Politicians learned this lesson a long time ago: a well-placed joke is a valuable tool for capturing public attention and building trust. Scientists, however, are much more reluctant to use humor when engaging in science communication. They may fear that a lighthearted approach could make them seem less authoritative and, consequently, make scientific findings appear less credible.
The good news, however, is that science itself seems to contradict this assumption. A new study led by Alexandra Lynn Frank, a doctoral student at the Grady College of Mass Communication at the University of Georgia, has found that, in the communication of scientific content, humor—by eliciting mirth in the audience—"can both have positive impacts on the likeability of a communicator, as well as enhancing perceptions that the message is an appropriate and legitimate source of scientific information."
Frank and her colleagues' study adds to the growing body of research that has investigated the use of humor (such as stand-up comedy) in science communication in recent years. It examines humor "in the context of social media posts from scientists."
"Our study aimed to bridge this gap by enhancing our understanding of how individuals react to anthropomorphism and satire while providing practical insights for scientists and science communicators," Frank explains.
The research focused on artificial intelligence-related content, presented through cartoons posted on Twitter/X by a fictional scientist, Dr. Jamie Devon. The type of humor used fell into three categories: satire (a mild, Horatian type), anthropomorphism (using animals or objects behaving like humans), or a combination of the two.
The study employed an online survey with an embedded experiment (participants were aware they were taking a survey but not that they were part of an experiment). To ensure the representativeness of the 2,212 participants, they were selected using quota sampling aligned with U.S. Census data.
Participants were shown one of eight versions of a fictional Twitter/X conversation initiated by Dr. Devon. The tweet included a cartoon about artificial intelligence (AI), and the humor element was varied across four conditions: no humor (control), anthropomorphism, satire, and a combination of both. After viewing the content, participants reported how much mirth (i.e., perceived humor) they experienced, how likable they found the scientist and evaluated the legitimacy of the content as an appropriate form of science communication.
"Politicians, entertainers, and advertisers often use humor because people tend to like and connect with people who can make them laugh. When people find something funny, they're usually less likely to argue with or reject the message or the person delivering it. Our research supports this idea. We found that humor can aid scientists' communication efforts, but only if people think they're funny," Frank explains.
This means that humor must be effective and genuinely elicit mirth from the audience; otherwise, it could have the opposite effect. "However, it is important to note that recent research conducted by my coauthors indicates that harsh forms of satire can be perceived as aggressive, which may undermine the credibility of the source of scientific information."
Sarcasm or aggressively targeting someone, for example, is highly discouraged. This is why studies like Frank and her colleagues' work are important: "Our research aims to provide valuable insights to aid these professionals in developing public communication strategies," Frank explains, concluding: "When used responsibly, humor is a powerful tool that can humanize scientists and create meaningful connections with the public on social media. By leveraging humor, scientists can simplify complex concepts, making them more relatable and easier to understand. This approach not only fosters goodwill but also has the potential to dispel misinformation in a friendly manner. Moreover, humor can spark curiosity, motivating people to seek out additional information on important scientific topics."
Frank and colleagues' work was supported by the NationalScience Foundation under Grant DRL-1906864. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
