| Abstract: | Political cartoons depicting a presidential candidate undergoing an aggressive assault were manipulated to assess the effect on humor appreciation of variations in the degree of brutality of the aggressive tactics (minimal, intermediate, extreme). The identity of the depicted candidate (Richard Nixon vs George McGovern) was also manipulated. Humor-appreciation ratings were given to these cartoons by student subjects during the week preceding the 1972 presidential elections. Attitudes toward the depicted candidates were assessed in a postexperimental questionnaire. Neither degree of brutality nor affect toward the victim exerted a significant main effect, but a significant transverse interaction between the two variables was observed. When the assault involved minimal levels of brutality, the victimization of a rejected candidate was appreciated significantly more than that of a favored one; when intermediate levels of brutality were depicted, assaults against rejected candidates did not differ appreciably from attacks upon favored candidates in the level of mirth they elicited; when the brutality was extreme, aggression against rejected candidates was appreciated less than assaults against favored candidates, although nonsignificantly so. Of the various theoretical notions which were advanced to predict the results, a rationale involving the decoder's motivation to favor or object to the manner in which the aggressive agent is characterized as well as his motivation to enjoy or dislike the communication's projected outcome was considered to account best for the findings. |
