Tribble Dissertation

7/27/2019 Tribble Dissertation

1/122

MARSHALL KELLY TRIBBLE, JR.

Humor and Mental Effort in Learning

(Under the Direction of LLOYD P. RIEBER)

This study investigated the effects of humor on learning, specifically focusing on

the variables of mental effort, perceived self-efficacy, perceived demand characteristics,

achievement, and attitude towards instructional content. This research is based on the

work of Gavriel Salomon (1984) and is a modified replication of his research. Salomons

theory of symbolic coding is presented and applied to the area of humor and learning. It

was hypothesized that the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) varies as a function

of initial perceptions of humorous instruction, even when the material warrants otherwise.

For example, if a difficult lesson is perceived as easy, the AIME may decrease.

Undergraduate college students (n = 100) were tested for their perceptions of self-

efficacy with learning from humor and nonhumor, as well as for how demanding they

perceived humorous and nonhumorous modes of presentation to be. One week later,

approximately half of the participants viewed a humorous instructional video and the

other half viewed a nonhumorous instructional video. The two videos were identical

except for the embedded humorous content. Measures of AIME, achievement, and

attitude/interest were taken. Participants rated humorous presentations as less believable

than nonhumorous presentations and rated themselves as more efficacious with learning

from humorous instructional videos than with learning from nonhumorous instructional

videos. Participants responded with higher levels of interest and a more positive attitude

towards the content of the humorous presentation. Humor did not appear to affect

learning, and not one of the expected correlations was found between AIME, perceptions

of self-efficacy, and learning. The study also found that humor is generally perceived as

an easier, better way to learn, while also requiring more effort in order to comprehend

content. One important outcomes was that humor seems to have a function and


2/122

dysfunction with regard to learning. The discussion explores reasons why the study may

not have yielded the expected outcomes and offers suggestions for further research.

INDEX WORDS: Humor, Learning, Self-efficacy, Salomon, Symbolic coding,

Mental effort, Perceived demand characteristics, Attitude


3/122

HUMOR AND MENTAL EFFORT IN LEARNING

by


B.M.A., The University of South Carolina, 1990

M.Ed., The University of Georgia, 1994

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2001


4/122

2001

Marshall Kelly Tribble, Jr.

All Rights Reserved


5/122

HUMOR AND MENTAL EFFORT IN LEARNING

by


Approved:

_________________________________

Major Professor

_________________________________

Date

Approved:

_________________________________

Dean of the Graduate School

_________________________________

Date


6/122

iv

DEDICATION

To my wonderful wife Janis, and my children: Kevin, Brian, James, and Timothy. Their

help and understanding aided me immensely. And to Grandmother Kidd (I finally

finished writing my book!).


7/122

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to all of those who made this project possible. Thanks to

committee members Dr. Bonnie Cramond, Dr. Charles R. Gruner, Dr. Michael Orey, and

Dr. Kent Gustafson for their insight and constructive criticism. Thanks to Helen, Taz,

Christina, Brett, and Henry for their video production assistance. Thanks to all of the

cooperative instructors at Midlands Technical College. Thanks also to my proofreaders,

Diane Carr, Brian OShea, and Joy Tribble. I especially appreciate the time, talent, and

efforts of Seon-Young Lee and Dr. Joseph Wisenbaker of the University of Georgia

Academic Computing Center. Special thanks to my parents, Marshall and Ila Tribble for

their encouragement and support. Finally, to Dr. Lloyd Rieber, I wish to express a very

heartfelt thanks for all guidance and efforts on my behalf, and for being an exemplary role

model.


8/122

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................. x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM...............................................................1

Introduction......................................................................................................1

Background......................................................................................................3

Statement of the Problem.................................................................................7

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................9

Research Hypotheses .......................................................................................9

Importance of the Study.................................................................................11

Limitations of the Study.................................................................................12

2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ........................................................14

Introduction....................................................................................................14

Humor and Learning in Practice and Research..............................................15

Salomons Theoretical Framework................................................................23

Historical Overview of Humors Relationships to Creativity, Learning,

and Motivation...............................................................................................28

Summary........................................................................................................44

3 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................46

Introduction....................................................................................................46

Population and Sample ..................................................................................46


9/122

vii

Research Design.............................................................................................47

Procedures......................................................................................................48

Data and Instrumentation...............................................................................51

Pilot Study......................................................................................................55

Analysis..........................................................................................................56

4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................61

Introduction....................................................................................................61

Data Description ............................................................................................61

Results of the Pilot Study...............................................................................62

Reliability of the Instruments.........................................................................63

Validation of the Treatment...........................................................................64

Hypothesis Testing.........................................................................................65

Summary of Results.......................................................................................72

5 DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................74

Introduction....................................................................................................74

Summary of the Study....................................................................................74

Discussion of Findings...................................................................................77

Implications....................................................................................................84

Improving the Design.....................................................................................86

Recommendations for Future Research.........................................................88

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................91

APPENDICES

A OUTLINE OF CONTENT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO...........................97

B PERCEIVED DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE..............98

C PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................100

D AMOUNT OF INVESTED MENTAL EFFORT QUESTIONNAIRE............102

E ACHIEVEMENT TEST....................................................................................103


10/122

viii

F ATTITUDE/INTEREST SURVEY...................................................................107

G DEGREE OF HUMOR QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................108

H CONTENT QUIZ..............................................................................................109


11/122

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE

1 Cronbach alpha levels for experimental instrumentation .....................................64

2 Means and standard deviations of degree of humor by group ..............................65

3 Means and standard deviations for perceived demand characteristics

(believability/realism) with humor and without humor .......................................66

4 Means and stardard deviations for perceived self-efficacy with humor

and without humor...............................................................................................67

5 Frequency distribution of causal attribution to success and failure in learning

with and without humor.......................................................................................68

6 Comparison of the current findings and Salomons (1984) findings with regard

to causal attribution to sucess and failure in learning ..........................................69

7 Means and standard deviations for AIME and achievement by group .................69

8 Correlations for PSE, AIME, and the inferential/problem-solving portion of

the achievement test by group..............................................................................71

9 Means and standard deviations for attitude by group ...........................................72

10 Attribution of success and failure in learning with and without humor...............80


12/122

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

FIGURES

1 Effects of high/low PDC and high/low PSE on AIME and learning, illustrated

by example quotes..................................................................................................6

2 Relationships between the purpose statement, the research questions, the goals

of the study, and research hypotheses..................................................................12

3 Salomon's model showing hypothesized relations among PDC, PSE,

AIME, and learning..............................................................................................28

4 Various shots of the narrators from the nonhumorous and humorous videos ......51


13/122

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Practitioners generally agree that humor has positive effects on learning. Their

publications state general guidelines for using humor to create an open, low-risk

environment where teacher-student relations are strong and students seem to learn more

(Chenfeld, 1990; Goor, 1989; Neuliep, 1991). Their experience is consistent with the

long-standing belief that what is learned with laughter is learned well. Nonetheless, there

is a perception on the part of many practitioners that to attempt humor in instructional

design is to invite failure (Teslow, 1995). We have all bombed (or even offended

others) at one time or another in an attempt to be funny. In addition, there is no guarantee

that even successful humorous instruction is beneficial to learning. Between the

publicized articles and reported perceptions, practitioners seem to be realizing humors

potential power while at the same time reluctant to implement it.

Academic researchers have been investigating humors effects on learning for

several decades and they can come to no agreement about the relationship (Vance, 1987).

Many of these studies have been completed in the area of speech communication and

have dealt with the effectiveness of including humorous items in speeches and how this

affects retention and recall of information. This work was the starting point for

educational researchers who have attempted to establish relationships between humor and

various aspects of cognition. Possibly due to a lack of an adequate theoretical framework

for humors application to instruction, various flaws in the past research, and a general

disorganization of the research, these findings have been equivocal (Teslow, 1995;

Vance, 1987; Ziv, 1988).


14/122

2

Many people naturally and comfortably use humor in their everyday interactions

with co-workers, clients, friends, and family. Educators are no exception. Many

instructors use planned and impromptu humor comfortably in their classrooms and likely

feel that their students benefit from it. On the other hand, Teslow (1995) writes that

teachers and designers often hesitate to use humor, recognizing that humor has a dark

side and is potentially dangerous (p. 7). Rather than avoiding the use of humor, Teslow

suggests research will help instructional technologists understand the benefits and

limitations of using humor in the design of instruction. Teslow framed several directions

for possible research in the form of research questions such as What are the relationships

between attentional humor treatments in instructional technology and motivation,

performance, learner characteristics, and zones of arousal and anxiety? and Under what

conditions do the entertainment aspects of humor detract from attention-gaining for

targeted serious content? (p. 22). He also encourages the search for an adequate

theoretical framework for understanding humors role in learning environments.

Salomon (1984) developed a model for relating perceptions of self-efficacy and

perceived task difficulty with amount of invested mental effort and learning. The general

argument made by Salomon is that a persons application of effort towards a specific task

is affected by that persons perception of the difficulty of the task relative to perceptions

of their own competency. This model is relevant to instructional uses of humor for the

following reasons. McMorris (1983) found that inclusion of humor into test items altered

perceptions of the difficulty of those items. As mentioned earlier, there is also evidence

to support the claim that inclusion of humor into an instructional lesson has an effect on

perceptions of self-efficacy (Chenfeld, 1990; Goor, 1989; Neuliep, 1991). Therefore,

humor may affect perceived task difficulty and general perceptions of self-efficacy.

Deeper and more thorough prescriptions for incorporating humor into the design

of instruction are needed (Teslow, 1995). This study drew from the work of Salomon and


15/122

3

used his model relating effort, perceived demand characteristics, perceived self-efficacy,

and learning to establish a more solid foundation for research on humor and learning.

Background

Humor is a powerful tool that is often sought as a means of entertainment, a

natural tool for bonding interpersonal relationships, and a powerful communication

device with implications for business, industry, education and military organizations

(Desberg & others, 1981; Kelly, 1983). Without direction from the research community,

industry and the military have been using humorous speakers and trainers to raise levels

of productivity for years (Cleese, 1995). However, the education community has been

hesitant to seriously consider the potential power of humor. It seems that humor and fun

are an integral part of the development and implementation of the educational curriculum

throughout the early childhood years. Then, without explanation, the learner is weaned

from this method of instruction and is expected to begin to conform to the idea that

learning is serious work (Torrance, 1963).

Both humor and learning are complex and multifaceted, yet universal elements of

human existence. Humor can serve as a mnemonic device (Grow, 1995; Kelly, 1983),

aiding specific cognitive objectives. Rutkaus points out that Piaget has said that the first

experience of cognitive success by the infant is expressed by a smile (1981) (p.17). In

these ways, humorous emotion and learning are believed to be closely related. It

therefore seems natural that instructional designers could employ a modest degree of

relevant humor to develop instructional lessons which achieve cognitive and affective

objectives with great efficiency. However, many instructional designers and teachers

avoid using humor as if it were taboo (Teslow, 1995). In addition, the lack of serious

inquiry on the issue seems to indicate that the academic research community thinks the

matter irrelevant.


16/122

4

Perhaps a reason for this is that there is little agreement among practitioners and

researchers as to the actual relationship between humor and learning (Vance, 1987).

Many practitioners believe that humor has a positive correlation to achievement (Chaney,

1993; Chenfeld, 1990; Grow, 1995; Ziv, 1976), and most attribute this to humor's

attitudinal effects (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; McMorris & Others, 1983; Rutkaus,

1981). The research community, in contrast, has found ambiguous evidence linking

humor to learning (Taylor, 1964), although some evidence of humor's relationship to

attitudes and motivation has been established (Rareshide, 1993; Snetsinger & Grabowski,

1994; Tamborini & Zillman, 1981). For instance, research comparing the effects of

humorous and nonhumorous presentation of lecture materials has yielded unclear results

(Schmidt, 1994). Some studies report negative effects (Kaplan, 1977) and others report

positive effects (Zillmann & Williams, 1980) of humor on memory and learning. Humor

seems to have both a function and a dysfunction which makes interpretation of empirical

studies difficult.

Vance (1987) suggests the difficulty in finding a definite relationship of humor

and learning is due to the lack of theoretical understanding of humor. Teslow (1995)

agrees that there are limitations of the past research and adds that there has been

disorganization in the body of literature. In a comprehensive literature review of the field

of humor and learning, Teslow (1995) says that "the literature indicates that much of the

basic research is two decades old, little replication has taken place, most studies involve

young children, findings have been equivocal, and hardly any research has addressed the

effectiveness of humor in [computer-based instruction] (p. 7). In addition, the majority

of the studies were approached without much regard for a theoretical framework and

under the basic assumption that humor somehow aids cognition. Following the

suggestions of Vance and Teslow for further research, it seems the field is due for a fresh

approach to the matter.


17/122

5

A study by Salomon (1984) may offer a suitable framework for exploring humor's

relationship to learning. Salomon investigated the effects of perceived self-efficacy

(PSE) and perceived demand characteristics (PDC) on amount of invested mental effort

(AIME). Salomon studied the effects of television versus print on learning and found that

learners who had a high perception of self-efficacy invested less mental effort when they

perceived a mode of presentation as easier. Low self-efficacy students actually invested

more mental effort in tasks that they perceive as easier. This resulted in less learning on

the part of the high self-efficacy students compared to low self-efficacy students.

Salomon's (1984) findings indicate that perceived demand characteristics (PDC)

may influence amount of invested mental effort (AIME) as a function of perceived self-

efficacy (PSE). In his study, PDC were varied by varying presentation mode (television

being perceived by participants as an easy mode to learn from versus print being

perceived as a tough mode to learn from). Salomon writes, "The stronger the

perceptions of how much effort... stimuli requires, and the higher (or lower) one's PSE,

the greater (or smaller) AIME is expended with the resultant differences in elaboration-

based learning" (p. 650). This is further illustrated in Figure 1. The basis for assuming

this relationship between media and demand characteristics comes from Salomons

(1994) theory of symbolic coding of information.

Salomon (1994) argues that all media are made up of their symbolic elements and

that it is more productive to analyze these elements than to compare whole media

systems. Salomon suggests that the symbolic codes which make up the medium of

television (moving pictures, audio, camera moves, etc.) are much closer to representing

real life than a more abstract medium, such as text, made up of letters, words,

punctuation, etc. A medium such as television, which is raw and lifelike, may match

familiar, existing schema in the brain and therefore is perceived as easier to be encoded or

processed and little translation of symbols needs to take place. A more contrived or


18/122

6

abstract symbolic system, such as printed text, requires more recoding of information, and

more mental effort is perceived to be required to translate it.

Figure 1. Effects of high/low PDC and high/low PSE on AIME and Learning, illustrated

by example quotes. Black lines represent High PDC scenarios, gray lines represent Low

PDC scenarios.

It is plausible that a humorous presentation of information is perceived as more

contrived and less raw. Following Salomon (1994), this would directly influence the

perceived requirement of mental effort needed for processing making the presentation

seem more difficult to process. Conversely, we have learned to recognize and appreciate

humor by its form and lack of context (Raskin, 1985). We may associate it with having

fun, relaxing, and being entertained. Given this, humor may make a presentation seem

more enjoyable and therefore easier than a nonhumorous presentation making the

presentation seem easier to process.

McMorris (1983) hints at humor's ability to affect PSE and PDC. This study

examined the relationship of humor and test anxiety and found that students favored

humorous items on tests, judged the effects of humor positively, and estimated humorous

items to be easier. Kelly (1983) discusses a practitioners view of the affective influences

of humor, saying that humor can set an agreeable tone and contribute to an up feeling


19/122

7

about oneself... providing a positive self-image for students and adults (p. 1). In these

ways, following Salomons framework, humor could actually be hindering learning by

simultaneously increasing perceived self-efficacy and decreasing perceived demand

characteristics.

An example of the relationship between PDC and PSE is the commercial success

enjoyed by the for Dummies book series. These books are self-help informational

texts, sometimes written about computer technology or computer software systems. The

titles of these books (Windows for Dummies, The Internet for Dummies,

WordPerfect for Dummies, etc.) state that these books have been written for novices -

people with low PSE about the topic. The books are also written in a basic, easy-to-

understand, and humorous style, possibly making them seem easier to read. One

possible explanation for the wide success of these books is that they target a low PSE

audience and present information in an easy way. Following Salomons reasoning, this

would result in greater AIME. The books, while not as in-depth as texts of similar

material, may be promoting sustained amounts of mental effort. According to Salomons

model, a high PSE learner would perceive this as more familiar and less challenging;

therefore the learner would likely invest little AIME and learn less.

Salomons theoretical and empirical approach seems well suited to studying the

relationship between humor and learning. If data can support the idea that humor can

directly affect cognitive outcomes based upon its influences over PDC and PSE and lend

clarification to humor's role in the affective domain, then empirical support for humor's

relationship to cognition and affect will have been given, and a foundation will have been

laid for direction of further research.

Statement of the Problem

Humor, although an important and basic aspect of our everyday lives, seems to be

conspicuously absent in instructional/educational materials beyond the primary grades.


20/122

8

This is not to say that it is not used to inform or teach. It could be reasoned that

humorous jokes and stories play a large part in educating adolescents about topics which

adults are generally hesitant to discuss, such as human sexuality. However, instructional

designers and teachers mostly avoid utilizing planned humor in their instructional

materials, perhaps for fear that the humor will (at best) have no positive results or (at

worst) have negative results. Empirical data are needed to inform the use of humor in

certain aspects of learning.

The past research on humor as it relates to learning has been, for the most part,

exploratory. This is not to say that the research is not useful, but there is a remarkable

lack of focus in the field (Teslow, 1995; Vance, 1987; Ziv, 1988). This line of research is

due for a more guided, in-depth approach, one which can be drawn upon for direction in

future research, as well as inform practitioners regarding their work.

Salomons study (1984) is framed around the argument that the way information

is perceived may determine how deeply the information is processed. Salomon suggests

that when one medium is perceived as less serious or easier than another, the

information presented by this medium is processed in a more automatic or shallow way,

using fewer mental elaborations and less mental effort. Salomon suggests that deeper

processing (greater amounts of invested mental effort) means recoding the information at

deeper levels which can lead to better learning performance.

One factor affecting the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) is perceived

demand characteristics (PDC) of the stimulus task or information to be learned. Salomon

(1984) showed that the more demanding a task appears to be, the more AIME will be

expended to complete it. However, perceived demand characteristics are related to an

individuals personal abilities, and high-ability students need more challenging tasks. The

high-ability learner who perceives a task to be easy may invest less mental effort which

will result in lower learning performance. The low-ability learner which also perceives a

task as easy relative to their abilities may invest greater amounts of mental effort and


21/122

9

have a higher learning performance. Hence, the relationship between PDC and AIME is

influenced by the learners perception of self-efficacy (PSE) regarding the task.

According to Salomon, the more efficacious a learner perceives himself or herself to be in

obtaining information from a particular type of task or source of activity, the more

sustained energy and mental effort he or she will invest in it.

Purpose of the Study

Humor research conducted to date in instructional settings has lacked a clear

theoretical framework. Salomons (1984) model relating PDC, PSE, AIME, and learning

seems to be a useful one for testing humors effect on AIME and learning by way of PDC

and PSE.

The general argument presented here is that information presented with humor,

unlike information presented seriously, affects the perception of demand characteristics

and the perceived requirement of AIME, and adults act accordingly even when the

material may warrant otherwise. Salomon (1984) investigated medias influence on

AIME and learning as mediated by PDC and PSE. However, there is some evidence

suggesting that humor can also influence PSE and PDC (McMorris & Others, 1983).

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of humor on attitude

toward content and the effect of humor on mental effort, by way of perceived demand

characteristics (PDC) and perceived self-efficacy (PSE). To meet this purpose, this study

attempted to answer two questions: 1) Can humor influence AIME and learning, mediated

by PDC and PSE? and 2) What are humors attitudinal effects?

Research Hypotheses

This study is a partial replication of Salomons study (1984). Instead of studying

a media characteristic (i.e. print versus television), this study will focus on humor. The

five hypotheses outlined below are taken directly from Salomons study but adapted to


22/122

10

reflect the current research questions. Exceptions are the first and third hypotheses.

Salomon reasoned that television (being perceived as more raw and lifelike) would be

perceived as easier to mentally process; therefore his first hypothesis was directional.

In this study, humor may be perceived as more difficult due to a perception of it as a

contrived and less lifelike source of information, or it may be perceived as less difficult

due to its association with the contexts of entertainment and fun. Because it was not

known how (in which direction) PDC would be affected, the first and third hypotheses are

nondirectional. Another difference between this study and Salomons is the fifth

hypothesis, which focuses on humors ability to influence attitude towards and interest in

content (Snetsinger & Grabowski, 1994).

Hypothesis 1. Learners perceived demand characteristics of humorous videotaped

instruction will differ significantly from those of nonhumorous videotaped instruction.

This will be evident in their (a) attribution of significantly greater realism to

nonhumorous presentations than humorous presentations and (b) significantly greater

rating of perceived efficacy with humor than with nonhumor.

Hypothesis 2. Participants will attribute success and failure differently for

humorous video and nonhumorous video. More specifically, (a) more participants will

attribute success in learning from humorous video to external causes (specific and typical

material ease) than to internal causes (ability and effort); (b) more participants will

attribute failure to learn from humorous video to internal causes than to external causes;

(c) more participants will attribute success in learning from nonhumorous video to

internal causes than to external causes; and (d) more participants will attribute failure to

learn from nonhumorous video to external causes than to internal ones.

Hypothesis 3. When shown a humorous video, participants will perform

differently than participants who are shown a nonhumorous video presenting comparable

content, in that they will (a) report the expenditure of significantly different AIME and (b)


23/122

11

exhibit significantly different inferential/problem-solving learning. No differences in

factual learning are expected.

Hypothesis 4. The relationship among perceived self-efficacy, AIME, and learning

will be significantly different for those who view a humorous video and those who view a

nonhumorous video of comparable content in that (a) for those who view the humorous

video program, PSE will have a significant negative correlation with AIME and amount

of inferential learning; and (b) for those who view a nonhumorous video, PSE will have a

significant positive correlation with AIME and amount of inferential learning.

Hypothesis 5. Participants attitudes towards content presented with humor will

differ significantly from those of content not presented with humor. Participants will rate

content presented with humor significantly more positively than content not presented

with humor.

In summary, two research questions were generated from the general question of

Does humor affect learning? Three goals were designed to answer these research

questions and these goals are operationalized by the five research hypotheses. Figure 2 is

a visual representation of the relationships between the purpose statement, the research

questions, the goals of the study, and research hypotheses.

Importance of the Study

Many practitioners already publish guidelines for using humor in the classroom

(Chenfeld, 1990; Goor, 1989; Neuliep, 1991). Clarification and understanding of the

relationship of humor and learning will lend scientific validation to some of these

suggestions as well as potential guidance to the development of new curricula. Finally, a

useful model of the interaction between humor and learning will help designers integrate

humor effectively in instructional materials.


24/122

12

Does humor affect learning?

Can humor influence AIMEand learning, mediated by

PDC and PSE?

What are humorsattitudinal effects?

Research Question 1: Research Question 2:

Goal 3:To understand the relationshipbetween humor and levels ofattitude/interest in content.

Goal 2:To clarify the relationships

between PSE, PDC, AIME, andlearning.

Goal 1:To understand the effects thathumor has on PSE and PDC.

Hypothesis 1:Comparing PDC between groups.

Hypothesis 2:Comparing attribution of success and failure with humor andnonhumor between groups.

Hypothesis 3:Comparing Mental Effort and Learning between groups.

Hypothesis 4:Correlations between perceived self-efficacy, amount ofinvested mental effort, and achievement

Hypothesis 5:Comparing attitude and interest by group.

Figure 2. Relationships between the purpose statement, the research questions, the goals

of the study, and research hypotheses.

Limitations of the Study

Because of the need to control extraneous variables related to humor, this study is

limited to verbal and textual humor. Several media elements (cartoons, sound effects,

music, etc.) could be used to enhance the humorous version of the treatment. However,

because these media symbols themselves may affect learning at their own level, they may

confound the results. An attempt was made to develop both of the video treatments

(described in Chapter 3) to maintain consistency among media elements, so as to vary

only the voice-over narration to create the intended humorous effect.


25/122

13

Another limitation is the contextual, subjective nature of humor. While an

attempt was made to verify the humors funniness, it is difficult to know if it had its

intended effect. The treatments were also limited in time. Typical instructional

videotaped modules for classroom use are less than 20 minutes. The planned length of

this treatment was approximately 20 minutes. It is questionable as to whether this is

sufficient time for an effective instructional piece to have its intended effect.

Generalizability is limited to students enrolled in undergraduate education courses at a

medium-size state-assisted southern university.

Also, as a replication of a previous work, this study is limited in two ways: (1) the

population is different from the original study and (2) the design considers the affective

domain with its use of an interest and attitude survey. While the original study limited its

scope to strictly cognitive factors, this study investigated factors in the affective domain.


26/122

14

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature related to the field of humor and learning.

Most conspicuous is the notable difference between the quantity of literature published by

practitioners versus researchers. Similar to the findings of other authors (Powell, 1985;

Teslow, 1995; Vance, 1987; Ziv, 1976; Ziv, 1988), this review of the literature found

volumes of practitioners publications compared to the scanty amount of empirical

research on the use of humor and instruction (Vance, 1987) (p. 80).

Presented in this chapter are: 1) the current state of the practice and academic

research on the use of humor in instructional situations, (2) the specific approach that this

study will use to investigate these issues, and (3) overviews of theories of humor as they

relate to and overlap with the theories of learning, creativity, and motivation. This

chapter also attempts to build further understanding of the problem, indicating that it is

anchored in the previous research, yet moves beyond that work in significant ways.

Search tools used to complete this review of literature included the ERIC database

of journal articles, Alta-Vista and InfoSeek world wide web search engine databases,

the dissertation abstract database, and the general Boolean search capabilities of the

Georgia Library Information Network (GALIN). Title and keyword search words and

phrases include humor, humor AND learning, humor AND instruction, humor

AND creativity, humor AND education, laughter AND learning, humor AND

motivation.


27/122

15

Humor and Learning in Practice and Research

The present philosophy of practicing educators, trainers, and speakers reflects

strong support for the use of humor as a tool of instruction (Chaney, 1993; Check, 1986;

Chenfeld, 1990; Cleese, 1995; Grow, 1995; Kelly, 1983; Shaughnessy, 1991; Whitmer,

1986). Many articles may be found on the practice of using humor in educational and

training environments, and most of them include guidelines, suggestions, and precautions

regarding the use of appropriate humor to effectively enhance instruction or presentations.

Bryant, Gula & Zillman (1980) found that writers of academic textbooks regularly

insert humor into college texts. Educators who teach English as a Second Language

claim to find humor an excellent instructional device for creating a risk-free learning

environment, as well as communicating language subtleties and social mores of the

culture (Spencer, 1995). It is suggested by several practitioners publications (Chenfeld,

1990; Howington, 1983; Kelly, 1983; Whitmer, 1986) that the use of humor can create an

open learning environment and can create an up feeling that allows students to feel

good about themselves, increase individual involvement, and express more creativity and

lower anxiety. Chenfeld (1990) claims that in classes where teachers encourage laughter,

students learn and retain more information.

Even though most educators generally embrace humor as a qualitatively valuable

element in instruction, many other practitioners - including instructional designers - are

often hesitant to include humor in their instructional products (Teslow, 1995). Perhaps

they are afraid of bombing and the intended humorous effects being either negated or

even reversed. The effectiveness of some instructional techniques (such as the use of

illustrations) has been well documented. However the empirical evidence to back up the

claims of humors effectiveness in instruction is difficult to interpret. It is quite possible

that instructional designers who trust scholarly research to inform them on their craft are

still waiting for some solid and useful findings on the topic. There is too little empirical


28/122

16

evidence on the use of humor to develop applicable strategies for humor's use in

instruction (Vance, 1987).

Researchers in the field of humor in instruction cite various journals and papers

telling positive (Check, 1986; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Gruner, 1970; Kelly, 1983;

Ziv, 1976) or not so positive (Gruner, 1970) results of using humor to enhance retention,

gain/maintain attention, or otherwise aid cognition. But, as several researchers noted, the

empirical evidence has failed to communicate unequivocal results (Desberg & others,

1981; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Teslow, 1995; Vance, 1987).

Cognitive Issues

Desberg (1981) described the beginnings of the controversy by citing experiments

which compared humorous and non-humorous speeches or lectures. These experiments

produced non-significant differences in speech persuasiveness and similar results in the

retention levels of students listening to informative lectures. Perhaps a strong belief in

the effectiveness of humor prompted a few researchers to review the prior experiments

and identify some limitations and inaccuracies. This led to several decades of further

research on the matter. Researchers attacked cognitive issues of knowledge acquisition

and relevancy to content, as well as affective issues such as humors effects on anxiety

and arousal levels.

Knowledge acquisition. Several studies have supported the notion that knowledge

acquisition and retention are facilitated by the inclusion of humor in instruction (Desberg

& others, 1981; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Neuliep, 1991; Vance, 1987; Zillmann &

Williams, 1980). Rareshide (1993) contended that the small amount of empirical studies

that exist on this topic [mostly] supports the notion that humor has cognitive benefits, but

the researchers are typically more guarded in their advocacy of humor than are the

teachers (p. 5). It seems that teachers are ready to accept the idea that humor plays an


29/122

17

important role in the learning process even though the research on humor is not

voluminous enough to posit any solid conclusions. Indeed, there are several studies

which failed to support the notion of humor as a beneficial tool for learning.

One such study investigated the effectiveness of humor in informative speaking

(Taylor, 1964). Taylors experiment involved two versions of a speech, one containing

humorous content and one straightforward and nonhumorous. The speeches were audio

tape-recorded1

and played before separate audiences. The audiences were tested

immediately following the presentation for recall of information. They were also tested

one week later on the same information. Taylor concluded that there were no significant

differences between the two groups.

This evidence of humors ineffectiveness was also carried over in the field of

instruction and teaching by Kaplan (1977). His specific question regarded humors

effectiveness in assisting the comprehension and retention of lecture material for college

undergraduates. Kaplan gave one of four treatments to 508 undergraduate students. Each

treatment was a videotaped lecture on six principal Freudian concepts and were different

in amount of humor and relevancy of humor to the content (relevancy will be discussed in

greater detail later). The four treatments contained: 1) humor related to all six Freudian

concepts, 2) humor related to three of the six concepts, 3) humor unrelated to any of the

content, and 4) a nonhumorous, serious version of the presentations.

Kaplan (1977) tested for comprehension of actual content of the presentation and

found that, while students viewing the relevant humor versions of the treatment could

recall a greater number of humorous examples from the presentation, the overall

performance of the students who learned from the humorous presentations did not differ

from students who learned the content from the nonhumorous presentation.

1

It is important to note that audio and video recordings are often used instead of live performance or lecture

situations. This is to facilitate more precise control for human error in presentation and fluctuations in

various treatments.


30/122

18

More recently, Snetsinger and Grabowski (1994) investigated the effects of humor

in a computer-based instruction (CBI) module on ticks and the diseases they carry. Their

study used two treatments and three groups: 1) humorous CBI module, 2) nonhumorous

CBI module, and 3) a control group (no instruction). Like the Kaplan study, Snetsinger

and Grabowski used college undergraduates (N=115), randomly assigned to one of the

three groups. After interacting with the CBI modules, the groups were given a post test

for learning comprehension and attitudes. The study showed no significant differences

between mean scores on the post test for the humorous and non-humorous groups. Only

the control group (with no instruction) performed significantly worse than the other two

groups.

Most of the empirical research has concentrated on achieving the desired results

by the inclusion of humor into a lesson. One particular research study was designed to

shed some light on a slightly different angle to the humor question: can humor be used to

facilitate learning external to the immediate material being presented? In Vances (1987)

study, children heard a humorous perversion of a familiar story (to raise their

emotion/humor level) just before they were presented with new information to be learned.

Vance was concerned with the arousal levels which humor can influence and how these

may affect learning performance. He used 58 first graders randomly assigned to one of

four treatment groups. The treatments can be summarized as follows:

Group 1: heard a humorous story and were immediately presented with a serious

presentation of new information.

Group 2: heard a humorous story and, one week later, were presented with a

serious presentation of new information.

Group 3: were presented with a humorous version of new information.

Group 4: were presented with a serious version of the new information.

The results of this study showed that the learners receiving [the humorous story]

immediately before the new information [performed] better on immediate memory and


31/122

19

retention tests than the control group (Vance, 1987) (p. 93). The results also indicated

that being presented with a humorous version of new information (Group 3) failed to

have significant influence on performance compared to the control group. This study

suggests that when humor precedes the presentation of new information, arousal levels

are inflated; students pay closer attention to the new information and therefore retain

more of it. However, the study failed to show why humor, integrated into instruction,

fails to significantly affect performance in the same way. This study exemplifies the

mixed and inconclusive results of much of the overall past research on humors effect on

cognition.

Relevancy. An important element of successful implementation of humor into

instruction is how relevant it is to the presented content. Rutkaus (1981) found evidence

to support the notion that humor unrelated to the subject matter being presented has little

effect on retention. Desberg (1981) also hypothesized that relevancy played a major part

in cognition. His experiments tested the notion that jokes used in videotaped

presentations had more of an effect on learner performance when they were directly

related to the material being learned. Desberg wanted to know if irrelevant jokes or

silliness simply amused or distracted the learners.

Desberg (1981) studied 100 undergraduate students who were divided into four

equal groups. Each group viewed a videotaped lecture on language development. The

lectures were identical in content and only differed in the quantity and relevancy of humor

used. Both related and unrelated jokes were inserted in identical places in the lecture. A

joke was classified as related or relevant if it was associated with or served as a

mnemonic device for the concept to be learned (p. 1).

He concluded that in the cases of rote learning, relevant humor contributed by

both repeating the lesson concept and making the learning process more enjoyable. He


32/122

20

found that humor related to the content did correlate with higher learning performance

compared to unrelated humor and nonhumor.

Affective Issues

Scholars have argued that humor is a powerful tool in the creation of a climate

conducive to learning (Dickmeyer, 1993; Hackman & Barthel-Hackman, 1993; Sherman,

1988; Sletta & Sobstad, 1993). Some factors contributing to such a climate are perceived

social competence, anxiety, peer acceptance, and instructor-student relationship. Zillmann

& Williams (1980) found a positive correlation between teacher use of personal

anecdotes and student attitude toward the instructor. Slettas research (1993) provided a

model of the use of humor for predicting the peer acceptance of children. While most of

Slettas research found no predictors, it was noted that at the eighth grade level humor as

assessed by peers is predictive of peer acceptance and perception of own humor (p. 9).

It has also been noted by some researchers that anxiety and test performance

correlate as an inverted U much the same as how positive motivation correlates to

performance (the Yerke-Dodson curve). That is, as anxiety increases, test performance

also increases to a point. After that level, the more anxious a person is, the worse his or

her performance on a test.

McMorris (1983) argued that high test anxiety has an inhibiting effect on test

performance and considered the effects of including humorous items into multiple choice

format tests. McMorris found that although the students preferred the humorous test

items to the nonhumorous test items, estimated the humorous items as easier, and judged

effects of humor positively, the treatment did not affect anxiety levels nor alter test

performance. Also McMorris stated that for some highly anxious persons, some

humorous stimuli may evoke a painful rather than a gratifying response (p. 5). Previous

to the McMorris study, Ziv (1976) suggested that in testing, and perhaps in instruction,


33/122

21

highly anxious students became more aroused by humor, and this may have hindered

learning.

Problems with the Past Research.

While Vance (1987) suggested there is convincing support for humor as a learning

tool, he admits that there is too little empirical evidence on the issue to form any solid

conclusions. Teslow also found a lack of adequate research in the area, and suggested

that the research has looked too much at retention and persuasion, rather than at cognitive

affect, motivation, and information processing (Teslow, 1995). The research that does

exist fails to support the widely touted view of humor as an instructional support

mechanism and only within the last few years has any headway been made regarding the

incorporation of humor into the design of instruction (Gorham & Christophel, 1990;

Vance, 1987).

Much of the research has also failed to account for the factor of the novel

situation. It has been well documented that a novelty (such as humor, expectancy, or a

new situation) boosts attention and pushes a bored, inattentive learner into a moderate

level of arousal and attentive behavior. But a new situation (such as being in a research

experiment or watching a video for the first time in three weeks) creates this boost even

without any humorous input. This may be why so much research has found little

difference in the humorous treatment and the control: they were both being exposed to

novel situations - one just slightly more novel than the other. Vance (1987) pointed out

that when humor encourages arousal levels above a moderate level, learning performance

degenerates. This is important because the combination of the novel situations of many

of the older research experimental treatments (e.g., an instructional video) with the

humorous content could have provided too many cues and too much distraction for the

learner to perform effectively.


34/122

22

Moreover, there are unresolved issues regarding validation of humorous

treatment. For example, Snetsinger and Grabowski (1994) asked faculty members and

graduate students to rate the quality of the humor (its funniness) in their CBI, but their

experimental sample was from a population of college undergraduate students. Perhaps

using a small sample from their intended population could have shed some light on why

their humorous treatments did not have their intended cognitive effect.

The assessment procedures of some of the prior experiments are also in question.

The research has generally tested learners using multiple-choice tests. While the

researchers have asserted that they are utilizing these tests to accurately test learning,

what they actually evaluated was recognition (rather than recall and inference-making

which can be tested by open-ended, short answer questions). It could be argued that

recall, inference-making, and problem-solving are more accurate definers of learning.

Vance (1987) observed that the faults have been directly or indirectly due to the

incomplete or inexact understanding of humor. Vance also suggests that there is a serious

lack of an attempt to research humor while applying the solid foundations of motivation

and learning theory.

However, the purpose here is not to condemn past research as sloppy and

unorganized. In fact, the many years of research on humor and learning/persuasiveness

have given contemporary researchers the clear advantages of hindsight. Thus far,

research on humor and learning may be distinguished as bold exploration. Salomon

(1994) pointed out, as with cognitive development, exploration needs to precede search

behavior... whereas exploration, greatly influenced by the appeal of external stimuli, is

unsystematic and unconceptual, search behavior is better focused, goal directed, and

conceptually guided (p. 2).

Humor is not a peripheral issue in education and most teachers consider it an

integral element in their teaching (Rareshide, 1993) (p.7). The published work of

practitioners and researchers, while not yielding much in the way of solid conclusions,


35/122

23

has given up strong clues as to the nature of humor and learning. Humor seems to be able

to inflate positive attitudes, help create an assured and open learning environment, and

increase self-concept (Dickmeyer, 1993; McMorris & Others, 1983; Shaughnessy, 1991;

Snetsinger & Grabowski, 1994; Ziv, 1976). It also seems to affect perceptions of

difficulty levels of learning tasks (Desberg & others, 1981; Dickmeyer, 1993; Feingold,

1983; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Kelly, 1983; McMorris & Others, 1983; Rareshide,

1993). Conceding to both of these assertions, we proceed to the work of Salomon (1984).

Salomons Theoretical Framework

Salomon (1984) approached the investigation of cognitive processes with the

theory that learning from a particular task is directly affected by how much mental effort

one puts into it he called this amount of invested mental effort or AIME. Salomon also

asserted that AIME is directly affected by at least two factors: 1) how competent one

perceives ones self to be at a particular type of task (perception of self-efficacy, or PSE),

and 2) how difficult or demanding one perceives a particular task to be (perceived

demand characteristics, or PDC). Obviously, these may interact. How demanding a task

seems to be is based upon ones perception of self-competency at that task.

Symbolic Encoding.

The intent of Salomons study (1984) was to examine the controversy surrounding

the question does media matter? in the instructional technology field. Salomon (1994)

bases the argument in his theory of symbolic encoding. He claimed that a medium is

defined by its various elements or symbols and that these need to be investigated at the

symbolic level. He asserted that to compare two media (such as books versus videotapes)

without giving proper attention to the effects of the various elements of each is superficial

and misses the point of the comparison. Furthermore, Salomon asserted that it is more

productive to investigate how we interact with and interpret these symbol systems


36/122

24

because these elements may interact differently with an individuals aptitude for mental

elaborations.

For instance, the medium of television is made up of voice-over audio, music,

sound effects, and moving and still images, both true-to-life and abstract. Written text is

formed of an entirely different set of symbolic elements: letters, words, punctuation, and

formatting. One can view a film of a sunset or one can read a passage describing the

sunset - both media may convey comparable information; however Salomon (1984)

argued that film/video is made up of symbolic elements which are closer to the familiar

representations of real life in the mind and therefore require less effort to interpret,

recode, or process. The printed word hardly resembles a sunset; thus textual symbols

must be recoded in the mind for the message to be digested. While the information being

conveyed is similar, the film of the sunset is generally perceived as more familiar and

realistic. As Salomon (1984) stated, it is reasonable to expect people to treat realistic

material in a shallower way than material that is contrived, for the former would be

assumed to allow assimilation with fewer mental elaborations (p. 650). The quantity of

mental elaborations is the thrust of Salomons suggested construct of amount of invested

mental effort (AIME). Salomon defined AIME as the number of nonautomatic mental

elaborations applied to a unit of material (p. 648), and he argues that self-reports of

AIME in processing a unit of material are relatively accurate.

AIME and Perceived Demand Characteristics (PDC).

What exactly determines how much AIME will be expended in a given task?

Salomon (1984) claimed that much may depend upon how the task, context, or stimulus

is perceived. Clark (1982) reviewed the literature pertaining to achievements

relationship to enjoyment and noted that students often report enjoying instructional

methods from which they learn the least. According to Clark, when high-ability students

encounter a well-structured instructional presentation, they perceive it to be undemanding


37/122

25

and therefore apply less mental effort than low-ability students. This would indicate, as

supported by Salomon, that AIME is affected by PDC: the more demanding the stimulus,

the greater the amounts of applied mental effort.

AIME and Perceived Self-Efficacy (PSE).

Naturally, perception of difficulty is a subjective construct that is relative to ones

own abilities. Banduras Social Learning Theory (explained in greater detail below)

described the nature of the learning process as an interlocking relationship between

behavior, environment, and internal psychological events. Specific to this discussion,

Bandura (1982) has shown that when learners perceive themselves as more competent at

a task or activity, they are more likely to invest sustained and persistent effort in that task.

It seems reasonable, then, that when learners perceive themselves as being more capable

at a particular activity (high-PSE) and are given a challenging task within that activity,

they will invest substantially more effort in completing that task. Conversely, high-PSE

learners who are given a task which they perceive as undemanding will invest less mental

effort towards that task. Therefore, as Salomon (1984) has shown, although PSE may

affect AIME, its effects can be positive when the task is perceived as demanding and

negative when the task is perceived as easy.

The Salomon Study.

The study (Salomon, 1984) involved 124 sixth graders who were first tested on

how they perceived television versus print (whether they thought each was more difficult

or easier to learn from), what they attributed this perception to (internal or external

causation - its just me or it makes it harder to learn from) and perceived self-efficacy

(PSE) with each (how comfortable they are learning from one media versus another).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group watched a silent 9-

minute videotaped program on A Day of a Painter. Another group read a printed


38/122

26

document describing the exact same story. Great care was taken to ensure comparability

of the two versions, including length of time to absorb the material (the reading time of

the students was not significantly different than the time it took to watch the video) and

sequence of content.

Immediately following exposure to the treatment, participants were given a short

questionnaire measuring their self reports of AIME (for example: How hard did you

have to concentrate on this story?). Following this questionnaire, the participants were

given an achievement test measuring factual recognition and inference making. The

results are quoted here:

In the print group, efficacy was positively and significantly related to

AIME and to achievement, consistent with Banduras (1982) theory. But

in the TV group efficacy correlated negatively and significantly with

AIME and with overall achievement, supporting our fourth hypothesis that

when easy material is encountered, subjects with greater PSE tend to

invest less effort and achieve less (p. 654).

This study supported the following notions: 1) if one perceives oneself to be better

at this particular type of task and if one perceives this particular task to be easy, then

one invests less mental effort to the task and, therefore, performs poorer on achievement

tests; 2) if one perceives oneself to be better at this particular type of task and if one

perceives this particular task to be difficult, then one invests more mental effort to the

task (to meet the challenge) and, therefore, performs better on achievement tests; 3) if one

perceives oneself not to be better at this particular type of task and if one perceives this

particular task to be easy, then one invests more mental effort to the task and, therefore,

performs better on achievement tests.

Salomons study (1984) demonstrated how various symbol-systems in media can

interact with internal psychological events which influence perceptions and actions. His

general argument was that television, unlike print, is a source of information that is


39/122

27

perceived to be more familiar and realistic, calling for less recoding and easier to

process - requiring little AIME, and learners act accordingly even when the content

warrants otherwise.

Moreover, this interaction is also related to perceived self-efficacy (PSE) on the

part of the learner. According to Salomons (1984) model, learners perception of the

easiness of a task is relative to their abilities. To use his example:

A skilled driver or reader may perceive the task of driving or reading to be

easy and thus rely more heavily on automatic processes. This is due to

knowing (rightly or wrongly) that no additional effort expenditure is

needed to perform the task that is perceived to be well mastered.

(p. 649)

Salomon demonstrated that although PSE affects AIME, its effects can be positive when

demanding material is encountered and negative when easy material is to be processed.

See Figure 3 for an illustration of this relationship - the "+" and "-" indicate positive and

negative correlations, respectively.

In Salomon's (1984) study, PDC were varied by varying presentation mode:

television versus print. According to Salomon, the television mode, because of its

familiar context, is perceived as an easier medium that requires fewer mental

elaborations. Because of this, learners who were more efficacious tended to learn less

that is, perform poorer on achievement tests.

It is plausible that information presented humorously is perceived as more

familiar, more easily associated with an entertainment context, than nonhumorous

information. Raskin (1985) argued that most adults understand that the joke-telling

mode of communication is not to be associated with anything as serious as learning.

There is also empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that humorous tasks or

activities are perceived as easier (McMorris & Others, 1983). Kelly (1983) discusses a

practitioners view of the affective influences of humor, saying that humor can set an


40/122

28

agreeable tone and contribute to an up feeling about oneself... providing a positive self-

image (p. 1).

pdc

pse

learning

aime

STIMULUS

_ +

+

+ : -

+ : -

Figure 3. Salomons model showing hypothesized relations among PDC, PSE, AIME,

and learning (+/- indicate positive or negative relations).

On the other hand, humor adds another dimension of symbolic coding to the

presentation. Humor appreciation interacts with our inner desires to be superior (Gruner,

1978). It relies upon internal coded scripts and our ability and motivation to scrutinize

these scripts in order to get the joke (Raskin, 1985). For these reasons, learning from a

humorous presentation may be perceived as more difficult than interpreting a

nonhumorous presentation. Following Salomons model (1994), the interaction of these

factors would directly influence the perceived requirement of mental effort needed for

processing by simultaneously affecting perceived self-efficacy and perceived demand

characteristics.

Historical Overview of Humors Relationships to Creativity, Learning, and Motivation

The fields of creativity, humor, learning, and motivation have all engaged in the

attempt to understand the behavior of people. However, the general consensus in each of


41/122

29

the fields is that there is much to discover about the nature of human thought and

inspiration. Humor has been only marginally included in the fields of research and

theoretical model-building of creativity, motivation, and learning. Yet humor, probably

above all of the others, is commonly recognized by the general public, by trainers, and by

the mass media as one of the fundamental components that cuts across all fields, all

cultures, and all mentalities.

Given all of this, it is important that some fundamental connections be established

between what is believed about creativity, learning, and motivation and what is believed

about the nature of humor. This section of the literature review provides a historical

overview of some of the theoretical underpinnings of humor long studied in psychology

and education. As such, this section does not specifically relate to the variables examined

in this study, but rather is intended to make general relationships between humor and

educational learning theories more apparent.

Only a few educational theories have been included here and these were selected

due to their significance to the educational research community over time and also

because they contain elements that are related to humor theories. The section relating

humor and creativity presents Gruners (1997) theory of why things are funny, and

defines the primary differences between the creativity theorists and humor theorists. No

clear relationships between humor theories and specific learning theories have been

defined, therefore the section on humor and learning covers a behaviorist learning theorist

(B.F. Skinner), a cognitive learning theorist (Jean Piaget), and a social learning theorist

(Albert Bandura). An element in all learning theories is motivation, and the section on

humor and motivation will cover humors relationship to the motivational elements

within the person-centered, environment-centered, and interaction-centered learning

theories. Finally, a basic overview of attribution theory of motivation is presented along

with ideas regarding practical applications of humor.


42/122

30

Humor and Creativity

Creativity and humor seem so alike and interrelated that a comparative analysis of

the theories of creativity and humor would seem a logical section in a study such as this.

However, a review of the many humor and creativity theories suggests that they have

been approached very differently.

The biggest difference between the approaches to creativity and humor is that

creativity theorists, for the most part, place their theories around creative individuals,

places, and processes. However they dont speak as much about how and why people

respond to the created products. The humor theorists, by contrast, are very concerned

with why people respond (with a smile or laughter) to a particular stimuli, yet these

theorists avoid identifying the creative processes involved in producing or appreciating a

funny product. In other words, the overlap between creativity studies and humor studies

can be summarized by two ideas: 1) the concept of humor as a creative process and 2) the

study of appreciation of (or responses to) created works. Unfortunately, neither of these

has been investigated to any great extent.

Some theorists believe that to make a joke is to find a solution to a problem or

conflict and that to appreciate a joke may serve the same purpose. The act of creation is

the target-area of the creativity theorists, who nearly ignore altogether why and to what

extent created works are appreciated.

Many authors believe that the creative thought processes occur across domains.

None of us are surprised to discover that a widely-published educational researcher may

also be an accomplished accordion player. Likewise, weve all heard of accounts similar

to that of Richard Feynman, the Nobel winning physicist who was also an accomplished

bongo player. Thus, most theorists of creativity believe that the ability to create, that is,

to do the creative process, is an ability that can happen across disciplines. These

subprocesses that make up the creative process consist of forming analogies, recognizing


43/122

31

patterns, redefining problems constantly, and making the strange familiar and the familiar

strange.

The idea of making the strange familiar and the familiar strange is recognized by

several humor theorists. The conundrum is a particular example of achieving language

familiarity from the strange. A conundrum is a punning riddle, that is, a word with a

double meaning combined with a question. The following is an example of a conundrum:

What has four legs and flies?

This question is one that is very unfamiliar to many of us. Indeed, the only

explanation that most can think of is some mythological creature or comic book

character. But because we have learned to recognize and decode riddles by their form

and lack of context (Raskin, 1985), we expect to hear a clever answer: a dead horse.

When we understand the meaning of the answer, the strange question, particularly the

recoded use of the word flies, becomes familiar to us.

This recoding of information is a pivotal point in Salomons (1994) theory of

symbolic coding. Salomon points out that the encoding or recoding of information allows

for deeper processing of the information. Conundrums are intentionally structured to

force multiple encoding of information. Normally, coding of information of this type

would confuse a listener. However, because we have learned to recognize riddles when

we hear them, and since we know that the person asking the question is not literally

expecting us to come up with an answer, we may not spend the mental effort attempting

to figure it out.

Figuring it out or getting the joke has been equated to resolving a conflict.

Sternbergs (1988) extensive summation of the works of many authors of creativity also

yielded that the creative process requires tension or conflict. This notion of conflict is

one that parallels nicely with many theories of humor. Many humor theorists (Greig,

1923; Gruner, 1976; Raskin, 1985) believe that the sense of humor was developed in

parallel with the aggressive competitiveness that allowed humans to climb down out of


44/122

32

the trees and form civilization. As we began to settle down and form specific rules of

conduct and tact, the aggressive and competitive energies must be channeled into the

new order. This, according to these theorists, causes a conflict between the desires of

the individual and the constraints issued by society.

If a man covets his neighbors wife, he cannot simply conk his neighbor over the

head and take her. This aggression must be expressed in some other way. The creativity

experts would posit that this aggression conflict (which may represent itself as feelings of

helplessness or inadequacy) is processed into an expressive dance or into a practical

solution to the problem. The humor experts believe that the result will likely be the

creation of - or appreciation of - a good joke dealing with the particular subject (Gruner,

1976). If the person is indeed wishing that his neighbor would die and leave his wife to

be consoled, and eventually wooed, by him, then he may appreciate jokes poking fun at

stupid husbands whose wives cheat on them.

This conflict view of humor can be partially represented by Freuds views on wit

and humor. The following quote is taken from Greigs (1923) Theories of Laughter and

Comedy, in which he identifies eighty-eight different humor theories. Greigs summation

of Freud suggests that wit is an expression that allows us,

with very little expenditure of energy, to gratify a sexual or an aggressive

wish, in an indirect way. Culture puts hindrances in the way of our openly

satisfying hostile or obscene desires; but these, if restricted, are not

eliminated, and by enlisting the services of the technique of wit, they ...

obtain momentary satisfaction (p. 380).

The accessibility of a sense of humor is something that has been considered in

relation to humorous individuals. Raskin (1985), in presenting the specifics of his

semantic theory of humor, defines the person with a sense of humor as one who can

switch easily and readily from the normal (he uses the phrase bone-fide) mode of

communication to the joke-telling mode and who has more scripts available. Scripts


45/122

33

are the things on which we base our assumptions about the way the world works. [JT is a

good dog.] Most people have, for example, a script for making a telephone call, taking a

shower, or crossing the street at a city intersection. In the last example, some peoples

scripts call for examination of the WALK/DONT WALK signal, others may judge the

speed and distance of vehicles before crossing, and still others watch the traffic lights

intended for the drivers.

In the case of the WALK/DONT WALK signal script, an example is provided by

an older illustrated cartoon. A man is crossing the street as the WALK signal is flashing.

But when he is right in the middle of the street, the WALK signal changes to DONT

WALK. The man obeys the signal, stops walking and stands in the middle of the street,

now in peril of being hit by a car. Now, this cartoon is not particularly funny, but its

simplicity illustrates how the violation of scripts can make situations humorous.

According to the assumptions of most of our normal everyday scripts regarding crossing

the street, once we have started to cross with the signal, we continue until we are safely to

the other side. A literal translation of the DONT WALK sign is a violation of the script

(some humor theorists would call this an incongruity). Violation of scripts often happen

when a person of one culture enters into the environment of another culture. The city

slicker that is called out west, the tough Chicago police officer who ventures into the

plush and strange society of Beverly Hills California, each of these has humorous value

because of the persons scripts are incongruous with the accepted scripts of the new

culture. These are also examples of making the strange familiar and making the familiar

strange.

Gruner (1997) synthesized the writings of many authors in an attempt to generate

useful theory on humor. Gruner derived a simple concept of what is funny: that which

causes someone else pain (though not so excessive as to be tragedy) combined with what

is surprising. Remove either the suddenness or the sorrow from the joke or circumstance,

and the humor goes with it. Many writers have expressed a similar opinion about the


46/122

34

relationship of sorrow or tragedy to humor. Mark Twain writes, Everything human is

pathetic. The secret source of humor itself is not joy but sorrow. There is no humor in

heaven (Puddnhead Wilsons New Calendar, taken from Following the Equator,

1897; The American Publishing Company, Hartford, Connecticut).

Humor and Learning

Educators seem to disagree on the value of humor in the learning environment and

its ability (or inability) to increase attention and motivation and to influence retention and

creativity (Teslow, 1995). Gruner (1967; 1976) along with other researchers found that

the introduction of humor into the teaching process did not improve learning. Still others

(Chapman, 1978; Vance, 1987) argue that humor has a positive effect on recall and

retention. There is much anecdotal evidence to support the notion that humor is a

powerful instructional tool (Rutkaus, 1981). And yet the role of humor has yet to be

specifically defined in the learning process.

Many theories of the nature of learning have been proposed. Each of them was

accepted at some level during their heyday, and many of them were pitted against each

other in an effort to gain general confidence in one over the other. The contemporary

theories of learning that are outlined below are those of Skinner, Piaget, and Bandura.

Each of these has been influential in both psychology and education since the mid 20th

century. This section briefly reviews the fundamentals of each of these theories and then

looks at how humor may be considered when implementing these theories at a practical

level.

B.F. Skinner - Operant Conditioning. Skinner defined learning as the process of

behavioral change. He was basically refining the behaviorist approach to the study of

learning by making it a more precise science. His Operant Conditioning is defined

loosely as the process of modifying behavior (of the operant, or subject) as the direct


47/122

35

result of specific positive and/or negative reinforcements in the presence of the

appropriate stimuli. Skinner believed that researchers should measure learning only in

terms of behavior and only in controlled laboratory settings. His point of view was that

learning is behavioral change, which is related to changes in environmental events or

conditions. A stimulus (S) leads to a response (R) which is reinforced with a stimulus

(SR). An example would be an empty stomach leads to eating food, which leads to a

non-empty stomach. His beliefs also incorporated the notion that the specific dynamics

of learning were the same for all species, so that studying the responses of rats to stimuli

would provide answers to human learning.

Skinner believed that virtually any behavior could be achieved, given a controlled

environment and the correct set of conditions. He even estimated how many stimulus-

response-reinforcements it would take for a student to learn basic mathematics -

approximately 50,000. To accommodate this task, Skinner advocated the use of

machines that could give reinforcement and feedback based on learner responses - the

teaching machines.

Timing the delivery of reinforcement is important in effective behavior

modification. Skinner described the careless teacher as the one who only turned

attention to the student when the student was asking for help or when the student was

causing trouble. This letting well enough alone attitude could be disruptive, reinforcing

the attention-getter and the show-off student. Skinner gives a specific example of

implementing his conditioning in the classroom. He suggests that the teacher may create

a positive classroom climate by simply adjusting his or her responses so that they are

responding to student successes rather than to student failures. The result, claims

Skinner, will be an improved atmosphere and more efficient instruction.

Some theories of humor developed during the era of behaviorism simply

described laughter as a response to certain stimuli. These theories attempted to classify

humor either in terms of a natural response of nervous excitation (which tends to beget


48/122

36

muscular motion, starting with smiling lips and eventually erupting into fluctuations of

the diaphragm), or a learned response of laughter (as when one laughs at the bosss

particularly unfunny joke, or when one laughs at ones own embarrassment in order to

give the impression of confidence in a situation where confidence may be shaken).

When trying to find room for the use of humor in the learning environment, it may

appear that humor has no place in Skinners world of operant conditioning, especially

when mindful of two conflicting factors: 1) Skinner believed that the particular dynamics

of learning are a constant for all species, and 2) not all species have a sense of humor.

However, humors relevance to behaviorism is its power to modify behavior by

reinforcing a students attention to what is being said or displayed. If a teacher (or

teaching machine) is careful in the timing of the presence of humor, then the attention to

the

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	oluwasanmi-akinbade
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Tribble Dissertation

Documents