Psychological Reports, 1991, 69, 73 1-734.
O Psychological Reports 1991
ANOTHER QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY O F
UNDERSTANDING/APPRECIATIONO F EDITORIAL SATIRE ' CHARLES R. GRUNER, MARSHA W. GRUNER, LARA J. TRAVILLION University of Georgia, Athens Summary.-College students completed a 17-item scale measuring the "propensity to argue controversial topics" and 7 other nominal-scale independent variables. They then read three editorial satires and checked which of five statements was the intended thesis of each satire's author. They also rated each satire on interestingness and funniness. Analysis indicated dependence between understanding of satire and sex and regular readership of "The Far Side."
Previous studies have shown that satire can persuade, but only those exposed to the satire who understand the serious point or thesis intended by the author of the satire (2). If only those who understand the serious thesis can be persuaded by that satire, the question of wby people do not so understand this form of message becomes important to satirists and students of satire. Gruner's summary (2) of these studies also indicates that three factors are associated with ability to understand the serious theses o f . satire: (a) political affiliation (if the satire is political), (b) verbal intelligence as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and (c) low dogmatism as measured by the short-form of the Rokeach scale. One's prior attitude toward the satirized subject may also influence both understanding of satirical theses and persuasiveness of satire, but such effectiveness may also be a function of the particular subject matter of the satire (3). A number of other independent variables as factors in the understanding of tested editorial satires have been unrelated, such as "self-perceived cynicism" (lo), "measured cynicism" (8), "humor styleH ( 6 ) , and "type of humor preferred" (5). Two variables statistically significantly associated with the understanding of satires are "religiosity" (4) and membership in a college Greek organization ( 5 ) . However, there is no clear reason for expecting these connections, so they may be merely statistical artifacts. At the least they require more rigorous study. The present study, in its first phase, was an investigation of whether one's propensity to argue over controversial matters might be related to greater understanding of satirical theses. The assumption was that the association might exist simply because satire is argumentative and aggressive, and a scale to measure argumentativeness had just been developed (1). The influence of sex was also tested, since several studies have shown gender differences in appreciation of humor. For instance, men tend to prefer 'Request re tints from C. R. Gruner, Department of Speech Communication, The Univenity of Georgia, ~t!ens, GA 30602.
732
C. R. GRUNER. ETAL
aggressive and sexual humor while women tend to prefer nonsense humor, although humor preferences based on gender seem to be narrowing (9).
METHOD Thirty-one students in an empirical research methods class at the University of Georgia first responded (anonymously) by indicating their sex and then completing a 17-item scale purporting to measure one's attitude toward taking part in argumentation over controversial issues. The scale was developed and tested for reliability and vahdity (1). Respondents then read three editorial satires, two by Art Buchwald and one by Art Hoppe; after reading each, a respondent selected from among five statements one believed to be the thesis intended by the author. (The authors had previously indicated to the experimenters, in writing, their intended theses.) Respondents also rated each satire on a seven-step scale for "interestingness" and on a 6-step scale for "funniness." These two scales had been used previously (3, 4, 5, 6 , 7). One Buchwald satire ("Union") argues that labor union work rules are ridiculous, by applying these to two military situations. The other ("Reform") points out how difficult congressional reform is made by the concentration of power into the hands of those who need to be reformed, by ridiculing the impotence of "young Turks" in the Congress who had run on reform platforms. The Hoppe ("SANE Capital Punishment") piece argues that the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder is ridiculous; he portrays a WASP who, in "a paroxysm of uncontrollable rage," interrupts his trigger-pulling by suddenly beginning to ruminate over the various factors that would affect his statistical odds of going to the California gas chamber for him imminent crime. All three satires had been used in previous work. After participating in the study, the smdents in the empirical methods class were debriefed and trained to continue the study as fellow investigators. They were divided into six groups, each one being assigned the task of developing one new independent variable which might affect understanding of satire. The variables included were urban vs rural upbringing, newspaper readership, enjoyment of "The Far Side" cartoons, addiction as children to Saturday morning TV cartoons, only or first-born child in the family, and regular viewing of late-night TV comedy shows (Tonight Show, Letterman, etc.). These variables were included in the study as two-answer items (yes/no or onelother) with nominal-scale answers. Then each of the six groups gathered data with this expanded questionnaire from 12 other college students "at large," i.e., outside of the classroom setting. Students scored the responses they obtained, and each group turned in a transfer sheet containing the coded data. Data from a total of 101 respondents had accrued; 31 sets came from the original student-investigators, and 70 sets were gathered by them. Each group turned in 12 responses except for one, who turned in only 10. Respondents were divided into four groups, those who checked the correct thesis for all three of the theses (Group 31, those who were correct on only two of the three (Group 2), those who were correct on only one (Group 11, and those who were not correct on any theses (Group 0). The mean argumentativeness scores of the three groups were subjected to one-way analysis of variance. Data from the other seven independent variables were subjected to 2 x 4 chi-squared analyses (group x variable). The six sets of ratings for each satire's "interestingness" and "funniness" were correlated by Pearson's method.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The one-way analysis of variance for "argumentativeness" showed no = 1.3, p = .25), that is, statistically significant differences among means (F,,,,, argumentativeness was not related to the understanding of the satires. I n the chi-squared analyses for the other seven variables, Group 0 (those not correct on any satirical theses) numbered only 7; this small n resulted in
733
EDITORIAL SATIRE
two cells of less than 5 , which distorts the value of chi-squared, so Groups 0 and 1 were combined for analysis. In the 3 x 2 cross-tabulations, two factors appeared dependent on understanding satire, being regular readers of "The Far Side" daily cartoon and sex (men understood more often than women). See Table 1 for values of chi-squared. TABLE 1 CONTINGENCY TABLES FORFANS vs NOT-FANS TO ONE CARTOON AND FOR SW( BY UNDERSTANDING OF SATIRE Respondents by Sex and Satire Understanding
Respondents: FansINot-fans of the Cartoon, "The Far Side" by Satire Understanding Grouo Fans Not-fans Total -
Grou~
~
0- 1 2 3
Total
24 19 17 60
0- 1 2 3 Total
2 26 5 24 20 3 10 70 x: =6.01, p
O Psychological Reports 1991
ANOTHER QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY O F
UNDERSTANDING/APPRECIATIONO F EDITORIAL SATIRE ' CHARLES R. GRUNER, MARSHA W. GRUNER, LARA J. TRAVILLION University of Georgia, Athens Summary.-College students completed a 17-item scale measuring the "propensity to argue controversial topics" and 7 other nominal-scale independent variables. They then read three editorial satires and checked which of five statements was the intended thesis of each satire's author. They also rated each satire on interestingness and funniness. Analysis indicated dependence between understanding of satire and sex and regular readership of "The Far Side."
Previous studies have shown that satire can persuade, but only those exposed to the satire who understand the serious point or thesis intended by the author of the satire (2). If only those who understand the serious thesis can be persuaded by that satire, the question of wby people do not so understand this form of message becomes important to satirists and students of satire. Gruner's summary (2) of these studies also indicates that three factors are associated with ability to understand the serious theses o f . satire: (a) political affiliation (if the satire is political), (b) verbal intelligence as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and (c) low dogmatism as measured by the short-form of the Rokeach scale. One's prior attitude toward the satirized subject may also influence both understanding of satirical theses and persuasiveness of satire, but such effectiveness may also be a function of the particular subject matter of the satire (3). A number of other independent variables as factors in the understanding of tested editorial satires have been unrelated, such as "self-perceived cynicism" (lo), "measured cynicism" (8), "humor styleH ( 6 ) , and "type of humor preferred" (5). Two variables statistically significantly associated with the understanding of satires are "religiosity" (4) and membership in a college Greek organization ( 5 ) . However, there is no clear reason for expecting these connections, so they may be merely statistical artifacts. At the least they require more rigorous study. The present study, in its first phase, was an investigation of whether one's propensity to argue over controversial matters might be related to greater understanding of satirical theses. The assumption was that the association might exist simply because satire is argumentative and aggressive, and a scale to measure argumentativeness had just been developed (1). The influence of sex was also tested, since several studies have shown gender differences in appreciation of humor. For instance, men tend to prefer 'Request re tints from C. R. Gruner, Department of Speech Communication, The Univenity of Georgia, ~t!ens, GA 30602.
732
C. R. GRUNER. ETAL
aggressive and sexual humor while women tend to prefer nonsense humor, although humor preferences based on gender seem to be narrowing (9).
METHOD Thirty-one students in an empirical research methods class at the University of Georgia first responded (anonymously) by indicating their sex and then completing a 17-item scale purporting to measure one's attitude toward taking part in argumentation over controversial issues. The scale was developed and tested for reliability and vahdity (1). Respondents then read three editorial satires, two by Art Buchwald and one by Art Hoppe; after reading each, a respondent selected from among five statements one believed to be the thesis intended by the author. (The authors had previously indicated to the experimenters, in writing, their intended theses.) Respondents also rated each satire on a seven-step scale for "interestingness" and on a 6-step scale for "funniness." These two scales had been used previously (3, 4, 5, 6 , 7). One Buchwald satire ("Union") argues that labor union work rules are ridiculous, by applying these to two military situations. The other ("Reform") points out how difficult congressional reform is made by the concentration of power into the hands of those who need to be reformed, by ridiculing the impotence of "young Turks" in the Congress who had run on reform platforms. The Hoppe ("SANE Capital Punishment") piece argues that the idea of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder is ridiculous; he portrays a WASP who, in "a paroxysm of uncontrollable rage," interrupts his trigger-pulling by suddenly beginning to ruminate over the various factors that would affect his statistical odds of going to the California gas chamber for him imminent crime. All three satires had been used in previous work. After participating in the study, the smdents in the empirical methods class were debriefed and trained to continue the study as fellow investigators. They were divided into six groups, each one being assigned the task of developing one new independent variable which might affect understanding of satire. The variables included were urban vs rural upbringing, newspaper readership, enjoyment of "The Far Side" cartoons, addiction as children to Saturday morning TV cartoons, only or first-born child in the family, and regular viewing of late-night TV comedy shows (Tonight Show, Letterman, etc.). These variables were included in the study as two-answer items (yes/no or onelother) with nominal-scale answers. Then each of the six groups gathered data with this expanded questionnaire from 12 other college students "at large," i.e., outside of the classroom setting. Students scored the responses they obtained, and each group turned in a transfer sheet containing the coded data. Data from a total of 101 respondents had accrued; 31 sets came from the original student-investigators, and 70 sets were gathered by them. Each group turned in 12 responses except for one, who turned in only 10. Respondents were divided into four groups, those who checked the correct thesis for all three of the theses (Group 31, those who were correct on only two of the three (Group 2), those who were correct on only one (Group 11, and those who were not correct on any theses (Group 0). The mean argumentativeness scores of the three groups were subjected to one-way analysis of variance. Data from the other seven independent variables were subjected to 2 x 4 chi-squared analyses (group x variable). The six sets of ratings for each satire's "interestingness" and "funniness" were correlated by Pearson's method.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The one-way analysis of variance for "argumentativeness" showed no = 1.3, p = .25), that is, statistically significant differences among means (F,,,,, argumentativeness was not related to the understanding of the satires. I n the chi-squared analyses for the other seven variables, Group 0 (those not correct on any satirical theses) numbered only 7; this small n resulted in
733
EDITORIAL SATIRE
two cells of less than 5 , which distorts the value of chi-squared, so Groups 0 and 1 were combined for analysis. In the 3 x 2 cross-tabulations, two factors appeared dependent on understanding satire, being regular readers of "The Far Side" daily cartoon and sex (men understood more often than women). See Table 1 for values of chi-squared. TABLE 1 CONTINGENCY TABLES FORFANS vs NOT-FANS TO ONE CARTOON AND FOR SW( BY UNDERSTANDING OF SATIRE Respondents by Sex and Satire Understanding
Respondents: FansINot-fans of the Cartoon, "The Far Side" by Satire Understanding Grouo Fans Not-fans Total -
Grou~
~
0- 1 2 3
Total
24 19 17 60
0- 1 2 3 Total
2 26 5 24 20 3 10 70 x: =6.01, p
