An investigation in the phenomenon of humour

An investigation in the phenomenon of peevishness supposition is a universal phenomenon which shows in the tribal and industrialized societies (Apte, 1985). In the Oxford side Dictionary, vagary is defined as that quality of actions, speech, or writing which excites recreation oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, mutation (Simpson Weiner, 1989). From the psychology perspective, gratify is express as a cognitive, delirious and motivational stance toward incongruity, as inherent in merry artifacts, yet as closely in inadvertently comical situation, our fellow behaviour and attitudes, in fate and life and human nature and existence in customary (Ruch, 2002). The term finger of humor lead be more detail which refer to a record trait or individual-differences vari commensurate (Ruch, 1998). In addition, Schmidt-Hidding (1963) and Ruch (1998) pointed forbidden that humor has changed rapidly through jesth(predicate)out history and during different epochs which has been viewed as predominant mood, talent virtue, style, philosophical attitude or world view. harmonize to Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, antique and Weir (2003), the different facets of horse sense of gratify lend themselves to different step approaches, including maximal performance tests (eg. climate as cognitive ability), funniest ratings (eg. body fluid as aesthetic response), observer ratings and self-reported carapace. Furthermore, Tamaoka Takashima (1994) stated that humor actu entirelyy is grounded in a ethnic and social context as understanding humor should submits most knowledge of the language which humor was written.From previous(prenominal) search, humor is a lot to be tested in different dimensions which admit how it deals with stress and depression (Thornson, Powell, Sarm any(prenominal)-Schuller Hampes, 1997). Lefcourt (2001) stated that pile with great sense of humor are easily grab well with otherwises, grant better ability to cope wi th stress and to a fault have a better mental and carnal health. Martin (2000) explained that humor has set out a broad and multi-faceted construct in current psychological explore which refers to mental processing in creating, perceiving, understanding and appreciating humor, to characteristics of a stimulus or to the responses of the individual.Nowadays, at that place are lots of approaches to measure humor, which accommodates the self-report musical scales, ability tests, behavioural card techniques and human appreciation measures. Among all the measurements, on that point are a fewer well-known measurements which are frequently apply by exploreers in their studies. These measurements include heading mentality shell (CHS Matin Lefcourt, 1983), Situational temper chemical reaction Questionnaire (SHRQ Matin Lefcourt, 1984), The common sense of bodily fluid Questionnaire (SHQ Svebak, 1974), flat sentiency of Humor (MHSH Thorson Powell, 1993), and Humor direct ions Questionnaire (HSQ Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray Weir, 2003). hold up out Humor scale leaf was a 7 items scale which intentional to report individuals on the humor in coping with stress and the association amid sense of humor and both mental and physical health. Besides that, Coping brainpower scurf inquires participants social functiond surliness to alter difficult situation (Ruch, 1998). undermenti angiotensin-converting enzymed that, Situational Humor Response Questionnaire was a 21 items scale which has been used in research on sense of humor as a stress-moderator and also the association betwixt sense of humor and both mental and physical health. Thorson (1990) critic SHRQ is a measurement that defines sense of humor purely in terms of express mirthter frequency. Kuiper and Martin (1993) stated that individuals who score high marks in both the Coping learning ability shield and Situational snappishness Response Questionnaire had high(prenominal) level of sel f esteem, less discrepancy between their actual and perfect self-concepts, and greater stability in their self concepts e actuallyplace time. understanding of Humor Questionnaire was a 21 items measured with 3 dimensions (Metamessage sensitivity, liking of humor, and emotional expressiveness. SHQ used for investigating relationship between sense of humor and other some 1ality dimensions as well as measures of psychological and physical health and well being. Then, dimensional intelligence of Humor Scale was a 24 items scale with 4 factors (humor creativity and uses of humor for social purposes, uses of coping humor, appreciation of killing pot and appreciation of humor) comparing groups on sense of humor for ascertain correlates between sense of humor and other personality variables. Humor bearings Questionnaire was a 32 items scale which used to measure 4 humor styles (affiliative, self-enhancing, rapacious and self-defending) in accessing both positive and negative styl es of humor in correlation coefficiental research on the role of humor in psychological and physical health, etc.Lefcourt (2001) described that humor has al focusings been plunge to occur in everyone across many different cultures around the world. Three different categories of research area in cross pagan differences or national differences in humor were suggested by Goldstein (1976) cross cultural comparisons, cross national replications, and intracultural research of Western and non-Western cultures. Other than that, Nevo, Nevo Yin (2001) stated that cross cultural studies are invaluable because they jockstrap assess the generality of empirical phenomena and highlights the effects of specific cultural influences which show in Castell and Goldstein (1976) research. They compared different culture group desire Belgium, Hong Kong and US, and found out that US un same others nations, they preferred hoaxs which related to sexual and obstreperous content. In addition, humor ten ds to be interpreting in different way by various cultures which results of cultural and linguistics differences (Thorson, Brdar and Powell, 1997). Besides that, Hofstede (1983) found out that cultures could be differentiated on two dimensions individualism-collectivism andpower-distance. on that point are some(prenominal) studies using multidimensional mother wit of Humor to measures humor in cultural differences with the finding which culture score higher in creativity. In Nevo, Nevo Yin (2001) studies, there is a condenseifi stopt cross cultural difference found in the structured top dognaires was the tendency of Singaporean students to rely less on humor when coping with difficulty which concludes (Crawford Gressley, 1991) that they are tendency to produce humor instead than to appreciate it.The relationship of humor and gender are being discussed over year and year. According to Lampert Tripp (1998), men are more same(p)ly to joke, bollocks and kid, whereas women are more likely to act as an appreciative audience than to produce humor of their own. Powell, Sarmany-Schuller and Hampes (1997) stated that there are pretty practically gender neutral in using the MSHS questionnaire, however, there are still some differences between male and women in the sense of humor. A past research which done by Thorson and Powell (1996) using the MSHS questionnaires showing that males tended to act with higher score on the humor drudgery and the social uses of humor, while charr respond with higher score in the coping mechanism. The deal of Ho Chik (2010) have examines there is a gender differences in association with the hash out effects of coping humor on environmental mastery.The present study is interested in investigating the wit responses in both Malayan and British cultures, cross gender comparison and also the interaction between the culture differences and the gender in witticism. There are few studies in body fluid using Western countries c ulture like British, Canadian and east countries culture such as Singaporean, Hong Konger and Japanese but they arent studies done on Malayan mentality. There wasnt any research have been done between Malaysian and British but there were researches done between westbound and eastern culture which the possible action was do accordingly to the results done by previous cultural studies. In the support of the past research, two hypotheses were made for this study. The first hypothesis were that male participants exit be more tragicomical than effeminate which based on the finding of past research like Thornson Powell (1996) which shows men will score higher in the wittiness production and liquid body substance creativity of four-dimensional Sense of card Scale. Additionally, the second hypothesis was British tend to be funnier, hilarious comparing to Malaysian collectible to the cultural differences. Acordingly to the studies of humour in most of the eastern culture showed that they are not humourous as western cultures because of their own cultural bias. orderParticipantsThere were 100 participants (28 womanly Malaysian, 28 male Malaysian, 22 female British, 22 male British) were recruited for this study. 75% of British and Malaysian participants were recruited Middlesex University and Malaysia, the remaining 25% were recruited through netmail within Middlesex database and Malaysias friends. All the participants were required to respond to a demographic form and 4 sets of questionnaires (Coping body fluid Scale, Situational irritability Response Questionnaire, Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale, Humour Scale Questionnaire). For this experiment, participants were between 16 to 57 years of age, the average mean of the age was 24.44 (SD= 6.76). All of them were English literate, able to do their questionnaire without others help.DesignThe present study carried out had an free-lance groups design. There were two in hooklike variables which the f irst independent variable was the nationality of the participants and the second independent variable was the gender of the participants. The dependant variables are participants humour responses, which measured through 4 sets of questionnaires. These dependent variables include the Coping Humour Scale questionnaires, Situational Humour Responses Questionnaires, the affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, aggressive humour and self-defeating humour of Humour Scale Questionnaires, the humour creativity, coping humour, attitude towards humorous flock and facility of social uses of humour of Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale.MaterialsParticipants are required to complete a demographical form with few questions, eg.Gender, nationality, age etc. (appendix 3) and 4 sets of Humour questionnaires which they were Coping Humour Scale (appendix 4), Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (appendix 5), Multidimensional Sense of Humour (appendix 6), and Humour Styles Questionnaire (ap pendix 7).The Coping Humour Scale (CHS Martin Lefcourt, 1983) is a 7-item scale which designed to measure participants tendency to ask use of humour as a strategy for coping with stress and also the association between sense of humor and both mental and physical health. The CHS (Coping Humour Scale) is a 4-point Likert scale which ranging from strongly dis ascertain (1) to strongly agree (4). Eg 1. extract from appendix 4 strongly disagreeMildly disagreeMildly agreeStrongly agree1. I much lose my sense of humour when Iam having problems.2. I have lots found that my problemshave been greatly reduced when I try tofind something remaining in them. guinea pig 1The Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (SHRQ Martin Lefcourt, 1984) is designed to assess participants sense of humour as the tendency to joke and smile in a entire range of situations. The SHRQ includes 18 situational items that describe a possible life situation. Participants were asked to respond to the situation by imaging or recalling it, which they could be as abominable or they might be jocund. These questionnaires will be rated in a 5-point Guttman-type scale ranging from I wouldnt have found it particularly amusing (1) to I would have laughed heartily (5) (Martin 2006). Besides that, Martin (2006) also explain that the SHRQ correlated significantly with peer ratings of participants laughter, and tendency to use humour in stressful situations .Eg 2. remove from appendix 5.1. If you were shopping by yourself in a distant city and you unexpectedly saw an acquaintance from school (or work), how have you responded or how would you respond?(a.) I would probably not have bothered to speak to the person(b.)I would have talked to the person but wouldnt have shown much humor(c.) I would have found something to smile some in talking with him or her(d.)I would have found something to laugh approximately with this person(e.) I would have laughed heartily with the personExample 2Humour Style Questionnaires (HSQ Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray Weir, 2003) is a 32 items scale which consists of 4 humour style (each humour style contains of 8 items). The foursome humour style includes affiliative humour ( I enjoy making people laugh), self-enhancing humour (If I am tone of voice down in the mouth, I can usually cheer myself up with humour), aggressive humour (if someone make mistake, I will practically tease them virtually it) and finally the self-defeating humour (I let people laugh at me or make fun at my disbursement more than I should). Humour Style Questionnaires consists of 21 positively- phrased item and 11 negatively-phrased items which the 11 negatively-phrased items will be reversed in scoring. All questions are answered by participants on a cardinal-point scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7).Eg 4. ask out from appendix 7 sumly protest = 1Moderately disaccord = 2Slightly Disagree = 3Neither acquiesce nor Disagree = 4Slightly Agree = 5Moderately Agree = 6Totally Agree = 71. ______ I usually dont laugh or joke around much with other people.2. ______ If I am sense of touch depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humor.Example 4The Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (MHSH Thorson Powell, 1993) contains 24 self descriptive Likert item testing for the four factors which assess individual aspects of the sense of humour. These four factors includes humour creativity (sometimes I compute up jokes and funny stories), use of humour as a coping mechanism (Uses of humour help to put me at ease), attitudes towards humour itself (people who tell jokes are a anguish in the neck) and appreciation of humour (I appreciate those who generate humour). Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale consist of 18 positively- phrased item and 6 negatively-phrased item. The 6 negatively-phrased items are reversed in scoring. In this questionnaire, participants with higer scores indicate higher sense of humour (Thorson, Powell an d Samuel, 2001). Participants were required to indicate their choices on every question on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).Eg3.extract from appendix 6Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree1. I can ofttimes crack people up with the things I say.123452. Other people tell me that I say funny things.12345Example 3 forceParticipants were invited to participant in the study as they will be tending(p) an nurture sheet (appendix 1) which explained about the study. later finished reading the information sheet, they will be given the informed hope form (appendix 2) to sign if they willing to participate the experiment. After signing the consent form, they will require to satiate in the demographic form (appendix 3) which consists of gender, age, nationality etc. Then, four sets of questionnaires which include the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Questionnaire, Humour Styles Questionnaire, Coping Humour Scale and Situational Humour Resp onse Questionnaire will be given to them to fill in. After finishing all the questionnaires, participants were given a debriefing sheet (Appendix 8) and reject from the study.For participants recruited through email, they had also received the information sheet by email before they agreed to do the experiment. Then, they will receive a consent form to sign and together with the demographic form and four sets of questionnaires to fill in. After finished filling in all the answer, the consent form, demographic form and four sets of questionnaires will be given back through email. After receiving the questionnaires set, a debriefing sheet will be emailed to them.Resultsdescriptive statisticsThe means and standard deviations (S.D) for each of the measures are shown in tabular array one to duck two, by splitting gender (male, female) and nationality (British, Malaysian) respectively. From the table 1 shown rase the stairs, British male had higher mean than Malaysian Male in all of t he measures except Coping Humour scale. In the other hand, Malaysian female had higher mean compare to the British Female except Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense which shown in table 2.To be more specified, descriptive tables for both four subscale of Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale are shown in table three to table six.The lowly and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the dependent variables of Male Participants (50) were shown below as table 1.British Male specimen coat = 22Malaysian Male sample surface of it= 28Total precedent size =50 rememberS.D conveyS.DMeanS.DCoping Humour Scale2.890.432.960.40Situational Humour Response Questionnaire2.700.622.470.45Humour Style Questionnaire5.444.334.090.50Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense4.013.173.220.24 send back 1The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the dependent variables of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 2.British Female try size = 22Malaysian Female sample size= 28To talSample size =50MeanS.DMeanS.DMeanS.DCoping Humour Scale2.600.372.900.32Situational Humour Response Questionnaire2.340.432.460.39Humor Style Questionnaire4.050.464.090.67Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense3.300.293.160.26 tabulate 2The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Humour Style Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 3.Humor Style QuestionnaireBritish MaleSample size = 22Malaysian Male sample size= 28TotalSample size =50MeanS.DMeanS.DMeanS.DAffiliative humour (HSQ)5.411.235.180.795.291.00Self-enhancing humour (HSQ)4.701.104.000.894.281.04Aggressive humour (HSQ)3.501.043.500.683.490.85Self-defeating humour (HSQ)3.751.033.730.863.740.93Table 3The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Humour Style Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 4.Humor Style QuestionnaireBritish FemaleSample size = 22Malaysian Female sample size= 28TotalSample size =5 0MeanS.DMeanS.DMeanS.DAffiliative humour (HSQ)5.580.965.280.825.410.89Self-enhancing humour (HSQ)4.050.823.880.774.000.79Aggressive humour (HSQ)3.550.833.470.713.500.76Self-defeating humour (HSQ)3.030.903.721.053.421.04Table 4The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Male Participants (50) were shown below as table 5.Multidimensional Sense of Humour ScaleBritish MaleSample size = 22Malaysian Male sample size= 28TotalSample size=50MeanS.DMeanS.DMeanS.DHumour creativity3.480.943.490.613.460.76Coping humour3.630.483.620.513.620.49Attitude towards humorous people3.890.653.910.553.900.59Appreciation of humour4.250.654.290.634.270.63Table 5The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 6.Multidimensional Sense of Humour ScaleBritish FemalesSample size = 22Mal aysian Femalessample size= 28TotalSample size= 50MeanS.DMeanS.DMeanS.DHumour creativity3.360.613.320.763.290.70Coping humour3.560.673.530.433.540.54Attitude towards humorous people4.310.633.950.724.110.70Appreciation of humour4.570.444.520.594.540.52Table 6 grammatical constituent AnalysisFactor analysis was carried out in order to test the validity of the sub-scales in two measures (Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale). It was expected that the four factors of each measure would emerge from this analysis. Both Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as the analysis. Table s even so and table eight showed both of the results of the PCA of Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale using the Varimax rotation and Kaiser-Meyer-Oblin test. The results showed that the expected factors loading in previous studies did not emerge from the current sample.For the Humour Style Questionnaires, louvre items (questions 6, 22, 26, 27, 28) load in different factors comparing to Martins (2003) original questionnaires, which looks a raciness confusing. In addition, four items (questions 7, 13, 16, 30) did not load significantly (at higher up .3), therefore, there were excluded from the tables 7.For the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale, table 8 showed messy value load in each factors. Two factors can not be identified due to the messy items comparing with Thornson Powells (1993) original scale. Only one item did not load significantly (at above .3) on any factors.The overall results of the factor analysis were not satisfied, because the analysis came out in a mess. One of the reasons which contribute the following table 7 and table 8 might because of the small sample size (100) comparing with the striking sample size (1000) in Martins (2003) and Thornson Powells (1993) studies. Therefore, the following reliability test and analysis of v ariance will adopt past researchs scale.Table 7 Factor loadings of the 32 items of Humour Style Questionnaires (Principal Componenet Analysis using Varimax Rotation, N=100)ItemsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4I usually dont like to tell jokes or amuse people..765I dont often joke around with my friends..711I usually dont laugh or joke around much with other people..654I enjoy making people laugh..650I usually cant think of witty things to say when I m with other people..640Even when Im by myself, Im often amused by the absurdities of life..564I rarely make other people laugh by telling funny stories about myself..557I dont have to work very hard at making other people laugh I seem to be a naturally humorous person..468I often go overboard in putting myself down when I am making jokes or trying to be funny.767Letting others laugh at me is my way of keeping my friends and family in good spirits..716I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my o wn weaknesses, blunders, or faults..618I will often get carried away in putting myself down if it makes my family or friends laugh..598If I dont like someone, I often use humor or vamper to put them down.554I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should.517When I am with friends or family, I often seem to be the one that other people make fun of or joke about..479It is my experience that thinking about some amusing aspect of a situation is often a very legal way of coping with problems..391-.311If I am nip upset or unhappy I usually try to think of something funny about the situation to make myself feel better..775If Im by myself and Im feeling unhappy, I make an effort to think of something funny to cheer myself up..755If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humor..703My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting overly upset or depressed about things..357.322.360If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often cover it up by joking around, so that even my encompassing(prenominal) friends dont know how I really feel..344I do not like it when people use humor as a way of criticizing or putting someone down..654If I am feeling sad or upset, I usually lose my sense of humor..393.579Even if something is really funny to me, I will not laugh or joke about it if someone will be offended.506If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it..487Sometimes I think of something that is so funny that I cant stop myself from saying it, even if it is not appropriate for the situation..443I never participate in express mirth at others even if all my friends are doing it.-.334.336Eigenvalue4.733.212.412.02% of unevenness14.8010.047.536.34* Only Coefficient above .3 were shownTable 8 Factor loadings of the 24 items of Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (Principal Componenet Analysis using Varimax Rotation, N=100)ItemsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4I can say things in such a way as to make people laugh.. 837Other people tell me that I say funny things..825Im confident that I can make other people laugh.793My clever sayings amuse others..785I use humour to entertain my friends.779Im regarded as something of a wit by my friends..779People look to me to say amusing things.773I can often crack people up with the things I say..755Sometimes I think up jokes or funny stories.699I can actually have some control over a group by my uses of humour.643.324I can use wit to help adapt to many situations..545.337Trying to master situations through uses of humour is really dumb..704.333Humour is a lousy coping mechanism.697 duty somebody a comedian is a real insult..695I like a good joke.592People who tell jokes are a pain in the neck..581Humour helps me cope.814Uses of wit or humour help me master difficult situations.798Coping by using humour is an elegant way of adapting..750I appreciate those who generate humour.774Uses of humour to put me at ease..523.641I dislike comics.566Im uncomfortable wh en everyone is cracking jokes.372.447Eigenvalue6.673.412.261.13% of Variance27.8214.199.405.61* Only Coefficient above .3 were shownReliability TestThe internal consistencies (Cronbach Alpha) were run in order to check the reliability of the test. The Cronbach Alpha for the Coping Humour Scale was low, .50 but still acceptable and it was lower than the value .61 found in Martin and Lefecourts (1983) studies in Canada. The correct item-total correlation for the 7 item of Coping Humour Scale fall between .199 to .483, with an exception of Item 1 ( I often lose my sense of humour when I am having problems), which the corrected item-total correlation was -.22. This means that item 1 is not consistent with other items, if item 1 was deleted, the Cronbach Alpha of Coping Humour Scale will become .58, higher than current value .50.The Cronbach Alpha of the Situational Humour Response Questionnaire was high, .78 which was a reliable measure although it only consists of 18 items comparing to 21 items. The corrected item-total correlation for the 18 items of Situational Humour Response Questionnaire falls between .151 and .519. Given its comparability to previous study of 21 items, Cronbach Alpha ranging from .70 to .85 and test-retest correlation of around .70 was presented (Lefcourt Martin, 1986 Martin Lefcourt, 1984).The Cronbach Alphas of the four sub-scales (affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, aggressive humour and self-defeating humour) of the Humor Style Questionnaire were .77, .68, .47 and .69 respectively. The Cronbach alpha of aggressive humour was low .47, if the item 27 (If I dont like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put them down) was deleted, the Cronbach alpha will rise to an acceptable value .50. examine with Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray and Weirs research(2002), reliabilit