| Literature DB >> 27547257 |
Christian Martin Hahn1, Lorne John Campbell1.
Abstract
The present research investigated the degree of similarity in humour styles between spouses as assessed with the Humour Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Furthermore, self-esteem was investigated as a potential moderator of partner humour style similarity. A sample of 116 heterosexual, married couples independently completed questionnaires assessing self-reported humour styles across the 32 item HSQ, as well as global self-esteem. Results indicated that there is significant positive association between the humour styles of married partners. This association was moderated by individual self-esteem. Specifically, participants with high self-esteem were found to have greater humour style similarity with their partners. Similarity was also greater for positive compared to negative types of humour. Implications for the use of dyadic data in investigating the roles of humour within couples are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: marriage; relational humour; self-esteem
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547257 PMCID: PMC4991048 DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Psychol ISSN: 1841-0413
Descriptive Statistics for the 32-Items of the Humour Styles Questionnaire and t-test Results for differences Between Genders
| Male Partner | Female Partner | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humour Style | Item | |||||||
| Affiliative | 1 | 1 – 7 | 6.16 | 1.26 | 1 – 7 | 6.22 | 1.26 | 0.32 |
| 5 | 1 – 7 | 5.17 | 1.49 | 1 – 7 | 5.03 | 1.50 | 0.72 | |
| 9 | 1 – 7 | 4.96 | 1.82 | 1 – 7 | 5.41 | 1.44 | 2.23* | |
| 13 | 2 – 7 | 6.27 | 1.03 | 2 – 7 | 6.23 | 1.14 | 0.30 | |
| 17 | 2 – 7 | 5.69 | 1.58 | 1 – 7 | 5.54 | 1.68 | 0.73 | |
| 21 | 4 – 7 | 6.39 | 0.72 | 1 – 7 | 6.23 | 1.19 | 1.37 | |
| 25 | 1 – 7 | 6.07 | 1.45 | 2 – 7 | 6.40 | 1.07 | 2.22* | |
| 29 | 1 – 7 | 5.29 | 1.73 | 1 – 7 | 4.97 | 1.76 | 1.32 | |
| Self-enhancing | 2 | 1 – 7 | 5.05 | 1.68 | 1 – 7 | 5.16 | 1.65 | 0.45 |
| 6 | 1 – 7 | 5.82 | 1.41 | 1 – 7 | 5.54 | 1.43 | 1.52 | |
| 10 | 1 – 7 | 4.52 | 1.63 | 1 – 7 | 4.53 | 1.68 | 0.10 | |
| 14 | 1 – 7 | 5.45 | 1.45 | 1 – 7 | 5.21 | 1.58 | 1.27 | |
| 18 | 1 – 7 | 4.39 | 1.63 | 1 – 7 | 4.34 | 1.78 | 0.10 | |
| 22 | 1 – 7 | 3.63 | 1.68 | 1 – 7 | 3.64 | 1.77 | 0.00 | |
| 26 | 1 – 7 | 5.24 | 1.55 | 1 – 7 | 5.11 | 1.60 | 0.65 | |
| 30 | 1 – 7 | 5.47 | 1.46 | 1 – 7 | 5.16 | 1.67 | 1.73 | |
| Aggressive | 3 | 1 – 7 | 3.65 | 1.88 | 1 – 7 | 3.28 | 1.78 | 1.63 |
| 7 | 1 – 7 | 3.39 | 1.68 | 1 – 7 | 3.28 | 1.68 | 0.53 | |
| 11 | 1 – 7 | 3.17 | 1.85 | 1 – 7 | 2.40 | 1.46 | 3.95*** | |
| 15 | 1 – 7 | 2.93 | 1.76 | 1 – 7 | 2.42 | 1.83 | 2.22* | |
| 19 | 1 – 7 | 4.01 | 1.92 | 1 – 7 | 3.20 | 1.87 | 3.38** | |
| 23 | 1 – 7 | 4.22 | 1.70 | 1 – 7 | 4.06 | 1.78 | 0.78 | |
| 27 | 1 – 7 | 2.59 | 1.79 | 1 – 7 | 2.10 | 1.59 | 2.41* | |
| 31 | 1 – 7 | 3.99 | 1.95 | 1 – 7 | 3.38 | 1.91 | 2.54* | |
| Self-defeating | 4 | 1 – 7 | 3.34 | 1.73 | 1 – 7 | 2.95 | 1.78 | 1.81 |
| 8 | 1 – 7 | 3.13 | 1.88 | 1 – 7 | 2.46 | 1.87 | 2.59* | |
| 12 | 1 – 7 | 4.09 | 1.84 | 1 – 7 | 3.49 | 1.86 | 2.95** | |
| 16 | 1 – 7 | 3.91 | 1.90 | 1 – 7 | 3.10 | 1.79 | 3.49*** | |
| 20 | 1 – 7 | 2.59 | 1.58 | 1 – 7 | 2.05 | 1.44 | 2.81** | |
| 24 | 1 – 7 | 2.91 | 1.63 | 1 – 7 | 2.86 | 1.84 | 0.22 | |
| 28 | 1 – 7 | 3.83 | 1.82 | 1 – 7 | 3.49 | 1.97 | 1.30 | |
| 32 | 1 – 7 | 4.09 | 1.69 | 1 – 7 | 3.28 | 1.77 | 3.68*** | |
Note. R = range of scores from 1-7. Degrees of freedom for t-tests = 114.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Multilevel Models Testing the Effects of One Partners’ HSQ Responses Predicting the Other Partners’ HSQ Responses (Model 1)
| Model 1 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female Partners’ HSQ as Criterion | Male Partners’ HSQ as Criterion | |||||||||
| Variable | 95% CI | 95% CI | ||||||||
| Partner HSQ Responses | .48 | .03 | 19.20*** | .43, .52 | .31 | .41 | .02 | 20.73*** | .37, .44 | .33 |
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Approximate effect sizes were computed using the formula r = √(t/(t + df)) (see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2007). Degrees of freedom were 3575.
***p < .001.
Multilevel Models Testing the Effects of One Partners’ HSQ and Self-Esteem Predicting the Other Partners’ HSQ Responses (Model 2)
| Model 2 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female Humour as Criterion | Male Humour as Criterion | |||||||||
| Predictor | 95% CI | 95% CI | ||||||||
| Partner HSQ Responses | .47 | .02 | 19.38*** | .42, .52 | .31 | .40 | .02 | 20.73*** | .36, .44 | .33 |
| Partner Self-esteem | .01 | .07 | .21 | -.12, .14 | .02 | -.02 | .07 | -.38 | -.15, .11 | .04 |
| Partner HSQ Responses x Partner Self-esteem | .05 | .02 | 2.17* | .01, .09 | .03 | .05 | .02 | 2.52* | .01, .08 | .04 |
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Approximate effect sizes were computed using the formula r = √(t/(t + df)) (see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2007). Degrees of freedom ranged between 113 (self-esteem) and 3574 (humour style) for models estimated with all couples.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Figure 1Moderation effects of male self-esteem in the association between male humour (predictor) and female humour (criterion).
Figure 2Moderation effects of female self-esteem in the association between female humour (predictor) and male humour (criterion).