Over the last century, a constant interest has emerged regarding individual differences in humour styles (Martin, 1998). Starting from the nineteen-eighties studies have examined the possible positive contribution of humour on physical and psychosocial health and well-being (Lefcourt, 2001; Martin, 2001). Interest in the study of humour styles is continuing to grow, based on a positive perspective (Snyder & McCullough, 2000), which is centred on adaptive strengths as well as humour.
As Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003) underlined, over the years, sense of humour has been conceptualised in different ways as: “a cognitive ability (e.g., the ability to create, understand, reproduce, and remember jokes; Feingold & Mazzella, 1993); an aesthetic response (e.g., humour appreciation, the enjoyment of particular types of humorous material; Ruch & Hehl, 1998); a habitual behaviour pattern (e.g., the tendency to laugh frequently, to tell jokes and amuse others, to laugh at others’ jokes; Craik, Lampert, & Nelson, 1996; Martin & Lefcourt, 1984); an emotion-related temperament trait (e.g., habitual cheerfulness; Ruch & Kohler, 1998); an attitude (e.g., positive attitude towards humour; Svebak, 1996); a coping strategy or defence mechanism (e.g., tendency to maintain a humorous perspective in the face of adversity; Lefcourt & Martin, 1986)” (p. 49).
Researchers interested in associations between humour and different aspects of psychosocial and physical health and well-being have developed various self-report measures to detect certain aspects of sense of humour considered to be relevant to well-being (Martin et al., 2003). A limitation in existing self-reported humour instruments was noted in that they are not generally able to differentiate between possibly adaptive functions of humour and utilisations of humour that are less favourable and probably even damaging to well-being (Kuiper & Martin, 1998; Martin, 2001). For this reason, Martin et al. (2003) developed the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), with the aim of having the possibility to evaluate both adaptive humour styles versus maladaptive humour styles in relation to well-being. The questionnaire enables us to identify four humour styles: affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, aggressive humour and self-defeating humour. Affiliative humour refers to the tendency to share humour with other people, tell jokes and humorous stories, charm others, entertain others and enjoy smiling with others. Self-enhancing humour is relative to the tendency to maintain an amusing viewpoint of life even when not with others, utilise humour in coping with stress and cheer oneself up with humour. Aggressive humour regards the tendency to utilise humour to denigrate, repress, or manipulate others; the use of derision and insulting humour; and the compulsive manifestation of humour even when unsuitable. Self-defeating humour concerns the tendency to entertain others at one’s own expense, self-disapproving humour; laughing along with others when being derided; and using humour to mask one’s true feelings from oneself and others.
A primary prevention perspective (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2015, 2016; Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009) can be introduced in relation to the importance of humour. In a primary prevention perspective it is important to identify resources that can promote change associated with negotiation processes. Traditionally prevention is articulated into three levels of action: primary prevention, secondary prevention and tertiary prevention (Caplan, 1964). Primary prevention is focused on both avoiding the emergence of a problem before it begins and on promoting psychological well-being. Secondary prevention regards early interventions when the first symptoms emerge. Tertiary prevention aims to decrease symptoms and to support the functional recovery of the individual. The preventive perspective is more effective when efforts to decrease risks are combined with efforts to increase resources (Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009). Primary prevention is particularly focused on building on the strengths of individuals (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2015, 2016, 2018; Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2014a, 2014b, 2018; Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009) and searching out new non-fixed strengths that can be increased through specific training as humour styles.
According to this framework, the aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) for its use in the Italian context. For analysis of validity we tested the relationships of humour styles with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being since the possible contribution of humoristic styles on well-being is traditionally recognised in literature (Lefcourt, 2001; Martin, 2001).
Method
Participants
Two hundred and thirty-nine adults participated in the study. With regards to gender, 39.67% of the participants were men and 60.33% were women. The participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 26 years (M = 23.67, SD = 2.95).
Measures
Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). To evaluate humour styles the Italian version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003) was used. The questionnaire is composed of 32 items with a 7-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree). The questionnaire enabled us to identify four humour styles: affiliative humour (example of item «I enjoy making people laugh»), self-enhancing humour (example of item «From my experience thinking about some amusing aspects of a situation is often a very effective way of coping with problems»), aggressive humour (example of item «When telling jokes or saying funny things, I am usually not very concerned about how other people are taking it»), self-defeating humour (example of item «I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should»). To obtain the Italian version of the HSQ the back-translation method was used.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). To evaluate positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) in the Italian version by Terraciano, McCrae, and Costa (2003) was used. The PANAS is composed of 20 adjectives, of which 10 refer to Positive Affect (PA; e.g., enthusiastic, interested, determined) and 10 to Negative Affect (NA; e.g., afraid, upset, distressed). The participants have to indicate to what extent they generally feel like this on average on a Likert scale from 1 = Very slightly or not at all to 5 = Extremely. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: .72 for Positive Affect and .83 for Negative Affect.
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). To evaluate life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) in the Italian version by Di Fabio and Gori (2016) was used. It is composed of 5 items with responses on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scale enables us to detect a global score of life satisfaction. Examples of items are: «I am satisfied with my life», «The conditions of my life are excellent». The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Italian version was .85.
Meaning in Life Measure. The Italian version (Di Fabio, 2014) of the Meaningful Life Measure (MLM, Morgan and Farsides, 2009) was utilised to assess meaning in life as eudaimonic well-being. The questionnaire consists of 23 items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The MLM identifies 5 dimensions: Exciting life (e.g., «Life to me always seems exciting»), Accomplished life (e.g., «So far, I am pleased with what I have achieved in life»), Principled life (e.g., «I have a personal value system that makes my life worthwhile»), Purposeful life (e.g., «I have a clear idea of what my future goals and aims are»), Valued life (e.g., «My life is significant»). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .85 for Exciting life; .87 for Accomplished life; .86 for Principled life, .85 for Purposeful life; .84 for Valued life. The alpha value for the total score was .85.
Flourishing Scale (FS). To evaluate flourishing, the Flourishing Scale (FS; Diener et al., 2010) in the Italian version by Di Fabio (2016) was used. The scale is composed of 8 items with a response format on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scale enables us to detect a global score of flourishing. Examples of the items: «My social relationships are supportive and rewarding», «I lead a purposeful and meaningful life», «I am a good person and live a good life». The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Italian version was .88.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administered to participants in a group setting by trained psychologists in accordance with the requirements of privacy and informed consent of Italian law. The order of administration was counterbalanced by changing the sequence of administration of the questionnaires to control the effects of presentation order.
Data analysis
The factorial structure of the HSQ was evaluated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), with AMOS version 6 (Arbuckle, 2005), using the maximum likelihood method. The fit of empirical data to the theoretical model was analysed through different indices: the ratio between chi-square and degree of freedom (χ2/df), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
Values of the ratio between chi-square and degree of freedom (χ2/gdl) included between 1 and 3 are considered indicators of a good adaptation. In relation to the TLI, Bentler and Bonnet (1980; Hu & Bentler 1999) affirm that a value greater than .90 represents a good fit. Concerning the CFI, values greater than .90 are considered good (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). Values of the SRMR and of the RMSEA less than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) represent indices of a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller, 2003; Steiger, 1990). The reliability of the HSQ was verified through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Concurrent validity was verified through correlations of the HSQ with PANAS, SWLS, MLM, and FS.
Results
To verify the four-dimensional structure of the HSQ, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was carried out. The indices of Goodness of Fit are reported in Table 1.
Table 1 – Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Goodness of Fit (N = 239)
In relation to the considered indices, the Italian version of the scale confirmed a four-dimensional structure. Regarding reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are: .88 for affiliative humour, .83 for self-enhancing humour, .80 for aggressive humour, and .79 for self-defeating humour. Regarding concurrent validity, correlations are reported in Table 2.
Table 2 – Correlations of the HSQ with PANAS, SWLS, MLM, and FS(N = 239)
Note. N = 239. **p < .01.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) in order to offer a contribution to the validation of the instrument for its use in the Italian context. Dimensionality, reliability and concurrent validity of the instrument were therefore verified. Regarding dimensionality, confirmative factorial analysis supported the version with four dimensions as in the original version (Martin et al., 2003), showing satisfactory statistical indices of model adequacy. With regard to the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four humour styles are satisfactory. Concerning concurrent validity, the positive associations of the two adaptive humour styles (Affiliative humour and Self-enhancing humour) with both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and the negative relationships of the maladaptive humour styles (Aggressive humour and Self-defeating humour) also with both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, underline good concurrent validity of the questionnaire.
Despite the fact that the results of this study showed that the Humor Styles Questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument for detecting humour styles in the Italian context, it is necessary to underline the limitation of having verified the psychometric properties of the questionnaire only with a limited group of adults. Future research should therefore be extended to other groups of adults and also to other targets such as the young and the elderly. This study could be also replicated in other countries, to verify the cross-cultural relevance of the construct.
Notwithstanding the limitations shown above, the Humor Styles Questionnaire emerged as an instrument capable of detecting humour styles in the Italian context. The availability of this scale opens new and promising perspectives for research and intervention since humour styles can be considered a promising resource, underlining the importance of positive prevention perspective (Di Fabio, 2014, 2017; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2015, 2016, 2018; Hage et al., 2007; Kenny & Hage, 2009).
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 273-302.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143-156.
Di Fabio, A. (2014). Meaningful Life Measure: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Meaningful Life Measure: First contribution to the validation of the Italian Version]. Counseling Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 7, 307-315.
Di Fabio, A. (2016). Flourishing Scale: Primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 9(1). doi: 10.14605/CS911606
Di Fabio, A. (2017). Positive Healthy Organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. In G. Arcangeli, G. Giorgi, N. Mucci, J.-L. Bernaud, & A. Di Fabio (Eds.), Emerging and re-emerging organizational features, work transitions and occupational risk factors: The good, the bad, the right. An interdisciplinary perspective. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Organizational Psychology, 8, 1938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Measuring adolescent life satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in a sample of Italian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 501-506.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2015). The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. Journal of Career Development, 42, 48-59.
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016). From decent work to decent lives: Positive Self and Relational Management (PS&RM) in the twenty-first century. In A. Di Fabio & D. L. Blustein (Eds.), From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding decent work. Research Topic in Frontiers in Psychology. Section Organizational Psychology, 7, 361. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00361
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2018). Intrapreneurial Self-Capital: A Key Resource for Promoting Well-Being in a Shifting Work Landscape. In A. Di Fabio (Ed.), Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Special Issue in Sustainability MDPI, 10(9), 3035. doi: 10.3390/su10093035
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174-178.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 19-23.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2018). The contributions of personality and emotional intelligence to resiliency. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 140-144.
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1993). Preliminary validation of a multidimensional model of wittiness. Journal of Personality, 61, 439-456.
Hage, S. M., Romano, J. L., Conyne, R. K., Kenny, M., Matthews, C., Schwartz, J. P., & Waldo, M. (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493-566.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 1-10.
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (1998). Is sense of humor a positive personality characteristic? In W.Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp.159-178). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and life stress: Antidote, to adversity. New York: Springer.
Martin, R. A. (1998). Approac hes to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp.15–60). Berlin: Walter de Crruyter.
Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 504-519.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational humor response questionnaire: Quantitative measure of the sense of humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 145-155.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48-75.
Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 197-214.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F.-J. (1998). A two-mode model of humor appreciation: Its relation to aesthetic appreciation and simplicity–complexity of personality. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of personality characteristic (pp. 109-142). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruch & Kohler.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and goodness-of-fit models. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
Snyder, C. R., & McCullough, M. E. (2000). A positive psychology field of dreams: ‘‘If you build it, they will come…’’. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 151-160.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173-180.
Svebak, S. (1996). The development of the sense of humor questionnaire: From SHQ to SHQ-6. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 341-361.
Terraciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 131-141.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
