Humor Styles and Personality: a Meta&#X2010

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2015 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12209

Personality and Social Psychology Humor styles and personality: A meta-analysis of the relation between humor styles and the Big Five personality traits

ANDRES MENDIBURO-SEGUEL,1,2 DARIO PAEZ 3 and FRANCISCO MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ 4 1Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile 2Faculty of Administration and Economy, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile 3Universidad del Paıs Vasco, Spain 4Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain

Mendiburo-Seguel, A., Paez, D. & Martınez-Sanchez, F. (2015). Humor styles and personality: A meta-analysis of the relation between humor styles and the Big Five personality traits. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.

This research summarizes the knowledge generated in social psychology and positive psychology about the relationship between humor styles, personality and wellbeing. Speciﬁcally, a meta-analysis was performed with the results of 15 studies on humor styles measured by the Humor Styles Question- naire (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir, 2003) in correlation with the personality traits measured by the Big Five Personality model (measured with different scales). Following the steps presented by Rosenthal (1991) for meta-analysis in the case of correlational research, we calculated the total mean r as an indicator of effect size. Results show that afﬁliative humor has a strong and homogeneous relation to neuroticism and extraversion. The homogeneity and heterogeneity found between variables and possible explanations are discussed in the conclusion. Key words: Humor, humor styles, Big Five, personality. Andres Mendiburo-Seguel, Fanor Velasco 34 F, Region Metropolitana, Santiago de Chile, Chile. E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HUMOR AND PERSONALITY The relations between humor and personality have been analyzed Sense of humor refers to a human capacity to capture aesthetic by various authors, including Eysenck, Cattell, McGee and aspects of humor. Until quite recently, humor was understood as Ruch. However, the perspective of Martin et al. (2003) can a pro-social, benign and pleasant phenomenon, as opposed to a be considered the most influential in current self-evaluative fi more aggressive, ironic or malign form. It is, therefore, not dif - research. In constructing their Humor Styles Questionnaire cult to understand why a sense of humor is still considered a (HSQ), these authors observed that humor styles had been con- socially desirable characteristic (Martin, 2007). sidered in psychology for some time, and that they involved Nevertheless, we can certainly say that sense of humor both positive and negative psychological functioning. They dis- involves a series of cognitive and emotional appraisals, behav- tinguished different types of humor that could be analyzed fl iors, attitudes, values and so on. Moreover, it in uences through an instrument that was better – compared to its prede- the relations we establish with others, and our forms of com- cessors – for measuring the relations between mental health, munication and persuasion; humor can serve as a form of emotions and humor. aggression or as a coping mechanism (or even both at the To create the HSQ, Martin et al. (2003) used a 2 9 2 model. same time. Humor is involved in most human behavior One of the axes of the model referred to the use of humor (Martin, 2007). focused on oneself (intrapersonal), as opposed to humor focused Based on previous research (e.g., Hehl & Ruch, 1985), we on others (interpersonal). The other axis of the 2 9 2 model can understand humor as a stable personality tendency refer- proposed by these authors is related to benign or malign types ring to a sensation (amusement), to a behavior (laughter or of humor. smiling), to its use as a way of coping (humor as a coping The intrapersonal aspect would be associated with amusement, mechanism), to an ability (production and creation of stimuli), and would also involve the capacity to cope with stress and fi and nally, to an aesthetic sense (sense of humor, appreciation make use of humor as a defense mechanism. It is related to “ ” of humor). Obviously, the conception of trait implies that Freudian theory, moreover, since it refers to the liberation of “ ” people will more often tend to present a state of humor tension and to black humor as a form of maintaining feelings of or an emotion made up of the subjective feeling of hilarity control, mastery or triumph (Ziv, 1984). We might say that it or amusement, the expression of laughter and Duchenne refers to humor as a form of mental protection. smiling (i.e., the facial expressions denoting authentic laughter The interpersonal aspect, referring to enhancing one’s relations or smiling), the associated physiological and motor response with others, is associated with the intention of reaffirming feel- (disruption of breathing, muscular relaxation, movement of ings of social wellbeing, dealing with conflicts, appearing more trunk and arms, activation of autonomic nervous system), and attractive and strengthening ties (Martin et al., 2003). In the case greater exposure to, reactivity to and productivity of comic of large groups, humor is related to factors such as social cohe- and humorous stimuli. sion, identity reinforcement and persuasion (Martineau cited in

Martin, 2007). For Martin, the difference between intrapersonal THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS: STATE OF and interpersonal humor is closely related to other polar relations THE QUESTION studied, such as individualism versus collectivism. There is currently a consensus on the “big five” dimensions of Thus, from the crossing of the two axes, it is observed that personality: extraversion; agreeableness; conscientiousness; neu- there can be malign interpersonal humor (aggressive humor), roticism; and openness to experience. These dimensions have fi benign interpersonal humor (af liative humor), malign intraper- been found using descriptive adjectives of personality in various sonal humor (self-defeating humor) and benign intrapersonal languages and cultures. The revised NEO Personality Inventory humor (self-enhancing humor). It should be noted that these axes (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) has been translated into do not refer to poles, but rather to continuums with gradations, over 30 languages (Portuguese, Spanish, German, Dutch, so that there could easily be, for example, a type of humor that Hebrew, Korean, Japanese and Chinese, for example), and the fi seeks af liation, but at the same time contains aggressive ele- five dimensions have been replicated in 26 cultures, particularly ments toward others. Hence, the humor style a person uses in a those of neuroticism and conscientiousness, the dimension least given situation is not necessarily related to a conscious decision: clearly replicated being openness to experience (Benet-Martınez humor as a form of defense, for example, may be a reaction. & John, 1998). The resulting humor styles are presented in the following The first two dimensions refer to interpersonal traits: extraver- subsections. sion/introversion to the preference of interacting with others or being alone, and agreeableness to having positive relations with others (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Affiliative humor Extraversion includes warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, This is related to telling jokes or funny stories, to well-inten- activity, stimulation-seeking and tendency to experience tioned practical jokes, and to a desire to relate to others, to positive emotions. Correlational and experimental research has entertain and to improve relationships. On using this type consistently found extraversion to be associated with a positive of humor, we make clear that things are on a fun level, and effect (McCrae & Costa, 2010). It has been confirmed cross- that our intention is to interact on that level with others. It is culturally that the core aspect of extraversion is greater sen- associated with extraversion, interpersonal attraction, self-esteem, sitivity to reward (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh & Shao, 2000). It satisfaction with relations and, in general, positive feelings and is related to the temperamental traits of sociability (tendency to emotions. interact) and activation (high intensity and rapid pace of behavior). Agreeableness includes trust, moderation, altruism, coopera- Self-enhancing humor tiveness, modesty and kindness or compassion (McCrae & This refers to a humorous view of the world, found in people Costa, 2010). ’ who tend to laugh at life s idiosyncrasies and maintain a humor- The third (conscientiousness), fourth (neuroticism) and fifth ous perspective on things. It would be the style closest to humor (openness) dimensions are more intrapersonal in nature. They as a form of coping, since it allows us to distance ourselves refer to the way people carry out tasks and regulate their emo- from stimuli that are stressful or generate problems (Lefcourt, tions and cognitions (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Davidson, Shepherd, Phillips, Prkachin & Mills, 1995). In gen- Conscientiousness includes competence, order, sense of duty, eral, it enables us to reduce negative emotions and maintain a tendency toward achievement (to perform according to standards positive and realistic view in adverse situations. It is negatively of excellence), self-discipline and cautiousness. This dimension related to negative emotions such as anxiety, depression and has been associated with academic success, and also includes an neuroticism. interpersonal facet (orderliness and prudence in interactions). Finally, it is associated with impulsive temperament (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Aggressive humor Neuroticism is defined as a personality dimension character- This is related to sarcasm, ridicule, irony and the use of humor ized by a tendency to experience negative emotions, and as a form of manipulation, with tacit threats in the guise of is associated with emotional distress or negative effect. ridicule (Janes & Olson cited in Martin et al., 2003). In this People scoring high in Neuroticism report greater anxiety, type of humor there is little control over the possible impact on depression, hostile anger, impulsiveness, self-consciousness and others, so that it is associated with aggression, hostility and emotional vulnerability (emotional, unstable). The adjectives neuroticism. used for neuroticism or emotional instability cover two different areas: Self-defeating humor (1) High versus low impulsiveness, made up of adjectives such “ ” This refers to allowing oneself to be the butt of the joke, so as as “passionate” and “impulsive,” and to get attention from others. For Martin et al. (2003), it is hypo- (2) Affective instability, related to being sentimental, sensitive, ’ thetically related to defensive denial, whereby one hides one s changeable, as opposed to calm (Smith & Bond, 1993). negative feelings and avoids facing up to aspects of oneself that are rejected; it is associated with emotional need and depen- The last dimension, openness to experience, includes aesthetic dence, avoidance and low self-esteem. openness and openness to feelings, activities, ideas and values.

Adjectives linked to it include “conventional” versus “original”, Negative masculinity – that which is expressed in a hostile, “inartistic” versus “artistic” and “ignorant” versus “knowledge- cynical and competitive manner, was positively related to able” (McCrae & Costa, 2010). aggressive humor, while negative femininity correlated negatively with the two positive humor styles, showing that people whose relations are based on benign humor styles are more HUMOR AND PERSONALITY: CORRELATIONS likely to be extremely obliging and also easily hurt. BETWEEN HUMOR STYLES AND THE BIG FIVE In other research, Vernon, Martin, Schermer, Cherkas and PERSONALITY FACTORS Spector (2008) examined the relationship between humor styles, As mentioned previously, the Humor Styles Questionnaire personality (measured with the NEO-PI-R) and genetic and envi- (Martin et al., 2003) measures the degree of use of four humor ronmental factors, obtaining similar results to those of Martin styles (aggressive, self-enhancing, self-defeating and affiliative). et al. (2003), who saw that positive humor styles were positively Diverse instruments were used in its design, with a view to pro- related to extraversion and openness to experience, which would viding some idea about the characteristics related to the construct indicate that both the affiliative and self-enhancing styles are validity of the instrument. related to greater flexibility, imagination and capacity for insight, In order to explore the relations between the HSQ scales and as well as enhancing one’s coping and problem-solving abilities. different personality dimensions, Martin et al. (2003) adminis- For their part, aggressive and self-defeating humor correlated tered instruments to two samples of participants. One of these positively with neuroticism and negatively with conscientious- samples, made up of 152 adults (106 women) responded to a ness, which shows how lower capacity for reflection and control revised version of the Personality Inventory NEO (NEO-PI-R; of impulses is associated with inadequate use of humor in social Costa & McCrae, 1992), while another, made up of 165 univer- situations. Only self-enhancing humor correlated negatively with sity students (94 women), responded to the Extended Personality neuroticism and positively with agreeableness, which would sug- Attributes Questionnaire (EPAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, gest that this style in particular is related to social and emotional 1979), for assessing positive masculine characteristics (domi- wellbeing. On the other hand, aggressive humor correlated nega- nance, independence, security), positive feminine characteristics tively with agreeableness, indicating that it is associated with (understanding, warmth), negative masculine characteristics lower empathy and concern for others, which is detrimental to (aggressiveness, hostility, cynicism) and negative feminine char- social and interpersonal relations. acteristics (indecision, servility). Correlations between the four humor styles and the NEO-PI-R factors tended to clearly correlate with one another (multiple META-ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY TRAITS (BIG FIVE) correlations), except in the case of openness. The extraversion AND HUMOR STYLES (HSQ) factor correlated positively with affiliative humor and more With a view to providing a better picture of the relation between weakly with self-enhancing humor. It was not related to aggres- the HSQ styles and the Big Five traits, we carried out a meta- sive humor or to self-defeating humor. analysis with the information from fifteen studies that correlated As far as agreeableness is concerned, it was observed that the Big Five factors with four HSQ humor styles. both aggressive humor and self-defeating humor were negatively The aim was to calculate the estimated effect size, and hence to related to it (the latter more weakly). The same occurred observe the relation between personality traits and humor styles with conscientiousness. Neither factor – agreeableness or consci- measured with the HSQ. Likewise, we examined whether the entiousness – was related to the two positive humor styles results of the different studies were homogeneous (i.e., could (affiliative and self-enhancing). these studies be considered as randomly-selected samples from Aggressive and self-defeating humor were positively related the same population?) or heterogeneous (i.e., coming from differ- to neuroticism, which was, in turn, negatively related to ent populations with different effect sizes for the studied relation). self-enhancing humor. These three styles explained 25% of the variance of neuroticism. Openness to experience was positively related to self-enhancing humor and to affiliative humor, but was Instruments not related to the two negative humor styles. Humor Styles Questionnaire - HSQ (Martin et al., 2003). This As Martin et al. (2003) explain, these correlations bear wit- instrument has 32 items, measuring four styles of sense of ness to an instrument that is more complete than other self-report humor (using 8 items for each of the styles). These styles are measures of humor, given that they usually yield relations affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating. Partici- mainly with extraversion more clearly. pants indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with With regard to the expressive or feminine self-concept and the different statements about their sense of humor on a seven-point instrumental or masculine one, that is, masculine and feminine Likert-type scale, from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally psychological traits, it was observed that positive masculinity agree). Reliability of the scales for the original sample are was positively associated with self-enhancing humor, mainly due 0.80 (affiliative), 0.81 (self-enhancing), 0.77 (aggressive) and to characteristics linked to independence, self-sufficiency and 0.80 (self-defeating). self-confidence. Likewise, positive feminine traits were positively fi related to affiliative humor, reflecting a style defined by interest Big ve personality traits. Personality traits were measured with in others and warmth. This trait, moreover, was negatively asso- different instruments. Table 1 shows the instrument used in ciated with two negative humor styles. each study.

Table 1. Studies used, sample characteristics and Big Five instrument used in each study

Study Sample Characteristics Big Five instrument used

Veselka, Schermer, Martin, Cherkas, 1,186 pairs of twins: 664 monozygotic twin pairs (604 female pairs 60-item HEXACO Personality Spector and Vernon (2010) and 60 male pairs) and 522 dizygotic twin pairs (482 female pairs Inventory and 40 male pairs). Ages from 18 to 92 years (M = 56.4, SD = 13.2). Vernon, Villani, Schermer Three hundred pairs of adult MZ twins (230 female pairs, 70 male NEO PI-R et al. (2009) pairs) and 156 pairs of adult DZ twins (61 female pairs, 45 male pairs, 50 opposite sex pairs) took part in this study. Ages from 18 to 74 years (mean = 41.2, s = 10.7). Stokenberga (2008) One hundred and eighty three students from psychology, NEO PI-R communications and political science courses (152 females and 31 males, ranging in age from 18 to 38 years, M = 20.01, SD = 2.02) on a voluntary basis. Jovanovic (2011) 225 (125 females, 100 males) young adults, mostly undergraduate Big Five plus Two-Short Form students in various departments of the University of Novi Sad. (VP+2-SF). The mean age of the participants was 23.61 years (SD = 3.83), with a range of 18–36 years. Ozyesil,€ Deniz and Kesici (2013) 435 (40.2% male) studentes. The sample ranged in age from 18 to 26. Adjective Based Personality Test (ABPT) Greengross and Miller (2008) Students. 64 female participants (mean age = 20.0 years, SD = 2.3) NEO PI-R and 32 male participants (mean age = 21.2, SD = 5.5). Saroglou and Scariot (2002) 94 students (51 women) between 16 y 18 years old. Bipolar rating scales based on the Five-Factor Model of personality Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, 152 adults (46 male, 106 female). NEO PI-R Gray and Weir (2003) Greven, Chamorro-Premuzic, 1,038 (300 male, 738 female) university students aged between 17 The Big Five Inventory (BFI). Arteche and Furnham (2008) and 48 years (M = 24.15, SD = 6.29 years). Paez, Mendiburo-Seguel and 57 people (Mean age = 32.44; SD = 14.41), 59.7% women. Big Five Inventory (BFI) Martınez-Sanchez (2013) Paez, Mendiburo-Seguel and 243 university students (Mean age = 22.05; SD = 5.12), Big Five Inventory (BFI). Martınez-Sanchez (2013) 74.22% women. Harris (2010) 292 female university students. The age of the participants Big Five Inventory (BFI). ranged from 17 to 45 years old (M = 18.95, SD = 2.29). Greengross, Martin and 31 standup comedians and 400 university students. NEO-FFI-R Survey (Costa & Miller (2012) McCrae, 1992) Ruch and Heintz (2013) 162 participants (24% men) with a median age of 24 (M = 27.33, Big Five Inventory (BFI). SD = 9.37). Most participants were Swiss (61%), German (29%). D’anello, D’orazio, Barreat 158 teachers from public schools. The Spanish Big Five Inventory Montero and Escalante (2009)

Procedure (2) multiplying the z of the sample by the weight of the sample; Studies were selected on the basis, ﬁrst of all, of having any Big (3) adding all the weighted zs of the samples; Five personality trait scale and the Humor Styles Questionnaire (4) adding all the weights of the samples; ’ (HSQ). (5) dividing the sum of the weighted z s by the sum of the We used search criteria in different online search engines, weights to obtain a weighted z; and using general descriptors (such as “humor”/“humor,”“personal- (6) transforming the mean of weighted z into r. ity,”“personality”) and speciﬁc descriptors (e.g., “humor styles ’ questionnaire,”“HSQ”). In two cases we e-mailed the authors to Weighted r s are an estimation of the total effect size ask for the correlations, since they were not in the original based on the set of results of the samples. Estimation of paper. We only received one reply, from Prof. Veljko Jovanovic. the combined effect size was made by weighting each Regarding the effect size used in this meta-analysis, we result of the samples by the degree of freedom of z (n-3), so worked with Pearson’s r correlation, as an indicator of the rela- that greater weight was given to larger samples (Rosenthal, tion between the Big Five personality traits and the HSQ humor 1991). styles. Pearson’s r is a measure that is easy to calculate in sam- Homogeneity of the results for the different samples was ples, and also easy to interpret. tested by means of Chi-squared, calculated as: The data were analyzed according to the recommendations described in Rosenthal (1991). Estimation of the effect size of the P ½ðN 3ÞZ four studies was obtained according to the following procedure: Z ¼ P j j ðNj 3Þ (1) transforming the r of each sample of the studies into a 2 Fisher’s z for each sample; Result of the equation should be sought in the X table.

RESULTS aggressive styles. The former emerges as a benign affiliative fi Table 1 shows the studies used, sample characteristics and the style, in signi cantly correlating with extraversion, openness to Big Five instrument that was used. In the case of the data for experience and conscientiousness, while the latter emerges as a Spain and Chile, we used data collected by the authors. In the slightly more maladaptive style, in correlating with neuroticism case of the study by Veselka et al. (2010), they used the Hexaco and, obviously, negatively with agreeableness. fi model, so that in this case the size of the samples was not con- Summarizing the ndings of the studies cited, it can be said sidered for the Neuroticism variable. that extraversion correlates homogeneously and positively with fi Following the steps proposed by Rosenthal (1991), we calcu- af liative humor (mean r of 0.42) and in a similar way, but not lated the weighted effect size (mean r), the confidence interval homogeneously, with self-enhancing humor (mean r of 0.29). for the weighted effect and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of This is coherent with the view that extraverts enjoy themselves the studies. more in general and enjoy social contact in particular, though Regarding affiliative humor, all its relationships with big five apparently they do not enjoy or appreciate situations and stimuli traits, except Conscientiousness, are significant. The only homo- of an aggressive or self-defeating nature. geneous relationship found was between this humor style and Neuroticism is associated in all the reviewed studies with self- extraversion, with a strong weighted effect (0.42; see Table 2). defeating humor (mean r 0.23), and negatively with self-enhanc- – Regarding self-enhancing humor, all its relationships with ing humor (mean r 0.24). Emotional instability, associated with big five traits are significant. There are three homogeneous high affect and negative emotions, strengthens the expression relationships with agreeableness, conscientiousness and open- and experience of humor styles that question the self and under- ness to experience. Regarding aggressive humor, all its rela- mine those that reinforce it. However, the association was not tionships with big five traits are significant, but none of them homogeneous, showing that it is less stable than that between are homogeneous between the different studies. Regarding extraversion and adaptive humor. self-defeating humor, all its relationships with big five traits The other traits show expectable relations, but with less con- are significant, except for openness to experience. There are sistency and homogeneity. For example, openness to experience, two homogeneous relationships (agreeableness and openness to linked to the evaluation of novel stimuli and to creativity, is experience). associated homogeneously with self-enhancing humor (homogeneous mean r of 0.19) and heterogeneously with affiliative humor (mean r of 0.22). Agreeableness, a trait related to good CONCLUSIONS cooperative contact with others, is negatively associated with According to these results, the relations between humor styles aggressive humor (mean r of –0.33), though weakly with affilia- and personality traits yielded are in line with those found in the tive humor (mean r of 10). different literature reviews considered. Above all, we can The results found are quite reasonable, since neuroticism and observe the interpersonal influence of the self-enhancing and extraversion are the two traits most closely linked to wellbeing,

Table 2. Chi squared, Homogenity, Weighted effect and conﬁdence interval limits

Chi-squared Homogenity Weighted effect Lower Limit Upper Limit

Afﬁliative humor Neuroticism 114.0 NO 0.10 0.13 0.08 Extraversion 28.4 YES 0.42 0.40 0.44 Agreeableness 73.9 NO 0.10 0.08 0.12 Conscientiousness 66.5 NO 0.01 0.03 0.02 Openness to experience 47.6 NO 0.20 0.20 0.25 Self-enhancing humor Neuroticism 590.6 NO 0.24 0.26 0.22 Extraversion 28.3 NO 0.29 0.27 0.31 Agreeableness 23.5 YES 0.15 0.13 0.17 Conscientiousness 26.3 YES 0.07 0.05 0.10 Openness to experience 25.9 YES 0.19 0.17 0.22 Aggressive humor Neuroticism 87.0 NO 0.05 0.03 0.08 Extraversion 54.4 NO 0.11 0.09 0.14 Agreeableness 105.7 NO 0.33 0.36 0.31 Conscientiousness 33.6 NO 0.20 0.22 0.18 Openness to experience 43.8 NO 0.04 0.07 0.02 Self-defeating humor Neuroticism 50.9 NO 0.23 0.21 0.26 Extraversion 32.9 NO 0.03 0.05 0.01 Agreeableness 11.9 YES 0.06 0.08 0.03 Conscientiousness 38.3 NO 0.18 0.21 0.16 Openness to experience 15.8 YES 0.01 0.02 0.03

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 6 A. Mendiburo-Seguel et al. Scand J Psychol (2015) as well as to adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies, Harris, J. (2010). The role of similar humor styles in initial romantic attrac- respectively. tion. Unpublished thesis. University of North Carolina, Wilmington. The evidence on the relation between humor style and physi- Hehl, F. & Ruch, W. (1985). The location of sense of humor within comprehensive personality spaces: An exploratory study. Personality cal health, despite popular views on it, is not currently system- and Individual Differences, 6, 703–715. atic or reliable, though, for example, the evidence on the Jovanovic, V. (2011). Do humor styles matter in the relationship between analgesic effects of humor are indeed consistent (Martin, 2007). personality and subjective well-being? Scandinavian Journal of Psy- The humor trait, measured with different scales, has yielded chology, 52, 502–507. moderate negative relations with symptomatology, but not in all Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K. & Mills, D. (1995). Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress cases (Martin, 2007). The use of humor as a coping mechanism moderation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 373–391. has been associated with wellbeing in several studies, though not Lucas, R., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M. & Shao, L. (2000). Cross- in all (Martin et al., 2003). A possible explanation is that this cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Jour- type of humor is positively associated with subjective wellbeing nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–68. The psychology of humor: An integrative approach in the case of the self-enhancing and affiliative styles, neutrally, Martin, R. (2007). . Burlington, VA: Elsevier Academic Press. in the case of aggressive humor, and negatively, in the case of Martin, R., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J. & Weir, K. (2003). self-defeating humor. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psycho- The relation between humor, mental health and wellbeing is logical well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. more consistent. First, comic stimuli represent the most effective Journal of Research in Personality, 37,48–75. method of experimentally inducing positive affectivity, showing McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (2010). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. Handbook of personality: fl In P. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), that exposure to humorous stimuli in uences affective state in Theory and research (3rd edn) (pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford. the short term (Westerman, Spies, Stahl & Hesse, 1996). At least Ozyesil,€ Z., Deniz, M. & Kesici, S. (2013). Mindfulness and five factor in the short term, then, humor produces an increase in feelings personality traits as predictors of humor. Studia Psychologica, 55, of joy and wellbeing, as well an increase in notions of capacity 33–43. ı and control. Moreover, humor reduces negative feelings, such as Paez, D., Mendiburo-Seguel, A. & Mart nez-Sanchez, F. (2013). Incremen- tal validity of alexithymia, emotional coping and humor style on sub- anxiety, depression or anger (Martin, 2007). Second, while it jective and psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, cannot be said that humor and the use of humor predict objec- 14, 1621–1637. tive physical health, they clearly predict wellbeing. Third, it has Peterson, C. & Park, N. (2009). Classifying and measuring strengths of been proposed that sense of humor (a liking for laughter and character. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology – smiling, and an ability to produce smiling in others) is a (2nd edn) (pp. 25 33). New York: Oxford University Press. character strength linked to happiness. Furthermore, humor Rosenthal, R. (1991). Effect sizes: Pearson’s correlation, its display via forms part of another important component, that of “transcen- the BESD, and alternative indices. American Psychologist, 46, 1086– dence”, together with hope, gratitude, the appreciation of beauty 1087. and excellence, and spirituality (Peterson & Park, 2009). Ruch, W. & Heintz, S. (2013). Humour styles, personality and psychological well-being: What’s humour got to do with it? European Jour- nal of Humour Research, 1,1–24. Saroglou, V. & Scariot, C. (2002). Humor styles questionnaire: Personal- REFERENCES ity and educational correlates in Belgian high school and college Benet-Martınez, V. & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cul- students. European Journal of Personality, 16,43–54. tures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Smith, S. & Bond, M. (1993). Social psychology across cultures. New Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- York: Academic Press. chology, 75, 729–750. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L. & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clini- positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and cal practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assess- their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. ment, 4,5–13. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682. D’anello, S., D’orazio, A., Barreat Montero, Y. & Escalante, G. (2009). Stokenberga, I. (2008). Humorous personality: Relationship to stress and Incidencia del sentido de humor y la personalidad sobre el sındrome well-being. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 9,70–80. de desgaste profesional (burnout) en docentes. Educere, 13, 439–446. Vernon, P. A., Martin, R. A., Schermer, J. A., Cherkas, L. F. & Spector, Gerven, C., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A. & Furnham, A. (2008). T. D. (2008). Genetic and environmental contributions to humor A hierarchical integration of dispositional determinants of general styles: A replication study. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, health in students: The big five, trait emotional intelligence and 44–47. humor styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1562–1573. Vernon, P., Villani, V., Schermer, J., Martin, R., Petrides, K., Spector, Greengross, G., Martin, R. & Miller, G. (2012). Personality traits, intelli- T. & Cherkas, L. (2009). Genetic and environmental correlations gence, humor styles, and humor production ability of professional between trait emotional intelligence and humor styles. Journal of stand-up comedians compared to college students. Psychology of Aes- Individual Differences, 30, 130–137. thetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6,74–82. Veselka, L., Schemer, J., Martin, R., Cherkas, L., Spector, T. & Vernon, Greengross, G. & Miller, G. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing riv- P. (2010). A behavioral genetic study of relationships between humor als: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long- styles and the six HEXACO personality fFactors. Europe’s Journal term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. of Psychology, 3,9–33. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 393–408. Westerman, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G. & Hesse, F. (1996). Relative effec- Greven, C., Chamorro-Premuzicb, T., Arteche, A. & Furnham, A. tiveness and validity of mood induction procedures. European Jour- (2008). A hierarchical integration of dispositional determinants of nal of Social Psychology, 26, 557–80. general health in students: The Big Five, trait emotional intelligence Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer. and humour styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1562– 1573. Received 15 October 2014, accepted 23 January 2015