Citation
An investigation of the relationship between creative humor and authoritarianism

Material Information

Title:
An investigation of the relationship between creative humor and authoritarianism
Creator:
Cleland, Robert Scott, 1920- ( Dissertant )
Harlow, Justin E. ( Thesis advisor )
Hinckley, E. D. ( Reviewer )
Dixon, J. C. ( Reviewer )
Anderson, Richard J. ( Reviewer )
Fristoe, Charles W. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1957
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 83 leaves ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Authoritarianism ( jstor )
Cartoons ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Humor ( jstor )
Jokes ( jstor )
Laughter ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Psychometrics ( jstor )
Wit ( jstor )
Authoritarianism ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Personality tests ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Wit and humor ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
One of the limitations in some of the previous research has been that the study of humor has been subordinated to some other goal. Examples are a study of the effectiveness of humor in persuasive speech (37), and a humor test which contributes to a score in "social intelligence" (41). One "humor" test (9) merely uses Joke preferences as a device for securing measures of other aspects of personality, such as sex interest or hostility. Although "applied humor" studies are of interest, they do little to cast light on the nature of humor Itself. Probably the most striking deficiency In studies of humor has been their almost exclusive concern with appreciation, rather than the creation, of humor. Most experimenters have had subjects indicate their preferences for Jokes, limericks, and the like, by ranking or rating. Another technique requires subjects to choose the "funniest" of five endings to a joke (41), Eysenck (20, p. 225) is one of the few writers who has recognized that there are clearly two factors involved in "sense of humor", namely, "appreciation and production," He states that his studies with the production of humor have not yet yielded definite enough results to warrant publication. Another weakness of previous investigations of humor seems to be an overemphasis of humor as an index of possible psychopathology. This is especially true in psychoanalytically oriented studies, although Freud (23, p. 802) himself recognized "harmless" as well as "tendency" wit and described humor as "the loftiest of the defense functions." Viewing humor as a useful defense function, rather than as a symptom of conflict, seems a step in the right direction. But humor's positive, creative, function as an agent in "superior adaptation" has received little recognition. Some general problems concerning techniques and emphases in humor research have been discussed. The present study does not attempt to suggest what should be the goals In future research. However, it is thought best to point out that the aims and the plan of the present study developed, to a large extent, in reaction to some of the previous emphases. First, interest is centered on the creation of the humorous responses themselves, rather than on what hidden meanings they may contain or how others will react to them. This orientation leads, then, to the question of individual differences—not in appreciation of humor--but in the production of humor. Why are some people successful users of humor and others not? The present study also attempts to avoid the Mas of viewing humor primarily as an expression of psychological conflict. Freud (23, p. 760) stated that the importance of unconscious tendencies might explain "why the subjective conditions of wit are so frequently fulfilled in the case of neurotic persons". It is hoped to present evidence in this study suggesting that these conditions may Just as frequently, or more frequently, be fulfilled in the case of the psychologically healthy person. The problems pertaining to humor research discussed thus far are broad and complex. They will be documented and discussed in more detail in the review of the literature. The reactions on methods will present the complete experimental procedure. However, the general approach will be briefly described at this point. It was desired to relate the ability to be humorous to individual differences in personality. First, it was decided to limit the subjects to male, college undergraduates since most of the related research had utilized similar groups. For the measure of humor "production", a test consisting of eight incomplete cartoons was constructed. (The humor test Is reproduced in Appendix I.) The cartoons depicted familiar campus situations in which one student is saying something to another. The subject is asked to fill in a humorous reply. The personality measure selected was the California F (fascist or anti-democratic) scale, or "authoritarianism" scale (1, p. 255). This scale was chosen because of the many studies suggesting that the F scale measured several personality variables suspected of being crucial to the production of humor, A total of 188 male subjects, college undergraduates, were given the humor test to complete, followed by the F scale. Sixty subjects were then selected on the basis of their F scale scores: the 20 scoring highest (most authoritarian), the 20 scoring lowest, and the 20 "mid-most" in the distribution. The cartoon responses of these 60 subjects were then rated for funniness by a group of seven Judges. The results of the humor test, as related to the F scale classifications, constitute the principal findings.
Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida, 1957.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 67-71.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Biography.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021716164 ( AlephBibNum )
13287323 ( OCLC )
ACX4031 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

investigationofr00clelrich ( .pdf )

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_80.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_71.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_18.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_72.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_07.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_11.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_89.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_36.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_15.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_24.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_94.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_91.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_19.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_51.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_95.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_38.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_73.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_21.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_52.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_43.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_62.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_74.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_pdf.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_58.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_70.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_44.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_40.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_61.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_23.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_05.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_56.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_50.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_06.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_57.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_59.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_14.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_75.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_64.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_88.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_12.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_35.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_16.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_27.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_39.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_96.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_53.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_48.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_29.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_68.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_54.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_32.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_17.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_92.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_69.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_46.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_04.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_42.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_85.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_30.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_93.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_09.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_13.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_28.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_66.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_65.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_26.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_31.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_60.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_77.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_25.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_49.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_81.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_33.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_63.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_67.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_47.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_20.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_45.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_10.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_03.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_90.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_79.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_37.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_55.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_01.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_34.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_41.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_76.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_08.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_22.txt

investigationofr00clelrich_Page_87.txt


Full Text










AN INVESTIGATION OF THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATIVE

HUMOR AND AUTHORITARIANISM










ROBERT SCOTT CLELAND


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1957














ACKNOWI;LEDGMENT'!~S


To Dr. Justin E. Hatrlow, Jr., chairmana of the su-

pervisory committee, andk~ to the other members, Dr. E. D.

Hinckley, Dr. J. C. Dixon, Dr. R. J. Anderson, and Dr.

C. W. Fristoe, the author wishes to express his appreeia-

tion for unfailing support and eneourginagement

To the comm~ittee members who served as judges,

together with Dr. D. W. Soper, Dr. N., W. Coppinger, and

Dr. R. WJ. Bortner, the author extends sincere thanks for

performing an ard~uous t~ask

To Dean E. M. Miller and members of the Arts and

Sciences ffaculty of the University of IMiami at Coral

Gables, Florida, sincere appreciation for generous assist-

ance in obtaining subjects.
















TABLE OF COI:TIENTSj


Page


AClKrYNOrLEDGME~nTS . . . .

LIST OF TABELES .. . .. ..

LIST OF ILLUSTRlATIONIS .....

Chlapteor
I. INTRODUCTION ... . .

I.REVIEW~ OF THE LITERATURE

III. PROBLEM . ,.. . .

IV. METHOD . .. .. .

V. RESULTS . .. . .

VI. DISCUSSION . . . .

VII. SUMMARFY . . .

BIBLIOGRAPiY . .. . .

A~PPENDIXSj . .. .. . .


. . . . .

.~ ... i

. ........ V


. 1

. 7

. ...3

. ...3

. 49

. 6

. . . . ... 65

. ...6

. 72

. 72

NiISTRATOORS. 74

. 75

. 76

:SPONSES .. ... 78


HUV.0Ri TEST.


INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEST ADMI

INSTRUCTIONS FORi SUBE~CTS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR~ JUDGEtS

SPECIES OF HUM~OR. TEST RE


I.

II.

III.




V.


. . .


111

















LIST OF TABLES


Table Pagee

1. Seale Seore and ) Score Limits of the
Three F Scale Groups ......... 43

2. Total Hu]mor Points Received by Subjcts
in the Low, MTedial, and High F Scale
Groups ............... 50

3. Total Humor Points R~eeived by the Three
F Scale Groups Tabulated According to
Cartoons . ..... 52

4. F Seale Group Classifications of the Ten
"Most HumPorousn and the Ten nLeast
Humtorouas Subjects. .......... 55























LIST OF ILLUSTRAkTIONS


Figure

1.

2.


Page


Distribution of F Scale Scores......

Distribution of Avera~ge Humoar 9artings.













CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


Background of the Problem

Scholars representing m~any disciplines, from Plato

to the present, have written about humor. T~he word "humor"

is sometimes used in a limited sense, as in Freud's (23)

distinction between wit, humoI~Qr, and the comic. But except

where otherwise indicated, the more general meaning of the

word is intended in this paper. Humlor has had many defini-

tions, but most writers would agree that they are attempt-

ing to understand that quality or aspect of behavior and ex-

periene4 which mediates the amusing, the laughable, or the

funny. Mo~lst investigators have also noted that humor usual-

ly involves, either singly or in comnbination, the playful,

the surprising or unexpected, and the expression of emotion-

al or instinctive te~ndencies. Determinants of hukmor appre-

elation and the humor response have been recognized as being

related to an individual's intimate needs and feelings, yet,

at the same time, continuously influenced by the social en-

aironment.

Since this quality called humor is so pervasive in

humarn behavior, it would ssee to offer a strategic base

from which to explore the, relationships among our emotional,










intellectual, and social selves. Yet relatively little re-

search on humor has been attemapted by psychologists. Philos-

ophers have provide-d insightful descriptions and speclla-

tions but scientific measuremennt has lagged. Except for the

efforts of a few pioneers such as M~artin (40), who devised

a rating scale for jokes in 1905, most of the~ experimental

work on humor has been done within the last twenty years.

Even the research that has been done has not been assimi-

lated into psychology as a whole. With a few exesptions,

textbooks on social psychology, clinical psychology, or even

personality thord~Y limit their disenasions on "sense of hu-

mor" to a sentence or two attesting to its import~ance.

There are several possible reasons for the limited

production of research on humor and for the failure of

textbook writers to discuss the suibject. One is that the

very quantity of allegedly humo~rous material to which we are

exposed daily may well stimulate an avoidance reaction in

persons intereestd in scientific inquiry. It is also true

t~hat hum3Vdor is a rather nebulous concept, the relationship

of which to personality and to behavior is both subtle and

com~plex. M~easurin65 devices are difficult to construct and

standards of excellence are hard to define. As in studies

of music, the prolonged exposure necessary for analysis of-

ten destroys the unique but elusive qualities one seeks to

understand.










Several advances in humor research have been made

in recent years. Factor analysis has been utilized in an

attem~spt to bring order and psychological meaning to the

commzon sense classifications of humor. Recent investiga-

tors have tended to avoid narrow theories and have shown a

greater awareness of the breadth of the problem and an ap-

preciation of the fact that not one, but many solutions

will eventually be needed.


Theoretical Orientation of the ,Present Study~

One of the limitations in some of the previous re-

search has been that the study of humoer has been subordi-

nated to some other goal. EFxamples are a study of the ef-

feetiveness of humork) in persuasive speech (37), and a humor

test which contribu~tes to a score in Wsocial intelligence"

(41). One nhumor" test (9) me1rely usesi~ jokse preferences as

a device for securing measures of other aspects of person-

alityr, such as se~x interest or hostility. Although "applied

humorM studies are of interest, they do little to cast light

on the nature of humor itself.

Probably the most striking deficiency in studies of

humo~sar has been their almost exclusive concern with appreci-

ation, rather than the cr-eation, of humor. Mos~t experiment-

ers have had skubjects; indicate their preference~ for jlokesl,

limeioricks, and the like, by rankring or rating. Another










technique requires subjects to choose the funniest" of

five endings to a joke (41). Eysenok (20, p. 225) is one

of the few writers who has recognized that there sar clea~nr-

ly two factors involved in "sense of humor," namely, "ap-

preciation and production." No states that his studies

with the production of huamnor have not yet yielded definite

enaough results to warrant publication.

ALnother weakness of previous investigations of hu-

mor seems to be an overemp~hasis of humor as an inddex of

possible psychopatholo~gy. This is especially true in psy-

choanalytically oriented studies, although Freud (23, p.

802~) himself recognized "harmlessM as well as "tent~denc~y"
wit and described humor as "the loftiest of the defen~s

functions." Vieving humorl as a useful defense function,

rath-er~ than as a symptom of conflict, seemsa a step in the

right direction. But humor's positive, creative, function

as an agent in superior adaptation" has received little

recognition.

Some general problem~asl concerning taehniques and em-

phases in humor research have been discussed. Thea present

study does not attempt to suggest what should be the goals

in future research. However, it is thought best to point

out that th~e aims and the plan of the present stu~dy devel-

oped, to a large extent, in reaction to some of the previ-

ous emphases. First, interest is centered on the creation










of the humorous responses themselves, rather than on what

hidden meanings they mar~y contain or how others will react

to them. This orientation leads, then, to the question of

individual differences--nrot in appreciation of humor--but

in the production of h~umor. Why are some people success-

ful usjeras of humPor and others not? The present study als~o

attempts to avoid the bias of vie-wing humior primarily as

an expression of psychological conflict. Freud (23, p.

760) stated that the importance of unconscious tendencies

might explain nwhy the subjective conditions of wit are so

frequently fulfilled in the case of neurotic persons." It

is hoped to present evidence in this study suggesting that

these conditions may just as frequently, or more frequent-

ly, be fulfilled in the case of the psychologically healthy

person.


Overall Pla.n for the Exrperiment

The problems pertaining to humor research discussed

thus far are broad and comsplex. They will be documented

and discussed in more detail in the review of the litera-

ture. The reactions on methods will present the complete

experimental procedure. However, the general approach will

be briefly described at this point.

It was desired to relate the ability to be humaorous

to individual differences in personality. First, it was de-

eided to limit the subjects to male, college undergraduates










since aest of the related research had utilized similar

groups. For the me8i~asure of humor "production,n a test con-
sisting of eight incomplete earteons was constptruted. (The

humo~ir test is reproduced in Appendix I.) The cartoo~ns de-

picted familiar campus situations in which one student la

saying something to another. The subjct is asked to fill
in a humsorous reply. The personality measure selected was

the California F (fascist or anti-democratic) acale, or

'"authoritarianismn' scale (1, p. 255). This scale was cho-

son because of the many studies suegesting that the F scPal

measured several personality variables suspected of being

cruacial to the production of humor.r

A total of 188 male subjects, college undergraduates,

were given the humor test to complete, followed by the F

scale. Sixty subjects were then selected on the basis of

their F scle scores:= the 20 scoring highest (mos~t a~uthor-

itarian), the 20 scoring lowest, rand the 20 H"mid-most" in

the distribution. The eartoosn responses of these 60 sub-

jects were then rated for funniness by a group of seven

Judges. The results of the humorPr test, as related to the
F acale classifications, constitute the principal findings.













CHAlPTERa II


REVI~EW OF THE LITER1TUR.E


Humor

The studies on humor to beg reviewed will be c~las-

sified under four general headings: the philosophers and

humbor, phylogenetic theories, psychoanalytic theories, and

experimental studies. The major emphasis will be placed

on the experimental studies. This group is felt to have

made the most significant contributions, not only because

of their methods, but because their studies have been the

mos~t recent and they have been in a position to bring to-

gether and test some of the earlier theories.


The Philosophers and Humor

Plato, in the Philebus (4~6, p. 339) noted that,

". .when we laugh at the ridiculous qualities of our

friends, we mix pleasure with pain, since we mix it with

envy. ."The emphasbis is on laughter as a subtle way

of a~ttacking those whomni we feel mray be suaiperior to us.

Aristotle (5, p. 1449a) however, believed that, "The Ridic-

alous may be defined as a mistake or deformity not produc-

tire of pain or hiarm to others.H This definition is prob-

ably the first exposition of the idea that humr in its










purest form is not hostile. Spinoza (55, p. 217) also ree-

ognized this difference. He stated, nI make a great dis-
tinction between moacckery .. and laughter; for laughter

and merriment are nothing but joy ,. ." Kant (33, p.

223) felt that humor could be understood in terms of phys-

iological functions. Hes stated, "In the case of jokes (the
art of which, just like music, should rather be reckoned as

pleasant than beautiful) the play begins with the thoughts
which together occupy the body, .. and as the understand-

ing stops suddenly short at this presentment, in which it
does n~ot find what is expected, we feel the effect of this

slackening in the b~ody by the oscillation of the organs,

which promotes the restorattion of quililbrliumIB and hats a fa~-

vourable influence upon health."

A more~r sophisticated theory of humor was set forth

by Scihopenhauer (52, p. 279). He suggested that laughter
results from the apprehension of an incongru~ity in which

perception triumphs over thought. n(perception~ .. is
the medium of the present, of enjoyment and Salety, more-

over it is attended with no exertion. But Cthoug~ht]. .
is the vehicle of our fears, our repentatnce, and all our

care. It must theroefre be diverting to see this strict,

untiring troublesome~ governess, the reason, for once con-

ricted of insufficiency."

Kline, a psychologist who contributed to the










philosophyr of humosr, revealed a still broader understanding
of humor in noting that humor is a social process and that

it is also characterized by the elemeaant of freedom, He

states (34, p. 438), "Perhaps its [humeor's] largest fune-

tion is to detach us from our world of good and evil, of

loss an~d gain, and enable us to see it in proper perspec-

tive. It frees us from Yanity, on the one hand, and from

pesimismQ on the other by keeping us larger than what we

do, and greater than what can happen to us,"

Ph.Ylogenetic Theories of Humor

R~app (47, p. 21) states that wit and humor can be
traced to the primitive scerne where the victor uttered a

"roar of triumph" over the vanquished. He assumes that

laughter at persons preceded laughter from riddles or jokes,
and that laughter of ridicule preceded humane, genial laugh-

ter. He suggests that social training has caused laughter

or humor to be substituted for overt aggression. McCom~asc

(38) has also su86ested that laughter may have developed

before language, as a reaction to a find of good food or a

fresh spring. These authors have "explainedM laughter by

considering it an instinctive reaction. Fr~eud (23, p. 733)

allrso utilizes this approach when he suggests that laughter

maay develop from the contortions of the corners of the
mouth of the "satiated nu~raling5 when he drowsily quite the

breast."









10

EastmaP~n (16) has recognized tha&t theoies wQhich re-

duce laughter to an instinct have difficulty in accounting

for the wide variety of situations that can lead to humon~r-

ous responses., Eastmann explains adult hunimor as developing,

through learmning from childhood play. He refers to McDou-

gall (39) for support in his opinion that play is a form

of instinctive behavior. EaistmaEn also recognized Freud~'s

Wtendncy" wit, or nfurtivew wit, as ESartstman calls it. It

should also be noted that Frevud (23, p. 634) accepted the

definition of wit as a "playful judgment."


Psychoanalytic Theories of H~umor
Frekud's observations on wit, the com~ic, and humor

were insightful and comprehensive. He is probably best

lcitknon for his emphasis on ntendentiou" wri~t, or wit which

serves to release repressed unconscious im~pulsear, usually

sexual or hostile. He pointed out that somre jokes are sla-

11ar to dreams or lipss of the tong~ue" in this respect.

Freud also recognized nnon-tendentious" or harmless" wit

but had little to say about it.

Freud's attempt to explain the unique qualities of

humor resulted in the formulation of his principles of

"eonomy." He stated that the pleasure of wit ori61nates

from an economy of expenditure in inhibition, the pleasnsure

of comic from an economy of expenditure in thought, and the

pleasure of humor from an economy of expenditure in feeling.








11

(23, p. 802). These~ three divisions are suggestive, re-

spectively, of the sonative, cognitive, and affective divi-

siens later applied to humtor by Eysenekr (20, p. 227). How-

ever, Freud's terminology of Cceconomy of expendituree' has

not bee~n widely accepted, subsequent writers preferring to

attributed the pleasure to the expression of repressed ten-

dencies and the release of the energy used in repression.

Freud's frequently quoted distinctions between wit,

the codie, and humor do not seem entirely satisfactory.

For instance, he gives the following example as a combinap-

tion of the comic and wit (23, p. 763). A little girl who

was suffering from a severe cold and sneezing profusely,

pointed to her chest and said, "Dadday, Gesundheit hurtal".

Since our sympayLthy for the child is both mobilizead and re-

leased, this rma~rk could also be interpreted as humor,

according to Freud's doctrineh of neconomized feeling."

In 1928, Freud (24) published his theory of humo~r

making use of the superego, a concept which had not been

formullated at the timer of his book on wit. This concept

states that the ego adopts the point of view of the super-

ego and la able to look down on its difficulties with more~k

mature unrderstanding and detachmer~nt.

Freud's contribu~tionsa to an understanding of hum~or

have markedly influenced subsequent studies. However,

Flugel (22, p. 721) has noted that, "On the whole,...








12

the contributions of the 'metapsychologgy' of humor by pary-

choanalytie writers other than Freud himself have~ not been

as convincing, enlightening, or muttually consite~nt~ as might

have beebdn hoped for in view of -the considerable number of

papers detvote~d to the subject." An example of this neo-

Freudian approach to humo~r might be taken from Dooley (14),

who states, "Hu~mor thus becomes one of the ways in which

the ego .. 'wangles' restoration of the parents' love

by claiming t~he love of the parents' successor--the super-

er~fgo--in playful fantasy. (p. 44).


Expetrimental Studies of Humor
Tfhe experimental investigations will be discussed

in approximate chronological order. A atudy by Lantdia and

Ross (35) illustrates one of the earlier eIxperimental ap-

proaches to humor research in which a large number of jokes

were classified into categories by judges. In this case a

100 item test was constructed, jokes being classified into

the following seven categories (p. 157):

1. Humsor of Quaantity (exaggerations, under-statement,
etc.).
2. Humzor of Incongruity (assoolation of incompat-
ibles).
3. Humor of Unexpected (occurrence of some sur-
prising thought, etc.).
4. Humor of Truath (exposure of one's unrevealed
thoughts, ete.).
5. Humor of Superiority (difficulties of others
which seemn simple to us).
6. Humor of Repressions (release of tensions,
such as fear, sex, etc.).








13

7. Humor of Ridiculous (nonsensical use of logie,
play or words).

Jokes in these categories were further rated by writers

and by editors of a college humor publication as "Yery

good, n "good," "poor," and "very poor." Eiqual numbers from

each of these levels were placed in the test.

Subjects, in the portion of the experiment to be

discussed, were 124 male undergraduates at a me~n's univer-

sity and 154 female undergraduates at a women's college.

Subjects were also given an introve~rsion-extrov~ersion scale

and intelligence was mea~sured by means of a standard col-

lege ability test used for entering freshmen. Subjects

were asked to rate each joke on the humor test according to

the four-point scale of Hgoodness,w with no limit as to the

total r~Pnuber of humorr points" to be awarded. The subjects

were also asked to classify each joke according to the seven

humrr~ categories. The~ tests were scored for total "hlumor

points' and for total points assigned to eanch of the humor

categories. Results indicated n~o relationship between ei-

ther overall humor points or classification of itmsr with

the other ma~sures employed, that is, intelligence, or

introversrion-extrvroerion. The authors noted marked individ-

ual variations in humor preferene~ and concluded that per-

formance on the humorF test behaves as an independent per-

sonality factor. It was also noted that the men and women

differed significantly in humor preferences; evaluating the








14

categories from best to poorest in the following order (35,

p. 172):
Men: Repression, Unexpected, Ridiculous, Truth,
Incongruity, Quntity, Superiority.
Women: Rildiculousa, Incongruaity, Unexpected, Supe-
riority, Truth, Quantity, Repression.

The greatest difference is seen in the Repression classi-
fication which the men1 valued first and the woe~pn last.

This is the claselfication which includes mos~t of the jokes

related to sex.

In oriticism of the type of appro~ah used in thisa

study, Cattell (10) has stated, HValid humtJor scales cannot

be built up by items merely believed frome 'inspection' to

have a 'homooeneous' eentesnt, or even on psychiatric in-

sights of common dynamic content. ("Two psychiatrists agree

on the dynamic content and item ass~ociation of a joke scatrce-

lyr beyond chance.) The jokess that are put on a single fac-

tor sc.ale have to be proved by experime~nt to 'go together'

in the choices of the typical subject and to be at the saeEBC

time substantially independent of th other factor scales"

(pp. 3-4).

Anl example of the inconsistenciesa that c~an result

from classification by inapection occurs in the ~Landis and

Ross (35) study. The authors noted that some of the jokes

that they used were uased in a similar study by Kambouropou-

lou (32). They compared results and found that the relative
hum~or values assigned corresponded closely. However, the








15
classifications as to the type of humor involved differed

considerably.

A study by Sears (54) has been widely quoted, prin-

oipally with reference to his useful distinction between

the schemastic and thematic aspects of humsor. TIhe former

refers to the structure of the joke, including such organi-

sational factors as timing, brevity, or the sudden shift of

elosure. Thed latter refers to the meaningful humatn content,

primarily asocial or repressed needs such as aggression,

superiority, or sex. Sears also classified his jokes on an

a priori basis. His choice of such classifications as

"overt anal"1 antd "covrert analn suggests the susceptibility
of this approach to theoretical bias,

Go~irdon A11port's (17) contribution to the litera-

ture on hum~or is more speculative than expperimental. How-

ever, chronologically, he should be considered at this

point, and he does begin his remarks on humor by referring
to a study in which ratings of persons for Hsense of humorM

were found to be correlated +.88 with their ratings for

"insightn (p. 220). Details of the experiment were not giv-
en1.

Allport states that "psychologically it is not prof-
itable to distin~guish between insight and sense of humsor"

(P. 422). He includes both traits under hself-objec~tifica-

tion." He rules out of his definition ab~aurdities, puns,









16

release of suppressed material, and the laughter of goo~d

spirits or play. What remr~ains is a highly intellectualized

distilled from the broader concept of humor. One might even

suspect that A11port has missed the essential ingredients of

humor when he6 states that, HTo view~ one's problems hum~or-

ously is to see th~!em as trivial and of no clonsebquatenc . .

(p. 225). This would appear to be self-deception rskather

than insight, and it is hardly an adequate evaluation of hu-

mor. Wat Allport, and other writers, find difficult to

explain is the special quality of humor which enables a per-

son to laugh when fully aware that a problem is far from

trivial. eAlthough A11port's .theory appears to be too narr-

row, it is an important contribution because of his point

of View.( His emphasis on the positive aspects of humeor

ctfa met a time when Hdischarge" and "camouflage" were being

overstressed.

A nelw approach to hum~bor research is represented by

the~B work of H. J. Eysenck, whose major contributions to

humor are contained in two articles (18, 19) and in his

book, Dimensions of Personality (20). Eyisenck is recog-

nized both for his "cogjnitive, conative, and affective"

theory of humor and for his factor analytic approach to the

factors in humo~r. In one~ study (18), 189 jokes were given

to 16 subjects to be ranked. Subjects were also given an

introversion-extroversion questionnaire. The humor rankings








17

were intereorrelated and subjected to factor analysis. The

main outcome appeared to be a bipolar factor contrasting

persons who preferred rather simaple, "funny," sex and ag-

gressive jokes with persons who preferred mBore complex,
clever" jokes not dealing with sexual matter. Eysenck

identifies the first group as oreetic (conastive and affee-

tive) jokes and the second group as cognitive jokes. Cor-
relations showed that extraverts tended to prefer the oree-

tic type of humor while introverts preferred the cognitive

type.

Eiysenck believes that it is possible to classify
all humor un~der the three ma~in headings of cognitive (in-

congruity, contrast between ideas, and deceived expecta-
tions), conative (satisfaction of the desire for superior-

ity), and affective (emotional aspects). He calls this his
"~electic Theory of Humor," and illustrates it by means of

a triangular' diagram (20, Fig. 21, p. 228). The top corner

is labeled "Cognition" and the bottom corners "Affecction"

and nConation." The two bottom corners are drawn closer

together to represent the apparent closer interaction of
these aspects of the mind. ~Any joke can be located within

the triangle. As the joke approaches "&Affection" it can be
described as humoror" as it approaches HCognition" it is

adesribed as "comic,M and as it approaches HConation" it
takes on more of the characteristics of "wit." sear's (54)








18

Mscematt~ie" and nthematie" divisions are similar to Ey-

sanck's "cognitive" and "orectic," while Allport's (2) the-

ory is predominately cognitive.

In a second study by Eysenck (19), 100 anormal su~b-

jects ranked8 250 humorous items grouped into five different

tests. lAverager interoorrelations between subec~ts were

very low, as were the interoorrrlations between ecp~h sub-

ject's perforrma8~nce on all five tests. In other words, there

was a surprisingly small amount of agreement as to the rel-

ative goodness of the items. It was f~ound~, however that

individuals tended to be consistent in the~ amount of "fun"

that they got out of the materials. A person who found

many jokes funny te~nde~d to find ma6~ny cartoo~ns and verses

funny. Similarly, a person who did not find the jokes fun-

ny was equally rejectinS of theg other hum~aorous ma~zterials.

Eysenckr otes that this affective reaction seems to conbsti-

tute a genuine personality trait.

Anadrewsr (4) has reported an interesting study which

was designed to determine whether or not humoar should be

considered as a single unit quality of a genmeral nature.

Several hulnzdred jokesa, puns, limerickts, and cartoons were

sorted by college students into nine piles, in order of fun-

niness. Twenty-four representative items, covering the arn-

tire range of humr values, were intercorrelated and~ factor

analysis carried out until six factors had been extracted.









19

No~ general or unjiversal factor was found. The six factors
were desribed as follows:

Factor (1) Feelings of superiority over persons
seen~ as inferior.
Factor (2) Escape from, or sym~Bpathy~ for, debauch-
ery.
Factor (3) Subtlety (puazzlers, or hidden meaninS)*
Factor (4) The pun, or play on words.
Factor (5) sexual jokes.
Factor (6) Ridieulous, nonsensical, wise-eracks.

It is interesting to note that these factors can

also be grouped according to the classifications of Sears

(54) and Eysnck (20). Factor 3, 4, and 6 could be de-

scribed as scheaitie or cognitive, and Facters 1, 2, and 5

as themaBtic or orectic. However, Abndrew's factors, like

those of other investigators, esem far from satisfactory.

There is a great deal of overlapping. For example, a play

on words might also be ridiculous and, in addition, carry

sexual connotations. Tracing out such connections still

leaves us, in Freud's words, with Hdisjointed fragments

which we should like to see welded into an organic whole

(23, P. 637).

R. B. Cattell is another investigator who has done

extens~ive resara~ch on hut~ser. In collaboration with Lubopr-

sky (11), 100 jokes were rated by 100 young men and women.

Factor analysis yielded five general personality factors:

(1) good natured assurance, (2) rebellious dominance-, (3)
sex repression, (4) passive derision, and (5) sophistication.









20

The last four factors seem to be closely related to factor

obtainged by previous invresti~atozrs. The first factor,

good natured assurance," is of interest because it sug~-

gests the waraI yet stimwulating, affective qualities we of-

tebn~ ~~assoiater with a person who has a ''good sense of humoi~r."

Th~is aspect of humortr seems to have beent overlooked in other

factor studies.

eCttell has published a humo~r test (9) which is

based on an extensive series of factor analytic studies.

This test consists of 76 items (152 jokes, in pairs) for

which the srubject indicates his preference. Since each

pair of jokes has been mratehed for relative nfunniness" on

the basis of previous ratings, extraction for individual's

"total funniness" sc~ore is impossible. Th~ie subjects' choi-

ees contribute to scores on the following 12 bipolar fac-

tors: (pp. 11-13).

Factor 1. Debonair sexual and general uninhibited-
ness vs. anxious considerateness.
Factor 2. Good-naturead play vs. dry wit.
Factor 3. Tough self-com~pos~ure vs. reassurance in
embarrassment.
Factor 4. Gruesomeness vs. Flirtatious playfulness.
Factor 5. Hostile derogation vs. urbane plesa~nt-
ness.
Factor 6. Resignation vs. impudent defiance of de-
cency.
Factor 7. Gold realismr vs. thea~tricalisml.
Factor 8. Ponderous humor vs. neat, li~jhthcac~rted
wit.
Factor 9. Whimsical retort vs. damaging retort.
Factor 10. Mistreatment humor ve. cheerful indepen-
dence.
Factor 11. Ev~asiont of responsibility and guilt vs.









21

anxious concern.
Factor 12.Scorns of ineffectual male vs. rebound
against feminine aggression.

Tlhe preceding array of facters vividly illustrates the, com-

plexity and subtlety with which the "sense# or "quality"

called humo~r is woven into our personalities. However,

reading, this list hardly gives one a feeling of "closure,"

and the question la raised as to whether or not this ap-

proach to understanding~ hum~ior has reached a point of dimin-

ishing returns. Apparently a reaction has already set in

as, Ya~rnold and Berkelley (58) have rleanal3yZed some of Cat-

tell's data and have suggested reducing the number of fac-

tors to seven.

The four studies which will be reviewed next are

relatively recent. They seem to reflect a change in orien-

tation, from attempting: to understand and describe humor as

a whole, to the testing of hypotheses deriveda from limited

portions of humcor theory. Redlich, Levine, and Sohler (48~),

in a study of reactions to humorous materials of 59 psychi-

atrie patients and 24 normal subjects, made two interesting

contributions to technique. First, as stim~ulus miaterals,

they used 36 cairtoons depicting different objects of aggres-

sion and distortion. The authors found that cartoons were

orerb quickly and easily responded to than were verbal a~teB-

rials. Second, in addition to having subjects sort the ear-

toons according to their likes and dislikes, the authors









92

rated the subjects' overt reactions to the cartoons accord-

in8 to a Wmirth response scale." These ratings were taken

unobtrusively and noted the degree of apparent rairth from

Hno response" to Mlaugh~ter." The r~esults of this frankly

exploratory study were not conclusive with respect to dif-

ferences between groups. However, the depressed patients

raected2 as expected, with little or no overt response.

Schizophrenics tended to miss the point and exhibit Wgpara-

humosr. The me~thod was described as being a promising clin-

ioal tool because reactions to the cartoons were observed

to be closely related to the dynamics of individual patients.

A later study using the "mirth respon~s scale" was

carried out by Berkowits (6). Forty-four collqeo students

were given a group Rorschzach test antd their protocols

scored for hostility. Half of the su~bjects (praise group)

were then given prepared reports reporting favorable per-

formsane, while the other half were given~akr unfavorable re-~

pobrts (streBss group). Each subject was then~ asked to sort

twelve cartoons into three equail piles, like most," "Like

least, and "neutral," and to explain the ''point" of each

eartoon.~L Overt reactions to the cartoons were noted on the

birth response scale." Since jUdges had previously rated

the cartoons for aggresalve content, the data could then be

analyzed in several ways. Tfhe independent variables were

the measrtuess of hostility and the stress-praise var~iable.








23

The dependent variables were the mirth response score, the

cartoon preference (aggressive versus non-aggressive), and

the degree of understanding or distortion of the pointsn

of the eartoons--also rated by judges.

The principal findings were as follows:

1. Su~bjects in the "f:raise" group scored signifi-
cantly higher in 'total mirth response" than did
subjcts in the "stressr" group.
2. Average "mirth response" scores were not signifi-
cantly different for Hhigh hostility" and "low
hostility" groups. However, "high hostility" sub-
jects gave significantly more extreme responses
(frowns or laughter) while "low hostility" sub-
ects gave more neutralt" or "smile" responses.
3. igh hostility" subjcts nade s1 nificantly more
"distortionsM than "low hostility subjects on
the "high aggression" cartoons but not on the nlow
aggrresonM cartoons.

These results suggest that Htendency" theories of

humsor cannot assumeI a simple relationship between the de-

gree of a Htendency," such as hostility, and the degree to
which the humor response may be affeeted. Finding number

one appears to give experimental support to the frequently

observed depressinS~ effect of anxiety on the ability to

respond humorously. However, the findings with respect

to hostility suggest that theP relationship of anxiety to

humor may also be Im~ore complex than is apparent under the

conditions of the experiment.

Grziwok and Scodel (26), asked 140 male college
students to rate a series of 40r eartoone for "funniness.n

The cartoons were selected from a pool of 250 New Yorker









24

cartoons which had been placed by judges into the following

categories:

1. Humorous effect based on aggression, either
explicit or deliberately understated.
2. Humorous effect obtained by a parody on sex.
3. Humorous effect based on the exaggerated or
paradoxical use of social stereotypes.
4. Humrlorous effect based on obvious or striking
logical incongruity.

Ten cartoons were selected from each category. The

authors state that the first two categories (aggression and

sex) can be su)Pbsumed under "orectic humor" and the second

tvo categories (social gcmme~antaryJ humor and loIical incon-

grutity) under ncognitive hum~sor." (Ciategory nm~ber three

appears to be misplaced in view of the potentially highly
orectie nature of ca~rtoons which exaegerate social stereo~s-

types.)

The subjects were also given the Allport-Vernon-

Lindzey Study of Values~ (3) and were asked to write stories

for seven Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) cards (42). The

TAT stories were sEored according to sp~eelall constructed

scales for degrees of aggressive and sexual content, and,

in addition, intraception versus extraception.

The significant results were:

1. S's high in TABT aggression prefer aggressive
humor while thosee low in TAT a66resalon prefer
social commentary humor.P
2. With respect to value orientations:
a) Aesthetic scale. "Highs" prefer logically
incongruous cartoons while "lows" prefer ag-
gressive cartoons.








25

b) Soelal scale. "HighsH prefer aggressive car-
ttoos.,
c) Theo~retical scale. "Lowa" prefer sexual car-
toons.

The authors ~usummarize their results as follows: "In ma~ore

general terms~ a preference for orectic humBor, as opposed to

cognitive humor, seems to be characterized by more fantasy

aggression, more extraersrion or outgoingness, less prooc-

cupation with intellectual values, and less psychological

subtlety or comtplexity"~ (26, p. 42).

The above findings are in agreement with Eysenok's

(18) finding that introverts prefer cognitive humor while

extraverts prefer orectic humor. The results of the Garzivok

and Scodel study m~ust be interpreted with caution, however,

because only a few of the masny com~parisons possible are re-

ported as being significant, giving rise to possible sampling

blas.

The last humo~r reseaErch study to be reviewed is by

Epstein and ~Smitha (17). Their experiment attempted to test

the Freudian view that repression favors an appreciation of

humor in which the repressed material is represented. The

authors noted that previous studies have demonstrated a re-

Ilationship betw~eenr manifest hostility, for example, cand

preference for hostile humor, buet have not directly attacked

the Freudian hypothesis that repression of a tendency favors

its appreciation in humorous form.









26

The authors measured preference for hostile humor

in 32 members of a college fraternity by three techniques:

observing 8's expressive reactions to hnostle6 and control

cartoons, having 8 rate the cartoons, and having him eart

them on a Q sort of funniness. In order to obtain a meas-

ure of repression, self-ratings of hostility were compared

with average ratings assigned by fellow fraternity members.

~The 8's were thereby divided into insight and repressiojn

groups, according to the relative accuracy or inaccuracy
of self-evaluation.

The principal findings were as follows:

1. No relationship was found between repres~~sin
and general preference for heatile cartoons.
2. A si~nificant positive relationship between
insight and sense of humor was found, sense of
humor being melklasur byr degree of correspondl-
eance~ of 8s ratings with group normsr.

The negative finding with resrpectet to the hyrpother-

sized relationship between repressed hostility and humor

is difficult to interpret. The author suggest that there

may be no general relationship. Their findings indicated

that the rteltionship maay hold true for cartoons which are

the most obviously hostile. The rauthror also suggest that

a relationship might be found if suppression (conselous in-

hibition) or external frustration of an impgulse wercr in-

restigated rather tha~n repression (unconscious inhi~bition).

This latter possibility is suggested by thet frequently noted










interest in sexua~tl jokes of sexually frustrated groups such

as adolescents (eulturaslly frustrated) and men in the armed

srvuiesr (geographically frustrated) who are not necessar-

ily repressed.
With respect to the findings of a positive relation-

ship between insight and sense of humror, the authors' meas-
ure of the latter should be noted. The accuracy with which

the eartoons were evaluated, with respect to group norms,

may be largely a cognitive function. In this case, these
results would tend to support A~llport's (2) equating of in-

sight andb humor, at least as far as the cognitive aspects
of humor are concerned.

The California F Scale

Since the F scale from The Authoritarian Personal$-

Ag! by Adorno, et arl. (1) is the personality measure usebd
in this study, it is felt that a brief description of its

development, together with a summary of subsequent research

with the scale, is desirable.

Research in humtror appreciation has tended to be

concerned with specific personaLlity traits, such as aggree-

sivenesso or insight. However, since creation or production

of humor was to be measured in the present study, the ques-

tion was first formul~Pated as, nWha~t might be the persaonail-

ityf characteristics tending to mai~ke a person a 'humoa~rist,'

or a 'non-humorist'?" It was felt that mranay personality









28

traits might contribute: flexibility, insight, empathy,

intraceptiveness, oad the like. However, it is difficult

to find satisfactory measures of these~ traits. In addi-

tion, it was felt that a se91nse of humBiICor was more likely to

depend on a constellation of these traits than on any sin-

gle trait. Therefore, a global measure was sought which

would, in effect, combined measures of theics above traits.

The~ Ca-liornmia F scale wasl selected for several

reasons. The development of the test can be traced from

the initial attempts to get at personality characteristics

underlying racial prejudice and anti-democratic attitudes

through the severa~cl form changes needed to improve sceni-

tivity and bring the average reliability to .90. Abundant

clinical data from the original research, together with

many subsequent studies, enable one to judge with some con-

fidence as to what is included in the omP~nibas~ term "author-

itarianism."

Th~e authors of" the scale have su66ested that the F

scale measures the followxing nine traits (1, p. 228).

1. Conventionalism.
2. Authoritarian submission.
3. Authoritarian aggression.
4. Anti-intraception.
5. Superstition and stereotypy.
6. Power and "toughness."
7. Destructiveness and cynicism.
8. Projectivity.
9. Exaggerated concern with sex.

The authors point out (p. 262) that these groupings








29

are a priori aids to discussion only, not clusters in the

statistical se~nse. However, all individual items in the

test correlate significantly (average r = .33) with the

test as a whole. One factor analytic study of the F scale

by O'Neil and Levinson (44) reve~arled four factors, which

they named: religious conveentionaelism, authoritarian sub-

mission, mascouline strength facade, and moralistic control.

Possibly a more adequate conception of what the test meas-

ures can be obtained from the findings of subsequent re-

searchers who havde orrelated the F scale with other crite-

ria, Some of the personality characteristics which have

been found to be, related to Hauthoritarianism" are as fol-

lows:

1. Intolerance of ambiguity: Jones (31) found that

inability to tolerate a high rate of reversal in the Necker

Gube was positively related to F; scale authoritarianism.

Similar results, with various measres of intolerance of

ambiguity, were obtained by Block and Block (7), and O'Con-

nor (43).

2, Misanthropy: Campbell and M/cCandaless (8) found

the F acale to correlate highly with a seale meag~suring gen~-

eral dislike of oth~ers. Su~llivan and Adelson (56) obtained

similar results with a scale of ethnic prejudice rewritten

Iso~ thatterms such as Uall people" were substituted for mi~-

norities originally specified.








30

3. A~nti-intraception: Dorris, Lev8inson, and Hanf-

mann (15) found~ll that authoritarians tended to deny self-

reference to items after having taken a sentence completion

test. Jones (30) and Scodel and IAslsen (53) have found

authoritarians less capablea of judging the psychological

and personality characteristics of other.

4. Doymmatism: Ro~keach (49) constructed a "Dogmatic

Personality Scale" composed of statements concerning over-

identification with a caused, and the like, th~at correlated

.67? with the F scale.

5. Intelligncce: H~ollander (29) studying Naval Avri-

ation Cadets, found that intelligence as measured by the

A. C. E. test correlated -.21 with the F scale. Adorno,

et al. (1, p. 283) report an r of -.32 fo~r the F actale with

the Otie Higher Form A Intelligenice Test, in a group of

veterans applying to the U. 8. Employment Service.

6. Concern with aggression: Sanford and Rosenstock

(51), using responses to cartoons, found authoritarians

gave more extrapunitive and intrapunitive repliesB, hence
were overconcerned with aggression.

It is evidesnt that the personality dimeansion tapped

by the F scale la broad and coma~plex. Gr~egory (25, p. 642)
has obser-ved that the authoritariania personality" aight

be6tterh be thought of as, "personali~ty syndrome x which has

sometimes been called authoritarian." However, inspection








31

of the six traits discussed above does suggest that they

tend to fall into two groups, as follows:

M~isanthrlopy Intolerance of ambiguaity

Abnti-intrac ept ion Do6matism

Concern with Intelligence (negative
aggression correlation)

It will be ob-served that the first group could be classi-

fled as oreetic traits donationn, affection) while the

second group are cognitive traits. In view of these find-

ings it might be meaningful to think of F scale nauthori-

tarianism" as being characterized, effectively, by hostil-

ity and intellectually, by rigidity.
Additional evidence that the F scale measures a

meaningful personality dimension is contained in studies

that show a positive relationship between measured author-

itarianism and overt behavior. Sanford and Rosenstock (51)

found that authoritarians tended to reject cartoons which

were being used as projective devices. Block and Blook

(7) reported that authoritarians in an exrperiment on auto-

kinetic movement submitted more rea~dily to arbitra~pry de-

m8~ands by the extperiments.

Deskins (13) has recently com-pleted a factor ana-

lytic study of several sealed related to authoritarianism.

The F scale appeared with s~ignificant loadings on two fac-

tors. One factor included high positive loa~dingss on the

F scale an~d reli61ous conventionalism with a negative








32

loading on a vocabulary scale. The other factor had posi-
tire leadings on masculinity (as opposed to femininity),

ethnoscentrism, political-economic conservatism, and the F

scale. Theser findings tend to support previous studies

which su~gget that nauthorita~rianism" is mu~ltifactorial
and cannot be considered a simple, personality "type.w













CHA~JPTERI III


PROBLEM~I


Theoretical Backpround for the Problem

Before formur~lating the problem it seems advisable

to summa~8rize the various theoretical approaches and exper-

im~erntal contributions to hum~or. Freud (23) has probably

had the greatest influence on subsequent research, partly

because of the breadth of his observations, but also be-

eause his "tendency" theory of wit has been e-nthusiasti-

eally accepted by a generation of psychologists interested

in revealing the hidden. The~ work of Sears (54) and oth-

ers has demonstrated that humo~r often is used as a social-

ly acceptable device for releasing feelings of superiority,

hostility or sexual desire. However, later work by Berko-

witz (6) and EZpstein and Smnith (17) has demonstrated that

the relationship between "tendencies" and humor is not

simple and that HmBany factors, such as depth of repression,

~a~y be important. Ea~stmaan's (16) emphasis on humlor as a

form of play and as a means for getting pleasure suggest

moare positive aspects of the humor response, as does All-

port's (2) equating of humor with insight. Ahndrews (4),

Gattell (10) and others have verified, through factor

33








34C

analysis, the importance of tendency humoI~8r together with

play and pleasure seeking factors. Eysenck (20) h~a shown

that humorrous material involves the cognitive, cenative

and affective aspects of the mind. He alsoa noted the dis-

tinction between the appreciation of humlor and the produea-

tion of humraor.


The Problem

In delimiting the problema for the present study it

was decided to investigate the production? or creative~ as-

pects of hnum8or rather tha~n appreciation. The latter aspect

has~ been overemphasized. In addition, although apprecia-

tion tests of hukmor measure individual differnces in huorr

preferences they do not reveal a person's readiness and4

ability to be humosrous. In this study it is desired to

investigate some of the personrality factors involved in

Hbeingn humorous.

Many issues and questions that need to be d~ei8dd

are apparent in the review of the humor literature. Hew-

ebve, the one general aspect of humor theory that it is

desired to investigate in this study is one of emphasis.

Both "positive"' and nnegative" sources of the h2umor re-

sponse have been described. That is, humor can be the ex-

pression of a constructive, insightful, process that is

pleasurable in its own right; or humto~r can serve as a

technique for camouflaging and releasing socially tabooed








35

conflictual maehterial. In the latter case, humor is the

me~an to an end and the pleasure comes primarily froma oth-

er sources. It is this "release" or Hfurtive" aspect of

h~morr which has been m~ost studied and mosat widely reco5-

nized. Freud, (23, p. 801) for example, has referred to

humor as "one of the psychic correlates of the flight re-

flex.H Kost writers have emphasized this escape function

and have given little attention to humor as a possible ex-

pression of superior adaptation, as an index of personal

adjustment rather than ma~ladjustment, or as a social eat-

alyst rather than a social weapon.
In order to obtain a more accurate evaluation as

to the relative importance of these two aspects of humor

it should be possible to compared, on a test of readiness

and ability to be humorous, subjects having personality

characteristic conducive to tendentious humoPr With sub-

jects having personality characteristics conducive to non-

tendentious humoar. Results indicating that potentially

"tendentious" subjects are the ~most humorous would tend to

support humor theories which emphasize discharge of re-

pressed feelings. Results in favor of the "non-tendentious"

group should tend to support "superior adaptation" or nin-

slightH theo~ries.B It should be noted that either type of

humor m~ay make use of cognitive, conative and affective

factors.








36

A humor test was construlcted, consisting of eight

incomplete oartoons which depict a variety of interperson-
al situations. One student is shown speakring to another,

for whom the subjct is asked to fill in a humorous reply.

The repl.ies area rated for "funninvess"d by a group of judges.

The situations are designed so as to stimulate both cog-
nitive and orectic humor.

The California F scale, or "authoritarianrism"

scale, was selected as the psersnality measure because it

has been shown to mea~dsaure the more important cog~nitivea and

orec~itie traits believed to be crucial in various huorar

threries. Flugel (22, P. 725) hias stated, MAuthoritarian-

ism in any formp seems inimical to humor--and here again

is a matter deserving further study." Flugel apparently

prefers to view~a humra ~~ as an expression of psychop~logical
health ratherr than path.ology. However, the pre~occupation

with sutperiority, sex, and ae~jression found in "authori-

tarians" should stimulate humshorous respon~ss, if humor is

primarily tendentious.

_Hytothese~s

The hyp~otheses caen now bse stated.

WFhen subjects classified as low, medial, and high

in authoritarianism, as measured by the California F scale,

are judged for ability to be humorous on a test involving
incomplete cartoons, their relative humo~ar scoires will be










as follows:

1. Subjects low in authoritarianism will achieve

ai~nificantlyT higher hiumor seorest than will subjects higih
in authoritarianism.

2. Subeects low in authoritariatnism wrill achieve

significsantly higher hum~or scores than will subjcts

medial in authoritarianism.

3. Subjects medial in authoritarianism will achieve

significantly higher humor scores than will subjects hefgh

in authoritarianism.












CHAPTER IV


MEiTHOD


Slubjeacts

The original pool of subjects for this experiment

consisted of 188 mable students at two large universities

in southeastern United States. The students were freshmenc

and sophomores enrolled in beginning classes in psychology,

English literature, and sociology. Testing was done dur-

ing class time ran all of the mahle students present in the

classes contaeted agreed to servea as subjects. Since the

experiment was conductedl during the summe~ar session whebn

the num~ber of classes was reduced, the samaple represents a

sizable proportion of the marle students enrolled in these

classes at that time. Subjects were selcte3d from the

particular classes mentioned because an insufficient nuim-

ber of psychology students were available and it wi~as de-

sired to obtain a relatively homogeneous group of arts and

+selencs students. This ntender-minded" sample was desired

for two reasons: first, the judges of humor were to be psy-

chologists, and second, it was felt that inclusion of sub-

Jects from the Htough-minded" disciplines might introduce

dissimilarities in interests and training that would tenr~d

to dichotomize the sample on a basis other than measured
38










personality traits. Freshmen and sophonores were used as

subjects since it was dseired that they be relatively na-

ive with respect to personality tests in general and the

F scale in particular. TPhe s~aple was restricted to males

because certain studies (35) have indicated marked sex

differences in humor preference which would be difficult

to control in an lexpe~riment utilizing incomplete cartoons.


Measure of Authoritarianism (California F Scale)

Theb Galifornia F" scale has already been dsesribed

in the review of the literature. The form used is the

final form of the F seale (form 45-40) as developed by

Adorno et al. (1, P. 225) except that itemn number 22 was

omitted, making a seale of 29 items ingsted of the origin-

al 30. Itaemi numrber 22, which refers to postwar~ Germrany,

has lost its tim~eliness and has been omnitte~d by other re-

cent experim~enters.

The Likert method of sealing (36) was used in con-

struaction of the F seale. Subjects are asked to indicate

degree of ~~ragrement or disagreement with each item accord-

in8 to the following scale:

+1 slight support, agreement

+2 moderate support, agreement

+3 strong suppp~ort, agreement

-1 alight opposition, disagreement

-2 mboderat eopposition, disagreement










-3 strong opposition, disagreement

Since higher scores are intended to B9express increasing

authoritarianism, the responses are converted into scores

as fobllow:

-3 = 1 point +1 = 5 points

-2 = 2 points +2 = 6 points

-1 = 3 points +3 = 7 points

It will be noted that the scoring skips from 3 to 5 points

between -1 and +1. Four points represents the hypotheti-

cal neutral response and was assigned when an item was

omitted. The authors state that this scheme~ was used main-

ly because there seemed to be a greater psychological gap

between -1 and +1 responses than between any other adja-

eent responses. A person's scale score is the sum of his

scores on the single items.,

Thea distribution of the F seale scores obtained

(N = 188) is shown in Figure 1. Curves for actual fre-

quencies and for frequencies smoothed once are plotted.

The mea~bn ecore was 3.519 with a standard deviation of .84r0.

The median was 3.583. The mean score of 3.549 corresponds

to a response between -1, slight disagreement, and zero,

the hypothetical neutral point. Skewness was calculated

as -.144, a value not quite significant at the .05 level.

Kiurtosis = +.012 (platykurtic), alse not significant.

Therefore, deviation of this ourve from a normal curve can












On)
on bo


II I


O



0c

Q,


O' *



1I


oQ


CY ~Oao 49 ~ QO ~ ~ pr(O
(8 8/= N) S~133~9~6








42

be attributed to sampling errors.

ILn border to mak~e jumdging feasible, ther cartoon re-

sponses of only 60 of th1e original 188 subjects were used

in the main part of the experiment. These 60 subjects were

selected according to their total F scale scores as fol-

lows:

It~he 20 sub+ects scoring highnest in authoritari-

anism (h_(gh group).

The 20 subjects scoring "mid-mostw in authoritar-

innism (medial group).

Thea 20 subjects scoring lowest in authoritarianism

(low group).

It-was originally intended. to compare ony the two

extreme groups, WhighsH and Wlows." However, it was de-

cided to included a sample of medical scorers in order to

more adequately messure the relationship between humor and

authoritarianism over the entire range of F scale scores.

For example, it was desired to allow for the possibility

that subsects #average" in authoritarianism alght be more,

or less, humorous than scorers at either extreme.

Although it was noted that the distribution of F

scale scores could be treated as a normal ourve, there

was sufficient negative skewness to affect the relative

distances from the men of the three+ groups of 20 subjects.

Scale sco~re limits and corresponding scores are shown








43

in Table 1 for each of the three groups.

STABLE 1

SCALE SCORE AND J SCORE LIMITS OF THE THREE GROUPS
OF SUBJECTS SCORING HIGH, MEDIAL, AND LOW ON
THE F SCALE. (ME;AN = 3.549, 8. D. = .840)


F Scale Group Scale Score Corresponding
Limits t Scores


High (N = 20) 5.897 +2.80
4s.44~8 +1.07

Medial (N = 20) 3.724 +0.21
3."s83 -0.08

Liown (N = 20) 2.448 -1.31
1.517 -2.4c2


It can be seen from Table 1 that the inner limits of both

extremrre groups are greater than 1 S. D. from the mean.

Howeever, this value is -1.31 for the low group while it is

only 1.07 for the high group. This is not as likely to
affect our results as is the difference in relative dis-

tances of both extreme groups from the medial group. The

Score distance between the low and maedial groups is

1.23; for the high and medial groups it is .86. There-

fore, we would expect the medial group to be somewkhat

closer to the high group than to the low group with re-

spect to the characteristics measured by the F scale.










Humor Test

In the present study, the humorous productions were

obtained by means of a carto~on test devised by the ex~peri-

mernter,. (TPhe eartoon tes~t is reproduced in Appendix I.)

Rosenzweis (50), and Sanford and Rosenstock (51) have used

incomplete cartoons as projective~ devices in which the

faces of the various characters are drawn almost without

features and are purposely ambiguous as to facial expres-

sion. In p~retestinga with variousl cartoons for the present

study it was found that subjects need the stimulus of a

potentially hum~~o~ro situation, with characters drawn as

amilin8, in order to respond appropriately. Pretesting

also revealed that it is necessary to dir~et subjecatsr spe-

cifically to give humrorous response. (Instructions for

subjects are reproduced in Appendix III.) Spontaneous hu-
mor would be theoretically of greater interest. However,

it was found that in the ellsaroom situation, students are

set to treat all tests with deadly seriosetness and need to

be reassured thate they are supposed to give "funny" replies.

Humor preference tests, in which the suabject is presented

with a series of jokes, encounter less difficulty in this

respect.
The cartoons were drawn for a college undergraduate

sample. An attcemsrpt was made to include a representative

seleetion of campus scenes, both academic and reoraeational.










The "stimulus remairks"~ used in the cartoons were selected

to allow for both cognitive h~umo, such as puns or plays

on words, and the uual)P1 range of cam~pus oreetic humor,

including sex, superiority, and aggression. An attempt

was mnade to avoid frustrating situaitions of the intensity

depleted in the Rosensweig cartoons. Rather, the scenes

were designed with the intention of showing good-natured

banter of the sort that can stimulate either nharmnless"

or tendentious wit. The number of cartoons, eight, was

arprived at as a compromise beatweean what wasb felt to be

n~ecssary for reliability and what would constitute a rea-

sonaPPble task for subjects an~d judges.

Administration of the Tests

The tests were given to the students during the

last thirty minutes of one class period. The experimenter

administered the tests to eight of the classes and another

graduate student in psychology administered the tested to

the remaining three classes. Copies of the instructions

for the test admainistrator and for the subjects are in-

c~luded in Appendix II and Appendix III respectively.) Nel-

ther test was timed. Subjects were asked to complete the

humor test First before going on to the F scale. This

order of presentation w~as chosen because it was assutmed

that the eartooin test responses, being projective in










maature, might be markedly influenced by~ the structured and

highly orec~tic items containQed in the F ocale. It was

felt that any order effects of the oartoon test on the F

scale would be less marked, and in any~ capse, the order

would be the &ame for all subjects.


Judging Procedure

In selecting judges for studies in experimental~a

aesthetics there are usually recognized experts to choose

from, although it is still necessary to describe in detail

the characteristics of the judges, as, for example, an

artist's identification with a certain nachool.n "Experts "

in humoir, however, are likely to be highly specialized,

both in the type of humor that they disseminate and in the

type of audiences they attract. In presvious studies of

humor with college students (19) subjects' preferences

have been co~praresd with the~ results for the group as a

whole. The result was a significant lack ef agreement as

to what was "funny."

In the present study, it was decided to use pay-

chologists as judges for several reasons., Due to the nai-

ture of the experiment, the selection of a largee and

representatives" group of judges was not feasible--if it

ever la in the study of humor. Therefore, it was felt that

the judges rshuld be a "known" group, fairly homogeneous










with respect to backg~round, interest, and education. It

was also desired, due to the complexity of the humor vari-

able, that judges Be familiar with rating procedures and

skilled in the evaluation of verbal material. Assum~ing;

that individual judges demonstrate satisfactory reliabil-

ity in their ratings, and that significant interjudge

agreement is shown, it should be possible to interpret the

results in terms9 of the "known" group. Seven men with

Ph. D. degrees in psychology volunteered to serve as judfg-

es in the present experiment. Five of the judges were

university profesrsors and two were clinical psychologists

with the Veterans Admrinistration. The latter two judges

have had continuing contact with a campus environment.

The comp~lete instructions for judges is reproduced

in Appendix IV. Each judge was given eight packe;trs of

cartoon replies. Each packet contained, typed on lips of

paper, the 60 replies to one cartoon. The cartoon replies

had been given cogde numbers and had been shuffled. Judges

were instructed to shuffle the eight packets before judg-

ing in order to control for order effects between cartoons.

Shuffling, together with seaEtrate codinS for each cartoon,

controlled for order effects between subjects. Replies

were typed to avoid idetiztfication through handwriting

which might have led to n"halo" effects. Each judge worked

i~nder~pe~ndenwtl








48

Judges were asked to place the 60 slips for each
cartoon into four categories: "not funny," Mslightly fun-

my," moderatelyy funny,w and "very funny." Each category
was te receive 15 slips. Judgest~ were instructed to, "Ac-

cept a broad definition of what is humorous and group the

replies according to the degree to which they amuse you."

Judges then recorded by code number their selections for
ea~Pch category. Thisl method of rating has been called by

Guilford (27, p. 264) a Wdefined-groupM scale, in which

". the ju~de is given instructions as to what propor-

tio~ns of the samples should be expected to fall in each

6rou~p. "












CHAPTER V


RESULTS

After decoding of the judges' ratings, scoring was

done as follows: "no~t funny = 0 points, Hslightly funny"

= 1 point, "m~oderatealy funny"n = 2 points, atnd "very funny"

= 3 points, Since each judge placed 15 responses in each

of these categories for eaich cartoon, he assigned a total

of 90 humosr points per cartoon. With eight cartoons, each

judge assigned a total of 720 humor points for 60 subjects.
If h~umr points were distributed aceerding to

chance (nall hypothesis), each of the three F scale groups

should receive 2410 humror points per judge, or a total of

1680 points for ~ech group.. The results actually obtained

are presented in Table 2.

With respect to the total humor scores for the

three F scarle groups, as shown in Table 2, Chi square was

usebd in order to determiPne whether or ncoit the obtained re-

sults, as a whole, differed significantly from a trichotomy

(Bi5, p. 431l). TPhe Chi square test ( X= 27.56, df = 2, P

=<.01) vindicated that the obtained distribu~tion of humor

points can be considered significantly different fromi~ a

chanceb, or trichotomous distribution. The testing of the

significanc eof thme obtained differecnes between the groups,
49








50
TABLE 2

TOTA1L HUMOR POINjTS RECE~IVEbD BiY SUBJECTS INd THEr
LCW ME'DIAL, AND HIGH F SCALE GROUPS


Fa Scale Groups

Low Medial High
Judge (N = 20) (NJ = 20) (n =e 20)


1 262 238 220

2 268 24Q0 212

3 264 234 222
4 268 222 230

5 264 240 216

6 263 221 236

7 263 230 227

Total 1852 1625 1563


against the null hypotheses, was also carried out by Chi

squaPtre, as follows:
1. A Chi equetre test of the difference in total

humosr points received by the low and htgh F scale groups

wars significant at the .01 level of confidence (1 ?C= 24.46,

df = 1, p =<.01). TPherefore, the low_ group rtecived sig-

nificantly mocre haumor points than did the high group, a

result interpreted as supporting Hypothesis 1 (Above, p.

37).








51

2. A Chi square test of the difference in total

humor points resceivd by the low and medial F scale groups

was significant at the .01 level of confidnene (X == 14.~82,

df = 1, p =<.01). Therefore, the low_ group received sig-

nificantly more humor points than did the medial group, a

result interpreted as supporting Hypothesis 2 (Adbove, p.

37).

3. A Chi square test of the difference in total

humor points received by the medial and high F scale groups

was not significant (3 := 1.2, df = 1, p =>.20). There-

fore, the difference in humor points received by the medial

and high groups could easily have resulted from chance.
This result fails to support Hypothesis 3 (Above, p. 37).

The results of the humor ratings, tabulated accord-

ing to the different scores received by the three F scale

groups on each of the eight cartoons, is shown in Table 3.

Inspection of Table 3 reveaals that only in car-

toons B, E, and H are the ratings in the predicted order

of low, medial, and high. These three cartoons were the

only ones which, taken singly, discriminated significantly
beteenthe10gandhig~h F acale groups. The Chi squares

were, respectively, 6.40, p<.05; 8.84c, p*C.01, and 19.6,

p<.01. (The remaining Chi squares, none of which were

significant, were as follows: A, ?CL = 1.466 p>.10; C, 7C
= .114, p >.70; D, Xa= 3.12, P>.05; FIX = .186, p>.50;










G3, 7C = .80, p > 30.) However, the direction of the scor~e
difference for the low group over the h_1g~h group la con-
slatent for all cartoons except cartoon C.

STABLE 3

TOTAL HUMOR POINTS RECEIVED BY THE THRiEE F SCALE
GROUPS TrABULATED ACCORlDING TO CARTOON\S


F Scale Glroups
Cartoons

Low Medial H'igh

A 234 189 207

B3 237 208 185
C 210 203 217

D 238 191 201
E 244 204 182

F 220 199 211

Gt 212 224 194

H 257 207 166

Tok~takl 1852 1625 1563

aCartoons as given to the subjects, were numbered
from 1 through 8. However, as an aid toe the judges, the
eartoons were later designated consecutively by letter from
A thnrough~ H.

The distribution ourv~e for the humor ratings is

shown in Figure 2. The possible range for each subject was










from 0 (0 points for each cartoon) to 24 (3 points for

each cartoon), for any one judge or an average of all

judges' ratings. liThe o~btained range for an individual

judge's ratings was~ from O to 22 points. The range of the

averaged judges' ratings was from 2.57 to 20.0 points.

In other words, the judges agreed almost unanimo~usly, in

the case of certain subjsect, that none of their cartoon

responses were funny. Also, there was almost unacnimous

agreement that some subjects succeeded in giving "~very

funny" responses to every cartoon.


obtain ed frequencie s


9 9


7-


S3-




o


doo Ied" once


,o o Af=/. oo, cr- =4' /P' o o


Ja 4 6 8 to /2. / /b /P .Zo 12~ .24
AVERAGE //l./AOR rQAT I ~6


Fig. 2.--Distribution of avera~hge humorr ratin88s,
showing obtained frequencies and sm~oothed curve~.








54e

In the distribution of humor ratings the mea8n of

12 was determined by the judging procedure. The standard

deviation was 4.18. There waas a su6Gestion of negative

skewnesns (Sk = -.26) and of kurtosis (Ku = +.027, platy-

kur-tic), but neither value was larger enough to indicate

significant deviation from the normal curve.

The self-reliability of each judge's ratin68 was

ealeulated by obtaining correlations of his ratings for

each subJect on cartoons Ai, D, F, and G with his ratings

for cartoons B3, C, E, and H. The test was split in this

way in order to control f'or both order and page position

effects. The reliability coefficients, corrected by the

Spearman-Brown formula, ranged from .50 to .70. havr

age self-rerl,1ability obtainedd by using Fisher's at fune-

tion) was .63. The overall reliability for the test wasl

calculated by the same method used for self-reliabilities,

except that the combined ratings of all judges were usecd.

The corrected reliability obtained wase .77.

The degree of agreementS~ between the various judgesrp'

humo~sr ratings was calculated by obtaining a c~orr~elation of

each judge's distribution with that of every other judge.

The twecnty-one i~nterJud~e reliabilities ranged from .65 to

.83. The average interjudge reliability (obtained by ue-

ing Fishor's z function) was .73.

In addition to coms~paring the performances of the








55f

three F scale groups on the hum2or test, it is possible to

approach the results from the standpoint of individual

diffe~renes.e That is, one can determine a subject's posi-

tion on the humlor test and then note his F scale group mems-

bership. This has been done in Table 4 for the 10 sub-

jects having the highest, and for the 10 subjects having

the lowest, humor ratings.

TABLE 4

F SCALE GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS OF THEa TEN W"MO6ST HUMORSOUS"
AND THE TEN LEASTT HUMOROUS" SUBJECTS


F Scale Group Classifiention


Low M~edial Hi gh

Ten "Most 6 2 2
Humorous" Su~bjectrs

Ten HLeast
Humorous" subjects 34













CHA~PTEFR VI


DISOUSSION


Before discussing the findings which relate direct-

ly to the hypotheses it ma~y be advisable to consider some

of the seondary findings, such as the reliability of the

judges, form of the humor distribution, and the like, which

will influence interpretation of the results. The fact

that an essentially normal distribution of humor ratings

(see Figiure 2) was obtaine-d is of intreret in itself, since

studies of humor preference cast no light on the distribu-

tion of sense of humor." Freud (23, p. 728) has stated,

"Wit maDking is not at the disposal of all, in generral,

there are but a few persons to whom one can point and say

that they are witty .. ." Such statements reflect our

admiration for the few "humtorists" at the "top* of the

distribution without casting any light on the shape of the

rest of the eurve. Neither the limited nature of the task,

the use of extreme~i groups for subjects, nor the rating

method employed suit the present experiment to test for a

general "curve" of ability to be humorous. However, in

the restricted range of stimulus situations presented in

this experiment, and with a homogeneous group of judges,

56










the ability to be humorous was found to be normadlly dis-
tributed.

The range of "humo~r talent" appeared to be rather

limited in spite of the breadth of the sample. Most of

the judges were disappointed at the scarcity of really hu-
morous replies. The judges' ratings of "very funny" were,

therefore, relative to the sample and not to their usual

standards of humor. In order that the reader can better

appreciate the nature and variety of replies, the cartoon

responses of four of the subjects have been reproduced in

Appendix V.
In the preliminary planning for this experiment the

question was frequently raised as to whether or not judges
would be able to show any agreement with them~selves, or

with each other as to judgments of Hfunniness." ]Previous

research, such as the study by Grzivok and Scodel (26),

has shown that judges can reliably differentiate humor con-

tent, as, for example, between aggressive and incongruous
humor. But ability of jud,-es to agree with each other as

to what is "funny" has not been demonstrated. In fact,

ysen~ck (19) has stressed the absence of conformityt" in
humor appreciation. Previous studies, however, have given

judges an extremely wide variety off jokes and other varie-
ties of humo3rous productions from which to select prefer-

ences. In the present study, with a more specifle task,











judges were able to achieve what would appear to be mosder-

ate intrajudge and interjudge reliability, in view of the

complexity of the judgments and the briefness of the humr~s~~

test. Wilson, Guilford, and Christensen (57), using an

approach similar to the present stuidy, asked subjects to

inve~nt titles for two brief stories. T~he titles were then

rated for "cleverne~ss on a six-point seale by three judg-

es. Reliabilities of the individual judges ranged from

.69g to .77 (range in the present study wras .50 to .70);

interjudge correlations of ratings ran~ged from .53 to .76

(range in the present study was .65 to .83); and the re-

liability computed from the composite ratings was .76

(composite reliability in the present study was .77). It

is interesting to note that the reliabilitica achieved in

rating humoro" compnare favorably with the reliabilities

found in rating "cleverness," although Hcleverness" would

appear to be mo~re of a cognitive and less of an affective

variable than is humor, and, presumably, more susceptible

to reliable measurement. It would also be of interest to

know, especiallyr with judges highly trained in verbal

skills, what the correlation might have been had the judg-

es rated the same responses for both "cleverness" ad~"hu-

mBor. n

From the breakdown of the ratings by cartoons,

shown in Table 3 (Above, p. 52), it is apparent that isom~e








59

of the cartoons diserisinate between the F scale groups

considerably better than do others. Cartoon H, in which

the first student is saying, "I'll bet she forgets you

when she goes home weekendal", produced the sharpest dis-

crimination. Cartoon C, in which the stimulus words are,

"How about lending me five bucks until next week?", was

the poorest discriminator. It is difficult to explain

these results, although an inspection of the replies of-

fers some clues. Cartoon C seems to stimulate rather

abrupt, negative reactions which tend to be stereotyped.

The situation, since it involves money, calls for action

and not reflection. In addition, the stimulus character

in this cartoon was inadvertently drawn with a mildly

threatening facial expression, further restricting the af-

fective range of the responses. Cartoon H, on the other

hand, presents a stimfulus which is muach richer in its ca-

pacity to elicit the subject's feelings about himself and

others. The nature of the responses suEgests that Mnon-

authoritarians" were ~seure enough to be able to use humor

as "superior adaptation," whereas the "authoritarians"

tended, to react with defe~nsive hostility to a degree which

inhibited humorous responses. Analysis of the qualitative

differences between the humorous replies of hig~h and low

F acale group subjects was beyond the scope of the present

study. However, some appreciation of the differences in








60

"tendlentiousnessa" can be gained from the sample responses

given in Ap~pendixr V.

The principle findings of the experiment were set

forth in Table 2 (Above, p. 50). It was noted that the

results tended to confirm the predicted superiority in hu-
mor scores of the low F scl ru vrtehigh_ and medi.-

al groups. However, the score for the medial group was

not significantly higher than that for the high group.

The failure of this difference to be sig5nificant may be

related to the negative skewness of the F scale distribu-

tion. Although the skwnenss~ was not si~gnificant, i.e.,

might result from sampling, variations, its effect was real

enough in the present experiment, causing the 20 cases

grouped around the median to be closer to the hLgh group

thaln to the 1005 group, along the F scale con~tinuum. The

results with the medial group are in the predicted diree-

tion and the absence of a significant difference between

the medial and which groups does not ma~terially influence

the findings as a whole. The medial group was included in

the experiment primarerily as a hed~e against t~he possibill-

ty that the person who is "'averageH in F scale authLoritar-
lanism might be the most humorous. The results obtained

make it possible to reject this possibility.

In formulating the hypotheses for this study, it

was suggested that Prsults showing superiority of the Iow








61_

over the higrh F seale group in ability to be humorous could

be interpreted as supporting theories which see humo~cr as

an index of psychological health, as opposed to theories

which view humor as the by-product of repressed conflicts.

The question is largely one of emphasis because mcost a~uthor-

ities have recognzized both aspects of humor. Brut the bulk

of the literature has concerned itself solely with humor's

function in releasing repressed hostile or sexual impulses.

If this were hum~or's primary function, the high F scale

scorers should have had a significant advantage on the hu-

mor test. In spite of the impure factorial comp-osition of

the F scale, there is substantial evidence that it taps a

wide spectrum of tendentious material; that is, partially

repressed and socially unacceptable sexual, superiority,

and aggressive needs. But the overall results su86est

that these needs tend to be associated with below aver-

a~o, rather than above average, humor ability.
One factor that should be considered in interpret-

ing the results of this study is the significant negative
correlation between the F scale and ea~s~ures of intelli-

gence. Correlations of -.21 and -.32 were previously not-

ed (Above, p. 30). The implications for the present study

are difficult to determine because the relationship be-

tween humor and intelligence has never been adequately in-

vestigated. Freud (23, p. 728) desscribed the asense of








62

humor as n. . a special ability, fairly independent of

intelligence .n . ndis andi Ross (35) found negli-

gible correlations between their humor test and measures

of intelligence. On the other hand, A11port (2, p. 224)

has~~ said that to achieve a sense of humor requires ".

a high level of intelligence.M One reason for this lack

of agreement may be due to the failure of investigators to

distinguish between the cognitive and the orectic aspects

of humor. Intelligence is certainly substantially in-

volved in cognition, but presumably So n lesser extent in

affeeiation and contion. In the present study an attem~ipt

was made to compensate for the frankly verbal nature of

the task by the use of eartoons and by selecting stimulus

situations designed to~ tap sources of "tendency humor."

However, it is difficult to estimate~ to what degree the

humor scores in this study reflect intellectual ability.

To the extent that humor is viewed as an index of health-

ful adjustment, at positive correlation with intelligence

would be exa~p~eted. However, in view of the fact that in-

telligence correlates only to a low or moderate degre

with either the F scale or with Hsense of humor," intel-

ligence is probably a si~gnificsant bu~t nott a determining

factor in the preser;n~t eixperimeabnt.

An additional question that arises in the present

study invrolves the characteristics of thEe judges with








63

respect to the various traits m~neasured by the F scale.

P~re sumably, p ayehelogis8t s tend to be "non-autho ri tari an "

and therefore might tend to favor humorous responses giv-

en by the Ilew F acale scorers. In a sense, this begs the

question since tendency theory would mai~~ntain that a re-

sponse would be amusing in proportion to its un~acceptabil-

ity. In order to control for such influences one would

have to obtain judges with "average" F scale scores; but

since the F scale is designed~ for naive subjects it would

not be possible to obtain comnpeten~t jsdges in this way3. A

study by Seodel and Murssn (53) bears on this point. They

foundC that "non-authoritarians" can correctly judge the

attitudes of "authoritarians" but that the reverse is not

true. Likewise, E~Spstein and Smaith (17), in their study

relating to insight and tsnse of haumor, found that ability

to judge cartoons accurately was directly related to accur-

acy of self-evaluation. It would appear that knowledge of

the ways in which humorsr ratings are influenced by the

characteristics of the judges will have to be gained froma

accumulate~dd studies with groups of competent judges who are

homogeneous with respect to sorme variable. It seemsH~ un-

likely that humo~tr ratings by a "random samplfle" of the pop-

ulation would be either reliable or meaningful.

Although signirficnt differences in humor scores

were obtained between the low and the highr, and the low and








64

the medial F scale groups, it weas noted that there was con-

siderable overlap. Thio la apparent in Table 4 (Above, p.

55) wh~ich' showsJ the F acale group classificat~ions for the

10 hi~heat and the 10 lowoot scorers on the humor test.

Taking; the 10 nmoasst humorous" individuals first, it is ob-

served that six camei from~ the low F scale group and two

each from the medial and hiph groups. With respect to

Flugel's stateenk~rt (22, p. 725i), "Authoritarian ism in any

form sooms inimical to humor . .", our results are in

gnegra~l grseement; buit the above- exemptions indicate that

there are wide individual variations. Also, on the basis

of the prceset study, one cannot maelss the converse of this

stateament, to the effect that nnon-authoriterianism is in-

imnical to the abse~nce of humo~r." Of the 10 n1cast humor-

our" individuals, three came from~r the low and medial groups

and four came from the ht~gh group, obviously a chances dis-

tribution. The ab ovelr findin60, of course, correspond with

common sence observation. Some of our acquai-ntances, who

are liberals in every sense of the word, seem completely

lackin6 in sense of humogr. Other people, who seefm to com-

bine lall of the various neaativistice traifts that led to

the concept of authoritarianism in the first place, may

h~ave quite a livealyr sense of humonr. The results of the pre-

sent study ougges that these cases are exceptions, but un~-

til we can explain such inconsistencies our theories of
humor are incomplete.












CHAPTER VII


SUMMARY


1. One hundred and eighty-eight university under-

graduate maale subjects were given the California F scale

(Authoritarianise), together with a cartoon test of humor.

Sixty experimental subjects were then selected on the basis

of their F scale scores: the 20 scoring highest (most au-

thoritarian), the 20 scoring lowest, and the 20 scoring

Hmid-nost" in the distribution. The responses of these 60

subjects were then rated on a four-point scale of relative

funniness by seven psychologists who acted as judges.

2. It was predicted that with respect to humor

scores: (1) the law F scale group would significantly excel

the high group, (2) the low F scale group would significant-

ly excel the medial group, anld that (3) the medial F scale

group would significantly excel the high group. The ob-
tained differences were tested by Chi-sq~uare. Differences

were significant and in the predicted direction with re-

spect to hypotheses (1) and (2). The difference for hypo-

thesis (3) was in the expected direction but was not sig-

nificant.

3. The results were interpreted as tending to








66j

support theories of humor which emphasize the adaptive, as

opposed to the pathological, aspects of humor. Possible

biasing factor noted were the negative correlation of the

FT scale with intelligence and tfhe~ use of Sudges who prob-

ably tend to be nonauthor~itarian. Wide individual differ-

ences in hum~sor ability for subjcts~ in all three experi-

me~tall groups were noted.

4. Corrected split-half intrajudge reliabilities

for the humor ratings ranged froma .50 to .70. Interjudge

reliabilities ranged from .65 to .83. Com~posite reliabil-

ity for the test was .77. These results were interpreted

as suggesting th8at humnorous productions are susceptible

to being rated with satisfactory reliability and inter-

judge agreement if a homogeneous group of judges is used.













BIBLIOGRAPHY


1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Braunavik, E., Levinson, D. J.,
and Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality.
New York: Harper, 1950.

2. Allport, G. W. Personality, a psychological interpreta-
tion. New York: Holt, 1937.

3. Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & XLndtey, G. Study of
Values. Boston: Houghton M~ifflin, 1951.

4. Andrews, T. G. A factorial analysis of response to the
comic as a study in personality. J. ren. Psychol.
1943, 28, 209-224.

5. Aristotle. Des Poetica, Translated by By~water, I.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.

6. Berkrowitz, M. A study of somne relationships between
anxiety and humror. Unpublished doctor's disser-
tation, Pennsylvania State University, 1954.

7. Block, J. &c Block, J. An investigation of the relation-
ship between intolerance of ambiguity and ethno-
centrisml. J. Pers., 1951, 19, 303-311.

8. Cam~pbell, D. T., & MlcCandless, B. R. Eth~nocentrism,
xenophobia, and personality. Hum. Relat,, 1951,
4, 185-192.

9, cattell, R. B. IPAT Humor test of personality, Form A.
Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, 1955.

10. Cattell, R. B. Handbook for the IPAT humor test of ner-
sonality, Forms A, B, and C. Champaign: Institute
for Personality and Ability Testing, 1955.

11. Gattell, R. B., & Liuboraky, L. B. Personality factors
in response to humor. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
194~7, 42, 402-421.

12. Conkrlin, E. S., & Sutherland, J. W'. A comparison of the
scale of values method. with the order of merit
me~thod. J. exp. Psychol., 1923, 6, 44-57.
67










13. Deskins, A. J. MaI~glicl thinking, superstition and au-
thoritarian trends in personality. Unpublished
doctor's dissertation, University of Florida, 1957.

14. Dooley, L. The relation of humor to masochism. Psycho-
anal. Rev., 1941, 28, 37-468.

15. Dorris, R. J., Lev~ginson, D. J., & Hanfmann, E;. Author-
ita~rian peirsonality studied by a new variation of
the sentence completion technique. J. abporp.
soc. Psychol., 1954, 49, 99-108.

16. EbsastmaFn, M. The sense of humor. New York: Seribners,
1921.

17. E~pstein, S., & Smith, R. Repression and insight as re-
lated to reaction to cartoons. J. consullt. Payebhol.,
1956, 20, 391-395.

18. Eysenck, H. J. The appreciation of humor: an extpei-
mental and theoretically study. Brit. J. Psychol.,
1942, 32, 295-309.

19. Eysenek, H. J. An~J experimental analysis of five tests
of appreciation of humaor. Edue. psychol. M~easyt,,
1943, 3, 191-214.

20. E~ysenek, H. J. Dimensions of personality. London: Kegan
Paul, 1947.

21. Feldman, S. A sutpp~d~Qlent to Freud's theory of wit.
Psychoanal. Rev., 1941, 28, 201-217.

22. Flugel, Jr. C. Humor and laughter. In Handbook of Social
Psychology, Vol. II. Cambrid~e, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1954. Pp. 709-734.

23. Freud, S. Wit and its relation to the unconscious. In
The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York:
Random House, 1938. PJp. 633 803.

24. Freud, S. Humor. Int. J. Psychoanal., 1928, 9, 1-6.

25. Gregory, W. E. Authoritarianism and authority. L.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955i, 51, 641-643.

26. Grziwok, R., &c Scodel, A. Some psychological corre-
lates of humor preferences. J. consult. Psychol.,
1956, 20, 42.










27. Guilferd, J. P. Psychometric Methods, (1st Ed.). New
York: M8cGraw-Hill, 1936.

28. Gfuilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods, (2nd Ed.). N'ew
York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

29. Bollander, E. P. Authoritarianism and leadership
choice in a military settin~g. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1954, 49, 365-370.

30. Jones, E. E. ~Authori~t~raianis as a determinant of
first impression formration. J. Pers., 1954, 23r
107-127.

31. Jones, M. B. Authoritarianism and intolerance of flue-
tuation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 125-
126.

32. Kiambouropoulou, P. Individual differences in the sense
of humo~r and their relation to tem~peramental dif-
ferences. Arch. Psychol., 1930-31, 19, 1-83.

33. Kant, I. Critique of judgement, TraLnslated by Bernard,
J., L~ondon: Maicmillan, 1931.

34. Kline, L. W. The psycho~logy of humoar. Amer. J. of
Psychol., 18, 1907, 421-441.
35. Landis, c., & Ross, J. W. H. Humor and its relation
to other personatlity traits. J. soc. Psychol.,
1933, 4, 156-175.

36. Likert, R. A technique for the messurement of atti-
tudes. Arch. of Psychol., 1932, 140O, 55 pp.

37. Lull, P. E. The effectiveness ofd h~um~or in persuasive
speech. Speech Nb~nog,, 1940, 7, 26-40.

38. McComas, H. C. The origin of laughter. PSyobol. Rev.,
1923, 20, 45-55.

39. Mc~ougall, W". An introduction to social ~psychology.
(2nd~i Ed.) Boston: Luce, 1909.

40. Martin, L. J. Psychology of esthetics. ~bAmer. J.
Psychol., 1905, 16, 35-118.

41. M~oss, F., Hunt, T., &G Omwake, K. Social intelligence
test. W~ashington: Center for Psychological Ser-
vice, 1930.










42. Mrurray, H. A. Thematic Apporception Test. Cambridge:
IRarvard University ~Press, 1943.

43. O'Connor P., Ethnocentrism, "intolerance of am~bigul-
ty,& and abstract reasoning ability. J. abnorm.
soo, Psychol., 1952, 47, 526-530.

44~. O'Neil, H. M., & Levinson, D. cJ. AC factorial ex~pleras-
tion of authoritarianism and some of its ideolog-
ical1 concomitants. J. Pers.. 1954, 22, 449-463.

.45. Peatm~an, J. G. Descriptive and sampling statistics.
New York: Harper, 1947.

46., Plato Philebus Tri~eanslated~ by Fowrler, H. New York:
P~u;tln~am's s;-ons, 1925.

47. Rapp, A. The origins of wit and humor. Newn York: Dult-
ton, 1951.

48. Redlich, F. C., Levine, 6., & Sohler, T. P. A mirth
response test. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, 1951, 21,
717-735.

49. Rokeach, EM. Dogmatism and opinionation on the left and
on the right. Amer. Psycholopist, 1952, 7, 310-
311. (Abstract)

50. Rosensweig, 8. T3he+ picture asscication me~thod anrd its
application in a study of reactions to frustra-
tion. J.Pes, 1945, 14, 3-23.

51. sanford, F'. H., & Rosentock. I. M. Projective tech-
niques on the doorstep. J. abnormo. soc. Psychol.,
1952, 47, 3-16.

52. schopenhauer, A. The world as will and idea. Trans-
lated by Haldane, R., and Kemp, J., Vol. II.
London: Kegan Paul, 1928.

53. scodel, A., & Mussen, P. Seeial perceptions of author-
itarians and nonauthoitarians. 3. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1953, 48, 181-184.

54. Sears, R. N. Dyn~same ic tors in the psychology of hur~-
mor. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Harvard
University, 1934, eited by Miurray, H. Ad. Ex~plora~-
tions in personality. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1938, pp. 583-584.








71

55. Spinoza, B. Ethic. Translated by WIhite, W., (4th E~d.)
London: Oxford University Press, 1937.

56. ~sullivan, P. L., & Adelson, J7. tEthnocentrism and misan-
thropy. J. abnorm. soc. Psyvchol., 1954, 49, 246-


57. Wilson, R, C., Guilford, J. P. & C~hri~sense~n, P. RB.
The measurement of individual differences in ori6-
inaflity. Psychol., Bull., 1953. 50, 362-370.

58. Yar~nold, J. li., & Berkeley, M. H. An analysis of thea
Cattell-Luboraky humor~9 test into homogeneous
scalesr. J. abnorm. soc, Psyvchol,, 1954r 49g, 543-
546.














INSTRUCTIONS:
TALKING. THE
YOURSELF IN
RESPOND. WR






r9 # T~E
FoR meY
PPR RTY







APPENDIX I. HUMOR TESTa


INSTRUCTIONS: IN EACH OF THESE PICTURES TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE
TALKING. THE WORDS SAID BY ONE STUDENT ARE ALWAYS SHOWN. IMAGINE
YOURSELF IN THE OTHER STUDENT'S PLACE AND THINK OF HOW YOU MIGHT
RESPON~D. WRITE YOUR REPLY IN THE EMPTY BOX.


W~AT HAPPEn/ FD
/ Y DoNl'r p o Yo u
) I e ON/ TH IS T~EsT r

OR ;TH E











WEC ? I3-

oi




a~hi isafciieo h uorts.Teoii et
gient tesujet wr dplcte n tadrdB b 1 nc apr


































I LL BET -SH~E
FORGETS f/ou
WH EN ,SHE
6 0ES 14 0 E
W)EEKENDs i













ArPPENDIX II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEST1 ADM'l~INISTRAFTORS


Subjects, are to be MAkLE undergraduates. Mo0st su~b-
jects complete the tests in 20 minu~tes; a few will take 25.
It is probably most convenient to use the last 30 minutes
of a class period, allowing 5 minutes for passing out the
tests and reading instructions.

First hand each subj+ect a copy of the F scale, a~sk-
ing subeects to lea~sve them face~ down. The~n hand him the
cartoon test, face up. (This is done rseadily13 if tests are
previously sorted ~baick to back.) As the tests are being
passed out, ask the sub9ects to write their names on both
tests.

Dues to the na~ture of the research, the distribu-
ting of the tests andi the reading of instructions should
preferablyg be handled as informally as possible. Fortu-
nteP~4ly, som~ie students help to set the mood by laughing
when they see the earteegns.













APPENDoIX III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBJECTS


These tests that you have bee4n given are part of a
research study being conducted by a graduate student.
These tests are nobt a part of your regular course work and
most students find themt interesting. Please check to see
that your name is on both tests. All n~ame will later be
changed to code numbers and results will be used only for
research.

hen yfou have BcompletedQ theg cartoon test, turn
ovrer the seond test, which is a list of statements to be
rated, and complete it. Neither test is timed, bu~t each
one should take only 10 minutes. Affter 10 minutes I will
remind you to go on to the second test.

Now, with respect to this cartoon test. In fill-
ing in the cartoons, the idea is to give humorous repliesi
If you can't think of a humorous reply, fill in an appropri-
ate response anrd go on to the next cartoon. Be natural,
but try to think of humorous replies. All right, go ahead.













APPENDIX IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES


You are being asked to rate for Hfunnineoss the re-
sponses of sixty subjects to a humoa~r test consisting of
eight incom8plete cartoons. Replies have been given~ code
numbers, shuffled, and assembled separately for each car-
teoon The sixty replies for each cartoon are judged and
the results recorded before proceeding to the next cartoon.
Ma~terials to be used include:

(1) Eight pacekets, lettered from A through H.
Packet A contains the sixty replies to cartoon
A; Packet B, the sixty replies to cartoon B3,
etc.

(2) A samiple copy of the eartoon test.

(3) A set of eight recording sheets, one for ea~ch
cartoon, for use in recording the judge's
ratings.

Procedure

Thoroughly shuffle the eight unopened packets of
cartoon responses, leaving them face down in a pile. As
judging proceeds, select one packet at a time from the top
of the pile. After finishing with each packet and record-
ing the results, replace packet face up at bottom of pile.
Eabch packet contains the 60 responsesa to one car-
toon. Remover slips and shuaffle thoroughly. Take slips
one at a time and place them, face Fup, into four categor-
les; from left to right--Not funny, Slightly funny, Moder-
ately funny, and Very funny. After slips have been distri-
buted according to your first impressions, glance over them
again and rearrange themr so as to have 15 slips in each
category. In rating the replies, accept a broad defini-
tion of what is humorrous and group the replies according
to the degree to which they amuse you.

After each group of 60 replies has been rated,
there should be four piles of 15 replies eaceh. Take the
"Not funny" pile first, turn it over, and record the code
num~~bers (omitting the letter) by marking short lines








77

through the appropriate numbers under the "Not funny" eel-
umn on the recording sheet. Repeat for the other three
columns and make sure that the letter designating the ear-
toon is entered at the top of the blank. Then recombine
the 60 slips, shuffle, and replace in the packet. Proceed
to the next cartoon.

After all eight packets have been judged, check
the recording sheet for completeness and place in the enve-T~
lope provided and seal. It requires from 20 to 25 minutes
to Judge and record each packet and total Judging time will
be~ from 3 to 34 hours. Therefore, it is su~ggestedf th~t
Judging be done in twor or more sessions.












APPENdDIX V. SPECIMENS OF UM]OR TEST RESPOIJSE~S


1. Cartoon responses of a subject from the low F scale group
who scored h_1gh (rank order 1.5) in the humor test.

Cartoon Response

A "My Cadillac broke dowvn and I doubt if my date
wo9~uld consentl to ride in a Chevrolet."c


B "M~y ankswers were so intelligent and abstract
that t~he professor was unable to grasp their
alg~nificance."

0 "I would .. except my father broke his leg
and is inc~apacitated, my mother was laid off
her job, and I lost money in a poker g~ame, and
as a result have $3.00 left for the next two
weeks. "

D "If it didn't require that I be blind or the
lights out, to enjoy her company."

E "Any person who appreciates ageing and mellow-
ness, plus a high degree of mechanical un~der-
standing, and not interested in superficial
looks,"


F "Does this mean 12u are going to take over may
folkrs' ,job of supporting5 me, or do Bou need a
tuter?"

G "No, who wants to be B. M. O. C. and have all
those beautiful girls running after you, and
receive free, tuition, board, etc."

H HYes, she is probablyB very engrossed in her ctol-
lection of shrunk~en heads and her deciphering
of E:gyptian heiroglyphics,"
78








79

2, CalrtoonP~ respons8es of a subject from the low F scale
group who~ scored low (rankn order 56) in the humor test.

Cartoon Response

Ab No Esmonyl

B "I failed to study."

C "W~hen, next week?"

D "What's she like? Have you met her?"

E "I'm giving it away."

F "O. K. 'Prof,' baea.t it."

G "I wish I could play tha~st good but I don't
think I'd like to Bb on a school team."


H "She couldn't forget ag."


'3. Cartoon responses of a subject from the high_ F sealed
group who scored hZtgh (rank order 5) in the humor test.

Cartoon Response
A "Wrho in bell would have me? I couldn't get
a date on~i a Saturday night at the YWlCA with
~10 bills sticking out of my earis."

B MInstead of looking over m~y notes, I over-
looked them.M


C NIf I had five bucks I would stay up all
night looking~ at it."










D "Yes, but if she is a dog I'm going to
blind you,"

E *Oh, I'll find some blind guy."


F "I have to or I'll be digging ditches for
a living."

G MYeh, the team of iMa~rtin and Lewia--at
least I would have a few buc~ks."


H "Well, don't you think the mouse (me) will
play when the cat is away?"

4. Cartoon responsesr of a subject from the _Zigh F scale
group who scored low (rank order 58) in the humor test.

Cartoon Response

A "Because my wife does not want to go and she
won't let me go with anyone else."

B nfI'm not sureQ what h~appened. TLhey seemed
quite funny to me."

C nI'm sorry, but I do not hav~'Fe that antreh with
me."


D UI'm a married mr~an, but th~:iank anyway."


E Anyone who is in need of cheap transporta~-
tion."


F "You bet, I have to because of my low grades
last semes~~ter."~b


G MI sure do. I have always wanted to play
but never got the chan~e."'








81

Hi. "You abould not rsayv things like that unless
you k~now wh~nat you are talkinG~ about. En~-
courage, do not disoaura~ge.












BIOGRAPHY


Robert Scott Cleland was born Janulary 16, 1920, at
Pittburgh, pennsylvania. He received the Bachelor of Arts

degree from Monmouth College in 1941. After serving in

the navy he worked for several years in industry. During

this period he did graduate work at Northwestern University.

He entered the graduate school of the University of Florida

in 1949 and received the N~aster of Arts degree in psychol-

ogy in September, 1950. He is a member of the Amerlean

Psychological Association.













This dissertation was prepared under the direction

of the chairman of the candidate's supervrisory committee

and has bee~n alpproved byr all mem~dbersg of that committee. It

was submi~tted to the Dean of the College of Ar1ts and Sci-

~enes and to the Graduate Council, and was raproved as

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Pshilosophy.


June 3, 1957


Dean, College of Arts and Sciences



Dean, Graduate School

SUPERIVISORY COMMIT~rTEE:




hnaima




Full Text

PAGE 1

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATIVE HUMOR AND AUTHORITARIANISM By ROBERT SCOTT CLELAND A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNQL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA June, 1957

PAGE 3

To Dr. Justin E. Harlow, Jr., chairman of the supervisory committee, and to the other members. Dr. E, D. Hinckley, Dr. J. C. Dixon, Dr. R. J. Anderson, and Dr. C, W. Frlstoe, the author wishes to express his appreciation for unfailing support and encouragement. To the committee members who served as judges, together with Dr. D, W. Soper, Dr. N. W. Coppinger, and Dr. R. W. Bortner, the author extends sincere thanks for performing an arduous task. To Dean E. M. Mller and members of the Arts and Sciences faculty of the University of iJllaml at Coral Gables, Florida, sincere appreciation for generous assistance in obtaining subjects. 11

PAGE 4

TABL2 OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS , 11 LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF ILLU3TRATI0IJS v Chapter I. IKTRODUCTION 1 II. RiYIEW OF THE UTEKATURE 7 III. PROBLEM 33 IV. METHOD 36 V* RESULTS A9 VI. DISCUSSION 56 VII. SUMORY 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY 67 APPENDIXES 72 I. HUMOR TEST 72 II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEST ADMINISTRATORS. ... 74 III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBJECTS • 75 IV, INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES 76 V. SPECIMENS OF HUMOR TEST RESPONSES 78 ill

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Scale Score and y Score Limits of the Three F Scale Groups 43 2. Total Humor Points Received by Subjects In the Low, Medial, and High F Scale Groups 50 3. Total Humor Points Received by the Three F Scale Groups Tabulated According to Cartoons ,, 52 4. P Scale Group Classifications of the Ten ''Most Hvunorous* arui the Ten **Least Humorous Subjects , 55 !

PAGE 6

LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Distribution of F Scale Scores ...... 41 2. Distribution of Average Humor Ratings . . 53

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Back^.ro^and of the Problem Scholars representing many disciplines, from Plato to the present, have written about humor. The word "humor" is sometimes used in a limited sense, as in Freud's (23) distinction between wit, humor, and the comic. But except where otherwise indicated, the more general meaning of the word is intended in this paper. Humor has had many definitions, but most writers would agree that they are attempting to understand that quality or aspect of behavior and experience which mediates the amusing, the laughable, or the funny. Most investigators have also noted that humor usually involves, either singly or in combination, the playful, the surprising or unexpected, and the expression of emotional or instinctive tendencies. Determinants of humor appreciation and the humor response have been recognized as being related to an individual's intimate needs and feelings, yet, at the same time, continuously influenced by the social environment. Since this quality called humor is so pervasive in human behavior, it would seem to offer a strategic base from which to explore the relationships among our emotional, 1

PAGE 8

2 Intellectual, and social selves. Yet relatively little research on humor has been attempted by psychologists. Philosophers have provided Insightful descriptions and speculations but scientific measurement has lagged. Except for the efforts of a few pioneers such as Martin (40), who devised a rating scale for Jokes in 1905 » most of the experimental work on humor has been done within the last tv;enty years. Even the research that has been done has not been assimilated into psychology as a whole. With a few exceptions, textbooks on social psychology, clinical psychology, or even personality theory limit their discussions on "sense of humor** to a sentence or two attesting to its Importance. There are several possible reasons for the limited production of research on humor and for the failure of textbook writers to discuss the subject. One is that the very quantity of allegedly humorous material to which we are exposed daily may well stimulate an avoidance reaction in persons interested in scientific inquiry. It is also true that humor is a rather nebulous concept, the relationship of which to personality and to behavior is both subtle and complex. Measuring devices are difficult to construct and standards of excellence are hard to define. As in studies of music, the prolonged exposure necessary for analysis often destroys the unique but elusive qualities one seeks to understand.

PAGE 9

3 Several advances in hiimor research have been made In recent yeara. Factor analysis has been utilized in an attempt to bring order and psychological meaning to the common sense classifications of humor. Recent investigators have tended to avoid narrow theories and have shoi«n a greater awareness of the breadth of the problem and an appreciation of the fact that not one, but many solutions will eventually be needed. Theoretical Orientation of the Present Study One of the limitations in some of the previous research has been that the study of humor has been subordinated to some other goal. Examples are a study of the effectiveness of humor in persuasive speech (37)» and a humor test which contributes to a score in **social intelligence" (41). One ^'humor'* test (9) merely uses Joke preferences as a device for securing measures of other aspects of personality, such as sex interest or hostility. Although "applied humor** studies are of interest, they do little to cast light on the nature of humor Itself. Probably the most striking deficiency In studies of humor has been their almost exclusive concern with appreciation, rather than the creation, of humor. Most experimenters have had subjects indicate tlieir preferences for Jokes, limericks, and the like, by ranking or rating. Another

PAGE 10

4 technique requires subjects to choose the "funniest** of five endings to a joke (41), i^ysenck (20, p. 225) is one of the few writers who has recognized that there are clearly two factors involved in **sense of humor, ^ namely, "appreciation and production," He states that his studies with the production of humor have not yet yielded definite enough results to warrant publication. Another weakness of previous investigations of humor seems to be an overemphasis of humor as an index of possible psychopathology. This is especially true in psychoanalytically oriented studies, although Freud (23, p. 802) himself recognized "harmless" as well as "tendency" wit and described humor as "the loftiest of the defense functions." Viewing humor as a useful defense function, rather than as a symptom of conflict, seems a step in the right direction. But humor's positive, creative, function as an agent in "superior adaptation" has received little recognition. Some general problems concerning techniques and emphases in humor research have been discussed. The present study does not attempt to suggest what should be the goals In future research. However, it is thought best to point out th^t the aims and the plan of the present study developed, tr) a large extent, in reaction to some of the previous emphases. First, interest is centered on the creation

PAGE 11

5 of the humorouB responses themselves, rather than on what hidden meanings they may contain or how others will react to them. This orientation leads, then, to the question of individual differences— not in appreciation of humor~but in the production of huraor. Why are some people successful users of humor and others not? The present study also attempts to avoid the Mas of vieving humor prlrrarily as an expression of psychological conflict. Freud (23t P« 760) stated that the importance of unconscious tendencies might explain '*why the subjective conditions of wit are so frequently fulfilled in the case of neurotic persons.** It is hoped to present evidence in this study suggesting that these conditions may Just as frequently, or more frequently, be fulfilled in the case of the psychologically healthy person. Overall Plan for the Experiment The problems pertaining to humor research discussed thus far are broad and complex. They will be documented and discussed in more detail in the review of the literature. The reactions on methods will present the complete experimental procedure. However, the general approach will be briefly described at this point. It was desired to relate the ability to be humorous to individual differences in personality. First, it was decided to limit the subjects to male, college undergraduates

PAGE 12

6 since most of the related research had utilized similar groups. For the measure of humor "production,** a test consisting of eight incomplete cartoons was constructed. (The humor test Is reproduced in Appendix I.) The cartoons depicted familiar campus situations in which one student is saying something to another. The subject is asked to fill in a humorous reply. The personality measure selected was the California F (fascist or anti-democratic) scale, or **authoritarlanlsm** scale (1, p. 255). This scale was chosen because of the many studies suggesting that the F scale measured several personality variables suspected of being crucial to the production of humor, A total of 188 male subjects, college undergraduates, were given the humor test to complete, followed by the F scale. Sixty subjects were then selected on the basis of their F scale scores: the 20 scoring highest (most authoritarian), the 20 scoring lowest, and the 20 **mld-most** in the distribution. The cartoon responses of these 60 subjects were then rated for funniness by a group of seven Judges. The results of the humor test, as related to the F scale classifications, constitute the principal findings.

PAGE 13

CHAPTiK II REVIFrt OF THE LITERATURE Humor ^e studies on humor to be reviewed will be classified under four general headings: the philosophers and humor, phylogenetlc theories, psychoanalytic theories, and experimental studies. The major emphasis will be placed on the experimental studies. This group Is felt to have Dade the most significant contributions, not only because of their methods, but because their studies have been the Bost recent and they have been In a position to bring together and test some of the earlier theories. The Philosophers and Humor Plato, in the Phllebus (46, p. 539) noted that, *•, . . when we laugh at the ridiculous qualities of our friends, we mix pleasure with pain, since we mix It with envy ....** The emphasis Is on laughter as a subtle way of attacking those whom we feel may be superior to us. Aristotle (5, p. 1449a) however, believed that, "The Ridlculous may be defined as a mistake or deformity not productive of pain or harm to others,** This definition is probably the first exposition of the idea that humor in Its 7

PAGE 14

8 purest form Is not hostile. Spinoza (55. p. 217) also recognized this difference. He stated, "I make a great distinction between mockery , . . and laughter; for laughter and merriment are nothing but Joy . . . .» Kant (33, p. 223) felt that humor could be understood In terms of physiological functions. He stated, **In the case of jokes (the art of which, just like music, should rather be reckoned as pleasant than beautiful) the play begins with the thoughts which together occupy the body, . . . and as the understanding stops suddenly short at this presentment, in which it does not find what is expected, we feel the effect of this slackening in the body by the oscillation of the organs, which promotes the restoration of equilibrium and has a favourable influence upon health." A more sophisticated theory of humor was set forth by Schopenhauer (52, p. 279). He suggested that laughter results from the apprehension of an incongruity in which perception triumphs over thought, "[perception] ... is the medium of the present, of enjoyment and gaiety, moreover it is attended x^ith no exertion. But [thought] . , . is the vehicle of our fears, our repentance, and all our cares. It must therefore be diverting to see this strict, untiring troublesome governess, the reason, for once convicted of insufficiency,** Kline, a psychologist who contributed to the

PAGE 15

9 philosophy of humor, revealed a atlll broader underatanding of humor in noting that humor is a social process and that It Is also characterized by the element of freedom. He states (34, p. 438), "Perhaps its [humor's] largest firnction is to detach us from our world of good and evil, of loss and gain, and enable us to see it In proper perspective. It frees us from vanity, on the one hand, and from pessimism on the other by keeping us larger than what we do, and greater than what can happen to us." Phylop^enetic Theories of Humor Rapp i^7t P« 21) states that wit and humor can b« traced to the primitive scene where the victor uttered a **roar of triumph** over the vanquished. He assumes that laughter at persons preceded laughter from riddles or Jokes, and that laughter of ridicule preceded humane, genial laxighter. He suggests that social training has caused laughter or humor to be substituted for overt aggression. McComas (38) has also suggested that laughter may have developed before language, as a reaction to a find of good food or a fresh spring. These authors have **explained** laughter by considering it an instinctive reaction. Freud (23t p. 733) also utilizes this approach when he suggests that laughter may develop from the contortions of the corners of the mouth of the "satiated nursling when he drowsily quits the breast.**

PAGE 16

10 Eastman (16) has recognized that theories which reduce laiighter to an instinct have difficulty in accounting for the wide variety of situations that can lead to humorous responses, Sastraan explains adult humor as developing, through learning, from childhood play. He refers to McDougall (39) for support in his opinion that play is a form of instinctive behavior. Eastman also recognized Freud's ''tendency** wit, or "furtive" wit, as Eastman calls it. It should also toe noted that Freud (23, p. 634) accepted the definition of wit as a "playful judgment." Psychoanalytic Theories of Humor Freud's observations on wit, the comic, and humor were insightful and comprehensive. He is probably best known for his emphasis on "tendentious" wit, or wit which serves to release repressed unconscious impulses, usually sexual or hostile. He pointed out that some Jokes are similar to dreams or "slips of the tongue" in this respect. Freud also recognized "nontendentious" or "harmless" wit but had little to say about it. Freud's attempt to explain the unique qualities of humor resulted in the formulation of his principles of "economy." He stated that the pleasure of wit originates from an economy of expenditure in inhibition, the pleasure of comic from an economy of expenditure in thought, and the pleasure of humor from an economy of expenditure in feeling

PAGE 17

11 (23f P« 802). These three divisions are suggestive, respectively, of the conative, cognitive, and affective divisions later applied to humor by Eysenck (20, p. 227). However, Freud's terminology of "economy of expenditure** has not been vfidely acceptcfd, subsequent writers preferring to attribute the pleasure to the expression of repressed tendencies and the release of the energy used in repression. Freud's frequently quoted distinctions between wit, the comic, and humor do not seem entirely satisfactory. For Instance, he gives the following example as a combination of the comic and wit (23, p. 763). A little girl who was suffering from a severe cold and sneezing profusely, pointed to her chest and said, *'Daddy, Gesundhelt hurts I**. Since our sympathy for the child is both mobilized and released, this remark could also be interpreted as humor, according to Freud's doctrine of **economlzed feeling.** In 1928, Freud (24) published his theory of humor making use of the superego, a concept which had not been formulated at the time of his book on wit. This concept states that the ego adopts the point of view of the superego and is able to look down on its difficulties with more mature understanding and detachment, Freud's contributions to an understanding of humor have markedly Influenced subsequent studies. However, Flugel (22, p. 721) has noted that, **0n the whole, , . .

PAGE 18

12 the contributions of the 'metapsychology' of humor by psychoanalytic writers other than Freud himself have not been as convincing, enlightening, or mutually consistent as might have been hoped for In view of the considerable number of papers devoted to the subject.'' An example of this neoFreudian approach to humor might be taken from Dooley (14), who states, **Humor thus becomes one of the ways In which the ego . . . 'wangles' restoration of the parents* love by claiming the love of the parents* successor — the superego—In playful fantasy (p. 44). Experimental Studies of Humor The experimental investigations will be discussed In approximate chronological order, A study by Landls and Ross (35) illustrates one of the earlier experimental approaches to humor research in which a large number of Jokes were classified into categories by judges. In this case a 100 item test was constructed. Jokes being classified into the following seven categories (p. 157): 1. Bhimor of Quantity (exaggerations, under-statement, etc. ) . 2. Humor of Incongruity (association of Incompatibles). 3. Humor of Unexpected (occurrence of some surprising thought, etc.). 4. Humor of Truth (exposure of one's unrevealed thoughts, etc. ) . 5. Humor of Superiority (difficulties of others which seem simple to us). 6. Humor of Repressions (release of tensions, such as fear, sex, etc.).

PAGE 19

13 7. Humor of Ridiculous (nonsensical use of logic, play or words). Jokes in these categories were further rated by v/riters and by editors of a college humor publication as **very good,** •*good,*' "poor,** and *Very poor." Equal nvimbers from each of these levels were placed in the test. Subjects, in the portion of the experiment to be discussed, were 124 male undergraduates at a men's university and 154 female undergraduates at a women's college. Subjects were also given an introvereion-extroversion scale and intelligence was measured by means of a standard college ability test used for entering freshmen. Subjects were asked to rate each Joke on the humor test according to the four-point scale of "goodness,** with no limit as to the total niimber of '*humor points** to be awarded. The subjects were also asked to classify each Joke according to the seven humor categories. The tests were scored for total **humor points** and for total points assigned to each of the humor categories. Results indicated no relationship between either overall humor points or classification of items with the other measures employed, that is, intelligence, or introversion-extroversion. The authors noted marked individual variations in humor preference and concluded that performance on the humor test behaves as an independent personality factor. It was also noted that the men and women differed significantly in humor preferences; evaluating the

PAGE 20

14 categories from test to poorest in the following order (35» p, 172): Men: Repression, Unexpected, Ridiculous, Truth, Incongruity, Q,uantity, Superiority. Women: Ridiculous, Incongruity, Unexpected, Superiority, Truth, Quantity, Repression. The greatest difference is seen in the Repression classification which the men valued first and the women last. This is the classification which Includes most of the jokes related to sex. In criticism of the type of approach used in this study, Cattell (10) has stated, "Valid humor scales cannot be built up by items merely believed from 'inspection* to have a 'homogeneous* content, or even on psychiatric insights of common dynamic content. (Two psychiatrists agree on the dynamic content and item association of a Joke scarcely beyond chsjice.) The Jokes that are put on a single factor scale have to be proved by experiment to 'go together* in the choices of the typical subject and to be at the same time substantially Independent of the other factor scales** (pp. 3-4). An example of the Inconsistencies that can result from classification by inspection occurs in the Landis and Ross (35) study. The authors noted that some of the Jokes that they used were used in a similar study by Kambouropoulou (32). They compared results and found that the relative humor values assigned corresponded closely. However, the

PAGE 21

15 classifications as to the type of humor involved differed considerably, A study by Sears (54) has been widely quoted, principally with reference to his useful distinction between the schematic and thematic aspects of humor. The former refers to the structure of the Joke, including such organizational factors as timing, brevity, or the sudden shift of closure. The latter refers to the meaningful human content, primarily asocial or repressed needs such as aggression, superiority, or sex. Sears also classified his jokes on an a priori basis. His choice of such classifications as **overt anal** and ''covert anal** suggests the susceptibility of this approach to theoretical bias, Gordon Allport's (17) contribution to the literature on humor Is more speculative than experimental. However, chronologically, he should be considered at this point, and he does begin his remarks on humor by referring to a study in which ratings of persons for **sense of humor** were found to be correlated +,88 with their ratings for ''insight ** (p. 220), Details of the experiment were not given, Allport states that "psychologically it Is not profitable to distinguish between Insight and sense of humor" (p. 422). He Includes both traits under "self-objectiflcation." He rules out of his definition absurdities, puns.

PAGE 22

16 release of suppressed material, and the laughter of good spirits or play. What remains is a highly intellectualized distillate from the broader concept of humor. One might even suspect that Allport has missed the essential ingredient of humor when he states that, "To view one*8 problems humorously is to see them as trivial and of no consequence . . .** (p. 225). This would appear to be self-deception rather than insight, and it is hardly an adequate evaluation of humor. What Allport, and other writers, find difficult to explain is the special quality of humor which enables a person to laugh when fully aware that a problem is far from trivial. Although Allport' s theory appears to be too narrow, it is an important contribution because of his point of view. His emphasis on the positive aspects of humor came at a time when ''discharge** and "camouflage" were being overstressed, A new approach to humor research is represented by the work of H, J. Eysenck, whose major contributions to humor are contained in two articles (18, 19) and in his book. Dimensions of Personality (20), Eysenck is recognized both for his "cognitive, conative, and affective" theory of humor and for his factor analytic approach to the factors in humor. In one study (18), 189 jokes were given to 16 subjects to be ranked. Subjects were also given an introversion-extroversion questionnaire. The humor rankings

PAGE 23

17 were Intereorrelated and subjected to factor analysis. The main outcome appeared to be a bipolar factor contrasting persons who preferred rather simple, **funny," sex and aggressive Jokes with persons who preferred more complex, "clever** Jokes not dealing with sexual matters. EJrsenck identifies the first group as orectic (cona-tlve and affective) Jokes and the second group as cognitive Jokes. Correlations showed that extraverts tended to prefer the orectic type of humor while introverts preferred the cognitive type. IJrsenck believes that it is possible to classify all humor under the three main headings of cognitive (incongruity, contrast between ideas, and deceived expectations), conative (satisfaction of the desire for superiority), and affective (emotional aspects). He calls this his **Eclectic Theory of Humor,** and illustrates it by means of a triangular diagram (20, Fig, 21, p. 228). The top corner is labeled **Cognition*' and the bottom corners **Affection** and **Conation. ** The two bottom corners are drawn closer together to represent the apparent closer interaction of these aspects of the mind. Any Joke can be located within the triangle. As the Joke approaches *'Aff ection** it can be described as **humor, ** as it approaches **Cognitlon** it is described as **comlc,** and as it approaches **Conatlon** it takes on more of the characteristics of *'wit.** Sear's (54)

PAGE 24

18 '^schematic** and ''thematic*' divisions are similar to Eysenck'a "cognitive" and "orectic," while Allport's (2) theory is predominately cognitive. In a second study by Eysenck (19). 100 normal subjects ranked 250 humorous items grouped into five different tests. Average intercorrelations between subjects were very low, as were the intercorrelations between each subject's performance on ell five tests. In other words, there was a surprisingly small araoiint of agreement as to the relative goodness of the items. It was found, however, that individuals tended to be consistent in the amount of "fun" that they got out of the materials, A person who found BU9.ny Jokes funny tended to find many cartoons and verses funny. Similarly, a person who did not find the Jokes funny was equally rejecting of the other humorous materials. EJysenck notes that this affective reaction seems to constitute a genuine personality tirait. Andrews (4) has reported an interesting study which was designed to determine whether or not humor should be considered as a single unit quality of a general nature. Several hundred Jokes, puns, limericks, and cartoons were sorted by college students into nine piles, in order of funniness. Twenty-four representative items, covering the entire range of humor values, were Intercorr elated and factor analysis carried out until six factors had been extracted.

PAGE 25

19 2Jo general or universal factor was found. The six factors were described as follows: Factor (1) Feelings of superiority over persons seen as inferior. Factor (2) Escape from, or sympathy for, debauchery. Factor (3) Subtlety (puzzlers, or hidden meaning). Factor (4) The pun, or play on words. Factor (5) Sexual jokes. Factor (6) Ridiciilous, nonsensical, wise-cracks. It is interesting to note that these factors can also be grouped according to the classifications of Sears (54) and Eysenck (20). Factors 3» 4, and 6 could be described as schematic or cognitive, and Factors 1, 2, and 5 as thematic or orectic. However, Andrew's factors, like those of other investigators, seem far from satisfactory. There is a great deal of overlapping. For example, a play on words might also be ridiculous and, in addition, carry sexual connotations. Tracing out such connections still leaves us, in Freud's words, with **di8 Jointed fragments which we should like to see welded into an organic whole** (23, p. 637). R. B. Cattell is another investigator who has done extensive research on humor. In collaboration with Lubor8ky (11), 100 Jokes were rated by 100 young men and women. Factor analysis yielded five general personality factors: (1) good natured assurance, (2) rebellious dominance, (3) sex repression, (4) passive derision, and (5) sophistication.

PAGE 26

20 The last four factors seem to be closely related to factors obtained by previous Investigators, The first factor, "good natured assurance,** is of interest because it suggests the warm, yet stimulating, affective qualities we often associate with a person who has a '*good sense of humor. ** This aspect of humor seems to have been overlooked in other factor studies, Cattell has published a humor test (9) which is based on an extensive series of factor analytic studies. This test consists of 76 items (152 Jokes, in pairs) for which the subject indicates his preference. Since each pair of Jokes has been matched for relative *'funniness'* on the basis of previous ratings, extraction for individual's *'total funniness" score is impossible. The subjects' choices contribute to scores on the following 12 bipolar factors: (pp. 11-13). Factor 1. Debonair sexual and general uninhlbitedness vs. anxious considerateness. Factor 2. Good-natured play vs. dry wit. Factor 3. Tough self-composure vs. reassurance in embar ra s sment . Factor 4. Gruesomeness vs. flirtatious playfulness. Factor 5. Hostile derogation vs. urbane pleasantness. Factor 6. Resignation vs. impudent defiance of decency. Factor 7. Cold realism vs. theatrical! sm. Factor 8. Ponderous humor vs. neat, lighthearted wit. Factor 9. >vhimsical retort vs. damaging retort. Factor 10. Mistreatment humor vs. cheerful independence. Factor 11. Evasion of responsibility and guilt vs.

PAGE 27

21 anxious concern. Factor 12. Scorn of ineffectual male vs. rebotind against feminine aggression. The preceding array of factors vividly illustrates the complexity and subtlety with which the ''sense'" or ''quality** called humor is woven into our personalities. However, reading this list hardly gives one a feeling of •'closure,*' and the question is raised as to whether or not this approach to understanding hxunor has reached a point of diminishing returns. Apparently a reaction has already set in as Yarnold and Berkeley (58) have reanalyzed some of Cattell 's data and have suggested reducing the number of factors to seven. The four studies which will be reviewed next are relatively recent. They seem to reflect a change in orientation, from attempting to understand and describe humor as a whole, to the testing of hypotheses derived from limited portions of humor theory. Redllch, Levlne, and Sohler (48), in a study of reactions to humorous materials of 59 psychiatric patients and 24 normal subjects, made tv/o Interesting contributions to technique. First, as stimulus materials, they used 36 cartoons depicting different objects of aggression and distortion. The authors found that cartoons were more quickly and easily responded to than were verbal materials. Second, in addition to having subjects sort the cartoons according to their likes and dislikes, the authors

PAGE 28

22 rated the subjects' overt reactions to the cartoons according to a **mirth response scale, ** These ratings were taken unobtrusively and noted the degree of apparent mirth from "no response*' to ''laughter,** The results of this frankly exploratory study were not conclusive with respect to differences between groups. However, the depressed patients reacted as expected, with little or no overt response. Schizophrenics tended to miss the point and exhibit "parahumor, " The method was described as being a promising clinical tool because reactions to the cartoons were observed to be closely related to the dynamics of Individual patients, A later study using the "mirth response scale" was carried out by Berkowltz (6), Forty-four college students were given a group Rorschach test and their protocols scored for hostility. Half of the subjects (praise group) were then given prepared reports reporting favorable performance, while the other half were given unfavorable reports (stress group). Each subject was then asked to sort twelve cartoons Into three equal piles, "like most, " "like least," and "neutral," and to explain the "point" of each cartoon. Overt reactions to the cartoons were noted on the "mirth response scale, " Since Judges had previously rated the cartoons for aggressive content, the data could then be analyzed In several ways. The Independent variables were the measures of hostility and the stress-praise variable.

PAGE 29

23 The dependent variables were the mirth response score, the cartoon preference (aggressive versus non-aggressive), and the degree of understanding or distortion of the **point'* of the cartoons— also rated by Judges. The principal findings were as follows: 1. Subjects in the •Upraise" group scored significantly higher in "total mirth response** than did subjects in the "stress** group. 2. Average "mirth response" scores were not significantly different for "high hostility" and "low hostility" groups. However, "high hostility" subjects gave significantly more extreme responses (frowns or laughter) while "low hostility" subjects gave more "neutral" or "smile" responses, 3. High hostility" subjects mjide significantly more ''distortions" than "low hostility" subjects on the "high aggression" cartoons but not on the "low aggression** cartoons. These results suggest that "tendency" theories of humor cannot assume a simple relationship between the degree of a "tendency," such as hostility, and the degree to which the humor response may be affected. Finding number one appears to give experimental support to the frequently observed depressing effect of anxiety on the ability to respond humorously. However, the findings with respect to hostility suggest that the relationship of anxiety to humor may also be more complex than is apparent under the conditions of the experiment. Grziwok and Scodel (26), asked 140 male college students to rate a series of 40 cartoons for "funniness." The cartoons were selected from a pool of 250 New Yorker

PAGE 30

24 cartoons which had been placed by Judges Into the following categories: 1. Hiimorous effect based on aggression, either explicit or deliberately understated, 2. Humorous effect obtained by a parody on sex, 3. Humorous effect based on the exaggeratefi or paradoxical use of social stereotypes. 4. Humorous effect based on obvious or striking logical incongruity. Ten cartoons were selected from each category. The authors state that the first two categories (aggression and sex) can be subsumed under "orectic humor** and the second two categories (social commentary humor and logical incongruity) under •'cognitive humor," (Category number three appears to be misplaced in view of the potentially highly orectic nature of cartoons which exaggerate social stereotypes.) The subjects were also given the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values (3) and were asked to write stories for seven Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) cards (42). The TAT stories were scored according to specially constructed scales for degrees of aggressive and sexual content, and, in addition, intraception versus extraception. The significant results were: 1, S's high in TAT aggression prefer aggressive hvimor while those low in TAT aggression prefer social commentary humor, 2, With respect to value orientations: a) Aesthetic scale. '^Highs** prefer logically incongruous cartoons while "lows** prefer aggressive cartoons.

PAGE 31

25 b) Social scale. **Hish8** prefer aggressive cartoons . c) Theoretical scale. **Lows** prefer sexual cartoons. The authors summarize their results as follows: **In more general terms a preference for orectlc humor, as opposed to cognitive humor, seems to be characterized by more fantasy aggression, more extraverslon or outgolngness, less preoccupation with Intellectual values, and less psychological subtlety or complexity** (26, p. 42). The above findings are in agreement with Eysenck's (18) finding that Introverts prefer cognitive humor while extraverts prefer orectlc humor. The results of the Grzlwok and Scodel study must be Interpreted with caution, however, because only a few of the many comparisons possible are reported as being significant, giving rise to possible sampling bias. The last humor research study to be reviewed is by Epstein and Smith (17). Their experiment attempted to test the Freudian view that repression favors an appreciation of humor in which the repressed material is represented. The authors noted that previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between manifest hostility, for example, and preference for hostile humor, but have not directly attacked the Freudian hypothesis that repression of a tendency favors its appreciation in humorous form.

PAGE 32

26 The authors measured preference for hostile humor In 32 members of a college fraternity hy three techniques: observing S's expressive reactions to hostile and control cartoons, having S rate the cartoons, and having him sort them on a Q, sort of fxinniness. In order to obtain a measvire of repression, self -ratings of hostility were compared with average ratings assigned by fellow fraternity members. The S'a were thereby divided into insight and repression groups, according to the relative accuracy or inaccuracy of self-evaluation. The principal findings were as follows: 1, No relationship was found between repression and general preference for hostile cartoons. 2. A significant positive relationship betv;een insight and sense of humor was found, sense of humor being measured by degree of correspondence of S*s ratings with group norms. The negative finding with respect to the hypothesized relationship between repressed hostility and humor is dlfficxilt to interpret. The authors suggest that there may be no general relationship. Their findings Indicated that the relationship may hold true for cartoons which are the most obviously hostile. The authors also suggest that a relationship might be found if suppression (conscious inhibition) or external frustration of an impulse were investigated rather than repression (unconscious inhibition). This latter possibility is suggested by the frequently noted

PAGE 33

27 Interest In sexual Jokes of sexually frustrated groups such as adolescents (cultuz»ally frustrated) and men In the armed services (geographically frustrated) vfho are not necessarily repressed. With respect to the findings of a positive relationship between insight and sense of humor, the authors' measure of the latter should be noted. The accuracy with which the cartoons were evaluated, with respect to group norms, may be largely a cognitive fimction. In this case, these results would tend to support Allport*s (2) equating of insight and humor, at least as far as the cognitive aspects of humor are concerned. The California F Scale Since the F scale from The Authoritarian Personality by Adomo, et al . (1) is the personality measure used in this study, it is felt that a brief description of its development, together with a summary of subsequent research with the scale, is desirable. Research in humor appreciation has tended to be concerned with specific personality traits, such as aggressiveness or insight. However, since creation or production of humor was to be measured in the present study, the question was first formulated as, "What might be the personality characteristics tending to make a person a 'humorist,* or a 'non-humorist'?** It was felt that many personality

PAGE 34

28 traits might contribute: flexibility, insight, empathy, intraceptiveness, and the like. However, it is diffic\ilt to find satisfactory measures of these traits. In addition, it was felt that a sense of humor was more likely to depend on a constellation of these traits than on any single trait. Therefore, a global measure was sought which would, in effect, combine measures of the above traits. The California F scale was selected for several reasons. The development of the test can be traced from the initial attempts to get at personality characteristics underlying racial prejudice and anti-democratic attitudes through the several form changes needed to improve sensitivity and bring the average reliability to .90. Abundant clinical data from the original research, together with many subsequent studies, enable one to judge with some confidence as to what is included in the omnibus term "authoritarianism,** The authors of the scale have suggested that the F scale measures the following nine traits (1, p, 228). 1. Conventionalism. 2. Authoritarian submission. 3. Authoritarian aggression. 4. Anti-intraception. 5. Superstition and stereotypy. 6. Power and "toughness." 7. Destructiveness and cynicism. 8. Projectlvlty, 9. Exaggerated concern with sex. The authors point out (p. 262) that these groupings

PAGE 35

29 are a priori aids to discusalon only, not clusters In the statistical sense. However, all Individual items in the test correlate significantly (average r = .33) with the teat as a whole. One factor analytic study of the F scale by 0*Nell and Levinson (44) revealed four factors, which they named: religious conventionalism, authoritarian submission, masculine strength facade, and moralistic control. Possibly a more adequate conception of what the test measures can be obtained from the findings of subsequent researchers who have correlated the F scale with other criteria. Some of the personality characteristics which have been found to be related to •'authoritarianism" are as follows: 1. Intolerance of ambiguity : Jones (31) fo\md that inability to tolerate a high rate of reversal in the Necker Cube was positively related to F scale authoritarianism. Similar results, with various measures of Intolerance of ambiguity, were obtained by Block and Block (?)• and O'Connor (43). 2« B'li santhro-py ; Campbell and McCsndless (8) found the F scale to correlate highly with a scale measuring general dislike of others. Sullivan and Adelson (56) obtained similar results with a scale of ethnic prejudice rewritten so that terms such as **all people** were substituted for minorities originally specified.

PAGE 36

30 3» Antl-'lntraception ; Dorrls, Levlnson, and Hanfmann (15) fomd that authoritarians tended to deny selfreference to items after having taken a sentence completion test, Jones (30) and Scodel and Musaen (53) have found authoritarians less capable of Judging the psychological and personality characteristics of others, 4. DoCTtatism ; Rokeach (49) constructed a "Dogma.tic Personality Scale" composed of statements concernlrig overidentification with a cause, and the like, that correlated ,67 with the F scale, 5. Intellipijence ; Hollander (29) studying Naval Aviation Cadets, found that Intelligence as measured by the A. C, E. test correlated -.21 with the F scale, Adomo, et al . (1, p. 283) report an r of -.32 for the P scale with the Otis Higher Form A Intelligence Test, in a group of veterans applying to the U, S, Employment Service, 6. Concern with aggression ; Sanford and Rosenstock {51)» using responses to cartoons, found authoritarians gave more extrapunitive and Intrapunitive replies, hence were overconcerned with aggression. It is evident that the personality dimension tapped by the F scale is broad and complex, Gregory (25» p. 642) has obsei'ved that the '^authoritarian personality** might better be thought of as "personality syndrome x which has sometimes been called authoritarian," However, inspection

PAGE 37

31 of the six traits dlscuased above doee suggest that they tend to fall Into two groups, as follows: Misanthropy Intolerance of ambiguity Anti-lntraception Dogmatism Concern with Intelligence (negative aggression correlation) It will be observed that the first group could be classified as orectic traits (conation, affection) while the second group are cop;nitive traits. In view of these findings it might be meaningful to think of F scale **authoritarianlsm** as being characterized, affectively, by hostility and intellectually, by rigidity. Additional evidence that the F scale measures a meaningful personality dimension is contained In studies that show a positive relationship between measured authoritarianism and overt behavior. Sanford and Rosenstock (51) found that authoritarians tended to reject cartoons which were being used as projective devices. Block and Block (7) reported that authoritarians in an experiment on autokinetic movement submitted more readily to arbitrary demands by the experiments. Desklns (13) bas recently completed a factor analytic study of several scales related to authoritarianism. The F scale appeared with significant loadings on two factors. One factor included high positive loadings on the F scale and religious conventionalism with a negative

PAGE 38

32 loading on a vocabulary scale. The other factor had positive loadings on masculinity (as opposed to femininity), ethnocentrisin, political-economic conservatism, and the F scale. These findings tend to support previous studies which suggest that 'authoritarianism** is multifactorial and cannot be considered a simple, personality "type."

PAGE 39

CHAPTER III PROBLEM Theoretical Backp;round for the Problem Before formulating the problem It seems advisable to summarize the various theoretical approaches and experimental contributions to hujnor. Freud (23) has probably had the greatest influence on subsequent research, partly because of the breadth of his observations, but also because his •'tendency** theory of wit has been enthusiastically accepted by a generation of psychologists interested in revealing the hidden. The work of Sears (54) and others has demonstrated that humor often is used as a socially acceptable device for releasing feelings of superiority, hostility, or sexual desire. Hovjever, later work by Berkowltz (6) and Epstein and Smith (17) has demonstrated that the relationship between "tendencies** and humor is not simple and that many factors, such as depth of repression, may be important. Eastman's (16) emphasis on humor as a form of play and as a means for getting pleasure suggest more positive aspects of the humor response, as does Allport's (2) equating of humor with insight. Andrews (4), Cattell (10) and others have verified, through factor 33

PAGE 40

34 analysis, the importance of tendency humor together with play and pleasure seeking factors, IJysenck (20) has shovm that humorous material involves the cognitive, conative and affective aspects of the mind, Ke also noted the distinction between the appreciation of humor and the production of humor. yhe Problem In delimiting the problem for the present study it was decided to investigate the production or creative aspects of humor rather than appreciation. The latter aspect has been overemphasized. In addition, although appreciation tests of humor measure individual differences in humor preferences they do not reveal a person's readiness and ability to be humorous. In this study it is desired to investigate some of the personality factors involved in •^being'' humorous. Jfeny issues and questions that need to be decided are apparent in the review of the humor literature. However, the one general aspect of humor theory that it is desired to investigate in this study is one of emphasis. Both **positlve" and "^negative** sources of the humor response have been described. That Is, humor can be the expression of a constructive, insightful, process that is pleasurable in its own right; or humor can serve as a teclinique for camouflaging and releasing socially tabooed

PAGE 41

35 confllctual material. In the latter case, humor is the means to an end and the pleasure comes primarily from other sources. It is this **release'* or **furtlve'* aspect of humor which has been most studied and most widely recognized, Freud, (23» p. 801) for example, has referred to humor as "one of the psychic correlates of the flight reflex.** Most writers have emphasized this escape function and have given little attention to humor as a possible expression of superior adaptation, as an index of personal adjustment rather than maladjustment, or as a social catalyst rather than a social weapon. In order to obtain a more accurate evaluation as to the relative importance of these two aspects of humor it should be possible to compare, on a test of readiness and ability to be humorous, subjects having personality characteristics conducive to tendentious humor with subjects having personality characteristics conducive to nontendentious humor. Results Indicating that potentially ''tendentious'* subjects are the vaoat humorous would tend to support humor theories which emphasize discharge of repressed feelings. Results in favor of the "non-tendentious" group should tend to support "superior adaptation" or "insight" theories. It should be noted that either type of humor may make use of cognitive, conative and affective factors.

PAGE 42

36 A htiraor test was constructed, consisting of eight Incomplete cartoons »i?hlch depict a variety of Interpersonal situations. One student Is shown speaking to another, for whoa the sti.hiect is asked to fill in a humorous reply. The replies are rated for 'funnlness" by a group of judges. The situations are designed so as to stimulate both cognitive and orectlc humor. The California F scale, or ^^authoritarianism" scale, was selected as the personality measure because it has been shown to measure the more important cognitive and orectlc traits believed to be crucial in various humor theories. Flugel (22, p. 725) has stated, •* Authoritarianism in any form seems Inimical to humor— and here again is a matter deserving further study.** Flugel apparently prefers to view humor as an expression of psychological health rather than pathology. However, the preoccupation with superiority, sex, and aggression found in "authoritarians*' should stimulate hximorous responses, if humor la primarily tendentious. H ypotheses The h3rpothese8 can now be stated. When subjects classified as low, medinl, and high in authoritarianism, as measured by the California F scale, ar« Judged for ability to be humorous on a test Involving incomplete cartoons, their relative hvmor scores will be

PAGE 43

37 as follows: 1, Subjects lov in authoritarianism will achieve significantly higher hiiinor scores than will subjects hip-Ji in authoritarianism. 2, Subjects low in authoritarianism will achieve significantly higher humor scores than will subjects ffledial in authoritarianism. 3, Subjects medial in authoritarianism will achieve significantly higher humor scores than I'jill subjects hipji in authoritarianism.

PAGE 44

CHAPTER IV METHOD Subjects The original pool of subjects for this experiment consisted of 188 male students at two large universities in southeastern United States, The students were freshmen and sophomores enrolled in beginning classes in psychology, English literature, and sociology. Testing was done during class time and all of the male students present in the classes contacted agreed to serve as subjects. Since the experiment was conducted during the summer session when the number of classes was reduced, the sample represents a sizable proportion of the male students enrolled in these classes at that time. Subjects were selected from the particular classes mentioned because an insufficient number of psychology students were available and it was desired to obtain a relatively homogeneous group of arts and sciences students. This *'tender-minded*' sample was desired for two reasons: first, the Judges of humor were to be psychologists, and second, it was felt that inclusion of subjects from the ** tough-minded" disciplines might introduce dissimilarities in interests and training that would tend to dichotomize the sample on a basis other than measured 38

PAGE 45

39 personality traits. Freshmen and sophomores were used as subjects since it was desired that they be relatively naive with respect to personality teats in general and the P scale in particular. The sample was restricted to males because certain studies (35) have indicated marked sex differences in humor preference which would be difficult to control in an experiment utilizing incomplete cartoons. Measure of Authoritarianism (California F Scale ) The Califonila F scale has already been described in the review of the literature. The form used is the final form of the F scale (form 45-40) as developed by Adomo et al . (1, p. 2?5) except that item number 22 was omitted, making a scale of 29 items instead of the original 30. Item niunber 22, which refers to postwar Germany, has lost its timeliness and has been omitted by other recent experimenters. The Likert method of scaling (36) was used in construction of the F scale. Subjects are asked to indicate degree of agreement or disagreement with each item according to the following scale: +1 slight support, agreement +2 moderate support, agreement +3 stXHjng support, agreement -1 slight opposition, disagreement -2 moderate opposition, disagreement

PAGE 46

40 -3 strong opposition, disagreement Since higher scores are intended to express increasing authoritarianism, the responses are converted into scores as follows: -3=1 point +1 » 5 points -2=2 points -fS SB 6 points -1=3 points +3=7 points It will be noted that the scoring skips from 3 to 5 points between -1 and +1, Four points represents the hypothetical neutral response and was assigned when an item was omitted. The authors state that this scheme was used mainly because there seemed to be a greater psychological gap between -1 and +1 responses than between any other adjacent responses. A person's scale score is the sum of his scores on the single items. The distribution of the P scale scores obtained (N = 188) is shown in Figure 1. Curves for actual frequencies and for frequencies smoothed once are plotted. The mean score was 3.549 with a standard deviation of .840. The median was 3.583. The mean score of 3.549 corresponds to a response between -1, slight disagreement, and zero, the hypothetical neutral point. Skewness was calculated as -.144, a value not quite significant at the .05 level. Kurtosis = t>.012 (platykurtlc), also not significant. Therefore, deviation of this curve from a normal curve can

PAGE 47

41 U s O A Q ^ • I I — I ( — I I — till ^ 5 5gSS2:5^S<^«>'^^NO ^ x o u CO (b 5 ^ k (A 0) o o CO u U4 o c o •H +» D •H M +> (0 n^ Q I I C88/ = N) rio^pang

PAGE 48

42 "be attributed to s&mpling errors. In order to make judging feasible, the cartoon responses of only 60 of the original 138 subjects were used in the main part of the experiment. These 60 subjects were selected according to their total F scale scores as follows: The 20 subjects scoring highest in authoritarianism ( hiffh group). The 20 subjects scoring *'mid-most*' in authoritarianism ( medial group). The 20 subjects scoring lowest in authoritarianism (low group). It was originally intended to compare only the two extreme groups, **highs*' and "lows.** However, it was decided to include a sample of medial scorers in order to more adequately measure the relationship between humor and authoritarianism over the entire range of F scale scores. For example, it was desired to allow for the possibility that subjects **average** in authoritarianism might be more, or less, humorous than scorers at either extreme. Although it was noted that the distribution of F scale scores could be treated as a normal curve, there was sufficient negative skewness to affect the relative distances from the mean of the three groups of 20 subjects. Scale score limits and corresponding ^ scores are shown

PAGE 49

43 in Table 1 for each of the three groups. TABLE 1 SCALE SCORE AND y SCOBE LIMITS OF THE THREE GROUPS OF SUBJECTS SCORING HIGH, iffiDIAL, AKD LOW ON THE F SCALE. (MEAN = 3.549, S. D. = .840) F Scale Group

PAGE 50

44 Htjunor Test In the present study, the humorous productions were obtained by means of a cartoon test devised by the experimenter, (The cartoon test is reproduced in Appendix I.) Rosenzweig (50), and Sanford and Rosenstock (51) have used incomplete cartoons as projective devices in which the faces of the various characters are drawn almost without features and are purposely ambiguous as to facial expression. In pretesting with various cartoons for the present study it was found that subjects need the stimulus of a potentially humorous situation, with characters drawn as smiling, in order to respond appropriately. Pretesting also revealed that it is necessary to direct subjects specifically to give humorous responses. (Instructions for subjects are reproduced in Appendix III.) Spontaneous humor would be theoretically of greater interest. However, it was found that in the classroom situation, students are set to treat all tests with deadly seriousness and need to be reassured that they are supposed to give "funny** replies. Humor preference tests, in which the subject is presented with a series of Jokes, encotmter less difficulty in this respect. The cartoons were drawn for a college undergraduate sample. An attempt was made to include a representative selection of campus scenes, both academic and recreational.

PAGE 51

45 The '*stlmulus remarks" used In the cartoons were selected to allow for both cognitive humor, such as puns or plays on woi*d8, and the usual range of campus orectlc humor, including sex, superiority, and aggression. An attempt was made to avoid frustrating situations of the intensity depicted in the Rosenzwelg cartoons. Rather, the scenes were designed with the intention of showing good-natured "banter of the sort that can stimulate either ^harmless** or tendentious wit. The number of cartoons, eight, was arrived at as a compromise between what was felt to be necessary for reliability and what would constitute a reasonable task for subjects and Judges. Administration of the Tests The tests were given to the students during the last thirty minutes of one class period. The experimenter administered the tests to eight of the classes and another graduate student in psychology administered the tests to the remaining three classes, Copies of the instructions for the teat administrator and for the subjects are included in Appendix II and Appendix III respectively.) Neither test was timed. Subjects were asked to complete the humor test first before going on to the F scale. This order of presentation was chosen because it was assumed that the cartoon test responses, being projective In

PAGE 52

A6 nature, might be markedly influenced by the structured and highly orectic items contained in the F scale. It was felt that any order effects of the cartoon test on the P scale would be less marked, and in any case, the order would be the same for all subjects. Judp;ing Procedure In selecting Judges for studies in experimental aesthetics there are usually recognized experts to choose from, although it is still necessary to describe in detail the characteristics of the Judges, as, for example, an artist's identification with a certain "school.** ^'Experts'* in humor, however, are likely to be highly specialized, both in the type of htunor that they disseminate and in the type of audiences they attract. In previous studies of humor with college students (19) subjects' preferences have been compared with the results for the group as a whole. The result was a significant lack of agreement as to what was **funny,'* In the present study, it was decided to use psychologists as Judges for several reasons. Due to the nature of the experiment, the selection of a "large and representative ** group of Judges was not feasible— if it ever is in the study of humor. Therefore, it was felt that the Judges should be a *'known*' group, fairly homogeneous

PAGE 53

47 with respect to background, interest, and education. It was also desired, due to the complexity of the humor variable, that Judges be familiar with rating procedures and skilled in the evaluation of verbal material. Assuming that individual Judges demonstrate satisfactory reliability in their ratings, and that significant inter Judge agreement is shown, it should be possible to interpret the results in terms of the '*known** group. Seven men with Ph. D. degrees in psychology volunteered to serve as Judges in the present experiment. Five of the Judges were university professors and two were clinical psychologists with the Veterans Administration. The latter two judges have had continuing contact with a campus environment. The complete instinictions for Judges is reproduced In Appendix IV, Each Judge was given eight packets of cartoon replies. Each packet contained, typed on slips of paper, the 60 replies to one cartoon. The cartoon replies had been given code numbers and had been shuffled. Judges were Instructed to shuffle the eight packets before Judging in order to control for order effects between cartoons. Shuffling, together with separate coding for each cartoon, controlled for order effects between subjects. Replies were typed to avoid identification through handwriting which might have led to '*halo" effects. Each Judge worked independently.

PAGE 54

48 Judges were asked to place the 60 slips for each cartoon Into four categories: "not fiiiiny, " "slightly funny,** **moderately funny," and *'very funny.** Each category was to receive 15 slips. Judges were instructed to, **Accept a broad definition of what is humorous and group the replies according to the degree to which they amuse you, ** Judges then recorded by code numbers their selections for each category. This method of rating has been called by Guilford (27, p. 264) a "defined-group** scale, in which **. . . the judge is given instructions as to what proportions of the samples should be expected to fall in each group.'*

PAGE 55

CHAPTER V RESULTS After decoding of the Judges* ratings, scoring was done as follows: "not funny** = points, '^slightly funny** ss 1 point, '*moderately funny** = 2 points, and **very funny** = 3 points. Since each judge placed 15 responses In each of these categories for each cartoon, he assigned a total of 90 humor points per cartoon. With eight cartoons, each Judge assigned a total of 720 humor points for 60 subjects. If humor points were distributed according to chance (null hypothesis), each of the three F scale groups should receive 240 humor points per Judge, or a total of 1680 points for each group. The results actually obtained are presented In Table 2. With respect to the total hxmor scores for the three F scale groups, as shown in Table 2, Chi square was used in order to determine whether or not the obtained results, as a whole, differed significantly from a trichotomy (45, p. 431). The Chi square test ( X*= 27.56, df = 2, p = <,01) indicated that the obtained distribution of humor points can be considered significantly different from a chance, or trlchotomous distribution. The testing of the significance of the obtained differences between the groups, 49

PAGE 56

50 TABLE 2 TOTAL HUMOR POINTS RECEIVED BY SUBJECTS IK THE LCy, MEDIAL, AND HIGH F SCALE GROUPS

PAGE 57

51 2. A Chi square test of the difference In total humor points received by the low and medial F scale groups was significant at the .01 level of confidence ( x = 14.82, df = 1, p =<.01), Therefore, the low group received significantly more humor points than did the medial group, a result intejrpreted as supporting Hypothesis 2 (Above, p. 3. A Chi square test of the difference in total humor points received by the medial and hlph F scale groups was not significant ('X = 1.2, df = 1, p =>.20). Therefore, the difference in humor points received by the medial and hi ph groups could easily have resulted from chance. This result fails to support Hypothesis 3 (Above, p. 37). The results of the humor ratings, tabulated according to the different scores received by the three F scale groups on each of the eight cartoons, is shown in Table 3. Inspection of Table 3 reveals that only in cartoons B, £, and H are the ratings in the predicted order of low, medial, and high. These three cartoons were the only ones which, taken singly, discriminated significantly between the low and high F scale groups. The Chi squares were, respectively, 6.40, p^.05; 8.84, p<:.01, and 19.6, p-^.Ol. (The remaining Chi squares, none of which were significant, were as follows: A, % = 1.66, p>,10; C, X = .114, p>.70; D, %*= 3.12, p>.05; F,'X^= .186, p>.50;

PAGE 58

52 G, TC*" = .So, p >.304 However, the direction of the score difference for the low group over the hifth group is consistent for all cartoons except cartoon C, TABLE 3 TOTAL HUMOR POINTS RECEIVED BY THE THREE F SCALE (ffiOUPS TABULATED ACCORDING TO CARTOONS Cartoon^ Low F Scale Groups Medial High A

PAGE 59

53 from (0 points for each cartoon) to 24 {3 points for each cartoon), for any one Judge or an average of all Judges* ratings. The obtained range for an individual Judge's ratings was from to 22 points. The range of the averaged judges' ratings was from 2,57 to 20.0 points. In other words, the Judges agreed almost tinanimously, in the case of certain subjects, that none of their cartoon responses were funny. Also, there was almost unanimous agreement that some subjects succeeded in giving **very funny** responses to every cartoon. -'0% • ^o ^obtained fhe
PAGE 60

54 In the distribution of humor ratings the mean of 12 was determined by the Judging procedure. The standard deviation v.'aa 4,18. Tliere was a suggeetlon of negative skewnesa (Sk = -.26) and of kurtosis (Ku = +,027t platykurtic), but neither value was large enough to indicate significant deviation from the normal curve. The aelf-rellability of each judge's ratings was calculated by obteining correlations of his ratings for each subject on cartoons A» D, F, and G with his ratings for cartoons B, C, E, and H, The test was split in this way in order to control for both order and page position effects. The reliability coefficients, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, ranged from ,50 to ,70, The average self -reliability (obtained by using Fisher's z function) was .63. The overall reliability for the test was calculated by the same method used for self-reliabilities, except that the combined ratings of all Judges were used. The corrected reliebillty obtained was ,77. The degree of agreement betv/een the various Judges' humor ratlrigs was calculated by obtaining a correlation of each Judge's distribution with that of every other Judge. The tv/enty-one Interjudge reliabilities ranged from ,65 to ,83. The average interjudge reliability (obtained by using Fisher's z function) was ,73. In addition to comparing the performances of the

PAGE 61

55 three P scale groups on the humor test. It Is possible to approach the results from the standpoint of Individual differences. That Is, one can determine a subject's position on the humor test and then note his F scale group membership. This has been done in Table 4 for the 10 subjects having the highest, end for the 10 subjects having the lowest, humor ratings. TABLE 4 F SCALE GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE TEN ^MOST HUIOROUS** AND THE TEN **LEAST HUMOROUS ** SUBJECTS F Scale Group Classification Low Medial High Ten **Mo8t 6 Humorous" Subjects Ten **Least Hiimorous" Subjects

PAGE 62

CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Before discussing the findings which relate directly to the hypotheses it may "be advisable to consider some of the secondary findings, such as the reliability of the Judges, form of the humor distribution, and the like, which will Influence Interpretation of the results. The fact that an essentially normal distribution of humor ratings (see Figure 2) was obtained is of Interest in itself, since studies of humor preference cast no light on the distribution of '^sense of humor," Freud (23, p. 728) has stated, %'lt making is not at the disposal of all, in general, there are but a few persons to whom one can point and say that they are witty . , . ." Such statements reflect our admiration for the few "humorlsta" at the "top" of the distribution without casting any light on the shape of the rest of the ciirve. Neither the limited nature of the task, the use of extreme groups for subjects, nor the rating method employed suit the present experiment to test for a general "curve" of ability to be humorous. However, In the restricted range of stimulus situations presented in this experiment, and with a homogeneous group of Judges, 56

PAGE 63

57 the ability to be humorous was found to be normally distributed. The range of *'humor talent" appeared to be rather limited in spite of the breadth of the sample. Most of the Judges were disappointed at the scarcity of really humorous replies. The Judges' ratings of **very funny" were, therefore, relative to the saraple and not to their usual standards of humor. In order that the reader can better appreciate the nature and variety of replies, the cartoon responses of four of the subjects have been reproduced in Appendix V, In the preliminary planning for this experiment the question was frequently raised as to whether or not Judges would be able to show any agreement with themselves, or with each other as to Judgments of **fxinniness.*' Previous research, such as the study by Grziwok and Scodel (26), has shown that Judges can reliably differentiate humor eontent, as, for example, between aggressive and incongruous humor. But ability of Jud es to agree with each other as to what is "funny** has not been demonstrated. In fact, Ejaenck (19) has stressed the absence of "conformity** in humor appreciation. Previous studies, however, have given Judges an extremely wide variety of jokes and other varieties of humorous productions from which to select preferences. In the present study, with a more specific task.

PAGE 64

56 judi-es were able to achieve what would appear to be moderate Intrajudge and interjudge reliability. In view of the complexity of the Judgments and the briefness of the humor test. V»llson, Guilford, and Chrlstensen (57) » using en approach similar to the present study, asked subjects to Invent titles for two brief stories. The titles were then rated for "cleverness" on a slx-polnt scale by three judges. Reliabilities of the individual judges ranged from .69 to .77 (range in the present study was ,50 to .70); Inter judge correlations of ratings ranged from .53 to .76 (range In the present study was ,65 to ,83); and the reliability computed from the composite ratings was .76 (composite reliability in the present study was .77). It 1b Interesting to note that the reliabilities achieved In rating "humor" compare favorably with the reliabilities found in rating "cleverness," although "cleverness" would appear to be more of a cognitive and less of an affective variable than is humor, and, presumably, more susceptible to reliable measurement. It would also be of interest to know, especially with judges highly trained in verbal skills, what the correlation might have been had the judges rated the same responses for both "cleverness" and"humor." From the breakdown of the ratings by cartoons, shown in Table 3 (Above, p. 52), it is apparent that some

PAGE 65

59 of the cartoons discriminate between the F scale groups considerably better than do others. Cartoon H, in which the first student is saying, '^I'll bet she forgets you when she goes home weekendsl", produced the sharpest discrimination. Cartoon C, in which the stimulus words are, "How about lending me five bucks until next week?", va.s the poorest discriminator. It is difficult to explain these results, although an inspection of the replies offers some clues. Cartoon C seems to stimulate rather abrupt, negative reactions which tend to be stereotyped. The situation, since it involves money, calls for action and not reflection. In addition, the stimulus character in this cartoon was inadvertently drawn with a mildly threatening facial expression, further restricting the affective range of the responses. Cartoon H, on the other hand, presents a stimulus which is much richer in its capacity to elicit the subject's feelings about himself and others. The nature of the responses suggests that "nonauthoritarians" were secure enough to be able to use humor as "superior adaptation," whereas the "authoritarians" tended to react with defensive hostility to a degree which inhibited humorous responses. Analysis of the qualitative differences between the humorous replies of hi^h and low F scale group subjects was beyond the scope of the present study. Hov,'ever, some appreciation of the differences in

PAGE 66

60 "tendentlousness" can be gained from the sample responses given In Appendix V. The principle findings of the experiment were set forth In Table 2 (Above, p. 50), It was noted that the results tended to confirm the predicted superiority in humor scores of the low F scale group over the hlpth and medi al groups. However, the score for the medial group was not significantly higher than that for the hlyji group. The failure of this difference to be significant may be related to the negative skewness of the F scale distribution. Although the skewness was not significant, I.e., might result from sampling variations. Its effect was I'eal enough In the present experiment, causing the 20 cases grouped around the median to be closer to the high group than to the lovr group, along the F scale continuum. The results with the medial group are in the predicted direction and the absence of a significant difference between the medial and hlp;h groups does not materially Influence the findings as a vfhole. The medial group was Included In the experiment primarily as a hedge against the possibility that the person who Is ''average*' In F scale authoritarianism might be the most humorous. The results obtained make It possible to reject this possibility. In formulating the hypotheses for this study, it was suggested that results showing superiority of the low

PAGE 67

61 over the hlp;h F scale group In ability to be humorous cotild be interpreted as supporting theories which see humor as an index of psychological health, as opposed to theories which view humor as the by-product of repressed conflicts. The Question is largely one of emphasis because nsost authorities have recognized both aspects of humor. But the bulk of the literature has concerned itself solely vith humor's function in releasing repressed hostile or sexual impulses. If this were humor's primary function, the high F scale scorers should have had a siffnlf leant advantaf^e on the humor test. In spite of the impure factorial composition of the F scale, there is substantial evidence that it taps a wide spectrum of tendentious material; that is, partially repressed and socially unacceptable sexual, superiority, and aggressive needs. But the overall results sugjtest that these needs tend to be associated with below average, rather than above average, humor ability. One factor that should be considered in interpreting the results of this study is the significant negative correlation between the F scale and measures of intelligence. Correlations of -.21 and -.32 were previously noted (Above, p. 30), The implications for the present study are difficult to determine because the relationship between humor and Intelligence has never been adequately investigated. Freud (23t P« 728) described the sense of

PAGE 68

62 humor as **, , . a special ability, fairly independent of intelligence . . , ." La.ndis and Ross (35) found negligible correlations between their humor test and measures of Intelligence. On the other hand, Allport (2, p. 224) has said that to achieve a sense of humor requires "... a high level of intelligence." One reason for this lack of agreement may be due to the failure of investigators to distinguish between the cognitive and the orectlc aspects of humor. Intelligence is certainly substantially involved in cognition, but presumably to a lesser extent in affection and conation. In the present study an attempt was made to compensate for the frankly verbal nature of the task by the use of cartoons and by selecting stimulus situations designed to tap sources of "tendency humor. ** However, it is difficult to estimate to what degree the humor scores in this study reflect Intellectual ability. To the extent that humor is viewed as an index of healthful adjustment, a positive correlation with intelligence would be expected. However, in view of the fact that intelligence correlates only to a low or moderate degree with either the F scale or with ''sense of humor," intelligence is probably a significant but not a determining factor in the present experiment. An additional question that arises In the present study involves the characteristics of the Judges with

PAGE 69

63 respect to the various traits measured by the F scale. Presumably, psychologists tend to be "non-authorltarlan" and therefore might tend to favor humorous responses given by the low F scale scorers. In a sense, this begs the question since tendency theory would maintain that a response would be amusing in proportion to its unacceptability. In order to control for such influences one would have to obtain Judges with "average" F scale scores; but since the F scale is designed for naive subjects it would not be possible to obtain competent Jud es in this way. A study by Scodel and I'lussen (53) bears on this point. They fo\ind that "non-authoritarians*' can correctly judpe the attitudes of "authoritarians** but that the reverse Is not true. Likewise, Epstein and Smith (17), in their study relating to Insight and sense of humor, found that ability to Judge cartoons accurately was directly related to accuracy of self-evaluation. It would appear that knowledge of the ways in which humor ratings are influenced by the charecteristics of the Judges will have to be gained from accumulated studies with groups of competent Judges who are homogeneous with respect to some variable. It seems unlikely that humor ratings by a "random sample" of the population would be either reliable or meaningful. Although significant differences in humor scores were obtained betv^?een the lo w and the hip;h . and the I.ow and

PAGE 70

64 the medial F scale groups. It was noted that there was considerable overlap. This la apparent In Table 4 (Above, p. 55) which shows the F scale group classifications for the 10 highest and the 10 lowest scorers on the humor teat. Taking the 10 *'mo3t humorous* individuals first, it is observed that six came from the low F scale group and two each from the medial and hlpii groups. With respect to Flugel's statement (22, p. 725 )» "Authoritarianism in any form seems inimical to humor . . ,", our results are in general agreement; but the above exceptions indicate that there are wide individual variations. Also, on the basis of the present study, one cannot make the converse of this statement, to the effect that **non-authorltarianlem is inimical to the absence of humor," Of the 10 "least humorour" individuals, three came from the low and medial p,roups and four came from the hip;h group, obviously a chance distribution. The above findings, of course, correspond with common sense observation. Some of our acquaintances, who are liberals In every sense of the word, seem completely lacking in sense of humor. Other people, who seem to combine all of the various ncgativlstlc traits that led to the concept of authoritarianism in the first place, may have quite a lively sense of hu-mor. The results of the present study suggest that these cases are exceptions, but until we can explain such inconsistencies our theories of humor are incomplete.

PAGE 71

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY 1. One hiindred and eighty-eight university undergraduate male subjects were given the California F scale (Authoritarianism), together with a cartoon test of humor. Sixty experimental subjects were then selected on the basis of their F scale scores: the 20 scoring highest (most authoritarian), the 20 scoring lowest, and the 20 scoring •^mid-most** in the distribution. The resronses of these 60 subjects were then rated on a four-point scale of relative funniness by seven psychologists who acted as Judges. 2. It was predicted that with respect to humor scores: (1) the low F scale group would significantly excel the high group, (2) the low F scale group would significantly excel the medial group, and that (3) the medial F scale group would significantly excel the hipih group. The obtained differences were tested by Chi-square. Differences were significant and in the predicted direction with respect to hypotheses (1) and (2). The difference for hypothesis (3) was in the expected direction but was not significant. 3. The results were interpreted as tending to 65

PAGE 72

66 support theories of humor which emphasize the adaptive, as opposed to the pathological, aspects of humor. Possible biasing factors noted were the negative correlation of the F scale with Intelligence and the use of judges who probably tend to be nonauthorltarian. Wide Individual differences in humor ability for subjects in all three experimental groups were noted, 4, Corrected split-half intrejudge reliabilities for the humor ratings ranged from ,50 to ,70, Inter judge reliabilities ranged from ,65 to ,83. Composite reliability for the test was ,77. These results were interpreted as suggesting that humorous productions are susceptible to being rated with satisfactory reliability and interjudge agreement if a homogeneous group of judges is used.

PAGE 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswlk, E,, Levlnson, D. J., and Sanford, R, N, The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950, 2. Allport, G. W, Personality, a psychological interpretation. New York: Flolt, 1937. 3. Allport, G. W,, Vernon, P, E, , & Llndzey, G. Study of Values . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. 4. Andrews, T. G. A factorial analysis of response to the comic as a study in personality. J. p,en, Psychol . 1943, 28, 209-224. 5. Aristotle. De Poetica . Translated by Bywater, I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. 6. Berkowltz, M. A study of some relationships between anxiety and humor. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Perjisylvania State University, 1954, 7. Block, J. & Block, J. An investigation of the relationship between intolerance of ambiguity and ethnocentrism. J. Pers .. 1951, 19, 303-311. 8. Caihibell, D, T,, & I^cCandless, B, R, Ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and personality. Hum. Relat .. 1951» 4, 185-192. 9. Cattell, R. B, IPAT Humor test of personality. Form A . Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1955. 10. Cattell, R. B. Handbook for the IPAT humor test of personality . Forms A, B, and C. Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1955. 11. Cattell, R, B., & Luborsky, L. B. Personality factors in response to humor, J. abnorm. soc. Psychol .. 1947, 42, 402-421. 12. Conklin, E, S., & Sutherland, J. W. A comparison of the scale of values method with the order of merit method. J. exp. Psychol .. 1923» 6, 44-57. 67

PAGE 74

68 13. Desklns, A. J, Magical thinking, superstition and authoritarian trends in personality. Unpublished doctor's dissertation. University of Florida, 1957. 14, Dooley, L. The relation of humor to masochism. Psychoanal. Rev ,. 1941, 28, 37-46. 15. Dorrls, R, J., Levinson, D, J., & Hanfmann, E. Authoritarian personality studied by a new variation of the sentence completion technique, J. abnorm , soc, Psychol., 1954, 49, 99-108, 16, Eastman, M, The sense of humor , New York: Scribners, 1921, 17, Epstein, S, , & Smith, R, Repression and insight as related to reaction to certoons, J. consult. Psychol. , 1956, 20, 391-395. 18. Eysenck, H. J. The appreciation of humor: an experimental and theoretical study, Brit. J, rsychol ,. 1942, 32, 295-309. 19. Eysenck, H. J. An experimental analysis of five tests of appreciation of humor. 35duc. psychol, l^easmt . . 1943, 3, 191-214, 20, E^rsenck, H, J, Dimensiona of personality , London: iCegan Paul, 1947, 21, Feldman, S. A supplement to Freud's theory of wit, i's:v choanal. Rev ,. 1941, 28, 201-217. 22. Flugeli J. C. Rumor and laughter. In Handbook of Social Fsycholop:?. Vol. II . Cambridge, liass. : AddisonWealey, 1954. Pp. 709-734. 23, B'reud, S. Vvit and its relation to the vinconscious. In The basic writings of Sigmund Freud . New York: Random House, 1938. i^P* 633*-803. 24. Freud, S, Humor, Int. J. Psychoanal .. 1926, 9» 1-6. 25. Gregory, W. E. Authoritarianism and authority, j.. abnorm. soc. Psychol .. 1955» 51» 641-643. 26, Qrziwok, R, , & Scodel, A, Some psychological correlates of humor preferences, J. consult, Psychol ,. 1956, 20, 42.

PAGE 75

69 27. Quilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods , (let Ed.). New York: J-IcGraw-Hill, 1936. 28. Quilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods . (2nd Ed.). New York: I4cGraw-Hlll, 1954. 29. Hollander, E. P. Authoritarianism and leadership choice in a military setting. J. abnorm. soc . Psychol .. 1954, 49, 365-370. 30. Jones, E. E. Authoritarianism as a determinant of first impression formation. J. Pers .. 1954. 23. 107-127. 31. Jones, M, B, Authoritarianism and Intolerance of fluctuation, J. abnorm. soc. Psychol .. 1955, 50, 125126. 32. Kambouropoulou, P. Individual differences in the sense of humor and their relation to temperamental differences. Arch. Psychol .. 1930-31, 19, 1-83. 33. Kant, I. Critique of ludprement . Translated by Bernard, J., London: i'iacmlllan, 1931. 34. Kline, L. W. The psychology of humor. Aaer. J. of Psychol ., 18, 1907, 421-441. 35. Landis, C, & Ross, J. W. H. Humor and its relation to other personality traits. J. soc. Psych ol.. 1933, 4, 156-175. 36. Llkert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch, of Psychol .. 1932, 140, 55 PP. 37. lAill, P. E. The effectiveness of humor in persuasive speech. Speech Mono^? .. 1940, 7, 26-40. 38. McComas, H. C. The origin of laughter. Psychol. Rev .. 1923, 20, 45-55. 39. McDougall, Vf. An introduction to social psychology . (2nd Ed.) Boston: Luce, 1909. 40. llartin, L. J. Psychology of esthetics. Amer. J . Psychol .. 1905, 16, 35-118. 41. Moss, F., H\mt, T., & Omwake, K. Social intelligence test. Washington: Center for Psychological Service, 1930.

PAGE 76

70 42. Murray, H, A. Thematic Apperceritlon Test . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943. 43. O'Connor. P. Ethnocentrlsm, "intolerance of ambiguity, and abstract reasoning ability, J. abnorm . eoc. Psychol .. 1952, 47, 526-530. 44. O'Noll, W. M., & Levlnson, D. J. A factorial exploration of authoritarianism and some of its ideological concomitants. J. Pers .. 1954, 22, 449-463. . 45. Peatman, J. O. Descriptive and sampling statistics ^ New York: Harper, 1947. 46. Plato Phllebue Translated by Fowler, H. New York: Putnam's Sons, 1925. 47. Rapp, A. The origins of wit and humor . New York: Dutton, 1951. 48. Redlich, F. C, Levine, J., & Sohler, T. P. A mirth response test. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry . 1951, 21, 717-735. 49. Rokeach, M. Dogmatism and opinlonatlon on the left and on the right. Amer. PsycholoF-ist . 1952, 7. 310311. (Abstract! 50. Rosenzweig, S. The picture association method and its application in a study of reactions to frustration. J. Pers .. 1945, 14, 3-23. 51. Sanford, F. H., & Rosenstock. I. M. Projective techniques on the doorstep. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol ., 1952, 47, 3-16. 52. Schopenhauer, A. The world as will and idea. Translated by Haldane, R., and iiernp, J., Vol. II. London: Kegan Paul, 1928. 53. Scodel, A., & liftissen, P. Social perceptions of authoritarians and nonauthoritarians. J y abnorm. soc . Psychol .. 1953, 48, 181-184. 54. Sears, R. N. Dynamic factors in the psychology of humor. Unpublished doctor's dissertation. Harvard University, 1934, cited by Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality . New York: Oxford University Press, 1938, pp. 583-584.

PAGE 77

71 55. Spinoza, B. Ethic . Translated by Vfhlte, W., (4th Bi.) London: Oxford University rress, 1937. 56. Sullivan, P. L., & Adelaon, J. Ethnocentrism and misanthropy, J. abnorn, soc. Psychol .. 1954, 49, 246250. 57. Wilson, R, C, Guilford, J. P. & Christensen, P. R. The measurement of individual differences in originality. Psvchol. Bull .. 1953. 50, 362-770. 58. Yarnold, J. K., & Berkeley, M. K. An analysis of the Cattell-Luborsky humor test into homogeneous scales. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol .. 1954, 49, 543546.

PAGE 79

INSTRUCTIONS : TALKING. THE WC YOURSELF IN THE RESPOND . WRITE / l^HY OON'T I I You Hfitve: ^ OA-TB For the Pfl-RTY "^ \r

PAGE 81

APPENDIX I. HUMOR TEST* INSTRUCTIONS : IN EACH OF THESE PICTURES TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TALKING. THE WORDS SAID BY ONE STUDENT ARE ALWAYS SHOWN. IMAGINE YOURSELF IN THE OTHER STUDENT'S PLACE AND THINK OF HOW YOU MIGHT RESPOND. WRITE YOUR REPLY IN THE EMPTY BOX. / l^HY OONT You HAVE To You OA/ THIS TEST ? 3. Hovj About FNe bucks U/\/TtL A^EXT WEEK ? /A/rf/fEsrsD /AT A 6UA/D Date 7 COMT'fi-*^This is a facsimile of the humor test. The original tests qiven to the subjects were duplicated on standard 8^ by 11 inch paper.

PAGE 83

JT WAl^T To Sui Of" Y^oRs ? A r.

PAGE 85

73 S WAfi/T To Buy Tft/iT OLO d4k0l>f OF Yours ? XT IS Most 6/f/^riFY'^G To 06S£R.ve Your. Sabl>£H itrreREsT iaj sTUoiiue! 7^. OOH'T You U//3/V You WBRE or^ THE TEAM ? ILL t£T 3H£ fo^eers You WHEN SHE Goes H-OME >iJEEt^e^N]>S / R-INlsi'^l'H

PAGE 87

APPENDIX II. IKSTRUCTI02TS FOR TEST ADIgHISTRATORS Subjects are to be MALE undergraduetes. Most subjects complete the tests in 20 minutes; a few vlll take 25, It Is probably most convenJent to use the last 30 minutes of a class period, allowing 5 minutes for passing out the tests and reading instructions. First hand each subject a copy of the F scale, asking subjects to leave them face down. Then hand him the cartoon test, face up. (This is done readjly if tests are previously sorted back to back.) As the tests are being passed out, ask the subjects to write their names on both tests. Due to the nature of the research, the distributing of the tests and the reading of instructions should preferably be handled as informally as possible. Fortunately, some students help to set the mood by laughing when they see the cartoons* 74

PAGE 88

APfEI'iDIX III. IHSTRUCTIOMS FOR SUBJECTS Theae tests that you have been given are part of a research study being conducted by a graduate student. These tests are not a part of your regular course work and most students find them interesting. Please check to see that your name is on both tests. All names will later be changed to code numbers and results will be used only for research. When you have completed the cartoon test, turn over the second test, which is a list of statements to be rated, and complete it. Neither test is timed, but each one should take only 10 minutes. After 10 minutes I will remind you to go on to the second test. Now, with respect to this cartoon test. In filling in the cartoons, the idea is to p?ive humorous replies ! If you can't think of a humorous reply, fill in an appropriate response and go on to the next cartoon. Be natural, but try to think of humorous replies . All right, go ahead. 75

PAGE 89

APPENDIX IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES You are being asked to rate for •furmlness'* the responses of sixty subjects to a humor test consisting of eight Incomplete cartoons. Replies have been given code nxjuabers, shuffled, and assembled separately for each cartoon. The sixty replies for each cartoon are Judged and the results recorded before proceeding to the next cartoon. Materials to be used include: (1) Sight packets, lettered from A through H. Packet A contains the sixty replies to cartoon A; Packet B, the sixty replies to cartoon B, etc, (2) A sample copy of the cartoon test. (3) A set of eight recording sheets, one for each cartoon, for use in recording the Judge's ratings. Procedure Thoroughly shuffle the eight iinopened packets of cartoon responses, leaving them face down in a pile. As judging proceeds, select one packet at a time from the top of the pile. After finishing with each packet and recording the results, replace packet face up at bottom of pile. Each packet contains the 60 responses to one cartoon. Remove slips and shuffle thoroughly. Take slips one at a time and place them, face up, into four categories; from left to right — Not funny . Slightly funny , r^ioderately funny , and Very fimny . After slips have been distributed according to your first impressions, glance over them again and rearrange them so as to have 1 ^ slips in each category. In rating the replies, accept a broad definition of what is humorous and group the replies according to the degree to which they amuse you. After each group of 60 replies has been rated, there should be four piles of 15 replies each. Take the **Not funny** pile first, turn it over, and record the code numbers (omitting the letter) by marking short lines 76

PAGE 90

77 through the appropriate numbers irnder the "Kot funny** column on the recording sheet. Repeat for the other three columns and make sure that the lette r designating the cartoon Is entered at the top of the blank. Then recomblne the 60 slips, shuffle, and replace in the packet. Proceed to the next cartoon. After all eight packets have been judged, check the recording sheet for completeness and place in the envelope provided and seal. It requires from 20 to 25 minutes to Judge and record each packet and total judging time will be from 3 to 3^hours. Therefore, it is suggested that judging be done in two or more sessions.

PAGE 91

APPENDIX V. SPECIMENS OF HUMOR TEST RESPONSES 1, Cartoon responses of a subject from the low F scale group who scored hipch (rank order 1.5) in the humor test. Cartoon Response A '^ Cadillac broke down and I doubt if my date would consent to ride in a Chevrolet.** B **Ky answers were so Intelligent and abstract that the professor was une.ble to grasp their significance.** **! would . . . except my father broke his leg and is incapacitated, my mother was laid off her Job, and I lost money in a poker game, and as a result have t3.00 left for the next two weeks.** **If it didn't require that I be blind or the lights out to enjoy her company. ** £ '*Any person who appreciates ageing and mellowness, plus a high degree of mechanical understanding, and not interested in superficial looks.** Does this mean you are going to take over my folks' Job of supporting me, or do you need a tutor? ** Qt '*Ko, who wants to be B. K. 0. C. and have all those beautiful girls running after you, and receive free tuition, board, etc,*' H **Yes, she is probably very engrossed in her collection of shrunken heads and her deciphering of ILgyptian heiroglyphics, ** 78

PAGE 92

79 2. Cartoon responses of a subject from the low F scale group who scored lov (rank order 56) In the humor test. Cartoon Response A * No moneyl * B **I failed to study.** **When, next week?** B "What's she like? Have you met her?** 1 **I'm giving it away.** F ^O. K. 'Prof,* beat it.** Q **! wish I could play that good but I don't think I'd like to be on a school team.** R "She couldn't forget me." 3. Cartoon responses of a subject from the high F scale group who scored hiph (rank order 5) in the humor test. Cartoon Response A "Who in hell would have me? I couldn't get a date on a Saturday night at the yv/CA with |10 bills sticking out of my ears." B "Instead of looking over my notes, I overlooked them.'* **If I had five bucks I would stay up all night looking at it.**

PAGE 93

80 D ''Yes, but If she is a dog I*bi going to blind you. * S "Oh, 1*11 find some blind guy." F "I have to or I'll be diggins ditches for £ llvlns, " d "Yeh, the team of Martin and Lewis— at least I would have a few bucks." H "Well, don't you think the mouse (me) will play when the cat is away?" 4, Cartoon responses of a subject from the hj^h F scale group who scored low (x*ank order 58) in the humor test. Cartoon Response A ''Because my wife does not want to go and she won't let me go with anyone else." B "I'm not sure what happened. They seemed quite funny to me," C "I'm sorry, but I do not have that much with me. " B "I'm a married man, but thanks anyway." "Anyone who Is In need of cheap transportation." ''You bet, I have to because of my low grades last semester." "I sure do. I have always wanted to play but never got the chance."

PAGE 94

81 H. *'you should not say things like that unless you know what you are talking about, jincourage, do not discourage.**

PAGE 95

BIOGRAPHY Robert Scott Cleland was born January 16, 1920, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, He received the Bachelor of Arts degree from Monmouth College in 1941, After serving In the navy he worked for several years In industry. During this period he did graduate work at Northwesteni University, He entered the graduate school of the University of Florida in 1949 and received the iMaster of Arts degree in psychology In September, 1950, He is a member of the American Psychological Association, 82

PAGE 96

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 3, 1957 Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dean, Graduate School SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: lirman r/u\/^<^rjj ^ rA'^-i^^i^ 83

PAGE 98

280^5'