PhD position - Laughing Across Differences: The Role of Humor in Pluralistic Social Cohesion.

This interdisciplinary PhD project investigates whether humour can bridge divides between opposing social or ideological groups. It does so by combining social psychology with philosophy. The research theorizes humour as an interaction ritual that can foster pluralistic cohesion, valuing both solidarity and differences. The methods consist of a literature review, standardized experiments and philosophical analysis to develop and test a conceptual framework. The ideal candidate is a (near) master’s or research master’s graduate in social psychology or a related field, with strong quantitative skills and an affinity for philosophy. The project will produce both theoretical insights and practical guidelines for using humour in diverse societal settings.

What are you going to do?

• Supervisors:

Hedy Greijdanus (University of Groningen)

Namkje Koudenburg (University of Groningen)

Lisa Bastian (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

• Aim of the project

The proposed project examines whether humour can bridge divides between opposing social or ideological groups by combining social-psychological experiments with philosophical analysis. The aim is to investigate when and how humour as an interaction ritual can result in more versus less valuable forms of social cohesion between individuals and groups in society. Although the main focus of this project is to contribute to theory development and provide conceptual insights, these outcomes should also be useful in practice to help foster cohesion in a range of social settings (e.g., citizen assemblies by regional or national governments concerning policy on topics such as migration or climate adaptation; interactions of the police with diverse groups of citizens).

• Description

Humour: Dividing or Bonding Opposed Groups?

Research on humour has largely focused on individuals, while studies at the group level tend to show that humour strengthens bonds within like-minded groups but deepens divides between opposing ones. This project instead examines whether humour can also serve as a bridge across group boundaries. Humour can have both constructive and harmful effects. It can ‘break the ice’ by easing tension, signalling shared norms, and fostering connection through shared laughter.

However, humour can also divide. Disparagement and satire may insult, entrench stereotypes and undermine trust. Effects depend on both target (out-group-directed jokes are funnier) and source (disparagement by outsiders is more offensive). Because jokes are harder to confront than overtly hostile remarks, disparaging humour can slip by uncorrected and thereby deepen social divides. Thus, humour effects are mainly positive within groups but negative between groups.

Theoretical Framework: Cohesion in Social Psychology and Philosophy

In social psychology, cohesion includes the cognitive idea of groupiness and the emotional energy that arises when being a part of a group. Cohesion can be developed top-down, by identifying similarities within groups that distinguish in-groups from out-groups, and bottom-up, based on interpersonal relations. Importantly, bottom-up cohesion is shaped not only by cognitive comparisons but also by lived interaction within the group, with experiences of interpersonal ‘flow’ acting as a signal of cohesion. This leaves room for individual differences, because cohesion is not based on similarity alone.

Thus, people who hold diverging views on issues such as migration or climate change may still experience social cohesion, because bottom-up processes not only allow for but actively value idiosyncratic individual contributions. We reason that the cohesion produced by these different processes is qualitatively distinct in the relations it affords a) between groups, b) between individuals and the group and c) among (diverse) individuals. One aim of the project is a philosophical normative evaluation of these top-down and bottom-up cohesion types. This evaluation examines when and why particular forms of humour can be considered more or less valuable, and for whom.

Humour’s Role in Shaping Cohesion

Humour fits naturally with experientially developed, bottom-up cohesion and can shape how people come to understand ‘us’ (Koudenburg et al., 2025). Specifically, humour can act as an interaction ritual (see Collins, 2005), generating emotional energy that connects people. Yet, the cohesion it produces can take different forms. In its negative form, humour enforces conformity to top-down group norms by ridiculing those who deviate from them. In its positive form, humour may foster pluralistic cohesion, which values both difference and solidarity and may arise bottom-up when individuals negotiate who ‘we’ are and which norms define the group.

Humour may facilitate such collective negotiation in diverse groups. Laughter can signal that an expectancy or norm violation is benign and non-threatening rather than something that must be policed by ridicule. Laughter in response to something unexpected can signal playfulness and safety, highlighting humour’s role in social regulation and de-escalation, and can pave the way for accepting more diversity in who ‘we’ are – pluralistic social cohesion.

We examine how humour as an interaction ritual affects the stability of intergroup distinctions as well as the forms of cohesion that result from this.

Project Approach

We aim to identify which humour likely promotes which cohesion and through which mechanisms. Our approach combines social psychology (intergroup dynamics, bottom-up emergence of social cohesion) with philosophy (social epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language).

Project Deliverables

• Conceptual framework: a taxonomy of humour types and social cohesion.
• Empirical, experimental evidence on the taxonomy and humour’s potential to foster pluralistic cohesion.
• A theoretical model explaining humour’s role in interpersonal and intergroup cohesion.
• Practice guidelines on using humour to support constructive, cross-ideological dialogue in diverse settings.

Connection to Social Cohesion

Cluster 6 concerns questions about the value of cohesion and the norms supporting it. Together, the projects investigate social contracts, shared responsibility and (in this project) humour as a normative ritual as foundations for cohesion. This project primarily contributes to understanding group boundaries, focusing on individual- and group-level humour effects around societal challenges (migration, climate).

• Research design

Phase 1: From Humour to Social Cohesion

The method combines a systematic literature review and philosophical analysis. This phase investigates a) which types of humour are identified in philosophy and social psychology and b) how these relate to cohesion and division (polarization) at both the interpersonal and intergroup levels. The aim is to develop a taxonomy that links types and mechanisms of humour to their expected interpersonal and intergroup outcomes. Standardized experiments will then test the extent to which this taxonomy can be empirically validated.

Phase 2: From Humour in Diverse Groups to Pluralistic Social Cohesion

This phase again combines literature review and philosophical (normative) analysis to explore existing types of social cohesion and their ethical status. We distinguish between conformity-based cohesion, which relies on enforcing norms and sanctioning deviation, and pluralistic cohesion, which values both connection and difference among individuals and groups. From a normative perspective, pluralistic cohesion appears more desirable than conformity-based cohesion.

Standardized experiments further investigate which humour types and contexts promote normatively valuable (versus less valuable) forms of cohesion. These studies will also examine the mechanisms through which humour facilitates intergroup rapprochement or instead fuels polarization and ideological entrenchment.

Phase 3: Theoretical Integration and Practical Application

The final phase focuses on conceptual integration. Empirical findings from the experiments are incorporated into a theoretical framework (building on the taxonomy developed in Phase 1) that specifies how and when different humour types and mechanisms can give rise to pluralistic (or otherwise normatively valuable) forms of cohesion. Alongside this theoretical contribution, Phase 3 also translates these insights into practical guidelines for the responsible and effective use of humour in settings with diverse or opposing groups.

• Core readings

Collins, R. (2005). Emotional energy and the transient emotions. In Interaction ritual chains (pp. 102–140). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400851744-006

Koudenburg, N., Greijdanus, H., & Angelini, C. (2026). The individual and social benefits of confronting sexism with humour. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vf3ja_v1

• MA/MSc degree in social psychology; interest in, and ideally some familiarity with philosophy
• Interest in the topic of social cohesion and in collaborating in a broad research consortium with academic and non-academic stakeholders
• Strong interest in interdisciplinary research, including analytical and theoretical dimensions
• Professional competence in English 
• Competence in Dutch is a plus 
• Solid training in quantitative methods and statistics
• Motivation and ability to teach in undergraduate (social) psychology courses 
• Clear interest in conceptual and theory development
• We look for team players who want to play an active role in an inter- and transdisciplinary research community and training programme
• Demonstrates competencies such as conceptual ability, presentation, planning, and monitoring progress.

*Interview dates:

• 1st round: 7-8 April (online)
• 2nd round: 15- April (in person if possible)
• Final round: 6 May (online)

• 232 vacation hours per year, based on a 38-hour workweek (1.0 FTE). You can also work more or fewer hours in exchange for more or fewer free hours. For example, with a 40-hour workweek, you save 96 extra free hours, and with a 36-hour workweek, you lose 96 hours.
• End-of-year bonus of 8.3% and 8% holiday allowance.
• Extensive opportunities for personal and professional development.

At the University of Groningen (UG), researchers from all fields of academia and technology are working on academic challenges and societal questions. Lecturers prepare their students for meaningful careers within or outside the academic world. Interdisciplinary research and teaching, sharing of knowledge, collaboration with businesses, government institutions, and societal organizations are aspects that are of the utmost importance to this European top university. The UG aims to be an open academic community with an inclusive and safe working climate that invites you to add your value.

This PhD project is part of the SOCION consortium. SOCION addresses a pressing challenge of our time: fragmentation in societies. Social cohesion is society’s fabric and is key to sustainable societies and citizens’ well-being. However, it is increasingly undermined by erosion and polarization between communities, factions, and groups. In this project, psychologists, social historians, demographers, philosophers, and sociologists collaborate with civic organizations to generate and integrate insights into how connections between individuals, groups, and institutions contribute to new pathways to and forms of social cohesion.

The Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences is strong in research and teaching on human behaviour, thinking, learning, and coexistence. We work on social issues and problems that people experience in everyday life. Individual and societal resilience and how to increase it are central to our work. We focus on the topics of migration, environment and climate, health, parenting and education, the protection of vulnerable minorities, and sustainable partnerships. Over 650 employees work at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences.

More information about the faculty can be found at the link https://www.rug.nl/gmw/.

Do you have any questions or need more information?

Questions about the content of the job?
Namkje Koudenburg (Associate Professor): N.Koudenburg@rug.nl

Questions about your application process?
Alinda Veldman (Human Resources Adviser): A.H.Veldman@rug.nl