To be or not to be humorous: Does it make a

To be or not to be humorous:
Does it make a difference?
LO
NU
, I SO P P E N H E I M E R ,
N E LW A R N A R S - K L E V E R L A A
A N dL A R R YS H E R M A N
Abstract
Humor is thought to be a social instrumentor a social skill that afibct'sthe
outcomesoJ'socialinteractions.The purposesof the presentstudy were (l)
to address the question whether within a peer group, humor and social
distances are related to a particular social status such as popularity,
neglection, and rejection and (2) to replicate sherman's (1988) crosssectional sturiy. For thesepurposes,225 children and adolescentsdivided
over three age groups (9-, I2-, and l5-year olds) with three complete
classroomstuithin each age group participated in this study. All subjects
\)ere presented with measures assessinghumor, funniness, social distance,
play and work preferences,and social status. The results shotv that" (a)
on the hasis
from the age of 12, children evaluatetheir peers' humorousness
personality
characterand
social
specified
and
detailed
more
of increasingly
diferently
perceive
humorousness
of
9,
istics;( b ) already at the age
females
"realistically"
(
or fun is
humorous
being
than males; c )
and perhapsmore
apparentlynot a sffic'ient characteristicto erplain smQllersocial distances;
"controversial" children obtained a meaningt'ulrelation between
(d) only
perceiveclhumorousnessand social distance;and (e) despitedffirences in
strength, the patterns oJ'interrelationshipsamong perceivedhumorousness
and social tlistance in the present study and those reported by Sherman
(1985) showeda remarkable similarity.
Already in early philosophical views, humor is perceivedas an ingredient
"man good
of human existence and a positive attribute that makes
company" (Aristotle, qtd. in Thomson 1966:134). According to McGhee
(lg7g), humor exists only in the minds of people and not in the real
world. Despite these views of humor and its evolutionary and social
Humor9 2 (1996),117 l4I.
0117
0933 1719/96/0009
€,Walter de Gruyter
ll8
N. Warnars-Kleverlaan,L. Oppenheimer,and L. Sherman
functions(Darwin 1955),little is known about the developmentof humor
and its role in interpersonal relationships (cf. Bell, McGhee, and Duffey
1 9 8 6 ;S h e r m a n1 9 8 8 ) .
Studying humor as a social skill presentsus with a fascinatingparadox.
According to Martineau (1972), Goodman (1983) and Foot (1991)
humor is important in the formation and facilitation of social relationships as well as in ending them. Consequently,humor will reduce as well
"interas increasesocial distancesamong people(Sherman 1988).As an
personal communication behavior, (humor) facilitates social interaction"
(Sherman 1988:390), promotes friendships,relationships,and intimacy
by gaining the approval of others and by sustaining the friendships we
value and wish to maintain. The reduced social distances between the
"humorous" individual and others (Kane, Suls, and Tedeschi 1977;
Masten 1986;Sherman 1988)also affect,for instance,peer relationsand
"interperpeer statusin groups of children (Masten 1986).Humor, as an
sonal communication behavior," however, is also perceivedas a socially
acceptable way to dissociate from people (to increase distances); by
means of humor, one can safely expressnegative feelingstowards others.
Efforts to define humor have not been very successful.Becausehumor
is a multi-dimensionalconcept (Foot 1991),it has not yet been possible
to develop a theory of humor that adequately includes all its features.
The ability to use humor to achieveparticular, sometimescontradictory,
. social goals is only one of its features. Other features involve (a) humor
production or the ability to be humorous; (b) a senseof playfulness or
the ability to have a good time, which may be related to the personality
trait of being good-natured; (c) the ability to recognize humor, life's
absurdities, and the self as humorous; (d) the appreciation of humor,
humorous people, and humorous situations; and (e) the ability to use
humor as an adaptive mechanism,that is, being able to laugh at problems
or to master difficult situations through the use of humor (Thorson and
Powell 1991). However, despite the absence of a clear definition for
humor, an intuitive understanding of what humor is about is present
(Ziv 1984\: Adults as well as children have no problems in telling which
of their friends have a good senseof humor and which do not.
The findings from different studiesby Sherman( 1985a,1985b;Sherman
and Wolf 1984) and Masten (1986) suggestthat humor is not derived
"in
the form of
from social status (Chapman 1973), but that humor
interpersonal humor perceptions is predictive of social status and friendship preferences" (Sherman 1988: 390). That is, children perceived as
l
I
(
l
1
(
\
I
L
v
To be or not to be humorous I 19
humorous will evidence smaller social distances from their peers than
children who are perceived as not humorous. As early as six years old,
gender differences in humor have been reported (McGhee 1979; Ziv
1984): males more often create humor, females more often enjoy it.
Explanations for this finding involve the relation between humor and
gender-role expectations. Because humor is frequently aggressive,the
initiation of humor is often consideredto be more appropriate for males
than for females in Western society. Findings about perceived humor
partly support this view: Generally, sociometric humor ratings of peers
resultedin a higher humor scorefor males(Ziv 1984).However, gender
appears to be an important factor in perceived humor. Children of the
same gender are seen as more humorous than children of the opposite
gender (Sherman 1988).
In a study involving three 4th-grade classrooms(71 children with a
mean age of 9.6 years),Sherman(1988) studiedthe role of genderin the
relationship betweenhumor and social distance.The data from this study
indicate that, consistentlyamong both genders,children who were rated
as more humorous were also perceived as socially less distant. Children
of the same gender rated each other as socially less distant as well as
more humorous than children of the opposite gender.These data suggest
that humor is a social instrument or a social skill that affectsthe outcomes
of social interactions(cf. Krasnor and Rubin l98l). The purpose of the
present study is to address the question whether v,,ithina peer group,
socialdistancesare relatedto a particularsocialstatus,suchas popularity,
neglection,and rejection (cf. Oppenheimer 1989;Warnars-Kleverlaanand
Oppenheimer1989).
According to Babad (1914), the method of sociometrichumor ratings
is most appropriate to assessthe humorousnessof children as perceived
by their peers. By this method children were asked to rate all other
children in their class on their humorousness,by means of a five-point
Likert scale (Sherman 1988). In everyday life, humor is indicated in
terms of jokes, cartoons, and the behavior of others, that is, having fun
or being funny is used as a justification for humorous action, especially
when the social meanings of humor are analyzed (Podilchak 1992). For
example, children often play with meanings just for fun. According to
McGhee (1919), the word "funny" more than any other related term, is
used to mean humorous. For this reason, in the present study, humor
w i l l b e c o m D a r e dt o f u n n i n e s s .
120 N. Warnars-Kleverlqan, L. Oppenheimer,and L. Sherman
In his study on humor and social distance,Sherman(1988) suggested
that humor in the form of interpersonal humor perceptionsis predictive
of social status and friendship preferences.The present study involves a
replication of Sherman's cross-sectionalstudy in which, instead of one
age group (9-year olds), three age groups are used (9-, l2-, and l5-yearolds). In addition to the instrumentsthat assessthe humorousnessand
social distance of the children by their peers,also a measurefor funniness,
play and work preferences,and social status are introduced. The purpose
of this study is to examine whether the relationship between humorousnessratings and social distanceremains similar for different ages,whether
social distance relates to friendship preferencesand social status, and
whether gender differences reported by Sherman are replicated with a
Dutch population. The results of the youngest age group (the 9-year
olds) will be compared with the results reported in the study by
S h e r m a n( 1 9 8 8 ) .
While the present study uses a correlational design to verify the relationship between perceived humorousnessand perceived social distance,
the assumption that humor will reduce social distances among people
(Sherman 1988) allows a directional interpretation of the correlation
coefficients. That is, perceived humorousnesscan then be examined as
an explanatory variable for the observed variance in perceived social
distance.
Method
Subjects
+
The subjectsin this study were 225 children and adolescentsfrom middleclass neighborhoods. They were divided among three age groups with
three complete (intact) classroomswithin each age group. The age groups
represented4th-graders(n:86; age-rangefrom 8.6 to 10.7 years;mean
age 9.3, 46 females and 40 males) and 6th-graders from elementary
schools (n--76: age-rangefrom 11.1 to 12.5 years; mean age 12.3;41
females and 35 males), and 3rd-year students from sesondary schools
(n--63; age-rangefrom 14.8to l7.l years;mean age 15.8;28 femalesand
35 males). The three intact classroomswithin each age group consisted
of 25,32, and 29 4th-graders,20,21, and 29 6th-graders,and 20, 19, and
23 3rd-year students.
c
S,
LI
g
s
a
o
fa
(r
a
To be or not to be humorous 121
M aterials and procedure
Funniness. The funniness measure consisted of two open-ended questions. The children were asked (a) to indicate which classmate(s)were
most funny and (b) why they thought those children were funny. Besides
peer-group ratings for funniness,the data were used to obtain the concurrent validity between the funniness and the humor scales.
Humor. ln contrast to the funniness scale,a description of a humorous
individual was presented on top of the humor scale (identical to
"We
want to find out how humorous people
Sherman's1988procedure):
are. By humorous we do not mean somebody who is looking strange or
somebody who is behaving silly. By a humorous individual we mean
somebodywho has a good senseof humor, tells good jokes, makesother
people laugh, and can laugh at other'sjokes." This definition with small
modificationswas identical to the one used by Sherman(1988:394).
With the above description of a humorous individual in mind, the
children were asked to rate all other children in their class on their
humorousnessby means of a five-point Likert scale (Sherman 1988).
With the exception of the child's own name, a list of printed names of
all the children in the classwas presented.Following each child's name
a five-point continuum for humor judgements was presented,ranging
"very
"not
much." The children could then rate
from (1)
at all" to (5)
putting
peers
mark
in
the column that best described the
by
a
their
other child.
Three humor scoresbasedon theseratingswere calculated.Thesewere
the mean (a) total-humor score (HUt) of a child given by all other
humor
children in the classroomirrespectiveof gender;(b) same-gender
score(HUs; the humor ratings given by femalesto femalesand by males
to males), and (c) cross-genderhumor score (HUc; the humor ratings
given by femalesto males or by males to females).
Socialdisttmc'e. For socialdistancea similar procedurewas used.Again
a list of printed namesof all the children.with the exceptionof the child's
own name, was presented.Five socialdistancejudgmentswere presented
"I
would like to have him/her as one of my best friends"
ranging from
"l
(rating l) to
wish he/sheweren't in our group" (rating 5). Again each
122 N. Wurnars-Kleverlaun,L. Oppenheirner,antl L. Sherman
child could rate all the other children by indicatingwhich statementbest
describedeach child. The mean social distancescoreswere calculatedin
exactly the same way as the humor scores.That is, the mean (a) total
socialdistancescore( SDt ) of a child givenby all childrenin the classroom
irrespectiveof gender; (b) same-gendersocial distancescore (SDs; the
social-distance
ratingsgiven by femalesto femalesand by malesto males);
and (c) cross-gender
socialdistancescore(SDc; the social-distance
ratings
given by f-emales
to males or by malesto females).
SocictlStutLt.s.Two lists of classmateswere used to assesssocial status.
For the positive-nominationthe childrenwererequiredto circlethe names
o f t h r e e c h i l d r e nt h e y l i k e d t h e m o s t . F o r t h e n e g a t i v e - n o m i n a t i ot n
hey
were required to circle the names of three children they liked the least.
Nomination scoteswere basedon the responscslrom all the pcersirrespectiveol- gcnder.To assessthe social statusof a child a method similar
t o t h e o n e d e s c r i b e db y A s h e r a n d D o d g e ( 1 9 8 6 ) w a su s e d .T h i s m e t h o d
involves the cornputation ol' the liequenciestbr positive and negative
nominatior.rsIbr each child and the transformation of these frequencres
into standerrdized
z-scoresfbr liking (L) and disliking (D) wirhin each
classroom.Following this transfbrmation.the social preference(SP) and
socialimpact (SI )scoreswere computed.The socialpreference(SP)score
is determined by subtracting the standardizeddisliking score liom the
s t a n d a r d i z e dl i k i n g s c o r e ;t h e s o c i a l i m p a c t ( S I ) s c o r e b y a d d i n g t h e
standardizedliking and disliking scoresfor each child. The classification
procedure consistsof fitting each child into one of five groups that are
characterizedby dili-erentvaluesfor SP. SI. L. and D. Popularchildren
( S P > 1 . 0 . L > 0 , a n d D < 0 ) a r e i n t e r p r e t e da s b e i n g c o o p e r a t i v ea n d
show leadershipbehavior and seldom disrupt the group, fight, and ask
f o r h e l p . R e j a c r e cclh i l d r e n ( S P < - 1 . 0 , L < 0 , a n d D > 0 ) a r e c h i l d r e n
who cooperatelittle and show no ieadershipqualities;they often disrupt
the group, fight. and seekhelp. l{eglet:tedchildren (SI< -1.0. L<0, and
D<0) distinguishthemselvesfrom the rejectedchildren in that they are
uot actually disliked by their peers; they are only not n.rentionedas
clrildren othcrs would want to be friends with. Controversiulchildren
(Sl>1.0. L>0, and D>0)combine characteristio
c sf t h e r e j e c t e da n d
popular children. Thesechildren are perceivedas disruptive.start fights.
and frequently seekhelp. On the other hand, they are also perceivedas
leaders.Though not cooperative,they are also not perceivedas lacking
(
(
e
c
j,
a
a
n
a
p
To be or not to be lumrtrous
123
t h i s b e l r a v i o r .A v e r a g ec h i l d r e n ( 0 . 5< S P < 0 . 5 a n d - 0 . 5 < S l < 0 . 5 ) ,
normally the largestgroup of children within a peer group, are evaluated
to be averageon cooperation,leadership,attraction, etc. (secAsher and
D o d g e 1 9 8 6 ;C o i e . D o d g e , a n d C o p p o t e l l i 1 9 8 2 ) .
s
I
r
I
e
Play and v'ork pre/brences ,st'ale. Play and work preferences were
obtained by asking the children to indicate the children they prel-erto
work with and preferto play with in their classroom.The rating categones
"I
am
r a n g e df r o m ( l ) ' ' I d o n ' t l i k e t o p l a y i w o r ka t a l l w i t h . . . " t o ( 5 )
".
As with humor and social distance.
very eager to play/work with...
separateaveragesame-and cross-genderratings were determined.
instrumentswere presentedin a fixed order ir.r
The various assessment
four sessionswith two-weekintervalsbetweeneachsession.The questror-rnairesand scalesfor funniness.socialdistanceand play and work preferences,humor, and social status were presentedin this respectiveorder.
was done with one class
Afler two months. a secondhumor assessment
o f 9 - y e a ro l d s ( n : 3 2 ) a n d o n e c l a s so f l 2 - y e a ro l d s ( n : 2 7 ) , p e r r n i t t i n g
the calculation of test-retestreliabilitieslbr the humor measure.
S
l
J
Results
tr
M uteriulsand proc'edure
e
n
n
d
t.
^
n
)t
A
g
IS
n
d
S,
IS
)
"name
the most funny chiid(ren) in their
Funnines,s.To the question
class." 88%,of the children respondedwith at least one child. Of the
children who were not able to mention a llnny child. three children gave
"nobody
was lunny, all were dumb.
n very negativeview of their peers:
Almost eighty percent (79'f,,)of the responsesto the rvhy-question
could be classifiedinto five categoriesinvolving responsesre{errin-eto
joking, acting funny. laughing (either together or alone). making subtle
and witty remarks, and being funny. The rnajor diff'erencebetween the
"being"
"acting"
funny concernedthe useof behavioral
explar.rations
and
versuspsychologicalor personalitycharacteristics.
To permit Chi-square
for the funnianalysisfor independentsamples.oniy the first explar.ration
nessof a child was scored.In Table 1. the resultingfrequencies.percentages, and total number of responseslbr each responsecategory are
present.Chi-square analysesshowed the responsecategoriesnclt to be
124 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheinrer,and L. Sherman
independentof age(y) ( 10) : 52.18,p < .001). No relationbetweengender
and the responsecategoriescould be demonstrated.Separate,one-sample
Chi-square analysesdemonstrated that the 9-year olds perceived funniness mostly in terms of "acting funny" and joking (y.2(5):58.97;
p<.001) and the l5-year olds primarily in terms of making subtle and
"being
witty remarks,
funny," and "other" characteristics
(X2(5):28.12;
p <.001 ). Although for the l2-year olds the frequenciesfor the different
responsecategoriesdiffered(y2(5):42.9; p <.001), this age group could
be perceived as transitional when compared to the changesbetween the
9- and 15-yearolds. The responsesclassifiedas "other" may tentatively
illustrate the multidimensional nature of the construct of humor.
Creativity, appearances,tendentiousjokes, social distance,and the use
of unique and unexpectedremarks are recurrent themesin theseresponses
and together with the five major responsecategoriesclosely coincide with
the features of the humor concept. These additional themes in the
responsesof the children becamemore evident from the age of 12.
To relate the data obtained for funninessto the humor ratings, the
frequency of the funniness nominations for each child were transformed
into standardizedz funniness scores (F) for each child within each
classroom.
Huntor. To obtain the concurrent validity between the funniness measure and the humor scalethe mean total humor score(HUt) was correlated with the standardizedfunninessscore(F) for each age group. The
correlations ranged from .71 to .93 with mean correlationsof .76, .80,
and .84 for the 9-,12-, and l5-year olds, respectively.Theseresultsshow
a high concurrent validity and confirm the assumptionthat "funny" is
used to mean humorous (McGhee 1919).
The analysisof the total humor scores(HUt) by meansof a two-way
A N O V A , r e s u l t e di n a m a i n e f t - e cftb r a g e ( F ( 2 . 2 1 9 ) - 4 . 1 9 . p < . 0 1 ) a s
well as fbr gender (F(1 ,219): 14.17. p < .00I ). The 9-year old children
r e c e i v e ds i g n i f i c a n t l yh i g h e r h u m o r s c o r e s( 2 . 5 9 ) t h a n t h e 1 2 - ( 2 . 3 3 )
a n d 1 5 - y e a ro l d s ( 2 . 3 1 ) . T h e m a l e si n t h i s s t u d y r e c e i v e da s i g n i f i c a n t l y
higher (2.59) mean total humor scorethan the females(2.21). No effect
for the interaction between age and gender was evident. A 3 x 2 x 2
(agex genderx humor) ANOVA, with the last variable consistingof the
s a m e -a n d c r o s s - g e n d ehru m o r s c o r e s( H U s a n d H U c ) a n d t r e a t c da s a
repeated measurement, revealed significant main effects lbr agc
( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) - 4 . 7 3p, < . 0 1 ) a n d g e n d e r( F ( 2 . 2 1 9 ) : 1 6 . 1 0p, < . 0 0 1 ) b u t n o t
}l"
To be or not to be humorous 125
Table 1. The .frequent.iesJbr the frst explanation to the question why a thild tt'us con,sidered
.finn;, ( percentage.sbetu,eenbracketsI
Categories
joking
"acting"
funny
laughing
witty remarks
"being" funny
other
Age
9 years
(n:86)
( 3 1 . 2 ) 31 1 7 ( 2 2 . 4 \ 2r
25 ( 2 9 . 1) 2 7 I 5 ( 1 9 . 7\ ] e
12 ( 1 3 . e ) t 3 l 5 ( 1 9 . )7 1 6
(6.e) 7 10 ( r3.2) 24
6
( 69 ) 6
9 (1r.8) s
6
(5.8) 12 10 ( 13.2) 24
5
99 15
Total
S
h
e
d
h
t-
].
J,
is
ry
IS
)n
l)
ly
at
2
a
o,
Other
creativity
stupid remarks
social distance
general remarks
tendentious
appearance
uniquelunexpected
humor
having guts
I 5 years
( n: 6 3 )
I 2 years
( n- 7 6 )
2
I
2
U
0
0
0
U
0
5
l
5
I
0
2
2
2
I
2
tl
I
U
(t
0
0
0
(.)
2
6
9
14
16
16
t r3 63
Total
(n--225)
( 3 . 2 1 -t 5l
-r8
( 9 . s) 9 4 6 5 5
( 1 4 . 3 )1 0 3 6
39
( 2 2 . 2 .l9
\
50
30
( 2 5 . 1 \1 8 3 l
JJ
( 2 s . 4 )t 9 3 1
55
78 225
1
t
0
4
l
J
3
5
1
4
r
5
5
r
3
t
3
2
-
11
9
9
6
6
4
l
l
l
"other"
is specificd separately.The italicized liequencies represent
The responsecategory
the total number of responses(involving all explanations offered by a child).
for the interaction between age and gender. Also the humor measures
d i f f e r e ds i g n i f i c a n t l y( , F ( 1 , 2 1 9 ) : 1 3 5 . 5 6p, < . 0 0 1 ) , a s w e l l a s t h e h u m o r
. <.001) A 3 x2 (agexgender)
b y a g e i n t e r a c t i o n( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 1 8 . 1 6 p
ANOVA on the same-genderhumor ratings (HUs) revealed significant
e f f e c t sf o r a g e ( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 1 3 . 2 2 ,p < . 0 0 1 ) a n d g e n d e r( - F ( 1 , 2 1 9 ) : 1 1 . 6 8 ,
p<.001). A similar analysison the cross-genderhumor ratings (HUc)
resulted in a main effect for gender only for HUc (F(1,219):17.25,
p <.001).
In Table 2, the same-and cross-genderhumor ratings for each gender
and age group are presented.Post-hocanalyses(Fisher'sprotectedLSD)
indicated that the differencesin same-genderratings between the 9-year
olds and the I 2- and I 5-year olds are significant (p < .00I ) ' Thesefindings
indicate that the humor scoresgiven to same-genderpeersbecomesignifi"realistic" from the age of 12. For the
cantly lower and apparentlymore
cross-gender ratings no significant differences between the age groups
126
lV. Warnars-Kleverlaan,L. Oppenheinter,und L. Shennan
Table 2. The sunu'- unrl uos.s-centlerhunutr antl soLiul-tli,stuncc
raIitlg.\ ht gentler./br the
tltret' ugt groups
Humor ratings
9-year olds
Cender of ratcr
Female
Male
same
,l/
2.87
3.07
6 2 2 . 13
65 2.38
cross
I 2-year olds
Gender of ratcr
,t
sitme
dJ'
cross
-t0 2.22 63 I .93
OE 2 . 8 3 . 7 6 2 . 4 9
I 5 - y e a ro l d s
Genderol rater
,t
same
.JJ 2.34
.73 2.50
,tl
cross
6-l
9-l
1.99 .61
2 . 3 8 r I2
ttJ
S o c i a ld i s t a n c e
Female
Male
same
dl'
l.)9
|.31
65 2.42
7.t 2.72
cross
,l
56
same
l,-) /
1.45
dl'
cross
7t 1.93
,5-t 1.87
dl
same
tt/
cross
62
50
l.19
1.88
.66
.61
l.9t
l .75
tll
.63
.77
Note that in this table a low social-distanceratin-s implics a small social clstancc.
were evident.with respectto gender,post-hocanalysesindicatedsignificant differencesbetween males and females for the same- and crossgenderhumor ratings(p <.001 ) showingthat consistentlyover-agemales
receivedsignificantlyhigher humor ratings than femalesfrom their male
as well as their female peers.
Sociul Distance. The total social-distancescores(SDt) were analyze<l
by means of a two-way ANOVA and resulted in a main effect for age
( F ( 2 . 2 1 9 ): 5 . 6I , p < . 0 1 ) a n d g e n d e r( F ( 1 , 2 1 9 ) : 4 . 8 9 ,p < . 0 5 p e r c e i v e d
).
social distancewas significantlygreaterin the youngestage group (1.94)
a s c o m p a r e dt o t h e t w o o l d e r a g e g r o u p s( 1 . 6 6 a n d l . j 4 f o r t h e 1 2 - a n d
l5-year olds, respectively).Femalesperceivedtheir peersto have signific a n t l y l e s s s o c i a l d i s t a n c e( 1 . 7 1 ) t h a n m a l e s ( 1 . 8 8 ) . A 3 x 2 x 2
(agex genderx humor) ANOVA, with the last variable consistingof the
same-and cross-gender
social-distance
scores(SDs and SDc) and treated
as a repeated measurement, revealed significant main effects for age
( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 5 . 8 7 ,p < . 0 1 ) a n d g e n d e r( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 3 . 6 1 p
, :.05) but nor
for the interaction between age and gender. Also the social distance
measuresdifferedsignificantly(F( 1,219): 336.I 3, p < .001), as well as all
other higher order interactions.A 3x2 (agexgender) ANOVA on the
same-gendersocial-distanceratings revealedsignificant effectsfor gender
TLtbe or not to be lrumorous 121
(F( I ,219) : 9.07, p < .01) and the interaction between age and gender
( F ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 5 . 3 5 , p < . 0 1 ) . t r o r t h e c r o s s - g e n d esro c i a l - d i s t a n crea t i n g s .
s i g n i f i c a n et f f e c t sf o r a g e ( F ( 2 " 2 1 9 ) : 3 5 . 8 5 ,p < . 0 0 1 ) a n d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n
b e t w e e na g ea n d g e n d e rc o u l d b e d e m o n s t r a t e (dF ( 2 , 2 1 9 ) : 3 . 1 2 .p < . 0 5) .
ratings by gender
In Table 2 the same- and cross-gendersocial-distance
for the three age groups are presented.Post hoc analyses(Fisher's protected LSD) revealedthat the 9-year olds rated their peers of the same
genderto have a significantlygreatersocialdistancethan did the l2- and
l 5 - y e a r o l d s ( p < . 0 5 ) . W i t h r e s p e c t o t h e c r o s s - g e n d er ra t i n g s( S D c ) , i t
was again the 9-year olds only who perceivedtheir peers of the other
gender to have a significantlygreater social distancethan their peersof
the samegender(p <.001 ). With respectto gender,only the same-gender
social-distanceratings were significant.Femalesrated their female peers
l o w e r i n s o c i a ld i s t a n c et h a n t h e m a l e sr a t e d t h e i r m a l e p e e r s( p < . 0 1 ) .
Pearson product-moment correlation coefllcients were calculated
betweenthe total humor ( HUt) and socialdistarrceratings(SDt) irrespective of the genderof the rater and ratee.Thesecoeflrcientsattained -.48,
. 5 6 , a n d - . 5 7 f o r t h e 9 - , 1 2 - a n d l 5 - y e a r o l d s . r e s p e c t i v e l yT. h c
hypothesisthat humor will reducesocialdistances(Sherman 1988)allows
for the assumptionof a (causal) directionfor thesecorrelationcoefficients
ratings
showing that 23 to 32 percent of the variancein social-distance
humor
ratings.
ln
Table
3,
the
intercorrelations
can be explainedby the
are shown between the same- and cross-genderratings for humor and
social distanccfor each age group and all age groups combined.As can
bc observedfrom this table. the relationshipsbetweenthe different ratings, though varying in magnitude,are relativelyconsistentover the three
age groups.
tS3S
le
,i
:d
l)
Ld
fr2
le
d
ge
0t
ce
rll
:
i
I
Reliubility. Test-retest reliability scores for the humor measurement
obtainedwith 9- and l2- year olds werecalculatedby meansof Spearman
rank-order coefficients.The reliability coelicients were .79 and .93
( p < .001) for the 9- and |2-year olds, respectively.With the f'emales,the
s a m e - g e n d emr e a n sc o r r e l a t e d. 1| ( p < . 0 1 ) a n d . 9 4 ( p < . 0 0 1 ) , w h i l e t h e
c r o s s - g e n d em
r e a n sc o r r e l a t e d. 6 9 ( p < . 0 1 ) a n d . 9 1 ( p < . 0 0 1 ) . F o r t h e
m a l e s ,t l r e s a m e - g e n d em
r e a n sc o r r e l a t e d. 8 9 ( p < . 0 0 1) a n d . 7 6 p < . 0 1 \
a n d t h e c r o s s - g e n d emr e a n s . 8 8 ( p < . 0 0 1 ) a n d . 7 6 ( p < . 0 1 ) . O v e r a l l .
these coelicients indicated a satisfactory test-retestreliability for the
humor measurement.
I
128
lrl. Ifarnurs-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheimer,ancl L. Sherntan
Table 3. The intertorrelations belv'een sume- und tross-gender so(.iatl-di.stanrcantl humor
ratingsJi;r eadr age group'epuratell'and all uge groups comhinetl (intluding age us variable)
9-year olds (ri : 86 )
SDc
HUs
HUc
. 6 6 **
SDc
HUs
HUc
Gender
.37+*
-.02
12-yeao
r lds(n:76\
SDs
-.32r*
- .31**
.67*4
.16
- .21*
HUs
HUc
. 5 6 +*
SDc
HUs
HUc
Gender
.26+
-.07
-.58**
.06
. 7 0 **
_.41**
_.41*r
I 5-yearoldsft :63 )
SDs
SDc
HUs
HUc
*
.49+
SDc
HUs
HUc
Gc'nder
.34**
-.48++
-.43**
-.60**
.ll
.92*+
- 10
A l l a g e s( n : 2 2 5 )
SDs
SDc
HUs
SDc
HUs
HUc
Genderu
Age
-.32**
.l 8 * *
.l 6 *
-.43+r
HUc
Gender
-.02
- .01
. 77 + *
.01
.29**
* p < . 0 5*; * p < . o l
uGender
wasa binarycodedvariable:
girls=0andboys:L
Play und n'ork preJbrences. The scores on this measure involved peer
ratings with respect to play and work preferences.The intercorrelations
betweenthe play and work preferencesand the total humor (HUt) and
social distance (SDt) scores for each classroom peer group separately
indicated that the social-distancescaleand the play and work preferences
scale assessedthe same variable. The correlation coe{icients between the
SDt and work and play preferencesranged from -.gl to -.94 for the
nine peer groups. For the same- and cross-genderplay and work prefer_
encesidenticalresultswere found. children with whom otherswould like
to play and work are also the children who are perceivedto be close to
others (with small social distances).As with social distance.sienificant
To be or nlt to be humorous 129
but considerably weaker relationships were evident between humor and
play and work preferences.Becausethe play and work indices did not
add additional information to the social distance measures,the play and
work indices were omitted from the following analyses.
ler
)eI
NS
nd
ty
)es
he
he
ke
to
rnt
Social Statu.r. By means of the social status scales,the status of each
individual child within the peer group was established(popular fn:59],
controversial [n:14l, average ln:701, neglected[n:41], and rejected
fn:4ll). Within groups ANOVAs with the five social-statusgroups as
the independent variable were performed on the total social-distance
(SDt) and humor scores (HUt) separatelyfor each age group. With
respectto social distance, the three ANOVAs revealed significant effects
( p < . 0 0 1) f o r t h e s o c i a l - s t a t u g
s r o u p s ( f ( 4 , 8 5) : 2 6 . 6 , F ( 4 . 1 5 ) : 3 2 . 0 2 ,
and F(4,62):13,32, p<.001 for the 9-, l2-, and l5-year olds, respectively). This finding indicates that social distance is related to social
status. A similar relationship could be demonstrated between socialwere 5.59, 5.2, and I .51 ( p < .01) for the
statusand humor. The -F-values
9-,72-, and l5-year olds, respectively.In Table 4, the mean social-distance
and humor scores for each social-status group and age are presented.
From this table it can be observed that the popular children possessthe
smallestsocial distanceand the rejectedchildren the greatestsocial distance from their peers. Separate one-way ANOVAs indicated that the
popular children could be distinguished from all other social-status
groups
with the exceptionof the l5-year old controversialgroup on the basis of low social distances(p<.05). Similarly, the rejected
children could be distinguishedfrom all other social-statusgroups by
signilicantlylarger social distances(p<.05). With the humor scores,a
different picture emerges. The only distinctions based on the humor
scoresthat could be made between the social-statusgroups were between
the popular and rejectedgroups and the controversial and rejectedgroups'
These tlistinctions demonstrated significantly lower humor scoresfor the
rejected children as compared to the popular and controversial children
(p<.05). It is interesting to note that certainly at the older ages the
neglectedchildren do not distinguish themselveson the basis of their
social distance, nor humor ratings from the average children. The
neglected children appear to be reasonably well-liked and to possessa
reasonablesenseof humor.
When the same- and cross-gendersocial distanceand humor ratings
are consideredseparately,complex patterns of interrelationshipsbetween
130 N. Wumur,s-Kleverlacrn,
L. Oppenheirner,and L. Shernrun
T a b l c 4 . T I t e n r c u ns o t i u l d i . y t u n t e( S D t ) u n d h u n t o r s u n ' e s( I t L t 1 trrttl .st tutdur d dt' t,i u t i ons
aroup untl uge
for cucltSotitrl-.ytutu.s
(
c
H u m o r( H U r )
S o c i a ld i s t a n c el S D t I
r
S
v vears
I 2 ycars
l5 years
9 years
12 1'cars
I 5 ycars
rnean sd
mean
stl
ntcan
mean
mean
lnean
l.lti
1.61
t . 75
r.68
l.-s7
:9
3I
17
1-1
2q
1 . 2 2 - r , 5 2 . 8 1 .1,5 2 . 7 3 . 6 5 2 . 6 6
t . 6 1 . 1 1 ) . 6 4 . 4 9 2.21
.54 2.06
l . 5 8 . 6 1 2 . 8 5 . -)i 2 . 6 4 r i l 3 . 5 5
I .91 -r.r ).61 . 7 0 2 . 0 9
.1: 2.18
l.-.]rl .-t-t 2.05
1 . 8 4 . _ 5 61 . 8 0
Popular
1.48
Average
1.90
Controv.
3.02
Neglected 2.84
Rejectcd
2.79
29
40
1I
l7
19
.ut
sd
sd
sd
.71
.68
r05
.67
.59
N o t c t h a t i n t h i s t a b l e a l o u s o c i a ld i s t a n c es c o r ei m p l i e s a s r n a l lr e a l s o c i a ld i s t a n c e ,
age, gender,and social status becameevident. In general,however,the
r e s u l t s f r o m t h e f o u r s e p a r a t e3 x 2 x 5 ( a g e x g e n d e r x s o c i a l s t a t u s )
ANOVAs repeat the previously reported findings for the effectsof age,
and humor scores.
-qender.and social statusfor the total social-distance
Correlations computed between the total social-distanceand humor
ratings (SDt and HUt) and betweenthe same-and cross-gender,social
d i s t a n c e( S D s a n d S D c ) a n d h u m o r s c o r e s( H U s a n d H U c ) f o r e a c h
social-statusgroup revealeda surprising pattern (seeTable 5). For the
popular and rejectedgroups the correlation betweenSDt and HUt did
not attain significance.With the averageand neglectedgroups.the correlations between these variableswere significant.The magnitude of the
coefllcients.however,suggestedthat only 6 to 12 percentof the variance
in social distance could be explained by humor. In contrast to these
findings,the relationshipbetweenthe SDt and HUt with the controversial
group was .78. If it is a-eainassumedthat humor will reduce social
distances(Sherman 1988). then with the controversialchildren approxrmately 60 percent of the variance in social distancecould be explaincd
by the humor ratings. (Note that the controversialgroup consistedof
oniy 14 children.)
For the controversial children in particular it was the cross-gender
social-distanceratings (SDc) that related most strongly with the crossg e n d e rh u m o r r a t i n g s( H U c : - . 1 4 , p < . 0 0 1 ) . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e n
SDs and HUs. while lower, was still strongestwithin the controversial
children as compared to the other social-statusgroups. For the other
social-statusgroups,the relationshipbetweenSDc and HUc and between
t
S
d
S
tl
7
S
b
n
Tr
i
Pr
ln
SI
H
H
C(
T:
ST
Hr
HI
Re
ln.
ST
HI
HI
No
*p
To bc or not to be lunrorous 131
and rejected
SDs and HUs was more varied. While for the neglected
significant
groups the relationship between SDs ancl HUs was the only
group it was the
relationshipbetweenthesevariables,with the average
was present
strongest relationship. While no significant relationship
between
relationships
the
betweenSDt and HUt for the popular children,
I
7t
68
.0i
.67
.59
the
us)
'es.
00r
ial
ach
the
did
rrethe
SDcandHUcandSDsandHUswereiclenticalbutweak(-.30and
- . 3 2 . p < . 0 5 ) . T h e s ef i n d i n g ss u g g e stth a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e ns o c i a l
distanceandhumor(eithernegativeorpositive)isdependentonsocialas the gender of
status and the gender of the chilcl who is rated as well
the rater.
was to replicate
Tltereplication. One of the purposesof the presentstudy
9 - y e a ro l d s i n
t
h
e
o
f
d
a
t
a
t
h
e
S h e r m a n ' s( 1 9 8 S ) s t u d y a n d t o c o m p a r e
bothstu<lies.InTable6(seealsoTable2).thesame-andcross-gender
in the Sherman
mean socialdistanceand humor scoresby genderreported
trttss-gtnrlcr' \0(iul-di'\lun((' (sDs
Table 5. corrt,ltttiDrtsL|efiitienl,s halx eut lhe sutrtc-ttntl
groups
thc
.fivt difli'rtttt to(iol-sldtLt,t
untl SDt.) drtd huntor ruring,s(HLts ttnd HLL) lor
[r:59]
SDs
SDc
HUs
HUc
-.05
.30*
-. t0
C o n t r o v .( r I S D I ' H U t ] :
rese
'sial
'cial
oxi.ned
lof
rder
'OSS-
veen
rsial
rther
veen
A v e r a g e( f l S D t . H U t l : - . 2 5 * )
P o p u l a r( / [ S D t . H U t ] : - . 1 5 )
[rr: l4l
SDs
SDc
HUs
HUc
-.06
SDc
HUs
.13
.20
.11
N e g l e c t e d( r I S D t . H U t ]:
-.78**)
SDc
HUs
-.J7
R e j e c t e d( r l S D t . H U t l - - . 2 5 )
SDs
SDc
HUs
HLIc
.t0
- .36*
* p < . 0 5 :* * P< . 0 1
SDc
.0d
.)0
[ r r- . { 1 ]
SDs
.21
.15**
.19
-. -i,9
[r:41 ]
SDc
[rr:7t)]
HUs
.I0
.l-5*
-.34*)
SDc
-.06
.1 9
HUs
132
|tl. Warnars-Kleverlaan,L. Oppenheilner,and L. Sherman
Table 6. Sume- and tross-gender mean sotiul-distunte and ltLunor scores by gentler Jitt
Slrcnnun'.s( 1988:396) and the present studv (underlined)
Tal
rati
Social distance
Gender of rater
Humor
Gender ol'rater
same
CTOSS
Female
2.89 2.87
2.12. 2.13
I.88 L29
2.91 2 42
Male
2.89 3.07
2.37 2.38
2.06 1.31
3 . 5 6 2 . 72
(1988) and the present study are presented.Similarly, in TableT, the
intercorrelations between same- and cross-gender social distance and
humor are given.
From Table 6, a number of interesting differencesbetween Sherman's
( 1988) findingsand the resultsof the presentstudy with a Dutch population can be observed.While Sherman(1988) does not report same-and
cross-gender differences in the humor ratings, in the present study a
significant same-genderdifference is present showing that males receive
a significantly higher humor rating from males than femalesreceivefrom
f e m a l e s( / ( 3 9 ) : 2 . 0 5 , p < . 0 5 ) . W i t h t h e s o c i a ld i s t a n c er a t i n g st h e s a m e gender ratings are considerablylower for the Dutch than for the American
sample. Dutch children perceive their own gender peers to be closer (to
have less social distance) than the American children. With the crossgender ratings the findings of the present study show a similar effect as
"which males received
reported by Sherman. That is, cross-genderratings
from females were significantly higher (greater social distance) than the
cross-genderratings which females received from males." Despite these
differencesand the considerably higher relationshipsin the present study
between same- and cross-gendersocial-distanceratings (.63 versus.3l)
and between same-genderhumor ratings and cross-gendersocial distance
ratings (-.32 versus .18; seeTable 7), the correlation patterns for the
presentand Sherrnan'sstudy are very similar.
Discussion
The guiding hypothesisof the presentstudy statedthat humor as a social
"interpersonal
communication behavior" would facilitate
competenceor
social interaction (Sherman 1988: 390) and reduce the social distances
SD
HL
HL
Ger
bet
19',
ASS
(M
I
chi
chi
"fu
un(
Ou
prir
anc
nol
ist
reg
iori
bec
to(
psy
Cor
"dir
teri
soci
Spe
that
alit.
To be or not to be humorous 133
TableT.TlrcittterttlrrelcltitlnnrutrirJbrsante-untlr'ross-gentlerstlcial-distant'ean.dhutnor
p r e s e n ts t u d l ( u n d e r l i n e d n' : 8 6 )
r a t i n g sf b r S h e r m u n ' s( 1 9 5 8 . 3 9 7 ;n - 7 4 ) a n t l t h e
SDc
SDs
7)
Ihe
,nd
.n's
rlarnd
y a
:ive
om
mecan
(to
CSS-
tas
Lved
the
nese
udy
.31)
lnce
'the
SDc
HUs
HUc
Gender
. 3 1* *
-.63**
.30*
.14
HUs
HUc
Sher
Sher
Pres
-.18
-.31*+
.02
.40**
.27*
.6lxx
.00
.67**
-.t6
t1
Mrte
* p< . 0 5 *; * p< . 0 1.
"humorous" individual and others( Kane, Suls,and Tedeschi
betweenthe
1977;Mastenl986;Shermanl988).Reducedsocialdistanceswere
groups of children
assumed to affect peer relations and peer status in
( M a s t e n1 9 8 6 ) .
"good senseof humor" certainly is a characteristicthat
Humor or a
with other
children take into accountwhen evaluatingtheir relationships
the word
chil<lren.Conforming with McGhee's ( 1979) assumption'
"funny" was indeed conceived by children to mean humorous' The
are older'
understandingand perception of humor changesas children
is
humorousness
children'
Our {rndings suggestthat with the younger
funny
behaving
primarily defined by observablebehavior, by acting or
in terms that are not
and by telling jokes. Often thesejokes are worded
normallyuseclinthehomeandclassroomsetting.Humorousness,then'
with the
is perceivedas behavior (acting and jokes) that is incongruous
behavon
emphasis
regular normative setting (cf. McGhee 1979)' This
Humorousness
ioral incongruity decreasesas the children are older'
that ls'
remarks'
witty
produce
to
ability
becomesmore defined by the
or a
personality
of
in
terms
to ofl'er apt retorts and is thought of more
psychologicalcharacteristicthanperceivedasabehavioralcharacteristic.
Correspondingwiththesechangesincorrceptionso|humorousness|rom
"dirty joke" to apt retort and from a behavioralto a personalitycharac-
ocial
litate
tnces
teristic,alsoexplanationsinvolvingcharacteristicssuchascreativity.
"having guts" becomemore apparent'
social distance,appearance,and
may imply
Speculatively,this increasein the variety of characteristics
thatfiomtheageofl2childrencometounderstandthenrultidimensionality of the concept of humor ( Foot 199I ) '
134 N. Warnars-Kleverlacm,
L. Oppenheimer,and L. Sherman
Irrespectiveof age, humorousnessis perceiveddifferentlyby girls and
boys. Gender differencesin humor perceptionwere reported by McGhee
( 1 9 1 9 ) a n d Z i v ( 1 9 8 4 ) .A c c o r d i n gt o M c G h e e ( 1 9 1 9 ) , b o y s m o r e o f t e n
create humor, girls more often enjoy it. A possibleexplanation for this
gender differenceis sought by McGhee in the relation betweenhumor
and gender-roleexpectations.That is. becausehumor is frequentlyaggressive, the initiation of humor is often consideredto be more appropriate
fbr boys than for girls. ln the presentstudy. genderalso plays an important role in perceivedhumor; not only are children ol the same gender
perceivedto be more humorous than children of the oppositegender(cf.
Shcrman 19U8),but boys are perceivedto be more humorous by their
male undfemale peers.Though this finding could be acceptedas support
l b r M c G h e e ' s( 1 9 7 9 ) a s s u m p t i o ni,t i s n o t c l e a rw h e t h e rt h e h i g h e rl e v e l
of perceived humorousnessis a result of a more aggressive
type of humor,
or that boys initiate humor more often than girls. or becausegirls and
boys experiencehumor dillerently.
ln the present study. the younger boys were consideredto be much
rnore humorous by their male peersthan their femalepeers.While there
is ample evidencethat younger children "overattribute" in their social
j u d g m e n t s( c l ' .H c l l e r a n d B e r n d t 1 9 8 1 ) ,t h i s s h o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e dw i t h
both boys and girls. However, while these same-genderhigher humor
perceptionslbr boys decreasedwith age, with the girls, no such agerelated changesin the same-genderhumor perceptionswere observed.
fhe convergenceof same-and cross-genderhumor perceptionsof boys
and girls at the age of 15 suggeststhat already at the age of 9 girls
perceive humorousnessdifferently, perhaps more "realistically" than
males.The latter finding suggeststhat an argument could be made that
gender differencesin humor perception are due to diflerencesin the
experienceof humor by girls and boys. rather than the aggressivityor
the frequencyof initiation of humor. Clearly more researchwill be needed
to clarify this issue.In addition, il overattributionsare made with respect
to peer evaluations,it is not clear whether such overattributionsare also
made with respectto younger and older children.To study this issue,use
could be made of mixed-age ciassrooms (for example. within the
Montessori educational system), younger and older children are still
sufTiciently
known to the children to permit valid evaluationsof a particular characteristic( humorousness).
Gender differenceswere also observedfbr social distance.While girls
pcrceivedthemselvesto be closer to one another than boys (cf. Gilligan
I
a
d
p
ir
tl
c(
al
Ir
id
di
re
ca
fo
in
ab
fer
pe
Fc
hu
rel
ob
tio
col
Sln
pe(
jud
the
oul
Spt
intr
dec
pla
soc
&8'
T
stal
I
Ttt be or not to be huntorous 135
I
n
IS
)I
S-
,rer
-f
:ir
)rt
rel
1f
nd
rch
:ial
'ith
10r
ge'ed.
oys
;irls
nan
;hat
the
/or
:ded
pect
also
, use
the
srill
ticugirls
ligan
1982;Tannenl990)'theperceivedsocialdistancesbetweengirlsaswell
themselvesand boys
as the social distancesperceivedby girls between
the other hand' the
did not change lbr different ages' With boys, on
male peers
perceived social distances between themselvesand their
increase,linolderboys,whiletheperceivedsocialdistancebetween
themselvesand girls decreased.
as a social
ln the introductlon to this study, it was arguedthat humor
competencewillaffectsocialclistancesbetweentlrehumorousindividual
andothers.Anassurnptionthatpossessesanalmoslintuitivevalidity:
with! The recurrent'
Indivrdualswith a good senseof humor arc fun to be
humor and social
perceived
identicalpatternsof interrelationshipsanrong
distancefortheagegroupSstudiedindicatedthalperceivedlrunrorousness
correlatton pattern
relatesto perceivedsocial distance.Each recurrent
c a n t h e t l b c p c r e c i v c da s a r e p l i c a t i o n '
variable
That is, if perceivedhumorousnessis taken as the explanatory
changes
for variance in social distances,then thc absenccof age-related
nicely explains thc
in girls' perceivedhumorousnessof girls and boys
changesin girls' perccivedsocialdistancesto their
absenceo1 erge-related
perceivedtheir male
femaleand male peers.Similarly. becauseolclerboys
peerslobelesshumorous.thesocialciistirnccsbetweenboysincreased.
horvever' perceived
For t1.,. boys' perceivcd social distancesto girls'
While no agehumorousnessfails to offer a satisfactoryexplalatiol
was
humorousness
girls'
ol'
relateclchanges in thc boys' perception
observed,theboys'perceivedsocialdistancestogirlsdecreased.lnaddifemale peers' as
tion, the girls' low perceivedhumorousnesso1' their
comparedtotheirmalepeers,doesnotcorrespondtothcgirls'perceived
to their male
smallersocial distanccsto their female peersas compared
peers.Whileourfindingsamplydemonstratedthatchildrenareabletcr
(
I 979)'
judge therr peersln terms of humorousnessor funniness McGhee
thelatterfin<lingsSuggestthata..goodsenseoIhttmor''orbeinghumorin social distance'
ous may not be sufficient to explain differcnces
Speculatively,itcouldbearguedthataschildrenbecomeoldertheir
which could explainthe observed
interestin the oppositegenderincreases,
decreaseoftheboys'perceivcdsocialdistancestogirls"butleavesunex'
girls' perceived
plaine<lwhy the same decreaseclid not occur with the
to assulne
reason
no
is
there
socialclistancesto boys. At the age of 15.
gcnder'
for the oppositc
a gender
* B , v r e difference
l a t i n g p e rin
c ethe
i v e attraction
dhumorousnessandsocialdistancetotheSocial
statuso|chilclren.additionalsuppol.tforthisSuggestionrvasobtaineci.
136 l,{. Warnars-Kleverlaan,L. Oppenheirner,and L. Sherntun
The division of the Dutch children over the five social status groups (2601,
popular, I 8% neglected,I 8% rejected,6%ocontroversial,and 3 loh average,)
shows an approximate correspondencewith the division reported by
Coie, et al. (1982) for American children (22o/opopular,24'''/oneglected,
24oh rejected, 130locontroversial, and l6ok average).When dealing with
social status in relation to perceived humorousnessand social distance,
it is important to note that the determination of the social status of a
child is based on peer evaluations irrespectiveof gender.This implies that
perceived humorousnessand social distance irrespectiveof gender only,
that is, the total humorousnessand social-distance
scores(HUt and SDt)
can be relatedvalidly to social status.
When only the relationshipsbetween total perceivedhumorousness
and social distance are considered,the previously discussedrecurrent
relationship betweenhumor and social distancecould not be observed
for the social status groups. Notwithstanding the fact that popular children are perceivedby their peers to be cooperative,to show leadership
behavior,and seldomdisrupt the group, fight, and ask for help (seeCoie,
et al. 1982), and contrary to the expectation,no relationship between
humor and social distancecould be demonstrated.That is. while these
children were found to possessthe smallest social distance to other
children, they were not perceivedto be the children with the highest
humor ratings.
While the rejectedchildren demonstratedthe largestsocial distanceto
other children and obtained the lowest humor ratings, no relationship
between perceived humorousnessand social distance was evident. ln
contrast to the popular children, rejectedchildren are perceivedto show
little cooperation and no leadershipqualities; they often disrupt the
group, fight, and seek help. For the neglectedand average children,
relationships,while moderate,were presentbetweenperceivedhumorousnessand social distance.Neglectedchildren distinguishthemselvesfrom
the rejectedchildren in that they are not actually disliked by their peers;
they are just not mentioned as children others would want to be friends
with and are a low visibility group. The averagechildren constitutethe
largest group of children within a peer group and are evaluatedto be
averagein cooperation,leadership,attraction. etc.
The controversial children are described as an intermediate group
betweenthe popular and rejectedchildren. Thesechildren are perceived
to combine characteristicsof both social-statusgroups.They are similar
cl
r2
g
g
ju
lil
di
ra
wl
is
b1
to
fir
it5
T-
I
To be or not to be hwnorous 131
,o
i'l
by
',1
ith
f a
1at
rly,
)t)
.ESS
ent
ved
hilhip
lese
:her
xest
eto
;hip
.ln
now
the
.ren,
ousrom
ends
r the
obe
roup
rived
nilar
to the rejected children in that they are perceivedas disruptive and start
fights; they also frequently seek help. On the other hand, they are also
perceivedas leaders in the group. They are not perceivedas cooperative
but they are also not perceived as lacking this behavior. Coie, Dodge,
"visible, active, and
and coppotelli (1982) describe these children as
assertive ... Sometimes this activity takes the form of leadership and
sometimesit puts them in demand as leaders" (p.565). Elsewhere,the
"one might speculatethat controversial children
same authors note that
possessmore positive social skills than they are described as having"
( p .s 6 8 ) .
with the controversial children, the relationship between perceived
humorousnessand social distance was substantial. If social distance is
affectedby humor, as was stated in the guiding hypothesisfor this study,
then for this group more than 60 percent of the variance in social distance
is explained by humor. Hence, a good senseof humor may be one of
"more positive skills" possessedby the controversial children that
those
make them a small but very special group of children within their peer
groups(coie, et al. 1982).Perhapsthe controversialchildren are able to
"effectively," that is, by using humor to facilitate social
use humor more
interaction thereby promoting friendships and relationships and by using
humor as a socially acceptableway to dissociatepeople or expressin a
(cf.
socially acceptable manner negative feelings towards others
Martineau 1972).
The controversial children distinguished themselves from the other
children on a secondcharacteristic.In general,higher same-genderhumor
judgments' A
ratings were associatedwith higher same-genderlikeability
was also the
be
humorous
girl who was judged by her lemale peers to
girl who was well-liked by her female peers and similarly, a boy who was
judged by his male peers to be humorous was also the boy who was wellliked by his male peers. The controversial children demonstrated a
different pattern. with these children, the higher same-genderlikeability
ratings related much stronger with the cross-genderhumor ratings than
with the same-genderhumor ratings. This finding shows that a boy who
is judged by hisfemale peers to be humorous is the boy who is best liked
by h\s male peers and vice versa a girl who is judged by her nrale peers
to be humorous is the girl who is best liked by her female peers. These
findings suggestthat controversial children differ on a variety ofpersonality and social characteristicsfrom the other children'
138 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan,L. Oppenheimer,and L. Sherman
While the rejected children were clearly less liked and were perceived
to be the least humorous, the neglected children did not distinguish
themselvesfrom the averagechildren in their peer group. These children
were perceived to possessan average level of humorousnessand to be
reasonably well liked. Speculatively, it could be argued that neglected
children are not so much children with whom other children do not like
"voluntarily
have no
to be friends, but rather that they are children who
need" to be friends with other children within the peer group. This
assumption may be based on differencesbetweenthe educational systems
in the United States and the Netherlands. In the Dutch educational
system, activities like sports, music, and arts are not part of the educational system but are offered by private clubs and institutions. Children
"outside
who participate in these activities
the school" are often not the
same children who form the peer group in a classroom and are often not
from the same school. Children in the Netherlands regularly function in
two or more completely different peer groups. Consequently,a child may
have friends in one peer group and be perceivedas popular (for example,
the soccer team) and not feel the need for the formation of additional
friendships with children in another peer group (the classroom). The
study of social status formation in peer groups that function outside the
educationalsystem(the classroom)is required to verify this assumption.
However, the nature of the groups, particularly with respect to how
sports teams are formed on the basis of gender, may obviously constrain
the examinationof same-and cross-genderevaluations.
As was previously noted, the presenceand absence of relationships
between humor and social distance, as well as the differencesin relationships among same- and cross-genderperceivedhumorousnessand social
distance within the different social status groups, may be a consequence
The reported findings
of the way in which social status has been assessed.
should, consequently,be cautiously interpreted. The observation that the
relationship between social distance and humor is dependent on socialstatus and the gender of the child who is doing the evaluating, as well as
the gender of the child who is being evaluated, concurs with this
assumption.
In other words, the recurrent relationships between humor and social
distancewithin each age group, which could be consideredas replications.
are not necessarilysufficient reason to interpret statistically significant
relationships as relevant scientific findings. The (theoretical) assumption
t
s
r
r
t
!
n
b
s'
u
d
o
p
p
s1
p
o
g(
al
r2
A
p(
g(
g(
g(
re
al
(l
m
aE
es
of
di
to
m'
To be or not to be humorous 139
red
Lish
ren
be
ted
tike
no
'his
lms
rnal
rcatren
the
not
nin
nay
ple,
)nal
The
the
ion.
now
rain
hips
.ion:cial
ence
lings
t the
rcialdl as
this
ocial
ions,
icant
ption
that humor will reduce social distance(the assumption of causaldirection;
Sherman 1988) should have resulted in stronger relationshipsbetween
perceived humor and social distance than observed in this study. The
present findings suggestthat humor as an explanatory variable' irrespecthe
tive of the social status of the children, explains at most 36% of
competencies)
(other
social
variables
Other
variance in social distance.
may play as important a role in the formation of social distance'
ihe pr"uiously discussedfindings proceed beyond the results reported
by Sherman in his 1988 study which formed the basis for the present
siudy. When the flndings of the present study for the 9-year-old children
*"r. "o.npured to the findings reported by Sherman, similarities and
differenceswere observed.However, despitedifferencesin the magnitude
of the relationships, the interrelationshipsamong same-and cross-gender
perceivedhumorousnessand social distance showed remarkably identical
putt"rn, for the American and the Dutch children. While in Sherman's
study, children who are perceived to be humorous by their same-gender
peers are not perceived to possesssmaller social distancesby their peers
of th. opposite gender, in the Dutch sample the peers of the opposite
gender also perceivethese children to possesssmaller social distances.In
uOaltion, the relationship between same-and cross-gendersocial-distance
ratings with the Dutch children is considerably stronger than with the
Ameiican children. This finding is probably basedon the Dutch children's
perception and/or experienceof considerably smaller, same- and crosspeer group and a lesseremphasison
lender social distanceswithin their
gender (see, for instance, the absenceof a relationship between crossgender with the Dutch children). With
lender social-distanceratings and
perceptions of the Dutch
cross-gender
and
iespect to humor, the sameand American children are almost identical'
In summary, the presentstudy detailed the resultsreported by Sherman
(1988) an<lamply demonstratedthat humor is a complex concept' The
meaning and interpretation of humor and perceived humorousness is
"good senseof humor" plays a role in the
ug.- und gender-related' A
establishmentof social distances among children and in the formation
of the social status of a child. To be humorous does seem to make a
difference.The present study, however, could not give conclusiveanswers
"how?" As has been noted throughout the discussion
to the question
more researchis definitely needed.
Universiteit van Amsterdam
and Miami University, Oxford' OH
140 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheimer,and L. Slrcrman
N
References
o
Asher, S. A. and K. A. Dodge
1986
tdentifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental
Ps1'chology 22, 444 449.
Babad.E. Y.
1974
A multi-method approach to the assessmentof humor: A critical look at
humor 1ests.Journal of Persctnalitl42,619 631.
Bell, N. J., P. E. McGhee, and N. S. Duffey
Interpersonal competence, social assertivenessand the development of
I9 8 6
humor. -Britrs&Journal of DevelopmentalPst't'hobgl 4, 5l 55.
Chapman,A. J.
1973
Social facilitation of laughter in children. Journul ol Experimental Social
Ps1'chologl'9, 528 541.
Coie, J. D., K. A. Dodge, and H. Coppotelli
1982
Dimensions and types oi social status: A cross-age perspective.
DevelopntentalPsychology 18, 557 570.
Darwin, C.
1873
Foot, H.
1 9 9I
Gilligan, C.
1982
Goodman. J.
1983
SI
Sh
The Expressionof Emotions in Man and Aninral.s.[Reprint 1955.New York:
Philosophical Library.l
Ta
The psychology of humor and laughter. In Cochrane, R. and D. Caroll
(eds.), Psychologyand Social li.raes. London: Falmer Press, I 14.
Tb
In a Diflerent Voice; Psychological Theory and Wonten's Development
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tb
w:
How to get more smileage out of your life: Making senseof humor, then
serving it. In McGhee, P. E. and J. H. Goldstein (eds.), Handbook oJ
Research in Humor: hl. II. Applied S/rdle"t. New York: Springer-Verlag,
| 2t.
Heller. K. A. and T. J. Berndt
Developmental changes in the formation and organization of personality
l98l
attributions. Child Dewbpntent 52.683 691.
K a n e . T . R . . J . S u l s .a n d J . T . T e d e s c h i
Humour as a tool of social interaction. In Chapman, A. J. and H. C. Foot
1971
(eds.), ft.i a Funny Thing, Huntour. Oxford: Pergamon, l3 16.
Krasnor. L. and K. Rubin
The assessmentof social problem-solving skills in young children. In
New
Merluzzi, T., C. Glass, and M. Genest (eds.), Cognltlle l.rse.r.snlertl.
York: Guilford Press.
Martineau, W H .
A model of the social functions of humor. In Goldstein, J. H. and P. E.
1972
McGhee (eds.), ?'fte Psy'chobgy of Hwrutr. New York: Academic Press,
101 125.
M a s t e n ,A . S .
I 986
Pr
Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Detelopment 57,
16t 473.
Zit
To be or not to be humorous t 4 l
McGhee,P. E.
1979
Humor It'.s Origins and Development.San Francisco: Freeman.
L.
Oppenheimer,
The nature of social action: Social oompetenceversus social conformism.
I 989
In Schneider, B. H., G. Attili, J. Nadel, and R. Weissberg (eds.), Socral
(\tmpetente in DevelopntentalPerspective.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 4l 69.
.ntal
kat
tof
ccial
tlve.
'ork:
aroll
menl
then
*oJ
. r l eo
Podilchak, W.
1992
Fun, funny, fun-of humor and laughter. Humor: Interruttional Journal of
Huntor Research5 4,375 396.
Sherman. L. W.
Humour and social distance ratings among elementary school children:
1985a
Some differential sex and age patterns. ln MacHale. D. (ed.), Proceedings,
FiJih Interruttionol ConJerenceon Humour. ERIC documenr ED 263-976.
Dublin: Boole.
1985b
H u m o r a n d s o c i a l d i s t a n c e .P e r t e p t u a lu n d M o t o r S k i l l s 6 1 , 1 2 7 4 .
Humor and social distance in elementary school children. Humor:
1988
Internationul Journal of Humor Researchl, 389 404.
Sherman,L. W. and Wolf, A.
lntrapersonal perceptions of shynessand humor as related to interpersonal
1984
perceptions of social distance and humorousness.Paper presented at the
4th International Congress on Humor. Tel Aviv.
Tannen, D.
You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation New York:
1990
William Morrow and Comoanv.
T h o m s o n .J . A . K .
1966
The Ethics oJ Aristotle. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
T h o r s o n .J . A . a n d F . C . P o w e l l
Measurement of senseof humor. Ps,-chologitalReports 69, 691 702
l99l
Warnars-Kleverlaan,N. and L. Oppenheimer
1989
Social competence and locus of control: A relationship reconsidered. In
Schneider, B. H., G. Attili, J. Nadel, and R. Weissberg (eds.), Socral
Competencein Devebpmental Perspet'tive.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 4l l-413.
Ziv, A.
I 981
rality
Foot
n. In
New
P. E.
Press,
n 5'1,
Personality and Sen,seof Huntor. New York: Springer.
HUTIUI;i
1 9 9 6V o l u m e9 - 2
CONTENTS
R E V I E WA R T I C L E
T o b e o r n o t t o b e h u m o r o u s :D o e s
it makea difference?
Nel Warnars-Kleverlaan, Louis
Oppenheimer, and Larry Sherman 1 1 7
T h e p o t e n t i a lf o r u s i n g h u m o r i n
g l o b a la d v e r t i s i n g
Lynette S. Unger
143
W o m e n ,a g i n g ,a n d s e n s eo f h u m o r
James A. Thorson and F. C. Powell 1 6 9
P u n s :S e c o n dt h o u g h t s
Walter David Redfern
181
Partisan perceptionsof political
numor
Richard E. Weise
199
NOTES
L e n n yB r u c e ' ss e m a n t i ch o l e s
Sol Saporta
209
F a l l e nA n g e l o ' sd i s r e s p e c t f uwl o r d p l a y :A b l a s p h e m o u ps u n i n
Measure for Measure
Robert F. Fleissner
211
Humor and play in Native American
life, review of lndi'n Humor:
Bicultural Play in Native America, by
K e n n e t hL i n c o l n
Allan J. Byan
zt3
B O O KR E V I E W S
Gail Finney (ed.), Look Who's
Laughing:Genderand Comedy
Annette Stavely
221
A n a t Z a j d m a n ,H u m o r
Avner Ziv
224
D e b o r a hJ . H i l l , S c h o o l D a y s , F u n
Days: Creative Ways to Teach
Humor Skillsin the Classroom
Jordan D. Brown
225
Thomas Pughe, Comic Sense;
Reading Robert Coover, Stanley
Elkin, Philip Roth
John G. Parks
228
NEWSLETTER
tssN0933-1719
Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin . New York