Chapter 2

Definitions, Theories, and Measurement

of Humor

Tabea Scheel

Abstract This chapter provides an overview of conceptualizations of humor, the

most prominent theories, and theories that may be a useful foundation for research
on humor at work. Definitions of humor are manifold, ranging from a commu-
nicative activity with positive emotional reactions in perceivers to an individual trait
(e.g., sense of humor, cheerfulness). Humor is seen as multidimensional and
includes the abilities to produce, recognize, and appreciate humor and to use humor
as a coping strategy. The three most prominent humor theories are the superiority,
incongruity, and arousal-relief theories. We discuss the intra- and interpersonal
function of humor in general, the function of humor at work, and humor mea-
surement. Measures of (usually self-assessed) humor range from more trait-focused
and internal perspectives to humor styles and humor in work contexts. A collection
of humor scales and tests is presented in Appendix A.1.

Keywords Humor definitions Incongruence theory
Arousal-relief theory




Superiority theory Humor functions Humor styles

2.1 Introduction

The complexity of humor and humor theories is comparable to the experience of

blind men touching an elephant. This originally Indian (but nowadays widespread)
story describes how blind men touch an elephant to get an idea of what it looks like.
As each one feels a different part of the elephant, they experience complete dis-
agreement when comparing their descriptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_
men_and_an_elephant). Likewise, humor is a very complex phenomenon, and
although each theory or definition may be correct, it may also acknowledge only
part of the phenomenon.

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

© The Author(s) 2017 9

T. Scheel and C. Gockel, Humor at Work in Teams, Leadership, Negotiations,
Learning and Health, SpringerBriefs in Psychology,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-65691-5_2
10 T. Scheel

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.

2.2 Definitions of Humor

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

In line with Weisfeld (1993), laughter caused by humor is associated with a

pleasant emotional state connected with cheerfulness and exhilaration.
There is no fully satisfactory comprehensive definition of humor. However,
scholars agree that humor involves the communication of multiple, incongruous
meanings that are amusing in some manner (Banas, Dunbar, Rodriguez, & Liu,
2011; Martin, 2007). In line with this idea, Gervais and Wilson (2005) summarized
the fundamental nature of humor as “nonserious social incongruity” (p. 399). In the
Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-being Research (Michalos, 2014),
Svebak defined humor as a “social phenomenon that is reflected in playful inter-
action and mirthful communication” (2014, p. 3048). Overall, an appropriate and
comprehensive definition will probably have to be based on a theory of humor.
Few attempts have been made to define humor in work contexts. Cooper (2005)
defined organizational humor as “any event shared by an agent (e.g., an employee)
with another individual (i.e., a target) that is intended to be amusing to the target
and that the target perceives as an intentional act” (pp. 766–767). Dikkers, Doosje,
and de Lange (2012) presented a model of organizational humor based on inter-
acting communication levels. They built on Cooper’s (2005) as well as Romero and
Cruthirds’ (2006) definitions and defined organizational humor as “non-serious
incongruity shared in work settings aimed at the intentional amusement of indi-
viduals, groups or organizations” (Dikkers et al., 2012, p. 76, Italics in Orignial).
Incongruity is a cognitive-perceptual process in which conflicting ideas or events
are combined. The attempt to provide a definition for organizational humor is
worthwhile. However, it is limited in the sense that it is narrow in scope (only
amusement intention).
As humor has internal and communicational facets, our working definition
encompasses humor as a communicative process that includes incongruence and
evokes a variety of emotions, either in the “producer” of humor, in the “receiver” of
humor, or in both. Thus, our definition of humor at work as “nonserious social
incongruity” follows Gervais and Wilson (2005, p. 399).

2.3 Theories of Humor

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.

2.3.1 Incongruity Theory

According to Kant (1724–1804), incongruity is “Humour where the punchline or

resolution is inconsistent or incongruous with the set-up” (cf. McCreaddie &
Wiggins, 2008, p. 585). Traced back to Aristotle, incongruity is the most widely
accepted philosophical theory of humor to date (Morreall, 1989)—“amusement is
the enjoyment of something which clashes with our mental patterns and expecta-
tions” (p. 1). People understand humorous communication if they are (cognitively)
able to resolve the incongruity (Banas et al., 2011). Surprise is a key element
(Meyer, 2000), and absurdity, nonsense, and surprise are typical themes (Buijzen &
Valkenburg, 2004). For example, a customer might perceive a humorous incon-
gruence if a (usually serious) bank employee wears a clown nose (maybe at carnival
time).
Forabosco (1992) views incongruity as the “divergence from a cognitive model
of reference” and “resolution” as well as “cognitive mastery” as essential compo-
nents of the humor process. Thus, incongruity theory emphasizes cognition,
requiring the mental capacity to note, understand, and categorize incongruous
changes and thus to comprehend a situation and its implications before humor (the
cognitive state of mirth) can be experienced. Thus, humor comprehension, but not
humor appreciation, is at the core of incongruity theories. In a review of the past
50 years of humor research, Westwood and Johnston (2013) extended theory in
relating incongruity and the ambiguities of humor as a basis for subversive
potential, advocating for a view of organizational humor as subversion and
resistance.
Evidence for Incongruity Theory According to the review by Martin (1998),
empirical evidence for incongruity and individual differences in sense of humor are
based on creative thought processes that are involved in the production and com-
prehension of humor. That is, the creation and resolution of incongruence is
inherent in humor and in creativity. He concluded that evidence for a close
14 T. Scheel

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.

2.3.2 Superiority Theory

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.

2.3.3 Arousal Theories

According to Freud (1856–1938), relief or release theory implies “Humour released

by ‘excess’ nervous energy which actually masks other motives and/or desires” (cf.
McCreaddie & Wiggins, 2008, p. 585). The relief theory focuses on the physio-
logical release of tension (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004; Meyer, 2000) by laughing.
Berlyne (1972) described two ways in which the associated positive hedonic value
can arise: either arousal is raised moderately (“arousal boost”), or a sequence of
conditions generates an uncomfortable state of heightened arousal that is subse-
quently reversed (“arousal jag”). For example, in a meeting with a tense atmo-
sphere, a manager could say something funny and thus take the audience by
surprise, resulting in an arousing outburst of laughter and a subsequently looser
atmosphere.
An advancement of arousal theory describes pleasure from increasing arousal to
an optimal level (Martin, 2007). The shifting from a paratelic (i.e., a playful frame
of mind such as humor) to a telic state (i.e., goal-directed, serious) is described in
reversal theory (Apter, 2013). Arousal theories combine cognitive appraisal with an
optimal level of physiological arousal (Banas et al., 2011); thus, cognition and
emotion interact (Martin, 2007). The coping functions of humor are based on the
tension–relief element of arousal theory (Banas et al., 2011). Typical themes are
sexual or aggressive (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004).
Evidence for Arousal-Relief Theory The arousal-relief theory has mainly been
explored in the psychoanalytic tradition (Ferguson & Ford, 2008) by testing the
catharsis hypothesis. A number of studies have examined Freud’s hypothesis that
the enjoyment of hostile jokes is related to repressed aggressive drives (Martin,
1998). Many of the studies on psychoanalytic theory and individual differences in
16 T. Scheel

sense of humor reviewed by Martin (1998) were based on samples of psychiatric

patients or students and most focused on the appreciation of humor (of prepared
cartoons or jokes). Contrary to psychoanalytic theory, most of these studies found
that aggressive humor is enjoyed more by persons who express hostility and
aggression rather than by those who suppress or repress it, and the majority of the
evidence suggests that people laugh the most at humor that is related to impulses
that they themselves express overtly—rather than repress (Martin, 1998). Martin
(1998) and Ferguson and Ford (2008) similarly concluded that exposure to hostile
humor is related to more expressions of aggression, though some studies found an
association between hostile humor appreciation and reductions in aggression and
tension (e.g., Singer, 1968). Psychoanalytic assumptions were tested with negative
(i.e., aggressive or hostile) humor because positive humor is not assumed to refer to
repressed feelings or thoughts.

2.3.4 Additional Theoretical Approaches

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

Banas et al. (2011) introduced the Instructional Humor Processing Theory

(IHPT), which is a combination of incongruity-resolution theory, disposition the-
ory, and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion (Wanzer, Frymier,
& Irwin, 2010). The IHPT is useful for explaining why certain types of humor used
by instructors might result in increased student learning whereas others might not
(Wanzer et al., 2010) (see Sect. 6.3 on learning).
In conclusion, there is not yet an overarching theory of humor or even humor at
work. Rather, different theories explain distinct aspects of humor. Likewise, there
are several different functions served by humor beyond amusement. We will
examine these functions after introducing specific concepts of humor in the next
section.

2.4 Specific Concepts of Humor

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

A humorous environment can stimulate creative problem-solving. By the same

mechanisms of creating a positive environment for knowledge sharing and inter-
personal relationships, organizational culture profits from affiliative humor.
Organizational values and behavioral norms are communicated without negative
affect for the audience or new personnel. Affiliative humor may reduce the social
distance between leaders and subordinates by identifying similarities (e.g., intelli-
gence, values) and because it causes subordinates to perceive the leader as a group
member.
Self-enhancing humor is a coping mechanism for dealing with stress and is
centered on the person. This style can be found on an individual or a group level.
The intention is enhancement of a person’s image relative to others in the group or
organization (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Self-enhancing humor at the group level
fosters favorable perceptions of the group and thus enhances group cohesion.
Self-enhancing humor in communication helps speakers to connect with an audi-
ence. This type of humor is especially beneficial for stress reduction, for instance,
by reframing stressful situations and achieving distance from problems.
Self-enhancing humor fosters creative thinking by making light of errors or failures,
which inevitably occur with novel ideas. By promoting the ability to cope with
problems, self-enhancing humor fosters team-oriented as well as organizationally
desired behavior. For leadership, self-enhancing humor may be beneficial for
acquiring power from superiors by increasing appeal.
Holmes and Marra (2006) analyzed workplace discourses and likewise found
that the positive types of humor were beneficial for strengthening collegiality,
softening instruction or a criticism, releasing tension, or defusing anger.
Self-defeating humor is meant to enhance relationships with others by amusing
them and gaining their acceptance. At moderate levels, it may reduce status and
render people more approachable (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). For instance, the
use of moderate self-defeating humor in a speaker’s communication may release
tension and also temporarily reduce the speaker’s status. When credibility is at
stake, self-defeating humor is especially unfavorable when leaders aim to secure
power over subordinates. However, to reduce their social distance from subordi-
nates, leaders can use this type of humor to help them seem more approachable and
appealing.
Aggressive humor is used to victimize, belittle, and disparage others (Romero &
Cruthirds, 2006). Consistent with superiority theory, people with aggressive humor
try to enhance their own status and feel better at the expense of others. Aggressive
humor (e.g., making jokes about outgroup members) bonds the group, thereby
enhancing cohesion. It is also a means for securing power in leadership by defining
the leader’s status and elucidating power relations. Aggressive humor, targeted
toward employees with lower status, demonstrates the initiator’s power over others
in order to, for instance, gain behavioral compliance. Aggressive humor may be
detrimental to relationships and organizational culture when it is used to ridicule
and manipulate maliciously. The costs of this negative humor can be particularly
high when some people are offended, and lawsuits may even result.
20 T. Scheel

2.5 Functions of Humor

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.

2.5.1 Intrapersonal Functions

Humor may serve to enhance relationships with others (e.g., affiliative,

self-defeating) or the self (e.g., self-enhancing; Martin et al., 2003). Humor may
also help individuals cope with stress: Humor can help people see the amusing side
of problems and can help them distance themselves from stressors (Banas et al.,
2011). Humor is said to enable a change in perspective and to buffer the effects of
stress by serving as a coping strategy (see also Chap. 7 on Health). In the same
way, humor helps to regulate emotions. The intrapersonal function of disparage-
ment humor, according to Freud (1905, 1960), is the venting of aggressive feelings
in a socially acceptable way. Based on his experiences in Nazi concentration camps,
Obrdlik (1942) saw the main function of gallows humor as morale strengthening—
enhancing for the ingroup, disparaging for the outgroup. As this example demon-
strates, the boundaries between intra- and interpersonal functions of humor are
blurry. Though these functions apply to humor in general, they naturally apply to
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 21

work settings, too. However, the relevance and consequences might differ between
nonwork and work contexts.

2.5.2 Interpersonal Functions

The (interpersonal) functions of humor have been viewed as an apparent paradox.

Martineau (1972) described the social functions of humor as abrasive or lubricating;
laughter, as a result of humor, may create both closeness and distance between
individuals (Olsson et al., 2002). Beyond providing amusement, humor can facil-
itate liking and can bring people together, but it may be also used to disparage
others and socially isolate them (Banas et al., 2011). Thus, several authors have
indicated that humor can increase/decrease closeness and power and can, therefore,
influence the two main dimensions in person perception: liking and status. Among
the positive functions is an increase in group cohesion, but it might also serve
negative functions such as derision and social isolation. In the same line of thinking,
Alexander (1986) distinguished between affiliative humor with its focus on creating
or maintaining group cohesiveness, and ostracizing humor, which singles out a
victim. Whereas most functions of aggressive humor elicit negative consequences,
some may be potentially positive. For instance, relying on the face-saving ambi-
guity of humor may enable groups to resolve conflict without engaging in
destructive behavior (Kahn, 1989).
The lubricating and abrasive functions of humor continue in communication.
According to Meyer (2000), humor serves four basic functions in communication:
Two tend to unite communicators (mutual identification, clarification of positions
and values), and two tend to divide communicators from each other (enforcement of
norms, differentiation of acceptable vs. unacceptable behaviors or people). These
functions of humor in communication as, alternately, unifier or divider, allow
humor to be used to delineate social boundaries.

2.5.3 Specific Functions at Work

The interpersonal functions—or rather the consequences—of humor at work

encompass attention and immediacy (see Chap. 6 on Learning), cohesion (see
Chap. 3 on Teams), and emotional contagion (see Sect. 2.3.4 on additional theo-
ries), status and power (see Chap. 4 on Leadership), face-saving (see Chap. 5 on
Negotiation), and norm enforcement (see Chaps. 3 and 4 on Teams and
Leadership).
A core function of humor in workplace talk is to provide entertainment or
amusement (Holmes & Marra, 2006). However, humor in the workplace involves
more than telling jokes (Vinton, 1989). In his review, Duncan (1982) discussed
management humor as an influence on group characteristics (cohesiveness,
22 T. Scheel

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.

2.6 Measuring Humor

According to the variety of definitions and conceptualizations and to state/trait

perspectives, measures of (usually self-assessed) humor range from more
trait-focused (e.g., State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory, STCI; Ruch et al., 1996) and
internal perspectives (e.g., Sense of Humor Questionnaire, SHQ-6; Svebak, 1974,
2010) to the more behavior-related humor styles (Humor Styles Questionnaire,
HSQ; Martin et al., 2003) or humor assessment in work contexts (Questionnaire of
Occupational Humorous Coping, QOHC; Doosje, De Goede, van Doornen, &
Goldstein, 2010; Humor Climate Questionnaire, HCQ; Cann, Watson, &
Bridgewater, 2014). For an extensive overview of established but also lesser known
scales, please see Appendix A.1.
Several compilations of measures exist: In a special issue on the measurement of
humor, Ruch (1996) provided an overview of several measurement approaches.
Also, Martin (1998) reviewed approaches to the study of sense of humor and
described several measures in his integrative book about humor in psychology
(Martin, 2007). In a book on sense of humor, Ruch (2007) provided an extensive
appendix with a list of humor measurement tools sorted by the method that was
applied (e.g., questionnaire, cartoon test, etc.). Ruch’s (2007) list is very useful for
researchers interested in general tools for state and trait measures of humor. In a
more specific attempt, Beermann and Ruch (2009) discussed the relation between
virtue and vice with regard to 12 different humor tools. On the basis of their review
of positive humor at work, Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, and Viswesvaran (2012) pro-
vided a comprehensive list of the humor scales used in the 49 studies they analyzed
(including conceptualization and sample items). There is a considerable amount of
overlap between the instruments we introduce in Appendix A.1 and these lists, but
we focus on scales that seem useful in field research and in a work context.
Appendix A.1 provides a selective overview of (mostly self-report) measures
that might be relevant for the assessment of workplace humor or were even
designed for such a purpose. Among the various measures, the HSQ (i.e., affiliative,
self-enhancing, self-defeating, aggressive styles) is currently one of the most fre-
quently used as it recognizes the adaptive and maladaptive functions of humor. It
seems worthwhile to rely on the HSQ for the assessment of humor at work as it
seems to provide a solid basis and has often been used in the work context
(Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). In this regard, the application of the HSQ to the
workplace by developing the short and work-oriented version (swHSQ; Scheel
et al., 2016) seems promising. Also, the Humor Climate Questionnaire (HCQ; Cann
et al., 2014), which is based in part on the HSQ, measures employees’ perceptions
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 23

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

humor. Finally, the Escala de Apreciación del Humor (EAHU in Spanish,

Carretero-Dios, Pérez, & Buela-Casal, 2010; “Humor Appreciation Scale”) is a
32-item scale involving the contents of humor (incongruity-resolution, nonsense)
and the structure of humor (sexual, black, disparaging men, and disparaging
women); the items are rated on funniness and aversiveness.
Among the promising newer approaches are diary studies. As early as 1926,
Kambouropoulou tested the sense of humor of 70 female students with daily diary
entries for a period of 1 week. She discovered that they used different types of
humor, that is, passive and directed personal as well as impersonal humor involving
incongruity in ideas or nonsense. Also, a higher frequency of laughter during a
week was related to higher abilities (academic success, psychological tests). Kuiper
and Martin (1998) recorded the actual frequency of laughter for a 3-day period and
stressful life events every evening. For men with a higher frequency of laughter,
stressful life events were positively related to positive affect. One recent study by
Guenter, Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Gijsbers, and Van Iterson (2013) implemented a
2-week-long diary study and found that adaptive humor was related to engagement,
and emotional exhaustion was related to maladaptive humor (see also Chap. 7 on
health).
Thus, self-report measures may suffer from the participants being primed with
the knowledge that they are participating in “a humor study.” These scales may be
adapted for other-ratings, of course. Although observations of interactions would be
especially fruitful for research, such observations do not address all—especially
intrapersonal—aspects of humor and may also be very extensive. Mixed-method
approaches seem most recommendable.

2.7 Conclusion

Humor is a multidimensional phenomenon and has ambiguous functions within and

between persons—in general as well as in work contexts. Our working definition
describes humor at work as “nonserious social incongruity” (Gervais & Wilson,
2005). This definition is essentially an invitation for researchers to proceed elab-
orating on concepts and definitions of humor at work.
Three different theoretical approaches for the explanation of humor are mainly
used, that is, incongruity, superiority, and arousal. In the following chapters, they
will appear again in the context of work. Specifically, in the following Chaps. 3–7
we provide overviews with regard to teams, leadership, negotiations, learning, and
health at work. We discuss humor research in these areas and give implications for
future research and practice. Now, we invite you to dig deeper into the ambiguous
but fascinating nature of humor at work.
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 25

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

Ehrenberg, T. (1995). Female differences in creation of humor relating to work. Humor—

International Journal of Humor Research, 8(4), 349–362. doi:10.1515/humr.1995.8.4.349.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: An experimental and theoretical study. British
Journal of Psychology, 32(4), 295–309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-295.1942.tb01027.x.
Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Foreword. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. xii–xvii). New York: Academic
Press.
Ferguson, M. A., & Ford, T. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review
of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor—International Journal of
Humor Research, 21(3), 283–312. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014.
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity. Humor
—International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1–2), 45–68. doi:10.1515/humr.1992.5.1-2.45.
Ford, T. E. (2015). The social consequences of disparagement humor: Introduction and overview.
Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 163–169. doi:10.1515/humor-2015-
0016.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3),
300–319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten. Leipzig/Wien: Franz Deuticke.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion. London: Norton.
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A
synthetic approach. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 80(4), 395–430. doi:10.1086/498281.
Guenter, H., Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Gijsbers, W., & Van Iterson, A. (2013). How
adaptive and maladaptive humor influence well-beeing at work: A diary study. Humor—
International Journal of Humor Research, 26(4), 573–594. doi:10.1515/humor-2013-0032.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y. L. (1994). Primitive emotional contagion: Recent research.
In J. Decenty & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Hempelmann, C. F., & Ruch, W. (2005). 3 WD meets GTVH: Breaking the ground for
interdisciplinary humor research. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 18(4),
353–387. doi:10.1515/humr.2005.18.4.353.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership style. Humor—International Journal of
Humor Research, 19(2), 119-138. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.006.
Horowitz, J. A., Vessey, J. A., Carlson, K. L., Bradley, J. F., Montoya, C., McCullough, B., et al.
(2004). Teasing and bullying experiences of middle school students. Journal of the American
Psychiatric Nurses Association, 10(4), 165–172. doi:10.1177/1078390304267862.
Hurley, M. M., Dennett, D. C., & Adams, R. B. (2011). Inside jokes: Using humor to
reverse-engineer the mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hurren, B. L. (2006). The effects of principals’ humor on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational
Studies, 32(4), 373–385. doi:10.1080/03055690600850321.
Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule of
others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 474–485. doi:10.1177/
0146167200266006.
Janes, L., & Olson, J. (2015). Humor as an abrasive or a lubricant in social situations: Martineau
revisited. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 271–288. doi:10.1515/
humor-2015-0021.
Jonson, B. (1600). Every man out of his humour. London: William Holme.
Jonson, B. (1927). Every man out of his humour. In C. H. Herford & P. Simpson (Eds.), Ben
Jonson (Vol. III, pp. 405–601). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2 Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor 27

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.