|
|
Book reviews/Rezensionen |
Glenn D. Wilson
Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Many psychologists have avoided the field of humour as lightweight. To his credit, Freud did not and modern researchers are beginning to recognise its importance as a cross-roads between higher humanity (intellect) and primitive emotions (the limbic system). Humour emerges as an important coping mechanism, a booster of immune strength and a general sign of mental health. For many years Willibald Ruch has been at the forefront of humour research and this interesting volume is testament to his contribution and command of the field.
Readers of PAID will be pleased to discover that personality connections are a major focus of the readings as well as other individual differences such as sex effects. Not surprisingly, the content of humour reflects our problems and preoccupations and this is what makes it so diagnostic. Male humour is typically more sexual and aggressive than that of females, while self-deprecation jokes are enjoyed more by women; assuming humour is a coping device, this no provides clues as to each gender's major adaptive challenges (Chapter by H. Lefcourt and S. Thomas). Political and ethnic preoccupations can often he identified by the categories of jokes that could exist within a society but don't. In an interesting analysis of cross-cultural differences, sociologist Christie Davies describes this "dog that didn't bark in the night" approach, noting the absence of political jokes in capitalist democracies and the distinct paucity of jokes about Gentile American Princesses (among others).
This is an excellent source book of modern research into humour, with a welcome emphasis on individual differences. There is a nice balance between theory and data and even a few samples of the product to illustrate and entertain. The list of published measuring instruments, with descriptions of the traits assessed, will be particularly useful to researchers.
Glenn D. Wilson
Institute of Psychiatry University of London
Paul E. McGhee
The Laughter Remedy, Montclair, NJ, USA
Following two introductory chapters, the book first examines a range of conceptual approaches to studying personality and humor, and then focuses on group differences in humor, intra-individual differences, and possible causes of each.
Progress in any domain of science depends on clear definitions of key concepts. In his introductory chapter, Ruch rightly emphasizes the need for more precise conceptualizations and definitions of humor, noting the frequent lack of rigor along these lines among humor researchers, and the widely varying operational definitions of humor currently used. He sets the foundation for a clearer understanding of the issues raised in the book by skillfully leading the reader through the history of varied uses and meanings of the term "humor" (along with related terms, such as "wit," "comic," etc.).
Rod Martin provides further perspective for understanding and evaluating the new contributions of this volume by providing an excellent historical overview of both 1) the classic general theories of humor (and the research inspired by them) and their implications for understanding individual differences, and 2) narrower approaches to understanding humor as a personality dimension. This review leaves no doubt that humor is a complex multidimensional phenomenon, open to widely varying conceptualizations.
We feel enriched by the diversity of models of humor and approaches to studying it, and yet the need is clear to find a way to integrate the views and data this diversity yields. We clearly have a long way to go to achieve the comprehensive, agreed-upon definition of humor that Martin calls for. We have no excuse, however, for failing to remedy the lack of "psychometrically sound measures" of humor that Martin notes are still lacking.
Kenneth Craik and Aaron Ware caution against relying too heavily on laboratory studies of humor, which miss much of the richness of the everyday humor that occurs in a social context. They emphasize the importance of giving greater attention to the socio-cultural context of humor, and of studying personality factors associated with humor in the context of the person's community, since humor behavior and one's reputation for humor have social consequences. Their act frequency measure provides a valuable new approach to investigating humor.
Victor Raskin examines the implications of his script-based theory of humor for the study of personality factors in humor. This cross-discipline analysis reminds us that each discipline brings its own conceptual frameworks to an attempt to understand any phenomenon. While it is interesting for a social scientist to look at humor through the conceptual lens of a linguist, this chapter seems out of sinc with the rest of the book.
It is difficult to argue with Raskin's obviously true statement that language and truth are not synonymous. Humor is stated to be one (among other) non-bonafide mode of communication. Raskin's distinction between interpreting information in a bonafide (truth) or non-bonafide (non-truth) mode makes the same kind of distinction I made nearly 30 years ago between reality-assimilation and fantasy-assimilation.
Ruch and Hehl present a model of humor which simultaneously focuses on three basic dimensions of the humor stimulus and two opposing kinds of humor response (appreciation and aversion). The idea that we need to examine both positive and negative reactions to humor in research is a valuable one that has generally been neglected by researchers.
Using a now-familiar factor analytic approach, Ruch has gone further than any other researcher in devising a means of demonstrating aspects of humor appreciation that appear to hold across divergent cultures. There have been endless debates throughout this century regarding how many different categories of humor should be distinguished. Ruch makes a strong argument that they can all reduced down to three: two based on structure (nonsense and incongruity-resolution) and one based on content (sex). The degree of universality of his model--while promising--remains to be seen. As Ruch himself points out, the best test of the universality of the model he proposes would involve starting with humor stimuli drawn from within each culture tested.
The extension of Ruch's model to the broader field of experimental aesthetics is especially exciting. As Ruch points out, earlier research and theory on aesthetics suggests that patterns of humor appreciation should parallel aesthetic preferences. Consistent with this view, his 3-factor model was found--using several different methods--to predict (in the expected direction) preferences for 1) simple vs. complex, 2) symmetrical vs. asymmetrical and 3) representational vs. abstract forms. This kind of research is especially important for a broader understanding of the role of personality factors in humor.
Peter Derks, Rosemary Staley and Martie Haselton tackle the generally neglected issue of the role of humor comprehension in humor appreciation. They fail to find the expected inverted-U relationship between comprehension difficulty and funniness of cartoons. The reason that this issue has been neglected for so long in research using adults may be that no one has come up with an effective way of assessing among adults the degree of cognitive effort (the presumed basis for the predicted inverted-U relationship) required to understand a joke or cartoon. Unfortunately, the approach of Derks, et al. also falls short.
Derks defines the effort required for humor comprehension in terms of subjects' own judgments of comprehension difficulty. We know very little, however, about individuals' ability to monitor their own cognitive processing activities in order to make a judgment about the ease with which the key information related to comprehension popped into their heads. It's seems safe to assume that widespread individual differences in this metacognitive skill exist.
I argued early in my career, and continue to believe, that an adequate test of this inverted-U relationship (the "cognitive challenge principle") requires some independent basis for assessing difficulty in achieving comprehension of the humor depicted. A time-to-comprehension approach (e.g., the subject hits a button when s/he gets the joke) might be adopted. Or an approach comparable to my Piagetian approach with children might use individuals responding to humor in a second language. Puns, for example, which are generally not that funny to adults tend to be much funnier in a second language--precisely because it requires more mental effort to get the point. The basis for predicting an inverted-U relationship is clear when such puns are presented to individuals along a continuum of competency in using the new language.
The current popular movement promoting the benefits of humor seems to be based on the assumption that humor is always a positive personality characteristic, and that all forms of humor are good for you. Nicholas Kuiper and Rod Martin perform the valuable function of questioning whether this is true, arguing that there are healthy and unhealthy forms of humor. Their data show that measures of sense of humor are positively correlated with very few other personality dimensions commonly assumed to be positive and desirable. However, as they note, existing measures may simply not be capable of assessing the dimension of healthy/unhealthy forms of humor. Their call to future researchers to give more attention to this distinction is an important one.
Herbert Lefcourt and Stacy Thomas provide an excellent review of the stress moderating effects of humor, as well as the research linking humor to other coping styles which might be expected to reduce the harmful effects of stress. The detailed examination of gender differences, and their possible role in accounting for the inconsistent findings in this area is especially valuable.
Willibald Ruch and Gabriele Kohler's temperamental approach to understanding humor marks a major step forward in humor research. It is consistent with other efforts by Ruch to anchor humor into broader domains of human behavior. The three temperaments distinguished--cheerfulness, seriousness and bad mood--are shown to account for a great deal of variance in a broad range of humor-related behavior. All three dimensions may be measured as traits or temporary states, a distinction that further enriches the model's explanatory power.
While I have long had my doubts about a single model capturing large amounts of the multidimensional complexity of humor that researchers have always observed, Ruch's factor analytic approach shows the most promise of approaching this goal. It should be noted, however, that temperament as used by Ruch does not necessarily imply that the observed humor behaviors associated with the three traits described are present at birth. Future research should examine influences on the development of these traits and the extent of continuity/discontinuity in them from childhood or adolescence into adulthood.
Martin Lampert and Susan Ervin-Tripp provide an excellent review of the literature related to gender differences in humor, and draw attention to important limitations of existing data, as well as to factors that must be considered in future research to clarify the nature of gender differences in humor.
Giovannantonio Forabosco does an excellent job of drawing together and making sense of a very diverse set of findings in the broad field of pathology and humor. He notes parallels between various kinds of pathological thinking and the normal thought patterns characteristic of humor, but also describes how humor is different. It is difficult enough deciphering the basic cognitive and affective processes in humor among normal individuals, but Forabosco manages to leave the reader with a good understanding of the ways in which personality and thought disorders influence the humor both produced and appreciated. His discussion of neuropathology and humor is especially informative.
Christie Davies offers a new sociological approach to studying cross-cultural differences in humor. The basic idea is that one way to obtain an understanding of a country's collective sense of humor is to find categories of jokes which do not appear in that country, even though they are common in neighboring countries. His observations are very insightful, and suggest that a full understanding of humor--whether at the individual or cultural level--requires a determination of what one is unwilling to joke about, as well as what one does joke about. In both cases, of course, we are left with the usual task of determining why the joking is or is not there.
The chapter by Lambert Deckers is especially important, since mood is a state variable which interacts with underlying personality trait factors to influence overall humor responsiveness. Deckers suggests that researchers should consider obtaining mood data, in addition to other measures, in order to determine the interaction of mood with other basic aspects of humor-related cognitive processing and behavior. He reviews the existing research on humor and mood, examining both the effect of mood upon humor and humor upon mood. He points out that our mood of the moment influences our receptiveness to any kind of humor, the cognitive processing of information related to the joke, cartoon, etc., and the level of appreciation shown--both as measured by laughter and judgments of funniness.
The finding that humor can be used to weaken a negative mood, as well as strengthen a positive mood offers a tool for taking control over one's own mood. The fact that only 34% of people say they use humor to manage their mood (data cited by Deckers) indicates that most people are failing to take advantage of this emotional benefit of humor. This makes the idea of improving one's humor skills (see chapter by Nevo) an important one.
Doris Bergen correctly points out that most of the research on children's humor and its development has not focused on personality factors. Following a brief review of selected aspects of the developmental literature, she presents data from a series of studies of her own on the development of humor in children. In a volume devoted to personality and individual differences, this chapter fails to adequately address issues related to the origins and development of the kinds of individual differences discussed in other chapters. Even in the absence of pertinent data, it would be appropriate here to raise issues related to the point at which personality factors related to humor among adults first become stable. Also, to what extent are stable individual differences influenced by experience? While Bergen focuses on childhood, a life span developmental approach should be adopted in discussions of the development of personality factors associated with humor.
Beth Manke takes an important step forward in discussing the long-neglected issue of the role of genetic versus environmental influences upon the development of children's humor. I believe she is correct in assuming that the best domain for pursuing this question lies in individual differences in interpersonal aspects of humor, not general developmental trends (assumed by many to have an underlying cognitive basis). After reviewing the research on family, twin and adoptions studies, she concludes that the research on humor is similar to that obtained in genetic investigations of other psychological traits. It is difficult to evaluate her discussion of this research, however, since in discussing patterns of correlations (e.g., humor ratings of identical and fraternal twins), she draws conclusions without noting whether the differences in these correlations are significant.
As Manke appropriately observes, demonstrating a genetic contribution to variance in various humor measures is only the first step. The next step is a determination of how genetic factors exert an influence upon humor. She resists offering any speculations along these lines, but this is an important direction for future research. Do inherited predispositions toward extroversion or introversion tip the balance toward increased or decreased humor interest and development? Is the key a genetically-linked personality trait or a more cognitively-oriented factor? Other questions also need to be addressed. For example, when does this genetic influence first become manifest? And is there continuity of genetically-linked humor behavior across the life span, or can environmental factors progressively weaken genetically-linked predispositions?
Finally, Ofra Nevo, Haim Aharonson and Avigdor Klingman report on their efforts to develop a humor intervention program designed to strengthen motivational, cognitive, emotional, social and behavioral components of one's sense of humor. While the study showed only limited increases in scores on a broad range of humor tests, it is an important model for future research along these lines. If humor is a set of skills, as Nevo et al. suggest, then children and adolescents must develop them to varying degrees as they mature. It remains an empirical question whether these skills can be taught to young, middle-aged and older adults. Numerous studies will be required to determine the types of approaches and lengths of training periods which work best for strengthening different components of one's sense of humor. Given the frequently-discussed health and coping benefits offered by humor, researchers have plenty of incentive for determining the extent to which humor training is a reachable goal.
This book will have a long shelf life. It is essential reading for any serious (or playful) humor scholar or researcher.
Peter Hain
Psychotherapeut, freie Praxis, Zürich
Willibald Ruch, der aufgrund seiner Forschungsarbeiten im Rahmen eines Heisenberg-Stipendiums an der Universität Düsseldorf und zahlreichen Publikationen inzwischen international zu den renommiertesten Experten zählt, präsentiert nicht nur einen Überblick zum akademischen state of the art. Die Beiträge von über 20 wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern amerikanischer, kanadischer, israelischer, englischer und deutscher Universitäten umfassen die wichtigsten bisherigen Entwicklungen und Konzepte, neue Aspekte, Modelle und Fragestellungen, laufende Forschungsprojekte, Arbeiten zu gruppen- und völkerspezifischen Unterschieden sowie individuellen Entwicklungsveränderungen oder Gruppenvergleichen. Die beeindruckende Bibliographie und eine Zusammenstellung der wichtigsten Meßinstrumente, Skalen und Fragebögen vervollständigen diese umfassende Arbeit, die alle Voraussetzungen mitbringt, auch für die praktische Anwendung im psychosozialen Bereich ein Grundlagenwerk zu werden.
to humor research