Humor Functions Within Crime Scene Investigations: Group Dynamics,Stress,and the Negotiation of Emotions

Abstract

Humor plays a significant role in the personal interactions of our everyday lives. Studies of workplace humor are far reaching, discussing the multiple important functions humor plays at work. Of particular significance in these studies is that humor is context dependent. How humor functions in law enforcement, particularly within specialty areas that are exposed to high stress and psychologically threatening work conditions, has been neglected. This study examines the functions of humor within the arena of crime scene investigators. Semi-structured in-depth interviews revealed that humor functioned within group dynamics. Humor served to reduce stress so that job tasks could be completed, and it was also used as a barometer of the investigators’ negotiation of the emotional burdens of such work.

Keywords

humor gallows humor crime scene investigation

Introduction

A man was found murdered in his apartment, stabbed multiple times. During a briefing on the incident, the crime scene investigators had been told that the middle-aged victim participated in cross-dressing activity. Upon entering the scene, they observed the victim had a full mustache. As an investigator examined the bloodied corpse, he stated to no one in particular, “Cross dressing with a mustache, did he ever think this through?” Shortly afterward, a technician asked flippantly, “Where’s the porn?” Less than 10 seconds later, another shouted out, “Found it!”

The preceding example illustrates how humor resides in the work of crime scene investigation. Law enforcement in general and the crime scene investigators (CSIs) specifically are frequently exposed to sights, smells, and human tragedy that most people rarely encounter in their lifetimes; Henry (2004) described it as death work. Within this death work, humor, jokes, and laughter can be found.

Observing humor within settings that are very serious exposes people to differentiating worldviews and outlooks. Many individuals can laugh and see humor within such settings; others cannot or do not understand joking in such situations. In the above example, some may find the joking in poor taste, others see it as callous, and still others may be troubled by the behavior. However, engaging in such joking behavior is vital to the performance of such serious jobs and the negotiations of the emotional burdens associated with working among those who have died in a violent manner.

Prior research on law enforcement stress found that dissociative methods of coping with emotional burden and stress were maladaptive (Aaron, 2000). Humor, however, can be an adaptive mechanism for those facing threatening circumstances (Abel & Maxwell, 2002; Lefcourt, 2001; Richman, 2006; Thorson, Powell, Sarmany-Schuller, & Hampes, 1997), giving investigators an opportunity for a cognitive/affective shift or restructuring of the situation so that it is less stressful.

Understanding humor within the lived experiences of the CSI is important for several reasons. Humor influences many individual, behavioral, and organizational outcomes. Kuiper, McKenzie, and Belanger’s (1995) research determined humor was associated with several important workplace functions such as higher motivation levels and positive affect for completing tasks. Robert and Yan (2007) emphasized that positive affect is related to several individual and organizational performance variables. Humor and joking behavior have also been found to affect coworkers’ performance and reduce inequalities (Collinson, 1988); humor aids in overcoming monotony and can provide workers with an increased sense of belonging (Duncan, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990); and it can function as a social lubricant that helps reduce conflict and promote cooperation (Morreall, 2010).

Lastly, the simple act of sharing a joke or laugh helps us recall our commonality and what is shared with coworkers; it has the power to change views of everyday work situations (Critchley, 2007). Reio and Wiswell (2000) advised that productive interpersonal relationships with coworkers and supervisors help produce a workplace climate of cooperation and interconnectedness. Humor and its various functions affect relationship quality; therefore, understanding how humor functions within psychologically threatening work settings can provide a new direction in understanding relationships within law enforcement organizations and the cognitive perspectives of social contacts.

In her review of the sociological perspectives of humor, Kuipers (2008) explained that the functionalist approach to humor is common when examining humor within a society or group. These functional interpretations view humor in terms of the social functions humor often plays within a social context (Kuipers, 2008).

The central research question of this study is “What are CSIs’ perspectives of the functions of humor in their work?” Joking behavior and psychologically threatening work coexist in this workplace—a coexistence of seemingly polar opposite constructs. Roth and Vivona (2010) presented a conceptual analysis of humor within the world of the CSI by examining the existing humor literature and discussed how within the broad process of the investigation of tragic and emotional events, humor and joking behavior may occur. This study presents empirical research that greatly expands upon their previous work.

The majority of the studies on workplace humor confirm that humor relies on context. Although some work settings studied previously may have similarities to the CSI, research has not been conducted that focuses on the use of humor in the unique work context of the CSI. The lived experience of CSIs exposes them to contextual components from several work settings: the trauma of an emergency room nurse, the dirty work of the garbage collector, and the human tragedy of the social worker—a few settings other than the CSI that have all these elements.

Literature Review

What makes people laugh? “Between thirty and eighty theories have been offered, depending on whom you read” (Roth, 2002, p. 352). Humor is a curious phenomenon and its definition is contested. Theories and definitions relating to humor arise from multiple scholarly perspectives such as linguistics, psychology, sociology, physiology, philosophy, and communications (see Raskin, 2008). “The construct of humor, does not readily lend itself to a single, generalized definition. The expansiveness of this construct requires that researchers place bounds on the specific aspect of humor that is their object of interest” (Cooper, 2008, p. 1089).

Martin (2003, 2007) portrayed humor as a broad and multifaceted construct. He defines humor as being an “essentially emotional response of mirth in a social context that is elicited by a perception of playful incongruity and is expressed through smiling and laughter” (2007, p. 10). Joking behavior is simply the act of engaging in social and communicative behaviors that are perceived humorous. He described the construct of humor as having “characteristics of a stimulus (jokes, cartoons, comedy films), to mental processes involved in creating, perceiving, understanding, and appreciating humor (‘getting the joke’), or to the responses of the individual (amusement, exhilaration, smiling, laughter)” (2003, p. 315). Martin (2007) also suggested that humor is a fundamentally social phenomenon, and the interpersonal functions of humor and group dynamics make humor research important to social psychology.

Humor Styles

Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) and Martin (2007) described several humor styles and determined that various styles of humor can be distinguished as beneficial or detrimental. Martin’s delineation of humor styles provides insights about how jokes are used, given the different situations people encounter, tasks they must perform, and work conditions that they must endure. Affiliative humor relates to jokes, funny stories, and spontaneous witty banter that may be used to build social cohesion. Self-enhancing humor refers to maintaining a humorous outlook on life, to be amused by the numerous incongruities one faces on a daily basis, and to maintain a humorous perspective even in the face of stress.

Aggressive humor may be used to criticize others with sarcasm and ridicule. This style of humor is in line with superiority theory; it can be used in an attempt to exert power and control over others, and it is linked to a sense of superiority coming from the disparagement of another group or individual (Martin, 2007). Self-defeating humor attempts to amuse others by saying funny things at one’s own expense.

Gallows Humor

Gallows humor is a unique and often misunderstood humor style. There is a relationship between gallows humor and other affiliative humor styles; however, its unusual contextual nuisances place this style in its own category. It has its origin within humor that arises from precarious or dangerous situations. Gallows humor has evolved over time and has been viewed from different perspectives. For example, Obrdlik’s (1942) study of Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia showed gallows humor to be empowering against their oppressors. However, as Thorson (1993) has pointed out, contemporary gallows humor may be described as any kind of joke that involves ordinary people somehow caught up in the circumstances of death. Thorson views contemporary gallows humor as a coping type of humor and acknowledges most people who use it are making fun of death, a notion that is inherently threatening.

Ambiguity exists when discussing gallows humor because it is often also referred to as dark or sick humor. Dark humor may be defined as a type of protective humor, which covers the vulnerabilities of recurrent encounters with suffering and loss (Dean & Gregory, 2005), whereas sick humor is often defined as humor that makes fun of death, disease, deformity, and persons with disabilities (Mindess, Miller, Turek, Bender, & Corbin, 1985).

Whether referring to humor within the context of death and tragedy as gallows, sick, or dark, an important thread is shared by these constructs. Gallows humor is intentional, not circumstantial, because it has been generated for a reason (Thorson, 1993). Gallows or dark humor is often used to make fun of what emotionally threatens people. These forms of humor are used as mental disengagement from troubling or threatening circumstances (Saroglou & Anciaux, 2004), and this intentional distraction takes the mind off of what is stressful or threatening (Carver, 1997).

Humor in the Workplace

Workplace humor has been examined in several empirical studies. Authors have discussed how humor is used to control coworkers’ performance and reduce inequalities (Collinson, 1988), emphasize power imbalances, and challenge status hierarchies (Collinson, 2002; Taylor & Bain, 2003). Lynch (2010) researched the use of humor by kitchen workers and discovered an array of complex processes through which the social organization is (re)produced and transformed through its members’ everyday in-group humor. In a study of information technology workers, Plester and Sayers (2007) discovered joking behavior described as banter was used to facilitate synergy and functioning work groups.

Humor can also provide a glimpse into a workplace’s cultural characteristics (Fine & De Soucey, 2005; Holmes & Marra, 2002; Vinton, 1989) and define the roles of various employees at different levels of an organization (Duncan et al., 1990). Studies have found that humor can influence positive group effectiveness and identity (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008), and plays a role in the ways workers select and retain certain interpretations of various work events and therefore make sense of organizational identities and work experiences (Tracy & Scott, 2006).

A wide variety of workplace humor studies shows that humor is culturally and contextually dependent. For example, Porcu’s (2005) examination of Sardinian fish market workers’ humor showed vastly different humor applications than those displayed by Plester and Orams’ (2008) information technology workers. Why, how, where, and what joking behavior is perceived as amusing is different in each work setting. As Holmes and Marra (2002) explained, “Humour can provide insights into the distinctive culture which develops in different workplaces” (p. 1707).

Police and Other Stressful Workplace Humor

Kuhlman (1988) explained that humor in police work is often used as a means of relieving stress in situations where control is difficult or not possible. Workers in dangerous occupations (such as police officers) use stress-reducing humor as a method of self-control (Morreall, 2010). For workers in other emotionally stressful work settings such as nursing, Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, and Booth-Butterfield (2005) determined that joking behavior was used in a manner that helps ease interactions, increases job satisfaction, and assists in communication.

Abel and Maxwell (2002) concluded that individuals who are engaged in stressful tasks benefit more from humorous stimuli than from nonhumorous attempts at stress reduction. Lefcourt (2001) also described a number of experiments in which individuals’ use of humor was found to be a sign of resilience in the face of stress. The use of humor as coping often reflects positivity in reframing, as well as active coping and planning (Saroglou & Anciaux, 2004).

In 2007, Scott researched the use of humor by emergency personnel exposed to sudden death work. She found that joking behavior forges camaraderie and defuses the “emotionally annihilating working conditions” (p. 362). Aligned with Morreall (2009), she determined that humor’s cathartic effect on workers who face such conditions has great value. During research on the traumatic effects of officers involved in body-handling duties after a large-scale disaster, Alexander and Wells (1991) discovered that nearly all of the officers reported that they had found humor helpful in coping with the experience.

Although assertions regarding positive uses of humor are common in the literature, the stress-moderating effects of humor are not always discovered. Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, and Kirsh (2004) determined that humor has both positive and negative components. They explained that certain humor styles are indicative of positive (affiliative humor) or negative (self-defeating humor) affect. Martin (2007) also explained that humor itself is neither positive nor negative in the workplace. He related that humor could be used to strengthen relationships and build upon and solidify bonds. However, he noted that humor can also be used to ostracize, embarrass, and exclude; the deciding factors for the directionality of the humor—negative or positive—are the context of the joking behavior and the humor’s purposefulness (also see Porcu, 2005; Vinton, 1989; Westwood, 2004).

The central research question of this study is “What are CSIs’ perspectives of the functions of humor in their work?” The question is framed to bring participants’ descriptions and understandings to the phenomenon of humor in this unique work setting. What this study accomplishes is building upon the existing workplace humor literature, much of which has determined that humor is context dependent. Humor in various workplaces functions in many different manners. This research adds this very unusual context to the body of knowledge.

Methods

Humor is a complex phenomenon, and one of the strengths of the qualitative research approach used in this study is its ability to capture complex textual descriptions of how people experience a particular research problem (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005). In this study, current CSIs from several metropolitan area major case squads and federal ERTs (evidence response teams) were interviewed. Major case teams are groups of forensic and investigative professionals tasked with assisting agencies with investigating major crimes such as murders and kidnappings. This group work setting was an important consideration because of the social nature of humor. CSIs who work in a more solitary environment have diminished opportunities to engage in and share joking with coworkers.

Research participants were solicited via face-to-face presentations during major case teams’ training sessions. The location of the in-person interview was selected by each participant. Fourteen CSIs volunteered to participate in the study. The sample included 10 men and four women; their ages ranged from 31 to 65 years; their years of crime scene experience ranged from 6 to 37; and their average length of crime scene experience was 13.7 years. The semi-structured interviews lasted between 45 min and 1.5 hr and were digitally recorded. Narratives and retrospective accounts from participants provided data regarding the types of humor used, the role of humor within the group setting, and how humor helps CSIs in making sense of their work setting.

To ensure trustworthiness of this research, I elected to integrate constructive (during the research) and evaluative (post hoc) strategies. The constructive strategy involved ongoing analysis of the data and a reflective research journal. The ad hoc methods to ensure trustworthiness of the data were member checks and peer audit. Member checks allow participants to verify the emerging themes (Creswell & Miller, 2000) as well as asking informants to review transcripts of their interviews to determine whether they believe their words match what they had intended (Shenton, 2004). Participants were given the opportunity to view their individual transcriptions and provide their interpretations of the data’s accuracy. The peer-audit strategy involves requesting the assistance of peers and colleagues to review the data and comment on the plausibility of the findings (Merriam, 2002).

Narratives and retrospective accounts from participants provided data regarding the types of humor used, the role of humor within the group setting, how humor helps CSIs in making sense of their work setting, and the role of humor within the CSI group culture. Developing a greater understanding of the CSIs’ experiences with death and trauma laid a foundation on which to analyze the data on how humor and traumatic death coexist in this work setting.

Many factors go into data analysis plans—the volume, types, details, and richness of the data affect decisions regarding their analysis. Erickson’s (1986) approach was used in conducting this study. According to Erickson, one basic task of data analysis is to generate assertions by reviewing all the collected data. I looked for linkages that connected several different participants’ experiences of the same phenomenon.

I used Boeije’s (2002) suggestions for a purposeful and practical approach to Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method of qualitative analysis of the data. Interview transcripts were analyzed multiple times. After transcription, each interview was reviewed, comparing semantic similarity of words, ideas, and phrases within the interview. Each passage of each interview was studied to determine exactly what was said and to categorize the passage (Boeije, 2002). The goal was to prepare a central message (Boeije, 2002) for each interview by identifying and naming categories and then comparing and making connections within and between interviews.

Results

This section contains many accounts of humor and joking behavior described by the participants. Some instances of humor were more structured and planned, while others were more spontaneous and circumstantial. Connections of the findings to the literature are presented to understand the themes that emerged from the data. The three major themes of the study were (a) the role humor and joking play in group dynamics such as acculturation, integration, and socialization, (b) how humor functions to mitigate tensions and stress, and (c) humor acting as a barometer of emotions.

Group Dynamics

CSI work is hard—physically and emotionally—and only the strong can survive it. Some people can perform this work, while others cannot. Within this work, humor plays a role. How people react to situations with or without good humor can be an indication of their fit with this work and the work culture associated with it. For lack of a better term, initiations occur with new CSIs. Some of these events are intended to be humorous, to see how the new members work and what they can tolerate. Ken discussed an incident where the reactions of the new CSIs became indicative of their abilities to integrate into the team:

We had two brand new forensic techs working and we wanted to get them right into this horrific scene… a lot of facial injuries, one of them did not do very well . . . it started out that this could be humorous, their reactions to the experience, but it was immediately obvious we had to stop, this person wasn’t doing well, this person is probably not going to work out.

New members of a group can often experience uncertainty about their coworkers and the expected behavioral norms (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). A new team member is expected to be able to perform the required job tasks with little supervision, as Steve put it, “we are supposed to be the go-to guys.” Although it is understood that novice CSIs may not have encountered as many death scenes as their more experienced teammates, they should not be fearful or squeamish about the work. What may have been shocking early in a CSI career becomes normalized after more experience is gained. CSIs can become acculturated to an almost perverse joy of not being affected by death (Henry, 1995). They can also laugh about this process because this is who they have become. Stanley related an insight about this work culture:

If you were to walk onto a scene you would think our group, as professional as we are, are a bunch of twisted freaks because we can go in there. When I was young I heard the stories of some guy down at the morgue eating a sandwich. I could do that now; it wouldn’t affect me, aside from the germs and disease part (laughs).

A very important part of this culture is the ability to laugh and joke with coworkers. When inquiring about how and where joking behavior may be targeted, the participants consistently advised that the most common targets were other team members. Banter can be considered an aggressive humor style directed to others that deflates their ego; this behavior can also be referred to as jocular aggression, jocular abuse, or simply teasing (Martin, 2007; Plester, 2009; Pogrebin & Poole, 1988). According to Martin (2007), teasing is paradoxical in that it can serve both prosocial and aggressive functions. The manner of the teasing is critical to the interpretation of the tease—it can be playful and friendly or it can be hostile.

Observers and participants require frame of reference to understand the functions of joking behavior. For new members, experiencing the banter between group members begins the acculturation process. The participants explained, “You have to have a thick skin.” Participants acknowledged that engaging in this joking behavior is at your own risk; they expected that what they gave out they would get right back. For the participants in this study, giving and receiving the teasing were perceived to be positive actions, participants were accepting of the existence of teasing in this context, and for better or for worse, they have a shared understanding of its function. This view is consistent with the explanation by Plester and Sayers’ (2007) statement, “the word banter invokes the idea of back and forth, of equitable competition” (p. 159). Stanley explained that this humor style is indicative of the culture of his work group.

Do not get upset if they are teasing you, you can’t let it get under your skin, it’s part of it. If they are busting your chops, they like you and that’s something some people don’t get; if they are giving you grief, they are giving you grief because they like you. In our culture if they are not giving you grief it’s a problem.

I asked Sally how she felt when she was exposed to some of the aggressive humor associated with the banter between CSIs, and she revealed that she has chosen to be accepting of behavior in this context that she would not in other settings:

You have to let your guard down, what you think is polite, when you are doing so much together. There’s no time to be prim and proper, you’re there to get a job done… It helped me drop my guard a little and realize that I am among friends, it’s all in good humor.

The ability to respond comfortably to and be part of the banter as well as handle unpleasant job tasks is part of the early acculturation process of CSIs. Based on the data of this study, this process of acclimation to the joking culture applies to both women and men. Group members, regardless of gender (or other areas of difference), have developed strategies for dealing with various styles of humor and still maintain status and membership in the group. Each person will make individual decisions on levels of acceptability of humor and the personal reactions they want to display. Ken is the head of a large CSI group, and he provided the following warning to new members:

I tell people when they come in they have to have a thick skin because we are a unit, we pick on each other. . . . People are going to be up and together for long hours with no sleep and the humor at times is raw. I tell people if you can’t laugh at yourself, then you need to reconsider being a part of this unit.

The work group tests newer CSIs. A CSI’s fortitude was tested in the following example. Ken provided the graphic depiction of the initiating humor:

This particular person had been shot in the head, the majority of the brain was intact but there were pieces scattered about. We didn’t have anything to pick up the pieces so we improvised. We used a metal spatula from the kitchen and we gave it to the brand new forensic tech to see how she would respond to this. She was literally going around with a spatula scooping up brain matter, to most people it would not be funny, but to us it was hilarious.

The scooping up of brain matter was not absolutely necessary in this case; this CSI’s team was testing her. Those who do not understand CSI work culture might not be able to recognize humor in this scenario. What was funny to the group was teasing her afterward about the task. This event is an example of how an incident becomes historicized and part of a joking culture of a work group (Fine, 2006). The CSI passed the test on two levels: first she performed the task, and second she was able to laugh about it later.

Humor Functions as a Tension and Stress Reliever

The participants discussed internal stressors such as self-induced pressure to perform and the physical and emotional stress of working conditions. The data of this study are aligned with the job pressures described in the literature. The sources of stress were varied—for many, it is the self-induced pressure to perform a flawless job. These workers understand the seriousness and great responsibility thrust upon them to investigate major crimes. Susan stated: “The nervousness I get is what I am going to be assigned to do . . . and if I am going to do a good job.”

Another stressor is the overall working conditions. Officers encounter a variety of difficult circumstances that, on the mild end of a continuum, are unpleasant and, on the severe end, are very disturbing. The participants described scrambling in dark, confined crawl spaces, the horrible odor of decomposing flesh, attending autopsies, digging through garbage dumpsters, and removing bodies burned beyond recognition from fire scenes. Often the work assaults the senses and emotions of the CSI.

Humorous circumstances and joking behavior were repeatedly discussed as a way of reducing stress. The stress could come from any combination of the above sources. Humor’s relief of tension can occur in a number of contexts (jokes, pranks, humorous situations, and banter between workers). The CSIs depicted joking as a means to relax people so they can focus on their tasks. Several participants described humor as providing a short respite from tension. It was iterated that, despite the stress and the emotionally challenging circumstances, “we have a job to do.” For CSIs, humor functions as a way to maintain resilience (Lefcourt, 2001) and thus perform their important work.

Mark supervises a team and commented about how stress can detract from job performance. Regardless of the pressure and tension, processing the crime scene is the number one priority:

You know who we all work with, some of these people are tightly wound to begin with, you have to find a way to get them, slap them around a little bit, but you do it in a way that’s respectful. We do it a lot of the time through humor, you keep things fresher, lighten the mood, if not you’re getting vapor lock [an automotive term associated with engine stoppage because of disruption of the fuel source].

One critical function of humor is an emotional reset to distract or deflect attention from the emotional stress and strains of the job; this process allows workers to continue to perform their tasks at a high level. The CSIs cannot control the circumstances in which they work. If a case were emotionally strenuous, choosing to not participate would be detrimental to the pursuit of justice and could also be damaging to the CSI’s reputation. For these CSIs, their uses of joking appear consistent with Schulman-Green’s (2003) findings that humor works as a distancing mechanism from emotionally disturbing situations. This process allows the worker to continue to perform. Participants used phrases like emotional reset, emotional re-boot, and emotional Red Bull. Frank explained this function of humor: “it’s a stress reliever; it really is something that changes your channel, if you’re going down a dark path, anything it takes to reset your train of thought.”

Bob elaborated on the use of humor in the context of disturbing situations:

I think the function of it isn’t to make fun of that person even though it may be aimed at them. I think its aim is to bring a little light into the dark. I’ve said people need a reset, especially the first day, it’s typically 20 hours, 12 hours into a scene you are tired, it is emotional Red Bull, I can do 2 more hours.

Sometimes a worker purposefully made a joke intending to create laughter to reduce personal stress or others’ stress. There are other times when a circumstance is laughable; it too may relieve stress and tension. For the CSIs of this study, humor also has acted as a strategy that allows them to seek a positive outlook when encountering the pain and suffering of others (Richman, 2006).

Gallows, sick, or black humor is often used in threatening circumstances, situations that are too serious to be funny (Triezenberg, 2004). This type of humor is on the edges of social acceptability (Thorson, 1993). The CSIs I spoke to only use this type of humor in extreme situations. This finding is aligned with Carver (1997) and Saroglou and Anciaux (2004), who explained that people make fun of what threatens them to mentally disengage from emotionally troubling or threatening circumstances. Such attempts at humor described in this research occurred in the most grisly and sensory-disturbing contexts. Dan commented on a particularly gruesome scene:

There was the dismembered body in black garbage bags. We were going through it and you know it’s human and it’s all dismembered, it stinks, you have a ring of people around one of the bags, one of our guys is gently tearing into bags to look inside trying to identify body parts, horrible smell. So he’s like ok I think I got a leg, then he’s like yep this is a thigh, then I don’t know who said it but someone from the back yells, “see if they got any wings!”

Many of these crime scenes are horrific and unbelievable, and for those who have little to no experience with them, their emotions and tension are so great that it makes simple tasks difficult to perform. A psychic numbing can occur and pressure can be felt to perform familiar tasks in a very unfamiliar environment (Henry, 2004). Dan was in charge of a case where a woman was beheaded, her body was inside the house, and the head was left on the front porch. Several officers at the scene had never experienced anything remotely similar to this situation, and they were incredibly nervous and tense. Dan described his reaction upon his arrival at the scene:

The headless body one, when I got to the scene a couple of other officers were there, I was in the backyard about to let myself inside, I took my coat and pulled it over my head and zipped it up, went inside with my arms out and said “Hey, Hey.”

Dan was not attempting to make fun of the victim or show disrespect to her demise. It is easy to imagine that this situation was surreal. Dan’s small attempt at humor, regardless of one’s perspective of its appropriateness (e.g., poor taste), was purposeful. He is a veteran CSI; he intuitively understood what others were experiencing; and he therefore engaged in a small joke. As described in the literature, the purpose of this type of joking is to deflect attention from a situation (Morreall, 2009; Richman, 2006; Scott, 2007). In this incident, Dan attempted to divert attention from the horrible nature of the situation—if only for a moment—and diffuse the emotional tension.

Humor as a Barometer of Emotions

The previous sections pointed out how humor plays an important role in mitigating some of the stresses within this type of work. In the world of the CSI, for the most part, engaging in joking behavior is a sign of resilience and good emotional health. Humor can help workers in uncontrollable situations and tasks that often define their work. Ken said he could not do his job without some levity and joking, “I don’t think you could do it without humor, you would be an emotional wreck.”

Related to humor’s role in the management of stress, several studies have examined the existence of humor in cases of exhaustion and burn out in the workplace (Kuiper et al., 2004; Nezlek & Derks, 2001; Schulman-Green, 2003). Participants in this study indicated that limits or parameters for humor were situational and that the absence of humor indicated that CSIs were feeling the effects of emotional burdens. Roger (a team supervisor) explained his interpretation of his coworkers joking and how he feels about it, “Good. . . . Because that means my guys are healthy.”

Supervisors of teams related that when they observed their workers engaging in their work and maintaining a sense of humor, they knew that the team was functioning effectively and negotiating stress well. However, when joking was absent, the team leaders sensed a problem, with either individuals or the team as a whole. Frank explained that the presence or absence of humor can serve as a cue regarding the well-being of team members:

If they are joking I don’t think I would worry too much . . . people that worry me the most is when they are quiet . . . you have to know your people and know what is out of character. If people that normally joke aren’t, there may be an issue, if people who normally don’t joke are, that may also be an issue.

Eric talked about the emotional nature of the job; he stated that there are times when humor is necessary for him to function within a job setting that can be, in his words, “depressing”:

So let’s make a little comic relief out of what we can, because if not it’s such a depressing job, so if you don’t try to find an area that you can make levity out of you’re going to become depressed, it’s going to start to get to you.

Several investigators’ assertions emphasized that humor helps them get through the demands of their work. Eric and Kelli each used the plural, let’s (as in let us) and we. Humor is a social phenomenon; joking by one group member may help the instigator with coping, but, of equal or greater importance, it may help ease the burdens of the recipient. The strong cultural bonds that are often solidified through humor help those working within the team environment negotiate the troubling burdens of this occupation. Working within the framework of a group allows CSIs to share the experience, often with laughter but other times with solemn silence.

Participants related that they had emotional thresholds that limited humor’s effectiveness at making sense of certain events. For these CSIs, the absence of joking can signal their having difficulty making sense of events in which they must participate. Although humor may be used to moderate stress in many situations, humor and joking subside when CSIs face severely psychologically threatening work.

The most significant example of humor as a barometer of emotional burden is when children are victims. Within the world of homicide studies, there is a common thread of victim precipitation (see Block & Block, 1998; Polk, 1997). CSIs often investigate crimes against gang members, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Although the CSIs I spoke to all expressed respect and dignity for their victims, they acknowledged that these victims understood the risks of their life choices. Joking exists during most investigations; however, the jokes and humor always stop, without exception, when the CSI encounters the emotionally challenging circumstances of child victimization. Susan comments on the emotionally draining circumstances of such an incident:

The Mom that stabbed the two kids, there was no joking around in that whole thing . . . it was quiet, very quiet evidence collection, we did what we needed to do . . . we wanted to get it done and over with.

Eric tried to articulate the somber mood and feelings involved in a child victimization case:

I keep bringing up the kids again, it was a difficult scene, it was the longest week of my life. There is like you draw that line, this is a kid, you can’t joke about anything, I don’t know maybe it’s the innocence of the kids, whereas like an adult, none of us are perfect, depending on the circumstances, none of us has lived a clean perfect pure life . . . not that it makes it right for someone to die, but with a kid there is nothing they could have done to deserve to die.

More than one CSI explained how their perspective was shaken by this work. For Dan, experiencing child victimization causes an emotional crisis. Dan had been described by coworkers as one of the more jovial team members; however, he acknowledged that he has encountered situations where laughter was not an option. He provided a long narrative of two child murders, the details are not required in this forum; however, toward the end, he stated:

So when you see these pictures of a dad and you find out the dad killed the kid, that’s the kind of stuff you need to cope with. There’s sometimes nothing helps and you need to go out by yourself, you need to have a good cry . . . then have a good cry.

As previously noted in the literature, Lifton (1967 1973, 1974a, 1974b) and others have explained that workplace experiences with traumatic death are life-changing events. Sally, Dan, and Eric each discussed such life-altering moments. Sally explained how her perspective toward life has been altered:

Traumatic death, what I do know here in [town name redacted], it’s made me look at life a little differently. In an instant you just can be taken away, like a fatal traffic crash, that’s a thought in my mind. . . . I have a different perspective, I value every moment, or I try to, and let the little things go.

While each participant mentioned child victimization as the most troubling and least humorous case, there was one other circumstance where humor failed to occur. I was told about a case where one of the officers had known the victims and was deeply saddened. Fellow officers did not engage in any joking out of respect for her pain. While this case appeared to be unusual, officers working in these conditions develop deep bonds, the investigator felt that her teammates cared for her and her suffering, and she felt they made a conscious effort not to joke about anything. This was the only instance other than child victimization where I was advised that no humor occurred. Further research is needed to determine what other contexts exist where humor may not exist.

Humor has been shown to help with processing and managing the emotional toil that this work causes. However, the CSIs I spoke to recognized humor’s limits, and the above situations indicated that there are times where no amount of joking could help them make sense of certain tragedies.

Discussion

The interviews of CSIs provided a large amount of information concerning their individual and group experiences and views of the functions of humor and joking in this work setting. Three major themes addressed the functions and styles of humor used: (a) the role humor and joking play in group dynamics such as acculturation, integration, and socialization, (b) how humor functions to mitigate tensions and stress, and (c) how humor functions to negotiate the emotional burdens that are frequently caused by this work.

Many studies have examined stress in policing. An important point to consider is the need to understand, monitor, and respond to the health of our police officers (Hickman, Fricas, Strom, & Pope, 2011). This study demonstrates that joking behavior not only plays a significant role in mitigating the stress and emotional burdens of this work, but it may also function as a barometer of the investigators’ psychological well-being. The newness within this study pertains to the lack of research that has focused on humor in this particular context. The voices of CSIs are absent in the humor literature. The strength of this research builds on literature that focuses on functionality of humor in the workplace; this unique contribution builds on existing literature by offering perceptions of a particular type of worker within unique work contexts. Further investigation regarding humor in other work contexts such as firefighters, emergency responders, morgue workers, and others who are exposed to trauma and tragedy may provide additional insight as to whether the CSIs’ use of humor is unique.

The CSIs of this study faced numerous and varied pressures and stressors during their work, and most of these effects were outside of their direct control. Many participants expressed that humor was necessary in the socialization and intragroup dynamics; humor served to reduce stress and aided them in negotiating psychologically threatening circumstances.

What are CSIs’ perspectives of the functions of humor in their work? Consistent with other research focused on workplace humor, humor within the CSIs’ world has varied functions, and most of them are embedded in context. Humor functions within the work culture to include, exclude, and help to acculturate group members. Joking aids in reducing stress and tension, helps reset workers during emotional stress, and can be used to criticize other group members in a covert manner. Last, humor acts as a barometer of the workers’ emotional burdens.

An important point that is emphasized here and in the literature is that humor styles and functions cross thematic boundaries. Humor styles can be used in various combinations and degrees, and different styles are often in various contexts (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). The style of humor used may not be indicative of the function of humor, and the same style of humor may have differing functions based on context.

From the participants’ perspectives, humor and joking are positive forms of communication and interaction. Participants did not report any negative uses of joking. However, the literature suggests that in some situations, negative aspects of joking behavior exist (Kuiper & Harris, 2009). Past studies (Collinson, 1988, 2002; Pogrebin & Poole, 1988; Tracy & Scott, 2006) have emphasized that superiority humor is often used to differentiate within and among groups of people. Superiority humor is prevalent in this study; however, it exists in the form of playful banter and teasing within the group.

As in any qualitative research, the lens of the researcher plays a role in the interpretation of the data. From my years of experience as a CSI working in similar teams as the participants, it is my interpretation that the function of the banter and teasing within this work is to emphasize that no one person is more important in the work group than anyone else, and the humor serves a leveling function within the group. When banter and teasing is occurring, some members choose to be active, others reflect a more passive participation, while others merely tolerate the behavior. People who are not familiar with the sensory, physical, and emotional burdens of this work setting would probably consider the aggressive forms of superiority humor such as the banter displayed by these participants to be destructive to work relationships. On the contrary, each CSI spoke of the respect, trust, and camaraderie within the group.

Limitations

When examining humor in any workplace, Tracy, Myers, and Scott (2006) provide a useful caveat, “When humor is viewed as an interpretive device, it is also evident how it can oversimplify complex situations or (re)produce problematic organizational interpretations” (p. 303). Psychologically threatening work is replete with complexity, and the incorrect or overly simplistic interpretation of joking behavior could deflect attention from cognitive, physical, emotional, and behavioral symptoms of traumatic stress.

A particular limitation was the makeup and selection of the participants. Issues of race, gender, and others areas of difference can factor into how joking is generated, received, and interpreted. The CSI culture has been shaped by gender, and men heavily influence the joking culture in the workplace (Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 2001). Gender can often be a factor in workplace humor exchanges; for instance, Porcu (2005) discovered that in a male-dominated work setting, feminine characteristic are commonly targeted for joking.

The participants chose to be a part of this study for various personal reasons. However, self-selected research participants may have biases that may not be representative of the research population (Costigan & Cox, 2001). Conversely, relying only on samples that are free from biases can close off a large amount of valuable data to the researcher.

The participants emphasized the absence of humor in child victimization cases. The degree to which humor can ameliorate the trauma faced by CSIs has its limits. These participants expressed that child victimization is so distressing that joking is not an appropriate or effective antidote for the psychological threat. Further research may address why the identified functions of humor fail to hold true in cases of child victimization as they do in other CSI cases.

The purpose of qualitative research is not to show cause-and-effect relationships. It would be valuable to pursue research that would compare the effectiveness of various coping mechanisms such as hope, courage, spirituality, resilience, and humor for this work group. This research simply presents individual perspectives of a small group of CSIs regarding the functionality of humor in a specific work context. I would suggest a need for further study, perhaps from a different research paradigm, that examines the effectiveness of humor in alleviating stress and serving as a coping mechanism compared with other variables that fall under the positive psychology umbrella.

As with other qualitative studies, findings of this research are not intended to be generalized to a larger population of CSIs. Upon consideration of the work context of CSIs in general, it may be difficult to paint all CSI joking with a broad brush. Because joking is primarily a social phenomenon, this research focused on CSIs working within a team setting. However, many CSIs may work in a much more solitary venue—many municipalities and counties throughout the United States have the CSIs work independently. In such cases, the CSIs have limited opportunities to share a laugh with coworkers who have the same frame of reference. Such CSIs need to mitigate and manage their stress and emotions with different tools compared with the CSIs with whom I spoke.

Implications for Criminal Justice Policy and Practice

Humor has a history of targeting topics that are not safe to talk about directly, such as politics, race, sex, and religion (Morreall, 2009; Nilsen & Nilsen, 2000; Oring, 2008). The CSIs’ humor in this study is on the fringe of socially acceptable humor. Law enforcement professionals need to understand the motivational, cognitive, and emotional aspects of humor within unique workplaces where the styles of humor are off-center from societal norms. Furthermore, when forming and managing groups that will be placed in emotionally challenging and potentially stressful situations such as a major crimes unit, supervisors and law enforcement leaders could benefit from suspending judgment in regards to the teams’ use of humor. For the participants of this study, joking behavior provided psychological safety and group cohesion, allowing the group to focus on job tasks while negotiating psychological and physical stress.

As evidenced in the literature, interpretations of humor are based on one’s experiences, identity (personal and organizational), personal beliefs, and social contexts. This study can inform police leaders who want to better understand the workings of specialty groups—such as major case squads and homicide and special victims units—that involve exceptionally stressful and psychologically threatening settings. This study also provides several examples of how humor operates and its necessary and unique functions to workers in these types of organizational settings. This research can inform law enforcement administrators and leadership about the use of humor within a constructive and professional work context. Furthermore, this study can help leaders and trainers understand how humor in the work setting can serve as a barometer of potential emotional well-being, exhaustion, and burnout.

Crime scene investigators perform dirty work. None of the participants in this study would wake up in the morning and say, “I feel like digging through a dumpster for human remains”; however, the CSIs of this study performed tasks such as these without reservations. The strong sense of responsibility and team give CSIs the strength to perform difficult tasks—all of the participants confirmed this belief. Humor plays a significant role in making these tasks more palatable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Dr. Gene Roth, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus at Northern Illinois University, for his assistance in reviewing and preparing this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Brian Daniel Vivona, EdD, is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Governors State University (IL). His research interests lie within how individuals and organizations respond to traumatic incidents, the use of humor in the workplace, and qualitative criminal justice research methods. He is a retired 23-year law enforcement officer, spending 10 years in his department crime scene unit and 5 years with a major case squad as a forensic technician. He is a Certified Crime Scene Analyst by the International Association for Identification.

References

Aaron

J. D

. Stress and coping in police officers. Police Quarterly. 2000. 3. 4438450.

Abel

Maxwell

. Humor and affective consequences of a stressful task. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2002. 21. 2165190.

Alexander

D. A.

Wells

. Reactions of police officers to body-handling after a major disaster. A before-and-after comparison. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1991. 159. 547555.

Block

C. R

. Wolfgang’s influence on the Chicago homicide data set. Homicide Studies. 1998. 2. 3236240.

Boeije

. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity. 2002. 36. 4391409.

Carver

C. S

. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1997. 4. 192100.

Collinson

D. L

. Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking, and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies. 1988. 9. 2181199.

Collinson

D. L

. Managing humour. Journal of Management Studies. 2002. 39. 269288.

Cooper

. Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations. 2008. 61. 810871115.

10.

Costigan

C. L.

Cox

M. J

. Fathers’ participation in family research: Is there a self-selection bias?Journal of Family Psychology. 2001. 15. 4706720.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L

. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice. 2000. 39. 3124130.

12.

Critchley

. Westwood

Rhodes

. Humour as practically enacted theory, or why critics should tell more jokes. Humour, organization, and work. 2007. London, England. Routledge. 1732.

13.

Dean

R. A. K.

Gregory

D. M

. More than trivial: Strategies for using humor in palliative care. Cancer Nursing. 2005. 28. 4292300.

14.

Duncan

W. J.

Smeltzer

L. R.

Leap

T. L

. Humor and work: Applications to management. Journal of Management. 1990. 16. 2255278.

15.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Naumann

S. E

. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004. 89. 6960974.

16.

Erickson

. Whittrock

. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Handbook of research on teaching. 1986. New York, NY. Macmillan. 119161.

17.

Fine

G. A

. Shopfloor cultures: The idioculture of production in operational meteorology. Sociological Quarterly. 2006. 47. 1119.

18.

Fine

G. A.

De Soucey

. Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. International Journal of Humor Research. 2005. 18. 1122.

19.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L

. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. 1967. New York, NY. Aldine de Gruyter.

20.

Henry

V. E

. The police officer as survivor: Death confrontations and the police subculture. Behavioral Science and the Law. 1995. 13. 193112.

21.

Henry

V. E

. Death work: Police, trauma, and the psychology of survival. 2004. New York, NY. Oxford.

22.

Hickman

M. J.

Fricas

Strom

K. J.

Pope

M. W

. Mapping police stress. Police Quarterly. 2011. 14. 3227250.

23.

Holmes

Marra

. Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics. 2002. 34. 16831710.

24.

Kuhlman

. Gallows humor for a scaffold setting: Managing aggressive patients in a maximum security forensic unit. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1988. 39. 1010851090.

25.

Kuiper

N. A.

Grimshaw

Leite

Kirsh

. Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor. 2004. 17. 1/2135168.

26.

Kuiper

N. A.

Harris

A. L

. Humor styles and negative affect as predictors of different components of physical health. Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 2009. 5. 1118.

27.

Kuiper

N. A.

McKenzie

S. D.

Belanger

K. A

. Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences. 1995. 19. 3359372.

28.

Kuipers

. Raskin

. The sociology of humor. The primer of humor research. 2008. Berlin, Germany. Mouton de Gruyter. 361398.

29.

Lefcourt

H. M

. Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. 2001. New York, NY. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

30.

Lifton

R. J

. Death in life: Survivors of Hiroshima. 1967. New York, NY. Basic Books.

31.

Lifton

R. J

. Home from the war: Vietnam veterans: Neither victims nor executioners. 1973. New York, NY. Basic Books.

32.

Lifton

R. J

. On death and the continuity of life: A “new” paradigm. History of Childhood Quarterly: The Journal of Psychohistory. 1974a. 1. 4681696.

33.

Lifton

R. J

. Lifton

R. J.

Olsen

. The sense of immortality: On death and the continuity of life. Exploration in psychohistory. The Wellfleet papers. 1974b. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster. 271278.

34.

Lynch

. Cooking with humor: In-group humor as social organization. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research. 2010. 23. 2127159.

35.

Mack

Woodsong

MacQueen

K. N.

Guest

Namey

. Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. 2005. Research Triangle Park, NC. Family Health International.

36.

Martin

R. A

. Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R

. Sense of humor. Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. 2003. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association. 313326.

37.

Martin

R. A

. The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. 2007. Burlington, MA. Elsevier.

38.

Martin

R. A.

Puhlik-Doris

Larsen

Gray

Weir

. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality. 2003. 37. 14875.

39.

Merriam

S. B

. Merriam

S. B.

Associates . Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. 2002. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. 317.

40.

Mindess

Miller

Turek

Bender

Corbin

. The Antioch sense of humor test: Making sense of humor. 1985. New York, NY. Avon Books.

41.

Morreall

. Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. 2009. West Sussex, England. Wiley-Blackwell.

42.

Morreall

. Comic vices and comic virtues. Humor. 2010. 23. 1126.

43.

Nezlek

J. B.

Derks

. Use of humor as a coping mechanism, psychological adjustment and social interaction. Humor. 2001. 14. 4395413.

44.

Nilsen

A. P.

Nilsen

D. L

. Encyclopedia of 20th century American humor. 2000. Phoenix, AZ. Oryx.

45.

Obrdlik

A. J

. “Gallows Humor”—A sociological phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology. 1942. 47. 5709716.

46.

Oring

. Raskin

. Humor in anthropology and folklore. The primer of humor research. 2008. Berlin, Germany. Mouton de Gruyter. 183210.

47.

Plester

Orams

. Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research. 2008. 21. 3253281.

48.

Plester

B. A

. Healthy humour: Using humour to cope at work. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online. 2009. 4. 189102. doi: 10.1080/1177083X. 2009.9522446.

49.

Plester

B. A.

Sayers

. “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor. 2007. 20. 2157187.

50.

Pogrebin

M. R.

Poole

E. D

. A study of the strategic uses of humor among police. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1988. 17. 2183210.

51.

Polk

. A reexamination of the concept of victim-precipitated homicide. Homicide Studies. 1997. 1. 2141168.

52.

Porcu

. Fishy business: Humor in a Sardinian fish market. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 2005. 18. 169102.

53.

Raskin

. The primer of humor research. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 2008. Berlin, Germany. Mouton de Gruyter.

54.

Reio

T. G.

Wiswell

. Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2000. 11. 1530.

55.

Richman

. The role of psychotherapy and humor for death anxiety, death wishes, and aging. Omega. 2006. 54. 14151.

56.

Robert

Yan

. The case for developing new research on humor and culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 2007. 26. 205267.

57.

Robinson

Smith-Lovin

. Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces. 2001. 80. 1123158.

58.

Romero

E. J.

Cruthirds

V. K. W

. The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 2006. 20. 25869.

59.

Romero

E. J.

Pescosolido

. Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations. 2008. 61. 3395418.

60.

Roth

G. L

. Humor, humor theory, and HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2002. 13. 4351353.

61.

Roth

G. L.

Vivona

B. D

. Mirth and murder: Crime scene investigation as a work context for examining humor applications. Human Resource Development Review. 2010. 9. 4314332.

62.

Saroglou

Anciaux

. Liking sick humor: Coping styles and religion as predictors. Humor. 2004. 17. 3257277.

63.

Schulman-Green

. Coping mechanisms of physicians who routinely work with dying patients. Omega. 2003. 47. 3353264.

64.

Scott

. Expression of humour by emergency personnel involved with sudden deathwork. Mortality. 2007. 12. 4350364.

65.

Shenton

A. K

. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information. 2004. 22. 26375.

66.

Taylor

Bain

. Subterranean worksick blues: Humour as subversion in two call centers. Organization Studies. 2003. 24. 914871509.

67.

Thorson

J. A

. Have you ever seen a hearse go by? Some thoughts on gallows humor. Journal of American Culture. 1993. 16. 21724.

68.

Thorson

J. A.

Powell

F. C.

Sarmany-Schuller

Hampes

W. P

. Psychological health and sense of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1997. 53. 6605619.

69.

Tracy

S. J.

Myers

Scott

C. W

. Cracking jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication Monographs. 2006. 73. 3283308.

70.

Tracy

S. J.

Scott

. Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America's heroes” and the “Scum of law enforcement.”. Management Communication Quarterly. 2006. 20. 6636.

71.

Triezenberg

. Humor enhancers in the study of humorous literature. Humor. 2004. 17. 4411418.

72.

Vinton

K. L

. Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small Group Research. 1989. 20. 2151166.

73.

Wanzer

Booth-Butterfield

. “If we didn’t use humor, we’d cry”: Humorous coping communication in health care settings. Journal of Health Communication. 2005. 10. 2105125.

74.

Westwood

. Comic relief: Subversion and catharsis in organizational comedic theatre. Organization Studies. 2004. 25. 5775795.