www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Autistic adults perceive

and experience laughter differently
to non‑autistic adults
Ceci Q. Cai 1, Sarah J. White 1, Sinead H. Y. Chen 1, Marie A. E. Mueller 2 & Sophie K. Scott 1*

Human interaction is immersed in laughter; though genuine and posed laughter are acoustically
distinct, they are both crucial socio-emotional signals. In this novel study, autistic and non-autistic
adults explicitly rated the affective properties of genuine and posed laughter. Additionally, we
explored whether their self-reported everyday experiences with laughter differ. Both groups could
differentiate between these two types of laughter. However, autistic adults rated posed laughter
as more authentic and emotionally arousing than non-autistic adults, perceiving it to be similar to
genuine laughter. Autistic adults reported laughing less, deriving less enjoyment from laughter, and
experiencing difficulty in understanding the social meaning of other people’s laughter compared to
non-autistic people. Despite these differences, autistic adults reported using laughter socially as often
as non-autistic adults, leveraging it to mediate social contexts. Our findings suggest that autistic
adults show subtle differences in their perception of laughter, which may be associated with their
struggles in comprehending the social meaning of laughter, as well as their diminished frequency and
enjoyment of laughter in everyday scenarios. By combining experimental evidence with first-person
experiences, this study suggests that autistic adults likely employ different strategies to understand
laughter in everyday contexts, potentially leaving them socially vulnerable in communication.

Laughter is a universal non-verbal expression of emotion in human ­interactions1,2. Human laughter is highly
behaviourally contagious: people are 30 times more likely to laugh when with others than when a­ lone3, and
laughter can be easily elicited by hearing another’s ­laughter4. The contagious-laughter effect is strongly mediated
by social contexts, such as the audience size and the intimacy/familiarity of the ­relationship3–5. Furthermore,
contagious laughter is very likely to be unique to humans, as humans can provoke laughter and respond to others’
laughter in the absence of direct physical c­ ontact6.
Although laughter has long been viewed as a genuine and uncontrolled emotional vocalisation in response
to amusement and humour, it predominately occurs in conversation and serves as a communicative tool:
people frequently laugh after verbal utterances as signalling friendliness, affiliation, and agreement with others,
mediating the meaning of utterances, and regulating the flow of c­ onversation4,7–10. The production of laughter
varies in the degree of volitional control, emotional content, and ­authenticity11–14; it can be either driven by
external stimuli, which are strongly linked to emotional arousal (genuine, spontaneous, involuntary laughter):
we laugh uncontrollably to express joy and amusement; or it can be a self-controlled act without any external
stimulation, serving as a social signal during interactions (posed, controlled, voluntary laughter): we laugh
voluntarily to pass on social meaning and intention in ­conversations9,15. It is worth noting that there is no
well-articulated cut-off point between genuine and posed laughter, especially in terms of the degree to which it
is associated with a positive internal state. Here, we refer to genuine laughter as spontaneous and involuntarily
produced, and to posed laughter as non-spontaneous and voluntarily p ­ roduced13,16. In other words, these two
types of laughter are distinguished by their volitional control.
Genuine and posed laughter are acoustically d ­ istinct11,13,16, and neuroimaging evidence suggests they engage
different brain systems during production and ­perception11,13,15,17. In terms of production, posed laughter is
likely involved in the volitional speech motor network, controlled by lateral motor cortex regions like the frontal
­operculum15,17. On the other hand, genuine laughter might be governed by the older involuntary vocalisation
network that operates through subcortical and brainstem structures. These include the amygdala, thalamic/
hypo- and subthalamic areas, and the dorsal/tegmental ­brainstem6,12,15. While the perception of positive
nonverbal vocalizations, including laughter, engages the oro-facial mirror networks —indicating a mechanism

1
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK. 2Epidemiology and
Applied Clinical Research, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London W1T 7BN, UK. *email:
[email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 1

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

for mirroring others’ emotional expressions—different neural responses have been observed to genuine and
posed ­laughter12,13,18. Greater activation has been found in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex (amPFC) and
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) when non-autistic adults passively listen to posed versus genuine laughter. The
involvement of mPFC suggests that laughter perception, especially the processing of posed laughter, automatically
engages people’s high-level cognitive skills, likely due to mentalizing, in order to understand and interpret social
ambiguity, such as the intention and meaning behind the l­ aughter13,18.
Additionally, the difference in acoustic features between genuine and posed laughter has an impact on
how people perceived its affective ­properties11,13,16. Behavioural evidence indicates that non-autistic adults
can differentiate the authenticity between genuine and posed laughter by categorising the former as ‘real’
than compared to the l­atter11,13. They also perceive genuine laughter as significantly more emotionally and
behaviourally contagious, as well as more exciting, intense, ­positive13. Furthermore, the authenticity of laughter
also leads to processing differences in the communication of emotional and social meaning. Individuals with
higher emotional contagion and empathic traits are generally better at judging the authenticity of ­laughter19.
This further supports the socio-emotional determinants of laughter ­processing12. Collectively, laughter varies
depending on its authenticity, and accurately understanding the social meaning and intention of laughter is
crucial when people use laughter socially, from establishing and maintaining social bonds and relationships,
to regulating ­emotions12,20. From an evolutionary perspective, laughter has been proposed to promote group
cohesion and social bonding, as well as building rapport in human i­ nteraction20–23. Since laughter is an important
and a complex socio-emotional signal, it is critical to investigate laughter behaviour and experience in autistic
people, as they experience difficulties in social c­ ommunication24.
To date, research into laughter production and perception in the autistic people is rare. Limited evidence
suggests a different profile of laughter behaviour likely exits in autistic people, especially in autistic children
compared to their ­peers25–29. For instance, compared to children with Down Syndrome, autistic children have
been observed to produce significantly more unshared laughter during play and show less response (neither
looking up nor smiling) to their parents’ laughter. Furthermore, fewer autistic children were reported to join in
others’ laughter or elicit laughter from others by clowning or teasing, even though there was no group difference
in laughter frequency based on parental ­reports25. Additionally, autistic children were found to primarily produce
‘voiced laughter’ in social play, which is often associated with the producer’s positive affective ­state26,30. In contrast,
they exhibited relatively limited ‘unvoiced laughter’, which typical-developing children seem to rely on heavily
during social interactions. The usage of ‘unvoiced laughter’ tends to increase with age and is influenced by social
­contexts5,26. Regarding laughter processing, typical-developing children rated ‘Tom and Jerry’ cartoons as more
enjoyable and laughed more when a laugh track accompanied the cartoon than when it was absent. In contrast,
autistic children rated cartoons with a laughter track as less enjoyable and produced fewer laughs and ­smiles27.
Interestingly, we reported that adding genuine and posed laughter to spoken ‘dad jokes’ resulted in the jokes being
rated as ‘funnier’. The same pattern of implicit laughter processing was seen in autistic and non-autistic adults:
the addition of laughter increased the perceived funniness of the jokes, moreover, jokes paired with genuine
laughter were perceived as funnier than with the addition of posed l­ aughter31. However, it is still unclear whether
autistic adults process laughter differently from non-autistic adults when rating the two different kinds of laughter
more explicitly. In other words, it is unclear whether autistic adults can differentiate between genuine and posed
laughter in the same way that non-autistic adults can.
In addition to experimental data, self-report data is valuable in illustrating the experience of laughter.
Autism research has recently shifted focus to include the first-person experience of autistic people more often,
emphasizing the significance of understanding autistic adulthood and supporting their overall well-being32,33.
However, no research has yet employed self-report questionnaires to explore the first-hand experience of laughter
in autistic adults. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the role of laughter in the daily lives of autistic adults
to gain a deeper understanding of the distinct profile of nonverbal social communication in this population. If
a discrepancy arises between existing empirical data and self-report data, it could indicate that autistic people
have limited insight into their own social communication, behaviour and cognition.
Despite laughter’s vital role in establishing and nurturing social relationships, few questionnaire studies
have investigated individual laughter experiences. Some of these questionnaires focused more on humour (e.g.,
SHRQ; Ref.34; CHS; Ref.34,35), while others focused on measuring abnormal and unusual laughter preferences
(e.g., PhoPhiKat-45; Ref.36), including personal fear and joy of being laughed at (gelotophobia and gelotophilia,
respectively), as well as personal joy derived from laughter at others (katagelaticism). Therefore, we used a novel
laughter questionnaire which focused on people’s self-reported laughter experiences in everyday l­ife37. The
30-item laughter perception and production questionnaire (LPPQ) assesses people’s daily laughter behaviours
in both production level (Frequency of laughter and Usage of laughter) and perception level (Understanding of
laughter and Liking of laughter)37.
In the current study, we aim to provide the first detailed picture of how autistic people explicitly process
genuine and posed laughter, as well as their laughter experience in everyday life. Autistic and non-autistic (NA)
adults, matched for age, gender and IQ, participated in an in-lab experiment where they rated genuine and
posed laughter stimuli across four ratings blocks: authenticity, contagion, valence and arousal. We intentionally
separated the ratings into four blocks to independently assess the processing of different types of laughter for each
rating. Our aim was to determine whether a different processing pattern exits between autistic and NA adults
within each rating block. Notably, the authenticity block was always presented first to determine if participants
could differentiate between genuine and posed laughter based on their initial presentation. The order of the other
three blocks was randomized, as we aimed to assess whether their judgment of perceptual affective properties
was influenced by different types of laughter. In a subsequent phase, the LPPQ was administrated to autistic and
non-autistic adults, matched for age, gender, and IQ, through an in-lab experiment. A supplementary online
experiment was conducted to replicate the LPPQ findings. Based on the evidence of different patterns of laughter

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 2

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

production and perception between autistic people and their peers, we hypothesised that autistic adults would
show a different pattern of perceptual judgement relative to non-autistic adults, specifically, that they would
perform less well in differentiating the authenticity between genuine and posed laughter relative to non-autistic
adults, and would also show a different pattern in perceiving the affective properties of laughter. Additionally, we
hypothesised that self-reported laughter in both production and perception would differ between autistic adults
and non-autistic adults. Furthermore, this difference would be consistent in both in-lab groups and online groups.

Results
Here, we first present the results from the explicit ratings of laughter, followed by the in-lab and online results
from the self-reported laughter questionnaire: LPPQ. Given the small overlap in samples between the in-lab
experiments, we also conducted an exploratory analysis to determine if participants’ ability to distinguish between
genuine and posed laughter could account for their self-reported perception and production of laughter in daily
life across the four LPPQ components. Data were analysed in IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27) and RStudio Team
(2020). Reported p values are two-tailed. Prior to statistical analysis, both behavioural and questionnaire data
were plotted to investigate distributions and identify outliers and missing data (see Supplementary Information
for details).

Explicit processing of laughter

Both autistic (n = 25) and non-autistic (n = 25) participants completed an in-lab behavioural rating of genuine and
posed laughter stimuli across four rating blocks: authenticity, contagion, valence, and arousal. Therefore, a 2 × 2
mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each scale of the perceptual affective properties
of laughter, including the type of laughter (genuine vs posed) as the within-subject factor and participant group
(Autism vs NA) as the between-subjects factor. Greenhouse–Geisser corrections were used.
On the authenticity rating, there was a significant main effect on the type of laughter, F [1, 48] = 254.119,
p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.841, indicating that participants found genuine laughter (M = 5.593, SD = 0.696, SEM = 0.098) to
be more authentic than posed laughter (M = 3.607, SD = 0.838, SEM = 0.119). There was no significant main effect
of group, F [1, 48] = 3.656, p = 0.062, ηp2= 0.065, but there was a significant interaction effect between laughter
type and group, F [1, 48] = 6.261, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.115. Post hoc analysis indicated that the non-autistic group
(M = 3.289, SD = 0.791, SEM = 0.158) rated posed laughter as significantly less authentic than the autistic group
(M = 3.925, SD = 0.773, SEM = 0.155), t (48) = 2.874, p < 0.01. However, there was no significant difference for
ratings of genuine laughter between non-autistic (M = 5.587, SD = 0.699, SEM = 0.140) and autistic (M = 5.599,
SD = 0.706, SEM = 0.141) participants, t(48) = 0.006, p = 0.951.
On contagion rating, there was a significant main effect of type of laughter, F [1, 48] = 234.712, p < 0.001,
ηp2= 0.830, indicating that participants found genuine laughter (M = 5.129, SD = 0.855, SEM = 0.121) to be more
contagious than posed laughter (M = 3.113, SD = 0.903, SEM = 0.128). There was no significant main effect of
group, F [1, 48] = 0.190, p = 0.665, ηp2 = 0.004, and no significant interaction effect between laughter type and
group, F [1, 48] = 3.341, p = 0.074, ηp2= 0.065.
On valence rating, there was a significant main effect of type of laughter, F [1, 47] = 214.942, p < 0.001, ηp2=
0.821, indicating that participants felt the sound of genuine laughter (M = 5.718, SD = 0.524, SEM = 0.075)
reflected a more positive emotion than the sound of posed laughter (M = 3.933, SD = 0.693, SEM = 0.099). There
was no significant main effect of group, F [1, 47] = 1.062, p = 0.308, ηp2 = 0.022, and no significant interaction
effect between type and group, F [1, 47] = 3.471, p = 0.069, ηp2= 0.069.
On the arousal rating, there was a significant main effect on the type of laughter, F [1, 48] = 360.197, p < 0.001,
ηp2= 0.882, indicating that participants felt the sound of genuine laughter (M = 5.651, SD = 0.591, SEM = 0.084)
reflected stronger emotional arousal than the sound of posed laughter (M = 3.594, SD = 0.768, SEM = 0.109).
There was no significant main effect of group, F [1, 48] = 1.334, p = 0.254, ηp2= 0.027, but there was a significant
interaction between laughter type and group, F [1, 48] = 4.616, p < 0.05, ηp2= 0.088. Post hoc analysis indicated that
the non-autistic group (M = 3.387, SD = 0.612, SEM = 0.123) rated posed laughter as less emotionally arousing
than the autistic group, with a borderline significant effect (M = 3.801, SD = 0.860, SEM = 0.172), t(48) = -1.965,
p = 0.055. However, there was no significant difference in ratings of genuine laughter between non-autistic
(M = 5.676, SD = 0.596, SEM = 0.119) and autistic (M = 5.625, SD = 0.596, SEM = 0.119) participants, t(48) = 0.303,
p = 0.763. See Fig. 1.
Although two of these interactions were significant and two were borderline, we found that the four different
types of rating were correlated to each other within genuine laughter and within posed laughter across the whole
sample. Spearman’s rank correlations authenticity, contagion, valence and arousal ratings of genuine laughter
showed significant positive correlations (all r(48) > 0.40, p < 0.005). On the ratings of posed laughter, significant
positive correlations were again found between the four rating scales (all r(48) > 0.48, p < 0.001). All pFDR < 0.05.
This indicates that the participants were performing similarly across all the different rating scales, perhaps due
to these different rating scales tapping into shared properties of laughter.

Self‑reported laughter experience—LPPQ

Similar group differences on the four components of LPPQ were found in both the in-lab and online datasets.
For the in-lab dataset, independent sample t-tests indicated that there was a significant difference between
the autism (n = 28) and NA (n = 30) group on Frequency, t(56) = 2.761, p < 0.01, Understanding, t(56) = 5.888,
p < 0.001, and Liking, t(56) = 3.989, p < 0.001, but not on Usage, t(56) = − 0.072, p = 0.943. Since we found group
difference in levels of depression, additional ANCOVA analyses was conducted, controlling for BDI score. As
before, significant group differences were found on Frequency, F(1, 55) = 8.427, p = 0.005, Understanding, F(1,

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 3

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Explicit ratings of posed and genuine laughter across authenticity, contagion, valence and arousal
between autistic and non-autistic adults. Each light colour line represents an individual’s average ratings for
posed and genuine laughter; Each dark colour line represents average ratings of laughter across a group; NA
Non-autistic; Error bars: ± 1 SE; Main effects: ***p < .001; Interaction effects: **p < .01, +p = .055.

86) = 32.640, p < 0.001, and Liking, F(1, 86) = 30.373, p < 0.001, but there was no significant difference on Usage,
F(1, 86) = 0.389, p = 0.535. See Fig. 2.
In the subsequent analysis on online datasets, we found similar patterns. Independent samples t-tests
indicated that there was a significant difference between the autism (n = 35) and NA (n = 31) groups for Frequency,
t(85) = 3.971, p < 0.001, Understanding, t(58.831) = 5.688, p < 0.001, and Liking, t(54.942) = 6.328, p < 0.001.
However, no significant difference between the groups was found for Usage, t(85) = 1.258, p = 0.212. Since we
found group difference in baseline mood, additional ANCOVA analyses were conducted controlling for mood.
As before, a significant difference was found for Frequency, F(1, 63) = 7.346, p = 0.009, Understanding, F(1,
63) = 23.984, p < 0.001, and Liking, F(1, 63) = 35.358, p < 0.001, but not for Usage, F(1, 63) = 0.814, p = 0.370. See
Fig. 3.

Correlation between laughter differentiation and laughter experience

There was an overlap in participants between the in-lab behavioural ratings and in-lab questionnaire datasets
(NT n = 11; Autism n = 11; see Table S5). We therefore conducted a further exploratory analysis to investigate
whether participants’ ability to discriminate genuine and posed laughter (individual’s average ratings of genuine

Figure 2.  Average ratings for agreement on four components between the Non-autistic group and Autistic
group from the in-lab dataset. NA Non-autistic, Dot with short line inside the boxplot = mean ± 1SE;
Significance code: p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 4

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  Average ratings for agreement on four components between the Non-autistic group and Autistic
group from the online dataset. NA = Non-autistic, Dot with short line inside the boxplot = mean ± 1SE,
Significance code: p < .001 = ***.

laughter minus posed laughter on each of the 4 rating scales) could correlate with their self-reported perception
and production of laughter in everyday life on each of the 4 LPPQ components. Spearman’s rank correlations
were conducted across all the participants; a positive correlation was found between the ability to discriminate the
authenticity of laughter and the frequency of laughter production in daily life, r(20) = 0.59, p < 0.001 (pFDR = 0.058).
See Fig. 4. All other correlations between the other rating scales and the other questionnaire components were
not significant.

Discussion
The aim of the present study was to explore the perceptual differences between genuine and posed laughter in
autistic and non-autistic adults. Concurrently, we sought to investigate differences in self-reported laughter
experiences. The explicit ratings of the affective properties of laughter revealed that autistic adults can distinguish
between genuine and posed laughter, albeit to a lesser extent compared to non-autistic adults. However, autistic
adults tended to perceive posed laughter as more authentic and more emotionally arousing than non-autistic
adults. Regarding self-reported laughter experiences, both the in-lab dataset and supplementary online dataset
consistently showed differences between groups. Non-autistic adults reported laughing more frequently
(Frequency), having a greater enjoyment for laughter (Liking), and understanding others’ laughter better
(understanding). However, both autistic and non-autistic adults reported using laughter for its positive social
effects (Usage) to the same extent. Moreover, those individuals who were weaker at differentiating genuine

Figure 4.  Correlation between self-reported laugh frequency and the ability in discriminating the authenticity
of laughter. Authenticity Discrimination = individual’s average ratings of genuine laughter minus posed laughter
on authenticity scale. NA Non-autistic.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 5

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

and posed laughter also reported using laughter less frequently in daily life. Overall, we found differences
in laughter perception and personal experience between autistic and non-autistic adults, which maybe
functionally connected.
Both autistic and non-autistic adults rated genuine laughter as significantly more authentic, contagious,
positive and emotionally arousing than posed laughter. These findings support previous evidence that non-
autistic adults perceive genuine laughter as more authentic than posed laughter, and that the authenticity of
laughter affects its perceptual affective ­properties11,13; these same perceptual patterns have been found across
the ­lifespan14. In the current study, we extend this knowledge to the autistic population, revealing that autistic
adults, like their non-autistic peers, experience perceptual and affective differences between genuine and posed
laughter. This is notable as a relative social strength in autism.
Despite this social ability, we found a subtle decrease in the degree to which autistic adults differentiated
between these different types of laughter. Interestingly, autistic adults rated posed laughter as significantly more
authentic and emotionally arousing than non-autistic adults, meaning posed laughter was perceived as being
more like genuine laughter. These findings support our hypothesis that autistic adults exhibit some degree of
perceptual difference in determining the authenticity of laughter. This could be due to autistic people having
a different laughter production pattern: autistic children primarily produced ‘voiced’ laughter which is linked
to their positive affect and high emotionally ­arousal5,26,30. This preference for expressing laughter primarily
in response to positive internal states may impact the perceptual patterns of autistic people, causing them to
perceive genuine and posed laughter with a more similar level of emotional arousal that reflects their internal
experience of positive affect.
Our findings are in line with previous literature. Autistic adults with high IQs demonstrate difficulty
with differentiating the authenticity of positive facial expressions, such as s­ miles38. Importantly, the ability to
distinguish a genuine from a posed smile is associated with the ability to understand and attribute another’s
mental state, as a posed smile can indicate the pretence of happiness or ­pleasure38. Similarly, neuroimaging studies
consistently find the involvement of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which is involved in the mentalizing
­network39, during the perception of laughter in non-autistic ­people13,18,40. Further, mPFC activity has been
found specifically in response to posed vs genuine l­aughter13. It is therefore possible that the subtle perceptual
difference we found is a result of autistic people’s difficulties in attributing mental states to others when hearing
posed laughter. However, it should be noted that autistic adults were still able to explicitly differentiate between
genuine and posed laughter. This may be possible due to the inherent acoustic differences between genuine and
posed ­laughter11,41, without a full understanding of the meaning of these differences. This is further supported by
our supplementary finding that only the spectral centre of gravity significantly predicts the authenticity ratings
in both autistic and non-autistic adults across all acoustic features.
This is the first study to explore autistic adults’ personal experience of laughter in everyday life. Our findings
of reduced frequency, enjoyment and social understanding of laughter align with the existing observations of
autistic ­children25–27,29. Previous studies have found autistic children predominantly produce “voiced” laughter
to express their genuine positive ­emotions26,30, and rarely laugh in response to social events or use laughter as a
social signal during social play relative to their ­peers25–27. Since laughter primarily serves as a communicative tool
in conversations, it is likely that autistic adults produce a typical amount of genuine laughter, but tend to laugh
less when using it as a social cue or in response to social situations, leading to their report of a lower frequency
of laughter production compared to non-autistic adults. This interpretation is supported by our finding that
those individuals who reported laughing least in everyday life were the same individuals who differentiated
least between genuine and posed laughter. Previous studies also show that autistic children rated Tom and Jerry
cartoons as less enjoyable when a laugh track was added, and they laughed less when watching the cartoon with
a laughter track compared to their typically developing p ­ eers27. This is in line with our autistic adults’ report of
less enjoyment of laughter, and may also be explained by our finding of lower understanding of laughter. Since
autistic adults experience difficulty in interpreting the meaning and intention behind other’s laughter, particularly
in socially ambiguous situations, this may make other people’s laughter less enjoyable.
Surprisingly, we found no difference in the use of laughter for its positive social effects between non-autistic
and autistic adults. Since our participants were high IQ autistic adults, they may not be representative of the entire
autistic population and certainly differ from the autistic children tested in previous studies, who used laughter
less as a social signal. Indeed, it has been suggested that many autistic adults may engage in social camouflaging,
adapting and conforming to social environments predominantly shaped by non-autistic ­people42,43 This social
camouflaging can be beneficial in establishing relationships with non-autistic p ­ eople42. Therefore, autistic people
may engage in, but perhaps experience delays in, developing strategies and behaviours related to laughter norms
established by non-autistic people, such as intentionally using laughter for social purposes in daily interactions.
Although we found some differences in self-reported laughter experiences between groups, it is important to
note that people may not be fully aware of their use of posed laughter. This lack of awareness could introduce
biases in the self-reported data of the current findings. Additionally, the self-reported questionnaire might have
been influenced not only by individual differences in self-awareness but also by reputation management. Autistic
adults may have limited insights into their own laughter behaviour in everyday life. For instance, they might
believe they are proficient in using and understanding laughter in social situations, while their actual behaviour
suggests otherwise. Conversely, some autistic adults might be aware of their challenges and aim to overcome
them, which could influence their self-reports based on these aspirations.
Further research is necessary to address the limitations of the present study. Given that we use auditory
stimuli and participants are required to rate based on the subtle differences between genuine and posed laughter
within 3-s windows for each stimulus, the task performance is highly sensitive to a quiet testing environment.
Consequently, we refrained from replicating the explicit ratings in online tests. First, a future study should use a
single, large sample, assessing the same set of participants for both explicit ratings of laughter and self-reported

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 6

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

laughter experience. This design, coupled with subsequent analysis, would provide more robust conclusions
based on our current findings. It would also offer a more comprehensive profile of the relationship between
perception and experience of laughter, and to undercover which aspects of the everyday life difficulties are
most closely associated with the inability to differentiate laughter. Second, our rating scales may have lacked
sensitivity, making them less ideal for measuring laughter-contagion effects and valence, the two aspects of
laughter that didn’t significantly differ between the groups. Future studies could therefore employ alternative
methods, such as electromyography, to measure contagion effects more accurately. Additionally, assessing
participants’ meta-cognitive abilities regarding their ratings (i.e., asking participants to rate their confidence
in distinguishing between genuine and posed laughter) would provide more valuable insights in addition to
the current experiment. Third, autistic people are known to have higher rates of co-occurring mental health or
psychiatric ­conditions44, such as anxiety and depression, which may affect their everyday laughter experience. In
the current study, we only measured participants’ depression level and/or current mood. However, it is important
to take into account the potential influence of mental health factors and control for these in future studies
to understand the contribution of these conditions and ensure a stronger interpretation of the differences in
everyday laughter experience between autistic and non-autistic adults.
Overall, we found subtle differences between autistic and non-autistic adults in laughter perception and
personal experience. Autistic adults can discriminate genuine and posed laughter but judge posed laughter to
be more like genuine laughter than non-autistic adults. This lines up with the personal experience of autistic
adults, who report struggling to understand the social meaning of others’ laughter. In addition, this perceptual
pattern may result in using and enjoying laughter less in everyday life and may indicate that autistic adults use
different strategies to understand laughter.

Method
Explicit rating of laughter
Participants
In total, 26 autistic adults (five females) and 27 non-autistic (NA) adults (7 females) took part in this study. All
participants in the autistic group had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (n = 5) or Asperger syndrome
(n = 21) from a qualified clinician, with 12% reporting an additional diagnosis of another developmental disorder:
dyslexia (n = 1), ADHD (n = 1) and dyspraxia (n = 1). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS;
Ref.45) was administered to verify diagnoses. In total, 10 participants met the criteria for autism and 11 more for
autism spectrum on the ADOS. The remaining five scored below the threshold. However, they were retained in
the sample because all reported significant social difficulties in everyday life. Specifically, three of them had an AQ
score above the recommended cut-off of ­3246, one scored 24, and another did not complete the AQ. Additionally,
all displayed symptoms consistent with autism on the ADOS, albeit subthreshold.
However, three participants (1 from the Autistic group, 2 from the NA group) were excluded from further
analysis as they were considered outliers on the explicit rating task (see Supplementary Information for details).
The resulting groups were comparable on gender (χ2(1) = 0.439, p = 0.508), age (t(48) = 0.525, p = 0.602) and verbal
(t(48) = 1.196, p = 0.237) and performance (t(48) = 1.487, p = 0.143) IQ, as measured by either the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III UK; Ref.47) or Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II; Ref.48), and also
differed on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ; Ref.46) (t(48) = 9.819, p < 0.001). See Table 1.

Laughter stimuli
The laughter stimuli (40 in total) consisted of 20 genuine and 20 posed laughs. The duration of each stimulus
was edited and cut into complete laughter sound clips from 2 to 2.99 s (average duration = 2.51 s; SD = 0.36;
range = 1.7 to 3.14 s). The laughter stimuli were selected from the emotional vocalisation dataset (100 in total)
used in a previous study. ­See14,31.
Briefly stated, the genuine and posed laughter were recorded using the method previously validated in
behavioural and neuroimaging e­ xperiments11,13,18,31,49. The laughter was generated by six adults who were not
professional actors (aged between 23 to 46 years; three females) and recorded using professional equipment in a
sound-proof, anechoic chamber at University College London. To elicit genuine laughter, each speaker viewed
videos on a computer screen whilst wearing headphones, which had been identified beforehand as amusing to

Autism NA
N (male:female) 25 (20:5) 25 (18:7)
Age (years) 34.680 (7.793) 33.280 (10.826)
Verbal IQ 115.480 (10.162) 118.960 (10.406)
Performance IQ 110.200 (14.620) 116.000 (12.900)
AQa 33.792(8.325) 13.880 (5.674)
ADOS total 8.720 (3.434) N/A
Communication 3.320 (2.393) N/A
Social 5.800 (2.415) N/A

Table 1.  Demographic details of the participants in explicit rating task. Values are given as mean (standard
deviation). NA non-autistic, AQ autism-spectrum quotient. a One autistic participant did not complete the AQ
questionnaire.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 7

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

that participant. The emotional experience was described positively by speakers during and after the recording
session of genuine laughter. To produce posed laughter, speakers were asked to generate laughter “on demand”
under their volitional control without any external stimulation. They were also encouraged to make it sound
natural and positive. Importantly, speakers were always asked to produce posed before genuine laughter to avoid
the positive emotional states associated with genuine laughter from affecting the production of posed laughter.
The raw audio files were down sampled at 44100 Hz to mono.wav files with 32-bit resolution. Individual files
were prepared for each vocalisation from each speaker by visually identifying the onset and offset of each event
in their oscillograms. All files were then normalised for root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude using PRAAT​50.
From the original 100 laughter stimuli, a pilot perceptual validation experiment was conducted to select the best
examples from the genuine and posed laughter stimuli set. Thirty native British speakers rated each stimulus
on four parameters (authenticity, emotion, frequency, and control) using a 7-point rating scale. Based on the
authenticity ratings, 20 genuine laughter stimuli with the highest authenticity scores and 20 posed laughter
stimuli with the lowest scores were chosen for the current experiment. For a comprehensive overview, refer t­ o14.
A range of acoustic parameters was extracted on the 40 laughter stimuli by using PRAAT​50. Independent
t-tests indicated that genuine and posed laughter were significantly different in pitch (genuine, M = 404.654 Hz,
SD = 51.446, posed, M = 272.534 Hz, SD = 74.889, t(34) = 6.503, p < 0.001), spectrum centre of gravity (Hz)
(genuine, M = 1293.041 Hz, SD = 450.665, posed, M = 873.716 Hz, SD = 272.458, t(38) = 3.561, p = 0.001), jitter
(local) (genuine, M = 2.746 Hz, SD = 0.943, posed, M = 4.118 Hz, SD = 0.915, t(38) = − 4.672, p < 0.001) and Mean
harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) (genuine, M = 8.110, SD = 2.627, posed, M = 6.121, SD = 2.007, t(38) = 2.690,
p < 0.001). They were matched on duration (genuine, M = 2530 ms, SD = 0.385; posed, M = 2382 ms, SD = 0.362)
and other measures — root-mean-square (RMS), intensity (dB), standard deviation of pitch (Hz), spectral
standard deviation (Hz), fraction of locally unvoiced frames, and shimmer (local, dB).

Experimental design
All participants rated 20 genuine and 20 posed laughter stimuli across four distinct 7-point rating blocks:
Authenticity, Contagion, Valence, and Arousal, resulting in a total of 160 trials. Participants therefore heard
each stimulus four times, once in each block. Within each block, the order of laughter stimuli was randomised
(See Fig. 5).

• Authenticity: ‘How much does the sound reflect a genuinely felt emotion?’ 1—Not genuine, i.e. sounds
controlled, 7—Extremely genuine, i.e. sounds uncontrolled.
• Contagion: ‘How much does hearing the sound make you feel like joining in and/or feeling the emotion?’
1—Not at all, i.e. it does not make me feel like joining in and/or feeling the emotion, 7—Extremely, i.e. it
makes me feel like joining in and/or feeling the emotion.

Figure 5.  Experimental design for explicit ratings of laughter. The sample is illustrated by the authenticity
block. In total, participants rated 40 laughter stimuli across four rating blocks.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 8

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

• Valence: ‘How much does the sound reflect a positive or negative emotion?’ 1—Highly Negative, i.e. the
person has the experience of extreme discomfort, 7- Highly Positive, i.e. the person has the experience of
extreme pleasure.
• Arousal: ‘How much does the sound reflect emotional arousal?’ 1—Calm, i.e. the person who made this
sound is feeling sleepy and with no energy, 7—Aroused, i.e. the person who made this sound is feeling alert
and energetic.

The Authenticity block was consistently presented first, with the subsequent three blocks counterbalanced
among participants. This sequence was designed to prompt participants to rate laughter authenticity based on
their initial instinct, rather than a prolonged evaluation, since they were not informed about the two types of
laughter. Participants were required to press the spacebar to proceed to the next rating block, allowing for a
break between blocks (See Fig. 5). The entire task was delivered on a laptop using MATLAB software (version
­R2014a51), with ­Psychtoolbox52 and took a maximum of 16 min.

Testing procedure
One experimenter administered the task in a testing room. At the beginning of the session, all participants
were given a brief explanation of the study. The experimenter remained in the testing room throughout the test
session. All participants were instructed to rate laughter stimuli across four scales; however, they were not told
that there were two types of laughter. Additionally, participants were asked to sit directly in front of the laptop
and wear headphones (Sennheiser headphones HD 221). Participants were instructed that, once the laughter
stimuli were played through the headphones, they should respond to each rating as soon as possible. After each
laughter stimulus offset, they had a three-second window to response using the keyboard. Before testing began,
participants confirmed their understanding of the experiment and had the opportunity to ask questions. The
experiment started with the display of task instruction, followed by a practice session in which two laughter
stimuli (one genuine and one posed laughter stimulus) were rated across all four rating blocks, leading into the
main task. After the experiment, participants were asked if they had additional questions and were compensated
for their participation. Participants were also encouraged to contact the researchers if they had any further
questions.

Self‑reported laughter experience

In‑lab participants
In total, 28 autistic adults and 67 non-autistic (NA) adults, who were native English speakers, were recruited
from local participant databases. All autistic participants had received a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder
(n = 12) or Asperger syndrome (n = 16) from a qualified clinician. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule
(ADOS-2, module 4; Ref.45) was used to verify the diagnosis of 26 autistic participants. Of these, eighteen of them
either met the ADOS criteria for autism (n = 13) or autism spectrum (n = 5). The remaining eight scored below
the threshold but were retained within the group: five of them reported an AQ score above the 32-cut-off point
and one scored 3­ 146; additionally, they all reported significant social difficulties in everyday life.
NA participants were over-recruited on purpose to provide a match group as close as possible to the autistic
group. The full NA group was younger, and females were relatively overrepresented. We therefore systematically
excluded all females aged below 31 (n = 26) and all males aged below 25 (n = 11). The groups were comparable
on sex (χ2(1) = 0.646, p = 0.421), age (t(56) = 0.722, p = 0.473), verbal (t(56) = 0.803, p = 0.426) and full-scale
(t(56) = 0.631, p = 0.531) IQ, as measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III/IV; Ref.47,53). As
expected, the groups differed in their self-report of autistic traits (t(56) = 6.876, p < 0.001), measured by the
Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ; Ref.46), and differed in their self-reported depression level (t(56) = 2.996,
p = 0.004 < 0.01), measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Ref.54). Before filling in the laughter
questionnaire, participants were asked to complete the 10-item Positive Affect Schedule (PAS-10; Ref.55), which
served as a baseline measure of emotion and mood (scores from 1–5, higher scores represent higher level of
positive affect at the moment). They were instructed to ‘indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that
is, at the present moment’. There was no significant difference in the baseline mood between the NA group and
the autistic group (t(56) = -1.202, p = 0.235). Full details of the two groups are given in Table 2.

Online participants
Under COVID-19 testing restrictions, we further recruited 52 NA adults (37 females; average age = 24.072,
SD = 4.423) and 37 autistic adults via Prolific (www.​proli​fic.​co) to replicate the in-lab findings. NA adults were
over-recruited to provide a match group as close as possible to the autistic group. As they were generally younger
and of lower verbal ability, all participants aged below 28 and with a verbal task score below 60 were excluded
(n = 21). Two autistic participants were excluded from the autistic group because they self-identified as autistic
without receiving any clinical diagnosis and their AQ-1056 score was below the cut-off point of 6.
The groups were comparable on sex (χ2(1) = 0.649, p = 0.421), age (t(62.312) = 1.017, p = 0.313), verbal
(t(64) = 0.809, p = 0.422) and non-verbal (t(64) = 0.047, p = 0.963) abilities, as measured by the Spot-the-Word
test (StWt; Ref.57 and the Matrix Reasoning Item Bank (MaRs-IB; Ref.58) respectively. As expected, the autistic
group had higher self-reported autistic traits, measured by the Autism-Spectrum Quotient 10-item (AQ-10;
Ref.56) (t(59.203) = 8.801, p < 0.001). The autistic group had significantly lower baseline mood than the NA group
(t(64) = 2.756, p = 0.008 < 0.01). Full details of the two groups are given in Table 3.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 9

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Autism NA
N (male: female) 28 (23:5) 30 (22:8)
Age (years) 34.143 (6.364) 33.000 (5.693)
Verbal IQ 115.214 (15.847) 118.233 (12.724)
Full Scale IQ 113.929 (16.615) 116.533 (14.827)
AQ 32.357 (10.228) 16.067 (7.719)
BDI 13.500 (7.876) 7.667 (6.945)
PAS-10 2.982 (0.727) 3.200 (0.653)
ADOS total a 8.962 (4.142) N/A
Communication 2.692 (1.715) N/A
Social 6.269 (3.027) N/A

Table 2.  Demographic details of the participants in in-lab questionnnaire task. Values are given as mean
(standard deviation). NA Non-autistic, AQ autism-spectrum quotient, BDI The beck depression inventory,
PAS-10 10-item Positive Affect Schedule. a Two autistic participants did not complete the ADOS.

Autism NA
N (male: female) 35 (11:24) 31 (7:24)
Age (years) 27.269 (6.106) 25.929 (4.562)
Verbal ability 76.714 (12.075) 74.548 (9.287)
Non-verbal ability 62.257 (21.056) 62.484 (18.156)
AQ-10a 7.286 (2.346) 3.032 (1.538)
PAS-10 2.809 (0.791) 3.374 (0.876)

Table 3.  Demographic details of the participants in online questionnnaire task. Values are given as mean
(standard deviation). NA Non-autistic, AQ autism-spectrum quotient, PAS-10 10-item Positive affect schedule.
a
Two autistic participants did not complete the AQ-10.

Laughter questionnaire
The 30-item Laughter Perception and Production Questionnaire (LPPQ) was a self-report questionnaire designed
to explore people’s experiences of laughter in daily life. In terms of laughter production, ‘Frequency’ (Seven
items) measures how often people produce laughter in daily life, and ‘Usage’ (Five items) measures people’s
positive usage of laughter, particularly in using laughter as a social signal to mediate social context. In terms of
laughter perception, ‘Understanding’ (Nine items) measures people’s understanding of the social meaning of
other’s laughter; and ‘Liking’ (8 items) measures people’s general feelings towards laughter and their emotional
valence of processing other’s l­ aughter37.

Testing procedure
The LPPQ was presented within a longer testing battery for both in-lab and online participants, presented as
printed questionnaires for in-lab testing, whilst the items were presented in random order on Gorilla Experiment
­Builder59 for online testing. In both settings, participants were asked to state the extent of their agreement with
each item on a Likert-type scale with the following options: (1) (’strongly disagree’), (2) (‘moderately disagree’),
(3) (‘slightly disagree’), (4) (‘neutral’), (5) (‘slightly agree’), (6) (‘moderately agree’), and (7) (‘strongly agree’).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for all projects was granted by the University College London Research Ethics Committee. All
procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards
of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards. Informed written consent was obtained from participants prior to participation, and they were
debriefed following completion.

Data availability
The anonymised data from the present study are available via the link: https://​osf.​io/​8ft4x/?​view_​only=​c6327​
56d51​0b472​69fa3​d12cb​c5a1d​a9.

Received: 15 June 2023; Accepted: 11 March 2024

References
1. Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P. & Scott, S. K. Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional
vocalizations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 2408–2412 (2010).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 10

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

2. Ruch, W. & Ekman, P. The expressive pattern of laughter. In Emotions Qualia and Consciousness (ed. Kaszniak, A.) (World Scientific,
2001).
3. Provine, R. R. Laughing, tickling, and the evolution of speech and self. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13, 215–218 (2004).
4. Provine, R. R. Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 30, 1–4 (1992).
5. Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J. & Owren, M. J. The acoustic features of human laughter. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1581–1597
(2001).
6. Scott, S. K., Cai, C. Q. & Billing, A. Robert Provine: The critical human importance of laughter, connections and contagion. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B 377, 20210178 (2022).
7. Todt, D. & Vettin, J. Human laughter, social play, and play vocalizations of non-human primates: An evolutionary approach.
Behaviour 142, 217–240 (2005).
8. Vettin, J. & Todt, D. Laughter in conversation: Features of occurrence and acoustic structure. J. Nonverbal. Behav. 28, 93–115
(2004).
9. Gervais, M. & Wilson, D. S. The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach. Q. Rev. Biol. 80, 395–430
(2005).
10. Provine, R. R. Laughter punctuates speech: linguistic, social and gender contexts of laughter. Ethology 95, 291–298 (1993).
11. Lavan, N., Scott, S. K. & McGettigan, C. Laugh like you mean it: authenticity modulates acoustic, physiological and perceptual
properties of laughter. J. Nonverbal Behav. 40, 133–149 (2016).
12. Scott, S. K., Lavan, N., Chen, S. & McGettigan, C. The social life of laughter. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 618–620 (2014).
13. McGettigan, C. et al. Individual differences in laughter perception reveal roles for mentalizing and sensorimotor systems in the
evaluation of emotional authenticity. Cereb. Cortex N. Y. 25, 246–257 (2015).
14. Chen, S. H.-Y. An investigation of Laughter and Crying: from behavioural, physiological and neuroimaging studies. Doctoral thesis
Ph.D, UCL University College London (2018).
15. Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., Grodd, W. & Ruch, W. Neural correlates of laughter and humour. Brain 126, 2121–2138 (2003).
16. Bryant, G. A. & Aktipis, C. A. The animal nature of spontaneous human laughter. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 327–335 (2014).
17. Gerbella, M., Pinardi, C., Cesare, G. D., Rizzolatti, G. & Caruana, F. Two neural networks for laughter: A tractography study. Cereb.
Cortex 31, 899–916 (2020).
18. Lavan, N., Rankin, G., Lorking, N., Scott, S. & McGettigan, C. Neural correlates of the affective properties of spontaneous and
volitional laughter types. Neuropsychologia 95, 30–39 (2017).
19. Neves, L., Cordeiro, C., Scott, S. K., Castro, S. L. & Lima, C. F. High emotional contagion and empathy are associated with enhanced
detection of emotional authenticity in laughter. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 2355–2363 (2017).
20. Dunbar, R. & Mehu, M. Naturalistic observations of smiling and laughter in human group interactions. Behaviour 145, 1747–1780
(2008).
21. Dunbar, R. et al. Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proc. R. Soc. B. 279, 1161–1167 (2012).
22. Manninen, S. et al. Social laughter triggers endogenous opioid release in humans. J. Neurosci. 37, 6125–6131 (2017).
23. Gray, A. W., Parkinson, B. & Dunbar, R. I. Laughter’s influence on the intimacy of self-disclosure. Hum. Nat. 26, 28–43 (2015).
24. Frith, U. Mind blindness and the brain in autism. Neuron 32, 969–979 (2001).
25. Reddy, V., Williams, E. & Vaughan, A. Sharing humour and laughter in autism and Down’s syndrome. Br. J. Psychol. 93, 219–242
(2002).
26. Hudenko, W. J., Stone, W. & Bachorowski, J.-A. Laughter differs in children with autism: An acoustic analysis of laughs produced
by children with and without the disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 39, 1392–1400 (2009).
27. Helt, M. S. & Fein, D. A. Facial feedback and social input: effects on laughter and enjoyment in children with autism spectrum
disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46, 83–94 (2016).
28. Bauminger, N. et al. Children with autism and their friends: A multidimensional study of friendship in high-functioning autism
spectrum disorder. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 36, 135–150 (2008).
29. Auburn, T., & Pollock, C. Laughter and competence: Children with severe autism using laughter to joke and tease. in Studies of
laughter in interaction (eds. Glenn, P., & Holt, E.) 135–160. (Bloomsbury, 2013).
30. Hudenko, W. J. & Magenheimer, M. A. Listeners prefer the laughs of children with autism to those of typically developing children.
Autism 16, 641–655 (2012).
31. Cai, Q., Chen, S., White, S. J. & Scott, S. K. Modulation of humor ratings of bad jokes by other people’s laughter. Curr. Biol. 29,
R677–R678 (2019).
32. Pellicano, L. et al. A new era for autism research, and for our journal. Autism 22, 82–83 (2018).
33. Pellicano, E. et al. A capabilities approach to understanding and supporting autistic adulthood. Nat. Rev. Psychol. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s44159-​022-​00099-z (2022).
34. Martin, R. A. & Lefcourt, H. M. Situational humor response questionnaire: Quantitative measure of sense of humor. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 47, 145–155 (1984).
35. Martin, R. A. & Lefcourt, H. M. Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
45, 1313–1324 (1983).
36. Ruch, W. & Proyer, R. T. Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Humor—Int. J. Humor Res. 22,
183–212 (2009).
37. Cai, C. Q. et al. Development of a novel tool to investigate human laughter behaviour and experience. Neurosci. Lett. 825, 137690
(2024).
38. Boraston, Z. L., Corden, B., Miles, L. K., Skuse, D. H. & Blakemore, S.-J. Brief report: Perception of genuine and posed smiles by
individuals with autism. J. Autism. Dev. Disord. 38, 574–580 (2008).
39. Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50, 531–534 (2006).
40. Szameitat, D. P. et al. It is not always tickling: Distinct cerebral responses during perception of different laughter types. Neuroimage
53, 1264–1271 (2010).
41. Szameitat, D. P., Darwin, C. J., Wildgruber, D., Alter, K. & Szameitat, A. J. Acoustic correlates of emotional dimensions in laughter:
Arousal, dominance, and valence. Cognit. Emotion 25, 599–611 (2011).
42. Mandy, W. Social camouflaging in autism: Is it time to lose the mask?. Autism 23, 1879–1881 (2019).
43. Cook, J., Hull, L., Crane, L. & Mandy, W. Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 89, 102080 (2021).
44. Lai, M.-C. et al. Prevalence of co-occurring mental health diagnoses in the autism population: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 6, 819–829 (2019).
45. Hus, V. & Lord, C. The autism diagnostic observation schedule, module 4: Revised algorithm and standardized severity scores. J.
Autism. Dev. Disord. 44, 1996–2012 (2014).
46. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J. & Clubley, E. The Autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from
Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, Malesand females, Scientists and Mathematicians. J. Autism. Dev. Disord. 31, 5–17
(2001).
47. Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS-III). (1997).
48. Wechsler, D. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence—Second Edition (WASI-II). (2011).
49. O’Nions, E. et al. Reduced laughter contagion in boys at risk for psychopathy. Curr. Biol. 27, 3049-3055.e4 (2017).
50. Boersma, P., & Van Heuven, V. Speak and unSpeak with PRAAT. Glot International 5(9/10), 341–347 (2001).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 11

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

51. Inc, T. M. MATLAB. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, (United States, 2018).
52. Brainard, D. H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).
53. Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). (2008).
54. Beck, AT, Ward, CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbauch J. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). (1961).
55. Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 6, 1063–1070 (1988).
56. Allison, C., Auyeung, B. & Baron-Cohen, S. Toward brief “red flags” for autism screening: The short autism spectrum quotient and
the short quantitative checklist in 1,000 cases and 3,000 controls. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 51, 202-212.e7 (2012).
57. Baddeley, A., Emslie, H. & Nimmo-Smith, I. The Spot-the-Word test: A robust estimate of verbal intelligence based on lexical
decision. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 32, 55–65 (1993).
58. Chierchia, G. et al. The matrix reasoning item bank (MaRs-IB): Novel, open-access abstract reasoning items for adolescents and
adults. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190232 (2019).
59. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N. & Evershed, J. K. Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment
builder. Behav. Res. Methods 52, 388–407 (2020).

Author contributions
C.Q.C., S.J.W. and S.K.S. designed the study. S.H.Y.C. created the laughter stimuli. M.A.E.M created the LPPQ.
C.Q.C. ran the experimental study and performed the statistical analyses with supervision by S.J.W. and S.K.S.
C.Q.C., S.J.W. and S.K.S wrote the paper.

Funding
No funding.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41598-​024-​56903-8.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.K.S.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:11590 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56903-8 12

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]