Content uploaded by Kay Brauer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kay Brauer on May 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Abstract
Gelotophobia (the fear of being laughed at) is an individual difference variable that relates to a
particular set of emotional reactions, behaviors, and processes towards laughter and ridicule that
are potentially detrimental to learning processes. We extend the research of gelotophobia to the
educational domain by exploring the direct effect of gelotophobia on willingness to communicate
(WTC) and second-language (L2) achievement. We hypothesized that communication anxiety
might have an indirect effect on the relation between gelotophobia and WTC and L2
achievement. A sample of 483 Iranian high school students completed measures of gelotophobia,
WTC, and communication anxiety. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that
gelotophobia was negatively related to both L2 achievement and WTC. Further, communication
anxiety showed the expected indirect effect on the gelotophobia-WTC association. Finally, we
incorporated teacher-ratings of students’ gelotophobia and found that (a) the accuracy of
teachers’ impressions was comparatively low and (b) that higher accuracy was associated with
better L2 achievement. We argue that because of fear of anticipated derision in performance
situations such as speaking an L2, gelotophobic L2 learners might adopt a withdrawal strategy
by avoiding the social situation altogether. Hence, L2 teachers should be aware that not all
students enjoy humor and laughter, and they are recommended to use humor judiciously without
laughing at students, and to adapt to students’ engagement and perceptions of laughter.
Keywords: anxiety, gelotophobia, laughter, second language achievement, willingness to
communicate
2
Examining the Role of Gelotophobia for Willingness to Communicate and Second
Language Achievement Using Self- and Teacher Ratings
Second-language (L2) learning research has demonstrated that L2 learners’ willingness to
communicate (WTC) is the most immediate predictor of L2 use (MacIntyre et al., 1998). There is
robust evidence that some L2 learners refrain from talking actively in L2 because they shy away
from oral communication despite having good linguistic competence (Dorney, 2005). In recent
years, WTC has been extensively investigated as an important individual difference variable in
L2 research (see Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Although a growing body of this
research has examined WTC at the “state” level (see e.g., Zhang et al., 2018, 2019), the original
model of L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998) focuses on both its state and trait characteristics
(Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017). At the trait level, L2 learners’ tendency to
communicate is rooted in their personalities, with the assumption that higher levels of WTC can
result in better L2 learning outcomes (Mahmoodi & Moazam, 2014).
The extant literature on WTC has supported the notion that personality characteristics
such as extraversion, self-efficacy, sociability, and risk-taking can affect L2 learners’ WTC (e.g.,
Elwood, 2011; Fu et al., 2012; Oz et al., 2015). In addition to these personality characteristics,
gelotophobia (Greek: gelos = laughter; fear of being laughed at; Ruch & Proyer, 2008a) might
play a role in L2 WTC since those high in gelotophobia tend to avoid situations in which they
might be laughed at (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a). This seems particularly true in performance
situations like speaking a second language, which puts L2 learners under constant pressure to be
perfect (see Flett et al., 2016). In such situations, some learners might experience “fear of
appearing to social partners to be a ridiculous object” (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a, p. 20). Further,
there is robust evidence that those high in gelotophobia underestimate their abilities (e.g., their
3
intelligence, achievements, production of humor; see Brauer & Proyer, 2019, 2020a; Proyer &
Ruch, 2009ab). Thus, one might argue that anticipated derision and self-perceptions of low L2
abilities can make L2 learners anxious about making mistakes. For example, Liu (2007)
indicated that Chinese students’ unwillingness to participate in oral communication was
attributed to their fear of being laughed at and losing face. Therefore, because making mistakes
is an integral part of learning a second language (e.g., Flett et al., 2016), and considering that
these mistakes can turn into teasing experiences for L2 learners (Liu, 2007; Weiss et al., 2011),
we expected that gelotophobia asserts a negative influence on L2 learners’ WTC and L2
achievement.
Previous research has established communication anxiety as a robust negative predictor
of L2 WTC (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019; Jeon & Yamashita, 2014). Given that WTC itself is the
most immediate predictor of L2 use, we aim to explore the possible links between gelotophobia,
communication anxiety, WTC, and L2 achievement in this study. To the best of our knowledge,
no study has yet investigated the association between gelotophobia, WTC, and L2 achievement
in consideration of the possible indirect effect of communication anxiety. As such, this study is
an attempt to narrow this gap.
Willingness to Communicate
The concept of WTC was first proposed by McCrosky and Richmond (1987), who
conceptualized it as a personality trait that is stable across different situations. However, its
definition in an L2 context as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a
specific person or persons, using L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p, 547) suggests that it is a multi-
faceted construct that integrates a host of linguistic, affective, social-psychological, and
communicative influences. MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) definition also alludes to the dual nature of
4
L2 WTC that combines both trait and state characteristics (Khajavy et al., 2018). At the state
level, situational antecedents such as teacher, class, peers, activity, topic, and even L2 learners’
subjective perceptions of these cues can trigger or hinder L2 WTC (Zhang et al., 2018, 2019).
The state perspective stresses the variability and malleability of L2 WTC. The trait level WTC,
however, focuses primarily on a learner’s general communicative tendency that is stable across
different situations. This general tendency, rooted in a learner’s personality, falls under enduring
influences such as learners’ personality characteristics (e.g., Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak,
2017). Regarding these personality influences on L2 WTC, the results of a quantitative study by
Elwood (2011) with 252 Japanese students indicated that extraversion could strongly predict L2
learners’ WTC. Similarly, Fu et al. (2012) found that introversion in Chinese learners of English
went along with lower levels of L2 WTC. Chinese learners of English in another study (Wen &
Clement, 2003) also were reported to make extensive use of inhibited monitor, that is, over-
reliance on L2 rules while speaking, in an attempt not to lose face. This overuse of monitor to
save face decreased learners’ WTC, and hence their L2 production (Wen & Clement, 2003). This
finding suggests that at least for some learners, such as gelotophobes, some situational cues like
teachers and peers might create a face-threatening atmosphere in class. Situational cues refer to
objective features of a situation while learners’ subjective perceptions of these cues constitute
situational characteristics (Zhang et al., 2018). A hypothesis put forward here is that L2 learners
with higher levels of gelotophobia might perceive situational cues such as the teacher, peers,
tasks, and class as teasing experiences since they tend to hold the belief that there is something
wrong with them, and that they deserve mockery (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a).
Furthermore, L2 WTC research has consistently indicated that communication anxiety
relates negatively to L2 WTC (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000). On the other hand, L2 learners with a
5
high level of gelotophobia are more prone to communication anxiety, because they tend to have a
low threshold for shame (Platt & Forabosco, 2012). It is worth noting that if L2 learners perceive
their peers as friendly and outgoing (Cao, 2011), and their teachers as humorous but not teasing
(Peng, 2019), they display more L2 WTC. We further argue that L2 learners’ interpretation of L2
context, their teacher, and their peers are to some extent affected by the degree to which they
respond to laughter situations. A vivid example of L2 learners’ perception of situational cues is
offered by Effiong (2016), who found that laughter has a dual capacity to energize and weaken
L2 learners; it reduces communication anxiety and thereby improves WTC for some L2 learners,
while increasing communication anxiety and hence reducing WTC for some other learners. It
seems likely that the way L2 learners perceive their peers’ laughter in the language classroom (a
situational cue) is determined to some extent by their level of gelotophobia as an individual
difference variable.
Gelotophobia
Individuals’ reaction to laughter and humor varies greatly, depending on their perception
of whether others laugh with or at them (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a). Gelotophobia describes
individual differences in the fear of being laughed at on a dimension from no fear to extreme
fear. While being initially studied in clinical contexts, it was found that gelotophobia varies
within non-clinical populations (e.g., Ruch & Proyer, 2008ab). Since laughter and humor are an
integral element of human social life, fear of being laughed at permeates many social aspects
(e.g., Brauer et al., 2020; Platt & Forabosco, 2012). Given that language learning contexts can be
potentially laden with teasing experiences due to making mistakes (Liu, 2007), we hypothesize
that some L2 learners might experience fear of being laughed at. Gelotophobia is discriminated
from theoretically near constructs such as social phobia or fear of negative evaluation (e.g.,
6
Carretero-Dios et al., 2010). When testing their localization in systems of broad personality
traits, gelotophobia is robustly related to introversion and neuroticism (e.g., Ruch & Proyer,
2009b). To date, more than 100 studies, using numerous methodological approaches, have been
published since its introduction. The study of gelotophobia has advanced the knowledge in the
field across different life domains, such as processes of bullying and victimization in schools
(Proyer et al., 2012, 2013) or its role for romantic relationships (e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2018;
Brauer et al., 2020). Also, there is initial evidence that people make accurate judgments about
others’ expressions in gelotophobia, as studies using dyads of varying degrees of
acquaintanceship show that there is robust convergence between self- and other ratings and
among observers (Brauer & Proyer, 2020a, 2021; Brauer et al., 2021).
High expressions in gelotophobia are related to attributes, behaviors, and emotions that
are potentially harmful (Platt & Forabosco, 2012). For example, gelotophobic individuals tend to
have lower body appreciation and higher body shame (Moya-Garofano et al., 2019), hold
negative beliefs about themselves (Brauer & Proyer, 2019, 2020a), experience less enjoyment
and have problems establishing and maintaining relationship with others (e.g., Brauer et al.,
2020; Platt & Forabosco, 2012), avoid social situations in which they might be laughed at (Ruch
& Proyer 2008ab), and hold unreasonable expectations that others will reject them (e.g., Brauer
et al., 2020; Dursun et al., 2020). Moreover, gelotophobia has been linked to misperceptions of
their abilities. For example, Proyer and Ruch (2009b) examined the convergence of self-
estimated and objectively measured intelligence and found that gelotophobia goes along with
systematically underestimating one’s abilities; similar findings exist for gelotophobes
underestimating their virtuousness (Proyer et al., 2014). In line with these findings, Brauer and
Proyer (2019, 2020a) showed that gelotophobia relates to experiences of the impostor
7
phenomenon (i.e., convictions that one’s achievements are not based on ability but luck/change)
and external attributions of success. Also, Proyer et al. (2009) and Ruch and Proyer (2009b)
found that “slips of the tongue” and “embarrassing oneself in front of others” belong to the most
frequently remembered causes of being ridiculed. Therefore, the gelotophobic learners’ wrong
expectation to be the target of ridicule while using L2 and the tendency to underestimate their L2
competence can negatively affect L2 achievement and WTC.
Additionally, gelotophobia might exert a negative influence on L2 achievement and WTC
by arousing certain emotions. It is likely that due to their serious and unplayful frame of mind,
gelotophobes experience less enjoyment and higher anxiety and shame (Platt & Forabosco,
2012). All these emotions play an important role in enhancing or lowering WTC. For example,
Khajavy et al.’s (2018) study indicated that positive emotions, especially enjoyment, play an
important role in increasing L2 learners’ WTC, while negative emotions, especially
communication anxiety, can reduce WTC. As such, our hypothesis is that L2 students with high
levels of gelotophobia are less willing to communicate, since these individuals tend to experience
more negative emotions, such as anxiety and shame, than positive emotions, such as enjoyment.
Given the possible relationship between emotions and WTC in previous research (see Khajavy et
al., 2018), we assume that certain emotions such as communication anxiety, shame, and
enjoyment (Barabadi & Khajavy, 2020) might have an indirect effect on the relationship between
gelotophobia and L2 WTC.
Communication Anxiety
In the field of L2 acquisition, no affective variable has been researched as frequently as
anxiety (Teimouri et al., 2019). According to Rachman (2004) anxiety refers to “the tense,
unsettling anticipation of a threatening but vague event, a feeling of uneasy suspense” (p. 3).
8
This emotion is very widespread among English as a foreign language (EFL) learners (Horwitz,
2001). In a meta-analysis of L2 anxiety, Teimouri et al. (2019) found that approximately 13% of
variance of students’ language achievement is explained by anxiety. Dewaele (2019) also found
L2 anxiety as the strongest negative predictor of L2 WTC. The detrimental effect of anxiety on
L2 WTC has been supported by previous research (e.g., Khajavy et al., 2018; Hashimoto, 2002).
L2 WTC research has shown that perceived communicative competence and lack of anxiety are
among the strongest correlates of WTC (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019). It is worth noting that L2
learners’ perceived communicative competence is related to anxiety, with higher levels of
anxiety resulting in lower perceived competence (Teimouri et al., 2019). The results of a review
study by MacIntyre (2017) suggest that L2 anxiety can be triggered by both internal and social
dimensions. Therefore, gelotophobia as an individual difference variable (internal dimension)
can be considered a potential correlate with anxiety among L2 learners.
The Present Study
This study has five main aims: First, we examined the direct effect of gelotophobia on
WTC and L2 achievement. Taking the literature into account, we hypothesized that gelotophobic
L2 learners are less willing to communicate in L2 and show lower L2 achievement. Hence, we
expected a negative relation between gelotophobia and WTC (H1) and L2 achievement (H2).
Secondly, we expected that WTC and anxiety might have indirect effects on the relationship
between gelotophobia and L2 achievement. Taking into account that gelotophobia and anxiety
are non-redundant and communication anxiety is the strongest (negative) predictor of WTC
(Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019), we expected that anxiety would have indirect effects on the
relationship between gelotophobia and (H3a) WTC and (H3b) L2 achievement (see Figure 2 for
full model).
9
We also collected teacher ratings of their students’ gelotophobia. As mentioned, there is
evidence that fear of being laughed at can be perceived comparatively well in others. Findings
from samples of different degrees of acquaintance provided robust self-other agreement
correlations, with .51 in romantic partners (Brauer et al., 2021), .50 in a mixed sample of friends,
colleagues, and partners, and between .19 and .51 (mean = .40) at zero-acquaintance (see Brauer
& Proyer, 2020b, 2021; Brauer et al., 2021). No study has yet tested the accuracy of teachers’
impressions of their students’ gelotophobia. The inclusion of teacher ratings allows us to
examine whether prior findings on the accuracy of perceptions of gelotophobia also replicate in
student-teacher relationships and extend the knowledge on the interpersonal perception of the
fear of being laughed at. Further, prior studies emphasized the role of gelotophobia in
classrooms. For example, gelotophobia relates to experiences of victimization in bullying-type
situations (Proyer et al., 2012, 2013); that is, they experience being bullied more often than non-
gelotophobes. One might argue that teachers’ perceptions of gelotophobia are important for their
evaluations and perceptions of their students, for example, concerning their students’ well-being
and status with co-students in class but also with regard to their performance in class and
particularly in situations of public speaking such as in L2 classes. Further, we argue that
teachers’ impressions of their students’ gelotophobia might be of importance for interacting with
their students (e.g., the use of teasing; selecting students for tasks that require public speaking).
Taking prior findings into account on the positive agreement between self- and other ratings in
gelotophobia, we expected that teachers’ impressions of gelotophobia are positively related to
students’ self-views in gelotophobia (H4). Based on the notion that teachers’ accurate
perceptions of their students’ gelotophobia might allow them to adjust the teaching methods, we
hypothesized that teachers’ accurate impressions of students’ gelotophobia would go along with
10
greater L2 achievement in students, using the latter as an indicator of the teaching outcome (H5).
For example, teachers who accurately infer their students’ gelotophobia might consider having
their gelotophobic students speak English in small groups rather than in front of all the class and
using indirect ways of correcting their mistakes (e.g., recasting).
Finally, we collected objective test data for L2 achievement and students’ subjective
impressions of their L2 achievements. In line with the literature (e.g., Proyer & Ruch, 2009b)
showing that gelotophobia goes along with underestimating their abilities, we hypothesize that
gelotophobia is related to underestimating L2 achievement (H6). Thus, we assume that
gelotophobia goes along with greater discrepancies between objective and subjective indicators
of achievement.
Method
Participants
Our sample comprised N = 483 Iranian students between the ages of 15 and 18 years (M
= 16.6, SD = 0.68). The gender ratio was balanced: 53.4% were female and 46.6% male. The
students were in grades 10 (33.1%), 11 (47.8%), and 12 (19.0%) and studied English as a second
language. A power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009; type = sensitivity) showed that our
sample size allows to detect effects of small size (ρ = .13) using two-tailed tests with α = .05 and
80% power. Further, the sample allows for the usage of latent variable modeling (e.g., Wolf et
al., 2013).
Instruments
Gelotophobia
The GELOPH-15 (Ruch & Proyer, 2008b; Persian version as used in Proyer et al., 2009)
is the 15-item standard instrument to assess the fear of being laughed at. Each item (e.g., “When
11
they laugh in my presence, I get suspicious”) is responded to on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). There is good evidence for reliability (i.e., α and ω ≥ .88,
retest-correlations ≥ .80 for up to six months; Brauer & Proyer, 2021; Ruch & Proyer, 2009a)
and its validity (e.g., unidimensionality in principal component analyses and confirmatory factor
analyses, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity). Further, there is substantial
overlap between self- and other ratings (Brauer & Proyer, 2021). The GELOPH-15 has been
translated into numerous languages (e.g., Carretero-Dios et al., 2010).
Teachers provided their impressions of student’s gelotophobia in a 3-item measure using
third-person wordings (e.g., “When strangers laugh in his/her presence he/she often relates it to
him/her personally”). Responses were given on the same 4-point scale as in the original.
Willingness to Communicate
To assess L2 learners’ WTC, we used seven items from Khajavy et al. (2016, originally
taken from Weaver, 2005). Participants provide answers using a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree; a sample item is “I am willing to speak
English about different things with my classmates sitting next to me”). The items measure the
extent to which L2 learners are willing to use English in the classroom. Previous research has
provided evidence for the reliability and validity of this 7-items scale in Persian (see Khajavy et
al., 2016, 2018).
Shame and Guilt
To assess shame, we used one sub-scale of the Second Language Test of Shame and Guilt
Affect (L2-TOSGA). This 56-item questionnaire was developed and validated by Teimouri
(2018) to measure shame, guilt, externalization, and detachment based on 14 scenarios. Drawing
on social psychology, Teimouri (2018) aimed at developing and validating a scenario-based
12
questionnaire in order to assess L2 learners’ individual differences in proneness to emotions of
shame and guilt in L2 contexts. At the outset of his study, 86 Iranian L2 learners were asked to
narrate any L2 learning experiences that had stirred up negative emotions such as shame, guilt,
anxiety, fear, and embarrassment. L2 learners’ reactions to these emotions then were examined
through detailed and qualitative analyses of their reports of negative L2 learning experiences,
leading to the development of 14 scenarios. Each scenario is followed by four different responses
that correspond to shame, guilt, externalization, and detachment. For the purpose of the current
study, only shame items were used. An example scenario is:
“Scenario 1: In class, students are discussing a topic in English. You can’t express your
ideas well in English. Nobody understands what you mean.”
Shame: “I would feel my English proficiency is worse than the other students.”
The Shame subscale of the L2-TOSGA utilizes a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 6 (very much). In Teimouri’s (2018) study, item total correlations .30 were reported. The
internal consistency of the shame scale was good with = .87. Also, there is good evidence for
the factorial validity. Overall, the results of both qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted
by Teimouri (2018) provided evidence not only for the pervasiveness of shame and guilt in L2
context, but also for the reliability, stability, and validity of L2-TOSGA subscales.
Communication Anxiety
Communication anxiety was assessed by using six items taken from Khodadady and
Khajavy (2013). These items were originally developed by Horwitz et al. (1986), and later were
adapted by Khodadady and Khajavy for Iranian language learners. The item responses were
13
elicited using 5-point Likert scales with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The items
assess the extent to which L2 learners feel anxious while they communicate in English (e.g., “I
start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in English class”). Previous research
(Horwitz et al., 1986; Khodadady & Khajavy, 2013) has provided evidence for the reliability and
validity of anxiety measures.
Second Language Achievement
We assessed L2 achievement with three indicators, namely, a subjective self-evaluation
of the L2 abilities (1 = excellent, 6 = very weak), a teacher evaluation (1 = excellent, 6 = very
weak), and students’ final scores in English.
Procedure
Using an official permission from the University of Bojnord (Iran), the first author of the
study distributed the scales to 18 English classes (taught as a secondary language). We contacted
all the junior high schools in Bojnord and 10 schools agreed to participate in this research. There
was no financial compensation for participating in the study. All parents and students provided
written consent. Data were collected during school by presenting the questionnaires in their
paper-pencil form. The students completed the questionnaires during class and completion took
about 30 minutes.
Data Analysis
We examined our hypotheses through structural equation modeling (SEM) using Mplus
8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2020). First, we tested the measurement model comprising all
tested variables without constraining correlations among the latent traits using the WLSMV
estimator to examine the goodness-of-fit by means of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). We follow Hu and
14
Bentler’s (1998) recommendations for approximative good model fit when RMSEA is near .06
and CFI/TLI exceed .90. Secondly, we tested our hypotheses in the SEM under maximum-
likelihood estimation and in line with the literature (e.g., Muthén et al., 2017), we examined
indirect effects through computing bootstrap (k = 5,000 samples) 95%-confidence intervals (CI;
i.e., statistical significance is assumed when the CI does not include zero). Note that our data do
not allow for conclusions on mediation effects in terms of causality but only indirect effects in
their technical sense (see e.g., Hayes, 2009 and Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). All data, syntaxes, and
output files to reproduce the analyses are available in the Open Science Framework
(osf.io/48arx).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
We examined the score distribution of our study variables and found that all measures
showed satisfying internal consistency (all αs ≥ .80; see Table 1). The means and SDs were
comparable to what have been reported in the literature (e.g., Ruch & Proyer, 2008ab, 2009) and
there were no deviations from normality according to skewness and kurtosis (all coefficients <
|0.89|). Students rated their L2 ability as “average” and this was corroborated by the teacher
ratings, which converged well (t377 = 1.37, p = .173, Hedges’ g = 0.08; r = .41, p < .001).
Students’ final scores could reach a maximum of 20 points and were between 10 and 20 points
(median = 18). The final scores correlated robustly with subjective self- and teacher ratings of L2
achievement (r ≥ .43; see Table 1). All correlations with age and gender indicated negligible
effects (all r < .12, r² < 1.4% shared variance). Finally, we computed the measurement model for
our studied variables and found good model fit (RMSEA = 0.047, 90%-CI = [0.044,0.050], CFI
15
= .927, TLI = .922, χ²850 = 1763.36, p < .001), indicating that the factors were well represented
by the items.
Insert Table 1
Testing the Role of Gelotophobia and Willingness to Communicate in L2 Achievement
In line with hypothesis 1, we first examined the relation between gelotophobia and WTC
in consideration of the indirect effects of communication anxiety and shame. When testing the
direct effect in the baseline model, we found that gelotophobia is unrelated to WTC (b/β = -
0.10/-.04, p = .505). As expected, gelotophobia related positively to communication anxiety and
shame but only communication anxiety contributed to explain WTC (see Figure 1). Thus, there
was a statistically significant indirect effect of gelotophobia on WTC through communication
anxiety (b = -0.56, 95%-CI = [-0.92,-0.26]), while shame did not contribute to the model (b =
0.03, 95%-CI = [-0.25,0.24]). Overall, the relation between gelotophobia and WTC could be
described by a total indirect effect of b = -0.53 (95%-CI = [-0.86,-0.30]). Based on these
findings, we excluded shame from the forthcoming analyses.
Insert Figure 1
Figure 2 shows our main analysis model. First, we tested the direct effect between
gelotophobia and L2 achievement and found the expected negative relationship (b = -0.31, β
= -.13, p = .035). This effect stayed robust when adding the remaining variables (direct effect: b
= -0.46, β = -.19, p = .010; see Figure 2). Note that the slight increase in the magnitude of the
direct effect (b/β = 0.15/.06) after adding WTC and communication anxiety to the model might
indicate a suppressor effect. Secondly, the indirect effects on L2 through WTC (bindirect = 0.22,
95%-CI = [0.05,0.45]) and communication anxiety-WTC (bindirect = -0.26, 95% CI = [-0.46,-
0.12]) were in opposite directions and produced a statistically non-significant total indirect effect
16
of gelotophobia on L2 achievement (b = -0.03, 95%-CI = [-0.19,0.10]). Overall, the total effect
of gelotophobia on L2 achievement was b = -0.49 (β = .20, 95%-CI = [-0.90,-0.14]), and we
conclude that the addition of WTC—although being affected by the indirect effect of
communication anxiety—does not robustly contribute to explain the role of gelotophobia in
second language learning.
1
Insert Figure 2
Accuracy of Teacher Impressions of Students’ Gelotophobia
We examined the accuracy of teachers’ impressions of their students’ gelotophobia by
computing the correlation between students and teachers’ GELOPH-scores. Against
expectations, we found a numerically small overlap for the manifest (r = .11, p = .029) and latent
scores (β = .12, p = .036).
2
Thus, agreement was positive but numerically smaller than reported
in the literature (Brauer & Proyer, 2020b, 2021).
Further, we examined whether teachers’ accuracy, operationalized by absolute difference
scores between student-teacher GELOPH ratings,
3
is related to L2 achievement. Our analysis
showed that greater discrepancies between teachers’ impressions and students’ self-rated
gelotophobia went along with lower L2 achievement (β = -.22, p < .001), supporting our
expectation that the teachers’ accuracy relates to students’ L2 achievement. Also, we analyzed
the student-teacher congruence on basis of the raw difference between self- and teacher ratings
of gelotophobia (i.e., self-ratings minus teacher ratings). Using this raw discrepancy index, we
found a positive association between student-teacher differences and L2 achievement (β = .45, p
1
One reviewer suggested examining models to predict L2 achievement with gelotophobia as third variable (M)
instead of being treated as the predictor (X). The findings are displayed in the ESM.
2
When computing the analyses on the basis of the parallel set of three items that L2 learners and teachers completed,
the findings are not altered (i.e., r = .09, p = .091; = .13, p = .071). The comparison of the mean values showed a
negligible effect for mean differences of the student and teacher ratings (Cohen’s d = 0.05).
3
Discrepancy scores were computed after z-transformation of raw scores.
17
< .001). Taking the direction of the differences into account, teachers’ underestimation of their
students’ gelotophobia related to higher L2 achievement.
4
Gelotophobia and Underestimation of Their Abilities
Finally, we tested whether gelotophobia goes along with L2 learners’ underestimating
their ability. Therefore, we computed the raw difference between students’ L2 self-evaluations
and (a) L2 teacher evaluation and (b) the test score. First, despite the expected negative direction,
we found no substantial relation between gelotophobia and estimations of L2 achievement (r = -
.09, p = .082, latent: β = -.09, p = .059) and the association was not statistically significant.
Secondly, we recoded the self-evaluation (i.e., higher scores indicate better self-evaluation) and
computed the difference with z-standardized test scores. Although there was a trend of
underestimating the L2 learning status when contrasting subjective and objective indicators, the
effect was small and not substantial (r = .10, p = .050, latent: β = .10, p = .059).
Discussion
This is the first study to examine the role of fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia) in L2
achievement. We studied whether gelotophobia is negatively related to L2 learners’ WTC and L2
achievement. Further, we hypothesized that gelotophobic L2 learners are more prone to higher
levels of communication anxiety and that communication anxiety might yield an indirect effect
on the relationship between gelotophobia and L2 achievement. Previous research has identified
communication anxiety as one of the main correlates of WTC (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019), which
in turn is the most immediate predictor of L2 achievement (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Finally, we
aimed at replicating findings on the interpersonal perception of students’ gelotophobia by their
teachers, its effects on L2 achievement, and examined students’ tendency to underestimate their
4
When computing the analyses on the basis of the parallel 3-item forms, the findings were comparable and did not
alter the interpretation (i.e., absolute and raw differences related to L2 achievement with β = -.16 and .39, ps < .001).
18
abilities in L2 settings. To address our research questions, we incorporated self- and teacher
ratings of gelotophobia and subjective and objective data sources for L2 achievement.
Based on our first and second hypotheses, we tested the direct effect between
gelotophobia on the one hand and WTC and L2 achievement on the other hand. We found the
expected negative relationship, which stayed robust after adding communication anxiety. One
might argue that this is in line with the idea that fear of being laughed at can cause a set of
potentially harmful attributes, behaviors, and emotions (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a), which will
likely affect students’ accomplishments—for example, through learning styles (e.g., Komarraju
et al., 2011). Further, there is good evidence for the notion that gelotophobes hold negative
beliefs about themselves (Ruch et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, L2 achievement as a latent
variable consisted of students’ self-evaluation of their English competence, teachers’ evaluation
of the students’ competence, and their final-semester English scores. Therefore, holding negative
beliefs about themselves, gelotophobic students are more likely to underestimate their English
competence. Similarly, the direct negative link between gelotophobia and WTC may be
accounted for by lower level of self-efficacy among gelotophobes, as gelotophobes tend to
underestimate their abilities (e.g., Proyer et al., 2009, 2014). Proyer and Ruch (2009b) found that
gelotophobia is not related to psychometric intelligence but gelotophobes tend to underestimate
their abilities (in comparisons of self-reported and measured intelligence). In fact, feelings of
inferiority and underestimation of their own abilities seem to be a common pattern among
gelotophobes (Brauer & Proyer, 2019; Proyer & Ruch, 2009b). On the other hand, self-
confidence in one’s ability to communicate is a strong and immediate predictor of L2 WTC
(MacIntyre et al., 1998; Elahi Shirvan et al., 2019). Therefore, our findings support the notion
19
that gelotophobia is negatively related to WTC possibly by affecting learners’ self-confidence in
a negative way.
We argue that the negative relationships between gelotophobia and students’ L2
achievement might be partly explained by L2 students’ failure to experience enjoyment in the
classroom (e.g., Platt & Forabosco, 2012; Proyer et al., 2012, 2013). Enjoyment is an influential
positive factor in learning a second language (Barabadi & Khajavy, 2020; Khajavy et al., 2018).
Feeling joy in the language classroom depends on the dynamic interactions between a number of
variables such as peers, teachers, and classroom activities (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014).
Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014) argue that good language teachers are those who can create a
joyful classroom atmosphere by judicious use of humor. Nonetheless, gelotophobic students’
wrong assumption that all laughter is directed at them, and their wrong perception that all good-
natured humor is negative derision can rob them of any potential joy in the classroom (Platt &
Forabosco, 2012). Similarly, Platt and colleagues (2010) argue that gelotophobes’ lack of
cheerfulness and the lack of a playful mood and mind impels them to process humorous
messages (e.g., peers’ and teacher’s laughter) in a serious frame of mind, and hence feel less
enjoyment in the language classroom. The absence of pleasure and gratification in the learning
process prevent L2 learners from full involvement. Learning a second language is a challenging
task that requires L2 learners to immerse themselves in different L2 learning activities, and even
to have flow experience in doing various language activities (Egbert, 2003). However, one might
argue that gelotophobic L2 learners “seem to lack the gratification that comes from immersing
themselves in challenging activities; i.e., the lack of flow experiences.” (Platt & Forabosco,
2012; p. 18). Examining the association between gelotophobia and character strengths (i.e.,
morally positively valued traits), Proyer et al. (2014) found that gelotophobia was negatively
20
associated with zest, hope, bravery, love, humor, social intelligence, and curiosity. Being the
dynamic behind the linguistic development, curiosity can help L2 learners benefit from constant
exposure to L2 both inside and outside the classroom by taking an active role in the learning
process (e.g., Mahmoodzadeh & Khajavy, 2018) and it could be argued that lower curiosity
contributes to partly account for our finding.
In line with our third hypothesis, gelotophobia relates to WTC and L2 achievement
indirectly through communication anxiety. Particularly, higher levels of gelotophobia were
associated with a higher level of communication anxiety, which in turn negatively relates to L2
learners’ WTC and L2 achievement. This is in line with Ruch and Proyer’s notion (2008a) that
gelotophobic individuals show higher levels of trait anxiety because they perceive themselves as
appearing ridiculous to others and mistakenly believe that there is something wrong and odd
about how they appear and behave. This assertion rings especially true in performance situations
like learning a foreign language, which is public and highly visible to others (e.g., Brauer &
Proyer, 2020a, 2021; Flett et al., 2016). On the other hand, extensive research into L2 WTC has
demonstrated that L2 learners’ unwillingness to communicate in English as L2 was robustly
related to high levels of communication anxiety (e.g., Dewaele & Dewaele, 2018; Elahi Shirvan,
et al., 2019; Liu, 2007; Liu & Jackson, 2009). This facet of our results, that gelotophobia
negatively influences WTC via an indirect effect of communication anxiety, is in accordance
with Liu’s (2007) finding that Chinese students’ unwillingness to communicate in English was
due to their constant fear of being laughed at. Similarly, the results of a study by Effiong (2016)
among Japanese university students indicated that their peers’ laughter at them heightened their
communication anxiety, and hence impeded their L2 WTC at least for some learners. For some
other learners, however, peers’ laughter could encourage more WTC by easing their
21
communication anxiety. Obviously, then, laughter can have a dual impact on students’ L2 WTC.
Gelotophobic students tend to experience others’ laughter as being directed at them—
independently of its intended direction—and erroneously come to this conclusion that there is
something wrong with their English (e.g., how they pronounce words) and hence, they are less
willing to communicate in English, while L2 learners with low expressions in gelotophobia
experience their peers’ laughter as positive and joyful, which might also have an adverse effect
on communication anxiety. The differential effect of laughter on different groups of learners
suggests that communication anxiety has a complex dynamic relationship with both internal
(e.g., individual differences in gelotophobia) and social variables (MacIntyre, 2017). Our
findings indicated that gelotophobia as a learner-internal variable (Proyer et al., 2009) can be a
potential source of communication anxiety, consistent with Dewaele and MacIntyre’s (2014)
idea that learners’ personality traits can be a strong predictor of communication anxiety.
According to Williams (1991), foreign language anxiety is a response to a specific
classroom context in which L2 learners perceive learning experiences too demanding, exceeding
their capabilities and resources. Gelotophobic L2 learners mistakenly believe that there is
something wrong with their language performance, and that they are incapable of fixing this
problem (Ruch & Proyer, 2008a). It could be argued that speaking a foreign language in front of
other classmates might impose pressing demands on L2 learners with high levels of gelotophobia
so that they prefer to avoid L2 speaking situations altogether. This avoidance behavior, which is
a characteristic feature of gelotophobic individuals, might pose a serious threat to attaining an
immediate goal, which is anxiety provoking (Eysenck et al., 2007). That is, when people think
that they cannot achieve their goals, they tend to feel anxious. The result is that their attentional
resources of central executive are diverted to the source of this anxiety as well as how to deal
22
with it. Now the question is why gelotophobic L2 learners get distracted from their goal in the
language classroom (speaking L2) and hence get anxious. As Eysenck et al. (2007) argue, there
are both internal and external stimuli for this distraction. For gelotophobic L2 learners, an
internal stimulus might be troubling thoughts that their behavior and language performance are
faulty and deserve others’ derision and laughter. A gelotophobic student who thinks that there is
something wrong with his performance and that he/she deserves laughter is likely to lose focus
and fail to “maintain full attentional control of the task in hand” (Dewaele, 2010, p. 167). In
other words, gelotophobic L2 learners tend to feel anxious because these individuals think that
their primary goal (speaking English or L2 achievement) is threatened. The anxiety, in turn, can
seriously impede their L2 development due to attentional deficits (Eysenck, et al., 2007). This
explanation is consistent with MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1994) research showing that foreign
language anxiety strongly leads to “performance deficits” (p. 270). In another study, MacIntyre
and Gardner (1991) attributed the weaker performance of L2 anxious learners to short-term
memory loss, and failure to retrieve information from long-term memory. Anxiety can function
as an “affective filter” that impairs the process of language learning (Williams, 1991).
Following Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model of L2 acquisition, Bernaus, Moore,
and Azevedo (2007) argued that language anxiety is negatively related to L2 motivation. Indeed,
in order to develop self-confidence with L2, learners need positive and pleasant learning
experiences devoid of anxiety (Clement, 1986). Based on Clement’s model of L2 acquisition,
low anxiety can lead to greater L2 achievement because L2 learners with lower levels of anxiety
have higher self-confidence with the L2 and higher motivation. However, it could be argued that
gelotophobic individuals encounter difficulties in developing self-confidence and motivation,
because they cannot create and find positive learning experiences—which are typically achieved
23
through direct contact with other L2 learners (Clement, 1986). As mentioned earlier, the
avoidance inclination of gelotophobes in performance situations might lead them to squander any
chance of developing L2 self-confidence and motivation.
Accuracy of Teacher Impressions and Relation to L2 Achievement
We examined whether teachers’ impressions of their students’ gelotophobia would
contribute to understanding the role of gelotophobia in L2 achievement. First, we examined the
student-teacher agreement in gelotophobia and found that the convergence was expectedly
positive yet on the low end of expectations and comparable to findings on gelotophobia within
dyads with low acquaintanceship (Brauer & Proyer, 2020b). However, no study has yet tested
the accuracy of teacher perceptions of gelotophobia; when considering findings for teacher
accuracies in broad traits such as neuroticism, we found that our agreement coefficients were in
line with the literature (see Laidra et al., 2006). Of course, it must be noted that teachers
provided ratings in a short 3-item form instead of the original 15-item version and thus the
ratings did not cover the full range of indicators of gelotophobia. Future studies using a fully
parallel design and the complete version of the GELOPH for teacher ratings are needed to clarify
the findings. However, one might also argue that the availability of information to accurately
derive impressions for students’ gelotophobia is low and therefore makes it difficult to infer cues
for gelotophobia (see Funder, 1995). In comparison, teachers accurately perceived students’
academic abilities and their L2 achievements. While the latter is in line with the literature (e.g.,
Feinberg & Shapiro, 2003; Südkamp et al., 2012), it could be argued that similar to findings of
low self-other agreement for neuroticism, the fear of being laughed at is comparatively less
expressed through behavioral cues and is therefore more difficult to infer in comparison to traits
that go along with more salient and expressive cues, such as extraversion (for a discussion see
24
e.g., Funder, 1995; Letzring & Human, 2013). An alternative explanation of the low coefficients
may lie in the teachers’ ability to observe gelotophobia, because there is evidence that people
differ in their ability to judge others’ personality traits accurately (e.g., Letzring, 2008). Brauer
and Proyer (2020b) also found that judges vary considerably in their ability to perceive
gelotophobia, with agreement coefficients among judges ranging between .04 and .58. Future
studies on this topic should aim at (a) replicating the findings in an independent sample and (b)
considering the variability among raters statistically.
However, in line with hypothesis 5, we expected that greater discrepancies between self-
and teacher-rated gelotophobia (i.e., lower accuracy) would go along with lower L2
achievement. Our findings support this notion, as greater discrepancies related to lower L2
achievement. Moreover, using raw differences allowed us to examine the tendency of the
misperception and to clarify whether teachers over- or underestimate their students’
gelotophobia. We found support that teachers’ underestimations of students’ gelotophobia
related to lower L2 achievement. We argue that L2 teachers’ low accuracy might prevent them
from adapting their teaching methods to help students’ fear of being laughed at—for example, by
using small groups or dyads instead of whole class discussion. The extant literature also suggests
the adverse effects of inaccurate perceptions of gelotophobia; for example, Platt and colleagues
(2016) have shown that therapists who are unaware of their patients’ gelotophobia would use
smiling to express empathy, which gelotophobes misinterpret as ridicule and leads them to
discontinue therapy. Similarly, this mechanism might apply to the context of teaching, in which
teachers utilize their smile as an expression of encouragement that is perceived as ridicule by
gelotophobic students. Further, gelotophobia goes along with fear of negative evaluation and
feeling uncomfortable when being the center of attention particularly in performance situations
25
(e.g., Brauer & Proyer, 2019; Carretero-Dios et al., 2010). Taking the experiential world of those
high in gelotophobia into account, one might argue that ignoring those characteristics without
adjusting teaching strategies (e.g., by “exposing” students by letting them present projects in
front of others, using smiling as encouragement) is detrimental to students’ learning progress—
particularly when acquiring a second language. Also, it has been argued that teachers’
perceptions of students’ personality traits affect how they treat them in class and their
expectations towards students’ achievement (e.g., Rausch et al., 2015) and, thus, teachers’
misperceptions of gelotophobia might affect how they respond to students high in gelotophobia.
Overall, we conclude that teachers’ accuracy of impressions of students’ gelotophobia is
comparatively low and that this is detrimental to students’ L2 achievement. Future studies would
desirably replicate the findings and extend them toward other domains than L2 learning.
Gelotophobia and Underestimation of L2 Ability
In this study, we examined whether gelotophobia would also go along with
underestimating their L2 skills by testing the difference across their subjective self-evaluations of
L2 and external markers, namely, teacher ratings and test scores. Against expectations,
gelotophobia was widely unrelated to underestimating the level of L2 achievement. Effect sizes
were comparable to previous findings on gelotophobes’ underestimation of verbal skills (Proyer
& Ruch, 2009b) but replication and extension in future studies is needed. One might argue that
gelotophobes’ accuracy of estimating their abilities differs across domains. For example, those
high in gelotophobia might show underestimations only in certain domains of ability and L2
achievement might not be affected by problems of accurately perceiving their abilities (e.g., see
Brauer & Proyer, 2019, 2020b). Support for this notion can be found in the study of character
strengths. There, gelotophobia relates to underestimating strengths, but the level of
26
underestimation depends on the strength tested because some domains on the other hand are
accurately perceived (see Proyer & Ruch, 2009a; Proyer et al., 2014). Future research could
clarify the domain specificity of gelotophobes’ misestimations by testing more than one domain
of achievement and comparing the underestimations across domains.
This is one of the first studies to investigate the fear of being laughed at in the Iranian
population. The role of gelotophobia among Iranian students can be interpreted in terms of aberu
(i.e., face), which is gained and lost predominantly in front of others. For example, giving a
compliment in front of others might enhance someone’s face, whereas being laughed at might
threaten someone’s face because this action is considered offensive. In a study by Sadighi and
Dastpak (2017) among Iranian EFL students, fear of being laughed at was identified as one
major source of anxiety, along with fear of negative evaluations, and fear of making mistakes.
Iranian people’s preoccupation with maintaining a positive face, especially in front of others, has
a considerable influence on every kind of interaction they have (Izadi, 2017). In collectivist
societies such as Iran, other people, such as classmates rather than the individual, serve as the
central focus of one’s behaviors, performance, and motivation, thus making individuals very
sensitive to how others think of them or behave in their presence (e.g., Izadi, 2017). In such a
society, deviation from social norms (including classroom norms) might bring public shame to
individuals. Collectivist societies tend to be dominated by a shame culture in which people feel
afraid of making mistakes and losing their face (e.g., Pishghadam et al., 2020). As such, humor
and laughter appear to be safe, positive, and motivating when they occur within the congenial
and welcoming context of in-group members but not in front of all students (e.g., Zarei et al.,
2019). With this in mind, Iranian instructors need to err on the side of caution when it comes to
using humor and laughter because inappropriate use of humor and laughter runs the risk of
27
arousing shame and anxiety among L2 learners. Future studies might replicate our findings and
examine cross-cultural invariance of the findings.
Limitations and Future Directions
The findings of our study must be interpreted with certain limitations. First, the findings
await replication in an independently collected sample. This would allow one to examine the
stability of the findings and further clarify whether the change in direct effects of the
gelotophobia-L2 achievement relationship indicates a suppressor effect (i.e., an increase in
magnitude by considering additional variables such as WTC and communication anxiety) or
whether this change occurred by chance (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2000). Second, the findings
await replication in samples of university students, as our sample comprised young learners.
Third, replication in samples outside of Iran are desirable to examine the cross-cultural
invariance of findings. Fourth, future studies should use a fully parallel design when testing the
student-teacher agreement in gelotophobia. Fifth, our data are a starting point for the study of
gelotophobia in the context of L2 learning, and the cross-sectional nature does not allow us to
derive conclusions on causality. Collecting longitudinal data, for example, by assessing
gelotophobia at the beginning of the school term, WTC and communication mid-term, and L2
outcomes (e.g., grades of objective tests; subjective self-ratings of abilities) at the end of the term
would allow to examine the temporal direction of effects. Particularly, our findings on the
indirect effects should be interpreted cautiously and as preliminary because the cross-sectional
data allow us to interpret associations but not causality. Time-lagged measurements of the
variables of interest would be needed to account for serial sequences of events and to examine
mediation in their true sense (e.g., Hayes, 2009; Mathieu & Taylor, 2002). Finally, our findings
are based on data analytic methods that assume a single-level structure in the data. We have not
28
collected data on the student’s affiliations to schools or teachers. Hence, analyses accounting for
the potential effects of the nested data structure (e.g., students being rated by the same teacher)
have not been considered. To account for potential differences among schools, classes, or
teachers, future research should replicate and extend the findings by collecting data that allow
modeling the nested data structure and use multi-level analyses (Hox et al., 2017). Overall, we
hope that our findings contribute to the field of L2 learning and that the generated knowledge
will inform about the role of students’ individual differences in the fear of being laughed at.
Conclusion
The results of our study indicated that gelotophobia plays a role in learning a second
language. Fear of being laughed at is negatively related to L2 achievement and WTC both
directly and indirectly through anxiety. The link between gelotophobia and anxiety suggests that
personality traits might be related to L2 anxiety (Dewaele, 2010). The results of a study by
Barabadi and Khajavy (2020) indicated that perfectionistic features of L2 learners, such as
setting high standards, being afraid of negative evaluation, and being afraid of making mistakes
were positively related to anxiety. Like perfectionistic individuals, gelotophobic individuals are
very sensitive to others’ negative evaluations, especially when expressed in a ridiculous manner
(Carretero-Dios et al., 2010). In addition, fear of making mistakes during the learning process is
particularly prevalent among gelotophobes since they expect ridicule and embarrassment to
follow their mistakes (Ruch et al., 2014). Fear of making mistakes together with anticipation of
derision not only provokes anxiety among L2 learners but stifles creativity and demands
conformity, both of which are detrimental to learning. Thus, teachers are recommended to create
a joyful atmosphere in the classroom by making judicious use of humor (Dewaele & MacIntyre,
2014) and creating inclusive classroom laughter (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016). Although
29
language anxiety is strongly linked to learner-internal variables such as learners’ personality
traits (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2019), foreign language enjoyment is more significantly linked to
the interacting effects of language teachers, peers, and the classroom atmosphere. Thus, in order
to reduce anxiety among gelotophobic language learners, language teachers can help create a
joyful classroom by judicious use of humor, as the literature on gelotophobia has refuted the
common wisdom of “laughter is the best medicine.” Our findings corroborate this direction:
Teachers’ perceptions of their students’ fear of being laughed at are low in accuracy and we
argue that indiscriminately creating laughter might have adverse effects on students high in
gelotophobia—especially as lower accuracy went along with lower L2 achievement. Hence,
language teachers need to err on the side of caution when it comes to the use of humor in the
classroom.
30
References
Baker, S.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and
second language orientations. Language Learning, 50(2), 311–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00119
Barabadi, E., & Khajavy, G.H. (2020). Perfectionism and foreign language achievement: The
mediating role of emotions and achievement goals. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65,
100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100874
Bernaus, M., Moore, E., & Azevedo, A.C. (2007). Affective factors influencing plurilingual
students’ acquisition of Catalan in a Catalan–Spanish bilingual context. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00542.x
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R.T. (2018). To love and laugh: Testing actor-, partner-, and similarity
effects of dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at on relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.008
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R.T. (2019). The ridiculed Impostor: Testing the associations between
dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at and the Impostor Phenomenon. Current
Psychology. [Advanced Online Publication] https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00262-5
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R.T. (2020a). Is it me or the circumstances? Examining the relationships
between individual differences in causal attributions and dispositions toward ridicule and
being laughed at. Personality and Individual Differences, 165, 110135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110135
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R.T. (2020b). Judging dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at
from short self-descriptions at zero-acquaintance: Testing self-other agreement, consensus,
31
and accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 89, 104016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104016
Brauer, K., & Proyer, R.T. (2021). Analyzing a German-language Expanded form of the
PhoPhiKat-45: Psychometric properties, factorial structure, measurement invariance with
the Likert-version, and self-peer convergence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103,
267-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1720699
Brauer, K., Proyer, R.T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Extending the study of gelotophobia, gelotophilia,
and katagelasticism in romantic life toward romantic attachment. Journal of Individual
Differences, 41, 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000307
Brauer, K., Sendatzki, R., & Proyer, R.T. (2021). Testing the associations between dispositions
toward ridicule and being laughed at and romantic jealousy in couples: An APIM
analysis. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12621
Carretero-Dios, H., Ruch, W., Agudelo, D, Platt, T., Proyer, R.T. (2010). Fear of being laughed
at and social anxiety: A preliminary psychometric study. Psychological Test and
Assessment Modeling, 52, 108-124. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-33204
Clement, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of the
effects of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language & Social
Psychology, 5, 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X8600500403
Dewaele, J. (2010). Emotions in multiple languages. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289505
Dewaele, J. M. (2019). The effect of classroom emotions, attitudes toward English, and teacher
behavior on willingness to communicate among English Foreign Language
32
Learners. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4), 523-535.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X19864996
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in
the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4,
237-274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2016) Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language
classroom anxiety. The right and left feet of FL learning? In P. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, &
S. Mercer (eds.), Positive Psychology in SLA (pp. 215-236). Bristol, UK. Available from:
https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/?k=9781783095353
Dewaele, J.-M., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Learner-internal and learner-external predictors of
willingness to communicate in the FL classroom. Journal of the European Second
Language Association, 2(1), 24-37. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.37
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2019) The predictive power of multicultural personality traits,
learner and teacher variables on foreign language enjoyment and anxiety. In M. Sato, &
S. Loewen (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of Instructed
Second Language Acquisition studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351190558
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13621688070110040802
Dursun, P, Dalğar, I., Brauer, K., Yerlikaya, E., & Proyer, R.T. (2020). Assessing dispositions
towards ridicule and being laughed at: Development and initial validation of the Turkish
PhoPhiKat-45. Current Psychology, 39, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-
9725-2
33
Effiong, O. (2016). Getting them speaking: Classroom social factors and foreign language
anxiety. Tesol Journal, 7(1), 132-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.194
Elwood, J. A. (2011). Enriching structural models of L2 willingness to communicate: The role of
personality, ego permeability, and perceived distance. [Doctoral dissertation]. Temple
University. http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/1149
Eysenck, M., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. (2007) Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory, Emotion, 7, 336–353.
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Feinberg, A.B., & Shapiro, E.S. (2003). Accuracy of teacher judgments in predicting oral
reading fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 52-65.
https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.1.52.20876
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Su, C., & Flett, K. D. (2016). Perfectionism in language learners:
Review, conceptualization, and recommendations for teachers and school
psychologists. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31(2), 75-101.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0829573516638462
Fu, L., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2012). The research on willingness to communicate in Chinese
students' EFL study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 112.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.112-117
34
Funder, D.C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.
Psychological Review, 102, 652-670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2
use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29–70. Available from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081256.pdf
Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 21, 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Hox, J.J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analyses: Techniques and
applications. Routledge.
Izadi, A. (2017). Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face: Insights from argumentative
talk in Iranian dissertation defenses. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 208-230.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.2.03iza
Laidra, K., Allik, J., Harro, M., Merenäkk, L, & Harro, J. (2006). Agreement among adolescents,
parents, and teachers on adolescent personality. Assessment, 13, 187-196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287125
Letzring, T.D. (2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observers’
accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 914-932.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.003.
35
Letzring, T.D., & Human, L.J. (2013). An examination of information quality as a moderator of
accurate personality judgment. Journal of Personality, 82, 440-451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12075
Liu, M. (2007). Anxiety in oral English classrooms: A case study in China. Indonesian Journal
of English Language Teaching, 3, 119-137. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v3i1.1587.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2009). Reticence in Chinese EFL Students at Varied Proficiency Levels.
TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 26(2), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.415
Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to
communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom
context. Tesol Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.204
Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom
environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in
second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605-
624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000304
Khodadady, E., & Khajavy, G. H. (2013). Exploring the role of anxiety and motivation in foreign
language achievement: A structural equation modeling approach. Porta Linguarum, 20,
269-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.20240
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality
traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences,
51, 472-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its
development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney & J.–M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
36
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Multilingual
Matters
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern
Language Journal, 82, 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties
and to processing in native and second languages. Language learning, 41(4), 513-534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00691.x
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language learning, 44(2), 283-305.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., & Lockwood, C.M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1026595011371
Mahmoodi, M. H., & Moazam, I. (2014). Willingness to communicate (WTC) and L2
achievement: The case of Arabic language learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 98, 1069-1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.518
Mahmoodzadeh, M., & Khajavy, G. H. (2019). Towards conceptualizing language learning
curiosity in SLA: An empirical study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 333-
351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9606-3
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational
type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031-
1056. doi:10.1002/job.406
37
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In
M.E. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition and anxiety (pp. 19–44). Sage.
Moya-Garófano, A., Torres-Marín, J., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2019). Beyond the Big Five: The
fear of being laughed at as a predictor of body shame and appearance control
beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 219-224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.007
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1997-2020). Mplus user’s manual. Muthén & Muthén.
Muthén, B.O., Muthén, L.K., & Asparouhov, T. (2017). Regression and mediation analysis
using Mplus. Muthén & Muthén.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed
second language acquisition: Combining a macro-and micro-perspective. DeGruyter.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097173
Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in
Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.009
Peng, J.E. (2019). The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in
willingness to communicate in English. System, 82, 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.006
Pishghadam, R., Firooziyan Pour Esfahani, A., Firooziyan Pour Esfahani, A. (2020). the
dominance of shame and sin-oriented culture in the iranian society. Journal of Iranian
Cultural Research, 13, 101-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.22035/jicr.2392.2854.
38
Platt, T., Proyer, R.T., Hofmann, J., & Ventis, W.L. (2016). Gelotophobia in practice and the
implications of ignoring it. European Journal of Humour Research, 4, 24-56.
https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2016.4.2.platt
Platt, T., & Forabosco, G. (2012). Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed at. In P. Gremigni
(ed.), Humor and health promotion, (pp. 229–253). Nova Science.
Proyer, R.T., Hempelmann, F., & Ruch, W. (2009). Where they really laughed at? That much?
Gelotophobes and their history of perceived derisibility. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, 22, 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.010
Proyer, R.T., Meier, L.E.., Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2013). Dealing with laughter and ridicule in
adolescence: relations with bullying and emotional responses. Social Psychology of
Education, 16, 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9221-y
Proyer, R.T., Neukom, M., Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2012). Assessing gelotophobia, gelotophilia,
and katagelasticism in children: An initial study on how six to nine-year-olds deal with
laughter and ridicule and how this relates to bullying and victimization. Child Indicators
Research, 5, 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9127-1
Proyer, R.T., & Ruch, W. (2009a). How virtuous are gelotophobes? Self- and peer-reported
character strengths among those who fear being laughed at. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 22, 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.007
Proyer, R.T., & Ruch, W. (2009b). Intelligence and gelotophobia: The relations of self-estimated
and Psychometrically measured intelligence to the fear of being laughed at. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 165-181.
https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.008
39
Proyer, R.T., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2014). Character and dealing with laughter: The
relation of self- and peer-reported strengths of character with gelotophobia, gelotophilia,
and katagelasticism. Journal of Psychology, 148, 113-132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.752336
Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. (2014). The state-of-the art in gelotophobia
research: A review and some theoretical extensions. Humor, 27(1), 23-45.
https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0046
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R.T. (2008a). The fear of being laughed at: Individual and group
differences. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21, 47-67.
https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2008.002
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R.T. (2008b). Who is gelotophobic? Assessment criteria for the fear of
being laughed at. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-
0185.67.1.19
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R.T. (2009a). Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and
katagelasticists. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 47-67.
https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.009
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R.T. (2009b). Who fears being laughed at? The location of gelotophobia in
the Eysenckian PEN-model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 46,
627-630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.004
Rachman, S. (2004). Anxiety (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis. Available from:
https://www.routledge.com/Anxiety/Rachman-Rachman/p/book/9781138311299
40
Rausch, T., Karing, C., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2015). Personality similarity between teachers
and their students influences teacher judgment of student achievement. Educational
Psychology, 36, 863-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.998629
Sadighi, F., & Dastpak, M. (2017). The Sources of Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety of
Iranian English Language Learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy
Studies, 5(4), 111-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.4p.111
Shirvan, M. E., Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Taherian, T. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2
willingness to communicate and its three high-evidence correlates. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 48(6), 1241-1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09656-9
Sdkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Mller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 743-
762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A
meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363-387.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000311
Weiss, B. J., Singh, J. S., & Hope, D. A. (2011). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for immigrants
presenting with social anxiety disorder: Two case studies. Clinical Case Studies, 10, 324-
342. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534650111420706
Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to communicate
in ESL. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310308666654
Williams, K. (1991). Anxiety and formal second/foreign language learning. RELC Journal, 22
(2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003368829102200202
41
Wolf, E.J., Harrington, K.M., Clark, S.L., & Miller, M.W. (2013). Sample size requirements for
Structural Equation Models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 913-934.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Zarei, N., Saeidi, M., & Ahangari, S. (2019). Exploring EFL teachers’ socioaffective and
pedagogic strategies and students’ willingness to communicate with a focus on Iranian
culture. Education Research International, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3464163
Zhang, J., Beckmann, N., & Beckmann, J.F. (2018). To talk or not to talk: A review of
situational antecedents of willingness to communicate in the second language
classroom. System, 72, 226-239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.003
Zhang, J., Beckmann, N., & Beckmann, J.F. (2019). One situation doesn’t fit all: Variability and
stability of state willingness to communicate in a Chinese College English
classroom. Language Teaching Research, 1-26, 1362168819891330.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819891330
42
Table 1
Intercorrelations, Internal Consistencies, and Descriptive Statistics of the Study Measures
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M
SD
(1) Gelotophobia (Self)
(.80)
1.94
0.49
(2) Gelotophobia (Teacher)
.11*
(.88)
2.04
0.84
(3) Shame
.38***
.23***
(.91)
2.64
1.06
(4) Communication Anxiety
.41***
.25***
.64***
(.83)
2.51
1.00
(5) WTC
-.01
-.05
-.21***
-.30***
(.83)
3.22
0.90
(6) L2 Self Evaluationa
-.16**
-.21***
-.47***
.15**
.38***
–
3.72
1.16
(7) L2 Teacher Evaluationa
-.07
-.49***
-.36***
.05
.18***
.41***
–
3.68
1.42
(8) L2 Test Score
-.07
-.44***
-.38***
.12*
.21***
.43***
.60***
17.90
2.17
Notes. N = 356-483. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Two-tailed. WTC = Willingness to Communicate. L2 = Second language. Alpha coefficients in brackets. a = Marks recoded
(i.e., higher scores indicate greater ability).
43
Figure 1. Parallel mediation model testing the relation between gelotophobia and willingness to communicate
(WTC) under consideration of correlated mediators of anxiety and shame. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Two-
tailed. Standardized coefficients (standard errors in brackets).
44
Figure 2. Structural model testing the relationship between gelotophobia and L2 acquisition (indicated by self-
and teacher evaluation and test scores) and mediating effects of anxiety and willingness to communicate (WTC).
Standardized coefficients. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Two-tailed. Standardized coefficients (standard errors in
brackets).
45
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Current Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
