Laughter is rarely as innocent as it appears. Quite often it slips out of us in those moments of contradiction when the situation feels too tense, too absurd, or that is just too true, painfully true. There is a simple act of survival lurking beneath the brightness of laughter, a way for the mind to look directly at what unsettles it through a gentler lens —fear is held with irony, tension with release. In that instant of laughter, what once wounded becomes bearable.
Across time, laughter has served as both signal and shield. Evolutionary theorists trace its earliest form to the laughter of reassurance—a reflex that communicated safety after a perceived threat (Graziano, 2022). What began as a rudimentary signal of relief evolved into one of the mind’s most intricate defence mechanisms, transforming anxiety into play and chaos into coherence (Samson & Gross, 2012). Freud (1960) provided the psychological richness of this phenomenon, suggesting that laughter releases pent-up energy and inappropriate emotion, masked behind a façade of wit. In this sense, humour is a socially approved act of rebellion, a way of stating something that cannot be stated straight.
Read More: Let’s Know About the Importance of Laughter
The Psychology Behind a Smile: When Threat Turns Playful
That dazzling trickster element of laugh, however, reveals an irony: we laugh not when nothing may threaten us, but when we understand a threat. Jokes receive a laugh by breaking an excised boundary of moral, social or personal violation precisely because they break a boundary. Superiority theory suggests that amusement at the offensive momentarily grants us a sense of mastery or rebellion over discomfort (Hobbes, 1994). Relief theory, tracing back to Freud, interprets this laughter as the mind’s way of releasing pent-up tension and hostility without consequence (Freud, 1960). Incongruity theory adds another dimension—humour arises when what we expect collides with what we perceive, turning the serious into the absurd and the forbidden into play (Morreall, 2009).
From an evolutionary standpoint, this capacity to find amusement in the unsettling reflects the mind’s ability to reappraise danger as harmless, to perceive safety in violation. Laughter, even when humour is problematic on a moral level, might not necessarily indicate a sign of cruelty but rather a momentary normalisation that the danger is manageable and under control (Graziano, 2022). However, this may indicate a double-edged sword that distress or cynicism is concealed within dark humour, whereas benevolent humour inspired by empathy has been researched to build resilience and emotional regulation (Dionigi, 2023).
Read More: Why We Laugh When Nervous: The Brain’s Unusual Coping Mechanism For Stress
Psychological and Cognitive Mechanisms Behind “Benign” Offence
The benign offence concept is most clearly explained through the Benign-Violation Hypothesis and similar cognitive frameworks that investigate the way offensive or threatening stimuli elicit amusement as opposed to discomfort or distress. This dual response involves intertwined appraisals, incongruity resolution, and neural activation patterns (Chan et al., 2013).
1. The Benign-Violation Mechanism
Within the Benign-Violation Hypothesis framework, humour occurs when the act is construed as a violation of socially acceptable behaviours, yet possesses psychological safety (McGraw & Warren, 2010). A violation indicates a disfigurement or aberration of expected moral or social norms. Amusement might occur when signs within the effect render it unthreatening.
A violation appears benign under three main conditions:
- Conflicting Norms: When one norm is broken but another legitimises it. For instance, “harmless” moral violations (a kitten seeming to enjoy playful mistreatment) are funnier than harmful ones (McGraw & Warren, 2010).
- Weak Norm Commitment: Those less attached to a violated norm feel less offended—nonchurchgoers found a joke about a church raffle funnier than devout participants (McGraw & Warren, 2010).
- Psychological Distance: Temporal or social distance reduces threat, reflecting “comedy is tragedy plus time.” Distant moral violations are rated as more amusing and less offensive (McGraw, Williams, & Warren, 2014).
Crucially, both violation and benignity must occur together, producing laughter tinged with discomfort. Research indicates that humour tends to be at its highest level of appreciation when audiences perceive an act to be base violation, but not entirely base violation (Warren & McGraw, 2016).
2. Incongruity and the Dual-Pathway Theory
Humour depends on the ability of the mind to perceive and resolve incongruity, the difference between what is expected and what occurs. There is a model of humour called the Dual-Path model that contains two broad processes:
- Incongruity-Resolution: When incongruity can be resolved via a logical interpretation, amusement occurs because we reinterpret the act. Neuroimaging has revealed activity in the right temporo-parietal junction, precuneus and posterior cingulate cortex (Chan et al., 2013).
- Absurd or Partial-Resolution Humour: When classical logic is violated completely, the brain will shift to using its linguistic and pragmatic networks (the inferior frontal and superior temporal gyri) to determine that absurdity was an intentional and, therefore, safe experience (Goel & Dolan, 2001).
These pathways demonstrate that benign violations utilise flexible cognition, shifting between reasoning, play and empathy to convert discomfort into enjoyment (Samson, 2012).
3. The Threshold Mechanism
The Threshold Theory explains that humour emerges when a mental buildup crosses awareness at just the right moment. A setup activates subtle responses and a punchline pushes them into consciousness, triggering laughter (Suls, 1983). If the shift is mis-timed, humour collapses into confusion or discomfort. Effective humour thus relies on precise cognitive timing, perceiving and resolving violation as safe within milliseconds (Moran et al., 2004).
In essence, laughter at “benign offence” reflects the mind’s capacity to flirt with danger safely. Through simultaneous appraisal, flexible incongruity processing and perfect timing, the brain reinterprets violation as play—transforming potential threat into pleasure (Samson & Gross, 2012).
Evolutionary and Neurobiological Roots of Defensive Laughter
Laughter’s evolutionary and neurobiological origins reveal it as both a defensive reflex and a mechanism for releasing psychic tension. Originating from prototransplant survival behaviours, laughter likely developed to signal safety following a threat to regulatory social ties, both actively in the model of vulnerable communication.
1. Laughing and Defence Mimicry in Evolution
The earliest forms of laughter trace to play behaviour in primates, specifically in the course of tickling and fighting play contexts that create low-level aggression and serve to learn limits and self-regulation (Provine, 2000). Tickling an individual elicits involuntary laughter, which mimics low-level threat and serves to reinforce protective reflexes.
The defensive mimic theory of laughter proposes that laughter originated as an exaggerated imitation of the rapid reflexive behaviours of blinking, grimacing and exhaling—actions intended as protective measures for the body’s lowest surface (Graziano, 2022). Laughter, as a physiological behavioural expression, imitates these stated behaviours by contorting the muscles around the eyes, baring teeth, and rhythmic exhalation spells (Gervais & Wilson, 2005).
As an expression of communication, the sound of laughter from tickling conveys submission and safety to the other individual to maintain social equilibrium. With the evolution of self-awareness and social awareness, eventually random laughter became generalised to contexts of cognition and social spheres (slips, surprises or incongruencies) and mitigation that the approximated threat was actually nothing (Davila Ross, Owren, & Zimmerman, 2009). Further, laughter became an evolved social signal that identified moving from tension or pressure into safety.
2. Neurobiological Systems of Defence and Discharge
From a neurobiological standpoint, laughter is closely related to defensive reflexes that mediate threat assessment and regulate homeostasis. Two key systems contribute:
- Startle Response: A rapid subcortical defence (~5 ms) that primes the body for action.
- Peripersonal Protective Response: A cortical system (~30 ms) forming a “safety margin” around the body via peripersonal neurons, coordinating protective movements. In fact, laughter caused by playful tickling is considered to closely reflect the activity of this network (Graziano & Cooke, 2006; Wild, Rodden, & Grodd, 2003).
These inhibitory reflex pathways suggest that laughter evolved not only as a social signal but also as a neural defence mechanism that balances hyper-vigilance and relaxation, allowing tension release and restoring homeostasis.
3. Psychic Economy and Emotional Regulation
From a psychoanalytic lens, Freud (1960) described laughter as the discharge of surplus psychic energy once inhibition is lifted. Humour provides an economy of affect—pleasure derived from conserving the energy otherwise spent on repression. When humour frames forbidden impulses safely, internal resistance dissolves, releasing tension through harmless play.
Cognitively, this relates to Threshold Theory (Suls, 1983), in which laughter results from relatively mild incongruity accruing to a point of recognition to permit relief rather than fear.
4. Health and Functional Benefits
Modern evidence supports laughter’s defensive and restorative functions. From a psychological perspective, it serves to protect against distressing feelings and assist in coping. Biologically, it decreases cortisol production, and it demonstrates enhancement of immune response via natural killer cell and T-cell activation, which in turn reproduces endogenous opioids, amplifying pain tolerance and well-being (Berk et al., 1989; Martin, 2007; Dunbar, 2012).
Essentially, laughter maintains its evolutionary trajectory as a precursor of an ancestral reflex to a mature emotional signalling mechanism—a marker of relaxation, release of accumulated tension, and homeostasis of cognition. Be it a way to protect the body from threat or the head from pain, laughter is still the human ability to transform vulnerability into relief.
Social Meanings of Offence
Humour’s engagement with offence showcases its curious power to both uphold and undermine the social order. Humour and laughter contribute to the management and negotiation of the hierarchy, mediation of moral order, and release of repressed emotions (Billig, 2005; Gervais & Wilson, 2005).
1. Offensive Humour as a Mode of Social Control and Dissidence
Offensive or taboo humour is often a vehicle for both supporting and subverting authority (Lockyer & Pickering, 2008).
Read More: How Your Brain Reacts to Humour
Mockery of Authority and Superiority
Through the Superiority Theory, laughter marks rebellion and symbolic triumph. Making fun of powerful/groups allows the fear of their position to turn into ridicule, challenging their dominance while also allowing the individual to release their repressed emotional burden of ridicule (Gruner,1997; Morreall, 2009; Freud, 1960). When these fears are mitigated into laughter, it now becomes a non-violent act of gainful opposition; a release of power and a demonstration of dissidence to system groups (Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Provine, 2000).
Identifying and Claiming Norms
When humour breaks the rules, it simultaneously reinforces and defines them. In that tradition, satire reveals flaws in moral and socially acceptable territories while obscenity also takes back the right for expression that was dominated by a few (Billig, 2005; Lockyer & Pickering, 2008). When humour trivialises the sacred, it breaks down institutional authority; it can act as a social equaliser and or remind us about our human failings (Morreall, 2009; McGraw & Warren, 2010).
2. Humour, Affiliation and Condonement
Laughter at offence is a collective act, signalling shared boundaries and moral alignment (Samson & Gross, 2012; Dionigi, 2023).
- Communicative Function and Group Conformity: Laughter communicates that a violation is “safe” within group norms, reinforcing shared beliefs and shielding transgressors under the guise of humour (McGraw & Warren, 2010; Billig, 2005). Because laughter feels involuntary, it reveals genuine alignment while allowing moral evasion (Freud, 1960).
- The Social Dynamic of the Joke: Every tendentious joke involves the teller, the target and the listener—the latter completing the transgression through laughter. In a laugh, one accepts complicity; laughing becomes a tacit agreement that endorses the transgression (Freud, 1960; Samson & Gross, 2012).
3. Cultural Differences and the Emotional Experience of Norm Violation
Responses to offensive humour are dependent on the moral commitment and psychological distance (McGraw & Warren, 2010).
- Commitment to Norms and Psychological Distance: For those who have a tenuous bond to a norm in the first place, (we very well may!) they are amused by the transgression, though if it is funny to the emotional, or relates to the point of social distance, what may have momentarily offended becomes comedy (Suls, 1983; Martin, 2007).
- Humour Style Differential Effects: Benevolent humour engenders compassion and consequently strength. Cynical or mocking humour increases feelings of alienation and anxiety. (Martin, 2007; Dionigi, 2023).
In short, ridicule at the expense of the offence exposes our tenuous structure of morality and identifiers of belonging – will it heal by demonstrating we share a weakness, or will it injure by affirming exclusion?
Conclusion
Laughter occupies an unstable line between defence and destruction. It can act as psychic protection that transforms distress, regulates emotion and brings the body and mind back into existential balance (Samson & Gross, 2012). When humour is engaged adaptively, it can reduce tension, enhance resilience, and promote physical well-being by reducing stress hormones. Enhancing immune functioning and communicating safety to a group (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; Dunbar, 2012).
However, humour stops being healing when it masks hostility. Sarcasm or ridicule may position the joker to relieve their discomfort while simultaneously inflicting pain on the target. Changing the dynamic from defence to aggression (Cann et al., 2009). As before, it connects not to the laughter itself but to the intent behind it—a choice between empathy and ridicule (Dionigi, 2023).
From evolutionary, cognitive, and psychodynamic perspectives, laughter is the mind’s way of transforming danger into playfulness (Freud, 1960; Gervais & Wilson, 2005). Accordingly, laughter flourishes easily at the peril and safety line where discomfort equals pleasure. Moreover, this mechanism constructs laughter to be ethically multidimensional. For example, one person’s humour may alienate another, offering moral distance or a lack of shared norms (Greengross & Miller, 2011).
In individual and social life, laughter is equally corrective and corrosive—a kind of indicator that exposes hypocrisy or builds consensus (Morreall, 2009). Defensive power indeed rests in awareness: when used with empathy, it transforms pain into connection. When wielded carelessly, it deepens division. Ultimately, laughter protects best when it is conscious, compassionate, and kind.
References +
Dai, R. H., Chen, H., Chan, Y. C., Wu, C., Li, P., Cho, S. L., & Hu, J. (2017). To Resolve or Not To Resolve, That Is the Question: The Dual-Path Model of Incongruity Resolution and Absurd Verbal Humour by fMRI. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00498
Dionigi, A., Duradoni, M., & Vagnoli, L. (2023). Understanding the association between humour and emotional distress: The role of light and dark humour in predicting depression, anxiety, and stress. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 19(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.10013
Epstein, R., & Joker, V. R. (2007). A threshold theory of the humour response. The Behaviour Analyst, 30(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392145
Freud, S., Jr. (1905). JOKES AND THEIR RELATION TO THE UNCONSCIOUS. In JOKES AND THEIR RELATION TO THE UNCONSCIOUS. https://ia802907.us.archive.org/17/items/SigmundFreud/Sigmund%20Freud%20%5B 1905%5D%20Jokes%20and%20their%20Relation%20to%20the%20Unconscious%2 0%28James%20Strachey%20translation%2C%201955%29.pdf
Grant-Jacob, J. A. (2024). Evolution of laughter from play. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2024.2338073
Graziano, M. S. A. (2022). The origin of smiling, laughing, and crying: The defensive mimic theory. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.5
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376073
Revi, R. (2014). Understanding obscenity and offensive humour: What’s funny? European Journal of Humour Research, 2(3), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.7592/ejhr2014.2.3.revi
Samson, A. C., Glassco, A. L., Lee, I. A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Humorous coping and serious reappraisal: Short-Term and Longer-Term effects. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.730
Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Humour as emotion regulation: The differential consequences of negative versus positive humour. Cognition & Emotion, 26(2), 375– 384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.585069
