Laughs and Letdowns: Humor in Sitcom Successes and Failures

 

Avery Simmons

Strategic Communications, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

Sitcoms are a major part of American culture, known for their comedic value and large viewership. While some, like The Office, Friends, and Parks and Recreation, have enjoyed great success, others, such as Cavemen, 1600 Penn, and I’m With Her, were canceled after one season. This study examines the categories of humor in successful versus unsuccessful sitcoms by analyzing six shows using both quantitative and qualitative methods. A typology of 41 humor types was used, grouped into five major categories: physical, verbal, situational, character-based, and playful humor. The first three episodes of each show’s first season were analyzed for frequency and context of humor. Findings reveal that verbal and linguistic humor is the most common in both successful and unsuccessful shows, but successful sitcoms also favored character-based and situational humor, while unsuccessful ones leaned more towards physical and playful humor.

Keywords: television, situation comedy, content analysis, American humor
Email: asimmons13@elon.edu

I. Introduction

Since the debut of Mary Kay and Johnny in 1947, sitcoms have been a fundamental part of American television. These shows have shaped the medium of audiovisual media and become a staple in households nationwide. A sitcom (short for situational comedy) typically features a consistent cast of characters who navigate humorous and often exaggerated scenarios (Chase, 2023). Successful sitcoms like The Office, Parks and Recreation, and Friends have become essential elements of American television and are beloved by audiences. While some sitcoms have achieved iconic status, others, such as Cavemen, I’m With Her, and 1600 Penn, were canceled after just one season due to low viewer engagement. Although sitcoms generally follow a similar structure, not all resonate with viewers. The characters in many successful sitcoms have become iconic figures in American television, highlighting their differences and characters in shows deemed unfunny.

Humor is central to every sitcom, influencing viewer engagement and determining its success. This research examines how different humor categories—verbal, physical, and situational—differ between successful and unsuccessful sitcoms, highlighting their frequency and context of use. After identifying humor typologies developed by previous researchers, the current study uses them to analyze the different comedic approaches that contribute to sitcom successes and failures.

By breaking down the elements that lead to comedic success or failure, this study offers valuable insights into the essential balance that sitcoms must maintain between humor and audience connection, which often determines a show’s fate. This research aims to decipher the categories of humor adopted by successful versus unsuccessful sitcoms.

II. Literature Review

The following literature review is structured to address prior research on what makes certain comedy humorous, common characteristics of successful sitcoms, parasocial relationships in the context of sitcoms, evolution of sitcom humor and structure, and typologies of humor in media. It provides a comprehensive framework to understand the potential factors contributing to sitcom success or failure.

Psychology of Comedy and What Makes Things Funny

Humor plays a crucial role in the success of sitcoms, as it taps into both the scientific and social dimensions of human nature. Laughter, a core component of humor, is not only a means of entertainment but also a vital aspect of physical and mental well-being. It serves as a social signal, indicating a desire to connect with others while also providing health benefits, such as the release of endorphins and increased oxygen intake (Miller, 2020). The value of humor in sitcoms, therefore, is inherently tied to these human functions, contributing to the audience’s overall health and happiness (Yim, 2016).

Humor itself is a complex phenomenon that has been extensively studied but remains challenging to define. It manifests in various forms, from physical comedy to sharp sarcasm, and has prompted numerous theories to explain what elicits laughter. Prominent theories include superiority theory, which links humor to observing others’ misfortunes; relief theory, which views humor as a release of pent-up emotions; and incongruity theory, which suggests laughter arises from the defiance of expectations (Miller, 2019). Despite significant progress in understanding the nature of humor, experts generally agree that no single theory can fully explain its complexity. As a result, research continues to investigate the diverse dimensions of humor and its role in human life. The benign violation theory synthesizes elements of these different perspectives, proposing that humor occurs when a norm is violated in a way that feels harmless. It offers a more comprehensive understanding of how humor works across contexts and helps explain why laughter often results from situations that appear threatening but are ultimately playful, such as tickling or puns that defy grammatical norms but remain humorous (Warren & McGraw, 2015).

Research also suggests humor may have evolved to enhance social bonding and demonstrate cognitive abilities (Miller, 2019). By recognizing errors or inconsistencies, humor reinforces group solidarity and social cohesion. For example, sitcoms frequently elicit laughter through harmless norm violations, such as absurd or exaggerated scenarios. Despite significant insights into humor’s mechanisms, questions remain about how factors like mood or attraction influence humor’s effects on individuals (Miller, 2019).

Characteristics of Successful Sitcoms

Successful sitcoms resonate with audiences through familiar settings and relatable characters. Humor in sitcoms often stems from social change, tradition, and the irrationalities of human nature, providing a mirror for the challenges and absurdities of everyday existence (Berman, 1987).

Unlike the extraordinary figures frequently found in dramas, sitcoms often feature ordinary people, making it easier for viewers to form personal connections. The wide range of characters also allows for a broad audience identification with the cast, as viewers can find someone who reflects their experiences in the show. These characters navigate moral dilemmas in low-stakes situations, further enhancing the comfort and familiarity that keep viewers returning week after week (Martin, 2011). The familiarity viewers build with these characters sets sitcoms apart from other television formats. These characters resonate with viewers, fostering deep connections and extending beyond mere entertainment. This bond, formed without having to participate in the group and fostered through humor that emphasizes traits viewers find endearing, is a significant aspect of the popularity of certain sitcoms. (Köhne, 2012).

Para-Social Relationships Between Sitcoms and their Audience

Prior research indicates there is a parasocial relationship between sitcoms and their viewers (Köhne, 2012).  This relationship refers to the one-sided bond viewers form with characters, feeling like they know them even though they are not real. As part of a social group, without having to participate in the group, viewers form a bond with the characters of sitcoms and identify with them (Köhne, 2012). This explains one aspect of the popularity of certain sitcoms: the characters are relatable, but they also must make the viewer laugh. Recurring comedy strengthens the audience’s familiarity with the characters, creating a parasocial relationship, as viewers feel like they know a character based on the humor they often use. My research will delve into the humor categories of beloved characters cracking jokes and fostering a sense of community among viewers.

Researchers have also developed the Inter-Contact Theory about sitcoms (Köhne, 2012). This theory suggests that when one person spends a significant amount of time with another person whose background differs from their own, any prejudices one has about another, and their background will decrease (Köhne, 2012).  The more often someone interacts with someone who differs from themselves, the more sympathy they develop for the other person. In the context of sitcoms, this theory can help explain how viewers create a sense of understanding for characters who differ from their identification, enhancing their enjoyment of the show. When one connects with a person with a dissimilar background, they would no longer focus on the things that separate them but on their similarities. As viewers watch sitcoms, they identify with characters and see themselves as like and sympathize with figures different from themselves (Köhne, 2012).

While sitcoms possess various qualities that endear them to audiences, humor is the defining element. Without humor, a sitcom would be a drama. Viewers click the play button on sitcoms expecting laughter. Their comedic value often relies on audience familiarity, making the humor relatable and comforting. This connection enhances the enjoyment derived from the repeated scenarios and character interactions typical of the genre, leaving the audience entertained and uplifted. The value of humor in sitcoms is directly related to inherent human functions, as laughter is a part of our physical and mental well-being (Powell, 2023).

Evolution of Sitcom Humor

The evolution of sitcoms from classic to modern eras is evident in the shift in humor topics and themes. A comparison between I Love Lucy (1951) and Modern Family (2009) highlights this progression. While both shows employ humor similarly in terms of delivery, the subjects of their jokes differ significantly (Korostenskiene & Lieponyte, 2018). In I Love Lucy, jokes often revolved around women’s perceived shortcomings, such as intelligence and household management, reflecting societal views of the time. In contrast, Modern Family emphasizes family dynamics and social interactions, reflecting a shift toward themes that current viewers resonate with. This change in humor aligns with broader cultural trends, as sitcoms increasingly address relevant societal issues. Modern shows incorporate current phenomena, like influencers or political figures, rather than relying on outdated cultural references.

Additionally, sitcom structures have evolved significantly. Gray and Gershon (2024) observe that contemporary sitcoms feature more flexible settings, character growth, and adaptable narratives. The decline of laugh tracks has opened space for complex comedic rhythms, often leading to subtle humor that occasionally blends comedy with drama. As a result, joke timing and placement are now less predictable, with humor arising in unexpected ways.

Modern sitcoms often include underrepresented groups, reflecting evolving social norms. Diverse casts and writing teams allow for more authentic depictions of various races, genders, and sexual orientations, reshaping the genre to be more inclusive and representative of its audience. Wells-Lassagne (2015) adds that sitcoms have always contained moral lessons, but modern shows are likelier to inject humor into those lesson-learning moments. Writers now tend to make jokes about the characters’ grapples with morality, enhancing the comedic depth of the show while still delivering essential messages.

Humor Typology in Audiovisual Media

Prior research has developed a typology of humor in media, identifying various factors that shape comedic preferences, such as age. For example, adolescents (ages 12–18) enjoy puns, sarcasm, irony, sexual innuendo, slapstick, and spontaneous humor, often favoring humor that plays on taboos or physical comedy (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004). In contrast, adults tend to appreciate humor that aligns with demographic factors like gender and culture while still enjoying slapstick and sexual humor (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004). These researchers have further categorized humor in media, particularly commercials, into seven types: slapstick, clownish humor, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire, and parody. These overarching categories encompass specific techniques like embarrassment, ridicule, and clumsiness.

Building on Buijzen and Valkenburg’s typology, more recent research expands these humor categories in sitcoms into four broad categories: language, logic, identity, and action (Juckel, 2016). Language-based humor includes irony, puns, and wit, while logic-based humor centers on absurdity, coincidence, and misunderstanding. Identity humor incorporates parody, self-deprecation, and deceitful behavior, and action-based humor features exaggerated physicality, music, and repulsive behavior. Compared to Buijzen and Valkenburg’s (2004) typology, Juckel’s (2016) categorization is much broader, addressing issues of a typology that is too extensive to be applicable to audiovisual media and allowing for more fluid research capabilities.

Research questions

While previous studies have explored what makes sitcoms a cornerstone of American television and how their structures have evolved, there is still a gap in understanding the categories of humor that resonate most with viewers. This is significant because identifying popular humor categories in sitcoms reveals aspects of human condition and can influence future television writing, potentially leading to more successful shows. Based on this literature, this research seeks to answer the following questions:

  1. What categories of humor are used in the first three episodes of the first season of successful and unsuccessful sitcoms?
  2. What is the context in which the category of humor was used, and what are the subjects of the categories of humor?

III. Methods

This study uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative analysis focuses on identifying the different categories of humor used in the episodes. The qualitative analysis explores the humor’s topics or subjects, such as humor related to specific characters, events, social concepts (like gender-based humor), or jokes based on someone’s physical appearance.

Sample and Sampling Strategy

The sample includes the first three episodes of the first season of three successful sitcoms (The Office, Parks and Recreation, and Friends) and three sitcoms that were canceled after their first season (Cavemen, I’m With Her, and 1600 Penn). Cavemen (2007) is about three intelligent cavemen who navigate modern suburban life, facing stereotypes and societal challenges in a satirical take on race and class. I’m with Her (2003-2004) has a plotline surrounding a Hollywood actress and a humble teacher navigating the humorous challenges of their contrasting worlds in a romantic comedy inspired by real-life events. 1600 Penn (2012-2013) follows a dysfunctional First Family that balances personal chaos and political responsibilities, led by the bumbling yet lovable President Gilchrist and his quirky household. The popularity of the sitcoms is determined by the total viewership of their first season, considering the number of episodes in that season.

Show Season 1 Episodes Total Viewership (Millions)
The Office 6 38.13
Parks and Recreation 6 32.25
Friends 24 595
Cavemen 7 6.6
I’m With Her 22 N/A
1600 Penn 13 37.17

This study uses purposeful sampling, focusing on the first three episodes of the first season of each show. This period is critical because it is when television shows establish themselves with their audience, and viewer engagement during these episodes often predicts the show’s success. This study selects the first season because an unpopular sitcom is defined as canceled after its first season.

Coding Scheme

To analyze the categories of humor in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms, a content analysis was conducted on the first three episodes of the first season of The Office, Parks and Recreation, Friends, Cavemen, I’m With Her, and 1600 Penn. The focus is on categorizing the humor and the topic/subject of which each category of humor occurs. The analysis used a previous humor in audiovisual media to guide the coding scheme across all six shows (Table 1).

Buijzen and Valkenburg (2004) identify 41 humor types with distinctive elements. Absurdity involves situations defying logic, while anthropomorphism attributes human features to objects or animals. Bombast exaggerates language, and chases depict pursuits. Clownish behavior shows exaggerated physicality, while clumsiness reveals a lack of grace. Coincidence involves unexpected occurrences, and conceptual surprise misleads audiences with sudden changes. Eccentricity, embarrassment, and grotesque appearance highlight unusual or awkward traits. Ignorance portrays naivety, and imitation or impersonation involves mimicking others. Infantilism and irony play on words and meanings, while irreverent behavior flouts authority.

Malicious pleasure enjoys others’ misfortunes, and misunderstanding stems from misinterpretations. Outwitting shows clever retorts while parodying mock styles. Peculiar faces, music, and sounds add quirky, funny elements, while Puna plays with meanings. Repartee and repetition add wit and recurring patterns. Ridicule mocks others, rigidity shows inflexibility, and sarcasm delivers sharp remarks. Satire targets well-known subjects: scale distorts size, and sexual allusion hints at naughtiness. Slapstick uses physical humor, speed exaggerates motion, and stereotypes generalize groups. Transformation involves metamorphosis, and visual surprise delivers sudden changes. This categorical typology captures a broad range of humor used in audiovisual media.

Table 1: Categories and Types of Humor

Category of Humor Types of Humor
Physical Humor Chase, Clownish Behavior, Clumsiness, Grotesque Appearance, Peculiar Face, Peculiar Sound, Peculiar Music, Peculiar Voice, Slapstick, Speed, Transformation, Visual Surprise
Verbal and Linguistic Humor Bombast, Exaggeration, Infantilism, Irony, Puna, Repartee, Ridicule, Sarcasm, Satire, Sexual Allusion
Situational Humor Absurdity, Coincidence, Conceptual Surprise, Disappointment, Embarrassment, Eccentricity, Ignorance, Misunderstanding, Outwitting, Repetition, Rigidity
Character Based Humor Anthropomorphism, Eccentricity, Ignorance, Imitation, Impersonation, Irreverent behavior, Malicious Pleasure, Parody, Stereotype
Playful Humor Anthropomorphism, Eccentricity, Ignorance, Imitation, Impersonation, Irreverent behavior, Malicious pleasure, Parody, Stereotype

These categories are further grouped into five broader categories: physical humor, verbal and linguistic humor, situational humor, character-based humor, and playful humor. These broader categories of humor have been frequently used in audiovisual media. Table 1 lists each category and the types of humor that fall under each category.

The primary unit of analysis is individual instances of humor occurring within each episode. Each instance of humor is coded based on the category it falls into. However, in cases of rapid-fire humor—such as banter where characters exchange witty remarks in quick succession—the entire scene is treated as a single unit of analysis. In these instances, the total occurrences of each humor category within the scene are recorded rather than coding individual humor moments. This dual approach ensures that shows with rapid exchanges, like Friends, are analyzed efficiently while maintaining precision in capturing distinct humor instances.

Physical humor is a comedy that manipulates the body for a humorous effect (Pollick, 2024). Physical humor can include slapstick humor, clumsiness, or a grotesque appearance, all involving using the body to make an audience laugh. Verbal and linguistic humor uses language to provoke laughter from an audience. It typically requires sarcasm, satire, irony, and banter. It is conveyed through dialogue and establishes the characters’ personalities, creates conflict, and develops the plotline (Fiveable, 2024).

Situational humor is a form of comedy that arises from the characters’ situations, which are often unexpected or absurd. The peculiarities of the scenario are where the humor lies. Situational humor involves absurdity, eccentricity, and ignorance, among other humor typologies that may lead to a particularly comical situation (Fiveable, 2024).

Character-based humor is a category of comedy that arises from the personalities and traits of the characters in each television series or movie. This category of humor often distinguished itself in each character’s eccentricity and interactions (Barbot, 2020). This includes irreverent behavior, eccentricity (used in a different context than situational eccentricity), and malicious pleasure.

Playful humor is light-hearted comedy that often has no deeper meaning or comments on cultural and social issues. Playful humor can occur situationally, from the characters’ quirks and eccentric nature, or even physically, such as slapstick. Under playful humor are parody, imitation, and impersonation.

The research involves watching the first three episodes of each sitcom: The Office, Friends, Parks and Recreation, Cavemen, 1600 Penn, and I’m With Her. Each instance of humor is documented, noting the subject or topic and the context in which it appears in a spreadsheet. The humor is categorized, and the frequency of each humor category, as shown in Table 1 for each show, is calculated.

IV. Results

The findings from this data collection paint a picture of the categories of humor the audiences of successful and unsuccessful sitcoms enjoy. One of the key similarities between successful and unsuccessful sitcoms is that both heavily utilize verbal and linguistic humor to drive the comedic value of all six shows.

Table 2 illustrates that successful sitcoms overall used more instances of humor than unsuccessful sitcoms. Additionally, verbal and linguistic humor is most frequently used in both successful and unsuccessful sitcoms. Successful sitcoms adopted character-based and situational humor far more than unsuccessful sitcoms. Unsuccessful sitcoms used playful and physical humor far more than successful sitcoms to drive the comedic value.

Table 2: Total Frequencies of Each Humor Category in Successful and Unsuccessful Sitcoms

Humor Categories Successful Sitcoms Unsuccessful Sitcoms
Physical Humor 10 46
Verbal and Linguistic Humor 84 69
Situational Humor 32 14
Character-Based Humor 61 9
Playful Humor 3 29
Total Frequency of Humor 190 167

Table 3: Frequency of 5 Humor Categories Across All Six Shows

Humor Categories The Office Friends Parks and Recreation Cavemen I’m With Her 1600 Penn
Physical Humor 2 4 6 18 10 18
Verbal and Linguistic Humor 10 63 11 15 50 4
Situational Humor 12 12 8 5 2 7
Character-Based Humor 21 12 28 0 2 7
Playful Humor 1 0 2 5 17 7
Total Frequency of Humor 46 91 55 43 81 43

Table 3 shows the results of the categories of humor each sitcom used in total. Friends and I’m With Her are clear outliers in verbal and linguistic humor usage, which drives the total frequency of verbal and linguistic humor in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms. While successful and unsuccessful sitcoms heavily used verbal and linguistic humor, successful sitcoms used situational and character-based humor much more frequently than unsuccessful sitcoms. Unsuccessful sitcoms used physical and playful humor much more often than successful sitcoms.

Table 4: Frequencies of Humor Categories Per Episode in Successful vs. Unsuccessful Sitcoms

Successful Sitcoms Unsuccessful Sitcoms
Categories of Humor Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3
Physical Humor 9 0 6 12 21 13
Verbal and Linguistic Humor 22 29 35 29 17 29
Situational Humor 6 10 13 4 5 4
Character-Based Humor 23 17 21 4 3 4
Playful Humor 2 0 1 10 11 10

It also is essential to look for patterns across the analyzed episodes. The results show that the only pattern was in successful sitcoms, in which the number of instances of situational humor increased across episodes one through three. Otherwise, no pattern can be recognized from the frequency and categories of humor between successful and unsuccessful sitcoms.

Contexts Behind Humor

In The Office, the humor centers on its eccentric and ignorant characters, particularly Michael, whose awkward behavior, like making embarrassing phone calls and flaunting his “World’s Best Boss” mug, sets the tone. His insensitive remarks during Diversity Day and pranks, such as pretending to fire Pam, add to the comedic elements. Dwight’s quirks, including his sheriff role-playing and singing, contribute to this dynamic, while Jim’s pranks, like putting Dwight’s things in Jello, highlight their relationship. Slapstick moments, like Michael throwing ice cream sandwiches, and risqué humor, such as references to fake medical conditions, further diversify the comedy.

In Friends, humor mainly comes from witty, rapid exchanges between characters. Chandler’s sarcasm and clever quips, like “You are going out with the guy; there is got to be something wrong with him!” dominate the comedy, along with sexual innuendos and slapstick moments, such as Monica spitting on her date. Much of the humor occurs in the coffee shop, and awkward situations, like Ross’s mishap at the museum, add an element of embarrassment. At the same time, Monica’s workplace interactions further contribute to the show’s humor.

Parks and Recreation also relies heavily on character-based humor, with its diverse cast bringing unique quirks. Leslie’s eccentric enthusiasm leads to humorous moments, such as asking a child’s opinion on a park or falling into a pit. Tom’s ignorant behavior, such as forgetting to scatter eggs for a children’s egg hunt, adds to the character-based humor that the producers of Parks and Recs relied on to create comedic value.  At the same time, Ron’s dry, satirical mockery of his boss contrasts with Leslie’s high-energy persona, creating a comedic style built upon the characters and their interactions.

In Cavemen, humor centers on physical comedy and absurdity, emphasizing the cavemen’s awkwardness and peculiarity in modern society. Their monstrous physical appearances and clumsy social interactions highlight their out-of-place behavior in everyday situations. Characters like Nick use peculiar movements and slapstick antics, often in job settings, to create humor from their inability to fit in. Ultimately, the producers of Cavemen laid their comedic value in the physical humor of the grotesque appearances of their leading characters.

In I’m With Her, the humor primarily comes from witty conversations and sarcasm, especially between Patrick and his girlfriend, Alex. Patrick’s sharp remarks about their relationship provide much of the comedic appeal, while physical humor, like his clumsiness, plays a secondary role. Situational humor and playful exchanges with his roommate Stevie add variety, but the show’s humor primarily comes from character-driven dialogue.

In 1600 Penn, the humor focuses on physical comedy and absurdity, mainly through Skip’s clumsiness and childish behavior. His antics, such as setting a frat house on fire or making infantile jokes in the Oval Office, dominate the comedy. Verbal and situational humor are summative of the categories of humor in this sitcom. Skip’s ignorance and immaturity lead to socially awkward situations, particularly in the high-pressure environment of the White House. This mix of physical, verbal, and character-based humor defines the show’s comedic tone.

V. Discussion

This article examines categories of humor in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms and identifies the subjects of the categories of humor. These findings reveal that both categories of sitcoms rely heavily on verbal and linguistic humor. Still, successful sitcoms emphasize character-based and situational comedy, while unsuccessful ones lean toward physical and playful humor.

Research question one was addressed by identifying the most frequent humor categories in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms. Successful sitcoms feature verbal, linguistic, situational, and character-based humor. Although unsuccessful sitcoms also use verbal and linguistic humor, they employ far more physical and playful humor. While both categories depend on verbal and linguistic humor, differences in subject matter and context for verbal humor help explain the contrasting viewer responses to successful and unsuccessful shows.

Research question two examined the subjects of humor in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms. Successful sitcoms primarily use humor around characters’ eccentricity, misunderstandings, embarrassment, and awkward interactions. Witty banter and repartee are common, with sarcasm enhancing character dynamics. Unsuccessful sitcoms use similar subjects but incorporate peculiar behaviors, grotesque appearances, sexual allusions, and a focus on physical humor. These elements often appear exaggerated, diminishing relatability and viewer connection.

Combining the answers to research questions one and two provides insights into why unsuccessful sitcoms were often canceled after one season. Successful sitcoms relied on character-based humor, showcasing relatable personalities in realistic situations like the workplace or social gatherings. In contrast, unsuccessful sitcoms presented exaggerated characters whose traits felt forced, weakening audience resonance. While successful sitcoms used verbal humor naturally through sarcasm and witty dialogue that mirrored real-life interactions, unsuccessful sitcoms like Cavemen and 1600 Penn appeared forced, with punchlines interrupting scene flow and damaging viewer connection.

The findings align with existing literature on sitcom success. Studies indicate that ordinary characters create relatable connections with audiences, enhancing enjoyment (Martin, 2011). The successful sitcoms analyzed portrayed characters viewers might encounter daily, unlike the unsuccessful ones with main characters who were cavemen, celebrities, or children of the President. Conflict also plays a crucial role in comedy (Sedita, 2014), creating humor from clashing character dynamics and storyline twists.

Additionally, viewers who feel a personal connection to characters engage more deeply with the show (Köhne, 2012). Findings suggest that unsuccessful sitcoms lacked relatable characters and failed to cultivate such relationships. Successful sitcoms, on the other hand, tailored verbal humor to highlight each character’s quirks, making them feel genuine and relatable to the audience.

Satire, a significant component of verbal and linguistic humor, appeared in both types of sitcoms. Successful sitcoms use sarcasm naturally within the storyline, subtly integrating it into settings like offices or coffee shops. In contrast, unsuccessful sitcoms presented satire overtly, often disrupting conversational flow and feeling out of place.

Character-based and situational humor was more common in successful sitcoms, while unsuccessful ones relied heavily on playful and physical humor. Physical humor, seen in unsuccessful sitcoms like Cavemen, rarely contributes to character or plot development and is often viewed as less relatable. Successful sitcoms embedded humor into character and storyline development, enhancing episode flow and subtlety, which resonated more effectively with audiences.

VI. Conclusion

This research sought to analyze the categories of humor successful versus unsuccessful sitcoms utilize in the first three episodes of the first seasons. It also analyzed the subjects and contexts of the humor when it occurred to decipher whether there are certain characters or situations that audience members find particularly amusing.

The results indicated that verbal and linguistic humor is the most frequent in successful and unsuccessful sitcoms. Successful sitcoms also utilized situational and character-based humor significantly more than unsuccessful sitcoms, and unsuccessful sitcoms utilized physical and playful humor much more than their counterparts. The difference between successful and unsuccessful sitcoms in their use of verbal and linguistic humor is that successful sitcoms utilized this humor more naturally, which was used to assist in developing the personalities of the main characters, and the characters in the successful sitcoms were more realistic, allowing the audience to create a parasocial bond. The characters in unsuccessful sitcoms were unrealistic, and the verbal humor often disrupted the flow of the scenes and felt disconnected from the plot.

This study was limited to six sitcoms from the 2000s and only analyzed the first three episodes of each. Future research should expand to other eras to compare humor typologies across different cultural contexts, such as comparing 1950s sitcom humor to that of contemporary shows. A more comprehensive analysis could reveal how cultural shifts influence sitcom humor and audience preferences.

If the author continued the research, a broader scope of humor typologies would be utilized to analyze the entirety of the first season of the six sitcoms studied in this research. The typologies would be drawn from multiple authors. Additionally, the differences in the specific characters would be analyzed to identify the distinct characteristics of each to decipher why viewers seem to adore some of them and why the characters of unsuccessful sitcoms fall into the void of failed media. Sitcoms currently airing can also be analyzed and compared to the unsuccessful sitcoms identified in this study to gain insights into how humor has been developed after learning what audiences find comedic.

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the invaluable guidance and support of my mentor, Qian Xu. Her expertise and encouragement played a crucial role in shaping my ideas and refining my approach to my research. I am deeply grateful for her patience, insights, and unwavering dedication to supporting my research endeavors throughout this process.

References

Barbot, A. (2023). What character-driven comedy means. Medium. https://andrewbarbot.medium.com/what-character-driven-comedy-means-335bec68f0aa

Berman, R. (1987). Sitcoms. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3332810

Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2

Chase, N. (2024, April 9). What is a sitcom? Definition, origin, and examples. Celtx Blog. https://blog.celtx.com/what-is-a-sitcom/

Fiveable. (2024). Verbal humor. Critical TV Studies. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/critical-tv-studies/verbal-humor

Fiveable. (2024). Situational humor. Critical TV Studies. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/critical-tv-studies/situational-humor

Gray, J., & Gershon, D. (2024). The unsituated comedy. Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, 63(4), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2024.a934547

Juckel, J., Bellman, S., & Varan, D. (2016). A humor typology to identify humor styles used in sitcoms. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0047

Köhne, J. (2012). Living in a sitcom: An explanation of the reasons for watching sitcoms [Unpublished bachelor’s thesis]. University of Twente. https://essay.utwente.nl/63243/1/K%C3%B6hne,_J.A._-_s0173746_(verslag).pdf

Korostenskienė, J., & Lieponytė, A. (2018). Funny as it may be: Humour in the American sitcoms I Love Lucy and Parks and Recreation. Studies About Languages, 33, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.33.20097

Martin, J. (2012, December 8). Why sitcoms matter: The importance of being funny. America Magazine. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/794/television/why-sitcoms-matter#main-content

Miller, M. (2019, June 14). What’s so funny? The science of why we laugh. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-so-funny-the-science-of-why-we-laugh/

Miller, M. (2020, March 18). Why do we laugh? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-we-laugh/

Powell, A. (2023). A laugh a day keeps the doctor away? Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/a-laugh-a-day-keeps-the-doctor-away/

Sandoval, A. (2024, February 6). What is a sitcom, and why are they so funny? CBR. https://www.cbr.com/sitcom-history-humor-explained/

Sedita, S. (2014). The eight characters of comedy: A guide to sitcom acting and writing. Atides Publishing.

Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2015). What makes things humorous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(23), 7105-7106. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503836112

Wells-Lassagne, S. (2015). Short and sweet? Structuring humor and morality in American sitcoms. Angles, 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/angles.2096

Yim, J. (2016). Therapeutic benefits of laughter in mental health: A theoretical review. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 239(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.239.243