TopConceptual Review
Researchers have long debated the exact functions and mechanisms of humor, with most scholars aligning with one of three large theoretical propositions (Meyer, 2017). Perhaps the most popular of these propositions is the idea that humor is a function of situational incongruity, in which things are funny because they are unexpected (Berger, 1976; Clarke, 2008; Deckers & Divine, 1981; McGhee, 1979). Less popular is the idea that humor arises from positions of perceived superiority, in that things are funny because they enforce social hierarchies (Feinberg, 1978; Gruner, 1997; Lintott, 2016; Morreall, 1983). Least popular is the idea that humor exists as a function of psychophysiological stress relief – and so goes the general academic wisdom.
Notably, the relief theory of humor operates in essentially the opposite mindset of the other two. Specifically, instead of identifying funny things because of the way they make us feel (e.g., superior, surprised), this theory posits that things are funny because of how we are feeling (e.g., tense, nervous) and how they bring those feelings to resolution (Berlyne, 1972; Meyer, 2000; Morreall, 1983). Put differently, according to relief theory, this release of tension is psychologically perceived through humor and physiologically expressed through laughter.
The academic disputes about these three theories are infamous, even sparking attempts to create “atheoretical” research evading them (Martin, 1996). It is a debate that will not likely be ended by any proclamations of this text. However, from the perspective of a humor practitioner, it is also a debate that is not, in and of itself, especially relevant (Baisley & Grunberg, 2019). Arguably, from a strictly practical point of view, it is decidedly counterproductive to attempt to assess the definitive strength or weakness of the three primary theories in a vacuum.
Instead, by taking a theory-agnostic approach, each of these individual conceptualizations of humor can be useful in providing different approaches to examining and eliciting humorous responses in specific situations. In toolbox fashion, these different ideas may be applied in particular communication situations, allowing them to serve as informative heuristics rather than empirical rules. From this frame of reference, any theory can be impactful – even the unusual and occasionally maligned relief theory. This chapter explores how relief theory may be an ideal model for humor in health communication, inasmuch that this context can be reliably framed through the theory of catharsis (Scheff & Bushnell, 1984).
In a nutshell, catharsis is a psychological concept that posits that an individual’s built-up negative feelings (e.g., anger, sadness) can be processed effectively and safely through the use of purging activities (Jackson, 1994). Such activities might include any courses of action that actively engage with and then subsequently dispel these negative feelings. For example, one person’s binge of sad movies on Hulu may be another person’s afternoon of angry video games on Steam, or yet another person’s dive into raunchy comedy specials on Netflix. The main idea here is that the activity is impactful to the individual and relatable to their emotional state.
Ideally, catharsis serves to provide a “lighter” outlet (Jaffee, 1996) for feelings that might, in absence of their purgation, otherwise be left to fester and be acted upon in an undesirable manner, such as lashing out at others or self-harming. Perhaps one of the simplest and most promising cathartic exercises is the act of laughing at one’s self and/or one’s situation – becoming, in effect, one’s own jester – in order to defuse any tensions entangled within (Warner, 1991). This lesson of laughing at one’s self has been applied quite broadly for purposes ranging from the management of one’s own personal mental health status to the diplomatic dance of avoiding large-scale international conflicts (Steele, 2020).
Though cathartic events are usually conceived as individualized experiences, some circumstances have the potential to bring individuals together through shared emotional distress (Pennebaker & Harber, 1993). Most commonly, these are big, socially destructive events like natural disasters or terrorist attacks, but they can just as well be states of living and being in a particular culture or community. Regardless of the specific reason, when cathartic moments involve multiple individuals in shared states of experience, they are referred to as collective catharsis. The concept of collective catharsis sheds light on why, of the three main humor theories, relief humor is most uniquely beneficial to healthcare.