The central assumption of play-mirth theory is that one or more playful turns is the trigger of every comedic situation. The concept of playful turn has its origins in early philosophical thought about how individuals create humor. The term “eutrapelia” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2 87:2), in particular, was the first to be used to generally describe the phenomenon of playful turn. The Greek word “eutrapelia” combines the prefix “eu” meaning “easy” or “good,” and the word “trepo” meaning “turn.” That is, eutrapelia means “easy, good turn” and in ancient Greece referred to refined humor (Arneson, 2018). Eutrapelia was considered a virtue of happy and gracious flexibility in communication. Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae suggested that eutrapelia has social benefits and provides occasional rest. He extended the meaning of eutrapelia mentioning that “eutrapelos is a pleasant person with a happy cast of mind who gives his words and deeds a cheerful turn” (Morreall, 2009, p. 112).

Play-mirth theory builds on these concepts (i.e., easy, good, and cheerful turn) and introduces the term “playful turn” to illustrate that humor is a form of play. Playful turn is defined as a rapid and instantaneous cognitive shift from something viewed as (more) serious to something now seen as less serious (or more playful). It is the reinterpretation of a (relatively) serious identity (i.e., person, object, situation, statement, or/and conversation) in a less serious (or more playful) way. In other words, humor involves bringing two cognitive opposites (i.e., a serious vs. a non-serious/playful) together so that they are both shown to be manifestations of the same identity. The juxtaposition of the two opposites is successive in a way that always leaves “a playful taste in the mouth” (i.e., a shift from a serious to a non-serious/playful interpretation; Figure 1). For the experience of humor, the shift from a serious to a non-serious/playful interpretation is required to be rapid in order to heighten the contrast between the two opposites and sharpen the transition. Humor has a dopamine-rewarding effect (Azim et al., 2005) and reward delays decrease dopamine responses to reward-predicting stimuli (Safron, 2019).

For instance, take into consideration the Barack Obama’s statement on Donald Trump’s potential candidacy for president: “[Donald Trump] can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like, ‘Did we fake the moon landing?.” Obama’s statement appeared to be a compliment, but it was actually an irony of Trump’s seriousness as a candidate. There has been a rapid shift in the interpretation of Trump’s candidacy from serious to non-serious, that is, a playful turn (Figure 2).

The terms “serious” and “non-serious (playful)” must be understood using their different explanations, their synonyms, and the meaning of their synonyms (Figure 3). For instance, a turn in the meaning of an identity that shifts it from being viewed as thoughtful to being viewed as silly can cause humor. This (as every) playful turn is interpreted as a shift from something previously regarded as (more) serious to something now regarded as less serious (or more playful). There can also be multiple playful turns (e.g., severe/minor, sober/frivolous, important/unimportant) in an attempted joke. Only if the joke’s final total meaning expresses a shift from a (more) serious to a less serious interpretation is it humorous. Playful turns can occur both intentionally and unintentionally. For instance, a professional comedian tells jokes to make the audience laugh. On the contrary, both a professor who forgets to pull up his zippers, a dog that barks like a rooster and a vagina-like cave can make people laugh unintentionally. A playful turn can take more or less sophisticated forms, including metaphor, hyperbole, irony, sarcasm, overstatement, understatement, incongruity resolution, or simply the juxtaposition of two opposites. A playful turn can be people- (e.g., disparagement humor, sexist humor, and good-natured teasing) or non-people-oriented (e.g., food humor, scatological humor, witty wordplay, and malapropism), meaningful (e.g., the juxtaposition/synthesis of semantically relevant serious/playful opposites) or nonsense/absurd (e.g., the juxtaposition/synthesis of semantically irrelevant serious/playful components).

Humor play can involve either a novel/unexpected playful turn or a relevant “stock” playful turn. “Stock” playful turns are successful, playful turns that have been used in the recent past and may, therefore, continue to act as triggers of humor. Playful turn elicits a positive dopamine reward prediction error; that is, it offers a better reward than expected (see also Azim et al., 2005). It prepares the recipient for something serious, significant, and worrying that is ultimately non-serious and playful. The playful interpretation is considered as a reward for the recipient because either reduces the pressure and stress caused by serious, important, demanding, and threatening situations/identities or further increases positive thoughts and feelings. It instantly makes the situation appear more playful and easier for the recipient. It offers a greater reward than predicted and excites dopamine neurons. According to prior research (Schultz, 2015), when a stimulus A (e.g., serious identity) is paired with a reward (e.g., non-serious/playful identity) for the first time (e.g., unexpected/novel playful turn), prediction error signal and dopamine activity respond to the reward. During the next exposures to the same pair (i.e., relevant stock playful turn), the prediction error signal and dopamine activity respond to stimulus A (i.e., serious identity).

For example, let us suppose that we see Professor A and then notice that he forgot to pull up his zippers. The prediction error signal, dopamine activity, and perceived humor increase when we see his zipper down since we perceive the incongruous opposite between the serious and non-serious image of the professor (i.e., the playful turn). When we see Professor A again, the prediction error signal, dopamine activity, and perceived humor will all increase immediately, since we recall the playful turn. Also, in a conversation with students—who know Professor A’s funny event—about the seriousness of university lectures, it would be enough to say the name of Professor A to make them laugh. Of course, we eventually stop laughing at Professor A because humor wears out with repetition. Therefore, play-mirth theory suggests that both novelty/unexpectedness and relevance can increase humor appreciation.

Although, the terms playful turn and diminishment (as defined by Apter, 1982) share some similarities, have distinct differences. First, diminishment is a much broader term than playful turn. Many forms of diminishment cannot be classified as playful turns, such as a failure on an exam or a diagnosis with a serious illness. Even though these events are characterized as diminishments (see Apter and Desselles, 2012, p. 420), they cause a shift from a less serious interpretation to a more serious reinterpretation and hence they are not humorous. Second, diminishment can only be humorous if an observer is in a playful state of mind (Apter, 1982; Wyer and Collins, 1992; Apter and Desselles, 2012; Martin and Ford, 2018). On the other hand, a playful turn can occur if an observer is in either a playful or a serious state of mind. Even though a playful state of mind can function as a source of mirth, humor can flourish even under difficult circumstances. Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist Victor Frankl, reflecting on his experiences as an inmate in the Auschwitz concentration camp, argued that “Humor, more than anything else in the human makeup, affords an aloofness and an ability to rise above any situation, even if only for a few seconds” (Frankl, 2006, p. 63). In these cases, Apter (1982a) suggests that a joke can cause a rapid motivational switch from a serious to a playful state of mind. This, however, implies that a playful state of mind is a consequence of humor rather than a prerequisite.

Playful turn is a cognitive process that replaces one attribute of an identity (i.e., seriousness) with another (i.e., reduced seriousness and/or increased playfulness). It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for experiencing humor. Playful turn needs to be combined with the appropriate motivation to produce a humorous response. Prior research on humor revealed not only the cognitive (Suls, 1983) but also the motivational mechanisms (Grüner, 1997; Zillmann and Cantor, 2017) that are involved in humor creation and appreciation. The primary motivations for humor have been proposed to be the release of tension/arousal (Freud, 1960), physiological arousal reduction (Berlyne, 1969), relief (Spencer, 1860), aggression (Grüner, 1997), self-esteem, superiority (LaFave, 1972; Zillmann and Cantor, 2017), inferiority reduction (Hatzithomas et al., 2021), and enjoyment (Apter, 1982). It is evident that most humor theories identify a single primary motive for the creation and appreciation of humor. This approach is very restrictive as it can only be applied within the bounds of the theories’ hypotheses. Superiority theories, for example, cannot account for puns, “innocent” and self-deprecating humor, relief theories cannot explain some incongruity resolution jokes, whereas both incongruity resolution theories and benign violation theory cannot easily account for absurd, non-sense humor (Martin and Ford, 2018).

Cognitive appraisal theory (a family of theories) as one of the most elaborate and influential theories of emotion (Moors, 2009; Pahng and Kang, 2023) can offer a complete framework for understanding the role of motivation on the generation of mirth (i.e., the emotion of humor). Cognitive appraisal theory proposes that unconscious, automatic cognitive appraisals are antecedents of emotion (Ellsworth and Scherer, 2003). A number of cognitive appraisals have been identified as important in the manifestation of different emotions, such as novelty/unexpectedness, situational state (motive-inconsistent/motive-consistent), motivational state (aversive/appetitive), probability, control potential, problem source, legitimacy, agency (Roseman et al., 1990), valence, certainty, and goal conduciveness (Ellsworth, 2013). This study employs Roseman’s Appraisal Theory of Emotions as its framework (Roseman et al., 1990). According to Roseman (1991), the interaction of situational and motivational states is the most important determinant of emotion intensity. The outcome of this interaction determines whether an emotion is positive or negative, as well as its intensity. A stimulus event that is consistent (inconsistent) with an individual’s motives generates a positive (negative) emotion. The motivational state, on the other hand, differentiates between contact-regulating (e.g., joy and sadness) and distance-regulating emotions (e.g., relief and distress).

Based on Roseman’s (1991) study, we can assume that mirth, as a positive emotion (Attardo, 2014), should be a response to a stimulus event appraised as consistent with an individual’s motives (Figure 4). Indeed, in cognitive appraisal literature, Scherer and Ceschi (1997) proposed that good humor is associated with a low goal/need obstructiveness, while Tong (2015) suggested that it is related to pleasantness (a dimension analogous to situational state according to Roseman et al., 1990). This perspective is also in accordance with both classic and contemporary motivational theories of humor. For instance, in superiority theories, the appreciation of humor is stronger when an individual has a positive disposition toward the victimizer and at the same time a negative disposition toward the victim of a joke (Zillmann and Cantor, 2017) and especially when the individual has a high superiority motivation (Hatzithomas et al., 2021). According to the relief theories (Spencer, 1860; Freud, 1960), humor facilitates psychological tension relief, a function that is consistent with an individual’s motives. Reversal theory also suggests that an individual appreciates humor and feels excited when their only goal in processing information is to understand and enjoy it (Wyer and Collins, 1992).

The play-mirth theory builds on Roseman’s Appraisal Theory of emotions and hypothesizes that humor occurs when a playful turn is perceived by an individual, and the playful turn is consistent with the individual’s motives. Contrary to prior research, it does not theorize that humor is only associated with the satisfaction of a specific motive. Motive-consistency refers to how much a playful turn is consistent with what an individual wants and how much it improves things for the individual (see also Roseman et al., 1996 for motive-consistency). Hence, a humorous playful turn can satisfy one or multiple motives at the same time, such as the need for enjoyment and excitement, the need for relief and the need for superiority.

Motive-consistency has significant differences with the concept of “benign” by McGraw and Warren’s (2010) benign violation theory. Motive-consistency occurs when a stimulus event (i.e., a playful turn) is consistent with our motives and not when it just makes us feel okay, as Warren and McGraw (2016) suggest when defining benign. It is not good in general, but good for us and our wants, and to be more precise, consistent with our wants. A joke that is “bad” for others and “good” for us may be humorous, whereas a joke that is “good” for others and “bad” for us probably not humorous. A joke that is inconsistent with our wants is definitely not humorous. For example, if we are trying to find an exit during an emergency evacuation, we are unlikely to laugh with a friend who is trying to tell a good “shaggy dog story.” If everything goes well, we may laugh at our friend’s attempt to tell us the joke, as our main goal will be to relax and recover from the shock.

Moreover, according to play-mirth theory, a stimulus event that is consistent with one motive but inconsistent with another is less humorous than a stimulus event that is consistent with one or more motives. A sexist playful turn, for instance, may be consistent with our need for enjoyment but inconsistent with our need to bond with a female friend and thus it is more likely to elicit less humor. In that sense, play-mirth theory predicts that benign violations may elicit mixed emotions rather than pure mirth.

According to Roseman’s Appraisal Theory of emotions, both appetitive (i.e., pleasure-maximizing) and aversive (i.e., pain-minimizing) motives elicit positive emotions (Roseman et al., 1996). Appetitive motivational states, for example, are associated with the emotion of joy (when an individual attains a reward), whereas aversive motivational states with that of relief (when an individual avoids a punishment; Roseman, 1991). In the same vein, prior humor theories have approached mirth as a reward-seeking or stress-avoidance emotion. Incongruity theories (Suls, 1983), superiority theories (Zillmann and Cantor, 2017), and reversal theories (Apter, 1982; Wyer and Collins, 1992), for example, consider humor as a rewarding mechanism for generating pleasure, enjoyment, and self-esteem, whereas relief theories (Spencer, 1860; Freud, 1960), benign violation theory (McGraw and Warren, 2010), false alarm theory (Ramachandran, 1998), and RAR (Safron, 2019) view humor as a stress-avoidance mechanism for generating relief.

Prior studies have mostly failed to comprehend the two facets of humor and thus be too narrow to explain all instances of humor. Play-mirth theory asserts that the humor-generating appraisal process evaluates whether a person, object, situation, statement, or/and conversation is consistent or inconsistent with an individual’s motive(s); it is secondary whether the motive(s) is/are reward or relief-maximizing. The motivational state only distinguishes between reward and relief humor, two types of humor. In both cases, humor is considered a rewarding experience. Indeed, neuroscience studies have indicated that mirth activates classical reward/reward learning regions (Amir et al., 2015) and that the human brain treats relief in the same way that it does reward (Seymour et al., 2005).

Taking all together the present study formulates the following hypotheses:

We used the hypothetico-deductive method for theory testing (Eisend and Kuss, 2019). According to this approach, a general theory was developed, specific hypotheses were formulated, and based on the results, the hypotheses were evaluated to determine whether they were supported or rejected. The quantitative method, specifically experiments, is the most suitable approach for testing theories (Willer and Walker, 2007), as it allows for the manipulation of independent variables, objective measurements, statistical testing, causal inference, and comparisons across conditions, revealing nuanced differences in the effects of variables.

Study 1 tested hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Following a standard and successful method for examining cognitive appraisals and emotions (Roseman et al., 1996; Rowe et al., 2019), we asked the participants to vividly recall humorous situations, describe them in their own words, and complete a questionnaire assessing their appraisals.

Participants were 104 undergraduate students (57% females, n = 59) from a large Greek university. They were randomly divided into two treatment groups: We asked the first group’s participants to recall a successful joke someone told them when they were going through a difficult time (e.g., they were ill, had family or emotional problems, were preparing to take an exam), while in the second group’s participants a successful joke someone told them when they were having a good time (e.g., a time when they were with their friends and having fun). Then we asked them to also recall a failed joke they heard from someone under the same circumstances (Pundt et al., 2022). The order of successful and failed jokes was counterbalanced across participants. Thus, both successful and failed jokes were recalled approximately half the time as the first experience on a questionnaire and half the time as the second experience. To make the participants comprehend, we referred to a person’s failed attempts to tell a joke as a failed “joke.” However, this was not a joke nor humorous.

Gender was similarly distributed across the two groups: Females accounted for 57% (30 of 53) of those who recalled two jokes (a successful and a failed one) that someone told them when they were going through a difficult time and 57% (29 of 51) of those who recalled two jokes (a successful and a failed one) that someone told them when they were having a bad time. They ranged in age from 21 to 24, with a median age of 22. Participants in this study were recruited in exchange for extra class credit.

The participants were given a questionnaire with two sections and the instructions listed below:

After writing each joke, the successful or the failed one, the participants answered several questions about the appraisals that made them laugh at their recalled experiences. The stem “Successful/Failed joke was caused by” was given as the first part of each appraisal item to keep participants concentrated on the relevant appraisals. We adapted the scales developed by Roseman et al. (1996) to measure unexpectedness (e.g., Whatever person ‘A’ said was expected/unexpected, 3 items, Alpha = 0.77), motive consistency (e.g., Thinking that whatever person ‘A’ said was inconsistent/consistent with what I wanted, 5 items, Alpha = 0.97) and motivational state (e.g., From Wanting to get or keep something pleasurable to Wanting to get rid of or avoid something painful, 4 items, Alpha = 0.87). We also assessed relevance by using a 2-item scale (e.g., Whatever person ‘A’ said was/was not relevant to the prior conversation, Alpha = 0.96) and benign violation by using a 2-item scale (e.g., Seeing whatever person ‘A’ said as both wrong and not wrong, Alpha = 0.8). We defined the humorous responses as mirth to distinguish them from cognitive play (the combination of playful turn and motive-consistency). Mirth was measured through 3 items (i.e., It was funny, amusing, humorous). Four single-item measures were used to assess perceived joy, relief, laughter, and negative emotions.

We also used five questions to assess playful turns. The internal consistency of the questions “Thinking that what person ‘A’ said made the conversation/situation rapidly less/more serious for a brief moment”; “Thinking that what person ‘A’ said suddenly made something (e.g., a person, an idea, an institution, an animal, or object) less/more serious for a brief moment”; “Thinking that everything rapidly seemed less serious”; “Thinking that what person ‘A’ said made the conversation/situation suddenly less/more playful for a brief moment”; and “Thinking that what person ‘A’ said suddenly made something (e.g., a person, an idea, an institution, an animal, or object) less/more playful for a brief moment” was high (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87). All items were measured on a 9-point Likert scale (see also Roseman et al., 1996). There were no missing values since all the questions were mandatory.

Study 2 tested H1. As in seminal experiment of Roseman’s (1991), participants read brief stories about various protagonists’ experiences. In these stories, we manipulated the information relevant to the appraisals, and participants rated the intensity of the emotions (i.e., joy, relief, mirth, sorrow, and distress) that they believed the protagonists felt in response to the events.

Stories. Five-story scenarios with widely varying concrete content were created to assess generalisability. For example, one story was about a student attending an anatomy lesson at a university, and another was about an evening with friends at an Opera House.

Versions (appraisals manipulation): Each story was about a protagonist who was certain about the presence/absence (i.e., motive-consistency) of a rewarding/punishing state (i.e., motivational state). According to Roseman (1991), these two appraisals are associated with joy (presence of a rewarding state), relief (absence of a punishing state), sorrow (absence of a rewarding state) and distress (presence of a punishing state). One version of each story had a playful turn. Thus, five different versions of each story were constructed to manipulate appraisals. For instance:

Joy Version: Near John’s house, there is one of the most beautiful gardens in the village. In the center of the garden, five wonderful rose bushes surround the majestic statue of the village’s first mayor. John woke up early today to see the garden. John wants very much to see the rose bushes in bloom (rewarding). When John visits the garden, he notices that the roses are in full bloom (presence).

Sorrow Version: Near John’s house… in bloom (rewarding). When John goes to the garden, he notices that the rose bushes have been damaged by the wind (absence).

Relief Version: Near John’s house, there is one of the most beautiful gardens in the village. In the center of the garden, five wonderful rose bushes surround the majestic statue of the village’s first mayor. The wind is constantly destroying the rose bushes. John woke up early today to see the garden since it was very windy the night before. John does not want to see the rose bushes destroyed by the wind again (punishing). When John visits the garden, he notices that the roses are in full bloom (absence).

Distress Version: Near John’s house… the wind again (punishing). When John goes to the garden, he notices that the rose bushes have been damaged by the wind (presence).

Mirth Version: Near John’s house… the wind again (punishing). When John visits the garden, he sees that the roses are in full bloom (absence). He also notices on the head of the majestic statue of the village’s first mayor a white man’s underpants that probably left the laundry of the neighboring house when it was windy (playful turn).

A 2 (motive-consistency: consistent/inconsistent) × 2 (motivational state: rewarding/punishing) factorial design was employed. Playful turn (presence/absence) was also used in three stories where a rewarding state was present and two stories where a punishing state was absent (i.e., whenever there was motive-consistency) since our main purpose was to differentiate mirth from other positive (i.e., joy and relief) and not negative emotions. Study 1 indicated that humor creates only positive emotions and not negative ones. When the 25 versions are grouped based on the emotions they produce according to the theory, a 5 (stories) × 5 (emotion manipulations) factorial design is obtained. As a result, our data can be analyzed in terms of the appraisal information contained within each version, or with respect to the emotion that each version (combination of appraisal information) elicits according to the theory.

Participants were 150 undergraduate students (53.3% females, n = 80) from a large Greek university. They recruited in exchange for extra class credit. Each participant read a set of five stories. Five “story sets” were created in such a way that: (1) each set contained one version of each of the five “story situations”; (2) only one version within a story set had an appraisal combination, and (3) only one version within a story set produced one of the five emotions. For each participant, the five stories of a set were randomly ordered.

After carefully reading each story, the participants answered a few questions about the emotional responses of the protagonist based on their interpretation of the story. We told the participants that they could refer back to the story to assist them in answering the questions. As in the first study, we defined the humorous responses as mirth to distinguish them from cognitive play. The first question asked, “Which of the following emotions best describes how X (the protagonist) felt at the end of the story?” and provided the following choices: joy, relief, felt that it was humorous (mirth), sorrow, and distress. Next, there was another question asked, “How strongly did X (the protagonist) feel each of the following emotions at the end of the story?.” The participants had to define the emotional intensity (i.e., joy, relief, felt that it was humorous (mirth), sorrow, and distress) on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very intensely; see also Roseman, 1991). There were no missing values, as all questions were mandatory.