This blog has taken in-depth looks at numerous subjects relating to laughter and humor.

The big-picture view should consider what a comprehensive theory of laughter must able to explain.

Scholars attempting to understand this enigmatic behavior often address nine common topics.

This blog has examined laughter and humor from a variety of perspectives, usually by taking a deep dive into specific examples. I’ve analyzed the work of various comedians and pranksters, deconstructed television comedies and their characters, assessed general comedic themes, considered laughter’s relationship to play and tickling behavior, evaluated variations in our laugh response, and addressed many other topics. I’ve also made repeated reference to my own explanatory account, the Mutual Vulnerability Theory of Laughter, and suggested it’s the most comprehensive theory available.

I’d like to take a few minutes to reflect on how I came to make such a bold assertion. After all, over the centuries, numerous thinkers developed dozens of laughter and humor theories I could have chosen from (Amir, 2024). How did I conclude that existing accounts, even when used in combination, were not up to the task, and the one I developed was broad enough and illuminating enough to reliably do the job?

In this post, I want to set aside the micro lens I typically employ and offer up a bird's-eye view of laughter and humor theory. Exactly how might one determine whether any theory is suitably comprehensive to truly explain why we produce this rather odd vocalization?

Seeking the questions

Here, I’m going to rely on a review article I wrote for the European Journal of........

© Psychology Today