Content uploaded by Rod A. Martin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rod A. Martin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coping Humour, Stress, and Cognitive
Appraisals
NTCOLAS A. KUIPER and ROD A. MARTIN,
University of Western Ontario
L. JOAN OLINGER, University Hospital
Abstract
This study investigated relationships between sense of humour and cognitive
appraisals and reappraisals of a potentially stressful event. Cognitive apprai-
sals for an academic examination were obtained at several points in time.
Consistent with our predictions, individuals with high scores on the Coping
Humour scale appraised the exam as more of a positive challenge than did
low humour individuals. In their reappraisals, high humour subjects' ratings of
importance and positive challenge were positively related to performance on
the exam, whereas for low humour subjects this relationship was negative. In
predicting their performance on the next exam, high humour subjects adjusted
their expectations on the basis of performance on the previous exam, whereas
low humour subjects did not. In addition, humour was negatively related to
both perceived stress and dysfunctional standards for self-evaluation. Overall,
these results support the proposal that a sense of humour may facilitate coping
and adjustment.
Resume
L'etude en question portait sur Ies relations entre le sens de l'humour et Ies
appreciations et reappreciations cognitives d'une situation pouvant engendrer
du stress. Les sujets ont fourni a plusieurs moments des appreciations
cognitives d'un examen qu'ils devaient passer dans le cadre de leurs etudes.
Comme nous l'avions predit, Ies sujets ayant obtenu des scores eleves dans
l'echelle de mesure de l'humour face ii I'adaptation consideraient davantage
l'examen comme un defi positif quc nc le faisaient les sujets ayant moins le
sens de l'humour. En cc qui concerne la reappr£ciation, les points attribues a
I'importance de l'examen ct au defi positif par Ies sujets ayant un grand sens
de l'humour ctaient correles positivement au resultat de l'examen, alors que la
correlation etait negative dans le cas des sujets ayant moins d'humour. Pour
predire leur rendement au prochain examen, les sujets ayant un grand sens dc
l'humour ont ajuste leurs attentcs en fonction du resultat de l'examen
precedent, ce que n'ont pas fait les autres sujets. De plus, l'humour etait
correle negativement au stress pergu par les sujets et aux normes
dysfonctionnelles dans le cas de l'auto-evaluation. tin general, les resultats
confirment l'idee que le sens de l'humour peut faciliter I'adaptation.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
1993,
25:1,
81-96
82 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
The notion that a sense of humour is an important contributor to psychologi-
cal well-being has long been evident in the psychological literature,
particularly among personality theorists. For example, Abraham Maslow
(1962) considered an unhostile sense of humour to be characteristic of
"self-actualizing" individuals. Gordon Allport (1961) also wrote about the
positive effects of humour, and Sigmund Freud (1928) argued that humour
is the highest of the defense mechanisms, allowing the ego to triumph in the
face of adversity. Similarly, Rollo May (1953) suggested that humour has the
function of "preserving I he sense of
self...
It is the healthy way of feeling a
'distance' between one's self and the problem, a way of standing off and
looking at one's problem with perspective" (p. 61).
According to these theorists,
the
beneficial effects of
a
sense of humour are
particularly evident when individuals are faced with potentially stressful
situations. Indeed, Dixon (1980) has suggested that humour may have
evolved in the human species specifically as a means of coping with the sorts
of social and cognitive stressors that they encounter. According to Dixon, the
beneficial effects of humour are primarily produced by means of the cognitive
shifts that humour entails.
From a cognitive perspective, a sense of humour may mitigate the adverse
effects of stress in at least two ways. First, individuals who generally respond
to life in a humorous manner may be less likely to appraise their environ-
ment as threatening, and therefore may experience less stress in their lives,
than do those with less of a sense of humour. Second, in situations that are
experienced as stressful, individuals with a sense of humour may be able to
cope more effectively by making more benign reappraisals of the stressors.
As a result, high humour individuals may have better psychological
adjustment and better emotional and physical health.
It is only within the past few years, however, that researchers have begun
to empirically investigate the stress-buffering effects of
sense
of humour. One
example is recent work by Martin and his colleagues assessing the potential
role of sense of humour as a moderator of the negative impact of stressful
events (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; Lefcourt
&
Martin, 1986; Martin & Dobbin,
1988;
Martin, 1989). Using a moderator variable paradigm, this research has
examined the interaction between sense of humour and life stress in
predicting various outcome variables, such as mood disturbance and
immunoglobulin levels. In these studies, subjects' sense of humour has been
assessed in a variety of ways, including self-report measures, peer ratings,
and the rated humourousness of subjects' impromptu comedy monologues
in the laboratory.
Typical findings from this research indicate an interactive effect whereby
level of humour moderates the impact of stressful events on negative moods
such as depression and anxiety. For those individuals with low scores on
measures of sense of humour, increased levels of stressful events produce
greater levels of disturbed mood. In contrast, those individuals with a higher
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 83
sense of humour show little or no increase in disturbed moods with an
increase in stressful life events (Lefcourt
&
Martin,
1986;
see also Nezu, Nezu,
&
Blissett,
1988,
for a further demonstration). Similar findings have also been
found using secretory immunoglobulin A (S-]gA), a measure of immune
system functioning, as the outcome measure (Martin
&
Dobbin,
1988).
In this
latter study, low humour individuals showed a significant decrease in
S-igA
following high levels of stressful hassles, whereas high humour subjects
showed little or no relationship between hassles and S-IgA. These findings are
consistent with the notion that a sense of humour may protect the individual
from the adverse effects of stressful experiences.
Although findings such as these are promising, the research to date has
not addressed the
processes
by which a sense of humour may mitigate the
effects of stress. In keeping with the ideas outlined earlier, one potential
mechanism that seems worthy of investigation has to do with the cognitive
appraisals involved in the stress process.
A
cognitive theory of stress assumes
that appraisals influence the stress process in at least two different ways
(Lazarus
&
Folkman, 1984). First, initial appraisals are involved in determin-
ing whether an individual will experience an event as stressful in the first
place. Thus, if an event is appraised as a threat that taxes one's coping
resources, rather than a challenge that can be managed, then it will be
experienced as stressful. Second, cognitive reappraisals may be involved in
strategies used to cope with a situation or event once it has been perceived
to be stressful. For example, by altering one's perspective to view a stressor
as less personally relevant, one may be able to reduce its negative impact.
The present study was designed as an initial attempt at investigating the
ways in which such cognitive appraisals may differ between high and low
humour individuals when they are faced with a potentially stressful event.
In this study we selected a real event containing the potential for stress,
namely, an academic examination. Students' cognitive appraisals were
assessed one week prior to this examination, immediately afterwards, and
then one week later. In particular, we measured appraisals of perceived
challenge and threat associated with the examination, and the perceived
personal importance of the examination for the individual. We also obtained
a measure of expected performance on this examination to determine how
this variable (along with actual exam performance) might bear on the
relationship between cognitive appraisals and sense of humour.
The subjects' sense of humour was assessed in this study by means of the
Coping Humour Scale (CHS; Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). This measure was
selected because it was specifically designed to assess the degree to which
individuals maintain a humourous outlook when confronted with potentially
stressful situations. In addition, although it focusses on humour in response
to
stress,
this measure has also been found to be correlated with more general
measures of humour, including other self-report humour scales, peer ratings
of sense of humour, and rated humourousness of impromptu comedy mono-
84 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
logues (Lefcourt
&
Martin,
1986).
Thus, the
CHS
may be viewed as
a
measure
of the degree to which individuals generally respond with humour in their
daily lives, and particularly when faced with potentially stressful situations.
Note that the ens does not assess the type of humour that individuals prefer,
but rather the general tendency to both perceive and utilize humour in one's
life situations.
In keeping with the above formulations, our predictions related both to
the initial appraisal process and to reappraisals. Initial appraisals were
assessed one week before the exam, and here we hypothesized that subjects
with a higher sense of humour (as measured on the CHS) would make less
negative and more positive appraisals of the exam. In other words, they
would appraise the exam less as a negative threat and more as a positive
challenge. We conceptualized these sorts of appraisals as an "event-
enhancement" function of humour, suggesting that humourous individuals
actively seek out life experiences and view them in a positive rather than
negative fashion.
We were also interested in examining how sense of humour might be
related to the reappraisal process after the examination was completed. Here
we were particularly interested in the ratings of personal importance of the
exam. Several theorists have suggested that humour provides a means of
protecting the self in times of threat by distancing the individual from the
stressor (Dixon,
1980;
Freud,
1928;
May,
1953).
We reasoned that, particularly
with regard to performance-related stressors, this distancing may relate to the
degree to which the individual perceives the event as having personal
importance.
1
Iere we were also interested in taking into account the degree
to which subjects' actual performance on the exam differed from their
expected performance. Thus, in the present study we predicted that, after
performance thai was poorer than expected, high humour individuals would
consider the exam to be less personally important than would low humour
individuals. Conversely, after performance that was better than expected,
high humour individuals would consider the exam to be more personally
important. We conceptualized these sorts of appraisals as a "self-protective"
function of humour.
The longitudinal design of this study also allowed us to gather some pre-
liminary data on the nature of subjects' initial appraisals of a subsequent
event (i.e., the next exam in the course). Thus, we assessed the perceived
threat and challenge of the next exam, as well as the grade that subjects
expected to obtain.
Participants in this study also completed several additional measures that
allowed for the assessment of potential links between sense of humour and
several further variables of interest. We hypothesized that the pattern of
appraisals and reappraisals exhibited by high humour individuals would
serve to minimize any perceived stress associated with the exam. Thus, we
also expected that high humour subjects would report less feelings of stress
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 85
and greater feelings of control following the
exam.
This hypothesis was tested
by administering the Perceived Stress Scale, a measure of global stress, one
week following the exam.
In addition, the subjects completed the Ways of Coping Scale, which
assesses a number of different coping strategies for handling potentially
stressful events, including seeking social support, distancing
oneself,
confrontive coping, and so on. We included this measure to examine
differences in coping strategies between high and low humour individuals in
response to an academic stressor. For example, a correlation between sense
of humour and the reported use of emotional distancing strategies would
provide support for the proposal that distancing may be a coping strategy
employed by high humour individuals (Dixon, 1980; Martin, 1989).
Finally, we were interested in the link between sense of humour and the
sorts of self-evaluative standards that may underly various cognitive
appraisals. For this purpose we included the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale,
a measure of the degree to which respondents endorse unrealistic standards
for self-evaluation (e.g., "If I do not do well all the time, people will not
respect
me").
This measure has been found in previous research to be related
to vulnerability to depression (Kuiper & Olinger, 1989). We predicted that
high humour individuals would receive lower scores on the
DAS,
reflecting
more realistic self-evaluative standards, which, in turn, may underly a
tendency to appraise events as less threatening to the
self.
METHOD
Subjects
A sample of 44 female university students participated in all three phases of
this study. The subjects were enrolled in an introductory psychology course
at Brescia College, a predominantly female college affiliated with the
University of Western Ontario. All subjects were volunteers, and their mean
age was 19, with a range from 18 to 30.
Self-Report Measures
Coping Humor Scale
(ens).
This seven item self-report scale was developed by
Martin and Lefcourt (1983) to provide a measure of the degree to which indi-
viduals maintain a sense of humour in potentially stressful situations, and
employ humour as a means of coping with
stress.
Example items on this scale
include; "I have often found that my problems have been greatly reduced
when
I
tried to find something funny in them," and "I can usually find some-
thing to laugh or joke about, even in trying situations." All items on the scale
are answered on a 4-point scale, ranging from (i) "strongly disagree" to (4)
"strongly agree". Internal consistency analyses for this scale have yielded
satisfactory Cronbach alphas (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986). In addition, CHS
scores are not significantly correlated with Marlowe-Crowne
Social
Desirabil-
ity Scale scores (r's range from -.10 to +.10), suggesting that the
CHS
is not
86 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
contaminated by social desirability (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986). The validity of
this measure has been supported by a variety of findings, including
significant correlations witli peer ratings of sense of humour (Martin &
Lefcourt, 1983), increased levels of immunoglobulins (Dillon,
Minchoff,
&
Baker, 1985), and decreased stress levels associated with dental surgery (Trice
& Price, 1986). This measure has been found in previous research to exert a
moderating effect on the relationship between stressful life events and such
outcomes as disturbed moods and immunoglobulin levels (Lefcourt
&
Martin,
1986;
Martin & Dobbin, 1988). Further information concerning the construct
validity and psychometric properties of this scale can be found in Lefcourt
and Martin (1986).
Ways of
Coping
Scale.
Subjects in this study completed a slightly modified
version of the Ways of Coping scale (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). This scale is
a 67-item self-report inventory designed to assess eight domains of coping
strategies, including: confrontive coping (e.g., "Try to get the person
responsible to change his or her mind", "Stand my ground and fight for what
I want"); distancing (e.g., "Go on as if nothing is happening", "Don't let it get
to me; refuse to think too much about it"); self-control ("I try not to act too
hastily or follow my first hunch"); social support ("Ask a relative or friend
I respect for advice"); accept responsibility ("Realize I brought on the
problem myself"); escape-avoidance ("Try to make myself feel better by
eating, drinking, smoking, using drugs or medications,
etc.");
problem-solving
("I'm making a plan of action and following it"); and positive reappraisal
("I'm changing or growing as a person in a good way). Respondents
indicated how frequently they used each of the coping strategies on a o to 3
scale, where o was "Does not apply and/or not used" and 3 was "Used a
great deal". Each domain has its own subscore with higher scores indicating
greater use of that coping style. For this study, the Ways of Coping scale was
specifically labelled "Strategies for handling academic evaluations". This was
done to focus the subject's thoughts on how they coped with the stress of
academic evaluations, rather than the stress of other aspects of their
lives.
The
instruction paragraph at the beginning of the instrument was also slightly
reworded from the original scale, asking subjects to describe how they had
coped with this particular academic examination. Further details concerning
the construction, reliability, and validity of this scale are provided by
Folkman and Lazarus (1985).
Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS). The
l*SS
is a 14-item self-report measure tapping
cognitive and emotional aspects relating to global perceived stress level
(Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). In particular, the scale is designed
to measure the extent to which individuals generally feel that their lives are
unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overwhelming. F.xample items include "In
the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?" and "In the last month, how often have you
felt nervous and stressed?" For each item, response options range from O
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 87
"never" to 4 "very often". Short term test-retest reliability for the
PSS
is .85,
with coefficient alphas ranging from .84 to .86 (Cohen et al., 1983).
Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS). The DAS is a 40-item self-report
inventory designed to assess the extent of dysfunctional self-evaluative
standards (Cane, Olinger, Gotlib,
&
Kuiper,
1986).
The items on this scale tap
irrational, excessive contingencies for determining self-worth with high
endorsement rates being associated with increased vulnerability to negative
emotions, such as depression (Kuiper & Olinger, 1989). Example items
include: "If I do not do well all of the time, people will not respect me", and
"If
I
fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure". Responses
are
made
on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 "totally disagree" to 7 "totally agree".
Internal consistency coefficients range from .79 to .93, and test-retest
reliabilities across a 2 to 3 month period range from .79 to .81 (Kuiper &
Olinger, 1989).
PROCEDURE
Participants were assessed across three time periods. Time
1
was one week
before the first midterm exam in the course. Time 2 was immediately after
completion of the exam, and time 3 was one week later. By time 3, each
person had received official confirmation of their mark on the exam.
Throughout the study, subjects were assessed in group testing sessions
during class time. Prior to assessment at time 1, each participant read and
signed an informed consent form.
At time 1, subjects completed the
DAS
and a Student Rating Form that
contained several questions pertaining to the upcoming test. Specifically, this
form included one question regarding expected performance on the exam:
"What mark do you actually expect to get on this upcoming test?" (from o
to 100%). Also assessed were appraisals of the personal importance of the
upcoming exam, and appraisals of challenge and threat. Personal importance
ratings were made on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important, and 7 =
extremely important) in response to the question, "In terms of this academic
year, how personally important is this upcoming test for
you?"
Challenge and
threat appraisals were also made on 7-point scales
(1
- not at all so, and 7 =
extremely so), in response to the following: "Rate the extent to which you
view the upcoming test as a positive challenge", and "Rate the extent to
which you view the upcoming test as a negative threat."
At time 2, one week later, participants were again asked to provide
appraisals of challenge and threat. This was done immediately after the exam
using the same 7-point scales described above (with minor rewording to
reflect the fact the exam was now completed). Since the exam was written
during a regular class period, there was insufficient time upon completion of
the exam to administer more extensive measures.
At time 3, one week after the exam, subjects completed a test booklet,
containing in a random order, the following instruments;
CHS,
PSS,
and Ways
88 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
TABLEi
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations with Coping Humour
Coping Humour Scale
Initial Appraisals (for First Exam)
Expected Mark (Ti)
Positive Challenge
(TI)
Negative Threat
(TI)
Personal Importance
(TI)
Actual Mark (on First Exam)
Mean
19-36
70.63
5.20
3.84
5.81
68.56
Cognitive Reappraisals (for First Exam)
Positive Challenge (T2) 4.47
Negative Threat (T2) 3.72
Personal Importance (T3) 5.06
Perceived Stress Scale (T3)
Initial Appraisals (for Next Exam)
Expected Mark (T3)
Positive Challenge (T3)
Negative Threat (T3)
Ways of Coping Scale (T3)
Distancing
Confrontive
Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (13)
Notes:
*
p < .05; " p < .025.
TI
= Time
29.18
74.06
495
3-43
5-75
5.88
129.31
1;
T2 = Time 2; T3
s.d.
4.30
7-84
1.24
1.82
1.06
11.04
i-33
1.61
1.24
7-63
6.89
1.39
1.59
2.52
2.97
30.17
= Time 3.
Correlations with
Coping Humour
-.04
.31"
•17
.21
-15
.29"
•19
.11
-•35**
.06
-03
.32"
.27'
.32"
-.31"
of Coping Scale. Subjects then completed a final Student Rating Form in
which they were first asked to report the actual mark they had received, and
to again rate the degree of personal importance of this exam (using the
7-point scale described above). Participants were then asked to indicate their
expected grade on the next upcoming test in the course (from o to 100%).
Finally, participants also provided appraisals for the next upcoming exam,
using the same challenge and threat scales as before. After completion of all
instruments and scales, each subject was given a written debriefing form,
followed by a group verbal debriefing.
RESULTS
Overview of
Major Variables
The means and standard deviations for the major variables in this study are
presented in Table 1. For the standard assessment instruments (Coping
Humour Scale, Perceived Stress, Dysfunctional Attitudes, and Ways of
Coping scales), our values are comparable to those typically reported in the
literature. An examination of the initial appraisals for the first exam indicates
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 89
that, in general, students felt they would do reasonably well on this exam.
Students also viewed this exam as a positive challenge and personally
important (but with some elements of negative threat). Overall, this pattern
of appraisals suggests we were successful in selecting an event with
appropriate elements of challenge, threat, and personal importance.
Initial Appraisals for First Exam
Prior to the first exam, scores on the Coping
1
lumour Scale were not signifi-
cantly correlated with subjects' expected mark (r - -.04, ns), negative threat
ratings (r = .17, ns), or personal importance judgements (r = .21, ns).
However, as predicted, higher humour scores were significantly associated
with greater positive challenge ratings at time
1
(r =
.31,
p < .025).
Actual Performance on First Exam
Averaged across all students, actual performance on the first exam (see Table
i) was slightly below initial expectations, although not significantly so [t (43)
= 1.29,
ns].
As expected, actual grades on the test were unrelated to Coping
Humour scores (r = -.15, ns).
Cognitive Reappraisals for First Exam
The means and standard deviations for the cognitive reappraisals provided
by students after the first exam are presented in Table 1. Congruent with the
pattern of
initial
appraisals, higher humour scores were again associated with
greater positive challenge ratings (r = .29, p
<
.025), but remained unrelated
to
negative threat (r
=
.19,
ns) or personal importance judgements (r
=
.11,
ns).
Further analyses were conducted to explore the effects of humour on
cognitive reappraisals, taking into account actual grades on the first exam,
relative to initial expected grades. For these analyses, we first calculated an
actual-expected performance discrepancy score for each student by subtract-
ing their expected mark rating at time
1
from their actual mark on the exam.
For this measure, a positive number indicates actual performance better than
expected, whereas a negative number indicates actual performance worse
than expected.
Positive Challenge
Reappraisals.
Employing the actual-expected discrepancy
measure,
a
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to predict
positive challenge reappraisals immediately after completing the first exam.
These reappraisals were predicted by first entering the actual-expected
discrepancy score, then the coping humour
score,
and, finally, the interaction
of actual-expected discrepancy with humour.
In this analysis, the main effect of coping humour remained significant
after accounting for actual-expected performance discrepancies, incremental
F (1,41)
=
5.57,
p <
.025.
Thus, higher humour scores were associated with sig-
nificantly higher positive challenge reappraisals. Of more importance, this
analysis also revealed a significant interaction between humour scores and
go Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
A B
WOrt* than expected Better than
Actual-£xrj«cted Dlacrepancyworee than expected Better than expected
Actual-Expected Diecrepancy
high humour J
""Wore* than expected Batter than expected Wbrae than expected Better than expected
Actual-Expected Dlacrapancy Actual-Expected Diacrepancy
Fig. 1 Relationships for subjects with high versus low Coping Humour scores between
actual-expected performance discrepancy and (a) ratings of positive challenge at Time 2;
(b) ratings of personal importance at Time 3; (c) Perceived Stress scores at Time
3;
and
(d) expected mark on next exam at Time 3.
actual-expected performance discrepancies, incremental F (1,40) = 4.61,
p < .05.
In order to clarify the nature of this interaction, the regression equation
produced by this analysis was used to compute two separate regression lines
predicting positive challenge ratings at rime 2 from actual-expected discrep-
ancy scores, one for low humour subjects (1 sd below the mean on the ens)
and one for high humour subjects
(1
sd above the mean). Figure 1a presents
these regression lines. Consistent with an event-enhancement interpretation,
the positive challenge reappraisals of high humour individuals, were not only
higher overall than low humour individuals, but increased as actual perform-
ance on the first test exceeded initial expectations. In contrast, for low humour
individuals, their overall lower ratings of positive challenge decreased even
more as actual test performance exceeded expectations. Thus, low humour
individuals did not appear
able to
enjoy the enhancing benefits of unexpected-
ly good performance. In fact, their pattern of ratings suggests an inability to
deal constructively with positive events that exceeded their expectations.
Personal Importance
Reappraisals.
We also examined the effects of humour
on personal importance reappraisals for the first exam, taking into account
actual-expected performance discrepancy scores. In this multiple regression
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 91
analysis, which used the same set of predictor variables as specified above,
neither the main effect of actual-expected performance, nor the main effect
of humour was significant. The interaction between actual-expected
performance discrepancy and humour, however, was significant, incremental
F(i,40) = 4-", P< °5-
Figure ib presents the regression lines associated with this significant
interaction. Considering first those with low levels of humour, personal
importance reappraisals varied markedly as
a
function of performance. When
actual test scores were below initial expectations, low humour individuals
provided high personal importance
ratings.
Conversely, when actual perform-
ance exceeded initial standards, low humour individuals provided low per-
sonal importance ratings. Thus, rather than employing a self-protective strat-
egy, low humour individuals appear to emphasize the personal importance
of unexpected poor performance and de-emphasize the personal importance
of unexpected good performance. Such a pattern is clearly at odds with a
self-protective strategy (and may actually contribute to self-devaluation).
In contrast to low humour individuals, the regression line for high
humour subjects reveals a positive slope, indicating that these individuals
tended to rate the personal importance of the exam higher when their
performance was better than expected. This reappraisal strategy reveals both
an event-enhancement and a self-protective function. Those high humour
individuals who performed better than expected may have enhanced their
sense of well-being by emphasizing the importance of the exam, whereas
those who performed more poorly than expected may have minimized the
impact by downplaying its importance. In turn, this would help the more
humourous individual maintain an appropriate emotional distance from life
circumstances or events that may otherwise prove too stressful.
Perceived
Stress
Levels.
Additional findings consistent with the above
proposals were evident when we examined Ihe relationship between humour
scores and perceived stress levels at time
3.
In terms of a simple relationship,
perceived stress scale scores were inversely related to coping humour scores
(r
=
-.35,
p
<
.025).
Thus, as suggested by humour theorists (cf. Martin, 1989),
higher levels of humour are indeed linked to lower levels of stress and
greater perceptions of control over the events in one's life.
Of even greater interest, however, were the more complex effects which
emerged when actual-expected exam performance was also taken into
account. Here, perceived stress levels following the first exam were predicted
on the basis of the same set of predictors described earlier. In this hierarchical
multiple regression analysis, the sole significant effect was an interaction
between actual-expected performance discrepancy and humour,
F (1,40) =
5.91,
p
<
.025).
The regression lines for high and low humour subjects are presented
in Figure ic. As can be seen, low humour individuals experienced greater
stress when actual performance exceeded initial expectations. This pattern is
consistent with both the positive challenge and personal importance findings,
92 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
indicating that low humour individuals appear unable to benefit positively
from unexpectedly good performance (and even seem to find it stressful). In
contrast, for high humour individuals, perceived stress levels were much less
sensitive to performance outcome. Perhaps because of their tendency to
reappraise poor performance in a self-protective manner, high humour
individuals showed minimal stress-reactivity to performance discrepancy
outcome.
Taken together, then,
this
pattern for
high
humour individuals offers
further support for a self-protective distancing component of humour.
Initial
Appraisals
for Next Exam
Also as shown in Table i, we obtained initial appraisals of challenge, threat,
and expected mark estimates for the next exam in the course (at time
3).
Cop-
ing humour scores were not significantly correlated with expected mark esti-
mates at time 3
(7
=
.06,
ns), nor with positive challenge appraisals (r
=
-.03,
ns.).
Instead, higher coping humour scores were associated with higher nega-
tive threat appraisals for the next exam (r =
.32,
p < .025). This pattern was
unexpected, and will be considered further in the discussion.
A final multiple regression analysis was conducted using the expected
mark estimates for the second exam as the dependent variable. Using the
same predictor variables as in previous analyses, a significant interaction was
obtained between actual-expected performance discrepancy and coping
humour, incremental r (1,40) = 3.85, p
=
.05.
As shown in Figure id, the pre-
dicted values for this interaction support both a self-protective and event-
enhancement interpretation for high-humour individuals. In particular, high
humour subjects had higher future expectations when past performance
exceeded initial expectations (event-enhancement), but had lower future
expectations when past performance was worse than expected
(self-
protection). This appears to be a realistic approach to adjusting personal
expectations (and perhaps self-evaluative standards) in accordance with past
performance. In contrast, for low humour individuals, expected performance
on the next exam was unrelated to their performance on the previous exam,
suggesting a failure to modify future expectations on the basis of experience.
Humour, Ways of
Coping,
and Dysfunctional Altitudes
Coping humour scores were significantly related to scores on two of the
Ways of Coping subscales. As suggested by several humour theorists, higher
humour scores were associated with the increased use of emotional
distancing techniques, as assessed by the distancing subscale of the Ways of
Coping measure (r
=
.27,
p
<
.05). In addition, those individuals scoring high
on the Coping Humour Scale also indicated greater use of confrontive coping
strategies (r = .32, p < .025). Thus, in attempting to cope with academic
evaluations, high humour individuals dealt with these stressful situations in
a more direct fashion (e.g., "Stand my ground and fight for what I want"),
while, at the same time, emotionally distancing themselves to a greater
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 93
degree than did low humour individuals (e.g., "Don't let it get to me; refuse
to think too much about
it").
This particular combination of coping strategies
offers further support for two aspects of humour, in that increased levels of
direct confrontation may reflect a greater focus on challenge when dealing
with evaluative situations (i.e., the event-enhancement component)/ but
simultaneously coupled with a self-protective component (as expressed
through the increased use of emotional distancing techniques).
Finally, as predicted, Coping Humour scores were also significantly
related to scores on the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (r =
-.31,
p < .001).
Thus,
more humorous individuals displayed significantly lower endorsement
rates for extreme self-evaluative standards (as assessed by the DAS). This
pattern is likely also to reflect a greater vulnerability to threats to self-esteem
in individuals with a low sense of humour. Since they perceive their self
worth as being more contingent on achieving excessive standards, they are
more likely to encounter situations in which those standards are not met and
therefore their self worth becomes more easily threatened.
GliNERAI. DISCUSSION
Of special relevance in this research is the relationship between humour and
various cognitive appraisals relating
to
an academic examination. In consider-
ing these cognitive appraisals, a distinction was made between initial apprai-
sals,
which determine whether or not an event is experienced as stressful, and
reappraisals, which have to do with subsequent coping with a stressful event.
Based on past humour literature, we suggested that individuals with a higher
sense of humour may show an event-enhancement pattern, appraising poten-
tially stressful situations in more positive and challenging terms, rather than
focussing on their negative threat aspects (Dixon, 1980; Martin, 1989; Nezu
et al., 1988). Empirical support for this proposal was evident in terms of the
positive challenge ratings, with high humour individuals finding the exam
to be more of a challenge than low humour individuals. This pattern was
evident both prior to the exam, and immediately afterwards.
With regard to reappraisals, individuals with a greater sense of humour
appeared to be better able to reappraise the exam in a self-protective manner
when their performance was poorer than they had expected. Thus, for these
subjects, challenge and importance ratings following
the
exam were positively
related to performance on the exam. In contrast, the challenge and import-
ance
reappraisals provided by low humour individuals were actually contrary
to a self-protective pattern (with greater challenge and importance assumed
for poorer performances). This pattern was also reflected in the subjects'
Perceived Stress scores, with low humour subjects reporting higher levels of
stress following better than expected performance. In addition, high humour
individuals tended more than low humour subjects to adjust their expecta-
tions for the next exam in a realistic manner on the basis of their performance
on the most recent exam.
94 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
Generally, then, it appears that individuals with a high sense of humour
tend to make initial cognitive appraisals of potentially stressful events in an
event-enhancing manner. This event-enhancement is further maintained fol-
lowing a positive outcome; however, when the outcome is negative, high
humour individuals are capable of making cognitive reappraisals that serve
a self-protective function. When compared to the pattern displayed by less
humorous individuals, this finding is congruent with the proposal that high
humour individuals may engage in personal distancing
as
an effective coping
strategy (see also the findings for the distancing subscale of the Ways of
Cop-
ing measure).
Although illuminating, several of the findings still require further
empirical investigation. As one example, our original assumption was that
poor actual performance on the examination (or performance worse than ex-
pected), would be the most stressful for participants. Instead, it appears that
for low humour individuals, outcomes better than expected were particularly
difficult to cope with. Further work is certainly necessary to clarify the degree
to which this finding replicates and generalizes to other events.
Another somewhat puz/ling finding was the significant correlation
between coping humour and appraisals of threat for the next upcoming exam
in the course. The theoretical basis for this finding is far from clear. As one
possibility, this heightened threat appraisal may relate to the increased
expectations for performance indicated by high humour individuals for the
next upcoming
exam.
It also remains possible, however, that event appraisals
may change as the upcoming examination draws closer, and more humour-
ous individuals are able once again to focus more exclusively on positive
elements of the event. Since this study did not follow the subjects into the
second exam, we were unable to examine this possibility. Again, these
proposals are preliminary, and require further empirical testing.
In a broader context, it should be noted that the present research has
examined only one set of possible cognitive processes that may be involved
in the stress-reduction effects of humour. In addition to appraisals, other
cognitive processes that warrant future investigation include attributional
styles,
personal control beliefs, and problem-solving abilities (Martin, 1989;
Nezu et al., 1988). In fact, Martin (1989) has proposed that the facilitative
effects of humour on stress may be evident in four major domains, namely,
cognitive appraisals, emotion-focussed strategies, interpersonal problem-
solving techniques, and physiological-focussed coping. Emotion-focussed
strategies involve the use of laughter to discharge pent-up emotions, whereas
a problem-solving focus includes the use of nonhostile humour to reduce
interpersonal tensions and conflicts. Physiological-focussed coping, in turn,
refers to the potentially beneficial physiological correlates of laughter. Overall,
the use of humour in these domains may lead not only to greater psychologi-
cal well-being, but also enhanced physical health. Clearly, much additional
research is still required to investigate these proposals.
Humour and Cognitive Appraisals 95
This research was supported in part by Social Sciences and
I
lumanities
Research Council of Canada grant No. 410-88-188 to R. Martin and N. Kuiper.
Address reprint requests to: Dr. Nicolas A. Kuiper, Department of Psychology,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.
References
Allport, G.W. (1961).
Pattern and growth
in
personality.
New York: Holt, Reinhart
& Winston.
Cane, D.B., Olinger, L.J., Gotlib, I.H., & Kuiper, N.A. (1986). Factor structure of
the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale in a student population,
journal
of
Clinical
Psychology,
42, 307-309.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of per-
ceived stress,
journal
of
Health
and
Social
Behavior,
24, 385-396.
Dillon, K.M.,
Minchoff,
B., & Baker,
K.I
I.
(1985). Positive emotional states and
enhancement of the immune system.
International journal
of
Psychiatry
in
Medicine,
15, 13-18.
Dixon, N.F. (1980). Humour: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I-G. Sarason
and CD. Spielberger (Eds.).
Stress
and Anxiety (Vol./). Washington, a.c:
Hemisphere, 281-289.
I-'oIkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study
of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination,
journal
of
Personality and Social
Psychology,
48,150-170.
Freud, S. (1928). Humour. Reprinted in J. Strachey (Ed.),
Collected papers of
Sigmund Freud
(Vol.
5). New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Kuiper, N.A., & Olinger, L.J. (1989). Stress and cognitive vulnerability to
depression: A self-worth contingency model. In R.W.J. Neufeld (Ed.)
Advances in
investigations
of
psychological
stress. New York: Wiley,
367-391.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984).
Stress,
appraisal
and
coping.
New York:
Springer.
Lefcourt, H.M., & Martin, R.A. (1986).
Humor and life
stress:
Antidote
to
adversity.
New York: Springer/Verlag.
Martin, R.A. (1989). Humour and the mastery of living: Using humour to
cope with the daily stresses of growing up. In P.E. McGhee (Ed.). Humour
and
children's
development:
A
guide
to
practical
applications.
New York:
Ha worth Press, 135-154.
Martin, R.A. & Dobbin, J.P. (1988). Sense of humour, hassles, and immuno-
globin A: Evidence for a stress-moderating effect of humour.
International
journal
of
Psychiatry
in
Medicine,
18,
93-105.
Martin, R.A., & Lefcourt, H.M. (1983). Sense of humour as a moderator of the
relation between stressors and moods,
journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psy-
chology,
45, 1313-1324.
Maslow, A. (1962).
Toward a psychology
of
being.
Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.
May, R. (1953)- Man's
search
for
himself.
New York: Random House.
96 Kuiper, Martin, and Olinger
Nezu, A.M., Nczu, CM., & BHssett, S.E. (1988). Sense of humour as a moder-
ator of the relation between stressful events and psychological distress: A
prospective analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 520-525.
Trice, A.D., & Price, J. (1986). Joking under the drill: A validity study of the
Coping Humor Scale. Journal of
Social
Behavior and Personality, 1, 265-266.
Submission June 20, 1990
Revision August 8, 1991
Acceptance August 17, 1991
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
