The kind of satire that is highlighted in these examples has become an increasingly common way to criticize people. But because criticism is made in humor, it can be easy to pass as harmless.
Kellogg Marketing Professor Derek Rucker And his postdoctoral colleague Hooria Jazaieri (now a professor at Santa Clara University) wondered if the satire is truly harmless or if it hurts the reputation of the target person. Together, these researchers examined how satire affects one’s reputation compared to the territory more accurately.
“We had two competitive assumptions: Satire softens the criticism of criticism, or sharpen the blade?” Jazaieri says.
Over a series of experiments, they found strong indications that the satire, in fact, sharpen the blade. “Satire is regarded as a funny alternative to criticism, a parody that is not harmful,” Rucker says. “But our experiments reveal that it is really worse than immediate criticism of the reputation of the goal.”
“The satire sharpen the critic blade because it makes people the punchline of a joke and weakens them,” Jazaieri adds.
Is the damage to the reputation that satire causes inevitable? Not necessarily. The researchers identified at least one intervention that could help reduce the impact.
The growing presence of satira
People have long used satire as a tool criticize perceived errors While avoiding the possible consequences that may arise from immediate criticism. Once relegated to printing versions, Satire is now widely in digital media publications, television shows (such as Saturday Night Live) and perhaps more apparent on social media platforms.
Through its growing presence, people are now consuming satirical news as an alternative to traditional news. Many Americans Report learning something from satirical contentand some have called it yet “Type of masses.”
The previous research on the effects of satire on people’s reputation has shown mixed results.
A study He showed that the people who watched the political comedy had more positive views on the US Congress than those who watched traditional political news coverage. On the contrary, a different study He showed that political comedy may have a negative effect: Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live Live Vice President Sarah Palin has reduced people’s approval for Palin.
Rucker and Jazaieri believed that this negative result could be due to the ability to humorous, especially satire, weaken the people aimed at. Indeed, Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show, said That the key to comedy late at night “reduces these types in single-line stereotypes”-the very definition of discouragement.
“You think satire and parody are just fun and games, but when you have fun people, there is a risk of making them look like they are not human beings,” Rucker says.
Satire against immediate criticism
Rucker and Jazaieri conducted a series of studies to explore this potentially negative, disappearing effect of satire.
In the first, over 1,300 participants saw a video on YouTube with one of the twenty well -known male personalities. Half the group saw videos that immediately criticized the men and the other half saw a video parody criticizing men through humor. For example, some participants watched a satirical video that struck former NFL’s “Deflategate” scandal, while others saw a press conference that immediately criticized Brady’s involvement in the scandal.
After the participants saw a video, they evaluated how funny and how critical it was, on a scale of 1 to 7. They also evaluated the reputation of the target on a scale of 1 to 7.
Both teams (those who watched the satire and those who were watching immediately critical videos) evaluated the videos as equally critical of the target. But those in the satire team gave the target a lower reputation score than in the immediate criticism team.
“This was an indication that satire could sharpen the blade,” says Rucker.
The group also analyzed the commentary sections of the same YouTube videos using a text analysis tool, the mind -perception dictionary (MPD), which defines the percentage of words in a text that has more human properties. They found that comments in satirical videos contained fewer humanistic words.
For example, a comment on Jeff Bezos in response to a immediately crucial video was: “What is with these crazy early comments that bee that Bezos is the second richest man in the world and encourage him to leave America, think of it, Idiot Trolls.” On the contrary, a comment left for Jeff Bezos in response to a satirical video was: “Because of Bezos is a little more like Satan than Mr Rogers, but the big SNL job!” The mind’s perception dictionary showed that the previous comment contained more humanist words (2.7 % of words) than the latter (0 %).
True for both celebrities and for regular citizens
The researchers then showed another team of about 300 participants a photo of football manager José Mourinho, who is known for repeatedly to be fired or suspended. After receiving a brief explanation about his history, the participants saw one of the three images of Mourinho: the one who simply showed his photo, which included a title that immediately criticizes the suffering of employment or one that included a satirical title that broke. The participants then evaluated his reputation.
Those who saw the satirical title gave Mourinho the lowest score for fame.
When the team reiterated the study with a more fantastic, non -famous person, they found the same result: the satirical title led to a lower reputation score compared to immediate criticism or without criticism. “We wanted to make sure they were not only inherent in celebrities,” Rucker says.
The same result came again when they ran a similar experiment focused on a celebrity woman.
A measure of extinction
To gain a deeper understanding of what satire misery may be, the team ran another study similar to that characterizing football manager José Mourinho. But this time, 185 participants rated, on a scale of 1 to 7, or they believed that the football manager was able to act with intention, to participate in a higher class thinking and to experience emotions. These elements were used to evaluate the perception of participants about Mourinho and whether differences occurred as a result of satire or immediate criticism.
“We wanted to know. Do you really see the goals as less people when they are satirical?” Jazaieri says. “This scale was a means of measuring this.”
Those who saw a satirical title, compared to those who saw the immediate critical title, responded in a way that showed more discouragement of Mourinho.
“Because satire is a combination of humor and criticism,” says Rucker, “makes people look less human.”
A way of humanization
Finally, the researchers looked at whether people gave people the opportunity to have a positive experience with a criticism goal could help tackle the negative effect of satire.
477 people were hired to see either a satirical video clip of former Juul Kevin Burns CEO or a clip that immediately criticizes him. After viewing the video, some participants were invited to imagine a general outdoor scene, while the rest were invited to imagine having a “positive, relaxed and comfortable interaction” with burns.
Among those who imagined the scene of nature, the previous results were true: Satire led to a worse reputation rating than immediate criticism. But among those who imagined they had positive interaction with burns, satire and immediate criticism led to the same rating of reputation.
“[The outcome] It shows that even simply a positive contact with the goal can be a means of humanization and thus reduce the sharpened blade of satire, “says Jazaieri.
The research team reiterated the study using a different celebrity, but this time the participants rate both the reputation of the goal and humanity. Participants who watched a satirical video and then imagined that they had a positive experience with celebrity not only evaluated their reputation as higher – they also considered them more human.
“When we started these studies, we didn’t know if the satire would soften the blow or sharpen the blade,” says Rucker, “that made the project fascinating. But in many studies, with different goals and different criticisms, we found it consistently that the satiry was discouraged.”
This does not mean that satire is never productive or useful, according to Rucker. It can be an effective tool to bring issues to light. “But when people are thinking of dealing with satire,” he says, “I want to realize what he could do with the goal, the power that these words can convey.”
