See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247434522

Sense of humor as a moderator between stressors and moods

Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · December 1983

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1313

CITATIONS READS
451 5,815

2 authors, including:

Rod A. Martin
The University of Western Ontario
96 PUBLICATIONS   7,095 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enjoying Retirement View project

Myndplan app development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rod A. Martin on 05 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1983 by the
1983, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1313-1324 American Psychological Association, Inc.

Sense of Humor as a Moderator of the Relation

Between Stressors and Moods
Rod A. Martin and Herbert M. Lefcourt
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Three studies are reported that investigated the hypothesis, long held by theorists,
therapists, and laypersons alike, that a sense of humor reduces the deleterious
impact of stressful experiences. In each study a negative-life-events checklist was
used to predict stress scores on a measure of mood disturbance. These studies
made use of different measures of subjects' sense of humor, including four self-
report scales and two behavioral assessments of subjects' ability to produce humor
under nonstressful and mildly stressful conditions. Hierarchical multiple regression
analyses revealed that five of the six humor measures produced a significant mod-
erating effect on the relation between negative life events and mood disturbance.
Subjects with low humor scores obtained higher correlations between these two
variables than did those with high humor scores. These results provide initial
evidence for the stress-buffering role of humor.

The notion that humor possesses therapeu-
tic properties has long enjoyed popular sup-
port. This idea can be traced at least as far
back as the ancient biblical maxim that "a
merry heart doeth good like a medicine"
(Proverbs 17:22), and it has gained recent sup-
port from the account of Norman Cousins's
(1979) recovery from a serious collagen disea.se
through massive doses of laughter and vita-
min C. Recently, Dixon (1980) cogently argued
that humor may have evolved as a uniquely
human strategy for coping with stress.
Moderators of Stress
The publication of the Life Events Survey
by Holmes and Rahe (1967) inspired a flurry
of research activity investigating the relation
between individuals' past stressful life expe-
riences and their current physiological and
psychological functioning. An impressive
number of studies have demonstrated relations
between the number of recent life changes re-
ported by subjects on this and other scales and
This research was supported by a Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral fellow-
ship to the first author and by SSHRC Grant 410-81 -0276
to the second author.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Rod A. Martin,
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Wa-
terloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1.
1313
subsequent poor health, disease, and accidents
as well as depressed moods, anxiety, and var-
ious forms of psychological maladaptation (cf.
Holmes & Masuda, 1974; Paykel, 1974; Rab-
kin & Struening, 1976).
However, as Rabkin and Struening (1976)
pointed out, there is a great deal of variation
in the responses of individuals to similar life
events. The correlation coefficients are typi-
cally below .30, indicating that stressful life
experiences may account for less than 10% of
the variance in illness. Accordingly, these au-
thors and others (e.g., Johnson & Sarason,
1979; Kobasa, 1979) suggested that a more
profitable avenue of research would be to in-
vestigate the variables that serve to moderate
the deleterious effects of stress, that is^ the
variables that may determine which individ-
uals are most adversely affected by negative
life experiences. Earlier, Janis (1958) and La-
zarus (1966) both pointed out the important
role of cognitive and personality factors in
producing stress reactions, a position that was
articulated centuries earlier by the Stoic phi-
losopher Epictetus: "Men are disturbed not
by things, but by the view which they take of
them" (quoted by Novaco, 1978, p. 143). An
enhanced understanding of the functions of
such moderating variables, it is argued, will
not only have important theoretical implica-
tions and increase predictive accuracy but
might also contribute to the development of
1314 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
primary prevention and rehabilitation tech-
niques.
A number of researchers have recently be-
gun to examine several variables that have been
hypothesized to exert such a moderating effect.
For example, evidence has been found for the
stress-buffering role of locus of control (John-
son & Sarason, 1978; Lefcourt, Miller, Ware,
& Sherk, 1981), sensation seeking (Johnson,
Sarason, & Siegel, 1979; Smith, Johnson, &
Sarason, 1978), alienation (Kobasa, 1979), and
social support (de Araujo, Van Arsdel, Holmes,
& Dudley, 1973; Medalie & Goldbourt, 1976;
Nuckolls, Cassel, & Kaplan, 1972; Sandier &
Lakey, 1982).
Humor as a Moderator of Stress
The idea that humor may play a similar
stress-moderating role, as we have already
noted, is often accepted as a truism. Numerous
psychological theorists have regarded humor
as an adaptive coping mechanism. Freud
(1959,1960), for example, regarded hurrior as
"the highest of [the] defensive processes [i.e.,
defense mechanisms]" (1960, p. 233). Ac-
cording to Freud, humor provides a savings
of emotional energy: "The essence of humor
is that one spares oneself the affects to which
the situation would naturally give rise and
overrides with a jest the possibility of such an
emotional display" (1959, p. 216). This process
is an eminently beneficial one—it "has in it
a liberating element," signifying "the triumph
not only of the ego, but also of the pleasure
principle, which is strong enough to assert itself
here in the face of the adverse real circum-
stances" (1959, p. 217).
Similar enthusiastic acclamations of humor
as a healthful coping strategy have been ex-
pressed by a number of theorists since Freud.
Allport (1950), for example, states that "the
neurotic who learns to laugh at himself may
be on the way to self-management, perhaps to
cure" (p. 92). Rollo May (1953) states that
humor has the function of "preserving the
sense of self. . . . It is the healthy way of feel-
ing a 'distance' between one's self and the
problem, a way of standing off and looking at
one's problem with perspective" (p. 61).
Dixon (1980) suggested that the beneficial
effects of humor are produced by means of
the cognitive shifts that it entails and the
changes in affective quality that accompany
it. Many philosophers and theorists have re-
garded humor as essentially comprising a sud-
den shift in cognitive perspective. This view
is most fully elaborated by Koestler (1964),
who coined the term bisociation to refer to
the juxtaposition of two normally incongruous
frames of reference, the discovery of various
similarities and analogies implicit in concepts
normally considered remote from each other.
The humorist, as O'Connell (1976) puts it, "is
skilled in rapid perceptual-cognitive switches
in frames of reference" (p. 327). It is this flex-
ible ability to shift perspective that, it is felt,
allows the humorist to "distance" him- or her-
self from the immediate threat ,of a problem
Situation, to view it from a different perspec-
tive, and, therefore, to reduce the often par-
alyzing feelings of anxiety and helplessness.
This view of humor as an adaptive coping
mechanism has prompted a number of psy-
chotherapists to advocate the use of humor in
the therapeutic process (e.g., Cohen, 1977;
Greenwald, 1977; Grotjahn, 1970; Levine,
1977; Mindess, 1971, 1976; Zwerling, 1955).
Levine (1977) suggested that humor may serve
two broad purposes in psychotherapy: (a) Hu-
mor for its own sake may be therapeutic be-
cause of the way it gives pleasure and provides
an acceptable way of enjoying something that
is forbidden, and (b) it may be used as,a means
of communicating ideas that might otherwise
be distressing to the patient.
Besides the cognitive-affective hypotheses
of theorists and therapists, the argument for
humor as a facilitator of both physical and
psychological health may be supported on
psychophysiological grounds. The autobio-
graphical account of Norman Cousins (1979),
mentioned earlier, is a case in point. Suffering
from an extremely painful disease, Cousins
found that 10 minutes of belly laughter had
an anesthetic effect, providing at least 2 hours
of pain-free sleep without any other analgesic
medication. This finding has led some writers
to suggest that laughter may have a stimulatory
effect on endorphins or other endogenous sub-
stances within the brain. Further physiological
effects of laughter were observed by Cousins
in that a drop of at least five points in the
sedimentation rate (an indicator of the severity
of inflammation or infection) occurred during
episodes of laughter. Cousins's apparently
 HUMOR, STRESSORS, AND MOODS
complete recovery from this disease provides
anecdotal evidence of the salutary effects of
humor and laughter on the physiological
mechanisms of the body. Such effects might
account for the evolutionary significance of
the complex and rather bizarre cognitive-be-
havioral-affective response called laughter.
Further research is needed in this area, al-
though initial investigations into the physio-
logical concomitants of mirthful laughter have
been conducted by Levi (1965), Averill (1969),
and Fry (1971; Fry & Stoft, 1971; Fry,
Note 1).
In summary, a large body of literature pro-
vides at least circumstantial evidence that hu-
mor plays an important role in attenuating
the impact of stress. Until now, however, the
stress-moderating effect of humor has not been
directly investigated. The three studies to be
described in the present article represent an
initial attempt to correct this situation. In all
of these studies, a negative-life-events checklist
is used as an indicator of the level of stress in
subjects' lives over the preceding year, and a
measure of current moods is used to assess
the psychological impact of that stress. In gen-
eral, positive correlations have been found be-
tween the number of negative life events and
the severity of negative moods such as depres-
sion, anxiety, tension, and so forth. Each of
these studies makes use of a different measure
or measures of the subjects' sense of humor
as a moderator of this relation.
Study 1
Method
Subjects. The first study made use of 40 male and 32
female students enrolled in a first-year introductory psy-
chology course taught by the first author at the University
of Waterloo. Due to absenteeism, the sample sizes vary
somewhat for the various measures used, and the analyses
to be reported were based on data from 56 subjects (29
men and 27 women) who filled in all the measures.
Procedure. The various measures were administered
during weekly half-hour testing sessions scheduled during
class hours. The questionnaires were introduced as typical
scales used in psychology research; participation was vol-
untary, and the purpose of the study was not revealed
until the end of the course. The measures of interest in
the present study were as follows:
1. Life Events of College Students (Sandier & Lakey,
1982). This checklist is composed of a list of 112 expe-
riences that are considered germane to college students.
The subjects were instructed td check off the events that
had occurred to them during the preceding year and to
1315
rate the effect that each event had had on their lives (very
negative, slightly negative, slightly positive, or very positive).
A weighted negative-life-events score was obtained for each
subject by adding only events that were rated as having
had a negative impact, weighting them with a 1 (slightly
negative) or a 2 (very negative).
2. Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, &
Droppleman, 1971). To assess predominant current mood
levels rather than transient moods, the subjects were in-
structed to fill out this scale in terms of how they had
generally been feeling during the preceding month. This
measure yields scores on five negative moods (Tension,
Depression, Anger, Fatigue, and Confusion) and one pos-
itive mood (Vigor). To avoid redundancy, because these
six subscales are quite highly intercorrelated, the analyses
were conducted using the Total Mood Disturbance score,
which is computed by summing the five negative mood
scores and subtracting the Vigor score.
3. Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ;
Martin & Lefcourt, Note 2). This measure is designed to
assess subjects' sense of humor, defined as the frequency
with which they display mirth in a wide variety of life
situations. It is composed of 18 items in each of which a
relatively common situation is described. Two examples
of these items are "You were awakened from a deep sleep
in the middle of the night by the ringing of the telephone,
and it was an old friend who was just passing through
town and had decided to call and say hello" and "You
were watching a movie or TV program with some friends
and you found one scene particularly funny, but no one
else appeared to find it humorous." Subjects are asked to
recall a time when they were in each of these situations
and then to indicate the degree to which they experienced
mirth on a 5-point Guttman-type scale ranging from "I
would not have been amused" to "I would have laughed
heartily." Three additional self-description items are in-
cluded in the scale. Cronbach alphas of .70 to .79 have
been obtained with this measure. Reliability and validity
studies are reported elsewhere (Martin & Lefcourt,
Note 2).
4. Sense of 'Humor Questionnaire (SHQ;Svebak, 1974).
This 21-item measure provides scores on three subscales.
The first subscale, called Meta-Message Sensitivity (Mp),
measures the degree to which subjects report being able
to notice humorous stimuli in their environment. A typical
item on this scale is "I can usually find something comical,
witty, or humorous in most situations." The second sub-,
scale, Personal Liking of Humor (Lp), assesses the degree
to which subjects report valuing humor in their lives. A
typical item on this subscale is "It is my impression that
those who try to be funny really do it to hide their lack
of self-confidence." (Disagreement with this item yields a
higher score on the scale.) Emotional Expressiveness (Ep),
the third subscale, is concerned with the degree to which
subjects express their emotions, including humor. A typical
item is "I appreciate people who tolerate all kinds of emo-
tional expression." This last subscale was found to have a
very low internal consistency (« = .25) with this sample;
it has less face validity as a humor scale than the other
two subscales in the SHQ; and it lacks convergent validity
in that it was uncorrelated with any of the other humor
measures used in this study. For these reasons it was not
used as a humor measure in the present analyses. Scores
obtained on the first two subscales were used in separate
multiple regression analyses.
1316 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
5. Coping Humor Scale. This seven-item scale (pre-
sented in Table 1) was created particularly for this study.
In contrast with the other two humor scales, which assess
an overall sense of humor regardless of its role in reducing
stress, this measure was designed specifically to assess the
degree to which subjects report using humor as a means
of coping with stressful experiences. Internal consistency
analyses with this sample produced a Cronbach alpha of
.61, with corrected item-total correlations ranging from
.11 to .54.
Results and Discussion
Initial analyses by sex indicated no signif-
icant differences between men and women in
the measures used. The data for men and
women were therefore combined in the fol-
lowing analyses. The intercorrelations among
the four humor scales are presented in Table
2. As one would expect, moderate correlations
were found between the various scales. The
Coping Humor Scale and the Meta-Message
Sensitivity subscale on the SHQ are most
highly correlated, whereas the weakest relation
was found between the SHRQ and the Liking
of Humor subscale of the SHQ.
Because the independent variables in these
studies are continuous measures, it was de-
cided to subject the data to a hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analysis rather than perform
an analysis of variance via median splits on
the independent variables. The multiple
Table 1
The Coping Humor Scale
1. I often lose my sense of humor when I'm having
problems."
2. I have often found that my problems have been
greatly reduced when I tried to find something
funny in them.
3. I usually look for something comical to say when I
am in tense situations.
4. I must admit my life would probably be easier if I
had more of a sense of humor."
5. I have often, felt that if I am in a situation where I
have to either cry or laugh, it's better to laugh.
6. I can usually find something to laugh or joke about
even in trying situations.
7. It has been my experience that humor is often a
very effective way of coping with problems.
Note. All items are answered on a 4-point scale, where 1
= strongly disagree, 2 = mildly disagree, 3 = mildly agree,
and 4 = strongly agree.
" These items are scored in the opposite direction to the
other items in the scale (i.e., the greater the disagreement,
the higher the score).
Table 2
Intercorrelations of Humor Measures Used in
Study 1
Personal Coping
Liking of Humor
Measure Humor Scale SHRQ
Meta-Message Sensitivity .37* .51** .32*
Personal Liking of Humor .33* .17
Coping Humor Scale .37*
Note. N = 56. SHRQ = Situational Humor Response
Questionnaire.
* p < . 0 1 . **;><.001.
regression approach is comparable to the
analysis of variance but makes more efficient
use of continuous data (cf. Kerlinger & Ped-
hazur, 1973). In this approach a regression
equation is computed, entering the negative-
life-events measure first, then the measure of
humor, and finally the product of these two
terms into the equation to predict mood levels.
The first two variables entered into the equa-
tion test main effects, and a significant increase
in R2 obtained with the product (i.e., inter-
action) indicates a moderating effect of humor.
The results of the hierarchical multiple
regression analyses are presented in Table 3.
Using the SHRQ as the measure of humor in
the regression equation, an R2 increment of
.09, F(l, 52) = 6.711, p < .025, was obtained
with the product of negative life events and
SHRQ scores, demonstrating that this latter
measure has a moderating effect on the relation
between negative life events and Total Mood
Disturbance. In other words, the magnitude
of the correlation between these latter two
measures changes systematically as scores on
the humor measure increase.
To clarify the direction of this effect, the
subjects were divided into two groups via a
median split on the humor measure, and sim-
ple correlations were computed between life
events and mood disturbance within each
group. As can be seen in Table 4, the corre-
lation for subjects with low scores on the
SHRQ is .63 (p < .001), whereas the corre-
sponding correlation for subjects with higher
humor scores is .32 (p < .05). The difference
between these two correlations, using the
Fisher z statistic, is significant at the .07 level.
(This reduced significance level is due to the
 HUMOR, STRESSORS, AND MOODS 1317

reduced efficiency when a median split is used Table 4

rather than a multiple regression analysis.) Correlations Between Negative Life Events and
Thus, as predicted by the hypothesis that hu- Total Mood Disturbance for High- and Low-
mor reduces the impact of stress, subjects with Humor Groups (Formed Via a Median
a high score on this measure of the sense of Split on Each Humor Measure)
humor show a weaker relation between neg- Humor spore
ative life events and depressed moods than do
those with a lower sense-of-humor score. This Measure High Low
interaction was further investigated by dividing SHRQ .32* .63**
the data into two groups via a median split Personal Liking of Humor .29 .62**
on the humor measure and computing for each Coping Humor Scale .34* .55**
group the regression equation predicting Total
Mood Disturbance scores from negative life Note. SHRQ = Situational Humor Response Question-
events. These regression lines are shown in *naire.p< .05. ** p< .001.
Figure 1. This figure reveals that as negative
life events increase, low-humor subjects report
higher levels of disturbed moods than do high- than do those who received higher scores on
humor subjects. this measure (r = .29, p = .05). The difference
In regard to the two subscales of the SHQ, between these two correlations is significant
the Meta-Message Sensitivity subscale did not at the .07 level using the Fisher z statistic.
reveal a moderating effect, F(l, 52) = 1.348, Once again, as seen in Figure 1, as negative
ns. However, a significant R2 increase of .08, life events increase, subjects with low scores
F( 1,52) = 6.43l,p< .025, was obtained using on the Personal Liking of Humor subscale re-
the Personal Liking of Humor subscale as a port higher levels of mood disturbance than
moderator variable. As with the SHRQ, sub- do those with high scores on this humor mea-
jects who scored low on the Personal Liking sure.
of Humor subscale (i.e., those who report a Finally, a significant moderating effect was
lower appreciation for humor) reveal a higher also found using the Coping Humor Scale in
correlation between negative life events and the equation. This measure yielded an incre-
Total Mood Disturbance (r = .62, p < .001) ment in R2 of .09, F(l, 52) - 7.100, p < .025,

Table 3
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Between Negative Life Events, Humor Measures,
and Mood Disturbance
Cumulative Increase F test on
Variable r /?2 inrt 2 increment P<
Negative life events (A) .44 .20 .20 13.462 .001
SHRQ (B) -.07 .20 .00 .003 ns
A XB .37 .29 .09 6.711 .025
R = .54 .001
Negative life events .44 .20 .20 13.462 .001
Meta-Message Sensitivity (C) -.27 .22 .02 1.594 ns
AXC .35 .24 .02 1.348 ns
R = .49 .005
Negative life events .44 .20 .20 13.462 .001
Personal Liking of Humor (D) -.32 .25 .05 4.174 .05
A XD .30 .33 .08 6.431 .025
R = .58 .001
Negative life events .44 .20 .20 13.462 .001
Coping Humor Scale (E) -.20 .22 .02 1.605 ns
AXE .30 .31 .09 7.100 .025
R = .56 .001
Note. SHRQ = Situational Humor Response Questionnaire.
1318 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT

and once again a higher correlation was found
between life events and Total Mood Distur-
bance (r = .55, p < .001) for low-scoring sub-
jects than for high-scoring subjects (r = .34,
p < .05). This difference is significant at the
. 18 level. The regression lines are plotted in
Figure 1, showing a pattern similar to that
obtained with the other humor measures,
The results of this study lend support to the
hypothesis that humor reduces the impact of

B
too- 100

80 80

Q 60
2
I- 40 40'

20-

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
NLE NLE

100 100

80 80

O 60' O 60-
2 2
H 40- I- 40

20-

10 20 30 40 5 10 1 5 2 0

NLE NLE

100
80

O 60 Low Humor
2
t- 40-
High Humor
20-

10 20 30 40
N LE

7. Regression lines predicting Total Mood Disturbance scores (TMD) from negative life events (NLE)
. for low- and high-humor groups. (Humor measures are indicated as follows: A = Situational Humor Response
Questionnaire, B = Coping Humor Scale, C = Personal Liking of Humor subscale, D = humor production,
and E = humorousness rating.)
 HUMOR, STRESSORS, AND MOODS
negative life experiences on moods. With three
out of the four self-report measures of the sense
of humor a significant moderating effect was
found such that as scores on the humor mea-
sures increase, there is a systematic decrease
in the magnitude of the correlation between
current levels of reported mood disturbance
and the number of negative life experiences
during the preceding year.
Two further questions must be addressed at
this point. First, one could hypothesize that
high-humor subjects have less disturbed moods
simply because they have experienced fewer
aversive life experiences. However, correlations
between negative life events and the humor
measures reveal that this is not the case. These
correlations, all nonsignificant, were -.17,
-.19, and -.11 for the SHRQ, Personal Liking
of Humor, and Coping Humor scales, respec-
tively. Interestingly, the one humor measure
that did not reveal a moderating effect, the
Mp subscale, was weakly correlated (r = -.26,
p < .05) with negative life events.
Second, the reduced correlations for high-
humor as opposed to low-humor subjects
might be due simply to reduced variability in*
the measures of life events and moods for high-
humor subjects. However, there were no sig-
nificant differences in variance on either the
mood disturbance or negative-life-events scales
between those subjects who were classified as
high and those classified as low with regard to
humor. This pertained to the comparisons
made using each of the humor measures.
Although the various humor measures are
intercorrelated, as one would expect, the
moderate correlations among them indicate
that they each measure a somewhat different
aspect of the complex sense-of-humor con-
struct. A comparison of the results for each
scale provides some indication of the particular
aspects of humor that contribute to its stress-
moderating effect. The significant results ob-
tained with the SHRQ, the Personal Liking of
Humor subscale, and the Coping Humor Scale
indicate that the negative effects of stress are
less pronounced for individuals who tend to
laugh and smile in a wide variety of situations,
who place a high value on humor, and who
make use of humor as a means of coping with
stress than for those to whom these descrip-
tions do not apply. On the other hand, the
ability to notice humorous situations in the
1319
environment (as measured on the Meta-Mes-
sage Sensitivity subscale), when taken by itself,
does not appear to contribute to the moder-
ating effect of humor.
Study 2
The preceding study made use only of self-
report measures of the sense of humor. To
avoid the possible biases of self-report mea-
sures, it was decided in the second study to
obtain a more behavioral assessment of sub-
jects' ability to produce humor. As in the first
study, this measure of humor would then be
entered into a multiple regression equation to
assess its moderating effect on the relation be-
tween negative life events and mood distur-
bance.
Method
Subjects. This study made use of 29 male and 33
female undergraduate students obtained from the subject
pool at the University of Waterloo.
Procedure. In the psychology laboratory a life events
measure, a mood scale, and the SHRQ were administered
to the subjects. The life events measure used in this study
was the Life Experiences Survey (LES; Sarason, Johnson,
& Siegel, 1978), with instructions to check off the events
that occurred during the preceding year and to rate whether
they had a negative or positive impact. The negative-life-
events score was composed of the total number of events
checked and rated as having had a negative impact. The
Total Mood Disturbance score on the POMS was again
used as the dependent variable.
To assess the subjects' ability to produce humor, a tech-
nique described by Turner (1980) was used. After com-
pleting the questionnaires, the subjects were individually
seated at a table on which had been placed about a dozen
miscellaneous objects, such as an old tennis shoe, a drinking
glass, and an aspirin bottle. The subjects were instructed
to make up a 3-minute comedy routine by describing the
objects on the table in as humorous a manner as they
could. If unable to think of any witty comments, they
were simply to describe the objects. They were given 30
sec to collect their thoughts, after which a tape recorder
was turned on and the experimenter left the room for 3
minutes. The tape-recorded monologues were subsequently
scored, following Turner's method, for (a) the number of
witty remarks and (b) overall wittiness, as rated on a 4-
point scale, where 0 = ,no humorous comments, attempts
monologue but simply describes objects; 1 = attempts at
being witty but with limited success, tries to do more than
simply describe objects; 2 = a few clearly humorous re-
marks but routine, not a smooth flow of humor; and 3
= a regular comedy routine with total monologue directed
toward humorous remarks.
«
Results and Discussion
As with the preceding study, no significant
sex differences were found in the data; data
1320 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
for men and women were therefore combined
in the analyses. Interrater reliabilities, obtained
with two raters on a random selection of 10
of the subjects' monologues, were .89 for the
number of witty comments and .93 for the
rating of overall humorousness. The mean
number of witty comments during the hu-
morous monologue was 3.34, with a standard
deviation of 4.85, whereas the mean humor-
ousness rating was .95, with a standard de-
viation of .74. Because these two measures
were found to be strongly correlated with one
another (r = .73, p < .001), we decided to
convert them to z scores and compute a com-
posite humor production measure by sum-
ming these two z scores for each subject. This
composite score was then entered into a mul-
tiple regression equation as in the previous
study.
The results of these analyses are presented
in Table 5. The interaction between the humor
production score and negative life events pro-
duced a significant R2 increase of .09, F(l, 58)
= 7.826, p < .01. When the data were divided
via a median split on humor production, sub-
jects with low scores on this measure obtained
a correlation of .63 (p < .001) between negative
life events and Total Mood Disturbance,
whereas those with higher scores obtained a
correlation of only .23 (ns). The difference be-
tween these correlations is significant at the
.03 level. The regression lines for high- and
low-humor subjects are shown in Figure 1.
As in the preceding study, no significant
differences were found in the variances of neg-
ative life events and mood disturbance when
comparing subjects with high and low humor
production scores. In investigating the relation
between humor production and negative life
events a Pearson product-moment correlation
of .34 (p < .01) was computed between the
Table 5
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Between Negative Life Events, Humor Production,
and Mood Disturbance
Cumulative
Variable r R2
Negative life events (A) .44 .20
Humor production (B) .12 .20
A XB -.10 .29
£ = .54
two measures, indicating that individuals who
report having experienced high levels of stress
during the preceding year are somewhat better
able to produce humor in this particular sit-
uation. Although further research is needed,
this finding suggests interesting implications
for the antecedents of a sense of humor in
response to stressful experiences. In any case,
it rules out the argument that high-humor
subjects are less affected by stress simply be-
cause they experience lower levels of negative
events.
These results provide further evidence for
the stress-moderating role of humor. Individ-
uals who demonstrated an ability to produce
humor "on demand" in an impromptu com-
edy routine showed a lower relation between
life stressors and disturbed moods than did
those who were less able to produce humor
in this situation. A correlation of .24 (p < .05)
was found between the humor production
scores and scores on the SHRQ, indicating
that subjects who were able to produce a hu-
morous monologue in the laboratory also
tended to report that they exhibit mirth in a
wide variety of life situations. One might hy-
pothesize that the subjects who were rated as
most funny in their monologues were those
who had the most practice in creating humor
in their everyday lives. If, as we hypothesize,
humor can be used to reduce the impact of
stress, then the attenuated relation between
negative life events and mood disturbance for
these subjects is not surprising.
Study 3
In the preceding studies a number of dif-
ferent measures of humor, both self-report and
behavioral, were used to investigate the stress-
moderating effects of humor. In each case it
Increase F test on
inR2 increment P<
.20 15.154 .001
.00 .096 ns
.09 7.826 .01
.001
 HUMOR, STRESSORS, AND MOODS 1321

was assumed that subjects with high scores on on a scale from 0 to 3, following the scoring criteria used
the humor measures, because they tend to en- by Turner (1980).
After viewing the film, the subjects were given a brief
joy and use humor in general, would also tend questionnaire that included the following question: "You
to make particular use of humor as a means have just attempted to make up a humorous narrative
of coping with the stressful experiences that while watching what is considered to be a rather stressful
they encounter in their everyday lives. This film. How likely would it be for you to normally use humor
assumption was explicit with the Coping Hu- in this kind of situation?" They responded by using a 5-
point scale ranging from "I would not normally use humor
mor Scale but more implicit in the other mea- in this sort of situation" to "I would always use humor
sures. It was made even more explicit in the in this sort of situation." This question was included to
third study, which specifically assessed sub- assess the hypothesis that the rating of the humorousness
jects' ability to produce humor in a stressful of their narrative reflects the subjects' tendency to use
humor in real-life stressful situations. In addition, the scores
situation. To create an experimental analogue on the Coping Humor Scale could be used to test this
of stress, this study made use of the film en- hypothesis.
titled Subincision, which has been found to
be mildly stressful and was employed by La-
Results and Discussion
zarus (1966) in his research on stress. We as-
sumed that the subjects who were best able to Once again, comparisons of the data for
create a witty monologue while watching this men and women revealed no significant sex
film would be those who also tend to make differences. The mean rating of humorousness
use of humor in "real life" stressful situations. for the narratives was 1.25 (SD = 1.04). A
We hypothesized that the rating of humor thus perfect interrater reliability (r = 1.0) was ob-
obtained, when entered into a multiple regres- tained with two experimenters rating the hu-
sion equation as in the preceding studies, morousness of a random sample of 10 of the
would demonstrate a strong moderating effect narratives. The correlation between the hu-
on the relation between negative life events morousness rating and the subjects' rating of
and current mood disturbance. how frequently they would normally use hu-
mor in such situations was .35 (p < .05),
Method whereas the correlation between the humor-
ousness rating and the Coping Humor Scale
Subjects. This study made use of 25 (14 men and 11 was .50 (p < .01). These findings lend support
women) of the introductory psychology students used in to the assumption that the rating of the hu-
the first study who volunteered to participate in a session
in the psychology lab. No significant differences between morousness of the narrative while watching
this subsample and the larger classroom sample from which the film reflects the subjects' tendency to use
they were drawn were found by t tests computed on the humor in stressful situations in general.
various,measures under investigation. The results of the multiple regression anal-
Procedure. As described in Study 1, these subjects had
previously completed the Life Events of College Students ysis are presented in Table 6. The product of
questionnaire (Sandier & Lakey, 1982) and the POMS the humorousness rating and the 2
negative-life-
(McNair et al., 1971) as well as several humor scales in events measure yielded an R increment of
classroom sessions. Prior to showing them the film in the .22, F(l, 21) = 6.972, p < .025. When the
laboratory, they were given the following instructions: data were subsequently divided via a median
The film which you are going to see is about the male split on the humorousness rating, subjects with
initiation rites amongst a tribe of aborigines in Australia. a low rating revealed a correlation of .47 (p <
It is generally considered to be somewhat stressful. When .05) between negative life events and Total
the film begins I will turn on this tape recorder and will
then leave the room. The film is a silent one, and while Mood Disturbance, whereas the correlation
you are watching it I would like you to try to make up for subjects with a high humorousness rating
a humorous narrative, describing what you are seeing was —.10 (ns). This difference is significant at
in the film in as funny a way as you can. I realize that the .10 level. The regression lines are displayed
this is a difficult task, but I would like you to just try
your best. Be sure to speak loudly enough so that what in Figure 1, revealing a pattern similar to those
you say will be picked up by the tape recorder. found in the previous studies. The correlation
between negative life events and humorousness
After these instructions, the experimenter turned on the
tape recorder, started the videotape of the film, and then rating was again nonsignificant (r = -.03),
left the subject alone in the room. The tape-recorded nar- and no significant differences were found in
ratives were subsequently rated for overall humorousness the variances of life events and mood scores
1322 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
when comparing high- and low-humor sub-
jects.
Once again, evidence of the stress-buffering
effect of humor was obtained. The R2 increase
of .22 obtained with the interaction term is
larger than those found with other measures
of humor in the preceding studies. If it is true
that the humor measure in this study more
accurately assesses subjects' use of humor in
stressful situations in general, as we have sug-
gested, then this accuracy of measurement may
account for the stronger moderating effect
found with this measure.
Conclusion
The results of these studies provided con-
siderable support for the hypothesis that hu-
mor reduces the impact of stress. Five out of
the six measures of humor demonstrated a
significant moderating effect on the relation
between recent negative life events and current
levels of mood disturbance. In each case, sub-
jects with high scores on the humor measures
obtained a lower correlation between life events
and moods than did those with low humor
scores. In addition, among subjects reporting
high levels of negative life events, lower mean
mood disturbance scores were obtained for
those with high scores on the humor measures
than for those with lower humor scores. Two
of these humor measures—the SHRQ and the
Personal Liking of Humor subscale of the
SHQ—are self-report scales that assess an
overall humor factor regardless of whether hu-
mor is used in coping with stress. The SHRQ
measures the frequency with which subjects
respond with mirth in a wide variety of sit-
uations, whereas the Personal Liking of Humor
subscale assesses the degree to which subjects
report placing a high value on humor in their
lives. The moderating effects obtained with
Table 6
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Between Negative Life Events, Humorousness Rating,
and Mood Disturbance
Cumulative
Variable r *2
Negative life events (A) .39 .15
Humorousness rating (B) -.14 .17
AXB -.04 .39
R = .62
these two measures suggest that subjects who
receive high scores on them tend to use humor
in stressful as well as nonstressful situations.
The Coping Humor Scale, the third self-report
measure that revealed a moderating effect, was
more specifically related to the use of humor
in coping with stress. The final two humor
measures were behavioral assessments rather
than self-report scales. The first of these was
obtained when subjects were instructed to
produce humor under nonstressful conditions,
and the second when similar instructions were
given in a mildly stressful laboratory situation.
The particularly strong moderating effect
found with the latter measure may be due to
the assumption that it most accurately reflects
subjects' use of humor in coping with stress
in their everyday lives. On the other hand, the
one measure that failed to demonstrate a
moderating effect, the Meta-Message Sensitiv-
ity subscale, assesses individuals' reported
ability to perceive humorous stimuli in their
environment. It appears from these results that
the ability to notice potentially humorous sit-
uations, taken by itself, is not sufficient to re-
duce stress. For humor to moderate the effects
of stress, the individual must also place a high
value on humor and, more importantly, pro-
duce humor, particularly in the stressful sit-
uations that he or she encounters in daily life.
It is interesting to note that only one of the
humor measures (the Personal Liking of Hu-
mor subscale) produced a significant main ef-
fect on mood disturbance scores. It appears
from these findings that there js generally not
a simple relation between the sense of humor
and disturbed moods. Instead, this relation
seems best understood in terms of an inter-
action with stressful experiences. On the other
hand, previous research (Martin & Lefcourt,
Note 2) has revealed a strong positive corre-
lation between the SHRQ and a measure of
Increase F test on
in* 2 increment P <
.15 3.670 .10
.02 .437 ns
.22 6.972 .025
.025
 HUMOR, STRESSORS, AND MOODS
positive mood (i.e., the Vigor subscale on the
POMS). This distinction is of particular in-
terest in view of a suggestion made by Lev-
enthal and Safer (1977) that measures of mood
may be used as equivalents of humor measures.
It appears that concepts of humor and mood
are not as interchangeable as these authors
have suggested.
These studies represent an initial attempt
to investigate a hypothesis that has long been
maintained by a large number of humor the-
orists, psychotherapists, and laypersons alike,
namely, that a sense of humor permits one to
cope better with the aversive experiences of
life. This research made use of a retrospective
measure of stress and a correlational meth-
odology. To demonstrate more adequately the
causal relations that were assumed here, fur-
ther research using prospective and experi-
mental methodologies is warranted. Further
research is also needed to explore the specific
processes involved in the stress-buffering ef-
fects of humor, the kinds of stressors with
which humor is most effective and those with
which it is less appropriate, the particular as-
pects or types of humor that are most effective
in moderating stress, and the ways in which
humor of this kind develops in individuals.
Answers to each of these questions will not
only provide information specific to the stress-
moderating role of humor but will also further
our general understanding of the ubiquitous
but still largely unexplained human phenom-
enon called humor.
Reference Notes
1. Fry, W. E, Jr. Humor and healing. Address given at
the Healing Brain Symposium, University of California,
San Francisco, January 1980.
2, Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. The Situational Hu- Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping process.
mor Response Questionnaire: A quantitative measure
of the sense of humor. Manuscript submitted for pub- Lefcourt, H. M., Miller, R. S., Ware, E. E., & Sherk, D.
lication, 1981.
References
Allport, G. W. The individual and his religion. New \ork:
Macmillan, 1950.
Averill, J. R. Autonomic response patterns during sadness
and mirth. Psychophysiology, 1969, 5, 399-414.
Cohen, D. Humor, irony and self-detachment. In A. J. Levi, Li The urinary output of adrenalin and noradrenalin
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, hu-
mour. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1977.
Cousins, N. Anatomy of an illness. New Vbrk: Norton, Levine, J. Humour as a form of therapy: Introduction to
1979.
1323
de Araujo, G., Van Arsdel, P. P., Holmes, T. H., & Dudley,
D. L. Life change, coping ability and chronic intrinsic
asthma. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1973,17,
359-363.
Dixon, N. F. Humor: A cognitive alternative to stress? In>
I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and
anxiety (Vol. 7). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1980.
Freud, S. Humour. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Collected papers
of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 5). New York: Basic Books,
1959,
Freud, S. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New
York: Norton, 1960.
Fry, W. F., Jr. Laughter: Is it the best medicine? Stanford
M.D., 1971, 10, 16-20.
Fry, W. F., Jr., & Stoft, P. E. Mirth and oxygen saturation
levels of peripheral blood. Psychotherapy and Psycho-
somatics, 1971, 19, 76-84.
Greenwald, H. Humor in psychotherapy. In A. J. Chapman
& H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour. Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press, 1977.
Grotjahn, M. Laughter in psychotherapy. In W. M. Mendel
(Ed.), A celebration of laughter. Los Angeles: Mara
Books, 1970.
Holmes, T. H., & Masuda, M. Life changes and illness
susceptibility. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend
(Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects.
New York: Wiley, 1974.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. The social readjustment
rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1967,
I I , 213-218,
Janis, I. Psychological stress. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Life stress, depression
and anxiety: Internal-external control as a moderator
variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1978,22,
205-208. '
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Moderator variables in
life stress research. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger
(Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 6). Washington, D.C.:
Hemisphere, 1979.
Johnson, J. H., Sarason, I. G., & Siegel, J. M. Arousal
seeking as a moderator of life stress. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1979, 49, 665-666.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in
behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win-
ston, 1973.
Kobasa, S. C. Stressful life events, personality, and health:
An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1979,57, 1-11.
Koestler, A. The act of creation. London: Hutchinson, 1964.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Locus of control as a modifier of the relationship between
stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1981, 41, 357-369.
Leventhal, H., & Safer, M. A. Individual differences, per-
sonality, and humour appreciation: Introduction to
symposium. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),
It's afunny thing, humour. Oxford, England: Pergamon
Press, 1977.
during pleasant and unpleasant emotional states. Psy-
chosomatic Medicine, 1965, 27, 80-85.
symposium. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),
1324 ROD A. MARTIN AND HERBERT M. LEFCOURT

It's a funny thing, humour. Oxford, England: Pergamon
Press, 1977.
May, R. Man's search for himself. New \brk: Norton,
1953.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. The Profile
of Mood States. San Diego, Calif.: EDITS, 1971.
Medalie, J. H., & Goldbourt, U. Angina pectoris among
10,000 men: Psychosocial and other risk factors as ev-
idenced by a multivariate analysis of a five year incidence
study. American Journal of Medicine, 1976, 60, 910-
921.
Mindess, H. Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles: Nash,
1971.
Mindess, H. The use and abuse of humour in psycho-
therapy. In A. J. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humour
and laughter: Theory, research, and applications. Lon-
don: Wiley, 1976.
Novaco, R. W. Anger and coping with stress: Cognitive
behavioral interventions. In J. P. Foreyt & D. P. Rathjen
(Eds.), Cognitive behavior therapy: Research and ap-
plications. New York: Plenum Press, 1978.
Nuckolls, K. B., Cassel, J., & Kaplan, B. H. Psychosocial
assets, life crisis and the prognosis of pregnancy. Amer-
ican Journal of Epidemiology, 1972, 95, 431-441.
O'Connell, W. E. Freudian humour: The eupsychia of
everyday life. In A. J. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Hu-
mour and laughter: Theory, research, and applications.
London: Wiley, 1976.
Paykel, E. S. Life stress and psychiatric disorder: Appli-
cations of the clinical approach. In B. S. Dohrenwend
& B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their
nature and effects. New \fork: Wiley, 1974.
Rabkin, J. G., & Struqning, E. L. Life events, stress, and
illness. Science, 1976, 194, 1013-1020.
Sandier, I. N., & Lakey, B. Locus of control as a stress
moderator: The role of control perceptions and social
support. American Journal of Community Psychology,
1982, W, 65-80.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. Assessing
the impact of life changes: Development of the Life
Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1978, 46, 932-946.
Smith, R. E., Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G., Life change,
the sensation seeking motive, and psychological distress.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978,
46, 348-349.
Svebak, S. Revised questionnaire on the sense of humor.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1974, 15, 328-
331.
Turner, R. G. Self-monitoring and humor production.
Journal of Personality, 1980,45, 163-172.
Zwerling, I. The favorite joke in diagnostic and therapeutic
interviewing. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1955, 24, 104-
114.
Received May 4, 1982
Revision received October 12, 1982

Search Opens for JPSP Section Editor:

Personality Processes and Individual Differences

The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the edi-
torship of the Personality Processes and Individual Differences section of the Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology for the years 1986-1991. Robert Hogan is the
incumbent editor. Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to
start receiving manuscripts in early 1985 to prepare for issues published in 1986. To
nominate candidates, prepare a statement of one page or less in support of each
nomination. Submit nominations no later than February 15, 1984, to:
Kay Deaux
Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
202 Junipero Serra Boulevard
Stanford, California 94305

View publication stats