Summary: A new analysis of print cartoons published between 1930 and 2010 finds clear gender differences in what viewers find funny. Men show a stronger preference for visual and situational (slapstick) humour, while women tend to favour cartoons that involve political commentary or the dynamics of close, domestic relationships. Both sexes, however, respond positively to cartoons that explore the complexities of romantic relationships. The study also shows that jokes requiring multiple “mindstates” — layers of mentalizing about what characters think and believe — generally increase amusement up to a limit.
Researchers collected responses from 3,380 visitors to a public exhibition of print cartoons at The Cartoon Museum in London. The cartoons, produced by well-known cartoonists over eight decades, typically combine a strong visual element with a verbal caption that supplies context or the punchline. Participants compared paired cartoons of varying complexity and indicated which they found funnier; responses were then analyzed by the cartoons’ mentalizing content, viewer age and sex, and the cartoons’ original publication dates.
Key findings:
- Men rate visual and situational cartoons higher on average than women do.
- Women show relatively greater preference for cartoons about domestic relationships and political commentary.
- Cartoons that engage multiple mindstates — characters thinking about other characters’ thoughts — are generally funnier, but only up to about three nested levels; beyond that, comprehension and amusement decline.
- Both men and women most enjoy cartoons that examine romantic relationships; political-themed cartoons were least favoured overall.
The study, led by Professor Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford and published in the journal Humor (De Gruyter), models cartoon appreciation in terms of mentalizing complexity. Simple slapstick or single-layer gags can amuse, but cartoons that require readers to track several characters’ intentions and beliefs tend to be judged funnier — until they become too intricate for the two-dimensional medium to convey clearly. According to the authors, layering more than three mindstates often produces confusion rather than laughter, because static images with brief captions lack the temporal and spatial cues a longer narrative or moving image can provide.
Participant age and the age of the cartoon (time since publication) had little effect on humour ratings, suggesting that the core mechanisms driving appreciation — visual clarity, social cognition, and subject matter — are robust across generations. The modest gender differences the authors observe are interpreted as reflections of broader differences in social styles: men’s social interaction patterns may favour visually driven or situational humour, while women’s interaction patterns may lead them to appreciate humour that engages social dynamics and commentary.
Professor Dunbar comments: “Like verbal jokes, cartoons are funnier the more mindstates, essentially characters, they involve. But there is a limit after which they become incomprehensible.” The authors argue that prior research has focused heavily on cognitive ability comparisons, overlooking how social organisation and interaction styles shape preferences for different kinds of humour.
About this research
Author: Mauricio Quiñones
Source: De Gruyter
Contact: Mauricio Quiñones – De Gruyter
Image credit: Neuroscience News
Original research (open access): “Why cartoons make (some of) us smile” by Robin Dunbar et al., published in Humor – International Journal of Humor Research. The study analyses viewer ratings of published print cartoons and links appreciation to the cartoons’ mentalizing content, topic, and viewer demographics.
Abstract
Why cartoons make (some of) us smile
Pocket cartoons and single-panel drawings are a common vehicle for concise social and political commentary. This study uses survey data from 3,380 exhibition visitors to examine whether the number of mindstates involved in a cartoon affects how funny viewers find it, and to determine how topic preferences vary by age and gender. The results indicate that, as with verbal jokes, cartoons that incorporate more mindstates tend to be rated as funnier — but only up to a point. Preferred topics also differ: both sexes favour cartoons that probe romantic complexity, men rate visual and situational gags more highly, and women show stronger preferences for cartoons addressing domestic relationships or political commentary. These patterns likely reflect differences in the organization of men’s and women’s social worlds rather than differences in raw cognitive ability.