Zijderveld (1995), cited within Szakolczai (2013), statedthat humour as a concept is strongly connected to culture, illustrating thathumour can vary significantly. How it varies is the pinnacle of this researchand at the focus of the review. According to Koller (1988), ”the humour of anysocial category, institution or nation can reveal the particular social forcesthat clash within it” (p.332). Koller’s research highlights that there aremore categories than the eye may meet, cultures may not just be ‘nations’ or’institutions’, they may be more complex and narrow.
Togashi & Kottler(2015) further support this suggesting it is problematic to generalise acultures humour in one single category – again, making more room for researchproposals. Kuipers (2006) compared American and Dutch humour and foundthat American humour showed a ‘highbrow-lowbrow’, with more moral sensitivityand tolerance than Dutch humour appeared to have. American ‘highbrow’ humourimplies that it is more political, intellectual and meaningful, which suggeststhere is a higher number of jokes with a hidden meaning or less obvious humour.Hoganson (1998) highlighted how the Philippine culture uses humour as a copingmechanism for socio-political problems, with the use of political jokesempowering people to resist opposition. This type of humour is often used as amedium in examining poverty, pain and exploitation. When the Philippine cultureis using less political based humour, they often use the reversal of genderroles to create a parody of the ‘macho male’ ideal and the exaggeration of thefemales ‘weak, submissive character’ by portraying her as tougher than males.This insight into cultural differences is vital as it allows us to explorecultural differences in depth by looking at real life examples.
Raskin (2008) underlines that the interplay amongstculture’s shapes humour in general. This holds true without forgetting about anindividual’s personal preferences and tastes in regards to humour styles.Raskin provides more reasoning to how and why humour must differ acrosscultures, adding value to the research question without answering it directlycreating room for examination of specific differences between cultures. SynopsisWhen referring to humour and its connection to marketingcampaigns and advertisements, Lynch (2002) presents an important message: ”Atits most basic level, humour is an intended or unintended message interpretedas funny.” The sender and receiver of this message have to meet on the sametrack of thinking in order to mutually understand what creates the message tobe funny, which can lead to a common level of appreciation.
However, as theliterature has shown, humour is culture dependent, and advertising has toconstantly monitor this when conceptualising and executing campaigns whetherfor local or international markets. The concepts discussed alongside variablesfrom past researchers are useful in this research for the review and referenceof definitions and comparisons of past findings.