Broadening Humor: Comic Styles Differentially Tap into Temperament, Character, and Ability

Abstract

The present study introduces eight comic styles (i.e., fun, humor, nonsense, wit, irony, satire, sarcasm, and cynicism) and examines the validity of a set of 48 marker items for their assessment, the Comic Style Markers (CSM). These styles were originally developed to describe literary work and are used here to describe individual differences. Study 1 examines whether the eight styles can be distinguished empirically, in self- and other-reports, and in two languages. In different samples of altogether more than 1500 adult participants, the CSM was developed and evaluated with respect to internal consistency, homogeneity, test–retest reliability, factorial validity, and construct and criterion validity. Internal consistency was sufficiently high, and the median test-retest reliability over a period of 1–2 weeks was 0.86 (N = 148). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the eight styles could be distinguished in both English- (N = 303) and German-speaking samples (N = 1018 and 368). Comparing self- and other-reports (N = 210) supported both convergent and discriminant validity. The intercorrelations among the eight scales ranged from close to zero (between humor and sarcasm/cynicism) to large and positive (between sarcasm and cynicism). Consequently, second-order factor analyses revealed either two bipolar factors (based on ipsative data) or three unipolar factors (based on normative data). Study 2 related the CSM to instruments measuring personality (N = 999), intelligence (N = 214), and character strengths (N = 252), showing that (a) wit was the only style correlated with (verbal) intelligence, (b) fun was related to indicators of vitality and extraversion, (c) humor was related to character strengths of the heart, and (d) comic styles related to mock/ridicule (i.e., sarcasm, cynicism, but also irony) correlated negatively with character strengths of the virtues temperance, transcendence, and humanity. By contrast, satire had a moral goodness that was lacking in sarcasm and cynicism. Most importantly, the two studies revealed that humor might be related to a variety of character strengths depending on the comic style utilized, and that more styles may be distinguished than has been done in the past. The CSM is recommended for future explorations and refinements of comic styles.

Differential Relationships of Light and Darker Forms of Humor with Mindfulness

“…Age and gender were chosen as control variables in the analyses as they showed significant differences in the variables (see Table 2 for the correlations). This is also in line with the gender and age differences reported in the literature (e.g., men scoring higher in the darker forms of humor than women; Ruch et al 2018). The difference between the meditators and non-meditators in terms of humor was tested in between-group univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with each of the comic styles as dependent variables, the two groups as independent variables, and age and gender as control variables.…”

“…To fill this gap on how individuals use humor, Ruch et al (2018) proposed a model of eight comic styles that cover qualitative and habitual individual differences in humor that are differentially related to abilities and virtuousness. While the State Trait Cheerfulness Model can predict who is generally inclined to engage in and to experience humor, the lower-level comic styles cover specific ways in which people express humor in their everyday lives.…”

“…Generally for both, ability and habitual components, one could categorize products of humor, the kind of humorous stimuli a person appreciates, and the kind of humor individuals habitually engage in according to their virtuousness (see Beermann and Ruch 2009;Ruch and Heintz 2016). In the broadest sense, one could categorize those products, appreciated stimuli and habitual situations into two very broad categories: Bbenevolent/virtuous/light^and Bmalicious/non-virtuous/darker/aggressive^(or Blaughing with^versus Blaughing at^, see Ruch 2007;Ruch et al 2018).…”

The effect of humour on nursing professionals’ psychological well‐being goes beyond the influence of empathy: a cross‐sectional study

“…Future studies should use random sampling procedures and, ultimately, longitudinal designs in order to confirm the conclusions reached in this research. Lastly, future research could extend our findings by (a) incorporating other models including additional dark types of humour, such as the fear of being laughed at, the joy in laughing at others, or comic styles as sarcasm or cynicism ; (b) testing whether humour styles relate to objective markers of nursing professionals’ health, such as physiological outcomes, as well as the implications of these forms of humour for the working atmosphere in healthcare settings; and (c) validating our data with the implementation of specific humour‐based intervention programmes aimed at reducing potential negative consequences of nursing practice.…”

Moving Forward in Fostering Humour: Towards Training Lighter Forms of Humour in Multicultural Contexts

“…Related distinctions of "positive versus negative" humour styles, "adaptive versus maladaptive" styles or "lighter versus darker" came into use. These distinctions are typically supported by correlations with different outcomes (e.g., Martin, 2007;Ruch, Heintz, Wagner, Platt, & Proyer, 2018). Thus, differentiating "good/lighter" and "bad/darker humour" seems essential when investigating the consequences of humour for the individual and the interaction partners.…”