CSUGC Encouraging Morale Effective Leaders Discussion

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
A meta-analysis of positive humor
in the workplace
Positive humor
in the workplace
Jessica Mesmer-Magnus and David J. Glew
Department of Management, University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Wilmington, North Carolina, USA, and
155
Chockalingam Viswesvaran
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose ? The benefits of humor for general well-being have long been touted. Past empirical
research has suggested that some of these benefits also exist in the work domain. However, there is
little shared understanding as to the role of humor in the workplace. The purpose of this paper is to
address two main gaps in the humor literature. First, the authors summarize several challenges
researchers face in defining and operationalizing humor, and offer an integrative conceptualization
which may be used to consolidate and interpret seemingly disparate research streams. Second,
meta-analysis is used to explore the possibility that positive humor is associated with: employee health
(e.g. burnout, health) and work-related outcomes (e.g. performance, job satisfaction, withdrawal); with
perceived supervisor/leader effectiveness (e.g. perceived leader performance, follower approval); and
may mitigate the deleterious effects of workplace stress on employee burnout.
Design/methodology/approach ? The authors examine the results of prior research using
meta-analysis (k ? 49, n ? 8,532) in order to explore humor?s potential role in organizational and
employee effectiveness.
Findings ? Results suggest employee humor is associated with enhanced work performance,
satisfaction, workgroup cohesion, health, and coping effectiveness, as well as decreased burnout,
stress, and work withdrawal. Supervisor use of humor is associated with enhanced subordinate work
performance, satisfaction, perception of supervisor performance, satisfaction with supervisor, and
workgroup cohesion, as well as reduced work withdrawal.
Research limitations/implications ? Profitable avenues for future research include: clarifying the
humor construct and determining how current humor scales tap this construct; exploring the role of
negative forms of humor, as they likely have different workplace effects; the role of humor by
coworkers; a number of potential moderators of the humor relationships, including type of humor, job
level and industry type; and personality correlates of humor use and appreciation.
Practical implications ? The authors recommend caution be exercised when attempting to
cultivate humor in the workplace, as this may raise legal concerns (e.g. derogatory or sexist humor),
but efforts aimed at encouraging self-directed/coping humor may have the potential to innocuously
buffer negative effects of workplace stress.
Originality/value ? Although psychologists have long recognized the value of humor for general
well-being, organizational scholars have devoted comparatively little research to exploring benefits of
workplace humor. Results underscore benefits of humor for work outcomes, encourage future
research, and offer managerial insights on the value of creating a workplace context supportive of
positive forms of humor.
Keywords Humour, Job satisfaction, Morale, Employees behaviour, Supervisor effectiveness,
Subordinate performance, Workgroup cohesion, Burnout
Paper type Research paper
The authors would like to thank Sasha Horowitz for her assistance collecting articles for this
meta-analysis.
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 2, 2012
pp. 155-190
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211199554
JMP
27,2
156
Any man who has had the job I?ve had and didn?t have a sense of humor wouldn?t still be here
(Harry S. Truman).
Having a sense of humor has long been thought to decrease depression, anxiety and
stress, as well as enhance one?s mood, immunity to illness, and life/family satisfaction
(e.g. Celso et al., 2003; Martin, 1996; Lefcourt, 2001; Martin, 2001; Martin and Dobbins,
1988; McGhee, 1999). In the 1980s researchers began to explore the possibility that
sense of humor may also contribute to workplace effectiveness (e.g. Bizi et al., 1988;
Burford, 1985, 1987; Decker, 1987; Duncan, 1982, 1984, 1985; Malone, 1980; Nezu et al.,
1988; Parsons, 1988; Remington, 1985). Indeed, empirical research has reported positive
associations between sense of humor and creativity, socialization, employee bonding,
rapport and morale (Clouse and Spurgeon, 1995; Duncan et al., 1990; Holmes and
Marra, 2002; O?Quin and Derks, 1997; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Positive workplace
humor has been found to alleviate boredom and frustration (e.g. Duncan, 1982; Malone,
1980; Pryor et al., 2010; Roy, 1960; Sykes, 1966), promote effective communication
(e.g. Lippitt, 1982; Sherman, 1988), and reduce social distances between people yielding
improved peer relations (e.g. Kane et al., 1977; Masten, 1986; Sherman, 1988). Research
also suggests positive humor may have the potential to buffer the deleterious effects of
workplace stress through its use as a coping mechanism (helping promote relaxation,
tension reduction, and dealing with disappointments; Lippitt, 1982), and its ability to
lubricate social interactions in stressful circumstances (Martin et al., 2003).
In the present study, we address two main gaps in the humor literature. First, we
summarize several challenges researchers face in defining and operationalizing humor,
and offer an integrative conceptualization which may be used to consolidate and
interpret seemingly disparate research streams. Second, we use meta-analysis to
explore the possibility that positive humor:
.
is associated with employee health (e.g. burnout, health) and work-related
outcomes (e.g. performance, job satisfaction, withdrawal);
.
is associated with perceived supervisor/leader effectiveness (e.g. perceived leader
performance, follower approval); and
.
may mitigate the deleterious effects of workplace stress on employee burnout.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the relationships examined in this meta-analysis.
Humor: a theoretical overview
Researchers have spent centuries trying to isolate a definition for ?humor? and to
describe what it means to say someone has a ?sense of humor?. However, these efforts
have been fraught with complications given the complexity of the humor construct
(Allport, 1961; Foot, 1991; Freud, 1928; Kuiper and Martin, 1998; Martin, 2001; Martin
et al., 2003; Maslow, 1954; Robert and Yan, 2007; Vaillant, 1977; Warnars-Kleverlaan
et al., 1996). A review of the extant theoretical literature on humor suggests there are at
least four contributing factors that make defining and operationalizing humor difficult:
(1) the terms ?humor? and ?sense of humor? are often used interchangeably;
(2) humor is multi-dimensional and the dimensions are seemingly diverse;
(3) humor is quantified in various ways; and
(4) there are numerous humor styles, some positive and some negative.
Positive humor
in the workplace
157
Figure 1.
Correlates of employee
and leader positive humor
examined in this
meta-analysis
Semantics
One difficulty in operationalizing the humor construct may be semantic; some authors
seem to use ?humor? and ?sense of humor? interchangeably, when in fact they refer to
different aspects of the humor construct. To complicate matters further, there exists an
array of definitions of both humor and sense of humor in the literature. For instance,
Martineau (1972, p. 114) views humor as ?any communicative instance which is
perceived as humorous?. Crawford (1994, p. 57) defines humor as verbal and nonverbal
communication which produces a ?positive cognitive or affective response from
listeners?. More recent definitions include those of Romero and Cruthirds (2006, p. 59),
?amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the
individual, group, or organization?, and Robert and Yan (2007, p. 209), ?an intentional
form of social communication delivered by a ?producer? toward an ?audience??. Clearly,
?humor is fundamentally a communicative activity? (Lynch, 2002, p. 423), but whether
it is a stimulus, a cognitive process, an emotional or behavioral response, or all of these,
remains somewhat of a debate among researchers (e.g. Martin, 2001). Importantly,
researchers studying the benefits of humor in the workplace have tended to focus on a
JMP
27,2
158
concept called successful humor, defined as mutually amusing communications,
wherein communications ?intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing [are also]
perceived to be amusing by? recipients (Holmes and Marra, 2002, p. 1693; cf. Crawford,
1994; Lynch, 2002; Martineau, 1972; Robert and Yan, 2007).
Proffered conceptualizations of ?sense of humor? have ranged from describing sense
of humor as a social skill (e.g. Foot, 1991; Goodman, 1983; Martineau, 1972;
Warnars-Kleverlaan et al., 1996), an emotion-related personality trait (e.g. habitual
cheerfulness; Ruch, 1996, 1998; Ruch and Kohler, 1998), a cognitive ability or process
(e.g. ability to create, understand, or reproduce jokes; Feingold and Mazzella, 1993;
Martin, 2001), an interpersonal communication behavior (e.g. Sherman, 1988), an
aesthetic or behavioral response (e.g. appreciation or enjoyment of humorous material;
Martin, 2001; Ruch and Hehl, 1998), a habitual behavior pattern (e.g. tendency to laugh or
tell jokes to amuse others; Craik et al., 1996; Martin and Lefcourt, 1984), a perspective or
attitude about life (e.g. positive attitude about humor; jovial or bemused outlook on the
world; Berg, 1990; Svebak, 1996), and a coping strategy or defense mechanism
(e.g. tendency to maintain a humorous perspective despite adverse conditions; Lefcourt
and Martin, 1986). The diversity of conceptualizations across studies suggest sense of
humor has unique manifestations, but most humor researchers agree that ?sense of
humor? is a personality trait that enables a person to recognize and use successful humor
as a coping mechanism and/or for social/affiliative communications/interactions (Lynch,
2002; Martin, 1996; Martin et al., 2003; Thorson and Powell, 1993a).
Dimensions of humor
Another challenge in defining humor is capturing its many and diverse dimensions.
Thorson and Powell (1993b) articulated four dimensions of humor in their
Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS): the ability to:
(1) be humorous, have a sense of playfulness, and have a good time;
(2) recognize humor, life?s absurdities, and oneself as a humorous person;
(3) appreciate humor as well as humorous people and situations; and
(4) use humor as a coping and adaptive mechanism, being able to laugh at
problems and/or deal with difficult situations.
Other authors have focused on some but not all of these components in their efforts
to operationalize the humor construct. For example, Svebak (1974) assessed only
three dimensions of humor in his Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ), which
included:
(1) sensitivity to humor, ability to notice humorous stimuli in one?s environment;
(2) attitudes toward humor, perceived value of humor in one?s life; and
(3) expression of humor, the ability to express and suppress humor emotions.
And, Martin and Lefcourt (1983) focused on only the coping dimension of humor in
their Coping Humor Scale (CHS). As is summarized in Table I, there has been a great
deal of variability in how humor researchers have conceptualized the dimensionality of
humor.
80 items which are classified as (1) self-directed
and productive humor, (2) other-directed and
productive humor, (3) reactions to self-directed
humor from others, (4) reactions to other-directed
humor. Samples include ?Friends would describe
me as someone who pokes fun at others?, ?In an
embarrassing situation I joke at myself to get out
of the embarrassment?, ?When I am mad at
someone, and can?t express it directly, I joke at his
expense?, ?I usually read satirical articles in the
newspaper?
Authors define humor as a coping strategy that
permits the ?ventilation of emotion and the change in
the perception of the environment?. Differentiated
between productive and reactive humor as well as
self- versus other-focused humor. Productive humor
refers to telling jokes, making humorous comments,
and describing things in a way that elicits laughter/
smiling. Reactive humor refers to enjoying another
person?s jokes/humorous comments and responding
with a smile/laughter. Self-directed humor refers to
?instances where a person makes themselves the
target of humorous comments, laughs at himself, or
describes himself humoristically in a manner which
portrays him as weak or clumsy?. Other-directed
humor refers to ?poking fun at others, making
sarcastic comments about them or describing them
humoristically? (p. 952)
Bizi et al. (1988)
?Uses humor to take the edge off during stressful
periods?, ?Uses a funny story to turn an argument
in his/her favor?, ?Makes us laugh at ourselves
when we are too serious?, ?Uses amusing stories to
defuse conflicts?, ?Uses wit to make friends of the
opposition? (0 ? not at all; 4 ? frequently, if not
always or on a scale ranging from 1 ? once or
twice since the announcement of the change, to
4 ? a few times per week, to 7 ? many times
daily)
Avolio et al. (1999); Howell and Scale assesses the extent to which an individual (e.g.
Avolio (1988); Dubinsky et al. supervisor/manager) uses positive humor in a social
(1995)
exchange, particularly in context of stressful
situations
Sample scale items
?Easy to joke or kid around with others?, ?Can
laugh at myself?, ?Have a good sense of humor?
(1 ? not true for me; 4 ? really true for me); 4-item
scale
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
Adult Self-Perception Profile ? Authors argue a person?s perception of their own
Humor Subscale (Messer and sense of humor is a component of their self-esteem/
Harter, 1986)
self-concept
Scale
(continued)
1
3
1
Frequency scale used
in database
Positive humor
in the workplace
159
Table I.
Summary of
operationalizations of
humor within the
meta-analytic database
Ellis Humor Instrument (Ellis,
1991)
?Humor is defined as a specific type of
communication that establishes an incongruent
relationship or meaning and is presented in a way
that causes laughter (Berger, 1976). A joke is any type
of communication that has a witty or funny intent
that is known in advance by the teller (Winick, 1976).
Thus, even though there is a technical difference, we
will use the terms ?humor? and ?joking?
interchangeably.? (Duncan, 1984, p. 896)
Scale assesses the extent to which a person perceives Each definition of humor is provided and
another to use each of six types of humor: (1) ethnic respondent uses scale: 0 ? never; 4 ? very often
humor ? humor used to express the alleged
characteristics of racial, ethnic, regional, professional,
or other subcultures, (2) gallows humor ? humor to
depict the object of tragedy such as war, disease,
concentration camp, or oppressed country, (3) hostile
humor ? humor used to serve as a complaint such as
expressions of anger, hostility and frustration, (4)
sexual humor ? humor used to address issues of a
sexual nature, (5) slapstick humor ? humor used as a
gross exaggeration of a simplistic plot such as that of
slipping on a banana peel or hitting someone over the
head, and (6) word play humor ? humor such as
verbal bantering, pleasantries, and jocular talk to
provide a sense of familiarity which does not offend
and is easily facilitated (Ellis, 1991)
Duncan (1984)
?I often lose my sense of humor when I?m having
problems?, ?I have often found that my problems
are greatly reduced when I tried to find something
funny in them?, ?I can usually find something to
laugh or joke about even in trying
situations?(strongly agree to strongly disagree);
seven-item scale
?My supervisor has a good sense of humor?;
?(strongly agree to strongly disagree); one-item
scale
Indicate frequency with which individual tells
jokes and/or is the focus of a joke
Authors argue coping humor is an adaptive/selfprotective response strategy. Scale assesses the
extent to which individuals use humor to cope with
stress (Martin, 1996). In the development of the
OCHS, the CHS items were revised to tailor it to
specifically address the occupational aspect of humor
coping (Minasian, 1990; Rosenberg, 1989)
Does not provide a conceptual definition for sense of
humor
Sample scale items
Coping Humor Scale (CHS;
Martin and Lefcourt, 1983);
Occupational Coping Humor
Scale (OCHS; a slight
modification of the Coping
Humor Scale by Martin and
Lefcourt, 1983)
Decker (1987)
Table I.
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
(continued)
1
1
1
17
Frequency scale used
in database
160
Scale
JMP
27,2
Author argues sense of humor is (1) the ability to
absorb and retain humor from the environment, (2) an
individual?s knowledge of humor, and (3) ability to
reason humorously (humor comprehension; Feingold,
1983)
Authors argue sense of humor is a stable multifaceted personality trait which varies along two
dimensions: (A) whether it enhances the self or
enhances relationships with others, and (B) whether
humor is positive/beneficial or negative/detrimental
to self/relationships; four humor dimensions result:
(1) affiliative humor ? use of humor to amuse
others, facilitate relationships, and reduce
interpersonal tensions (Lefcourt, 2001); (2) selfenhancing humor ? coping humor, perspectivetaking humor, and use of humor as an emotion
regulation or coping mechanism; (3) aggressive
humor ? sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, or
disparagement humor; humor to manipulate or
threaten; (4) self-defeating humor ? excessive selfdisparaging humor, attempts to amuse others at one?s
own expense
Humor Perceptiveness Test
(HPT; Feingold, 1983)
Humor Styles Questionnaire
(HSQ; Martin et al., 2003)
Affiliative humor: ?I enjoy making people laugh?,
?I don?t have to work very hard at making other
people laugh – I seem to be a naturally humorous
person?; Self-enhancing humor: ?Even when I?m
by myself, I am often amused by the absurdities of
life?, ?If I am feeling upset or unhappy, I usually
try to think of something funny about the
situation to make myself feel better?; Aggressive
humor: ?If someone makes a mistake, I will often
tease them about it?, ?If I don?t like someone, I
often use humor or teasing to put them down?;
Self-defeating humor: ?Letting others laugh at me
is my way of keeping my friends or family in good
spirits?, ?I will often get carried away in putting
myself down if it makes my family or friends
laugh?. 32-item scale
Instrument includes 18 items comprised of
common jokes from the American culture as well
as 14 uncommon items meant to tap ?humor
reasoning ability?. Parts of the jokes/puns are
omitted and are to be completed by the
respondent; scale scored by number of correct item
completions. Samples include ?Take my wife. . .
(please)?, ?I would never belong to a country club
that would. . . (have me for a member)?, ?Did you
hear about the David and Goliath cocktail?. . .Two
sips and you are. . . (stoned).?; 32-item scale
Scale assesses how likely a person is to produce
?Regularly tell jokes and funny stories when in a
humorous messages such as funny stories and jokes group?, ?Have no memory for jokes or funny
stories?, ?Use humor to communicate in a variety
of situations?, ?Friends would not say I am a
funny person? (strongly agree to strongly
disagree); 17-item scale
Humor Orientation Scale
(Booth-Butterford and BoothButterford, 1991)
Sample scale items
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
Scale
(continued)
2
1
2
Frequency scale used
in database
Positive humor
in the workplace
161
Table I.
Authors argue humorous refers to being ?funny,
witty, entertaining, creative, and playful? (p. 408)
Authors argue that sense of humor ?is really a way of
looking at the world; it is a style, a means of selfprotection and getting along? (p. 13). Scale assesses
six elements of a person?s sense of humor (recognition
of oneself as a humorous person, recognition of
others? humor, appreciation of humor, frequency and
tendency to laugh, perspective on life which may
permit humor, and use of humor to adapt/cope) which
fall along four dimensions of sense of humor: (1)
humor production and the social uses of humor, (2)
coping/adaptive humor, (3) humor appreciation, and
(4) attitudes toward humor
Author argues humor refers to the incongruity
theories. . . According to this category of theories,
humor is inherent in incongruity regardless of the
perception of the audience. . . Humor exists in the text
or message. It is based only upon the message of the
teller without considering the audience?s perception
Morkes et al. (1999)
Multidimensional Sense of
Humor Scale (MSHS; Thorson
and Powell, 1993b)
Ogunlana et al. (2006)
Respondents indicate the frequency with which a
supervisor uses humor in each of ten situations
(e.g. ?Deal with other parties, such as a client,
consultant?, ?Defuse conflict among team
members by acting funny?, ?React to your
mistakes in a funny manner?). A total score is
derived by summing across individual situations
Humor production: ?I?m regarded as something of
a wit by my friends?, ?My clever sayings amuse
others?; Coping humor: ?Uses of wit or humor help
me master difficult situations?, ?Uses of humor
help put me at ease?; Humor appreciation: ?I like a
good joke?, ?I appreciate those who generate
humor?; Attitudes toward humor: ?I dislike
comics?, ?Calling somebody a ?comedian? is a real
insult? (strongly agree to strongly disagree); 24item scale
Respondent rates the extent to which the following
adjectives describe another person (1 ? very
poorly; 10 ? very well): funny, witty,
entertaining, creative, and playful
Humor is ?any message, verbal or nonverbal, that is Respondent indicates the frequency with which
communicated by the [sender] and evokes feelings of the sender uses humor according to the definition
positive amusement by the participant?
in different situations (overall, private one-on-one
meetings, small meetings with 2-10 individuals,
large meetings with more than 10 individuals, and
in daily situations with varied audiences)
Sample scale items
Hurren (2001)
Table I.
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
(continued)
1
8
1
1
Frequency scale used
in database
162
Scale
JMP
27,2
Five-item scale; My supervisor. . . ?Has good sense
of humor?, ?Communicates with humor?, ?Enjoys
jokes?, ?Tells jokes?, and ?Uses non-offensive
humor? (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Sample scale items
Assessed frequency of laughter in social
exchanges
Sense of Humor Index (Craik
Warm versus cold: ?Displays a well-developed,
et al., 1996)
habitual humorous style, even when not really
feeling light hearted?, ?Displays fixed smile which
seems to lack sincerity?; Reflective versus boorish:
?Jokes about problems to make them seem
ridiculous or even trivial?, ?Is competitively
humorous; attempts to top others?; Competent
versus inept: ?Is crushed when humorous efforts
meet with less than enthusiastic reception?, ?Fails
to see the point of jokes?; Earthy versus repressed:
?Delights in parodies others find Blasphemous or
obscene?, ?Is bored by slapstick comedy?; Benign
versus mean-spirited: ?Pokes fun at the naive or
unsophisticated?, ?Occasionally makes humorous
remarks betraying a streak of cruelty?. 36-item
scale
Sense of Humor Scale (Bowling Authors argue there are four facets to sense of humor: Generating Humor: scale includes five items: four
et al., 2004 with items written (1) coping humor, (2) generating humor, (3) humorous by Bowling and one from the MSHS: ?My friends
by Nathan A. Bowling)
outlook on the world, and (4) attitudes toward humor. often comment on how funny I am?, ?I am the type
Devised a scale specifically to tap the ?generating
of person who often plays practical jokes?, ?I find
humor? facet of sense of humor
it easy to make other people laugh?, ?I am funnier
than most other people?, and ?Other people tell me
I say funny things? (1 ? strongly agree; 7 ?
strongly disagree)
Authors argue humor is ?something underlying
formal communication that has the potential to
enhance leadership ability by shaping the work
environment? (p. 451) Humor ?is something that
includes aspects of a trait or characteristic (i.e. being a
humorous person) and of a socially determined
exchange (i.e. something is not humorous until the
audience perceives it to be so).? (p. 452)
Author argues humor is indicated by the presence of
laughter in social exchanges
Authors argue there are five bipolar styles of humor
(humor conduct): (1) socially warm versus cold, (2)
reflective versus boorish, (3) competent versus inept,
(4) earthy versus repressed, and (5) benign versus
mean-spirited
Positive Supervisor Humor
Scale (Decker and Rotondo,
2001)
Sala (2000)
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
Scale
(continued)
1
1
1
1
Frequency scale used
in database
Positive humor
in the workplace
163
Table I.
Table I.
Sensitivity to humor: ?I can usually recognize a
hint such as a twinkle in the eye or slight change
in the voice as a mark of humorous intent? or ?I
usually find something comical, witty, or
humorous in most situations? (total disagreement
? 1; total agreement ? 4); Attitudes toward
humor: ?Fun is always aimed at hurting
something? or ?It is my impression that those who
try to be funny do it to hid their lack of selfconfidence? (total agreement ? 1; total
disagreement ? 4); Expression of humor: ?Do you
at times laugh so much that it actually hurts?? or
?Do you sometimes find yourself laughing in
situations where laughter is quite out of place??
(very seldom ? 1; very often ? 4).
Humor appreciation items relate to the frequency
and intensity of laughter and amusement (e.g.
laughing easily, tearing during laughter; Ruch,
1994); Humor creativity items relate to
entertaining others (e.g. ?my friends expect me to
make them laugh?)
Sense of Humor Questionnaire Author argues sense of humor has two dimensions:
(SHQZ; Ziv, 1981, 1984 as
(1) humor appreciation ? ?the ability to understand
translated by Ruch, 1994)
and enjoy messages containing humor creativity, as
well as situations that are incongruous but not
menacing?, and (2) humor creativity ? ?the ability
to perceive relationships between people, objects, or
ideas in an incongruous way, as well as the ability to
communicate this perception to others? (Ziv, 1984, p.
111)
Sample scale items
Sense of Humor Questionnaire Author argues sense of humor is an aspect of one?s
(SHQ; Svebak, 1974)
personality. Scale assesses generalized individual
differences in humor recognition and appreciation
along three dimensions: (1) sensitivity to humorous
content and meta-messages (degree to which
individuals recognize humor in situations), (2)
attitude toward humorous people and situations
(value of humor in one?s life and extent to which
individuals report enjoying or disliking humorous
roles or comical situations), and (3) openness to the
expression of mirth (extent to which individual
express/suppress humor; Mesmer, 2000; Svebak,
1974; Svebak, 2010)
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
(continued)
2
4
Frequency scale used
in database
164
Scale
JMP
27,2
Conceptualization and dimensionality of humor
Authors argue sense of humor is a fairly stable
personality characteristic and focus on assessing the
extent to which individuals find humor in their daily
lives, regardless of the content. They define sense of
humor as ?the frequency with which a person smiles,
laughs, and otherwise displays mirth in a wide
variety of life situations? (Martin, 1996; p. 253). These
behaviors are assumed to reflect the harder to define
perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes which
occur in the experience of humor
Scale
Situational Humor Response
Questionnaire (SHRQ; Martin
and Lefcourt, 1984)
The SHRQ presents brief descriptions of 18
situations and requires the respondent to indicate
the extent to which they would respond with mirth
in each situation (using a five-point scale ranging
from ?I would not have been particularly amused?
to ?I would have laughed heartily?). Sample items
include ?If you were awakened from a deep sleep
in the middle of the night by the ringing of the
telephone, and it was an old friend who was just
passing through town and decided to call and say
hello . . . ? and ?You were traveling in a car in the
winter and suddenly the car spun around on an ice
patch and came to rest facing the wrong way on
the opposite side of the highway. You were
relieved to find that no one was hurt and no
damage had been done to the car . . . ? Scale also
includes items assessing importance of having
friends who are easily amused, frequency the
individual laughs/smiles, and degree to which
their expression of mirth varies across situations.
21-item scale
Sample scale items
10
Frequency scale used
in database
Positive humor
in the workplace
165
Table I.
JMP
27,2
166
Various quantifications of sense of humor
Further contributing to the difficulty of converging on a single meaning of humor is the
variety of perspectives regarding how to quantify ?sense of humor?. According to
Eysenck (1972), sense of humor may be quantified from three unique perspectives:
(1) a conformist sense, emphasizing the degree of similarity between people?s
appreciation of humorous material;
(2) a quantitative sense, referring to how often a person laughs/smiles and/or how
often he/she is amused; and
(3) a productive sense, focusing on the extent to which the person tells funny
stories and/or amuses other people.
Indeed, a review of the scales summarized in Table I indicates that authors of common
humor scales are not consistent in how they quantify sense of humor. For example,
whereas Feingold?s (1983) Humor Perceptiveness Test operationalizes sense of humor
in the conformist sense, assessing the extent to which respondents know a number of
?funny? jokes, Ellis? (1991) Ellis Humor Instrument operationalizes it in the
quantitative sense, assessing the frequency with which the respondent
laughs/smiles, and Bowling et al.?s (2004) Sense of Humor Scale operationalizes it in
the productive sense, assessing how often a respondent tells jokes or attempts to amuse
others. Such diversity across scales likely contributes to conceptual ambiguity and
offers additional evidence of the multidimensionality of humor.
Humor styles
A fourth complication arises from the variety of styles individuals may adopt in their
attempts at humor (e.g. collaborative/beneficial versus competitive/detrimental humor
styles; Holmes and Marra (2002). Romero and Cruthirds (2006) elaborated five humor
styles which vary by the extent to which they are collaborative versus competitive in
nature/effect:
(1) affiliative humor ? non-threatening, non-hostile humor used to enhance social
interactions;
(2) self-enhancing humor ? humor centered internally that is used as a coping
mechanism to buffer against stress;
(3) aggressive humor ? humor used to victimize, ridicule or belittle others;
(4) mild-aggressive humor ? teasing, like that used to communicate a
reprimanding message with a humorous undertone; and
(5) self-defeating humor ? humor used to lower one?s own social status so as to be
more approachable.
Considering how humor styles may differ across cultures (Kalliny et al., 2006) the
impact of style on the meaning of humor is potentially profound.
Integrating the humor construct
Martin et al. (2003) organized the extant literature on humor according to a
two-dimensional framework; Figure 2 offers a visual adaptation of their theoretical
model. According to this framework, various conceptualizations of humor (definitions,
styles, uses) may be organized according to whether the humor is used to enhance the
Positive humor
in the workplace
167
Figure 2.
Theoretical domain of
studies of humor in the
workplace
se