1. Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization
Dr Claire Fox1, Dr Simon Hunter2, Dr Siân Jones3
1Keele University, 2University of Strathclyde, 3Oxford Brookes University
Contact:
Today I am going to present findings from the first stage of the ESRC funded Humour Styles and Bullying in Schools project, which I am working on with Sian Jones and Simon Hunter, who is based at the University of Strathclyde.

2. Humor Styles Questionnaire (Adult)
Four dimensions:
Self-enhancing (e.g. ‘My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting too upset or depressed about things’)
Aggressive (e.g. ‘If someone makes a mistake I often tease them about it’)
Affiliative (e.g. ‘I enjoy making people laugh’)
Self-defeating (e.g. ‘I often try to make people like me or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders or faults’)
Data supports the reliability and validity of the HSQ (Martin et al, 2003; Martin, 2007)
Much stronger correlations between humor styles and psychological adjustment…..
Research using the Humour Styles Questionnaire for adults (developed by Martin et al, 2003) suggests that individual mental health may depend on how people use humour in their everyday lives. The HSQ is a theoretically driven measure which assumes that humour can be both adaptive (‘self-enhancing’ and ‘affiliative’) and maladaptive (‘aggressive’ and ‘self-defeating’).
Self-enhancing humour is used to enhance the self, but is not detrimental to others (e.g. ‘My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting too upset or depressed about things’). Aggressive humour on the other hand, while enhancing the self, at least in the short-term, is done at the expense of others (e.g. ‘If someone makes a mistake I often tease them about it’). Over the long-term, this style is believed to be detrimental to the self because it tends to alienate others (Martin, 2007). Affiliative humour enhances one’s relationships with others and reduces interpersonal tensions (e.g. ‘I enjoy making people laugh’). Self-defeating humour also enhances one’s relationships with others, but at the expense of denigration of the self (e.g. ‘I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders and faults’). Martin et al (2003) state that, over the long term, it is damaging for the individual since it involves denigration of the self and repression of one’s own emotional needs
In using the HSQ, Martin et al found much stronger correlations between humour styles and psychological adjustment compared to previous studies. It was argued that this was because previous questionnaires did not distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles of humour.
Data collected on a large number of participants, aged years, and in various different countries, supports the proposed four-factor structure of the scale, with all four sub-scales showing good internal consistency. Research has consistently provided data in support of the construct validity of each scale and the discriminant validity of all four scales (Martin, 2007). Thus, I was confident that the HSQ for children and adolescents would prove to be equally valid and reliable.

3. Humor and psychosocial adjustment in adults
Adaptive forms of humor negatively correlated with depression/anxiety and positively correlated with self-esteem and life satisfaction
Self-defeating humor – opposite effects (Martin et al., 2003; Kuiper et al., 2004)
Maladaptive forms of humor – negative impact on interactions with others (Kuiper et al., 2010; Ziegler-Hill et al., 2013)

4. Humor and psychosocial adjustment in children
Links between humor and social competence (Masten, 1986; Sherman, 1988)
Klein and Kuiper (2006):
Children who are bullied at a disadvantage with respect to the development of humor competence
Gravitate to self-defeating humor
Self-defeating humor as a risk factor for victimisation

5. Interpersonal risk model
Kochel et al. (2012)
Interpersonal risk model
PV Adjustment problems
Symptoms driven model
Adjustment problems PV
Transactional model
PV Adjustment problems

6. Reciprocity - Peer Victimization and Humor
More self-defeating
Peer victimization Less affiliative
Less self-enhancing
Previous research – self-defeating humour and affiliative humour associated with self-perceived social competence.

7. ESRC Humor and Bullying Study
Short-term longitudinal design
Participants (Time 1) N = 1234:
Gender: 599 male and 620 female (15 missing)
Age: years, mean age = 11.68(SD= .64)
Measures:
Peer nomination inventory
Peer nominations of 4 types of victimisation
Self-report questionnaires:
Child HSQ (Fox et al., 2013)
Self-report victimisation questionnaire to measure 3 types (Owens et al., 2005)
These two strands map onto the functions of humour I outlined at the beginning: the social and emotional functions of humour.

8. Results
Peer victimization (SR and PN) positively correlated with SD humor and negatively correlated with Aff humor at T1 and T2
PN of peer victimization negatively correlated with self-enhancing humor at T1 and T2
Analytic approach:
Cross-lagged measurement models
Self-report of humor styles
SR of peer victimization
PN of peer victimization
Combined cross-lagged measurement models
SR of peer victimization and humor styles
PN of peer victimization and humor styles

9. Table 1: Cross-lagged measurement modelsχ2 df
χ2/df
CFI
RMSEA
Model 1: SR peer victimization
***
575
5.16
.87
.058
Model 2: Model 1 with constraints
Model 3: PN of peer victimization
Model 4: SR of humor styles
Model 5: Model 4 with constraints
***
68.11***
***
***
563 15
1029
1023
3.75
4.54
2.44
2.30
.92
.99
.91
.047
.054
.034
.032
***p < SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

10. Table 2: Full cross-lagged models combining peer victimization and humor stylesχ2 df
χ2/df
CFI
RMSEA
Model 6: SR peer victimization and humor
***
3298
2.10
.91
.030
Model 7: PN peer victimization and humor
***
1406
2.08
.93
***p < SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

11.   Figure 1: Schematic of structural model for self-reported peer victimization and humor styles. Only significant paths shown.

12. Figure 2: Schematic of structural model for peer nominated peer victimization and humor styles. Only significant paths shown

13. Summary of findings
Evidence of a vicious cycle between peer victimization and the use of adaptive and maladaptive humor styles
Peer victimization appears to increase future use of self-defeating humor and decrease the use of affiliative humor
At the same time, greater use of self-defeating humor increases the risk of later peer victimization, while greater use of affiliative humor reduces the risk of later victimization
Support for Klein and Kuiper’s (2006) predictions
And experimental studies that have examined the impact of the four humor styles on others

14. Conclusions
For many years, young people have been encouraged to use humor as a way of dealing with the bullies, most notably by ‘fogging’
However, our evidence suggests this can lead to negative outcomes, whereas taking an approach based on affiliative humor is more likely to lead to positive outcomes
Is it possible to teach children to use the more adaptive styles of humor and discourage use of aggressive and SD humor?

15. Further information http://esrcbullyingandhumourproject.wordpress.com/

16. Acknowledgements ESRC Rod Martin Sirandou Saidy Khan and Hayley Gilman
Lucy James and Katie Wright-Bevans
Teachers, parents and children

17. Thank you for listening