Skinner discusses humor on pages 285ff and 395 of Verbal Behavior (1957). For a more contemporary account see Catania's LEARNING text (p264 in the 4th edition (1999) -- there should be a similar analysis in the 5th, but I've lent it to someone):
"Any verbal topography potentially can take on any verbal function. Furthermore, probably no instance of verbal behavior is ever uniquely determined by just one variable. For example, when a child says "milk" in the presence of mil, this verbal response may function simultaneously as a mand and a tact (especially if the child is already naming)). When two or more events act together to produce a behavior, we speak of their combined effect as 'multiple causation'. Humor often depends on multiple causation. For example, if the end of this paragraph is funny, that's mainly because of how it combines two different vocabularies with which we talk about things that we value. Let.s change the subject to the Olympics. Is there any truth to the rumor that there was once an olympic team whose members were so proud of their gold medals that they had them bronzed?" Finally, for a more detailed examination of the some of the parameters of humor, see: You might look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223159/ On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: > >What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, > >mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) > > A few points to consider: > > (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's > entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview > of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor > and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. > See: > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ > The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book > and movie "The Name of the Rose" where a book by Aristotle on humor > plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose > For the movie, see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 > > In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor > have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological > theories of humor. > An evolutionary approach is often interesting to behaviorists (it can help to account for WHY people act the way they do), but it is a parallel analysis; not part of behaviorism. > (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the > behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression > of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a > core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the > psychological > studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against > anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of > animals/other species (including AI creations like "Her") in terms of personal > human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism > But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and > sophisticated > view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: > http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The journal is Behavior and Philosophy. This particular author is a philosopher. A behaviorist might talk about the act of thinking, but not of an entity called 'the mind'. > The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear "similar" > to human behavior is best described in "human terms" or in more neutral terms. > For example, "smiling" or "laughing" in human may be interpreted as the > internal > experience of humor but does "baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner" > and "making vocalization of certain types" equivalent counterparts in animals? > If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what > laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of > "humor". If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks > that > language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying > animal > behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. > > If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can > reduce the "joke situation" or "comedic situation" (i.e., humor that is > primarily > physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of > relations: > Stimulus(joke/comedy) -> Response(Laugh/etc) -> > Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). > > Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced > before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may > fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing > to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no reinforcement for a response > (stimuli > might be required to indicate that a response should be made like an > "applause" > or "laugh track" to indicate that laughter/etc should be emitted; TV studio > audience have an "applause" sign go as a reminder that they need to clap). > > This does leave unanswered why certain classes of jokes (e.g., fart jokes) > are considered HILARIOUS by some people but disgusting by others; > I guess peoples reactions to bodily sounds and functions play a role but > that's too Freudian for me. ;-) Learning histories and current situations differ. The same joke might get a laugh in a bar and a glare in church. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=32796 or send a blank email to leave-32796-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
