Individual Differences in Reactions to Sexist Humor

http://gpi.sagepub.com/Relations

Group Processes & Intergroup

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/7/1/89The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1368430204039975

2004 7: 89Group Processes Intergroup RelationsCaroline A. Thomas and Victoria M. Esses

Individual Differences in Reactions to Sexist Humor

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/7/1/89.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gpi.sagepub.com/

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/7/1/89

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/7/1/89.refs.html

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/7/1/89.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Individual Differences inReactions to SexistHumor

Caroline A. Thomas and Victoria M. EssesUniversity of Western Ontario

This research investigated the relation between sexism, general prejudice, and reactions tosexist humor. Eighty-one male participants completed measures of modern sexism, ambivalentsexism, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, and rated the funniness,offensiveness, and likelihood of repeating female-disparaging and male-disparaging jokes.Results revealed that men who were higher in hostile sexism were especially likely to report thatthey would repeat the female-disparaging jokes, and rated these jokes as funnier than did menwho were lower in hostile sexism. In addition, the relation between hostile sexism and thelikelihood of repeating these jokes was mediated by their perceived funniness. These effectswere not evident for the male-disparaging jokes. Results are discussed in terms of the functionof sexist humor.

keywords humor, prejudice, sexism

Group Processes &Intergroup Relations

2004 Vol 7(1) 89–100

Most people can recall a time in which theywere exposed to humor that targeted anddegraded women or men. At times, the indi-vidual’s reaction is discomfort or uncertainty ofthe appropriate response; at other times, thereaction is spontaneous laughter. Generally,there seems to be an understanding that sexistjokes should not be told, as evidenced by thejoke teller’s common disclaimer that he or sheis not prejudiced and only wishes to share afunny joke. That is, although the joke tellerdoes not wish to be seen by others as sexist,he/she nonetheless gains amusement at thederogation of a group. In the current researchwe investigated possible individual differencesin reactions to and in the likelihood of repeat-ing sexist jokes.

Hobbes, in Human Nature (1650/1968) and

Leviathan (1651/1966), suggested that humor iselicited when individuals perceive themselves tobe superior to other people or when they recog-nize some imperfection or inferiority in others.Although only side notes in his writings,Hobbes’ observations led to the eventualdevelopment of superiority theories of dispar-agement humor. As applied to group-basedhumor, these theories suggest that one willderive a sense of amusement and mirth fromhumor stimuli that enhance one’s group; that

GPIR

Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)7:1; 89–100; DOI: 10.1177/1368430204039975

Author’s noteAddress correspondence to Victoria Esses,Department of Psychology, University ofWestern Ontario, London, Ontario, CanadaN6A 5C2 [email: [email protected]]

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D) 23/1/04 9:54 am Page 89

at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com


is, when a joke makes one’s own group appearsuperior to another, humor is produced (e.g.LaFave, Haddad, & Matheson, 1976; Zillmann& Cantor, 1976).

For example, Zillmann and Cantor (1976)proposed a dispositional theory of disparage-ment humor, suggesting that the degree towhich individuals will enjoy a group-disparag-ing joke is influenced by their affective disposi-tion toward the target of the joke. Dispositionstoward the target can range from very negativeto very positive. The theory predicts that dis-paraging jokes will be considered funnier whenthey disparage a disliked group or when theyattribute power to a liked group. Thus, not onlywill individuals laugh when a salient outgroupis degraded, they will laugh more when theydislike that group. An earlier study conductedby Zillmann and Cantor (1972) revealed thatthis relation can be determined by one’s ownreference group. Participants were presentedwith a series of cartoons and jokes depictinginteractions between dyads that have a sociallyunderstood status differential (e.g. professor/student, parent/child) in which either thesocially superior or the socially subordinatemember was presented as the butt of the joke.It was found that those in socially superior roles(e.g. professors) preferred jokes in which thesubordinate was the victim, and that sociallysubordinate participants (e.g. students) pre-ferred jokes that presented the superior as thevictim. Similarly, Wicker, Barron, and Willis(1980) found that jokes with a disliked victimwere preferred over jokes with a neutral or aliked victim.

In a discussion of prejudicial humor, Allport(1954/1979, p. 50) suggested that the use of anegative stereotype in a joke ‘shows that itserves an added function of proving the inferi-ority of out-group standards to our own’.Indeed, research has shown that group-disparaging humor often is associated withnegative attitudes toward that group. In a studyconducted in Australia, Gallois and Callan(1985) found that Anglo-Australian partici-pants high in ethnocentrism preferred jokeswith an Anglo-Australian aggressor and anItalian or Greek victim over jokes with an

Anglo-Australian victim. Ryan and Kanjorski(1998) found that men were more likely toenjoy female-disparaging jokes than werewomen. Moreover, their results showed thatmen’s endorsement of rape-related beliefs waspositively correlated with appreciation offemale-disparaging jokes. Moore, Griffiths, andPayne (1987) found that, regardless of partici-pant’s sex, those with liberal gender attitudesfound female-disparaging jokes to be less funnythan did those who held traditional gender atti-tudes. Henkin and Fish (1986) obtained similarresults using sexist cartoons; pro-feminist menand women found sexist cartoons targetingeither women or men less funny than did non-feminist persons.

Of particular relevance to the current study,Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that hostileand benevolent sexism influenced ratings ofthe amusement and offensiveness of dumbblonde jokes. Male and female participantslistened to a recording of two males in conver-sation, during which one of the men discussedhis girlfriend, implying that she was a dumbblonde, and proceeded to tell dumb blondejokes. High hostile sexists found the dumbblonde jokes to be more amusing and lessoffensive than did individuals low in hostilesexism. Male benevolent sexists found thedumb blonde jokes to be more amusing andless offensive than did female benevolentsexists (or non-sexist males). In addition,measures of amusement and offensiveness werenegatively correlated.

The current research followed a similar lineof investigation with several additions. Weincluded several measures of sexism and moregeneral prejudice, and assessed reactions toboth male- and female-disparaging jokes. Thisallowed us to differentiate between the effectsof specific sexist attitudes versus more generalprejudice toward women. We were also able tocompare reactions to outgroup versus ingroupdisparaging humor, and to focus on femaleversus male targets at a general level (i.e.women in general or men in general), ratherthan on a specific stereotyped subgroup (i.e.dumb blondes).

Of importance, in addition to examining the

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

90




perceived funniness and offensiveness of thejokes, we included our key dependentmeasure—participants’ likelihood of repeatingthe sexist jokes to a friend. It is important tounderstand influences on the likelihood ofrepeating group-disparaging jokes becauseprior research has demonstrated that tellingthese jokes may propagate negative attitudestoward the target of the jokes. For example,Ford (1997) found that White participants whohad watched a stereotypic Black comedy skitwere more likely to consider a Black targetguilty of a crime than were those who hadwatched a non-stereotypic comedy skit. Simi-larly, Ford (2000) found that exposure to sexistjokes led to increased tolerance for sexistevents, particularly among those high in hostilesexism. Thus, it is important to determine influ-ences on the likelihood of repeating group-disparaging jokes because exposing others tothese jokes can perpetuate stereotypicrepresentations and more negative evaluationsof the group.

In this study, then, male participants com-pleted several individual difference measures,and read and responded to a series of jokes dis-paraging men or women. Two well-establishedmeasures of sexism were utilized: ModernSexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995)and Ambivalent Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996).We also included two measures that tend toreflect prejudice toward outgroups in general:Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer,1996) and Social Dominance Orientation(Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Byincluding ratings of perceived funniness andoffensiveness of the jokes in addition to thereported likelihood of repeating the jokes to afriend, we were able to determine whether theperceptions of the jokes mediated any relationsobtained between the individual differencesand the likelihood of repeating the jokes.

Modern sexism and ambivalentsexism

Modern sexism (Swim et al., 1995), in contrastto traditional ‘old-fashioned sexism’, assessesdenial of discrimination against women.

Whereas old-fashioned sexism measures overthostility toward women and a general belief inwomen’s inferiority, modern sexism assessesdisregard for the inequality between the sexes.High scorers on modern sexism are more likelyto believe that job segregation is due to bio-logical differences between men and women asopposed to socialization or discrimination(Swim et al., 1995). In addition, high scorersdemonstrate hostility toward women’s demandsfor equity, and feel that they are unwarranted.Modern sexism was included in the presentresearch as an indication of prejudice againstwomen, and it was expected that high scorerswould find female-disparaging jokes to befunnier and less offensive, and would be morewilling to repeat these jokes to a friend thanwould low scorers. Because the modern sexismscale assesses attitudes toward women, sucheffects were not expected for male-disparagingjokes.

The ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick &Fiske, 1996) assesses two forms of sexism:hostile and benevolent. Hostile sexism involvesnegative stereotypes and antagonism towardwomen. It encompasses overall animositytoward women, and includes negative beliefsabout the competence and the character ofwomen. Benevolent sexism, although subjec-tively positive, is also related to stereotypicbeliefs about women and their roles. Benevo-lent sexism includes the view that women aredependent on men, are in need of theirsupport and protection, and should berestricted to traditional roles (e.g. romanticobjects, homemakers, wives). Hostile sexism hasbeen related to negative evaluations of womenin non-traditional roles, whereas benevolentsexism has been related to positive attitudestoward women in traditional roles (Glick,Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997). In thecurrent study it was anticipated that partici-pants who scored higher on ambivalent sexismwould find female-disparaging jokes to befunnier, less offensive, and would report agreater likelihood of repeating these jokes to afriend than would low scorers. In terms of thehostile and benevolent sexism subscales,insofar as hostile sexism assesses more direct

Thomas & Esses individual differences and sexist humor

91




antagonism toward women, it was predictedthat those scoring higher in hostile sexismwould be especially likely to show these effects.Such effects were not expected on male-dis-paraging jokes.

Right-wing authoritarianism and socialdominance orientation

Two scales reflecting general intergroupattitudes were also included in the currentresearch. Right-wing authoritarianism (Alte-meyer, 1981, 1988, 1996) is related to ethno-centrism, prejudice, and outgroup antagonism.The scale assesses obedience and submission toauthority, traditional beliefs, and aggressionagainst those who seem to violate traditionalbeliefs. Those high in right-wing authoritarian-ism tend to hold negative attitudes toward avariety of outgroups (e.g. Altemeyer, 1988;McFarland & Adelson, 1996). Of particularrelevance to the current investigation, right-wing authoritarianism is related to negativeattitudes toward women (Altemeyer, 1988;Duncan, Peterson, & Winter, 1997; McFarland& Adelson, 1996). Moreover, because highright-wing authoritarians endorse conventionalbeliefs, they tend to have negative views towardfeminists (Haddock & Zanna, 1994), andsupport traditional gender roles (Duncan et al.,1997). It was expected that men scoring higherin right-wing authoritarianism would findfemale-disparaging jokes to be more humorous,less offensive, and would be more likely torepeat these jokes to a friend, in comparison tothose lower in right-wing authoritarianism.These effects were not expected on male-disparaging jokes.

Social dominance orientation (Pratto et al.,1994) similarly measures negative intergroupbeliefs, although it generally shows only amodest relation with right-wing authoritarian-ism (e.g. Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social domi-nance orientation assesses belief in groupinequality and support for a hierarchicallyoriented social system (based on traits such associal class, race, or sex). Social dominanceorientation is generally higher among menthan among women (Sidanius, Pratto, &

Rabinowitz, 1994), and predicts sexist attitudes,belief in traditional gender roles, and negativeattitudes toward women’s rights (Heaven, 1999;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). As a result, it wasexpected that high scorers would find female-disparaging jokes to be funnier, less offensive,and would be more likely to repeat these jokesto a friend than would low scorers. Again, theseeffects were not expected for male-disparagingjokes.

Method

ParticipantsNinety-nine male participants were recruitedfrom the introductory psychology pool at theUniversity of Western Ontario and receivedpartial course credit for their participation.Data from participants whose native languagewas other than English (n = 16) and fromparticipants with incomplete data (n = 2) wereexcluded from analyses. Thus, the final sampleincluded 81 male participants (M age = 20.10years, SD = 1.98 years).

MaterialsJokes Forty jokes were included in this studyto assess male participants’ responses to female-disparaging (N = 20) and male-disparaging (N= 20) jokes. An example of a female-disparagingjoke is the following:

Why did the woman cross the road?Who cares? What the hell is she doing out ofthe kitchen?

An example of a male-disparaging joke is:

What do UFOs and smart men have incommon?You keep hearing about them, but never seeany.

Participants rated all jokes in terms of funniness,offensiveness, and the likelihood that they wouldrepeat the joke to a friend. The ratings weremade on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (Not atall) to 9 (Extremely). Mean scores across female-disparaging jokes and across male-disparagingjokes were computed, resulting in six scores: fun-niness of the female-disparaging jokes (� = .95),


92




funniness of the male-disparaging jokes (� =.93), offensiveness of the female-disparagingjokes (� = .97), offensiveness of the male-disparaging jokes (� = .97), likelihood of repeat-ing the female-disparaging jokes (� = .94), andlikelihood of repeating the male-disparagingjokes (� = .92).

Individual differences Participants com-pleted four individual differences measures.Modern sexism (Swim et al., 1995) is an eight-item questionnaire assessing the degree towhich an individual denies the inequalitiesbetween men and women, opposes programsintended to provide equality, and feels antagon-ism toward women’s demands for equity. Forexample, participants are asked to indicatetheir agreement with the statement that‘Women often miss out on good jobs due tosexual discrimination’. Agreement is indicatedon a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (StronglyAgree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Higher meanscores on this measure indicate a greater denialof inequality, and hence a more sexist attitude(M = 2.82, SD = .61; � = .75).

The ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick &Fiske, 1996) is a 22-item questionnaire assessingtwo forms of sexism: hostile and benevolent.Hostile sexism assesses antagonism and negativeattitudes directed at women, and includesagreement with statements such as, ‘Once awoman gets a man to commit to her, she usuallyputs him on a tight leash’. Benevolent sexismassesses the degree to which one believes thatwomen are delicate, and belong in traditionalroles. For example, participants are asked toindicate agreement with the statement that‘Every man ought to have a woman whom headores’. Both the hostile and benevolent itemswere rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from 0(Disagree strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly), suchthat higher mean scores indicate a greaterdegree of sexism. A mean was calculated forhostile sexism (M = 2.75, SD = .81; � = .84), forbenevolent sexism (M = 2.65, SD = .72; � = .71),and for the total ambivalent sexism scale (M =2.70, SD = .60; � = .80).

Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer,1996) is a 30-item questionnaire that assesses

agreement with statements such as, ‘Obedienceand respect for authority are the most import-ant virtues children should learn’. Ratings aremade on scales ranging from �4 (Very stronglydisagree) to +4 (Very strongly agree). Highermean scores indicate a greater deference toauthority, greater outgroup antagonism, and alower tolerance for unfamiliar lifestyles and tra-ditions (M = �1.12, SD = 1.08; � = .90).

Social dominance orientation (Pratto et al.,1994) is a 16-item questionnaire that includesstatements such as, ‘Superior groups shoulddominate inferior groups’. Ratings are made ona scale ranging from 1 (Do not agree at all) to7 (Strongly agree). Higher mean scorers aremore likely to believe that groups should bestratified and unequal, and are more likely toperceive the world as a competitive place (M =2.72, SD = 1.03; � = .89).

ProcedureParticipants arrived at the laboratory in smallgroups and, after being greeted by a maleexperimenter, were asked to provide informedconsent. To avoid possible demand character-istics, participants were given the cover storythat they were taking part in ‘two short studies’.One of the ‘studies’ was investigating youngmen’s attitudes toward current social issues(the individual difference measures), and theother ‘study’ was investigating men’s reactionsto jokes. The order of the ‘studies’ (i.e. indi-vidual difference measures and joke reactions)was counterbalanced across participants.Because significant interactions with order werenot obtained, results are described collapsedacross order of the measures. Upon completionof the ‘two studies’, participants were debriefedand thanked for their participation.

Results

Relations among the individual differencevariablesTable 1 shows the relations among the indi-vidual difference measures. Modern sexism wassignificantly correlated with ambivalent sexism(including both hostile and benevolentsexism), and with right-wing authoritarianism.


93




Ambivalent sexism was significantly correlatedwith right-wing authoritarianism, though thisonly held for the benevolent sexism subscale,and with social dominance orientation. Thehostile and benevolent subscales were signifi-cantly correlated with each other and with theoverall ambivalence measure. Finally, right-wing authoritarianism was significantly corre-lated with social dominance orientation. Noneof these correlations were substantial enough toindicate redundancy in the measures.

Overall reactions to the jokesPaired t tests were conducted to determinewhether the femaleversus male-disparagingjokes differed in perceived funniness, offen-siveness, or likelihood of repeating the joke toa friend. Table 2 presents the means andstandard deviations for the six joke scores.Participants found the female-disparaging jokes

to be more funny (t(80) = 4.78, p < .001), andmore offensive (t(80) = 6.26, p < .001), than themale-disparaging jokes. They also reported agreater likelihood of repeating the female-disparaging jokes than the male-disparagingjokes (t(80) = 7.23, p < .001). Of course, theseresults are suggestive only because the jokecontent was not constant across target group(i.e. different jokes were utilized for male andfemale targets).

Table 3 shows the correlations among thejoke scores. Within female- and male-disparag-ing jokes, only perceived funniness was signifi-cantly correlated with the likelihood ofrepeating the jokes to a friend. Of note, per-ceived offensiveness was correlated neither withperceived funniness nor with the likelihood ofrepeating the jokes.

Individual differences and reactions to thejokesThe relations between the individual differencemeasures and the perceived funniness, offen-siveness, and likelihood of repeating the jokesare presented in Table 4. Of particular interest,ambivalent sexism significantly predicted theperceived funniness, offensiveness, and likeli-hood of repeating the female-disparaging jokes.These effects were driven by the hostile sexismsubscale, which showed a similar pattern of cor-relations. Individuals who were higher inhostile sexism rated the female-disparagingjokes as more funny and less offensive, andreported a greater likelihood of repeating thesejokes than did individuals who were lower inhostile sexism. Benevolent sexism predicted the


94

Table 1. Correlations among the individual difference measures

Individual difference Modern Ambivalent Hostile Benevolentmeasure sexism sexism sexism sexism RWA SDO

Modern sexism – .39** .32** .28* .23* .08

Ambivalent sexism – .81** .75** .25* .36**Hostile sexism – .22* .04 .34**Benevolent sexism – .37** .23*

RWA – .33**

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two tailed).Note: N = 81.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for reactionsto the female-disparaging and male-disparagingjokes

Female-disparaging Male-disparagingjokes jokes

Funniness 5.00 4.29(1.84) (1.49)

Offensiveness 2.79 2.16(1.79) (1.45)

Likelihood of 3.90 2.83repeating (1.87) (1.37)

Notes: N = 81; possible range = 1–9. Values inparentheses indicate standard deviations.




perceived offensiveness of these jokes only. Inaddition, modern sexism predicted the per-ceived funniness of these jokes. The moregeneral measures of prejudice, right-wingauthoritarianism and social dominance orien-tation showed only one significant relation withreactions to the female-disparaging jokes. Indi-viduals higher in social dominance orientationfound the female-disparaging jokes to be lessoffensive. In contrast to these findings forreactions to the female-disparaging jokes, nosignificant relations were found for reactionsto the male-disparaging jokes. Overall, then,ambivalent sexism, particularly hostile sexism,was the most reliable predictor of reactions to

the female-disparaging jokes, predicting thereported likelihood of repeating these jokes,and their perceived funniness and offensive-ness. These effects were not evident for reac-tions to the male-disparaging jokes.

To examine the unique ability of each of theindividual difference variables to predict reac-tions to the jokes, regression analyses were alsoconducted in which all the individual differ-ence variables were entered simultaneously aspredictors of each of the joke reactions.Because hostile sexism and benevolent sexismare components of ambivalent sexism, theywere both entered in these analyses, whereasoverall ambivalent sexism was not. When all the


95

Table 3. Correlations among joke reactions for female-disparaging and male-disparaging jokes

Female-disparaging jokes Male-disparaging jokes

Funniness Offensiveness Repeat Funniness Offensiveness Repeat

Female-disparaging jokesFunniness – �.07 .88** .70** �.04 .62**Offensiveness – .02 �.08 .86** �.02Repeat – .54** .11 .71**

Male-disparaging jokesFunniness – �.18 .78**Offensiveness – �.02Repeat –

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).Note: N = 81.

Table 4. Correlations between the individual difference measures and reactions to the female-disparagingand male-disparaging jokes

Female-disparaging jokes Male-disparaging jokes

Individual differencemeasure Funniness Offensiveness Repeat Funniness Offensiveness Repeat

Modern sexism .23* �.11 .17 .08 �.09 .02

Ambivalent sexism .40** �.32** .35** .13 �.20 .07Hostile sexism .46** �.27* .39** .17 �.18 .17Benevolent sexism .15 �.23* .14 .03 �.12 �.06

RWA .09 �.05 .03 �.03 .04 �.05

SDO .07 �.29** .05 �.01 �.17 .02

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).Note: N = 81.




individual difference variables were enteredsimultaneously, results quite similar to thosedescribed above were obtained. As shown inTable 5, hostile sexism significantly predictedthe perceived funniness and likelihood ofrepeating the female-disparaging jokes. Inaddition, social dominance orientationemerged as a marginally significant predictor ofthe perceived offensiveness of the female-disparaging jokes. In contrast, as for the zero-order correlations, none of the individualdifference variables significantly predictedreactions to the male-disparaging jokes.1

Mediational analysesTo determine whether the perceived funninessor offensiveness of the female-disparaging jokesmediated the relation between hostile sexismand the likelihood of repeating the jokes, medi-ational analyses were conducted. As discussedearlier, hostile sexism significantly predictedboth the perceived funniness and the perceivedoffensiveness of the female-disparaging jokes(see Table 4). The funniness of the female-

disparaging jokes strongly predicted the likeli-hood of repeating these jokes to a friend,whereas the perceived offensiveness of the jokesdid not (see Table 3). As shown in Figure 1,when hostile sexism and perceived funninesswere used together to predict the likelihood ofrepeating the female-disparaging jokes to afriend, the effect of hostile sexism was reducedto nonsignificance (partial r = �.03, ns), whereasthe effect of perceived funniness was not (partialr = .86, p < .01). In addition, the Sobel test for thechange in the beta for hostile sexism was signifi-cant (z = 4.41, p < .01). A similar analysis forperceived offensiveness demonstrated noevidence of mediation (see Figure 1).2 Thus, theperceived funniness of the female-disparagingjokes, and not the perceived offensiveness,mediated the relation between hostile sexismand the likelihood of repeating these jokes to afriend.

A reverse mediational analysis was also con-ducted to determine whether the likelihood ofrepeating the female-disparaging jokes possiblymediated the relation between hostile sexism


96

Table 5. Regression values obtained with simultaneous entry of all individual difference variables inpredicting female-disparaging joke measures

Partial� B correlation Significance

FunninessBenevolent sexism .020 .051 .020 .860Hostile sexism .476 1.077 .430 .000Modern sexism .061 .185 .063 .587Social dominance orientation �.124 �.221 �.124 .282Right-wing authoritarianism .088 .151 .087 .450

OffensivenessBenevolent sexism �.177 �.436 �.168 .143Hostile sexism �.157 �.345 �.147 .203Modern sexism �.013 �.039 �.013 .910Social dominance orientation �.229 �.395 �.213 .063Right-wing authoritarianism .098 .162 .092 .427

Likelihood of repeatingBenevolent sexism .050 .130 .049 .670Hostile sexism .405 .929 .362 .001Modern sexism .044 .137 .044 .704Social dominance orientation �.111 �.200 �.106 .358Right-wing authoritarianism .024 .042 .023 .841




and perceived funniness of the jokes. Whenhostile sexism and likelihood of repeating thejokes were used together to predict the per-ceived funniness of the jokes, the effects ofboth hostile sexism (partial r = .26, p < .05), andlikelihood of repeating the jokes (partial r = .86,p < .01), remained significant. This suggeststhat the likelihood of repeating the jokes didnot completely mediate the relation betweenhostile sexism and perceived funniness of thejokes. However, the Sobel test for the change inbeta for hostile sexism was significant (z = 3.68,p < .01), providing some evidence of thisreverse mediation.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate thatambivalent sexism, and specifically the hostilesexism component of this measure, stronglypredicts men’s willingness to repeat female-disparaging jokes. The zero-order correlations

indicated that hostile sexism significantly pre-dicted the likelihood of repeating these jokes toa friend, as well as the perceived funniness andoffensiveness of these jokes. No other signifi-cant effects of the individual differences wereevident on the likelihood of repeating thesejokes to a friend, our key measure. Thus, benev-olent sexism, for example, which assessesstereotypic but not necessarily ‘hostile’ views ofwomen did not have similar effects. Similarly,the simultaneous regression analyses indicatedthat hostile sexism was the only unique predic-tor of the likelihood of repeating the female-disparaging jokes and of their perceivedfunniness. In contrast, in these analyses, socialdominance orientation, which represents moregeneral prejudice, was the only unique predic-tor of the perceived offensiveness of the female-disparaging jokes. This builds on previousresearch by demonstrating that men who arehigher in hostile sexism are more likely torepeat female-disparaging sexist jokes, and by


97

��

��

��

��

��!�� "�#�� $��! ��

��

��%&�� % ��

'��(��

��

Figure 1. Mediational analyses of the relation between hostile sexism and the likelihood ofrepeating the female-disparaging jokes.*p < .05; **p < .01.Notes: Values given in parentheses are partial correlations obtained when hostile sexism andfunniness are entered together. Values given in square brackets are partial correlations obtainedwhen hostile sexism and offensiveness are entered together.




suggesting that enjoyment of this sexist humoris specifically based on hostility toward women,and not only stereotypic perceptions and moregeneral negative evaluations of women (see alsoZillman & Cantor, 1976; Wicker et al., 1980). Incontrast, the perceived offensiveness of female-disparaging jokes seems to be based on moregeneral attitudes toward women.

Consistent with these findings, the media-tional analyses provided evidence that the per-ceived funniness of the female-disparagingjokes mediated the relation between hostilesexism and the likelihood of repeating thejokes, whereas the perceived offensiveness ofthe jokes did not. Thus, individuals who werehigher in hostile sexism were more likely thanlow scorers to repeat the female-disparagingjokes to a friend because they found these jokesto be funnier. Perceived offensiveness of thejokes seemed to have no role to play, which fitswith its link with more general prejudice, ratherthan specifically hostile views of women. Giventhe strong association between the perceivedfunniness of the jokes and the likelihood ofrepeating them to others, it is not surprisingthat some evidence for reverse mediation wasalso obtained.

These findings are of importance in provid-ing new evidence regarding the type of peoplewho are most likely to perpetuate negative viewsof women via humor, that is, men who are highin hostile sexism. These men find female-disparaging jokes particularly humorous and, asa result, are likely to repeat these jokes to theirfriends. In turn, exposure to female-disparagingjokes may ensure that their friends developsimilar, hostile views of women (Ford, 1997,2000). Thus, men who are high in hostilesexism may not only hold derogatory views ofwomen, but they may ensure that those aroundthem hold similar views.

Note that the current findings differsomewhat from those of Greenwood and Isbell(2002), who obtained a significant negativerelation between funniness and offensivenessratings of dumb blonde jokes. In addition,Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that benev-olent sexism predicted reactions to dumbblonde jokes, such that benevolent sexist males

found the jokes more amusing than non-sexistmales or benevolent sexist females. The dis-crepancies between those findings and thefindings described here are likely due in largepart to methodological differences. Specific-ally, participants in the Greenwood and Isbell(2002) study evaluated jokes embedded in aconversation between two men that were dis-paraging of the joke teller’s girlfriend. Thejokes were thus personalized, and this may havemagnified the relation between ratings of theiroffensiveness and their funniness. The currentstudy also investigated jokes about a moregeneral outgroup than ‘dumb blondes’,focusing on all women. In addition, the currentstudy directly compared male-disparaging(ingroup) with female-disparaging (outgroup)jokes, and demonstrated that hostile sexism wasrelevant to anti-female but not to anti-malejokes. The Greenwood and Isbell (2002) studydid not allow for such a comparison.

Future research may wish to continue thisline of study by more closely examining theantecedents and consequences of repeatingsexist jokes. In addition, research may wish toinclude a female sample and measures ofsexism directed toward men to determinewhether similar effects are obtained on reac-tions to male-disparaging jokes. It may alsoprove beneficial to assess group-based attitudesand evaluations after exposure to the dis-paraging jokes to further explore the potentialinteractive effects of prior attitudes and group-disparaging humor on effects obtained (seealso Ford, 1997, 2000). In this way, we can gaina further understanding of how group-disparaging humor functions to maintain andspread prejudicial attitudes.

Notes1. To further explore the relation between

ambivalent sexism and reactions to the jokes, wealso conducted regression analyses testing forinteractions between hostile and benevolentsexism. No significant interactions were evident.Similarly, exploratory analyses testing forinteractions between hostile sexism (orbenevolent sexism) and perceived funniness ofthe jokes or between hostile sexism (or


98




benevolent sexism) and perceived offensivenessof the jokes produced no evidence of interactiveeffects.

2. Although the zero-order correlation betweenperceived offensiveness and the likelihood ofrepeating the female-disparaging jokes was notsignificant, the mediational analysis is presentedfor purposes of comparison with that of perceivedfunniness.

AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by a grant from theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada to Victoria Esses. We thank Mark Hord foracting as the experimenter. We also thank DomAbrams and two anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments on an earlier version of thispaper.

ReferencesAllport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism.

Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G.

(1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles:Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonicrelationships. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23, 41–49.

Ford, T. E. (1997). Effects of stereotypical televisionportrayals of African-Americans on personperception. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266–275.

Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor ontolerance of sexist events. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 26, 1094–1107.

Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1985). The influence ofethnocentrism and ethnic label on theappreciation of disparagement jokes. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 20, 63–76.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalentsexism inventory: Differentiating hostile andbenevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 70, 491–512.

Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L.(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexismand polarized attitudes toward women. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.

Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalentsexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’sreactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 26, 341–350.

Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring‘housewives’ to ‘feminists’: Categorization and thefavorability of attitudes toward women. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 18, 25–52.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward women’srights: Relationships with social dominanceorientation and political group identities. SexRoles, 41, 605–614.

Henkin, B., & Fish, J. M. (1986). Gender andpersonality differences in the appreciation ofcartoon humor. Journal of Psychology, 120,157–175.

Hobbes, T. (1650/1968). Human nature, or thefundamental elements of policy. In W. Molesworth(Ed.), The English works of Thomas Hobbes ofMalmesbury (Vol. 4). Aalen: Scienta Verlag.

Hobbes, T. (1651/1966). Leviathan.Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Matheson, W. A. (1976).Superiority, enhanced self esteem and perceivedincongruity humor theory. In A. J. Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, researchand applications. New York: Wiley.

McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). Anomnibus study of individual differences and prejudice.Paper presented at the meeting of theInternational Society for Political Psychology,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Moore, T. E., Griffiths, K., & Payne, B. (1987).Gender, attitudes towards women, and theappreciation of sexist humor. Sex Roles, 16,521–531.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: Apersonality variable predicting social and politicalattitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 741–763.

Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoymentof humor, rape attitudes, and relationshipaggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38,743–754.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: Anintegrated theory of social hierarchy and oppression.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994).Gender, ethnic status, and ideological asymmetry:A social dominance interpretation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 194–216.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A.(1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and


99




modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 68, 199–214.

Wicker, F. W., Barron, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980).Disparagement humor: Dispositions andresolutions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39, 701–709.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionalityof transitory dominance as a communicationvariable affecting humor appreciation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 24, 191–198.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A dispositiontheory of humor and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, researchand applications (pp. 93–116). New York: Wiley.

Paper received 12 January 2003; revised version accepted22 May 2003.

Biographical notescaroline a. thomas completed her MA in

psychology at the University of Western Ontario,Canada. She is currently pursuing a law degree atQueen’s University, Canada.

victoria m. esses is Professor of Psychology at theUniversity of Western Ontario. Her researchinterests include intergroup relations, prejudice,and discrimination, with a focus on the role ofgroup status, group competition, and perceivedvalue threat in relations among groups.


100




Documents

Individual Differences in Reactions to Sexist Humor