Laughter American Scientist

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.880,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1...

FEATURE ARTICLE

Laughter
The study of laughter provides a novel approach to the mechanisms and evolution of vocal production, perception and social behavior
Robert Provine

This article originally appeared in the January-February 1996 issue of American Scientist. Consider the bizarre events of the 1962 outbreak of contagious laughter in angan!ika. "hat began as an isolated fit of laughter #and sometimes cr!ing$ in a grou% of 12& to 1'&!ear&old schoolgirls ra%idl! rose to e%idemic %ro%ortions. Contagious laughter %ro%agated from one individual to the ne(t) eventuall! infecting ad*acent communities. he e%idemic +as so severe that it re,uired the closing of schools. -t lasted for si( months. he angan!ikan laughter e%idemic is a dramatic e(am%le of the infectious %o+er of laughter&&something that man! of us ma! have e(%erienced in our o+n lives. .an! readers +ill be familiar +ith the laugh tracks of television situation comedies/attem%ts to stimulate contagious laughter in vie+ers/and the difficult! of e(tinguishing their o+n 0laugh *ags)0 fits of nearl! uncontrollable laughter. 1ave !ou ever been overcome b! a com%arable urge to chant 0hello&hello&hello20 Rather than dismissing contagious laughter as a behavioral curiosit!) +e should recognize it and other laugh&related %henomena as clues to broader and dee%er issues. Clearl!) laughter is a %o+erful and %ervasive %art of our lives/an im%ortant com%onent of that biobehavioral bedrock of our s%ecies kno+n as human nature. 3aughter4s significance has been recognized at various times and in various +a!s b! such scientific and %hiloso%hical dignitaries as Aristotle) 5ant) 6ar+in) 7ergson and 8reud. 9et aside from a general a%%reciation that laughter is good for us/0the best medicine0/and is someho+ associated +ith humor) +e kno+ little about laughter itself. .! a%%roach to understanding laughter is one that a visiting e(traterrestrial might take +ere it to encounter a grou% of laughing human beings. "hat +ould the visitor make of the large bi%edal animals emitting %aro(!sms of sound from a tooth! vent in their faces2 A reasonable a%%roach +ould be to describe the sim%lest and most obvious as%ects of the nois! behavior: its %h!sical characteristics) the rules that govern its e(%ression) characteristics of the animals emitting the sounds #such as gender$) the mechanism of sound %roduction) and +hether similar sounds are made b! related s%ecies. o ;arthlings this naturalistic a%%roach is kno+n as etholog!/a biologicall! oriented scientific disci%line devoted to understanding +hat animals do and ho+ and +h! the! do it. ;thologists treat behavior as an evolutionar! ada%tation. he s%ecies&+ide distribution of laughter and its stereot!%ical #and sim%le$ structure suggests that the behavior has strong genetic and neuro%h!siological bases/,ualities attractive to those +ho +ish to understand the mechanisms and natural histor! of behavior. 6uring the %ast eight !ears - have been observing human laughter in various natural habitats/sho%%ing malls) classrooms) side+alks) offices and cocktail %arties/+ith the investigative s%irit of our h!%othetical alien. <bserving ever!da! behavior in these settings has %rovided an o%%ortunit! to a%%reciate laughter as a social vocalization of the human animal. hese studies have %roduced some une(%ected insights into the %henomenon of human laughter/its social nature) the la+ful relationshi% bet+een laughter and s%eech) gender differences and the biological basis of contagion.

Laugh Structure
<ne of m! first goals +as to describe the sonic structure of human laughter. his %roved to be more difficult than - e(%ected. 3ike other s%ontaneous acts) laughter often disa%%ears +hen one attem%ts to observe it) es%eciall! in the laborator!. Some unconventional a%%roaches +ere called for. Although - could occasionall! elicit laughter from friends and colleagues during %la!ful conversations) - +as often forced to engage in shameless hamming #something that graduate school did not %re%are me for$. <ne of the most %roductive a%%roaches +as to encounter %eo%le in %ublic %laces and sim%l! ask them to laugh. he re,uest +as usuall! ans+ered +ith a burst of laughter. About half of the laughing sub*ects re%orted that the! could not laugh on command. -ndeed) +e have much less conscious control over laughter than over s%eech. -t is eas! to sa! 0ha&ha&ha)0 but difficult to laugh on cue. "e do not 0s%eak0 laughter. -n collaboration +ith an undergraduate assistant) 9vonne 9ong) - took the recordings to the Sound 3aborator! of the =ational >oo in "ashington) 6.C. 1ere the laughs +ere anal!zed +ith a sound s%ectrogra%h) a device that translates a sound into an image that reveals the changes in fre,uenc! and intensit! of the sound over time. ?iggles) shrieks and bell! laughs re%laced the laborator!4s usual sonic fare of indigo bunting songs and the calls of golden lion tamarins. 3aborator! +orkers gave us ,uizzical looks but %olitel! refrained from asking about the origins of the sounds. he sound s%ectra revealed the distinct signature of laughter. A laugh is characterized b! a series of short vo+el&like notes #s!llables$) each about @A milliseconds long) that are re%eated at regular intervals about 21B milliseconds a%art. A s%ecific vo+el sound does not define laughter) but similar vo+el sounds are t!%icall! used for the notes of a given laugh. 8or e(am%le) laughs have the structure of 0ha&ha&ha0 or 0ho&ho&ho)0 but not 0ha&ho&ha&ho.0 here are intrinsic constraints against %roducing such laughs. r! to simulate a 0ha&ho&ha&ho0 laugh/it should feel ,uite unnatural. "hen there are variations in the notes) the! most often involve the first or last note in a se,uence. hus) 0cha&ha&ha0 or 0ha&ha&ho0 laughs are %ossible variants. he e(%losivel! voiced blasts of a laugh have a strong harmonic structure) +ith each harmonic being a multi%le of a lo+ #fundamental$ fre,uenc!. he harmonic structure is revealed in a sound s%ectrogram b! the evenl! s%aced stacks of short horizontal lines in the s%ectrum) the lo+est of +hich is the fundamental fre,uenc!. ?iven their higher&%itched voices) it is not sur%rising that the laughter of females has a higher fundamental fre,uenc! #about AB2 hertz$ than male laughter #about 2@6 hertz$. "hether it is a dee% bell! laugh or a high&%itched titter) ho+ever) all human laughter is a variation of this basic form. -t is this structure that allo+s us to recognize laughter in s%ite of individual differences. he notes and internote intervals carr! most of the information that allo+s us to identif! a sound as laughter. -f the sounds bet+een laugh notes are edited out of a ta%e recording/leaving the notes se%arated b! intervals of silence/a laugh still sounds normal. he internote time interval carries information) but the internote e(%irator! sounds do not. -f the notes are removed from a recording and the ga%s bet+een intervals are closed) all that remains of laughter is a long) breath! sigh. he stereot!%ic structure of a laugh is) at least in %art) a result of the limitations of our vocal a%%aratus. -t is difficult to laugh +ith abnormall! long note durations) such as 0haaa&haaa&haaa)0 or abnormall! short durations #much less than @A milliseconds in length$. 3ike+ise) normal note durations +ith abnormall! long or short internote intervals do not occur. r! to %roduce a natural laugh +ith a long internote interval) such as 0ha////// ha//////ha.0 As +ith the natural rh!thms of +alking or running) there are onl! so man! +a!s to laugh.

1 of 4

10/02/2013 14:12

Laughter American Scientist

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.880,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1...

he structural sim%licit! of a laugh is also suggested b! its reversibilit!. A short segment of laughter/0ha&ha&ha0/%la!ed back+ard on a ta%e recorder still sounds rather like 0ha&ha&ha.0 -ndeed the sound s%ectrum of a laugh is similar +hether scanned from left to right or from right to left/a laugh note has a high degree of tem%oral s!mmetr!. 9et one as%ect of a laugh that is not s!mmetrical is its loudness. 3aughter is characterized b! a decrescendo in +hich the laugh notes that are late in a se,uence are usuall! lo+er in am%litude than earlier notes #%resumabl! because +e run out of air$. Recordings of laughter %la!ed back+ard %roduce a bizarre&sounding crescendo.

Chimpanzee Laughter
here is a common mis%erce%tion that laughter is e(clusive to human beings. 8rom at least the time of 6ar+in) ho+ever) it has been kno+n that chim%anzees and other great a%es %erform a laugh&like vocalization +hen tickled or during %la!. o %ursue the details of this %rimate laughter) - teamed u% +ith 5im 7ard) +ho is nurser! director and caregiver for !oung chim%anzees at the 9erkes Regional Primate Center in Atlanta. -t is a %leasure to be able to %la! +ith !oung chim%anzees in the %ursuit of one4s science. Chim%anzee (Pan troglodytes) laughter differs in man! +a!s from its human counter%art. he vo+el&like notes of human laughter are %erformed b! cho%%ing a single e(%iration) +hereas chim%anzee laughter is a breath! %anting vocalization that is %roduced during each brief e(%iration and ins%iration. Cnlike human laughter) the laughter of a chim%anzee lacks discrete) vo+el&like notes that have shar% leading and trailing edges on sound s%ectra. Chim%anzee laughter has the sound and cadence of a handsa+ cutting +ood. he sounds of chim%anzee and human laughter are sufficientl! different that +ithout vie+ing the characteristic 0%la! face0 and source of stimulation #such as %la! and tickle$) naive human beings ma! be unable to identif! the chim%anzee vocalization as laughter. 9ou can e(%erience the difference in %roduction bet+een the t+o forms of laughter b! %lacing a hand on !our abdomen and com%aring the abdominal %ulsations of chim%anzee&like %anting +ith the smoother act of s%eaking 0ha&ha&ha0 during a single e(%iration. Peo%le laugh as +e s%eak. -f chim%anzees laugh as the! s%eak) b! %roducing one laugh sound %er e(%iration and ins%iration) +e have identified an im%ortant and %reviousl! unrecognized constraint on the evolution of s%eech and language in chim%anzees and %resumabl! other great a%es. he close cou%ling of laughter to breathing in chim%anzees ma! be evidence of a more general limitation on these animals to s%eak. #-n contrast to the success of teaching hundreds of signs to chim%anzees) efforts to teach them to s%eak ;nglish have %roduced meager results.$ -ndeed) the inabilit! to modulate e(%irator! airflo+ ma! be at least as limiting to s%eech as the structure of the vocal tracts of nonhuman %rimates. 7reath!) %anting laughter is %robabl! the %rimal form that dates back to the common ancestor of all great a%es and %eo%le. 1uman beings evolved their characteristic laughter after branching from an ancestor in common +ith chim%anzees #estimated to be around si( million !ears ago) according to 6=A h!bridization data$. -t is note+orth! that chim%anzee laughter occurs almost e(clusivel! during %h!sical contact) or during the threat of such contact) during chasing games) +restling or tickling. # he individual being chased laughs the most.$ Although %eo%le laugh +hen tickled) most adult human laughter occurs during conversation) t!%icall! in the absence of %h!sical contact.

Social and Linguistic Context

3aughter is a decidedl! social signal) not an egocentric e(%ression of emotion. -n the absence of stimulating media #television) radio or books$) %eo%le are about DB times more likel! to laugh +hen the! are in a social situation than +hen the! are alone. -ndeed %eo%le are more likel! to smile or talk to themselves than the! are to laugh +hen the! are alone. Aside from the obvious im%lication that socialit! can enhance laughter and %erha%s one4s mood) these observations indicate that laughter has a social function. "hat can +e sa! about laughter as communication2 -n an attem%t to gather some clues) m! colleagues and - have collected observations on 1)2BB instances of naturall! occurring human laughter. hree undergraduate assistants #3isa ?reisman) ina Run!an) .ichelle 7o+ers$ and - +andered various %ublic gathering %laces +here +e eavesdro%%ed on grou%s of laughing %eo%le. "e carefull! took note of the %rinci%als engaged in the behavior/the gender of the s%eaker and the audience) +hether the s%eaker or the audience laughed and +hat +as said immediatel! before the laughter. Contrar! to our e(%ectations +e found that most conversational laughter is not a res%onse to structured attem%ts at humor) such as *okes or stories. 3ess than 2B %ercent of the laughter in our sam%le +as a res%onse to an!thing resembling a formal effort at humor. .ost of the laughter seemed to follo+ rather banal remarks) such as 03ook) it4s Andre)0 0Are !ou sure20 and 0-t +as nice meeting !ou too.0 ;ven our 0greatest hits)0 the funniest of the 1)2BB %re&laugh comments +ere not necessaril! ho+lers: 09ou don4t have to drink) *ust bu! us drinks)0 0She4s got a se( disorder/she doesn4t like se()0 and 06o !ou date +ithin !our s%ecies20 .utual %la!fulness) in&grou% feeling and %ositive emotional tone/not comed!/mark the social settings of most naturall! occurring laughter. Research that focuses onl! on the res%onse of an audience to *okes #a common laborator! scenario$ targets onl! a small subset of laughter. <ne of the ke! features of natural laughter is its %lacement in s%eech. 3aughter is not randoml! scattered throughout the s%eech stream. he s%eaker and the audience seldom interru%t the %hrase structure of s%eech +ith laughter. -n our sam%le of 1)2BB laughs there +ere onl! eight interru%tions of s%eech b! laughter) all of them b! the s%eaker. hus a s%eaker ma! sa! 09ou are going +here2... ha&ha)0 but rarel! 09ou are going... ha&ha... +here20 he occurrence of laughter during %auses at the end of %hrases suggests that a la+ful and %robabl! neurologicall! based %rocess governs the %lacement of laughter in s%eech/a %rocess in +hich s%eech has %riorit! access to the single vocalization channel. he strong and orderl! relationshi% bet+een laughter and s%eech is akin to %unctuation in +ritten communication #and is called the punctuation effect$. <ur field stud! revealed other clues about laughter in human communication. A counterintuitive finding +as that the average s%eaker laughs about E6 %ercent more often than the audience. his finding reveals the limits of anal!ses that re%ort onl! audience behavior/the t!%ical a%%roach of humor research/and neglect the social nature of the laughing relationshi%. he gender of the %rinci%als involved %la!s a large role in determining the amount of s%eaker laughter. "hether the! are s%eakers or audiences #in mi(ed&se( grou%s$) females laugh more often than males. 8emale s%eakers laugh 12@ %ercent more than their male audience. -n contrast) male s%eakers laugh about @ %ercent less than their female audience. =either males nor females laugh as much to female s%eakers as the! do to male s%eakers. # he lot of the female comedian is not an eas! one/+hether her audience is male or female.$ hese gender differences in the %attern of laughter are at least as strong as those noted for s%eech b! the linguist 6eborah annen of ?eorgeto+n Cniversit!. he limited cross&cultural evidence suggests that males are the leading humor %roducers and that females are the leading laughers. hese differences are alread! %resent b! the time that *oking first a%%ears around si( !ears of age. "hat message is being conve!ed b! a laughing s%eaker or a laughing audience2 -n some res%ects laughter ma! be a signal of dominanceFsubmission or acce%tanceFre*ection. Consider the distinction bet+een laughing with and laughing at someone. Galuable insights about laughter4s social function +ill come from studies of laughter in grou%s of %eo%le +ho differ in social rank and gender. A res%onse of laughter b! the audience ma! affirm or negate the s%irit of the s%eaker4s message. 0Polite0 laughter) for e(am%le) ma! be a forced effort on the %art of the audience to signal their accord +ith the s%eaker) ,uite the o%%osite of the indignant 0haH0 A s%eaker) in other cases) ma! buffer an aggressive comment +ith laughter or deliver a remark using 0laugh&s%eak)0 a consciousl! controlled h!brid of laughter and s%eech. alk&sho+ hosts) +ho are e(%erts at sha%ing the course of a conversation) commonl! use laugh&s%eak. -n this sense laughter ma! modif! the behavior of others b! sha%ing the emotional tone of a conversation.

2 of 4

10/02/2013 14:12

Laughter American Scientist

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.880,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1...

Laugh Tracks and Contagion

he use of laughter to evoke laughter or a %ositive mood is familiar to vie+ers of situation comed! sho+s on television. 03augh tracks0 #dubbed&in sounds of laughter$ have accom%anied most 0sitcoms0 since @:BB %.m. #;astern Standard ime$ on Se%tember 9) 19AB. <n that evening the Han !c"une #how/a comed! about 0a likeable blunderer) a devilish fello+ +ho tries to cut corners onl! to find himself the sucker0/first used a laugh track to com%ensate for the absence of a live audience. 6es%ite the fact that the sho+ +as short&lived) the television industr! discovered the %o+er of laughter to evoke audience laughter. he recording industr! recognized the seductive %o+er of laughter shortl! after "orld "ar - +ith the distribution of the $%eh &augh 'ecord) +hich consisted of trum%et %la!ing that +as intermittentl! interru%ted b! laughter. -t remains one of the most successful novelt! records of all time. Ackno+ledging the commercial %otential of this novelt! market) 3ouis Armstrong) Sidne! 7echet) "ood! 1erman and S%ike Iones all attem%ted to cash in +ith laugh records of their o+n. -n the intervening !ears social scientists have confirmed that laugh tracks do indeed increase audience laughter and the audience4s rating of the humorousness of the comed! material. 1o+ever) scientists did not consider that) in the absence of a *oke or a remark) laughter b! itself can evoke laughter. his is a ke! element in the %ro%agation of contagious laughter. - recentl! %erformed some investigations of the %henomenon of contagious laughter in an undergraduate %s!cholog! classroom. he stimulus +as a 0laugh bo(0/a small batter!&o%erated record %la!er from a novelt! store/that emitted an 1'&second s%an of laughter. he 0canned0 laughter +as %la!ed 1B times) +ith the beginning of each segment se%arated b! a one&minute interval. <n the first stimulus nearl! half of the students re%orted that the! res%onded +ith laughter themselves. #.ore than 9B %ercent re%orted smiling on the first stimulus.$ 1o+ever) the effectiveness of the stimulus declined +ith each re%etition until onl! D of the 12' students laughed on the tenth trial. 7! that %oint about @A %ercent of the students rated the laugh stimulus as 0obno(ious.0 he negative effect of the re%eated stimulus seems to go be!ond the res%onse e(%ected from the recurrent e(%osure to a generic auditor! stimulus) such as 01ello) m! name is ?eorge.0 he reaction ma! reflect the dee% biological significance of laughter) +hich in this case ma! be %erceived as *eering or ridicule. #Colleagues +hose offices ad*oin m! o+n can attest to the aversiveness of %eriodic canned laughter. Personall!) - find m!self +incing ever! time one of the laugh bo(es in m! office is accidentl! activated.$ Certainl! it is %leasurable to laugh at or +ith %eo%le) but it is ,uite un%leasant to be laughed at) or to be the reci%ient of a scornful 0ha.0 Court fools and %residential aides learn earl! in their careers that it is safer to laugh +ith the boss than at him or her. he efficac! of laughter alone to elicit laughter raises the intriguing %ossibilit! that human beings have auditor! 0feature detectors0/neural circuits that res%ond e(clusivel! to this s%ecies&t!%ical vocalization. -n turn) the feature detector triggers the neural circuits that generate the stereot!%ed action %attern of laughter. his mechanism) involving a laugh detector that drives a laugh generator) ma! be the foundation of contagious laughter. #Contagious !a+ning a%%ears to involve a similar %rocess in the visual domain.$ hose +ho attem%t to e(%lain a+a! their laugh&evoked #contagious$ laughter as nothing more than a res%onse to a 0funn!0 stimulus are sa!ing that the! laughed in res%onse to a stimulus that made them laugh) a circular argument. he structural sim%licit! and s%ecies&t!%ical character of laughter makes it a %rime candidate for the evolution of such a laugh detection and releasing %rocess. 8uture %s!cho%h!sical studies must determine +hich of laughter4s %arameters/note structure) note duration) internote interval and am%litude d!namics/are necessar! for the %erce%tion of laughter and the activation of the h!%othetical laugh detector or releasing mechanism. Similar detectors ma! have evolved for universal %honemic features of s%eech but the variabilit! and com%le(it! of language and the absence of a contagious res%onse to assa! the activation of the detectors +ill make their discover! more difficult.

Future Directions
=o+ that the critical dimensions of laughter as a social stimulus and motor act have been identified) +e can %ursue a variet! of %romising issues. Consider 0%athological laughter)0 a fre,uent and often vaguel! described medical s!m%tom. 6amage to a +ide variet! of brain regions %roduces abnormal laughter) a result consistent +ith the diverse emotional) res%irator!) motor) cognitive and communicative as%ects of the act. he most common cases of %athological laughter are found in %seudobulbar %als!) gelastic e%ile%s! and %s!chiatric illness. 1o+ever) %athological laughter has also been re%orted in multi%le sclerosis) am!otro%hic lateral sclerosis #3ou ?ehrig4s disease$) and cases of tumors and lesions #es%eciall! in the limbic s!stem and the brain stem$. Particularl! m!stif!ing to both %atient and clinician are sudden bursts of laughter that are not associated +ith a feeling of mirth or an environmental stimulus. 1ere +e have a segregation of the emotional) cognitive and motor mechanisms of laughter. <ther cases are more subtle. Some %eo%le +ith forebrain damage have their read*ustment to societ! im%eded b! a tendenc! to laugh at almost an!thing/breaches in laugh eti,uette have more serious conse,uences than one might think. Csing our im%roved descri%tive tools) +e can no+ s%ecif! more %recisel! +hat is 0abnormal)0 0%athological0 or 0ina%%ro%riate0 about these cases #+hether it is sonic structure) %lacement in s%eech) social conte(t) contagion sensitivit!) %erce%tion or relation to humor$. "e ma! even discover ne+ laugh&related s!ndromes. he ne(t time that !ou or a friend have one beer too man!) !ou ma! research the age&old ,uestion of alcohol effects/+hile taking careful notes on a cocktail na%kin) of course. 6o alcohol) 0laughing gas0 and other drugs kno+n to increase laughter sim%l! lo+er the threshold for laughter) or do the! alter its %attern or ,ualit!2 -n a%hasia #a disorder of language %roduction or %erce%tion$ is there s%aring of laughter and) if so) +hich of laughter4s several dimensions are s%ared2 6oes vocal laughter %unctuate the signed s%eech of the congenitall! deaf) in +hom there is not a shared organ of e(%ression2 he left cerebral hemis%here has a s%ecialized role in language/is this also true of the %roduction or %erce%tion of laughter2 .an! develo%mental issues remain o%en. 3aughter t!%icall! a%%ears in human babies around D&1F2 to E months of age) but +e kno+ little about the details of the develo%mental %rocess. .ust babies hear their o+n laughter or the laughter of others for laughter to mature2 -f so) is there a critical %eriod during +hich such laughter must be e(%erienced2 he re%ort of laughter in a fe+ congenitall! deaf&blind children suggests that at least some features of laughter develo% +ithout benefit of auditor! and visual stimulation) evidence of a strong maturational and genetic basis. 8or a more satisf!ing account of laugh ac,uisition) +e must conduct high&resolution studies that contrast the develo%ment of normal and hearing&im%aired children. All of us have encountered %eo%le +ith bizarre&sounding laughter. "hat is different about such laughter and +hat does this tell us about the mechanism of normal laugh %roduction2 6o these odd t!%es of laughter run in families2 -f so) +hat is the nature of its develo%ment and heritabilit!2 -n m! other+ise forgettable high&school %h!sics class there +as a kid +ho bra!ed like a donke! +hen he laughed. "here is Roger no+ that - need him2 Com%arative studies ma! %rovide clues about both the evolution and social function of laughter. 6oes the lo+ level of conscious control that +e have over our o+n laughter reflect the t!%ical level of control that non&human animals have over their o+n s%ecies&t!%ical vocalizations2 6o the great a%es sho+ the se(uall! dimor%hic or contagious laughter described in human beings2 6oes the %attern of laughter var! +ith rank +ithin a troo%2 Aside from the great a%es) do other animals %roduce laugh&like vocalizations2 1o+ do the neurobehavioral mechanisms of laugh %roduction var! bet+een s%ecies2 ickle ma! be a kind of Rosetta Stone for such com%arative laugh research because it triggers laugh&like vocalizations in all of the great a%es and %erha%s other s%ecies. Can !ou tickle !our %et dog or cat2 1o+ can !ou tell2 -s a laugh&evoking stimulus that +orks e,uall! +ell in a variet! of s%ecies the ultimate e(am%le of 0lo+0 humor2 3aughter research is still in its infanc!) an e(citing time +hen the frontiers are near at hand and accessible +ith modest resources. Certainl! much of the research described in this article can be re%licated or e(tended b! almost an!one) making it suitable for college or even high school research %ro*ects. 3aughter research is a reminder that not all science concerns arcane or narro+ %roblems. "e should resist neglecting or trivializing the common%lace. here are re+ards for a%%roaching nature +ith a naive curiosit! and attem%ting to see the familiar in ne+ +a!s.

3 of 4

10/02/2013 14:12

Laughter American Scientist

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.880,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1...

Bibliography
7lack) 6. ". 19'2. Pathological laughter. Journal of (er)ous and !ental *iseases 1@B:6@&@1. Cha%man) A. I.) and 1. C. 8oot. 19@6. Hu+or and &aughter, Theory- 'esearch and .pplications. =e+ 9ork: "ile!. Cha%man) A. I.) and 1. C. 8oot. 19@@. /t0s a Funny Thing- Hu+our. <(ford: Pergamon Press. .arler) P.) and R. enaza. 19@@. Signalling behavior of a%es +ith s%ecial reference to vocalization. -n How .ni+als "o++unicate) %%. 96A&1BDD) ed. . A. Seboek. 7loomington: -ndiana Cniversit! Press. Provine) R. R. 19'6. 9a+ning as a stereot!%ed action %attern and releasing stimulus. 1thology @2:1B9&122. Provine) R. R. 1992. Contagious laughter: 3aughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. 2ulletin of the Psychono+ic #ociety DB:1&E. Provine) R. R. 199D. 3aughter %unctuates s%eech: 3inguistic) social and gender conte(ts of laughter. 1thology 9A:291&29'. Provine) R. R. -n %ress. Contagious !a+ning and laughter: Significance for sensor! feature detection) motor %attern generation) imitation) and the evolution of social behavior. -n #ocial &earning in .ni+als, The 'oots of "ulture) ed. C. .. 1e!es and 7. ?. ?alef. =e+ 9ork: Academic Press. Provine) R. R.) and 5. R. 8ischer. 19'9. 3aughing) smiling) and talking: Relation to slee%ing and social conte(t in humans. 1thology 'D:29A&DBA. Provine) R. R.) and 9. 3. 9ong. 1991. 3aughter: A stereot!%ed human vocalization. 1thology '9:11A&12E. Rankin) A. ..) and P. I. Phili%. 196D. An e%idemic of laughing in the 7ukoba 6istrict of angan!ika. "entral .frican Journal of !edicine 9:16@&1@B. Sroufe) 3. A.) and ;. "aters. 19@6. he ontogenesis of smiling and laughter: A %ers%ective on the organization of develo%ment in infanc!. Psychological 'e)iew 'D:1@D&1'9. "eiskrantz) 3.) I. ;lliott and C. 6arlington. 19@1. Preliminar! observations on tickling oneself. (ature 2DB:A9'&A99.

9ou can find this online at htt%:FF+++.americanscientist.orgFissuesFnum2FlaughterF1 J Sigma Ki) he Scientific Research Societ!

4 of 4

10/02/2013 14:12