The Role of Humor in Inoculation Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable contribution to the literature.

To improve it, I feel it must include a few elements.

Firstly, an explicit discussion about the role of laughter and the differences and overlaps, between laughter and humour, including positive and negative aspects.  

There is a lot of recent work that attempts to distinguish the health benefits of laughter and humour, yet scholars tend still to lump this all under “humour”. To an extent this is understandable in a paper dedicated to humour - still I feel these nuances merit a discussion; laughter is mentioned only once and yet is a vital component and it needs more attention.

The HuLA (Humour Laughter Affects) model*, is a model that disentangles humour and laughter and I recommend the authors look into this as well as digging more into the literature in this area. This can then also enable a discussion on why humour may and may not always be beneficial, and to whom, and in what circumstances.  

*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

Secondly, an area I would like to see developed is that surrounding the need for different types of humour for different purposes and in different groups. For example there has been some interesting research on “left” versus “right” humour* and this is an area that I missed. What people view as funny differs widely including by age, culture, and beliefs. 

*Kfrerer, M. L., Bell, E., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). The politics of being funny: Humor styles, trait humorousness, and political orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, 111073.

Thus there can be a distinction about the overall effects of inoculation but also in the inevitable exclusion of those effects on some groups, and what this can mean. 

There is one in-text reference - Kuru - that is not listed in references.

Author Response

Please see uploaded letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I applaud the authors wholistic review of the role of humor in inoculation theory. Their review touches on the most relevant variables and issues in the extant literature over the last 50 years. I agree that more research needs to be done on how humor  can preempt misinformation as an adjuvant that can inhibit persuasive attacks, and induce attitude change resistance. 

The author's do an excellent job identifying variables that have a role in inoculation theory: Reactance (threat), forewarning, 1- versus 2-sided,  arguments,  mediating processes of humor as treatment, analogy of medical (booster shots) to psychological (mere presence of counter-argument, influential role of social identity (intergroup effects), controversial issues, and prebunking. A higher focus is placed on the misinformation literature in my reading, an perhaps a little more emphasis can be placed on the side of attitudinal research, which Petty (2024) advocates [https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001447].

I agreed that this early in this research an applied approach is appropriate, and agree on the parallel the authors make in regards to how humor (often operationalized as laughter) has proven useful in the medical area in assisting with improving (immunizing) wellbeing, at least as a palliative approach.

One question that remain with me as I read the manuscript is how can humor be operationalized as an adjuvant in a psychological approach to immunizing? Humor as jokes (laugher), as games, comics. Would this be operationalized as discounting information (presented as a joke), as a dilution effect (cognitive overload due to gaming), comics (as an anchoring heuristic that nullifies the misinformation as ludicrous (Blame Canada). What other variables might be important--threat induces reactance, primacy impacts forewarning, skepticism impacts humor? Is the role of humor in inoculation a treatment that works because of mere exposure, social identity saliency, an emotional trigger (motivational)?  

More specifically, readers could benefit from a discussion of humor as a construct that can be operationalized (uni- or multi-dimensional?). As a main effect, as an IV or DV (lines 199-200?), a moderator or mediator, as a judgement/evaluation, cognitive (learning) or emotional/motivational? All these are mentioned on passing but more can be said--perhaps by explaining to readers the various paths presented in Figure 3. 

Petty (2024) mentions misinformation may benefit from multiprocess models of persuasion, and this may be true in relation to humor and its operational definitions as a construct within inoculation theory. Perhaps one approach would be to introduce the notion of humor as an adjuvant early in section 1, rather than in section 5 (line 210, when it is discussed), and elaborating on manifestations of humor that support its operationalization in theoretical and methodological terms. This area is ripe for basic research, if this approach is not taken, then perhaps state that at this point applied research (problem solving) is the place to start. I gather this is the intention of the manuscript, but it will be nice to provide stronger foundations, warranted by the good integration the authors have managed to accomplish in this brief manuscript.  

Best wishes on revisions.

 

 

 

   

 

Author Response

Please see uploaded letter

Author Response File: Author Response.docx