National Library - PDF document

National Library 191 ofCanada Bibliothwue nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie services bibliographiques 395. nie Wellington Ottawa ON KI A ON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une Licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, this thesis in microfom, cette thèse sous electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership propriété du thesis. Neither droit d'auteur thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othewise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Acknowledgernents There are a number of people 1 would like to thank for their contributions to this project. and foremost, 1 would like to thank my advisor. Jim and encouragement throughout this research project. 1 my examining members - Perry and Rod for their and Tony Vernon, for the affable sitting on rny advisory committee. Finally, 1 would like to thank rny family - Greg, Kayla, their patience LIST OF TABLES Table I Ceil Frequencies for Sex and Ring-Toss Strategy Ce11 Frequencies for Sex and Ring-Toss Strategy(b) Results £rom Dependent Measures for Both Mean Reaction Time (in seconds) for Rejection-Related, Acceptance-Related, and Mean Reaction Time seconds) of Rejection-Related, Acceptance-Related, and Neutral Target Words The Behavioural Effects of Ridicule of Gthers "There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and wi tl ess . rt -In Puddtnhead Wilson (Mark Twain, 1893) "Ridiculen is defined as a form of disparagement humour that expresses "themes of criticism or persona1 abuse in a jocular formatn (Wilson, 1979, p.190) . The joke form implies levity, whereas the joke content ia abusive. Freud (1905/1960) theorized that our enjoyment humour is that the facade of the humour atones for the hostility of its content. We can hostile feelings socially acceptable manner. There is little doubt to the Zillmann (1977) did a content analysis of humour in prime time television for a weok. They recorded al1 that they An incident was recorded as tendentious, or hostile, if a person or thing was disparaged. They found that 69% of al1 humorous incidents (588) were hostile. A Disparagement humour is defined as humorous material in which a target is victimized, belittled, or suffers some misfortune or act of aggression (Zillrnam, 1983). Sexist or racist jokes exemplify this type of humour (Hobden & Olson, 1994). relation to g- Ie.g., women), or else in relation to individuals who are of groups (Olson, Maio & Hobden, in press; Zillmam et al, 1974). Ridicule is generally perceived as being more persona1 in nature (Wilson, 1979). For the purposes of the current research, therefore, ridicule refers to derisive joking directed at an VI-, concerning some aspect of his or her behaviour or appearance. Typically, disparagement humour examines level of amusement resulting from various manipulations of the target and/or protagonist of the humour (e.g., Zillmann, 1983) . For example, Zillmam et al. (1974) found that cartoons depicting mild assaults against political candidates were rated as more amusing by those who opposed the candidates than by those who supported them. A study by Zillmann and Bryant (1980) demonstrated that participants exhibited more amusement when they observed a female measures, the target stereotypic attributes, these groups, the latencies of these judgments, and their interpretation of ambiguous behaviors by rnembera of the target groups. Results indicated that exposure to disparaging humour directed at specific to affect observers. The authors this experiment enjoy relatively high status in our society. It may be the case that stereotypes of lower status, disadvantaged groups will be more affected by disparagement humour. A similar experirnent (Maio, Oison, & Bush, in press) had participants reciE (rather than sirnply humour that disparaged then measuring stereotypes and towards Newfoundlanders. Those who had than did those who recited the non- disparaging humour (see also Hobden Olson, 1994) . The authors may have watching a mode1 ridiculed was significantly more effecti~~e at inhibiting the discouraged behavior than was either of the other means of correction. These findings did not occur with 4-year olds. The authors hypothesized that "6-year olds are apparently sufficiently socialized to recognize and appreciate the punishing power of derisive laughter. in contrast, 4-year olds ... may lack the experience to recognize derision for what it isfl (Bryant et al., 1983, p. 252). A similar study by Bryant, Brown, and Parks university students as participants. Al1 class. Included motivating strategies: ridicule, gentle students received ridiculed students complete the course readings. Those in the insult condition received essentially the same information, but it was not "dressed up" in jokework. The gentle reminder was a written measure was a surprise during the next class. Only the ridicule condition produced a significant increase in test scores. ~inally, puts people this situation "It is no wonder therefore that men take hainously to laughed at triurnphed overra (Hobbes, l65l/l968, p. 103 ) . Being laughed at often isolates the target of ridicule. The audience derives pleasure £rom the source discomfort, and the "joint may boost rnutual attraction and further isolate the butt from the rest of the groupu (Wilson, 1979, p.204) . These the possibility authors themselves question its usefulness in the "Up to this point, type of It noted that numerous have emphasized ..." (Bryant et al., 1983, p.253). The present stxdies aim to clarify these other aspects might bel and the conditions under which they 1977) and Wilson (1977) observed that participants Yrequencly cannot report by the can they "correctly identify the stimuli that produced responsetl (p. 233). Thus, these effects are expected to be non-conscious. 3 designed to test the inhibition is characterized reluctance to measures used 1 to reflect the hypothesized effects were conformity, fear of failure, and creativity. tv. Several theorists have proposed that one of the social Eunctiona of ridicule is to castigate nonconformity (Martineau, 1972 ; Wilson, 1979) . Ridicule is often used as a social punishment against group rnembers who fail to conform to social noms (Wilson, 1979) . It that one observing ridicule of others would be increased confonnity. The observer, aware of the possibility of being therefore, behave in such a way as to minimize the possibility of failure. Research has show that those people who are success- oriented tend to choose a moderate level of challenge the opportunity (Sorrentino et al. , 1992) . Those who are failure-threatened typically choose either low levels of challenge or very high ones. Very tasks are unlikely to produce failure, and very difficult tasks can Atkinson and whether failure-threatened people than non-failure-threatened people. Resuits indicated that those participants who were failure-threatened were significantly more likely to employ either a self-handicapping (i.e., giving themselves an excuse for failure, see Berglas & (standing close strategy than were the non- failure-threatened participants, who were more likely to opt for moderate levela of risk. A ring toss task was used in the first experiment to of failure. instructed to throw 10 rings for that object as period. qeIf -R&ct& . . they can think of within a specified time A secondary purpose of this experiment disinhibiting effect ridicules others makes the observer more aware of the possibility of ridicule by others, self-deprecating humour might make the observer less about how is perceived by othcrs. Observing someone make light of his or her personal shortcomings may encourage us to lighten up about our own. This could result in decreased conformity increased creativity. Social modeling could account these different effects. Other-ridiculing humour involves (the joke-teller) "served up" for the amusement of others. The protagonist is clearly dominant, and the audience is laughing with him/her. other hand, being laughed at, which is a punishing stimulus. Observers may feel sympathy for the target, but they would not likely want to be in a similar situation, and their behaviour should reflect this. Experiment 1 In the first experiment, directional humour. Participants these conditions. They then the dependent measures. Method Participants were 61 undergraduate psychology participants were 35 were fernale. becauae their first language was not English (6), or because they did not follow the instructions (1). . . ermntal co- - . e. The humorous videotape watched person. One male comedian told a series of jokes about a person referred to as "this guy 1 known. The jokes were directed at this unseen personls physical appearance (e.g., "His acne was so teenager, we used to cal1 him 'pizza fats'"), his lack of romantic success (e.g., "He tried to join a lonely hearts club, but general dependent variables so that the effects of the other conditions could be ascertained. For example, it was necessary to have a control group to know whether any differences between the other-ridiculing and the self-deprecating conditions reflected the latter's disinhibiting effect, or merely the lack of an inhibiting effect. Conversely, it was possible that the self- deprecating condition also have an inhibiting effect, althougb less so than the other-ridiculing condition. The control group provided a context for assessing the experimental groups' pen on These two ratings were the same for half of the cartoons (e.g., both ratings were "2" on a 7-point scale), and were different by 1 scale point for the other half (e.g., ratings of "5" and "6"). Respondents were informed that these ratings were £rom previous participants in the same condition. This measure was scored in two ways: (1) how many confomed (gave the same rating as at least one of the bogus ratings) and (2) by sumrning the absolute differences between each respondentts In addition to the measure used by Atkinson and Litwin (1960), which calculated scores using al1 measure using tkow participant. It expected initial approach later factors such as success or failure on earlier throws. A separate grand mean was calculated for toss distances for al1 subjects across al1 . . ~vru. The scoring for the Multiple Uses Task (Torrance, 1962) is based on fluency (the number of uses generated) and divergence of ideas (e .g brick). Divergent thinking involves breaking out of typical thinking generating unconventional ideas. Procedure Each participant was run individually by a fernale experimenter. A cover story about the purpose devised to allay suspicions. Participants were told that the experiment was exploring the relationship between hand/eye coordination and humour appreciation. In the first part of the experiment, participants viewed an recorded by the experimenter for the purpose of supplemental final stage purpose of this task was supposedly test how (e.g., humour preferences. Participants three minutes many different and unusual uses for a brick as they could. Participants were then and debriefed. al1 materials used in Experiment 1. Results - A 3x2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested whether three humourous videotapes considered to equally funny by participants in al1 three conditions, and by men and women. Participants rated scale from 1 (not at al1 fumy) to 7 (extremely funny) . As expected, there were no significant differences in the mean ratings of the other-ridiculing (2.711, the self- deprecating (2.71), the contxol (3.21) videotapes, E c 1. Men's (3.08) and women's (2.71) ratings were not significantly different. ûverall, the humour was rated 2-87 although the pattern of means was in the direction (less di£ f erence from tfprevious ratingsl1 in the other- ridiculing condition) . When confonnity was scored as the number the participants "previous ratings", a significant planned contrast was found: the mean conformity rating in the other-ridiculing condition (M 1.24) was significantly higher than combined self-deprecating (M = 0.86) and control (M = 0.90) groups (combinedM = 0.881, f(60) = 1.71, Q c .O5 (one-tailed) . of FW This variable was also in two ways. interest participant's deviation mt tons. This score is determined by calculating the absolute difference between the participant's the first mean average distance al1 participants in al1 the first & Litwin, 1960). The grand mean was 7.16 feet from the peg, on a grid of 15 feet. This indicates that, overall, participants chose approxirnately the midway point on the grid. other ridiculing (M = 7.781, self-deprecating (M = 6.96), control (M = 7.461, E(2,SS) c 1. This indicates that throwers in the other-ridiculing condition stood closer farther away from the peg than those in other groups. As reported, there was significant gender measure, with men tending to £rom the peg than women . For exploratory purposes, participantst raw distance scores were recoded, labeling as "self-handicappers" those participants (in any condition) who stood at least one standard deviation (2.2 ft) further from the peg than the grand mean (7.4 ft), and labeling as Mnon-challengersu those (in any condition) who stood at least one standard deviation closer to the peg than the mean. Results of a chi-square analysis of the frequencies of these categories (see Table 1) showed that men were significantly more likely than women to be self-handicappers, while women were more likely to be in the non-challenger group, Q c.002. This analysis did not meet standard criterion at least 5 in each cell, however. Another labeling as those participants who stood 1 foot farther £rom or closer to the peg than the grand mean. This analysis (see Table 2) met the criterion of expected values and was also significant, Q c .OOOI. Creat~vitv . . Analysis of the multiple uses task involved scoring each use for originality/divergence on a scale of 1 to 5, and summing these values to produce creativity score Overall creativity scores in other- ridiculing group (M = 22.90) did differ significantly from those in the self-deprecating (M or control (M = 26.05) groups. Another analysis summed the non-building uses generated by each participant. Again, the mean scores of those in the other-ridiculing condition (M = 7.20) were not significantly different from those in the self- deprecating (M = 7.23) or control (M = 7.15) Creativity appears observed. Pisw-ion The results of this experirnent provided encouraging initial support for the prirnary hypotheais. inhibiting effects the conformity measures. inhibition, however, participants' creativity, as measured by the multiple uses task. We believe that ridiculed increases observers' awareness (although not necessarily their conscibus consequences of their Presumably, this increased awareness manifests as conformity because that cause thus making them a potential target of ridicule. This increased salience of failure might increase one or both of . . the perceived p&&7h,u of failure and/or the perceived tive c-ceq of that failure (e.g., that it might be laughed greater fear Self-deprecating humour did observers in these ways, nor disinhibiting effect compared contra1 that gently successful at producing disinhibition in observera. The self-deprecating humour used in this experiment was self-ridiculing in nature, so as to parallel the other-ridiculing condition. Only one of the two conformity analyses yielded other people present in situations of real-life ridicule, who may serve as a laughing audience. These other elements probably enhance the effects results this experiment indicated even when was no overt likelihood of the observer being ridiculed or laughed at. This fact suggests that the effects would extend ta televised ridicule, which is likely the most comrnon source of exposure to ridicule for moat people. Research suggests that hostile humour is extremely common on prime television (Cantor, 1977) . particularly funny. Overall, the humour was rated as 2.87 on a scale ranging from 1 (not at al1 funny) to 7 (extremely funny). This lack of amusement rnay have been due to overly high expectations of humorousness due to Experiment 1's ostensible focus on humour appreciation. This focus on humour also limited type of ridicule self- ridicule conditions led to the exaggerated quality the ridicule as as the focus of it. than funny without violating participants1 expectations of humorousness. Conformity waa one of the predicted behavioral responsea to observing ridicule of others. The rneasure in Experiment 2 to the experiment, except that more public. noms of ridicule, then it should be more likely occur in situations where one's behavior is visible to Participants were asked assess the stimulus videotape on a number of dimensions. They were informed that previous respondents had already rated the tapes on the same sheet. These bogus flpreviousw asseasments, which exhibited the word &J tiou . . than those who had been primed with m. A series of experirnents Baldwin and Sinclair (1996) speed of apcppta- and piw- for low These results were hypothesized to be due to a chronically-accessible scherna, succcess and acceptance and rejection, respectively (Baldwin & Sinclair, p.13). A lexical decision task was used in Study 2. If observing ridicule of others does, in fact, increase the salience or accesaibility of possible ridicule and rejection, then this increased salience should be demonstrable by quicker recognition of words associated with rejection. This experirnent employed a design similar to that of Baldwin and Sinclair, except that instead of priming or failure contexta, various ridiculing conditions served In Baldwin only low self-esteem individuals were differentially affected by the primes- because first language English (2) or because they did not follow instructions (2). There were slightly different sample sizes for some of the rneasures aue to data that were dropped or missing. For exarnple, the ring toss data for seven participants were dropped because they indicated during read about already participated rneasure (1) were aware tossing rings from theml. They appeared measures, the rest their data. Word recognition data because the experirnent began two days before the lexical decision task equipment was fully operational. conditions . . - . . S. The videotape observed by the participants in this condition showed three students (two males and a female) working on a task: changing a flat tire Prior to running Experiment 2, the author was interviewed about Experiment 1 by a media liason person from the University. A story about Experiment 1 campus newspaper just after Experiment 2 began. The only thing that those first study should stand grid when completing the ring tosa task. -. Respondents were asked to rate the instructional videotape on 4 different dimensions: clarity, of the explicitness, and overall value. Participants these fifth space a ratings wall. The first four spaces, out of 10, were already filled each dimension, bogus ratings theae given by two of the four "previoua participantsw. The dimension of clarity, for example, had two bogus ratings of 1 on a scale of 1 to 7 and two ratings of 2. Conformity was assessed by measuring how closely participantsn responses matched the previous four. As in Experiment 1, two ways: many times, out of four, each respondent exactly conformed to one of the bogus ratings (conformity was defined as rnatching either of the previous ratings) and (2) by summing across the ratings respondentls and the with either words. Acceptance-oriented words included in this task to ascertain whether it is rejection that is more salient, or whether bath positive and negative salient to the observer of ridicule. . . -. as in 1, task (Torrance, paperclip instead however. Scoring fluency (the number of ideas generated) and divergence (the unusualness) of ideae. Procedure Each participant was run individually by a female experimenter. Participants were infonned that the experiment was examining the effect that different instructional styles have on mernory retention for the material. They learned that they would be watching one of aeveral educational videotapes, each teaching the same scenario, but with a different "instructional styleN. Participants were randomly three humour the consent fonn, and then completed Rosenberg's self-esteem scale, measuring general feelings of self-worth. Participants then watched an 8-minute videotape demonstrating how to change a flat tire on a bicycle. After the video, each to continue. The purpose of these tasks, supposedly, was to determine the role that hand/eye coordination played in speed of word recognition. Participants were asked to perform a ring toss task and a word recognition task. The order of these tasks was counterbalanced in case the effects over time. taken to another room. As in Experiment 1. they were handed 10 rope rings and were asked to stand wherever they felt most comfortable to shoot from. They were told that they could stay in one spot to shoot, or could move any shot, wished. Each "We want to see how good you are at this." Again. the principal variable of interest participant stood decision in another cornputer terminal. Each participant was complete the task and then sat at the terminal, where explicit were displayed To familiarize the lexical decision task, they first completed 10 practice trials which they letter string and asked to decide if it was a word or nonword. After the practice trials. participants controi (M = 1.971, E(2,95) = 12.827, Q c .001. ~ot surprisingly, post hoc analyses indicated that participants in the control (no humour) condition found the instructional videotapes less funny than did those in self-deprecating condition; L(95) = 2.59, Q .02. No other pairwise post hoc comparisons were significant. Men (M 2.70) and (M = 2.77) found videotapes equally humorous, E(1,95) c 1, na- An analysis of results of the memory significant differences. other-ridiculing (M = 5.94), the self-deprecating (M = 5.931, and the control (M = 5.86) conditions did equally well on the 7-item questionriaire, E(2,93) 1, u. This indicatea that any differing did not participants' attentiveness to the videotapes. . Results of the 3x2 (condition by sex) MOVA'S for each of the dependent measures Men had conformity scores than women on one of these measurea, a finding which will be discussed later. Also, the ring toss measure al1 10 throws, a finding which will be raised in the discussion section. Table 3 Condition Dependent Measure Other-Ridiculing Self-Deprecating Control Conf ormi ty Accept/Reject Study l* Study 2* Compromise Study 1 Study 2 Fear of Failure First Toss Study i* Çtudy 2* Al1 Throws Study l* Study 2 Creativity Overall Score Study 1 22.90 Study 2 25.30 Number of Uses Study 1 7.20 Study 2 8.55 * Plamed cornparisons were significant, Q .O5 condition (M = 2.26 ft) were higher than those in the self - deprecating (M = 1.60 ft) and control (M conditions (combined M = 1.741, L(96) = 1.79, Q c .Os (one- tailed) . A second analysis calculated deviation score al1 throws, using mean of 6.49 ft. for this analysis. There was a significant sex di£ ference, with men (M = 2.46 ftl having larger than women (M = 1.52 ft), E(1,87) = 15.18, Q c .00L Resuits of the planned comparisona significant, although separate analyse8 each sex wornen's mean ridicule condition (M = 1.84 ft) than in the self- deprecating (M and control (M = 1.21 ft) conditions cornbined (M = 1.35 ft), f;(67)= 1.86, Q -05 (one-tailed) . Men's means did not differ significantly: other-ridiculing (M = 2.30 ft), self-deprecating (M = 2.67 ft) , and control (M = 2.43 ft) . Furthemore, when analyses were perf onned using both w-ded the lexical decision task (the two tasks were counterbalanced), pïa~ed comparisona revealed significant overall differences (across al1 throws) between Table 4 ated. ce-rebted. ad Neiitral Tucret Wordg Condition Rej ect ion Acceptance Neutra1 Other-Ridiculing -60 O 57 -56 Self-Deprecating .63 .59 .56 Control -63 .S9 .S6 indicate that more quickly other-ridiculing condition than in the L(291 = 2.00, Q c .O5 significant differences due the low group. Interestingly, the means for al co-t ions group were almost identical to the mean of the ridicule condition for high self esteem participants. It appears that the chronlc participants to recognize rejection-related high self-esteem participants Separate analyses were also performed on the acceptance-related and neutral words. Planned contrasts of the other-ridicule means and those of the other groups combined recognition time participants were found only for rejection- related words. iviu. As in Experiment 1, analyses of the multiple uses involved scoring each use on a scale from 1 to 5, and summing these values to produce participant. This analysiç significant differences (M = 25.30), self-deprecating (M = 24-97], control (M = 26.36). Another analysis, measuring the number ûf divergent uses (e. g. , not holding paper together) , also found significant differences between (M = 8.55), self-deprecating (M = 8.221, and control (M = 8.44) conditions, E(2,95) 1, m. attempted to replicate the findings using substantive dependent quite and the ridicule appeared screen. Participants unawxe of the focus the experiment, were part "instructional style" dependent measures conformity, fear of failure, and creativity measures that Experiment 1. Additionally, a lexical employed, primarlly to aasess whether were assessed in decision task was is an ideal stimulus for conformity measures because it is ambiguous. This arnbiguity means that there really are no right or wrong responses; humour judgments are luin the eye of the beholderw. It is safe to conform. In Experiment conformity instructional videotape number of dimensions (e.g., clarity) . The normative judgments were inappropriate Ifprevioust1 ratinga for these dimensions. Although these dimensions were ambiguous to some degree, they were still more objective than the humour stimulii. The bogus ratings appeared to be -. that participants from conforming because to do so would make them appear foolish. Therefore, it is possible that the increased publicness decreased ambiguity failure in this experiment, as in Experiment 1. A sex difference found in Experiment 2 (but not in Experiment 1) was that men's deviations scores than those of women (in the measure using al1 10 throws) . That is, across conditions, men1a distances deviated from the grand mean more than those of women. A explanation for (n = 74) greatly outnurnbered men (n = to potential threat (as in the other-ridiculing condition). Although the mechanism responsible for the effects is still unclear, the effects threatened individuals (see Atkinçc~ & Litwin, i960), it seemed reasonable those who situational factors. The data hypatheais, overall, felt would puer measure of the other-ridiculing condition stood either closer to, or farther away from the mean than those deprecating and control combined. The al1 in the in the separate women. However, fi participants when only data from those ring toss tasks the lexical decision were used. It is possible that the type of humour used may have affected how each sex responded to the stimulus. In the first study, a male comedian told ridiculing jokes comedian, himself, generally more applicable to men than women (e.g., "He has an alcohol problem: two hands. one mouthll). In the second study, moet of the ridicule was creative ideas as opposed to qenerating them. In these experiments, participants many unusual uses for object (a brick or a paperclip) as they could. There little risk of appearing foolish. If, instead, they were asked to contribute ideas in a group setting, perhaps those would be more volunteer highly divergent or unusual ideas. Meta-analyses were performed on the since both experiments employed very similar, or identical, dependent measures. For conformity, not surprisingly, the accept/reject rneasure remained significant in the meta- analysis (Z = 2.63, Q = .0043), were non-significant significant when cornbined in the meta-analysis; z = 1.65, Q = ,0495. Similarly, the fear of failure measure that used the first toss remained significant in the meta-analysis (Z = 2.51, Q = .006), measure using al1 ten throws was significant only) was significant in the meta-analysis; z = 2.35, Q = -0094. Effect sizes and fear high schools) . Very likely, it is the threat of punishment (e.g., any potential involving high school common students gave when asked their principal fears & is that ridicule may negative thing. described in introduction demonstrated is often used to castigate nonconformity to social noms Unfortunately, the ridicule ch il^ why lie or she does not want Wear a bicycle helmet and it is likely that fear of ridicule pla,ys a role. Among adolescents particularly, ridicule is often resenred for those who act in a responsible manner. The most vociferous ridiculers tend to be those who have some adjustment problems. "More than two thirds of bullies corne from broken homes, lack adequate supervision at home, "Laughing without offence, must be at absurdities and infirmities abstracted from persons, and when al1 the Company may laugh together: For laughing to ones self putteth al1 the rest in jealousie, and examination of themselves." (Hobbes, 1651/1968, pp.101-103). At its best, involves laughing at "absurdities and infirmitiesn that plague & of us, and by laughing at these us. This form of self-deprecating humour may indeed have disinhibiting the observer. experimental to adequately The Social EnvironrnenL the influence of ridicule may psychological research. example, attitude research surprisingly "little emphasis on structure of the considerable ernphasis structure and varietyM (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; p. 682). Having particular attitudes and expressing them publicly different things, these are not differentiated in social psychological research. Although it is social environment al1 the Appendix A Al1 Materials Included in Experiment 1. Humour Appteczatlon and HandXye Coordinat~on Consent to Partici~ate in Research Dr. James H. Olson and Leslie Jants of the Department of Psychology request your partzcipation LA a study. In this studg, you uil be asked to uatch a LO minute videotape whrch you vil1 ba asked to rata. After campleting your ratinq of the tapa, you vil1 ba askad to rate four cartooa strips. A short uses- of-objecta task vil1 follow. The final portioa of this experiment will consist of a ring tosr tark, to asrars hand/eyo coordination. The entira seasion will take approximateLy 50 minutes to complete, and yau will racoivo ona credit for participating. this study involve you in any known risks, and il1 data gathared in the study vil1 ba confidential and for research purposas only. If you have anp questions during the session, feeL frea to ask tha exparimonter. As is the practica of the Department, you are free to withdraw from the study at any tima for any reason uithout loss of credit. (date) (signature of participant) ?lease sri=@ 5ovn as 3ar.y interescizg and :r.usuai uses for =ke abject on your lesk as pcssfble. 'Lou have 3 ainutes to conpiete this task. Appendix B Al1 Materiais Included in Experiment Two Znstructional styLe and Xemcry a3 CONSENT FOR?? Yr. Sames M. Oison and Lesiie Janes of the Deparraent ?sycholoqy request your participation in a study . tn this study, you will be asked to vatch an 8-minuta instructional videotape. vil1 then complet. a short questionnaira assessing your nemory of the material. You vil1 alro be askrd to rate the videotape on a numbrr of dimensions, In addition, you may ba asked to participate in othar tasks to fulfil your tirna raquiramant. Thi antira session wàll take approximatoly one hou and you will recaiva one credit for particfpating- participation in this study willnot involva you in any knovn risks, and al1 data gatherd in the study vil1 ba confidantial and for raraarch puxposor only. If you have any puastions during the sassion, fee1 fria to ask th0 axparhanter. As is the practica of th. Dopartlaent, you ara ira* to vithdrav from the study at any tim for any raaron vithout loss of credit. (data) (dgnatura of participant) Xernorï Questionnaire L. Seven steps rere described Cor the task. True - taise 2. Step # 4 described hov ta Locata the hole in the innertube. Trua Falsa 3. In tha vidaotapa, tha rapairperson rafillod th tira aftu reattachinq it to tha bicyela. Tnie Falsa 4. Th. innartuba ir removad tram the rim the holœ ir locatad. Trua Falsa S. The tire can easily ho detachoâ froa tâa rest of thr bicycla vithout tools. Trua Palsa 6. Tha hola ir located by submarging tha innertuba in water. Truo Falra 7. Step # 2 describd hou to remove th0 imortube tram the tire. Trua False 8. Aftar vatching Uiir videotapa, you fael capabla of chanqing a flat tira on a bicycle. Tna Falra INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEOTAPE f 4 37 please rate how much you aiove4 this video on a scale of 1 to 7. (A rating of 1 indicates that you did not enjoy it at all, and a rating of 7 indicates that you enjoyed it very much) Participant # (1) 1 2 3 4 5 INSTRUCTIONAL VIDFOTAPE f Q . . please rate the wl~crtnesg of this video on a scale of 1 to 7. (A rating of 1 indicates that you did not find it explicit at all, and a rating of 7 indicates that you found it very explicit) Participant # (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ??esse vrite dam as zany iriterestizq 3r.d xusual uses for rke abject on your desk as ?cssibLe. ?ou kava 3 sinutes ta csnplece :bis task. YOU ~ava :use parciciprcmd Ln r0cL.l p.YchcLogrcal 0rpar~a.n~. :n do~np so, you zavm c3ntrrbut.d to out knowl.dq0 of buman bahav~at. Also, your rc:pac tan Ln pmychoLagrc81 carmatch Sh0uld b8 an .duc&t~onal expet ~ene m. Th~r :etter WALL 2opofully show uhy your p8ttic~p8tLon u4a valuabla. ?or oxraiplo, Ln thii orp.riaont, u. um aunlpulatlng tha cm of ridfcula that pattfcfpuiti obmam fn th. inmfnictio~& vtdaotapmm. 300. obrat90 ttdfcula of othora, momm obmam roll-eldiculor uid otharm obmom no sidiculm. Aftmr thta manipulatton, w rra obao-ing uhothor thmm L8 u\y dlffaranco Ln Lavala of conforiility, cta.tlvLtyr .nb LOU of C8iL- in tb tu- tidlculo tondttfonm. Wo thinh that aoatng othora ?idlculd -0 -1. 8wum tut thy might not rmach mtuidudr ot amuuica or bahAvt0~ Uld, th*t@lOrm, +bat thy mlght ba ttdlcuLaâ or ro)mt.d thaaolvam. Thum, p~Odi@t thAt thOw uho obaomm ethori balnq rtdteu1.d will k arom caiormi.a9, hia Cmatim. &nû wra &Frai4 oC fallura that tha othar -oup.. wh.riiomr fm 0- thim to occur bacaura rajoetîon bocamm ~bra 04mLLy wlad Cm) uhm ua obaamm ochata ridieuAoâ. Tharmlogm, thay mhould ~@).CtLOa-n14tOd -da -sa qulckfy th- th. 0th.~ Q~OU~O. fi thon taaulfa Lt i8 hpo*mt -aura thay Lnbtcata thrt ridieula of othmrr wy ha- .n LnhLbltlng mtfaet on obaorvera. Wa rrautm you tUc 811 your taagonaar Ln thia axg.tia#at uiLf k tzaatoâ ra conf idanttal. Your puticlpatioa Lm menymum. r)rrnlr you aqala Fot puttcipating tir thlm itudy, Ti yeu 8ra lntamitd ln Louabq sorm 8&ut thtr atudy, the rmmulta of thm atudy, or about ralatd topiea. pla.80 do nOt haa&tato to contaet atthar oC ua ln tho paychology dmnt. Alm. th0 rmimsmncmm Llatib balou may psovo to bo tntotmmtlnq it you w.nt to laun mom about th0 th.orottcal backqrounb to th~s atuby. GOQO LUCI US= Y0011 STUDfESl S Fncoraly, ayant. J., Iroua, O., 6 Qu-, S.L. (1901). nldicula a8 .n .ducatLonal corrmcz~~a. P ut 722-727. of & rfdlcul.6 modal. , 243-295. HoMan, K.L. 6 Olmn, J.H. (wt Diapuaq.rnt huiioc am 8 mourco og di8ronuieraiotivatmd attitude churq.. Burger, J. M. (1987). Desire for control and conformity to a perceived nom. -1 of Pwsonalitv and Social &.Y&Q~o~Y, s, 355-360. Campbell, J. D. & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of nom extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality Socjal Psvcholocq, 57, 457-468. Cantor, J. R. Tendentious humour in Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Itts a funnv na, humou. York: Pergamon Press. & Word, L. E. (1972). Why don't bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? Journallity and O~OW, 24,, social psychological analysis. u, 971 - 981. Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The ~svcholosy od attitudea. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious Strachey, Trans.). 1905) . Latane, B. & Darley, J. M. (1970). Social deterrninancs bystander intervention J. Macauley & L. BerkaWitz (Eds . ) , ALLxuisrn and heuna behavio~. Academlc Press: NY. Langevin, R. & Day, H. 1. (1972) . Physiological correlates of humor. In J. K. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds. ) , The psychology of hm (pp. 129-142) . New York: Academic Press. Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Bush, J. jokes that disparage teller's stereotypes. Journal of A~nlied Social Psvcholoav- Martineau, W. H. (1972). A mode1 of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds. ) , The gsycholoav of humor Academic Press. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psycholosj cal Review, U, 231-259. Olson, J. M., Maio, G. R., & Hobden, K. L. (in press). The (null) effects of exposure to disparagement humor on stereotypes and attitudes. &,unor: International Journal of Humor- Stocking, S. H., Sapolsky, B. S., & Zillmann, D. (1977). Sex discrimination in prime time humor. Journal oc Rroadcastina, 21, 447-457. . . Torrance, E. P. (1962) . Gud- creative tdent . Englewood Cfiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wicker, F.W., Barron, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980). Disparagement humor: Dispositions and resolutions. Journal of Personaiitv and Social Psychology, 2, 701-709. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward cornparison principles in social psychology. 9P, 245-271. Wilson, C. P. (1979). Joke3. . .'-pn, .. - . content. use and function. New York: Academic Press. Zillmann, D. (1983). Disparagement humor, In P. E. McGhee & 3. H. Goldstein (Edç. ) , Waok of humor research (pp. 85-108). New Ysrk: Springer-Verlag. Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Brutality of assault in political cartoons affecting humor appreciation. JO- of Research jn Personality, 1, 334- 345. Zillmann, D. & Cantor, J. R. (1976) . A disposition theory of humour and mirth. IR A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds . , humour and lauohter : Theorva rewarch and licatiom (pp. 93-115). London: Wiley. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) APPLIED IMAGE. lnc a 1653 East Main Street - ,--A Rochester. NY 14609 USA -- -- - - Phone: 71 6/42-0300 -- -- - - Fax: 71 6/288-5989 O 1993. Wied Image. Inc.. Ail Rights Reserved