Humor Use Moderates the Relation of Stressful Life Events With Psychological Distress

Abstract

Three studies examined humor and adjustment to stressful events. In Study 1, patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (N = 22) reported on mental and physical adjustment, social interaction, and reappraisal of their illness. Dispositional humor was associated with reduced distress and fewer physical symptoms. Study 2 (N = 109) examined undergraduates’ reports of stressful events. Dispositional, self-enhancing, affiliative, and self-defeating humor showed direct effects on distress, which were mediated by social interaction and reappraisal. Moreover, dispositional and aggressive humor showed stress-buffering effects. Study 3 (N = 105) examined undergraduates’ adjustment to the September 11, 2001, attacks at 1 and 3 months postattack. At T1, affiliative humor showed a stress-buffering effect on distress. Social interaction mediated the relation of self-enhancing humor with reduced T1 distress, and mediated relations of aggressive and self-defeating humor with greater distress. Relations of T1 dispositional and self-defeating humor to changes in T2 distress were mediated by reappraisal.

Keywords

humor stress social interaction reappraisal fibromyalgia syndrome

It is a popular belief that a sense of humor is beneficial for health, particularly when confronting stressful events (e.g., Cousins, 1979). Indeed, evidence for such stress-buffering effects abounds with respect to mental health outcomes among healthy individuals (Nezlek & Derks, 2001; Riolli & Savicki, 2010; Rupert & Kent, 2007) and patient populations (M. C. Cohen, 2001; Dowling, Hockenberry, & Gregory, 2003; Wade et al., 2001). Humor has been linked with attenuated cardiovascular response to laboratory stressors (Giuliani, McRae, & Gross, 2008; Lefcourt, Davidson, Prkachin, & Mills, 1997) and with enhanced immune function (McClelland & Cheriff, 1997; Perera, Sabin, Nelson, & Lowe, 1998), both of which may ultimately affect physical well-being. Humor has even predicted long-term physical health outcomes such as enhanced adjustment to cancer and reduced mortality (Dowling et al., 2003; Romundstad, Svebak, Holen, & Holmen, 2016; Svebak, Krisoffersen, & Aasord, 2006). However, the evidence for the humor–health link is equivocal, as some studies have found humor to have no relation (Kuiper & Borowicz-Sibenik, 2005; Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, & Kirsh, 2004; Svebak, Gotestam, & Jensen, 2004) or even an inverse relation (Friedman et al., 1993; Kerkkanen, Kuiper, & Martin, 2004; Lefcourt et al., 1997) to health outcomes.

Martin (2007) suggested that general humor use may be too vague a construct to fully explain stress-buffering effects. Whereas earlier research focused on the benefits of a dispositional sense of humor, recent research focuses on specific humor styles. Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) argued that humor is comprised of two underlying dimensions: the extent to which humor enhances the self versus enhances relationships with others and the extent to which humor is benign versus harmful. Affiliative humor is benign humor that is used to connect with others by means of telling jokes and engaging in witty banter to amuse others, self-enhancing humor is benign humor that is used to bolster the self by maintaining a cheerful and positive perspective on one’s daily life, aggressive humor is harmful humor that is used to enhance the self by ridiculing others or putting them down, and self-defeating humor is harmful humor that is used to connect with others by means of disparaging oneself or making oneself the butt of jokes. A growing literature demonstrates the validity of these humor styles and their divergent relations to psychological well-being: Affiliative and self-enhancing humor are associated with greater well-being, self-defeating humor is associated with lower well-being, and aggressive humor is typically unrelated to well-being (Caird & Martin, 2014; Campbell, Martin, & Ward, 2008; Cann, Zapata, & Davis, 2009; Kuiper, 2010; Saraglou, Lacour, & Demeure, 2010). However, little research to date links humor styles with health outcomes or compares the differential impact of dispositional humor versus humor styles on health outcomes. The present research aims to expand prior work by examining direct and stress-buffering effects of these humor constructs on both physical and mental health outcomes following stressful events.

What mechanisms link humor with mental and physical health? In a review of the literature, Martin (2001) suggested that humor may elicit positive social interactions, which may in turn mediate the relation of humor with health outcomes. Evidence from healthy (Fry, 1995; Nezlek & Derks, 2001) and patient (M. C. Cohen, 2001; Manne at al., 2004) populations supports this explanation with respect to dispositional and general humor measures. Specific humor styles also have been correlated with social interactions: Self-enhancing and affiliative humor elicit positive interactions and good family relationships, whereas self-defeating and aggressive humor are linked with negative interactions and relationship difficulties (Kazarian, Moghnie, & Martin, 2010; Kuiper, 2010; Martin, 2007; Rieger & McGrail, 2015). The present studies extend prior research by examining whether social interaction statistically mediates the relations of specific humor styles with health outcomes.

Another explanation for the relation of humor with health outcomes derives from the positive psychology perspective, wherein humor is viewed as a personal quality that promotes resilience and well-being by means of cognitive reappraisal of stressful events (see Kuiper, 2012, for a review). Reappraisal is conceptualized as reframing negative events to find some meaning, higher purpose, or benefit derived from the event, such as positive changes or a renewed appreciation for life. Inability to reappraise stressful events is linked with poor adjustment, whereas successful reappraisal is associated with enhanced psychological adjustment and, to a lesser extent, enhanced physical adjustment to chronic illness (see Park, 2010 for a review).

By what means might humor facilitate reappraisal? Humor use is a cognitive strategy that enables individuals to shift perspective on a stressful situation, viewing it as a positive challenge rather than as a negative threat, and thereby gaining a sense of mastery over the event (Cann & Collette, 2014; Dozois, Martin, & Bieling, 2009; Kuiper, 2012). As such, humor may enable people to distance themselves from the emotional impact of an event and refocus on its positive aspects. Numerous studies have shown that humor is associated with reappraising events as less threatening (Abel, 2002; Cuevas Toro, Torrecillas, Medina, & Diaz Batanero, 2008; Gurnakova, 2000; Kuiper, Martin, & Olinger, 1993; Kuiper, McKenzie, & Belanger, 1995; Ojeda & Liang, 2014; Riolli & Savicki, 2010). Self-enhancing humor in particular may facilitate emotional regulation and coping by means of reframing. For example, Rnic, Dozios, and Martin (2016) showed that reduced use of self-enhancing humor mediated the relation of negative cognitive distortions with depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 15-year study of humor and causes of mortality found that the cognitive component of humor, conceptualized as the habitual cognitive orientation toward reappraising and thus diminishing daily stressors, predicted reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease and infections among women and infection-related mortality among men (Romundstad et al., 2016). To our knowledge, no prior studies have specifically examined reappraisal as a potential mediator of the relation between humor use and adjustment to stressful events.

To summarize, we sought to expand prior work by (a) examining direct and stress-buffering effects of dispositional humor and distinct humor styles on health-related outcomes; (b) examining links between humor constructs and a theoretically derived potential mechanism of the humor–health relation, cognitive reappraisal; (c) examining the extent to which social interaction and reappraisal statistically mediate humor–health relations; and (d) examining these questions among three diverse samples, assessing both mental and physical health outcomes, and employing a longitudinal design in Study 3 to better address issues of directionality.

Study 1

Study 1 examined the effects of a dispositional humor in the context of a chronic stressor: the daily experience of living with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). FMS is a debilitating chronic disorder characterized by widespread bodily pain and tenderness and concentration difficulties. It is accompanied by varying degrees of disability, fatigue, and impaired function (Hawley & Wolfe, 1991). Some evidence suggests that social support plays a particularly important role in this patient population because the experience of FMS is markedly more distressing and socially isolating than that of other chronic pain disorders (Davis, Zautra, & Reich, 2001; Franks, Cronan, & Oliver, 2004; Kool & Geenen, 2012). Humor use among FMS patients has been associated with reduced anxiety and greater ability to control pain (Hallberg & Carlsson, 1998), and with greater positive reappraisal (Cuevas Toro et al., 2008). However, no prior FMS research has examined humor, social interactions, reappraisal, and health outcomes all within the same study. We hypothesized that dispositional humor would be associated with enhanced psychological adjustment, social interactions, and reappraisal, and with reduced physical symptoms.

Method

Participants

Participants were 21 women and one man who had been diagnosed with primary FMS for at least 1 year. The gender disparity is not surprising, given that 90% of FMS sufferers are female (Goldenberg, Burckhardt, & Crofford, 2004). Participants were 100% Caucasian with a mean age of 50 (range = 20-66). Fifty-nine percent were married and 27% were employed full-time.

Procedure

Volunteers were recruited from St. Lawrence County in rural upstate New York between May and November 2001 via advertisements in local newspapers and the Northern New York Fibromyalgia Support Group Newsletter, and were paid US$25. Participants came to the laboratory for a baseline questionnaire and electronic diary protocol training. The baseline questionnaire assessed medical history, mental and physical functional status, psychological distress, social interactions, reappraisal, and humor use. Participants began the diary protocol the next morning. They responded to the diary items for the next 4 weekdays, then returned completed materials on the fifth day.

Baseline Questionnaires

Functional status

Baseline mental and physical functioning was assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; Ware, Snow, Kosinski, & Gandek, 1993). This instrument has excellent reliability and validity and has been used to evaluate functional status in depressed, chronically ill, and healthy patients. Internal consistencies for the subscales were adequate, ranging from .71 to .90. Participants reported on functioning during the past month.

Psychological distress

The Profile of Mood States (POMS) is a list of 65 five-point adjective rating scales, which was refined after repeated factor analyses of 100 different adjective scales (McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971). Since inception of the original scale, subsequent factor analyses have derived shorter versions of the POMS (Shacham, 1983; Usala & Hertzog, 1989). For the present study, participants rated their mood states during the past week on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a lot) for five different POMS subscales: Anger, Anxiety, Depression, Well-Being, and Calm. A total mood disturbance score was computed by summing the scores (with Well-Being and Calm weighted negatively) on the five subscales (α = .96). Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The CES-D is a widely used, 20-item assessment of the severity of depressive symptoms experienced in the past week. The scale has shown high internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity (Radloff, 1977). In the present study, the scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .94). The total mood disturbance and depressive symptoms scores were standardized and combined into one index reflecting baseline psychological distress.

Humor

Dispositional humor was assessed with the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ; Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). The SHRQ is a 21-item measure that assesses individuals’ tendency to respond with smiling and laughter to a variety of life situations. Eighteen relatively common situations (e.g., having a waiter spill a drink on you) are included for which subjects are asked to indicate the degree to which they would have experienced mirth in such a situation, in addition to three self-descriptive items. Several studies indicate this inventory to be both reliable and valid as a humor measure (Martin & Lefcourt, 1984). The SHRQ demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = .70).

Social interaction

Social support was assessed with seven items derived from Fritz (2000). Participants responded to the stem, “In the past month, how much have the people closest to you . . . ?” Sample items included “ . . . gave you emotional support and encouragement?” and “made you feel as though you could talk openly and honestly about the event?” Participants rated each item on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) scale (α = .94). Negative interactions were assessed with the Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE; Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991), which consists of 20 Likert-type scale items assessing four types of social conflict: Hostility/Impatience, Insensitivity, Interference, and Ridicule. Participants reported the extent to which the important people in their lives had engaged in behaviors such as “took my feelings lightly,” “made fun of me,” and “ignored my wishes or needs” during the past month (α = .95). The TENSE scale was reverse-scored, then the TENSE and social support scales were standardized and combined into one composite index reflecting positive social interactions.

Reappraisal

Three items derived from prior studies were administered to assess the extent to which participants were actively engaged in efforts to reappraise their FMS (Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987; Fritz, 1999; Thompson, 1991). They were as follows: “In the past 2 weeks, how much have you found yourself thinking philosophically about the causes of your fibromyalgia syndrome, such as, ‘is there some reason why this happened specifically to me, of all people?’” “How much energy have you spent trying to figure out why your fibromyalgia syndrome happened?” and “How much have you found yourself searching to make some sense of or find some meaning in your fibromyalgia syndrome?” These items were correlated (rs ranged from .65 to .86, all ps < .001) and were combined into one index reflecting reappraisal effort (α = .89). In addition, the four-item Positive Reinterpretation and Growth subscale from the COPE multidimensional coping inventory was administered (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Respondents indicated the extent to which they currently do the following things right now to cope with the event, rated on a 1 (I usually don’t do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot) scale. Sample items include “I try to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive” and “I look for something good in what is happening” (α = .77). The Reappraisal Effort scale was reverse-scored, then it and the Positive Reinterpretation scale were standardized and combined into one composite index reflecting reappraisal.

Daily diary measures

Waking assessments

Participants completed a brief paper-and-pencil questionnaire upon waking on each of the 4 diary days. Participants reported how many times they awakened for a period of at least 10 min (M = 2.40, SD = 1.76) and the total number of hours they spent asleep during the prior night (M = 5.98, SD = 1.20; reverse-scored for index). These two items were items derived from prior studies investigating FMS and/or sleep quality (Affleck et al., 1998; Totterdell, Reynolds, Parkinson, & Briner, 1994), and were combined into an index of sleep disruption. They were correlated over the 4 diary days ranging from r = .52 to r = .74, all ps < .05, with the exception of the Day 3 morning interview, which was r = .22, ns. Participants also rated pain upon waking across 14 bodily areas. Pain was rated on a 0 (none) to 6 (severe) scale and was scored as sum across body regions (Affleck et al., 1998). The Morning Pain scale had good internal consistency, ranging from .80 to .91 across the four diary days. Ninety-nine percent of waking interviews were completed.

Daily diary electronic random sampling

On each of the four diary days, participants were paged 3 times daily by the electronic diary. Participants were unaware of exactly when the pages would occur, aside from knowing that there would be a morning interview between 9:15 and 11:15 a.m., an afternoon interview between 2:15 and 4:15 p.m., and an evening interview between 6:45 and 9:15 p.m. Ninety-four percent of electronic interviews were completed within 15 min after the page.

Participants responded to five questions assessing physical symptoms on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) scale (“In the past 30 min, how bad has your pain/stiffness been?” “How fatigued/well-rested have you felt?” “How much did pain and other FMS symptoms interfere with your activities?”). These were combined to create one index of physical symptoms, which exhibited acceptable internal consistency across the 12 daily assessments (αs ranged from .75 to .91, with the exception of the Day 4 morning interview, which was α = .56). These questions were adapted from Affleck et al. (1998) as well as from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (Burckhardt, Clark, & Bennett, 1991), which is a widely used and validated instrument for assessing overall severity of FMS. Participants also responded to an abbreviated version of the POMS Mood Disturbance scale, comprised of seven negative mood states from the Depression and Anxiety subscales (tense, sad, on edge, depressed, nervous, unhappy, uneasy), rated on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) scale. These were combined into one scale reflecting daily mood disturbance. Alphas ranged from .88 to .97 across the 12 daily assessments.

Bedtime retrospective interview

Just prior to retiring for the night, participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire asking them to rate their overall mood for the day on the 30-item POMS Total Mood Disturbance scale (McNair et al., 1971). This scale demonstrated good reliability across the 4 diary days (αs ranged from .94 to .98). They also responded to three items assessing symptom severity for the entire day (“Overall, how much pain/fatigue did you experience today?” “Overall, how much did your FMS symptoms interfere with your activities today?” range: 1 = not at all to 5 = a lot). These items were derived from Affleck et al. (1998) and were combined into a single index which exhibited acceptable reliability across the 4 diary days (αs ranged from .76 to .87). Ninety-three percent of bedtime retrospective interviews were completed.

Results

Analytic approach

We examined baseline correlations of dispositional humor with outcomes (psychological distress, mental and physical functioning) and potential mechanisms (social interactions, reappraisal). Diary responses were collapsed across assessments to reduce the number of variables. Thus, we examined correlations of humor with sleep disruption and pain upon waking (collapsed across four morning assessments), with daily physical symptoms and mood disturbance (collapsed across 12 random daily assessments), and with end-of-day total mood disturbance and symptom severity (collapsed across four bedtime assessments).

Our small sample size precluded examination of Stress × Humor Use interactions. Moreover, our entire sample can be conceptualized as a “high stress” group: These individuals live with debilitating daily pain, and there is little consensus among the medical community regarding effective means of reducing pain and enhancing functioning (Goldenberg et al., 2004). Thus, we interpret correlations between humor and enhanced adjustment as consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis.

To examine whether social interactions and reappraisal mediate relations between humor and outcomes, we followed recommended procedures to estimate a series of Model 4 equations using the PROCESS v.2.16.3 macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). Indirect effects were tested using a bias-corrected bootstrapping approach with 5,000 resamples to address nonnormality in the product of the coefficients. Asymmetric 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the indirect effect (ab path) estimates that do not include zero indicate statistically significant mediation effects (Hayes & Rockwood, 2016). We examined baseline adjustment measures only with respect to mediation, given their common self-report time frame with the proposed mechanisms.

Baseline assessment

Humor was correlated with reduced psychological distress (r = −.55, p < .001), but unrelated to mental functioning (r = .35, ns) or physical functioning (r = −.09, ns). Social interaction was unrelated to humor (r = .09, ns), but was correlated with less psychological distress (r = −.64, p < .01), enhanced mental functioning (r = .48, p < .05), and enhanced physical functioning (r = .51, p < .05). Reappraisal was correlated with less psychological distress (r = −.54, p < .05), but was not significantly related to humor (r = .30, ns), mental functioning (r = .38, p = .07), or physical functioning (r = .23, ns).

Diary assessment

Humor was unrelated to waking reports of sleep disruption (r = −.34, ns) or pain (r = −.18, ns). Regarding daily reports, humor was correlated with fewer physical symptoms (r = −.43, p < .05) but unrelated to mood disturbance (r = −.22, ns). At bedtime, humor was correlated with fewer physical symptoms (r = −.49, p < .05) but unrelated to mood disturbance (r = −.29, ns).

Mediation

As evidenced by the inclusion of zero in the CIs, neither social interactions (95% CI = [−1.06, 0.42]) nor reappraisal (95% CI = [−0.88, 0.11]) mediated the relation of humor with psychological distress. The total effect of humor and psychological distress was significant without mediators present (path c, b = −1.70, p < .01) as well as the direct effect with mediators present (path c′, b = −1.41, p < .01). Similarly, no evidence for mediation emerged with respect to mental or physical functioning (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Study 1: Summary of Mediation Analyses (5,000 Bootstraps) Between Dispositional Humor and Baseline Outcomes.

Dependent variable	Total effect (c path)	Direct effect (c′ path)	Indirect effect (ab path)
Psychological distress	−1.70**	−1.41**	SI [−1.06, 0.42] R [−0.92, 0.10]
Mental functioning	10.04	7.74	SI [−1.78, 9.22] R [−1.61, 9.45]
Physical functioning	−1.65	−2.98	SI [−1.96, 6.41] R [−2.85, 3.76]

Note. The independent variable is dispositional humor. Unstandardized regression coefficients and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are displayed. Confidence intervals that do not include zero are statistically significant at p < .05. SI = social interaction index; R = reappraisal index.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Study 1 provided some support for our hypotheses: Humor was associated with less psychological distress at baseline, and with fewer physical symptoms in daily reports and at bedtime. However, humor was unrelated to other mental and physical health outcomes, or to our proposed mechanisms, social interactions, and reappraisal.

One limitation of Study 1 was its small sample size. With alpha and power set at conventional levels of .05 and .8, respectively, and our sample size of N = 22, the minimum detectable effect size is equivalent to r = .433. Although some of our relations met this threshold, several other relations fell short (e.g., dispositional humor with mental functioning, r = .35, ns, and with sleep disruption, r = −.34, ns). Thus, Study 2 employs a larger sample to avoid this potential problem of Type II error. With respect to the relations that Study 1 did find, one limitation is that small sample sizes may sometimes yield unreliable results due to the influence of outliers. Scatterplot analysis of humor with outcomes suggests that this is not the case in the present study. Thus, we view the results of Study 1 as laying the groundwork for a more rigorous examination of humor’s relations with mental health outcomes, social interaction, and reappraisal in Study 2.

Study 2

Our first goal in Study 2 was to examine the same hypotheses in a sample that was larger and was characterized by greater diversity of stress levels. Whereas participants in Study 1 experienced the same type of highly stressful event (i.e., a chronic, debilitating illness with little medical consensus at the time regarding effective treatment or likely course of illness), the participants in Study 2 responded with respect to the most stressful event that had happened to them in the last 3 years, which varied in severity from, for example, failing to make the cut on a varsity sports team, to the breakup of a romantic relationship, to being charged with a crime, and to the death of a family member. We hoped that greater variability in stressor severity would provide a better framework for testing stress-buffering interactions. Thus, we expected a direct effect such that dispositional humor would be associated with reduced psychological distress in response to personal stressors. We also expected a stress-buffering effect of dispositional humor on distress, such that under conditions of low stress, individuals scoring low on dispositional humor would experience levels of psychological distress equivalent to those scoring high on dispositional humor; however, under conditions of high stress, high humor individual should experience reduced levels of psychological distress as compared with those scoring low on dispositional humor.

Our second goal was to examine different humor styles. Based on previous research of humor styles and well-being (Martin, 2007), we hypothesized that affiliative humor (tendency to tell jokes, make others laugh) and self-enhancing humor (tendency to maintain a humorous outlook on life, be frequently amused by daily events) would show direct and stress-buffering effects similar to those observed for dispositional humor. We also examined two humor styles that are presumably maladaptive: aggressive humor (tendency to ridicule, tease, or alienate others) and self-defeating humor (tendency to disparage oneself excessively, willingly allow oneself to be the butt of others’ jokes). Self-defeating humor is clearly linked with greater psychological distress (Martin et al., 2003), and so, we hypothesized that we would find direct negative effects of self-defeating humor on distress as well stress-buffering interactions such that high levels of self-defeating humor would be especially detrimental under conditions of high stress. With respect to aggressive humor, prior research typically finds it unrelated to distress, although few studies have examined it specifically in the context of ongoing real-life stressors. Thus, we view our analyses regarding stress-buffering effects of aggressive humor as exploratory.

Our third goal was to examine potential mediating factors of the above relations. Consistent with prior research (Martin, 2007), we expected that dispositional, affiliative, and self-enhancing humor would be correlated with greater positive social interactions, which would mediate the relations of these humor variables with reduced distress. We expected that aggressive and self-defeating humor would be associated with reduced positive social interactions, which would mediate the relations of these humor styles with greater distress.

Fourth, we examined the extent to which reappraisal explained the relation of humor with psychological distress. Self-enhancing and dispositional humor have been most clearly associated with shifting one’s perspective to reduce threatening cognitions about stressful events (Kuiper, 2012); thus, we expected that these humor constructs would be the most likely to be linked with a greater ability to reappraisal personal stressors, which may mediate the relation with reduced distress.

Method

Participants

Participants were 109 undergraduate students from Clarkson University, 81 males and 28 females. Ages ranged from 17 to 24 with a mean of 19.4. The sample was 92% Caucasian, 6% Asian, 1% African American, and 1% Hispanic.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes to complete a questionnaire packet. First, demographic characteristics and general mood disturbance were assessed. Then, participants were asked to describe the most negative or traumatic event that had happened to them during the past 3 years. At the end of the packet, participants completed measures of dispositional humor and humor styles.

Instruments

Humor variables

Dispositional humor was assessed with the SHRQ (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). It demonstrated good reliability in the present study (α = .75). Humor styles were assessed with the Humor Styles Questionnaire (Martin et al., 2003). This widely used instrument demonstrates excellent reliability and validity and has been used in more than 125 published studies (Martin & Kuiper, 2016). This 32-item questionnaire includes subscales measuring affiliative humor (α = .76), self-enhancing humor (α = .83), aggressive humor (α = .73), and self-defeating humor (α = .82).

Psychological distress

The POMS was used to assess total mood disturbance (Shacham, 1983; Usala & Hertzog, 1989), and the CES-D was used to assess depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977). Both scales showed good internal consistencies (αs = .93 and .88, respectively). The POMS and CES-D were standardized and combined into one index of psychological distress.

Social interaction

As in Study 1, the same measures were used to assess social support (α = .90) and negative interactions (α = .89). These scales were standardized and combined into a composite index of positive social interactions.

Reappraisal

As in Study 1, we employed the same scales to assess reappraisal efforts (α = .68) and positive reinterpretation (α = .75), this time with the stems asking respondents to think “specifically about the event you described.” Although the internal consistency of the reappraisal efforts scale was low, no single item markedly detracted from the measure, and so we retained all the items in order to maintain scale consistency across studies. These scales were standardized and combined into one composite index of reappraisal.

Event characteristics

Event characteristics may influence participants’ distress levels; thus, two dimensions were assessed. First, participants reported the amount of time that had elapsed since the event occurred. Time since the event ranged from 1 month ago or less (10%) to 3 years ago or more (15%), with an average of 22 months ago. Second, participants responded to the item “How much does the event you described currently disrupt your life?” on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale. The mean current life disruption was 2.8.

Results

Event characteristics

Table 2 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all variables. Notably, event characteristics were unrelated to humor variables. Psychological distress was unrelated to time since the event but was positively correlated with current life disruption. No event characteristics were included in analyses as covariates.

Table 2.

Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.

Variable	M	SD	Dispositional humor	Self-enhancing	Affiliative humor	Aggressive humor	Self-defeating	Psychological distress	Social interaction	Reappraisal	Currently disrupt	Time since
Dispositional humor	3.06	0.43	—	.43***	.46***	.12	.09	−.31**	.17	.29**	.03	.13
Self-enhancing	4.71	1.03		—	.41***	.11	.09	−.41***	.27**	.37***	−.04	.10
Affiliative humor	5.82	0.75			—	.11	−.01	−.31**	.25*	.13	.13	.03
Aggressive humor	4.16	0.94				—	.21*	−.11	−.12	.13	.08	.04
Self-defeating	3.66	1.15					—	.08	−.35***	.10	−.15	.13
Psychological distress	0.00	0.94						—	−.38***	−.34***	.31***	−.10
Social interaction	0.00	0.82							—	.27**	−.12	−.11
Reappraisal	0.00	0.69								—	−.36***	.04
Currently disrupt	2.81	1.12									—	.16
Time since event												—

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Direct effects of humor

As shown in Table 2, dispositional, self-enhancing, and affiliative humor were negatively correlated with psychological distress, whereas aggressive and self-defeating humor were unrelated to psychological distress.

Stress-buffering effects of humor

To test whether humor buffered individuals from the negative effects of current life disruption on their psychological distress levels, we conducted a series of Model 1 simple linear moderation analyses using PROCESS v.2.16.3 for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). A marginally significant Humor × Stress Interaction emerged for dispositional humor, b = −.37, t(101) = −1.98, p = .051. Figure 1 depicts slopes analysis of the conditional effects of current life disruption on psychological distress when dispositional humor is set to −1 SD below the mean (“relatively low”), the mean (“moderate”), and +1 SD above the mean (“relatively high”). The negative estimate reflects that those high on current disruption experienced greater psychological distress than those low on current disruption; this effect was statistically significant among those relatively low (p < .001) and moderate (p < .001) on dispositional humor, but not among those who scored high on dispositional humor. Thus, compared with low and moderate humor users, high humor users were protected from significantly elevated psychological distress under conditions of high stress. Similarly, a Humor × Stress interaction emerged for aggressive humor, b = −.24, t(101) = −2.84, p < .01. Figure 2 shows that high current life disruption was associated with greater psychological distress among those low (p < .001) and moderate (p < .01) on aggressive humor, but not among those who scored high on aggressive humor. No interactions emerged for self-enhancing, affiliative, or self-defeating humor.

Figure 1.

Psychological distress as a function of current life disruption and dispositional humor.

Figure 2.

Psychological distress as a function of current life disruption and aggressive humor.

Mediating effects of social interaction and reappraisal

We examined the extent to which the humor variables were associated with social interaction and reappraisal, and whether these variables may function as mechanisms linking humor variables with psychological distress. Table 2 shows that social interaction was negatively correlated with psychological distress and with self-defeating humor, and was positively correlated with self-enhancing and affiliative humor. Reappraisal was negatively correlated with psychological distress and positively correlated with dispositional and self-enhancing humor.

Mediation testing was again conducted according to the procedures outlined by Hayes (2013). Table 3 displays unstandardized regression coefficients and p values for total, direct, and indirect (mediation) effects. With respect to self-enhancing humor, both social interaction (95% CI = [−0.15, −0.02]) and reappraisal (95% CI = [−0.17, −0.003]) mediated the relation to psychological distress. The total effect of self-enhancing humor on psychological distress was significant without mediators present (path c, b = −.37, p < .001), and the direct effect with mediators present was reduced to marginal significance (path c′, b = −.24, p = .051); the reduction in the coefficient from the c path to the c′ path and the absence of zero in the 95% CIs indicate a significant mediation effect. A similar pattern emerged with respect to affiliative humor, wherein social interaction (95% CI = [−0.19, −0.02]), but not reappraisal (95% CI = [−0.14, 0.01]), mediated the relation to psychological distress. Conversely, with respect to dispositional humor, reappraisal (95% CI = [−0.35, −0.01]), but not social interaction (95% CI = [−0.25, 0.01]), mediated the relation to psychological distress. With respect to self-defeating humor, neither the total effect (path c, b = .07, ns) nor the direct effect (path c′, b = −.001, ns) was significant; however, social interaction emerged as a significant mediator (95% CI = [0.04, 0.17]), suggesting that self-defeating humor elicits greater psychological distress by means of an indirect pathway through reduced positive social interactions.

Table 3.

Study 2: Summary of Mediation Analyses (5,000 Bootstraps) Between Humor Measures and Psychological Distress.

Independent variable	Total effect (c path)	Direct effect (c′ path)	Indirect effect (ab path)
Dispositional humor	−0.67**	−0.46*	SI [−0.25, 0.01]R [−0.35, −0.01]*
Self-enhancing humor	−0.37***	−0.24^†	SI [−0.15, −0.02]R [−0.17, −0.003]
Affiliative humor	−0.38**	−0.26*	SI [−0.19, −0.02]*R [−0.14, 0.01]
Aggressive humor	−0.10	−0.11	SI [−0.02, 0.12]R [−0.13, 0.01]
Self-defeating humor	0.07	−0.001	SI [0.04, 0.17]*R [−0.10, 0.02]

Note. The dependent variable is psychological distress index. Unstandardized regression coefficients and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are displayed. Confidence intervals that do not include zero are statistically significant at p < .05. SI = social interaction index; R = reappraisal index.

†

p = .05. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Study 2 largely supported hypotheses. Dispositional, self-enhancing, and affiliative humor were associated with reduced psychological distress, and social interaction mediated the relations of self-enhancing and affiliative humor with reduced distress. Moreover, reappraisal mediated the relations of self-enhancing and dispositional humor with reduced psychological distress, suggesting that one way humor decreases distress is by facilitating positive reframing of the event.

Dispositional humor moderated the relation of current life disruption with psychological distress: When participants indicated that the event they described currently disrupted their lives to a high degree, those with high humor levels experienced less psychological distress than did those with moderate and low humor levels. Notably, a similar protective stress-buffering effect emerged for aggressive humor, such that under conditions of high current life disruption, high humor users experienced less psychological distress than did low and moderate humor users. These results may explain some of the ambiguity that has emerged in past studies: Although aggressive humor may elicit negative interactions from some network members, it may also provide a protective effect for the individual at the highest stress levels.

Study 3

Study 3 sought to expand these findings by utilizing a longitudinal design to examine individuals adjusting to an ongoing, traumatic stressor: the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Method

Participants

Participants were 105 undergraduate students from Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York: 78 males and 26 females (missing data n = 1). Ages ranged from 17 to 34 with a mean of 19.3. The sample was 92% Caucasian, 5% Asian, 2% African American, and 1% Hispanic.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes to complete a questionnaire packet at 1 month postattack (October 11, 2001) and again at 3 months postattack (the week of December 3-7, 2001). At Time 1, participants were asked to reflect on their deepest thoughts and feelings regarding the September 11th attacks, and to write about their initial reaction to the events as well as their current thoughts and emotions about them. Fifty-one participants (49%) reported that they had a friend or family member who was directly affected by the terrorist attacks. Five participants reported that the nature of the involvement was the death of that person, four reported work disruption, 15 stated “other,” seven failed to specify, and 20 reported military deployment. Following the written description, participants completed a variety of measures including psychological distress, social interaction, reappraisal, and humor. Seventy-five participants completed the Time 2 psychological distress measures.

Instruments

Humor

The SHRQ (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983) was again used to assess dispositional humor, and the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003) was used to assess humor styles. These scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency: dispositional humor (α = .83), affiliative humor (α = .83), self-enhancing humor (α = .80), aggressive humor (α = .70), and self-defeating humor (α = .82).

Psychological distress

Total mood disturbance (POMS; Shacham, 1983; Usala & Hertzog, 1989) and depressive symptoms (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) were assessed. These scales demonstrated good internal consistency: total mood disturbance at Time 1 (α = .94) and Time 2 (α = .95), and depressive symptoms at Time 1 (α = .89) and Time 2 (α = .91). They were standardized and combined into composite psychological distress indices at Time 1 and Time 2.

Social interactions

Social support (Fritz, 2000) and negative interaction (TENSE; Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991) scales again were administered (αs = .88 and .91, respectively). They were standardized and combined into one index of positive social interactions.

Reappraisal

We again employed the reappraisal efforts (α = .74) and positive reinterpretation (α = .78) scales, this time with the stems asking respondents to think “specifically about the attacks on our country.” They were standardized and combined into one composite index of reappraisal.

Stress

A five-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; S. Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) was used to assess current levels of life stress at Time 1. Participants reported how often during the past week they felt unable to control the important things in their lives, how often they felt they coped well with changes, how often they felt they have too many difficulties to overcome, how over they felt things were going well, and how often they felt they could handle their problems. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale from never (0) to almost always (4). This scale exhibited adequate internal consistency (α = .74).

Results

Direct effects of humor

Table 4 shows means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variables. Similar to Study 2, dispositional, self-enhancing, and affiliative humor were correlated at Time 1 with reduced psychological distress, whereas aggressive humor was unrelated. Contrary to Study 2, but consistent with hypotheses, self-defeating humor was associated with greater Time 1 psychological distress. Partial correlation analyses examined whether the humor variables predicted Time 2 psychological distress, controlling for Time 1 distress. Only self-enhancing humor predicted decreased psychological distress over time.

Table 4.

Study 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.

Variable	M	SD	Dispositional humor	Self-enhancing	Affiliative humor	Aggressive humor	Self-defeating	T1 psychological distress	T2 psychological distress	Social interaction	Reappraisal	PSS
Dispositional humor	3.01	0.51	—	.58***	.53***	.26**	−.02	−.27**	−.11	.11	.21*	−.16
Self-enhancing	4.70	0.92		—	.56***	.16	−.02	−.38***	−.26*	.22*	.16	−.36***
Affiliative humor	5.76	0.86			—	.14	−.06	−.31***	−.14	.17	.09	−.18
Aggressive humor	4.13	0.88				—	.25*	−.01	−.07	−.20*	.01	−.09
Self-defeating	3.76	1.11					—	.39***	.004	−.39***	−.22*	.25*
T1 psychological distress	0.00	0.91						—	.62***	−.49***	−.09	.73***
T2 psychological distress	0.00	0.95							—	.04	−.21^††	.42***
Social interaction	0.00	0.79								—	.02	−.33***
Reappraisal	0.00	0.59									—	−.03
PSS	2.79	0.66										—

Note. Table values reflect bivariate correlations, with the exception of the relations to T2 psychological distress, which are partial correlations controlling for T1 psychological distress. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale.

††

p < .08. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Stress-buffering effects of humor

We used the PROCESS v.2.16.3 macro for SPSS to conduct Model 1 simple linear moderation analyses for each humor variable to determine whether humor moderated the relation of current perceived stress level with psychological distress. Analyses were conducted separately for each of the five humor variables on Time 1 psychological distress, and again on Time 2 psychological distress including Time 1 distress as a covariate. An Affiliative Humor × Perceived Stress interaction emerged on Time 1 psychological distress, b = −.20, t(101) = −2.02, p < .05. Figure 3 depicts slopes analysis of the conditional effects of perceived stress on psychological distress when affiliative humor is −1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and +1 SD above the mean. Under conditions of high perceived stress, high affiliative humor use was associated with less elevation in psychological distress as compared with moderate and low humor use (all ps < .001). No other interactions emerged.

Figure 3.

Psychological distress as a function of perceived stress and affiliative humor.

Mediating effects of social interactions and reappraisal

We examined the extent to which the humor variables were associated with social interactions and reappraisal, and whether these variables might function as mediators linking the humor variables with psychological distress. Table 4 shows that social interaction was associated with reduced psychological distress at Time 1 but did not predict changes in distress over time. It was correlated with greater use of self-enhancing humor and less use of aggressive and self-defeating humor. Reappraisal was unrelated to Time 1 distress but marginally predicted decreased distress over time. It was positively correlated with dispositional humor and negatively correlated with self-defeating humor. Mediation testing was again conducted according to the procedures outlined by Hayes (2013).

Cross-sectional relations

Social interaction, but not reappraisal, emerged as a mediator at Time 1: Social interaction mediated the relation of self-enhancing humor to reduced distress (95% CI = [−0.21, −0.01]), and mediated the relation of self-defeating humor with greater distress (95% CI = [0.06, 0.24]). With respect to aggressive humor, neither the total effect (path c, b = −.02, ns) nor the direct effect (path c′, b = −.13, ns) were significant; however, social interaction emerged as a significant mediator (95% CI = [0.02, 0.23]), suggesting that aggressive humor elicits greater psychological distress by means of an indirect pathway through reduced positive social interactions.

Longitudinal relations

Reappraisal, but not social interaction, mediated the changes in psychological distress over time for dispositional humor (95% CI = [−0.23, −0.001]) and self-defeating humor (95% CI = [0.0003, 0.11]). Although neither the total nor the direct effects were significant in these analyses, the absence of zero in the CIs suggests that dispositional humor elicits enhanced psychological adjustment by means of an indirect pathway through greater reappraisal of negative events, and that self-defeating humor elicits greater psychological distress by means of an indirect pathway through reduced reappraisal of events. Table 5 displays unstandardized regression coefficients and p values for all paths in these analyses.

Table 5.

Study 3: Summary of Mediation Analyses (5,000 Bootstraps) Between Humor Measures and Psychological Distress.

Independent variable	Total effect (c path)	Direct effect (c′ path)	Indirect effect (ab path)
DV = Time 1 psychological distress
Dispositional humor	−0.50**	−0.39*	SI [−0.26, 0.05]R [−0.12, 0.03]
Self-enhancing humor	−.40***	−0.30**	SI [−0.21, −0.01]*R [−0.05, 0.03]
Affiliative humor	−0.34**	−0.25*	SI [−0.20, 0.01]R [−0.05, 0.01]
Aggressive humor	−0.02	−0.13	SI [0.02, 0.24]*R [−0.03, 0.02]
Self-defeating humor	0.33***	0.20*	SI [0.06, 0.24]*R [−0.01, 0.05]
DV = Time 2 psychological distress adjusting for Time 1 levels
Dispositional humor	−0.12	−0.05	SI [−0.05, 0.03]R [−0.23, −0.001]*
Self-enhancing humor	−0.09	−0.05	SI [−0.02, 0.03]R [−0.12, 0.002]
Affiliative humor	−0.09	−0.08	SI [−0.02, 0.03]R [−0.08, 0.03]
Aggressive humor	0.002	0.01	SI [−0.08, 0.05]R [−0.05, 0.07]
Self-defeating humor	0.07	0.05	SI [−0.07, 0.04]R [0.0003, 0.11]*

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are displayed. Confidence intervals that do not include zero are statistically significant at p < .05. DV = dependent variable; SI = social interaction index; R = reappraisal index.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

General Discussion

Across three studies, we examined the direct and stress-buffering effects of a dispositional tendency to cope with stressful events by using humor, as well as direct and stress-buffering effects of specific humor coping styles in Studies 2 and 3. A consistent pattern emerged: Positive humor use predicted reduced psychological distress in response to stressful events, more positive social interactions, greater reappraisal of stressful events, and stress-buffering effects such that under high stress conditions, high humor use protected participants from elevated distress.

One goal of this research was to compare the utility of a dispositional measure of humor use with that of the more specific styles. Our results suggest that dispositional humor remains a useful predictor of outcomes. It showed a consistent pattern with reduced psychological distress across all three studies, as well as links with reduced physical symptoms in Study 1, and showed a stress-buffering effect in Study 2. Perhaps most important, it showed clear links with the ability to reappraise negative events. Reappraisal mediated the cross-sectional relation of dispositional humor with reduced distress in Study 2, and mediated the longitudinal relation to decreased distress over time in Study 3.

Of the humor styles, self-enhancing humor showed the strongest relations to outcomes. It was associated with reduced distress in Studies 2 and 3, and predicted decreased distress over time in Study 3. In addition, reappraisal mediated the relation of self-enhancing humor to reduced distress in Study 2. This result is consistent with an ever-growing literature demonstrating that the ability to reappraise negative events is associated with enhanced adjustment (Park, 2010). Viewed from a positive psychology perspective, humor is one of the character traits that facilitates resilience (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It does so because humor enables individuals to recast negative events in a more positive and less threatening light, thereby allowing people to maintain well-being in the face of stressful events. This perspective dovetails nicely with the Broaden and Build Theory, which states that positive emotions serve a critical function in motivating behavior: They allow people to have a greater awareness of multiple perspectives, engage in more flexible and efficient thinking, and ultimately engage in more effective problem-solving (Fredrickson, 2013). Cann and Collette (2014) recently showed how these perspectives may interrelate: In a 7-day online daily diary design, self-enhancing humor predicted greater resilience and psychological well-being and less distress, which was mediated through self-enhancing humor’s effect on stable positive affect. Our results showing that reappraisal is a significant mediator of the humor–distress relation are further evidence to support the hypothesis that viewing daily stressors in a humorous way allows one to put the stressors in perspective as less threatening, and thereby reducing negative emotional response.

Social interaction mediated the relation of self-enhancing humor with distress in Studies 2 and 3. Notably, social interaction showed stronger correlations with self-enhancing humor than with affiliative humor. Affiliative humor is conceptualized as the socially wise style of telling jokes and stories with the explicit purpose of connecting with others, whereas self-enhancing humor is the more private humor style based on self-reflection regarding humorous aspects of daily life. Even so, across two studies, social interaction was more strongly implicated as a mechanism linking self-enhancing humor, rather than affiliative humor, to reduced distress. Perhaps, as Broaden and Build Theory and Cann and Collette’s (2014) results suggest, reflecting upon daily life stressors with a humorous outlook spills over more broadly into positive daily experiences.

As expected, aggressive humor showed inconsistent relations to outcomes. No direct effects emerged on psychological distress across Studies 2 and 3, but aggressive humor did show a protective stress-buffering effect in Study 2. By contrast, Study 3 showed an indirect effect of aggressive humor on greater T1 distress by means of a pathway through poor social interactions. Past research has found similar results, with aggressive humor showing little or no relation to distress and a moderate relation to negative social interactions (Kuiper, 2010; Martin, 2007). The present study suggest one potential explanation why aggressive humor is typically unrelated to distress: To the extent that it simultaneously elicits both negative (via its relation to poor social interactions) and positive outcomes (via its stress-buffering, “better than nothing” effects under high stress levels), its net effect on distress may be negligible. As Kuiper (2012) noted, anecdotal and observational studies high on ecological validity (e.g., samples from high stress occupations such as police, firefighters, and medical professionals) suggest that the effectiveness of maladaptive humor styles such as aggressive, cynical, or “gallows” humor may also depend on “audience variables” such as how likely one’s audience is to share a similar humor style, or the extent to which audience members allow potentially offensive humor to slide if they perceive that the stressor at hand is severe. Martin and Kuiper (2016) recently proposed a similar point regarding maladaptive humor styles, suggesting they may be differentially effective depending on important moderator variables such as their relative use compared with other styles. For example, in a recent study, self-defeating humor was related positively to psychological well-being and social interaction when it was used sparingly, but showed the inverse relations when it was the primary humor style used (Edwards & Martin, 2014). Future research should further explore the conditions under which maladaptive humor styles in particular may be beneficial versus detrimental to health and relationships.

Although our results were largely consistent across the three studies, some inconsistencies emerged. In Study 2, self-defeating humor showed a pattern of relations similar to that demonstrated by aggressive humor: no direct effect on psychological distress, but a link with poorer social interaction which mediated the relation to greater distress through an indirect path. In Study 3, however, self-defeating humor was directly linked with greater psychological distress, less reappraisal, and poorer social interactions; moreover, social interactions mediated cross-sectional associations to greater distress, and reappraisal mediated longitudinal relations to increased distress over time. One explanation for these inconsistencies may be that the nature of the stressor in each study played a role. In Study 2, participants reported on personal stressors that occurred, on average, 22 months ago, whereas in Study 3, participants reported on the terrorist attacks at 1 and 3 months postevent, which may have still felt like an ongoing stressor to participants. To this point, Updegraff, Silver, and Holman (2008) reported that at 2 months postattack, most Americans in their sample were still actively searching for meaning but remained unable to find any adequate way to understand the events of September 11, 2001. Possibly, the negative effects of self-defeating humor are more pronounced during stressors that are ongoing. Self-defeating humor may be especially likely to garner negative reactions from others when it is a shared stressor, because others coping with the same collective event dislike having their own coping efforts tainted by negativity.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present studies’ methodological limitations necessitate exercising caution in interpreting the results, particularly regarding causal inferences. The cross-sectional and correlational design of Studies 1 and 2 could have resulted in significant correlations between humor, mechanisms, and outcome variables despite a lack of a true causal pathway. That is, rather than humor influencing social interactions, reappraisal, and distress levels, it is plausible that lower distress levels enable people to engage in more positive humor styles, better social interactions, and more effective reframing of stressors. To address these concerns, the longitudinal design of Study 3 provided a stronger test of directionality. Indeed, Study 3 showed that self-enhancing humor and reappraisal at 1 month postattack predicted reduced psychological distress at 3 months postattack, and that reappraisal mediated the relations of Time 1 dispositional and self-defeating humor to changes in distress over time. Together with the results of Studies 1 and 2, we can infer that a chain of events whereby humor elicits specific social interaction and reappraisal behaviors, which in turn affect psychological distress, is plausible. Future research should employ more rigorous longitudinal designs, measuring outcomes and potential mechanisms over multiple time points. An extended application of the diary method used in Study 1, in which mechanisms and outcomes are assessed repeatedly, would strengthen our ability to draw causal inferences regarding the pathways by which humor may be linked with mental and physical health outcomes.

Another limitation is that it is also possible that some third variable, such as agreeableness or extroversion, may be responsible for determining both humor and subsequent outcomes. In fact, prior research shows a predictable pattern of relations between the humor styles and the Big 5 and other personality measures, and that the relations between the humor styles and psychological well-being remain after accounting for personality variables (Martin, 2007). One important goal of future research should be to demonstrate that humor styles contribute uniquely to health outcomes, and to the mechanisms of reappraisal and social interaction, above and beyond personality traits. In addition, although the theoretical groundwork has been laid for understanding reappraisal as a mechanism linking humor and health-related outcomes, further work remains in developing a reliable measurement tool. The current research drew from individual scale items used in prior studies that demonstrated good face validity, but the “reappraisal effort” scale that comprised half of the standardized reappraisal index demonstrated variable internal consistency (α = .89 in Study 1, .68 in Study 2, and .74 in Study 3). Future research should prioritize reappraisal scale development.

Moderator variables potentially affecting the humor–health relation are also worthy of continuing investigation. As described above, stressor severity (mild vs. severe) or duration (past vs. ongoing) may influence how effective specific humor styles are at protecting one from the deleterious effects of stress. One strength of the current research is that a consistent pattern of results emerged despite the diverse nature and severity of stressors herein. However, one limitation of the present set of studies is that there was very little diversity within each of our three samples with respect to ethnicity (overwhelmingly Caucasian), financial status (essentially no participants from below the poverty line), and gender (overwhelmingly female in Study 1, and male in Studies 2 and 3). Socioeconomic status and gender have both been shown to relate to humor styles (e.g., Martin, 2007), and future research should continue exploring how these factors may influence the use of different humor styles as well as how those styles are perceived by network members.

The present research is also limited in that the humor styles and physical health outcomes were not included within the same study design: Physical health outcomes were assessed only in Study 1, and the HSQ was administered only in Studies 2 and 3. Future research should examine the relation of humor styles to physical health, and the roles of social interaction and reappraisal as potential mediators, among both healthy and patient populations. Little research presently exists examining the distinct humor styles in the context of chronic illness. Given the persistent lay belief in the physical health benefits of humor use, it is critical that we understand the magnitude of its effect. Patients are often admonished by family, friends, and even members of the medical community to maintain a sense of humor to enhance recovery, which may be challenging in the context of chronic illness. To the extent that patients feel unable to remain in good humor during recovery, such advice may be distressing rather than distress-reducing. Thus, we have a responsibility to more fully understand the nature of the humor and physical health relation, and the specific mechanisms by which that process may unfold.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Robert Dowman, Vicki Helgeson, and Karl Maier for comments on a draft of this article; to Ryan Branch, Amanda Caringi, Jessica Carnrike, Amy Corneau, and Christopher Manfred for assistance with data collection; and to Jeanna Matthews and Ryan Latreille for creating the electronic diary program.

Authors’ Note

Portions of these data were presented at the April 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (Washington, DC).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a McNair Scholarship to Melissa M. Dillon.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available with the manuscript on the PSPB website.

References

Abel

M. H.

(2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor, 15, 365-381.

Affleck

Tennen

Croog

Levine

(1987). Causal attribution, perceived benefits, and morbidity after a heart attack: An 8-year study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 29-35.

Affleck

Tennen

Urrows

Higgins

Abeles

Hall

Karoly

Newton

(1998). Fibromyalgia and women’s pursuit of personal goals: A daily process analysis. Health Psychology, 17, 40-47.

Burckhardt

C.S.

Clark

S. R.

Bennett

R. M.

(1991). The fibromyalgia impact questionnaire: Development and validation. Journal of Rheumatology, 18, 728-733.

Caird

Martin

R. A.

(2014). Relationship-focused humor styles and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: A repeated-measures design. Humor, 27, 227-247.

Campbell

Martin

R. A.

Ward

J. R.

(2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 41-55.

Cann

Collette

(2014). Sense of humor, stable affect, and psychological well-being. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10, 464-479.

Cann

Zapata

Davis

(2009). Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles. Communication Quarterly, 57, 452-468.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

Weintraub

J. K.

(1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

10.

Cohen

M. C.

(2001). The use of coping humor in an HIV/AIDS population (immune deficiency). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61(9-B), 4976.

11.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

12.

Cousins

(1979). Anatomy of an illness. New York, NY: Norton.

13.

Cuevas Toro

A. M.

Torrecillas

F. L.

Medina

A. G.

Diaz Batanero

M. C

. (2008). Personality and coping strategies in fibromyalgia patients. Behavioral Psychology/Psicologia Conductual: Revista Internacional Clinica y de la Salus, 16, 289-306.

14.

Davis

M. C.

Zautra

A. J.

Reich

J. W.

(2001). Vulnerability to stress among women in chronic pain from fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 215-226.

15.

Dozois

D. J.

Martin

R. A.

Bieling

P. J.

(2009). Early maladaptive schemas and adaptive/maladaptive styles of humor. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33, 585-596.

16.

Dowling

J. S.

Hockenberry

Gregory

R. L.

(2003). Sense of humor, childhood cancer stressors, and outcomes of psychological adjustment, immune function, and infection. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 20, 271-292.

17.

Edwards

K. R.

Martin

R. A.

(2014). The conceptualization, measurement, and role of humor as a character strength in positive psychology. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10, 505-519.

18.

Franks

H. M.

Cronan

T. A.

Oliver

(2004). Social support in women with fibromyalgia: Is quality more important than quantity? Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 425-438.

19.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine

Plant

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1-54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

20.

Friedman

H. S.

Tucker

J. S.

Tomlinson-Keasey

Schwartz

J. E.

Wingard

D. L.

Criqui

M. H.

(1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.

21.

Fritz

H. L.

(1999). The role of rumination in adjustment to a first coronary event. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(1-B), 0410.

22.

Fritz

H. L.

(2000). Gender-linked personality traits predict mental health and functional status following a first coronary event. Health Psychology, 19, 420-428.

23.

Fry

P. S.

(1995). Perfectionism, humor, and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 211-245.

24.

Giuliani

N. R.

McRae

Gross

J. J.

(2008). The up- and down-regulation of amusement: Experiential, behavioral, and autonomic consequences. Emotion, 8, 714-719.

25.

Goldenberg

D. L.

Burckhardt

Crofford

(2004). Management of fibromyalgia syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292, 2388-2395.

26.

Gurnakova

(2000). Negative self-esteem and preferred coping strategies in Slovak university students. Studia Psychologica, 42, 75-86.

27.

Hallberg

L. R. M.

Carlsson

S. G.

(1998). Anxiety and coping in patients with chronic work-related muscular pain and patients with fibromyalgia. European Journal of Pain, 2, 309-319.

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Hayes

A. F.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2016). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observation, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Advance online publication.

30.

Hawley

D. J.

Wolfe

(1991). Pain, disability, and pain/disability relationships in seven rheumatic disorders: A study of 1,522 patients. Journal of Rheumatology, 18, 1552-1557.

31.

Kazarian

S. S.

Moghnie

Martin

R. A.

(2010). Perceived parental warmth and rejection in childhood as predictors of humor styles and subjective happiness. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 3, 71-93.

32.

Kerkkanen

Kuiper

N. A.

Martin

R. A.

(2004). Sense of humor, physical health, and well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police officers. Humor, 17, 21-35.

33.

Kool

M. B.

Geenen

(2012). Loneliness in patients with rheumatoid diseases: The significance of invalidation and lack of social support. The Journal of Psychology, 146, 229-241.

34.

Kuiper

N. A.

(2010). Introductory comments: Special issue of EJOP on humor research in personality and social psychology (editorial). Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6, 1-8.

35.

Kuiper

N. A.

(2012). Humor and resiliency: Toward a process model of coping and growth. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8, 475-491.

36.

Kuiper

N. A.

Borowicz-Sibenik

(2005). A good sense of humor doesn’t always help: Agency and communion as moderators of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 365-377.

37.

Kuiper

N. A.

Grimshaw

Leite

Kirsh

(2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 135-168.

38.

Kuiper

N. A.

Martin

R. A.

Olinger

L. J.

(1993). Coping humor, stress, and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 25, 81-96.

39.

Kuiper

N. A.

McKenzie

S. D.

Belanger

K. A.

(1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 359-372.

40.

Lefcourt

H. M.

Davidson

Prkachin

K. M.

Mills

D. E.

(1997). Humor as a stress moderator in the prediction of blood pressure obtained during five stressful tasks. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 523-542.

41.

Manne

Sherman

Ross

Ostroff

Heyman

R. E.

Fox

(2004). Couples’ support-related communication, psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction among women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 660-670.

42.

Martin

R. A.

(2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 504-519.

43.

Martin

R. A.

(2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

44.

Martin

R. A.

Kuiper

N. A.

(2016). Three decades investigating humor and laughter: An interview with Professor Rod Martin. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 498-512.

45.

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.

46.

Martin

R. A.

Lefcourt

H. M.

(1984). Situational Humor Response Questionnaire: Quantitative measure of the sense of humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 145-155.

47.

Martin

R. A.

Puhlik-Doris

Larsen

Gray

Weir

(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, 48-75.

48.

McClelland

D. C.

Cheriff

A. D.

(1997). The immunoenhancing effects of humor on secretory IgA and resistance to respiratory infections. Psychology and Health, 12, 329-344.

49.

McNair

Lorr

Droppleman

(1971). Psychiatric Outpatient Mood Scale. Boston, MA: Psychopharmacology Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center.

50.

Nezlek

J. B.

Derks

(2001). Use of humor as a coping mechanism, psychological adjustment, and social interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14, 395-413.

51.

Ojeda

Liang

C. T. H.

(2014). Ethnocultural and gendered determinants of coping among Mexican American adolescent men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15, 296-304.

52.

Park

C. L.

(2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effect on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257-301.

53.

Perera

Sabin

Nelson

Lowe

(1998). Increases in salivary lisozyme and IgA concentrations and secretory rates independent of salivary flow rates following viewing of a humorous videotape. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 118-128.

54.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

56.

Rieger

McGrail

J. P.

(2015). Relationships between humor styles and family functioning in parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 49, 188-196.

57.

Riolli

Savicki

(2010). Coping effectiveness and coping diversity under traumatic stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 17, 97-113.

58.

Rnic

Dozios

D. J. A.

Martin

R. A.

(2016). Cognitive distortions, humor styles, and depression. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 348-362.

59.

Romundstad

Svebak

Holen

Holmen

(2016). A 15-year follow-up study of sense of humor and causes of mortality: The Nord-Trondelag health study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78, 345-353.

60.

Ruehlman

L. S.

Karoly

(1991). With a little flack from my friends; development and preliminary validation of the test of negative social exchange (TENSE). Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 97-104.

61.

Rupert

P. A.

Kent

J. S.

(2007). Gender and work setting differences in career-sustaining behaviors and burnout among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 88-96.

62.

Saraglou

Lacour

Demeure

(2010). Bad humor, bad marriage: Humor styles in divorced and married couples. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6, 94-121.

63.

Shacham

(1983). A shortened version of the profile of mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 305-306.

64.

Svebak

Gotestam

K. G.

Jensen

E. N.

(2004). The significance of sense of humor, life regard, and stressors for bodily complaints among high school students. Humor, 17, 67-83.

65.

Svebak

Krisoffersen

Aasord

(2006). Sense of humor and survival among a county cohort of patient with end-stage renal failure: A two-year prospective study. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 36, 269-281.

66.

Thompson

S. C.

(1991). The search for meaning following a stroke. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 81-96.

67.

Totterdell

Reynolds

Parkinson

Briner

(1994). Associations of sleep with everyday mood, minor symptoms, and social interaction experience. Sleep, 17, 466-475.

68.

Updegraff

J. A.

Silver

R. C.

Holman

A. E.

(2008). Searching for and finding meaning in collective trauma: Results from a national longitudinal study of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 709-722.

69.

Usala

P. D.

Hertzog

(1989). Measurement of affective states in adults. Research on Aging, 11, 403-426.

70.

Wade

S. L.

Borawksi

E. A.

Taylor

G. H.

Drotar

Yeates

K. O.

Stancin

(2001). The relationship of caregiver coping to family outcomes during the initial year following pediatric traumatic injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 406-415.

71.

Ware

J. E.

Snow

K. K.

Kosinski

Gandek

(1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: Nimrod.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB