PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

A [S 31 2117790Q
Um l '- ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/Dateouo.p65«p.15

A COMPARISON OF CULTURAL AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
IN THE PERCEPTION OF HUMOR

By

Jeong An Song

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2003

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF CULTURAL AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
IN THE PERCEPTION OF HUMOR

By

Jeong An Song

This study examined cultural and gender differences in the perception of humor.
American (n=72) and Korean (n=60) college students responded to questionnaires
measuring funniness of joke topics, three processes of humor (incongruity, superiority,
and tension-relief), social appropriateness of humor, power distance, and a sense of
humor. It was found that Americans and males showed higher preference of aggressive,
sexual, and vulgar jokes compared to Koreans and females. In addition, Americans and
males perceived humor based on superiority funnier than Koreans and females, in
general. Power distance and relief function of humor, and sense of humor and superiority
process of humor showed different relationships across cultures. Social appropriateness
of humor and the sense of humor revealed gender differences in the relationships with the
superiority humor. The relationship between social appropriateness of humor and sense

of humor also showed a gender difference.

To My Grandmother in Heaven

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my advisor, Dr. Mary Bresnahan. Thank you for your encouragement,
patience, and warm supports. 1 have learned a lot from you about how to do research, and
how to communicate others. All of these would help a lot for my future academic career.
In addition, you took care of me in everything during my two-year stay in Michigan. I
will never forget your consideration for me.

To my committee members, Dr. Tim Levine and Dr. Stan Kaplowitz. Your
brilliant and kind guidance lead me to finish my thesis successfully. Most of all, you
showed me what is to be professional, and what I should not do to be professional. Thank
you for your precious time and golden lessons.

To Dr. Hee Sun Park. At many critical moments, you were a great help, and you
listened to all my troubles and worries with all your hearts. You were an insightful and
considerate professor. I would remember you as my friend whenever I remind myself of
last two years in Michigan. Thank you very much.

To my family, mother, father, Hyun-Joo, Kyung-Sup, and Won-Sup. I know you
always have kept prayers for me in your minds. Without your prayers and unconditional
supports, I could have accomplished nothing at all. I love you all.

To my colleagues, J ina, Soony, and Kate who I met in Michigan. You guys were
always willing to be with me. Because of you, I could go through hardships joyfully.

Finally, thank my God for all these nice experiences in Michigan.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi
LISF OF FIGURES ............................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Three Processes of Humor ............................................................... 2
Cross-cultural Studies of Humor ........................................................ 5
Power Distance ............................................................................ 9
Sense of Humor .......................................................................... 11
Gender Studies of Humor ............................................................... l3
METHODS
Participants ............................................................................... 14
Procedures ................................................................................. 15
Measurements ........................................................................... 16
RESULTS
Research Question l-A and B ......................................................... 22
Research Question 2-A and B ......................................................... 27
Research Question 3-A and B ......................................................... 27
Research Question 4-A and B ......................................................... 28
Research Question 5-A and B ......................................................... 31
Research Question 6-A and B ......................................................... 33
Research Question 7-A and B ......................................................... 34
Research Question 8-A and B ......................................................... 35
DISCUSSION
Limitations and Theoretical Implications ............................................ 36
Conclusions .............................................................................. 43
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 44
TABLE AND FIGURE ........................................................................... 63
BIBLOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 87

LIST OF TABLES

Bivariate Correlations among Nine Subscales and Age ...................................... 64
Means for Nine Variables for Americans and Koreans ....................................... 65
Means for Nine Variables for males and females ............................................. 66
Means for Nine Variables for Males and Females for Americans ........................... 67
Means for Nine Variables for Males and Females for Koreans .............................. 68
Inter-coder Reliability for Five Categories of Jokes .......................................... 69

Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance of Preference with Joke Topics for Culture

........................................................................................................ 70
Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance of Preference with Joke Topics for Gender

........................................................................................................ 71
Chi-square Tests for Preferred Types of Jokes by Culture and Gender ..................... 72
Univariate ANOVA of F unniness of Three Jokes for Culture and Gender ................ 73

Univariate ANOVA of General Perception of Three Processes of Humor for Culture and
Gender ............................................................................................... 74

Summary of Common Regression Line Models between Three Processes of Humor and
Social Appropriateness of Humor for Country ................................................ 75

Regression of Superiority Processes of Humor and Social Appropriateness of Humor for
Gender ............................................................................................... 76

Regression of Relief Processes of Humor and Power Distance for Country .............. 77

Separate Regression Analyses of Three Processes of Humor and General Sense of Humor
for Country .......................................................................................... 78

Regression of Relief Processes of Humor and General Sense of Humor for Country ....79

vi

Regression of General Perception of Superiority Humor and General Sense of Humor for
Gender .............................................................................................. 80

Regression of Social Appropriateness of Humor and General Sense of Humor for Gender
....................................................................................................... 81

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Separate Intercept and Common Slope Model for the Relationship between Social
Appropriateness of Humor and General Perception of Superiority Humor for Gender. . .82

Separate Intercept and Separate Slope Model for the Relationship between Power
Distance and General Perception of Relief Humor for Culture .............................. 83

Separate Intercept and Common Slope Model for the Relationship between General
Sense of Humor and General Perception of Relief Humor for Culture ..................... 84

Separate Intercept and Common Slope Model for the Relationship between General
Sense of Humor and General Perception of Superiority Humor for Gender .............. 85

Separate Intercept and Separate Slope Model for the Relationship between General Sense
of Humor and Social Appropriateness of Humor for Gender ............................... 86

viii

Introduction

Humor has been described as a unique feature of human beings. Darwin (1955)
observed that laughter appeared only in human society, and it is one of the means for
expressing joy or happiness. The power and attraction of humor, has made it a recurrent
topic for research in many fields with diverse perspectives.

This study approached humor from a comparative perspective for culture and
gender. Humor is sensitive to social norms, structures, stereotypes, and situations (Nevo,
Aharonson & Klingman, 1998). Only a few studies, however, have attempted to
empirically validate and explain different or similar aspects related to humor across
cultures. The present study investigated the different perceptions of humor in Korea and
the United States, assuming that the perception of humor is strongly affected by social
norms for cultures and genders (Goldstein, 1976; Nevo, Nevo, & Yin, 2001).

This study consisted of four parts to measure different aspects of humor: 1)
preferred types of humor; 2) perceptions of three jokes based on three processes of humor
(incongruity, arousal-relief, and superiority) and the general perceptions of the three
processes of humor; 3) social aspects of humor related to social appropriateness of humor
and power distance; and 4) general sense of humor. Considering these individual and
social aspects of humor, and their relationships, eight research questions were posited for

culture and gender.

Literature Review
Three Processes of Humor

The earliest study of humor, in Western culture, is attributed to Plato (427-348

B.C.). He suggested two processes of humor, the malicious motivation of laughter toward
the inferior, and tension-relief function of humor (Morreall, 1983, p.43). Aristotle (3 84-
322 BC.) agreed with Plato’s basic notion about humor, illustrating that laughter is
related to disparagement, even though he admitted there is also ethically desirable
laughter. Aristotle also mentioned that unexpectedness is a stimulus for laughter
(Morreall, 1983, p.50).

Many researchers have noted that those thoughts on humor from Plato and
Aristotle were succeeded by modern philosophers who were interested in humor and
laughter (Berger, 1993; Grotjahn, 1957; Gruner, 1978; Morreall, 1983; Provine, 2000;
Raskin, 1985). They identify three implications which follow from these works on humor.
First, humor is associated with dark side of human nature such as malice, insolence,
derision, and so on. Hobbes (1968) maintained that humor is strongly related to
superiority over others, which has become a basic notion of the Superiority Theory of
Humor. Second, humor has a specific cognitive process that refers to the unexpectedness
of humor. Following Aristotle’s note on the unexpectedness of humor, Kant and
Schopenhauer argued that laughter is evoked from “the perceived mismatch between the
physical perception and the abstract representation of some thing, person, or action”
(Provine, 2000, p.17). According to this second tradition, the success of humor depends
on the success of the inconsistency detection, which has become the basis of the
Incongruity Theory of Humor (Rothbart, 1976). Third, humor relieves a tension from
nervous energy or pain. Plato mentioned that laughter is related to pleasure and pain:
Pleasure of laughter relieves the pain from laughing at others’ misfortune (Provine, 2000).

This perspective is named the Relief Theory of Humor. It suggests that laughter is evoked

in the process of resolving uncomfortable feelings (Lynch, 2002). Freud (1960) also
proposed that humor is related to relief in terms of releasing emotional tension and
liberation from social pressures.

Contrasting the long tradition of philosophical examination of humor, empirical
research on humor has a short history over the last hundred years, as it began with
experimental psychology (Lynch, 2002). Empirical researchers began to test the
assumptions and theories of humor which have been proposed over the last couple of
thousand years. Meanwhile, during the 1970s and 19803, humor research became more
organized and accelerated, in diverse academic fields of psychology, physiology,
anthropology, linguistics, English, medical studies, philosophy, and so on (Provine, 2000,
p. 19).

Lynch (2002) suggested that the majority of humor studies have conducted
psychological examination at the individual level. Within the individual level studies of
humor, three main theories for humor have been used: Relief Theory of Humor,
Incongruity Theory of Humor, and Superiority Theory of Humor. Even though the three
main theories of humor are originated by the ancient philosophical thoughts on humor,
they have been extended with additional findings of empirical research. In the literature
concerning humor appreciation, the three theories of humor also have been widely used
to explain individual differences or similarities in human behaviors related to humor.

The three theories of humor are subject to distinctive processes of humor:
arousal-relief, incongruity-resolution, and disparagement (Keith—Spiegel, 1972; Morreall,
1983). Recent research based on the Relief Theory of Humor suggested that the

interpretive activity accompanying arousal is a critical factor when people perceive

humor (Rothbart, 1976). The interpretive activity with arousal refers to the simultaneous
process of arousal and relief. The former comes from seriousness of situated humor,
while the latter derives from judging that the seriousness is not dangerous and,
consequently enjoyable (Rothbart, 1973). The arousal-relief process involves the
judgment of an individual on humorous materials which contain dangerous situations,
behaviors, and intentions. Arousal caused by a discomforting situation for sympathized
characters, however, should be interpreted to be safe or fine so that the safety judgment
on characters’ situation leads appreciators into laughter (Lefcourt, Davidson, Prkachin, &
Mills, 1997).

Incongruity Theory of Humor informs that humor is processed by perceptual
contrast or discrepancy between the covered meaning and the discovered meaning
(Raskin, 1985). According to this theory, successful humor is accomplished with the two-
stage incongruity-then-resolution formula (Jones, 1970; Suls, 1983). Wicker, Thorelli,
Barron, and Ponder ( 1981) found that both incongruity and resolution are necessary for
humor appreciation. Shultz and Horibe (1974) also tested this incongruity-then-resolution
process, and concluded that most humor involves both incongruity and resolution. This
process is one of informational processing and textual interpretation (Apter & Smith,
1977)

The main principle of the Superiority Theory of Humor is that humor and
laughter is related to perceived superiority over others. The sense of glory comes from
perceived absurdities or infirrnities abstracted from other people when laugher is evoked
(Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Crawford and Greesley (1991) examined preference in

different kinds of humor and found that males enjoy putdown humor while females like

anecdotal humor without hostility. Consistently, Zillmann and Stocking (1976) found that
males consider the disparagement of the enemy the funniest, whereas females regard the

disparagement of self as the funniest.

Cross-Cultural Studies of Humor

Since cross-cultural studies on humor started in 1920’s (Goldstein, 1976, p. 169),
a majority of them have focused on a comparison of content rather than the processes of
humor. Goldstein (1976) proposed that we might expect cultural differences in humor for
two reasons. First, there are differences in the processes and contents of humor, and
second, there are different social or cultural experiences underlying perceptions of humor.
The present study divided these two possible differences into three parts: content of
humor, processes of humor, and social aspects of humor.
Content and Types of Humor Content-comparison studies of humor are based on
diverse taxonomies of humor. Rational and intuitive categorizations of humor produced
all possible categories of humor based on content only. For example, contents of humor
are listed as sick, ethnic, sexual, political, religion, family, workplace, wordplay humor,
and so on (Esar, 1955; Freud, 1905/ 1960; Gruner, 1978). One of the heuristic rational
categorizations of humor is from Freud’s taxonomy: harmless, aggressive, and sexual
humor. Harmless humor is called innocent humor, for example, puns, riddles, and funny
ideas, while aggressive humor consists of aggression, ridicule, and hostility. Sexual
humor has sexual connotations such as vulgar words and sexual illusion.

Factor analytic studies of humor concern structures of humor more

systematically while rational analytic studies of humor are theme-oriented ones. Ruch

proposed three categories of humor: incongruity-resolution, nonsense, and sexual humor
(Ruch & Hehl, 1998, p. 114). Incongruity-resolution humor is identified by punch-lines
in which incongruity must be completely resolved (Ruch & Hehl, 1998, p.114). Nonsense
humor has also an incongruous punch-line, but it does not provide a resolution or give a
partial resolution (McGhee, Ruch & Hehl, 1990, p.124). Though sexual humor is related
to a theme rather than a structure, the three kinds of humor were considered to be an
exhaustive categorization of jokes. Regarding content-related factors of humor, such as
aggressive and sick humor except for sexual humor, they were not identified as valid
factors (Mindess, Miller, Turek, Bender, & Corbin, 1985).

Previous research did not consider “who” appreciates “what” humor to identify
distinctive properties of humor. Cross-cultural studies on humor have provided somewhat
different results demonstrating that diverse properties of humor other than incongruity
and sexuality could be significant factors.

Castell and Goldstein (1976) found that people from the US. preferred sexual
and aggressive jokes compared to people in Belgium and Chinese in Hong Kong. Nevo
(1984) compared preference of humor between Israeli Jews and Arabs, and found that
Jews preferred and created more aggressive jokes compared to Arabs. Ruch et a1. (1991)
found that Italians preferred sexual humor more than Germans, while Germans liked
nonsense humor more than Italians. Nevo et al. (2001) showed that Americans preferred
sexual jokes more than Singaporeans, while people from both cultures liked aggressive
jokes.

Cultural differences in preferred content or types of humor have not been fully

and systematically supported among all cultures. Thus, more studies on humor comparing

diverse cultures are required to examine the different properties of humor across cultures,
considering very few researchers have empirically studied differences in humor between
Western cultures and Eastern cultures, in particular.

On the other hand, Crawford (1989) suggested that using pre-selected jokes or
cartoons would be inappropriate to detect differences in humor among cultures.
Replication studies based on pre-selected humorous materials with taxonomies developed
in Western culture would fail to identify unknown differences between Eastern and
Western culture. Thus, it was proposed to include qualitative measures for the current
study to explore cultural difference in types of humor.

Under the explorative reasoning, the current study proposed the first research
question.

RQl-A. Is there a difference in preference for the topics and types of humor

between Koreans and Americans?

Processes of Humor Another limitation of the previous studies categorizing
humor is that their analyses were based on printed jokes and cartoons. The problem of
this limitation is that they could not detect, for example, whether or not aggression or
disparagement plays a significant role in real interactions among people. Even though
superiority and relief processes of humor were not included as distinctive properties of
humor as factors, the two processes are very likely to be used in diverse real situations, as
it was reviewed in the previous literature review section of this study.

On the other hand, cross-cultural studies of humor have mainly focused on contents
rather than processes. These are likely to be universal across cultures, as psychological

processes for appreciating humor (Nevo et al., 2001). However, the universalism of the

three processes of humor does not disregard totally the possibility of cultural differences
in the processes of humor. Goldstein (1976) mentioned that a certain process of humor
such as superiority is common among all cultures, but the feeling or perceptions about
such a mental process of humor could be different from culture to culture. However, no
such evidence yet exists across cultures.

Thus, the second and third research questions were posited to ask whether or not
people from two different cultures perceive the three processes of humor differently.
Perceptions of the three processes of humor were asked on pre-selected jokes and on
general perceptions separately.

RQ 2-A: Is there any difference between Koreans and Americans in the funniness

of three jokes?

RQ 3-A: Is there a difference in the general perception of humor based on the three

processes of humor between Koreans and Americans?

Social Appropriateness of Humor As a next step, the present study pursued information
about different social aspects of humor across cultures. Liao (1998) described Chinese
humor and jokes, related to Chinese philosophies and writings by Lin Yutang, Kuo Tai,
and so on. According to Liao (1998), Chinese humor traditionally did not include vicious
humor, but consisted of good mannered and wise utterances which are unlikely to be
considered humor in Western culture. Consistently, Feinberg (1971) argued that
Confucian conservatism and formality deliberately ignored humor. Nevo et a1. (2001)
noted that satire is perceived as inappropriate in manner in Chinese culture.

Social appropriateness of humor, as stated above, would be different culture by

culture. Giles and Oxford (1970) suggested that humor is used to affiliate an individual

with other individuals and a particular social group. Considering different social norms
and experience between cultures, the social appropriateness of humor is expected to be
different among cultures. In addition, the social appropriateness of humor would have
different implications for each culture. However, there are no empirical findings on the
socialiappropriateness of humor in cross-cultural studies of humor.

Thus, the following research questions were developed. In particular, the current
study related the social appropriateness of humor to the three processes of humor, to see
the different implications of the social appropriateness of humor between Americans and
Koreans.

RQ4-A: Is there any cultural difference in the relationship between general

perceptions of the three processes of humor, and social appropriateness of

humor?
Power Distance

The current study intended to test the prevalent assumption that a social norms
are associated to the perceptions of humor and the social appropriateness of humor. As
one social norm, power distance was proposed to be a factor which is related to the
perceptions of humor and the social appropriateness of humor. Hofstede ( 1983) defined
power distance as “a characteristic of a culture defining the extent to which the less
powerful persons in a society accept inequality in the power and consider it as normal”(p.
51). In addition, Hofstede (1984) maintained that the acceptance of power distance varies
from culture to culture.

Several comparative studies on Koreans and Americans found that power

distance is a significant factor for predicting individual perceptions, and social behaviors.

Paik, Rody, and Sohn (1998) concluded that, for Koreans, power distance had negative
relationship with the self-efficacy of expatriate managers. White, Tansky, and Baik
(1995) suggested that perceptions of justice were partly correlated with power distance
for Koreans and Americans. In addition, Holtgraves and Yang (1992) indicated that
requesting behavior was significantly different between Americans and Koreans in terms
of power distance, based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Finally, Lee and
Rogan (1991) found that power distance played more important role when dealing with
conflicts with subordinates in Korea.

Apart from comparison between the two cultures, power distance has been
proposed to be a factor to explain diverse social behaviors among other cultures, too.
Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, Takai, and Wilcox (2001) found that
small power distance cultures showed less other-face concerns, and avoiding face-work
compared to high power distance cultures. Pompitakpan and Francis (2001), comparing
Thai and Canada, showed that source expertise was more important in persuasion in Thai
than in Canada. Basabe, Paez, Vlencia, Rime, Pennebaker, Diener, and Gonzalez (2000)
found that pe0ple from low power distance cultures emphasized emotional experience
more than those who from high power distance cultures. Matsumoto (1989) revealed that
power distance worked as a cultural factor to predict several types of judgments as a
cultural factors.

Even though power distance did not prove to be a significant predictor for
cultural difference in all social behaviors, notable results have been produced to explicate
the cultural differences in social behavioral research. In particular, the previous research

proposes that relationship-sensitive issues could be highly related to power distance, and

10

those relationships would be different among cultures according to the degree of power
distance. The social appropriateness of humor, which is concern of the current study, is
also one of sensitive issue in social interaction. Thus, it is expected that power distance is
significantly related to the social appropriateness of humor. In addition to this, superiority
and relief processes of humor has social aspects more than incongruity process of humor.
Thus, it is also anticipated that the general perceptions of the three processes of humor
have different relationships to power distance between Americans and Koreans. Under
these reasoning, two research questions were proposed.

RQS-A: Is there any difference in the relationship between general perceptions of

the three processes of humor, and power distance for country?

RQ6-A: Is there any difference in the relationship between social appropriateness

of humor and power distance for country?
Sense of Humor

A majority of humor studies considered sense of humor personality (Kuiper &
Rod, 1998, p.159). In addition, it is dominantly agreed that sense of humor is a
multidimensional construct (Kuiper & Rod, 1998, p.160).

Thorson and Powell (1993, p.14) asserted that “elements of a sense of humor is
different form elements of humor,” and sense of humor is not a mere likelihood to laugh.
Thorson and Powell (1991) pointed out that many researchers have been confused with
three different constructs: likelihood of laughing, perceptions of humor, and a sense of
humor. They argued that that sense of humor has four elements, excluding perceptions on
humor and laughing: recognition of oneself as a humorous person (e.g., others think of

me as humorous person), recognition of other’s humor (e.g., calling somebody a

ll

‘comedian is a real insult), appreciation of humor (e.g., I like a good joke), and humorous
perspectives maintaining situations (e. g., Humor helps me cope) (Thorson &
Powell, 1993).

Among the four elements of sense of humor, the current study intended to see the
relationship of sense of humor as an appreciation of humor to perceptions of humor and
other social aspects related to humor. Positive attitude towards humor, as a personality, is
expected to have impact on general perceptions of the three processes of humor as well as
sense of humor would be different among cultures. Nevo et a1. (2001) asserted that there
was no cultural difference in sense of humor based on SHRQ (the Situational Humor
Response Questionnaire; Martin & Lefcourt, 1984), of which concern is laughing in
diverse situations. However, this finding did not exclude the possibility that sense of
humor based on other dimensions could cause cultural differences.

In addition, sense of humor in the individual level is expected to be related to
perceptions of social appropriateness of humor on a social level. As social
appropriateness of humor is likely to be different between Americans and Koreans, there
should be cultural difference in the relationship between general sense of humor and
social appropriateness of humor. Thus, the seventh and eighth research questions
concerning sense of humor were asked as follows.

RQ 7-A: Is there any difference in the relationship between general perceptions

of the three processes of humor, and general sense of humor for country?

RQ 8-A: Is there any difference in the relationship between social

appropriateness of humor and the general sense of humor for country?

12

Gender Studies of Humor

Main interests of gender studies of humor have been differences in perceptions of
contents and types of jokes and cartoons between males and females. Zillmann and
Cantor (1972) found that there was no gender difference in preference of aggressive
cartoons. Brodzinsky and Rubien (1976) revealed that females enjoyed more neutral
cartoons and less sexual cartoons than males. Females were found to like neutral jokes
more than males, but hostile jokes less than males (Forabosco & Ruch, 1994; Herzog &
Hager, 1994; Herzog, 1999; Johnson, 1992; Mundorf, Bhatia, Zillman & Lester, 1988). In
addition, Oppliger and Zillmann (1997) found that males enjoyed sick humor more than
females.

Regarding social aspects of humor, Thorson and Powell (1996) found that
females created less humor and used more coping humor than males. Hay (2000) reported
that males adopted strategies to achieve solidarity, other than humor, but females
provided more frequently funny personal stories to maintain relationships. Decker and
Lotondto (2001) found that, in a workplace, female managers using positive humor
showed better outcomes than males in the same condition, while females using negative
humor presented lower outcomes. However, Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young and Heerey
(2001) suggested that there was just slight difference in teasing as face-work between
males and females.

Considering these results, the present study proposed the same research questions
asked for cultural differences. In particular, it is expected that the current study would
have consistent results on contents and types of humor, compared to results from previous

research.

13

RQl—B: Is there a difference in preference for the topics and types of humor
between males and females?

RQ2-B: Is there any difference between males and females in the funniness of
three jokes?

RQ3-B: Is there a difference in the general perception of humor based on each of
the three processes of humor between males and females?

RQ4-B: Is there any difference in the relationship between general perceptions of
the three processes of humor, and social appropriateness of humor for gender?
RQ5-B: Is there any difference in the relationship between general perceptions of
the three processes of humor, and power distance for gender?

RQ6-B: Is there any difference in the relationship between social appropriateness
of humor and power distance for gender?

RQ7-B: Is there any difference in the relationship between general perceptions of
the three processes of humor, and general sense of humor for gender?

RQ8-B: Is there any difference in the relationship between social appropriateness

of humor and the general sense of humor for gender?

Methods

Participants

Participants consisted of American and Korean international students (n = 132).

American college students are all undergraduate students (11 = 72). They consisted of four

ethnic groups, Caucasian (n = 59), African American (n = 9), Hispanic American (n = 1),

and Asian American (11 = 2). Korean college students consisted of undergraduate students

14

(n = 30), graduate students (n = 27), and visiting students (n = 3). All Korean participants
have lived in the United States no longer than five years. 24 Korean subjects have lived
less than one year, 17 Koreans one through two years, nine Koreans two through three
years, and eight Koreans four through five years.

Overall sample included 57 males and 75 females. For American sample, males
are 29, and females are 43. For Korean sample, males are 28, and females are 32. Overall
range of age is 18 through 35 (M = 22.72, SD = 4.23). The range of age for Americans is
18 through 24 (M = 19.89, SD = 1.37). The range of age for Koreans is 20 through 35 (M
= 26.17, SD = 4.05).

Procedures

Copies of questionnaire were distributed to American undergraduate students in
class in the Communication Department at the Michigan State University. For Korean
data, participants were gathered through individual access by a researcher and several
assistants at the Michigan State University, Lansing Community College, and two Korean
churches in East Lansing, Michigan. Participation in this research was solicited on a
voluntary basis.

The questionnaire consisted of seven sections: (1) funniness of three types of
jokes, (2) general evaluation of three processes of humor, (3) topics and types of jokes
that are considered funny or not, (4) general sense of humor, (5) social appropriateness of
humor, (6) power distance, (7) demographic information. Both Koreans and Americans
read three jokes for measuring fimniness of three types of jokes in English. It is because
the author wanted to lessen the possibility to mislead the original meaning of the jokes by

translating English to Korean. However, Korean participants read all items and questions

15

in other sections of a questionnaire in Korean language to help Korean participants
understand questions more correctly and quickly.
Measurements

All the items on questionnaire used a 7~point Likert style response format
(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Table 1 provides zero-order correlations among
nine variables and age. Tables 2 through 5 provide descriptive statistics (e. g. means and
standard deviations) of the variables by country and gender.

F unniness of Jokes Based on Three Process of Humor Six items assessed
individuals’ perceptions on funniness of a joke based on the three processes of humor:
incongruity, superiority, and relief (See Appendix A for three jokes, and see Appendix B
for the scale). Six items for each joke were created by an author. Ordinary least square,
oblique multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data with
LIMSTAT version 2.0. Scales were examined based on two criteria: internal consistency
and parallelism. Individual items which do not meet these two criteria were deleted for
further analysis. The remaining four items for each joke showed 0% error rate, which
means that the four items have no residuals larger than .20 between observed and
reproduced correlations. A critical value of .20 for residuals was selected as an indicator
of non-significant variances. Ordinarily, a more stringent criterion of .05 is used.
However, a more lenient standard was necessitated by the small sample size in this study.
In addition, the four items yielded parallelism tests among these three scales. Four items
for each joke revealed partial agreement one another (See Appendix B). In this study,
funniness of incongruity joke scale has reported internal reliability index of alpha equal

to .91. Funniness of superiority joke scale has alpha, .91. Funniness of relief joke scale

16

has alpha, .88.

Before asking how much a participant considers the three jokes funny, a question
of whether or not a participant understands the meaning of a joke was asked. This
question was purposed to detect whether participants perceived the joke as a joke. Only
responses from participants who answered ‘yes’ to the question were included in data
analysis. Answers from participants who could not understand a joke were considered
inappropriate for this study, as they did not perceive the joke as humor. However, results
based on the responses of all the subjects were also provided in Table 9, just for
comparison.

In addition, the reason why a participant thinks a joke is funny or not funny was
asked as an open-ended question. This open-ended question was provided to explore what
elements other than three processes of humor would work to appreciate humor, in a
discussion section.

General Perception of Incongruity Humor Six items assessed each individual’s
general perception of humor based on incongruity (See Appendix C). The six items asked
participants the extent to which they agree with statements focusing on incongruity
process of humor in general. Humor based on incongruity was defined as humor based on
unexpected outcomes, or reverse expectations in processing humor. The general
perception of incongruity process of humor focused on funniness caused by the process.
Confirmation factor analysis was performed to check internal consistency and parallelism.
Consequently, four items remained for this scale (See Appendix C). Remaining four items
showed 0% error rate, and yielded parallelism tests. In this study, general perception of

incongruity humor scale has reported internal reliability index of alpha equal to .79.

17

General Perception of Superiority Process of Humor Six items were used to
measure each individual’s perception on superiority humor (See Appendix D). This scale
asked participants the extent to which they agree with statements focusing on superiority
process of humor in general. Humor based on superiority was defined as humor based on
a process of humor making fun of others, which leads jokers to feel superiority over
others. The general perception of superiority process of humor focused on funniness
caused by the process. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data for this scale.
This scale also were examined based on two criteria: internal consistency and parallelism.
Items which do not meet these two criteria were deleted for further analysis.
Consequently, four items remained for this scale (See Appendix D). Remaining four
items showed 0% error rate. In addition, the four items yielded parallelism tests. In this
study, the general perception of superiority joke scale has reported internal reliability
index of alpha equal to .81.

General Perception of Relief Process of Humor Eight items assessed
individuals’ general perception of relief humor, which were created by an author (See
Appendix E). This scale asked participants the extent to which they agree with statements
focusing on tension-relief process of humor in general. Tension-relief process of humor
on questionnaire was defined as a humor based on lubricating function in a stressful
situation. The general perception of relief process of humor focused on positive attitude
towards relief function caused by the process, while funniness was asked for measuring
the general perceptions of incongruity and superiority processes of humor. Confirmatory
factor analysis was applied to the data for this scale. This scale was also examined

according to two criteria: internal consistency and parallelism. Items which do not meet

18

these two criteria and showed low factor loadings were deleted for further analysis.
Firstly, four items remained to satisfy internal consistency. However, the four items did
not yield parallelism test with other two scales: general perception of incongruity humor
scale, and sense of humor scale. Two more items were deleted, referring to low factor
loadings. Consequently, two items remained for this scale (See Appendix E).

General Sense of Humor For measuring general sense of humor, eight items
were developed by an author, based on Thorson and Powell (1993)’s ‘appreciation of
humor’ category for multidimensional sense of humor (See Appendix F). The general
sense of humor was defined as a positive attitude towards humor in general.
Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data for this scale. This scale also was
examined based on two criteria: internal consistency and parallelism. Items which do not
meet these two criteria were deleted for further analysis. Consequently, four items
remained for this scale (See Appendix F). Remaining four items showed 0% error rate. In
addition, the four items yielded parallelism. In this study, sense of humor scale has
reported internal reliability index of alpha equal to .86.

Social Appropriateness of Humor Eighteen items were developed by an author
to measure social appropriateness of humor (See Appendix G). The social
appropriateness of humor was defined as the degree to which people feel less social
restriction when they use humor. First, exploratory factor analysis was performed for this
scale, as an author created items without theoretical backgrounds. Exploratory factor
analysis yielded three factor model under both statistical and theoretical considerations.
However, confirmation factor analysis concluded that three factor model does not fit well,

as the data failed to pass parallelism test among the three factors. In particular, the first

19

factor was parallel to the second factor, but not to the third factor. Neither was the third
factor parallel to the second factor. Thus, one factor model was suggested, keeping all
five items on the first factor, plus two items from the second factor, and one item from the
third factor. The three items added showed comparatively high correlations with first five
items and high loadings on the first factor. Social appropriateness scale, which
consequently contains eight items (See Appendix G), has reported internal reliability
index of alpha equal to .79.

Power Distance For measuring power distance, eight items were developed by
an author, referring to Hofested (1980) and Dorfman and Howell (1988). Items from
these two scales are focused on organizational circumstances. Thus, items were modified
to ask of power distance in communicative situation. Power distance, in this study, was
defined as the degree to which people concern other’s higher social power and status in
communication (See Appendix H). Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data
for the scale. This scale also was examined based on two criteria: internal consistency and
parallelism. Items which do not meet these two criteria were deleted for further analysis.
Remaining four items showed 16.67 % error rate. In addition, the four items yielded
parallelism. However, an item, “A person’s status is not at all important for
communication” was deleted, as alpha increased .60 to .74 when the item was deleted.
The scale, without the item, reported an internal reliability index of alpha equal to .74, for
this study. Consequently, three items remained for this scale (See Appendix H).

Topics and Types of Jokes Twenty-four topics constituted the items for
measuring what topics participants enjoy (See Appendix I). They included political joke,

sexual joke, ethnic joke, and so on. In addition, open-ended question was asked to

20

contribute a joke that they think is funny. This open-ended question was proposed to
examine more specific kinds of jokes which Americans and Koreans would enjoy
differently. Answers to open-ended questions asking one’s own favorite joke were coded
according to five categories used in previous research (Crawford & Gressley, 1991;
Johnson, 1991; Nevo et al., 2001). Aggressive joke was defined as a joke which has
elements of hostility, ridicule, and aggression. Sexual joke was defined as a joke which
uses vulgar words or has an element of sexual allusions. Sick joke was defined as a joke
which is related to disgusting or morbid element. Social joke was defined as a joke which
has racial, and political implications. Neutral joke was defined as a joke based on puns,
riddles, and innocent creative idea. The reason why this categorizing set is selected is that
this set of categories seemed to be most comprehensive including structures and themes
for humor. Appendix J provides jokes given by American and Korean participants,
according to the five categories of jokes.

Two coders rated forty American Jokes and thirty eight Korean jokes
independently, using the five categories. Prior to their coding, they participated in training
section provided by an author, and they learned the same instructions for coding jokes.
They were allowed to categorize a joke into more than one category, in case a joke is
engaged with several elements, referring to five categories. If a joke has aggressive and
sexual elements, they rated a joke by 1 for aggressive joke and sexual joke, but by 2 for
the other types of jokes.

After their training, inter-coder reliability check was performed to examine the
extent to which different coders get equivalent results in coding jokes, using the same

instructions. 10 American jokes and 10 Korean jokes, which were randomly selected in

21

internet humor sites, were used for inter-coder reliability check. Two coders rated jokes
one by one, examining whether or not a joke belongs to each category of jokes. Inter-
coder reliability check was performed several times until two coders got satisfying results
in agreement of coding. Finally, they reported the degree of agreement equal to .94 for
Korean jokes, and .96 for American jokes. In addition, they showed inter—coder
reliabilities of Cohen’s Kappa equal to .83 for Korean jokes, and .87 for American jokes.
Table 4 provides individual degree of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa for each kind of
joke. The reason why Cohen’s Kappa for sick joke is low (=.62), despite high degree of
agreement(=.90), is that coded values of 1(=yes) and 2(=no) were not evenly distributed

for sick joke category.

Results

Research Question I-A and B

The first research question asked about the preference of topics and types of
humor. The first research question has two sub-questions. Question l-A asked whether
there exists a difference in preference for topics and types of humor between Koreans and
Americans. The preference of topics of jokes was explored by univariate ANOVA.
Univariate ANOVA was selected as an analytic tool to control age, specifying age as a
covariate. A significant difference in age, F (1, 131) = 145.46, p <.001, n2 =.53, was
found between Americans (M = 19.89, SD = 1.37) and Koreans (M = 26.05, SD = 4.07).

There was no gross violation of normal distribution in the data for humorous
topics, as skewness statistics are all less than 1.00. Levene’s test showed non-significant

results for all 23 topics that there is no gross violation of homogeneity, except for one

22

topic on women’s feminine behavior, Levene statistic (3, 126) = 5.90, p <01. Considering
sample size issue, Cochran’s C was also calculated. It was reported that variances of data
were not identical for this feminine behavior topic, as Cochran’s C was .52 which is
larger than critical value of .50 for this data. However, according to Kaplowitz’s rule, the
degree of heteroscedasticity was acceptable because Cochran’s C (=.52) did not exceed
twice the average of the other variances. For women and feminine behaviors, t-test was
used apart from other topics due to the violation of homogeneity for this topic, as it
provides available statistics when equal variances are not assumed. Males (M = 5.05, SD
=1.33) were found to enjoy this topic more than females (M= 3.61, SD =1.72), t (129) =
5.40, p <.001.

Univariate ANOVA analysis revealed that Americans and Koreans showed
significantly different preference for eight out of 24 topics of humor (See Table 7): family
members, men and manly behavior, body functions, religion, less intelligent people,
raunchy jokes, and fat people jokes. The preference for jokes about family members
differed between Americans and Koreans, F (1, 126) = 27.04, p < .01, n2 =.14. Americans
(M = 4.33, SD =l.41) preferred jokes about family members compared to Koreans (M =
2.53, SD =1 .25). Americans and Koreans were different in the preference of jokes about
men and manly behaviors, F (l, 126) = 5.81,p <05, 172 =.04. Americans (M = 4.83, SD
=1.31) enjoyed those jokes more than Koreans (M = 3.85, SD =1 .74). Americans and
Koreans were different in enjoying jokes on body functions (e.g. farting, burping, etc.), F
(1, 126) = 14.22, p <01, 112 =.09. Americans (M= 4.28, SD =1 .82) preferredjokes on
body functions compared to Koreans (M = 2.88, SD =l.62). The preference for jokes

about religion was also different between Americans and Koreans, F (1, 126) = 3.84, p

23

<.05, n2 =.o3.

Americans (M = 3.57, SD =1.78) preferred jokes on religion compared to
Koreans (M = 3.46, SD =1.78). However, both Americans and Koreans did not enjoy
jokes on religion that much, as they all showed means below the mid-point. On the topic
of less intelligent people, Americans (M = 4.26, SD =1 .84) enjoyed jokes about less
intelligent people more than Koreans (M = 2.83, SD =1.61), F (1, 126) = 17.03,p <01, 112
=.10. The two cultures also showed significant difference in the preference of raunchy
jokes, F (1, 126) = 5.09,p <05, 1:2 =03. Americans (M= 4.13, SD =1.75) revealed higher
preference of the raunchy joke than Koreans (M = 2.83, SD =1.93). Concerning jokes
about fat people, Americans (M = 4.06, SD =1.79) liked those jokes more than Koreans
(M= 3.66, so =1.82), F(1, 126) = 7.64,p <.01,1;2 =.05.

In addition to the preference of topics of jokes, participants were asked to supply
a joke of their own. To test the cultural difference of preferred types of jokes that were
volunteered by Americans and Koreans, as indicated earlier, five categories of humor
were identified for the jokes. Chi-Square analysis was conducted. The results showed a
significant difference in social jokes between Americans and Koreans. It was found that
Koreans enjoyed social jokes more than Americans, x20 , N = 86) = 4.36, p <.05, while
other types of jokes did not show any cultural differences between Koreans and
Americans (See Table 9).

Research question l-B asked whether there are gender differences in preference
for topics and types of humor between males and females. To analyze the gender
difference of preferred topics between males and females, univariate ANOVA was used.

Males and females showed significantly different preferences in 17 out of 24 topics of

24

humor: sex, female body parts, women and feminine behaviors, men and manly behavior,
female body parts, male body parts, body functions, foreigners, religion, politicians, less
intelligent people, ethnic jokes, different sexual orientations, self-disparaging, critics on
selfish behaviors, mocking smart people, raunchy jokes, and fat people jokes (See Table
8).

Males (M = 5.20, SD = 1.39) were found to enjoy jokes about sex more than
females (M= 4.66, SD =1 .60), F (l, 125) = 5.18,p <05, 172 =.O4. For men and manly
behaviors, males (M = 4.70, SD =1.46) also preferred these jokes more than females (M =
4.15, SD =1.65), F (1, 125)= 5.18,p <05, 172 =.04. Males (M= 4.32, SD =1.74) revealed
a higher preference for jokes about female body parts compared to females (M = 2.85, SD
=1.69), F(1, 126) = 26.98,p <01, 172 =. 16. In addition, females (M= 3.44, SD =1.70)
showed a lower preference for jokes about male body parts compared to males (M = 4.18,
SD =1.64), F (1, 125) = 8.13,p <01, 172 =.06. For body fimctions, males (M= 4.00, SD
=1.92) thought this topic was more funny compared to females (M = 3.38, SD =1.79), F
(1, 126) = 6.10, p <05, 172 =.04. Concerning foreigners as a humorous theme, males (M =
4.84, SD =1.35) enjoyed jokes about foreigners more than females (M = 3.36, SD =l.45),
F(l, 126)= 15.26,p<.01,1]2 =.11.

In addition, males (M = 4.02, SD =1.79) preferred religious jokes more than
females (M= 3.14, SD =1.68), F (1, 126) = 10.25,p <01, 712 =.07. Forjokes about less
intelligent people, males (M = 4.19, SD =1.91) enjoyed those jokes more than females (M
= 3.18, SD =1.73), F (1, 126) = 14.92, p <01, 172 =.09. Regarding ethnic jokes, both
males and females did not enjoy these jokes. However, males (M = 3.74, SD =1 .87)

showed comparatively a higher preference compared to females (M = 2.85, SD =1.54),

25

F (1, 126) = 9.06, p <.01, 112 =.06. For jokes about different sexual orientations, males (M
= 4.44, SD =1.68) liked these jokes more than females (M = 2.89, SD =1.63), F(1, 126) =
26.45, p <.001, n2 =.l7. For self-disparaging jokes, males (M = 4.25, SD =1.58) enjoyed
thesejokes more than females (M =3.08, SD =1.61), F(1, 126) = 18.08,p<.01, n2 =.12.

For jokes mocking smart people, males (M = 4.44, SD =1.40) enjoyed those
jokes more than females (M= 3.23, SD =1.61), F(1,126)=18.84,p <.01, n2 =.l3. For
raunchy jokes, males (M = 4.28, SD =1 .82) enjoyed those jokes more than females (M =
2.97, SD =l.84), F(1, 126) = 22.16,p <.01, n2 =.l3. Forjokes about fat people, males (M
= 4.09, SD =1 .89) enjoyed those jokes more than females (M = 2.70, SD =1.59), F (l,
126) = 24.60, p <.01, n2 =.15.

For jokes on politicians and criticizing selfish behaviors, an interaction effect
between gender and culture was observed as well as a main effect for gender. For jokes
on politicians, males (M = 5.12, SD =1.62) enjoyed jokes about politicians more than
females (M = 4.64, SD =1 .65), F (1, 126) = 4.05, p <05, 172 =.O3. In addition, Korean
males (M = 5.39, SD =1.64) preferred political jokes more than American males (M =
4.86, SD =1.57), while Korean females (M = 4.35, SD =l.84) preferred political jokes
less than American females (M = 4.84, SD =1.49), F (l, 126) = 4.08, p <.05, n2 =.03. For
jokes criticizing selfish behaviors, males (M = 4.79, SD =1.34) enjoyed jokes about
criticism of selfish behaviors more than females (M = 3.92, SD =1.75), F (1, 126) = 10.53,
p <.01, n2 =.07. In addition to this, Korean males (M = 5.11, SD =1.34) preferred jokes
criticizing selfish behaviors more than American males (M = 4.48, SD =1.66), while
Korean females (M = 3.52, SD =1 .81) preferred these jokes less than American females

(M= 4.21, so =1.67),F(1,126)= 5.4l,p <.05, n2 =.05.

26

To test gender differences of preferred types of jokes that were volunteered for
the five categories of jokes that were coded, chi-square analysis was used. The results
showed significant differences in aggressive between males and females. It was found
that males enjoyed aggressive jokes more than females, x‘( l, N=86) = 5.81, p <.05.
Research Question 2-A and B

The second research question asked about the funniness of three specific jokes
based on three distinctive processes of humor. As explained earlier in this paper, three
jokes were selected to exemplify one of the three processes of humor. The second
research question has two sub-questions. Question 2-A asked whether or not there was a
difference in the funniness of the three jokes between Americans and Koreans. Question
2-B asked whether or not there is a difference in the funniness of the three jokes between
females and males.

To explore the cultural differences in the perception of the three jokes (as a
question 2-A), univariate ANOVA was used. As mentioned earlier, answers from
participants who could not understand a joke were excluded in this analysis. Results
showed no significant differences for the three jokes based on country (See Table 10).
Question 2-B asked whether or not there is a difference in the funniness of the three jokes
between females and males. The univariate ANOVA also did not show gender differences
(See Table 10). Results based on the responses of all the subjects were also provided in
Table 9, just for comparison.

Research Question 3-A and B
The third research question asked about general perceptions of the three

processes of humor. The third research question also has two sub-questions. Question 3-A

27

asked whether there exists a difference in the perception of the three processes of humor
between Americans and Koreans, in general. Univariate ANOVA was performed to see
whether Americans and Koreans differently perceive the three processes of humor.
American participants were found to be different from Korean participants in the
superiority process of humor, F (1, 125)= 9.51, p <.01, n2 =.05 (See Table 11). Americans
(M = 4.19, SD = 1.21) generally considered humor based on superiority funnier than
Koreans (M = 3.18, SD = 1.36). There were no differences in the perceptions of humor
based on incongruity and relief (See Table 11).

Research question 3-B asked whether or not there is a difference in the general
perception of the three processes of humor between males and females. Univariate
ANOVA yielded a significant result for the general perception of superiority humor.
Males (M = 4.35, SD = 1.17) generally considered humor processed by superiority
funnier than females (M = 3.26, SD = 1.34), F(1, 125) = 31.99,p <.001, n2 =.18.
However, no gender differences were found for the general measures of incongruity or
relief humor (See Table 11).

Research Question 4-A and B

Research questions 4 through 8 asked about the relationships of three variables
(social appropriateness of humor, power distance, and sense of humor) to the three
processes of humor for country and gender. To explore the relationships, regression
analysis was performed through two steps. The first regression analysis was conducted to
examine whether or not there is a significant relationship between the two variables
within each cultural or gender group. Second regression analysis was performed using

both continuous and categorical variables, as long as at least one significant relationship

28

was found for country and gender. The secondary analysis was proposed to detect
whether the relationships were significantly different or not.

For secondary regression analysis, dummy coding for country and gender was
performed. In addition, mean-correcting was conducted to lessen high collinearity for the
secondary regression analysis, subtracting means from variables. Finally, for regression
analyses for culture, age was controlled due to the significantly large mean difference for
age between Americans and Koreans.

The fourth research questions asked about differences in the relationship of social
appropriateness of humor to general perceptions of the three processes of humor for
country and gender. Results for research question 4-A demonstrated that the general
perception of relief humor was significantly related to social appropriateness of humor
for American participants (6 = .26, t = 2.17, p <.05), as well as for Korean participants (5
= .29, t = 2.24, p <.05), under the control for age. There was no effect of age in the
relationships within each culture.

Meanwhile, social appropriateness of humor is significantly associated with the
general perception of superiority humor in American data (6 = .43, t = 3.81, p <.001),
while social appropriateness of humor was not likely to be a significant predictor for the
general perception of superiority humor in Korean data (3 = .19, t = 1.46, p =.15), under
the control for age. There was no effect for age. Similarly, social appropriateness of
humor was significantly associated with the general perception of incongruity humor in
American data (B = .28, t = 2.32, p <.05), while it was not effective in Korean data (5
= .20, t = 1.56, p =.13). There was no effect for age, either.

However, it was found that there were no significant differences in the

29

relationship of the social appropriateness of humor to general perceptions of the three
processes humor between the two cultures. The secondary regression analysis suggested
that Americans and Koreans shared a common regression line for the relationship of the
social appropriateness of humor to the three processes of humor. Table 12 provides
statistics for the common regression line models for the three processes of humor, related
to social appropriateness of humor under the control for age.

Meanwhile, even though cultural differences were not found, it was found that
age and the three processes of humor were significantly related each other, under the
control for the social appropriateness of humor (See Table 12). When they feel the same
amount of social restriction of humor, older people would perceive incongruity humor
funnier than younger ones, while older people are likely to think of superiority humor
less funny. In addition, older people would consider the relief function of humor more
useful than younger people.

RQ 4-B asked about relationships between the three processes of humor and the
social appropriateness of humor for gender. Results showed that the general perception of
superiority humor was significantly related to social appropriateness of humor both for
males (B = .45, t = 3.72, p <.001), and females (B = .26, t = 2.36, p <.05). However, the
social appropriateness of humor did not show significant relationship to the perceptions
of relief and incongruity humor within each gender group.

To explore whether or not the results for superiority humor are significantly
different, secondary regression analysis was conducted. As a result, a common slope and
separate intercept model was suggested for the relationship for the general perception of

superiority humor and social appropriateness of humor between males and females,

30

Incremental F (1, 128) = l9.67,p <.001, Adjusted R2 =.25, (See Table 13, and Figure 1).
Basically, the more they perceived using humor is socially appropriate, the more males
and females thought of humor based on superiority funny. In addition, the amount of
increase of funniness of superiority humor, according to an increase of social
appropriateness of humor, is almost the same between males and females. However,
males are likely to think superiority humor funnier compared to females under the social
appropriateness of humor.

Research Question 5-A and B

Research question 5-A asked about the general perception of three processes of
humor and power distance for country. As a result, it was found that the general
perception of relief humor was significantly associated with power distance for American
participants (B = -.26, t = -2.18, p <.05), while not for Korean participants (B = .15, t = .83,
p = .41). There was no effect for age.

To see whether or not the relationship is different between Americans and
Koreans, secondary regression analysis was conducted. For the relationship between the
general perception of relief humor and power distance, a separate slope and separate
intercept model was suggested for American and Korean data, under the control for age,
Incremental F (4, 126) = 3.63, p <.01, Adjusted R 2=.08 (See Table 14). Basically, as
different social status is considered more important, Koreans and Americans are likely to
perceive humor less positively when it is used to lessen tension in a stressful situation.
However, according to power distance, the amount of decrease of positive attitude
towards relief humor was less for Koreans than for Americans (See Figure 2). Thus, as

long as power distance is perceived important, Koreans would show more positive

31

attitude towards relief humor compared to Americans. However, Americans would show
more positive attitude towards relief humor compared to Koreans, when power distance
is perceived unimportant in communication.

Research question 5-B asked about the general perception of three processes of
humor and power distance for gender. The general perception of incongruity humor was
significantly associated with power distance for females (B = .25, t = 2.20, p <.05), while
not for males (B = .06, t = .48, p =.64). There were found no significant relationship of
relief and superiority humor to power distance within each gender.

To explore whether or not the relationships between the general perception of
incongruity humor and power distance was significant or not for gender, secondary
analysis was performed. Results showed that the relationships were not significant
between females and males. A common slope and different intercept model did not fit,
Incremental F ( l , 129) = .11, p =.75, Adjusted R2=.00, as well as a different intercept and
slope model, Incremental F (1, 128) = .00, p =.99, Adjusted R2 =.01. Neither was
common regression suggested for males and females, Incremental F (1, 120) = 3.20, p
=.O8, Adjusted 122:.00.

Research question 6-A asked about the relationship of power distance to the
social appropriateness of humor for country. The separate regression analysis concluded
that there were no significant relationships of power distance to the social appropriateness
of humor for Americans (B = -.20, t = -1.70, p =.09) and Koreans (B =-.06, t = -.47, p
=.64), under the control for age. However, a significant effect of age was found related to

the social appropriateness of humor for Americans (B = .29, t = 2.24, p <05).

32

Research Question 6—A and B

Research question 6-B asked about the relationship of power distance to the
social appropriateness of humor for gender. The separate regression analysis concluded
that there were no significant relationships of power distance to the social appropriateness
of humor males (B = -.20, t = -l.48, p =.14), and females (B = -.09, t = -.76, p =.45).

Research question 7-A asked about the relationship between the general
perception of the three processes of humor and general sense of humor for country.
Results of a separate regression analysis for two countries showed that all the three
processes of humor were significantly related to the general sense of humor for
Americans and Koreans, under the control for age (See Table 15). Age effect was found
for relief and incongruity humor only for Koreans (See Table 15).

However, among the three processes of humor, only the general perception of
relief humor showed a significant difference in the relationship with the general sense of
humor for culture. Secondary regression analysis proposed a separate intercept and
common slope model for this relationship for culture, incremental F (1, 127) = 4.57, p
<.05, Adjusted R2=.11 (See Table 16). Basically, as they had more positive attitude
towards humor in general, Koreans and Americans considered humor based on
superiority funnier. In addition, the amount of increase of positive attitude towards humor
was almost the same between Koreans and Americans, according to the increase of
funniness of superiority humor. However, Koreans are likely to think of superiority
humor funnier than Americans under the control for age and the general sense of humor
(See Figure 3). Regarding superiority and incongruity humor, it was concluded that

Koreans and Americans have no different relationships between general perceptions of

33

the two processes of humor and the general sense of humor.
Research Question 7-A and B

Research question 7-B asked about the relationship between the general
perception of the three processes of humor and the general sense of humor for gender.
Results from separate regression analysis showed that the general sense of humor is
significantly related to the general perception of superiority humor for males (B = .64, t =
6.02, p <.001) and females (B = .44, t = 4.16, p <.001). However, significant relationships
of the general sense of humor to the perceptions of relief and incongruity humor were not
found within each gender.

To see whether the relationships of the general sense of humor to the perception
of superiority humor within genders were significantly different between males and
females, secondary regression analysis was performed. As a result, a common slope but
separate intercept model was suggested to identify the difference in the relationship
between males and females, Incremental F (1, 128) = 24.27, p <.001, Adjusted R2 =.36
(See Table 17). This means that, for males and females, the funniness of humor based on
superiority similarly increases, as they appreciates humor more positively. Meanwhile,
males perceive humor based on superiority funnier than females under the control for
attitude towards humor (See Figure 4).

Research question 8-A asked about the relationship of the general sense of humor
to the social appropriateness of humor for country. The first separate regression analysis
for each culture showed that the general sense of humor is significantly associated with
the social appropriateness of humor for American participants (B = .49, t = 4.84, p <.001),

and Korean participants (B = .60, t = 5.35, p <.001).

34

Secondary regression analysis revealed that the relationships were not different
between Americans and Koreans, as a common regression line was shared by the two
cultures, F (2, 128) = 35.41, p <.001, Adjusted R2=.35. Thus, it is concluded that the
general sense of humor is positively related to the social appropriateness of humor (B
= .62, t = 7.70, p <.001), under the control for age, and regardless of culture.

Research Question 8—A and B

Research question 8-B asked about the relationship of the general sense of humor
to the social appropriateness of humor for gender. The first separate regression analysis
for males and females suggested that the general sense of humor is significantly related to
the social appropriateness of humor for males (B = .65, t = 6.40, p <.001), and for females
(3 = .57, t = 5.90,p <.001).

Secondary regression analysis revealed that the relationships were significantly
different between males and females. A separate slope and separate intercept model was
proposed to identify the different relationship of the general sense of humor to social
appropriateness of humor, between males and females, Incremental F (1, 128) = 5.97, p
<.05, Adjusted R2=.38 (See Table 18 and Figure 5). Basically, as they had more positive
attitude towards humor, Koreans and Americans perceived humor socially more
appropriate. However, as they generally appreciated humor more positively, the degree to
which they considered humor socially appropriate increased. Meanwhile, the amount of
increase of social appropriateness was different between males and females, according to
general sense of humor. Accordingly, as long as they perceive humor positively, males
would consider humor socially appropriate more than females. However, females would

think of humor socially appropriate more than males, when humor is perceived negatively.

35

Discussion
Limitations and Theoretical Implications

The purpose of the current study was to explore the difference in how humor
works across cultures and genders. Research questions asked the following: 1) The
difference in a preference for the topics and types of humor; 2) the difference in the
funniness of jokes based on the three processes of humor, incongruity, superiority, and
tension-relief; 3) the difference in the general perception of the three processes of humor;
4) the difference in the relationship of social appropriateness of humor to the general
perception of the three processes of humor; 5) the difference in the relationship of power
distance to the general perception of the three processes of humor; 6) the difference in the
relationship of power distance to the social appropriateness of humor; 7) the differences
in the relationship of general sense of humor to the general perception of the three
processes of humor; and 8) the difference in the relationship of general sense of humor to
the social appropriateness of humor.

The findings of the current study showed that there were cultural and gender
differences, regarding these research questions. The most obvious differences were found
through the first research question. Americans showed higher preferences on eight topics
of jokes compared to Koreans. In addition males showed higher preferences on 17 topics
of jokes compared to females. The topics were broadly related to sexuality,
disparagement, and vulgarity. On those topics, Americans showed higher preference than
Koreans, and males enjoyed them more than females. There was no t0pic of joke that
Koreans enjoyed more than Americans, and that females considered funnier than males.

These findings are consistent with the results of previous humor studies on the

36

different preference of joke contents among cultures and genders. However, in this study,
it was found that several topics did not show cultural and gender differences, even though
they were related to sexuality, aggression and vulgarity. For example, cultural differences
were not found in preference about topics such as sex, feminine behavior, different sexual
orientation, and so on. Thus, evidence is not sufficient to generalize that Americans and
males are more oriented to the three elements of humor (aggression, sexuality, and
vulgarity) compared to Koreans and females.

Results on preferred types of volunteered humor partly supported findings about
joke topics in this study. There was no gender and cultural difference in sexual, sick, and
neutral jokes, while differences in aggressive jokes for gender, and social jokes for
culture were found. Interestingly, it was found that Koreans enjoyed social jokes more
than Americans, which seems to be contradictory to the previous finding of joke topics in
this paper: There was no cultural difference in preference of jokes about politicians. In
addition, Americans enjoyed jokes about religion, which is one social joke topics, more
than Koreans. Social jokes provided by Americans and Koreans were mostly about
current political issues such as the Iraq-war.

Considering the fact that a majority of Korean social jokes were contributed by
graduate students, the difference in social jokes could be influenced by academic level or
age rather than culture. It is highly possible that graduate students are more concerned
with social issues than undergraduate students. As stated in the method sections, Koreans
were significantly higher in age than Americans. Thus, this finding seems to be a
limitation of this study.

In the second research question, there was no significant finding on the funniness

37

of jokes based on the three processes of humor for culture and gender. This non-
significant finding probably results from the fact that this study did not conduct a pilot
study to check the funniness of those jokes. Means for the funniness for the three jokes
were all below the mid-point. Meanwhile, answers to an open-ended question asking why
a participant thinks of this joke funny or not provided interesting information, related to
this non-significant finding. Many respondents suggested that they did not regard the joke
funny for the following reasons: lack of creativity, lack of reality, lack of novelty, lack of
elegance, and lack of background knowledge, apart from incongruity, superiority, and
relief of tension. These responses from participants suggest that other elements affected
the appreciation of humor. Thus, it would be valuable to investigate how such factors
influence the three processes of humor in future studies.

The results of the third research questions on the general perceptions of the three
processes of humor showed a significant difference in superiority humor both for culture
and gender, under the control for age. There was no difference in the general perception
of incongruity and relief processes of humor. This finding is partly inconsistent with a
general assumption that there would be no difference in the processes of humor among
cultures. Even though superiority as a process of humor is likely to be pan-cultural, it was
found that differences exist in the degree to which people from different cultures and
different genders perceive humor processed by superiority.

As one of the social aspects of humor, social appropriateness of humor did not

differentiate Americans and Koreans in its relationship with the three processes of humor.
However, in general, social appropriateness of humor showed a significant relationship

with all the three processes of humor under the control for age. Regardless of cultures,

38

people would consider humor based on incongruity and superiority funnier, as long as
they feel the social restriction in using humor similarly, under the control for age. In
addition, people are likely to be more positive attitude towards relief function of humor,
as they consider humor socially appropriate in most situations, under the control for age.
However, the social appropriateness of humor showed a difference in the relationships
with the funniness of superiority humor between males and females. This finding reveals
that the relationship of social appropriateness of humor to superiority process of humor is
influenced by gender rather than culture. The relationships between social
appropriateness of humor and other two processes were not affected by gender, either.

Meanwhile, age was found to be a significant factor which is related to the social
appropriateness of humor. When the general perception of relief and incongruity humor
were controlled, age was positively related to the social appropriateness of humor, while
negatively related to the social appropriateness of humor under the control for the
perception of superiority humor. As age was not originally intended to test, such
significant age effects on the three processes of humor should be included as a part of
future studies.

Power distance, which was proposed as an external social norm, differentiated
Americans and Koreans in its relationship with relief process of humor, as expected. An
interaction effect was found in the relationship between the general perception of relief
humor and power distance, between Americans and Koreans. However, there was no
significant relationship between superiority processes of humor and power distance, even
though the superiority process of humor was anticipated to be associated with power

distance due to its implication related to a social relationship. For gender, no significant

39

differences were found in its relationships with all three processes of humor. In addition,
no gender difference was found in the relationship between power distance and social
appropriateness of humor, which is also inconsistent with a proposed expectation.

These non-significant findings for power distance reveal that a social norm could
not be directly related to perceptions of humor, in comparison to social appropriateness of
humor. It allows us to think about a possibility that an unidentified variable is mediating
the relationships between power distance and humor. Thus, more specified hypotheses
and analyses would be needed to find significant relationships between power distance
and humor.

Finally, this study tested the relationships for sense of humor and the three
processes of humor. The sense of humor was defined as positive attitude towards humor.
The general sense of humor was positively related to all the three processes of humor.
However, only the superiority process of humor differentiated Americans and Koreans in
terms of its relationship with a positive attitude towards humor. However, there was no
interaction effect. All Americans and Koreans showed increased funniness of humor
based on superiority when the positive attitude towards humor increased. However,
Koreans maintained higher funniness of humor based on superiority compared to
Americans, when the positive attitude towards humor and age was controlled. This is an
interesting finding, as Koreans showed lower funniness of superiority humor than
Americans when only age was controlled.

In addition, a sense of humor as a positive attitude towards humor showed gender
differences in its relationship with the funniness of humor based on superiority and social

appropriateness of humor. The general perception of humor based on superiority humor

40

was related to the general sense of humor positively both for males and females. However,
when the attitude towards humor is controlled, males would show higher funniness of
superiority humor than females. This is not inconsistent with the previous finding from
the third research question that males perceive superiority humor funnier than females in
general. In addition, the general sense of humor revealed an interaction effect on the
social appropriateness of humor between males and females. Males are likely to consider
humor more appropriate than females, as their positive attitudes towards humor increase,
while females would regard humor more proper compared to males, when they perceive
humor negatively.

These findings reveal several theoretical implications for future research on
humor. This study focused on processes of humor on an individual level. Those processes
of humor did not differentiate cultures and genders by themselves, while their
relationships with other extraneous factors in contexts such as social appropriateness of
humor, and with other individual traits such as sense of humor showed cultural and
gender differences. These different findings reveal that humor studies should focus more
on specified contexts where humor is communicated. That is, content-oriented, or
process-oriented studies of humor, on which most previous humor studies are based,
might not be able to detect how humor functions in interactions among people. The
research focus on content and processes of humor rather than humor as an interactive
process suggests that researchers need to approach humor with communication
perspectives to integrate humor functions with other factors on a social level.

Humor has been included in communication studies, even though they dealt with

humor in part under other topics. For example, humor was looked at as one type of

41

communication strategy in embarrassment studies (Edelmann, 1990; Imahori & Cupach,
1994; Metts & Cupach, 1989; Sueda & Wiseman, 1994). However, it is hard to find much
consideration about nature of humor such as the processes of humor in communication
studies. This is a limitation of communication studies dealing with humor. This limitation
has resulted in an inconsistent identification of functions of humor in communication. For
example, embarrassment studies have not agreed on how humor functions for coping
with embarrassment. Some researchers argued that humor is used to avoid embarrassing
situations (Sharkey & Stafford, 1992; Sueda & Wiseman, 1994), while others reported
that humor is used as one of aggressive responses to embarrassment (F ink & Walker,
1977). One possibility of these inconsistent findings is that those researchers might use
different humorous stimuli based on different processes of humor.

It is clear from the contradictions in these studies that a communication theory of
humor is waiting for being developed. Humor studies could not identify humor in
communication contexts, and communication studies were not concerned with natures of
humor. The current study tried to connect humor to contextual aspects of humor such as
social appropriateness of humor and its relationship with power distance, under the
consideration of communicative perspectives towards humor. Similarly, further studies
are required to associate humor with communication phenomena such as face-work,
politeness issue, persuasions, embarrassment, and so on, under more consideration of the
nature of humor. This is for examining how humor functions in communication contexts,
which have been less highlighted, compared to the importance of humor in

communication.

42

Conclusions

The present paper examined cultural and gender differences in the perception of
humor. The perception of humor was tested in two ways: topics of humor, and processes
of humor. The three processes of humor were looked at under the consideration of the
relationship with social appropriateness of humor, power distance, and sense of humor.

Regarding topics of humor, Americans and males enjoyed aggressive, sexual, and
vulgar jokes more than Koreans and females. Concerning the three processes of humor,
superiority was found to be the most salient process of humor for cultural and gender
differences. Basically, the general funniness of humor based on superiority showed
significant mean difference between two cultures and two genders. In addition, the
general perception of superiority humor was positively related to sense of humor. This
positive relationship differentiated cultures and genders. The general perception of
superiority humor also showed a positive relationship with social appropriateness of
humor. This relationship, however, did not differentiate cultures but only genders.

Meanwhile, the general perception of relief humor showed only cultural
differences, in the relationship with power distance. For two cultures, the perception of
relief humor was negatively related to power distance. An interaction effect of culture
was found in the relationship between relief humor and social appropriateness of humor,
under the control for age. There was no finding about incongruity process of humor,
related to cultural and gender difference. Finally, social appropriateness of humor was
found to be positively associated with sense of humor, and an interaction effect of gender
was found for this relationship. There was no relationship between social appropriateness

of humor and power distance.

43

APPENDICES

44

Appendix A

Three Jokes Based on Three Processes of Humor

A Joke Based on Incongruity

 

Q: How do you get an angry elephant to stop charging?

A: You take away its credit card.

 

 

 

A Joke Based on Superiority

 

Q: How many MSU students does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Just one.
Q: How many U of M students does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: 115. One to hold the bulb, and 114 to rotate the house.

 

 

 

 

A Joke Based on Relief
A: What’s that you have in your buttonhole?
B: Why, that’s a Chrysanthemum.
A: It looks like a rose to me.
B: Nope, you are wrong, it’s a Chrysanthemum.
A: Can you spell that?
B: K-r-i-s. . .by golly, that is a rose!

 

 

 

45

Appendix B

Scale Items for F unniness of Jokes Based on Three Processes of Humor

1. I find this joke to be very funny (ISR).

2. This joke really made me laugh (ISR).

3. This joke really didn’t appeal to my sense of humor at all (reverse) (R).
4. Most people would be likely to find this joke fiJnny (S).

5. This joke is not funny at all (reverse) (I).

6. I would give this joke a high humor rating (ISR).

Note. (I) = remaining item for an incongruity joke. (S) = remaining item for a superiority joke.
(R) = remaining item for a relief joke. (ISR) = remaining item for three jokes.

46

Appendix C

Scale Items for General Perception of Relief Process of Humor

1. Telling a funny joke is a good way to open up communication with others.
2. Getting people to laugh puts them in a good mood.

3. Ofien humor results in embarrassment (reverse).

4. In almost every situation, laughter serves a positive function.

5. Laughter is good to lessen tension in a stressful situation.*

6. Stress is often alleviated or lessened by using humor.*

7. Humor is not helpful in problematic situations.

8. Often people respond to embarrassment with laughter.

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

47

Appendix D

Scale Items for General Perception of Superiority Process of Humor

1. I think that humor based on deprecation (mocking) of self and others is funny.*
2. I think that jokes involving ridicule or insult are funny.*

3. I often like to make fun of myself as a source of humor.

4. Humor which makes fun of people is not at all funny (reverse).*

5. Most humor is meant to make fun of the human condition.

6. I think humor based on ridicule or insult of oneself is not very funny (reverse).*

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

48

Appendix E

Scale Items for General Perception of Incongruity Humor

1. Good jokes are based on a discrepancy between two elements.

2. Jokes rarely evoke laughter by providing an element of surprise (reverse).*

3. Successful jokes reveal a relationship between unrelated things.

4. Jokes are funny when they lead you to believe one thing, and then provide something
unexpected.*

5. Good jokes are based on unexpected outcomes.*

6. Good jokes reverse expectations.*

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

49

Appendix F

Scale Items for General Sense of Humor

1. I like a good joke.*

2. I can easily find many things amusing (reverse).*

3. I enjoy humorous conversation.*

4. I am uncomfortable when people cracking a joke(reverse).
5. I laugh easily.

6. I dislike humor (reverse).

7. Funny things make me happy.

8. I am a person with a good sense of humor.*

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

50

9.

Appendix G

Scale Items for Social Appropriateness of Humor

. I think humor is always appropriate no matter what the situation.*

. I would be likely to tell a funny joke to my boss at work.*

. I would be likely to tell a funny joke to my romantic partners.*

. I would be likely to tell a funny joke to my parents.*

. Some jokes are not appropriate to tell to persons of the opposite sex (reverse).
. I believe that the same things are funny in every culture.

. I believe most jokes are tasteless and offensive (reverse).

. I would not want my mother to hear a lot of jokes that I have heard (reverse).

In almost every context, I believe that humor is appropriate.*

10. If I were talking to someone a lot older than me I would feel comfortable telling a

joke.*

11. I feel very comfortable sharing jokes of any type with my friends.*

12. Many jokes should not be told in polite company (reverse).

13. I feel very comfortable sharing jokes of any type with acquaintances.*

14. I would be reluctant to tell a joke to someone I really didn’t know.

15. There are many situations in life where humor is not at all appropriate (reverse).

16. I believe there should be no restrictions on when or where in using humor.

17. I would not want my father to hear a lot of jokes that I have heard (reverse).

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

51

Appendix H

Scale Items for Power Distance

1. It is important to show respect to people who have higher status than I do.
2. It is risky for less powerful people to disagree with more powerful people.*
3. Powerful people are unapproachable.

4. The decisions of people with high status should not be opposed.*

5. I use polite language when I am talking to a person who has higher status than I do.
6. A person’s status is not at all important for communication (reverse).
7. Powerful people seldom ask for the opinion of less powerful people.
8. I would be likely to follow the advice of a more powerful person.*

9. I would feel comfortable when I disagree with a person of higher status (reverse).

Note. * Items retained after conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

52

Appendix I

Scale Items for Topics of Jokes

1. In general, I think jokes about animals are funny.

2. Jokes which involve a play on words are often quite funny.

3. I think that jokes about sex are funny.

4. I consider jokes about women and “feminine” behaviors to be funny.

5. I consider jokes involving female body parts to be very funny.

6. I consider jokes about family members especially mother-in-laws to be very funny.
7. I think jokes about men and manly behaviors are very funny.

8. I think that jokes about male body parts are often very funny.

\0

. I think that jokes about body functions (e. g. farting, burping, etc.) are very funny.

10. I think jokes about bosses are very funny.

11. I think jokes about foreigners are very funny.

12. In my opinion jokes about celebrities (e. g. Winona Ryder shoplifting) are very funny.
13. Jokes about religion are funny (e.g. priests, the pope, etc.).

14. Jokes about politics and politicians are usually pretty funny to me (e.g. Bill Clinton,
Dick Cheney, George Bush, other world leaders).

15. Jokes about people who lack intelligence are really funny.

16. I find ethnic jokes are generally very funny.

17. I think jokes about people with different sexual orientations are funny.

18. Self-deprecating jokes putting down yourself are very funny.

19. Jokes which criticize the selfish behavior of other people are generally funny in my

53

experience.

20. Jokes about exceptionally smart people who don’t ‘fit in’ are funny in my estimation.
21. I think that raunchy jokes are very funny.

22. Jokes about fat people are often very funny.

23. I think “bathroom jokes” are funny.

24. Social satire is funny.

54

Appendix J

Joke which Subjects Provided and Five Categories of Jokes

American Jokes

1. Aggressive Jokes

Your momma is so fat that she uses a pair of school buses as roller skates.

“I hear a French theorist has determined that Mike Tyson’s erratic behavior and mental
instability are a result of his ‘fear of fighting.”’ Wow, I did not know that Mike Tyson was
French!”

The MSU / U of M joke was funny.*

Your momma is so stupid she thought a quarterback was a refund.

Jokes making fun of dumer or other smart people.*

Yo mama so stupid she got locked in a grocery store and starved!

2. Sexual Jokes

Frank is trapped on an island with Brad Pitt and Pamela Anderson, which one does he
do? Brad Pitt.

A girl comes home to an angry husband but does not know why he won’t tell her. Finally
the day goes by and it’s time for bed. They do their thing and later on the guy states what
was wrong in a journal. He says Ireland lost to England in soccer. But still got the ride.
Why are men always better at business when having sex? Because they are plugged into a
genius.

I asked for a 12 inch penis not a one foot pianist.

Guy walks into a bar, and orders rd. of 6 shots. Bartender said, “What happened?” The

55

guy said,

“My brother is gay.” Next day, the guy orders 6 more shots, saying “Other brother is
gay.” The next day, Next day, the guy orders 6 more shots. Bartender asked, “Doesn’t
anybody in your family like women?” The guy said, “Yeah, my wife.”

What are the best kind of Bees? Boobies.

3. Sick Jokes

What did one burp say to the other burp? Let’s be stinkers and go out the other end.

If I was a fly I’d be all over you because you are the “shit.”

4. Social Jokes

How many Lutherans does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. They do not believe in
change.

“I hear a French theorist has determined that Mike Tyson’s erratic behavior and mental
instability are a result of his ‘fear of fighting.’” Wow, I did not know that Mike Tyson was
French!”
Why is the world messed up right now? The best rapper is white, the best golfer is black,
France is calling the US. arrogant, and Germany does not want to go to war.

The world has gone wrong when the most popular names in the media are Bush, Dick,
and Colin.

5. Neutral Jokes

What does JAP make for dinner? Restaurants.

What does snoop dog use to wash his clothes? Bleeoch!

What do Bee’s sit on? Their Bee-hides.

“I saw your mom standing at the bus stop with a lot of bags, so I gave her a ride.” “Oh,

56

thanks. That was nice of you.” “She had a whole lot of stuff, and I asked what she had in
all of those

bags. She replied ‘none of your business’.” “My mom said that?” “Yeah, I was surprised,
too.

Since she seemed to be mad, I didn’t talk for the rest of the ride home.” “Oh, my! She
must have been tired.” “Well, I found it weird that she left her bags in the car with me.”
“Well, what was in the bags?” “None of your business!!!”

Knock-Knock Joke.*

Why did you see that new pirate movie? It’s rated ARRRR.

What did the jogging dinosaur say to the other dinosaur? I have dino-sores on my feet!
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.*

What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing. You already told her twice.
Why did the coach go to the bank? To get his quarter back.

Why did the turtle cross the road? To get to the shell station.

Why don’t you play poker in the jungle? They are too many Cheetahs.

Do you know why I wear sneakers? So I can sneak around in them.

A grasshopper walked into a bar. The bartender said, “Hey, we have a drink named often
you.” The grasshopper said, “You have a drink named Steve?”

Why did Mary Bresnahan cross the road? To go to her class.

A men walked into a bar, and said, “Ouch!”

Why was 6 afraid of 7? Because 7, 8, 9.

Why did the number 6not want to be next to the number 7? Because 7,8,9.

Why are pirate jokes always funny? They just arrrphh.

57

What do you get when you cross a bulldog with a shithzu? A bullshit.

Note. * Jokes provided by more than once.

Korean Jokes

1. Aggressive Jokes

711:1 :ng 5011 4.93:- 9. 73 59-0 31 ‘31 trial-'43. /I enjoy disparaging comments on human
conditions which were shown in a comedy program.

Yo mama *1 E125. / Series of Yo Mama jokes.

Aiii-19,1 7H 9% El 5‘: L811 ”11111:: $1471. / Criticizing others’ characters.

2. Sexual Jokes

X14311} Eiéz‘tloll raft-0171 and. 31611} Bile-101 $911 ‘33}01 We: 93.95: Effifltlr. 1&8:

"101%3114 1:3291 749301214. 611ml 1:17-51 3376' 01 $11 ‘Béflfil. 121] *1 Bl Fri-015: :1

ulol gel Ll 3:59] %-‘%:1 Lil cl itL'l. :L~E-°- "'6! 188151 $2115}. :liéi til 01}: ‘2‘ 8%. Bl idill i{Ml
X17334 «El—157} 2101 kit}. "0* 1%: 94% Bléi-Ol. 771101 Li 5H CH1 21411191 El??? 0121511 There lived
a flea in a beard of a musical conductor. One day, the flea decided to move out, as the
conductor’s conducting action was disturbing him. The other place the flea moved into
was a bush under the arms of a female violinist. However, the place was not good to live
either, because she played the violin too enthusiastically for the flea to take a rest under
her arms. So, the flea moved down into a bush between her legs. The place was the best
to live, as it was quite quiet. The flea was greatly satisfied with his new place. One day,
however, the flea fell in a faint, shocked by an abrupt thunderstorm. When the flea woke
up far later, he found himself to come back to a beard of the conductor.

Fruit 40] 7374a] Oll til :11 w°rvl. /Jokes about sex between a husband and a wife.

58

3. Sick Jokes

There was no joke provided by Korean subjects.

4. Social Jokes

E1491 01313 $1 {5’- = 515%.}: $751 4121. /Bush’s Iraq attack = Gas station attack.

A1331 E21} /I enjoy diverse social satires.*

751 3ft} 011% EEO“ E EE 30?}E01 E01 2131. /D00 Hwan Chun, pre-president, has a deposit
of only thirty thousand won (Korean currency) in his bank account.

71741 EE 01] til <5} H1580] E01 7lE EDI. /Jokes on material progress in a society.

“’ZEEE £112,123,: 61’: 2EMIE Blair‘s E PM. / Jokes of which target are professors, which
intended to criticize research conditions in Korea.

E41 Ell-E93 oil Cll {at E01 E.* /Jokes on a president, Bush.*

‘21 alt-Hon til 8.} °r°r”l E / Jokes on Bin Laden.

tllE'v’é EE :95. tt1; rE-E: EEEOI EOIEEI, 2EEz°lE°ll *1 36012351, 3EE: BMW EOlEEl. 4%-
E: 315401] *1 E01134 / How to grade presidents; grade 1: a people likes a president, grade
2: an opposition party likes a president, grade 3: the government party likes a president,
grade 4: the enemy country likes a president.

5. Neutral Jokes

53 E01 *1 {1l 1" / Dung-Da-Ri Series (Dung-Da-Ri is a name of an imaginary character. The
Dung-Da-Ri storied are based on his absurd behavior and word-playing).*

tilEOl *1 {113.7 Man-Deuk-Yi Series (Man-Deuk is a name of an imaginary character. The
Man-Deuk-Yi stories based on his absurd behavior and word-playing)“

42a 01 53811533] 1:41 E371 (ERIE-Oi. E6. Lita, 59%. 5313111113 Elana] ti. 0:1 Ill-E, {WC-l!) / Sa-
Oh-Jung’s singing a song of Teletubbies. (Sh-Oh-Jung is an imaginary character in a

Chinese old novel. He has a trouble in hearing. So, he always sings a weird song on the

59

basis of his own understanding, which causes others to laugh.)

E‘Efl 6315519. E 7W1 El—- ”£23310“ EE BEE: fi’fli‘vl ‘EEEE [ll—Elli. 313151 $4 EEElJHow to
put an elephant into a refrigerator: Let an elephant eat a refrigerator, and then turn the
elephant inside out.

711:1 ENE (KBS 252.1%!)01141 AlEal 711:1 0301E-7MBL 24,315 4E3]; Edgaoq 7,3 ,4 2,2.
1.134 711%le EE LEE 0] LlE—J Comedy about dialects, which was shown in a comedy
program, Gag Concert. Comedians translated English into several Korean dialects not
into standard Korean language.

E111 EEUH 01 01971 (711 :1 EM 591 21E) / Stories about Woobee bothers, which is one of
comedy programs in Korea.

13191 EEE? 5E. (‘61 7i REEI’E 12?)! Eoll Al.)/What is a temperature ofa rain? 5 ° C.
(Pronunciation of ‘5 ° C’ in Korean is the same with the pronunciation of an inflected
form of ‘fall,’ in Korean. Thus, the answer came from a sentence, ‘the rain falls,’ 1n
Korean.)

61E 711: /I enjoyed jokes just for fun.

L; ”:el E SEE ° gloll 0% iE E 3.- EE WorDlJ When comedians dance very clumsily.

E 511 E‘i‘ = EH ”1 BU Skin-colored helmet = a bald head.

EEE E‘é-l/ Word-playing jokes.*

E1 E3} "all “8137} 551E011, 9337i 01 EE 11 E61 21 EC} EE EEEOl l"ill Million 711 EEG. “E.

7l 71 E ‘61 Efllfr‘. C 08151 210i?" 1E1 11 “all “153.71 2‘le E. “flit E2101] E’d Ethic?” / Homerun Ball
and Pai-Pai-Ro were friends. Kan-Cho harassed them. Homerun Ball said to Pai-Pai-Ro,
“why do you endure Kancho’s unbearable behavior? You are taller than he.” Pai-Pai-Ro
said, “Did you see a tattoo on his back?” (Homerun Ball, Pai-Pai-Ro, and Kan-Cho are

names of Korean cookies. Pai-Pai-Ro is thick and long. Kan-Cho is round, but has animal

60

figures on it.)

El E‘E *l a] 333' / Choi Bul Am Series. (Choi Bul Am is one of Korean male TV actors.
These stories are based on his silly behaviors.)

‘21?” 01337} 70ngg. gigs}, :42qu; ‘Pressany key’alil EEC}. 1311} {l z’?}*&l,“Any Key7l 0191013?”
/ Bill Gates gave a lecture in a class. He said, “press any key.” One student asked, raising
his hand, “where is any key?”

HIE—E EM XI ‘3} EE UHE ClE 0] 01:7]. / Jokes based on words which have the similar
pronunciation but different meanings.

E01 Lil?— Elfin EEO) E $13117} LEE 7&1 E01 7L1 fil‘fiq. E E0] CVRlEl. “El 6H:- 723 LMl?” E
:11 E14 olE-E HO] 0MB} “WE 7l°l7l31 2121:}. /Two drunken guys were walking on the
street, leaning against the wall. A police came up to them, and asked, “what are you doing
here?” The two guys found themselves to be creeping on the street, but leaning against
the wall.

Ll-‘s: E 15:}! LH EEE 2+3— :E! OlUlZl—E EX] 1:2}! 93%?le E31 EZlZloll-E EEEOI alt}. Bl
{’4 Oil D) Bl EEO] flCl-E Bi. / I am a big monk. My brother is a small monk. My father is a
head monk. Our family members are common in one thing: we are all bald. (Korean
Buddhist monks have all their hair cut when they become monks.)

EA} Apple-‘4 EA}?! E? Apologizeuli‘JrSlCL) / What is the verb for ‘APPLE’? APPOLOGIZE.
(In Korean, the pronunciation of apple is the same with the pronunciation of a suffix of
Korean verb for ‘appologize.’)

93¢“ ‘21 *3 CH 31*}. 7}]?171. /Vocal mimicry.

I)l El 21 AWE-‘3} 4E Lit? 0] 0M. /A story of long-headed people and a long hair person.
(This joke is based on Korean homonyms. Head and hair can be pronounced the same in

Korean.)

61

E38019} 11924017} 7lE°l E011 21,11 7}?" El am. 121 1} E38017} 21 E0101] 71],“Olr, E ’30}. KM

EL} “E El!" / A snail, and an earthworm were on a turtle’s back. A snail said to an
earthwarm, “Be careful! Grab anything available. This guy is unbelievably fast!”

01 L31 E71 *3 “431011 E E7l 6%} 77101 91‘215l = ‘E’Yl 010W]. /A transcript for this semester has
one ‘Woo.’ = Funny story. (Woo is one Korean style grade indicator like a grade ‘B’. ‘Has
one Woo’ in the Korean sentence of ‘a transcript for this semester has one ‘Woo’, has the

same pronunciation of ‘be funny’ in Korean.)

Note. * Jokes provided by more than once.

62

TABLES AND FIGURE

63

Table 1

Bivariate Correlations among Nine Subscales and Age

 

Subscale F1 F8 FR GPI GPS GPR GSH SAH PD Age

 

FI _ .13 .28** -.03 .03 -.O7 .11 -.01 -.01 -.22*
PS _ .07 .14 .04 -.03 .21* .19* .08 —.18*
FR _ .11 -.05 .12 -.09 -.06 .09 .18*
GPI __ -.10 .25** .15 .17 .16 .23*
GPS _ -.07 .50** .38** .06 -.34*
GPR _ .11 .17 -.11 .21*
GSH A _ .60** -.08 -.46*
SAH _ -.15 -.23*
PD _ .04
Age

 

Note. F] = funniness of an incongruity joke. F S = funniness of a superiority joke. FR = funniness
of a relief joke. GPI = general perception of incongruity humor. GPS = general perception of
superiority humor. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.
SAH = social appropriateness of humor. PD = power distance.

*p <.05. **p <01.

64

Table 2

Means for Nine Variables for Americans and Koreans: F1, FS, FR, GP], GPS, GPR, GSH,

 

 

 

 

 

SAH, and PD
U.S. Korea Total
Variable M SD n M SD n M SD n
FI 3.00 1.21 68 3.18 1.98 24 3.04 1.51 92
(2.953) (1.33) (72) (2.40) (1.58) (60) (2.70) (1.47) (132)
FS 3.73 1.35 60 3.29 1.42 29 3.59 1.38 89
(3.48C) (1.38) (72) (2.66) (1.44) (60) (3.11) (1.46) (132)
FR 2.64 1.29 38 3.458 1.62 32 3.03 1.49 70
(2.22) (1.24) (72) (2.753) (1.53) (60) (2.46) (1.40) (132)
GPI 4.94 1.01 72 5.372, 1.04 60 5.65 .97 132
GPS 4.19c 1.21 71 3.18 1.36 60 3.72 1.38 131
GPR 5.45 1.07 72 5.891, .78 60 5.14 1.04 132
GSH 6.220 .92 72 5.16 .99 60 5.73 1.09 132
SAH 4.75 1.00 72 4.22., .86 60 4.51 .98 132
PD 3.97 1.08 72 4.06 1.04 60 4.01 1.06 132

 

Note. F I = funniness of an incongruity joke. FS = funniness of a superiority joke. FR = fimniness
of a relief joke. GPI = general perception of incongruity humor. GPS = general perception of
superiority humor. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.
SAH = social appropriateness of humor. PD = power distance. ( ) = mean and standard deviation
when the data were included, in which participants reported they could not understand the
meaning of a joke.

a=p<.05,b=p<.01,c=p<.001.

65

Table 3

Means for Nine Variables for Males and Females: F1, F5, FR, GPI, GPS, GPR, GSH,

 

 

 

 

 

SAH, and PD
Male Female Total

Variable M SD N M SD n M SD N
FI 2.88 1.46 34 3.14 1.55 58 3.04 1.51 92

(2.56) (1.39) (57) (2.81) (1.53) (75) (2.70) (1.47) (132)
FS 3.37 1.49 36 3.74 1.30 53 3.59 1.38 89

(2.89) (1.45) (57) (3.28) (1.46) (75) (3.11) (1.46) (132)
FR 2.90 1.42 23 3.10 1.53 47 3.03 1.49 70

(2.30) (1.29) (57) (2.58) (1.47) (75) (2.46) (1.40) (132)
GPI 5.13 .90 57 5.14 1.14 75 5.65 .97 132
GPS 4.35C 1.17 56 3.25 1.34 75 3.72 1.38 131
GPR 5.59 .87 57 5.70 1.04 75 5.14 1.04 132
GSH 5.87 .95 57 5.63 1.18 75 5.73 1.09 132
SAH 4.71a 1.07 57 4.36 .87 75 4.51 .98 132
PD 3.98 1.27 57 4.04 .87 75 4.01 1.06 132

 

Note. F1 = funniness of an incongruity joke. F S = funniness of a superiority joke. FR = funniness
of a relief joke. GPI = general perception of incongruity humor. GPS = general perception of
superiority humor. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.
SAH = social appropriateness of humor. PD = power distance. ( ) = mean and standard deviation
when the data were included, in which participants reported they could not understand the
meaning of a joke.

a=p<.05, c=p<.001.

66

Table 4
Means for Nine Variables for Males and Females for Americans: FI, FS, FR, GPI, GPS,

GPR, GSH, SAH, and PD

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female Total
Variable M SD N M SD n M SD n
Fl 2.71 1.21 26 3.17 1.37 42 3.00 1.21 68

(2.69) (1.21) (29) (3.21,) (1.40) (43) (2.95) (1.33) (72)
F8 3.58 1.47 24 3.83 1.27 36 3.73 1.35 60
(3.45) (1.38) (29) (3.51) (1.40) (43) (2.48) (1.38) (72)

FR 2.55 1.35 11 2.74 1.29 27 2.64 1.29 38

(2.03) (1.21) (29) (2.35) (1.26) (43) (2.22) (1.24) (72)

GPI 4.99 .79 29 4.92 1.14 43 4.94 1.01 72
GPS 4.81c .98 28 3.78 1.18 43 4.19 1.21 71
GPR 5.44 .93 29 5.46 1.16 43 5.45 1.07 72
GSH 6.38 68 29 6.10 1.05 43 6.22 .92 72
SAH 3.87 1.41 29 4.04b .89 43 4.75 1.00 72
PD 5.09 1.15 29 4.52 .83 43 3.97 1.08 72

 

Note. FI = funniness of an incongruity joke. S = funniness of a superiority joke. FR = funniness
of a relief joke. GPI = general perception of incongruity humor. GPS = general perception of
superiority humor. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.
SAH = social appropriateness of humor. PD = power distance. ( ) = mean and standard deviation
when the data were included, in which participants reported they could not understand the
meaning of a joke.

a=p<01b=p<0hc=p<0m.

67

Table 5
Means for Nine Variables for Males and Females for Koreans: FI, FS, FR, GP], GPS,

GPR, GSH, SAH, and PD

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female Total

Variable

M SD N M SD n M SD n

3.41 2.09 8 3.06 1.98 16 3.18 1.32 24
H (2.42) (1.56) (28) (2.39) (1.62) (32) (2.40) (1.58) (60)

2.94 1.46 12 3.54 1.55 17 3.29 1.42 29
F8 (2.30) (1.30) (28) (2.98) (1.51) (32) (2.66) (1.44) (60)

3.23 1.46 12 3.52 1.70 21 3.45 1.62 32
FR (2.58) (1.34) (28) (2.90) (1.69) (32) (2.75) (1.53) (60)
GPI 5.29 1.00 28 5.44 1.08 32 5.37 1.04 60
GPS 3.89b 1.17 28 2.55 1.21 32 3.18 1.36 60
GPR 5.75 .79 28 6.02 .76 32 5.89 .78 60
GSH 5.35 .91 28 4.99 1.05 32 5.16 .99 60
SAH 4.10 1.13 28 4.03 .96 32 4.22 .86 60
PD 4.31 .84 28 4.14 .89 32 4.06 1.04 60

 

Note. F] = funniness of an incongruity joke. FS = funniness of a superiority joke. FR = funniness
of a relief joke. GPI = general perception of incongruity humor. GPS = general perception of
superiority humor. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.
SAH = social appropriateness of humor. PD = power distance. ( ) = mean and standard deviation
when the data were included, in which participants reported they could not understand the
meaning of a joke.

b=p<0L

68

Table 6

Inter-coder Reliability for Five Categories of Jokes

 

 

 

Aggressive Sexual Sick Social Neutral Total
American DA 1 1 .90 1 .90 .96
joke 731(— 1 1 .62 1 .74 .87
Korean DA .90 1 .90 .90 1 .94
joke 3(— .78 1 .62 .74 1 .83

 

Note. DA = degree of agreement. CK = Cohen’s Kappa.

69

Table 7

Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance of Preference with Joke Topics for Culture

 

 

Topics df F n2
Manly behavior 1 5.18* .04
Body functions 1 14.22** .09
Family members 1 27.04** .14
Less intelligent people 1 17.03** .10
Fat people 1 7.64** .05
Religion 1 3.84* .03
Raunchy joke 1 5.09* .03

 

*p<05**p<or

7O

Table 8

Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance of Preference with Joke Topics for Gender

and Interaction Term for Culture and Gender

 

 

Gender Gender x Culture
Topics df F 112 df F 112
Sex 1 5.18* .04 _ _ _
Manly behavior 1 5.99* .04 _ _ _
Female body parts 1 26.98* 16 _ _ _
Male body parts 1 8.13** .06 _ _ _
Different sexual orientation 1 26.45** .17 _ _ _
Body functions 1 6.10* .04 _ _ _
Foreigners 1 15.26** .10 _ _ _
Less intelligent people 1 14.92** .09 _ _ _
Smart people 1 18.84” .13 _ _ _
Fat people 1 24.60** . 15 __ _ _
Self-disparaging 1 18.08** .12 _ _ _
Ethnic joke 1 9.06** .06 _ _ _
Religion 1 10.25** .07 _ _ _
Raunchyjoke 1 22.16** .13 _ _ _
Politicians 1 4.05* .03 1 4.08* .03
Critics on selfish behavior 1 10.53** .07 1 5.14* .05

 

71

Table 9
Chi-square Tests for Preferred Types of Jokes by Culture and Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p n N df x?
Aggressive US 18 8 44
l 2.15
joke KO 7 3 42
Male 23 8 34
1 581*
Female 6 3 52
Sexual joke US 13 6 44
1 2.01
KO 5 2 42
Male 9 3 34
1 .02
Female 10 5 52
Sick joke US 5 2 44
1 2.00
KO 0 0 42
Male 0 0 34
1 1.34
Female 4 2 52
Social joke US 10 4 44
1 4.36*
KO 26 11 42
Male 18 6 34
1 .00
Female 17 9 52
Neutral joke US 54 24 44
1 1.32
KO 62 26 42
Male 50 17 34
1 2.02
Female 63 33 52

 

Note. US = the United States. KO = Korea.
*p<05

72

Table 10
Univariate ANO VA of F unniness of Three Jokes for Culture and Gender ( Under a Control

for Age)

 

Source df F P

 

Incongruity Joke

 

 

Culture (C) 1 (1) .00 (.59) .97 (.44)
Gender (G) 1 (1) .08 (.48) .78 (.49)
C x G 1 (1) 2.06 (.84) .16 (.36)
Error 86 (126)

Superiority Joke

Culture (C) 1 (1) 1.95 (6.57**) .17 (.01)
Gender (G) 1(1) 1.66 (1.23) .20 (.29)
C x G 1(1) .20 (1 .06) .64 (.30)
Error 84 (126)

Relief joke

Culture (C) 1 (1) .05 (1.43) .83 (.23)
Gender (G) 1 (1) .09 (1.58) .76 (.21)
C x G 1 (1) .05 (.01) .83 (.94)
Error 65 (126)

 

Note. ( ) = results when whole subjects were included.
** p <01.

73

Table 1 1

Univariate ANO VA of General Perception of Three Processes of Humor for Culture and

Gender (Under a Control for Age)

 

 

 

Source df F n
Incongruity

Culture (C) 1 .00 .00
Gender (G) 1 .17 .00
C X G 1 .04 .00
Error 126

Superiority

Culture (C) 1 9.51** .05
Gender (G) 1 31.99*** .18
C X G 1 .36 .00
Error 125

 

Tension-relief

Culture (C) 1 1.93 .00
Gender (G) 1 .63 .00
C X G 1 .39 .00
Error 126

 

**p <.01. ***p <.001.

74

Table 12

Summary of Common Regression Line Models between Three Processes of Humor and

Social Appropriateness of Humor for Country

 

 

 

 

Adjusted Incremental
B SEB B VIF dfl dfz R2 F
Relief
Age -
.02 .26** 1.05
.06 2 128 .08 6.39**
SAH .22 .09 .22* 1.05
Superiority
Age -
.03 -.26*** 1.05
-09 2 127 .21 17.66***
SAH .47 .11 .33*** 1.05
Incongruity
Age -
.02 .28** 1.05
-07 1 126 .08 6.82**
SAH .23 .92 .22** 1.05

 

Note. SAH = social appropriateness of humor.
*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

75

Table 13

Regression of Superiority Processes of Humor and Social Appropriateness of Humor for

 

 

 

 

Gender
Adjusted Incremental
B SE B 8 VIF dfl dt2 R2 F
Model 1
SAH .53 .12 .38*** 1.00 1 129 .14 21.36***
Model 2
SAH .45 .11 .32*** 1.03
l 128 .25 19.76***
Gender (G) .95 .21 .34*** 1.03
Model 3
SAH .42 .11 .31 *** 1.07
Gender (G) .95 .22 .34*** 1.03 1 127 .24 .15
SAH X G .09 .22 .03 1.04

 

Note. SAH = social appropriateness of humor. Model 1: common regression line model. Model 2:

common slope and separate intercept model. Model 3: separate slope and separate intercept

model.
*** p <.001.

76

Table 14

Regression of Relief Processes of Humor and Power Distance for Country

 

 

 

 

Adjusted Incremental
B SE B 5 VIF dfl df2 R2 F

Model 1
Age .05 .02 -.12* 1.00

2 128 .04 3.93*
PD -.11 .08 -.12 1.00
Model 2
Age .02 .03 .09 2.13
PD -.11 .08 -. 12 1.00 1 127 .05 1.82
Culture (C) -.33 .24 -.17 2.13
Model 3
Age .03 .03 .11 2.14
PD -.10 .08 -.11 1.01

1 126 .08 452*
Culture (C) -.29 .24 -. 15 2.14
PDXC -.34 .16 -.18* 1.01

 

Note. PD = power distance. Model 1: common regression line model. Model 2: common slope

and separate intercept model. Model 3: separate slope and separate intercept model.

*p<05

77

Table 15

Separate Regression Analyses of Three Processes of Humor and General Sense of Humor

 

for Country
B SE B B Adjusted R2
Incongruity
Age -.02 .08 -.03
US .10**
GSH .39 .12 .36**
Age .07 .03 .28*
KO .08*
GSH .28 .14 .27*
Superiority
Age -.01 .10 -.01
US .08*
GSH .42 .15 .32*
Age -.11 .04 -.03
KC 23*“:
GSH .67 .17 .50***
Relief
Age -.04 .09 -.05
US .03
GSH .27 .14 .23*
Age -.05 .03 .26*
KO .13*
GSH .32 .10 .39**

 

Note. GSH= general sense of humor.

* p <.05. ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

78

Table 16

Regression of Relief Processes of Humor and General Sense of Humor for Country

 

Adjusted Incremental

 

 

B SEB B v1F dfl dfz R2 F
Modell
Age -.08 .02 .33*** 1.26
2 128 .09 6.81**
GSH .23 .08 .26** 1.26
Mode12
Age —.04 .03 .18 2.18
GSH .28 .09 .31** 1.36 1 127 .11 4.58*

Culture (C) -.52 .24 -.27* 2.29

 

Model 3
Age -.04 .03 .16 2.30
GSH .28 .09 .31** 1.36
1 126 .10 .06
Culture (C) -.52 .25 -.27* 2.31
GSH X C -.04 .18 -.02 1.07

 

Note. GSH = general sense of humor. Model 1: common regression line model. Model 2:
common slope and separate intercept model. Model 3: separate slope and separate intercept
model.

*p <.05. ** p <.01. ***p <.001.

79

Table 17

Regression of General Perception of Superiority Humor and General Sense of Humor for

 

 

 

 

Gender
Adjusted Incremental
B SE B B VIF Dfl dt2 R2 F

Model 1

GSH .64 .10 .50*** 1.00 1 129 .25 43.82***
Model 2

GSH .59 .09 .47*** 1.01

1 128 .36 24.27***

Gender (G) .96 .20 .35*** 1.01

Model 3

GSH .62 .09 .49*** 1.06

Gender (G) .95 .19 .34*** 1.01 1 127 .37 2.23
GSHXG .28 .19 .11 1.05

 

Note. GSH = general sense of humor. Model 1: common regression line model. Model 2:

common slope and separate intercept model. Model 3: separate slope and separate intercept

model.
*** p <.001.

80

Table 18

Regression of Social Appropriateness of Humor and General Sense of Humor for Gender

 

Adjusted Incremental

 

 

 

B SE B 5 VIF dfl d12 R2 F

Model 1
GSH .56 .07 .60*** 1.00 1 130 .35 7234*“
Model 2
GSH .52 .11 .32*** 1.01

1 129 .36 2.57
Gender (G) .22 .21 .34 1.01
Model 3
GSH .56 .06 .62*** 1.06
Gender (G) 20 .17 .10 1.01 1 128 .38 5.97*
GSHXG .32 .13 .17* 1.05

 

Note. GSH = general sense of humor. Model 1: common regression line model. Model 2:

common slope and separate intercept model. Model 3: separate slope and separate intercept

model.

* p <.05. ***p <.001.

81

SAH

GPS
o—xmwbmmwoocoo
..._,..

Figure 1. Separate intercept and common slope model for the relationship between social
appropriateness of humor and general perception of superiority humor for gender.

Note. GPS = general perception of relief humor. SAH = social appropriateness of humor.

82

 

 

'O'Ko
7 "'._US
6':
5*
m41
8
3.
2:
1'
0% 7 _ 7
PD

 

 

 

Figure 2. Separate intercept and separate slope model for the relationship between power
distance and general perception of relief humor for culture (Under a control for age).

Note. GPR = general perception of relief humor. PD= power distance.
Doted line for Korean data indicates a slope is not significant.

83

 

5.2 .
5 l / l
4.8 l
j 334.6
04.4 y
4.2
3.8 l f ”r h
GSH 1

Figure 3. Separate intercept and common slope model for the relationship between
general sense of humor and general perception of relief humor for culture (Under a
control for age).

Note. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH= general sense of humor.

84

GSH

Figure 4. Separate intercept and common slope model for the relationship between
general sense of humor and general perception of superiority humor for gender.

Note. GPS = general perception of relief humor. GSH = general sense of humor.

85

Figure 5. Separate intercept and separate slope model for the relationship between
general sense of humor and social appropriateness of humor for gender.

Note. SAH = social appropriateness of humor. GSH = general sense of humor.

86

BIBLOGRAPHY

87

Biblography

Apter, M. J ., & Smith, K. C. P. (1977). Humour and the theory of psychological reversals.
In A. J. Chapman, & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing humour (pp. 95-100).
OxfordzPergamon Press.

 

Basabe, N., Paez, D., Valencia, J ., Rime, B., Pennebaker, J ., Diener, E, & Gonzalez, J. L.
(2000). Sociocultural factors predicting subjective experience of emotion: A
collective level analysis. Psicothema42, 55—69.

Berger, A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Brodzinsky, D. N., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a fianction of sex of subject,
creativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44,
597-600.

Castell, P. J ., & Goldsten, J. H. (1976). Social occasions of joking: A cross-cultural study.
In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing humour (pp. 193-197).
Oxford. UK: Pergamon Press.

Crawford, M. (1989). Humor in conversational context: Beyond biases in the study of
gender and humor. In R. Unger (Ed), Representations: Social constructions of
gender (pp. 155-166). New York: Baywood.

Crawford, M., & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring, and context: Women’s and
men’s accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

15(20),217-231.

Darwin, C. (1955). The Expression of the emotions in man and animals (M.Mead, Ed.).
New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1872).

Decker, W. H., & Lotondto, D. N. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor, and
perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 450-465.

Edelmann, R. (1990). Embarrassing and blushing: Factors influencing face-saving
strategies. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The Challege of Facework (pp.231-267).
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Esar, E. (1952). The humor of humor. New York: Bramhall House.

 

88

F einberg, L. (1971). Asian laughter: An anthology of oriental satire and humor. New York:
J. Weatherill.

Fink, E., & Walker, B. (1977). Humorous responses to embarrassment. Psychological
Reports, 40, 475-485.

Freud, G (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconsciousness (J. Strachey, Trans).
Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Original work published 1905).

Forabosco, G, & Ruch, W. (1994). Sensation seeking, social attitudes, and humor
appreciation in Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 515-528.

 

Giles, H., & Oxford, G. S. (1970). Towards a multidimensional theory of laughter

causation and its social implications. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society,
23, 97-105. '

Goldstein, J. H. (1976). Cross cultural research: Humour here and there. In A. J. Chapman,
& H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing humour (pp. 167-174). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.

Grotjahn, M. (1957). Beyond laughter: A psychoanalytical approach to humor. New York:
McGraw Hill.

Gruner, C. (1978). Understanding laughter: The workings of wit and humor. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.

 

Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of
Pragmatics. 32, 709-742.

Hobbes, T. (1651/ 1968). Leviathan (C.B. Macpherson, Trans). Baltimore: Penguin Books.
(Original work published 1872).

Hofstede, G H. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of
cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 7, 46-75.

Hofstede, G H. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal
of Intercultural Relagtions, 10, 301-320.

Herzog, T. R. (1999). Gender differences in humor appreciation revisited. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 12, 441-423.

Herzog, T. R., & Hager, A. J. (1995). The prediction of preference for sexual cartoons.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 8, 385-405.

 

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies:

89

General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology. 62, 246-256.

Imahori, T., & Cupach, W. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and
management of face: US. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing
predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 193-219.

Johnson, A. M. (1991). Sex differences in the jokes college students tell. Psychological
Reports, 68, 851-854.

Jones, J. M. (1970). Cognitive factors in the appreciation of humor: A theoretical and
experimental analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International Vol. 31(6-A).

Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). Early conception of humor: Varieties and issues. In J. Goldstein,
& P. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 4—42). New York: Academic
Press.

Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A
conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.

Kuiper, N. A., & Rod, A. M. (1992). Sense of humor and enhanced quality of life.
Personality and Individual Differences. 13, 1273-1283.

La Fave, L., & Mannell, R. (1976). Does ethnic humor server prejudice? Journal of
Communication, 26, 116-123.

 

Lee, H. O., & Rogan, R. G (1991) A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict
management behaviors. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(3), 181-
199.

Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Prkachin, K. M., & Mills, D. E. (1997). Humor as a stress
moderator in the prediction of blood pressure obtained during five stressful tasks.
Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 523-542.

Liao, C. (1998). Jokes, humor and Chinese people. China: The Crane Publishing.

Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in
communication research. Communication Theory. 12(4), 423-445.

Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 20, 92-105.

 

McGhee, P. E., Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. (1990). The role of cognitive factors in children’s
metaphor and humor comprehension, Humor 3 119- 146.

 

Metts, S., & Cupach, W. (1989). Situational influence on the use of remedial strategies in

90

embarrassing predicaments. Communication Monographs, 56 151-162.

Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., & Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch sense of
humor test: Making sense of humor. New York: Avon Books.

 

Morreall, J. (1983). Taking humor seriously. Albany: State University of New York.

Mundorf, N., Bhatia, A., Zillmann, D., & Lester, P. (1988). Gender differences in humor
appreciation. Humor: International differences in humor appreciation, 1, 231-243.

Nevo, O. (1984). Appreciation and production of humor as an expression of aggression: A
study of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 15, 181-198.

Nevo, O., Aaronson, H., & Klingman, A. (1998). The development and evaluation of a
systematic program for improving sense of humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of
humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp.385-404). New York: Walter
de Gruyter.

 

Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Yin, J. L. S. (2001). Singaporean humor: A cross-cultural, cross-
gender comparison. Journal of General Psychology 128(2), 143-156.

Oppliger, P. A., & Zillmann, D. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to adolescents.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10, 421-437.

Oetzel, J ., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y, Pan, Xiaohui, Takai, J, & Wilcox,
R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China,
Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235-25 8.

Paik, Y. S., Rody, R., & Sohn, J. H. (1998). The influence of overseas assignment on self
efficacy of expatriate managers: The case of Korean managers in US. subsidiaries.
In M. A. Rahim, & R. T. Golembiewsk (Eds.), Current topics in management (pp.
329-344). Stamford: JAI Press.

Pompitakpan, C., & Francis, J. N. (2001). The effect of cultural differences, source
expertise, and argument strength on persuasion: An experiment with Canadians and
Thais. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 13, 77-101.

Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Viking.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston: D. Reidel.

Rothbart, M. K. (1973) Laughter in young children. Psychological Bulletin 80(3), 159-183.

Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity, problem solving and laughter. In A. J. Chapman, & H.

C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, researclg and application (pp. 37-54).
London: John Wiley & Sons.

91

Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. (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 a personality characteristic (pp.109-142). New
York: Walter de Gruyter.

Ruch, W., Ott, C., Accoce, L., & Bariaud, F. (1991). Cross-national comparison of humor
categories: France and Germany. International Journal of Humor Research, 4, 391-
414.

 

Sharkey, W., & Stafford, L. (1990). Response to embarrassment. Human Communication
Research, 17, 315-342.

Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of
humorous Ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13, 1-44.

Sueda, K., & Wiseman, R. (1992). Embarassment remediation in Japan and the United
States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 159-173.

Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee & J. H.
Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research (pp.39-58). New York: Springer
Verlag.

 

Sultz, T. R., & Horibe, F. (1974). Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes.
Development Psychology, 10, 13-20.

 

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1991). Sense of humor and dimensions of personality.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 799-809.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Development and validation of a multidimensional
sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 13-23.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1996). Women, aging, and sense of humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 169-186.

White, M. M., Tansky, J. A., & Baik, K. (1995). Linking culture and perceptions of justice:
A comparison of students in Virginia and South Korea. Psychological Reports, 77,
1103-1112.

Wicker, F. W., Thorelli, I. M., Barron, W. L., & Ponder, M. R. (1981). Relationships
among affective and cognitive factors in humor. Journal of Research in Personality,
Q, 359-3 70.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a
communication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 24, 191-198.

 

 

92

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In P. E.
McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research (pp. 93-116). New
York: Springer Verlag.

Zillmann, D., & Stocking, H. (1976). Putdown humor. Journal of Communication, 26,
154-153.

 

93