p.149

4.1   Humor styles in the workplace

Nicholas A. Kuiper and Nadia B. Maiolino

Humor styles in the workplace

Over the past decade there has been an increasing recognition that humor can play an important role in many different facets of business. Some of the positive benefits of workplace humor include greater team unification, enhanced idea generation, and frustration relief.¹ It has also been proposed that humor can be used as a multifunctional management tool to help achieve a number of positive organizational objectives, including reductions in employee stress, improvements in communication, fostering creativity, and the enhancement of both leadership and group cohesiveness.² This deliberate use of humor by supervisors to help generate greater problem solving and creativity in employees of an organization is also a prominent aspect of a model of management humor.³

It has been further suggested that humor use can be beneficial in terms of increasing organizational commitment, making negotiations more effective, raising employee satisfaction, increasing productivity, and reducing both absenteeism and turnover. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis found a number of positive benefits that were significantly associated with increased humor use.⁴ For employees that used benign humor in the workplace, these benefits included not only a greater ability to cope with workplace stress, enhanced work satisfaction, and increased performance, but also decreases in stress, burnout and work withdrawal. Supervisors that used more humor were also rated more positively by their subordinates, and these subordinates displayed greater workgroup cohesion and better performance, along with reduced absenteeism.

Despite these advances, several investigators have suggested that the investigation of humor in the workplace still remains limited.^{3, 4, 5, 6} One major concern relates to the limited research on the detrimental negative effects of humor in the workplace.⁴ This is not to say that researchers have been unaware of possible negative effects. It has been long recognized that the use of certain styles of humor, such as aggressive humor, can have a strong negative interpersonal impact that may lead to quite detrimental repercussions in the workplace.² The notion of a hostile work environment resulting from the use of negative humor has also resulted in the notion that humor in a business context can be a “double-edged sword.” In particular, humor can be positive by facilitating intercultural business meetings, or negative when it leads to undue collusion and exclusion.⁷ The downside of negative humor in the workplace is that it may not only be distracting, but may also hurt an employees’ credibility or even cause serious offense in a diverse workplace.¹ This negative humor, which is often intended to belittle or intimidate, can thus contribute to an increasingly hostile work environment.

Taken together, these comments suggest that it is important for humor-related research in workplace settings to move towards models of humor that have a multidimensional perspective that considers both positive and negative forms of humor. Accordingly, one goal of the present chapter is to describe and then build upon one contemporary model that clearly asserts that different humor styles can have either positive or negative intrapersonal or interpersonal effects. As described below, this humor styles model was developed by Rod Martin and colleagues to examine four distinct humor styles that individuals may vary on, namely, self-enhancing, affiliative, self-defeating, and aggressive humor.^{6, 8}

p.150

The present chapter focuses on this humor styles model, as it offers several advantages.^{6, 9, 10} First, it is a relatively comprehensive multidimensional model of individual differences in sense of humor that covers both the positive and negative aspects of humor for either self (intrapersonal) or others (interpersonal). To elaborate, self-enhancing humor is an adaptive style that uses positive self-focused humor as an effective coping technique for dealing with stressful life events and experiences. This humor style, which is non-detrimental to others, involves the ability to generate a humorous perspective on life in order to reduce negative emotional and cognitive responses to upsetting events and circumstances. Affiliative humor is also an adaptive humor style, but here the focus is on using benign positive humor to enhance and facilitate social relationships and interactions with others, often leading to enhanced group morale and relationships, and reduced conflict. In contrast to these two adaptive styles, both self-defeating and aggressive humor are considered maladaptive. Self-defeating humor consists of the use of self-focused negative humor that is extremely disparaging and puts oneself down. This excessively critical humorous ridiculing of the self is used in a misguided attempt to ingratiate oneself with others, and seek their acceptance and approval. Aggressive humor is also a maladaptive humor style that involves ridicule, sarcasm, teasing, and disparagement. However, the focus here is outward, with the deliberate aim of insulting and hurting others in a demeaning and derogatory manner. At a more general level, the advantage of using this 2 × 2 theoretical framework (adaptive/maladaptive humor style by self/other focus) is that it ensures that a very broad range of positive or negative effects of both positive and negative humor use can be captured in any setting of interest, including the workplace.

A second reason for focusing on the humor styles model as our primary theoretical framework for guiding humor-based research in the business environment is that this model has received a large amount of empirical support over the past decade or so.^{6, 10, 11} In a recent interview, Rod Martin indicated that, by now, a large number of empirical studies have examined various facets of his humor styles model, and more continue to appear.¹⁰ These humor studies typically employ the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), which is a 32-item, self-report measure assessing an individual’s level on each of the four humor styles. Sample items from each HSQ subscale are as follows:

The associated body of research literature, which includes cross-cultural studies on humor, has offered considerable empirical support for the theoretically expected four-factor structure of the HSQ, corresponding to the four humor styles.^{9, 10, 11}

A large number of studies in the humor styles literature also provide evidence of good reliability, validity, and predictive utility for the HSQ and its underlying 2 × 2 theoretical model.^{6, 10, 12} These studies have found that each of the four humor styles are related to various indices of psychological well-being in the expected manner.^{9, 10, 12, 13, 14} At the intrapersonal level, for example, those high on self-defeating humor typically show greater levels of depression and anxiety, reduced self-esteem, and a much less positive life orientation; whereas those high on self-enhancing humor show the opposite pattern. Furthermore, higher levels of self-enhancing humor and affiliative humor are also associated with increased levels on other positive psychological indices, such as happiness, gratitude and savoring; whereas higher levels of aggressive and self-defeating humor are linked to significantly lower levels of happiness and gratitude.¹³ Interpersonally, a number of studies have also confirmed the theoretically expected relationships between the various humor styles and relevant psychosocial constructs. For example, higher levels of both affiliative and self-enhancing humor were associated with increased empathic concern for others, and significantly greater perspective-taking empathy. ¹⁵, ¹⁶In contrast, those high on aggressive humor showed significantly lower levels of empathy for others.

p.151

Our final reason for focusing on the humor styles model is that this theoretical platform has already received some initial consideration by investigators interested in examining humor in the workplace. As described below, the work conducted thus far appears to be promising in terms of supporting the utility of using this model to provide a comprehensive examination of sense of humor issues in a business environment.

Current workplace research using the humor styles model

Considerable research has now firmly established that the four humor styles are differentially associated with positive and negative psychological well-being. Both self-enhancing and affiliative humor are often linked to higher levels of well-being (e.g., greater happiness and higher self-esteem); whereas self-defeating humor is linked to a much more negative pattern of well-being (e.g., greater depression and anxiety). These types of relationships have also been examined in the workplace, but with a special emphasis on psychological well-being indices that are of particular relevance to the workplace. As one example, a two-week-long daily diary study in the Dutch automotive sector found that on the days that employees expressed more adaptive humor (affiliative), they were much more engaged in their work; and that on days when they expressed more maladaptive humor (self-defeating), they appeared more emotionally exhausted.¹⁷ This pattern indicates how differential relationships between the humor styles and well-being can also impact directly on performance in the workplace.

Further research has examined the impact of individual humor styles on broader organizational outcomes, such as organizational commitment and satisfaction with co-workers.¹⁸ This survey of over 300 workers in a number of large and small organizations found that both adaptive humor styles (affiliative and self-enhancing) were related to higher organizational commitment, whereas higher levels of aggressive humor showed the opposite relationship. Furthermore, higher levels of affiliative humor, and lower levels of aggressive humor were both associated with greater satisfaction with co-workers.

The effects of supervisor humor styles on employee job-related well-being has also been examined in several studies. As one example, it has been found that when leaders used more self-enhancing humor, their subordinates displayed more job-related positive affect, which could then be associated with greater job satisfaction and other positive job attitudes, such as higher job commitment.¹⁹ However, when leaders displayed more aggressive humor, this had a mild negative impact on the job-related affect displayed by their subordinates. This pattern suggests that self-enhancing humor may play a key role in supervisory–subordinate relationships and well-being.

p.152

A similar pattern was also evident in a survey of over 300 supervisor–subordinate dyads in several South Korean organizations.²⁰ This study also found that greater self-enhancing humor use by a supervisor was positively associated with better job performance and psychological well-being in subordinates. In addition, they also found that greater supervisor affiliative humor was associated with more positive employee psychological well-being, whereas greater supervisor aggressive humor showed the opposite relationship.

A different aspect of the humor styles relationship between supervisors and subordinates was examined in a study determining whether or not the quality of the working relationship between supervisors and subordinates was related to humor styles. Findings indicated that subordinates with higher levels of adaptive humor (self-enhancing and affiliative) liked their supervisors more, showed greater support and loyalty, and also displayed a greater willingness to contribute positively to organizational goals.²¹ The pattern was opposite, however, for employees that displayed higher levels of aggressive humor, as they showed much less respect for their supervisors. Interestingly, the humor styles of the supervisor had little impact on the subordinate’s perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their supervisors.

Other business-related research has found that an individual’s humor styles may also play a role in task persistence. Here, it was found that the amount of time and effort a person spends on a task was the greatest when that individual was high on self-enhancing humor.²² This persistence to achieve goals is an important element of success in a variety of different business settings (e.g., in pursuing sales, in establishing and building up a business), and it is proposed that the use of self-enhancing humor helps an individual restore and revitalize self-regulatory resources that contribute to enhanced persistence, including resiliency.⁹

Research in the workplace domain has also examined cross-cultural distinctions in the patterns of humor styles displayed by individuals. One study reported that American business managers working in the Middle East were significantly higher on both self-enhancing and self-defeating humor than their Egyptian and Lebanese employees.²³ Based on this pattern, it was suggested that American managers should be careful in using either of these two self-focused humor styles when attempting to make themselves more approachable to their employees. In particular, it was suggested that Arab employees might misinterpret the use of self-defeating humor, and consider it to be indicative of a less capable manager. In turn, this negative impression could then have a detrimental impact on manager–employee relationships, contributing to more difficulties in the workplace.

More generally, our brief overview suggests that the continuing use of the humor styles model to guide further research in the business domain is a promising and worthwhile endeavor. By highlighting the fundamental multidimensional nature of sense of humor, this model can help expand and clarify our knowledge regarding the beneficial workplace effects of using adaptive humor styles, such as affiliative or self-enhancing humor. Equally important, however, the use of this model can help to focus our attention on the need to greatly increase our understanding of the possible detrimental impact of the maladaptive humor styles, such as aggressive or self-defeating humor. While workplace investigators have long acknowledged the possibility of detrimental effects of humor use in business settings,² the actual amount of research on negative aspects of humor in these settings has been relatively circumscribed.⁴ As such, the remainder of this chapter suggests some directions that this research might take.

p.153

Extensions of the humor styles model in a business context

The first extension we consider builds upon a recent humor climate approach that has stressed the importance of much more broadly considering the positive or negative nature of the humor typically evident in the workplace, including humor in groups of employees.⁵ As highlighted below, this more extensive humor climate may then have pervasive positive or negative effects on other individuals and groups, both within and outside of the organization.

Humor climate approach

Most of the humor styles research to date has considered the primary unit of analysis to be the individual. In other words, this research has typically focused on measuring the humor styles displayed by a given individual (e.g., a supervisor), and then determining how this person’s humor styles may have a systematic impact on the workplace construct being investigated (e.g., job satisfaction of employees). Although this focus on individual differences in humor styles has revealed interesting findings, it does not really capture the broader presence and tone (positive or negative) of the typical humor displayed by an entire group of employees. In other words, we still know very little about the more general humor environment the entire group works in; and how this humor climate may then impact on various work-related constructs of interest, such as job commitment, satisfaction, or productivity.

The humor climate model directly addresses this limitation by assessing the predominant positive or negative forms of humor experienced by employees, as an integral component of their workgroup setting.²⁴ Interestingly, some of these broader humor forms, which include affiliative and aggressive humor, derive, in part, from the original humor styles approach.⁸ The resulting model then offers a means of studying these positive and negative humor forms, and their associated effects, at a broad group level, rather than an individual level of analysis.

To illustrate for positive humor use, each member of a workplace group can be asked to complete a Humor Climate Questionnaire (HCQ),²⁴ which captures overall positive affiliative humor evident in that group (e.g., “Humor is often used to encourage or support coworkers”). This positive humor climate within a group provides a non-confrontational technique for workers in that group to interpret work-related events in a humorous and benign manner that can diffuse tension. Ultimately, this can serve to improve both intragroup and other organizational relationships, be they for an individual or an entire group.⁵

The HCQ also assesses two forms of aggressive humor.²⁴ The first of these, which is labeled negative humor, is directed at another member of the same group of employees (e.g., “If someone makes a mistake, they often will be ridiculed by others in the group”). This aggressive in-group humor involves demeaning and berating group members (e.g., “My coworkers sometimes use humor to belittle each other”). Disparaging treatment of a group member may initially foster greater conformity, but often comes at a high cost. In particular, a negative humor climate leads to the erosion of trust and respect within the group, breaking down group solidarity and isolating group members from one another and the organization. Ultimately this can lead to a serious deterioration in work performance that severely undermines group effectiveness in meeting organizational commitments and expectations.⁵

The second form of aggressive humor captured by the Humor Climate Questionnaire is labeled “out-group humor.”²⁴ Group members can use this form of negative humor to derogate and denigrate those outside of their specific group of co-workers. This can include both immediate and upper managers (e.g., “My coworkers often make jokes about management”), as well as more general put-downs of the entire organization and its policies (e.g., “Management policies are often a target for jokes or ridicule among my coworkers”). This out-group directed humor can have some positive functions by fostering greater group cohesiveness. Again, however, this can come at considerable cost, as the excessive use of out-group aggressive humor can lead to social and professional isolation of the group from the rest of the organization, and its goals and aspirations.

p.154

Although the humor climate model is a very recent addition to the psychological literature on humor in the workplace, it has already generated some promising initial empirical support. To begin, it has been demonstrated that the self-report measure central to this model, namely, the Humor Climate Questionnaire (HCQ), has very good psychometric properties pertaining to reliability and validity.²⁴ Even more importantly, however, this broad humor climate measure can predict additional levels of job commitment and satisfaction, above and beyond what can be accounted for by individual differences in humor styles. In other words, these researchers found that a more positive workgroup humor climate, as assessed via the HCQ, predicted significantly more job satisfaction and commitment than could be attributed to any of the individual humor styles displayed by workgroup participants in a group. Similarly, a higher level of negative humor climate for a given workplace group predicted significantly lower levels of job commitment and satisfaction than would be expected from a consideration of individual humor styles alone. As such, these findings clearly support the importance and increased utility of considering group-related humor climate in the workplace, in addition to a focus on individual differences in humor styles.

More generally, these findings argue for the further development of an integrative theoretical model of humor styles in the workplace that factors in considerations of group-level humor, as well as individual differences in sense of humor. In refining and testing this model it would be quite beneficial for further research in this domain to explore not only how these group versus individual difference aspects of humor in the workplace may relate to a much wider set of workplace relevant constructs, but also how these two different aspects of humor use in the workplace may interact with one another. To date, very little is known about humor use in the workplace beyond the individual level, and the integration of a group-level perspective with an individual differences approach would result in a more comprehensive theoretical model for guiding further research.

In the remainder of this chapter we suggest that such a model could be used to help explore the possible role of humor with respect to several important societal concerns that are also highly relevant to the workplace, such as sexism, racism, prejudice, and discrimination. We further suggest that the development of this integrated model could be informed by drawing from recent work that focuses specifically on aggressive humor styles that are derogatory in nature.^{25 26} This work offers a number of insights at both the individual and group level, in terms of furthering our understanding of both the positive and negative effects of using aggressive humor styles that are derogatory.

Derogatory aggressive humor in a business environment

Derogatory humor (also referred to as disparagement humor) has been defined as “a humorous communication that is intended to elicit amusement through the denigration, derogation or belittlement of a given target” (p. 163).²⁵ Although still relatively limited in scope, most of the contemporary humor theory and research investigating the social impact of this aggressive humor style can trace its origins back to Martineau’s seminal work on disparagement humor.²⁷ Martineau’s theory is briefly highlighted below, followed by an application to the workplace context.

p.155

Martineau’s theoretical perspective

Fundamental to Martineau’s theory is the concept of in-group versus out-group. As one example, an in-group might consist of a small tightly-knit group of male employees that work closely together in the same department. For this particular in-group, an example out-group might be upper level managers, or female employees that work together in another department of this same company. Building on these group distinctions, the positive or negative social consequence of derogatory humor then depends upon two additional factors. The first is whether the derogatory humor is directed at either an in-group (intragroup) or an out-group (intergroup). The second is whether the person using this derogatory humor is a member of the in-group or the out-group. Using these concepts, it has been proposed that derogatory humor delivered by an out-group member may lead to members of the recipient in-group showing greater group cohesion and solidarity, as they bond together and rally against these highly abrasive comments. As such, this derogatory humor style can have a positive in-group effect by serving as a social lubricant and enhancing relationships among members of the in-group. At the same time, however, these denigrating humorous comments can also lead to negative intergroup effects by fostering a collective hostile attitude that may contribute toward further intergroup conflict. In addition, depending on the in-group’s ability to deal with such abrasive humorous comments over a substantial period of time, there may also be negative effects that emerge, such as severe demoralization and disintegration of the in-group.²⁵

According to Martineau’s theory, other combinations are also possible.²⁷ For example, the use of derogatory humor by one member of a group that is directed towards another member of that same group may have some positive effects by encouraging group members to conform to prevailing group norms. In fact, this pattern was found in a recent study that demonstrated that participants who observed the aggressive humorous ridicule of others actually inhibited their own behaviors to conform more to group values and opinions, thus avoiding “jeer pressure.”²⁸

Further illustrations are provided in a recent review which concludes that derogatory humor can help shape social relationships and result in social consequences that range from positive to negative, depending on the specific group context and factors described above.²⁵ This conclusion has been reinforced in a recent theoretical review on the use of derogatory humor as a delegitimization strategy, to both devalue and dehumanize members of an out-group.²⁹ This theory points out that humor is a fundamental aspect of social life, and that the use of negative aggressive humor styles, such as derogatory humor, can have very serious negative intergroup consequences, including heightened discrimination, prejudice, sexism, and racism. As such, this review concludes that derogatory humor can play a key role in devaluing out-group members, with this type of aggressive humor style evident in much of everyday life, including the workplace.

Derogatory humor and the humor styles model in the workplace

From the preceding theoretical overview, it is clear that derogatory aggressive humor can have important ramifications in the work setting. As such we propose that a humor styles model that is applied to the workplace should expand to include a more detailed focus on derogatory humor and its consequences. This aggressive humor style has direct application to the business and society interface, as the use of a derogatory humor style can serve to develop and maintain a negative organizational environment. In turn this toxic climate can help foster serious detrimental effects in the workplace that are associated with both sexist and racist prejudice and discrimination. From a business and society perspective, these detrimental effects may span a number of issues, including reduced leadership effectiveness, reduced employee well-being, a poor organizational climate, less group cohesiveness, and reduced productivity.³⁰

p.156

Empirical work has demonstrated some of the damaging effects of derogatory humor in the workplace. In this research, both male and female participants were first exposed to either a non-sexist or sexist joke.³¹ Following this, participants then evaluated a work scenario in which a female employee was being patronized by her male boss. Consistent with the position that societal sexism is also quite evident in a business environment, it was found that those participants exposed to a sexist joke subsequently showed more tolerance of this discriminatory behavior by the male boss towards the female employee. This increased tolerance was then attributed to a prejudice releasing function for sexist humor. In other words, the use of sexist humor served to make it more socially acceptable to engage in subsequent discriminatory behaviors that can then demean and diminish others in this workplace.

Measuring derogatory humor in workplace settings

Findings such as those described above indicate that it would be very worthwhile to continue with additional research on the detrimental impact of derogatory humor in a business environment. In pursuing this work, we would encourage the use of a variety of recent measures of derogatory humor. One candidate, for example, is to use the Humor Climate Questionnaire (HCQ).²⁴ As described previously, this measure assesses both negative humor within an in-group, as well as negative humor that is out-group focused. This fundamental group distinction maps directly onto Martineau’s original formulations regarding derogatory humor,²⁷ as well as subsequent theoretical extensions by other researchers.^{25, 26} Accordingly, using the HCQ in further research in this domain is certainly warranted, from both a theoretical and empirical perspective.

We would also encourage the use of other measures of derogatory humor, such as the Negative Humor Questionnaire.³⁰ Much like the HCA, this brief 13-item scale was also developed specifically for use in organizational settings, but captures two slightly different dimensions of negative humor. The first is ‘domination’ (“Telling a put-down joke about someone to their face could help me gain an advantage over them”); whereas the second is ‘denigration’ (“It is not OK for my good friend who is from another ethnic group to tell jokes about my ethnic group”).

The NHQ provides an assessment of a person’s tendency to use these two negative dimensions of humor to enhance their own power and privilege in an organization.³⁰ This individual power focus is distinct from the organizational humor climate focus of the HCQ, suggesting these two scales could be used to examine different research issues pertaining to derogatory humor use in the workplace. For example, it has been suggested the NHQ might be used as an employee screening tool, with careful thought being given to the appropriateness of hiring those that obtain high derogatory humor scores on this measure.³⁰ In addition, it has also been proposed that those scoring low on the Negative Humor Questionnaire might be those too easily offended by more harmless humor in the workplace.³⁰ Both of these suggestions could be empirically evaluated in further research on derogatory humor use in the workplace. Such research, with its focus on the effects of an individual’s level of derogatory humor (as assessed by the NHQ), could also include a broader organizational focus on in-group versus out-group humor climates (as assessed by the HCQ). Furthermore, if these assessments also included the original four humor styles (as assessed by the HSQ), then future work employing this combination of humor measures could yield a much more comprehensive theoretical–empirical picture of humor use, and its effects, in the workplace.

p.157

Refining derogatory humor theory

Over the years, Martineau’s theory has provided a useful conceptual framework for examining various societal effects of disparaging humor. Further research has spurred the development of additional explanatory constructs involving the use and effects of derogatory humor. These additional constructs can then enhance our understanding of the various factors that may be relevant to the use of derogatory humor in the workplace. One example of such a construct is perceived norm theory.³² This concept derives from reviews of the literature on disparagement humor, which have revealed that not all of the hypotheses advanced by Martineau in his original theory have been supported by subsequent research. In particular, some research shows that being exposed to derogatory humor does not necessarily instigate a more negative view of the targeted group. Instead, this derogatory humor functions as a release mechanism for prejudices that already exist in some members of the group, but are not typically revealed as outward behavioral expressions of disparagement or discrimination. In other words, for group members that already have sexist attitudes, the telling of a demeaning sexist joke or humorous sexist comment is perceived by these individuals as evidence of the existence of work-setting norms that are highly tolerant of discrimination against women. In turn, this perception of increased tolerance or acceptance serves to release their own prejudices in this setting, which are then expressed in the form of additional demeaning and discriminatory behaviors towards women. Several examples of research studies showing this perceived norm effect in a business context are described in a recent review.²⁵

Effects of individual differences on derogatory humor

In addition to providing support for perceived norm theory, contemporary research highlights the importance of individual differences between group members that can either limit or enhance the negative effects of derogatory humor in a business setting. As one example, in the study described previously, it was also found that the effects of sexist humor on the degree of tolerance for the male boss’s patronizing behaviors towards his female employee were most evident for participants that scored high on an individual difference construct of hostile sexism.²⁵

Further research studies have examined the effects of social power and disparagement humor on the evaluations of subordinates. Of particular relevance in the present context is that the demeaning effects of derogatory humor regarding subordinate employees was most pronounced when this humor was directed at individuals in leadership positions of power.³³ In contrast, this same derogatory humor, when directed towards those in low power positions, showed virtually no evidence for subsequent discrimination and devaluation of the employees.

Taken together, these studies suggest that it is important for any future research examining the effects of derogatory humor in a business context to also consider the potentially important role of individual difference factors. These individual differences could then be incorporated into an extended humor styles model that could provide a more complete theoretical framework for guiding future research. To illustrate further, building on prior work,²⁶ one aspect of this research approach might further explore the relationships between the humor styles and other well-established individual difference predictors of prejudice-related behaviors. In this study, it was reported that those scoring higher on individual difference predictors of intergroup prejudice, including modern racism and social dominance orientation, also endorsed much higher levels of aggressive humor use.²⁶ Accordingly, further research in a business context might determine how the specific dimensions of denigrating and dominating humor identified previously, may also relate to these racist attitudes and social dominance views. This identification of prejudice-prone individuals would then help determine more precisely the most important individual difference characteristics that can serve to enhance the negative sexist or racist effects of derogatory humor use in a business setting.

p.158

A theoretical–empirical elaboration of the humor styles model might also determine if “cavalier humor beliefs” should be incorporated as an important individual difference construct that is related to the expression of sexist or racist behaviors in the workplace. Individuals endorsing cavalier humor beliefs have the uncritical view that “a joke is just a joke.”³⁴ In other words, these individuals adopt a nonchalant and lighthearted approach to all forms of humor, including derogatory humor that can be quite harmful or detrimental to others. By dismissing the possibility of any harm coming to the groups or individuals that are being made fun of, these cavalier humor beliefs provide a psychologically benign cover of acceptance and legitimacy for further devaluations of out-groups that are not liked. Future work in a business setting might thus establish if those with heightened cavalier humor beliefs also show greater acceptance of the prejudicial attitudes and views that underlie much of derogatory humor.³⁴ If this is the case, then this work might also consider means of challenging these beliefs and replacing them with more grounded perceptions of the true negative impact of derogatory humor, be it in the workplace or elsewhere.

Concluding comments

Research to date has clearly shown the importance of humor in the workplace. This research is also beginning to reveal the complex relationships that exist between humor, different aspects of the workplace, and their interaction with broader societal issues such as sexism, discrimination, and prejudice. In the past, considerable emphasis has been placed on the notion that humor is positive, and can thus only serve to provide many benefits to business and society. This traditional view, however, has been challenged by current theory and research that provides increasing evidence that not all humor is good. In fact, this work has described several very detrimental aspects of humor that can have a profound negative impact on the workplace and society

It is against this theoretical–empirical backdrop that we have proposed the humor styles model as a particularly useful theoretical tool to explore humor-related issues in the business environment, and how these issues may then intersect with broader societal concerns. A fundamental tenet of this model is the consideration of the effects of both positive and negative humor in the workplace. This makes the humor styles model an ideal vehicle for redressing the imbalance towards positive humor that is often seen in the workplace research domain. Moving towards a more balanced theoretical–empirical framework provides the opportunity to more fully consider the pros and cons of such business-related issues as attempting to teach humor skills or styles in the workplace, or examining how group-level constructs of humor, such as humor climate, may interact with individual differences in humor styles. Using this integrative model also allows us to draw from the associated domains of social psychology and personality research to investigate the potential positive and negative effects of using derogatory aggressive humor in workplace settings. By proposing a theoretical orientation that combines several different levels of analyses, including group effects of humor as well as individual difference factors, our proposed extensions of the humor styles model may thus help us understand more clearly major societal issues that impinge heavily on the workplace, including sexism, racism, prejudice, and discrimination.

p.159

References

  1    Lyttle, J. (2007). The judicious use and management of humor in the workplace. Business Horizons, 50, 239–245.

  2    Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69.

  3    Wood, R. E., Beckman, N., & Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Management humor: An asset or liability? Organizational Psychology Review, 1(4), 316–318.

  4    Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155–190.

  5    Blanchard, A. L., Stewart, O. J., & Cann, A. (2014). Making sense of humor at work. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 49–70.

  6    Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. New York: Academic Press.

  7    Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humor in business: A double-edged sword—A study of humor and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4–28.

  8    Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in the uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.

  9    Kuiper, N. A. (2012). Humor and resiliency: Towards a process model of coping and growth. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(3), 475–491.

10    Martin. R. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2016). Three decades investigating humor and laughter: An interview with Professor Rod Martin. Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Psychological Investigations of Humor and Laughter, 12(3), 498–512.

11    Kuiper, N. A. (2016). Psychological investigations of humor and laughter: Honoring the research contributions of Professor Rod Martin. Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Psychological Investigations of Humor and Laughter, 12(3), 312–319.

12    Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 135–168.

13    Maiolino, N. B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2014). Integrating humor and positive psychology approaches to psychological well-being. Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Humor, Well-being and Health, 10(3), 557–570.

14    Maiolino, N., & Kuiper, N. A. (2016). Examining the impact of a brief humor exercise on psychological well-being. Translational Issues in Psychological Science: Special Issue on Humor, 2(1), 4–13.

15    Ford, T. E., McCreight, K. A., & Richardson, K. (2014). Affective style, humor styles and happiness. Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Humor, Well-being and Health, 10(3), 451–463.

16    Guenter, H., Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Gijsbers, W., & Van Iterson, A. (2013). How adaptive and maladaptive humor influences well-being at work: A diary study. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 26(4), 573–594.

17    Hampes, W. (2014). The relation between humor styles and empathy. Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Humor, Well-being and Health, 10(3), 34–45.

18    Romero, E. J., & Arendt, L. A. (2011). Variable impacts of humor styles on organizational outcomes. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 649–659.

p.160

19    Unal, Z. M. (2014). Influence of leader’s humor styles on the employee’s job-related affective well-being. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance, and Management Sciences, 4(3), 201–211.

20    Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Wong, N. Y. S. (2015). Supervisor humor and employee outcomes: The role of social distance and affective trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Psychology, online version April 22, 2015.

21    Wisse, B., & Rietzschel, E. (2014). Humor in leader-follower relationships: Humor styles, similarity and relationship quality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 249–269.

22    Cheng, D., & Wang, L. (2014). Examining the energizing effects of humor: The influence of humor on persistence behavior. Journal of Business Psychology, published on-line December 27, 2014.

23    Kalliny, M., Cruthirds, K. W., & Minor, M. S. (2006). Differences between American, Egyptian and Lebanese humor styles: Implications for international management. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(1), 121–134.

24    Cann, A., Watson, A. J., & Bridgewater, E. A. (2014). Assessing humor at work: The humor climate questionnaire. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 307–323.

25    Ford, T. E. (2015). The social consequences of disparagement humor: Introduction and overview. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 163–169.

26    Hodson, G., MacInnis, C., & Rush, J. (2010). Prejudice-relevant correlates of humor temperaments and humor styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 546–549.

27    Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (eds.), The psychology of humor, 101–125, New York: Academic Press.

28    Janes, L., & Olson, J. (2015). Humor as an abrasive or a lubricant in social situations: Martineau revisited. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 271–288.

29    Hodson, G., & MacInnis (2016). Derogating humor as a delegitimization strategy in intergroup contexts. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(1), 63–74.

30    Cruthirds, K. W., Wang, Y. J., & Romero, E. J. (2013). Insights into negative humor in organizations: Development of the Negative Humor Questionnaire. Journal of Business Management, 19(3), 7–18.

31    Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1094–1107.

32    Ford, T. E., Richardson, K., & Petit, W. E. (2015). Disparagement humor and prejudice: Contemporary theory and research. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 171–186.

33    Arguello, C., Willis, G. B., & Carretero-Dios, H. (2012). The effects of social power and disparagement humor on the evaluations of subordinates. Revista de Psicologia Social, 27(3), 323–336.

34    Hodson, G., Rush, J., & MacInnis, C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (Except when it isn’t): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 660–682.