In May (2017), Caty Borum Chattoo, co-director of the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University and a comedy fan, released “The Laughter Effect: The [Serious] Role of Comedy in Social Change“, in which she summarizes the research and gives advice on how to use humor to further social issues. As previously described, Chattoo creates list of comedy formats that work for social change:
- Satire/Satirical News
- Scripted entertainment storytelling
- Marketing and advertising
- Stand-up and sketch comedy
I”m currently addressing her views on satire. In this installment (the seventh), we’ll discuss the impacts of satirical news.
Influence – Persuasion
There is some question as to whether or not type of satire (juvenalian, horatian) matters when trying to influence audiences. As Chattoo notes,
In [Becker and Haller’s] study involving the use of self-deprecating humor vs. “other-directed” humor in TV satire about a social issue (blindness), viewers responded more positively to the positive—horatian—humor and developed more positive attitudes about the social issue than when the issue was depicted with the more aggressive, judgmental juvenalian humor. However, in [Holbert and friends’ later study] also involving political TV satire, viewers perceived the horatian satire as a lower-strength message than a traditional news op-ed, but found no differences with the harsher, juvenialian humor compared to an op-ed.
So the results are somewhat mixed, but the outputs are different: positive attitudes about the issue versus strength of message. The former might have a larger sleeper and priming effect, whereas the latter may have more of an impact.
Learning in one of two-modes
Chattoo finally returns to a point that she conflated earlier. Using the example of a hypothetical Jon Oliver rant from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, she says
Audiences may be thoughtfully considering his messages and arguments in a similar fashion to scrutinizing a more traditional news opinion piece.
So this process seems to be what she has described as central processing, in terms of Petty and Cacioppo’s model. She goes on to say:
Ultimately, how much people actively learn from satire—at least in the context of satirical faux news programs—depends in part on how people perceive the format in the first place. Do they see it as news or entertainment, or a mix of both? [Feldman] has demonstrated that people who think of The Daily Show as both entertainment and real information are able to learn more than people who perceive it as only entertainment.
This again emphasizes that audiences seek it out, and they do so not just for entertainment value, but, as Chattoo (summarizing Young) notes, because they hope “to make sense of the world and public affairs, and also because they see it as unbiased, ‘truthful and real.’” In short, they seek it out in order to learn.
Further, she argues with Young and colleagues that “the role of the messenger is key. For satire to work, the audience has to believe the source has some credibility in the issue he/she is discussing, and that he or she is authentic.” This brings us back to the idea of a bona fide speaker who means what he says, which is different than how audiences supposedly approach a stand-up comic. This leads her to her second and fourth recommendations, borrowed from Young and his colleagues:
-
Be Transparent & Authentic: For the audience, believing the messenger is crucial for satire to work.
-
Identify a Call To Action When You Have the Credibility to Do So: With credibility and authenticity from the source, satire should include a call to action for the audience.
However, if late night hosts are all stand-up comics, who usually say they can’t or won’t have an impact – Jon Stewart has claimed this; that his jokes are only “atmospheric” – and if their critiques are operating at the horatian level – the so called “Leno-izing of the news” – and if the audience is entertained and laughing (not centrally processing), then how can we theorize any type of persuasion, learning, etc.?
Breakdown of the two-mode model
So here’s where the two-mode processing models break down – by definition, either they process it as humor/entertainment, and laugh, or they process it as serious information, and scrutinize, and don’t laugh. A better idea is they laugh first, remember and scrutinize later. Still better is the idea that they laugh and scrutinize simultaneously, but that isn’t allowed in these models – once again, enjoyment, humor and laughter are typically treated as unconscious, embodied responses that will have nothing to do with conscious thought.
Agenda Setting: attracting attention & facilitating memory
Chattoo notes that there are other forms of influence beyond strict persuasion and learning; there’s also the agenda-setting function, which she’s previously described as attracting attention & facilitating memory, along with the so-called sleeper effect and the priming effect.
Chattoo summarizes Hollander, who notes that when particular civic or social issues are addressed through satire, audiences may not fully “recall” them, or gain specific knowledge (learning), but they may still recognize these issues – that’s the sleeper effect. She does not go into here, but it’s important to remember, that satire addresses particular characteristics of the issue, which then serve as a frame for understanding when these audiences encounter the issue again – they are “primed,” to interpret it a particular way.
Gateway effect
Further, satire grants entry into complex social issues, the so-called “gateway” effect discussed previously, which allows audiences to “pay greater attention to more serious news about [these social issues] over time.”
Chattoo notes additional benefits here not previously discussed (they’ve since been added):
In fact, [Feldman and colleagues have shown] this impact … as particularly great for those with less formal education and less understanding of or exposure to the issue in the first place.
Yes, she’s addressed the idea of it as an early exposure, but the idea of its impact on those with “less formal education” is entirely new.
Comics must be comics
However, this effect only works if people encounter the information, and that probably won’t happen unless it’s funny; that’s when people share it and others seek it out. This brings us to Chattoo’s third recommendation, borrowed from Young and his colleagues:
-
Let the Comedians Be Comedians: Creating something only mildly amusing defeats humor’s potential for impact; attempting humor means truly allowing the comedians to be funny about social issues.
Of course, this hamstrings a comic who is trying to be a bona fide speaker, as the common wisdom has it that you can either always go for the joke, or you can make your point, and Chattoo has already made this point – that serious messages hurt comedy.
So there is a tightrope to walk between being “transparent and authentic,” so as to build credibility for a “call to action,” and being “funny.” And this only gets more complicated as we add in other factors, like ambiguity, expectations, and targets. More to come!
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Becker, A. B., & Haller, B. A. (2014). When political comedy turns personal: Humor types, audience evaluations, and attitudes. The Howard Journal of Communication, 25, 34-55.
Feldman, L. (2013b). Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 586 – 607.
Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E., (2011). The Science of satire: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as sources of public attention to science and the environment. In A. Amarasingam (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impact of fake news, (pp. 25-46). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Holbert, R. L., Tchernev, J. M., Walther, W. O., Esralew, S. E., Benski, K., (2013). Young voter perceptions of political satire as persuasion: A focus on perceived influence, persuasive intent, and message strength. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(2), 170-186.
Hollander, B. A., (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(4), pp. 405-415.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 19, (pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Young, D. G. (2013). Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(2), 153-169.
Young, D. G., Holbert, R. L., & Jamieson, K. H., (2014). Successful practices for the strategic use of political parody and satire: Lessons from the P6 Symposium and the 2012 election campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1111-1130.
