In: [Link](ed.

):Natürlichkeit der Sprache und der Kultur: acta colloquii - Bochum:

Brockmeyer 1990 (Bochumer Beiträge zur Semiotik; 18) ISBN 3-88339-738-5, pp 192-
214.

10

THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

Karl Grammer
Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

CONTENTS
1. THE RITUALISATION OF BEHAVIOUR
2. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
3. DETERMINANTS OF RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER
4. THE FUNCTION OF LAUGHTER
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. THE RITUALISATION OF BEHAVIOUR

Huxley (1966) defined ritual biologically as as the adaptive formalization or canalization

of emotionally motivated behaviour, under the teleonomic pressure of natural selection, so
as:

a. "to promote better and more signal function, both intra and inter-specifically

b. to serve as more efficient stimulators or releasers of more efficient patterns of action in

other individuals c. to reduce intra-specific damage and d. to serve as sexual or social
bonding mechanisms." (p.250)

According to Huxley, rituals can all be broadly characterized as displays. They are
based on motivated intention movement, either singly or in combination, frequently with
the addition of displacement and redirected activities.

If we have a closer look at these definitions, one might doubt that these definitions
can be brought into empirical testable hypotheses, because their main parts are centered
around the determination of function on an ultimate or proximate level.

This flaw of the definition was recognized very soon by other ethologists, who then
tried to establish descriptive categories for the analysis of displays and who developed
methodological approaches for the evaluation of function. The above definitions were
made more

192
THE RlTUALISATlON OF LAUGHTER

precise by Morris (1966) and then modified by Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1975). The process by
which displays evolve is called ritualisation.

Movement patterns experience changes through ritualisation which enhance the

signal function of movement patterns. This is achieved in a variety of ways:
Simplification of the movement patterns, exaggeration of the movement amplitude,
rhythmic repetition (not always),typical intensification (not always), but certainly
constancy of form.

The rigidification of the the form of the pattern results in the development of a
typical intensity. This process involves the disruption of the usual frequency/intensity
relationship: instead of the intensity of the action increasing as its frequency increases, it
remains more or less the same regardless of frequency changes.

Another condition for ritualisation is rhythmic repetition of patterns. As soon as the

threshold for the performance of a behaviour is lowered, it will often be repeated in a
rhythmic fashion. All other components in ritualisation have to be evaluated by sequential
analysis, because in ritualized movements typical movement configurations or changes in
the sequence of movements should be found.

Finally one condition remains which is the Loss or modification of orientation

which means, that an action does not have to be aimed directly at a social companion
thereby reducing potential variability of patterns.

In addition morphological structures can evolve to emphasize various movement

patterns. This way the signal becomes clearly recognizable, simple and unmistakenly.

The function of ritualized behaviour can be assessed in two ways: a. the evaluation of
context differences and b. the evaluation of consequences. This means that a certain type
of behaviour should differ markedly in frequency and quality from one context to another if
it has a special function in one of those contexts. A certain type of behaviour should also
be connected to repeatedly observable consequences (Hinde,1975).

The aim of this article will be trying to find out, if the categories for the description
of ritualisation and the methods for the evaluation of function can be applied satisfactory
in empirical approaches to the description of human behaviour on a micro-level, in other
words, do humans use ritualized non-verbal displays, and if yes, what are the

193
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

functions of such displays ?

"Laughter" was selected because it is a clear cut behaviour, which can be identified
reliably in interactions, and because there are reasonable interspecific comparisons which
shed light on the phylogeny of laughter

Figure 1: The phylogeny of laughter, (vanHoof, 1972)

According to van Hoof (1972) human laughter and human smiles have two different
phylogenetic roots. The roots of the smile can be found in the bareed-teeth display, which
is present in nearly all primates: lips and mouth corners are retracted, and the mouth is
open. Animals show this intense vocalized display when they are subject to some threat
or strong aversive stimulation. It is shown for instance in situations of defence. Among
higher primates the tendency to flee does not have to be present - it may develop into a
signal of frustration and

194
THE RITUALlSATlON OF LAUGHTER

general excitement.

In the ascending scales of primates leading to man there is a broadening of the

meaning of the element of baring the teeth: originally forming part of a defensive or
protective behaviour pattern, this element becomes a signal of submission and
non-hostility, finally developing to a friendly signal in some species.

But laughter itself is supposed to have its roots in the "relaxed open mouth display"
a common pattern occurring during play among primate infants, which is a
metacommunicative signal, designating the behaviour with which it is associated as mock
aggression or play.

In humans then both roots are mixed into a continuum between the extreme cases:
aversive and friendly laughter to loud and vocalized laughter as an expression of play.

A function different from the ones van Hoof postulates, was proposed by
Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1986), in which laughter is an action whose function is to correct or to
repel deviant or non-conforming individuals - the effect is a binding function on
companions who are laughing together - (mobbing effect). Laughter then also might have
an educational aggressive function, which brings outsiders in line and which reinforces
group solidarity and homogeneity. In this view laughter acts as a conformity pressure.

For the context of laughter we selected same sex and opposite sex encounters
between strangers, because this makes it possible to observe differences in frequency and
quality, and, as we will see, the possible consequences. Furthermore, in mixed sex
encounters the subjects are in a difficult situation: one or both individuals might be
attracted to the partner and start courting him or her. His or her actions could be
interpreted as courtship actions by the partner - and it would be possible, that the partner
would try to stop these actions. According to Goffman (1967) in the initial phases of
mixed sex encounters, we find high anxiety of rejection, because "by saying something,
the speaker opens himself up to the possibility that the intended recipients will affront
him by not listening or will think him foolish, or offensive in what he has said". Thus
mixed sex encounter have a high potential risk of face loss and rejection. Males and
females thus should develop tactics to meet this risk (Grammer, 1989b). A statement
accompanied by laughter which has the metacommunicative function of signalling that

195
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

this statement is a play statement could reduce this possibility. The same holds for the
signalling of aversion. Laughter allows the partner to accept actions as a joke, which
would in case of refusal then allow to save the face. If we take into account that the more
ambiguous and potentially dangerous a situation is, the more ritualized and strictly
behaviour should be organised (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1975), then we should find marled
differences between the potential courtship situations and same sex encounters, as far as
degree of the ritualization is concerned. This means the higher the interest in the partner,
and the higher the experienced risk of possible rejection, the more ritualized the laughter
should be.

Both types of interactions have one aspect in common. This is the establishment of a
potential dominance relationship. So in addition to the risk of possible rejection, there is
a risk of status loss. According to Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1988) male sexual behaviour has a
tendency for dominance, whereas female sexual behaviour is submissive as a part of our
archaic heritage: "It still plays a significant role in normal human sexual behaviour, but
supplemented and controlled by the phylogenetically newly acquired love or affiliative
sexuality "(p.6). Thus females, when they are together with males should show the
"higher degree of ritualisation in laughter than males, because showing submissiveness is
equal to solicitation when the male has a tendency to dominate the female. When the
establishment of dominance relationships plays a role in same-sex dyads, the ritualization
of laughter should be more pronounced for male-male dyads than for female-female dyads
because males are more dominance oriented than females (Grammer, 1988).

If the function of laughter is signalling 'this is play', then males who are together
with males should laugh less. than females who are together with females, because
signalling play could be interpreted by the partner as a submissive signal. Thus males
should laugh less than females, in both the mixed-sex dyads and in the same sex dyads. If
this is the case, laughter would be a submissive signal.

In addition to this, laughing together should have a binding function, which prevails
in those mixed sex episodes were mutual interest is developed, - and which allows to
signal "this is play, don't take it serious" in a difficult situation, in a non-binding standard
which

196
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

prevents face loss but provokes status loss.

2. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

The data were gathered in a strangers meet situation. Two unfamiliar subjects were
brought together in a room and then left alone for ten minutes and filmed through a one
way mirror. The experiment included opposite sex (n=79) and same sex dyads (males n=6
and females n=9; all of mean age 18,5 years). In order to evalute interest or disinterest in
the partner, we gave questionnaire to participants, where they could rate their interest in
the partner on scales from one (not interested) to seven (highly interested) by the question:
"Would you like to accompany your partner in the experiment to cinema, or give him/her
your telephone number". A second question concerned the amount of possible compliance
of the partner, i.e. the subjective representation of "risk" of the person in the situation
("Do you think your partner would go out with you to the cinema, or give you his/her
telephone number if you asked him/her?"). These variables are used as independent
variables in the analysis. The following analysis of the data was done on several levels:

a. Description of the types of laughter

An episode of laughter was coded by an occurring Action Unit 12 (contraction of

[Link]) meeting the minimal criteria specified by Ekman and Friesen (1978) in
FACS. This contraction had to be accompanied by an acoustically detectable exhaustion,
either vocalized or non-vocalized, of air. A single exhaustion was viewed as a bout of
laughter, multiple bouts occurring within a time-span of 3 seconds were designed as an
episode of laughter.

b. a frequency analysis

c. description of body movements related to laughter, with their sequential organisation

The movements have been described in terms of deviances of the body axes for all
body parts: heads, trunk, legs arms and hands. For head, shoulders and trunk deviations
from the horizontal and vertical room axis were used to form the patterns. This procedure
results in seven possible directions of movements or postures: neutral (i.e. identical to
room axes), left-right, up-down, and lateral tilt (left-right).

Based on Moore (1985) and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1975) we added more

197
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

global descriptors, which can not be described in terms of deviation from the room axes:
Hair flip, Head nod, Trunk flex forward or backward which arches the spine, in contrast to
Trunk forward or backward, and Move hips.

For the description of arm movements we took a number of existing movement

categories described by Ekman and Friesen (1972): Illustrators (movements which
illustrate speech) and Adaptors, open and closed arm postures, and crossing and uncrossing
as the respective movement patterns.

Hand movements are often coupled to arm movements. We divided hand movements
into all categories of 'self-touching' behaviour defined by the body part which was
touched: for instance: Touch legs, Touch body, Hair strike, Primp (e.g. Moore, 1985) and
so on. The coding of legs was mainly done by contrasting open and closed postures and
the respective movements of Open legs and Close legs in different combinations with
Legs crossed In this analysis we will refer to all codings globally as movements, or to
some selected movements, because the discussion of all movements would go beyond the
scope of this paper.

3. DETERMINANTS OF RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

3.1 Frequency and Quality of Laughter

The hypotheses suggest that as soon as a potential target of the other sex is spotted,
frequencies and quality of behaviour should change, and ritualisation should occur, as
compared to same sex dyads. In both types of dyads dominance rituals should be present,
where males should laugh less and females should show signs of submission. Changes in
quality of laughter can be assessed by comparing the amount of vocalizations, and
repetition, i.e. The number of bouts which are produced in an episode of laughter.

Furthermore, if the function of laughter in mixed sex episodes differs for the sexes,
sex-differences should appear in mixed-sex dyads which are not present in same-sex dyads.
Then, by the comparison of frequencies and quality of laughter with the data from the
questionnaire, we are able to analyze whether frequency and quality of laughter can predict
interest for either males or females. If this is the case we can demonstrate a specific
function of laughter and ritualisation

198
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

in same and mixed sex episodes.

3.1.1. Frequencies of Laughter: the threshold of performance

Males and females laugh equally often in same-sex experiments (mean=19.8 for females;
mean=17.8 for males, Table 1). Table 2 gives the results of a one-way analysis of
variance (variable by experiment type by sex, all tests two-tailed) and the respective single
comparisons between experiment types and sex-differences in mixed-sex and same-sex
encounters (see Table 2).

Table 1: Frequencies and Quality of Laughter

Laughs Non-vocalized Vocalized

laughs laughs
N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
Same-Sex
Female 1 8 19.8 9.4 18 6.2 4.4 1 8 9.8 8.3
Male 1 2 17.8 7.2 12 10.0 5.5 1 2 4.4 4.1
Mixed-Sex
Female 7 9 15.1 7.9 79 5.6 4.9 7 9 6.8 4.6
Male 7 9 12.4 7.9 79 7.7 5.4 7 9 3.9 5.0

Bouts Laughing Start

together synchronized
N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
Same-Sex
Female 1 8 37.7 17.5 1 8 9.7 5.7 1 8 2.2 2.7
Male 1 2 31.8 15.6 1 2 8.2 5.5 1 2 2.7 2.6
Mixed-Sex
Female 7 9 31.6 18.4 7 9 5.5 4.0 7 9 1.7 2.0
Male 7 9 23.3 17.5 7 9 5.5 4.0 7 9 1.5 1.5

By comparing the means we can suspect that there are no overall sex-difference in the
sense that females would laugh more often than males. Although both sexes laugh
significantly less in mixed-sex experiments, a sex-difference becomes evident as soon as
females are together with males: females laugh more often than males (mean=15. 1,
StdDev=7.9) in this situation (mean=12.4; StdDev=7.9). This shows that laughter is
significantly suppressed in mixed-sex experiments for both sexes, and that this effect is
more Pronounced for males

199
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

The 'threshold of performance' for laughter in mixed sex-episodes seems not to be

lowered - in contrast to our hypotheses this seems to be the case for same sex dyads.

Table 2: Differences in Laughter between same-sex and mixed-sex dyads and between the sexes

Laughs Non-vocalized Vocalized

Laughs Laughs

One way Analysis of variance 5.14 0.002 3.65 0.0137.85 <.000

F p F pF p
Females (mixed-sex) 14.09 0.046 0.26 n.s.4.17 0.044
Males (mixed-sex) 4.49 0.037 1.85 n.s 0.13 n.s.
Sex-differences experiment 0.36 n.s. 4.32 0.0474.33 0.047
Sex-differences controls 4.29 0.040 5.78 0.018 13.07 <.000

Bouts Laughing Start

Together synchronized

One way Analysis of variance 4.38 0.0056.03 <.000 1.49 n.s.

F p F p F p
Females (mixed-sex) 1.62 n.s.13.54 <.000 1.14 n.s.
Males (mixed-sex) 2.51 n.s.3.51 n.s. 4.56 0.036
Sex-differences experiment 0.86 n.s.2.48 n.s 0.25 n.s.
Sex-differences controls 7.32 0.008- - 0.09 n.s.
(For the analysis of variance following contrasts were used: sex within type of experiment;
type of experiment within sex, all tests two-tailed)

3.1.2. The quality of laughter

[Link]. Rhythmic repetition and typical intensity'

The markers used for the intensity of laughter surely are its loudness, the number of
single bouts and the amount of vocalization which is present. Because we did not measure
loudness, we only will compare the number of bouts and the amount of vocalisation.

For the quality of laughter we find sex-differences which already present in same-sex
experiments and which are still at hand in mixed sex experiments. In same-sex
experiments, males laugh more often non-vocalized (mean=10; StdDev=5.5, females:
mean=6.2, StdDev=4.4), females laugh more often vocalized (mean=9.8; StdDev=8.3;
males:

200
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

mean=4. 4, StdDev=4.1, Table 1). In mixed-sex encounters again frequency of female

vocalization is significantly lower than in same-sex experiments.

The number of bouts per episode does not differ between sexes or between experiment
types, with the exception that females in mixed sex encounters laugh with significantly
less bouts than their male partners (Table 2).

INTENSITY OF LAUGHTER: VOCALIZATION AND NUMBER OF BOUTS

Bout rate, i.e. the number of bouts per episodes is comparably high for all sexes in the
different contexts. For females we find 2.16 (Std=0.37) bouts per laughter in mixed sex,
and 2.0 under same sex conditions (Std=0.65). Comparable results present for males with
1.7 (std=0.4) in the same sex condition and 1.8 (std=0.7S) in the mixed

201
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

sex condition. This shows that the degree of rhythmical repetition is not context
dependent.

The number of laugh bouts is bound directly to vocalization. Laughter with more
bouts tends to be vocalized in both sexes (Chi-square=19.4 for females, 42.3 for males;
df=2, p<0.0000). Thus duration and vocalization of laughter can be interpreted as signs of
intensity of laughter.

Now if typical intensity would be present for laughter - the bout rate should not
change with the frequency of laughter.

The results are shown in Figure 3, which shows nearly flat regression lines with a
small standard deviation in every context. This means, that the bout rate does not change
with increase in frequency of laughter.

The first conclusion we can draw is that laughter is rhythmically repeated, and has a
typical, stereotyped intensity, but the threshold of

202
THE RlTUALlSATlON OF LAUGHTER

performance is not lowered in the context were it should be expected, if situations of

potential danger enforce ritualisation.

[Link]. Form constancy

Form constancy of laughter is expressed in the number of bouts which form an episode of
laughter. Several episodes of laughter performed by the same person can be labeled as
constant in form, if the number of bouts which constitute it does not vary. In order to
analyze this, we calculated a variability coefficient for bout length for those subjects who
performed more than 10 episodes of laughter. The variabilty coefficient V was calculated
by the following formula: V=100*Standard Deviation/mean (Haselhoff and Hoffman,
1970).

According to our hypotheses laughter in mixed-sex episodes should be much more

invariant in its performance than in same-sex episodes, this is the case only for females
(Kruskal-Wallis-One-WayAnova, p=0.0056) but not for males (p=0.70).

In both sexes and in the controls vocalized laughter shows higher form constancy
than unvocalized laughter (Wilcoxon-test: Females mixed sex p<0.000; female controls
p=0.01; male mixed sex p=0.001; male controls p=0.04). This means that higher
intensity laughter shows higher form constancy.

In addition we find that the higher the females self-report they are interest in the
male, and the higher the female evaluated the risk of rejection, the lower is the variability
in her episodes of laughter (r=0.33, p=0.01 for interest, r=-0.56, p<0.000 for risk ,n=42)
this again is not so for males (r=0.00 for interest, r=0.01 for risk, n=33).

3.1.3. Laughing together

For the number of episodes of laughter, where one of the partners joins the other in
laughing we do not find a difference between the sexes in same-sex experiments, but
again, as soon as females are together with males, they laugh significantly less
synchronized than with females (mean=9.7; StdDev=5.7 versus mean=5.5, StdDev=4.0).
For starting an episode of synchronization the suppression effect is on the males' side:
they start significantly less episodes of synchronization when they are together with
females than they do when they are together with males tmean=2.7. StdDev=2.6 versus
mean=1.5, StdDev=1.5).

203
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

Now we can extend our conclusions: with the exception of vocalization /

non-vocalization we did not find sex-differences in same-sex encounters. Sex-differences
only become obvious in mixed-sex encounters: females then laugh more than males, and
with more bouts than males. In addition we find a suppression of laughter and
synchronization in both sexes when they are together with a partner of the opposite sex.

Thus frequency and quality are changed significantly in mixed sex encounters
compared to same sex encounters, so we have to analyze whether frequency and quality of
laughter are able to predict interest in both sexes.

3.2. Consequential evidence: Frequencies of laughter and interest

In order to find out in how far laughter could predict interest we applied a step wise
regression approach to the laughter data with interest as the dependent variable. Table 3
shows the results. The number of times the female laughs, the number of vocalized
laughs, and the number of times the couple laughs together are able to predict mal interest
significantly. The partial correlation coefficient between interest and frequency of laughter
is the highest for the number of times the female laughs, but it is negative. This means
that the more the female laughs alone, the lower is the males' interest to join the female.
Laughing together shows the second highest partial correlation, followed by the number
of vocalized laughs the female performs. These two aspects thus have a high predictive
value for interest. Both variables correlate positively with male interest: the more the
couple laughs together, and the more the female vocalizes, the higher is the
males' interest.

As we will see, laughing together seems to be a prominent point in the analysis: it

is the only variable which predicts male interest when compared to the predictive value of
female laughter, although the regression model does not reach the significance level.

The synchronization of laughter (laughing together) predicts female interest: the more
often she joins the male in laughing together. the higher is her interest to join the male.
For female laughter only the number of laughs she performs shows a tendency to correlate
positi

204
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

vely with interest, and the number of non-vocalized laughs correlates negatively with
interest: the more non-vocalized laughs she shows, the lower is the female's interest.

Again, the controls should show either the opposite or no effects of laughter in
respect to interest, if laughter signals interest in mixed sex dyads. For male controls, we
do not find a correlation between frequency of laughter and interest, whereas for female
controls the opposite turns out: the less another female laughs, the higher is her partner's
interest (to join her for cinema). The opposite is true for nonvocalized laughs.

So far we can draw the following picture: the more the female laughs, the less the
male is ready to join her. But the more often the female laughs vocalized, and the more
often she laughs jointly with the male, the higher male interest will be. The female's
interest can be predicted by the number of times she joins the male laughing. This is not
so for the controls.

As a result laughter might indeed signal interest or common ground. Frequencies and
types of laughter are bound to interest in the partner. Females seem to use this signal
more often, thus signalling interest non-verbally. Laughter, seems to signal interest if it
is vocalized, or declination if it is non-vocalized. Thus qualitative changes of a single
signal might change the meaning of the signal completely, even in opposite directions.

This analysis also shows, although that the overall 'threshold of performance' is
higher in mixed sex episodes, it becomes lowered as soon as interest is developed.

3.3. Sequential organisation of behaviour in episodes of laughter

3.3.1. Frequency of body movements during laughter: 'threshold of

performance'

These movement codings show a marked increase in the number of movements, as soon
as laughter occurs. Movement analysis was carried out only for mixed-sex episodes,
because there was a reasonable number of dyads present, which are necessary for reliable
analysis.

205
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER
Table 3: Regression Analysis of Laughter and Interest

Interest: Males
(Female Laughter) (Male Laughter)
Regression model: R' F Sig.F R F Sig.F
0.43 4.98 0.003 0.22 3.56 0.063
Variables p' F Sig.F p F Sig.F
Laughter -0.37 10.66 0.001- -0.01 0.02 0.882
Vocalized Laughs 0.26 8.42 0.005- -0.05 0.21 0.644
Unvocalized Laughs 0.02 0.05 0.818 -0.03 0.08 0.771
Laughing together 0.33 5.02 0.005- 0.22 3.56 0.063
Starting synchronized 0.02 0.03 0.852 -1.13 1.28 0.260

Interest:Females
(Male Laughter) (Female Laughter)
Regression model: R F Sig.F R F Sig.F
0.24 4.42 0.039 0.23 1.94 0.151
Variables p F Sig.F p F Sig.F
Laughter -0.06 0.30 0.580 0.20 2.98 0 088
Vocalized Laughs 0.00 0.00 0.987 -0.06 0.31 0 573
Unvocalized Laughs -0.10 0.71 0.400 -0.29 3.44 0.067
Laughing together -0.07 0.33 0.560 0.06 0.27 0.598
Slarling synchronized 0.25 4.42 0.039- -0.04 0.18 0.743

Interest:Male Controls Female Controls

(Self) (Self)
Regression model: R F Sig.F R F Sig.F
0.00 0.00 n.s.[Link]
Variables p F Sig.F p F Sig.F
Laughter 0.08 0.06 0.801 -0.53 5.50 0.034
Vocalized Laughs 0.05 0.03 0.860 -0.46 3 82 0 070
Unvocalized Laughs -0.07 0.05 0.824 0.49 4 51 0 051
Laughing together -0.12 0.15 0.698 -0.01 0.00 0 955
Starting synchronized 0.08 0.08 0.783 0.18 0.440 516
('Multiple Regression regression equation) Coefficient / 'Parrtial Correl align/ Variable in Ihe
regression equation)

The changes in the number of movements affect the whole body in females: head
(frequency/per episode of 0.21 before, 0.40 after laughter), trunk (0.042 to 0.14), hands
(0.017 to 0.040), shoulders (0.007 to 0.067), arms (0.032 to 0.043) and legs (0.0013 to
0.012) start to move, when laughter bursts out. These changes in female movements are
dramatic for movements of trunk, shoulders and legs. The changes are not so pronounced
among males: head movements aug

206
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

meat in frequency from 0.25 to 0.45, hands from 0.01 to 0.03, shoulders from 0.004 to
0.016, from 0.046 to 0.049, and legs from 0.0075 to 0.0064. Thus the sign value for
females, which becomes evident in the movement changes, might be more pronounced for
females.

The threshold of performance for the accompanying body-movements thus seems to

be lowered among females as compared to males.

For the analysis of sequences different methods are available - with typical methodological
flaws of each method. Cross-leg analysis (Sackett, 1978, 1979) is an exception, because
this method does not make any assumption on the underlying distributions of behaviour.
The basic idea is the event or time lag. One behaviour, the "criterion behaviour" is defined
as a fixed point. In our case laughter, which is the point "zero". Then the distributions of
all following behaviours are calculated for the following onset (lag 1 ), the next onset
(lag2) and so on

The same procedure can be applied to the behaviour proceeding laughter - in this ease the
lags are called lag -1, lag-2 and so on. Now, if a behaviour would occur at random in
respect to laughter in these chains, laughter should be distributed according to the
"unconditional probability" calculated from total number of instances where the behaviour
unit occurred, divided by the total number of all units. These scores then are transformed
into Z-Scores, and the"lag-conditional" probabilities (the number of times a behaviour
unit occurred on a lag divided by the total number of all units) are calculated. The
graphical representations of these distributions are called "lag-profiles". Finally the size of
the z-scores then allows to decide if a behaviour unit occurs significantly more often on
certain lags.

Figures 4 and 5 show the lag profiles for head and arm movements. In this figures
the point 0 is the occurence of the criterion behaviour "laughter". The profiles suggest for
female arm movements an illustrating arm movement followed by an adaptor before
laughing, which is followed by five other movements until laughter occurs. After
laughter, illustrating arm movements are insignificant. When an adapting arm and hand
movement occurs, this movement occurs at three steps

207
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

before laughter. If we look at the males arm movements, the distributions seem to be
nearly identical. Thus arm movements in both sexes, always seem to occur at specific
sequential points relative to laughter, which can be interpreted as a sign of typical
movement sequences.

The analysis of vertical head movements shows comparable results. The lag profile
suggest the following sequence for females:

Head up - Laughter- Head up - Head down -Head up -Head down.

Females thus perform an oscillating up and down movement starting with the head up.
Males show the sequence:

Head up - Head down - Head up -Laughter- Head up - Head down- Head up - Head down -
Head up.

Thus males perform the same oscillating movement sequence, but this sequences is
extended by an additional oscillation before and after laughter. The basic sequence in
respect to laughter is the same.

If we look at the horizontal head movements - looking at the partner or not - we find
slightly different sequences for the sexes. Females show

Look away - Look at- Look away - Look at- Laugh - Look away -Look at.

Males show the following sequence:

Look at- Look away -look at- Look away - Laugh - Look awayLook at- Look away -
Look at.

We see that in both sexes the person who is laughing avoids eye-contact with his partner,
and when laughter is finished, the person makes eye contact again.

We see that females, in contrast to males, look at their partner, laugh, and then look
away, whereas males look away already before they laugh. This oscillation of looking at
and looking away from the partner could express ambivalence (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1986).
This inter

208
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER
SEQUENCING IN FEMALE MOVEMENTS DURING LAUGHTER

209
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER
SEQUENCING IN MALE MOVEMENTS DURING LAUGHTER

210
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

pretation then would mean that males show a higher degree of ambivalence than females.
Moreover, the fact, that just before and after laughter eye-contact is avoided by both sexes
is a hint on the loss of orientation or the redirection of movements.

The logical extension of this analysis under different interest different interest scores
is not possible, bee&use we have not enough data to meet the minimum requirements of
lag-sequential analysis. Nevertheless we can conclude that laughter is indeed embedded in
sterotypic movement configurations, which show constant organisation of their order of
occurrence.

4. THE FUNCTION OF LAUGHTER

These results indicate that laughter could well be a ritualized metacommunicativc signal,
which communicates "this is play" in the ambiguous situation where two strangers of the
other sex meet for the first time:

The fact that rhythmical repetition is present in both contexts is obvious for each
observer. On the other hand we found that rhythmical repetition is not influenced by the
context nor by interest. Besides this typical intensity is present in both contexts. This
means that laughter shows a frequency independent intensity level.

Typical movement configurations occur. These movement configurations, also show

that redirection of the signal takes place - when people laugh, they do not look at each
other. We could interprete these rigid accompanying movements as a complete behavioral
pattern, where laughter forms only a part of it (Grammer, 1989a in prep.)

Form constancy is higher in mixed-sex episodes for females as compared to males

and increases with increasing interest. Form constancy indeed seems to be an indicator for
ritualization, because the form becomes more rigid, the higher the intensity of laughter.

Thus laughter can be labeled as a ritualized display. The open question still is if the
function we assume also is the function in our contexts. In contradiction to our
hypotheses the threshold for the performance is higher in mixed sex episodes, but it is
lowered with increasing female interest.

The analysis of differences in frequencies between the two contexts shows two main
points: in mixed-sex encounters, sex

211
THE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

differences occur which are not present in same-sex encounters, and these differences are
mainly a suppression in frequency of laughter, whereas the overall quality of laughter
stays the same. In mixed-sex 'encounters sex-differences appear: Females laugh more often
than , males, with far more bouts.

This finding - although we find a significant difference in frequency - is not congruent to

the supposition that 'higher frequency of a behaviour' could be a factor for the decision
that laughter can be labeled as typical courtship behaviour with a specific function in
mixed sex encounters. The overall threshold for laughing in mixed-sex episodes is higher -
but as soon as interest comes up the threshold is lowered. Thus laughter is an indicator of
interest, specifically in mixed sex encounters, and, because it is more suppressed for
females, it might be equivalent to female solicitation.

This view is supported by the analysis of interest which shows a connection

between interest and the frequency of laughter. The more the female laughs, the less the
male is ready to join her. But the more vocalized the female laughs and the more often the
male and the female laugh together can predict male readiness. At the same time female
readiness can be predicted by the number of times she joins the male in laughing, and by
the overall number of instances she laughs. Non-vocalized laughing correlates negatively
with female readiness. This shows that vocalization and number of laughs could signal
animation of the female (and thus readiness).

This is not so for the controls. In same sex-dyads the frequencies are much higher,
but there are no sex differences. Thus melees together with males do not show less signs
of submission as predicted. But as soon as they are together with males, females show
more laughter than males and thus the interpretation of laughter as a submissive signal
could is reasonable. As soon as males are dominance oriented towards females - female
solicitation could use signs of submissiveness. The fact that laughter indeed might signal
female readiness is strengthened by the finding that females laugh more often in presence
of a male rated as attractive by independent other females. Thus laughter signals females'
readiness for males.

The initial phase of mixed-sex encounters should be marked by signalling and

signalling back: creating communality is the basis for the

212
TIIE RITUALISATION OF LAUGHTER

establishment of mutual courtship. Frequency of laughing together correlates highly with

readiness in both sexes. Joining one another in laughing could indicate that a common
basis has been established. The fact that females' joining the male in laughter can predict
female readiness gives the basis for an obvious speculation: laughter could have a tactical
function in mixed-sex encounters. If it is suppressed (among the females) and then occurs
following a male's laugh it becomes a clear signal for the male. For the complete
assessment of function the verbal context also plays a role: males laugh about self
presentation statements. Possibly marking them as "play". (Grammer ( 1989d).

If we look back to Huxley's definition of rituals, laughter indeed promotes better and
unambiguous signal function - but not in a direct way. Laughter allows to communicate
signals which otherwise could offend the receiver- one of the metacommunicative
functions of laughter is the prevention of face-loss in a difficult situation, thus it reduces
intra-specific damage. Furthermore laughter is a ritualized sign of submission, which
communicates female interest in the male. Finally laughing together has a social bonding
function, which emerges in mixed-sex encounters as soon as courtship, i.e. the signalling
of interest in the partner takes place.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1. (1975): Ethology:The Biology of Behavior.- New York (Holt, Rhinehart and
Winston).

(1986):Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundrip der [lumanethologie.- 302 - 332,
Munchen (Piper).

––––––––––––( 1988): Sexual pathologies from an ethological perspective. Zcitschrift fdr

Sexualwissenschaft. - 3 - 8.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V. (1978): Facial Action Coding System.- Palo Alto, California
(Consulting Psychologists Press).

__________. (1972):HandMovements.- The Journal of Communication,

22, 353-374.

Goffman,E. (1967): Interaction Ritual.- Chicago (Aldine).

Grammer, K. (1988): 8iologischc Grundlagen des Sozialverhaltens. Darmstadt

(Wissenschaftliche Buchgessellschaft).

----------------(1989a): Human courtship: verbal self-presentation and the

213
THE RITUAtISATION OF LAUGHTER

function of laughter. (Manuscript).

--------------(1989b): Human courtship behaviour: biological bases and cognitive processing. In

Rasa, A.E., Vogel, C., Volland, E. (eds.): Sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies i n
animals and m a n.- 147- 169, London (Chapman and Hall).

-------------(1989d): Strangers meet: Laughtcr and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite sex
encounters.- (Manuscript).

Haseloff, O.W., Hoffmann, H.J. (1970): Kleines Lehrbuch der [Link] (DeGrayter).

Hinde, R.A. (1975): Thc concept of function. In: Baerends,S.,Bcer,C.,Manning,C. (eds.):

Function and Evolution in Behaviour.- Oxford (Clarcndon).

Hoof, J., A., R., A., M. van (1972): A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and
smiling. In: Hinde, R., A. (Eds..): Nonverbal communication.- 209-243, Cambridge
(Cambridge Univcrsity Press).

Huxley, J. (1966): The ritualization of Behaviour in animals and

[Link].251,772, 249269.

Moore, M.M. (1985): Nonvcrbal courtship patterns in women: context and consequences.-
Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237-247.

Morris,D. (1966): The rigidifieation of behaviour.- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society Vol.551, 772, 327-330.

Saekett, G.P. (1979): Thc lag-sequential analysis of contingency eyelicity in behavioral

interaction research. In: Osofsky, J. (cd.) Handboo~x of infant devel opmcat.- New York
(Wiley and Sons).

-----------------(1978): Measurement in observational research. In: Saekett, G.P.(ed.); Observing

behavior Vol 11. Data Collection and [Link] (University Park Prcss).

214