Laughter and Health: Examining the Science Behind Humor
This paper examines the scientific evidence for laughter as a health-promoting behavior by analyzing two studies: a correlational questionnaire-based study linking humor to reduced heart disease risk, and a controlled experiment measuring humor's effects on memory and stress in older adults. The paper evaluates each study's methodological strengths and weaknesses, including issues of variable isolation, sample size, and subjectivity in measuring humor. It concludes by reflecting on the broader conceptual challenges of studying humor scientifically, noting that its culturally contextual and personal nature makes causal claims difficult to establish.
- Introduction: Humor and Heart Disease: Heart disease study links humor to health outcomes
- Memory, Stress, and the Loma Linda Study: Loma Linda experiment measures humor's effect on memory
- Methodological Comparison and the Challenge of Measuring Humor: Comparing study designs reveals difficulty measuring humor
- Conclusion: Causation vs. correlation remains unresolved in humor research
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly identifies methodological limitations in each study rather than accepting findings uncritically, demonstrating analytical thinking appropriate to evaluating scientific research.
- It uses concrete comparison between two distinct studies to build an argument about the broader difficulty of measuring humor scientifically.
- The writing is concise and focused, staying on the central claim throughout without digression.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models critical source evaluation: for each study cited, the writer identifies what variables were isolated (or not), what measurement instruments were used, and what confounding factors remain. This method of systematically examining study design is a foundational skill in social science and health research writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the Maryland heart disease study and immediately interrogates its correlational design. It then introduces the Loma Linda memory study as a methodological contrast, noting its improved variable control but smaller sample. A synthesizing final section draws both studies together to reflect on why humor is inherently difficult to operationalize in research. The references follow standard APA formatting.
Introduction: Humor and Heart Disease
A 2009 university study of individuals with heart disease yielded the striking finding that there is scientific evidence that the act of laughing has health-promoting effects. The study of 300 participants compared responses to multiple-choice questionnaires designed to measure how much subjects laughed in certain situations and their general responses to anger and hostility. Half the subjects were known to have had heart disease and the other half did not. The individuals who had not suffered from heart disease gave significantly more humorous responses to everyday situations than those in the experimental group (Murray, 2009).
In this quantitative study, the design was purely correlational rather than causative. It could be argued that participants who responded with what the researchers considered more positive, lighthearted choices may have had better healthcare, may not have belonged to historically marginalized groups, may have had a sense of humor more aligned with the researchers', or may simply have been younger. In other words, other factors that made them less likely to have suffered from heart disease could be linked to their positive questionnaire responses. Although the experiment had a hypothesis — namely, that laughter had heart-protective qualities — the lack of evaluation of participants' demographics and previous health conditions does not sufficiently isolate enough variables to establish a causal link.
Memory, Stress, and the Loma Linda Study
Another study with a more limited demographic also established potential healing benefits of laughter. Researchers at Loma Linda University studied 20 subjects in their 60s and 70s with no existing health problems, "measuring their stress levels and short-term memory. One group was asked to sit silently, not talking, reading, or using their cellphones, while the other group watched funny videos," and after twenty minutes the subjects were assessed through a saliva sample and a memory test (Shah, 2014).
"While both groups performed better after the break than before, the 'humor group' performed significantly better when it came to memory recall. Participants who viewed the funny videos had much higher improvement in recall abilities, 43.6%, compared with 20.3% in the non-humor group" (Shah, 2014). The advantage of using this demographic was that it isolated more variables — subjects were of the same age range and health status — and employed objective physiological and psychological instruments rather than the more subjective method of measuring humor by questionnaire used in the earlier study. The main limitation of this more recent study, however, was its relatively small sample size.
Conclusion
A comparison of these studies suggests the challenges of measuring a concept such as the medicinal benefits of humor. While both studies point toward a positive association between laughter and health outcomes — whether cardiovascular or cognitive — neither is able to establish a clean causal relationship. Future research would benefit from larger sample sizes, more rigorous demographic controls, and standardized instruments for measuring humor that account for cultural and individual variation.
References
Murray, M. (2009). Laughter is the best medicine for your heart. University Medical. http://umm.edu/news-and-events/news-releases/2009/laughter-is-the-best-medicine-for-your-heart
Shah, Y. (2014). New study proves laughter really is the best medicine. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/laughter-and-memory_n_5192086.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.