A Psychological Perspective on Vicarious Embarrassment and Shame in the Context of Cringe Humor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author(s) have expanded our understanding of the emotional experiences of amusement and embarrassment due to others’ norm transgressions.   This review article summarizes the literature on embarrassment and shame and how humans often experience these emotions on behalf of others.  The link to comedy, cringe humor, is a refreshing new element that is part of this emotional dynamic of vicarious embarrassment that makes perfect sense. The author then systematically disentangled the various contexts in which 10 audiences experienced vicarious embarrassment, and puts forth an argument on the ongoing processes and consequences of the observed norm transgression. This is based upon the dimensions of awareness and intentionality of the norm transgression by the social target.  They describe how behavioral expressions of the target, social distance and current motivations of the audience shape the norm transgressions.  They suggest that cringe humor is closely linked to the debate of social normative standards between the actress and the audience, and conclude that these different manifestations and specific situational characteristics have explicitly different consequences for the affirmation or renegotiation of social normative standards.

The author(s) write well, and provide insight into a significant area of human behavior, that of cringe humor, and what the literature has to suggest about the causes and effects of cringe humor.  The author does a great job delving into what the literature indicates are the various causes of cringe humor, as well as potential effects/outcomes. I’m familiar with much of the research cited within the paper, and understand the difficulties of describing the phenomena of interest in the area of embarrassment. The author has done an excellent job at laying it all out for us.

As a review article, this is an important and significant contribution to the field.  We need more people to write reviews that help put various aspects of an area of research into perspective, since research articles are often focused on a narrow perspective and don’t provide the broader context.

Author Response

Thank you for this overall positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that we have been able to contribute a new perspective to understanding cringe humor and the emotional states associated with it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present review intends to provide insight into a driving mechanism underlying the perception of “cringe humor”: vicarious embarrassment. The understanding of this type of humor impacts a wide array of topics both related and unrelated to humor itself (e.g., marketing, public health, psychology), and I read this manuscript with great interest.

While I think this manuscript is quite well-written (with some exceptions, explained below) and the effects described are certainly of great public interest, I also think the manuscript suffers in some important areas – enough to recommend it not being published in its current state, and not without a few significant theoretical inclusions and structural revisions. Below I will first outline some general comments on the paper followed by line-specific recommendations.

General Comments:

1. Though this paper is titled to explain the role of vicarious embarrassment in cringe humor, it seems far too much detail is provided in distinguishing embarrassment and shame, only to move forward with cringe humor and embarrassment while largely ignoring shame for the rest of the paper. As the authors themselves state, the concepts of shame and embarrassment have a large semantic overlap in many languages – in a few of the line-specific comments below, I argue that the distinction between the two terms in English is less clear than the authors imply. Additionally, the authors might explore differences in these downstream effects of cringe humor (both perceptions and consequences) shift in English- vs. non-English-speaking countries.
2. One aspect the authors should consider is the role of audience/listener knowledge of the humorist outside the humor-related context. In other words, how might the past or present social offenses of a comedian him/herself impact an audience’s perception of their humor? For example, Louis C.K. and Aziz Ansari were hugely famous and marketable comedians until they were convicted of sexual misconduct, but their actions’ career-related consequences have differed dramatically since these accusations. How would transgressions that are associated with a humorist -- but not their humor -- shift perceptions of the audience? Further, is this shift a result of vicarious shame?
3. The authors seem to “hold off” on a succinct explanation of McGraw and Warren’s benign violations theory until close to the end. I think many of the paper’s claims would be better received if this theory were explained much earlier (perhaps even in the introduction).
4. If the authors intend to use "vicarious" and "empathetic" embarrassment interchangeably, they should (1) articulate this and (2) explain why early in the manuscript. However, if the differences are minute, I would simply pick one term.
5. The authors should much more clearly explain the role of the listener/audience in distinguishing vicarious embarrassment from vicarious shame. For example, on Page 4, Line 199, the authors explain a hilarious mishap committed by Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm to illustrate a non-intentional transgression committed by an “aware target” (more on why this term is in quotes in a bit). In this case, wouldn't attributes about the perceiver/audience matter in determining whether this is vicarious shame or embarrassment? For example, if a lanky, bald, Jewish, bespectacled curmudgeon watched Larry David's performance here, vicarious shame would be elicited (at least based on the distinction between the two terms the authors previously explained).
6. Importantly, the authors state at the outset that the research underlying this paper will be “Based on a psychological and social neuroscience research perspective.” However, the neuroscientific explanations provided for many of these phenomena amount to four individual sections of paraphrased material without much explanation of implications. I would highly recommend the authors either remove these sections or significantly elaborate on why these neuroscientific outcomes are being included in the manuscript – they seem very out of place here and distract from the paper’s focus.
7. The authors seem to consistently conflate the audience's "behavior", "attitudes", and "feelings" toward the target in many of the examples they cite. This is problematic when considering each of these constitute distinct psychological (and neuroscientific) processes. I recommend the authors consider work from other similar work on humor mechanisms and outcomes in psychological science to disentangle these processes. Examples below:

• Thai, Borgella, & Sanchez (2019)
• Woodzicka, Mallett, Hendricks & Pruitt (2015)
• Borgella, Howard, & Maddox (2020)
• Saucier, Strain, Miller, O’Dea, & Till (2018)
• Mastro & Tropp (2004)
• Mallett, Ford, & Woodzicka (2016)

Line-specific Recommendations:

• 37 – “Norm violating” should be hyphenated.
• 38-42 – It seems this would be an optimal place to introduce and explain benign-violations theory.
• 67 – “Although” should be the start of a new paragraph.
• 73 – “While” should not be capitalized.
• 77 – Missing an Oxford comma in a list.
• 78 – “In contrast” should be the start of a new paragraph.
• 89-94 and 115-118 – These sections need substantial elaboration (or removal from the paper; see point #6 above).
• 131- The military misconduct example needs to be elaborated on. I’m not sure what the results of those studies were, and I’m American.
• 151-153 – This does not alone explain the distinction between known vs. unknown observers of the "norm violating" event, simply that those with "higher levels of empathy" experienced more neural activity associated with vicarious embarrassment.
• 162-163 – Zaki's paper could use some elaboration in this section -- what neural processes are being activated exactly?
• 174 – “This opens up…” should start a new paragraph.
• 193 – This is the case for many of the examples cited in this section, but I am confused as to how a scripted comedic scene could be described (or indeed perceived by an audience) as non-intentional. The authors should dedicate some time teasing apart this issue.
• 207-209 – I am not certain what relevance this experience has on this situation.
• 245-247 – Why consider these roles (the screenwriter, actor, and overall intentionality of the entire situation) here, but not in any of the previous categories? This seems cherry-picked.
• 254 – “However” should be the start of a new paragraph.
• 260-262 – As stated previously, I think McGraw and Warren (2010; 2012) deserve significantly more detailed coverage earlier in this manuscript and would actually help the author explain many situations like these in more parsimonious terms later in the manuscript.
• 384 – “However” should be the start of a new paragraph.
• 452-453 – This should be rephrased, yes? It seems like only accidental mishaps that are met with vicarious embarrassment/shame imply shared social norms.
• 466 – This “or” should be removed.
• 468-469 – This explanation runs counter to that offered by McGraw and Warren -- in their view, I would argue that commitment to the violated norm decreases laughter and perceptions of humor generally, which implies the norm isn't being reconsidered. On the other hand, if humor is perceived, one could make the argument that the norm is still upheld but perceived in a benign context.
• 472-475 – The authors should include information on social facilitation of laughter here. How might a laughing audience influence one’s humor response despite disagreement with the transgression?
• 493-515 – This section needs significantly more elaboration. I invite the authors to consider work by Borgella, Howard, and Maddox (2020) on the role of racial humor as a tool to increase interracial dialogue broadly, the work of Ford (2000), Ford and Ferguson (2004), and Thai, Borgella, and Sanchez (2019) to further explore how both of these humor types serve different roles (and have vastly differing consequences regarding humor) depending on the makeup of the audience and humorist.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and thoughtful addressing of each of the comments I provided! This is an excellent paper and I'm quite excited to see it published.