Humor, and in this context, specifically political humor more or less has a purpose behind it. Political humor has long been a tool for critique, satire, and even resistance. From stand-up comedies to social media memes, humor has played a crucial role in the expression of political opinions. It uses incongruity to offer fresh perspectives on political issues, challenging what is typically taken for granted and potentially shaping attitudes. However, not everyone accepts this type of humor similarly. Affinity for political humor, which refers to one’s likelihood of engaging with and accepting political satire has also been explored in the academic domain, with the role of political ideology examined along with it.
Factors affecting how political humor is understood
Research suggests that conservatives are generally less appreciative of irony and exaggeration in humor compared to liberals. This difference in appreciation also extends to how individuals perceive humor targeted at their political affiliations versus opposing parties. Another related factor is cognitive dissonance, the discomfort experienced when confronted with conflicting beliefs. Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance states that people have consistencies among their cognitions such as knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs– and such cognitions are consonant, on the other hand, the ones that conflict with each other are dissonant. Factors like anxiety, political expression, and humor appreciation contribute to how individuals respond to political humor. For instance, people with higher anxiety may prefer satire targeting opposing political parties, potentially finding relief or validation in these critiques.
If we see it in the context of political satire, when a person encounters satire that aligns with their political beliefs, they experience consonance—a sense of validation and amusement. For instance, a liberal watching satire that mocks a conservative politician will likely find it funny and insightful because it supports their pre-existing views. This positive reinforcement makes them more open to engaging with such humor. However, when it contradicts an individual’s belief, it creates a psychological conflict. For example, such a dissonance happens:
Cognition 1: “I believe my political ideology is rational and justified.”
Cognition 2: “This satire is making valid criticisms of my beliefs.”
This dissonance is uncomfortable, prompting a need to resolve it. Instead of reconsidering their stance, most people try to eliminate the discomfort in ways that preserve their original beliefs. This can include:
Dismissing the satire as biased, offensive, or uninformed.
Reframing the message to lessen its impact (e.g., “It’s just a joke” or “They’re exaggerating”).
Attacking the source rather than engaging with the critique.
Because of this, people may only seek out the humor that aligns with their ideologies. However, this also depends on how pro-attitudinal and counter-attitudinal humor is appreciated as well. Another study suggests that Democrats are more likely to appreciate counter-attitudinal political humor, while both Democrats and Republicans appreciate pro-attitudinal political humor. So maybe, if one is more open to understanding another perspective, one may actually be accepting of counter-attitudinal humor. This pattern has been seen everywhere. For example, in India, stand-up comedians such as Kunal Kamra and Varun Grover frequently use satire to critique government policies, drawing both widespread support and significant backlash. Similarly, in the West, comedians like John Oliver and Trevor Noah have encountered both praise and criticism for their satirical takes.
However, the appreciation of political satire is also influenced by the selective processing of information and disposition theory— which suggests that one’s stance toward the target of the satire shapes their response. This means that while individuals are more likely to enjoy humor that aligns with their beliefs, they are not entirely incapable of laughing at jokes that challenge their viewpoints. It has also been noted that along with humor appreciation, personality factors may also be linked with it. However, not much work has been done specifically for the political satire. Studies have shown that personality traits, such as extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness are positively associated with self-enhancing humor, while neuroticism and lower agreeableness align with more aggressive humor styles. However, these findings largely pertain to general humor types, leaving a gap in understanding how personality traits might interact with political humor specifically.
Final Thoughts
Political humor is a double-edged sword. It can entertain, critique, and challenge perspectives, but it can also reinforce ideological divides. There may be differences in perception of humor that are not discussed in this blog but are important to consider as well. For instance, differences between Western and non-Western countries, where humor norms, political expression, and censorship vary significantly, lead to differences in how opinions are expressed. Understanding these nuances is essential, especially in an era where political polarization is rising, and humor remains a significant force in shaping public discourse. In an era of increasing political division, understanding these psychological and social mechanisms is key to navigating the fine line between comedy and controversy.
Apoorva Thakur
