Please write an apa style paper following the specific details from the rubic of the lab report 2 and with the attached articles and results. There are 7 documents attached in both the mediafire and o

Daily occu rrence of laughter: Relationships with age, gender, and T ype A

personality

Article   in  Humor - International Journal of Humor R esearch · Januar y 1999

DOI: 10.1515/humr .1999.12.4.355

CITATIONS

137

READS

11,652

2 author s , including:

Rod A. Martin

The Univ ersity of West ern Ontario

96 PUBLICATIONS    12,137 CITATIONS    

SEE PROFILE

All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Rod A. Martin on 05 Januar y 2015.

The user has requested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. Daily Laughter 1

Martin, R. A. & Kuiper, N. A. (1999). Daily occurrence of laughter: Relationships with age, gender, and Type A personality.

Humor: International Journal of Humor Reseach, 12 (4), 355-384.

Daily Occurrence of Laughter: Relationships with Age, Gender, and Type A Personality

Rod A. Martin & Nicholas A. Kuiper

Department of Psychology

University of Western Ontario

Running head: Daily Laughter

Address correspondence to: Rod A. Martin, Department of Psychology, University of

Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2 Daily Laughter 2

Abstract

This study examined the circumstances surrounding the natural occurrence of laughter in

everyday life. Eighty community participants (50 men and 30 women), ranging in age from 17 to

79, each completed a daily laughter record for three days, along with self-report measures of

laughter responsiveness, coping humor, and Type A personality characteristics. Laughter

incidents were coded according to time of day, source and initiator of laughter, and whether the

individual was alone or with others. On average, participants reported approximately 18 daily

incidents of laughter, but with wide individual variation being evident (0 to 89 incidents per day).

Frequency of laughter also generally increased throughout the day, being most pronounced in the

evenings. The most prominent source of daily laughter was spontaneous situational laughter,

with jokes accounting for the least amount of naturally generated laughter. In accord with the

primarily social nature of laughter, most incidents of laughter occurred in the presence of others,

and were also generated by others. Overall, men and women did not differ in the frequency with

which they laughed. However, gender differences did emerge when age was taken into account.

Older women tended to laugh less frequently than did younger women, but this age difference

was not found in men. In addition, for both men and women, older individuals did not show the

general increase in frequency of laughter during the evening. Gender differences also emerged in

the correlations between total laughter frequency and personality variables. For example, a

higher frequency of daily laughter was associated with greater Type A characteristics in men, but

with fewer Type A characteristics in women. These findings were discussed in terms of possible

gender differences in the meaning and function of laughter. Daily Laughter 3

Daily Occurrence of Laughter: Relationships with Age, Gender, and Type A Personality

Research interest in psychological aspects of humor and laughter has increased

considerably over the past two decades. In general, the majority of this work has involved either

laboratory-based studies using “canned” humor stimuli such as jokes, cartoons, comedy tapes, or

films; or field studies using self-report measures to assess individual differences in various

components of sense of humor. Although some researchers have conducted observational studies

of laughter in naturalistic settings (e.g., Provine, 1993; Provine & Fisher, 1989), relatively little

research has examined the natural occurrence of humor and laughter throughout the course of

daily experiences. Thus, we still have suprisingly limited information about how often people

laugh in the course of an average day, the types of daily events or stimuli that trigger laughter, the

circumstances in which laughter occurs, and the personality attributes that may be associated with

differing amounts of daily laughter.

Although research in this area is limited, a perusal of the research literature indicates that

attempts to examine the naturalistic occurrence of laughter and humor experiences in everyday

life date back almost 70 years. In one of the first empirical studies of humor, Kambouropoulou

(1930) had 100 women at Vassar College keep daily diaries of their humor experiences for one

week. These participants were instructed to write descriptions of “the things they laughed at and

the things that amused them each day.” These students reported a mean of about 6 humorous

events per day. However, the aim of this study was not to obtain an accurate estimate of the

frequency of laughter, but rather to determine the main categories of humor events, and to

examine individual differences in the types of stimuli that elicit laughter. As such, a content

analysis of the descriptions of the participants’ humor experiences led to a five-category

classification of humor events.

In a partial replication of Kambouropoulou’s (1930) study, Graeven and Morris (1975)

asked 42 students to provide written descriptions of all the incidents of humor and laughter that

occurred during one whole day. These researchers found that the various humor-eliciting

situations could be quite readily classified into one of four general categories: (1) humor arising

from a mass media source; (2) humor emerging spontaneously within a situation; (3) humor

arising from a memorized joke; and (4) humor arising from the telling or recalling of a previous

event. The mean number of humor incidents reported by the student participants in the Graeven

and Morris (1975) study was 6.5 for men and 5.6 for women. The most frequently reported

incidents involved humor emerging spontaneously within a situation, whereas the least frequent

was humor arising from a memorized joke. This latter finding is particularly noteworthy, since

jokes and cartoons are the most commonly used method for studying humor in psychological Daily Laughter 4

research, whereas they appear to be of limited importance in most peoples’ daily humor

experiences (cf. Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998; Provine, 1993; VanGiffen & Maher, 1995). Thus,

further studies of the naturalistic occurrence of laughter may provide important information about

types of humor that have not yet received much empirical attention.

Finally, in a more recent study, Mannell and McMahon (1982) had 31 students record the

occurrence of all their humor experiences during the course of one day. Rather than asking for

detailed written descriptions of the events, participants were provided with descriptions of the

four categories of humorous events found by Graeven and Morris (1975), and asked to indicate

with a check mark in which of these categories each humor incident belonged. In addition, for

each incident, participants were asked to indicate whether or not they laughed overtly, to rate

their level of amusement on a 5-point Likert scale, and to record the time of the occurrence. This

procedure was less time-consuming than the diary technique used in the two previous studies, as

participants could carry a sheet of paper with them and record each event immediately with a few

brief entries. Consequently, it likely provided a more accurate record of the frequency of

humorous incidents over the day, and this was reflected in considerably higher mean values.

Overall, the average number of humor incidents was found to be 18.1, and the mean number of

incidents involving overt laughter was 13.4, with no significant differences between men and

women. As in the Graeven and Morris (1975) study, the most frequent type of humor was that

arising spontaneously in a situation, while memorized jokes and mass media sources accounted

for the least amount of humor and laughter. Furthermore, the frequency of humor experiences

was found to increase over the course of the day, with the least humor in the morning, and the

most in the evening.

Purpose of The Present Study

The present study was designed to replicate and extend, in a number of ways, the

previous work on the naturalistic occurrence of daily laughter. First, rather than limiting

ourselves to university students, we used a community sample consisting of both adult men and

women, spanning a broad age range. Second, the present study obtained additional information

about the ecological context of laughter. Thus, besides having participants record the time of

each laughter incident and categorize the incidents using the system developed by Graeven and

Morris (1975) (i.e., mass media, spontaneous situation, joke, recalled previous event), we asked

them to indicate for each incident whether they were alone or with other people, and whether the

humor was initiated by themselves or by someone else. Third, in order to obtain a more reliable

estimate of laughter frequency, we extended the time frame for using this coding system. Thus,

participants in the present study monitored all experiences of laughter over the course of three Daily Laughter 5

days, rather than just one day. Finally, to investigate other correlates of daily laughter, the

participants in this study also completed a number of self-report scales, including measures of

laughter responsiveness, coping humor, and several personality characteristics pertaining to Type

A attributes.

Four major research questions were addressed in this study. First, we were interested in

obtaining more detailed descriptive information about the frequency and context of naturally

occurring laughter for adults across the life span. Thus, we categorized the frequency of laughter

data obtained in this study into a number of different categories, corresponding to the coding

system described above. This allowed us to determine not only the total frequency of laughter

across the three days of the study, but also how frequency of laughter may relate to time of day

(morning, afternoon, evening), different sources (media, situational, jokes, past event), the

initiator of the humorous incident (self, other), and the social context (with others, alone).

Secondly, we sought to determine whether frequency of daily laughter is related in any

systematic fashion to gender and age. Past humor research has yielded mixed findings in this

regard, with gender and age differences emerging in some studies, but not in others (Lampert &

Ervin-Tripp, 1998; Kuiper & Olinger, 1998). With regard to age, for example, Thorson and

Powell (1996) found that older individuals displayed higher levels of coping and adaptive humor,

whereas work by Lowis and Nieuwoudt (1995) did not show this age-related effect. Similarly, in

terms of gender distinctions, past research has generally failed to show male-female differences

on self-report measures of laughter responsiveness and coping humor (Martin, 1996), whereas

observational research by Provine (1993) has documented that women speakers laugh more than

their audience. Given these types of discrepant findings in the humor literature, we felt it

important to assess the degree to which both gender and age may have an impact on the patterns

of laughter displayed by the participants in the present study.

The third major research question addressed in this study was the degree to which actual

frequency of daily laughter is related to self-report measures of both laughter responsiveness and

coping humor. As described by Martin (1996), these two components of sense of humor may be

measured, respectively, by the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and the

Coping Humor Scale (CHS). Supporting a multidimensional conceptualization of sense of humor

(Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Martin, 1996), our prior work in this domain has consistently indicated

that scores on the SHRQ and CHS are only moderately intercorrelated, providing evidence for

distinct components of a sense of humor. Thus, in the present study we expected that SHRQ

scores, which assess degree of laughter responsiveness across a wide variety of everyday

situations, would be more closely associated with frequency of actual laughter than would CHS Daily Laughter 6

scores, which assess the specific use of humor as a coping strategy for dealing with stressful

situations (Martin, 1996). If such a pattern obtained, it would provide further construct validation

for the use of the SHRQ as a self-report measure of laughter. It would also reinforce our

multidimensional conceptualization of sense of humor, in that coping humor forms a distinct

component that does not show as strong a degree of convergence with actual frequency of

laughter, as does the SHRQ.

The fourth major research question addressed in this study pertains to potential links

between frequency of daily laughter and various personality characteristics. Prior work has

shown a significant positive relationship between the degree of sociability an individual exhibits

and self-reported laughter responsiveness, as assessed by the SHRQ (Kuiper & Martin, 1993;

1998). Accordingly, the community participants in the present study each provided self-

descriptive ratings on the same set of 47 personal adjectives that has been employed in our

previous research studies. Based on prior factor analytic work, this allowed us to obtain a

measure of four distinct personality dimensions for each individual, namely, degree of sociability,

depressive personality, dominance, and orderliness. Each of these self-concept dimensions was

then correlated with total frequency of daily laughter in order to examine any possible

relationships.

In addition to these self-concept ratings, we also focused on a detailed assessment of

Type A personality characteristics, and their potential relationship to frequency of total daily

laughter. Individuals with greater Type A characteristics generally show a hard-driving life style,

displaying heightened levels of aggression, easily aroused anger, a sense of time urgency, and

competitive achievement striving (Kuiper & Martin, 1989). Although a number of studies have

shown Type A individuals often do well in vocational pursuits, there are major costs associated

with this life style. These include increased physical health problems, lower levels of reported

life satisfaction, increased levels of perceived stress, and increased levels of depression, anger,

and anxiety. In short, Type A personality appears to be associated with a reduced quality of life

(Kuiper & Martin, 1989).

We were particularly interested in assessing Type A characteristics in this study, as in

many ways this personality construct seems to represent the antithesis of individuals high on

sense of humor components, such as laughter. A theme often evident in the humor literature is

that individuals with a greater sense of humor also display a more positive orientation towards

life’s numerous challenges and experiences, resulting in an overall enhanced quality of life

(Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Kuiper & Olinger, 1998). There is empirical evidence supporting this

notion, with studies showing that individuals high on sense of humor components, such as Daily Laughter 7

laughter responsiveness, are less adversely affected by stress (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986; Martin,

1996), and report greater life satisfaction and more positive affect (Kuiper, Martin & Dance,

1992; Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dance, 1993). Thus, in the present context we expected that

there would be a negative relationship between the actual amount of laughter displayed by an

individual, and their endorsement of Type A personality characteristics such as anger,

competitiveness, impatience, and time urgency.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 50 female and 30 male adults, recruited through

newspaper and cable TV advertisements, from the general community in London, Ontario,

Canada. The advertisements did not mention either humor or laughter, but instead focused on an

interest in studying aspects of personality. The mean age of all participants was 33.2 years, with

a range from 17 to 79, and a standard deviation of 13 years. For women, the mean age was 32.2

years, with a standard deviation of 13.50 years. The mean age for men was 34.8 years, with a

standard deviation of 15.69 years. Each participant received a total of $20 for taking part in this

study.

Laughter and Humor Measures

Daily Laughter Record (DLR). Instructions for this measure stated that the purpose of

this record was to find out how often, and under what circumstances, people laugh during an

ordinary day. Participants were asked to carry the record with them throughout the day, and enter

all experiences of laughter as they occurred. In adding to the coding system developed by

Graeven and Morris (1975), six pieces of information were recorded for each incident of laughter,

with each of these described in detail below.

To facilitate the ease of accurate reporting, each page of the record was divided into six

columns, with a number of rows available to separately indicate the information for each

humorous incident. The first column in each row was reserved for the laughter incident number,

with consecutive numbers being used throughout each day. In the second column, the participant

recorded the source of humor (i.e., “What made you laugh?). Four response options were

available here, namely, Mass Media (M), (i.e., TV, comics, movies, magazine articles, etc.);

Spontaneous Situation (S) (i.e., Something funny that you or someone else said or did, or

something that happened to you or someone else); Joke (J) (i.e., You or someone else told a

memorized joke); and Event (E) (i.e., You or someone else remembered or talked about an event

or experience that happened in the past). For each incident, the participant entered the

appropriate letter (M, S, J, or E) in this column. Daily Laughter 8

In the third column of the Daily Laughter Record, a strength of mirth numerical rating

was entered. For each incident this could range from (1) “I just smiled” to (2) “I laughed a little”

to (3) “I laughed a lot.” The initiator of the incident was recorded in column four, with two

response options being available, either Self (S) (i.e., Something you said or did caused you to

laugh) or Other (O) (i.e., Something that someone else said or did caused you to laugh). In the

fifth column, the participant recorded whether others were present when the incident happened.

A yes response (Y) indicated that they were with other people during this incident, whereas a no

response (N) indicated that they were alone. In the final and sixth column of each row, the time

of day for each incident was recorded, with M used for morning (i.e. before 12:00 noon), A for

afternoon (i.e., noon to 6:00 p.m.), and E for evening (after 6:00 p.m.). Finally, in order to assess

the degree to which the records may have been incomplete, participants were also asked to

estimate, at the end of each of the three days, the percentage of actual incidents of mirth that they

had been able to record that day.

Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ: Martin & Lefcourt, 1984). The

SHRQ is a 21-item self-report measure designed to assess the degree to which a person typically

responds with mirth and laughter to a wide variety of life situations. Each item on this scale

describes a real-life situation, for example, being in a restaurant with friends and having a waiter

accidentally spill a drink on you. Responses for each item are made on a 5-point scale, ranging

from (1) “I wouldn’t have found it particularly amusing,” to (5) “I would have laughed heartily.”

Mean scores for the SHRQ are typically about 60, with standard deviations of about 9 (Lefcourt

& Martin, 1986). As described by Martin (1996), a number of research studies have shown that

the SHRQ possesses good psychometric qualities. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability

coefficients for this scale are in the .70 to .85 range. Construct validation research has shown the

expected significant correlations between SHRQ scores and a variety of other measures,

including spontaneous laughter during an interview, peer ratings of humor, and rated

humorousness of monologues.

Coping Humor Scale (CHS: Martin & Lefcourt, 1983). The CHS is a 7-item self-report

scale that assesses the degree to which individuals utilize humor as a coping technique when

dealing with stressful life circumstances. A typical item on the scale is: “I can usually find

something to laugh or joke about, even in trying circumstances.” Responses to each item are

made on a 4-point scale, ranging from (1) “Strongly disagree” to (4) “Strongly agree”. Typical

means for the CHS are about 20, with standard deviations of 3.5 (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986). In

reviewing the substantial number of research studies that have employed the CHS, Martin (1996)

provided evidence for both the reliability and validity of this measure. Cronbach alphas in the Daily Laughter 9

range of .60 to .70 indicate that the CHS is internally consistent and reliable. In turn, validational

studies show, for example, that individuals scoring higher on the CHS are rated by their peers as

not taking themselves too seriously, are less adversely affected by stressful life events, and show

a greater ability to cope more effectively with various stressors, such as dental surgery (Martin,

1996).

Personality Measures

Self-Concept Rating Task (SCRT: Kuiper & Martin, 1993). Participants were asked to

provide self-descriptive ratings on a set of 47 personal adjectives designed to tap four distinct

aspects of personality. Previous work by Kuiper and Martin (1993) has resulted in

psychometrically sound measures for each of these four personality dimensions, namely,

sociability (e.g., hospitable, neighborly), depressive personality (e.g., worthless, defeated),

dominance (e.g., forceful, persistent), and orderliness (e.g., organized, systematic). The personal

adjectives pertaining to each dimension were rated individually, using a 7-point degree of self-

reference rating scale that ranged from (1) “Extremely unlike me,” to (7) “Extremely like me.”

The SCRT provides a separate score for each of the four self-concept dimensions.

Framingham Type A Scale (FTAS: Haynes, Levine, Scotch, Feinleib & Kannel, 1978).

The FTAS is a widely used 10-item self-report instrument designed to provide a global

assessment of the Type A construct. For the first 6 items, respondents indicate how self-

descriptive each item is, using a 4-point scale ranging from (1) “Not at all.” to (4) “Very well.” A

sample item is “Being hard-driven and competitive.” For the remaining 4 items, respondents are

asked to indicate how well each statement describes the way they feel at the end of an average

day. The same 4-point scale is employed, with a sample item being “Work often stretches you to

the very limits of your energy and capacity.” The FTAS is a reliable and valid measure of Type

A characteristics, as demonstrated, in part, by its significant relationship to increased levels of

coronary heart disease (Haynes, et al., 1978).

Survey of Work Styles (SWS: Jackson and Gray, 1989). The SWS is a 96-item

multidimensional self-report measure of Type A. Based upon a rigorous construct approach to

test construction, the SWS incorporates six separate subscales tapping various aspects of the Type

A construct. These subscales assess degree of competitiveness, job dissatisfaction, time urgency,

impatience, anger, and job involvement. Examples of items from the SWS are, “I become quite

irritated when I have to wait in line,” “I tend to lose my temper easily at work,” and “I would

never let someone else win a game.” Each item is rated on a 5-point scale in terms of how

characteristic it is of the person’s behavior. The anchors for this rating scale are (1) “Extremely

uncharacteristic,” and (5) “Extremely characteristic.” Psychometric work with the SWS has Daily Laughter 10

revealed good reliability, with median internal consistency coefficients of .82 for the six

subscales, and .90 for the total score. Construct validity has been demonstrated in a sample of

middle-level business managers, with SWS scores significantly related to other measures of Type

A, such as the FTAS). Furthermore, high SWS scores are significant predictors of increased

blood pressure and heart rate during a stressful mental arithmetic task.

Procedure

Individuals who responded to our advertisements were scheduled for an initial

appointment in the lab. At this individual session, each participant completed a number of

questionnaires. The following scales were presented by a personal computer in a randomized

order: Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ), Coping Humor Scale (CHS),

Framingham Type A Scale (FTAS), the Survey of Work Styles (SWS), and the Self-Concept

Rating Task (SCRT). Participants were then given a packet containing three copies of the Daily

Laughter Record (DLR), one for each day of the study. The six pieces of information to be

recorded for each laughter incident were explained in detail, with a number of examples being

given. In addition to the written instructions in the record, participants were verbally reminded

that the purpose of the laughter record was to find out how often, and under what circumstances,

people laugh during an ordinary day. Participants were also verbally reminded to carry the record

with them during the next three days and enter all incidents in which they laughed out loud, as

they occurred. They were asked to return the completed records by mail after three days. The

participants also completed several other scales that are not relevant to the present context. The

participants received $8.00 at the end of the initial laboratory session and a further $12.00 after

the study was completed.

Results and Discussion

How frequently do people laugh in a day, and under what circumstances?

Since our focus is on overt laughter, all results are based only on humor incidents

recorded as having a strength of mirth of 2 or 3 (i.e., laughed a little or a lot). Averaging over the

three days of the study, participants estimated that they had recorded a mean of 83.2 % of the

actual mirth incidents that had occurred each day (s.d. = 10.36). Thus, the mean frequencies

reported below may slightly underestimate the actual frequencies of laughter. It is important to

note, however, that participants’ estimates of the percentage of total incidents recorded were not

significantly correlated with any of the other main variables under investigation in this study,

including age and gender, nor total frequency of laughter (r = -.005, n.s.). The only exceptions

were for two personality characteristics, with higher Time Urgency (a subscale of the SWS) and

increased orderliness (a SCRT dimension), both being associated with moderately higher Daily Laughter 11

recording estimates (r’s = .26 and .24, respectively, both p’s < .05). Overall, then, the

relationships between laughter frequency and other variables reported below are not affected by

the possibility of any differential reporting biases in participants’ Daily Laughter Records.

Mean frequencies of daily laughter were computed for the main categories represented in

the Daily Laughter Record (DLR), averaging across participants and the three days of the study.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and ranges for these frequencies for the entire

sample, as well as men and women separately. As shown in the left-most column of Table 1a, the

total mean frequency of laughter was between 17 and 18 incidents per day, with a wide range

being evident (0 to 89 incidents). This mean value is somewhat higher than that reported by

Mannell and McMahon (1982) for overt laughter.

The data pertaining to the time of day in which laughter occurs is shown in Table 1b. As

in the Mannell and McMahon (1982) study, frequency of laughter increased considerably over

the course of the day, with approximately 24% of laughter occurring in the morning, 36% in the

afternoon, and 41% in the evening. A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on

these data for the entire sample revealed a significant main effect for time of day, F (2, 156) =

12.82, p < .0001. Post-hoc Newman-Keuls comparisons indicated that the mean frequencies of

laughter in the afternoon and evening were both significantly greater than the frequency in the

morning, but that the afternoon and evening frequencies did not differ significantly from one

another. When considering these findings, it should be noted that we did not have participants

record the times they woke up in the morning or went to sleep at night. Thus, it is possible that

some portion of these frequency distinctions may relate to variations in the length of time

involved in each time period.

With regard to the various sources of laughter, Table 1c indicates that the majority of the

laughter incidents were those that arose spontaneously in the situation (i.e., approximately 56% of

the total daily frequency of laughter). Less frequent sources of daily laughter were mass media

(approximately 18%), recalled events (15%), and jokes (11%). A repeated measures ANOVA on

these data for the entire sample yielded a significant main effect for source of laughter

categorization, F (3, 234) = 40.52, p < .0001. Post-hoc analyses using the Newman-Keuls

procedure revealed that this finding was due to significant differences between the frequency of

laughter arising spontaneously from the situation and each of the three remaining sources; with

these latter three sources (media, jokes, and past events) not differing significantly from one

another. Overall, these proportions are generally comparable to those described by Mannell and

McMahon (1982). The present study, however, found a slightly greater proportion of laughter in Daily Laughter 12

response to mass media and spontaneous events, and somewhat less responding to jokes and

recalled events.

When considering the initiator of laughter, Table 1d indicates that approximately 64% of

the incidents of laughter occurred in response to humor initiated by someone else, whereas only

36% of the incidents were initiated by the participants themselves. A repeated measures ANOVA

revealed that this difference is highly significant, F (1, 78) = 49.71, p < .0001. Furthermore, in

examining the social context in which laughter occurs (see Table 1e), the vast majority of

laughter incidents occurred when participants were with other people (approximately 88%) rather

than alone (12%). Again, a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that this difference was highly

significant, F (1, 78) = 93.75, p < .0001. Overall, these latter two findings reinforce the notion

that laughter is clearly a social activity, with the majority of laughter occurring in the presence of

other people, and about two-thirds of laughter occurring in response to things that other people

say or do.

Is frequency of laughter related to gender and/or age?

As shown in Table 1a, the overall daily mean frequency of laughter was slightly higher

for women than for men, (18.5 versus 16.1 daily incidents, respectively). However, a t-test on

these means revealed that this gender difference was not significant. In fact, a series of t-tests

comparing the means for men and women for each of the main DLR categories of laughter, as

shown in Table 1, failed to reveal any significant gender differences, except for laughter arising

spontaneously in the situation. Women showed a significantly higher frequency of laughter for

this particular source of laughter than did men, t (78) = 2.07, p < .05. Thus, even though both

men and women laughed most often in response to spontaneous situations than to humor arising

from media, jokes or recalled events, this difference was even greater for women. In summary,

there were almost no significant differences between men and women in terms of frequency of

laughter for the main DLR categories, with the one exception being spontaneous social situations

as a source of laughter.

Table 2 presents the correlations between participants’ age and each of the DLR

categories of laughter for the entire sample, and for men and women separately. For the entire

sample, total frequency of daily laughter was significantly negatively related to age. However, an

examination of the correlations for men and women separately reveals that this pattern is due to a

significant negative correlation for women but not for men (see Table 2a). Thus, older women

tend to laugh less often than do younger women, whereas age is not related to total laughter in

men. To explore this age effect for women more fully, their laughter frequency data were further

categorized by young and old age groups. Here, women under the age of 24 reported a mean of Daily Laughter 13

22.7 laughter incidents per day, whereas women over 60 reported a mean of only half this

number, namely, 11.7 daily incidents.

The correlations between age and frequency of laughter during various times of the day

reveal that, for both men and women, the frequency of laughter in the evening was negatively

related to age (see Table 2b). This finding was analyzed further by dividing the total sample, via

a median split on age, into older and younger participants, and then conducting a 2 (Age) by

2 (Gender) by 3 (Time of day) ANOVA on frequencies of laughter. This analysis revealed a

significant main effect for time of day (F (2, 74) = 11.21, p < .0001), and a significant two-way

interaction between time of day and age (F (2, 74) = 10.48, p < .0001). All other effects were not

significant. Examination of the cell means associated with the significant time of day by age

interaction revealed that older and younger participants displayed approximately equal

frequencies of laughter in the morning and afternoon, but that in the evening younger participants

displayed approximately twice as much laughter (M = 9.1) as did older participants (M = 4.9). A

post-hoc Newman-Keuls test revealed that this difference was significant (p < .01). Thus, older

people laugh less often in the evenings than do those who are younger. This may be due, in part,

to older people going to bed earlier, or spending less time with others in the evening. In addition,

age for women was inversely related to their frequency of laughter during the afternoon, whereas

the age of men was irrelevant to their frequency of afternoon laughter (see Table 2b). Finally, for

men but not for women, laughter frequency increased with age in the morning (Table 2b). Thus,

older men are more likely to laugh during the morning than are younger men, but this age

distinction is not relevant for women during this portion of the day.

With regard to the source of laughter, the lower frequency of total laughter found in older

women, as compared to younger women, occurs in regard to laughter arising spontaneously from

the situation, and laughter in response to recalling a past event (Table 2c). Thus, older women

laugh less often in response to these two sources of humor, as compared to younger women, but

age in women is not significantly related to laughter in response to media or jokes. For the total

sample, there is also a weak negative correlation with age for laughter in response to media, but

this is not significant for men and women separately. With regard to the initiator of humor (Table

2d), the age difference in overall frequency of laughter in women is found with both self-initiated

and other-initiated humor. Finally, as shown in Table 2e, the negative correlation between age

and laughter in women is found with laughter that occurs with other people, but not when alone.

As found with total frequency of laughter, age of men was irrelevant to the source of laughter,

who initiated it, or the social context. In sum, although there were very few differences between

men and women in total frequencies of laughter in the various DLR categories, gender Daily Laughter 14

differences do appear when age is taken into account. Overall, age is negatively related to

laughter in women but not in men.

Is frequency of laughter differentially related to self-report humor scores?

Table 3 presents the correlations between each of the DLR categories of laughter

frequency and scores on the self-report measures of laughter responsiveness (SHRQ) and coping

humor (CHS). These correlations are presented for the entire sample, and for men and women

separately. As expected, frequencies of laughter for the various categories were more closely

associated with laughter responsiveness (SHRQ scores) than with coping humor (CHS scores).

Total frequency of laughter for the entire sample, for example, was significantly related to

participants’ scores on the SHRQ, but only marginally related to CHS scores (see Table 3a).

Further analyses employing the entire sample indicate that higher SHRQ scores were related to

more frequent laughter in the afternoons and evenings (Table 3b), and to increased laughter with

other people, but not alone (Table 3e). With regard to sources of humor, higher SHRQ scores

were primarily related to greater frequency of laughter resulting from recalling humorous past

events and telling memorized jokes, and less strongly related to laughter arising from either

spontaneous situations or the media (see Table 3c). In addition, higher SHRQ scores appear to

be related to the frequency of laughter in response to humor initiated both by oneself and by other

people (Table 3d). When taken together, this pattern of significant relationships between SHRQ

scores and various frequency of laughter categories provides additional construct validation for

this self-report measure of laughter responsiveness. An examination of the correlations for men

and women separately indicates that, across most of the categories, the SHRQ is more strongly

related to frequency of laughter in women than in men.

In contrast, and as expected from our multidimensional conceptualization of sense of

humor (Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Martin, 1996), self-report scores of coping humor (CHS) were

generally unrelated to the various DLR frequency of laughter categories, or showed much weaker

relationships with these categories than did the SHRQ scores (see Table 3). Since the CHS was

designed to assess the tendency to use humor in coping with stress, rather than laughter

responsiveness per se, this weaker pattern of relationships with frequency of daily laughter was

theoretically predicted.

Is total frequency of daily laughter related to personality characteristics?

The correlations between total frequency of laughter over the three days and personality

characteristics are shown in Table 4a for the self-concept ratings, and Table 4b for the Type A

measures. For the entire sample, self-concept adjective ratings on the four dimensions of

personality failed to show any significant relationships with total laughter frequency (see Table Daily Laughter 15

4a). This finding was unexpected, as past work has found that higher levels of sociability and

lower levels of depressive personality are associated with increased levels of laughter, as

measured by the SHRQ (Kuiper & Martin, 1993). Significant relationships emerged, however,

when gender distinctions were taken into account. Here, men who engaged in more frequent

laughter also displayed higher levels of dominance and orderliness, and lower levels of depressive

personality (see Table 4a). In contrast, women who reported more frequent laughter over the

three day period showed significantly lower levels of orderliness.

This striking pattern of gender differences was also evident for the Type A measures.

In accord with our original proposal that greater laughter would be associated with fewer Type A

characteristics, women who laugh more frequently across the three days show significantly lower

levels of competitiveness, less job dissatisfaction, and lower overall total SWS scores (see Table

4b). Unexpectedly, however, men showed precisely the opposite pattern, with increased laughter

generally positively related to Type A personality characteristics. Men who laugh more

frequently show higher scores on both of the overall measures of Type A, namely, the FTAS and

the SWS total score. In addition, on the SWS subscales, more frequent laughter in men is related

to greater levels of competitiveness, time urgency, and impatience. Finally, the anger and job

involvement components of Type A, as measured by the SWS, were unrelated to laughter

frequency for either men or women.

General Discussion

A major goal of this study was to document more fully the natural occurrence of laughter

in typical everyday settings. In doing so, the present findings advance previous work in this

domain (i.e., Kambouropoulus, 1930; Graeven & Morris, 1975; Mannell & McMahon, 1982) by

providing more detailed information concerning the context associated with naturally occurring

laughter. Departing from prior work that relied exclusively on student samples, we had each of

80 adults living in the community complete a Daily Laughter Record for three days. Each overt

incident of laughter was coded into a number of different categories, including time of day,

source and initiator of laughter, and whether or not the individual was alone or with others. Our

results indicate that, overall, people laugh an average of 18 times a day, a finding that was

somewhat higher than that found in earlier research using a similar coding scheme (Mannell &

McMahon, 1982). In accord with previous work, we found that frequency of laughter generally

increased throughout the course of the day, being least evident in the morning, and most

pronounced in the evening. Importantly, however, we found that this pattern was strongly

tempered by age, with the older individuals in our community sample showing less laughter

during the evenings than did younger people. Furthermore, in support of an individual Daily Laughter 16

differences perspective on the study of laughter and humor, we found substantial personal

variations in total frequency of daily laughter. Some of our community participants, for example,

reported no laughter during the three days, whereas others laughed very often, reporting up to 89

incidents per day. Interestingly, this latter number represents a five-fold increase over the

average daily frequency of laughter.

In considering the various sources of laughter, the present findings converge with

previous work indicating that the most frequent type of humor is that arising spontaneously in the

situation (Graeven & Morris, 1975; Mannell & McMahon, 1982). In our study, over 55% of

reported incidents were attributed to this one main source; in contrast, the media, telling of jokes,

and recalling of past humorous events contributed less than 18% each. In fact, memorized jokes

accounted for only 11% of the reported daily incidents of laughter. This finding, which has now

been replicated across three independent samples (including students and community adults),

suggests that jokes are actually of limited importance in the natural generation of laughter and

humor. In addition, research by other investigators has shown that even when people recall

humorous events, these events do not often display sexual or aggressive themes, but rather

revolve around the foolishness of someone (VanGiffen & Maher, 1995).

When taken together, these ecological observations contrast markedly with the

widespread laboratory use of jokes and cartoons, many of which emphasize sexual and/or

aggressive themes, in the study of laughter and humor (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998; Martin,

1998). Although the use of jokes and cartoons has contributed a great deal to our understanding

of the processes involved in humor, as well as individual differences in humor appreciation (e.g.,

Ruch, 1998), these naturalistic findings suggest that it may also be useful to investigate even

more vigorously the parameters associated with other sources of laughter and humor that play a

prominent role in our daily lives. Consistent with the present findings, this might include the

detailed examination of personal, social, and contextual factors pertaining to laughter and humor

in naturally occurring social interactions (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998; Provine & Fisher, 1989).

In further support of this research direction, the present study has shown that the vast majority of

naturalistic laughter occurs in the presence of other people, and that people laugh much more

when responding to humor initiated by other people than by themselves. This pattern is quite

congruent with observational research by Provine and Fisher (1989) showing that smiles and

laughter occur primarily during social encounters, and highlights once again the essentially social

and spontaneous nature of laughter.

A further goal of this study was to provide additional empirical support for the construct

validity of a widely-used self-report measure of laughter responsiveness, the Situational Humor Daily Laughter 17

Response Questionnaire (SHRQ: Martin, 1996). This scale has been employed extensively in

humor research over the past 15 years, and has demonstrated good psychometric properties

relating to both reliability and validity. The present findings continue to reinforce the usefulness

of the SHRQ, as higher scores on this measure were indeed associated with greater frequency of

laughter across a large number of categories in our coding scheme. Thus, as predicted,

individuals with higher SHRQ scores also showed a higher frequency of total laughter across the

three days of the study; increased laughter in the afternoons and evenings; more laughter

pertaining to situation, joke, and past event sources; greater laughter in response to self and other-

initiated humor; and more laughter in the presence of others. Taken together, these naturalistic

findings provide further convergent validity for the use of the SHRQ as a measure of laughter

responsiveness across a wide variety of everyday situations.

By also including the Coping Humor Scale (CHS: Martin, 1996) in the present study we

were able to assess the degree to which our multidimensional conceptualization of sense of humor

was empirically supported in a natural context. Over the years, our theoretical orientation has

been that sense of humor consists of various components that do share some essential features,

but also tap distinct elements (Kuiper & Martin, 1993; 1998). The laughter component of sense

of humor, for example, can be assessed via the SHRQ; whereas the coping component of humor

can be assessed via the CHS (Martin, 1996). Using these two self-report scales, our prior work

has consistently supported this multidimensional concept of sense of humor, as laughter and

coping humor scores are only moderately related (Kuiper & Martin, 1993; 1998). The present

work adds further empirical support to this theoretical position by showing that coping humor

(CHS) was less related to frequency of laughter across three days than was laughter

responsiveness (SHRQ).

Another consideration in this research study was to explore potential gender differences

in the frequency of naturally occurring laughter. With regard to mean levels of laughter

frequency, very few overall differences in laughter emerged. Men and women, for example, did

not differ in their total frequency of laughter. Of the several different categories coded in this

study, only the spontaneous situational source of laughter was significantly more pronounced for

women than men. Even here, however, this source was clearly the most important for both men

and women. The general lack of any substantive frequency of laughter differences between men

and women is particularly noteworthy, as gender differences in humor and laughter have often

been proposed in the past (see Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998 for a review). Although social

context may have some influence on the relative degree to which men and women laugh in Daily Laughter 18

particular situations (e.g., Provine, 1993), there do not appear to be differences in their frequency

of laughter.

Although overall frequency differences between men and women were not found, gender

differences did begin to emerge when we examined the relationship between age and frequency

of laughter. Since prior work in this domain has been conducted with relatively homogeneous

university-aged student samples (Graeven & Morris, 1975; Mannell & McMahon, 1982), it was

not possible to systematically assess the effects of age differences on naturally occurring laughter.

In contrast, the age range of 62 years in the present community-based study was very substantial

(from 17 to 79 years old), permitting a meaningful analysis. In general, our age-related findings

highlight the importance of considering this variable, especially for women. Total frequency of

laughter, for example, diminished with age, but only for women. Older women also showed

significantly lower frequencies of laughter pertaining to both situational and past event sources,

self and other-initiated laughter, and laughter in the presence of others. None of these age

differences were evident for men. In fact, the only age effect shared by both men and women was

a significant decrease in laughter in the evenings. This latter effect clearly qualifies the general

finding that frequency of laughter increases throughout the course of the day, and is most

pronounced in the evening. Whereas this general pattern may be representative of the majority of

our participants (over 70% of our sample was in the age range from 17 to 46 years old), it is

certainly not representative of older individuals.

It is difficult to know how to account for these age differences in laughter. As suggested

earlier, the reduced frequency of laughter in older men and women during the evening may be

simply due to them going to bed earlier than younger people and therefore not having as much

time in which to laugh. Unfortunately, we did not ask our subjects to record the time they went to

bed each day. Alternatively, it may be due to older people spending less time socializing with

others during the evening, and therefore having less occasion for laughter. However, these

explanations don’t account for why older women, but not older men, laugh less frequently

overall. One possibility is that older women are more likely to be widowed and living alone than

are older men. Unfortunately, we did not record the subjects’ marital status, which would have

allowed us to evaluate this possibility. Another potential explanation is that this finding is due to

a cohort effect, such that women who were raised during an earlier time period may have been

socialized not to laugh as much as men, whereas in recent decades differential societal

expectations for males and females may not have been as pronounced. Indeed, Lampert and

Ervin-Tripp (1998) have reviewed research evidence indicating that differences in humor in men Daily Laughter 19

and women have diminished over the past few decades. In any case, these findings do indicate

that age and gender factors in humor and laughter should be investigated further.

The final aim of this research was to investigate potential relationships between a number

of personality characteristics and total frequency of naturally occurring laughter. Here again,

interesting gender differences emerged, especially as they pertain to Type A personality. This

construct consists of a hard-driven life style, marked by enhanced levels of anger, aggression,

time urgency, and competitiveness (Kuiper & Martin, 1989). Research has shown that these

Type A characteristics are associated with a reduced quality of life, including less life satisfaction

and greater physical and mental health concerns (Kuiper & Martin, 1989). In contrast, a greater

sense of humor has been linked to a more positive life style, including less perceived stress, more

positive affect, and greater life satisfaction (Kuiper et al., 1992). Thus, it was our original

expectation that individuals displaying greater levels of Type A personality would be less likely

to engage in laughter.

Our findings, however, showed that this pattern only obtained for women, with increased

frequency of laughter being associated with significantly lower Type A scores, including job

dissatisfaction and competitiveness. In addition, women who laughed more often showed lower

levels of orderliness on the self-concept rating task. Men, on the other hand, displayed a

strikingly opposite pattern, with increased frequency of laughter across the three days correlated

with higher Type A characteristics, including greater time urgency, competitiveness, and

impatience as well as higher total scores on two Type A measures. The men also showed higher

levels of orderliness and dominance on the self-rating adjective dimensions.

These gender differences suggest that, although men and women do not differ in how

often they laugh overall, laughter has very different meanings or functions for men and women

and, perhaps, that they laugh at different things. Thus, men who laugh more often tend to be

those who are more dominant, orderly, impatient, competitive, and time-pressured, traits that have

traditionally been associated with masculinity (Ruble, 1983). In contrast, women who laugh

more often tend to display the opposite personality characteristics. Further research is needed to

determine whether this relationship between laughter in men and Type A traits extends to

relationships between laughter and other correlates of Type A, such as greater risk of heart

disease, poorer health, and generally reduced quality of life. One finding in the present study that

may argue against this is that greater laughter frequency was related to lower depressive

personality traits in men. Nonetheless, these results do suggest that laughter is not always related

to positive or adaptive personality traits, particularly in men (Kuiper & Martin, 1998). Daily Laughter 20

Although the present descriptive study did not assess the functional aspects of laughter or

humor, prior research has provided some leads for explaining these gender differences. In a

detailed review of work on gender distinctions in humor, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (1998) have

suggested that men’s humor tends to be more competitive and focused on self-enhancement,

whereas women’s humor tends to be more supportive and concerned with the validation of

personal experience. Cox, Read, and VanAuken (1990), for example, found that in socially

awkward situations at work, men used more humor responses, whereas women displayed more

helping responses. When considered in light of the personality correlates found in the present

study, it is possible that men may tend to laugh more frequently at disparaging forms of hostile

humor, including put-downs of others, as a way of asserting their dominance and expressing

competitiveness and impatience. In contrast, women may be more likely to laugh at more

nonhostile forms of humor, such as good-natured play and fantasy. This pattern would also be

consistent with research showing that greater use of disparaging humor is linked to increased

physical health problems, whereas increased use of nonhostile humor is related to higher levels of

well-being (Carroll, 1990). In light of these striking gender differences in the relationships

between frequency of daily laughter and Type A personality characteristics, future work should

certainly investigate the extent to which laughter may sometimes have a different meaning for

men and women. More generally, the issue of how laughter and humor may, under certain

circumstances, be either beneficial or counter-productive to psychological well-being is one that

requires further examination in natural settings. Daily Laughter 21

References

Carroll, J.L. (1990). The relationship between humor appreciation and perceived

physical health. Psychology: A journal of human behavior. 27, 34-37.

Cox, J.A., Read, R.L. and VanAuken, P.M. (1990). Male-female differences in

communicating job-related humor: An exploratory study. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research. 3, 287-295.

Graeven, D.B., and Morris, S.J. (1975). College humor in 1930 and 1972: An

investigation using the humor diary. Sociology and Social Research, 59, 406-410.

Haynes, S.G., Levine, S., Scotch, N., Feinleib, M., & Kannel, W.B. (1978). The

relationship of psychosocial factors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham Study: I.

Methods and risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology, 107, 362-383.

Jackson, D.N., & Gray, A. (1989). Survey of Work Styles manual: Research edition.

Port Huron, Mich.: Research Psychologists Press.

Kambouropoulou, P. (1930). Individual differences in the sense of humor and their

relation to temperamental differences. Archives of Psychology, 19, 1-83.

Kuiper, N.A., and Martin, R.A. (1989). Type A behavior: A social cognition motivational

perspective. In Bower, G.H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in

research and theory (Vol. 24, pp. 311-341), New York: Academic Press.

Kuiper, N.A., and Martin, R. A. (1993). Humor and self-concept. Humor: International

Journal of Humor Research, 6, 251-270.

Kuiper, N.A., & Martin, R.A. (1998). Is sense of humor a positive personality

characteristic? In W. Ruch (Ed.) The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality

characteristic (Humor Research Series). (pp. 183-206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Dance, K. A. (1992). Sense of humor and enhanced

quality of life. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1273-1283.

Kuiper, N.A., & Olinger, L.J. (1998). Humor and mental health. In H. Friedman (Ed.).

Encyclopedia of mental health. Vol. II, pages 445-458. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lampert, M.D., & Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (1998) Exploring paradigms: The study of gender

and sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In W.Ruch (Ed.) The sense of humor:

Explorations of a personality characteristic. (Humor Research Series) (pp. 235-276). Berlin,

Mouton de Gruyter.

Lefcourt, H.M., & Martin, R.A. (1986). Humor and life stress: Antidote to adversity.

New York: Springer-Verlag. Daily Laughter 22

Lowis, M.J., & Nieuwoudt, J.M. (1995). The use of a cartoon rating scale as a measure

for the humor construct. Journal of Psychology, 129, 133-144.

Mannell, R.C., & McMahon, L. (1982). Humor as play: Its relationship to psychological

well-being during the course of the day. Leisure Sciences, 5, 143-155.

Martin, R.A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and

Coping Humor Scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 9, 251-272.

Martin, R.A. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W.Ruch

(Ed.) The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic. (Humor Research Series)

(pp. 15-62). Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.

Martin, R.A., Kuiper, N.A, Olinger, L.J., & Dance, K.A. (1993). Humor, coping with

stress, self-concept, and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research, 6, 89-104.

Martin, R.A., & Lefcourt, H.M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation

between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1313-1324.

Martin, R.A., & Lefcourt, H.M. (1984). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire:

A quantitative measure of the sense of humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,

145-155.

Provine, E. R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts

of laughter. Ethology, 95(4), 291-298.

Provine, E.R., & Fisher, K.R. (1989). Laughing, smiling, and talking: Relation to

sleeping and social context in humans. Ethology, 83, 295-305.

Ruble, T.L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9, 397-

399.

Ruch, W. (Ed.) (1998). The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic.

(Humor Research Series). Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.

Thorson, J.A., & Powell, F.C. (1996). Women, aging, and sense of humor. Humor:

International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 169-186.

VanGiffen, K. & Maher, K. (1995). Memorable humorous incidents: Gender, themes,

and setting effects. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 8, 39-50. Daily Laughter 23

Table 1: Total Frequency of Daily Laughter, and Frequencies for Main Categories of the DLR

______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Sample Men Women

(N = 80) Percent (n = 30) (n=50) t-test

______________________________________________________________________________

a) Total Laughter Mean 17.56 100% 16.07 18.48 n.s.

S.D. 12.49 13.51 11.87

Range 0-89 0-68 1-89

b) Morning Mean 4.13 23.50% 3.62 4.44 n.s.

S.D. 3.95 4.69 3.45

Range 0-47 0-47 0-27

Afternoon Mean 6.32 36.00% 5.81 6.63 n.s.

S.D. 5.54 5.74 5.45

Range 0-35 0-35 0-35

Evening Mean 7.11 40.50% 6.63 7.41 n.s.

S.D. 5.76 6.40 5.37

Range 0-55 0-36 0-55

c) Media Mean 3.05 17.40% 3.34 2.86 n.s.

S.D. 3.20 3.50 3.03

Range 0-23 0-23 0-19

Situation Mean 9.90 56.30% 7.32 11.48 .05

S.D. 8.85 7.07 9.51

Range 0-74 0-51 0-74

Joke Mean 1.94 11.10% 2.41 1.65 n.s.

S.D. 2.58 2.82 2.42

Range 0-20 0-16 0-20

Past Event Mean 2.67 15.20% 2.99 2.48 n.s.

S.D 3.36 3.90 3.01

Range 0-20 0-20 0-20

______________________________________________________________________________

continues ... Daily Laughter 24

Table 1 continued:

Table 1: Total Frequency of Daily Laughter, and Frequencies for Main Categories of the DLR

______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Sample Men Women

(N = 80) Percent (n = 30) (n=50) t-test

______________________________________________________________________________

d) Self-Initiated Mean 6.34 36.00% 5.96 6.58 n.s.

S.D. 5.83 6.65 5.32

Range 0-33 0-33 0-30

Other-Initiated Mean 11.22 64.00% 10.11 11.90 n.s.

S.D. 7.79 7.84 7.80

Range 0-63 0-40 0-63

e) With Others Mean 15.53 88.40% 13.32 16.88 n.s.

S.D. 11.65 11.72 11.52

Range 0-91 0-84 1-91

Alone Mean 2.03 11.60% 2.74 1.60 n.s.

S.D. 3.22 4.63 1.85

Range 0-30 0-30 0-15

______________________________________________________________________________

Daily Laughter 25

Table 2: Correlations between DLR Frequency of Laughter Categories and Age

______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Sample Men Women

(N = 80) (n = 30) (n=50)

______________________________________________________________________________

a) Total Laughter -.22** -.11 -.31**

b) Morning .11 .32** -.08

Afternoon -.15* -.06 -.21*

Evening -.42**** -.41*** -.42****

c) Media -.16* -.15 -.18

Situation -.20** -.14 -.22*

Joke -.01 .09 -.11

Past Event -.15* -.04 -.25**

d) Self-Initiated -.20** -.12 -.27**

Other-Initiated -.21** -.09 -.29**

e) With Others -.20** -.05 -.30**

Alone -.14 -.18 -.11

_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .10 ** p < .05 ****p<.001 Daily Laughter 26

Table 3: Correlations between DLR Frequency of Laughter Categories and Humor Scales

______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Sample Men Women

(N = 80) (n = 30) (n=50)

SHRQ CHS SHRQ CHS SHRQ CHS

____________________________________________________________________________

a) Total Laughter .31*** .15* .25* .28* .35*** .09

b) Morning .06 .13 -.13 .07 .18 .16

Afternoon .29*** .14 .18 .19 .35*** .09

Evening .34**** .10 .43**** .24* .31** .01

c) Media .16* .09 .18 .15 .16 .07

Situation .19** .06 .25* .25* .17 -.06

Joke .26*** .24** .14 .25* .34*** .27**

Past Event .29*** .13 .10 -.01 .43**** .25**

d) Self-Initiated .26*** .19** .20 .16 .31** .21*

Other-Initiated .29*** .09 .23 .24* .33*** .00

e) With Others .32*** .16* .29* .29* .33*** .07

Alone .04 -.01 -.05 -.11 .18 .17

_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .10 ** p < .05 ***p<.01 ****p<.001 Daily Laughter 27

Table 4: Correlations between DLR Total Frequency of Laughter and Personality Measures

______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Sample Men Women

(N = 80) (n = 30) (n=50)

______________________________________________________________________________

a) Self-Concept Ratings

Sociability .12 .17 .11

Depressive Personality -.13 -.26* -.04

Dominance .03 .45*** -.19

Orderliness -.03 .42*** -.33***

b) Type A Personality Characteristics

Framingham .13 .38*** -.04

Survey of Work Styles

Total Score -.02 .38*** -.26**

Competitiveness -.04 .33** -.29**

Job Dissatisfaction -.09 .14 -.27**

Time Urgency .07 .36** -.10

Impatience .09 .34** -.05

Anger -.07 .09 -.18

Job Involvement -.04 .14 -.19

_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .10 ** p < .05 ***p<.01 ****p<.001

View publication stats