A Scientist Walks Into a Bar …

It sounds like the setup to a joke: When I was starting out as a stand-up comedian, I was also working as a research scientist at a sperm bank.

My lab was investigating the causes of infertility in young men, and part of my job was to run the clinical visits with the participants. They would providwhe a semen sample for research purposes in exchange for $75.

But a common point of concern quickly emerged among the participants: Many were worried that female scientists, such as myself, would want to steal their semen samples and bear their offspring without consent. My initial strategy to quell their paranoia was to trot out the standard science lines, explaining that it would not only be unethical, but also illegal, to use their biospecimens outside the bounds of pure research.

This did not seem to work. So I decided to try out my new side hustle on them:

“Oh please,” I’d say. “Most women won’t fight over sperm that came from a guy who happened to have three hours of free time in the middle of a workday. I could get Ivy League-Olympian sperm from any sperm bank in the country. Don’t flatter yourself.”

Humor seems to work by flipping some of the same emotional switches that misinformation uses.

Exposing the irrationality of their fear with such irreverence and getting a laugh seemed to be the only thing that calmed down anxious participants.

Since those first interactions at my sperm lab, I’ve been employing humor as a way to cut through the noise in science communication to reach people more quickly and effectively—especially when emotions run high and misinformation flows freely.

Decades’ worth of study have demonstrated that humor has the potential to enhance most forms of communication. Research shows that laughter increases people’s energy, interest, and approval of topics, both big and small. During the panic over toilet paper in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Taiwanese government started a “Humor Over Rumor” campaign. In one effort, they published a popular meme with a cartoon of the then-Taiwanese Premier Su Tseng-chang waving his behind with the caption “We only have one butt!” According to anthropologist Jacob Tischer at Boston University, the campaign was effective in reducing stockpiling.

One 2018 study assessed whether humor would be able to change attitudes toward MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) inoculation among participants who were vaccine-hesitant. Participants were randomly assigned to read text excerpts from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, some with jokes or others with the humor edited-out.1 One example of the text riffed off a news clip where an anchor called measles “off-the-chain contagious”:

Funny example: This just in, measles is off-the-chain contagious! (Singing) It likes big lungs and it cannot lie! I guess what she’s trying to say is measles started from the bottom, now it’s here. Obviously I’m not a doctor. Pardon my ignorance. But what does the medical establishment mean by “off-the-chain contagious”?

Normal example: As you can see, measles is something we need to be concerned about again. Obviously I’m not a doctor, just a news reporter. Pardon my ignorance in infectious diseases. But what does the medical establishment mean by “off-the-chain contagious”? Let’s see what they have to say in this next clip.

The researchers found that the humorous example, while containing the same factual information, was not only more effective at reducing MMR vaccine hesitancy among participants compared to the example that didn’t contain humor, but it was also able to reduce participants’ negative psychological reactions—such as anger and irritation—toward the topic.

Humor can also be an effective way to combat misinformation surrounding more existential scientific topics such as climate change. A different 2018 study examined responses to a satirical video from The Onion titled “Climate Change Researcher Describes Challenge of Pulling Off Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy.”2 In it, a fictional scientist reports that:

Getting every single scientist in the entire world to propagate a lie that human activity can cause global warming is a colossal undertaking … The legwork on this has been truly astounding. You don’t even wanna know how much planning has gone into making sure the Great Barrier Reef looks like sh*t.

The study found that climate-skeptical participants who watched the video were later more likely to believe that climate change was real and to have an increased perception of climate change’s risks. This effect was strongest among the participants who were the most skeptical of climate change to begin with.

I could get Ivy League-Olympian sperm from any sperm bank in the country. Don’t flatter yourself.

Humor seems to work, in large part, by flipping some of the same emotional switches that misinformation uses. A comical approach can pull people to override their logical and critical thinking.3 But researchers often shy away from humor, perhaps because comedy and hard science often seem to live at opposite ends of the spectrum. Humor swings wildly for the most outlandish fences, while science is hemmed in by strict specificity and perceived seriousness.

When I first started using humor to enhance my work as a scientist, I was also doubtful that I could still be taken seriously. Sara Yeo, a communications professor at the University of Utah, is familiar with that hesitation. “Science is seen as a neat, serious, somewhat sterile process,” she says. “Humor is at odds with this perception.” However, Yeo asserts that if used adroitly, humor can blend well with serious scientific findings. A review found that a solid humorous approach can almost always enhance science communication—and does not reduce trustworthiness of the scientist.4

“There always needs to be some kind of balance [in science communication],” argues John Cook, a senior research fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. “You don’t want to be all doom and gloom because that can paralyze, but you don’t want to just give hopeful and humorous solutions, because then people lack urgency. You need both. You need to say here’s a problem—but we can solve it.”

Sometimes, science humor succeeds by tapping into emotional reasoning, a cognitive distortion in which our logical reasoning is overpowered when we feel a strong emotional response.5 (This is why love can be blind, or why we say things in arguments we regret later; the heart has a tremendous ability to override the brain.)

People are conditioned to stick around to wait for the punchline.

One comedy technique, known as a parallel argument, uses emotional reasoning to combat compelling misinformation—in a twist—by forcing more logical thinking. The author will create a flawed narrative in an over-the-top context. I used a version of the parallel argument with the nervous young men at the sperm bank: By comparing their samples to those from a Princeton alum Olympian, I was able to counteract their fear by highlighting their irrationality.

John Cook makes hay with this approach in his illustrated book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. One illustration features a man bundled up in the winter outdoors, saying, “It’s cold … global warming doesn’t exist!” Beneath it, a similar illustration shows the same man outdoors at night, saying, “It’s dark … the sun doesn’t exist!” By pointing out a logical flaw in an absurd way, Cook leverages humor to fact-check climate change misinformation. In case studies, Cook and his collaborators have found that a spinoff Cranky Uncle video game successfully helped students identify misinformation and encouraged critical thinking. “Humor was an effective way to build people’s resilience against being misled,” he says.

Even when dealing with heavy topics like the global climate crisis, “humor is disarming,” Cook says. “You can bring people in—but then also give them enough information to properly understand the threat.” This is in part because people are conditioned to stick around to wait for the punchline. “When you start telling a joke, people then have the expectation there’s going to be a payoff at the end of this journey. They stay with you because they know they’re going to be rewarded. So, it’s a way to hold people’s attention, and you get more cognitive effort from them.” And a potentially wider opening in which to share accurate information.

Supporting that conclusion, a 2021 study found that humorous parallel arguments outperformed non-humor approaches in correcting misinformation about the HPV vaccine.6 According to participants in the study, the humorous corrections actually seemed more credible than the straightforward, just-the-facts versions.

One big challenge in applying humor to serious scientific topics is that jokes tend to elicit strong emotional responses, and sometimes those responses can backfire. “Knowing who is in the audience is especially crucial—how can one make jokes that do not alienate or make members of the audience feel targeted?” Yeo says. But sticking with the stereotypical, no-nonsense scientific attitude comes with its own perils. “We know from decades of research that delivering information alone is not sufficient to change attitudes and behaviors,” she adds.

You know, sometimes it just takes a chicken and a road—or a crushing joke about your genetic fitness—to get the point across.

Lead image: Kues / Shutterstock

References

Moyer-Gusé, E., Robinson, M.J., Mcknight, J. The role of humor in messaging about the MMR vaccine. Journal of Health Communication 23, 514-522 (2018).
Anderson, A.A. and Becker, A.B. Not just funny after all: Sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change. Science Communication 4 (2018).
Yeo, S.K. and McKasy, M. Emotion and humor as misinformation antidotes. PNAS 15 (2021).
Riesch, H. Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science 7, 768-765 (2015).
Cook, J., Ellerton, P., Kinkead, D. Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors. Environmental Research 13 (2018).
Kim, S.C., Vraga, E.K., Cook, J. An eye tracking approach to understanding misinformation and correction strategies on social media: The mediating role of attention and credibility to reduce HPV vaccine misperceptions. Health Communication 13, 1687-1696 (2021)

Sarah Adelman

Posted on May 9, 2024

Sarah Adelman is a former research scientist and holds her B.A. from Dartmouth College and MPH from Columbia University. She is a stand-up comedian, writer, and a creative consultant at Hello SciCom where she helps scientists be more entertaining. You can find out more about Sarah at www.sarahadelmancomedy.com.