1887
image of When humour backfires
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study stems from previous work on self-presentation in WhatsApp users’ profile status. However, its main goal is to gauge other users’ reactions to WhatsApp “humorous” statuses. In other words, do other users find statuses intended as humorous “funny”? To this purpose, the methodological approach adopted is both quantitative and qualitative. For the quantitative stage, a survey was carried out where participants were presented with eight statuses intended (as reported by their creators) to be humorous. These eight statuses represented both male and female WhatsApp users (four each) as well as different strategies to construct humour (e.g., intertextuality, wordplay, absurdity). After piloting the survey, it was launched online, and 142 participants carried it out. Findings show that humour does not always lead to the desired effect and can indeed trigger negative evaluations and/or perplexity on other interlocutors. As a result, the user’s intended self-presentation as a witty, funny individual fails to hit its target and may contribute to other users’ negative perception of their persona.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00064.are
2020-07-24
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akinola, Ayodele J.
    2018 “Pragmatics of crisis-Motivated humour in computer mediated platforms in Nigeria.” Journal of Language and Education4(3): 6–17. 10.17323/2411‑7390‑2018‑4‑3‑6‑17
    https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-3-6-17 [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, Salvatore
    2001Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110887969
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887969 [Google Scholar]
  3. Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin
    1991 “Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model.” HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research4(3–4): 293–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Attrill, Alison
    2012 “Sharing only parts of me: Selective categorical self-disclosure across Internet arenas.” International Journal of Internet Science7(1): 55–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumeister, Roy F.
    1982 “Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation.” Journal of Personality50(1): 29–45. 10.1111/j.1467‑6494.1982.tb00743.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00743.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary
    1995 “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.” Psychological Bulletin117(3): 497–529. 10.1037/0033‑2909.117.3.497
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister, Roy F., and Dianne M. Tice
    1984 “Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance: Necessary or sufficient causes?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46(1): 5–13. 10.1037/0022‑3514.46.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baym, Nancy K.
    1995 “The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication1(2): 0–0. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1995.tb00327.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1995.tb00327.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Bronstein, Jenny
    2012 “Blogging motivations for Latin American bloggers: A uses and gratifications approach.” InBlogging in the Global Society, ed. byTatyana Dumova, and Richard Fiordo, 200–215. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. 10.4018/978‑1‑60960‑744‑9.ch012
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-744-9.ch012 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 “Creating possible selves: Information disclosure behaviour on social networks.” Information Research19(1): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brubaker, Pamela, Kris Boyle, and David Stephan
    2017 “The shared cultural experience: A comparison of religious memes created by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, religious media, and church members.” Journal of Media and Religion16(2): 67–79. 10.1080/15348423.2017.1311127
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2017.1311127 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chiaro, Delia
    2018The Language of Jokes in the Digital Age: Viral Humour. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dynel, Marta
    2011 “Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising.” International Review of Pragmatics3: 59–83. 10.1163/187731011X561009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561009 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 “Garden-paths, red lights and crossroads: On finding our way to understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying jokes.” Israeli Journal of Humor Research: An International Journal1: 6–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 “Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse.” The European Journal of Humor Research1: 22–60. 10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel
    https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel [Google Scholar]
  16. 2016 “‘I has seen image macros!’: Advice Animals memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication10: 660–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Forabosco, Giovannantonio
    1992 “Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity.” HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research5(1–2): 45–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2008 “Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research?” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics4: 45–62. 10.2478/v10016‑008‑0003‑5
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0003-5 [Google Scholar]
  19. García-Gómez, Antonio
    2010 “Disembodiment and cyberspace: Gendered discourses in female teenagers’ personal information disclosure.” Discourse and Society21(2): 135–160. 10.1177/0957926509353844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509353844 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kotthoff, Helga
    2006 “Gender and humor: The state of the art.” Journal of pragmatics38(1): 4–25. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kowalski, Robin M., and Mark R. Leary
    1990 “Strategic self-presentation and the avoidance of aversive events: Antecedents and consequences of self-enhancement and self-depreciation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology26(4): 322–336. 10.1016/0022‑1031(90)90042‑K
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90042-K [Google Scholar]
  23. Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen
    2015 “Jocular mockery in computer-mediated communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community.” Journal of Politeness Research11(2): 289–327. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 “Emotional self-presentation on WhatsApp: Analysis of the profile status.” Russian Journal of Linguistics22(1): 144–160. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2018‑22‑1‑144‑160
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1-144-160 [Google Scholar]
  25. Manago, Adriana M., Michael B. Graham, Patricia M. Greenfield, and Goldie Salimkhan
    2008 “Self-presentation and gender on MySpace.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology29(6): 446–458. 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Marone, Vittorio
    2017 “Looping out loud: A multimodal analysis of humour on Vine.” The European Journal of Humour Research4(4): 50–66. 10.7592/EJHR2016.4.4.marone
    https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2016.4.4.marone [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, Rod A.
    2007The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑012372564‑6/50024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50024-1 [Google Scholar]
  28. McKenna, Katelyn Y. A., and John Bargh
    2000 “Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet from personality and social psychology.” Personality and Social Psychology Review4(1): 57–75. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Newman, David M.
    2019Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. New York: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Norrick, Neal R.
    1989 “Intertextuality in humor.” HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research2(2): 117–140. 10.1515/humr.1989.2.2.117
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1989.2.2.117 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1993 “Repetition in canned jokes and spontaneous conversational joking.” HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research6(4): 385–402. 10.1515/humr.1993.6.4.385
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1993.6.4.385 [Google Scholar]
  32. Palmer, Jerry
    2003Taking Humour Seriously. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203380154
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203380154 [Google Scholar]
  33. Papacharissi, Zizi
    (ed.) 2011A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pennington, Natalie, and Jeffrey A. Hall
    2014 “An analysis of humor orientation on Facebook: A lens model approach.” HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research27(1): 1–21. 10.1515/humor‑2013‑0053
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0053 [Google Scholar]
  35. Raskin, Victor
    1985Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sánchez-Moya, Alfonso, and Olga Cruz-Moya
    2015a “‘Hey there! I am using WhatsApp’: A preliminary study of recurrent discursive realisations in a corpus of WhatsApp statuses.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences212: 52–60. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.298
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.298 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015b “Whatsapp, textese, and moral panics: Discourse features and habits across two generations.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences173: 300–306. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.069
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.069 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shifman, Limor
    2007 “Humor in the age of digital reproduction: Continuity and change in internet-based comic texts.” International Journal of Communication1(1): 187–2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shultz, Thomas R.
    1972 “The role of incongruity and resolution in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology13(3): 456–477. 10.1016/0022‑0965(72)90074‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(72)90074-4 [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith, Grinell
    2008 “Does gender influence online survey participation?: A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior.” ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 501717.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Suls, Jerry H.
    1972 “A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information processing analysis.” InThe Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, ed. byJeffrey H. Goldstein, and Paul E. McGhee, 81–100. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑288950‑9.50010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-288950-9.50010-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1983 “Cognitive processes in humor appreciation.” InHandbook of Humor Research: Basic Issues, Vol.1, ed. byPaul E. McGhee, and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 39–57. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑5572‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  44. Toma, Catalina L., and Jeffrey T. Hancock
    2010 “Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception.” Communication Research37(3): 335–351. 10.1177/0093650209356437
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 “A new twist on love’s labor: Self-presentation in online dating profiles.” InComputer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, ed. byKevin B. Wright, and Lynne M. Webb, 41–55. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Dijck, Teun
    2013 “‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn.” Media, Culture and Society35(2): 199–215. 10.1177/0163443712468605
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wen, Miaomiao, Nancy Baym, Omer Tamuz, Jaime Teevan, Susan T. Dumais, and Adam Kalai
    2015 “OMG UR funny! Computer-aided humor with an application to chat.” InProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2015), 86–93. Park City, Utah, 29 June-2 July.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wyer, Robert, and James. E. Collins
    1992 “A theory of humor elicitation.” Psychological Review99(4): 663–688. 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.4.663
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.663 [Google Scholar]
  49. Yang, Chia-chen, and B. Bradford Brown
    2016 “Online self-presentation on Facebook and self-development during the college transition.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence45(2): 402–416. 10.1007/s10964‑015‑0385‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y [Google Scholar]
  50. Yus, Francisco
    2016Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2017 “Incongruity-resolution cases in jokes.” Lingua197: 103–122. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin
    2008 “Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior24(5): 1816–1836. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00064.are
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00064.are
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Spanish; self-presentation; WhatsApp status; humour
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error