1. Laughing Together Or Joking Apart?
The Role of Humour Styles and Bullying in Children’s Friendships
Siân E. Jones, Claire Fox, Simon Hunter, & Jon S. Kennedy

2. Bullying in Schools
Affects a large number of children (circa 20% at any time point; highest levels in UK vis-à-vis Europe, Analitis et al., 2009).
It is linked with poor psychological adjustment, in the short- and long-term.

3. Bullying and Well-Being
Factors have been identified which appear to moderate the relationship between bullying and well-being , (e.g. friendship, Hodges et al., 1999).
Mediator variables have also been identified, (e.g. self blame, Graham & Juvonen, 1998).

4. Bullying and Humour?
Humour can be used as a way of coping with threatening events (Martin, 2007).
At the individual level:
Simon Hunter will talk on “Humour styles as moderators and mediators of the relationship between peer-victimisation and internalising” (Thursday, 10.20am).
At the group level:
Could humour use serve as a moderator between friendship groups and the effects of bullying?

5. Humour Styles Questionnaires
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).
The Child HSQ (Fox, Dean & Lyford, in press) has 24 items.
Four point response format, strongly disagree to strongly agree
Acceptable levels of reliability with year olds and clear four-factor structure
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.

6. Research Methodology
Part of the ESRC Humour and Bullying Research Project.
Sample of UK children, aged years (M = years, SD = 0.64 years, 612 male, 93% white).
Children completed the Child Humour Styles Questionnaire (Fox, Dean, & Lyford, in press).
Children also completed:
A four-item, self-report Loneliness and Social Satisfaction scale (Asher, Hymel & Renshaw, 1984),
Children’s Depression Inventory – short form (Kovacs, & Beck, 1977),
Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem measure.
Tin.

7. Research Methodology
Children were asked to nominate a best friend, and their friends, in the class, and to give each classmate a rating from 1 “dislike very much”, to 5 “like very much”.
Children nominated classmates according to their involvement in bullying (limited to three nominations).
Tin.

8. Victimisation in Friendship Groups
Hypotheses
Humour Style Use
Well-Being
Depressive Symptoms
Victimisation in Friendship Groups
Self-Esteem
Loneliness
Tin.
Defenders
in Friendship Groups
Well-Being

9. Friendship Groups Based on Baines & Blatchford (2009)
A core is defined as a set of children each of whom reciprocally nominates at least two others in the core (or one, if there is only one other) as a friend or best friend, and reciprocally gives at least one of those a peer acceptance rating of 5 (“like very much”).

10. Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. SR Self-Enhancing Humour
2. SR Affiliative Humour
.355
3. SR Self-Defeating Humour
.088
-.162
4. SR Aggressive Humour
.029
.126
.145
5. PN Verbal Victimisation
-.082
-.188
.158
.007
6. PN Physical Victimisation
-.096
-.124
.079
.046
.609
7. PN Social Victimisation
-.094
-.179
.138
.000
.774
.639
8. Child Depression Inventory
-.226
-.312
.398
-.015
.233
.124
.221
9. Self-reported loneliness scale
-.151
-.330
.390
-.067
.234
.267
.719
10. Self-reported self-esteem scale
.235
.317
-.421
-.062
-.127
-.066
-.138
-.714
-.607
11. Defenders in Cores
.022
.043
.033
-.054
.069
.091
.103
-.013
-.017
.044
12. Victims in Cores
-.043
.094
-.045
.153
.141
.177
.150
.078
-.101
-.080

11. Well Being and Victimisation in Cores
There was a significant association between self-esteem and presence of victims in member cores (and depression and presence of victims in member cores) moderated by affiliative humour.
Depressive symptoms, F(3, 576) = 25.85, p < .001, B = 8.32 p<.001.
Self-esteem, F(3, 599) = 27.54, p = .001, B = , p<.001.
Self-Esteem
Depressive Symptoms

12. Well Being and Defenders in Cores
There was a significant association between self-esteem and presence of defenders in children’s cores, moderated by self-enhancing humour, F(3, 603) = 18.92, p = .001, B = 2.98, p=.05.
Self-Esteem

13. Well Being and Defenders in Cores
There was a significant association between victimisation and depression , moderated by the presence of defenders in children’s member cores.
Social victimisation, F(3, 595) = 13.66, p < .001, B = -.201, p=.005.
Physical victimisation, F(3, 595) = 5.40, p = .001, B = -.282, p=.006).
No association for verbal victimisation.
Social Victimisation
Physical Victimisation

14. Summary
Children’s well-being is related to their peer-nominated involvement in bullying, their friendship group memberships and humour use.
Affiliative humour moderates the association between belonging to a core where there is high victimisation and self esteem (also depression).
The association between the presence of a defender in participants’ cores and self-esteem was moderated by the participants’ self-enhancing humour.
The presence of a defender in participants’ cores moderated the association between victimisation and depressive symptomatology.

15. Thank you 
To all the children who took part, and the parents and teachers who allowed them to do so. To you for listening or
Hayley Gilman
Lucy James
Sirandou Saidy Khan
Becky Hale
Rebecca Serella