The Similarities and Differences between Popular and Academic Sources on Humor Comprehension and Humor Production

Humor is a very abstract concept. We can obviously tell whether something humors us but it is hard to put into words exactly what humor is. One definition of humor is the tendency of brain functions to incite laughter and entertain. In a study that is evaluated by both a popular source and an academic source, the production and appreciation of humor is analyzed. The way that the information is presented differs with each source, in accordance with the Audience, layout, and purpose.

The popular source is an article that was written in August 2014 by Gil Greengross. In her article Greengross (2014) provides a brief description of a recent study that was done to test the relationship between humor comprehension, and humor production. This is not the only thing being tested in the study that Greengross (2014) is evaluating. The study, through the use of a standard personality test also compares the results of introverts and extraverts. Greengross (2014) describes the results study in an easy to follow synopsis. She concludes from the specific evidence the study provides that humor appreciation and production are two separate cognitive
tasks.

Order custom essay The Similarities and Differences between Popular and Academic Sources on Humor Comprehension and Humor Production with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

The academic source is written by a slew of experts and is about the same research study that Greengross (2014) describes in the popular source. The difference is that Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013) present the information in a vastly different fashion. Because the source by Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013) is peer reviewed and published in an academic journal, it is the more reliable of the two sources.

There are notable differences in the popular and academic sources. It is apparent that a major difference between the two sources can be seen in the differing layouts of the articles. The academic source provides the results of the study in a scientific manner, loosely constructing the paragraphs in accordance with the scientific method. This allows for the readers to easily follow a logical progression and follow the study. The popular source is less organized in the scientific sense but still reflects the same results as the academic source. The layout of the academic source is beneficial for quickly finding the necessary information.

Because it is divided into sections, the information is readily available to the reader. This scientific layout is good for academic research because it maintains objectivity and relies on facts acquired through reliable testing practices. The layout of the popular source article is much more relaxed. Greengross (2014) maintains a logical order in her article by providing a basic description of the topic, the results of the study, and a brief conclusion in which she discusses the results. This layout is effective for her purpose because it allows her to efficiently provide the pertinent material, in a way that is easy to follow and complies with the knowledge level of her audience.

Another important aspect to consider when analyzing a source is the audience. Some of the differences between the academic and popular sources can be attributed to the in the Authors’ audience. The readers of the popular source are probably educated to an extent because the article was published in Humor Sapiens. The people who read Humor sapiens are most likely psychology enthusiasts who are intrigued by the abstractness of humor. This impacts the vocabulary and tone of the author. In the academic article by Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013), a scholarly audience is presented. This scholarly audience values the objectivity and accuracy in the work of Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013).

Because of this focus on objectivity the authors don’t provide a lot of information from the authors themselves. It is paramount to elucidate upon the use of the first person in the popular article. Greengross (2014) comments on her own research and cognitive experiences. This is significant because it illustrates the difference that is exhibited between the academic and popular source. Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013) do not use the first person in their academic article and attempt to refrain from compromising the objectivity of the article. This is different from Greengross (2014) who liberally uses the pronoun “I.” This distinction is a result of the differing purposes of the authors.

As I have stated previously, the purpose of an article influences the way that it is written. The purposes of the authors while different, are similar. The purpose of Moran, Rain Page-Gould, and Mar (2013) in their academic article is to efficiently and objectively provide the results of a study. This of course differs from the purpose of Greengross (2014) whose purpose is to inform her audience about the relationship between being funny and enjoying humor. Because her purpose is to inform she is able to use information she herself has gathered in order to support her claims. The purpose of the academic article is also to maintain credibility and, as a result that is one of the prime factors to consider when regarding their presentation of the results.

In my analysis of the popular source I stated that it was credible. After reading the academic article I stand by my original evaluation. It is apparent that the academic source is more reliable for multiple reasons. The academic source is peer reviewed, and has a plethora of reputable sources that make the information portrayed irrefutable. The popular source article is somewhat less credible but not to the point where is in unreliable and unusable. The credibility of Greengross (2014) depletes a little by not clearly stating her sources, but also by adding unverified evidence that she collected. The popular source provides specific evidence that backs up any claims that are made. The popular source also adds credibility because Greengross (2014) has a doctorate and can be considered an expert on the subject. The academic article challenges the credibility of the popular source not because the popular source is unreliable but because the academic source is written with credibility and the primary priority.

In conclusion the differences in the two sources are apparent when looking at the fundamentals of writing analysis. By carefully examining important aspects of writing composition, namely: purpose, layout or format, and audience. Through an examination of these main differences an overall consensus can be developed. The similarities between the two sources should also be mentioned. The similarities are mainly comprised of the specific evidence provided by the study evaluated by both parties. Which conclusively states that humor recognition and development are separate cognitive processes.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer