Draft #2
Watching the sketch team of a rival school perform over a Facebook livestream was never planned but, as a show of support for a close personal friend, it was how a Saturday night was spent. Through repeated mentions and text conversations, her University of Florida-based team became more and more familiar. When the subject for the assignment was given, it was obvious that this paper was going to be centered around her sketch comedy group.
When the subject of an interview came up, the aforementioned close personal friend, Adriane Jones, was more than willing to participate. She was actually fairly excited to do it, and thankfully so. Her interview was by far the most helpful source. Researching sketch comedy on its own is nearly unfeasible, as there is little cited information to be discovered. The interview pointed the research in a different and unexpected direction that shifted the focus from being solely on sketch comedy and its practically impossible-to-find history.
Before drifting in that new direction, it is important to start with the basics. From what was available to scrounge up, sketch comedy is a derivative of both North American vaudeville and British music hall theater of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. According to Daniel Kirby in his “History of Sketch Comedy” webpage, the variety of subject material that originates from the two genres (for example, there was a vaudeville for the rich and one for the poor) is something that has stayed with sketch comedy, allowing it to resonate with all kinds of audiences. Though it cut out most of the elements of vaudeville and music hall theater, sketch comedy kept the scripted scene comedy.
A majorly important aspect of sketch comedy is its non-linear scenes. Until Monty Python and Saturday Night Live, who were pioneers in televised sketch comedy, introduced recurring characters, all scenes were from scratch with nothing repeated from previous scenes (Kirby). The sketches used to be almost entirely unrelated – which might be the major draw of sketch comedy because it just might be the “definition of sketch comedy. It’s funny, and you don’t have to invest a lot of time or follow a plot for very long” (Kirby).
This definition of short, mostly unrelated scenes meant solely to entertain for a brief amount of time applies to Jones’s sketch team as well. Her team is a branch of an overarching group called “Theater Strike Force,” with the sketch team being appropriately named “TSF Sketch.” A perusal of Theater Strike Force’s Wikipedia page navigates to the “Faculty & Staff” directory of the UF’s College of the Arts, where a biography page for one Dr. Judith W.B. Williams is found.
Dr. Williams teaches acting and/or directing at UF. Early in her career there, which began in 1989, she founded Theater Strike Force (Faculty & Staff Directory). TSF has come a long way since it was created, and now includes several “home teams,” among those being TSF Sketch.
Typically, TSF is solely unscripted, improvised comedy. TSF Sketch, however, is an exception. Members of the team spend the school year writing sketches, and those sketches are typically about things like “current events, university life and societal norms” (TSF Sketch Home). In our interview, Jones mentioned that they perform a show each semester, and that those shows feature the best sketches written and usually performed by members of the team.
The shows, like practically every other type of media, are pointless without an audience. With this in mind, TSF Sketch promotes itself in places on their campus that are most frequented by students. Since having an audience is so important, members have to reach a certain number of “PR points” by advertising through “flyer-ing” and by personally inviting people to the shows (Jones). Though there was no mention of what happens should a member not reach that desired number of points, there is an underlying promise of consequences that is possibly a driving force behind members actively participating in promoting the group.
One thing to look at here is the effect of that threat of punishment. It is a much debated topic in the world of psychology, and is especially focused on corporeal punishment and the effects it has on children. One study focused less on the effect on children and more on the effect of punishment and coercion in social exchange. Linda D. Molm found that punishment, if used “consistently and contingently,” can be an effective means of influence in social exchange. Molm also discovered that the most important factor in determining punishment strategies is contingency, and that punishment appears to only be effective when used contingently.
Whenever punishment is brought up, the argument about its morality is never far behind. However, it is something unavoidable, especially when it comes to social interactions, as Molm contended by stating “right or wrong, just or unjust, there is little question that negative actions are an integral part of virtually all exchange relations.”
A different review study zeroed in on the effect of punishment in an organizational setting, which is something that TSF Sketch could be considered as. The study, done by Richard D. Arvey and John M. Ivancevich, established that there are two types of punishment. The first type is one in which there is a presentation of an aversive effect, and the second type is the removal of something positive. Organizational punishment can be either of the two types. The issue of organizational punishment, and why people are hesitant to implement it, is that it is believed to result in undesirable emotional effects and that the employee would attempt to escape or avoid the punishment. However, the empirical evidence in regards to these “presumed effects is particularly weak” (Arvey and Ivancevich).
Both studies on punishment argue the point that the question is not really concerned with the morality of the act itself, or whether it is all that effective. Most researchers would agree that it is, and the real question becomes more about how punishment “[may] best be used to accomplish behavior change” (Arvey and Ivancevich), something Molm answered in her study. In this case, TSF’s promotion of itself could possibly be influenced by the indication of negative consequences should members not participate, and the threat of an unnamed punishment may be effective because of its contingency.
Another thing to evaluate about the way in which TSF Sketch communicates with its audience is how effective their kind of advertising is, and what can be done so that it is the most effective it can be. According to a study conducted by Corinne Berneman and Marie-Josée Kasparian, advertising ultimately increases attendance. This result is not exactly surprising, as one would assume that advertising an event would draw in a larger crowd. However, simply advertising an event is not going to draw in the biggest crowd possible. The degree to which the audience increases for an advertised event versus a non-advertised event is reliant on some other factors.
Repetition is an important factor in an audience’s ability to recall. Although recall will not guarantee attendance, it is an important starting point. The number of posters or flyers per exposure also increases recall (Berneman and Kasparian), meaning that someone is more likely to remember an upcoming event if they are exposed to two posters at one time in an area rather than just one poster.
All of this is important in regards to the team because having an audience is completely necessary for this performing arts group, something the team members surely know. As Jones said, “It’s all about exposure. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how good a show is if nobody shows up.”
Garnering an audience and communicating outside of the TSF Sketch team is important, and so is the communication within the group, which is done primarily through Facebook. The team uses a private Facebook group to share information about upcoming shows and meetings with its members. Overall, this media does well in allowing members to find out the new information while giving them the ability to post questions, comments, or concerns that can easily be responded to by other members (Jones). In a paper that argues for integrating social media sites into classrooms, including studying said sites and their influence, Andrew Moore contends that individuals that are enrolled in college or are about to be enrolled are the most active on social media. This claim is likely accurate, and a good sign for TSF Sketch’s chosen mode of communication because it would imply that their members, being of the generation of people that use social networks the most, would most effectively be reached through Facebook. However, this means of communicating comes with problems.
As would be generally expected, some members use and check Facebook more often than others. This might cause individuals to miss the important things that are posted. A study on the Facebook activity of 595 students of Karlstad University in Sweden showed a possible trend on who is more likely to use Facebook more often.
Conducted by Alimohammad Aghazamani, it revealed discrepancies between its researched demographics. The study looked at the Facebook use of male students versus female students, and the Facebook use of undergraduate students versus graduate students. Through a questionnaire that asked them about their Facebook activity as well as their motivations for using Facebook, the study found that male students used Facebook more than female students. It also found that undergraduate students logged in more than graduate students.
As Aghazamani rightly stated in the “Discussions” section of the study, the results cannot be generalized for the whole world. As the research focused only on the students in one university in one country, it does not take into account other factors that could influence one’s Facebook use. If the study were to be replicated in a North American university or in an Asian high school, the results could vary greatly. However, this study does suggest that age and gender may be a determinant of an individual’s Facebook usage and it is something that should be considered.
All of this information about how a sketch team can effectively communicate begs the question of what the purpose of it is. Why is it important for a sketch team to be able to communicate within and outside itself, and what is the purpose of there even being a sketch group? Is it just for entertainment, as would be the obvious answer, or is there another underlying and generally unacknowledged reason behind it? Jones stated in the interview that she believes the group has a positive impact on the school by providing a free comedy show, but why can this be considered a positive impact?
The impact and purpose of comedy is something that numerous studies have sought to find the answer to, and the popular answer is that comedy has all kinds of health benefits. These advantages for health have been touted by the media with a strong certainty. However, those claims are not necessarily completely accurate. In his summarization of studies done on the effect of humor and/or laughter, Rod A. Martin argues that “overall, the evidence for health benefits of humor and laughter is less conclusive than commonly believed.”
There are several theoretical mechanisms on which those claims are based. One is that laughter might produce physiological changes to various parts and systems of the body that lead to health benefits. Another claims that laughter and humor might cause positive emotional states that lead to health benefits. A third mechanism holds the idea that laughter might indirectly help with health by controlling stress. The last one mentioned says that humor might indirectly be helping by increasing social support (Martin).
Martin’s summary looks at several areas of focus and what the results of studies involved in those areas were. Humor is said to increase one’s immunity and many studies reported some significant changes in at least one aspect of immunity. However, there are methodology problems and inconsistency within those studies that make drawing concrete conclusions impossible. There are also claims that humor increases pain tolerance, and the studies conducted on that claim seem to support it, as the results show that laughter does increase the pain threshold and that the increase is not due to distraction. The problem with those studies, however, is that they also show that negative emotions cause one’s pain threshold to increase. They are also unable to conclude whether or not the increase is due to laughter alone, or just due to positive emotions.
Another area of focus that Martin addresses is the idea that laughter decreases blood pressure – an idea that is totally false. In fact, studies have shown that laughing temporarily increases blood pressure and heart rate. Yet another area of focus is the claim that laughter increases one’s lifespan. Surprisingly, there are only two studies that have been conducted in regards to this idea. One study showed that laughter had no effect on lifespan while the other showed that people who were overall more cheerful (and thusly had a greater sense of humor) actually had a higher mortality rate. The final thing Martin focuses on are illness symptoms. Some studies show that subjects with a greater sense of humor reported less illness symptoms; however, other studies have been unable to replicate those findings.
Martin concludes that these results are less than supportive about the idea of the health benefits of laughter, but that it is something that researchers should continue to look into. A different review, done by R. E. Ferner and J. K. Aronson, also looked at studies that addressed health effects of laughter and came to a different conclusion.
Ferner and Aronson surmised that laughter does have health benefits. It reduces anger, anxiety, depression, and stress; it reduces tension and the risk of myocardial infarction, and it increases lung capacity and energy expenditure, among other things. They also found that laughter has negative impacts, including syncope, cardiac and esophageal rupture, protrusion of abdominal hernias, asthma attacks, interlobular emphysema, cataplexy, headaches, and jaw dislocation. However, these potential harmful effects are dose-dependent and are most dangerous to those who are already susceptible to those issues. The culmination of this lead Ferner and Aronson to “infer that laughter in any form carries a low risk of harm and may be beneficial.” While the two conclusions are tentative at best, they suggest that laughter does have a positive physiological and psychological effect on individuals that should be further explored.
The argument to be made here is why all of this is important to TSF Sketch and the texts within their community. The mediums through which they communicate with each other and with their audience seem to be the most effective ones they can use. Through these modes, TSF Sketch is able to pick the best sketches to perform and attract the largest audience they can. By spreading laughter to a larger audience, they are also spreading tentative health benefits and are thusly turning a perceived positive effect into a real one.