Beating Others to the Punch: Exploring the Influence of Self-Deprecating Humor on Source

Perceptions through Expectancy Violations Theory

Master’s Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Communication in

the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Sarah E. Esralew, B.A.

Graduate Program in Communication

The Ohio State University

2012

Thesis Committee:

Associate Professor R. Lance Holbert, Advisor

Assistant Professor Ray Pingree

Copyrighted by

Sarah Ellen Esralew

2012

!

Abstract

This research examines the influence of self-deprecating humor when used by a politician. Although there are many examples of politicians employing self-deprecating humor, there is a dearth of empirical research that has explored the persuasive effects of this tactic (c.f., Bippus, 2007; Stewart, 2011; Purzycki, 2011; Becker, in press). This study investigates the effects of these humorous messages with firm grounding in

Expectancy Violations Theory (Burgoon, 1978). Politicians usually seek to enhance their own credentials while dismissing those of their opponent (Benoit, Pier, & Blaney, 1997).

Thus, the inherent disconnect in a politician offering self-critical messages is a ripe context for the exploration of expectancy violation effects. This study employed a two- condition (non self-deprecating humor vs. self-deprecating humor) between-subjects pre- post experimental design in order to assess the influence of exposure to humorous self- deprecating measures on perceptions of source and evaluations of policy. It is hypothesized that exposure to President Barack Obama offering humorous self- deprecating commentary will influence subjects to see him as both more similar to themselves and more aware of himself, which in turn will lead to more positive evaluations of a policy championed by Obama. Results show that expectancy violations mediate the relationship between self-deprecating humor and perceived humor. Perceived humor has a strong and significant effect on evaluations of source and policy.

"" ! !

Acknowledgements

Translating my gratitude into words is a challenging task, because I have so many thanks to give. I have been surrounded by a network of caring, supportive, and inspiring people, and for that I feel fortunate. I would like to acknowledge these incredibly special people here.

My advisor Lance Holbert has worn many hats these past two years: Mentor, teacher, coach, cheerleader, therapist, and friend. The enthusiasm with which he has approached these roles has been nothing short of inspiring. I have grown as a scholar and person under his tutelage.

Also, a very special thanks to my committee member Ray Pingree, who is another model of the type of scholar I would like to be. He is not afraid to ask big questions and pursue research that provides compelling and important answers.

I would like to thank my boyfriend Kyle Hutson, who has been so encouraging during this process (all while patiently enduring my analytical monologues regarding communication theory). Finally, a list of thank you’s would never be complete without acknowledging my parents, Lucy and Bernie. They are some of the most kind-hearted, intellectually curious, and wonderfully silly people one could ever hope to meet. I would never be where I am today without their love and support.

""" ! !

Vita

January, 2010...... Bachelor of Art in Communication, University of Delaware

June, 2012...... Master of Communication, The Ohio State University

Publications

Young, D. G. & Esralew, S. (2011). Jon Stewart a heretic? Surely you jest: Political

participation and discussion among viewers of late-night comedy programming,

In A. Amarasinga (Ed). Perspectives on Fake News: The Social Significance of

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co. Publishers.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Communication

"# ! !

Table of Contents

Abstract...... ii

Acknowledgements...... iii

Vita...... iv

List of Tables...... vi

List of Figures...... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review...... 01

Chapter 2: Method...... 28

Chapter 3: Results...... 40

Chapter 4: Discussion...... 55

References...... 69

Appendix A: Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaires...... 79

Appendix B: Stimuli Script...... 94

# ! !

List of Tables

Table 1. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Source Similarity...... 40

Table 2. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Policy Evaluations...... 41

Table 3. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Similarity...... 41

Table 4. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Interaction Between Condition and Political

Disposition on Source Similarity...... 42

Table 5. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Interaction Between Source Similarity and

Attitude Toward Leaders “Like Me” on Policy Evaluations...... 43

Table 6. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Source Self-awareness...... 44

Table 7. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Self-awareness...... 44

Table 8. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Interaction Between Condition and Attitude

Toward Self-Critical Leadership Style on Source Self-awareness...... 45

Table 9. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Expectancy Violation...... 47

Table 10. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Perceived Humor...... 47

Table 11. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Expectancy Violations...... 48

Table 12. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Perceived Humor on Source Similarity...49

Table 13. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Perceived Humor on Source Self- awareness...... 49

Table 14. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Policy Evaluations...... 50

Table 15. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Similarity...... 50

#" ! ! Table 16. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Self-awareness...... 51

Table 17. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Perceived Humor and Political

Disposition on Perceptions of Source Similarity...... 52

Table 18. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Source Similarity and Attitude

Toward Leaders “Like Me” on Policy Evaluations...... 53

Table 19. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Perceived Humor and

Perceptions of Self-critical leadership on Perceptions of Source Self-awareness...... 54

#"" ! ! List of Figures

Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model...... 27

Figure 2. Revised Theoretical Model...... 46

Figure 3. Triangle of Self-deprecating Humor and Linear Process of Message Effects...57

#""" ! !

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review

Abraham Lincoln once said, "If I had two faces, do you think this is the one I’d be wearing?” This was probably not the first time a political figure used self-deprecating humor, and it most certainly was not the last. The White House Correspondents’ dinner, an annual tradition since 1920, is an evening of entertainment in which members of the executive and legislative estates of government and the press take part. In its more recent history, comedians are often the featured speakers of this event (e.g. Conan O’ Brien,

Darrel Hammond, Stephen Colbert), taking jabs at the president and his administration.

The sitting president follows suit, often offering self-deprecating commentary. Such was the case during the 2000 Correspondents’ dinner, when Bill Clinton starred in a short documentary, President Clinton: Final Days, which featured the former President bored and lonely in the final days of his presidency, searching for activities to occupy his time, including packing a lunch for busy wife Hillary.

Self-deprecation, as it is generally understood, is the act of belittling oneself. In psychology literature, self-deprecation is conceptually linked to feelings of personal helpless and poor performance (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). This may have implications for mental health, because it is viewed as a communicative behavior indicative of low self-esteem (Owens, 1994). However, this is quite different than self- deprecating humor, which involves taking salient aspects of oneself, particularly those

" ! ! List of Figures

Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model...... 27

Figure 2. Revised Theoretical Model...... 46

Figure 3. Triangle of Self-deprecating Humor and Linear Process of Message Effects...57

#""" ! ! qualities that tend to be criticized by others, and offering them as the butt of a joke. Thus, this project views self-deprecation as conceptually different than how self-deprecation is theorized in the psychology literature. Self-deprecating humor involves a source presenting genuine flaws about himself or herself, or a group to which he or she has allegiance, as the target of a joke. The topics of self-deprecating humor may include one’s intelligence, personality traits, moral virtues, mental health or physical attractiveness (Greengross & Miller, 2008). This project seeks to explore the potential persuasive effects of self-deprecating humor when used by politicians.

The potential advantage of poking fun at one’s own expense has not been lost on politicians—political appearances on sketch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live are now common stops on the campaign circuit (e.g. Senator John McCain, former third- party candidate Ralph Nader, former Vice-President Al Gore, business mogul Donald

Trump). Although examples of this intersection between the political and the comedic are myriad, it still stands to ask: What are the persuasive effects of politicians offering self- deprecating humor? This question is ripe for empirical assessment. Although it is a strategy often utilized, there is little empirical research offered in the way of examining its influence (c.f., Bippus, 2007; Stewart, 2011; Purzycki, 2011; Becker, in press). The empirical works that do exist, however, lack a strong theoretical foundation for exploring questions of this kind. The work that follows will argue that rooting questions of self- deprecation’s influence in theory can streamline extant findings and produce additional knowledge.

# ! ! Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT)

This project utilizes Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) as the theoretical lens by which to examine the effect of employing self-deprecating humor in a political context.

A call has been made for undergirding studies of entertainment media and politics with theory in order to create more cohesiveness within this subfield (Holbert, 2005; Holbert

& Young, in press), and this project heeds this call. Although EVT is rooted within the interpersonal communication literature (Burgoon, 1978, 1983; McCornack & Levine,

1990), it has been fruitfully applied to mass communicative processes as well (Cohen,

2010; Walther, 2011). The fundamental component of EVT is that people bring expectancies to communicative acts, anticipating the way a particular group or person will behave in terms of how and what they communicate. While societal norms shape the expectancies of a group, knowledge of a particular person’s style of communication will determine the expectancies for an individual, and for both, characteristics of the communicator, relationship, and the context will exert influence on the development of these expectancies (Burgoon, 1993). While all violations pertain to a message, expectancies may be shaped by the degree to which a particular source or a context plays a role. For example, an expectancy violation may result independent of the source of the message, such as anyone making offensive remarks about the recently deceased at a funeral.

This project will focus on the message-source relationship in particular, exploring what happens when a politician (i.e., a source seeking to promote positive image) acts contrary to expectations by offering a self-deprecating humorous message. Regardless of whether the expectation is shaped by the source or the context, the result is an altered

$ ! ! perception of the source. When expectancies are violated and are deemed positive, the result is an enhanced evaluation of the communicator. Conversely, if the violation is considered undesirable, the result is a negative evaluation of the communicator (Levine et al., 2000).

Studies have shown that acting contrary to one’s self interest increases the perceived trustworthiness of a source. In reviewing the literature, it becomes clear that this can be attributed to the fact that acting against one’s own interests is perceived to be a positive expectancy violation (Combs & Keller, 2010). For example, Cialdini (2001) found that when a server at a restaurant initially discourages customers from ordering an expensive menu item, the customers are more likely to perceive the server as honest, which results in a better tip for the server. Similarly, when a persuader recommends a proposition that appears to be against personal self-interest, message receivers perceive the persuader as less biased, and ultimately more persuasive (Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken,

1978). By acting contrary to what one would typically expect (e.g. servers upselling customers, persuaders advocating their own position), these behaviors led people to hold enhanced perceptions of the source.

Expanding this line of thought to the realm of politics, Combs and Keller (2010) found that when a politician compliments his opponent (i.e., a positive violation), the result is an increased liking of the source. The authors also found that this act led to increased trustworthiness, which was positively associated with increased vote consideration. Overall, the finding that acting contrary to what is generally expected of politicians (e.g. to launch a negative campaign against an opponent) produced significantly greater behavioral intent to vote for that politician is noteworthy. In their

% ! ! discussion of future research directions, Combs and Keller encourage researchers to examine other ways in which a politician may act against his/her self-interest. Following suit, this current project offers self-deprecation as a method by which politicians may act contrary to self-interest, resulting in a violation of expectancies.

Incongruity and EVT

Humor is an appropriate context for the application of EVT. It has been said that the unexpected is integral to the success of a humorous message. “Indeed, the unexpected change of perspective, the unexpected inversion of meanings, values and norms, heightens the sense of humor on the part of the beholders” (Zijderveld, 1996). This is strikingly similar in scope to the incongruity theory of humor, which states that humor is elicited when one schemata or script is used to understand a message, but an unexpected encounter with new information (e.g. the punch line) causes the message recipient to utilize a different schemata to interpret the meaning of the joke (see Wyer & Collins,

1992). However, while the majority of the incongruity literature speaks to within- message inconsistencies, EVT broadens the scope of examination to include message, context and source (Walther, 2011). For example, Susan Boyle, former winner of

“Britain’s Got Talent”, gained a great deal of media attention for the surprising juxtaposition between her unpolished appearance (source characteristics) and her polished voice (message). “The solid-looking Scot in clumpy shoes and a dress the color of weak tea strode forward with the purposefulness of a woman who was going to dig a furrow for spring potatoes” (McManus, 2009). The funniness of context-message inconsistencies was evident in the humor of late comedian Andy Kaufman, whose brand of stand-up comedy involved using intentionally unfunny schemes such as telling

& ! ! nonsensical jokes, doing poor impressions of celebrities, and reading the entirety of The

Great Gatsby to his audience. Similarly, the humor of comedian Sarah Silverman exists in the incongruity between source (nice, Jewish girl) and message (crude and vulgar jokes). These examples speak to the value of employing EVT in the study of humor, because there is a great deal that cannot be captured in the strict boundaries of incongruity theory, which limits the scope of examination to within-message inconsistencies.

While many different contexts could be explored for the expectancy violations that result from incongruities between source, message, and context, the present study wishes to narrow the focus to a political context. Promoting oneself and one’s qualifications for office would be an expected course of action for a politician seeking to curry public favor. This is in-line with Benoit’s (1997) functional theory of political campaign discourse, which suggests that political candidates try to look better than their opponents.

“This mean that the situation facing candidates for political office impels

them to (1) to enhance their own credentials as a desirable office-holder

(positive utterance, self-praise, acclaims), (2) to downgrade their

opponent’s credentials as an undesirable office-holder (negative or

attacking utterances), and if their opponent attacks them, (3) to respond to

those attacks (defensive utterances)” (Benoit, Pier, & Blaney, 1997, p.4).

Thus, pointing out one’s own weaknesses through the offering of self-deprecating humor would be an unexpected course of action within the political sphere. Using EVT as a lens, it can be further inferred that whether this violation is viewed positively or

' ! ! negatively will ultimately determine how the message and source will be evaluated. This project seeks to make the case that the use of self-deprecation, the source pointing out a genuine vulnerability about him or herself as a target for humor, would violate expectancies in a positive way when that source is a politician. Previous research suggests that these types of messages, when offered by politicians, have the potential to be viewed positively because it demonstrates modesty (see Schlenker & Leary, 1982).

Indeed, studies have shown that modest self-presentation is viewed more positively than self-enhancement (see Schutz, 1994).

Similarly, in discussing congressional politicians’ appearances on Stephen

Colbert’s Better Know a District segment (in which the satirist host interviews a sitting members of the House of Representatives), Baym (2007) contends that offering up oneself as a target of humor can be a source of validity. Additionally, humor on the part of the politician can help turn a weakness into an asset or disarm critics (Nilsen, 1990).

This was shown in the case of Senator Barbara Mikulski, who successfully used humor to address that she was unmarried, a fact which her opponents levied as a sign of counter- normative family values (Robson, 2000). Taking these criticisms head-on, Mikulski often joked about her single status, even once grabbing a male constituent by the arm and saying “Hey Calvin, give me a call after the election, I won’t be so busy then” (Dowd,

1986).

Self-deprecation: Explicating and bounding the concept

While significant strides have been made in the study of humor, particularly with regard to theories of humor creation (see Meyer, 2006), there are still many facets of this topic in need of organization and empirical assessment. While media outlet-specific

( ! ! research has long-occupied the research dockets of scholars of humorous political media

(see Holbert & Young, 2011; Baym, 2005; Morris & Baumgartner, 2008; LaMarre,

Landreville, & Beam, 2009), it is evident that certain types of humorous messages cause differential effects in processing, and thus, identifying these distinctions is a worthwhile pursuit. Indeed, a call has been made for the explication of different types of political humor, as it is problematic to treat humor as monolithic (see Holbert & Young, 2011).

Studies of this kind include effects research on argument scrutiny in response to either sarcastic or ironic messages (Polk, Young & Holbert, 2009) and the diverging effects of exposure to either Juvenalian or Horatian satire (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather, &

Morey, 2011).

This paper focuses on one particularly underdeveloped type of humor: Self- deprecation. Its use and the implications of this use will be discussed in detail. However, first it is essential to discuss how this project conceptualizes self-deprecation. It is equally important to detail what it is not, by differentiating it from closely related, yet distinct, forms of humor (e.g. disparagement, ridicule, other-deprecating humor). To-date, self- deprecation has been studied in great detail by critical-cultural scholars (see Telushkin,

1992; Auslander, 1993; Gilbert, 1997; Bleiweiss, 2006; Wright, 2011), but its use by empiricists is underdeveloped and inconsistent, at best. For this reason, self-deprecation is a topic worthy of examination.

Conceptualizing Self-Deprecation Effects: Regressing toward the mean

“Skillful self-deprecation involves poking fun at some well-recognized aspect of yourself. To work, the joke must be thoughtful and directed at a genuine vulnerability, even if it is a modest one” (Buchanan, 2009, p. 28). For self-deprecation to be effective,

) ! ! the person should target a true vulnerability. If instead the person jokes about his or her more positive attributes, then it is likely the joke will be unsuccessful, because it will appear as though that person is attempting to garner false praise (e.g. an attractive person being deprecating about his/her appearance). For this reason, self-deprecation may be a risky strategy, because the intended humorous message may backfire if it is not perceived as genuine.

It is worthwhile to quickly distinguish the concept from other, closely-related concepts. Self-deprecation has been explored in tandem with other-deprecating humor, or humor used to criticize someone besides oneself (Becker, in press; Bippus, 2007; Stewart,

2011). Instead of focusing on one’s own weaknesses, the source uses another’s weaknesses as a comedic bull’s-eye. This is similar to ridicule and disparagement, other concepts oft utilized in the literature (see Janes & Olsen, 2000). Disparagement is the putting down of others for the sake of positive distinctiveness, enhancement of one’s own group as compared to others (Ferguson & Ford, 2008). Although these terms are often used synonymously with deprecation, the important feature this project seeks to distinguish is the effect of deprecation when it is aimed toward the self, focusing on features about oneself or one’s group as a topic of humor. Here, not only is the focus on self important, but also that it is for the elicitation of a humorous response.

A thorough review of the self-deprecation literature reveals a few key themes.

Self-deprecation is most often utilized by two types of groups—high-power individuals

(e.g, politicians and celebrities) and low-power individuals (e.g., women, Jews, and

African-Americans (see Bippus, 2007; Gilbert, 2007).Through their use of self- deprecation, these groups appear to advance a common goal: equalization. Critical-

* ! ! cultural scholars have produced a substantive body of work on how low-power groups

(e.g. women, Jews, African-Americans, gay/lesbian) use self-deprecation as a way to transcend stereotypes and cultural boundaries. By taking back the stereotypes that served to marginalize them, these low-power groups seek egalitarianism. Empirical studies have been sparser (Bippus, 2007; Stewart, 2011; Becker, in press), but have nonetheless examined the effects of how high-power individuals (e.g. politicians) use self-deprecating humor as a way to promote modesty and likability among the electorate, as well as the political outcomes of this behavior.

For the purpose of this study, we will focus our empirical lens on the high-power source (i.e., politicians) regressing toward the mean. This project seeks to understand the mechanisms responsible for evaluations and perceptions of politicians who use self- deprecation. The reasons for this are three-fold. As previously discussed, politicians usually seek to enhance their own credentials while dismissing those of their opponent.

Thus, the inherent disconnect in a politician offering self-critical messages is a ripe context for the exploration of expectancy violation effects. Second, there is much to be learned about the persuasive effects of political messages presented outside of those channels traditionally studied (e.g. campaign advertisements, debates, speeches). Because there are more platforms for politicians to offer messages in our current media environment (Williams & Gulati, 2009; Meyrowitz, 1985), there are more types of messages that may exist. Finally, there is a dearth of empirical work on self-deprecating humor. The studies that do exist generate interesting hypotheses regarding the effects of self-deprecating humor when used by politicians, but the results are ultimately

"+ ! ! inconsistent. This study seeks to ask similar questions, but with a firm grounding in theory. The extant empirical work on this topic will be now be discussed.

Review of empirical work on self-deprecation

Especially by situating this concept within politics, it can be argued that self- deprecation is used as an equalizer for individuals nested in high-power groups. The source of the deprecation is attempting to show humility and modesty, thus trying to reach the level of the audience member or constituent. Several empirical pieces have been tasked with assessing the influence of self-deprecation, and while they have been fruitful in excavating interesting effects, there are also inconsistencies and methodological issues in these studies that point to the fact that more development is needed within this line of research.

Bippus (2007) used fictional congressional candidates to assess preferences for self- or other-deprecating humor, and found that participants preferred the former because it is was a sign of goodwill, whereas the latter was perceived as hostile. Furthermore, participants of both Republican and Democrat partisanship considered the Democrat humor as more effective. While these results are interesting, using fictional candidates makes generalizability problematic (Pfau, Holbert, Szabo, & Kaminski, 2002), and significant effects may be methodological artifacts. Similarly, Stewart (2011) examined the effects of self-deprecating versus other-deprecating humor in the context of the 2008 presidential election. The author finds that participants preferred self-deprecating humor and that pre-existing candidate evaluations were the strongest predictor of perceived humor. While these insights are indeed interesting, the study was conducted late into the

"" ! ! election season, when political attitudes are not only already formed, but tend to be stronger than usual.

A related study (Becker, in press) assesses the effects of self- versus other- directed humor involving Senator John McCain, with hypotheses put forth that self- deprecating humor would yield positive evaluations of McCain and that partisanship would act as a moderator. However, insignificant results disconfirmed both of these hypotheses. The way positive attitudes toward McCain were measured (a feeling thermometer instead of specific source cue measures), as well as the proposed moderator, may have been problematic in teasing out these effects. Another empirical study

(Purzycki, 2011) found that deprecating humor (i.e., that which is generally downgrading) is perceived as funnier than descriptive humor. Taken together, these studies suggest that not only is self-deprecation successful in eliciting humor, but that it can be capable of producing significant effects. However, given the inconsistent findings between these studies, this project seeks to understand the mechanism responsible for self-deprecation’s influence.

These aforementioned works propose or find that self-deprecating humor is more successful than other-deprecating humor, but why? While it is not mentioned specifically, expectancy violations may be at work. In the Bippus (2007) piece, self-deprecation generated a positive mood among message recipients, as it was perceived as a genuine attempt to relate to the audience. This is similar to the Cialdini (2001) and Eagley et al.

(1978) studies mentioned previously, which demonstrated that when a source violates expectations, the result is an enhanced perception of that source as genuine. The Becker

(in press) study hypothesizes that McCain’s self-deprecation will lead to positive

"# ! ! evaluations, because he can gain credibility by acknowledging his flaws—this is the same process mentioned in the Combs and Keller (2010) work, which establishes the persuasive effect of going against what is expected of one’s role (e.g. a politician being self-enhancing). Meanwhile, the Purzycki (2011) piece contends that the most successful humor is deprecating, because it violates what is expected. While Purzycki uses the incongruity theory of humor to bolster this argument, as discussed previously, incongruity is strikingly similar to EVT. According to both, humor is elicited from the contrast between what is known or expected and what is presented. It appears that the key to self-deprecation’s success is the source acting contrary to expectations, which in turn leads to a more positive evaluation of that source. By undergirding examinations of politicians’ use of self-deprecation with EVT, this paper attempts to isolate the process by which this humor may be effective, and to synthesize the many productive findings that have been generated concerning this topic.

Self-deprecation and perceptions of similarity

While there has been little empirical work offered in the way of addressing the influence of politicians’ use of self-deprecation, there are many real-life examples to draw from that demonstrate its prevalence, such as former presidential contender and senator John McCain’s self-deprecating humor as a guest on Saturday Night Live (Becker, in press). The use of self-deprecation in this case is arguably strategic. McCain, a high- power political figure, is attempting to appear more likeable to members of the electorate.

This effort to close the gap between political elite and the citizenry is an example of the equalization effect previously discussed. Showing similarity to one’s audience has long been regarded as an effective persuasive technique, as it increases liking of the source

"$ ! ! (see Chaiken, 1980; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). Given that self-deprecation may be conceptualized as an equalizing tool, it should aid in the increased perceived similarity between source and message recipient. This project offers the following hypothesis:

H1: Exposure to self-deprecating humor generates perceptions of increased source

similarity.

Self-deprecation and evaluation of policy statements

It is important to examine the use of self-deprecation in a political context. If, according to the tenets of EVT, acting contrary to self-interest results in increased liking of the source (Combs & Keller, 2010), and as an equalizer, self-deprecation promotes similarity between source and audience, then there are persuasive implications for how the message receiver will evaluate future policy positions and statements. Expressly, the enhanced perceptions of similarity between source and receiver acts as a positive relationship, which may subsequently be transferred to the recipient’s assessment of a policy position put forth by that source (i.e., source transfer). Heider’s balance theory

(1958) provides insight into why this relationship would occur. Consider a triad of attitude objects—recipient (Person A), politician (Person B), and policy message (Object

X). If Person A likes Person B (which is hypothesized above to be the case, as self- deprecation is postulated to have an equalizing influence when used by a politician), and

Person B supports Object X, then Person A will be motivated to make a decision regarding his or her attitude toward Object X. If Person A dislikes Object X, then

"% ! ! psychological discomfort ensues as a result of the cognitive inconsistency between attitudes toward Person B and Object X. Conversely, balance may be maintained if

Person A decides to also support Object X, so that feelings for Person B are not compromised or inconsistent. As a result of this process, we can posit that if the use of self-deprecation leads to greater perceived source similarity, then the message recipient will more positively evaluate a subsequent political message.

H2: Source similarity is positively associated with attitudes toward a policy

message generated by the source.

In addition, characteristics of the source of a message have been shown to influence subsequent evaluations of that message. As explicated within the Elaboration

Likelihood Model (ELM), source factors (e.g. attractiveness, expertise, credibility) can serve as peripheral cues when involvement is low, or they may motivate a message recipient to engage in central processing, as these cues may influence the recipient to elaborate more on the message (Petty & Brinol, 2008). As stated above, enhanced perceptions of source similarity should also result in a more positive evaluation of that source’s policy message. It then follows that as a result of these outlined processes, source similarity should mediate the relationship between exposure to self-deprecating humor and evaluations of a policy message offered by the politician who engaged in the self-deprecating humor. Indeed, indirect effects have been regarded as integral to the study of communication, and the subfield of political communication in particular

(McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002), and yet, mediators are often overlooked in

"& ! ! empirical communication science (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). As a result, it is important for scholars to specifically isolate, hypothesize, and properly test for these relationships (Hayes, 2009). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is offered:

H3: The relationship between message exposure and attitudes toward the policy

message is mediated by perceptions of source similarity.

Disposition toward politicians offering humor and attitudes toward self-leader similarity as individual-difference variables

We cannot reasonably expect all citizens to view self-deprecation in a positive light. EVT allows for both negative and positive violations, the latter being associated with increased source liking. In the case of the former, the result is likely to take the form of negative attitudes toward the source (and hence, in accordance with the tenets of

Heider’s balance theory [1958], the message). What might determine whether the message receiver views a source’s use of self-deprecation as negative or positive? It is important to examine whether individual-difference variables act to moderate the relationship between exposure to self-deprecating humor and source perceptions (Oliver

& Krakowiak, 2009).

Extant research has shown that political humor serves a variety of different purposes. Affinity for political humor (Hmielowski, Holbert, & Lee, 2011), a recently developed individual-difference variable employed to predict why people are drawn to political entertainment programming (e.g. The Daily Show, The Onion), consists of four dimensions which capture why people may have a penchant for political humor. Namely,

"' ! ! because of the incongruity present in humorous scripts (i.e., as outlined previously, the frame-shifting that occurs between what is expected and what actually occurs); for reasons of superiority (i.e., political humor often allows the recipient to laugh at the expense of others, resulting in a feeling of dominance); for the purpose of social cohesion

(i.e. connecting with others through humor can foster a sense of group cohesiveness and solidarity); as well as for anxiety reduction (i.e. given that politics can be a particularly tense or taboo topic [see Cegala, 1981], the use of humor may help alleviate this tension).

Clearly, humor serves a variety of functions when used within the realm of politics.

However, it stands to ask, to what extent do people even find it appropriate or inappropriate to inject humor into political matters? While some message recipients may find the use of humor a palatable addition to political discussions, others may see the political domain as an area reserved for a more earnest dialogue. Such a difference could moderate the effect of self-deprecating humor. Therefore, it is important for communication scholars to address the potential for the disposition toward joking about politics to moderate perceptions of the message source. One reason that previous empirical studies of self-deprecation in the political context offer disparate findings may be because this individual-difference variable may be moderating the relationship between exposure and source perceptions.

If a politician offering him or herself as a target for humor is seen as a positive expectancy violation, then the result should be an even more positive evaluation of that source, as demonstrated through an enhanced perception of that source as similar to the self. This is similar to the concept of “valuing me and mine”, an axiom within the field of social psychology, which states that because we strive to see ourselves in a positive light,

"( ! ! we then regard those who are connected or similar to us in a positive fashion as well

(Smith & Mackie, 2000). Conversely, for those who perceive the politician taking on the role of humorist as inappropriate, and thus a negative violation, we should instead see drop-off effects. Following this reasoning, this paper argues for a contingent condition moderator, in which positive evaluations of politicians offering humor results in boosted perceptions of similarity, while negative evaluations of this humorous offering will result in no substantial effect. Therefore, this project posits that the valence of the expectancy violation after exposure to self-deprecation and source perceptions will be contingent upon attitudes toward politics as a worthy target of humor when offered by a politician.

H4: Disposition toward politicians offering humorous messages moderates the

relationship between self-deprecating message exposure and source similarity.

It is equally important to consider what may moderate the relationship between source similarity and policy evaluations. Perceiving a politician as more similar to oneself as a result of having employed self-deprecating humor may not unilaterally translate into a more positive evaluation of a policy statement issued by that politician, if that message recipient deems a politician who is similar to oneself as negative. In recalling the balance theory developed by Heider (1958), Person A (message recipient) will have a positive attitude toward Object X (the policy message) as a result of his or her liking for Person B (the politician), who already supports that object. However, if Person

A does not have a positive attitude toward Person B (in this case, because the source does not hold a favorable view of a politician who is similar to him or herself), then Person A

") ! ! is no longer motivated to support Object X in order to remain balanced, or cognitively consistent.

Given that this project focuses on high-power sources using self-deprecating humor as an equalizing strategy, it becomes important to consider what qualities people may find desirable or undesirable in a leader. The similarity approach may backfire if the source is perceived as too much like the message recipient, to the point that the source is no longer deemed qualified for a position of leadership (Perloff, 2011). While several studies substantiate the role of similarity in increasing interpersonal attraction and liking

(see McCroskey et al., 2006), attitude toward similarity may act as an individual- difference variable when political leadership is the role in question. It stands to reason that while some might feel more comfortable with a leader similar in attitude and background, others may seek a leader with above-average credentials for a position in office.

This basic argument is consistent with a substantive body of work within the organizational communication and leadership literatures that explores the perceptions and effects of various leadership styles. In occupational and educational contexts, many studies have established a strong, positive relationship between perceptions of a leader as similar and overall satisfaction in that organizational environment. For example, colleges with egalitarian presidents have higher reported rates of student satisfaction with advising and faculty member accessibility (Astin & Scherrei, 1980). Similarly, relations-oriented behavior among leaders (i.e., concern for interpersonal relationships and treating subordinates as equals) is consistently, positively related to job satisfaction (Bass, 1990;

Stogdill, 1965; Yukl, 2002). Task-oriented behavior among leaders (e.g. a style that is

"* ! ! detached, autocratic, and disciplinary), on the other hand, has reliable associations with enhanced group and subordinate performance (see Fernandez, 2008). Given that different leadership styles could result in a variety of beneficial outcomes, it becomes a matter of personal preference regarding what leadership styles are seen as desirable or undesirable.

These differences can even be seen cross-culturally. For example, citizens of New

Zealand prefer the egalitarian leadership style, while citizens in Germany trend toward those who are autocratic and unconcerned with maintaining interpersonal relationships

(see Brodbeck & Frese, 2008; Kennedy, 2007). In sum, one size does not fit all, and differential preferences are worth further exploration.

It should be noted that the nature of this moderator is proposed to be contributory.

Therefore, while preference for a politician who is similar to oneself should contribute to an elevated positive attitude toward that politician’s policy stance, preferences for greater power distance may not be strong enough to warrant a strong effect in either direction.

This project puts forth the following hypothesis:

H5: The relationship between source similarity and attitudes toward a

policy message is moderated by attitude toward self-leader similarity.

Self-deprecation and source self-awareness

While EVT provides a theoretically grounded perspective for taking on questions regarding the influence of self-deprecating humor within the political sphere, additional paths may provide insight into the persuasive implications of self-deprecation as well.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who regarded introspection as the means for

#+ ! ! attaining well-being, once wrote “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Treddennick,

1969). In a meditation inspired by the philosophy of self-examination, contemporary

American political philosopher Robert Nozick wrote,

“The understanding gained in examining a life itself comes

to permeate that life and direct its course. To live an

examined life is to make a self-portrait. Staring out at us

from his later self-portraits, Rembrandt is not simply

someone who looks like that but on who also sees and

knows himself as that, with the courage this requires. We

see him knowing himself. And he unflinchingly looks out

at us too who are seeing him look so unflinchingly at

himself, and that look of his not only shows himself to us

so knowing, it patiently waits for us too to become the

equal honesty knowing of ourselves” (Nozick, 1989, p.12).

Not only does the person who engages in this type of rumination reach a level of peaceful self-awareness, but those who bear witness to this navel-gazing become inspired to engage in this type of thoughtful introspection as well. This sentiment provides an interesting normative lens for evaluating the political arena. To what extent do politicians engage in honest self-assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses? More than that, how much does the citizenry want their political figures to participate in this process of self-examination? While we may not reasonably expect for politicians to openly offer themselves up for this kind of scrutiny, self-deprecating messages do provide a window into whether a political figure is willing to dissect genuine vulnerabilities about him or

#" ! ! herself. It was previously discussed that for self-deprecating humor to be effective, it must truly target the genuine vulnerabilities of the message source. An incredibly intelligent person who critiques him or herself for being unintelligent will most likely elicit frustration and eye-rolling (i.e., will be perceived as seeking out false praise). On the other hand, the person who lacks common sense and pokes fun at his or her inability to exercise prudence will most likely be viewed positively. Furthermore, because this admittance is against self-interest, it would most likely result enhanced trustworthiness as well (Cialdini, 2001). “… We should be alert to the trust-enhancing tactic in which communicators first provide some mildly negative information about themselves.

Through this strategy they create a perception of honesty that makes all subsequent information seem credible to observers” (Cialdini, 2009, p.196).

In political communication studies, it is standard to measure credibility, trustworthiness, and goodwill as indicators of source perceptions. Although this is effective in determining source perceptions relative to traditional political messages (e.g. policy statements, speeches, debates), a politician offering a humorous self-deprecating message is something very distinct, and thus, should be assessed using a different measurement battery. This study seeks to borrow from the leadership literature (see

Vecchio, 2007; Northouse, 2009; Bass & Aviolo, 1994) in order to gain insight into whether a politician who engages in self-deprecating humor will be seen as more willing to acknowledge his or her flaws in office. Holding a public office is one type of leadership position, and, as a result, the theories and scales used within the field of leadership apply quite nicely to political communication research questions concerning perceptions of politicians.

## ! ! According to Transformational Leadership Theory, transformational leaders are those who look beyond their own self-interests for the collective interest of a group

(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; 1998). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass &

Aviolo, 1985) is the 75-item scale that determines whether a leader demonstrates the qualities of a transformational leader. A few subscales from the MLQ showed themselves to be particularly useful for understanding the degree to which a leader engages in the type of self-examination Plato advocated.

These carefully selected items, modified to assess respondents’ perceptions of the extent to which a leader is able to genuinely critique him or herself, create an appropriate measure of the leader self-examination. It is thorough self-examination, according to

Nozick (1989) that demonstrates someone truly knowing him or herself. Therefore, this project seeks to empirically assess whether a politician offering a self-deprecating message results in a greater likelihood as seeing that source as genuinely self-aware. The following hypothesis is offered:

H6: Exposure to self-deprecating humor generates perceptions of the source being

more self-aware.

The second hypothesis posited that source similarity will be positively associated with attitudes toward a policy message generated by the source as a result of source transfer (Heider, 1958). Given this logic, a similar process should take place in which positive perceptions generated by recognizing a source as self-aware should transfer to subsequent evaluations of a policy message issued by that source. Beyond the scope of

#$ ! ! balance theory, which maintains that the message recipient will wish to preserve a high degree of fit between perceptions of source and message, source self-awareness can be seen as a particularly positive attribute when it comes to the evaluation of policy. If a politician is seen as genuinely self-aware and willing to acknowledge flaws in both himself and his leadership, it stands to reasons that the politician will be perceived as more willing to critically assess the merits and shortcomings of a policy decision. Thus, not only does the positive affect transfer from source to message, but the property of self- awareness transfers from source to message as well. As a result, the message recipient should be more open to policy suggestions by that political actor. Accordingly:

H7: Source self-awareness is positively associated with attitudes toward a policy

message generated by the source.

As a result of these outlined processes, perceived self-awareness should mediate the relationship between a message exposure and evaluations of a policy message offered by the politician who engaged in self-deprecating humor (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002;

Hayes, 2009). A formal mediation hypothesis is offered:

H8: The relationship between message exposure and attitudes toward the policy

message is mediated by perceptions of source as self-awareness.

Just as it was previously hypothesized that not all people can be expected to positively evaluate a leader who is perceived to be similar, we cannot reasonably expect

#% ! ! for all message recipients to hold enhanced evaluations of a politician who is seen to be self-critical. Erving Goffman (1959) first introduced the concepts of “front region” and

“back region” in discussing the nature of self-presentation. The front region refers to the way people publicly present themselves (e.g. language, movement, appearance), and involves upholding various socially prescribed roles. The back region, on the other hand, is where we feel more able to be the selves we keep obscured from public view. Although in the past, there was a more organic separation between these front and back regions, evolving technologies have hampered our ability to keep these regions distinct

(Meyrowitz, 1985). This shift is all the more striking and difficult to control for those in the public view.

While in the past our presidents had more control over what was heard by various audiences, we are now able to see and hear every address and appearance of a president

(Meyrowitz, 1985). Television, radio, and now the Internet, allow citizens to be more intimately aware of a president’s foibles and flaws than ever before. The result is a new

“middle region”, in which politicians try to control their images by selectively offering back regions to curry favor with the public. In discussing an interview former President

Carter and his wife gave to journalist Barbara Walters, in which they openly answered several intimate questions, Meyrowitz writes

“For many of us, watching these interviews is simultaneously

pleasing and disturbing. On the one hand, we feel a sense of awe.

We appreciate that we are getting closer to a great leader… On the

other hand, there is something annoying about what we see and

hear. Our leaders do not seem as great as we would like them to be.

#& ! ! The overall impression is: ‘They are ordinary people’” (Meyrowitz,

1985, p.290).

While Meyerwitz takes on a macro-level perspective in discussing the influences of this compromise between front region and back region, such as public opinion trends that reveal disillusionment with the executive office, a micro-level question remains to be teased out. Do we want out presidents to be “ordinary people”? To what degree do individuals want our presidents to engage in these middle region efforts? Offering a self- deprecating message could most certainly be seen as an attempt to strike this middle region Meyrowitz discusses. By offering up select blemishes from the back region as a source of humor, the politician is attempting to control his or her image. This study seeks to empirically assess whether individual differences emerge regarding perceptions of whether this is a positive or negative type of performance. The following hypothesis is put forth:

H9: The relationship between message exposure and source self-awareness is

moderated by attitude toward a self-critical leadership style.

#' ! ! In considering these hypotheses together, this project puts forth the following conceptual model:

Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model

D85 977375:-! /;/<-2-..! 78;/<:!.-6=> ?<373?3.1!

,-../0-! C863?E!.7/2?-! 1/23456/7382! /0<--1-27!

C86373?/6! D85

______

#( ! !

Chapter 2: Method

Design

A two-condition (non self-deprecating humor vs. self-deprecating humor) between-subjects pre-post experimental design was employed in order to assess the influence of exposure to humorous self-deprecating measures on perceptions of source, evaluations of policy, and vote intention.

Participants

Participants were undergraduates from a large Midwestern university. Subjects received extra credit toward their communication courses in exchange for their participation. Approximately 1,100 students were invited to participate from courses in communication. Of those, a total of 259 students started the pre-test, 7% of which did not complete it. Only those who completed the pre-test were eligible to participate in the post-test, which was completed by 159 students.

Stimuli/Procedure

The data collection period for this study occurred March through April, 2012. The study consisted of two online surveys administered using Qualtrics Survey software, and took approximately 45 minutes to complete (including both the pre- and post- stimulus surveys). Students were emailed a link to the post-test approximately one to two weeks after completing the pre-test.

#) ! ! All participants were given the same pre-test survey, which included items measuring participants’ disposition toward joking about politics (see Appendix A for wording of all questionnaire items), attitudes toward self-critical leadership styles, attitude toward leaders “like me”, and perceptions of similarity to President Barack

Obama. Additionally, participants reported demographic information (e.g. race and ethnic background, gender) and indicated their political leanings (e.g. partisanship and ideology).

One to two weeks later, participants were emailed a link to the second part of the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. Both conditions viewed a short, edited clip of Barack Obama giving an address at the 2011

White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Both video clips were edited so that participants saw five short, humorous segments from Obama’s speech.

Pilot Test

A pilot test was administered to undergraduate students (N=45) enrolled in communication courses at a large Midwestern university, in order to analyze the strength of the stimulus to be used in the main experiment. Specifically, it was sought to understand whether the self-deprecating jokes in the stimulus were found to violate the expectancies of those consuming the message, and if they were found to be funny.

Participants viewed Obama’s speech from the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner in its entirety (18 mins, 54 secs). Subsequently, they were asked to evaluate 12 selected parts of the speech in regards to how surprising (reverse-coded, 1=not surprising, 7= surprising), expected (1=expected, 7=unexpected), and funny (reverse-coded, 1= not funny, 7= funny) they were. Six of the segments were deemed self-deprecating by two independent coders. The other six parts were non-self-deprecating in nature (e.g.

#* ! ! employed ridicule or were neutral). After survey responses were collected, all missing values were mean-centered respective to the given scale. Subsequently, five of each type of humorous message was selected based on the length of time of segment, in order to ensure that the experimental stimuli would be as similar in length as possible in each condition. Based on these selections, two indices were created for each construct, resulting in six total indices: Self-deprecating expected (Cronbach’s !=.740), Non- deprecating expected (Cronbach’s !=.807), Self-deprecating surprising (Cronbach’s

!=.750), Non-deprecating surprising (Cronbach’s !=.805), Self-deprecating funny

(Cronbach’s !=.839), Non-deprecating funny (Cronbach’s !=.867).

Expectancy Violation. Two items measured the extent to which participants experienced an expectancy violation as a result of exposure to the experimental stimulus.

Participants indicated on a 7-point scale the extent to which they were surprised by parts of the speech (reverse-coded, 1=not surprised, 7= surprised), as well as the extent to which these parts of the speech were expected (1= expected, 7=unexpected). A paired sample t-test indicated that the self-deprecating parts (M=4.99; SD=1.05) were found to be significantly more surprising than the non-deprecating parts (M=4.78; SD=1.27) by the participants (p<.05). Another paired sample t-test indicated that the self-deprecating comments (M=4.91; SD=1.14) were also found to be significantly more unexpected than the non-deprecating parts (M=4.62; SD=1.35) of the speech (p<.05).

Perceived Humor. One item measured the extent to which participants found segments of the clip funny (1=not funny, 7= funny). A paired sample t-test shows there were no significant differences in the perceived funniness (p=.810) of the self- deprecating (M=4.81; SD=1.41) and non-self-deprecating messages (M=4.84; SD=1.47).

$+ ! ! Once these manipulation checks confirmed the strength of the stimuli (e.g. that self-deprecation resulted in expectancy violations and that the messages were not significantly different in perceived humor), a professional freelance video editor compiled two different stimuli. Both clips began with the text “The following are highlights from President Obama’s speech at the 2011 White House Correspondent’s

Dinner” in white font on a black title screen. The video editor inserted a few-second fade- in to black and fade-out between each of the five segments for each condition’s stimulus.

In the first condition, all five sections were coded as non-self-deprecating humor. The non-self-deprecating clip was presented as a YouTube video, and was three minutes long.

The second condition was also shown a YouTube clip and with the same exact formatting, but consisted of five humorous segments found to be self-deprecating. The length of this clip was four minutes and twenty-one seconds (see Appendix B for the text of each segment for each condition).

After exposure to the experimental stimuli, both conditions completed the same follow-up questionnaire. Respondents were first asked to indicate their feelings toward

Barack Obama on a feeling thermometer. Respondents were then asked to rate to what extent they found the video clip to be expected, surprising, funny, amusing, entertaining using 7-point scales. They also evaluated Barack Obama on dimensions of self-awareness, source similarity/depth, and ethos and credibility. After responding to these batteries, participants read one of three policy statements administered at random (low-, mid-, and high- involvement pertaining the tax policy), and were subsequently asked to evaluate the policy. Finally, participants answered a question regarding vote intention.

$" ! ! Measures

Independent variables

Condition. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Both conditions viewed President Barack Obama delivering a speech at the 2011 White House

Correspondents’ Dinner. However, the speech was edited so that one group was exposed to five, non-self-deprecating humorous messages (N=76), and the other group was exposed to five, self-deprecating humorous messages (N=72).

Policy statement. For each experimental condition, respondents were randomly assigned by Qualtrics to read one of three policy statements issued by Obama. All policy statements related to tax policy championed by Obama, but varied in the degree of involvement (high-, medium-, low-). Each statement was approximately 180 words in length. The high-involvement statement explained a policy for tax credits for college students, the medium-involvement statement described tax cuts for middle-class and self- employed citizens, and the low-involvement statement regarded a tax policy for corporations (refer to Appendix A for policy wording). These three different types of policy messages were included in the study for purposes of generalizability, but were later collapsed for analyses.

Outcome variables

Expectancy violation. This was measured using a two-item semantic differential scale. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they were surprised by the message and the extent to which the source’s behavior was unexpected. Both of these items were measured on a seven-point scale (reverse coded, 1=unsurprising and

7=surprising; 1=expected and 7=unexpected; Cronbach’s !=.730; M= 4.60; SD= 1.35).1

$# ! ! Perceived humor. This was measured using a three-item semantic differential scale. Participants were asked to rate the message on a seven-point scale of: humorous- not humorous, funny- not funny, and amusing- not amusing. All three items were reverse- coded and computed into one index (Cronbach’s != .951; M=4.97; SD=1.57).

Source similarity. Perceptions of relational communication cues of the message source (e.g. the politician) were measured using 11 Likert-formatted items. Respondents were given a series of statements, to which they responded using a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These items were representative of the similarity/depth dimension of relational source cues. The 10 items of the source similarity/depth scale were subjected to exploratory factor analysis using SPSS Version

19 (Direct Oblimin rotation, Principle Axis Extraction). Examination of the screeplot revealed that all items loaded onto one factor. Descriptives and reliabilities were run for the post-stimulus items, as the pre-test items were not needed for the regression analyses employed to test the hypotheses put forth in this study (Cronbach’s !=.848; M=4.08;

SD=.97).

Source self-awareness. This was measured using an eight-item battery of seven- point Likert scales, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Items were adapted from three subscales of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Aviolo, 1985), in order to create a measure that captures whether a leader engages in the type of critical thought indicative of self-awareness. One dimension of transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation, and as used within the leadership literature, measures the degree to which leaders stimulate the creativity of their followers by challenging the status quo.

The MLQ typically asks respondents to rate the degree to which their managers

$$ ! ! encourage them to engage in these types of behaviors, but for the purpose of this study, these items were rephrased so that respondents indicated the extent to which leaders self- engage in these behaviors. Through this modification, the items became more reflective of a self-critical leader than a leader critical of his or her followers. Items from two other subscales were modified in this fashion as well—management-by-exception-active and management-by-exception-passive. Both of these subscales are transactional behaviors, representing low leader involvement (Judge & Bono, 2000). They are included in the

MLQ, because according to Bass (1985), leaders can demonstrate both transformational and transactional qualities. Specific management-by-exception-active items, such as

“Focuses on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards,” and

“Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards”, capture the degree to which a leader is seen as able to genuinely critique him or herself when the focus of the question is about the leader, and not the extent to which the leader encourages a follower to participate in these behaviors. Management-by-exception-passive items were used as negatively valenced items for this modified scale.

An exploratory factor analysis (Direct Oblimin rotation, Principle Axis

Extraction) of the eight items of the source self-awareness scale revealed one dominant articulated factor of five items with primary factor loadings exceeding the recommended value of .60 (Kaiser 1970; 1974). These five components—items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7—were computed into one index. Descriptives and reliabilities were run for the post-stimulus items, as the pre-test items were not needed for the regression analyses employed to test the hypotheses put forth in this study (Cronbach’s !=.885; M=4.96; SD=1.19).

$% ! ! Attitude toward policy statement. This was measured using a six-item battery of seven-point semantic differential scales. Participants were asked to rate one of three policy messages (e.g. high-, medium-, or low- involvement) along the following dimensions: negative-positive, bad-good, unfavorable-favorable, unacceptable- acceptable, foolish-wise, wrong-right. All scale items were computed into one index

(Cronbach’s !=.970; M= 4.54; SD= 1.31).

Political disposition. This novel eight-item scale measured the extent to which participants find it agreeable or disagreeable to joke about politics. These items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Refer to Appendix A for item wording. The eight items from this novel scale were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (Direct Oblimin rotation, Principle Axis

Extraction). Inspection of the factor structure revealed two articulated factors, with the dominant factor consisting of six items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These items were computed into one index (Cronbach’s !=.662; M=3.85; SD=.85).

Attitude toward self-criticism. This was used to measure the degree to which people find it appropriate or inappropriate for a leader to be self-critical. This was measured using 16 items adapted from the Modest Behavior Scale (Chen et al., 2009). In its original form, the scale prompted people to rate themselves, but for this study, the prompt was tweaked in order for respondents to indicate the extent to which they would want a president to engage in self-critical behaviors. A seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “not at all” to “very much”.

After the 16 items from this scale were subjected to exploratory factor analysis

(Direct Oblimin rotation, Principle Axis Extraction), two articulated factors emerged

$& ! ! (items 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15; items 4, 13, 16). Scale items were subsequently examined in order to determine which factor made the most conceptual sense, given the proposed role of this construct in this study. While the first factor seemed to deal primarily with leaders acknowledging others over themselves, the second factor dealt more with leaders’ perceptions of themselves. Both demonstrate an openly self-critical leadership style, but because the second factor is more focused on the self (i.e., that which is of greatest theoretical interest to this study), an index was created for those three components, which obtained Kaiser values above .60 (Cronbach’s != .684; M= 2.96; SD= 1.11).

Attitude toward leaders “like me”. This measure was used to determine whether respondents would be satisfied or dissatisfied with a president who had a similar background or held similar attitudes. This consisted of 11 items, adapted from background homophily and attitude homophily measures (McCroskey et al., 2006) traditionally used in studies of interpersonal attraction. A seven-point Likert scale was employed, ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”. An exploratory factor analysis (Direct Oblimin rotation, Principle Axis Extraction) of the 12 items of this scale revealed that all items loaded onto a single factor, as demonstrated in the screeplot and confirmed by Kaiser values above .6 for each of the components. Thus, an index was created from these 12 items (Cronbach’s !=.897; M= 4.92; SD=0.69).

Demographic variables

Party identification. Participants were asked to self-report their political party identification on a seven-point scale ranging from “A strong Democrat” (1) to “A strong

Republican” (7). The mid-point of the scale (4), was “Independent”, and there was a text- entry option at the end. This was dummy-coded for analyses, so that 1 included those

$' ! ! who self-reported Democrat leanings (“A strong Democrat”; “A not very strong

Democrat”; “Independent, lean toward Democrat”), while every other response option was coded as 0 (“Independent”; “Independent, lean toward Republican”; “A not very strong Republican”; “A strong Republican”). After dummy-coding, the break-down of the sample was 38.5% Democrat and 61.5% everyone else.

Ideology. Participants indicated their ideology in response to three issue-items

(domestic-social, international, and economic) on a seven-point scale ranging from

“Extremely liberal” (1) to “Extremely conservative” (7). These were later collapsed into one ideology index (Cronbach’s !=.839; M=4.03; SD=1.32).

Sex. Participants were asked to indicate their sex (33.6% male, 66.4% female).

Race. Participants were asked to indicate their race by checking all categories that applied among six options. This item was dummy-coded for analyses, so that all participants who indicated that were “White/Caucasian” were coded as 1 (73%). All other respondents were coded as 0 (27%).

Analytical Procedure

Next, a series of OLS regressions were run in SPSS Version 19 in order to test each of the nine hypotheses. Gender, dummy-coded partisan identification, ideology, and dummy-coded race were included as block 1 control variables in each regression model.

In the regression used to test H1, the first block of the model included the four controls, and the second block included condition (non-self-deprecating stimulus vs. self- deprecating message exposure). The outcome variable was perceptions of source similarity.

$( ! ! Additionally, an OLS regression was used to test H2, H3, H7, and H8. The four controls were included in the first block of the model; message exposure, attitude toward self-critical leadership, and political disposition were the predictor variables in the second block of the model; perceptions of source self-awareness as well as perceptions of source similarity were inserted in block 3. The outcome variable for this analysis was policy evaluations. Additionally, a formal assessment of the mediating role of source similarity

(H3) and source self-awareness (H8) was explored using a series of OLS regressions generated through the SPSS macro PROCESS (Hayes & Preacher, in press).

In the regression ran to test H4, the controls were inserted into block 1; message exposure (standardized) and political disposition (standardized) were inserted into block

2; and the interaction between standardized message exposure and political disposition were included in block 3. The outcome variable was source similarity.

In order to test H5, and OLS regression was employed in which the covariates were inserted into block 1; message exposure, attitude toward self-critical leadership, and political disposition were inserted in block 2; perceptions of source self-awareness was included in block 3; perceptions of source similarity (standardized) was inserted in block

4 along with attitude toward leaders “like me” (standardized); and the interaction between source similarity and attitude toward leaders “like me” was inserted in block 5. The outcome variable was policy evaluations.

In the regression employed to test H6, the first block of predictor variables consisted of the four covariates. The second block of predictor variables included condition (non-self-deprecating stimulus vs. self-deprecating message exposure). The outcome variable was source self-awareness.

$) ! ! Finally, in the regression employed to test H9, the first block of variable consisted of the four covariates; message exposure (standardized) and attitude toward self-critical leadership (standardized) were inserted in block 2; and block 3 included the interaction between standardized message exposure and attitude toward self-critical leadership. The outcome variable for this model was source self-awareness.

$* ! !

Chapter 3: Results

Source similarity

For the first hypothesis, an OLS regression was used to assess whether exposure to self-deprecating humor generated greater perceptions of source similarity than those in the non-self-deprecating condition. Unfortunately, no significant effect of self- deprecating message exposure on perceptions of source similarity was found, unstandardized B = .124 (SE=.146), p=.398 (see Table 1). Thus, H1 was rejected.

Table 1. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Source Similarity Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .661 .187 3.528 .001 Ideology -.110 .069 -1.606 .111 Gender -.144 .156 -.921 .359 Race .030 .172 .177 .860 Block 2 Condition .124 .146 .847 .398

For the second hypothesis, it was posited that source similarity would be positively and significantly associated with policy evaluations. An OLS regression revealed a significant, positive relationship, unstandardized B = .293 (SE =.118), p<.05, demonstrating that H2 was supported (see Table 2). The third hypothesis suggested that the relationship between message exposure and policy evaluations would be mediated by

%+ ! ! perceptions of source similarity. Because no significant relationship was found for H1

(relationship between message and source similarity), it is unlikely that H3 is supported in the data. A formal mediation assessment using Preacher and Hayes’ (forthcoming)

SPSS macro PROCESS confirmed this to be the case. The confidence intervals obtained for this relationship (CI=-.0489-.2273) are not entirely above or below zero, indicating these results were not significant (see Table 3). Thus, H3 was not confirmed.

Table 2. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Policy Evaluations Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .618 .266 2.321 .022 Ideology -.103 .098 -1.049 .296 Gender -.453 .222 -2.045 .043 Race .285 .244 1.167 .245 Block 2 Condition .076 .209 .364 .716 Perceptions of self-critical leadership -.006 .097 -.066 .948 Political disposition .172 .126 1.363 .175 Block 3 Source self-awareness .274 .090 3.052 .003 Source similarity .293 .118 2.478 .014

Table 3. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Similarity and Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on 10,000 Bootstrap Samples Value SE Lower Upper Indirect effect .0493 .0672 -.0489 .2273 N=148. R2=.1981

The fourth hypothesis predicted that attitudes toward politicians offering humorous messages (political disposition) would moderate the relationship between

%" ! ! message exposure and source similarity. H4 is not supported, unstandardized B = .071

(SE =.074), p=.340 (see Table 4).

Table 4. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Interaction Between Condition and Political Disposition on Source Similarity. Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .661 .187 3.528 .001 Ideology -.110 .069 -1.606 .111 Gender -.144 .156 -.921 .359 Race .030 .172 .177 .860 Block 2 Condition .052 .072 .717 .475 Political disposition .176 .073 2.414 .017 Block 3 Condition x Political disposition .071 .074 .957 .340

It was proposed that the relationship between source similarity and policy evaluations would be moderated by attitude toward leaders “like me” in the fifth hypothesis of this experiment. Results show this relationship to be approaching statistical significance, unstandardized B = -.173 (SE =.092), p=.062 (see Table 5). Therefore, H5 is marginally supported.

%# ! ! Table 5. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Interaction Between Source Similarity and Attitude Toward Leaders “Like Me” on Policy Evaluations Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .618 .266 2.321 .022 Ideology -.103 .098 -1.049 .296 Gender -.453 .222 -2.045 .043 Race .285 .244 1.167 .245 Block 2 Condition .076 .126 1.363 .175 Attitude toward self-critical leadership -.006 .097 -.066 .948 Political disposition .172 .126 1.363 .175 Block 3 Source self-awareness .327 .089 3.691 .000 Block 4 Source similarity .281 .116 2.430 .016 Attitude toward leaders “like me” .059 .101 .579 .564 Block 5 Source similarity x Leaders “like me” -.173 .092 -1.885 .062

Source self-awareness

In order to assess the role of perceptions of source self-awareness, an alternate route in the potentially persuasive path of self-deprecating humor, a sixth hypothesis was put forth, in which it was predicted that self-deprecating humor would generate greater perceptions of source self-awareness for those in the self-deprecating condition than for those in the non-self-deprecating condition. Unfortunately, no significant effect of self- deprecating message exposure on perceptions of source self-awareness was found, unstandardized B = -.260 (SE =.195), p=.184 (see Table 6). Thus, H6 is rejected.

%$ ! ! Table 6. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Source Self-awareness Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .498 .250 1.989 .049 Ideology -.031 .092 -.337 .737 Gender .043 .209 .205 .837 Race .113 .230 .490 .625 Block 2 Condition -.260 .195 -1.336 .184

The seventh hypothesis explored whether source self-awareness would be positively and significantly associated with policy evaluations. An OLS regression analysis reveals this to be the case, unstandardized B = .274 (SE =.090), p<.01 (see Table

2). Accordingly, H7 is supported in the data. The eighth hypothesis offered suggested that the relationship between message exposure and policy evaluations would be mediated by perceptions of source self-awareness. A formal mediation assessment using the SPSS macro PROCESS (Preacher & Hayes, forthcoming) was employed. Confidence intervals obtained through this analysis indicate this relationship was not found to be significant

(CI=-.2839-.0193), and thus H8 is rejected (see Table 7).

Table 7. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Self-awareness and Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on 10,000 Bootstrap Samples Value SE Lower Upper Indirect effect -.812 .0729 -.2839 .0193 N=148. R2=.0594

In the ninth, and final, hypothesis, attitude toward self-critical leadership style was posited to moderate the relationship between message exposure and source self-

%% ! ! awareness. This relationship is not supported, unstandardized B = -.071 (SE = .099), p=.473 (see Table 8).

Table 8. OLS Regression Results: Effects of the Interaction Between Condition and Attitude Toward Self-Critical Leadership Style on Source Self-Awareness Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .498 .250 1.989 .049 Ideology -.031 .092 -.337 .737 Gender .043 .209 .205 .837 Race .113 .230 .490 .625 Block 2 Condition -.122 .095 -1.275 .204 Self-critical leadership -.278 .097 -2.865 .005 Block 3 Condition x Self-critical leadership -.071 .099 -.720 .473

Post hoc analysis: Detailing the roles of Expectancy Violation and Perceived Humor

Even though the hypotheses initially offered received little or no support, the effect of exposure to self-deprecating humor is still worth examination. Previously, the self-deprecating messages were conceptualized as essentially being the equivalent to an expectancy violation. Because of this conceptualization, expectancy violations were not actually included in the model or incorporated in hypothesis tests. This was also the case for perceived humor. After the pilot test revealed that both self-deprecating and non-self- deprecating messages were perceived as funny, with no statistical difference, the role of humor was treated as exogenous to the theoretical argument, and subsequently excluded from consideration. However, this may have been an incorrect way of acknowledging the role of both expectancy violations and perceived humor. Instead of treating these variables as manipulation checks, they should instead be treated as endogenous to the

%& ! ! model. The following reconceptualization is offered, in which self-deprecating messages produce expectancy violations (rather than being equivalent to them), which in turn produces perceived humor:

______

Figure 2. Revised Theoretical Model

D-6=> /;/<-2-..!

,-../0-! FG4-?7/2?E! C-

D3136/<37E!

______

In order to assess the relationship between message exposure and expectancy violations, a regression analysis was conducted, in which partisan identification, ideology, gender, and race were inserted into block 1, and condition was added to block 2. The regression results reveal that self-deprecating message exposure is positively and significantly associated with expectancy violations, unstandardized B = .443 (SE =.221), p<.05 (see Table 9).

%' ! ! Table 9. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Condition on Expectancy Violation Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .217 .287 .758 .450 Ideology -.095 .105 -.906 .366 Gender -.2.38 .239 -.997 .321 Race .139 .263 .527 .599 Block 2 Condition .443 .221 1.999 .047

In an additional regression analysis, the four control variables were inserted in block 1; message exposure was inserted in block 2; and expectancy violations were inserted in block 3. Perceived humor was assessed as the outcome. When message exposure is examined as predicting perceived humor, the results are insignificant, unstandardized B = .315 (t-value=1.342), p=.182 (see Table 10). However, when expectancy violations are accounted for in this relationship, very significant effects emerge unstandardized B = .451 (SE =.081), p<.001.

Table 10. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Perceived Humor Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification 1.068 .302 3.536 .001 Ideology -.129 .111 -1.160 .248 Gender -.242 .252 -.962 .338 Race -.375 .277 -1.352 .178 Block 2 Condition .315 .235 1.342 .182 Block 3 Expectancy violation .451 .081 5.570 .000

%( ! ! These results point to a possible indirect relationship between self-deprecating message exposure and perceived humor through expectancy violations. A formal assessment of mediation was conducted using the SPSS macro PROCESS (Preacher &

Hayes, in press). Confidence intervals obtained through this analysis reveal this indirect relationship to be one of significance (CI=.0149-.4508), as both the lower and upper interval were entirely above zero (see Table 11).

Table 11. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Expectancy Violations and Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on 10,000 Bootstrap Samples Value SE Lower Upper Indirect effect .1996 .1096 .0149 .4508 N=148. R2=.0552

Additional analyses were employed in order to test the relationship between perceived humor and perceptions of source similarity and perceptions of source self- awareness, respectively. For each regression analysis, the four main covariates (e.g. partisan identification, ideology, gender, race) were inserted into block 1; condition was included in block 2; expectancy violations was inserted in block 3; and perceived humor was added to block 4. For the first regression, source similarity was the outcome variable, and for the second regression, source self-awareness was the outcome variable. Results reveal a significant relationship between perceived humor and both perceptions of source similarity, unstandardized B = .378 (SE =.048), p<.001 (see Table 12), and perceptions of source self-awareness, unstandardized B = .186 (SE = .075), p<.05 (see Table 13).

%) ! ! Table 12. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Perceived Humor on Source Similarity Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .661 .187 3.528 .001 Ideology -.110 .069 -1.606 .111 Gender -.144 .156 -.921 .359 Race .030 .172 .177 .860 Block 2 Condition .124 .146 .847 .398 Block 3 Expectancy violation .090 .055 1.637 .104 Block 4 Perceived humor .378 .048 7.916 .000

Table 13. OLS Regression Results: Effects of Perceived Humor on Source Self- Awareness Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .498 .250 1.989 .049 Ideology -.031 .092 -.337 .737 Gender .043 .209 .205 .837 Race .113 .230 .490 .625 Block 2 Condition -.260 .195 -1.336 .184 Block 3 Expectancy violation .092 .074 1.247 .214 Block 4 Perceived humor .186 .075 2.475 .015

Additional OLS regression analyses were employed in order to assess the effect of each of the source perceptions variables on policy evaluations. For this specific model, the four covariates were inserted into block 1; condition was added to block 2; the expectancy violation index was added to block 3; perceived humor was included in block

4; and source similarity as well as source self-awareness were inserted into block 5. The

%* ! ! results reveal that source self-awareness is significantly associated with policy evaluations, unstandardized B = .232 (SE =.086), p=.001, while source similarity is not, unstandardized B = .142 (SE =.136), p=.297 (see Table 14).

Table 14. OLS Regression Results: Predicting Policy Evaluations Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .618 .266 2.321 .022 Ideology -.103 .098 -1.049 .296 Gender -.453 .222 -2.045 .043 Race .285 .244 1.167 .245 Block 2 Condition .093 .208 .446 .657 Block 3 Expectancy violation .092 .079 1.166 .246 Block 4 Perceived humor .306 .078 3.920 .000 Block 5 Source similarity .142 .136 1.046 .297 Source self-awareness .232 .086 2.691 .008

In order to formally assess the potentially mediating role of each of these source perceptions in the relationship between perceived humor and policy evaluations, the

SPSS macro PROCESS was employed. Although the mediating role of source similarity was not supported in the data (CI=-.0292-.2020; see Table 15), results reveal the mediating role of source self-awareness to be significant (CI=.0023-.1345; see Table 16).

Table 15. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Similarity and Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on 10,000 Bootstrap Samples Value SE Lower Upper Indirect effect .0703 .0586 -.0292 .2020 N=148. R2=.4465

&+ ! ! Table 16. PROCESS test of Indirect Effect of Source Self-awareness Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on 10,000 Bootstrap Samples Value SE Lower Upper Indirect effect .0425 .0315 .0023 .1345 N=148. R2=.0909

In an effort to carry out a comprehensive post-hoc analysis, the three moderators were assessed at each point of the revised model. These moderators were assessed at the points stipulated in the first model, with perceived humor replacing condition as the independent variable. First, the conditional effect of political disposition was explored from the path between perceived humor and source similarity. A regression analysis was conducted to test this relationship, in which the four main covariates were inserted into block 1; condition was inserted in block 2; expectancy violations was added to block 3; perceived humor and political disposition (both standardized) were inserted into block 4; and the interaction between perceived humor and attitude toward political disposition were inserted into block 5. Source similarity was the outcome variable. Results show this relationship is not significant, unstandardized B = .014 (SE = .062), p=.816 (see Table 17).

&" ! ! Table 17. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Perceived Humor and Political Disposition on Perceptions of Source Similarity Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .661 .187 3.528 .001 Ideology -.110 .069 -1.606 .111 Gender -.144 .156 -.921 .359 Race .030 .172 .177 .860 Block 2 Condition .124 .146 .847 .398 Block 3 Expectancy violation .090 .055 1.637 .104 Block 4 Perceived humor .579 .076 7.576 .000 Political disposition .085 .062 1.358 .177 Block 5 Perceived humor x Political disposition .014 .062 .234 .816

The moderating role of attitude toward leaders “like me” on the relationship between source similarity and policy evaluations was also explored for this new model with a regression analysis. The four covariates were inserted in block 1; condition was inserted in block 2; expectancy violation was inserted in block 3; perceived humor, attitude toward self-critical leadership, and political disposition were inserted in block 4; source self-awareness was added to block 5; source similarity and attitude toward leaders

“like me” (both standardized) were included in block 6; and the interaction between those two variables were inserted in block 7. Results reveal this moderating relationship is not supported, unstandardized B = -.152 (SE =.093), p=.106 (see Table 18).

&# ! ! Table 18. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Source Similarity and Attitude Toward Leaders “Like Me” on Policy Evaluations Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .618 .266 2.321 .022 Ideology -.103 .098 -1.049 .296 Gender -.453 .222 -2.045 .043 Race .285 .244 1.167 .245 Block 2 Condition .093 .208 .446 .657 Block 3 Expectancy violation .092 .079 1.166 .246 Block 4 Perceived humor .299 .080 3.370 .000 Self-critical leadership .027 .093 .292 .771 Political disposition .074 .123 .602 .548 Block 5 Source self-awareness .267 .088 3.304 .003 Block 6 Source similarity .123 .134 .914 .362 Attitude toward leaders “like me” .038 .101 .382 .703 Block 7 Source similarity x Leaders “like me” -.152 .093 -1.629 .106

Then the moderating role of attitude toward self-critical leadership style on the relationship between perceived humor and perceptions of source self-awareness was also explored. To assess this potential conditional effect, a regression analysis was employed, in which partisan identification, ideology, gender and race were inserted into block 1; condition was inserted in block 2; expectancy violation was added to block 3; perceived humor and attitude toward self-critical leadership (both standardized) were inserted into block 4; and the interaction between perceived humor and attitude toward self-critical leadership were inserted into block 5. Source self-awareness was the outcome variable.

&$ ! ! This relationship is not supported, unstandardized B = -.010 (SE = .101), p=.913 (see

Table 19).

Table 19. OLS Regression Results: Interaction Between Perceived Humor and Perceptions of Self-Critical Leadership on Perceptions of Source Self-awareness Predictor Variables B SE t p Block 1 Partisan identification .498 .250 1.989 .049 Ideology -.031 .092 -.337 .737 Gender .043 .209 .205 .837 Race .113 .230 .490 .625 Block 2 Condition -.260 .195 -1.336 .184 Block 3 Expectancy violation .092 .074 1.247 .214 Block 4 Perceived humor .281 .116 2.414 .017 Self-critical leadership -.264 .095 -2.765 .006 Block 5 Perceived humor x Self-critical -.010 .101 -.110 .913

&% ! !

Chapter 4: Discussion

This study examined the persuasive effects of exposure to self-deprecating humor when used by a high-power source. Specifically, the influence of President Barack

Obama offering self-deprecating or non-self-deprecating humorous messages on subsequent source perceptions and evaluations of policy was explored. It was originally hypothesized that exposure to self-deprecating humor would influence participants to view Obama as more similar to themselves, as well as more aware of himself, which would ultimately result in more positive evaluations of a tax policy championed by

Obama. Results highlight that the basic hypothesized model did not work. However, post hoc analyses reveal that when two stages are added to this original conceptual model, promising persuasive effects emerge.

In post hoc analyses, the influence of message exposure on expectancy violations and perceived humor were examined. Expectancy violations were initially used as manipulation checks to ensure the strength of the messages used in the main experiment, but were thereafter treated as equivalent to the self-deprecating humorous message, as this variable was excluded from later analyses. Post hoc analyses reveal that conceptualizing the two as equivalent was an incorrect approach, because results demonstrate that a self-deprecating message instead produces the expectancy violation.

The self-deprecating message generated an expectancy violation, which in turn predicted

&& ! ! perceived humor (see Figure 3). Formal mediation analyses revealed that self-deprecating message exposure did not have a direct effect on perceived humor, but did have an indirect effect through expectancy violations.

Satire is understood as a triangular relationship, involving satirist, target, and audience at each point of the triangle (Knight, 2004). This is a more specific recapitulation of the traditional model of communication, involving source (satirist), message (target), and receiver (audience). According to Knight (2004), in order for the satire to be successful, the audience must agree with the satirist that the target of joke (e.g. politician, political institution, social norms) is worthy of satirization. A triangular relationship emerges for self-deprecation as well. This relationship can also be conceptualized as consisting source, message, and receiver (see Figure 3). However, with self-deprecating humor, the target of the joke is an attribute internal to the humorist (e.g. one’s own intelligence, personality traits, physical attractiveness), rather than external to the humorist, as it is with satire. In order for this self-deprecating joke to be deemed worthy by the audience, there needs to be agreement regarding the appropriateness of the target. As previously discussed, the criteria that deem appropriateness include the source acknowledging a genuine weakness and that this shortcoming is worth joking about. If the self-deprecating message meets these standards, then an expectancy violation results.

Social decorum stipulates that people are most keen on presenting the “front-stage”, or most controlled and presentable, elements of themselves in the process of impression management (see Goffman, 1959). This would particularly be expected of politicians, who usually enhance their own qualities in order to win the favor constituents. Self- deprecation, on the other hand, is the act of offering truly “back-stage” elements of one’s

&' ! ! self, or flaws that are usually hidden from public view. Thus, offering self-deprecating humor should result in an expectancy violation. Results from this study confirm this to be the case, and additionally suggest that this violation is produced, rather than endogenous to the message. Additionally, results show that this expectancy violation predicts perceived humor. The humor that results verifies that the audience is in agreement with the source regarding the appropriateness of the message. Now we know this triangle of self-deprecation is at play, it is worth considering its effects on the source perception and policy evaluation variables outlined at the outset of this study.

______

Figure 3. Triangle of Self-deprecating Humor and Linear Process of Message Effects

D85

D85

D-6=> FG4-?7/2?E!! C-

______

&( ! ! Once this indirect effect was exhumed, it became possible to explore the predictive influence of perceived humor on source perceptions and policy evaluations.

Results revealed that perceived humor has a significant direct effect on perceptions of source similarity, perceptions of source self-awareness, and policy evaluations.

Additionally, a formal mediation analysis indicated that source self-awareness mediates the relationship between perceived humor and policy evaluations. It should be noted that the significant relationship that emerged was opposite of what was expected. It was posited that self-deprecating humor would enhance perceptions of source self-awareness.

However, self-deprecating humor had a significant, negative relationship on source self- awareness. Interestingly, these lowered perceptions still mediated the relationship between message and policy evaluations. Clearly, this relationship needs to be parsed out more. It may be necessary to revise the source self-awareness scale, adapted from the leadership literature, for the sake of construct validity. It should be additionally noted that the effects of perceived humor were very significant. Large beta weights indicate the powerful influence of perceived humor on subsequent perceptions of President Obama and a policy he championed. Perceived humor seems to hold the key to the persuasive influence of self-deprecating humor.

The indirect effect of self-deprecating humor on policy evaluations through perceived humor raises questions regarding the mechanism of influence. The arguments originally offered in this study, in which self-deprecating humor message exposure was posited to positively predict policy evaluations through enhanced source evaluations, assume a high degree of elaboration among message recipients. In order to make the nuanced judgment that a source who offers self-critical commentary is more likely to be

&) ! ! both more similar and more self-reflexive about his or her leadership capabilities, the message recipient would arguably have to engage in extra cognitive effort by elaborating on the content of the self-deprecating message. Additionally, policy evaluation as the main persuasive outcome of exposure suggests a high elaboration pathway to persuasion.

The results offered in this study challenge these initial assumptions, and post hoc analyses reveal perceived humor to be a key variable at play, thus speaking to the indirect nature of self-deprecation’s influence. Although it appears the message recipients were not processing the messages as centrally as originally hypothesized, the question remains:

To what extent were they peripherally or centrally processing these messages?

Several studies on humor and persuasion tend to treat humor as a peripheral cue, with humor being seen as more of a distraction, disruptor, or discounting cue than a message enhancer (Young, 2008; Sternthal & Craig, 2003; Cline & Kellaris, 1999; Lyttle,

2001; Nabi et al., 2007). Conversely, given the incongruous nature of a self-deprecating message, in which the source acts against self-interest in offering a message that is humorously self-critical, the message recipient could expend more cognitive effort in order to process the joke (see Coulson & Kutas, 2001). As a result of this cognitive effort, participants could either be motivated to elaborate more on the message being processed or instead suspend argument scrutiny given this high demand of cognitive effort, and thus be more accepting of the persuasive message (see Young, 2008). While it is clear that the self-deprecating humor is responsible for significant indirect effects, questions still remain regarding the path of influence. When these processes are conceptualized along a continuum, with low- and high-elaboration on either end-point, the findings point to a complex story. The absence of a direct effect of self-deprecation indicates message

&* ! ! recipients generally fell short of the high-elaboration threshold, but the indirect effect of the message through perceived humor still suggests participants might be somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Future work should explore which message elements are processed centrally and which elements are processed peripherally. Results from this study interestingly suggest that not just one type of processing is at play, but more work is needed to parse out which communicative elements provoke low versus high cognitive elaboration.

A few interesting conclusions may be gleaned from these data. The post hoc analyses unpacked a complex, indirect relationship, in which perceived humor fostered the persuasive impact of exposure to self-deprecating humor. This shows that the role of humor should not be underestimated. If the use of humor leads to enhanced perceptions of the politician, and even leads people to more positively evaluate a policy offered by that politician, then there are important implications for humor’s role in the political sphere. These findings confirm politicians’ appearances on late-night comedy shows or offering humorous messages in traditional political contexts influence their perceived similarity among members of the electorate. Extant research has found that perceptions of similarity result in increased liking of the source (see Chaiken, 1980; Montoya, Horton,

& Kirchner, 2008), which suggests persuasive implications over time.

Another important insight generated from this study is the equalizing influence of self-deprecation. It was previously discussed that the use of self-deprecating humor can be conceptualized as having an equalizing effect when used by both low- and high-power sources. Among low-power sources (e.g. minorities), it is a method of asserting ownership over stereotypes and taking back power, and is thus a method of egalitarianism.

'+ ! ! Among high-power sources (e.g. politicians, business leaders, teachers), self-deprecating humor is used to promote likability and similarity. It should be noted that in the context of this study, the experimental stimuli uniquely represented an example of a source being a member of both low- (e.g. minority) and high-power (e.g. political elite) groups. This study views President Obama as a definitive high-power source, given the prestige of his office. Nonetheless, it is important that future studies replicate this design with other kinds of experimental stimuli. Specifically, future studies should explore similar research questions, using the same theoretical process, but with a high-power source who is not a member of a low-power group. The equalization effect should still replicate, but a duplication of these methods with varying stimuli would ensure the generalizability of these findings. Perceived humor appears to be the working force behind this equalization effect when used by a high-power source. The self-deprecating nature of the message elicits humor through the unexpected nature of the commentary, and it is this humor that leads the source to be perceived as more relatable. In future studies, it would also be interesting to explore whether this same process would be successful when a low-power source is the one offering the self-deprecating humorous message. Therefore, this study should be replicated with a solely low-power source offering the message as well.

Future studies may also want to investigate the influence of self-deprecating humor when used by a moderately well known politician. This study may be seen as a strict test of self-deprecation’s influence, because the exemplar for this study, Barack

Obama, is an extremely familiar political figure. Therefore, most people already have preformed attitudes toward Obama. The experimental nature of this study allows us to be confident that the self-deprecating messages did have an effect on perceptions, regardless

'" ! ! of previous attitudes. However, it stands to ask if the effects would be even stronger for a less recognized source. On one hand, the self-deprecating humor is then able to play a larger role in attitude formation, which would provide additional insight into how exactly self-deprecating messages influence source perceptions. However, the effectiveness of self-deprecation also relies on context. Without some prior knowledge of the source, the message recipient would be unable to make a judgment regarding the appropriateness of the message (e.g. is this a genuine flaw?). Furthermore, an opposite effect could emerge, in which the use of self-deprecating humor lessens support for the moderately well known politician. Self-deprecation may be a risky political strategy for a politician who is not yet recognizable, and thus could backfire quickly.

The central role of the expectancy violation necessitates replication (Rosenthal,

1991). The manipulation checks in both the pilot test and the main experiment reveal that the self-deprecating stimulus was effective. While the self-deprecating stimulus was not found to be funnier than the non-self-deprecating stimulus, it was found to be significantly more unexpected and surprising. Thus, we can conclude that the self- deprecating nature of the message is what produced the violation. However, this expectancy violation is not as robust as it could have been. Replication of this study with stronger self-deprecating message could help tease out some more nuanced persuasive effects. Due to issues of case-category confounding (Jackson et al., 1988), replication is indeed important in establishing the influence of a particular type of message.

Additionally, future work should seek to move beyond mere perceptions of humor in the study of self-deprecation’s influence. One particular challenge of researching humor is that a substantive portion of the conclusions we draw regarding humor’s

'# ! ! influence is based on self-reports (Wimer & Beins, 2008). In order to more effectively assess the effects of various humorous message factors, however, more control needs to be introduced into the experimental setting. Methods other than self-report may elucidate the influence of certain types of humorous messages on persuasive outcomes. A promising direction would involve triangulating self-report measures, such as perceived humor, with visual and auditory components. Taping facial reactions and audiotaping laughter, as well as employing psychophysiological methods (see Lee & Shin, 2011) are all methods that should be introduced in future humor studies. Not only can alternate methods be utilized for purposes of understanding audience effects, but also for more accurately classifying certain types of humorous messages. Buijzen and Valkenburg

(2004) developed a typology for coding audiovisual humorous content, in which they came up with seven categories of humorous messages. Efforts such as these can ensure the control of certain message features, which will allow us to effectively make conclusions regarding the influence of certain message factors. Overall, these techniques will aid humor scholars in more effectively understanding how people react to, process, and use humor.

This study advances the literature in several ways. First of all, this study borrowed concepts from leadership literature (see Vecchio, 2007; Northouse, 2009; Bass & Aviolo,

1994) in order to more thoroughly understand how people look at source. In political communication studies, it is standard to measure credibility, trustworthiness, and goodwill as indicators of source perceptions. While this is effective in determining source perceptions relative to traditional political messages (e.g. policy statements, speeches, debates), a politician offering a humorous message indicates the necessity of new, more

'$ ! ! suitable measures. Indeed, the significant role of source self-awareness, adapted from the

Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Aviolo, 1985), as an outcome of perceived humor and a mediator between perceived humor and policy evaluations, indicates the successful application of these type of source measures in the study of communication phenomena. An additional strength of this study is its use of EVT as a productive theoretical avenue for examining humorous self-deprecating messages. This adds to the extant empirical work on self-deprecating humor in a political context (see

Becker, in press; Bippus, 2007; Stewart, 2011), which also posited that self-deprecating humor would have a persuasive impact, but were not grounded in theory. Using a theoretical lens to research self-deprecating humor helps streamline results, and helps explain the mechanism responsible for the effects of the message under examination.

Additionally, while extant studies relied on partisanship as a major variable for the influence of self-deprecation, this study suggests that the message itself, and the violations that result because of the nature of this message, can significantly influence source and policy perceptions.

A few limitations of this study should be addressed. Three variables were posited to moderate self-deprecation’s influence. The degree to which people find it appropriate or inappropriate to joke about politics was hypothesized to influence perceptions of source similarity. Attitudes toward whether people even want a leader who appears to be like them (in values or background) was additionally hypothesized to influence the path from perceptions of source similarity to policy evaluations. Finally, the extent to which people like or dislike their leaders to engage in self-critical behaviors was posited to influence perceptions of the source as being genuinely self-aware. In the originally

'% ! ! hypothesized model, as well as in the revised model, these moderators did not appear to retain any influence. Because political disposition was a novel measure, and the other two moderators were adapted from other literatures, it is possible that these measures need refinement. However, the attempt to understand nuanced political perceptions by applying literature from other disciplines is a worthwhile endeavor that should be explored in further detail. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the self-deprecating message did result in an expectancy violation, which speaks to the effectiveness of the message. However, this effect was not particularly strong. Therefore, replication studies are necessary in order to make some more generalizable conclusions about the persuasive impact of self-deprecating humor.

This study points to a couple fruitful avenues for the future of self-deprecating humor research. This study focused on the use of self-deprecation in the context of image maintenance and image building. However, self-deprecation has also been a popular strategy of image repair for politicians. Such was the case during the 2000

Correspondents’ dinner, when Bill Clinton starred in a short documentary, President

Clinton: Final Days, which featured the former President bored and lonely in the final days of his presidency, searching for activities to occupy his time, including packing a lunch for busy wife Hillary. Former governor Mike Huckabee, candidate for the

Republican presidential ticket in both 2008 and 2012, also engaged in self-deprecating image repair during a 2007 debate. When asked about criticism he received for raising taxes when he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee responded, “Well it’s a form of flattery to be attacked, but I wish my name would get in the moniker that Governor

Gilmore is putting out there. I could use the bump” (“Republican presidential debate in

'& ! ! North Carolina”, 2007). Similarly, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee for the 2008 election, has also used of self-deprecating humor in an image repair context. Days before the 2008 election, McCain joked on Saturday Night Live, “I’m a true maverick, a Republican without money” (Touhey, 2008). These examples speak to the perceived value of employing self-deprecation when trying to garner support, but do these efforts actually pay off? This use of self-deprecating humor is certainly worth empirical assessment.

Additionally, several facets of the communicative process can be manipulated in order to assess the influence of self-deprecation in future studies. This study manipulated the message (non-self-deprecating message vs. self-deprecating message). However, source, audience, channel, and context could be manipulated as well. The amount of information provided about the source could be manipulated. Considering that the effectiveness of self-deprecating humor rests in the agreement between source and audience that the target is appropriate (e.g. a genuine flaw), the amount of information the audience has about the source could influence perceptions of the target. Audience could be manipulated by setting up an experimental design involving co-viewing. It would be particularly interesting to use a confederate that is a member of a group targeted in the self-deprecating message, and assess to what extent this influences perceptions.

The channel for this study was a YouTube video, however other channels should be explored as well. Would listening to the self-deprecation without the visual element affect processing, and thus perceptions? Finally, context should most certainly be explored in an experimental setting. Given that EVT explains the effects of the

'' ! ! disconnect between source and message or context, context is an important element of the communicative process that is worth further investigation.

Non-political contexts are also ripe for the investigation of the role of self- deprecating humor. The influence of self-deprecating messages in a business or classroom context would not only be interesting, but could lead to important insights regarding effectiveness in these environments. If a supervisor offers self-deprecating quips in front of employees, will her or she promote a work environment that leads to happier employees? Furthermore, there are many possibilities for health communication studies. Extant research demonstrates a strong relationship between humor and coping, both in regards to exposure to humorous messages (Martin, 2001) and offering humorous messages (Celso, Ebener, & Burkhead, 2002; Zillmann, 1993). However, what types of humorous messages are most effective in coping with health issues (e.g. cancer, physical disabilities, sexually transmitted diseases)? In an attempt to deal with serious health issues, people may be motivated to engage in humor, even at their own expense. It would be interesting to explore how this helps individual coping, as well as the coping of others who share in this experience.

Clearly, self-deprecating humor is an effective persuasive method in a political context. Results show that this type of message indirectly lead to enhanced perceptions of source similarity and source self-awareness, and ultimately, more positive evaluations of policy. This study is a promising start for exploring the role of self-deprecating humor in other contexts as well. Additionally, this study speaks to the power of EVT in explaining why self-deprecating humor is so influential. The humor that is elicited from the unexpected presentation of “back-stage” elements may lead message recipients to engage

'( ! ! in more thoughtful processing. Self-deprecating humor could play an influential role in politics, and it will be valuable to tease out the persuasive effect of this particular type of humorous message in future studies.

Notes

1. Before analyses were run, a few steps were taken to ensure the suitability of the data. First, given the centrality of expectancy violation theory to the theoretical argument put forth in this study, the three respondents who had missing values for the expectancy violation items were removed from the dataset.

Additionally, there were eight individuals who registered more than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for the expectancy violation index were removed from the dataset as well (the pattern of responses for entire survey revealed a lack of engagement in the study). The 11 cases removed from the dataset produced a total N=148. After these cases were removed, appropriate items were reverse-coded and all missing values were mean-centered respective to the given scale.

') ! !

References

Abramson, L., Seligman, M., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:

Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Astin, A.W., & Scherrei, R.A. (1980). Maximizing leadership effectiveness. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Auslander, P. (1993). Brought to you by “Fem-rage”: Stand-up comedy and the politics

of gender. In P. Phelan & L. Hart (Eds.) Acting out: Feminist

performances(pp.315-336). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications (3rd. ed.). New York: Free. Press.

Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational

impact. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B.M., & Aviolo, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baym, G. (2005). Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism.

Political Communication, 22, 259-276.

Baym, G. (2007). Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colbert’s Better Know

a District. Political Communication, 24, 359-376.

'* ! ! Becker, A.B. (Forthcoming). Comedy types and political campaigns: The differential

influence of other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule on candidate

evaluations. Mass Communication & Society, 15(6).Forthcoming.

Benoit, W.L., Pier, P.M. & Blaney, J.R. (1997). “Sustainable development” in visual

imagery: A functional approach to televised political spots: Acclaiming, attacking,

defending. Communication Quarterly, 45, 1-20.

Bippus, A. (2007). Factors predicting the perceived effectiveness of politicians' use of

humor during a debate. Humor, 20, 105-121.

Bleiweiss, M.E. (2006). Self-deprecation and the Jewish humor of Woody Allen. In

C.L.P. Silet (Ed.), The films of Woody Allen: Critical essays. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press.

Brodbeck, F.C., & Frese, M. (2008). Societal culture and leadership in Germany. In J.S.

Chhokar, F.C. Brodbeck, & R.J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the

world (pp.33-73). New York: Routledge.

Buchanan, L. (2009). The joke’s on me. Harvard Business Review, May 2009, 28.

Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual

media. Media Psychology, 6, 147-167.

Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication

and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129-142.

Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violation of expectations. In J. M. Wiemann& R. P.

Harrison (Eds.) Nonverbal interaction (pp. 77-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J.K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional

communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12 (1&2), 30-48.

(+ ! ! Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cegala, D.J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative

competence. Communication Education, 30(2), 109-121.

Celso, B.G., Ebener, D.J. & Burkhead, E.J. (2002). Humor coping, health status, and life

satisfaction among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. Aging &

Mental Health, 7, 438-445.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of

source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Chen, S.X., Bond, M.B., Chan, B., Tang, D., & Buchtel, E.E. (2009). Behavioral

manifestations of modesty. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 603-626.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in

a print advertising context: A case of weaker arguments. Psychology and

Marketing, 16, 69-86.

Cohen, E. L., (2010). Expectancy violations in relationships with friends and media

figures.Communication Research Reports, 27(2), 97-111.

Combs, D.J.Y., & Keller, P.S. (2010). Politicians and trustworthiness: Acting contrary to

self-interest enhances trustworthiness. Basic and Applied Social Pscyhology, 32,

328-339.

Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response in good

and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.

(" ! ! Dowd, M. (1986). Razor-edged race for Maryland seat. The New York Times. 21 October

1986: B3.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., &Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators

and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

36, 424–435.

Ferguson, M.A., & Ford, T.E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical

review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor, 21, 283-

312.

Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee

perceptions of performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance &

Management Review, 32, 175-205.

Gilbert, J.R. (1997). Performing marginality: Comedy, identity, and cultural critique. Text

and Performance Quarterly, 17, 317-330.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York:

Double Day.

Greengross, G., & Miller, G.F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of

status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-

deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 393-408.

Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new

millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (submitted). Conditional process modeling: Using

structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. Under

contract to appear in G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.) Structural equation

(# ! ! modeling: A second course (2nd Ed). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hmielowski, J., Holbert, R. L., & Lee, J. (in press). Predicting the consumption of

political TV satire: Affinity for political humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert

Report. Communication Monographs.

Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics.

American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453.

Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., Morey, A. (2010). Adding nuance to

the study of political humor effects: experimental research on juvenalian satire

versus horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientists, 55 (3),187-211.

Holbert, R.L., & Stephenson, M.T. (2003). The importance of analyzing indirect effects

in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 553-569.

Holbert, R.L.,& Young, D.G. (2011). Exploring relations between political entertainment

media and traditional political communication information outlets: a research

agenda. In E. Sharrer (Ed.), Media Effects/Media Psychology, in press. Blackwell.

Jackson, S., O’Keefe, D., Jacobs, S. (1988). The search for reliable generalizations about

messages: A comparison of research strategies. Human Communication Research,

15, 127-142.

Janes, L., & Olson, J. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule

of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 474-485.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

($ ! ! leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.

Kennedy, J. C. (2007). Leadership and Culture in New Zealand. In J. Chhokar, F. C.

Brodbeck & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and Leadership Across the World: The

GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies (pp.397–432). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Knight, Charles A. 2004. The literature of satire. New York: Cambridge University Press.

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political

ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report.

International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 212-231.

Lee, M.J., & Shin, M. (2011). Fear versus humor: The impact of sensation seeking on

physiological, cognitive, and emotional responses to anti-alcohol abuse messages.

The Journal of Psychology, 145, 73-92.

Levine, T. R., Anders, L. N., Banas, J., Baum, K. L., Endo, K., Hu, A. D. S., et al. (2000).

Norm, expectations, and deception: A norm violation model of veracity

judgments. Communication Monographs, 67, 123–137.

Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics

training. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206-216.

Martin, R.A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and

research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 504-519.

McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. (1990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and

relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57,

119–138.

McCroskey, L.L., McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (2006). Analysis and

(% ! ! improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily.

Communication Quarterly, 54, 1-31.

McLeod, J.M., Kosicki, G.M., & McLeod, D.M. (2010). Levels of analysis and

communication science. In C.R. Berger, M.E. Roloff, & D.R. Roskos-Ewoldsen,

The handbook of communication science (p.183-200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McManus, J. (2009, April 17). Susan Boyle’s defiant dream. The Washington Post.

Retrieved on May 1, 2012 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602419.html

Meyer, J.C. (2006). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in

communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310-331.

Meyrowtiz, J. (1985). No sense of place. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Montoya, R.M., Horton, R.S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for

attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922.

Morris, J.S., & Baumgartner, J.C. (2008). The Daily Show and attitudes toward the news

media. In J.C Baumgartner & J.S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and

American Politics in the Media Age (pp.315-331). New York: Routledge.

Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Guse, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation

into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication

Monographs, 74, 29-54.

Nilsen, D.L. F. (1990). The social functions of political humor.Journal of Popular

Culture, 24 (3), 35-47.

Northouse, P. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practices. Thousand

(& ! ! Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nozick, R. (1989). The examined life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Oliver, M.B., & Krakowiak, K.M. (2008). Individual differences. In j. Bryant & M.B.

Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp.517-

531). New York: Routledge.

Owens, T.J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of positive self-

worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociological Review,

59 (3), 391-407.

Pfau, M., Holbert, R.L., Szabo, E.A., & Kaminski, K. (2002). Issue-advocacy versus

candidate advertising: Effects on candidate preferences and democratic process.

Journal of Communication, 52, 301-315.

Perloff, R.M. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the

21st century (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Petty, R.E., & Brinol, P. (2008). Psychological processes underlying persuasion: A social

psychological approach. Diogenes, 55(1), 52-67.

Polk, J., Young, D.G., & Holbert, R.L. (2009). Humor complexity and political

influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The

Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 202-219.

Purzycki, B.G. (2011). Humor as violation and deprecation: A cognitive anthropological

account. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 217-230.

Robson, D. (2000). Stereotypes and the female politician: A case study of Senator

Barbara Mikulski. Communication Quarterly, 48(3), 205-222.

Rosenthal, R. (1991b). Replication in behavioral research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.),

(' ! ! Replication in the social sciences (pp. 1–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Audience's reactions to self-enhancing, self-

denigrating and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology,18, 89-104.

Schütz, A. (1994). WirkungunterschiedlicherSelbstdarstellungsstrategien: Jugend-

lichebeurteilen die Auftritte von Spitzenpolitikern [Effects of different self-

presentational strategies: Young voters' evaluations of politicians' performances].

Publizistik, 39, 289-306.

Smith, E.R., & Mackie, D. (2000). Social psychology (3rd edition). New York: Routledge.

Sternthal, B, & Craig, S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37, 12-18.

Stewart, P.A. (2011). The influence of self- and other-deprecatory humor on presidential

candidate evaluation during the 2008 US election. Social Science Information, 50,

201-222.

Stogdill, R.M. (1965). Managers, employees, and organizations. Columbus: Ohio State

University.

Telushkin, J. (1992). Jewish humor: What the best Jewish jokes say about the Jews. New

York: W. Morrow.

Touhey, J. (2008, November 2). On SNL, McCain unveils ‘The sad grandpa’. Political

Intelligence. Retrieved on 19 December from:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/on_snl_mccai

n_u.html

Treddennick, H., trans. (1969). The apology of Plato. New York: Penguin Books.

Vecchio, R.P. (2007). Situational leadership theory: Examination of a prescriptive theory.

(( ! ! Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451.

Walther, W.O. (2011). Expanding perceptions of African-Americans’ political habits: A

study of expectancy violation (Master’s thesis). The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio.

Williams, C.B., & Gulati, G.J. (2009) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook

and congressional electons 2006, 2008. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada, September.

Wimer, D.J., & Beins, B.C. (2008). Expectations and perceived humor. Humor:

International journal of humor research, 21, 347-363.

Wright, B. (2011). “Why would you do that Larry?”: Identity formation and humor in

Curb Your Enthusiasm. The Journal of Popular Culture, 44(3), 660-677.

Wyer, R.S., & Collins, J.E. (1992).A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review,

99, 663-688.

Young, D.G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in

disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119-142.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organization (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Zijderveld, A.C. (1995). Humor, laughter, and sociological thought. Sociological Forum,

10, 341-345.

Zillmann, D. (1993). Does humor facilitate coping with physical discomfort? Motivation

and Emotion, 17, 1-21.

() ! !

Appendix A. Pre- and Post-Stimulus Questionnaires

* Indicates reverse-coded item

Pre-stimulus Questionnaire

This questionnaire covers a wide range of topics. Please address each question to the best of your ability. Thank you for making the time to take part in this study.

Section 1: Political disposition

We would like to evaluate your attitude toward joking about politics. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the statements below by clicking the appropriate circle:

STRONGLYAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

1. It is important to be able to laugh about politics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Politics should be about serious beliefs seriously 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pursued.*

3. The stances taken and decisions made by political 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 leaders should be taken seriously.*

4. Politics is a game that can and should bring amusement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to the citizenry.

5. Politics is too serious to be joked about.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. The old adage ‘Laughter is the best medicine’ applies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 well to politics.

(* ! !

7. In understanding politics, humor can often be more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 informative than formal political debate.

8. Anything that keeps a politician humble is healthy for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 democracy.

Section 2: Attitude toward self-critical leadership style

Please indicate the extent to which you would want a president who possesses each of the following qualities, from “Not at all” to “Very much,” by clicking the appropriate circle below.

NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH

9. He/she praises politicians of the same party. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. He/she praises politicians of an opposing party. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. He/she does not openly praise his/her own strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. In front of others, he/she attributes success to luck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rather than his/her own abilities.

13. He/she leads people to acknowledge his/her own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 superiority.*

14. He/she thanks people who offer constructive criticism. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. He/she apologizes when criticized. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. He/she treats everyone equally regardless of status. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. He/shemphasizes others’ contributions when praised. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. He/she listens to others’ opinions attentively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. He/she avoids saying too much about him/herself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

)+ ! ! 20. He/she admits and corrects mistakes after doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 something wrong.

21. He/she denies strengths in front of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. He/she defends him or herself when criticized.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. He/she sincerely accepts others’ suggestions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. He/she talks him/herself down to downplay talent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section 3: Attitude toward leaders “like me”

Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you would be to have a president with each of the following characteristics by clicking the appropriate circle below:

VERY DISSATISFIED VERY SATISFIED

25. He/she has a social class similar is to mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. He/she had background is similar to mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. He/she had a life as a child is similar to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mine.

28. He/she thinks like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. He/she behaves like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. He/she shares my values. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. He/she treats people like I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. He/she is different from me.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. He/she is similar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. He/she has thoughts and idea similar to mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. He/she expresses attitudes different from mine.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36. He/she has a lot in common with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

)" ! !

Section 4: Perceptions of source similarity

In this section, please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements when thinking about Barack Obama:

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

37. President Obama makes me feel like we have a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lot in common.

38. President Obama makes me feel he is similar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39. President Obama is very socially oriented. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. President Obama tries to move the conversation to a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 deeper level.

41. President Obama acts like we are good friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. President Obama seems to desire further 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 communication with me.

43. President Obama seems to care if I like him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. President Obama is willing to open up his private 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thoughts.

45. President Obama makes the conversation seem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 superficial.*

46. President Obama doesn’t care if I like him.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section 5: Perceptions of source self-awareness

)# ! ! In this section, please click a circle from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” that best characterizes your disagreement or agreement with each of the following statements when thinking about an ideal candidate for the President of the United States:

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

47. He/she reexamines critical assumptions to question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 whether they are appropriate.

48. He/she seeks differing perspectives when solving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 problems.

49. He/she gets me to look at problems from many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 different angles.

50. He/she suggests new ways of looking at political 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issues.

51. He/she focuses on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and deviations from standards.

52. He/she directs our attention toward failures to meet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 standards.

53. He/she fails to interfere until problems become 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 serious.*

54. He/she shows that he/she is a firm believer in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”*

Section 6: Partisan Identification and Ideology

This section will ask you to provide information about your political beliefs and identification.

55. Generally speaking, when it comes to political parties in the United States, how would you best describe yourself:

_____A strong Democrat

)$ ! ! _____A not very strong Democrat

_____Independent, lean toward Democrat

_____Independent (close to neither party)

_____Independent, lean toward Republican

_____A not very strong Republican

_____Strong Republican

_____Something else (please specify) _____

56. We hear a lot of talk about liberals and conservatives in politics. Here is a scale of

the political views people might hold, ranging from very liberal to very conservative.

Where would you place yourself on this scale in regards to your stance on social

issues (e.g., abortion, welfare)?

_____Extremely liberal

_____Liberal

_____Slightly liberal

_____Moderate or Middle of the Road

_____Slightly conservative

_____Conservative

_____Extremely conservative

57. Where would you place yourself on this scale in regards to your stance on

economic issues (e.g.,taxes, jobs)?

_____Extremely liberal

_____Liberal

)% ! ! _____Slightly liberal

_____Moderate or Middle of the Road

_____Slightly conservative

_____Conservative

_____Extremely conservative

Section 7: Demographic information

58. What is your gender?

_____Female

_____Male

59. In what year were you born?

_____

60. What year in college are you?

_____Freshman

_____Sophomore

_____Junior

_____Senior

61. What is your major?

_____

)& ! ! 62. What is your racial and/or ethnic background? Please check all that apply.

_____White/ Caucasian

_____Asian American

_____African American

_____Hispanic

_____Native American (American Indian)

_____Other (please specify) ____

Post-stimulus Questionnaire

This questionnaire will cover a wide range of topics. Before answering these questions, we would first like you to read a short biography of President Barack Obama.

Please read the entire paragraph before moving on to the next section.

Now we would like you to watch a short video clip. Please watch the entire clip before moving on to the next part of the survey.

[Clip of Barack Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ dinner]

Section 1: Affect

1. Please indicate how you feel about Barack Obama with 0 indicating very negative and

100 indicating very positive.

)' ! !

Section 2: Expectancy violation and perceived humor

In this section, we would like to know what you think of message you just encountered.

The message was:

2. Expected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unexpected

3. Surprising* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not surprising

4. Funny* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not funny

5. Amusing* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not amusing

6. Entertaining* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not entertaining

Section 3: Source similarity

In this section, please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements when thinking about Barack Obama:

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

37. President Obama makes me feel like we have a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lot in common.

)( ! ! 38. President Obama makes me feel he is similar to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39. President Obama is very socially oriented. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. President Obama tries to move the conversation to a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 deeper level.

41. President Obama acts like we are good friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. President Obama seems to desire further 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 communication with me.

43. President Obama seems to care if I like him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. President Obama is willing to open up his private 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thoughts.

45. President Obama makes the conversation seem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 superficial.*

46. President Obama doesn’t care if I like him.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section 4: Ethos/credibility

In this section, please indicate your impression of Barack Obama by clicking the appropriate circle between the pairs of adjectives below. The closer the circle is to an adjective, the more certain you are of your belief.

17. Intelligent* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unintelligent

18. Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trained

19. Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expert

20. Informed* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninformed

21. Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent

22. Bright* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stupid

)) ! ! 23. Cares about me* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn’t care about me 24. Has my interests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn’t have my at heart * interests at heart

25. Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not self- centered

26. Concerned with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unconcerned with me me*

27. Insensitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sensitive

28. Not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Understanding understanding

29. Honest* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest

30. Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy

31. Honorable* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonorable

32. Moral* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Immoral

33. Unethical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ethical

34. Phoney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Genuine

Section 5: Perceptions of source self-awareness

In this section, please click a circle from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” that best characterizes your disagreement or agreement with each of the following statements when thinking about an ideal candidate for the President of the United States:

)* ! ! STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

47. He/she reexamines critical assumptions to question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 whether they are appropriate.

48. He/she seeks differing perspectives when solving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 problems.

49. He/she gets me to look at problems from many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 different angles.

50. He/she suggests new ways of looking at political 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issues.

51. He/she focuses on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and deviations from standards.

52. He/she directs our attention toward failures to meet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 standards.

53. He/she fails to interfere until problems become 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 serious.*

54. He/she shows that he/she is a firm believer in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”*

Section 6: Policy messages

In this section we would like you to read a policy statement issued by Barack

Obama. Please read the entire statement before moving on to the next section.

[Participants were randomly assigned to read one of the following policy statements:]

[Low involvement]

President Barack Obama unveiled a new corporate tax reform plan at the end of

February. The main thrust of the proposal is that the overall corporate tax rate would be

*+ ! ! lowered from 35% to 28%, addressing concerns held by U.S. corporations that the current rate is too high. In return, the proposal calls for the elimination of several business tax loopholes. Specifically, Obama’s business proposal outlines that the following codes be repealed: the “Last-in, first-out” (LIFO) accounting method, which calculates the cost of inventory based on the most recently purchased items; tax preferences available for fossil fuels that do no exist for other industries; “carried interest” income tax that enables private equity partners and hedge fund managers to pay a comparatively low effective tax rate of 15%. Additionally, the proposal offers a few measures to encourage domestic investments as opposed to the common practice of locating operations and profits abroad, which is less costly under the current tax code. Such measures include requiring companies to pay a small tax on overseas profits and eliminating the tax code that allows companies moving overseas to deduct their moving expenses.

[Medium Involvement]

On February 22, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the Middle Class

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extends the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last year through the end of this year (December 31, 2012). This includes a social security tax withholding rate of 4.2%, as compared to the 6.2% rate in effect prior to

2011 for employees. This reduction does not extend to employers. Similarly, self- employed individuals will receive a comparable rate reduction in the social security portion of the self-employment tax from 12.4% to 10.4%. This withholding will have no effect on an individual’s future social security benefits. According to a report issued by the White House, the payroll tax reduction should result in an average $1,000 increase in

*" ! ! take-home pay compared to the higher rate prior to 2011. The new law also repeals a recapture tax included in the temporary payroll bill, which stipulated that all employees whose earning exceeded $18,350 in the first two months of 2012 pay a 2% tax in their individual income tax returns for 2012.

[High Involvement]

President Barack Obama championed and signed into law the Tax Relief,

Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. This bill extended the American Opportunity Tax Credit for tax years 2011 and 2012. The

American Opportunity Tax Credit is an expanded and renamed version of the Hope

Scholarship Credit, which allows college students to claim expenses paid for tuition, certain fees and course materials for higher education. While the Hope Scholarship Credit originally applied to the first two years of college, the American Opportunity Tax Credit allows for expenses to be claimed for the first four years of college. The tax credit is for up to $2,500 of the cost of tuition, fees, and course materials paid during the taxable year.

The tax credit may not be used toward: room and board, transportation, insurance, medical expenses, student fees unless required as a condition of enrollment or attendance, same expenses paid with tax-free educational assistance, or the same expense used for any other tax deduction, credit or educational benefit. A taxpayer who earns $80,000 or less ($160,000 or less for joint filers) annually may claim the credit.

*# ! ! Section 7: Policy evaluations and vote intention

Please rate the policy statement you just read along the following dimensions:

43. Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive

44. Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good

45. Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable

46. Unacceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Acceptable

47. Foolish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise

48. Wrong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Right

49. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement.

NOT AT ALL

EXTREMELY

I would seriously consider voting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

*$ ! !

Appendix B. Stimuli Scripts

The experimental stimuli for each condition was taken from President Barack’s

Obama address at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Each began with a title shot (white font, black background) stating: “The following are highlights from President

Oabam’s speech at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.” Subsequently, participants in each condition viewed five segments from his speech. Between each of these segments was a couple-second black fade-in, fade-out transition.

Condition 1 Stimulus: Non-self-deprecating message

Segment 1

“It’s good to be back with so many esteemed

guests. Celebrities. Senators. Journalists. Essential government employees. Non-

essential government employees. You know who you are.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 2

“And where is the National Public Radio table? You guys are still here? That’s

good. I couldn’t remember where we landed on that. Now, I know you were a little

*% ! ! tense when the GOP tried to cut your funding, but personally I was looking forward

to new programming like “No Things Considered” or “Wait, Wait…Don’t Fund Me.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 3

“Michele Bachmann is here, though, I understand, and she is thinking about running for President, which is weird because I hear she was born in Canada. Yes, Michele, this is how it starts. Just letting you know.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 4

“Tim Pawlenty? He seems all American. But have you heard his real middle name? Tim “Hosni” Pawlenty? What a shame.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 5

“Donald Trump is here tonight! Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but

no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the

Donald. And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that

matter –- like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And

where are Biggie and Tupac?”

Condition 2 Stimulus: Self-deprecating message

Segment 1

[Real American theme song playing until Obama appears at podium] “My fellow

Americans, Maholo”.

*& ! ! [fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 2

“What a week. As some of you heard, the state of Hawaii released my official

long-form birth certificate. Hopefully this puts all doubts to rest. But just in case there

are any lingering questions, tonight I’m prepared to go a step further. Tonight, for the

first time, I am releasing my official birth video. Now, I warn you — no one has seen

this footage in 50 years, not even me. But let’s take a look.”! to the end of the Lion

King clip.

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 3

“I am very much looking forward to hearing Seth Meyers tonight. He’s a young, fresh face who can do no wrong in the eyes of his fans. Seth, enjoy it while it lasts.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 4

“Yes, I think it is fair to say that when it comes to my presidency, the honeymoon

is over. For example, some people now suggest that I’m too professorial. And I’d

like to address that head-on, by assigning all of you some reading that will help you

draw your own conclusions. Others say that I’m arrogant. But I’ve found a really

great self-help tool for this: my poll numbers.”

[fade-in to black, fade-out to next segment]

Segment 5

“So, yes, this has been quite a year in politics, but also in the movies. Many people, for instance, were inspired by the King’s Speech. It’s a wonderful

*' ! ! film. (Applause.) Well, some of you may not know this, but there’s now a sequel in the works that touches close to home. And because this is a Hollywood crowd, tonight I can offer a sneak peek. So can we show the trailer, please?”

! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

*( ! !