The Happiness, Hardiness, and Humor Styles of Students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Sport Sciences

Abstract

Happiness, psychological hardiness, and humor (“the 3Hs”) are useful ways of assessing resilience to stress in positive psychology. The literature analyzing their confluence regarding sports is scarce. This study aims to analyze the participants’ 3H levels and the relationships between those levels and specific variables. The Psychological Hardiness Scale (Psikolojik Dayaniklilik Olcegi, PDO), the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short Form (OHQ-SF), and the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) were used. Students in pedagogical formation training during the 2016–2017 fall semester have participated in the study (N = 211). Significant differences were found regarding the levels of psychological hardiness in relation to gender, type of sport, and years of participation, and, in humor types regarding the variables of gender, age, residence and perceived income. There were significant differences in all instruments regarding gender. Negative relationships were found between the “aggressive humor” and “challenge” and “self-commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO, while the relationships were positive between “self-enhancing humor” and PDO and OHQ-SF, and between “affiliative humor” style and PDO and OHQ-SF. This study enhances the positive socio-psychological account in the literature by incorporating the issues of 3H and provides an understanding of particularities that may help improve the practice of relevant experts and individuals.

Full text

behavioral
sciences
Article
The Happiness, Hardiness, and Humor Styles of
Students with a Bachelor’s Degree in Sport Sciences
Pınar Yaprak * , Mehmet Güçlü and Tebessüm Ayyildiz Durhan
Department of Recreation, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara 06330, Turkey;
mguclun@gmail.com (M.G.); tebessum@gazi.edu.tr (T.A.D.)
*Correspondence: pinaryaprak@gazi.edu.tr or pinaryaprak@gmail.com; Tel.: +90-312-202-3908
Received: 10 August 2018; Accepted: 6 September 2018; Published: 12 September 2018


Abstract:
Happiness, psychological hardiness, and humor (“the 3Hs”) are useful ways of assessing
resilience to stress in positive psychology. The literature analyzing their confluence regarding sports
is scarce. This study aims to analyze the participants’ 3H levels and the relationships between those
levels and specific variables. The Psychological Hardiness Scale (Psikolojik Dayaniklilik Olcegi, PDO),
the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short Form (OHQ-SF), and the Humor Styles Questionnaire
(HSQ) were used. Students in pedagogical formation training during the 2016–2017 fall semester
have participated in the study (N= 211). Significant differences were found regarding the levels of
psychological hardiness in relation to gender, type of sport, and years of participation, and, in humor
types regarding the variables of gender, age, residence and perceived income. There were significant
differences in all instruments regarding gender. Negative relationships were found between the
“aggressive humor” and “challenge” and “self-commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO, while the
relationships were positive between “self-enhancing humor” and PDO and OHQ-SF, and between
“affiliative humor” style and PDO and OHQ-SF. This study enhances the positive socio-psychological
account in the literature by incorporating the issues of 3H and provides an understanding of
particularities that may help improve the practice of relevant experts and individuals.
Keywords: happiness; humor; positive psychology; hardiness; resilience; sports; wellbeing
1. Introduction
Happiness, psychological hardiness, and humor (“the 3Hs”) are often pointed to as useful
ways of assessing resilience to stress when undertaking professional tasks [
1
]. They are associated
with positive psychology, usually as accompaniments to coping mechanisms. Positive psychology
criticizes traditional psychology for having “devoted very little attention to the study of wellness
and the ‘positive’ aspects of life, such as resilience, character strengths and well-being” and having
“focused too heavily on pathology” and problems such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress
disorder [
2
]. The field of positive psychology is about valued subjective experience (such as wellbeing
and happiness), positive individual traits (such as the capacity for love, courage, interpersonal skill,
forgiveness, and talent) and “the civic virtues and the institutions that move individuals toward
better citizenship” (such as responsibility, nurturance, tolerance, and work ethic) [
3
]. The positive
psychology concept has been used in sports regarding positive behaviors, environments, outcomes,
and organizational psychology [
4
,
5
]. This approach to sport studies preexisted the notion of positive
psychology, with considerable attention paid to “what it takes to be a great athlete and how to facilitate
performance” [
4
]. The approach is embraced not only in the pursuit of individual athletic excellence in
elite or high-performance sports but also regarding individual and organizational developments in
sports organizations as sites of psychological strengths and capabilities [4,5].
Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82; doi:10.3390/bs8090082 www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 2 of 21
1.1. Humor
Humor is one of the three main dimensions in the current study. The positive psychology
perspective views humor “as a personal quality that promotes resilience and well-being by means
of cognitive reappraisal of stressful events” [
6
,
7
]. The literature (sporting or non-sporting research)
suggests that the particular usage of humor (such as positive humor) may contribute to healthy
communication, relationships, quality of life, positive organizational culture and physical and
psychological health in general [
8
–
12
]. On the other hand, negative usages of humor (such as to
humiliate or exclude someone) may cause harm to one’s wellbeing or status; therefore, it is important
to understand the particularities in relation to humor to foster positive usage and prevent psychological
violence [8–12].
1.2. Resilience (Psychological Hardiness)
The positive use of humor is considered a personal trait that promotes resilience and wellbeing.
Likewise, resilience or psychological hardiness (another dimension in the current study) has been
examined as an internal resource and personality trait reducing the negative effects of stressful life
events on physical and mental health [
13
–
17
]. There are other terms such as mental toughness and
psychological resilience used in the literature to refer to a similar theoretical argument. Challenge,
control, and commitment were the three most applied dimensions when testing mental toughness,
psychological hardiness, or resilience [13,16].
There is a notable co-existing issue in relation to sports and resilience or psychological hardiness:
(a) the ability of psychological hardiness or resilience to mitigate the negative impact of highly
demanding sporting performance environment on wellbeing and (b) psychological resilience as a
positive psychology developed through sports participation to facilitate improved performance [
17
].
The highly demanding performance environment of sporting tasks (including contexts of elite or
amateur athletes, trainers, physical education teachers or other sporting employees) is considered to
require physical and psychological resilience [17,18].
Although resilience or psychological hardiness is especially important in rescue work occupations,
as these employees are more frequently exposed to stressful and potentially traumatic events [
16
],
few relevant examinations in relation to sports are found in the literature, especially regarding athletes
engaged in high-performance sports [
17
]. Hence, it is important to remember that sport sciences
graduates have likely been employed in rescue work occupations and engaged in high-performance
sports for some time.
1.3. The “3Hs”: Humor, Psychological Hardiness, and Happiness
The relationships among the 3Hs have been often found to be positive, while a few studies have
referred to negative relationships between some elements of humor and resilience [
7
]. In addition to
their interactions, attention should be paid to broader issues regarding the society or environment that
a person interacts with. For example, professional development and the quality of teacher education
or training programs are important for understanding the current state of sporting employees or
athletes since such elements of social environments are connected to components of psychological
wellbeing such as self-acceptance, a positive relationship with others, autonomy, environmental
mastery, and personal growth [
18
,
19
]. Thus, it is important to increase knowledge regarding the
relationships between the 3Hs and development on and beyond the sports field.
Moreover, from a resiliency perspective, “several positive character strengths, such as kindness,
humor, leadership, love and social intelligence, all showed significant increases in growth”
following major traumatic experiences, such as “a life-threatening accident, attack, or illness” [
7
,
20
].
Concordantly, the literature suggests that the social and “numerous psychological factors (relating to a
positive personality, motivation, confidence, focus, and perceived social support) interact to influence

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 3 of 21
the stress-resilience-performance relationship” [
17
]. Likewise, physical activity has been associated
with higher levels of happiness, though the association with happiness was domain-specific [21].
Furthermore, resiliency-based approaches to humor in literature are limited due to their sole focus
on humor as a positive attribute. Thus, the humor styles model, which acknowledges both positive and
negative aspects of humor, is suggested to be used within a resiliency perspective [
7
]. However, more
research is needed to understand the particularities in relation to the 3Hs regarding the aforementioned
complex elements and their interactions. The literature on these complexities is growing. Such attempts
to shed light on more aspects can offer significant contributions to the literature [8].
In line with some of these factors and the importance given to their co-existence and interaction,
we aimed to analyze the (a) 3H levels of students who have a bachelor’s degree in sport sciences
and (b) examine the relationships between those levels and specific variables, therefore providing
an understanding of some of the particularities regarding the 3H scores of sport sciences graduates.
Overall, the literature on the interactions between the elements of 3H is scarce, not only for sports
but also in general. Sports studies, especially the sports psychology field, have played an important
role in helping “the field of general psychology move into a millennium of positive psychology” [
4
].
However, there is a need to expand our relevant understanding to identify the psychosocial factors that
underpin organizational excellence in those sporting social actors (such as athletes, physical education
(PE) teachers, coaches, managers, service providers, administrators, and policy makers) who operate
within these fields on a day-to-day basis [
5
]. This study aims to increase knowledge that will serve
such actors well in this domain. Increasing the competitiveness of PE can be achieved by acquisition
of complex and interdisciplinary professional knowledge and skills, optimizing the attitudes and
behavior of teachers and diversifying proactive motivations in accordance with the modern didactic
requirements of physical activities [
22
–
24
]. In addition to the pursuit of improved skills through
examining these sporting contexts of positive psychology, the current study is important in terms of
aiming to contribute to knowledge in “pursuit of employee psychological well-being beyond achieving
high job performance” [18].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Participants
Quantitative methods and a general survey model were used in the study. A total of 211 students
who have a bachelor’s degree in sport sciences and were in pedagogical formation training during the
data collection participated in this study.
There was an approximately equal number of men (n= 105) and women (n= 106) participating
in this study. Most of the students perceived their income as medium (86.3%, n= 182) and lived
within metropolitan municipalities, megacities, and cities (N= 185), while fewer participants lived
in towns (n= 26). Moreover, most students were not national athletes (81.5%, N= 172). However,
approximately half the students were trained in an exercise sciences department (41.7%), where there
have usually been more students with a high-performance sporting background compared to the
sports management and recreation departments at bachelor’s level in Turkey. Half of the students had
10 years or more of sports participation; the participation years and number of respondents decreased
together (Table 1).
While 31.8% of the respondents were engaged in both individual and team sports, slightly more
than half (54.5%) of the participants were engaged in team sports only, and fewer participants were
engaged in individual sports only (13.7%). Results of correlational analyses regarding all these sporting
and demographical backgrounds are shared in the following main sections.

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 4 of 21
Table 1. Characteristics, by frequency and percentage, of students in pedagogical formation training.
N* = 211
n/f ** % **
Gender Female 106 50.2
Male 105 49.8
Age
<23 40 19.0
23–27 79 37.4
28–32 64 30.3
>32 28 13.3
Department
Sport Management 67 31.8
Trainer Education 88 41.7
Recreation 56 26.5
Sports participation
1–5 Years 39 18.5
6–9 Years 66 31.3
10 Years or more 106 50.2
National athlete Yes 39 18.5
No 172 81.5
Education (mother)
Primary school 78 37.0
Secondary school 40 19.0
High school 60 28.4
University 33 15.6
Education (father)
Primary school 51 24.2
Secondary school 39 18.5
High school 73 34.6
University 48 22.7
Perceived income
Low 9 4.3
Medium 182 86.3
High 20 9.5
Residential area
Megacity 24 11.4
Municipality 122 57.8
City 39 18.5
Town 26 12.3
Sports involved
Team sports 115 54.5
Individual sports 29 13.7
Both team and individual sports 67 31.8
*N: Total number of students who participated in the study. ** The frequency (n/f) and percentage (%) of students
falling in the given subgroup in the far-left column.
2.2. The Instruments
The Psychological Hardiness Scale (Psikolojik Dayaniklilik Olcegi, PDO) [
25
], the Oxford
Happiness Questionnaire Short Form (OHQ-SF) [
26
], and the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) [
27
]
were used together with an information form on sporting and socio-demographic background to
determine the 3H levels of the participants and the relationships between the 3H levels and specific
variables. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the measurement tools were found to be 0.84, 0.74,
and 0.76, respectively, in the current study.
The questions on sporting background were to provide data on a participant’s (sports)
departments, length and type of sports participation, and whether they were national athletes or not,
while the questions on socio-demographic background were to collect information on a participant’s
gender, parents’ education, perceived income, and residential area (Table 1).
The PDO is one of the three instruments used in this study. This instrument “was developed
to determine the extent of psychological hardiness” or resilience [
13
]. It is a 21-item self-reported
questionnaire that consists of three sub-dimensions (commitment, control, and challenge). The items
are rated on a five-point Likert type (1: Absolutely agree to 5: Absolutely disagree) [13].
The OHQ-SF is another instrument used extensively and internationally. The Turkish version [
23
]
of the OHQ-SF [
25
] is a seven-item self-reported measure of happiness rated on a five-point Likert type
(1: Absolutely agree to 5: Absolutely disagree). The OHQ-SF and HSQ instruments were recommended
as a reliable and valid measure among Turkish university students [25,26].

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 5 of 21
Finally, the Turkish version [
26
] of HSQ, as in the original instrument [
28
], assesses the following
four dimensions of individual differences in uses of humor (the first two are positive, while the last two
are negative dimensions): (1) “relatively benign uses of humor to enhance the self (Self-enhancing)”
and (2) “to enhance one’s relationships with others (Affiliative)”, (3) “use of humor to enhance the self
at the expense of others (Aggressive)”, and (4) “use of humor to enhance relationships at the expense
of self (Self-defeating)” [26,28].
2.3. Procedure
The idea of this research stemmed from a comprehensive study on humor and sports in which the
perspectives of grounded theory methodology were adopted by the corresponding author. The second
author has suggested using humor in relation to the psychological instruments. Therefore, the current
article was organized by the research team (the aforementioned authors) with suggestions from the
interdisciplinary experts who gave their permission to use the relevant scales.
The possible instruments in relation to humor were determined with the suggestions of the field
specialists. A discussion panel was made up of field experts, including the scholars who developed
or used the relevant instruments. Both these scholars and the literature [
7
] have suggested the use of
either two or three instruments or their consideration together.
The proposal of this research was submitted for ethical review, guidance, and approval, and the
approvals were provided by the institutional review board of Gazi University (issue 92236698-903.99-,
decision number 321), in addition to the reviews and approvals by the field experts. The students
included in the study were sport sciences graduates who volunteered to participate and were able
to provide informed consent. The students were chosen in accordance with the convenience sample.
They were in pedagogical formation training at the university during the end of fall semester of
the 2016–2017 academic year and were easily accessible. Overall, this research was carried out in
accordance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration. This article was presented at and
published in the abstract book of the 15th International Sport Sciences Congress in Antalya, Turkey,
in 2017 [1].
2.4. Analysis of Data
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the sporting and socio-demographic backgrounds
of the sample (Table 1) and the mean scores and basic features of the 3H instruments (Table 2). The t-test
and one-way ANOVA were used to compare the 3H levels between (such as gender) or among (such as
the type of sports and residence) different sporting and socio-demographic backgrounds, respectively.
The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlations between the scales, including
their sub-dimensions. Overall, the descriptive, correlational (t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson
correlation coefficient), and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) analyses were performed using the SPSS
software package.
Table 2.
Arithmetic mean and standard deviation values of PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and sub-dimensions.
N* = 211
x* Sd * Min.* Max.*
Psychological Hardiness (PDO) 80.59 11.30 46.00 101.00
Challenge 28.50 4.66 14.00 35.00
Commitment 27.09 5.05 11.00 35.00
Control 24.99 3.89 15.00 33.00
Happiness (OHQ-SF) 25.98 4.58 13.00 35.00
Humor Styles (HSQ) 131.03 18.70 63.00 190.00
Affiliative 38.76 8.41 15.00 56.00
Self-enhancing 37.03 7.43 16.00 52.00
Aggressive 24.62 7.61 8.00 39.00
Self-defeating 30.61 8.32 8.00 48.00
*N: Total number of students who participated in the study; Arithmetic means (
x
) from the current study; Standard
deviation (Sd); Minimum (Min.) and maximum (Max) values of the instruments.

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 6 of 21
3. Results
The results with significant differences are provided in the tables below. First of all, there were no
significant differences in the levels of PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and respective sub-dimensions according
to participants’ departments, being a national athlete or not, and their parents’ educational status.
Secondly, the mean scores of 3H instruments were relatively high in the current study (Table 2).
In addition, compared to the negative ones (“aggressive and self-defeating”), participants scored
higher in the positive humor (“affiliative and self-enhancing”) sub-dimensions.
When comparing males and females, significant differences were found in PDO total scores
(p< 0.00) as well as in the “challenge” (p< 0.05) and “commitment” (p< 0.00) PDO sub-dimensions
(Table 3). Moreover, women scored higher than men in all PDO items. In addition, women scored
significantly higher than men in OHQ-SF (p< 0.00). However, a significant difference was only found in
“affiliative” humor styles (p< 0.05); women scored higher in both positive humor styles (affiliative and
self-enhancing) and men scored higher in both negative ones (aggressive and self-defeating) (Table 3).
Table 3. The t-test results comparing males and females regarding PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and sub-dimensions.
N** = 211
Gender N** x** Sd ** t** p*
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
Female 106 82.70 10.89 2.775 0.00 *
Male 105 78.45 11.35
Challenge Female 106 29.25 4.56 2.378 0.01 *
Male 105 27.74 4.66
Commitment Female 106 28.22 4.63 3.330 0.00 *
Male 105 25.96 5.22
Control Female 106 25.22 3.69 0.883 0.37
Male 105 24.75 4.09
Happiness (OHQ-SF) Female 106 26.91 4.22 3.012 0.00 *
Male 105 25.04 4.76
Humor Styles (HSQ) Female 106 132.61 16.30 1.234 0.21
Male 105 129.43 20.81
Affiliative Female 106 40.05 7.34 2.266 0.02 *
Male 105 37.45 9.21
Self-enhancing Female 106 38.01 6.61 1.939 0.05
Male 105 36.04 8.08
Aggressive Female 106 23.94 7.03
−1.301 0.19
Male 105 25.30 8.13
Self-defeating Female 106 30.59 8.06
−0.030 0.97
Male 105 30.62 8.61
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** N: Total number of students who participated in the study; the number (n) of
students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means (x); **Standard deviation (Sd), Independent t-test (t).
While there were no significant differences between the age groups regarding the PDO and
OHQ-SF, significant differences were found in the HSQ total score, “self-enhancing”, “aggressive”,
and “self-defeating” humor styles (Table 4). According to these significant differences, the 23 and under
age group scored the highest and the 32 and over age group scored the lowest (Table 4). The humor
style scores decrease with age with respect to the total HSQ scores. However, in contrast to the
total scores, the oldest age group (>32) has the highest score in “affiliative” humor style, although,
the difference is not significant. Moreover, there is an increase in the 28–32 age group in “aggressive”
humor; on the other hand, this group has the lowest score in “affiliative” humor (Table 4).

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 7 of 21
Table 4. The ANOVA results comparing age groups regarding PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and sub-dimensions.
Age Group n x Sd F p *
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
<23 40 80.67 12.30
0.989 0.39
23–27 79 80.48 11.59
28–32 64 79.31 10.57
>32 28 83.71 10.54
Total 211 80.59 11.30
Challenge
<23 40 28.52 5.30
0.920 0.43
23–27 79 28.32 4.33
28–32 64 28.12 4.76
>32 28 29.82 4.39
Total 211 28.50 4.66
Commitment
<23 40 27.05 4.86
1.217 0.30
23–27 79 27.05 5.45
28–32 64 26.50 4.72
>32 28 28.67 4.80
Total 211 27.09 5.05
Control
<23 40 25.10 4.04
0.189 0.90
23–27 79 25.10 3.87
28–32 64 24.68 3.96
>32 28 25.21 3.74
Total 211 24.99 3.89
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
<23 40 26.60 4.24
0.442 0.72
23–27 79 25.97 4.69
28–32 64 25.54 4.65
>32 28 26.14 4.74
Total 211 25.98 4.58
Humor Styles (HSQ)
<23 40 138.42 17.06
5.199 0.00 *
23–27 79 132.41 19.22
28–32 64 128.84 16.52
>32 28 121.57 20.14
Total 211 131.03 18.70
Affiliative
<23 40 38.65 8.06
1.347 0.26
23–27 79 39.48 8.65
28–32 64 37.18 8.20
>32 28 40.50 8.53
Total 211 38.76 8.41
Self-enhancing
<23 40 38.57 6.05
3.330 0.02 *
23–27 79 38.03 7.63
28–32 64 36.34 7.17
>32 28 33.60 8.27
Total 211 37.03 7.43
Aggressive
<23 40 27.15 6.62
2.712 0.04 *
23–27 79 23.84 7.75
28–32 64 25.00 7.64
>32 28 22.32 7.76
Total 211 24.62 7.61
Self-defeating
<23 40 34.05 6.65
6.952 0.00 *
23–27 79 31.05 8.60
28–32 64 30.31 7.80
>32 28 25.14 8.30
Total 211 30.61 8.32
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** Total number (N) of students who participated in the study; the number (n) of
students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means (
x
); Standard deviation (Sd), one-way ANOVA F-test (F).

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 8 of 21
A significant difference was found regarding the PDO sub-dimension “commitment” when
comparing the number of years respondents had participated in sports (p< 0.05). The “commitment”
sub-dimension score was the highest in the group that participated in sports for “1 to 5 years”, while the
participants who responded “6 to 9 years” scored lowest and relatively similar to the group participated
in sports for “10 years or more” (Table 5).
Table 5.
The ANOVA results comparing the years participated in sports regarding PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ,
and sub-dimensions.
Year(s) Participated in Sport n** x** Sd ** F p *
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
1–5 years 39 84.33 10.27
2.801 0.06
6–9 years 66 79.18 11.45
10 years & above 106 80.09 11.37
Total 211 80.59 11.30
Challenge
1–5 years 39 29.43 4.07
0.962 0.38
6–9 years 66 28.24 4.98
10 years & above 106 28.32 4.66
Total 211 28.50 4.66
Commitment
1–5 years 39 28.84 5.01
3.315 0.03 *
6–9 years 66 26.27 4.54
10 years & above 106 26.97 5.25
Total 211 27.09 5.05
Control
1–5 years 39 26.05 3.51
1.811 0.16
6–9 years 66 24.66 4.14
10 years & above 106 24.80 3.83
Total 211 24.99 3.89
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
1–5 years 39 26.66 4.61
1.510 0.22
6–9 years 66 25.21 4.48
10 years & above 106 26.21 4.62
Total 211 25.98 4.58
Humor Styles (HSQ)
1–5 years 39
131.61
17.14
0.419 0.65
6–9 years 66
129.28
19.75
10 years & above 106
131.90
18.68
Total 211
131.03
18.70
Affiliative
1–5 years 39 38.66 6.81
0.127 0.88
6–9 years 66 38.37 8.09
10 years & above 106 39.03 9.16
Total 211 38.76 8.41
Self-enhancing
1–5 years 39 38.61 6.51
2.806 0.06
6–9 years 66 35.36 8.73
10 years & above 106 37.50 6.70
Total 211 37.03 7.43
Aggressive
1–5 years 39 23.46 7.46
0.590 0.55
6–9 years 66 24.68 7.23
10 years & above 106 25.00 7.91
Total 211 24.62 7.61
Self-defeating
1–5 years 39 30.87 8.08
0.098 0.90
6–9 years 66 30.86 7.51
10 years & above 106 30.35 8.93
Total 211 30.61 8.32
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** The number (n) of students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means
(x); Standard deviation (Sd), one-way ANOVA F-test (F).
Similar to the age groups, there were no significant differences among the residential groups
regarding PDO and OHQ-SF, while significant differences were found in HSQ total scores and
“affiliative, aggressive, and self-defeating” humor styles (Table 6). The participants who live in

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 9 of 21
megacities had significantly higher HSQ total scores and “affiliative” humor style scores than those
who live in metropolitan municipalities or towns. The participants who live in towns had significantly
higher scores of “aggressive” humor style compared to respondents who live in cities (Table 6).
Table 6. The ANOVA results comparing the residential areas regarding PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and sub-dimensions.
Residence n** x** Sd ** F** p*
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
Megacity 24 84.54 11.91
2.043 0.10
Municipality
122 80.58 11.43
City 39 77.51 10.71
Town 26 81.61 10.18
Total 211 80.59 11.30
Challenge
Megacity 24 29.75 4.24
1.249 0.29
Municipality
122 28.45 4.73
City 39 27.53 4.91
Town 26 29.03 4.25
Total 211 28.50 4.66
Commitment
Megacity 24 28.29 5.06
2.620 0.05
Municipality
122 27.33 4.95
City 39 25.17 5.03
Town 26 27.76 5.10
Total 211 27.09 5.05
Control
Megacity 24 26.50 4.45
1.362 0.25
Municipality
122 24.79 3.78
City 39 24.79 3.42
Town 26 24.80 4.40
Total 211 24.99 3.89
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
Megacity 24 27.79 4.78
2.461 0.06
Municipality
122 26.13 4.09
City 39 24.66 5.27
Town 26 25.61 5.10
Total 211 25.98 4.58
Humor Styles (HSQ)
Megacity 24 141.12 19.56
3.092 0.02 *
Municipality
122 129.97 16.90
City 39 131.28 18.56
Town 26 126.34 23.51
Total 211 131.05 18.70
Affiliative
Megacity 24 41.70 9.02
3.098 0.02 *
Municipality
122 39.36 8.07
City 39 35.71 8.01
Town 26 37.80 8.97
Total 211 38.76 8.41
Self-enhancing
Megacity 24 39.33 7.86
1.053 0.37
Municipality
122 36.75 7.00
City 39 36.15 8.32
Town 26 37.57 7.56
Total 211 37.03 7.43
Aggressive
Megacity 24 25.41 7.18
3.123 0.02 *
Municipality
122 24.00 7.18
City 39 27.58 7.90
Town 26 22.46 8.50
Total 211 24.63 7.60
Self-defeating
Megacity 24 34.66 8.34
3.183 0.02*
Municipality
122 29.86 7.86
City 39 31.87 8.36
Town 26 28.50 9.29
Total 211 30.61 8.32
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** The number (n) of students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means
(x); Standard deviation (Sd), one-way ANOVA F-test (F).

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 10 of 21
The PDO and OHQ-SF scores did not differ significantly, while significant differences were
found in “aggressive” humor styles with respect to perceived income (Table 7). The students who
perceived their income as “low” had significantly lower aggressive humor style scores than the students
perceived their income as “high.” The students who perceived their income as “high” had significantly
higher aggressive humor style scores than the students who perceived their income as “medium.”
According to these results, the higher the income they perceived, the more aggressive humor style
they had (Table 7).
Table 7.
The ANOVA results comparing the perceived incomes regarding PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ,
and sub-dimensions.
Perceived Income n** x** Sd ** F** p*
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
Low 9 81.11 8.89
0.604 0.548
Medium 182 80.85 10.93
High 20 77.95 15.19
Total 211 80.59 11.30
Challenge
Low 9 29.77 2.38
0.907 0.405
Medium 182 28.56 4.52
High 20 27.40 6.41
Total 211 28.50 4.66
Commitment
Low 9 28.00 3.42
0.731 0.483
Medium 182 27.18 4.91
High 20 25.90 6.77
Total 211 27.09 5.05
Control
Low 9 23.33 4.52
0.976 0.379
Medium 182 25.10 3.85
High 20 24.65 3.99
Total 211 24.99 3.89
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
Low 9 26.00 5.80
0.982 0.376
Medium 182 25.83 4.36
High 20 27.35 5.88
Total 211 25.98 4.58
Humor Styles (HSQ)
Low 9 123.11 26.60
1.666 0.191
Medium 182 130.82 18.65
High 20 136.45 13.97
Total 211 131.03 18.70
Affiliative
Low 9 37.88 9.30
0.451 0.638
Medium 182 38.97 8.52
High 20 37.20 7.09
Total 211 38.76 8.41
Self-enhancing
Low 9 34.88 8.03
0.649 0.524
Medium 182 37.25 7.46
High 20 36.00 6.98
Total 211 37.03 7.43
Aggressive
Low 9 23.33 9.20
3.900 0.022 *
Medium 182 24.19 7.48
High 20 29.05 6.93
Total 211 24.62 7.61
Self-defeating
Low 9 27.00 8.76
2.816 0.062
Medium 182 30.39 8.39
High 20 34.20 6.50
Total 211 30.61 8.32
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** The number (n) of students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means
(x); Standard deviation (Sd), one-way ANOVA F-test (F).

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 11 of 21
When comparing the levels of PDO, OHQ-SF, HSQ, and respective sub-dimensions between
the respondents who participated in different types (individual, team, or both) of sports, significant
differences were found in PDO total scores and PDO sub-dimensions of “challenge” and “commitment”
(Table 8). According to the PDO total scores, the respondents with individual sports participation
scored highest, while the students with team sports participation scored lowest. The results regarding
the “challenge” and “commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO were similar to these results regarding
PDO total score; the respondents with individual sports participation scored highest, while the students
with team sports participation scored lowest (Table 8).
Table 8.
The ANOVA results comparing the sports participated by respondents regarding PDO,
OHQ-SF, HSQ, and sub-dimensions.
Sports n** x** Sd ** F** p*
Psychological
Hardiness (PDO)
Team sports 115 78.58 11.44
4.175 0.01 *
Individual sports 29 83.58 11.38
Both (team and individual) 67 82.74 10.45
Total 211 80.59 11.30
Challenge
Team sports 115 27.50 4.79
6.151 0.00 *
Individual sports 29 30.00 4.57
Both (team and individual) 67 29.56 4.10
Total 211 28.50 4.66
Commitment
Team sports 115 26.20 5.06
4.041 0.01 *
Individual sports 29 28.24 4.88
Both (team and individual) 67 28.13 4.89
Total 211 27.09 5.05
Control
Team sports 115 24.86 3.98
0.180 0.83
Individual sports 29 25.34 4.05
Both (team and individual) 67 25.04 3.71
Total 211 24.99 3.89
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
Team sports 115 25.73 4.43
0.392 0.67
Individual sports 29 26.34 4.36
Both (team and individual) 67 26.26 4.96
Total 211 25.98 4.58
Humor Styles (HSQ)
Team sports 115 132.01 19.28
1.139 0.32
Individual sports 29 133.58 20.68
Both (team and individual) 67 128.31 16.65
Total 211 131.05 18.70
Affiliative
Team sports 115 38.42 8.59
0.234 0.79
Individual sports 29 39.48 8.79
Both (team and individual) 67 39.04 8.00
Total 211 38.76 8.41
Self-enhancing
Team sports 115 37.09 7.87
0.183 0.83
Individual sports 29 37.65 7.62
Both (team and individual) 67 36.67 6.61
Total 211 37.03 7.43
Aggressive
Team sports 115 25.13 7.90
0.802 0.45
Individual sports 29 24.93 7.22
Both (team and individual) 67 23.67 7.25
Total 211 24.63 7.60
Self-defeating
Team sports 115 31.36 8.61
2.039 0.13
Individual sports 29 31.51 8.31
Both (team and individual) 67 28.92 7.65
Total 211 30.61 8.32
*p< 0.05 = statistically significant. ** The number (n) of students falling in the given subgroup; Arithmetic means
(x); Standard deviation (Sd), one-way ANOVA F-test (F).
Based on the Alpar (2010) qualification regarding correlation coefficient ([
29
], Table A1), there was
a significant very low-level positive relationship between the HSQ and OHQ-SF. In addition, there were

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 12 of 21
a low-level (with “challenge” and “control”) and moderate (with commitment”) positive significant
correlations between the OHQ-SF and PDO including the respective sub-dimensions (Figure 1).
Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
Based on the Alpar (2010) qualification regarding correlation coefficient ([29], Table A1), there
was a significant very low-level positive relationship between the HSQ and OHQ-SF. In addition,
there were a low-level (with “challenge” and “control”) and moderate (with commitment”) positive
significant correlations between the OHQ-SF and PDO including the respective sub-dimensions
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Correlations between instruments and sub-dimensions. ** Weak (0.20–0.39), moderate
(0.40–0.69) or strong (0.70–0.89) relationship based on the Alpar (2014) qualification regarding
correlation coefficient (Table A1 in [29]). Sig.: 2-tailed test p-value; N: Total number of students who
participated in the study.
There was a low-level positive significant relationship between “affiliative” humor and PDO
sub-dimensions except for the “control” sub-dimension of PDO. The relationship between the
“affiliative” humor and OHQ-SF was significant but very low (Figure 1).
Moreover, there were very low-level positive significant relationships between the
“self-enhancing” sub-dimension of HSQ and the “challenge and control” sub-dimensions of PDO a
low-level positive relationship between the “self-enhancing” and “commitment” PDO
sub-dimensions, and between the “self-enhancing” sub-dimension and OHQ-SF (Figure 1). On the
PDO
Challenge
Commitment
Control
Happiness
(OHQ-SF)
Humor
Styles
Participatory
affiliative
Self-
enhancing
Aggressive
Self-
defeating
Psychological
Hardiness
(PDO)
Pearson
Correlation
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.
N 211
Challenge Pearson
Correlation
0.676** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.
N 211 211
Commitment Pearson
Correlation
0.732** 0.494** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211
Control Pearson
Correlation
0.551** 0.295** 0.346** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211 211
Happiness
(OHQ-SF)
Pearson
Correlation
0.364** 0.222** 0.430** 0.218** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211
Humor Styles Pearson
Correlation
0.039 0.039 0.053 0.012 0.126** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.403 0.419 0.272 0.803 0.009 0. 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211 211
Participatory
affiliative
Pearson
Correlation
0.196** 0.257** 0.203** 0.007 0.158** 0.221** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.893 0.001 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Self-
enhancing
Pearson
Correlation
0.217** 0.182** 0.202** 0.155** 0.244** 0.517** 0.209** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Aggressive Pearson
Correlation
-0.207*
*
-0.221** -0.206** -0.067 -0.085 0.348** -0.262** 0.010 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.171 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.836 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Self-
defeating
Pearson
Correlation
-0.057 -0.094 -0.032 -0.001 0.009 0.563** -0.108** 0.225** 0.358** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.233 0.052 0.503 0.987 0.857 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.
N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211
Figure 1.
Correlations between instruments and sub-dimensions. ** Weak (0.20–0.39), moderate
(0.40–0.69) or strong (0.70–0.89) relationship based on the Alpar (2014) qualification regarding
correlation coefficient (Table A1 in [
29
]). Sig.: 2-tailed test p-value; N: Total number of students
who participated in the study.
There was a low-level positive significant relationship between “affiliative” humor and PDO
sub-dimensions except for the “control” sub-dimension of PDO. The relationship between the
“affiliative” humor and OHQ-SF was significant but very low (Figure 1).
Moreover, there were very low-level positive significant relationships between the
“self-enhancing” sub-dimension of HSQ and the “challenge and control” sub-dimensions of PDO a
low-level positive relationship between the “self-enhancing” and “commitment” PDO sub-dimensions,
and between the “self-enhancing” sub-dimension and OHQ-SF (Figure 1). On the other hand,
the relationships were low-level and negative between the “aggressive” humor and the PDO

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 13 of 21
sub-dimensions “challenge” and “commitment”. In addition, there was a low-level negative
relationship between “aggressive” humor and “affiliative” humor, while the relationship was very
low and negative between the “self-defeating” and “affiliative” humor styles. Figure 1provides more
details on the relationships.
4. Discussion
4.1. Relationships Regarding the 3Hs
A vast literature supports the positive relationships between psychological resilience, humor,
happiness, and sports participation. The relevant research using similar scales and different
combinations of these dimensions point out some common aspects. For instance, psychological
hardiness and humor influence wellbeing by reducing the perception of stressful events as threatening
and enabling the use of effective coping strategies [
7
,
13
,
26
]. Along with happiness, psychosocial
variables such as positive social relationships, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-mastery, and optimism
have also consistently been associated with resilience, better health, and reduced distress [
30
].
Moreover, “happiness is associated with physical activity participation across multiple countries” [
21
].
Furthermore, the literature suggests that extroverts are more likely to enjoy and take part in social
activities and sports (especially team sports), use humor, seek recreation, and in turn, have increased
tendencies for happiness [
31
–
36
]. However, in another relevant study, introverts enjoyed sports more
compared to other social activities that extroverts enjoy [
31
]. This marks sports as being or having
the potential to be a common cultural activity that is more likely to be enjoyed by diverse people and
linked with happiness and resilience.
In the current study, all respondents had sports participation background and some of the
results were relatively in line with the abovementioned literature. The respondents’ scores were
relatively high and there were weak or moderate but positive significant correlations between the
PDO sub-dimensions and OHQ-SF. In addition, there was a very low-level but positive significant
relationship between the HSQ and OHQ-SF. The significant relationships were very low-level and
positive between the “affiliative” humor style and the OHO-SF, and low-level between the “challenge
and commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO, which corroborated previous studies that found a positive
relationship, especially between the “affiliative” humor style and happiness [28,37].
On the other hand, low-level negative relationships were found between the “aggressive” humor
sub-dimension of HSQ and the “challenge” and “self-commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO. Moreover,
the negative relationship was significant and low-level between the “aggressive” and “affiliative”
humor styles, while it was not significant but still negative between the “aggressive” humor and
OHQ-SF and “control” sub-dimension of PDO. In other words, while aggressive humor was positively
associated with overall HSQ (revealing a low-level positive significant relationship) in the current
study, it also came with less “affiliative” humor style, “challenge” and “self-commitment” (a negative
relationship with these sub-dimensions). These results could contribute to the discussions on the
interpretation of higher resilience (more in women and persons participating in individual sports and
with “affiliative” humor style) and humor of any kind as “healthy, positive, better, happier” since
the experiences in the process and output are multifaceted, subjective, or not definite regarding their
scientific, personal and societal perception, and interpretation. These results were also consistent with
some of the complex explanations on resilience, wellbeing, and humor in the literature suggesting that
there are also negative associations between hardiness and mental health outcomes [
38
]—the processes
relating humor use to cognitive appraisals and performance may vary dramatically and may support
some aspects of a resiliency model, but not others [
7
,
39
]. While “humor use can promote distancing
from the sources of stress”, greater use of humor was linked with “more external attributions for
failure on a bogus intelligence test” and those who “used humor also spent less time and performed
poorer on a subsequent test” [
7
,
40
]. In addition, the higher levels of commitment athletes exhibited,
the less likely they were to use humor and behavioral disengagement coping strategies [
39
]. It was

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 14 of 21
also found that “athletes with higher confidence levels in their ability were less likely to use self-blame
as a coping strategy” [
39
]. The participants’ total scores were higher in positive humor sub-dimensions
than in negative ones in the current study. However, the overall results and literature revealed the
complexity regarding not only the use of negative humor but also the use of positive humor, especially
“aggressive, self-enhancing and self-defeating” humor. Their negative relationship with resilience is
a recognized state in the literature that can provide more insights into wellbeing or explanations to
detect some negative, reduced or adverse performance results. Saying that the studies found a positive
relationship between positive humor and coping strategies of teachers, and pointed out positive humor
as a “healthy” coping mechanism [8].
The mean scores of all 3H instruments were found to be relatively high. In addition, positive
humor total scores were higher than negative ones (Table 2). However, higher PDO sub-dimension
and total OHQ-SF and PDO scores refer to higher happiness and psychological resilience [
13
]. Thus,
the humor aspect, especially, was distinct, providing results for positive and negative humor types as
well as adverse meanings revealed through their correlation with other dimensions, as discussed above.
Moreover, of the six sporting (2) and socio-demographic (4) aspect, the gender was the only common
variable that differed significantly in all instruments in the current study (Table 9). Furthermore,
the significant results in humor styles included more distinctive aspects. Overall, significant differences
in the levels of psychological hardiness were found in relation to gender, type of sports, and the number
of years that the respondents had participated in these sports (Table 9). On the other hand, overall
significant differences in the humor style scores were in relation to the variables of gender, age,
residence and perceived income (p< 0.05) (Table 9).
Table 9. Common or different aspects regarding significant results.
Instruments Common: Significantly Different
Results in Three Instruments
Different: Significantly Differ in
Particular Instrument(s) Only
and Absent in Other(s)
Happiness (OHQ-SF)
Gender
Hardiness/Resilience (PDO) length of years participated in
these sports, type of sports
Humor (HSQ)
age, residence & perceived income
4.2. Gender, Age, Perceived Income, and Residence
There was no indication of gender forming a significant difference in many studies on resilience,
humor, and happiness, even though gender is one dimension always considered in their methods.
Thus, there are still many aspects to reveal regarding gender issues. The results in some of the studies
on happiness (with university students from diverse departments) [
25
,
31
], humor (with lecturers at
the Schools of Physical Education and Sport [
12
] and resilience (with elite cyclists) [
41
] illustrated no
difference regarding gender.
However, in our sporting research population, women outperformed men since they scored
significantly higher than men in OHQ-SF as well as in all PDO items. Moreover, women’s higher
scores in positive humor styles (affiliative and self-enhancing) and men’s higher scores in negative
ones (aggressive and self-defeating) in HSQ confirmed this. Although the differences in most HSQ
sub-dimensions (other than the “affiliative” humor style) were not significant, the features of the
instrument enable some interpretation. The instrument includes four humor styles that people use
in daily life and that researchers usually distinguish between: “participatory or affiliative” and
“self-enhancing” humor styles are positive or beneficial to the self or others, while “aggressive” and
“self-defeating” humor styles are negative or detrimental to the self or others [
26
,
37
]. Results similar to
those of the current study were found in research with high school [
42
] and university [
43
] students in
Turkey. In these studies, the male students’ “aggressive” and “self-defeating” (negative) humor scores
were higher than the scores of female students. In addition, many other international studies indicate

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 15 of 21
that males frequently use the aggressive humor style [
44
–
47
]; according to a study with Chinese
junior high school students, this was because males tend to exhibit less empathy than females [
44
].
Unlike the studies representing the significant difference, the humor styles scores of men and women
in the current study were insignificant. This was probably because women with a sporting major
exhibited more negative humor or men with a sporting major exhibited less negative humor. Previous
studies that did not refer to gender differences and/or provide comparable statistics require further
examination and reveal a need for comparable future studies.
However, some results were highlighted in the qualitative literature regarding gender as well as
age. A study reporting on responses to “seeing a man riding a unicycle” suggested that women did
not make aggressively humorous remarks but had warm, appreciative, and supportive responses with
a concern for safety instead, while the “male joke” with repetitive and irritating content, and offensive
intent was observed by male and female unicyclists in many parts of the world [47].
Moreover, adult males showed aggressive and a stereotyped humorous response that became less
frequent in elderly men [
47
]. Furthermore, significantly higher scores were found in the aggressive
humor styles of research assistants compared with lecturers, assistants, and associate professors and
professors; in addition, professors’ life satisfaction levels together with some of their “emotional
intelligence” scores (such as coping with stress, interpersonal relationships, and adjustment) were
higher than research assistants’ [
48
]. Another study [
49
] found a relatively similar tendency regarding
the humor type and age; while teachers’ perception of the humor type of the school principal did not
differ according to many other variables, it differed significantly according to the teachers’ ages (the
oldest group scored higher). While the highest educational leadership scores were given to principals
with the generative humor type, the lowest scores were given to the principals with a non-humorous
style [
49
]. In addition, a study of Portuguese athletes highlighted “the role of maturity and experience
in the use of more functional and adaptive coping strategies, supporting the developmental and age
differences hypothesis in the use of coping” [50].
In the current study, too, as noted, there were significant differences regarding age as well as
perceived income and residence in relation to the humor aspect only, whereas their correlations
were not significant in relation to the resilience and happiness dimensions. In particular, significant
differences in “self-enhancing,” “aggressive,” and “self-defeating” humor styles were relatively similar
to the literature [
47
–
49
]; these humor style scores (together with the total score) usually decreased as
age increased. In contrast to this tendency (to decrease with age) in total score, the oldest age group
(>32) had the highest score in “affiliative” humor style, which was also in line with the literature [
47
–
50
].
Moreover, there was an increase in the 28–32 age group in “aggressive” humor style; on the other hand,
while this group had the lowest score in “affiliative” humor style (Table 4). These results indicate that
although the “positive” use of humor was more likely to occur in later age, such adjustments have not
been linear. The broader psycho-physiological, sociocultural, and economic factors linked with certain
age groups and contexts may provide explanations for these changing results.
For example, an anticipation of coming conflict, such as competitions or in social interactions,
can be related to aggression. Moreover, the 28–32 age group may be more critical in terms of stress
factors such as career uncertainties. Furthermore, a weak but positive relationship was found between
testosterone and human aggression; testosterone among young adults was high but decreased around
middle age, which was correlated with physically aggressive behavior in males [
51
,
52
]. In addition,
the level of testosterone increases when you win, and decreases when you lose in sports [
51
,
53
,
54
];
sporting individuals are inevitably exposed to such physical experiences or memories. However,
social studies in sport and violence tend to situate arguments on male aggression away from the on
“male nature” in order to point out the greater role of social constructs [
55
,
56
]. As a social behavior,
aggressive behavior is “a product of predisposing personal factors and precipitating situational
factors.” For instance, encoded social cognitions are influential, including schemas about the world
and normative beliefs about what is appropriate to interact with situational primes to determine

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 16 of 21
behavior [
57
]. Accordingly, higher use of aggressive humor regarding certain residential areas and
income levels in the current study provided even more evidence for this argument.
Similar to the age groups, there were no significant differences among the residential groups
regarding the PDO and OHQ-SF, while significant differences were found in HSQ total scores,
“affiliative, aggressive, and self-defeating” humor styles scores (Table 5). The participants who
live in megacities had significantly higher HSQ total scores and “affiliative” humor style scores
than participants who live in towns or metropolitan municipalities. Students who indicated their
residence as a megacity may live around their university, which has a central location in the capital
city. Metropolitan municipalities are locations where surrounding residential areas such as towns and
villages were integrated with a city or megacity in recent years. Thus, their results were expected to
represent similarities to the results from town, as much as from (mega)cities. The participants who
live in towns additionally differed in terms of their significantly higher scores of “aggressive” humor
style compared to the respondents who live in a city (Table 5). Do aggressive humor affiliations of
respondents who live in town result from the number of stress factors (such as the campus not being as
accessible) or the socialization (acceptance of “aggressive” humor may be higher in towns)? Does the
“affiliative” humor of respondents who live in megacities result from the number of factors providing
relief in life (such as more accessible living may be possible and different social interactions may be
flourishing their perspectives)? There is a need for further research to answer such questions.
Moreover, significant differences were found, especially in aggressive humor styles, with respect
to the perceived income. The higher income they perceived, the higher the score they had for aggressive
humor (Table 6). Studies on humor found that socioeconomic status was necessary for subjective
wellbeing but not enough on its own. The effects of income on subjective wellbeing are not simple
and linear; for example, rising material desires, stressors such as longer work hours, and higher
expectations for achievement were among the negative associations with income [43,58].
All in all, alternative categorizations of results are possible which may help varying interpretations.
For example, aggressive humor was associated with males, <23 and 28–32 age group, less resilience
(self-commitment and challenge), higher income and living in town. On the other hand, “affiliative”
humor was associated with females, >32 age group, living in megacity and resilience (“challenge and
self-commitment”) positively.
4.3. Physical Activity Participation
In the current study, those who had participated in sports for the shortest time (1-5 years) scored
highest in the “commitment” sub-dimension of the PDO, while the participants who responded “6 to 9
years” scored the lowest, relatively similar to the group that had participated in sports for “10 years or
more” (Table 4). Although the literature usually did not directly provide information about either the
number of years of participation in sports or the relationship with resilience, their age-related results in
relation to sports, happiness, humor, or resilience are partly in line with the current study, as indicated
in the discussion.
Physical activity participation is associated with happiness in many studies and multiple
countries [
21
,
31
–
36
]. Moreover, “athletes from individual sports reported higher levels of worry,
somatic anxiety, threat perception, and a greater use of venting of emotions,” while “athletes from
team sports reported a greater use of humor and substance abuse” [
50
]. Parallel to these results,
the respondents with individual sports participation scored highest in total PDO as well as in the
“challenge” and “commitment” sub-dimensions of PDO (similar to women’s results compared to
men) in the current study, while the students with team sports participation scored lowest (Table 7).
The “challenge” and “commitment” sub-dimensions were significantly and negatively related to
“aggressive” humor style, and “aggressive” humor style was associated with the number of variables
listed at the end of the previous sub-heading. This result is important in terms of respondents’ possible
current or future roles in sports fields as employees or employers. Resilience, hope, and optimism,

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 17 of 21
as components of organizational psychological capital, promote organizational commitment and job
satisfaction [59,60].
Studies pointed to many stressors related to the social interactions in the context of the team
environment, thus further examination of “the relationship between athletes’ cognitive appraisal
processes and different coping strategies in diverse individual and team sports” was suggested [
50
,
59
].
Furthermore, the significant difference was not so high in the use of humor or in happiness regarding
the type of sports in the current study; it is likely that respondents were sport sciences graduates and
have all had both team and individual sports experience.
Furthermore, studies pointed out the possible relationships between team sports, extroversion,
and happiness [
31
–
33
], as well as the greater consumption of alcohol or drugs by team sports athletes
as team sports generate additional opportunities for social interaction [
50
]. These results provide more
evidence on the complexity of the 3Hs, socio-demographic and sporting dimensions; more specifically,
of the resilience aspect in relation to happiness and humor types [7,38,39].
This study expands knowledge especially in relation to humor styles, resilience, and their
use in a facilitative manner, as well as regarding the 3Hs in relation to populations with a sports
participation background.
However, there were a number of limitations to this study. The sample used in the analyses
was an easily accessible group of graduates from the faculty of sport sciences who have been in
pedagogical formation training during the data collection. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized
even to the department of sport sciences the participants graduated from (any department other than
physical education teaching such as exercise sciences, recreation, or sports management). Although the
current study provides some insights into the differences between students participating in team and
individual sports and the sporting population in general, the inclusion of non-sporting participants
would be useful to determine the meanings of the results providing comparisons between sporting
and non-sporting populations. In addition, a limited number of participants from the study population
fell within each socio-demographic and sporting variable. Future studies with similar or larger cohorts
and with quota sampling regarding sporting and socio-demographic aspects would provide additional
validation. Moreover, the additional validation is needed in terms of any aspect that was not provided
with comparable statistics in literature as discussed above. Furthermore, there is a lack of such quests to
bring together evaluations from both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Thus, qualitative analyses
regarding the 3Hs, relative subjective performance, wellbeing, and the perceptions and interpretations
of individuals with different backgrounds (e.g., people with or without sports participation, at higher
risk of facing stress) on relevant issues would provide valuable insights. For example, previous studies
on humor have led to further research on the influence of socioeconomic status, and it was difficult to
compare some of our results especially regarding income, residence, and length of sports participation
and specific correlations of the 3Hs due to the sparse literature.
5. Conclusions
This study enhances the knowledge of positive psychology in the literature by incorporating the
3Hs and social variables such as gender, age, residence, perceived income, type of sports, and the
number of years’ participation in sports. The students who were sport sciences graduates scored
relatively highly in all 3H instruments and their positive humor total scores were higher than the
negative ones. Moreover, the results were partly in line with the so-called conventional findings
in the literature. Higher scores in the use of affiliative humor were seen in females, >32 age group
and respondents who reside in a megacity as well as its positive relationship with “challenge and
self-commitment”. The negative humor (especially “aggressive” humor) was more often used by
respondents in youngest age group, residing in towns, with higher income, and by men; negative
humor also came with less resilience (self-commitment and challenge). On the other hand, resilience
score was highest in students affiliated with individual sports, affiliative humor and in women.
Furthermore, some of the results and complex relationships were in the furtherance of scarce literature.

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 18 of 21
For example, the relationships between humor and resilience or happiness were not always positive,
higher scores in the use of negative humor were seen in the respondents with higher income; men used
relatively less aggressive and more affiliative humor in older age while such increase with age was
not linear.
Acknowledgment of both positive and negative humor has been increasingly suggested in the
literature. Our study suggests that the quests should move beyond the positive-negative discrimination,
based on the negative relationships in our results and in the literature especially between the
“aggressive, self-defeating and self-enhancing” humor and PDO sub-dimensions “self-commitment
and challenge”. Overall, the humor aspect in the current study, especially, became distinct for not
only providing results for positive and negative humor types but also the adverse meanings revealed
through their correlation with other dimensions. Moreover, the significant results in humor styles
included more distinctive aspects (age, residence, and perceived income in addition to gender) while
the overall significant differences in the levels of psychological hardiness were found in relation to
gender, type of sports, and the number of years that the respondents had participated in these sports.
Among the six sporting (2) and socio-demographic (4) variables, the gender was the only common
aspect that differed significantly in all instruments (p< 0.05).
The discussion of the number of questions produced in this study was bounded by the scarce
literature concerning combinations of traits and specific and comprehensive questions. Therefore,
future research considering diverse variables (such as sporting and socio-demographic variables,
or different personality traits, attitudes, or thoughts) and methodologies (such as qualitative) will
continue to provide deeper understanding regarding the 3Hs.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, Validation, Supervision, P.Y. and M.G.; Investigation, Funding
Acquisition, and Resources, P.Y.; Methodology, Formal Analysis, P.Y., M.G. and T.A.D.; Software, T.A.D.;
Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Visualization, P.Y., T.A.D.; Writing—Review & Editing, P.Y.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
We thank Assoc. ¸Serife I¸SIK and other experts for providing their expertise in the choice of
scales in this study, and permission to use their inventory.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The Alpar (2014) qualification regarding correlation coefficient [29].
r-Value Qualification
0.00–0.19 No or negligible relationship
0.20–0.39 Weak relationship
0.40–0.69 Moderate
0.70–0.89 Strong relationship
0.90–1.00 Very strong relationship
References
1.
Yaprak-Kemaloglu, P.; Guclu, M.; Ayyildiz, T.; Yaman, M.; Ozcan, V. The happiness, psychological hardiness
and humor styles of physical education and sport teacher candidates in pedagogical formation training.
In Proceedings of the International Sport Sciences Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 14 November 2017.
2.
Brady, A.; Grenville-Cleave, B. Introducing positive psychology and its value for sport and physical activity.
In Positive Psychology in Sport and Physical Activity: An Introduction, 1st ed.; Brady, A., Grenville-Cleave, B.,
Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; p. 13, e-ISBN 9781315304380.
3.
Seligman, M.E.P.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive psychology: An introduction. Am. Psychol.
2000
,55, 5–14.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Gould, D. Sport Psychology in the New Millennium: The Psychology of Athletic Excellence and Beyond.
J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2002,14, 137–139. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 19 of 21
5.
Wagstaff, C.R.D.; Fletcher, D.; Hanton, S. Positive organizational psychology in sport. Int. Rev. Sport
Exerc. Psychol. 2012,5, 87–103. [CrossRef]
6.
Fritz, H.L.; Russek, L.N.; Dillon, M.M. Humor use moderates the relation of stressful life events with
psychological distress. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017,43, 845–859. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Kuiper, N.A. Humor and resiliency: Toward a process model of coping and growth. Eur. J. Psychol.
2012
,
8, 475–491. [CrossRef]
8.
Ozdemir, S.; Sezgin, F.; Kaya, Z.; Recepoglu, E. The relationship between primary school teachers’ coping
styles with stress and humor styles. Educ. Adm. Theory Pract. 2011,17, 405–428.
9.
Bacanli, H.; Ilhan, T.; Gungor, C.H. Adaptation of Relational humor inventory to Turkish. Turk. Psychol.
Couns. Guid. J. 2012,4, 11–23.
10. Snyder, E.E. Sociology of sport and humor. Int. Rev. Soc. Sport 1991,26, 119–131. [CrossRef]
11.
Yaprak-Kemaloglu, P.; Simsek, L. Humor in Sport. In ISSA2016 Book of Abstracts, Proceedings of the 51st World
Congress of Sociology of Sport: Sports, Development and Social Change, Budapest, Hungary, 8–11 June 2016; ISSA:
Budapest, Hungary, 2016; p. 34.
12.
Cengiz, R.; Sunay, H.; Yasar, O.M. Examine of mobbing via humour styles of lecturers at schools of physical
education and sport. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 2018,6, 577–584. [CrossRef]
13.
Isik, ¸S. Developing the psychological hardiness scale: The validity and reliability study. JHW
2016
,4, 165–182.
14.
Bartone, P.T.; Valdes, J.J.; Jocoy, K.; Spinosa, A.; Bowles, S.V. Psychological hardiness predicts cardiovascular
risk in healthy adults. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Convention—Association for Psychological Science,
Washington, DC, USA, 23–26 May 2013.
15.
Kobasa, S.C. Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1979,37, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Meulena, E.; Veldena, P.G.; Settib, I.; Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. Predictive value of psychological resilience for
mental health disturbances: A three-wave prospective study among police officers. Psychiatry Res.
2018
,
260, 486–494. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Sarkar, M. Psychological resilience: Definitional advancement and research developments in elite sport.
IJSPW 2017,1, 1–4.
18.
Kim, M.; Perrewé, P.L.; Kim, Y.; Kim, A.C.H. Psychological capital in sport organizations: Hope, Efficacy,
Resilience, and Optimism among Employees in Sport (HEROES). Eur. Sport Manag. Q.
2017
,17, 659–680.
[CrossRef]
19.
Ryff, C.D.; Keyes, C.L.M. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1995
,
69, 719–727. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Peterson, C.; Park, N.; Pole, N.; D’Andrea, W.; Seligman, M. Strength of character and post-traumatic growth.
J. Trauma Stress 2008,21, 214–217. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21.
Richards, J.; Jiang, X.; Kelly, P.; Chau, J.; Bauman, A.; Ding, D. Don’t worry, be happy: cross-sectional
associations between physical activity and happiness in 15 European countries. BMC Public Health
2015
,
15, 53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Badau, D. The educational impact of implementation the education through adventure discipline in physical
education and sports academic curriculum. Phys. Educ. Stud. 2017,21, 108–115. [CrossRef]
23.
Badau, D.; Baydil, B.; Badau, A. Differences among three measures of reaction time based on hand laterality
in individual sports. Sports 2018,6, 45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Badau, D.; Badau, A. The motric, educational, recreational and satisfaction impact of adventure education
activities in the urban tourism environment. Sustainability 2018,10, 2106. [CrossRef]
25.
Dogan, T.; Akinci-Cotok, N. Adaptation of the Short Form of the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire into
Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study. Turk. Psychol. Couns. Guid. J. 2011,4, 165–172.
26.
Yerlikaya, E. The Adaptation of Humor Styles Questionnaire into Turkish Language. Master’s Thesis,
Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana, Turkey, 2003.
27.
Hills, P.; Argyle, M. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of
psychological well-being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2002,33, 1073–1082. [CrossRef]
28.
Martin, R.A.; Puhlik-Doris, P.; Larsen, G.; Gray, J.; Weir, K. Individual differences in uses of humor and their
relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. J. Res. Pers.
2003
,
37, 48–75. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 20 of 21
29.
Alpar, R. Spor, Saglik ve Egitim Bilimlerinden Orneklerle Uygulamali Istatistik ve Gecerlik-Guvenirlik-SPSS’de
Cozumleme Adimlari ile Birlikte, 3rd ed.; Detay Yayinlari: Ankara, Turkey, 2014; p. 356, ISBN 978-605-5681-87-6.
30.
Yi, J.P.; Vitaliano, P.P.; Smith, R.E.; Yi, J.C.; Weinger, K. The role of resilience on psychological adjustment and
physical health in patients with diabetes. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2008,13, 311–325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Argyle, M.; Lu, L. The happiness of extraverts. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1990,11, 1011–1017. [CrossRef]
32. Furnham, A. Personality and activity preference. Br. J. Health Psychol. 1981,20, 57–68. [CrossRef]
33.
Emmons, R.A.; Diener, E.; Larsen, R.J. Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence:
Two models of reciprocal interactionism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986,51, 815–826. [CrossRef]
34.
Emmons, R.A.; Diener, E. Situation selection as a moderator of response consistency and stability. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1986,51, 1013–1019. [CrossRef]
35.
Emmons, R.A.; Diener, E. Influence of impulsivity and sociability on subjective well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1986,50, 1211–1215. [CrossRef]
36.
Thorne, A. The press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts and extraverts. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1987,53, 718–726. [CrossRef]
37.
Ford, T.E.; Lappi, S.K.; Holden, C.J. Personality, Humor Styles and Happiness: Happy People Have Positive
Humor Styles. Eur. J. Psychol. 2016,12, 320–337. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Leslie, C.; Hutchinson, A.D. Emotional distress when studying sensitive topics in psychology, and its
relationship with hardiness and mental health. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018,37, 549–564. [CrossRef]
39.
Kaiseler, M.; Polman, R.; Nicholls, A. Mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, coping and coping
effectiveness in sport. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2009,47, 728–733. [CrossRef]
40.
Geisler, F.C.M.; Weber, H. Harm that does not hurt: Humour in coping with self-threat. Motiv. Emot.
2010
,
34, 446–456. [CrossRef]
41.
Altay, B.; Bastug, G.; Arikan, I.I. Goal commitment and psychological resilience among cycling athletes.
Eur. J. Phys. Educ. Sport Sci. 2017,3, 618–628. [CrossRef]
42.
Yerlikaya, Y. Examining the Relationship between High School Students’ Humor Styles and Styles of Coping
with Stress. Master’s Thesis, Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana, Turkey, 2007.
43.
Tümkaya, S. Humor styles and socio-demographic variables as predictors of subjective well-being of Turkish
university students. Educ. Sci. 2011,36, 158–170.
44.
Wu, C.L.; Lin, H.Y.; Chen, H.C. Gender differences in humour styles of young adolescents: Empathy as a
mediator. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016,99, 139–143. [CrossRef]
45.
Martin, R. Sense of humor. In Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures; Lopez, S.J.,
Snyder, C.R., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 313–326.
46. Kotthoff, H. Gender and humor: The state of the art. J. Pragmat. 2006,38, 4–25. [CrossRef]
47.
Shuster, S. The evolution of humor from male aggression. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.
2012
,5, 19–23.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
48.
Tümkaya, S.; Hamarta, E.; Deniz, M.E.; Çelik, M.; Aybek, B. Duygusal zeka mizah tarzı ve ya¸sam doyumu:
Üniversite ö˘gretim elemanları üzerine bir ara¸stırma. Türk Psikol. Dan. Rehb. Derg. 2008,3, 1–18.
49.
Recepoglu, E.; Ozdemir, S. The relationship between principals’ humor styles and instructional leadership
behaviors. Inonu Univ. J. Fac. Educ. 2012,13, 23–42.
50.
Dias, C.; Cruz, J.F.; Fonseca, A.M. Coping strategies, multidimensional competitive anxiety and cognitive
threat appraisal: differences across sex, at appraisal: differences across sex, age and type of sport. Serb. J.
Sport Sci. 2010,4, 23–31.
51. Björkqvist, K. Gender differences in aggression. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2018,19, 39–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Julian, T.; McKenry, P. Relationship of testosterone to men’s family functioning at mid-life: a research note.
Aggress. Behav. 1989,15, 281–289. [CrossRef]
53.
Elias, M. Serum cortisol, testosterone, and testosterone-binding globulin responses to competitive fighting in
human males. Aggress. Behav. 1981,7, 215–224. [CrossRef]
54.
Mazur, A.; Booth, A. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behav. Brain Sci.
1998
,21, 353–397. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
55.
Messner, M.A. When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in sport. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport
1990
,
25, 202–220. [CrossRef]

Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 82 21 of 21
56.
Yaprak-Kemaloglu, P. Sociological analyses on violence in sports. In Proceedings of the Violence and
Deviance in Sport Conference, Society without Violence Association & Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey,
27 April 2017.
57.
Rowell, H.L. An integrative theoretical understanding of aggression: a brief exposition. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2018,19, 119–124.
58.
Holt, N.L.; Hogg, J.M. Perceptions of stress and coping during preparation for the 1999 women’s soccer
world cup finals. Sport Psychol. 2002,16, 251–271. [CrossRef]
59.
Çetin, F. The effects of the organizational psychological capital on the attitudes of commitment and
satisfaction: A public sample in Turkey. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2011,21, 373–380.
60.
Kalfa, M.; Karaman, M.; Tufan, D. Organizational commitment of people working for Turkish sports
management organizations in terms of some variables. Eur. Sci. J. 2016,12, 159–169. [CrossRef]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).