EXPLORING THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG HUMOR STYLES,

ATTACHMENT INSECURITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND DEPRESSIVE

EXPERIENCES

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education University of Houston

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

by George William Poncy III March 2016

EXPLORING THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG HUMOR STYLES,

ATTACHMENT INSECURITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND DEPRESSIVE

EXPERIENCES

A Dissertation for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by George William Poncy III

Approved by Dissertation Committee:

______Dr. Frederick G. Lopez, Chairperson

______Dr. Andrea Burridge, Committee Member

______Dr. Susan X. Day, Committee Member

______Dr. Kimberly Schoger, Committee Member

______Dr. Robert H. McPherson, Dean College of Education March 2016

EXPLORING THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG HUMOR STYLES,

ATTACHMENT INSECURITY, EMOTION REGULATION, AND DEPRESSIVE

EXPERIENCES

An Abstract of a Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education University of Houston

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

by

George William Poncy III

March 2016

Poncy III, George. “Exploring the interrelationships among humor styles, attachment insecurity, emotion regulation, and depressive experiences.” Unpublished Doctor of Education Dissertation, University of Houston, March 2017.

Abstract

Sense of humor is often considered a positive coping mechanism for the challenges of daily life. Recent research has shown not all styles of humor are adaptive; some styles are associated with positive indicators of mental health whereas others are associated with negative mental health outcomes like depression. The limited body of research in this area could benefit from a more theory-guided approach (e.g., attachment theory), as it has yielded some mixed findings. Additionally, research on the psychological correlates of humor styles has traditionally focused on unidimensional conceptualizations of depression, and has yet to focus on the possible role of emotion regulation. To address these gaps, the current study examined the interrelationships between adult attachment insecurity, internalized or externalized depressive experiences, humor styles, and dimensions of emotion regulation. Maladaptive humor styles partially mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism, and the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency-related depression.

Additionally, several models indicated that factors of emotion regulation moderated the partial mediation effects of maladaptive humor styles (e.g., cognitive reappraisal moderated the indirect effect of aggressive humor in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency). Results have important implications for future research and clinical practice.

iv

Table of Contents Chapter Page Chapter I Introduction ...... 1 The Relationship Between Humor Styles and Depression ...... 7 An Attachment-Based Theoretical Perspective on the Relation of Humor Styles and Depression ...... 14 Emotion Regulation as a Moderator of the Relationships Between Adult Attachment Orientations, Humor Styles, and Depressive Experiences ...... 21 The Present Study ...... 30 Chapter II Methodology ...... 39 Participants and Procedure ...... 39 Measures ...... 40 Design and Analysis ...... 44 Chapter III Results ...... 46 Correlational Analyses ...... 46 Mediation Analysis: The Relationship Between Avoidance and Self-Criticism-Related Depression ...... 47 Mediation Analysis: The Relationship Between Anxiety and Dependency-Related Depression ...... 48 Moderated Mediation Analysis: Expressive Suppression as a Moderator ...... 49 Moderated Mediation Analysis: Cognitive Reappraisal ...... 51 Moderated Mediation Analysis: Attitudes Toward Expressive Suppression ...... 55 Chapter IV Discussion ...... 58 Correlational Analyses ...... 58 Mediational Analyses ...... 59 Moderated Mediation Analysis ...... 62 Overall Implications ...... 68 Limitations, Clinical Implications, and Directions for Future Research ...... 70 References ...... 74 Appendix A Tables ...... 84 Appendix B Figures ...... 86 Appendix C Questionnaires ...... 89 Demographic Questionnaire ...... 90 Experiences in Close Relationships ...... 91 The Humor Styles Questionnaire ...... 93 Depressive Experiences Questionnaire ...... 95 Attitudes Toward Emotional Expression Scale ...... 99 The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire ...... 101 Appendix D Final Approval for Human Subjects Research ...... 102

v

List of Tables

Table Page

1. The Mediation Effects of Maladaptive Humor Styles on the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism ...... 48 2. The Mediation Effects of Maladaptive Humor Styles on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency ...... 48 3. The Conditional Indirect Effects of Self-defeating Humor in the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism at Values of Expressive Suppression ..... 50 4. The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism at Values of Cognitive Reappraisal ...... 52 5. The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive and Self-defeating Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency at Values of Cognitive Reappraisal ...... 55 6. The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency at Values of AEE ...... 57

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. The interaction effect of attachment avoidance and expressive suppression on self- defeating humor ...... 49 2. The interaction effect of attachment avoidance and cognitive reappraisal on aggressive humor ...... 52 3. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and cognitive reappraisal on aggressive humor ...... 53 4. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and cognitive reappraisal on self-defeating humor ...... 54 5. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and AEE on aggressive humor ...... 56

vii

Chapter I

Introduction

A common American expression is that “laughter is the best medicine.” Among both the lay public and the psychological community, having a good sense of humor is often considered a commendable attribute and a positive way to cope with the challenges of daily life. Traditional psychodynamic theories have historically viewed humor as an adaptive form of ego defense (Vaillant, 1977). More recently, a relatively small group of psychologists has begun exploring humor as a multidimensional psychological construct that may be associated with both positive indicators of mental health, and with more problematic psychological outcomes like depression. This emergent line of inquiry and its implications for future research and clinical work could benefit from more theory- guided studies, as the current pool of findings is relatively small and contains inconsistent observations. Attachment theory may serve as a useful framework for understanding humor’s use as an adaptive or maladaptive coping mechanism. Also, this line of research may benefit significantly from expanding how certain correlates of humor are conceptualized and measured to yield more complex and comprehensive understanding of how humor affects one’s psychological well-being. For example, previous research

(e.g., Besser, Luyten, & Mayes, 2012; Dozois, Martin, & Beiling, 2009; Frewen, Brinker,

Martin, & Dozois, 2008; Kuiper & McHale, 2009) has yielded some mixed results regarding the relationship between various forms of humor and depression, calling attention to the importance of further differentiating how depression is conceptualized in humor research. Also, certain constructs that may be linked to both humor and depression, such as emotion regulation problems, have yet to be fully explored. These

2 support the goal of further articulating and exploring theory-based models for understanding the relationship between humor and well-being.

Exploring the psychological effects of humor seems appropriate for the field of counseling psychology considering humor’s applicability to positive psychology.

According to Gelso, Williams, and Fretz (2014), one of the major unifying themes of the discipline is to help build individuals’ assets and strengths and to encourage their optimal functioning through education, prevention, and remediation work. Also, positive psychology exists as one of the sections of the American Psychological Association’s

Division 17, Society of Counseling Psychology. Its aim is to foster human capacity and well-being through focusing on solutions, providing hope, encouraging positive human interactions, and creating a positive therapeutic environment (Society of Counseling

Psychology, 2012). Because researchers (e.g., Falkenberg, Buchkremer, Bartels, & Wild,

2011) have conceptualized humor as a mood elevator and a mechanism for forming social bonds, it seems appropriate for counseling psychologists to study humor as a coping mechanism that may predict psychological outcomes and thus have meaningful implications for clinical practice.

Much of the contemporary literature on humor’s relationship with psychological outcomes was spurred by a burgeoning of research from the medical community in the

1980s that explored the positive effects of humor on physical health. For example, researchers explored the physiological effects of humor and laughter including enhancement of the immune system, reduction of pain, and relief from the effects of stress and anxiety (Bokarius et al., 2011). Also, numerous studies found evidence that laughter and humor have positive effects on the cardiovascular system, the aging process,

3 and coping with chronic illness (Matthieu, 2008). Many of the medical research findings on humor have strong implications for its psychological effects. As such, some psychologists began studying the use of humor as an aid in coping with stress and anxiety, forming bonds or attachments with others, facilitating social interaction, enhancing mood, and coping with depression (e.g., Tener, Lev-Wiesel, Franco, & Ofir,

2010; Yovetich, Dale, & Hudak, 1990).

Since the 1980s, humor has been measured and defined in a number of ways.

Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Grey, Larsen, and Weir (2003) noted that humor can be viewed as a cognitive ability (i.e., having the ability to generate/produce novel humor), an aesthetic response (i.e., being able to appreciate humorous stimuli in one’s environment), and as a personality trait (i.e., maintaining a general disposition of good humor). During the

1980s, several self-report measures of humor emerged in the research literature. Martin and Lefcourt (1983) created a Coping Humor Scale (CHS), which measures one’s ability to use humor as a way of coping with stressful life events. Martin and Lefcourt (1984) also created a Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ), which measures individuals’ use of humor to cope with stress by offering respondents unpleasant situations and asking them to rate their likelihood of responding with laughter. Some additional humor measures emerged in the 1990s. For example, Svebak (1996) created a

Revised Sense-of-Humor Questionnaire (SHQ-R), which measures a person’s appreciation of humorous messages, humorous situations, and expressions of humor.

Also, Ruch, Köhler, and Van Thriel (1996) created the State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory

(STCI), which measures individuals’ levels of state and trait positive affect and disposition toward good humor.

4 Martin et al. (2003) noticed, however, that various studies employing these types of instruments were not consistent in their findings of humor’s relationships with positive psychological outcomes like positive mood, forming social bonds, coping with stress, and so on. They recognized that many conceptualizations failed to take into account potentially harmful or deleterious forms of humor. Therefore, in an effort to measure humor in a more multidimensional way, they created the Humor Styles Questionnaire

(HSQ), which measures four distinct humor styles. The first two are adaptive styles of humor. The self-enhancing style reflects using humor to improve the self (e.g., having a humorous outlook on life). The affiliative style reflects using humor to enhance relationships (e.g., saying funny things to amuse others and build relationships). The other two styles are considered maladaptive and less conducive to mental health. The aggressive style means using humor at the expense of others (e.g., teasing or ridiculing others, which can include racist or sexist humor). The self-defeating style means using humor at the expense of the self to achieve others’ approval (e.g., self-deprecating humor).

This four-style humor model stemmed from Freud’s psychoanalytic theory; the adaptive humor styles presumably serve as intrapsychic functions that protect the self from adversity or threat. Therefore, using humor to cope with stress equates to one of

Freud’s healthy defense mechanisms, allowing a person to maintain a realistic perspective on a situation while avoiding the anxiety associated with it. The maladaptive styles, such as disparaging oneself, can serve as a type of defensive denial if humor is used to repress negative emotions or avoid one’s own needs. Tendencies to use a particular style of humor are thought to be subconscious (Martin et al., 2003).

5 Martin et al. (2003) found that maladaptive and adaptive humor styles measured by the HSQ predicted various psychological outcomes. These subscale scores were correlated in expected directions with self-reported mood, well-being, and social relationships within a sample of 485 college students and community adults, and also within an independent sample of 168 undergraduate students. These other measures included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD), the State-

Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale (CMHS), and the

Social Support Questionnaire-Satisfaction (SSQ-S). In general, results indicated that the adaptive humor styles tended to correlate negatively with indicators of poor mental health

(e.g., CESD-R), and positively with indicators of positive mental health (SSQ-S). The opposite pattern was found for the maladaptive humor styles. Aggressive humor, however, tended to be less consistently correlated with the negative outcome variables

(e.g., the CESD). Since then, a small but growing number of researchers has used the

HSQ in correlational studies yielding similar evidence that suggests that adaptive and maladaptive humor styles predict expected outcomes like depression, loneliness, self- evaluative standards, social self-esteem, and other affective states.

The current study seeks to address several key gaps in this emerging body of evidence that humor styles contribute to psychopathology like depression. First, many of these studies (e.g., Besser, Luyten, & Mayes, 2012; Dozois et al., 2009) have generally measured depression as a unidimensional construct by using instruments like the CESD and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Dozois et al. (2009) argued that maladaptive humor, especially aggressive humor, has only been studied in relation to more internalizing pathology like dysphoria, overlooking depression’s more other-oriented

6 themes like rejection, defeat, and deprivation. This may contribute to the mixed findings regarding aggressive humor and depression. Second, few studies have employed a theory-guided approach to understanding the nature of humor styles. A few researchers

(e.g., Besser, Luyten, & Mayes, 2012; Miczo, Averbeck, & Mariani, 2009; Poncy, 2014), however, have explored the relationship between humor styles and psychological outcomes like depression using an attachment-based theoretical framework. They studied humor styles as expressions of possible adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms for dealing with problematic relational patterns formed during infancy and early childhood based on relationships with caregivers. This literature is still rather scarce, and further expansion in this direction is needed. Finally, no known published studies have explored the relationship between humor styles, depression, and emotion regulation from an attachment-based perspective.

A preliminary study by the current author (Poncy, 2014), however, has yielded some results that suggest that maladaptive humor styles, when used as a problematic way to cope with attachment insecurity, may be associated with emotion regulation difficulties. Therefore, the current study will propose and test a model in which humor styles used to cope with attachment-related concerns contribute to both an introjective

(self-definitional, self-critical) dimension of depression, and an anaclitic (relational, dependent) dimension of depression, and also to examine how emotion regulation strategies may play a role in how the humor styles contribute to each of these dimensions of depression. This study aims to investigate speculations about humor styles advanced by Besser, Luyten, and Blatt (2011) who claimed that “increasing evidence suggests that both self-criticism and neediness are associated with maladaptive affect-regulation

7 strategies, particularly in the context of close interpersonal relationships, which may partially explain their association with depression” (p. 757).

The Relationship Between Humor Styles and Depression

Although there is room for expansion in terms of how depression is conceptualized and measured in humor style studies, there is evidence that humor styles are associated with depressive symptoms. Further, most of the studies on adaptive and maladaptive humor have conceptualized the humor styles not simply as reflections of one’s mental health, but as contributors to depression. Greengross, Martin, and Miller

(2012) explored the relationship between humor styles and personality traits associated with depression in samples of college students and professional standup comedians. Their participants completed the HSQ, as well as the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Five

Factor Inventory 3 (NEO-FFI 3; Costa & McCrae, 2009), which measures the Big 5 personality factors (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Participants also completed a humor production task created by the researchers to yield a measure of how much humor they could produce in a certain time period. Correlational analysis revealed that in general, for the college students and the comedians, the adaptive styles were positively correlated with personality factors known to serve as buffers for depression, (i.e., openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness), and negatively correlated with neuroticism, which is a known risk factor for depression. The opposite pattern was found for the maladaptive styles. Also, the professional comedians scored higher on all four humor style scales than the college sample did, and scored higher on the humor production task. This suggests that although some individuals may have a predisposition toward using humor, it may

8 also be something individuals can hone as a craft, and practicing various humor styles may yield greater frequency of their use.

Dozois et al. (2009) studied the relationship between humor styles and early maladaptive schemas (EMS), or belief systems about the self and the world formed during childhood across various domains, such as having impaired limits or impaired autonomy, and feeling disconnected from others. A schema of impaired limits, for example, reflects having poor boundaries with others, feeling entitled, and lacking empathy. They also explored the relationships between humor styles and depression, as measured on the BDI-II among a sample of college students. In terms of the relationship between humor styles and EMSs, results supported a general pattern in which affiliative and self-enhancing humor were negatively correlated with, whereas self-defeating humor was positively correlated with, various EMS domains. In terms of the relationship between humor styles and depression, results indicated that the maladaptive styles correlated positively with depression and the adaptive styles correlated negatively with depression. Finally, for several of the EMS domains, including impaired limits, maladaptive humor, as a combined construct (combined aggressive and self-defeating humor) mediated the relationship between the EMSs and depression such that higher

EMS scores predicted higher use of maladaptive humor, which in turn predicted higher

BDI-II scores. Also, higher EMS scores predicted lower adaptive humor scores, which in turn predicted higher BDI-II scores. This research suggests that cognitive schemas formed during childhood and carried into adulthood may lead to negative coping mechanisms in the form of humor, which in turn may lead to negative psychological outcomes like depression. It also suggests that maladaptive humor may contribute to

9 depression, whereas adaptive humor may buffer individuals from experiencing depressive symptoms.

Besser, Luyten, and Mayes (2012) studied the relationships between humor styles and depression among a sample of Israeli young adults. Participants completed the HSQ, as well as the CESD-R and the Perceived Stress Scale. Results indicated that affiliative and self-enhancing humor correlated negatively with distress (i.e., depression and stress combined), whereas self-defeating humor correlated positively with distress. In a preliminary study, Poncy (2014) also explored the relationship between humor styles and depression as measured by the CESD-R in a sample of college students. Results indicated that both self-defeating and aggressive humor were positively correlated with depression, whereas affiliative and self-enhancing humor correlated negatively with depression.

These two studies support the idea that maladaptive humor is positively correlated with depression, whereas adaptive humor is negatively correlated with depression, but they also illustrate the inconsistent findings regarding aggressive humor and depression when using a more internally oriented measure of depressive symptoms like the CESD-R.

Kuiper and McHale (2009) studied the interrelationships among humor styles, positive and negative self-worth beliefs (as measured by the Self-Evaluative Standards

Scale), social self-esteem (measured by the Social Self-Esteem Inventory), and depression (as measured by the BDI-II) in a sample of college students. Mediation analysis revealed that higher positive self-evaluative standards predicted greater use of affiliative humor, which in turn predicted higher social self-esteem and lower depression scores. Higher use of negative self-evaluative standards predicted lower use of affiliative humor, which in turn predicted higher depression scores and lower social self-esteem

10 scores. Finally, higher negative self-evaluative standards predicted higher use of self- defeating humor, which in turn predicted higher depression scores and lower social self- esteem. These findings provide evidence that humor styles serve as mediators that explain some of the variance in the relationship between relational concerns and outcomes like depression and self-esteem.

In general, these studies provide some evidence that maladaptive humor styles may be used as negative coping mechanisms that contribute to feelings of depression, as well as to various other problems like stress, low social self-esteem, and personality factors conducive to depression. They also suggest that the adaptive humor styles appear to serve as protective factors for these problems, despite preexisting concerns like early maladaptive schemas or negative self-worth beliefs. Last, they highlight the mixed findings regarding aggressive humor’s relationship to depression when measured using instruments like the BDI-II and the CESD-R. Therefore, it may be useful to expand how depression is conceptualized and measured when studying the role of humor styles in psychological health.

Humor styles and the two-factor model of depression. Dozois et al. (2009) argued that humor styles tend to be studied in the context of “internalizing pathology”

(p.593), despite Beck’s (1967) claim that depression is also a function of various externalizing themes like rejection, defeat, deprivation, and sensitivity to failure. The use of humor styles, however, tends to be aimed at both the self (internalizing) and toward others (externalizing). For example, aggressive humor, which is inconsistently associated with depression in the existing literature, reflects feelings of hostility (Martin et al., 2003) that are aimed at others. Affiliative humor focuses on forming social bonds with others.

11 Therefore, it seems important to understand humor styles in the context of internalizing and externalizing forms of depression.

One model that conceptualizes depression along each of these dimensions is Blatt,

D’Affliti, and Quinlan’s (1976) model of depressive experiences. This two-factor model yields information on two dimensions of experiences related to depression: one that is internally oriented, and another that is a more externally or other-oriented. Blatt et al.

(1976) created the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ), which measures experiences associated with depression as opposed to direct symptomology. The authors based this instrument on Blatt’s (1974) dual model of personality development. This model suggests that the personality develops along two major dimensions, and that humans tend to lean more toward one or the other. The first is a more self-definitional, identity-formation related dimension, referred to as the “introjective” dimension. People who lean toward this dimension, usually men, tend to value logic, structure, consistency, and overt behavior, and define their identity more internally as opposed to based on relationships with others. The other dimension, referred to as the “anaclitic” dimension, is more about relatedness to others. People who lean more towards this dimension, usually women, tend to value interpersonal relatedness, harmony, synthesis, and integration.

These individuals also tend to value emotional experiences more than reason and logic.

Blatt et al. (1967) contended that disruptions to development along either of these dimensions can result in specific kinds of psychological problems related to depression.

When creating the DEQ, Blatt et al. (1967) asked several samples of adults to rate various experiences related to depression. Analysis of participants’ responses indicated that three highly stable factors emerged in the data. The first was a “self-criticism” factor,

12 thought to be reflective of disruptions to the introjective personality dimension. Self- criticism was marked by negative self-worth beliefs and self-critical tendencies, feelings of shame, guilt, doubt and frustration, a sense of inadequacy, need for control, and a general ambivalence toward or avoidance of engaging in relationships with others. The second factor was “dependency,” thought to represent disruptions to the anaclitic personality dimension. It reflected fear of abandonment, feelings of helplessness, a desire to depend upon others, and feelings of loneliness.

Very little research exists exploring the relationships between the humor styles and these dimensions of depressive experiences. However, the humor styles model reflects a strong focus on the intrapersonal and interpersonal natural of humor and its consequences. Therefore, Besser et al. (2011) suggested that humor likely plays a role in regulating the intrapersonal experiences of self-criticism and interpersonal experiences of neediness, or intense dependency, and that these experiences can lead to distress.

Besser at al. (2011) conducted the only known study of the interrelationships between humor, depressive experiences, and depression. In their study, young adult

Israeli participants completed the DEQ, CESD-R, and the Humor Styles Questionnaire.

Correlational analysis revealed that maladaptive humor (combined self-defeating and aggressive humor) was positively correlated with both self-criticism and dependency.

Also, mediation analysis revealed that greater self-criticism predicted greater maladaptive humor use, which in turn predicted greater CESD-R depression scores, and also that greater dependency predicted greater maladaptive humor use, which in turn predicted greater CESD-R depression scores. Their results suggest a relationship between humor styles and depressive experiences, but the role of adaptive humor styles remains

13 unknown, and greater specificity of the relationships between aggressive humor and self- defeating humor with depressive experiences is needed.

The only other known study that focuses on humor styles and dimensions of self- criticism and dependency was conducted by Frewen, Brinker, Martin, and Dozois (2008).

They focused on personality-vulnerability dimensions of depression, including sociotropy and need for control. Sociotropy is defined as the extent to which one’s personal sense of self-worth depends upon their perceived likeability from others. This results in a deep concern for others’ opinions about oneself and renders individuals socially dependent and vulnerable to depression. Need for control refers to a desire for social and environmental control, which can result in social hostility, lack of empathy, and insensitivity toward others. Need for control is considered a factor of autonomy, along with other factors such as perfectionism and self-criticism, and disinterest in close relationships. Besser et al.

(2011) related sociotropy and need for control to depressive experiences by noting that sociotropy is a dimension of dependency, whereas need for control is a dimension of self- criticism.

Frewen et al. (2008) had first-year undergraduate college students complete the

Personal Style Inventory-II (PSI-II), which assesses personality dimensions including autonomy (and its subscale of need for control) and sociotropy, as well as the BDI-II and the HSQ. Correlational analysis indicated that that sociotropy was associated with self- defeating humor, whereas need for control was associated with aggressive humor. Also, greater use of self-defeating humor, and lower use of both affiliative and self-enhancing humor predicted higher depression scores. The authors concluded that highly sociotropic individuals who are dependent upon others for self-worth may use self-defeating humor

14 to ingratiate themselves to others, even if that humor is disrespectful of their own emotional needs. These individuals may also be reluctant to offend others, resulting in less use of aggressive humor. In contrast, individuals with a strong need for control may act aggressively to gain social control of situations, including using aggressive humor.

Frewen et al. (2008) noted that these results underscore the complexity of humor. Also,

Besser et al. (2011) emphasized the relevance of these findings to the argument that humor styles may predict depressive experiences along the introjective and anaclitic dimensions.

Ultimately, Besser et al. (2011) concluded that depressive experiences are associated with humor styles, which may reflect maladaptive affect regulation strategies in the context of close interpersonal relationships. This suggests that humor styles may differentially predict dependency and self-criticism, but also suggests that clarifying the interrelationships between humor styles and emotion regulation may be an appropriate next step, and that attachment theory may be a useful lens through which to explore these interrelationships in the context of close interpersonal relationships.

An Attachment-Based Theoretical Perspective on the Relation of Humor Styles and

Depression

Considering the interpersonal and intrapersonal nature of humor styles, it seems fitting to employ an attachment theory-based perspective for understanding humor’s relationship to depressive experiences. Thus it is somewhat surprising that this approach is rare in the literature. Some researchers (e.g., Besser et al., 2012; Miczo et al., 2009;

Poncy, 2014), however, have explored humor and depression from this perspective,

15 conceptualizing humor styles as adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms for managing relational concerns that contribute to mental health outcomes like depression.

Sable (2008) offered an explanation of attachment theory, expanding upon

Bowlby’s (1969) theory of the infant-caregiver relationship, highlighting attachment as a lifelong developmental process that extends into adulthood. Humans have an innate proclivity for forming close affectional bonds with others. Based on experiences with caregivers, infants and children form stable internal working models (IWMs) about the self and others. These belief systems, or schemas, lead to the formation of stable patterns in how individuals engage in intimate relationships throughout the lifespan with other adults–close friendships, romantic relationships, and so forth. Experiences with parents who are uncaring, lacking warmth, overly controlling, or inconsistent in their provision of care can result in the formation of problematic IWMs that include beliefs that the self is unlovable, or that others are untrustworthy and rejecting. These IWMs ultimately result in the formation of insecure attachment orientations. Various researchers have explored differing models of attachment insecurity.

Hazan and Shaver (1994), for example, proposed a two-factor model of adult attachment insecurity. Individuals who form stable IWMs of the self as unlovable but who appraise others positively and as trustworthy tend to exhibit an anxious attachment style, marked by fears of abandonment in intimate relationships and a pattern of over- exaggerated proximity seeking behaviors in relationships. Individuals who appraise others as untrustworthy or rejecting tend to exhibit an avoidant attachment orientation, marked by a general ambivalence and avoidance about engaging in relationships with

16 others. Research suggests that these forms of attachment insecurity are related to negative psychological outcomes, including depression and decreased social support.

Attachment and depression/depressive experiences. Although the evidence for the association between attachment insecurity and anaclitic/introjective dimensions of depressive experiences is somewhat limited, ample research suggests that attachment insecurity is associated with depressive symptomology. In fact, Morley and Moran

(2011) noted that the notions of stable self-models, like the IWMs in attachment theory, led Aaron Beck to initially propose that depression formed out of maladaptive self- perceptions and perceptions of others. Since then, extensive research on attachment orientations, mostly through the collection and analysis of self-reported data, has provided evidence of the association between insecure attachment and vulnerability to depression (Besser et al. 2012; Kopala-Sibley, Zuroff, Leybman, & Hope, 2012; Kullik &

Petermann, 2012).

Galynker et al. (2012) extended this line of research beyond analysis of self- reported data and provided evidence of neural mechanisms that underlie the connection between attachment insecurity and depression. They examined attachment-related brain activity in depressed and non-depressed women using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Results indicated that when depressed women viewed images that activated their attachment systems and their affect regulating systems, these similar but distinct and interacting circuits showed increased blood-oxygen-level-dependent responses. Specifically, they located increased brain activity associated with depression and attachment insecurity in the cortico-striatal-thalamic affect regulation circuits, although depression-related activity was found in cortical and subcortical regions,

17 whereas attachment-related activity was found in subcortical regions only. These authors concluded that this evidence suggests that brain activity for attachment and depression takes place in interacting neural circuitry, and thus attachment insecurity likely contributes to depressive symptomology.

Although the relevant literature is meager, some theoretical support and empirical evidence exists for the relationship between attachment insecurity and depressive experiences (dependency and self-criticism). Blatt and Luyten (2009), for example, argued that attachment anxiety reflects concerns of relatedness, specifically fear of abandonment, whereas attachment avoidance reflects elements of self-criticism, such as need for autonomy and control. Attachment security reflects healthy development and integration of self-definition and relatedness to others, resulting in the development of a

“positive, realistic, differentiated and integrated identity–the ability to both love and work” (Blatt & Luyten, 2009, p. 803). Anxious or avoidant attachment can result when disruptions to this balance of self-definition and relatedness occur. Anxiety involves a preoccupation with maintaining closeness to a need-gratifying figure and reflects disruption to the healthy development of the dependency dimension. Avoidance involves intense efforts to maintain detachment from others and reflects the exaggerated need for autonomy.

Zuroff, Moskowitz, and Coté (1999) also theorized that dependent individuals have the deep longing to be loved and cared for, but are insecure that these needs will be met, and thus use relational strategies associated with anxious attachment such as overly exaggerated proximity and reassurance seeking behaviors. Self-critical individuals may fear disapproval and loss of autonomy in interpersonal relationships, reflecting an

18 ambivalence about engaging in intimate relationships that is associated with a fearful- avoidant attachment orientation. Some empirical evidence suggests there is an association between these depressive experience dimensions and attachment insecurity. For example,

Zuroff and Fitzpatrick (1995) explored these associations in a sample of college students who completed the DEQ and Bartholomew and Horowitz’ (1991) paragraph rating exercise, in which participants read paragraphs describing relational styles that respectively described secure, anxious, fearful-avoidant, and dismissive attachment styles, and then rated the extent to which these descriptions applied to themselves.

Results indicated that attachment anxiety was positively correlated with dependency, and fearful-avoidant attachment was positively correlated with self-criticism.

Zuroff et al. (1999) also found evidence of associations between depressive experiences and qualities associated with attachment insecurity. In their study, a sample of community adults completed the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire and kept records of their social interactions, affective experiences, and behaviors related to dominance, submissiveness, agreeableness, and quarrelsomeness. Results indicated that self-criticism was associated with low levels of communion (defined as the difference between measures of agreeableness and quarrelsomeness) and low levels of agency

(defined as the difference between dominance and submissiveness). Also, although communal and agency-related behaviors were both associated with pleasant affect across the whole sample, this association was significantly weaker among highly self-critical participants. They additionally found that neediness (a subdimension of dependency) was associated with low levels of agency. These results suggest that self-criticism is associated with more avoidant behaviors and less pleasant affect when communing with

19 others, whereas dependency is associated with anxious attachment-related qualities, such as submitting to others to gain social approval. In general, this line of inquiry suggests an association between attachment anxiety and dependency, and between attachment avoidance and self-criticism.

Attachment and humor styles. Attachment theory also offers a useful lens for understanding the impact of humor styles on mental health. When Martin et al. (2003) created their humor styles model, they noted that the choice to use specific humor styles is largely a subconscious one, though they proposed no specific intrapsychic factors that may lead to the use of a particular style. It is possible, however, that the choice to use certain humor styles may stem from the desire to achieve certain attachment-related goals. For example, greater use of aggressive humor and lower use of affiliative humor may allow an avoidant individual to maintain emotional distance from others. Cann,

Norman, Welbourne, and Calhoun (2008) argued that aggressive humor should reflect an avoidant attachment style in that mean-spirited humor may help keep others at bay and ward off intimacy. Also, greater use of affiliative and self-defeating humor may be means through which an anxiously attached individual seeks proximity to others. Cann et al.

(2008) argued that self-defeating humor may reflect an anxious attachment style in that making jokes about the self may serve as an attempt to gain acceptance and support from others.

Findings from a limited number of studies suggest that attachment insecurity may predict the use of humor styles. For example, in their study in which they found evidence for the relationship between humor styles and distress, Besser et al. (2012) also found that both aggressive and self-defeating humor were positively associated with attachment

20 anxiety and avoidance, and affiliative humor was negatively associated with attachment avoidance. Further, after combining the aggressive and self-defeating styles into one construct of maladaptive humor, they found that maladaptive humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and distress, and fully mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and distress. These findings suggest that unmet developmental needs in childhood may predict the use of negative coping mechanisms in the form of maladaptive humor, which ultimately contributes to negative psychological outcomes like distress in adulthood.

In a preliminary study regarding humor, attachment insecurity, and depression, the current author (Poncy, 2014) sampled approximately 280 college students and found that aggressive and self-defeating humor each correlated positively with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Affiliative humor was negatively correlated with both attachment anxiety and avoidance, and self-enhancing humor was negatively correlated with attachment anxiety. Further, self-defeating humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and depression, suggesting that attachment insecurity may predict the use of humor as a maladaptive coping mechanism, which in turn may contribute to outcomes like depression. Finally, Miczo et al. (2009) also found evidence that affiliative humor was negatively related to attachment anxiety, whereas aggressive humor was positively related to attachment avoidance. In general, some of the findings in this small body of research provide preliminary evidence that attachment insecurity may predict the use of humor to allow an individual to manage his or her attachment-related needs (i.e., achieve goals of proximity or avoidance) but that, in doing so, this use of humor may contribute to feelings of depression.

21 Emotion Regulation as a Moderator of the Relationships Between Adult Attachment

Orientations, Humor Styles, and Depressive Experiences

Although findings from a limited body of research have identified interrelationships among adult attachment orientations, humor styles, and depression or depressive experiences, no known study has explored how emotion regulation is conjointly associated with these interrelationships. This association seems like an appropriate future direction for this line of inquiry, considering that (a) findings of a preliminary study by the current author (Poncy, 2014) suggest that maladaptive humor styles mediate the relationship between attachment insecurity and emotion regulation difficulties, and (b) previous research suggests that emotion regulation problems are associated with depression. This small body of evidence was found using Gross and

John’s (2003) two-factor model of emotion regulation.

Gross and John (2003) wanted to better understand emotion regulation from the perspective of both antecedent-focused strategies and response-focused strategies. They argued that emotion regulation accompanies the unfurling of physiological, experiential, and cognitive processes. Antecedent-focused strategies for regulating emotion take place as the emotion is occurring, whereas response-focused strategies are employed once an emotion has been processed and the person is determining how to manage it. The antecedent-focused strategy in Gross and John’s (2003) two-factor model is called cognitive reappraisal, and is considered an adaptive means of regulating emotions. It refers to the process of taking a negative emotion-eliciting situation and reframing or reappraising it in a way that positively changes its emotional impact. In other words, a person changes the way he or she is thinking about a situation to feel more positively

22 about it. Research suggests that this is associated with positive indicators of mental health. The response-focused factor is called expressive suppression, and is considered to be a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy related to negative indicators of mental health. Expressive suppression refers to purposefully choosing not to express one’s emotions, such as keeping a poker face. Gross and John (2003) noted that this may be particularly harmful because it does not protect a person from experiencing negative emotions, and may cause a person to suppress positive emotions as well, leading to diminished social support. Gross and John (2003) created the Emotion Regulation

Questionnaire (ERQ) which asks participants to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with behaviors and attitudes that reflect each dimension of emotion regulation.

For example, participants respond to items like “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about,” and “I control my emotions by not expressing them.”

Emotion regulation and depression/depressive experiences. Although no known research has explored the association between Blatt et al.’s (1976) two-factor model of depressive experiences and emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression), ample research suggests that emotion regulation difficulties predict depression. For example, Hu et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of studies that have explored the connections between emotion regulation and negative psychological outcomes like depression and anxiety. They included 48 different studies,

39 of which used the ERQ to explore expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal.

In general, they found that cognitive reappraisal was positively correlated with positive indicators of mental health (e.g., social support, positive mood, life satisfaction) and

23 negatively correlated with negative indicators of mental health (e.g., negative affect, depression, anxiety, etc.). The opposite trend was found for expressive suppression.

Various other studies provide evidence that emotion regulation problems are associated with depression and various other negative outcomes. For example, Srivasta,

Tamir, McGonigal, John, and Gross (2009) found that for first-year college students, expressive suppression as measured on the ERQ was negatively associated with social support, closeness to others, and social satisfaction. The authors also noted that suppression was a function of stable personality traits, but was also context dependent

(i.e., transitioning to college and new social networks led to increased suppression of emotions).

Troy, Wilhem, Shallcross, and Mauss (2010) found evidence that cognitive reappraisal moderated the relationship between stressful life events and depression among adult women who had experienced a stressful life event within the past three months (e.g., sudden unemployment, experiencing an illness, injury, or death of a loved one, divorce or the ending of a long-term intimate relationship). In general, results indicated that among women who had experienced high levels of life stress, high cognitive reappraisal ability (CRA) was associated with less depressive symptoms compared to women with low CRA. This suggests that emotion regulation may moderate the relationship between stress and depression, which may have implications for the role of emotion regulation in the relationship between areas of relational concern like attachment insecurity and one’s ability to cope adaptively.

Emotion regulation and humor styles. Although some authors have suggested a connection between humor styles and emotion regulation, few studies have examined this

24 relationship. For example, after Besser et al. (2011) found evidence that humor styles partially mediated the relationship between depressive experiences and depressive symptoms, they proposed that this dynamic reflected the operation of maladaptive affect regulation strategies. Also, Doosje, Degoede, Van Doornen, and Goldstein (2010) conceptualized humor styles as reflections of antecedent-focused and response-focused emotion regulation strategies. They suggested that antecedent-focused regulation may result in using humor to change the meaning of a demand in the environment to prevent experiencing stress and even to make the demanding event more enjoyable. Response- focused regulation may result in using humor to avoid or suppress negative emotions that have been processed.

Considering these conceptualizations, it is possible that self-enhancing humor functions as an antecedent-focused strategy reflecting an ability to cognitively reappraise a situation, thus lessening the negative impact of life events through a humorous outlook.

Also, it may be possible to consider self-defeating humor as the result of unsuccessful or maladaptive attempts to reappraise negative cognitions about the self. Further, Doosje et al. (2010) suggested that some types of humor may embody emotion regulation strategies aimed at managing others’ emotions. They speculated that as affiliative and aggressive humor are typically aimed at others, these humor styles likely represent this type of regulation. For example, affiliative humor may be the result of an attempt to reduce negative emotions in others (i.e., making others laugh), whereas aggressive humor may be used to reduce negative emotions in the self by inducing negative emotions in others

(e.g., making fun of irritating people when one is with friends).

25 Some empirical evidence exists to support the connection between emotion regulation and humor styles. For example, Doosje et al. (2010) studied the use of humor in the workplace in the context of affect regulation. In a sample of Dutch employees, they measured use of what they referred to as aggressive/manipulative humor (not measured on the HSQ but on a humor coping scale). They found that using an aggressive/manipulative style of humor was associated with experiencing greater negative job-related affect. They concluded that participants who endorsed higher negative humor usage were less successful at regulating their job-related emotions than those who did not, suggesting that negative humor was ineffective for regulating job- related affect.

Also, Sampson and Gross (2012) conducted an experimental study in which they exposed college students to negative emotion-eliciting images (e.g., images of skulls, corpses, and aggressive or dangerous animals). In one condition, participants were instructed to use a negative style of humor after viewing the images, whereas in another condition, participants were asked to engage in a positive use of humor following the images. Results indicated the participants using a more positive form of humor were more successful at up-regulating positive emotions and down-regulating negative emotions in the situation. They also noted that participants using a negative humor style were not successful at up-regulating positive emotions and down-regulating negative emotions. This suggests that humor may be used as a tool for regulating one’s emotions, and the type of humor one uses may affect outcomes like mood.

Emotion regulation, humor styles, and attachment. Some preliminary evidence shows that attachment insecurity may play a role in emotion regulation and the use of

26 humor styles. Poncy (2014) explored the connection between the maladaptive humor styles and emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) among college students. He found that both aggressive and affiliative humor styles correlated positively with expressive suppression and negatively with cognitive reappraisal. Also, mediation analysis revealed that self-defeating humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and expressive suppression (higher anxiety predicted higher self-defeating humor, which in turn predicted higher expressive suppression) and partially mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and expressive suppression (higher avoidance predicted higher self-defeating humor, which in turn predicted higher expressive suppression). Also, aggressive humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and cognitive reappraisal (higher avoidance predicted higher aggressive humor, which in turn predicted lower cognitive reappraisal).

This suggests that the emotion regulation strategies individuals use to manage attachment insecurity may be connected to the types of humor they employ to meet their attachment goals (e.g., keeping others at bay or seeking proximity and acceptance from others).

Other evidence suggests that attachment insecurity is related to emotion regulation. For example, Benning and Braet (2012) found that among a sample of adolescents, attachment anxiety was associated with the suppression of anger and sadness, whereas attachment avoidance was solely associated with the suppression of sadness. The authors noted that suppression leads to the dysregulation of these emotions.

Also, recent evidence suggests that although attachment insecurity may be associated with emotion regulation strategies in some predictable ways, emotion regulation among anxious, avoidant, and securely attached individuals may be context-

27 dependent. For example, Winterhead (2015) explored the relationship between attachment and emotion regulation among couples. She found that highly anxious individuals endorsed increased suppression when their partners were behaving in an avoidant manner, but actually reported expressing more negative emotion when they were with less avoidant partners. Secure attachment was associated with use of cognitive reappraisal, but especially so when individuals perceived they were close to their partners. Avoidance was associated with suppression, especially when participants’ partners behaved negatively or when their partners were more avoidant. This evidence suggests that although attachment insecurity may predict certain patterns of emotion regulation, anxiously attached or avoidant individuals have the capacity to alter their emotion regulation strategies. In other words, some anxiously attached and avoidant individuals may tend to have emotion regulation difficulties, but some adaptively regulate their affect. Therefore, it may be useful to explore the impact that emotion regulation strategies have on the relationship between attachment insecurity and the use of the humor styles, as anxious or avoidant individuals may exhibit adaptive or maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. The current study will seek to understand whether these emotion regulation strategies moderate the relationship between adult attachment orientations and humor styles, and further, how the use of those humor styles may explain some of the variance in the known relationship between attachment and depression/depressive experiences.

An alternative conceptualization of emotion regulation: Attitudes toward emotional expression. Another conceptualization of emotion regulation that may be useful to explore is Joseph, Williams, Irwing, and Cammock’s (1994) idea of attitudes

28 toward emotional expression. Joseph et al. (1994) noticed that negative attitudes toward emotional expression often predicted negative psychological outcomes like depression and anxiety, but also that no one instrument seemed to consistently yield evidence of these relationships. Therefore, they created and validated the Attitudes toward Emotional

Expression (AEE) scale which measures four highly stable factors: Beliefs about

Expression refers to believing that one should not express his or her emotions in public.

Behavioral Style refers to the behavior of consistently bottling up one’s emotions. Beliefs about Meaning refers to believing that expressing emotion is a sign of weakness. And finally, Beliefs about Consequences refers to the belief that expressing one’s emotion will lead to social rejection. The scale is used to obtain one global AEE score to measure a person’s negative attitudes about expressing one’s emotion. Joseph et al. (1994) found evidence of convergent validity in that higher AEE scores were associated with lower levels of social support, and evidence of concurrent validity in that higher AEE scores were associated with higher BDI-II scores.

Subsequent research has yielded evidence suggesting that negative attitudes toward emotional expression are associated with indicators of mental health problems.

For example, Laghai and Joseph (2000) explored the relationship between AEE scores and Big Five personality scores among college students. Similar to the results for the maladaptive humor styles in the previously mentioned Greengross et al. (2012) study,

AEE scores in the Joseph and Laghai (2000) study correlated positively with neuroticism, a personality trait associated with depression, and correlated negatively with the personality traits that have been found to buffer the experience of depressive symptoms: openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Also, Surgenor and Joseph

29 (2000) explored the relationship between AEE scores and psychological distress in the context of negative life events among college students. They found that AEE scores were positively associated with distress.

Although no known studies have yielded evidence for the relationship between

AEE and attachment, theoretically, certain components of AEE appear to align with qualities of attachment insecurity. For example, the AEE factor “Beliefs about

Consequences” focuses on the idea that expression of genuine emotion is a sign of weakness and will lead to rejection from others. Concern about rejection from others is a primary characteristic of attachment anxiety, resulting from beliefs that the self is unlovable. This might help explain why, in a preliminary study, Poncy (2014) found that attachment anxiety was associated with higher levels of expressive suppression. Also, avoidant attachment orientation is marked by the desire to avoid rejection and criticism from others, so it is possible that avoidant individuals may also hold beliefs that expression of emotion is a sign of weakness and will lead to judgment and rejection. This fear of judgment may also help explain why Poncy (2014) found a positive association between attachment avoidance and increased expressive suppression.

These attitudes toward emotional expression may also predict the use of humor style coping. As previously stated, Cann et al. (2008) argued that the maladaptive humor styles reflect attachment insecurities (e.g., aggressive humor reflects attachment avoidance, self-defeating humor reflects attachment anxiety), so it seems logical to conclude that negative attitudes toward emotional expression may be interconnected in the relationship between attachment insecurity and humor styles. It is possible that for individuals who hold negative attitudes about expressing emotion (potentially as a result

30 of attachment insecurity), humor styles may represent a sublimated (more socially acceptable) way of expressing something that is otherwise considered socially unacceptable. For example, if insecurely attached individuals believe others will reject them if they express their negative emotions in relationships and that they should thus suppress their true feelings, these emotions may find expression in more socially acceptable behaviors, such as joking. Therefore, it is possible that insecurely attached individuals who develop negative beliefs about emotional expression may turn to more maladaptive coping mechanisms like aggressive or self-defeating humor, whereas those with healthier beliefs about emotional expression may tend toward less maladaptive humor use (i.e., AEE may moderate the relationship between attachment insecurity and humor style use).

The Present Study

Although researchers have begun focusing their attention on the relationship between humor styles and psychological health, few studies have focused on humor styles as mediators of the relationship between attachment and depression. As noted above, several studies support the view that maladaptive humor styles may be mechanisms through which maladaptive internal working models predict depression, but the specific nature of these relationships remains unclear, as results have been mixed.

Also, as noted by Dozois et al. (2009), most studies exploring humor and depression have typically conceptualized depression in terms of internalizing pathology (i.e., measuring depression with instruments like the BDI and the CESD that gather information about internal symptomology), despite the fact that depression is also related to more other- oriented themes like rejection, defeat, and deprivation. Finally, few studies have explored

31 the role that emotion regulation may play in the interrelationships between attachment, humor styles, and depression.

A preliminary analysis (Poncy, 2014) found that humor styles partially mediated the relationship between attachment insecurity and depression, and also mediated the relationship between attachment insecurity and emotion regulation. The current study seeks to expand upon those findings by testing two models of hypothesized interrelationships among humor styles, depressive experiences, adult attachment orientations, and emotion regulation. The theoretical and empirical literature base suggests a distinct model involving attachment anxiety and dependency, as well as a distinct model involving attachment avoidance and self-criticism.

Model 1: Emotion regulation moderates the mediation effect of humor styles in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency. Theoretical and empirical literature addressing the relationship between adult attachment insecurity and depressive experiences (e.g., Blatt & Luyten, 2009; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Zuroff et al., 1999) suggests that attachment anxiety is associated with relatedness concerns represented in the anaclitic, dependency factor of depressive experiences. Fear of abandonment and preoccupation with maintaining closeness to need-gratifying others appears to be associated with qualities of dependency such as sociotropy, feelings of helplessness, loneliness, and an ultimate desire to depend on others. Further, existing literature suggests that humor styles are used to manage anxious attachment goals of proximity. For example, self-defeating humor may represent joking designed to achieve others’ approval, despite its known association with negative psychological outcomes like depression. Thus, it is possible that the humor styles mediate the relationship

32 between attachment anxiety and dependency. Attachment anxiety should predict greater use of maladaptive humor and lower use of adaptive humor, and this combination, in turn, should predict higher levels of dependency.

Additionally, evidence (e.g., Troy et al., 2010) suggests that emotion regulation can play a moderating role in individuals’ experiences of depression such that adaptive emotion regulation skills (i.e., cognitive reappraisal ability) buffer depressive symptoms like sadness. Further, researchers (e.g., Besser et al., 2011; Poncy, 2014) have suggested that emotion regulation strategies used to manage attachment-related concerns may influence the type of humor individuals use. Anxiously attached individuals who rarely engage in cognitive reappraisal or frequently engage in expressive suppression (or both) may be more likely to resort to using maladaptive humor to manage their anxiety (e.g., using self-defeating humor to gain proximity to others). They may be less likely to resort to using adaptive humor; poor emotion regulation may interfere with one’s ability to use self-enhancing humor to see the humorous side of challenging situations, and also interfere with one’s ability to use affiliative humor to bond with others. Therefore, in the current model, it is likely that emotion regulation will influence the relationship between anxious attachment and humor styles, ultimately moderating the mediation effect of humor styles in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency. (See Figure

B1.)

Model 2: Emotion regulation moderates the mediation effect of humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism. Existing theoretical and empirical literature (e.g., Blatt & Luyten, 2009; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick,

1995; Zuroff et al., 1999) also suggests that attachment avoidance is associated with self-

33 definitional concerns represented in the introjective, self-critical factor of depressive experiences. Ambivalence toward engaging in relationships with others has been associated with qualities of self-criticism such as low self-worth beliefs, feelings of inadequacy, shame, guilt, need for control, and low levels of communion. Further, existing literature (Besser et al., 2012; Cann et al., 2008; Poncy, 2014) suggests that humor styles are used to manage avoidant attachment goals. For example, aggressive humor appears to represent joking designed to ward off proximity to others, despite its association with negative psychological outcomes like depression. Thus, it is possible that the humor styles mediate the relationship between attachment avoidance and self- criticism. Attachment avoidance may predict higher use of maladaptive humor and lower use of adaptive humor, in turn predicting higher levels of self-criticism.

Again, evidence suggests that emotion regulation can play a moderating role in individuals’ experiences of depression, and that emotion regulation strategies used to manage attachment-related concerns may affect the type of humor people use. Therefore, it is possible that avoidant individuals who rarely engage in cognitive reappraisal or frequently engage in expressive suppression (or both) may be more likely to resort to using maladaptive humor to ward off others, and less likely to use adaptive humor to bond with others. For example, poor emotion regulation may predict a bubbling over of attachment-related frustration manifested in mean-spirited joking that serves to meet avoidance goals, as well as lower use of affiliative humor to avoid making connections with others. Therefore, in the current model, it is likely that emotion regulation will affect the relationship between avoidant attachment and humor styles, ultimately moderating

34 the mediation effect of humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism. (See Figure B2.)

Secondary, exploratory models: Exploring the moderating role of AEE. One of the aims of the current study is to expand upon the ways certain variables are measured in this line of inquiry. Therefore, in addition to the above tests of models, a secondary research aim of the current study is to explore whether attitudes toward emotional expression moderate the expected mediation effect of humor styles on the association between attachment insecurity and depressive experiences. Because the argument for

AEE’s potential role is theoretical in nature, the approach to proposing models involving

AEE will be exploratory in nature.

Model 3 will focus on AEE’s role in the interrelationships among attachment anxiety, humor styles, and dependency. It is possible that anxiously attached individuals who fear rejection for expressing their true emotions (i.e., AEE Beliefs about

Consequences) may develop negative attitudes about expressing their authentic emotions, and thus these feelings may find expression in more socially acceptable ways like aggressive or self-defeating joking. Conversely, those with more positive views of emotional expression may rely on maladaptive humor less frequently and instead opt for more productive styles of humor. As a result, AEE may moderate the expected role of humor styles in the mediating relationship between anxious attachment and dependency.

Model 4 will focus on AEE’s role in the interrelationships among attachment avoidance, humor styles, and self-criticism. It is possible that individuals who tend to avoid intimacy may believe that expressing true emotions may be antithetical to their attachment goals and thus develop negative AEE. These suppressed emotions may surface in the form of

35 aggressive or self-defeating joking. Conversely, those with more positive views of emotional expression may rely on maladaptive humor less frequently and instead opt for more productive styles of humor as a positive way to cope with attachment concerns. As a result, AEE may moderate the expected mediation of humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance attachment and self-criticism.

Research questions. Based on synthesis of the literature, the current study will address the research questions: (a) Do humor styles mediate the expected relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency?; (b) Do humor styles mediate the expected relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism?; (c) Does expressive suppression moderate the possible mediation effect of humor styles on the relationship between attachment insecurity and dependency and self-criticism?; (d) Does cognitive reappraisal moderate the possible mediation effect of humor styles on the relationship between attachment insecurity and dependency/self-criticism? Further, in the spirit of continuing to expand the role of emotion regulation in humor style use, the current study will also seek to address the question, (e) Do negative attitudes toward emotional expression moderate the possible mediation effect of humor styles on the relationship between attachment insecurity and dependency and self-criticism?

Primary hypotheses. Based on available theory and a limited (although growing) body of empirical evidence, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypotheses for Model 1.

Mediation. (See Figure B1) Attachment anxiety will be positively

associated with dependency. Self-defeating, aggressive, self-enhancing,

and affiliative humor will mediate this relationship, such that attachment

36 anxiety will predict higher self-defeating and aggressive humor, as well as lower self-enhancing and affiliative humor, which will in turn predict higher levels of dependency.

Moderated mediation. In the mediation model, emotion regulation (ERQ scores) will moderate the path between attachment anxiety and use of humor styles such that

• For individuals with high levels of expressive suppression, the

expected positive association between attachment anxiety and each

maladaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals with

low levels of expressive suppression.

• For individuals with high levels of expressive suppression, the

expected negative association between attachment anxiety and

each adaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals

with low levels of expressive suppression.

• For individuals with low levels of cognitive reappraisal, the

expected positive association between attachment anxiety and each

maladaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals with

high levels of cognitive reappraisal.

• For individuals with low levels of cognitive reappraisal, the

expected negative association between attachment anxiety and

each adaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals

with high levels of cognitive reappraisal.

37 Ultimately, these relationships will result in a moderated effect of emotion

regulation on the mediation of humor styles in the relationship between

attachment anxiety and dependency.

Hypotheses for Model 2.

Mediation. (See Figure B2.) Attachment avoidance will be positively

associated with self-criticism. Self-defeating, aggressive, self-enhancing,

and affiliative humor will mediate this relationship, such that attachment

avoidance will predict higher self-defeating and aggressive humor, as well

as lower self-enhancing and affiliative humor, which in turn will predict

higher self-criticism scores.

Moderated mediation. In the mediation model, emotion regulation (ERQ

scores) will moderate the path between attachment avoidance and use of

humor styles such that

• For individuals with high levels of expressive suppression, the

expected positive association between attachment avoidance and

each maladaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals

with low levels of expressive suppression.

• For individuals with high levels of expressive suppression, the

expected negative association between attachment avoidance and

each adaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals

with low levels of expressive suppression.

• For individuals with low levels of cognitive reappraisal, the

expected positive association between attachment avoidance and

38 each maladaptive humor style will be stronger then for individuals

with high levels of cognitive reappraisal.

• For individuals with low levels of cognitive reappraisal, the

expected negative association between attachment avoidance and

each adaptive humor style will be stronger than for individuals

with high levels of cognitive reappraisal.

Ultimately, these relationships will result in a moderated effect of emotion regulation on the mediation of humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism.

Chapter II

Methodology

Participants and Procedure

The sample was composed of 336 undergraduate students recruited from the psychology and education research participant pool at the University of Houston (UH).

Participants were recruited by convenience sampling through postings on the UH

Department of Psychology’s undergraduate research website (SONA). Some psychology and education professors at UH offer extra credit or make it a course requirement to participate in research studies, though no direct incentives were provided by the researcher.

Of the original 336 participants, 47 failed to complete all pages of the questionnaire and were excluded from data analysis. Of the remaining 289 remaining participants, 20 failed to respond correctly to one or more validity questions and were excluded. If any of the remaining 289 participants was missing a certain number of items from a given scale, his or her responses were not included in that scale. For example, on the Avoidance scale of the ECR, one person was deleted pairwise.

In the final sample of 269 participants, 76% identified as female, and the remaining 24% identified as male. The average age of the sample was 21.83 (SD = 4.18).

Additionally, thirty percent of the sample identified as Hispanic, 27% Caucasian/White,

25% Asian/Pacific Islander, 11% African American/Black, 3% Biracial, 3% selected

“Other” for their ethnic background, and 1% declined to respond. This diverse sample of undergraduate students served as an ideal demographic for the study, considering that (a) many previous studies upon which the current study expands employ college student

40 samples (e.g., Greengross et al; 2012; Kuiper & McHale, 2009; Frewen et al., 2008;

Martin et al., 2003), and (b) emerging adults tend to experience demands involving self- reflection, social-support seeking, and adjustment (Mattanah, Lopez, & Govern, 2011).

Participants accessed all questionnaires by logging into SONA and registering for the study. Upon completion of the questionnaires at the secure project website, participants were each awarded one research credit hour in the SONA system.

Measures

The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003). The HSQ is a 32- item self-report measure of individuals’ uses of the four different styles of humor: self- enhancing, affiliative, self-defeating, and aggressive humor. Participants read statements such as “I laugh and joke a lot with my closest friends,” and “If someone makes a mistake I will often tease them about it” and then rate their level of agreement along a 7- point scale (Martin et al., 2003, p. 58). Internal reliabilities for each of the four humor scales were acceptable when tested on college undergraduates, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .77 to .81. In terms of validity, peer ratings of participants’ uses of humor were highly correlated with participants’ own ratings. In terms of convergent validity, the

HSQ adaptive humor scales correlated significantly with other measures of humor including the Coping Humor Scale and the Sense of Humor Questionnaire. They and also correlated significantly with measures of mood and well-being (e.g., both adaptive humor style scales correlated negatively with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression

Scale) (Martin et al., 2003).

Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,

1998) The ECR instrument is a self-report measure of adult attachment orientations. It

41 includes 36 total items, half of which measure attachment anxiety (e.g., “I’m afraid I will lose my partner’s love”), and half of which measure attachment avoidance (e.g., “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners”). Participants rate their level of agreement with the items on a 7-point scale. Besser et al. (2012) found Cronbach’s alpha for attachment avoidance to be .89, and for attachment anxiety to be .88 among young adults in their mid-20’s. Lopez and Gormley (2002) found the 6-month test-retest coefficient for avoidance to be .71 and for anxiety to be .68 among first-year college students, and Schirmer and Lopez (2001) found significant correspondence between continuous ECR attachment scores and categorical attachment outcomes on the

Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) among adult workers. Additionally, Noftle and Shaver

(2006) found evidence of the predictive validity of the ECR subscales, as attachment anxiety and avoidance each negatively predicted relationship quality after controlling for

Big Five personality traits among U.S. college students.

The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt et al., 1976). The DEQ is a 66- item self-report measure of one’s levels of dependency and self-criticism.

Response options range from strongly disagree to strongly agree along a 7-point scale.

Dependency items include “Without support from others who are close to me, I would be helpless,” and “I urgently need things that only other people can provide,” whereas self- criticism items include “I often find that I don’t live up to my own standards or ideals,” and “I tend not to be satisfied with what I have.” The DEQ also contains an efficacy subscale, which includes items such as “I feel I am always making full use of my potential abilities.” Blatt et al. (1976) examined the psychometric properties of the DEQ among a sample of male and female undergraduate students. Using factor analysis with

42 varimax rotation, they found that among both the men and women, the three stable factors of dependency, self-criticism, and efficacy emerged. Zuroff, Quinlan, and Blatt

(1990) further examined the psychometric properties of the DEQ in a sample of 1,152 undergraduate students. Factor analysis of the overall scale yielded support for the original 3 factors. They also examined the internal consistency of the subscales and found

Cronbach’s alpha levels of .81, .75, and .73 for dependency, self-criticism, and efficacy respectively among the women participants, as well as Cronbach’s alpha levels of .80,

.77, and .69 for dependency, self-criticism, and efficacy respectively among the male participants. They also found evidence of congruence of the factors between the male and female participants, as Tucker’s coefficient of factor congruence yielded factor correlations of .97, .94, and .92 for dependency, self-criticism, and efficacy respectively.

In the present study, only the dependency and self-criticism scales were used.

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10- item self-report measure of one’s tendency to use cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression to regulate emotions. Response options range from strongly disagree to neutral to strongly agree along a 7-point scale. Reappraisal items include

“When I am faced with a stressful situation, I like to think about it in a way that helps me stay calm,” and suppression items include “When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.” Gross and John (2003) examined the psychometric properties of this scale and found acceptable average reliabilities for both the reappraisal (α = .79) and suppression (α = .73) dimensions. Test-retest reliability across three months for both scales was acceptable as well, r= .69. They also reported strong convergent validity with

43 various other emotion regulation measurement instruments, including the Negative Mood

Regulation scale and the reinterpretation and venting scales from the COPE.

The Attitudes Toward Emotional Expression Scale (AEE; Joseph et al., 1994).

The AEE is a 20-item self-report measure of one’s negative cognitions/beliefs and behaviors regarding the expression of emotions. Participants read statements such as “I think you should always keep your feelings under control,” and “I think getting emotional is a sign of weakness,” and then rate the extent to which they agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5. Item ratings are then summed to produce a total AEE score, with higher scores indicating more negative attitudes and dispositions toward emotion expression. In a sample of undergraduate students, Joseph et al. (1994) conducted principal components analysis on AEE scale items, which yielded four factors that corresponded with their intended subscales of Beliefs about Expression, Behavioral Style, Beliefs about Meaning, and Beliefs about Consequences. A separate principal component analysis of the subscales yielded evidence of a higher order factor, and thus AEE total scores are used to calculate a global attitude toward emotional expression score. A high AEE score indicates that an individual has a highly negative attitude about expressing emotions.

Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .90, and there were no significant differences in

AEE scores between men and women in the sample. Also, Joseph et al. (1994) found evidence of convergent validity in that AEE scores correlated negatively with seeking social support, as measured by the Seeking Social Support subscale on the Ways of

Coping Questionnaire, and correlated positively with depression scores as measured by the BDI.

44 Design and Analysis

This study employed an analysis of moderated mediation to determine (a) whether humor styles mediated the relationship between attachment insecurity and depressive experiences, and (b) whether emotion regulation or attitudes toward emotional expression moderated the nature of the mediation effect of the humor styles. Therefore, the Preacher,

Rucker, and Hayes (2007) bootstrapping method for examining moderated mediation was used. Preacher et al. (2007) described that moderated mediation refers to situations in which “the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some variable, or in other words, when mediation relations are contingent on the level of a moderator” (p. 193).

Preacher et al. (2007) described various models of this type of conditional indirect effect, including one in which a fourth variable (W) affects the a1 pathway (the pathway between the predictor and the mediator(s)) in a model in which a mediator (M) explains some of the variance in the relationship between a predictor variable (X) and an outcome variable

(Y). This reflects a situation in which there is a moderator x predictor interaction, affecting the relationship between the predictor and the mediator.

In the current study, this model represents the situation in which one’s level and type of emotion regulation strategies (i.e., expressive suppression or cognitive reappraisal), or one’s level of negative attitude toward emotional expression, affects the relationship between attachment insecurity and use of humor styles, which ultimately alters the strength of the overall indirect effect of humor styles on the relationship between attachment insecurity and depressive experiences. More simply stated, this model will test whether the level of individuals’ use of four humor styles as coping

45 mechanisms for attachment-related concerns depends upon their emotion regulation patterns.

Preacher et al. (2007) noted that the bootstrapping method of testing moderated mediation is advantageous in that it allows the researcher to explore the specific indirect effects of multiple mediators on the relationship between predictor and outcome variables. Also, this procedure does not necessitate that the variables are normally distributed, as it randomly resamples from the data k number of times (in the present study, k will be set to 10,000) to calculate correlations for pathways a, b, c, and c’ for each proposed mediation relationship. This technique also yields confidence intervals (in the present study, CIs will be set at 95%), which are used to determine whether the effects are statistically significant at p < .05. In the present study, the bootstrapping procedures will be conducted using the Preacher and Hayes (2008) provided SPSS macro

PROCESS (http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html).

Chapter III

Results

Correlational Analyses

Descriptive statistics of the variables used in the mediation and moderated mediation analyses are presented in Table A1 (attachment orientations, humor styles, depressive experiences, emotion regulation strategies, and attitudes toward expressive depression). Table A2 represents Pearson correlations between all the variables included in the mediation and moderated mediation analysis.

In terms of the relationships between the predictors (attachment orientations) and potential mediator variables (humor styles), which indicate the significance of “a” pathways in the mediation models, correlation analysis revealed that attachment anxiety correlated positively with aggressive and self-defeating humor and negatively with self- enhancing humor. Additionally, attachment avoidance correlated positively with aggressive and self-defeating humor and negatively with affiliative humor. This suggests that attachment insecurity predicts maladaptive humor usage patterns.

In terms of the relationships between the potential mediators (humor styles) and outcome variables (depressive experiences), which indicate the significance of “b” pathways in the mediation models, dependency-related depression scores correlated positively with self-defeating humor, whereas self-criticism-related depression scores correlated positively with both aggressive and self-defeating humor, and correlated negatively with self-enhancing humor. This suggests that higher use of maladaptive humor styles and lower use of self-enhancing humor is associated with depressive experiences.

47 In terms of the relationships between the attachment predictors and the emotion regulation variables, which were subsequently tested for interaction effects on the potential mediator variables (humor styles), results revealed that attachment anxiety correlated positively with expressive suppression and negatively with cognitive reappraisal, as well as positively with negative attitudes toward expressive suppression.

Additionally, attachment avoidance correlated positively with expressive suppression and with negative attitudes toward expressive suppression. These results suggest in general that attachment insecurity is associated with maladaptive emotion regulation patterns.

Mediation Analysis: The Relationship Between Avoidance and Self-Criticism-

Related Depression

Table 1 represents the results of the bootstrapping mediation analysis to determine whether the humor styles mediated the relationship between the attachment avoidance and depression. Evidence of mediation occurs when the confidence intervals (CIs) of the indirect effect do not contain zero. Because the initial mediation model suggested that the adaptive humor styles were not significant mediators, mediation was tested with only the maladaptive styles in the model. Results indicated that both self-defeating and aggressive humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and self- criticism. This indicates that higher scores on attachment avoidance predicted higher use of self-defeating and aggressive humor, which in turn predicted higher self-criticism scores. R2 for this model was .31, indicating that about 31% of the variability in self- criticism was accounted for by the overall model.

48 Table 1

The Mediation Effects of Maladaptive Humor Styles on the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism Self-defeating Humor Aggressive Humor Direct Effect Indirect Effect CI Indirect Effect CI Attachment .25 .07 (.04, .11)** .02 (.004, .05)* Avoidance * p < .05, ** p < .01

Mediation Analysis: The Relationship Between Anxiety and Dependency-Related

Depression

Table 2 represents the results of the bootstrapping mediation analysis to determine whether the humor styles mediated the relationship between the attachment anxiety and dependency. Again, because the initial mediation model suggested that the adaptive humor styles were not significant mediators, mediation was tested with only the maladaptive styles in the model. Results indicated that both self-defeating and aggressive humor partially mediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency.

As expected, higher scores on attachment anxiety predicted higher use of self-defeating humor, which in turn predicted higher levels of dependency-related depression. However, contrary to expectations, higher anxiety predicted higher levels of aggressive humor, which in turn predicted lower dependency scores. R2 for this model was .26, indicating that about 26% of the variability in dependency was accounted for by the overall model.

Table 2

The Mediation Effects of Maladaptive Humor Styles on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency Self-defeating Humor Aggressive Humor Direct Effect Indirect Effect CI Indirect Effect CI Attachment .27 .06 (.02, .10)** -.05 (-.09, -.02)* Anxiety * p < .05, ** p < .01

49 Moderated Mediation Analysis: Expressive Suppression as a Moderator

The relationship between avoidance and self-criticism. The next model used bootstrapping mediation analysis to determine whether expressive suppression moderated the indirect effect of the maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism. In this analysis, evidence of significant moderation is indicated when CIs for moderated paths do not contain zero. The model tested the interaction effect of avoidance and expressive suppression on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed a significant negative interaction effect of avoidance and suppression on self-defeating humor (-.09, CI = (-.18, -.002), p < .05) but not on aggressive humor. R2 for this portion of the model was .12 (p <.01). Interpretation of the slopes suggested that at low levels of avoidance, low suppressors appeared to use less self-defeating humor than high suppressors, whereas at higher levels of avoidance, there appeared to be less difference in use of self-defeating humor.

5

4.5

4

3.5

3 Low Expressive Suppression 2.5 High Expressive 2 Suppression Self-defeating Humor Humor Self-defeating 1.5

1 Low Attachment Avoidance High Attachment Avoidance

Figure 1. The interaction effect of attachment avoidance and expressive suppression on self-defeating humor

50 For the overall model, results indicated that at lower levels of expressive suppression, the indirect positive effect of avoidance on self-criticism through self- defeating humor was greater than at higher levels of expressive suppression. Further, at the highest level of expressive suppression (mean > 4.92), the mediation effect of self- defeating humor was no longer significant. R2 for the overall model was .31 (p < .01), indicating that the overall model accounted for 31% of the variance in self-criticism.

Table 3

The Conditional Indirect Effects of Self-defeating Humor in the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism at Values of Expressive Suppression Mediator Expressive Suppression Effect SE CI Self-defeating Humor 2.38 .08 .03 (.03, .14)** Self-defeating Humor 3.65 .05 .02 (.02, .10)** Self-defeating Humor 4.92 .02 .02 (-.02, .07) * p < .05, ** p < .01

These results did not align with the hypothesis that for highly avoidant individuals, more adaptive emotion regulation skills (lower expressive suppression) would predict more adaptive humor patterns, which in turn would predict better mood related outcomes. It appears that for more securely attached individuals (lower levels of avoidance), better emotion regulation skills predicted more adaptive humor patterns, but this was not the case at high levels of avoidance. Further, lower levels of suppression predicted a stronger overall positive relationship between avoidance and self-criticism though self-defeating humor, suggesting that when suppression is low, avoidant individuals may be more prone to express negative humor about the self, which in turn predicts increased self-criticism.

The relationship between anxiety and dependency. Bootstrapping analysis was also conducted to determine if expressive suppression moderated the indirect effect of the

51 maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency. This model tested the interaction effect of anxiety and expressive suppression on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed no significant interaction effect of anxiety and suppression on either humor style, indicating that the mediation effect of maladaptive humor is not dependent upon one’s level of expressive suppression.

Moderated Mediation Analysis: Cognitive Reappraisal

The relationship between avoidance and self-criticism. The next model used bootstrapping mediation analysis to determine whether cognitive reappraisal moderated the indirect effect of the maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism. It tested the interaction effect of avoidance and expressive suppression on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed a significant positive interaction effect of avoidance and reappraisal on aggressive humor (.12, CI = (.03, .20), p < .01) but not on self-defeating humor. R2 for this portion of the model was .26 (p <

.01). Interpretation of the slopes indicated that at lower levels of avoidance, those high in reappraisal tend to use less aggressive humor than those low in reappraisal; however, at higher levels of avoidance, those high in reappraisal tend to use more aggressive humor than those low in reappraisal.

52

Figure 2. The interaction effect of attachment avoidance and cognitive reappraisal on aggressive humor

For the overall model, results indicated that at higher levels of cognitive reappraisal, the indirect positive effect of avoidance on self-criticism through aggressive humor was greater than at lower levels of cognitive reappraisal. Further, at the lowest level of cognitive reappraisal (mean < 3.77), the mediation effect of aggressive humor was no longer significant. R2 for the overall model was .31 (p < .01), indicating that the overall model accounted for 31% of the variance in self-criticism. These results contradicted the hypothesis that for avoidant individuals, more higher cognitive reappraisal would predict more adaptive humor patterns, which in turn would predict lower self-criticism.

Table 4

The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Avoidance and Self-criticism at Values of Cognitive Reappraisal Mediator Cognitive Reappraisal Effect SE CI Aggressive Humor 3.77 .00 .01 (-.01, .03) Aggressive Humor 4.88 .02 .01 (.004, .05)** Aggressive Humor 6.00 .04 .02 (.01, .09)** * p < .05, ** p < .01

53 The relationship between anxiety and dependency. The next model used bootstrapping mediation analysis to determine whether cognitive reappraisal moderated the indirect effect of the maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency-related depression. It tested the interaction effect of anxiety and reappraisal on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed a significant positive interaction effect of anxiety and reappraisal on aggressive humor (.08, CI = (.01, .15), p <

.05), and also on self-defeating humor (.11, CI = (.03, .20), p < .05). R2 for this portion of the model was .17 (p < .01).

Interpretation of the slopes suggested that at lower levels of anxiety, those high in reappraisal tend to use less aggressive humor than those low in reappraisal, however, at higher levels of anxiety, those high in reappraisal tend to use more aggressive humor than those low in reappraisal.

Figure 3. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and cognitive reappraisal on aggressive humor

54 Similarly, interpretation of the slopes suggested that at lower levels of anxiety those high in reappraisal tend to use less self-defeating humor than those low in reappraisal, whereas at higher levels of anxiety, those high in reappraisal tend to use more self-defeating humor than those low in reappraisal.

Figure 4. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and cognitive reappraisal on self- defeating humor

For the overall model, results indicated that at higher levels of cognitive reappraisal, the indirect negative effect of anxiety on dependency-related depression through aggressive humor was greater than at lower levels of cognitive reappraisal.

Further, at the lowest level of cognitive reappraisal (mean < 3.77), the mediation effect of aggressive humor was no longer significant. Conversely, at higher levels of cognitive reappraisal, the indirect positive effect of anxiety on dependency through self-defeating humor was stronger. R2 for the overall model was .25 (p < .01), indicating that the overall model accounted for 25% of the variance in dependency.

55 Table 5

The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive and Self-defeating Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency at Values of Cognitive Reappraisal Aggressive Humor Self-Defeating Humor Cognitive Effect SE CI Cognitive Effect SE CI Reappraisal Reappraisal 3.77 -.03 .02 (-.07, .004) 3.77 .03 .02 (.01, .08)** 4.88 -.04 .02 (-.09, -.02)** 4.88 .05 .02 (.02, .09)**

6.00 -.06 .02 (-.12, -.03)** 6.00 .07 .02 (.03, .12)** * p < .05, ** p < .01

These results did not align with the hypothesis that for insecurely attached individuals, more adaptive emotion regulation skills would predict more adaptive humor patterns, which in turn would predict better mood related outcomes. It appears that for more securely attached individuals (lower levels of anxiety), better emotion regulation skills (higher cognitive reappraisal) predicted more adaptive humor patterns (less use of self-defeating humor), but the opposite effect was seen at high levels of anxiety. Further, higher levels of reappraisal predicted a stronger negative indirect relationship between anxiety and dependency though aggressive humor, but a stronger positive indirect relationship between anxiety and dependency through self-defeating humor.

Moderated Mediation Analysis: Attitudes Toward Expressive Suppression

The relationship between avoidance and self-criticism. Bootstrapping analysis was also conducted to determine whether AEE moderated the indirect effect of the maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self- criticism. The model tested the interaction effect of avoidance and AEE on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed no significant interaction effect of

56 anxiety and AEE on either humor style, indicating that the mediation effect of maladaptive humor is not dependent upon one’s level of AEE.

The relationship between anxiety and dependency. Bootstrapping mediation analysis was conducted to determine if AEE moderated the indirect effect of the maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency. This model tested the interaction effect of anxiety and AEE on each maladaptive humor style, which would influence the overall indirect effect of maladaptive humor in the model. Results revealed no significant interaction effects; however the interaction effect of AEE and anxiety on aggressive humor approached significance (-.11, CI = (-.22, .00), p =.05). R2 for this portion of the model was .12 (p <

.01).

Interpretation of the slopes suggested that at lower levels of anxiety, those low in

AEE use less aggressive humor than those high in AEE; however, at higher levels of anxiety, there appeared to be less of a difference in use of aggressive humor across levels of AEE.

5 4.5 4 3.5 Low AEE 3 High AEE 2.5 2

Aggressive Humor Humor Aggressive 1.5 1 Low Attachment Anxiety High Attachment Anxiety

Figure 5. The interaction effect of attachment anxiety and AEE on aggressive humor

57 For the overall model, results indicated that at lower levels of AEE, the indirect negative effect of anxiety on dependency through aggressive humor was greater than at higher levels of AEE. Further, at the highest level of AEE (mean > 3.27), the mediation effect of aggressive humor was no longer significant. R2 for the overall model was .25 (p

< .01), indicating that the overall model accounted for 25% of the variance in dependency-related depression.

Table 6

The Conditional Indirect Effects of Aggressive Humor on the Relationship Between Attachment Anxiety and Dependency at Values of AEE Mediator AEE Effect SE CI Aggressive Humor 1.84 -.04 .02 (-.09, .-02)** Aggressive Humor 2.56 -.03 .02 (-.07, -.01)** Aggressive Humor 3.27 -.01 .02 (-.06, .03) * p < .05, ** p < .01

It appears that for more securely attached individuals (lower levels of anxiety), better emotion regulation skills (lower AEE levels) predicted less use of aggressive humor than those high in AEE. However, the overall model suggested that highly anxious individuals who are willing to express emotions may use aggressive humor which in turn predicts lower dependency-related depression.

Chapter IV

Discussion

In general, the purpose of this study was to contribute to emerging research exploring the indirect effect of humor styles in the relationship between attachment insecurity and depression by (a) utilizing a more complex (two-factor) model of depression as the outcome measure, and (b) exploring the possible moderating role of emotion regulation in the indirect effect of humor styles. Overall, it was expected that humor styles would partially mediate the relationship between attachment insecurity and depressive experiences, and also that for insecurely attached individuals, good emotion regulation skills would predict more adaptive humor use, which would in turn predict more favorable depressive experience outcomes (i.e., lower DEQ dependency and self- criticism scores). Results suggested maladaptive humor styles function as partial mediators in the relationships between attachment orientations and depressive experiences, but not all models yielded results in expected directions. Further, results supported moderated mediation effects of emotion regulation variables, but again, not all models yielded results in expected directions.

Correlational Analyses

As expected, initial correlational analyses supported the hypothesis that attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety would each be correlated positively with both maladaptive humor styles (aggressive and self-defeating humor). Regarding the adaptive humor styles, attachment anxiety correlated negatively with self-enhancing humor but not affiliative humor, whereas attachment avoidance correlated negatively with affiliative humor but not with self-enhancing humor. In general, these results

59 support the overall notion that attachment insecurity predicts more maladaptive humor patterns and less adaptive humor patterns; however, anxious attachment may interfere with one’s ability to use humor as a coping mechanism for life stressors, whereas avoidant attachment may predict that an individual is less likely to use innocuous humor to form social bonds with others.

In terms of the relationships between the humor styles and depressive experiences, correlational findings indicated that self-defeating humor was positively associated with both dependency and self-criticism, whereas aggressive humor was only positively associated with self-criticism. This supports the notion that aggressive humor is differentially associated with depressive experiences, and may help explain why previous studies (e.g., Besser, Luyten, & Mayes, 2012; Dozois et al., 2009; Poncy, 2014) have yielded inconsistent findings on the relationship between aggressive humor and depression when utilizing a one-dimensional, general depression measure (e.g., BDI,

CESD-R). Regarding the adaptive humor styles, self-enhancing humor was negatively associated with self-criticism, and affiliative humor was not associated with either dependency or self-criticism. Finally, as hypothesized, attachment anxiety was positively associated with dependency (but also with self-criticism), whereas avoidance was positively associated with self-criticism, supporting claims in previous literature (e.g.,

Blatt & Luyten, 2009; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995) about the relationships between attachment orientations and depressive experiences.

Mediational Analyses

Results of the current study supported a partial mediation effect of maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment orientations and depressive

60 experiences, but did not support a mediation effect for the adaptive humor styles. More specifically, in the relationship between avoidance and self-criticism, the maladaptive humor styles served as partial mediators in expected directions; avoidance predicted higher use of both self-defeating and aggressive humor, which in turn predicted higher self-criticism. This finding suggests that avoidant individuals may manage their attachment-related concerns about intimacy with others by using maladaptive humor to keep others at a distance (e.g., aiming mean-spirited humor at others), but that this in turn predicts higher self-critical tendencies (e.g., negative self-worth beliefs, feelings of shame, guilt, doubt and frustration, a sense of inadequacy, need for control, etc.).

In the relationship between anxiety and dependency-related depression scores, the maladaptive humor styles served as partial mediators, but in differential directions. As expected, attachment anxiety predicted use of self-defeating humor, which in turn predicted higher dependency. However, anxiety also predicted higher aggressive humor, which, contrary to expectations, in turn predicted lower dependency scores. Although previous theory and research suggests that maladaptive humor predicts increased depression, the relationships appear to look different when delineating between self- criticism and dependency dimensions. In the present study, the indirect pathway from anxiety to dependency through aggressive humor is a negative one. This suggests that aggressive humor, in this case, predicts lower levels of such experiences as fear of abandonment, a desire to depend upon others, and feelings of loneliness and helplessness.

It is noteworthy that aggressive humor appears to function differently in the relationship between avoidance and self-criticism than it does in the relationship between anxiety and dependency. This difference suggests that avoidant and anxious individuals

61 may use aggressive humor differently as they attempt to regulate their distinct attachment concerns. For example, whereas avoidant individuals may use aggressive humor to keep others at bay in order to manage fears of intimacy, anxious individuals may use aggressive humor to maintain connection and control in relationships with others. For anxious individuals, making fun of others may function similarly to psychological aggression used in intimate relationships. For example, Goldstein, Chesir-Teran, and

McFaul (2008) studied the profiles and correlates of aggression in young adult relationships, and found that anxious attachment was positively correlated to relationship aggression (e.g., giving a partner the silent treatment, hooking up with another person to upset one’s partner) and retaliation beliefs (e.g., agreeing that it is acceptable for a person to flirt with someone to make his her partner jealous). Additionally, in a longitudinal study, Miga, Hare, Allen, and Manning (2010) found that among teens, endorsing a preoccupied attachment state of mind at age 14 positively predicted higher levels of verbally aggressive behavior toward one’s partner at age 18. These authors suggested that aggressive tactics like name-calling and making others feel guilty may serve as a means of emotionally engaging them to assure that their partners are invested in the relationship.

Similarly, aggressive humor may be a tool anxious individuals use to emotionally engage others and feel connected to them. This strategy in turn appears to predict lower depressive experiences related to dependency.

Considering the inconsistent findings in previous literature, the present study sheds light on the complexity of aggressive humor. It appears that for avoidant individuals, aggressive humor serves as a tool for keeping others at a distance, and this may contribute to introjective experiences of depression. For anxious individuals,

62 aggressive humor may serve as a means of engaging partners emotionally in a way that might actually feel successful, as it in turn predicts fewer experiences of loneliness and helplessness. This pattern could explain why aggressive humor is inconsistently linked to more global measures of depression, as it may be used in different ways, leading to different psychological outcomes.

Moderated Mediation Analysis

Expressive suppression. The current study supported the general hypothesis that emotion regulation would moderate the mediation effect of maladaptive humor styles in the relationship between attachment and depressive experiences, although not always in expected directions. For example, expressive suppression moderated the indirect effect of self-defeating humor in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism, but did not moderate the indirect effect aggressive humor. In terms of the moderation effect of expressive suppression on the relationship between avoidance and self-defeating humor, it appeared that for more securely attached individuals (low levels of avoidance), high suppressors exhibited greater use of self-defeating humor than did low suppressors.

This pattern suggests that for securely attached individuals, suppression predicts a greater likelihood that individuals will make fun of themselves to gain approval, potentially as a sublimated way of expressing suppressed emotions. However, at higher levels of avoidance, individuals appeared to exhibit equally high levels of self-defeating humor, regardless of whether they were high or low suppressors. This suggests that high avoidance predicts high levels of self-defeating humor use irrespective of one’s tendencies to suppress emotional expression.

63 Finally, the overall moderated mediation model did not support the general idea that better emotion regulation skills would predict a weaker indirect effect of avoidance on self-criticism through maladaptive humor. Indeed, the opposite was true; at lower levels of expressive suppression, the indirect positive effect of avoidance on self-criticism through self-defeating humor was actually greater than it was at higher levels of expressive suppression. This suggests that when suppression is low, avoidance predicts the use of self-defeating humor which in turn predicts self-critical depressive experiences, more so than when suppression is high. Although expressive suppression is typically associated with negative psychological outcomes like depression, it seems that in the current model, suppression may make avoidant individuals less prone to express their attachment-related concerns through maladaptive humor, which, in turn, predicts a more favorable mood outcome (lower self-critical feelings).

One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the idea that stress and cognitive load have been shown to interfere with the deactivation/disengagement strategies seen in attachment avoidance. Mikulincer, Dolev, and Shaver (2004) noted that when regulating affect, avoidant individuals use strategies to minimize relational distress, such as suppressing thoughts related to separation, rejection, personal weaknesses and imperfections. However, experiencing high cognitive demands can cause these deactivating strategies to collapse, resulting in the activation of attachment-related concerns, as well as high levels of distress. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) explained that under conditions of stress or cognitive load, avoidant individuals experience even higher levels of distress than anxiously attached people. Mikulincer et al. (2004) conducted a study in which avoidant individuals were asked to suppress thoughts about a recent

64 breakup while experiencing either high or low levels of cognitive load. Results revealed that avoidant individuals in the high cognitive load condition exhibited a higher frequency of separation-related thoughts and were more likely to activate negative self- representations by offering negative self-descriptive traits. Further, a study by Chun,

Shaver, Gillath, Matthews, and Jorgensen (2015) indicated that under conditions of high cognitive load, avoidant individuals had more difficulty disengaging (i.e., averting their attention) from emotion-eliciting stimuli than they did under conditions of low cognitive load. They noted that attentional disengagement among avoidant individuals is a two- stage process. It begins with automatic processing and even attentional vigilance toward threatening stimuli, and is followed by deactivating behaviors. They suggested that the results of their study indicate that this disengagement process takes effort, and it can break down under high cognitive demands.

In the present study, it is possible that low levels of expressive suppression in avoidant individuals may be indicative of a breakdown of the deactivating strategies these individuals typically employ to regulate their emotions. For example, if avoidant individuals are experiencing stress or cognitive load (potentially triggered by completing questionnaires about their close relationships), their deactivating strategies may collapse

(i.e., they fail to suppress their concerns) and their attachment-related fears may remain activated in manner similar to that of anxious individuals. In turn, failure to deactivate may lead to their use of strategies such as increased use of self-defeating humor, as well as outcomes like negative self-representations and self-criticism-related depression.

Cognitive reappraisal. The moderation effects of cognitive reappraisal in the relationships between attachment insecurity, maladaptive humor, and depressive

65 experiences were also contrary to the hypotheses. Cognitive reappraisal moderated the indirect effect of aggressive humor in the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism, but did not for the indirect effect of self-defeating humor. In terms of the moderation effect of cognitive reappraisal on the relationship between avoidance and aggressive humor, it appeared that for more securely attached individuals (low levels of avoidance), high reappraisers were less likely to use aggressive humor than low appraisers, as expected. Individuals who tend to see the positive side of situations appear to be less likely to resort to expressing aggression through humor. However, for less securely attached individuals (high levels of avoidance), the opposite was true; high reappraisers suprisingly exhibited higher levels of aggressive humor than low reappraisers.

The overall moderated mediation model revealed that for high reappraisers, the indirect positive effect of avoidance on self-criticism through aggressive humor was greater than for low reappraisers. This suggests that when reappraisal is high (typically an adaptive emotion regulation strategy), aggressive humor strategies predict a less favorable mood outcome. One possible explanation lies in the planful and intentional nature of cognitive reappraisal. Payer, Baicy, Lieberman, and London (2012) have highlighted the intentional nature of reappraisal, observing brain activity in fMRI scans while participants engaged in tasks in which they down-regulated negative emotions through reappraisal. Because cognitive reappraisal represents an intentional way to interpret life circumstances, it may be the case that highly avoidant reappraisers very strategically use aggressive humor to keep others at a distance when they perceive a

66 relationship partner as making a bid for intimacy. This strategy in turn appears to predict self-critical depressive experiences.

In the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency, cognitive reappraisal moderated the indirect effects of both aggressive and self-defeating humor, but in distinct ways. With regard to the moderation effect of cognitive reappraisal on the relationship between anxiety and self-defeating humor, results indicated that at low levels of anxiety, high reappraisers used less aggressive humor than low reappraisers did, but at high levels of anxiety, high reappraisers used more aggressive humor than low reappraisers. The same pattern was observed for self-defeating humor. This pattern suggests that for securely attached individuals, cognitive reappraisal predicts less use of maladaptive humor; however, for highly anxious individuals, the opposite appears to be true: engaging in cognitive reappraisal predicts more aggressive and self-defeating humor.

Similar to the original mediation model, the overall moderated mediation model revealed a negative indirect effect of aggressive humor in the relationship between anxiety and dependency, with aggressive humor predicting lower levels of dependency- related depressive experiences in anxiously attached individuals. Further, this negative effect was indeed stronger at higher levels of reappraisal. This finding suggests that for anxious individuals actively searching for more positive ways to interpret emotion- eliciting situations, using aggressive humor predicted better mood-related outcomes.

Although this outcome was not expected, it may also result from the planful and intentional nature of cognitive reappraisal. Anxious individuals who are intentional about

67 managing their emotions may do so through aggressive humor to maintain closeness, and they may do so somewhat successfully.

Regarding self-defeating humor, the overall moderated mediation model revealed a positive indirect effect on the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency- related depressive experiences. More specifically, self-defeating humor predicted higher dependency in anxiously attached individuals, which was expected, but this effect was stronger at higher levels of cognitive reappraisal, which was not expected. In other words, anxiously attached individuals who actively attempt to reappraise situations to regulate their emotions are more likely to use self-defeating humor, which in turn predicts higher levels of dependency-related depression. It seems that among anxiously attached individuals, those who are planful in how they regulate their emotions may intentionally attempt to get approval from others through self-defeating humor, but this in turn makes them experience greater feelings of dependency depression. Whereas their use of aggressive humor seems to predict that they would feel less dependent, their greater use of self-defeating humor predicted that they would feel more dependent.

Attitudes toward expressive suppression. Attitudes toward expressive suppression (AEE) did not appear to moderate any of the observed mediation effects of the maladaptive humor styles. However, the moderation effect of AEE did approach significance as a moderator of the indirect effect of aggressive humor in the relationship between anxiety and dependency. It appeared that at low levels of anxiety, those low in

AEE (those with more positive attitudes toward emotional expression) use less aggressive humor than those high in AEE (those with more negative attitudes about expressing emotions), whereas at higher levels of anxiety, individuals appear to use equally high

68 levels of aggressive humor. Further, for individuals low in AEE, the indirect negative effect of aggressive humor on the relationship between anxiety and dependency was greater than it was for individuals high in AEE. This suggests that anxious individuals with better attitudes about expressing emotions are more likely to use aggressive humor in a way that predicts lower dependency, as compared to individuals with more negative attitudes about expressing emotion. Again, this outcome reflects the trend that for insecurely attached individuals, better emotion regulation skills seem to predict a greater indirect effect of maladaptive humor. It may be the case that anxious individuals with more positive attitudes about expressing their emotions feel freer to express themselves through aggressive humor as a way to keep others connected, which in turn helps them experience less dependent depression (i.e., fear of abandonment, a desire to depend upon others, and feelings of loneliness and helplessness). In other words, aggressive humor once again appears to function somewhat adaptively among highly anxious individuals with strong emotion regulation skills.

Overall Implications

Several unexpected patterns emerged in the data. First, aggressive humor predicted differential mood outcomes for avoidant and anxious individuals. Both avoidance and anxiety predicted increased aggressive humor use, but this in turn predicted increased self-criticism in avoidant individuals, whereas it predicted decreased dependency in anxious individuals. This finding suggests that avoidant and anxious individuals might use aggressive humor for different purposes. Avoidant individuals might use aggressive humor to satisfy their need to keep others away, but this ultimately predicts self-critical tendencies, whereas anxious individuals might use aggressive humor

69 to maintain control and connection with others (i.e., elevating the self in the eyes of desired others), but this actually may predict less dependent depressive experiences. This implies that for some individuals (e.g., highly anxious cognitive reappraisers), aggressive humor might not actually be entirely “maladaptive” in the context of dependent depression.

Second, it appears that among anxious individuals, aggressive humor and self- defeating humor have opposing mediational effects on dependency; aggressive humor predicts lower dependency-related depression, whereas self-defeating humor predicts higher levels of this type of depression. Therefore, anxious individuals may be more prone to use both styles of humor, but they lead to differential outcomes. Both humor styles may be used to maintain acceptance and proximity to others, but have different effects on the anxious individual’s mood.

Another noteworthy pattern across models is that at lower levels of avoidance and anxiety, those with more adaptive emotion regulation patterns (e.g., lower levels of expressive suppression, higher levels of cognitive reappraisal, or lower levels of AEE) tend to use less aggressive and self-defeating humor, whereas at higher levels of avoidance and anxiety, those with more adaptive emotion regulation patterns exhibit the same or even higher levels of the maladaptive humor styles. This outcome was contrary to expectation. It seems that higher levels of attachment insecurity may facilitate individuals with good emotion regulation skills to use maladaptive humor more intentionally to meet their emotional needs, even if this predicts the aforementioned varying mood outcomes.

70 Limitations, Clinical Implications, and Directions for Future Research

These findings should be considered in the context of several limitations of the study. Although all measures exhibited acceptable to strong psychometric properties

(with Cronbach alphas ranging from .71 to .95), all relied on self-reported data. Also, the participants completed all measures online, so it was not possible to control for environmental factors that may have distracted them while completing the questionnaires.

To mitigate this, questions were included in the online survey to gauge their attention level (e.g., “Please choose 7 as your response to this item,”) and any participant who incorrectly answered one or more of these questions was excluded. This resulted in the removal of 20 participants from the original sample. Additionally, in-person classroom announcements of the study were made by the researcher to potential participants in order to engender a sense of responsibility for providing genuine information for the researcher. Lelkes, Krosnik, Marx, Judd, and Park (2012) found evidence that complete anonymity in social science research compromises accountability, motivation, and accuracy in self-reported data. Therefore, it is possible that in the current study, face-to- face meetings with the researcher might have reduced the risk of inaccurate responses.

Another limitation was the underrepresentation of men in the survey (24%), as well as the relatively narrow age range of most participants (emerging adult college students), both of which limit generalizability of the findings to men and to non-college attending youth and adults.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study have some important implications for clinicians and their work with clients. They highlight the need for therapists to attend to the styles of humor their clients use, especially from an attachment

71 perspective. According to Daly and Mallinckrodt (2009), experienced therapists strategically regulate their therapeutic distance with insecurely attached clients, but in different ways depending upon whether the client is anxious or avoidant. More specifically, therapists tend to gradually increase their therapeutic distance with anxious clients and then help the clients manage the resulting frustration. Conversely, they tend to gradually decrease therapeutic distance with avoidant clients and then help these clients manage the resulting discomfort. It may be useful to consider the results of the current study in this clinical context. For example, it is possible that frustration or discomfort may appear in the form of maladaptive humor as the clients attempt to regain control. For the avoidant individual, it is possible that aggressive humor may signify that the client is attempting to keep the therapist at a distance. For the anxious individual, aggressive humor may be used to maintain connection and elevate the self to regain approval. This may predict varying mood-related outcomes in the therapeutic environment. Therapists may do well to remain mindful of these dynamics to best understand their clients’ actions and support their clinical needs. When processing clients’ attachment concerns in therapy, emerging humor used as a coping mechanism may provide rich material to process.

Regarding future research, the current study suggests that further attention may need to be paid to the differences in how humor styles may be used by individuals with varying attachment orientations and emotion regulation skills. One of the reasons aggressive humor may show up inconsistently as a maladaptive predictor of psychological outcomes like depression is that (a) existing research tends to neglect the notion that this humor style may not be used with the same goals in mind by all

72 individuals, (b) depression tends to be measured in humor research as a more general construct as opposed to being measured introjectively and anaclitically, and (c) little attention has been paid to the role emotion regulation plays in how humor is used and the outcomes its use predicts.

It may be useful to conduct qualitative research, such as interviewing both anxious and avoidant individuals about ways they tend to use humor to down-regulate negative emotions, especially in the context of intimate relationships. This may help researchers better understand the potentially different goals anxious and avoidant individuals have when using mean-spirited humor (e.g., keeping others at bay, controlling proximity with others). Additionally, experimental studies may provide further insight into how aggressive humor may function adaptively among anxious individuals who may use it to maintain proximity to others and regulate their fears of abandonment. For example, researchers could gather a sample of individuals with high levels of attachment anxiety, and, borrowing from Samson and Gross’ (2012) design, expose them to negative emotion eliciting images or vignettes, in this case suggesting themes of abandonment and separation. In one condition, participants would be instructed to down-regulate their negative emotions using aggressive humor (e.g., hostile and mocking in a superior way), in another condition they would be instructed to use humor that is more benevolent, sympathetic, or absurdist, and in a third condition, they would not be instructed to use humor to cope with viewing the images. Immediately after exposure, participants would complete the DEQ dependency subscale and an emotional response rating measure, so that comparisons could be made between groups. If, for example, the anxious participants who used aggressive humor scored lower than anxious participants in the control group

73 for dependency and negative emotional response, it may reveal that aggressive humor functions somewhat adaptively at regulating attachment concerns. Additional comparisons could be made by exploring outcomes between high and low cognitive reappraisers within groups.

In general, future research should explore further the interrelationships between maladaptive humor, attachment, depressive experiences, and emotion regulation. The current study suggests that various styles of humor are used as coping mechanisms for attachment-related concerns, but also that these strategies may vary in how they predict mental health outcomes like self-criticism and dependency-related depression, especially when considering individual differences like emotion regulation strategies. Continued exploration of these variable interrelationships may reveal meaningful information about the potential complexity of the concept of maladaptive humor.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A

test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,

226-244.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Besser, A., Luyten, P., & Mayes, L. (2012). Adult attachment and distress: The mediating

role of humor styles. Individual Differences Research, 10(3), 153-164.

Besser, A., Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2011). Do humor styles mediate or moderate the

relationship between self-criticism and neediness and depressive symptoms?

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(10), 757-764.

doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31822fc9a8

Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression.

The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 29 (10), 7-157.

Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in

normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383-389.

doi:10.1037/0021-843X.85.4.383

Blatt S. J., & Luyten, P. (2009) A structural-developmental psychodynamic approach to

psychopathology: Two polarities of experience across the life span.

Developmental Psychopathology, 21, 793-814. doi:793Y814

Bokarius, A., Ha, K., Poland, R., Bokarius, V., Rapaport, M. H., & IsHak, W.

75 W. (2011). Attitude toward humor in patients experiencing depressive

symptoms. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(9), 20–23.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., Shaver P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (46-76). New York, NY: Guilford.

Brenning, K. M., & Braet, C. (2013). The emotion regulation model of attachment: An

emotion-specific approach. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 107-123.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01399.x

Cann, A., Norman, M. A., Welbourne, J. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (2008). Attachment styles,

conflict styles, and humour styles: Inter-relationships and associations with

relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 22, 131-146.

Chun, D., Shaver, P., Gillath, O., Matthews, A., & Jorgensen, T. (2015). Testing a dual-

process model of avoidant defenses. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 75-

83. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.002

Costa, P. J., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Five-Factor Model and the NEO Inventories.

In J. N. Butcher & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Personality

Assessment (pp. 299-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195366877.013.0016

Daly, K. D., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2009). Experienced therapists’ approach to

psychotherapy for adults with attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 549-563. doi:10.1037/a0016695

76 Dozois, D. J. A., Martin, R. A., & Beiling, P. J. (2009). Early maladaptive schemas and

adaptive/maladaptive styles of humor. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 33, 585-

596. doi:10.1007/s10608-008-9223-9

Eaton, W. W., Muntaner, C., Smith, C., Tien, A., & Ybarra, M. (2004) Center for

Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and revision (CESD and CESD-

R). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment

planning and outcomes assessment, (3rd ed., pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Falkenberg, I., Buchkremer, G., Bartels, M., & Wild, B. (2011). Implementation of a

manual-based training of humor abilities in patients with depression: A pilot

study. Psychiatry Research, 186(2-3), 454–457.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2010.10.009

Frewen, P. A., Brinker, J., Martin, R. A., & Dozois, D. A. (2008). Humor styles and

personality-vulnerability to depression. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 21(2), 179-195. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2008.009

Galynker, I. I., Yaseen, Z. S., Katz, C., Zhang, X., Jennings-Donovan, G., Dashnaw, S.,

… Winston, A. (2012). Distinct but overlapping neural networks subserve

depression and insecure attachment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,

7(8), 896-908. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr074

Gelso, C. J., Williams, E. N., & Fretz, B. R. (2014). Counseling psychology (3rd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

77 Goldstein, S. E., Chesir-Teran, D., & McFaul, A. (2008). Profiles and correlates of

relational aggression in young adults' romantic relationships. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 37(3), 251-265. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9255-6

Greengross, G., Martin, R. A., & Miller, G. (2012). Personality traits, intelligence, humor

styles, and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians

compared to college students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

6(1), 74–82. doi:10.1037/a0025774

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation

processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.85.2.348

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for

research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.

Hu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, J., Mistry, R., Ran, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Relation between

emotion regulation and mental health: A meta-analysis review. Psychological

Reports, 114(2), 341-362. doi:10.2466/03.20.PR0.114k22w4

Joseph, S., Williams, R., Irwing, P., Cammock, T. (1994). The preliminary development

of a measure to assess attitudes towards emotional expression. Personality and

Individual Differences [serial online]. 16(6), 869-875.

Kopala-Sibley, D. C., Zuroff, D. C., Leybman, M. J., & Hope, N. (2012). The

developmental origins of dependency-related vulnerabilities to depression:

Recalled peer attachments and current levels of neediness and

78 connectedness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des

Sciences du Comportement, 44(4), 264-271. doi:10.1037/a0028952

Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-evaluative

standards and psychological well-being. Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 359-376.

Kullik, A., & Petermann, F. (2012). Attachment to parents and peers as a risk factor for

adolescent depressive disorders: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Child

Psychiatry and Human Development. doi:10.1007/s10578-012-0347-5

Laghai, A., & Joseph, S. (2000). Attitudes towards emotional expression: Factor

structure, convergent validity and associations with personality. British Journal of

Medical Psychology, 73(3), 381-384. doi:10.1348/000711200160598

Lelkes, Y., Krosnick, J. A., Marx, D. M., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2012). Complete

anonymity compromises the accuracy of self-reports. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 48, 1291-1299. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.002

Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment style over

the first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence, coping, and distress

patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(3), 355-364. doi:10.1037/0022-

0167.49.3.355

Mattanah, J. F., Lopez, F. G., & Govern, J. M. (2011). The contributions of parental

attachment bonds to college student development and adjustment: A meta-

analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 565-596.

doi:10.1037/a0024635

79 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1313

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). The Situational Humorous Response

Questionnaire: A quantitative measure of the sense of humor. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 145-155

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual

differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being:

Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in

Personality, 37(1), 48–75. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2

Mathieu, S. I. (2008). Happiness and humor group promotes life satisfaction for senior

center participants. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 32(2), 134–148.

Miczo, N., Averbeck, J. M., Mariani, T. (2009) Affiliative and aggressive humor,

attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60, 443-

459. doi: 60:443Y459

Miga, E. M., Hare, A., Allen, J. P., & Manning, N. (2010). The relation of insecure

attachment states of mind and romantic attachment styles to adolescent aggression

in romantic relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 12(5), 463-481.

doi:10.1080/14616734.2010.501971

Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during

thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940-956. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.87.6.940

80 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,

and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Morley, T. E., & Moran, G. (2011). The origins of cognitive vulnerability in early

childhood: Mechanisms linking early attachment to later depression. Clinical

Psychology Review, 31(7), 1071-1082. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.006

Noftle, E., & Shaver, P. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality

traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal

of Research in Personality, 40(2), 179-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003

Payer, D. E., Baicy, K., Lieberman, M. D., & London, E. D. (2012). Overlapping neural

substrates between intentional and incidental down-regulation of negative

emotions. Emotion, 12(2), 229-235. doi:10.1037/a0027421

Poncy, G. W. (2014). Parental bonding and depression: An exploration of the role of

maladaptive humor styles. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychological

Health and Learning Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42(1), 185-227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

Ruch, W., Köhler, G., & Van Thriel, C. (1996). Assessing the “humorous temperament”:

Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-

Inventory–STCI. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(3-4), 303-

339. doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.303

Sable, P. (2008). What is adult attachment? Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 21-

30. doi:10.1007/s10615-007-0110-8

81 Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion regulation: The differential

consequences of negative versus positive humour. Cognition and Emotion, 26(2),

375-384. doi:10.1080/02699931.2011.585069

Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Probing the social support and work strain

relationship among adult workers: Contributions of adult attachment orientations.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 17-33. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1777

Society of Counseling Psychology, American Psychological Association Division 17:

Positive psychology. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from

http://www.div17.org/sections/positive-psychology/

Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). The

social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to

college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 883-897.

doi:10.1037/a0014755

Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire: From SHQ to

SHQ-6. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 341-361.

doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.341

Surgenor, T., & Joseph, S. (2000). Attitudes toward emotional expression, relational

competence and psychological distress. British Journal of Medical Psychology,

73(1), 139-142. doi:10.1348/000711200160264

Tener, D., Lev-Wiesel, R., Franco, N. L., & Ofir, S. (2010). Laughing through this

pain: Medical clowning during examination of sexually abused children: An

innovative approach. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, &

82 Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 19(2), 128–140.

doi:10.1080/10538711003622752

Troy, A. S., Wilhelm, F. H., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2010). Seeing the silver

lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and

depressive symptoms. Emotion, 10(6), 783-795. doi:10.1037/a0020262

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Toronto: Little, Brown.

Van Dam, N. T., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic

Studies Depression Scale—Revised (CESD-R): Pragmatic depression assessment

in the general population. Psychiatry Research, 186(1), 128-132.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2010.08.018

Winterheld, H. A. (2015). Calibrating use of emotion regulation strategies to the

relationship context: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality, 1-12.

doi:10.1111/jopy.12165

Yovetich, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. (1990). Benefits of humor in reduction of

threat-induced anxiety. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 51–58.

doi:10.2466/PR0.66.1.51-58

Zuroff, D. C., & Fitzpatrick, D. K. (1995). Depressive personality styles: Implications for

adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(2), 253-365.

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00136-G

Zuroff, D. C., Moskowitz, D. S., & Côté, S. (1999). Dependency, self-criticism,

interpersonal behaviour and affect: Evolutionary perspectives. British Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 231-250. doi:10.1348/014466599162827

83 Zuroff, D. C., Quinlan, D. M., & Blatt, S. J. (1990). Psychometric properties of the

Depressive Experiences Questionnaire in a college population. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 55(1-2), 65-72. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5501&2_7

Appendix A

Tables

85 Table A1

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach Alpha Attachment Avoidance 268 1.00 6.56 2.92 1.21 .95 Attachment Anxiety 268 1.00 6.94 3.70 1.24 .93 Affiliative Humor 269 2.13 7.00 5.69 .79 .76 Self Enhancing Humor 269 1.25 6.88 4.66 1.04 .83 Self-Defeating Humor 269 1.00 6.13 3.36 1.18 .84 Aggressive Humor 269 1.00 6.50 3.51 .97 .71 Self-Criticism 268 -2.36 2.26 .02 .95 .83 Dependency 268 -3.63 2.29 -.52 .83 .76 Cognitive Reappraisal 269 1.00 7.00 4.89 1.12 .91 Expressive Suppression 269 1.00 7.00 3.65 1.26 .80 AEE 269 1.00 4.75 2.56 .71 .92

Table A2

Zero Order Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Dependency -- 2. Self-Criticism .17** -- 3. Aggressive Humor -.06 .30** -- 4. Self-Defeating Humor .29** .43** .35** -- 5. Self-Enhancing Humor -.11 -.18** .15* .15* -- 6. Affiliative Humor .02 -.07 .16** .12* .41** -- 7. Avoidance -.04 .44** .20** .28** -.10 -.18** -- 8. Anxiety .42** .63** .28** .38** -.12* -.08 .35** -- 9. Expressive Suppression -.01 .42** .12 .28** -.07 -.23** .51** .34** -- 10. Cognitive Reappraisal -.15* -.15* -.04 -.05 .41** .02 -.11 -.14* -.04 -- 11. AEE .14* .62** .29** .42** -.10 -.17** .56** .50** .72** .39** --

* p < .05, ** p < .01

Appendix B

Figures

87

Figure B1. Moderated mediation model: The mediation effects of humor styles on the relationship between attachment anxiety and dependency, and the moderation effects of emotion regulation.

88

Figure B2. Moderated mediation model: The mediation effects of humor styles on the relationship between attachment avoidance and self-criticism, and the moderation effects of emotion regulation.

Appendix C

Questionnaires

90 Demographic Questionnaire

Please provide your age ______

What is your gender?

a. Male b. Female c. Other d. Prefer not to answer

Which of the following racial/ethnic groups do you most closely identify? a. Caucasian/White b. African American/Black c. Hispanic d. Asian/Pacific Islander e. American Indian f. Biracial g. Other h. Decline to respond

Do you think of yourself as? a. Lesbian, gay, or homosexual b. Straight or heterosexual c. Bisexual d. Other e. Don’t Know

On average, I tend to make jokes or use humor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rarely Sometimes Often

91

Experiences in Close Relationships

The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree with it. Write the number in space provided, using the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Neutral/ Agree Strongly Mixed Strongly

___1. I prefer not to show a partner I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. ___ 2. I worry about being abandoned. ___ 3. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. ___ 4. I worry a lot about my relationships. ___ 5. Just when my partner starts to get close to me I find myself pulling away. ___ 6. I worry that romantic partners won't care about me as much as I care about them. ___ 7. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close. ___ 8. I worry a fair amount about losing my partner. ___ 9. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. ___ 10. I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him/her. ___ 11. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back. ___ 12. I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them away. ___ 13. I am nervous when partners get too close to me. ___ 14. I worry about being alone. ___ 15. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. ___ 16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. ___ 17. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner. ___ 18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner. ___ 19. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. ___ 20. Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more feeling, more commitment. ___ 21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. ___ 22. I do not often worry about being abandoned. ___ 23. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners. ___ 24. If I can't get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry. ___ 25. I tell my partner just about everything. ___ 26. I find that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I would like. ___ 27. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. ___ 28. When I'm not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure. ___ 29. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. ___ 30. I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like.

92 ___ 31. I don't mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help. ___ 32. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them. ___ 33. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. ___ 34. When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself. ___ 35. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance. ___ 36. I resent it when my partner spends time away from me.

93 The Humor Styles Questionnaire

Please respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree with it. Write the number in space provided, using the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Totally Totally Disagree Agree

___1. I usually don’t laugh or joke around much with other people.

___2. If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humor. ___3. If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it. ___4. I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should. ___5. I don’t have to work very hard at making other people laugh—I seem to be a naturally humorous person. ___6. Even when I’m by myself, I’m often amused by the absurdities of life. ___7. People are never offended or hurt by my sense of humor. ___8. I will often get carried away in putting myself down if it makes my family or friends laugh. ___9. I rarely make other people laugh by telling funny stories about myself. ___10. If I am feeling upset or unhappy I usually try to think of something funny about the situation to make myself feel better. ___11. When telling jokes or saying funny things, I am usually not very concerned about how other people are taking it. ___12. I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders, or faults. ___13. I laugh and joke a lot with my closest friends. ___14. My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting overly upset or depressed about things. ___15. I do not like it when people use humor as a way of criticizing or putting someone down. ___16. I don’t often say funny things to put myself down. ___17. I usually don’t like to tell jokes or amuse people. ___18. If I’m by myself and I’m feeling unhappy, I make an effort to think of something funny to cheer myself up. ___19. Sometimes I think of something that is so funny that I can’t stop myself from saying it, even if it is not appropriate for the situation.

94 ___20. I often go overboard in putting myself down when I am making jokes or trying to be funny. ___21. I enjoy making people laugh. ___22. If I am feeling sad or upset, I usually lose my sense of humor. ___23. I never participate in laughing at others even if all my friends are doing it. ___24. When I am with friends or family, I often seem to be the one that other people make fun of or joke about. ___25. I don’t often joke around with my friends. ___26. It is my experience that thinking about some amusing aspect of a situation is often a very effective way of coping with problems. ___27. If I don’t like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put them down. ___28. If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often cover it up by joking around, so that even my closest friends don’t know how I really feel. ___29. I usually can’t think of witty things to say when I’m with other people. ___30. I don’t need to be with other people to feel amused – I can usually find things to laugh about even when I’m by myself. ___31. Even if something is really funny to me, I will not laugh or joke about it if someone will be offended. ___32. Letting others laugh at me is my way of keeping my friends and family in good spirits.

95

Depressive Experiences Questionnaire

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal characteristics and traits. Read each item and decide whether you agree or disagree and to what extent. If you strongly agree, circle 7; if you strongly disagree, circle 1; The midpoint, if you are neutral or undecided, is 4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

1. I set my personal goals and standards as high as possible.

2. Without support from others who are close to me, I would be helpless.

3. I tend to be satisfied with my current plans and goals, rather than striving for higher goals.

4. Sometimes I feel very big, and other times I feel very small.

5. When I am closely involved with someone, I never feel jealous.

6. I urgently need things that only other people can provide.

7. I often find that I don't live up to my own standards or ideals.

8. I feel I am always making full use of my potential abilities.

9. The lack of permanence in human relationships doesn't bother me.

10. If I fail to live up to expectations, I feel unworthy.

11. Many times I feel helpless.

12. I seldom worry about being criticized for things I have said or done.

13. There is a considerable difference between how I am now and how I would like to be.

14. I enjoy sharp competition with others.

96

15. I feel I have many responsibilities that I must meet.

16. There are times when I feel "empty" inside.

17. I tend not to be satisfied with what I have.

18. I don't care whether or not I live up to what other people expect of me.

19. I become frightened when I feel alone.

20. I would feel like I'd be losing an important part of myself if I lost a very close friend.

21. People will accept me no matter how many mistakes I have made.

22. I have difficulty breaking off a relationship that is making me unhappy.

23. I often think about the danger of losing someone who is close to me.

24. Other people have high expectations of me.

25. When I am with others, I tend to devalue or "undersell" myself.

26. I am not very concerned with how other people respond to me.

27. No matter how close a relationship between two people is, there is always a large amount of uncertainty and conflict.

28. I am very sensitive to others for signs of rejection.

29. It's important for my family that I succeed.

30. Often, I feel I have disappointed others.

31. If someone makes me angry, I let him (her) know how I feel.

32. I constantly try, and very often go out of my way, to please or help people I am close to.

33. I have many inner resources (abilities, strengths).

97 34. I find it very difficult to say "No" to the requests of friends.

35. I never really feel secure in a close relationship.

36. The way I feel about myself frequently varies: there are times when I feel extremely good about myself and other times when I see only the bad in me and feel like a total failure

37. Often, I feel threatened by change.

38. Even if the person who is closest to me were to leave, I could still "go it alone."

39. One must continually work to gain love from another person: that is, love has to be earned.

40. I am very sensitive to the effects my words or actions have on the feelings of other people.

41. I often blame myself for things I have done or said to someone.

42. I am a very independent person.

43. I often feel guilty.

44. I think of myself as a very complex person, one who has "many sides."

45. I worry a lot about offending or hurting someone who is close to me.

46. Anger frightens me.

47. It is not "who you are," but "what you have accomplished" that counts.

48. I feel good about myself whether I succeed or fail.

49. I can easily put my own feelings and problems aside, and devote my complete attention to the feelings and problems of someone else.

50. If someone I cared about became angry with me, I would feel threatened that he (she) might leave me.

98 51. I feel comfortable when I am given important responsibilities.

52. After a fight with a friend, I must make amends as soon as possible.

53. I have a difficult time accepting weaknesses in myself.

54. It is more important that I enjoy my work than it is for me to have my work approved.

55. After an argument, I feel very lonely.

56. In my relationships with others, I am very concerned about what they can give to me.

57. I rarely think about my family.

58. Very frequently, my feelings toward someone close to me vary: there are times when I feel completely angry and other times when I feel all-loving towards that person.

59. What I do and say has a very strong impact on those around me.

60. I sometimes feel that I am "special."

61. I grew up in an extremely close family.

62. I am very satisfied with myself and my accomplishments.

63. I want many things from someone I am close to.

64. I tend to be very critical of myself.

65. Being alone doesn't bother me at all.

66. I very frequently compare myself to standards or goals.

99

Attitudes Toward Emotional Expression Scale

Respond to each item on a 5- point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

1. I think getting emotional is a sign of weakness.

2. Turning to someone else for advice or help is an admission of weakness.

3. It is shameful for a person to display his or her weaknesses.

4. People will reject you if they know your weaknesses.

5. If a person asks for help it is a sign of weakness.

6. When I am upset I bottle up my feelings.

7. When I am upset I usually try to hide how I feel.

8. I seldom show how I feel about things.

9. When I get upset I usually show how I feel.a

10. I do not feel comfortable showing my emotions.

11. I think you should always keep you feelings under control.

12. I think you ought not to burden other people with your problems.

13. You should always keep your feelings to yourself.

14. You should always hide your feelings.

15. I should always have complete control over my feelings.

16. I think other people do not understand your feelings.

17. Other people will reject you if you upset them.

100 18. My bad feelings will harm other people if I express them.

19. If I express my feelings I am vulnerable to attack.

20. If other people know what you are really like, they will think less of you.

101 The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional life, in particular, how you control (that is, regulate and manage) your emotions. The questions below involve two distinct aspects of your emotional life. One is your emotional experience, or what you feel like inside. The other is your emotional expression, or how you show your emotions in the way you talk, gesture, or behave. Although some of the following questions may seem similar to one another, they differ in important ways. For each item, respond in the space provided using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree

___1. When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about.

___2. I keep my emotions to myself.

___3. When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about.

___4. When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them.

___5. When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm.

___6. I control my emotions by not expressing them.

___7. When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

___8. I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.

___9. When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.

___10. When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

* Reappraisal: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10. Suppression: 2, 4, 6, 9

Appendix D

Final Approval for Human Subjects Research

103