WASHINGTON – In our digital times as we are inundated with YouTube videos, memes and social media, satire is everywhere, but it can be more damaging to people’s reputations than direct criticism, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
Seemingly innocuous satire may be more harmful than direct criticism because it can dehumanize people and reduce them to caricatures, the study found. The research was published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
“Most people think satire is just humorous and playful, but dehumanization exists on a spectrum and can include things like forgetting that others have complex emotions and feelings,” said lead researcher Hooria Jazaieri, PhD, an assistant professor of management at Santa Clara University. “We can take a small piece of humorous criticism and make generalizations about other aspects of a person, which may or may not be true.”
In one experiment, 1,311 participants viewed YouTube videos that were either satirical or critical of some famous athletes, musicians, TV personalities, or business figures. For example, some videos featured former NFL quarterback Tom Brady’s suspension over the “Deflategate” scandal or Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the Cambridge Analytica personal data sharing scandal.
Participants who viewed either the satirical or critical videos viewed them as equally critical of the targets, but the viewers of the satirical videos had more negative perceptions about the target’s reputation.
A similar experiment with 373 participants using memes about Gwyneth Paltrow’s skiing accident and lawsuit had similar findings.
In another experiment, 299 participants viewed a satirical meme, a critical meme, or just a photo of soccer manager Jose Mourinho, who had been fired several times from different teams. Both the satirical and critical memes were more damaging than the photo, but participants who viewed the satirical meme had the most negative perceptions of Mourinho.
While satire is often aimed at celebrities, it can be just as damaging for reputations of lesser-known or even fictitious people, according to the study. Specifically, another experiment that replaced Mourinho’s name and photo with the fictitious “Steve Randall” in the same memes had similar findings, with the satirical meme wielding the most reputational damage.
A final experiment found that imagining a brief positive interaction with the targets of satire or criticism can lessen negative perceptions of their reputations by humanizing them.
“Humor, laughter and even criticism have positive benefits and serve important functions in society,” Jazaieri said. “Hopefully, when someone is a target of satire, we will notice if we are engaging in some kind of dehumanization or assumptions about the person that may not be true.”
The researchers opted to focus on non-political figures to extend the field of research on satire. Previous studies about satire have primarily focused on political figures and shown mixed results, with some studies finding satire is harmless while others finding it to be harmful to politicians’ reputations.
This study focused on videos and memes so the findings may not extend to satire expressed only in text or audio, such as articles or podcasts. The findings also may not generalize to minors because only adults were included in the study.
Article: “Softening the Blow or Sharpening the Blade: Examining the Reputational Effects of Satire,” Hooria Jazaieri, PhD, Santa Clara University, and Derek D. Rucker, PhD, Northwestern University, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published online Feb. 10, 2025.
Contact: Hooria Jazaieri, PhD may be contacted at hjazaieri@scu.edu.
