at odds: laughing and thinking? ica2015 presentation

It’s Fun! But is it Effective?:The Appreciation, Processing, and Persuasiveness

of Political Satire

Boukes, MarkBoomgaarden, HajoMoorman, MarjoleinDe Vreese, Claes

San Juan (PR), 22 May 2015ICA 65th Annual Conference

Political Communication Division:The Effects of Entertainment Media and Satire (3735)

2

Political satire’s democratic contribution

Humor is created by incongruity new ways of looking at political matters make the “taken-for-granted” less self-explanatory

Previous studies on political satire: Often found persuasive

effects that were often insignificant or rather weak.

Why?

3

Conceptual framework

4

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived funniness

When do people laugh about satire?

Literature:

a) always (e.g., Colbert Report, de Tegenpartij)

(selective procesing)

selectively processing it

in a non-threatening

manner

selectively processing it

in a non-threatening

manner

5

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived funniness

When do people laugh about satire?

Literature:

a) always; think of Colbert Report, de Tegenpartij

(selective procesing)

b) only when it is not threatening one’s self-image, i.e. when

it is in line with one’s political preferences (disposition theory)

selectively processing it

in a non-threatening

manner

selectively processing it

in a non-threatening

manner

6

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived funniness

When do people laugh about satire?

Literature:

a) always; think of Colbert Report, de Tegenpartij

(selective procesing)

b) only when it is not threatening one’s self-image, i.e. when

it is in line with one’s political preferences. (disposition theory)

7

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived funniness

When do people laugh about satire?

Literature:

a) always; think of Colbert Report, de Tegenpartij

(selective procesing)

b) only when it is not threatening one’s self-image, i.e. when

it is in line with one’s political preferences. (disposition theory)

To realize this,

the message needs to be overly clear

or

people need background information to “correctly” interpret the satire

To realize this,

the message needs to be overly clear

or

people need background information to “correctly” interpret the satire

Hypothesis 1b: Message discounting

Humorous messages: less credible less informational

Should not be used in serious considerations

The funnier the more counterarguing

8

Hypothesis 2a: Absorption

(The promise of) humor increases engagement with the message. hope to be rewarded with a laugh humor comprehension involves high cognitive loads

Emerging adults (<30) more absorbed in satire than in news: Need to develop world-views Feeling in between childhood and adulthood Self-focused

9

Hypothesis 2b: Decreased resistance

Absorption and processing satire: When absorped in fiction it’s hard and unnecessary to be

critical Enjoying satire and scrutinizing content are not compatible High cognitive loads of satire, no resources remain to

counterargue

Absorption less counterarguing more persuasive

10

11

Conceptual framework

Method

Online experiment.

5 conditions: non-humorous news item (n = 53) gentle satire item (n = 52) harsh satire item (n = 58) background information and gentle satire item (n = 56) background information and the harsh satire item (n = 49)

Created by Sander van de Pavert (LuckyTV)

12

13

Harsh satire condition

14

Background knowledge

Results

χ2 (90) = 110.36, p = .071,

CFI >.99

SRMR = 0.04,

RMSEA = .03, 90% CI [.00, .05].

15

16

Results 1a: Perceived funniness

Results 2a: Absorption

17

1b & 2b: Attitude effects

18

Independent variable Dependent variable B (SE) p

Perceived funniness Counterarguing 0.07 0.02 .000

Absorption Counterarguing-

0.160.05 .001

Age Counterarguing-

0.050.04 .262

Existing preference Counterarguing 0.09 0.02 .000

Counterarguing Attitude (satirized) 0.34 0.15 .025

Existing preference Attitude (satirized) 0.39 0.06 .000

Age Attitude (satirized)-

0.030.01 .004

1b & 2b: Attitude effects

19

Independent variable Dependent variable B (SE) p

Perceived funniness Counterarguing 0.07 0.02 .000

Absorption Counterarguing-

0.160.05 .001

Age Counterarguing-

0.050.04 .262

Existing preference Counterarguing 0.09 0.02 .000

Counterarguing Attitude satirized 0.34 0.15 .025

Existing preference Attitude satirized 0.39 0.06 .000

Age Attitude satirized-

0.030.01 .004

Conclusions

A persuasive effect (absorption) and discounting effect

(perceived funniness) at the same time = null effect

Insight when satire is perceived funny: In line with preferences or background knowledge

lacking

Insight in who more is engaged with political satire Emerging adults (<30)

20

It’s Fun! But is it Effective?:The Appreciation, Processing, and

Persuasiveness of Political Satire

Accepted for publication as:

Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & De Vreese, C. H. (forthcoming). Journal of Communication. At Odds: Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing, and Persuasiveness of Political Satire.