Abstract
Humor is considered a coping strategy that is associated with well-being and positive self-esteem. The role of humor in relation to body image and eating behaviors has rarely been investigated. This cross-sectional study (n = 216) examined the relationship between general coping humor and humor styles targeting the self, namely self-enhancing and self-defeating humor, and body image and eating behaviors. Results showed that adaptive self-enhancing humor was associated with body appreciation and compassion, whilst maladaptive self-defeating humor was related to body criticism, drive for thinness, and emotional eating. General coping humor played almost no role. We also examined humor clusters and found that body appreciation and body kindness were higher in self-enhancers than self-defeaters and higher in humor endorsers than humor deniers. Further, self-defeaters reported more body criticism and emotional eating than self-enhancers, and emotional eating was higher in humor deniers than humor endorsers. This study shows that humor referring to the self is key in the understanding of body image and eating behaviors. Whilst the use of self-enhancing humor can have positive effects on body image, self-defeating humor can play a detrimental role.
1 Introduction
A recent UK report indicated that body image concerns are rising and ways to encourage positive body image and healthy eating behaviors should be identified (House of Commons 2021). Humor is a coping strategy used to face stress that can potentially be adopted in relation to body concerns, weight gain, and eating. We, therefore, need to understand whether humor plays a role in how individuals feel about their bodies and their eating. The current study examined whether humor, as a general coping strategy, and specific self-related humor styles were related to body appreciation and compassion, body comparison, and eating behaviors.
1.1 Humor coping and humor styles
Humor is considered an interpersonal trait that involves emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components and can impact everyday functioning and wellbeing (Martin 2004). Generally, humor is negatively associated with anxiety and depression (Colom et al. 2011; Kuiper and McHale 2009; Martin et al. 2003), but positively linked to self-esteem, positive evaluation of the actual self in contrast to ideals, and positive reactions to life events (Martin et al. 1993). Hence, humor has been conceptualized as a ‘coping strategy’ that allows individuals to reconsider and reframe an unpleasant event (Lefcourt et al. 1995). Coping humor refers to the extent to which individuals use general humor to face stressful situations in order to buffer the negative impact of stress (Carroll and Shmidt 1992; Kuiper et al. 1993; Martin and Lefcourt 1983). This conceptualization, however, may be simplistic as humor can manifest in different forms, have different functions, and can have different targets (see Kuiper et al. 2004). In line with this, Martin et al. (2003) have identified four humor styles, two positive (affiliative and self-enhancing humor) and two negative (aggressive and self-defeating humor). Affiliative humor involves saying something funny or making jokes to create bonds and facilitate interpersonal interactions. Aggressive humor (e.g., teasing, ridiculing), instead, disparagingly targets others, thus, disrupting interpersonal relationships. Because of their social nature, these humor styles are considered ‘other-directed.’ The self-directed humor styles instead feature the self as a ‘core:’ individuals make fun of themselves and this has consequences for self-perception and wellbeing. Self-enhancing humor is positive and self-accepting humor that helps maintain a positive image of the self, high self-esteem, and a positive mood even when used outside of social situations. Self-defeating humor, in contrast, is characterized by the use of ridicule and criticism aimed at the self with the goal of obtaining approval from others.
Research has shown that self-directed humor styles are more relevant for an individual’s mental health than other-directed humor styles. Indeed, Chen and Martin (2007) found that only self-referring humor styles predicted individuals’ mental health. Cann and Collette (2014) found that self-enhancing, but not the other humor styles, was associated with stable affect, namely the emotions experienced on a weekly basis, that in turn predicted mental health-related outcomes (i.e., resilience, psychological distress, and wellbeing). A meta-analysis (Schneider et al. 2018) further confirmed self-enhancing humor as the strongest predictor of positive mental health among all humor styles, and that self-defeating, but not aggressive humor, can be negatively associated with mental health. These differences may be due to the fact that self-directed humor styles are related to stable personality traits that explain an individual’s ability to cope with stressors that can impact their physical and psychological health, an effect that has not been observed for other-directed humor styles (Cann et al. 2010). Hence, by adopting self-enhancing humor, individuals are able to protect themselves and this style is therefore considered to be an adaptive humor style. Indeed, self-enhancing humor is associated with well-being, extraversion, and openness (Martin 2007; Kuiper et al. 2004; Kuiper 2020; Saroglou and Scariot 2002). On the contrary, self-defeating humor is considered a maladaptive defensive strategy that implies hiding negative feelings and an overall diminishment of the self. This type of humor is linked to depression, anxiety, narcissism, and low self-esteem (Galloway 2010; Kuiper 2020; Stieger et al. 2011; Zeigler-Hill and Besser 2011).
While coping humor is meant to refer to the general use of humor in relation to stress, self-directed humor styles concern the engagement with humor to gain an advantage for the self (positive self-concept or approval, respectively). To our knowledge, only one study (Chen and Martin 2007) has considered coping humor and humor styles simultaneously. In this study, Canadian and Chinese university students (N = 354) completed the coping humor scale (CHS; Martin and Lefcourt 1983) and the humor styles questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al. 2003) together with a measure assessing mental health symptoms. Chinese participants endorsed humor, in all its forms, less than Canadian participants. Women reported an overall lower level of coping humor than men, and Canadian men reported higher aggressive and self-defeating humor than Canadian women while no gender differences emerged among Chinese participants. Importantly, regression analyses showed that whilst self-enhancing humor style and coping humor were negatively associated with mental health symptoms, self-defeating humor was positively associated with mental health symptoms (Chen and Martin 2007). Aggressive and affiliative humor styles were not found to be linked with participants’ mental health status. Despite its contribution, this work focused on university students, some of which were taught about humor in class. Also, the scale assessing mental health included symptoms referring to a variety of disorders (e.g., paranoid ideation, obsessive-compulsive disorder, interpersonal sensitivity) that are different in nature and have different incidences in the population. Since regression analyses focused on the overall mental health score, it is not possible to disentangle which type of humor was the most beneficial for which type of disorder. Furthermore, the scale did not include any symptoms related to body image – a core component of mental health (see Gillen and Markey 2016). So far, the relationship between humor and body image has remained overlooked. Previous work analyzed women’s experiences of weight-related teasing, a form of aggressive humor, on body image but the relationship between sense of humor, in the form of coping humor and humor styles, has not been investigated to date.
1.2 Negative and positive body image in women
Body image refers to the perception, feelings, and attitudes individuals have of their own bodies. Body image is strictly related to mental health and can be negative or positive (see Tylka and Wood-Barcalow 2015). Negative body image implies that women feel dissatisfied with their bodies and are concerned with their bodies’ appearance. In Western countries, many women are dissatisfied with their bodies, weight, and overall appearance (Frederick et al. 2020; Swami et al. 2010) and tend to believe that the female body should be thin (Calogero et al. 2007; Swami et al. 2007). Women’s body dissatisfaction is often related to a comparison between their own body and the bodies of attractive others or media imagery that emphasize the discrepancy between how they see themselves and how they would like to be (see Heinberg and Thompson 1992; Jones 2004). Along with this, women often become very critical of their bodies and their weight because they feel ashamed about the way they look (Duarte et al. 2014). Ultimately, these body image issues elicit weight concerns that are expressed by an excessive desire to be thin and problematic eating, such as impulsive eating to cope with the insurgence of negative emotions (see Brunet et al. 2010; Holmes et al. 2015). Body image concerns and eating disorders are also the consequence of contextual factors (e.g., gender inequality, environment; Anderson et al. 1992), competitiveness among heterosexual women looking for a partner (Abed et al. 2012), and the influence of romantic relationships (Laus et al. 2018). Hence, body image concerns and unhealthy eating behaviors are to be understood within the context of interpersonal relationships.
In contrast, positive body image is represented by appreciation, acceptance, respect, and compassion for the body (see Tylka and Wood-Barcalow 2015). There is increasing evidence that positive body image, in the form of appreciation for body functionality and health, is linked to body satisfaction (see Cook-Cottone 2015; Grogan 2010). Moreover, self-compassion can promote body compassion that helps decrease the negative body comparisons women engage in as well as weight concerns and disordered eating (Homan and Tylka 2015; Oliveira et al. 2018; Wasylkiw et al. 2012). The concept of body compassion specifically involves different components: a general kindness and acceptance of the body that is ‘detached’ from its positive or negative image (body kindness/acceptance), an understanding and assumption that everyone deals with body issues (common humanity), and also the intention and efforts to increase body acceptance (motivated action; see Altman et al. 2020; Beadle et al. 2021). Body compassion has been found to be negatively related to body shame, body concerns, and disordered eating (Beadle et al. 2021; Oliveira et al. 2018).
1.3 Overview
The present study aimed to examine the relationship between humor and body image concerns and problematic eating. Previous work has shown that being exposed to humorous parodies of thin models, that criticize unrealistic beauty ideals, increases women’s positive mood and body satisfaction (Slater et al. 2019). In addition, it has been suggested that the use of humor could function as a substitute for food helping individuals to avoid emotional eating (Bast and Berry 2014) and that girls with lower levels of ‘loss of control’ in over-eating may engage more in positive humor (Goossens et al. 2016). Notwithstanding the importance of these studies, their evidence is limited and mostly speculative. Indeed, they do not indicate whether general coping humor and specific humor styles directed towards the self are associated with the way women feel about their bodies and their eating behaviors. Both body image and humor are related to social comparison and interpersonal functioning and have both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ facets. Understanding whether, and which type of humor, is associated with body concerns would extend the literature on humor and mental health and would contribute to body image literature.
In this study, we focused on women as they experience more negative body image than men (see Hartmann et al. 2019). We considered White British women for two main reasons. First, they represent a group at high risk for negative body image. For instance, research on a US national representative sample has shown that White women report poorer body image (e.g., lower appearance satisfaction and higher overweight preoccupation) than Black women (Frederick et al. 2022). Second, ethnicity and culture play a role in women’s body image (Gluck and Geliebter 2002) and sense of humor varies across cultures (Martin and Sullivan 2013). However, since most body image research has focused on young women, but body image concerns can emerge among adult women too (see Kilpela et al. 2015), we recruited a sample of women across a wider age range.
Coping humor and self-enhancing humor style are strategies associated with positive mental health outcomes while self-defeating humor is linked to poor mental health. Hence, we expected that the coping humor and self-enhancing humor style would be positively associated with body appreciation and body compassion (in the form of body kindness, common humanity, and motivated action, Hypothesis 1a), while self-defeating humor was expected to be negatively associated with such variables (Hypothesis 1b). On the contrary, we hypothesized that coping humor and self-enhancing humor would negatively relate to body comparison, body criticism, drive for thinness, and emotional eating (Hypothesis 2a) and that self-defeating humor would relate positively to those variables (Hypothesis 2b).
Each humor style has typically been considered a separate construct, but distinct styles may co-occur. Galloway (2010) identified humor clusters depending on whether individuals engaged more in positive (positive humor endorsers or self-enhancers) or negative humor styles (negative humor endorsers or self-defeaters) or whether they engage in all (humor endorsers) or none of them (humor deniers; see also Chang et al. 2015). This approach has been subsequently used to identify differences in individuals’ wellbeing. Studies have provided evidence that self-enhancers and humor endorsers report higher levels of self-esteem and wellbeing than humor deniers (see Leist and Muller 2013; Sirigatti et al. 2016). Hence, we explored whether self-enhancers and humor endorsers report a more positive body image (higher body appreciation and compassion), lower negative body image (body criticism and comparison), concerns and problematic eating behaviors (drive for thinness and emotional eating) than self-defeaters and humor deniers.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
A total of 268 participants accessed the survey. We excluded those who did not complete the survey (n = 4), did not provide final consent to data use (n = 29), and as requested by the Ethics Committee, those who reported a BMI indicating underweight (<19) or obesity (>30). The final sample consisted of 216 White women (age 18–77, M = 40.25, SD = 15.10 and BMI: M = 24.10, SD = 2.60). Participants were British, almost half of them had at least an Undergraduate degree (n = 98, 45.4%), and a minority were currently on a diet (n = 49, 22.7%). A G*Power (Faul et al. 2009) sensitivity analysis for regression analyses with three tested predictors and six total predictors, power 0.80 and α = 0.05, with n = 216 indicated that our sample allowed us to detect a small effect size = 0.05.
2.2 Materials
Unless specified, answers were provided on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After checking for internal reliability (see Table 1), ratings were averaged.
Means and standard deviations, reliability, and correlations between variables.
| Variable | M | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coping humor | 4.79 | 0.93 | 0.82 | — | ||||||||||||
| 2. Self-enhancing humor | 4.62 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.65b | — | |||||||||||
| 3. Self-defeating humor | 3.61 | 0.90 | 0.73 | 0.28b | 0.27b | — | ||||||||||
| 4. Body appreciation | 4.66 | 1.13 | 0.94 | 0.28b | 0.38b | −0.09 | — | |||||||||
| 5. Body kindness | 4.48 | 1.35 | 0.90 | 0.20b | 0.37b | −0.02 | 0.80b | — | ||||||||
| 6. Motivated action | 4.92 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.09 | 0.22b | 0.10 | 0.28b | 0.26b | — | |||||||
| 7. Body criticism | 2.84 | 1.20 | 0.76 | −0.17a | −0.14a | 0.17a | −0.55b | −0.58b | 0.01 | — | ||||||
| 8. Common humanity | 6.05 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.14a | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.21b | −0.11 | — | |||||
| 9. Body comparison | 1.68 | 1.20 | – | −0.02 | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.37b | −0.38b | −0.11 | 0.20b | −0.02 | — | ||||
| 10. Drive for thinness | 3.81 | 1.35 | 0.89 | −0.04 | −0.07 | 0.14a | −0.48b | −0.63b | −0.03 | 0.56b | 0.06 | 0.44b | — | |||
| 11. Emotional eating | 3.62 | 1.31 | 0.92 | −0.14 | −0.14a | 0.15a | −0.27b | −0.32b | −0.003 | 0.26b | 0.01 | 0.29b | 0.41b | — | ||
| 12. BMI | 24.10 | 2.60 | – | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | −0.15a | −0.14a | 0.02 | 0.15a | 0.06 | 0.38b | 0.21b | 0.15a | — | |
| 13. Dieting | – | – | – | −0.03 | −0.09 | −0.04 | −0.27b | −0.33b | −0.01 | 0.22b | −0.01 | 0.23b | 0.45b | 0.20b | 0.18b | — |
-
a p < 0.05. b p < 0.01.
2.2.1 Coping humor
Participants completed seven items (e.g., “I usually look for something comical to say when I am in tense situations”) of the Coping Humor Scale (CHS; Martin and Lefcourt 1983) assessing individuals’ general use of humor to cope with stressful situations. Higher scores corresponded to a higher likelihood of using humor to cope with stressful life events.
2.2.2 Humor styles
Participants completed two subscales of the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al. 2003). Firstly, eight items (e.g., ‘If I am feeling upset or unhappy, I usually try to think of something funny about the situation to make myself feel better’) assessed self-enhancing humor, namely an adaptive humor style that allows individuals to maintain high levels of self-esteem. Secondly, eight items (e.g., ‘I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders, or faults’) assessed self-defeating humor, a maladaptive humor style that involves self-denigration eliciting laughs from others. Higher scores indicated a higher use of self-enhancing and self-defeating humor, respectively.
2.2.3 Body appreciation
To measure body appreciation, 13 items (e.g., “I feel my body has at least some good qualities”) of the Body Appreciation Scale (BAS, Avalos et al. 2005) were used. Higher scores signified women’s higher appreciation for their bodies.
2.2.4 Body compassion and criticism
The Body Compassion and Criticism scale (BoCCS; Beadle et al. 2021) consisted of four subscales of four items each. Body Kindness (e.g., “I am not really thinking a lot about my body, I accept this is me”) examined participants’ kindness toward their own body. Common Humanity (e.g., “I am sure everyone has insecurities about their bodies”) referred to the belief that everyone has some sort of body image issues. Motivated Action (e.g., “I am trying my best to accept my body”) referred to being proactive about body acceptance. Finally, Body Criticism (e.g., “I feel alone in how negative my personal thoughts are about my body”) assessed people’s awareness of being critical about their bodies. Higher scores indicated a higher level of body kindness, common humanity, motivated action, and body criticism, respectively.
2.2.5 Body comparison
Participants indicated how they perceived their body weight and what their ideal body weight would be. They completed the Contour Drawing Body Image Scale (Thompson and Gray 1995), consisting of nine silhouettes from a very thin to an extremely overweight figure, twice. First, they indicated which silhouette best represented their current body shape (self-perception) and then which silhouette represented their ideal body shape. We subtracted the ratings for the ideal body from those of their self-perception. Higher scores represented a higher discrepancy (i.e., higher weight) between the current self-perception and their ideal body weight.
2.2.6 Drive for thinness
This scale consisted of seven items of the drive for thinness subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory (Garner et al. 1984) that measured concerns with weight and dieting (e.g., ‘I feel extremely guilty after overeating’). A higher score signified a higher level of excessive concerns about dieting and gaining weight.
2.2.7 Emotional eating
We assessed participants eating desire when experiencing specific feelings on a 10 item scale (e.g., Do you feel the desire to eat when you are irritated?; Van Strien et al. 1986). Answers were provided on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (very often). Higher scores indicated a higher urge to eat when feeling emotional.
2.3 Procedure
Participants were recruited on Prolific Academic and rewarded £1.85. Pre-screening criteria were used to recruit British women who were White, 18 or above, with a healthy or overweight BMI (excluding underweight and obese women), and who did not report previous and ongoing mental health issues. After consenting to participate in the study, participants were first asked to complete the coping humor scale, and the self-enhancing and self-defeating humor styles scales. These scales were presented in randomized order. Next, participants completed the body appreciation, body compassion and criticism and body comparison scales, which were also presented in a randomized order. Finally, we assessed drive for thinness and emotional eating. Before being thanked and debriefed, participants reported their demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, being on a diet and BMI), and provided their final consent to data use. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Surrey.
3 Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables are reported in Table 1. Data are available on https://osf.io/k5anc/. A series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted on each dependent variable. In Step 1, coping humor, self-enhancing and self-defeating humor have been entered as main predictors, while age, BMI and being on a diet (0 = no, 1 = yes) have been entered in Step 2. BMI and dieting were introduced since literature has shown a strong link between these variables, body image, and eating behaviors (Jauregui-Lobera et al. 2013). Age was introduced because older women tend to be less concerned about their weight and less surveillant on their bodies, and report fewer problematic eating behaviors than younger women (Pruis and Janowsky 2010; Tiggemann and Lynch 2001). Only significant effects or hypotheses-related effects are reported below, but all the effects and all the regression coefficients are reported in Tables S1 and S2 (see Supplementary Materials). Collinearity statistics showed no multicollinearity issues (VIF ranging from 1.06 to 1.81; see Cohen et al. 2003). All the analyses, except for two variables, showed an R 2 change and therefore the second step was considered.
3.1 Body appreciation
This regression model (R 2 = 0.27, F(6, 209) = 12.83, p < 0.001) showed that self-enhancing humor (β = 0.33, t = 4.10, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.23, 0.64]), but not coping humor (β = 0.13, t = 1.65, p = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.35]), was positively associated with body appreciation, partially confirming Hypothesis 1a. Also, in line with Hypothesis 1b, self-defeating humor was negatively associated with body appreciation (β = −0.20, t = −3.14, p = 0.002, 95% CI [−0.40, −0.09]). Moreover, BMI (β = −0.12, t = −2.02, p = 0.044, 95% CI [−0.10, −0.001]) and being on a diet (β = −22, t = −3.55, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.90, −0.26]) were negatively associated with body appreciation.
3.2 Body compassion and criticism
The different dimensions of body compassion and criticism were considered separately.
The regression for body kindness (R 2 = 0.31, F(6, 209) = 15.59, p < 0.001) indicated that self-enhancing humor (β = 0.36, t = 4.61, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.38, 82]), but not coping humor (β = 0.01, t = 0.17, p = 0.20, 95% CI [−0.20, 24]), was positively associated with body kindness, partially confirming Hypothesis 1a. Moreover, age (β = 0.26, t = 4.32, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.01, 03]) was positively associated with body kindness, while BMI (β = −0.12, t = −2.07, p = 0.039, 95% CI [−0.12, −0.003]) and being on a diet (β = −0.26, t = −4.36, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−1.21, −0.46]) were negatively associated with body kindness.
For motivated action, only the first step of the hierarchical regression was significant (R 2 = 0.06, F(3, 212) = 4.34, p = 0.005) and showed that self-enhancing humor (β = 0.28, t = 3.12, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.12, 0.53]) was positively associated with this variable, in line with Hypothesis 1a.
For body criticism the regression model (R 2 = 0.18, F(3, 209) = 9.09, p < 0.001) showed that self-defeating humor was positively associated with body criticism (β = 0.20, t = 3.07, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.10, 44]), confirming Hypothesis 2b. Furthermore, coping humor was negatively associated with body criticism, (β = −0.23, t = −2.80, p = 0.006, 95% CI [−0.51, −0.09]), in line with Hypothesis 2a. Also, a higher BMI (β = 0.13, t = 2.12, p = 0.036, 95% CI [0.004, 12]), being younger (β = −0.26, t = −4.12, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.03, −0.01]), and being on a diet (β = 0.17, t = 2.68, p = 0.008, 95% CI [0.13, 0.85]) were associated with stronger body criticism.
The model for common humanity was not significant (R 2 = 0.04, F(6, 209) = 1.43, p = 0.20).
3.3 Body comparison
The regression model for body comparison (R 2 = 0.20, F(6, 209) = 8.59, p < 0.001) showed that body comparison was positively associated with BMI (β = 0.36, t = 5.75, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.23]) and being on a diet (β = 0.15, t = 2.36, p = 0.019, 95% CI [0.07, 0.79]) but negatively associated with age (β = −0.13, t = −2.05, p = 0.041, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.00]). Disconfirming Hypotheses 2a/2b, humor was not associated with body comparison (see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials).
3.4 Drive for thinness
The regression model for drive for thinness (R 2 = 0.27, F(6, 209) = 13.01, p < 0.001) indicated that drive for thinness was positively associated with self-defeating humor (β = 0.15, t = 2.38, p = 0.018, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41]), but not with self-enhancing (β = −0.03, t = −0.40, p = 0.686, 95% CI [−0.30, 0.20]) and coping humor (β = −0.07, t = −0.83, p = 0.405, 95% CI [−0.33, 0.13]). Hence, only Hypothesis 2b was confirmed. In addition, BMI (β = 0.14, t = 2.32, p = 0.021, 95% CI [0.01, 0.13]) and being on a diet (β = 0.41, t = 6.74, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.93, 1.70]) were positively whereas age (β = −0.17, t = −2.77, p = 0.006, 95% CI [−0.03, −0.004]) was negatively associated with drive for thinness.
3.5 Emotional eating
With regard to emotional eating, the model was significant (R 2 = 0.12, F(6, 209) = 4.81, p < 0.001). In line with Hypothesis 2b, self-defeating humor (β = 0.21, t = 2.99, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.10, 0.50]), along with being on a diet (β = 0.17, t = 2.55, p = 0.012, 95% CI [0.12, 0.94]), was positively associated with emotional eating. The effects of self-enhancing (β = −0.10, t = −1.13, p = 0.260, 95% CI [−0.42, 0.12]) and coping humor (β = −0.13, t = −1.53, p = 0.127, 95% CI [−0.43, 0.05]) were not significant.
3.6 Cluster analyses
In line with Galloway’s (2010) procedure, we conducted a k-means cluster analysis on z-scores for the two humor styles aiming to identify a four-cluster solution: Cluster 1 (self-enhancers; n = 80, 37%) consisted of participants who scored above average on the self-enhancing but below average on the self-defeating humor; Cluster 2 (self-defeaters; n = 40, 18.5%) comprised of participants who scored above average on the self-defeating but below average on the self-enhancing humor; Cluster 3 (humor endorsers; n = 60, 27.8%) made up of participants who score above average and Cluster 4 (humor deniers; n = 36, 16.7%) consisted of participants who scored below average for each humor style (see Figure 1). The clusters did not differ in terms of age and BMI (Fs < 1.82, ps > 0.14) nor on being on a diet (X 2(3) = 4.42, p = 0.22).
Values of self-enhancing and self-defeating humor across the four clusters.
Next, we ran a series of 4 (Cluster: self-enhancers vs. self-defeaters vs. humor endorsers vs. humor deniers) ANOVAs to test the impact of clusters on each variable concerning body image and eating behaviors. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed when significant effects of cluster were found. Only significant comparisons are reported.
A significant effect of cluster was found on body appreciation, F(3, 212) = 9.12, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.11. Self-enhancers (M = 4.78, SD = 1.04) and humor endorsers (M = 5.11, SD = 1.08) reported higher body appreciation than self-defeaters (M = 4.08, SD = 0.97; ps < 0.005). Moreover, humor endorsers showed more body appreciation than humor deniers (M = 4.30, SD = 1.21; p = 0.003).
A significant effect of cluster was found on body kindness, F(3, 212) = 8.37, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.11. Self-enhancers (M = 4.57, SD = 1.34) and humor endorsers (M = 5.04, SD = 1.15) reported higher body kindness than self-defeaters (M = 3.82, SD = 1.26; ps < 0.02). Also, humor endorsers showed more body kindness than humor deniers (M = 4.10, SD = 1.41; p = 0.004).
A marginally significant effect of cluster on body criticism, F(3, 212) = 2.62, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.04, showed that self-defeaters (M = 3.28, SD = 1.19) criticized their bodies more than self-enhancers (M = 2.64, SD = 1.24; p = 0.04).
The significant effect of cluster on emotional eating, F(3, 212) = 4.59, p = 0.004, η 2 p = 0.06, showed that self-defeaters (M = 4.29, SD = 1.27) engaged in more emotional eating than both self-enhancers (M = 3.41, SD = 1.16; p = 0.003) and humor endorsers (M = 3.50, SD = 1.44; p = 0.02).
The effect of cluster on motivated action was significant, F(3, 212) = 2.72, p = 0.046, η 2 p = 0.04, but pairwise comparisons were not (ps > 0.06). The analyses concerning common humanity, F(3, 212) = 0.88, p = 0.45, η 2 p = 0.01, drive for thinness, F(3, 212) = 1.12, p = 0.34, η 2 p = 0.02, and body comparison, F(3, 212) = 2.08, p = 0.10, η 2 p = 0.03, showed no significant effect of cluster.
4 Discussion
This study showed that British women who engage in self-enhancing humor reported higher levels of body appreciation and body kindness, and also were more motivated to proactively appreciate their bodies. Further, it was self-enhancing humor style rather than general coping humor that was associated with body positivity since coping humor was only found to be associated with lower levels of body criticism. Hence, we found only partial support for Hypothesis 1a and 1b. Our results do not mirror Chen and Martin’s (2007) findings that both self-enhancing and coping humor are negatively associated with mental health but suggest the importance of examining self-directed rather than general humor as recommended in previous work (Goossens et al. 2016; Kuiper et al. 2004). Moreover, in line with Hypothesis 1b and 2b, we found that self-defeating humor was related to higher body criticism, lower engagement in body appreciation, but also higher drive for thinness and emotional eating. This provides evidence that women who used humor to diminish themselves to get others’ approval also engaged in dysfunctional eating behaviors and strong criticism toward their bodies.
It is also notable that the two self-directed humor styles were positively correlated suggesting a potential coexistence. Our exploratory analyses looking at humor style clusters allowed us to further examine whether sense of humor, or specific types of humor, were beneficial and detrimental to body image. Results suggested that self-enhancers report more body appreciation and kindness, and less emotional eating than self-defeaters. Therefore, positive self-directed humor proved to be beneficial. In addition, humor endorsers, namely women who use both self-enhancing and self-defeating humor, reported a better body image and less emotional eating than those women who primarily engage in self-defeating humor. This suggests that as long as self-enhancing humor is present, even when co-occurring with self-defeating humor, women humor endorsers possess a more positive body image. These results extend previous work showing that the endorsement of humor in general, and positive humor specifically, is beneficial for individuals’ mental health (see Leist and Muller 2013; Sirigatti et al. 2016).
These findings complement previous literature that predominantly focused on general wellbeing (Kuiper and McHale 2009; Martin et al. 1993) but rarely investigated humor in relation to body image. We specifically demonstrated that self-directed humor styles are related to perceptions and feelings toward the body and, in doing so, we identified the nuances of the different humor styles in relation to both positive and negative body image. This is particularly relevant for clinical psychologists and eating disorder therapists who could consider the type of humor their patients use to better understand their body image and, conceivably, promote the use of adaptive humor to break the habit of using mainly self-defeating humor for which negative associations were observed here. Indeed, our data has established a relationship between self-directed humor styles and body image that offers the basis for future research and interventions. Future studies should also examine whether self-directed humor styles are related to social media humor engagement (e.g., posting weight and eating habit memes and jokes) and whether they moderate the effects of social media humor on body image. Indeed, Slater et al. (2019) found that exposure to humorous parodies of idealized women’s portrayals increases women’s body satisfaction. Investigating whether women who endorse specific humor styles react in the same ways to this type of humor would allow us to better understand such a phenomenon.
This study also contributes to the broader field of body image literature. Replicating previous work (see Brunet et al. 2010; Ferreira et al. 2013), correlations showed that problematic eating and excessive weight concerns are positively related to body criticism and comparison but inversely related to body kindness. Moreover, women with a higher BMI and those on a diet, not only reported lower body appreciation and kindness and were more critical toward their bodies, but also showed more concerning beliefs about their weight as well as emotional eating. Also, in line with previous studies (Pruis and Janowsky 2010; Tiggemann and Lynch 2001), older women in our sample were less concerned with comparing themselves with body ideals and engaged less in criticizing their bodies and worrying about their weight.
Alongside its relevant contribution, this study comes with limitations. First, it was a correlational study that does not allow us to establish a causal link between variables. Hence, we could not determine whether self-enhancing and self-defeating humor had an impact on body image or, instead, the way women perceived and felt about their bodies influenced the type of humor style they engaged in. Experimental studies in which women are asked to engage with self-enhancing or self-defeating humor (see Ford et al. 2017) may allow us to test the effects of humor styles on body image. Comparatively, experiments priming body appreciation or criticism by asking women to list what they like or dislike about their bodies could examine the impact on their use of self-enhancing or self-defeating humor. Moreover, future work should test the underlying psychological processes that may explain the different relationships between self-directed humor style and body image. Humor styles are associated with emotion regulation (Amjad and Dasti 2020) and impact everyday affect and resilience (Cann and Collette 2014). This could make women more or less resilient to negative body image (for the link between body image concerns and emotion regulation see Hughes and Gullone 2011). Also, the adoption of different humor styles affects individuals’ approach to how they deal with stressful events (see Cann et al. 2010; Olah and Ford 2021) and, thus, women may appraise body image challenges differently depending on their humor style preference with consequences on their mental health.
Second, we considered only healthy women. People living with obesity who experience negative judgments or face physical barriers tend to cope by using humor (Puhl and Brownell 2006). Also, women with eating disorders (anorexia) reported appreciating a sense of humor in their therapists as an attempt to cheer them up (Gulliksen et al. 2012). Hence, self-enhancing humor could be particularly useful and protective for those individuals who are underweight or obese. Conversely, self-defeating humor may contribute to the negative effects of jokes that these people experience in their everyday life (Major et al. 2014). Insofar as we considered BMI as an indicator of ‘healthy or unhealthy’ physical health we are aware that BMI has been criticized for being an objective measure of health and for its misuse in relation to weight stigma (see Gutin 2018 for a debate). Future research should consider BMI alongside self-reported health measures that assess the perceived weight and health and, in doing so, consider women of different races (Frederick et al. 2022).
Third, we did not assess participants’ sexual orientation or whether they were in a relationship. Compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women report lower weight concerns and bisexual women indicate that they are less affected by body image in their daily lives (Frederick et al. 2022). Furthermore, relationship status plays a role in body image (Abed et al. 2012; Laus et al. 2018), and humor is involved in relationship satisfaction and dating interest (Cann et al. 2011; DiDonato et al. 2013; Hall 2013). Hence, future studies should consider both these variables. Finally, the study was conducted in the UK. Research has shown cross-cultural differences in body ideals and body satisfaction (Swami et al. 2010) as well as in how humor (Yue et al. 2016) and self-related humor styles are perceived (Kuiper et al. 2010). Consequently, future research should extend our findings to samples from different cultures.
To conclude, the present study aimed to explore the relationship between different styles of humor and aspects of body perception and eating behaviors. Overall, the results indicate that the presence of self-enhancing humor was related to higher levels of body appreciation and body kindness. Further, self-defeating humor was associated with negative body image and eating behavior. These results illustrate a key role of humor styles in both body perception and eating behavior.
Funding source: British Academy Leverhulme Small grant
Award Identifier / Grant number: SRG1920_101510
About the authors
Fabio Fasoli is a Lecturer in Social Psychology at the University of Surrey where he teaches social psychology of language and communication. His research interests regard social communication, language, body image, and intergroup discrimination.
Jane Ogden is a Professor in Health Psychology at the University of Surrey where she teaches psychology, nutrition, dietician, vet, and medical students to think more psychologically about health. Her research focuses on aspects of women’s health, communication, weight concern, body image, and eating behavior. She has published over 240 papers and eight books and is a regular contributor to the media.
Susie Johnson is a postgraduate researcher at the University of Surrey. Her research focuses on attitudinal and emotional responses to positive/affiliative humor.
References
Abed, Riadh, Sunil Mehta, Aurelio, J., Sarah Aldridge, Hannah Balson, Carolin Meyer & Robert Palmer. 2012. Eating disorders and intrasexual competition: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis among young women. The Scientific World Journal 2012. 1–8. Article ID 290813. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/290813.Search in Google Scholar
Altman, Jennifer K., Ken Linfield, Paul G. Salmon & Abbie O. Beacham. 2020. The body compassion scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Health Psychology 25(4). 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317718924.Search in Google Scholar
Amjad, Arooba & Rabia Dasti. 2020. Humor styles, emotion regulation and subjective well-being in young adults. Current Psychology 41(2). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01127-y.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Judith L., Charles B. Crawford, Joanne Nadeau & Tracy Lindberg. 1992. Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology 13(3). 197–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(92)90033-z.Search in Google Scholar
Avalos, Laura, Tracy L. Tylka & Nichole. Wood-Barcalow. 2005. The body appreciation scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image 2(3). 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002.Search in Google Scholar
Bast, Elizabeth S. & Elliot M. Berry. 2014. Laugh away the fat? Therapeutic humor in the control of stress-induced emotional eating. Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal 5(1). e0007. https://doi.org/10.5041/rmmj.10141.Search in Google Scholar
Beadle, Emily S., Alison Cain, Shazia Akhtar, Joyce Lennox, Lauren McGuire & Nicholas A. Troop. 2021. Development and validation of the body compassion questionnaire. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine 9(1). 951–988. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.1993229.Search in Google Scholar
Brunet, Jennifer, Catherine M. Sabiston, Kim D. Dorsch & Donald R. McCreary. 2010. Exploring a model linking social physique anxiety, drive for muscularity, drive for thinness and self-esteem among adolescent boys and girls. Body Image 7(2). 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.11.004.Search in Google Scholar
Calogero, Rachel M., Michael Boroughs & J. Kevin Thompson. 2007. The impact of Western beauty ideals on the lives of women and men: A sociocultural perspective. In Vieren Swami & Adrian Furnham (eds.), Body beautiful: Evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives, 259–298. London: Macmillan.10.1057/9780230596887_13Search in Google Scholar
Cann, Arnie & Chantal Collette. 2014. Sense of humor, stable affect, and psychological well-being. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 10(3). 464–479. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i3.746.Search in Google Scholar
Cann, Arnie, Kelly Stilwell & Kanako Taku. 2010. Humor styles, positive personality and health. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 6(3). 213–235. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.214.Search in Google Scholar
Cann, Arnie, Heather B. Davis & Christine L. Zapata. 2011. Humor styles and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: Perceived versus self-reported humor styles as predictors of satisfaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.001.Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, James L. & Jerry L. ShmidtJr. 1992. Correlation between humorous coping style and health. Psychological Reports 70(2). 402. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1992.70.2.402.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Jen H., Hsueh C. Chen, Chin C. Hsu, Yu C. Chan & Yulin. L. Chang. 2015. Flexible humor styles and the creative mind: Using a typological approach to investigate the relationship between humor styles and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 9(3). 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039527.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Guo H. & Rod A. Martin. 2007. A comparison of humor styles, coping humor, and mental health between Chinese and Canadian university students. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 20(3). 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor.2007.011.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Patricia, Stephen G. West & Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Colom, Gloria G., Cristina T. Alcover, Cristian Sánchez-Curto & Juan. Zárate-Osuna. 2011. Study of the effect of positive humour as a variable that reduces stress. Relationship of humour with personality and performance variables. Psychology in Spain 15(1). 9–21.Search in Google Scholar
Cook-Cottone, Catherine P. 2015. Incorporating positive body image into the treatment of eating disorders: A model for attunement and mindful self-care. Body Image 14. 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.004.Search in Google Scholar
DiDonato, Theresa E., Mellisha C. Bedminster & Joanna J. Machel. 2013. My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic interest. Personal Relationships 20(2). 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01410.x.Search in Google Scholar
Duarte, Cristiana, José Pinto-Gouveia & Claudia Ferreira. 2014. Escaping from body image shame and harsh self-criticism: Exploration of underlying mechanisms of binge eating. Eating Behaviors 15(4). 638–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.08.025.Search in Google Scholar
Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner & Albert G. Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41(4). 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Claudia, Jose Pinto-Gouveia & Cristiana Duarte. 2013. Self-compassion in the face of shame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders. Eating Behaviors 14(2). 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005.Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Thomas E., Shaun K. Lappi, Emma C. O’Connor & Noely C. Banos. 2017. Manipulating humor styles: Engaging in self-enhancing humor reduces state anxiety. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 30(2). 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0113.Search in Google Scholar
Frederick, David A., Justin R. Garcia, Amanda N. Gesselman, Kristen P. Mark, Elaine Hatfield & George Bohrnstedt. 2020. The Happy American Body 2.0: Predictors of affective body satisfaction in two US national internet panel surveys. Body Image 32. 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.11.003.Search in Google Scholar
Frederick, David A., Canice, E., Tiffany, A., Marisol Perez, Cassidy, R., Catherine, P., Compete, Emilio J, Convertino, Lexie, Gordon Allegra, R, Malcarne Vanessa, L, Nagata Jason, M, Parent Michael, C, Pennesi Jamie-Lee, Pila Eva, Rodgers Rachel, F, Schaefer Lauren, M, Thompson, J. Kevin, Tykla Tracy, L. & Murray Stuart, B. 2022. Demographic predictors of body image satisfaction: The US Body Project I. Body Image 41. 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.01.011.Search in Google Scholar
Galloway, Graeme. 2010. Individual differences in personal humor styles: Identification of prominent patterns and their associates. Personality and Individual Differences 48. 563–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.007.Search in Google Scholar
Garner, David M., Marion P. Olmsted, Janet Polivy & Paul E. Garfinkel. 1984. Comparison between weight-preoccupied women and anorexia nervosa. Psychosomatic Medicine 46(3). 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-198405000-00007.Search in Google Scholar
Gillen, Mehan M. & Carl N. Markey. 2016. Body image and mental health. In Howard S. Friedman (ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health, 187–192. New York, NY: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-397045-9.00058-6Search in Google Scholar
Gluck, Marci E. & Allan. Geliebter. 2002. Racial/ethnic differences in body image and eating behaviors. Eating Behaviors 3(2). 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1471-0153(01)00052-6.Search in Google Scholar
Goossens, Lien, Eva Van Malderen, Kim Van Durme & Carole Braet. 2016. Loss of control eating in adolescents: Associations with adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. Eating Behaviors 22. 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.06.015.Search in Google Scholar
Grogan, Sarah. 2010. Promoting positive body image in males and females: Contemporary issues and future directions. Sex Roles 63(9). 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9894-z.Search in Google Scholar
Gulliksen, Kjersti S., Ester M. Espeset, Ragnfrid H. Nordbø, Finn Skårderud, Josie Geller & Arne Holte. 2012. Preferred therapist characteristics in treatment of anorexia nervosa: The patient’s perspective. International Journal of Eating Disorders 45(8). 932–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22033.Search in Google Scholar
Gutin, Iliya. 2018. In BMI we trust: Reframing the body mass index as a measure of health. Social Theory & Health 16(3). 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-017-0055-0.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Jeffrey A. 2013. Humor in long-term romantic relationships: The association of general humor styles and relationship-specific functions with relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication 77(3). 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2012.757796.Search in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Andrea S., Elizabeth Rieger & Silja Vocks. 2019. Sex and gender differences in body image. Frontiers in Psychology 10. 1696. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01696.Search in Google Scholar
Heinberg, Leslie J. & J. Kevin Thompson. 1992. Social comparison: Gender, target importance ratings, and relation to body image disturbance. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 7(2). 335–339.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Millicent, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Helen Skouteris & Jaclyn Broadbent. 2015. Understanding the link between body image and binge eating: A model comparison approach. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity 20(1). 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-014-0141-4.Search in Google Scholar
Homan, Kristin J. & Tracy L. Tylka. 2015. Self-compassion moderates body comparison and appearance self-worth’s inverse relationships with body appreciation. Body Image 15. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.007.Search in Google Scholar
House of Common. 2021. Changing the perfect picture: An inquiry into body image. Avaliable at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmwomeq/274/274.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, Elizabeth K. & Eleonora Gullone. 2011. Emotion regulation moderates relationships between body image concerns and psychological symptomatology. Body Image 8(3). 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.04.001.Search in Google Scholar
Jáuregui-Lobera, Ignacio, Mercedes Ezquerra-Cabrera, Rocio Carbonero-Carreño & Immaculada Ruiz-Prieto. 2013. Weight misperception, self-reported physical fitness, dieting and some psychological variables as risk factors for eating disorders. Nutrients 5(11). 4486–4502. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu5114486.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Carlson D. 2004. Body image among adolescent girls and boys: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 40(5). 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.823.Search in Google Scholar
Kilpela, Lisa S., Carolyn B. Becker, Nicole Wesley & Tiffany Stewart. 2015. Body image in adult women: Moving beyond the younger years. Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice 3(2). 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21662630.2015.1012728.Search in Google Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A. 2020. Humor styles questionnaire. In Virgil Zeigler-Hill & Todd K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, 2087–2090. Cham: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_39Search in Google Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A., Shane S. Kazarian, Jessica Sine & Margaret. Bassil. 2010. The impact of humor in North American versus Middle East cultures. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 6(3). 149–173. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212.Search in Google Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A., Rod A. Martin & L. Joan Olinger. 1993. Coping humour, stress, and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 25(1). 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078791.Search in Google Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A. & Nicola McHale. 2009. Humor styles as mediators between self-evaluative standards and psychological well-being. Journal of Psychology 143(4). 359–376. https://doi.org/10.3200/jrlp.143.4.359-376.Search in Google Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A., Melissa Grimshaw, Catherine Leite & Gillian Kirsh. 2004. Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17. 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.002.Search in Google Scholar
Laus, Maria F., Sebastiao S. Almeida & Lori A. Klos. 2018. Body image and the role of romantic relationships. Cogent Psychology 5(1). 1496986. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1496986.Search in Google Scholar
Lefcourt, Herbert M., Karina Davidson, Robert Shepherd, Margory Phillips, Ken Prkachin & David Mills. 1995. Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 14(4). 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1995.14.4.373.Search in Google Scholar
Leist, Anja K. & Daniela Müller. 2013. Humor types show different patterns of self-regulation, self-esteem, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 14(2). 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9342-6.Search in Google Scholar
Major, Brenda, Jeffrey M. Hunger, Debra P. Bunyan & Carol T. Miller. 2014. The ironic effects of weight stigma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51. 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.009.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A. 2004. Sense of humor and physical health: Theoretical issues, recent findings, and future directions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.005.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50024-1Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A., Nicholas A. Kuiper, L. Joan Olinger & Kathryn A. Dance. 1993. Humor, coping with stress, self-concept, and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 6. 89. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1993.6.1.89.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A. & Herbert M. Lefcourt. 1983. Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(6). 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1313.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A., Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray & Kelly Weir. 2003. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37(1). 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00534-2.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, G. Neil & Erin Sullivan. 2013. Sense of humor across cultures: A comparison of British, Australian and American respondents. North American Journal of Psychology 15(2). 375–384.Search in Google Scholar
Olah, Andrew R. & Thomas E. Ford. 2021. Humor styles predict emotional and behavioral responses to COVID-19. Humor 34(2). 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0009.Search in Google Scholar
Oliveira, Sara, Ines A. Trindade & Claudia Ferreira. 2018. The buffer effect of body compassion on the association between shame and body and eating difficulties. Appetite 125. 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.031.Search in Google Scholar
Pruis, Trisha A. & Jeri S. Janowsky. 2010. Assessment of body image in younger and older women. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology 137(3). 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2010.484446.Search in Google Scholar
Puhl, Rebecca M. & Kelly D. Brownell. 2006. Confronting and coping with weight stigma: An investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity 14(10). 1802–1815. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2006.208.Search in Google Scholar
Saroglou, Vassilis & Christel Scariot. 2002. Humor Styles Questionnaire: Personality and educational correlates in Belgian high school and college students. European Journal of Personality 16(1). 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.430.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Martha, Martin Voracek & Ulrich S. Tran. 2018. “A joke a day keeps the doctor away?” Meta-analytical evidence of differential associations of habitual humor styles with mental health. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 59(3). 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12432.Search in Google Scholar
Sirigatti, Saulo, Ilaria Penzo, Enrichetta Giannetti, Silvia Casale & Cristina Stefanile. 2016. Relationships between humorism profiles and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 90. 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.011.Search in Google Scholar
Slater, Amy, Natasha Cole & Jasmine Fardouly. 2019. The effect of exposure to parodies of thin-ideal images on young women’s body image and mood. Body Image 29. 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.001.Search in Google Scholar
Stieger, Stefan, Anton K. Formann & Christoph Burger. 2011. Humor styles and their relationship to explicit and implicit self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences 50(5). 747–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.025.Search in Google Scholar
Swami, Viren, David, A., Toivo Aavik, Lidia Alcalay, Juri Allik, Donna Anderson, Sonny, Andrianto, Arvind Arora, Ake Brännström, John Cunningham, Dariusz Danel, Krystyna Doroszewicz, Gordon, B., Adrian Furnham, Corina, U., Jamin Halberstadt, Shuang Hao, Tanja Haubner, Choon Sup, Hwang, Mary Inman, Jas Laile Jaafar, Jacob Johansson, Jaehee Jung, Askin Keser, Uta Kretzschmar, Lance Lachenicht, Norman, P., Kenneth Locke, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Christy Lopez, Lynn Loutzenhiser, Natalya, C., Marita, P., Donald, R., William, F., Alex Mussap, Félix Neto, Carly Nowell, Liane Peña Alampay, Subash, K., Alessandra Pokrajac-Bulian, René, T., Katinka Quintelier, Lina, A., Malgorzata Rozmus-Wrzesinska, Willibald Ruch, Timothy Russo, Astrid Schütz, Todd, K., Sheeba Shashidharan, Franco Simonetti, Dhachayani Sinniah, Mira Swami, Griet Vandermassen, Marijke van Duynslaeger, Markku Verkasalo, Martin Voracek, Curtis, K., Echo Xian Zhang, Xiaoying Zhang & IvankaZivcic-Becirevic. 2010. The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the International Body Project I. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3). 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359702.Search in Google Scholar
Swami, Viren, Daniel Knight, Martin J. Tovée, Patrick Davies & Adrian Furnham. 2007. Perceptions of female body size in Britain and the South Pacific. Body Image 4. 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Marjorie & James J. Gray. 1995. Development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 64. 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6402_6.Search in Google Scholar
Tiggemann, Marika & Jessica E. Lynch. 2001. Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology 37(2). 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.243.Search in Google Scholar
Tylka, Tracy L. & Nichole L. Wood-Barcalow. 2015. What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image 14. 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001.Search in Google Scholar
Van Strien, Tatjana, Jan E. Frijters, Gerard P. Bergers & Peter B. Defares. 1986. The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders 5(2). 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108x(198602)5:2<295::aid-eat2260050209>3.0.co;2-t.10.1002/1098-108X(198602)5:2<295::AID-EAT2260050209>3.0.CO;2-TSearch in Google Scholar
Wasylkiw, Louise, Anna L. MacKinnon & Aleka M. MacLellan. 2012. Exploring the link between self-compassion and body image in university women. Body Image 9(2). 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.007.Search in Google Scholar
Yue, Xiadong, Feng Jiang, Su Lu & Neelam Hiranandani. 2016. To be or not to be humorous? Cross cultural perspectives on humor. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01495.Search in Google Scholar
Zeigler-Hill, Virgil & Avi Besser. 2011. Humor style mediates the association between pathological narcissism and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences 50(8). 1196–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.006.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2022-0028).
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
