Spontaneous Laughter as an Auditory Analog to Affiliative Intent

Motivated Social Affordance Judgments of Humor Styles

Despite the ingratiating function of humor, not all humor is created equal. Individual differences in humor styles may inform perceptions of whether prospective group members afford affiliative opportunities, with affiliative humor being regarded as especially beneficial. In this research, we tasked participants with evaluating social targets espousing different humor styles to identify these targets' abilities satisfy and impede both affiliative and social goals (Study 1) while determining if individual differences in these motives foster heightened preferences (Study 2). Affiliative and self-enhancing humor afforded the most affiliative and self-protection opportunities, whereas aggressive humor afforded more threats. Additionally, higher need to belong heightened preferences for affiliative humor. Results provide evidence for assortative sociality in the identification of optimum group members based on humor displays.

The relationship between familiarity, gender, disagreement, and status and bouts of solitary and joint laughter

The current research treated laughter as an indexical with two closely allied properties: to designate talk as non-serious and to serve as a mode of address signalling a preference for solidarity. These properties gave rise to four discrete forms of laughter bout, solitary speaker, solitary listener, speaker-initiated joint, and listener-initiated joint laughter, which were examined using 55 same-gender pairs discussing three choice dilemma items. By exploring the associations between the wider contextual factors of familiarity, gender, disagreement and status, and the frequencies of each form of bout within the dyad, it was hoped to establish whether laughter was related to how participants modulated their social relationships. Neither familiarity nor disagreement had any effect on any of the forms of laughter bout, while females were found to demonstrate higher frequencies of joint speaker laughter than males. In unequal status pairs, high status female staff joined in the laughter of their low status female student interlocutors less often than the reverse, a finding comparable with the exchange of other terms of address, such as second person pronouns in European languages. It was concluded that joint laughter was a signal of solidarity and solitary speaker laughter was a declared preference for solidarity, but the significance of solitary listener laughter, beyond an acknowledgement of the speaker’s non-serious talk, remained less clear. It was also noted that norms associated with the setting and topic of interaction were influential in determining the extent to which laughter would be used to modulate the relationships between interlocutors.

Just Seconds of Laughter Reveals Relationship Status: Laughter with Friends Sounds More Authentic and Less Vulnerable than Laughter with Romantic Partners

The dual pathway model posits that spontaneous and volitional laughter are voiced using distinct production systems, and perceivers rely upon these system-related cues to make accurate judgments about relationship status. Yet, to our knowledge, no empirical work has examined whether raters can differentiate laughter directed at friends and romantic partners and the cues driving this accuracy. In Study 1, raters (N = 50), who listened to 52 segments of laughter, identified conversational partner (friend versus romantic partner) with greater than chance accuracy (M = 0.57) and rated laughs directed at friends to be more pleasant-sounding than laughs directed at romantic partners. Study 2, which involved 58 raters, revealed that prototypical friendship laughter sounded more spontaneous (e.g., natural) and less “vulnerable” (e.g., submissive) than prototypical romantic laughter. Study 3 replicated the findings of the first two studies using a large cross-cultural sample (N = 252). Implications for the importance of laughter as a subtle relational signal of affiliation are discussed.

Recognizing affiliation in colaughter and cospeech

Theories of vocal signalling in humans typically only consider communication within the interactive group and ignore intergroup dynamics. Recent work has found that colaughter generated between pairs of people in conversation can afford accurate judgements of affiliation across widely disparate cultures, and the acoustic features that listeners use to make these judgements are linked to speaker arousal. But to what extent does colaughter inform third party listeners beyond other dynamic information between interlocutors such as overlapping talk? We presented listeners with short segments (1-3 s) of colaughter and simultaneous speech (i.e. cospeech) taken from natural conversations between established friends and newly acquainted strangers. Participants judged whether the pairs of interactants in the segments were friends or strangers. Colaughter afforded more accurate judgements of affiliation than did cospeech, despite cospeech being over twice in duration relative to colaughter on average. Sped-up versions of colaughter and cospeech (proxies of speaker arousal) did not improve accuracy for either identifying friends or strangers, but faster versions of both modes increased the likelihood of tokens being judged as being between friends. Overall, results are consistent with research showing that laughter is well suited to transmit rich information about social relationships to third party overhearers-a signal that works between, and not just within conversational groups.

Testing an active intervention to deter researchers' use of questionable research practices

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we tested a simple, active "ethical consistency" intervention aimed at reducing researchers' endorsement of questionable research practices (QRPs).

METHODS

We developed a simple, active ethical consistency intervention and tested it against a control using an established QRP survey instrument. Before responding to a survey that asked about attitudes towards each of fifteen QRPs, participants were randomly assigned to either a consistency or control 3-5-min writing task. A total of 201 participants completed the survey: 121 participants were recruited from a database of currently funded NSF/NIH scientists, and 80 participants were recruited from a pool of active researchers at a large university medical center in the southeastern US. Narrative responses to the writing prompts were coded and analyzed to assist post hoc interpretation of the quantitative data.

RESULTS

We hypothesized that participants in the consistency condition would find ethically ambiguous QRPs less defensible and would indicate less willingness to engage in them than participants in the control condition. The results showed that the consistency intervention had no significant effect on respondents' reactions regarding the defensibility of the QRPs or their willingness to engage in them. Exploratory analyses considering the narrative themes of participants' responses indicated that participants in the control condition expressed lower perceptions of QRP defensibility and willingness.

CONCLUSION

The results did not support the main hypothesis, and the consistency intervention may have had the unwanted effect of inducing increased rationalization. These results may partially explain why RCR courses often seem to have little positive effect.