Can a joke make science mor etrustworthy? (DC Studio/Shutterstock)
In a nutshell
- The study found that when scientists use humor, especially a mix of anthropomorphism and satire, they are perceived as more likable and their messages as more legitimate sources of scientific information.
- Lighthearted, well-executed humor enhances engagement, while harsh or aggressive satire can backfire by making scientists seem less credible.
- Humor can make scientific content more engaging and shareable, helping scientists connect with broader audiences and potentially counter misinformation.
ATHENS, Ga. — When was the last time you laughed at a scientist’s social media post? If it made you chuckle, you might have also unwittingly found that scientist more credible. A new study reveals a surprising connection: scientists who effectively use humor aren’t just more likable; they’re actually perceived as more legitimate sources of scientific information.
This might surprise many people. Common sense often suggests that to be taken seriously, one should be serious. Many scientists worry that using humor could undermine their authority or make them seem unprofessional. The study, published in the Journal of Science Communication, finds that humor, in its many different forms, may actually do the opposite. Two types of humor that researchers focused on were anthropomorphism, giving non-human objects or animals human-like traits to make concepts more relatable, and satire.
“Our study aimed to bridge this gap by enhancing our understanding of how individuals react to anthropomorphism and satire while providing practical insights for scientists and science communicators,” says lead study author Alexandra Lynn Frank, a doctoral student at the University of Georgia, in a statement.
The Science of Scientific Humor
The study focused on artificial intelligence (AI), a topic where public understanding matters greatly. Americans remain split in their opinions about AI development and skeptical about policymakers’ ability to regulate it properly.
To test how different types of humor affected people’s perceptions, the researchers created fictional Twitter (now X) posts from a made-up scientist named “Dr. Jamie Devon.” These posts featured cartoons about self-driving cars with different types of humor: some gave the cars faces and personalities (anthropomorphism), some made light-hearted critical commentary about AI (satire), some used both approaches, and some control posts had no humor at all.
Over 2,200 participants viewed these posts and then answered questions about how funny they found the content, how likable they found the fictional scientist, and how legitimate they considered the Twitter conversation as a source of scientific information.
People who saw the humorous posts rated them as funnier compared to those who saw posts without humor. Posts combining anthropomorphism and satire were rated as the funniest. Participants who found the posts funnier were much more likely to perceive the scientist as likable and the content as a legitimate source of information.
Scientists don’t always have to be serious to be taken seriously. Good humor can make scientists more relatable without undermining their authority.
Why Humor Works in Science Communication
“Politicians, entertainers, and advertisers often use humor because people tend to like and connect with people who can make them laugh,” says Frank. “When people find something funny, they’re usually less likely to argue with or reject the message or the person delivering it. Our research supports this idea. We found that humor can aid scientists’ communication efforts, but only if people think they’re funny.”
However, the researchers warn that not all humor works equally well. Frank says that a joke must be effective in genuinely resonating with the audience; otherwise, it could have the opposite effect. Well-executed humor must fit the context and be skillfully delivered.
“Sarcasm or aggressively targeting someone, for example, is highly discouraged,” explains Frank.
Recent polling has shown declining confidence in science among certain segments of the American public. For example, the percentage of Republicans reporting a “great deal of confidence” in the scientific community dropped from about 44% in 2006 to just 22% in 2022. During that same period, confidence among Democrats rose from 46% to 53%.
These partisan divides highlight the need for communication strategies that can reach different audiences. Humor is a universal language that can engage people regardless of their prior attitudes toward science, making it a possible tool to do this.
Social media has dramatically changed where and how people learn about science. Humor could be a key ingredient in creating shareable content that spreads scientific information more widely.
Putting Humor to Work in Scientific Communication
This doesn’t mean every scientist needs to become a comedian or that all science communication should be humorous. Different approaches work for different communicators and topics. But for scientists comfortable with humor, this research suggests it might enhance rather than detract from their effectiveness.
“By leveraging humor, scientists can simplify complex concepts, making them more relatable and easier to understand,” says Frank. “This approach not only fosters goodwill but also has the potential to dispel misinformation in a friendly manner. Moreover, humor can spark curiosity, motivating people to seek out additional information on important scientific topics.”
Maybe wit and wisdom aren’t as far apart as we might have thought. A scientist who can make us laugh might also be one who can help us learn and, along the way, help rebuild trust in science. So the next time you see a funny science post in your feed, pay attention. That joke might actually be teaching you something.
Paper Summary
Methodology
Researchers conducted an online survey experiment with 2,212 participants representative of the U.S. population. Participants viewed fictional Twitter conversations about AI started by “Dr. Jamie Devon,” with posts varying by humor type (no humor, anthropomorphism, satire, or a combination) and social media metrics. After viewing, participants rated how humorous they found the content, how likable they found the scientist, and how legitimate they considered the conversation as a scientific information source.
Results
Humorous posts received higher “mirth” ratings than non-humorous posts, with the combined humor approach (anthropomorphism plus satire) rated highest. Statistical analysis revealed that participants reporting greater mirth were significantly more likely to perceive both the scientist as more likable and the content as a more legitimate information source. Alternative explanations were tested and ruled out, confirming that mirth mediated the relationship between humor exposure and perceptions of both likability and legitimacy.
Limitations
The study was U.S.-specific and may not apply to cultures with different humor perceptions. The fictional Twitter conversations might not perfectly reflect real-world social media interactions. The findings focus specifically on AI and self-driving cars, potentially limiting generalizability to other scientific topics. Also, Twitter/X has evolved significantly since data collection in 2020, which could affect how these findings apply to current social media contexts.
Discussion and Takeaways
This study demonstrates that scientists can effectively use humor on social media without sacrificing perceived legitimacy. Combining different humor types (anthropomorphism and satire) appears most effective. Humor may be particularly valuable for science communication in an era of declining public trust, though the researchers caution against aggressive or sarcastic humor that could backfire. The findings suggest scientists should consider humor as a legitimate communication tool rather than viewing it as unprofessional.
Funding and Disclosures
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DRL-1906864. The authors note that opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are their own and don’t necessarily reflect NSF views.
Publication Information
The journal paper, “Wit meets wisdom: the relationship between satire and anthropomorphic humor on scientists’ likability and legitimacy,” is by Alexandra L. Frank, Michael A. Cacciatore, Sara K. Yeo, and Leona Yi-Fan Su. It was published in the Journal of Science Communication on March 10, 2025.
