In two prior posts, here and here, I reported on some of the results from an article I wrote for the European Journal of Humour Research titled “Essential Attributes of a Comprehensive Theory of Laughter” (Simon, 2020). That paper cataloged a range of topics scholars have investigated about laughter over the past four decades and revealed why a single, “unified” theory of laughter and humor has remained so elusive.
Previously reported themes
Part One of this series reported about a dozen themes into which the various topics could be categorized. Last month, in Part Two, I described a dozen more questions, including those relating to laughter’s acoustic structure; the message it conveys, if any; how it serves as an indicator of personality, health, and status; laughter’s relationship with smiling; why it has a dual nature, sometimes friendly, other times mean spirited; laughter’s evolutionary origins; why we express volitional (feigned) laughter; why laughter is sometime contagious; and whether there are different varieties, embarrassed, nervous, excited, etc.; why it varies in intensity and duration; why laughter and humor is used by bullies; and laughter’s close association with tickling. Below are the remaining themes encountered during my original search.
More themes various experts have addressed
Sense of Humor. What do we mean by the term “sense of humor”? What distinguishes a “good” one from a “poor” one? Are there objective criteria?
Instinctive vs. Learned. To what extent is laughter an instinctive behavior, a culturally determined behavior, or some combination of both? What factors influence what we find amusing?
Computational Laughter and Humor. Are laughter and humor traits that can be accurately simulated through the use of artificial intelligence? Is this achievable in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of both? What are the downsides posed by such a capability, if any?
Relationship to Crying (Sobbing). There are instances in which individuals can laugh and cry simultaneously, or transition almost seamlessly from one to the other. What is the relationship, if any, between these two behaviors? Why are their outward expressions so similar?
Laughing at Ourselves. We seem to laugh “with” and “at” others quite naturally, but there are those instances in which we also laugh while focused on our own behavior. It can be the result of our failures as well as our triumphs. What accounts for this self-reflective laughter? Why do we sometimes make ourselves the butt of our own humor?
In Response to Positive Realizations. We laugh at our and others’ foibles, but there are also moments in which we respond to displays of exceptional skill and good fortune as well. What is amusing about great performances and lucky breaks?
The Evolution of Laughter. With respect to our great ape ancestors having a similar expression, for those theories that maintain laughter originated millions of years prior to the advent of our species, what accounts for the differences we observe between our laugh response and that of other species? We laugh at many things great apes simply do not. Why would this be the case?
Laughter’s Relationship to Play. Laughter and play often go hand-in-hand, not just for children, but adults as well. What is it about play behavior that triggers participants, and even observers, to engage in laughter? What factors tend to inhibit laughter when it is not present?
Influence of Drugs. Some drugs, most famously nitrous oxide (“laughing gas”), promote laughter. What effects do such chemicals have on the brain and body that might, in turn, initiate this reaction?
Animals/Inanimate Objects. We do not only laugh with and at other people, but also other species. Pets, especially, foster laughter almost as readily as children. Why would this be so, especially if one’s theory assumes laughter is a signal? Presumably, other than perhaps the great apes, they would not understand whatever message we might be sending.
Other objectives of a comprehensive theory
If answering all these questions weren’t challenging enough, there are several other qualities scholars look for in a truly robust theory of laughter. First among these, a theory must be logically consistent. This means the answer given to one question can’t conflict with that given for another question. If you maintain laughter is a species-wide, purely reflexive physical response to certain stimuli, you can’t also conclude variations in our laugh response will be substantially influenced by, for example, one’s personal history or current emotional disposition.
Another highly prized quality of any newcomer to the scene would be an ability to explain why its competitors seem correct but are not, or are at least not complete. Precisely why do superiority theory, incongruity theory, tension relief theory, play theory, etc. appear viable accounts for laughter, but ultimately fall short?
Finally, as with any scientific theory, a comprehensive account needs to be falsifiable—the ability to test any hypotheses which logically follow from the theory’s fundamental assertions. If you claim laughter’s main function is to communicate “superiority” or reduce “tension,” but have no means of objectively defining and measuring such parameters, there is no hope of being proven wrong, thus no way of establishing one explanation as being better than another. This is, ultimately, the driving force that makes the scientific method so powerful.
© John Charles Simon
