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

NEL WARNARS-KLEVERLAAN, LOUIS OPPENHEIMER,ANd LARRY SHERMAN

Abstract

Humor is thought to be a social instrument or a social skill that afibct's the

outcomes oJ'social interactions. The purposes of the present study 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) cross-

sectional sturiy. For these purposes, 225 children and adolescents divided

over three age groups (9-, I2-, and l5-year olds) with three complete

classrooms tuithin each age group participated in this study. All subjects

\)ere presented with measures assessing humor, funniness, social distance,

play and work preferences, and social status. The results shotv that" (a)

from the age of 12, children evaluate their peers' humorousness on the hasis

of increasingly more detailed and specified social and personality character-

istics; ( b ) already at the age of 9, females perceive humorousness diferently

and perhaps more "realistically" than males; ( c ) being humorous or fun is

apparently not a sffic'ient characteristic to erplain smQller social distances;

(d) only "controversial" children obtained a meaningt'ul relation between

perceivecl humorousness and social distance; and (e) despite dffirences in

strength, the patterns oJ' interrelationships among perceived humorousness

and social tlistance in the present study and those reported by Sherman

(1985) showed a remarkable similarity.

Already in early philosophical views, humor is perceived as an ingredient

of human existence and a positive attribute that makes "man good

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

Humor 9 2 (1996), 117 l4I. 0933 1719/96/0009 0117€,Walter de Gruyter

ll8 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheimer, and L. Sherman

functions (Darwin 1955), l i tt le is known about the development of humor

and its role in interpersonal relationships (cf. Bell, McGhee, and Duffey

1986; Sherman 1988).

Studying humor as a social skill presents us with a fascinating paradox.

According to Mart ineau (1972), Goodman (1983) and Foot (1991)

humor is important in the formation and facilitation of social relation-

ships as well as in ending them. Consequently, humor will reduce as well

as increase social distances among people (Sherman 1988). As an "inter-

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 relations and

peer status in groups of children (Masten 1986). Humor, as an "interper-

sonal communication behavior," however, is also perceived as a socially

acceptable way to dissociate from people (to increase distances); by

means of humor, one can safely express negative feelings towards others.

Efforts to define humor have not been very successful. Because humor

is a multi-dimensional concept (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 achieve particular, sometimes contradictory,

. social goals is only one of its features. Other features involve (a) humor

production or the ability to be humorous; (b) a sense of 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 sense of humor and which do not.

The findings from different studies by Sherman ( 1985a, 1985b; Sherman

and Wolf 1984) and Masten (1986) suggest that humor is not derived

from social status (Chapman 1973), but that humor "in the form of

interpersonal humor perceptions is predictive of social status and friend-

ship preferences" (Sherman 1988: 390). That is, children perceived as

l

I(l1(\

IL

v

To be or not to be humorous I 19

humorous will evidence smaller social distances from their peers thanchildren who are perceived as not humorous. As early as six years old,gender differences in humor have been reported (McGhee 1979; Ziv1984): males more often create humor, females more often enjoy it.Explanations for this finding involve the relation between humor andgender-role expectations. Because humor is frequently aggressive, theinitiation of humor is often considered to be more appropriate for malesthan for females in Western society. Findings about perceived humorpartly support this view: Generally, sociometric humor ratings of peersresulted in a higher humor score for males (Ziv 1984). However, genderappears to be an important factor in perceived humor. Children of thesame gender are seen as more humorous than children of the oppositegender (Sherman 1988).

In a study involving three 4th-grade classrooms (71 children with amean age of 9.6 years), Sherman (1988) studied the role of gender in therelationship between humor and social distance. The data from this studyindicate that, consistently among both genders, children who were ratedas more humorous were also perceived as socially less distant. Childrenof the same gender rated each other as socially less distant as well asmore humorous than children of the opposite gender. These data suggestthat humor is a social instrument or a social skill that affects the outcomesof social interactions (cf. Krasnor and Rubin l98l). The purpose of thepresent study is to address the question whether v,,ithin a peer group,social distances are related to a particular social status, such as popularity,neglection, and rejection (cf. Oppenheimer 1989; Warnars-Kleverlaan andOppenheimer 1989).

According to Babad (1914), the method of sociometric humor ratingsis most appropriate to assess the humorousness of children as perceivedby their peers. By this method children were asked to rate all otherchildren in their class on their humorousness, by means of a five-pointLikert scale (Sherman 1988). In everyday l ife, humor is indicated interms of jokes, cartoons, and the behavior of others, that is, having funor being funny is used as a justification for humorous action, especiallywhen the social meanings of humor are analyzed (Podilchak 1992). Forexample, children often play with meanings just for fun. According toMcGhee (1919), the word "funny" more than any other related term, isused to mean humorous. For this reason, in the present study, humorwi l l be comDared to funniness.

120 N. Warnars-Kleverlqan, L. Oppenheimer, and L. Sherman

In his study on humor and social distance, Sherman (1988) suggestedthat humor in the form of interpersonal humor perceptions is predictive

of social status and friendship preferences. The present study involves areplication of Sherman's cross-sectional study in which, instead of oneage group (9-year olds), three age groups are used (9-, l2-, and l5-year-

olds). In addition to the instruments that assess the humorousness andsocial distance of the children by their peers, also a measure for funniness,play and work preferences, and social status are introduced. The purpose

of this study is to examine whether the relationship between humorous-ness ratings and social distance remains similar for different ages, whether

social distance relates to friendship preferences and social status, andwhether gender differences reported by Sherman are replicated with aDutch population. The results of the youngest age group (the 9-yearolds) will be compared with the results reported in the study bySherman ( 1988).

While the present study uses a correlational design to verify the rela-

tionship between perceived humorousness and perceived social distance,the assumption that humor will reduce social distances among people(Sherman 1988) allows a directional interpretation of the correlationcoefficients. That is, perceived humorousness can then be examined asan explanatory variable for the observed variance in perceived socialdistance.

Method

Subjects

The subjects in this study were 225 children and adolescents from middle-

class neighborhoods. They were divided among three age groups with

three complete (intact) classrooms within each age group. The age groups

represented 4th-graders (n:86; age-range from 8.6 to 10.7 years; meanage 9.3, 46 females and 40 males) and 6th-graders from elementaryschools (n--76: age-range from 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-range from 14.8 to l7.l years; mean age 15.8; 28 females and35 males). The three intact classrooms within each age group consistedof 25,32, and 29 4th-graders, 20,21, and 29 6th-graders, and 20, 19, and23 3rd-year students.

+

cS,

LI

g

saofa

( r

To be or not to be humorous 121

M aterials and procedure

Funniness. The funniness measure consisted of two open-ended ques-

tions. 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 concur-

rent 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

Sherman's 1988 procedure): "We want to find out how humorous people

are. By humorous we do not mean somebody who is looking strange or

somebody who is behaving sil ly. By a humorous individual we mean

somebody who has a good sense of humor, tells good jokes, makes other

people laugh, and can laugh at other's jokes." This definit ion with small

modifications was 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

humorousness by means of a five-point Likert scale (Sherman 1988).

With the exception of the child's own name, a l ist of printed names of

all the children in the class was presented. Following each child's name

a five-point continuum for humor judgements was presented, ranging

from (1) "not at all" to (5) "very much." The children could then rate

their peers by putting a mark in the column that best described the

other child.Three humor scores based on these ratings were calculated. These were

the mean (a) total-humor score (HUt) of a child given by all other

children in the classroom irrespective of gender; (b) same-gender humor

score (HUs; the humor ratings given by females to females and by males

to males), and (c) cross-gender humor score (HUc; the humor ratings

given by females to males or by males to females).

Social disttmc'e. For social distance a similar procedure was used. Again

a l ist of printed names of all the children. with the exception of the child's

own name, was presented. Five social distance judgments were presented

ranging from "I would l ike to have him/her as one of my best friends"

(rating l) to "l wish he/she weren't in our group" (rating 5). Again each

a

122 N. Wurnars-Kleverlaun, L. Oppenheirner, antl L. Sherman

child could rate all the other children by indicating which statement bestdescribed each child. The mean social distance scores were calculated inexactly the same way as the humor scores. That is, the mean (a) totalsocial distance score ( SDt ) of a child given by all children in the classroomirrespective of gender; (b) same-gender social distance score (SDs; thesocial-distance ratings given by females to females and by males to males);and (c) cross-gender social distance score (SDc; the social-distance ratingsgiven by f-emales to males or by males to females).

Socictl StutLt.s. Two lists of classmates were used to assess social status.For the positive-nomination the children were required to circle the namesof three chi ldren they l iked the most . For the negat ive-nominat ion theywere required to circle the names of three children they l iked the least.Nomination scotes were based on the responscs lrom all the pcers irre-spective ol- gcnder. To assess the social status of a child a method similarto the one descr ibed by Asher and Dodge (1986)was used. This methodinvolves the cornputation ol' the l iequencies tbr positive and negativenominatior.rs Ibr each child and the transformation of these frequencresinto standerrdized z-scores fbr l iking (L) and disliking (D) wirhin eachclassroom. Following this transfbrmation. the social preference (SP) andsocial impact (SI )scores were computed. The social preference (SP)scoreis determined by subtracting the standardized disliking score l iom thestandardized l ik ing score; the socia l impact (SI)score by adding thestandardized liking and disliking scores for each child. The classificationprocedure consists of f itt ing each child into one of f ive groups that arecharacterized by dil i-erent values for SP. SI. L. and D. Popular children(SP> 1.0. L>0, and D<0) are in terpreted as being cooperat ive andshow leadership behavior and seldom disrupt the group, f ight, and askfor help. Rejacrecl ch i ldren (SP<-1.0, L<0, and D>0) are chi ldrenwho cooperate l itt le and show no ieadership qualit ies; they often disruptthe group, f ight. and seek help. l{eglet:ted children (SI< -1.0. L<0, andD<0) distinguish themselves from the rejected children in that they areuot actually disliked by their peers; they are only not n.rentioned asclri ldren othcrs would want to be friends with. Controversiul children(S l>1 .0 . L>0 , and D>0)comb ine cha rac te r i s t i cs o f t he re jec ted andpopular children. These children are perceived as disruptive. start f ights.and frequently seek help. On the other hand, they are also perceived asleaders. Though not cooperative, they are also not perceived as lacking

((

e

cj ,

a

a

nap

To be or not to be lumrtrous 123

th is bel rav ior . Average chi ldren ( 0.5 <SP<0.5 and -0.5 <Sl<0.5) ,normally the largest group of children within a peer group, are evaluated

to be average on cooperation, leadership, attraction, etc. (sec Asher andDodge 1986; Coie. Dodge, and Coppote l l i 1982).

Play and v'ork pre/brences ,st'ale. Play and work preferences were

obtained by asking the children to indicate the children they prel-er towork with and prefer to play with in their classroom. The rating categonesranged f rom ( l ) ' ' I don ' t l i ke t o p lay iwo rk a t a l l w i t h . . . " t o (5 ) " I am

very eager to play/work with... ". As with humor and social distance.

separate average same- and cross-gender ratings were determined.

The various assessment instruments were presented in a fixed order ir.r

four sessions with two-week intervals between each session. The questror-r-

naires and scales for funniness. social distance and play and work prefer-

ences, humor, and social status were presented in this respective order.Afler two months. a second humor assessment was done with one classo f 9 -yea r o lds (n :32 )and one c lass o f l 2 - yea r o lds (n :27 ) , pe r rn i t t i ng

the calculation of test-retest reliabil i t ies lbr the humor measure.

Results

M uteriuls and proc'edure

Funnines,s. To the question "name the most funny chiid(ren) in theirclass." 88%, of the children responded with at least one child. Of thechildren who were not able to mention a l lnny child. three children gave

n very negative view of their peers: "nobody was lunny, all were dumb.

Almost eighty percent (79'f,,) of the responses to the rvhy-question

could be classified into five categories involving responses re{errin-e tojoking, acting funny. laughing (either together or alone). making subtleand witty remarks, and being funny. The rnajor diff'erence between the

explar.rations "acting" and "being" funny concerned the use of behavioralversus psychological or personality characteristics. To permit Chi-square

analysis for independent samples. oniy the first explar.ration for the funni-

ness of a child was scored. In Table 1. the resulting frequencies. percent-

ages, and total number of responses lbr each response category arepresent. Chi-square analyses showed the response categories nclt to be

sI

rIeS

l

Jtr

en

ndt .^

n)tA

g

IS

nd

S ,

IS

)

124 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheinrer, and L. Sherman

independent of age (y) ( 10) : 52.1 8,p < .001 ). No relation between genderand the response categories could be demonstrated. Separate, one-sampleChi-square analyses demonstrated that the 9-year olds perceived funni-ness 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 andwitty remarks, "being funny," and "other" characteristics (X2(5):28.12;p <.001 ). Although for the l2-year olds the frequencies for the differentresponse categories differed (y2(5):42.9; p <.001), this age group couldbe perceived as transitional when compared to the changes between the9- and 15-year olds. The responses classified as "other" may tentativelyillustrate the multidimensional nature of the construct of humor.Creativity, appearances, tendentious jokes, social distance, and the useof unique and unexpected remarks are recurrent themes in these responsesand together with the five major response categories closely coincide withthe features of the humor concept. These additional themes in theresponses of the children became more evident from the age of 12.

To relate the data obtained for funniness to the humor ratings, thefrequency of the funniness nominations for each child were transformedinto standardized z funniness scores (F) for each child within eachclassroom.

Huntor. To obtain the concurrent validity between the funniness mea-sure and the humor scale the mean total humor score (HUt) was corre-lated with the standardized funniness score (F) for each age group. Thecorrelations ranged from .71 to .93 with mean correlations of .76, .80,and .84 for the 9-,12-, and l5-year olds, respectively. These results showa high concurrent validity and confirm the assumption that "funny" isused to mean humorous (McGhee 1919).

The analysis of the total humor scores (HUt) by means of a two-wayANOVA, resul ted in a main ef t -ect fbr age (F(2. 219)-4.19. p<.01) aswell as fbr gender (F(1 ,219) : 14.17 . p < .00 I ). The 9-year old childrenreceived s igni f icant ly h igher humor scores (2.59) than the 12- (2.33)and 15-year o lds (2.31) . The males in th is s tudy received a s igni f icant lyhigher (2.59) mean total humor score than the females (2.21). No effectfor the interaction between age and gender was evident. A 3 x 2 x 2(age x gender x humor) ANOVA, with the last variable consisting of thesame- and cross-gender humor scores (HUs and HUc)and t reatcd as arepeated measurement, revealed significant main effects lbr agc(F (2 ,219 ) -4 .73 , p < .01 ) and gende r (F (2 .219 ) :16 .10 , p < .001 ) bu t no t

}l"

To be or not to be humorous 125

Table 1. The .frequent.ies Jbr the frst explanation to the question why a thild tt'us con,sidered

.finn;, ( percentage.s betu,een brackets I

Categories Age9 years( n : 8 6 )

I 2 years( n - 7 6 )

I 5 years( n : 6 3 )

Total( n - -225 )

joking"acting" funnylaughingwitty remarks"being" funnyother

Total

17 (22 .4 \I 5 (19 .7 \l 5 ( 1 9 . 7 )1 0 ( r 3 . 2 )9 ( 1 r . 8 )

1 0 ( 1 3 . 2 )

2 r 2 ( 3 . 2 1]e 6 (9 . s )16 9 (14 .3 )24 14 (22.2. \s 16 (25.1\

24 16 (2s.4)

t r3 63

-t 5l -r89 4 6 5 5

10 36 39l9 30 5018 3 l JJt 9 3 1 5 5

312 7t376

12

2512665

1 5 1 1t 1 90 4 9- r 5 64 5 6- r 3 4l t lJ 3 - l3 2 - l

( 3 1 . 2 )( 29 .1 )( 1 3 . e )( 6 . e )( 6 9 )( 5 . 8 )

99 15 78 225

S

h

edh

ryIS

)n

l )lyat

2

a

o,

Othercreativitystupid remarkssocial distancegeneral remarkstendentiousappearanceuniquelunexpectedhumorhaving guts

2I2U000U0

5l5I0t l

U(.)0

222I2I

( t

00

t-

].

J,

is

The response category "other" is specificd separately. The italicized liequencies represent

the total number of responses (involving all explanations offered by a child).

for the interaction between age and gender. Also the humor measures

di f fered s igni f icant ly ( ,F(1,219):135.56, p<.001), as wel l as the humor

by age i n te rac t i on (F (2 ,219 ) :18 .16 . p< .001 ) A 3 x2 (agexgende r )

ANOVA on the same-gender humor ratings (HUs) revealed significant

ef fects for age (F(2,219):13.22, p<.001) and gender ( -F(1,219):11.68,

p<.001). A similar analysis on the cross-gender humor ratings (HUc)

resulted in a main effect for gender only for HUc (F(1,219):17.25,

p < . 0 0 1 ) .In Table 2, the same- and cross-gender humor ratings for each gender

and age group are presented. Post-hoc analyses (Fisher's protected LSD)

indicated that the differences in same-gender ratings between the 9-year

olds and the I 2- and I 5-year olds are significant (p < .00 I ) ' These findings

indicate that the humor scores given to same-gender peers become signifi-

cantly lower and apparently more "realistic" from the age of 12. For the

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-centler hunutr antl soLiul-tli,stuncc raIitlg.\ ht gentler ./br thetltret' ugt groups

Humor rat ings

9-year oldsCender of ratcr

I 2-year oldsGender of ratcr

I 5-year o ldsGender o l rater

same ,l/ cross ,t sitme dJ' cross ,t same ,tl cross ttJ

Female 2.87Ma le 3 .07

62 2 .1 365 2 .38

6-l9-l

-t0OE

2.22 63 I .93 . JJ 2.342.83 .76 2 .49 .73 2 .50

1 . 9 92.38

. 6 1r I2

Social d istance

same dl' cross ,l same dl' cross dl same tt/ cross tll

Female l . )9M a l e | . 3 1

65 2.427.t 2.72

7t 1 .93,5-t 1.87

.63

. 7 76 2 l . 1 9 . 6 65 0 1 . 8 8 . 6 1

56 l , - ) /

1 . 4 5l . 9 tl . 7 5

Note that in this table a low social-distance ratin-s implics a small social clstancc.

were evident. with respect to gender, post-hoc analyses indicated signifi-cant differences between males and females for the same- and cross-gender humor ratings (p <.001 ) showing that consistently over-age malesreceived significantly higher humor ratings than females from their maleas well as their female peers.

Sociul Distance. The total social-distance scores (SDt) were analyze<lby means of a two-way ANOVA and resulted in a main effect for age(F(2.219) : 5 .6 I , p <.01 ) and gender (F(1,219): 4.89, p < .05 ) . perceived

social distance was significantly greater in the youngest age group (1.94)as compared to the two o lder age groups (1.66 and l . j4 for the 12- andl5-year olds, respectively). Females perceived their peers to have signifi-can t l y l ess soc ia l d i s tance (1 .71 ) t han ma les (1 .88 ) . A 3x2x2(age x gender x humor) ANOVA, with the last variable consisting of thesame- and cross-gender social-distance scores (SDs and SDc) and treatedas a repeated measurement, revealed significant main effects for age(F (2 ,219 ) :5 .87 , p< .01 ) and gende r (F (2 ,219 ) :3 .61 , p : . 05 ) bu t no rfor the interaction between age and gender. Also the social distancemeasures differed significantly (F( 1,219 ): 336. I 3, p < .001 ), as well as allother higher order interactions. A 3x2 (agexgender) ANOVA on thesame-gender social-distance ratings revealed significant effects for gender

t -

S-

3S

le

TLt be or not to be lrumorous 121

(F( I ,219 ) : 9.07, p < .01) and the interaction between age and gender(F(2,219):5.35, p <.01) . t ror the cross-gender socia l -d is tance rat ings.

s igni f icant ef fects for age (F(2"219):35.85, p<.001) and the in teract ion

between age and gender could be demonstrated (F(2,219): 3.12. p < .05 ) .In Table 2 the same- and cross-gender social-distance ratings by gender

for the three age groups are presented. Post hoc analyses (Fisher's pro-

tected LSD) revealed that the 9-year olds rated their peers of the samegender to have a significantly greater social distance than did the l2- andl5-year o lds (p<.05) .With respect to the cross-gender rat ings (SDc), i t

was again the 9-year olds only who perceived their peers of the othergender to have a significantly greater social distance than their peers of

the same gender (p <.001 ). With respect to gender, only the same-gender

social-distance ratings were significant. Females rated their female peers

lower in socia l d is tance than the males rated thei r male peers (p<.01) .

Pearson product-moment correlation coefllcients were calculated

between the total humor ( HUt) and social distarrce ratings (SDt) irrespec-

tive of the gender of the rater and ratee. These coeflrcients attained -.48,

.56, and - .57 for the 9- , 12- and l5-year o lds. respect ive ly . Thc

hypothesis that humor wil l reduce social distances (Sherman 1988) allowsfor the assumption of a (causal ) direction for these correlation coefficientsshowing that 23 to 32 percent of the variance in social-distance ratings

can be explained by the humor ratings. ln Table 3, the intercorrelations

are shown between the same- and cross-gender ratings for humor and

social distancc for each age group and all age groups combined. As can

bc observed from this table. the relationships between the different rat-

ings, though varying in magnitude, are relatively consistent over the three

age groups.

Reliubility. Test-retest reliability scores for the humor measurement

obtained with 9- and l2- year olds were calculated by means of Spearmanrank-order coefficients. The reliabil i ty coelicients were .79 and .93( p < .001 ) for the 9- and |2-year olds, respectively. With the f 'emales, the

same-gender means corre lated .1 | (p<.01) and .94 (p<.001), whi le the

cross-gender means corre lated .69 (p<.01) and .91 (p<.001). For the

males, t l re same-gender means corre lated .89 (p <.001 ) and .76 p <.01\

and the c ross -gende r means .88 (p< .001 ) and .76 (p< .01 ) . Ove ra l l .

these coelicients indicated a satisfactory test-retest reliabil i ty for the

humor measurement.

, i

:dl )

Ld

fr-2ledge

0tcerll :

i

I

I

128 lrl. Ifarnurs-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheimer, ancl L. Sherntan

Table 3. The intertorrelations belv'een sume- und tross-gender so(.iatl-di.stanrc antl humorratingsJi;r eadr age group'epuratell'and all uge groups comhinetl (intluding age us variable)

9-year olds (ri : 86 ) SDc HUs HUc

SDcHUsHUcGender

.66* *

.37+*- . 02

- . 3 2 r *- . 3 1 * * .67*4

. 1 6 - . 2 1 *

12 -yea r o l ds ( n :76 \ SDs HUs HUc

SDcHUsHUcGender

.56+ *

.26+- . 0 7

- . 5 8 * *

.06.70* *

_ . 4 1 * * _ . 4 1 * r

I 5-year olds ft :63 ) SDs SDc H U s H U c

SDcHUsHUcGc'nder

.49+ *

.34* *- . 4 8 + +

- . 43 * *- .60** .92*+

. l l - 1 0

Al l ages (n:225) SDs H U s HUc Gender

- .02 - .01

*p< .05 ; * *p< .o luGender was a binary coded variable: girls=0 and boys: L

Play und n'ork preJbrences. The scores on this measure involved peerratings with respect to play and work preferences. The intercorrelationsbetween the play and work preferences and the total humor (HUt) andsocial distance (SDt) scores for each classroom peer group separatelyindicated that the social-distance scale and the play and work preferencesscale assessed the same variable. The correlation coe{icients between theSDt and work and play preferences ranged from -.gl to -.94 for thenine peer groups. For the same- and cross-gender play and work prefer_ences identical results were found. children with whom others would l iketo play and work are also the children who are perceived to be close toothers (with small social distances). As with social distance. sienificant

SDc

SDcHUsHUcGenderuAge

- . 32 * *. l 8 * *. l 6 *

- . 4 3 + r

. 0 1. 7 7 + *

.29**

To be or nlt to be humorous 129

but considerably weaker relationships were evident between humor and

play and work preferences. Because the 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.

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-status groups as

the independent variable were performed on the total social-distance

(SDt) and humor scores (HUt) separately for each age group. With

respect to social distance, the three ANOVAs revealed significant effects

(p < .001 ) for the socia l -s tatus groups ( f (4,85 ) :26.6, F(4.15) :32.02,

and F(4,62):13,32, p<.001 for the 9-, l2-, and l5-year olds, respec-

tively). This finding indicates that social distance is related to social

status. A similar relationship could be demonstrated between social-

status and humor. The -F-values were 5 .59, 5.2, and I .51 ( p < .01 ) for the

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 possess the

smallest social distance and the rejected children the greatest social dis-

tance from their peers. Separate one-way ANOVAs indicated that the

popular children could be distinguished from all other social-status

groups with the exception of the l5-year old controversial group -

on the basis of low social distances (p<.05). Similarly, the rejected

children could be distinguished from all other social-status groups by

signil icantly larger social distances (p<.05). With the humor scores, a

different picture emerges. The only distinctions based on the humor

scores that could be made between the social-status groups were between

the popular and rejected groups and the controversial and rejected groups'

These tlistinctions demonstrated significantly lower humor scores for 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

neglected children do not distinguish themselves on the basis of their

social distance, nor humor ratings from the average children. The

neglected children appear to be reasonably well-liked and to possess a

reasonable sense of humor.

When the same- and cross-gender social distance and humor ratings

are considered separately, complex patterns of interrelationships between

ler

)eI

NS

ndty)eshe

he

ketornt

130 N. Wumur,s-Kleverlacrn, L. Oppenheirner, and L.

Tablc 4. TI te nrcun sot iu l d i .y tunte (SDt) und huntor sun'es ( I tLt1

for cucltSotitrl-.ytutu.s aroup untl uge

Shernrun

tr rttl .s t tutd ur d d t' t, i u t i on s

Soc ia l d i s t ance lSD t I H u m o r ( H U r )

(

c

rS

tS

dS

tl

7Sbn

.1,5

. 4 9

. -)i

.70

:93 I171-12q

29401Il 719

v vears I 2 ycars l5 years 9 years 12 1 'cars I 5 ycars

rnean sd mean stl ntcan .ut mean sd mean sd lnean sd

Popular 1.48Average 1.90Controv. 3.02Neglected 2.84Rejectcd 2.79

1.22 - r ,5 2 .81t .61 .11 ) .64l . 5 8 . 6 1 2 . 8 5I .91 -r.r ) .61l.-.]rl . -t-t 2.05

2 . 7 3 . 6 5 2 . 6 6 . 7 12.21 .54 2.06 .682 . 6 4 r i l 3 . 5 5 r 0 52.09 .1 : 2 .18 .671.84 ._56 1 .80 .59

Notc that in th is table a lou socia l d istance score impl ies a srnal l real socia l d istance,

age, gender, and social status became evident. In general, however, theresul ts f rom the four separate 3x2x5 (agexgenderxsocia l s tatus)ANOVAs repeat the previously reported findings for the effects of age,

-qender. and social status for the total social-distance and humor scores.Correlations computed between the total social-distance and humor

ratings (SDt and HUt) and between the same- and cross-gender, sociald is tance (SDs and SDc) and humor scores (HUs and HUc) for eachsocial-status group revealed a surprising pattern (see Table 5). For thepopular and rejected groups the correlation between SDt and HUt didnot attain significance. With the average and neglected groups. the corre-lations between these variables were significant. The magnitude of thecoefllcients. however, suggested that only 6 to 12 percent of the variancein social distance could be explained by humor. In contrast to thesefindings, the relationship between the SDt and HUt with the controversialgroup was .78. If i t is a-eain assumed that humor wil l reduce socialdistances (Sherman 1988). then with the controversial children approxr-mately 60 percent of the variance in social distance could be explaincdby the humor ratings. (Note that the controversial group consisted ofoniy 14 chi ldren.)

For the controversial children in particular it was the cross-gendersocial-distance ratings (SDc) that related most strongly with the cross-gender humor rat ings (HUc: - .14, p <.001). The re lat ionship betweenSDs and HUs. while lower, was sti l l strongest within the controversialchildren as compared to the other social-status groups. For the othersocial-status groups, the relationship between SDc and HUc and between

l . l t i1 . 6 1t . 7 5r . 6 8l.-s7

Tr

iPr

ln

SIHH

C(

T:

STHrHI

Re

ln .

STHIH I

No*p

SDcH U sH U c

SDcH U sH U c

SDcHUsHLIc

I

7t68.0i. 6 7.59

theus)

'es.

00rialachthedidrre-the

rese'sial

'cial

oxi-.nedl o f

rder'OSS-

veenrsialrther

veen

To bc or not to be lunrorous 131

SDs and HUs was more varied. While for the neglected and rejected

groups the relationship between SDs ancl HUs was the only significant

relationship between these variables, with the average group it was the

strongest relationship. While no significant relationship was present

between SDt and HUt for the popular children, the relationships between

S D c a n d H U c a n d S D s a n d H U s w e r e i c l e n t i c a l b u t w e a k ( - . 3 0 a n d-.32. p<.05) . These f ind ings suggest that the re lat ionship between socia l

d i s tanceandhumor (e i t he rnega t i veo rpos i t i ve ) i sdependen tonsoc ia l -status and the gender of the chilcl who is rated as well as the gender of

the rater.

Tlte replication. One of the purposes of the present study was to replicate

Sherman's (198S) study and to compare the data of the 9-year o lds in

b o t h s t u < l i e s . I n T a b l e 6 ( s e e a l s o T a b l e 2 ) . t h e s a m e - a n d c r o s s - g e n d e rmean social distance and humor scores by gender reported in the Sherman

Table 5. corrt,ltttiDrts L|efiitienl,s halx�eut lhe sutrtc- ttntl trttss-gtnrlcr' \0(iul-di'\lun((' (sDs

untl SDt.) drtd huntor ruring,s (HLts ttnd HLL) lor thc .fivt difli 'rtttt to(iol-sldtLt,t groups

Popu la r ( / [SD t .HU t ] : - . 15 ) Ave rage ( f lSD t .HU t l : - . 25 * )

[ r : 5 9 ]H U s [ r r :7 t ) ] H U sSDcSDs SDc

- . 0 5

. 3 0 *- . t 0

.20

. 1 3

. 1 1

. I 0

. l-5*

Con t rov . ( r ISD I 'HU t ] : - . 78 * * ) Neg lec ted ( r ISD t .HU t ] : - . 34 * )

H U s [ r r - . {1 ] SDs SDc[ r r : l4 l SDs SDc

- . 0 6

- . J 7-. -i,9

. 2 1

.15** - .06

. 1 9 . 1 9

Rejected (r lSDt.HUt l - - .25 )

[ r :41 ] H U sSDcSDs

. t 0- . 3 6 * . 0d

. ) 0

* p < . 0 5 : * * P < . 0 1

132 |tl. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheilner, and L. Sherman

Table 6. Sume- and tross-gender mean sotiul-distunte and ltLunor scores by gentler JittSlrcnnun'.s ( 1988: 396) and the present studv (underlined)

Talrati

HumorGender o l ' rater

Social distanceGender of rater

same C T O S S

SDHLHLGer

bet

19',ASS

( MI

chichi"fu

un(Ouprirancno l

i s tregioribec

t o (psy

Cor"dir

terisociSpethatalit.

Female

Male

2.89 2 .87

2.89 3 .07

(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 differences between Sherman's( 1988 ) f indings and the results of the present study with a Dutch popula-

tion 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-gender difference is present showing that males receive

a significantly higher humor rating from males than females receive from

females ( / (39) :2.05, p<.05) .With the socia l d is tance rat ings the same-

gender ratings are considerably lower 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 cross-

gender ratings the findings of the present study show a similar effect as

reported by Sherman. That is, cross-gender ratings "which males received

from females were significantly higher (greater social distance) than the

cross-gender ratings which females received from males." Despite these

differences and the considerably higher relationships in the present study

between same- and cross-gender social-distance ratings (.63 versus.3l)

and between same-gender humor ratings and cross-gender social distance

ratings (-.32 versus .18; see Table 7), the correlation patterns for the

present and Sherrnan's study are very similar.

Discussion

The guiding hypothesis of the present study stated that humor as a social

competence or "interpersonal communication behavior" would facilitate

social interaction (Sherman 1988: 390) and reduce the social distances

2.12. 2. 1 3

2 .37 2 .38

I . 8 8 L 2 9

2.06 1 .31

2.91 2 42

3 . 5 6 2 . 7 2

To be or not to be humorous 133

TableT.Tlrc i t t ter t t l r re lc l t i t lnnrutr i rJbrsante-unt l r ' ross-gent lerst lc ia l -d istant 'ean.dhutnorrat ings fbr Shermun's (1958. 397; n-74) ant l the present studl (under l ined' n:86)

SDs SDc HUs HUc

Sher PresSher

7 )

ociallitatetnces

SDc .31 * *

HUs - .63**

HUc .30*Gender .14 .02

- . 1 8

.40**

.67**- . t 6

- . 3 1 * + . 6 l x x

. 2 7 * . 0 0

Ihe,nd

.n's

rla-rndy a

:iveomme-can(to

CSS-

t a sLvedthe

neseudy. 3 1 )lnce' t h e

t 1

Mrte*p < .05; **p < .01 .

between the "humorous" individual and others ( Kane, Suls, and Tedeschi

1 9 7 7 ; M a s t e n l 9 8 6 ; S h e r m a n l 9 8 8 ) . R e d u c e d s o c i a l d i s t a n c e s w e r eassumed to affect peer relations and peer status in groups of children

(Mas ten 1986 ) .

Humor or a "good sense of humor" certainly is a characteristic that

children take into account when evaluating their relationships with other

chil<lren. Conforming with McGhee's ( 1979) assumption' the word

"funny" was indeed conceived by children to mean humorous' The

understanding and perception of humor changes as children are older'

Our {rndings suggest that with the younger children' humorousness is

primarily defined by observable behavior, by acting or behaving funny

and by tell ing jokes. Often these jokes are worded in terms that are not

no rma l l yusec l i n thehomeandc lass roomse t t i ng .Humorousness , then 'is perceived as behavior (acting and jokes) that is incongruous with the

regular normative setting (cf. McGhee 1979)' This emphasis on behav-

ioral incongruity decreases as the children are older' Humorousness

becomes more defined by the abil ity to produce witty remarks' that ls'

to ofl 'er apt retorts and is thought of more in terms of personality or a

psychologicalcharacter is t ic thanperceivedasabehaviora lcharacter is t ic .

Correspondingwi ththesechangesincorrcept ionso|humorousness|rom"dirty joke" to apt retort and from a behavioral to a personality charac-

t e r i s t i c , a l s o e x p l a n a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u c h a s c r e a t i v i t y .social distance, appearance, and "having guts" become more apparent'

Speculatively, this increase in the variety of characteristics may imply

tha t f i omtheageo f l 2ch i l d rencometounde rs tand then ru l t i d imens ion -ality of the concept of humor ( Foot 199 I ) '

134 N. Warnars-Kleverlacm, L. Oppenheimer, and L. Sherman

Irrespective of age, humorousness is perceived differently by girls andboys. Gender differences in humor perception were reported by McGhee(1919) and Ziv ( 1984). According to McGhee (1919), boys more of tencreate humor, girls more often enjoy it. A possible explanation for thisgender difference is sought by McGhee in the relation between humorand gender-role expectations. That is. because humor is frequently aggres-sive, the init iation of humor is often considered to be more appropriatefbr boys than for girls. ln the present study. gender also plays an impor-tant role in perceived humor; not only are children ol the same genderperceived to be more humorous than children of the opposite gender (cf.Shcrman 19U8), but boys are perceived to be more humorous by theirmale und female peers. Though this finding could be accepted as supportlbr McGhee's (1979) assumpt ion, i t is not c lear whether the h igher levelof perce ived humorousness is a result of a more aggressive type of humor,or that boys init iate humor more often than girls. or because girls andboys experience humor dil lerently.

ln the present study. the younger boys were considered to be muchrnore humorous by their male peers than their female peers. While thereis ample evidence that younger children "overattribute" in their socialjudgments (c l ' . Hcl ler and Berndt 1981), th is should have occurred wi thboth boys and girls. However, while these same-gender higher humorperceptions lbr boys decreased with age, with the girls, no such age-related changes in the same-gender humor perceptions were observed.fhe convergence of same- and cross-gender humor perceptions of boysand girls at the age of 15 suggests that already at the age of 9 girlsperceive humorousness differently, perhaps more "realistically" thanmales. The latter f inding suggests that an argument could be made thatgender differences in humor perception are due to dif lerences in theexperience of humor by girls and boys. rather than the aggressivity orthe frequency of init iation of humor. Clearly more research wil l be neededto clarify this issue. In addition, i l overattributions are made with respectto peer evaluations, it is not clear whether such overattributions are alsomade with respect to younger and older children. To study this issue, usecould be made of mixed-age ciassrooms (for example. within theMontessori educational system), younger and older children are sti l lsufTiciently known to the children to permit valid evaluations of a particu-lar characteristic ( humorousness).

Gender differences were also observed fbr social distance. While girlspcrceived themselves to be closer to one another than boys (cf. Gil l igan

Iadp

irtl

c(alIriddireca

foinabferpeFchurelobtiocol

Sln

pe(judtheoulSptintrdecplasoc& 8 '

Tstal

I

girls

ligan

Ttt be or not to be huntorous 135

1982 ;Tannen l990 ) ' t hepe rce i vedsoc ia ld i s tancesbe tweeng i r l saswe l las the social distances perceived by girls between themselves and boys

did not change lbr different ages' With boys, on the other hand' the

perceived social distances between themselves and their male peers

i n c r e a s e , l i n o l d e r b o y s , w h i l e t h e p e r c e i v e d s o c i a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e nthemselves and girls decreased.

ln the introductlon to this study, it was argued that humor as a social

competencewi l la f fectsocia lc l is tancesbetweent l rehumorousindiv iduala n d o t h e r s . A n a s s u r n p t i o n t h a t p o s s e s s e s a n a l m o s l i n t u i t i v e v a l i d i t y :Indivrduals with a good sense of humor arc fun to be with! The recurrent'

identical patterns of interrelationships anrong perceived humor and social

d is tancefor theagegroupSstudiedindicatedthalperceivedl runrorousnessrelates to perceived social distance. Each recurrent correlatton pattern

can thet l bc pcrecivcd as a repl icat ion '

That is, if perceived humorousness is taken as the explanatory variable

for variance in social distances, then thc absencc of age-related changes

in girls' perceived humorousness of girls and boys nicely explains thc

absence o1 erge-related changes in girls' perccived social distances to their

female and male peers. Similarly. because olcler boys perceived their male

pee rs lobe lesshumorous . thesoc ia l c i i s t i r nccsbe tweenboys inc reased .

For t1.,. boys' perceivcd social distances to girls' horvever' perceived

humorousness fails to offer a satisfactory explalatiol While no age-

relatecl changes in thc boys' perception ol' girls' humorousness was

obse rved , theboys 'pe rce i vedsoc ia ld i s tances tog i r l sdec reased . l nadd i -tion, the girls' low perceived humorousness o1' their female peers' as

compared to the i rma lepee rs ,doesno tco r respond to thcg i r l s ' pe rce i vedsmaller social distanccs to their female peers as compared to their male

p e e r s . W h i l e o u r f i n d i n g s a m p l y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e a b l e t c rjudge therr peers ln terms of humorousness or funniness ( McGhee I 979 )'

t he la t t e r f i n< l i ngsSugges t tha ta . . goodsenseo Ih t tmor ' ' o rbe inghumor -ous may not be sufficient to explain differcnces in social distance'

S p e c u l a t i v e l y , i t c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t a s c h i l d r e n b e c o m e o l d e r t h e i rinterest in the opposite gender increases, which could explain the observed

dec reaseo f theboys 'pe rce i vcdsoc ia ld i s tances tog i r l s "bu t l eavesunex 'plaine<l why the same decrease clid not occur with the girls' perceived

social clistances to boys. At the age of 15. there is no reason to assulne

a gender difference in the attraction for the oppositc gcnder'*B ,v re la t i ngpe rce i vedhumorousnessandsoc ia ld i s tance to theSoc ia l

s ta tuso |ch i l c l r en .add i t i ona l suppo l . t f o r t h i sSugges t i on rvasob ta inec i .

I

nIS

) I

S-

,r-er- f

:ir)rtrel1 f

nd

rch

:ial'ith

10rge-'ed.

oys

;irlsnan

;hatthe

/ o r:dedpect

also

, usethesrill

ticu-

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%o controversial, and 3 loh average,)shows an approximate correspondence with the division reported byCoie, et al. (1982) for American children (22o/o popular,24'''/o neglected,24oh rejected, 130lo controversial, and l6ok average). When dealing withsocial status in relation to perceived humorousness and social distance,it is important to note that the determination of the social status of achild is based on peer evaluations irrespective of gender. This implies thatperceived humorousness and social distance irrespective of gender only,that is, the total humorousness and social-distance scores (HUt and SDt)can be related validly to social status.

When only the relationships between total perceived humorousnessand social distance are considered, the previously discussed recurrentrelationship between humor and social distance could not be observedfor the social status groups. Notwithstanding the fact that popular chil-dren are perceived by their peers to be cooperative, to show leadershipbehavior, and seldom disrupt the group, f ight, and ask for help (see Coie,et al. 1982), and contrary to the expectation, no relationship betweenhumor and social distance could be demonstrated. That is. while thesechildren were found to possess the smallest social distance to otherchildren, they were not perceived to be the children with the highesthumor ratings.

While the rejected children demonstrated the largest social distance toother children and obtained the lowest humor ratings, no relationshipbetween perceived humorousness and social distance was evident. lncontrast to the popular children, rejected children are perceived to showlitt le cooperation and no leadership qualit ies; they often disrupt thegroup, f ight, and seek help. For the neglected and average children,relationships, while moderate, were present between perceived humorous-ness and social distance. Neglected children distinguish themselves fromthe rejected children in that they are not actually disliked by their peers;they are just not mentioned as children others would want to be friendswith and are a low visibil i ty group. The average children constitute thelargest group of children within a peer group and are evaluated to beaverage in cooperation, leadership, attraction. etc.

The controversial children are described as an intermediate groupbetween the popular and rejected children. These children are perceivedto combine characteristics of both social-status groups. They are similar

clr2ggju

lildirawl

isb1tofirit5

,o

i ' l

by',1

ith

f a

1at

rly,

) t )

T-I

.ESS

ent

ved

hil-

hip

lese

:her

xest

e t o

;hip

. l n

now

the

.ren,

ous-

rom

ends

r the

o b e

roup

rivednilar

To be or not to be hwnorous 131

to the rejected children in that they are perceived as disruptive and start

fights; they also frequently seek help. On the other hand, they are also

perceived as leaders in the group. They are not perceived as cooperative

but they are also not perceived as lacking this behavior. Coie, Dodge,

and coppotell i (1982) describe these children as "visible, active, and

assertive ... Sometimes this activity takes the form of leadership and

sometimes it puts them in demand as leaders" (p.565). Elsewhere, the

same authors note that "one might speculate that controversial children

possess more positive social skills than they are described as having"

(p . s68) .with the controversial children, the relationship between perceived

humorousness and social distance was substantial. If social distance is

affected by humor, as was stated in the guiding hypothesis for this study,

then for this group more than 60 percent of the variance in social distance

is explained by humor. Hence, a good sense of humor may be one of

those "more positive skills" possessed by the controversial children that

make them a small but very special group of children within their peer

groups (coie, et al. 1982). Perhaps the controversial children are able to

use humor more "effectively," that is, by using humor to facilitate social

interaction thereby promoting friendships and relationships and by using

humor as a socially acceptable way to dissociate people or express in a

socially acceptable manner negative feelings towards others (cf.

Martineau 1972).

The controversial children distinguished themselves from the other

children on a second characteristic. In general, higher same-gender humor

ratings were associated with higher same-gender likeability judgments' A

girl who was judged by her lemale peers to be humorous was also the

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 well-

liked by his male peers. The controversial children demonstrated a

different pattern. with these children, the higher same-gender likeability

ratings related much stronger with the cross-gender humor ratings than

with the same-gender humor 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 suggest that controversial children differ on a variety ofpersonal-

ity and social characteristics from 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

themselves from the average children in their peer group. These children

were perceived to possess an average level of humorousness and 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

to be friends, but rather that they are children who "voluntarily have no

need" to be friends with other children within the peer group. This

assumption may be based on differences between the 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 educa-

tional system but are offered by private clubs and institutions. Children

who participate in these activities "outside 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 perceived as 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

educational system (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 examination of same- and cross-gender evaluations.

As was previously noted, the presence and absence of relationships

between humor and social distance, as well as the differences in relation-

ships among same- and cross-gender perceived humorousness and social

distance within the different social status groups, may be a consequence

of the way in which social status has been assessed. The reported findings

should, consequently, be cautiously interpreted. The observation that therelationship between social distance and humor is dependent on social-

status 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

distance within each age group, which could be considered as replications.

are not necessarily sufficient reason to interpret statistically significant

relationships as relevant scientific findings. The (theoretical) assumption

tsrrt!

n

bs'udopps1pog(al

r2Ap(g(g(g(real

( lmaEesofditom'

red

Lish

ren

be

ted

tike

To be or not to be humorous 139

that humor will reduce social distance (the assumption of causal direction;

Sherman 1988) should have resulted in stronger relationships between

perceived humor and social distance than observed in this study. The

present findings suggest that humor as an explanatory variable' irrespec-

tive of the social status of the children, explains at most 36% of the

variance in social distance. Other variables (other social competencies)

may play as important a role in the formation of social distance'

ihe pr"uiously discussed findings 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

differences were observed. However, despite differences in the magnitude

of the relationships, the interrelationships among same- and cross-gender

perceived humorousness and 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 possess smaller social distances by their peers

of th. opposite gender, in the Dutch sample the peers of the opposite

gender also perceive these children to possess smaller social distances. In

uOaltion, the relationship between same- and cross-gender social-distance

ratings with the Dutch children is considerably stronger than with the

Ameiican children. This finding is probably based on the Dutch children's

perception and/or experience of considerably smaller, same- and cross-

lender social distances within their peer group and a lesser emphasis on

gender (see, for instance, the absence of a relationship between cross-

lender social-distance ratings and gender with the Dutch children). With

iespect to humor, the same- and cross-gender perceptions of the Dutch

and American children are almost identical'

In summary, the present study detailed the results reported by Sherman

(1988) an<l amply demonstrated that humor is a complex concept' The

meaning and interpretation of humor and perceived humorousness is

ug.- und gender-related' A "good sense of humor" plays a role in the

establishment of 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 conclusive answers

to the question "how?" As has been noted throughout the discussion

more research is definitely needed.

Universiteit van Amsterdam

and Miami University, Oxford' OH

no'his

lmsrnal

rca-

tren

the

not

n i n

nayple,

)nalThe

the

ion.

now

rain

hips

.ion-

:cial

ence

lings

t thercial-

dl as

this

ocial

ions,

icantption

140 N. Warnars-Kleverlaan, L. Oppenheimer, and L. Slrcrman

References

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 assessment of humor: A critical look at

humor 1ests. Journal of Persctnalitl 42,619 631.

Bell, N. J., P. E. McGhee, and N. S. Duffey

I 986 Interpersonal competence, social assertiveness and the development of

humor. -Britrs& Journal of Developmental Pst'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. Coppotel l i

1982 Dimensions and types oi social status: A cross-age perspective. Sh

Developntental Psychology 18, 557 570.

Darwin, C.

1873 The Expression of Emotions in Man and Aninral.s. [Reprint 1955. New York:

Philosophical Library.l

Foot , H.

199 I The psychology of humor and laughter. In Cochrane, R. and D. Caroll

(eds.), Psychology and Social li.raes. London: Falmer Press, I 14.

Gilligan, C.

1982 In a Diflerent Voice; Psychological Theory and Wonten's Development

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Goodman. J.

1983 How to get more smileage out of your life: Making sense of 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,

| 2 t .Heller. K. A. and T. J. Berndt

l98l Developmental changes in the formation and organization of personality

attributions. Child Dewbpntent 52.683 691.

Kane. T. R. . J . Suls. and J. T. Tedeschi

1971 Humour as a tool of social interaction. In Chapman, A. J. and H. C. Foot

(eds.), ft.i a Funny Thing, Huntour. Oxford: Pergamon, l3 16.

Krasnor. L. and K. Rubin

The assessment of social problem-solving skills in young children. In

Merluzzi, T., C. Glass, and M. Genest (eds.), Cognltlle l.rse.r.snlertl. New

York: Guilford Press.

H .

A model of the social functions of humor. In Goldstein, J. H. and P. E.

McGhee (eds.), ?'fte Psy'chobgy of Hwrutr. New York: Academic Press,

1 0 1 1 2 5 .

Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Detelopment 57,

16t 473.

N

o

Pr

SI

Ta

Tb

Tb

w:

Zit

Martineau, W

1972

Masten, A. S.

I 986

To be or not to be humorous

It'.s Origins and Development. San Francisco: Freeman.

Social competence and locus of control: A relationship reconsidered. In

Schneider, B. H., G. Attili, J. Nadel, and R. Weissberg (eds.), Socral

Competence in Devebpmental Perspet'tive. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 4l l-413.

Personality and Sen,se of Huntor. New York: Springer.

t 4 l

.ntal

k a t

t o f

ccial

tlve.

'ork:

aroll

menl

then

* o J. r l e o

rality

Foot

n. In

New

P. E.

Press,

n 5'1,

McGhee, P. E.1979 Humor

Oppenheimer, L.I 989 The nature of social action: Social oompetence versus social conformism.

In Schneider, B. H., G. Attili, J. Nadel, and R. Weissberg (eds.), Socral(\tmpetente in Developntental Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 4l 69.

Podilchak, W.1992 Fun, funny, fun-of humor and laughter. Humor: Interruttional Journal of

Huntor Research 5 4,375 396.

Sherman. L. W.1985a Humour and social distance ratings among elementary school children:

Some differential sex and age patterns. ln MacHale. D. (ed.), Proceedings,

FiJih Interruttionol ConJerence on Humour. ERIC documenr ED 263-976.

Dubl in: Boole.1985b Humor and socia l d istance. Perteptual und Motor Ski l ls 61,1274.

1988 Humor and social distance in elementary school children. Humor:

Internationul Journal of Humor Research l, 389 404.

Sherman, L. W. and Wolf, A.

1984 lntrapersonal perceptions of shyness and humor as related to interpersonalperceptions of social distance and humorousness. Paper presented at the

4th International Congress on Humor. Tel Aviv.

Tannen, D.1990 You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation New York:

William Morrow and Comoanv.

Thomson. J. A. K.1966 The Ethics oJ Aristotle. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Thorson. J. A. and F. C. Powel ll 99 l Measurement of sense of humor. Ps,-chologital Reports 69, 691 702

Warnars-Kleverlaan, N. and L. Oppenheimer1989

Ziv, A.I 981

HUTIUI;i 1996 Vo lume 9 -2

CONTENTS

To be or not to be humorous: Doesi t make a d i f ference?Nel Warnars-Kleverlaan, LouisOppenheimer, and Larry Sherman

The po ten t i a l f o r us ing humor i nglobal adver t is ingLynette S. Unger

Women , ag ing , and sense o f humorJames A. Thorson and F. C. Powell

Puns : Second though tsWalter David Redfern

Part isan percept ions of pol i t ica ln u m o rRichard E. Weise

NOTES

Lenny B ruce ' s seman t i c ho lesSol Saporta

Fal len Angelo 's d isrespect fu l word-p lay : A b lasphemous pun i nMeasure for MeasureRobert F. Fleissner

117

143

1 6 9

181

1 9 9

REVIEW ARTICLE

H u m o r a n d p l a y i n N a t i v e A m e r i c a nl i fe, review of lndi 'n Humor:Bicultural Play in Native America, byKenne th L inco lnAllan J. Byan z t 3

BOOK REVIEWS

Gai l F inney (ed.) , Look Who'sLaughing: Gender and ComedyAnnette Stavely 221

Anat Zajdman, HumorAvner Ziv 224

Deborah J. Hi l l , School Days, FunDays: Creative Ways to TeachHumor Skil ls in the ClassroomJordan D. Brown 225

Thomas Pughe, Comic Sense;Reading Robert Coover, StanleyElkin, Philip RothJohn G. Parks 228

211 NEWSLETTER

209

t ssN 0933-1719

Mouton de Gruyter . Berlin . New York