Melanie Booth-Butterfield and Melissa Bekelja Wanzer

9Humor Enactment in Learning Environments

Abstract: This chapter examines how enacting humor can be beneficial in all types of learning environments, and why that is true. We begin by offering definitions of humor implementation in learning environments, using a source perspective. Next, we describe four major theoretical approaches scholars and practitioners can take to understand the use and effectiveness of humor during instruction: theories of incongruity, disposition, benign violation, and instructional humor processing. Integrated throughout the chapter is research on humor in the classroom, both traditional and the most recent research findings for the use of humor in learning. In addition, particular challenges for educators conducting humor-related research are noted. We conclude by offering practical applications and distinct categories of humorous communication for educators who wish to incorporate humor in their teaching.

Keywords: humor, humor enactment, instructional humor processing theory, categories of humor, incongruity, disposition, benign violation

A TEACHER ASKS: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher.

Anyone who has taught in any learning context – whether in public schools, universities, Sunday school, children’s organizations, corporate training, or in-home kitchenware sales – knows that humor is a useful communication skill for maintaining audience interest. On a broad basis, being appropriately funny can help ease tensions and erase status discrepancies, increase attention and affinity, and heighten group cohesion. However, in a volume entitled Communication and Learning, our primary focus concerns whether an instructor’s humor enhances learning. We contend that it can, and a number of studies, both quantitative and qualitative, support that contention.

In this chapter we begin by offering definitions of humor and setting expectations for humor’s implementation in learning environments. Next, we integrate theoretical approaches scholars have taken concerning the use and effectiveness of humor during instruction. In the following sections we discuss multiple instructional goals, offer research background on humor in the classroom, and the most recent research findings for the use of humor in learning, as well as particular challenges presented by such research. We conclude by offering practical applications for educators who wish to incorporate humor in their teaching, and we introduce new avenues and topics for research on the enactment of humor in learning environments.

Humor Definitions and Conceptualizations

Rancer and Graham (2012) pointed out numerous conceptual and operational definitions for the term humor. Hence, it is important to understand the perspectives from which any research or writing emanates. In this chapter, we will employ humor as a noun (as opposed to a verb, such as to humor someone) consistent with contemporary usage (as opposed to the historical term for humors in bodily functions). The Oxford Dictionary defines humor as “the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech … the ability to express humour or amuse other people.” Of course, what amuses or entertains may differ widely depending on the intended audience, an idea particularly salient for instructional communicators, and one we will be revisiting throughout the chapter.

The instructional use of humor consists of “the intentional use of verbal and nonverbal messages which elicit laughter, chuckling, and other spontaneous behavior taken to mean pleasure, delight or surprise in the targeted receiver” (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991, p. 206). This is an admittedly pro-social approach, one that is appropriate for instructional contexts. In contrast, research on the construct of humor styles recognizes that all humor might not be pro-social and positive. For example Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) extended the enactment of humor to include negative, or more maladaptive, dimensions of humor (e.g., aggressive and self-defeating). In the classroom these may take the form of hurtful teasing, bullying, or in some cases teachers’ attempts to discipline students.

Further, humor enactment may be recognized and operationalized as occurring at several different conceptual levels, and scholars working in the area of humor in learning environments acknowledge differences in both conceptualization and measurement. Humorous communication can be conceived as a predisposition to use communication to entertain, make people laugh, chuckle, or enjoy life. This constitutes a trait orientation, an enduring personal characteristic that remains consistently over time (e.g., the humor orientation construct; Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991). In comparison, a humor style (Martin et al., 2003) may be an ongoing pattern of communication adopted by a teacher, a habitual response, though not necessarily a personality trait. Finally, one could operationalize humor, or being funny, in a very situational manner. Someone may be hilarious in the immediate situation or a specific context such as a classroom, but not humorous as an ongoing, cross-situational pattern of communication.

Humor Production and Source Orientation

Another important operational point for people who are teaching is that humor, as we examine it here, is an intentional enactment, entailing the production of communicative messages. This integrates instruction and communication with a source orientation. In comparison, some researchers study humor from a receiver orientation, as appreciating another’s sense of humor (Martin & Lefcourt, 1984). Such a receiver orientation represents a response to often-unplanned humor. Understanding sense of humor is certainly important, but in educational contexts a source orientation implies that instructors focus their communication efforts on humor production because it is very difficult to predict and control humor appreciation. Perceived funniness is highly idiosyncratic and influenced by context, culture, and even the age of receivers – and all these variables are present in a classroom filled with students. What makes one individual laugh may be entirely mundane to another. Thus, from a communicator perspective, and especially an instructional orientation, our primary focus is how teachers enact appropriate humor during instructional messages.

By definition, then, an instructor who decides to incorporate humor while teaching becomes an intentional source of humor. A source orientation involves (a) a cognitive approach to encoding entertaining messages, (b) memory capacity for the humor and its application in the learning context, and (c) verbal and nonverbal delivery skills in order to obtain optimal effects. Teachers who appreciate and understand the effects of instructional humor attempt all three of these aspects in their classroom communication, and teachers who are successful accomplish them.

Presentational Versus Conversational Humor Enactment

When people envision humorous communicators, the images that often emerge are stand-up comedians, comic actors, or other individuals who make their living being funny in front of an audience. Although this is one form of humorous communication, it is probably not the best image for instructional communication. Research indicates that students have expectations about the amount and type of humor that is appropriate for the classroom. Not surprisingly, instructors’ use of too much negative or poorly developed humor can adversely impact student learning. Gorham and Christophel (1990) noted that when students indicated their instructors relied on too much negative classroom humor, they also reported less interest in the content area. Unlike comedians, instructors have to incorporate the appropriate amount and type of humor in the classroom to maintain their credibility and enhance student learning (Gorham & Christophel, 1990).

Thus, a distinction can be drawn between presentational and conversational orientations to humor enactment (Miczo, 2014). The presentational approach to humor entails a one-to-many, often prepared, and fairly one-sided enactment of humor. Professional comedians epitomize this presentational humor, even if their style is low-key and seemingly spontaneous. On the other hand, the conversational orientation to humor enactment involves interaction, entertainment that flows out of the situation at hand and is apparently unrehearsed. Most day-to-day humorous encounters more closely resemble this conversational form rather than a person who relates a string of jokes or anecdotes. Most communicators are not funny all the time but rather pick their opportunities to insert something in conversation that others will find funny.

Instructors confront a complex structure when they want to employ humor in learning. The goal is that the humor will be perceived as conversational, casual, and mutually produced, and that the laughter will flow naturally out of ongoing classroom interaction. However, in a teacher-centered instructional context, some instructors’ humor is enacted from a presentational orientation; i.e., it is somewhat strategic, planned, and flows primarily from the teacher to the students. Examples of classroom humor would include humor embedded in Power Point presentations or exams, as well as amusing stories prepared in advance to illustrate an instructional point. Scholars who assess the effects of appropriate/inappropriate humor generally agree that the optimal instructional humor – whether presentational or conversational – is at least somewhat relevant to the lesson (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk, 2008; Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010).

Another consideration is that instructor humor that is unplanned and spontaneous may backfire in the classroom and lead to unproductive student responses. One type of spontaneous classroom humor that could backfire is when instructors tease or ridicule students. In such cases, both the targets of the teasing and the observers are negatively affected by this type of humor use. To better understand the effects of observing other-disparaging humor on young adults, Janes and Olson (2000) tested the effects of what they called “jeer pressure” on college students. The researchers studied whether observing peers being ridiculed and teased was related to college students’ fear of failure, creativity, and conformity. Participants viewed one of three videos (other-ridicule, self-ridicule, or no-target humor) and then completed a variety of tasks to assess fear of failure, conformity, and creativity. Compared to participants who viewed the self-ridicule or no-target humor video, those in the other-ridicule condition were more conforming in completing their tasks and indicated a greater fear of failure. These findings shed light on potential repercussions for instructors who tease students or use aggressive humor. Instructors who tease or ridicule students in an effort to be funny may risk offending the targeted student and stifling creativity and autonomy in the classroom.

Whether using a presentational or conversational orientation to humor enactment, instructors should always avoid humor that disparages students based on race, ethnicity, sex, group affiliations, sexual orientation, intellect, or appearance. Several studies have indicated that students find these types of humor offensive and that the classroom environment is negatively affected (Claus, Booth-Butterfield, & Chory, 2012). Overall, as we explore humor in learning environments in this chapter, we will (a) use the encoding/ source perspective as a framework, (b) focus primarily on prosocial instructor humor, and (c) recognize that there are multiple patterns of teacher humor, both presentational and interactional, which may occur.

Theoretical Explanations of Humor in the Classroom

Scholars who investigate instructors’ use of humor have drawn on several theoretical frameworks to interpret research findings, better understand humor enactment, and attempt to predict receivers’ responses. These theories of interpersonal and instructional communication sometimes overlap and mesh in their explanations of how and why humor occurs during the teaching-learning process. In this section we overview some long-established theoretical frameworks, including incongruity theory, benign violation theory, and disposition theory, as well as instructional humor processing theory.

Incongruity Theory

When we laugh with surprise about something, the unexpected nature of the humor is explained by the tenets of incongruity theory (Berlyne, 1960; LaFave, Haddad, & Maesen, 1996; Suls, 1972). As the most often-used theory in humor research, incongruity theory accounts for most cases of perceived funniness whether in the educational environment or elsewhere. As an umbrella term, incongruity refers to a necessary condition for humor – the perception of a surprise, a twist, or the unexpected. Thus, the perception of humor derives from something appearing as outside the normal pattern, something that is out of place, out of order, or unique in some way. Some students may contend that is why teachers are sometimes perceived as funny; i.e., they are not expected to be entertainers (Frymier & Weser, 2001). People typically do not laugh at something they have seen or heard before and perceive as normal or natural, so the stimulus to laugh often presents the unexpected.

Obviously, all surprises are not funny; e.g., weapons in the classroom may be unexpected but are certainly not humorous. For incongruity to function as a source of humor, there also must be a background against which to compare the humor. Incongruity resolution theory (LaFave et al., 1996) extends and clarifies the basic theory by stipulating that the frame or content of the attempted humor is resolved as indeed “humorous,” as opposed to shocking, offensive, or rude. If the content is not understood (as in linguistic, cultural, or age differences) or is not interpreted/ resolved as funny (it is amusing if I say it, but not if you say it), then the communication will not be perceived as humor.

Benign Violations Theory

Extending the work of Veatch (1998), McGraw and Warren (2010) proposed benign violations theory (BVT), which posits that humor occurs when a violation (i.e., a stimulus that is physically or psychologically threatening) simultaneously seems benign (i.e., harmless and acceptable). According to BVT, something that threatens one’s sense of how the world “ought to be” may in fact be amusing, as long as the threatening situation also seems safe, or not really a serious threat. BVT explains why an instructor who jokes with students about silly practices on campus or in the social scene will likely seem humorous (i.e., benign), but joking about an unannounced quiz or lowering grades in the class will not be perceived as humorous at all due to the perception of an academic threat that may be harmful.

Additional factors that appear to jointly influence perceptions of humor include the degree to which a stimulus is a violation (e.g., a tragedy versus a mishap) and one’s perceived distance from the stimulus (e.g., far away versus close proximity, either physical or psychological; McGraw, Warren, Williams, & Leonard, 2012). Several studies revealed that situations defined as tragedies (severe violations and consequences) may be perceived as humorous when they are temporally, socially, hypothetically, or spatially distant. In the classroom this might translate to online exams gone awry. The situation could be very stressful at the time but humorous in looking back on it, or make you smirk if it happens elsewhere and not to you. However, mishaps (mild violations) are more humorous when psychologically close. That is, if violations occur and seem too benign (as perhaps with instructors’ tales of their family trips), they are perceived to be boring and not funny (McGraw et al., 2012; McGraw, Williams, & Warren, 2014). Again, in the classroom it behooves instructors to remember these features and carefully recount their humorous anecdotes – sufficiently threatening, scary, or surprising, but not so extreme that it truly upsets the students.

Disposition Theory

As another theoretical explanation of humorous communication, disposition theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1996) focuses on the identity of the target of the intended humor. Individuals will describe humor as not funny or inappropriate when it is aimed at people they like, whom they feel are “protected,” or individuals who are part of their own referent groups. Conversely, people are more likely to view a humor attempt favorably when it targets individuals whom they dislike, consider as adversaries, or do not include as part of their referent group. Disposition theory explains why students may label instructors’ humor attempts as inappropriate, if they are perceived as attacks against individual students, sororities, fraternities, political affiliations, males, or females (Frymier et al., 2008). On the other hand, humor that denigrates or makes fun of rival schools or sports teams is likely to be well-received by students.

Instructional Humor Processing Theory

Though each of these humor theories is informational in its own way, Wanzer et al. (2010) sought to synthesize their various perspectives and focus them on the context of humor in the teaching-learning process. They posited instructional humor processing theory (IHPT) to bring theoretical clarity to the abundance of research on the relationship between instructor humor and student learning. IHPT was created in an attempt to explain the relationship between humor and learning and specify the types of instructor humor that might lead to learning. IHPT is an integrative theory that incorporates the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986) incongruity resolution theory (Berlyne, 1960; LaFave et al., 1996; Suls, 1972) and disposition theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1996). The next sections describe ELM and how it can be used as a general framework to explain the relationship between instructor humor and student learning.

The ELM explains how individuals perceive and respond to different types of persuasive messages (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984) and can be extended to describe how instructor humor is processed. According to ELM, individuals process message information either peripherally or centrally. When individuals process messages peripherally, they pay attention to cues, heuristics, or truisms instead of message arguments, and as a result, cognitive structures are not changed. Central route processing is described as more cognitively demanding because individuals process message arguments and self-generate information related to the message arguments, a process labeled elaboration (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986).

A number of studies (Claypool, Mackie, Garcia-Marques, McIntosh, & Udall, 2004; Heesacker, 1986; Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981; Petty & Wegener, 1998) have repeatedly found that individuals are more likely to engage in central route processing when they are motivated to think about the message arguments and when they have the ability to process message information. Thus, applying ELM to instructional contexts, in order for students to elaborate on course content, they would need to be both motivated and able to process instructional messages. Certain types of messages are related to motivation and ability to process information. For example, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) identified topic relevance as influencing motivation to process messages. From an instructional perspective, when students perceive the topic or message as relevant, they should be more motivated to process the information, resulting in greater retention and understanding of the content. Consistent with this thinking, several studies found a positive relationship between students’ perceptions of content relevance and motivation to study (Frymier & Shulman, 1995; Frymier, Shulman & Houser, 1996). Additionally, Frymier et al. (1996) reported a positive correlation between relevance and learner empowerment and perceived learning. Keller (1983) also included relevance as a central component in his ARCS model of motivation (see chapter 15 in this volume). Thus, IHPT predicts that instructor’s use of relevant humor should increase motivation to process message information and therefore lead to greater student learning. Preliminary research testing IHPT found support for this claim (Wanzer et al., 2009).

Motivation to elaborate on a message has also been linked to incongruent information. Some research (Baker & Petty, 1994; Hastie & Kumar, 1979; Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991; O’Sullivan & Durso, 1984; Srull, 1981) indicates that incongruent or discrepant information results in increased message processing and recall due to increased motivation. As incongruity resolution theory would predict (LaFave et al., 1996), people are more likely to notice unusual or inconsistent information because it does not align with their expectations. Thus, when professors use instructional humor in their lectures that involves incongruities, students may pay more attention to this content and attempt to resolve the incongruent information. Students must also accurately resolve or make sense of the instructor’s humor attempt in order to label it as humorous. If the incongruity in the message is not understood, students will be distracted by the message, rather than perceiving humor. For example, if students do not “get” the instructor’s outdated or complicated joke, story, or humorous example, they will ignore it, or it may even serve as a distraction from the instruction. Therefore, in order for instructor’s humorous message to positively impact learning in the classroom, it must go beyond recognition alone and should instead increase students’ motivation and ability to process the instructional message (Wanzer et al., 2010).

In order to engage in central route processing, individuals must be able to process the message. Factors such as distraction and prior knowledge are identified as variables that influence people’s ability to process message information (Petty & Caccioppo, 1981, 1986). Drawing on instructional communication research, gaining students’ attention in the classroom (Kelley & Gorham, 1988) and making content clear (Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001) have been identified as central elements of effective teaching related to student retention of information. From an ELM perspective, instructional messages that gain students’ attention and help them make sense of course content (i.e. clarity behaviors) enhance students’ ability to process the content resulting in greater retention and learning. Instructional humor has often been described as an attention-gaining strategy (Gorham & Christophel, 1990) as well as a means of generating positive affect toward the course material and the teacher. However, an instructor’s use of inappropriate or offensive humorous messages might generate negative affect toward the course material and teacher and serve as a distraction from the instructional message, resulting in a reduced ability to process and retain information. Therefore IHPT predicts that instructors’ use of appropriate humorous (i.e. related) messages would be expected to result in greater motivation and ability to process course content to the extent the humorous message potentially gained students’ attention, created positive affect, made content relevant, and/ or increased the clarity of the content and did not distract students from the instructional message. Conversely, instructors’ use of inappropriate messages would have the opposite effect on student learning.

To date, few scholars have analyzed the effects of different types of instructor humor on student learning, and IHPT addresses this issue. According to IHPT and ELM specifically, if the instructor uses offensive humor (e.g., crude or sexual in nature) or other-disparaging humor (e.g., humor attempts that target students, other teachers, or political figures), this would likely result in less motivation and ability to process instructional messages. Humor that disparages students based on specific characteristics (e.g., sex, sexual orientation, or race) or affiliations (e.g., sororities, fraternities, or sports teams) distracts students, generates negative affective responses, and reduces their ability to focus on lecture content. Disposition theory is also included in IHPT to address the important role affective responses to humorous messages play in student motivation, as well as their ability to process messages and student learning specifically (Zillmann & Cantor, 1996). Preliminary research on IHPT indicates that instructors’ use of both offensive and other-disparaging humor was not correlated with student reports of affective learning and self-reported learning behaviors (Wanzer et al., 2010). As predicted by IHPT, instructors’ use of related humor was positively associated with student reports of affective learning and self-reported learning behaviors (Wanzer et al., 2010). Though initial research testing IHPT has been promising, this theory requires additional testing in order to further clarify the complex relationships among instructor humor and student motivation, ability, and learning.

In sum, these theoretical explanations of humor provide valuable structure for analysis of instructors’ enactment of humor in the classroom, to the benefit of both researchers and practitioners. Because humor is implicated in effective teaching, we next examine major goals instructors have for communicating with humor in the classroom.

Rhetorical and Relational Goals in Classroom Instruction

As noted by Mottet, Frymier, and Beebe (2006), most teachers attempt to achieve dual goals during classroom instruction: successfully presenting course content (task-related, rhetorical goals) and achieving an appropriate degree of affinity or positive personal regard (social, relational goals). Instructional humor can facilitate both. For example, an instructor who uses humor effectively and appropriately in the classroom helps create an environment where students feel comfortable talking with each other as well as the instructor (i.e., relational goals). Once students feel more comfortable in the classroom, they may be more inclined to engage with the instructor and other students as they focus on achieving tasks and learning course material (i.e., rhetorical goals). Indeed, a recent study indicated that professor-student rapport was the strongest predictor of student ratings of instructor scores (SRIs), explaining 54% of the variance of scores on the SRIs (Richmond, Berglund, Epelbaum, & Klein, 2015). In the same study, the researchers also investigated whether student reports of instructor humor influenced SRIs. To determine whether certain types of humor were stronger predictors than others, the researchers had students complete the Teacher Humor Scale (THS) (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk, 2008), as well as student evaluations of a selected professor. The THS assesses perceptions of instructors’ use of related, unrelated, offensive, self-disparaging, and other-disparaging humor. Notably, related humor was the only type of humor that emerged as a significant positive predictor of student ratings of instructors (Richmond et al., 2015). This finding is consistent with Wanzer et al.’s (2010) research that tested IHPT and identified a positive relationship between instructors’ use of related humor and student learning.

Instructors who incorporate humor to establish rapport with their students may achieve additional rhetorical and relational goals. For example, when students perceive instructors as humor-oriented, they are more likely to perceive reduced psychological distance from them (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003), engage in outside-of-class communication with them (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Goodboy, Booth-Butterfield, Bolkan, & Griffin, 2015), and share their personal and course-related concerns with them (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003). The use of instructor humor also predicts student effort, participation, learning, and out-of-class communication – which entail both rhetorical and relational goals (Goodboy et al., 2015). Finally, students are more satisfied with the course and teacher when humor is used during instruction, leading to the assertion that “maintaining student communication satisfaction in the classroom may require instructors to have a sense of humor” (Sidelinger, 2014, p. 298).

Another way to understand how instructor humor can be used to achieve relational and rhetorical goals is by examining the teacher immediacy construct. Immediacy refers to “the degree of perceived physical or psychological closeness between people” (Tibbles, Richmond, McCroskey, & Weber, 2008, p. 392). Immediate teachers utilize verbal and nonverbal behaviors strategically to reduce physical and/or psychological distance between themselves and their students. Common classroom immediacy cues include direct eye contact, smiling, open body positions, forward leans, gestures, proximity, vocal variety, and calling students by name (Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Gorham, 1988). Humor has been identified as one type of immediacy behavior, and many of the same behaviors a teacher might enact to deliver humorous messages, such as smiling, funny faces, and vocal variety, also have the potential to reduce perceived psychological distance between the teacher and students. Gorham and Christophel (1990) reported that highly immediate instructors used 63% more humor than low and moderately immediate teachers and were seven times more likely to use physical humor/vocal humor than low immediacy teachers. These researchers went on to suggest that an instructor’s humor/ immediacy may be associated with student learning: “While a particular bit of humor may not enhance retention and may not even be perceived as funny to a particular subject – an ongoing teacher-student relationship in which humor has contributed to immediacy might affect arousal, retention, and learning” (Gorham & Christophel, 1990, p. 48).

In subsequent years, the potential relationship between instructor humor and student learning has been thoroughly investigated. Though results have been at times contradictory, it is generally accepted that some skilled instructors enact humor strategically to achieve specific tasks such as helping students retain and recall course material (i.e., rhetorical goals). A number of studies have documented a positive and significant relationship between teacher humor and student cognitive, affective, and perceived learning (e.g., Chapman & Crompton, 1978; Davies & Apter, 1980; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Vance, 1987; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999; Ziv, 1988), and researchers have identified the specific types of humor that most often lead to learning and satisfaction with communication with instructors (Sidelinger, 2014; Wanzer et al., 2010). In the remainder of this chapter we describe findings related to the humor-learning relationship, as well as the types of humor instructors should avoid using in the classroom.

Classic and Contemporary Research on Instructional Humor: Benefits, Classification Systems, and Appropriateness

A substantial portion of the instructional humor research points to the benefits of classroom humor for both teachers and students. First and foremost, students indicate that they want to take classes from teachers who use humor. As early as the 1940s, college students identified instructor’s use of humor as a characteristic associated with effective teaching. When students were asked to list the qualities of effective instructors, their use of humor preceded valued traits such as voice, poise, appearance, accomplishment in research, and reputation as a scholar (Bousfield, 1940). Almost fifty years later, Check (1986) conducted a similar study in which students identified the employment of humor as one of the instructor traits they considered essential for effective college teaching. Thus, one of the benefits of humor in the classroom is that entertaining teachers are often labeled as highly effective in the classroom (Bousfield, 1940; Check, 1986). Not surprisingly, awardwinning teachers use moderate amounts of instructional humor (as opposed to excessive amounts) to relate to their students (Javidi, Downs, & Nussbaum, 1988). It is believed that humor during instruction can improve the classroom environment by lowering student anxiety and tension related to difficult or dreaded subject material or simply creating a more enjoyable learning atmosphere (Huss, 2008; Kher, Molstad, & Donahue, 1999; Teslow, 1995).

A primary reason instructors use humor is to increase student attention and focus on learning in the classroom. The relationship between instructor humor and student learning has been studied extensively, but the results are inconclusive. Some research indicates that instructor humor leads to or is associated with learning (Chapman & Crompton, 1978; Davies & Apter, 1980; Goodboy et al., 2015; Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999; Wanzer et al., 2010; Ziv, 1988), whereas other researchers have observed no such relationship (Gruner, 1967; Houser, Cowan, & West, 2007). Banas, Dunbar, and Rodriguez (2011) provide a thorough summary of the instructional humor research conducted over the last forty years and describe the wide range of variables related to how instructors employ humor in the classroom. Not surprisingly, the use and effects of instructor humor differ based on sex, experience, culture, and personality (Banas et al., 2011). In the next section we highlight some of the classic research on instructional humor and illustrate the evolution of this line of research over the years.

Early scholars focused on the attention-gaining effects of humorous content while teaching children. For example, Wakshlag, Day, & Zillmann (1981) found that first- and second-grade children were more likely to select educational television shows that included humor, especially if the humor was perceived as fast-paced in nature. Other researchers noted that humor could be incorporated in classroom settings to maintain children’s attention, especially if it was used in brief bursts throughout the day (Zillmann Williams, Bryant, Boynton, & Wolf, 1980).

To further delineate how instructors use humor in the classroom, researchers collected audiotaped data on instructors’ lectures (Bryant, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1979). Analysis indicated that college instructors used humorous messages 3.34 times during a 50-minute class period, with male instructors using humor more often than female instructors. Using a deductive method to analyze their data, these researchers identified six broad types of teacher humor: jokes, riddles, puns, funny stories, funny comments, and other/ miscellaneous. The main way instructors used humor in the classroom was by sharing funny stories, with 39% of their sample indicating that they used this behavior. Bryant and colleagues further clarified the content of humor instructors used by coding it as sexual or nonsexual, hostile or nonhostile, related or unrelated to course material, and determined whether it disparaged the student, teacher, or a third person or group. Over half (52 %) of the examples fell under nonsense humor, whereas the remaining examples were coded as tendentious in nature. Compared to previous research on elementary school teachers, college instructors of the 1970s appeared to use a great deal of sexual and hostile humor that is tendentious in nature (Bryant et al., 1979).

In the 1980s Downs, Javidi, and Nussbaum (1988) and Javidi and Long (1989) examined different types of instructional humor using a category system developed by Nussbaum, Comadena, and Holladay (1985). The category system incorporated several types of classroom “play offs” or quick, intentional humor attempts directed toward a particular target (i.e., self, students, others in class, course material or object). Downs et al. also studied whether the humor was related or unrelated to course content, and they noted that award-winning teachers employed more humor in the classroom than non-award winning teachers, and their humor attempts were often related to course material (Downs et al., 1988; Javidi & Long, 1989).

Whereas Bryant et al. (1979) and Nussbaum et al. (1985) utilized deductive methods, Gorham and Christophel (1990) adopted an inductive method to develop a typology of typical instructor humor. In their study, students were asked to keep a log of the actual humor behaviors their instructors exhibited over five consecutive class meetings. The researchers applied grounded theory/ constant comparison methods to identify 13 distinct categories of instructional humor labeled: (1) brief tendentious comments directed at either individual students; (2) the class as a whole; (3) the university, department, or state; (4) national or world events; (5) world events or personalities; (6) the topic or subject matter; (7) the self (self-deprecating); (8) personal anecdotes or stories related to the subject; (9) general anecdotes or stories related to the subject; (10) general anecdotes or stories not related to the subject; (11) jokes; (12) physical or vocal comedy; or (13) other. The researchers also investigated the relationships among instructor immediacy, humor type, and learning. Both the amount and the type of humor employed were related to student learning outcomes in that students seemed especially cognizant of instructors’ use of tendentious, that is overtly biased, humor, which was negatively associated with affective learning outcomes.

While earlier instructional studies focused on students’ perceptions of instructor humor, Neuliep (1991) sent out surveys to public high school teachers to learn more about the frequency of humorous behaviors, their perceived appropriateness, and reasons for using humor. Teachers rated the appropriateness of the thirteen different types of humor identified in the Gorham and Christophel (1990) study. In addition, they provided a detailed description of the last time they used humor in the classroom, stated why they used humor, and indicated whether they had ever received a teaching award. Overall, the high school teachers indicated that humor related to course content was the most appropriate type to use in the classroom. Neuliep also observed that the high school teachers typically used the same types of humorous messages as college professors, but less often, and that they used humor to put students at ease and to maintain their attention.

In more recent research, Torok, McMorris, and Lin (2004) examined how often instructors used humor in the classroom as well as college students’ and instructors’ perceptions of Bryant et al.’s (1979) seven types of classroom humor (i.e., funny stories, funny comments, jokes, professional humor, puns, cartoons, and riddles). Students indicated that in general, instructors use humor quite often and, more specifically, they used funny stories and funny comments the most frequently. These types of humor were also evaluated as the most appropriate for the classroom. Instructors’ use of sexual humor, ethnic humor, and aggressive/hostile humor were used less often in the classroom and were not recommended for use by instructors. Findings from this study should be interpreted with caution because the researchers only included an assessment of three instructors and 124 students. Despite the small sample size, it is important to note that it is one of the first studies that attempted to distinguish between student perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate forms of classroom humor.

To extend these investigations, Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, and Smith (2006) identified a comprehensive list of appropriate and inappropriate instructional humor. They employed constant comparative methods to place student-generated humor examples of recent classroom experiences into categories of appropriate and inappropriate humor. This inductive methodology produced four broad categories of appropriate humor (i.e., related humor, unrelated humor, self-disparaging humor, and unplanned humor) that were similar to those categories identified in prior research (Bryant et al., 1979; Downs et al., 1988; Gorham & Christophel, 1990). Four broad categories of inappropriate teacher humor were also identified (i.e., offensive humor, disparaging student humor, disparaging other humor, and self-disparaging humor). Interestingly, self-disparaging humor emerged as both an inappropriate and appropriate form of instructional humor. This particular finding illustrates the complexity of understanding how students interpret their instructor’s humor use in the classroom.

In a follow-up investigation, Frymier et al. (2008) used the Wanzer et al. (2006) typology of appropriate and inappropriate teacher humor to create a humor appropriateness measure called the Teacher Humor Scale, which tested three explanations for differences in interpretation of teacher humor. The first explanation for student perceptions of teacher humor was predicated on incongruity resolution (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; LaFave et al., 1996; Suls, 1972) and disposition (Zillmann & Cantor, 1996) theories. The researchers argued that students would generally perceive certain types of humor as more inappropriate when they did not recognize and resolve it (incongruity resolution) and when it made fun of liked or similar others (disposition theory). Not surprisingly, students viewed teacher humor as inappropriate when it was perceived as offensive and when it demeaned students as a group (i.e., sororities, fraternities, or athletes) or individually (i.e., race, sex, or hair color). The second explanation for student variability in perceptions of humor appropriateness was based on the premise that student personality traits or receiver characteristics influence perceptions of teacher humor. Students’ humor orientation, verbal aggressiveness, and communication competence were related to how they viewed teachers’ use of appropriate/inappropriate humor. For example, students higher in verbal aggression and humor orientation viewed offensive types of instructor as more appropriate in the classroom, whereas students scoring higher in communication competence viewed offensive humor as less appropriate for the classroom setting. The final explanation for variability in student perceptions of teacher humor was that teacher traits or characteristics impact student perceptions of teacher behavior; that is, students expect teachers who possessed certain traits to exhibit behaviors congruent with those traits. Hence, teachers’ perceived levels of humor orientation, verbal aggressiveness, and nonverbal immediacy were also related to how students viewed teachers’ use of humor. For example, students expected verbally aggressive teachers to use humor that targeted other students or student groups. These findings illustrate the complex relationships among instructor traits, student traits, and instructor humor and suggest that a combination of both student and instructor factors, as well as message content, can help explain differences in ratings of classroom humor appropriateness.

Collectively, this research indicates that instructors use humor in their teaching and reap a variety of benefits from such use. Not surprisingly, instructors also enact a number of different types of humor in the classroom and some (i.e., related and unrelated humorous stories, examples) are more appropriate in the classroom than others (offensive and disparaging humor).

Procedural Challenges Faced by Instructional Humor Researchers

There are a number of challenges associated with conducting instructional humor research. These challenges may explain, in part, the mixed findings in the instructor humor-student learning literature. The list of potential problems, questions, and criticisms faced when conducting instructional humor research is long and complicated. For example, how is humor conceptualized? How is humor operationalized and subsequently measured in studies? Are the measures used to assess instructor humor and student learning reliable and valid? If humor is manipulated, what is the best way to do so? What makes something funny? Are all forms of instructional humor effective in the classroom? What individual differences affect how humor is delivered and interpreted? What theories explain the relationships among the variables? Those who study instructional humor are keenly aware of these questions and attempt to address these concerns in their study designs.

Although scholars might agree somewhat on the general conceptual definition of humor (i.e., stimuli that often evoke laughter and smiling), there appears to be significant variability in how instructional humor is actually operationalized and measured in the research. In fact, inconclusive or contradictory findings in earlier studies may be best explained by examining how the research was conducted. For example, Ziv (1988) examined a number of studies that tested the relationship between humor and learning and noted the significant variability in the way humor was measured. In several studies, the length of time individuals were exposed to humorous stimuli may have been too short (e.g., ten minutes) to affect students’ ability to retain information. Another important methodological concern expressed by Ziv and others (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer 2010) was the extent to which the humorous stimuli were actually perceived as funny by the study participants. Ziv also pointed out that many of the original studies investigating the relationship between humor and learning were conducted in laboratory settings that did not resemble real classrooms. Similarly, Gorham and Christophel (1990) argued that it is difficult to compare early study results because of the variability in the types of humorous stimuli researchers utilized (e.g., cartoons, jokes), as well as differences in whether the humor was studied in the research lab or the classroom.

Early instructional humor scholars tested a wide range of humorous materials such as cartoons and videos, and this material was often selected by the instructor or researcher. In several of their early studies, they also tested instructional materials instead of instructor-generated humor. In addition, the researchers did not conduct manipulation tests to determine whether the humorous material was perceived by the students/study participants as funny or relevant. Although early research did shed some light on the different types of instructional humor that could be used to help students retain information, it did not describe or test the types of humor instructors should avoid in the classroom. Current scholars agree that, instead of advocating for all types of humor in the classroom, it is important to specify which types of humor are more advantageous and which types should be avoided. To address this concern, IHPT (Wanzer et al., 2010) was developed to predict the types of instructional humor that are more likely to lead to student learning. As IHPT would predict, instructors’ use of offensive and disparaging type of humor was not related to students’ perceived learning. Instructors’ use of related humor was positively related to students’ perceptions of learning (Wanzer et al., 2010).

Another challenge faced by humor researchers relates to the sample populations from which data are drawn. Most large studies have been conducted using college students as participants. Far fewer studies examine humor in learning-type settings involving non-traditional learners, older adults, organizational employees, or young children. It is possible that similar humor guidelines apply with these learners, but that assertion has not been thoroughly tested. Indeed, most studies in other contexts using corporate workers or health professionals include much smaller samples and often less rigorous empirical standards (e.g., Guenter, Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Gijsbers, & Van Iterson, 2013)

Related to the challenge of diversity in sampling is the over-use of correlational designs. There is a need for carefully controlled experimental designs with randomization and control (Kerlinger, 1986). Such rigorous research designs will provide more valid data and more useful conclusions about how humorous instruction facilitates or detracts from learning. Such outcomes-focused research would be a fruitful endeavor for future researchers.

Finally, we return to a previously mentioned concern regarding methodology and the measurement of humorous communication. There are substantive differences among the concepts of humor orientation, humor styles, functions of humor, and humor appreciation/sense of humor which are often either overlooked or meshed together in some research attempts (Wanzer & Booth-Butterfield, 2012). Such ambiguity introduces uncertainty in research and increases error, which often results in less credible findings. To alleviate this confusion, we contend that investigations of instructors’ enactment of humor should be carried out using the perspective of humor orientation or humor styles, which both deal with encoding humor. Humor orientation can be measured with Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield’s (1991) 17-item, Humor Orientation Scale (e.g., I regularly tell jokes and funny stories when in a group; Being funny is a natural communication style with me). It has been administered from both the instructors’ and students’ perspectives (e.g., Goodboy, et al., 2015; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999). The scale is measured with a 5-point Likert format and has demonstrated high internal reliability with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .89 to .95 (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991; Graham, 2009; Vela, Booth-Butterfield, Wanzer, & Vallade, 2013).

Humor styles is operationalized with Martin et al.’s (2003) 32-item Humor Styles Questionnaire which assesses four dimensions or styles of humor use, which they labeled: affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating. The measure includes two adaptive styles, which are affiliative and self-enhancing (e.g., Even if something is really funny to me, I will not laugh or joke about it if someone will be offended), and two maladaptive styles, which are aggressive and self-defeating (e.g., I will often get carried away in putting myself down if it makes my friends or family laugh). The scale employs a 7-point Likert format and has demonstrated alpha reliabilities for the styles ranging from .73 to .85 (Cann, Zapata, & Davis, 2011; Martin et al., 2003).

On the other hand, if the researcher is more interested in what communicators do with their humor, or how humor operates in a situation, then that research topic deals with functions. For example, Graham, Papa, and Brooks (1992) developed the Uses of Humor Index, which addresses using humor to express oneself, to smooth interactions, or even to reprimand someone. The UHI contains 11 items and uses a 5-point Likert-type scale to assess the ways people, including teachers, use humor to accomplish goals in communication interactions. This scale includes three dimensions in using humor: positive affect (e.g., develop friendships), expressiveness (e.g., disclosing difficult information), and negative affect (e.g., put others in their place). The internal reliability for this scale is typically approximately .72 (Graham et al., 1992).

The Teacher Humor Scale (THS) allows researchers to measure appropriate and inappropriate humor types (Frymier et al., 2008) enacted in the classroom and to focus on how humorous messages may be employed in an effective or ineffective manner. This 41-item scale was based on a previous inductively derived typology of students’ perceptions (Wanzer et al., 2006), and underwent validity testing, which revealed a linkage with perceived competence, one’s own humor orientation, and nonverbal immediacy. The THS contains five dimensions of teacher humorous communication: other-disparaging humor, related humor, unrelated humor, offensive humor, and self-disparaging humor. Responses are based on a 5-point scale from very inappropriate to very appropriate, and each dimension demonstrates internal reliability of 0.80 or higher (Frymier et al., 2008).

Finally, when research concerns how audiences or targeted receivers respond to humor attempts, that endeavor entails perceived humor, humor appreciation, or individuals’ trait-like sense of humor. For example, the 21-item Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ; Martin & Lefcourt, 1984) examines the extent to which people respond to various situations with laughter and general amusement. The items present examples of potentially humorous situations, and respondents gauge how much they would laugh at the situation, using five response options that range from “I would not have been particularly amused” to “I would have laughed heartily.” An example of a scenario included on the SHRQ is, “If you were eating in a restaurant with some friends and the waiter accidentally spilled soup on one of your friends.” Of some concern is that scenarios presented on the SHRQ were originally created for college student populations and may be dated or ineffective for non-college samples.

Note that each of the diverse types of humor research questions have specific, validated, and reliable forms of measurement that will best address the construct under study.

Students Enacting Humor

Before moving toward a conclusion, it is important to note that humor in learning contexts does not originate with instructors only; students, also, have occasion to introduce humor during the teaching-learning process. However, there is scarce research that focuses exclusively on how students enact humor and how those messages are perceived by instructors and other students. In a related line of research, a few scholars have examined how student traits (i.e., humor orientation) or predispositions affect their perceptions of their instructor’s humor. For example, humor-oriented students learn best from humor-oriented instructors (Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), have a greater tolerance for instructors’ use of offensive classroom humor (Frymier et al., 2008), and expect their instructors to engage in verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors (Frymier & Weser, 2001). What seems less clear, however, is how and why students themselves might introduce humor in the classroom with their instructors or their peers.

It is safe to assume that many teachers enjoy students who are appropriately funny in class, and that some students do, in fact, joke, tease, or make humorous comments during classroom instruction. Students’ enactment of humor could be a manner of coping with the pressures of academic life (e.g., Booth-Butterfield, Booth-Butterfield, & Wanzer, 2007) or a way of seeking affinity with the instructor (Wanzer, 1998). Of course, in much the same way that instructors walk a fine line and have to discern between appropriate and inappropriate humor, students also may struggle with their own humor attempts. Further, when students communicate inappropriately using humorous comments, the repercussions for them may be more serious, so they may be more cautious about engaging in humorous interactions. Therefore, because most researchers have focused on instructors’ humor as opposed to students’ humor, this gap suggests a valuable avenue for future research.

Pedagogical Implications and Applications

Cumulative research indicates that instructors can use humor as an effective communication strategy to assist in achieving both rhetorical and relational goals. However, for instructional humor to be successful, it must be thoughtfully chosen and effectively enacted. To assist classroom teachers in identifying effective and appropriate humor strategies, we provide the following empirically validated categories of instructional humor (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1991; Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 2005). As instructors seek to discern the humor types most likely to achieve positive benefits in their classroom, they should also consider the use of instructor immediacy behaviors that frequently accompany humorous instruction and serve to build rapport with students. Though a few instructors are innately funny people, most have to be more intentional in the selection and delivery of humorous material. To maximize affective and cognitive learning outcomes, these different types of humor should be connected somehow to the course material in order to increase students’ ability to retain the content later. Here are some important factors to consider:

There may well be additional types of humor enactments that could translate to instructional settings and be incorporated in classroom communication. It is important for instructors to realize the many benefits of using humor as well as the variety of options they have when enacting instructional humor in the classroom. In addition, instructors should work diligently to develop a unique humor style that complements their personality and teaching style and generates positive affect toward course material. Although not all instructors will become “experts” in delivering classroom humor, many will increase both the quantity and quality of humorous content in their classes. Students will appreciate the instructors’ effort, and instructors will benefit from increased student ratings, outside of classroom communication with instructors, and learning outcomes.

Directions for Future Research

The study of humor enactments from a communicative perspective constitutes an area of increasing interest in instructional communication. As scholars continue to explore the processes and implications of humor in learning contexts, they should seek to remove existing limitations by expanding the parameters of context, culture, and measurement.

Children’s Humor Enactment

Humor enactment among children is clearly an understudied area. Of course, some children are funnier than others and intentionally enact humor in unique and varied ways (Kotthoff, 2006), but very little empirical research has been conducted in this area (Booth-Butterfield, Wanzer, Birmingham, & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). An exception is the work of Klein and Kuiper (2006), who expanded Martin et al.’s (2003) research by speculating on how enacting various humor styles could impact children’s relationships. They suggested ways that humor styles could affect peer relationships and bullying in middle childhood (e.g., children in middle childhood may use affiliative humor to attempt to maintain group cohesion). Further, Klein and Kuiper indicated that self-defeating humor may be used by children who are bullied by their peers in an attempt to regain peer relationships and/or status, whereas aggressive humor may be used by child bullies who victimize their peers. Such patterns, however, are speculative and have yet to be measured. Prior examinations of children’s humor have focused more generally on sense of humor (e.g., Dowling & Fain, 1999), engagement in humor tasks (e.g., Puche-Navarro, 2004), and age-related stages of humor development (e.g., McGhee, 1979; Socha, 2012). These initial studies are valuable endeavors, but more systematic research is needed to explore this conceptually complex phenomenon.

Humor and Culture

Another research area that is yet to be developed is humor enactment among non-American samples. Again we emphasize that this is not sense of humor which is idiosyncratic and culture-bound. That is, each culture or group may consider different things “funny” or to be laughed at, and in some countries teaching might not be viewed as appropriate for humorous messages. However, in every culture some individuals are no doubt funnier and more entertaining than others (Booth-Butterfield, Kanjeva, & Booth-Butterfield, 2014). For humor to be successful, there needs to be understanding of differences in classroom expectations or learning environments across cultures, which may affect humor use and interpretation. Similar to Booth-Butterfield and Noguchi’s (2000) study on immediacy among Japanese students, more work is needed to explicate whether and how humorous communication may optimally be employed in instructional settings.

Closely-Coded Message Analysis

Additional research is needed to determine exactly what causes an enactment to be funny, regardless of content. Precisely how does that high humor-oriented instructor present course content so that it comes across as amusing or entertaining? What differentiates stories or quips with the same content, when one is delivered as entertaining and another interpreted as lame? This might entail closely coded behaviors such as pausing and rhythm, delivery of punch lines, vocal inflections, or the general framing of the message as something to be laughed at.

Inept Attempts at Humor

Though the focus of most research to date has been the words, actions, and traits of humorous instructors, questions about inept attempts at humor and their effects in the classroom also warrant research attention. How do instructors’ inappropriate or offensive humor attempts affect student learning, motivation, attendance, and other outcomes? Are there different effects in failed, but well-intentioned, humor efforts and those that are simply inept? Is this a realm for an attributional analysis in which poor humor by a well-liked instructor could be positive, whereas any humor enacted by a disliked instructor is viewed as offensive?

Humor and Communication Channels

Another focus for future research is a careful, systematic analysis of how humorous messages are transmitted in instructional settings. What channels are used to disseminate humorous messages that are perceived as effective and appropriate by students? Do students correctly interpret humorous messages communicated via email messages or online forums? What negative results ensue when these messages are misinterpreted by students? Although technological advances can improve communication with our students, as well as learning outcomes, there are many opportunities for miscommunication, especially in the interpretation of statements intended to be humorous.

Training Teachers to Use Instructional Humor

Finally, although we advocate appropriate humor as an effective teaching strategy, the question remains as to whether teachers can be trained to use humor effectively and appropriately in the classroom. Given our experience as teachers and humor researchers, we believe they can; however, we acknowledge that there is little empirical evidence to support this supposition outside of a very narrow scripted event (e.g., Vela & Booth-Butterfield, 2015). Cumulative research has shown that professionals who are innately funny, whether teachers, managers, or nurses, can implement that humor to their benefit. However, it is yet unclear whether the skill of humor enactment can be taught, practiced, and developed as part of an instructor’s teaching style. It is our hope that instructional communication researchers will accept the challenge of empirically determining how growth in humor enactment skill can be built.

Conclusions

Though humorous communication in social interaction has been validated as a beneficial skill that confers general advantages to the interactants, the use of humor in instructional contexts presents some unique challenges. Instructors want to be interesting teachers, liked by their students, and viewed as attractive, but of course the ultimate goal of instruction is student learning. Whether the path toward learning passes through instructional humor is not always a predictable or reliable premise, given the complex nature of humor enactment and the range of students’ potential responses to humor during instruction.

Nevertheless, some firm conclusions can be drawn about the use of humorous communication in learning environments. First, there is no single blueprint or script for successful humor enactment. Based on the existing research, it is important to consider both source and receiver characteristics in humorous exchanges. In instructional contexts we need to examine and understand the impact of both instructor and student traits on how messages are interpreted. Humor production and appreciation will differ based on the instructor and students’ humor orientation, humor styles, culture, age and sex, and level of communication competence. This is by no means an exhaustive list of instructor and student factors related to humor production and interpretation; however, it is a good place to start.

Second, though scholars know a great deal about the appropriate and inappropriate messages instructors use in the classroom, they know little about how students use humor with their instructors and peers. Systematic lines of research should be developed to examine the communicatively complex ways students use humor with their instructors and peers. Such research should be grounded in established humor-related theories, and results should be interpreted by applying the tenets of those theories.

It is apparent that the advantages of appropriately communicated humor outweigh the disadvantages, but in order to communicate humor effectively and appropriately, and to maintain the attention of students like Harold (from the joke that introduced this chapter), scholars and practitioners alike need to thoroughly understand all of the factors related to humor production and interpretation. The study of humor is no joke.

References

Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153–180. doi:10.1080/00909887909365204

Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education, 52, 122–134. doi:10.1080/03634520302469

Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5–19. doi:10.37/0022-3514.67.1.5

Banas, J. A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D., & Liu, S. (2011). A review of humor in educational settings: Four decades of research. Communication Education, 60, 115–144. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.496867

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Booth-Butterfield, M., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Wanzer, M. (2007). Funny students cope better: Patterns of humor enactment and coping effectiveness. Communication Quarterly, 55, 299– 315. doi:10.1080/01463370701490232

Booth-Butterfield, M., Kanjeva, P., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (2014, April). Are Bulgarians really funny? Humor enactment across cultures. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Southern Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Noguchi, T. (2000). Perceptions of instructor nonverbal communication: Comparison of international and U.S. students. Communication Research Reports, 17, 288– 298. doi:10.1080/08824090009388776

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Wanzer, M. (2010). Humorous communication as goal-oriented communication. In D. Fassett & J. Warren (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Communication and Instruction (pp. 221–239). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Booth-Butterfield, M., Wanzer, M., Birmingham, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (2011, May). Children’s humor enactment: Examining parents’ perceptions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA.

Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). The communication of humor in everyday life. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 205–218. doi:10.1080/10417949109372831

Bousfield, W. A. (1940). Students’ ratings of qualities considered desirable in college professors. Schools & Society, 51, 253–256.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers’ humor in the college classroom. Communication Education, 28, 110–118. doi:10.1080/03634527909378339

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673–675.

Cann, A., Zapata, C., & Davis, H. (2009). Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles. Communication Quarterly, 57, 452– 468. doi:10.1080/01463370903313398

Chapman, A. J., & Crompton, P. (1978). Humorous presentations of material: A review of the humor and memory literature and two experimental studies. In M. M. Grunneberg & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 84–92). London, England: Academic Press.

Check, J. (1986). Positive traits of the effective teacher – Negative traits of the ineffective teacher. Education, 106, 326.

Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of instructor clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135–147. doi:10.1080/03634520302471

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of instructor clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68. doi:10.1080/03634520109379232

Claus, C. J., Booth-Butterfield, M. B., & Chory, R. M. (2012). The relationship between instructor misbehaviors and student antisocial behavioral alteration techniques: The roles of instructor attractiveness, humor orientation and relational closeness. Communication Education, 61, 161–183. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.647922

Claypool, H. M., Mackie, D. M., Garcia-Marques, T., McIntosh, A., & Udall, A. (2004). The effects of personal relevance and repetition on persuasive processing. Social Cognition, 22, 310–335. doi:10.1521/soco.22.3.310.35970

Davies, A. P., & Apter, M. J. (1980). Humor and its effect on learning in children. In P. E. McGhee & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children’s humor (pp. 237–254). New York, NY: Wiley.

Dowling, J. S., & Fain, J. A. (1999). A multidimensional sense of humor scale for school-aged children: Issues of reliability and validity. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 14, 38–43. doi:10.1016/S0882-5963(99)80058-X

Downs, V. C., Javidi, M., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). An analysis of instructor’s verbal communication within the college classroom: Use of humor, self-disclosure, and narratives. Communication Education, 37, 127–141. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996

Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?” Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996

Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048

Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wojtaszczyk, A. (2008). Assessing student perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education, 57, 266–288. doi:10.1080/03634520701687183

Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314–326. doi:10.1080/03634520109379258

Goodboy, A. K., Booth-Butterfield, M., Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. G. (2015). The role of instructor humor and students’ educational orientations in student learning, extra effort, participation, and out-of-class communication. Communication Quarterly, 63, 44–61. doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.965840

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. doi:10.1080/03634528809378707

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of instructors’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–62. doi:10.1080/03634529009378786

Graham, E. (2009). Humor Orientation Scale (HOS). In R. Rubin, A. Rubin, E. Graham, E. Perse, & D. Siebold (Eds.), Communication Research Measurement (pp. 158–163) (2nd ed.). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

Graham, E., Papa, M., & Brooks, G. (1992). Functions of humor in conversations: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 161–183. doi:10.1080/10570319209374409

Gruner, C. R. (1967). Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal of Communication, 17, 228–233. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1967.tb01181.x

Guenter, H., Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, I. J., Gijsbers, W., & Van Iterson, A. (2013). How adaptive and maladaptive humor influence well-being at work: A diary study. Humor, 26, 573–594. doi:10.1015/humor-2013-0032

Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as organizing principles in memory for behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 25–38. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2257

Heesacker, M. (1986). Counseling pretreatment and the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(2), 107–114. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.2.107

Houser, M., Cowan, R., & West, D. (2007). Investigating a new education frontier: Instructor communication behavior in CD-ROM texts – Do traditionally positive behaviors translate into this new environment? Communication Quarterly, 55, 19–38. doi:10.1080/014633706600998319

Huss, J. (2008). Getting serious about humor: Attitudes of secondary teachers toward the use of humor as a teaching strategy. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3, 28–36.

Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressures: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule of others. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 474–485. doi:10.1177/0146167200266006

Javidi, M. M., Downs, V. C., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). A comparative analysis of teachers’ use of dramatic style behaviors at higher and secondary educational levels. Communication Education, 37, 278–288. doi:10.1080/03634528809378729

Javidi, M. N., & Long, L. W. (1989). Teachers’ use of humor, self-disclosure, and narrative activity as a function of experience. Communication Research Reports, 6, 47–52. doi:10.1080/08824098909359831

Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 198–207. doi:10.1080/03634528809378719

Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace, and Company.

Kher, N., Molstad, S., & Donahue, R. (1999). Using humor in the college classroom to enhance teaching effectiveness in “dread courses.” College Student Journal, 33, 400–407.

Klein, D. N., & Kuiper, N. A. (2006). Humor styles, peer relationships, and bullying in middle childhood. Humor–International Journal of Humor Research, 19, 383–404. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2006.019

Kotthoff, H. (2006). Let’s have a joke. TELEVIZION, 19, 10–14.

LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1996). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory research and applications (pp. 63–91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational humor response questionnaire: Quantitative measure of a sense of humor. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47, 145–155. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.145

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2

McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21, 1141–1149. doi:10.1177/0956797610376073

McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L. E., & Leonard, B. (2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps. Psychological Science, 23, 1215–1223. doi:10.1177/0956797612443831

McGraw, A. P., Williams, L., & Warren, C. (2014). The rise and fall of humor: Psychological distance modulates humorous responses to tragedy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 566–572. doi:10.1177/1948550613515006

Miczo, N. (2014). Analyzing structure and function in humor: Preliminary sketch of a message-centered model. Humor: Journal of International Humor, 27, 461–480. doi:10.1515/humor-2014-0073

Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Neuliep, J. W. (1991). An examination of the content of high school teachers’ humor in the classroom and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of classroom humor. Communication Education, 40, 343–355. doi:10.1080/03634529109378859

Nussbaum, J. F., Comadena, M. E., & Holladay, S. J. (1985, May). Verbal communication within the college classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

O’Sullivan, C. S., & Durso, F. T. (1984). Effects of schema-incongruent information on memory for stereotypical attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 55–70. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.55

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432–440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 227–240. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.002

Puche-Navarro, R. (2004). Graphic jokes and children’s mind: An unusual way to approach children’s representational activity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 343–355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00414.x

Rancer, A., & Graham, B. (2012) Theories of humor. In R. DiCiccio (Ed.), Humor communication: Theory, impact and outcomes (pp. 3–20). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Raskin, V. (1984). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.

Richmond, A. S., Berglund, M. B., Epelbaum, V. B., & Klein, E. M. (2015). a + (b₁) professor – student rapport + (b₂) humor + (b₃) student engagement = (Ŷ) student ratings of instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 119–125. doi:10.1177/0098628315569924

Sidelinger, R. J. (2014). Using relevant humor to moderate inappropriate conversations: Maintaining student communication satisfaction in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 31, 292–301. doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.924339

Socha, T. (2012). Children’s humor: Foundations of laughter across the lifespan. In R. DiCiccio (Ed.), Humor communication: Theory, impact and outcomes (pp. 141–155). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Srull, T. K. (1981). Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 440–463. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.7.6.440

Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic.

Teslow, J. (1995). Humor me: A call for research. Educational Technology Research, 43, 6–28. doi:10.1007/BF02300453

Tibbles, D., Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Weber, K. (2008). Organizational orientations in an instructional setting. Communication Education, 57, 389–407. doi:10.1080/03634520801930095

Torok, S. E., McMorris, R. F., & Lin, W. (2004). Is humor an appropriate teaching tool?: Perceptions of professors’ teaching styles and use of humor. College Teaching, 52, 14–20.

Vance, C. M. (1987). A comparative study on the use of humor in the design of instruction. Instructional Science, 16, 79–100. doi:10.1007/BF00120007

Veatch, T. (1998). A theory of humor. Humor, the International Journal of Humor Research, 11, 161– 215. doi:10.1515/humr.1998.11.2.161

Vela, L. E., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2015, Nov.). Can humor skill be improved? Investigating the effect of communication training on adaptive and maladaptive humor styles, knowledge, self-efficacy, and motivation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.

Vela, L. E. Booth-Butterfield, M., Wanzer, M. B., & Vallade, J. (2013). Relationships among humor, coping, relationship stress, and satisfaction in dating relationships: Replication and Extension. Communication Research Reports, 30, 68–75. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.746224

Wakshlag, J. J., Day, K. D., & Zillmann, D. (1981). Selective exposure to educational television programs as a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 27–32. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.27

Wanzer, M. (1998). An exploratory investigation of student and teacher perceptions of student‐ generated affinity‐seeking behaviors. Communication Education, 47, 373–382. doi:10.1080/03634529809379144

Wanzer, M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2012). Measurement issues in humor communication. In R. DiCiccio (Ed.), Humor communication: Theory, impact and outcomes (pp. 51–72). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Wanzer, M., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (2005). “If we didn’t use humor we’d cry”: Use of humor as coping in healthcare. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 105–125. doi:10.1080/10810730590915092

Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and student’s reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48–62. doi:10.1080/03634529909379152

Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, B. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between teacher humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238

Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178–196. doi:10.1080/03634520600566132

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1996). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 93–115). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Zillman, D., Williams, B., Bryant, J., Boynton, K., & Wolf, M. (1980). Acquisition of information from educational television programs as a function of differently paced humorous inserts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 170–180. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.2.170

Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 5–15. doi:10.1080/00220973.1988.1080649