Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1985, Vol. 49, No. I, 281-286 0022-3514/85/S00.75

A Study of Salience and Motivational Theories of Humor

Thomas L. Kuhlman
Mendota Mental Health Institute
Madison, Wisconsin

Experiments by Goldstein, Suls, and Anthony (1972) discredited motivational

theories of humor in favor of a cognitive salience model, which was proposed as
more parsimonious. The present experiment also tested the salience model versus
motivational explanations. College students assigned humor ratings to three sets
of jokes containing salient themes (examination content), taboo themes (sex and
violence content), and neutral themes. The joke sets had been matched a priori
for incongruity structure. The salience of examination content was manipulated
by having the students rate jokes under one of three conditions: control (normal
classroom setting), before taking an examination, and 20 min after beginning an
examination. Results did not confirm hypotheses derived from the salience model;
motivational factors (taboo content, mastery theme) were associated with high
humor ratings. A conceptual integration of cognitive and psychoanalytic mecha-
nisms of humor is suggested.

Two general lines of humor theory that
have conceptual appeal and empirical support
have emerged. Motivational content theories,
of which Freud's (1905/1960) is best known,
emphasize thematic properties of jokes, car-
toons, and the like. Freud viewed sexual and
aggressive humor as important release valves
in the psychic economy. Such "tendentious
humor," as he termed it, functions as a
defense mechanism, and the acute, fleeting
pleasure of laughter stems from gratifying a
drive that otherwise would have remained
pent up. The prominence of sexual and ag-
gressive humor in adult interactions and en-
tertainment cannot be dismissed without
some such explanation, but studies addressing
Freud's model have yielded inconsistent re-
lationships between experimentally induced
drive states and the enjoyment of sexual and
aggressive humor (Baron, 1978a, 1978b;
This study was initiated while the author was a member
of the faculties of the University of Cincinnati and Xavier
University. A preliminary report was presented to the
Third International Conference on Humor held in Wash-
ington, D.C., August 1982.
The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions
of Lee Callaway, Schifferau Gibran-Marion, Wilma Gil-
bert, Jeff Goldstein, Frank Prerost, Susan Sorenson, Jane
Steif-Nute, and Bob Zechnich.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas L.
Kuhlman, Aggression Management Unit, Mendota Mental
Health Institute, 301 Troy Drive, Madison, Wisconsin
53704.
281
Dworkin & Efran, 1967; Goldstein, 1970;
Lamb, 1968; Landy & Metee, 1969; Mueller
& Donnerstein, 1983; Singer, 1968; Trice,
1982). This confusing empirical picture and
conceptual problems with the drive concept
of psychoanalysis have prompted the devel-
opment of microtheories linking humor and
aggression to situation-specific variables (see
Zillmann & Bryant, 1974, 1980; Zillmann &
Cantor, 1972).
The second line of humor theory empha-
sizes process variables over content and is
embodied by the varieties of incongruity
theory. Effective humor stimuli are those that
pose some incongruity, puzzle, or cognitive
dissonance to the individual. This must be in
a modest amount; too little incongruity will
not divert the normal direction and pace of
information processing, and too much incon-
gruity stresses the information processor and
leads to curiosity/concentration behaviors or
anxiety. When a modest incongruity is quickly
resolved (e.g., by viewing the stimulus from
a second perspective, as in the pun), the
accompanying physiological arousal changes
are experienced as the amused sense of plea-
sure. Readily observable support for incon-
gruity theory lies in the importance of timing
in delivering a joke and the fact that jokes
lose most of their amusement potential from
the first to the second presentation. Convinc-
ing research evidence comes from studies of
282 THOMAS L. KUHLMAN

children's humor revealing that the sense of of the salience model of humor. There were
humor for particular stimuli is greatest when three significant deviations from the Goldstein
a child arrives at pivotal mastery points of et al. design. First, manipulation of the sa-
various Piagetian stages of cognitive devel- lience variable was less obtrusive. The salient
opment. McGhee (1979) has provided a com- humor content employed was the topic of
prehensive review of various incongruity school examinations. Groups of subjects rated
models and the evidence supporting them. examination jokes in one of three contexts:
The humor mechanisms posed by content (a) in a normal college classroom meeting,
and process models appear radically different. (b) just before taking an examination, and
Much would be gained by forging an integra- (c) 20 min after beginning an examination.
tion between them, including among other The salience model would predict that as
things, a closer bridge between psychoanalysis examination taking increases in salience, hu-
and cognitive psychology. There have been mor ratings of examination jokes should also
such beginnings (Ehrenstein & Ertel, 1978; increase. Second, subjects in all conditions
Godkewitsch, 1976; Suls, 1977), but a more rated not only salient jokes but also others
widely cited set of experiments sought to with neutral or socially taboo content. The
discredit motivational models as being super- joke content sets were matched for incongruity
fluous. techniques employed and other structural
Experiments by Goldstein, Suls, and An- properties. The salience model would predict
thony (1972) disputed research showing that that with structural properties constant, sa-
humor reduced experimentally induced drive lient jokes would be preferred to the other
states. Goldstein et al. argued that the exper- types of humor by subjects in the two salience
imental manipulations in such research af- conditions, Third, the salient jokes were di-
fected not a drive state but a cognitive set for vided into two subsets. In one subset the
processing sexual/aggressive stimuli more student succeeded in an examination situa-
easily, thus making such humor more enjoy- tion; in the other he or she failed or was put
able. This cognitive set interpretation of the down. The salience model would predict no
findings was termed salience. In one experi- difference in the humor ratings assigned by
ment, Goldstein et al. exposed undergraduate subjects to these two subsets of salient humor.
subjects to photographs of either automobiles
or aggressive scenes and then asked them to Method
rate the humorousness of cartoons containing Subjects
either automobile or aggressive themes. Con- Subjects were 88 female and 101 male undergraduate
sistent with the salience model, the authors students enrolled in three different sections of an intro-
found that prior exposure to automobiles ductory psychology course at a midwestern university.
yielded a better appreciation for automobile
cartoons, just as prior exposure to aggressive Humor Stimuli
scenes enhanced appreciation of aggressive Humor stimuli were 30 verbal jokes presented in a
cartoons. Manipulation checks on control written format. Ten jokes consisted of neutral content,
groups validated an effective manipulation of and 10 others had socially taboo themes (i.e., sex, pro-
fanity, untimely death, or sadistic violence). The third
content salience but not of subjects' hostility. set of 10 jokes dealt with humor around test taking and
A second experiment supported the salience examinations; this was designated as the salient content
model, with verbal jokes serving as humor category.
stimuli. The authors concluded in their dis- In joke selection the investigator drew stimuli from a
variety of popular magazines. Care was taken to ensure
cussion that the motivational model of humor that the various structural dimensions of humor (i.e.,
is superfluous: incongruity technique, number of words and dialogue
On the whole . . . the most parsimonious explanation segments) were closely matched among the three content
of the data would rule out motivation as an explanatory categories. Each joke in the neutral set corresponded to
concept, since the salience hypothesis can account for a similar joke in the taboo and salient content sets with
the appreciation of nonsense as well as aggressive and respect to these dimensions. Two examples of this match-
sexual humor, (p. 169) ing outcome are presented in Table I. 1 The 10 jokes in

The experiment to be described in the 1

A set of the humor stimuli used in this study is
present study was designed foremost as a test available from the author.
 SALIENT HUMOR 283

the salient content set were selected so as to divide into control group (« = 62) rated the jokes during part of a
two subsets of 5: salient victor and salient victim. In normal lecture period. The before-exam group (n = 65)
victor jokes (see Table 1, Group 6), the student scored a rated the jokes just prior to taking an examination. The
real or symbolic victory over the professor and/or the during-exam group (n = 62) rated the jokes after working
examination; in victim jokes (see Table 1, Group 2), the on an examination for 20 min.
student experienced a real or symbolic defeat or failure After completing the joke ratings, subjects in the
at the hands of the examination and/or professor. before- and during-exam groups were asked to indicate
Finally, to investigate the validity of joke content how confident they were feeling about their performance
sampling, the 30 jokes were presented in random order on the examination in question by use of a 7-point scale
to judges who were asked to indicate whether the theme (7 = unusually high confidence about exam performance
of each joke related to examination taking, some socially compared to other exam situations; 4 = normal degree
taboo behavior, or some other theme. All salient jokes of confidence; 1 = much less confidence than usual).
and 9 of 10 taboo and neutral jokes were correctly
classified by all five judges; the remaining taboo and
neutral jokes (1 each) were correctly classified by four of Results
five judges. Judges had not been informed beforehand Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested by means
that 10 jokes were intended for each category.
of a three-way analysis of variance (Sex X
Salience Condition X Joke Content Class)
Procedure performed on the summed ratings assigned
Subjects assigned humor ratings to each of the 30 to the jokes by subjects. The General Linear
jokes in the group setting of the classroom. Jokes were Model Procedure of the Statistical Analysis
presented on paper in a randomized fashion except that System was used. This model breaks down
two jokes from the same content set never appeared between-groups differences by the least
consecutively. Subjects provided no identifying information
except for sex. Extra credit points toward the course
squares means method. The overall F value
grade were offered to all subjects who participated (none for this analysis proved significant, F(17,
declined). Subjects were instructed to assign a humor 552) = 5.67, p < .0001. The relevant variance
rating to each joke by using a 7-point scale (1 = boring, source for testing Hypotheses 1 and 2 is the
7 = extremely amusing). They were permitted 15 min Salience Condition X Joke Content Class
for the task and were asked (a) to read all of the jokes
once before assigning ratings and (b) to assign at least interaction. This F value was not significant,
one 7 score and at least one 1 score. The goals of these F(4, 552) = 0.17, p = .95, and indicates that
instructions were to obtain relative rather than absolute Hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported.
humor ratings; printed jokes, devoid of spontaneity and The analysis did yield significant main
a social context, seldom evoke the heights of amusement
and laughter.
effects for joke content class, F(2, 552) =
The salience variable was manipulated by testing the 36.03, p < .0001, and salience condition, F(2,
189 subjects under one of three group conditions. The 552) = 3.66, p < .05. With respect to joke

Table 1
Examples of Jokes From the Three Content Sets as Matched for Structural Properties
Content set Group 6 Group 2

Neutral A tern once graciously shared a fish
it had caught with a hungry
otter, and as a result of this
gesture the two became quite
friendly. It only illustrates the old
saying that one good tern
deserves an otter.
Taboo There was a case recently in Texas
where a wealthy rancher sued his
wife for divorce. He had found
his dear and an interloper at play.
Salient (Victor) Upperclassmen are well
known for getting quite chummy
with their profs before exam
time. They follow the old adage
that familiarity breeds exempts.
Said the old man to the little boy who was
eating an apple: "Be sure to look out for the
worms, Sonny." "When I eat an apple the
worms have to look out for themselves,"
replied the boy.
The two rich old Englishmen were taking target
practice on the back lawn. "Watch your
shooting, old chap," one said, "you almost
winged my servant." "Dreadfully sorry! Do
have a shot at mine over there."
(Victim) The student approached his prof after
class with his corrected exam. "I don't think
I deserve an absolute zero," said the student.
"Neither do I," responded the professor, "but
it is the lowest mark I'm allowed to give."
284 THOMAS L. KUHLMAN
content, least squares means analysis indicated
that taboo humor was significantly preferred
by subjects over the other two types (ps <
.0001 in both comparisons) and that salient
humor was preferred over neutral humor
(p < .05). Probing the main effect for salience
condition revealed that the during-exam
group generally assigned higher joke ratings
than did the control group (p < .005); other
between-groups comparisons were nonsignif-
icant.
Finally, the analysis yielded a significant
Sex X Joke Content Class interaction, F(2,
552) = 5.19, p < .01. Least squares means
analysis revealed that (a) females had assigned
significantly (p < .0001) higher ratings to sa-
lient jokes than had males and (b) males
showed a clear preference for taboo humor
whereas females rated taboo and salient jokes
equally. In light of this sex difference, Hy-
pothesis 3 was tested separately for males and
females. The summed ratings assigned to
salient victor jokes were compared with the
summed ratings assigned to salient victim
jokes via t tests performed on the six Sex X
Salience Condition combinations. The results
revealed a significant preference for salient
victor humor over salient victim humor in
five of six group comparisons. For the sixth
group (female students-during exam), the
results were consistent with Hypothesis 3,
revealing no difference between salient victor
and salient victim humor. Comparable t tests
for all six groups were performed on the
neutral joke subsets, which had been matched
a priori with the salient victor and salient
victim subsets. None of these / tests yielded
significant differences, thus ruling out a joke
structure explanation for the sample's pref-
erence for salient victor over salient victim
jokes.
A reanalysis. Salient victor jokes and the
subsets of neutral and taboo jokes that struc-
turally corresponded to them were considered
as a new and separate data base. Salient
victim jokes and their neutral and taboo
cohorts were also separated as a second new
data base. The rationale for this separation
and a reanalysis of the data was the possibility
that salience effects operate differently on
divergent content themes. For example, con-
sidering the salient victor cohort alone, it was
predicted that (a) salient victor joke ratings
would increase as examination taking in-
creased in salience and (b) salient victor jokes
would be preferred to the other types of jokes
by subjects in the two salience conditions. A
three-way analysis of variance was performed
(comparable to the initial analysis), yielding
a significant overall F, F(\7, 552) = 4.10,
p < .0001, but the critical Salience Condi-
tion X Joke Content Class interaction was
not significant, F(4, 552) = 0.81, p = .50).
Predictions (a) and (b) thus did not hold, but
a significant main effect for joke content
class, F(2, 552) = 21.95, p < .0001, revealed
that ratings assigned to salient victor and
taboo humor were not significantly different,
although both were preferred to corresponding
neutral jokes (ps < .0001 in each case).
Considering the salient victim cohort alone,
it was predicted that (c) salient victim joke
ratings would decrease as examination taking
increased in salience and (d) neutral and
taboo jokes would be preferred to salient
victim humor by subjects in the two salience
conditions. Again an overall significant anal-
ysis yielded a nonsignificant Salience X Joke
Content Class interaction, F(4, 552) = 0.72,
p < .57. Predictions (c) and (d) were not
validated; a significant main effect for joke
content class, F(2, 552) = 43.49, p < .0001,
yielded the finding that taboo humor was
preferred over the other two types, but salient
victim and neutral humor were not signifi-
cantly different.
Discussion
This experiment produced no support for
the salience concept advanced by Goldstein
et al. (1972) as the most parsimonious expla-
nation for sources of humor in joke content.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the present
design better approximated the manner in
which cognitive sets are generated outside the
laboratory than did the original research. The
failure to generate any hypothesized salience
effects in the present study suggests that (a)
the presence of nonsalient humor has signif-
icant impact on salience effects and/or (b)
the salience variable is more situation specific
than Goldstein et al. concluded.
A third possibility is that the present design
confounded salience with emotional arousal,
specifically test or performance anxiety. No
 SALIENT HUMOR
measures of state anxiety were made to ad-
dress this variable directly; however, the self-
confidence ratings made by subjects in the
two experimental groups have so ne relevance.
The during-exam group displayed a signifi-
cantly greater degree of confidence about
their collective exam performance than did
the before-exam group (t = 3.15, p < .01).
One may infer that lower self-confidence is
associated with increased test anxiety. The
experimental groups then align in the follow-
ing order of emotional arousal: control group,
during-exam group (subjected to perfor-
mance-for-grade stress), and before-exam
group (subjected to anticipation-of-the-un-
known as well as performance-for-grade
stress). With respect to salience, the three
groups align in the following order: control,
before-exam (subjective time and attention
spent in anticipating and preparing for the
exam), and during-exam (subjective time and
attention spent in anticipating, preparing,
and performing the exam). Thus it would
appear that there is no confound of the
salience and arousal constructs. One unex-
pected finding was the emergence of a salience
effect on general humor responsiveness. Be-
cause it was not associated with any specific
class of humor content, terming it a salience
effect is a misnomer. The greater sense of
humor shown by the during-exam group is
better interpreted as evidence that a modest
degree of state anxiety elevates humor ratings
more than a high degree of anxiety (before-
exam group) or a low one (control group).
Dividing the salient jokes into victor and
victim theme subsets revealed differential re-
sponding by subjects. The question must be
raised as to what degree the salience of the
content contributed to these effects. Does
salience make any appreciable impact above
and beyond a general motive to identify
oneself with mastery and alienate oneself
from failure? The relative humor content
preferences of the control group, who rated
the jokes without the specter of an examina-
tion, were identical to the relative preferences
of the experimental groups. This suggests that
general mastery-failure motives are being
tapped by the jokes and that the salience of
examination content is of little consequence.
It may be argued that the control group is
not genuine; that is, that by virtue of rating
285
the jokes in a college classroom at the request
of a professor, a mild salience effect for
examinations is induced. An alternate control
group might consist of a comparable subject
sample rating the jokes outside the classroom
setting without the presence of the professor.
However, a nonprofessored, nonclassroom
setting introduces new confounding variables:
The exact sociological and milieu aspects of
a college classroom would be extremely dif-
ficult to recreate in a student union, for
example. Furthermore, it is well-established
that the social context of humor has a decided
impact on its quantity and quality. Other
designs merit consideration in addressing the
"Is it salient motivation or just motivation?"
question. One might simply include a fourth
content set of jokes wherein victor and victim
themes are played out with police officers,
for example.
Perhaps the most striking finding overall
is the consistently greater mirth aroused by
taboo humor. The twin influences of content
salience and mastery theme are not sufficient
to merit salient victor jokes' higher ratings
than comparably structured taboo jokes. This
cannot be explained as content variety. Al-
though the taboo jokes embraced only four
different themes and the salient jokes only
two, the neutral jokes were the most varied
among the three content classes and yet were
consistently rated as less funny than taboo
jokes. Because incongruity structure was con-
trolled, is the only recourse some variant of
Freud's drive reduction model?
When one looks at Freud's (1905/1960)
theory in its process aspects (the violation of
a social taboo) rather than the content aspects
that he emphasized (sex, aggression), there
appears to be a productive shift in pespective
(Kuhlman, 1984). The experience of trans-
gressing or transcending social strictures in a
safe play setting such as humor can be seen
as inherently pleasurable. One advantage of
shifting from a drive reduction to a taboo
violation perspective is the strong parallel
that immediately appears with respect to
cognitive theories of humor. Incongruity
structures violate principles of logic (thought);
taboo content violates the principles of con-
duct (behavior). Alford (1982) has drawn a
similar analogy. He describes incongruity hu-
mor as a violation of "phenomenal expecta-
286 THOMAS L. KUHLMAN
tions" and taboo humor as a violation of
"idealized expectations." The taboo violation
concept also explains the popularity of a wide
range of common joke topics—drugs, alcohol,
politicians, police officers—that touch on ob-
stacles to one's self-determination.
Taboo violation is also superior to the
drive reduction concept in examining humor
within its interpersonal contexts. Societal in-
junctions against sexual and aggressive be-
havior may be respected but not fully accepted
(except by those who show no sense of humor
whatsoever). In a "dirty joke" interaction,
the sender violates a social taboo and the
receiver's laughter registers both surprise and
acceptance. A momentary intimacy bond is
formed between the two, which sets the dyad
apart from some larger group. On the other
hand, if the receiver is not well known to the
sender or is, in fact, an adversary, the same
dirty joke may provoke resentment or outrage.
In this case the apparent intimacy invitation
is rejected because the taboo in question is
off-limits to the two parties before further
negotiation of the relationship. Freud (1905/
1960) was not ignorant of such interpersonal
aspects of humor. However, his greater interest
in intrapersonal dynamics and his hydraulic
conception of drives contributed to the still-
prevalent disjunction of cognitive and moti-
vational approaches to humor.
References
Alford, R. (1982, August). The evolutionary significance
of the human humor response. Paper presented at the
Third International Conference on Humor, Washington,
D.C.
Baron, R. A. (1978a). Aggression-inhibiting influence of
sexual humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 36. 189-197.
Baron, R. A. (1978b). The influence of hostile and
nonhostile humor upon physical aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 77-80.
Dworkin, E. S., & Efran, J. S. (1967). The angered: Their
susceptibility to varieties of humor. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 6, 233-236.
Ehrenstein, W. H., & Ertel, S. (1978). Zur genese des
lustigkeitseindrucks [On the genesis of the mirth re-
sponse]. Psychologische Beitrage, 20, 360-374.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the uncon-
scious. New York: Norton. (Original work published
1905)
Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Thematic and collative properties
of written jokes and their contribution to funniness.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8, 88-97.
Goldstein, J. H. (1970). Repetition, motive arousal, and
humor appreciation. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 4, 90-94.
Goldstein, J. H., Suls, J. M., & Anthony, S. (1972).
Enjoyment of specific types of humor content: Moti-
vation or salience? In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee
(Eds.), The psychology of humor. New York: Academic
Press.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1984), Humor and psychotherapy.
Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Lamb, C. W. (1968). Personality correlates of humor
enjoyment following motivational arousal. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 237-241.
Landy, E., & Metee, S. (1969). Evaluation of an aggressor
as a function of exposure to cartoon humor. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 66-71.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development.
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Mueller, C. W., & Donnerstein, E. (1983). Film-induced
arousal and aggressive behavior. Journal of Social
Psychology, 119, 61-67.
Singer, D. L. (1968). Aggression, arousal, hostile humor,
and catharsis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology Monograph Supplements, 5(1, Pt. 2).
Suls, J. M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories
of humour: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. In
A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing,
humour (pp. 41-47). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Trice, A. D. (1982). Ratings of humor following experience
with unsolvable tasks. Psychological Reports, 51, 1148.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1974). Retaliatory equity as
a factor in humor appreciation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 10, 480-488.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1980). Misattribution theory
of tendentious humor. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 16, 146-160.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of
transitory dominance as a communication variable
affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24, 191-198.
Received February 1, 1983
Revision received March 5, 1984