More than "just a joke": the prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor

More Than a Joke: The Intersection of Gender-Based Humor and Gender Inequities Experienced by Women Department Chairs in Academic Medicine

Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to describe how women academic department chairs in emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology experience humor in the workplace. Method: Interviews were conducted with 35 women department chairs in academic medicine from 27 institutions that aimed to describe women's leadership emergence. The data from the primary study yielded rich and revealing themes involving participants' experiences with humor in the context of their leadership roles, justifying a secondary analysis focusing specifically on these experiences. Relevant remarks were extracted, coded, and summarized. Results: Participants discussed two broad types of humor-related experiences. First, they described how they responded to aggressive gender-based humor directed at themselves or their colleagues by tolerating it or expressing disapproval. This humor includes demeaning quips, insulting monikers, sexist jokes, and derogatory stories. Participants often did not confront this humor directly as they feared being rejected or ostracized by colleagues. Second, they described how they initiated humor to address gender-related workplace issues by highlighting gender inequalities, coping with sexual harassment and assault, and managing gender-based leadership challenges. Participants felt constrained in their own use of humor because of the need to be taken seriously as women leaders. Conclusion: Women leaders in academic medicine use humor to confront gender-related issues and experience aggressive gender-based humor in the workplace. The constraints placed on women leaders discourage them from effectively confronting this aggressive gender-based humor and perpetuating gender inequities. Eliminating aggressive gender-based humor is needed to create safe and equitable work environments in academic medicine.

I'm just joking! Perceptions of sexist humour and sexist beliefs in a Latin American context

Previous research has stated a relationship between sexist ideologies and humour appreciation. However, most research has been done in North America and Europe. In the present study, we aimed to approach in an exploratory way to the social perceptions of sexist humour in Costa Rica. Data was gathered through an online survey, participants (N = 323; 220 females) completed measures to characterise expressions of sexist humour. The main measures included perceived funniness, frequency and means of exposure, and perceived offensiveness, as well as completing the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). Overall, previous exposure to this kind of humour was remarkably high. No significant differences were observed between women's and men's perceptions of the frequency, means and places of exposure, but emotional and behavioural reactions to sexist humour were gender-based. Women reported higher displeasure, more confrontation and felt angrier and more offended than men when exposed to this type of humour. Data support existing evidence of the relationship with sexist ideology. Specifically, hostile sexism was found to be a significant predictor of perceived funniness and offensiveness of the sexist jokes. An interaction effect between hostile sexism and the sex of participants was found, showing that as hostile sexism increased, perceived offensiveness decreased, but more rapidly for men. Results are discussed considering the practical implications and limitations, as well as the need for more research in the Latin American context.

I will help you survive but not thrive: Helping decisions in situations that empower women

This research examines gender-based helping behavior from a social dominance perspective. We focused on the interplay between the gender of a prospective donor and the gender of the recipient in shaping donation decisions in contexts that either empower recipients or not. In two studies ( N = 866), male (but not female) donors chose to donate less often (Study 2) and to give lower amounts (Studies 1–2) to women in need than to men when donations were made in a potentially empowering context – a business context (e.g., donating to a person whose shop burned down), than in a nonempowering context – a domestic context (e.g., donating to a person whose house burned down). Lack of empathy for the female recipient among men partially mediated this gender–donation bias effect (Study 2). These findings suggest that men are less likely to help women in situations that empower women and challenge the existing gender hierarchy.

Partner Accuracy in Humor Perception and Associations With Relationship Satisfaction

Do people accurately perceive their partner's humor style? The current study extends work on partner perception by examining accuracy and bias in people's perception of their partners' humor styles-a subjective, evaluative, and important factor in relationship satisfaction. We recruited 337 heterosexual couples (N = 674 individuals, M_age = 65.71 years, SD = 12.107) who completed self-reports and partner-reports of humor styles. Truth and Bias modeling revealed that, although bias varied across humor styles, participants consistently demonstrated accuracy in their judgments of their partner's humor styles. Bias forces were moderated by relationship satisfaction such that assumed similarity biases were stronger among those in particularly satisfying relationships.

Mobilizing bystanders to address microaggressions in the workplace: The case for a systems-change approach to Getting A (Collective) GRIP

Microaggressions present significant barriers to the entry and advancement of individuals from marginalized groups within the workplace. Their ubiquity, coupled with their harmful impact, creates an urgent need for organizations to mitigate them to foster truly equitable and inclusive work environments. In this paper, we present a bystander-focused approach to address this particular form of workplace bias. Informed by the empirical literature and grounded in socioecological principles, we underscore the importance of a systems-change approach to the development and implementation of any bystander program. We describe ways to incorporate social-ecological sensibilities into the substance of the training itself by outlining our "Get A (Collective) GRIP" framework. This framework emphasizes the need for active bystanders to employ an ecological scan that includes Assessing what happened, determining one's Goals for intervening, considering the Relationships among those involved in the incident (target/s, transgressor/s, and witness/es), taking into account the Institutional context in which the incident occurs, and being attuned to structural issues and Power dynamics within the context. Finding ways to address microaggressions that embody systemic analyses has transformative potential for the workplace and doing so through activating bystanders to alter local social norms is an area that has tremendous promise in this regard.

When Dark Humor and Moral Judgment Meet in Sacrificial Dilemmas: Preliminary Evidence With Females

The influence of dark humor on moral judgment has never been explored, even though this form of humor is well-known to push the boundaries of social norms. In the present study, we examined whether the presence of dark humor leads female participants to approve a utilitarian response (i.e., to kill one to save many) in sacrificial dilemmas. The effects of two types of humorous contexts were compared (i.e., dark vs. nondark) on dilemmas, which differed according to whom benefits from the crime (i.e., oneself and others vs. others only). In addition to collecting moral responses, individuals’ emotional states were assessed at three critical steps: Before and after reading the jokes and also after performing the moral judgment task. Our results revealed that dark and nondark humor similarly elicited a positive emotional state. However, dark humor increased the permissiveness of the moral violation when this violation created benefits for oneself. In self and other beneficial dilemmas, female participants in the dark humorous condition judged the utilitarian response more appropriate than those in the nondark condition. This study represents a first attempt in deepening our understanding of the context-dependent nature of moral judgment usually assessed in sacrificial dilemmas.

Sexist Humor and Sexual Aggression Against Women: When Sexist Men Act According to Their Own Values or Social Pressures

Exposure to sexist humor creates a context in which some men feel comfortable expressing aggressive tendencies toward women (i.e., self-reported rape proclivity). This is in part because this type of humor makes it easier for men who have antagonistic attitudes toward women to express their prejudice without fear of social reprisal. Besides, previous research has demonstrated the influence of motivational variables such as autonomy (initiation or regulation of intentional behavior based on free choice) and control (acting under external pressure) on aggression. We conducted two experiments to explore the hypothetical influence of priming autonomy and control motivations on the relation between sexist humor and the expression of sexually aggressive tendencies toward women. Study 1 (N = 108) revealed that control-primed men with high (vs. low) scores in hostile sexism reported a higher rape proclivity when exposed to sexist (vs. neutral) humor. These results were partially replicated in Study 2 (N = 132), assessing the accessibility of aggressive sexual thoughts. This research contributes to our understanding of the influence of sexist humor and motivational orientations in sexist men on the expression of aggressive sexual behaviors directed against women.

Going Along to Get Ahead: The Asymmetric Effects of Sexist Joviality on Status Conferral

Social status is highly consequential in organizations but remains elusive for many professional women. Status characteristics theory argues that women are particularly status disadvantaged in masculine organizational cultures. These types of cultures valorize traits and abilities stereotypically associated with men, making it difficult for women in these settings to be seen as skilled and gain status. In the present study, we build and test novel theory explaining when and why masculine organizational cultures create the conditions for some women—those willing and able to skillfully navigate the espoused norms—to disproportionately gain status. We introduce and define the construct of a sexist culture of joviality, a type of masculine organizational culture representing the intersection of sexism and joviality that emerged inductively from our initial qualitative data. A sexist culture of joviality is characterized by norms promoting frequent sexist joking and teasing, along with underlying values and assumptions that support these sexist jovial behaviors. In a longitudinal mixed-methods field study, we demonstrate that participation in a sexist culture of joviality via engagement in sexist jovial norms is positively related to status for women but negatively related to status for men. In a follow-up experiment, we replicate this effect and demonstrate that differential perceptions of social skill mediate this interaction. Our findings illuminate the subtle ways sexism is perpetuated in organizations despite changing societal norms, underscoring the importance of disrupting these dynamics and revealing insights into how to do so.

COVID-19 humor in Jordanian social media: A socio-semiotic approach

The Coronavirus has wrapped the whole universe with a mood of fear, depression, anxiety and loss of hope. It has made countries of the world, west and east, rich and poor, advanced and underdeveloped, all engaged in a common task: facing one ‘invisible’ enemy; the pandemic. The consequences are conditions that, the UN states, have not been experienced since the horrific conditions of World War II resulting into heavy toils in the number of victims.

The normal course of life has now changed. The pressing demand is the adaptation to various new measures including curfews and the restrictions on mass mobility. These conditions managed to alter the long-established rhythm of daily course of life.

This paper focuses on how Jordanian social media is contributing in overcoming Pandemic anxiety burdens and offering relief. For this purpose, the study undertakes a two-track task. A survey is compiled to elicit social media users' opinions concerning the effect of humor on people's well-being. Participants were given questions on humor and were also asked to give their impressions on a selection of 20 humorous figures attached as a link within the survey. 1274 participants responded. Likert's five-point scale was adapted to analyze the data. Second, the paper examined these twenty selected memes and caricatures extracted from Jordanian social media websites. The study applied Kress and Leeuween's approach of social semiotics. The objective is to identify and analyze specific semiotic patterns in COVID-19 related caricatures and memes in Jordanian social media in order to demonstrate how humor can be used as means of softening the grim mood created by the Pandemic through examining the data from a social-semiotic perspective.

Not Taking a Joke: The Influence of Target Status, Sex, and Age on Reactions to Workplace Humor

The current study tasked undergraduates with serving as hypothetical human resource workers to evaluate complaints of offensive and inoffensive humor used by male and female employees in a fictitious company who varied in employment status and age. Offensive humor was deemed more problematic in its usage, particularly among female perceivers. Contrary to hypotheses, its usage was more problematic for male and older employees than for female and younger employees. In addition, participants were more averse to both offensive and inoffensive humor from high-status and older men relative to women with similar characteristics. We frame results with consideration of recent social trends.

When It Is Not So Funny: Prevalence of Friendly Sexist Teasing and Consequences to Gender Self-Esteem

This research investigates the phenomenon of "friendly" sexist teases (FSTs), which we define as playful intergroup teases that are based on the negative gender stereotypes that devalue one's gender group. We first employed a diary study to explore the prevalence of FSTs in college students' everyday life and found that this type of teasing tends to occur in social situations and often between close others. In a second study, we experimentally manipulated perceived closeness with the teaser. We predicted that individuals teased by someone with whom they shared a perceived closeness would interpret FSTs as playful fun; therefore, the tease would not have a negative psychological effect. We further predicted that those teased by someone less close would likely focus on the literal content of the sexist tease, resulting in negative consequences to gender self-esteem. Results supported these predictions and provided insight into the phenomenon of FSTs.

Understanding and Diagnosing Antimicrobial Resistance on Social Media: A Yearlong Overview of Data and Analytics

To better understand user conversations revolving around antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) on Twitter, we used an online data collection and analysis toolkit with full firehose access to collect corpuses of tweets with "antibiotic" and "antimicrobial resistance" keyword tracks. The date range included tweets from November 28, 2015, to November 25, 2016, for both datasets. This yearlong date range provides insight into how users have discussed antibiotics and AMR and identifies any spikes in activity during a particular time frame. Overall, we found that discussions about antibiotics and AMR predominantly occur in the United States and the United Kingdom, with roughly equal gender participation. These conversations are influenced by news sources, health professionals, and governmental health organizations. Users will often defer to retweet and recirculate content posted from these official sources and link to external articles instead of posting their own musings on the subjects. Our findings are important benchmarks in understanding the prevalence and reach of potential misinformation about antibiotics and AMR on Twitter.

Women and African Americans are less influential when they express anger during group decision making

Expressing anger can signal that someone is certain and competent, thereby increasing their social influence—but does this strategy work for everyone? After assessing gender- and race-based emotion stereotypes (Study 1), we assessed the effect of expressing anger on social influence during group decision making as a function of gender (Studies 2–3) and race (Study 3). Participants took part in a computerized mock jury decision-making task, during which they read scripted comments ostensibly from other jurors. A “holdout” juror always disagreed with the participant and four other confederate group members. We predicted that the contextual factor of who expressed emotion would trump what was expressed in determining whether anger is a useful persuasion strategy. People perceived all holdouts expressing anger as more emotional than holdouts who expressed identical arguments without anger. Yet holdouts who expressed anger (versus no anger) were less effective and influential when they were female (but not male, Study 2) or Black (but not White, Study 3)—despite having expressed identical arguments and anger. Although anger expression made participants perceive the holdouts as more emotional regardless of race and gender, being perceived as more emotional was selectively used to discredit women and African Americans. These diverging consequences of anger expression have implications for societally important group decisions, including life-and-death decisions made by juries.

Joking about ourselves: Effects of disparaging humor on ingroup stereotyping

In three studies, we examined whether ingroup disparaging humor leads to greater stereotyping of the ingroup. First, in Study 1, ( N = 101) university students were exposed to (a) ingroup disparaging humor, (b) neutral humor, or (c) ingroup disparaging nonhumorous text. Participants exposed to disparaging humor reported more stereotypic evaluations than those in the neutral humor or disparaging text condition. Study 2 ( N = 167) replicated these findings with humor conditions (disparaging vs. neutral) and showed that ingroup identification moderated the effects of the type of humor. Low identifiers exposed to ingroup disparaging humor (vs. those in the control condition) reported a greater frequency of stereotypic evaluations, whereas the manipulation did not affect high identifiers. Finally, Study 3 ( N = 153) also manipulated the source of the jokes. As in Study 2, we found an interaction effect showing that high identifiers were not affected by the manipulation, whereas for low identifiers disparaging humor increased stereotyping and led to more negative emotions toward the ingroup. No significant effects were found for source of the jokes. We discuss findings in terms of how the traditional pattern of humor facilitating outgroup stereotyping also seems to apply to ingroup stereotyping.

Individual differences in the propensity to make attributions to prejudice

Whether racism is perceived in ambiguous situations may depend on individual differences in perceivers’ beliefs about the prevalence of racial prejudice and discrimination, trivialization of targets’ concerns, and vigilance and confidence in recognizing instances of racial prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we develop a psychometrically sound measure of these beliefs, the Propensity to Make Attributions to Prejudice Scale (PMAPS), and provide evidence that the PMAPS is related to individual differences in the justification and suppression of prejudice. Studies 3 and 5 provide evidence that the PMAPS predicts attributions to prejudice in a variety of situations. Theoretically consistent racial and gender differences in the PMAPS were found in a large sample (Study 4). Together, these data provide evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the PMAPS and provide insights about the role that beliefs and expectations play in third-party observers’ judgments about expressions of prejudice.

Putting the brakes on prejudice rebound effects: An ironic effect of disparagement humor

When people high in prejudice censor prejudice in one setting, they can experience a prejudice rebound effect-subsequently responding with more prejudice than otherwise. Disparagement humor fosters the release rather than suppression of prejudice. Thus, two experiments tested the hypothesis that exposure to disparagement humor attenuates rebound effects. Participants suppressed prejudice by writing fewer anti-gay thoughts about same-sex adoption (Experiment 1) or by reporting greater support for same-sex civil rights (Experiment 2) when expecting to share their responses with others (non-prejudice norm condition) but not if others first exchanged anti-gay jokes (prejudice norm condition). High-prejudice participants then exhibited prejudice rebound in the non-prejudice norm condition only. They rated a gay man more stereotypically (Experiment 1) and allocated greater budget cuts to a gay student organization (Experiment 2) in the non-prejudice norm condition.

Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderating Role of Joke Teller Gender and Severity of Sexual Assault

Three experiments examined the effect of sexist humor on men's self-reported rape proclivity (RP). Pilot study demonstrated that people differentiate the five rape scenarios of Bohner et al.'s. RP Scale based on the degree of physical violence perpetrated against the victim. Experiment 1 demonstrated that men higher in hostile sexism report greater RP upon exposure to sexist jokes when a woman (vs. a man) delivers them, and that this effect is limited to rape scenarios depicting a moderate versus a high level of physical violence. Experiment 2 further demonstrated that the relationship between hostile sexism and rape proclivity in response to a moderately violent rape scenario after exposure to sexist humor generalizes beyond women in the immediate humor context to women as a whole.

Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995-2015

Sexually objectifying portrayals of women are a frequent occurrence in mainstream media, raising questions about the potential impact of exposure to this content on others' impressions of women and on women's views of themselves. The goal of this review was to synthesize empirical investigations testing effects of media sexualization. The focus was on research published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between 1995 and 2015. A total of 109 publications that contained 135 studies were reviewed. The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women's competence, morality, and humanity. Limitations with the existing research approaches and measures are discussed, and suggestions for future research directions are provided.

Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in organizational structures, processes, and practices. For women, some of the most harmful gender inequalities are enacted within human resources (HRs) practices. This is because HR practices (i.e., policies, decision-making, and their enactment) affect the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose a model of gender discrimination in HR that emphasizes the reciprocal nature of gender inequalities within organizations. We suggest that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and in the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices. This includes leadership, structure, strategy, culture, organizational climate, as well as HR policies. In addition, organizational decision makers' levels of sexism can affect their likelihood of making gender biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in a sexist manner while enacting HR practices. Importantly, institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a pre-eminent role because not only do they affect HR practices, they also provide a socializing context for organizational decision makers' levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Although we portray gender inequality as a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate discrimination, important levers for reducing discrimination are identified.

Harmful Workplace Experiences and Women’s Occupational Well-Being

We report a meta-analytic review of studies examining the relations among harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being. Based on previous research, a classification of harmful workplace experiences affecting women is proposed and then used in the analysis of 88 studies with 93 independent samples, containing 73,877 working women. We compare the associations of different harmful workplace experiences and job stressors with women’s work attitudes and health. Random-effects meta-analysis and path analysis showed that more intense yet less frequent harmful experiences (e.g., sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention) and less intense but more frequent harmful experiences (e.g., sexist organizational climate and gender harassment) had similar negative effects on women’s well-being. Harmful workplace experiences were independent from and as negative as job stressors in their impact on women’s occupational well-being. The power imbalance between the target and the perpetrator appeared as a potential factor to explain the type and impact of harmful workplace experiences affecting women’s occupational well-being. In the discussion, we identify several gaps in the literature, suggest directions for future research, and suggest organizational policy changes and interventions that could be effective at reducing the incidence of harmful workplace experiences. Additional online materials for this article are available to PWQ subscribers on PWQ's website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental .

[Negative evaluations and discrimination against smokers]

The present study examined the negative evaluations and discrimination against smokers among the Japanese. In Study 1, 52 students rated one of four target-persons differentially depicted in terms of gender and smoking habit using scales to measure coolness, sociability, intellectuality, and earnestness. The results showed that participants rated smokers more negatively than nonsmokers except for sociability. Those who perceived smoking as controllable rated smokers' earnestness even more negatively, suggesting that the negative evaluations are partially moderated by the perceived controllability of smoking. To examine a hypothesis that negative evaluations of smokers would mediate discrimination, in Study 2 we measured how participants (96 students) responded to target persons asking for a loan or a job, as well as their ratings of the targets on the Big Five personality dimensions. The results support the hypothesis of mediation.

Does humor influence the stigma of mental illnesses?

Public stigma is a barrier for people with mental illness. Humor may have the potential to decrease stigmatizing attitudes in the context of disclosure. Participants completed measures on stigmatizing attitudes and humor style and were then randomized to one of three conditions (self-disclosure comedy sketch, the same comedy sketch with no disclosure, and a control comedy sketch). After reviewing the comedy sketch, the participants repeated the attitude measures and provided perceptions of the comic. Humor styles and perceptions significantly interacted with condition to reduce stigma. Perceptions of the self-disclosed comic were associated with reduced stigma. People exhibiting affiliative humor style (i.e., they enjoy making others laugh) were shown to have significantly greater stigma changes in the disclosed condition compared with the nondisclosed and control conditions. Affiliative humor endorsers also interacted with the nondisclosed condition, suggesting that mental health comedy might generally reduce stigma in people who use humor to improve relationships.

Not all groups are equal: Differential vulnerability of social groups to the prejudice-releasing effects of disparagement humor

Three experiments tested hypotheses about why humor that disparages some groups fosters discrimination whereas humor that disparages others does not. Experiment 1 showed that disparagement humor fosters discrimination against groups for whom society’s attitudes are ambivalent. Participants higher in anti-Muslim prejudice tolerated discrimination against a Muslim person more after reading anti-Muslim jokes than after reading anti-Muslim statements or neutral jokes. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the hypothesis that disparagement humor promotes discrimination against groups for whom society’s attitudes are ambivalent but not groups for whom prejudice is justified. In Experiment 2 participants higher in anti-Muslim prejudice discriminated against Muslims more after reading anti-Muslim jokes than neutral jokes, while antiterrorist jokes did not promote discrimination against terrorists. In Experiment 3 participants higher in antigay prejudice discriminated against a gay student organization more after reading antigay jokes than after reading neutral or antiracist jokes; antiracist jokes did not promote discrimination against a racist student organization.

Content Validity and Metric Properties of a Pool of Items Developed to Assess Humor Appreciation

This research deals with assessing humor appreciation and highlights some of the strategies that can be used in two necessary stages in the construction of a test: the content validity study and the item analysis. First, we analyzed the content validity of a battery of 200 items developed to assess humor appreciation. Second, we analyzed the metric properties of the selected items by means of two studies. The first study was a pre-pilot analysis of the items in a sample of 212 participants, and the second study was a new item analysis in a sample of 344 Spanish people aged between 18 and 71 years. To determine content validity, we calculated interjudge agreement on item-facet theoretical match. Each item was assessed by seven judges, and the selection criterion used was a minimum agreement of 70%. This procedure led to eliminating 27 items.

Subsequent item analyses led to a preliminary proposal for a 40-item scale (Escala de Apreciación del Humor, EAHU [Humor Appreciation Scale]) with appropriate descriptive statistics as well as discrimination and homogeneity values. The internal empirical structure of the scale matched the operative definition of humor appreciation, and the Cronbach’s alpha of the EAHU scores ranged from .72 to .89.

Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: the moderator effect of aversiveness ratings

The aim of this study is to explore the effect of exposure to sexist humor about women on men's self-reported rape proclivity. Earlier studies have shown that exposure to this type of humor increases rape proclivity and that funniness responses to jokes are a key element to consider. However, the role of aversiveness responses has not been studied. In a between-group design, 109 male university students are randomly exposed to sexist or nonsexist jokes. Participants are asked to rate the jokes according to their degree of funniness and aversiveness. Participants' levels of hostile and benevolent sexism were also measured. Results about the relationship between sexist attitudes and sexist humor and the relationship between sexist attitudes and rape proclivity are consistent with those of earlier studies. However, exposure to sexist humor affects rape proclivity only when aversiveness shown to this type of humor is low. The results are discussed in the light of the prejudiced norm theory.