Humor

Humor is the capacity of an event, idea or utterance to amuse, and the human disposition to find such things funny and to respond with laughter or smiling. It appears in jokes and wordplay, irony and satire, slapstick and absurdity, and it is documented in every known human society. Its universality makes it one of the most widely shared yet least understood parts of human psychology. Thinkers from Aristotle onward have tried to explain why things are funny. The classic answers are grouped as superiority, relief and incongruity theories, and later work added play-based and benign-violation accounts.

The article traces the concept from its etymology and early attitudes in ancient Greece and China through these theories. It then examines the physiology of laughter, its evolutionary origins in play, and the neural and cognitive processes behind amusement. Further sections cover social functions, the linguistic mechanics of verbal humor, comic genres and performance, and humor in literature and the arts. The article closes with cultural variation, the relationship between satire and free expression, health applications, computational humor, research methods, and unresolved questions.

Definition and scope

The English word humor covers three related but distinct things, and much of the confusion in the literature comes from treating them as one. In its first sense, humor is a property of objects and events: a joke, a cartoon or a situation is described as funny. In its second, it is a trait of a person, a sense of humor, meaning a habitual tendency to notice and produce amusing things. In its third, it is a response: the state of being amused, which typically shows itself as a smile, a chuckle or laughter. Theorists disagree about which of these is basic, and whether an account of the response can be built from an account of the object.

The concept sits among several neighbors that are often used loosely. Laughter is a bodily and vocal behavior, while humor is a quality of stimuli or a mental state, and the two come apart in both directions. Much laughter is not a reaction to anything funny; Robert Provine's observational work found that most laughter occurs in ordinary social exchanges rather than in response to jokes, and people also laugh from nervousness or in greeting. Conversely, something can be humorous without producing laughter, since a dry remark may earn only a smile or no visible reaction at all. Comedy usually refers to a professionally produced genre or form of performance designed to amuse, so it is a subset of the humorous rather than a synonym for it. Wit traditionally names quick, intellectually elegant humor, and in some periods it meant cleverness more than amusement. Irony is a mode of speaking or writing in which the intended meaning departs from the literal one; it is often humorous but need not be. In aesthetics, the comic is a broader category of the laughable, which can include the absurd, the grotesque and the ludicrous, and which is often discussed as an artistic effect.

The English word derives from Middle English humour, borrowed through Old French from Latin umor, "moisture" or "fluid," itself related to a verb meaning to be moist. Its earliest meanings were medical. In ancient and medieval physiology, the humors were four bodily fluids (blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile) whose relative proportions were believed to fix a person's health and temperament. This doctrine, associated with Hippocratic writings and systematized by Galen, is usually called humorism or humoralism, and it remained a prevalent medical theory for more than a millennium. Because each fluid was linked to a disposition, the word came to denote a temperament and then a passing state of mind or whim. The sense of mood in turn produced verbs meaning to indulge someone's fancy and, through narrowing, the notion of wit. The modern sense of amusing emerged later, and sources differ on the precise chronology, so the exact date should be treated with caution.

The difficulty of settling on a definition follows partly from the way most theories are framed. Many accounts are essentialist: they seek necessary and sufficient conditions, a set of features that every humorous instance must have and whose presence guarantees humor. Some theorists identify a feature present in much humor without claiming it is sufficient, and others confuse a necessary condition for a response to count as humor with an explanation of why one thing is funny and another is not. Laughter itself fails as a test. It is not necessary for humor, because something can amuse without any audible reaction, and it is not sufficient, because nervousness, tickling or drug effects can produce it. Attempts to make suddenness or pleasantness necessary for laughter have met similar counterexamples, since tickling can build gradually. Some scholars, notably John Morreall, have argued that a search for necessary and sufficient conditions is futile and that the better course is to analyze paradigm cases and the ways the terms are actually used. Others hold that an essence may yet be found. The question remains open, and it is further complicated by cultural and historical variation in what counts as funny, and by unsettled boundaries between humor and irony, satire, nonsense and absurdity.

Classical antiquity and early attitudes

Greece: laughter as mixed feeling and ethical problem

Ancient Greek writers used several words for the field, including gelōs (laughter) and to geloion (the laughable), and they did not treat laughter as simply good or bad. In the Philebus, Plato examines the laughter people feel at their friends' misfortunes and concludes that it mixes pleasure with pain. The pleasure comes from seeing someone else's folly, and the pain comes from envy and ill will. Plato locates the ridiculous in a kind of self-ignorance, in which people believe themselves richer, wiser or more handsome than they are. In the Republic, he also asks that the guardians of the ideal city avoid uncontrolled laughter, because it signals a loss of emotional restraint.

Aristotle takes a more analytical approach in the Poetics. He describes the comic as a species of the ugly or base that causes no pain or destruction, and his example is a comic mask, which is distorted but harmless to look at. In the Rhetoric, he treats wit (asteiotes) as closely tied to metaphor. A witty remark works by showing a surprising but apt connection, and it pleases the listener because it reveals the speaker's cleverness and learning. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he presents playfulness as a virtuous mean between buffoonery and boorishness, which links humor to character and social judgment.

Rome: joking as an oratorical instrument

Roman rhetoricians treated joking as a practical tool of persuasion. Cicero, in the second book of De oratore, classifies kinds of wit and recommends it to speakers for relaxing audiences, undermining opponents and making a case memorable. He also insists on decorum: a jest must suit the dignity of the speaker and the occasion, and it should not descend into coarse abuse. Roman writers used a pair of contrasting terms for this distinction, urbanitas (polished, urban wit) and scurrilitas (buffoonery). Quintilian, in Book VI of the Institutio oratoria, discusses the sources of laughter and warns against excessive joking. He advises the orator to use humor sparingly, to avoid obscenity and personal malice, and to stay within the needs of the case.

Early China: jesters, Confucian restraint and Daoist reversal

In the Records of the Grand Historian, Han historian Sima Qian devoted a chapter to "Biographies of the Humorists" (Huaji liezhuan). The term huaji was glossed in the tradition as wit that flows endlessly, like a vessel that pours liquor without running dry, and it was used for speech that remonstrated with rulers indirectly. The chapter describes court performers (you, paiyou) such as Chunyu Kun of Qi, who used a riddle about a bird that neither flies nor sings to persuade King Wei of Qi to attend to government, and Youmeng of Chu, who impersonated a deceased minister to press the king to reward the minister's family. These figures show that comic speech could carry serious political criticism when direct speech was dangerous.

Confucian texts regarded laughter as something to be ritually governed. In the Analects, Confucius smiles at a small-town performance of music, then describes his own remark as a joke when a disciple takes it literally. The Book of Rites advises that one should laugh without displaying the gums, a detail that illustrates the emphasis on bodily control. Daoist texts took a different line. The Daodejing observes that the lowest kind of scholar laughs at the Dao, and that such laughter is a sign of its depth. In the Zhuangzi, the sage drums and sings at his wife's death, shocking a friend, and in another passage a playful exchange about whether fish are happy turns on the limits of knowledge. In both cases, laughter becomes a way of questioning conventional values.

The superiority theory

The superiority theory holds that amusement arises when a person perceives himself or herself as higher in standing than someone or something else. Its best-known statement comes from Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), where laughter is defined as a "sudden glory" that arises from a sudden perception of one's own eminence, set against the infirmities of others or against one's own former failings. Hobbes treated laughter as a passion, a grimace produced by pride, and he distinguished laughter that mocks a person from laughter at absurdities "abstracted from persons," which he thought could be shared without offence.

Ancient antecedents

Modern accounts often trace the theory to Plato and Aristotle, though scholars disagree about how far either endorsed it as a complete account. In the Philebus, Plato describes the laughter people feel at a friend's misfortune as a mixture of pleasure and pain, bound up with malice and with ignorance of oneself. Aristotle's Poetics defines the ridiculous as a failing or ugliness that causes no pain or destruction, and comedy as the imitation of people worse than average. In the Rhetoric he calls wit "educated insolence," and in the Nicomachean Ethics he describes jokes as a kind of abuse that should be told without causing pain. Sheila Lintott has argued that none of the three philosophers offered the theory as an essentialist definition of comic amusement, since Aristotle also discusses laughter's social virtues and Plato allows for innocent laughter.

Hobbes and later critics

The theory's influence was broad but contested. In 1725 Francis Hutcheson pointed out that people feel superior to dogs, cats and trees without being amused, so superiority alone cannot be sufficient. Charles Baudelaire, in the nineteenth century, combined Hobbesian dominance with a sense of human mortal inferiority, calling laughter "satanic." Later revisions moved the theory away from aggression. Hobbes's own wording, "formerly," was extended by Glen Morreall and others to cover self-deprecating humour, in which a person laughs at a past self from a position of greater maturity. Contemporary defenders recast superiority as a judgment about relative standing, so that amusement registers a comparison of status or competence rather than a hostile feeling. Charles Gruner's game-based account, which treats humour as a contest with winners and losers, is a related development.

Explanatory reach and limits

The theory explains ridicule, mockery and the pleasure of seeing a pompous person deflated, and it fits a large share of the material that Hobbes and Plato discussed. Its difficulties are equally clear. Puns and wordplay involve no obvious target, and Lintott has argued that superiority cannot account for them. Nonsense and absurd humour, in which nobody is the butt of the joke, also resist the explanation. Self-directed humour is harder still: a self-deprecating joke told by a person facing a serious illness is hard to describe as a feeling of superiority, and critics note that the "former self" move strains the concept. Empirical findings also cut against a universal reading. In play fighting, the one who is "beaten" often laughs more than the aggressor, and reviews have found no evidence that all humour involves aggression.

Reformulations that treat superiority as a social evaluation have responded to some of these objections, but they also raise problems of their own. A theory that takes in self-amusement, play and status judgments can become so broad that it stops distinguishing superiority from other pleasures. Critics such as Lintott have also argued that the theory's focus on malicious pleasure may encourage morally questionable attitudes, which is why the debate has become as much ethical as theoretical.

The relief theory

The relief theory explains laughter as the discharge of tension that has built up and has no further use. Where the superiority account locates the cause of amusement in a feeling of triumph, relief accounts place it in the body's energy economy. The model is hydraulic: pressure accumulates, and laughter opens a valve. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy compares it to a pressure-relief valve on a steam boiler, a picture that explains the theory's appeal and also its later embarrassment.

The theory's earliest form appears in Anthony Ashley-Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, whose 1709 essay on the freedom of wit and humour was printed in his Characteristicks in 1711. Shaftesbury argued that the lively spirits of clever people, when confined, seek other outlets, and that mockery, mimicry and buffoonery are among them. He used the idea less as physiology than as a programme for manners. Ridicule, in his view, could correct folly and refine conduct, replacing the coarse guffaws of the crowd with a more civil amusement. Ross Carroll's study of eighteenth-century ridicule describes this as a shift from laughter as an instrument of contempt toward laughter as a means of sociability, a distinction that later relief theorists did not always keep.

Herbert Spencer gave the theory its most explicit physiology. In his essay on the physiology of laughter, dated 1860 in some references and 1911 in others, he held that nervous excitation tends to produce muscular movement, and that surplus excitation flows into whatever motor channels are open. In his account, laughter arises when a mind that has been prepared for something elevated suddenly descends to the trivial. The energy mobilised for the lofty expectation is left over and discharges through the muscles of the face, chest and vocal tract. Spencer's "descending incongruity" was thus not offered as a rival to incongruity theory but as an explanation of why a particular mental jolt produces purposeless movement. The model has lost its scientific footing, since the hydraulic view of the nervous system is no longer accepted, but the idea that laughter releases a surplus has persisted in modified form, for example in John Dewey's 1894 description of laughter as a sudden relaxation of strain, comparable to a sigh of relief.

Sigmund Freud's Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten (1905) gave the theory its most detailed psychological form. Freud separated harmless wit, such as nonsense and wordplay pursued for its own sake, from tendentious wit, which serves a purpose: hostile aggression, satire or defence, or obscene exposure. Tendentious jokes, in his account, exploit the fact that social and internal prohibitions restrain certain impulses. The joke offers a permitted route around the prohibition, and the listener's laughter releases the energy that had been spent keeping the impulse in check. Freud also stressed the social structure of the joke, which typically involves a teller, a listener who shares the pleasure, and a target who is either absent or humiliated. The pleasure of the joke, for Freud, is the saving of psychic expenditure that repression would otherwise require.

Freud's emphasis on sexual and scatological material follows from this logic. These are the subjects most heavily policed by social norms and by the individual's own self-control, so jokes that touch them offer the largest reserve of energy to be released. Hostile jokes about authority, out-groups and other people's failings operate on the same principle, since aggression is also restrained. The theory thus accounts for the prominence of taboo content in comic traditions, from bawdy folk humour to political satire on forbidden targets, and for the way audiences laugh harder when they feel a subject is off-limits.

The theory's limits are considerable. Freud's distinction between harmless and tendentious wit concedes that a large class of jokes, including nonsense verse, puns and clever logical twists, does not obviously involve any repressed impulse. Nothing needs to be restrained for a pun to land. The relief model also struggles to specify how energy could be measured, so its predictions are hard to test, and it cannot easily explain why the same taboo material fails to amuse in some settings, or why an audience can be amused by a joke whose target they have no emotional stake in. Relief accounts therefore tend to survive as descriptions of certain kinds of laughter, especially laughter that follows a release from fear or embarrassment, rather than as general theories of humour.

The incongruity theory

The incongruity theory holds that humor arises when a mind meets a mismatch between what it expects and what it actually encounters. Its roots go back to the eighteenth century, when several writers, including Immanuel Kant, began to describe laughter in terms of a disrupted expectation. Kant's formulation in the Critique of Judgment (1790) remains the most cited. He held that laughter is an affect produced when a strained expectation is suddenly reduced to nothing. Kant stressed that the expectation does not reverse into its opposite. It simply dissolves. The understanding gains nothing from this, yet the sudden collapse produces a brief, indirect pleasure that he linked to a physical jostling of the body.

Arthur Schopenhauer offered a related account in The World as Will and Representation, placing the source of the comic in a sudden perception of disagreement between an abstract concept and the real object that the concept is supposed to capture. Søren Kierkegaard, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), treated the comic as a kind of contradiction that is experienced without the pain that accompanies tragic contradiction. These thinkers differ in vocabulary, but they share the idea that the mind must be briefly thrown off its ordinary course before amusement can occur.

The cognitive shift model

Modern cognitive versions move the emphasis from a feeling of surprise to the mental work of reinterpretation. In his two-stage model, Jerry Suls (1972) proposed that a comprehender first detects an incongruity between an incoming element, often the punchline, and the interpretation that the preceding context most strongly supports. In a second stage, the listener finds a further rule or piece of information that makes the unexpected element fit, and that resolution is what produces the pleasure of getting the joke. Humor is therefore understood as a shift in perception or interpretation: the listener moves from a serious mode of tracking consistent meaning into a playful mode in which an inconsistency is enjoyed rather than resolved in the usual way. Suls's framework has been widely used in psychology and computational work, and some researchers have argued that it does not account for the range of emotions involved in the process.

Setup, misdirection and punchline

Comedians describe the structure of a joke as a setup and a punchline. The setup builds an expectation, usually by making one interpretation the most probable one. The punchline then violates that expectation and forces a second reading that is also consistent with the words already heard. A simple example is the line about reading a book on anti-gravity that is impossible to put down. The phrase "put down" first invites a physical reading, and the punchline reveals a second, figurative sense. The listener must abandon the first reading and see the whole sentence anew. Misdirection is the mechanism that makes this work: the setup is designed to lead attention down a path that appears correct until the final element disrupts it. This resembles the structure of garden-path sentences in linguistics, although a garden-path sentence is usually meant to be parsed rather than to amuse. If the reinterpretation fails, the listener experiences confusion. If it is too easy, the surprise disappears, so the timing and the choice of misleading cue matter as much as the logical content.

The limits of incongruity

Most theorists now treat incongruity as a necessary but not a sufficient condition of humor. A mismatch can also produce shock, disgust, disappointment or the sense of having discovered something. A riddle presents a deliberate contradiction whose solution is a task for the intellect, and a puzzle can be solved without any amusement at all. A typographical error, a misread sign or a broken machine also produce incongruity, and none of them is ordinarily funny. Incongruity alone therefore does not distinguish a joke from a puzzle or an error.

This limitation has pushed theorists to add conditions. One widely shared addition is that the incongruity must be perceived as non-serious, so that the listener does not treat it as a real problem to be fixed. Another is that the incongruity must be benign rather than threatening or harmful. Kant's formulation also contains a tension that later accounts have not fully settled: his expectation dissolves into nothing without being reconstructed, whereas the two-stage model requires a resolution. Whether humor depends on reconstruction, on dissolution, or on both remains an open question in the theory.

Other theories and classification debates

Play theory and the play frame

Play theory treats humor as a special case of playful activity. Its most influential formulation comes from the anthropologist Gregory Bateson, whose 1955 essay "A Theory of Play and Fantasy" began with an observation at a zoo of two monkeys wrestling in a way that resembled combat without being combat. Bateson argued that such play requires metacommunication, a layer of signals that tells the receiver how to read the actions that follow. The message "this is play" makes a playful nip mean something other than the bite it resembles. Erving Goffman later developed the related concepts of framing and keying in Frame Analysis (1974), describing a frame as the boundary that sets behavioral expectations within a social setting.

Applied to humor, the play frame explains why a joke's content, however absurd, hostile or improbable, is not taken as a sincere assertion. The listener has been cued that the utterance is non-serious. This accounts for the continuity between jokes, teasing, mock threats and fantasy, and it links verbal humor with the play behavior of other mammals. Its limitation is that a frame signals that something is not meant seriously but says little about what makes the framed content amusing. Play theory therefore tends to supplement, rather than replace, accounts of content.

Benign violation theory

Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren proposed the benign violation theory, which draws on an idea associated with the linguist Tom Veatch. On this account, humor occurs when a situation is appraised as a violation of some norm, expectation or sense of how things should be, and at the same time is appraised as benign, meaning safe, harmless or acceptable. Tickling and play-fighting are standard illustrations, since both are physically threatening yet harmless. The authors identified three conditions that make a violation benign: an alternative norm that makes the situation seem acceptable, weak commitment to the violated norm, and psychological distance from the event. Their 2010 experiments on moral violations found that benign transgressions elicited laughter and amusement alongside disgust.

The theory also predicts that humor is not a simple function of how much norm-breaking occurs. A violation that is too trivial or too severe is not funny, so funniness follows an inverted-U curve. This explains why a tragedy can seem comic at a distance yet unbearable up close. Proponents argue that the framework covers puns, sarcasm, slapstick and tickling within one account. Critics point out that the benign appraisal is often inferred after the fact, that the theory addresses affect more than the cognitive resolution of a punchline, and that most tests rely on Western, student or online samples.

Cleverness theory

Cleverness theories locate the source of amusement in the ingenuity of the joke and the listener's recognition of it. A joke is treated as a small intellectual achievement, a puzzle neatly solved or a deception elegantly executed. Charles Gruner's work on humor as a game of wits (The Game of Humor, 1997) is a prominent example, framing a joke as a contest in which the teller gets the better of the audience. The approach explains why laughter depends on audience competence and why an over-explained joke falls flat. Its weakness is that cleverness is neither necessary nor sufficient. Slapstick, tickling and many simple puns require little ingenuity, while some elaborate puzzles are admired without being funny.

Combinative proposals

Many theorists have tried to merge the traditional families rather than choose among them. Arthur Koestler's concept of bisociation (The Act of Creation, 1964) describes humor as the collision of two mutually incompatible frames of reference, linking incongruity with a release of emotional tension. Peter Suls's two-stage model (1972) proposes that a listener first detects an incongruity and then resolves it, so that the pleasure of resolution combines with the perception of mismatch and, in some formulations, with a sense of having seen through a deception. Such hybrids can explain a wider range of cases, but they carry costs. When components are combined freely, it becomes unclear which element is essential, and predictions can become difficult to test.

Monro's three-way classification and its problems

D. H. Monro's The Argument of Laughter (1951) sorted historical accounts into superiority, incongruity and relief theories, and this scheme has become the standard map of the field. Monro identified Hobbes as the probable originator of superiority theory and grouped Bergson with it, while incongruity theory was associated with Kant and Schopenhauer. The map is useful for teaching, but it simplifies the historical debate in several ways.

First, it presents the families as rival answers to a single question. Most of the historical thinkers did not offer necessary and sufficient conditions for humor, and many did not regard themselves as competing with one another. Second, the categories overlap. Bergson's view that we laugh at human beings behaving like machines combines a correctional, quasi-superiority element with incongruity, and Freud's relief account contains substantial incongruity. Third, the scheme treats the families as theories of the same thing, whereas they often address different objects: the stimulus, the mental operation, or the affective response. Scholars have suggested that the families are better understood as theory families, each capturing one aspect of a complex phenomenon. Recognizing this reduces the sense of contest among positions and directs attention to which aspect each theory explains best.

Physiology and expression of laughter

Respiratory and laryngeal mechanics

Laughter is built from a rapid series of expiratory pulses. Most basically, laughter is a nonverbal vocalization characterized by a specific coordination of rhythmic respiratory and laryngeal activity. Electromyographic recordings show that the laryngeal adductors, including the thyroarytenoid and lateral cricoarytenoid, fire in brief, high-amplitude bursts at about 5 Hz, and these bursts usually match the audible "ha" syllables one to one . Tracheal pressure rises in pulses that line up with many of these bursts and appear to precisely determine when, and whether, phonation is produced during the laugh. The energy comes from rhythmic pulsing of abdominal and intercostal muscles, forcing air through the glottis, situated in the larynx.

A typical bout is short. A bout of laughter usually contains two to 10 bursts of vocalization. Researchers have modeled the pattern as a damped oscillation: the intensity of successive bursts tends to decrease with lung volume depletion, while the first burst and the number of bursts to follow tend to be set by the overall energy of the laugh. A milder form, the giggle, appears to be characterized by less rhythmic involvement of the respiratory system and, hence, less intensity in the initial burst.

The acoustic identity of laughter rests mainly on its notes. Provine found that simulating a "ha-ho-ha-ho" laugh feels quite unnatural, and that removing the sounds between the notes leaves a laugh that still sounds normal, whereas removing the notes leaves a long, breathy sigh. Pitch and voice quality appear to vary far less in a controlled way than they do in speech, a tentative reading of the limited data.

The punctuation effect

Laughter is not scattered randomly through conversation. In Provine's analysis of 1,200 laughter episodes, laughter of both speaker and audience occurred during pauses at the end of phrases or sentences in over 99% of the sample. Speakers rarely laugh in the middle of a phrase; of 1,200 laughs there were only eight interruptions of speech by laughter, all of them by the speaker. Provine reads this as evidence that speech has priority access to the vocal channel, so that a lawful and probably neurological process controls where laughter falls. The effect extends to signed languages: in a study of deaf signers, laughter occurred 2.7 times more often during pauses and at phrase boundaries than simultaneously with a signed utterance. Provine concluded that laughter placement depends on higher-order cognitive or linguistic processes rather than on low-level competition for a single motor channel. The effect is the origin of the term punctuation effect, and it also appears in online text, where emoticons cluster at the same points where punctuation would fall.

Duchenne and non-Duchenne expression

Facial expression of positive affect is commonly divided into two types. The Duchenne smile combines zygomaticus major activation, which lifts the mouth corners, with orbicularis oculi activation, which narrows the eyes and produces the crinkling known as crow's feet. The name honors the neuroanatomist Duchenne de Boulogne who isolated the orbicularis oculi action and first posited its coherence with enjoyment. Duchenne also argued that the muscle around the eye did not obey the will the way the muscles around the mouth did. A smile without eye involvement is called a non-Duchenne smile, and these smiles may partly serve social functions.

The distinction is weaker in practice than the classical account implies. A study of patients who had botulinum toxin injected into the eye muscle found that smiles in which the orbicularis muscle was active were rated as more felt, spontaneous, intense, and happier. Yet in a database of posed smiles, 67% of them were accompanied by the orbicularis oculi activation, so deliberate performance can recruit the eye muscle too. Eye involvement is therefore a signal of felt positive affect that is more often present in genuine smiles, not a reliable lie detector.

Smiling, laughing and contagion

Smiling and laughing are related but not identical. A smile can be produced by the mouth muscles alone, while laughter depends on the rhythmic respiratory and laryngeal bursts described above. Provine characterizes laughter as an instinctive, largely unconscious social vocalization that is rarely produced when people are alone. Speakers often laugh more often than their audience, which fits the idea that laughter functions in interaction rather than as a private reaction. Provine's work on contagious laughter reports that laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. In group settings, then, one person's laugh can prompt others to laugh or smile, which accounts for the rapid spread of laughter through a conversation and its tendency to cluster at the same points in speech.

Evolutionary origins

Theories of laughter's origin start from its resemblance to behavior in other primates. Four main proposals have been developed: a play signal, a false alarm signal, a respiratory account of speech, and comparative work on other species. Each rests on different evidence, and their empirical support varies.

The play-signal hypothesis

Matthew Gervais and David Sloan Wilson's 2005 synthesis proposes that Duchenne laughter became fully ritualized in early hominids, a process they date to between roughly 4 and 2 million years ago, and that it served as a medium for playful emotional contagion. On this account, the breathy panting emitted by primates during play fighting was turned into a signal that probably appeared before language did. Gervais and Wilson argued that laughter functions as a medium for mirthful emotional contagion that recruits partners into resource-building social play. The same authors separate spontaneous Duchenne laughter from the non-Duchenne sort, the kind that isn't dependent on something being funny. In their model, the non-Duchenne form is a later development, and it came to occur in aggressive, nervous, or hierarchical contexts. They describe this as co-option: an older signal acquired new functions as social life grew more complex.

The false alarm theory

V. S. Ramachandran's 1998 proposal in Medical Hypotheses starts from the idea that alarm calls came first. According to Ramachandran, the main purpose of laughter evolved out of alerting others in the social group to danger by a warning cry. If you have a warning cry, you also need another signal to 'cancel that cry' when the animal realizes there is no real threat to the social group after all. Laughter evolved out of that second signal. His example is an ancestral human who comes across what you think is a dangerous snake but actually turns out to be a stick, you're relieved and you laugh. The theory also accounts for the form of laughter. Ramachandran argued that the "false alarm" signaling purpose of laughter explains its loud sound and explosive quality. It fits contagion too, because a signal that spreads through a group is more useful to the group.

The theory has to explain why some apparent threats are funny and others are not. Ramachandran's slapstick example is that if a man slips on a banana peel and hits his head and starts bleeding to death, you're not going to laugh. But if he [only] falls down and wipes it off his face, you start laughing. The theory's supporters have also acknowledged its status. One account says the theory admittedly involves a lot of conjecture but it is compelling in the number of bits and pieces that begin to add up. A 2016 comparative analysis reports that chimpanzee play faces and laughter convey a 'false alarm' message highly similar to that suggested for the evolution of laughter in humans.

The bipedal theory of vocal evolution

Robert Provine's bipedal theory addresses speech as well as laughter. The constraint is breathing during locomotion. Quadrupeds, including our primate ancestors, have a 1:1 relation between breathing and stride because their thorax must absorb forelimb impacts during running. Consequently, the direct link between breathing and locomotion limits vocalizations to short, simple utterances, such as the characteristic panting chimpanzee laugh (one sound per inward or outward breath). Provine argued that the evolution of bipedal locomotion freed the respiration system of its support function during running, permitting greater breath control and the selection for human-type laughter (a parsed exhalation), and subsequently the virtuosic, sustained, expiratory vocalization of speech. On this view, laughter is the visible trace of a breathing change that later made speech possible. The theory has been challenged on biomechanical grounds. Research on running indicates that even though the evolution of bipedal gait has reduced the mechanical constraints on respiration in man, thereby permitting greater flexibility in breathing pattern, it has seemingly not eliminated the need for the synchronization of respiration and body motion during sustained running. The link between walking, breath and speech therefore remains a hypothesis rather than an established result.

Cross-species comparisons and their limits

Comparisons with other animals supply much of the evidence for these theories, but they carry interpretive limits. The clearest contrast is that humans can produce multiple vocalizations per breath ("ha ha ha") whereas apes typically only produce one vocalization per breath, resulting in the in-out panting in the videos. Research on rats has also reported ultrasonic vocalizations during tickling and rough play, which are often cited as evidence for shared affective systems. Such findings show that play-related vocal behavior occurs across mammals, but they do not show that rat calls are homologous to human laughter. Resemblance in behavior or acoustics can arise from convergent function rather than common descent, and sounds that look similar may serve different roles. The false alarm and play-signal accounts both depend on inference from observed behavior to past function, and that inference is hard to test directly. Fossil evidence cannot record vocal behavior, so the reconstruction of when and why laughter emerged rests largely on comparative and theoretical reasoning.

Neural basis

（见上文正文）

Cognitive processing and individual differences

Psychologists often treat humor comprehension as a sequence of mental operations rather than a single reaction. The most cited early model, Jerry Suls's two-stage account of 1972, holds that a listener first notices an incongruity and then finds a rule that makes the incongruous parts fit together Suls (1972) refined this theory into a two-stage model of humor comprehension, whose first stage is incongruity detection and whose second is incongruity resolution. The setup builds an expectation about where the story is heading, and when the punchline contradicts it, the mismatch pushes the audience to look for an interpretive principle under which the punchline makes sense. Suls treated this search as a form of problem solving humor understanding is similar to the process of problem solving. Some empirical work supports an extended version that adds a final evaluative step, appreciation a three-stage model of humor processing (humor detection, incongruity resolution, and humor appreciation). Suls later argued that two models may be needed: verbal jokes largely follow the two-stage pattern, while much visual humor and humor aimed at children consists of incongruity alone Suls concluded "Probably we need two": one model based on incongruity perception and resolution, and another based on incongruity alone. Verbal humor is mainly based on the two-stage process, whereas much of visual, and children, humor is made up of pure incongruities. Whether resolution is required, or incongruity is enough, remains contested debate between Shultz (1972), Suls (1972), Rothbart and Pien (1977) and Ruch (1992) concerning incongruity as a sufficient (i.e., nonsense) or merely a necessary (i.e., incongruity resolution) stimulus structure for humor.

Prediction is central to these accounts. In one neuroimaging study, incongruity is framed as the moment a listener's forecast about a story fails to hold Incongruity is generated when a prediction is not confirmed in the final part of a story. Predictive-processing approaches go further and locate the reward partly in the speed of comprehension rather than in the content alone. On this view, the brain appears to reward unexpectedly rapid error correction humor emerges not merely from resolving incongruity but from the efficiency of resolution. Van de Cruys et al. (2017) argue that pleasure depends on the speed of understanding—the brain rewards itself for unexpectedly rapid error correction. Computational work turns unexpectedness into a number. Information-theoretic measures such as surprisal estimate how improbable a word is given the preceding text, typically in bits:

Language models can compute this directly, which makes it possible to flag candidate punchlines. A high-surprisal word is not automatically funny, however; the audience must also be able to reconcile it with the setup, and surprisal alone does not capture that step.

Understanding irony and sarcasm depends on theory of mind, the capacity to attribute beliefs and intentions to others. Several studies demonstrate a close relationship between the understanding of irony and theory of mind. Children with autism spectrum disorders often read figurative language literally, and researchers attribute this partly to difficulty reading communicative intentions Past research has reported that children with ASD tend to interpret metaphors, ironic statements, and other figurative language literally and so systematically misinterpret those forms when asked what they mean. The studies suggest that impairments in the children's reading of communicative intentions as part of their general problems with mind-reading (theory of mind (ToM)) underlie these difficulties.. Developmental evidence shows a similar split: comprehending ironic utterances is a relatively late-developing skill, emerging around 5-6 years of age. Jokes, by contrast, are accessible earlier, since in one study even younger children easily understand jokes, and may sometimes understand ironies. Neuroimaging points to overlapping systems, with irony engaging theory-of-mind networks alongside semantic processing activation of the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), posterior part of the left superior temporal gyrus, medial frontal cortex, and left caudate during irony processing, suggesting the involvement of both semantic and theory-of-mind networks.. The link also appears in adult sarcasm use. Sarcasm use tendency was negatively associated with ToM ability, though the effects were small, and some high-ToM participants reported slightly more sarcasm, so the relation is not simple sarcasm use tendency was negatively associated with the speaker's ToM ability with small yet significant effect sizes. Unexpectedly however, individuals with high-level ToM ability showed slightly elevated tendency towards using sarcasm.

Individual differences in how people use humor are often measured with the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), developed by Martin and colleagues in 2003. It sorts humor along two axes, whether humor serves the self or relationships and whether it is benign or detrimental to others or to oneself two ways of using humour to achieve these goals — in a benign vs. in a detrimental way. This classification resulted in four different humour styles. Affiliative humor builds relationships, self-enhancing humor sustains a positive outlook, aggressive humor elevates the self at others' expense, and self-defeating humor improves relationships at the cost of the self Affiliative: Relatively benign uses of humor to enhance one's relationships with others. Self-enhancing: Relatively benign uses of humor to enhance the self. Aggressive: Use of humor to enhance the self at the expense of others. Self-defeating: Use of humor to enhance relationships at the expense of self.. In associational terms, Martin did link affiliative and self-enhancing humor with traits like extraversion and healthy mental well-being, and aggressive and self-defeating humor with neuroticism and maladaptive behavior. The HSQ has shown strong relations to various measures of psychological well-being.

These findings are correlational and should be read with caution. The HSQ is a self-report instrument, so the scores capture how people describe their own joking rather than observed conduct a self-report measure assessing four humor styles. A cross-sectional link between self-defeating humor and lower well-being does not show that the style causes distress; reverse causation or shared personality traits could account for the pattern. Whether the styles add predictive value beyond basic personality traits has also been not sufficiently studied.

Social functions and interpersonal life

Humor as a signal of mate quality

Evolutionary accounts treat humor as a display that might be costly and hard to fake. Under the mental-fitness-indicator version of sexual selection, the ability to produce humor depends on creativity and intelligence, so humor can advertise those traits to prospective partners, and it works whether or not the signaller intends it some human capacities such as language, creativity, art, music, altruism, and humor evolved at least partly through mutual mate choice for 'good genes' and 'good parent' traits. In this view, a good sense of humor is sexually attractive because it is a hard-to-fake signal of intelligence, creativity, mental health, and other traits desired by both sexes, consciously or not. The theory yields testable predictions. In one study of verbal humor, intelligence predicted humor ability, humor ability predicted mating success, and men on average scored higher, which the authors read as support for the model This study confirmed three predictions derived from a sexual selection model of humor (Miller, 2000): intelligence predicts humor ability, humor ability predicts mating success, and males show higher average humor ability.

The evidence is contested. A study of Facebook profiles found that humor production was perceived as linked to extroversion rather than intelligence humor production on Facebook profiles were self-reported and perceived to be associated with extroversion, not intelligence. Other researchers argue that the supposed links between creativity, intelligence and humor are overstated Some have argued that supposed links between creativity, intelligence, and humor are overblown. Indirect support comes from a study in which women at high fertility favored creative men over wealthy men for short-term pairing, though not for long-term partnerships During high fertility, women chose creative men about twice as often as wealthy men for short-term pairing, but no preference emerged for creative men as long-term partners. This study did not measure humor directly. Aggressive humor is treated separately, since it carries costs for both target and speaker. A 2022 study tested whether it serves mate choice or competition, and found that self-reported aggressive humor tracked a motive to compete rather than a motive to court The motive of competition but not courtship positively correlates with self-reported use of aggressive humor.

Laughter, grooming and group size

Robin Dunbar proposed that laughter helped early humans bond in groups larger than grooming could sustain. Primate social grooming releases endorphins, but the time available for social grooming is limited, and this imposes an upper limit on the size of group that can be bonded in this way. On his account, when hominins needed to increase the size of their groups beyond the limit that could be bonded by grooming, they co-opted laughter (a modified version of the play vocalization found widely among the catarrhine primates) as a form of chorusing to fill the gap. The key asymmetry is that during grooming only the recipient gets the 'hit', whereas the average size of naturally occurring laughter groups is about three, and since all of them laugh, all of them receive the effect. Dunbar therefore concludes that laughter is three times more efficient than grooming in its capacity to bond individuals. He also argues that laughter supplements grooming rather than replacing it laughter does not replace social grooming, but rather supplements it. The hypothesis rests largely on the endorphin mechanism and on contemporary group-size observations, and the ancestral reconstruction is inferential.

Status, boundaries and norms

Teasing, self-deprecation and shared jokes are commonly described in sociology and anthropology as ways of signalling relative standing and social boundaries. Teasing can express and reinforce a hierarchy, while self-deprecation can display humility and lower others' defensiveness. In-jokes mark who belongs to a group, and the people who may tease, and the targets they may tease, are governed by local norms. Those norms vary between settings and cultures, which makes it hard to generalize from one group to another.

Workplace humor and leadership

Research on workplace humor usually uses the four-style model of humor, which distinguishes affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating humor Two categories based on the target direction of the humor use, either inwardly or interpersonally, are then differentiated into four humor types. In a survey of 583 employees in southern China, leader affiliative humor was linked to higher innovative behavior through psychological safety, while leader aggressive humor was linked to lower innovative behavior through the same route leader affiliative humor facilitates employee innovative behavior by increasing their psychological safety. In contrast, leader aggressive humor inhibits employee innovative behavior by decreasing their psychological safety. A study of 220 Indian employees reported that supervisors' affiliative humor was associated with knowledge sharing, while self-defeating humor was associated with less sharing and aggressive humor with more knowledge hiding Affiliative humour promotes KS, while self-defeating humour discourages it. Additionally, aggressive humour increases KH, while self-enhancing humour has no significant effects. A Taiwanese study of corporate leaders found that self-enhancing humor was most strongly tied to leadership effectiveness, and that aggressive humor's negative association was weaker in size the negative effect of aggressive humor on leadership effectiveness, compared to the positive effect of self-enhancing humor on leadership effectiveness, was less intensive. Some studies also suggest that followers may read a leader's friendly humor differently depending on the leader's character even when Machiavellian leaders exhibit ostensibly affiliative humor at work, the followers are likely to interpret that humor as a deceptive behavior aimed at furthering the leader's own interests.

These findings are mostly correlational and based on self-reported surveys, often with single-country or single-organization samples. Results across studies also differ on whether self-enhancing or affiliative humor matters most, so the workplace evidence supports a broad pattern, namely that aggressive humor is consistently linked to poorer outcomes, rather than precise effect sizes.

Linguistic mechanisms of verbal humor

Raskin's semantic script theory

The most influential linguistic account of verbal humor is Victor Raskin's Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor, set out in his 1985 book Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. A script is a structured body of stereotyped knowledge about a situation, person or behaviour, which a word or text evokes. Raskin proposed two necessary conditions for a text to be a joke. First, the text must be compatible, wholly or partly, with two distinct scripts. Second, those scripts must stand in a special relation of opposition, such as real versus unreal, normal versus abnormal, life versus death, good versus bad, high versus low, or literal versus non-literal. Two overlapping scripts alone are not enough, because ordinary ambiguity also has them. The opposition is what produces the humorous clash semantics.

Raskin's standard example is a short advice-and-punchline pair: "Never go into the water after a heavy meal. You won't find it there." The first sentence activates a script about eating a meal and the risks of swimming afterwards. The second reinterprets "after" as in searching for something, so the script of looking for a meal replaces it. Sequencing matters. A later critical reexamination reported that only about half of Raskin's examples clearly displayed the claimed opposition, and it argued that the linear order of the scripts strongly affects how funny a joke is. Attardo and Raskin later extended the model into the General Theory of Verbal Humor, which adds further knowledge resources such as narrative strategy and target.

Puns and wordplay

Puns exploit three main sources of ambiguity. Homophony involves different words with the same sound, polysemy involves one word with several related senses, and syntactic ambiguity involves a sentence that can be parsed in more than one way. Homographic puns depend on spelling, while homophonic puns depend on sound, so they carry over poorly to writing unless the written form is supported in some way.

Chinese is especially rich in homophones, and punning is a common feature of everyday talk, literature and advertising. One widely cited dictionary lists 149 characters for the syllable yì alone. A typical homophone pun is the advertising slogan for an andrology clinic that reads, in Chinese, "we solve your male problems": the word nán (男, male) replaces nán (难, difficult) in nántí (难题, difficult problem). In a classic poem, a line plays on yǒu qíng (有情, affectionate) and yǒu qíng (有晴, sunny), and modern readers still appreciate it for that double meaning. Chinese also has the term 一语双关 (yī yǔ shuāng guān, "one phrase, two meanings") for punning, though it is rarely used in speech. Psycholinguistic work supports these observations. An eye-tracking study by Zheng and Wang (2022) found that Chinese readers rated homophone puns as funnier when the less salient homophone was shown visually, and that semantic relatedness between the key noun and the intended meaning predicted humor ratings. An ERP study published in 2023 argued that frame-shifting, rather than incongruity as such, is necessary for comprehending Chinese homophone puns. Bilingual puns, which mix Chinese characters with English homophones, are also found in public signage in Guangzhou.

Irony, sarcasm, understatement and hyperbole

These forms share a basic feature: the speaker's intended meaning departs from the literal content of the utterance. In pragmatic terms, the speaker flouts or violates a conversational expectation, such as the expectation of sincerity or truthfulness, and the listener must infer the intended meaning from context. Raskin's theory is often described as treating humor as a violation of Grice's cooperative principle, which links verbal humor to pragmatics as well as to semantics. Irony depends on a contrast between what is said and what is meant, sarcasm adds an evaluative and usually hostile tone, understatement minimizes a fact, and hyperbole exaggerates it. Each relies on shared assumptions about the world and about the speaker, so the same utterance can be ironic in one context and sincere in another. This dependence on context is why these forms are discussed further under pragmatics and irony.

Spoken, written and signed humor

In speech, the timing and delivery of a joke carry much of its meaning. Pitch contour, stress, pauses and rhythm signal where the punchline begins and how the speaker stands toward it. Sarcasm is often marked mainly by intonation, which is why it can be lost in text. Prosody is therefore central to how jokes work orally, and its phonological basis is treated under prosody and phonology.

In written humor, the reader's pacing is controlled by punctuation, line breaks, typography and layout. Written jokes also exploit visual features that speech cannot: characters that look alike, mixed scripts, and deliberate misspellings. Homophone puns in Chinese are a case in point, since the sound-based joke must be made visible through context or visual form. A recent study of Mandarin homophone humor identified several patterns that rely on visual and typographic wordplay, not only on sound.

Signed languages have their own forms of wordplay. Puns can rest on handshapes that resemble one another, on mouth movements, or on the use of signing space, and jokes are often timed through facial expression and body movement. Because these channels are visual and manual, the mechanisms differ from those of spoken puns, although the underlying semantic and pragmatic logic is the same. The general principles of verbal humor therefore apply across modalities, while the surface resources change with the medium.

Forms, genres and performance

Basic verbal forms

The joke is the most codified verbal form. It usually sets up an expectation, steers the listener toward a predictable reading, and then resolves the tension in a punchline. The anecdote is looser. It is a told episode, drawn from experience or hearsay, whose humour lies in its incidents, its timing and the teller's framing. The riddle reverses the usual question-and-answer pattern: its solution is a surprising reinterpretation of the words, often through wordplay. The one-liner compresses the whole structure into a single sentence, with the setup implied rather than stated. Each form asks something different of the audience. The joke rewards recognising a pattern, the anecdote rewards identification with the teller, and the riddle rewards solving.

Live and scripted performance

Stand-up comedy is a solo live act in which a performer addresses the audience directly through stories, one-liners and jokes. Its defining feature is responsiveness. A stand-up can read how the room receives material and change course during the set, something a fixed script for a play or sitcom cannot do A sitcom or a funny play follows a script – if the material falls flat then tough shit – whereas a stand-up can judge how their stuff is being received and adapt the material in real-time. Many performers use crowd work, responding to hecklers or questioning individual audience members. Material is typically tested and refined over many open-mic nights. Stand-up has partly grown out of vaudeville, a tradition that relied heavily on exaggerated characters and slapstick humor, and in which performers gradually added personal anecdotes and social observation.

Sketch comedy presents short, self-contained scenes, often with recurring characters, and these are usually written and rehearsed in advance. The sitcom is a scripted serial built around a stable cast and a recurring situation, so its effect depends heavily on writing and timing. Improvisational performance works without a fixed script, relying on the ensemble to build scenes from suggestions and on each performer's responsiveness to the others. The lineage of these forms is long. Besides sitcoms, commedia influenced Shakespeare, Molière, opera, vaudeville, musical theatre, and improv comedy.

Physical and nonverbal forms

Slapstick is a style of humor involving exaggerated physical activity that exceeds the boundaries of normal physical comedy, and it may involve intentional violence or violence caused by accident. The name comes from a prop used in sixteenth-century Italian commedia dell'arte. The batacchio was a club of two wooden slats that produces a loud smacking noise, though little force is transferred from the object to the person being struck. Actors may thus hit one another repeatedly with great audible effect while causing very little actual physical damage. Physical comedy is much older. The rough-and-tumble of slapstick has been a part of low comedy and farce since ancient times, having been a prominent feature of Greek and Roman mime and pantomime.

Commedia dell'arte itself relied on specific, stock characters, most of which wear masks, improvise performances based on standard scenarios. Because the plots were improvised, the actors worked local names, current scandals and the latest news into the plots and dialogue. Visual gags such as pratfalls, props and sight jokes, and nonsense that depends on absurd logic rather than sense, likewise communicate through action and image more than through language.

Satire, parody, caricature and burlesque

These four terms are often confused, and they are best distinguished by their targets and techniques. Satire uses humor, irony, and exaggeration to criticize or comment on people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of politics and other societal issues. Its aim is critique, not imitation as such. Parody is a composition imitating another, usually serious, piece. It is designed to ridicule a work or its style or author. Caricature exaggerates features or traits, and it is primarily a visual art form, though it can also be literary. Burlesque is closer to a mocking treatment of a serious subject, often using vulgar or ludicrous exaggeration. One distinction is especially useful: parody keeps the target's style and structure while lowering its subject, whereas burlesque can keep the subject while lowering the style, and it does not require strict imitation of a particular text.

Genre conventions shift over time, and the labels themselves move. In the United States, the era of American burlesque started in the 1860s and ran uncensored until 1937, when the term burlesque could no longer legally be used in New York. In later usage the word came to name a vaudeville-style entertainment with low comedy and striptease. Parody has also moved from literary imitation toward film, as in films that mimic the conventions of a whole genre rather than a single work.

Literature and the arts

Humour has long been shaped into dramatic and narrative forms that later writers borrowed and reworked. In fifth-century BCE Athens, Aristophanes wrote the surviving plays of Old Comedy, including The Clouds, The Frogs and Lysistrata. These combined fantastic premises, obscenity, choral interludes and open attacks on public figures; The Clouds lampoons Socrates. Later Greek writers such as Menander, whose comedy turned on domestic plots of mistaken identity and young lovers, moved away from that political directness. This shift produced the model that Rome adapted.

Plautus (c. 254–184 BCE) and Terence (c. 195–159 BCE) reworked Greek plays for Latin audiences. Plautus favoured boisterous slaves, cunning servants and boastful soldiers, and the braggart captain he made familiar became a durable stock type. Terence was more polished and less farcical. Their influence was long-lived: Britannica notes that Plautus's Roman plays shaped European theatre, and that Molière's L'Avare rests on Plautus's Aulularia. Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors draws on Menaechmi, and the stage Capitano of commedia traces back to the same braggart soldier.

Commedia dell'arte developed in sixteenth-century Italy as a professional theatre of masks, improvisation and recognisable types: lovers, clever servants, greedy old men and boasting captains. Performers worked from outline scenarios rather than fixed scripts, and troupes toured widely across Europe. In 1658 Molière shared the Palais-Royal in Paris with Italian players, and his plays draw on their wily servants and farcical situations. Molière (1622–1673) combined this inheritance with classical plots to write satirical comedies of manners such as Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope.

In Shakespeare's theatre, the fool occupied a distinct and changing role. Early clowns such as Bottom and Dogberry were comic stooges, often associated with the actor Will Kemp. From around 1599, Touchstone in As You Like It, Feste in Twelfth Night and the Fool in King Lear became witty, reflective figures, linked by many critics to the actor Robert Armin. Their licence to speak frankly derives from the real court jester, who could say what others could not, because the speech was framed as laughter.

François Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532–1564) became the central text of Mikhail Bakhtin's study Rabelais and His World, first published in full in 1965. Bakhtin argued that Rabelais absorbed folk carnival, with its inverted hierarchies, grotesque bodies, feasting and "ambivalent" laughter that both mocks and renews. The term "carnivalesque" derives from this reading and is now used widely in literary criticism. Critics have questioned whether Bakhtin overstated the festive, affirmative side of Rabelais at the expense of his humanist and courtly satire.

Cervantes's Don Quixote (Part I, 1605; Part II, 1615) reversed the expectations of chivalric romance. Its comedy lies in the gap between the knight's idealism and the world he encounters, and in Sancho Panza's earthy realism. Its self-conscious narrator and characters who discuss the book itself made it a model for later novels that use irony to unsettle realist conventions, including Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy and the nonlinear, self-reflexive fiction of the twentieth century.

Visual humour developed through caricature and the picture story. William Hogarth's engraved series of the eighteenth century, and the caricatures of Gillray and Rowlandson, turned political and social figures into exaggerated grotesques. In the nineteenth century, Daumier produced lithographic satire for French newspapers, Rodolphe Töpffer created early comic picture stories, and Wilhelm Busch's Max und Moritz (1865) became a model for later comic strips. In Japan, Hokusai's sketchbooks published from 1814 under the title Manga helped establish the term later applied to comics.

The silent era gave comedy a new medium. The Lumière brothers' short films of 1895 showed everyday comic incidents, Georges Méliès used trick effects in films such as A Trip to the Moon (1902), and Mack Sennett's Keystone studio built its style around chases and slapstick. Charlie Chaplin's tramp character, which he first played in 1914, and the work of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, established visual comedy as a major art form.

Cultural variation and translation

Shared knowledge, norms and taboos

Humor is often described as universal, but what counts as funny is shaped by culture and by local norms. A systematic review of 31 English-language empirical studies found that North American participants tended to judge humor more favorably, to rate themselves as funnier, and to use humor more than East Asian participants. Humor is universal but also culturally nuanced. Accounts of Chinese humor often stress harmony. On this view, mockery that is overly confrontational can strain interpersonal relations, while humor framed as a means to smooth, harmonious interaction is more typical in Taoist-influenced contexts (Humor that is overly critical or confrontational; in Taoist-influenced Chinese cultures, humor is often framed as a means to achieve witty, peaceful, and harmonious interactions). These generalizations are contested, and the review itself urges caution about them.

Cultural research on humor styles points to patterns in use rather than fixed national traits. Studies drawing on cultural dimensions found that individuals from horizontal collectivist cultures that emphasize harmony and group cohesion are more likely to use affiliative humor, while individuals from vertical individualist cultures that embrace competitiveness are more likely to use aggressive humor to enhance their hierarchical status. Such findings are correlational, as one review notes (a survey only provides correlational evidence). Some findings cut across cultures: a comparison of Chinese and Canadian students found that mental health was linked to affiliative and self-enhancing humor in both groups, and to aggressive and self-defeating humor negatively in both (mental health was positively associated with affiliative and self-enhancing humor and negatively associated with aggressive and self-defeating humor).

Taboo subjects are where cultural boundaries are most visible. Jokes about sexuality, gender roles, or family conflict can be acceptable in one setting and socially risky in another, and comparative work has shown that the target of a joke matters: one line of research found that Chinese participants enjoyed jokes about distant others more than jokes about close ones, a pattern weaker among American participants (Chinese participants appreciated and shared jokes significantly more when they involved distant others rather than close others).

Translating puns and culture-bound references

Wordplay and allusion are the hardest material to carry across languages. Translation scholars often compare humor translation to poetry translation, because both depend heavily on the sound and cultural habits of a language. Scholars have listed several responses. One scheme proposes replicating the pun where possible, creating a new pun in the target language, using a different humorous device elsewhere, compensating by placing a pun at another point in the text, adding an explanation, or omitting the joke (six possible solutions). Compensation is the most discussed of these: Newmark (1991) suggests that all puns, alliterations, rhyme, slang, metaphor and pregnant words can be compensated in translation. Compensation has limits, since the added joke may not match the original's meaning or position.

Concrete cases show the trade-offs. In one study of an English sitcom dubbed into French, the predominant strategy was to leave the verbally expressed humor unchanged, without altering the content of the joke or adapting it to the target culture. In a study of an animated film dubbed into Arabic, the source homophony and the humoristic sense that it promotes in English are lost in the Arabic translation and are not compensated. Translators of Tom Swifties, which hinge on English adverbs, have found that a literal French rendering of the ambiguity does not feel natural, so they adapt the framing to a French-language formula. Dubbing adds further constraints, because substitute jokes must fit lip movements and the length of each utterance (the new humorous elements recreated by the translator may not be synchronized with the actor's lip movements, actions and length of utterance). Homophone puns in Chinese, known as wordplay (谐音 xiéyīn) where words with similar sounds are used to create puns, present similar difficulty, since the sound-based joke rarely survives transfer to an alphabetic language without explanation.

Regional comic traditions

Each regional tradition works through its own medium, and their techniques should not be treated as variants of one model. Xiangsheng, or Chinese crosstalk, is a spoken-word art. It originated in Tianqiao in Beijing, Quanyechang in Tianjin, and Fuzimiao in Nanjing, and as an independent variety act it emerged around the Daoguang to Tongzhi reign of the Qing Dynasty, approximately 1821-1874 AD. Performances usually rely on a leading role (逗哏/dougen in Chinese) and the other is the supporting role (捧哏/penggen in Chinese). Its crosstalk language, rich in puns and allusions, is delivered in a rapid, bantering style. A critic has argued that in the mid-twentieth century the form maintained an anti-authoritarian and even slightly subversive quality, a reading that is debated. Xiangsheng has also spread abroad: Ding Guangquan accepted over 40 students in his years teaching, and several of his foreign students now perform on Chinese and international stages.

Japanese rakugo, by contrast, is typically a single seated narrator telling a story that builds to a closing punchline, and it developed in the Edo period. European stage traditions, such as music hall, pantomime and boulevard farce, rely more on physical timing, character types and topical reference. These forms differ in their reliance on spoken wordplay, audience interaction and performance context, so comparisons across them need to be made case by case.

Internet media and globalization

Jokes now cross linguistic boundaries through subtitling, dubbing, streaming and social platforms, often within days of their first appearance. Image-based memes travel more easily than spoken jokes because they depend less on a particular language, though their meaning still often depends on a shared online context. Translators and local communities frequently create new captions or adapted versions, which turns a single joke into several regional variants. Cross-cultural research on humor has largely been conducted through surveys, experiments and media content analysis, so it is less clear how these circulation patterns affect what audiences find funny over time.

Satire, power and freedom of expression

Satire as a check on authority

Satire has long been a way to criticise rulers, and its earliest institutional form was the court fool. Medieval jesters used mockery, riddles and short skits, and humour let them slide unwelcome observations past a monarch's guard. These barbs were often delivered in riddles or songs, and sometimes skits. The licence this gave was real but uneven. A joke that amused one ruler might offend another, and the protection of a court fool depended heavily on the individual circumstances of the court. The case of Archibald Armstrong, who served both James I and Charles I, shows the limits: he was eventually dismissed for mocking the Archbishop of Canterbury one too many times.

Repression of outspoken comic performers also predates the medieval court. Rome's periodic censorship crackdowns on outspoken comic actors reportedly pushed many of them into roving performance across the empire. When formal jesters declined, satire moved into print. The printing press from the fifteenth century onward allowed satirical pamphlets to reach broader audiences, and by the seventeenth century coffeehouses and taverns had become hubs of debate in cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam.

Legal frameworks: defamation, blasphemy, hate speech and copyright

Humour is shaped by several overlapping legal regimes, and their boundaries differ between jurisdictions. Even where constitutional protection is strongest, expression is not unlimited: even in the US, which has the strongest constitutional protections for free speech of any country in the world, there are limits.

In Europe, the framework is set by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention protects freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and it condemns incitement to hatred. Case law shows how the balance is struck. The Court upheld the conviction of a Belgian politician who had handed out leaflets presenting immigrants as criminals, but condemned a hate speech conviction of a former prime minister in Erbakan v. Turkey. In Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, the Court upheld the forfeiture of a film that portrayed Catholicism satirically, in a community where most people were Catholic, because authorities had acted to preserve religious peace. Dissenting judges took a different line, arguing that free expression carries an obligation of moral restraint.

Blasphemy and religious-insult laws vary sharply. In Denmark, the minimum threshold for prosecution as a religious insult was that a cartoon show contempt and debasement, and the court found the Jyllands-Posten cartoons did not meet it. In France, a Paris court ruled in 2007 that the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo did not incite hatred and could not be treated as hate speech. The magazine's offices were later attacked: the January 2015 assault killed twelve people and injured eleven, in retaliation for the magazine's cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Copyright law raises a separate constraint. In Deckmyn v Vandersteen (2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union treated parody as an autonomous EU concept. A work must evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and it must constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The mockery does not have to target the original work: it can also be directed at something or someone else. The ruling also left room for objection: if parodies convey a discriminatory message, rights holders can demand that their original works be disassociated from them. National approaches differ in method. German law did not specifically implement the EU parody exception, and instead relied on longstanding case law under its general free-use provision. The United Kingdom's parody exception, introduced in 2014, is subject to fair dealing principles.

Self-mockery and identity-based humour

Humour by marginalised groups is often read as a form of resilience. Self-mockery can reclaim stigmatised identities, and jokes told within a community can comment on prejudice that the community itself experiences. Whether such jokes carry the same meaning when told by outsiders, and whether jokes about ethnic groups reinforce stereotypes regardless of the teller's intent, remain contested. Scholars, communities and courts disagree about who may tell which jokes, and how audience reception shapes meaning.

An unsettled boundary

The cases above show that the line between satirical freedom and social harm is not settled. Deckmyn raises the question of whether a parody with a discriminatory message can still claim protection, while the Charlie Hebdo and Otto-Preminger cases raise the question of whether satire of religion may be restricted to preserve public order or religious peace. Courts have drawn these lines differently, and societies continue to disagree over whether satire aimed at ideas and institutions should be treated differently from humour that demeans people for who they are.

Health, therapy and well-being

Stress, mood and sleep outcomes

Controlled studies of laughter and humor as health interventions have multiplied since the 2000s, but the results are uneven. A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials pooled ten studies with 814 adults and found that laughter and humor interventions were associated with reduced depression and anxiety and better sleep quality, with depression benefiting more from longer programs. A later meta-analysis of 15 trials (1,344 participants) on perceived stress reported a large pooled reduction (standardized mean difference about −1.41), but heterogeneity was very high (I² ≈ 95.8%), and most included trials raised concerns about allocation concealment and blinding. A dose-response analysis estimated that benefits for depression and anxiety grew with cumulative exposure up to roughly 400 and 600 minutes respectively, after which gains levelled off.

Physiological markers: cortisol and pain

Two physiological lines of evidence are often cited. A 2023 systematic review of eight interventional studies (315 adults) pooled a reduction of about 32% in cortisol relative to control conditions, and sensitivity analyses suggested that a single session was enough to produce a significant change. The pooled studies were heterogeneous: five used comedy or humor videos, two used sessions led by a trained therapist, and one used a self-administered program, and only four were randomized. Meta-regression found no relationship between session length and cortisol change, and the authors noted that the timing of sampling varied between studies.

The pain-threshold literature rests largely on work by Dunbar and colleagues. In six experiments using comedy videos and live stage performances, pain thresholds were higher after laughter than after control conditions, which was interpreted as evidence of endogenous opioid release. A later reanalysis that addressed design limitations of the original scanning study, including its male-only sample and low-level baseline, stated that its own data did not conclusively show that social laughter itself produced the effect in both sexes. The mechanism therefore remains a hypothesis rather than an established finding.

Clinical, palliative and hospital settings

Humor-based programs have been applied to a wide range of groups, including hospital patients, nurses and nursing students, older adults, and mothers of infants in neonatal intensive care. Clinical use is most developed in psychotherapy. A systematic review of ten psychotherapy studies in seven countries found significant effects on depressive and anxiety symptoms, but differences in design, populations and the operationalization of humor prevented a pooled analysis. Palliative care presents particular difficulties: trials there have repeatedly struggled with high attrition and missing data. A small haemodialysis study randomized 40 patients to a four-week simulated laughter programme or control, and only 11 of the 20 assigned to laughter completed it. Taken together, the evidence base is weighted toward small trials, quasi-experimental designs and programs with variable content, so these settings are best regarded as supplementary to standard care.

Coping, resilience and humor styles

Humor is often studied as a coping strategy, and psychological research distinguishes among styles using the Humor Styles Questionnaire developed by Martin and colleagues in 2003. The instrument separates affiliative and self-enhancing humor, which are generally benign, from aggressive and self-defeating humor, which are generally harmful to others or to oneself. Affiliative and self-enhancing styles are associated with better well-being, whereas self-defeating humor tends to go with lower self-esteem and aggressive humor with poorer social outcomes. However, a study comparing the questionnaire with personality measures found that the humor styles added only small amounts of predictive power once personality was controlled. Associations also vary by context: in one analysis, self-defeating humor moderated the link between hopelessness and suicidal ideation among students but not among community participants, while self-enhancing humor showed the reverse pattern. Because these findings are cross-sectional, they cannot establish whether humor builds resilience, whether resilience encourages humor, or whether low mood reduces humor use.

Methodological cautions

Most outcome data rely on self-report, including mood scales and the humor-style questionnaires, and such measures are vulnerable to expectation effects. Reliability has been questioned for the Humor Styles Questionnaire, partly because translation across languages has produced items that do not behave as intended. Placebo-like effects are difficult to separate from the active ingredient: group laughter sessions also provide social contact, attention and structure, and many control conditions receive no comparable stimulus, so the specific contribution of humor remains hard to isolate. Small samples, short follow-up periods and differences in how laughter is induced all limit comparison across studies, and high heterogeneity in pooled estimates should be read as a warning about generalizability rather than as a measure of effect size.

Computational humor and artificial intelligence

Detection tasks

Computational humor treats the recognition of funny or ironic text as a classification problem within natural language processing. Sarcasm has received the most sustained attention. It is usually defined as verbal irony meant to express contempt or ridicule, and it often pairs a positive surface sentiment with an implied negative one, which makes it hard for systems that score sentiment word by word. Early approaches relied on semi-supervised pattern extraction and hashtag-based labels, and later work added context beyond the target sentence. Surveys by Joshi, Bhattacharyya and Carman map these datasets and methods. On the Self-Annotated Reddit Corpus, simple classical models that used no conversational context reached an F1 score of about 0.57 on sarcastic comments, which illustrates how much the surrounding discussion matters. Pun detection has relied on information-theoretic measures of ambiguity and distinctiveness, first formalized in 2016. Recognition work has also moved beyond text: standup clips have been rated by audience laughter, and memes are analyzed for the mismatch between image and caption.

Generation and evaluation with large language models

Generating humor is considerably harder than detecting it. Standard training for large language models rewards predictable continuations, whereas humor depends on a deliberate violation of expectation, so the two objectives pull in different directions. Recent studies find that models produce fluent, stylistically varied jokes but often misjudge context: a 2025 study using GPT-4o, LLaMA3 and Gemini 1.5 found weaknesses in deciding when humor is appropriate in emotionally sensitive conversations and in reading the speaker's role. Comparisons with human writers have been mixed. A 2024 PLOS ONE study set ChatGPT against laypeople and professional satire writers, and earlier work had relied on anecdotal examples. Prompt wording, sampling temperature and model architecture have all been shown to change output quality, and some work reports that step-by-step prompting can degrade humor explanations.

Evaluation is the central methodological problem. Human ratings are subjective, and small annotator pools are common; one 2026 study judged generated jokes with only three native English speakers. Automated pairwise judging has been proposed as a remedy. HumorRank, for example, uses LLM judges guided by the General Theory of Verbal Humor and ranks models with a Bradley-Terry model, reporting high agreement between two independent LLM judges and human-LLM agreement that tracks human-human agreement on difficult pairs. Such judges may inherit the same cultural assumptions as the models they assess, so their rankings require the same scrutiny as human benchmarks. A critical survey of human evaluation in humor, irony and sarcasm generation has argued that these procedures are often under-specified.

Datasets, annotation and bias

Many corpora are built from online platforms. A large Reddit r/Jokes collection of more than 550,000 jokes carries upvote counts, but votes reflect visibility and timing as well as funniness. Humicroedit, by contrast, consists of 15,095 news headlines with small edits and five funniness scores from qualified crowd annotators, which allows researchers to test specific causes of humor such as incongruity and setup-punchline structure. Agreement is a recurring weakness. In a study of online comics, two-person annotators agreed on 87% of labels overall, yet Krippendorff's alpha was only 0.556, largely because most comics were judged humorous, creating label imbalance. Fleiss' kappa for pun annotation has been reported near 0.49, which is moderate at best. Annotator bias is also documented: Weller and Seppi reported in 2019 that a model trained on jokes outperformed a sample of random humans, suggesting that it learned the idiosyncrasies of the annotators rather than general humor. Some groups restrict identity-related datasets to items on which all raters agree, trading coverage for reliability.

Safety and humor as a test of understanding

Generated jokes can be offensive, stereotyped or culturally insensitive, and a model's humor can reflect the toxicity of its training material. Research published in 2025 examined how stereotypes and toxicity shape humor in language models, using Reddit joke corpora as sources. Filtering is a common response, but classifiers trained to flag stereotypes can also remove legitimate satire, self-mockery and in-group jokes, so the boundary between safety and expressive range remains contested. Humor is also used as a diagnostic of machine understanding. Comprehending a joke requires world knowledge, pragmatic inference about irony and speaker intent, and some model of what other people find surprising. Generating a joke is therefore a weaker test than explaining why it works, and the evidence to date suggests that models still fall short of human performance on this task, particularly in tasks involving cultural context.

Research methods

Laboratory experiments and stimulus ratings

Much experimental work manipulates incongruity in a stimulus, such as a joke, cartoon or sentence, and then asks participants to rate how funny it is. Laughter itself is hard to elicit under controlled conditions. Provine first observed subjects in his laboratory but found laughter too fragile, illusive, and variable under direct scrutiny, which led him to study spontaneous laughter in daily life. Rating studies therefore measure judged amusement rather than laughter, and the results depend on the wording of scales, the choice of anchors and the mood of raters. Stimulus sets are often small and built by researchers, so the same experimental effect may hinge on a few items. The reproducibility of such effects depends on whether the stimuli are shared and whether effect sizes are reported with adequate statistical power.

Electrophysiology and neuroimaging

Most neural studies of humor have used functional MRI, and few have tracked timing. Most studies of the neural correlates of humor processing have used functional magnetic resonance imaging, but few studies have examined the temporal dynamics of humor processing. EEG studies fill that gap by recording event-related potentials. In one ERP study, event-related potentials were measured while 31 participants read jokes, non-jokes and nonsensical sentences. The nonsense sentences produced the largest N400 deflection in the 350–500 ms window, which the authors linked to incongruity detection, while jokes and non-jokes elicited a larger P600, read as reanalysis during resolution.

The interpretation of components is not stable across studies. One group treats the N400 as reflecting incongruity detection, whereas another assigns the N400 to incongruity comprehension and the late positivities to the feeling of amusement. The N400 is also sensitive to semantic violations or an unexpected effect, so a component that responds to any semantic surprise cannot easily be attributed to humor specifically. Sample sizes are modest: one drawing study recorded from 30 participants while viewing the incongruous drawings of celebrities.

Naturalistic observation and sampling

Provine's approach relied on field observation. He documented thousands of instances of people laughing in public places, along with the conversations that led to the laughter. His coded data showed that only 10–20% of statements eliciting laughter are related to humour, and that laughter is 30 times more frequent in social than solitary situations. In an analysis of 1,200 protocols, speakers' laughter almost always followed complete statements or questions, and only 0.1 percent of the coded events interrupted phrases. Diary methods have complemented this work; one study had people record episodes of laughing, smiling in their everyday lives.

Naturalistic designs trade control for ecological validity. Deciding whether a remark was "humorous" is itself a coding judgment, and public settings sample situations unevenly. Field observers also cannot easily record listeners' internal states, so claims about amusement must be inferred from behaviour.

Questionnaires and scales

The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) is the most widely used instrument in this area. It was built to measure four styles, affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating. In its original Canadian validation, the authors reported internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha: .77 for Aggressive, .80 for both Affiliative and Self-defeating, and .81 for Self-enhancing humor). Correlations between the scales were modest, and a later study found that convergence was good for the self-defeating style, but lower and partly mismatched for the affiliative, self-enhancing, and aggressive styles. A critique has also questioned whether scores adequately reflect adaptive or maladaptive humor use, the premise on which the HSQ's links to well-being rest.

Cross-cultural use has expanded. The HSQ has since been translated and validated in many languages, and in a Spanish community sample the four-factor structure of the HSQ was largely invariant compared to the original one. Strong correlations with well-being also need qualification: one study found the HSQ has strong relations to various measures of psychological well-being, yet its incremental validity over personality was low. Factor invariance shows that items behave similarly across groups, not that the meaning of humor is equivalent across cultures.

Cross-species comparison and sample limits

Cross-species work is constrained by the difference between resemblance and homology. Reviews argue that homologue and homoplasic behaviours of laughter exist in primates and rodents, meaning that some similarities may be shared inheritance and others convergent solutions. Behavioural similarity alone cannot establish which case applies, and reading rodent vocalizations as "laughter" risks projecting human categories onto animal signals.

Western and student samples present a similar problem. Many questionnaire norms, laboratory rating studies and neuroimaging studies draw on North American or European university participants, and the cultural variation in how laughter is decoded is substantial. One study noted that countries that have a more varied history of migration are cultures where smiles and laughs are more easily and accurately decoded, which suggests that sample composition can shape results. Findings from a single population should therefore not be generalized to humanity without replication across cultures, languages and age groups.

Open questions and debates

The most basic open question is whether humor can be defined at all. Earlier sections of this entry describe superiority, relief, incongruity, play and benign-violation accounts, and each captures real features of amusement while failing on some cases. Researchers still disagree about whether these accounts are rival explanations of one phenomenon, partial views of a family of phenomena, or stages of a single process. Attempts at unification usually combine incongruity with an appraisal of safety or social meaning, but no combined model has displaced the others, and the sheer variety of things people call funny (a pun, a prank, a cartoon, a tragic irony) makes a single set of conditions hard to test. Some scholars therefore treat the lack of consensus as a sign that "humor" names a loose family of responses rather than a natural kind.

Whether humor is innate, universal or learned is answered differently for the response and for its content. Infants show the building blocks early. Social smiling appears within the first two months, and laughter typically emerges at about three to four months. An observational study of 150 infants by Sroufe and Wunsch in 1972 placed the onset of laughter at about four months, with the range of eliciting stimuli widening over the first year. Developmental accounts consistently begin with physical play such as peek-a-boo, which depends on a violated expectation (someone suddenly appearing) rather than on language. Verbal humor follows as language and pretence develop: children around two often produce object-based and conceptual incongruities, such as calling an animal by the wrong sound, while the ability to enjoy riddles and double meanings appears later. Estimates vary by source. One widely cited stage model places semantic riddles near the age of four, while another places the appreciation of double-meaning jokes between roughly six and eleven. Recent work on children aged twelve to thirty-six months suggests that some incongruity types appear earlier than earlier stage models predicted, and that the sharp boundary between stages is hard to sustain. Irony and sarcasm require perspective-taking and typically emerge after early childhood, even though some children understand simple forms at about three.

These findings do not settle the nature–nurture question, and several methodological problems complicate it. Most stage models rely on parental report, small samples or Western participants, and the reliability of parent-report scales is only partly established. Because imagination, perspective-taking and language develop at different rates in different children, individual variation is large. The safest conclusion is that a biologically prepared capacity for playful surprise and social laughter is present very early, while the cognitive and cultural knowledge needed to recognise and enjoy specific jokes is acquired over many years.

A related debate concerns whether laughter is primarily a social signal that comes before humor or a response that follows the appraisal of humor. Infants laugh at tickling and physical play before they can resolve any incongruity, which suggests that laughter can begin as a signal of play and shared mood rather than as a verdict on a joke. Evidence from parent–child interaction points in the same direction. In one observational study of 271 humorous episodes, laughter linked to violations of social convention was more frequent in mothers than in children between twelve and thirty months, and the two converged by thirty-six months. The authors read this as a developing appreciation of social incongruity, but it also shows how much early humor depends on shared laughter between people. Adults laugh far more often in social company than alone, and adult laughter may therefore frequently function as a cue to others that a situation is safe or affiliative, which can occur with or without an identifiable joke. Whether this social function is the origin of humor, a parallel process, or a later layer on top of cognitive appraisal remains contested.

Finally, historical humor raises the problem of interpretation. Jokes depend on shared references, language, norms and taboos, and many that were funny to their original audiences depend on forgotten people, institutions or idioms. Modern readers may recognise that a text was meant to be comic yet fail to find it funny, or may find it offensive in ways its authors did not intend. Scholars of satire and comedy have to decide whether to reconstruct the original context or to judge the work by present-day standards, and each choice has consequences for how a text is taught and performed. The ethical boundary between amusement and harm raises a related question. Humor that mocks people for their identity, that targets the vulnerable, or that spreads falsehoods can be defended as free expression, criticised as cruelty, or both. Existing theories offer partial criteria, such as whether a violation is perceived as benign or whether the target holds power, but these criteria are context-sensitive and disputed, and no agreed rule separates acceptable jokes from harmful ones.

References

1. The Etymology of “Humor”uselessetymology.com
2. HUMOR Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webstermerriam-webster.com
3. humour - Wiktionary, the free dictionaryen.wiktionary.org
4. The Origin Of The Word 'Humor'sciencefriday.com
5. Humoriep.utm.edu
6. Philosophy of Humor: What Makes Something Funny? - 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology1000wordphilosophy.com
7. Humouren.wikipedia.org
8. Project MUSE - Abused and Abusive Words: Hobbes on Laughter and Leisuremuse.jhu.edu
9. Superiority in Humor Theoryresearchgate.net
10. (PDF) Superiority in Humor Theoryacademia.edu
11. Leviathan Part 1: Man Thomas Hobbesearlymoderntexts.com
12. Plato On Humour And Laughterjonathansandling.com
13. Ever Wondered Why Humans Laugh? Here’s What Philosophers Thinkthecollector.com
14. Humour theories - David Lowe . Coachdavidlowe.coach
15. Guest post by Caleb Warren: Humor Theories - The Big Three - Peter McGrawpetermcgraw.org
16. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
17. Self-Deprecation and the Habit of Laughter - Florida Philosophical Reviewcah.ucf.edu
18. Philosophy of Humor (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)plato.stanford.edu
19. Philosophy of Humor (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2015 Edition)plato.stanford.edu
20. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconsciousen.wikipedia.org
21. Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious (1905)open.ocolearnok.org
22. Freud's 1905 Jokes (Witz) and their Relation to the ...dbu.edu
23. It’s Laughablehistorytoday.com
24. Laughterdigitens.org
25. (PDF) Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat: Shaftesbury, Horatian Satire, and the Cultural (Ab)Uses of Laughteracademia.edu
26. On The Physiology of Laughter by Herbert Spencer - EveryWritereverywritersresource.com
27. Herbert Spencer - The Gentle Cemeterygentlecemetery.com
28. Laughter is a Time Machinephilosophynow.org
29. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
30. What Is Incongruity Theory? The Psychology of Humor - ScienceInsightsscienceinsights.org
31. Compréhension et appréciation de l’humour : approche cognitivo-émotionnelle - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
32. (PDF) Incongruity-resolution cases in jokesresearchgate.net
33. Introduction: The How of Playdirect.mit.edu
34. Benign Violations: Making Immoral Behavior Funny by A. Peter McGraw, Caleb Warren :: SSRNpapers.ssrn.com
35. Benign Violation Theory - Humor Research Lab (HuRL)humorresearchlab.com
36. You Must Be Joking! Benign Violations, Power Asymmetry, and Humor in a Broader Social Context - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
37. Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSUscholarworks.gvsu.edu
38. Benign Violationssemanticscholar.org
39. AN EVALUATION ON CLASSIFICATION OF HUMOR ...dergipark.org.tr
40. Western University Western University Scholarship@Western Scholarship@Westernuwo.scholaris.ca
41. Superiority in Humor Theory - Bucknell Digital Commonsdigitalcommons.bucknell.edu
42. Theories of Humorbookofthrees.com
43. 63 5 Evolution, Structure, and Functions of Human Laughter Gregory A. Bryantgabryant.bol.ucla.edu
44. Patterns of Laryngeal Electromyography and the Activity of the Respiratory System During Spontaneous Laughterjournals.physiology.org
45. Laryngeal Muscle Activity in Giggle: A Damped Oscillation Model - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
46. Provine, Laughtercogweb.ucla.edu
47. Laughter Punctuates Speech: Linguistic, Social and Gender Contexts of Laughter - Provine - 1993 - Ethology - Wiley Online Libraryonlinelibrary.wiley.com
48. Laughter Among Deaf Signers Robert R. Provinecrl.ucsd.edu
49. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
50. What a Duchenne Smile Reveals That Your Mouth Cannot Hidereachlink.com
51. Facial and emotional reactions to Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
52. A Novel Test of the Duchenne Marker: Smiles After Botulinum Toxin Treatment for Crow’s Feet Wrinklesncbi.nlm.nih.gov
53. Automatic Recognition of Facial Displays of Unfelt Emotionsarxiv.org
54. Laughing, Tickling, and the Evolution of Speech and Self - Robert R. Provine, 2004journals.sagepub.com
55. Emotional Expression Online - Robert R. Provine, Robert J. Spencer, Darcy L. Mandell, 2007journals.sagepub.com
56. Duchenne Smile - an overviewsciencedirect.com
57. [PDF] THE EVOLUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF LAUGHTER AND HUMOR: A SYNTHETIC APPROACHsemanticscholar.org
58. The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: a synthetic approach.carta.anthropogeny.org
59. Why do humans laugh? The evolutionary biology of laughter.slate.com
60. It's funny because we think it's true: laughter is augmented by implicit preferences - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
61. False Alarm Theory: How Humorous Ads Worknewatlas.com
62. Last laugh - Sciencelinescienceline.org
63. The naturalistic approach to laughter in humans and other animals: towards a unified theoryroyalsocietypublishing.org
64. Laughter as an approach to vocal evolution: The bipedal theory - Psychonomic Bulletin & Reviewlink.springer.com
65. [PDF] Laughter as an approach to vocal evolution: The bipedal theorysemanticscholar.org
66. Laughter as an approach to vocal evolution: The bipedal theoryresearchgate.net
67. Stand up comedy: bipedalism may be a laughing matterfeaturedcontent.psychonomic.org
68. Evolution of laughter from play - PubMedpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
69. Original Article The animal nature of spontaneous human laughtergabryant.bol.ucla.edu
70. (PDF) The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approachresearchgate.net
71. Introduction to the Special Issue of the Scientific Study of Laughter: Where We Have Been, Current Innovations, and Where We Might Go From Herelink.springer.com
72. The First Joke: Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Humor - Joseph Polimeni, Jeffrey P. Reiss, 2006journals.sagepub.com
73. A Systemic Review of the Brain Mechanism of Humor ...pdfs.semanticscholar.org
74. (PDF) Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruityresearchgate.net
75. STRUCTURAL INCONGRUITY AND HUMOR APPRECIATION A Thesis Presented toscholarworks.wm.edu
76. Humor comprehension and appreciation: an FMRI study - PubMedpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
77. Timing is Everything: Temporal Scaffolding of Semantic Surprise in Humorarxiv.org
78. Irony comprehension: Social conceptual knowledge and emotional response - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
79. Understanding metaphors, irony and sarcasm in high functioning children with autism spectrum disorders : its relationship to theory of mindscholarworks.smith.edu
80. (PDF) The Development of Joke and Irony Understanding: A Study With 3-to 6-Year-Old Childrenresearchgate.net
81. Neural Correlates of Contrast and Humor: Processing Common Features of Verbal Ironyncbi.nlm.nih.gov
82. The paradox of sarcasm: Theory of mind and sarcasm use in adults - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
83. (PDF) Humour styles, personality and psychological well-being: What’s humour got to do with it?researchgate.net
84. What the Humor Styles Questionnaire by Rod Martin Reveals - InsideHookinsidehook.com
85. Humor Styles Questionnaire, HSQpsytests.org
86. ToMBench: Benchmarking Theory of Mind in Large Language Modelsarxiv.org
87. Sarcasm: How the Brain Handles This Complex Communicationnewswise.com
88. Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
89. Humor and sexual selectionresearchgate.net
90. The Humor Gapscientificamerican.com
91. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
92. Laughter and its role in the evolution of human social bondingora.ox.ac.uk
93. Laughter and its role in the evolution of human social bondingncbi.nlm.nih.gov
94. Group size, vocal grooming and the origins of languagelink.springer.com
95. Group Size, Vocal Grooming and the Origins of Language R.I.M. Dunbarora.ox.ac.uk
96. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
97. The dual nature of humor: Leader humor style, psychological safety, and employee innovative behavior - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
98. Affiliative and aggressive humour in leadership and their relationship to leader–member exchangeresearchgate.net
99. (PDF) Influence of humorous leadership at workplace on the innovative behavior of leaders and their leadership effectivenessresearchgate.net
100. Leader Humor and Followers’ Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Leader Machiavellianism - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
101. Sexual Selection and Humor in Courtship: A Case for Warmth and Extroversion - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
102. Laughter and its role in the evolution of human social bondingroyalsocietypublishing.org
103. Leader humor: A double-edged sword - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
104. Victor Raskinen.wikipedia.org
105. The People's Laughter: Semantic Approaches to Humorscalar.usc.edu
106. Reverse-Engineering Satire, or "Paper on Computational Humor Accepted Despite Making Serious Advances"arxiv.org
107. Contextual Support for Less Salient Homophones and Pun Humor Appreciation: Evidence From Eye Movements in Reading Chinese Homophone Punsncbi.nlm.nih.gov
108. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
109. Full article: Frame-shifting instead of incongruity is necessary for pun comprehension: evidence from an ERP study on Chinese homophone punstandfonline.com
110. Homophonic puns in Standard Chineseen.wikipedia.org
111. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Bilingual Puns in the ...dlsu.edu.ph
112. Guide to Chinese Puns and Wordplaymandarinblueprint.com
113. Mandarin Humorous Homophone Recognition and Disambiguation in Automatic Speech Recognitionarxiv.org
114. Stand-Up Comedyfunny-history.com
115. History of Stand-Up Comedyhistoryng.com
116. Commedia Dell'arte And The Roots Of Slapstickkpbs.org
117. Slapsticken.wikipedia.org
118. Slapstickworldmime.org
119. Slapstickbritannica.com
120. The Birth of Slapstickthedelicateartofslapstick.wordpress.com
121. Satire vs. Caricature: Know the Differencedifferencebtw.com
122. A Vocabulary for Comedydbu.edu
123. History of stand-up comedyen.wikipedia.org
124. Satire Termswebsites.nku.edu
125. Parody vs. Burlesque — What’s the Difference?askdifference.com
126. Parody - Definition and Exampleslitcharts.com
127. BURLESQUE definition and meaningcollinsdictionary.com
128. Plautusbritannica.com
129. An Introduction to Plautus Through Sceneskuscholarworks.ku.edu
130. What's Commedia? — Faction of Foolsfactionoffools.org
131. A New Look at Rabelais and His World - Notes - e-fluxe-flux.com
132. Carnivalesque — Grokipediagrokipedia.com
133. Shakespeare's clowns and fools [infographic]blog.oup.com
134. Shakespeare’s Clowns and Foolsbardology.org
135. Shakespeare's Clowns and Fools - Introduction - House Of Ideashouseofideas.com
136. Cultural differences in humor: A systematic review and critique - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
137. Cultural Differences in Humor: A Systematic Review and Critiqueresearchgate.net
138. Frontiersfrontiersin.org
139. Cultural variations in humor: what’s funny in one culture might be taboo in another — and what that means for mental health supporthumorhealth.org
140. Translating jokes and punsresearchgate.net
141. (PDF) Employing Compensation Strategy in Translation of Idioms: A Case Study of the Translation of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in Persianresearchgate.net
142. Humor in Translation and What It Can Entaildiva-portal.org
143. Evaluation of Translatability of Pun in Audio-Visual Content: The Case of Shark Taledegruyterbrill.com
144. Translation strategies: adaptation and equivalence — Joker contestceur-ws.org
145. 5 Simple & Funny Chinese Jokesthatsmandarin.com
146. ICH of Beijingenglish.visitbeijing.com.cn
147. CrossDial: An Entertaining Dialogue Dataset of Chinese Crosstalkarxiv.org
148. Towards Automatic Generation of Entertaining Dialogues in Chinese Crosstalksarxiv.org
149. No laughing matter: a hilarious investigation into the destruction of modern Chinese humorarchive.blogs.harvard.edu
150. Ding Guangquanen.wikipedia.org
151. Humour in Audiovisual Translation Theories and Applications (Margherita Dore) (Z-Library)scribd.com
152. Chinese comedyen.wikipedia.org
153. Jesters Rulemagazine.nd.edu
154. A Fool’s Guide to Foolstofujoe.com
155. The Fool’s Privilege: A History of Court Jesters, Their Power, and the People Forced to Performbereanfruit.substack.com
156. What Did Court Jesters Actually Do?historyfacts.com
157. From Jesters to Journalists - Encyclopedia of Satiresatire.info
158. When satire incites hatred: Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of expression debate |journalism.cmpf.eui.eu
159. When satire incites hatred: Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of expression debatecmds.ceu.edu
160. Religious Satire, Moral Restraint and the> Charlie Hebdo Cartoons> - King's College Londonkclpure.kcl.ac.uk
161. European Court of Human Rights and Blasphemy (Part IV) - Blasphemy and Freedom of Expressioncambridge.org
162. Deckmyn v Vandersteenen.wikipedia.org
163. CJEU defines works of parody and rules that rights holders' interests must be consideredpinsentmasons.com
164. The German Bundesgerichtshof changes its concept of parody following CJEU Deckmyn v. Vrijheidsfonds/ Vandersteenlegalblogs.wolterskluwer.com
165. Still laughing? The CJEU hands down final judgment in Deckmyn parody casereedsmith.com
166. Laughter intervention for stress reduction in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialslink.springer.com
167. A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of laughter and humour interventions on depression, anxiety and sleep quality in adults - Zhao - 2019 - Journal of Advanced Nursing - Wiley Online Libraryonlinelibrary.wiley.com
168. Effects of laughter therapy on depression and anxiety: A dose-response meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
169. Humor interventions in psychotherapy and their effect on levels of depression and anxiety in adult clients, a systematic reviewncbi.nlm.nih.gov
170. Laughter as medicine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies evaluating the impact of spontaneous laughter on cortisol levelsncbi.nlm.nih.gov
171. Laughter as medicine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies evaluating the impact of spontaneous laughter on cortisol levelsjournals.plos.org
172. Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
173. Social Laughter Triggers Endogenous Opioid Release in Humansjneurosci.org
174. Effect of laughter yoga on salivary cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone among healthy university students: A randomized controlled trialresearchgate.net
175. Humor Styles Questionnairelink.springer.com
176. Humor stylesen.wikipedia.org
177. Do humour styles moderate the association between hopelessness and suicide ideation? A comparison of student and community samplesncbi.nlm.nih.gov
178. A Automatic Sarcasm Detection: A Surveyarxiv.org
179. Automatic Sarcasm Detection: A Surveyresearchgate.net
180. A Survey of Pun Generation: Datasets, Evaluations and Methodologiesarxiv.org
181. Who's Laughing Now? An Overview of Computational ...aclanthology.org
182. HumorRank: A Tournament-Based Leaderboard for Evaluating Humor Generation in Large Language Modelsarxiv.org
183. HumorGen: Cognitive Synergy for Humor Generation in Large Language Models via Persona-Based Distillationarxiv.org
184. HumorGen: Cognitive Synergy for Humor Generation in Large Language Models via Persona-Based Distillationarxiv.org
185. Can AI Take a Joke—Or Make One? A Study of Humor Generation and Recognition in LLMsdl.acm.org
186. [2504.02858] Optimizing Humor Generation in Large Language Models: Temperature Configurations and Architectural Trade-offsarxiv.org
187. How funny is ChatGPT? A comparison of human- and A.I.-produced jokesjournals.plos.org
188. The Iron(ic) Melting Pot: Reviewing Human Evaluation in Humour, Irony and Sarcasm Generationarxiv.org
189. Investigating Counterfactual Unfairness in LLMs towards Identities through Humorarxiv.org
190. A Two-Model Approach for Humour Style Recognitionarxiv.org
191. lmfaoooo at SemEval-2026 Task 1: Humor Is an Audience. Preference Modeling for Constrained Humor Generationarxiv.org
192. “President Vows to Cut Taxes Hair”:arxiv.org
193. Engagement Undermines Safety: How Stereotypes and Toxicity Shape Humor in Language Modelsarxiv.org
194. NIT-Agartala-NLP-Team at SemEval-2020 Task 8: Building Multimodal Classifiers to tackle Internet Humorarxiv.org
195. Humor in Pixels: Benchmarking Large Multimodal Models Understanding of Online Comicsarxiv.org
196. Laughter: A Scientific Investigationmedscape.com
197. Specialization of neural mechanisms underlying the three-stage model in humor processing: An ERP study - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
198. Humor drawings evoked temporal and spectral EEG processesacademic.oup.com
199. (PDF) Humor drawings evoked temporal and spectral EEG processesresearchgate.net
200. A Scientist Spent Decades Studying Laughter and Found Something Weird About Humansvice.com
201. (PDF) Robert R. Provine: Laughter: A Scientific Investigation. New York: Viking, 2000. (Book review)researchgate.net
202. (PDF) Robert Provine: the critical human importance of laughter, connections and contagionresearchgate.net
203. (PDF) An examination of the convergence between the conceptualization and the measurement of humor styles: A study of the construct validity of the Humor Styles Questionnaireresearchgate.net
204. The Humor Styles Questionnaire in Italy: Psychometric ...d-nb.info
205. (PDF) The Humor Styles Questionnaire: a critique of scale construct validity and recommendations regarding individual differences in style profilesresearchgate.net
206. (PDF) Factor invariance of the Humor Styles Questionnaire and its relationship with the HEXACO personality model in a Spanish community sampleresearchgate.net
207. Robert Provine: the critical human importance of laughter, connections and contagiondx.doi.org
208. Robert Provine: the critical human importance of laughter, connections and contagionroyalsocietypublishing.org
209. Infant Humor Perception from 3- to 6-months and Attachment at One Year - PMCpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
210. How children develop a sense of humourtheconversation.com
211. Humor - Cognitive Development - iResearchNetpsychology.iresearchnet.com
212. ORIGINAL RESEARCH articlefrontiersin.org
213. Humour from 12 to 36 months: Insights into children’s socio-cognitive and language development - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
214. Children's humour development: A linguistic perspectivescience-res.com
215. The Early Humor Survey (EHS): A reliable parent-report measure of humor development for 1- to 47-month-oldsncbi.nlm.nih.gov