Humor in Pedagogy How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!Author(s) R. L.docx

Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!
Author(s): R. L. Garner
Source: College Teaching, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Winter, 2006), pp.
177-180
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559255 .
Accessed: 18/11/2014 09:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected]
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to College
Teaching.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov
2014 09:59:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylo
rfrancis
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559255?origin=JSTOR-pdf
HUMOR IN PEDAGOGY
HOW HA-HA CAN LEAD TO AHA!
R. L. Garner
Abstract. Several studies have examined the peda
gogical implications and cautions concerning the use
of humor in teaching. Humor has been associated with
a host of positive physiological and psychological
effects. Researchers have identified that educators who
use humor in their instruction are more positively rated
by their peers and their students; others have suggested
that humor may enhance learning. Although much of
this evidence has been anecdotal, the present study
assesses the impact of curriculum-specific humor on
retention and recall, as well as student evaluations of
the course and the instructor. The appropriate use of
humor in a classroom setting is discussed and cautions
against tendentious humor are addressed.
A
number of articles have alluded to
the benefits of humor in teaching

(Berk 1998; Glenn 2002; Hill 1988; Pollio
and Humphreys 1996). The pedagogical
use of humor has been shown to have both
psychological and physiological effects on
learners. Psychologically, the effects of
humor and laughter have been shown to
reduce anxiety, decrease stress, enhance
self-esteem, and increase self-motivation
R. L. Garner is the associate dean of the College of
Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University in
Huntsville, Texas.
Copyright ? 2006 Heldref Publications
(Berk 1998). Glenn (2002) suggests that
humor can help an individual engage the
learning process by creating a positive
emotional and social environment in
which defenses are lowered and students
are better able to focus and attend to the
information being presented. Addition
ally, humor can serve as a bridge between
educators and students by demonstrating a
shared understanding and a common psy
chological bond.
Physiologically, humor and laughter can
aid learning through improved respiration
and circulation, lower pulse and blood

pressure, exercise of the chest muscles,
greater oxyg?nation of blood, and the
release of endorphins into the bloodstream
(Berk 1998). In his book, Anatomy of an
Illness as Perceived by the Patient, Nor
man Cousins (1991) strongly touts the
healing effects of laughter and suggests
that humor can reduce anxiety, help relieve
stress, and increase mental sharpness?all
desirable things in pedagogical settings.
Civikly (1986) concludes that there is
a growing body of research relating the
use of humor and its positive effect on
teaching and learning. Students indicate
that humor can increase their interest in
learning, and research has demonstrated
that students who have teachers with a
strong orientation to humor tend to learn
more. According to Dodge and Rossett
(1982), humor as a pedagogical tool can
initiate and sustain student interest and
provide a means to engage in divergent
thinking. Ziv (1983, 1988) found that a
humorous atmosphere in the classroom

positively impacted student scores on
divergent thinking exercises, and
Korobkin (1989) indicated that college
students report that learning is enhanced
by the inclusion of instructionally-appro
priate humor. Hill (1988) suggests that
students will often have better recall of a
message if it is presented with humor.
Several studies (see Berk 1996; Brown
and Tomlin 1996; Bryant, Comisky, and
Zillman 1997; Bryant et al. 1980; Pollio
and Humphreys 1996) and my own
observation as chair of a University
Excellence in Teaching committee find
that students appreciate and enjoy the use
Vol. 54/No. 1 177
2014 09:59:24 AM
of humor in the classroom. A review of
the teaching portfolios of highly-rated
college faculty and faculty Web pages on
the Internet frequently finds the use of
humor listed as an important component

of their teaching philosophy. College stu
dents asked to describe the positive attrib
utes of good teachers frequently mention
"sense of humor" (Brown and Tomlin
1996; Kelly and Kelly 1982).
Pollio and Humphreys (1996) found
that the connection established between
the instructor and the student was key to
effective teaching. Lowman (1994)
reported that effective college teachers
were most often described as "enthusias
tic," and a strong sense of humor plays a
major role in developing a positive learn
ing environment. Kher, Molstad, and
Donahue (1999) suggest that teaching
effectiveness is enhanced by the use of
appropriate humor that fosters mutual
respect, and humor increases student
receptivity to material by reducing anxi
ety in dealing with difficult material and
has a positive effect on test performance
(Bryant et al. 1980). The positive envi
ronment of a humor-enriched lecture has

even been shown to increase attendance
in class (Devadoss and Foltz 1996;
Romer 1993; White 1992).
Humor should be used cautiously,
however, as it can be a potent medium for
communication or a social impediment in
pedagogical settings (Garner 2003). The
use of humor can be complicated because
it may be highly personal, subjective, and
contextual and we cannot always predict
the way it will be received. Things that
one person might find humorous, ironic,
or funny may be viewed by others as
trite. Everyone has a unique perception
as to what is humorous, so prudence
should be the guiding principle. We iden
tify what we call a "sense of humor" and
like other senses, such as the sense of
taste or smell, people have many differ
ent preferences (Garner 2003). Further,

the effective use of humor is not akin to
mere joke telling. Rhem (1998) found
that some instructors with only average
student evaluations used twice as much
humor as those faculty members who
were more highly rated. For humor to be
most effective in an academic setting, it
must be specific, targeted, and appropri
ate to the subject matter.
Given this background, the present
study will explore the link between humor
and learning. Much of the reported litera
ture in this area suffers from a number of
problems such as: (1) a limited number of
participants; (2) a weak methodology; (3)
primarily limited to elementary-aged chil
dren; or (4) is anecdotal in nature. This
study will address some of these concerns
by more carefully examining the relation
ship of humor as a pedagogical tool and its
impact on learning and retention of infor

mation in a university setting. Measures of
information recall, as well as satisfaction
with the course, the instructor, and the
delivery mechanism, will be assessed.
Specifically, it is predicted that those in the
humor group, as compared to the control
group, will report higher general satisfac
tion ratings with the course and will retain
more information over time.
Method
Participants
Participants were 117 undergraduate
students at a four-year university who vol
unteered to review three one-hour lectures
presented in a distance-education
format.
Materials/Instrumentation
A series of three 40-minute lectures on
the topic of research methods and statis
tics were recorded via Sony digital video

equipment. The topic of statistics was
chosen as students have often identified
this as one of the "dreaded" courses in
college. Researchers considered that if
humor was an effective tool, it could find
a strong alliance here. At the conclusion
of each session, participants were asked
to complete a brief survey to provide their
assessment of the asynchronous video
course delivery. (Asynchronous
courses
are designed so that students can
cover
the material at varying times and speeds,
rather than synchronous delivery, which
occurs at the same time for all class mem
bers.) Questions were presented in a 7
point Likert-type format and addressed
topics relevant to the evaluation of the

material (such as, what was your overall
opinion of this lesson? How well do you
believe it communicated the important
information? What was your impression
of the instructor? Compared to in-class
instruction, how did you like the asyn
chronous video delivery?). This proce
dure was consistent with the purported
purpose of the study. At the conclusion of
the three lectures, all participants were
asked to again rate their assessment of the
asynchronous course delivery, and there
was an additional exercise that required
students to recall content that had been
delivered over the three viewings.
Design and Procedure
To preserve the main objective of the
study, all participants were told only that
they would be reviewing three hour-long
sample lectures presented in an asynchro
nous distance education format. The par
ticipants were told that the university was
considering implementing a new educa

tional format for certain courses on cam
pus, and they would be assisting in this
process. Students were asked to review
the material and were told that they
would be asked to evaluate the delivery
mode and the information presented at
the conclusion of each session.
The participants
were randomly
assigned to one of two groups. Both
groups saw the same digitally video
recorded information on the topic of
research methods and statistics presented
by the same instructor. The humor group,
however, saw a version of the lecture in
which a humorous story, example, or
metaphor had been inserted at the begin
ning of the lecture and at points approxi
mately fifteen and thirty-five minutes into
the lecture, depending on the content.

(This was accomplished thanks to the
media service technicians who produced a
seamless video by "cutting" the humor
segments into the control lecture videos.)
As mentioned above, humor can be very
subjective, so great care
was exercised in
the selection of the humorous material.
The humor material was assessed by a
group of academic judges to insure that
the inset could be considered reasonably
humorous, was appropriate in content, and
was related to the material being covered.
For example, in a segment
on the report
ing of research findings, the metaphorical
joke about a planned escape by one of two
prisoners in a desert jail
was used. The
story finds one prisoner trying to escape

after unsuccessfully persuading the other
to go with him, only learning?after
breaking out?that escape was futile as
there was sand in every direction for hun
178 COLLEGE TEACHING
2014 09:59:24 AM
dreds of miles. After capture and return to
the cell, the prisoner relates his story of the
failed attempted escape. The other prison
er shares that he knew about the desert as
he had also tried to escape a few years
earlier. Incredulous, the first prisoner
exclaimed, "You knew! Why didn't you
tell me?" whereupon the other remarks,
"Silly man, you should know that no one
reports negative results." Although a bit
"corny," the message makes the point and
was well received by the student audience.

The inserts varied from less than a
minute to approximately two minutes. As
a result, the humor group's video presen
tation was slightly longer than the stan
dard lecture group. Participants were
allowed to sign up to view all three ses
sions over the period of fourteen days.
This allowed inclusion of the greatest
number of participants and provided the
greatest latitude to participant's sched
ules. The final viewing included the eval
uation and recall assessment exercise.
After the conclusion of the experiment
and after all participants had completed
the process of viewing and assessing the
materials, subjects were debriefed via e
mail as to the additional purpose of the
study and the preliminary results
obtained.
Results
Of the 117 subjects who originally
agreed to be involved in the study, ninety
four participated to conclusion. This
resulted in a sample of fifty-three females

and forty-one males who were randomly
assigned to condition. Only participants
who completed all three sessions were
included in the analysis. As a result, there
were forty-two participants in the humor
condition (from the originally assigned
fifty-eight) and fifty-two participants in
the control (from the originally assigned
fifty-nine). There were no significant dif
ferences based on race or gender between
groups. Analysis of variance revealed sig
nificant difference between the two
groups with the humor condition having
higher ratings for overall opinion of the
lesson, F (1, 92) = 21.02, p < .001; how
well the lesson communicated the infor
mation, F (1, 92) = 54.86, p < .001; and
rating of the instructor, F (1, 92) = 43.33,
p < .001. Most important to this research
effort, subjects in the humor group signif
icantly recalled and retained more infor
mation regarding the topic F (1, 92)
=
73.81, p < .001. There was not a statis

tically significant difference in the rating
of the video delivery mode as both groups
rated it positively F (I, 92) = 3.72, p <
.06. Descriptive statistics for all condi
tions can be found in table 1. The first
four items found in the table address the
7-point Likert questions and the final
item is the retention score based on a
maximum value of 100.
Discussion
As indicated above, the topic of
research methods and statistics was cho
sen because students have identified this
as one of the dreaded courses in college
and a class in which humor could be a
strong pedagogical tool. The results sup
port the notion that humor can have a
positive impact on content retention
among a sample of college students.
Although the use of the asynchronous
video delivery might seem somewhat
contrived, this approach was utilized for
two reasons. First, more universities are
moving to distance education and asyn

chronous modes of instructional delivery.
As a result, the format was appropriate,
especially given the explanation to the
participants that this was an evaluation of
this delivery design. Second, and more
important, this approach allowed us to
control for a myriad of subtle and not so
subtle differences that could have been
introduced by the lecturer?despite the
best effort to do otherwise?if the presen
tations were live. This procedure insured
a more consistent presentation and
enhanced methodological rigor across
experimental conditions.
Although a content assessment after
each session was possible, pilot testing
determined that this might jeopardize the
actual focus of the study and, because of
the relatively small timeframe between
viewing the first and third videos, multi
ple assessments of content could intro
duce unwanted bias (such as testing

effects). Further, the end-of-video sur
veys presented at the conclusion of seg
ments one and two were intentionally
kept brief for this same reason.
The present study suggests that humor
can have a positive effect on student
enjoyment and content retention. The use
of appropriate humor can facilitate a more
relaxed atmosphere and provide a cogni
tive break that allows the student to assim
ilate the information (Korobkin 1989).
The use of suitable, content-specific
humorous examples may provide a stu
dent with a new perspective on the mater
ial that may lead to a novel cognitive
insight (Ziv 1988).
Unfortunately, some educators believe
their role or their topic is too serious to
engage humor or view humor as merely a
disruption. However, the use of appropri
ate humor in this study has been shown to

enhance the learning environment and
has a significantly positive impact on
retention of educational materials in a
real-world academic setting. Follow-up
interviews with a random selection of
participants reinforced the notion that the
content-focused humor was helpful in
comprehension of the material, made for
a more enjoyable educational experience,
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics
Group N
LESSON Humor 42
Control 52
COMUCATE Humor 42
Control 52
INSTRUCT Humor 42
Control 52
DELJVIETH Humor 42
Control 52
RECALL Humor 42
Control 52
Group statistics

M SD SEM
5.7976 0.65388 0.10090
4.8846 1.14881 0.15931
6.1667 0.85302 0.13162
4.7115 1.01627 0.14093
6.2381 0.65554 0.10115
5.0000 1.06642 0.14789
6.1905 0.70670 0.10905
5.8846 0.80814 0.11207
88.4286 4.57001 0.70517
77.2692 7.34344 1.01835
Vol. 54/No. 1 179
2014 09:59:24 AM
and created the impression that the
instructor took the extra effort to get the
message across. When properly used,
humor can be an effective tool to make a
class more enjoyable, reduce anxiety, and
improve the learning setting. The "ha-ha"
of humor in the classroom may indeed
contribute to the "aha!" of learning from

the student.
Key words: humor, pedagogy, research
REFERENCES
Berk, R. 1996. Student ratings often strategies
for using humor in college teaching. Jour
nal on Excellence in College Teaching 1
(3): 71-92.
-. 1998. Professors are from Mars, stu
dents are from Snickers. Madison, WI:
Mendota.
Brown, W, and J. Tomlin. 1996. Best and
worst university teachers: The opinion of
undergraduate students. College Student
Journal 30(1): 431-34.
Bryant, J., P. Comisky, and D. Zillman. 1997.
Teachers' humor in the college classroom.
Communication Education 28 (2): 110-18.
Bryant, J., P. Comisky, J. Crane, and D. Zill
man. 1980. Relationship between college
teachers' use of humor in the classroom and

students' evaluations of their teachers. Jour
nal of Educational Psychology 72 (4):
511-19.
Civikly, J. 1986. Humor and the enjoyment of
college teaching. In Communicating in col
lege classrooms. New directions for teach
ing and learning, vol. 26, ed. J. M. Civikly,
61-70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cousins, N. 1991. Anatomy of an illness as
perceived by the patient. New York: Ban
tam.
Devadoss, S., and J. Foltz. 1996. Evaluation of
factors influencing class attendance and
performance. American Journal of Agricul
tural Economics, no. 78:499-507.
Dodge, B., and A. Rossett. 1982. Heuristic for
humor in instruction. NSPI Journal, no.
5:11-14.
Garner, R. 2003. Which came first, the chick
en or the egg? A foul metaphor for teaching.
Radical Pedagogy 5 (2). http://radicalpeda

gogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.
html (accessed May 2003).
Glenn, R. 2002. Brain research: Practical
applications for the classroom. Teaching for
Excellence 21 (6): 1-2.
Hill, D. 1988. Humor in the classroom: A
handbook for teachers. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Kelly, N., and B. Kelly. 1982. Backgrounds,
education and teaching styles of teaching
award winning professors. ERIC, ED
230080.
Kher, N., S. Molstad, and R. Donahue. 1999.
Using humor in the college classroom to
enhance teaching effectiveness in "dread
courses." College Student Journal 33 (3):
400-06.
Korobkin, D. 1989. Humor in the classroom:
Considerations and strategies. College
Teaching 36 (4): 154-58.

Lowman, J. 1994. Professors as performers
and motivators. College Teaching 42 (4):
137-41.
Pollio, H, and W. Humphreys. 1996. What
award-wining lecturers say about their
teaching: It's all about connection. College
Teaching 44 (3): 101-6.
Rhem, J. 1998. Humor in the classroom.
National Teaching and Learning Forum 1
(6): 10-12.
Romer, D. 1993. Do students go to class?
Should they? Journal of Economic Perspec
tives 1 (3): 167-74.
White, F. 1992. Enhancing class attendance.
National Association of Colleges and
Teachers in Agriculture Journal, no.
36:113-15.
Ziv, A. 1983. The influence of humorous
atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contem
porary Educational Psychology, no.

8:68-75.
-. 1988. Teaching and learning with
humor: Experiment and replications. Jour
nal of Experimental Education 6 (1):
37-44.
180 COLLEGE TEACHING
2014 09:59:24 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspArticle
Contentsp. 177p. 178p. 179p. 180Issue Table of
ContentsCollege Teaching, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Winter, 2006), pp.
171-208Front MatterUnderstanding Student Cheating and What
Educators Can Do about It [pp. 171-176]Humor in Pedagogy:
How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha! [pp. 177-180]Quick Fix:
Productively Waiting for Latecomers [pp. 181-181]Online
EducationPreparing Our Teachers for Distance Education [pp.
183-184]The Learning Styles, Expectations, and Needs of
Online Students [pp. 185-189]Strategies for Enhancing Student
Interactivity in an Online Environment [pp. 190-193]The
Investigation of Study Strategies That Maximize Learning for
Underprepared Students [pp. 194-197]An Analysis of
Instructor-Created Crossword Puzzles for Student Review [pp.
198-201]Creating a Space to Learn: A Classroom of Fun,
Interaction, and Trust [pp. 202-206]Commentary: Teaching
Students to Dream [pp. 208-208]Back Matter
Getting a Laugh: Gender, Status, and Humor in Task

Discussions
Author(s): Dawn T. Robinson and Lynn Smith-Lovin
Source: Social Forces, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 123-158
Published by: Oxford University Press
Accessed: 18/11/2014 10:00
.
range of
forms
.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.
2014 10:00:29 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

Getting A Laugh: Gender, Status, and Humor
in Task Discussions*
DAWN T. ROBINSON, University of Iowa
LYNN SMITH-LOVIN, University of Arizona
Abstract
Humor is a quintessentially social phenomenon, since every
joke requires both a teller
and an audience. Here we ask how humor operates in task-
oriented group discussions.
We use theories about the functions of humor to generate
hypotheses about who jokes,
when and in what situations. Then we use event history
techniques to analyze humor
attempts and successes in six-person groups. Our results
combine to suggest an image of
joking as a status-related activity, with men, high participators,
frequent interrupters,
and those who are frequently interrupted all showing status-
related patterns of humor
use. Wefind substantial time dependence in humor use, in which
humor may serve to
form a status hierarchy early in a group's development and to
dissipate task-related
tension later in the discussion. We use these results, in
conjunction with core insights on
status and emotion from the group processes literature, to
develop a new theory of humor
use in task-oriented groups. The new theory generates
predictions about the content of
humor episodes, which we examine with additional data from
our group discussions.
Consistent with the theory, we find that a higher proportion of

men's humor is
differentiating, while a higher proportion of women's humor is
cohesion-building. We
find the same general pattern with our other status variable,
participation.
Humor is a social phenomenon, since it requires both a producer
and an audience.
But why do people joke? And what determines whether or not
their attempts at
humor are appreciated? Unfortunately, any attempt to analyze
humor risks taking
* The authors thank Charlotte Hudson for laboratory assistance
in the original data collection,
Arthur Williams for creating the transcripts of the videotaped
group discussions, Annette Lee, Brian
Roitman, Suzanne Ryan, and Michelle Wunderlich for help in
coding the humorous events and
Linda D. Molm, Katherine Dindia, Miller McPherson, and two
anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at
the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society.
Preparation of this article was supported
by National Science Foundation grants SES 9008951 and SBR
9411157 to the second author.
Direct correspondence to Dawn T Robinson, Department of
Sociology, W140 Seashore Hall,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, LA 52242.
?) The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces,
September 2001, 80(1):123-158
2014 10:00:29 AM

124 I Social Forces 80:1, September 2001
all of the fun out of the subject. Accepting that risk, we follow
up on a long-dormant
thread in the literature on small group interaction that discusses
when and how
humor is important in task-group discussions (Bales & Slater
1955). We begin by
reviewing the wide-ranging literature that has developed on
humor. Then we discuss
the implications of this literature for group interaction, deriving
predictions about
the actual distribution of humor use among group participants
and the timing of
joke-telling during a task-oriented conversation between
strangers. We test these
predictions by examining the actual distribution and timing of
humorous episodes
during conversations in 29 task-oriented groups. We use our
findings to develop
a new theory about the relationship between status, affect and
humor. Finally, we
take a deeper look at our data to look for patterns that support
or contradict our
new theoretical predictions.
Definitions of Humor
To study the production and appreciation of humor in task
groups, we need to be
able to identify humor events. Unfortunately, humor is a

puzzling phenomenon.
Like beauty, most people believe that they know it when they
see it, yet find it difficult
to define (see literature reviews on attempts to define humor in
McGhee 1979;
Mulkay 1988; Strean 1993; Wilson 1979). In general, theories
about what
constitutes humor are based inductively on examination of
known instances of
humor. Most of these theoretical accounts incorporate some
notion of incongruity
as a necessary component. Humor researchers define verbal
humor as text
composed of at least two overlapping "scripts" or
interpretations (Raskin 1985;
Ruch, Attardo & Raskin 1993; Wilson 1979). Unfortunately, as
Wilson (1979)
points out, this duality of interpretation is a necessary but not
sufficient component
of humor. Effectively, this finding means that content-based
definitions of humor
are not sufficient to identify humorous episodes effectively
when they are embedded
in a larger sample of humorous and non-humorous speech..
Sociologists of humor (e.g., Davis 1979, 1993; Fine 1983,1984)
often rely on
interactional rather than content-based definitions; they often
use either actor's
intent or audience response to identify humor. Fine (1983,
1984), for example,
defines humorous communication as remarks that have as their
intent the creation
of amusement (Fine 1984:84). Therefore, he excludes
unintended humor and
includes failed humor, better allowing for examination of

production of humor
than of its outcome. Following Fine (1984), we will study
humor in the context of
ongoing interaction, and consider humor to be all remarks that
are (apparently)
intended to elicit amusement and/or that have that result.
2014 10:00:29 AM
Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions / 125
Theories about the Social Functions of Humor
Much of what is written about humor in sociology, psychology,
philosophy,
communications, and medicine involves descriptions of its
functions for either
the individual or the social group (Coser 1959, 1960; Fine 1984;
Mulkay 1988;
Stephenson 1951). So, to understand who uses humor in group
discussions and
under what conditions, we will start by considering the
dominant perspectives on
the social functions of humor. Having a theory about the why
people engage in
humor should allow us to predict who will do so and in what
circumstances.
MEANING-MAKING
One proposal about the function of humor is that it is a

mechanism for defining
reality. Flaherty (1984, 1990) suggests humor serves as "reality
play" by teasing or
toying with reality in such a way that it generates situation-
defining reality
maintenance. Similarly, Fine (1984) proposes that individuals
engage in jocular
interaction in order to define themselves, their interaction
partners and the
interaction situation. Katz (1996) also notes that humor must be
socially
constructed by developing the presumption of intersubjectivity
(in Katz's case,
the shared perspective on the person's reflection in a Parisian
fun house mirror).
Wilson (1979:228) argues that the reality defined by most
humor is fiercely
conservative. According to this view, amusement helps us to
affirm our
conventional views of the world. Analyzing jokes concerning
social and economic
differences, Stephenson (1951) concludes that they function as
control mechanisms,
expressing the common value system and minimizing the notion
of class or status
conflict and consciousness. Murray Davis (Davis 1979, 1993)
argues that, beyond
serving to construct or preserve social meanings, humor
deconstructs social
meaning, thus allowing us better insight into otherwise invisible
structures.
According to Davis "humor separates the joints of the seemingly
seamless social
structure, making them visible" (Davis 1993:313).

HIERARCHY BUILDING
A compatible, but more narrow, version of the meaning-making
function of humor
is the proposal that joking serves to help structure local
interaction hierarchies.
Several theories of humor propose the idea that joking creates
status differentiation
among interacting individuals. Most of these perspectives view
joking as a socially
acceptable form of aggression. Freud (1905) claims that the
entertaining veneer of
the joke compensated for its hostile content.' In a study of
humor among colleagues
in psychiatric staff meetings, Coser (1959, 1960) found support
for the use of
ridicule as social punishment.
One of the most frequently cited theories of humorous
interaction is superiority
theory (LaFave 1972; LaFave et al. 1973). The use of humor
here turns on the
2014 10:00:29 AM
126 / Social Forces 80:1, September 2001
content of the humor itself. The essence of the theory is that an
individual will use
and appreciate humor when the objects of the humor are in
categories to which

the individual does not belong. This theory is further developed
by Zillman and
Cantor (1976) to suggest that people enjoy humor that targets
members of groups
with whom they do not empathize. Humor typically has a target
or butt, and jokes
tend to be funnier when the good guys win and the bad guys
lose (LaFave 1972).
COHESION BUILDING
In contrast to the view of humor as a form of status
differentiation and veiled
aggression is the argument that humor is a mechanism for
developing social
cohesion. Francis (1994) argues that humor can be seen as an
interpersonal emotion
management technique used to strengthen bonds to the group. In
support of this
idea, after spending seven weeks as a participant observer in a
small organization,
Vinton (1989) concludes that humor was used to create bonds,
rather than do
violence to them. In the context of her field study, she finds that
humor is used as
an equalizer and a harmonizer rather than as a dominance
mechanism.
Seckman and Couch (1989) separate the concepts of jocularity
and sarcasm,
arguing that jocularity is used to invite and affirm solidary
relationships, while
sarcasm can be used for building either solidary or authoritarian
relationships.
According to Seckman and Couch, humor per se is a means of
defining shared

group identities and fostering positive relations. Couch (1992),
like Fine (1984),
stresses the relational nature of humor. Couch defines an
evocative transaction is a
behavioral exchange between actors that elicits an affective
response. He then argues
that humor should be studied as an inherently social
phenomenon, with the unit
of observation being not the individual but rather the evocative
transaction.
TENSION RELIEF
Humor's stress-reducing benefits are widely recognized
(Dienstbier 1995; Lefcourt
& Martin 1986; Martin & Lefcourt 1983; Schacter & Wheeler
1962; White &
Winzelberg 1992). While empirical findings about the precise
relationship between
humor and stress remain complicated (e.g., Kuiper & Martin
1998) and
controversial (see review in White & Winzelberg 1992),
evidence does suggest that
when aroused, individuals laugh more (Schacter & Wheeler
1962) and interpret
humorous stimuli as more funny (Cantor, Bryant & Zillman
1974; Prerost &
Brewer 1977). Laughing appears to reduce psychological stress
(White & Winzelberg
1992).
Bales and Slater (1955) relate the tension-reduction functions of
laughter to
the process of task-group interaction. According to Bales and
Slater, interaction
within most face-to-face task-oriented groups has two important

functions: (1) to
accomplish group goals, and (2) to maintain smooth relations.
Humor helps task-
group members maintain smooth relations by serving as a stress
reducer when the
2014 10:00:29 AM
pressures of task accomplishment begin to build. As the
intensity of the task-related
interaction climbs, so does the interpersonal stress within the
group. Thus,
periodically a member of the group will momentarily leave the
task and make some
remark that brings laughter and relief to the other group
members; then the group
will return to task refreshed and refocused. Sacks (1974) calls
these departures from
task activity "side sequences," and notes that humor often takes
this form in a task
discussion. Recent experimental research supports Bales's and
Slaters's ideas,
finding that exposure to humor increases energy, leads to more
positive appraisal
of tasks, and generates greater willingness to perform effortful
tasks, although does
not necessarily increase performance (Dienstbier 1995).
These functional theories of humor have implications for our

central questions:
who will use humor in task groups, with what success, and when
will these
humorous episodes occur? In addition, there is an empirical
literature that looks
at how individual characteristics shape humor production and
appreciation. Since,
as sociologists, we know that individual characteristics often
relate to behavior
because of the social positions that they signal, we turn now to
this literature for
additional insights about our research questions.
Evidence about Participation in Humor
WHO JOKES?
According to the hierarchy-building theories of humor described
above, individuals
higher (or aspiring to be higher) in the local hierarchy should
employ more humor
than those of lesser status or power. Unfortunately, there is
little research on
spontaneous joking that relates status difference to the
production of humor. This
is one of the gaps that we hope to fill in the literature. In an
exhaustive review of
the humor research literature, McGhee (1971) noted that less
than 10 percent of
humor studies dealt with humor creation or production. In our
review of the
literature since 1971, we see little departure from this general
pattern. One
exception is the study of gender.
A frequent claim is that men tell more jokes than women

(McGhee 1979). In
describing feminine speech style, Robin Lakoff suggests that
women "have no sense
of humor" (1975:56); they neither effectively tell nor "get"
jokes. McGhee (1976)
reports that children begin exhibiting these gender differences
in joke telling around
age six. More recent studies give some reason for qualifying
these older patterns,
however. Some researchers point out that both much of the
research on gender
differences in humor production and appreciation has been
based on a male mode
of humor- jokes that are often hostile or sexual in content (see
reviews by
Crawford 1995; and Lundell 1993). If so, researchers are not the
only ones guilty
of this bias. In self-report questionnaires, Crawford (1995)
found that men
2014 10:00:29 AM
evaluated their own sense of humor more positively than women
evaluated theirs.
She also found that when asked to write about someone who has
an excellent sense
of humor both men and women chose more often to write about
a male (although
men chose men by 5:1 and women chose men by only 2:1).

WHO LAUGHS?
For someone to be funny, another must be amused (Sacks 1974;
Fine 1984). Just
as attention is a necessary requisite of power (Derber 1979),
supportive or
unsupportive responses also make or break attempts at humor.
In this sense, the
act of laughing (or not), then, is a potentially powerful one. For
example, Derks,
Kallard and Etgen (1995) report that a joker that does not "get a
laugh" is
subsequently rated more negatively and is considered to be
more aggressive.
Superiority theory (La Fave 1972) predicts that we are more
likely to appreciate
humor when it enhances, rather than denigrates, our own
position relative to others.
However, if laughing is a social response, we might expect
laughter from those who
support (wish to enhance the position of) the joke teller.
Consequently, we will
attempt to describe separately research concerning who
appreciates humor and who
laughs (see more extensive reviews of literature on humor
appreciation in LaFave
1972; Lakoff 1975; Zilmann & Cantor 1976).
Findings about humor appreciation are far from consistent.
Again, gender has
been a favorite topic. Some research suggests that women
generally undervalue
humor, as compared to men (Chupchick & Leventhal 1974;
McGhee 1971, 1979),

while more recent studies suggest that women are generally
more appreciative
(Lundell 1993). Recent research also suggests that men and
women may appreciate
different kinds of humor (Crawford 1995; Lundell 1993;
Mundorf et al. 1988).
Mundorf et al. (1988) assess men's and women's reactions to
hostile, nonsensical,
and sexual humor; they find that men have a higher appreciation
for humor overall,
and interaction effects show that men particularly enjoy sexual
humor more than
women. Women only enjoy hostile humor when men are the
victims.2 Yet other
studies find no gender differences, however. In a study of
humor use as a coping
mechanism, Lefcourt and Martin (1986) find no gender
differences in reported
liking for humor or in the stress reducing effects of humor.
Other than gender there has been little attention to who enjoys
humor. Stress
researchers suggest a relationship between amusement and
reduced stress (Lefcourt
& Martin 1986; Martin & Lefcourt 1983), increased sociability
and healthier self-
concepts (Kuiper & Martin 1993). However, this research
confounds production
and appreciation of humor into a generalized of "sense of
humor."
Notably, none of the previously described research on humor
appreciation
focuses on conversational humor. However, several studies
point out systematic
differences in the patterns of laughter during conversational

interactions. In a
comparison of humorous interaction between dyads and groups
of larger than two,
Glen (1989) notes that when a member of a dyad jokes, he or
she is the first to
2014 10:00:29 AM
laugh. The typical pattern is for the partner to then join in the
laughter, sharing the
humor and showing support for the speaker. However, in groups
larger than two,
the typical pattern is for a group member other than the speaker
to be the first to
laugh, and then for the speaker and remaining group members to
join in the mirth.
In fact, Glen finds that when a speaker in a group of larger than
two laughs at his
or her own joke first, it actually decreases the probability that
the joke will be
perceived as funny by the group.
Women laugh more than men in group conversations (Dovidio et
al. 1988,
Dovidio & Ellyson 1982) as well as display lower levels of
nonverbal dominance.
Laughter and smiling appear to be highly supportive
conversational behaviors in a
small group setting. Interestingly, the issue of what is being

supported is seldom
examined in these studies of group conversation. That, of
course, would require
attention to timing and sequences of actions. We now turn to the
limited literature
on these topics.
The Timing of Humor
Timing is everything. The notion that effective delivery of a
joke often hinges on
timing is so accepted that humor researchers state it as truth,
rather than examining
it empirically. Timing issues related to sequencing have
received a little more
empirical attention. Conversational analysts identify a tendency
to "joke-first" or
give a humorous response before responding seriously to
another's utterance (Sacks
1974; Norrick 1993). Others note the importance of seriality
and joke order in the
appreciation of humor (e.g., Forabosco 1994). Because so little
humor research
examines its spontaneous occurrence (Norrick 1993), there is
little systematic
evidence about its placement within conversation or its
contagious effects. In this
study, we consider the importance of the timing of jocular
interactions through
the course of ongoing conversations and with respect to other
jocular interactions.
Our analyses of timing are exploratory in large measure, since
so little theoretical
work has been done. With regard to other variables available in
our data set, we
can specify patterns that would be implied by, or consistent

with, the theoretical
orientations toward the functions of humor.
A Summary of Predictions from Previous Literature
GENDER
If humor use is status or power related (as in the hierarchy-
building perspective),
we would expect that men would joke more than women in
mixed sex
conversations, and would be more likely to have their jokes
appreciated by the other
2014 10:00:29 AM
130/ Social Forces 80:1, September 2001
members of the group.' The other perspectives on the functions
of humor provide
us with no obvious expectations about the relationship between
gender and joking.
GENDER COMPOSITION
Both the hierarchy building and the meaning-making
perspectives would lead us
to predict that humor use should be more prevalent in single-
gender groups. It is
these groups that require the most work in terms of defining the
situation, since

there is less the status differentiation among group members.
Conversely, both the
cohesion-building and the tension-relief accounts of humor use
would suggest
that rates of joking would be higher in mixed-gender groups.
These groups begin
with more of a hierarchical structure in place and might be
expected to have a
greater need for both solidarity-building and tension-relieving
activities.
PARTICIPATION HISTORY
Higher status group members contribute more frequently to
group discussions
(see a recent review in Skvoretz & Fararo 1996). If humor is a
way of establishing
and enacting hierarchical relations, then we would expect that
high participators
will joke at a higher rate, and that they will also be more
successful at eliciting
laughter from others. The other perspectives suggest no clear
predictions for the
effects of participation on rates humor use.
INTERRUPTION HISTORY
Researchers often interpret interruptions as a sign of status or
power (Kollock et
al. 1985, Smith-Lovin & Brody 1989; Johnson 1994).
Correspondingly, if humor
use is hierarchical in nature, we would expect those who get
interrupted frequently
to make fewer jokes than those who are not interrupted. We also
would expect that
those who interrupt others more frequently might be more likely

to joke as well.
Again, the cohesion-building, meaning-making, and tension-
relief perspectives
make no clear predictions relating individual status cues and the
use of humor.
TIMING IN CONVERSATION
Theories that rely on the notion of humor as a meaning-defining
mechanism, a
hierarchy-building strategy, or a means of increasing group
solidarity, would all
predict that humor use would be highest at the beginning stages
of a task discussion
among strangers. It is at this stage of the conversation that there
is more relationship
defining work to be done. In contrast, the conception of humor
as a pressure valve
to reduce built-up tensions, suggests that the highest rates of
humor should be
during the latter part of the conversation when task activity is
heated up and time
constraints are more salient.
2014 10:00:29 AM
CONTAGION
The notion that humor is contagious is a pervasive and

intuitively appealing one.
It is consistent with any of the theoretical perspectives
discussed here, but is not
directly predicted by any of them. Because our intuitions lead
us to expect that
humor use will be contagious, we will use methods that allow us
to model and
control for this possibility.
Data
We analyze incidence of humor during conversations in 29 six-
person discussion
groups. The data were originally collected in the early 1980s at
the University of
South Carolina (see a filll description of the data collection and
transcripts in Smith-
Lovin 1990b). The participants are Anglo undergraduates
between the ages of 17
and 25 enrolled in introductory sociology.2 There are
approximately four groups
in each of seven gender-composition conditions (all female, one
to six men).
Group members are seated randomly around a round table while
a gender-neutral,
collectively-oriented task stimulates group discussion. The task
is to generate a
new problem for another task group to solve. The new problem
must meet a
number of criteria, which were originally developed by Fisek
(1974). We use
transcripts created from two videotapes that were made of each
group discussion,
which include notations of group and individual laughter. Many
other researchers
analyze these task-oriented group discussions (see review in

Skvoretz & Fararo
1996), focusing primarily on the status-organizing processes
that shape participation
and interruption. We differ from earlier analyses by focusing on
the speech turn
as the unit of analysis, by using dynamic models to examine the
relational character
of the conversational events, and, of course, by our focus on the
role of humor in
the conversations.
MEASUREMENT
Following Couch's (1992) admonition, our unit of analysis is
the "evocative
transaction" - in this case, the offering of a joke and its
reception by others. Our
observations consist of speaker turns, with our focus on
humorous speaker turns.
Each observation includes information about the group setting,
the speaker, the
conversational history of the speaker and of the group, the
humorous nature of the
turn (humorous versus non-humorous), the response to the
humor, etc. In this
way, our unit of analysis is truly an interaction, rather than an
individual.
We code three types of humorous events: (1) speaker turns that
produced group
laughter immediately afterward; (2) speaker turns followed by
laughter of the
speaker, but not the group; and (3) speaker turns that contained
other obvious
instances of exaggerated, incongruous, or sarcastic statements
intended by the

2014 10:00:29 AM
speaker to be humorous. In the final data, turns like type (3)
above are only
considered humorous when four undergraduate coders
unanimously agree that
the turn was intended to be humorous.3 Humor attempts include
all three
categories of events: remarks that lead to group laughter,
remarks that are followed
by speaker laughter, and remarks that all four coders agreed
were humor attempts
but which did not lead to laughter. We consider only remarks
that produced laughter
by group members other than the speaker to be successful
humor.4 Humor attempts
that evoke either no laughter or laughter only by the speaker are
coded as failed
humor attempts. All utterances that were not humor attempts
and did not lead to
laughter are coded as non-humor.
To measure the length of spells, we first count the number of
words spoken
between each speaker transition. When trying to understand the
dynamics of these
task-oriented discussions, the amount of speech that occurs
during any given period

(word-time) is a more substantively appealing measure of time
than the number
of seconds that elapse during that period (clock-time). Use of
clock-time to measure
interactional dynamics results in inflated participation measures
for those who
speak slowly. Previous research suggests that high status
members actually talk faster
(Rashotte & Smith-Lovin 1997). We believe that speakers
accumulate local histories
through the quantity and character of participation, rather than
through literal floor
time. For these reasons, we believe that the dynamics of
contagion and group phases
can best be revealed by looking at the number of words spoken
in a turn.
We construct two dependent variables: (1) conversation
duration - the
number of words between the beginning of the conversation and
each humorous
event and (2) spell duration - the number of words between each
humorous event.
In addition, we constructed a state variable that could take on
one of three values
(1) failed humor attempts, (2) successful humor attempts, and
(3) nonhumorous
remarks. The conversation duration variable allows us to
examine the timing of
humor use across the course of the conversation. The spell
duration variable allows
us to examine the relationships among humor events within the
conversation
(e.g., whether one humor attempt leads to others). The state
space variable allows
us to examine the effects of covariates on the rate of humor use

in the conversations.
Methods and Results
We use continuous-time event history methods to analyze the
data. These methods
model the effects of covariates on the rate of transitions
between states (Tuma &
Hannan 1984). In all, there are 5640 speaker turns, consisting of
5265
nonhumorous turns and 375 humor attempts in the 29
conversations. Almost half
of the humor attempts are successes, by our criterion of group
laughter. The average
number of humorous turns per conversation is about 13 and the
average per speaker
is about two.
2014 10:00:29 AM
We denote the state-space as a variable Y(t) which can take on
three values
indicating the state being occupied by a conversing group at a
given time t. To
model the rate of transition between these states, we estimate
the hazard of humor
attempts and successes, which can be described as the
probability of a transition
from state j to state k during an interval t + dt, given the

occupation of state j during
time t. This rate has the following form:
h(t) = limPr[Y(t+At) = k I Y(t) = f]
At->O
where h(t) is the hazard of an event at time t, Y(t) indexes the
state of the
conversation at time t, and k and j are values of Y(t).
We investigate the possibility of time dependence across the
course of the
conversation with a variety of plotting techniques (Hannan
1989) and model fitting
strategies (Allison 1995). We begin by using non-parametric
Kaplan-Meier hazard
rate estimates to look descriptively at the use of humor over the
course of the
conversation and at humor contagion. The two forms of our
dependent variable
- duration of nonhumorous group conversation and duration of a
non-humorous
spell of talk by a speaker - allow us to examine the two separate
types of dynamic
processes in these interactions. By looking at the rate of humor
across the duration
of the conversation, we can examine the humor trends over
time. By looking at
the time dependence of the spell duration we can look the
inhibiting or contagious
effects of a joke on subsequent humor.
Humor across the Conversation
The average group discussion is approximately 2000 words
long. Figure 1 displays

the estimated hazard rates for humor across the course of the
conversation. These
hazard estimates control for the actual number of speaker-turns
during each of
these periods and generate an assessment of the risk of a given
remark being
humorous at different points in the discussion. As seen in
Figure 1, the risk of
joking seems to increase steadily across the conversation, after
a brief flurry of jokes
at the beginning. Plots of the estimated log-hazards against the
logarithm of
conversation duration reveal an approximate linear pattern,
suggesting a Weibull-
distributed time dependence.1 Consequently, we used Weibull
models for the
regressions reported in this article.2
The Weibull model specifies that the rate of transitions is a
power function of
the waiting time (Tuma & Hannan 1984:21 1). A generalized
Weibull model allows
for the regression of a vector of measured covariates, a on the
log of the waiting
time:
log T =-BAx + oW
where o is a scale factor, and W is the extreme-value
distribution (Kalbfleisch &
Prentice 1980: 31-2). The scale factor o is inversely related to
time dependence ii
(Hannan 1989). fi tells us about the character of the time
dependence in the data.
2014 10:00:29 AM

FIGURE 1: Risk of Humor Across the Conversation
0.0005 -
0.0004
03
0.0003 -
. 4
a0.0002 -
(1-0.0001
0 I~
20 200 500 1100 1700 2300
0 50 350 800 1400 2000
Words Between Humorous Remarks
If A < 1 then the rate is a monotonic decreasing function of the
waiting time; if
A = 1 then the rate is independent of waiting time, and if n > 1
then the rate is a
monotonic increasing function of the waiting time.
Contagion

We also examine the possibility of spell duration dependence,
or humorous
contagion, with the same plotting and regression techniques. In
these analyses, we
model time dependence within spells, rather than over the
duration of the
conversation. Like the models of duration of conversation, the
Weibull model seems
to be the best fit for the dynamics of humor rates in these
conversations. In contrast
to the timing over the entire course of the conversation, the rate
of humorous
remarks appears to be a decreasing function of spell duration
(scale factor 3.33,
duration dependence estimate 1/3.33 = 0.30). In other words,
there is a strong
contagion effect of humorous remarks; a humorous remark
increases the probability
of another humorous remark in the near future. Figure 2
illustrates the form of
this contagion effect by plotting the Kaplan-Mayer hazard rate
estimates over the
course of a spell. The risk of a joke is clearly highest within a
few words of the
beginning of another joke, with the risk peaking at about eight
words past the
beginning of the previous prior joke and falling off rapidly after
20-25 words. Given
that the average turn length is about 10 words, we conclude that
the highest risk of
humor is in the next turn after a humorous utterance.
2014 10:00:29 AM

Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions /135
FIGURE 2: Contagion of Humorous Remarks
0.005 -
0.004 -
03
* 0 .0 0 3 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
*0.002 -
7~
co
N c 0.001
0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80
Words Between Humorous Remarks
Effects on Rates of Humor
In addition to assessing the time dependence on the rate of
transitions between
states, event history methods allow estimation of the effects of
covariates on the
timing of the events. Because our spell duration clearly
indicates that there is time

dependence in these results, we use a Weibull model to estimate
the effects of our
covariates on the rates of humor use. In these models, the spells
of interest are
conversational turns of any type and (1) nonhumorous remarks,
(2) humorous
remarks, and (3) successfully humorous remarks are each
regarded as censored in
any model where they were not the focal events (Hannan 1989).
This creates a
competing-risks model where successful humor, failed humor,
and nonhumorous
turns are modeled as independent, competing states (Kalbfleisch
& Prentice
1980:168-72; Tuma & Hannan 1984:68). In this way, we can
assess how the
independent variables influence the risks of humor occurrence.
We estimate
regression models with the LIFEREG procedure in SAS. This
program estimates
the effects of the coefficients on the waiting time between
humorous remarks.
Table 1 reports the covariates' influence on the waiting times
between humor
attempts and the waiting times between successful humor
episodes. In addition to
the covariates of interest, we include period variables to control
for the influence
of timing over the course of conversation we describe in Figure
1.
2014 10:00:29 AM

TABLE 1: The Effects of Timing and Group and Speaker
Characteristics on the
Rate of Humor in Small Task Group Conversations
All Successfil
Independent Variables Humor Humor
Intercept 15.49** 19.39**
(.65) (1.32)
Ai male .73 .31
(.54) (.88)
All female -1.90** -3.76**
(.59) (.95)
Participation -.01 -.06*
(.01) (.03)
History of being interrupted .13* .02
(.06) (.10)
Speaker gender -1.41 ** -2.94**
(.43) (.79)
History of interrupting -.04 -.35**
(.07) (.11)
Period 1 -1.14* -1.03
(.57) (.86)

Period 3 -.94* .55
(.45) (.76)
Scale 3.33 3.39
(.16) (.26)
Loglikelihood fortheWeibull -2124.56 -978.34
GENDER
Speaker gender is a dummy variable coded 1 for male and 0 for
female. As seen in
Table 1, the coefficient for the effect of speaker on waiting time
between humor is
significant and negative (b = -1.41, p < .01). We can reverse the
sign to consider
the effects of the covariates on the rate of humor.1 Thus,
consistent with the
hierarchy-building explanations of humor use, we find that men
engage in humor
at higher rates than women. We also find that men engage in
successful humor at
higher rates2 than women (b = -2.94, p < .0 1).
GENDER COMPOSITION
Two gender composition dummies assess the separate impact of
being in an all
male group or an all female group, as compared to a mixed
gender group. As seen
in Table 1, groups consisting entirely of women have a
significantly higher rate of
2014 10:00:29 AM

humor (b = -1.90, p < .0 1). Compared to mixed gender groups,
all male groups
did not joke more frequently (b = .73, n.s.) - at least not when
controlling for
the influence of speaker gender). Likewise, the rates of
successful humor are higher
among all female groups (b -3.76, p < .05), but not all male
groups (b = .31,
n.s.).
Recall that the hierarchy building and meaning-making
perspectives lead us to
expect a higher rate of humor in homogeneous (single gender)
groups. The tension-
relief and cohesion-building perspectives predict the opposite.
Since a distinctly
different pattern occurs in all female and all male groups, we
are left with no firm
conclusions. One could use gender culture arguments (e.g.,
Maltz & Borker 1982;
Tannen 1990) to suggest that all male groups have a more
hierarchical, competitive
atmosphere, and therefore it is only the all female groups who
need hierarchy-
building. This explanation is clearly post-hoc, however, and
does not seem
supported by the merry, relaxed nature of the talk in the
women's groups. It seems
just as likely that the differences between all male and all
female groups are based

on some other gendered behavior pattern, and not related
directly to the hierarchical
or cohesive processes in the groups.
PARTICIPATION
A participation variable assesses the frequency of each group
member's participation
in the earlier parts of the group discussion. This variable is a
counter, cumulating
the number of contributions speakers make throughout the
conversation. As seen
in Table 1, higher participators are not any more likely to joke
than those who
participated less (b= -0.01, n.s.). However, they are more likely
to engage in
successful humor than low participators (b = -.06, p < .05).
Since high participators
are high status in these groups (Smith-Lovin et al. 1986;
Skvoretz & Fararo 1996),
this result supports the ideas about humor as hierarchy-building.
INTERRUPTION HISTORY
Two variables assess the impact of a speaker's interruption
history on his or her
humorous activity. History of Interrupting is a counter variable
that keeps a
cumulative record of the number of times a speaker has
interrupted other speakers.
Similarly, History of Being Interrupted keeps count of how
many times a speaker
has been interrupted by someone else in the past.
The coefficient estimates in Table 1 indicate that having been a
frequent target

of interruptions in the past slows the rate at which group
members use humor
overall (b = 0.13, p < .05), but it has no effect on their success
rates (b = 0.02, n.s.).
In contrast, having a pattern of interrupting others in the past
increases the
likelihood that one engages in successful humor (b = -.35, p <
.01). Note that these
effects of interruption history hold when controlling for the
frequency of overall
participation in the group discussion. So, controlling for
participation histories,
2014 10:00:29 AM
138/Social Forces 80:1, September 2001
frequent interrupters engage in more successful humor. And,
those who had been
frequent targets of interruptions are less likely to engage in
humor. Again, since
we regard the interruption patterns as indicative of status
structures in the groups
(Smith-Lovin & Brody 1989), this pattern supports the
hierarchy-building
conception of humor use.
TIME PERIOD EFFECTS
Two dummy variables capture the effects of the timing in the
conversation on the

rates of humor. Period 1 refers to the first 400 words of the
conversation. Period 2
(the omitted category) refers to the middle portion of the
conversation (400-1400
words). And, Period 3 refers to the latter portion of the
conversation (greater than
1400 words). As seen in Table 1, compared to the middle
portion of the discussions,
there is a significantly higher rate of humorous remarks at the
beginning (b = -1.14,
p < .05) and end (b = -.94, p < .05) of the conversations, when
controlling for the
other variables. 1 This effect did not extend to successful
humor.
The small flurry of humor attempts at the beginning of the
group conversation
is consistent with the hierarchy-building and meaning-making
ideas from the
humor literature. The fact that less of this humor is successful
may indicate the
lack of a common culture at this point in the groups'
development. On the other
hand, these initial attempts at humor may indicate the tension of
beginning a new,
relatively undefined task with a group of strangers. The tension
relief perspective
also would be consistent with the rise of humor over the course
of the conversation
(after the first brief flurry of jokes).
CONTAGION
As described above, the scale factors translate into duration
dependence coefficients
less than one, indicating a decreasing effect of spell time on the

probability of
humor. In the successful humor model, we find a scale factor of
3.39, which
translates into a time dependence coefficient of 1/3.39 = .29,
suggesting a decreasing
effect of spell time on the rate of successful humor. In other
words, the occurrence
of humor immediately increases the likelihood of future
successful humor, with
the accelerated risk dropping off as time passes since the last
joke. Both overall and
successful instances of humor are highly contagious.
Summary of Findings
Our results do not overwhelmingly support any single
understanding of the
function of humor. However, the generalities that do appear in
these data are
intriguing. For example, if the timing effects demonstrated by
the estimated period
coefficients in Table 1 can be strongly interpreted, this pattern
in the rates of humor
2014 10:00:29 AM
use over time may support both the meaning construction and
the tension-release
explanations of the role of humor in these types of

conversations. The humor
dynamics in these groups suggest that there is a short spurt of
humor early in the
conversation, and then a lull, followed by a renewal of
humorous interaction during
the latter part of these task group discussions.
Men tell more jokes and tell more successful jokes. However,
women joke
much more when no men are present, even more so than men in
all male groups.
Evidently, women only joke when men are not around.2 Being
the object of repeated
interruptions makes speakers less likely to volunteer a
humorous remark. And,
being a frequent participator and interrupter made one more
likely to engage in
successful humor. Putting all of these patterns together, there is
fairly consistent
support for the proposition that joking is a behavior in which
high status people
engage (at least in status differentiated group contexts).
Overall, our results seem somewhat more supportive of the use
of humor as a
hierarchy-building mechanism than as a cohesion-building
mechanism, at least in
these task-oriented group discussions among strangers. We
began this article by
noting a lack of formal theoretical work on conversational
humor, especially about
its role in the dynamics of task group interaction. Based on our
reading of the
related literature, the event history regressions presented here,
and our own
examination of the humorous episodes in the transcripts, we

think it is likely that
jocular interaction serves multiple purposes in these task
groups. Most notably,
humorous speech does seem to be related to status in ways that
resemble other,
better understood, status-related task behaviors. In addition, it
seems to
communicate interpersonal affect in ways that seem related to
recent developments
in the area of emotions and group process. Consequently, we
now turn our
attention to these theoretical ideas to develop a more formal
treatment of how
humor may be invoked in status-organizing processes in task
group discussions.
A Provisional Theory of Humor and Group Processes
Drawing from the patterns we observed in the above analysis of
conversational
humor, along with key ideas from theories of group processes
more generally, we
now develop a set of more formal propositions about the role of
humor in task
group interactions. We offer these propositions as a provisional
theory of humor
and status in goal-oriented conversations. We restrict the scope3
of this provisional
theory to the following settings: (1) Group members are relative
strangers;
(2) Group members are interacting face-to-face; (3) Group
members have a
collective goal; (4) The setting has a relatively unstructured,
conversational focus;
(5) The duration of the interaction is expected to be limited and
brief.

If we consider the relationship between humor and emotion, we
can begin to
make the link between humor and existing theories about social
interaction in
groups. Recent research in sociological social psychology
elaborates the relationship
2014 10:00:29 AM
between actors' social positions in groups and their typical
emotional experiences
(see review in Smith-Lovin 1995). According to several
different theoretical
traditions, high status group members experience more positive,
empowering
emotion than those with lower status. This proposition exists as
a derivation from
affect control theory (e.g., Heise 1989; Smith-Lovin 1990a),
Kemper's social
relational theory of emotions (Kemper 1978), and recent
extensions of status
characteristics theory (Lovaglia & Houser 1997). The basic idea
is that people who
are high on the status (evaluation) and power (potency)
dimensions will, under
normal circumstances, produce actions that maintain these
positions and reflect
the positive interactional environment that accrues to them as a

result of their
positions. Therefore, group leaders or those who have high
standing within the group
because of some status characteristic imported from the larger
social structure
should be more likely to engage in the usually positive and
always powerful acts of
humor production.4
In addition to reflecting social positions, affective processes
may in turn
influence an actor's position in a group. In a study of
interpersonal sentiment and
face-to-face interaction, Shelley (1993) found that group
members who were liked
are given more opportunities to speak and their input is more
positively evaluated
by other group members. Affect control theory also suggests
this dynamic, since
people who engage in positive, powerful, lively behaviors are
likely to be seen as
occupying identities with that character (Robinson & Smith-
Lovin 1999). In an
ambiguous situation like a task group interaction among
strangers, task cues and
other behaviors are used to establish the relevant identities of
participants and a
status structure for accomplishing the task (Rashotte & Smith-
Lovin 1997).
If we assume that (1) humor production more often expresses
positive, powerful
feelings than negative, powerless feelings (at least within the
context of collectively
oriented task groups); and (2) individuals who amuse others
with their humor are

subsequently evaluated as more positive and powerful; then we
can derive the
following propositions from the theories reviewed above.
Proposition 1: High status group members will use more humor
than low status
group members.
Proposition 2: High status group members will use more
successful humor (elicit
more expressed appreciation) than low status group members.
Proposition 3: A group member will receive more opportunities
to speak after a
successful joke.
Proposition 4: A group member will receive more positive
evaluations of task input
after a successful joke.
Propositions 1 and 2 are, of course, the patterns that we found
in our event history
analyses. Propositions 3 and 4 will require data on the content
of all turns
(humorous and nonhumorous) in a dynamic study of task group
processes. Those
analyses will have to await further studies.
2014 10:00:29 AM

The notion that humor could serve to build group cohesion and
solidarity is
consistent with several recent theoretical developments
concerning the relationship
between positive emotion and group cohesion. Lawler and his
colleagues (1992;
Lawler & Yoon 1993, 1996) argue that positive emotion leads to
increased
commitment to the group. Drawing from Kemper's work on
integrating and
differentiating emotions, Lovaglia and Houser (1997) argue that
positive emotion
(especially when experienced by high status individuals)5
decreases resistance to
influence and works to equalize status relations. Similarly,
other social
psychological research reveals that people in a good mood are
more compliant and
engage in more benevolent behaviors (see review in Isen 1987).
Thus, if we assume
that humor serves to, among other things, increase positive
emotion, we might expect
joking to be used as a strategy for increasing members' affective
ties to the group.
Proposition 5: Humorous interactions in goal-oriented groups
will strengthen
members' affective ties to the group.
Exploring this proposition will require data on affective
commitment to groups
and/or strength of group identities after the task-oriented
conversation has occurred.
Ideally, we would want to manipulate the humor production, so
that alternative

hypotheses about the character of the group members (e.g., their
good nature) could
be eliminated.6
Propositions 1 through 5 beg the question of who will be the
most likely to
engage in strategies that strengthen group bonds. High status
people and those who
would seek influence in a group would be the most interested in
decreasing
resistance to influence. On the other hand, those who would be
disadvantaged by
an exacerbation of status differences might be interested in the
status equalizing
effects of positive affect. In order to better disentangle these
more complex patterns
we need to consider the content of the humor. In our event
history analyses here,
we elected to forego coding the content of these humorous
interchanges to study,
content-free, the dynamic patterning of humorous interaction in
the 29 groups.7
However, the loose arguments we drew from the humor
literature, the logic of some
of the better developed theories of humor (e.g., superiority
theory), as well as the
implications we draw from the sociological social psychology
literature all hinge
in part on the content of the jokes themselves.
We propose that types of humor can be categorized in terms of
their function
for the group. Specifically, we argue that it varies in its
cohesiveness. We consider
humor to be cohesion building in nature when it treats the group
as a collective

unit. This can happen when the joke refers to the group itself, or
when the joke
pokes fun at outside individuals or categories to which none of
the group members
belong. For example, jokes can appeal to feelings of group-ness
directly by referring
to the group as a unit (e.g., students joking about student
poverty, humorous
referents to the group's creativity - or lack thereof). However,
jokes can also
serve to strengthen feelings of group-ness by satirizing outside
groups or individuals
(e.g., ethnic and religious jokes directed at categories not
present in the group, or
2014 10:00:29 AM
students joking about professors). In contrast, differentiating
humor calls attention
to the separate group members as when a speaker jokes about
him- or herself, or
when a speaker teases another group member, or subset of other
group members.
These types of jokes may be more likely to be used in hierarchy
building. At any
rate, they break down the sense that "we're all in this together"
and point out
distinctions among group members.

Considering these types of humor separately also allows us to
make sense of
our argument that low status members might benefit more from
the status-
equalizing effects of cohesive humor. Because cohesive humor
appeals to feelings
of group-ness we might expect it to operate like the other
expressions of group
identification in similar settings. Ridgeway (1982) found that
women could
effectively act as leaders only when they expressed appropriate
levels of group-
oriented motivation. So, based on our argument that low status
members will benefit
from the status-equalizing effects of cohesive humor, along with
Ridgeway's
argument that lower status members can more effectively
influence others when
they appeal to group-identification, we predict the following:
Proposition 6: Cohesion-building humor will be a larger
proportion of low status
members' humor attempts than of higher status members' humor
attempts.
In a necessary corollary to Proposition 6, we expect that the
hierarchy building
nature of differentiating humor will be used less often by those
likely to be
disadvantaged by the hierarchy.
Proposition 7: Differentiating humor will be a larger proportion
of high status
members' humor attempts than of low status members' humor
attempts.8

We can provide a preliminary examination of these propositions
by looking
back at the transcripts analyzed above. We code each humor
episode as either
(1) cohesive, (2) differentiating, or (3) other/unidentifiable.9
We operationalize
status in two ways: gender and participation.
We predict that low status people (women and low
participators) will use
proportionally more cohesion-building humor (proposition 6)
while high status
people (men and high participators) will use proportionally
more differentiating
humor (proposition 7).10 Men show higher absolute levels of
both cohesive and
differentiating humor than women (X2 = 4.07, p < .05)"1 (see
Figure 3). Of course,
this pattern is not surprising since we know from our event
history analyses that
men have a higher rate of humor overall than women. While
cohesive humor is
the most common type of joking for both men and women, we
can see from the
relative height of the bars that differentiating humor makes up a
larger proportion
of men's than women's humor productions. Figure 4, which
displays proportions
of all humor attempts that are cohesive or differentiating, makes
this pattern much
clearer. Over 35% of men's humor productions are
differentiating, compared with
26% of women's (X2 = 3.72, p < .05), providing support for
proposition 7. A slightly
higher proportion of women's humor is cohesive in nature (56%,
as opposed to

50% for men) in the direction predicted by proposition 6, but
this difference is
2014 10:00:29 AM
Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions I 143
FIGURE 3: Cohesion and Differentiation in Women's and Men's
Humor
4
3.5
3
>2.5
m1 . 5
~1.
0.5
0
Women's Humor Men's Humor
I Cohesive DLx fre r n ti at g
not significant. Although not predicted by our theory, this
gender pattern is even
stronger in same-gender groups. Women in all female groups

spend much more
time engaged in cohesive humor and less time engaged in
differentiating humor
than men in male groups (see Figure 5).
Since participation levels are another indicator of status (in
some ways, a more
direct one), we can examine the same propositions with this
alternative measure.
Figure 6 shows the use of cohesive and differentiating humor by
high- and low-
participators. Low participators use cohesion-building in 59.6%
of their humor
attempts, while high participators build cohesion in 51.39% of
theirs, but this is a
nonsignificant difference (Chi-square = 1.21, n.s.). High
participators are more
likely to use differentiating humor than are low participators:
33.13 as opposed to
21.15%, consistent with our status arguments (Chi-square =
2.98, p < .05).
THE TARGET OF HUMOR
One of the tough aspects of being in a task group is trying to
deliver criticism
without arousing anger and demoralizing the team. Research in
status
characteristics theory suggests that high status members
disagree with others more
often and provide more critical feedback than lower status
members (Berger et al.
1977; Ridgeway & Johnson 1990). On the other hand, the high
status members
presumably want to avoid damaging their own reputations and
the good will of the

group in the process. "Criticizing" is a negative behavior, and
will lead to negative
impressions of the one who enacts it (Smith-Lovin 1990a). A
positive identity as a
2014 10:00:29 AM
FIGURE 4: Cohesion and Differentiation in Women's and Men's
Humor
60 -
50
F40-
3 I
220
1 0
0
E Cohesive Difftrentiatig
leader can be more easily maintained if the directive is

transformed into a joking,
lighthearted behavior. Some humor researchers argue that
humor protects us from
typical sanctions we might expect from the same behaviors
delivered in non-
humorous form (e.g., Ford 1997). In support of this, we observe
in our group
transcripts that humor is often used as a way of "softening"
directives and critical
remarks.
Explaining this kind of humor requires us to make a distinction
between
differentiating humor that is directed at self versus
differentiating humor that is
directed at other group members. We conceptualize direction as
a two-category
distinction between jokes that are directed inward (including
oneself as an
individual as well as a group with which one identifies), or
other (including other
individuals and other groups). Combined with the
cohesive/differentiating
distinction this yields four distinct types of jokes: (1) cohesive,
inward-directed
jokes directed at the present group, (2) cohesive, outward-
directed - jokes directed
at groups or individuals outside the present group, (3)
differentiating, inward-
directed - jokes directed at the humorist him- or herself, and (4)
differentiating,
outward-directed - jokes directed at another member (or subset
of members) of
the group. Table 2 displays this typology and the labels that we
will use to refer to
the four categories of humor that it produces.

Under this scheme, jocular criticism of group members, or
disagreements
delivered with a laugh will be considered differentiating, other-
directed. Thus we
can state our claims about the relationship between status and
this kind of humor:
2014 10:00:29 AM
FIGURE 5: Gender and Cohesive Humor In Mixed and Same
Gender Groups
7 0 _ -
60
640 X 1
0
Women in Mixed Groups Men in Male groups
Women in Female Groups Men in Mixed Groups
[ CohWomve inMixednrop M ng
E Other
Proposition 8: High status members will use more outward-

directed
differentiating (member-directed) humor than will lower status
members.
On the other hand, Ridgeway and Johnson (1990) argue that
only high status
members can express negative feelings; lower status members
must suppress
negative feelings even if they experience them. One way of
suppressing expression
of the negative might be through joking. Based on past research
of task group
interactions, especially status characteristics theory (Berger et
al. 1977), we expect
that low status members will more rarely offer disagreements
and negative
evaluations. However, when they do, it might well be
accompanied by laughter or
attempts at amusement. This leads us to qualify our propositions
even further:
Proposition 9: Disagreements and negative evaluations of other
group members
will be more likely to be expressed with differentiating,
outward-directed humor
(member-directed) when delivered by low status members than
when delivered
by high status members.
Proposition 9 requires data that we do not have: coding of all
the speech turns in
terms of their task content. However, we can make a
preliminary assessment of
Proposition 8. Here, we again look at gender differences and
differences between
high and low participators. Figure 7 shows a comparison

between men and women
on the four types of humor content described in Table 2, again
expressed as a
percentage of all of their humor attempts. The type of humor
that differentiates the
group by commenting on other groups members is "member-
directed" humor.
As with all other types of humor, men used higher rates of
member-directed humor
2014 10:00:29 AM
146 /Social Forces 80:1, September 2001
FIGURE 6: Cohesive and Differentiating Humor Among High
and Low
Participators
50
540
`30
0
Low Participators High Participators
E Cohesive Diffeirentlfng
than did women. However, the member-directed humor did not

make up a
significantly higher proportion of men's humor in mixed sex
groups. Indeed, it was
the least frequent category of humor for men, while women use
self-directed humor
the least. As anonymous reviewer to this paper pointed out, the
meaning of self-
directed humor may well differ by the status of the speaker.
High status members
may be able to afford to make jokes at their own expense, and
even seem a little
more secure in the bargain (e.g., a famous statistician joking
about being "bad with
numbers"). While lower status members may only serve to
denigrate themselves
with self-directed jokes. This suggests that future dynamic work
might consider
the possibility of an interaction between status and self-directed
humor on status
gain and loss in a conversation.
When we examine Proposition 8 using level of participation as
our status
variable, we again find little support for it. In Figure 8, there is
a very slight tendency
for high participators to use more member-directed humor, but
it is not significant
(15.79 versus 9.62 percent, Chi-square= 1.34, n.s.).
Furthermore, we don't see any
notable tendency for high participators to use more inward-
directed humor than
low participators. In fact, the low participators are quite likely
to use group-directed
humor when they joke. Therefore, we have little confidence that
the interesting
patterns that we saw in Figure 7 are due to a status difference in

gender within
these task groups. Some other gender dynamic may be shaping
men's tendency to
use inward- and women's to use outward-directed humor.
2014 10:00:29 AM
TABLE 2: A Typology of Humor in Task Oriented Groups
Function of Humor for the Group: Cohesion-Building
Differentiating
Direction of Humor Target:
Inward-Directed Group-Directed Self-Directed
Outward-Directed Outsider-Directed Member-Directed
GROUP CONTEXT AND HUMOR CONTENT
Another advantage to disaggregating humorous speech by
content is that it allows
us to more precisely specify the relationship between function
and form. In our
earlier review, we argue that, to the extent that joke telling is a
cohesion building
exercise, we would expect to see more of it in heterogeneous
groups. Our event
history analysis did not support that formulation. However,

within our new content-
sensitive framework we argue that the most direct way to
increase group solidarity
is to use outsider-directed humor. Accordingly, we propose the
following:
Proposition 10: Group heterogeneity will increase outsider-
directed humor.
Figure 9 provides some preliminary support for this idea.
Outsider-directed humor
is in fact a higher percentage of humor in mixed-gender groups
than in either all-
male or all-female groups (20.7% as opposed to 14.58 and 7.14
percent respectively,
Chi-square = 4.19,p < .05).
TIMING AND HUMOR CONTENT
Earlier in this paper we note the scarcity of dynamic theories of
interaction. Our
event history analyses of these data suggest that the pattern of
humor use
systematically varies across the course of these conversations,
with humor showing
a slight spurt at the very beginning of the conversations,
dropping to lower rates,
and then steadily increasing across the course of the
discussions. Drawing on the
theories about the functions of humor, along with knowledge
about the actual
timing of humor in these groups, we make several proposals
about the content of
the humor in these stages of task group discussion. First, we
anticipate that humor
with a self-referent will be used during the "meaning-making"
stages of the group

conversation as group members jokingly volunteer information
about self and
begin to develop and assert a collective identity. Second, we
expect that group
members will use differentiating humor to establish a status
order to organize
their task activity. Third, we expect that cohesion-oriented
humor will be used
primarily in service of the emerging group identity.
Consequently, we make the
following predictions about the timing of humor in task groups:
2014 10:00:29 AM
FIGURE 7: Types of Humor Use Among Men and Women in
Mixed Gender
Groups
25
2 0
~15
0
L naup=Directed L utoide=Dietedt

E Self-Directed * Member-Directed
Proposition 11: Humor offered early in the discussion will be
proportionately
more self-directed than other-directed.
Proposition 12: Differentiating humor will be used with
decreasing frequency across
the course of the conversation, as the structure of the group
becomes better
defined.
Proposition 13: Cohesive humor will be used with increasing
frequency across the
course of the conversation as group members develop a sense of
collective identity
and affective attachment to the group.
Finally, we consider the contagious effects of humor. If, as we
expect,
differentiating humor often comes in the form of masked
criticism or self-
deprecation, then we think it is less likely to be contagious than
cohesive humor.
However, when humor is contagious, it will be more likely to be
contagious within
form - with self-deprecation begetting self-deprecation, outsider
jokes begetting
outsider jokes, etcetera, as groups develop a local culture and
begin to learn the
accepted/successful strategies for amusing each other.
Proposition 14: Cohesion-building humor will be more
contagious than
differentiating humor.

Proposition 15: Humor contagion will be form-specific,
resulting in clustered
episodes of humor within a similar form (e.g., cohesive/other-
directed).
Unfortunately, the number of humor events in each of our four
types are small
enough to make dynamic analyses of the sort specified by
Propositions 11-15
2014 10:00:29 AM
Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions 1149
FIGURE 8: Types of Humor Used by High and Low
Participators
35
3 0 --
5 __2_
2 0
15
0
Low Participators High Participators

E Self-Directed U Member-Directed
unfeasible with our 29 group discussions. Exploring these ideas
will have to await
the coding of larger corpuses of task oriented group discussion.
Now, we turn to a
brief discussion of what we know from the analyses that are
possible with our current
data.
Discussion
Mulkay (1988) describes humor as a social action arising out of
a real or imagined
dialogue. Yet, there are few systematic studies of the
spontaneous use of humor
within social dialogue. Fine (1984) points out that a teller and
audience are required
component of humorous discourse. The present analyses look at
the relation
between these components by examining attempts at inspiring
amusement. Our
unit of analysis was an "evocative transaction" - an exchange of
humorous bids
and supportive (or unsupportive) responses. Because event
history regressions allow
us to analyze events as the unit of analysis, they are ideal for
developing models
that truly describe situated interpersonal transactions, rather
than persons or groups.
In the present paper we took the opportunity to study the
dynamic occurrence
of humor during group conversations. We found strong evidence
for taking into
account the timing of humorous interaction. Future work in this

area should also
be concerned with such dynamics and time dependence. This
poses a problem
because with elaborated content coding of what are already rare
events (humorous
remarks, in a task group setting), even a reasonable size data set
gets quickly
2014 10:00:29 AM
FIGURE 9: Types of Humor Use in Same and Mixed Gender
Groups
40 -
35-
0
_25 X|
Female Groups Mixed Groups Male Groups
U Self-Directed U Member-Directed
attenuated. We hope that the theoretical framework here will
provide guidance to
usefullly limit the potential state space and create a starting
point for fulture dynamic

analyses of humor.
For while statistical methods now allow us to focus on the
correct unit of
analysis, we find that theory lags behind. There is a rapidly
growing body of research
in the social science of humor, but we find the current humor
literature to be of
limited use in developing a detailed understanding of humor in
conversational
interaction. Nonetheless, when we combine key ideas from the
literature on the
social functions of humor with the more developed theoretical
ideas in the
sociological social psychology literature on status and emotion,
we are able to
develop a more general set of propositions about the role of
humor in the status
dynamics of task group interaction.
We propose that humor serves as a mechanism used by both
high and low status
group members in a group to establish and maintain
relationships during the course
of group problem solving. The types of humor used varies by
position of the speaker,
by group context and over time. A more detailed content coding
of the 375 humor
episodes analyzed here provides tentative support for some of
the propositions in
our proposed theory. We hope that future work will further
refine and provide
independent empirical tests of these ideas.
Finally, we point to an interesting puzzle: there are substantial
gender

differences in the content of humor that is used in these task
groups, especially
within all male and all female groups. These differences do not
seem obviously
status related, but signal a fairly different pattern of interaction
for men and
2014 10:00:29 AM
women, especially in the single-gender groups. In particular,
women's frequent
use of group-directed humor when in all-female groups, which
shifts to a higher
use of outsider-directed humor in mixed gender groups is an
intriguing pattern.
While we have no ready explanation for it at this time, it seems
an interesting
avenue of exploration for those who's central interest is the
production and
appreciation of humor itself.
Notes
1. For this reason, Freud (1905) speculates that joking is
particularly suitable for attacks
on high status and powerful-those who are otherwise protected
from direct
confrontation. In contrast, Wilson (1979) claims that less
powerful people are not free

to ridicule their superiors face-to-face. Rather, they must
reserve their mockery for
contexts in which the objects of their derision are not present.
This latter view is more
consistent with most current theories of humor as aggression.
These theories usually
view aggressive joking as a mechanism through which the
powerful keep underlings in
their place.
2. This finding is somewhat inconsistent in the empirical
literature. The inconsistencies
may indicate shifts in gender related behavior over time. For
example, Cantor (1976)
finds that in a laboratory study of reactions to humorous
stimuli, both men and women
have greater appreciation for humor that disparages women.
3. Gender is not a status characteristic in all settings, and may
be losing its hierarchical
meaning in modern undergraduate populations (see review in
Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin
1999). However, the data that we will use were collected in
South Carolina in the early
1980s; many analyses of these data conclude that gender does
act as a status characteristic
within this population and this setting (Smith-Lovin et al 1986;
Smith-Lovin & Brody
1989; see review in Skvoretz & Fararo 1996).
4. Subjects are from a subject pool that included any students in
sociology classes who
submitted a card expressing their interest in volunteering for
research. Subjects from the
pool received no course credit or subject payments in exchange
for participation. Since

the subjects indicated age, race and gender on their cards, it was
possible to minimize
variation in characteristics other than gender, and to create
groups in which gender
composition systematically varied.
5. Overall inter-coder reliability is fairly low among humor
judgments of our four coders
(one male and three female), with inter-coder agreement rates in
the range of .50 to .60.
The male coder did not have lower agreement rates with the
three female coders than
they had with each other, revealing no observable gender
differences in the perceptions
of these admittedly mundane forms of humor. In previous
research (reviewed above),
the largest gender differences are found in the appreciation of
sexual and gender based
humor, neither of which was particularly likely in these groups
of strangers who knew
they were being videotaped. The modest inter-coder reliability
in the difficult task of
identifying unsuccessful but intended humor is the reason that
we adopted the conservative
procedure of requiring agreement from all four coders. We
argue that this conservative
2014 10:00:29 AM

criterion of agreement by four "culture experts" means that the
undergraduates in the
interacting groups would have almost certainly have perceived
the utterance as a humor
attempt even though they failed to laugh at it.
6. When laughter by group members other than the speaker
occurred, it was quite
generalized. There were no instances in the data where one or
two group members
laughed, but the mirth was not shared by the larger group.
7. Plotting techniques and statistical comparison of nested
models are two different
approaches for diagnosing the preferred model for distribution
of transition rates in a
data context (Hannan 1989). For example, the Gompertz model
implies the logarithm
of the hazard is a linear function of the waiting time (Tuma &
Hannan 1984:2 10), while
the Weibull model implies that the log-hazard is a linear
function of the logarithm of
the waiting time (Tuma & Hannan 1984:21 1). Thus we plot the
estimated log-hazard
against waiting time and against the log of waiting time to
compare the fit of the two
models to our data. In addition, we statistically compare the fit
of a variety of nested
parametric models (e.g., Gamma, exponential, log-logistic,
Weibull). These diagnostics
converge on the Weibull as the preferred model for these
waiting times.
8. We also ran these regressions using the distribution-free Cox'
proportional hazards
model, which does not allow parameterization of the time

dependence. The results of
these regressions are consistent with our other analyses, but
Cox models limit what we
can say about the dynamics of this process. Accordingly, we
chose to report the Weibull
models in order to characterize the timing of humor in a
systematic way.
9. For the sake of discussion clarity, we interpret the
coefficients in terms of their influence
on the rates of humorous remarks. A variable that increases the
length of time between
jokes simultaneously decreases the hazard rate of humor. Thus,
the signs of the
coefficients in Table 1 can be reversed when considering their
impacts on the risk of
humor.
10. Additional analyses also show that men's humor is more
likely to be successful than
women's humor. However, that is not directly tested in Table 1.
11. Some of the control variables, of course, deal with the
history of the conversational
roles as they develop. These variables have little or no variance
during the early part of
the conversation.
12. Nancy Walker (1988) reaches a similar conclusion from an
entirely different
disciplinary field. Based on a critical analysis of women's
humor in American culture,
Walker (1988) argues that women's humor, like minority humor
is expressed only within
group - never in mixed company.

13. These scope conditions may be more properly considered
initial conditions of the
theory, rather than scope limitations (see a discussion of this
distinction in Webster 1999).
They are not required to support the logic of our argument as
are scope conditions
traditionally, but follow instead from the empirical context that
provided the basis for
much of the present generalizations. We consider these
limitations appropriate, given
the conditions of the empirical observations from which the
propositions are developed.
We also note that most of the more general theory from which
we draw does depend
logically on more or more of these conditions. However, we
also consider them to be
2014 10:00:29 AM
preliminary, and subject to future investigation to determine
whether they are, indeed,
necessary for the operation of the proposed processes.
14. Affect control theory has the most precise statement of the
affective meaning of humor
production. Social acts like "amuse" and "laugh" are high on
evaluation (good/bad),
potency (powerful/powerless) and activity (lively/quiet). Jokes
that are more pointed

("laugh at") are more negative on evaluation, but still very
powerful and active and are
therefore still predicted behaviors for those in leadership roles,
especially as a social control
mechanism.
15. More precisely, Lovaglia and Houser (1997) argue that high
status individuals who
experience positive emotion will be more open to influence
from low-status others, while
low status members experience negative emotion that makes
them more resistant to
influence from high-status others. The operations of these two
effects combines to reduce
status differences in influence. We assume that in collectively
oriented face-to-face groups
the emotional experience of group members will be linked such
that strong positive
emotions among a subset of members are unlikely to coexist
with strong negative
emotions with others. Therefore, we assume that most status
equalizing will come from
the positive emotion of the high status members.
16. Perhaps instructions encouraging or discouraging humor
could be used to create the
relevant conditions. Alternatively, the presence of a confederate
who interjected humor
might prime the humor pump, given the contagious nature of
humor that we observe
in our naturally occurring conversations.
17. To be a bit more honest, we attempted to develop codes for
humor content at an
earlier stage of this project (prior to the event history analysis),
and were never able to

achieve an acceptably reliable measurement protocol. After
considering the results of the
event history analyses and drawing on the literature on status
and emotion, we are able
to develop a theoretically based content coding system that can
be reliably assessed (see
footnote 19).
18. Propositions 6 and 7 would be definitionally linked, were it
not for a third category
of "other" humor.
19. Two coders actually rate each of the humorous episodes on
two categorical
dimensions: the function of humor for the group: (1) cohesion-
building,
(2) differentiating or (3) other/unidentifiable, and the direction
of the humor target:
(1) inward-directed or (2) outward directed (see Table 2 below
for the full typology).
For reliability of nominal scale content coding, t he most
appropriate reliability measure
is Scott's (1955) inter-coder agreement index, 6, which is based
on the distance of the
obtained coding from what would be expected by chance (and
does not allow inflated
estimates of reliability due to skewed distributions into
categories). We calculate a reliability
rating of 6=.7 1 based on our two ratings of the entire sample.
After the reliability check,
the discrepancies were resolved by discussion until consensus
was reached.
20. During the course of observing and coding the humorous
episodes in the transcripts,
we note recurring patterns of joke-making across the groups that

seem to reflect of the
status-organizing processes we describe in our theory.
Consequently, the theory of humor
we develop here derives from the logic of the theories that we
discuss in this section,
along with patterns we inductively observe in the data
themselves. Accordingly, the
2014 10:00:29 AM
analyses presented in this section cannot be seen as tests of the
theory, rather as illustrative
of the process we argue takes place when humor operates in
goal-oriented group
interactions. A true test of our new ideas must await further
data.
21. In the context of these discovered comparisons, one could
argue that tests of statistical
significance are not meaningful. We present them here for
heuristic use only, to give
some rough additional information about the size of the
differences.
References
Allison Paul. 1995. Survival Analysis using the SAS System: A
Practical Guide. SAs Institute.

Bales, Robert F., and P.E. Slater. 1955. "Role Differentiation in
Small Decision-Making Groups."
Pp. 259-306 in Family Socialization and Interaction Process.
Free Press.
Berger, Joseph., M. Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris
P. Zelditch Jr. 1977. Status
Characteristics in Social Interaction: An Expectation States
Approach. Elsevier-North Holland
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective
and Method. Prentice-Hall.
Butland, Mark J., and D.K Ivy. 1990. "The Effects of Biological
Sex and Egalitarianism on Humor
Appreciation: Replication and Extension." Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality 5:353-
66.
Cantor, Joanne R. 1976. "What is Funny to Whom." Journal of
Communication 26:164-72.
Cantor, Joanne R, J. Bryant, and Dolf Zillmann. 1974.
"Enhancement of Humor Appreciation
by Excitation Transfer." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 30:812-31.
Carroll, Glenn. 1983. "Dynamic Analysis of Discrete Dependent
Variables: A Didactic Essay."
Quality and Quantity 17:425-60.
Chupchick, Gerald C., and Howard Leventhal. 1974.
"Consistency between Expressive Behavior
and the Evaluation of Humorous Stimuli: The Role of Sex and
Self-Observation." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 30:429-42.

Coser, Rose. 1959. "Some Social Functions of Laughter: A
Study of Humor in a Hospital Setting."
Human Relations 12:171-82.
.1960. "Laughter among Colleagues: A Study of the Social
Functions of Humor among
the Staff of a Mental Hospital." Psychiatry 23:81-95.
Couch, Carl J. 1992. "Evocative Transactions and Social
Relationships." Studies in Symbolic
Interaction 13:141-54.
Crawford, Mary. 1995. Talking Difference: On Gender and
Language. Sage Publications.
Davis, Murray S. 1979. "Sociology through Humor." Symbolic
Interaction 2:105- 10.
. 1993. What's So Funny? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Derber, Charles. 1979. The Pursuit of Attention: Power and
Individualism in Every Day Life.
Derks, Peter, Steve Kalland, and Mike Etgen. 1995. "The Effect
of Joke Type and Audience
Response on the Reaction to a Joker: Replication and
Extension." Humor 8:327-37.
Dovidio, John F., Clifford E. Brown, K. Heltman, Steve L.
Ellyson, and C.B. Keating. 1988.
"Power Displays Between Women and Men in Discussion of
Gender-Linked Topics:
A Multi-channel Study." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 55:580-87.

2014 10:00:29 AM
Dovidio, John F. and Steve L. Ellyson. 1982. "Decoding Visual
Dominance: Attributions of
Power Based on Relative Percentages of Looking While
Speaking and Looking While
Listening." Social Psychology Quarterly 45:106-13.
Dienstbier, Richard A. 1995. "The Impact of Humor on Energy,
Tension, Task Choices, and
Attributions: Exploring Hypotheses from Toughness Theory."
Motivation and Emotion
19:255-67.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1983. "Sociological Approaches to the Study
of Humor." Pp. 159-81 in Handbook
of Humor Research, Vol 1: Basic Issues, edited by Paul E.
McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein.
Springer.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1984. "Humorous Interaction and the Social
Construction of Meaning: Making
Sense in a Jocular Vein." Studies in Symbolic Interaction 5:83-
104.
Fisek, M. Hamit. 1974. "A Model for the Evaluation of Status
Structures in Task-Oriented
Groups." In Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research
Program, edited by J. Berger,

T. L. Conner, and M. H. Fisek. Winthrop Publishers.
Flaherty, Michael G. 1990. "Two Conceptions of the Social
Situation: Some Implications of
Humor." Sociological Quarterly 31:93-106.
.1984. "A Formal Approach to the Study of Amusement in
Social Interaction." Studies
in Symbolic Interaction 5:71-82.
Francis, Linda E. 1994. "Laughter, the Best Mediation: Humor
as Emotion Management in
Interaction." Symbolic Interaction 17:147-63.
Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1994. "'Seriality' and the
Appreciation of Jokes." Humor 7:351-75.
Ford, Thomas E. 1997. "Effects of Stereotypical Television
Portrayals of African-Americans on
Person Perception." Social Psychology Quarterly 6:266-78.
Freud, Sigmund. 1966 [1905]. Jokes and Their Relation to the
Unconscious. London: Routlege &
Kegan Paul.
Glen, Phillip J. 1989. "Initiating Shared Laughter in Multi-party
Conversations." Western Journal
of Speech Communication 53:127-49.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters. Bobbs-Merrill.
Hannan, Michael T. 1989. "Macro-sociological Applications of
Event History Analysis: State
Transitions and Event Recurrences." Quality and Quantity.
Heise, David R. 1989 "Effects of Emotion Displays on Social

Identification." Social Psychology
Quarterly
Isen Alice M. 1987. "Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes and
Social Behavior." Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 20:203-53.
Johnson, Cathryn. 1994. "Gender, Legitimate Authority, and
Leader-Subordinate Conversations."
American Sociological Review 59:122-35.
Kalbfleisch, J.D., and Prentice, R.L. 1980. The Statistical
Analysis of Failure Time Data. Wiley.
Katz, Jack. 1996. "Families and Funny Mirrors: A Study of the
Social Construction and Personal
Embodiment of Humor." American Journal of Sociology
101:1194-1237.
Kemper, Theodore D. 1978. A Social Interactional Theory of
Emotions. Wiley.
Kollock, Peter, Phillip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwartz. 1985.
"Sex and Power in Interaction."
Kuiper, Nicholas A., and Rod A. Martin. 1993. "Humor and
Self-concept." Humor 6:251-70.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman's Place. Harper &
Row.
2014 10:00:29 AM

LaFave, Lawrence. 1972. "Humor Judgments as a Function of
Reference Groups and Identification
Classes." Pp. 195-210 in The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical
Perspectives and Empirical
Issues. Academic Press.
LaFave, Lawrence, Jay Haddad, and Nancy Marshall. 1973.
"Humour Judgements as a Function
of Identification Classes." Sociology and Social Research
53:184-94.
Lawler, Edward J. 1992 "Affective Attachments to Nested
Groups: A Choice-Process Theory."
Lawler, Edward J., and Yoon Jeongkoo. 1993. "Power and the
Emergence of Commitment
Behavior." American Sociological Review 58:465-8 1.
.1998. "Network Structure and Emotion in Exchange Relations."
American Sociological
Review 63:871-94.
Lefcourt, Herbert M., and Rod A. Martin. 1986. Humor and Life
Stress: Antidote to Adversity.
Springer/Verlag.
Lovaglia Michael, and Houser Jeffery 1997. "Emotional
Reactions, Status Characteristics and
Social Interaction." American Sociological Review 61:867-83.

Lundell, Torborg. 1993. "An Experiential Exploration of Why
Men and Women Laugh." Humor
6:299-317.
Martin, Rod A., and Herbert M. Lefcourt. 1983. "Sense of
Humor as a Moderator of the Relation
between Stressors and Moods." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 45:1313-24.
McGhee, Paul E. 1971. "The Development of the Humor
Response: A Review of the Literature.
Psychological Bulletin 76:308-348.
McGhee, Paul E. 1976. "Sex Differences in Children's Humor.
"Journal of Communication 26:176-
89.
.1979. Humor: Its Origin and Development. W.H. Freeman.
MacKinnon, Neil J. 1994, Symbolic Interactionism as Affect
Control. SUNY Press.
Maltz, Daniel N. and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. "A Cultural
Approach to Male-Female
Miscommunication." Pp. 197-216 in Language and Social
Identity, edited by J.J. Gumperz.
Cambridge University Press.
Morreall, John. 1983. Taking Laughter Seriously. SUNY Press.
Mulkay, Michael. 1988. On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in
Modernity Society. Polity Press.
Mundorf, Norbert, Azna Bhatia, Dolf Zillman, Paul Lester, and
Susan Robertson. 1988. "Gender
Differences in Humor Appreciation." Humor 1:231-43.

Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in
Everyday Talk. Indiana University Press.
Prerost, F.J. and R.E. Brewer. 1977. "Humor Content
Preferences and the Relief of Experimentally
Aroused Aggression." Journal of Social Psychology 103:225-
231.
Rashotte, Lisa S., and Lynn Smith-Lovin 1997. "Who Benefits
from Being Bold: The Interactive
Effects of Task Cues and Status Characteristics on Influence in
Mock Jury Groups" Advances
in Group Processes, Vol. 14. JAI Press.
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1982 "Status in Groups: The Importance
of Motivation." American Sociological
Review 47:76-88.
2014 10:00:29 AM
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. and Cathryn Johnson 1990. "What Is the
Relationship between
Socioemotional Behavior and Status in Task Groups." American
Journal of Sociology 95:1189-
212.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1994. "Structure,
Culture and Interaction:
A Comparison of Affect Control Theory and Expectations States
Theory." Advances in Group
Processes, Vol. 2, JAI Press.
. 1999. "Interaction in the Gender System: Theory and
Research." Annual Review of
Sociology 25:191-216.
Robinson, Dawn T. and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1990. "Timing of
Interruptions in Group Discussions."
Advances in Group Processes 7:45-73.
. 1991. "An Affect Control Model of Turn-Taking Dynamics."
Paper presented to the
annual meetings of the American Sociological Association.
.1999. "Emotion Display as a Strategy for Identity Negotiation."
Motivation and Emotion
23:1999.
Ruch, Willibald, Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin. 1993.
"Toward an Empirical Verification
of the General Theory of Humor." Humor 6:123-36.
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. "An Analyses of the Course of a Joke's
Telling in Conversation." Pp. 337-
53 in Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by R.
Bauman and J. Sherzer.
Cambridge University Press.
Scott, William A. 1955. "Reliability of Content Analysis: The
Case of Nominal Scale Coding."
Public Opinion Quarterly 19:321-25.

Seckman, Mark A. and Carl J. Couch. 1989. "Jocularity,
Sarcasm, and Social Relationships."
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18:327-44.
Schachter, Stanley, and Ladd Wheeler. 1962. "Epinephrine,
Clorpromazine, and Amusement."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65:121-28.
Shelly, Robert 1993. "How Sentiments Organize Interaction"
Advances in Group Processes
10:113-32.
Shurcliff, A. 1968. "Judged Humor, Arousal and the Relief
Theory." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 8:360-63.
Skvoretz , John V., and Thomas J. Fararo. 1996. "Status and
Participation in Task Groups."
American Journal of Sociology 5:1366-1414.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1990a."Emotion as Confirmation and
Disconfirmation of Identity: An
Affect Control Model." Pp. 238-70 in Research Agendas in
Emotions, edited by Theodore
D. Kemper. SUNY Press.
. 1990b. "Transcripts of Six-Person Task Oriented Groups:
Small Group Discussions."
Technical Reort 90-9. Department of Sociology, Cornell
University.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1995. "The Sociology of Affect and
Emotion." Pp. 118-48 in Sociological
Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen Cook, Gary
Fine and James House. Allyn

& Bacon.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Charles J. Brody.1989. "Interruptions
in Group Discussions: The Effects
of Gender and Group Composition." American Sociological
Review 54:424-35.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, Charlotte Hudson and John Skvoretz.
1986."Status and Participation in
Six-person Groups: A Test of Skvoretz' Comparative Status
Model." Social Forces 64:992-
1005.
2014 10:00:29 AM
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Dawn T. Robinson. 1990. "The Timing
of Interruptions in Group
Discussions" Advances in Group Processes 7:45-74.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Dawn T. Robinson. 1992. "Gender and
Conversation Dynamics:" Pp. 122-
56 in Gender, Interaction and Inequality, edited by Cecilia L.
Ridgeway. Springer-Verlag.
Stephenson, Richard M. 1951. "Conflict and Control Functions
of Humor." American Journal
of Sociology 56:569-74.
Strean, Herbert S. 1993. Jokes: Their Meaning and Purpose.

Jason Aronson.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. "Gender Differences in Conversational
Coherence: Physical Alignment
and Topical Cohesion." Pp. 167-206 in Conversational
Organization and Its Development,
edited by B. Dorval. Ablex.
Tuma, Nancy B. and Michael T. Hannan. 1984. Social
Dynamics. Academic Press.
Vinton, Karen L. 1989. "Humor in the Workplace." Small Group
Behavior 20:151-66.
Webster, Murray Jr. 1999. "Operational Indicators of
Theoretical Concepts." Paper presented at
the Southern Sociological Society meetings, Nashville, Tenn.
White, Sabina and Andrew Winzelberg. 1992. "Laughter and
Stress." Humor 5:343-55.
Wilson, Christopher P. 1979. Jokes: Form, Content, Use and
Function. Academic Press.
Zillman, Dolf and Joanne. Cantor. 1976. "A Dispositional
Theory of Humour and Mirth."
In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications.
Wiley.
Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West. 1975. "Sex Roles,
Interruptions and Silences in
Conversations." Pp. 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference
and Dominance, edited by
Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley. Newbury House.

2014 10:00:29 AM
Contentsp. [123]p. 124p. 125p. 126p. 127p. 128p. 129p. 130p.
131p. 132p. 133p. 134p. 135p. 136p. 137p. 138p. 139p. 140p.
141p. 142p. 143p. 144p. 145p. 146p. 147p. 148p. 149p. 150p.
151p. 152p. 153p. 154p. 155p. 156p. 157p. 158Issue Table of
ContentsSocial Forces, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 1-
379Front Matter [pp. 90 - 348]Social Change and the
Persistence of Sex Typing: 1974-1997 [pp. 1 - 36]Party
Formation, Political Power, and the Capacity for Reform:
Comparing Left Parties in Kerala and West Bengal, India [pp.
37 - 60]The Politics of Punishment across Time and Space: A
Pooled Time-Series Analysis of Imprisonment Rates [pp. 61 -
89]Racial Politics and Redistribution: Isolating the Contingent
Influence of Civil Rights, Riots, and Crime on Tax
Progressivity [pp. 91 - 121]Getting a Laugh: Gender, Status,
and Humor in Task Discussions [pp. 123 - 158]The Value of
Exchange [pp. 159 - 184]Lines of Power in Exchange Networks
[pp. 185 - 214]Religious Involvement, Stress, and Mental
Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study [pp. 215 -
249]Age Patterns of Suicide and Homicide Mortality Rates in
High-Income Nations [pp. 251 - 282]Social Capital and
Homicide [pp. 283 - 310]Scale of Agricultural Production,
Civic Engagement, and Community Welfare [pp. 311 -
327]Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies:
Comment on Kanazawa and Still [pp. 329 - 335]A Bit of Logic
Goes a Long Way: A Reply to Sanderson [pp. 337 -
341]Theoretical Pluralism and Historical Complexity in the
Development and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy:
A Comment on Kanazawa and Still [pp. 343 - 347]Science vs.
History: A Reply to MacDonald [pp. 349 - 352]Book
Reviewsuntitled [pp. 353 - 354]untitled [pp. 354 - 356]untitled
[pp. 356 - 357]untitled [pp. 358 - 359]untitled [pp. 359 -
360]untitled [pp. 361 - 362]untitled [pp. 362 - 364]untitled

[pp. 364 - 365]untitled [p. 366]untitled [pp. 367 - 368]untitled
[pp. 368 - 370]untitled [pp. 370 - 371]untitled [pp. 371 -
373]untitled [pp. 373 - 375]untitled [pp. 375 - 377]untitled
[pp. 377 - 379]Back Matter
Humor and Competence in School-Aged Children
Author(s): Ann S. Masten
Source: Child Development, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp.
461-473
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in
Child Development
Accessed: 18/11/2014 10:00
.
range of
forms
.
Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Child Development.

2014 10:00:43 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blac
k
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=srcd
Humor and Competence in School-aged
Children
Ann S. Masten
University of Minnesota
MASTEN, ANN S. Humor and Competence in School-aged
Children. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1986, 57,
461-473. Multiple aspects of humor were evaluated in children
between the ages of 10 and 14 and
related to several areas of competence manifested at school.
Humor measures assessed appreciation
(including mirth, subjective ratings, and response sets),
comprehension, and production, while
competence measures included teacher ratings of classroom
behavior, peer reputation, and achieve-
ment. Humor was related to competence in several ways
consistent with previous theory and
research: (1) through the manifestation of intellectual ability
both in humor behaviors and in compe-
tent functioning; (2) through the role of mastery motivation
enhancing both types of functioning; and

(3) through peer relations, resulting from the effects of humor
on peer acceptance or the effects of
peer relations on humor behaviors. Ideas for further research
relating humor to social competence,
social cognition, and mastery motivation are discussed.
The appreciation and creation of humor
have been credited with many adaptive func-
tions (Goldstein & McGhee, 1972; Ziv, 1984).
Social functions include the enhancement of
interpersonal relations and group cohe-
siveness as well as the expression of sexual
or aggressive feelings. Physiological functions
include arousal reduction or relaxation pro-
duced by laughter. Defensive functions in-
clude the avoidance or alleviation of fears and
anxiety. Cognitive functions ascribed to
humor center on the process of "pleasure
in mastery," referring to enjoyment derived
from successfully meeting the intellectual
challenge involved in understanding or creat-
ing humor (McGhee, 1974). This concept was
based on White's (1959) theory of competence
(or mastery) motivation, although Freud and
Piaget each observed the process (Keith-
Spiegel, 1972). Humor is thought to satisfy
the competence motive and thereby to en-
courage subsequent mastery efforts.
Given the multiple adaptive functions at-
tributed to humor, it is not surprising that a
good "sense of humor" is often theoretically
associated with adjustment in terms of matu-
rity, health, or effective coping (Martin & Lef-
court, 1983). These theoretical perspectives

suggest that humor would be positively re-
lated to competence, a primary characteristic
of adjustment referring to the capacity for
effective functioning in the environment
(White, 1959; Yarrow et al., 1983). Up to now,
however, this relation rarely has been exam-
ined empirically, except with respect to intel-
lectual ability as measured by IQ, a relatively
narrow approach to competence (McClelland,
1973).
Research on children's humor apprecia-
tion, comprehension, and production pro-
vides evidence of the cognitive, social, defen-
sive, and concomitant physiological functions
of humor (McGhee & Chapman, 1980). First,
children prefer humor they can understand
and appear to derive considerable enjoyment
from figuring out jokes. It has also been dem-
onstrated, although not consistently, that op-
timal cognitive challenges can enhance hu-
mor appreciation (McGhee, 1976; Zigler,
Levine, & Gould, 1966, 1967). Second, stud-
ies of infants and older children illustrate the
social and physiological functions of humor.
This paper is based in part on a doctoral dissertation submitted
to the University of Minnesota.
The research reported is part of the ongoing Project Competence
studies of stress resistance in
children. The author is grateful to Norman Garmezy, adviser
and project director, and also to Auke
Tellegen, David Pellegrini, Richard Weinberg, Alan Sroufe,
Kevin Larkin, Robert Cudeck, Sherry
Mulrooney, and Anne Chodzko for their assistance. The author
also wishes to thank Tom Wilson

and Universal Press Syndicate for permitting "Ziggy" to
participate in this research. The investiga-
tion was partially supported by the National Institute of Mental
Health (MH-33222) and the William
T. Grant Foundation, by an Eva O. Miller Fellowship, and by
the University of Minnesota Com-
puter Center. Requests for reprints should be sent to Ann S.
Masten, Department of Psychology,
N414 Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road,
Minneapolis, MN 55455.
[Child Development, 1986, 57, 461-473. ? 1986 by the Society
for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/86/5702-0007$01.00]
2014 10:00:43 AM
462 Child Development
Both in infant-mother games and in the in-
teractions of older children watching cartoon
films, humorous laughter and smiling appear
to facilitate arousal modulation, thereby en-
hancing the quality of the transactions (Chap-
man, Smith, & Foot, 1980; Pien & Rothbart,
1980; Sroufe & Waters, 1976). The shared
positive affect appears to be reciprocally rein-
forcing, which would encourage further social
engagement. Third, observers of preschoolers
and older children have noted the use of
humor for coping with fear, anxiety, and cur-

rent concerns (Gesell, Ilg, & Ames, 1946;
Murphy & Moriarty, 1976; Ransohoff, 1975;
Wolfenstein, 1954).
Often these functions are intertwined.
For example, sexual jokes in the group of ado-
lescent girls observed by Ransohoff (1975)
served both to relieve anxieties about current
developmental concerns and to enhance
group cohesion. Similarly, the sharing ofjokes
by elementary school peers provides the plea-
sure of getting the joke along with the fun of
sharing it with friends. Humor appreciation
and creation thus can be multiply reinforced
and reinforcing in a social context and would
be expected to enhance competence, particu-
larly social competence.
In addition to the evidence that humor
may serve multiple functions in children, de-
velopmental research also suggests another
mechanism by which humor and adjustment
become linked. Much of the recent research
on children's humor has focused on how it is
mediated by cognitive development. Data
clearly show that appreciation and creation of
humor depend to some degree on the level of
factual knowledge, the development of sym-
bolic, logical, and abstract reasoning abilities,
language development, and the linguistic
knowledge of the child (McGhee & Chap-
man, 1980). Since competence is also medi-
ated by cognitive development, some relation
would be expected between humor abilities
and competence as a function of the devel-
opment of general cognitive abilities. Zigler

et al. (1966) have suggested that humor is as-
sociated with adjustment because both are
mediated to some extent by cognitive func-
tioning: "The conceptual demands of a joke
or a cartoon require a variety of cognitive
functions not unlike those demanded by a
multitude of life's problems, the adequate
solutions of which characterize the adjusted
individual" (p. 509).
Thus, research on children's humor as
well as various theoretical perspectives sug-
gest that humor should be positively related
to social, emotional, and cognitive compe-
tence. A number of studies have considered
the relation of humor to intellectual compe-
tence (Brodzinsky & Rightmyer, 1980). How-
ever, the results are inconsistent, quite possi-
bly because humor behaviors have been
measured inconsistently.
Studies relating children's humor abili-
ties to social competence are scarce. In his
studies of humor, Ziv (1984) found that ado-
lescent humorists were more popular than
their less humorous peers and were also
viewed by peers as leaders. Humor and intel-
lectual ability were positively related, partic-
ularly for creative humor and for males. In
another study of eighth-grade class clowns
identified sociometrically by their peers,
Damico and Purkey (1978) found that
"clowns" were rated by their teachers as lead-
ers who were more cheerful, attention seek-
ing, and unruly than nonclowning classmates.

The purpose of this study was to examine
the relation between humor and competence
in children, more specifically between three
types of humor behavior and several signifi-
cant aspects of effective functioning in school-
aged children. One index of competence,
peer reputation, was assessed by means of a
class play instrument. Behavioral competence
in the classroom was assessed by teacher
ratings, and academic competence was as-
sessed by an individual achievement test. In-
tellectual competence was assessed by an IQ
measure so that the broader measures of so-
cial and academic competence could be com-
pared with this traditional index of intellec-
tual ability.
Humor assessment included two mea-
sures of humor appreciation, the funniness
ratings of cartoons by the children and the
mirth visibly expressed by them. In addition,
neutral cartoons (humor removed) were used
to measure possible response sets in the rat-
ings of cartoons by the children, an important
but neglected technique introduced by Brod-
zinsky (1975, 1977). These neutral cartoons
allowed both appreciation scores to be ad-
justed for indiscriminate responding. Com-
prehension was measured by judges' ratings
of the children's explanations of the cartoon
humor. Finally, creative humor ability was
measured by the quality of humorous cap-
tions or ideas children were able to produce
on demand.

Given the cognitive and motivational re-
quirements of the humor comprehension task
and the production of humor on demand, both
these aspects of humor were expected to be
positively related to general intellectual com-
2014 10:00:43 AM
Ann S. Masten 463
petence as measured by IQ and to academic
performance and effective classroom behav-
ior. Appreciation was also expected to be re-
lated to IQ since appreciation (when cor-
rected for baseline responsiveness) should
depend to some degree on comprehension. In
addition, the pervasive association in the liter-
ature between laughter or smiling and mas-
tery suggested that appreciation might also be
positively associated with academic compe-
tence, perhaps beyond the role of comprehen-
sion. Finally, since both humor appreciation
and production appear to be socially facilitat-
ing and highly valued characteristics, they
were expected to relate to social competence
as assessed by peer reputation.
Given the expected relations among IQ,
other forms of competence, and humor, the
question arose as to whether humor would be
related to social and academic competence

beyond whatever variance was shared with
IQ. It was important to address this question
in order to determine whether humor and
competence are related only because they are
both cognitively mediated. On the premise
that humor and competence-particularly so-
cial competence-involve motivational and
social qualities that go beyond individual dif-
ferences in intellectual ability, it was pre-
dicted that some unique relations would be
found between humor and competence be-
yond the contributions of IQ.
Method
Subjects
Participants in this study included 93
children (51 girls and 42 boys, ages 10-14) in
grades 5 (N = 32), 6 (N = 23), 7 (N = 22), and
8 (N = 16). Twenty-five percent of the chil-
dren were of ethnic minority backgrounds, in-
cluding black, American Indian, Hispanic,
and Asian students. These children were part
of a series of investigations dealing with com-
petence and stress resistance in school-aged
children (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen,
1984; Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984). Partici-
pants in these studies were originally drawn
from all the third- to sixth-grade students of
two centralized urban schools housed in the
same building complex with a substantial pro-
portion of lower- and middle-class families
and single parents. At the time of this study,
the participants had been involved in various
Project Competence studies for approxi-

mately 2 years, during which time a number
of children had gone on to secondary school
or had moved to new school districts. A large
proportion of these children and their families
were participating in interview studies that
provided information regarding socioeco-
nomic status (SES). The Duncan Socioeco-
nomic Index (Hauser & Featherman, 1977)
was used to estimate SES levels. There was a
considerable range of SES scores (11-92) on
this 100-point scale. The mean SES level (43)
falls among such occupations as craft workers,
highly skilled labor, and clerical workers.
Measures
Humor stimuli.-Cartoons were chosen
in order to include a broad range of nonverbal
humor and on the assumption that humor
with a visual element has great appeal for
children. "Ziggy" cartoons created by Tom
Wilson (Universal Press Syndicate) were se-
lected for the pool of humor stimuli because
they were available in abundance, because
they varied widely in difficulty and content,
and because they featured one central charac-
ter of ambiguous age and occupation who of-
ten faced situations that would be familiar to
children. Limiting the pool to one type of car-
toon was intended to promote the formation
of a humor set that might facilitate the diffi-
cult task of producing humor on demand, us-
ing cartoon drawings of the same type as
stimuli.

Cartoons from a large collection (Wilson,
1977) were initially screened on the basis of
wordiness (cartoons with more than a dozen
words were eliminated), difficulty, appeal,
and suitability for children. Adult judges
(graduate students in psychology and three
elementary school principals) were instructed
to rate the cartoons on appropriateness as well
as "humorousness, engagingness, and inter-
est" for children ranging from age 8 to age 14,
without regard to difficulty. The final pool of
96 cartoons was rated again by 163 fourth to
eighth graders for funniness and by five
judges (graduate students) for difficulty level.
The following humor measures were devel-
oped from these cartoons.
Humor appreciation.-Two sets of car-
toons were selected for appreciation assess-
ment. Set A, chosen to maximize the effects of
individual differences not due to comprehen-
sion or group differences, consisted of 14 ap-
pealing, easy cartoons that had shown no sex
or grade effects in the pilot results. Set B, cho-
sen to maximize the likelihood of obtaining
appreciation differences related to difficulty
and comprehension, was selected on the basis
of multiple criteria: high interjudge agree-
ment on difficulty level, the absence of sex
effects, significant grade effects in pilot re-
sults, and varied content. Four cartoons were
selected from each of four difficulty levels.
Finally, sex neutral (nonfunny) cartoons were
2014 10:00:43 AM

created by removing the intended humor.
Three neutral cartoons were randomly added
to both set A and set B.
The cartoons were presented individu-
ally in random order to each child to assess
funniness on a five-point scale, ranging from 1
(not funny at all) to 5 (very, very funny). Five
simple facial line drawings illustrated each
scale point, ranging from a neutral, unsmiling
face at level 1 to an open-mouth laughing face
at level 5. Simultaneously and unknown to
the child, the administrator rated the affect
("mirth") expressed by the child in response
to the cartoon on a four-point scale: 1 = no or
negative response; 2 = slight smile (silent,
lips closed or almost closed); 3 = full smile
(open mouth smile, usually silent or with one
expiration of breath at the outset or one
noise); and 4 = laughter (vocalized smile,
with "haha" breathing pattern and vocaliza-
tion). Previous reports of mirth scoring sug-
gested that a simple behaviorally defined
scale was the most reliable (e.g., Brodzinsky,
1975, 1977; Zigler et al., 1966). Pilot testing
indicated interrater agreement for this scale
of 77% for perfect agreement and 96% for
agreement within one mirth level. The -inter-
rater reliability correlation for mirth scores

summed over 30 cartoon items (15 subjects)
was .97. In a pilot study with 33 elementary
school children, test-retest reliability for alter-
nate forms of a 48-item group-administered
appreciation test given 2 weeks apart was .78.
Funniness ratings and mirth scores were
summed for sets A and B and the neutral car-
toons. Subsequently, the ratings and mirth
scores were adjusted for baseline respon-
siveness. When a single score was needed for
analysis, a regressed difference score (Cohen
& Cohen, 1975) was derived by the formula C
= ZA - rABZB, where ZA is the standardized
response to the regular cartoons, ZB is the
standardized response to the neutral cartoons,
and rAB is the correlation of the A and B
scores. Otherwise, the baseline appreciation
scores were used as covariates.
Humor comprehension.-After the ap-
preciation and production tasks were given,
each child was asked to explain the humor in
the set B cartoons, and the explanations were
noted verbatim. Subsequently, each response
by each subject was judged independently by
presenting them separately (on index cards) to
each judge in random order. Judgments were
based on comprehension criteria for each
cartoon developed by Masten (1982). Com-
prehension was rated by two judges on a
three-point scale: 3 = full comprehension;
2 = partial comprehension; 1 = no com-
prehension. Subsequent to independent rat-
ings, the two judges discussed disagreements

to reach a consensus. Scores were summed to
obtain a global comprehension score. Inter-
rater reliability was .96 for the global score.
Humor production.-Two tasks, Cap-
tions and Titles, were developed to assess the
creative aspects of humor. Captions consisted
of nine cartoons in which part of the humor,
usually a verbal punch line, was removed.
The child was instructed to add something to
make the cartoon funnier. Titles included
six unaltered, nonverbal cartoons previously
rated by judges as easy to understand. The
child was asked to make up a funny title for
the cartoon. In both tasks the cartoons were
selected to have a strong "pull" for humor,
although the Captions task did not require a
verbal "punch line" response; children could
and did suggest nonverbal changes in the car-
toon drawings. If unable to produce a re-
sponse, the child was encouraged to return to
an item later. For Captions only, if no attempt
at an item was made, a single prompt was
provided: for example, "What could the bird
be saying to Ziggy that would be funny
here?" (In the final scoring no penalty was
deducted for cued responses since this pro-
duced a negligible effect on scores.)
Subsequently, each response was inde-
pendently scored by two judges who first
scored each response for appropriateness (in-
appropriate or bizarre responses were scored
0) and then scored all appropriate responses
using a five-point scale with two anchor
points: 1 (not at all funny) and 5 (exception-

ally funny, witty). These independent judg-
ments were averaged to obtain quality scores.
Unknown to the judges, the original captions
for the Captions task cartoons were randomly
included in the deck of responses for each
item. For eight of the nine items, a number of
children scored as high or higher than the car-
toonist. Interrater reliabilities were .63 for
each task and .75 for a 15-item composite.
Intelligence.-General intellectual abil-
ity was estimated by two subtests of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-
Revised (WISC-R), Vocabulary and Block De-
sign. This two-test short form has shown the
highest correlations (r = .88) with the Full
Scale IQ score (Silverstein, 1975). The mean
score for the two scale scores summed (N =
90) was 20.2 (SD = 5.3).
Competence.-Academic achievement
was assessed by the Peabody Individual
Achievement Test (PIAT) (Dunn & Mark-
wardt, 1970). Behavioral competence in the
2014 10:00:43 AM
Ann S. Masten 465
classroom was measured by teacher ratings on
the Devereux Elementary School Behavior

Rating Scale (DESB) (Spivack & Swift,
1967), which has shown evidence of reli-
ability and validity for differentiating mal-
adjusted and poorly achieving children in the
classroom (Kendall, Pellegrini, & Urbain,
1981). Four scores were computed: Dis-
ruptive-Oppositional (based on 18 items),
Poor Comprehension-Disattention (14 items),
Cooperative-Initiating (eight items), and
Performance Anxiety (four items). These
scores had shown factorial validity, stability,
and high internal consistency in a Project
Competence study of 648 children (Finkel-
man & Ferrarese, 1981). Interpersonal com-
petence was assessed with a peer assessment
instrument, the Revised Class Play (Masten,
Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985). The class play
method has shown good evidence of concur-
rent and predictive validity regarding adjust-
ment (e.g., Bower, 1969; Cowen, Pederson,
Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Lambert,
Hartsough, & Zimmerman, 1976). The Re-
vised Class Play measures three reliable
dimensions of peer reputation: sociability-
leadership, aggressive-disruptive, sensitive-
isolated.
Procedure
Humor session.-Children were tested
individually at their schools. The humor bat-
tery was administered in one session of about
30-min duration by a female administrator
(the investigator, who was uninformed about
the status of the children on all SES, compe-
tence, and IQ variables). Every attempt was

made to maintain a warm and pleasant con-
text for all the tasks, without emphasizing
time or evaluation, with the goal of fostering
an atmosphere conducive to humor apprecia-
tion and particularly to creating humor on de-
mand.
Appreciation tasks were administered
first. After several examples, set A cartoons
(including three neutral cartoons) were pre-
sented one at a time followed by set B car-
toons (also including three neutral cartoons).
Each set was presented in random order ex-
cept that the first cartoon was not one of
the difficult or neutral cartoons. The children
were instructed that some cartoons would be
funnier than others and that some would not
be funny at all, and the rating scale was fully
explained. Following the appreciation tasks,
the two humor-production tasks (Captions
and then Titles) were administered. Each task
included a practice example. Comprehension
was administered last since this task, by na-
ture, seems more evaluative or academic and
might have stifled appreciation or creativity if
it had preceded the others. The children were
asked to explain what was funny (or supposed
to be funny) about each of the set B cartoons,
which were presented in the same order as in
the appreciation ratings.
Other measures.-Procedures for the
competence and other measures have been
described in detail elsewhere (Garmezy &
Tellegen, 1984). The PIAT was individually

administered, and standardized scores were
computed according to the manual. The Re-
vised Class Play was group administered to
each classroom, and scores were standardized
within classroom and sex (to adjust for un-
equal sex and classroom size distributions).
Teachers completed the DESB on each mem-
ber of their classes, and scores were standard-
ized within class (to adjust for variations in
teacher rating tendencies).
The humor tests were administered in
the fall. The PIAT had been administered
shortly before by another administrator. The
peer and teacher assessments reported here
were collected during the late spring of the
same calendar year (but the previous school
year) as the humor measures.
Results
Reliability
Internal consistencies (alpha) for the ap-
preciation and comprehension measures were
satisfactory, .91 for funniness ratings (30-item
composite), .93 for mirth, and .71 for com-
prehension. Alpha was more moderate for
humor-production scores: .55 for the Captions
task, .51 for Titles, and .68 for a 15-item com-
posite of the two. Recall that interrater reli-
ability was also lower for judgments of cre-
ative humor quality. Both producing humor
and judging its quality may be more difficult
and less consistent than other aspects of
humor behavior.

Since the neutral cartoons were altered
with the goal of removing the joke, the mean
responses to these cartoons should be lower
than the means for the "funny" cartoons. All
neutral versus "funny" cartoon mean com-
parisons for ratings and mirth indicated that
the means for neutral cartoons were signifi-
cantly lower (one-tailed t tests, all p < .001).
For example, the mean funniness rating and
mirth scores were 3.28 and 1.97, respectively,
for funny cartoons and 1.63 and 1.23, respec-
tively, for the neutral cartoons.
Intercorrelations among the Humor Scores
The correlations of the same appreciation
scores across cartoon sets A and B were quite
2014 10:00:43 AM
TABLE 1
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG HUMOR SCORES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Production ..........
2. Comprehension..... .53***

Funniness Ratings
3. Adjusted
..........
.09 .15
4. Unadjusted ......... -.13 - .03 .79***
5. Control ............. -.32*** -.24** .00 .61**
Mirth
6. Adjusted ............ .27** .35*** .47*** .29** -.13
7. Unadjusted ......... .27** .40*** .48*** .33*** - .07 .90***
8. Control ............. .06 .20* .13 .17* .12 .00 .45***
NOTE.-N = 93. For humor appreciation (ratings and mirth),
"adjusted" scores are corrected for response to
neutral (control) cartoons.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
high-.78 and .81 for funniness ratings and
mirth, respectively. Given the better reliabil-
ity of the composite scores, these scores were
combined. The two humor-production tasks
(Captions and Titles) were also combined to
form a single, more reliable scale. A number
of the items on each task had correlations with
items on the other task as high or higher than
intratask correlations.
Intercorrelations among the humor
scores are shown in Table 1. Humor produc-

tion was most strongly related to comprehen-
sion, and the two aspects of appreciation
showed a similar but lower relation. Fun-
niness ratings and mirth were more strongly
related to each other after each was adjusted
for responsiveness to control stimuli.
Relations of Humor to Sex,
Age, SES, and IQ
To test for the importance of sex, age,
SES, and IQ differences in humor-task perfor-
mance, a series of hierarchical regression
analyses (Cohen & Cohen, 1975) were con-
ducted, each treating humor as the dependent
variable. The four subject variables were
treated as independent measures and entered
in hierarchical fashion in the following order:
(1) sex, (2) age, (3) SES, and (4) IQ. Sex and
age were not affected by other variables; they
were therefore entered first. Socioeconomic
status preceded IQ in order better to separate
the unique variance explained by IQ after
shared SES factors were already accounted
for. Two interaction effects of interest, sex x
age and sex x IQ, were tested last since the
component variables must first be partialed to
determine if an interaction adds significant
unique variance to the multiple R2. The hier-
archical analysis consisted of a series of simul-
taneous regression equations, beginning with
one independent variable, sex. The next re-
gression equation included sex and age, the
next sex, age, and SES, and so on.

Results presented in Table 2 indicated
that boys expressed more mirth than girls (X
= 2.15 for boys and 1.83 for girls). When the
frequencies of each type of mirth response
were analyzed by sex (one-way ANOVAs for
sex differences), results indicated that girls
produced more neutral or negative (score of 1)
responses, F(1,91) = 5.60, p < .05, that boys
expressed more laughter, F(1,91) = 5.53, p <
.05, and that there were no sex differences in
the other two scores (smiling).
Mirth was also positively associated with
higher SES level and IQ. In order to explore
the role of IQ and comprehension in these
relations, several additional analyses were
conducted. When results were considered for
only set A (easy) cartoons (when comprehen-
sion as a factor should be reduced), SES and
IQ still showed very similar relations to mirth.
When IQ was treated as the dependent vari-
able in a separate regression analysis, with
humor comprehension and corrected mirth
scores as "predictors," comprehension alone
increased R2 by .30 (p < .001) and mirth con-
tributed an additional 6% to R2 (p < .05) be-
yond that accounted for by comprehension.
Similarly, when mirth (corrected) was treated
as the dependent variable, IQ alone as a pre-
dictor accounted for 15% of the variance in
2014 10:00:43 AM

Ann S. Masten 467
TABLE 2
HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES OF
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR RESPONSE:
R2 CHANGE DUE TO SEX, AGE, IQ, AND INTERACTION
EFFECTS
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Funniness
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Ratings Mirth Comprehension
Production
Control .............. ........... .41*** .20***
Sex ............................00.
.0.8**-
.00 .01
Age ............................ .03*- .00 .11"**+ .05* +
SES ............................ .00 .08**+ .02 .00
IQ
.............................
.00 .07**+ .27*** + .25***+
Sex x age ....................... .00 .00 .02 .00
Sex x IQ .................... .00 .00 .01 .00
Overall R2 ...................... .45*** .42*** .43*** .31***
NOTE.-Each column represents a separate regression analysis

for the humor score heading the column. Each
regression was carried out hierarchically with each of the six
(or seven) steps added in sequence. The resulting
increment in R2 due to the addition of each step is indicated in
the table along with the significance of the increment (F
test) and the direction of the effect. Sex was coded 0 = boy, 1 =
girl; thus a negative effect indicates that boys scored
higher. N = 87.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
mirth (p < .001). When SES was added as a
predictor, SES provided a significant increase
in R2 of .06 (p < .05) over and above the IQ
effect, despite its substantial overlap with IQ
variance. Thus the relation of mirth with SES
was not due only to IQ variance, nor was that
of mirth with IQ entirely due to varying com-
prehension levels.
Funniness ratings declined slightly but
significantly with age. Both humor compre-
hension and production were greater with in-
creasing age and intellectual ability.
Relation of Humor to Competence
Before the humor measures were ana-
lyzed in relation to the competence measures,
each humor score was standardized within
grade level so the scores were more compara-
ble to the competence scores, all of which
were standardized by classroom or age (see
Procedure above).

The correlations between the humor
measures and the competence measures are
presented in Table 3. Socioeconomic status
and IQ scores are also included. Given the
sex difference in the mirth scores, these cor-
relations are presented separately by sex. It
should also be noted that the sample size is
smaller for the peer and teacher ratings. Com-
parable data were not available for children
who had moved to different schools, includ-
ing the oldest grade cohort, who had moved
on to seventh grade at the time of these as-
sessments.
Generally, humor showed a positive rela-
tion to competence, although it showed little
relation to disruptiveness as judged by peers
or teachers. Humor production and com-
prehension had somewhat stronger relations
to the IQ and achievement measures than did
humor appreciation.
In order to discover whether mirth was
related to competence beyond the possible
role of comprehension, eight regression anal-
yses were conducted with each competence
indicator as the criterion and two humor pre-
dictors. Comprehension was entered first as a
control variable, followed by mirth. This hier-
archical analysis revealed that, after com-
prehension was taken into account, mirth ac-
counted for very little unique variance, except
in the case of cooperative-initiating behavior,
which was significantly related to mirth after
comprehension was partialed out.

Overall, the results in Table 3 raised the
question of how general intellectual ability as
traditionally represented by the IQ score
might be affecting the correlations between
humor and competence. It was important to
consider to what extent the various aspects of
humor were uniquely associated with compe-
tence, above and beyond any relation shared
with the individual differences in sex, SES,
and, especially, IQ. Another question con-
cerned the relative strength of association be-
tween different aspects of humor and com-
petence, particularly when other individual
differences were controlled.
2014 10:00:43 AM
z
0
V~C) 0 00 m (7)Okfl
114 1 C~~ o Iq I4 I Co C4) q
p 4
z
0
z t0 - t- 10 0 (7 CM C)

z
e' arLnco ) c~ca' (C r3 c3 a
GO
z O
0 * *0
r zI I : I
000-*
m CA
4) o
- 0 04CC1
z0 AC
0 a~OO~4-0 -,-o .0 > I1
w4-1
0
Q
.d
In
0 -0
0 0C. ,-( 0

rA -e r A -d- 0 CL
C-)
=C 0Z
.Z.
I 3
L rj;
LrH
2014 10:00:43 AM
Ann S. Masten 469
To address these questions, a series of
regression analyses were carried out in which
each competence measure served as a depen-
dent variable. As a first test of the association
between the eight "dependent" and seven
"independent" measures, the first canonical
correlation was calculated. The resulting cor-
relation of .88 (p < .001) suggested that non-
random relations existed between the two
sets of variables. Next, hierarchical regression
was conducted for each aspect of competence
with the following steps (independent vari-
ables): (1) sex; (2) SES; (3) IQ; and (4-7) four
humor scores, ordered by contribution to the
multiple correlation. The four humor vari-

ables were entered in order of contribution
because there was no compelling rationale for
preselecting the order. Thus the "strongest"
humor variable was allowed to take prece-
dence. Results of these analyses are pre-
sented in Table 4. Then, in order to compare
the predictive strength of humor versus IQ, a
second set of regressions was conducted mov-
ing IQ to step 7 so that all humor variables
were entered before IQ. Salient results from
this set of analyses will be described below.
As expected, general intellectual ability,
as measured by the IQ score, appeared to play
a substantial role in the assessed areas of com-
petence, whether teachers, peers, or objective
tests were the source of measurement. In sev-
eral instances, however, humor showed a
unique relation to competence above its
shared variance with IQ.
Humor production and appreciation rat-
ings were significantly related to sensitive-
isolated peer reputation even after IQ was ac-
counted for. When, in the second set of
analyses, humor preceded IQ in the analysis,
humor production alone accounted for as
much variance as IQ did at step 3, an incre-
ment in R2 of .24 (p < .001). Thus IQ and
humor production related quite strongly to
this aspect of peer reputation, together ac-
counting for about 32% of the variance in this
score, about half of which is shared variance
plus a significant unique contribution of each
type of measure with respect to the other. Set-
ting aside IQ, humor production and appreci-

ation (ratings) accounted together for 33% of
the variance in the isolated peer reputation
score. For positive reputation, these two as-
pects of humor can account for 16% of the
variance if they precede IQ, leaving IQ (as
step 7) accounting for 5% unique variance.
Humor comprehension made a small
contribution to the prediction of achievement
even after the overwhelming effect of IQ was
accounted for. When comprehension was en-
tered before IQ (in step 3), it increased R2 by
.30 (p < .001), and IQ subsequently added
.20. Thus the IQ score showed a stronger rela-
tion to achievement.
Affective expressiveness in response to
humor, indexed by the mirth score, had a
significant, positive relation to performance
anxiety. Interestingly, this occurred only
when IQ was controlled. Thus while simple
correlations showed a positive relation be-
tween IQ and mirth, a negative relation be-
tween IQ and performance anxiety, and very
little relation between mirth and performance
anxiety, one would expect that, for children
with the same level of intellectual ability,
mirth would be positively related to perfor-
mance anxiety.
As can be seen in Table 4, humor scores
did not make a unique contribution to the
prediction of the teacher ratings of coopera-
tive-initiating behavior and poor comprehen-
sion-disattention when IQ was entered first in

step 3. When humor preceded IQ, however,
humor production, the strongest predictor of
the humor scores, increased R2 by .15 (p <
.01) for cooperative-initiating behavior (a
positive relation) and by .14 (p < .01) for poor
comprehension-disattention (a negative rela-
tion). However, most of these effects were
shared with IQ. When the humor variables
preceded IQ in the second set of regressions,
humor production was the strongest predictor
of the humor variables in five of the eight
analyses.
Discussion
Results from this study support the hy-
pothesis, derived from the developmental lit-
erature as well as from theories of humor, that
humor and competence are positively related.
Better humor production, comprehension,
and greater mirth were associated with aca-
demic and social competence. Children who
expressed these humor abilities were viewed
by their teachers as more effectively engaged
in the classroom and more attentive, coopera-
tive, responsive, and productive. Their peers
viewed them as more popular, gregarious,
and happy and as leaders with good ideas for
things to do. Neither humor nor IQ was re-
lated to disruptive-aggressive behavior as
judged by teachers or peers.
As expected, intellectual ability was
moderately related to humor, except in the
case of humor-appreciation ratings. Mirth,
comprehension, and production were signifi-

cantly related to IQ even when the effects of
sex, age, and SES were controlled. The rela-
2014 10:00:43 AM
--4 ?CCl 0 0 0
I +
in, 4- 0C
C,,cr I3;
vv v i~
0 o~.9i 1*
a, c" c'1 oo o cr 2
Cn 00
U 09
n
Hjc +
Z 0j7 A 4-j
(Ux
Cis 0
CIO t - M,0 c

00OD0 --
H
oac~ol1 l Q
COC.
P. . It 14
bO CID 0 O Oq 4-0
z
P-0 0
C H
0-4 cl,
zn P
* *
zc- Cq 10 CIO 00 ---4 ?
rc
cn- 009 999 9 C'J3
0 0 Cq coo 0
*
z (L)"O
0X
0 C.)C4-0

CO
O tn a II (L) t:4 4-JO -
e~ 8~
E b(L) -4 W54 E
M., m -Jl~ ,,, , 4-J C3 a 000 ~o 00 L1 z >14-JQ
z
Pd r. C4
r. cis bj c I I q z V. Q rl) rn r i"
2014 10:00:43 AM
Ann S. Masten 471
tively strong relation of these aspects of
humor to IQ raised the question of whether
humor was related to competence in this
study primarily because both are cognitively
mediated rather than because humor and
competence influence each other. This ques-
tion was addressed by regression analyses in
which IQ variance could be statistically con-
trolled.

Results suggest that humor is related to
achievement and the teacher's view of effec-
tive classroom participation primarily because
all these abilities are related to general intel-
lectual abilities. However, humor was not ex-
pected to have a functional relationship with
academic competence. Rather, it was as-
sumed that common cognitive characteristics
might underlie the development of humor as
well as successful adaptation in the class-
room. Humor comprehension may have had a
small but unique relation to achievement (be-
yond IQ) because the task resembled a verbal
achievement test.
Although humor is not likely to influence
academic competence directly, in the case of
peer relations humor may well influence or
be affected by peer reputation. In the case of
positive peer reputation, results do not sup-
port a functional relation between humor and
peer reputation but suggest again that under-
lying general cognitive abilities account for
the relation. In an academic setting, positive
peer regard and leadership may be more re-
lated to cognitive abilities than would be the
case in other peer groups outside the context
of school.
Results for the sensitive-isolated dimen-
sion of peer reputation, on the other hand, are
consistent with the possibility of a functional
relation between a lack of humor behaviors
and social isolation. Reputation as withdrawn,
quiet, shy, or unhappy appears to be substan-
tially related to humor production and appre-

ciation judgments even when IQ is con-
trolled, suggesting that these relations are not
due entirely to cognitive mediation. Humor
production and appreciation may reflect an
"engaged" quality, involving the child's so-
cial awareness and responsiveness.
One cannot determine from these results
whether humor may be subdued in such chil-
dren because of their social isolation, whether
their lack of humor contributes to their social
reputations, or both. Peer rejection could af-
fect a child's mood and outlook in a way that
would dampen humor appreciation and cre-
ation. One way to address this issue would be
the research strategy employed recently by
Coie, Dodge, and their colleagues (Coie &
Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983) to study the
development of peer status over time in
newly formed groups. For example, one could
ascertain whether humor measured before
group formation is predictive of peer status or
reputation that emerges over time and also
observe humor behavior during group in-
teraction. Greater understanding of the rela-
tion between humor and peer reputation
might also be obtained from studies of the
social facilitation of humor appreciation (e.g.,
Chapman et al., 1980). One would expect
children of varying peer reputations to re-
spond differently to experimental manipula-
tions of the social context for humor.
Finally, it would be interesting to exam-
ine the relations between social cognition and

humor. Pellegrini (1985) has shown that social
problem-solving abilities and interpersonal
awareness are related to peer reputation in
middle childhood. His results, together with
those of this study, suggest that humor may be
related to peer reputation in part because of
underlying social-cognitive abilities. The ap-
preciation and creation of most humor re-
quires social "know-how," in terms either of
getting or creating the joke or of sharing the
humor with others appropriately. Hence the
level of social awareness, knowledge, and
sensitivity would be expected to mediate
humor behaviors as well as other social activi-
ties that contribute to peer reputation.
Mirth, interestingly, did not relate to so-
cial competence once IQ was controlled. The
affective expression of appreciation appears to
have more in common with general intellec-
tual ability than does funniness as perceived
and rated by the child. Mirth was associated
with IQ even for easy cartoons or when com-
prehension as a factor was partialed out. More
intelligent children may be more sensitive to
subtle elements of cartoon humor not cap-
tured by simple ratings of difficulty or com-
prehension level. The humor of the cartoons
could be enhanced for them by their greater
social understanding, for example, or by an
appreciation for irony or other subtle sources
of humor. Another possibility is that brighter
children tend to be more motivated and re-
sponsive, particularly in "performance" situa-
tions. They may have had more mastery expe-
riences or more mastery motivation and

consequently have come to express more
pleasure in cognitive tasks.
Two other findings are consistent with
the possibility that there is a motivational fac-
tor being tapped by mirth. First, with IQ con-
trolled, mirth was substantially associated
2014 10:00:43 AM
with greater performance anxiety. Second,
even after comprehension was partialed out,
mirth continued to show a positive relation
with cooperative-initiating behaviors in the
classroom (such as offering to do things for the
teacher and spontaneously contributing to
classroom discussions).
Future studies might direct more atten-
tion to the exact nature of the relation be-
tween mastery motivation and humor. For ex-
ample, one might compare patterns of affec-
tive response accompanying different tasks
such as humor appreciation, humor produc-
tion, and nonhumorous cognitive tasks (e.g.,
anagrams, as used by Harter, 1974). Careful
observations might lead to the differentiation
of cognitive mastery from other sources of
smiling and laughter. Mastery responding

could then be more clearly examined with re-
spect to competence.
In conclusion, the results suggest that
humor may be related to competence in three
ways: (1) through the manifestation of intel-
lectual ability both in competent functioning
at school and in humor comprehension, ap-
preciation, and production; (2) through the
role of mastery motivation in enhancing
humor responsiveness and skills as well as
competence at school; and (3) through peer
relations, either by humor behaviors influenc-
ing peer reputation or being influenced by
peer relations or, most likely, by both.
In an academic context, many of the rela-
tions between humor and competence appear
to be mediated by cognitive abilities rather
than the result of reciprocal influences among
humor behaviors and different aspects of
competence. Nevertheless, the exceptions
suggest important areas for further research,
particularly in regard to peer relations and
mastery motivation. Moreover, results for dif-
ferent humor behaviors (such as clowning or
spontaneous joking) and for competencies ex-
hibited and measured outside the school con-
text may provide greater evidence of relations
resulting from the hypothesized functions of
humor or from social-emotional development.
There appear to be multiple pathways by
which humor and competence become linked
in the course of development: humor and
competence may influence each other over

time; they may both satisfy the competence
motive; and both appear to be mediated by
social, emotional, and cognitive development.
These processes need to be examined more
thoroughly across age. It will be important to
consider the relations of humor to compe-
tence as manifested in diverse social activi-
ties, family relationships, or friendships and
in terms of emotional adjustment or psycho-
logical well-being. Such research may pro-
vide insight into the development of social
competence and mastery as well as humor it-
self. It would also provide an important foun-
dation for the empirical investigation of the
notion that humor is an adaptive coping strat-
egy-a modifier of stress for both children
and adults.
References
Bower, E. M. (1969). Early identification of emo-
tionally handicapped children in school (2d
ed.). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (1975). The role of conceptual
tempo and stimulus characteristics in chil-
dren's humor development. Developmental
Psychology, 11, 843-850.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (1977). Children's comprehen-
sion and appreciation of verbal jokes in relation
to conceptual tempo. Child Development, 48,
960-967.
Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rightmyer, J. (1980). Individ-

ual differences in children's humour develop-
ment. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman
(Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 181-212).
Chichester: Wiley.
Chapman, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Foot, H. C. (1980).
Humour, laughter, and social interaction. In
P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.),
Children's humour (pp. 141-179). Chichester:
Wiley.
Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behav-
ioral analysis of emerging social status in boys'
groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo,
L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term follow-
up of early detected vulnerable children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 41, 438-446.
Damico, S. B., & Purkey, W. W. (1978). Class
clowns: A study of middle school students.
American Educational Research Journal, 15,
391-398.
Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of
peer social status. Child Development, 54,
1386-1399.
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Peabody
Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines,

MN: American Guidance Service.
Finkelman, D., & Ferrarese, M. (1981). The mea-
surement of classroom behavioral competence:
The Devereux teacher ratings (Tech. Rep. No.
3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Proj-
ect Competence.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984).
2014 10:00:43 AM
Ann S. Masten 473
The study of stress and competence in chil-
dren: A building block for developmental
psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-
111.
Garmezy, N., & Tellegen, A. (1984). Studies of
stress-resistant children: Methods, variables
and preliminary findings. In F. Morrison, D.
Keating, & C. Lord (Eds.), Applied develop-
mental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 231-287). New
York: Academic Press.
Gesell, A., Ilg, F. L., & Ames, L. B. (1946). The
child from five to ten. New York: Harpers.
Goldstein, J. H., & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). (1972).
The psychology of humor: Theoretical per-

spectives and empirical issues. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Harter, S. (1974). Pleasure derived by children from
cognitive challenge and mastery. Child Devel-
opment, 45, 661-669.
Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (1977). The
process of stratification: Trends and analysis.
New York: Academic Press.
Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). Early conceptions of
humor: Varieties and issues. In J. H. Goldstein
& P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical
issues (pp. 3-39). New York: Academic Press.
Kendall, P. C., Pellegrini, D. S., & Urbain, E. S.
(1981). Approaches to assessment for cogni-
tive-behavioral interventions with children. In
P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon, Assessment
strategies for cognitive-behavioral interven-
tions (pp. 227-285). New York: Academic
Press.
Lambert, N. M., Hartsough, C. S., & Zimmerman,
I. L. (1976). The comparative predictive effi-
ciency of intellectual and nonintellectual com-
ponents of high school functioning. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 109-122.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of
humor as a moderator of the relation between
stressors and moods. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 1313-1324.

Masten, A. S. (1982). Humor and creative thinking
in stress-resistant children. Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 43, 3737B. (University
Microfilms No. 83-08,093)
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S.
(1985). A revised class play method of peer as-
sessment. Developmental Psychology, 21, 523-
533.
McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence
rather than for "intelligence." American Psy-
chologist, 28, 1-14.
McGhee, P. E. (1974). Cognitive mastery and chil-
dren's humor. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 721-
730.
McGhee, P. E. (1976). Children's appreciation of
humor: A test of the cognitive congruency
principle. Child Development, 47, 420-426.
McGhee, P. E., & Chapman, A. J. (Eds.). (1980).
Children's humour. Chichester: Wiley.
Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnera-
bility, coping, and growth: From infancy to
adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). Social cognition and com-
petence in middle childhood. Child Develop-
ment, 56, 253-264.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1980). Incongruity

humor, play, and self-regulation of arousal in
young children. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chap-
man (Eds.), Children's humour (pp. 1-26).
Chichester: Wiley.
Ransohoff, R. (1975). Some observations on humor
and laughter in young adolescent girls. Journa,
of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 155-170.
Silverstein, A. B. (1975). Validity of WISC-R short
forms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 696-
697.
Spivack, G., & Swift, M. (1967). Devereux Elemen-
tary School Behavior Rating Scale manual.
Devon: Devereux.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1976). The ontogenesis
of smiling and laughter: A perspective on the
organization of development in infancy. Psy-
chological Review, 83, 173-189.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The
concept of competence. Psychological Review,
66, 297-333.
Wilson, T. (1977) The Ziggy treasury. Kansas City:
Andrews & McMeel.
Wolfenstein, M. (1954). Children's humor: A psy-
chological analysis. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Yarrow, L. J., McQuiston, S., MacTurk, R. H.,
McCarthy, M. E., Klein, R. P., & Vietze, P. M.
(1983). Assessment of mastery motivation dur-
ing the first year of life: Contemporaneous and

cross-age relationships. Development Psychol-
ogy, 19, 159-171.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive
processes in the development of children's ap-
preciation of humor. Child Development, 37,
508-518.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive
challenge as a factor in children's humor appre-
ciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 6, 332-336.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor.
New York: Springer.
2014 10:00:43 AM
Contentsp. [461]p. 462p. 463p. 464p. 465p. 466p. 467p. [468]p.
469p. [470]p. 471p. 472p. 473Issue Table of ContentsChild
Development, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 251-528Front
MatterReviewsContinuity in Mental Development from Infancy
[pp. 251 - 274]Convergent Developments: Cognitive-
Developmental Correlates of Growth in Infant/Toddler Peer
Skills [pp. 275 - 286]Infants' Attentional Responses to
Frequency Modulated Sweeps [pp. 287 - 291]Kinetic Contours
in Infants' Visual Perception [pp. 292 - 299]Infants' Hand
Preference in a Task Involving Complementary Roles for the
Two Hands [pp. 300 - 307]Prematurity Stereotyping: Effects on
Mother-Infant Interaction [pp. 308 - 315]Emotion Socialization
and Expressive Development in Preterm and Full-Term Infants
[pp. 316 - 330]The Ability to Negotiate the Environment: An
Aspect of Infant Competence as Related to Quality of

Attachment [pp. 331 - 337]The Influence of Attachment Pattern
on Developmental Changes in Peer Interaction from the Toddler
to the Preschool Period [pp. 338 - 347]Consistency and Change
in Mothers' Behavior toward Young Siblings [pp. 348 -
356]Comparative Study of Behavioral Qualities of Only
Children and Sibling Children [pp. 357 - 361]Work and
Community Influences on the Quality of Child Rearing [pp.
362 - 374]Ethnic, Gender, and Age Preferences among Deaf and
Hearing Preschool Peers [pp. 375 - 386]Preschool Children's
Food Sharing with Friends and Acquaintances [pp. 387 -
395]Inferring Properties from Categories versus Inferring
Categories from Properties: The Case of Gender [pp. 396 -
404]Children's Conceptions of Adult and Peer Authority [pp.
405 - 412]Children's Reasoning about Social, Physical, and
Logical Regularities: A Look at Two Worlds [pp. 413 - 420]A
Developmental Trend in the Understanding of Concept Attribute
Importance [pp. 421 - 430]Interpretations of Peer Behavior:
Affective Bias in Childhood and Adolescence [pp. 431 -
445]Promoting Children's Cognitive and Social Competence:
The Relation between Parents' Perceptions of Task Difficulty
and Children's Perceived and Actual Competence [pp. 446 -
460]Humor and Competence in School-Aged Children [pp. 461
- 473]Stepparent-Stepchild Relationships and the Psychological
Adjustment of Children in Stepmother and Stepfather Families
[pp. 474 - 484]Children's Sensitivity to Comprehension Failure
in Interpreting a Nonliteral Use of an Utterance [pp. 485 -
497]Factors in the Growth of Linguistic Awareness [pp. 498 -
510]CommentariesEditor's Note [p. 511]Sex Differences in
Moral Reasoning: Response to Walker's (1984) Conclusion That
There Are None [pp. 511 - 521]Sex Differences in the
Development of Moral Reasoning: A Rejoinder to Baumrind
[pp. 522 - 526]Back Matter [pp. 527 - 528]
Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial

Organizational Communication
Author(s): Dean L. Yarwood
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan. -
Feb., 1995), pp. 81-90
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for
Public Administration
Accessed: 18/11/2014 10:01
.
range of
forms
.
Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.
2014 10:01:07 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blac
k

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa
Humor andAdministraon: A Senous
Jnquiiy into Unofficial Organizafonal
Communication
Dean L. Yarwood, University of Missouri-Columbia
What is the importance of humor in public administration?
Dean Yarwood examines the sources, types, and consequences
of
humor in administration. He suggests that much administrative
humor comes from incongruity-from contrasting the naturalness
and ease of traditional institutions with the forced, formal char-
acter of bureaucracy. Social scientists from a variety of
disciplines
have carried out empirical studies of humor in organizations.
They conclude that humor has important consequences for
hierar-
chy andfor the social dynamics of organizations. Another source
for understanding humor in organizations is creative literature.
Here, forms of humor abound that are not emphasized in the
social science literature. The author concludes that the study of
organizational humor ought to be of interest to both public man-
agers and scholars because it is part of the serious business of
organizations.
This article has as its focus a discussion of administrative
humor. Although the topic suggests rib ticklers and knee
slappers, in fact humor can be serious communication.
Managers are taught about several aspects of their work
such as personnel administration, budgeting, strategic

planning, TQM, and so on. They may even have
insights regarding informal groups that inhabit formal
organizations. A type of activity that takes place at the
informal level of most any organization, however, is likely
to elude the typical manager but is nonetheless important
to the functioning of the organization. I am referring to
the humor of employees and managers of the organiza-
tion. This type of communication can be supportive of
the organization and its purposes or it can be detrimental.
It can run the gamut from the cute, to the ridiculous, to
communication which is downright offensive. It is not
uncommon for humor to run afoul of emerging norms of
multiculturalism. Sometimes humor is widely shared and
at other times it is closely guarded. Indeed, the path
taken by a humorous story or insight may even define the
parameters of social interaction within an organization.
If it is clear that humor is something that ought to be
of interest to a typical public manager of a stress-filled
modern agency, it may still not be clear what should be
made of it. The meaning humor carries is often not readi-
ly apparent. Harvy Mindess quotes the comedian, Stan-
ley Myron Handelman, "Life is like an onion. The outer
layers are a joke, and when you peel them away, there's
another joke underneath. And underneath that yet
another joke, and underneath that yet another. When
you get to the core of the onion, however, it's no joke"
(Mindess, 1987; p. 92). So it is with humor. Here we
will discuss some different types of administrative humor,
the functions of such humor, and some of the patterns it
can take in an organization.
Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol.
55, No. 1 81

2014 10:01:07 AM
Incongruity Humor
A prominent type of administrative humor falls into the cat-
egory of incongruity humor, which is characterized by irony
and contradiction.1 Common concerns viewed from novel
perspectives can bring humorous results; seemingly different
ideas and words are seen to have some absurd and provocative
commonalities when they are juxtaposed. Often humor comes
from placing meanings from different systems or paradigms
into proximity. For the French philosopher Henri Bergson,
influenced by his antipathy toward the mechanization of
thought and behavior in the industrial period, humor resulted
from the contrast between the natural and the mechanical
worlds or as he put it, when something mechanical is "encrust-
ed on the living." "The attitudes, gestures, and movements of
the human body are laughable in exact proportion as they
remind us of a mere machine" (Bergson, 1956; pp. 84, 79).
Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation, referred to incongruity
humor as "bisociation" (Koestler, 1964; pp. 35-36). Humor is
the result of merging or the "bisociation" of different matrices
of thought. Koestler employs the term "matrix" to mean "any
ability, habit, or skill, any pattern of ordered behaviour gov-
erned by a 'code' of fixed rules" (p. 38). Similarly, William Fry
finds much humor in paradoxes which he defines as "a break-
down in our logical system." He sees an increase in paradoxes
during periods of great social change, when contrasts between
the old and new stand in sharp relief (Fry, 1987; pp. 42-50).
In public administration, much humor has been found in
the paradigm differences between traditional society and the

values of the administrative state. In the former, democracy,
equality, trust (a person's word is a bond, a hand shake seals a
deal), individual dignity, generalized competence, and common
sense are dominant values. In the latter, stress is placed on the
formalization of relationships, hierarchy, authority, specializa-
tion, rules, routines, efficiency, and accountability. Humor
results when the rules and assumptions of one system are
brought to bear on the other.
Parkinson's Law, for example, holds that work expands so as
to fill the time available for its completion (Parkinson, 1957, p.
1). Its implications for bureaucratic growth can readily be
explained in terms of the logic of bureaucracy; that is, the ten-
dency toward formalization, accountability, uncertainty about
the designs of other agencies, increasing clientele expectations
of services, and so forth. However, from a common-sense point
of view, the idea that it could take more people to do less work
seems ludicrous, wasteful, maybe even sinful.
The Peter Principle says that in a hierarchy, every employee
tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence (Peter and Hull,
1969; p. 7). From a bureaucratic perspective, the manager eval-
uates the work of employees, promotes those who are deserving
in terms of contributions to the organization, and at the same
time, helps employees achieve personal goals even as they con-
tribute to organizational purposes. The goal is a management
team working at peak capacity, achieving synergy, maybe even
"playing over their heads" (Bennis, 1967; pp. 15- 16) .
However,
in the logic of common sense, the specter of organizations
staffed by managers, many of whom have exceeded their level
of
competence, is humorous, but also frightening.2
Miles' Law (Miles, 1978; p. 399), which states "where you

stand depends on where you sit," derives its humor from the
incongruity of juxtaposing predictions about the physical move-
ment of one's body and predictions about the influence of
movement through the bureaucracy on one's perspective. Just
as one can only stand from where one sits, one must stand and
fight for the interests of each agency in which one is employed
as one moves through a career in the bureaucracy.
The expression "Catch-22," often used by persons in organi-
zations, can be traced to the novel of the same name (Heller,
1955, 1961). It is a raucous novel that unmercifully ridicules
bureaucratic rules and routines. The hero, or antihero, of the
novel, Captain Yossarian, in talking to Doc Daneeka about
another friend, Orr, is confronted with the paradox that if one
rule is followed, another is invalidated and vice versa. Thus, a
pilot has to be crazy to continue flying combat missions in the
face of death and being crazy is sufficient reason to ground a
pilot. However, as Doc Daneeka, pointed out:
Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do
was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be
crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would
be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but
if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he
was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he
was sane and had to (p. 46).
An impossible situation that is the source of much mirth.
Empirical Studies of
Humor and the Organization
To say that studies of humor in organizations have not occu-
pied much of the time of students of public administration
would risk overstating the case. The prominent empirical stud-
ies of humor have been done in business organizations or in

hospitals, and they have been carried out by anthropologists,
sociologists, students of management, communications schol-
ars, and psychologists.
The Participants in Humor in Organizations
A large number of studies have followed a thesis articulated
by the eminent anthropologist, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Based
on his research on African tribal societies, he theorized that
"what is meant by the term a 'joking relationship' is a relation
between two persons in which one is by custom permitted, and
in some instances required, to tease or make fun of the other,
who in turn, is required to take no offence" (Radcliffe-Brown,
1952; p. 90). He spoke of two types of joking relationships, a
symmetrical one in which each of two persons is able to tease
and poke fun at the other and an asymmetrical relationship in
which one of two persons is able to tease and make fun of the
other while the other cannot retaliate (p. 90).
Scholars of organizations found in this latter case an analogy
to hierarchy in formal organizations and theorized that joking
82 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol.
55, No. 1
2014 10:01:07 AM
Though humor can potentially involve any topic,
the available research shows that a considerable
amount of humor between employees in organizations

is ofa sexual nature.
in organizations would follow the hierarchy down from the top,
but that those lower down would not retaliate. Thus in an early
study of employees of a large clothing department store, Brad-
ney, employing observational techniques, found joking patterns
among employees similar to those Radcliffe-Brown found in
tribal societies. "In general, the symmetrical joking relationship
occurs most frequently, and such asymmetrical joking as does
take place is usually aimed by superiors at subordinates" (Brad-
ney, 1957; p. 185, emphasis in original). In observing staff
meetings in a psychiatric hospital, Coser similarly found that
"those who are 'on top' have more right to be aggressors; those
who are low in the hierarchy are not as freely permitted this
[aggressive humor] outlet..." (Coser, 1960; p. 85). C.C. Lund-
berg, examining joking relationships in an electric motor repair
shop, found the same asymmetrical joking patterns (Lundberg,
1969; p. 28) as did Traylor in a study he published a decade and
a half later in which he reported on joking relations between
members of a petroleum exploration party working on the
North Slope of Alaska (Traylor, 1985; p. 483).
However, W Jack Duncan studying joking relationships in
six task-oriented groups, three in business organizations and
three in health care facilities, found only limited support for the
Radcliffe-Brown thesis. In neither group were persons in for-
mal management positions perceived to initiate jokes more
often than rank-and-file employees, but in health groups, for-
mal leaders were frequently the foci of jokes whereas in
business
groups they never were (Duncan, 1985; p. 561). He attributes
these differences to the fact that in health groups, the formal
managers were seldom chosen as the preferred leaders (physi-
cians were the highest status profession) whereas in business
groups the formal managers were almost always chosen as the
preferred leaders (pp. 561-563). However, if managers took

part in teasing and banter across status lines, they sent a mes-
sage to employees that they were open to teasing remarks and
they could expect in turn to be teased by employees (Vinton,
1989, pp. 160-163; Bradney, 1957, pp. 184-185). In these
cases, joking is a leveller of class distinctions. To be clear,
though, the larger implication of the research regarding the
Radcliffe-Brown thesis is that joking patterns maintain distance
between leaders and rank-and-file members of the organization.
Symmetrical joking, that is, between persons of the same sta-
tus, occurs more frequently than asymmetrical joking.
Although humor can potentially involve any topic, the available
research shows that a considerable amount of humor between
employees in organizations is of a sexual nature. For example,
in his study of working class joking in a British lorry factory,
Collinson found that the male-dominant work force was con-
cerned with asserting its masculinity. "The rules of the joking
culture reflected the content of much shop-floor discourse,
which centered on a preoccupation with male sexuality and the
differentiation of working class men from women" (Collinson,
1988; p. 190). The younger men bragged about their sexual
conquests while the older men were concerned with demon-
strating dominance in their families. It was, for example, con-
sidered wimpish for a man to tell his wife the amount of his
wage packet and a majority of men interviewed claimed they
withheld this information. "Fred, a general laborer, was
ridiculed unmercifully by Jack, an axle shop steward for 'tip-
ping' his wage packet.... 'She has Fred chasing his tail at home.
See what an effect it has on him, he's in a daze, he's had a shel-
tered life. He'd prefer to read a book than have sex"' (p. 192).
In his classic study, "Banana Time," Roy found similar sexually
related joking patterns. Thus, one shop worker, Sammy, "...was
ribbed for being closely watched, bossed, and henpecked by his
wife, and the expression, 'Are you a man or a mouse' became an
echolalic utterance...." (Roy, 1959-1960; p. 163). Similarly, he

found a "poom poom" theme, that is, banter about frequency of
sexual activities, with the old men professing to be too old com-
bined with the expectation that Roy, the young graduate stu-
dent observer, was more active (Roy, 1959-60, pp. 163, 164;
also Vinton, 1989, p. 161; and Boland and Hoffman, 1983, p.
191). In his study of the joking behavior between the sexes in a
Glasgow printing works, Sykes found clearly defined expecta-
tions. It was alright for there to be joking between old men and
young women and old women and young men, and this banter
could be obscene, but it was understood that they were not sex-
ually available to each other. On the other hand, there was
much joking between young men and young women, but it was
expected that this would not be openly obscene because they
were available to each other sexually (Sykes, 1966; pp.190-
192).
Of course, one of the most repeated aphorisms in the humor
literature is that humor is culture and time specific. In this
country, laws and attitudes affecting genders in the work place
have undergone major changes. Behaviors which were accepted
as appropriate or at least tolerated a decade ago, may be consid-
ered sexual harassment today and can cost offenders their jobs.
Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap discuss legal aspects of joking
behavior and harassment on the job (1990; pp. 269-277).
However, the fact that "in a survey of 13,000 federal employees,
it was found that the most prevalent form of sexual harassment
was 'unwanted sexual teasing"' (Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap,
1990, p. 270; citation is to a 1988 Bureau of National Affairs
poll), suggests that sexual joking on the job is hardly a thing of
the past.
Humor is also directed at clients of organizations. In her
study of staff meetings of a psychiatric hospital, Coser found
that: "The most frequent targets of the senior staff were junior
members; the humor of the latter was more frequently directed
against patients and their relatives, as well as themselves"

(Coser, 1960; p. 85), a conclusion consistent with the Radcliffe-
Brown thesis. She concluded that humor against clients and
self-effacing humor contributed to cohesion of the different ele-
ments of the staff (pp. 9 1-95), and that humor tended to be
directed against those who had no authority over the initiator
Organizational Communication 83
2014 10:01:07 AM
(p. 85). In observing joking behavior of state employment
agency officials that was directed at clients, Blau concluded
that
joking behavior directed at clients had different effects at the
individual and group levels. Such joking allowed individuals to
displace aggression and relieve feelings of guilt by soliciting
sympathy from fellow officials and thereby protect his/her
client
orientation, while at the group level, it contributed to the devel-
opment of anticlient norms among agency officials and thereby
undermined the agency's service orientation (Blau, 1963; pp.
109-116, 115-116). In effect, displacement of aggression
through anticlient jokes resulted in the re-enforcement of anti-
client norms at the group level; benefits of group solidarity
came at the expense of the clients.
Consequences of Humor In Organizations
As we have seen, by maintaining social distance in the orga-
nization, joking patterns generally contribute to preserving

social structures. Humor also preserves social structures by con-
tributing to cohesion of organizations and groups. Thus, Lund-
berg concluded, "...in the context of stable human organiza-
tions, person-focused joking incidents seem to fulfill a social
function; namely that joking defines and redefines the differen-
tiated social groupings, reinforces the ranking of group mem-
bers both within and between groups, and clarifies the status of
one group to another" (Lundberg, 1969; p. 28). In his study
of a geological unit in a bush camp, Traylor confirmed the find-
ings of Lundberg. In addition, he found that there was an
inverse relationship between the degree of attraction to a group
and the number of jokes about persons in the group that were
initiated by members of the group (Traylor, 1985; p. 483).
Kahn, in a theoretical article dealing with humor in organiza-
tions, asserted, "Humor helps sustain an organization's shared
identity and culture, just as language, rituals, and stories do"
(Kahn, 1989; p. 53).
Several authors have commented that humor contributes to
the socialization of employees in the organization. Being able
to participate meaningfully in the joking and teasing that takes
place at work offers evidence that new employees understand
the organizational culture, its status system, and its boundaries.
It also lets them know that they will sometimes be the butt of
humor and new comers in turn show that they can "take it"
(Collinson, 1989, pp. 187-189; Bradney, 1957, p. 185). Orga-
nizational socialization is an ongoing process and joking is one
way values are inculcated and altered among established mem-
bers as well as new members (Boland and Hoffman, 1983, pp.
194-195; Linstead, 1985, p. 761). In studying laughter among
staff members of a psychiatric hospital, Coser noted that
"humor and laughter often dramatize the violation of a norm
and at the same time reaffirm the norm" (1960; p. 88).
Research shows that humor functions as a coping mecha-
nism for persons in organizations. In her study of department

store personnel, Bradney pointed out that members of the staff
worked in close quarters, were required to put up with cumber-
some organizational procedures, and were under a good deal of
pressure to make enough sales to earn adequate commissions.
Because of the frequent joking among staff, which Bradney
As we have seen, b maintaining social distance in the
organization, jokingpatterns generally contribute to
preserving social structures. Humor also preserves social
structures by contributing to cohesion of organizations
andgroups.
noted was unknown to management, "...this store is able to
avoid considerable tension and disagreement that would likely
occur as a result of difficulties inherent in its formal structure"
(Bradney, 1957; p. 186). Vinton found similar results in her
study of banter that took place across status lines in a small
family-owned business (Vinton, 1983; p. 161). Another aspect
of coping in organizations is alleviating boredom among
employees in organizations. This topic was addressed in
"Banana Time" by Roy. As a participant observer for two
months, he became aware of a rather elaborate series of rituals
among the small group of workers that included "peach time,"
"banana time," "lunch time," "fish time," "coke time," and
"pick-up time." Each was accompanied by ritualistic joking
and bantering with elaborated themes. Roy concluded that the
boredom and fatigue, which accompanied the 12 hours of
"click-move die-click-move die," was reduced by this horse
play: "The 'beast of boredom' was gentled to the harmlessness
of a kitten" (Roy, 1959-60; p.164). When an attempt at a new
theme of humor went sour and there was no horse play in the
clicking room for about 12 days, the result was that "twelve
hour days were creeping again at a snails pace" and "with the
return of boredom, came a return of fatigue" (p. 165).
Collinson similarly contended humor was a way of coping with
boredom by workers. He quoted one worker: "Some days it

feels like a fortnight. A few years ago I got into a rut. I had to
stop myself from getting bored so I increased the number of
pranks at work" (Collinson, 1988; p. 185).
Work humor is often aggressive, even potentially hurtful. In
this case, coping takes the form of a good offense-attack oth-
ers before they can get to you. One employee told Collinson:
"You've got to give it out or go under. It's a form of survival,
you insult first before they get one back. The more you get
embarrassed, the more they do it, so you have to fight back. It
can hurt deep down, although you don't show it" (p. 188).
Finally, joking is a successful coping mechanism because it is
often intrinsically enjoyable. Bradney concluded that "...joking
not only acts as a relief from anxiety.. .but also provides
positive
enjoyment for those participating" (Bradney, 1957, p. 186; also
Roy, 1959-1960, p. 166).
Messages, which are difficult to convey, often come easier
through the medium of humor. The key here is humor's play-
ful and ambiguous nature. As Kahn wrote: "It enables people
to say things that, if said more directly, would make others feel
hurt and defensive and would threaten relationships" (Kahn,
1989, p. 50; also Diamond, 1993, p. 70). He noted that
55, No. I
2014 10:01:07 AM

humor not only makes it easier for the source to deliver the
message, it also makes it possible for the recipient to receive
the
message and evaluate its meaning and without seeming to do so
(Kahn, 1989; p. 51). Quite often managers in organizations
use humor to make orders or reprimands more palatable. Brad-
ney overheard one of the buyers comment to a junior employee
who seemed to be working at a sluggish pace, "Miss [the
junior herself] looks as if her heart's in her boots today! Don't
you like work today, dear?" (Bradney, 1957, p. 184; on the
same point, also Vinton, 1989, p. 158). Not exceptionally sub-
tle but less confrontational than a clear reprimand and it might
have accomplished its purpose.
Humor is also frequently the medium for expressing latent
hostility toward others in the organization. Kahn wrote, "Peo-
ple find it less risky to couch hostility within jokes, pranks, and
other humorous media than to express it directly" (Kahn,
1989, p. 52; also Collinson, 1988, esp. pp. 194-197; Roy,
1959-60, p. 165). The different meanings of humor make it
possible for the initiator of humor to deny that any serious
meaning was intended. On this strategy, Ullian notes: "In
some cases, the target of the joke is certain about the message,
but the humorous form makes it inappropriate and futile for
him/her to confront the joker by responding seriously. If the
target should try, the joker could always reply that his/her
remarks were only meant in jest" (Ullian, 1976; p. 129).
Because of the ambiguous nature of humor-its cynicism, its
multiple meanings, its playfulness, its incongruity-humor can
contribute to change in organizations. Ullian concludes that
when new information is introduced into organizations, it is
often dealt with through joking (Ullian, 1976; pp. 130-131).
Another aspect of humor is that it facilitates the refraining of
familiar relationships and this facilitates change. "Like
metaphors, humor casts matters in a different light, letting peo-

ple step back psychologically and adopt perspectives different
from those they normally maintain" (Kahn, 1989, p. 50).
Because humor in organizations is playful and often works
through juxtaposition of the unfamiliar, it suggests new ways of
looking at matters. In discussing humor as symbolic action,
Boland and Hoffman explain how the multiple levels at which
humor can be understood contributes to change. "The shared
understanding of a multiplicity of possible frames of reference
keeps the major problems of socialization and alienation open
questions. It provides an ambiguity in resolving the questions
of individual freedom and self-determination such that the indi-
vidual both is and is not free, both is and is not self-determined,
but continues to act" (Boland and Hoffman, 1983; p. 198).
The dense ambiguity of humor provides a cover for individual
initiative and role taking and this contributes to change in orga-
nizations.
In a provocative study that took place in a hospital setting,
Joan Emerson discussed the negotiations which can follow
attendant to joking. It can be a complex process, fraught with
the potential for embarrassment. Humor, she asserts, does not
count in the official discussions; it takes place as an "aside."
"Negotiations about humor, then, may be regarded as bargain-
ing to make unofficial arrangements about taboo subjects"
(Emerson, 1969; p, 170). Following a joke about a forbidden
subject, the recipient has a number of options. He or she can
"parry" the joke with little additional comment. On the other
hand, the recipient may use the occasion to enter into a serious
discussion about the forbidden subject of the humor. "By mak-
ing the joke in the first place, the joker risks a transition he may
not desire, because the other may seize on the joke as an open-
ing" (Emerson, 1969; p. 173). In this case, the joker has the
option of asserting that nothing more than a joke was intended
or, he or she may choose to pursue a serious discussion of a for-
bidden topic. "Negotiations to include topics by transferring

joking content to a serious conversation constitute private
agreements to suspend general guidelines" (Emerson, 1969; p.
179). However, if a serious discussion ensues, then each must
protect against the other terminating the discussion of the taboo
subject and blaming the other for starting it. Withal, it is
apparent that humor is important to change and maintenance
of norms and procedures in organizations.
The Third Dimension: Fiction
and Administrative Humor
In a perceptive essay, Morton Kroll discusses the "third
dimension" of administration (Kroll, 1981; pp. 9-1 1). He
notes that scholars in public administration and other disci-
plines that deal with bureaucratic organizations can inform us
about the first two dimensions. The first of these deals with
formal organizations and concerns of rationality in decision
making while the second deals with informal structures that
develop in organizations and the human interaction that takes
place in them. The third dimension, the one of most concern
to Kroll, links the individual with the organization-it deals
with motives and feelings of individuals as they make their way
through life in large organizations. Here, he asserts, writers of
fiction are our best sources and can provide important data for
students of administration. In their own way, in some sense
parallel but no less perceptive than social scientists, they deal
with human nature and human beings and their role in the
scheme of things in the universe. Their focus is more general
and they paint with broader strokes.
Dwight Waldo, in an essay dealing with administration and
literature, notes a number benefits that scholars of administra-
tion might reap by paying more attention to how their subject
is dealt with in literature. Among other benefits, he believes
that we might hope to understand better emotionally what we
already understand intellectually; as scholars we can view

administration as seen by those not members of the discipline
and in this way gain greater perspective on the activity; we can
be made more aware of some of the moral aspects of adminis-
tration; and we can hope to see administration in a broader
context, freed of its focus on efficiency, behavior, and science
(Waldo, 1956; pp. 80-89). Often the view that we get about
administration from fiction is not very flattering. This assess-
ment is sustained by McCurdy's work: "Although novelists
viewed government as a great salvation, they viewed bureaucra-
cy with great distress. In the eyes of most novelists, bureaucrat-
2014 10:01:07 AM
ic government had the potential to take back the social gains
the progressive reform movement had installed in the modern
state" (McCurdy, 1987; pp. 554-555).3
Fictional writers attack bureaucracy at the most general level
and this provides the source of their humor. For them, it is
bureaucracy itself which is ridiculous when juxtaposed to the
spontaneity of human nature. As with Henri Bergson, humor
results when something mechanical, in this case bureaucracy, is
encrusted on something natural, the human spirit. From this
construction, fictional writers ridicule such phenomena as dys-
functional bureaucratic authority, inappropriate rationality, dis-
placement of goals, routines which are reduced to little more
than senseless rituals, bureaucratic in-fighting, and so on.

In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Kesey, 1962), Randle
Patrick McMurphy, a "brawling, fun-loving rebel," in an effort
to evade prison, pretended to be mentally ill in order to get
admitted to a mental hospital. The irony is that in fleeing an
institution intended as a prison, he went to an institution
intended to help persons in emotional distress, only to find it
was an organization that broke the will and spirit of its patients
more surely than the prison he left. He came head-to-head with
Big Nurse who operated the ward like a dictatorship from her
glass cage up front. "The slightest thing messy or out of kilter
or
in the way ties her into a little white knot of tight-smiled fury.
She walks around with that same doll smile crimped between
her
chin and her nose and the same calm whir coming from her
eyes, but down inside she's as tense as steel" (p. 30). The vehi-
cle for running the ward was the "The Therapeutic Communi-
ty" in which the patients reported any aberrant behavior of their
fellows, and group discussions, functioning as the big world
Outside stood in judgment of their behavior and subconscious
thoughts. McMurphy ridiculed these sessions irreverently char-
acterizing them as "a bunch of chickens at a peckin' party" (p.
55). With McMurphy acting as a natural leader, the patients
regained some of their confidence and began to assert them-
selves, and McMurphy dominated the group meetings, all of
which was a frontal challenge to Big Nurse and the "Combine."
"One by one the patients are sneaking looks at her [Big Nurse]
to see how she is taking the way McMurphy is dominating the
meeting, and they see the same thing. She's too big to be beat-
en" (p. 101). In response to her sentence suspending a patient
privilege, McMurphy put his fist through Big Nurse's glass
cage,
shattering it and humiliating her in front of the ward's staff and
patients; a few weeks later, he shattered it again after he was
denied an Unaccompanied Leave. When McMurphy organized
a fishing trip for the patients, things went awry. One thing led

to another and Big Nurse scheduled electric shock therapy for
McMurphy, which she offered to cancel if he would only admit
the error in his ways (p. 236). He refused. McMurphy showed
his scorn by joking throughout the shock treatment and by
refusing to be broken subsequent to several other sessions of the
procedure. With McMurphy growing to legend proportions
among the patients, and after he smashed through the glass cage
one last time and grabbed Big Nurse, tearing the front of her
uniform open and humiliating her before the patients (p. 267),
Big Nurse persuaded the medical staff that a lobotomy was in
order for McMurphy and it was accordingly administered.
In the play, Mr. Roberts (Heggen and Logan, 1948), we
again see the common sense of a natural leader, Mr. Roberts,
juxtaposed with the contorted formal authority of the captain.
As Doc told Mr. Roberts, "...the Captain of a Navy ship is the
most absolute monarch left in this world" (p. 10). Though AK
601 was a cargo ship, carrying its loads in safe Pacific waters
"...from Tedium to Apathy and back again-with an occasional
side trip to Monotony...." (p. 159), the captain imposed disci-
pline as though it were operating under combat conditions.
The men hated the captain for it, and Mr. Roberts, the cargo
officer, pleaded their case with the captain. Whereas under real
combat conditions, the crew could have been a part of the
major war of their century and won medals for valor in defend-
ing their country, the only award AK 601 received was a
"...scrawny palm tree, potted in a five-gallon can, standing to
the right of the Captain's cabin door" (p. 3). Though a source
of extreme pride to the captain, Mr. Roberts ridiculed it as "The
Admiral John J. Finchley award for delivering more toothpaste
and toilet paper than any other Navy cargo ship in the safe area
of the Pacific" (p. 8). In a dictatorial manner, the captain can-
celled the evening movie when he caught some sailors on deck
without their shirts, he mercilessly belittled Mr. Roberts in
front of the crew, and at one point he threatened to have Mr.
Roberts confined to his quarters for ten days when he, in viola-

tion of the captain's orders, gave a couple of crates of the AK
601's extra fruit to the crew of an LCT which had been at sea
for two months. When Mr. Roberts arranged for a liberty for
the crew by bribing the Port Director with a bottle of the ship's
scotch, the captain cancelled it at the last minute until Mr.
Robert's agreed to his terms-quit attempting to transfer off
AK 601 and stop talking back to the captain in front of the
crew. In the most dramatic scene of the play, which took place
on the night of V-E Day, Mr. Roberts, while the radio in the
background played "The Stars and Strips Forever," jerked the
captain's palm tree up by the roots and threw it into the sea!
In the tension that takes place between natural leaders and
formal leaders in these two pieces of literature, we see a more
robust humor than in the empirical studies. Randle Patrick
McMurphy ridicules Big Nurse, takes over her meetings, puts
his fist through her glass cage, and finally rips her uniform
down the front in view of the patients, and she in turns has
electric shock treatments and ultimately, a lobotomy performed
on him.4 The captain belittles Mr. Roberts, who, in turn,
throws the Captain's award/palm tree over board. In these situ-
ations, we see behavior which clearly fits into the "superiority
theory of humor." This humor, which depends on a sense of
one s own superiority, or on the inferiority of others, is attribut-
ed to Thomas Hobbes who wrote: "The passion of laughter is
nothing else but the sudden glory arising from a sudden con-
ception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with the
infirmity of others, or with our own formerly" (cited in Berger,
1987, p. 7; also Berlyne, 1969, p. 800; and Koller, 1988, p. 9).
This humor is aggressive in nature. A communications scholar
likened it to the primordial victory scream:
What touched off his [man's] nonverbal grunting, facial
contortions, muscular dissembling, and breathing irreg-
ularities that presaged our modern 'laughter'? 'Why, one

55, No. I
2014 10:01:07 AM
thing that was available to each of our bestial ancestors:
victory. Success in combat. Usually success in combat
with a fellow man. Sudden victory. The sudden real-
ization that one has triumped, that the prize is his, that
his opponent is defeated! (Gruner, 1978; pp. 42-43,
emphasis in original).
In this view, the object of humor is the neutralizing or van-
quishing of the other. The tools of combat are ridicule and
derision. The subjects in the empirical studies engaged in
humor for a variety of reasons and attempted to keep humor in
bounds. In contrast, the characters in these literary pieces
threw caution to the wind and engaged in mortal combat with
their barbs and tricks.
In Heller's Catch-22, we see outrageous cases of the dis-
placement of ends by means. General Peckem and General
Dreedle did not like each other and spent most of their time in
jurisdictional disputes. At one point, Peckem explained to
Colonel Scheisskopf that Dreedle was the enemy and his objec-
tive was to take over Dreedle's four bomb groups (Heller, 1961;
p. 332).
Again, Colonel Cathcart regularly volunteered his men for
dangerous missions and kept raising the number of missions
they had to fly before rotation as a way to get himself promot-

ed. This same Colonel Cathcart determined that he could send
a single form letter over his signature to all next of kin of com-
bat fatalities and increase his chances of getting his name in the
Christmas issue of The Saturday Evening Post through this
show
of pseudo-compassion (pp. 287-29 1). Milo Minderbinder, the
supply clerk, formed a syndicate and came to control commer-
cial trade in the whole Mediterranean and European regions.
He contracted with both the Americans to bomb a bridge and
with the Germans to defend the same bridge (p. 261). Milo
defended this arrangement by pointing out that the Germans
"...pay their bills more promptly than some allies of ours I
could name" (p. 263). He even went so far as to enter into a
contract with the Germans to bomb the U.S. base at which he
was located (p. 264). "And the sweetest part of the whole deal
was that there really was no need to reimburse the government
at all. 'In a democracy, the government is the people... .We're
the people aren't we? So we might just as well keep the money
and eliminate the middleman. Frankly, I'd like to see the gov-
ernment get out of war altogether and leave the whole field to
private industry"' (p. 266).
When rules are separated from their meanings compliance
becomes ritualistic. Heller's novel abounds with such instances.
A case in point, Captain Yossarian was caught in yet another
Catch-22 when he had to live with the belongings of a dead
man in his tent. Because the replacement pilot, Mudd, was
killed in a combat mission before he officially reported for
duty,
Yossarian could not get rid of the belongings because Mudd had
never officially arrived (Heller, 1961; p. 111). Common sense
finally prevailed, after much time, when four young kids, newly
assigned to Yossarian's tent, simply threw the belongings
outside
into the bushes (p. 359). Another case proved to be the down-
fall of Doc Daneeka. He was terrified of flying but driven by

greed, and thus arranged to have a pilot by the name of McWatt
An important kind of humorfound in most organizations
is 'gallows humor " Koller defnes gallows humor as
"that brand of ironic humor that acknowledges certain
dehumanizing, life-threatening circumstances and seeks to
transform them into something human, delighoul, and
worthy" (Koller, 1988; p. 10).
sign his name in the flight log whenever he flew so he could
col-
lect his flight pay without ever leaving ground (p. 180). When
McWatt crashed and was killed, Doc was listed on McWatt's
flight log and so declared dead. He was unable to draw any pay
or food rations and as a result was forced to live like an animal
in the woods (pp. 350-354). In this case, the fact that Doc was
obviously alive and well could not overcome the paperwork
imperative. It was simply a "thorny administrative problem" for
Sergeant Towser.
An important kind of humor found in most organizations is
"gallows humor." Koller defines gallows humor as "that brand
of ironic humor that acknowledges certain dehumanizing, life-
threatening circumstances and seeks to transform them into
something human, delightful, and worthy" (Koller, 1988; p.
10). It is important to morale building.5 Koller traced this type
of humor to Obrdlik who found himself in war-time
Czechoslovakia for nine months after it was invaded. There
Obrdlik observed a brand of humor, widely used, that was
directed at the Gestapo, which he interpreted as an index of
Czech morale (Obrdlik, 1942; also Hanser, 1952). Gallows
humor in the organization addresses dehumanization in the
work place through ridicule of the management; it contributes
to morale among workers and differentiates them from manage-

ment. Generally, this type of humor does not figure in empiri-
cal studies. An exception is the one by Collinson conducted in a
British lorry factory. He pointed out the shop-floor workers
worked the longest hours, had the most tightly controlled and
least secure work, the worst canteen and parking facilities, and
had the poorest benefits. However, they responded to their
condition by emphasizing their own masculinity and authentic-
ity compared to the femininity and phoniness of the managers.
Thus "Dirty Bar," as one of the workers was nick-named, was
quoted as saying, "Fellas on the shop-floor are genuine. They're
the salt of the earth, but they're all t-ts and nancy boys in th'
offices" (Collinson, 1988; pp. 185-186). Workers labeled an
in-house magazine put out by management as the "Goebbel's
Gazette" (p. 187).
Catch-22 is especially rich in gallows humor. One of the
most dreaded assignments for the men of the 256th Squadron
was a mission over Bologna. "They began to invent humorless,
glum jokes of their own and disastrous rumors about the
destruction awaiting them in Bologna" (Heller, 1961; p. 128).
A drunken Yossarian saw Colonel Korn in the officers' club and
2014 10:01:07 AM
asked him if he knew about the new Lepage gun the Germans
had developed. "The new three-hundred-and-forty-four mil-
limeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a
whole

formation of planes together in mid-air" ( p. 128).
In discussing duty versus survival, Yossarian told Clevinger
that the enemy "...is anybody who's going to get you killed, no
matter which side he's on..." (p. 127, emphasis in orginal).
Major Major was popular with his fellow aviators who often
invited him to go swimming, and when they played basketball
with him, they did not even care about winning. However,
when Colonel Cathcart promoted him to squadron comman-
der, everything changed. "Almost on cue, everyone in the
squadron stopped talking to him and started staring at him. He
walked through life self-consciously with downcast eyes and
burning cheeks, the object of contempt, envy, suspicion, resent-
ment and malicious innuendo everywhere he went" (Heller,
1961; p. 91). When loneliness got the best of him, he disguised
himself by wearing dark glasses with magenta rims and an
organ-grinders's mustache, and went to have a friendly game of
basketball as one of the guys. Just when he thought he had
fooled his former pals:
he was bumped hard by one of his opponents and knocked to
his knees. Soon he was bumped hard again, and it dawned on
him that they did recognize him and that they were using his
disguise as a license to elbow, trip, and maul him. They did
not want him at all. And just as he did realize this, the players
on his team fused instinctively with the players on the other
team into a single, howling, blood-thirsty mob that descended
upon him from all sides with foul curses and swinging fists (p.
101).
Having become squadron commander, he lost all of this
friends!
The fool plays a major part in group dynamics. There are,
broadly speaking, two kinds of fools, the sage-fool and the buf-

foon or the butt (for discussions of fools, see Klapp, 1949;
Klapp, 1972; Sypher, 1956; Kahn, 1989; and Kets de Vries,
1993).6 The wise fool uses his or her wit to articulate the incon-
gruities that abound in the human condition and often speaks in
riddles; the buffoon makes obvious misjudgments about his or
her audience, the culture, the context, or the task, and as a con-
sequence is ridiculed and otherwise treated with disrespect.
Kahn noted groups often assign a role of "clown" to those
willing
to play it and stated further that: "We can learn much about the
dynamics of a group or department by observing these 'clowns'
perform, defusing bombs at one point and lobbing them at
another" (Kahn, 1989, p. 50; also Kets de Vries, 1993, p. 93).
Clowns can point up the absurdity of life in an organization but
also can be absurd-the butt of jokes themselves.
The role of the clown was developed especially poignantly in
A Thousand Clowns (Gardner, 1962).7 In the play, the ostensi-
ble clown was a creative free spirit who through his use of wit
and keen observation, made those around him who led more
conventional social and organizational lives appear as the real
clowns. The main character was Murray Burns who had been
unemployed for several months since he quit a job as a writer
for a character called "Chuckles the Chipmunk," star of a TV
network child's program. Murray could not abide the phoni-
ness of the organization or the saccharine character of "Chip-
permunkie." His brother, Arnold, was employed with a show
business talent agency and was very much the successful
organi-
zation man so as one might expect, there was a great deal of
ten-
sion between the two characters; Murray was the dropout-
clown, a free spirit in every sense, and Arnold, the no-nonsense,
organization man. Murray had been raising his nephew, Nick,
a 12-year-old "middle-aged" boy, since his sister went out to

buy a pack of cigarettes and did not return for six years. The
Bureau of Child Welfare (B.C.W) had been conducting an
investigation of Nicks home circumstances because he had been
truant from school too often and also because he had written,
in the estimation of school officials, some bizarre things about
his family life. Nick was in clear danger of being taken from
Murray and placed in a foster home.
The principal B.C.W investigator, Albert Amundson, was a
caricature of the dull-witted bureaucrat. He was efficient, offi-
cious, and humorless. He approached Nick as just another case
to be dealt with in the context of organizational rules and rou-
tines. Albert's behavior was the incarnation of Bergson's "some-
thing mechanical encrusted on something living." Hence, the
interaction between Albert and Murray focused on the contrast
between the spontaneous, common sense, and ironic observa-
tions of Murray and the rigid, cold, bureaucratic responses of
Albert. At one point, Murray told Albert that he talked like he
had written everything down before he said it. Albert respond-
ed: "Yes, I do speak that way, Mr. Burns.... I realize that I lack
warmth. I will always appear foolish in a conversation with a
person of your imagination..." (p. 68). In effect, Albert was
aware that he appeared as something of a buffoon to those out-
side his system, but he was content that he was right in his
actions.
In their interaction with the clown and his or her sharp wit-
ticisms, which can have the ring of truth, other characters are
forced to respond or reconsider their values. Murray aimed his
caustic wit at his brother-at his plastic life style and superficial
values, and Arnold was finally drawn out and compelled to
defend his values.
Unfortunately for you Murray, you want to be a
hero....I am not an exceptional man, so it is possible for
me to stay with things the way they are. I'm lucky. I'm

gifted. I have a talent for surrender. I'm at peace. But
you are cursed... you don't have the gift; and I see the
torture of it. All I can do is worry for you. But I will
not worry about myself. You cannot convince me that I
am one of the Bad Guys. I get up, I go, I lie a little, I
peddle a little, I watch the rules, I talk the talk. We fel-
las have those offices high up there so we can take the
wind and go with it, however it blows. But, and I will
not apologize for it, I take pride; I am the best possible
Arnold Burns... (Gardner, 1961-1962. p. 104).
The irony, however, is that ultimately Murray was forced to
go back to his previous job in order to escape the sanctions of
the B.C.W.
55, No. 1
2014 10:01:07 AM
For Kets de Vries the wise fool is especially important
because he or she counteracts the hubris of the leader. "Cer-
tainly, in relation to the king, the jester's traditional props of
cap-and-bells and bladder-on-a-stick are an unsubtle mockery
of the ruler's crown and scepter" (Kets de Vries, 1993; p. 97).
He sees a creative tension between the leader and the sage fool.
"I would suggest that the power of the leader needs the folly of
the fool. The interaction of the two keeps each-and the orga-
nization-in psychological equilibrium" (p. 98). According to
Kets de Vries, one person cannot play both roles. The leader is
the protector of authority and authority must be solemn and

clear. The fool deals in ambiguity and playfulness. In the most
general sense, for Kets de Vries, the wise fool is any "...coura-
geous individual who is willing to challenge the leader and give
him or her a different perspective, free from the distortions of
sycophancy" (p. 102). It seems clear that if leaders are to bene-
fit from the talents of the fool, they must be willing to tolerate
their potentially stinging criticisms and witticisms. Further, in
systems of multiple advocacy such as was put forth by George
(1972), it would seem as important for those who act as custo-
dians of policy discussions to protect the access of the sage fool
so that the benefits of refraining, incongruity, irony, and play-
fulness are brought to bear on decisions, as it would be to watch
to see that all substantive sides of an issue are represented.
What at first blush is thought to be outrageous, even bordering
on the irreverent, may in time come to be perceived as the epit-
ome of rationality when viewed in a new light.
Conclusion
Much mirth involving organizations results from the juxta-
position of the naturalness and common sense of traditional
institutions with the forced, mechanical nature of bureaucracies.
Out of such comparisons come Parkinson's Law, the Peter Prin-
ciple, and Catch-22. Incongruity humor also accounts for
Miles' Law. The empirical studies of humor tell us much about
the lawful nature of humor in organizations, how humor relates
to the hierarchy and its important contributions to organiza-
tional functioning. The authors of popular literature about
organizations showcase a more outrageous humor. Here we see
examples of superiority humor, the displacement of ends by
means, ritualistic compliance, gallows humor, and the role of
the wise fool.
It is important for both practitioners and scholars to take
heed of humor in organizations. Managers need to accept

humor as an important form of communication to understand
why both they and employees engage in humor, and seek to
understand alike its contributions and dysfunctions relative to
organizational purposes and more general societal standards of
fair play. Scholars should not ignore the study of humor just
because it smacks of fun. They need to be aware of organiza-
tional humor as they pursue their understanding of organiza-
tional culture and the informal side of organizations. They will
find it worthwhile to search out both the social science and the
creative literature dealing with the subject to gain a well-round-
ed understanding of organizational humor.
In peeling the onion, students of organizations, practitioners
and scholars alike, need to know that humor in organizations is
serious communication and that it can convey important
insights about the social dynamics of individuals and groups in
organizations. The outer layers may be funny, but if you peel
away enough layers, there is usually a deeper message to be
found. Most of us suspect as much-at least some of the time.
Dean L. Yarwood is the Frederick A. Middlebush Professor
of Political Science at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He
is the editor of The National Administrative System and Public
Administration, Politics, and the People. He has authored or
coauthored articles that have appeared in such journals as PAR,
Administration &- Society, American Review of Public
Administra-
tion and Public Administration Quarterly. He has served as
chair
of the Section on Public Administration Education of ASPA
and as President of the Central Missouri Chapter of ASPA.
Notes
1. For general discussions of this and other types of humor, see
Berlyne (1969); Freud

(1960), Gruner (1978), Koestler, (1989), Koller (1988), and
Sypher (1956).
2. However, note that three decades before Laurence J. Peter
formulated the Peter
Principle, Chester Barnard (1938; p. 272) wrote to the contrary,
"I do not hesitate
to affirm that those whom I believe to be the better and more
able executives regard
it as a major malefaction to induce or push men of fine
character and great sense of
responsibility into active positions greatly exceeding their
technical capacities.
Unless the process can be reversed in time, the result is
destruction."
3. In this study, we are concerned with fictional sources that
have a substantial
humorous element and at the same time, deal with bureaucratic
organizations. To
identify these, several bibliographic essays dealing with
literature and public admin-
istration were consulted (Waldo, 1956; Egger, 1959; McCurdy,
1973; McDaniel,
1978; Kroll, 1965, 1981; and McCurdy, 1987). Our effort is not
to do an
exhaustive survey of fictional sources but to select some rich
sources for illustrative
purposes.
4. It may seem strange to lump electric shock treatments,
lobotomies, and the extor-
tion of promises with humor. So it is. However, Big Nurse and
the Captain are
part of the humorous situation. The fact that they respond
straight-faced rather

than with humor, adds to the humor of their adversaries. The
extreme responses of
these characters are the reactions of persons who have been
beaten and humiliated
by humor and ridicule.
5. Although Koller attributes the term "gallows humor" to
Obrdlik's article about
humor in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia which was published in
1942, in fact
Freud used the term in Jokes and their Relation to the
Unconscious, which first
appeared in 1905 (Freud, 1960; p. 229). Freud's example: a
rogue being led out
to execution on Monday, comments, "Well, this week's
beginning nicely."
Gallows humor in the work place typically does not involve
"life-threatening"
circumstances, though in some lines of work it might. However,
the other aspects
of gallows humor are often met in organizations in the office
and on the shop floor.
6. The cited authors all discuss fools in some depth and most of
them find these two
types. However, some find still other types. Klapp, for example,
identifies five
types in his book, Heros, Villains and Fools (1972, chap. 3).
7. A Thousand Clowns does not appear on the various lists of
literature relevant to
public administration. It belongs. One of the major themes of
the play involves
the Bureau of Child Welfare and the question of whether Nick

should be removed
from Murray's custody and placed in foster care. Moreover, the
characters are con-
cerned about the worthwhileness of organizational life and talk
about the problem
in very thoughtful terms.
2014 10:01:07 AM
References
Bennis, Warren, 1967. "Organizations of the Future." Personnel
Administration, vol.
30 (September/October), pp. 6-19.
Berger, Arthur Asa, 1987. "Humor: An Introduction." American
Behavioral Scientist,
vol. 30 Uanuary/February), pp. 6-15.
Bergson, Henri, 1956 (orig. 1900). "Laughter." In Wylie
Sypher, ed., Comedy. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins Press, pp. 61-190.
Berlyne, D.E., 1969. "Laughter, Humor, and Play." In Gardner
Lindzey and Elliot
Aronson, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed.
Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley. pp. 795-852.

Blau, Peter M., 1963. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, rev. ed.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Boland, Richard J. and Raymond Hoffman, 1983. "Humor in a
Machine Shop: An
Interpretation of Symbolic Interaction." In Louis R. Pondy, et
al., eds., Organiza-
tional Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 187-198.
Bradney, Pamela, 1957. "The Joking Relationship in Industry."
Human Relations, vol.
10 (2), pp. 179-187.
Collinson, David L., 1988. "'Engineering Humour': Masculinity,
Joking and Conflict
in Shop-floor Relations." Organizational Studies, vol. 9 (2), pp.
181-199.
Coser, Rose Laub, 1959. "Some Social Functions of Laughter: A
Study of Humor in a
Hospital Setting." Human Relations, vol. 12 (2), pp. 171-182
, 1960. "Laughter Among Colleagues: A Study of the Social
Functions of
Humor Among the Staff of a Mental Hospital." Psychiatry, vol.
23 (February), pp.
8 1-95.
Diamond, Michael, 1993. The Unconscious Life of
Organizations. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Duncan, W. Jack, 1985. "The Superiority Theory of Humor at
Work: Joking Rela-

tionships as Indicators of Formal and Informal Status Patterns
in Small, Task-Ori-
ented Groups." Small Group Behavior, vol. 16 (November), pp.
556-564.
Duncan, W. Jack, Larry R. Smeltzer, and Terry L. Leap, 1990.
"Humor and Work:
Applications of Joking Behavior to Management." Journal
ofManagement, vol. 16,
no. 2, pp. 255-278.
Egger, Rowland, 1959. "The Administrative Novel." American
Political Science Review,
vol. LIII (June), pp. 448-455.
Emerson, Joan P., 1969. "Negotiating the Serious Import of
Humor." Sociometry,
vol. 32 (June), pp. 169-181.
Freud, Sigmund, 1960 (orig. 1905). Jokes and their Relation to
the Unconscious. trans.
and ed. by James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fry, William, Jr., 1987. "Humor and Paradox." American
Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30
(anuary/February), pp. 42-71.
Gardner, Herb, 1962. A Thousand Clowns. New York: Random
House.
George, Alexander L., 1972. "The Case for Multiple Advocacy
in Making Foreign Pol-
icy." American Political Science Review, vol. LXVI
(September), pp. 751-785.
Gruner, Charles R., 1978. Understanding Laughter: The
Workings of Wit &- Humor.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Hanser, Richard, 1952. "Wit as a Weapon." The Saturday
Review, vol. 35 (Novem-
ber 8), pp. 13-14, 51.
Heggen, Thomas and Joshua Logan, 1948. Mr. Roberts. New
York: Random House.
Heller, Joseph, 1961. Catch-22. New York, NY: Dell
Publishing.
Kahn, William A., 1989. "Toward a Sense of Organizational
Humor: Implications for
Organizational Diagnosis and Change." The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science,
vol. 25, no.1, pp. 45-63.
Kesey, Ken, 1962. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New
York: Signet.
Kets de Vries, Manford F. R., 1993. Leaders, Fools, and
Impostors. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Klapp, Orrin E., 1949. "The Fool as a Social Type." American
Journal of Sociology, vol.
55 (September,), pp. 157-162.
, 1972. Heros, Villains and Fools. San Diego: Aegis.
Koestler, Arthur, 1989 (orig. 1964). The Act of Creation.
London: Arkana.
Koller, Marvin R., 1988. Humor and Society. Houston, TX: Cap
and Gown Press.
Kroll, Morton, 1965. "Administrative Fiction and Credibility."
Public Administrative

Review, vol. 25 (March), pp. 80-84.
, 1981. "The Third Dimension: Uses of Fiction in Public
Affairs." Dia-
logue, vol. 3 (4), pp. 9-12.
Linstead, Steve, 1985. "Jokers Wild: The Importance of Humour
in the Maintenance
of Organizational Culture." Sociological Review, vol. 33
(November), pp. 741-767.
Lundberg, Craig C., 1969. "Person-Focused Joking: Pattern and
Function," Human
Organization, vol. 28 (Spring), pp. 22-28.
McCurdy, Howard E., 1973. "Fiction, Phenomenology, and
Public Administration."
PublicAdministration Review, vol. 33 Uanuary/February), pp.
52-60.
, 1987. "How Novelists View Public Administration." In Ralph
Chandler
Clark, ed., A Centennial History of the American
Administrative State. New York.:
Free Press. pp. 543-574.
McDaniel, Thomas R., 1978. "The Search for the Administrative
Novel." Public
Administration Review, vol. 38 (November/December), pp. 545-
549.
Miles, Rufus E., 1978. "The Origin and Meaning of Miles'
Law." Public Administra-
tion Review, vol. 38 (September/October), pp. 399-403.
Mindess, Harvey, 1987. "The Panorama of Humor and the

Meaning of Life." Ameri-
can Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30 (anuary/February,), pp. 82-95.
Obrdlik, Antonin, 1942. "'Gallows Humor'-A Sociological
Phenomenon." American
Journal of Sociology, vol. 47 (5), pp. 709-716.
Parkinson, C. Northcote, 1957. Parkinson's Law and Other
Administrative Studies.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Peter, Laurence J. and Raymond Hull, 1969. The Peter
Principle. New York: Bantam
Books.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 1952. Structure and Function in
Primitive Society. London:
Cohen & West, Ltd.
Roy, Donald F., 1959-1960. "'Banana Time' Job Satisfaction and
Informal Interac-
tion." Human Organization, vol. 18 (Winter), pp. 158-168.
Sykes, A. J. M., 1966. "Joking Relationships in an Industrial
Setting." American
Anthropologist, vol. 68 (February), pp. 188-193.
Sypher, Wylie, ed., 1956. Comedy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
,_____ 1956. "The Meanings of Comedy." In Wylie Sypher, ed.,
Comedy. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins Press.
Traylor, Gary, 1985. "Joking in a Bush Camp." Human
Relations, vol. 26 (August),

pp. 479-486.
Ullian, Joseph Alan, 1976. "Joking at Work." Journal of
Communication, vol. 26
(Summer), pp. 129-133.
Vinton, Karen L., 1989. "Humor in the Workplace Is More Than
Telling Jokes."
Small Group Behavior, vol. 20 (May), pp. 151-166.
Waldo, Dwight, 1956. Perspectives on Administration
University, AL: University of
Alabama Press.
55, No. I
2014 10:01:07 AM
Contentsp. 81p. 82p. 83p. 84p. 85p. 86p. 87p. 88p. 89p. 90Issue
Table of ContentsPublic Administration Review, Vol. 55, No. 1
(Jan. - Feb., 1995), pp. 1-124Front Matter [pp. 1-1]Correction:
Reflections of a "Pracademic" on the Logic of Politics and
Administration [pp. 2]Leaders in the FieldAaron Wildavsky: A
Man and Scholar for All Seasons [pp. 3-
16]EntrepreneurshipReinventing a Government Corporation:
Professional Priorities and a Clear Bottom Line [pp. 17-
28]Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector: The Horns of a
Dilemma [pp. 29-36]PerformanceOvercoming the Inadequacies
of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of
Libraries and Leisure Services [pp. 37-47]MBO in Municipal
Government: Variations on a Traditional Management Tool [pp.
48-56]Municipal Commitment to Total Quality Management: A

Survey of Recent Progress [pp. 57-66]OrganizationThe Role of
Commitment in Collective Action: Comparing the
Organizational Behavior and Rational Choice Perspectives [pp.
67-80]Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into
Unofficial Organizational Communication [pp. 81-90]Newer
LogicsFuzzy Set Theory Movement in the Social Sciences [pp.
91-98]Formal Models of Legislative/Administrative Interaction:
A Survey of the Subfield [pp. 99-106]Research NoteNetworking
between Practitioners and Academics in Law Enforcement [pp.
107-110]Book ReviewsIdeals and Conventions: Ethics for
Public Administrators [pp. 111-116]Short Book
ReviewsBudgeting for the Balance [pp. 117-119]Yes, Mr.
President [pp. 119-120]Rulemaking as Policy Making [pp.
120]TOPS: Those Other PublicationsViolence: Comprehension
before Intervention [pp. 121-124]Back Matter

Humor in Pedagogy How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!Author(s) R. L.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Humor in Pedagogy How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!Author(s) R. L.docx

More from adampcarr67227

Recently uploaded

Humor in Pedagogy How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!Author(s) R. L.docx