Humor Production and Creativity

Humor Production and Creativity

C H A P T E R 1 Humor Production and Creativity: Overview and Recommendations Willibald Ruch and Sonja Heintz Department of Psychology, University of...

NAN Sizes 0 Downloads 1 Views

C H A P T E R

1 Humor Production and Creativity: Overview and Recommendations Willibald Ruch and Sonja Heintz Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zu¨rich, Switzerland

Humor has been studied in various disciplines for more than 100 years. Humor can be defined as an umbrella term incorporating all kinds of comical phenomena, including different contents of humor (such as word plays, sexual, or aggressive contents), different kinds of humorous materials (like jokes, cartoons, memes, or videos), and different humor domains (i.e., comprehension, appreciation, and production). Delineating the three humor domains in more detail, humor comprehension deals with how humor is understood: Do people understand the punch line(s) of a joke? How and how quick do they understand them? Humor appreciation focuses on the liking and disliking of humorous materials. Finally, humor production entails either newly creating humor (humor creation) or reproducing humor (humor reproduction; by telling rehearsed or well-known jokes or sayings). This chapter focuses on humor production as it is the humor domain theoretically and empirically most closely related to creativity (see Galloway, 1994; McGhee, 1980; O’Quin & Derks, 1997).

HUMOR PRODUCTION Humor production plays a central role in our everyday lives. For example, humor is often shown in social situations and can help to brighten the mood, to reduce tensions, and to create social bonds (Janes

Creativity and Humor DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00001-6

1

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

& Olson, 2015; Martineau, 1972). Despite its relevance, humor production has been rarely studied, especially in comparison to the sense of humor or humor appreciation. Additionally, most studies used different terminologies and measurements of humor production, impairing comparisons among the findings. Thus, we discuss approaches and the terminology of humor production to delineate how the construct has been conceptualized in the literature, and then present one model of humor production. Where available, results of empirical studies are taken into account. Given the many gaps still existing in the area, however, some exploratory ideas are presented, and open questions and important venues for future research are highlighted throughout the section.

Approaches and Terminology of Humor Production Humor production has been termed differently throughout the literature, and sometimes the identical term was used, albeit with different (more narrow or wide) meanings. Thus, we first introduce the terminology of humor production employed in this chapter. We use humor production as the overarching term, which comprises humor creation and humor reproduction. Both aspects can be subdivided into quality (i.e., how well humor is created or reproduced) and quantity (i.e., how often humor is created or reproduced), as well as into typical behavior (habit) and maximal behavior (ability). Table 1.1 shows the resulting eight aspects of humor production. It should be noted that some of the eight aspects of humor production depicted in Table 1.1 are not meant to be distinct categories, but rather dimensions (i.e., there is a continuum between the typical and maximal behavior of humor production and from creation to reproduction). Also each of these aspects contains several stages, as outlined in section “Models of Humor Production.” Table 1.2 presents an overview of the terms used in central articles and chapters on humor production, as well as the terminology employed in this chapter. As shown in Table 1.2, the terms as well as the definitions and meanings attached to humor production varied widely across the different approaches. While humor production was the most commonly used term, the definition of humor production differed across each approach. Comparing the terminology used in these approaches to the definitions of the eight aspects in humor production proposed in Table 1.1, the following observations can be made. First, most of the approaches captured maximal humor creation (i.e., the ability to newly create humor). Second, several approaches (Crawford & Gressley, 1991; Koppel & Sechrest, 1970; Long & Graesser, 1988; Nusbaum & Silvia, 2017)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

3

HUMOR PRODUCTION

TABLE 1.1 Eight Aspects of Humor Production, Resulting from Combinations of Creation / Reproduction, Quality / Quantity, and Typical / Maximal Behavior Creation

Reproduction

Behavior

Quality

Quantity

Quality

Quantity

Typical (habit)

Typical humor creation quality (how well humor is typically created)

Typical humor creation quantity (how much humor is typically created)

Typical humor reproduction quality (how well humor is typically reproduced)

Typical humor reproduction quantity (how much humor is typically reproduced)

Maximal (ability)

Maximal humor creation quality (how well humor can be created)

Maximal humor creation quantity (how much humor can be created)

Maximal humor reproduction quality (how well humor can be reproduced)

Maximal humor reproduction quantity (how much humor can be reproduced)

TABLE 1.2

Overview of the Approaches to Humor Production in the Literature

Reference

Term(s) employed

Definition/meaning

Terms along Table 1.1

Amir and Biederman (2016)

Humor creativity/ generation/ creation

Cognitive act of creating a joke

Humor creation

Babad (1974)

Generative humor

Active generation of humor

Humor production

Babad (1974)

Humor production

Invention of funny instances

Humor creation

Babad (1974)

Humor reproduction

Telling jokes

Humor reproduction

Crawford and Gressley (1991)

Creativity

Ability to make up humor on the spot (one-liners, spontaneous/original comebacks, creative use of language)

Maximal humor creation

Eliav, Miron-Spektor, and Bear (2017)

Humor expression

Behavior of a discrete communication that is intended to be amusing and to produce a positive affective response

Humor production

Feingold and Mazzella (1993)

Wit, wittiness

Subgroup of humor displays that entail frequent productions of high-quality humor (original or recalled) that are communicated effectively

Maximal humor production

(Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

4

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

TABLE 1.2 (Continued) Reference

Term(s) employed

Definition/meaning

Terms along Table 1.1

Goodchilds and Smith (1964)

The wit (person)

Being witty extemporaneously in a group situation

Maximal humor creation

Holmes (2000, 2007)

Verbal humor

Utterances intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants

Humor production

Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley, and Miller (2008)

Humor production

Ability to generate new instances of humor or to amuse others

Maximal humor creation

Kaufman and Kozbelt (2009)

Humor production

Ability to produce high-quality humor

Maximal humor creation quality

Koppel and Sechrest (1970)

Joke making/ wit

Ability to make up funny jokes or comments on the spur of the moment

Maximal humor creation

Long and Graesser (1988)

Humor

Anything done or said, purposely or inadvertently, that is found to be comical or amusing

Humor production

Long and Graesser (1988)

Joke

Anything done or said to deliberately provoke amusement

Humor reproduction

Long and Graesser (1988)

Wit

Anything deliberately and spontaneously said that provokes amusement in a specific conversational context

Humor creation

Nusbaum and Silvia (2017)

Humor production ability

Ability to generate funny ideas on the spot

Maximal humor creation

Rapp (1949)

Wit

Mental skill and intellectual ingenuity

Maximal humor creation

Ziv (1984)

Humor creativity

Ability to perceive incongruous objects or ideas and convey them to others

Maximal humor creation

emphasize the importance of creating humor spontaneously and on the spot, which is also interpreted as an ability component of humor creation. Third, several approaches regard humor as created in social contexts in which it can be recognized and appreciated by others. However, humor can also be communicated when one is alone, for CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

5

HUMOR PRODUCTION

example, by writing down a funny story or by recording a video for others to see later on.

Models of Humor Production Only a few theoretical approaches aimed at delineating different components of humor production. In the following, the multidimensional model of wittiness (Feingold & Mazzella, 1993) is presented. Although not much research has explicitly incorporated this model in their approach to assessing humor production, it shows gaps that can be filled in future research in the area, also in relation to the interplay between humor production and creativity. Feingold and Mazzella’s (1993) model delineates three stages (or model components) involved in the process of producing humor as a habit and ability. In the first stage, one must be motivated to produce humor (humor motivation). In the second stage, one must be able to produce humor (by either reproducing or by creating humor; humor cognition). In the third stage, the produced humor must be communicated (humor communication). In this stage, they distinguish between oral humor production in social settings and written humor production when the person is alone. Their model describes the process of typical humor production as well as maximal humor production. Maximal humor production requires that the three stages are often experienced and that the humor cognition and communication are of high quality. When considering the eight aspects of humor production, humor motivation only entails typical and quantitative components (i.e., how often one is typically motivated to produce humor), while humor cognition and communication can be both typical and maximal as well as differ in quantity and quality. Using newly developed tests to measure each of the three stages of humor production (see Tables 1.3 and 1.5 for details on the tests), Feingold and Mazzella (1993) found that the three stages could be distinguished from one another, with only medium positive correlations between humor motivation and communication. Criterion validities were established between humor motivation and TABLE 1.3

Overview of the Different Elements Entailed in Humor Production

Type of production

Memory

Indicator

Modality

Trait aspect

Habit (HB)

Creation (CR)

Quantity (QN)

Verbal (V)

Affect (A)

Ability (AB)

Reproduction (RP)

Quality (QL)

Written (W)

Behavior (B)

Figural (F)

Cognition (C)

Physical (P)

Desire (D)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

6

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

communication with a one-item self-rating of wittiness (large positive correlations) as well as between humor cognition and humor production tests (large correlations). Feingold and Mazzella (1993) also commented on the interplay of traits and states in humor production (p. 441): “Witty people are high in each of the three traits associated with the corresponding stages in the process model. However, whether witty behavior is displayed by anyone at a particular time and place is influenced by the social situation in which the person is embedded.” Indeed, the motivation and communication of humor is dependent on many context factors, such as the social context (being alone or being with friends, family, or strangers), the type of situation (a party, a work meeting, or a funeral), and one’s mood (e.g., whether one is cheerful, serious, or grumpy). At the trait level, they argue that humor motivation and communication might be more influenced by habits (e.g., one’s level of sociability), while humor cognition might be more influenced by abilities (e.g., intelligence, divergent thinking). These notions were empirically supported (Feingold & Mazzella, 1993): Humor motivation and communication correlated positively with sociability (which was uncorrelated with humor cognition), and humor cognition correlated positively with a vocabulary aptitude test (which was uncorrelated with humor motivation and communication). Thus, communicating the created humor is influenced by many variables that go beyond either the habit or the ability to create humor (i.e., humor cognition). To avoid confounds, it is thus important to separate the different stages of humor production outlined in the model. These three components of humor production represent an initial step to more holistically understand the process of humor production. Humor research at that time was not much interested in humor production, and hence this approach did not receive the attention it deserved. Thus, further theoretical and empirical work is needed to test their model, refine it where needed, and to develop it further; that is, to include further aspects that might be relevant for humor production. For example, the interplay between states and traits as well as the temporal sequence of the three stages has not yet been tested. An overview of the different elements entailed in humor production is proposed in Table 1.3, which draws from both humor and creativity research as well as from personality psychology. Drawing from current approaches to personality traits, four aspects (the so-called ABCD) of traits can be distinguished (Wilt & Revelle, 2015): Affect, (observable) behavior, cognition, and desire/motivation. Applying the ABCD to humor production, one can distinguish between the affect associated with humor production (e.g., positive emotions such as amusement, or negative emotions such as disgust), their observable behavior (i.e., the

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

HUMOR PRODUCTION

7

humor productions that are uttered verbally, written, drawn, or displayed; similar to humor communication), their cognition (i.e., the cognitive process underlying the humor productions; similar to humor cognition), and their desire/motivation (why the humor is produced, similar to humor motivation). Regarding the desire or motivation underlying humor production, Long and Graesser (1988) differentiated between the terms humor, jokes, and wit, which could be broadly mapped to humor production, humor reproduction, and humor creation. They emphasize the social and discourse functions that humor creation has, and they presented a none-exhaustive taxonomy of nine different functions (e.g., selfdisclosure, social control, ingratiation, cleverness, establishing common ground, and social play). They also elaborated that “One advantage to using wit as a plan to satisfy social goals is that it can be used to embarrass, cajole, influence, request, or persuade, and yet carries with it a message that the remark is not serious” (p. 52). Long and Graesser (1988) also presented a categorization of 11 intentions or styles in humor creation, which can be mapped to all ABCD dimensions. They included evaluative categories (irony, sarcasm, overstatement, and understatement), which should serve to express an opinion, and categories that serve the purpose of entertainment (e.g., self-deprecation, teasing, clever replies, double entendres, novel transformations of known expressions, and puns). Furthermore, humor production should distinguish different modalities (verbal, written, figural, and physical) in which humor can be expressed, as these modalities might generate variance and contribute to how humor production tests are different. The approach to humor production by Feingold and Mazzella (1993) was restricted to the written modality. However, humor cannot only be written down, it can also be told (as mostly the case in social interactions), drawn (such as in cartoons and animated pictures), or it can be expressed facially and with gestures. Table 1.3 gives an overview of these elements of humor production, distinguishing typical and maximal humor production, humor reproduction and creation, the different modalities, and the ABCD factors. This overview should help (1) to serve as a comprehensive framework of relevant elements entailed in humor production, (2) to categorize existing humor production measures (as is done in the following sections), and (3) to point to areas that are yet understudied in humor production research and for which little or no theories/models exist yet. Regarding the elements entailed in Table 1.3, it should be noted that they are neither dichotomous nor separate categories. For example, one might tell a known joke (humor reproduction) with slight novel adaptations to the current situation (humor creation), drawing on both

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

8

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

processes simultaneously or in a sequence. Similarly, one might create a humor product that consists of both written and figural modalities (such as a captioned cartoon or meme) or of verbal and physical modalities (making funny faces while making funny sounds). Additionally, the quantity and quality of producing humor should be positively correlated, as they should strengthen one other. That is, someone who is good at producing humor might be encouraged to produce it more often, and frequently producing humor might at the same time serve as an exercise to gradually achieve a better quality. Empirical findings support this notion (see section Performance Tasks of Humor Production).

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION Three methods of assessing humor production can be distinguished: Self-report questionnaires, other-reports (sociometry or behavior observations), and performance tests. Ideally, measures should be thoroughly psychometrically tested and the convergence with other measures should be investigated (for details, see Ruch & Heintz, 2014a, 2014b). In the following, an overview of the humor production measures and scales of each method are given, and one measure, the Cartoon Punch Line Production Test (CPPT and its short version, the CPPT-K), is presented in more detail.

Self-Reports of Humor Production Table 1.4 shows the overview of self-report measures and scales of humor production. Most self-reports capture the quantity or both the quantity and quality of humor production, with very few focusing on the quality. Similarly, most questionnaires assess the habit of humor production, while some capture both habit and ability. Also, most scales assess the tendency to produce humor in general, without distinguishing among creation and reproduction. Only the competent style of humorous conduct (from the Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck/HBQD; Craik, Lampert, & Nelson, 1996) and the comic style wit (from the Comic Styles Markers; Ruch, 2012; Ruch, Heintz, Platt, Proyer, & Wagner, 2018) emphasize skilled quick-wittedness in creating novel humor. The most frequent modality was verbal, and no questionnaire assessed the figural or the written modality. Only the HBQD and the Comic Styles Markers also entail separate scales for humor production that incorporates the physical modality (e.g., jests, clownish behavior), namely the socially warm style of humorous conduct and the comic style fun.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

9

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

TABLE 1.4

Overview of Self-Report Measures and Scales of Humor Production Classification according to Table 1.3 AB/ HB

PR/ CR/ RP

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

Reference

Scale(s)

Bell, McGhee, and Duffey (1986)

Frequency of Humor Initiation Scale

HB

PR

QN

Bizi, Keinan, and Beit-Hallahmi (1988)

Productive humor scale (Humor questionnaire)

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

A, B, C

Booth-Butterfield & BoothButterfield (1991)

Humor Orientation Scale

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B, C

Bowling et al. (2004)

Generating humor scale (Sense of Humor Scale)

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B, C

Carson, Peterson, and Higgins (2005)

Humor domain (Creative Achievement Questionnaire)

AB

CR

QL

V/W

B

Craik et al. (1996)

Socially warm, boorish, earthy, mean-spirited, and competent styles of humorous conduct (HBQD)

AB, HB

PR, CR, RP

QL, QN

P, V

A, B, C, D

Crawford and Gressley (1991)

Hostility, joking, creativity, anecdotal, and sexual humor scales (Humor Questionnaire)

HB

PR

QL, QN

V

A, B, C, D

Feingold and Mazzella (1993)

Humor Communication Test (Revised)

HB

PR

QN

V

B

Graham, Papa, and Brooks (1992)

Uses of Humor Index

HB

PR

Hsieh, Hsiao, Liu, and Chang (2005)

Humorous creativity scale (Chinese Humor Scale)

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B, D

Martin, Puhlik Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2003)

Affiliative and aggressive (Humor Styles Questionnaire)

HB

PR

QN

V

A, B, D

McGhee (1999, 2010); Ruch and Heintz (2018)

Verbal humor and laughing at yourself scales (Sense of Humor Scale Revised and Parallel version)

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B, C

Mindess, Miller, Turek, Bender, and Corbin (1985)

Descriptions of one’s sense of humor (Antioch Sense of Humor Inventory Part II)

HB

PR

QN

B

D

A

(Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

10

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

TABLE 1.4 (Continued) Classification according to Table 1.3 PR/ CR/ RP

Reference

Scale(s)

AB/ HB

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

Ramsey (2016)

Functions of Humor Scale

HB

PR

Richmond (1999), Wrench and McCroskey (2001)

Richmond Humor Assessment Instrument

HB

PR

QL

V

B

Ruch (2012); Ruch et al. (2018)

Comic Style Markers (fun, humor, nonsense, wit, irony, satire, sarcasm, cynicism)

AB, HB

PR, CR

QL, QN

P, V

A, B, C, D

Ruch and Proyer (2009)

Gelotophilia and Katagelasticism (PhoPhiKat)

HB

PR

QN

V

A, B, D

Thorson and Powell (1993)

Production/social uses and coping/adaptive humor (Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale; MSHS)

AB, HB

PR

QL

V

A, B, C, D

Treadwell (1970)

Humor use

HB

PR

QN

V

B

Ziv (1984)

Humor creativity (Sense of Humor Questionnaire)

HB

PR

QN

V, W

B

D

AB, ability; HB, habit; PR, production; CR, creation; RP, reproduction; QL, Quality; QN, quantity; F, figural; P, physical; V, verbal; W, written; A, affect; B (observable) behavior; C, cognition; D, desire; HBQD, Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck.

Other-Reports of Humor Production Generally, the other-reports of humor production can be divided into sociometric methods (in which all peers or colleagues of a person provide a rating about the person) and behavior observations (by trained observers, peers, supervisors, or teachers). As can be seen in Table 1.5, most other-reports focused on the habit of humor production, the behavior trait aspect, and the verbal modality. Around equal amounts of tests assessed only the quantity, only the quality, or both. Notably, the cognitive aspect is absent in the other-reports; that is, the cognitive process underlying the humor productions is not measured. Only one study (Fabrizi & Pollio, 1987) investigated the overlap of different other-reports of humor production. The results are based on 28 seventh graders and 31 eleventh graders (with a balanced gender ratio). Although Fabrizi and Pollio (1987) only reported the correlation separate for the humor types and whether laughter or smiling was elicited

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

11

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

TABLE 1.5

Overview of Other-Report Measures of Humor Production Classification according to Table 1.3

Reference

Measure

AB/ HB

PR/CR/ RP

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

Babad (1974)

Humor Categories Report

HB

PR, CR, RP

QN

V

B

Bizi et al. (1988)

Crew peer-rating questionnaire (self- and other-directed)

HB

PR

QN

V

B

Dewitte and Verguts (2001)

Peer-rated joking frequency and joking quality

AB, HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B

Fabrizi and Pollio (1987)

Humor Observation System (silliness-clowning and direction of humor)

HB

PR

QN

P, V

A, B

Fabrizi and Pollio (1987)

Teacher ratings

HB

PR

QN

V

B

Fabrizi and Pollio (1987)

Peer nominations (funniest in class)

AB

PR

QL

P, V

B

Lefcourt, Antrobus, and Hogg (1974)

Ratings of jokes in video recordings of role plays

HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B

O’Connell (1969a)

Group Behavior Questionnaire (general and sarcastic)

HB

PR

QN

V

A, B

Pollio and Bainum (1983)

Group rankings of wit (in a group problem-solving task)

HB

PR

QL

V

B

Pollio and Bainum (1983)

Objective witticism counts (directed vs nondirected)

HB

PR

QN

V

A, B

Smith and White (1965)

Sociometric wit measure (sarcastic and non-sarcastic)

HB

PR

QN

V

A, B, D

Smith and White (1965)

Joke tally (number of witticisms made during a group discussion)

HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B

Turner (1980)

Number of witty remarks made during a monologue

HB

PR

QL, QN

V

B

Ziv (1979, 1984)

Multidimensional test of the sociometry of humor

HB

PR

QN

V

B

AB, ability; HB, habit; PR, production; CR, creation; RP, reproduction; QL, Quality; QN, quantity; F, figural; P, physical; V, verbal; W, written; A, affect; B (observable) behavior; C, cognition; D, desire.

in others separate for the two grades, the correlations were overall large and positive between the three humor ratings (teacher, peer, and observer) and the single humor events observed. Thus, each of the

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

12

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

ratings seems to have a certain degree of criterion validity (observed humor events in the classroom).

Performance Tasks of Humor Production Most of the humor production measures are performance tasks. Individuals with higher humor production ability can more easily create punch lines when confronted with cartoons, jokes, or other humorous materials. Thus in a set of target stimuli, they will produce a funny response to more of the items and also more punch lines to a given stimuli. This denotes the fluency in humor production (quantity). However, equally important (or even more so) is the quality of the generated humor; that is, how funny or original it is. This is the originality or funniness component (quality), which is usually judged by a set of independent raters. Thus, the quantity and quality of the punch lines written are core parameters of humor production. Additionally, performance tasks of humor production are administered in a standardized situation, in which the participants are typically alone and they write down the punch lines on a sheet of paper or type them into an online form. It is not an answer given to another person. This reduction of the social situation allows measuring the quantity and quality of the punch line production and only this. However, these abilities might change when there is a social situation (i.e., to give a funny answer to a comment), and here personality might also play a role (e.g., social inhibition, social anxiety, etc.). Thus, the ability to produce humor in solitude cannot be equated with the humor produced in a social setting. Furthermore, in a situation of solitude the test taker might maximize the funniness, and questions of appropriateness play a minor role. When there are social partners, the type of humor presented might be more monitored and factors such as social intelligence or empathy might be adding variance. Of course there are individuals that rather lose a friend than a punch line; but most likely the answers in a social situation will be differing from the sheer test situations. Table 1.6 gives an overview of the different humor production tasks and their classification according to Table 1.3. Based on Table 1.6, the following observations can be made. First, most performance tasks of humor production assess the ability of humor production; that is, participants are explicitly instructed to be as funny or humorous as possible. This is similar to most creativity and intelligence tests, in which participants are explicitly primed about the goal of the task and encouraged to perform as good as possible (i.e., showing maximal performance). Second, most behavior tasks assessed the observed behavior (as expected) and the cognitive process, but not

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

13

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

TABLE 1.6

Overview of Performance Tasks of Humor Production Classification according to Table 1.3 AB/ HB

PR/ CR/ RP

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

Reference

Humor production task

Babad (1974)

Active Humor Test (cartooncaption task)

AB

PR, CR, RP

QL/ QN, QN

W/F

B, C

Brodzinsky and Rubien (1976)

Humor Production Test (cartoon caption task)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

A, B, C

Clabby (1980)

Wit selection measure

AB

PR

WL

W

B, C

Derks and Hervas (1988)

Humorous captions to pictures (either 2 or 10)

AB

PR

QL

W/F

B, C

Edwards and Martin (2010)

Cartoon Caption Task

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

B, C

Feingold and Mazzella (1991)

Cartoon Reasoning Test

AB

PR

QL/ QN

W/F

C

Feingold and Mazzella (1991)

Make-A-Joke Test-

AB

PR

QL/ QN

W

C

Feingold and Mazzella (1991, 1993)

Cartoon Captioning Test (Revised)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

B, C

Feingold and Mazzella (1991, 1993)

Joke Knowledge Test (joke completions)

AB

RP

QL/ QN

W

C

Feingold and Mazzella (1991, 1993)

Joke Reasoning Test (joke completions)

AB

PR

QL/ QN

W

C

Feingold and Mazzella (1993)

Humor questions

HB

PR

QL

W

C

Feingold and Mazzella (1993)

Repartee

HB

PR

QL

W

C

Greengross and Miller (2011)

Humor production ability (cartoon caption task)

AB

PR (RP?)

QN

W/F

B, C

Howrigan and MacDonald (2008)

Character profile openended task

AB

PR

QL

W/F

A, B, C

Howrigan and MacDonald (2008)

E-mail response open-ended task

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

Howrigan and MacDonald (2008)

Drawing humor open-ended production task

AB

PR

QL

F

A, B, C (Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

14

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

TABLE 1.6 (Continued) Classification according to Table 1.3 AB/ HB

PR/ CR/ RP

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

PR

QL, QN

W/F

A, B, C

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

Humor Production Test (based on the CPPT)

AB

PR

QN

W/F

A, B, C

Ko¨hler and Ruch (1993, 1996)

CPPT

AB

PR

QL, QN

W/F

A, B, C

Koppel and Sechrest (1970)

Creation of captions

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

A, B, C

Kozbelt and Nishioka (2010)

Production task (funny captions to photographs)

AB

PR

QL

W/F

B, C

Long and Greenwood (2013)

Humor Generation Task (captionless cartoons)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

B, C

Masten (1986)

Captions (making cartoons funnier)

PR (RP?)

QL

W/ F, F

B, C

Masten (1986)

Titles (making up a funny title for cartoons)

PR (RP?)

QL

W/F

B, C

McGhee (1974)

Answering riddle questions

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

Mickes, Walker, Parris, Mankoff, and Christenfeld (2012)

Cartoon-caption task (tournament rating system)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W

A, B, C

Mindess et al. (1985)

Writing one’s favorite joke

AB

PR

W

A, B

Mindess et al. (1985)

Cartoon-caption task

AB

PR

QN

W/F

A, B

Mindess et al. (1985)

Completing sentences in a funny way

AB

PR

QN

W

A, B

Mindess et al. (1985)

Completing drawings in a funny way

AB

PR

QN

W/F

A, B

Moran, Rain, PageGould, and Mar (2014)

Humor production task (cartoon-caption task)

AB

PR (RP?)

QN

W/F

B, C

Nevo and Nevo (1983)

Adapted RPFT (providing humorous answers)

AB

PR (RP?)

W/F

A, B

Reference

Humor production task

Jurcova (1998)

Humorous Problem Solving (humor responses)

HB

Karlins (1967)

The PUN test (making up fictional definitions for words using a pun)

Kellner and Benedek (2017)

(Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

15

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

TABLE 1.6

(Continued) Classification according to Table 1.3 PR/ CR/ RP

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

Reference

Humor production task

AB/ HB

Nevo, Aharonson, and Klingman (2007)

Cartoon-caption task

AB

PR

QN

W/F

B, C

Nevo et al. (2007)

Joke-punchline completion task

AB

PR

QN

W

B, C

Nusbaum, Silvia, and Beaty (2017)

Cartoon-captions task

AB

PR

QL

W/F

B, C

Nusbaum et al. (2017)

Joke-completion/joke stems task

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

Nusbaum et al. (2017)

Re´sume´-completion task

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

Nusbaum et al. (2017)

Definitions task

AB

PR

QL

W

B, C

O’Connell (1969b)

Adapted RPFT (writing humorous responses)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL

W

A, B, C

Overholser (1992)

Humor Creativity Ratings (cartoon-captions task)

AB

PR

QL

W/F

A, B, C

Saroglou and Jaspard (2001)

RPFT

HB

PR (RP?)

W/F

B, C

Shultz and Scott (1974)

Creating jokes from partial joke information

AB

PR (RP?)

QN

W

B, C

Stu¨ssi (2007)

Comics Creation Test

AB

PR

QL, QN

W/F

A, B, C

Treadwell (1970)

Cartoons Test (cartooncaption task)

AB

PR

QL

W/F

B, C

Turner (1980)

Writing witty captions for caption-removed cartoons

AB

PR (RP?)

QL, QN

W/F

B, C

Turner (1980)

Making witty remarks about everyday objects

AB

PR

QL, QN

W

B, C

Ziller, Behringer, and Goodchilds (1962)

Creativity task (writing clever/amusing cartoon captions)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL, QN

W/F

B, C

Ziv (1981)

Humor creativity test (cartoon-captions task)

AB

PR

QL

W/F

B, C

(Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

16

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

TABLE 1.6 (Continued) Classification according to Table 1.3 AB/ HB

PR/ CR/ RP

Reference

Humor production task

Ziv (1983)

Adapted verbal subtest of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (writing humorous answers)

AB

PR

Ziv and Gadish (1990)

Adapted Thematic Apperception Test (writing funny stories)

AB

PR (RP?)

QL/ QN

F/P/ V/W

A/B/ C/D

QL, QN

W

B, C

W/F

A, B

RPFT, Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test; AB, ability; HB, habit; PR, production; CR, creation; RP, reproduction; QL, Quality; QN, quantity; F, figural; P, physical; V, verbal; W, written; A, affect; B (observable) behavior; C, cognition; D, desire.

the motivation for producing humor. A few measures included an affective component, for example, by including humor stimuli that depicted specific contents (such as sexual topics or stressful situations). Third, most tests assess humor production rather than distinguishing between the creation and reproduction of humor. One could argue that these performance tasks always measure humor creation, because participants have to come up spontaneously with funny responses. However, at least two sources might turn this humor creation into a humor reproduction task: Participants might recognize the joke, picture, or cartoon (like the often employed cartoons from The New Yorker with removed captions) and rely on their memory of that cartoon and/or the original punch line associated with it. This can be remedied by selecting stimuli that are not widely known (e.g., by pretesting the humor stimuli), by creating novel stimuli, or by asking participants whether they know any of the humor stimuli. Even when the stimuli are novel to the participants, they might insert funny responses that they had already known, like generic or stereotypical punch lines or a funny text that they remember from a comedian’s routine. This can be detected by asking participants after the task how they came up with each funny response; that is, whether they have remembered their humor response or whether it was novel. Babad (1974) employed this technique and found that creation and reproduction were uncorrelated (0.02 for quantity and 0.08 for a quantity/quality score). This points to the need of distinguishing creation from reproduction, as they likely capture different humor production processes and also show different relationships to creativity (see section “Relationship of Performance Tasks of Humor

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

17

Production With Creativity”). Still, this finding needs to be replicated and extended by employing psychometrically sound measures to determine the overlap between humor creation and reproduction as well as their unique relationships to other relevant variables (such as personality, intelligence, and creativity). Fourth, regarding the scores that were derived from the performance tasks of humor production, most tasks assessed either the quality (i.e., funniness, originality) or the quantity (i.e., number of generated responses) of humor production, with only a few assessing both aspects. Capturing both aspects seems important because past findings hinted to a mostly positive but less than perfect relationship between the two scores. The correlations ranged from nonsignificant (r 5 20.05; Turner, 1980) to medium sized (0.21; Jurcova, 1998) to large (r 5 0.54; Ko¨hler & Ruch, 1996; r 5 0.59; Babad, 1974). Derks and Hervas (1988) additionally showed that an increase in the quantity of humor production accompanied an increase in the quality (p. 39): “If humor is creative and funniness is the quality of that creation, then early ideas are not as creative as later ones. Furthermore, many ideas will produce more good ideas than will few, since ‘few’ is determined by eliminating poor ideas rather than by selecting good ones.” In general, comparisons across the performance tasks are difficult because most were only used a few times by one author, and the convergence across different tasks has only been tested in a few studies. Feingold and Mazzella (1991) found significant positive correlations (rs 5 0.41 0.79) of the Joke Knowledge Test, the Joke Reasoning Test, the Cartoon Reasoning Test, and the Make-A-Joke Test with one another in one to three samples (n 5 35 graduate students, n 5 58 undergraduate students, n 5 52 adults). Additionally, the Joke Knowledge Test and the Joke Reasoning Test correlated positively and significantly with the Cartoon Caption Task in the adult sample (rs 5 0.37 and 0.28, Ps , 0.05). Feingold and Mazzella (1993) tested the convergence of the Humor Cognition Test and the revised version with the quality scores of the humor production tests. They found significant positive correlations in all three samples (rs 0.26 0.54, one-tailed Ps , 0.05) and averaged across the samples (r 5 0.38, one-tailed P , 0.001). Howrigan and McDonald (2008) subjected the quantity scores derived from three humor production tests (six character profile tasks, three e-mail response tasks, and two drawing humor tasks) to a principal component analysis. Both one-factor and two-factor solutions (with factor intercorrelations of 0.61) were supported. The latter solution contained one factor of the character profile tasks and a second factor with the e-mail response and drawing humor tasks. This indicated that the tasks tapped into the general ability of quantitative humor production, yet a differentiation between written and figural tasks might emerge if

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

18

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

both were represented equally. This would need to be systematically explored in future studies. Nusbaum et al. (2017) reported significant positive intercorrelations among four different written humor production tasks (cartoon-captions, joke-completion/joke stems, re´sume´completion, and definitions) that were scored for quality in three studies (rs 0.37 51, P , 0.05). Overall, convergent validity was supported between the quantity and quality scores of different performance tasks of humor production. Also, criterion validity of performance tasks of humor production was supported by Greengross and Miller (2011), who compared the quality and quantity scores of 31 professional comedians with 400 students. As expected, comedians produced significantly more cartoon captions and significantly funnier cartoon captions (large effect sizes). Thus, the scores in a cartoon-caption task were able to differentiate between those producing humor professionally and those who do not. Despite the availability of many humor production tests, several basic questions have not yet been addressed and thus need to be systematically explored in future research. For example, the tests varied in whether or not they employ a time limit. If a time limit is imposed, the humor production test is a speed test, and the ability to produce funny responses within a certain time is of main interest. This might however not tap the true humor production potential of a person, as the findings by Derks and Hervas (1988) suggest. While in everyday life the period for giving a witty answer is limited, and the situation is often a relaxed social one, a testing situation with a time limit does not have the quality of the situation where wit is produced. Thus, having no or a generous time limit might be advisable (i.e., a power test). Studies should thus compare the same test without and with different time limit to see how the different elements of humor production are influenced by this variable. Another open question concerns the quantity measure, which in our experience is often not normally distributed but skewed (with a modal value of 1 response per stimuli). The statistical implications of this notion as well as design issues that increase the motivation for writing many funny responses should also be investigated. Related to this, it is unclear what the optimal number of stimuli and raters is, taking into account phenomena such as fatigue (both in the participants and in the raters due to producing or rating many responses in a short time), reliability (which usually increases with the number of stimuli and raters), and economy (time-consuming responses and rating procedures). Finally, the psychometric properties (especially validity) of the measures should be extensively tested to make sure that they adequately capture humor production (or a subset thereof).

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

19

Relationships Between the Three Measurement Approaches of Humor Production Babad (1974) compared the self-rating and sociometric peer-rating of the Humor Categories Report (i.e., being a creator and/or reproducer of humor) with the scores in the Active Humor Test. Comparing the selfand other-reports, convergence was high for the those who created novel humor, acceptable for the humor producers (both creators and reproducers), yet low for those who reproduced already known humor (i.e., self-reported reproducers were mostly classified by others as appreciators, while peer-reported reproducers mostly self-reported to be creators). By contrast, he found little convergence between the Humor Categories Report and the quantity scores as well as the quantity/quality scores in the Active Humor Test. Babad (1974) interpreted his findings as evidence that invalidates humor production tests; that is, “performance on humor tests cannot represent one’s ‘true’ sense of humor” (p. 628). He argued that the test situation constitutes an additional factor that influences the test results besides the person’s ability to produce humor (e.g., it forces spontaneous humor, while in everyday life humor is produced naturally). Also the employed humor production tests (cartoon-caption tasks) captured a narrow type of humor, which disadvantaged funny people that mainly produce different types of humor. Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) reached a different conclusion by comparing self-reports and performance tests of humor in a multitrait multimethod approach (in a sample of 110 adults). They found that humor production/social uses of the multidimensional sense of humor scale (MSHS; Thorson & Powell, 1993), humor creativity of the Sense of Humor Scale (Ziv, 1984), and the Humor Initiation Scale (Bell et al., 1986) did not correlate significantly with the quality of humor production as assessed in the CPPT-K (rs 0.04 0.14, Ps . 0.05), while the metamessage sensitivity scale of the Sense of Humor Questionnaire 3 (though not being explicitly a humor creation scale) did (rs 5 0.34 0.38, P , 0.01). Significant positive relationships emerged for the MSHS scale (r 5 0.23, P , 0.05), the Humor Initiation Scale (r 5 0.22, P , 0.05), and the metamessage sensitivity scale (r 5 0.30, P , 0.01) with the quantity of humor production in the CPPT, while Ziv’s scale was not significant (r 5 0.10). The multiple regression between the selfreport measures as predictors and the quantity as criterion yielded a coefficient of 0.38 (P , 0.01). Thus, all self-report measures combined were able to explain 14.4% of the variance of the quantity of humor production. While this is not high, it supports the view that selfreports are reflecting how often people are able to come up with a funny statement.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

20

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

The authors offered two explanations for their findings: Either method variance is present (mainly in the self-reports) and/or the different methods assess different humor production constructs. They argue that performance tasks are face valid and content valid because they directly assess the construct of interest (i.e., whether a person can produce humor), independent of the social context that might add additional constraints. By contrast, many self-reports focus more strongly on everyday life and the social context (e.g., entertaining others by joking around) and are likely influenced by social desirability (as being humorous is a desired quality), questioning their degree of validity for measuring humor production. Finally, they also challenge Babad’s (1974) conclusion and propose that rather the performance tasks seem to be more valid than the self-reports. Feingold and Mazzella (1993) reported partial correlations (controlled for age) between the quality scores of their humor production tests (Cartoon Captioning Test, Cartoon Captioning Test Revised, and a composite of the Humor Questions and Repartee tests) with a one-item wittiness self-rating in three samples (ranging from n 5 44 52). The correlations were not significant in each of the samples (rs 5 0.12 0.20, one-tailed P . 0.05), while it was significant across the three samples (N 5 143, r 5 0.15, one-tailed P , 0.05). Edwards and Martin (2010) correlated the quality scores of their cartoon-caption task with the Humor Styles Questionnaire in 215 students. They did not find any significant correlations with the affiliative and aggressive humor styles (rs 5 0.05 and 0.08, respectively). Greengross, Martin, and Miller (2012) correlated the Humor Styles Questionnaire with a cartoon-captions task (in two samples of 31 comedians and 400 students). In the comedian sample, the affiliative humor style correlated negatively with humor production quality (r 5 20.35, P , 0.05), while this correlation was positive in the student sample (r 5 0.23, P , 0.05). More recently, Kellner and Benedek (2017) correlated the quality scores in their Humor Production Test (using an adapted version of the CPPT; Ko¨hler & Ruch, 1996) with a self-report of humor production (based on production/social uses of the MSHS). They found a nonsignificant positive correlation of 0.14 in a sample of 151 mostly female students. Also using an adapted version of the CPPT [for details, see the section “The Short Version of the CPPT (the CPPT-K)”], Ruch, Beermann, and Proyer (2009) correlated the quantity and quality scores of the CCPT with the PhoPhiKat (with the humor production scales gelotophilia and katagelasticism) in a sample of 127 131 adults. None of the correlations of the CPPT quantity scores with the self-reports were significant (rs520.11 to 0.12). Gelotophilia (liking to be laughed at, i.e., producing humor about oneself) showed positive correlations with the

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

MEASURES OF HUMOR PRODUCTION

21

CPPT quality scores (rs 5 0.14 0.18), while katagelasticism (liking to laughing at others, i.e., producing humor about others) was not related to the quality scores (rs 5 0.01 0.16). When analyzing the correlations in a subgroup that had large humor production abilities (i.e., those who provided at least one punch line for each cartoon; n 5 47), the coefficients for both self-report scales were larger and significant for katagelasticism (rs50.37 0.38). Finally, Ruch et al. (2009) analyzed the humor responses in the CPPT for the degree they entailed making fun of themselves or making fun of others. Against expectations, they found a significant positive relationship of the degree of making fun of others with gelotophilia (r 5 0.19). Overall, it can be concluded that performance tests of humor production only showed small overlaps with self-reports (and also sociometric other-reports) of humor production. This means that either one of these measurement approaches is invalid (e.g., performance tests as Babad (1974) suggested or self-reports and Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) suggested) or that they might both be valid, but tap into different aspects of humor production. Drawing on Feingold and Mazzella’s model and the ABCD dimensions, it seems that performance tests of humor production capture mostly the behavioral and cognitive aspect of humor production, while self-reports might rather capture the motivational and communicative aspects. Additionally, the self-reports assess the habitual frequency with which humor is produced, while most performance tasks assess the maximal quality with which humor can be produced spontaneously. Lastly, as already mentioned by Babad (1974), the type of humor measured is more restricted in the performance tests of humor production than in the self-reports. This holds true for the contents and structure (which are usually not specified in the self-reports but fixed in the performance tests) and the modality (mostly verbal in the selfreports and mostly written and/or figural in the performance tests). Thus, the disparities between the different methods would need to be addressed by developing humor production measures that assess the same construct across the different methods. For example, the selfreports would need to focus more on the quality of spontaneous humor production (such as the HBQD competent style of humorous conduct and wit as a comic style). Conversely, the performance tests could have a habitual and an ability subtest, vary the contents, structures, and modalities, and could also include behavior observations of group interactions to capture several humor types and also the communicative aspects of humor production. Additionally, testing the overlap of the different measures within each assessment method is essential to see whether they converge (i.e., assess the same construct) or whether they systematically differ.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

22

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

THE CARTOON PUNCH LINE PRODUCTION TEST The CPPT represents a special case of the relationship of humor production and creativity, in which the punch lines are scored both for funniness/wittiness and for originality. Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) reported large correlations between the two measures (r 5 0.93), indicating that the two ratings were virtually identical. As the CPPT is among the few validated performance tests of humor production, it is presented as an example for the close interplay between humor and creativity in the following section, along with some novel research findings.

Development of the CPPT Around 1995 there was an interest to look at the convergence of humor instruments sharing a label and to see how they are different from instruments with a different label. An instrument was needed that actually assessed how funny the humor produced by an individual is rather than let them subjectively report on this. Previous humor production test (specifically punch line production tests) often included cartoons from a single source (such as from the New Yorker). This poses two potential problems: First, as discussed in section “Performance Tasks of Humor Production,” these cartoons and/or their original punch lines might already be known to the participants, making the humor production test rather one of reproduction than creation. Second, the types of humor covered are likely limited (i.e., similar contents and structures). Although no studies exist that investigated the role of different types of humor in humor production, Long and Graesser (1988) identified in their discourse analysis nine functions and 11 intentions and styles that might play a role. Drawing on the research from humor appreciation, Ruch (1992) and Platt & Ruch (2014) showed that empirically two structure dimensions (incongruity-resolution and nonsense) and one content dimension of sexual humor (SEX) need to be distinguished. In incongruity-resolution (INC-RES) the punch line of a joke or cartoon can be fully resolved, while in nonsense (NON), the punch line might be unresolved, partially resolved, or new incongruities might be introduced.

Employing the CPPT The CPPT was developed to assess the individual’s quantitative and qualitative humor production abilities. The pilot version contains 15 caption-removed cartoons of the three humor categories INC-RES,

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

THE CARTOON PUNCH LINE PRODUCTION TEST

23

NON, and SEX (five each, presented in a mixed order).1 The test takers are asked to create as many funny punch lines as possible within a period of 30 minutes. The instruction reads as follows: Cartoons are composed by two elements: A drawing and accompanying text, which contains the punch lines. Fifteen such cartoons will be displayed but with the captions removed. You are being asked to create as many witty captions for these drawings as possible. The number and quality of the punch lines will be rated later. Please look over each drawing carefully and try to create a caption that suits the drawing and combined with it produces a joke. Each new caption should be witty in its own way. Please write your answers beside or below the respective drawing and mark each new solution with an asterisk (*) at the beginning. If you do not have any idea for a drawing, go on to the next one. Let your imagination run free. Use the response sheet below (and the next sheet) to fill in your captions. The answer sheet headed “Cartoon Punch Line Response sheet” has lines for entries for “Captions created for cartoon 1” to “Captions created for cartoon 15” followed by an empty space where the answers are written down. The CPPT has also been implemented online, where participants type their punch lines for each cartoon in text field prompts (Ruch et al., 2009) or with a test booklet in individual testing situations. As a first step, all written punch lines were screened if they comply with the instructions; for example, not allowed were “without words,” “can’t think of anything,” “don’t get the picture,” “stupid test,” “(not) funny,” “no comment,” “very mean,” “cfgzcfz,” and so on. Punch lines that did not comply were eliminated before the scores were computed. The quantity of humor production in the CPPT is operationalized by the total number of punch lines created (CPPT NP score). Initially a second quantity measure was considered, namely the number of cartoons for which punch lines were written. This number of cartoons measure was abandoned later as it provided a mode of 15; that is, most individuals answered all items (and provided one punch line). To get some further information about the quality of the created punch lines, they were subjected to an expert rating. Usually 6 12 raters are used, as they are sufficient to provide reliable results that average out individual preferences of the raters. Two quality ratings relate to the material. The material is rated on two dimensions using 1

The stimuli of the CPPT as well as its short version are available upon request from W. Ruch.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

24

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

10-point scales: (1) wittiness of the punch line (or—in the case of more than one punch line per cartoon—of the punch line the rater considered the best; CPPT WP score) and (2) originality of the (best) punch line (CPPT OP score). The two scores are derived by averaging the ratings across the valid punch lines; this way the frequency component is eliminated. Additionally, two global ratings dealing with the creator of the punch lines were assessed: (1) how marked is the wit of that person (nine-point Likert scale from 1 to 9; CPPT WI score) and (2) how poor versus rich is this person’s fantasy (nine-point bipolar rating-scale from 24 to 14; CPPT FA score).

Psychometric Properties of the CPPT The first evaluation of the pilot form by Ruch and Ko¨hler (1998) examined the item and test characteristics of the CPPT as determined in a sample of 110 adults (58 women and 52 men) in the age of 17 83 years (Mean 5 46.00, standard deviation (SD) 5 15.91 years). Overall, the 110 participants produced 1650 punch lines, and 12 students independently rated the punch lines and the creator along the four scores (CCPT WP, OP, WI, and FA). Means of the CPPT NP scores ranged from 0.71 1.46 (range 0 6) for each cartoon and the mean was 15.0 across the 15 cartoons (range 0 47). Thus, participants on average wrote 1 punch line per cartoon. Corrected item total correlations of each cartoon were high (mean 5 0.72, range 0.63 0.79), as were the loadings on the first unrotated principal component (mean 5 0.76, range 0.68 0.81). Furthermore, the reliabilities of the CPPT NP scores were high: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94 and the split-half reliability was 0.96. Further analyses showed that the humor dimensions did not seem to be important; all items were accounted for by the first principal component (explaining 58.0% of the variance). Extraction of further factors did not yield any humor dimensions factor but a factor reflecting the serial position of the items. The findings underscore the reliability and homogeneity of the items. The quality scores were in general low, with the WP sum being 28.80 across the cartoons (range 1.45 2.40 per cartoon) and the OP scores sum being 35.01 (range 1.76 2.78 per cartoon). Interestingly, the CPPT NP scores and to a lesser extent the WP and OP scores decreased steadily from the first to the last cartoons (with a marked difference between Items 7 and 8). The high homogeneity of the items allows reducing the number of items, thereby preventing fatigue effects and enhancing the economy of the instrument. Considering the coefficients, the number of cartoons was reduced to two per dimension (i.e., INC-RES, NON, and SEX), resulting in a six-item short version of the CPPT (the CPPT-K).

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

THE CARTOON PUNCH LINE PRODUCTION TEST

25

The Short Version of the CPPT (the CPPT-K) Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) devised the CPPT-K, for which the number of punch lines had a high coefficient alpha (0.94). Global ratings of the creators’ wit (0.71) and fantasy (0.72) were high across six raters. Wittiness (0.63) and originality of the punch lines (0.52) were lower, partly due to the lower number of items, but also due to the fact that these ratings were made by separate people. The intercorrelation among the quantity and quality scores revealed the relative independence. While the indices of quality intercorrelated highly (from 0.80 to 0.93; median 5 0.90), they correlated substantially lower with the number of punch lines written (between 0.54 for WP and 0.68 for FA). As mentioned previously, existing self-report measures of humor creativity cannot be used as validity criteria because they incorporate different meanings of humor creativity (e.g., emphasizing the entertainment aspect or joke-telling). Still, Ko¨hler and Ruch (1996) found that convergent validity was supported to some extent for the CPPT-K NP score. Ruch et al. (2009) adapted the CPPT-K for online usage, offered participants a possibility to skip a cartoon if they could not think of a fitting punch line and did not employ a time limit (due to technical restrictions). They also adapted the scoring, by adding three content scoring dimensions (gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism), which should capture the contents of the three dimensions of the self-report questionnaire (the PhoPhiKat; Ruch & Proyer, 2009) they employed. They also derived a score of the average wittiness of the best punch line. They did not collect the CPPT OP and FA scores. Despite these changes, their scores were reliable, both in terms of the scores average across the six cartoons and across the 10 raters they employed (Cronbach’s alpha 0.61 0.83). Kellner and Benedek (2017) redrew nine colored, high-resolution cartoons, of which six were conceptually adapted of the CPPT-K. Their cartoons depicted social situations and “the images alone were not too funny or obvious, permitting that participants find their own interpretation of the incongruities and generate their individual humorous solutions” (p. 54). They then selected six from the nine cartoons (two from INC-RES, NON, and SEX each) based on those cartoons to which participants in pilot study generated the most punch lines. In the main study (151, mostly students), they used one example cartoon and one practice cartoon before presenting the six cartoons in a randomized order for 2.5 minutes each. Afterwards, participants ranked each punch line for each cartoon (from best to worst). The average of responses generated was 2.59 (SD 5 1.16). Humor production quality was operationalized as a four-point funniness rating, which showed a sufficient interrater reliability, but a low internal consistency across the six cartoons (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.52).

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

26

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

Further Studies of the CPPT and the CPPT-K The CPPT scores have been related to openness to experience and the six facets of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in a sample of 110 adults (Ruch & Ko¨hler, 1998). Significant positive overlaps were found between all five CPPT scores (NP, WP, OP, WI, and FA) and openness to experience. The subscales openness to fantasy, actions, and values also correlated significantly and positively with the quality but not the quantity scores of the CPPT. As expected, the numerically largest correlations were found for openness to fantasy. Openness to experience was also found to be the most important broad personality trait for creativity (e.g., Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009b; Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, 2016). Additionally, all five CPPT scores were correlated with lower levels of seriousness, indicating that people who had a playful, nonserious attitude produced more and funnier punch lines (Ruch & Ko¨hler, 1998). Additionally, several unpublished theses supervised by the first author investigated the CPPT and the CPPT-K in Germany, Ireland, and Switzerland. One study administered the CPPT along with several selfreport measures of humor production to 252 360 German-speaking adults. First, the quality scores of the CPPT were again very highly correlated and virtually interchangeable, while the quantity score was related, but clearly distinguishable from the quality. Second, the quality scores of the CPPT showed small positive correlations with the reflective vs boorish styles of humorous conduct (from the HBQD), with the affiliative humor styles (from the Humor Styles Questionnaire). Third, the CPPT-K could be clearly distinguished from humor appreciation scores, again supporting the discriminant validity of the CPPT-K. Finally, the largest personality correlations were found between openness to experience and both the quality and quantity scores of the CPPT. Another study investigated the overlap of the CPPT-K scores with self-reports of the HBQD in a sample of 76 German adults. The reflective/boorish style of humorous conduct correlated positively and significantly with the CPPT-K NP score. Internal consistencies for the CPPT scores were again sufficient (Cronbach’s alpha . 0.75). This finding was not replicated in a sample of 144 Irish adults, in which the scores of the HBQD and the CPPT-K did not correlate significantly with one other. The CPPT-K scores were also correlated with the eight scales of the Comic Style Markers (Ruch et al., 2018). As expected, positive and significant correlations were found with wit as well as with nonsense, fun, and benevolent humor. The relationships of the CPPT with creativity tests are of interest in future studies, possible also employing the novel coding scheme for the responses from both tests to investigate the overlap of the scores when the same coding scheme is employed.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

27

THE CARTOON PUNCH LINE PRODUCTION TEST

Generating a Coding Scheme for the CPPT The results of the Ruch et al. (2009) study were used to develop a more objective coding scheme. Prior studies utilized between 6 and 12 raters for the generation of the quality scales. There are clear disadvantages with this procedure. First, it is time-consuming for raters to score the material. If a sample of 100 participants is used to give punch lines, then approximately 600 punch lines need to be scored. Second, the ratings of wittiness and fantasy are subjective and partly relate to one’s own preferences. This is why a more objective coding system is desirable and also more economical (as only one trained rater would be needed for conducting the coding). The aim of this study was to generate rules for the evaluation of wittiness and originality of punch lines that can be applied by a single coder for the CPPT and the CPPT-K. The resulting scoring key should enable the reliable assignment of punch lines to a set of categories and should lead to scores that converge well with the average judgment of several raters. As a first step, the punch lines of a CPPT-K dataset (N 5 124 that were used in the study by Ruch et al., 2009) were grouped into five mutually exclusive categories, both in terms of the funniness as well as the originality of the punch lines. Additionally, it was defined which features the punch lines within every category have in common and how they can be characterized (inductive approach). Prototypical punch lines were registered for every category of the wittiness-coding scheme. For originality, keywords were registered. These reference punch lines (and keywords of contents) were used for control codings and are supposed to facilitate the reliable use of the coding scheme in future studies. The descriptions of each category for funniness and originality (on a five-point scale) are given in Table 1.7. The reference coding showed strong overlaps with two independent control codings as well as with the codings of the 10 initial raters of the study.

TABLE 1.7 Coding Scheme for the Wittiness and Originality Scoring of the Punch Lines Generated by Participants in the CPPT Score

Level

Wittiness coding scheme

Originality coding scheme

5

Very high

Skilled play with ambiguities; creates thrilled surprise; invented additional information and details give the punch line an unexpected twist; artistically plays with sense and nonsense

Based on unusual associations that make sense; has an indirect or remote, but meaningful relation to the stimulus; interprets the stimulus in relation to an abnormal context (Continued)

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

28

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

TABLE 1.7 (Continued) Score

Level

Wittiness coding scheme

Originality coding scheme

4

High

Is characterized by fascinating absurdity; successful word plays; wittily reverses expectations; admirably applies and rephrases known idioms; matching transfer of absurd concepts; plays effectively with stereotypes

Relates to very inconspicuous or missing aspects of the stimulus; skillfully combines aspects of the picture that at first glance seem unrelated; thinks outside the box; overrides dominant impressions

3

Medium

Cleverly overstates or understates relationships; effectively represents physically impossible and unrealistic things; suddenly changes the perception of the picture; shows new and astonishing perspectives

Interprets the stimulus in an abstract, but still obvious way; choses a form that is suggested by the stimulus; does not much think out of the box

2

Low

Unrealistic things and overstatements/understatements seem profane/ordinary; reinterpreting or applying idioms and word plays does not create surprise; idea is not effective or is only adumbrated due to lack of elaboration

Hardly disengages from dominant stimuli; does not transcend closely related terms and associations; lack of elaboration that only adumbrates the meaningful relationship of the unusual associations with the stimulus

1

Very low

Relationships are not convincing; describes real facts according to expectations; sheer reproduction of the depicted situation without an element of surprise

Only describes the stimulus; the writing along with the stimulus does not make sense and creates incomprehension

N/A

Missing

Responses that did not comply to the instructions (e.g., “without words,” “can’t think of anything,” “(not) funny,” “no comment,” “cfgzcfz”)

The coding scheme of the CPPT was related to self-reports of humor production as well as other related variables in several unpublished studies (N 5 115 229). The correlations of the CPPT NP score with the WP and OP scores were large (rs 5 0.61 and 0.66, respectively), as were the correlations between the WP and OP scores (r 5 0.92). Thus, both when employing several raters (Ko¨hler & Ruch, 1996) and when employing the newly developed coding scheme, the quantity and quality of humor production can be distinguished, while the two quality scores measured were virtually the same.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

THE CARTOON PUNCH LINE PRODUCTION TEST

29

Conclusions and Outlook of the CPPT Thus, the general measurement approach of punch line production tests seems to be fruitful for both advancing the knowledge in humor research as well as in creativity research. The psychometric properties of the CPPT can be mostly supported, although more studies on its convergent validity are needed. For example, studies should investigate the overlap of self- and other-reports of humor production ability (rather than the habit) and compare the CPPT with other performance tests of humor production and with creativity tests. The CPPT-K mostly showed sufficient reliabilities, although in situations where higher reliabilities are needed the longer version (with 15 instead of 6 items) can be employed. Also if a differentiation between the three dimensions of INC-RES, NON, and SEX is sought for, the longer version is more suitable. However, it still remains to be shown that the type of humor depicted in the cartoons as well as the contents of the produced responses do indeed matter in the process of humor production (see Kellner & Benedek, 2017; Ruch et al., 2009; Stu¨ssi, 2007). For future directions, the statistical analyses of the quality scores could be adapted. Using Rasch modeling can help to distinguish between the humor production quality and the rater-specific influences on the quality ratings (see Kozbelt & Nishioka, 2010; Nusbaum et al., 2017). Also other economical coding procedures, such as the snapshot scoring (a holistic rating of all answers of a person; Silvia, Martin, & Nusbaum, 2009a) or the top-two scoring (Silvia et al., 2008) from divergent thinking tasks, could likely be fruitfully employed in performance tasks of humor production. The development of a coding scheme is another way to make the coding procedure more economical, both in terms of raters and time needed, and also more objective (by setting evaluation criteria that are less dependent on one’s own humor preferences). Also, participants’ answers could be coded not only for funniness but also for the degree of INC-RES, NON, and SEX (similar to the content analyses suggested in the Antioch Humor Test—Part II; Mindess et al., 1985). Ruch et al. (2009) also collected content ratings of the humor responses in an adapted version of the CPPT, yet they did not find convergence between the rated dimensions and the matched self-report dimensions (gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism). This might suggest that both the stimuli and ratings need to be matched to enhance the chance of establishing a convergence between responses. The authors concluded that “clearly more research should be dedicated to the question whether or not the content of the humor produced is of significance and if yes, what does it signify?” (p. 137). However, no one has studied this so far.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

30

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY Several authors proposed theoretical and empirical links between humor production and creativity, defined as “the generation of products or ideas that are both novel and appropriate” (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010, p. 570). The most notable one is the bisociation theory by Koestler (1964), who proposed that humor creation involves a creative act, which consists of “bringing about a momentary fusion between two habitually incompatible matrices” (p. 94) and in choosing “discordant codes of behavior or universes of discourse to expose their hidden incongruities in the resulting clash” (p. 95). He also considered originality to be a technique of humor creation that is needed to cause surprise (which he labeled the “bisociative shock,” p. 91). Karlins (1967) pointed out the similarity in the terminology between wit and creativity, as both entail being clever and quick-witted. Goodchilds and Smith (1964) elaborated on this idea and described humor creation as creative in a cognitive and a social domain (by creating witticisms and by amusing others with it). Furthermore, Goodchilds (1972) stated that “The person who is spontaneously humorous is, by the same token, spontaneously creative” (p. 187). Humor was mostly seen as a subdomain, an aspect, or a form of creativity, as a creative expression, or as part of the creative process (see the reviews by Galloway, 1994; Murdock & Ganim, 1993; O’Quin & Derks, 1997). For example, O’Quin and Derks (1997) noted that both humor and creativity share originality and surprise and that they have similar cognitive and social processes. Still relevant for today’s research, Murdock and Ganim (1993, p. 68) concluded “As with creativity, humor is a word that describes a complex multifaceted phenomenon that is often misused to name only one part of it. In order to effectively access data on humor and creativity more deliberateness is needed in classifying, categorizing, sorting and re-organizing our view of how they operate together.” We hope that this chapter can add to this endeavor. The view that humor is a form of creativity is also underscored by prevalent creativity tests and questionnaires, in which humor is often implemented. For example, some prevalent creativity questionnaires entail items referring to humor production (as in the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale; Kaufman, 2012) or have a humor subscale (as in the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ); Carson et al., 2005). In some creativity and divergent thinking tests, humorous responses are also scored for originality (as in the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking; Torrance, Ball, & Safter, 2008) or they use humor production tasks to assess creativity (e.g., Karlins, 1967; Ziller et al., 1962). However, it might be fruitful not to restrict humor (production) to be a subset of creativity, as noted by O’Quin and Derks (1997, p. 245): “A creative

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

31

product is not always (or even usually) funny, and a funny idea is creative only in a very special way, involving originality and a resolution that takes social, human factors into account.” Several authors highlighted the special importance of humor production (rather than other humor domains). McGhee (1980, p. 122) noted “As with all great discoveries, then, a higher level of creativity should be required to create a joke, cartoon, or other humor situation, than simply to understand the same event when it is initiated by another person.” O’Quin and Derks (1997, p. 247) concluded in their literature review that humor and creativity “seem to be two interdisciplinary areas that overlap most clearly in the area of humor production. Although one may argue that humor appreciation itself requires a modicum of creativity, humor production is probably more directly and strongly related to creativity.” Finally, Kaufman and Kozbelt (2009) reviewed the similarities between humor creation and creativity and summarized that they both hinge on novelty and quality. One domain in which humor and creativity were most intensively studied is the workplace. Eliav et al. (2017) discuss various emotional, cognitive, and social routes by which humor can enhance creativity in general and in organizations particularly, and readers are referred to their chapter for a current overview on humor and creativity at the workplace. Importantly, Eliav et al. (2017) include humor production in their discussion without distinguishing between its quantity and the quality aspects, and without distinguishing humor reproduction from humor creation. Future research in the area should distinguish these aspects to disentangle which effects on creativity are actually due to humor creation and which are due to the quantity or the quality thereof (or their interaction). For example, the effects of humor creation on reduced stress and anxiety, increased cognitive flexibility, and increased leadership effectiveness might be more due to the quality than the quantity of humor creation. Additionally, interactions might occur, in which for example a high quantity of humor creation with simultaneous low quality might have detrimental effects, while a high quantity and quality might have beneficial effects on creativity in general and in the workplace specifically. Furthermore, humor creation might have a more beneficial effect on creativity than humor reproduction as it is conceptually more strongly aligned with creativity (novel production of humor). When comparing the elements of humor production proposed in Table 1.3 with approaches to creativity, several similarities can be noted. The differentiation among quantity and quality as well as different modalities is also frequently found in creativity. Quantity is often termed (idea) fluency and entails the number responses or products created. Quality is mostly termed originality and can either be defined by statistical infrequency (a product/response that is unique or unusual;

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

32

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

e.g., Torrance, 2008; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) or by subjective ratings (in which responses/products are rated for creativity, originality, and other relevant dimensions; e.g., Amabile, 1983; Silvia et al., 2009a). Regarding modalities, mostly verbal and figural creativity are distinguished or mixed (Guilford, 1967; Torrance, 2008). Domain specificity in creativity (e.g., art and science; see Baer, 2015) seems less relevant in the humor context, as humor already represents a rather narrow creativity domain and further subdivisions might be less fruitful. Of course, a person’s expertise and knowledge in a domain likely influences the topics that the person jokes about, yet we would argue that taking into account the modalities as well as the ABCD dimensions is sufficient to understand humor production.

Empirical Relationships of Humor Production and Creativity Three studies reviewed the relationship between humor and creativity. O’Quin (1992; as cited by O’Quin & Derks, 1997) found an average correlation of 0.34 in a meta-analysis of the relationship between humor and creativity measures. However, no distinction has been made between humor production and others forms of humor. Galloway (1994) conducted an empirical review of humor and creativity measures and concluded “the research on sense of humor and creativity generally indicates that definitions of the former in terms of performance of active tasks, viz., humor production and humor comprehension, are associated with significant positive relationships with performance on various creativity tests. There is also some indication that, when defined in terms of passive tasks, viz., self-reports and appreciation, sense of humor is not significantly related to performance on those creativity tests.” (p. 136). This supports the notion that humor production, when assessed with performance tasks, overlaps with creativity. Another review by O’Quin and Derks (1997) on the empirical literature of humor and creativity supported the mostly positive correlations found between humor production and creativity (especially when performance tasks were employed). However, they also noted some limitations of the existing studies. First, the findings might be overestimated to the degree that humor responses on creativity tasks are scored for creative performance. Second, the validity (esp. convergent validity) of many humor and creativity measures is rarely tested. Third, little agreement exists as to which tests are used and how “humor production” is defined. This limits the extent to which the findings across the different studies are comparable. Fourth, they suggested investigating the relationship between humor and creativity by also taking into account other variables that might link the two, namely positive affect, optimism, and intelligence.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

33

In the following, only studies are presented that have not been already covered by Galloway’s (1994) and O’Quin and Derks’ (1997) review. The findings are distinguished by the measurement method of humor production (i.e., self-report and performance task). We did not find any studies since 1997 that employed other-reports of humor production (the only studies that exist on this topic are by Babad, 1974; and Smith & White, 1965).

Relationship of Self-Reports of Humor Production With Creativity Two studies related a self-reported humor questionnaire with creativity. Yue and Hui (2015) administered the Chinese version of the Humor Styles Questionnaire to 114 mostly female students, along with the alternate uses task of the Wallach-Kogan (1965) creativity test battery. None of the correlations of the affiliative and aggressive humor styles with fluency, flexibility, originality scores of the alternate uses task were significant. They also assessed creativity with a self-report measure, the creative personality scales of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory 2 (including the subscales novelty, diversity, and divergent thinking). The affiliative and aggressive humor styles correlated significantly with the subscales novelty (0.25 and 0.19, respectively) and divergent thinking (0.26 and 0.19, respectively). A recent study investigated the correlations of self-reported humor production (based on production/social uses of the MSHS) with four divergent thinking tasks (unusual uses and instances) that were scored for fluency and originality as well as the CAQ (Kellner & Benedek, 2017). Across 151 students, the only significant relationship of production/social uses was found with the fluency of divergent thinking (0.17, P , 0.05). Additionally, several studies investigated the overlap of the humor domain of the CAQ (Carson et al., 2005) with creativity measures. Prabhakaran, Green, and Gray (2014) administered the CAQ together with several creativity measures to 183 young adults (balanced gender ratio). The creativity measured included a novel cued creativity verb generation task, a total divergent thinking score as well as fluency, originality, and flexibility scores (derived from three verbal subtests of the TTCT), a story-writing task to assess creative production (which was scored along five dimensions, including humor), two figural tests from the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (scored for fluency, elaboration, originality, and 10 criterion-referenced creativity dimensions), and a latent inhibition task (difficulty of reversal learning). All correlations of the log-transformed CAQ humor domain score (due to its nonnormal distribution) with the creativity measures were nonsignificant

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

34

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

(20.03 # rs # 0.02). Kaufman et al. (2015) correlated the CAQ humor domain with an overall divergent thinking score (fluency, originality, and flexibility derived from three verbal subtests of the TTCT) across 671 students and young adults (with a balanced gender ratio). The correlation between the humor domain and divergent thinking was not significant (Spearman’s ρ 5 0.06). Thus, if humor production and creativity are both measured in self-reports, significant positive relationships could be established, while relationships with performance measures of creativity received little supported thus far.

Relationship of Performance Tasks of Humor Production With Creativity Jurcova (1998) administered the Humorous Conflict Solving task (scored for both quality and quantity) and the TTCT figural subtest (scored for originality) and a multiple uses task (scored for fluency) to 96 students. The humor production quality correlated significantly with originality (r 5 0.21, P 5 0.044) and verbal fluency (r 5 0.27, P 5 0.008). Humor production quantity was however not significantly related to creativity (rs , 0.14, Ps . 0.17). Additionally, she found that the most and the least original participants differed in the humor production quality (P 5 0.005). In an unpublished thesis, the relationships of the CCT (Stu¨ssi, 2007) with the creativity subscale of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Test (Ja¨ger, Su¨ß, & Beauducel, 1997) in a sample of 125 students was investigated. The overall quantity score of the CCT correlated 0.27 (P , 0.01) with the total creativity score. When separating the stimuli according to verbal and figural modalities, no significant correlation emerged for the verbal (r 5 0.03) and the figural stimuli (r 5 0.11), despite the fact that the modalities were moderately to strongly correlated within each test (0.51 for the CCT and 0.32 for the creativity test). Additionally, the quantity score in the CCT was predicted by creativity, self-reported humor temperament (cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood), and general intelligence. In a standard multiple regression analysis, significant positive regression weights were found for creativity and seriousness, while intelligence did not make a significant contribution. Kellner and Benedek (2017) also investigated the interplay between humor production, creativity, and intelligence, as was proposed 20 years ago by Q’Quin and Derks (1997). In their sample of 151 mostly female students, they correlated the quality scores in their Humor Production Test (based on the CPPT) with four divergent thinking tasks (unusual uses and instances, scored for fluency and originality) and the CAQ. They found significant positive relationships of the quality scores of the Humor Production Test with fluency (0.17, P , 0.05) and

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

35

originality (0.26, P , 0.01) in divergent thinking but not with the CAQ total score (r 5 0.13). Employing regression analyses, they showed that intelligence predicted the quality of humor production beyond the divergent thinking scores, and that both the fluency and originality of divergent thinking were independent predictors of the humor production quality. Thus, the relationships between creativity and humor production cannot be reduced to their overlaps with intelligence, and both fluency and originality are needed to explain humor production (at least its quality). Although published before 1997, the study by Babad (1974) deserves special attention, as he differentiated between the creation and reproduction of humor in 77 female students. Babad found that the quantity of humor production (r 5 0.45 and 0.33, P , 0.01) and humor creation (r 5 0.42 and 0.24, P , 0.01) were significantly related to fluency and flexibility scores of divergent thinking, while these correlations were not significant for reproduction (r 5 0.19 and 0.21, respectively). Although not statistically significant, the differences in the size of the correlation coefficients suggest that humor creation might relate more strongly to creativity than humor reproduction does. Future studies are needed to test this theoretically feasible assumption more thoroughly.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter introduced humor production both from a theoretical and empirical point of view. The multidimensional model of wittiness by Feingold and Mazzella (1993) presents a first step towards a more comprehensive theoretical framework needed for humor production in everyday life. We introduced additional elements of humor production, which should be distinguished construct-wise and which were partly distinguished empirically: Ability / habit, quantity / quality, modalities (figural, verbal, written, and physical), and the personality ABCD (affect, behavior, cognition, and desire). Crossing all these dimensions leaves a few cells empty. We hope that this overview can support future studies on humor production by pointing to areas where measurement is insufficient and by proposing a common terminology and framework to be better able to compare the findings and to advance the progress in the field. Of course, these elements rest on several yet untested assumptions (e.g., separability of the modalities, facets of the ABCD, development and stability of the elements, etc.). Future empirical work should test these assumptions and modify the elements where necessary. Besides unity in the terminology and theoretical framework of humor production studies, standard instruments in the field are needed. As of now, no single instrument has covered all the dimensions and has been predominantly used. Although cartoon-caption tests are the most

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

36

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

common type of performance task of humor production, they employed different cartoons (e.g., different sources, contents, and structures), different instructions, and different procedures (e.g., order of the cartoons, with or without time limit), impairing comparisons across the different studies. The CPPT and its short version were introduced in more detail to show what such measures are able to achieve. Recent self-reports have started to distinguish humor production in social settings (i.e., joking around and entertaining others with humor) from spontaneous and witty humor remarks (the comic style wit and the competent style of humorous conduct), which showed promising results in comparisons with performance tasks of humor production. Thus, work is needed to determine the minimal number of tests needed to cover more dimensions. To accumulate research findings, not only the same instruments need to be used as reference in several studies but also instruments that assess the same humor production construct across different measurement methods (i.e., self-reports, other-reports, and performance tasks) are needed. Of course, test developers should take care that the psychometric properties of the measures (especially validity) are sufficient, as this is a precondition for gathering knowledge with an instrument. When these recommendations are followed, the relationship between humor production and creativity can be understood in more detail. This would for example involve considering potential mediators and moderators of the relationship between humor production and creativity (e.g., openness to experience and intelligence; see Kellner & Benedek, 2017) to elucidate their “pure” relationship. This might also help to solve the riddle of whether humor production is solely a subcomponent of creativity or whether it entails aspects that are unique to humor and not captured by creativity. The status quo suggests that the overlap between the two is far from perfect and thus each of them has their unique components, yet this can only be a temporary conclusion unless more sophisticated research methods are employed in humor production research. Similarly, humor production should be studied in the context of the sense of humor: How important is the ability to be witty for the perception of someone to possess a sense of humor? We hope that more long-term and joint research efforts are put into humor production and its components to more fully understand this construct that is so central to the experiences in our everyday lives.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Richard Bruntsch, Liliane Mu¨ller, Rene´ T. Proyer, Gabriella Sebo¨k, Alicia Shannon, Mira Stu¨ssi, and Lisa Wagner for their help in the studies with the CPPT and the CPPT-K. We would also like to thank Andre´s Mendiburo-Seguel for his comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

REFERENCES

37

References Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357 376. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357. Amir, O., & Biederman, I. (2016). The neural correlates of humor creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 597. Available from https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016. 00597. Babad, E. Y. (1974). A multi-method approach to the assessment of humor: A critical look at humor tests. Journal of Personality, 42, 618 631. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1974.tb00697.x. Baer, J. (2015). Domain specificity of creativity. London, UK: Academic Press. Bell, N. J., McGhee, P. E., & Duffey, N. S. (1986). Interpersonal competence, social assertiveness and the development of humour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 51 55. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb00997.x. Bizi, S., Keinan, G., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). Humor and coping with stress: A test under real-life conditions. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 951 956. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90128-6. Booth Butterfield, S., & Booth Butterfield, M. (1991). Individual differences in the communication of humorous messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 205 218. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949109372831. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Johnson, A. L., Semmer, N. K., Hendricks, E. A., & Webster, H. A. (2004). Explaining potential antecedents of workplace social support: Reciprocity or attractiveness? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 339 350. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.4.339. Brodzinsky, D. M., & Rubien, J. (1976). Humor production as a function of sex of subject, creativity, and cartoon content. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 597 600. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.44.4.597. Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37 50. Available from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4. Clabby, J. F. (1980). The wit: A personality analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 307 310. Available from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4403_15. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR. Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 273 302. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.273. 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, 217 231. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00793.x. Derks, P., & Hervas, D. (1988). Creativity in humor production: Quantity and quantity in divergent thinking. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 37 39. Available from https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334854. Dewitte, S., & Verguts, T. (2001). Being funny: A selectionist account of humor production. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14, 37 53. Available from https://doi. org/10.1515/humr.14.1.37. Edwards, K. R., & Martin, R. A. (2010). Humor creation ability and mental health: Are funny people more psychologically healthy? Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6, 196 212. Available from https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.213. Eliav, E., Miron-Spektor, E., & Bear, J. (2017). Humor and creativity. In C. Robert (Ed.), Humor in the workplace: A psychological perspective (pp. 60 75). New York, NY: Routledge.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

38

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

Fabrizi, M. S., & Pollio, H. R. (1987). Are funny teenagers creative? Psychological Reports, 61, 757 761. Available from https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.3.751. Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1991). Psychometric intelligence and verbal humor ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 427 435. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90060-O. Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1993). Preliminary validation of a multidimensional model of wittiness. Journal of Personality, 61, 439 456. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-6494.1993.tb00288.x. Galloway, G. (1994). Psychological studies of the relationship of sense of humor to creativity and intelligence: A review. European Journal for High Ability, 5, 133 144. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445940050203. Goodchilds, J. D. (1972). On being witty: Causes, correlates, and consequences. In H. Goldstein, & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 173 193). New York, NY: Academic Press. Goodchilds, J. D., & Smith, E. E. (1964). The wit and his group. Human Relations, 17, 23 31. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676401700103. Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 161 183. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319209374409. Greengross, G., Martin, R. A., & Miller, G. (2012). Personality traits, intelligence, humor styles, and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians compared to college students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 74 82. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025774. Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188 192. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569 598. Available from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416. Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159 185. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461445600002002002. Holmes, J. (2007). Making humour work: Creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics, 28, 518 537. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm048. Howrigan, D. P., & MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Humor as a mental fitness indicator. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 625 666. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 147470490800600411. Hsieh, C. J., Hsiao, Y. L., Liu, S. J., & Chang, C. (2005). Positive psychological measure: constructing and evaluating the reliability and validity of a Chinese Humor Scale applicable to professional nursing. Journal of Nursing Research, 13, 206 215. Available from https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JNR.0000387542.91254.42. Ja¨ger, A.O., Su¨β, H.-M. & Beauducel, A. (1997). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test. Form 4. Handanweisung [Berlin intelligence structure test. Form 4. Manual]. Go¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Janes, L., & Olson, J. (2015). Humor as an abrasive or a lubricant in social situations: Martineau revisited. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28, 271 288. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0021. Jurcova, M. (1998). Humor and creativity—Possibilities and problems in studying humor. Studia Psychologica, 40, 312 316. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1306136294. Karlins, M. (1967). A note on a new test of creativity. The Journal of Psychology, 67, 335 340. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1967.10544938.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

REFERENCES

39

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298 308. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029751. Kaufman, S. B., & Kozbelt, A. (2009). The tears of a clown: Understanding comedy writers. In S. B. Kaufman, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The psychology of creative writing (pp. 80 97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (2008). The role of creativity and humor in human mate selection. In G. Geher, & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 227 262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 82, 248 258. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156. Kellner, R., & Benedek, M. (2017). The role of creative potential and intelligence for humor production. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 52 58. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000065. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London, England: Hutchinson. Ko¨hler, G., & Ruch, W. (1993). The Cartoon Punch line Production Test. Du¨sseldorf, Germany: University of Du¨sseldorf, Department of Psychology, Unpublished manuscript. Ko¨hler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in current sense of humor inventories: How much substance, how much method variance? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 363 397. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.363. Koppel, M. A., & Sechrest, L. (1970). A multitrait multimethod matrix analysis of sense of humor. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 77 85. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000107. Kozbelt, A., & Nishioka, K. (2010). Humor comprehension, humor production, and insight: An exploratory study. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 23, 375 401. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2010.017. Lefcourt, H. M., Antrobus, P., & Hogg, E. (1974). Humor response and humor production as a function of locus of control, field dependence and type of reinforcements. Journal of Personality, 42, 632 651. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1974. tb00698.x. Long, C. R., & Greenwood, D. N. (2013). Joking in the face of death: A terror management approach to humor production. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 26, 493 509. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0012. Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 11, 35 60. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544690. Martin, R. A., Puhlik Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well being: Development of the Humor Style Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48 75. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2. Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein, & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 101 125). New York, NY: Academic Press. Masten, A. S. (1986). Humor and competence in school-aged children. Child Development, 57. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/1130601, 561 473. McGhee, P. (1999). Health healing and amuse system: Humor as survival training. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. McGhee, P. E. (1974). Development of children’s ability to create the joking relationship. Child Development, 45, 552 556. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/1127988.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

40

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

McGhee, P. E. (1980). Development of the creative aspects of humor. In P. E. McGhee, & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Children’s humour (pp. 119 139). Chichester, England: Wiley. McGhee, P. E. (2010). Humor as survival training for a stressed-out world: The 7 humor habits program. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. Mickes, L., Walker, D. E., Parris, J. L., Mankoff, R., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2012). Who’s funny: Gender stereotypes, humor production, and memory bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 108 112. Available from https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-0110161-2. Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., & Corbin, S. (1985). The Antioch humor test: Making sense of humor. New York, NY: Avon Books. Moran, J. M., Rain, M., Page-Gould, E., & Mar, R. A. (2014). Do I amuse you? Asymmetric predictors for humor appreciation and humor production. Journal of Research in Personality, 49, 8 13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.12.002. Murdock, M., & Ganim, R. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 57 70. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/j.21626057.1993.tb01387.x. Nevo, O., Aharonson, H., & Klingman, A. (2007). 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). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Nevo, O., & Nevo, B. (1983). What do you do when asked to answer humorously? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 188 194. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.188. Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2017). What are funny people like? Exploring the crossroads of humor ability and openness to experience. In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2017). Ha ha? Assessing individual differences in humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 231 241. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000086. O’Connell, W. E. (1969a). The social aspects of wit and humor. The Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 183 187. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1969. 9922406. O’Connell, W. E. (1969b). Creativity in humor. The Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 237 241. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1969.9922361. O’Quin, K., & Derks, P. (1997). Humor and creativity: A review of the empirical literature. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 227 256). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Overholser, J. C. (1992). Sense of humor when coping with life stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 799 804. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869 (92)90053-R. Platt, T., & Ruch, W. (2014). 3 WD humor test. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Humor Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 763 765). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pollio, H. R., & Bainum, C. K. (1983). Are funny groups good at solving problems? A methodological evaluation and some preliminary results. Small Group Behavior, 14, 379 404. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648301400401. Prabhakaran, R., Green, A. E., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Thin slices of creativity: Using singleword utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 641 659. Available from https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0401-7. Ramsey, M. C. (2016). Communibiology and humor: An examination of personality predictors and communicative functions of humor. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 36, 172 194. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236616628458.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

REFERENCES

41

Rapp, A. (1949). A phylogenetic theory of wit and humor. The Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 81 96. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1949.9714195. Richmond, V. P. (1999). Richmond humor assessment instrument. In V. P. Richmond, & M. L. Hickson (Eds.), Going public: A guide to public talk. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the 3 WD humor test. In C. D. Spielberger, & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 27 65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ruch, W. (2012). Towards a new structural model of the sense of humor: Preliminary findings. In V. Raskin, & J. M. Taylor (Eds.) (Chairs), Artificial intelligence of humor: Papers from the 2012 AAAI Fall Symposium (pp. 68 75). Retrieved from www.ilhaire.eu/pdf/ Ruch_2012.pdf. Ruch, W., Beermann, U., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Investigating the humor of gelotophobes: Does feeling ridiculous equal being humorless? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 111 143. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.006. Ruch, W., & Heintz, S. (2014a). Factor analysis of humor scales. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of humor studies (Vol. 1, pp. 228 231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ruch, W., & Heintz, S. (2014b). Test measurements of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of humor studies (Vol. 2, pp. 759 761). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ruch, W., & Heintz, S. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the revised Sense of Humor Scale and the construction of a parallel form. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR-2016-0085. Ruch, W., Heintz, S., Platt, T., Proyer, R.T., & Wagner, L. (2018). Broadening humor: Comic styles differentially tap into temperament, character, and ability. Frontiers in Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.00006. Ruch, W., & Ko¨hler, G. (1998). A temperament approach to humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 203 230). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 183 212. Available from https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.009. Saroglou, V., & Jaspard, J.-M. (2001). Does religion affect humor creation? An experimental study. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 4, 33 46. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13674670010016756. Shultz, T. R., & Scott, M. B. (1974). The creation of verbal humour. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 28, 421 425. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/h0082007. Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009a). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 79 85. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.005. Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009b). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087 1090. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015. Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68 85. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/19313896.2.2.68. Smith, E. E., & White, H. L. (1965). Wit, creativity, and sarcasm. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 131 134. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021902.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR

42

1. HUMOR PRODUCTION AND CREATIVITY

Stu¨ssi, M. (2007). Comics Creation Test (CCT). Zurich, Switzerland: University of Zurich, Department of Psychology. Unpublished test. Tan, C. S., Lau, X. S., Kung, Y. T., & Kailsan, R. A. (2016). Openness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and the creative process engagement. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ jocb.170, advance online publication. Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Development and validation of a multidimensional sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 13 23, doi:10.1002/1097-4679 (199301)49:1 13::AID-JCLP2270490103 3.0.CO;2-S. Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual, verbal forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking streamlined scoring guide for figural forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Treadwell, Y. (1970). Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 26, 55 58. Available from https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.26.1.55. Turner, R. G. (1980). Self-monitoring and humor production. Journal of Personality, 48, 163 172. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00825.x. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2015). Affect, behaviour, cognition and desire in the Big Five: An analysis of item content and structure. European Journal of Personality, 29, 478 497. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2002. Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A temperamental understanding of humor communication and exhilaratability. Communication Quarterly, 49, 142 159. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385622. Yue, X. D., & Hui, A. N. (2015). Humor styles, creative personality traits, and creative thinking in a Hong Kong sample. Psychological Reports, 117, 845 855. Available from https://doi.org/10.2466/04.17.PR0.117c28z4. Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1962). Group creativity under conditions of success or failure and variations in group stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 43 49. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045647. Ziv, A. (1979). Sociometry of humor: Objectifying the subjective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 97 98. Available from https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.1.97. Ziv, A. (1981). The self concept of adolescent humorists. Journal of Adolescence, 4, 187 197. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(81)80038-3. Ziv, A. (1983). The influence of humorous atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 68 75. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83) 90035-8. Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York, NY: Springer. Ziv, A., & Gadish, O. (1990). Humor and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 332 345. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300404.

CREATIVITY AND HUMOR