Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Humour and social bonding

Humour and social bonding:
How does humour facilitate social bonding?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Picture This! Figure 1. Visual illustration of the scenario highlighting the role of humour in facilitating social bonding. Imagine you are stuck in a broken elevator with a group of strangers (see Figure 1). At first, the atmosphere may seem awkward with everyone standing silently, unsure of what to do or say. There may even be tension as people become annoyed at the inconvenience this has caused. Suddenly, someone decides to break the ice with a joke, a light-hearted comment eliciting chuckles from everyone there. Before you know it, the atmosphere shifts as conversation start to flow and smiles are exchanged. A group of strangers once disconnected now bonded through humour, even if only for a short while.

Figure 2. Wartime poster promoting bonding through laughter

People are becoming increasingly connected through digital platforms, making developing and sustaining meaningful interpersonal relationships challenging. This may be one such cause for the rising levels of loneliness and social isolation being reported globally (Emerson et al., 2020). These trends provide cause for concern as prolonged states of social isolation and loneliness are often associated with increased risk of several adverse health conditions (Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). This only emphasizes the need for people to engage in social bonding to avoid these adverse states.

It has been long understood that humans are social creatures. Social bonding is an essential process for maintaining physical and psychological health. This can include anything from improving mood and reducing susceptibility to conditions such as depression to maintaining cardiovascular health (McMahon et al., 2019; Wickramaratne et al., 2022). We facilitate social bonds using in a variety of ways, including actions such as physical intimacy or reciprocity (Jablonski, 2020). One particularly important and common mechanisms for developing social connections is humour.

The scenario above illustrates one of many ways in which humor can foster social bonding in daily life. As a powerful communicative tool, humor often signals a desire to connect or highlights shared understanding between individuals (Miller et al., 2021). It can additionally serve as a strong social lubricant, particularly in relation to its role in eliciting laughter, by helping to create shared experiences and evoke positive emotions (Padhy et al., 2024). In practice, an action as simple as cracking a joke or laughing at an observation can help relieve social tension and open the pathway for further social interaction.

This chapter examines the primary ways humor facilitates social bonding. By integrating psychological and biological perspectives, it isolates and explores specific mechanisms underlying this relationship, enhancing our understanding of the process. Additionally, the chapter discusses the practical implications of this research, highlighting its practical value and the potential for real-world application.

Focus questions: 1. In what ways does humour facilitate social bonding? 2. What underlying mechanisms and theory explain the relationship between humour and social bonding? 3. How can this research inform the practical implementation of using humor to facilitate social bonding?

What is social bonding?

Figure 3. Primates bonding through social grooming

Social bonds are among our most important basic needs. Social bonding is an innate psychological process encompassing a variety of biological mechanism and affiliative behaviour that aim to form and strengthen interpersonal relationships (Wolf & Tomasello, 2023). These mechanism generally revolve around cognitive processes such as communication (both verbal and nonverbal) and shared experiences (Wolf & Tomasello, 2023). Social bonding behaviours help to strengthen the relationship between individuals and groups by helping to promote a sense of emotional connection, camaraderie, or support.

Like with many other aspect of human nature, social bonding has evolved over time to include a range of behaviours. This can include both small-scale social bonding methods which include communication or reciprocity or larger-scale social bonding methods such as shared goals and religious participation (Wolf et al., 2015).

Who do we bond with?

There are several differing types of social bonds that we can form, each with unique characteristics and functions. Familial bonds are rooted in family-based ties and have been shown to be an essential source of emotional support and social identity (Vandeleur et al., 2009). Friendship evolves from affiliative bonds formed through shared interests and experiences and can provide a sense of belonging and companionship (Schwartz-Mette et al., 2020). Romantic bonds strike a combination between family and friendship, providing deep emotional connection (Bode & Kushnick, 2021). Professional bonds, rooted in occupational connections often provide a broad range of connections, some being exclusively transactional while others develop through collaboration and trust (Marescaux et al., 2019). These are just some of the most common bonds that we experience in our daily lives.

The importance of social bonding

Research across several fields including psychology and neurobiology have demonstrated the importance of social bonding for maintaining physical and mental health. The belongingness hypothesis, proposed by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans are naturally driven to seek social relationships and that social deprivation can have serious consequences on health (Watt & Badger, 2009). This hypothesis has served as a foundation for research into the benefits of social bonding and has been mostly been proven correct by empirical research. For examples, meta-analyses conducted by Wickramaratne et al. (2022) and Vila (2021) have found a range of health benefits related to social bonding (and reduced social isolation), including:

• Reduced susceptibility to depressive and anxiety disorders
• Lower levels of stress
• Lower mortality and increased longevity
• Reduced risk of chronic cardiovascular conditions
• Low risk of high blood pressure and inflammation
• Stronger immune system regulation
• Stronger neuroendocrine system regulation

Findings such as this and many similar studies underpin the importance of social bonding in maintaining physical and mental health.

Shared goals is a form of which category of social bonding behaviour? small-scale large-scale

What is humour?

“ Laughter is the closest distance between two people.
-Victor Borge ”

If you were to ask 100 people what they found funny, you would most likely get a buffet of answers. This is because everyone has their own idea of what is humorous. Despite seeming simple on a surface level, humour is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon which plays a pivotal role in emotional regulation and social interaction (Holland, 2016). The concept of humour can be broadly defined as a cognitive process whereby individuals perceive a stimulus as amusing due to its incongruities, absurdities or novel nature. The proceeding emotional response is often represented through actions such as sharing observations, verbal wit, or laughter (Gonot-Schoupinsky & Garip, 2021). The way in which humour is perceived is dependent on several individual and environmental factors, including:

• Context in which humour is used - i.e. in informal settings.
• Timing.
• Physical environment - including both external objects or beings but also emotional contagion.
• Cultural background - including cultural norms and native language.
• Age - i.e. children may be more amused at simple slapstick comedy whilst adults may enjoy more complex comedy like satire
• Personal experiences - including both individual background and an individual's current emotional state.
• Group or interpersonal dynamics.

The interplay between these factors provides clarity to why people often define humour is vastly different ways (Brown et al., 2019).

Types of humour

In general discourse, humour is often categorised by its behavioral manifestation such as different types of comedy (i.e. deadpan comedy) or broader behavioural characteristics (e.g., dark humour). A more appropriate method for classifying types of humour however is through the function that it serves. Doing this goes beyond the descriptive value of general humour categories to provide an understanding of how humour intersects with cognition and behaviour. A well accepted model that does this is Martin and colleagues Humour Styles Model (Brown et al., 2019). Through their research, Martin et al. defined four types of humour with two being classified as adaptive and two maladaptive (see Table 1.)

Table 1. List of humour types proposed in the Humour Styles Model (Martin et al., 2003).

Type of Humour	Classification	Function	Related Behaviour
Affiliative humour	Adaptive	Enhance interpersonal connection and reduce tension	Jokes, funny expressions, wit, playful teasing
Self-enhancing humour	Adaptive	Coaping mechanism and maintaining optimism	Finding humour in a threat or challenge and assessing incongruencies
Aggressive humour	Maladaptive	Enhancing oneself, asserting dominance, or manipulation	Sarcasm, ridicule, mockery, vilification, and use of offensive humour
Self-defeating	Maladaptive	Gaining attention or approval at one's own expense	Self-depreciation, masking insecurities through humour

Humour and laughing

Figure 4. Social bonding through laughing

Humour and laughter are two closely related concepts that are often used in tandem or interchangeably. However, despite their connection, these are two separate phenomena. Humour is a cognitive and emotional response to a novel external stimulus. Laughter is instead a physical reaction often used as a verbal form of communication to indicate the experiencing of positive emotions such as joy or amusement (Gonot-Schoupinsky et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that while humour often elicits laughter, they are not mutually dependent as one can be present without the other.

A systematic review of literature examining the relationship between the two phenomena conducted by Gonot-Schoupinsky et al. (2020) used the humour-laughter-affect model to identify six categories of humour and laughter. These included: 1) positive (adaptive) humour without laughter, 2) positive humour with laughter, 3) negative (maladaptive) humour without laughter, 4) negative humour with laughter, 5) positive laughter without humour, 6) negative laughter without humour. However, the review additionally found that many of the benefits associated with laughter and humour were nearly identical (Gonot-Schoupinsky et al., 2020). In fact, laughter in response to humour was suggested to be a trigger for several of these benefits including social bonding, reduced stress, stronger immunity, and hormone regulation. For this reason, it is helpful to view humour and laughter not as the same thing, but as complementary tools.

Which of the following is not a factor that influences how you perceive humour? Culture Context A good golf handicap Personal experiences

Humour in facilitating social bonding

Signaling shared understanding and experiences

In many contexts from meeting a stranger on the street, to business meetings or even spending time with friends, having a shared understanding can be important for connecting. Particularly with strangers, demonstrating that there is a pre-existing connection with another person, it can relieve the uncertainty of social environments (Michael & Pacherie, 2015). Humour often relies on shared knowledge, cultural and contextual references, or inside jokes which all signal some level of shared understanding. If people find the same thing humorous, this signals that there is a mutual understanding, leading the way for further interaction. Shared experiences has a similar effect as experiencing similar circumstances with individuals can lay a foundation for connecting through shared understandings (Michael & Pacherie, 2015). The benign violation theory can serve as a theoretical basis for understanding this relationship between humour and social bonding. The theory proposes that a stimulus is simultaneously appraised as a violation, something wrong or threatening, and benign, or something not to worry about (Hye-Knudsen, 2018). When individuals similarly appraise environmental stimulus as benign violations then express it through humour or laughter would display a shared understanding and improve emotional closeness.

The connection between humour and social bonding through the benign violation theory has garnered support from the literature. A meta-analysis conducted by McGraw et al. (2015) evaluating engagement with online reviews found a noticeable connection between humour and social bonding through shared understandings and experiences. They found that when humorous comments were present in complaints, it created camaraderie amongst other individuals that shared similar experiences. This seemingly lightened the mood and invited others to express dissatisfaction in similar ways (McGraw et al., 2015). Even in a negative context and on digital platforms, humour can open the door for further social interaction by expressing a mutual understanding or shared experience between individuals.

Humour as a social lubricant

One dynamic of social bonding that many people find challenging is potential threats to our social and emotional wellbeing that it poses. For this reason, social environments often generate uncertainty in our minds which in turn can generate stress or social anxiety (Peters et al., 2017). Humour and laughter has been shown to be a reliable method for reducing stress is social settings. There are two theories which may provide simple explanations for why this is the case. Firstly, relief theory suggest that humour is a natural tool for releasing built up psychological tension. Its usage in social settings allow for individuals to reduce stress and navigate social environments more comfortably (Mills, 2011). This is commonly manifested by humors ability to evoke laughter. The second theory is incongruency theory, which suggest that unexpected characteristics of stimuli lead to cognitive dissonance which can only be resolved through humour and laughter (Mills, 2011). Both theories highlight the important role that humour plays in reducing stress and anxiety, facilitating social bonding by removing certain psychological barriers.

There is a large collection of research that has demonstrated the stress-reducing nature of humour. A meta-analysis conducted by van der Wal and Kok (2019) examining laugher based clinical treatments and the use of humour found a positive association between laughter and reduced stress. In this case, this would strengthen the theoretical claims proposed by relief theory and incongruency theory. Kramer and Leitao (2023) strengthened the previous findings in their research on the biological underpinning of the relationship between laughter and stress reduction. They additionally found that laughter (which can be induced by humour) reduces the amount of stress that individuals feel. The study adds that laughter servers as a mechanism for reducing cortisol levels which in turn reduces stress (Kramer & Leitao, 2023). They additionally found that laughter may be a mechanism for increasing oxytocin levels, resulting in a greater drive to bond, though there findings were less significant. The findings from these studies allow for greater confidence in the theoretical backing for humour facilitating social bonding by providing empirical evidence of a biological connection between humour and stress reduction. These biological mechanisms could be a driver for participating in a variety of social bonding behaviours, including humour, though more research is needed.

Practical implications

Workplace application

Knowing that humour acts as a tool for communication and helps build social relationships, it can serve as an important tool for improving workplace functioning. Potential uses may include incorporating social team building activities which can foster joking or light-hearted games and ice-breakers that promote casual conversation. Additionally, leadership programs could be modified to engorge the use of humour in management and provide helpful information on how to use humour in adaptive ways. Humour integrated into a professional environment has the potential to strengthen ties between workers and in turn, improve performance.

Education

The use of humour can be integrated into educators teaching styles to enhance student engagement and create a positive classroom environment. For example, when teaching mathematics, teachers or lectures may use a math-based joke or pun to grab students attention which may make learning more enjoyable. The teaching of sensitive topics may also be facilitated through humour, reducing the impact of difficult subjects and making them more approachable. Humour may additionally used between teachers and caregivers as a means of strengthening bonds between the two and allowing for more dialogue. By making education more engaging and commination in the education system clearer, it could help to develop educational outcomes and transparency.

Clinical practices

The efficacy of humor and laughter-based treatments have growing efficacy for their effectiveness in a clinical or practical therapeutic setting. Laughter therapy may be a less invasive and natural alternative treatment for conditions such as depression or anxiety. Additionally the implementation of humour into clinical psychology sessions could be an effective tool for building relationships between the psychologist and patient, reducing barriers and ensuring more effective evaluations and treatment.

Conclusion

This chapter highlights how humour acts as a catalyst for social bonding through various psychological theories and research. By easing social tensions and fostering shared understanding, humour not only enhances interpersonal relationships but also impacts mental and physical health positively. It serves as a social lubricant, helping individuals navigate stressful situations, while shared laughter strengthens social ties. The benign violation theory shows how humour can transform perceived threats into connections, enhancing emotional closeness. Additionally, relief and incongruency theories illustrate humour's role in reducing social stress and promoting bonding. This exploration underscores humour's potential in diverse settings such as improving workplace dynamics, enhancing student engagement in education, and fostering rapport in clinical practice. Ultimately, humour is more than entertainment; it is a vital tool for cultivating social connections and improving well-being in an increasingly complex social landscape. Embracing humour can help combat feelings of isolation and loneliness, promoting a sense of community.

See also

• Humour (Wikipedia)
• Humour and stress relief (Book chapter, 2024)
• Theories of humour (Wikipedia)

References

Bode, A., & Kushnick, G. (2021). Proximate and ultimate perspectives on romantic love. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(573123). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.573123

Brown, R., Findlay, B. M., & Brinker, J. (2019). Individual differences in the way observers perceive humour styles. The European Journal of Humour Research, 7(2), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.2.brown

Emerson, E., Fortune, N., Llewellyn, G., & Stancliffe, R. (2020). Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross sectional study. Disability and Health Journal, 14(1), 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100965

Gonot-Schoupinsky, F., & Garip, G. (2021). The covid-19 pandemic as an opportunity for positive psychology to promote a wider-ranging definition of humour and laughter. The Palgrave Handbook of Humour Research, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78280-1_23

Gonot-Schoupinsky, F. N., Garip, G., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Laughter and humour for personal development: A systematic scoping review of the evidence. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 37, 101144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2020.101144

Holland, T. (2016). Humour styles: Predictors of perceived stress and self-efficacy with gender and age differences. https://esource.dbs.ie/server/api/core/bitstreams/1baba12c-a1de-4ad7-b8fa-b84c9eed7e1f/content

Hye-Knudsen, M. (2018). Painfully funny: Cringe comedy, benign masochism, and not-so-benign violations. Leviathan: Interdisciplinary Journal in English, 2(2), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.7146/lev.v0i2.104693

Jablonski, N. G. (2020). Social and affective touch in primates and its role of skin in the evolution of social cohesion. Neuroscience, 464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.11.024

Kramer, C. K., & Leitao, C. B. (2023). Laughter as medicine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies evaluating the impact of spontaneous laughter on cortisol levels. PLoS One, 18(5), e0286260–e0286260. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286260

Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. (2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 152(1), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035

Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Rofcanin, Y. (2019). Co-worker reactions to i-deals through the lens of social comparison: The role of fairness and emotions. Human Relations, 74(3), 001872671988410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719884103

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00534-2

McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., & Kan, C. (2015). Humorous complaining. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1153–1171. https://doi.org/10.1086/678904

McMahon, G., Creaven, A., & Gallagher, S. (2019). Perceived social support mediates the association between attachment and cardiovascular reactivity in young adults. Psychophysiology, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13496

Michael, J., & Pacherie, E. (2015). On commitments and other uncertainty reduction tools in joint action. Journal of Social Ontology, 1(1), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2014-0021

Miller, E., Bergmeier, H. J., Blewitt, C., O’Connor, A., & Skouteris, H. (2021). A systematic review of humour‐based strategies for addressing public health priorities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 45(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13142

Mills, B. (2011). A pleasure working with you: Humour theory and Joan Rivers. Comedy Studies, 2(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1386/cost.2.2.151_1

Padhy, M., Hariharan, M., Mukherjee, O., & Lavanya Mutnury, S. (2024). Humour as a moderator between hassles and well-being. Psychological Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-024-00795-1

Peters, A., McEwen, B. S., & Friston, K. (2017). Uncertainty and stress: Why it causes diseases and how it is mastered by the brain. Progress in Neurobiology, 156, 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.05.004

Schwartz-Mette, R. A., Shankman, J., Dueweke, A. R., Borowski, S., & Rose, A. J. (2020). Relations of friendship experiences with depressive symptoms and loneliness in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(8), 664–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000239

van der Wal, C. N., & Kok, R. N. (2019). Laughter-inducing therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 232, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.018

Vandeleur, C. L., Jeanpretre, N., Perrez, M., & Schoebi, D. (2009). Cohesion, satisfaction with family bonds, and emotional well-being in families with adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1205–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00664.x

Vila, J. (2021). Social support and longevity: Meta-analysis-based evidence and psychobiological mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717164

Watt, S. E., & Badger, A. J. (2009). Effects of social belonging on homesickness: An application of the belongingness hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329695

Wickramaratne, P. J., Yangchen, T., Lepow, L., Patra, B. G., Glicksburg, B., Talati, A., Adekkanattu, P., Ryu, E., Biernacka, J. M., Charney, A., Mann, J. J., Pathak, J., Olfson, M., & Weissman, M. M. (2022). Social connectedness as a determinant of mental health: A scoping review. PLoS One, 17(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275004

Wolf, W., Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Joint attention, shared goals, and social bonding. British Journal of Psychology, 107(2), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12144

Wolf, W., & Tomasello, M. (2023). A shared intentionality account of uniquely human social bonding. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231201795

External links

• Practical workplace application (New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online)
• Application for peacebuilding (Dialnet)