sign in sign up
<<
Home , Humour

RESEARCH 4 19/2006/E

Catherine Lyon Humour and the young child

A review of the research literature

What exactly is a sense of humour? Finally, does having a sense of hu- vision of a socially acceptable means On the basis of relevant research mour matter? Do children with a of expressing hostility and softening results on children and adults, ma- sense of humour have more friends, of an assertive/dominating of ny favourable aspects of humour do better in school, or enjoy better interaction (McGhee, 1988). He states are presented. We learn that hu- emotional and physical health or not? rather unequivocally, “It is concluded mour is a skill that can be trained, Is a sense of humour inborn or some- that development of heightened early and this is where the use of media thing we can encourage? If we can humor helps to optimize children’s in the development of children’s teach a sense of humour, how do we social development.” humour comes into . do that? Humour is frequently used to dispel Unlike other psychological constructs ; by secondary reinforcement, (e. g., or extraversion) humour becomes a learned motive to there is no standard conception of experience mastery in the face of 1. What the research tells us sense of humour upon which re- anxiety – the “whistling in the dark” searchers generally agree (Martin, phenomenon. In studies investigating about humour and its 1998). With the caveat that this field and a sense of humour, e. g. development is currently made up of multiple ap- Martin and Lefcourt (1983 – cit. by proaches, conceptions, measurements Martin, 1998), researchers found a he most challenging aspect to and often conflicting findings, the fol- significant interaction between tests humour research is in defining lowing is a summary of relevant study of sense of humour (i. e. The Texactly what it means to “have results. Humor Scale (CHS) and The Situa- a sense of humour”. Does it mean an tional Humor Response Question- ability to create or respond to Humour promotes a healthy and naire (SHRQ)) and a measure of and other overtly funny events or optimistic outlook on life stressful life events in predicting le- stories? Or is it something larger and Humour has been investigated as a vels of disturbance, such as de- less specific – perhaps an ability to “social lubricant” (Morreall, 1991) pression anxiety, and tension. An ana- tolerate difficulties with good grace that reduces anxiety, enhances the lysis of the data showed that as stress- and strength (Vejleskov, 2001)? Is a effectiveness of psychotherapy (Mac- ful life events increased, individuals “sense of humour” a single trait or Hovec, 1991 – cit. by Manke, 1998), with higher scores on the humour one with several aspects such as the softens hostility (McGhee, 1988), and measures showed less of an increase ability to tell a , to appreciate a strengthens coping skills (Lefcourt in disturbed moods. Martin (1988) joke, or to use humour to mock or to and Martin, 1986). Relatively little, further cites reviews by Vaillant and tease in a hostile manner? however, is known about children’s Vaillant (1992) that indicate mature Once defined, how do we measure a use of humour in ongoing social defenses, including sense of humour, “sense of humour”? How funny must relationships, or about the origins of were found to be predictive of greater anyone find something in order to have individual differences in interpersonal levels of mental and physical health, a sense of humour? And do people of humour (Manke, 1998). life satisfaction, job success, and ma- different ages or genders or socio-eco- Paul McGhee suggests that humour rital stability. nomic status or cultural backgrounds be viewed as a component of social laugh at different things? What about competence, and maintains that it Humour is a social phenomenon blind people or deaf people or people plays a strong role in the facilitation Several writers identify three main as- with mental or emotional handicaps? of social interaction, the development pects to the sense of humour: respon- Are any jokes funny to everybody? of friendships and popularity, pro- sive (, smiling, and the mirth RESEARCH 19/2006/E 5 response); productive (initiating hu- in the group than alone. It is important cognitive function – requiring a bit mour, telling jokes, physical - to note, too, that in a study by Chap- more abstract thought or memory. ing); and mixed humour. Some add man (1973) with adults, although Children at this stage will be wildly hostile humour. Although several fac- canned laughter generated more mirth amused to call a dog a “kitty” or a tors can contribute to an expression (smiling and laughter) to the same mommy “daddy”. Unlike stage 1 of one or more humourous aspects, material, it did not significantly in which the object of humour Groch (1974) has found that the spe- humour ratings or “intellectual appre- must be present, the child no cific nature of the ongoing activities ciation” ratings. This disparity no longer needs physical props in contributed significantly to the pat- doubt has to do with the “social lu- order to make jokes. tern of humour exhibited. bricant” function of humour, as noted  At stage 3 (3 to 5 years), the child Most smiling and laughing occurs in above. Laughing when others laugh requires a bit more distortion for a response to stimuli when others are is expected and welcomed; refraining humourous effect because of the present (Bainum et al., 1984) and from laughing when others are laugh- child’s increased knowledge of the children’s sensitivity to humour in- ing causes discomfort and is generally world. It isn’t enough now to creases according to (a) presence of at odds with the social norm. simply call a dog a kitty, it may be others, (b) frequency of laughter by necessary for that doggy called stooges, (c) overcoming the psycho- Humour is a personality kitty to meow, for example. Or, logical borders of boundary space, phenomenon and age- and because a stage-3 child is often and (d) other social factors (Chap- gender-related amused by an absurd visual, man, 1979). This corresponds to Ber- The seeds of a person’s sense of hu- adding a long tail and small, gen’s findings: “Because humor, like mour are sown in a baby’s earliest pointed upright ears to the picture play, flourishes best in ‘safe’ settings, smiling and laughter – the develop- of a dog would enhance the hu- variables such as the formality or mental changes in which reflect just mour to an age-appropriate level. informality of the environment and how important these emotional re- Not, however, because it is illogi- the child’s familiarity with the people sponses become in the interactions cal, but because it looks funny. The in that environment are likely to have between the infant and his/her first incongruity that causes humour at an influence on the amount of humor experience with the social environ- this stage is visual, not logical. that is expressed and on the nature of ment (Levine, 1972). This last point is very important in that humor” (Bergen, 1998). In a According to one of the most influen- the creation of humourous media for study of children between 1 and 6 tial developmental psychologist in the children. If the picture looks different years Bergen (1989 – cit. by Bergen, field of humour, Dr. Paul McGhee, from what the child expects or that 1998) found that the most often re- humour is a function of the child’s with which she/he is familiar, there corded humour types were: perfor- level of cognitive development – spe- is humour. However, preschool chil- mance of incongruous or fantasy ac- cifically their ability to deal with sym- dren, aged 2 to 5, do not understand tions; discovery and expression of hu- bols. McGhee proposed four stages humour based upon logical or con- mourous reactions to incongruous or of humour development, based upon ceptual incongruity yet. fantasy actions, objects, and events; Piagetian theory of development. Ac- It will not be until the child is 6 or 7 and expression of joy in mastery or cording to McGhee’s theory, humour years of age that the sense of humour movement play. Humour was most begins in the child when the capacity will resemble the humour of adults. often expressed in the evening and for fantasy and make-believe devel- According to McGhee, this stage 4 in the home’s kitchen – followed ops, sometime late in the second year. is characterised by the child’s ability closely in percentage by the living  In stage 1 (approx. 18 to 24 to understand the double meanings room. Humour was least often ex- months) children substitute one that words and sentences can have pressed in the afternoon and in the object for another. If, for example, sometimes. Most 7-year-olds can com- family car. in dressing a child, you were to put prehend two meanings of a single One study suggests that this effect of a sock on his or her nose or hand, word or phrase simultaneously, which the social context upon the mirth and this might cause some laughter – is why the following joke works at humour response is developmental. if the child were familiar enough this stage, but generally not at the In a study by Kosslyn and Henker with a sock to know that it general- stage 3: “Why did the lady send three (1970), when 4- and 6-year-olds were ly is worn on the foot. socks to her son at college? Because shown comic videotapes, the 4-year-  Stage 2 (approx. 2 to 3 years) is he’d written to her that since he’d olds smiled more and laughed more when verbal jokes first emerge. been gone, he’d grown another foot.” without the group around them, but Though they may seem very sim- It is important to understand that it is the 6-year-olds laughed more when ple they represent a higher level of possible for a child at an older stage RESEARCH 6 19/2006/E of development to appreciate humour Bergen (1998) notes that the types of biting their sense of humour in school enjoyed by a child at a younger stage. humour outlined by research seem to as frequently (or perhaps as notice- For example, 6- to 8-year-olds can show a developmental progression ably) as the boys are. There are other still find some simple visual incon- from cognitively simple to cognitive- studies of humour in children of gruity (generally a stage-1 type of hu- ly complex, less hostile and sexually- roughly the same age groups as those mour) very funny. A sense of humour focussed to more hostile and sexual- in Bergen’s study that support Ber- does not operate within a narrowly ly-focussed, and more encased in the gen’s finding of no major sex differ- specified range, but increases and “pragmatics” of what is socially ap- ences (Prentice and Fathman, 1972). expands to appreciate a broader field propriate for children to express. In another study of slightly older chil- of types of humour (see McGhee, dren, Bergen found that although pa- 1979; Bergen, 1998; Bergen, 2003). rents’ and teachers’ of the Regarding hostile humour develop- children’s sense of humour matched, ment, in a study by Socha and Kelly both were at odds with the children’s (1994), children in pre-kindergarten descriptions of themselves. Also, al- to grade 3 were found to produce though parents and teachers rated mostly prosocial humourous mes- boys more highly than they did girls sages. However, starting in grade 4, in sense of humour across all the age children produced proportionately categories, these ratings were not re- more antisocial than prosocial hu- flected in the children’s ratings of mourous messages. themselves. Bergen suggests that per- Comprehension of emerges be- In a study of three age levels, Bergen haps parent and teacher expectations tween 5 and 6 years of age. Ratings (2003) found significant differences or of sense of humour of humour increase with age; ratings in boys’ and girls’ humour based upon may be different for boys and girls of meanness did not (Dews et al., both child and teacher interviews. At (higher expectations for boys and lower 1996). The comprehension of sar- age 5 to 6 years, boys and girls re- expectations for girls). McGhee’s casm also emerges at the age of 8 or ceived approximately equal scores for research some years earlier had in- 9. Adults depend upon either of two having “a sense of humour”. The rea- dicated that boys are more likely than cues to recognise ironic sarcasm: the sons children gave for why something girls to initiate and respond to humour context in which the statement is was funny centred on incongruity of in non-home settings (McGhee, 1976; made and the speaker’s intonation. action, appearance, or verbalisation Canzler, 1980). Perhaps boys are more However, Capelli et al. (1990) found or on impossible events/conceptual comfortable with an audience, which that young children appeared largely incongruity. Hostility was expressed leads parents and teachers to expect oblivious to contextually implied sar- in about 30 % of the responses – and more humour from them than from casm and appeared to depend more was usually of the variety. the girls. upon intonation in recognising sar- At age 8 to 9 years old, teacher ratings Other studies have found that be- casm. Irony and sarcasm are simply of sense of humour showed a signifi- tween boys and girls, girls tend to not understood by children younger cant difference in ratings for girls and show more responsive humour (per- than 5 years. boys. Bergen notes that though teach- ceiving and responding) while boys Humour research on the contribution er ratings for the highest two age scored a higher frequency of hostile of personality traits to a “sense of hu- levels indicated a significant differ- joking (Groch, 1974; Socha and Kel- mour” has been conducted primarily ence in the amount of humour demon- ly, 1994). It may be that because of with adults, but may have some useful strated by boys and girls, those ob- the large amount of hostile humour application for children as well (Ber- servations were not corroborated by displayed by boys, and the disincli- gen, 1998). Studies undertaken by the other measures used in the study nation of girls to use such humour Willibald Ruch focus on how traits – which seemed to show that both there really is less overall humour dis- such as cheerfulness, , and boys and girls possess fairly equally played by girls for parents and teach- bad mood may form the basis of the strong senses of humour. It is inter- ers to perceive (Warnars-Kleverlaan sense of humour (Ruch, 1994a – cit. esting to note that approximately et al., 1996). by Bergen, 1998; Ruch and Kohler, 25 % of the children in the study It is possible, too, that this tendency 2003). One of the primary questions could cite no examples of humour of boys to use and enjoy hostile hu- in personality study is whether and from home; all came from TV, books mour is one reason for a finding by to what extent personality traits iden- or school. Most humour examples Sherman (1988) that children of the tified in children remain stable through- came from school situations. Perhaps, same gender rate each other both as out the lifespan. Bergen suggests, girls are not exhi- more socially acceptable and as more RESEARCH 19/2006/E 7 humourous than do children of the that humour prevented vigilance de- or challenging environment (i. e. the opposite gender. Research indicates crement and produced superior in- home). Specifically, a lack of mater- that generally boys use a more aggres- formation acquisition (Zillmann et al., nal babying was found to be asso- sive style of communication (Mac- 1980). Children pay attention to what ciated with increased humour during coby, 1990) with each other and with makes them laugh. A funny lesson the first three years of life (McGhee, girls, which makes it logical that their holds their attention to the material 1976). In a study by Fisher and Fisher humourous style would also neces- being taught and improves the (1981 – cit. by Martin, 1998) inves- sarily show more aggression. It may chances they will learn. tigating the personality characteristics be that there is some confusion be- Humour facilitates learning because of professional and circus tween overtly hostile and aggressive it is entertaining and light-hearted. , mothers of these comics were humour, depending upon who is Care must be taken, however, as some less kind, less sympathetic, less inti- doing the observing. What sounds forms of humour such as irony, which mately involved with their children, hostile to a girl may, conceivably, contains distortions and contradic- and more selfish and controlling. sound quite reasonable and expected tions that are not readily recognisable, Martin concludes by suggesting “in- to another boy. can be counterproductive for learning dividuals with a greater tendency to The nature of hostile humour – its (Cantor and Reilly, 1979 – cit. by produce humor for the of definition, purpose and use – is im- Miron et al., 2001; McGhee, 1979). others may be doing so as a means of portant to investigate further for two Humour in educational messages that compensating for earlier losses and reasons. First, because of its potential, distorts information has been found difficulties.” (Martin, 1998). like violence on , to support to give children faulty impressions of If our natural inclination as human and encourage antisocial behaviour. novel phenomena (Weaver et al., beings is to reach for a sense of hu- Second, because the definition of hos- 1988). If humour is to facilitate learn- mour as a way of coping with adver- tile humour for boys and for girls may ing, it must be age-appropriate for the sity, it seems logical for loving pa- differ and have implications for con- children who are trying to learn. rents and caregivers to want to step tent that succeeds in making children in with some support for this appa- laugh and enjoy themselves. Humour is a skill that can be rently healthy, natural instinct in our developed, taught and learned children. Klein (2003), Nevo et al. Humour can facilitate mastery and Humour appreciation does not appear (1998), Martin (1988) and others learning to have a genetic basis (Martin, 1998) have explored components for cour- It is very important to bear in mind but because the humour response ses that teach the of humour and that a critical ingredient in the humour does seem to be an in-born social phe- how to improve and strengthen it. response is the degree to which the nomenon (Chapman, 1973, and 1979) humour stimulus makes a cognitive there is evidence that humour can be demand on the individual (Zigler et encouraged and taught. Carson et al. 2. Implications for the use al., 1967). In other words, humour (1986) discuss humour as a function of media in the development provides something like an entertain- of learned communicative abilities of children’s humour ing “test” to a child. If the child gets and temperamental predispositions the joke she/he enjoys the satisfaction that influence humour in both a direct Although there remains much to learn of the incongruity, the resolution of and indirect manner. Positive rein- about children and their developing the incongruity and the mastery it forcement of humour increases its use sense of humour, there are some sug- took to recognise the incongruity and (Ziv, 1981b – cit. by Nevo et al., gestions that we can offer to media the resolution. 1998). In a review of the relevant li- professionals regarding programming Television researchers have discover- terature, Honig (1988) looks at ways created for young children: ed that in order for TV to teach, it in which adults can support children’s must hold the child’s attention for a understanding, appreciation, and crea- Opportunities to support long enough period of time to get the tion of humour in play and verbal and developing self-identification lesson across. Miron et al. (2001) social interactions. Further guidance In studies by McGhee and Duffey wrote, “In addition to formal features for parents and caregivers in the (1983) and McGhee and Kach (1981) promising enjoyment (e. g. lively mu- support and nurturance of a child’s children were asked to evaluate jokes sic, cheerful voices), the content itself sense of humour are explored by where the target was a person of their may enhance vigilance through se- Martin (1989). own or another gender and ethnicity. mantically entertaining features such There is some indication, too, that a They found that although boys clearly as humor.” Further, work with pre- sense of humour is one way that a preferred jokes with a female target, schoolers and first graders has shown child can learn to cope in a difficult girls showed no parallel preference RESEARCH 8 19/2006/E for jokes with a male target. In a si- tension in order to achieve goals. kinds of humour. Is this true of chil- milar study with Black, Mexican and Often our goals involve our children’s dren? There is much more to learn of White children, White children showed success in school both academically the developmental trajectory of hu- a clear preference for jokes with Non- and socially, and we find reassurance mour development from childhood to White targets while the Black and when our children take on similar adulthood. Mexican children showed no such goals and objectives. There is a ten- preference for joke targets of ethni- dency to equate seriousness of pur- How do cross-cultural and other cities other than their own. McGhee pose and determination with maturity group-comparative studies results suggests that these results may in- and success and to regard a light- compare to current results? dicate less well-formed self-identity hearted and humourous mood with The literature includes studies of on the part of Black and Mexican some suspicion. humour among Jews, Native Ame- children than Whites and less well- Yet research shows that humour does ricans, Blacks and African-Ameri- formed identity on the part of girls. not compromise our successes but cans, and Mexicans, but there is little The specific implications of these can, in some cases, actually bring us cross-cultural comparison of humour studies for media content are not clear closer to our goals and objectives. response, humour production or the from this limited information, however What media can do is offer a and use of hostile humour. There are also in a where children of tra- humour-filled break from the anxiety few studies that investigate cross- ditionally disenfranchised groups fail and stress of other activities in a cultural benefits of humour. to demonstrate an equivalent identity child’s and family’s life. Humour is Several studies have examined the definition as those traditionally having frequently built upon incongruities use and appreciation of humour in higher status, we must, as media pro- and incongruities can be the basis for blind/visually impaired (Tait and Ward, fessionals, continue to be mindful of divergent, creative and inventive 1982), deaf/hard-of-hearing (Sanders, the need to provide powerful and in- thinking (Mosher, 2003). If a well- 1986), and mentally retarded (Short, teresting role models to encourage produced children’s TV programme 1993) children. More research on the positive self-identity formation on the presents age-appropriate incongrui- role humour plays in their lives as part of every child using the media. ties which delight a child by tapping well as examination of where any cross into newly mastered cognitive skills, over occurs with children having no Opportunities to encourage and such an experience can offer a wel- such handicaps could inform the support child/adult co-viewing come and restorative emotional break development of television programm- Humour can be a unifying factor be- which frees a child to just be a child, ing that nurtures a developing sense tween parents and children. Humour to mentally play in a different way of humour and play for a wider and development builds with age, and the with newly-mastered concepts, and to more diverse audience. range of humour appreciated and explore new directions for thought enjoyed grows wider as our experi- and ideas. How does the use of hostile ence broadens. This means that an humour differ from the use and adult can still find a simple surprising 3. What questions remain to appreciation of benign humour? incongruity funny, depending upon investigate? Martin (1998) writes “... very little the content of the joke. The media can research has been done to clarify the encourage and support a child’s heal- distinction between humour that is thy humour development by striving What is the relevance of the data conductive to psychological health and to create humour at several levels so on humour to children? humour that is less healthy.” A as to encourage co-viewing. Because Many studies indicate the positive particularly intriguing study on wheth- humour is a social phenomenon, hav- effect of an adult sense of humour. er the use of pro- and antisocial themes ing a parent sharing a viewing ex- Do young children with a sense of increases with age showed that chil- perience increases a child’s pleasure. humour demonstrate similar resili- dren in pre-kindergarten to grade 3 And as a child sees a parent enjoying ence to difficult and stressful events produced mostly prosocial humourous laughter and humour, it is a clear in their lives? There is some anecdotal messages. However, starting in grade signal to the child that such information about the value of hu- 4, children produced proportionately are acceptable. mour in medical situations – and some more antisocial than prosocial hu- specifically having to do with humour mourous messages. Boys produced Provide positive reinforcement for in psychotherapy with adolescents. more antisocial humourous messages both children and parents Also, there is much more to be than girls and produced more anti- Often adults rely upon a certain level learned about the ways different kinds social messages for a best friend than of seriousness, worry and anxiety or of adult people respond to different a teacher. If we can understand the RESEARCH 19/2006/E 9

need or inclination to such hostile hu- geles, CA: Center for Head Start Evaluation and Ruch, W.; Kohler, G. (2003). A temperament mour, perhaps there is a less antisocial Research, University of California. approach to humor. In: Ruch, Willibald (ed.). The sense of humor: explorations of a personality cha- way to fulfill those needs and interests Klein, A. J. (2003). A course on children’s humor: A model for training practitioners. In: Klein, Amelia racteristic. : 3. Berlin/New York, for both boys and girls. (ed.). Humor in children’s lives. Westport, Conn./ NY: Mouton de Gruyter. London: Praeger. Sanders, D. M. (1986). Sign in the pro- How can we teach humour to Lefcourt, H. M.; Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and duction and appreciation of humor by deaf children. life stress: Antidote to adversity. New York, NY: In: Sign Language Studies, Vol. 50, pp. 59-72. children? Springer. Sherman, L. (1988). Humor and social distance in How can we better encourage our Levine, J. (1972). From the infant’s smile to mastery elementary school children. In: Humor, Vol. 1, children’s healthy sense of humour? of anxiety: the developmental role of humor. (ERIC No. 4, pp. 389-404. What effect can and does the TV or citation) Short, E. J. (1993). Analysis of humor skills among Manke, B. (1998). Genetic and environmental contri- elementary school students: comparisons of the web have upon a young child’s butions to children’s interpersonal humor. In: Ruch, children with and without intellectual handicaps. sense of humour? Is there any carry- Willibald (ed.) The sense of humor: explorations of In: American Journal on Mental Retardation, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 63-73. over for a child who spends 30 mi- a personality characteristic. Humor Research: 3. Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Socha, T. J.; Kelly, B. (1994). Children making “fun”: nutes watching and laughing at silly Martin, R. A. (1988). Humor and the mastery of humorous communication, impression management, Teletubbies fall down and roll around living: using humor to cope with the daily stresses and moral development. In: Child Study Journal, good-naturedly in Teletubbyland? of growing up. In: Journal of Children in Con- Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 237-252. temporary Society, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, pp. 135-54. Tait, P. E.; Ward, M. B. (1982). The comprehension Does the chance to encourage a child’s Martin, R. A. (1989). Humor and the mastery of of verbal humor by visually impaired children. In: sense of humour improve if a parent living: Using humor to cope with the daily stresses Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. or sibling or caregiver watches and of growing up. In: McGhee, P. (ed.). Humor and 76, No. 4, pp. 144-147. children’s development: A guide to practical appli- Vejleskov, H. (2001). A distinction between “small hu- laughs with the child? How do we best cation. New York, NY/London: Haworth. mor” and “great humor” and its relevance to the stu- use the various media to reach children Martin, R. A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of dy of children’s humor. In: Humor: International Jour- and/or caring adults and effectively en- humor: a historical review. In: Ruch, Willibald (ed.). nal of Humor Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 323-338. The sense of humor: explorations of a personality Warnars-Kleverlaan, N.; Oppenheimer, L.; Sherman, courage laughter, lightness and joy? characteristic. Humor Research: 3. Berlin/New L. (1996). To be or not to be humorous: does it make York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. a difference? In: Humor, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 117-141. REFERENCES Maccoby, E. (1990). Gender and relationships: a Weaver, J.; Zillmann, D.; Bryant, J. (1988). Effects developmental account. In: American Psychologist, of humorous distortions on children’s learning from Bainum, C. K. et al. (1984). The development of Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 513-520. educational television: further evidence. In: Commu- laughing and smiling in nursery school children. In: McGhee, P. E. (1976). Sex differences in children’s nication ,Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 181-186, July. Child Development, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 1946-1957. humor. In: Journal of Communication, Vol. 2, No.3, Zigler, E.; Levine, J.; Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive Bergen, D. (1998). Development of the sense of pp. 176-189. challenge as a factor in children’s humor apprecia- humor. In: Ruch, Willibald (ed.). The sense of humor: McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and de- tion. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, explorations of a personality characteristic. Humor velopment. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 332-336. Research: 3. Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. McGhee, P. E. (1988). Introduction: recent de- Zillmann, D. et al. (1980). The effect of affective Bergen, D. (2003). Humor, play and child de- velopments in humor research. In: Journal of Children states on selective exposure to televised enter- velopment. In: Klein, Amelia (ed.). Humor in in a Contemporary Society, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-12. tainment fare. In: Journal of Applied Social Psycho- children’s lives. Westport, Conn./London: Praeger. logy, Vol. 10, pp. 323-339. McGhee, P. E.; Duffey, N. S. (1983). Children’s appre- Canzler, L. (1980). Humor and the Primary Child. ciation of humor victimizing different racial-ethnic [ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 191583] groups: racial-ethnic differences. In: Journal of Cross- THE AUTHOR Capelli, C. A. et al. (1990). How children understand Cultural Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 29-40. sarcasm: the role of context and intonation. In: Child McGhee, P. E.; Kach, J. A. (1981). The development Development, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 1824-1841. of humor in Black, Mexican American and White Carson, D. K. et al. (1986). Temperament and preschool children. In: Journal of Research and De- communicative competence as predictors of young velopment in Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 81-90. children’s humor. In: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. Miron, D. et al. (2001). Creating vigilance for bett- 32, No. 4, pp. 415-426. er learning from television. In: Singer, D.; Singer, Chapman, A. J. (1973). Funniness of jokes, canned J. (eds.). Handbook of children and the media. laughter and recall performance. In: Sociometry, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 569-578. Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. In: Humor, Chapman, A. J. (1979). Social aspects of humourous Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 359-373. laughter. In: Przeglad Psychologiczn, Vol. 22, No. 1, Mosher, M. R. (2003). Laughing on camera: Humor pp. 89-124. in videos produced by children. In: Klein, Amelia J. Catherine Lyon is a Development Dews, S. et al. (1996). Children’s understanding of (ed.). Humor in children’s lives: A guidebook for Consultant for Cartoon Network the meaning and functions of verbal irony. In: Child practitioners. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, pp. 69-84. Development, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 3071-3085. USA. Her responsibilities include Nevo, O. et al. (1998). The development and evalua- new project development and pro- Groch, A. S. (1974). Joking and appreciation of tion of a systematic program for improving sense of humor in nursery school children. In: Child gramme/curriculum research. She humor. In: Ruch, Willibald (ed.). The sense of humor: Development, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 1098-1102. holds an MA degree in Applied explorations of a personality characteristic. Humor Honig, A. S. (1988). Research in review. Humor Research: 3. Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Developmental Psychology from development in young children. In: Young Children, Prentice, N. M.; Fathman, R. E. (1975). Joking George Mason University in Virgi- Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 60-73. : A developmental index of children’s humor. nia and a BA from Georgetown Kosslyn, S. M.; Henker, B. A. (1970). Social In: Developmental Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. University in Washington, DC. influences on children’s humor responses. Los An- 210-216.