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

net/publication/227074931

Laughter and Stress in Daily Life: Relation to Positive and Negative Affect

Article  in  Motivation and Emotion · June 1998

DOI: 10.1023/A:1021392305352

CITATIONS READS
94 2,734

2 authors, including:

Rod A. Martin
The University of Western Ontario
96 PUBLICATIONS   10,809 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.

Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1998

Laughter and Stress in Daily Life: Relation to

Positive and Negative Affect
Nicholas A. Kuiper1,2 and Rod A. Martin1

The present study investigated the proposal that increased laughter can serve
to moderate the affective impact of negative life events. Community participants
kept a record of their actual frequency of laughter for a 3-day period, and
completed a measure of stressful life events each evening. Current levels of
positive and negative affect were also obtained in the morning and evening of
each day. A series of simple correlations, computed on a daily basis, provided
little evidence for any direct relationships between amount of daily laughter
and either positive or negative affect. Instead, more complex moderator
analyses revealed that greater negative affect was clearly associated with a
higher number of stressful life events, but only for those individuals with a
lower frequency of actual laughter. In contrast, and in support of a stress
buffering hypothesis, it was found that individuals with a higher frequency of
laughter did not show greater levels of negative affect as stressful life events
increased. When considering positive affect, it was found that only males
showed a significant moderating effect of laughter. For males who laughed
more frequently, a greater number of stressful life events was associated with
higher levels of positive affect. These findings are discussed in terms of several
possible mechanisms which may account for the moderating effects of laughter
on affect, including the use of cognitive appraisals and emotion-focused coping
strategies.

Over the past several years there has been an interest in exploring the
possible links between an individual's sense of humor and other compo-
nents of self-concept, including both content and affect (Kuiper & Martin,
1
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A5 C2.
2
Address all correspondence to N. A. Kuiper, Department of Psychology, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.

133
0146-7239/98/0600-0133$15.00/0 © 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
134 Kuiper and Martin

1998, Martin, 1996; Ruch, 1996). Regarding content, individuals reporting

higher levels of coping humor and laughter responsiveness on various self-
report measures also display a more positive view of self, with greater con-
gruence between their actual and ideal self-concept, higher levels of
sociability, fewer depressive personality characteristics, and a reduced num-
ber of negative self-evaluative standards (Kuiper & Martin, 1993; Kuiper,
Martin, Olinger, Kazarian, & Jette, in press). In terms of affect, some re-
search studies have associated increased levels of self-reported laughter re-
sponsiveness and coping humor with higher levels of self-esteem, and lower
levels of perceived personal stress, depression, and anxiety (Dearer &
McConatha, 1993; Martin, 1996; Overholser, 1992).
Of particular interest in the present context are findings demonstrating
that an increased sense of humor can also serve to moderate the affective
impact of negative life events (Martin, 1996; Martin & Lefcourt, 1983).
These moderator studies have typically employed self-report measures to
assess various aspects of sense of humor, including both laughter respon-
siveness and amount of coping humor. For individuals with lower scores
on these sense of humor components, negative affect pertaining to depres-
sion, anxiety, anger, and fatigue increased substantially as their number of
negative life events increased. In contrast, individuals with a higher sense
of humor did not show an increase in negative affect levels as their number
of stressful life experiences increased. As such, this pattern provides em-
pirical support for the widely-held belief that people with a greater sense
of humor are less adversely affected by stressful experiences (Kuiper &
Olinger, 1998; Martin, 1996). Overall, these moderator studies suggest that
increased humor or laughter can serve to buffer the deleterious effects of
stress on an individual.
Further research has shown that sense of humor is also related to
changes in the positive affect levels associated with stressful life events. In
a study by Kuiper, Martin, and Dance (1992), participants with lower scores
on a self-report measure of laughter responsiveness showed a significant
decrement in positive affect as their negative life events increased. How-
ever, individuals reporting a high degree of laughter responsiveness showed
the opposite relationship, with a significant increase in positive affect as
negative life events increased. This finding suggests that individuals with
greater laughter responsiveness may be invigorated by the potentially stress-
ful events they experience, viewing these events as more of a positive chal-
lenge than a personal threat.
The above proposal has received empirical support in two humor stud-
ies which have directly assessed cognitive appraisals for various life expe-
riences. In the first of these, undergraduate students provided both
challenge and threat appraisals for an upcoming exam (Kuiper, Martin, &
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 135

Olinger, 1993). Consistent with the notion that an increased sense of humor
may provide an individual with a more positive life-affirming approach to
the world (Kuiper et al., 1992), persons reporting higher levels of coping
humor appraised the exam as more of a positive challenge than those re-
porting lower levels of humor. This pattern was replicated in a laboratory
study using a picture drawing task (Kuiper, McKenzie, & Belanger, 1995).
Here, undergraduate students self-reporting higher levels of coping humor
and laughter responsiveness made more positive challenge appraisals, both
before and after the drawing task, compared with low-humor individuals.
Individuals with higher levels of humor also indicated greater enthusiasm
and positive affect for completing this task, along with higher personal mo-
tivation for engaging in this activity. These findings once again support the
notion that a greater sense of humor may contribute to a more positive
orientation towards one's life experiences (Kuiper & Olinger, 1998).
Although the studies reviewed above provide some intriguing findings
pertaining to the potential role of humor and laughter in moderating an
individual's affect level, there is still a need for further clarification and
extension. Accordingly, the present study made several important changes
to the stress moderator paradigm typically employed in this domain. To
begin, past moderator studies have relied extensively on self-report scales
for the assessment of humor components, such as laughter responsiveness
or coping humor (e.g., Kuiper et al., 1992, Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). Al-
though these scales are well-validated and quite reliable (Martin, 1996),
humor investigators have recognized the need to broaden assessment ap-
proaches to include more direct behavioral measures (Ruch, 1996). Toward,
this end, participants in the present study were requested to keep an on-
going daily record of their actual frequency of laughter. Furthermore, this
record was obtained across a 3-day period to minimize the impact of any
extreme variations in frequency of laughter that might be evident for a
shorter sampling period, such as one day or less.
A second change in the present study pertained to the measurement
of life-event stress. Here, we used a well-validated and reliable scale which
has not been employed in previous humor moderator research, namely, the
Daily Stress Inventory (DSI; Brantley, Waggoner, Jones, & Rappaport,
1987). The DSI assesses a broad range of daily activities and events that
might prove stressful or unpleasant for an individual. Most importantly,
however, participants completed this scale on a daily basis (each evening)
for the 3-day period. This is distinct from pact moderator research which
has relied extensively on a single retrospective report of stressful events
that may have occurred over a fairly substantial time period, such as the
prior month, or even longer (e.g., Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). A potential
problem with this single assessment approach is "event fall-off," which re-
136 Kuiper and Martin

fers to the documented decrease in the reporting of stressful life experi-

ences and events as the time span increases (Martin, 1989a). By minimizing
the time period between event occurrence and reporting, the present study
attempted to enhance the accuracy of the stressful life events measure. Fur-
thermore, in order to minimize the possible impact of any extreme daily
fluctuations in stress levels, a total life events stress score was calculated
for the entire 3 days.
A final concern with past humor moderator research is that the find-
ings have been obtained, for the most part, using university undergraduate
samples (Kuiper et al., 1992). To address the issue of generalizability of
these stress buffering effects of laughter, the present study turned to a non-
university sample. In particular, our participants were obtained from the
broader community, with the only criterion being a minimum age of 17
years. No restrictions were placed on such characteristics as education level,
income, occupation, or gender.
Overall, then, the major aim of the present research was to determine
if the stress buffering effects found in past humor research would also ob-
tain when a more direct measure of laughter was employed, using a com-
munity-based sample, and recording stressful events on a daily basis over
a 3-day period. The primary analyses in this study focused on a test of the
moderating effect of actual laughter on the relationship between stressful
life events and both positive and negative affect. Positive affect refers to
pleasurable engagement with one's environment (i.e., being enthusiastic,
alert, active), whereas negative affect refers to unpleasant engagement (i.e.,
being angry, upset, fearful) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Each con-
struct was measured separately using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale
(PANAS), since prior research has indicated that positive and negative af-
fect are not simply opposite ends of a single continuum, but rather form
two independent dimensions (Kuiper et al., 1992).
In terms of negative affect, we expected that those individuals with
lower levels of actual laughter over the three day period would show a
substantial relationship between their final negative affect scores (obtained
on the evening of the third day) and their total number of stressful life
events. For these individuals, higher levels of negative affect would be
closely linked to higher stressful life event scores. For individuals with
higher levels of laughter, however, the stress buffering hypothesis would
predict that a greater number of stressful life events would not be accom-
panied by increased negative affect. In other words, heightened laughter
would serve to buffer these individuals from the deleterious affect associ-
ated with stressful life experiences.
Considering positive affect, we expected that individuals with lower
levels of laughter would show a significant relationship between their final
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 137

positive affect scores (again, obtained during the evening of the third day)
and their total life event scores. Here, a greater number of negative events
would be associated with lower levels of positive affect. In contrast, the
stress buffering hypothesis would predict that, at a minimum, individuals
with higher levels of laughter would not display a decrease in positive affect
levels as negative life events scores increased. Furthermore, to the extent
that increased laughter may contribute to a more positive orientation to-
wards all types of life experiences (Kuiper et al., 1995), it is possible that
individuals with higher levels of laughter may show even higher levels of
positive affect as stressful life events increase.
In addition to examining affect level per se, the present study also
assessed the degree to which actual amounts of laughter may relate to an
individual's overall level of affect intensity. Affect intensity refers to the
strength or intensity of emotional responses normally displayed by an in-
dividual to a wide variety of life situations, and can be assessed via the
Affect Intensity Measure (AIM; Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986). Al-
though the humor literature provides little guidance here, one possibility
is that greater laughter may be viewed as one component of heightened
affect intensity. Prior work by Kuiper et al. (1992), however, found little
support for this proposal in a sample of university undergraduates, as scores
on self-report measures of laughter responsiveness and coping humor were
completely unrelated to affect intensity. By using a more broad-based com-
munity sample, and an actual frequency of laughter measure, the present
study allowed for a further test of any possible link between affect intensity
and amount of laughter.
In the present study, current levels of positive and negative affect were
assessed during the morning and evening of each day. Since actual laughter
was also recorded on a daily basis, this allowed for a further set of analyses
that focused on potential direct relationships between daily affect levels
(both positive and negative) and daily frequency of laughter. It is commonly
believed that people who laugh more often have more positive affect and
less negative affect. Our previous research, however, has shown only very
limited or no evidence for this type of direct relationship between self-re-
port sense of humor scales and mood measures (Kuiper & Martin, 1998;
Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). As such, the present study provided a further
test of this possible relationship when laughter was measured more imme-
diately and directly, rather than relying on self-report sense of humor
scales. We were particularly interested in examining the extent to which
daily laughter might predict affect, or daily affect might predict laughter,
or even both. In other words, do people laugh more because they have
more positive affect, or do they have more positive affect because they
laugh more? These possible relationships were tested by computing a series
138 Kuiper and Martin

of simple correlations between affect levels in the morning of a given day

(both positive and negative) with the amount of laughter on that day; laugh-
ter that day with affect levels that evening; and, finally, laughter that day
with affect levels for the following morning. This issue was also explored
in a somewhat different fashion by obtaining, during the initial testing ses-
sion, a measure of predominant positive and negative affect over the pre-
vious month. Thus, we were also able to determine if there was any
relationship between how a person generally felt over this longer time pe-
riod and their total frequency of laughter.
Finally, in examining all of the above issues, we remained cognizant
of the possibility that gender differences might emerge (Kuiper & Olinger,
1998). Unfortunately, the existing humor literature provides little consis-
tency or direction in this regard, with some studies reporting substantial
gender differences, and other studies indicating no differences. As one il-
lustration, Rim (1988) found significant gender differences in how humor
was used to cope with stress, whereas Overholser (1992) reported no gender
differences in either coping humor or the use of creative humor regarding
stressful situations. Similarly, in terms of laughter, Deaner and McConatha
(1993) reported no gender differences on a self-report measure of laughter
responsiveness, whereas observational research by Provine (1993) has docu-
mented that female speakers laugh more than their audience. Given these
discrepant findings, we felt it appropriate to consider the possible impact
of gender in the present study.

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 80 adults residing in the community of Lon-

don, Ontario, Canada. There were a total of 50 females and 30 males in
this study. Participants were recruited via newspaper and cable TV ads that
announced this would be a study of personality and daily moods, but did
not mention either laughter or humor. The mean age of all participants
was 33.2 years, with a range from 17 to 79, and a standard deviation of 13
years. Participants were each paid a total of $20 for taking part in the study.

Assessment Measures

Affect Intensity Measure. The affect intensity measure (AIM; Larsen et

al., 1986) is a 40-item true/false inventory that assesses the intensity of both
positive and negative emotional experiences. Example items are "When I
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 139

feel happy it is a strong type of exuberance," "My emotions tend to be

more intense than those of most people," and "When I feel guilt, this emo-
tion is quite strong." Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging
from (1) never to (6) always. Larsen et al. reported coefficient alphas rang-
ing from .90 to .94 for this inventory, as well as a high retest reliability of
.81 across 3 months. Scores on this inventory do not correlate with meas-
ures of social desirability, extreme response set, faking good or bad, or
lying.
The Positive and Negative Affect Scale. The PANAS (Watson et al.,
1988) consists of two 10-item scales designed to assess respondents' levels
of positive and negative affect. Positive items include "enthusiastic," "in-
spired," "attentive," and "excited," whereas negative items include "upset,"
"irritable," and "distressed." Respondents are asked to indicate to what
extent each item describes them, using a 5-point scale ranging from (1)
very slightly or not at all to (5) extremely. In the present study, two different
time instructions were employed with this scale. During the initial lab ad-
ministration of the PANAS, participants were asked to indicate how they
had generally been feeling over the past month (i.e., predominant affect).
For each of the daily administrations of the PANAS (in both the morning
and evening), participants were asked to respond in terms of how they were
currently feeling at that moment. Prior research has demonstrated that the
positive and negative affect scores obtained on this measure are minimally
correlated (Kuiper et al., 1992; Watson et al., 1988). Reliability of the
PANAS is high, with Cronbach alphas in the range of .84 to .97. The
PANAS also exhibits good convergent and divergent validity with other
measures of affect, and demonstrates good external validity.
Daily Stress Inventory. The DSI (Brantley et al., 1987) is a 58-item self-
report measure that assesses a broad range of daily events that might prove
stressful or unpleasant for an individual. Potential sources of daily stress
are tapped by items such as "hurried to meet a deadline," 'was embar-
rassed," "argued with another person," "had car trouble," "criticized or ver-
bally attacked," and "performed poorly at a task." For each item, the
respondent indicates whether or not that event had occurred that day, and
if so, how stressful the event was. Stress ratings are made on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from (1) occurred but was not stressful to (7) caused
me to panic. The midpoint of this scale (4) is labeled caused some stress.
Considerable research using community, clinical, and university samples has
demonstrated good psychometric qualities for this inventory. In particular,
the DSI demonstrates a high degree of internal consistency and stability,
and appropriate patterns of concurrent and construct validity with other
measures of stress (Brantley, Cocke, Jones, & Goreczny, 1988; Brantley et
al., 1987).
140 Kuiper and Martin

Procedure and Daily Laughter Record

Participants phoned the number provided in the recruitment ads to con-

tact our research assistant and set up an initial appointment in the lab. At
this individual session, each participant completed general affective meas-
ures relating to: (1) affect intensity, (AIM) and (2) predominant positive
and negative affect over the previous month (PANAS). Other personality
tests were administered at this time, but are not reported here as they were
unrelated to the present focus on affect and laughter. These scales were
administered in a random order via a personal computer. Each participant
was then given a packet containing three copies of the Daily Laugher Record
(described below), six copies of the PANAS, and three copies of the Daily
Stress Inventory. The participants were instructed to complete a copy of the
PANAS each morning and evening for the next 3 consecutive days, in terms
of how they were currently feeling at that time. Participants were also asked
to complete a copy of the Daily Stress Inventory each evening, with regard
to the stressful events that had occurred during that day.
Finally, the Daily Laughter Record (DLR) was to be completed
throughout each of the 3 days. Participants were told that the purpose of
this measure was to find out how frequently people laugh during an ordi-
nary day, and under what circumstances. Participants were encouraged to
carry the DLR with them during the day, and enter all incidents in which
they laughed out loud, as they occurred. Along with this frequency of laugh-
ter measure, participants also indicated the source of laughter. This was
done by using a set of four categories developed in previous research by
Graeven and Morris (1975). The four categories were (1) laughter arising
from a mass media source, such as TV, comics, movies, magazine articles,
etc.; (2) laughter emerging spontaneously within a situation, such as some-
thing funny that happened to or was said by the participant or someone
else; (3) laughter arising from a memorized joke told by the participant or
someone else, and (4) laughter associated with telling or recalling a pre-
vious event. Before each participant left the lab, the use of the Daily Laugh-
ter Record and these categories, as explained in detail, with a number of
examples being given. Each participant received $8.00 at the end of the
laboratory session and a further $12.00 after they returned the packet of
questionnaires after 3 days.

RESULTS

The findings encompass three main sections. Beginning with a pres-

entation of the means and standard deviations, we then move on to exam-
Langhter, Stress, and Affect 141

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) for Entire Sample and
Females and Males
Entire sample Females Males
Measure (N = 80) (n = 50) (n-30)
Frequency of laughter 17.56 (12.49) 18.48 (13.51) 16.07 (13.51)
Affect Intensity Measure 151.35 (20.21) 152.06 (21.20) 150.21 (18.74)
Positive affect
Previous Month 36.25 (5.55) 36.24 (5.59) 36.27 (5.60)
Day 1 Morning 24.20 (8.30) 24.18 (7.53) 24.22 (9.52)
Day 1 Evening 23.78 (7.93) 24.32 (7.69) 22.90 (8.35)
Day 2 Morning 24.00 (8.54) 23.97 (8.46) 24.03 (8.79)
Day 2 Evening 23.69 (9.00) 23.55 (8.72) 24.23 (9.19)
Day 3 Morning 24.43 (8.72) 24.16 (8.76) 24.83 (8.78)
Day 3 Evening 21.71 (7.96) 21.93 (7.72) 21.33 (8.44)
Negative affect
Previous Month 20.26 (7.44) 20.98 (7.06) 19.09 (7.99)
Day 1 Morning 13.10 (4.75) 12.69 (4.16) 13.74 (5.56)
Day 1 Evening 13.00 (4.65) 12.55 (4.33) 13.70 (5.09
Day 2 Morning 13.32 (4.22) 13.10(4.11) 13.66 (4.42)
Day 2 Evening 13.01 (4.16) 13.31 (4.14) 12.61 (4.05)
Day 3 Morning 13.43 (5.77) 13.61 (6.48) 13.13 (4.51)
Day 3 Evening 14.27 (5.71) 14.51 (6.68) 13.86 (3.66)
Daily Stress Inventory 23.28 (8.98) 24.19 (8.50) 21.82 (9.65)

ine the patterns of simple correlations among the major variables, including
affect intensity, frequency of laughter, and positive and negative affect. In
the final section of results, the main regression analyses testing the pro-
posed moderating effect of laughter are presented.

Means and Standard Deviations for Major Variables

The means and standard deviations are shown in Table I for the entire
sample of 80 participants, as well as separately for both females and males.
Overall, the participants reported an average of approximately 17 incidents of
overt laughter per day. Although the overall mean frequency of daily laughter
was slightly higher for females than for males, a t-test indicated that this dif-
ference was not significant. Noteworthy is the broad range of individual vari-
ation in daily laughter. Participants with a low frequency of laughter (i.e., 1
standard deviation below the mean) reported only five to six incidents of laugh-
ter per day. In contrast, participants with a high frequency of laughter (i.e., 1
standard deviation above the mean), reported a rate six times greater than
this, with approximately 30 daily incidents of overt laughter. With regard to
the sources of laughter, the majority of laughter incidents arose spontaneously
in the situation (56% of total laughter). Here, females reported a significantly
higher dairy rate of spontaneous laughter than did males (means of 11.48 vs.
7.32, respectively). Less frequent sources of laughter were mass media (18%),
142 Kuiper and Martin

recalled events (15%), and jokes (11%), with a series of t-tests revealing no
differences in daily rates between females and males for these three categories.
In considering the affect intensity measure, the means and standard
deviations shown in Table I are generally comparable with those obtained
in our previous research with university students (Kuiper et al., 1992). A
t-test indicated that the males and females in the present sample did not
differ significantly in terms of their mean reported levels of affect intensity.
Table I also presents the positive and negative affect means and standard
deviations associated with each of the seven administrations of the PANAS.
As expected with a nonclinical, community-based sample, all of the positive
affect scores were consistently higher than the negative affect scores. In ad-
dition, the positive and negative affect scores obtained under the "Previous
month" time instructions were higher than the corresponding positive or nega-
tive affect scores obtained under the more immediate time instructions for
each day. A further pattern illustrated in Table I is that positive affect levels
were slightly higher during the morning administration, and then diminished
somewhat by the evening. In contrast, negative affect levels remained relatively
constant across mornings and evenings, for each of the 3 days.
Table I also shows that the various affective patterns described above
were equally evident for both males and females. In particular, a series of
t-tests indicated that, for each of the seven administrations of the PANAS,
there were no significant differences between males and females, for either
positive or negative affect scores.
Finally, Table I also presents the means and standard deviations for
the total Daily Stress Inventory score across the entire 3-day period. In the
present sample, the range of individual variation in daily stress was broad,
with participants experiencing high levels of stress (i.e., 1 standard deviation
above the mean) reporting twice the amount of daily stress as individuals
1 standard deviation below the DSI mean. This pattern is comparable to
that reported by Brantley et al. (1988) for their community sample of 70
adults. In considering possible gender distinctions, a t-test indicated that
there was no significant difference between females and males in terms of
the total amount of stress reported for this 3-day period. Further l-tests
were conducted separately for each day, and again showed no significant
differences in the reporting of stress by males versus females.

Affect Intensity, Predominant Affect, and Total Frequency of

Lauchter

Simple correlations indicated that the general level of affect intensity

was unrelated to the total frequency of laughter over the three day period.
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 143

This was the case for the entire sample (r = .06, n.s.), as well as for both
females (r = .05, n.s.) and males (r = .07, n.s.). This pattern suggests that
frequency of laughter was not related to the intensity with which people
experience their negative and positive emotions.
When considering predominant affect levels over the previous month
(i.e., "How have you generally been feeling over the past month?)," some
limited evidence did emerge for a few relationships. In particular, for the
entire sample, higher positive affect over the previous month was associated
with a higher total frequency of laughter across the 3 days (r = .20, p <
.001). This association was even more pronounced for males (r = .53, p <
.001), but was not evident for females (r = -.03, n.s.). For predominant
negative affect over the previous month, simple correlations revealed that
there was no relationship with total frequency of laughter for the 3-day
period, for the entire sample (r = .03, n.s.), nor for females or males when
considered separately (r = -.04, n.s.; r = .09, n.s., respectively). When each
of the above analyses was repeated using separate frequency of laughter
scores for each of the 3 days, comparable patterns were found. In summary,
men who report more positive affect during the previous month tend to
laugh more often over the 3-day period. In contrast, women's predominant
positive affect was unrelated to how often they laughed during this time
period. For both males and females, predominant negative affect was com-
pletely unrelated to frequency of laughter, as was the general intensity of
their affective responses.

Daily Positive and Negative Affect and Daily Frequency of

Laughter

Correlations were also computed between the frequency of laughter

scores for each day and the positive and negative affect scores on the
PANAS from the same day (both morning and evening); and where appli-
cable, from the previous evening and the morning of the following day.
This was done in order to examine the degree to which affect level might
predict frequency of laughter, or amount of laughter might predict sub-
sequent affect, or both. Overall, however, there were very few significant
relationships. On Day 1 there was a weak but significant correlation be-
tween negative affect during the morning of that day and laughter for day
1 (r = -.23, p < .05). There was also a weak correlation between laughter
that day and negative affect in the evening (r = -.20, p < .05). On Day
2, there were no significant correlations. Finally, on Day 3 the only signifi-
cant correlation was between laughter frequency during that day and posi-
tive affect in the evening (r = .31, p < .01). Similar patterns were found
144 Kuiper and Martin

when the data were analyzed separately for males and females. Overall,
then, these results did not provide much evidence for any consistent or
strong relationships between daily affect and laughter.

Total Stress, Total Frequency of Laughter, and Final Positive

and Negative Affect

In the primary set of analysis we tested the hypothesis that total fre-
quency of laughter over the 3 days would serve to moderate the effects of
total daily stress on positive and negative moods. This was done by means
of hierarchical multiple-regression analyses. The criterion variables for
these analyses were the positive and negative affect scores obtained from
the final administration of the PANAS (on the evening of the third day).
These analyses also controlled for predominant affect levels by first enter-
ing the relevant affect scores from the initial administration of the PANAS
(i.e., how one generally felt over the previous month). In light of potential
gender differences, we began our examination by considering possible
three-way interactions between total daily stress scores, total daily laughter,
and gender of participants. The first order terms (i.e., gender, total stress,
total laughter), as well as all two-way interactions (products) were entered
first into these regression analyses to control for their effects (Aiken &
West, 1991).
With final negative affect as the criterion variable, the three-way in-
teraction between gender, total stress, and total laughter failed to reach
statistical significance, F(1, 72) = 3.54, p = .06, indicating that any potential
moderating effect of laughter on affect does not differ between males and
females. Therefore, we collapsed across gender and tested for the predicted
two-way interaction between daily stress and total laughter in the entire
sample. A multiple-regression equation was computed, regressing PANAS
negative affect scores from the evening of Day 3 on negative affect over
the previous month, total daily stress, total laughter, and the product of
these latter two variables. This interaction term provided a specific test of
the degree to which frequency of laughter during the course of three days
served as a moderator variable between total daily stress encountered
across the three days and final levels of negative affect. As shown in Table
IIa, this analysis revealed that both predominant negative affect over the
past month and total daily stress were significant predictors of final negative
affect. Total frequency of laughter over 3 days did not add significantly to
the equation. Most importantly, however, the two-way interaction between
total stress and total laughter was a significant predictor of final negative
affect, F(1, 75) = 12.63, p < .001.
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 145
146 Kuiper and Martin

Fig. 1. Moderating effects of low versus high levels of laughter on the relationship between
total daily stress and final negative affect for the total sample (N = 80). PANAS = Positive and
Negative Affect Scale.

The nature of this two-way interaction for the total sample is shown
in Fig. 1. The regression weights obtained in the analysis were used to plot
the predicted values of negative affect for participants 1 standard deviation
above and below the mean on total frequency of laughter. This figure il-
lustrates that, for those individuals displaying low levels of laughter across
the 3 days, higher levels of total daily stress are clearly associated with
increased levels of negative affect. In contrast, and as predicted by the
stress buffering hypothesis, individuals displaying high levels of laughter did
not show an increase in their level of negative affect as their total daily
stress scores increased. Tests of the slopes of these lines, using the proce-
dures recommended by Aiken and West (1991), indicated a highly signifi-
cant positive slope for low laughter participants, t(75) = 6. 11, p < .0001,
but a nonsignificant slope for high laughter participants, t(75) < 1, n.s.
Taken together, this pattern of findings for both low- and high-laughter
participants clearly supports the hypothesized stress buffering effect of
laughter upon negative affect. Furthermore, as a final check for any pos-
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 147

Fig. 2. Moderating effects of low versus high levels of laughter on the relationship between
total daily stress and final positive affect for Males only (n = 30). PANAS = Positive and
Negative Affect Scale.

sibility of gender differences, separate analysis were conducted for males

and females. In both instances, however, the pattern of findings for negative
affect were equivalent to those reported for the entire sample.
Turning to the analyses of positive affect, the three-way interaction was
significant, F(1, 72) = 4.30, p < .05, indicating that the interaction between
total daily stress and total laughter differed for female and male participants.
Therefore, in the subsequent analyses we examined the proposed stress-
moderating effects of laughter on positive affect separately for males and
females. The analysis for female participants failed to demonstrate a stress-
moderating effect. In particular, the two-way interaction between total daily
stress and total laughter was not a significant predictor of final positive af-
fect, F(1, 45) = 1.32, n.s. The only significant predictor in the analysis for
females was the total daily stress score, with higher levels of stress being
predictive of more positive affect, F(1, 47) = 3.29, p < 05.
For male participants, however, the analysis revealed a significant
stress-moderating effect of laughter on positive affect. As shown in Table
IIb, this two-way interaction between total laughter and total daily stress
148 Kuiper and Martin

accounted for an additional 12% of the variance in positive affect scores,

F(1, 25) = 4.18, p < .05. To further examine the direction of this interac-
tion, predicted values of positive affect were computed for males one stand-
ard deviation above and below the mean on total frequency of laughter,
using the regression weights obtained in this analysis. Interestingly, as
shown in Fig. 2, for males displaying high laughter, higher levels of total
daily stress are associated with higher levels of positive affect. In contrast,
among males displaying low laughter, higher total daily stress did not result
in greater levels of positive affect. Tests of the slopes of these lines indicated
a significant positive slope for high-laughter males, t(25) — 2.75, p < .01;
and a nonsignificant slope for low-laughter males, t(25) < 1, n.s.

DISCUSSION

This study has revealed that people laugh about 17 times a day, with
laughter emerging most frequently in spontaneous situations and interac-
tions. Other much less frequent sources of daily laughter include exposure
to mass media (TV, movies, magazines, etc.), the telling of jokes, and the
recalling of previous events. For the most part, males and females did not
differ in their frequency of laughter, with the only exception being that
females reported a significantly higher rate of spontaneous laughter than
males.
The present study found no support for the proposal that a greater
frequency of laughter may constitute one component of an individual's
heightened level of affect intensity. In particular, for both the males and
females in this community sample, total frequency of laughter was com-
pletely unrelated to affect intensity. Prior research by Kuiper et al. (1992),
using an undergraduate university sample, has also found no evidence of
any relationship between affect intensity and self-report measures of laugh-
ter responsiveness and coping humor, nor between affect intensity and the
range of positive or negative affect displayed by participants over a 14-day
time period. As such, these findings clearly indicate that individuals with
a greater sense of humor do not display stronger or more intense emotions
to a wide variety of life situations than do individuals with a lower sense
of humor.
The present study also found very little empirical support for the popu-
lar belief that people who laugh more often have more positive affect and
less negative affect. In particular, a set of simple correlations between ac-
tual frequency of laughter and positive and negative affect found very few
significant relationships. When considered on a daily basis, frequency of
laughter was generally unrelated to daily levels of positive and negative
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 149

affect. In addition, predominant negative affect over the previous month

was also unrelated to total frequency of laughter, for both males and fe-
males. For positive affect, it was only in the case of males that a relationship
emerged, with greater frequency of total laughter being linked with more
predominant positive affect. Females, however, did not show this effect. At
a broader level, these findings suggest two points. First, it appears that
laughter is not generally related to affect in a simple and direct manner.
Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the frequency with which people laugh
appears to be largely unrelated to either their immediate or predominant
positive or negative affect (excepting predominant positive affect for
males). Second, and as discussed in more detail below, this latter finding
begins to provide some indication of a potential gender difference, with
males showing a different relationship between laughter and positive affect
than females.
Perhaps the most interesting set of results to emerge from this study
pertained to the hypothesized stress buffering effects of sense of humor
(Kuiper et al., 1992; Martin, 1996). Using more direct and immediate meas-
ures of laughter and stressful live events than have been previously em-
ployed in this paradigm, the present study found considerable evidence for
a moderator effect of actual frequency of laughter on negative affect levels.
This stress buffering effect was evident for the total sample, being equally
strong for both males and females. Individuals low in laughter displayed a
significant increment in negative affect as stressful life events increased. In
contrast, those high in laughter did not show such an increment in negative
affect with increased stressful events. These results lend further converging
empirical support to a number of previous findings that have shown the
moderating effects of humor or laughter on the relationship between stress-
ful life events and a variety of adverse psychological and immune system
outcomes (Martin, 1996; Martin & Dobbin, 1988; Martin & Lefcourt,
1983). The present findings advance this previous research by using a more
direct measure of frequency of laughter (vs. self-report scales), a more di-
rect, ongoing daily measure of stressful live events (vs. single retrospective
assessments over a longer time period), and a more heterogeneous com-
munity-based sample (vs. university student samples). Importantly, these
findings strengthen further the proposal that the effects of laughter on af-
fect are primarily indirect, with laughter serving to moderate the effects of
stressors on affect. Coupled with the findings that the simple daily corre-
lations between laughter and affect were generally nonsignificant, it appears
that laughter is not a direct regulator of affective states. Rather, laughter
plays a role in coping with stress, which, in turn, has a substantial impact
on affect.
150 Kuiper and Martin

The present study found a gender difference pertaining to the stress

buffering effect of laughter on positive affect. Here, females did not show
any evidence of a moderator effect, whereas males showed quite a promi-
nent effect. For men who laughed less frequently during the 3 days there
was little relationship between their stress levels and positive affect. In con-
trast, for men who laughed frequently, there was a strong positive relation-
ship, such that higher positive affect levels were associated with increased
stress. While not directly assessed in the present study, this pattern is con-
sistent with the notion that frequently laughing men may find daily stressors
to be even more challenging and invigorating, rather than threatening and
deleterious.
Further work is certainly required to elucidate more clearly the pos-
sible factors which may account for any gender differences in this type of
research. The present study provides some guidance in this direction, as it
found that males and females did not differ in terms of their levels of posi-
tive and negative affect, nor in terms of the overall amounts of daily stress
or frequency of laughter they reported. Aside from the moderator effect
for positive affect described above, the only remaining gender difference
in the present study was that females reported significantly more sponta-
neous laughter than males (albeit that this was the most frequent category
for both males and females). This finding is consistent, at a very general
level, with observational research indicating that female speakers laugh
more than their audience (Provine 1993). As such, future research in this
domain might consider more explicitly how males and females may some-
times differ in their use of laughter. Furthermore, this differential use may
interact with the types of stressors most commonly reported by males and
females. Recent work by Santiago and Bernstein (1996), for example, sug-
gests that males report more achievement-related stressors, whereas fe-
males report more interpersonal stressors. Thus, it is possible that for
females, laughter may play a particularly important role in dealing with
stressful interpersonal situations.
At an even more general level, a major difficulty in this domain of
research is that we currently have only a limited theoretical understanding
of the potential mechanisms or processes that may be involved when laugh-
ter and other forms of humor are involved in stress reduction and affect
regulation. As an initial step in this direction, we have advanced a general
conceptual framework for considering how laughter and other forms of hu-
mor may function to alleviate or even reduce negative affect. In particular,
Martin (1989b) has proposed that the facilitative effects of humor on stress
reduction may be evident in four domains, namely, cognitive appraisals,
emotion-focused strategies, interpersonal problem-solving techniques, and
physiologic-focused coping. Emotion-focused strategies involve the use of
Laughter, Stress, and Affect 151

laughter to discharge pent-up negative emotions, whereas problem-solving

techniques include the use of nonhostile humor to reduce interpersonal
tension and conflict. Physiologic-focused coping, in turn, refers to the po-
tential physiological benefits of laughter, such as stimulation of the mus-
cular and cardio-vascular systems, increased activity of the immune system,
and a reduction in stress-related chemicals in the body (Fry, 1994; Kuiper
& Olinger, 1998). As described previously, some of our research has already
focused on humor and cognitive appraisals that may relate to affect regu-
lation and stress reduction (Kuiper et al., 1993,1995). Although the existing
humor scales do not directly tap cognitive appraisals, this past research has
shown that individuals with higher levels of coping humor and laughter
responsiveness also report more positive challenge appraisals. Thus, it may
prove worthwhile for future research to modify the stress moderator para-
digm to allow for the assessment of both challenge and threat appraisals.
As more research continues to refine our understanding of the poten-
tial relationships among laughter, stress, and affect, there are several ad-
ditional issues that require clarification. Some humor investigators, for
example, have proposed that various aspects of sense of humor, such as
laughter, may be more simply thought of as behavioral manifestations of
the underlying personality trait of extraversion (Ruch & Deckers, 1993).
Thus, rather than focusing on laughter as the explanatory construct in stress
reduction, these investigators would argue that any obtained moderating
effects should be explained in terms of extraversion. It should be noted,
however, that the precise relationships among humor, laughter, and other
personality variables remain far from clear. Several research studies, for
example, have found very little overlap between positive personality char-
acteristics, such as optimism, and either coping humor, or laughter respon-
siveness (Kuiper & Martin, 1998). Furthermore, the limited research which
has included additional personality variables in this stress moderator para-
digm has yielded complex findings that do not clearly disentangle the rela-
tive contributions of either laughter or personality variables to stress
reduction (Korotkov & Hanna, 1994). As such, we would recommend that
future work in this domain include potentially relevant personality con-
structs (both positive and negative), in addition to measures of stress, hu-
mor and laughter.
A second, more general issue which requires clarification in future re-
search concerns the multidimensional nature of humor and laughter. The
present study has focused on laughter as one component of sense of humor.
This conceptualization is in accord with our past research findings showing
a consistent moderate degree of relationship between a number of self-re-
port measures, including coping humor and laughter responsiveness
(Kuiper & Martin, 1993; Martin, 1996). It should also be recognized, how-
152 Kuiper and Martin

ever, that laughter is distinct in many ways. As just one illustration, laughter
is often thought of as a more reflex-like physiological-behavioral response,
whereas coping humor may involve higher order perceptual-cognitive-emo-
tional processes (Kuiper & Olinger, 1998). These distinctions may then
have implications for the mechanisms that are involved in stress reduction,
with laughter perhaps contributing more to emotion-focused and physi-
ologic-focused coping techniques. In contrast, coping humor may relate
more to revising cognitive appraisals associated with potentially stressful
events. To date, however, these distinctions have not been adequately ad-
dressed, either theoretically or empirically, in the stress moderator para-
digm. Thus, there is a need for future work to more clearly delineate these
distinctions between laughter and other components of humor, both in
terms of the potential mechanisms involved and their effects on stress re-
duction.
Finally, complicating the above issues even further is the recognition
that not all forms of laughter or humor may be positive in nature. Although
laughter has generally been found to be socially facilitative, it can also be
expressed in a derogatory and demeaning fashion that includes downward
comparisons to others (Kuiper & Olinger, 1998). Thus, care should also
be taken in future research to more fully assess the positive or negative
function being served by laughter, and how this may differentially influence
both affect regulation and stress reduction.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brantley, P. J., Cocke, T. B., Jones, G. N., & Goreczny, A J. (1988). The Daily Stress Inventory:
Validity and effect of repeated administration. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 10, 75-81.
Brantley, P. J., Waggoner, C. D., Jones, G. N., & Rappaport, N. B. (1987). A Daily Stress
Inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 61-74.
Deaner, S., & McConatha, J. (1993). The relation of humor to depression and personality.
Psychological Reports, 72, 755-73.
Fry, W. F. (1994). The biology of humor. Humor International Journal of Humor Research, 7,
111-126.
Graeven, D. B., & Morris, S. J. (1975). College humor in 1930 and 1972: An investigation
using the humor diary. Sociology and Social Research, 59, 406-410.
Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (1994). Extraversion and emotionality as proposed superor-
dinate stress moderators. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 395-397.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 6, 251-270.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Is sense of humor a positive personality characteristic?
In W. Ruch (Ed.), The "sense of humor": Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp.
159-178) (Humor Research Series). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
 Laughter, Stress, and Affect 153

Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Dance, K. A. (1992). Sense of humor and enhanced quality
of life. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1273-1283.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humor, stress, and cognitive
appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 25, 81-96.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., Olinger, L. J., Kazarian, S. S., & Jette, J. (in press). Sense of
humor, self-concept, and psychological well-being in psychiatric inpatients. Humor: Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research.
Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual
differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19, 359-372.
Kuiper, N. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1998). Humor and mental health. In H. Friedman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mental health, (Vol. 10). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to daily
life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51, 803-814.
Martin, R. A. (1989a). Techniques for data acquisition and analysis in field investigations of
stress. In R. W. J. Neuteld (Ed.), Advances in investigations of psychological stress (pp.
195-234). New York: Academic Press.
Martin, R. A. (1989b). Humor and mastery of living: Using humor to cope with the daily
stresses of growing up. In P. E. McGhee (Ed.), Humor and children's development: A
guide to practical applications (pp. 135-154) New York: Haworth Press,
Martin, R. A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and Coping
Humor Scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor: International Journal of Hu-
mor Research, 9, 251-272.
Martin, R. A., & Dobbin, J. P. (1988). Sense of humor, hassles, and immunoglobin A: Evidence
for a stress-moderating effect of humor. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine,
18, 93-105.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation
between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,1313- 1324.
Overholser, J. (1992). Sense of humor when coping with life stress. Personality and Individual
Difference, 13, 799-804.
Provine, R. R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of
laughter. Ethology, 95, 291-298.
Rim, Y. (1988). Sense of humor and coping styles. Personality and Individual Difference, 9,
559-564.
Ruch, W. (1996). Measurement approaches to the sense of humor: Introduction and overview.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 239-250.
Ruch, W, & Deckers, L. (1993). Do extraverts "like to laugh"? An analysis of the Situational
Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ). European Journal of Personality 7, 211 -220.
Santiago, R. A., & Bernstein, B,!L. (1996). Affiliation, achievement and life events: Contribu-
tors to stress appraisals in college men and women. Personality and Individual Differences,
21, 411-419.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 54, 1063-1070.

View publication stats