HUMOR STYLES AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

---------------------

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of College of Arts, Sciences and Education

Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod

---------------------

In Partial Fulfilment

of the Requirements for the Course

Research in Psychology II

---------------------

By:

Jianne A. Guilot Geresty S. Luyahan

GleaHeselle A. Pabalinas Julio V T. Zayco

 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between humor

styles and emotional intelligence of students. This study used a descriptive

correlational research design. One hundred twenty-one first year to fourth year

education students of a selected school completed the Humor Styles

Questionnaire (HSQ) and the Schutte Self-Report Inventory (SSRI). Results

indicated that males were more likely to use affiliative humor while females

were more likely to use self-enhancing humor style. First year and third year

students used affiliative humor while second year and fourth year used self-

enhancing humor. Finding also showed that the level of emotional intelligence of

the students as a whole, when grouped according to sex and year level, was high.

It was also revealed that there were positive significant correlations between the

adaptive humor styles, namely, affiliative and self-enhancing humor style, and

emotional intelligence. However, no significant correlations were found between

the maladaptive humor styles, aggressive and self-defeating, and emotional

intelligence.
 DEDICATION

We dedicate the success of this research to our parents, Mr. Julio & Mrs.

Angelene Zayco, Mr. Martin & Mrs.Cres Marie Pabalinas, Mr. Jimmy & Mrs.

Angelique Guilot, and Mrs. Geraldine Luyahan, whose integrity and support has

always been our inspiration; To our families, friends and classmates, who never

failed to encourage and support us; To all the education students for their

patience in answering the questionnaires, and most especially, To Dr. Ana

Roberta C. Guanco for rendering her utmost help in making this research

possible and productive. We are grateful to our Almighty God for all the blessing

and guidance that He showered upon our lives especially for all the companions

in this journey.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to extend our gratitude to the following people who, in one

way or another, helped us finish this research study:

To our family, for the encouragement, support and efforts in helping us

accomplish our research study.

To Dr. Ana Roberta C. Guanco, for her continuous support and

motivation, for her patience and time during consultations, her knowledge and

encouragement which had been a great help to make this research

endeavorpossible.

To Dr. Gereon Cabarles, for his expertise in statistical computation and

analysis, his understanding in making us learn and time in teaching us the ways

of statisitcal analysis.

To the education students: Schuster, Maica, Kate, Ricky and James, for

their time and help so that we can complete our data gathering.

And above all, to God. For Being the One whose guidance and help make

this research study possible. We thank Him for the answered prayers and

guidance. To God be the glory!

And to all those who also willingly helped but we failed to mention, thank

you too for sharing your time and kindness.

 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Mark Twain once said that “humor is mankind’s greatest blessing”.

Humor has been a universal practice commonly used in daily life. This

propensity to look at things in an amusing way is believed to help an individual

become more flexible and help to strengthen social relationships. Having a sense

of humor in the face of difficulties or stressful events is viewed as a beneficial

quality that might help one in confronting the situation.

Recently, much research has been done on how individuals use humor

and how it relates to various psychological constructs. According to Leist&

Muller (2012), humor styles have a significant relationship with self-regulatory

strategies, self-esteem, and well-being. In their study, individuals who used

humor to cheer themselves up and to cope with stress showed most favorable

associations with quality of life and well-being measures. Positive correlations

were also found between adaptive humor styles, self-esteem and subjective

happiness (Liu, 2012).

Additionally, humor was associated with the popular concept of

emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize,

utilize, understand and manage one’s emotions. Research in recent years has

validated that EI is significant in predicting a number of real-life outcomes, such

as occupational and academic success and quality of interpersonal relations, in a

differentiated manner than general intelligence or personality do (Lam

&Kirby,2002; Petrides, Frederickson, &Furnham, 2004; Petrides, Pérez-

González,&Furnham, 2007). It is being increasingly referred to as an explanation

for why some people are more successful than others in positions of leadership

(Day,Newsome&Catano, 2002) or aspects of workplace functioning, such as

coping in high pressure work environments (Caruso, 1999).

Relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence has been

demonstrated in the study of Zangouei,Akbaribooreng and Hosseini (2014). It is

found that students who used affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles had

higher level of emotional intelligence, while, emotional intelligence was lower in

those students who used aggressive and self-defeating humor styles.

Replicating the previous study, the current study aimed to examine the

relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence among education

students. This is expectedto provide valuable information for future educators to

realize the importance of emotional intelligence and promote the proper usage of

humor to their future students. It was also observed that there are only a limited

number of researches on this field.Therefore, this study can help fill the gaps in

the area and contribute to a deeper understanding of these constructs.

Statement of the Problem

This research aimed to determine the relationship between humor styles

and emotional intelligence among education students of a selected school A.Y.

2015-2016.

Specifically, this research aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What is the predominant humor style of education students as a whole

and when grouped according to: (a) sex and (b) year level?

2. What is the level of emotional intelligence of education students as a

whole and when grouped according to: (a) sex and (b) year level?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the four humor styles,

namely, affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating, and emotional

intelligenceofeducation students?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated:

1. There is no significant relationship between affiliativehumor style and

emotional intelligence of education students.

2. There is no significant relationship between self-enhancing humor style

and emotional intelligence of education students.

3. There is no significant relationship between aggressive humor style and

emotional intelligence of education students.

4. There is no significant relationship between self-defeating humor style

and emotional intelligence of education students.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined to ensure a common understanding

between the researchers and the readers:

Emotional Intelligence. The term is conceptually defined as “the ability to monitor

one’s own and others’ feelings, to discriminate among them, and to use this

information to guide one’s thinking and action” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

The term is operationally defined as the emotional intelligence of

education students of a selected school. This was measured using the Schutte

Self-Report Inventory (SSRI) and was categorized into low, moderate and high

level.

Humor Styles. The term is conceptually defined as differences in all individuals’

habitual behaviors, experiences, feelings, abilities, in relation to amusement,

laughing, joking and so on (Zangouei, Akbaribooreng & Hosseini, 2014).

The term is operationally defined as the humor styles of education

students of a selected school. This was measured using the Humor Styles

Questionnaire (HSQ) and was categorized to affiliative, self-enhancing,

aggressive, and self-defeating.

Sex. The term is conceptually defined as the biological characteristics that define

humans as female or male (World Health Organization, 2015).

The term is operationally defined as the sex of education students of a selected

school either as male or female.

Year level. The term is conceptually defined as the level of education that students

assumed to have attained (Princeton University, 2012).

The term is operationally defined as the year level of education students of a

selected school, namely first year, second year, third year, and fourth year.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used to guide this study is based upon the

Humor Styles Model by Rod Martin and colleagues, and Model of Emotional

Intelligence by John Mayer and Peter Salovey.

According to the Humor Styles Model of Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen,

Gray and Weir (2003), we vary on how we use humor and this tells a lot about

who we are and how we relate with others. This model asserts that humor can

help an individual but it can also be harmful to the self and in relationships with

others. Their theory proposed four main dimensions on the expression of humor

in social interactions, two of which are considered adaptive and two

maladaptive: self-enhancing, affiliative, aggressive, and self-defeating. Adaptive

humor includes: (1) Affiliativehumor that promotes and improves interpersonal

relationships, feelings of well-being and reduces conflicts; and (2) Self-enhancing

humor that enhances and protects oneself by maintaining a realistic perspective

on life. Maladaptive humor includes: (3) Aggressive humor means to criticize or

manipulate others and serves a potentially negative impact towards others; and

(4) Self-defeating humor, inappropriately amuses humor at the cost of oneself.

 Salovey and Mayer (1990) proposed a formal definition of emotional

intelligence as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings, to

discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking

and action”. This definition was later developed and was divided into four

proposed abilites that are distinct yet related: perceiving, using, understanding,

and managing emotions. Perceiving emotions is the ability to perceive and

identify one’s own and others’ emotions. It also includes the ability to detect and

decipher emotions in other stimuli like stories, voices, pictures, music and works

of art. Perceiving emotions may represent the most basic aspect of emotional

intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible

(Salovey&Grewal, 2005). Using emotions is the ability to control emotions to

focus one’s attention and to think more rationally, logically, and creatively.

Using emotions may require the ability to harness feelings that assist in certain

cognitive enterprises such as reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and

interpersonal communication (Bracket &Salovey, 2006). Understanding emotions

is the ability to comprehend what causes diverse emotions, what it means, and

how it can affect one’s behavior. For example, understanding emotions

encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions,

such as the difference between happy and ecstatic. Furthermore, it includes the

ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time, such as how

shock can turn into grief (Salovey&Grewal, 2005). Managing emotions is the

ability to regulate moods and emotions in both ourselves and other people.
When managing one’s own feelings, people must be able to monitor,

discriminate, and label their feelings accurately, believe that they can improve or

otherwise modify these feelings, employ strategies that will alter their feelings,

and assess the effectiveness of these strategies (Bracket &Salovey, 2006).

Figure 1 reflects the schematic diagram of the study of the relationship between

humor styles and emotional intelligence.

 PREDICTOR CRITERION

Humor Styles
Emotional
• Affiliative
Intelligence
• Self-enhancing
• Aggressive
• Self-defeating

Figure 1.Schematic diagram illustrating the framework of the study.

Significance of the study

 This study is significant to the following:

Education Students. As future educators, this study may help them understand

the concept of emotional intelligence and promote the proper usage of humor to

their future students.

Other Students.This study may provide them awareness on different humor styles

and the proper use of it to yield positive results in their social and personal life.

Also, this may help them realize the importance of emotional intelligence in their

lives.

Teachers.Having the knowledge on the concepts of humor styles, emotional

intelligence and the relationship between the two, the teachers may be able to

educate the students about the proper ways of using humor to improve

interpersonal relationships and help in enhancing students’ emotional

intelligence.

Guidance Personnel. This study may serve as the guidance center’s basis for

creating programs that will promote proper use of humor and help develop

emotional intelligence of the students.

Parents.This study may help them recognize the concept of emotional intelligence

and realize their role to contribute in the development of emotional intelligence

of their children. Also, they may be a given awareness onhow humor can be used

differently which may aid them in giving guidance to their children.

Future Researchers. This may serve as a reference for future researchers if they

would like to embark on the study of humor styles or emotional intelligence

using variables like self-esteem, well-being or other variables of their interest.

 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the review of related literature. Specifically, this chapter

deals with the conceptual related literature and related studies.

Conceptual Literature

Humor Styles

There are a variety of different types of humor which one may employ.

These specific humor styles may vary significantly from person to person and

different humor styles may lead to varying levels of psychological well-being

(Martin et al., 2003). Some individuals utilize a positive or benign style of humor

while others utilize a negative one. Humor styles can be divided into adaptive

humor that facilitates relationships and lessens interpersonal tensions, and

maladaptive humor that is unhealthy and harmful to either themselves or others

by disparagement (Klein &Kuiper, 2006). Adaptive humor includes affiliative

and self-enhancing humor. Maladaptive humor includes aggressive humor and

self-defeating humor.

Affiliativehumor refers to the tendency to tell jokes or engage in

spontaneous witty banter in order to create amusement, lessen interpersonal

tension and facilitate relationship (Liu, 2012). This kind of humor is non-hostile

and tolerant. Martin et al. (2003) viewed affiliativehumor as relatively benign as

well as self-accepting because it affirms the self and others; this quality possibly

enhances cohesiveness and attraction. People utilizing this style may attack and
make fun of themselves in a way that doesn’t demean themselves, crack jokes,

and tell witty comments to amuse others. According to Cann, Stilwel, and Taku

(2010) the affiliativehumor style, characterized by entertaining and supporting

others through humor, is most like the previous measures of sense of humor that

focused on the positive uses of humor.

Self-enhancing humor involves the use of humor to cope with stress and

maintain a cheerful outlook on life in the face of adversity (Edwards, 2013).

Individuals using this style find conflicts in life amusing and they make use of

this amusement to enhance their mood. Self-enhancing humor is closely related

to the notion of coping humor (Martin, 1996; Martin et al., 2003). According to

Kasow (2012), one with high score in this dimension can keep themselves in

good spirits without reliance on other people.

Aggressive humor is the use of humor to disparage, put down, or

manipulate others, the use of ridicule, offensive humor, sexist or racist humor,

and the compulsive expression of humor even when inappropriate

(Saroglou&Scariot, 2002). According to Cann et al. (2010), aggressive humor style

reflects individuals’ use of humor to tease or demean others, in order to gain

some status for oneself. Individuals employing this humor style attacks others to

bolster their self-concept and make themselves feel better. Leist and Muller

(2012) viewed aggressive humor as a hostile form of humor to enhance the self at

the expense of others and included sarcastic or criticizing humor. Furthermore,

Janes and Olson (2000) suggest that aggressive humor does not have to actively
put others down, but can also be an implied threat of ridicule (for example, being

present when someone else is being made fun of or ridiculed).

Self-defeating humor, on the other hand, involves ridicule or demeaning

of the self in an effort to gain favor with others, a style that has been found to be

associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression (Martin et al., 2003) and

has the potential to lower rather than raise one’s positive affect. Self-defeating

humor involves putting oneself down to attract and be accepted by others.

People using this style may attempt to make others laugh even at their own

expense. According to Stieger, Formann, and Burger (2011), they use humor as a

means to deny their underlying negative feelings or avoid dealing with certain

problem. Furthermore, Kasow (2012) suggested that people high in this domain

eitherallow themselves to be the target of others’ jokes or put themselves down

for the sake of being accepted by others. While individuals using this

typeofhumor may be perceived as witty or amusing, they tend to have an

element ofemotional neediness, avoidance, and low self-esteem (Fabrizi&Pollio,

1987).

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is an adaptive ability that allows an individual

to signal and respond to changes in relationships within the environment in

which he or she functions (Mayer,Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Theories of EI

maintain that people who have an enhanced awareness and understanding of

their emotional states and the reasons for their emotional reactions to situations
are able to use this information to solve problems more effectively. As a result

emotionally intelligent people may be more adaptable in complex social and

interpersonal situations (Austin, Saklofske,& Egan, 2005) and therefore better

able to function optimally in demanding environments. EI could therefore be a

large contributor to a person’s ability to adapt their goals and thinking styles to

the requirements of the environment, especially within a study or occupational

environment. According to Coon and Mitterer (2013), emotionally intelligent

people accept that emotions are an essential part of who they are and how they

survive.

Many elements contribute to emotional intelligence (Deutschendorf, 2009;

Larsen &Prizmic, 2004; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001). According to

Taylor and Taylor-Allan (2007), emotionally intelligent people are tuned in to

their own feelings. Because of this, they are able to recognize quickly if they are

angry, envious, feeling guilty or depressed. People who are emotionally

intelligent use emotions to promote personal growth and improve relationships

with others and know what causes various emotions, what they mean and how

they affect behavior (Coon &Mitterer, 2013). Moreover, Bonanno, Papa, Lalande,

Westphal, & Coifman (2004) suggested that emotionally intelligent people have

an ability to amplify or restrain emotions, depending on the situation.

Related Studies

Humor Styles

Being one of the very interesting topics in positive psychology, researches

about humor have been done. In these researches, humor was found to be related

to some psychological constructs in the context ofmany factors.

LaCorte (2015) examined the relationship between personal humor style

and humor appreciation in others. The purpose of their study was to examine the

relationship between individuals’ humor styles and their appreciation of various

humor styles as presented by others. Eighty-five undergraduate John Carroll

University students completed the Humor Styles Questionnaire and rated the

funniness of six stand-up comedy routines, representing either aggressive, self-

defeating, or affiliativehumor styles with one male and one female comedian for

each humor style. A mixed model Analysis of Variance revealed no relationship

between humor style and humor appreciation. However, an examination of the

effect of gender showed that men were more likely than women to endorse and

appreciate aggressive and self-defeating humorstyleswhile women were

significantly more likely to report using affiliativehumor.

Ozyesil (2012) analyzed if there are significant correlations among self-

esteem, humor styles and positive-negative affection and if self-esteem

significantly predicts humor styles and positive-negative affection. A total of 440

under graduate students participated in the study voluntarily. Rosenberg Self-

Esteem Scale, Humor Styles Questionnaire and The Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule were employed in order to collect the data of the study. According to

the findings of the study there were positive significant correlations between self-

esteem and affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles, negative correlations

between self-esteem and aggressive and self-defeating humor styles. Another

finding of the study shows that there is a significant positive correlation between

self-esteem and positive affection and a significant negative correlation between

self-esteem and negative affect.

Hiranandani and Bing Yue (2014) examined the relationship between

humor styles, self-esteem and humor perception in India. The Humor Styles

Questionnaire and the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale were used to survey 102

university students in India. Participants were also required to rate on

importance of humor and their own level of humor. Results indicated that Indian

university students tend to use more adaptive humor styles (affiliativehumor

and self-enhancing humor) than maladaptive humor styles (aggressive humor

and self-defeating humor). The findings also showed that the more adaptive

humor styles Indian students used, the better they felt about themselves.

Furthermore, Liu (2012) investigated the relationship between humor

styles, self-esteem and subjective happiness among Hong Kong undergraduate

students. 232 undergraduate students from 6 Hong Kong universities are asked

to complete a self-administered questionnaire in the current study. Results

showed that males considered themselves as more humorous than females.

Meanwhile, males used more aggressive humor styles than females. However,

both genders used more adaptive humor styles than maladaptive humor styles.

Additionally, positive correlations were found between adaptive humor styles,

self-esteem and subjective happiness. Adaptive humor styles were found to

strengthen the relationship between self-esteem and subjective happiness. In

addition, the mediation effects of humor styles found in the present research

provide useful suggestions for future intervention and therapeutic purposes in

promoting mental health.

Moreover, Güsewell and Ruch (2012) have recently found evidence that

emotional strengths such as zest, hope, bravery, humor, love, and social

intelligence possess the strongest links to emotional well-being. Of the emotional

strengths, humor is one of the most commonly endorsed strengths in individuals

(Proctor, Maltby, & Linley, 2011).

Another study by Dyck and Holtzman (2013) examined the influence of

humor styles on personal well-being within the context of social relationships

and gender. Their study found that men scored higher than women on the

aggressive humor style scale. They explained this disparity in terms of social

support; they suggested that aggressive humor is received with higher levels of

social support from groups of males than females. Among males, aggressive or

hostile humor is considered more behaviorally appropriate and elicits reactions

similar to that of affiliativehumor. For groups of women, aggressive humor is

less accepted and may be misinterpreted as hostility. Therefore, aggressive

humor is perceived as less maladaptive in men than in women. However,

another study conducted by Saroglou, Lacour, and Demeure (2010) found that

men who identified as having an aggressive humor style were more likely to be

divorced and have lower retrospective relationship quality. Conversely, men

who endorsed positive humor styles such as affiliative or self-enhancing humor

styles were more likely to have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and

lower levels of divorce.

Yip and Martin (2005) examined associations among sense of humor,

emotional intelligence (EI), and social competence in 111 undergraduate students

using measures of humor styles, trait cheerfulness, social competence, and an

ability test of EI. Emotional management ability was positively correlated with

self-enhancing humor and trait cheerfulness, and negatively correlated with trait

bad mood. Ability to accurately perceive emotions was negatively related to

aggressive and self-defeating humor. Positive humor styles and trait cheerfulness

were positively correlated with various domains of social competence, whereas

negative humor styles and trait bad mood were negatively correlated with social

competence. Finally, the emotional management facet of EI was positively

correlated with several social competence domains.

Additionally, Zangouei,Akbaribooreng and Hosseini (2014) examined the

relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence in students. Using

the MA students of Azad university of Birjand, Iran, results showed that there is

a meaningful relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence. Also

it is found that humour styles can predict emotional intelligence in students.

Students who used affiliative and self-enhancing humorstyles had higher level of

emotional intelligence, while, emotional intelligence was lower in those students

who used aggressive and self-defeating humor styles. Similarly, Vernon, Martin,

Schermer, and Mackie (2008) found that individuals who had high emotional

intelligence tended to use affiliative and self-enhancing humor, whereas

individuals who lacked emotional intelligence tended to employ aggressive and

self-defeating humor.

Emotional Intelligence

Alumran and Punamaki (2008) conducted a study examining gender and

age differences in emotional intelligence among 312 Bahraini adolescents and

discovered that gender not age was significantly correlated with emotional

intelligence. Girls showed higher interpersonal skills. These findings support

earlier studies conducted by Day & Carroll, 2004; Mayer, Caruso, &Salovey,

1999; Van Rooy, Alonso, &Viswesvaran, 2005.

Consequently, findings in the study of Zeidner (2009) suggested that

perhaps women are more likely to have emotional intelligence in areas of

“empathy, awareness of the feelings of others, and coping with stress through

‘tending and befriending’, all components central to emotional intelligence”.

Perhaps female college students have an advantage resulting in greater

persistence and overall success in school. The challenge to determine whether

emotional intelligence and gender are correlated has had mixed results in
previous studies (Izaguirre, 2008; Jaeger & Eagan, 2007; Parker, Duffy, Wood,

Bond, & Hogan, 2005).

Additionally, Harrod and Scheer (2005) measured emotional intelligence

of 200 youngsters between the ages of 16 to 19. The emotional intelligence scores

were compared with demographic qualities (age, sex, household income,

education level of parents, and place of residence) of the individuals. The

findings revealed that there is a positive relationship between levels of emotional

intelligence and sex, education levels of parents and household income. There is

no significant relationship between emotional intelligence and place of residence

during adolescence. Levels of emotional intelligence vary depending on the sex

and female students have a higher level of emotional intelligence in comparison

to the malestudents. There is no significant difference between emotional

intelligence score and age, place of residence and household income. The

important difference is confirmed to be based on emotional intelligence for

educational status of the family. In other words, the level of emotional

intelligence improves with the increased level of education. In conclusion, the

studies revealed that demographic qualities are also associated with emotional

intelligence.

On emotional intelligence’s relation to humor styles, Vernon , Martin,

Schermer, and Mackie (2008) found that individuals who had high emotional

intelligence tended to use affiliative and self-enhancing humor, whereas

individuals who lacked emotional intelligence tended to employ aggressive and

self-defeating humor. Greven, Chamorro-Premuzic, Arteche, and Furnham

(2008) pointed out positive correlations between total emotional intelligence

scores and the two adaptive humor styles, affiliative and self-enhancing, and

negative correlations with the two maladaptive humor styles, aggressive and

self-defeating. Tümkaya, Hamarta, Deniz, Çelik and Aybek(2007) demonstrated

that emotional intelligence predicted affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and

self-defeating humor styles in a sample of academic staff. Yip and Martin (2006)

examined the relationships between humor styles and emotional intelligence

among university students. They found positive correlation between emotional

management (a component of emotional intelligence) and self-enhancing humor.

Furthermore, there have been studies that attempts to focus and

empirically examine humor in cultures. Chen and Martin (2007) examined

humor styles, coping humor, mental health of university students in a Canadian

and Chinese sample. Overall, they reported Canadians scored significantly

higher particularly on the aggressive humor than the Chinese. To be specific, the

males used more aggressive and self-defeating humor than females in the

Canadian sample. Furthermore the younger participants in both cultures were

more likely to use affiliative and aggressive humor. Alternatively, the

collectivistic Chinese culture used lessmaladaptivehumor and more adaptive

humor.
 Hiranandani (2010) addresses the styles of humor in two cultures - the

Chinese and the Indians. The participants were sampled from universities in

Hong Kong and India, consisting of a total of 203 undergraduate students. The

results reported that Indian students rate the importance of humor significantly

higher than the Chinese students and also consider themselves as being

humorous. Secondly, this study affirms that collectivistic cultures use more

adaptive humor than maladaptive humor styles. In terms of gelotophobia, results

indicate that the Chinese demonstrate signs of the fear of laughter more than

Indians. Lastly, a relation of gelotophobia and the following has been recorded:

low self-esteem, low affiliativehumor, low self-enhancing humor and high self-

defeatinghumor.

Synthesis

It is apparent from the literature that people use humor differently and

this can have positive or negative impact on their lives. Recent researches have

indicated that males tend to use aggressive humor style compared to females

who tend to use affiliative humor style. It was also shown that collectivistic

cultures were more likely to use adaptive humor styles than maladaptive ones.

Furthermore, adaptive humor styles, affiliative and self-enhancing, were

positively correlated with self-esteem, positive affection, and emotional

intelligence while maladaptive humor styles, aggressive and self-defeating, were

negatively correlated with emotional intelligence.

 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides and discusses the details about research design, the

participants of the study, the sampling design, the research instruments, the data

gathering procedure and statistical tools for data analysis.

Research Design

This study employed a descriptive correlational research design. It is

intended to describe the characteristics or behavior of a particular population in a

systematic and accurate fashion (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003) and to examine the

relationship between variables. It is based on the objective of determining the

predominant humor style and level of emotional intelligence and to examine the

relationship of these variables among education students. The researchers used

the survey method form where a questionnaire served as an instrument in

collecting the data needed.

Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were the education students of a selected

school A.Y. 2015-2016. A total of 122 students (30 males and 92 females; 33 first

year, 29 second year, 35 third year, and 25 fourth year) were randomly selected

to participate. However, due to a limited time, the researchers were not able to

gather the questionnaires from one first year male participant.

 Table 1

Profile of the Respondents

Variables N N Percent

Sex

Male 42 30 24.59

Female 132 92 75.41

Year level

First year 47 33 27.05

Second year 42 29 23.77

Third year 50 35 28.69

Fourth year 35 25 20.49

Total 174 122 100

Sampling Design

The researchers used stratified random sampling as a research design. The

subjects were categorized according to their sex and year level.

For the sample size, Yamane’s formula was used, as shown below:

𝑁
n=
1+𝑁(𝑒)2
Where:

n = sample size

N = population size

e = margin of error (0.05)

Research Instrumentation

The research instrument that was used in this study consisted of three

parts.

Part I was the demographic profile of the participants. A brief

demographics questionnaire was administered to provide general information

about the students’ sex and year level.

Part II was theHumor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003). The

Humor Styles Questionnaire was used to assess the different styles of humor,

namely, affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating humor. The

HSQ has 32 items comprising eight-item sub-scale for each humor style. It is

adapted to the age 14-years. Items were rated on a seven-point likert scale (from

1= totally disagree to 7= totally agree). Items: 1, 9, 17, 25, 29, 22, 7, 15, 23, 31, 16

are reversely scored. The overall result was obtained by summing up the results

on all subscales. The affiliative style of humor was the summed value of items

focusing on the following serial numbers: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29; the self-

enhancing humor style focused on the following serial numbers: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18,

22, 26, 30; the aggressive humor style under numbers: 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23,27, 31;
the self-defeating humor style focused on item numbers: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32.

Higher scores for each subscale indicate high levels for that humor style.

Part III was the Schutte Self-Report Inventory (SSRI). This test is a 33-item self-

report measuring general emotional intelligence. It assesses the appraisal and

expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotion in the self and

others and utilization of emotion in solving problems. Items were rated on a five-

point likert scale (from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). Each item

score is graded with reverse coding items 5, 28, and 33 and then added together

to give the total score for the participant. Scores can range from 33 to 165, with

higher scores indicating high emotional intelligence.

Validity

Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Martin et al. (2003) supported the

construct validity of the HSQ with correlations to various questionnaires.

Convergent validity of the affiliative and self-enhancing humor style was shown

with other humor questionnaires. Consistent with the proposed relation of

humor and well-being, the two benign humor styles correlated negatively with

anxiety and depression, while the self-defeating style correlated positively with

them (Martin, 1996). In contrast, the aggressive humor style was uncorrelated

with well-being, but showed positive relations to aggression and hostility.

Correlations with the personality traits of the five-factor model (FFM) were also

in the expected directions, with the two benign styles relating positively to

extraversion and openness (and self-enhancing in addition to emotional stability

and agreeableness), and the two detrimental styles relating negatively to

emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness. This result was novel

as most former humor measures related positively to extraversion only

(Köhler&Ruch, 1996; Martin et al., 2003). Overall, the variance explained by the

four humor styles in the measures of personality (R2 = 12-37 percent) and well-

being, mood and social relationships (R2 = 11-37 per cent) showed medium to

large effect sizes.

Schutte Self-Report Inventory (SSRI).Petrides and Furnham (2000)

conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the SSRI and found evidence of

construct validity by discovering that the items which loaded on the four located

factors were closely related to the components of the model on which the test is

based. Evidence of convergent validity has been provided by research which has

found significant correlations to theoretically similar constructs, such as

measures of attention to feelings, clarity of feelings, improved mood repair,

optimism, greater impulse control, lack of depressed affect, less alexithymia

(Schutteet al., 1998), empathic perspective taking, self-monitoring in social

situations, closeness and warmth of relationship, marital satisfaction (Schutteet

al., 2001), emotional wellbeing, positive mood states and self-esteem (Schutte,

Malouff, Simunek, McKenley, & Hollander, 2002).

In order to determine whether the SSRI displayed predictive validity,

Schutteet al., (1998) conducted a longitudinal study to test whether scores on the

SSRI would predict academic marks of students in their first year at college and
found that scores on the SSRI significantly predicted averages at the end of the

academic year. The SSRI was found to meaningfully correlate with aspects of

adaptive interpersonal functioning and well-being (Schutteet al., 2001; Saklofske,

Austin, &Minski, 2003). It was found that people with higher EI scores display

more co-operative responses toward partners and experience greater marital

satisfaction (Schutteet al., 2001). The SSRI was further found to predict

performance on difficult and frustrating cognitive tasks (Schutte, Schuettpelz,

&Malouff, 2000) and positive mood states and self-esteem (Schutteet al., 2002).

Investigation into the predictive validity of the SSRI using adolescents found that

the scores on the SSRI were meaningfully related to skill at identifying emotional

expression, degree of social support, satisfaction with social support and mood

management behavior (Ciarrochi, Chan, &Bajgar, 2001).

Reliability

Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). Reliability of the HSQ was derived from

factor analysis and multiple rounds of statistical testing over 1110 participants.

The items showed sufficient levels of reliability ranging from .77 to .81 as

measured by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Additionally, test-retest reliability

was also administered. At one week apart, the four scales ranged from .80 to .85.

Moreover, the scales showed internal consistencies: .77 for Aggressive, .80 for

both Affiliative and Self-defeating, and .81 for Self-enhancing humor and the

correlations between the scales appeared quite low, ranging from .12 to .36,

signifying their independence (Martin et al., 2003).

 Schutte Self-Report Inventory (SSRI).Reliability of the SSRI was

demonstrated by Schutte et al. (1997) in two separate tests using two samples.

The samples were the college students from the South-Eastern United States. The

coefficient alpha scores for each test respectively were 0.87 and 0.78. Two-week

test-retest reliability indicated that the scores were fairly stable over time.

Therefore, the 33-item scale developed through factor analysis showed good

internal reliability with two different samples.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers conducted the data gathering in two phases:

Phase I: Preparation. The researchers submitted a letter to the dean of the

College of Arts, Sciences and Education of a selected school to solicit consent for

continuing a research study. Also, the researchers asked access to the names of

education students to aid in determining the sample. After the consent was

given, the researchers informed the participants about the study by securing a

letter and have them signed their informed consent.

Phase II: Data Gathering. The researchers gave questionnaires to the

respondents and provided them ten to twenty minutes to answer the tool. The

distribution of the questionnaire was be done by course; the retrieval of the

answered questionnaire was done on the same day.

After that, the researchers submitted the data to the statistician for the

statistical treatment and analysis.

Data Analysis

The application of statistical tools and the analysis of the data were

dependent on the data to be analyzed and the problems formulated.

Specifically, the following tools were used in the following manner:

1. In determining the predominanthumor style of education students as

a whole and when grouped according to: (a) sex and (b) year level, mean was

used.

2. In determining the level of emotional intelligence of education

students as a whole and when grouped according to (a) sex and (b) year level,

mean was used. Where the range of the mean scores and verbal interpretation

was:

Range of Mean Scores Verbal Interpretation

1.00-2.33 LOW

2.34-3.67 MODERATE

3.68-5.00 HIGH

3. In determining if there is a significant relationship between the four

humor styles namely affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defeating,

and emotional intelligence of education students, Pearson Product Moment

Correlation Coefficient was used. Where result is significant if p≤0.5.

 Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the present study, in order of the

specific statements of the problem. It also presents a discussion of the result.

Results

First, the present study aimed to determine the predominant humor style

among education students as a whole and when grouped according to sex and

year level.

The participants' mean scores as a whole are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Humor Styles of Participants (as a whole)

Humor Styles n Mean SD

Affiliative 121 39.083 6.9780

Self-enhancing 121 38.926 6.2037

Aggressive 121 30.041 5.2874

Self-defeating 121 33.165 7.0620

As shown in Table 2, the predominant humor style among the participants

is affiliative (M=39.083, SD=6.9780).

The participants' mean scores when grouped according to sex are

presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Humor Styles of Participants (according to Sex)

Sex n Mean SD

Male

Affiliative 29 40.586 6.1848

Self-enhancing 29 38.621 6.5215

Aggressive 29 31.000 4.7585

Self-defeating 29 32.931 6.9330

Female

Affiliative 92 38.069 7.1759

Self-enhancing 92 39.022 6.1340

Aggressive 92 29.739 5.4326

Self-defeating 92 33.239 7.1381

As shown in Table 3, the predominant humor style among male

participants is affiliative (M = 40.586, SD = 6.1848). Self-enhancing (M = 39.022,

SD = 6.1340) is the predominant humor style among female participants.

The participants' mean scores when grouped according to year level are

presented in Table 4 on the next page.

Table 4

Humor Styles of Participants (according to Year Level)

Year Level n Mean SD

First year

Affiliative 32 39.125 6.5241

Self-enhancing 32 38.438 6.6524

Aggressive 32 30.469 4.4431

Self-defeating 32 34.813 5.9862

Second year

Affiliative 29 40.586 5.5711

Self-enhancing 29 41.000 5.6695

Aggressive 29 30.448 5.5070

Self-defeating 29 33.655 8.0679

Third year

Affiliative 35 39.486 7.7474

Self-enhancing 35 38.286 6.3504

Aggressive 35 29.114 6.2439

Self-defeating 35 32.229 7.8930

Fourth year

Affiliative 25 36.720 7.6459

Self-enhancing 25 38.040 5.8057

Aggressive 25 30.320 4.6790

Self-defeating 25 31.800 5.6347

 As shown in Table 4, affiliative is the predominant humor style among

first year (M = 39.125, SD = 6.5421) and third year participants (M = 39.486, SD =

7.7474). Self-enhancing is the predominant humor style among second year (M

= 41.00, SD = 5.6695) and fourth year participants (M = 38.040, SD = 5.8057).

Research problem 2 intended to determine the level of emotional

intelligence of education students as a whole and when grouped according to sex

and year level.

Table 5 below shows the mean level of emotional intelligence of the

participants as a whole.

Table 5

Level of Emotional Intelligence of Participants (as a whole)

Variable n Mean SD Interpretation

Emotional Intelligence 121 131.826 15.3377 High

As shown in above in Table 5, the mean level of emotional intelligence of

the participants as a whole is high (M = 131.826, SD = 15.3377).

Thelevel of emotional intelligence of the participants according to sex are

presented in Table 6 on the next page.

Table 6

Level of Emotional Intelligence of Participants (according to Sex)

Sex n Mean SD Interpretation

Male 29 133.655 16.5082 High

Female 92 131.250 14.9986 High

As shown in Table 6 above, when grouped according to sex, the emotional

intelligence of both male (M = 133.655, SD = 16.5082) and female participants

(M = 131.250, SD = 14.9986) were high.

Table 7 shows the level of emotional intelligence of the participants

according to year level.

Table 7

Level of Emotional Intelligence of Participants (according to Year Level)

Year Level n Mean SD Interpretation

First year 32 132.906 13.8898 High

Second year 29 130.793 12.6021 High

Third year 35 135.314 14.0142 High

Fourth year 25 126.760 20.4007 High

As shown in Table 7, when grouped according to year level, the emotional

intelligence of first year (M = 132.906, SD = 13.8898), second year (M = 130.793,

SD = 12.6021), third year (M = 135.314, SD = 14.0142), and fourth year (M =

126.760, SD = 20.4007) participants were high.

Research problem 3 intended to determine if there is a significant

relationship between the four humor styles, namely affiliative, self-enhancing,

aggressive and self-defeating, and emotional intelligence of education students.

The relationship between the humor styles and emotional intelligence of

the participants is presented on Table 8 below.

Table 8

Relationship between Humor Styles and Emotional Intelligence

Humor Styles r p-value Interpretation

Affiliative .363 .000 Significant

Self-enhancing .434 .000 Significant

Aggressive -.016 .860 Not Significant

Self-defeating .078 .392 Not Significant

Note: Result is significant if p≤0.05

As shown above in Table 8, significant correlations were found between

the two adaptive humor styles and emotional intelligence. Specifically, there was

a significant relationship between affiliativehumor style and emotional

intelligence (r= .363, p≤0.05). Significant relationship was also found between

self-enhancing humor style and emotional intelligence (r = .434, p≤0.05). No

significant correlations were found between the maladaptive humor styles,

aggressive and self-defeating, and emotional intelligence.

Discussion

Research problem 1 aimed to determine the predominant humor style of

education students as a whole and when grouped according to sex and year

level. Results showed that the participants' predominant humor style when

taken as a whole was affiliative (M=39.083, SD=6.9780). With a standard

deviation of 6.9780 as a whole, this suggests that responses of the participants fall

in the range of approximately 33 to 45. Responses indicated that majority of the

students rated 7 or “strongly agree” to the affiliative subscale item number 21

which is “I enjoy making people laugh”. This suggests that majority of the

education students tend to use humor to create amusement and to improve their

interpersonal relationships.When grouped according to sex, results showed that

the predominant humor style among males was affiliative(M = 40.586, SD =

6.1848) while predominant humor style among females was self-enhancing (M =

39.022, SD = 6.1340). This indicates that majority of the males were more likely to

use humor to make others laugh while majority of the females were more likely

to use usehumor to cope with stress and to make themselves feel better. This

result is in contrast with LaCorte’s findings (2015) that emphasized that males

were more likely to use aggresivehumor while females were more likely to use

affiliative humor. When grouped according to year level, first year (M = 39.125,

SD = 6.5421) and third year participants' (M = 39.486, SD = 7.7474) predominant

humor style was affiliative while for second year (M = 41.00, SD = 5.6695) and

fourth year (M = 38.040, SD = 5.8057) was self-enhancing. In general, education

students tend to use adaptive humor styles, namely, affiliative and self-

enhancing. These findings support the study of Hiranandani (2010); Chen and

Martin (2007) that demonstrated that collectivist societies tend to use healthier

humor rather than unhealthy humor styles.

Research problem 2 aimed to determine the level of emotional intelligence

of education students as a whole and when grouped according to sex and year

level. The level of emotional intelligence of the participants as a whole was high

(M = 131.826, SD = 15.3377). With a standard deviation of 15.3377 as a whole, this

suggests that responses of the participants fall in the range of approximately 116

to 146. Furthermore, when grouped according to sex, both male (M = 133.655, SD

= 16.5082) and female participants (M = 131.250, SD = 14.9986) had high levels of

emotional intelligence. This result is in contrast with the study of Harrod and

Scheer (2005) that revealed that levels of emotional intelligence vary depending

on the sex and that female have a higher level of emotional intelligence in

comparison to males. When grouped according to year levels, first year (M =

132.906, SD = 13.8898), second year (M = 130.793, SD = 12.6021), third year (M =

135.314, SD = 14.0142), and fourth year (M = 126.760, SD = 20.4007) participants,

all had high levels of emotional intelligence. These results indicate that the

participants have an enhanced awareness and understanding of their emotional

states and the reasons for their emotional reactions to situations, are able to use
this information to solve problems more effectively, and are better able to

manage their emotions.

Research question 3 aimed to determine if there is a significant

relationship between the four humor styles, namely affiliative, self-enhancing,

aggressive and self-defeating, and emotional intelligence. The research to date

has provided mixed results. It is found that adaptive humor styles, affiliative (r=

.363, p≤0.05) and self-enhancing (r = .434, p≤0.05), have a significant relationship,

specifically, a positive correlation with emotional intelligence. No significant

correlations were found between the maladaptive humor styles, aggressive and

self-defeating, and emotional intelligence. These results partly support and

contrast the findings in previous studies of Zangouei,Akbaribooreng and

Hosseini (2014); Vernon , Martin, Schermer, and Mackie, (2008); Chamorro-

Premuzic, Arteche, andFurnham (2008) which emphasized that affiliative and

self-enhancing humor styles were positively correlated wth emotional

intelligence, and aggressive and self-defeating humor styles were negatively

correlated with emotional intelligence.

 Chapter 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the conclusion and recommendation derived from

the findings of the study.

Conclusion

The study showed that the predominant humor style of the education

students as a whole was affiliative. When grouped according to sex, males tend

to use affiliative humor style while females tend to use self-enhancing humor

style. When grouped according to year level, first year and third year education

students were more likely to use affiliative humor style while second year and

fourth year education students were more like to use self-enhancing humor style.

The level of emotional intelligence of the education students as a whole

was high. When grouped according to sex, both male and females tend to have a

high level of emotional intelligence. When grouped according to year level, the

results showed that all year levels were more likely to have a high level of

emotional intelligence.

On the relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence, this

study showed that there was a significant relationship between affiliative humor

style and emotional intelligence. Hypothesis 1 proposed that there is no

significant relationship between affiliativehumor style and emotional

intelligence. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was rejected. Furthermore, a significant

relationship was found between self-enhancing humor style and emotional

intelligence. Hypothesis 2 proposed that there is no significant relationship

between self-enhancing humor style and emotional intelligence. Therefore,

hypothesis 2 was rejected. However, no significant relationship was found

between the maladaptive humor styles, aggressive and self-defeating, and

emotional intelligence. Hypothesis 3 proposed that there is no significant

relationship between aggressive humor style and emotional intelligence.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that there is no significant relationship between self-

defeating humor style and emotional intelligence. Therefore, hypothesis 3 and 4

were not rejected.

Recommendation

1. Students should employ adaptive humor styles, affiliative and self-

enhancing, and strive to enhance their emotional intelligence.

2. Teachers should emphasize proper usage of humor and educate the

students about the importance of emotional intelligence.

3. Guidance personnel should make efforts to assess how students use

humor in their lives and develop programs that promote the usage of adaptive

humor styles. Activities that improve students’ emotional intelligence should be

implemented.

4. Parents should set an example to their children the proper usage of

humor in one’s life and to discover strategies that will help improve their

children’s emotional intelligence.

 5. Replication of this study in another setting as well as additional studies

of activities that may increase emotional intelligence are recommended.To

confirm the relationship between humor styles and emotional intelligence, there

is need for additional research between the two constructs especially using

experimental studies such as interventions aimed at increasing emotional

intelligence by attempting to modify humor styles or studies that control for the

influences of personality and intelligence.Samples from diverse culture or

regions and longitudinal and qualitative designs are suggested for future studies.
 REFERENCES

Alumran, J. I., &Punamaki, R. (2008). “Relationship between gender, age,

academicachievement, emotional intelligence, and coping styles in

Bahraini adolescents”.Individual Differences Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.

104-119.

Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and

healthcorrelates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual

Differences, 38(3), 547-558.

Bonanno G. A., Papa A., Lalande K., Westphal M., &Coifman K. (2004). The

importance of being flexible: the ability to both enhance and suppress

emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science,

15 (7), 482-487.

Bracket, M.A., &Salovey, P. (2006).Measuring emotional intelligence with the

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).Psicothema,

18, 34-41.

Cann, A., Stilwell, K., &Taku, K., (2010). Humor Styles, Positive Personality and

Health. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 3, 213-235.

Caruso, D.R. (1999). Applying the ability model of emotional intelligence to the

world of work.

Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C., &Bajgar, J. (2001).Measuring emotional intelligence

in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539-561.

Coon, D., &Mitterer., J., Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and

Behavior. (2013).

Day, A., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). “Using ability-based measure of emotional

intelligence topredict individual performance, and group citizenship

behaviors”. Personality andIndividual Differences, 36(6), 1443-1458

Day, A.L., Newsome, S. &Catano, V.M. (2002).Emotional Intelligence and

Leadership. Kingston: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute.

Deutschendorf, H. (2009). The other kind of smart: simple ways to boost your

emotional intelligence for greater personal effectiveness and success. New

York: AMACOM.

Dyck, K. T. H., &Holtzman, S. (2013). Understanding humor styles and well-

being: Theimportance of social relationships and gender.Personality and

Individual Differences,55, 53-58.

Edwards, R. (2013). The Role of Humor as a Character Strength in Positive

Psychology.University of Western Ontario -Electronic Thesis and Dissertation

Repository. Paper 1681.

Fabrizi, M. S., &Pollio, H. R. (1987). A naturalistic study of humorous activity in

A third, seventh, and eleventh grade classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

33, 107-128.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An

Introduction(7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Greven, C., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., &Furnham, A. (2008). A

 hierarchical integration ofdispositional determinants of general health in

students: The Big Five, trait emotional intelligence andhumour styles.

Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1562–1573.

Güsewell, A., &Ruch, W. (2012). Are only Emotional Strengths Emotional?

Character Strengths and Disposition to Positive Emotions. Applied

Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4,218-239.

Harrod, N.R., &Scheer , S. D. (2005). An Exploration of Adolescent Emotional

Intelligence InRelation to Demographic Characteristics.Adolescence, 40,

159.

Hiranandani, N.A. (2010). Humor Styles, Gelotophobia and Self-esteem: A

comparative study between the Chinese and the Indians. City University

of Hong Kong.Department of Applied Social Studies.

Hiranandani, N.A., &Bing Yue, S.R. (2014) Humor Styles in Indian University

Students.Int J PsycholBehav Anal 1: 104.

Izaguirre, R. (2008). The relationship among emotional intelligence, academic

achievement, and demographic characteristics in first year community

collegestudents (Doctoral dissertation), University of the Incarnate Word.

Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2007). Exploring the value of emotional intelligence:

Ameans to improve academic performance.NASPA Journal, 44(3), 512-537.

Janes, L.M.,& Olson, J. M.(2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of

 Observingridicule of others.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,

474–485.

Kasow, Z. (2012). Predicting Quality of Life Based on Humor Style

(Thesis).Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, San Luis

Obispo.

Kohler, 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.

Klein, D., &Kuiper N. (2006) Humor styles, peer relationships, and bullying

inmiddle childhood. Humor 19: 383-404.

LaCorte, S. (2015).An Examination of Personal HumorStyle and Humor

Appreciation in Others.Senior HonorsProjects.Paper 81.

Lam, L. T., & Kirby, S. L. (2002). Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An

exploration of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on

individual performance.Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (1), 133-143.

Larsen, R.J.,&Prizmic, Z. (2004) Affect regulation.In R. Baumeister, & K. D.

Voohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications

(pp. 40-61). New York: Guilford.

Leist, A.K.., & Müller, D. (2012).Humor Types Show Different Patterns of Self-

Regulation, Self-Esteem and Being (Research).

Liu, K. (2012). Humor Styles, Self-Esteem and Subjective Happiness.SS Student E-

Journal.1, 21-41.
Martin, R. A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ)

AndCopingHumor Scale (CHS): A decade of research findings. Humor:

InternationalJournal OfHumor Research, 9, 251-272.

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 styles questionnaire. J Res Pers 37: 48-

75.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. R., &Salovey, P. (1999). “Emotional intelligence meets

Traditionalstandards for emotional intelligence”. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-

298

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2000).Models of Emotional Intelligence.

In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 396-420).Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., &Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional

intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

Ozyesil, Z. (2012). The Prediction Level of Self-Esteem on Humor Style and

Positive-Negative Affect.Scientific Research, 3(8), 638-641.

Parker, J. D., Duffy, J. M., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (2005).

Academicachievement and emotional intelligence: Predicting the

successful transition fromhigh school to university. Journal of the First-Year

Experience & Students inTransition, 7(1), 67-78.

Petrides KV, & Furnham A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional

 intelligence. Personalityand Individual Differences 29: 313-320.

Petrides, K.V., Frederickson, N., &Furnham, A. (2004).The role of trait emotional

intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at

school.Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 277-293.

Petrides, K.V., Pérez-González, J. C., &Furnham, A. (2007).On the criterion and

incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence.Cognition and Emotion,

21(1), 26-55.

Princeton University. (2012). College Level. WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart

collection.

Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths Use as a Predictor of

Well-Being andHealth-Related Quality of Life.Journal of Happiness

Studies, 12,153-169.

Saklofske, D.H., Austin, E.J., &Minski, P.S. (2003). Factor structure and validity

ofa trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual

Differences,34(4), 702-721.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990).Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,

and Personality, 9, 185–211

Salovey, P., Grewal, D. (2005). The Science of Emotional Intelligence.American

Psychological Society, 14(6), 281-285

Saroglou, V. S., &Scariot, C. (2002).Humor styles questionnaire: Personality and

educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students.

European JournalOf Personality, 16, 43-54.

Saroglou, V., Lacour, C.,& Demeure, M. (2010). Bad Humor, Bad Marriage:

HumorStyles inDivorced and Married Couples. Europe’s Journal of

Psychology, 3, 94-121. 80.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J.,

&Dornheim, L. (1998).Development and validation of a measure of

emotionalintelligence.Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Schutte, N.S., Schuettpelz, E., &Malouff, J.M. (2000). Emotional Intelligence and

Task Performance.Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 347-354.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Bobik, C., Coston, T., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C.,

Rhodes.E.,&Wendorf, G. (2001).Emotional Intelligence and interpersonal

relations.Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 523-536.

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Simunek, M., McKenley, J., & Hollander, S. (2002).

Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional well-being.Cognition

andEmotion, 16, 769-785.

Stieger, S., Formann, A.K., & Burger, C., 2011.Humor Styles and their

relationship to explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and

Individual Differences., 50 (5). 747-750.

Taylor, G.J., & Taylor-Allan H.L. (2007). Applying emotional intelligence in

understanding and treating physical and psychological disorders: What

we have learned from alexithymia. In R. Bar-on, M.J.G Reuven, et al.

(Eds.), Educating people to be emotionally intelligent (pp. 211-223). Wetsport,

CT: Praeger
Tümkaya, S., Hamarta, E., Deniz, M. E., Çelik, M., &Aybek B. (2007).

Emotional intelligence, humor style and life satisfaction: A study on

university academic staff16-18.

Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., &Viswesvaran, C. (2005). “Group differences in

Emotionalintelligence test scores: Theoretical and practical implications.”

Personality andIndividual Differences, 38, 689-700.

Vernon, P. A., Martin, R. A., Schermer, J. A., & Mackie, A. (2008). A behavioral

genetic investigation ofhumour styles and their correlations with the Big 5

personality dimensions. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 44, 1116–

1125. doi: 110.1016/j.paid.2007.11.003.

World Health Organization.(2015). Sexual and Reproductive Health. Retrieved

Fromhttp://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh

_definitions/en/.

Yip, J.A.,&Martin, R.A., (2005). Sense of Humor, Emotional Intelligence and

Social Competence. Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 1202–1208

Yip, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (2006).Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and

socialcompetence.Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1202-1208.

Zangouei, A. A.,Akbaribooreng, M., &Hosseini, S.M. (2014). The relationship

Betweenhumour styles and emotional intelligence in students (Research

Paper).University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.

Zeidner M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2009).What we should know about
Emotionalintelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships and our

mental health.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.