De Finitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor: Men - and - An - Elephant
De Finitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor: Men - and - An - Elephant
De Finitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor: Men - and - An - Elephant
Tabea Scheel
Keywords Humor definitions Incongruence theory Arousal-relief theory
Superiority theory Humor functions Humor styles
2.1 Introduction
The original version of this chapter was revised: See the “Chapter Note” section at the end of
this chapter for details. The erratum to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-65691-5_9
There are many different approaches, including social and neurological ones,
which can be used to grasp the concept of humor or to explain its origins. One can
also explain humor from an evolutionary or cognitive perspective (Hurley, Dennett,
& Adams, 2011), or collect jokes to diagnose the humor of a whole generation—as
Winick (1976) did in the US.
Nearly everyone laughs when a person slips—when it is clear that she or he is
not seriously hurt. Slapstick works at work, too. Maybe you have a colleague who
often dropped his (full) cup, so that later the mere expectation produces witty
comments and laughter in your team. Maybe you share a joke about your super-
visors’ mood, or your colleague makes everyone giggle by wearing bright colorful
shoes to an otherwise expensive, elegant suit. Or some comments of your boss may
embarrass yourself while all your colleagues laugh. This list of diverse situations
may be continued endlessly and demonstrates the variety of humor. As evolution
got us hooked on humor, we long to eat titbits of that “endogenous mind candy”
(Hurley et al., 2011).
This chapter explains why such diverse phenomena as described above are
labeled humor. More theory about the evolution of humor and laughter can be
found in the chapter about humor in teams (Chap. 3). In the following, we provide
an overview of definitions, theories, and concepts of humor as well as the
ambiguous functions of humor (at work) and its measurement.
The term “humor” has undergone several changes of meaning and has evolved from
a physiological to a mental quality. One of the earliest meanings of humor (humores)
was bodily fluids (lat. ũmor: liquid, moistness). According to Hippocrates (400 BC),
the regulation of blood, phlegm, and yellow and black bile was central for health (in
Schubert & Leschhorn, 2006). During the Middle Ages, humor was understood as a
quirky or odd character trait and was brought to the stage by Ben Jonson as objects of
the Comedy of humours (1600, 1927). The shift toward an active term was initiated
by Morris (1744), including the ability to perceive and depict the comic. Paul (1804/
1990) was one of the first to develop a full theory of humor, with humor becoming a
matter of aesthetics. Establishing a genuine psychological perspective, Freud (1905/
1960, 1927/1961) labeled humor as the “most frugal of the types of the comic” and
as the supreme defense mechanism in (re)gaining pleasure as he introduced the
relevance of humor and jokes into psychotherapy.
Definitions of humor are manifold, depending on whether humor is seen as a
communicative activity (e.g., Martineau, 1972) with positive emotional reactions in
perceivers (e.g., Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) or as an individual trait-like sense of
humor (Martin, 1998) or cheerfulness in personality psychology research (Ruch,
Köhler, & van Thriel, 1996). Humor is nowadays seen as having multidimensional
characteristics. Martin (2007) summarized humor as (1) the ability to understand
jokes and other humorous stimuli, (2) an expression of humor and cheerfulness,
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 11
(3) the ability to make humorous comments or have humorous perceptions, (4) the
appreciation of diverse types of jokes, cartoons, and other humorous material,
(5) the active seeking of sources that elicit laughter (e.g., comedies), (6) the
memorizing of jokes and funny anecdotes in life, as well as (7) the tendency to use
humor as a coping mechanism. Thus, Martin (2007) describes humor as a char-
acteristic of a person rather than of a statement. Likewise, humor includes the
abilities to produce, recognize, and appreciate humor and to use humor as a coping
strategy (Thorson & Powell, 1993)—a description that demonstrates circular rea-
soning. In line with the multitude of humor perspectives, the characteristics of
humor vary, including surprise, incongruity, comprehension, and funniness
(Aillaud & Piolat, 2012). According to Martin (2007), humor may be viewed as a
habitual pattern, an ability, a temperament, an aesthetic response, an attitude, a
world view, a coping strategy, or a defense mechanism. Furthermore, Martin (2007)
distinguished four components of the humor process, that is, a social context, a
cognitive-perceptual process, an emotional response, and the vocal-behavioral
expression of laughter.
According to Long and Graesser (1988), humor is “anything done or said, pur-
posely or inadvertently, that is found to be comical or amusing” (p. 4). Martineau
(1972) defined humor as any communication that is perceived as humorous
(reflecting circular reasoning), whereas Crawford (1994) highlighted the positive
cognitive or affective reactions of listeners when witnessing someone else’s verbal or
nonverbal humorous behavior. Similarly, Romero and Cruthirds (2006) defined
humor as amusing communications that create a positive cognitive and emotional
reaction in a person or a group. All these definitions are problematic in that they refer
to the reactions of the audience. They would thus not include attempts at humor.
Also, humor is seen as an international form of social communication (Robert &
Yan, 2007) and as a verbal or nonverbal message that evokes amusement and
positive feelings by the receiver (Hurren, 2006). Booth-Butterfield and
Booth-Butterfield (1991) emphasized the intentional use of both verbal and non-
verbal communication behaviors that elicit positive responses such as laughter and
joy. Though intention is not a crucial element of definitions of humor (e.g., unin-
tentional humor; Martin, 2007; definition by Long & Graesser, 1988), it is an
appropriate characterization of much of the instructional (and also organizational)
humor examined so far. All these approaches view humor as a communicative
activity, which ideally leads to laughter, but none of these definitions really refer to
what kinds of statements are humorous as compared with nonhumorous (apart from
the reaction of the audience).
Meyer (2000) defined humor as a cognitive state of mirth. Focusing on humor
appreciation, Weisfeld (1993) defined humor appreciation as “a distinct, pleasurable
affect that often is accompanied by laughter” (p. 142). Laughter is the most obvious
behavioral expression of humor (or rather: is caused by humor) and includes a
distinctive behavioral pattern that also has psychophysiological correlates (Ruch &
Ekman, 2001). Ruch and Ekman (2001) defined laughter as a vocal expressive-
communicative signal and provided an overview of laughter in terms of respiration,
vocalization, facial action, body movement, mechanisms, and element definition.
12 T. Scheel
Three main theories about the origin of humor are repeatedly drawn on, that is,
incongruity theory, superiority theory, and relief/release/arousal theories (e.g.,
Banas et al., 2011; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004; Ferguson & Ford, 2008; Martin,
1998; McCreaddie & Wiggins, 2008; Meyer, 2000). Thus, humor emerges in
human thought through perceptions of incongruity, superiority, and relief (Meyer,
2000). Ferguson and Ford (2008) applied the three theories to disparagement humor
to explain why it is amusing. In his comprehensive book on the psychology of
humor, Martin (2007) provided an extensive overview of several theories.
According to Ferguson and Ford (2008), the theories differ in many ways but
particularly in the relative emphasis they place on the structure of the contents of
humor versus the centrality of the social context in eliciting amusement: incongruity
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 13
and cognitive theories emphasize irony and surprise in the contents of humor
(representative: Attardo, 1993; Berger, 1987; Raskin, 1985; Suls, 1972), whereas
the psychoanalytic (a type of relief theory) and the superiority theories emphasize
antagonistic social relationships between humorists and targeted individuals,
groups, or objects in a given context (representative: Berger, 1987; Freud, 1960,
1905). These latter theories focus more on context, thus more directly and fully
addressing disparaging humor.
Most research has been conducted on the enjoyment of certain types of humor,
mainly disparagement humor. Whereas there is some evidence for superiority and
incongruity in humor, the psychoanalytic idea of a catharsis or tension relief has not
yet been clearly demonstrated (Ferguson & Ford, 2008). In the following, we
provide an overview of the three approaches, including a brief discussion of
empirical evidence.
relationship between the ability to create humor and creative abilities, in general, is
considerable. Accordingly, humor production is positively related to divergent
thinking (creativity) and humor comprehension to convergent thinking (intelli-
gence; Martin, 1998). In a comprehensive review of studies about humor and
incongruity, Martin (2007) concluded that incongruity theories “do not adequately
account for all aspects of humor” (p. 74). In particular, the emotional and social
aspects of humor remain largely unexplained.
Among the oldest theories, dating back to Plato and Aristotle, superiority results
“from the disparagement of another person or of one’s own past blunders or
foolishness” (Martin, 1998, p. 29). McCreaddie and Wiggins (2008) traced the
Superiority Theory (or tendentious or disparagement theory) back to another
famous advocate: Hobbes (1588–1679) “considered an aggressive form of humour
which takes pleasure in others’ failings or discomfort. A ‘sudden glory of some
eminency in ourselves, compared with infirmity of others’” (cf. McCreaddie &
Wiggins, 2008, p. 585) characterizes aggressive humor, including humor used
against the self, for example, self-deprecating/-defeating/-disparaging humor. Based
on aggressiveness or playful competition (Banas et al., 2011), a typical theme is
ridicule and making fun of those who are less fortunate or who deviate from a given
norm (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004). For example, a superior could demonstrate
his/her achieved status by saying something funny at the expense of a subordinate
in a meeting; most probably, the people attending the meeting, including the target,
will laugh.
According to Buijzen and Valkenburg (2004) and Meyer (2000), humor has a
primarily emotional function when laughter and mirth result from seeing oneself as
superior, right, or triumphant. The superiority or disparagement theory emphasizes
the ways in which negative or hostile attitudes are expressed through humor
(Martin, 1998). Being laughed at threatens our identity, making it an unpleasant
experience for the targets of such superiority humor (Meyer, 2000).
Evidence for Superiority Theory Martin (1998) summed up the superiority or
disparagement approach as focusing on the ways in which negative or hostile
attitudes are expressed through humor and explained “that people laugh more at
jokes that disparage people toward whom they have negative attitudes and laugh
less at jokes that disparage those with whom they identify” (p. 33). Furthermore, the
distinction between the disparagement of a specific social group (i.e., intergroup
disparagement) and the disparagement of a person (i.e., intragroup disparagement)
serve different functions: the morale and cohesion of the ingroup versus conformity
in and control over ingroup behavior (Janes & Olson, 2015). For instance, students
who observed other students being ridiculed (in cartoons) conformed more and
performed better on a quiz (Bryant, Brown, & Parks, 1981).
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 15
Some evidence for superiority has been collected by running experiments that
included racial jokes or jokes about specific ethnic or cultural groups—depending
on whether the joke teller was part of the group, the jokes were more or less funny;
thus, membership in reference groups is important. Humor that disparages social
outgroups is funnier than humor that disparages social ingroups (Ferguson & Ford,
2008). Ferguson and Ford (2008) summarized that (informal) attitudinal affiliation
with a social group—regardless of whether one actually belongs to it—influences
the extent to which humor that disparages that group will be considered amusing;
and according to affective disposition (attitude), humor appreciation depends on
membership in a social group or attitudes toward the disparaged group (Zillmann &
Cantor, 1976/1996; cf. Ferguson & Ford, 2008).
As disparagement humor is at the heart of superiority theory, research on its
effects has provided evidence for superiority theory. In a special issue of Humor:
International Journal of Humor Studies (2015) on disparagement humor and
intragroup and intergroup differences and effects, Ford (2015) brought together
several empirical studies.
In addition, other theoretical approaches might be useful for explaining the func-
tions and consequences of humor. While not claiming to be exhaustive, we mention
the following theories because they appear useful for explaining the role of humor
at work.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) is applied to the explanation of disparage-
ment humor, that is, why it elicits amusement and what elicits this kind of humor
(Ferguson & Ford, 2008). Social identity theory is aligned with superiority theory.
Judging one’s own groups as superior to other groups enhances positive social
identity and can be achieved with disparaging humor against the outgroup (e.g.,
Janes & Olsen, 2015), thus accounting for the use of disparagement humor as a
social lubricant (see Chap. 3 on teams).
Three more affective approaches are emotional contagion, the Broaden-
and-Build-Theory of Positive Emotions and the feelings-as-information-theory
(see Chap. 3 on teams). Emotional contagion (Hatfield, Rapson, & Le, 1994) might
explain how humor actually functions as a social lubricant. Primitive emotional
contagion was defined as “the tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize
facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another
person and, consequently, to converge emotionally” (Hatfield et al., 1994, p. 5).
The Broaden-and-Build-Theory of Positive Emotions by Fredrickson (1998, 2001)
proposes that positive emotions broaden people’s momentary thought-action
repertoires and thus build enduring resources—physical, intellectual, social, and
psychological. In addition to improved functioning due to positive emotions,
Fredrickson (2001) assumed a general transformation of thought and action for the
better. Likewise, Schwarz (1990) included negative and positive affect in his
feelings-as-information-theory and stated that affective states provide an informa-
tional basis about the (negative or positive) state of a person’s environment.
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 17
There are several specific concepts that are related to humor, and we will introduce
those that are relevant for the work context. The two most frequently researched
constructs are sense of humor and humor style. We do not discuss gelotology, the
study of laughter, and its effects on the body. However, gelotophobia, the fear of
being laughed at, may have implications at work such as self-selecting specific jobs
that provide fewer opportunities to be laughed at (Ruch, Hofmann, Platt, & Proyer,
2014). For the recent state of the art on gelotophobia, see Ruch et al. (2014).
Sense of Humor is defined as “habitual individual differences in all sorts of
behaviors, experiences, affects, attitudes, and abilities relating to amusement,
laughter, jocularity, and so on” (Martin, 1998, p. 17). In his historical review of
individual differences in sense of humor, Martin (1998) referred to Eysenck’s
(1972) three meanings of humor when ascribing sense of humor to a person:
laughing at the same things (conformist meaning), laughing often (quantitative
meaning), and telling funny stories or amusing other people (productive meaning).
The three are not necessarily related within individuals. In a more recent definition,
Svebak (2014) stated that sense of humor is “a characteristic of the individual and
reflects readiness for understanding as well as producing humorous cognitive
processes and to display related effects of smiling and laughter” (p. 3048).
According to Craik, Lampert, and Nelson (1996), overall sense of humor subsumes
a delimited and specific set of humor-related behaviors, specifically “socially
constructive and competent forms of humorous conduct within interpersonal con-
texts” (p. 273); for instance, maintaining group morale through humor or displaying
a quick wit.
Humor Styles describe the ways in which people use humor (Martin,
Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003) and are thus narrower than a sense of
humor: Self-enhancing humor involves a tendency to be amused by the incongruities
of life (e.g., adversity) and helps people attain distance from problems in stressful
situations, affiliative humor describes a person’s tendency to facilitate relationships
by telling jokes and engaging in funny banter. Both styles provide an adaptive
18 T. Scheel
function, thus being called positive humor. Aggressive humor refers to irony, sar-
casm, teasing, and mockery as well as to sexist and racist humor and is associated
with manipulating or belittling others (e.g., Janes & Olsen, 2000). People who tell
funny anecdotes or do funny things at their own expense in order to gain the
appreciation of others use self-defeating humor (Martin et al., 2003). These latter two
(negative) humor styles are maladaptive, because humor at one’s own or another’s
expense jeopardizes social relationships and self-worth. There are also two
approaches to categorizations: self-directed (self-enhancing/-defeating) versus other-
directed (affiliative/aggressive, e.g., Cann, Stilwell, & Taku, 2010) and enhancing
the self (self-enhancing/aggressive) or relationships with others (affiliative/self-
defeating; Martin et al., 2003).
Humor Styles at Work Building on the two adaptive and two maladaptive
humor styles (Martin et al., 2003), Romero and Cruthirds (2006) tied specific ways
to use humor in organizations to their respective functions. As we judge this sys-
tematization to be especially useful and as it is one of the most prominent in recent
research in work contexts, we will introduce it in more detail. In general, the styles
are intended to function as enhancers of the self or relationships with others.
Affiliative and self-enhancing humor are categorized as “positive” styles; aggressive
and self-defeating humor are categorized as “negative” styles. Lang and Lee (2010)
reported three functions of humor in the workplace that have similarities with
affiliative (liberating humor), self-enhancing (stress-relieving humor), and aggres-
sive or mild aggressive humor styles (controlling humor). According to Mak, Liu
and Deneen (2012), humor functions as a regulating (mild aggressive, affiliative)
and coping mechanism (self-enhancing) in workplace socialization. Although all
four styles might serve interpersonal functions, the self-enhancing style in particular
is said to serve an intrapersonal function. Using the literature, Martin et al. (2003)
developed these four factors (Humor Style Questionnaire, HSQ) and subsequently
empirically confirmed their validity by showing that they are distinctly related to
certain consequences (e.g., health). Scheel, Gerdenitsch and Korunka (2016)
introduced an adapted shorter work-related Humor Style Questionnaire (swHSQ;
see Appendix). The following discussion of the four styles and their functions are
mainly based on the review by Romero and Cruthirds (2006).
Affiliative humor serves the (lubricating; Martineau, 1972) function of enhancing
liking and nonthreatening perceptions between persons; utilizing this style should
lessen interpersonal tension and aid in building relationships. Thus, it facilitates
interpersonal interactions and creates a positive environment; the intention is to
bring people together (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). By eliciting positive feelings
through the successful sharing of humor, affiliative humor may foster group
cohesion. Also, socialization is facilitated as interactions are less tense.
Communication (e.g., in public speaking) may profit from affiliative humor by
creating similarities between the speaker and the audience and through shared
humor. Sharing humor is not compatible with being offended and thus involves
honest and free communication. Affiliative humor within a group may reduce stress
by easing tension from stressful events. Promoting openness to new ideas by
making people less critical facilitates risk taking and thus creative thinking.
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 19
In Janes and Olson’s (2015) words: “Humor is ubiquitous in daily life and
extraordinarily complex in its consequences” (p. 286). There are several reviews
about the general functions of humor (e.g., Banas et al., 2011; Martin, 1998, 2007).
Assumptions about how the general or specific functions of humor are related to
humor theories are limited. For instance, interpersonal functions such as enhancing
one’s own liking and status might refer to superiority theories. Also, stress
reduction via humor and laughter may be explained by arousal-relief theories.
It is very challenging to disentangle the functions and intended consequences of
humor. For instance, the function of protecting the self with an aggressive joke at
the expense of a potentially threatening person might lead to protection (e.g., the
person is no longer perceived as threatening) or might worsen the situation (e.g., the
person reacts with an aggressive joke in return). Olsson, Backe, Sörensen, and
Kock (2002) asked 20 people from Sweden what humor means to them and cat-
egorized the essence of humor as possibilities/obstacles (e.g., happiness, unforeseen
events/situations, real humor/art form, jokes, plays on words/puns, situation com-
edy) and weapons/protection (e.g., political satire). The contents of both categories
demonstrate once more that the functions and consequences of humor, the types of
humorous stimuli, and the level of abstraction are intertwined.
The proposed functions of humor are often inductively derived theoretical
assumptions or generalizations of empirical investigations of details. Thus,
empirical research on nearly every function is recommended. That said, we will
now summarize the proposed intrapersonal and interpersonal functions of humor
and humor at work.
work settings, too. However, the relevance and consequences might differ between
nonwork and work contexts.
communications, power, status) and a link between group dynamic variables and
performance. Morreall (1991) listed three benefits of humor in the workplace: to
promote health, enhance mental flexibility, and smooth social relations.
of the role of humor in the workplace with four factors. Whereas the HSQ has a
clear focus on a person’s own use of humor, the HCQ shifts between perceptions of
coworkers’ and supervisors’ use of humor and a person’s own use of humor as a
group member. In addition, the positive factor of the HCQ combines the two
distinct factors of the HSQ (affiliative, self-enhancing), and the negative factor
represents aggressive humor while not adopting the self-defeating style of the HSQ.
The outgroup humor factor operationalizes only management as the outgroup,
whereas the fourth factor (i.e., supervisor support) is reverse coded and actually
represents supervisors’ nonapproval of humor in the workplace. However, the
measurement of humor provides other potential pitfalls. As “sense of humor” is a
highly valued characteristic, people might be biased in their ratings. Also, for
instance, prior exposure to a named (known!) comedian primes an expectancy of
forthcoming humor, and this expectancy influences humor ratings (Johnson &
Mistry, 2013). As mentioned, more scales are presented in the Appendix (A.1).
Early research used methods from ethnography such as participant observers
(e.g., Roy, 1959; Seckman & Couch, 1989; Vinton, 1989). For instance, Sykes
(1966) acted as a participant observer in a glass production company and
“analyzed/classified” joking relationships between old/young women and
old/young men. Horowitz et al. (2004) conducted focus groups with 11- to
14-year-old US middle school children guided by semistructured interviews to
identify sources of teasing and bullying.
As experimental approaches are less applicable to the work context, the
respective instruments are not presented in the Appendix but briefly introduced
here. A range of experiments have included humor production (e.g., Terror
Management Theory; Long & Greenwood, 2013). One of the first attempts at
research on humor focused on humor appreciation and assessed the appreciation of
jokes and cartoons (e.g., Eysenck, 1942). Cartoons have often been applied in
experimental settings to assess humor appreciation and creation. For instance, the
3WD consists of a set of 70 jokes and cartoons (Ruch, 1995, unpublished; cf.
Hempelmann & Ruch, 2005). The humor questionnaire (in Hebrew, Ziv, 1981; cf.
Ehrenberg, 1995) is a 16-item self-report scale that captures pleasure from humor
and is accompanied by a test of humor creation (10 cartoons without captions). This
cartoon-caption test covers the use of humor for emphasis, the originality of funny
ideas, and the ability to make someone laugh. It also includes a sociometric humor
measure. Likewise, the Humor Appreciation Scale (HAS; Overholser, 1992)
includes 14 captioned cartoons to be rated for funniness, and the Humor Creativity
Ratings (HCR; Overholser, 1992) contain eight cartoons (drawings on stressful
situations) without captions. Participants are asked to provide a humorous caption
for each cartoon. The Cartoon Measure of Perspective-Taking Humor (CMPTH;
Lefcourt et al., 1995) is a composite of the Cartoon Measure of Funniness
(CMF) and the Comprehension of Perspective-Taking Humor (CMPT). Six car-
toons are rated for funniness (CMF), respondents are asked to explain the humor in
each cartoon (CMPT), and the level of abstraction of their explanations is rated. The
composite score combines the enjoyment and comprehension of perspective-taking
24 T. Scheel
2.7 Conclusion
References
Aillaud, M., & Piolat, A. (2012). Influence of gender on judgment of dark and nondark humor.
Individual Differences Research, 10(4), 211–222.
Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive significance of
humor. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7(3), 253–270. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(86)90052-X.
Apter, M. J. (2013). Developing reversal theory: Some suggestions for future research. Journal of
Motivation, Emotion, and Personality, 1(1), 1–8. doi: 10.12689/jmep.2013.101.
Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes.
Journal of Pragmatics, 19(6), 537–558. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90111-2.
Banas, J. A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., & Liu, S.-J. (2011). A review of humor in educational
settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60(1), 115–144. doi:10.1080/
03634523.2010.496867.
Beermann, U., & Ruch, W. (2009). How virtuous is humor? What we can learn from current
instruments. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 528–539. doi:10.1080/1743976090
3262859.
Berger, A. A. (1987). Humor: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(3), 6–15.
doi:10.1177/000276487030003002.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor (pp. 43–60). New York: Academic Press.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the communica-
tion of humorous messages. Southern Journal of Communication, 56(3), 205–218. doi:10.
1080/10417949109372831.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., & Parks, S. L. (1981). Ridicule as an educational corrective. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73(5), 722–727. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.722.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Development a typology of humor in audivisual media.
Media Psychology, 6, 147–167. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2.
Cann, A., Stilwell, K., & Taku, K. (2010). Humor styles, positive personality and health. Europe´s
Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 213–235. doi:10.5964/ejop.v6i3.214.
Cann, A., Watson, A. J., & Bridgewater, E. A. (2014). Assessing humor at work: The humor
climate questionnaire. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 307–323.
doi:10.1515/humor-2014-0019.
Carretero-Dios, H., Pérez, C., & Buela-Casal, G. (2010). Assessing the appreciation of the content
and structure of humor: Construction of a new scale. Humor—International Journal of Humor
Research, 23(3), 307–325. doi:10.1515/humr.2010.014.
Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765–776. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.
18378877.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of everyday
humorous conduct. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3–4), 273–302.
doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.273.
Crawford, C. B. (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humor by
leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(4), 53–68. doi:10.1177/
107179199400100406.
Dikkers, J. S. E., Doosje, S., & de Lange, A. H. (2012). Humor as a human resource tool in
organizations. In J. Houdmont, S. Leka, & R. S. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational
health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (pp. 74–91). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Doosje, S., De Goede, M., van Doornen, L., & Goldstein, J. (2010). Measurement of occupational
humorous coping. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 23(3), 275–305. doi:10.
1515/humr.2010.013.
Duncan, W. J. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and research.
The Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 136. doi:10.2307/257259.
26 T. Scheel
Johnson, A. J., & Mistry, K. (2013). The effect of joke-origin-induced expectancy on cognitive
humor. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 26(2), 321–341. doi:10.1515/
humor-2013-0011.
Kahn, W. A. (1989). Toward a sense of organizational humor: Implications for organizational
diagnosis and change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(1), 45–63. doi:10.1177/
0021886389251004.
Kambouropoulou, P. (1926). Individual differences in the sense of humor. The American Journal
of Psychology, 37(2), 268–278. doi:10.2307/1413696.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Laughter and stress in daily life: Relation to positive and
negative affect. Motivation and Emotion, 22(2), 133–153. doi:10.1023/A:1021392305352.
Lang, J. C., & Lee, C. H. (2010). Workplace humor and organizational creativity. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 46–60. doi:10.1080/
09585190903466855.
Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K., & Mills, D. (1995).
Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 14(4), 373–391. doi:10.1521/jscp.1995.14.4.373.
Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse
Processes, 11(1), 35–60. doi:10.1080/01638538809544690.
Long, C. R., & Greenwood, D. N. (2013). Joking in the face of death: A terror management
approach to humor production. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 26(4),
493–509. doi:10.1515/humor-2013-0012.
Mak, B. C. N., Liu, Y., & Deneen, C. C. (2012). Humor in the workplace: A regulating and coping
mechanism in socialization. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 163–179. doi:10.1177/
1750481312437445.
Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.),
The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 15–60). Berlin/New
York: De Gruyter.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA:
Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in
uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor
Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75. doi:10.1016/S0092-
6566(02)00534-2.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. Goldstein &, P. McGhee
(Eds.), The Psychology of Humor (pp. 101–125). New York: Academic Press.
McCreaddie, M., & Wiggins, S. (2008). The purpose and function of humour in health, health care
and nursing: a narrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(6), 584–595. doi:10.1111/j.
1365-2648.2007.04548.x.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in
the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190. doi:10.1108/
02683941211199554.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication.
Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x.
Michalos, A. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht:
Springer, Netherlands.
Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3–4),
359–374. doi:10.1515/humr.1991.4.3-4.359.
Morreall, J. (1989). Enjoying incongruity. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 2
(1), 1–18. doi:10.1515/humr.1989.2.1.1.
Morris, C. (1744). An essay towards fixing the true standards of wit, humour, raillery, satire, and
ridicule. London: Printed for J. Roberts.
Obrdlik, A. J. (1942). “Gallows humor”-A sociological phenomenon. American Journal of
Sociology, 47(5), 709–716. doi:10.1086/219002.
28 T. Scheel
Olsson, H., Backe, H., Sörensen, S., & Kock, M. (2002). The essence of humour and its effects and
functions: A qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Management, 10(1), 21–26. doi:10.1046/j.
0966-0429.2001.00272.x.
Overholser, J. C. (1992). Sense of humor when coping with life stress. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13(7), 799–804. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90053-R.
Paul, J. (1804/1990). Vorschule der Ästhetik: Nebst einigen Vorlesungen in Leipzig über die
Parteien der Zeit. Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes/Meiner.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: D. Reidel
Publishing Company.
Robert, C., & Yan, W. (2007). The case for developing new research on humor and culture in
organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 26, 205–267. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(07)26005-0.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.20591005.
Roy, D. (1959). “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18
(4), 158–168. doi: 10.17730/humo.18.4.07j88hr1p4074605.
Ruch, W. (1996). Measurement approaches to the sense of humor. Introduction and overview.
In W. Ruch (Ed.), Measurement of the Sense of Humor (special issue). Humor—International
Journal of Humor Research, 9(3–4), 239–250.
Ruch, W. (2005). Humor-Test 3 WD. Unpublished manuscript, University of Duesseldorf,
Germany.
Ruch, W. (2007). Appendix: Humor measurement tools. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:
Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 405–412). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. W. Kaszniak (Ed.),
Emotion, qualia, and consciousness (pp. 426–443). Tokyo: World Scientific Publishers.
Ruch, W., Köhler, G., & van Thriel, C. (1996). Assessing the “humorous temperament”:
Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory–
STCI. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3–4), 303–339. doi: 10.1515/
humr.1996.9.3-4.303.
Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. (2014). The state-of-the art in gelotophobia
research: A review and some theoretical extensions. Humor—International Journal of Humor
Research, 27(1), 23–45. doi: 10.1515/humor-2013-0046.
Scheel, T. E., Gerdenitsch, C., & Korunka, C. (2016). Humor at work—Validation of the Short
and Work-related Humor Styles Questionnaire (swHSQ). Humor—International Journal of
Humor Research, 29(3), 439–465. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0118.
Schubert, C., & Leschhorn, W. (2006). Hippokrates. Ausgewählte Schriften. Düsseldorf/Zürich:
Artemis & Winkler.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feeling as information: Infomational and motivational functions of affective
states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2). New York, London: Guilford.
Seckman, M. A., & Couch, C. J. (1989). Jocularity, sarcasm, and relationships: An empirical
study. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(3), 327–344. doi:10.1177/
089124189018003004.
Singer, D. L. (1968). Aggression arousal, hostile humor, catharsis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 8(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/h0021361.
Suls, J. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An
information-processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The Psychology
of Humor. Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues (pp. 81–100). New York: Academic
Press.
Svebak, S. (1974). Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 15(1), 328–331. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1974.tb00597.x.
Svebak, S. (2010). The sense of humor questionnaire: Conceptualization and review of 40 years of
findings in empirical research. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 288–310. doi:10.5964/
ejop.v6i3.218.
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 29
Svebak, S. (2014). Humor. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being
research (pp. 3048–3050). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-
5_1353.
Sykes, A. J. (1966). Joking relationships in an industrial setting. American Anthropologist, 68(1),
188–193. doi:10.1525/aa.1966.68.1.02a00250.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological structure of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations.
London: Academic Press.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Development and validation of a multidimensional sense
of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 13–23. doi:10.1002/1097-4679
(199301)49:13.0.CO;2-S.
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace it is more than telling jokes. Small Group Behavior,
20(2), 151–166. doi:10.1177/104649648902000202.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between
instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication
Education, 59(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238.
Weisfeld, G. E. (1993). The adaptive value of humor and laughter. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14
(2), 141–169. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)90012-7.
Westwood, R. I., & Johnston, A. (2013). Humor in organization: From function to resistance.
Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 26(2), 219–247. doi: 10.1515/humor-
2013-0024.
Winick, C. (1976). The social contexts of humor. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 124–128.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01915.x.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976/1996). A disposition theory of humour and mirth.
In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and
application. London: Wiley.