The Dating Game: The
Importance of Female
Laughter as a Receptivity
Signal
ANTHONY R. GAROVE & SALLY D. FARLEY
Humor and Sexual Selection

Miller (2000) argued that humor evolved as a sexually
selected trait in males because humor production
served as a mental fitness indicator, or rather, a means
to display intelligence to potential mates

General intelligence is significantly correlated with
independent ratings of humor production skill, which in
turn, is predictive of reproductive success (Greengross &
Miller, 2011; Howrigan & MacDonald, 2008)

Women find humorous men more physically attractive
(McGee & Shevlin, 2009) and desirable, whereas men
find women more desirable when they are receptive to
their humor (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006; Wilbur &
Campbell, 2011).
Laughter: A Receptivity Signal?

Although theoretical accounts of laughter capture its social
nature, there is disagreement about the adaptive function of
laughter.

Some theoretical formulations have converged on the
importance of laughter as a sexual receptivity or courtship
signal, particularly in women (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006;
Mehu & Dunbar, 2008)

Li et al. (2009) manipulated male humor attempts and female
responses in an experimental study that used “pseudo speeddating videos”

Participants inferred that men were more romantically interested
when they initiated humor attempts, and that women were
more romantically interested when they had positive responses,
which included laughter.
Hypotheses:

H1: Two males competing for the same potential partner will
increase humor production if their rival attempts humor, successfully
or unsuccessfully.

H2: Perceptions of rival intelligence should be higher when rivals
attempt humor.

H3: Perceptions of female receptivity (likelihood of obtaining a date,
perceived female receptiveness, and confederate’s perception of
male rival’s intelligence) should be highest when a potential partner
laughs in response to a male’s attempt at humor.
Humor present/laughter present
condition
Design and Procedure

Male participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2
(message humor: present or absent) x 2 (confederate laughter: present or absent)
between subjects design.

Participants watched a short video displaying an attractive female confederate
reading a script presented as a message she received from a man from an online
dating service.

Content of the script was identical with the exception of the addition of five humor
attempts in the humor conditions.

Confederate laughed immediately after the humor attempts in the humor
conditions, or laughed at exactly the same point at which humor attempts were
omitted in the control conditions.
Results:
Did humorous messages elicit competitive humor production in male
participants?

Consistent with H1, after being exposed to humor attempts by a male competitor,
participants generated more humor attempts in comparison to the control group.

F(1, 101) = 17.38, p < .001
Sample humorous messages
Results:
Did participants infer greater intelligence from humorous displays?
• Although the main effect of humor
was not significant, the laughter x
humor interaction was significant [F(1,
156) = 5.69, p = .02]
• This finding suggests that competitor
intelligence is inferred both by male
humor attempts and female
receptivity to them (as gauged by
laughter).
Results:
Do humor production skill and laughter interact to communicate female
receptivity?
• The humor x laughter interaction was
significant [F(1, 157) = 17.58, p < .001]
• When the message was humorous,
participants rated the confederate
as significantly more receptive when
she was laughing than when she
was not laughing [F(1, 91) = 34.93, p
< .001]
• The main effect for laughter was also
significant [F(1, 157) = 11.44, p =
.001], with higher receptivity ratings
when she was laughing than when
she was not.
Discussion

Our findings strongly support Miller’s (200) sexual selection theory of humor.

Few studies incorporate both laughter and humor together (See exceptions: Li et al.,
2009; Wilbur & Campbell, 2011), the value of which is made clear by the interaction
between these variables in this study.

The driving force behind humor production, specifically for males, seems to be
competitive pressures, not attraction to a possible partner or mate.

Male’s gauge their competing conspecifics’ mental fitness not solely on humor
production, but rather, the combination of humor and the laughter from the target
mate. Likewise, laughter alone is not indicative of perceived male intelligence to
other males; instead it may function as an interest indicator of female receptivity.

In the context of mate acquisition, humor production and laughter may have coevolved as a call and response mechanism, whereby the presence of both humor
and laughter produces a harmonious sound indicative of mutual interest.
Thank you!
References:








Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as
sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 121–130.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating
success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192.
Howrigan, D. P., & MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Humor as a mental fitness indicator.
Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 625–666.
Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An
evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 923–936.
McGee, E., & Shevlin, M. (2009). Effect of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate
selection. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 67–77.
Mehu, M., & Dunbar, R. I. (2008). Naturalistic observations of smiling and laughter in human
group interactions. Behaviour, 1747–1780.
Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual selection shaped the evolution of human
nature. New York: Anchor books.
Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and
women evaluate? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918–929