). Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas . Cognition , 121 ( 1 ), 154–161. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 8 ( 9 ), 536–554. 10.1111/spc3.12131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bynion, T. M., & Feldner, M. T. (2017). Self-assessment manikin. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–3). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_77-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Charaudeau, P. (2006). Des catégories pour l'humour? Questions de Communication , 10 , 19–41. 10.4000/questionsdecommunication.7688 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Choe, S. Y., & Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments . Judgment and Decision Making , 6 , 580–592. [ Google Scholar ]
Christensen, J. F., Flexas, A., Calabrese, M., Gut, N. K., & Gomila, A. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study . Frontiers in Psychology , 5 , 607. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Christopher, S. (2015). An introduction to black humour as a coping mechanism for student paramedics . Journal of Paramedic Practice , 7 , 610–615. 10.12968/jpar.2015.7.12.610 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ciaramelli, E., Muccioli, M., Ladavas, E., & di Pellegrino, G. (2007). Selective deficit in personal moral judgment following damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex . Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 2 ( 2 ), 84–92. 10.1093/scan/nsm001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cline, T. W., Altsech, M. B., & Kellaris, J. J. (2003). When does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? The moderating role of the need for humor . Journal of Advertising , 32 ( 3 ), 31–45. 10.1080/00913367.2003.10639134 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 104 ( 2 ), 216–235. 10.1037/a0031021 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Crone, D. L., & Laham, S. M. (2017). Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas . Personality and Individual Differences , 104 , 476–481. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ellemers, N., van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & van Leeuven, T. (2019). The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017 . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 23 ( 4 ), 332–366. 10.1177/1088868318811759 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 ( 2 ), 159–170. 10.1177/0146167207310022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions . American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), 218–226. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious . Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach . The Quarterly Review of Biology , 80 ( 4 ), 395–430. 10.1086/498281 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 93 , 285–292. 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment . PLOS ONE , 8 , e60418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0060418 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 11 ( 8 ), 322–323. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greene, J. D. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 3: The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development (pp. 35–117). MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment . Cognition , 107 ( 3 ), 1144–1154. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment . Neuron , 44 ( 2 ), 389–400. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment . Science , 293 , 2105–2108. ttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gutiérrez, C. A., Carretero-Dios, H., Willis, G. B., & Morales, M. C. (2018). “It’s funny if the group says so”: Group norms moderate disparaging humor appreciation . Humor: International Journal of Humor Research , 31 , 473–490. 10.1515/humor-2017-0055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Haidt, J. D. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. D. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
Hemenover, S. H., & Schimmack, U. (2007). That’s disgusting! …, but very amusing: Mixed feelings of amusement and disgust . Cognition & Emotion , 21 ( 5 ), 1102–1113. 10.1080/02699930601057037 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Herzog, T. R., & Anderson, M. R. (2000). Joke cruelty, emotional responsiveness, and joke appreciation . Humor: International Journal of Humor Research , 13 , 333–351. 10.1515/humr.2000.13.3.333 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). “Utilitarian” judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good . Cognition , 134 , 193–209. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments . Nature , 446 , 908–911. 10.1038/nature05631 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Körner, A., Joffe, S., & Deutsch, R. (2019). When skeptical, stick with norm: Low dilemma plausibility increases deontological moral judgments . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 84 , 1–7. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103834 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A. William (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119–137). Ablex. [ Google Scholar ]
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings . NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention. [ Google Scholar ]
Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2014). The case of mixed emotions . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 8 ( 6 ), 263–274. 10.1111/spc3.12108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 ( 4 ), 684–696. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Martin, R., & Ford, T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach (2nd ed.). Elsevier Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
McDonald, M. M., Defever, A. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2017). Killing for the greater good: Action aversion and the emotional inhibition of harm in moral dilemmas . Evolution and Human Behavior , 38 ( 6 ), 770–778. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.06.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny . Psychological Science , 21 ( 8 ), 1141–1149. 10.1177/0956797610376073 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L., & Leonard, B. (2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps . Psychological Science , 23 ( 10 ), 1215–1223. 10.1177/0956797612443831 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment . Psychological Science , 19 ( 6 ), 549–557. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moore, A. B., Stevens, J., & Conway, A. R. A. (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment predict moral judgment . Personality and Individual Differences , 50 ( 5 ), 621–625. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moretto, G., Ladavas, E., Mattioli, F., & di Pellegrino, G. (2009). A psychophysiological investigation of moral judgment after ventromedial prefrontal damage . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 22 ( 8 ), 1888–1899. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21367 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morris, J. D. (1995). Observations: SAM: The self-assessment manikin; an efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response . Journal of Advertising Research , 35 , 63–68. [ Google Scholar ]
Nabizadeh Chianeh, G., Vahedi, S., Rostami, M., & Nazari, M. A. (2012). Validity and reliability of self-assessment manikin . Journal of Research in Psychological Health , 6 , 52–61. [ Google Scholar ]
O’Connor, E. C., Ford, T. E., & Banos, N. C. (2017). Restoring threatened masculinity: The appeal of sexist and anti-gay humor . Sex Roles , 77 , 567–580. 10.1007/s11199-017-0761-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Picard, D., & Blanc, N. (2013). Need for humor scale: Validation with French children . Psychological Reports: Measures and Statistics , 112 ( 2 ), 502–518. 10.2466/08.07.PR0.112.2.502-518 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling: The false alarm theory . Medical Hypotheses , 51 ( 4 ), 351–354. 10.1016/S0306-9877(98)90061-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rowe, A., & Regehr, C. (2010). Whatever gets you through today: An examination of cynical humor among emergency service professionals . Journal of Loss and Trauma , 15 ( 5 ), 448–464. 10.1080/15325024.2010.507661 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Saucier, D. A., O’Dea, C. J., & Strain, M. L. (2016). The bad, the good, the misunderstood: The social effects of racial humor . Translational Issues in Psychological Science , 2 ( 1 ), 75–85. 10.1037/tps0000059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schimmack, U. (2001). Pleasure, displeasure, and mixed feelings: Are semantic opposites mutually exclusive? Cognition and Emotion , 15 ( 1 ), 81–97. 10.1080/02699930126097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shalvi, S., Gino, F, Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong, and feeling moral . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 24 ( 2 ), 125–130. 10.1177/0963721414553264 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality . Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 3 , 74. 10.3389/frobt.2016.00074 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Strohminger, N., Lewis, R. L., & Meyer, D. E. (2011). Divergent effects of different positive emotions on moral judgment . Cognition , 119 ( 2 ), 295–300. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas . Frontiers in Psychology , 4 , 250. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thai, M., Borgella, A. M., & Sanchez, M. S. (2019). It’s only funny if we say it: Disparagement humor is better received if it originates from a member of the group being disparaged . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 85 , 103838. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103838 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thomson, J. (1985). The Trolley problem . Yale Law Journal , 94 ( 6 ), 1395–1415. 10.2307/796133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgement . Psychological Science , 17 ( 6 ), 476–477. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Van Wormer, K., & Boes, M. (1997). Humor in the emergency room: A social work perspective . Health and Social Work , 22 ( 2 ), 87–92. 10.1093/hsw/22.2.87 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor . Humor: International Journal of Humor Research , 11 , 161–215. 10.1515/humr.1998.11.2.161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Waldmann, M. R., Nagel, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2012). Moral judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and r easoning (pp. 364–389). Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2015). Opinion: What makes things humorous . PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 ( 23 ), 7105–7106. 10.1073/pnas.1503836112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from what is not . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 110 ( 3 ), 407–430. 10.1037/pspi0000041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Woodzicka, J. A., & Ford, T. (2010). A framework for thinking about the (not-so-funny). Effects of sexist humor . Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 6 ( 3 ), 174–195. 10.5964/ejop.v6i3.217 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Young, M. (1995). Black humor: Making light of death . Policing and Society , 5 ( 2 ), 151–167. 10.1080/10439463.1995.9964719 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Home > School, College, or Department > Honors > Honors Theses > 1304

University Honors Theses

Laughing through the pain: an analysis of dark humor in trauma-and-crisis-centered occupations.

Zoe R. Potter , Portland State University Follow

First Advisor

Tina Burdsall

Date of Award

Document type, degree name.

Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Psychology and University Honors

Wit and humor in medicine -- Research, Black humor -- Research, Adjustment (Psychology), Emergency medical personnel -- Mental health, Emergency medical personnel -- Job stress, Interpersonal relations, Medical personnel -- Mental health, Medical personnel -- Job stress

10.15760/honors.1335

The use of dark, or "black" humor by professionals in trauma-and-crisis-centered occupations is common, with fields such as healthcare, crime, emergency response, and social work reporting frequent use of dark humor on the job. Using a literature review approach, peer-review articles were examined to understand the function that dark humor plays in trauma-and-crisis-centered fields. The findings suggest that dark humor acts as a coping mechanism, and contributes to various group dynamics between colleagues. The literature was also reviewed for the effects that dark humor has on patients or people in contact with trauma-and-crisis personnel. While some preliminary findings point to a relevant connection between humor, bias, and prejudice, the research in this area is scant and in need of further investigation. This review contributes to the literature by analyzing the most salient explanations behind why and how dark humor is used by professionals working in trauma-and-crisis-centered fields, and then offers a new direction for this research which considers the potential consequences dark humor may have on the institutions and communities being served. The population of interest is also expanded in this review, as trauma-and-crisis-centered field refers to a larger body of occupations that deal with death and trauma, but that may not be emergency services. Recommendations for the future include education about ethical concerns surrounding dark humor, positive behavior modeling from senior staff, and further investigation into how dark humor interacts with one’s biases and prejudices, and in turn, patient quality-and-quantity of care.

In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).

Persistent Identifier

https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/40161

Recommended Citation

Potter, Zoe R., "Laughing Through the Pain: An Analysis of Dark Humor in Trauma-and-Crisis-Centered Occupations" (2023). University Honors Theses. Paper 1304. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.1335

Since June 02, 2023

Included in

Medicine and Health Commons , Social Psychology Commons

Advanced Search

Notify me via email or RSS
Featured Collections
All Authors
Schools & Colleges
Dissertations & Theses
PDXOpen Textbooks
Conferences
Collections
Disciplines
Faculty Expert Gallery
Submit Research
Faculty Profiles
Terms of Use
Feedback Form

Home | About | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Portland State University

Privacy Copyright

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

A Decade of Dark Humor (Journal of Media Literacy Education)

Humor in Psychology: Coping and Laughing Your Woes Away

Humor just feels good; it distracts us from our problems and promotes a lighter perspective. For this reason, many famous quotes have been penned about the benefits of humor, such as:

The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.

Twain had a point, as the research literature supports a relationship between humor and a wide range of positive psychosocial outcomes. This article will provide readers with an abundance of information regarding the theoretical foundations of humor within the field of psychology, as well as empirical studies linking humor to various favorable outcomes.

Meaningful quotes and additional resources are also included, along with a bit of humor sprinkled throughout.

Before you continue reading, we thought you might like to download our three Grief Exercises [PDF] for free . These science-based tools will help you move yourself or others through grief in a compassionate way.

This Article Contains:

Theories of humor in psychology, humor as a character strength.

Coping or Defense Mechanisms?

18 Examples of Humor as a Strength

Humor’s role in stress, 6 ways to explore and maximize this strength, a brief look at dark humor, 8 quotes on the subject, 10 relevant books, positivepsychology.com humor resources, a take-home message.

Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle have been trying to explain humor since ancient times. Recent scholars have proposed several theories explaining the underlying mechanisms of humor.

Martin and Ford (2018) describe the three top humor theories. First, relief theory focuses primarily on the motivational mechanisms of interpersonal needs, positing that humor provides relief of tension. The authors describe this as akin to a hydraulic engine, with laughter serving the function of a steam pipe pressure valve. In this way, pent-up pressure is relieved through laughter.

More specifically, the muscular and respiratory processes involved in laugher serve the important role of releasing pent-up nervous energy (Martin & Ford, 2018).

Many of us may relate to high-anxiety situations where a joke feels like a much-needed outlet. For example, in a famous scene on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, Mary is distressed by the death of Chuckles the Clown, who, while dressed as a peanut, was killed by an elephant in a circus parade.

Mary is deeply offended by office jokes following the parade incident. However, she finds herself overwhelmed with an anxious energy that finally reaches its peak at the clown’s funeral, where she is mortified by her inability to stop her pressure valve of nervous laughter.

The second theory described by Martin and Ford (2018) is the superiority theory , which focuses on interpersonal motivational mechanisms, with humor resulting as a function of self-esteem enhancement. In this way, humor results from feelings of triumph over the errors or misfortune of others, which promotes self-enhancement and feelings of superiority.

Incongruity theory , which focuses on the cognitive mechanisms of perception and interpretation, posits that it is the perceptions of incongruity that explain humor (Martin & Ford, 2018). In other words, laughter is a function of anticipating a different outcome than what was expected.

Incongruity theory is believed to be the most influential humor theory, with some proposing that “ incongruity is at the core of all humor” (Zhan, 2012, p. 95). This theory is intuitive, as a joke with an expected or obvious punchline is simply not funny. Instead, laughter occurs in response to unexpected punchlines or those that go against usual patterns (Wilkins & Eisenbraun, 2009).

I was raised as an only child. My siblings took it pretty hard.

Download 3 Grief & Bereavement Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to process grief and move forward after experiencing loss.

Download 3 Free Grief Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Positive psychologists have a keen interest in the role of character strengths, which have been described as virtues that are crucial to human thriving (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Peterson and Seligman (2004) propose six virtues and 24 character strengths that fall within each virtue category (a few examples below):

Wisdom and knowledge — Creativity & curiosity
Humanity — Kindness & love
Justice — Fairness & leadership
Transcendence — Gratitude & humor

Proposed links between humor and positive wellbeing are intuitive; it makes sense that those with a good sense of humor will be in a better position to weather difficult situations, enjoy more cohesive relationships, find humor in all sorts of experiences, and benefit from more positive mental and physical health (Martin, 2019).

These ideas are supported by empirical research, and here are several examples:

Engaging in a humor exercise is associated with a positive mood (Edwards, 2013) and positive cognitive appraisals (Maiolino & Kuiper, 2016).
A sense of humor is associated with increased life satisfaction and a pleasurable and engaged life (Ruch, Proyer, & Weber, 2010).
Humor has been reported as among the top eight of 24 character strengths and is associated with increased life satisfaction, life engagement, and life pleasure (Samson & Antonelli, 2013).
Adaptive humor is linked with increased stable positive mood and decreased stable negative mood (Cann & Collette, 2014).

An important caveat to the above findings is that the type of humor a person exhibits also plays a key role in determining its impact. This idea is evident in Cann and Collette’s study (2014), as positive outcomes were associated with self-enhancing humor.

Detrimental humor (e.g., sarcasm and self-disparaging humor), on the other hand, is believed to have potentially negative ramifications such as reduced relationship quality and low self-esteem (Martin, 2019). Therefore, it is suggested that the absence of detrimental humor is equally important to the presence of prosocial humor styles (Martin, 2019).

These findings have been supported by other research studies, such as that by Maiolino and Kuiper (2016), who investigated the ability of humor to predict positive outcomes.

The researchers found that greater wellbeing was related to affiliative and self-enhancing humor, whereas reduced wellbeing was linked to aggressive and self-defeating humor (Maiolino & Kuiper, 2016).

Similarly, in their review, Stieger, Formann, and Burger (2011) reported that self-defeating humor was linked to depression and loneliness, whereas self-enhancing humor was related to beneficial outcomes.

A sandwich walks into a bar. The barman says “Sorry we don’t serve food in here.”

The psychology of humor – Princeton University

Coping or Defense Mechanisms

When is a coping technique seen as a way to manage, and when is it seen as a defense mechanism?

What is a defense mechanism?

The concept of defense mechanisms originated in psychoanalytic theory. Defense mechanisms are believed to protect the ego from emotional pain through the unconscious mind’s distortion of reality.

The use of defense mechanisms may have positive or negative ramifications depending upon the particular mechanism and how it is used. For example, the mechanism of denial, when used by addicts, serves as a barrier to accepting the addiction and seeking help. In contrast, a person who is not yet ready to face trauma may use mechanisms such as regression or suppression as protective mechanisms until ready to face the situation.

Humor also may function as an adaptive ego defense by enabling people to perceive the comical absurdity in highly challenging situations. In this respect, humor serves as both a defense mechanism and a way of coping with adversity .

Research has supported this idea. For example, in a study by Samson, Glassco, Lee, and Gross (2014), humorous coping applied after viewing negative pictures was found to increase positive emotions at both short- and longer term follow-up.

Want to know more about defense mechanisms? Here we share defense mechanism worksheets as tools for practitioners.

Using humor to cope with medical problems

However, most evidence proposing a link between humor and improved health is anecdotal. For example, among physicians who do the exceedingly difficult work of treating cancer patients, humor has been reported as beneficial for patients, doctors, and relationships between the two (Joshua, Cotroneo, & Clarke, 2005).

Hope may represent a powerful mechanism through which humor brings relief to patients, as evidenced in research addressing the impact of humor on terminally ill patients (Herth, 1990). The results of this study indicated that 85% of patients believed that humor helped them to deal with reality by empowering hope.

The use of humor in medicine has also been studied from the perspective of healthcare workers. For example, among physicians who work with dying patients, humor has been reported as one of eight coping mechanisms used to handle the extreme stress involved in doing this type of work (Schulman-Green, 2003).

Similarly, other researchers have suggested that gallows humor is beneficial for emergency personnel by providing an outlet for painful emotions and by enhancing support via group cohesion (Rowe & Regehr, 2010).

Among nurses, humor has been related to lower emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, increased personal accomplishment (Talbot & Lumden, 2000), as well as greater coping efficacy and emotional expressivity (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 2005).

Using humor to cope with mental illness

As with other forms of illness, it is logical to propose that humor enhances coping among individuals dealing with mental health issues. The substantive literature is again lacking; however, some studies do show that humor serves as an important coping mechanism for psychiatric patients.

For example, one study examined the impact of humorous films on various psychological symptoms among schizophrenia inpatients. The researchers found reductions in anger, anxiety, psychopathology, and depression among participants (Gelkopf, Gonen, Kurs, Melamed, & Bleich, 2006).

In another study examining the effectiveness of humor among individuals with mental illness, a humor-based activity involving clowns (i.e., the “therapeutic clown approach”) was implemented among psychiatric ward inpatients. During the humor activity period, patients were reported as having significant decreases in multiple disruptive behaviors including self-injury, fighting, and attempted escapes (Higueras et al., 2006).

‘What are you allergic to?’ queried a stressed nurse as a gunshot victim was rushed into the ER. Patient: ‘Bullets!’

It also is advantageous for both elderly and child populations. Here are 18 examples of studies showing evidence of humor as a strength.

Humor and psychological strengths

There is something to be said for not taking everything too seriously. Internalizing criticism erodes self-esteem, a process that may be inhibited by a good sense of humor. This idea is borne out by research such as that by Liu (2012), who conducted a study with undergraduate students in Hong Kong. The results indicated that adaptive humor was linked to higher levels of self-esteem and happiness.

Similarly, Vaughan, Zeigler-Hill, and Arnau (2014) addressed stable and unstable self-esteem among college students and found that participants with stable high self-esteem were lower in less adaptive forms of humor (i.e., self-defeating humor). Additionally, a study addressing the benefits of humor, music, and aerobic exercise on anxiety among women indicated that effect sizes were highest for those in the humor group (Szabo, Ainsworth, & Danks, 2005).

Humor on the job

There is good reason to believe that humor at work leads to many positive outcomes, such as increased work performance and enhanced relationships with coworkers (Cooper, 2008). Additionally, in their comprehensive review, Cooper and Sosik (2012) reported that humor at the workplace was linked to enhanced relationships, more creative thinking, more collaborative negotiations, and better customer relations.

Similarly, Mesmer‐Magnus, Glew, and Viswesvaran (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 49 studies focusing on the impact of humor in the workplace. Positive humor was found to buffer the impact of work stress on mental health, as well as to promote more effective functioning on the job.

More specific workplace benefits of humor included lower stress, burnout, and subordinate work withdrawal, and increased coping effectiveness, health, team cohesion, and job performance and satisfaction.

Humor and education

Not only does humor have the ability to make school more enjoyable, but it is beneficial in various meaningful ways. For example, among college students enrolled in language courses, 72% noted that humor enhanced their interest in the subject matter, 82% reported that the instructor’s use of humor made them more approachable, and 82% indicated that humor created an environment more conducive to learning (Askildson, 2005).

The humor students bring to the classroom is also essential. For example, in a study exploring humor among undergraduate students, a sense of humor was positively related to both sociability and creativity (Ghayas & Malik, 2013). The intentional use of classroom humor also has been linked to enhanced learning among nursing students (Ulloth, 2002).

Humor in the classroom also is believed to promote social and emotional development among children (Lovorn, 2008), and we share a few ideas in our article – Activities to Stimulate Emotional Development .

Humor as a strength among the elderly

While there is a paucity of research addressing humor among older people, there is some evidence of its potential to enhance the quality of life within this group. For example, research by Ganz and Jacobs (2014) indicated that attending a humor therapy workshop was associated with positive mental health outcomes among seniors.

In a similar study, following a 10-week ‘happiness and humor group’ within an urban senior center, participants reported significant improvements in life satisfaction (Mathieu, 2008).

Coping humor also has been associated with increased social support and self-efficacy among older community-dwelling adults (Marziali, McDonald, & Donahue, 2008). Lastly, following humor therapy sessions, elderly nursing home residents showed a reduced duration of agitation and an increased duration of happiness (Low et al., 2014).

Humor as a strength among children

Among humans, laughter begins as early as four months of age (Lovorn, 2008). A child with a well-developed sense of humor has been described as “ becoming a joy tracker or humor spotter in everyday life… a point of view that will be carried into adulthood” (Franzini, 2002, p. 11).

Indeed, by nurturing their sense of humor, adults equip children with important coping skills (Martin, 1989). Children have reported such benefits, noting that humor increases their ability to cope with stressors associated with relationships, school-related activities, and life at home (Dowling, 2014).

Additionally, humor may represent a vital strength during middle childhood by helping kids to gain the support of a peer group and by enhancing self-esteem (Klein & Kuiper, 2006).

A comprehensive look at how children are impacted by the experience of humor is described by Hogan (2003), who noted that humor benefits children in terms of enhanced social bonding, stress relief, and pain coping. Growing up with humor sets children on a more positive pathway. Once they begin college, humor is predictive of better college adjustment (Hickman & Crossland, 2004).

Sign on a repair shop door: We Can Repair Anything. (Please knock hard on the door, the bell doesn’t work.)

There is little doubt that humor enables people to cope better with stress. It has long been believed that “ humor and laughter play an important role in the maintenance of both psychological and physiological health and wellbeing in the face of stress” (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986).

Research supports this connection. For example, in a study by Abel (2002), coping strategies were examined concerning humor and various types of stress. Participants were categorized into either high or low sense of humor groups. It was found that those within the high sense of humor category appraised relatively lower amounts of stress and anxiety.

The impact of humor on stress also was investigated in a medical study using humor as a complementary therapy among cancer patients (Bennett, Zeller, Rosenberg, & McCann, 2003). After watching a funny video, cancer patients reported significantly less stress, and a negative correlation was found between stress and amount of mirthful laughter.

Interestingly, those who were higher in humor scores were also found to have increased immune functioning (Bennett et al., 2003). In general, research reviews have documented that positive styles of humor are related to lower perceptions of stress (Mauriello & McConatha, 2007).

I went to buy some camouflage pants the other day but I couldn’t find any.

If you don’t find yourself laughing nearly enough, here are six things you can do:

Watch or listen to stand-up comedy. Many comedians have filmed their shows and made them widely available. Additionally, listening to comedians while walking or jogging creates a far more enjoyable experience, especially for those who don’t enjoy exercising.
Spend more time around funny people. This idea is simple: if you have amusing people in your life, hanging around them is sure to make you feel better.
Don’t allow others to dictate what you find amusing. If you have a dark sense of humor or enjoy potty jokes, that’s okay. As long as humor is not aggressive or offensive to groups of people, go ahead and laugh.
Read funny books. Plenty of reading material is available for bookworms who love to laugh (please see the list of books below).
Play with a pet. It’s tough to feel blue when playing with a puppy or kitten. If you have access to animals, they may do wonders to make your heart smile.
Don’t be afraid to embrace your inner child. Adults often feel that they must always behave in an “age-appropriate” way. However, if being silly and playful made you happy at age 12, it probably still will. Don’t deprive yourself of happiness because of perceived pressure to act a certain way.

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other: “Does this taste funny to you?”

Dark or twisted humor is an acquired taste, as not everyone appreciates the taboo humor others find in disturbing subject matter. But, for people who experience stressful jobs or complicated family dynamics, dark humor often serves as an important protective mechanism.

This concept is exemplified by the ability of healthcare workers to employ dark humor as a way of coping with chronic job stress (e.g., Schulman-Green, 2003; Talbot & Lumden, 2000; Wanzer et al., 2005).

Importantly, gallows humor used in this way is not aggressive or hurtful to others. This idea is explained by Wanzer et al. (2005) in their aptly titled article If We Didn’t Use Humor, We’d Cry .

The authors note that nurses use humor to deal with specific situations such as daily medical routines, difficult patients/families, and even death. And while approaching such situations with humor may not make sense to others, humor helps nurses deal with their distress when encountering extremely difficult situations regularly (Wanzer et al., 2005).

Dark humor has also been found to enhance resilience during some of the most horrible events in human history. For example, during the Holocaust, victims reported using humor in ghettos, concentration, and death camps to better cope with extreme trauma and adversity (Ostrower, 2015).

Ostrower (2015, p. 184) describes humor coping within this context as a defense mechanism that “ under the nightmare circumstances of living in the ghettos and camps during the Holocaust, laughter was a form of rebellion against reality. Humor was the weapon of those whose lives were utterly in the hands of the executioners, those who were powerless to rebel or resist in any other way.”

Along with the Holocaust, dark humor has been used as a coping and survival mechanism across a broad range of life-threatening situations.

First the doctor told me the good news: I was going to have a disease named after me.

Steve Martin

The earth laughs in flowers.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide.

Mahatma Gandhi

People with a sense of humor tend to be less egocentric and more realistic in their view of the world and more humble in moments of success and less defeated in times of travail.

Bob Newhart

Laughter is a sunbeam of the soul.

Thomas Mann

I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.

If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane.

Robert Frost

Honest good humor is the oil and wine of a merry meeting, and there is no jovial companionship equal to that where the jokes are rather small and laughter abundant.

Washington Irving

Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Whether you are interested in learning more about the psychology of humor or in finding material that will make you laugh, plenty of books are available. Here are 10 examples:

Humor at Work in Teams, Leadership, Negotiations, Learning and Health by Tabea Scheel and ‎Christine Gockel ( Amazon )
Engaging Humor by Elliott Oring ( Amazon )
Humor Theory: Formula of Laughter by Igor Krichtafovitch ( Amazon )
Sweet Madness: A Study of Humor by William Fry ( Amazon )
Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor by John Morreall ( Amazon )
Laugh Out Loud: 40 Women Humorists Celebrate Then and Now… Before We Forget by Allia Zobel Nolan ( Amazon )
Gallows Humor by Carolyn Elizabeth ( Amazon )
Calypso by David Sedaris ( Amazon )
Let’s Pretend This Never Happened: A Mostly True Memoir by Jenny Lawson ( Amazon )
I Feel Bad About My Neck: And Other Thoughts on Being a Woman by Nora Ephron ( Amazon )

So many books, so little time.

Frank Zappa

17 Exercises For Grief & Bereavement

Apply these 17 Grief & Bereavement Exercises [PDF] to help others process difficult emotions, leverage self-compassion, and find balance following painful loss.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

As humor represents an important aspect of positive psychology, here at PositivePsychology.com, we have described several ways in which humor contributes to positive wellbeing. Here are a few examples:

Humor is an effective way to find and build happiness . For example, laughing has a similar emotional impact to being hugged.
Humor is related to resilience . For example, research suggests that resilient people have many qualities in common, including humor.
Humor is an essential tool for enhancing teen resilience . For example, specific phrases have been identified that help kids to see the humor in stressful situations.
Humor may be applied as part of resilience-building activities in the classroom. For example, Helen McGrath’s Bounce Back! Program (McGrath & Noble, 2003) includes lesson plans and suggestions for resilience-building in young children . Humor is included among the resilience-promoting principles.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others move through grief in a compassionate way, this collection contains 17 validated grief and bereavement exercises . Use them to help others find balance as they attempt to make sense of a life that has been irrevocably changed.

Whenever I feel the need to exercise, I lie down until it goes away.

This article provides readers with a comprehensive look at humor as an important concept in positive psychology. Top humor theories are described, along with the role of humor as both a defense mechanism and character strength. Some key takeaways are as follows:

Self-enhancing humor is an invaluable strength that supports human thriving.
There are numerous positive benefits of humor, such as enhanced positive mood, life satisfaction, self-esteem, job performance, creativity, social bonding, and emotional resilience .
Humor plays an essential role in buffering the impact of stress and is important for positive wellbeing among both children and seniors.

Doable techniques for adding more humor to one’s life, meaningful quotes , useful books , and resources from PositivePsychology.com are also included. With this collection of information, it is the hope that readers will better understand humor and its many benefits, while maybe even enjoying a few chuckles along the way.

And so, with laughter and love, we lived happily ever after.

Gail Carson Levine

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Grief Exercises [PDF] for free .

Abel, M. H. (2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research , 15 , 365–381.
Askildson, L. (2005). Effects of humor in the language classroom: Humor as a pedagogical tool in theory and practice. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching , 12 , 45–60.
Bennett, M., Zeller, J., Rosenberg, L., & McCann, J. (2003). The effect of mirthful laughter on stress and natural killer cell activity. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine , 9 , 38–45.
Cann, A., & Collette, C. (2014). Sense of humor, stable affect, and psychological well-being. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 10 , 464–479.
Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations , 61, 1087–1115.
Cooper, C., & Sosik, J. (2012). Humor. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 474–489). Oxford University Press.
Dowling, J. (2014). School-age children talking about humor: Data from focus groups. Humor , 27 , 121–139.
Edwards, K. R. (2013). The role of humor as a character strength in positive psychology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. (1681)
Elizabeth, C. (2019). Gallows humor. Bella Books.
Ephron, N. (2008). I feel bad about my neck: And other thoughts on being a woman. First Vintage Books.
Franzini, L. (2002). Kids who laugh: How to develop your child’s sense of humor. Square One Publishers.
Fry, W. (2017). Sweet madness: A study of humor. Routledge.
Ganz, F. D., & Jacobs, J. M. (2014). The effect of humor on elder mental and physical health. Geriatric Nursing , 35 (3), 205–211.
Gelkopf, M. (2011). The use of humor in serious mental illness: A review. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine , 1–8.
Gelkopf, M., Gonen, B., Kurs, R., Melamed, Y., & Bleich, A. (2006). The effect of humorous movies on inpatients with chronic schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 194 , 880–883.
Ghayas, S., & Malik, F. (2013). Sense of humor as predictor of creativity level in university undergraduates. Journal of Behavioural Sciences , 23 , 49–61.
Herth, K. (1990). Contributions of humor as perceived by the terminally ill. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care , 7 , 6–40.
Hickman, G., & Crossland, G. (2004). The predictive nature of humor, authoritative parenting style, and academic achievement on indices of initial adjustment and commitment to college among college freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice , 6 , 225–245.
Higueras, A., Carretero-Dios, H., Muñoz, J., Idini, E., Ortiz, A., Rincón, F., … Rodríguez del Águila, M. (2006) Effects of a humor-centered activity on disruptive behavior in patients in a general hospital psychiatric ward. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology , 6 , 53–64.
Hogan, E. (2003). Humor in children’s lives: A guidebook for practitioners. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Joshua, A., Cotroneo, A., & Clarke, S. (2005). Humor and oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology , 23 , 645–648.
Klein, D., & Kuiper, N. (2006). Humor styles, peer relationships, and bullying in middle childhood. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research , 19 .
Krichtafovitch, I. (2006). Humor theory: Formula of laughter. Outskirts Press.
Lawson, J. (2012). Let’s pretend this never happened. Berkley Books.
Lefcourt, H., & Martin, R. (1986). Humor and life stress: Antidote to adversity. Springer-Verlag.
Liu, K. W. Y. (2012). Humor styles, self-esteem, and subjective happiness (Outstanding Academic Papers by Students (OAPS)). Retrieved from City University of Hong Kong, CityU Institutional Repository.
Lovorn, M. (2008). Humor in the home and in the classroom: The benefits of laughing while we learn. Journal of Education and Human Development, 2 (1).
Low, L., Goodenough, B., Fletcher, J., Xu, K., Casey, A., Chenoweth, L., … Brodaty, H. (2014). The effects of human therapy on nursing home residents measured using observational methods: The SMILE cluster randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association , 15 , 564–569.
Maiolino, N., & Kuiper, N. (2016). Examining the impact of a brief humor exercise on psychological wellbeing. Translational Issues in Psychological Science , 2 , 4–13.
Martin, R. (1989). Humor and the mastery of living: Using humor to cope with the daily stresses of growing up. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society , 20 (1–2), 135–154.
Martin, R. A. (2019). Humor. In M. W. Gallagher & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 305–316). American Psychological Association.
Martin, R., & Ford, T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic Press.
Marziali, E., McDonald, L., & Donahue, P. (2008). The role of coping humor in the physical and mental health of older adults. Aging and Mental Health , 12 , 713–718.
Mathieu, S. (2008). Happiness and humor group promotes life satisfaction for senior center participants. Activities, Adaptation & Aging , 32 , 134–148.
Mauriello, M., & McConatha, J. T. (2007). Relations of humor with perceptions of stress. Psychological Reports , 101 , 1057–1066.
McGrath, H., & Noble, T. (2003). Bounce back! A classroom resiliency program. Teacher’s handbook. Pearson Education.
Mesmer‐Magnus, J., Glew, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta‐analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 27 , 155–190.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Wiley-Blackwell.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. University of Illinois Press.
Ostrower, C. (2015). Humor as a defense mechanism during the Holocaust. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology , 69 , 183–195.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association.
Rowe, A., & Regehr, C. (2010). Whatever gets you through today: An examination of cynical humor among emergency service professionals. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 15 , 448–464.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R., & Weber, M. (2010). Humor as a character strength among the elderly. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie , 43 , 13–18.
Samson, A., & Antonelli, Y. (2013). Humor as character strength and its relation to life satisfaction and happiness in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Humor , 26 , 477–491.
Samson, A., Glassco, A., Lee, I., & Gross, J. (2014). Humorous coping and serious reappraisal: Short-term and longer-term effects. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 10 , 571–581.
Scheel, T., & ‎ Gockel, C. (2017). Humor at work in teams, leadership, negotiations, learning, and health . Springer.
Schulman-Green, D. (2003). Coping mechanisms of physicians who routinely work with dying patients. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying , 47 , 253–264.
Sedaris, D. (2018). Calypso . Little, Brown, and Company.
Stieger, S., Formann, A., & Burger, C. (2011). Humor styles and their relationship to explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences , 50 , 747–750.
Szabo, A., Ainsworth, S. E., & Danks, P. K. (2005). Experimental comparison of the psychological benefits of aerobic exercise, humor, and music. Humor , 18 , 235–246.
Talbot, L., & Lumden, D. (2000). On the association between humor and burnout. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research , 13, 419–428.
Ulloth, J. (2002). The benefits of humor in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education , 41 , 476–481.
Vaughan, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Arnau, R. C. (2014). Self-esteem instability and humor styles: Does the stability of self-esteem influence how people use humor? The Journal of Social Psychology , 154 , 299–310.
Wanzer, M., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (2005). If we didn’t use humor, we’d cry: Humorous coping communication in health care settings. Journal of Health Communication , 10 (2), 105–125.
Wilkins, J., & Eisenbraun, A. J. (2009). Humor theories and the physiological benefits of laughter. Holistic Nursing Practice , 23 , 349–354.
Zhan, L. (2012). Understanding humor based on the incongruity theory and the cooperative principle. Studies in Literature and Language , 4 , 94–98.
Zobel Nolan, A. (2018). Laugh out loud: 40 women humorists celebrate then and now… before we forget. Independently Published.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

As the world is transcending toward the unchartered waters–marked by more pandemics, more economic hardships, and more automation at work–Dr Lonczak has written a very useful piece of article to spread positivity across domains in places of work and life. Thank you very much, for your good work!

Hi Heather, I’m writing an essay entitled “Are Comedians an endangered species”? for an online course and found your article really helpful.Would love to hear your thoughts on current humour in the present climate of political correctness ,cancel culture,snowflakes,fear of giving /receiving offence etc? I am based in the UK and just at a time when we need more laughter it seems we are being gagged and guilt tripped into a kind of self-censorship at every turn which is not funny. Thank ,

That’s a really interesting topic you’re exploring. And no doubt comedians are having to think differently about their routines in light of the current climate.

Honestly, I hadn’t given this much thought before — perhaps other commenters can share their views — but I’ll point you toward an interesting read I just found by Nwankwọ (2021) , which explores this trend toward self-censorship with reference to the comedians Trevor Noah and Basket Mouth.

Hope this offers some food for thought!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Hi Heather, thank you for the insight and information. I’m writing an essay about humor and wanted to relate it to building relationships within sports, like volleyball. This was a great help 🙂

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Reminiscence Therapy vs. Life Review Therapy: A Quick Guide

Remembering is a powerful skill. It has the potential to help us revisit the positive emotions of our past, while improving our connections with ourselves [...]

Breakup Therapy: How to Help Clients Cope With Grief

Everyone who has experienced love has, most likely, faced a painful breakup. Ongoing research is beginning to recognize that the feelings associated with losing a [...]

How to Treat Complicated Grief in Therapy: 12 Examples

Each grief experience is unique, yet we share the need to have it witnessed without someone attempting to lessen it or find ways to reframe [...]

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Author Interviews

Deadpan humor and childhood fears collide in 'the dark'.

Buy Featured Book

Your purchase helps support NPR programming. How?

Independent Bookstores

If there's one thing kids are scared of, it's the dark. In his latest children's book, The Dark , Daniel Handler — who writes under the pen name Lemony Snicket — takes on darkness itself, with the story of a young boy who confronts his biggest fear. Handler is known for his dry wit and matter-of-fact take on the mysterious and macabre. In his A Series of Unfortunate Events books and Who Could That Be at This Hour? , the protagonists confront twisted characters and dastardly villains.

"I can't think of a story that doesn't have something terrible in it," he tells NPR's Neal Conan. "Otherwise, it's dull. So when I embarked into the world of picture books, my first thought was to do something about the dark.

"I think the book is probably a little bit scary. I also hope it's interesting."

Handler talks about his own childhood fears and the process of writing his latest book.

Interview Highlights

On his own childhood fears

"I have a distinct memory of explaining to the adults who were in charge of me that it wasn't the dark I was afraid of. It was things that may be lurking in the dark. ...

"I was afraid of just about everything in small doses. I was not a particularly brave child, I think, because I had a narrative mind, because my mind automatically went to any terrible thing that could happen. Indeed, there's nothing like sitting ... alone in a small room called a recording studio that can bring out even my anxieties then."

On the virtues of bedtime stories

"I think books that are meant to be read in the nighttime ought to confront the very fears that we're trying to think about. And I think that a young reader of The Dark will encounter a story about a boy who makes new peace with a fear, rather than a story that ignores whatever troubles are lurking in the corners of our minds when we go to sleep."

On the process of writing this book

"When you start writing a picture book, you have to write a manuscript that has enough language to prompt the illustrator to get his or her gears running, but then you end up having to cut it out because you don't want any of the language to be redundant to the pictures that are being drawn.

Daniel Handler writes under the pen name Lemony Snicket. Meredith Heuer hide caption

Daniel Handler writes under the pen name Lemony Snicket.

"In this case, I saw an image that Mr. Klassen, the illustrator, Jon Klassen, did. I just saw a random image he had done of a little boy standing at the top of stairs that led into a dark basement, and he had a few words there, and I immediately could see the entire book. But still I wrote a manuscript that I thought was plenty short enough. And then as Mr. Klassen began to do the artwork I realized that more and more sentences had to be jettisoned.

"I liken it to being on a life raft. You know, you take some people with you, and you decide they're the people who most deserve to survive the shipwreck. But as things get more and more desperate, you really have to throw some of them overboard."

Web Resources

Related npr stories, fear of the dark: a favorite novel goes hollywood, a gruesome guide to lemony, lemony snicket reaches 'the end', the real lemony snicket.

Dark Humor Essays

Unraveling the threads of trauma: a study of david foster wallace’s literary exploration, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Humour and Jokes: What’s So Funny? Essay

Introduction, functions of joking, comedy as serious, classical theories.

Humour has been defined as a form of assembling behaviour and regularities in a society to make people laugh. Humour has been said to constitute two opposing realities. The social diversity between different people is a key indicator of what to be considered humorous.

There many situations which generate humour to different individuals depending on the cultural background. It has also been said that age and gender plays an increasingly influencing role in identifying the response of people on different jokes (Oropeza-Escobar, M. 2011).

Since humour applies to different cultural and social group, it has been said to have a sole function of enhancing class interactions. Joking creates a relationship whereby two individual or groups of people become free to exchange any form of communication. Humour has a vital function, which it makes sure that potentially disruptive sentiments are contained through a joking way.

In other words, what may appear to be a sensitive issue may be discussed without being serious. It serves like a defence in situations when a person makes a controversial statement than simply asserting it was to be a joke. Secondly, humour is also used as an expression of a common identity whereby a person makes fun of a situation he/she is experiencing.

Humour can also be extended to circumstances whereby a feeling of free interaction is desired. This mostly happens in a working environment when new workers meet. It can also be used when unfamiliar people have met. Jokes are highly effective in making sure that what seemed boring is given a twist, and everyone gets involved in the discussion (Macionis & Gerber, 2011).

It is essential to note that humour has been used, and it is still being used to put people down. These types of humour are extremely common in almost every society and cross cultural societies. Men have used jokes to express hostility towards women. Similar jokes have also been used to make fun of the gay’s sexual orientations.

Ethnic conflicts have been held to be one of the leading forces behind jokes. Jokes are analysed in different forms according to the aim of a certain joke. There are ethnic jokes, which make fun of certain ethnic characters (Oropeza-Escobar, 2011).

There are three categories of jokes which clearly define and classify jokes. First, humour is said to be an expression of supremacy. This means that the function stands for a hostile and cruel classification of others in most unjust and unfair ways in order to assert a supreme status. It sometimes entails making fun of disabled people and the social justice system.

Secondly, jokes can also be used to relieve tension. The relief may also be used to find an appropriate way of dealing with problems by establishing a creative way of solving them. It can also be pegged with the desire to get pleasure. Lastly, incongruity has been said to exist when a person creates a gap between people’s expectations and the present situation (Macionis & Gerber, 2011).

Jokes have been widely used in the pasty to send different messages and to serve different functions. The most influencing factor in whichever type of joke made is the cultural group. It has been established that what may be interpreted as funny by one group may not necessarily be funny to all groups. In the past, there are numerous functions, which have made jokes popular and widely applicable in day to day interactions.

Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2011). Sociology . Toronto: Pearson Canada.

Oropeza-Escobar, M. (2011). Represented discourse, resonance and stance in joking interaction in Mexican Spanish . Amsterdam [u.a.: Benjamins].

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny? https://ivypanda.com/essays/humour-essay/

"Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny?" IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/humour-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/humour-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/humour-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Humour and Jokes: What's So Funny?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/humour-essay/.

Dark Humor in The Cask of Amontillado Essay
Comedy's and Power' Philosophy Relationship
Laughter is the best medicine
Introducing Improvements to Children Abuse Reporting System
Community Development and Its Role in the Public and Private Sector
The Social Perspective of Prejudice
Organisational Analysis With Reference To Social Work
‘The Effect of Enforcement on Merchant Compliance with the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Law’ by Richard Scribner and ‘Button Down Terror-A Metamorphosis of Hate Movement’ by Barbra Perry

50 Twisted Jokes for Anyone Who Likes Dark Humor

D ark humor jokes are an acquired taste. One of our friends used to love dark jokes until he was in a serious accident. After that, he just didn't have the guts.

If you can stomach more painfully dark jokes like that one, check out these.

Don’t Give Us Any Ideas

Shared this one with my boss, wasn’t the best timing, it’s just a coincidence, been there, spit that out, they should win an award, not that they’ll care, anyone have a coupon for therapy, let’s be real. an immortal dog would be awesome, to stop talking to drugs is a good first step, they have to introduce themselves every week, weird way of putting it, on the upside, you’re a treasure, some dark humor jokes are tragic, a visual we didn’t need, we know a good divorce lawyer if the fridge repairman is unavailable, can’t imagine why, really wind up before you toss it, we childproofed the house, but they keep finding a way in, need some ice for that burn, and you don’t even want to know what the dressing is made of, if the fbi is reading this, it’s just a joke, some dark jokes for the poli-sci majors among us, do you know this from experience, or..., no refunds weird, and this is why you stay in school, why would you they have way less potassium than bananas, unsure if we should cry from laughter or sadness, wonder how he’s doing, what ladder, didn’t think having an estranged parent came with perks, but here we are, a perfect dark humor joke for kids, time for a career change — or jail time, some dark jokes are quite a visual, nothing like laughing over a good meal, maybe they were born with extra kidneys. you don’t know, make like a parent from a disney movie and get lost, we thought we had experienced heartbreak before reading this dark joke. we stand corrected., also red vines, grandma needs professional help, their parenting skills are fire, what a let down for people who already work remotely, his last composition was killer, it’s like wizard’s chess, only illegal and minus the magic, when your connection with bagels is electric.

50 Twisted Jokes for Anyone Who Likes Dark Humor

To complete the subscription process, please click the link in the email we just sent you.

0, text: error()">

0, text: error(), css: errorCssClass">

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Provide email

Please enter your email to complete registration

Activate to continue

Your account isn't active yet. We've emailed you an activation link. Please check your inbox and click the link to activate your account

0, text: error" style="display: none;">

0, text: success" style="display: none;">

Relationships

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here .

Partnership
Success stories
--> -->