Please submit your write-up of no more than 400 words: What is the association between coffee drinking and risk of Parkinson’s disease? In your write-up, address each of the following points:• C
Research Reports
Strategically Funny: Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style in Relationship
Initiation
Theresa E. DiDonato* a,Brittany K. Jakubiak b
[a] Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. [b] Carnegie Mellon University ,Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
Abstract
Not all humor isthe same, yet little isknown about the appeal ofspecific humor styles inromantic initiation. The current experimental study addresses this gap by investigating how romantic motives (short-term orlong-term) affect individuals’ anticipated use of, and response to, positive humor and negative humor .Heterosexual participants (n =224) imagined the pursuit ofeither adesired short-term or long-term relationship, indicated the extent towhich they would produce positive and negative humor ,and reported how their own interest would change inresponse tothe imaginary target’ suse ofpositive ornegative humor .Results revealed that individuals are strategic intheir humor production as afunction ofrelational motives. Individuals produced positive humor inboth contexts but limited their use ofnegative humor when pursuing along-term relationship. The target’ spositive humor increased individuals’ attraction, especially women’ s,and although negative humor boosted attraction, itdid not boost attraction more for short-term than long-term relationships. Findings extend atrait-indicator model ofhumor and their implications are discussed inlight ofother theoretical perspectives.
Keywords: humor ,humor styles, attraction, romantic motives, short-term relationship, long-term relationships
Europe's Journal ofPsychology ,2016, Vol.12(3), 390–405, doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1 105
Received: 2016-01-12. Accepted: 2016-03-01. Published (VoR): 2016-08-19.
Handling Editor: Nicholas Kuiper ,Department ofPsychology ,University ofWestern Ontario, London, Canada
*Corresponding author at:Psychology Department, Loyola University Maryland, 4501 N.Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
This isanopen access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 ),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction inany medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.
The pursuit of relationships isaworthwhile venture. An abundance of research shows that individuals incommitted
relationships experience greater subjective well-being (Kamp Dush &Amato, 2005 ),report fewer mental health
problems (Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham, 2010 ),have better physical health (Kohn & Averett, 2014 )and live
longer (Kaplan &Kronick, 2006 )than their single counterparts. Attracting asuitable partner ,however ,can present
asubstantial challenge. While individuals may use an array of behavioral strategies to initiate relationships (Clark,
Shaver ,& Abrahams, 1999 ),one approach, humor ,may be particularly helpful. Indeed, displaying asense of
humor is recognized as the most effective tactic that men or women can use to attract apartner (Buss, 1988 ).
Humor ,however ,is not aunitary construct (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray ,&Weir ,2003 ),and how dif ferent
types of humor are enacted or perceived in asocial interaction may be tied to the players’ specific relationship
motives (i.e., interest inashort- or long-term relationship). The current study assesses how experimentally-manip-
ulated relationship motives shape the anticipated production and appreciation of dif ferent humor styles during
relationship initiation. This research provides anuanced understanding of how specific humor styles are used to
Europe's Journal of Psychology
ejop.psychopen.eu |1841-0413 attain specific relationships and contributes to the broader discussion of humor ’sfunction during relationship initi-
ation.
Humor and Attraction
People strongly desire romantic partners who have agood sense of humor (Boxer ,Noonan, & Whelan, 2015 ;
Sprecher &Regan, 2002 ).This preference appears cross-culturally (Lippa, 2007 )and issupported by both labo-
ratory (Bressler &Balshine, 2006 ;McGee &Shevlin, 2009 )and field studies (Guéguen, 2010 ).Why humor holds
such wide appeal has been considered from multiple perspectives. One hypothesis contends that humor isatrait-
indicator ,asexually-selected behavior that reliably signals genetic fitness by demonstrating unobservable traits
like intelligence and creativity (Howrigan &MacDonald, 2008 ;Miller ,2000 )or signals advantageous parent or co-
parent qualities, such as warmth and prosociality (Hall, 2015 ).Another popular theory isthat humor may operate
as an interest-indicator that allows individuals to test the reciprocity of romantic interest (Li et al., 2009 ).Other
models suggest humor ’sfunction is to signal shared knowledge and compatibility (the encryption hypothesis;
Flamson &Barrett, 2008 ),or to create apleasant, shared experience (Hall, 2015 ).
These proposed accounts for humor ’sattractiveness largely draw on evolutionary theory .From an evolutionary
perspective, sex-based dif ferences in minimal contributions to bearing and rearing children produce sex-linked
dif ferences in mating behaviors and partner preferences (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, &Trost, 1990 ).For example,
females’ larger minimal investment in any offspring (e.g., gestation) relative to males (i.e., sperm contribution)
may explain why women tend to be choosier than men when selecting aromantic partner: their potential costs
are higher .They tend to favor men who have the resources and status that demonstrate they can be effective
providers (Buss & Barnes, 1986 )and men who exhibit traits indicative of agood partner ,companion, and co-
parent (e.g., warmth; Li, Bailey ,Kenrick, &Linsenmeier ,2002 ).These selection pressures generate intrasexual
competition among men, who must then vie to attract awoman’ sattention (Buss, 1988 ).Using humor as arela-
tionship initiation tactic may be one way men, in particular ,attempt to gain acompetitive advantage.
Evidence supports the effectiveness of humor use as aheterosexual mating tactic. Women are attracted to men’ s
humor ,specifically prioritizing men’ sability to produce humor over their willingness to appreciate humor (Bressler ,
Martin, &Balshine, 2006 ;Tornquist &Chiappe, 2015 ).Men tend to prefer the reverse pattern, desiring women
who appreciate, rather than produce, humor (Bressler et al., 2006 ).In line with these preferences, women tend
to offer less humor production but engage in more humor receptivity (Bressler et al., 2006 )or evaluation than men
(Wilbur & Campbell, 201 1).Accordingly ,when making trade-of fdecisions for long-term partners, women judge
men’ shumor production as anecessity and their humor receptivity as aluxury ,whereas men make the opposite
trade (Hone, Hurwitz, &Lieberman, 2015 ).These findings reflect the sex-linked dif ferences predicted by atrait-
indicator hypothesis: men have the burden of displaying favored genetic and relational traits to elicit attraction,
and women have the burden of selection in an ambiguous mating context.
Support for the trait-indicator hypothesis isbalanced by evidence showing that both men and women initiate and
respond to humor when an initial attraction already exists (Li et al., 2009 ).This interest-indicator model suggests
that humor may have evolved as alow-cost mechanism that enables individuals to discern whether someone re-
ciprocates their romantic interest. Humor initiators gather critical information from their target’ s(ideally positive)
response (e.g., genuine laughter). Atest comparing multiple models, however ,found minimal support for the in-
terest-indicator model with evidence instead pointing towards trait-indicator models (Tornquist &Chiappe, 2015 ).
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 391 Despite considerable evidence in their favor (Bressler et al., 2006 ;Tornquist &Chiappe, 2015 )trait-indicator hy-
potheses for humor ’srole in relationship initiation have also received mixed support. These hypotheses propose
that humor is an honest signal of less-observable but highly favorable underlying traits, such as warmth (Hall,
2015 ),compatibility (Flamson &Barrett, 2008 ),or intelligence (Miller ,2000 ),but humor is not consistently linked
to these traits (e.g., Greengross, Martin, & Miller ,2012 ).Perhaps humor use, generally ,may not be areliable
proxy for these traits; instead, the use of specific styles of humor may convey underlying traits most informatively .
In other words, the divergent findings linking humor use and favorable underlying traits in previous research might
be explained by afailure to distinguish between types of humor .
Consider ,for example, the potential link between humor and warmth. When no specific directions are provided
to participants about which type of humor to produce, humor production ability is unrelated to producers’ agree-
ableness (Greengross et al., 2012 ;Moran, Rain, Page-Gould, &Mar ,2014 ).Likewise, individuals who advertise
more humor production skill on online dating websites do not reliably offer more warmth (Wilbur & Campbell,
201 1).Complicating the picture, an analysis of Facebook profiles showed that individuals who produce more humor
(in photos) are more agreeable (Hall, 2015 ),while other work shows that romantic suitors are perceived as less
trustworthy than their non-humorous counterparts (Bressler &Balshine, 2006 ).Acloser look suggests that dif fer-
entiating among humor styles could be aproductive way to explain these inconsistent findings. For example, humor
production was restricted to examples of negative humor (e.g., self-disparaging humor; flippant humor) in cases
documenting an inverse relation between humor and trustworthiness (Bressler &Balshine, 2006 ;Senko &Fyf fe,
2010 )and humor and agreeableness (Greengross & Miller ,2008 ).Likewise, for targets whose dating profiles
used unassuming one-liner jokes, which tap the comic and witty style of positive humor ,judgments of humor
corresponded with perceived warmth (Wilbur & Campbell, 201 1).The limited research that directly compares
prospective partners’ production of dif ferent humor styles, albeit in vignettes, shows that individuals perceive witty
or optimistic humor (i.e., positive humor) as indicative of more warmth than disparaging or sarcastic humor (i.e.,
negative humor; DiDonato, Bedminster ,&Machel, 2013 ).Dif ferentiating among humor styles isclearly necessary
in order to evaluate dif ferent theoretical explanations for humor ’sfunction in an attraction context.
Humor Styles and Mate Selection
Humor can be organized along four primary dimensions: two positive styles (af filiative and self-enhancing) and
two negative styles (aggressive and self-defeating; Martin et al., 2003 ).Of the positive styles, affiliative humor
often takes the form of wit, jokes, or amusing banter; individuals who use affiliative humor tend to be more extro-
verted and open, have higher self-esteem and report better psychological health. The other positive humor ,self-
enhancing humor ,ismore intrapersonal, focusing on the humorous side of life. Like affiliative humor ,its use predicts
well-being, less depression, and less anxiety ,but its use is also strongly associated with optimism (Martin et al.,
2003 )and emotional management (Yip &Martin, 2006 ).Aggressive humor ,anegative humor style, entertains at
the expense of others and might involve teasing, ridicule, or sarcasm. Its use predicts hostility ,aggression, and
an inability to perceive others’ emotions; these outcomes are also associated with self-defeating humor (Martin
et al., 2003 ;Yip &Martin, 2006 ).Self-defeating humor turns the lens on the self through self-disparaging remarks,
making fun of the self, or pointing out one’ sown weaknesses for amusement. The use of self-defeating humor
predicts depression, anxiety ,and avariety of psychiatric and somatic symptoms (Martin et al., 2003 ),as well as
Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Veselka, Schermer ,Martin, &Vernon, 2010a ).These vastly dif ferent correlates
underscore the need to consider positive and negative humor styles separately in order to understand humor ’s
role in relationship initiation.
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 392 Evidence suggests that both men and women discriminate between humor styles when evaluating potential long-
term partners, reporting more romantic interest in hypothetical prospects who use positive humor over those who
use negative humor (DiDonato et al., 2013 ).This is consistent with atrait-indicator model and acontemporary
understanding of committed relationships, which acknowledges that both women and men make substantial in-
vestments to their relationships (Geary & Flinn, 2001 )and are therefore highly selective in this context. That
people who produce positive humor might be preferred for long-term relationships suggests that perceivers attribute
characteristics prioritized for long-term partners (e.g., warmth) to individuals who produce positive humor .Indeed,
warmth inferences accounted for the link between positive humor style and long-term interest inprevious research
(DiDonato et al., 2013 ).In the short-term context, however ,no evidence suggests either gender distinguishes
between humor styles (DiDonato et al., 2013 ).Itmay be that humor quality (i.e., funniness) ismore important than
humor style for short-term relationships because humor quality may signal heritable traits (e.g., intelligence) and
genetic benefits that women stand to gain in short-term relationships (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000 ).Having a
partner who displays warmth, such as through positive humor use (DiDonato et al., 2013 ),istypically awelcomed
luxury but not anecessity in short-term encounters (Li &Kenrick, 2006 ).Positive humor might boost aprospect’ s
attractiveness for ashort-term relationship, but, provided the humor isfunny ,the use of negative humor might be
acceptable as well.
Focusing on humor styles rather than general humor use may be one strategy to explain inconsistent findings
linking humor and positive traits, as posited by trait-indicator models. However ,an even more subtle and refined
understanding of humor use may be necessary .Given the evidence that humor style and relationship interest are
linked, itstands to reason that suitors may manipulate the presentation of their own humor style as afunction of
their desire to secure either ashort-term or long-term relationship. Indeed, strategic self-presentation iscommon
in relationship initiation contexts (Ellison, Heino, &Gibbs, 2006 )and men, who tend to be the humor producers
(Wilbur & Campbell, 201 1), may be particularly inclined towards strategic humor production. Although humor
quality is considered hard to fake (Miller ,2000 ),skilled humorists may have little trouble adjusting their humor
style to help advance their specific relationship goals. For instance, conveying warmth isan effective mating tactic
specifically for long-term relationships (Schmitt &Buss, 1996 ),and ifindividuals are sensitive to inferences made
from specific humor styles, they may strategically display their warmth through positive humor (and refrain from
negative humor styles) when initiating along-term relationship. In other words, triggering along-term relationship
motive could prompt individuals to shift their humor style use towards positive humor over negative humor .In the
short-term context, however ,the costs of displaying negative humor appear negligible (DiDonato et al., 2013 ).
Since producing negative humor generates more attraction than no humor (Bressler &Balshine, 2006 ),but may
limit inferences of warmth (DiDonato et al., 2013 ),itmay be an ideal strategy for pursuing ashort-term relationship.
This isechoed by popular pick-up artists who advise that well-timed insults, reminiscent of aggressive humor ,are
beneficial during relationship initiation (Strauss, 2005 ).Success at limiting relationships to short-term encounters
requires strategic behaviors (Jonason &Buss, 2012 ),and displaying negative humor at the outset may be part
of this repertoire. Thus, negative humor styles (i.e., aggressive humor and self-deprecating humor) may enable
individuals to attract others specifically for short-term relationships.
Ifindividuals (especially men) use specific humor styles strategically during relationship initiation, such afinding
would support and also expand the trait-indicator model of humor .Itwould substantiate the idea that evaluators
ascribe traits to humor producers based on their humor style, and add new evidence that humor producers antic-
ipate evaluators’ preferences and strategically shift their humor use based on their relational motives. The tendency
to use particular humor styles is traditionally viewed as an individual dif ference variable (Martin et al., 2003 );
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 393 however ,we propose that humor styles may be malleable based on motive, which calls into question humor ’s
suitability as an accurate trait-indicator .
The Current Study
Humor isamulti-dimensional construct (Martin et al., 2003 )yet the majority of studies on humor use during rela-
tionship initiation have failed to discriminate among dif ferent styles (e.g., Hall, 2015 ;Wilbur &Campbell, 201 1).
This failure has contributed to mixed support for dif ferent theoretical explanations for humor ’srole in social inter-
actions. The work that does dif ferentiate among humor styles shows that positive humor triggers short-term and
long-term interest, with inferences of warmth explaining the long-term attraction and offering support for atrait-
indicator model (DiDonato et al., 2013 ).Consistent with this idea, negative humor may be unsuccessful at eliciting
long-term interest as itwas when individuals evaluated negative-humor producers in vignettes (DiDonato et al.,
2013 ).Topromote clarity among dif ferent theoretical explanations for humor ,the current study examines how
triggering dif ferent romantic motives affects anticipated humor use during relationship initiation.
Do people opt to strategically use dif ferent humor styles to promote their romantic goals? Wepredicted that both
men and women, but particularly men, would demonstrate arefined skill when crafting their presentation of humor
in light of their relationship motives, opting for positive humor in pursuit of along-term relationship or ashort-term
relationship, and restricting use of negative humor to the short-term context. These results would support humor
use as astrategically-modifiable trait indicator and would call into question whether humor producers are uniformly
and accurately ascribed positive traits like warmth, as trait-indicator models tend to suggest. Following from liter-
ature underscoring the roles of both humor production and humor appreciation (Bressler et al., 2006 )we further
examined how the production of positive and negative humor in specific relationship contexts would influence
romantic attraction. Weexpected that women, the evaluators (Wilbur & Campbell, 201 1),would be particularly
sensitive to underlying dif ferences conveyed by humor style, and would report that positive humor increases their
interest for both short- and long-term relationships but that negative humor increases interest primarily in short-
term contexts.
Method
Participants
Undergraduates at aMid-Atlantic Jesuit University (n=149) and workers on the online labor market Mechanical
Turk (n=175) participated inthis online study inexchange for psychology course credit or for anominal fee ($.20),
respectively .The advertised eligibility criteria were participant age (at least 18 years old), relationship status
(single; not in aromantic relationship), and native language (English speakers). Welimited the sample to individ-
uals who met all stated criteria (n=284). Wefurther restricted our sample to those who correctly answered two
simple attention check questions (n=245) and completed the booster writing activity (n=242). Lastly ,because
the study required imagining apotential opposite-sex partner for along- or short-term relationship, we included
only heterosexual participants, resulting in afinal sample of 224 participants (167 female; Mage =27.12, SD =
12.20). Participants predominantly identified as White/Caucasian (80.4%) or Black/African American (8.0%) and
generally reported an expected salary of less than 25K (68.8%) or between 25K and 40K (11.6%). Education
varied, with 42.0% of participants reporting that they had completed some college, 28.1% reporting that they had
completed an Associate’ sor Bachelor ’sdegree, and 21.4% reporting that they had completed high school.
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 394 Design and Procedure
This study used a2(humor style: positive or negative) x2(relational motive: short-term or long-term) x2(gender:
male or female) mixed-factor design to investigate the affect of romantic motives on individuals’ humor production
and their response to an attractive others’ humor use. Relational motive and gender were between-subjects factors,
and humor style was awithin-subjects factor .
Materials and Measures
Relational Motives Manipulation and Booster
Tomanipulate mating motive, we used Griskevicius and colleagues’ (2006) mating primes. Participants read and
imagined adetailed scenario in which they had the opportunity for along-term (n=117) or short-term romantic
relationship (n=107) with an opposite-sex individual. In the original mating primes, participants imagined themselves
having ashort-term or long-term relationship. Wemodified the scenarios inorder to maintain arelationship initiation
focus: participants imagined that they had an opportunity for ashort- or long-term relationship and daydreamed
about adesired short-term encounter or long-term relationship. Minor modifications were also made to make the
primes applicable to non-students as well as students. All participants were reminded mid-study of their mating
prime with abooster modeled after Griskevicius and colleagues’ (2006) .For 90 seconds, participants wrote in
detail about the characteristics that they would desire in the target.
Manipulation Check
All participants reported their interest in ashort-term and long-term relationship with the target from 1(not at all)
to 7(very much). Those primed with along-term motive reported greater long-term interest in the target (M =6.32,
SD =0.87) than participants primed with ashort-term motive (M =4.56, SD =1.61), t(222) =10.28, p<.001. As
further evidence of the primes’ effectiveness, participants primed with ashort-term motive reported greater short-
term interest in the target (M =4.71, SD =1.78) than participants primed with along-term motive (M =1.99, SD =
1.32), t(221) =13.04, p<.001. Following Griskevicius and colleagues (2006) ,we also asked participants to rate
their current feelings of romantic arousal and sexual arousal from 1(not at all) to 7(very much). As expected, the
long-term prime generated greater romantic arousal (M =5.26, SD =1.35) than the short-term prime (M =4.70,
SD =1.68), t(222) =3.24, p=.001; however ,there was no dif ference in sexual arousal between the short-term
(M =3.93, SD =1.74) and long-term (M =3.60, SD =1.71) prime conditions, t(222) =1.42, p=.158.
Humor Production
Participants were instructed to think about the person they met in the imagination activity and indicate to what
extent (1 =never or almost never; 7=always or almost always) they would engage in each of 16 humor behaviors
in order to secure arelationship with the target consistent with their primed motive (i.e., short- or long-term rela-
tionship). These humor behaviors were based on Martin et al.’ s(2003) Humor Styles Questionnaire. Responses
to the affiliative humor (e.g., “Iwould think of witty things to say”) and self-enhancing humor (e.g., “Iwould bring
attention to the funny side of any awkward situation”) items were combined to form apositive humor subscale
(M =4.69, SD =0.84; α=.80). Self-deprecating (e.g., “Iwould put myself down to make this person laugh”) and
aggressive humor (“I would tease this person about something they do or say”) items were combined for anegative
humor subscale (M =3.46, SD =0.97; α=.80).
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 395 Humor ’sEffectiveness
Participants were asked to imagine the target in their short- or long-term relationship scenario making them laugh
by doing eight humorous behaviors (two representing each of the four humor styles). Participants then reported
how each behavior would impact their short- or long-term romantic interest using ascale from -5 (decreases) to
5(increases). Affiliative humor (e.g., “This person makes you laugh by making warm and witty comments”) and
self-enhancing humor (e.g., “This person makes you laugh by commenting on aquirky truth about life”) items
were combined to form apositive humor subscale (M =3.16, SD =1.19; α=.82). Self-deprecating (e.g., “This
person makes you laugh by making fun of his/her own behavior”) and aggressive humor (“This person makes you
laugh by making an off-color joke about someone he knows”) items were combined for anegative humor subscale
(M =1.35, SD =1.54; α=.69).
Procedure
Participants were directed to the online study hosted by Qualtrics. After providing their informed consent, participants
indicated their gender and were randomly assigned to complete the motives manipulation, an exercise in which
they imagined their own goal of forming ashort-term or long-term romantic relationship with an attractive opposite-
sex target. Abrief manipulation check followed the prime. Totest whether individuals alter their humor style based
on their romantic motives, we then asked participants to indicate the extent to which they would produce positive
and negative humor to secure arelationship with the target. Next, participants completed abooster to remind
them of the short- or long-term romantic motive and then reported on the extent to which their own interest in a
relationship would be influenced by their partner ’shumor use. Finally ,participants completed an attention check
(i.e., “Where did you meet the person in the story you read?”), provided relevant demographic information, and
were debriefed and compensated.
Results
Correlations between the primary dependent measures are presented in Table 1.
Anticipated Humor Production
Totest whether romantic motives shift individuals’ anticipated humor production towards positive or negative humor
styles, we conducted a2(humor style: positive or negative) x2(romantic motive: short-term or long-term) x2
(gender: male or female) mixed ANOV A(see Figure 1).Weobserved amain effect of humor style on anticipated
humor production: participants rated that they would use more positive humor (M =4.69, SD =0.84) than negative
humor (M =3.46, SD =0.97), F(1, 220) =299.72, p<.001, η2=.58. Weexpected that this main effect would be
qualified by an interaction with romantic motive. Specifically ,we predicted that individuals pursuing both short-
and long-term relationships would use positive humor ,but that individuals pursuing short-term relationships would
use more negative humor than those pursuing long-term relationships. Supporting this prediction, we observed
an interaction between humor style and romantic motive on anticipated humor production, F(1, 220) =8.37, p=
.004, η2=.04. Simple effect comparisons revealed that negative humor was chosen more by individuals pursuing
short-term relationships (M =3.61, SD =-.93) than long-term relationships (M =3.32, SD =0.99), F(1, 220) =
4.23, p=.041, η2=.02. There was no dif ference in the preferred use of positive humor for individuals pursuing
short-term (M =4.67, SD =0.91) and long-term relationships (M =4.71, SD =0.78), F(1, 220) =0.49, p=.483.
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 396 Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Measures by Gender
3 2 1 M(SD ) Male participants (n=57)
Anticipated Humor production
4.73 (0.80) 1.Positive humor
3.58 (1.00) 2.Negative humor .54**
Humor ’seffectiveness
2.81 (1.35) 3.Positive humor .05- .26
1.43 (1.45) 4.Negative humor .44** .41** .29**
3 2 1 M(SD ) Female participants (n=167)
Anticipated humor production
4.68 (0.86) 1.Positive humor
3.42 (0.95) 2.Negative humor .50**
Humor ’seffectiveness
3.29 (1.1 1) 3.Positive humor .09 .46**
1.32 (1.57) 4.Negative humor .43** .52** .44**
*p<.05. p<.01.
Contrary to expectations, participant gender did not independently predict anticipated humor use, nor did itinteract
with humor style or romantic motive to predict intended humor production (all F’s<1.10).
Figure 1.The anticipated production ofpositive and negative humor as afunction ofprimed relational motive and gender .
Note. Error bars are 1SE above and below the mean.
Humor ’sEffectiveness
Wepredicted that interest in the target would change as afunction of the humor style used by the target. Specifi-
cally ,we anticipated that atarget’ spositive humor ,relative to negative humor ,would increase interest for those
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 397 primed with along-term motive and for those primed with the short-term motive. Weexpected the use of negative
humor to increase interest more for those primed with the short-term motive than along-term motive. For this
analysis, we used the same mixed ANOV Aused to test humor production (see Figure 2).
Figure 2.Changes inromantic interest (humor ’seffectiveness) as afunction ofhumor style, relational motive, and participant
gender .
Note. Error bars are 1SE above and below the mean.
As anticipated, the target’ suse of positive humor (M =3.17, SD =1.19) increased participants’ interest more than
negative humor (M =1.35; SD =1.54), F(1, 220) =212.67, p<.001, η2=.49. Note that negative humor was still
judged to increase attraction, t(223) =71.34, p<.001, relative to the mid-point (no change) of the participants’
response scale. This was evident for individuals primed to imagine long-term, t(116) =8.27, p<.001, or ashort-
term relationship, t(106) =10.50, p<.001. Contrary to predictions, the observed main effect of humor style on
interest was not qualified by motive, F(1, 220) =0.61, p=.434. Humor style, however ,did interact with gender to
predict interest, F(1, 220) =6.41, p=.012, η2=.03. Positive humor increased women’ sinterest (M =3.29, SD =
1.1 1) more than men’ s(M =2.82, SD =1.35), F(1, 220) =6.53, p=.012, η2=.03. No gender dif ference (Mwomen =
1.32, SD =1.58, Mmen =1.43, SD =1.45) was observed in responses to the target’ snegative humor ,F(1, 220) =
0.25, p=.621. No other effects were observed (Fs<1.00).
Discussion
Scholars have generally examined humor during relationship initiation without making distinctions between dif ferent
humor styles, despite evidence that humor is amulti-dimensional construct (Martin et al., 2003 ).Additionally ,re-
search on humor styles and trait-indictor theories of humor tend to assume that individuals’ enacted humor styles
are fixed and trait-like rather than malleable and motivationally-driven (Martin et al., 2003 ;Miller ,2000 ).Perhaps
as aresult of these limitations, evidence has yet to converge on aspecific theoretical explanation for humor ’s
function in relationship initiation and has supported and contradicted anumber of leading hypotheses (Hall, 2015 ;
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 398 Tornquist &Chiappe, 2015 ;Wilbur &Campbell, 201 1).The current study builds on existing research (DiDonato
et al., 2013 )to reveal critical distinctions in the roles of positive humor and negative humor in initial, potentially-
romantic, social interactions. Our evidence suggests that people are sensitive to subtle dif ferences inhumor styles
and prefer to produce the styles of humor that strategically help them pursue specific relationship goals. Individuals
reported that they would likely generate positive humor to attract someone for along-term or short-term relationship,
but indicated more willingness to use negative humor when attracting someone for ashort-term liaison than a
long-term partnership. This distinction gives nuanced attention to how humor might shape others’ impressions
and affect their romantic interest. On the receiving end, individuals were attuned to dif ferences in humor style,
with their interest increasing more in response to positive humor than negative humor regardless of relational
motive.
Our results can be interpreted as partial support for asexual-selection argument that contends that humor during
relationship initiation reveals underlying desirable traits, and they extend this trait-indicator model by calling into
question the accuracy of impressions based on humor use. Individuals exhibited what appeared to be strategic
inclinations towards using specific humor styles based on their relational motives. Although participants did not
actually produce these styles of humor ,the observed link between participants’ anticipated humor styles and their
primed relational motives renders the production of specific humor styles apotentially imprecise gauge of some
underlying traits (e.g., warmth). Itfollows that humor may not be as honest asignal as proposed by trait-indicator
models (Miller ,2000 ).However ,even strategic presentation of humor may rely on possessing the underlying trait
to some degree. For instance, an individual who lacks warmth completely may not be able to generate affiliative
humor or may generate humor that is only weakly affiliative. In other words, the presence of certain underlying
traits may be necessary for the successful production of specific humor styles during courtship but not sufficient ;
the producer may require the appropriate relational motive as well. Therefore, humor is likely areliable indicator
of underlying personality traits to some degree, with its honesty augmented by the knowledge of asuitor ’smotives.
Prior work links positive humor to perceptions of warmth (DiDonato et al., 2013 ),and displaying warmth isan ef-
fective tactic for securing long-term relationships (Schmitt & Buss, 1996 );itmakes sense then that individuals
would try to attract adesirable long-term partner by producing positive humor .Such astrategy would reflect
awareness of the selection pressures to be agood partner in courting for along-term relationship. Within-person
links between the use of positive humor styles (over negative styles) and an array of good-partner traits, such as
resiliency ,emotional awareness, self-control, and well-being (Vernon et al., 2015 ;Veselka, Schermer ,Martin, &
Vernon, 2010b )further underscores the possible appeal of displaying positive humor to potential long-term partners.
Interestingly ,participants anticipated producing positive humor in pursuit of ashort-term affair as well. Perhaps
this reflects acompetitive tactic: offering warmth, aluxury in sexual encounters (Li &Kenrick, 2006 ),might give
someone an edge over an attractive rival. Alternatively ,positive humor ,like any high-quality example of humor ,
may be used in ashort-term context to indicate creativity or intelligence (Greengross &Miller ,201 1;Howrigan &
MacDonald, 2008 ),traits that are desired regardless of relational motive (Prokosch, Coss, Scheib, &Blozis, 2009 ).
Unlike positive humor ,producing negative humor ,such as teasing or self-targeted humor ,carries high risk: it
could easily be misinterpreted or yield undesired assumptions about underlying traits (Lampert & Ervin-T ripp,
2006 ).On account of this risk, individuals might avoid using negative humor when pursuing potential long-term
partners because of the negative impression itmight create. For instance, aggressive humor may indicate low
warmth and discourage potential long-term relationship partners, who tend to prioritize warmth (Li et al., 2002 ).
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 399 Less stringent selection criteria for warmth in short-term relationships (Li &Kenrick, 2006 )make that context a
more viable opportunity to produce negative humor .Alternatively ,individuals might actively attempt to showcase
negative humor when pursuing ashort-term fling, as suggested by some previous research. Specifically ,less
agreeable men tend to have more success securing casual sexual encounters (Urbaniak &Kilmann, 2006 ),and
women, especially at peak fertility ,report more short-term relationship attraction to men who enjoy aggressive
behaviors compared to those who do not (Giebel, Weierstall, Schauer ,&Elbert, 2013 ).The qualities potentially
inferred from individuals who use negative humor (e.g., aggressiveness, hostility; Martin et al., 2003 )may make
displaying negative humor astrategic method for initiating short term relationships. Men may also use negative
humor toward other men to demonstrate dominance and thereby secure short- or long-term romantic partners.
Indeed, men primed with amating (courtship) motive aggressed more than un-primed men when the audience
was male, but not when the audience was female (Griskevicius et al., 2009 ).Similarly ,men may use aggressive
humor toward other men but avoid producing negative humor in front of potential long-term mates.
For both humor styles, asexual selection-based argument anticipates that men would opt to use humor to a
greater extent than women. Not only do men typically produce more humor (Wilbur &Campbell, 201 1)but humor-
producing men and humor-appreciating (not producing) women tend to be favored in mate selection, according
to previous research (Bressler et al., 2006 ;Hone et al., 2015 ).Wedid not observe agender dif ferences inpreferred
use of humor ,which isconsistent with other research that has not observed agender dif ference inhumor production
(e.g., Hall, 2015 ).However ,we did not measure actual humor production or humor skill. Anticipated use is not a
perfect marker of actual use in arelationship initiation context, suggesting the need for anaturalistic study .Addi-
tionally ,itis possible that no gender dif ferences were observed because of arelatively low proportion of men in
our sample.
Our findings showed that participants’ romantic interest increased when they were on the receiving end of humor ,
particularly positive humor .This finding also counters an interest-indicator model and supports the idea that favorable
information, be it“good parent” characteristics (e.g., warmth) or “good genes” (e.g., intelligence), may have been
conveyed by positive humor ,thus yielding heightened attraction. As anticipated by sexual-selection models,
women were the primary evaluators of humor (Wilbur &Campbell, 201 1),reporting greater increases in attraction
in response to positive humor than men. Of note, negative humor did not decrease, but rather ,increased romantic
interest, for both long-term or short-term relationships. This isconsistent with studies that focus on negative humor
(without referring to itas such) and report humor ’spositive association with romantic desirability (Bressler &Bal-
shine, 2006 ;Lundy et al., 1998 ).There seems to be something fundamental about humor that benefits suitors,
independent of their humor style. Perhaps humor ’sattractiveness rests inits capacity to signal intelligence regardless
of humor style (Greengross &Miller ,201 1;Howrigan &MacDonald, 2008 ).Alternatively ,as others have suggested,
itcould be that humor in general communicates shared knowledge and compatibility (Flamson &Barrett, 2008 )
or that shared humor suggests afuture of pleasant and enjoyable experiences (Hall, 2015 ).These ideas are not
necessarily incompatible with trait-indicator models, as humor may serve many functions related to generating
attraction. Astudy that measures inferred qualities and characteristics from humor in general as well as from dif-
ferent humor styles might add clarity to this question.
This study advances our knowledge of humor in part through its experimental methods, which help reveal that
specific relational motives influence individuals’ intended humor tactics and exposure to dif ferent humor styles
affects romantic interest. The use of hypothetical relationship scenarios and self-report allowed for an initial test
of our study’ shypotheses, but research using speed-dating paradigms, peer or observer report, or the coding of
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 400 observed one-on-one interactions would further substantiate the idea that humor styles are strategically adopted
to achieve specific aims, especially ifthey measured actual, as opposed to anticipated, humor use. Werestricted
our investigation to romantic relationship initiation, but we would expect dif ferent humor styles to influence the
beginnings of other relationships as well, such as those between friends, work colleagues, or therapists and
clients. Impressions form quickly (Uleman, Adil Saribay ,&Gonzalez, 2008 )and inferences made from anew ac-
quaintance’ suse of positive or negative humor ,even iffaulty ,could have asustained influence on future interactions
(Snyder &Swann, 1978 ).Research exploring the effect of humor style use in the initiation of non-romantic social
relationships would add to our understanding.
Collectively ,our findings suggest that humor ,which istypically viewed as an honest signal (Miller ,2000 )may be,
at times, aless reliable predictor of underlying relationship qualities than previously thought. Perhaps the romantic
advantage lies with those who choose to strategically generate funny examples of all types of humor .Individuals
who know how to tailor their humor style production to match the context may experience the most success ob-
taining whichever type of relationship they wish to pursue.
Notes
1) Wetested whether the sample (student or MT urk) moderated any ofthe results. There was an interaction between humor
style and sample on anticipated humor production, F(1, 216) =4.90, p=.028, η2=.02. Although the student (M=4.72, SD =
0.78) and MT urk (M=4.67, SD =0.90) samples reported similar preferences for positive humor production, F(1, 216) =0.57,
p=.452, the student sample reported agreater preference toproduce negative humor (M=3.65, SD =0.87) than the MT urk
sample (M=3.27, SD =1.03), F(1, 216) =7.50, p=.007, η2=.03. No other results were affected by the sample.
Funding
The authors have no funding toreport.
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors have no support toreport.
References
Boxer ,C. F.,Noonan, M. C., &Whelan, C. B. (2015). Measuring mate preferences: Areplication and extension. Journal of
Family Issues, 36 ,163-187. http://dx.doi.org/0192513X13490404 doi: 10.1 177/0192513X13490404
Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., &Fincham, F.D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health ofcollege
students. Personal Relationships, 17 ,1-12. doi: 10.1 111/j.1475-681 1.2010.01248.x
Bressler ,E. R., &Balshine, S. (2006). The influence ofhumor on desirability .Evolution and Human Behavior ,27 ,29-39.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav .2005.06.002
Bressler ,E. R., Martin, R. A., &Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation ofhumor as sexually selected traits. Evolution
and Human Behavior ,27 ,121-130. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav .2005.09.001
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 401 Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution ofhuman intrasexual competition: Tactics ofmate attraction. Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology ,54 ,616-628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
Buss, D. M., &Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences inhuman mate selection. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,50 ,
559-570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
Clark, C. L., Shaver ,P.R., &Abrahams, M. F.(1999). Strategic behaviors inromantic relationship initiation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 ,709-722. doi: 10.1 177/0146167299025006006
DiDonato, T.E., Bedminster ,M. C., &Machel, J.J.(2013). My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic interest.
Personal Relationships, 20 ,374-390. doi: 10.1 111/j.1475-681 1.2012.01410.x
Ellison, N., Heino, R., &Gibbs, J.(2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes inthe online dating
environment. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 11,415-441. doi: 10.1 111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Flamson, T.,&Barrett, H. (2008). The encryption theory ofhumor: Aknowledge-based mechanism ofhonest signaling. Journal
ofEvolutionary Psychology ,6,261-281. doi: 10.1556/JEP .6.2008.4.2
Gangestad, S. W.,&Simpson, J.A. (2000). The evolution ofhuman mating: Trade-of fsand strategic pluralism. The Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 23 ,573-587. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Geary ,D. C., &Flinn, M. V.(2001). Evolution ofhuman parental behavior and the human family .Parenting, 1,5-61.
doi: 10.1080/15295192.2001.9681209
Giebel, G., Weierstall, R., Schauer ,M., &Elbert, T.(2013). Female attraction toappetitive-aggressive men ismodulated by
women's menstrual cycle and men's vulnerability totraumatic stress. Evolutionary Psychology ,11,248-262.
doi: 10.1 177/147470491301 100122
Greengross, G., Martin, R. A., &Miller ,G. (2012). Personality traits, intelligence, humor styles, and humor production ability
ofprofessional stand-up comedians compared tocollege students. Psychology ofAesthetics, Creativity ,and the Arts, 6,
74-82. doi: 10.1037/a0025774
Greengross, G., &Miller ,G. F.(2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects ofstatus, personality ,and sex on the
short-term and long-term attractiveness ofself-deprecating and other-deprecating humor .Evolutionary Psychology ,6,
393-408. http://dx.doi.org/147470490800600303 doi: 10.1 177/147470490800600303
Greengross, G., &Miller ,G. (201 1). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and ishigher inmales.
Intelligence, 39 ,188-192. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.201 1.03.006
Griskevicius, V.,Cialdini, R. B., &Kenrick, D. T.(2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects ofromantic
motives on creativity .Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,91 ,63-76. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.63
Griskevicius, V.,Tybur ,J.M., Gangestad, S. W.,Perea, E. F.,Shapiro, J.R., &Kenrick, D. T.(2009). Aggress toimpress:
Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy .Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,96 ,980-994.
doi: 10.1037/a0013907
Guéguen, N. (2010). Men’ ssense ofhumor and women’ sresponses tocourtship solicitations: An experimental field study .
Psychological Reports, 107 ,145-156. doi: 10.2466/07.17.PR0.107.4.145-156
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 402 Hall, J.A. (2015). Sexual selection and humor incourtship: Acase for warmth and extroversion. Evolutionary Psychology ,13 ,
Article 1474704915598918. doi: 10.1 177/1474704915598918
Hone, L.S., Hurwitz, W.,&Lieberman, D. (2015). Sex differences inpreferences for humor: Areplication, modification, and
extension. Evolutionary Psychology ,13 ,167-181. doi: 10.1 177/1474704915013001 10
Howrigan, D. P.,&MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Humor as amental fitness indicator .Evolutionary Psychology ,6,652-666.
doi: 10.1 177/14747049080060041 1
Jonason, P.K., &Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing ashort-term mating strategy .
Personality and Individual Differences, 52 ,606-610. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.201 1.12.015
Kamp Dush, C. M., &Amato, P.R. (2005). Consequences ofrelationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal
ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 22 ,607-627. doi: 10.1 177/0265407505056438
Kaplan, R. M., &Kronick, R. G. (2006). Marital status and longevity inthe United States population. Journal ofEpidemiology
and Community Health, 60 ,760-765. doi: 10.1 136/jech.2005.037606
Kenrick, D. T.,Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., &Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages ofhumor courtship: Qualifying
the parental investment model. Journal ofPersonality ,58 ,97-1 16. doi: 10.1 111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x
Kohn, J.L., &Averett, S. L.(2014). Can’t we just live together? New evidence on the effect ofrelationship status on health.
Journal ofFamily and Economic Issues, 35 ,295-312. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9371-2
Lampert, M. D., &Ervin-T ripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends.
Journal ofPragmatics, 38 ,51-72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004
Li, N. P.,Bailey ,J.M., Kenrick, D. T.,&Linsenmeier ,J.A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries ofmate preferences: Testing
the tradeof fs. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,82 ,947-955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
Li, N. P.,Griskevicius, V.,Durante, K. M., Jonason, P.K., Pasisz, D. J., &Aumer ,K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on
humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 ,923-936.
doi: 10.1 177/0146167209334786
Li, N. P.,&Kenrick, D. T.(2006). Sex similarities and differences inpreferences for short-term mates: What, whether ,and
why .Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,90 ,468-489.
http://dx.doi.org//10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits ofmates inacross-national study ofheterosexual and homosexual men and women:
An examination ofbiological and cultural influences. Archives ofSexual Behavior ,36 ,193-208.
doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2
Lundy ,D. E., Tan, J., &Cunningham, M. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: The importance ofhumor and physical
attractiveness for different types ofrelationships. Personal Relationships, 5,311-325. doi: 10.1 111/j.1475-681 1.1998.tb00174.x
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P.,Larsen, G., Gray ,J., &Weir,K. (2003). Individual differences inuses ofhumor and their relation
topsychological well-being: Development ofthe Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal ofResearch inPersonality ,37 ,
48-75. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 403 McGee, E., &Shevlin, M. (2009). Effect ofhumor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection. The Journal ofPsychology ,
143 ,67-77. doi: 10.3200/JRLP .143.1.67-77
Miller ,G. F.(2000). Sexual selection for indicators ofintelligence. InG. Bock, J.Goode, &K. Webb (Eds.), The nature of
intelligence: Novartis Foundation Symposium (Vol. 233, pp. 260-275). Chichester ,United Kingdom: Wiley .
Moran, J.M., Rain, M., Page-Gould, E., &Mar ,R. A. (2014). Do Iamuse you? Asymmetric predictors for humor appreciation
and humor production. Journal ofResearch inPersonality ,49 ,8-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.12.002
Prokosch, M. D., Coss, R. G., Scheib, J.E., &Blozis, S. A. (2009). Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always
appealing. Evolution and Human Behavior ,30 ,11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav .2008.07.004
Schmitt, D. P.,&Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the
perceived effectiveness ofmate attraction tactics. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology ,70 ,1185-1204.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1 185
Senko, C., &Fyf fe, V.(2010). An evolutionary perspective on effective vs. inef fective pick-up lines. The Journal ofSocial
Psychology ,150 ,648-667. doi: 10.1080/00224540903365539
Snyder ,M., &Swann, W.B., Jr.(1978). Behavioral confirmation insocial interaction: From social perception tosocial reality .
Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology ,14 ,148-162. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90021-5
Sprecher ,S., &Regan, P.C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences inromantic
relationships and friendships. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 19,463-481. doi: 10.1 177/0265407502019004048
Strauss, N. (2005). The game: Penetrating the secret society ofpick-up artists. New York, NY ,USA: Harper Collins.
Tornquist, M., &Chiappe, D. (2015). Effects ofhumor production, humor receptivity ,and physical attractiveness on partner
desirability .Evolutionary Psychology ,13 ,Article 1474704915608744. doi: 10.1 177/1474704915608744
Uleman, J.S., Adil Saribay ,S., &Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories.
Annual Review ofPsychology ,59 ,329-360. doi: 10.1 146/annurev .psych.59.103006.093707
Urbaniak, G. C., &Kilmann, P.R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: Afurther test ofthe nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles,
55 (3-4), 209-224. doi: 10.1007/s1 1199-006-9075-2
Vernon, P.A., Villani, V.C., Schermer ,J.A., Kirilovic, S., Martin, R. A., Petrides, K. V.,...Cherkas, L.F.(2015). Genetic and
environmental correlations between trait emotional intelligence and humor styles. Journal ofIndividual Differences, 30 ,
130-137. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.130
Veselka, L., Schermer ,J.A., Martin, R. A., &Vernon, P.A. (2010a). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits
ofpersonality .Personality and Individual Differences, 48 ,772-774. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.017
Veselka, L., Schermer ,J.A., Martin, R. A., &Vernon, P.A. (2010b). Laughter and resiliency: Abehavioral genetic study of
humor styles and mental toughness. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 13 ,442-449. doi: 10.1375/twin.13.5.442
Wilbur ,C. J., &Campbell, L.(201 1). Humor inromantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 ,918-929. doi: 10.1 177/014616721 1405343
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
Romantic Motives Affect Humor Style 404 Yip, J.A., &Martin, R. A. (2006). Sense ofhumor ,emotional intelligence, and social competence. Journal ofResearch in
Personality ,40 ,1202-1208. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.005
About the Authors
Theresa DiDonato ,Ph.D., isan Associate Professor of Psychology at Loyola University Maryland in Baltimore, MD, USA.
Her research interests focus on romantic relationships and include humor ,forgiveness, attraction, and the self-concept.
Brittany Jakubiak isafourth year PhD psychology student atCarnegie Mellon University inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Inaddition toresearch on romantic attraction and humor ,she studies social support and affectionate touch inrelationships.
PsychOpen is a pub lishing ser vice b y Leibniz Institute for Psychology Inf ormation (ZPID), Trier, Ger man y. www .zpid.de/en
Europe's Jour nal of Psychology 2016, Vol. 12(3), 390–405 doi:10.5964/ejop .v12i3.1105
DiDonato &Jakubiak 405
