The document summarizes a study that examined how relationship status and remark type (sarcastic vs literal) influence perceptions of sarcasm. It found that sarcastic remarks were rated as more insulting between strangers, but more humorous between friends. Sarcastic remarks also took longer to read than literal remarks. Traits like empathy and openness correlated with how people rated sarcasm. The study provides insight into how individual differences and familiarity impact sarcasm interpretation.

1.  Relationship Status as a Mediator
for Sarcastic Interpretation
 Danielle Williams
 Joslyn Mesing
 Penn State Behrend

2. What is Sarcasm?
 Sarcasm is an indirect form of speech
intentionally used to convey a
criticism.
 Sarcasm is very ambiguous
 Interpretation can be indefinite

3. Example of Scenario
 Taylor was at a high school football game.
She wanted to go to the concession stand
for a drink but didn't want to lose her front
row seats. She asked Keith, the man next to
her, to save her seat. Keith said it wouldn't
be a problem. Whenever Taylor returned
her seat was gone. She said to Keith,
“Thanks for saving my seat”

4. Why Do People Use Sarcasm?
 Allusional Pretense Theory (Kumon-Nakamura,
Glucksberg, & Brown, 1995)
 Irony allows the speaker to allude to an
underlying intent, opinion, or belief
 Tinge Hypothesis (Dews and Winner, 1995)
 Irony mutes (tinges) the intended meaning
behind an indirect remark.
 Ironic criticism  less critical
 Ironic compliment  less complimentary

5. Processing Non-Literal Language
 Searle (1979)
 Katz, Blasko & Kazmerski (2004)

6. Does the Relationship Matter?
 Jorgensen (1996)
 Familiarity and closeness between
speaker and listener influences ratings of
appropriateness of sarcastic remarks

7. Current Study
 Independent Variables  The Big Five Personality
 Relationship Status traits
(romantic, friend, stranger)
 Remark Status  Empathy Quotient
(sarcastic, literal)
 Demographics
 Dependent Variables
 Ratings (humor, insult,
sarcasm)
 Reading Times

8. Research Questions
 (1) Will relationship status affect insult, sarcasm,
and humor rating’s
 (2) Will sarcastic comments take longer to read
than literal comments?
 (3) Does personality effect how people rate
sarcastic messages?

9. Methods
 Recruited through  Participants
SONA  N = 101
 Males = 46
 Followed APA Ethical
 Females = 55
guidelines
 Age Range = 18-53
 Received IRB approval  Average = 20.94

10. Materials
 Demographics  E-Prime 2.0
 Gender, age,  Scenarios
relationship status  Randomly assigned
questions  12 Lists
 Surveys  48 Scenarios
 Varied across
 Empathy Quotient
relationship and
Questionnaire
remark status
 Mini-Marker

11. Example of Scenario
 Taylor was at a high school football game.
She wanted to go to the concession stand
for a drink but didn't want to lose her front
row seats. She asked Keith, the man next to
her, to save her seat. Keith said it wouldn't
be a problem. Whenever Taylor returned
her seat was gone. She said to Keith,
“Thanks for saving my seat”

12. How Insulting?
Mean Ratings of Insult
7
6
5
1 = Not at all Insulting
Sarcastic
7 = Very Insulting
4
Literal
3
2
1
Romantic Friend Stranger
Relationship Status
F (1,101) = 1179.602, p = 0.00

13. How Humorous?
Mean Ratings of Humor
7
6
7 = Extremely Humorous
1 = Not at all Humorous
5
4
Sarcastic
3 Literal
2
1
Romantic Friend Stranger
Relationship Status
F (1,101) =358.677, p = 0.00

14. How Long Did It Take?
Means of Reading Times for Ratings
2500
2300
Response Time in ms.
2100
1900
1700
1500
Sarcastic
1300
Literal
1100
900
700
500
Romantic Friend Stranger
Relationship Status
F (1,101) = 4.336, p = .040

15. Individual Differences & Personality
Emotional
N = 101 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness
Stability
Empathy .54** .36** .45** .22*
Relationship
----- ----- -.46** -----
Length
Relationship
----- ----- ----- .23*
Status
Note. **Indicates that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level.

16. Humor Rating Correlations
N = 101 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness Emotional
Stability
Friend -.25* ----- -.22* -----
Relationship
Stranger -.20*
Relationship
Note. **Indicates that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level.

17. What Does This All Mean?
 Individual differences affect perceptions of
sarcasm
 Different personality styles perceive sarcasm
differently
 Personality is correlated with empathy
 Future research should further investigate these
individual differences and their influence on
familiarity

18. Acknowledgments
 We would like to thank Dr. Dawn Blasko for all her
time, effort, and valuable input throughout our project. We would
also like to thank Dr. Robert W. Light, Associate Dean for research, for his
contributions to undergraduate research through the grant program at
Penn State Erie, the Behrend College.

19. Questions?

20. References
 Austin, J. L., (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
 Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 34(2).
 Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of Assessing Adult Attachment: Do they Converge? Attachment theory and close
relationships, 22-45.
 Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, J. R., (1984). On the pretense of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 113(1), 121-123
 Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 3-19.
 Goldberg, L. R., (1992). Development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
 Gibbs, R. W., (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 5-27.
 Grice H.P., (1957). Meaning Philosophical Review 66, pp. 377-388.
 Grice, H. P., (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 3: Speech acts (pp.41-58). New
York: Academic Press.
 Ivanko, s. L., Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How Sarcastic are You? : Individual Differences and Verbal Irony. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 23.
 Jorgensen, J., (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 613-634.

21. References Cont.
 Katz, A. N., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2004). Saying what you don’t mean. Current directions in psychological science, 13(5), 186-189
 Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S., (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 118(4), 374-386.
 Kuman-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M., (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse
irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3-21.
 Link, E. K., & Kruez, J. R., (2004). Do men and women differ in their use of nonliteral language when they talk about emotions? In H.
Colston, & A. Katz (Eds.) Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 153-180). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 Pexman, P. M., (2004). Social factors in the interpretation of verbal irony: The roles of speaker and listener characteristics. In H. Colston, &
A. Katz (Eds.) Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 209-232). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
 Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E- Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
 Searle, J. R., (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
 University Press.
 Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45(6), 542-548.