When Joann Keyton, professor of communications, began studying the transcript of a death penalty case, she was caught off guard by how the transcript described moments of laughter in the juries’ deliberation.

“The one thing that struck us was how often they laughed. It just doesn’t seem like somewhere you would laugh a lot,” Keyton said. “Typically, laughter is connected with humor or jokes.”

The jurors were deliberating a double murder case in Ohio. Keyton and her research partner, Stephenson Beck of North Dakota State University, knew the jurors were not telling jokes. The researchers found that laughter can serve distinct purposes outside of comic relief.

“Laughter isn’t humor, these are two distinct functions,” Keyton said. “Laugh isn’t talk, but it acts like talk.”

Keyton and Stephenson found examples of many different uses of laughter. They categorized these as relational, procedural, and informational. Relational laughter is used when people want to establish the nature of relationships, according to Keyton.

“We laugh when people make us happy or when you don’t quite know what to do,” Keyton said. “It can be used negatively, as in putting people down.”

Keyton explained that laughter is categorized as procedural when it is caused by the emotional state of the group as a whole. In her study of the jury, Keyton found that much of the laughter was caused because of the group atmosphere.

“Procedural is what the group has to do as a whole. Anytime the group got off of what they should be doing, laughter occurred,” Keyton said.

Procedural laughter also occurs when the group shares a mental state, such as confusion. In the case Keyton and Stephenson studied, legal terminology occasionally confused the jurors.

“They got mixed up a lot. The language that the court gives them was very technical,” Keyton said. “When they were confused, they laughed… That’s how they acknowledged to themselves that something was wrong.”

Informational laughter indicates when two individuals share a mental state, according to Keyton.

“If someone said they did not know something, another might laugh to show they didn’t know either,” Keyton said. “It indicates you are sharing understanding (or lack of understanding).”

Overall, Keyton said she and Stephenson found laughter is not easily categorized.

“Laughter, rather than just being positive or negative, it can be very ambiguous. And that ambiguity gives the group time to figure out what to do next,” Keyton said. “A good facilitator sees (laughter) as a sign that there is something else that needs to be addressed.”

Although Keyton and Stephenson’s study only looked at one jury deliberation, Keyton said their conclusions are credible.

“The best way to look at a phenomenon is in extreme cases,” Keyton said. “The consequences are so real for a jury member. I suspect that the results are similar to stressful group situations, when there are high stakes involved.”

Keyton said studying laughter in a high stress environment has made her aware of laughter in everyday life.

“I am so much more cognizant of when I laugh… I know why I am laughing, but I don’t want it to be misinterpreted,” Keyton said.

From their everyday experiences, students agree that laughter serves different functions. Shaneequa Vereen, a sophomore majoring in psychology and political science, said she saw many different situations when people laughed.

“Some people laugh when they’re nervous, in funny situations of course, or when they are uncomfortable,” Vereen said.

According to Vereen, people also laugh to prevent a situation from becoming uncomfortable.

“You laugh to be courteous. When something is supposed to be funny, you laugh,” Vereen said.

Danielle Teibel, a sophomore in the College of Management, agreed that laughter could be used to improve a situation.

“(People laugh) to lighten the mood,” Teibel said. Keyton and Stephenson’s article, “Examining Laughter Functionality in Jury Deliberation”, was published in August in the journal Small Group Research.