Humor Articles / White Papers
Applying Critical Thinking to New Humor Research
Article by Deb Gauldin
In March, several publications, including The New York Times, London Times, USA Today, and MedIndia, published articles about a recent humor and laughter related study done at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. Reviewing the way that various media covered the same study seemed like an excellent opportunity to apply some of the suggestions Don, Shirley, and Bob shared about interpreting empirical research. You will see each publication credited and find comments in the margins from the Humor Connection’s editor. Readers might find it interesting to visit the University of Maryland website, http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/laughter2.html, where more detailed information is available, along with links to the national and international media coverage.
On March 10, 2005, an article appeared in the Washington Post entitled, “Laughter’s Link to Health May Be in the Blood.”
Editors Note: What does the title lead us to believe? In this case, the research was about changes in constriction and relaxation of vessel walls, not actual blood cells. “Scientists Laugh in the Face of Sickness” was the title appearing in the London Times, and a report in USA Today was titled, “For a Hardy Heart, have a Hardy- Har-Har.” |
The author, Rob Stein, interviewed Michael Miller from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, who led a research study to determine whether laughter is good for our health.
Editors Note: Dr. Miller’s full credentials were cited in only some of the articles. They are Michael Miller, M.D., F.A.C.C., Director of the Center for Preventive Cardiology at the University of Maryland Medical Center. |
Knowing that blood vessels constrict when people are under stress, and that narrowed vessels are more prone to becoming blocked and cutting off vital circulation to the body, Miller’s researchers decided to examine the ability of blood vessels to expand—known in the medical field as vasodilation. Dr. Miller explains in the press release, “The endothelium has a powerful effect on blood vessel tone and regulates blood flow, adjusts coagulation and blood thickening, and secretes chemicals and other substances in response to wounds, infections, or irritation. It also plays an important role in the development of cardiovascular disease. The endothelium is the first line in the development of atherosclerosis or hardening of the arteries, so, given the results of our study, it is conceivable that laughing may be important to maintain a healthy endothelium, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
Editors Note: Though summarized in lay terminology, the University of Maryland press release posted on their website includes medical details that none of the media sources mentioned above included. Most gave enough information for readers to be able to visit the University of Maryland website where they would find the more detailed press release, and from there, be able to pursue viewing the entire study. |
The Baltimore study was done on 20 healthy participants who watched clips of two movies—either the violent opening battle scene in the 1998 film “Saving Private Ryan” or a humorous scene from a comedy, such as the 1996 “Kingpin.” Before, and then again after the movie, volunteers were tested for vasodilation by constricting and releasing an artery in their arms with a blood pressure cuff and then using ultrasound to measure how the blood vessels were functioning.
More detailed information about how the testing was administered, taken from the press release:
The study included a group of 20 non-smoking, healthy volunteers, equally divided between men and women, whose average age was 33. The participants had normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels.
Prior to seeing a movie, the volunteers fasted overnight and were given a baseline blood vessel reactivity test to measure what is known as flowmediated vasodilation. For that test, blood flow in the brachial artery in the arm was restricted by a blood pressure cuff and released. An ultrasound device then measured how well the blood vessel responded to the sudden increase in flow.
Volunteers watched a 15-minute segment of the movie while lying down in a temperature-controlled room. After the movie was shown, the brachial artery was constricted for five minutes and then released. Again, ultrasound images were acquired. Changes in blood vessel reactivity after the volunteers watched a movie lasted for at least 30 to 45 minutes. A total of 160 blood vessel measurements were performed before and after the laughter and mental stress phases of the study.
At a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Orlando on March 7, 2005, the Baltimore researchers reported having discovered dramatic differences in vasodilation depending on which movies the volunteers watched. Blood flow was reduced in 14 of the 20 volunteers who saw the stressful film. 19 out of the 20 volunteers who watched the funny movie were found to have a marked increase in blood flow. The study showed that overall, blood flow decreased about 35 percent after experiencing stress, but increased 22 percent after laughter— an improvement equivalent to that produced by a 15 to 20 minute workout.
The Washington Post article goes on to discuss how research has previously shown that stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline cause vasoconstriction and other harmful effects on health. It would stand to reason that laughter may cause the release of pleasure producing endorphins that may counteract stress hormones and increase blood flow. Miller went on to say that “While there is reason to believe laughter may cause the body to release pleasure producing endorphins, researchers acknowledge they are still a long way from proving their hypothesis or fully understanding the process.”
Editors Note: Throughout the Washington Post article, the author and the scientists interviewed chose their words carefully. We need to read them carefully as well. |
Rob Stein, author of the Washington Post article also contacted Herbert Benson, who studies emotions and health at Harvard Medical School, heart specialists like Stuart Seides, associate director of cardiology at Washington Hospital Center, and Lee Berk, an associate professor of health promotion and education who studies laughter at Loma Linda University in California. “Laughter is not dissimilar to exercise,” explained Berk. “It’s not going to cure someone of stage 3 cancer, but in terms of prevention it does make sense. In a sense, we have our own apothecary on our shoulders. Positive emotions such as laughter affect your biology.”
Editors Note: It’s important to determine if sources are reputable. What do we know about Harvard or research done at universities? For example, the London Times reported that this study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and a Veterans Affairs Merit award to Dr. Miller. Is the source of funding for research studies relevant? |
Robert Provine, a University of Maryland psychologist who also studies laughter, was somewhat more cautious. “It remains unclear whether the act of laughter was really at work in the movie watching volunteers since the researchers did not actually measure how much they laughed. The results could be the result of just the act of watching the movie. Or maybe it’s just the act of engaging in something interesting that doesn’t cause stress,” Provine said.
Provine, despite his doubts about the study, is all for laughter. “I strongly recommend laughter, based on the fact that a life of laughter is better than a life without it, Provine said. “It feels better when you do it.”
Miller acknowledged that he has no way to know for sure that laughing per se produced the effect he measured, but he believes a belly laugh is better than smiling and that the active process of laughing is healthy. In the Washington Post article, Miller said he envisions a time when doctors might recommend that everyone get 15 to 20 minutes of laughter in a day in the same way they recommend at least 30 minutes of exercise. He says he isn’t advocating that his patients replace daily trips to the gym with a Marx Brothers movie, but thinks there is merit in adding activities to the day that make them laugh. He concludes that like his colleague Robert Provine, he is happy to recommend laughter and knows of no downside to laughing.
Editors Note: Article author Rob Stein included a number of viewpoints and interpretations by a number of experts. Dr. Miller readily admits the limits to the study. No need for Bella Lugosi here! |
Originally published in Humor Connection Spring 2005
