Reciprocity between Humor and Peer Victimization Dr Claire Fox1, Dr Simon Hunter2, Dr Siân Jones3 1Keele University, 2University of Strathclyde, 3Oxford Brookes University Contact: c.fox@keele.ac.uk Today I am going to present findings from the first stage of the ESRC funded Humour Styles and Bullying in Schools project, which I am working on with Sian Jones and Simon Hunter, who is based at the University of Strathclyde.

Humor Styles Questionnaire (Adult) Four dimensions: Self-enhancing (e.g. ‘My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting too upset or depressed about things’) Aggressive (e.g. ‘If someone makes a mistake I often tease them about it’) Affiliative (e.g. ‘I enjoy making people laugh’) Self-defeating (e.g. ‘I often try to make people like me or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders or faults’) Data supports the reliability and validity of the HSQ (Martin et al, 2003; Martin, 2007) Much stronger correlations between humor styles and psychological adjustment….. Research using the Humour Styles Questionnaire for adults (developed by Martin et al, 2003) suggests that individual mental health may depend on how people use humour in their everyday lives. The HSQ is a theoretically driven measure which assumes that humour can be both adaptive (‘self-enhancing’ and ‘affiliative’) and maladaptive (‘aggressive’ and ‘self-defeating’). Self-enhancing humour is used to enhance the self, but is not detrimental to others (e.g. ‘My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting too upset or depressed about things’). Aggressive humour on the other hand, while enhancing the self, at least in the short-term, is done at the expense of others (e.g. ‘If someone makes a mistake I often tease them about it’). Over the long-term, this style is believed to be detrimental to the self because it tends to alienate others (Martin, 2007). Affiliative humour enhances one’s relationships with others and reduces interpersonal tensions (e.g. ‘I enjoy making people laugh’). Self-defeating humour also enhances one’s relationships with others, but at the expense of denigration of the self (e.g. ‘I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders and faults’). Martin et al (2003) state that, over the long term, it is damaging for the individual since it involves denigration of the self and repression of one’s own emotional needs In using the HSQ, Martin et al found much stronger correlations between humour styles and psychological adjustment compared to previous studies. It was argued that this was because previous questionnaires did not distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles of humour. Data collected on a large number of participants, aged 14-87 years, and in various different countries, supports the proposed four-factor structure of the scale, with all four sub-scales showing good internal consistency. Research has consistently provided data in support of the construct validity of each scale and the discriminant validity of all four scales (Martin, 2007). Thus, I was confident that the HSQ for children and adolescents would prove to be equally valid and reliable.

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

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

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

Reciprocity - Peer Victimization and Humor More self-defeating Peer victimization Less affiliative Less self-enhancing Previous research – self-defeating humour and affiliative humour associated with self-perceived social competence.

ESRC Humor and Bullying Study Short-term longitudinal design Participants (Time 1) N = 1234: Gender: 599 male and 620 female (15 missing) Age: 11-13 years, mean age = 11.68(SD= .64) Measures: Peer nomination inventory Peer nominations of 4 types of victimisation Self-report questionnaires: Child HSQ (Fox et al., 2013) Self-report victimisation questionnaire to measure 3 types (Owens et al., 2005) These two strands map onto the functions of humour I outlined at the beginning: the social and emotional functions of humour.

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

Table 1: Cross-lagged measurement models χ2 df χ2/df CFI RMSEA Model 1: SR peer victimization 2964.68*** 575 5.16 .87 .058 Model 2: Model 1 with constraints Model 3: PN of peer victimization Model 4: SR of humor styles Model 5: Model 4 with constraints 2112.18*** 68.11*** 2515.22*** 2350.82*** 563 15 1029 1023 3.75 4.54 2.44 2.30 .92 .99 .91 .047 .054 .034 .032 ***p < .001. SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

Table 2: Full cross-lagged models combining peer victimization and humor styles χ2 df χ2/df CFI RMSEA Model 6: SR peer victimization and humor 6924.25*** 3298 2.10 .91 .030 Model 7: PN peer victimization and humor 2927.54*** 1406 2.08 .93 ***p < .001. SR = Self-report. PN = Peer-nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for listening