- Email: [email protected]
Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour—III. The prediction of appreciation of incongruity-resolution based humour by content saturated attitude scales in five samples
Person. indkid. D:fi Vol. I I, No. 5. pp. 43945. Printed in Great Bntain. All rights reserved
1990
0191-8869 90 53.00 + 0.00 Copyright C 1990 Pergamon Press plc
CONSERVATISM AS A PREDICTOR OF RESPONSES TO HUMOUR-III. THE PREDICTION OF APPRECIATION OF INCONGRUITY-RESOLUTION BASED HUMOUR BY CONTENT SATURATED ATTITUDE SCALES IN FIVE SAMPLES* FRANZ-JOSEFHEHL and WILLIBALDRUCH Institut fur Physiologische Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine University of Dusseldorf, Universititsstrasse 4000 Dusseldorf, F.R.G.
I.
(Received 9 June 1989)
Summary-Recently it was shown that appreciation of the incongruity-resolution structure in humour is mainly related to conservatism, the main factor in the attitude domain. The present study extends these findings and examines the predictive power of content based attitude scales. Five samples of altogether 663 subjects answered an inventory of attitudes and a humour test. The results generally confirm the model by showing correlations between markers of conservatism and judged funniness of incongruity-resolution humour. Attitude scales showing no correlation with conservatism also did not predict funniness of incongruity-resolution humour. Positive attitudes to sex and technical interests predicted funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of all humour categories. Attention is given to a potential link between humour and psychosomatic disturbances.
INTRODUCTION Recently we showed that appreciation of humour based on the incongruity-resolution structure is correlated with the main dimension in the attitude space, conservatism/radicalism (R). Conservatism was assessed by four different questionnaires. Conservative Ss judged incongruityresolution humour funnier than radicals (respectively liberals in the terminology of Wilson, 1973). The finding was independent of the questionnaire used. Funniness of sexual humour was correlated with toughmindedness/tendermindedness (T), the second dimension in the attitude space. The structural basis of sexual humour has to be considered too; sex jokes and cartoons based on the incongruity-resolution structure are correlated with toughmindedness and conservatism. whereas sex cartoons based on the nonsense structure are correlated with toughmindedness only. Furthermore, tenderminded Ss tended to judge all kinds of humour as more aversive than toughminded Ss (Ruth & Hehl, 1986a, b). The question arises, whether the relationship between humour and attitudes can be found when the more global R- and T-dimensions are substituted by more specific, content saturated attitude scales. Thus, it will be examined whether the level of R and T is the appropriate background for discussing individual differences in appreciation of humour or whether it is more fruitful to investigate lower order concepts. In a preliminary study (Ruth & Hehl, 1985) each of the item factors derived from a German translation of the Wilson and Patterson (1970) C-scale were shown to correlate with funniness of incongruity-resolution humour, but with different magnitudes. Whereas militarism, intolerance of minorities, and antihedonism yielded high correlations (0.44, 0.36, and 0.39), the correlations of religious fundamentalism and discipline with the humour scale were somewhat lower (0.29 and 0.28) but still significant at the 1% level. These lower order attitude factors can be considered to be marker variables of the general R-factor, since they were derived from a pool of items measuring conservatism. The question arises whether attitude scales of a d@hent content are also able to predict enjoyment of this type of humour. In the present study a questionnaire is used which was not designed to assess conservatism or components of conservatism but attitudes which are presumably related to psychosomatic *This paper is based on data presented at the 4th Meering of the KS/D, 439
Heidelberg. F.R.G.. 22-25 June 1989.
FRASZ-JOSEFHEHL and WILLIBALDRUCH
440
The IO scales tap the three general domains of attitudes to body and health, fami1.v and finally work and leisure time. Although these attitude domains were selected to be relevant for psychosomatic research one can assume that they can be located in the general attitude space, given the latter is exhaustive. Thus, firstly it will be attempted to locate these attitude concepts in the space defined by the R- and T-axes. Secondly, hypotheses will be derived regarding the prediction of humour depending on the location of the scales in the two-dimensional space. In detail, it is expected that scales correlating substantially with the R-axis will predict funniness of incongruity-resolution humour and scales correlating with the T-axis will predict funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of each of the humour categories. Given the validity of the humour model presented elsewhere (Ruth & Hehl, 1986b), there should be no substantial correlation between appreciation of humour and scales which are not related to the R- and T-factors. Finally, this study aimed to explore a possible link between humour and health since the attitude domains investigated were shown to be of relevance in psychosomatics (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983). disturbances.
and partnership,
METHOD Subjects
Five samples were employed. Sample 1 consisted of 160 (80 males, 80 females) school teachers. Their age ranged between 18 and 55 yrs with a mean of 27.9 yr and a SD of 8.4 yr. Sample 2 consisted of 156 (81 males, 75 females) adults aged between 20 and 69 yr with a mean of 30.3 yr and a SD of 4.0 yr. Sample 3 consisted of 108 (47 males, 61 females) students aged between 18 and 37 yr with a mean of 24.9 yr and a SD of 4.5 yr. Sample 4 consisted of 134 male non-psychology students aged between 18 and 31 yr: Sample 5 consisted of 105 (49 male and 56 female) non-psychology students. Their age ranged between 18 and 32 yr with a mean of 22.6 yr and a standard deviation of 2.9 yr. Material
Among other personality inventories Ss answered the following questionnaires: (1) Psychosomatischer-Einstellungs-Fragebogen; PEF [Hehl & Wirsching, 1983 (Psychosomatic Attitude Questionnaire)]. This is a 129-item, yes-no format questionnaire-constructed on the basis of the probabilistic model of RASCH (Rasch, 1960)---which assesses the degree of positive attitude in 10 attitude areas. The attitude areas covered relate to: SC&
number PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
Description of the low scorer C-j
Description of the hiah scorer (+)
Number of items
negligent neglect of health dependent disconnected from family prudish educated to submissiveness low need for achievement conscious of duty wasteful of money no interest in technical matters
well-groomed interest in health independent connected with family interest in sex educated to autonomy high need for achievement hedonistic stingy with money interest in technical matters
I? I’ Ii IS 9 9 9 I9 18 I8
(2) The 3-WD Humour Test (Ruth & Hehl, 1985). The humour test consists of jokes and cartoons (50 in Form K; 35 each in Forms A and B) which are rated on 2 unipolar 7-point scales for ‘funniness’ and ‘aversiveness’. The funniness scale represents the positive responses to humour; i.e. exhilaration and laughter. The aversiveness scale covers negative reactions like indignation, embarrassment, or boredom. Six scores can be derived: three for funniness of incongruityresolution-, nonsense- and sexual humour (i.e. INC-RESr, NON,, and SEXI) and three for their aversiveness (i.e. INC-RES,, NON,, and SEX,). In INC-RES humour the surprising incongruity induced by the punchline can be resolved completely. In nonsense humour the punchline provides no resolution at all, only a partial resolution or actually creates new absurdities or incongruities. The third category is characterized by its salient content. Additionally, in sample 5 the sex jokes and cartoons were separated according to their structure and further funniness and aversiveness
Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour
441
scores were calculated for INC-RES SEX humour (6 items), PURE SEX humour (11 items) and NON SEX humour (3 items). Sample 2 answered the 3WD-K, whereas samples 1,3,4 and 5 filled in the 3WD-A and 3WD-B (or an expanded humour item pool containing the respective 35 jokes and cartoons of these forms). The scores of both forms were combined. (3) In two of the samples conservatism questionnaires were administered as well which allowed us to test, which of the PEF-scales is correlated with conservatism. The conservatism questionnaires include the following: (a) the German version (Schneider & Minkmar, 1972) of the C-Scale (Wilson & Patterson, 1970). There are 40 items in a ‘catchphrase’ format and a trichotomous answer format. (b) the Public Opinion Inventory (POZ; Eysenck, 1976). Eighty-eight items cover three scales of Radicalism-Conservatism (POI-R), Capitalism-Socialism (POEC), and Toughmindedness-Tendermindedness (POI-T). The item format is a 5-point rating scale. (c) the MK-questionnaire by Cloetta (1983) contains 18 conservatism (MK-C) items which are to be answered on a 6-point scale. (d) the 16PF-Ql (Schneewind, Schroder & Cattell, 1983). The Ql subscale of the German version the 16PFmeasures radicalism with conservatives scoring low on it. Thus, the scores were inverted. The C-scale was administered in samples 4 and 5, whereas the others were given to Ss of sample 5 only. Furthermore, for Ss of sample 5 factor scores were available for Conservatism and Toughmindedness (Ruth and Hehl, 1986b). These factor scores (C’ and T’ respectively) were derived from a factor analysis of 20 markers of the two factors (e.g. conservatism, rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, dominance, disinhibition, superego strength, theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious interests). RESULTS In order to locate the PEF-scales in the attitude space correlations between the conservatism questionnaires and the PEF-scales were computed and are presented in Table 1. Firstly, the PEF-scales are located in the two-dimensional space defined by the factor analytically derived C- and T-axes. PEF 6 (educated to autonomy), PEF 3 (independent), PEF 7 (low need for achievement) and PEF 9 (wasteful with money) can be located at the liberal pole of the C-axis, whereas educated to submissiveness, dependent, high need for achievement and stingy with money mark the conservative pole. Three scales can be located in the diagonal; PEF 5 (prudish), PEF 8 (conscious of duty) and PEF 4 (connected with family) go along with tenderminded conservatism. There is one scale which correlated only with the T-axis; toughminded Ss seem to have more technically oriented interests (PEF 10). Finally, PEF 1 (well-groomed) has only a small correlation with conservatism and PEF 2 (interest in health) was neither correlated with the C- nor the T-axis. Accordingly, the five conservatism scales correlate positively with PEF 3 (dependent, 5 correlations significant), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness, 5), PEF 9 (stingy with money, 4), PEF 4 (connected with family, 3), PEF 5 (prudish, 3), PEF 7 (high need for achievement, 3), PEF 8 (conscious of duty, 2), and PEF 1 (well-groomed, 2). Only PEF 2 (interest in health) and PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) were not systematically related to conservatism. Thus, one can expect INC-RES, to correlate positively with PEF 1 (well-groomed), PEF 3 (dependent), PEF 4 (connected Table
PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I. Correlations
between the subscales
of the PEF and the various
mcasurcs
of conservatism
and toughmindedness
C-scalet
C-scale
16PF-01
MK-C
POI-R
POI-T
C
0.26.. 0.10 -0.21. 0.35*** -0.33*** - 0.40*** 0.41*** -0.09 0.40*** 0.06
0.15 0.21. -0.25*** 0.36**’ -0.43*** -0.50’” 0.41 l ** -0.44.” 0.27’. -0.05
0.01
0.25’. -0.03 -0.30.’ 0.12 -0.13 -0.30.’ 0.14 -0.03 0.11 0.13
0.12 0.04 -0.27.’ 0.14 -0.17 -0.37”’ 0.26*’ -0.07 0.20. 0.10
-0.10 -0.10 0.07 -0.24. 0.41*** 0.25’ -0.22’ 0.29*’
0.16
l/J < 0.05; l*P < 0.01; ‘**P
0.1s -0.31** 0.26.. -0.20. -0.35*** 0.1 I -0.25. 0.22’ -0.11
-0.18 0.07
0.18 -0.37*** 0.32.. -0.32’. -0.54*** 0.35*** -0.31** 0.37.‘. 0.05
T 0.04 -0.12 0.02 - 0.280.30** 0.04 -0.01 0.32.. 0.02 0.32**
FRANZ-JOSEF Table 2. Correlations
between funniness of incongruity-resolution samples and their weighted
Sample PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
HEHL and WILLIBALD
0.12 -0.03 -0.18’ 0.09 -0.08 -0.15 0.10 0.00 0.22’. 0.05
I
Sample
2
-0.10 0.08 -0.20’ 0.30*** -0.19. -0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.12 0.09
Sample
RUCH
humour mean
3
Sample 4
0.27.. 0.05 -0.18 0.17 -0.11 -0.22’ 0.33*** -0.12 0.34*** 0.10
0.10 0.05 -0.09 0.37*** -0.07 -0.18* 0.18. -0.01 0.24** 0.13
and the attitude
scales in the five
Sample
mean I
0.04 0.09 -0.17 -0.02 -0.19 -0.21. 0.19. -0.08 0.04 0.24.
5
o.ov 0.04 -0.17.” 0.20.” -0.13** -0.18*** 0.14** -0.04 0.19*** 0.11**
lf < 0.05; l-P < 0.01; l**IJ < 0.001. d.f. = 158, 154, 106, 132. 103 and 658 respectively.
with family), PEF 5 (prudish), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 8 (conscious of duty) and PEF 9 (stingy with money). Toughmindedness (POI-T) is mainly positively correlated with PEF 5 (interest in sex), PEF 8 (hedonistic) and PEF 4 (disconnected from family); the correlations to PEF 6 (educated to autonomy) and PEF 7 (low need for achievement) are somewhat lower. Interest in technical matters (PEF 10) is correlated with the T-axis only, and thus this scale can be predicted to correlate with funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of each of the three humour categories. Furthermore, the role of positive attitudes to sex will be examined too, since they usually are regarded to be a potent marker for toughmindedness. Nine of the 10 PEF scales are located with the one pole in the conservative/tenderminded quadrant and with the other pole in the liberal/toughminded quadrant. Table 2 shows the product-moment correlations between funniness of incongruity-resolution humour and the IO PEF-scales computed separately for the 5 samples. Although hypotheses were formulated, we applied only two-tailed tests of significance in order to avoid confusion. As expected, INC-RESr is positively correlated with PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 9 (stingy with money), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness), PEF 3 (dependent), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 5 (prudish), and PEF 1 (well-groomed). A positive correlation with PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) was found additionally. INC-RESr does not correlate with PEF 8 (conscious of duty). As expected, there is no systematic relationship with PEF 2 (interest in health). There were no hypotheses derived for funniness or nonsense, since NON, tended to be only slightly negatively related to conservatism in former studies. These correlations did not usually exceed - 0.20 and were seldom significant. The present study yields comparable results. The pattern of the correlations with NONr is opposite to the pattern of INC-RES, as far as the sign of the correlations with the markers of R-factor are concerned; however they are low and only four reach the level of significance. In addition to that, NON, is positively correlated with PEF 8 (hedonistic) in each of the five samples but only the coefficient in sample 2 reaches the level of significance (r = 0.22; P < 0.01). Funniness of sexual humour was generally positively correlated with PEF 5 (interest in sex), as expected. The coefficients are significant in only 2 samples, however (r = 0.22, P < 0.01; 0.18, P -=I0.05; 0.05; 0.05; 0.06, all NS). Furthermore, SEXr correlated consistently positively with PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) (r = 0.03, NS; 0.13, NS; 0.23, P -z 0.05; 0.20, P < 0.05; 0.22, P < 0.05) and with PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) (-0.12, NS; -0.20, NS; -0.09, NS; -0.18, P < 0.05; -0.24, P < 0.05). As expected, there are no relationships with the other attitude domains; only five of the remaining 35 correlations reached significance. Since the prediction of appreciation of sexual humour was shown to depend on the structural basis of the humour stimuli, the sex jokes and cartoons were separated according to their structure and correlated with the PEF-scales in sample 5. PEF 5 (interest in sex) correlates positively with NON SEX, (r = 0.27, P < 0.01) but not with INC-RES SEXr (r = 0.00, NS) or PURE SEXr (r = 0.02, NS). Similarly, PEF 8 (hedonistic) correlates positively with NON SEXr (r = 0.25, P < 0.01) but not with INC-RES SEXr (r = 0.06, NS) or PURE SEXr (r = 0.06, NS). PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) and PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) show the opposite pattern; they correlate significantly with INC-RES SEXt (r = 0.26, P < 0.01; r = 0.22, P < 0.05) and
Conservatism
as a predictor
of responses
to humour
443
Table 3. Correlations between PEF 5 (interest in sex). PEF IO (interest in technical matters) and aversiveness of the three humour types (incongruity-resolution. nonsenseand sexual humour) in the five samples PEF-scales PEF 5 Sample I Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 PEF IO Sample I Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
NON,
SEX,
-0.04 -0.01 -0.19’ 0.07 -0.15
-0.04 -O.lV -0.31.’ 0.04 -0.21’
-0.30”’ -0.11 -0.32**’ -0. I3 -0.24.
0.0 I -0.14 -0.07 -0.07 -0.38***
-0.18’ -0.14 -0.07 -0.30’.
INC-RES,
0.00
-0.01 -0.18’ -0.13 -0.06 -0.2W
lf < 0.05; l*f < 0.01: l**p < 0.001. d.f. = 158, 154, 106, 132 and 103 respectively.
PURE SEXr 0. = -0.25,
P < 0.01; r = 0.21, P < 0.05), but not with NON SEXr (r = 0.04, NS;
r = 0.09, NS).
The correlations between PEF 5 (interest in sex) and PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) and the aversiveness scores were computed next and are presented in Table 3. As predicted, PEF 5 (prudish) goes along with a tendency to find humour of the three categories aversive. Table 3 shows that all except two signs are negative and half of the coefficients are significant. Furthermore PEF 5 (prudish) not only predicts finding sexual humour aversive but predicts also aversiveness of nonsense and aversiveness of incongruity-resolution humour. The correlations of INC-RES, are always smaller, since this humour category is found only mildly aversive yielding a lower variance. As predicted, PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) correlates negatively with aversiveness of all humour categories in 14 out of 15 cases with 5 reaching the individual level of significance. Of the remaining 120 coefficients between aversiveness of humour and the attitude scales 14 reached significance. Although no hypotheses were derived a few results deserve to be mentioned. These correlations suggest that aversiveness of all humour categories also tends to go along with PEF 2 (interest in health; 14 coefficients positive; 3 significant). Finally, nonsense is consistently found aversive by Ss scoring high in PEF 3 (dependent) (-0.16, P < 0.05; -0.12, NS; -0.10, NS; -0.16, NS; -0.29, P < 0.01) and by Ss favouring education to submissiveness (PEF 6) (-0.19, P <0.05; -0.14, NS; -0.12, NS; -0.07, NS; -0.18, NS). DISCUSSION The data are generally in agreement with the model presented elsewhere since they show that appreciation of incongruity-resolution humour is predicted by those attitude scales which show correlations with the various conservatism scales. These findings support the model since they show that attitude scales of different content predict appreciation of INC-RES humour if they are saturated by the general R-factor. Given the content of the scales (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983), Ss appreciating INC-RES humour tend to favour control over autonomy in raising children (PEF 6), they depend on the opinion of others (PEF 3), feel strong bonds to their own family and feel responsible for the single members (PEF 4), value work, achievement and conscientiousness highly (PEF 7), tend to save money, try to be free from debt and usually buy things cheaply when shopping (PEF 9). Funniness of incongruity-resolution humour was related to technically oriented interests (PEF 10, which shows no alignment to the C-Scale) in one out of five samples only. Since the coefficients are lower than usually found for the C-scale, they suggest that individual differences in appreciation of this type of humour should be discussed at the conceptual level of the general Conservatism-Radicalism factor. Conservatism is related to the solvable humour types through its uncertainty-avoiding aspects instead of mere content overlap (Wilson, 1973). The low intercorrelation between the attitude scales suggest that a multiple regression approach would have been successful. However, such an analysis was not undertaken. The primary aim of this study was not to demonstrate that the higher order scale (C-scale) is more powerful in predicting appreciation of incongruity-resolution based humour.
4-u
FRASZ-JOSEF HEHL and
WILLIBALD RUCH
The present results as well as those of former studies suggest that conservatives try to avoid uncertainty (in the sense of information theory; i.e. ambiguity, incongruity, complexity, novelty) and value the reduction of uncertainty positively. This tendency seems to be involved in everyday conduct with the attitude objects employed in the present study as well as in enjoyment of humour or other entertainments. Thus, the present results can be used to illuminate the relationship between conservative attitudes and appreciation of humour in applying Wilson’s (1973) ‘dynamic theory of conservatism’ to the different content areas of attitudes. With respect to humour, conservatives enjoy and laugh at incongruities, only if they are resolvable. Incongruent punchlines which do not allow an explanation or resolution of the incongruity do not lead to exhilaration or laughter. Similar uncertainty avoiding strategies can be assumed for the attitude domains which turned out to be predictors of the incongruity-resolution structure in humour: conservatives are dependent on the opinion and the behaviour of others (PEF 3) because they are afraid of the incongruity to be abnormal or bad. They are connected with families (PEF 4) because they are afraid of the incongruities which can arise from conflicts and emotions. In such a family conflicts are avoided by the verbal message that all family-members like each other and there are no problems and nonverbal messages control that nobody expresses emotions or conflicts. In one study (Hehl, Eisenriegler, Jokiel & Channon, 1988) we have demonstrated that persons who are strongly connected with their family solve their problems with the other family-members better when they have no visual contact. If they do, the likelihood of expressing a divergent opinion decreases rapidly. Furthermore, education to submission (PEF 6) makes it possible to control and reduce divergent behaviour of children which is a source of conflict and incongruity too. Conscientious and achieving behaviour (PEF 7) avoids low recognition and approval by others. This tendency can also be seen in connection with the conservatives’ tendency to be dependent on the opinion of others (see PEF 3). Finally conservatives are stingy with money (PEF 9) because money reduces their anxiety of a possible adversity. These illustrations suggest that conservatives try to control, reduce or avoid uncertainties in many different life situations and hence it is quite understandable that they prefer humour which allows them to resolve the incongruity in the punchline and that they dislike humour which remains incongruous. The reduction of uncertainty in humour is a prerequisite for the induction of laughter and exhilaration. Tenderminded attitudes predict aversiveness of humour, as shown in the correlations of attitude to sex (PEF 5) and technically oriented interests (PEF 10) which can be regarded as markers of the T-factor. Interest in sex (PEF 5) correlates somewhat higher with aversiveness of sexual humour due to the additionally existing content overlap; however, interest in sex is also predictive of other humour types which have no reference to sexual themes. Thus Ss considering sexuality as pleasurable and as a part of the partnership (PEF 5) tend to judge humour not aversive and those Ss inhibited by morality find humour generally more aversive. Hence the results of the recent study (Ruth & Hehl, 1988) are replicated here. Furthermore, technical interests (PEF 10). a second marker of toughmindedness correlated with aversiveness of sexual humour. Thus. humour is rejected by Ss showing a dislike for playing with or repairing complex technical apparatuses (PEF 10). Unexpectedly, humour was found aversive by Ss tending to feel ill often, to take medicine frequently, eat and drink health foods and show health related behaviour (PEF 2). The present results support the view that attitudes are not potent predictors of funniness of nonsense humour, although finding nonsense funny always tends to go along with the liberal pole of the attitude scales. The positive association between nonsense humour (respectively sexual humour based on the nonsense structure) and positive attitudes to enjoyment of life, valuing relaxation and generally spoiling oneself positively (PEF 8) seems to reflect the correlations between funniness of nonsense and sensation seeking found recently (Ruth, 1988). Sexual humour is funnier for Ss with interest in sex, technical interest, and who are educated to submissiveness. Attitudes to sex were correlated with funniness of sexual humour more highly in recent studies (Ruth & Hehl, 1988). The lower strength of this relationship in the present study is due to two reasons. Firstly, the present attitude to sex scale has a narrower scope (containing 9 items only). Secondly, the content is mainly related to permissiveness and thus the scale is correlated with the C- and T-axis equally, whereas the attitude to sex scale (Eysenck, 1976) used
Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour
445
in the Ruth and Hehl (1988) study, was much more strongly related to toughmindedness than to conservatism. Funniness of incongruity-resolution sex humour can be predicted by scales relating to conservative toughmindedness but not by scales relating to liberal toughmindedness. The validity of separation of sexual humour according to their structural basis is supported since the subclusters showed different correlational patterns. Sexual humour based on nonsense turned out to be related to liberal sexual attitudes and to hedonism. Appreciation of sexual humour based on the incongruity-resolution structure as well as relatively ‘pure’ sex cartoons (with a salient content) tend to go along with education to submissiveness (PEF 6) and with technical interests (PEF 10). Thus, the present findings extend the ones previously found (Ruth & Hehl, 1986b, 1988): conservatism predicts the structural basis of sexual humour and toughmindedness predicts its content. The finding should be regarded as an extension to different questionnaires rather than a replication, since it is based on the same sample. Finally, the results do not contradict a possible relationship between humour and psychosomatic illness. Recently, it could be shown that anorectic patients, which are still ill, score higher on the scales PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 1 (well-groomed) and PEF 10 (no interest in technical matters) than anorectic patients after successful treatment (Deter, Petzold & Hehl, 1989). Furthermore, patients suffering from morbus-crohn, cancer, or functional cardiovascular disease showed elevated scores in PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 9 (stingy with money), PEF 5 (prudish) and PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983). The cancer patients showed this profile most clearly. Whereas some of the attitudes might have developed as a function of the disease (e.g. stronger bonds to the family), it is less likely that attitudes to sex, education, achievement, and property changed after the onset of the disease. Since these groups show an attitude profile which is similar to the profile of Ss appreciating INC-RES humour, one can expect these psychosomatic groups also to score higher in INC-RESI (and maybe lower in NONI). Mantel1 and Goldstein (1985) report data showing that Type A and Type B cardiology patients do not differ in hostile humour but they do differ in nonhostile humour, with Type A Ss showing low appreciation of nonhostile humour. In light of the results one might expect CHD-patients to show preference for INC-RES over NON humour. REFERENCES Cloetta. B. (1983). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Machiavellismus
und Konservatismus
M. K. Schweizerische
Zeitschrifl Psychologie Anwendungen, 42, 127-l 59.
Deter, H.-C., Pezold, E. & Hehl, F.-J. (1989). Differenzierung der Langzeitwirkungen einer stationaren psychosomatischen Therapie von Anorexia-Nervosa-Patienten. Zeifschrifr psycho-somatische Medizin 35, 68-91. Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sex and personality. London: Open Books. Hehl, F.-J. & Ruth, W. (1984). Are humourous people better in coping with stress? Paper presented at the Humor Conference in Tel-Aviv, Israel, June 1984. Hehl, F.-J. & Wirsching, M. (1983). Psychosomarischer Einsrellungs-Fragebogen (PEF). Handanweisung. Giittingen: Hogrefe. Hehl, F.-J., Eisenriegler, E., Jokiel, R. & Channon, S. (1988). The negative function of nonverbal communication in anorexic families: A familv exoeriment. In Saklofske. D. H. & Eysenck, S. B. G.), Individual differences in children and adolescents __ (pp. S&63). London: Hodder & Stoughton. _ Mantell, M. & Goldstein, J. H. (1985). Humor and the coronary-prone behavior pattern. Paper presented at the Humour Conference in Cork, Ireland, June 1985. Minuchin. S., Rosman, B. L. & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families. Anorexia nercosa in context. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Kopenhagen: Nielson & Lydicke. Ruth, W. (1988). Sensation seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of humour: Stability of findings across four samples. Personality and Individual Dlflerences, 9, 861-87 I. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1985). Diagnose des Humors-Humor als Diagnostikum. In Hehl, F.-J., Ebel, V. & Ruth, W. (Eds), Diagnosrik psychischer und psychophysiologischer StBrungen (pp. 253-325). Bonn: DPV. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1986a). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour--I. A comparison of four scales. Personality and Individual D@erences,
7, I-14.
Ruth. W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1986b). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour-II. The location of sense of humour in a comprehensive personality space. Personalirv and Individual D#erences, 7, 861-874. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1988). Sexual behaviour, attitudes to sex and the enjoyment of humour. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 983-994.
Schneewind, K. A., Schroder, G. & Cattell, R. B. (1983). Der 16-Persiinlichkeits-Faktoren-Test Schneider, J. & Minkmar, H. (1972). Deutsche Neukonstruktion einer Konservativismusskala. Wilson, G. D. (1973). The psychology of consercurism. London: Academic Press. Wilson, G. D. & Patterson, J. R. (1970). The conserwtism scule. Windsor, Berks: NFER.
(16 PF). Bern: Huber. Diagnosrica, IS, 37-48.
1990
0191-8869 90 53.00 + 0.00 Copyright C 1990 Pergamon Press plc
CONSERVATISM AS A PREDICTOR OF RESPONSES TO HUMOUR-III. THE PREDICTION OF APPRECIATION OF INCONGRUITY-RESOLUTION BASED HUMOUR BY CONTENT SATURATED ATTITUDE SCALES IN FIVE SAMPLES* FRANZ-JOSEFHEHL and WILLIBALDRUCH Institut fur Physiologische Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine University of Dusseldorf, Universititsstrasse 4000 Dusseldorf, F.R.G.
I.
(Received 9 June 1989)
Summary-Recently it was shown that appreciation of the incongruity-resolution structure in humour is mainly related to conservatism, the main factor in the attitude domain. The present study extends these findings and examines the predictive power of content based attitude scales. Five samples of altogether 663 subjects answered an inventory of attitudes and a humour test. The results generally confirm the model by showing correlations between markers of conservatism and judged funniness of incongruity-resolution humour. Attitude scales showing no correlation with conservatism also did not predict funniness of incongruity-resolution humour. Positive attitudes to sex and technical interests predicted funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of all humour categories. Attention is given to a potential link between humour and psychosomatic disturbances.
INTRODUCTION Recently we showed that appreciation of humour based on the incongruity-resolution structure is correlated with the main dimension in the attitude space, conservatism/radicalism (R). Conservatism was assessed by four different questionnaires. Conservative Ss judged incongruityresolution humour funnier than radicals (respectively liberals in the terminology of Wilson, 1973). The finding was independent of the questionnaire used. Funniness of sexual humour was correlated with toughmindedness/tendermindedness (T), the second dimension in the attitude space. The structural basis of sexual humour has to be considered too; sex jokes and cartoons based on the incongruity-resolution structure are correlated with toughmindedness and conservatism. whereas sex cartoons based on the nonsense structure are correlated with toughmindedness only. Furthermore, tenderminded Ss tended to judge all kinds of humour as more aversive than toughminded Ss (Ruth & Hehl, 1986a, b). The question arises, whether the relationship between humour and attitudes can be found when the more global R- and T-dimensions are substituted by more specific, content saturated attitude scales. Thus, it will be examined whether the level of R and T is the appropriate background for discussing individual differences in appreciation of humour or whether it is more fruitful to investigate lower order concepts. In a preliminary study (Ruth & Hehl, 1985) each of the item factors derived from a German translation of the Wilson and Patterson (1970) C-scale were shown to correlate with funniness of incongruity-resolution humour, but with different magnitudes. Whereas militarism, intolerance of minorities, and antihedonism yielded high correlations (0.44, 0.36, and 0.39), the correlations of religious fundamentalism and discipline with the humour scale were somewhat lower (0.29 and 0.28) but still significant at the 1% level. These lower order attitude factors can be considered to be marker variables of the general R-factor, since they were derived from a pool of items measuring conservatism. The question arises whether attitude scales of a d@hent content are also able to predict enjoyment of this type of humour. In the present study a questionnaire is used which was not designed to assess conservatism or components of conservatism but attitudes which are presumably related to psychosomatic *This paper is based on data presented at the 4th Meering of the KS/D, 439
Heidelberg. F.R.G.. 22-25 June 1989.
FRASZ-JOSEFHEHL and WILLIBALDRUCH
440
The IO scales tap the three general domains of attitudes to body and health, fami1.v and finally work and leisure time. Although these attitude domains were selected to be relevant for psychosomatic research one can assume that they can be located in the general attitude space, given the latter is exhaustive. Thus, firstly it will be attempted to locate these attitude concepts in the space defined by the R- and T-axes. Secondly, hypotheses will be derived regarding the prediction of humour depending on the location of the scales in the two-dimensional space. In detail, it is expected that scales correlating substantially with the R-axis will predict funniness of incongruity-resolution humour and scales correlating with the T-axis will predict funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of each of the humour categories. Given the validity of the humour model presented elsewhere (Ruth & Hehl, 1986b), there should be no substantial correlation between appreciation of humour and scales which are not related to the R- and T-factors. Finally, this study aimed to explore a possible link between humour and health since the attitude domains investigated were shown to be of relevance in psychosomatics (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983). disturbances.
and partnership,
METHOD Subjects
Five samples were employed. Sample 1 consisted of 160 (80 males, 80 females) school teachers. Their age ranged between 18 and 55 yrs with a mean of 27.9 yr and a SD of 8.4 yr. Sample 2 consisted of 156 (81 males, 75 females) adults aged between 20 and 69 yr with a mean of 30.3 yr and a SD of 4.0 yr. Sample 3 consisted of 108 (47 males, 61 females) students aged between 18 and 37 yr with a mean of 24.9 yr and a SD of 4.5 yr. Sample 4 consisted of 134 male non-psychology students aged between 18 and 31 yr: Sample 5 consisted of 105 (49 male and 56 female) non-psychology students. Their age ranged between 18 and 32 yr with a mean of 22.6 yr and a standard deviation of 2.9 yr. Material
Among other personality inventories Ss answered the following questionnaires: (1) Psychosomatischer-Einstellungs-Fragebogen; PEF [Hehl & Wirsching, 1983 (Psychosomatic Attitude Questionnaire)]. This is a 129-item, yes-no format questionnaire-constructed on the basis of the probabilistic model of RASCH (Rasch, 1960)---which assesses the degree of positive attitude in 10 attitude areas. The attitude areas covered relate to: SC&
number PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
Description of the low scorer C-j
Description of the hiah scorer (+)
Number of items
negligent neglect of health dependent disconnected from family prudish educated to submissiveness low need for achievement conscious of duty wasteful of money no interest in technical matters
well-groomed interest in health independent connected with family interest in sex educated to autonomy high need for achievement hedonistic stingy with money interest in technical matters
I? I’ Ii IS 9 9 9 I9 18 I8
(2) The 3-WD Humour Test (Ruth & Hehl, 1985). The humour test consists of jokes and cartoons (50 in Form K; 35 each in Forms A and B) which are rated on 2 unipolar 7-point scales for ‘funniness’ and ‘aversiveness’. The funniness scale represents the positive responses to humour; i.e. exhilaration and laughter. The aversiveness scale covers negative reactions like indignation, embarrassment, or boredom. Six scores can be derived: three for funniness of incongruityresolution-, nonsense- and sexual humour (i.e. INC-RESr, NON,, and SEXI) and three for their aversiveness (i.e. INC-RES,, NON,, and SEX,). In INC-RES humour the surprising incongruity induced by the punchline can be resolved completely. In nonsense humour the punchline provides no resolution at all, only a partial resolution or actually creates new absurdities or incongruities. The third category is characterized by its salient content. Additionally, in sample 5 the sex jokes and cartoons were separated according to their structure and further funniness and aversiveness
Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour
441
scores were calculated for INC-RES SEX humour (6 items), PURE SEX humour (11 items) and NON SEX humour (3 items). Sample 2 answered the 3WD-K, whereas samples 1,3,4 and 5 filled in the 3WD-A and 3WD-B (or an expanded humour item pool containing the respective 35 jokes and cartoons of these forms). The scores of both forms were combined. (3) In two of the samples conservatism questionnaires were administered as well which allowed us to test, which of the PEF-scales is correlated with conservatism. The conservatism questionnaires include the following: (a) the German version (Schneider & Minkmar, 1972) of the C-Scale (Wilson & Patterson, 1970). There are 40 items in a ‘catchphrase’ format and a trichotomous answer format. (b) the Public Opinion Inventory (POZ; Eysenck, 1976). Eighty-eight items cover three scales of Radicalism-Conservatism (POI-R), Capitalism-Socialism (POEC), and Toughmindedness-Tendermindedness (POI-T). The item format is a 5-point rating scale. (c) the MK-questionnaire by Cloetta (1983) contains 18 conservatism (MK-C) items which are to be answered on a 6-point scale. (d) the 16PF-Ql (Schneewind, Schroder & Cattell, 1983). The Ql subscale of the German version the 16PFmeasures radicalism with conservatives scoring low on it. Thus, the scores were inverted. The C-scale was administered in samples 4 and 5, whereas the others were given to Ss of sample 5 only. Furthermore, for Ss of sample 5 factor scores were available for Conservatism and Toughmindedness (Ruth and Hehl, 1986b). These factor scores (C’ and T’ respectively) were derived from a factor analysis of 20 markers of the two factors (e.g. conservatism, rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, dominance, disinhibition, superego strength, theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious interests). RESULTS In order to locate the PEF-scales in the attitude space correlations between the conservatism questionnaires and the PEF-scales were computed and are presented in Table 1. Firstly, the PEF-scales are located in the two-dimensional space defined by the factor analytically derived C- and T-axes. PEF 6 (educated to autonomy), PEF 3 (independent), PEF 7 (low need for achievement) and PEF 9 (wasteful with money) can be located at the liberal pole of the C-axis, whereas educated to submissiveness, dependent, high need for achievement and stingy with money mark the conservative pole. Three scales can be located in the diagonal; PEF 5 (prudish), PEF 8 (conscious of duty) and PEF 4 (connected with family) go along with tenderminded conservatism. There is one scale which correlated only with the T-axis; toughminded Ss seem to have more technically oriented interests (PEF 10). Finally, PEF 1 (well-groomed) has only a small correlation with conservatism and PEF 2 (interest in health) was neither correlated with the C- nor the T-axis. Accordingly, the five conservatism scales correlate positively with PEF 3 (dependent, 5 correlations significant), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness, 5), PEF 9 (stingy with money, 4), PEF 4 (connected with family, 3), PEF 5 (prudish, 3), PEF 7 (high need for achievement, 3), PEF 8 (conscious of duty, 2), and PEF 1 (well-groomed, 2). Only PEF 2 (interest in health) and PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) were not systematically related to conservatism. Thus, one can expect INC-RES, to correlate positively with PEF 1 (well-groomed), PEF 3 (dependent), PEF 4 (connected Table
PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I. Correlations
between the subscales
of the PEF and the various
mcasurcs
of conservatism
and toughmindedness
C-scalet
C-scale
16PF-01
MK-C
POI-R
POI-T
C
0.26.. 0.10 -0.21. 0.35*** -0.33*** - 0.40*** 0.41*** -0.09 0.40*** 0.06
0.15 0.21. -0.25*** 0.36**’ -0.43*** -0.50’” 0.41 l ** -0.44.” 0.27’. -0.05
0.01
0.25’. -0.03 -0.30.’ 0.12 -0.13 -0.30.’ 0.14 -0.03 0.11 0.13
0.12 0.04 -0.27.’ 0.14 -0.17 -0.37”’ 0.26*’ -0.07 0.20. 0.10
-0.10 -0.10 0.07 -0.24. 0.41*** 0.25’ -0.22’ 0.29*’
0.16
l/J < 0.05; l*P < 0.01; ‘**P
0.1s -0.31** 0.26.. -0.20. -0.35*** 0.1 I -0.25. 0.22’ -0.11
-0.18 0.07
0.18 -0.37*** 0.32.. -0.32’. -0.54*** 0.35*** -0.31** 0.37.‘. 0.05
T 0.04 -0.12 0.02 - 0.280.30** 0.04 -0.01 0.32.. 0.02 0.32**
FRANZ-JOSEF Table 2. Correlations
between funniness of incongruity-resolution samples and their weighted
Sample PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF PEF
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
HEHL and WILLIBALD
0.12 -0.03 -0.18’ 0.09 -0.08 -0.15 0.10 0.00 0.22’. 0.05
I
Sample
2
-0.10 0.08 -0.20’ 0.30*** -0.19. -0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.12 0.09
Sample
RUCH
humour mean
3
Sample 4
0.27.. 0.05 -0.18 0.17 -0.11 -0.22’ 0.33*** -0.12 0.34*** 0.10
0.10 0.05 -0.09 0.37*** -0.07 -0.18* 0.18. -0.01 0.24** 0.13
and the attitude
scales in the five
Sample
mean I
0.04 0.09 -0.17 -0.02 -0.19 -0.21. 0.19. -0.08 0.04 0.24.
5
o.ov 0.04 -0.17.” 0.20.” -0.13** -0.18*** 0.14** -0.04 0.19*** 0.11**
lf < 0.05; l-P < 0.01; l**IJ < 0.001. d.f. = 158, 154, 106, 132. 103 and 658 respectively.
with family), PEF 5 (prudish), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 8 (conscious of duty) and PEF 9 (stingy with money). Toughmindedness (POI-T) is mainly positively correlated with PEF 5 (interest in sex), PEF 8 (hedonistic) and PEF 4 (disconnected from family); the correlations to PEF 6 (educated to autonomy) and PEF 7 (low need for achievement) are somewhat lower. Interest in technical matters (PEF 10) is correlated with the T-axis only, and thus this scale can be predicted to correlate with funniness of sexual humour and aversiveness of each of the three humour categories. Furthermore, the role of positive attitudes to sex will be examined too, since they usually are regarded to be a potent marker for toughmindedness. Nine of the 10 PEF scales are located with the one pole in the conservative/tenderminded quadrant and with the other pole in the liberal/toughminded quadrant. Table 2 shows the product-moment correlations between funniness of incongruity-resolution humour and the IO PEF-scales computed separately for the 5 samples. Although hypotheses were formulated, we applied only two-tailed tests of significance in order to avoid confusion. As expected, INC-RESr is positively correlated with PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 9 (stingy with money), PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness), PEF 3 (dependent), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 5 (prudish), and PEF 1 (well-groomed). A positive correlation with PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) was found additionally. INC-RESr does not correlate with PEF 8 (conscious of duty). As expected, there is no systematic relationship with PEF 2 (interest in health). There were no hypotheses derived for funniness or nonsense, since NON, tended to be only slightly negatively related to conservatism in former studies. These correlations did not usually exceed - 0.20 and were seldom significant. The present study yields comparable results. The pattern of the correlations with NONr is opposite to the pattern of INC-RES, as far as the sign of the correlations with the markers of R-factor are concerned; however they are low and only four reach the level of significance. In addition to that, NON, is positively correlated with PEF 8 (hedonistic) in each of the five samples but only the coefficient in sample 2 reaches the level of significance (r = 0.22; P < 0.01). Funniness of sexual humour was generally positively correlated with PEF 5 (interest in sex), as expected. The coefficients are significant in only 2 samples, however (r = 0.22, P < 0.01; 0.18, P -=I0.05; 0.05; 0.05; 0.06, all NS). Furthermore, SEXr correlated consistently positively with PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) (r = 0.03, NS; 0.13, NS; 0.23, P -z 0.05; 0.20, P < 0.05; 0.22, P < 0.05) and with PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) (-0.12, NS; -0.20, NS; -0.09, NS; -0.18, P < 0.05; -0.24, P < 0.05). As expected, there are no relationships with the other attitude domains; only five of the remaining 35 correlations reached significance. Since the prediction of appreciation of sexual humour was shown to depend on the structural basis of the humour stimuli, the sex jokes and cartoons were separated according to their structure and correlated with the PEF-scales in sample 5. PEF 5 (interest in sex) correlates positively with NON SEX, (r = 0.27, P < 0.01) but not with INC-RES SEXr (r = 0.00, NS) or PURE SEXr (r = 0.02, NS). Similarly, PEF 8 (hedonistic) correlates positively with NON SEXr (r = 0.25, P < 0.01) but not with INC-RES SEXr (r = 0.06, NS) or PURE SEXr (r = 0.06, NS). PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) and PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) show the opposite pattern; they correlate significantly with INC-RES SEXt (r = 0.26, P < 0.01; r = 0.22, P < 0.05) and
Conservatism
as a predictor
of responses
to humour
443
Table 3. Correlations between PEF 5 (interest in sex). PEF IO (interest in technical matters) and aversiveness of the three humour types (incongruity-resolution. nonsenseand sexual humour) in the five samples PEF-scales PEF 5 Sample I Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 PEF IO Sample I Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
NON,
SEX,
-0.04 -0.01 -0.19’ 0.07 -0.15
-0.04 -O.lV -0.31.’ 0.04 -0.21’
-0.30”’ -0.11 -0.32**’ -0. I3 -0.24.
0.0 I -0.14 -0.07 -0.07 -0.38***
-0.18’ -0.14 -0.07 -0.30’.
INC-RES,
0.00
-0.01 -0.18’ -0.13 -0.06 -0.2W
lf < 0.05; l*f < 0.01: l**p < 0.001. d.f. = 158, 154, 106, 132 and 103 respectively.
PURE SEXr 0. = -0.25,
P < 0.01; r = 0.21, P < 0.05), but not with NON SEXr (r = 0.04, NS;
r = 0.09, NS).
The correlations between PEF 5 (interest in sex) and PEF 10 (technically oriented interests) and the aversiveness scores were computed next and are presented in Table 3. As predicted, PEF 5 (prudish) goes along with a tendency to find humour of the three categories aversive. Table 3 shows that all except two signs are negative and half of the coefficients are significant. Furthermore PEF 5 (prudish) not only predicts finding sexual humour aversive but predicts also aversiveness of nonsense and aversiveness of incongruity-resolution humour. The correlations of INC-RES, are always smaller, since this humour category is found only mildly aversive yielding a lower variance. As predicted, PEF 10 (interest in technical matters) correlates negatively with aversiveness of all humour categories in 14 out of 15 cases with 5 reaching the individual level of significance. Of the remaining 120 coefficients between aversiveness of humour and the attitude scales 14 reached significance. Although no hypotheses were derived a few results deserve to be mentioned. These correlations suggest that aversiveness of all humour categories also tends to go along with PEF 2 (interest in health; 14 coefficients positive; 3 significant). Finally, nonsense is consistently found aversive by Ss scoring high in PEF 3 (dependent) (-0.16, P < 0.05; -0.12, NS; -0.10, NS; -0.16, NS; -0.29, P < 0.01) and by Ss favouring education to submissiveness (PEF 6) (-0.19, P <0.05; -0.14, NS; -0.12, NS; -0.07, NS; -0.18, NS). DISCUSSION The data are generally in agreement with the model presented elsewhere since they show that appreciation of incongruity-resolution humour is predicted by those attitude scales which show correlations with the various conservatism scales. These findings support the model since they show that attitude scales of different content predict appreciation of INC-RES humour if they are saturated by the general R-factor. Given the content of the scales (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983), Ss appreciating INC-RES humour tend to favour control over autonomy in raising children (PEF 6), they depend on the opinion of others (PEF 3), feel strong bonds to their own family and feel responsible for the single members (PEF 4), value work, achievement and conscientiousness highly (PEF 7), tend to save money, try to be free from debt and usually buy things cheaply when shopping (PEF 9). Funniness of incongruity-resolution humour was related to technically oriented interests (PEF 10, which shows no alignment to the C-Scale) in one out of five samples only. Since the coefficients are lower than usually found for the C-scale, they suggest that individual differences in appreciation of this type of humour should be discussed at the conceptual level of the general Conservatism-Radicalism factor. Conservatism is related to the solvable humour types through its uncertainty-avoiding aspects instead of mere content overlap (Wilson, 1973). The low intercorrelation between the attitude scales suggest that a multiple regression approach would have been successful. However, such an analysis was not undertaken. The primary aim of this study was not to demonstrate that the higher order scale (C-scale) is more powerful in predicting appreciation of incongruity-resolution based humour.
4-u
FRASZ-JOSEF HEHL and
WILLIBALD RUCH
The present results as well as those of former studies suggest that conservatives try to avoid uncertainty (in the sense of information theory; i.e. ambiguity, incongruity, complexity, novelty) and value the reduction of uncertainty positively. This tendency seems to be involved in everyday conduct with the attitude objects employed in the present study as well as in enjoyment of humour or other entertainments. Thus, the present results can be used to illuminate the relationship between conservative attitudes and appreciation of humour in applying Wilson’s (1973) ‘dynamic theory of conservatism’ to the different content areas of attitudes. With respect to humour, conservatives enjoy and laugh at incongruities, only if they are resolvable. Incongruent punchlines which do not allow an explanation or resolution of the incongruity do not lead to exhilaration or laughter. Similar uncertainty avoiding strategies can be assumed for the attitude domains which turned out to be predictors of the incongruity-resolution structure in humour: conservatives are dependent on the opinion and the behaviour of others (PEF 3) because they are afraid of the incongruity to be abnormal or bad. They are connected with families (PEF 4) because they are afraid of the incongruities which can arise from conflicts and emotions. In such a family conflicts are avoided by the verbal message that all family-members like each other and there are no problems and nonverbal messages control that nobody expresses emotions or conflicts. In one study (Hehl, Eisenriegler, Jokiel & Channon, 1988) we have demonstrated that persons who are strongly connected with their family solve their problems with the other family-members better when they have no visual contact. If they do, the likelihood of expressing a divergent opinion decreases rapidly. Furthermore, education to submission (PEF 6) makes it possible to control and reduce divergent behaviour of children which is a source of conflict and incongruity too. Conscientious and achieving behaviour (PEF 7) avoids low recognition and approval by others. This tendency can also be seen in connection with the conservatives’ tendency to be dependent on the opinion of others (see PEF 3). Finally conservatives are stingy with money (PEF 9) because money reduces their anxiety of a possible adversity. These illustrations suggest that conservatives try to control, reduce or avoid uncertainties in many different life situations and hence it is quite understandable that they prefer humour which allows them to resolve the incongruity in the punchline and that they dislike humour which remains incongruous. The reduction of uncertainty in humour is a prerequisite for the induction of laughter and exhilaration. Tenderminded attitudes predict aversiveness of humour, as shown in the correlations of attitude to sex (PEF 5) and technically oriented interests (PEF 10) which can be regarded as markers of the T-factor. Interest in sex (PEF 5) correlates somewhat higher with aversiveness of sexual humour due to the additionally existing content overlap; however, interest in sex is also predictive of other humour types which have no reference to sexual themes. Thus Ss considering sexuality as pleasurable and as a part of the partnership (PEF 5) tend to judge humour not aversive and those Ss inhibited by morality find humour generally more aversive. Hence the results of the recent study (Ruth & Hehl, 1988) are replicated here. Furthermore, technical interests (PEF 10). a second marker of toughmindedness correlated with aversiveness of sexual humour. Thus. humour is rejected by Ss showing a dislike for playing with or repairing complex technical apparatuses (PEF 10). Unexpectedly, humour was found aversive by Ss tending to feel ill often, to take medicine frequently, eat and drink health foods and show health related behaviour (PEF 2). The present results support the view that attitudes are not potent predictors of funniness of nonsense humour, although finding nonsense funny always tends to go along with the liberal pole of the attitude scales. The positive association between nonsense humour (respectively sexual humour based on the nonsense structure) and positive attitudes to enjoyment of life, valuing relaxation and generally spoiling oneself positively (PEF 8) seems to reflect the correlations between funniness of nonsense and sensation seeking found recently (Ruth, 1988). Sexual humour is funnier for Ss with interest in sex, technical interest, and who are educated to submissiveness. Attitudes to sex were correlated with funniness of sexual humour more highly in recent studies (Ruth & Hehl, 1988). The lower strength of this relationship in the present study is due to two reasons. Firstly, the present attitude to sex scale has a narrower scope (containing 9 items only). Secondly, the content is mainly related to permissiveness and thus the scale is correlated with the C- and T-axis equally, whereas the attitude to sex scale (Eysenck, 1976) used
Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour
445
in the Ruth and Hehl (1988) study, was much more strongly related to toughmindedness than to conservatism. Funniness of incongruity-resolution sex humour can be predicted by scales relating to conservative toughmindedness but not by scales relating to liberal toughmindedness. The validity of separation of sexual humour according to their structural basis is supported since the subclusters showed different correlational patterns. Sexual humour based on nonsense turned out to be related to liberal sexual attitudes and to hedonism. Appreciation of sexual humour based on the incongruity-resolution structure as well as relatively ‘pure’ sex cartoons (with a salient content) tend to go along with education to submissiveness (PEF 6) and with technical interests (PEF 10). Thus, the present findings extend the ones previously found (Ruth & Hehl, 1986b, 1988): conservatism predicts the structural basis of sexual humour and toughmindedness predicts its content. The finding should be regarded as an extension to different questionnaires rather than a replication, since it is based on the same sample. Finally, the results do not contradict a possible relationship between humour and psychosomatic illness. Recently, it could be shown that anorectic patients, which are still ill, score higher on the scales PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 1 (well-groomed) and PEF 10 (no interest in technical matters) than anorectic patients after successful treatment (Deter, Petzold & Hehl, 1989). Furthermore, patients suffering from morbus-crohn, cancer, or functional cardiovascular disease showed elevated scores in PEF 4 (connected with family), PEF 7 (high need for achievement), PEF 9 (stingy with money), PEF 5 (prudish) and PEF 6 (educated to submissiveness) (Hehl & Wirsching, 1983). The cancer patients showed this profile most clearly. Whereas some of the attitudes might have developed as a function of the disease (e.g. stronger bonds to the family), it is less likely that attitudes to sex, education, achievement, and property changed after the onset of the disease. Since these groups show an attitude profile which is similar to the profile of Ss appreciating INC-RES humour, one can expect these psychosomatic groups also to score higher in INC-RESI (and maybe lower in NONI). Mantel1 and Goldstein (1985) report data showing that Type A and Type B cardiology patients do not differ in hostile humour but they do differ in nonhostile humour, with Type A Ss showing low appreciation of nonhostile humour. In light of the results one might expect CHD-patients to show preference for INC-RES over NON humour. REFERENCES Cloetta. B. (1983). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Machiavellismus
und Konservatismus
M. K. Schweizerische
Zeitschrifl Psychologie Anwendungen, 42, 127-l 59.
Deter, H.-C., Pezold, E. & Hehl, F.-J. (1989). Differenzierung der Langzeitwirkungen einer stationaren psychosomatischen Therapie von Anorexia-Nervosa-Patienten. Zeifschrifr psycho-somatische Medizin 35, 68-91. Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sex and personality. London: Open Books. Hehl, F.-J. & Ruth, W. (1984). Are humourous people better in coping with stress? Paper presented at the Humor Conference in Tel-Aviv, Israel, June 1984. Hehl, F.-J. & Wirsching, M. (1983). Psychosomarischer Einsrellungs-Fragebogen (PEF). Handanweisung. Giittingen: Hogrefe. Hehl, F.-J., Eisenriegler, E., Jokiel, R. & Channon, S. (1988). The negative function of nonverbal communication in anorexic families: A familv exoeriment. In Saklofske. D. H. & Eysenck, S. B. G.), Individual differences in children and adolescents __ (pp. S&63). London: Hodder & Stoughton. _ Mantell, M. & Goldstein, J. H. (1985). Humor and the coronary-prone behavior pattern. Paper presented at the Humour Conference in Cork, Ireland, June 1985. Minuchin. S., Rosman, B. L. & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families. Anorexia nercosa in context. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Kopenhagen: Nielson & Lydicke. Ruth, W. (1988). Sensation seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of humour: Stability of findings across four samples. Personality and Individual Dlflerences, 9, 861-87 I. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1985). Diagnose des Humors-Humor als Diagnostikum. In Hehl, F.-J., Ebel, V. & Ruth, W. (Eds), Diagnosrik psychischer und psychophysiologischer StBrungen (pp. 253-325). Bonn: DPV. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1986a). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour--I. A comparison of four scales. Personality and Individual D@erences,
7, I-14.
Ruth. W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1986b). Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humour-II. The location of sense of humour in a comprehensive personality space. Personalirv and Individual D#erences, 7, 861-874. Ruth, W. & Hehl, F.-J. (1988). Sexual behaviour, attitudes to sex and the enjoyment of humour. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 983-994.
Schneewind, K. A., Schroder, G. & Cattell, R. B. (1983). Der 16-Persiinlichkeits-Faktoren-Test Schneider, J. & Minkmar, H. (1972). Deutsche Neukonstruktion einer Konservativismusskala. Wilson, G. D. (1973). The psychology of consercurism. London: Academic Press. Wilson, G. D. & Patterson, J. R. (1970). The conserwtism scule. Windsor, Berks: NFER.
(16 PF). Bern: Huber. Diagnosrica, IS, 37-48.