Transcript Slide 1

Humor, Laughter, and Playfulness
Paran Fisch, Katelyn Pitts, Samantha Duchscherer, Denver Coker, Georgianna Campbell
Structural equation modeling (SEM) will be used to develop an understanding of the relationship
between Coping Humor, Humor Styles, Playfulness and other personality variables such as
Linear Models
Factor Extraction for PLAY
Abstract
We conducted a principal components extraction using Varimax rotation. We verified sampling adequacy
To prepare for Phase II structural equation modeling (SEM), we conducted hierarchical linear regression using
(KMO, VIF) and performed reliability analyses on the overall scale (ΩT) and subscales (Cronbach’s α).
backwards step-wise selection (α = .1) for Coping Humor (CHS) and Playfulness (PLAY).
We discarded weak items, combined two subscales, and found six interpretable factors.
Coping Humor Scale:
Stress, Anxiety, Optimism and Thrill-seeking. Phase I focused on the reliability and factor structure
Scale for Adults (PSA). Reliability analyses were conducted along with a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) on the CHS and HSQ. Apparent problems with HSQ items were noted. The PSA
was outdated. Items asked about the Three Stooges and Star Trek and used odd wording better
suited to college students of 1980’s. The PSA items were reviewed with an attempt to update
each item. The PSA-Revised was developed and its factor structure explored using Principle
Components Analysis with Varimax rotation. Assessment of sampling adequacy (KMO) and scale
usefulness (VIF) eliminated some problematic items, as did a lack of interpretability in the factors
extracted. Gender differences and age differences were explored focusing on all three scales,
and correlations tested between scales, factors and other personality variables. Phase II will
continue the revision of the PSA-R and confirm Phase I results. This poster presents Phase I
results only.
Description of Variables
Playfulness Scale for Adults (PLAY):
• A 28-item scale that measures a general predisposition to play. This scale consists of five
factors: Fun-loving, Sense of humor, Enjoys silliness, Informal, and Whimsical.
Item
1 I enjoy acting a bit wild and crazy at times.
2 I consider myself to be a serious, no-nonsense type of
person.
3 I like my day to be tightly structured so I’ll know exactly
where I’ll be and what I’ll be doing.
4 I enjoy acting silly or goofy at times.
5 At times I’ll sing in the shower or do a little dance at
home.
6 I like to find ways to have fun while at work.
7 I find it hard to laugh at myself.
8 I think life is more like a comedy than a tragedy.
9 If I’m feeling down, laughing tends to make me feel
better.
10 To me, goofing off or playing around is more a waste of
time than anything else.
11 Even the most serious situation is likely to have a funny
side to it.
12 I like to smile and laugh as much as possible during the
day.
13 I usually don’t enjoy jokes or playful teasing.
14 I’m usually one of the first to initiate fun activities when
I’m with my friends.
15 I would much rather accept a job that is personally
enjoyable than one with a wonderful salary.
16 I would never leave work early to do fun activities.
17
Wearing a mask or costume on Halloween is fun to me.
18 I still consider it fun to throw snowballs or build
sandcastles.
19 I keep a tight rein on my impulses and emotions
20 I enjoy posting or sharing funny quotes and memes on
Facebook or other social media.
21
I’m very comfortable playing on the floor with little kids.
22
Coping Humor Scale (CHS):
• The CHS consists of 7 items, each of which is a self-descriptive statement about the use of
• Final Model
Factor Loading Matrix for Playfulness Scale for Adults - Revised (PSA-R)
of the Coping Humor Scale (CHS), the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) and the Playfulness
23
24
25
26
1
0.33
2
0.34
7
8
0.27
0.20
0.55
0.50
0.36
0.64
Playfulness:
0.40
0.56
0.32
0.27
-0.30
0.23
0.22
-0.32
0.64
0.23
0.36
0.49
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Adult Playfulness (N=125)
0.42
Variable
0.78
0.21
0.29
0.75
0.69
0.25
0.84
0.21
-0.32
0.28
0.45 -0.50
-0.35 0.21
0.36
0.23
0.33
0.53
-0.20
0.29
0.26
0.73
0.84
0.34
0.63
0.39
-0.26
0.26
-0.58
-0.63
0.45
-0.20
0.26
0.33
0.27
Note: all factors loadings < .2 in absolute value suppressed.
Six interprettable factors were retained with overall scale reliability of .89 (omega total).
humor in coping with life stress.
Humor Styles ANOVA’s
Humor Styles:
PLAY = .67 * ADD + .29 * THRILL + .68 * CHS + .33 * HSQAF + .42 * HSQSE - 5.07 * GEN
o This is the most parsimonious model for PLAY, and it accounts for 42% of the variation.
0.56
0.27
0.23
0.67
• Final Model
B
Initial Model
ADD
THRILL
GEN
CHS
HSQAF
HSQSE
HSQAG
HSQSD
Final Model
ADD
THRILL
GEN
CHS
HSQAF
HSQSE
a benevolent, positive manner. Individuals high in this dimension often use humor as a way to
charm and amuse others, ease tension among others, and improve relationships.
0.1332
0.1089
1.5382
0.2406
0.0688
0.1846
0.1750
-0.1536
2.74e-7***
0.00578**
0.00227 **
0.00127**
0.05832
0.03978*
0.38763
0.32640
0.6661
0.2911
-5.0690
0.6815
0.3289
0.4212
0.1303
0.1081
1.5230
0.2320
0.1664
0.1826
8.46e-07 ***
0.00777 **
0.00107 **
0.00377 **
0.04977 *
0.02227 *
Note. R2 initial = 0.4304 for Step 1; R2 final = 0.4212 for Step 2 (p < .05) *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
relationship beliefs, optimism, and self-esteem.
Primary humor styles were found to correlate with playfulness and coping humor, and significant
• Toxic Relationship Beliefs
differences based upon primary humor styles were found for gender, age, toxic (naïve)
• Self-enhancing humor (HSQSE)- a style of humor related to having a good-natured attitude
in a constructive, non-detrimental manner.
• Aggressive humor (HSQAG)- a style of humor that is potentially detrimental towards others. This
type of humor is characterized by the use of sarcasm, put-downs, teasing, criticism, ridicule, and
other types of humor used at the expense of others.
• Self-defeating humor (HSQSD)- the style of humor characterized by the use of potentially
detrimental humor towards the self in order to gain approval from others. Individuals high in this
dimension engage in self-disparaging humor in which laughter is often at their own expense.
Humor Style
DF
3
SS
582
MSS
F
p
193.97 4.33 .0056
Error
192 8596 44.77
ANOVA Summary Table: Toxic Relationship Beliefs by Humor Style
Primary Humor Style
Toxic Relationship Beliefs Affiliative Self-Enhancing Aggressive Self-Defeating
Mean
27.8
27.5
27.8
31.5 *
(SD)
(4.86)
(7.80)
(6.69)
(6.80)
*Significantly greater than the three other styles (Tukey’s HSD). Those with a Self-defeating
primary humor style are more naïve about relationships.
• Optimism
A significant difference was found for optimism (F = 7.428, p = .000099). A Tukey HSD post hoc analysis
shows a significant pair-wise difference between Self-enhancing and Aggressive (p = .0004) as well as
T-Test Results
Discussion
beliefs, narcissism, eating attitudes, ADD, and OCD. Significant differences were found for toxic
ANOVA Table: Toxic Relationship Beliefs by Humor Style
toward life, having the ability to laugh at yourself, your circumstances and the idiosyncrasies of life
p
0.7137
0.3046
-4.7510
0.7887
0.3218
0.3825
-0.1515
-0.1512
We searched for humor style differences for self-esteem, optimism, perfectionism, toxic relationship
• Affiliative humor (HSQAF)- the style of humor used to enhance one’s relationships with others in
SE B
0.34
0.73
-0.22
0.73
-0.20
0.26
0.30
-0.20
0.31
CHS = .10 * PLAY + .47 * HSQSE + .13 * HSQSD + .004 * SATM
o This is the most parsimonious model for CHS, and it accounts for 61% of the variation.
0.81
My close friends expect lighthearted teasing from me.
I never make up silly names for people I care about.
People consider me a “fun” person.
I find it humorous to give and receive gag gifts.
I enjoy pranks.
Principal Components
3
4
5
6
0.37
-0.37 0.62 -0.21
Self-enhancing and Self-defeating (p = .0007). Those with a Self-Enhancing primary humor style are
significantly more optimistic.
Males use significantly more aggressive humor than females (p = .0331). Those students who are
• Self-Esteem
21 years or older use significantly less aggressive humor (p = .0071) and significantly less self-
A significant difference was found for self-esteem (F = 3.474, p = .0172). A Tukey HSD post hoc analysis
defeating humor (p = .0042). No other gender or age differences were found for the four humor
shows that Self-enhancing is significantly greater than the three other styles (p < .05). Those with a Self-
styles.
enhancing primary humor style have higher self-esteem.
relationship beliefs, optimism, and self-esteem. The revised version of the playfulness scale was
found to be an improvement, though further development is needed.
Acknowledgements
This research was part of the Undergraduate Statistics Research Seminar (MATH 3390) and
was supported by the UNG Mathematics Department and supervised by Dr. Robb Sinn.
Bibliography
Düşünceli, B. (2011). The effect of humor styles on psychopathology: Examination with structural equation model.
International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5), 224-231.
Edwards, K. R., & Martin, R. A. (2010). Humor creation ability and mental health: Are funny people more psychologically
healthy? Europe's Journal of Psychology, , 196-212.
Freeman, G. P., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Does humor benefit health in retirement? exploring humor as a moderator. Europe's
Journal of Psychology, , 122-148.
Kazarian, S. S., & Martin, R. A. (2006). Humor styles, culture-related personality, well-being, and family adjustment among
Armenians in Lebanon. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(4), 405-423.
Maxwell, S., Reed, G., Saker, J., & Story, V. (2005). The two faces of playfulness: A new tool to select potentially successful
sales reps. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(3), 215-229.
Saroglou, V., & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor styles questionnaire: Personality and educational correlates in Belgian high
school and college students. European Journal of Personality, 16(1), 43-54.
Schaefer, C., & Greenberg, R. (1997). Measurement of playfulness: A neglected therapist variable. International Journal of
Play Therapy, 6(2), 21-31.