THE FEAR OF BEING LAUGHED

AT (GELOTOPHOBIA) AND PERSONALITY

Willibald Ruch1, René T. Proyer2 & Diana Elena Popa3

University of Zurich, Switzerland,
Universitatea “Dun rea de Jos”, România

Abstract. Gelotophobia is defined as the fear of being laughed at. First

empirical studies of the concept (Ruch & Proyer, in press, 2008) show that it is a
valid new construct. Furthermore, it can be assessed reliably by means of a self-
report instrument (GELPH<46>). Gelotophobes interpret the laughter and smiling
of other persons not in a positive way but as a weapon used to put them down. They
are persistently concerned about being laughed at by others and are convinced of
being ridiculous. While gelotophobia was first observed in clinical case studies, it is
now considered as an individual difference phenomenon within the range of
normality. We investigated whether it can be located in a comprehensive model of
personality, namely, the Five Factor Model (FFM). A study investigating N = 119
participants showed that gelotophobia is high among emotionally instable introverts.
Furthermore, there were lower but significant negative correlations with
friendliness, openness and social desirability. However, only emotional stability and
extraversion entered a stepwise regression analysis. Overall, the results fit the
predictions very well and led to a revised version of a putative model of origins and
consequences of gelotophobia. The concept of gelotophobia is of relevance in
Romania, too. Results from the first data collection (N = 200) with a Romanian
version of the short form of the self-report measure (GELOPH<15>) showed that
approx. 13% of the participants exceeded a cut-off score indicating at least a slight
expression of the fear of being laughed at. The Romanian version showed good
psychometric properties in terms of high reliability and – as in the German and
English form – a unidimensional factor solution. Based on these first promising
experiences with this new concept, further studies on the fear of being laughed at in
Romania are encouraged.
Keywords: fear, five-factor model (FFM), gelotophobia, laughter

1
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Binzmühlestr. 14/7, CH-8050
Zurich, Switzerland, [email protected]
2
University of Zurich, Department of Psychology, Switzerland.
3
“Dun rea de Jos” University of Gala i, Department of Modern Applied Languages, Romania.

An. Inst. de Ist. „G. Bari iu” din Cluj-Napoca, Series Humanistica, tom. VI, 2008, p. 53–68
54 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 2

1. THE FEAR OF BEING LAUGHED AT AND PERSONALITY

1.1. THE FEAR OF BEING LAUGHED AT: FROM SINGLE CASE

STUDIES TO THE EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT

Laughter is an innate emotional expression in human beings that is associated

with a distinct facial and vocal pattern (Ruch & Ekman, 2001). Though laughter is
mostly related to the experience of positive emotions, there is empirical evidence
that persons exist that are primarily concerned with the fear of being laughed at. In
recent times, more and more effort has been spent on the scientific exploration of
the concept. Though the fear of being laughed at is interpreted as an individual
differences phenomenon, nowadays, the initial descriptions of the concept stem
from the clinical realm.
The German psychotherapist Michael Titze published the first single case
reports on the fear of being laughed at (1995, 1996, 1997). In his case-studies, Titze
shows that some of his patients are persistently worried of being laughed at.
Additionally, they seem to be convinced of being ridiculous and therefore laughed at
for a good reason. They fear exposing themselves to others because the latter are
supposedly screening them for evidence of ridiculousness, which then leads to
laughter at the patient's expense. The fear of being laughed at involves at its extreme
a more or less pronounced paranoid tendency, a marked sensitivity to offence, and
social withdrawal (Titze, 1996). Titze coined the term gelotophobia (from the Greek
word gelos = laughter) for describing the phenomenon.
Titze also set up several hypotheses on the origins and consequences of
gelotophobia. He developed them based on his single case-observations. Titze
refers to Henri Bergson (1924) in tracing gelotophobia back to repeated traumatic
experiences of not being taken seriously (being laughed at or ridiculed) during
childhood. His nomological net of proposed factors for the origins and
consequences of gelotophobia can be illustrated best by a diagram (Ruch, 2004; see
Figure 1).
Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical approach by Titze. It constitutes a
comprehensive model of putative causes and consequences of the fear of being
laughed at. A few important aspects should be highlighted. Titze (1995) describes the
gelotophobes’ general state to be “agelotic” (= being unable to appreciate the benefits
of laughter). The origin of this attitude was, in many cases, that they experienced
their early reference persons as lacking a “smiling face.” The face they recollect from
childhood corresponds to the petrified countenance of a sphinx: with a blank glance,
being constantly disinterested and distant. Titze reckons that those may have been
suffering from gelotophobic problems, as well. Thus, infancy (especially early
parents-child interactions) plays an important role as a source of putative causes for
the development of gelotophobia. When infants are confronted with such a “sphinx”-
face, the “interpersonal bridge” (Kaufman, 1985) cannot be constructed and they
3 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 55

experience themselves as being unconnected to others. These children do not

experience laughter as a positive means of shared identity and they cannot develop
prosocial emotions, which reflect a cheerful and self-confident imperturbability.
Rather, their fellows are constructed to be hostile strangers who treat them in an
uncaring, cold, or sarcastic way. Derisive laughter is one weapon these strangers
might use and this kind of laughter is what dissociated children fear so much.

Fig. 1. A model of the putative causes and consequences

of Gelotophobia as proposed by Titze (Ruch 2004)

The result is that such individuals would be unable to fit into a social group
in an inconspicuous and relaxed way. Therefore, they will tend to separate from
social groups (in childhood, youth, and as adults) – just to avoid appearing to
others in an embarrassing or “comical” manner. Thus, these individuals do not
develop adequate social skills. Shame casts them into the role of a shunned
defensive character. However, it makes them ideal candidates for being the butt of
mockery and derisive laughter. Consequently, the main purpose of their lives is to
protect themselves from being laughed at by others.
Among the consequences that are shown in the Figure 1 there are some which
are shared with other fears (e.g., social withdrawal, low self-esteem, lack of liveliness
etc.). On the other hand, there are also consequences that are specific for the fear of
being laughed at. One of them is the so-called “Pinocchio Complex.” Gelotophobes
have not learned to appreciate laughter and even smiling in a positive way.
Therefore, they respond even to positively motivated laughter and smiling in a way
that indicates their fear of being put down or being otherwise humiliated by those
who face them with laughter or smiling. They communicate – especially nonverbally
56 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 4

– feeling very uneasy thereby making a peculiar impression. Titze reports that their
posture may get stiff and they develop muscular tension as a consequence of an
emotional panic. The most conspicuous part of the appearance of gelotophobic
patients, however, is their congeal expressive pattern and clumsy movements.
Bergson (1924) compared people being laughed at or being cynically put down with
wooden puppets or marionettes, and Titze (1995, 1996) referred to the well-known
figure of Pinocchio to label this behavioral complex. Titze describes that their facial
expression appears to be that of a mask. Their arms and legs may not move in a
spontaneous way as they try to deliberately control their spontaneous body
movements. Subsequently, their appearance approximates what Pinocchio was
supposed to look like.
Additionally, humor and laughter are not experienced as relaxing and joyful
among gelotophobes. For Titze, one of the main characteristics of gelotophobes is
that they have never learned to appreciate laughter or smiling in a positive way. On
the contrary, they experience it as an offensive act from their interaction partners to
put them down. Laughter and smiling tend to be interpreted negatively by
gelotophobes and they persistently scan their environment for new signs of laughter
by others. This kind of behavior (i.e., insecure, vigilant, alert, etc.) may be seen as a
new source for the mockery of others.
The model in its present form (Ruch, 2004) can be seen as a starting point for
empirical research on the fear of being laughed at. However, first studies testing the
hypothesis that early, intense, and repeated experiences of having been laughed at
may facilitate the development of gelotophobia have been completed. Partly they
point in a different direction than hypothesized and show that other factors may be
relevant as well (or perhaps be even more important). For example, Ruch, Proyer,
and Ventis (2008) studied the relation between remembered experiences of having
been laughed at in a group of diagnosed gelotophobes by clinical experts, in a group
of shame-based and non shame-based neurotics and in a group of normal controls
(more than 800 participants in total). The results suggest that remembered
experiences of being laughed at by parents, teachers or peers in different situations
(at home, in school etc.) and time spans (childhood, youth) only accounts for
differences in the expression of gelotophobia in the range of normality. Gelotophobes
and shame-based neurotics reported not to have more of those experiences than the
normal controls and non shame-based neurotics, their intensity and frequency did not
explain individual differences in the fear of being laughed at in the group of
gelotophobes and the shame-based neurotics. Similarly the results by Proyer,
Hempelmann, and Ruch (2008) show that gelotophobes (not clinically diagnosed, but
participants exceeding a cut-off score indicating at least a slight expression of
gelotophobia; see the next section on the measurement of gelotophobia for more
details) did not remember having been laughed at in the past twelve months with a
higher frequency than participants that did not fear being laughed at. However,
gelotophobes remember these events with a higher intensity. Overall, the first
5 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 57

empirical studies show that the assumptions regarding the putative causes are helpful
(i.e., lead to partially confirmed hypotheses) but it seems as if other factors contribute
to the development of gelotophobia as well – or are even more relevant for its
development. For example, the relation between gelotophobia and certain personality
factors might be considered as well. It might be possible that personality acts as a
moderator and it is fruitful to consider them.
While Titze studies gelotophobia as a clinical phenomenon, Ruch and Proyer
(in press) show that it is equally relevant as an individual difference variable among
non-clinical groups. They found that 11.65% of the normal controls had scores that
indicated at least a slight expression of the fear of being laughed at (data were
collected in Germany). They concluded that gelotophobia should be studied in a non-
clinical context, as well.

1.2. MEASUREMENT OF THE FEAR OF BEING LAUGHED AT: THE GELOPH<46>

In the study by Ruch and Proyer (2008) clinical experts familiar with the
concept did the assessment of gelotophobia. The fear of being laughed at was also
assessed in experimental settings and by means of a semi-projective test (see Ruch,
Altfreder, & Proyer, 2008). However, for many research purposes an economic
self-report measure is the method of choice.
Items were derived from descriptions of the experiential world of
gelotophobes. These statements were included in the GELOPH<46> (Ruch &
Titze, 1998). While some of the items formulated are referring particularly to the
gelotophobic symptomatology, others are prevalent among gelotophobes but not
specifically restricted to them; i.e., might be shared with other groups.
Additionally, eight facets of gelotophobia were formulated (derived from Titze,
1995, 1996, 1997) and the items were assigned to the facets. The facets comprise
(for each facet a typical statement is given in brackets): Paranoid sensitivity
towards mockery by others (e.g., “When they laugh in my presence I get
suspicious”), fear of the humor of others (e.g., “Others find pleasure in putting me
to the spot”), critical self-consciousness of the own body (e.g., “When giving
someone a smile I get the feeling that my facial muscles get cramped”), social
withdrawal (e.g., “When I have made an embarrassing impression somewhere, I
shun this place consequently”), general response to the smiling and laughter of
others (e.g., “In the company of cheerful people I often feel uneasy because I fear
not to be able to keep up with them”), discouragement and envy when comparing
with the humor competence of others (e.g., “With quick-witted and humorous
people I feel inferior”), and traumatizing experiences with laughter and mockery in
the past (e.g., “During puberty I have avoided contact to peers in order not to get
teased by them”). These facets comprise core symptoms of gelotophobia and
58 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 6

symptoms that are shared with other concepts; for example, social withdrawal that
is also found in social phobics. Ruch and Proyer (2008) showed that the results
from the self-report instrument converge well with the diagnosis by clinical
experts. The 46 items show good psychometric properties in terms of a high
reliability. Thus, it is concluded that the instrument is a valid, reliable, and
economic measure for the fear of being laughed at.
In a recent study a 15-item short version of the self-report instrument was
derived (Ruch & Proyer, in press). The criteria for the selection of the items were
(1) prototypicality ratings from experts familiar with the concept, (2) the loadings
on the first factor in a group of clinically diagnosed gelotophobes ( .50) and a
group of normal controls ( .40), (3) high prevalence rates (mean scores 2.50) in
a group of diagnosed gelotophobes and low prevalence rates in a group of normal
controls (mean scores 2.50), (4) items were chosen to distinguish between high-
scoring gelotophobes, shame-bound neurotics, non shame-bound neurotics, and
normal controls (by means of their correlation with the first axis from a
discriminant analysis), (5) only items with a corrected item total correlation
exceeding .40 were considered, and it was requested that the final solution should
show a high reliability (> .80). The final solution yielded a high reliability (alpha =
.93 for the total sample). The items reflect the core symptoms of gelotophobia.
Furthermore, it was shown that the results from this self-report instrument
converged very well with the ratings from the clinical experts.

1.3. EXAMINING THE RELATION BETWEEN THE FEAR OF BEING

LAUGHED AT AND PERSONALITY: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The overview presented in the previous section suggests that gelotophobia

should be studied as an individual differences variable in connection with
comprehensive models of personality. Thus, we will examine the location of
gelotophobia in the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality.
Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness are the personality traits that are organized hierarchically in the
Five Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Goldberg, 1993;
McCrae & John, 1992). The factors were derived from a psycho-lexical approach.
They are supposed to give a comprehensive account of personality. Several authors
have defined specific dimensions or facets as first order factors with the big five
dimensions as second order factors. The number of these facets varies from author
to author. For example, Costa and McCrae (1992b) describe six facets for each
factor in their NEO-PI-R while Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, and Perugini
(1993) specify two facets per factor.
This kind of research is promising since literature shows some stable
relations between anxiety (on different levels) and personality. Overall, current
literature suggests that there is a strong relationship between scores in neuroticism
7 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 59

(high) and extraversion (low) to the diagnosis of social phobia. Furthermore, the
scores are also related to agreeableness, but less strongly so (e.g., Bienvenu &
Stein, 2003; Bienvenu, Nestadt, Samuels, Costa, Howard, & Eaton, 2001;
Bienvenu, Samuels, Costa, Reti, Eaton, & Nestadt, 2004; Brandes & Bienvenu,
2006; Trull & Sher, 1994). Norton, Cox, Hewitt, and McLeod (1997) used a
measure of anxiety in social interaction situations that was positively related to
neuroticism, and negatively related to extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness from the FFM.
Based on the descriptions in Figure 1 gelotophobes can be predicted as being
introverted (e.g., social withdrawal, lack of liveliness, spontaneity, and joy) and
emotionally instable (e.g., low self-esteem, psychosomatic disturbances). Indeed,
laughing at someone is aimed to repel deviant behavior (leading to inhibition of
that behavior) and it will upset people (i.e., induce strong negative emotions
alarming the individual about their wrongdoing). Hence individuals with repeated
traumatic experiences of being laughed at might have accentuated these personality
traits. The use of a scale measuring the five factor model will help to determine
whether gelotophobia additionally relates to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience.
However, one might also argue that everyone gets often laughed at during his
or her lives but only few develop gelotophobia. Hence, it might be more important
whether or not one is vulnerable to the effects of being laughed at and to take those
instances more seriously. For example, people being prone to shame will suffer more
from events of being laughed at, experience them more intensely and be more likely
to develop gelotophobia. Thus, it might well be that introverted instable people
perceive events of being laughed at more as punishment (and experience it as more
unpleasant) than the stable extraverts do.
In sum, it should be highlighted that there are two lines of thinking about a
relationship between gelotophobia and personality. Firstly, according to Titze one
would hypothesize that repeated traumatic events of being laughed at during
childhood and adolescence affects the personality development. In this line of
thinking, personality changes as a consequence of gelotophobia. Secondly, it is
argued that predispositions for gelotophobia exist which interact with eliciting
conditions. Thus, personality traits determine who will cope well with incidences of
being laughed at and who will develop the symptoms described.
While both lines of thinking suggest a relationship with personality traits,
only a longitudinal design would allow the drawing of inferences about causality.
However, as a first step, determining the pattern of correlations will suffice leaving
the study of causality for later studies. Thus, the prime aim of the study presented
in the next section is to localize gelotophobia in the Five Factor Model (FFM) of
personality.
60 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 8

1.4. AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN GELOTOPHOBIA

AND THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL (FFM) OF PERSONALITY

Subjects
The sample consists of N = 119 students (M = 24.51, SD = 5.75) between 17 and
50 years. The male : female ratio is about 1 : 1 with 58 males (48.74 %) and 61 females
(51.26 %).
Instruments
The GELOPH<46> (Ruch & Titze, 1998) is a 46-item questionnaire for the
subjective assessment of gelotophobia. All items are positively keyed and they use
a four-point answer scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 =
moderately agree; 4 = strongly agree). Scores for each of the eight facets were
computed. All analyses were made for the facets separately and for a total score
comprising all 46-items. In the Ruch and Proyer (2008, in press) study the
GELOPH<46> has proven its usefulness and validity for the subjective assessment
of gelotophobia. Further evidence on its validity and usefulness can be retrieved in
Ruch (2008).
The Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini,
1993) is a 132 items questionnaire in a five-point answer format measuring five
domains of personality, plus a lie scale. The names of the domains are energy (or
extraversion), friendliness (or agreeableness), conscientiousness, emotional stability,
and openness. An overview on studies supporting the validity of the instrument is given
in Barbaranelli and Caprara (2002).
Procedure
The student samples were recruited by means of pamphlets. They were tested
individually and were paid for their services. Testing took place in laboratory
rooms in the university.
Results
The results show that 10% of the participants were exceeding the first cut-off
point (mean score > 2.5) and 3% exceeded the second cut-off point (mean score >
3.0) indicating a pronounced gelotophobic symptomatology. (The rationale behind
the cut-off points is described in detail in Ruch and Proyer, in press). In total 13 %
of the participants showed at least a slight expression of gelotophobia. In order to
examine the personality correlates of gelotophobia, the total score and facets of
gelotophobia were correlated with the Big Five Questionnaire. The results
regarding the correlations between the fear of being laughed at and personality are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that gelotophobes primarily described themselves as
emotionally instable and introverted (i.e., low in energy). Furthermore, there was a
negative correlation with friendliness implying that gelotophobes tended to
9 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 61

describe themselves as being hostile. Finally, there were small negative

correlations with openness to new experiences and the Lie scale. Gelotophobia was
uncorrelated from conscientiousness. Stepwise multiple regressions with the
content scales of the BFQ as predictors and the Geloph total score yielded a
multiple correlation of .67 (F[2,103] = 41.96; p < .0001). Only extraversion (i.e.,
energy) and emotional stability entered the equation. The predictive power of (low)
friendliness and (low) openness disappeared once the effects of extraversion and
emotional stability were partialled out.

Table 1
Correlations Between Gelotophobia and the Scales of the Big Five Inventory (BFQ)

E F C S O L
Total -.49*** -.29*** -.15 -.53*** -.21* -.20*
F1 -.44*** -.31*** -.18* -.46*** -.19* -.22*
F2 -.33*** -.29*** -.10 -.42*** -.22* -.12*
F3 -.50*** -.24** -.10 -.52*** -.17 -.21*
F4 -.46*** -.18* -.19* -.36*** -.09 -.20*
F5 -.45*** -.31*** -.18* -.47*** -.22* -.24**
F6 -.46*** -.16 -.10 -.55*** -.20* -.18*
F7 -.45*** -.26** -.14 -.52*** -.16 -.16
F8 -.35*** -.27** -.02 -.45*** -.24** .00
Note. N = 111-116. E = energy, F = friendliness, C = conscientiousness, S = emotional stability, and
O = openness. L = lying. F1 = paranoid sensitivity towards mockery of others; F2 = fear of the humor
of others; F3 = critical self-consciousness of the own body; F4 = critical self-consciousness of the
own verbal and non-verbal communicative functions; F5 = social withdrawal; F6 = general response
to the smiling & laughter of others; F7 = discouragement and envy when comparing with the humor
competence of others; F8 = traumatizing experiences with laughter in the past.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

While the facets of gelotophobia yielded unique correlational profiles, the

results also showed that they did not convey much more information that exceeded
the information contained in the total score of all 46 items. This indicated that the
results should be interpreted best for the total score while the single facets were not
of further relevance.
Discussion
The study offered several interesting findings relevant to the appraisal of the
gelotophobic personality. Foremost, it showed that it was possible to locate
gelotophobia in a comprehensive model of personality, namely the Five Factor
Model of Personality (FFM); the results clearly indicate that gelotophobia as an
62 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 10

individual differences variable is predictably related to personality in a sample of

healthy adults (student sample). In terms of the FFM, gelotophobes can be
described as introverted and emotionally instable, with a tendency to be hostile and
not open to new experiences. They answered frankly and no answer distortions in
terms of social desirable answers were found. However, not all of the variance is
accounted for by personality. Application of stepwise multiple regression analysis
with the personality inventories as predictors and the total score from the list of
statements as a criterion shows that the BFQ explains 44% of the variance
(introversion, emotional instability). Given that only 13% of the participants can be
classified as gelotophobes, it seems unlikely that having been laughed at shaped
personality. Rather it is likely that personality is, at least in part, a determinant of
the perception of being laughed at and a moderator of its effects. Nevertheless,
longitudinal studies are needed to determine the direction of causality.
No apparent differences among the facets of gelotophobia were found
suggesting that these facets do contribute equally well. Additionally, the results
show that the relevant facet of a paranoid sensitivity towards mockery of others
does not largely exceed the correlations found for other facets. This result
underscores the homogeneity of the gelotophobia statements. Thus, the facets can
be omitted in future studies and preferably the total score should be interpreted.
Moreover, it is suggested that that the 15-item version should be used for studies
on the fear of being laughed at in future studies (Ruch & Proyer, in press; see the
Appendix).
The current study is embedded in a broader research program to explore the
experiential world of gelotophobes. A first step is the further examination of the
gelotophobia-personality relation by means of other comprehensive models of
personality (e.g., the Eysenckian PEN-model; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). For
further studies predictions can be made not only regarding personality, but also to
the gelotophobes’ proneness to certain emotions (e.g., shame), their stance towards
humor and laughter, or their expressive pattern (facial and movement). Preliminary
studies show that among gelotophobes there is a proneness to experience shame
and fear during ordinary weeks, as well as having experienced a higher intensity of
shame in ones past compared to others (Ruch, 2004). One limitation of the prior
studies is that the concept was derived and validated only with German samples.
Therefore, for future studies a multi-national approach for the examination of
gelotophobia is endorsed. At the moment we have 40 different language versions
of the GELOPH that are well suited for the subjective assessment of gelotophobia.
A first group of researchers from Romania has joined the international research
team4 and provided initial data for an evaluation of the usefulness of the Romanian
language version of the scale.
4
The website of the project can be retrieved from http://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/perspsy/
gelotophobia/
11 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 63

2. THE FEAR OF BEING LAUGHED AT IN ROMANIA

Currently, the Zurich-based authors are conducting a large multinational study on

gelotophobia involving approximately 80 countries. The study is aimed at an
examination of the question whether the fear of being laughed at can be reliably
assessed in different regions, nations, and languages of the world by means of a self-
report instrument. For this study data were also collected in Romania. The results for
this sample will be presented in more detail and discussed with respect to its potential
use in studies on gelotophobia in Romania.
Sample
A total of N = 200 participants (n = 100 males, n = 100 females) completed a
self-report instrument for the subjective assessment of gelotophobia used in the study
described above. Their mean age was 24.20 years (standard deviation = 8.56) with a
range from 18 to 70 years. Most of them were not in a relationship (n = 128). In
previous studies, gelotophobia was not related to age or sex not to other variables
(including marital status, educational level, or size of the town the people live in).
Therefore, it was decided that none of these variables needed to be considered
specifically for the data collection.
Procedure and instrument
The data consisted primarily of university students from the “Dunarea de Jos”
University of Gala i. The participants were not paid for their services. The third
author, a member of the Department of Modern Applied Languages translated the
GELOPH<46> to Romanian. The answer format and instruction were identical
with the German version that was used for the study described in the previous
section. The procedure for the translation was standardized by the Zurich-based
research group and included a translation-back-translation routine. An independent
person did the back-translation. The translation and back-translation were
compared and a final version was suggested. Following the suggestions by Ruch
and Proyer (in press) the results for the GELOPH will be presented for its 15-item
short form.
Results
First, a principal components analysis was computed for the 15 items and
there was one strong first factor. The eigenvalues were 4.57, 1.40, 1.15, and 1.08,
respectively. The loadings of the items on the first factor ranged between .34 (item
6) and .72 (item 10; with the exception of item 7 with a loading of .07). The
median of the loading on the first factor was .54. The item 7 is of special interest.
In the initial translation that was used for the data collection the translation
indicated believing to make involuntarily an amusing impression on others. This
was probably too positively connoted for the participants (in the sense of being an
entertaining person for the others). Thus, it was decided to rephrase the item so that
the item content of believing that one involuntarily gives a different impression to
others than intended (i.e., a ridiculous impression). The questionnaire in the
Appendix contains already the rephrased version.
64 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 12

In a next step the two answer categories indicating agreement to an item (i.e.,
“agree” and “strongly agree”) were taken together and the frequency of the
endorsement to each item was computed. The average item endorsement was 25.87%
and the range was between 2.50% (item 15) and 65.50% (item 6). Thus, the item
dealing with controlling oneself in order not to attract negative attention from others
and hence make a ridiculous impression had the highest agreement rates of all items.
The first results from the multinational study suggested that in all countries there was a
similar average item endorsement but that the range between highest and lowest item
endorsement was generally lower in the most countries.
Further on, we investigated how many gelotophobes were in the sample.
Ruch and Proyer (in press) suggested differentiating between slight, pronounced,
and extreme expressions of gelotophobia. They derived cut-off scores for each of
these categories empirically. In the present sample there were 13.00% of the
participants that exceeded the score indicating that gelotophobic symptoms apply
(i.e., a mean score 2.50; see Ruch & Proyer for more information on the cut-off
scores). 9.00% were characterized with slight and 4.00% with pronounced
expressions of the fear of being laughed at. None of the participants exceeded the
last cut-off score (i.e., extreme gelotophobia).
The 15 items showed high internal consistency; the alpha coefficient was .82.
In a next step, the corrected item total correlations and the correlations of each item
and the total score with age, sex, and marital status were computed (see Table 2).

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Corrected Item Total Correlations, and Correlations
M SD CITC Age Sex Ms
Item 1 1.89 0.94 .42 -.06 .22** -.10
Item 2 1.73 0.95 .45 -.01 .24** -.11
Item 3 1.70 0.89 .60 -.14 .26** -.16*
Item 4 1.45 0.79 .36 .09 .11 -.15*
Item 5 1.76 0.86 .47 .08 .12 .04
Item 6 2.80 1.06 .28 -.03 .18 -.07
Item 7 2.39 1.04 .08 -.11 -.14 .05
Item 8 1.75 0.96 .41 .05 .19** -.07
Item 9 2.24 1.04 .52 .07 .21** .00
Item 10 2.07 1.04 .62 -.05 .39** -.10
Item 11 1.90 0.95 .48 .06 .13 -.01
Item 12 1.86 0.96 .57 .09 .33** .01
Item 13 1.77 0.96 .37 -.03 -.01 -.03
Item 14 1.63 0.79 .38 -.13 .17* -.06
Item 15 1.86 0.95 .55 .13 .30** .05
Total 1.92 0.50 -- -.02 .34** -.10
Note. N = 200. M = mean, SD = standard deviation; CITC = corrected item-total correlation; Age =
correlation with age, Sex = correlation with sex (1 = males, 2 = females), Ms = correlation with
marital status (1 = single; 2 = in a relationship).
*p < .05; **p < .01.
13 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 65

Table 2 shows that females scored higher than men in the Romanian 15-item
version. Neither age nor marital status (single vs. in a relation) was related to
gelotophobia. The corrected item-total correlations ranged from .08 to .62 with a
median of .45. The reason for the low corrected item total correlation for item 7 is
due to an ambiguous formulation in the original form of the questionnaire (the
Appendix already contains the revised version).
Discussion
The results indicate that the fear of being laughed at can be assessed in a reliable
and economic way with the Romanian language version. The pattern of loadings on the
first factor is highly similar to the original German version. Generally, the results
converge well with previous findings from the German-speaking world. However,
there is one exception. In most of the samples we have encountered so far there are no
relations to gender. In Romania, women scored higher in gelotophobia than men did.
One possible explanation would be that the expectations from the society towards
women in the sense of not to look or behave ridiculous (they were brought up) has an
impact on the expression of the fear of being laughed at – yet this hypothesis needs to
be tested empirically and it is up to future research projects to examine whether this
relation is stable or not and what explanations might apply.
The inspection of the endorsements to single items showed that the
Romanian participants were relatively unconcerned from having a stiff posture and
losing their ability to behave adequately when they have made a fool of themselves
(lowest endorsement to an item of the GELOPH). Conversely, controlling oneself
strongly not to attract negative attention from others and making a ridiculous
impression yielded the highest endorsement for all items. Also, the comparatively
high range between highest and lowest average item endorsement was interesting.
This is important since it shows what factors might be of relevance for the
expression of gelotophobia in Romania. These first results suggest for example that
controlling oneself strongly for not being laughed at plays an important role (as a
kind of “unwritten law”). Follow-up studies in Romania are needed for further
discussion of this topic.
Furthermore, 13% of the participants (mostly university students) exceed the
cut off score that indicates at least a slight expression of gelotophobia. Thus, the
fear of being laughed at is a relevant phenomenon in Romania well worth for
further investigations.

3. OUTLOOK

Currently, the Zurich-based authors complete a variety of new studies on the

fear of being laughed at (see Ruch, in press). Among these there are, for example,
studies dealing with experimental verifications of the concept, the frequency and
66 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 14

intensity with which gelotophobes experience having been laughed at in the past year,
the humor of gelotophobes, a multi-national comparison in the fear of being laughed
at, the relation to character strengths and intelligence (self-estimated and assessed via
psychometric tests). Teams in England and Italy have also started investigating the
phenomenon. Their results are very promising. For example, Tracey Platt (in press)
showed that gelotophobes primarily react with shame and fear in their emotional
responses to ridicule and good-natured teasing (interestingly, gelotophobes also react
with the experience of negative emotions – primarily shame, fear, and anger – to
good-natured teasing). Forabosco, Ruch, and Nucera (in press; Forabosco, Mazzotti
Drei, & Missiroli, 2006) conducted a study in a clinical realm. They showed that
gelotophobia was more prevalent among patients with personality disorders and
schizophrenic disorders than among normal controls. Also, they found that the
number of years spent in psychiatric care was positively related to gelotophobia.
The scientific study of gelotophobia as a new individual difference phenomenon
has just recently begun and the first results are very encouraging. Overall, the
prevalence rates found in the first data collection in Romania indicate that the concept
is of relevance here, as well.

REFERENCES

Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V., Studies of the Big Five Questionnaire, in Big Five Assessment,
B. deRaad, & M. Perugini (eds.), Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2002,
p. 109–146.
Bergson, H. L., Laughter: An essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1924.
Bienvenu, O. J., & Stein, M. B., Personality and Anxiety Disorders: A Review, “Journal of
Personality Disorders”, 2003, 17(2), 139–151.
Bienvenu, O. J., Nestadt, G. M. B., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Howard, W. T., & Eaton, W. W.,
Phobic, Panic, and Major Depressive Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality,
“Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease”, 2001, 189, p. 154–161.
Bienvenu, O. J., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Reti, I. M., Eaton, W. W., & Nestadt, G., Anxiety and
Depressive Disorders and the Five-factor Model of Personality: A higher – and Lower – Order
Personality Trait Investigation in a Community Sample, “Depression and Anxiety”, 2004, 20,
p. 92–97.
Brandes, M., & Bienvenu, O. J., Personality and Anxiety Disorder, “Current Psychiatry Reports”,
2006, 8, p. 263–269.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M., The “Big Five Questionnaire”: A New
Questionnaire to Assess the Five Factor Model, “Personality and Individual Differences”,
1993, 15, p. 281–288.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R., 4 Ways 5 Factors Are Basic, “Personality and Individual Differences”,
1992a, 13, p. 653–665.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R., Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-RTM) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, 1992b.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W., Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science
Approach, New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
15 The Fear of Being Laighed at (Gelotophobia) and Personality 67

Forabosco, G., Mazzotti Drei, E., & Missiroli, N., La gelotofobia. Una ricerca con pazienti
psichiatrici (Gelotophobia. A study with psychiatric patients), Frammenti: “Rivista di Psichiatria”,
2006, 15(1), p. 67–77.
Forabosco, G., Ruch, W., & Nucera, P., The Fear of Being Laughed at among Psychiatric Patients,
“Humor: International Journal of Humor Research”, in press.
Goldberg, L. R., The Structure of Phenotypic Personality-Traits, “American Psychologist”, 1993, 48,
p. 26–34.
Kaufman, G., Shame: The Power of Caring, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Books, 1985.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P., An Introduction to the 5-Factor Model and Its Applications, “Journal
of Personality”, 1993, 60, p. 175–215.
Norton, G. R., Cox, B. J., Hewitt, P. J., & McLeod, L., Personality Factors Associated with
Generalized and Non-generalized Social Anxiety, “Personality and Individual Differences”,
1997, 22, p. 655–660.
Platt, T., Emotional Responses to Ridicule and Teasing: Should Gelotophobes React Differently?,
“Humor: International Journal of Humor Research”, in press.
Proyer, R. T., Hempelmann, C. F., & Ruch, W., They’re All Gonna Laugh at You! Or Are They? Are
Gelotophobes Actually Laughed at?, Manuscript submitted for publication, 2008.
Ruch, W., Gelotophobia: A useful New Concept?, in: Psychology Colloquium: University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, USA. 2004, February 9.
Ruch, W., Gelotophobia: The Fear of Being Laughed at (Special issue), “Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research”, in press.
Ruch, W., Altfreder, O., & Proyer, R. T., How Do Gelotophobes Interpret Laughter in Ambiguous
Situations? An Experimental Verification of the Concept, Manuscript submitted for
publication, 2008.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P., The Expressive Pattern of Laughter, in: Emotion, qualia and consciousness,
A. Kaszniak (ed.), Tokyo: World Scientific, 2001, p. 426–443.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T., The Fear of Being Laughed at: Individual and Group Differences in
Gelotophobia, “Humor: International Journal of Humor Research”, 21(1), p. 47–67.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T., Who Is Gelotophobic? Assessment Criteria for the Fear of Being Laughed
at, “Swiss Journal of Psychology”, in press.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Ventis, L., The Relationship of Teasing in Childhood to the Expression of
Gelotophobia in Adults, Manuscript submitted for publication, 2008.
Ruch, W., & Titze, M., GELOPH<46>, University of Düsseldorf, Department of Psychology,
Düsseldorf, Germany, 1998, Unpublished questionnaire.
Titze, M., Die heilende Kraft des Lachens (The Healing Power of Laughter, Munich, Germany: Kösel,
1995.
Titze, M. (1996), The Pinocchio Complex: Overcoming the Fear of Laughter, “Humor & Health
Journal”, 5, p. 1–11.
Titze, M., Das Komische als schamauslösende Bedingung (The Funny as an Elicitor of Shame), in:
Scham – ein menschliches Gefühl (Shame – A Human Emotion), R. Kühn, M. Raub, &
M. Titze (eds.), Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1997, p. 169–178.
Trull, T. J., & Sher, K. J., Relationship between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Axis I
Disorders in a Nonclinical Sample, “Journal of Abnormal Psychology”, 1994, 103, p. 350–360.
68 Willibald Ruch, René T. Proyer, & Diana Elena Popa 16

APPENDIX: ROMANIAN VERSION OF THE GELOPH

GELOPH<15>
Cod: _____________...............Vârsta: |__|__| Sex: O M O F
Sunte i: O singur/- O tr i i împreun cu o persoan f r a fi legal c s tori i O c s torit/-
O divor at/- O vaduv/-
Instruc iuni:
Urm toarele afirma ii se refer la sentimentele, ac iunile i concep iile dvs., în
general. Descrie i comportamentul i atitudinile dvs. obi nuite, marcând cu x în
dreptul uneia dintre cele patru c su e. Folosi i urm toarea scar :
(1) nu sunt deloc de acord
(2) nu prea sunt de acord
(3) sunt oarecum de acord
(4) sunt profund de acord
De exemplu:
Sunt o persoan vesel . (1) (2) (3) (4)
Dac sunte i întru totul de acord cu aceast afirma ie, adic , dac în general sunte i o
persoan vesel , bifa i cifra (4). Dac aceast afirma ie nu se aplic în cazul dvs., adic ,
de obicei nu sunte i o persoan vesel , bifa i cifra (1). Dac vi se pare dificil s
r spunde i la o anumit întrebare, alege i r spunsul care vi se potrive te cel mai bine.

R spunde i la toate întreb rile, nu omite i niciuna

1 Când se râde în prezen a mea devin suspicios/suspicioas . (1) (2) (3) (4)
2 Evit s m manifest în public pentru c mi-e team ca ceilal i s nu- i dea
seama de nesiguran a mea i s râd de mine. (1) (2) (3) (4)
3 Când persoane necunoscute râd în prezen a mea consider c o fac pe seama
mea. (1) (2) (3) (4)
4 Îmi este greu s p strez contactul vizual cu ceilal i pentru c m tem s nu
fiu judecat/ gre it. (1) (2) (3) (4)
5 Când al ii glumesc pe seama mea, m simt paralizat/- . (1) (2) (3) (4)
6 M controlez ca s nu fac o impresie proast i s nu m fac de râs. (1) (2) (3) (4)
7 Cred c , involuntar, le par celorlal i ridicol/caraghios. (1) (2) (3) (4)
8 De i deseori m simt singur/- , tind s nu m implic în activit i sociale ca
s nu m fac de râs. (1) (2) (3) (4)
9 Când m-am f cut de râs într-un anumit loc, evit apoi acel loc. (1) (2) (3) (4)
10 Dac nu mi-ar fi team s nu m fac de râs, a vorbi mai des în public. (1) (2) (3) (4)
11 Dac cineva m-a tachinat în trecut, nu mai vreau s am de-a face cu el/ea. (1) (2) (3) (4)
12 M refac greu dac s-a râs pe seama mea. (1) (2) (3) (4)
13 M simt stânjenit/- când dansez pentru c sunt convins/- c cei care m
privesc m consider caraghios/caraghioas . (1) (2) (3) (4)
14 Atunci când nu m ar t preocupat, riscul este mai mare ca s atrag aten ia
asupra mea i s par c m comport ciudat. (1) (2) (3) (4)
15 Când m-am f cut de râs în fa a celorlal i, m crispez i-mi pierd capacitatea
de a m comporta cum se cuvine. (1) (2) (3) (4)
Verifica i dac a i completat toate întreb rile.