Running Head: IMPACT OF HUMOROUS COMMENTS Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), pp. 236-266 www.ejop.org Reactions to Humorous Comments and Implicit Theories of Humor Styles Nicholas A. Kuiper Univ ersity of Western Ontario Gillian A. Kirsh Univ ersity of Western Ontario Catherine Leite Univ ersity of Western Ontario Abstract The first two studies investigated reactions to several different types of humorous comments. Participants indicated they would be significantly more likely to continue interacting with a friend who used adaptive self-enhancing or affiliative humor rather than maladaptive aggressive or self-defeating humor; w ith the most detrimental effects being evident for aggressive humor. Adaptive humorous comments also made recipients feel significantly more positive and less negative about themselves. Humor styles were further investigated in terms of implicit theories about humor. Study 2 indicated that for the self, humor was perceived as being used most often w ith close friends, followed by family members, romantic partners, casual acquaintances, and least often with teachers. Participants also indicated that affiliative humor was used most frequently for each relationship, followed by self-enhancing humor, self-defeating humor, and then aggressive humor. Study 3 examined the perceived frequency of use for each humor style by others. Participants indicated affiliative humor to be the most frequently used humor style, regardless of the group being rated (people in general, people one knows, family and friends), self-enhancing humor to be the second most frequently used, and the two maladaptive humor styles as being used the least often. Different co-variation patterns for the four humor styles were also found. These findings were then discussed in terms of the strong differential impact of humor styles on the recipients of humorous comments; as w ell as the implicit theories of humor styles that are ev ident for self or others. Key words: Humor styles, humor impact, humor use, implicit theories of humor, self, other http://www.ejop.org/ Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 237 I t has often been suggested that humor plays an integral role in a w ide v ariety of social interactions and interpersonal relationships (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008; Klein & Kuiper, 2006; Martin, 2007). For example, in rev iew ing the social psychological aspects of humor, Martin (2007) has pointed out that humor is fundamentally a social phenomenon that is inv olved in numerous aspects of interpersonal communication. These functions include using humor to sav e face and reliev e tensions in potentially embarrassing situations, as w ell as the use of humor to self -disclose and deter mine the beliefs and attitudes of others. Further more, humor can also be used by a high status indiv idual to maintain dominance ov er others, and by a low -status indiv idual to gain the approv al of those thought to be important (Klein & Kuiper, 2006). I n a group context, humor can be used to highlight and enhance group identity and cohesion; or manage discourse by shifting conv ersations aw ay from threatening to more light-hearted topics (Martin, 2007). I nterpersonally, humor is rated as being among the most important personal char acteristics w e seek in others; w ith this desire for humor ev ident in many different types of relationships, including dating, marriage, and friendships (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008). Much of the theorizing and w ork on the role of humor in social interactions and interpersonal relationships has rested on the implicit assumption that humor is primarily a positiv e attribute. As such, this w ork has often focused on the beneficial contributions made by humor‟s inv olv ement in social domains, leading to the more general notion that humor prov ides a social facilitativ e effect. This effect is undoubtedly a v ery important function of humor use in both social interactions and interpersonal relationships. How ev er, other contemporary research suggests that it is equally important to consider the possible detrimental impact of humor. This personality research on humor, w hich forms the theoretic al and empiric al keystone for the present set of studies, is described in more detail below . Ov er the past sev eral years, a number of research studies hav e clearly delineated the existence of both facilitativ e and detrimental humor styles (Kuiper, Grimshaw , Leite, & Kirsh, 2004; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003; Martin, 2007; Saroglou & Scariot, 2002). I n this personality-based approach to humor, the tw o adaptiv e styles are affiliativ e and self-enhancing humor; w hereas the tw o maladaptiv e styles are aggressiv e and self-defeating humor. Affiliativ e humor inv olv es funny, non-hostile jokes, and spontaneous w itty banter to amuse others in a respectful w ay. I t is aimed at others and used in an adaptiv e manner to facilitate relationships and reduce interpersonal conflict. Aggressiv e humor, on the other hand, is intended to put others dow n by using sarcasm, teasing and ridicule. As such, the use of this maladaptiv e humor style may hurt or alienate others. I n Europe’s Journal of Psychology 238 contrast, self-enhancing humor is often used as a n adaptiv e coping mec hanism, allow ing the indiv idual to adopt a humorous outlook on life and maintain a realistic perspectiv e in stressful situations. Finally, self-defeating maladaptiv e humor inv olv es self-disparagement and allow ing oneself to be the „bu tt‟ of the joke, in order to gain the approv al of others. The four humor styles, as described in the abov e model, hav e typically been assessed v ia the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Using this measure, a number of studies now prov ide ev idence for the existence of these four styles across European (Saraglou & Scariot, 2002; Vernon, Martin, Scher mer & Mackie, 2008), North American (Kuiper et al, 2004: Martin et al., 2003), Middle Eastern (Kalliny, Cruthirds & Minor, 2006; Taher, Kazarian & Martin, 2008) and Eastern cultures (Chen & Martin, 2007). Further more, these studies also support the distinction betw een adaptiv e and maladaptiv e humor styles, as higher lev els of adaptiv e humor are usually associated w ith low er depression and higher self-esteem. I n contrast, higher lev els of maladaptiv e humor are typic ally associated w ith increased depression and low er self-esteem. The important role of sev eral of the humor styles in contributing to these aspects of psychological health has been further confirmed by recent w ork focusing on multiple mediators of w ell-being (Dozois, Martin, & Bieling, in press; Kuiper & McHale, 2009). Taken together, the abov e studies prov ide a clear and comprehensiv e picture of the four humor styles and their differential relationship to psychologic al w ell-being. I n contrast, much less is know n about how these humor styles may impact on another person in a typic al social interaction (Klein & Kuiper, 2006). As such, this issue w as explored in the present set of studies by focusing on the responses made by indiv iduals that w ere the recipients of humorous comments pertaining to each of the four humor styles. I n this research, w e w ere first of all interested in deter mining the extent to w hich each type of humorous comment (affiliativ e, self-enhancing, aggressiv e, and self-defeating) might hav e either a positiv e or negativ e impact on the recipient‟s ov erall desire to continue interacting w ith the indiv idual that just made that comment. Secondly, w e w ere also interested in deter mining the degree to w hich each type of humorous comment might make recipients feel either more positiv e or negativ e about themselv es. These tw o issues w ere empirically inv estigated in Study 1 using a univ ersity sample, and then in Study 2 using a younger sample of high school adolescents. I n addition to inv estigating the potential effects of humor styles on recipients, the present studies w ere also designed to further our know ledge base concerning Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 239 implicit theories of humor, particularly as they apply to the four humor styles. I mplicit theories of humor concern the indiv idual‟s beliefs, cognitions and perceptions regarding v arious facets of humor and include, for example, perceptions of the additional personality attributes that are expected to characterize indiv iduals high on each humor style (Kuiper & Leite, 2010). Since the humor styles hav e only been recently identified, little research has thus far focused on implicit theories of humor as they may directly pertain to these four styles. Accordingly, a further aim of the present research w as to expand our understanding of sev eral additional facets of implicit theories of humor. Study 2 began this examination by documenting indiv iduals‟ perceptions regarding their ow n perceived frequency of use for each humor style, across a v ariety of typical relationships (e.g., close friends, family members, and teachers). Study 3, in turn, assessed participants‟ perceptions of the frequency of use of eac h humor style by others, including people in general, people one know s, and family and friends. This final study also explored the extent to w hich the humor styles are perceiv ed to co - v ary. In other w ords, giv en that a person displays a certain humor style (e.g., affiliativ e) how muc h w ould w e also expect that person to dis play each of the remaining humor styles (i.e., self-affiliativ e, aggressiv e, and self-defeating)? Study 1: The Impact of Humorous Comments on Others I n light of the major distinctions betw een adaptiv e and maladaptiv e humor styles (Martin, 2007), w e expected that the v arious humor styles w ould exert quite different effects in an interpersonal context. Our first study prov ided a preliminary examination of this issue by inv estigating tw o potential effects of humorous comments. The first w as the effect of a friend‟s humorous comments on the recipient‟s desire to continue interacting w ith that friend. The second w as the effect of a friend‟s humorous comment on the recipient‟s feelings about self. These tw o effects w ere examined using short scenarios that w ere presented in a questionnaire format. Participants w ere first asked to imagine that a friend had just made a humorous comment in a social situation. Here, each humor style w as represented by a brief statement that c aptured the essence of that particular style. For example, the statement for aggressiv e humor w as, “A friend makes a humorous comment that puts dow n another person in the group.” Follow ing each humorous comment, participants then rated how much they w anted to continue interacting w ith that friend, follow ed by a rating of how that comment made them feel about themselv es. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 240 The humor styles model (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin, 2007) w as used to generate predictions for the expected pattern of findings. Ov erall, w e expected that the adaptiv e humorous comments (self-enhancing and affiliativ e) w ould result in a stronger desire to continue interac ting w ith the friend and more positiv e feelings about self, than the maladaptiv e humorous comments (self-defeating, aggressiv e). Affiliativ e humor, for example, functions primarily to enhance social relationships (Martin, 2007). As such, the basic facilitativ e nature of this adaptiv e style w ould help foster more pleasant social interactions, including more positiv e feelings about self. I n a similar fashio n, self-enhancing humor, w hile not directly oriented tow ards the other indiv idual in an interaction, w ould nonetheless still contribute to a more positiv e and light-hearted social interchange, thus hav ing positiv e effects on our tw o measures. I n contrast, for the maladaptiv e humor styles, w e hypothesized that the aggressiv e humorous comments w ould hav e the most negativ e impact on the recipient, resulting in the low est desire to continue interacting and the most negativ e feelings about self. These predictions stem from the deliberately hurtful nature of aggressiv e humor that is directed tow ards the recipient (Martin et al., 2003; Martin, 2007). These charac teristics of maladaptiv e aggressiv e humor w ould make the recipient w ant to w ithdraw from the situation, both emotionally and physic ally. At a broader lev el, these detrimental effects could then lead to enhanced negativ e feelings about the self. As such, w e expected to see a significant main effect of adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e humor in our analysis. Finally, our expec tations regar ding the impact of self-defeating humor on recipients w ere less clearly defined. The humor styles model proposes that the function of self - defeating humor is to make the indiv idual feel more accepted by the people they interact w ith (Martin, 2007). I n turn, this suggests that the use of self -defeating humor w ould be v iew ed by the recipients in a more fav ourable manner than aggressiv e humor, resulting in the recipients hav ing an increased desire to continue interacting w ith the indiv idual using self-defeating humor. This could also lead to more positiv e feelings about the self in this situation. I n our analysis, this pattern of findings could be reflected in a significant interaction betw een adaptiv e-maladaptiv e humor and the self-other focus of this humor, w ith self-defeating humor being signific antly less negativ e in its impact than aggressiv e humor, but not as positiv e as either of the adaptiv e humor styles (affiliativ e or self-enhancing). On the other hand, the explicit demeaning and ingratiating nature of self-defeating humor may result in a negativ e distancing response by recipients. This distancing reaction w ould be ev ident in a reduced desire to interact w ith the indiv idual using this humor style, and a more detrimental impact on the recipients‟ feelings about self. To the extent this negativ e distancing effect is ev ident, it could result in effects for self -defeating humor that are Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 241 equiv alent to those expected for aggressiv e humor, thus precluding any significant interaction effects in our analyses. Method Participants The sample consisted of one hundred and thirty-tw o univ ersity students (42 males and 90 females), enrolled in introductory psychology courses at the Univ ersity of Western Ontario. Their mean age w as 19.23 (SD = 1.12), w ith a range from 17 to 24. Each participant receiv ed one course credit for participation. Measures Reactions to Humorous Comments Inventor y (RHCI). The RHCI w as designed specifically to assess participants‟ reactions to the use of each humor style by another person. To begin, three researchers highly familiar w ith the humor styles model jointly crafted a brief statement for each style that incorporated the essential aspects of that humor style. Each of these four statements w as then presented on the RHCI as if a friend of the participant had just made that humorous comment in a social interaction. The four types of statements w ere as follow s: “A friend makes a positiv e humorous comment to help maintain group morale” (affiliativ e humor style), “A friend makes a positiv e humorous comment to cheer him/herself up” (self - enhancing humor), “A friend makes a humorous comment that puts dow n another person in the group” (aggressiv e humor), and “A friend gets carried aw ay in making humorous comments that are self-critical” (self-defeating humor). For each humorous comment, participants w ere first asked to rate the degree to w hich they w ould w ant to continue interacting w ith a friend using that type of humor. Follow ing this, participants indicated the extent to w hich each type of humorous comment w ould make them feel either more positiv e or negativ e about themselv es. These self-ratings w ere made separately for positiv e and negativ e feelings, as prev ious research has demonstrated that these tw o constructs are often independent (Kirsh & Kuiper, 2003). All of the ratings on the RHCI w ere made on 5- point Likert scales, w ith 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “v ery much.” Procedure After receiv ing appropriate ethics approv al, participants w ere tested in groups that ranged in size from 20 to 25 indiv iduals. Each participant w as giv en an infor med Europe’s Journal of Psychology 242 consent for m prior to completing the questionnaire booklet (w hich also contained sev eral further questionnaires not relev ant to the present study). Upon completion of the booklet, w hich took approximately 30 minutes, participants w ere giv en a debriefing for m w ith further details regarding the present research. Results and Discussion The means and standard dev iations for each RHCI rating are presented in Table 1 , ______________________________________________________________________________________ HUMOROUS COMMENTS Adaptiv e Maladaptiv e Self Other Self Other _____________________________________________________________ Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e Continue I nteracting M 4.38 4.36 3.30 2.72 SD .68 .70 .89 1.08 Positiv e Self-Feeling M 3.58 3.70 2.72 2.43 SD 1.11 .87 1.00 1.10 Negativ e Self-Feeling M 1.73 1.52 2.40 2.38 SD .91 .73 1.00 1.12 Notes. n = 132 All ratings were made on 5 point scales, with 1 = “Not at all” and 5 = “very much. Table 1: Study 1 Means and SDs for Responses to Humorous Comments _________________________________________________________________________ _________ for each type of Humorous Comment. Each rating (continue interacting, positiv e and negativ e self-feelings) w as analyzed using a 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis of v ariance (ANOVA), in w hich the first factor w as the adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e nature of the humorous comment inv olv ed. Recall that the adaptiv e comments inv olv ed either self-enhancing or affiliativ e humor, w hereas the maladaptiv e comments inv olved either self-defeating or aggressiv e humor. The second factor for each ANOVA considered the self v ersus other focus of the humorous comment; w ith self-enhancing and self-defeating humor being self-focused, and affiliativ e and aggressiv e humor being other-focused. This 2 x 2 analysis follow ed directly from the theoretical distinc tions made in the humor styles model (Martin et al., 2003). Finally, Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 243 in addition to considering main effects, each ANOVA also tested for a significant interaction betw een adaptiv e-maladaptiv e and self-other humor styles. Desire to Continue Interacting. The 2 x 2 ANOVA on these ratings (show n in the top row of Table 1) rev ealed the expected significant main effect of adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e humor, F = 283.89, p < .001. Here, participants indicated that they w ould be significantly more likely to continue interacting w ith a friend w ho used adaptiv e rather than maladaptiv e humor (respectiv e main effect means of 4.37 versus 3.01). This ANOVA also rev ealed that the main effect of self -other humor w as significant, F = 26.65, p < .001, w ith self-focused humor resulting in a greater desire to continue interacting than other-focused humor (respectiv e means of 3.83 v ersus 3.54). Both of these main effects, how ev er, w ere qualified by a significant interaction betw een adaptiv e-maladaptiv e and self-other humor. Examination of the cell means show n in the top row of Table 1 indic ated that all t-test comparisons w ere significant (p‟s <.001), except affiliativ e v ersus self-enhancing humor. Thus, for both types of adaptiv e humorous comments (self-enhancing, affiliativ e) participants w ere more w illing to continue interacting w ith these friends than w ith friends that used either aggressiv e or self-defeating humorous comments. Further more, participants w ere significantly less likely to w ant to continue inter acting w ith friends w ho used aggressiv e humorous comments, w hen compared w ith friends w ho used self-defeating comments. This pattern indicates that aggressiv e humor is ev en more maladaptiv e in a social interaction context than self-defeating humor. Positive Self -Feelings. The 2 x 2 ANOVA on the ratings show n in the middle row of Table 1 indic ated a sole significant main effect for adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e humor, F = 158.61, p < .001. As expec ted, a friend‟s use of adaptiv e humor resulted in signific antly more positiv e feelings about the self than the friend‟s use of maladaptiv e humor (respectiv e main effect means of 3.64 v ersus 2.58). Neither the main effect of self-other humor, nor the tw o-w ay interaction w ere significant. Ov erall, this pattern indicates that recipients‟ positiv e feelings about the self are only influenced by the adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e nature of the humorous comments; and are not influenced by the self v ersus other focus of these comments. With respect to maladaptiv e humor, for example, it w as not the c ase that aggressiv e humorous comments lead to significantly less positiv e self-feelings than self-defeating humorous comments. Similarly, both adaptiv e humorous comments (affiliativ e and self-enhancing) resulted in the same degree of positiv e feelings about self. Negative Self -Feelings. A 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA on the ratings show n in the bottom row of Table 1 indicated a sole significant main effect for adaptiv e Europe’s Journal of Psychology 244 versus maladaptiv e humor, F = 83.83, p < .001. Again, as expec ted, there w ere more negativ e feelings about the self follow ing a friend‟s use of maladaptiv e humor than after adaptiv e humor (respec tiv e means of 2.49 v ersus 1.63). Neither the main effect of self-other humor nor the tw o-w ay interaction w ere significant. Thus, once again only the adaptiv e versus maladaptiv e nature of the humorous comments w as relev ant. The self v ersus other focus of the humorous comments w as once again irrelev ant; aggressiv e humorous comments did not result in more negativ e self - feelings than self-defeating humorous comments. Similarly, the tw o adaptiv e humorous comments (self-enhancing and affiliativ e) both had the same impact on the recipients‟ negativ e feelings about self. Study 2: The Impact and Use of Humor in Adolescents The v ast majority of research on the humor styles model has been conducted w ith adult samples (Martin, 2007). Much less is know n about humor styles in younger participants , although recent w ork by Erickson and Feldstein (2007) has found ev idence for the existence of humor styles in adolescents as young as 12 years of age. Further more, these researchers found that the humor style scores displayed by these adolescents w ere quite comparable to an adult comparison group; and that the adolescent sample also show ed the same gener al pattern of relationships betw een each humor style and coping or psychological w ell-being as adults. These findings indicate that the further inv estigation of humor styles in adolescents is w arranted. Accordingly, the first part of Study 2 examined the same issues looked at in Study 1, but now using a younger sample of adolescents in high school. As noted by many dev elopmental psychologists, adolescence is a time of profound c hange, w ith the indiv idual pr acticing a v ariety of new roles and incorporating sev eral of these into a more complex and differentiated self-concept (Harter, Bresnick, Bouchey & Whitesell, 1997). These different aspects of self emerge across adolescence, w ith discrepancies often being ev ident across v arious self-concept roles and relationships, such as being shy in romantic relationships yet v ery talkativ e w ith same - sex friends (Harter, 1999). The examination of humor is particularly relev ant to this age group, as one of the defining characteristics of adolescence is the increasing emph asis on for ming and maintaining relationships of v arious kinds, including close friends, romantic partners, and casual acquaintances. I n these relationships, humorous communication is often taken less seriously than non-humorous communication, and can therefore func tion Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 245 as an outlet for experimentation w ith new roles and activ ities. As such, examining the impact of humor in a social context may hav e particular relev ance for adolescents. Giv en that the four humor styles are also quite ev ident in adolescen ts (Erikson & Feldstein, 2007) w e expected a pattern of findings similar to Study 1. I n other w ords, w e expected that the adaptiv e humorous comments w ould lead to an increased desire to continue interacting, along w ith more positiv e (and less negativ e) fe elings about self, w hen compared w ith maladaptiv e humorous comments. With regards to further distinc tions betw een the tw o types of maladaptiv e humorous comments (self - defeating v ersus aggressiv e), Erikson and Feldstein (2007) found that self -defeating humor w as particularly salient during adolescence, and predicted depression symptoms abov e and beyond coping styles and other defence strategies. Thus, it may be the case that adolescents distinguish more clearly betw een the effects of self-defeating v ersus aggressiv e humorous comments than do adults. I f so, this may result in differential effects for these tw o maladaptiv e humor styles across all three of our measures, namely the desire to continue interacting, as w ell as positiv e and negativ e feelings about the self. This pattern w ould emerge in the form of a significant inter action ter m for all three analyses. On the other hand, it also remains possible that adolescents w ill display a pattern similar to adults, w ith differences betw een self-defeating and aggressiv e humor comments being limited only to the desire to continue interacting w ith the friend. I n turn, the second part of Study 2 foc used on implicit theories of humor as they pertain directly to the four humor styles. Since almost no research has examined this issue, w e began our inv estigation by deter mining how indiv iduals v iew certain aspects of their ow n humor styles. Thus, the Reactions to Humorous Comments I nventory (RHCI ) w as further modified to assess the perceiv ed frequency of use for each of the four humor styles across fiv e different types of relationships. These relationships included close friends, family members, romantic partners, casual acquaintances, and teachers. These categories ensured cov erage of both close and more distant relationships. I n general, w e expected that the adaptiv e humor styles (both affiliativ e and self - enhancing) w ould be more w idely used across all of the abov e relationship categories than the maladaptiv e styles (self-defeating and aggressiv e). I n addition, w e expected that the highest ov erall frequencies of humor use w ould be ev ident for close relationships (such as close friends and family), w hereas the low est frequencies of humor use w ould be ev ident for the more distant relationships (e.g., teac hers). Europe’s Journal of Psychology 246 Beyond this, how ev er, w e also expected that the distinct multidimensional nature of the self-concept in adolescence (Harter et al., 1997; Harter, 1999) w ould enhance the use of quite different humor styles for some of these relationships. For example, adolescents may be much more comfortable using the maladaptiv e humor styles most often w ith close friends, but least often w ith teachers and family members. Method Participants The sample consisted of 181 students (80 males and 101 females) enrolled in tw o local high schools. The students w ere in grades 9 through 13, and w ere taking classes in English, Computer Science, Geography, Mathematics, and Parenting. Their mean age w as 16.55 (SD = 1.50), w ith a range from 14 to 21 years. Measures Reactions to Humorous Comments Inventor y (RHCI). Study 1 prov ided a description of the initial RHCI that assessed the impact of humorous comments on both the desire to continue interacting and self-feelings (positiv e and negativ e). I n Study 2, a second section w as added to the RHCI to assess participants‟ use of each of the four humor styles in fiv e different types of relationships (w ith close friends, family members, romantic partner, casual acquaintances, and teachers). Each humor style w as presented for each type of relationship by using the self-referent format illustrated in the follow ing statements: “I make positiv e humorous comments to help maintain the mor ale of others” (affiliativ e humor), “I make positiv e humorous comments to cheer myself up.” (self-enhancing humor), “I make humorous comments that put dow n another person.” (aggressiv e humor), and “I get carried aw ay in making humorous comments that are self-critical.” (self-defeating humor). Frequency of use w as assessed for each humor style, for each type of relationship, using a 5-point Likert scale, w ith 1 = “Very rarely used” and 5 = “Very frequently used.” Procedure The study receiv ed ethics approv al from the univ ersity, as w ell as the tw o school boards that w ere inv olv ed. Tw o high schools (one from each school board) participated in the study. The principals in each school described the study to the teachers, and those interested v olunteered their class time. Eac h student w as giv en an infor med consent form that w as taken home and signed by a parent (or Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 247 guardian) and the student. Participants completed the booklets (w hich contained further questionnaires not relev ant to the present study) in classes of 10 to 25 students, in about 40 minutes. Upon completion of the booklet, participants w ere giv en a debriefing form w ith further details of the study. Results and Discussion T-tests rev ealed that there w ere no significant differences betw een the tw o schools on any of the measures. Accordingly, the findings reported below are based on analyses that collapsed the data across the tw o high schools. Means and standar d dev iations for the desire to continue interacting, as w ell as positiv e and negativ e feelings about the self, are show n in Table 2. Each measure w as analyzed using a 2 x 2 repeated factors ANOVA to test for both the main effects of adaptiv e-maladaptiv e and self-other humor, as w ell as their possible interaction. Desire to Continue Inter acting. The top row of Table 2 presents the effects of a friend‟s humorous comment on a recipient‟s desire to continue interacting w ith that friend. As expected, a significant main effect w as found for adaptiv e -maladaptiv e humor, F =419.50, p <.001, w ith a muc h stronger desire to continue interacting w ith a friend that used adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e humorous co mments (respectiv e main effect means of 4.03 v ersus 2.62). A significant main effect w as also found for the self-other focus of the humor, F = 20.03, p<.001, w ith recipients reporting a stronger desire to continue interacting w ith a friend that used self rather than other humorous comments (respectiv e main effect means of 3.44 and 3.21). A signific ant interac tion w as also found, F = 7.18, p <.025, w ith post-hoc tests indic ating that all comparisons among the four cell means show n in the top row of Table 2 w ere significantly different, except affiliativ e v ersus self-enhancing humor. Thus, affiliativ e and self- enhancing humor resulted in the most f av ourable reaction to continue interacting, follow ed by self-defeating, and then aggressiv e humorous comments. This is the same ov erall pattern found in Study 1, and indic ates that aggressiv e humorous comments w ere also the most detrimental for adolescents. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 248 __________________________________________________________________________________ HUMOROUS COMMENTS Adaptiv e Maladaptiv e Self Other Self Other _____________________________________________________________ Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e Continue Interacting M 4.08 3.98 2.81 2.43 SD .91 .84 .93 1.04 Positive Self Feelings M 3.53 3.58 2.61 2.40 SD 1.01 .90 .98 1.14 Negative Self Feelings M 1.96 1.75 2.59 2.46 SD 1.06 .87 1.14 1.19 Notes. n = 181 All ratings were made on 5 point scales, w ith 1 = “Not at all” and 5 = “very much. Table 2: Study 2 Means and SDs for Responses to Humorous Comments ______________________________________________________________________________________ Positive Self -feelings. The degree to w hich humorous comments impact the self in a positiv e w ay are presented in the middle row of Table 2. The 2 x 2 ANOVA on these ratings indic ated a significant main effect for adaptiv e-maladaptiv e humor, F = 177.28, p<.001; w ith significantly more positiv e feelings about the self for adaptiv e compared to maladaptiv e humorous comments (respectiv e means of 3.44 v ersus 2.50). No further effects w ere found for this ANOVA. This pattern for adolescents is identic al to that found for the young adults in Study 1. Negative Self -f eelings. The bottom row of Table 2 presents the means and standard dev iations for negativ e feelings about the self. A 2 x 2 ANOVA indic ated significant main effects for both adaptiv e-maladaptiv e, F = 7.37, p <.025, and self-other humor, F = 60.42, p <.001. Thus, as w as the case for adults in Study 1, the adolescents in Study 2 also reported more negativ e feelings about themselv es after a friend‟s use of maladaptiv e v ersus adaptiv e humorous comments (respectiv e main effect means of 2.51 v ersus 1.86). I n addition, how ev er, these adolescents also reported more Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 249 negativ e self-feelings after the friend‟s use of humorous comments w ith a self rather than other focus (respectiv e main effect means of 2.29 v ersus 2.11). Finally, the interaction ter m w as not significant in this analysis, as w as the case in Study 1. __________________________________________________________________________________ HUMOR STYLES Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e Close Friends M 3.64 4.32 2.79 2.51 (M=3.32) SD 1.21 .89 1.18 1.37 Family Members M 3.32 3.68 2.53 2.46 (M=3.00) SD 1.16 1.03 1.24 1.36 Romantic Partners M 3.16 3.70 2.30 1.77 (M=2.72) SD 1.31 1.05 1.13 1.09 Causal Ac quaintances M 2.74 3.23 2.02 1.78 (M=2.45) SD 1.17 .94 1.06 1.04 Teachers M 2.44 2.75 1.74 1.52 (M=2.11) SD 1.26 1.16 .98 .99 Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e Ov erall M 3.06 3.53 2.28 2.01 Table 3: Study 2 Means and SDs for Humor Styles Use by Type of Relationship _________________________________________________________________________________ Humor Use in Different Types of Relationships. Table 3 show s the perceiv ed use of each humor style across fiv e different relationships. Examination of the means show n in Table 3 indic ates tw o prominent patterns. First, the pattern of use for the humor styles remains quite consistent w ithin each of the fiv e relationships. I n other w ords, w hen looking across each row of Table 3, it is ev ident that affiliativ e humor is used most often in each type of relationship (close friends, family members, etc.), compared to the remaining three humor styles. After affiliativ e humor, self - enhancing humor is used second most often, follow ed by self -defeating humor, and then aggressiv e humor, w hich is used least often (see also the bottom-most row of Table 3 for ov erall means for each humor style collapsed ov er all relationships). Thus, as expected, the adaptiv e humor styles w ere perceiv ed as being used mor e often by the self than the maladaptiv e humor styles. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 250 A second consistent pattern is the relativ e frequency of humor use across the fiv e relationships. As show n in the columns of Table 3, eac h of the four humor styles is used most frequently w ith close friends, follow ed by family members, romantic partners, c asual ac quaintances, and teachers. Combining the tw o patterns indicates that the humor style used most often is affiliativ e humor, and it is used most often w ith close friends. The ov erall means for humor use in each type of relationship (i.e., the av eraged use of all four humor styles for that relationship) are presented directly under each relationship label along the left-side of Table 3. Giv en that all four humor styles w ere used most frequently w ith close friends, t-tests w ere performed comparing ov erall humor use in this type of relationship w ith all of the remaining types of relationships. All of these comparisons w ere significant, all p‟s < .001, indicating that significantly more humor is used w ith close friends than w ith any of the other types of relationships. Ov erall, this pattern supports the proposal that more humor is used in close rather than more distant relationships (e.g., close friends v ersus teachers). Study 3: Implicit Theories of Humor Use and Cov ariation in Others There has been v ery little research examining how implicit theories of humor might incorporate the four humor styles. For example, it is not yet know n w hether affiliativ e humor is perceiv ed as being used by other indiv iduals more frequently than self- enhancing humor. Similarly, nothing is yet know n about the perceiv ed frequency of use of either aggressiv e or self-defeating humor by others. Further more, there has been no inv estigation of indiv iduals‟ perceptions of the cov ariation among the four humor styles. I n other w ords, it is unclear how a person that displays high affiliativ e humor w ould be perceiv ed w ith respect to the remaining styles of humor, such as self-enhancing or aggressiv e humor. Would suc h an in div idual be v iew ed as also hav ing higher self-enhancing humor than aggressiv e humor, or v ice-versa, or equal lev els of both? I n addition, w ould their lev el of self-defeating humor be v iew ed as being higher or low er than their self-enhancing or aggressiv e humor? Currently, no information exists regarding the perceiv ed patterns of humor cov ariation that underlie an implicit theory of humor styles. Accordingly, the main purpose of Study 3 w as to inv estigate the abov e issues. We began by exploring how often each humor style is thought to be used by other people. Here, w e also took into account the potential impact of v arious types of relationships that differ in familiarity. Thus, w e considered perceiv ed frequency of use for each humor style for people in general, people one know s, and close family Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 251 and friends. Ov erall, w e expected that the perceiv ed frequency of use for the tw o adaptiv e humor styles (affiliativ e, self-enhancing) w ould be higher than perceptions of use regarding the tw o maladaptiv e humor styles (aggressiv e, self-defeating). This pattern w ould be consistent w ith research findings indicating that positiv e instances of humor use are generally much more frequent than negativ e (Butzer & Kuiper, 2008; DeKoning & Wiess, 2002; Martin, 2007). I t is possible that any distinctions betw een perceiv ed frequencies of use for the four humor styles may pertain to the target group being considered. For example, the use of adaptiv e humor that facilitates interactions may be partic ularly v alued in encounters w ith people one does not k now w ell, thus highlighting affiliativ e humor for people in general. How ev er, for highly familiar others, suc h as family members, affiliativ e humor may not play suc h a central role. I n turn, this may limit the salience of its perceiv ed use among family members and friends. Further more, for familiar others, one may become more cognizant of that person‟s use of adaptiv e humor for other purposes, such as coping w ith stress v ia self-enhancing humor. Thus, by including target groups w ith three different lev els of familiarity, w e w ere able to examine the degree to w hich perceptions of humor use may also be sensitiv e to the degree of know ledge about others. The second and final part of Study 3 examined indiv iduals‟ perceptions of the relationships among the four humor styles. Participants w ere giv en separate descriptions of four target indiv iduals, eac h of w hom w as high on one of the four humor styles. For each target indiv idual, participants w ere then asked to rate the degree to w hich they believ ed the remaining three humor styles w ould also be characteristic of that target person, thus prov iding an assessment of the perceiv ed degree of cov ariation among the v arious humor styles. At least tw o possibilities exist for how indiv iduals may perceiv e the humor styles to be associated. One possibility is that perceiv ed cov ariation may be primarily based on the adaptiv e v ersus maladaptiv e nature of humor, as this dimension appears to be a fundamental underlying characteristic of the humor styles model (Martin, 2007). I f this is the case, then indiv iduals may perceiv e the adaptiv e humor styles to be strongly related. For example, an indiv idual w ith high affiliativ e humor may be perceived as also hav ing higher lev els of self-enhancing humor and low er lev els of maladaptiv e humor (aggressiv e and self-defeating). Similarly, indiv iduals may perceive the tw o maladaptiv e humor styles to be strongly related. Here, an indiv idual high on aggressiv e humor w ould be perceiv ed as hav ing higher lev els of self-defeating humor and low er levels of adaptiv e humor (affiliativ e and self - enhancing). Europe’s Journal of Psychology 252 I t remains possible, how ev er, that patterns of cov ariation may also be influenced by the second underlying dimension of the humor styles model, namely, a self v er sus other focus (Martin, 2007). I f this is the case, then indiv iduals may perceiv e a strong positiv e relationship betw een the tw o self-focused humor styles (self-enhancing and self-defeating), and also betw een the tw o other-focused styles (affiliativ e and aggressiv e humor). As one illustration, an indiv idual high on self-enhancing humor w ould be attributed w ith higher lev els of self-defeating humor than w ith affiliativ e or aggressiv e humor. Thus, by assessing cov ariation for all four of the humor styles, w e w ill be able to determine the extent to w hich the relationships among the styles may be driv en by each of the underlying dimensions (adaptiv e-maladaptiv e and self- other). Method Participants The sample consisted of 166 students (102 females, 64 male s) in introductory psychology classes at the Univ ersity of Western Ontario. Their mean age w as 19.50, w ith a range from 18 to 33. Each participant receiv ed one course credit for participation in this study. Materials and Measures Frequenc y of Use f or each Humor Style. For each of the four humor styles, participants w ere first presented w ith a brief description of the main humor -related behav iors and motiv ations associated w ith that humor style. These descriptions w ere created v ia the consensus of three inv estigators highly familiar w ith the humor styles model, and are presented directly below . Self-enhancing humor is a humor style that inv olv es a tendency to be amused by the absurdities of daily liv ing. I ndiv iduals w ith this humor style hav e a humorous outlook on life, ev en in the face of stress and adv ersity. When things go w rong or w hen they are upset, these indiv iduals can usually find something amusing about the situation to cheer themselv es up. Affiliativ e humor is a humor style that inv olv es saying funny things to amuse others and to put others at ease. I ndiv iduals w ith this humor style tend to make people laugh by making friendly jokes and finding w itty things to say. This humor style often helps to f acilitate relationships w ith others and decrease tension in a group. Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 253 Self-defeating humor inv olv es making fun of one‟s ow n w eaknesses and faults in order to get acceptance. I ndiv iduals w ith this humor style allow themselv es to be the “butt” of jokes, and laugh along w hen others ridicule them, in order to gain others‟ approv al. These indiv iduals let others laugh at them and make fun at their expense in the hopes that others w ill like and accept them. Aggressiv e humor is a style of humor that is sarcastic and used to ridic ule and put-dow n others. I ndiv iduals w ith this humor style can‟t resist saying funny things that may be offensiv e and hurtful to others, and express humor w ithout regard for its impact (e.g. sexist or racist humor). This type of humor often inv olv es criticizing and teasing other indiv iduals. Each of the abov e humor style descriptions w as printed on a separate page, follow ed immediately by three frequenc y of use items. The first item asked participants to indicate on a 7-point sc ale how often the giv en humor style is used by people in general, w ith 1 = “not used v ery often,” 4 = “sometimes used,” and 7 = “used all the time.” The second item asked participants to indicate the approximate percentage of people they know that use the giv en humor style (w ith a possible range from 0 to 100% ). The third item asked participants to indicate on a 7-point scale how often the giv en humor style is used among their social circle of family and friends, w ith 1 = “nev er,” 4 = “occasionally,” and 7 = “almost alw ays” Humor Style Covariation. Participants w ere instructed to imagine a person w ho is high on a giv en style of humor by being presented w ith a description of the humor behav iors and motiv ations that charac terize this person. These descriptions w ere obtained by slightly modifying the v ersions used prev iously for the frequency of use measure. Tw o illustrativ e examples are presented directly below . Now , please imagine a person w ho is high on affiliativ e humor. Remember, this means that this person says funny things to amuse others and to put others at ease. Also, this person often makes others laugh by joking and finding w itty things to say. Finally, this person‟s friendly humor helps to create good relationships w ith others and to decrease tension in a group. Now , please imagine a person w ho is high on self-defeating humor. Remember, this means that this person allow s them self to be the “butt” of jokes and laughs along w hen others ridicule and disparage them in order to gain others‟ approv al. Also, this person lets others laugh at t hem and make fun at their expense. Finally, this person says funny things about their ow n Europe’s Journal of Psychology 254 w eaknesses and faults in order to get people to like and accept them. Follow ing each description of a person high on a giv en humor style, participants w ere then presented w ith three further items. Eac h item described the key humor behav iors indicativ e of one of the remaining three humor styles. For example, if the giv en humor style w as high affiliativ e humor, then the three subsequent items pertained to aggressiv e humor (“Also uses humor to ridicule, criticize, and „put- dow n‟ others”), self-enhancing humor (“ Has a humorous outlook on life, ev en in the face of stress and adv ersity”), and self-defeating humor (“Lets others criticize and make fun of them, in order to be accepted”). When the giv en humor style w as not affiliativ e humor, the subsequent item used to describe affiliativ e humor w as, “Also uses humor to facilitate relationships.” For each of these items, participants w ere asked to rate the extent to w hich the imagined indiv idual (e.g., a person w ith high lev els of affiliativ e humor) w ould also display the humorous behav iors portrayed in that item. Eac h rating w as made on a 7-point Likert scale, w ith 1 = “ almost nev er,” 4 = “sometimes,” and 7 = “All the time. ” The items w ere presented in different random orders for each of the giv en humor styles. Procedure Participants w ere tested in groups of 15 to 30 people. After reading and signing an informed consent for m, participants completed a booklet of questionnaires containing both the frequency of use and cov ariation measures. The order of presenting all of the measures w as randomly v aried across booklets. After completion of the booklet, participants w ere giv en a debriefing for m. Results and Discussion Frequenc y of Humor Styles Use. The means and standard dev iations for perceiv ed humor use by people in general are show n in the top row of Table 4, as a function of humor style (self-enhancing, affiliativ e, self-defeating, and aggressiv e). The ANOVA on these frequency of use r atings indicated that the main effect of humor style w as significant, F = 21.83, p < .001. Subsequent t-tests indic ated that, as expected, indiv iduals rated affiliativ e humor as being used more often than the remaining adaptiv e style of self-enhancing humor, p < .01; or either of the tw o maladaptiv e styles of aggressiv e and self-defeating humor, p‟s < .001. Further more, self- enhancing humor w as perceiv ed as being used more frequently than self -defeating Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 255 humor, p < .001; but not more frequently than aggressiv e humor. Finally, no significant difference w as found betw een the frequency of use for the tw o maladaptiv e styles of aggressiv e and self-defeating humor. _______________________________________________________________________________ ___ _ HUMOR STYLES Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e People in General M 4.63 5.57 3.95 4.21 SD 1.05 .92 1.10 1.51 People One Know s M 51.17 63.42 33.06 36.89 SD 19.51 20.54 21.10 26.54 Family & Friends M 4.82 5.65 3.39 3.57 SD 1.19 1.02 1.32 1.62 Notes. n = 166 People in General w ere rated on a 7-point scale, with 1 = “Not used very often”, and 7 = “Used all the time.” People one Knows were rated on a percentage scale, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. Family and Friends w ere rated on a 7-point scale, w ith 1 = “Never”, and 7 = “Almost always.” Table 4: Study 3 Means and SDs for use of Humor Styles by Social Group __________________________________________________________________________________ The means and standard dev iations for the frequency of use ratings for people one know s are show n in the middle row of Table 4. The ANOVA on these r atings rev ealed a signific ant main effect of humor styles, F = 30.96, p < .001. A series of t -tests indicated that affiliativ e humor w as rated as being used significantly more often than self-enhancing humor, p < .001; and also significantly more often that either of the tw o maladaptiv e styles of aggressiv e and self-defeating humor, p‟s < .001. Self- enhancing humor w as also rated as being used significantly more often than either aggressiv e or self-defeating humor, p‟s < .001. There w as no significant difference in perceived humor use betw een the tw o maladaptiv e styles of aggressiv e and self - defeating humor. The means and standard dev iations for the frequency of use ratings for family and close friends are show n in the bottom row of Table 4, w ith an ANOVA indic ating a significant main effect of humor styles, F = 41.29, p < .001. Affiliativ e humor w as once again perceiv ed as being used more often than any of the remaining styles, namely, self-enhancing, aggressiv e and self-defeating humor, all p‟s < .001. Aggressiv e and Europe’s Journal of Psychology 256 self-defeating humor w ere perceived to hav e equal frequencies of use, w ith both of these maladaptiv e styles being used signific antly less often than either of the adaptiv e styles, all p‟s < .001. Humor Styles Covariation. The means and standard dev iations for the cov ariation ratings are show n in each row of Table 5. For eac h of the four giv en humor styles (high self-enhancing, high affiliativ e humor, and so on), a single factor repeated measures analysis of v ariance w as performed on the perceiv ed lev els of the remaining three humor styles (as show n in each row of Table 5). The ANOVA on the cov ariation ratings for the target high on self -enhancing humor indicated a signific ant main effect of humor styles, F = 28.48, p < .001. As show n in the top row of Table 5, this target person w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of affiliativ e humor than either aggressiv e or self -defeating humor, p‟s < .001. This pattern supports the proposal that these cov ariation ratings are based primarily ________________________________________________________________________________ HUMOR STYLE COVARI ATI ON Self-Enhancing Affiliativ e Self-Defeating Aggressiv e GI VEN HUMOR STYLE High Self-Enhancing M - 5.55 4.30 3.96 SD - .74 1.40 1.53 High Affiliativ e M 5.27 - 4.00 2.98 SD 1.04 - 1.53 1.47 High Self-Defeating M 3.54 4.79 - 4.20 SD 1.49 1.65 - 1.74 High Aggressiv e M 3.70 3.98 2.55 - SD 1.51 1.52 1.58 - Notes. n = 166 All ratings were made on 7-point scales, with 1 = “almost nev er”, and 7 = “All the time.” Table 5: Study 3 Means and SDs for Perceiv ed Cov ariation __________________________________________________________________________________ on the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e distinction in the humor styles model. Further more, there w as no significant difference betw een perceiv ed lev els of self -defeating v ersus aggressiv e humor, suggesting that the self-other dimension of the humor styles model Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 257 is not particularly salient w hen making cov ariation judgments based on self - enhancing humor. The ANOVA on the cov ariation ratings for the target high on affiliativ e humor (as show n in the second row of Table 5), also yielded a significant main effect of humor styles, F = 36.53, p < .001. As expected, a person high on affiliativ e humor w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of self-enhancing humor than either aggressiv e or self-defeating humor, p‟s < .001. Once again, this pattern supports the primacy of the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e dimension w hen making these cov ariation judgments. I n addition, how ev er, this target person w as attributed w ith significantly low er lev els of aggressiv e humor than self-defeating humor, p < .001. This latter distinction draw s upon the self-other dimension, as know ing that a target has a high amount of an other-focused adaptiv e humor style (i.e., affiliativ e humor) led to decreased perceptions for the corresponding other -focused maladaptiv e style (i.e., aggressiv e humor). High self-defeating humor also had a signific ant effect on perceiv ed lev els of the other three humor styles, F = 7.80, p < .01. As show n in the thir d row of Table 5, a person high on self-defeating humor w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of affiliativ e humor than w ith self-enhancing humor, p < .01; but w ith equiv alent lev els of aggressiv e humor. This pattern suggests that perceiv ed relationships betw een self - defeating humor and the other humor styles are based equally on both the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e and self-other humor dimensions, as indiv iduals w ho use self- defeating humor are perceiv ed to be just as likely to use humor that disparages others (aggressiv e humor), as they are to use adaptiv e humor. Finally, high aggressiv e humor also had a signific ant impact on lev els for the remaining three humor styles, F = 22.19, p < .001. Examination of the means show n in the bottom row of Table 5 indic ated that a person high on aggressiv e humor w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of affiliativ e and self-enhancing humor than w ith self-defeating humor, p‟s < .01. Further more, high aggressiv e humor w as perceived to be associated w ith equiv alent lev els of affiliativ e and self -enhancing humor. I nterestingly, these findings suggest that high aggressiv e humor is perceiv ed to be primarily associated w ith the adaptiv e humor styles. Thus, indiv iduals w ith high aggressiv e humor are perceiv ed to be more likely to use humor that enhances social relationships and reduces feelings of stress, in a manner that is accepting of both the self and others, than to use humor that is self-defeating in an attempt to gain others approv al. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 258 General Discussion Ov er the past dec ade there has been a considerable resurgence of interest in psychologic al approaches to the study of humor. One of these av enues of research has doc umente d the existence of four distinct humor styles (Martin et al., 2003) , and then described how these styles hav e v ery different relationships w ith psychological w ell-being (Kuiper et al., 2004). Substantial research ev idence has now accumulated in support of this humor model w hich includes both adaptiv e and maladaptiv e humor styles (Kuiper et al., 2004; Martin et al. 2003; Martin, 2007). Recall that adaptiv e humor is used in a beneficial manner to help maintain social relationships (affiliativ e humor) or assist in coping w ith stressful ev ents and adv erse life circumstances (self-enhancing humor). I n contrast, maladaptiv e humor is used in a much more har mful manner to either put-dow n others (aggressiv e humor) or put- dow n one‟s self (self-defeating humor). The present research employed this humor styles model as the theoretical and empirical foundation for examining possible associations betw een humor styles and social interactions. The first part of this examination focused on the recipients of humorous comments, w hereas the second part elucidated more clearly how implicit theories of humor may incor porate these four styles w hen describing self or others. The I mpact of Humorous Comments on Others The first major goal of this research w as to surv ey the impact of a friend‟s use of humorous comments on the recipient‟s desire to continue interacting w ith that friend, and also on the recipient‟s positiv e and negativ e feelings about self. These issues w ere examined in Study 1 using a young adult sample and in Study 2 using an adolescent sample. Both studies prov ided consistent empirical support for the proposal that different types of humorous comments can hav e a considerable differential effect on recipients, w ith a positiv e impact being ev ident for adaptiv e humor comments and a negativ e impact ev ident for maladaptiv e comments. As predicted, w hen a friend used either style of adaptiv e humor (affiliativ e or self - enhancing), the recipient reported a greater desire to continue interacting w ith that friend, and more positiv e and less negativ e feelings about the self. This pattern clearly indic ates that w hen considering the tw o adaptiv e humor styles, the self -other distinction in the humor styles model is of little functional relev ance. I n other w ords, although affiliativ e humorous comments are specifically orientated tow ards fostering social interactions and relationships (Martin, 2007) they did not result in significantly higher impact ratings than obtained for the self-enhancing humorous comments. This suggests that the general positiv e orientation ev ident in both of the adaptiv e Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 259 humor styles is sufficient to engender a strong social facilitativ e effect w hen using either affiliativ e or self-enhancing humor. Thus, humorous comments w hich are specifically designed to enhance the self c an, nonetheless, also impart a significant positiv e effect on the recipient of these comments. Further more, this effect is comparable to that obtained for affiliativ e humorous comments designed specifically to enhance social relationships. I n contrast to adaptiv e humor, the pattern for the tw o maladaptiv e humorous comments show ed that both of the underlying dimensions of the humor styles model w ere quite relev ant. Thus, as predicted, maladaptiv e humorous comments resulted in a more negativ e impact than adaptiv e humorous comments. I n particular, recipients w ere significantly less w illing to continue the interaction w hen friends used maladaptiv e humorous comments (either aggressiv e or self-defeating), and reported less positiv e and more negativ e feelings about the self. I n addition, how ev er, the self-other dimension w as also quite relev ant for the maladaptiv e humor styles. Here, other-directed humorous comments (aggressiv e) demonstrated significantly more negativ e effects on the desire to continue interacting than did self- directed comments (self-defeating). I n other words, the self-focused maladaptiv e style of self-defeating humor did not hav e as perv asiv e a negativ e impact on the relationship as the other-focused maladaptiv e style of aggressiv e humor. As such, this pattern highlights the v ery potent negativ e impact of aggressiv e humor on social and interpersonal relationships. I t also indic ates how self-defeating humor c an be v iewed in a somew hat less negativ e manner by others, thus prov iding some further empirical substantiation for its use as an effectiv e tool to ingr atiate oneself to others. Although adolescence is generally a time of great flux and change w ith respect to social relationships and self-concept roles (Harter, 1999), w e found that the high school students in our second study displayed v ery few differences from the young adults tested in Study 1. I n fact, adolescents show ed the same identic al pattern of w anting to continue interacting w ith their friends as did the univ ersity students. As such, both studies rev ealed that either of the adaptiv e humor styles (affiliativ e or self - enhancing) prompted an increased desire to continue interacting. I n contrast, both types of maladaptiv e humorous comments (aggressiv e or self -defeating) resulted in a reduced desire to continue interacting w ith the friend, but w ith the aggressiv e humorous comments again being signific antly more detrimental than the self - defeating comments. The adolescents in Study 2 also felt the most positiv e about themselv es after being the recipients of adaptiv e humorous comments made by a friend, compared w ith Europe’s Journal of Psychology 260 receiv ing maladaptiv e humorous comments. Similarly, w hen considering negativ e self-feelings, adolescents again show ed a pattern identic al to young adults, in that the maladaptiv e humorous comments once more led to the most negativ e self - feelings. I n addition, how ev er, the adolescents w ere sensitiv e to the self -other dimension of these comments, w ith self-focused humorous comments by a friend resulting in more negativ e self-feelings than other-focused comments. Ov erall, these findings suggest that the humor style effects that are unique to adolescence are minimal, and appear to be limited to so me minor differentiation on the self-other dimension for negativ e self-feelings. Otherw ise, the adolescents in our second study show ed the same pattern of findings as the young adults in Study 1, thus highlighting the continuity of humor styles and their effects across adolescence and young adults. This continuity is in accord w ith research by Erickson and Feldstein (2007) demonstr ating the existence of the four humor styles in a group of young adolescents, along w ith patterns of relationships w ith psychologic al w ell-being that are quite similar to those found in adult samples (e.g., Chen & Martin, 2007). I mplicit Theories of Humor Styles The second major goal of the present research w as to examine how the four humor styles may be represented in implicit theories of humor, both for self and others. The Study 2 findings for perceiv ed frequency of humor use by the self show ed a remarkably consistent pattern, w ith the most humor, ov erall, being displayed w ith close friends. Furthermore, the tw o adaptiv e humor styles w ere used most often across all of the different relationships, w ith affiliativ e humor alw ays being more frequently employed than self-enhancing humor. Both maladaptiv e humor styles show ed much less perceiv ed frequency of use, w ith aggressiv e humor being used the least, regardless of the specific relationship being considered. I n Study 3 the examination of implicit theories of humor focused on the perception of humor styles in others, rather than the self. Ov erall, the findings for frequenc y o f use w ere extremely consistent across the three different social groups w e examined (people in general, people one know s, and f amily and friends). I n partic ular, indiv iduals perceiv ed affiliativ e humor to be the most frequently used humor style, regardless of familiarity lev el, self-enhancing humor to be the second most frequently used, and the tw o maladaptiv e humor styles as being used the least often (and equiv alent to one another). Further more, in only one instance (for people in general) w as a maladaptiv e style (aggressiv e humor), rated as being used at a rate equiv alent to one of the adaptiv e styles (self-enhancing humor ). I n all other instances, the tw o adaptiv e humor styles w ere alw ays rated as being used more Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 261 frequently that the tw o maladaptiv e styles. This pattern of perceiv ed use maps directly onto prior w ork demonstrating that positiv e instances of humor use hav e a much higher rate of occurrence than negativ e instances (DeKoning & Weiss, 2002; Martin, 2007). As one example, Butzer and Kuiper (2008) found that indiv iduals in romantic relationships reported using significantly more positiv e humor to facilitate their relationships than negativ e humor to put their partners dow n. The abov e findings suggest that affiliativ e humor may be the most pr ominent aspect of a multi-faceted implicit theory of humor. I n particular, Studies 2 and 3 found v ery similar patterns for the perceiv ed use of humor styles for either self or others. Affiliativ e humor w as consistently perceiv ed as being used the most of ten, follow ed by self-enhancing humor, then self-defeating humor, and finally, aggressiv e humor. This pattern of perceiv ed use w as remarkably stable across v arious types of relationships w ith the self (Study 2), as w ell as v arying degrees of familiarity w ith other people (Study 3). When taken together, these systematic and consistent differences in frequencies of use suggests that indiv iduals may generally direct their attention tow ards and recall experiences of adaptiv e humor, particularly affiliativ e humor, more so than experiences of maladaptiv e humor. This frequent attention to affiliativ e humor experiences is likely to increase the salience and ac tiv ation lev el of affiliativ e humor w ithin implicit theories of humor. Thus, w hen considering humor as a personality attribute, indiv iduals are more likely to bring to mind more instances of adaptiv e styles of humor, particularly affiliativ e humor. I n turn, this may lead indiv iduals to primarily conceptualize humor as an adaptiv e characteristic that is used to enhance inter personal relationships in a manner that is accepting of the self and others. Ov erall, this may help explain the general tendency in the literature to often think of humor as a positiv e construct that is most closely aligned w ith affiliativ e humor. I n this final study w e also explored cov ariation of the humor styles by examining indiv idual‟s ratings of perceiv ed inter-relationships among the four styles. These findings show ed that a person w ith high affiliativ e humor w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of self-enhancing humor than either maladaptiv e humor style (but w ith more self-defeating than aggressiv e humor). Similarly, a person w ith high self-enhancing humor w as attributed w ith significantly higher lev els of affiliativ e humor than w ith either of the maladaptiv e humor styles (but w ith equal lev els of aggressiv e and self-defeating humor). These findings indic ate that indiv iduals perceive an adaptiv e humor style to co-occur more strongly w ith a second adaptiv e style, than w ith either maladaptiv e style. Thus, indiv iduals believ e that a person w ho uses affiliativ e humor to enhance relationships w ith others in a w arm and Europe’s Journal of Psychology 262 accepting manner is more likely to also use self-enhancing humor that reduces stress in a benign and accepting manner, than to use humor that is critic al and dispar aging of either themselv es (self-defeating) or others (aggressiv e humor ). As such, these findings indicate that the perceiv ed relationship betw een adaptiv e humor and other humor styles is primarily based on the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e humor dimension, especially for self-enhancing humor. How ev er, the perceiv ed association betw een affiliativ e humor and other humor styles is also partially a function of the self-other humor dimension, as indiv iduals perceiv e high affiliativ e humor to co-occur more w ith self-defeating humor than w ith aggressiv e humor. Thus, indiv iduals perceive humor that adaptiv ely enhances social relationships to also inv olv e humor that is disparaging of one‟s self, more so than humor t hat is disparaging of others. I n contrast to adaptiv e humor, our findings rev ealed that the perceiv ed cov ariation of maladaptiv e humor w ith the remaining humor styles is not based primarily on the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e humor dimension. For example, high aggressiv e humor w as perceived to be associated w ith higher lev els of adaptiv e humor than w ith self - defeating humor, and w as attributed w ith equal lev els of affiliativ e and self - enhancing humor. As such, an indiv idual w ith high aggressiv e humor is perceiv e d to be more likely to use humor that is accepting of both the self and others, than to use humor that is self-defeating. Further more, it is interesting to note that perceptions of cov ariation betw een high aggressiv e humor and other humor styles are also not a direct function of the self-other humor dimension. I n particular, indiv iduals w ho use aggressiv e humor that derogates others are perceiv ed to be just as likely to use affiliativ e humor that adaptiv ely enhances social relationships, as humor that adaptiv ely enhances the self. Finally, our Study 3 results show ed that high self-defeating humor, w hich is used to gain the approv al of others, w as perceived to be more strongly associated w ith adaptiv e affiliativ e humor that enhances relationships than w ith self-enhancing humor. This association betw een self-defeating and affiliating humor suggests that indiv iduals may, in f act, perceiv e self-defeating humor to be a partially adaptiv e characteristic for the dev elopment of social relationships. How ev er, a person w ho uses self-defeating humor is perceiv ed to be just as likely to use aggressiv e humor that is derogatory of others, as to use adaptiv e styles of humor. As such, these findings indic ate that the perceiv ed cov ariations betw een self -defeating humor and the other humor styles are a function of both the self -other and adaptiv e- maladaptiv e dimensions of humor. Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 263 General Implications and Future Research Directions Although prev ious research has suggested that humor has a facilitativ e effect on social relationships, that w ork has generally conceptualized sense of humor as a single, positiv e construct. I n contrast, our findings demonstrate the critical need to distinguish betw een sev eral different humor styles, since these styles hav e differential effects on social relationships. For example, compared to adaptiv e humor styles, w e found that indiv iduals are less likely to w ant to continue interacting w ith others displaying maladaptiv e aggressiv e or self-defeating humor. Further more, our findings suggest that these differential effects may also pertain to recipients‟ feelings about themselv es. Compared to adaptiv e humor, maladaptiv e humor styles resulted in recipients hav ing less positiv e and more negativ e feelings about themselv es. I nterestingly, w e found that it w as the adaptiv e-maladaptiv e dimension, rather than the self-other dimension, w hich w as central to the effects of humor on recipients‟ feelings about themselv es. Although it may be reasonable to assume that humor focused on the self (self-enhancing and self-defeating humor) w ould hav e little impac t on recipients‟ feelings about themselv es, our findings did not support this assumption. Rather, w e found that humor styles w ith a self-focus differed in their impac t on the recipients‟ self-feelings, based on their adaptiv e-maladaptiv e nature. I n particular, self-enhancing adaptiv e humor led to recipients hav ing more positiv e and less negativ e feelings about themselv es than self-defeating maladaptiv e humor. As such, it may be beneficial for future research to delineate the precise mec hanisms w hereby the v arious humor styles impact on recipients‟ feelings about themselv es. Giv en that adaptiv e humor styles are desirable and v aluable qualities in social interactions, indiv iduals may believ e that they possess and frequently use these positiv e qualities themselv es. I ndeed, our findings indicate that indiv iduals perceiv e themselv es as using adaptiv e humor styles, particularly affiliativ e humor, more frequently than maladaptiv e styles. Further more, indiv iduals perceiv e themselv es as engaging least often in aggressiv e humor, the humor style resulting in the most social distancing by others. Future research should behav iourally assess each humor style displayed by an indiv idual, and then deter mine concordance rates w ith that indiv idual‟s perceptions of ac tual use. I t is possible that indiv iduals are biased and perceive themselv es as more frequently using more desirable humor styles, in order to minimize their perceptions of the actual use of maladaptiv e styles of humor. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 264 The present study also contributed to our understanding of the effects of humor styles on attributions about other styles of humor. I n particular, indiv iduals displaying an adaptiv e humor style are believ ed to be more likely to use another adaptiv e, rather than maladaptiv e, humor style. Thus, indiv iduals w ho display affiliativ e humor are believ ed to be more likely to also use self-enhancing humor, than aggressiv e or self-defeating humor. Giv en that each of these adaptiv e humor styles increase recipients‟ desire to interac t w ith an indiv idual, the implicit attribution of a second adaptiv e humor style may contribute to, and help account for, the positiv e impact of adaptiv e humor in social interactions. I nterestingly, the present research also found that indiv iduals using aggressiv e humor are believ ed to be more likely to use an adaptiv e humor style than a second maladaptiv e humor style (self-defeating humor). How ev er, since the present w ork did not examine the lev el of each humor style that is attributed to a “typic al” person, it is not possible to deter mine w hether aggressiv e humor is associated w ith higher or low er lev els of adaptiv e humor styles than w ould be attributed to a typic al person. As such, it w ould be w orthw hile for future research to examine this issue, as w ell as the effects of these attributions on subsequent social interactions. With respect to broader implic ations, our findings highlight the importance of clearly acknow ledging v arious styles of humor and their differential effects on social interactions. Thus, w hen psychosocial programs attempt to enhance indiv iduals‟ social skills through the use of humor, it w ould be critical to distinguish betw een each humor style and encourage the dev elopment of specific adaptiv e styles of humor, rather than humor in gener al. Further more, programs attempting to dev elop skills to enhance social relationships should foc us not only on affiliativ e humor, but also on the dev elopment of self-enhancing humor, since both these styles hav e an equal effect in ter ms of enhancing social interaction. Further more, the inclusion of self- enhancing humor in such programs w ould prov ide the added benefit of increasing one‟s repertoire of coping str ategies. References Butzer, B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2008). Humor use in romantic relationships: The effects of relationship satisfaction and pleasant versus conflict situations. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142, 245-260. Campbell, L., Martin, R.A., & Ward, J.R. (2008). An observational study of humor use during a conflict discussion. Personal Relationships, 15, 41–55. Humor Impact and Implicit Theories 265 Chen, G-H., & Martin, R. A. (2007). A comparison of humor styles, coping humor, and mental health between Chinese and Canadian university students. Humor, 20, 215-234. DeKoning, E. & Weiss, R. (2002). The relational humor inventory: Functions of humor in close relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 1-18. Dozois, D. J., Martin, R.A., & Bieling, P.J. (in press). Early maladaptiv e schemas and adaptiv e/maladaptiv e styles of humor. Cognitive Therapy & Research. Erickson, S.J., & Feldstein, S.W. (2007). Adolescent humor and its relationship to coping, defense strategies, psychological distress, and well-being. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 37, 255-271. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self . New York: Guilford Press. Harter, S. Bresnick, S., Bouchey, H., & Whitesell, N. (1997). The dev elopment of multiple role-related selves during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 835-853. Kalliny, M., Cruthirds, K.W., & Minor, M.S. (2006). Differences between American, Egyptian and Lebanese Humor Styles: I mplications for international management. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 6, 121-134. Kirsh, G.A., & Kuiper, N.A. (2003). Positive and negative aspects of sense of humor: Associations w ith the constructs of individualism and relatedness. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 16, 33-62. Klein, D. N., & Kuiper, N.A. (2006). Humor styles, peer relationships, and bullying in middle childhood. Humor, 19, 383–404. Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor, 17, 135-168. Kuiper, N.A. & Leite, C. (2010). Personality impressions associated with four distinct humor styles. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51,115-22. Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self -ev aluative standards and psychological well-being. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(4), 359-376. Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. New York: Academic Press. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 266 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. 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. 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. 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 Five personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 116-1125. About the aut hors: Nicholas A. Kuiper Dr. Kuiper has been a professor of psychology for ov er 3 decades. During this time he has published numerous articles and chapters on humor, w ell-being, self- schemata, depression, and other topics of interest. Address for correspondence to: N. Kuiper, Department of Psychology, Westminster Hall, Univ ersity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7 E-mail: kuiper@uw o.ca Gillian Kirsh Dr. Kirsh completed her Ph.D. degree in Clinic al Psychology at the Univ ersity of Western Ontario under the superv ision of Dr. Kuiper. Gillian‟s research interests focused on the psychology of humor, including applic ations of the humor styles model to adolescents. Catherine Leite Catherine Leite is now completing her Ph.D. degree in Clinical Psychology at the Univ ersity of Western Ontario under the superv ision of Dr. Kuiper. Catherine‟s research interests include interpersonal aspects of humor use, factors contributing to decisions to seek treatment in depression, and client v ariables that may facilitate or deter psychotherapy. mailto:kuiper@uwo.ca