物件、情緒圖像元素對圖片幽默指標之影響

The impact of object and emotion graphic elements on humorous indexes of visual humor.

10.6345/THE.NTNU.DEPC.011.2018.F02

顏映帆

失諧－解困理論 ； 幽默欣賞 ； 幽默理解 ； 圖像元素 ； 圖像式幽默 ； graphic elements ； humor appreciation ； humor comprehension ； incongruity-resolution theory ； visual humor

臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系學位論文

2018年

碩士

陳學志;吳清麟

繁體中文

本研究旨在探究圖像式幽默中與幽默理解、幽默欣賞有關的圖像元素及其可能的作用方式。 　　研究一之目的為探究圖像式幽默的認知性質，從中尋找可能的關鍵圖像元素。幽默刺激材料為59張擬人圖片，依變項為參與者評定圖片理解度、有趣性、攻擊性等幽默指標的分數及圈選笑點的位置。研究參與者共181名，有效問卷167份。結果顯示圖片理解度、有趣性、攻擊性之間皆呈正相關。高理解高有趣圖片的笑點種類數低於低理解低有趣圖片，笑點最高選取比例則高於低理解低有趣圖片。圖片的笑點位置主要在「物件或角色特徵」，其次為「臉部表情、肢體動作與物件、角色特徵」。笑點位置和選取人次比例，兩者皆無性別差異。 　　研究二之目的為探究圖像元素對幽默指標的影響。幽默刺激材料是更動研究一之高理解高有趣圖片的物件圖像元素或情緒圖像元素。自變項分別為非人角色／人類角色相應物件、正向／負向情緒、高激發／低激發情緒，依變項為參與者對圖片理解度、有趣性及攻擊性等三項幽默指標的評定。研究參與者共1276名，有效問卷1006份。結果顯示圖片中物件圖像元素符合非人角色者，其理解度、有趣性和攻擊性皆高於物件符合人類角色的圖片。角色表現負向情緒圖片的理解度、有趣性和攻擊性皆高於角色表現正向情緒。相較於角色情緒為高激發狀態的圖片，角色情緒為低激發狀態之圖片的有趣性高、攻擊性低。物件圖像元素對理解度和有趣性的作用效果較強，情緒圖像元素的主要作用效果是在攻擊性上。 　　綜合研究一、研究二之結果，研究者建構圖像幽默元素圖譜論述：腳本對立和角色特徵的作用類似文字型幽默中的營造語句（set-up），為失諧的基礎。物件類似關鍵語句（punch line），解困線索在於連結物件和腳本或連結物件和角色特徵。透過物件解困後，理解和趣味皆得以建立。而角色情緒運作在腳本和角色的連結，主要作用於失諧階段。 　　進行圖像或教材編製時，可參考本研究結果：擬人情境使用非人角色相應物件、角色表現負向低激發情緒，以增加圖片的理解度和有趣性，提升宣傳效能。

The purpose of the present study is focused on identifying the effects of graphic elements of visual humor on humor comprehension and humor appreciation. 　　In the first study, 167 senior high school students completed a questionnaire with 59 anthropomorphic graphs to evaluate the humorous indexes. These humorous indexes included comprehensibility, funniness, and aggressiveness of each graph. They were also asked to pick one punch line they felt towards each graph. The graphs with high comprehensibility and funniness ratings were chosen for the questionnaire of the second study. Analysis showed positive correlations between comprehensibility, funniness, and aggressiveness ratings. The graphs with high comprehensibility and funniness ratings have fewer punch line types than the graphs with low comprehensibility and funniness ratings. The most robust punch line of the graph was “object or character’s characteristics”, followed by “facial expressions, body movements and object or character’s characteristics”. There was no gender difference for the punch line. 　　In the second study, a questionnaire with 18 “graph groups” was given to 1,006 senior high school students in order to evaluate the comprehensibility, funniness, and aggressiveness of each graph. Each graph group had two graphs different in object or emotion graphic elements. In the object graph group, one object was developed for non-human script and the other was developed for human script. In the emotion graph group, there were two graphs with different emotional valence or arousal. The results showed that the object and emotional valence graphic elements affected three humorous indexes, and degree of emotional arousal graphic element had no impact on comprehensibility. The object graphic element had a larger effect on comprehensibility and funniness than the emotion graphic element. The graph with non-human script object have more comprehensibility, funniness, and aggressiveness than the graph with human script object. The graph with negative emotional valence have more comprehensibility, funniness, and aggressiveness than the graph with positive emotional valence. The graph with low degree of emotional arousal have more funniness, and aggressiveness than the graph with high degree of emotional arousal. 　　By integrating the results of the two studies, the impact of object and emotion graphic elements on humorous indexes of visual humor may be able to explain through the “graphic humor elements mapping”. Based on the incongruity-resolution theory, script opposition and character’s characteristics may be regarded as the “set-up” and the objects as the “punch-line”. Script opposition and character’s characteristics lay the stage for individuals to detect the incongruity. Objects could provide clues to incongruity resolution by finding the relations between the object and the script or between the object and the character’s characteristics. Individuals go through incongruity-resolution humor cognitive processing via object. Humor appreciation is the end product of humor comprehension. On the other hand, emotions work as the link between script and character involved in incongruity cognitive processing. 　　According to the results, the suggestions were provided to improve the advertising effectiveness of graphic arts and the future study.

1. 許峻豪、鄭谷苑（2005）。圖像幽默理解歷程與雙路徑幽默理解模式。應用心理研究，26，117-142。
   連結：
2. Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological review, 99(4), 663-688.
   連結：
3. 中文部分
4. 王慶中（2005）。幽默的研究問題。應用心理研究，26，57-71。
5. 王柳生、錢萼、張慶、潘發達（2011）面部表情別中眼睛的線索作用。湖南師範大學教育科學學報，（6），115-119.
6. 古淑惠（2012）。國小學童對幽默漫畫閱讀歷程之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
7. 余民寧、李仁豪（2006）。調查方式與問卷長短對回收率與調查內容影響之研究。當代教育研究季刊，14，127-168。
8. 岳曉東（2012）。幽默心理學:思考與研究。City University of HK Press。
9. 張慧菊、王建雅、陳學志（2010）。當禁忌和攻擊變幽默-青少年幽默因應中的禁忌與語文攻擊表現。中華心理衛生學刊，23（2），241-269。
10. 陳盈方（2006）。視覺圖像敘事要素之研究-以幻想式冒險漫畫為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。
11. 陳淑蓉、陳學志（2005）。幽默感的定義與測量：多向度幽默感量表之編製。應用心理研究，26，167-187。
12. 陳學志（1991）。幽默理解之認知歷程（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣大學，台北市。
13. 陳學志（2004）。從“哈哈”到“啊哈”—統整知，情，意，行的幽默課程對創造力培養的影響。教育心理學報，35（4），393-411。
14. 陳學志、蘇嘉鈴、葉季蓉（2011）。幽默對創造力認知與特質成分之預測效果研究。創造學刊，2（1），53-78。.
15. 梁正鏮（2014）。幽默感差異與引導注意力對觀看圖像式幽默時之眼動軌跡影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
16. 賀嘉潔（2012）。不同性別國高中生對幽默影像廣告之評價與理解（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
17. 鄭昭明、陳學志、詹雨臻、蘇雅靜、曾千芝（2013）。臺灣地區華人情緒與相關心理生理資料庫─中文笑話評定常模。中華心理學刊，55（4），555-569。
18. 蘇雅靜、鄭昭明、陳學志（2014）。笑話的逆溯推論歷程:以眼動資料為證。中華心理學刊，56（1），83-95。
19. 西文部分
20. Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F., & Di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor, 15(1), 3-46.
21. Bonaiuto, P. (2006). Art, Science, and Humor: The study of humorous experience at the intersection between psychology and the art world. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(1), 3-41.
22. Campbell, D. W., Wallace, M. G., Modirrousta, M., Polimeni, J. O., McKeen, N. A., & Reiss, J. P. (2015). The neural basis of humour comprehension and humour appreciation: The roles of the temporoparietal junction and superior frontal gyrus. Neuropsychologia, 79, 10-20.
23. Caron, J. E. (2002). From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor, 15(3), 245-282.
24. Carroll, P. J., Young, J. R., & Guertin, M. S. (1992). Visual analysis of cartoons: A view from the far side. In Eye movements and visual cognition (pp. 444-461). Springer, New York, NY.
25. Chan, Y. C., Chou, T. L., Chen, H. C., & Liang, K. C. (2012). Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 61(4), 899-906.
26. Chan, Y. C. (2016). Neural correlates of sex/gender differences in humor processing for different joke types. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 536-553.
27. Chandrasekaran, A., Vijayakumar, A. K., Antol, S., Bansal, M., Batra, D., Lawrence Zitnick, C., & Parikh, D. (2016). We are humor beings: Understanding and predicting visual humor. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4603-4612.
28. Chang, Y. T., Ku, L. C., & Chen, H. C. (2018). Sex differences in humor processing: An event-related potential study. Brain and cognition, 120, 34-42.
29. Cohn, N. (2013). Visual narrative structure. Cognitive science, 37(3), 413-452.
30. Cohn, N., Jackendoff, R., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2014). The grammar of visual narrative: Neural evidence for constituent structure in sequential image comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 64, 63-70.
31. Cohn, N., & Kutas, M. (2015). Getting a cue before getting a clue: Event-related potentials to inference in visual narrative comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 77, 267-278.
32. Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image Macros!” Advice animals memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10, 660-688
33. Geisler, F. C., & Weber, H. (2010). Harm that does not hurt: Humour in coping with self-threat. Motivation and Emotion, 34(4), 446-456.
34. Goldstein, J. H. (1970). Humor appreciation and time to respond. Psychological Reports, 27(2), 445-446.
35. Hampes, W. P. (2010). The relation between humor styles and empathy. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 34-45.
36. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children. Contemporary educational psychology, 24(2), 95-123.
37. Hemplemann, C., & Samson, A. (2008). Cartoons: Drawn jokes? In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 609–640). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Herzog, T. R., & Larwin, D. A. (1988). The appreciation of humor in captioned cartoons. The Journal of psychology, 122(6), 597-607.
39. Hirt, M., & Genshaft, J. (1982). The effects of incongruity and complexity on the perception of humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 3(4), 453-455.
40. Jones, J. M., Fine, G. A., & Brust, R. G. (1979). Interaction effects of picture and caption on humor ratings of cartoons. The Journal of Social Psychology, 108(2), 193-198.
41. Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 25(1), 81-96.
42. Kohn, N., Kellermann, T., Gur, R. C., Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2011). Gender differences in the neural correlates of humor processing: implications for different processing modes. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 888-897.
43. Manfredi, M., Proverbio, A. M., Donate, A. P. G., Vieira, S. M. G., Comfort, W. E., Andreoli, M. D. A., & Boggio, P. S. (2017). tDCS application over the STG improves the ability to recognize and appreciate elements involved in humor processing. Experimental brain research, 235(6), 1843-1852.
44. McGhee, P. E., Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. J. (1990). A personality-based model of humor development during adulthood. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 3(2), 119-146
45. Mc Kay, T. D., & Mc Kay, M. E. (1982). Captioned and non-captioned cartoons: Effects of structural properties on ratings of humor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54(1), 143-146.
46. Neely, M. N., Walter, E., Black, J. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2012). Neural correlates of humor detection and appreciation in children. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(5), 1784-1790.
47. Oring, E. (1989). Between jokes and tales: on the nature of punch lines. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 2(4), 349-364.
48. Parovel, G., & Guidi, S. (2015). The psychophysics of comic: Effects of incongruity in causality and animacy. Acta psychologica, 159, 22-32.
49. Pollak, S. D., Vardi, S., Putzer Bechner, A. M., & Curtin, J. J. (2005). Physically abused children's regulation of attention in response to hostility. Child development, 76(5), 968-977.
50. Provine, R. R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(1), 1-4.
51. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
52. Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. (2008). Cognitive humor processing: different logical mechanisms in nonverbal cartoons—an fMRI study. Social neuroscience, 3(2), 125-140.
53. Samson, A. C., Hempelmann, C. F., Huber, O., & Zysset, S. (2009). Neural substrates of incongruity-resolution and nonsense humor. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1023-1033.
54. Shibata, M., Terasawa, Y., & Umeda, S. (2014). Integration of cognitive and affective networks in humor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 65, 137-145.
55. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: a nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(5), 768.
56. Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, 1, 81-100.
57. Suls, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In Handbook of humor research (pp. 39-57). Springer New York.
58. Tsakona, V. (2009). Language and image interaction in cartoons: Towards a multimodal theory of humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1171-1188.
59. Veatch, T.C. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 11,161–215.
60. Watson, K. K., Matthews, B. J., & Allman, J. M. (2006). Brain activation during sight gags and language-dependent humor. Cerebral Cortex, 17(2), 314-324.
61. Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the windows to the soul the same in the East and West? Cultural differences in using the eyes and mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 303-311.
62. Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children's humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(3), 332-336.