Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psai20

Self and Identity

ISSN: 1529-8868 (Print) 1529-8876 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

Diminished self-concept and social exclusion:Disparagement humor from the target’sperspective

Thomas E. Ford, Hannah S. Buie, Stephanie D. Mason, Andrew R. Olah,Christopher J. Breeden & Mark A. Ferguson

To cite this article: Thomas E. Ford, Hannah S. Buie, Stephanie D. Mason, Andrew R.Olah, Christopher J. Breeden & Mark A. Ferguson (2019): Diminished self-concept andsocial exclusion: Disparagement humor from the target’s perspective, Self and Identity, DOI:10.1080/15298868.2019.1653960

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1653960

Published online: 28 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

ARTICLE

Diminished self-concept and social exclusion: Disparagementhumor from the target’s perspectiveThomas E. Forda, Hannah S. Buiea, Stephanie D. Masona, Andrew R. Olaha,Christopher J. Breedenb and Mark A. Fergusonc

aDepartment of Psychology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, USA; bDepartment of Psychology,University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-StevensPoint, Stevens Point, USA

ABSTRACTTwo experiments (Total N = 393) demonstrated that disparage-ment humor can trigger a social identity threat for members of thetargeted group resulting in perceptions of a diminished possibleself and feeling socially excluded. Experiment 1 (N = 278) revealedthat, upon exposure to humor disparaging one’s political in-group(versus political out-group disparagement humor or non-politicaldisparagement humor), both conservatives and liberals perceiveda social identity threat manifested in more negative representa-tions of their possible selves and feelings of social exclusion.Experiment 2 (N = 97) provided a conceptual replication of thesefindings showing that women exposed to sexist humor experi-enced social identity threat exhibited in a more negative repre-sentation of their possible selves and feelings of social exclusion.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 19 January 2019Accepted 2 August 2019

KEYWORDSDisparagement humor;social identity; devaluation;discrimination

Incidents of disparagement humor are a common occurrence in the workplace andother social settings; they seem to be a part of what most people would considera typical social interaction. For instance, a female colleague of one of the authorsreported an incident of sexism she experienced as an assistant professor. Duringa faculty meeting, one of her more senior, male colleagues humorously commentedabout her youthful appearance and jokingly made a motion that she bake cookies forfuture faculty meetings. This “joking” was met with awkward laughter and playfulremarks as nobody seemed to know how to respond.

Notwithstanding their prevalence, such seemingly harmless incidents of joking canactually elicit detrimental consequences for social interaction. Indeed, disparagementhumor adversely affects how people think about and respond to members of thedisparaged group. By disguising denigration as benign amusement or “just a joke,”disparagement humor fosters a social climate that permits people to express theirprejudice against the targeted group without fears of social sanctions (see Ford,Richardson, & Petit, 2015 for a review). Thus, in the context of our illustration above,sexist men might feel freer to express those sentiments in the context of their collea-gue’s joke.

CONTACT Thomas E. Ford tford@wcu.edu Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, USA

SELF AND IDENTITYhttps://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1653960

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

In the present research we address the consequences of disparagement humor froma different perspective, the perspective of those targeted by the humor (e.g., femalefaculty members present in the illustration above). Most empirical research on theconsequences of disparagement humor from this perspective has been limited topeople’s reactions to the humor itself. Consistent with LaFave, Haddad, and Maesen(1976/1996) vicarious superiority theory, people generally view disparagement humor asless funny and more offensive when it targets a social in-group than when it targetsa relevant out-group (e.g., LaFave, 1972; LaFave, McCarthy, & Haddad, 1973; Love &Deckers, 1989).

The present research builds on these investigations by addressing how in-groupdisparagement humor affects the way people view themselves in relation to others ina given social context. We propose that in-group disparagement humor triggers a socialidentity threat; it communicates to people that they are at risk of being devalued,rejected, or of becoming the target of discrimination because of their group member-ship. We further propose that a social identity threat induced by disparagement humorcan manifest in a diminished self-concept and feelings of social exclusion in theimmediate social context.

Social identity threat

People categorize stimuli (events, objects, people, etc.) in their environment into dis-crete groups in order to simplify and make sense of it (Cohen & Lefebvre, 2005; Tajfel,1978; Tajfel, Flament, Bilig, & Bundy, 1971; Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978).Importantly, social identity theory contends that people also make sense of themselvesin social contexts through categorization. People derive self-definitions – group identi-ties – from their subjective identification with social categories that distinguish them-selves from others in a given context (Tajfel, 1982; Oakes, 2002; Turner & Oakes, 1989;Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). A social identity represents that part of one’sself-concept derived from subjective identification or affiliation with a social group(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). People derive social identities from groups thathave objective boundaries (e.g., ascribed demographic categories or groups peoplevoluntarily join) as well as from “psychological groups” based on more abstract cate-gories (e.g., political ideology) that represent meaningful self-definitions in a socialcontext (Devine, 2015; Huddy, 1997; Oakes, 2002; Tajfel, 1982).

A social identity becomes a salient and meaningful way of defining the self when ithelps differentiate ingroup members from outgroup members (Turner et al., 1994).Given that people are members of many different social groups, the social identitiesthat become salient and relevant depend on the intergroup context (Turner & Reynolds,2001; Turner, Reynolds, Haslam, & Veenstra, 2006). For instance, the sexist joking in thescenario described above likely made gender identity salient and relevant for ourcolleague and other female faculty members present (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Rijsman,1988).

The theory further suggests that social identities affect how one evaluates the self(Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1986); a social identity can enhance or diminishhow positively one evaluates the self, depending on whether the in-group comparesfavorably or unfavorably to relevant out-groups (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, &

2 T. E. FORD ET AL.

Doosje, 1999; Duck, Terry, & Hogg, 1998). Furthermore, people are motivated to achieveor maintain a positive social identity, that is, to feel pride in belonging to the in-group(Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Consequently, in intergroup settings, people try to favorablydistinguish their in-group from relevant out-groups. People experience social identitythreat when they suspect or fear that they will be devalued, discredited, or rejectedbecause of their group membership (Adams, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, & Steele, 2006;Hunger, Major, Blodorn, & Miller, 2015; Logel et al., 2009; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson,2002). It appears that subtle cues or events that even raise the possibility that one’s in-group could be devalued in a given setting are sufficient to trigger a social identitythreat (e.g., Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, &Crosby, 2008). Adams, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, and Steele (2006), for instance, demon-strated that women can experience a social identity threat in a school setting if someoneelse merely suggests that their instructor could be sexist.

Disparagement humor and social identity threat

Disparagement humor inherently diminishes its target and defines those affiliated with itas members of an inferior out-group, set apart from others in the immediate context(Abrams, Bippus, & McGaughey, 2015; Ferguson & Ford, 2008; Gockel & Kerr, 2015;Hodson & MacInnis, 2016; Martineau, 1972). Thus, disparagement humor should beeither identity enhancing or identity threatening, depending on whether it targets an out-group or one’s in-group. Research has shown that out-group disparagement humor can,indeed, enhance social identity (Abrams et al., 2015; Siebler, Sabelus, & Bohner, 2008;Thomae & Pina, 2015). In fact, Bourhis and Giles (1977, p. 261) proposed that “anti-out-group humour can, through out-group devaluation and denigration, be a creative andpotent way of asserting in-group pride and distinctiveness from a dominant out-group.”

We propose that disparagement humor can have the opposite effect on members ofthe targeted group, making them feel at risk of being devalued, rejected, or of becomingthe target of discrimination because of their group membership. That is, disparagementhumor can trigger a social identity threat. Indeed, empirical research has demonstratedthat sexist humor can create social identity threat for women in the form of self-objectification (Ford, Woodzicka, Petit, Richardson, & Lappi, 2015). Ford,Richardson, et al. (2015) found that women (but not men) reported greater state self-objectification and engaged in more self-monitoring of their appearance followingexposure to sexist comedy clips than neutral comedy clips. Women viewed themselvesas social objects through the demeaning and trivializing lens of the sexist humor.Furthermore, given that disparagement humor diminishes and excludes its target, wepropose that disparagement humor can trigger a social identity threat that specificallyinvolves a diminished view of one’s self and feelings of social exclusion.

Diminished self-concept: A possible selves perspectiveMarkus and Nurius (1986) introduced “possible selves” as a general construct describingpeople’s representations of the different identities they might derive in a given context,and also of the associated emotional states. Thus, possible selves are the ideal selves weaspire to become; they are also the dreaded selves we fear becoming along with theaffective reactions to those possibilities. One ideal possible self for a doctoral student

SELF AND IDENTITY 3

working on her dissertation might be “a professor and researcher at a major university.”A dreaded possible self might be “an unemployed Ph.D. forced to reconsider her careergoals.”

People derive possible selves from their sociocultural and historical context, and fromtheir immediate social experience (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Nurius & Markus, 1990). Asa result, their possible selves are responsive to contextual identity threats (Brown, 1998).For instance, if an African-American college student fears that an instructor views himthrough a lens of prejudice (social identity threat), he might construct a negative possibleself in the context of that class. He might thus experience lower performance expecta-tions, negative perceptions of his academic ability, lower performance motivation, andheightened negative emotions associated with this diminished representation of self.That same student, however, might construct a quite positive possible self in a differentclass taught by a professor he trusts as egalitarian and non-biased (Brown, 1998).

Social exclusionPeople innately need and attempt to cultivate meaningful connections or relationshipswith others (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister,2009; Lieberman, 2013). Broadly defined, social exclusion results from perceived threatsto social relationships; it refers to the real or perceived experience of physical orpsychological isolation from others (Blackhart et al., 2009; Riva, Eck, & Riva, 2016).Importantly, social exclusion has a profound impact on subjective well-being. It hasbeen shown to result in a number of negative psychological experiences such as feelingsof pain, threats to one’s sense of belonging, control, meaningful existence, and self-esteem (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Wesselmann et al.,2016).

Social experiences can signal social exclusion directly through explicit rejection(Blackhart et al., 2009; Wesselmann et al., 2016), or indirectly through subtler “rejectioncues” such as exclusionary language (Richman & Leary, 2009; Wesselmann et al., 2016),mockery (Kerr & Levine, 2008) or hurtful laughter (Klages & Wirth, 2014). In one studyrelevant to the present research, Klages and Wirth (2014) asked participants to recalla time when they had experienced others’ laughter that made them feel excluded orincluded, or to recall a typical day. Participants reported feeling more excluded during“exclusive laughter” versus “inclusive laughter” on a typical day

Whether through explicit rejection or subtle “rejection cues”, social experiences canfoster exclusion by making one feel “relationally devalued” and disconnected fromothers. Accordingly, one should perceive experiences that threaten social identity,such as in-group disparagement humor, as socially-excluding.

The present research

We conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that disparagement humortargeting one’s in-group triggers a social identity threat (fear that others in the immedi-ate context will devalue, reject or discriminate against a person because of their groupmembership) resulting in a diminished representation of one’s possible self, andincreased feelings of social exclusion. We conducted both experiments usingMechanical Turk, a web service sponsored by Amazon.com that allows people to

4 T. E. FORD ET AL.

complete studies posted online. We limited our samples to residents of the UnitedStates. Mechanical Turk has been shown to be as reliable as traditional face-to-facemethods of data collection (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Casler, Bickel, &Hackett, 2013). Further, samples gathered from Mechanical Turk are more demographi-cally diverse than college samples (Miller, Crowe, Weiss, Maples-Keller, & Lyman, 2017)and provide personality data more representative of the general US population(McCredie & Morey, 2018).

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, we tested our hypothesis by exposing participants to disparagementhumor designed to threaten their political identities. Political psychologists propose thatpeople derive important social identities from identification with a political ideology (e.g.,conservative, liberal) as well as a political party (e.g., Republican, Democrat; Deaux, Reid,Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995; Huddy, 2001). Ideological categories represent meaningful bases forsocial and self-categorization in a wide variety of contexts where political distinctions arerelevant (e.g., Abrams, 1994; Deaux et al., 1995; Huddy, 2001; LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam,2009; Lin, Haridakis, & Hanson, 2016). Thus, in the present research, we conceptualizedpolitical identity as affiliation with the ideological categories, conservative and liberal.

Political humor is a form of disparagement humor that comes in a number of varietiesor comic styles identified by Ruch, Heintz, Platt, Wagner, and Proyer (2018) including wit,sarcasm, irony, and satire (Becker & Haller, 2014; Hoffman & Young, 2011; Holbert, 2013;Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009). Regarding content and purpose, such humor mocks orridicules individual politicians, political groups or positions on controversial issues(Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003; O’Connor, 2017). We propose that political humormakes one’s political identity salient based on ideology (conservative, liberal), and thathumor disparaging one’s political in-group triggers a social identity threat.

To test our hypothesis, we asked participants to complete a role play exercise inwhich they imagined they had recently started a job in a consulting firm, and that theirsupervisor had emailed them a brief orientation video from a staff member in humanresources. In the video, the staff member told three jokes that disparaged eitherconservatives, liberals, or Florida drivers. We predicted that upon exposure to humordisparaging one’s political in-group, both conservatives and liberals would report havingmore negative possible selves (revealed by negative perceptions of one’s own compe-tence, lower performance motivation and a more negative affective state) and greaterfeelings of social exclusion in the context of their new job. We further predicted thatthese effects of the humor target manipulation would be mediated by a perceived socialidentity threat – a concern that others in their work environment would devalue anddiscriminate against them because of their political affiliation.

Method

Participants and designWe analyzed data from 278 residents of the United States who participated throughAmazon’s Mechanical Turk in exchange for 40¢. Of the 278 people, 160 were men, 116were women, one identified as transgender, and one identified as “other.” Participants’

SELF AND IDENTITY 5

age ranged from 18 to 74 (Mdn = 34, M = 36.34, SD = 10.88). Participants consisted of209 (75%) Caucasians, 36 (13%) African-Americans, 10 (3.6%) Asians, 16 (5.8%) Hispanics,4 (1.9%) American Indians and 7 (2.5%) mixed ethnicity. Finally, 150 participants self-identified as Liberal and 128 as Conservative. We randomly-assigned participants to oneof three conditions in which they watched a video that featured jokes that disparagedconservatives, liberals or Florida drivers.

ProcedureUpon accessing a link to the study through Mechanical Turk, participants provideddemographic information in an ostensibly separate study. Importantly, we measuredparticipants’ identification with a political ideology using two response options, “LeanLiberal,” or “Lean Conservative.” We treated political affiliation as a categorical variablerather than as a continuous variable because self-categorization and identification witha group, not the extremity with which one endorses political ideas, creates a socialidentity and the motivational and cognitive processes that follow from it (Devine, 2015;Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel, 1978; Oakes, 2002).

Next, participants completed a role play exercise in which they imagined they hadrecently started a job as an associate marketing specialist in a consulting firm. Further, aspart of orientation, their supervisor had sent them a brief orientation video (2 min. induration) made by a staff member in Human Resources. The Human Resources staffmember began the video by introducing himself and welcoming the participant to theorganization stating that, “Our whole department is very excited about your decision toaccept our offer of employment. My name is Jamie, and my job is to help smooth yourtransition to working at our company.” Jamie then described the organizational philo-sophy and culture emphasizing the importance of connection between managers andemployees and stated that they often use humor to make employees feel more com-fortable in the work environment.

Jamie then told three disparaging jokes that we obtained from previous research(Hodson, Rush, & MacInnis, 2010). We manipulated the target of disparagement byvarying the referent of the joke (conservatives, liberals or Florida drivers). The first jokewas, “What’s the difference between Bigfoot and an intelligent liberal/conservative/Floridadriver? Big Foot has been spotted several times!” The second was, “Why do only 10% ofliberals/conservatives/Florida drivers make it to Heaven? Because if they all went, it wouldbe Hell!” The third joke was, “A smart liberal/conservative/Florida driver is a lot like a UFO;you keep hearing about them, but you never see one!” Jamie concluded the video bysaying that, “If you have any questions, please feel free to email or call me. We reallylook forward to working with you.”

After watching the orientation video, participants first indicated their agreement withthe following three statements designed to assess social identity threat operationalizedas anticipated devaluation and discrimination based on political affiliation: “I anticipatethat my manager and coworkers at this company might treat me unfairly because of mypolitical views,” “I anticipate that my manager and coworkers at this company might thinknegatively of me because of my political views,” and “My manager and coworkers at thiscompany could unintentionally make the work environment uncomfortable for me, asa conservative/liberal.” Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly

6 T. E. FORD ET AL.

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We averaged responses to the three items to represent anaggregate measure of social identity threat. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .93.

Next, participants responded to eight adjective pairs adapted from Brown (1998) asses-sing two components of their possible selves in the context of their imagined workenvironment: (a) perceptions of self-competence (unqualified vs. well-qualified, incompetentvs. competent, unprepared vs. prepared, not motivated to do well vs. motivated to do well, andthe wrong person for the job vs. the right person for the job) and (b) perceptions of self-directed affect (scared vs. confident, anxious vs. calm, uncomfortable vs. comfortable). Wepresented each adjective pair on a five-point scale with the negative end point representedby 1 and the positive end point by 5. Cronbach’s alpha for the 8-item scale was .92.

Participants then completed a measure of social exclusion (Williams, 2009) related tothe context of their work environment. We presented participants with 23 statementsdescribing feelings of social exclusion (e.g., “I feel excluded,” “I feel like an outsider”).Participants indicated the degree to which they anticipated having each feeling ona scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Cronbach’s alpha for the 23-itemmeasure was .94.

Finally, participants were prompted to write a sentence or two describing theirreactions to the study. We excluded data from 16 participants whose responses to thismeasure indicated suspicion of the true purpose of the study, or who failed our“attention check” by providing nonsensical answers to open-ended demographic ques-tions. Also, it is noteworthy that participants could not complete the study unless theyprovided a response for every question for each measure. Consequently, we did nothave any missing data.

Results

We first present descriptive statistics for the measures of social identity threat, possibleselves and social exclusion. Then, we present analyses designed to test our hypothesis.We tested our hypothesis by subjecting each measure to a 3 (humor target: conserva-tives, liberals, Florida drivers) x 2 (political affiliation: conservative, liberal) analysis ofvariance (ANOVA). We then performed mediation analyses to examine whether socialidentity threat mediated the effect of humor target on possible selves and socialexclusion. Also, preliminary analyses revealed no significant effects involving participantgender, thus we collapsed analyses across gender.

Descriptive statisticsTable 1 presents descriptive statistics for the measures of social identity threat, possibleselves and social exclusion collapsed across the political affiliation and humor targetvariables. The correlations revealed that the measures of the three variables are distinctbut strongly related to one another.

Social identity threatWe hypothesized that upon exposure to disparagement humor targeting one’s political in-group, participants would perceive a social identity threat. Thus, as expected, the 3 × 2 ANOVArevealed a significant humor target x political affiliation interaction effect, F(2, 272) = 45.25,p < .001, ηp

2 = .250 (see Figure 1(a)).

SELF AND IDENTITY 7

Simple effects tests further supported our hypothesis. Conservatives perceivedgreater social identity threat in the conservative target condition (M = 4.05, SD = 1.11)than in the liberal target condition (M = 2.42, SD = 1.15), t(125) = 6.66, p < .001 or thenon-political target condition (M = 2.58, SD = 1.11), t(125) = 6.66, p < .001. Similarly,liberals perceived greater social identity threat in the liberal target condition (M = 3.91,SD = 1.26) than in the conservative target condition (M = 2.29, SD = 1.19), t(147) = 6.81,p < .001 or the non-political target condition (M = 2.23, SD = 1.45), t(147) = 7.06, p < .001.

Possible selvesWe expected that, upon exposure to humor disparaging one’s political in-group, parti-cipants would report having more negative possible selves in the context of their newjob. Supporting our hypothesis, the 3 × 2 ANOVA revealed a significant humor targetx political affiliation interaction effect, F(2, 272) = 12.01, p < .001, ηp

2 = .081 (see Figure1(b)).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the measures of social identity threat, possible selvesand social exclusion collapsed across political affiliation and humor target in experiment1.

Social Identity Threat Possible Selves Social Exclusion

Possible Selves −.53** –Social Exclusion .73** −.73** –M 2.97 3.71 2.80SD 1.40 0.96 0.91

** p < .01

Figure 1. Mean scores on the measures of (a.) social identity threat, (b.) possible selves, and (c.)social exclusion as a function of political affiliation and target of disparagement humor.

8 T. E. FORD ET AL.

Providing further support for our hypothesis, simple effects tests revealed that con-servatives reported having more negative possible selves in the conservative targetcondition (M = 3.24, SD = 0.95) than in the liberal target condition (M = 3.95,SD = 0.96), t(125) = 3.53, p < .001 or the non-political target condition (M = 3.87,SD = 0.90), t(125) = 3.16, p < .001. Similarly, liberals reported having more negativepossible selves in the liberal target condition (M = 3.36, SD = 0.98) than in theconservative target condition (M = 3.94, SD = 0.84), t(147) = 3.33, p < .001 or the non-political target condition (M = 4.03, SD = 0.83), t(147) = 3.85, p < .001.

Social exclusionWe predicted that upon exposure to in-group disparagement humor, participantswould report feeling more socially excluded in the context of their new job.Supporting our hypothesis, the humor target x political affiliation interaction effectwas significant, F(2, 272) = 30.64, p < .001, ηp

2 = .184 (see Figure 1(c)). As expected,simple effects tests revealed that conservatives reported feeling more sociallyexcluded in the conservative target condition (M = 3.40, SD = 0.82) than in the liberaltarget condition (M = 2.49, SD = 0.84), t(125) = 5.36, p < .001 or the non-political targetcondition (M = 2.63, SD = 0.68), t(125) = 4.61, p < .001. Similarly, liberals reportedfeeling more socially excluded in the liberal target condition (M = 3.30, SD = 0.94) thanin the conservative target condition (M = 2.36, SD = 0.72), t(147) = 5.73, p < .001 or thenon-political target condition (M = 2.40, SD = 0.77), t(147) = 5.49, p < .001.

Mediation analysesWe hypothesized that in-group disparagement humor triggers a social identity threat,which in turn, induces a diminished representation of one’s possible selves and feelingsof social exclusion. Thus, we predicted the effect of the humor target manipulation(humor disparaging conservatives, liberals or Florida drivers) on participants’ possibleselves and on feelings of social exclusion would be mediated by perceived social identitythreat. Furthermore, this effect should be moderated by participants’ political affiliation.We tested this moderated mediation hypothesis separately for the measures of possibleselves and social exclusion using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS 20.0 (Hayes, 2017,Model 8. See Figure 2).

We conducted a bootstrapping analysis (with 5,000 resamples) to test whether politicalaffiliation moderated the effect of the humor target manipulation on perceived social identitythreat and thus participants’possible selves and feelings of social exclusion. Thebootstrappinganalysis provides the 95% confidence interval for the population value of the indirect effect(the path from the humormanipulation to themeasure of possible selves through anticipationof bias). If zero is not included in the 95% confidence interval, the indirect effect is significant atp < .05 (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Table 2 presents the standardized beta coefficients and 95%confidence intervals for the moderated mediation analysis.

As expected, themoderatedmediationwas significant for themeasure of possible selves,β = −0.60, SE = 0.10, CI95 = (−0.80, −0.42) and for the measure of social exclusion, β = 0.74,SE = 0.09, CI95 = (0.56, 0.93). This indicates that humor target manipulation affectedparticipants’ possible selves and feelings of social exclusion through perceived identitythreat differently for conservatives and liberals. We more closely examined this significantinteraction effect by conducting mediation analyses on the possible selves and social

SELF AND IDENTITY 9

exclusion measures separately for conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, the indirecteffect was significant on the possible selves measure, CI95 = (−0.41, −0.19) and on the socialexclusion measure, CI95 = (0.24, 0.48). For liberals, the indirect was also significant on thepossible selvesmeasure, CI95 = (0.19, 0.42) and on the social exclusionmeasure, CI95 = (−0.51,−0.26). Participants perceived a social identity threat in response to humor disparaging theirpolitical in-group resulting in a diminished representation of possible selves and feelings ofsocial exclusion.

Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 support our hypothesis. Upon exposure to humor dispara-ging one’s political in-group, both conservatives and liberals perceived a social identitythreat – they felt concerned that others in their work environment would devalue anddiscriminate against them because of their political affiliation. Thus, they constructedmore negative representations of their possible selves and felt more socially excluded inthe context of their work.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 provided a conceptual replication of Experiment 1 by exposing women tosexist humor designed to threaten their social identities as women. Sexist humor demeanswomen by reducing them to sex objects, depicting them as a caricature of traditionalgender roles, or playing upon specific sexist stereotypes of inferiority (Bemiller & Schneider,2010; Ford et al., 2015; Greenwood & Isbell, 2002). Thus, sexist humor communicatesdiminishment and devaluation of women. Therefore, we propose that social settingsinvolving sexist humor, like our colleague’s faculty meeting in the example mentioned

Figure 2. Mean scores on the measures of (a.) social identity threat, (b.) possible selves, and (c.)social exclusion as a function of the type of humor manipulation in experiment 2.

10 T. E. FORD ET AL.

earlier, can trigger a social identity threat for women. It can make women feel at risk ofbeing discredited or of becoming the target of discrimination because of their gender.Thus, we designed Experiment 2 as a second test of the hypothesis that humor disparagingone’s in-group triggers a social identity threat resulting in a diminished representation ofone’s possible self and feelings of social exclusion.

We tested our hypotheses by recruiting women to complete a role play task in whichthey imagined themselves as college students about to take a course with a graduatestudent instructor. Participants watched a brief video of their instructor describing histeaching philosophy in which he made either three sexist humorous remarks or threeneutral (non-disparaging) humorous remarks. After watching the video participantscompleted the measures of social identity threat, possible selves and social exclusionfrom Experiment 1. On the basis of our hypothesis, we predicted that in the context ofthe role play task, participants in the sexist humor condition would experience greatersocial identity threat, construct more negative representations of their possible selvesand feel more socially excluded than participants in the neutral humor condition.

Method

Participants and designWe recruited 100 women living in the U.S. through Mechanical Turk to participate in thestudy in exchange for 45¢. To ensure that participants could engage in this scenario andadopt a student mindset we included only participants age 40 or under, and who hadcompleted at least “some college.” We deleted three eligible participants who indicatedsuspicion of the true purpose of the study, or who failed our attention check by providingnonsensical answers to open-ended demographic questions. The remaining sample con-sisted of 97 women. Participants’ age ranged from 20 to 40 years-old, with a median of 34and a mean of 32.55 (SD = 5.29). There were 76 Whites (78%), 6 African-Americans (6.2%), 3

Table 2. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals for the moderated mediation analysis inexperiment 1.

Social Exclusion Possible Selves

Paths β (SE) β (SE)

Humor Target → Social Identity Threat -2.52 (0.27) -2.52 (0.27)Political Affiliation → Social Identity Threat 0.18 (0.15) 0.18 (0.15)Humor Target x Political Affiliation →

Social Identity Threat 1.67 (0.18) 1.67 (0.18)Social Identity Threat → Response -0.32 (0.16) 0.08 (0.21)Humor Target → Response 0.44 (0.03) -0.36 (0.04)Political Affiliation → Response 0.06 (0.08) -0.01 (0.10)Humor Target x Political Affiliation → Response 0.21 (0.11) -0.08 (0.14)Humor Target x Political Affiliation →

Social Identity Threat → Response 0.74 (0.09) -0.60 (0.10)

Paths 95% CI 95% CI

Humor Target x Political Affiliation →

Social Identity Threat → Response [0.56, 0.93] [-0.80, -0.42]Indirect Effect at two levels of Political AffiliationConservatives [0.24, 0.48] [-0.41, -0.19]Liberals [-0.51, -0.26] [0.19, 0.42]

SELF AND IDENTITY 11

Asians (3.1%), 5 Hispanics (5.2%), 6 (6.2%) who self-identified as mixed race and one personwho identified as “other.”We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions withtype of humor (sexist, neutral) serving as a between-subjects variable.

ProcedureParticipants accessed a link to the study through Mechanical Turk. After completinga consent form and demographic measure they read a brief introduction for the first roleplay task and then the following instructions:

Please imagine that you are a college student and that you are about to take a class inwhich you will work closely with and be graded by a graduate student instructor over thecourse of the semester. You will watch a short video of your instructor, David. The purposeof the video is to familiarize you with David’s personality and teaching style.

The video clip lasted approximately 2 minutes and 20 seconds. In the sexist humorcondition, David jokingly made the following sexist quips (depicted in bold font) whilediscussing his teaching style:

I always start each semester with the same joke, “Intelligence is important if you aregoing to work in this field. What do you call a woman who has lost 95% of herintelligence? DIVORCED!!’ That one always gets a good laugh. I once had a studentcomment with his own joke on the first day of class that was better than mine! Let’s seeif I can remember it, I think it was, “What do you call a woman with two brain cells?Pregnant!” The whole class appreciated that joke. . . . I believe all of my students cansucceed . . . except for the blonde women- they are better off in the kitchen, where theonly math they have to learn are the numbers on the outside of the microwave!”

In the neutral humor condition, we replaced the sexist humorous remarks with non-disparaging ones (depicted in bold font):

I always start each semester with the same joke, “My dog used to chase people on a bikea lot. It got so bad, I finally had to take his bike away.” That one always gets a goodlaugh. I once had a student comment with his own joke on the first day of class that wasbetter than mine! Let’s see if I can remember it, I think it was, “What did the pirate say onhis 80th birthday? Aye Matey,” The whole class appreciated that joke. . . . I believe all of mystudents can succeed . . . even the student who joked, “What’s the stupidest animal in thetropical rainforest? The polar bear!”

To ensure that participants perceived the sexist and neutral humor conditions as we hadintended, we recruited 85 pilot participants through Mechanical Turk who did notparticipate in the study (54 men, 31 women ages 22–72 with a mean age of 36.25,SD = 10.78) to respond to the following questions about the instructor’s remarks: “Towhat extent do you think David intended his remarks to be funny?”, and “To what extentdo you think David’s remarks came off as sexist?” Participants responded to eachquestion using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).

We subjected each question to a participant gender x humor type (sexist, neutral)ANOVA. There were no main or interaction effects for perceptions of the instructor’sintentions to be funny. Importantly, the main effect of humor type was not significant, F(1, 81) = 1.30, p = .257, ηp

2 = .016, suggesting that participants did not differentially perceivethe instructor as trying to be funny in the sexist humor condition (M = 3.95, SD = 1.08) versusthe neutral humor condition (M = 4.10, SD = 0.89). Finally, regarding how sexist participants

12 T. E. FORD ET AL.

perceived the instructor’s remarks, there was only a main effect of humor type, F(1,81) = 113.08, p < .001, ηp

2 = .583. Both men and women perceived the remarks as moresexist in the sexist humor condition (M = 4.30, SD = 1.11) than in the neutral humorcondition (M = 1.68, SD = 1.15).

After watching the video, participants first completed the measure of social identitythreat adapted to this role play task: “I anticipate that my instructor might treat me unfairlybecause of my gender,” “I anticipate that my instructor might think negatively of me becauseof my gender,” and “My instructor could unintentionally make the class environment uncom-fortable for me, as a woman.” As in Experiment 1, participants responded on 5-point scalesranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the aggregatemeasure was .98. Participants then completed the measures of possible selves and socialexclusion from Experiment 1. Cronbach’s alpha was .90 and .97 respectively.

Results

Descriptive statisticsTable 3 presents descriptive statistics for the measures of social identity threat, possibleselves and social exclusion collapsed across the type of humor manipulation. As inExperiment 1, the correlations revealed that the measures of the three variables aredistinct but strongly related to one another.

Hypothesis testsWe tested our hypothesis by subjecting responses on each dependent measure toa one-way ANOVA with type of humor (sexist, neutral) serving as a between-subjectsfactor. The means on each measure are displayed in Figure 3.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the measures of social identity threat, possible selvesand social exclusion collapsed across the type of humor manipulation in experiment 2.

Social Identity Threat Possible Selves Social Exclusion

Possible Selves −.56** –Social Exclusion .83** −.74** –M 2.87 3.44 2.97SD 1.72 1.02 1.09

** p < .01

Figure 3. The indirect effect of the humor target manipulation on the measures of possible selvesand social exclusion through social identity threat, moderated by political affiliation.

SELF AND IDENTITY 13

Supporting our hypothesis and conceptually replicating the findings of Experiment 1, theeffect of typeof humorwas significant for all three dependent variables: social identity threat, F(1, 95) = 71.77, p < .001, ηp

2 = .430, possible selves, F(1, 95) = 15.35, p < .001, ηp2 = .140, and

social exclusion, F(1, 95) = 50.26, p < .001, ηp2 = .346. Women reported perceiving a greater

social identity threat, more negative possible selves and greater social exclusion in the sexistversus neutral humor conditions.

Mediation analysesAs in Experiment 1, we tested the role of social identity threat as amediator of the relationshipbetween the type of humor manipulation and the measures of possible selves and socialexclusion in two separate models. We conducted bootstrapping analyses (with 5,000 resam-ples) using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS 20.0 (Hayes, 2017, Model, p. 4). Supporting ourHypothesis, there was a significant indirect effect of type of humor on possible selves throughsocial identity threat, β = 0.74, SE = 0.16, CI95 = (0.44, 1.05). The indirect effect of type of humoron social exclusion through social identity threat also was significant, β = −1.21, SE = 0.19, CI95= (−1.58, −0.85). Participants perceived a social identity threat in response to sexist humorresulting in a diminished representation of possible selves and feelings of social exclusion.

Discussion

The findings of Experiment 2 supported our hypotheses and conceptually replicated thefindings of Experiment 1. In the context of a college class, women experienced a greaterthreat to their social identity as women – they feared their male instructor woulddevalue and discriminate against them because of gender – when he made sexist(versus non-sexist) jokes. This social identity threat in turn led women to constructmore negative representations of their possible selves and to feel more socially excludedin the context of their class.

General discussion

Two experiments converge to make the novel discovery that disparagement humortargeting one’s in-group triggers a social identity threat resulting in a diminishedrepresentation of one’s possible self and feelings of social exclusion. In Experiment 1we found that, when others in a workplace engage in humor disparaging one’s politicalin-group, conservatives and liberals experienced a social identity threat – they fearedothers would devalue and discriminate against them because of their political affiliation.As a result, they constructed more negative representations of their possible selves andfelt socially excluded. Similarly, in Experiment 2, women perceived a greater threat totheir gender identity in the context of a college class when their male instructor madesexist jokes; they feared he would devalue and discriminate against them based ongender. This, in turn, led women to construct more negative representations of theirpossible selves and to feel socially excluded in the context of their class.

The present research contributes to the literature on disparagement humor byidentifying different ways that it represents a source of distress and challenge for itstargets. A diminished representation of self can have a significant effect on behavior(e.g., Anderman, Anderman, & Griesinger, 1999; Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995;

14 T. E. FORD ET AL.

Oyserman & Markus, 1990). Anderman et al. (1999), for instance, demonstrated thatstudents’ representations of possible selves (positive versus negative) affects academicperformance, effort and motivation. They found that students with a positive, academicpossible self (i.e., described themselves as “good students”) exhibited greater academicimprovement throughout a school year compared to those with a negative, academicpossible self. Another line of work on self-efficacy, people’s judgments about their abilityto accomplish a given task (Bandura, 1988), has also shown that one’s view of self ina given setting predicts performance on a variety of cognitive and physical tasks(Bandura, 1988; Maddux, 1995; Schunk, 1989). It follows that, by triggeringa diminished view of one’s potential in a given setting, in-group disparagementhumor could undermine performance on a wide variety of tasks. Also, as mentionedearlier, social exclusion has a profound impact on subjective well-being, resulting inpain, loss of control and lower self-esteem (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams,2003, Wesselmann et al.,). Thus, by inducing social exclusion, in-group disparagementhumor might have a detrimental impact on one’s subjective well-being.

Collectively, the present experiments illuminate new social psychological conse-quences of disparagement humor, in general. Individually, they also have implicationsfor understanding how sexist humor and political humor, in particular, in particular,might function in social interaction. The findings of Experiment 1 contribute toa growing body of research on the consequences of political humor. There is mountingevidence that, unless it is misunderstood, political humor, like that featured on late-nightcomedy shows, can have “message-consistent” effects on people’s political attitudes(Baumgartner, 2013). For instance, watching late-night political humor can negativelyaffect attitudes toward presidential candidates (e.g., Baumgartner, 2007, 2008;Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Becker, 2012; Morris, 2009; Young, 2004), foster a cynicalview of political institutions more generally (Baumgartner, 2013; Baumgartner & Morris,2008; Hart & Hartelius, 2007), and reduce tolerance of partisan views different from one’sown (Stroud & Muddiman, 2013). For a review, see O’Connor (2017). The findings ofExperiment 1 add to this literature suggesting that political humor can have divisiveconsequences in social interaction, negatively affecting how people view themselves inrelation to others in the immediate social context.

The findings of Experiment 2, that sexist humor undermines women’s view ofthemselves, has far-reaching implications for women, particularly in the workplacewhere sexist jokes and teasing (like our female colleague experienced in a facultymeeting) are the most commonly experienced types of sexual harassment (e.g.,Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, & Ormerod, 1988; Gruber & Bjorn, 1986; Pryor, 1995). Thefindings of Experiment 2 suggest that women in the workplace might be frequentlyburdened by social identity threats from sexist humor that make work-related tasks andrelationships more difficult and stressful.

By demonstrating that in-group disparaging humor trigger social exclusion anddiminished possible selves, the present experiments inspire questions for future researchabout other ways people might experience social identity threat in response to dispar-agement humor. For instance, stereotype threat is a form of social identity threatinduced by an expectation that people might judge a person according to negativestereotypes about their social group (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al.,2002). It can be stressful enough to impair performance on tasks for which one’s group is

SELF AND IDENTITY 15

negatively stereotyped (see Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008,; Steele et al., 2002 forreviews). Thus, it is possible that in-group disparagement humor could impair people’sperformance on tasks for which they are negatively stereotyped. Future research couldtest this possibility using the paradigm established in the present studies by addinga measure of performance on a task for which people are stereotypically expected to dopoorly or not.

Limitations

Although the findings of our experiments make important contributions, they do havelimitations. First, the experimental manipulations and dependent measures occurred inimaginary social settings. Asking participants to anticipate how they would respond toin-group disparagement humor might be problematic considering that cues surround-ing how the humor is delivered and experienced by others could be critical in determin-ing how one perceives it. Thus, future research could extend our findings by consideringthe effect of disparagement humor on people’s actual emotional and behavioralresponses in real social interactions.

Second, the disparagement humor in the scenarios for both experiments was ratherdirect and blatantly disparaging. Thus, it is not clear from our studies, whether moresubtle forms of disparagement humor (like that experienced by the female facultymember in our illustration at the beginning of the paper) would also induce socialidentity threat resulting in feelings of social exclusion and diminished possible selves.Although future research is required to address this question directly, previous researchsuggests that the effects would not be limited to blatant forms of disparagement humor.Indeed, as mentioned earlier, subtle social cues can trigger social identity threat (e.g.,Adams et al., 2006; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Furthermore,subtle acts such as an averted eye gaze and facial expressions influence feelings of socialexclusion (Leng, Zhu, Ge, Qian, & Zhang, McCredie & Morey, 2018).

Finally, in the role play scenarios of both experiments, a person in a relational positionof power (supervisor in Experiment 1, teaching assistant in Experiment 2) initiateddisparagement humor. Thus, it is possible that participants reported diminished possibleselves, and social exclusion, not simply because disparagement humor induced a socialidentity threat, but rather because they felt their supervisor or TA used their statusintentionally to intimidate or bully them. According to this explanation, disparagementhumor was incidental, not instrumental in inducing social exclusion and diminishingpossible selves. The key factor was the supervisor’s or TA’s intentional use of power tobully participants. Future research that manipulates the status of the humorist isnecessary to directly test this possibility.

Conclusion

A growing body of work has begun to raise a “warning flag” showing that instances ofdisparagement humor are more than benign amusement or horseplay (e.g., Ford &Ferguson, 2004; Romero-Sánchez, Durán, Carretero-Dios, Megías, & Moya, 2010;Thomae & Pina, 2015; Thomae & Viki, 2013). Our research adds to this warning byaddressing the social psychological consequences of disparagement humor from the

16 T. E. FORD ET AL.

target’s perspective. Two experiments demonstrated that it can have detrimental effectson the way people view themselves in relation to others in the immediate social context.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Michael A. Goldsmith for his work in editing thevideos used in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Abrams, D. (1994). Political distinctiveness: An identity optimizing approach. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 24, 357–365.

Abrams, J. R., Bippus, A. M., & McGaughey, K. J. (2015). Gender disparaging jokes: An investigationof sexist-nonstereotypical jokes on funniness, typicality, and the moderating role of ingroupidentification. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 311–326.

Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Steele, C. M. (2006). The detrimental effects ofa suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,602–615.

Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., & Griesinger, T. (1999). The relation of present and possibleacademic selves during early adolescence to grade point average and achievement goals. TheElementary School Journal, 100(1), 3–17.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton,G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37–61).Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2792-6_2

Baumeister, B. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments asa fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumgartner, J. (2007). Humor on the next frontier: Youth, online political humor, and the JibJabeffect. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 319–338.

Baumgartner, J. (2008). Editorial cartoons 2.0: The effects of digital political satire on presidentialcandidate evaluations. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 38, 735–758.

Baumgartner, J. (2013). No laughing matter? Young adults and the “spillover effect” of candidatecentered political humor. Humor: the International Journal of Humor Research, 26(1), 23–43.

Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. (2006). The daily show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, andAmerican youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367.

Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. (2008). One “nation” under Stephen? The effects of the colbert reporton American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 622–643.

Becker, A. (2012). Comedy types and political campaigns: The differential influence of otherdirected hostile humor and self-ridicule on candidate evaluations. Mass Communication andSociety, 15, 791–812.

Becker, A., & Haller, B. (2014). When political comedy turns personal: Humor types, audienceevaluations, and attitudes. The Howard Journal of Communications, 25, 34–55.

Bemiller, M. L., & Schneider, R. Z. (2010). It’s not just a joke. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 459–479.Blackhart, G., Nelson, B., Knowles, M., & Baumeister, R. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions

but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269–309.

Bourhis, R., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.),Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135). New York, NY, US: Academic Press.

SELF AND IDENTITY 17

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of socialidentity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment,content (pp. 35–58). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.4135/9781446200919.n23

Brown, L. M. (1998). Ethnic stigma as a contextual experience: A possible selves perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 163–172.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source ofinexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and datagathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers inHuman Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.

Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (2005). Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Cohen, H., &Lefebvre, C. (2005). Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Amsterdam, Netherlands:Elsevier.

Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 68, 280–291.

Devine, C. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups asa political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Science Faculty Publications, 99,1–38.

Duck, J., Terry, D., & Hogg, M. (1998). Perceptions of a media campaign: The role of social identityand the changing intergroup context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 3–16.

Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? an fMRI study ofsocial exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., Williams, K.D. (2003).Does rejection hurt? an fmri study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.

Ferguson, M., & Ford, T. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review ofpsychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. International Journal of Humor Research,21(3), 283–312.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Weitzman, L. M., Gold, Y., & Ormerod, M. (1988). Academic harassment: Sex anddenial in scholarly garb. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 329–340.

Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudicednorm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 79–94.

Ford, T. E., Richardson, K., & Petit, W. E. (2015). Disparagement humor and prejudice: Contemporarytheory and research. Humor, 28, 171–186.

Ford, T. E., Woodzicka, J. A., Petit, W. E., Richardson, K., & Lappi, S. K. (2015). Sexist humor asa trigger of state self-objectification in women. Humor, 28, 253–269.

Gockel, C., & Kerr, N. (2015). Put-down humor directed at outgroup members increasesperceived-but not experienced- cohesion in groups. Humor, 28(2), 205–228.

Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s andwomen’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 341–350.

Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women’s responses to sexual harassment: An analysis of socio-cultural, organizational, and personal resource models. Social Science Quarterly, 67(4), 814.

Hart, R., & Hartelius, E. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in MassCommunication, 24(3), 263–272.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Hodson, G., & MacInnis, C. (2016). Derogating humor as a delegitimization strategy in intergroupcontexts. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(1), 63–74.

Hodson, G., Rush, J., & MacInnis, C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn’t): Cavalierhumor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 99(4), 660–682.

Hoffman, L., & Young, D. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news: Untangling politicalparticipation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159–168.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity. In D. Abrams &M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47). London:Harvester Wheatsheaf.

18 T. E. FORD ET AL.

Holbert, L. (2013). Developing a normative approach to political satire: An empirical perspective.International Journal of Communication, 7, 305–323.

Huddy, L. (1997). Political identification as social identity. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory.Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.

Hunger, J. M., Major, B., Blodorn, A., & Miller, C. T. (2015). Weighed down by stigma: How weight-based social identity threat contributes to weight gain and poor health. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 9, 255–268.

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females aresusceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. PsychologicalScience, 11, 365–371.

Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. GroupDynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 39–52.

Klages, S. V., & Wirth, J. H. (2014). Excluded by laughter: Laughing until it hurts someone else. TheJournal of Social Psychology, 154(1), 8–13.

LaFave, L. (1972). Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification classes. InJ. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: theoretical perspectives andempirical issues (pp. 195–210). New York: Academic Press.

LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceivedincongruity humour theory. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: theory,research, and applications (pp. 63–91). London: Wiley.

LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1996). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceivedincongruity humor theory. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory,research, and applications (pp. 63–91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

LaFave, L., McCarthy, K., & Haddad, J. (1973). Humor judgments as a function of identificationclasses: Canadian vs. American. Journal of Psychology, 85, 53–59.

LaMarre, H., Landreville, K., & Beam, M. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and themotivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert report. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231.

Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. New York, NY: CrownPublishers.

Lin, M., Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2016). The role of political identity and media selection onperceptions of hostile media bias during the 2012 presidential campaign. Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(3), 425–447.

Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interactingwith sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 96, 1089–1103.

Love, A. M., & Deckers, L. H. (1989). Humor appreciation as a function of sexual, aggressive, andsexist content. Sex Roles, 20(11–12), 649–654.

MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship betweensocial and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), The Plenum series insocial/clinical psychology. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applica-tion (pp. 3–33). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_1

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Marques, J., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Rijsman, J. B. (1988). Context effects on intergroup discrimination: In-

group bias as a function of experimenter’s provenance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27,301–318.

Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee(Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 101-125). New York: Academic Press.

McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2018). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workersusing the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 1–8. doi:10.1177/1073191118760709

SELF AND IDENTITY 19

Miller, J. D., Crowe, M., Weiss, B., Maples-Keller, J. L., & Lyman, D. R. (2017). Using online,crowdsourcing platforms for data collection in personality disorder research: The example ofAmazon’s Mechanical Turk. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(1),26–34.

Morris, J. (2009). ‘The Daily Show’ and audience attitude change during the 2004 party conven-tions. Political Behavior, 31, 79–102.

Niven, D., Lichter, R., & Amundson, D. (2003). The political content of late night comedy. TheHarvard International Journal of Press/ Politics, 8(3), 118–133.

Nurius, P. S., & Markus, H. (1990). Situational variability in the self-concept: Appraisals, expectan-cies, and asymmetries. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 316–333.

O’Connor, A. (2017). The effects of satire: Exploring its impact on political candidate evaluation.Satire and Politics. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56774-7_7

Oakes, P. (2002). Psychological groups and political psychology: A response to Huddy’s “criticalexamination of social identity theory.”. Political Psychology, 23(4), 809–824.

Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized model of African Americanidentity: Possible selves and school persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1216–1232.

Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 59(1), 112–125.

Polk, J., Young, D., & Holbert, L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaborationlikelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. AtlanticJournal of Communication, 17(4), 202–219.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects insimple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

Pryor, J. B. (1995). The psychological impact of sexual harassment on women in the US military.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 581–603.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identitycontingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstreaminstitutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630.

Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, andother forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383.

Riva, P., Eck, J., & Riva. (2016). Social exclusion. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33033-4

Romero-Sánchez, M., Durán, M., Carretero-Dios, H., Megías, J. L., & Moya, M. (2010). Exposure tosexist humor and rape proclivity: The moderator effect of aversiveness ratings. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 25, 2339–2350.

Ruch, W., Heintz, S., Platt, T., Wagner, L., & Proyer, R. (2018). Broadening humor: Comic stylesdifferentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(6), 1–18.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threateffects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1,173–208.

Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validationand test of hypotheses about target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1),22–35.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity andperformance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology ofstereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (pp. 379–440). City, ST: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80009-0

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance ofAfrican Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

Stroud, N., & Muddiman, A. (2013). Selective exposure, tolerance, and satirical news. InternationalJournal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 271–290.

20 T. E. FORD ET AL.

Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiationbetween social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 77–100).London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel &W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd. (7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.doi:10.1177/053901847401300204

Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Bilig, M., & Bundy, R. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior.European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.

Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases ofperson memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 778–793.

Thomae, M., & Pina, A. (2015). Sexist humor and social identity: The role of sexist humor in men’sin-group cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity, and victim blame. Humor, 28, 187–204.

Thomae, M., & Viki, G. T. (2013). Why did the woman cross the road? The effect of sexist humor onmen’s rape proclivity. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7, 250–269.

Turner, J., & Oakes, P. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.),The psychology of group influence (pp. 233–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations:Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. E. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook ofsocial psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 133–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch7

Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., Haslam, S. A., & Veenstra, K. E. (2006). Reconceptualizing personality:Producing individuality by defining the personal self. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.),Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 11–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications. doi:10.4135/9781446211946.n2

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition andsocial context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

Wesselmann, E. D., Grzybowski, M. R., Steakley-Freeman, D. M., DeSouza, E. R., Nezlek, J. B., &Williams, K. D. (2016). Social Exclusion in Everyday Life. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion:Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 3–23). Cham,Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33033-4_1

Williams, K. (2009). Chapter 6 ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 41, 275–314.

Young, D. G. (2004). Late-night comedy in election 2000. Its influence on candidate trait ratingsand the moderating effects of political knowledge and partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic Media, 48(1), 1–22.

SELF AND IDENTITY 21