Europe’s Journal of Psychology 3/2010, pp Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), pp. 94-121 www.ejop.org Bad Humor, Bad Marriage: Humor Styles in Div orced and Married Couples Vassilis Saroglou Department of Psychology, Univ ersité catholique de Louv ain Christelle Lacour Department of Psychology, Univ ersité catholique de Louv ain Marie-Ev e Demeure Department of Psychology, Univ ersité catholique de Louv ain Abstract Humor has been found to play a key role in close relationships, including marriage. The objective of the present work was to investigate the role of specific humor styles, i.e. affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, earthy, and self-defeating, with regard to (a) relationship quality among married and divorced people and (b) div orced versus married status. We compared men and women from 98 married and 48 divorced couples (total N = 292) w ho ev aluated their humor styles, anxiety and av oidance in attachment, marital satisfaction, and (ex-)spouse’s humor styles. Constructive humor (self-enhancing and/or affiliative), especially among men, w as related to increased relationship satisfaction and to non-divorced status. Self-defeating humor, especially among women, predicted marital satisfaction but also divorce. Use of antisocial humor (aggressive and earthy), especially by men, predicted divorce and was related to low (retrospective) relationship quality among divorced couples. Humor styles were unique predictors of divorce beyond the impact of insecure attachment. Finally, partner similarity in the high or low use of self-defeating humor and the (transgressing social norms) earthy humor was observed in both the married and divorced, but the latter were dissimilar in the high or low use of humor styles implying positive or negative quality in interpersonal relations. Partners’ humor styles provide unique and gender -specific information to our understanding of factors influencing marital stability and dissolution. Keywords – Humor styles, attachment, marital satisfaction, divorce, aggression http://www.ejop.org/ Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 95 Is humor, as often believ ed, an important ingredient for quality in romantic relationships, especially among married couples? Prev ious research has inv estigated this question but often done so treating humor as a global trait w ithout distinguishing betw een different humor styles. More intriguing: do specific humor styles contribute to marital stability and, consequently – by their absence or because of their quality – to relationship dissolution and div orce? As far as w e know , there is no empirical research on this issue. Finally, the quality of humor styles and, subsequently, their positiv e v ersus negativ e role in a couple’s relationship, may just be an artif act of general positiv ity or negativ ity in the w ay partners see themselv es or the other in the relationship, i.e. anxiety or av oidance in attachment. Do humor styles play an additiv e, unique role in predicting marriage stability or dissolution? The objectiv e of the present study w as to inv estigate w hether specific humor styles may play a role in marital (in)satisfaction and marital (in)stability, as w ell as w hether the role of humor styles in predicting div orce is unique, i.e. exists beyond the possible influence of the quality of adult attachment. Tw o kinds of samples w ere included, i.e. div orced and married couples; and both husbands and w iv es (or ex-spouses) prov ided an ev aluation of their humor styles as w ell of the humor styles of their partner. Below , w e w ill rev iew the relev ant literature and dev elop specific hypotheses. Humor Styles in Romantic Relationships and Marriage Humor is an important ingredient in a partner’s attr activ eness and its presence increases desirability for a romantic relationship (Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Lippa, 2007). Note how ev er that these effects are more present in w omen’s perception of men’s attractiv eness; and they are accompanied by the idea that humorous indiv iduals, although more socially adapted, may be less intelligent and trustw orthy than their non-humorous counterparts. Sharing humorous experiences during a fir st encounter betw een strangers leads to greater feelings of closeness (Fraley & Aron, 2004), and young dating couples’ similarity in humor appreciation of the same material w as found to be related to their predisposition to marry the partner (Murstein & Brust, 1985). Many people w ill take the step to become inv olv ed in a relationship w ith, or even to marry, suc h a desir able partner. Does humor contribute to, or at least reflect, relationship satisfaction? The existing ev idence is somew hat in fav or of this idea but this ev idence is sometimes inconsistent, indirect, or more complex. Use of humor by new ly married w iv es (but not husbands) in problem-solv ing in a laboratory study, w as Europe’s Journal of Psychology 96 correlated positiv ely w ith the w ives’ marital satisfaction; there w as also a high correspondence betw een spouses on use of humor (Cohan & Bradbury, 1997 ). How ev er, in that study, husbands’ humor seemed to contribute to marital instability w hen spouses reported more major life ev ents (possibly, this humor w as used as an av oiding coping mechanism). I n a similar study, humor w as related to observ ed affection betw een spouses (Johnson, 2002). I nterestingly, positiv e perception of the spouse’s humor w as also found to relate positiv ely to one’s ow n marital satisfaction (Ziv & Gadish, 1989) and negativ ely to marital discord (Rust & Goldstein, 1989). Married people seem to attribute the success of their marriage, among other things, to the humor and laughter they share (Lauer, Lauer, & Kerr, 1990; Ziv , 1988), but spouse similarity in humor appreciation of the same material w as found to be unrelated to marital affection (Priest & Thein, 2003). I n these studies, humor w as measured as a unidimensional construct. How ev er, recent conceptualization and research using the Humor Styles Questionnaire(HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003; see also Martin, 2007) has established the existence, distinctiv eness, and div ergent external outcomes of at least four humor styles: (a) affiliativ e (or social), (b) self-enhancing (or use of humor as positiv e coping), (c) aggressiv e, and (d) self-defeating. These humor styles differ in the w ay one includes or disparages others in humor (respectiv ely, a and c), and the w ay one strengthens or diminishes the self (respectiv ely, b and d). As summarized rec ently (Veselka, Schermer, Martin, & Vernon, 2010, p. 772): “Affiliativ e humor inv olv es the use of joking and friendly humorous banter to facilitate interpersonal bonds. Self - enhancing humor is characterized by the ability to find amusement in life’s stress es. Aggressiv e humor entails the use of sarcasm and put -dow ns to hurt or manipulate others. And self-defeating humor represents indiv iduals’ attempts to amuse others by making excessiv ely disparaging humorous remarks about themselv es”. These four styles hav e theoretical and content proximity w ith most of the six bipolar humor types measured by the Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck (HB QD; Craik, Lampert, & Nelson, 1996). The latter offers an additional humor style, c alled “ earthy v s. repressed”, that is defined as delight and non inhibition in joking about taboo topics: macabre, sexual, scatologic al, v ulgar. We hypothesized that, ov erall, the tw o positiv e humor styles, i.e. affiliativ e and self - enhancing w ill relate positiv ely to relationship quality, because they express either a solid self that ov ercomes life’s adv ersities (self-enhancing) or concern for interpersonal bonds through humor (affiliativ e). The opposite w ould be the case for the tw o negativ e humor styles, because, through humor, they diminish others (aggressiv e) or the self (self-defeating). Since a marital relationship inv olv es (at least) Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 97 tw o, both other-directed and self-directed humor styles should play a role. No specific hypotheses w ere made w ith regard to the earthy humor style. Personality and mental health-related correlates of the four humor styles are in fav or of these hypotheses. The tw o positiv e humor styles reflect high self -esteem, emotional intelligence, positiv e emotions, optimism, and intimacy. The other tw o dimensions are associated w ith hostility, neuroticism, and psychologic al distress; and self-defeating humor in partic ular is associated w ith sociotropy (dependence and excessiv e need to please others), loneliness, and burnout (Martin, 2007, for rev iew; see in addition, Fitts, Sebby, & Zlokov ich, 2009; Frew en, Brinker, Martin, & Dozois, 2008; Kuiper & McHale, 2009; Tümk aya, 2007; Vernon et al., 2009). Each of these psychologic al dimensions are important for intrapsychic and interpersonal functioning, particularly w ithin close relationships. Finally, no clear predictions could be made on the association betw een marital satisfaction and earthy humor. On one hand, this humor style reflects openness to experience and flexibility (Cr aik et al., 1996; Cr aik & Ware, 1998), although it is unclear w hether this means something more (e.g., creativ ity) than simply low conserv atism. On the other hand, appreciation of sick humor seems to be characteristic of people w ith low emotional responsiv eness (Herzog & Anderson, 2000; Herzog & Karafa, 199 8), but also of people w ho, in their coping, are c haracterized by social expression of emotions (Saroglou & Anciaux, 2004). I n fav or of our expectations, there is some initial and indirect ev idence from research that distinguishes betw een humor styles div erging in quality. Self-reported use of positiv e and negativ e humor w hen interacting w ith the partner w as, respectiv ely, positiv ely and negativ ely associated w ith relationship satisf action among students (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008; the effect w as stronger in a conflict scenario) and married couples (De Koning & Weiss, 2002; both spouses’ humor w as related to each partner’s satisfaction). I n a direct observ ation setting w here dating student couples w ere inv olved to a conflict disc ussion task, indiv iduals w hose partners used more affiliativ e and less aggressiv e humor during the disc ussion w ere more satisfied w ith their relationship and reported an increase in perceiv ed closeness and better resolution follow ing the discussion (Campbell, Martin, & Ward, 2008). The role of self- enhancing and self-defeating humor w as not inv estigated in that study. I n sum, no study, to our know ledge, has inv estigated how sev eral distinct humor styles, as stable personality characteristics of one and/or the other partner, are related to the quality of relationship among married couples. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 98 Humor Styles, Relationship Dissolution, and Div orce Do humor styles play a role in predicting div orce of married couples? For the same reasons applied abov e to married couples, w e hypothesized that affiliativ e and self- enhancing humor may contribute to “prev ent” div orce, and should thus be more present among married than div orced couples. Similarly, self-defeating and aggressiv e humor may “facilitate” div orce and should therefore be more present among div orced compared to married couples. No prediction w as made regarding the role of earthy humor. The same hypotheses w ere made regarding the relation betw een humor styles and the relationship quality of div orced participants during their marriage. Div orce, and relationship dissolution more gener ally, is a result of an accumulation of, and interactions betw een, a series of factors relative to each partner’s and the couple’s enduring v ulnerabilities, stressful ev ents, and adaptiv e processes. Low use of self-enhancing humor is a good candidate to explain marital instability since this humor style serv es by definition as a coping mechanism against life’s adv ersities. The lack of successful emotional regulation in marital interaction is found to predict div orce (Rodrigues, Hall, & Fincham, 2006). Low use of affiliativ e humor and high use of aggressiv e humor may also predict insatisf action and relationship dissolution, since behav iors denoting hostility (e.g., reject) and lack of w armth (e.g. no cooperation, no enjoyment) in marital interaction, w ere found to predict div orce in w ell- established marriages (e.g., Matthew s, Wickrama, & Conger, 1996). High use of earthy humor could predict div orce, since, by its socially transgressiv e character, this humor style may reflect personality tendencies (e.g., negativ e indiv idualism: Kirsh & Kuiper, 2003) that can reasonably be conceiv ed as predicting div orce. On the other hand, its strong personality correlate, Openness to Experience (Craik & Aron, 1998), is know n to be a positiv e ingredient in marriage (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Finally, high use of self-defeating humor should be a predictor of marital dissolution since this humor style reflects neuroticism, negativ e emotionality, and excessiv e dependence, all of w hich are typically predict div orce (Rodriguez et al., 2006, for rev iew ). There is some suggestiv e, intriguing, yet inconsistent ev idence on the role of humor in general (but not on specific humor styles) on relationship dissolution and div orce. Longitudinal research, w here specific characteristics observ ed in spouse interaction at one point in time w ere examined as predictors of marital stability or dissolution many years later, did not prov ide consistent ev idence in fav or of humor. Humor has no effect; or has a positiv e effect for marital stability; or has a negativ e effect if it is husbands’ humor that could be seen as a tool used to av oid facing problems Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 99 (Cohan & Bradbury, 1997; Gottman, 1994; Gottman & Lev enson, 1999; Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Sw anson, 1998). Dating couples of univ ersity students w ho engaged in affiliativ e humor (Doris, 2004, as cited in Martin, 2007) or friendly rather than aggressiv e teasing (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998) w ere found to be more likely to break up w ithin a few months. Note though that the characteristics and functions of early dating relationships may be, at least partially, different from those of long-ter m established marriages. I n the former, as no ted by Martin (2007), good humor may ev en predict a quick break up if it is used to test alternativ es and if good humor means high desirable status (see also Felmlee, 1995). Humor Styles, Adult Attachment, and Marital (In)stability Do humor styles contribute to marital (in)stability in a unique, specific w ay or are they simple artifacts of indiv idual differences w ithin the broader quality of romantic relationships such as adult attachment? This is an important question since the hypothesized role of humor styles on div orced versus married status could simply reflect positiv e v ersus negativ e quality in affects and cognitions relativ e to the image of the self and/or the image of the other in the relationship, and thus not add any specific v alue to the prediction. There is indeed theoretic al and empirical ev idence suggesting (a) that humor styles reflect indiv idual differences in attachment (dimensions of anxiety and av oidance) and (b) that attachment insecurity may predict marital insatisf action and insta bility. First, in a series of studies from different countries (Belgium, Canada, Lebanon, and the USA), self-defeating humor w as found to be typical of people w ith insecure, especially anxious, adult attachment; the opposite seems to be the case w ith self - enhancing humor. Additionally, affiliativ e v ersus aggressiv e humor is more present among people w ith secure v ersus insecure, especially av oidant, adult attachment (Cann, Norman, Welbourne, & Calhoun, 2008; Martin, 2007; Kazarian & Martin, 2004; Saroglou & Sc ariot, 2002; Taher, Kazarian, & Martin, 2008). Second, attachment theory supports the idea that adult attachment insecurity should contribute to the v ulnerability of marriage and its dissolution (Feeney & Monin, 2008). Only v ery recently has this idea been tested. I n one study, attac hment security of w iv es and husbands w ith respect to their relationship, as assessed at their first child’s transition to kindergarten after about eight years into marriage, rev ealed a long-ter m effect of attac hment security on marital satisfac tion, although it w as not significantly related to the surv iv al of the marriage ov er a 10-year period (Hirschberger, Sriv astav a, Marsh, Cow an, & Cowan, 2009). I n another study, among adults w ho had experienced their parents’ div orce as children, those w ho were classified as secure in their attachment Europe’s Journal of Psychology 100 representations w ere less likely than insecure participants to div orce in the early years of marriage (Crow ell, Treboux, & Brockmeyer, 2009). How ev er, w e hypothesized that, although humor styles and attachment w ith respect to the relationship may share some common v ariance in predicting div orced status, humor styles should prov ide a unique contribution to marital instability. I ndeed, humor styles point to v ery specific acts that constitute “ micro-ev ents” in the ev eryday life and do not simply mirror the quality of the partners’ relationship or one’s ow n w orking models of self and the other in general. By its v ery nature, humor introduces something unique to human i nteractions that may contribute to, or ev en change, more stable emotional states, cognitiv e schemata, and w orking models. Positiv e humor styles may stabilize marriage (e.g., by reducing tension or by communicating w ar m feelings) in the presence of disagree ment, conflict, or relational insecurity, w hile negativ e humor styles may destabilize marriage (e.g., by introducing tension or by communicating criticism) ev en in the presence of secure attac hment, agreement, and har mony. Method Participants Tw o samples of participants w ere included, one of married couples and the other of div orced couples. The first sample w as composed of 98 married heterosexual couples (total N = 196) w ho w ere approached by ac quaintances of the second author and agreed to participate. The study w as adv ertised as aiming “to explore different dimensions of family life, i.e. different aspec ts of partners’ relationships, including humor”. I n selecting couples, w e paid attention to the fact that at least one of the partners should hav e a job and the age of participants should not be higher than 65. Effectiv e age of participants v aried betw een 26 and 62 yrs -old (M = 45.8; SD = 8.7) and the mean duration of marriage w as 19.5 years. The mean number of children w as 2.2. All couples liv ed in urban areas of the French-speaking part of Belgium. They w ere asked to fill in the protocols anonymously and separately and to send them back w ithin four to six w eeks. People w ere thanked for their participation and prov ided the option to be infor med of results if they so w ished. The second sample w as composed of 48 div orced heterosexual couples. Participants (total N = 96) w ere recruited through acquaintances of the third author under the same conditions as the first sample. Their mean age w as 44.8 and the mean duration of the ended marriage w as 13.5 years. Most of the couples had div orced just a few months earlier than the time of participation, and the others had been div orced Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 101 betw een one and three years. Data w ere collected in 2002 (married couples) and 2004 (div orced couples). I n both samples, participants receiv ed a protocol in w hich they had to ev aluate adult attachment dimensions, marital satisfaction, and the use of different humor styles (self-reports). I n addition, they w ere requested to prov ide spouse-ratings, i.e. to ev aluate the partner’s (current spouse for the married couples, and ex-partner for the div orced) on the use of these different humor styles. Measures Humor Styles. Based on prev ious research and measures, fiv e humor styles w ere inv estigated: affiliativ e, self-enhancing, aggressiv e, and self-defeating humor, as w ell as earthy humor. At the time of the data collection, the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003) w as only just emerging. We thus selected items from three existing different scales in order to tap, to the best extent, the content and specifics of each humor style: the HSQ (Martin et al., 2003; French translation by Saroglou & Scariot, 2002), the Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck (HBQD: Craik et al., 1996; French translation by Lacour, 2002), and the Coping Humor Scale (CHS: Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; French translation in Saroglou, 1999). Af filiative humor w as measured through three items from the socially w ar m conduct pole in the HB QD and three others from the affiliativ e style of the HSQ. Self -enhancing humor w as measured through three items from the CHS and three items from the self-enhancing style of the HSQ. Aggressive humor w as measured through tw o items from the negativ e pole, “mean- spirited”, of the benign conduct in the HB QD, and four items from the aggressive style in the HSQ. Earthy humor w as measured through six items from the earthy (v s. repressed) conduct of the HBQD, and self -def eating humor through six items from the self-defeating style in the HSQ. I n both self- and spouse-ratings, possible answ ers ranged from 1 (does not characterize me at all ) to 5 (characterizes me totally). I n order to increase reliability, three items (one for three different humor styles) w ere deleted w hen computing the aggregate for each style score. Humor styles w ere then measured in total by 27 items. Reliabilities w ere satisfactory, for both self- and spouse-ratings, among married participants (affiliativ e: .79 and .82; self-enhancing: .71 and .75; aggressiv e: .60 and .73; earthy: .58 and .72; and self-defeating: .77 and .73) as w ell as among div orced couples (affiliativ e: .81 and .83; self-enhancing: .69 and .75; aggressiv e: .78 and .79; earthy: .82 and .80; and self-defeating: .86 and .70). Europe’s Journal of Psychology 102 Here are sample items: (a) “I usually don’t laugh or joke around muc h w ith other people” (affiliativ e; rev erse keyed); (b) “I f I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up w ith humor (self-enhancing); (c ) “I f someone makes a mistake, I w ill often tease them about it” (aggressiv e); (d) “I hav e a reputation for indulging in coarse or v ulgar humor” (earthy); and (e) “I w ill often get carried aw ay in putting myself dow n if it makes my f amily or friends laugh” (self-defeating). Attac hment Dimensions. Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in Close Relationships is a 7-point Likert-format sc ale that contains 36 items measuring tw o orthogonal dimensions of attachment to the adult partner in the relationship : anxiety and av oidance. The scale is based on analyses of prev ious attachment scales and taps the underlying structure of these measures corresponding to tw o orthogonal axes, i.e. (a) anxiety about self and (b) discomfort w ith contac t w ith others. The sc ale has higher psychometric qualities in comparison w ith prev ious multi-item attachment scales (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) and the tw o-factor structure in our French translation w as confirmed in a prev ious study (Saroglou, Kempeneers, & Seynhaev e, 2003). For this study, w e selected 18 items (nine items for eac h dimension) that w ere found in Saroglou et al.’s (2003) study to hav e the highest loadings in their fac tor. The tw o-factor structure w as once again w ell replicated and reliabilities w ere satisfactory for both anxiety and av oidance in married (α = .80, .85) and div orced (.83, .84) participants. Here are tw o sample items: “I w orry a lot about my relationships ” (anxiety) and “I try to av oid getting too close to my partner” (av oidance). Marital Satisf action. The Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Sc ale (Spanier, 1976) w as administered as a commonly used 32-item measure of marital satisfaction (French translation by B aillargeon, Dubois, & Marineau, 1986). The scale prov ides an ev aluation of four dimensions of dyadic adjustment in couples: satisfaction, cohesion, consensus, and affectiv e expression. For the analyses, w e used the total score on marital satisfaction that w e computed by summing the items of all the subscales (as = .89, for married, and .85, for div orced couples). (Note that in the sample of married couples, the reliability of affectiv e expression w as low ; this subscale w as thus not included w hen computing the global mean score). Here are tw o sample items: “How often do you and your partner quarrel?” and “indicate the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement betw een you and your partner on amount of time spent together”. Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 103 Results Gender Differences across Raters and Ratings Table 1 details means and standard dev iations of humor styles, in both self - and spouse-ratings, distinc tly for men and w omen and for married and div orced participants. I n married couples, w hen comparing self-reports, men, compared to w omen, reported higher use of affiliativ e humor, but also of aggressiv e and earthy humor. These differences w ere confirmed w hen comparing the spouse -ratings, w ith, in addition, self-enhancing humor being perceiv ed as being higher among men (see Table 1). Moreov er, w hen comparing the husband-ratings of w ife’s humor w ith husbands’ and w iv es’ self-reports, the for mer w ere significantly low er in all c ases: husbands perceiv ed w iv es as low er than them w ith respect to all humor styles, and the scores of the ev aluations w ere also low er in comparison to w ife’s self-reports (all ps > .01). When comparing w ife-ratings of husband’s humor w ith husbands’ and w ives’ self-reports, it turned out that w ives perceiv ed their husband to be higher than themselv es in affiliativ e humor, F = 24.48, p < .001 (and ev en more, compared to the husband’s self-ratings; F = 5.46, p < .01), as w ell as in earthy humor (24.69, p < .001), but low er in aggressiv e and self-defeating humor styles in comparison to husbands’ self-reports (3.68, 5.66, p < .05). Table 1. Self- and spouse-ratings of humor, distinctly for married and divorced couples. Men’s Humor (M, SD) Women’s Humor (M, SD) Men > Women (F) Humor Styles Self-Ratings Spouse-Rat. Self-Ratings Spouse-Rat. Self-Rat. Spouse-R. Marri ed Couples (N = 98) Affiliative 3.70 (0.83) 3.90 (0.92) 3.30 (0.85) 3.08 (0.76) 12.29*** 51.23*** Self-enhancing 3.01 (0.78) 2.93 (0.89) 2.83 (0.87) 2.49 (0.68) 2.14 14.17*** Aggressive 2.56 (0.74) 2.40 (0.84) 2.26 (0.72) 2.01 (0.78) 8.36** 15.16*** Earthy 2.57 (0.76) 2.55 (0.80) 2.11 (0.66) 1.89 (0.74) 28.27*** 48.44*** Self-defeating 2.22 (0.86) 2.01 (0.84) 2.07 (0.74) 1.88 (0.71) 1.89 1.66 Divorced Couples (N = 48) Affiliative 2.90 (0.58) 2.71 (0.54) 2.76 (0.45) 2.64 (0.49) 1.71 0.35 Self-enhancing 2.95 (0.68) 2.50 (0.83) 2.60 (0.93) 2.36 (0.87) 3.98* 0.54 Aggressive 2.83 (0.75) 2.87 (0.97) 2.07 (0.78) 2.09 (0.70) 18.37*** 23.62*** Earthy 3.17 (1.07) 3.33 (0.87) 2.14 (0.83) 1.77 (0.40) 36.28*** 138.6*** Self-defeating 2.61 (1.00) 2.32 (0.92) 2.40 (0.22) 2.09 (1.71) 1.16 2.51 *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 104 I n div orced couples, similarly to the married couples, men scored higher than w omen in self-reported use of aggressiv e and earthy humor and this w as confirmed w hen comparing the spouse-ratings. How ev er, they did not differ from w omen in use of affiliativ e humor; and the difference in self-enhancing humor, found in self-reports, w as not confirmed by spouse-ratings. We also focused on cross-comparisons of self- ratings w ith ex-spouse-ratings. Like in married couples, div orced men ev aluated themselv es higher in all humor styles compared to the ev aluations they made of their ex-spouses (all ps > .05), but, except for self-enhancing and self-defeating humor (Fs = 10.12 and 8.81, ps > .01), the self-ratings w ere ov er-estimated compared to the ex- spouse-ratings. Women did not seem to discriminate in their ev aluations betw een themselv es and their ex-husbands , w ith the exception of the tw o negativ e humor styles, i.e. aggressiv e and earthy, for w hich they attributed higher scores to their ex- husbands , Fs = 21.39, 61.61, ps > .001. Finally, w omen ev aluated themselv es higher in self-enhancing, earthy, and self-defeating humor in comparison to how they w ere seen by their ex-spouses (4.84, 8.84, and 9.47, all ps > .05). As far as attac hment dimensions and marital satisfaction are concerned, no significant gender differences on these dimensions w ere found, for either the married or div orced participants. Spouse-V alidation of Self-Ratings and Spouse Similarity on Humor As detailed in Table 2, in both groups, importantly, spouses v alidated self -ratings for all humor styles. Distinct gender analyses did no t show a gender effect on these results. The effects w ere how ev er stronger in married, compared to div orced, couples for affiliativ e humor (z = 3.05, p < .01) and in div orced, compared to married couples (z = 2.65, p < .01), for self-defeating humor. Table 2 also details coefficients of correlations w hen examining spouse similarity on humor styles. Three indic ators of this similarity w ere computed, i.e. correlations in humor styles (a) betw een men’s and w omen’s self-ratings, (b) betw een men’s ratings of w omen and w omen’s ratings of men, and (c) betw een each participant’s (distinctly for men and w omen) ev aluations of the self and the spouse. Among married couples, an important similarity w as found betw een men and w omen on their high or low use of aggressiv e, earthy, and self-defeating humor. Among div orced participants, there w as also ex-spouse similarity on earthy humor and self- defeating humor, though often at a marginal signific ance lev el (but note the muc h low er N of this group). How ev er, there w as evidence of div orced partner dissimilarity on aggressiv e humor (at the self-ratings lev el, and in men’s “ minds”, i.e. w hen Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 105 crossing their self-ratings w ith their perception of w omen’s humor) and affiliativ e humor (in spouse-ratings). Table 2. Spouse-v alidation of self-ratings and between-spouse similarity on humor styles. Spouse- Validation Spouse Similarity Humor Styles Spouse-Ratings  Self-Ratings Self- Ratings Spouse- Ratings Men’s Ratings: Self  Spouse Women’s Ratings: Self  Spouse Marri ed Couples (98 Couples) Affiliative .59*** .07 .11 -.02 .06 Self-enhancing .39*** -.05 -.05 .02 .14† Aggressive .50*** .05 .23* .36*** .36*** Earthy .59*** .29** .25* .51*** .30** Self-defeating .46*** .15† .24* .34*** .53*** Divorced Couples (48 Couples) Affiliative .21* -.10 -.46*** -.15 .02 Self-enhancing .45*** -.10 -.18† -.23† -.12 Aggressive .61*** -.30* .14 -.47*** .08 Earthy .62*** .23† .11 .20† .23† Self-defeating .79*** .22† .26+ .42** .14 *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. † p < .10. Mean Differences betw een Married and Div orced Couples Mean differences (t-tests) w ere computed, distinctly for men and w omen, betw een married and div orced participants on measures of relationship quality and all humor styles (see Tables 3 and 4). Table 3. Descriptive statistics (M, SD) of quality of relationship measures and differences between married and divorced couples (distinct by gender information). Marri ed Couples Divorced Couples Differences: married vs. divorced(t-tests) Relationship Men Women Men Women Men Women Anxi ety 3.52 (1.25) 4.71 (1.29) 4.06 (1.27) 4.46 (1.51) -2.43* -3.12** Avoidance 2.46 (1.03) 2.26 (1.16) 3.59 (1.16) 3.33 (1.47) -5.98*** -4.76*** Marital satisfaction 4.81 (0.45) 4.83 (0.46) 3.82 (0.67) 3.58 (0.64) 9.14*** 11.99*** *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 106 Table 4. Differences between married and divorced couples on humor (t-tests). Self-Ratings Spouse-Ratings Humor Styles Men Women Men’s of Women Women’s of Men Affiliative 6.74*** 5.02*** 4.23*** 9.76*** Self-enhancing 0.50 1.47 0.92 2.80** Aggressive -2.11* 1.48 -0.59 -3.00** Earthy -3.96** -0.23 1.26 -5.39*** Self-defeating -2.43* -1.72† -1.64† -2.02* *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. † p < .10. As expected, both men and w omen w ho w ere div orced reported higher anxiety and av oidance in attac hment, and low er marital satisfaction, compared to, respectiv ely, married men and w omen. Moreov er, regarding humor styles, consistently across genders and self- and spouse-ratings, married participants w ere characterized by a higher use of affiliativ e humor compared to div orced participants, w hereas the latter w ere characterized by a higher use of self -defeating humor compared to married participants. I n addition, men’s use of aggressiv e and earthy humor, both as reported by themselv es and by their par tners, w as more present among div orced than married couples. Finally, married, compared to div orced, w omen reported that their husband uses self-enhancing humor to a greater extent. Humor Styles, Attachment, and Marital Satisfaction Humor styles (self-reports) w ere associated w ith quality of attachment. As detailed in Table 5, married and div orced men’s self-defeating humor w as positiv ely related to their anxiety and/or av oidance; this w as also the case w ith div orced w omen’s self - defeating humor and anxiety. Low self-enhancing humor w as typical of anxiety among div orced men and w omen, as w ell as married w omen. High use of aggressiv e humor w as related to married men’s anxiety and div orced men’s av oidance, but, on the contrary, it w as low earthy humor that reflected insecure attac hment among div orced w omen (both anxiety and av oidance) or among married men (av oidance). There w as one surprising result, i.e. a positiv e association of div orced men’s self-enhancing humor w ith av oidance, w hich may suggest the usefulness for men of humor as a coping mec hanism w hich allow s them to create distance from their partner through div orce. Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 107 I n order to clarify the humor-attachment links, giv en some interrelation betw een the tw o attachment dimensions, w e computed, distinc tly for men and w omen, multiple regression analyses on each humor style, using the tw o attachment dimensions as predictors. We treated the tw o samples, married and div orced participants as one (see Table 6). Self-enhancing and self-defeating humor reflected predominantly – respectiv ely, secure versus problematic – relation to the self, i.e. anxiety (but in men, self-defeating humor also reflected av oidance). On the contrary, affiliativ e and aggressiv e humor reflected predominantly, respectiv ely, secure v ersus problematic concern for the other partner, i.e. av oidance. Finally, use of earthy humor seems “natural” to men w hereas in w omen it ev en expresses security in attachment (both dimensions). Table 5. Coefficients of correlations of humor styles with quality of relationship. Anxi ety Avoidance Marital satisfaction Men Women Men Women Men Women Humor Styles Men/Womena Men/Womena Marri ed Couples (N = 98) Affiliative .15 -.12 .01 -.24** -.13 / .08 -.10 / .12 Self-enhancing -.00 -.29** -.11 -.14 .21*/ .08 .22*/ .12 Aggressive .17* .02 ¤ .05 .13 -.13 / .09 -.09 / .00 Earthy -.06 -.09 -.20* -.09 .02 / .17 -.03 / .16 Self-defeating .37*** .12 .29** -.10 -.12 / .22* .02 / .13 Divorced Couples (N = 48) Affiliative -.18 .10 .16 -.04 .39**/ -.20 .50**/-.19 Self-enhancing -.47*** -.32* .48*** .23 .04 / .32* .10 / .10 Aggressive -.23 -.16 .25* .18 -.32*/-.35* -.31*/-.31* Earthy -.01 -.30* -.02 -.27* -.39**/-.15 -.29*/-.10 Self-defeating -.04 .28* .32* -.21 -.12 /-.10 -.05 / .21 a Men’s and w omen’s humor. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. Correlations of men’s and w omen’s humor styles (self-ratings) w ith marital satisfaction prov ided specific results depending on marital status, as w ell as on w hose satisfaction w as considered and w hose humor w as inv olved (see Table 5). Humor styles did not seem to play a major role on marital satisfaction among married couples, w ith tw o notable exceptions: Men’s self-enhancing humor w as associated w ith increased marital satisfaction of both men and w omen. And w omen’s self- defeating humor w as associated w ith increased men’s marital satisfaction. On the contrary, marital satisf action among div orced couples w as clearly a function of the Europe’s Journal of Psychology 108 pro- v s. anti-social character of three humor styles. Aggressiv e humor in both men and w omen w as an indicator of low marital satisf action of both ex-spouses. And men’s use of affiliativ e and earthy humor w as related to, respectiv ely, high and low marital satisf action of both partners (significantly of men). Table 6. Regression of attachment dimensions on humor styles (βs). Men (N = 146) Women (N = 146) Humor Styles Anxi ety Avoidance R2 Anxi ety Avoidance R2 Affiliative -.01 -.16† .03 -.14† -.28*** .10 Self-enhancing -.16† .07 .03 -.32*** -.03 .10 Aggressive .04 .17* .03 -.08 .09 .01 Earthy .02 .03 .01 -.16* -.15† .05 Self-defeating .20* .32*** .16 .23** -.09 .06 *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. † p < .10. Unique Effects of Humor Styles and Attachment on Div orced Status Humor styles reflected quality in attachment; and both humor and attachment w ere found to differ w hen comparing married to div orced couples. We inv estigated w hether humor styles may uniquely predict marital status, independently of the effect of attac hment. Before computing multiple regressions, and I n order to av oid risks of multicolinearity and to maximize conciseness in the presentation of results, w e integrated the five humor styles into three higher order types using an exploratory f actor analysis (PCA) w ith v arimax rotation (eigenv alue > 1). I n men, aggressiv e and earthy humor constituted the first factor (loadings: .87 and .84); affiliativ e and self-enhancing humor constituted the second (.86 and .80); and self-defeating humor (.95) w as the last factor. With one exception (.33), no second loading w as higher than .13; and total v ariance explained w as 79%. Extraction of three factors among w omen replicated this pattern w ith affiliativ e and self-enhancing humor constituting the first factor (.89 and .80), aggressiv e and earthy the second (.80 and .74), and self- defeating the third (.92; total v ariance explained = 75% ). We then av eraged, for each factor, the respectiv e humor styles and computed the subsequent analyses w ith three humor types, i.e. (a) constr uctive humor (affiliativ e and self-enhancing), (b) antisocial humor (aggressiv e and earthy), and (c) self -def eating humor. Note that in a prev ious study w here different humor measures w ere factor -analyzed, Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 109 aggressiv e and earthy (otherw ise “boorish”) humor styles w ere found to compose one broad factor, labeled “baw dy humor”, that mainly reflected negativ e indiv idualism (Kirsh & Kuiper, 2003). Table 7. Logistic regression of humor styles and attachment on divorced (versus marred) status. Men Women Predictors A Wald p A Wald P First step Constructive humor -1.24 13.17 .000 -1.03 10.74 .001 Antisocial humor 0.92 9.87 .002 -0.14 0.16 .688 Self-defeating humor 0.56 6.29 .012 0.56 7.01 .008 R2 = .20 (Men), .11 (Women) Second step Constructive humor -1.20 10.65 .001 -0.91 6.39 .011 Antisocial humor 0.87 7.73 .005 -0.08 0.05 .824 Self-defeating humor 0.06 0.06 .804 0.61 6.53 .011 Anxiety 0.26 2.04 .153 0.27 3.07 .080 Avoidance 0.96 17.77 .000 0.69 17.63 .000 R2 = .32 (Men), .25 (Women) I n order to examine w hether the humor styles play a unique role on marital status or w hether this role is mainly an artifac t of the quality of attac hment, w e performed a logistic regression analysis w ith marital status as a dichotomous dependant v ariable. I n the first step, the three humor styles (self-reports) w ere entered as predictors, and in the second step the tw o attachment dimensions w ere added. This analysis w as carried out separately for men and w omen. As detailed in Table 7, in both men and w omen, low constructiv e humor and high self-defeating humor w as predic tiv e of div orce. Additional predictor of div orce w as men’s use of antisocial humor. W hen the tw o attachment dimensions, i.e. av oidance and anxiety, w ere entered into the regression, they w ere found to be, respectiv ely, a clear and a marginal predictor of div orce. Further more, w ith the addition of these factors, the role of men’s self-defeating humor in predicting div orce disappeared, but all the other effects of humor types (self-defeating among w omen, antisocial among men, and constructiv e among both men and w omen) remained signific ant. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 110 Discussion Using data from tw o samples composed of married and div orced couples, we inv estigated, cross-sectionally, how humor styles of both men and w omen (a) are related to tw o aspects of the quality of a marital relationship, i.e. quality of attac hment to the partner and marital satisfaction, and (b) differed w hen comparing div orced w ith married couples. We also inv estigated the unique role of humor styles in predicting div orce, beyond the role of attac hment dimensions. The results ov erall confirm the expected links and prov ide, in some cases, more nuanced information w hen one distinguishes betw een (a) div orced and married couples, (b) men and w omen, and (c ) different styles from the broad categories of the so -called “positiv e” and “negativ e” humor. Humor Styles and Attac hment I n line w ith prev ious studies on humor styles and attachment rev iew ed in the I ntroduction, it turned out that humor styles w hich are directed tow ards others, either by including them (affiliativ e) or by disparaging them (aggressiv e), reflect, respectiv ely, a positiv e and negativ e model of the other person in attachment (av oidance dimension). The humor styles that aim to strengthen the self in the face of adv ersity (self-enhancing) or to disparage the self in or der to gain others’ acceptance (self-defeating) reflect, respectiv ely, a positiv e or negativ e image of the self in attachment (anxiety dimension). The additional fifth style, earthy (non- repressed) humor, seems to be “natural” for men, i.e., independent from attachment quality, and to ev en reflect secure attachment in w omen. Alternativ ely, it may be that insec ure w omen tend to feel uncomfortable w ith, and “inhibit”, the expression of earthy humor, a humor style that is v ery likely socially perceiv ed as inappropriate for them. Humor Styles in Married Couples The secure v ersus insecure, in terms of attac hment, quality of each hu mor style did not necessarily imply a f ace-to-face correspondence w ith positiv e v ersus negativ e consequences for the quality and stability of partners’ relationship. I n addition, the role of men’s and w omen’s humor styles on relationship satisfaction seeme d to be modest w ithin the context of married couples. Married men’s use of self -enhancing humor indicated high marital satisfaction of both themselv es and their w iv es . This w as v ery likely due to the nature of this humor style w hich is used to cope w ith life’s Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 111 ev eryday stresses and to find amuse ment in life’s incongruities. I n stable long-ter m relationships, self-enhancement humor can thus be an efficient tool for increasing relationship satisfaction. Moreov er, w omen’s self-defeating humor seemed to contribute to men’s, but not w omen’s, marital satisfaction. This unexpected result (see also below for the detrimental role of this humor style on marital stability), if not due to c hance, could be interpreted as an indication of a traditional gender asymmetry in marriage. Women’s self-ridiculization through humor may please husbands and increase their marital satisf action. This can be facilitated by the fact that self-defeating humor does not explicitly attest asymmetry: “it w as only a joke”. The fact that it w as men’s and not w omen’s self-enhancing humor that seemed to play a role on both partners’ satisfaction may also be understood in ter ms of gender differences. Men and w omen, especially in married couples, seemed to agree, consistently across judgments of self and the spouse, that men use humor – all styles except self-defeating – more than w omen. Married husbands may then contribute to both spouses’ marital satisfaction by using the prototypic al – in ter ms of positiv e coping – humor style. Another explanation can be prov ided by the results on married spouse similarity on humor styles. Consistently across (a) self -perceptions, (b) spouse-ratings, and (c ) ev aluations of self versus spouse, there w as a similarity betw een the tw o spouses on the high or low use of the three v ery “specific” in content, negativ e in emotionality, and low in frequency humor styles: earthy, aggressiv e, and self-defeating. On the contrary, no spouse similarity w as observ ed on the use of the tw o more common, positiv e humor styles, i.e. affiliativ e and self- enhancing. Thus, it may be the use of one of these tw o humor styles (self-enhancing) by at least one partner (husband ) that makes the difference in the marital satisfaction of both spouses. One could be surprised by the fact that no other humor style – especially the aggressiv e style – show ed an association w ith marital satisf action. This w as also true of the perception each partner had of the spouse’s humor. I t may be that, in the present sample of couples w ith 20 years of av erage marriage duration, the v ariability of marital satisf action and the humor-marital satisfaction association are low er in comparison to recent studies that hav e inv estigated this question among students in general (Cann et al., 2008), students in dating couples (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008; Campbell et al., 2008), new lyw ed couples (Driv er & Gottman, 2004), or married couples w ith muc h shorter marriage duration (De Koning & Weiss, 2002). Note that the betw een-spouse similarity in the use of the three negativ e humor styles (earthy, aggressiv e, and self-defeating) but not the tw o positiv e styles (affiliativ e and Europe’s Journal of Psychology 112 self-enhancing) can be understood in the light of prev ious research on spouse similarity in personality traits and v alues. Recent research suggests that there e xists moderate spouse congruence on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, but not on extrav ersion and neuroticism, w here congruence is close to zero (Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008; see also Lee, Ashton, Pozzebon, Visser, Bourdage, & Ogunfowora, 2009, for similar findings in friendships). The first tw o personality dimensions constitute the tw o “moral traits” in personality (Caw ley, M artin, & Johnson, 2000); and openness to experience reflects (low ) conserv atism in v alues and related sociocognitiv e dimensions and social behav iors (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). I nterestingly, the major personality correlate of the tw o positiv e humor styles, as of humor in general, is extrav ersion, w hereas aggressiv e and self-defeating humor are characterized, in addition to neuroticism, by low agreeableness and conscientiousness (Gallow ay, 2010; Martin, 2007; Saroglou & Sc ariot, 2002; Vernon, Martin, Schermer, & Mackie, 2008) and high psychopathy and machiav ellianism (Veselka et al., 2010); and earthy humor cor relates mainly w ith openness to experience (Craik & Ware, 1998). I n other w ords, spouses may differ on the use of general/social humor, but they are similar on the high or low use of humor styles that reflect respect or transgression of interpersonal and social v alues and nor ms such as aggressiv e and earthy humor. Humor Styles in Div orced Couples Much more extended, but still gender-specific , w as the role of humor styles in predicting div orce and (retrospectiv ely reported) relationship quality among div orced couples. I n line w ith the findings on married couples, men’s low use of self - enhancing humor – at least on the basis of spouse-ratings – predicted div orced, compared to marital, status. I n addition, both male and female ex-spouses, and consistently across self- and spouse-ratings, reported low er use of affiliativ e humor and higher use of self-defeating humor, in comparison to married couples. Moreover, men’s high aggressiv e and earthy humor, measured through both self - and spouse-ratings, predicted div orced v ersus marital status. With the exception of self-defeating humor, w hich turned out to mirror insecure attachment, all other humor styles remained significant predictors of div orce, once attachment dimensions w ere also entered in the regression (w hich also controlled for betw een- humor styles ov erlap). As expected, insecure attac hment, w ith regard to the partner, w as higher in div orced than married couples; and div orced men and w omen tended to be both anxious and av oidant. But beyond these effects, low use of constructiv e humor by both men and w omen, high use of antisocial humor (earthy Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 113 and aggressiv e) by men, and high use of self-defeating humor by w omen, uniquely and additiv ely predicted div orce. When focusing on “assumed” spouse differences, i.e. those established w hen ev aluating one’s ow n humor v ersus spouse’s humor, it turned out that div orced men w ere similar to married men in discriminating betw een themselv es and their (ex)w iv es by attributing to them less humor of any style. How ev er, div orced w omen did not attribute a greater use of affiliativ e humor to their ex-spouse compared to themselv es, contrary to w hat married w omen did. They may hav e “underestimated” their ex-partner’s use of positiv e humor, or they may hav e somehow integrated the fact that ex-husbands are not so good at using it (w hat seemed to be the c ase w hen comparing married to div orced men in self-reports). Or, finally, div orced men may hav e “ov erestimated” their use of positiv e humor. Obv iously, in div orced couples, there is a discrepancy in perceptions of men’s use of positiv e humor. I nterestingly, there w as no such discrepancy w ith regar d to aggressiv e and earthy humor for w hich the gender differences w ere consistent, across judgments and judges, in f av or of a higher use of these humor styles by men. Additional infor mation w as obtained w hen examining spouse-v alidation of self- reports as w ell as spouse similarity on humor styles. Like in married couples, there w as, in div orced couples, (a) spouse-v alidation of self-ratings in all humor styles, and (b) spouse similarity, consistently across judges and judgments, on earthy and self - defeating humor. This could be understood by the fac t that the ex-partners w ere, at one time in the past, probably dating, and certainly married. Obv iously, like the still married couples, they had an acc urate perception of the partner’s humor; and they shared similarities on humor styles that reflect (a) conv entionalism or transgression of social nor ms and openness to experience (earthy humor ) and (b) neurotic tendency for self-diminishment in order to please others (self-defeating). How ev er, unlike the married couples, affiliativ e humor in div orced people receiv ed w eak spouse - v alidation, and, more importantly, together w ith aggressiv e humor, it constituted a domain of dissimilarity betw een partners. I n other w ords, partner dissimilarity in the pro- v ersus anti-social quality of humor used seems to be an additional characteristic of div orced compared to married couples. Note, finally, that the hypothesize d role of prosocial and antisocial humor in predicting high v ersus low relationship satisf action w as found to be significant among div orced couples, w hich w as not the case in married couples. Presumably, among the for mer, hostility and low w armth in the relationship, including w hen joking, but also dissimilarity betw een men and w omen on this for m of humor, Europe’s Journal of Psychology 114 decreased relationship satisfaction, increased the explosiv eness of the couple in the presence of v ulnerabilities and adv ersities, and led to relationship dissolution. On the contrary, prosocial and non-hostile humor, as w ell as spouse similarity on these constructs, may not be a necessary indicator of marital satisf action among partners w ho hav e already enjoyed marital stability for many years; if not, they should hav e had div orced. I n sum, marital instability and insatisfaction among div orced people seem to occur (a) not only in the context of men’s and w omen’s insecure attachment, but also w hen partners (b) make insufficient use of positiv e, constructiv e humor, (c ) make high use of antisocial (aggressiv e and earthy) humor (especially men), (d) differ in interpersonal w armth or hostility w hen using humor, (e) misperceiv e men-w omen differences in the use of positiv e humor, and (f) make high use of self-disparaging humor (especially w omen). Limitations and Questions for Future Research Despite the interest of presenting and comparing data on specific humor styles from div orced versus married couples, this study presents important limitations. The cross - sectional design prohibits any attribution of causality and causal direction. Although there is important longitudinal research in f av or of the idea that humor itself and humor interaction predict changes in a relationship months and years later, it c annot be totally excluded that div orced participants accentuated negativ ity in humor ev aluations, in line w ith their stereotypical perceptions of reasons leading to div orce. On the other hand, w hereas div orced participants filled in the questionnaires w ithout reciprocal consultation, w e had no control on married partners w ho could have communicated w ith each other w hen prov iding their responses. These limitations constitute challenges to be faced in future research through more careful, ideally longitudinal, designs, and behav ioral and observ ational measures not only of humor styles of each partner but also of their humor interac tion. Studying specific humorous responses during interac tions c an prov ide more nuanced information on the impact humor has on interpersonal relationships. I diographic assessment of humor seems to better predict intra-indiv idual v ariability as a function of the situation and context than do nomothetic approac hes of humor that assess only betw een-person differences (Caldw ell, Cervone, & Rubin, 2008). As briefly ev oked in the I ntroduction, the role of a specific humorous response (e.g., of affiliativ e type), ev en w ithin the same indiv iduals and w ith respect to the same domain, i.e. romantic relationships, may hav e different functions and effects Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 115 depending on w hether this occurs before dating (attractiv eness), during dating (comparativ e testing of alternativ es), marriage (stability), div orce (successful dissolution), or the post-div orce period (ex-spouses’ continuation of co-parenting). Another issue that arises from the present findings is that both partners’ humor styles seem to hav e an impact on marital insatisfaction and dissolution, but, in sev eral cases, this w as in a w ay that paralleled gender differences on personality. Men are typically found to be less agreeable and more aggressiv e, w hereas w omen more neurotic (Lippa, in press). I t may then be that, to some point, the problem for marital satisfaction and stability comes from men’s excessiv e use of “ masculine” humor (aggressiv e and earthy) and w omen’s excessiv e use of “feminine” humor (self - defeating). I t could thus be interesting to inv estigate in future research w hether the role of humor styles in predicting div orce simply reflects basic personality tendencies that are gender-specific or plays a unique and additiv e effect. Moreover, the impact of humor styles on relationship satisfaction and stability may be stronger or clearer once other indiv idual differences are included in the study as moderators. For instance, Kuiper and Borow icz-Sibenik (2005) found that the relation betw een humor and indicators of w ell-being w as clearer for people w ho “needed” it because of their low agency and low communion. The latter are important also for functioning in close relationships, and humor may thus be particularly beneficial to partners w ho are low on these dimensions. Finally, it is needless to say that the present w ork w as purely descriptiv e of psychologic al processes, and not ev aluativ e of the personal and social quality of the human realities studied: marriage, div orce, and humor. I ndependently of w hether particular humor styles may hav e a facilitativ e or deleterious effect on marital stability or dissolution, it is our pleasure to offer the reminder that, w hen one faces, for instance, the conflict betw een maintaining his/her aggressiv e humor style and allow ing the relationship to collapse, the decision is a question of personal taste or ethical judgment. Psychologic al research only infor ms, and w e, humans, are free to make c hoices, or at least to believ e that w e are. Note The results of the present study were presented at the 18t h I nternational Society for Humor Studies Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark (July 2006). Europe’s Journal of Psychology 116 References Baillargeon, J., Dubois, G., & Martineau, R. (1986). Traduction française de l’Echelle d’Ajustement Dyadique [A French translation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale]. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 18, 25–34. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press. Bressler, E. R., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 29–39. Butzer, B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2008). Humor use in romantic relationships: The effects of relationship satisfaction and pleasant v ersus conflict situation. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 245–260. Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 41–55. Caldw ell, T. L., Cervone, D., & Rubin, L. H. (2008). Explaining intra-individual variability in social behavior through idiographic assessment: The case of humor. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1229–1242. Caw ley, M. J., III, Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A v irtue approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 997–1013. Cann, A., Norman, M. A., Welbourne, J. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (2008). Attachment styles, conflict styles, and humour styles: I nter-relationships and associations w ith relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22, 131–146. Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 114–128. Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct. In W. Ruch (Ed.), Measurement approaches to the sense of humor special issue. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 273–302. Craik, K. H., & Ware, A. P. (1998). Humor and personality in everyday life. I n W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 63–94). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 117 Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Brockmeyer, S. (2009). Parental divorce and adult children's attachment representations and marital status. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 87–101. De Koning, E., & Weiss, R. L. (2002). The relational humor inventory: Functions of humor in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 1–18. Demeure, M.-E. (2004). Humor styles, adult attachment, and marital insatisf action in divorced couples (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43, 301–314. Doris, P. (2004). The Humor Styles Questionnaire: Investigating the role of humor in psychological well -being (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Feeney, B. C., & Monin, J. K. (2008). An attachment-theoretical perspective on divorce. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 934–957). New York: Guilford Press. Felmlee, D. H. (1995). Fatal attractions: Affection and disaffection in intimate relationships. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 12, 295–311. Fitts, S. D., Sebby, R. A., & Zlokovich, M. S. (2009). Humor styles as mediators of the shyness-loneliness relationship. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 257–272. Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61–78. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Soci al Psychology, 78, 350–365. Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. J. A. (2008). Humor styles and personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21, 179–195. Gallow ay, G. (2010). I ndividual differences in personal humor styles: I dentification of prominent patterns and their associates. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 563– 567. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 118 Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Sw anson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from new lywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. Gottman, J. M., & Lev enson, R. W. (1999). Rebound from marital conflict and divorce prediction. Family Process, 38, 287–292. Herzog, T. R., & Anderson, M. R. (2000). Joke cruelty, emotional responsiveness, and joke appreciation. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 13, 333–351. Herzog, T. R., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Preferences for sick versus non-sick humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,11, 291–312. Hirschberger, G., Srivastava, S., Marsh, P., Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2009). Attachment, marital satisfaction, and divorce during the first fifteen years of parenthood. Personal Relationships, 16, 401–420. Johnson, M. D. (2002). The observation of specific affect in marital interactions: Psychometric properties of a coding system and a rating system. Psychological Assessment, 14, 423–438. Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Humor styles, personality, and well-being among Lebanese university students. European Journal of Personality, 18, 209–219. Keltner D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1247. Kirsh, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2003). Positive and negative aspects of sense of humor: Associations with the constructs of individualism and relatedness. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16, 33–62. Kuiper, N. A., & Borowicz-Sibenik, M. (2005). A good sense of humor doesn’t always help: Agency and communion as moderators of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 365–377. Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-evaluative standards and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 359–376. Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 119 Lacour, C. (2002). Humor styles, adult attachment, and marital satisfaction (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of stability and satisfaction. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31, 189–195. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Bourdage, J. S., & Ogunfowora, B. (2009). Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of w ell-acquainted persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 460–472. Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and w omen: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208. Lippa, R. A. (in press). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social env ironmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. New York: Academic Press. Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1313– 1324. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). I ndividual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75. Matthews, L. S., Wickrama, K. A. S., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Predicting marital instability from spouse and observer reports of marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 641–655. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (209). Openness to experience. I n M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). New York: Guilford Press. Murstein, B. I ., & Brust, R. G. (1985). Humor and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 637–640. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 120 Priest, R. F., & Thein, M. T. (2003). Humor appreciation in marriage: Spousal similarity, assortative mating, and disaffection. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16, 63–78. Rammstedt, B., & Schupp, J. (2008). Only the congruent survive: Personality similarities in couples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 533–535. Rodrigues, A. E., Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). What predicts divorce and relationship dissolution? I n M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rust, J., & Goldstein, J. (1989). Humor in marital adjustment. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 2, 217–223. Saroglou, V. (1999). Humor, religion, and personality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Saroglou, V. & Anciaux, L. (2004). Liking sick humor: Coping styles and religion as predictors. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 257–277. Saroglou, V., Kempeneers, A., & Seynhaeve, I. (2003). Need for closure and adult attachment dimensions as predictors of religion and reading interests. I n P. Roelofsma, J. Corveleyn, & J. v an Saane (Eds.), One hundred years of psychology and religion (pp. 139–154). Amsterdam: VU University Press. Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Personality, 16, 43–54. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales of assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Famil y, 38, 15–28. Taher, D., Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2008). Validation of the Arabic Humor Styles Questionnaire in a community sample of Lebanese in Lebanon. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 552–564. Tümkaya, S. (2007). Burnout and humor relationship among univ ersity lecturers. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 20, 73–92. Humor Styles, Marriage, and Divorce 121 Vernon, P. A., Martin, R. A., Schermer, J. A., & Mackie, A. (2008). A behav ioral genetic inv estigation of humor styles and their correlations w ith the Big-5 personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1116–1125. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Schermer, J. A., Kirilovic, S., Martin, R. A., Petrides, K.V., Spector, & Cherkas, L. F. (2009). Genetic and environmental correlations between trait emotional intelligence and humor styles. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 130–137. Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Martin, R. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2010). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 772–774. Ziv , A. (1988). Humor’s role in married life. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 1, 223–229. Ziv , A., & Gadish, O. (1989). Humor and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 759–768. About the aut hors: Vassilis Saroglou, Ph.D., is professor of psychology at the Université catholique de Louvain, Div ision of social psychology. He has extensive research on personality and social psychology of religion, as well as psychology of humor from a personality and positive emotions perspective. Address for correspondence: Prof. Vassilis Saroglou UCLouvain, Dept. of psychology, Centre for psychology of religion, Division of social and organizational psychology, Pl. du Cardinal Mercier 10 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Email: v assilis.saroglou@uclouv ain.be Christelle Lacour holds a master’s degree in psychology from the Université catholique de Louvain. Data and results from the sample of married couples were first presented in her master’s thesis (2002). Marie-Eve Demeure holds a master’s degree in psychology from the Université catholique de Louvain. Data and results from the sample of divorced couples were first presented in her master’s thesis (2004). mailto:vassilis.saroglou@uclouvain.be