1. Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE INSTRUCTIONS 1
ARTICLE CRITIQUE INSTRUCTIONS 6
Article Critique Instructions (30 points possible)
Ryan J. Winter
Florida International University
Purpose of The Article Critique Paper
1). Psychological Purpose
This paper serves several purposes, the first of which is helping
you gain insight into research papers in psychology. As this
may be your first time reading and writing papers in
psychology, one goal of Paper I is to give you insight into what
goes into such papers. This article critique paper will help you
learn about the various sections of an empirical research report
by reading at least one peer-reviewed articles (articles that have
a Title Page, Abstract*, Literature Review, Methods Section,
Results Section, and References Page—I have already selected
some articles for you to critique, so make sure you only critique
one in the folder provided on Blackboard). This paper will also
give you some insights into how the results sections are written
in APA formatted research articles. Pay close attention to those
sections, as throughout this course you’ll be writing up some
results of your own!

2. In this relatively short paper, you will read one of five articles
posted on blackboard and summarize what the authors did and
what they found. The first part of the paper should focus on
summarizing the design the authors used for their project. That
is, you will identify the independent and dependent variables,
talk about how the authors carried out their study, and then
summarize the results (you don’t need to fully understand the
statistics in the results, but try to get a sense of what the
authors did in their analyses). In the second part of the paper,
you will critique the article for its methodological strengths and
weaknesses. Finally, in part three, you will provide your
references for the Article Critique Paper in APA format.
2). APA Formatting Purpose
The second purpose of the Article Critique paper is to teach you
proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting.
In the instructions below, I tell you how to format your paper
using APA style. There are a lot of very specific requirements
in APA papers, so pay attention to the instructions below as
well as Chapter 14 in your textbook! I highly recommend using
the Paper I Checklist before submitting your paper, as it will
help walk you through the picky nuances of APA formatting.
3). Writing Purpose
Finally, this paper is intended to help you grow as a writer. Few
psychology classes give you the chance to write papers and
receive feedback on your work. This class will! We will give
you feedback on this paper in terms of content, spelling, and
grammar.
*Most peer-reviewed articles do include an abstract, but the
articles you will see on Blackboard lack an Abstract. There is a
good reason for this, which you’ll find out about in a later
paper!
Article Critique Paper (30 points possible)
Each student is required to write an article critique paper based

3. on one of the research articles present on Blackboard (only
those articles listed on Blackboard can be critiqued – if you
critique a different article, it will not be graded). The article
critique paper will account for 50 points. In addition to
deepening your understanding of conceptual issues discussed in
lectures, this article critique assignment is designed to improve
critical thinking and writing skills. Please follow the
instructions and guidelines below. If you are unclear about any
of this information, please ask.
What is an article critique paper?
An article critique is a written communication that conveys your
understanding of a research article and how it relates to the
conceptual issues of interest to this course. There are five
elements emphasized in this critique: The title page (in APA
formatting), summary of the article, critique of the article, brief
(one paragraph) summary of the article, and appropriate
referencing for the article. I suggest also looking at the example
papers, which will give you a nice visual image of APA style
that you can mimic in your own paper.
This article critique paper will include 5 things:
1. Title page: 1 page (2 points)
· Use APA style to present the appropriate information:
· A Running head must be included and formatted APA style
· The phrase “Running head” is at the top of the title page
followed by a short title of your creation (no more than 50
characters) that is in ALL CAPS. This running head is left-
justified (flush left on the page). Note that the “h” in head is all
lower case! Look at the first page of these instructions, and you
will see how to set up your Running head.
· There must be a page number on the title page that is right
justified. It is included in the header
· Your paper title appears on the title page. This is usually 12
words or less, and the first letter of each word is capitalized. It

4. should be descriptive of the paper (For this paper, you should
use the title of the article you are critiquing. The paper title can
be the same title as in the Running head or it can differ – your
choice)
· Your name will appear on the title page
· Your institution will appear on the title page as well
· For all papers, make sure to double-space EVERYTHING and
use Times New Roman font. This includes everything from the
title page through the references.
· This is standard APA format. ALL of your future papers will
include a similar title page
2. Summary of the Article: 1 ½ page minimum, 3 pages
maximum - 10 points)
An article critique should briefly summarize, in your own
words, the article research question and how it was addressed in
the article. Below are some things to include in your summary.
· The CAPS portion of your running head should also appear on
the first page of your paper, but it will NOT include the phrase
“Running head” this time, only the same title as the running
head from the first paper in ALL CAPS. Again, see the example
paper. There is a powerpoint presentation on using Microsoft
Word that can help you figure out how to have a different
header on the title page (where “Running head” is present) and
other pages in the paper (where “Running head” is NOT
present). You can also find how-to information like this using
youtube!
1. If you look at the header in pages 2 through 5 (including
THIS current page 4 that you are reading right now!), you will
see “Running head” omitted. It simply has the short title
(ARTICLE CRITIQUE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS) all in caps,
followed by the page number.
· The same title used on the title page should be at the top of
the page on the first actual line of the paper, centered.
· For this paper, add the word “Summary” below the title, and
have it flush left. Then write your summary of the article below

5. that
· The summary itself will include the following: (Note – if the
article involved more than one experiment, you can either
choose to focus on one of the studies specifically or summarize
the general design for all of the studies)
1. Type of study (Was it experimental or correlational? How do
you know?)
2. Variables (What were the independent and dependent
variables? Be specific with these. Define the terms independent
and dependent variable and make sure to identify how they are
operationally defined in the article)
3. Method (Was there a random sample of participants? Was
there random assignment to groups? What did the participants
do in the study?). How was data collected (online, in person,
archival data, etc.)
4. Summary of findings (What were their findings?)
3. Critique of the study: 1 ½ pages minimum - 3 pages
maximum - 8 points)
1. This portion of the article critique assignment focuses on
your own thoughts about the content of the article (i.e. your
own ideas in your own words). For this section, please use the
word “Critique” below the last sentence in your summary, and
have the word “Critique” flush left.
1. This section is a bit harder, but there are a number of ways to
demonstrate critical thinking in your writing. Address at least
four of the following elements. You can address more than four,
but four is the minimum.
· 1). In your opinion, how valid and reliable is the study? Why?
(make sure to define what reliable and valid mean, and apply
these definitions to the study you are critiquing. Merely
mentioning that it is valid and reliable is not enough – you have
to apply those terms to the article)
· 2). Did the study authors correctly interpret their findings, or
are there any alternative interpretations you can think of?
· 3). Did the authors of the study employ appropriate ethical

6. safeguards?
· 4). Briefly describe a follow-up study you might design that
builds on the findings of the study you read how the research
presented in the article relates to research, articles or material
covered in other sections of the course
· 5). Describe whether you feel the results presented in the
article are weaker or stronger than the authors claim (and why);
or discuss alternative interpretations of the results (i.e.
something not mentioned by the authors) and/or what research
might provide a test between the proposed and alternate
interpretations
· 6). Mention additional implications of the findings not
mentioned in the article (either theoretical or practical/applied)
· 7). Identify specific problems in the theory, discussion or
empirical research presented in the article and how these
problems could be corrected. If the problems you discuss are
methodological in nature, then they must be issues that are
substantial enough to affect the interpretations of the findings
or arguments presented in the article. Furthermore, for
methodological problems, you must justify not only why
something is problematic but also how it could be resolved and
why your proposed solution would be preferable.
· 8). Describe how/why the method used in the article is either
better or worse for addressing a particular issue than other
methods
4. Brief summary of the article: One or paragraphs (4 points)
· Write the words “Brief Summary”, and then begin the brief
summary below this
· In ONE or TWO paragraphs maximum, summarize the article
again, but this time I want it to be very short. In other words,
take all of the information that you talked about in the summary
portion of this assignment and write it again, but this time in
only a few sentences.
· The reason for this section is that I want to make sure you can
understand the whole study but that you can also write about it

7. in a shorter paragraph that still emphasizes the main points of
the article. Pretend that you are writing your own literature
review for a research study, and you need to get the gist of an
article that you read that helps support your own research across
to your reader. Make sure to cite the original study (the article
you are critiquing).
5. References – 1 page (3 points)
· Provide the reference for this article in proper APA format
(see the book Chapter 14 for appropriate referencing guidelines
or the Chapter 14 powerpoint).
· If you cited other sources during either your critique or
summary, reference them as well (though you do not need to
cite other sources in this assignment – this is merely optional IF
you happen to bring in other sources). Formatting counts here,
so make sure to italicize where appropriate and watch which
words you are capitalizing!
6. Grammar and Writing Quality (3 points)
· Few psychology courses are as writing intensive as Research
Methods (especially Research Methods Two next semester!). As
such, I want to make sure that you develop writing skills early.
This is something that needs special attention, so make sure to
proofread your papers carefully.
· Avoid run-on sentences, sentence fragments, spelling errors,
and grammar errors. Writing quality will become more
important in future papers, but this is where you should start to
hone your writing skills.
· We will give you feedback on your papers, but I recommend
seeking some help from the FIU writing center to make sure
your paper is clear, precise, and covers all needed material. I
also recommend asking a few of your group members to read
over your paper and make suggestions. You can do the same for
them!
The key point is that your experimental paper should describe a

8. “position” that you have taken with respect to the content of the
article. Please note that you do not need to refer to any other
sources other than the article on which you have chosen to write
your paper. However, you are welcome to refer to additional
sources if you choose.
Other guidelines for the article critique papers
1. 1). Pay attention to the page length requirements – 1 page for
the title page, 1.5 pages to 3 pages for the summary, 1.5 pages
to 3 pages for the critique, one or two paragraphs for the brief
summary, and 1 page for the references page. If you are under
the minimum, we will deduct points. If you go over the
maximum, we are a little more flexible (you can go over by half
page or so), but we want you to try to keep it to the maximum
page.
1. 2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set one inch
on all sides. You must use 12-point Times New Roman font
(Note: these instructions are in 12 point Times New Roman
font).
1. 3). As a general rule, ALL paragraphs and sentences are
double spaced in APA papers. This includes the spacing in your
Paper I: Article Critique Paper. It even includes the references,
so make sure to double space EVERYTHING
1. 4). When summarizing the article in your own words, you
need not continually cite the article throughout the rest of your
critique. Nonetheless, you should follow proper referencing
procedures, which means that:
3. If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be
enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference
to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current
sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name,
date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote”
(Winter, 2013, p . 4).
0. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than once per
page, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase instead, but

9. make sure you still give the original author credit for the
material by citing him or using the author’s name (“In this
article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article, the authors
noted that…”)
3. If you choose to reference any source other than your chosen
article, it must be listed in a reference list.
1. 5). PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors.
Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading
some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family
or friends to read your work. Writing quality will become more
important in future papers, so you should start working on that
now!
1. If you have any questions about the articles, your ideas, or
your writing, please ask. Although we won’t be able to review
entire drafts of papers before they are handed in, we are very
willing to discuss problems, concerns or issues that you might
have.
Check for updates
($)SAGE
Article
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
2014, Vol. 5(5) 566-572The Rise and Fall of Humor: ª The
Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Psychological Distance Modulates
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550613515006

10. spps.sagepub.comHumorous Responses to Tragedy
A. Peter McGraw1, Lawrence E. Williams1, and Caleb Warren2
Abstract
Humor is a ubiquitous experience that facilitates coping, social
coordination, and well-being. We examine how humorous
responses to a tragedy change over time by measuring reactions
to jokes about Hurricane Sandy. Inconsistent with the belief that
the passage of time monotonically increases humor, but
consistent with the benign violation theory of humor, a
longitudinal study
reveals that humorous responses to Sandy’s destruction rose,
peaked, and eventually fell over the course of 100 days. Time
cre-
ates a comedic sweet spot that occurs when the psychological
distance from a tragedy is large enough to buffer people from
threat
(creating a benign violation) but not so large that the event
becomes a purely benign, nonthreatening situation. The finding
can
help psychologists understand how people cope and provide
clues to what makes things funny and when they will be funny.
Keywords
humor, psychological distance, time, emotion, coping
Humor is an important psychological response that facilitates
coping, social coordination, and the pursuit of happiness. When
tragedies strike, humor may be an effective coping tool, but it is
not always easy or appropriate to joke in the face of tragedy.
Widespread intuition and recent evidence suggest that viewing
something from afar facilitates humorous responses to tragic
experiences. But does distance uniformly make tragedies

11. funnier?
The benign violation theory explains why psychological dis-
tance helps humor up to a point but suggests that too much dis-
tance hurts humor (McGraw & Warren, 2010; McGraw,
Warren, Williams, & Leonard, 2012). Distance reduces threat,
helping transform tragedy (a violation) into comedy (a benign
violation), but too much distance can make comedy seem tame
and uninteresting (a benign situation). In a longitudinal study,
we find that the passage of time initially increases humor in
response to jokes about Hurricane Sandy. The passage of addi-
tional time, however, decreases the humor perceived in those
same jokes.
Benefits of Understanding Humor
Humor is a psychological response characterized by amuse-
ment and the tendency to laugh (Martin, 2007; McGraw &
Warren, 2010; Veatch, 1998). Humor is ubiquitous, occurring
regularly in response to social interactions (e.g., inside jokes,
awkward situations) and entertainment (e.g., standup comedy,
Internet surfing). Humor has received significant attention as
a topic of philosophical and scientific inquiry. However, unlike
other emotional experiences whose antecedents are generally
agreed on (e.g., embarrassment, grief), the necessary and suffi-
cient conditions that precede humor are still hotly debated
(Martin, 2007).
We examine humor prompted by tragedy. It is critical to
examine the factors that increase and decrease humor born
from aversive experiences, given the important role humor
plays in coping and social coordination. The human capacity
for taking a source of pain and transforming it into a source
of pleasure is a critical feature of the psychological immune
system (Gross, 2008; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Humor helps

12. people cope with minor grievances as well as more serious tra-
gedy and loss (Keltner & Bonanno, 1997; Lefcourt & Martin,
1986; McDougall, 1922; Samson & Gross, 2012; Smyth,
1986). Further, humor facilitates social interactions, increasing
likability, mating success, and perceptions of intelligence
(Greengross & Miller, 2011; Martin, 2007). Hence, under-
standing what enhances humor in the face of adversity is
important, as both coping skills and social acceptance improve
psychological well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Bonanno, 2004; Cohen & Wills, 1985). Conversely, failing to
1 University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
2 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Peter McGraw, University of Colorado, UCB 419, Boulder, CO
80309, USA.
Email: [email protected]
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://spps.sagepub.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F19485506
13515006&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-12-11
mailto:[email protected]
McGraw et al. 567
be funny can be costly, prompting disapproval and potential
social isolation (Smeltzer & Leap, 1988). Thus, it is also impor-
tant to understand the factors that decrease humor.
Tragedy, Distance, and Benign Violations
Psychological distance is the subjective set of experiences
associated with objective distance (Ross & Wilson, 2002; Van

13. Boven, Kane, McGraw, & Dale, 2010). We propose that psy-
chological distance can play a critical role in shaping humorous
responses to tragedy. There are four commonly accepted forms
of distance: temporal (now vs. then), spatial (here vs. there),
social (self vs. other), and hypothetical (real vs. imagined; Lib-
erman & Trope, 2008). Psychological distance alters people’s
cognitive representation of information (cf. construal-level the-
ory; Trope & Liberman, 2010) and emotional responses to
appetitive and aversive stimuli (Mobbs et al., 2007; Williams
& Bargh, 2008).
Research and intuition suggest that each form of psychologi-
cal distance increases humorous responses to highly aversive
situations (McGraw et al., 2012). For example, disgusting
things
are more amusing when they are ostensibly fake, seem far away
in space or time, or afflict someone else (Hemenover &
Schimmack, 2007; McGraw et al., 2012). However, contrary to
intuition, psychological distance tends to decrease humorous
responses to mildly aversive situations. Whereas people report
that getting hit by a car would be more humorous if it occurred
5 years ago than if it happened yesterday, they also report that
stubbing a toe would be more humorous if it occurred yesterday
than if it happened 5 years ago (McGraw et al., 2012).
Most humor theories have difficulty accounting for evi-
dence that distance sometimes helps and sometimes hurts
humor (Gruner, 1999; Morreall, 2009). To motivate our inves-
tigation, we draw on the benign violation theory of humor,
which makes unique predictions regarding why psychological
distance would help transform tragedy into comedy. The theory
proposes that humor arises when something that threatens a
person’s well-being, identity, or normative belief structure
(i.e., a violation) simultaneously seems okay, safe, or accepta-
ble (i.e., benign; McGraw et al., 2012; McGraw & Warren,
2010; Veatch, 1998). Physical attacks, such as tickling, play

14. fighting, and slapstick, are humorous when they are not harm-
ful. Similarly, puns and other wordplay misuse language but
are humorous because they make sense given an alternative lin-
guistic or logical norm.
The benign violation theory highlights the two ways a situ-
ation can fail to be humorous. A situation may be purely violat-
ing (e.g., being tickled by a creepy stranger) or purely benign
(e.g., tickling oneself); neither produces humor. Humor
requires threat but not too much or too little. Thus, the theory
explains why factors that decrease feelings of threat can
enhance the humor associated with highly aversive events
(e.g., crashing cars) yet can also reduce the humor associated
with mildly aversive events (e.g., stubbing toes). Psychological
distance is one such factor, as distance has been shown to
reduce feelings of threat (Mobbs et al., 2007; Williams &
Bargh, 2008). For example, a negative event is less threatening
when it happens to someone else (social), in another place (spa-
tial), at a distant point in time (temporal), or when imaginary
(hypothetical; Andrade & Cohen, 2007; Blanchard et al.,
2004; Huddy, Feldman, & Weber, 2007; Pfefferbaum et al.,
2000; Wohl & McGrath, 2007). Because of its threat reduction
properties, distance increases the humor associated with tragic
events by making it easier to perceive the situation as okay.
However, when events are mildly aversive, distance decreases
humor by reducing the threat to the point that the situation
becomes purely benign.
Predictions
Previous research demonstrates that psychological distance can
either help or hurt humor, depending on the severity of the vio-
lation (McGraw et al., 2012). However, the cross-sectional
nature of that research provides only a limited understanding
of how threat reduction influences humor. For example, such

15. snapshots cannot illustrate how a single event can be trans-
formed from a tragedy into a source of humor. We move
beyond that work by examining the dynamic nature of humor-
ous responses to a tragedy as they unfold over time. Because of
the threat-reducing properties of psychological distance, we
propose that a tragic event (a violation) will be transformed
by the passage of time into something that is humorous
(a benign violation) but eventually into something that is not
sufficiently threatening to be humorous (a benign situation).
Therefore, we posit the existence of a sweet spot for
humor—a time period in which tragedy is neither too close nor
too far away to be humorous.
Method
Participants
A total of 1,064 online panelists (Mage ¼ 31.1; 407 female)
recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk network partici-
pated in the study. Although most tragedies are unanticipated,
hurricanes permit a full exploration of the humor derived from
tragedy because they are tracked and publicized before they
inflict harm. We recruited independent samples of approxi-
mately 100 unique participants at each of 10 different time
points: one day before Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeastern
United States (October 29), the day the hurricane made landfall
(October 30), and again days and weeks following the natural
disaster (November 2, November 7, November 14, November
21, November 28, December 5, January 2, and February 6).
Procedure and Materials
In an online survey, participants responded to three tweets (i.e.,
short messages) posted on the website twitter.com, by an
account titled @AHurricaneSandy about the approaching
storm (e.g., ‘‘JUS BLEW DA ROOF OFF A OLIVE GARDEN

16. FREE BREADSTICKS 4 EVERYONE’’; Figure 1). Partici-
pants evaluated the extent to which they found each tweet to
https://twitter.com
�
I.
2 .
3.
HURRICANE SANDY AHun1caneSandy 280ct
JUS BLEW DA ROOF OFF A OLIVE GARDEN FREE
BREADSTICKS
4 EVERYONE
Collapse +- Reply n Re1wee1 * Favorite
HURRICANE SANDY AHun1caneSandy 17h
OH SHIT JUST DESTROYED A STARBUCKS. NOW l'M A
PUMPKIN
, SPICE HURRICANE.
Collapse +- Reply n Re1wee1 * Favorite
HURRICAN E SANDY AHun1cane5Mdy 19h
DIS BITCH WAS LIKE "l'M DYING AT HURRICANE SANDY
TWEETS" AND l'M LIKE YOU ABOUT TO BE DYIN IN
REAL LIFE
HOE.
COiiapse +. Reply n Re!Weel * Favorite
568 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)

17. Figure 1. The three tweets posted from the twitter.com account
@AHurricaneSandy on October 28, 2012, and October 29, 2012
used
as stimuli.
Days since Hurricane Sandy's landfall (on 10/30/12)
–1 0 1 8 15 22 29 36 64 99
P
er
ce
iv
ed
H
um
or
1
2
3
4
5
A. During crisis (10/29 - 11/7) B. After crisis (11/14 - 2/6)
1

18. 2
3
Figure 2. The humor perceived in three tweets about Hurricane
Sandy. Panel A represents the time frame during which the
crisis is
realized. Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the Northeastern
United
States on October 30, 2012. Panel B represents the time frame
after the crisis. The numbers (1–3) correspond to the tweets
presented in Figure 1.
Note. The x-axis is not linearly related to the dates of data
collection.
be funny, humorous, upsetting, offensive, boring, irrelevant,
and confusing on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to
7 (extremely). Responses to the funny and humorous items
were collapsed into a humor index for each tweet (as > .98
across the three stimuli), which served as our primary depen-
dent measure. Responses to the upsetting and offensive items
were collapsed into an offensiveness index for each tweet
(as > .85 across the three stimuli) and served as a measure of
threat perception. Responses to the boring and irrelevant
items were collapsed into an irrelevance index for each tweet
(as > .67 across the three stimuli).
Last, participants provided demographic information (age,
gender) as well as information regarding their current geogra-
phical location (country and state). The geographic information
permitted us to create a measure of geographical distance
(miles) from New York, NY by using an online geographical
distance calculator (http://www.distancefromto.net/).
Results

19. Humor
We used a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to
examine whether the time point at which participants encoun-
tered the tweets affected the humor perceived in each of the
three stimuli. In this analysis, timing was the between-
participant variable, stimulus (tweet1 vs. tweet2 vs. tweet3)
was the within-participant variable, and geographical distance
was a covariate. (The pattern and significance of the reported
findings were unaffected by the inclusion of geographical dis-
tance as a covariate.) We found a main effect of stimulus, such
that the tweets varied in the humor they provoked, F(2, 1,986)
¼ 85.5, p < .001 and a nonsignificant effect of geographical
distance, F(1, 993) ¼ 2.01, p ¼ .16. Most importantly, humor
significantly varied across time, F(9, 993) ¼ 3.22, p ¼ .001.
This timing effect was consistent across all three tweets, as
the Timing � Stimulus interaction was not significant,
F(18, 1,986) ¼ .55, p ¼ .94.1
On the basis of this analysis, we established three post hoc
contrasts, using the Bonferroni family wise error correction
method to set our a at .05/3 ¼ .017.
The data can be broken into two time frames (Figure 2). The
first time frame (October 29, 2012, to November 7, 2012; Panel
A) represents the time in which Sandy approaches (October
29), the storm makes landfall (October 30), and people learn
of the hundreds of deaths, hundreds of thousands of homes
without service, and billions of dollars in damage (Blake,
Kimberlain, Berg, Canglialosi, & Beven, 2013). One day
before landfall, the tragic nature of the storm was unknown
and thus hypothetical; at this point, the tweets were humorous
(M 1 day ¼ 3.5). However, over the course of the next 9 days,
as the psychological reality of the tragedy set in, humor
declined (Mþ8 days ¼ 2.9), FContrast(1, 994) ¼ 6.63, p ¼ .01.

20. In the second time frame (November 14, 2012, to February
6, 2013; Panel B), we examined the predicted nonlinear influ-
ence of psychological distance. After people realized the grav-
ity of the destruction, the data revealed that it was ‘‘too soon’’
to find humor in tweets about the storm. Humor was at a low
point on November 14, 2012 (Mþ15 days ¼ 2.7). As time
passed,
it became ‘‘okay’’ to find humor in the tragedy, increasing the
humor perceived in the tweets to a peak point on December 5,
2012 (Mþ36 days ¼ 3.4), FContrast (1, 994) ¼ 9.36, p ¼ .002.
Critically, humorous responses to the tweets dropped again to
http://www.distancefromto.net
https://twitter.com
� �
�
McGraw et al. 569
another low point 99 days after the storm hit (Mþ99 days ¼
2.6),
FContrast (1, 994) ¼ 13.5, p < .001 (Figure 2, Panel B).
Offensiveness
We used the respondents’ judgments of offensiveness to assess
the change in threat perception over time. Using the same
mixed-model ANCOVA approach, we found a main effect of
stimulus such that the tweets varied in their perceived offen-
siveness, F(2, 1,986) ¼ 147.3, p < .001, and a marginal effect
of geographical distance, F(1, 993) ¼ 3.13, p ¼ .08. Offen-
siveness significantly varied across time, F(9, 993) ¼ 3.43,

21. p < .001. Again, this timing effect was consistent across all
three tweets, as the Timing � Stimulus interaction was not
significant, F(18, 1,986) ¼ .75, p ¼ .76.
Using the same post hoc contrast analysis that we per-
formed on the humor measure (and a corrected a value of
.017), we found a different pattern for offensiveness ratings.
Consistent with benign violation theory, offensiveness
significantly rose over the course of our first time frame
(October 29, 2012, to November 7, 2012); this effect corro-
borates our view that as the reality of the crisis posed by
Hurricane Sandy set in, jokes about the storm became more
offensive (M10/29 ¼2.3; Mþ8 days ¼2.9), FContrast(1, 994)
¼8.49,
p ¼ .004). The next contrast examines the beginning of the
second
time frame at which point people began to find it ‘‘okay’’ to
joke
about the storm. Here the offensiveness ratings significantly
declined (Mþ15 days ¼ 3.4; Mþ36 days ¼ 2.7), FContrast(1,
994) ¼
8.46, p ¼ .004. However, at the tail end of our data,
offensiveness
ratings largely stabilized, slightly but nonsignificantly rising
(Mþ36 days ¼ 2.7; Mþ99 days ¼ 3.1), FContrast(1, 994) ¼ 3.20,
p ¼ .07, not significant (NS).
Mediation by Offensiveness
Recall that the offensiveness index serves as a measure of
threat perception. The benign violation theory predicts that the
relationships between time, offensiveness, and humor should
vary as time passes. Initially, when it is too soon to find humor
in tragedy, an absence of humor should be associated with high
levels of threat. Later, as humorous reactions to tragedy rise,
the increase in humor should be associated with a decrease in

22. threat (as the event is transformed from a pure violation into
a benign violation). However, when it eventually becomes too
late to find humor in tragedy, an absence of humor should be
unrelated to perceived threat (as the event is perceived to be
a purely benign, nonthreatening situation).
A series of mediation analyses support these predictions.
Using bootstrapping procedures recommended by Preacher and
Hayes (2004), we examined the extent to which offensiveness
mediated the effect of timing on humor during each of the post
hoc time frames established in the contrast analyses mentioned
earlier. In the first time frame (October 29, 2012, to November
7, 2012), as Sandy moved from a hypothetical to a realized tra-
gedy, there was a significant positive effect of time on offen-
siveness, b ¼ .21, t(406) ¼ 3.08, p ¼ .002 (a path), a
significant negative effect of offensiveness on humor,
b ¼� .30, t(405) ¼� 5.69, p < .001 (b path), and critically
a significant negative indirect effect of timing on humor
via offensiveness, b ¼� .06, 95% confidence interval
(CI):[ .11, .02] (a � b path). Consistent with the the-
ory, the analysis suggests that as the reality of Sandy
unfolded over time, humor decreased via an increase in
threat perception.
In the second time frame (November 14, 2012, to Decem-
ber 5, 2012), as humorous responses to Sandy rose and
peaked, a different pattern emerged. Here we found a signif-
icant negative effect of time on offensiveness, b ¼� .22,
t(407) ¼� 3.16, p ¼ .002 (a path), and a significant negative
effect of offensiveness on humor, b ¼� .32, t(406) ¼� 6.20,
p < .001 (b path). In this case, there was a significant positive
indirect effect of timing on humor via offensiveness, b ¼ .07,
95% CI: [.03,.13] (a � b path). Again, consistent with the
benign violation theory, this analysis suggests that as tem-
poral distance from Sandy increased, humor increased

23. because of a reduction in threat perception.
In the final time frame (December 5, 2012, to February
6, 2013), as humorous responses to Sandy decreased, we did
not find evidence that the decline in humor over time was
due to changes in perceived offensiveness. Timing did not
significantly influence offensiveness ratings, b ¼ .19,
t(304) ¼ 1.70, p ¼ .09, nor was the indirect effect of timing
on humor via offensiveness significant, b ¼� .05, 95%
CI [ .13-.004], including zero. Thus, this final decline in
humor was not due to increased threat perception. Taken
together, the mediation analyses shed further light on the
complex relationship between psychological distance, threat
perception, and humor.
Irrelevance and Confusion
We measured irrelevance to examine the possibility that
changes in humor would be driven by decreased interest in the
stimuli. Using the same ANCOVA model described earlier, we
did not find a significant effect of timing on irrelevance scores,
F(9, 993) ¼ 1.24, p ¼ .27. We measured confusion to examine
the possibility that changes in humor would be driven by
changes in stimuli comprehension over time. We analyzed the
confusion item for each of the three tweets, finding that confu-
sion scores do vary significantly over time, F(9, 987) ¼ 3.24,
p ¼ .001. However, this variation appears to be haphazard.
Using the post hoc contrasts established earlier (and the corre-
sponding corrected a level of .017), none were significant,
FContrasts < 3.51, ps > .06, NS.
Discussion
Human history is rife with tragedy and triumph over tragedy.
We illustrate the importance of psychological distance for tri-
umphing over tragedy—first through humor and later through

24. apathy. Despite the strong intuition that the passage of time
enhances humor in the face of tragedy, little empirical evidence
570 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)
exists to support this claim. We narrow the knowledge gap
using responses to a real tragedy and measuring how humor
changes in real time. We find that temporal distance creates a
comedic sweet spot. A tragic event is difficult to joke about
at first, but the passage of time initially increases humor as the
event become less threatening. Eventually, however, distance
decreases humor by making the event seem completely benign.
Relationship to Existing Literature
Dating back to Socrates, theories based on incongruity, release,
and superiority have dominated discussions of what makes
things humorous (Martin, 2007; Morreall, 2009). Most versions
of incongruity theory, which contends that humor occurs when
people perceive a mismatch between reality and their beliefs or
expectations (Nerhardt, 1976; Suls, 1972), and release theory,
which contends that humor occurs when repressed desires are
released (Freud, 1928; Spencer, 1875), cannot readily accom-
modate the evidence that distance influences humor. Such
alternative accounts cannot specify why distance would facili-
tate the perception of incongruity or why distance would
accentuate feelings of release. Superiority theory, which con-
tends that humor requires aggression, hostility, harm, or insult,
makes clear predictions about psychological distance (Gruner,
1999). Social distance helps people feel superior to others and
temporal distance helps people feel superior to the misfortunes
of a former self. However, superiority theory is also limited in
its ability to account for the curvilinear pattern we observe. The
present results more consistently support a benign violation

25. account of humor.
Our findings also provide compelling evidence that psycho-
logical distance shapes outcomes via mechanisms beyond shift-
ing one’s focus between abstract and concrete construal.
Construal-level theory (CLT) specifies that as distance
increases, people increasingly focus on abstract, central, and
high-level aspects of an experience (Trope & Liberman,
2010). When people think abstractly, they are better able to
hold incompatible ideas in mind (Hong & Lee, 2010; Malkoc,
Zauberman, & Ulu, 2005). In this way, abstract thinking may
very well increase humor by making it easier to see a situation
as simultaneously wrong and okay (e.g., a benign violation;
McGraw & Warren, 2010). However, even if abstract thinking
initially enhances humor, it is difficult to explain why further
abstraction would decrease humor.
Instead, our findings dovetail with emerging evidence that
the cognitive consequences of psychological distance (e.g.,
abstract construal, specified by CLT) are largely distinct from
its emotional consequences (e.g., threat attenuation). Recent
research reveals that distance influences downstream evalua-
tions primarily via changing affective intensity, whereas con-
strual level influences such evaluations via shifting the
weight placed on primary versus secondary decision inputs
(e.g., desirability vs. feasibility concerns; Williams, Stein, &
Galguera, in press). Although the distance created by the pas-
sage of time almost certainly altered how people mentally rep-
resented Hurricane Sandy, for our analysis it is more critical
that distance altered how people felt about the tragedy. Dis-
tance reduces threat; a moderate amount of threat reduction
enhances humor, but the complete attenuation of threat elimi-
nates the perception of a violation, a necessary ingredient for
humor.

26. Implications and Future Directions
Our inquiry revealed a curvilinear relationship between time
and humor. A benign violation account suggests that other
forms of distance, characteristics of the event, and characteris-
tics of the perceiver also influence humorous responses. The
inquiry also suggests a deeper look at the relationship between
humor and coping. We discuss each of these in turn.
Although we focus on temporal distance, the curvilinear pat-
tern revealed by our inquiry should occur for other forms of dis-
tance. Indeed, guided by the benign violation theory, we
suspected that geographical distance would meaningfully
shape people’s humor responses to Hurricane Sandy such that
those closer to New York would find less humor in response to
the tweets compared to those farther away. Our ability to detect
an effect may have been hampered by the relative dearth of
respondents living directly in the storm’s path in the earliest
stages of data collection (who in many cases would have been
too distracted to engage in an online survey). Consistent with
this view, when we limit our examination to the later time
frame (November 14, 2012, to February 6, 2013), the
expected effect of geographical distance on humor began to
emerge, F(1, 598) ¼ 3.67, p ¼ .056.
Nonetheless, it remains important to examine how other
forms of distance affect humor. For instance, there should be
a class of aversive experiences that are optimally humorous for
people who are neither too socially close nor too socially dis-
tant. Accordingly, in a pilot test we found that a modest viola-
tion (a person’s fly was down while chatting to a coworker)
produced little humor when considered from up close (when
the imagined person was the participant; too violating) or from
too far away (when the person was a stranger; too benign).
Instead, the situation was most humorous from a moderate dis-
tance (when the person was a friend; benign violation). Future

27. work can build upon these initial investigations, examining the
spectrum of factors that influence the process by which it
becomes acceptable to find humor in tragedy.
Further, we suspect that the time course of humor depends
on the characteristics of the event itself. The greater the initial
degree of violation, the longer it takes to become humorous and
the longer it takes to become fully benign. More tragic events,
such as a devastating hurricane, should take longer to become
sources of humor than less tragic events, such as a drenching
downpour. In an initial test, we found that people thought a
severe tragedy (responses include ‘‘murder’’ and ‘‘a piano fall-
ing on one’s head’’) would take longer to become ‘‘okay’’ to
joke about and take longer to become ‘‘too late’’ to joke about,
compared to more mild mishaps (e.g., ‘‘breaking a leg’’ and
‘‘late for work’’).
McGraw et al. 571
Beyond psychological distance and violation severity, char-
acteristics of the individual may also underlie curvilinear
humor patterns, as these factors can also increase or decrease
the threat of a violation. One such factor is the observer’s com-
mitment to a violated norm or principle (McGraw & Warren,
2010). For example, a church’s immoral behavior is funnier to
nonchurch goers (the violation is less threatening; McGraw &
Warren, 2010). Future research can bear out our prediction
that violation severity will interact with a person’s commit-
ment to a violated principle in the same way that psychologi-
cal distance does. Violations that are too threatening for
strongly committed people (pure violations) may seem
humorous to people who are moderately committed (benign
violations) yet boring to those most weakly committed
(purely benign situations). For example, a modestly sexist

28. joke may be too offensive for a staunch feminist (La Fave,
Haddad, & Maesen, 1976), but too tame for a steadfast
misogynist.
Finally, the field would benefit from more work that inves-
tigates the role that humor plays in coping with tragedy and loss
(Martin, 2002). Our work shows how humorous responses
change over time as people cope with a tragic event, but it
does not investigate whether joking about an event facilitates
coping or whether coping facilitates joking about an event.
One possibility is that transforming tragedies into benign vio-
lations may be an important step in coping, by attenuating the
destructive impact of aversive events. Indeed, several authors
suggest that humor provides an effective means of coping
with loss (Keltner & Bonanno, 1997; Smyth, 1987). Another
possibility is that humor is more typically the outcome, rather
than the cause, of coping. In order to consider a tragic event
benign (and, thus humorous), people may need to have suc-
cessfully coped with the event beforehand. In either or both
cases, the field would benefit from a deeper understanding
of the relationship between humor and coping. Such under-
standing can inform the development of early interventions
for trauma.
Conclusion
Humor is valued in social interactions, attracting admiration
when
successful and contempt when unsuccessful (Greengross &
Miller, 2011; Martin, 2007; Smeltzer & Leap, 1988). The key
to avoiding a ‘‘too soon’’ comedy fail or a ‘‘too late’’ comedy
dud is matching the right degree of violation with the right
amount of distance. With this in mind, we propose a modifica-
tion to the popular saying, ‘‘humor is tragedy plus time.’’
Transforming tragedy into comedy requires time, not too little
yet not too much.

29. Acknowledgments
We thank Phil Fernbach, Nick Haslam, Hal Hershfield, Jeff
Larsen,
Jonathan Levav, Joel Warner, McKenzie Binder, the Humor
Research
Lab, Bill von Hippel, and the editorial team.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. We conducted a supplemental analysis in which we used the
raw
number of days between Hurricane Sandy’s U.S. landfall and
the
date of data collection as a continuous predictor of humor. This
regression model also reveals a significant effect of time on
humor,
b ¼� .004, t(1,002) ¼� 2.18, p ¼ .03.
References
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption of
nega-

30. tive feelings. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 283–300.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation.
Psychological bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Blake, E. S., Kimberlain, T. B., Berg, R. J., Canglialosi, J. P., &
Beven, J. L. (2013). Hurricane Sandy (Tropical Cyclone Report
No. AL182012) (pp. 1–157). National Hurricane Center.
Retrieved
from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
Blanchard, E. B., Kuhn, E., Rowell, D. L., Hickling, E. J.,
Wittrock, D.,
Rogers, R. L., . . . Steckler, D. C. (2004). Studies of the
vicarious
traumatization of college students by the September 11th
attacks:
Effects of proximity, exposure and connectedness. Behaviour
Research Therapy, 42, 191–205.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience:
Have we
underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely
aver-
sive events? The American psychologist, 59, 20–28.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
buf-
fering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 9,
1–6.

31. Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals
intelli-
gence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males.
Intelligence,
39, 188–192.
Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion regulation. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland-
Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.)
(pp. 497–512). New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Gruner, C. R. (1999). The game of humor: A comprehensive
theory of
why we laugh. New York, NY: Transaction.
Hemenover, S. H., & Schimmack, U. (2007). That’s disgusting!
. . . ,
But very amusing: Mixed feelings of amusement and disgust.
Cog-
nition & Emotion, 21, 1102–1113.
Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: The
mod-
erating role of construal level in mixed emotions appeals.
Journal
of Consumer Research, 37, 456–472.
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). The political
conse-
quences of perceived threat and felt insecurity. The ANNALS of
the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614, 131–
153.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf

32. 572 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)
Keltner, D., & Bonanno, G. A. (1997). A study of laughter and
dis-
sociation: Distinct correlates of laughter and smiling during
bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 687–702.
La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1976). Superiority,
enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory.
In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Ed.), Humor and laughter:
Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 63–91). Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and life stress:
Anti-
dote to adversity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of
transcending
the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205.
Malkoc, S. A., Zauberman, G., & Ulu, C. (2005). Consuming
now or
later? The interactive effect of timing and attribute alignability.
Psychological Science, 16, 411–417.
Martin, R. A. (2002). Is laughter the best medicine? Humor,
laughter,

33. and physical health. Current Directions in Psychological
Science,
11, 216–220.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative
approach (1st ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
McDougall, W. (1922). Why do we laugh? Scribners, 71, 359–
262.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations:
Making
immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21, 1141–1149.
McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L. E., & Leonard, B.
(2012).
Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in
distant
tragedies and close mishaps. Psychological Science, 23,
1215–1223.
Mobbs, D., Petrovic, P., Marchant, J. L., Hassabis, D.,
Weiskopf, N.,
Seymour, B., . . . Frith, C. D. (2007). When fear is near: Threat
imminence elicits prefrontal-periaqueductal gray shifts in
humans.
Science, 317, 1079–1083.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy
of
humor (1st ed.). West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Toward a new
descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),
Humor
and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 63–92).

34. Brunswick, NJ: John Wiley.
Pfefferbaum, B., Gurwitch, R. H., McDonald, N. B., Leftwich,
M. J. T.,
Sconzo, G. M., Messenbaugh, A. K., & Schultz, R. A. (2000).
Post-
traumatic stress among young children after the death of a
friend or
acquaintance in a terrorist bombing. Psychiatric Services, 51,
386–388.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
esti-
mating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, 36, 717–31.
Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). It feels like yesterday: Self-
esteem,
valence of personal past experiences, and judgments of
subjective
distance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82, 792–
803.
Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion
regulation:
The differential consequences of negative versus positive
humour.
Cognition & Emotion, 26, 375–384.
Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1988). An analysis of individual
reac-
tions to potentially offensive jokes in work settings. Human
Rela-
tions, 41, 295–304.
Smyth, W. (1986). Challenger jokes and the humor of disaster.

35. West-
ern Folklore, 45, 243–260.
Spencer, H. (1875). The physiology of laughter. In Illustrations
of uni-
versal progress: A series of discussions (pp. 194–209). New
York,
NY: D Appleton & Company.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of
jokes and
cartoons: An information processing analysis. In The
psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (Vol. 1,
pp.
81–100). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of
psycho-
logical distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Dale, J. (2010).
Feeling
close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological dis-
tance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 872–
885.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor-International
Jour-
nal of Humor Research, 11, 161–215.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance
the
influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation.
Psycho-
logical Science, 19, 302–308.

36. Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct
affec-
tive consequences of psychological distance and construal level.
Journal of Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1086/674212.
Wohl, M. J. A., & McGrath, A. L. (2007). The perception of
time heals
all wounds: Temporal distance affects willingness to forgive
following an interpersonal transgression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1023–1035.
Author Biographies
A. Peter McGraw is an associate professor of marketing and
psychol-
ogy at the University of Colorado Boulder where he directs the
Humor
Research Lab (HuRL). His research examines the interplay of
judgments, emotions, and choices.
Lawrence E. Williams is an assistant professor of marketing at
the
University of Colorado Boulder. His research examines
psychological
distance, nonconscious processing and situated cognition.
Caleb Warren is an assistant professor of marketing at Texas
A&M
University. His research examines humor and consumer
psychology.
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true

37. /AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages false
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true

38. /PreserveFlatness false
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages false
/ColorImageMinResolution 266
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 200
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>

39. /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 266
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 200
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30

40. >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 900
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [

41. 0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051
v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF00550073006500200074006800650073006500200053006
1006700650020007300740061006e006400610072006400200073
0065007400740069006e0067007300200066006f0072002000630
0720065006100740069006e006700200077006500620020005000
440046002000660069006c00650073002e0020005400680065007
30065002000730065007400740069006e0067007300200063006f
006e006600690067007500720065006400200066006f007200200
04100630072006f006200610074002000760037002e0030002e00
20004300720065006100740065006400200062007900200054007
2006f00790020004f007400730020006100740020005300610067
00650020005500530020006f006e002000310031002f003100300
02f0032003000300036002e000d000d0032003000300050005000
49002f003600300030005000500049002f004a005000450047002
0004d0065006400690075006d002f004300430049005400540020
00470072006f0075007000200034>
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [

42. <<
/AsReaderSpreads false
/CropImagesToFrames true
/ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue
/FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false
/IncludeGuidesGrids false
/IncludeNonPrinting false
/IncludeSlug false
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(InDesign)
(4.0)
]
/OmitPlacedBitmaps false
/OmitPlacedEPS false
/OmitPlacedPDF false
/SimulateOverprint /Legacy
>>
<<
/AllowImageBreaks true
/AllowTableBreaks true
/ExpandPage false
/HonorBaseURL true
/HonorRolloverEffect false
/IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false
/IncludeHeaderFooter false
/MarginOffset [
0
0
0
0
]
/MetadataAuthor ()
/MetadataKeywords ()
/MetadataSubject ()
/MetadataTitle ()

43. /MetricPageSize [
0
0
]
/MetricUnit /inch
/MobileCompatible 0
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(GoLive)
(8.0)
]
/OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false
/PageOrientation /Portrait
/RemoveBackground false
/ShrinkContent true
/TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors
/UseEmbeddedProfiles false
/UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true
>>
<<
/AddBleedMarks false
/AddColorBars false
/AddCropMarks false
/AddPageInfo false
/AddRegMarks false
/BleedOffset [
9
9
9
9
]
/ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB
/DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/DestinationProfileSelector /UseName
/Downsample16BitImages true
/FlattenerPreset <<

44. /ClipComplexRegions true
/ConvertStrokesToOutlines false
/ConvertTextToOutlines false
/GradientResolution 300
/LineArtTextResolution 1200
/PresetName ([High Resolution])
/PresetSelector /HighResolution
/RasterVectorBalance 1
>>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.125000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [288 288]

45. /PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice