1 / 17

Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization

Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization. Dr Claire Fox 1 , Dr Simon Hunter 2 , Dr Siân Jones 3 1 Keele University, 2 University of Strathclyde, 3 Oxford Brookes University Contact: c.fox@keele.ac.uk. Humor Styles Questionnaire (Adult). Four dimensions:

abner
Download Presentation

Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization Dr Claire Fox1, Dr Simon Hunter2, Dr Siân Jones3 1Keele University, 2University of Strathclyde, 3Oxford Brookes University Contact: c.fox@keele.ac.uk

  2. Humor Styles Questionnaire (Adult) • Four dimensions: • Self-enhancing (e.g. ‘My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting too upset or depressed about things’) • Aggressive (e.g. ‘If someone makes a mistake I often tease them about it’) • Affiliative (e.g. ‘I enjoy making people laugh’) • Self-defeating (e.g. ‘I often try to make people like me or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders or faults’) • Data supports the reliability and validity of the HSQ (Martin et al, 2003; Martin, 2007) • Much stronger correlations between humor styles and psychological adjustment…..

  3. Humor and psychosocial adjustment in adults • Adaptive forms of humor negatively correlated with depression/anxiety and positively correlated with self-esteem and life satisfaction • Self-defeating humor – opposite effects (Martin et al., 2003; Kuiper et al., 2004) • Maladaptive forms of humor – negative impact on interactions with others (Kuiper et al., 2010; Ziegler-Hill et al., 2013)

  4. Humor and psychosocial adjustment in children • Links between humor and social competence (Masten, 1986; Sherman, 1988) • Klein and Kuiper (2006): • Children who are bullied at a disadvantage with respect to the development of humor competence • Gravitate to self-defeating humor • Self-defeating humor as a risk factor for victimisation

  5. Kochel et al. (2012) • Interpersonal risk model PV Adjustment problems • Symptoms driven model Adjustment problems PV • Transactional model PV Adjustment problems

  6. Reciprocity - Peer Victimization and Humor More self-defeating Peer victimization Less affiliative Less self-enhancing

  7. ESRC Humor and Bullying Study • Short-term longitudinal design • Participants (Time 1) N = 1234: • Gender: 599 male and 620 female (15 missing) • Age: 11-13 years, mean age = 11.68(SD= .64) • Measures: • Peer nomination inventory • Peer nominations of 4 types of victimisation • Self-report questionnaires: • Child HSQ (Fox et al., 2013) • Self-report victimisation questionnaire to measure 3 types (Owens et al., 2005)

  8. Results • Peer victimization (SR and PN) positively correlated with SD humor and negatively correlated with Affhumor at T1 and T2 • PN of peer victimization negatively correlated with self-enhancing humor at T1 and T2 • Analytic approach: • Cross-lagged measurement models • Self-report of humor styles • SR of peer victimization • PN of peer victimization • Combined cross-lagged measurement models • SR of peer victimization and humor styles • PN of peer victimization and humor styles

  9. Table 1: Cross-lagged measurement models ***p < .001. SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

  10. Table 2: Full cross-lagged models combining peer victimization and humor styles ***p < .001. SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

  11. Figure 1: Schematic of structural model for self-reported peer victimization and humorstyles. Only significant paths shown.

  12. Figure 2: Schematic of structural model for peer nominated peer victimization and humor styles. Only significant paths shown

  13. Summary of findings • Evidence of a vicious cycle between peer victimization and the use of adaptive and maladaptive humorstyles • Peer victimization appears to increase future use of self-defeating humor and decrease the use of affiliativehumor • At the same time, greater use of self-defeating humor increases the risk of later peer victimization, while greater use of affiliativehumor reduces the risk of later victimization • Support for Klein and Kuiper’s (2006) predictions • And experimental studies that have examined the impact of the four humor styles on others

  14. Conclusions • For many years, young people have been encouraged to use humor as a way of dealing with the bullies, most notably by ‘fogging’ • However, our evidence suggests this can lead to negative outcomes, whereas taking an approach based on affiliativehumor is more likely to lead to positive outcomes • Is it possible to teach children to use the more adaptive styles of humor and discourage use of aggressive and SD humor?

  15. Further information http://esrcbullyingandhumourproject.wordpress.com/ Twitter @Humour_Bullying Email: c.fox@keele.ac.uk

  16. Acknowledgements • ESRC • Rod Martin • Sirandou Saidy Khan and Hayley Gilman • Lucy James and Katie Wright-Bevans • Teachers, parents and children

  17. Thank you for listening

More Related