Literature DB >> 36126663

Tendency to laugh is a stable trait: findings from a round-robin conversation study.

Adrienne Wood1, Emma Templeton2, Jessica Morrel1, Frederick Schubert3, Thalia Wheatley2,4.   

Abstract

People often laugh during conversation. Who is more responsible for the laughter, the person laughing or their partner for eliciting it? We used a round-robin design where participants (N = 66) engaged in 10 different conversations with 10 same-gender strangers and counted the instances of laughter for each person in each conversation. After each conversation, participants rated their perceived similarity with their partner and how much they enjoyed the conversation. More than half the variability in the amount a person laughed was attributable to the person laughing-some people tend to laugh more than others. By contrast, less than 5% of the variability was attributable to the laugher's partner. We also found that the more a person laughed, the more their partners felt similar to them. Counterintuitively, laughter negatively predicted conversation enjoyment. These findings suggest that, in conversations between strangers, laughter may not be a straightforward signal of amusement, but rather a social tool. We did not find any personality predictors of how much a person laughs or elicits laughter. In summary, how much a person laughs in conversation appears to be a stable trait associated with being relatable, and is not necessarily reflective of enjoyment. This article is part of the theme issue 'Cracking the laugh code: laughter through the lens of biology, psychology and neuroscience'.

Entities:  

Keywords:  conversation; laughter; round-robin design

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36126663      PMCID: PMC9489291          DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8436            Impact factor:   6.671


  26 in total

1.  Coherent with laughter: subjective experience, behavior, and physiological responses during amusement and joy.

Authors:  David R Herring; Mary H Burleson; Nicole A Roberts; Michael J Devine
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.997

2.  Acoustic profiles of distinct emotional expressions in laughter.

Authors:  Diana P Szameitat; Kai Alter; André J Szameitat; Dirk Wildgruber; Annette Sterr; Chris J Darwin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  The ontogenesis of smiling and laughter: a perspective on the organization of development in infancy.

Authors:  L A Sroufe; E Waters
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  TripleR: an R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs.

Authors:  Felix D Schönbrodt; Mitja D Back; Stefan C Schmukle
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2012-06

5.  Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold.

Authors:  R I M Dunbar; Rebecca Baron; Anna Frangou; Eiluned Pearce; Edwin J C van Leeuwen; Julie Stow; Giselle Partridge; Ian MacDonald; Vincent Barra; Mark van Vugt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Being Liked is More than Having a Good Personality: The Role of Matching.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Tenney; Eric Turkheimer; Thomas F Oltmanns
Journal:  J Res Pers       Date:  2009

7.  Social Laughter Triggers Endogenous Opioid Release in Humans.

Authors:  Sandra Manninen; Lauri Tuominen; Robin I Dunbar; Tomi Karjalainen; Jussi Hirvonen; Eveliina Arponen; Riitta Hari; Iiro P Jääskeläinen; Mikko Sams; Lauri Nummenmaa
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Relationship between smiling and laughter in humans (Homo sapiens): testing the power asymmetry hypothesis.

Authors:  Marc Mehu; Robin I M Dunbar
Journal:  Folia Primatol (Basel)       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 1.246

9.  The Perception of Spontaneous and Volitional Laughter Across 21 Societies.

Authors:  Gregory A Bryant; Daniel M T Fessler; Riccardo Fusaroli; Edward Clint; Dorsa Amir; Brenda Chávez; Kaleda K Denton; Cinthya Díaz; Lealaiauloto Togiaso Duran; Jana Fanćovićová; Michal Fux; Erni Farida Ginting; Youssef Hasan; Anning Hu; Shanmukh V Kamble; Tatsuya Kameda; Kiri Kuroda; Norman P Li; Francesca R Luberti; Raha Peyravi; Pavol Prokop; Katinka J P Quintelier; Hyun Jung Shin; Stefan Stieger; Lawrence S Sugiyama; Ellis A van den Hende; Hugo Viciana-Asensio; Saliha Elif Yildizhan; Jose C Yong; Tessa Yuditha; Yi Zhou
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-07-25

10.  Physiological synchrony is associated with attraction in a blind date setting.

Authors:  E Prochazkova; E Sjak-Shie; F Behrens; D Lindh; M E Kret
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.