Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

Theories of humor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many theories of humor which attempt to explain what humor is, what social functions it serves,
and what would be considered humorous. Among the prevailing types of theories that attempt to account for
the existence of humor, there are psychological theories, the vast majority of which consider humor to be
very healthy behavior; there are spiritual theories, which consider humor to be an inexplicable mystery,
very much like a mystical experience.[1] Although various classical theories of humor and laughter may be
found, in contemporary academic literature, three theories of humor appear repeatedly: relief theory,
superiority theory, and incongruity theory.[2] Among current humor researchers, there is no consensus about
which of these three theories of humor is most viable.[2] Proponents of each one originally claimed their
theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor;[2][3] However, they now acknowledge that although
each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than
one theory.[2][3][4][5] Incongruity and superiority theories, for instance, seem to describe complementary
mechanisms which together create humor.[6]

Contents
1 Relief theory
2 Superiority theory
3 Incongruity theory
4 Other theories
4.1 Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor
4.2 General Theory of Verbal Humor
4.3 Computational-Neural Theory of Humor
4.4 Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor
4.5 Sexual selection
4.6 Detection of mistaken reasoning
4.7 Misattribution theory
4.8 Benign Violation Theory
4.9 Humor as defense mechanism
4.10 Sense of humor, sense of seriousness
4.11 Metaphor and metonymy
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading

Relief theory
Relief theory maintains that laughter is a homeostatic mechanism by which psychological tension is reduced.
[2][3][7] Humor may thus for example serve to facilitate relief of the tension caused by one's fears.[8]

Laughter and mirth, according to relief theory, result from this release of nervous energy.[2] Humor,
according to relief theory, is used mainly to overcome sociocultural inhibitions and reveal suppressed
desires. It is believed that this is the reason we laugh whilst being tickled, due to a buildup of tension
as the tickler "strikes".[2][9]

Superiority theory
The superiority theory of humor traces back to Plato and Aristotle, and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The
general idea is that a person laughs about misfortunes of others (so called schadenfreude), because these
misfortunes assert the person's superiority on the background of shortcomings of others.[10] Socrates was
reported by Plato as saying that the ridiculous was characterized by a display of self-ignorance.[11] For
Aristotle, we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals, because we feel a joy at feeling superior to them.[12]

Incongruity theory
The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a
concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the
concept.[10]

Since the main point of the theory is not the incongruity per se, but its realization and resolution (i.e.,
putting the objects in question into the real relation), it is often called the incongruity-resolution
theory.[10]

Francis Hutcheson expressed in Thoughts on Laughter (1725) what became a key concept in the evolving theory

1 von 6 03.08.16 00:36

Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

of the comic: laughter as a response to the perception of incongruity.[13] Arthur Schopenhauer wrote that
the perceived incongruity is between a concept and the real object it represents. Hegel shared almost
exactly the same view, but saw the concept as an "appearance" and believed that laughter then totally
negates that appearance. According to Herbert Spencer, laughter is an "economical phenomenon" whose function
is to release "psychic energy" that had been wrongly mobilized by incorrect or false expectations. The
latter point of view was supported also by Sigmund Freud.

The first formulation of the incongruity theory is attributed to the Scottish poet Beattie.[14]

The most famous version of the incongruity theory, however, is that of Kant, who claimed that the comic is
"the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing." Henri Bergson attempted to perfect
incongruity by reducing it to the "living" and "mechanical".[15]

An incongruity like Bergson's, in things juxtaposed simultaneously, is still in vogue. This is often debated
against theories of the shifts in perspectives in humor; hence, the debate in the series Humor Research
between John Morreall and Robert Latta.[16] Morreall presented mostly simultaneous juxtapositions,[17] with
Latta focusing on a "cognitive shift" created by the sudden solution to some kind of problem.

Humor frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective, which gets assimilated by the
Incongruity Theory. This view has been defended by Latta (1998) and by Brian Boyd (2004).[18] Boyd views the
shift as from seriousness to play. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist; it is,
however, in the areas of human creativity (science and art being the varieties) that the shift results from
"structure mapping" (termed "bisociation" by Koestler) to create novel meanings.[19] Arthur Koestler argues
that humor results when two different frames of reference are set up and a collision is engineered between
them.

Other theories
Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor

The Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor (SSTH) was introduced by Victor Raskin in “Semantic Mechanisms of
Humor”, published 1985.[20] While being a variant on the more general concepts of the Incongruity theory of
humor (see above), it is the first theory to identify its approach as exclusively linguistic. As such it
concerns itself only with verbal humor: written and spoken words used in narrative or riddle jokes
concluding with a punch line.

The linguistic scripts (a.k.a. frames) referenced in the title include, for any given word, a “large chunk
of semantic information surrounding the word and evoked by it [...] a cognitive structure internalized by
the native speaker”.[21] These scripts extend much further than the lexical definition of a word; they
contain the speaker’s complete knowledge of the concept as it exists in his world. Thus native speakers will
have similar but not identical scripts for words they have in common.

To produce the humor of a verbal joke, Raskin posits, the following 2 conditions must be met:

“(i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different [semantic] scripts
(ii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite […]. The two scripts with which
the text is compatible are said to overlap fully or in part on this text.”[22]

Humor is evoked when a trigger at the end of the joke, the punch line, causes the audience to abruptly shift
its understanding from the primary (or more obvious) script to the secondary, opposing script.

As an example Raskin uses the following joke:

"Is the doctor at home?" the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. "No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in.”

For this example, the two scripts contained in the joke are DOCTOR and LOVER; the switch from one to the
other is triggered by our understanding of the “whispered” reply of the “young and pretty wife”. This reply
only makes sense in the script of LOVER, but makes no sense in the script of a bronchial patient going to
see the DOCTOR at his (home) office. Raskin expands further on his analysis with more jokes, examining in
each how the scripts both overlap and oppose each other in the text.[24]

In order to fulfill the second condition of a joke, Raskin introduces different categories of script
opposition. A partial list includes: actual (non-actual), normal (abnormal), possible (impossible), good
(bad), life (death), obscene (non-obscene), money (no money), high (low) stature.[25] A complete list of
possible script oppositions for jokes is finite and culturally dependent. For example, Soviet political
humor does not use the same scripts to be found in Jewish humor.[26] However, for all jokes, in order to
generate the humor a connection between the two scripts contained in a given joke must be established. “…one
cannot simply juxtapose two incongruous things and call it a joke, but rather one must find a clever way of
making them make pseudo-sense together.”[27]

General Theory of Verbal Humor

2 von 6 03.08.16 00:36

Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) was proposed by Victor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo in the article
“Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model”.[28] It integrated Raskin’s ideas
of Script Opposition (SO), developed in his Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor [SSTH], into the GTVH as
one of six levels of independent Knowledge Resources (KRs).[29][30] These KRs could be used to model
individual verbal jokes as well as analyze the degree of similarity or difference between them. The
Knowledge Resources proposed in this theory are:[31]

1. Script Opposition (SO) references the script opposition included in Raskin’s SSTH. This includes,
among others, themes such as real (unreal), actual (non-actual), normal (abnormal), possible
(impossible).
2. Logical Mechanism (LM) refers to the mechanism which connects the different scripts in the joke.
These can range from a simple verbal technique like a pun to more complex LMs such as faulty logic or
false analogies.
3. Situation (SI) can include objects, activities, instruments, props needed to tell the story.
4. Target (TA) identifies the actor(s) who become the “butt” of the joke. This labeling serves to
develop and solidify stereotypes of ethnic groups, professions, etc.
5. Narrative strategy (NS) addresses the narrative format of the joke, as either a simple narrative, a
dialogue, or a riddle. It attempts to classify the different genres and subgenres of verbal humor. In
a subsequent study Attardo expands the NS to include oral and printed humorous narratives of any
length, not just jokes.[32]
6. Language (LA) “…contains all the information necessary for the verbalization of a text. It is
responsible for the exact wording …and for the placement of the functional elements.” [33]

To illustrate their theory, the authors use 7 examples of the light bulb joke, each variant shifted by a
single Knowledge Resource.[24] Each one of the KRs, ordered hierarchically above and starting with the
Script Opposition, has the ability to “determine the parameters below themselves, and are determined
[circumscribed] by those above themselves. ‘Determination’ is to be intended as limiting or reducing the
options available for the instantiation of the parameter; for example, the choice of the SO [script
opposition] DUMB/SMART will reduce the options available to the generation in the TA (in North America to
Poles, etc.)” [34]

One of the advantages of this theory (GTVH) over Raskin’s script-based semantic theory (SSTH) is that
through the inclusion of the Narrative Strategy (NS) any and all humorous texts can be categorized. Whereas
Raskin’s SSTH only deals with jokes, the GTVH considers all humorous text from spontaneous one-liners to
funny stories and literature. This theory can also, by identifying how many of the Knowledge Resources are
identical for any two humorous pieces, begin to define the degree of similarity between the two.

As to the ordering of the Knowledge Resources, there has been much discussion. Willibald Ruch, a
distinguished German psychologist and humor researcher,[35] wanted to test empirically the ordering of the
Knowledge Resources, with only partial success.[36][37] Nevertheless, both the listed Knowledge Resources in
the GTVH and their relationship to each other has proven to be fertile ground in the further investigation
of what exactly makes humor funny.[38]

Computational-Neural Theory of Humor

The Computer Model of a Sense of Humor theory was suggested by Suslov in 1992.[39] Investigation of the
general scheme of information processing shows the possibility of a specific malfunction, conditioned by the
necessity of a quick deletion from consciousness of a false version. This specific malfunction can be
identified with a humorous effect on psychological grounds: it exactly corresponds to incongruity-resolution
theory. However, an essentially new ingredient, the role of timing, is added to the well-known role of
ambiguity. In biological systems, a sense of humor inevitably develops in the course of evolution, because
its biological function consists of quickening the transmission of the processed information into
consciousness and in a more effective use of brain resources. A realization of this algorithm in neural
networks[40] justifies naturally Spencer's hypothesis on the mechanism of laughter: deletion of a false
version corresponds to zeroing of some part of the neural network and excessive energy of neurons is thrown
out to the motor cortex, arousing muscular contractions.

The theory treats on equal footing the humorous effect created by the linguistic means (verbal humor), as
well as created visually (caricature, clown performance) or by tickling. The theory explains the natural
differences in susceptibility of people to humor, absence of humorous effect from a trite joke, the role of
intonation in telling jokes, nervous laughter, etc. According to this theory, humor has a pure biological
origin, while its social functions arose later. This conclusion corresponds to the known fact that monkeys
(as pointed out by Charles Darwin) and even rats (as found recently) possess a sense of humor.[41]

A practical realization of this algorithm needs extensive databases, whose creation in the automatic regime
was suggested recently.[42]

Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor

The Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor (OETC) proposed by P. Marteinson (2006) asserts that laughter is a
reaction to a cognitive impasse, a momentary epistemological difficulty, in which the subject perceives that
Social Being itself suddenly appears no longer to be real in any factual or normative sense. When this

3 von 6 03.08.16 00:36

Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

occurs material reality, which is always factually true, is the only percept remaining in the mind at such a
moment of comic perception. This theory posits, as in Bergson, that human beings accept as real both
normative immaterial percepts, such as social identity, and neological factual percepts, but also that the
individual subject normally blends the two together in perception in order to live by the assumption they
are equally real. The comic results from the perception that they are not. This same result arises in a
number of paradigmatic cases: factual reality can be seen to conflict with and disprove social reality,
which Marteinson calls Deculturation; alternatively, social reality can appear to contradict other elements
of social reality, which he calls "Relativisation". Laughter, according to Marteinson, serves to reset and
re-boot the faculty of social perception, which has been rendered non-functional by the comic situation: it
anesthetizes the mind with its euphoria, and permits the forgetting of the comic stimulus, as well as the
well-known function of communicating the humorous reaction to other members of society.[43]

Sexual selection

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller contends that, from an evolutionary perspective, humour would have
had no survival value to early humans living in the savannas of Africa. He proposes that human
characteristics like humor evolved by sexual selection. He argues that humour emerged as an indicator of
other traits that were of survival value, such as human intelligence.[44]

Detection of mistaken reasoning

In 2011, three researchers, Hurley, Dennett and Adams, published a book that reviews previous theories of
humor and many specific jokes. They propose the theory that humor evolved because it strengthens the ability
of the brain to find mistakes in active belief structures, that is, to detect mistaken reasoning.[45] This
is somewhat consistent with the sexual selection theory, because, as stated above, humor would be a reliable
indicator of an important survival trait: the ability to detect mistaken reasoning. However, the three
researchers argue that humor is fundamentally important because it is the very mechanism that allows the
human brain to excel at practical problem solving. Thus, according to them, humor did have survival value
even for early humans, because it enhanced the neural circuitry needed to survive.

Misattribution theory

Misattribution is one theory of humor that describes an audience's inability to identify exactly why they
find a joke to be funny. The formal theory is attributed to Zillmann & Bryant (1980) in their article,
"Misattribution Theory of Tendentious Humor", published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. They
derived the critical concepts of the theory from Sigmund Freud's Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious
(note: from a Freudian perspective, wit is separate from humor), originally published in 1905.

Benign Violation Theory

The benign violation theory (BVT) is developed by researchers A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren.[46] The BVT
integrates seemingly disparate theories of humor to predict that humor occurs when three conditions are
satisfied: 1) something threatens one's sense of how the world "ought to be", 2) the threatening situation
seems benign, and 3) a person sees both interpretations at the same time.

From an evolutionary perspective, humorous violations likely originated as apparent physical threats, like
those present in play fighting and tickling. As humans evolved, the situations that elicit humor likely
expanded from physical threats to other violations, including violations of personal dignity (e.g.,
slapstick, teasing), linguistic norms (e.g., puns, malapropisms), social norms (e.g., strange behaviors,
risqué jokes), and even moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behaviors). The BVT suggests that anything that
threatens one's sense of how the world "ought to be" will be humorous, so long as the threatening situation
also seems benign.

There is also more than one way a violation can seem benign. McGraw and Warren tested three contexts in the
domain of moral violations. A violation can seem benign if one norm suggests something is wrong but another
salient norm suggests it is acceptable. A violation can also seem benign when one is psychologically distant
from the violation or is only weakly committed to the violated norm.

For example, McGraw and Warren find that most consumers were disgusted when they read about a church
raffling off a Hummer SUV to recruit new members. However, many consumers were simultaneously amused.
Consistent with the BVT, people who attended church were less likely to be amused than people who did not.
Churchgoers are more committed to the belief that churches are sacred and, consequently, were less likely to
consider the church's behavior benign.

Humor as defense mechanism

According to George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization, humor is level IV defense mechanism: overt
expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk
about) that gives pleasure to others. Humor, which explores the absurdity inherent in any event, enables
someone to "call a spade a spade", while "wit" is a form of displacement (level 3). Wit refers to the
serious or distressing in a humorous way, rather than disarming it; the thoughts remain distressing, but
they are "skirted round" by witticism.

Sense of humor, sense of seriousness

One must have a sense of humor and a sense of seriousness to distinguish what is supposed to be taken

4 von 6 03.08.16 00:36

Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

literally or not. An even more keen sense is needed when humor is used to make a serious point.[47][48]
Psychologists have studied how humor is intended to be taken as having seriousness, as when court jesters
used humor to convey serious information. Conversely, when humor is not intended to be taken seriously, bad
taste in humor may cross a line after which it is taken seriously, though not intended.[49]

Metaphor and metonymy

Tony Veale, who takes a more formalised computational approach than Koestler, has written on the role of
metaphor and metonymy in humour,[50][51][52] using inspiration from Koestler as well as from Dedre Gentner's
theory of structure-mapping, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theory of conceptual metaphor, and Mark Turner
and Gilles Fauconnier's theory of conceptual blending.

See also
Humor (positive psychology)
Humor styles

References
1. Raymond Smullyan, "The Planet Without
Laughter", This Book Needs No Title
2. Buijzen, M., Valkenburg, P. M. (2004).
"Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual
Media". Media Psychology, 6, 147–167.
3. Meyer, J. C. (2000). "Humour as a double-edged
sword: Four functions of humour in
communication." Communication Theory, 10,
310–331.
4. Berger, A. A. (1993). An Anatomy of Humor. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
5. Veatch, T. C. (1998). "A Theory of Humor".
Humor, 11, 163–215.
6. Vandaele, J. (2002). "Humor Mechanisms in Film
Comedy: Incongruity and Superiority". Poetics
Today, 23, 221–249
7. Berlyne, D. E. (1972). "Humour and its kin",
in J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
Psychology of Humour (pp. 43–60). New York:
Academic.
8. C. George Boeree. "Humor". Webspace.ship.edu.
Retrieved 2012-12-11.
9. Schaeffer, N. (1981). The Art of Laughter. New
York: Columbia University Press.
10. M.P. Mulder, A. Nijholt (2002) "Humour
Research: State of the Art"
(http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/580062.html)
11. Plato, Philebus 49b ff.
12. Poetics, 1449a, p. 34-35.
13. Peter Ludwig Berger Redeeming Laughter: The
Comic Dimension of Human Experience (1997)
p.22
14. J.Beattie, Essays (William Creech, Edinburg,
1776).
15. Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the
Meaning of the Comic (1900) English
translation 1914.
16. Robert L. Latta (1999) The Basic Humor
Process: A Cognitive-Shift Theory and the Case
against Incongruity, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN
3-11-016103-6 (Humor Research no. 5)
17. John Morreall (1983) Taking Laughter
Seriously, Suny Press, ISBN 0-87395-642-7
18. Brian Boyd, Laughter and Literature: A Play
Theory of Humor Philosophy and Literature —
Volume 28, Number 1, April 2004, pp. 1-22
19. Koestler, Arthur (1964): "The Act of
Creation".
20. Victor Raskin (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of
Humor (302 pp.). Dordrecht - Boston -
Lancaster: D. Reidel.
21. Raskin (1985), pg. 46.
22. Raskin (1985), pg. 99.
23. Raskin (1985), pg. 100.
24. Arvo Krikmannn (2006). "Contemporary
Linguistic Theories of Humour", pg. 31. In
Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore,
issue: 33 / 2006, pages: 27-58.
http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol33
/kriku.pdf . Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag;
name "Krikmann" defined multiple times with
different content (see the help page).
25. Raskin (1985), pp. 113 - 114.
26. Raskin (1985), see Table of Contents.
27. Katrina E. Triezenberg (2008). "Humor in
Literature", pg. 537. In Primer of Humor
Research, ed. Victor Raskin. Mouton de
Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
28. Victor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo (1991).
“Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity
and joke representation model”. In Humor -
International Journal of Humor Research,
Volume 4, Issue 3-4, Pages 293–348. Mouton de
Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
29. Robert Lew (1996). “An ambiguity-based theory
of the linguistic verbal joke in English. A
Thesis submitted to the faculty of Adam
Mickiewicz University in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy April 1996”. Poznan, Poland,
unpublished thesis.
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~rlew/
30. The other 5 KRs had been previously identified
in Attardo's five-level joke representation
model. See Hofstadter, Douglas, Liane Gabora,
Salvatore Attardo, and Victor Raskin.(1989).
"Synopsis of the workshop on humor and
cognition", pp. 438-439. In Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research 2 (4),
417-440.
31. Salvatore Attardo (1994). Linguistic Theories
of Humor, pp. 223 - 226. Mouton de Gruyter:
Berlin, New York.
32. Salvatore Attardo (2001). Humorous Texts: A
Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter
33. Attardo (1994), pg. 223.
34. Attardo (1994), pg. 227.
35. de:Willibald Ruch

5 von 6 03.08.16 00:36

Theories of humor - Wikipedia, the free ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_o...

36. Willibald Ruch, Salvatore Attardo, Victor
Raskin (1993). “Toward an empirical
verification of the General Theory of Verbal
Humor”. In HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 6 (2), pp. 123–136.
37. Both the test structure and the results are
described in Krikman (2006), pp. 38-39.
38. Tarez Samra Graban (2008). "Rhetoric,
composition, and humor studies", pg. 425 ff.
In Primer of Humor Research, ed. Victor
Raskin. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
39. I.M.Suslov, Computer Model of "a Sense of
Humour". I. General Algorithm. Biofizika SSSR
37, 318 (1992) [Biophysics 37, 242 (1992)];
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2058.
40. I.M.Suslov, Computer Model of "a Sense of
Humour". II. Realization in Neural Networks.
Biofizika SSSR 37, 325 (1992) [Biophysics {\bf
37}, 249 (1992)] http://arxiv.org
/abs/0711.2061.
41. Science 1 April 2005: Vol. 308 no. 5718 pp.
62-63 DOI:10.1126/science.1112066
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/video
/science/rat.mov
42. I.M.Suslov, How to Realize "a Sense of Humour"
in Computers? http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3197.
43. P. Marteinson (2006) On the Problem of the
Comic (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french
/as-sa/editors/origins.html), Legas Press,
Ottawa, ISBN 978-1-894508-91-9
44. 2001, The Mating Mind, by Geoffrey Miller
45. Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and
Adams, Reginald B. Jr. (2011). Inside Jokes:
Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind. The
MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01582-0.
46. McGraw, A. Peter, and Caleb Warren (2010).
"Benign violations: Making immoral behavior
funny." Psychological Science.
47. Bernard F. Dukore (2010). "Seriousness
Redeemed by Frivolity: Ayckbourn's Intimate
Exchanges". Journal of Modern Drama. 53 (4).
pp. 447–470.
48. When Congress makes a joke: Congressional
Humor as Serious and Purposeful Communication,
International Journal of Humor Research.
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 359–394, Nov 2004,
Dean L. Yarwood
49. Negotiating the Serious Import of Humor,
Sociometry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), pp.
169-181, Joan P. Emerson
50. Veale, Tony (2003): "Metaphor and Metonymy:
The Cognitive Trump-Cards of Linguistic Humor"
(Afflatus.uce.ie) (http://afflatus.ucd.ie
/Papers/iclc2003.pdf)
51. "Veale, Tony (2006): "The Cognitive Mechanisms
of Adversarial Humor" " (PDF). Retrieved
2012-12-11.
52. Veale, Tony (2004): "Incongruity in Humour:
Root Cause or Epiphenomonon?"
(Afflatus.ucd.ie) (http://afflatus.ucd.ie
/Papers/fest2004.pdf)

Further reading
Weems, Scott (2014). Ha!: The Science of When We Laugh and Why. ISBN 978-0465031702.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_of_humor&oldid=724410381"

Categories: Humor research Psychological theories

This page was last modified on 9 June 2016, at 02:40.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

6 von 6 03.08.16 00:36