06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 89

Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations
2004 Vol 7(1) 89100

Individual Differences in
Reactions to Sexist
Humor
Caroline A. Thomas and Victoria M. Esses
University of Western Ontario

This research investigated the relation between sexism, general prejudice, and reactions to
sexist humor. Eighty-one male participants completed measures of modern sexism, ambivalent
sexism, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, and rated the funniness,
offensiveness, and likelihood of repeating female-disparaging and male-disparaging jokes.
Results revealed that men who were higher in hostile sexism were especially likely to report that
they would repeat the female-disparaging jokes, and rated these jokes as funnier than did men
who were lower in hostile sexism. In addition, the relation between hostile sexism and the
likelihood of repeating these jokes was mediated by their perceived funniness. These effects
were not evident for the male-disparaging jokes. Results are discussed in terms of the function
of sexist humor.

keywords

humor, prejudice, sexism

Most people can recall a time in which they

were exposed to humor that targeted and
degraded women or men. At times, the individuals reaction is discomfort or uncertainty of
the appropriate response; at other times, the
reaction is spontaneous laughter. Generally,
there seems to be an understanding that sexist
jokes should not be told, as evidenced by the
joke tellers common disclaimer that he or she
is not prejudiced and only wishes to share a
funny joke. That is, although the joke teller
does not wish to be seen by others as sexist,
he/she nonetheless gains amusement at the
derogation of a group. In the current research
we investigated possible individual differences
in reactions to and in the likelihood of repeating sexist jokes.
Hobbes, in Human Nature (1650/1968) and

Leviathan (1651/1966), suggested that humor is

elicited when individuals perceive themselves to
be superior to other people or when they recognize some imperfection or inferiority in others.
Although only side notes in his writings,
Hobbes observations led to the eventual
development of superiority theories of disparagement humor. As applied to group-based
humor, these theories suggest that one will
derive a sense of amusement and mirth from
humor stimuli that enhance ones group; that

Authors note
Address correspondence to Victoria Esses,
Department of Psychology, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
N6A 5C2 [email: vesses@uwo.ca]

Copyright 2004 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
7:1; 89100; DOI: 10.1177/1368430204039975

G
P
I
R

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 90

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

is, when a joke makes ones own group appear

superior to another, humor is produced (e.g.
LaFave, Haddad, & Matheson, 1976; Zillmann
& Cantor, 1976).
For example, Zillmann and Cantor (1976)
proposed a dispositional theory of disparagement humor, suggesting that the degree to
which individuals will enjoy a group-disparaging joke is inuenced by their affective disposition toward the target of the joke. Dispositions
toward the target can range from very negative
to very positive. The theory predicts that disparaging jokes will be considered funnier when
they disparage a disliked group or when they
attribute power to a liked group. Thus, not only
will individuals laugh when a salient outgroup
is degraded, they will laugh more when they
dislike that group. An earlier study conducted
by Zillmann and Cantor (1972) revealed that
this relation can be determined by ones own
reference group. Participants were presented
with a series of cartoons and jokes depicting
interactions between dyads that have a socially
understood status differential (e.g. professor/
student, parent/child) in which either the
socially superior or the socially subordinate
member was presented as the butt of the joke.
It was found that those in socially superior roles
(e.g. professors) preferred jokes in which the
subordinate was the victim, and that socially
subordinate participants (e.g. students) preferred jokes that presented the superior as the
victim. Similarly, Wicker, Barron, and Willis
(1980) found that jokes with a disliked victim
were preferred over jokes with a neutral or a
liked victim.
In a discussion of prejudicial humor, Allport
(1954/1979, p. 50) suggested that the use of a
negative stereotype in a joke shows that it
serves an added function of proving the inferiority of out-group standards to our own.
Indeed, research has shown that groupdisparaging humor often is associated with
negative attitudes toward that group. In a study
conducted in Australia, Gallois and Callan
(1985) found that Anglo-Australian participants high in ethnocentrism preferred jokes
with an Anglo-Australian aggressor and an
Italian or Greek victim over jokes with an

90

Anglo-Australian victim. Ryan and Kanjorski

(1998) found that men were more likely to
enjoy female-disparaging jokes than were
women. Moreover, their results showed that
mens endorsement of rape-related beliefs was
positively correlated with appreciation of
female-disparaging jokes. Moore, Grifths, and
Payne (1987) found that, regardless of participants sex, those with liberal gender attitudes
found female-disparaging jokes to be less funny
than did those who held traditional gender attitudes. Henkin and Fish (1986) obtained similar
results using sexist cartoons; pro-feminist men
and women found sexist cartoons targeting
either women or men less funny than did nonfeminist persons.
Of particular relevance to the current study,
Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that hostile
and benevolent sexism inuenced ratings of
the amusement and offensiveness of dumb
blonde jokes. Male and female participants
listened to a recording of two males in conversation, during which one of the men discussed
his girlfriend, implying that she was a dumb
blonde, and proceeded to tell dumb blonde
jokes. High hostile sexists found the dumb
blonde jokes to be more amusing and less
offensive than did individuals low in hostile
sexism. Male benevolent sexists found the
dumb blonde jokes to be more amusing and
less offensive than did female benevolent
sexists (or non-sexist males). In addition,
measures of amusement and offensiveness were
negatively correlated.
The current research followed a similar line
of investigation with several additions. We
included several measures of sexism and more
general prejudice, and assessed reactions to
both male- and female-disparaging jokes. This
allowed us to differentiate between the effects
of specic sexist attitudes versus more general
prejudice toward women. We were also able to
compare reactions to outgroup versus ingroup
disparaging humor, and to focus on female
versus male targets at a general level (i.e.
women in general or men in general), rather
than on a specic stereotyped subgroup (i.e.
dumb blondes).
Of importance, in addition to examining the

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 91

Thomas & Esses

individual differences and sexist humor

perceived funniness and offensiveness of the

jokes, we included our key dependent
measureparticipants likelihood of repeating
the sexist jokes to a friend. It is important to
understand influences on the likelihood of
repeating group-disparaging jokes because
prior research has demonstrated that telling
these jokes may propagate negative attitudes
toward the target of the jokes. For example,
Ford (1997) found that White participants who
had watched a stereotypic Black comedy skit
were more likely to consider a Black target
guilty of a crime than were those who had
watched a non-stereotypic comedy skit. Similarly, Ford (2000) found that exposure to sexist
jokes led to increased tolerance for sexist
events, particularly among those high in hostile
sexism. Thus, it is important to determine inuences on the likelihood of repeating groupdisparaging jokes because exposing others to
these jokes can perpetuate stereotypic
representations and more negative evaluations
of the group.
In this study, then, male participants completed several individual difference measures,
and read and responded to a series of jokes disparaging men or women. Two well-established
measures of sexism were utilized: Modern
Sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995)
and Ambivalent Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
We also included two measures that tend to
reect prejudice toward outgroups in general:
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer,
1996) and Social Dominance Orientation
(Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). By
including ratings of perceived funniness and
offensiveness of the jokes in addition to the
reported likelihood of repeating the jokes to a
friend, we were able to determine whether the
perceptions of the jokes mediated any relations
obtained between the individual differences
and the likelihood of repeating the jokes.

Modern sexism and ambivalent

sexism
Modern sexism (Swim et al., 1995), in contrast
to traditional old-fashioned sexism, assesses
denial of discrimination against women.

Whereas old-fashioned sexism measures overt

hostility toward women and a general belief in
womens inferiority, modern sexism assesses
disregard for the inequality between the sexes.
High scorers on modern sexism are more likely
to believe that job segregation is due to biological differences between men and women as
opposed to socialization or discrimination
(Swim et al., 1995). In addition, high scorers
demonstrate hostility toward womens demands
for equity, and feel that they are unwarranted.
Modern sexism was included in the present
research as an indication of prejudice against
women, and it was expected that high scorers
would find female-disparaging jokes to be
funnier and less offensive, and would be more
willing to repeat these jokes to a friend than
would low scorers. Because the modern sexism
scale assesses attitudes toward women, such
effects were not expected for male-disparaging
jokes.
The ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick &
Fiske, 1996) assesses two forms of sexism:
hostile and benevolent. Hostile sexism involves
negative stereotypes and antagonism toward
women. It encompasses overall animosity
toward women, and includes negative beliefs
about the competence and the character of
women. Benevolent sexism, although subjectively positive, is also related to stereotypic
beliefs about women and their roles. Benevolent sexism includes the view that women are
dependent on men, are in need of their
support and protection, and should be
restricted to traditional roles (e.g. romantic
objects, homemakers, wives). Hostile sexism has
been related to negative evaluations of women
in non-traditional roles, whereas benevolent
sexism has been related to positive attitudes
toward women in traditional roles (Glick,
Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997). In the
current study it was anticipated that participants who scored higher on ambivalent sexism
would find female-disparaging jokes to be
funnier, less offensive, and would report a
greater likelihood of repeating these jokes to a
friend than would low scorers. In terms of the
hostile and benevolent sexism subscales,
insofar as hostile sexism assesses more direct

91

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 92

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

antagonism toward women, it was predicted

that those scoring higher in hostile sexism
would be especially likely to show these effects.
Such effects were not expected on male-disparaging jokes.

Right-wing authoritarianism and social

dominance orientation
Two scales reflecting general intergroup
attitudes were also included in the current
research. Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988, 1996) is related to ethnocentrism, prejudice, and outgroup antagonism.
The scale assesses obedience and submission to
authority, traditional beliefs, and aggression
against those who seem to violate traditional
beliefs. Those high in right-wing authoritarianism tend to hold negative attitudes toward a
variety of outgroups (e.g. Altemeyer, 1988;
McFarland & Adelson, 1996). Of particular
relevance to the current investigation, rightwing authoritarianism is related to negative
attitudes toward women (Altemeyer, 1988;
Duncan, Peterson, & Winter, 1997; McFarland
& Adelson, 1996). Moreover, because high
right-wing authoritarians endorse conventional
beliefs, they tend to have negative views toward
feminists (Haddock & Zanna, 1994), and
support traditional gender roles (Duncan et al.,
1997). It was expected that men scoring higher
in right-wing authoritarianism would find
female-disparaging jokes to be more humorous,
less offensive, and would be more likely to
repeat these jokes to a friend, in comparison to
those lower in right-wing authoritarianism.
These effects were not expected on maledisparaging jokes.
Social dominance orientation (Pratto et al.,
1994) similarly measures negative intergroup
beliefs, although it generally shows only a
modest relation with right-wing authoritarianism (e.g. Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance orientation assesses belief in group
inequality and support for a hierarchically
oriented social system (based on traits such as
social class, race, or sex). Social dominance
orientation is generally higher among men
than among women (Sidanius, Pratto, &

92

Rabinowitz, 1994), and predicts sexist attitudes,

belief in traditional gender roles, and negative
attitudes toward womens rights (Heaven, 1999;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). As a result, it was
expected that high scorers would nd femaledisparaging jokes to be funnier, less offensive,
and would be more likely to repeat these jokes
to a friend than would low scorers. Again, these
effects were not expected for male-disparaging
jokes.

Method
Participants
Ninety-nine male participants were recruited
from the introductory psychology pool at the
University of Western Ontario and received
partial course credit for their participation.
Data from participants whose native language
was other than English (n = 16) and from
participants with incomplete data (n = 2) were
excluded from analyses. Thus, the nal sample
included 81 male participants (M age = 20.10
years, SD = 1.98 years).

Materials
Jokes Forty jokes were included in this study
to assess male participants responses to femaledisparaging (N = 20) and male-disparaging (N
= 20) jokes. An example of a female-disparaging
joke is the following:
Why did the woman cross the road?
Who cares? What the hell is she doing out of
the kitchen?
An example of a male-disparaging joke is:
What do UFOs and smart men have in
common?
You keep hearing about them, but never see
any.
Participants rated all jokes in terms of funniness,
offensiveness, and the likelihood that they would
repeat the joke to a friend. The ratings were
made on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at
all) to 9 (Extremely). Mean scores across femaledisparaging jokes and across male-disparaging
jokes were computed, resulting in six scores: funniness of the female-disparaging jokes ( = .95),

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 93

Thomas & Esses

individual differences and sexist humor

funniness of the male-disparaging jokes ( =

.93), offensiveness of the female-disparaging
jokes ( = .97), offensiveness of the maledisparaging jokes ( = .97), likelihood of repeating the female-disparaging jokes ( = .94), and
likelihood of repeating the male-disparaging
jokes ( = .92).
Individual differences Participants completed four individual differences measures.
Modern sexism (Swim et al., 1995) is an eightitem questionnaire assessing the degree to
which an individual denies the inequalities
between men and women, opposes programs
intended to provide equality, and feels antagonism toward womens demands for equity. For
example, participants are asked to indicate
their agreement with the statement that
Women often miss out on good jobs due to
sexual discrimination. Agreement is indicated
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Higher mean
scores on this measure indicate a greater denial
of inequality, and hence a more sexist attitude
(M = 2.82, SD = .61; = .75).
The ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick &
Fiske, 1996) is a 22-item questionnaire assessing
two forms of sexism: hostile and benevolent.
Hostile sexism assesses antagonism and negative
attitudes directed at women, and includes
agreement with statements such as, Once a
woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually
puts him on a tight leash. Benevolent sexism
assesses the degree to which one believes that
women are delicate, and belong in traditional
roles. For example, participants are asked to
indicate agreement with the statement that
Every man ought to have a woman whom he
adores. Both the hostile and benevolent items
were rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from 0
(Disagree strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly), such
that higher mean scores indicate a greater
degree of sexism. A mean was calculated for
hostile sexism (M = 2.75, SD = .81; = .84), for
benevolent sexism (M = 2.65, SD = .72; = .71),
and for the total ambivalent sexism scale (M =
2.70, SD = .60; = .80).
Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer,
1996) is a 30-item questionnaire that assesses

agreement with statements such as, Obedience

and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. Ratings are
made on scales ranging from 4 (Very strongly
disagree) to +4 (Very strongly agree). Higher
mean scores indicate a greater deference to
authority, greater outgroup antagonism, and a
lower tolerance for unfamiliar lifestyles and traditions (M = 1.12, SD = 1.08; = .90).
Social dominance orientation (Pratto et al.,
1994) is a 16-item questionnaire that includes
statements such as, Superior groups should
dominate inferior groups. Ratings are made on
a scale ranging from 1 (Do not agree at all) to
7 (Strongly agree). Higher mean scorers are
more likely to believe that groups should be
stratied and unequal, and are more likely to
perceive the world as a competitive place (M =
2.72, SD = 1.03; = .89).

Procedure
Participants arrived at the laboratory in small
groups and, after being greeted by a male
experimenter, were asked to provide informed
consent. To avoid possible demand characteristics, participants were given the cover story
that they were taking part in two short studies.
One of the studies was investigating young
mens attitudes toward current social issues
(the individual difference measures), and the
other study was investigating mens reactions
to jokes. The order of the studies (i.e. individual difference measures and joke reactions)
was counterbalanced across participants.
Because signicant interactions with order were
not obtained, results are described collapsed
across order of the measures. Upon completion
of the two studies, participants were debriefed
and thanked for their participation.

Results
Relations among the individual difference
variables
Table 1 shows the relations among the individual difference measures. Modern sexism was
signicantly correlated with ambivalent sexism
(including both hostile and benevolent
sexism), and with right-wing authoritarianism.

93

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 94

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

Table 1. Correlations among the individual difference measures

Individual difference
measure

Modern
sexism

Ambivalent
sexism

Hostile
sexism

Benevolent
sexism

RWA

SDO

.39**

.32**

.28*

.23*

.08

.81**

.75**
.22*

.25*
.04
.37**

.36**
.34**
.23*

.33**

Modern sexism
Ambivalent sexism
Hostile sexism
Benevolent sexism
RWA

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two tailed).

Note: N = 81.

Ambivalent sexism was signicantly correlated

with right-wing authoritarianism, though this
only held for the benevolent sexism subscale,
and with social dominance orientation. The
hostile and benevolent subscales were signicantly correlated with each other and with the
overall ambivalence measure. Finally, rightwing authoritarianism was signicantly correlated with social dominance orientation. None
of these correlations were substantial enough to
indicate redundancy in the measures.

Overall reactions to the jokes

Paired t tests were conducted to determine
whether the female- versus male-disparaging
jokes differed in perceived funniness, offensiveness, or likelihood of repeating the joke to
a friend. Table 2 presents the means and
standard deviations for the six joke scores.
Participants found the female-disparaging jokes
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for reactions
to the female-disparaging and male-disparaging
jokes
Female-disparaging Male-disparaging
jokes
jokes
Funniness

5.00
(1.84)

4.29
(1.49)

Offensiveness

2.79
(1.79)

2.16
(1.45)

Likelihood of
repeating

3.90
(1.87)

2.83
(1.37)

Notes: N = 81; possible range = 19. Values in

parentheses indicate standard deviations.

94

to be more funny (t(80) = 4.78, p < .001), and

more offensive (t(80) = 6.26, p < .001), than the
male-disparaging jokes. They also reported a
greater likelihood of repeating the femaledisparaging jokes than the male-disparaging
jokes (t(80) = 7.23, p < .001). Of course, these
results are suggestive only because the joke
content was not constant across target group
(i.e. different jokes were utilized for male and
female targets).
Table 3 shows the correlations among the
joke scores. Within female- and male-disparaging jokes, only perceived funniness was signicantly correlated with the likelihood of
repeating the jokes to a friend. Of note, perceived offensiveness was correlated neither with
perceived funniness nor with the likelihood of
repeating the jokes.

Individual differences and reactions to the

jokes
The relations between the individual difference
measures and the perceived funniness, offensiveness, and likelihood of repeating the jokes
are presented in Table 4. Of particular interest,
ambivalent sexism signicantly predicted the
perceived funniness, offensiveness, and likelihood of repeating the female-disparaging jokes.
These effects were driven by the hostile sexism
subscale, which showed a similar pattern of correlations. Individuals who were higher in
hostile sexism rated the female-disparaging
jokes as more funny and less offensive, and
reported a greater likelihood of repeating these
jokes than did individuals who were lower in
hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism predicted the

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 95

Thomas & Esses

individual differences and sexist humor

Table 3. Correlations among joke reactions for female-disparaging and male-disparaging jokes
Female-disparaging jokes

Male-disparaging jokes

Funniness Offensiveness Repeat

Funniness Offensiveness Repeat

Female-disparaging jokes
Funniness
Offensiveness
Repeat

.07

.88**
.02

Male-disparaging jokes
Funniness
Offensiveness
Repeat

.04
.86**
.11

.62**
.02
.71**

.18

.70**
.08
.54**

.78**
.02

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Note: N = 81.

perceived offensiveness of these jokes only. In

addition, modern sexism predicted the perceived funniness of these jokes. The more
general measures of prejudice, right-wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation showed only one signicant relation with
reactions to the female-disparaging jokes. Individuals higher in social dominance orientation
found the female-disparaging jokes to be less
offensive. In contrast to these findings for
reactions to the female-disparaging jokes, no
signicant relations were found for reactions
to the male-disparaging jokes. Overall, then,
ambivalent sexism, particularly hostile sexism,
was the most reliable predictor of reactions to

the female-disparaging jokes, predicting the

reported likelihood of repeating these jokes,
and their perceived funniness and offensiveness. These effects were not evident for reactions to the male-disparaging jokes.
To examine the unique ability of each of the
individual difference variables to predict reactions to the jokes, regression analyses were also
conducted in which all the individual difference variables were entered simultaneously as
predictors of each of the joke reactions.
Because hostile sexism and benevolent sexism
are components of ambivalent sexism, they
were both entered in these analyses, whereas
overall ambivalent sexism was not. When all the

Table 4. Correlations between the individual difference measures and reactions to the female-disparaging
and male-disparaging jokes
Female-disparaging jokes
Individual difference
measure

Funniness

Offensiveness

Repeat

Male-disparaging jokes
Funniness

Offensiveness

Repeat

Modern sexism

.23*

.11

.17

.08

.09

.02

Ambivalent sexism
Hostile sexism
Benevolent sexism

.40**
.46**
.15

.32**
.27*
.23*

.35**
.39**
.14

.13
.17
.03

.20
.18
.12

.07
.17
.06

RWA

.09

.05

.03

.03

.04

.05

SDO

.07

.29**

.05

.01

.17

.02

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Note: N = 81.

95

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 96

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

Table 5. Regression values obtained with simultaneous entry of all individual difference variables in
predicting female-disparaging joke measures

Partial
correlation

Signicance

Funniness
Benevolent sexism
Hostile sexism
Modern sexism
Social dominance orientation
Right-wing authoritarianism

.020
.476
.061
.124
.088

.051
1.077
.185
.221
.151

.020
.430
.063
.124
.087

.860
.000
.587
.282
.450

Offensiveness
Benevolent sexism
Hostile sexism
Modern sexism
Social dominance orientation
Right-wing authoritarianism

.177
.157
.013
.229
.098

.436
.345
.039
.395
.162

.168
.147
.013
.213
.092

.143
.203
.910
.063
.427

Likelihood of repeating
Benevolent sexism
Hostile sexism
Modern sexism
Social dominance orientation
Right-wing authoritarianism

.050
.405
.044
.111
.024

.130
.929
.137
.200
.042

.049
.362
.044
.106
.023

.670
.001
.704
.358
.841

individual difference variables were entered

simultaneously, results quite similar to those
described above were obtained. As shown in
Table 5, hostile sexism signicantly predicted
the perceived funniness and likelihood of
repeating the female-disparaging jokes. In
addition, social dominance orientation
emerged as a marginally signicant predictor of
the perceived offensiveness of the femaledisparaging jokes. In contrast, as for the zeroorder correlations, none of the individual
difference variables significantly predicted
reactions to the male-disparaging jokes.1

Mediational analyses
To determine whether the perceived funniness
or offensiveness of the female-disparaging jokes
mediated the relation between hostile sexism
and the likelihood of repeating the jokes, mediational analyses were conducted. As discussed
earlier, hostile sexism significantly predicted
both the perceived funniness and the perceived
offensiveness of the female-disparaging jokes
(see Table 4). The funniness of the female-

96

disparaging jokes strongly predicted the likelihood of repeating these jokes to a friend,
whereas the perceived offensiveness of the jokes
did not (see Table 3). As shown in Figure 1,
when hostile sexism and perceived funniness
were used together to predict the likelihood of
repeating the female-disparaging jokes to a
friend, the effect of hostile sexism was reduced
to nonsignicance (partial r = .03, ns), whereas
the effect of perceived funniness was not (partial
r = .86, p < .01). In addition, the Sobel test for the
change in the beta for hostile sexism was signicant (z = 4.41, p < .01). A similar analysis for
perceived offensiveness demonstrated no
evidence of mediation (see Figure 1).2 Thus, the
perceived funniness of the female-disparaging
jokes, and not the perceived offensiveness,
mediated the relation between hostile sexism
and the likelihood of repeating these jokes to a
friend.
A reverse mediational analysis was also conducted to determine whether the likelihood of
repeating the female-disparaging jokes possibly
mediated the relation between hostile sexism

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 97

Thomas & Esses

individual differences and sexist humor

Funniness of FemaleDisparaging Jokes

.46**

Hostile Sexism

.88** (.86**)

.39** (-.03) [.41**]

-.27**

Repeat FemaleDisparaging Jokes

.02 [.14]
Offensiveness of FemaleDisparaging Jokes

Figure 1. Mediational analyses of the relation between hostile sexism and the likelihood of
repeating the female-disparaging jokes.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Notes: Values given in parentheses are partial correlations obtained when hostile sexism and
funniness are entered together. Values given in square brackets are partial correlations obtained
when hostile sexism and offensiveness are entered together.

and perceived funniness of the jokes. When

hostile sexism and likelihood of repeating the
jokes were used together to predict the perceived funniness of the jokes, the effects of
both hostile sexism (partial r = .26, p < .05), and
likelihood of repeating the jokes (partial r = .86,
p < .01), remained signicant. This suggests
that the likelihood of repeating the jokes did
not completely mediate the relation between
hostile sexism and perceived funniness of the
jokes. However, the Sobel test for the change in
beta for hostile sexism was signicant (z = 3.68,
p < .01), providing some evidence of this
reverse mediation.

Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that
ambivalent sexism, and specically the hostile
sexism component of this measure, strongly
predicts mens willingness to repeat femaledisparaging jokes. The zero-order correlations

indicated that hostile sexism signicantly predicted the likelihood of repeating these jokes to
a friend, as well as the perceived funniness and
offensiveness of these jokes. No other signicant effects of the individual differences were
evident on the likelihood of repeating these
jokes to a friend, our key measure. Thus, benevolent sexism, for example, which assesses
stereotypic but not necessarily hostile views of
women did not have similar effects. Similarly,
the simultaneous regression analyses indicated
that hostile sexism was the only unique predictor of the likelihood of repeating the femaledisparaging jokes and of their perceived
funniness. In contrast, in these analyses, social
dominance orientation, which represents more
general prejudice, was the only unique predictor of the perceived offensiveness of the femaledisparaging jokes. This builds on previous
research by demonstrating that men who are
higher in hostile sexism are more likely to
repeat female-disparaging sexist jokes, and by

97

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 98

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

suggesting that enjoyment of this sexist humor

is specically based on hostility toward women,
and not only stereotypic perceptions and more
general negative evaluations of women (see also
Zillman & Cantor, 1976; Wicker et al., 1980). In
contrast, the perceived offensiveness of femaledisparaging jokes seems to be based on more
general attitudes toward women.
Consistent with these findings, the mediational analyses provided evidence that the perceived funniness of the female-disparaging
jokes mediated the relation between hostile
sexism and the likelihood of repeating the
jokes, whereas the perceived offensiveness of
the jokes did not. Thus, individuals who were
higher in hostile sexism were more likely than
low scorers to repeat the female-disparaging
jokes to a friend because they found these jokes
to be funnier. Perceived offensiveness of the
jokes seemed to have no role to play, which ts
with its link with more general prejudice, rather
than specically hostile views of women. Given
the strong association between the perceived
funniness of the jokes and the likelihood of
repeating them to others, it is not surprising
that some evidence for reverse mediation was
also obtained.
These ndings are of importance in providing new evidence regarding the type of people
who are most likely to perpetuate negative views
of women via humor, that is, men who are high
in hostile sexism. These men find femaledisparaging jokes particularly humorous and, as
a result, are likely to repeat these jokes to their
friends. In turn, exposure to female-disparaging
jokes may ensure that their friends develop
similar, hostile views of women (Ford, 1997,
2000). Thus, men who are high in hostile
sexism may not only hold derogatory views of
women, but they may ensure that those around
them hold similar views.
Note that the current findings differ
somewhat from those of Greenwood and Isbell
(2002), who obtained a significant negative
relation between funniness and offensiveness
ratings of dumb blonde jokes. In addition,
Greenwood and Isbell (2002) found that benevolent sexism predicted reactions to dumb
blonde jokes, such that benevolent sexist males

98

found the jokes more amusing than non-sexist

males or benevolent sexist females. The discrepancies between those findings and the
ndings described here are likely due in large
part to methodological differences. Specifically, participants in the Greenwood and Isbell
(2002) study evaluated jokes embedded in a
conversation between two men that were disparaging of the joke tellers girlfriend. The
jokes were thus personalized, and this may have
magnied the relation between ratings of their
offensiveness and their funniness. The current
study also investigated jokes about a more
general outgroup than dumb blondes,
focusing on all women. In addition, the current
study directly compared male-disparaging
(ingroup) with female-disparaging (outgroup)
jokes, and demonstrated that hostile sexism was
relevant to anti-female but not to anti-male
jokes. The Greenwood and Isbell (2002) study
did not allow for such a comparison.
Future research may wish to continue this
line of study by more closely examining the
antecedents and consequences of repeating
sexist jokes. In addition, research may wish to
include a female sample and measures of
sexism directed toward men to determine
whether similar effects are obtained on reactions to male-disparaging jokes. It may also
prove benecial to assess group-based attitudes
and evaluations after exposure to the disparaging jokes to further explore the potential
interactive effects of prior attitudes and groupdisparaging humor on effects obtained (see
also Ford, 1997, 2000). In this way, we can gain
a further understanding of how groupdisparaging humor functions to maintain and
spread prejudicial attitudes.

Notes
1. To further explore the relation between
ambivalent sexism and reactions to the jokes, we
also conducted regression analyses testing for
interactions between hostile and benevolent
sexism. No signicant interactions were evident.
Similarly, exploratory analyses testing for
interactions between hostile sexism (or
benevolent sexism) and perceived funniness of
the jokes or between hostile sexism (or

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 99

Thomas & Esses

individual differences and sexist humor

benevolent sexism) and perceived offensiveness

of the jokes produced no evidence of interactive
effects.
2. Although the zero-order correlation between
perceived offensiveness and the likelihood of
repeating the female-disparaging jokes was not
signicant, the mediational analysis is presented
for purposes of comparison with that of perceived
funniness.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada to Victoria Esses. We thank Mark Hord for
acting as the experimenter. We also thank Dom
Abrams and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this
paper.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G.
(1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles:
Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 4149.
Ford, T. E. (1997). Effects of stereotypical television
portrayals of African-Americans on person
perception. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266275.
Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on
tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 10941107.
Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1985). The inuence of
ethnocentrism and ethnic label on the
appreciation of disparagement jokes. International
Journal of Psychology, 20, 6376.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent
sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 491512.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L.
(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism
and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 13231334.

Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent

sexism and the dumb blonde: Mens and womens
reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 26, 341350.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring
housewives to feminists: Categorization and the
favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 18, 2552.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward womens
rights: Relationships with social dominance
orientation and political group identities. Sex
Roles, 41, 605614.
Henkin, B., & Fish, J. M. (1986). Gender and
personality differences in the appreciation of
cartoon humor. Journal of Psychology, 120,
157175.
Hobbes, T. (1650/1968). Human nature, or the
fundamental elements of policy. In W. Molesworth
(Ed.), The English works of Thomas Hobbes of
Malmesbury (Vol. 4). Aalen: Scienta Verlag.
Hobbes, T. (1651/1966). Leviathan.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Matheson, W. A. (1976).
Superiority, enhanced self esteem and perceived
incongruity humor theory. In A. J. Chapman & H.
C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research
and applications. New York: Wiley.
McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An
omnibus study of individual differences and prejudice.
Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Society for Political Psychology,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Moore, T. E., Grifths, K., & Payne, B. (1987).
Gender, attitudes towards women, and the
appreciation of sexist humor. Sex Roles, 16,
521531.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,
B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 741763.
Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment
of humor, rape attitudes, and relationship
aggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38,
743754.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An
integrated theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994).
Gender, ethnic status, and ideological asymmetry:
A social dominance interpretation. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 194216.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A.
(1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and

99

06 GPI7-1 Thomas (JB/D)

23/1/04

9:54 am

Page 100

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7(1)

modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 199214.
Wicker, F. W., Barron, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980).
Disparagement humor: Dispositions and
resolutions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 701709.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality
of transitory dominance as a communication
variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 191198.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition
theory of humor and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H.
C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research
and applications (pp. 93116). New York: Wiley.
Paper received 12 January 2003; revised version accepted
22 May 2003.

100

Biographical notes
caroline a. thomas completed her MA in
psychology at the University of Western Ontario,
Canada. She is currently pursuing a law degree at
Queens University, Canada.
victoria m. esses is Professor of Psychology at the
University of Western Ontario. Her research
interests include intergroup relations, prejudice,
and discrimination, with a focus on the role of
group status, group competition, and perceived
value threat in relations among groups.