Westerners tend to take humor as a natural feature of life and to use it wherever and whenever possible (Apte, 1985). In fact, Westerners have valued humor since the era of Plato and Aristotle as a natural expression of amusement, fun, and delight in social interactions (Grant, 1924/1970). The 19th and early 20th centuries are thought to be the beginning of a golden age of humor, particularly for American society (Bier, 1968; Blair and Hill, 1978):

Freud (1928) posited that humor is an effective defense mechanism against negative emotions. On one hand, laughter releases excess nervous energy; on the other hand, humor provides alternative perspectives about fear, sadness, or anger in the face of incongruous or amusing components (Martin, 2007). Early 20th century Western psychologists argued that humor and laughter enhance human health (e.g., Sully, 1902; McDougall, 1922), promote creativity (e.g., Guilford, 1950; Richards, 1990), and strengthen coping and optimism (e.g., Walsh, 1928).

Western research shows that humor could be an indispensable “panacea” in daily life to facilitate coping (e.g., Lefcourt et al., 1995; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Moran and Massam, 1999; Lefcourt, 2001), promote impression management (e.g., Mettee et al., 1971), and enhance interpersonal attraction (e.g., Fraley and Aron, 2004). In addition, Westerners tend to regard humor as a core trait of self-actualization (Maslow, 1968; Mintz, 1983; Mindess et al., 1985) and an essential characteristic of creativity (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg, 1985).

Moreover, in the West, individuals who engage in humorous behavior are often perceived as positive and attractive (Bressler et al., 2006). Westerners tend to rate humor as an ideal and critical personal characteristic for dating or romantic partners (Hansen and Hicks, 1980; Regan and Joshi, 2003). Beyond romantic affiliations, Westerners have positive perceptions about humorous individuals. For example, a study in organizational contexts revealed that subordinates view humorous supervisors as more motivating, confident, friendly, intelligent, and pleasant leaders (Decker, 1987; Priest and Swain, 2002). Similarly, in competitive sports contexts, players wanted to play for a humorous coach and perceived the coach as competent (Grisaffe et al., 2003). In short, in Western society, people who have a sense of humor are positively perceived as more extroverted and socially desirable; in contrast, those who lack a sense of humor draw negative perceptions (Allport, 1961; Cann and Calhoun, 2001; Priest and Swain, 2002).

As such, it is no surprise that President Bush joked about the size of the shoe that was thrown at him. True to Western perceptions of humor, he demonstrated wit and charisma in the face of an embarrassing situation.

In China, humor was first documented about 2,000 years ago (Yue, 2010; Chey, 2011; Davis, 2011). The Chinese term huaji is regarded as an alternative word for humor meaning wit, irony, and sarcasm (Chen, 1985; Liao, 2003). The earliest form of Chinese humor could be pai shuo, which means small talk or jokes (see Yue, 2010, for a review). In the 1920s, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), a well-known writer and scholar, used the Chinese character youmo as the Chinese version of humor. Since then, youmo has widely represented wit, irony, and hilarity (Lin, 1974).

Although humor has a long past, for the past 2000 years it has been devalued under Confucianism (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010, 2011; Xu, 2011). Lin (1974) used the term Confucian Puritanism to depict how humor was despised:

As such, the Confucian way of a gentleman requires restraint from laughter to demonstrate dignity and social formality (Yue, 2010; Xu, 2011). The Confucian doctrine of moderation advocates against hilarious laughter because it expresses extreme emotion (Liao, 1998). The Confucian orthodox literary writings forbade humorous expressions as being beneath proper literature (Lin, 1974; Yue, 2010; Qian, 2011). Confucius even said “a man has to be serious to be respected” (Liao, 2007). As a result, the Chinese feel that they should laugh only at certain times, in conjunction with certain subjects, and only with certain people (Yue, 2011).

If they chose to laugh, Chinese people were advised to laugh gently. Chinese women were advised to cover their mouths with their hands (Lin, 1934). In short, owing to Confucian concerns for maintaining proper social order and hierarchy, proper humor is “a form of private, moderate, good-natured, tasteful, and didactically useful mirth” (Xu, 2011, p. 70). Consequently, Chinese people have long scorned public humor. Confucian moralists feared that once humorous writing styles spread, life would lose its seriousness, and sophistry would overturn orthodoxy (Yue, 2010, 2011; Sample, 2011).

Though humor has thrived in China since the downfall of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese people are still heavily influenced by cultural biases against public humor that are deeply rooted in Confucianism (Davis, 2011; Xu, 2011). For example, humor has been consistently omitted from the list of qualities required for being a typical and creative Chinese thinker (Rudowicz and Yue, 2000, 2003; Rudowicz, 2003; Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Loud laughter tends to make Chinese people feel nervous and uncomfortable (Liao, 1998). In addition, Chinese students tend to consider themselves as being less humorous than Canadian students, and they tend to use less humor to cope with stress (Chen and Martin, 2005). Similarly, American students rated sexual and aggressive jokes as funnier than Singaporean Chinese students who preferred harmless humor (Nevo et al., 2001). Those findings support the claim that Chinese prefer a “thoughtful smile” to “hilarious laughter” (Lin, 1974). Thus, it is no surprise that Premier Wen would respond sternly to the shoe-throwing incident to keep his dignity.

Consistent with those observations, Yue (2011) systematically reviewed Chinese perceptions and identified three Chinese ambivalences toward humor. First, the Chinese tend to value humor but devalue humor as a trait of self. Chinese traditional social norms value seriousness, so Chinese people tend to fear that being humorous will jeopardize their social status. For instance, although Chinese undergraduates self-reported that humor is important in everyday life, they reported that they were not humorous themselves (Yue et al., 2006; Yue, 2011). Second, as Yue (2011) explained, being humorous is inappropriate for orthodox Chinese because Confucianism has equated humor with intellectual shallowness and social informality (Yue, 2010). For example, Chinese students do not rank humor as characteristic of an ideal Chinese personality (Rudowicz and Yue, 2003; Yue et al., 2006). Chen (1985) argued that Chinese jokes have always focused on “denial humor” that criticizes reality and “complimentary humor” that praises reality, in contrast with the “pure humor” that makes people laugh in Western jokes. Third, the Chinese tend to believe that humor is important but only for professional entertainers with exclusive expertise and special talent.

Although the four styles of humor have been examined cross-culturally, few empirical studies have examined cross-cultural differences on general humor perceptions (e.g., Nevo et al., 2001; Jiang et al., 2011). Jiang et al. (2011) found that Chinese undergraduates tended to associate humor with unpleasant adjectives and seriousness with pleasant adjectives; the opposite was true for American undergraduates. Such a finding indicates that Westerners and Chinese may hold different views toward humor in general. In addition, little work has been done to provide a comprehensive picture of the cultural differences on humor perception. Therefore, we conducted two studies to systematically verify the proposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese view on humor.

Study 1 confirms the notion that the West and Chinese cultures may exert different views regarding humor (Yue, 2010, 2011). Specifically, bicultural Hong Kong participants who were primed with Chinese icons, tended to adopt a Chinese view toward humor, and consequently evaluated the humorous person less positively. On the contrary, bicultural Hong Kong participants who were primed with Western icons, were more likely to embrace a Western view toward humor and evaluate the humorous person more positively. Although the findings delighted us, we still wondered whether we could explicitly obtain such implicit Westerner versus Chinese responses toward humor. That is, would Westerners and Chinese give explicit self-reports regarding their humor perceptions? Thus, Studies 2a and 2b were conducted.

In Study 2a, we sought to compare humor perceptions between Canadians and Chinese¹, expecting to see more humor appreciation from Canadian participants.

The findings reported here confirm that Canadian and Chinese students have the expected cultural differences; that is, Canadian students rate humor as being significantly more important than Chinese students do. In addition, Canadian students consider themselves to be significantly more humorous than Chinese students do. This finding is consistent with Study 1 and further suggests that Canadians and Chinese have explicitly different views toward humor.

In Study 2b, in an attempt to verify the cultural differences in perceptions about humorous people, we asked participants to give the names and occupations of up to three humorists they knew of. Aligned with our cultural suppositions, we expected that Canadians would name humorous friends and family from their everyday lives, regardless of race or occupation, whereas the Chinese would name professional humorists from the entertainment industries (Yue, 2011).

Study 2b used the nomination method and provided convergent support to the supposition that Westerners and Chinese have diverging views about humor. That is, Westerners believe that humor is a common trait among ordinary people, while the Chinese consider humor to be an extraordinary trait restricted mainly to entertainers such as comedians. As expected, the study showed that Canadians tended to see their friends and family members as examples of humorous people, while the Chinese attributed humor to professional comedians.

First, this study provides a conceptual model of cross-cultural research on humor. Only a few studies have considered Western and Chinese cultural differences regarding the use and toleration of humor (e.g., Chen and Martin, 2005, 2007; Jiang et al., 2011). The present study offers an appropriate broader perspective for explaining cultural influences on humor perception and integrating previous humor studies.

Second, the study augments understandings regarding the cross-cultural meanings and implications of humorous messages. Although previous research showed that Westerners are more prone than Easterners to use self-enhancing humor, the current study further suggests that Easterners generally deprecate humor while Westerners value it (Kuiper et al., 2010). The different cultural views may lead to cultural biases. For instance, Chinese children tend to see humor as aggressive and disruptive (Chen et al., 1992). Consequently, Americans and Chinese who try to communicate cross culturally many find that cultural variations regarding humor may disrupt their communications.

Third, we are not saying that Chinese people lack humor. On the contrary, abundant evidence shows that humor has been common and popular throughout Chinese history (Xiao, 1996). Instead, we argue that Confucian biases have caused public humor to be more “in deeds than in words, more practiced than preached” in China (Kao, 1974, p. xxii). Thus, before a Chinese leader such as Wen Jiabao could joke about an embarrassing situation, the general Chinese population must first see humor as positive and desirable. They must go beyond Confucian puritanism that frowns on humor and instead learn to value, appreciate, and use humor whenever and wherever possible (Chen and Martin, 2005; Yue, 2010, 2011).

As Lin Yutang said, “the secret of humor is to be natural and to be oneself, to face oneself in the mirror and to tear down the hypocritical disguise” (Qian, 2011, p. 211). After all, the ability to laugh at ourselves comes from broad-minded detachment regarding our own imperfections. And this remains to be further examined in later studies.

The current study has several inherent limitations that should be noted. First, Hong Kong Chinese, not Mainland Chinese, participated in Study 2. As Hong Kong is highly westernized, the students may not perfectly represent Chinese society. The findings may lend credence to the expectation that Mainland Chinese will show even greater differences with Westerners. Consequently, future investigations should replicate the current findings with more Mainland Chinese samples. Second, although the results of Study 2a are consistent with what we found in Studies 1 and 2b, it still bears the contamination of culture-related response biases (e.g., Chen et al., 1995; Heine et al., 2002). As we know, people from different cultures tend to use different referents in their self-reported values. Thus, Canadians in the current research evaluated humor in comparison with other Canadians, whereas Chinese evaluated humor in comparison with other Chinese. In addition, Chinese are more likely than Canadians to use the midpoint on self-reported scales (e.g., Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Chen et al., 1995). For future investigations, it would be necessary to measure participants’ evaluation on both humor and seriousness. In doing so, we can examine the differences of rating patterns instead of direct rating scores between Chinese and Canadians. In other words, it allows us to investigate whether Canadian participants would rate humor as being more important to them than being serious, while the opposite pattern would be true for Chinese participants. Third, the nomination method (Study 2b) helped to validate the two contrasting views of humor between the West and the East, but social media influences and entertainment development could be confounding factors (e.g., Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Therefore, future studies should control for interfering factors. Fourth, all samples were confined to university students. For broader generalization, future studies should recruit participants of various ages and from various backgrounds.